كل ما يتعلق بالدورة التأهيلية المستوى الخامس للمواد التالية ((321 & 331 & 341 & 350 )

[طالب متفائل]

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم ,,تقرير لمادة مقدمة في اللغويات 321

وهذه أول محاضرة يوم السبت بتاريخ 24 /5 1431 وكانت عند الأستاذ محمود الصبحي
وتكلم في بداية المحاضره بشكل سريع عن المنهج بأنه يحتوي على معلومات كثيرة في عشرون فصل وأكد انه كل فصل سوف يأتي منه ثلاثة أسئلة

ونوه بأن المنهج طويل جداً وسوف يبذل جهده قدر المستطاع ونمر بشكل سريع على الأشياء المهمه جداً وطلب منا أن نحدد ونضع تحت المهم خطوط حتى تكون في عين الاعتبار اما الأشياء الأقل اهميه فهي تقرا بأقل تركيز وفيه أشياء لم يقرائها ,

ثانياً أكد على أن الكتاب هو الطبعه الثالثه وهذه صورة الكتاب



لاحظو الطبعة الثالثة لأن فيه أشيا في الطبعه الثالثه ولا توجد في الطبعه الاولى ولا الثانيه

بسم الله نبدا في أول شابتر وتم قرائة المهم وطلب منا ان نضع الخطوط تحتها مثل ما ذكرت سلفاً

The origins of language

Chewing, licking and sucking are extremely widespread mammalian activities,
which, in terms of casual observation, have obvious similarities with speech.
MacNeilage (1998)
We don’t usually think of speaking as similar to chewing, licking and sucking,
but, like speaking, all of these actions involve movements of the mouth, tongue
and lips in some kind of controlled way. So, perhaps this connection is not as
improbable as it first sounds. It is an example of the type of observation that
can lead to interesting speculations about the origins of spoken language. They
remain, however, speculations, not facts. We simply don’t know how language
originated. We suspect that some type of spoken language developed between
100,000 and 50,000 years ago, well before written language (about 5,000 years
ago). Yet, among the traces of earlier periods of life on earth, we never find any
direct evidence or artifacts relating to the speech of our distant ancestors that
might tell us how language was back in the early stages. Perhaps because of this
absence of direct physical evidence, there has been no shortage of speculation
about the origins of human speech. In this chapter, we will consider the merits
of some of those speculations

The divine source
المصدر الالهي

In the biblical tradition, God created Adam and “whatsoever Adam called every
living creature, that was the name thereof”. Alternatively, following a Hindu
tradition, language came from Sarasvati, wife of Brahma, creator of the universe.
In most religions, there appears to be a divine source who provides humans
with language. In an attempt to rediscover this original divine language, a few
experiments have been carried out, with rather conflicting results. The basic
hypothesis seems to have been that, if human infants were allowed to grow
up without hearing any language around them, then they would spontaneously
begin using the original God-given language.
An Egyptian pharaoh named Psammetichus tried the experiment with two
newborn babies more than 2,500 years ago. After two years in the company of
goats and a mute shepherd, the children were reported to have spontaneously
uttered, not an Egyptian word, but something that was identified as the Phrygian
word bekos, meaning ‘bread’. The pharaoh concluded that Phrygian, an older
language spoken in a part of what is modern Turkey, must be the original يقصد بالتوركي هنا المسلمين
language. That seems very unlikely. The children may not have picked up this
‘word’ from any human source, but as several commentators have pointed out,
they must have heard what the goats were saying. (First remove the -kos ending,
which was added in the Greek version of the story, then pronounce be- as you
would the English word bed without -d at the end. Can you hear a goat?)
King James the Fourth of Scotland carried out a similar experiment around
the year 1500 and the children were reported to have started speaking Hebrew. It
is unfortunate that all other cases of children who have been discovered living in
isolation, without coming into contact with human speech, tend not to confirm
the results of these types of ‘divine-source’ experiments. Very young children
living without access to human language in their early years grow up with no
language at all. (We will consider the case of one such child later in chapter
13.) If human language did emanate from a divine source, we have no way of
reconstructing that original language, especially given the events in a city called
Babel, “because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth”, as
described in the book of Genesis (11: 9).

The natural sound source

A quite different view of the beginnings of language is based on the concept
of natural sounds. The suggestion is that primitive words could have been imitations
of the natural sounds which early men and women heard around them.
When an object flew by, making a CAW - CAW sound, the early human tried to
imitate the sound and used it to refer to the thing associated with the sound. And
when another flying creature made acoo- coo sound, that natural sound was
adopted to refer to that kind of object. The fact that all modern languages have
some words with pronunciations that seem to echo naturally occurring sounds
could be used to support this theory. In English, in addition to cuckoo, we have
splash, bang, boom, rattle, buzz, hiss, screech, and forms such as bow-wow. In
fact, this type of view has been called the ‘bow-wow’ theory of language origin.
While it is true that a number of words in any language are onomatopoeic
(echoing natural sounds), it is hard to see how most of the soundless as well
as abstract things in our world could have been referred to in a language that
simply echoed natural sounds. We might also be rather skeptical about a view
that seems to assume that a language is only a set of words used as ‘names’ for
things.
It has also been suggested that the original sounds of language may have
come from natural cries of emotion such as pain, anger and joy. By this route,
presumably, Ouch! came to have its painful connotations. But Ouch! and other
interjections such as Ah!, Ooh!, Wow! or Yuck!, are usually produced with sudden
intakes of breath, which is the opposite of ordinary talk. We normally produce
spoken language on exhaled breath. Basically, the expressive noises people make

in emotional reactions contain sounds that are not otherwise used in speech
production and consequently would seem to be rather unlikely candidates as
source sounds for language.
One other natural sound proposal has come to be known as the ‘yo-he-ho’
theory. The idea is that the sounds of a person involved in physical effort could
be the source of our language, especially when that physical effort involved
several people and had to be coordinated. So, a group of early humans might
develop a set of grunts, groans and curses that were used when they were
lifting and carrying large bits of trees or lifeless hairy mammoths. The appeal
of this theory is that it places the development of human language in some
social context. Human sounds, however they were produced, must have had
some principled use within the social life of early human groups. This is an
important idea that may relate to the uses of humanly produced sounds. It does
not, however, answer our question regarding the origins of the sounds produced.
Apes and other primates have grunts and social calls, but they do not seem to
have developed the capacity for speech.

The physical adaptation source

Instead of looking at types of sounds as the source of human speech, we can
look at the types of physical features humans possess, especially those that
are distinct from other creatures, which may have been able to support speech
production. We can start with the observation that, at some early stage, our
ancestors made a very significant transition to an upright posture, with bi-pedal
(on two feet) locomotion, and a revised role for the front limbs.
Someeffects of this type of change can be seen in physical differences between
the skull of a gorilla and that of a Neanderthalmanfrom around 60,000 years ago.
The reconstructed vocal tract of a Neanderthal suggests that some consonantlike
sound distinctions would have been possible. We have to wait until about
35,000 years ago for features in reconstructions of fossilized skeletal structures
that begin to resemble those of modern humans. In the study of evolutionary
development, there are certain physical features, best thought of as partial adaptations,
which appear to be relevant for speech. They are streamlined versions
of features found in other primates. By themselves, such features would not
necessarily lead to speech production, but they are good clues that a creature
possessing such features probably has the capacity for speech

Teeth, lips, mouth, larynx and pharynx

Human teeth are upright, not slanting outwards like those of apes, and they
are roughly even in height. Such characteristics are not very useful for ripping
or tearing food and seem better adapted for grinding and chewing. They are
also very helpful in making sounds such as f or v. Human lips have much more

intricate muscle interlacing than is found in other primates and their resulting
flexibility certainly helps in making sounds like p or b. The human mouth is
relatively small compared to other primates, can be opened and closed rapidly,
and contains a smaller, thicker and more muscular tongue which can be used to
shape a wide variety of sounds inside the oral cavity. The overall effect of these
small differences taken together is a face with more intricate muscle interlacing
in the lips and mouth, capable of a wider range of shapes and a more rapid
delivery of sounds produced through these different shapes.
The human larynx or ‘voice box’ (containing the vocal cords) differs significantly
in position from the larynx of other primates such as monkeys. In the
course of human physical development, the assumption of an upright posture
moved the head more directly above the spinal column and the larynx dropped
to a lower position. This created a longer cavity called the pharynx, above the
vocal cords, which acts as a resonator for increased range and clarity of the
sounds produced via the larynx. One unfortunate consequence of this development
is that the lower position of the human larynx makes it much more possible
for the human to choke on pieces of food. Monkeys may not be able to use their
larynx to produce speech sounds, but they do not suffer from the problem of
getting food stuck in their windpipe. In evolutionary terms, there must have
been a big advantage in getting this extra vocal power (i.e. a larger range of
sound distinctions) to outweigh the potential disadvantage from an increased
risk of choking to death.


The human brain
هنا ركز كثيرا وحدد اي جزمن المخ مسئول عن اكتساب اللغه
وذكر أن الجزء الايمن مستحيل أنه يكتسب اللغه

In control of organizing all these more complex physical parts potentially available
for sound production is the human brain, which is unusually large relative
to human body size. The human brain is lateralized, that is, it has specialized
functions in each of the two hemispheres. Those functions that control motor
movements involved in things like speaking and object manipulation (making
or using tools) are largely confined to the left hemisphere of the brain for
most humans. It may be that there is an evolutionary connection between the
language-using and tool-using abilities of humans and that both are involved
in the development of the speaking brain. Most of the other approaches to the
origins of speech have humans producing single noises to indicate objects in
their environment. This activity may indeed have been a crucial stage in the
development of language, but what it lacks is any structural organization. All
languages, including sign language, require the organizing and combining of
sounds or signs in specific arrangements. We seem to have developed a part of
our brain that specializes in making these arrangements.
If we think in terms of the most basic process involved in tool-making, it is
not enough to be able to grasp one rock (make one sound); the human must also

The genetic source

We can think of the human baby in its first few years as a living example of
some of these physical changes taking place. At birth, the baby’s brain is only
a quarter of its eventual weight and the larynx is much higher in the throat,
allowing babies, like chimpanzees, to breathe and drink at the same time. In
a relatively short period of time, the larynx descends, the brain develops, the
child assumes an upright posture and starts walking and talking. يقصد هنا وقوف معتدل
This almost automatic set of developments and the complexity of the young
child’s language have led some scholars to look for something more powerful
than small physical adaptations of the species over time as the source of language.
Even children who are born deaf (and do not develop speech) become
fluent sign language users, given التحدث بطلاقه appropriate circumstances, very early in life.
This seems to indicate that human offspring are born with a special capacity
for language. It is innate, no other creature seems to have it, and it isn’t tied
to a specific variety of language. Is it possible that this language capacity is
genetically hard-wired in the newborn human?
As a solution to the puzzle of the origins of language, this innateness hypothesis الفطريه
would seem to point to something in human genetics, possibly a crucial
mutation, as the source. This would not have been a gradual change, but something
that happened rather quickly. We are not sure when this proposed genetic
change might have taken place or how it might relate to the physical adaptations
described earlier. However, as we consider this hypothesis, we find our speculations
about the origins of language moving away from fossil evidence or the
physical source of basic human sounds toward analogies with how computers
work (e.g. being pre-programmed or hard-wired) and concepts taken from the
study of genetics. The investigation of the origins of language then turns into a
search for the special ‘language gene’ that only humans possess.
Ifwe are indeed the only creatures with this special capacity for language, then
will it be completely impossible for any other creature to produce or understand
language? We’ll try to answer that question in chapter

هنا وقفنا اليوم وخلصنا الشابتر الاول
وكل ما تحته خط وقف عليه الاستاذ وأكد بأهميته

تقبلو تحياتي

طالب متفائل