آراء الفلاسفة في منشأ اللغة ، الإشارات والرموز واللغة .. كتاب علم النَّفس جميل صَليبا

Philosophers' views on the origin of language... Signs, symbols, and language

A - The views of philosophers on the origin of language

Philosophers have searched since ancient times into the origin of the language of speech and its superiority over other languages, and they have developed many theories for this, but these theories can be attributed to four:
1 - Speech is a divine revelation
- God has taught man the names of all things, and this is the opinion of De Bonald and other theists.
2 - Theories of collusion and invention
Language results from collusion, and this is the opinion of Democritus and Adam Smith.
3- The theory of instinct or natural revelation
- It is the theory of Max Müller and Renan.
4- The theory of gradual development. - It makes the emergence of language dependent on the growth of thought and the progress of social life (Whitney and Romance).

The argument of those who hold the first theory is that there is perfection in the language of speech that man is unable to create. God created man, gave him the language of speech to express his thoughts, and taught him all the names. However, the philosophers of the era responded to this opinion of (Debonald) and said: God did not give him the complete language, because the child learns to speak little by little. If the child had complete mastery of language, the child would not need to learn. This opinion then goes back to the statement that there is a special force, or a linguistic instinct, and this is exactly what was stated in the third theory.

The argument of the proponents of the second theory is also weak because the invention of language is not the same as the invention of symbols in algebra and chemistry. Complicity requires the advancement of science, just as invention requires a person to be naturally able to speak. So let us limit ourselves in this book to examining the third theory and the fourth theory. They are the theory of instinct and the theory of gradual development:

Max Mollow's theory (instinct theory):

Max Müller's theory is the most complete of the theories that language is generated from instinct, and his opinion on the origin of the materials of language led him to this. He said: Languages ​​are divided into three categories:
1 - Indo-European languages, which are the languages ​​of North India, the languages ​​of the Slavs, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and the languages ​​derived from them, and the Germanic languages. Etc.
2 - Semitic languages ​​- namely Arabic, Hebrew, Chaldean, etc.
3- Turanian languages ​​(Chinese, Tibetan), etc.
If we analyze the Indo-European languages, we find that they are composed of 500 common materials with no natural connection between them and their meanings. Either it can be said that these materials are generated from collusion, and this requires the progress of science, or it can be said that they result from instinct and natural revelation. Max Müller refuted this opinion. The first adopted the second opinion, and Renan followed him in that.
But we cannot prove Müller's theory unless we prove that these materials that he revealed are the language spoken by the first human, and this is a matter that is clear to him because he sees with Guillaume Schlegel that languages ​​are divided into three types: Monosyllabic languages, such as Chinese, agglutinative languages, such as Turkish, and derivational languages, such as Arabic and Greek. Derivative languages ​​arise from agglutinative languages, and agglutination languages ​​arise from monosyllabic languages. It is most likely that the language of the first humans was composed of monosyllabic words, and perhaps these materials were Max Müller revealed it by analyzing the Indo-European languages, the primary language, that is, the language of the first humans.

Although evolutionary scientists claim that behind these primary syllables there are natural signs and sounds, and although these primary materials are far from all words, (Max Müller) is an advanced traditionalist. Far from imitating the sounds of nature and calling sounds.

Max Müller said: The materials that we uncovered through careful analysis and made them elements that constitute the different types of languages ​​are not vocal sounds, or sounds with which humans imitate the sounds of nature. Rather, they are acoustic models generated from an instinct inherent in human thought that there is a universal law in the natural world that determines that... Every object resonates, and every substance makes a special sound, and humans also make sounds. In the beginning, he was not only like an animal, expressing his perceptions with traditional sounds, but he also had a verbal faculty that expressed the perceptions of his mind. Man did not create this kingdom himself, because it is an innate and necessary instinct.

Discussion of this theory:
Max Muller's theory is very weak for the following reasons:
1 - Reasoning based on instinct does not clarify anything, but rather adds new suspicions to the darkness of research.
2- This theory contradicts the postulates of sociology and psychology.

If the primary language consisted of 500 or 400 elementary words, the ability of the first human to abstract would have been very great. This contradicts the axioms of psychology, that the languages ​​of primary nations are full of personal words and sensory words. There is no word in it that indicates the meaning of an animal or plant, nor does it indicate at the same time any of its conditions.

The vocabulary of this language mostly refers to the images of objects, their positions, and their various movements. It is poor in abstract words, rich in personalized words. The language of “blasphemy” contains imperative forms, and the imperative verb in the language of “Alnot” has four hundred forms, in addition to the forms made up of auxiliary verbs, just as the acquaintances in the language of “Kalamat” have eight or ten types.

Levi Brühl said:
The transitive verb in the language of Hebron varies according to the objects it occurs on. The verb (to eat), for example, varies according to the types of food, and the verb also varies according to whether the thing is living or inanimate. The verb (to see) varies according to the visible objects, so do not use the verb namsa in Your saying, “I saw a person,” or “I saw a stone,” and if the thing was yours, or someone else’s, the verb differs as well.... The number of synonyms in the Ibibian language is very large, so the verb “wound” differs according to whether the wound is with a human tooth, or with an animal tooth. With a razor, or with a sword, or with an arrow, and the action of a murderer differs according to whether the person is fighting with a spear, arrow, hand, or tongue, and according to whether the fighting is between the wives of one man, fighting for his sake.

Ribot said about these primary languages:

These languages ​​stop at the simplest similarities, and fall short of achieving broad generalization. This is supported by what we find in them of verbs, nouns, and adjectives close to the senses.”

Ribo also said (1):

(In the language of the North American tribes, there are special words to indicate the black, white, and red oak, and there is not a single word in it to indicate the general meaning of the oak. There is no word that indicates the meaning of
Trees in general. There are different words in the language of the indigenous people of Brazil to refer to parts of the body, but there is no word to refer to the whole body. Most of the peoples of (Oceania) use different words to indicate the tail of a dog, or the tail of a sheep, and they do not have a word to indicate general guilt. Likewise, there is no word in their language to indicate the general meaning of cow, even though it has different words to indicate the red, white, and brown cow. Personalized nouns are many, but adjectives are few, because they indicate specific meanings. An example of this is that the Tasmanians do not describe qualities well except by attributing them to tangible things. If they wanted to describe hardness, they said like a stone. If they described length, they said like a leg, and when they counted, they put the number after the countable. Number was one of the attributes of a thing, so they do not know enumeration. The abstract, and they do not separate the number from the countable, so if they wanted to enumerate things, they said “ten men’s merchants” and “five birds’ chickens” instead of saying “ten merchants and five chickens.”

The result: For all of this, linguistics scholars said: The materials revealed by Max Waller are not the language of the first human, but rather the remnants of a refined language that passed from one stage to another. It did not reach this degree of intonation until it was replaced by tangible meanings and personalized words. Not general, abstract concepts.