Origin of speech
The origin of speech refers to the more general problem of the origin of language in the context of the physiological development of the human speech organs such as the tongue and vocal organs used to produce phonological units in all human languages. Although related to the more general problem of the origin of language, the evolution of distinctively human speech capacities has become a distinct and in many ways separate area of scientific research; the topic is a separate one because language is not spoken: it can be written or signed. Speech is in this sense optional. Uncontroversially, monkeys and humans, like many other animals, have evolved specialised mechanisms for producing sound for purposes of social communication. On the other hand, no monkey or ape uses its tongue for such purposes. Our species' unprecedented use of the tongue and other moveable parts seems to place speech in a quite separate category, making its evolutionary emergence an intriguing theoretical challenge in the eyes of many scholars.
The term modality means the chosen representational format for encoding and transmitting information. A striking feature of language is. Should an impaired child be prevented from hearing or producing sound, its innate capacity to master a language may find expression in signing. Sign languages of the deaf are independently invented and have all the major properties of spoken language except for the modality of transmission. From this it appears that the language centres of the human brain must have evolved to function optimally irrespective of the selected modality. "The detachment from modality-specific inputs may represent a substantial change in neural organization, one that affects not only imitation but communication. This feature is extraordinary. Animal communication systems combine visible with audible properties and effects, but not one is modality-independent. No vocally impaired whale, dolphin or songbird, for example, could express its song repertoire in visual display. Indeed, in the case of animal communication and modality are not capable of being disentangled.
Whatever message is being conveyed stems from intrinsic properties of the signal. Modality independence should not be confused with the ordinary phenomenon of multimodality. Monkeys and apes rely on a repertoire of species-specific "gesture-calls" — expressive vocalisations inseparable from the visual displays which accompany them. Humans have species-specific gesture-calls — laughs, sobs and so forth — together with involuntary gestures accompanying speech. Many animal displays are polymodal in that each appears designed to exploit multiple channels simultaneously; the human linguistic property of "modality independence" is conceptually distinct from this. It allows the speaker to encode the informational content of a message in a single channel, while switching between channels as necessary. Modern city-dwellers switch effortlessly between the spoken word and writing in its various forms — handwriting, typing, e-mail and so forth. Whichever modality is chosen, it can reliably transmit the full message content without external assistance of any kind.
When talking on the telephone, for example, any accompanying facial or manual gestures, however natural to the speaker, are not necessary. When typing or manually signing, there's no need to add sounds. In many Australian Aboriginal cultures, a section of the population — women observing a ritual taboo — traditionally restrict themselves for extended periods to a silent version of their language; when released from the taboo, these same individuals resume narrating stories by the fireside or in the dark, switching to pure sound without sacrifice of informational content. Speaking is the default modality for language in all cultures. Humans' first recourse is to encode our thoughts in sound — a method which depends on sophisticated capacities for controlling the lips and other components of the vocal apparatus; the speech organs, everyone agrees, evolved in the first instance not for speech but for more basic bodily functions such as feeding and breathing. Nonhuman primates with different neural controls.
Apes use their flexible, maneuverable tongues for eating but not for vocalizing. When an ape is not eating, fine motor control over its tongue is deactivated. Either it is performing gymnastics with its tongue or it is vocalising. Since this applies to mammals in general, Homo sapiens is exceptional in harnessing mechanisms designed for respiration and ingestion to the radically different requirements of articulate speech; the word "language" derives from the Latin lingua, "tongue". Phoneticians agree. A natural language can be viewed as a particular way of using the tongue to express thought; the human tongue has an unusual shape. In most mammals, it's a long, flat structure contained within the mouth, it is attached at the rear to the hyoid bone, situated below oral level in the pharynx. In humans, the tongue has an circular sagittal contour, much of it lying vertically down an extended pharynx, where it is attached to a hyoid bone in a lowered position; as a result of this, the horizontal and vertical tubes forming the supralaryngeal vocal tract are equal in length (whereas in other species, the vertical se
Forensic linguistics, legal linguistics, or language and the law, is the application of linguistic knowledge and insights to the forensic context of law, crime investigation and judicial procedure. It is a branch of applied linguistics. There are principally three areas of application for linguists working in forensic contexts: understanding language of the written law, understanding language use in forensic and judicial processes, the provision of linguistic evidence; the discipline of forensic linguistics is not homogenous. The phrase forensic linguistics first appeared in 1968 when Jan Svartvik, a professor of linguistics, used it in an analysis of statements by Timothy John Evans, it was in regard to re-analyzing the statements given to police at Notting Hill police station, England, in 1949 in the case of an alleged murder by Evans. Evans was tried and hanged for the crime. Yet, when Svartvik studied the statements given by Evans, he found that there were different stylistic markers involved, Evans did not give the statements to the police officers as had been stated at the trial.
Sparked by this case, early forensic linguistics in the UK were focused on questioning the validity of police interrogations. As seen in numerous famous cases, many of the major concerns were of the statements police officers used. Numerous times, the topic of police register came up – this meaning the type of stylist language and vocabulary used by officers of the law when transcribing witness statements. Moving to the US and the beginnings of the field of forensic linguistics, the field began with the 1963 case of Ernesto Miranda, his case led to the creation of Miranda Rights and pushed focus of forensic linguistics on witness questioning rather than police statements. Various cases came about that challenged whether or not suspects understood what their rights meant – leading to a distinction of coercive versus voluntary interrogations. During the early days of forensic linguistics in the United Kingdom, the legal defense for many criminal cases questioned the authenticity of police statements.
At the time, customary police procedure for taking suspects' statements dictated that it be in a specific format, rather than in the suspect's own words. Statements by witnesses are seldom made in a coherent or orderly fashion, with speculation and backtracking done out loud; the delivery is too fast-paced, causing important details to be left out. Forensic linguistics can be traced back as early as a 1927 to a ransom note in New York; as the Associated Press reported in "Think Corning Girl Wrote Ransom Note" "Duncan McLure, of Johnson City uncle of the girl, is the only member of the family to spell his name'McLure' instead of'McClure.' The letter he received from the kidnappers, was addressed to him by the proper name, indicating that the writer was familiar with the difference in spelling." Other work of forensic linguistics in the United States concerned the rights of individuals with regard to understanding their Miranda rights during the interrogation process. An early application of forensic linguistics in the United States was related to the status of trademarks as words or phrases in the language.
One of the bigger cases involved fast food giant McDonald's claiming that it had originated the process of attaching unprotected words to the'Mc' prefix and was unhappy with Quality Inns International's intention of opening a chain of economy hotels to be called'McSleep'. In the 1980s, Australian linguists discussed the application of linguistics and sociolinguistics to legal issues, they discovered. Aboriginal people have their own understanding and use of'English', something, not always appreciated by speakers of the dominant version of English, i.e.'white English'. The Aboriginal people bring their own culturally-based interactional styles to the interview; the 2000s saw a considerable shift in the field of forensic linguistics, described as a coming-of-age of the discipline. Not only does the field have professional associations such as the International Association of Forensic Linguistics founded in 1993, the Austrian Association for Legal Linguistics founded in 2017, it can now provide the scientific community with a range of textbooks such as Coulthard and Johnson and Olsson.
The range of topics within forensic linguistics is diverse, but research occurs in the following areas: The study of the language of legal texts encompasses a wide range of forensic texts. That includes the study of text forms of analysis. Any text or item of spoken language can be a forensic text when it is used in a legal or criminal context; this includes analysing the linguistics of documents as diverse as Acts of Parliament, private wills, court judgements and summonses and the statutes of other bodies, such as States and government departments. One important area is that of the transformative effect of Norman French and Ecclesiastic Latin on the development of the English common law, the evolution of the legal specifics associated with it, it can refer to the ongoing attempts at making legal language more comprehensible to laypeople. A forensic linguistics understanding of the relationship between language and law has been voiced by Leisser who states that "It is indeed hard to deny that the rule of law is in fact the rule of language.
It seems that there cannot be law witho
Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics and semiotics that studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. Pragmatics encompasses speech act theory, conversational implicature, talk in interaction and other approaches to language behavior in philosophy, sociology and anthropology. Unlike semantics, which examines meaning, conventional or "coded" in a given language, pragmatics studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on structural and linguistic knowledge of the speaker and listener, but on the context of the utterance, any pre-existing knowledge about those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, other factors. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, time, etc. of an utterance. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence; the word pragmatics derives via Latin pragmaticus from the Greek πραγματικός, meaning amongst others "fit for action", which comes from πρᾶγμα, "deed, act", that from πράσσω, "to do, to act, to pass over, to practise, to achieve".
Pragmatics was a reaction to structuralist linguistics. In many cases, it expanded upon his idea that language has an analyzable structure, composed of parts that can be defined in relation to others. Pragmatics first engaged only in synchronic study, as opposed to examining the historical development of language. However, it rejected the notion that all meaning comes from signs existing purely in the abstract space of langue. Meanwhile, historical pragmatics has come into being; this field only gained linguists' attention in the 70s. This is; the study of the speaker's meaning, not focusing on the phonetic or grammatical form of an utterance, but instead on what the speaker's intentions and beliefs are. The study of the meaning in context, the influence that a given context can have on the message, it requires knowledge of the speaker's identities, the place and time of the utterance. The study of implicatures, i.e. the things that are communicated though they are not explicitly expressed. The study of relative distance, both social and physical, between speakers in order to understand what determines the choice of what is said and what is not said.
The study of what is not meant, as opposed to the intended meaning, i.e. that, unsaid and unintended, or unintentional. Information structure, the study of how utterances are marked in order to efficiently manage the common ground of referred entities between speaker and hearer Formal Pragmatics, the study of those aspects of meaning and use for which context of use is an important factor, by using the methods and goals of formal semantics; the sentence "You have a green light" is ambiguous. Without knowing the context, the identity of the speaker or the speaker's intent, it is difficult to infer the meaning with certainty. For example, it could mean: the space that belongs to you has green ambient lighting; the sentence "Sherlock saw the man with binoculars" could mean that Sherlock observed the man by using binoculars, or it could mean that Sherlock observed a man, holding binoculars. The meaning of the sentence depends on an understanding of the speaker's intent; as defined in linguistics, a sentence is an abstract entity—a string of words divorced from non-linguistic context—as opposed to an utterance, a concrete example of a speech act in a specific context.
The more conscious subjects stick to common words, idioms and topics, the more others can surmise their meaning. This suggests that sentences do not have intrinsic meaning, that there is no meaning associated with a sentence or word, that either can only represent an idea symbolically; the cat sat on the mat is a sentence in English. If someone were to say to someone else, "The cat sat on the mat," the act is itself an utterance; this implies that a sentence, expression or word cannot symbolically represent a single true meaning. By contrast, the meaning of an utterance can be inferred through knowledge of both its linguistic and non-linguistic contexts. In mathematics, with Berry's paradox, there arises a similar systematic ambiguity with the word "definable"; the referential uses of language are. A sign is the link or relationship between a signified and the signifier as defined by Saussure and Huguenin; the signified is some concept in the world. The signifier represents the signified. An example would be: Signified: the concept cat Signifier: the word "cat"The relationship between the two gives the sign meaning.
This relationship can be further explained by considering what we mean by "meaning." In pragmatics, there are two different types of meaning to consider: semantico-referential meaning and indexical meaning. Semantico-referential meaning refers to the aspect of meaning, which describes events in the world that are independent of the circumstance they are uttered in. An example would be propositions s
Etymology is the study of the history of words. By extension, the term "the etymology" means the origin of the particular word and for place names, there is a specific term, toponymy. For Greek—with a long written history—etymologists make use of texts, texts about the language, to gather knowledge about how words were used during earlier periods and when they entered the language. Etymologists apply the methods of comparative linguistics to reconstruct information about languages that are too old for any direct information to be available. By analyzing related languages with a technique known as the comparative method, linguists can make inferences about their shared parent language and its vocabulary. In this way, word roots have been found that can be traced all the way back to the origin of, for instance, the Indo-European language family. Though etymological research grew from the philological tradition, much current etymological research is done on language families where little or no early documentation is available, such as Uralic and Austronesian.
The word etymology derives from the Greek word ἐτυμολογία, itself from ἔτυμον, meaning "true sense", the suffix -logia, denoting "the study of". In linguistics, the term etymon refers to a word or morpheme from which a word derives. For example, the Latin word candidus, which means "white", is the etymon of English candid. Etymologists apply a number of methods to study the origins of words, some of which are: Philological research. Changes in the form and meaning of the word can be traced with the aid of older texts, if such are available. Making use of dialectological data; the form or meaning of the word might show variations between dialects, which may yield clues about its earlier history. The comparative method. By a systematic comparison of related languages, etymologists may be able to detect which words derive from their common ancestor language and which were instead borrowed from another language; the study of semantic change. Etymologists must make hypotheses about changes in the meaning of particular words.
Such hypotheses are tested against the general knowledge of semantic shifts. For example, the assumption of a particular change of meaning may be substantiated by showing that the same type of change has occurred in other languages as well. Etymological theory recognizes that words originate through a limited number of basic mechanisms, the most important of which are language change, borrowing. While the origin of newly emerged words is more or less transparent, it tends to become obscured through time due to sound change or semantic change. Due to sound change, it is not obvious that the English word set is related to the word sit, it is less obvious that bless is related to blood. Semantic change may occur. For example, the English word bead meant "prayer", it acquired its modern meaning through the practice of counting the recitation of prayers by using beads. English derives from Old English, a West Germanic variety, although its current vocabulary includes words from many languages; the Old English roots may be seen in the similarity of numbers in English and German seven/sieben, eight/acht, nine/neun, ten/zehn.
Pronouns are cognate: I/mine/me and ich/mein/mich. However, language change has eroded many grammatical elements, such as the noun case system, simplified in modern English, certain elements of vocabulary, some of which are borrowed from French. Although many of the words in the English lexicon come from Romance languages, most of the common words used in English are of Germanic origin; when the Normans conquered England in 1066, they brought their Norman language with them. During the Anglo-Norman period, which united insular and continental territories, the ruling class spoke Anglo-Norman, while the peasants spoke the vernacular English of the time. Anglo-Norman was the conduit for the introduction of French into England, aided by the circulation of Langue d'oïl literature from France; this led to many paired words of English origin. For example, beef is related, through borrowing, to modern French bœuf, veal to veau, pork to porc, poultry to poulet. All these words and English, refer to the meat rather than to the animal.
Words that refer to farm animals, on the other hand, tend to be cognates of words in other Germanic languages. For example, swine/Schwein, cow/Kuh, calf/Kalb, sheep/Schaf; the variant usage has been explained by the proposition that it was the Norman rulers who ate meat and the Anglo-Saxons who farmed the animals. This explanation has been disputed. English has proved accommodating to words from many languages. Scientific terminology, for example, relies on words of Latin and Greek origin, but there are a great many non-scientific examples. Spanish has contributed many words in the southwestern United States. Examples include buckaroo, rodeo and states' names such as Colorado and Florida. Albino, lingo and coconut from Portuguese. Modern French has contributed café, naive and many more. Smorgasbord, slalom
Force dynamics is a semantic category that describes the way in which entities interact with reference to force. Force Dynamics gained a good deal of attention in cognitive linguistics due to its claims of psychological plausibility and the elegance with which it generalizes ideas not considered in the same context; the semantic category of force dynamics pervades language on several levels. Not only does it apply to expressions in the physical domain like leaning on or dragging, but it plays an important role in expressions involving psychological forces. Furthermore, the concept of force dynamics can be extended to discourse. For example, the situation in which speakers A and B argue, after which speaker A gives in to speaker B, exhibits a force dynamic pattern. Introduced by cognitive linguist Leonard Talmy in 1981, force dynamics started out as a generalization of the traditional notion of the causative, dividing causation into finer primitives and considering the notions of letting and helping.
Talmy further developed the field in his 1988 and 2000 works. Talmy places force dynamics within the broader context of cognitive semantics. In his view, a general idea underlying this discipline is the existence of a fundamental distinction in language between closed-class and open-class categories; this distinction is motivated by the fact that language uses certain categories of notions to structure and organize meaning, while other categories are excluded from this function. For example, Talmy remarks that many languages mark the number of nouns in a systematic way, but that nouns are not marked in the same way for color. Force Dynamics is considered to be one of the closed-class notional categories, together with such recognized categories as number, aspect and evidentiality. Aspects of force dynamics have been incorporated into the theoretical frameworks of Mark Johnson, Steven Pinker and Ray Jackendoff. Force dynamics plays an important role in several recent accounts of modal verbs in various languages.
Other applications of force dynamics include use in discourse analysis, lexical semantics and morphosyntactical analysis. Expressions can be force-dynamically neutral. A sentence like The door is closed is force-dynamically neutral, because there are no forces opposing each other; the sentence The door cannot open, on the other hand, exhibits a force dynamic pattern: the door has some tendency toward opening, but there is some other force preventing it from being opened. A basic feature of a force-dynamic expression is the presence of two force-exerting elements. Languages make a distinction between these two forces based on their roles; the force entity, in focus is called the agonist and the force entity opposing it is the Antagonist. In the example, the door is the agonist and the force preventing the door from being opened is the Antagonist. Force entities have an intrinsic force tendency, either toward rest. For the agonist, this tendency is marked with a large dot. Since the antagonist by definition has an opposing tendency, it need not be marked.
In the example, the door has a tendency toward action. A third relevant factor is the balance between the two forces; the forces are out of balance by definition. One force is therefore weaker than the other. A stronger force is marked with a weaker force with a minus sign. In the example, the Antagonist is stronger, since it holds back the door; the outcome of the Force-Dynamic scenario depends on both the intrinsic tendency and the balance between the forces. The result is represented by a line beneath Antagonist; the line has an arrowhead if the outcome is a large dot if the outcome is rest. In the example, the door stays closed; the sentence'The door cannot open' can be Force-Dynamically represented by the diagram at the top of this page. Using these basic concepts, several generalizations can be made; the force dynamic situations in which the Agonist is stronger are expressed in sentences like ‘X happened despite Y’, while situations in which the Antagonist is stronger are expressed in the form of ‘X happened because of Y’.
In the latter, a form of causation that Talmy termed extended causation is captured. More possibilities arise when another variable is introduced: change over time; this variable is exemplified by such expressions. In force dynamic terms, the situation can be described as the entering of an antagonist, stronger in force than the agonist and changes the force tendency of the pages from a state of rest to a state of action. In force dynamic diagrams, this motion of the Antagonist is represented by an arrow; the diagrams in Figure 2 to the right combine a shifting antagonist with agonists of varying force tendencies. The following sentences are examples for these patterns: a. A gust of wind made the pages of my book turn. B; the appearance of the headmaster made the pupils calm down. C; the breaking of the dam let the water flow from the storage lake. D; the abating of the wind let the sailboat slow down. In this series of scenari
Lexical semantics, is a subfield of linguistic semantics. The units of analysis in lexical semantics are lexical units which include not only words but sub-words or sub-units such as affixes and compound words and phrases. Lexical units make up the catalogue of words in the lexicon. Lexical semantics looks at how the meaning of the lexical units correlates with the structure of the language or syntax; this is referred to as syntax-semantic interface. The study of lexical semantics looks at: the classification and decomposition of lexical items the differences and similarities in lexical semantic structure cross-linguistically the relationship of lexical meaning to sentence meaning and syntax. Lexical units referred to as syntactic atoms, can stand alone such as in the case of root words or parts of compound words or they attach to other units such as prefixes and suffixes do; the former are called the latter bound morphemes. They can combine with each other to generate new meanings. Lexical items contain information about category and meaning.
The semantics related to these categories relate to each lexical item in the lexicon. Lexical items can be semantically classified based on whether their meanings are derived from single lexical units or from their surrounding environment. Lexical items participate in regular patterns of association with each other; some relations between lexical items include hyponymy, hypernymy and antonymy, as well as homonymy. Hyponymy and hypernymy refers to a relationship between a general term and the more specific terms that fall under the category of the general term. For example, the colors red, green and yellow are hyponyms, they fall under the general term of color, the hypernym. Hyponyms and hypernyms can be described by using a taxonomy. Synonymy refers to words that contain the same meaning. Antonymy refers to words. There are three types of antonyms: graded antonyms, complementary antonyms, relational antonyms. Homonymy refers to the relationship between words that are spelled or pronounced the same way but hold different meanings.
Lexical semantics explores whether the meaning of a lexical unit is established by looking at its neighbourhood in the semantic net, or whether the meaning is locally contained in the lexical unit. In English, WordNet is an example of a semantic network, it contains English words. Some semantic relations between these synsets are meronymy, hyponymy and antonymy. First proposed by Trier in the 1930s, semantic field theory proposes that a group of words with interrelated meanings can be categorized under a larger conceptual domain; this entire entity is thereby known as a semantic field. The words boil, bake and roast, for example, would fall under the larger semantic category of cooking. Semantic field theory asserts that lexical meaning cannot be understood by looking at a word in isolation, but by looking at a group of semantically related words. Semantic relations can refer to any relationship in meaning between lexemes, including synonymy, antonymy and hyponymy, incompatibility. Semantic field theory does not have concrete guidelines that determine the extent of semantic relations between lexemes.
The abstract validity of the theory is a subject of debate. Knowing the meaning of a lexical item therefore means knowing the semantic entailments the word brings with it. However, it is possible to understand only one word of a semantic field without understanding other related words. Take, for example, a taxonomy of plants and animals: it is possible to understand the words rose and rabbit without knowing what a marigold or a muskrat is; this is applicable to colors as well, such as understanding the word red without knowing the meaning of scarlet, but understanding scarlet without knowing the meaning of red may be less likely. A semantic field can thus be large or small, depending on the level of contrast being made between lexical items. While cat and dog both fall under the larger semantic field of animal, including the breed of dog, like German shepherd, would require contrasts between other breeds of dog, thus expanding the semantic field further. Event structure is defined as the semantic relation of its syntactic properties.
Event structure has three primary components: primitive event type of the lexical item event composition rules mapping rules to lexical structureVerbs can belong to one of three types: states, processes, or transitions. Defines the state of the door being closed. Gives the intransitive use of the verb close, with no explicit mention of the causer, but makes explicit mention of the agent involved in the action; the analysis of these different lexical units had a decisive role in the field of "generative linguistics" during the 1960s. The term generative was proposed by Noam Chomsky in his book Syntactic Structures published in 1957; the term generative linguistics was based on Chomsky's generative grammar, a linguistic theory that states systematic sets of rules can predict grammatical phrases within a natural language. Generative Linguistics is known as Government-Binding Theory. Generative linguists of the 1960s, includin