2.1 General linguistics, Psycholinguistics, cognitive linguistics In general linguistics, the central idea of noam Chomsky's revolutionary theory on the psychological and formal foundations of language is centered upon the claim that language is innate. Until recently, this claim formed a major obstacle for the integration of his theory in a darwinian, evolutionary framework. A major breakthrough, however, independently made by scholars specialized in different sciences (see the following points has provided an unexpected solution for this problem. 2.2 Paleoanthropology The last twenty years of discoveries in the field have brought. Tobias, one of the world leading specialists, to conclude that the question now is no longer whether Homo habilis spoke (which is now considered as ascertained but whether the capacity for language was already optionally present in some australopithecus, to become obligatory in Homo,. As he himself writes: "several lines of evidence suggest that the rudiments of speech centers and of speaking were present already before the last common ancestral hominid population spawned Homo and the robust australopithecines. Both sets of shoots would then have inherited the propensity for spoken language. The function would probably have been facultative.
List of Synonyms and Antonyms of the word: Hypothesis
In the light of the pcp and of the available linguistic evidence, instead, this frontier corresponds to an earlier linguistic phylum frontier between an already separated and flourishing eastern Slavic population of farmers to the west, and warlike turkic pastoral nomadic groups to the east. Linguistically, the new interpretation has the advantage of explaining (A) the antiquity and the quantity of Turkic quaid loanwords precisely for horse terminology in both branches of Samoyed, in the Ugric languages, as well as in Slavic languages, and (B more generally, the quantity of Turkic. Interestingly, the uninterrupted continuity of Altaic steppe cultures, from Chalcolithic to the middle Ages, can be symbolized precisely by the kurgan themselves: for on the one hand, the custom of raising kurgans on burial sites has always been one of the most characteristic features. On the other, the russian word kurgan itself is not of Russian, or Slavic, or ie, origin, but a turkic loanword, with a very wide diffusion area in southern Europe, which closely corresponds to the spread of the kurgan culture (Alinei 2000a, 2003). Notice that this phylum frontier between ie (Slavic) and Turkic in the course of history has been pushed to the east, leaving however Turkic minorities, as well as innumerable turkic place names and other linguistic traces behind. (V) In a series of studies (Alinei-benozzo 2006, 2007, 2008a, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d) we have shown how the linguistic record confirms the importance of the celtic role in the diffusion of fishing terms in the whole of western Europe, a diffusion that must have taken. In the neolithic, starting with megalithism, and later with the beaker Bell culture (another fundamental Celtic contribution to european development: Alinei 2000a, benozzo 2007d celts mixed also with other Indo-european groups, and in such a measure as to determine important phenomena of hybridization, as demonstrated. On the left : the area of lenition; on the right : the area of megalithism from Alinei 2000a, alinei-benozzo 2008b 2 The interdisciplinary survey of converging conclusions on the problem of the origin of language and languages The pcp paradigm of ie origins reconcile. And in recent times at least five different sciences and disciplines have addressed the problems of the origin of language in general and of languages in particular: (i) general linguistics and, more specifically, psycho- and cognitive linguistics, (ii) paleo-anthropology, (iii) cognitive science, (iv) genetics and. Though they have done it from different vantage points and with different approaches, they have reached conclusions that seem to show a remarkable convergence. It is thus on these converging conclusions that a new theory of ie (and language) origins ought to be founded.
As examples (for a salon detailed illustration see alinei 2000a, 2001b, 2002, 2003b one can mention here: (I) the linguistic-phylum frontier between Uralic and ie in the baltic area coincides with the extremely stable latvian frontier separating, from Mesolithic to Chalcolithic, the kunda, narva, pit-and-Comb Ware. (II) The language frontier between French and German in Alsace coincides with the stable archaeological frontier separating the neolithic and Chalcolithic cultures of Chassey, michelsberg, som, vienne-Charente, etc. Of the celtic (now French-speaking) area, from those of the lbk, sbk, hinkelstein, Grossgartach, rössen cultures etc., of the now German-speaking area. (III) The complex of language and dialect frontiers in the western Alps, respectively between German and neo-latin in Switzerland, between Franco-Provençal and oïl in Switzerland, between Franco-Provençal and Occitan in France and Italy, and Gallo-Italic in Italy, coincide with the frontiers separating, in the different. More precisely: on the one hand Cortaillod corresponds closely to the Franco-Provençal dialects, Chassey to Occitan, lagozza to gallo-Italic dialects; on the other Pfyn and Rössen corresponds with the Alemannic, Swiss-German dialect area. More over, on the ligurian coast and the piedmont Alps, the frontier between Occitan and Gallo-Italic dialects corresponds to the prehistoric frontier between Chassey and the vbq culture of the po valley. (IV) On the steppes of Eastern Europe, a conspicuous and well-known neolithic-Chalcolithic frontier separates the farming cultures of Bug-Dnestr, Tripolye ai, tripolye aii, gorodsk-Usatovo, corded Ware and Globular Amphora in Ukraine, from the pastoral, horse-raising and horse-riding cultures of Sursk-Dnepr, Dnepr-Donec, seredny Stog/Chvalynsk, yamna (.
'governed' by the the very specific and exclusive sequence of cultural development, which shapes as it were- each sub-area, identifying and distinguishing it from the others. (iii) Each cultural sequence, corresponding to a given geographical sub-area, has thus a very distinct and strong cultural identity, which could easily be connected, depending on the period and the area involved, with a language family, a language group, or a dialect group. If, for example, the neolithic Cardial Ware can be seen as corresponding to an already differentiated Italid group, each of its later sub-areas can be interpreted as representing a kind of 'dialect' differentiation from the same common 'language'. The same can be said for the lbk in plan Germany, and for similar large cultural units in other areas. (iv) As far as Europe is concerned, the picture revealed by these charts, already evident as soon as the archaeological record permits adequate geographical mapping of cultures (i.e. In the late paleolithic and Mesolithic is one of the formation of large ethnolinguistic cultural 'orbits'. This picture continues also in the early neolithic, until, beginning in the course of neolithic, and steadily increasing in the metal Ages, a fragmentation of each original 'orbit' takes place. Some periods of frontier shifting and transitional discontinuity, which are caused by the transitory expansion of elite groups in the late metal Ages, usually come to an end in subsequent developments, with the reappearing of the previous frontiers. All of this seems to correspond quite closely with what we should expect if one or more populations speaking one and the same language such as the Proto-Indo-europeans or the Proto-Uralic people- had first spread to europe from Africa, and then had broken up into.
Conversely, the so called 'noa' names of the bear (i.e replacing the tabooed real one) in the celtic, germanic, baltic and Slavic languages, all different from one another, can only indicate that by the time religious concern for hunted animals connected with totemism emerged. (3) Also words for typical Mesolithic inventions, such 'bow 'tar fishing tools, carpentry and many others, are different in each ie group, proving that by mesolithic time ie languages were already differentiated. (4) The sharp differentiation of farming terminology in the different ie languages, while absolutely unexplainable in the context of Renfrew's ndt, provides yet another fundamental proof that the differentiation of ie languages goes back to remote prehistory. This is admitted even by a few traditionalists: as Francisco villar writes, "in the common Indoeuropean language a lexicon connected to farming does not exist or hardly exists" and "the common ie terminology for farming is so scarce to allow a dilemma to rise:. While this finding can be easily explained within the pcp, it becomes a huge problem once neolithic intrusive farmers have been assumed to be the Proto-ies: "This hypothesis clashes with the neolithic thesis according to which IEs would essentially be the inventors of farming. 1.3.4 Archaeological frontiers coincide with linguistic frontiers The existence and the stability or mobility of frontiers between prehistoric cultures, in the different periods of prehistory, is clearly demonstrated, more than by any argumentation, by archaeological chrono-stratigraphical charts (initiated, as is known, by gordon Childe (Childe. These charts can be of significant help to historical linguists because: (i) Depending on their chronological depth, importance and stability, these cultural frontiers can now be seen as corresponding to linguistic-family frontiers, to linguistic-group frontiers, to dialect frontiers. (ii) The various geographical sub-areas indicated by the columns of an archaeological chart are not chosen subjectively, but their delimitation is self-generated,.
Hypothesis, using, if, then
Consequently, also the record of father's their origins, change and development must be mapped onto a much longer chronology, instead of being compressed into a few millennia, as traditionally done, and as the ndt also obliges. While traditional linguistics, by reifying language, had made change into a sort of biological, organic law of language development, the extraordinary tempo of it would fit the short chronologies of the recent invasion or of the earlier neolithization, the new, much longer chronologies of language. By language contacts and hybridization, in concomitance with the major ecological, socio-economic and cultural events that have shaped each area of the globe (Alinei 1996). 1.3.3 Antiquity and periodization of the lexicon of natural languages. An important corollary of this new conception and new chronology of language origins and development is that the emerging and formation of the lexicon of all world language phyla and their groups, including of course Indo-european, should be 'periodized' along the entire course of human. The linguistic illustration of this principle (which fills many of the 2000 pages of Alinei 1996, and represents the first detailed linguistic analysis of the ie record in the light of the new chronologies and scenario imposed by scientific advance.
Here are some examples of this lexical periodization applied to ie: (1) The Proto-ie lexicon,. The lexicon common to all ie languages, which includes among other things grammatical words such as personal pronouns, wh- words and the like, forms by definition its earliest layer. As such it ought to be placed in the depth of Paleolithic, and be seen as reflecting the awakening and developing of human conscience and cultural activities of an already separated and independent language phylum. In fact, the differences in the lexicon of the grammatical structure shown by most language phyla should suffice to disqualify as meaningless any research aiming at reconstructing a universal monogenetic lexicon (cp. (2) If ie words for 'dying' (coming from pie * -mer ) belong to the pie lexicon, while for 'burying' there are different words in most ie languages, this must be seen as evidence that by the time ritual burying began, in Upper Paleolithic,. Similarly, if the name of several wild animals, among which that of the bear (pie * rkþo-s belong to the pie lexicon, this means that these animals belonged to the cognitive and cultural world of ie pre-religious Paleolithic hunters.
To explain the real linguistic situation, in fact, the ndt assumption must be simply reversed: the middle eastern farmers introducing neolithic into southern Europe were precisely the non-Indo-european groups responsible for the non-ie element of the area (Alinei 2000a, 2001). (3) As far as the north and the west of Europe are concerned, the ndt is obliged to assume that ie 'arrived' there long after the first neolithic cultures. However, that period is precisely the one in which archaeology detects no trace whatsoever of discontinuity: there is, for example, absolutely no trace of the 'arrival' of the celts in Western Europe (which simply means that they were always there and as to germanic people. Obviously, the convergence between the continuity of Northern peoples, fishing cultures and technologies, and the germanic or Uralic character of terminologies and place names point to continuity of language, just as it does in the Uralic area (Alinei 2000). (4) As I have shown in my book (Alinei 1996, 2000) and in a number of articles (e.g.
Alinei 1991g, 1992f, 1997f, 1997g, 1998e, 1998g, 2000c, 2001a there is just no way to reconcile the semantic history of innumerable ie words, and their chronological implications, with the ndt scenario. Any thorough and unbiased analysis of the rich ie record points to a paleolithic depth for the earliest layers of the pie vocabulary, and to a very early, upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic linguistic differentiation of Proto-Indo-europeans. This is the reason why the ie neolithic terminology, as now admitted even by traditional scholars (Villar 1991, 81 is neatly differentiated from group to group: a fact that clashes against the very idea of the Indo-europeans as inventors of farming (idem). 1.3 The paleolithic Continuity paradigm (PCP). The main points of the pcp on the origins of the Indo-europeans, as well as on language origin and evolution are the following:.3.1. Continuity as the basic working hypothesis on the origins of ie languages. If the demonstration of continuity, as James Mallory has had to admit, is "the archaeologists' easiest pursuit" (Mallory 1989, 81 then it follows: (1) that also for the question of European origin, the easiest working hypothesis is the continuity model, and no other alternative; (2). 1.3.2 Antiquity and stability of language and languages, in general. Language and languages are much more ancient than traditionally thought.
Resume - free sample resumes
Renfrew's book has unleashed a very lively international debate, which has been constantly growing, at the the same time shifting its focus in response to growing objections. His theory, which owing to its focus on the neolithic discontinuity can be called the neolithic Discontinuity Theory (ndt is undoubtedly superior to the traditional Invasion Theory, as far as it does eliminate the myth of the pie. Blitzkrieg against the peaceful Old Europeans. However, for the rest it creates more problems than it solves: (1) Archaeology proves that most European neolithic cultures directly continue earlier Mesolithic cultures, and even in those areas where intrusions are archaeologically ascertained, the mesolithic populations were quickly involved in the acculturation process: there. Zvelebil 1986, zvelebil and Dolukhanov 1991). (2) The two southern European areas, where neolithic cultures do show infiltrations from the middle east, are precisely the areas where non-ie linguistic traits are most evident and important, as every linguist who is familiar with the linguistic record of ancient (and modern) Italy and. Which points precisely to the contrary of what the ndt implies, namely that the south of Europe should have received the strongest paper influence from the pie coming from the middle east.
The ie puzzle, published in 1987, the archaeologist Lord Colin Renfrew did not limit himself to lunette collect the archaeological evidence now available to deliver the last fatal blow to the traditional theory, but presented a new theory of ie origins, called by its author the. Moreover, since farming originated in the middle east, and archaeology does detect in southern Europe a modest migratory contribution from that direction, associated with the introduction of farming, renfrew has concluded that these early farmers were the Proto-Indo-europeans, responsible for the introduction of. And since an intrusive contribution is especially evident in the two earliest neolithic cultures of southern Europe, both dated to the 7th millennium, namely the balkan complex and the Impresso/Cardial Ware in Western and Central Mediterranean, and to a lesser extent in the linienbandkeramik (LBK). The philosophy behind this theory is thus that the Proto-Indo-europeans, far from being warriors who invaded and conquered Europe by sheer military force, are instead the inventors of farming, who conquered Europe by cultural and intellectual superiority. A philosophy which remains, in essence, eurocentric, even though the Proto-Indo-europeans are now seen as the peaceful inventors of farming, instead of the warlike supermen of the traditional theory. The three earliest neolithic cultures of Europe: the balkans Complex (chequered the. Impresso/Cardial Ware (black) (both vii millennium. C and the lbk (grey) (V millennium.
ie languages all over Europe. By placing the arrival of the ies in the 4th millennium, and the process of transformation from Proto-ie to separate language groups in the 3rd, the subsequent process, by which the separate language groups would evolve into the major attested languages, will inevitably take place. Although most ie specialists are still reluctant to admit it, this chronology, as well as the scenario behind it, can now be considered as altogether obsolete. The evidence collected by archaeology in the last thirty years, in fact, overwhelmingly prove the absence of any large scale invasion in Europe, and the uninterrupted continuity of most Copper and Bronze age cultures of Europe from neolithic, and of most neolithic cultures from Mesolithic. The mass invasion of ie warriors according to marija gimbutas. Archaeologists usually do not address linguistic issues. This is probably why, although firm conclusions about absence of invasions and cultural continuity already began to appear in the archaeological literature of the seventies, historical linguists have continued to assume the traditional theory as an undisputed truth. 1.2 Renfrew's Model: the ie neolithic Dispersal. In a book titled, archaeology and Linguistics.
Chiorboli 2007, contini 2000, corradi musi 2008, Frazão-morais 2009, harpending-Eller 2008, galloni 2007, lanaia 2007a, 2007b, le du 2003, meschiari 2009, morais 2008, simoni aurembou 2002. In addition, the founders of the palaeolithic Continuity Theory have themselves contributed diary to a more articulated definition of the new paradigm (see alinei 2000c, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002, 2003, 2003b, 2003c, 2005, 2005b, 2006, 2006b, 2006c, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2009b; Costa 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006. 1 The three reconstruction models for the origins of Indo-europeans.1 The traditional model: the Indo-european Calcholithic Invasion. As is known, until recently the received doctrine for the origins of Indo-europeans (IE) in Europe was centered upon the idea now called the 'myth' (Häusler 2003) of an Indo-european Invasion in the copper Age (4th millennium. by horse-riding warrior pastoralists. The last and most authoritative version of this theory was the so called kurgan theory, elaborated by marija gimbutas, according to which the Proto-ie were the warrior pastoralists who built kurgan,. Burial mounds, in the steppe area of Ukraine (e.g. Gimbutas 1970, 1973, 1977, 1980).
4 ways to Increase your
The paleolithic continuity paradigm, for the origins of indo-european languages. An Introduction in progress, last Updating: December 2016 by mario alinei francesco benozzo 0 resumes Premise, in the nineties, three archaeologists and three linguists, all independently from one another, presented a new theory of Indo-european (IE) origins, claiming uninterrupted continuity from Paleolithic also for ie people. The three archaologists and prehistorians are the American Homer. Thomas (Thomas 1991 the belgian Marcel Otte (Otte 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000 one of the world major specialists on Middle and Upper Paleolithic, and the german Alexander häusler, a specialist in the prehistory of Central Europe (Häusler 1996, 1998, 2003). The linguists are mario alinei (Alinei 1996, 2000 gabriele costa (Costa 1998, 2000, 2001 and Cicerone poghirc (Poghirc 1992). At this stage, the obligatory term to designate this reconstruction was "theory". Since the beginning of the last decade, however, more and more scholars have worked on the same line, testing and applying the theory successfully on an increasing number of geographic areas, prehistoric periods and cultural topics, bringing new evidence for the foundation of what seems. Other linguists, archaeologists, historians and anthropologists have expressed their general assent, and/or extended the model to other areas:.