Alex,
I'm a student of linguistics and German, and although I can't write much at
the moment (finals week), I'll make a few brief comments:
Whether language evolved seperately among two or more groups of primitive
humans is certainly an interesting question, and one which has
ramifications well outside linguistics proper. If the answer were yes, the
obvious follow-up question would be: what cognitive traits did these groups
share ancestrally that put them in a position to develop language
seperately? However, all evidence seems to point to the contrary, that a
single group of organisms ancestral to every human alive today had the
genetic programming for language as we understand it, complete with what we
think of as syntax, morphology, and phonology.
Consider three pieces of evidence: first is that an infant raised in a
linguistic community entirely seperate from its genetic ancestors, seems to
acquire the environmental language in just the same way as genetically
native children do. Second is that a child develops linguistic abilities
with a significant "poverty of information", suggesting massive genetic
programming for linguistic rules, in the areas of syntax, morphology,
phonetics, and syntax. Third is the apparent non-neccesity of many
specific linguistic patterns, making it extremely implausible that exactly
the same genetic predispositions would have evolved seperately. Taken
together, these suggest a common biological ancestry for the genetic
patterns governing language. It would hardly make sense, of course, for
the complex genetic foundation for language to exist without actual
language existing as well, nor would it make sense for any language
community or individual to completely abandon one language and start from
scratch, so it's a pretty solid conclusion that all existing languages have
a common ancestor.
In any case, your suggestion that English may be radically unique won't
hold water. The example you give, of adjective preceding noun in a simple
noun phrase, is typical of germanic languages in general. The idea that
this could be an evolutionary disadvantage is funny, but pretty
implausible. People don't generally need elaborate adjectives to describe
immediate dangers; that's part of the reason we have the nouns we do to
begin with, and besides, we seem to be pretty good and inventing simple
terms when we need them, e.g. the golfer's "Fore!"
In recent times, and in the future, we should expect to find an evolution
of language in line with a radically different environment. A very
difficult subject there with much room for exploration.
---------------------------------------------------
J. Goard
---------------------------------------------------
The Beyond outside us is indeed swept away, and the
great undertaking of the Enlightenment complete;
but the Beyond *inside* us has become a new heaven
and calls us to renewed heaven-storming.
--Max Stirner
---------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:35 MDT