language e. Language origin

The content of the article

LANGUAGE, a system of sound and written symbols used by people to convey their thoughts and feelings. Although such a definition adequately reflects the ordinary idea of the language, for the purposes of scientific analysis it is necessary to define the language more formally. The definition adopted in this article is as follows: language is a system of units implemented by some sensually perceived means, and some combinations of these units, by virtue of an agreement (convention), have meaning and, therefore, can be used for communication purposes.

Language, communication and thinking.

Let's start with the final part of the definition. The main social function of language is to facilitate communication. Since humans are the only ones of all living beings who have the ability to communicate through language, only they have been able to accumulate knowledge. It would be impossible to preserve from generation to generation anything similar to human culture without having such a flexible means of communication as language. Equally necessary is linguistic communication for the functioning of society within the life of one generation. Without the use of language, it is impossible to imagine the coordination of activities even in any one production.

Interpersonal communication is not the only important function of language. Without language, thinking could not reach the human level of complexity. A person thinks in language, silently "speaking to himself." Language (which is less obvious) also makes it easier to understand. A person more easily perceives those things for which he has verbal designations. For example, if a Gothic cathedral is examined by a person who is familiar with such concepts as "flying butt", "lancet arch" and "Gothic vault", he will see more than one who does not know anything about it.

If language plays an essential role in thought and perception, it can be assumed that a consequence of the radical differences between languages should be no less pronounced differences in the ways of seeing the world among those who speak these languages. In our century, this idea was vigorously defended by the American linguist and culturologist Benjamin Lee Whorf. Whorf argued that the language of the North American Hopi Indians imposes on their perception different concepts of time and space than those found in European languages. In any case, the indisputable fact is that languages divide the color continuum in different ways. So, the part of the spectrum, denoted by the English word blue (French bleu, German blau, etc.) in Russian corresponds to two different words: blue and blue. There are also such languages (for example, Turkic) where there is only one word covering the part of the spectrum for which there are two adjectives in English: blue "blue" and green "green". Experiments show that people tend to sort colored cards into groups according to their language's color naming system.

Although interpersonal communication is not the only function of language, in a number of respects this function is primary. First, since the child must learn his native language through communication with elders, he must learn to communicate with other people before he can use the language in his thinking. Second, although we may never know how language came into being, it seems plausible that language began with attempts at communication rather than with individual, private thinking. Thirdly, thinking can be considered as a special kind of communication, when the speaker and the listener are the same person, and language means, not being voiced, are not perceived by others.

Nonlinguistic signs.

Language is not the only means of communication. Feelings can be conveyed by a smile, grimace or gesture; information to motorists can be transmitted using picture signs; The driver signals the departure of the train with a whistle. To see the distinguishing features of linguistic communication, we must match words and sentences with non-linguistic entities that can serve the purposes of communication. Consider the following examples of nonlinguistic notation:

1) clay shards as a sign that people lived in this place;

2) noise as an indication of poor contact in a wired connection;

3) scheme of the internal combustion engine;

4) a photograph of Aunt Susie;

5) an elephant as a symbol of the US Republican Party;

6) a whistle signaling the departure of the train.

Now compare these examples with the two sentences given as examples of language designation:

7) "Preference" is the name of the card game;

8) "Deviant" means "deviant".

In the first two cases, the designation is carried out through a causal connection. Clay shards are a sign of human habitation simply because pottery is made by humans; similarly, the noise is due to poor contact and therefore signals the latter. In examples 3 and 4, the presentation of some content is due to similarity. A circuit is like an engine, at least as far as the arrangement of parts is concerned, and that is what makes it useful. Aunt Susie's photograph bears an even more literal resemblance to the original.

Language units differ sharply from the units of these two types. The word "preference" in no way resembles a game, just as there is no causal relationship between the game and the word "preference". The word "preference" owes its meaning to some social convention, a convention in which it is used to refer to a certain type of game. The terms 'agreement' and 'convention', as commonly used in this connection, can be misleading because it may give the impression that the words acquire their meanings by virtue of some explicit contract. However, except in technical terms, this almost never happens. The process by which words take on their meanings remains largely unknown, but it is clear that there can be no agreement or legislation involved. It would be more accurate to talk about the prevailing practice in society to use the word "preference" to denote the corresponding game, or about the existence of some rule of unknown origin, the essence of which is that the word should be used in this way. Understood in this way, the social convention, supported by the practice of use, and not by any natural properties or restrictions, gives the word its meaning.

For the three varieties of designation that we have identified, the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce used the terms "index" or "index sign" in relation to cases 1 and 2, "icon" or "iconic sign" in relation to cases 3 and 4, and "symbol" or "symbolic sign" in relation to cases 7 and 8. However, the mere indication that words are for the most part symbolic, and not iconic or indexic signs, is still not enough to reveal the distinctive properties of the language. Examples 5 and 6 show that non-linguistic symbols also exist: the elephant was chosen as the symbol of the US Republican Party, and the whistle of the locomotive was chosen as the signal for the departure of the train. As with linguistic meanings, these representations depend on social practice and may be replaced by others if the convention is changed. What makes the word "preference", in contrast to the whistle of a locomotive, a language symbol? Yes, only that the word "preference" is part of the language, i.e. systems with a certain type of organization. The next step is to describe what kind of organization it is. SYMBOL.

The structure of the language.

The most remarkable property of language structure is the ability to construct an infinite number of means of communication (sentences) from a finite supply of elements (words). Outside of language, every symbolic means of communication—the horn signal, the road sign, the Republican elephant—is an isolated case. However, when teaching their native language, no one has to memorize one sentence after another of the language. Instead, a potentially infinite variety of sentences are constructed according to rules that determine how words can be combined in a sentence. There are two kinds of rules. Syntax rules determine which combinations of units are valid. So, for English, the combination Article + Name + Intransitive verb gives an acceptable sentence (for example, The boy fell “The boy fell”), but the combination Verb + Name + Article + Preposition does not (for example, Ran boy the on). Semantic rules determine how the meaning of a more complex structure (syntactic group or sentence) is derived from the meanings and organization (syntax) of its constituent words. The semantic structure of language is extraordinarily complex. Let's take two examples to illustrate what is meant here. First, the meaning of a sentence may depend on word order: cf. sentences John hit Jim "John hit Jim" and Jim hit John "Jim hit John" (in English, the difference is only in word order). Secondly, ambiguity can arise as a result of the fact that the components in the syntactic group interact with each other in different ways, for example, copper kettle "copper boiler" is a boiler made of copper, while copper mine "copper mine" is not a mine made of copper, but a place where copper is mined.

The complex and at the same time systemic nature of the language is clearly manifested in elements smaller than syntactic units, and even smaller than words. Words themselves have a complex structure, and a certain regularity is inherent in this device. Many words consist of several significant units - morphemes, the meanings of which are connected according to certain rules in the meaning of the word. So, for example, the past tense morpheme -ed in English will modify the meaning of any verbal morpheme to which it is attached. The suffix -en in English transforms adjectives into verbs: from the adjective cheap "cheap" the verb to cheapen is formed, which means "to make cheaper"; from the adjective worse "worst (comparative degree)" - the verb to worsen "worse", etc. A morpheme is the smallest meaningful element of a language. Morphemes themselves consist of elements of the sound system of the language - phonemes, which are transmitted in writing, although not completely sequentially, in the form of letters. There are no semantic rules that would determine the construction of morphemes from phonemes, since the latter do not matter. However, in every language there are general principles that determine which combinations of phonemes are possible and which are not (a kind of syntax). In English, for example, "fgl" is not a valid sequence, while many combinations, such as "faba", are quite possible from the point of view of the phonology of this language (although they are not words, that is, they have no meaning).

Language thus exhibits a hierarchical organization in which the units of every level, except the lowest, are added up, according to certain regular patterns, from the units of the lower level. Specific sections of linguistics study the different levels of this hierarchy and the interaction of these levels with each other. Phonology studies the elementary sounds of a language and their combinations. Morphology is the study of the morphemes of a language and their compatibility. Syntax studies the formation of phrases (syntactic groups) and sentences. Semantics has to deal with the meanings of morphemes and words, and the various ways in which the meanings of larger units are constructed from the meanings of smaller units.

There is no consensus on how exactly the structure of a language should be represented. The method of representation proposed here is one of the simplest; many experts believe that more sophisticated ways of representing are needed. However, whatever the details of certain descriptions, linguists agree that language is a complex system organized in such a way that, having mastered some observable set of elements and the rules for their combination, a person acquires the ability to produce and understand an unlimited number of specific messages. . It is this flexibility that gives language the exclusive position it occupies among other means of communication.

Usually linguists limit their attention to spoken language and, more specifically, to the sounds produced by the human vocal apparatus. In principle, however, such a restriction is not mandatory. An organization such as that just described may be inherent in systems of visual signs, smoke signals, clicking sounds, and any other perceptible phenomena used for communication purposes. Corresponding possibilities are exploited both in written language and in semaphore signals. What is important, however, is the fact that all existing languages either consist of sounds produced by the voice or are derived from a spoken language. Written language is better thought of as a system for recording spoken language than as a distinct language in its own right. In the course of the development of both society and the individual, spoken language first appears, and writing appears later - as a means for preserving linguistic messages. Literate people often make the mistake of lamenting inconsistencies in the pronunciation of written words, instead of lamenting the inconsistency and imperfection of written fixation of sound words. SEMANTICS; WORD; MORPHOLOGY.

The abstract nature of language.

The primacy of a sound language prompted linguists to place the sounds of speech at the center of their research and, in practice, begin the study of language by collecting and classifying various specific examples of sounds produced by the human vocal apparatus. However, no matter how justified such a path of research may be, it should not obscure the abstract nature of language. Language does not consist of specific sounds produced at a specific time in a specific place, but of sound types, or sound patterns. To make an appropriate distinction, C.S. Pierce introduced the terms “instance” (token) and “type” (type), which have received wide recognition in philosophy. Both of these terms refer to more than just language. A "type" is a generic template or model, and an "instance" of that type is a specific thing or event that matches that template. For example, paella in Valencian- this is a type of food, represented by many instances, i.e. specific sets of necessary ingredients, properly prepared in accordance with a common recipe template. If I say that in Spain I always eat the same food, meaning that I always eat Valencian paella there, then I am talking about the type. Obviously I don't re-eat the same grains of rice, the same seafood, etc. In the same sense, a phoneme, morpheme, syntactic group, or sentence type is a general sound pattern, while an instance of any of these types is a particular sound corresponding to that pattern, produced in a particular place at a particular time. Terms for linguistic units, such as "word", are ambiguous and can refer to both type and instance; in most cases their ambiguity is resolved by the context. Suppose I uttered a sentence: "Its length is not very large, its width is very large." How many words were spoken? The answer depends on whether we are counting type words or instance words. In the first case, the answer is six, in the second, nine (each of the words-types "his", "length" and "very" is represented by two instance words).

The elements of a particular language, such as English, should be considered types, not instances. The following arguments can be given to support this.

First, the language shows a certain permanence and continuity, although, of course, it is not immune to change. English has existed as one and the same language for centuries; it has changed relatively little over the last hundred years. Sound specimens, however, do not possess such constancy. Each word-instance, each instance of pronouncing, for example, the definite article the exists only for a moment. The instance word is consumed at the very moment of its production. If one were to assume that a language is built from instances, then the consequence of such an assumption would be two possibilities that are equally unacceptable. If a language - say, English - exists only as long as the existence of its constituent copies lasts, then at different moments of its existence it will not be identical to itself at the previous moment, i.e. such an object as a language that retains its identity over time will simply be impossible. Another possible alternative would be to understand the language as an ever-increasing pool of instances, then at each moment in time the language (again, for example, English) would be considered to consist of all those English instance words that have been produced (spoken and written) up to that moment. Such an interpretation allows us to talk about the constancy and expansion of the language, but not about its change - say, the merging of the former forms of the nominative case thee and the indirect case thou into a single form of the second person singular pronoun you. Change would be possible only if copies could not only be included in the fund, but also drop out of it, but once a copy has been produced, nothing can be done about this fact. Moreover, the claim that something is added to the language every time a new instance word is produced is simply not true. One can speak of an addition only when the language acquires a new word-type or a new syntactic construction; just saying, "It's cold today" won't make the language richer.

Secondly, the knowledge that a person acquires by learning a language cannot be represented as knowledge of specific instances. Learning a language means acquiring the ability to use the appropriate type sentences to express whatever one wants to say to someone, and the ability to interpret the type sentences used by others. Studying, for example, French, a person learns that by using a sentence-type "Quelle heure est-il?", You can ask what time it is. It is impossible to say that the parrot has learned French - even if it repeats Quelle heure est-il? eighty times a day. More precisely, he "knows" this expression. But it remains for the parrot only an endlessly repeated instance; it never becomes a type for him: he does not abstract from it, say, the form of a French interrogative sentence, which he could later use to ask, for example, what date is today. Knowing a language is knowing its inherent type system; and only thanks to the knowledge of the forms and relationships within the language, a person is able to produce statements (instances) suitable for a particular case.

Finally, the abstract nature of the language also manifests itself in the relationship between the word-type and its variant realizations as an instance. Note that a "noise-type", such as a creak, is defined as a specific kind of sound. All of its copies sound similar, and it is precisely because of this kind of auditory similarity that they are specimen violins. The word-type, however, is relatively independent of its sound realization. The word house "house" in various American dialects can be pronounced as or. Why are and, and not and (the phonetic form of the word louse "louse"), considered to be forms of the same word house, despite the fact that it sounds more like than on? For functional reasons. Namely, it plays the same role in the communicative acts of the Virginian as it does in the communicative acts of the Midwesterner. However, two sound types are not necessarily variants just because they have the same meaning. The English cemetery and graveyard (both words meaning "cemetery") are not treated as the same word (as are the Russian "cemetery" and "graveyard"). There is no single criterion according to which two words are recognized as instances of the same word-type. Considerations such as phonemic composition (sound), meaning, origin (words that have become different in the course of dialectal development and have a common ancestor) and grammatical status (English to, too and two are distinctly distinguished as, respectively, a preposition, an adverb and numeral). Thus, the word-type is more abstract than this or that concrete sound; it can be realized by different sound models and remain the same word.

Thus, the language should be treated as a type system consisting of formal, abstract elements of sound, grammar and vocabulary and distinct from any particular, concrete examples (instances) of these types. The first to emphasize this distinction was the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, who introduced the contrast between "language" (langue) and "speech" (parole), roughly corresponding to our distinction between "type" and "instance". A similar distinction is made by the American linguist Noam Chomsky, who uses the terms "competence" (competence) and "use" (performance).

ISSUES OF VALUE

The ability to convey meaning is the most important property of a language. The phonological and syntactic structures of a language are important precisely because they make it possible to construct an infinite variety of meaningful statements from a visible set of elements. But the semantic side of language is the least understood. The nature of linguistic meaning is vague and contradictory, and it would not be a big mistake to say that linguists are still only groping for a way to capture the essence of this concept (over the past three decades, linguistics has made very significant progress along this path).

Meaning and reference.

Any understanding of meaning presupposes a distinction between meaning and reference, i.e. correlation of linguistic form with reality. That the word "deviant" means "deviant from the norm" is a fact of the Russian language, just as it is a fact of the English language language, and both of these facts have nothing to do with the use of these words by speakers in specific situations. As for the reference, it is carried out by the speakers in completely concrete speech acts. Further, the difference between meaning and reference is that the reference is not predetermined (although usually somehow conditioned) by the structure of the language. For example, a proper name like "Charlie" can be used without any restrictions in relation to anything, say, in relation to someone's favorite Greek vase. That is, the function of a proper name is purely referential. A definite description (that is, a combination of a noun with a definite article or a demonstrative pronoun, such as "this chair") is more limited in its referential possibilities, since its constituent words have some independent meaning.

The confusion between the concepts of meaning and reference led to fruitless attempts to find a referent for linguistic expressions of any kind. Philosophers and logicians have debated endlessly whether a general name such as "pencil" refers to the totality of all pencils (is a name for them) or to the property of being a pencil. Likewise, a great deal of ingenuity has been wasted in trying to determine whether the names of the conjunction "and" (or English and) or, say, the sentence "It's cold today." And the realization that reference (correlating a linguistic form with some particular entity) is only one of the many tasks for which words are adapted was the first manifestation of wisdom in semantics. That language should be suitable for talking about the outside world is no doubt essential, but to assume that every unit of language is always used to refer to something in the outside world would be an oversimplification.

Polysemy.

The device of the semantic structure of the language is complicated by the fact that some arbitrarily taken word usually has more than one meaning (ambiguity, or polysemy). So, the English verb to run means, in particular, “to run”, “to launch”, “to stretch out”, “to force”, etc. Two mechanisms usually help to avoid ambiguity in language messages. First, the choice of the meaning of a word is often determined by the other elements of the sentence. In the English sentence Run the engine now "run the engine" run can only mean "run", while in the sentence The boundary runs to this tree "The boundary extends to this tree" the verb run should be interpreted as "extend". Sometimes the language context allows more than one meaning, as in the English sentence John will run the mile event, which can mean either that John is going to take part in a mile race, or that John is going to organize or lead such a race. In such cases, the context of the utterance will usually make it clear which interpretation was meant, and if it is not, further clarification can be given.

Uncertainty.

Another property that makes meaning a particularly complex phenomenon is its inherent vagueness. Most words do not have well-defined criteria for their applicability. Their meanings are surrounded by a certain transitional zone, within which their applicability or inapplicability remains unclear. How many inhabitants exactly must be in a locality so that we can speak of a "large city" (eng. city) as opposed to "small city" (eng. town) and "rural settlement" (eng. village)? What exactly is height that makes a person "tall"? How accurate does sound reproduction need to be to qualify it as high quality ("hi-fi")? The meaning of these words in the aspects that are implied by the enumerated questions is uncertain. And this means that the exact definitions of such words (for example, “city, a settlement with more than 50 thousand inhabitants”) will not reflect their true nature.

Metaphor.

Another characteristic of meaning, fraught with many difficulties, is the possibility of metaphorical transfer. The fundamental property of the language is the ability to successfully convey the desired meaning, using the word in a meaning that is not usually associated with it in the language. Most often this is done by exploiting the similarity between what the words mean in their standard sense and what the speaker wants to say. In the statement: "Religion was corroded by the acid of modernity" - the verb "corrode" is not used in the usual sense, in which this verb does not mean anything that could be related to religion. This suggestion, however, is quite understandable, since it is not difficult to see in the effect of modern life on religion some resemblance to the process of corroding metal with acid. Metaphor is one of the main mechanisms that determine the development and change of language. What arises as a metaphor is capable of penetrating into common usage and becoming part of the standard semantic toolkit of language. "Sheet of paper," "table leg," and "wing of a building" no doubt began as metaphorical transfers of the original uses of the words "leaf," "leg," and "wing," but they are now ubiquitous.

Logicians who are professionally committed to precision and rigor usually view the semantic-complicating properties of ambiguity, vagueness, and metaphor as language flaws. In the ideal language they envision, every word would have one exact meaning, and words would always be used in their literal sense. Whatever, however, the needs of formal logic may be, all these unpleasant properties - ambiguity, indeterminacy and metaphor - are extremely important for communication. Polysemy allows speakers to get by with fewer words. If there were a separate word for each in principle distinguishable meaning, the vocabulary of the language would become unimaginably unwieldy. The vagueness of the meaning of a word is often quite consistent with the nature of the message. For example, there is much evidence that the overcrowding and crowding that characterizes the conditions of life in a large city lead to additional mental strain. No one, however, is ready to say what exactly the number of inhabitants makes a city "crowded", and it is difficult to imagine. How would one measure the level of spiritual tension. There are other reasons for making less precise statements than is possible in principle. A diplomat might, for example, make the following statement: "If provocations continue, my government is ready to take decisive action." How long is the sequel? How decisive are the actions? There may be good reasons for a government not to make any definite commitment. The relatively vague expressions "continuation" and "decisive" are exactly what is needed in this case. As for metaphor, then (even leaving aside its role in the development of language), poets, of course, would recall its ability to convey what remains inexpressible without it. When the American poet T.S. Eliot, speaking of the merits of the English playwright John Webster, wrote that he saw “a skull under the skin”, this was not just a vivid image found by Eliot, but the only way to adequately convey the essence of the playwright’s achievements.

Language Creation Theory

Traditions similar to the story of the Tower of Babel have been noted among the most isolated peoples of all continents. They can be divided into three types: the first speaks of a large construction, without mentioning the division of languages (the peoples of Africa, India, Mexico, Spain, Burma); Oral chronicles of the second type set out their versions of the origin of languages without mentioning construction (the peoples of Ancient Greece, Africa, India, Australia, the USA, Central America), and stories of the third type, like the Bible, combine these two events.

It is clear from the biblical account of Creation that language existed even before God began to create this world. Language was one of the ways of communication of the Most Holy Trinity - the hypostases of the Triune God.
The history of mankind allows Christians to claim that language exists as long as God exists, and according to the Bible, God exists forever.

"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. The earth was formless and empty, and the Spirit of God hovered over the waters. And God said: let there be light. And there was light” (Genesis 1:1-3).

But why, of all the living beings He created, did God endow only humans with language? We find the answer to this question in the very first chapter of Holy Scripture:

“And God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

God created people in his own image, and since God is inherent in language and communication, people also got this gift. Thus, language is one of the facets of the Personality of Godhead that He has given to people. This is a perfectly sound conclusion, since language gives us a partial idea of the nature of God. Like God, language is unthinkably complex. It can take a lifetime to study it; but at the same time, children, having barely learned to walk, begin to understand and use the language.

Religious theories

According to the Bible, God punished the descendants of Adam for their attempt to build a tower to heaven with a variety of languages:
The whole earth had one language and one dialect... And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men were building. And the Lord said, Behold, there is one people, and all have one language; and this is what they began to do, and they will not lag behind what they have planned to do. Let us go down and confuse their language there, so that one does not understand the speech of the other. And the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth; and they stopped building the city. Therefore a name was given to her: Babylon; for there the Lord confounded the language of all the earth, and from there the Lord scattered them over all the earth (Genesis 11:5-9).

The Gospel of John begins with the following words, where the Logos (word, thought, mind) is equated with the Divine:

“In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It was in the beginning with God."

The Acts of the Apostles (part of the New Testament) describes an event that happened to the apostles, from which the connection of language with the Divine follows:

“When the day of Pentecost came, they were all together with one accord. And suddenly there was a noise from heaven, as if from a rushing strong wind, and filled the whole house where they were. And divided tongues appeared to them, as if of fire, and rested one on each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. In Jerusalem there were Jews, devout people, from every nation under heaven. When this noise was made, the people gathered and were confused, for everyone heard them speaking in his own language. And they were all amazed and wondering, saying among themselves, Are not these who speak all Galileans? How do we hear each of his own dialect in which he was born. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and parts of Libya adjacent to Cyrene, and those who came from Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabians, we hear them in our languages talking about the great things of God? And they were all amazed and, perplexed, said to each other: what does this mean? And others, mocking, said: they drank sweet wine. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice and cried out to them: Men of the Jews, and all who dwell in Jerusalem! let this be known to you, and give heed to my words…” (Acts of the Apostles, 2:1-14).

The Day of Pentecost, or Trinity Day, deserves to be, in addition to its religious significance, the Day of the Linguist or Translator.

The existence of a proto-language

Researchers most often judge the origin of peoples by their languages. Linguists subdivide many Asian and African languages into Semitic, named Shema or Shema, and Hamitic, named Ham, the sons of Noah. To the Semitic group of languages; reference to language families; include Hebrew, Old Babylonian, Assyrian, Aramaic, various Arabic dialects, the Amharic language in Ethiopia, and some others. Hamitic are ancient Egyptian, Coptic, Berber, and many other African languages and dialects.

At present, however, there is a tendency in science to combine the Hamitic and Semitic languages into one Semitic-Hamitic group. The peoples descended from Japhet speak, as a rule, Indo-European languages. This group includes the vast majority of European languages, as well as many of the languages of the peoples of Asia: Iranian, Indian, Turkic.

What was it "single language" which was spoken by all the people of the world?
Many linguists understood the Hebrew language as the universal language, in view of the fact that many proper names of the primitive world, preserved in the languages of all the peoples of the exile, are built from the roots of the Hebrew language.

According to the tradition of Judaism, the "Single language", which people spoke before the division into nations, was the "Sacred Language". sacred language– “loshn koidesh” is the language in which the Creator spoke with Adam, and people spoke it right up to the Babylonian pandemonium. Later, the prophets spoke this language, and the Holy Scriptures were written in it.

The fact of the use, according to the Torah, of the Hebrew language by the first people is also indicated by Scripture, where a play on words is found that cannot be translated into other languages. So, the wife is called in Hebrew isha from ish (husband), which indicates the unity and holiness of the marriage union. The name Adam (man) is from Adam (earth), Chava (in Russian Eve) is from Hai (living), “for she was the mother of all living things”, Cain is from Kaniti (I acquired) and so on. This language was called Hebrew by the name of Ever, a descendant of Shem, for Ever preserved this language by passing it on to Abraham. Abraham used the sacred language only for holy purposes.

The everyday language of Abraham was Aramaic, very close to the sacred language, but - as a result of general use - it lost the purity, rigor and grammatical harmony of Hebrew.
Approximately the same can be said about another Semitic language - Arabic. Arabic as a living language surpasses the Hebrew of written monuments by the abundance of synonyms and the presence of precise designations of objects and expressions. These virtues, of course, had Hebrew in the era of the prophets. Therefore, when reading poetic passages of Scripture, we encounter completely different vocabulary, often with words that occur only once in Scripture. As a result of the long stay of the Jews in exile, the original wealth of the Holy Language was lost, and the language of the Bible that has come down to us is only a surviving remnant of ancient Hebrew. This is the tradition and point of view of Judaism, set forth in the book of Kuzari by Rabbi Yehuda a-Levi.

Scientists have long known intuitively origin of languages the world from a single source. Thus, the German philosopher of the 17th century Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who spoke numerous languages of various families, dealt with questions of family relations of languages \u200b\u200band a general theory of language. Leibniz, although he rejected the "Jewish theory" of the origin of languages, that is, the biblical theory of the origin of all of them from the Holy language - Hebrew, was inclined to recognize a single original language. He preferred to call him "Adamic", that is, descending from Adam.

Linguists have come to the conclusion that if not all languages of the world, then at least the vast majority have a related - common - origin.

We speak Russian is; in Latin est; in English is, in German ist. These are all Indo-European languages. Let us, however, turn to the Semitic languages: in Hebrew esh, in Aramaic it or is. Six in Hebrew is shesh, in Aramaic is shit or shis, in Ukrainian is shist, in English is six, in German is sechs. The word seven in English is seven, in German sieben, in Hebrew sheva. Numeral " three» in a number of Indo-European languages: Persian: tree, Greek: treis, Latin: tres, Gothic: threis.
Or take a more complex example. The word idea, borrowed from ancient Greek, has a parallel root in Hebrew. De'a in Hebrew means "vision", "opinion". In Hebrew, as well as in other Semitic languages, the root of this word, consisting of three letters yod, dalet and 'ayin, has a fairly wide use: Yode'a - "he knows", yada - "knew", yivada' - will known. Let us note that in the Russian language there is a verb to know, that is, “to know”, and in ancient Indian Vedas also means “knowledge”. In German, wissen is “to know”, and in English this root appears in the words wise – “wise”, wisdom – “wisdom”.

The method of comparative analysis of languages also makes it possible to penetrate deeply into the essence of the processes being studied, to reveal a system of certain correspondences where superficial observation does not notice anything similar.

Nostratic language
The intuitive desire of scientists to at least partially reproduce the “single language” of mankind, which, according to the Torah, existed on earth before the division of mankind into nations, is, in our opinion, quite remarkable. Followers of the so-called "Nostratic school".
even compiled a small dictionary of the "Nostratic" language. "Nostratic" these scientists call a certain primitive proto-language, from which the Semitic-Hamitic, Indo-European, Ural-Altaic and other languages \u200b\u200bare descended.

Of course, science has the right to deal with working theories and hypotheses, which, sooner or later, can be proved or refuted.

5. Conclusion

Evolutionists have put forward a great many theories of the origin and development of human language. However, all these concepts are broken by their own shortcomings. Proponents of the theory of evolution have not yet found an acceptable answer to the question of the emergence of language communication. But none of these theories provides an acceptable explanation for the extraordinary diversity and complexity of languages. So there is nothing left but faith in God the Creator, who not only created man, but also endowed him with the gift of speech. The Bible tells about the Creation of all things by God; its text is devoid of contradictions and contains answers to all questions. Unlike the theory of evolution, which lacks credibility in explaining the origin of language, the creation theory set forth in the Bible (the theory of the divine creation of language) is able to withstand any objections. This theory retains its position to this day, despite the fact that all this time its opponents have been desperately searching for counterarguments against it.

1. I. (English language) - a system of signs of any physical nature, serving as a means of implementing human communication and thinking) in the proper sense of I. words - a phenomenon that is socially necessary and historically conditioned. One of the immediate natural manifestations of I. is speech as sound-verbal communication.

2. I. (English tongue) - an anatomical term denoting a muscular outgrowth at the bottom of the oral cavity; takes part in the actors and is the organ of taste.

I-CONCEPT (eng. self-concept) - a developing system of a person's ideas about himself, including: a) awareness of his physical, intellectual, characterological, social, etc. properties; b) self-assessment, c) subjective perception of external factors affecting one's own personality. The concept of I-to. was born in the 1950s in line with phenomenological, humanistic psychology, whose representatives (A. Maslow, K. Rogers), unlike behaviorists and Freudians, sought to consider the integral human self as a fundamental factor in behavior and personality development. Symbolic interactionism (C. Cooley, J. Mead) and the concept of identity (E. Erickson) also had a significant influence on the formation of this concept. However, the first theoretical developments in the field of Ya-k. undoubtedly belong to W. James, who divided the global, personal I (Self) into interacting I-consciousness (I) and I-as-object (Me).

I-k. often defined as a set of attitudes directed at oneself, and then, by analogy with attitude, 3 structural components are distinguished in it: 1) the cognitive component - the "image of the Self" (English self-image), which includes the content of ideas about oneself; 2) an emotional-value (affective) component, which is an experienced attitude towards oneself as a whole or towards certain aspects of one's personality, activity, etc.; this component, in other words, includes the system of self-esteem (English self-esteem), 3) the behavioral component, which characterizes the manifestations of the cognitive and evaluative components in behavior (including in speech, in statements about oneself).

I-k. - a holistic education, all components of which, although they have a relatively independent logic of development, are closely interconnected. It has conscious and unconscious aspects and is described in terms of sp. the content of ideas about oneself, the complexity and differentiation of these ideas, their subjective significance for the individual, as well as internal integrity and consistency, consistency, continuity and stability over time.

In the literature there is no single scheme for describing the complex structure of I-k. Eg. * R. Berne represents Yak. in a hierarchical structure. The peak is the global I-to., which is concretized in the totality of the individual's attitudes towards himself. These attitudes have different modalities: 1) real I (what I think I really am); 2) ideal I (what I would like and / or should become); 3) mirror YX as others see me). Each of these modalities includes a number of aspects - physical self, social self, mental self, emotional self.

The discrepancy between the "ideal self" and the "real self" is the basis for self-esteem feelings, serves as an important source of personality development, however, significant contradictions between them can become a source of intrapersonal

conflicts and negative experiences (see. Inferiority complex).

Depending on at what level - the organism, the social individual or the personality - the activity of a person is manifested, in I-k. distinguish: 1) at the level of "organism-environment" - the physical I-image (body schema), caused by the need for the physical well-being of the body; 2) at the level of a social individual - social identities: gender, age, ethnic, civil, social role, associated with a person's need to belong to a community; 3) at the level of personality - a differentiating image of the Self, which characterizes knowledge about oneself in comparison with other people and gives the individual a sense of his own uniqueness, providing the needs for self-determination and self-realization. The last 2 levels are described in the same way as the 2 components of I-k. (V.V. Stolin): 1) "attaching", ensuring the unification of the individual with other people and 2) "differentiating", contributing to its selection in comparison with others and creating the basis for a sense of one's own uniqueness.

There are also dynamic "I" (how, according to my ideas, I change, develop, what I strive to become), "presented I" ("I am a mask", how I show myself to others), "fantastic I", a triad of chronological I: I -past, I-present, I-future, etc.

The most important function of Ya-k. is to ensure the internal consistency of the individual, the relative stability of her behavior. I-k itself is formed under the influence of a person’s life experience, primarily child-parent relationships, but quite early it acquires an active role, influencing the interpretation of this experience, the goals that the individual sets for himself, the corresponding system of expectations, forecasts regarding future, assessment of their achievement - and thus on their own formation, personal development, activity and behavior. Correlation of concepts I-to. and self-consciousness is not exactly defined. They often act as synonyms. However, there is a tendency to consider I-to. as a result, the final product of the processes of self-consciousness. (A. M. Parishioners.)

Language

A common set of symbols or gestures that allows us to communicate and communicate with other members of our culture who speak the same language. The main problem with this definition is the degree of its "extensibility". The debate surrounding attempts to teach human language to animals leaves open the question of whether language can truly serve as a universal means of communication, or whether linguistic subtleties are unique to human beings.

LANGUAGE

tongue, glossa) - an organ formed by striated muscle tissue; attached to the diaphragm of the mouth. The language distinguishes between the top, the body (body) and the root (root). The skeletal muscles of the tongue connect it to the mental spine of the lower jaw, the hyoid bone and the styloid process of the temporal bone. The surface of the tongue is covered with a mucous membrane, which passes into the mucous membrane of the oral cavity and pharynx. On the lower surface of the tongue, the mucous membrane forms a fold - the bridle of the tongue (frcnulum linguae). The surface of the tongue is covered with papillae (papillae), which give the tongue a rough appearance (see Fig.); papillae are outgrowths of the lamina propria, covered with epithelium. The language performs three main functions. It promotes the movement of food in the oral cavity during chewing and swallowing, is an organ of taste and plays an important role in articulate speech. Anatomical name: tongue (glossa).

LANGUAGE

Everyone knows the meaning of this term - language is what we speak, a set of arbitrary conventional symbols with which we convey meaning, a culturally defined pattern of vocal gestures that we learn from having grown up in a certain place and at a certain time, the medium by which we encode our feelings, thoughts, ideas and experiences, the most unique and human of behaviors and the most common of human behaviors. However, in reality, the term can mean all of the above, none of these, or even things very different from these. The conviction that we know the meaning of the word language lasts only as long as we refrain from trying to specify what we know. In order to appreciate the problems associated with the definition and use of this term, consider the following questions, (a) Is the system of manual signs used by completely deaf people a language? (b) Are synthetic systems designed for computer programming real languages? (c) Can the invented coding systems of sociopolitical reformers, such as Esperanto, be classified as languages? (d) Should sequences of motor movements, body positions, gestures and facial expressions conveying meanings be considered as language? (e) Are there good reasons for calling the communication systems of other species, such as bees, dolphins, or chimpanzees, languages? (e) At what point can we conclude that the infant's vocalizations have become language? These questions and many others like them are not easy to answer. They are here to illustrate the complexity of the word, a complexity that renders any simple definition useless. See linguistics, paralinguistics, psycholinguistics, sign language and related terms.

LANGUAGE

a system of signs that serves as a means of human communication, mental activity, a way of expressing self-consciousness, transmitting from generation to generation and storing information. Historically, I. arose thanks to labor, the joint activity of people. It exists and is realized through speech, which has successivity (linearity), presupposition (reference to encyclopedic knowledge), situationality, incompleteness. Inaccuracy in the expression of thought m. b. cause of conflicts. Therefore, the poorer the I. of a person, the smaller his vocabulary, the more difficult it is for him to organize good communication, the more often he may have conflicts. "My tongue is my enemy". Conflicts also arise due to the use of conflicting words, expressions and gestures. Ya plays an important role in the activities of conflictologists and other persons in conflict resolution. All the information impact of the conflictologist on the participants in the conflict is carried out mainly with the help of I. Conflictology as a science is information recorded with the help of I. See Language of Conflictology

Language

A system of signs that serves as a means of interpersonal communication and mental activity, a way of expressing a person's self-consciousness, transmitting information from generation to generation. Language exists and is realized through speech. English neuropsychologist Critchley (M. Critchly, 1974) considers language as "the expression and perception of thoughts and feelings through verbal symbols."

LANGUAGE

a system of signs of any physical nature, serving as a means of human communication, mental activity, a way of expressing self-consciousness, transmission. information from generation to generation. Historically, labor and the joint activity of people serve as the basis for the emergence of self-interest. I. can be natural (I. words) or artificial (I. programming, I. mathematics, I. descriptions of the operator's activity, etc.). One of the direct manifestations of the natural I. is speech as sound-verbal communication.

LANGUAGE

1) a system of signs of any configuration, serving as a means of human (including national) communication, as well as thinking; 2) means of storage and transmission of information; 3) one of the means of managing human behavior; 4) one of the foundations of ethnicity, which ensures the unity of both the ethnos and the state, the whole society as a whole. The language of words is a socio-psychological phenomenon, socially necessary and historically conditioned. Speech is a natural manifestation of I. National I. is a means of communication, accumulation and expression of experience by representatives of specific ethnic communities, affecting their national psychological characteristics (see) and forming their national identity (see). ethnos, a means of social advancement. Along with religion, it provides the development of ethnic identification. The change of I. or its loss stimulates the assimilation (see), acculturation-(see) of the ethnic group. The characteristic features of the I. are: specificity, determined by ideas about its uniqueness and independence, social prestige, which is based on communicative value (prevalence). The functions of Ya. are diverse - communicative^ and integration, political. With the help of Y., channels of communication with a foreign ethnic environment, familiarization with other cultures of other peoples are created. Attachment to the native language determines the painful reaction to the persecution of the language, the ease of mobilization in the relevant movements, the readiness to respond to the call to speak out in its defense. Ethnolinguistic communities are formed on the basis of language, and the ethnic group is divided into parts united by a single language. Germans and Austrians speak German, Spanish - Spaniards and the peoples of Latin America, English - English, Americans, Australians, New Zealanders, Kabardian-Circassian - Kabardians and Circassians, Belgians speak French and Walloon, Mari - Mountain Mari and Lugo Mari, Mordovians - in Moksha and Erzya. I. is part of the symbolic resources of power (political and ethnic), along with the banner, coat of arms, etc. The right to speak and write in the native language is part of the collective, ethnic rights. The status of Ya determines linguistic equality or inequality, and reflects the general position of the ethnic group in society (privileged, dominant, or discriminated against). The language issue is most often exacerbated by the high consolidation of the ethnic group and the implementation of the policy of imposing the language. On this basis, ethnolinguistic movements arise. Ya exists in various forms: oral, colloquial or literary, unwritten and written; functions at the level - national, local, local. Accordingly, they stand out - the language of interethnic communication; official, used in public administration; regional; local, including tribal, dialects; autochthonous or national, native or foreign I.

What is Language?

Language is a term that has several meanings:

1. A system of phonetic, lexical and grammatical means, which is a tool for expressing thoughts, feelings, expressions of will and serving as the most important means of communication between people. Being inextricably linked in its origin and development with a given human collective, language is a social phenomenon. Language forms an organic unity with thinking, since one does not exist without the other.

2. A type of speech characterized by certain stylistic features. book language. Colloquial. poetic language. newspaper language. See speech in the 2nd sense.

On the issue of the relationship between the concepts of "language" and "speech", different points of view have emerged in modern linguistics.

For the first time, the relationship and interaction of both phenomena was noted by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure:

“Without a doubt, both of these subjects are closely related to each other and mutually presuppose each other: language is necessary for speech to be understood and produce” its effect; speech, in its turn, is necessary for the establishment of language; historically, the fact of speech always precedes language. Following Ferdinand de Saussure, many researchers (V. D. Arakin, V. A. Artemov, O. S. Akhmanova, L. R. Zinder, T. P. Lomtev, A. I. Smirnitsky and others) distinguish between these concepts, finding sufficient general methodological and linguistic grounds for this. Language and speech are opposed for various reasons: the system of means of communication is the implementation of this system (the actual process of speaking), the system of linguistic units is their sequence in the act of communication, the static phenomenon is a dynamic phenomenon, the set of elements in the paradigmatic plan is their set in the syntagmatic plan, the essence - phenomenon, general - separate (private), abstract - concrete, essential - non-essential, necessary - random, systemic - non-systemic, stable (invariant) - variable (variable), usual - occasional, normative - non-normative, social - individual, reproducible - produced in the act of communication, the code is the exchange of messages, the means is the goal, etc. Some linguists consistently make this distinction in relation to correlative units of different levels of language and speech: phoneme - a specific sound, morpheme - syllable, lexeme - word, phrase - syntagma , sentence - phrase, complex syntactic integer e - superphrasal unity. Other scientists (V. M. Zhirmunsky, G. V. Kolshansky, A. G. Spirkin, A. S. Chikobava) deny the difference between language and speech, identifying these concepts. Third researchers (E. M. Galkina-Fedoruk, V. N. Yartseva), without opposing or identifying language and speech, define them as two sides of one phenomenon, characterized by properties that are complementary and interrelated in nature.

Language - I Language (lingua, or glossa) is an unpaired outgrowth of the bottom of the oral cavity in vertebrates and humans. I. fish is formed by a fold of the mucous membrane ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
tongue - -a, m. 1. An organ in the oral cavity in the form of a muscular outgrowth in vertebrates and humans, which contributes to chewing and swallowing food, which determines its taste properties. - Hard labor life! he grumbled, rolling crumbs of black bread in his mouth with his tongue. Small Academic Dictionary
tongue - (lingua, glossa), an outgrowth of the bottom of the oral cavity in vertebrates, which performs the functions of transportation and taste analysis of food. I. fish, with the exception of lungfish, has no musculature and moves together with the hyoid-gill skeleton. Biological encyclopedic dictionary
language - the language of the genus. n. -a, pl. languages, often with a seminarian accent, languages, dial. lyazyk "language", Novgorod, Belozersk. (where l- is from lick), tongue, Ukrainian. language, blr. language, other Russian ɪazyk, old Slav. language γλώσσα, ἔθνος (Ostrom., Klots., Supr.), Bulgarian. Etymological Dictionary of Max Vasmer
tongue - tongue I m. 1. A mobile, elongated muscular organ in the oral cavity in humans and vertebrates, with the help of which the process of chewing and swallowing food is carried out, its taste qualities are revealed. || Such an organ as the organ of taste. Explanatory Dictionary of Efremova
Language - In all countries and all peoples there is an extensive sexual-erotic dictionary. It contains special expressions or figures of speech for female and male genitals, sexual intercourse, caresses, and other areas of love and sexuality. Sexological Encyclopedia
LANGUAGE - LANGUAGE - in anatomy - in terrestrial vertebrates and humans, a muscular outgrowth (in fish, a fold of the mucous membrane) at the bottom of the oral cavity. Participates in the capture, processing of food, in the acts of swallowing and speech (in humans). There are taste buds on the tongue. LANGUAGE - .. Big encyclopedic dictionary
LANGUAGE - 1. I. (English language) - a system of signs of any physical nature, serving as a means of implementing human communication and thinking; in the proper sense, the language of words is a phenomenon that is socially necessary and historically conditioned. Big psychological dictionary
language - means of communication in human society; the ability to speak, write, verbally express one's thoughts; expressed thought, speech; style, style of presentation. About the sound of speech, the nature of the pronunciation of sounds. Dictionary of epithets of the Russian language
language - LANGUAGE, language (language bookish obsolete, only in 3, 4, 7 and 8 meanings), male. 1. An organ in the oral cavity in the form of a mobile soft outgrowth, which is an organ of taste, and in humans it also contributes to the formation of speech sounds. Cow tongue. It hurts to bite your tongue. Explanatory Dictionary of Ushakov
language - 1. language, languages, language, languages, language, languages, language, languages, language, languages, language, languages 2. language, languages, language, languages, language, languages, language, languages, language, languages, language , languages Zaliznyak's grammar dictionary
LANGUAGE - LANGUAGE - English language; German Sprache. A system of signs that serves as a means of human communication, mental activity, a way of expressing a person's self-consciousness, a means of transmitting from generation to generation and storing information. see SPEECH. sociological dictionary
language - LANGUAGE -a; m. 1. An organ in the oral cavity in the form of a muscular outgrowth in vertebrates and humans, which contributes to chewing and swallowing food, which determines its taste properties. Pink long me. dogs. Rough cat me. Lick your lips with your tongue. Burn... Explanatory Dictionary of Kuznetsov
LANGUAGE - LANGUAGE is the primary, most natural and public representation of the world. The naturalness of the language, which makes itself felt in its presence in any society (a living being without this or that language is unknown to science) ... New Philosophical Encyclopedia
tongue - An organ in the oral cavity of vertebrates that performs the functions of transportation and taste analysis of food. The structure of the tongue reflects the specifics of animal nutrition. Biology. Modern Encyclopedia
Tongue - I Tongue (lingua) is a muscular organ of the oral cavity. The tongue is divided into apex, body and root. In a newborn, the tongue is short, wide and thick, lies entirely in the oral cavity, its root is located horizontally. Medical Encyclopedia
language - 1) a system of signs of any configuration, serving as a means of human (including national) communication, as well as thinking; 2) means of storage and transmission of information; 3) one of the means of controlling human behavior ... Ethnographic dictionary
language - orph. language, a Lopatin's spelling dictionary
tongue - Offal (see); in cooking, beef (cow, ox, bovine) and veal tongues are usually used. Beef tongues weigh 1.5-2 kg, veal tongues - 0.5 kg. Culinary Dictionary
- LANGUAGE is a complex developing semiotic system, which is a specific and universal means of objectifying the content of both individual consciousness and cultural tradition, providing the possibility of its intersubjectivity... The latest philosophical dictionary
language - 1. LANGUAGE1, a, pl. i, ov, m. 1. A movable muscular organ in the oral cavity, perceiving taste sensations, in humans also participating in articulation. Lick tongue. Try on ya (i.e. taste). Serpentine... Explanatory dictionary of Ozhegov
language - noun, number of synonyms... Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language

Portal for the student. Self-training

language e. Language origin

Language, communication and thinking.

Nonlinguistic signs.

The structure of the language.

The abstract nature of language.

ISSUES OF VALUE

Meaning and reference.

Polysemy.

Uncertainty.

Metaphor.

Other problems.

First experiments and scientific hypotheses.

The theory of the emergence of language from sounds.

The theory of creating language by the power of the human mind

The theory of the sudden emergence of language

Sign language theory

Theory of onomatopoeia

Obstacles to the emergence of language in an evolutionary way

Language Creation Theory

Religious theories

The existence of a proto-language

5. Conclusion

Language

LANGUAGE

LANGUAGE

LANGUAGE

Language

LANGUAGE

LANGUAGE

Portal for the student. Self-training

Language, communication and thinking.

Nonlinguistic signs.

The structure of the language.

The abstract nature of language.

ISSUES OF VALUE

Meaning and reference.

Polysemy.

Uncertainty.

Metaphor.

Other problems.

First experiments and scientific hypotheses.

The theory of the emergence of language from sounds.

The theory of creating language by the power of the human mind

The theory of the sudden emergence of language

Sign language theory

Theory of onomatopoeia

Obstacles to the emergence of language in an evolutionary way

Language Creation Theory

Religious theories

The existence of a proto-language

5. Conclusion

Language

LANGUAGE

LANGUAGE

LANGUAGE

Language

LANGUAGE

LANGUAGE

RELATED ARTICLES