Лингвофилософская концепция В.И. Абаева и осетино-кабардино-балкарские идеосеманти-ческие параллели

The question of the origin and genesis of human language was a central issue in the debate on the philosophy of language in the eighteenth century - a debate in which Johann Gottfried Herder (17 44-1803) was an important participant. Herder proposed that the phenomenon of language was a product of a complex process which encompassed the whole of human nature - sensory, intellectual, corporeal, and social. The aim of this dissertation is to bring together the anthropological aspects in Herder's philosophy of language; to compare them with earlier theories on the origin of language, such as those of Etienne Bonnet de Condillac, JeanJacques Rousseau and Johann Peter SOBmilch; and to show that Herder's views were strongly influenced by contemporary thought on the nature of man. The discussion focuses on two of Herder's works, his Abhandlung ilber den Ursprung der Sprache (written in 1770, and published in 1772), and the first and second parts of his ldeen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit (1784-1785). Together they make up the core of Herder's ideas on the genesis of language. We begin with a description of Herder's concept of an interconnection and interaction between soul and sense organs (the auditory, in particular) without which language cannot be formulated. Herder's assessment of sensory perception and the accentuation of the sense of hearing is presented against a background of contemporary interest in sound, hearing, and the processes involved in the production of speech. Herder came to regard man's upright posture, with its accompanying enlargement of the brain, as the main force which increased the potential in man's mental powers and paved the way for human language. In the present analysis, his views are presented within the framework of the natural histories written by Georges-Louis-Marie Comte de Button, Charles Bonnet and others, as well as against the background of another interest of his time, the then new study of comparative anatomy. Herder believed that, despite the advantages nature has bestowed on man in his mental and physical make-up, man's natural predisposition to language is realised not through instinct, but only through many years of learning and interaction in a social framework. These views are presented in the context of the writings of Hermann Samuel Reimarus, which were, at the time, at the forefront of the discussion on instinct. We also investigate Herder's ideas on the role played by the mother tongue, through which a child learns to speak and to think. Language, reason, and social life enables man to evolve intellectually and culturally to his end: humanity.

Reviewed by: Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age Phillip Mitsis (bio) Dorothea Frede and Brad Inwood, editors. Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age Cambridge University Press. xi, 354. $105.95 Ancient Greek and Roman philosophy never underwent the so-called linguistic turn that so profoundly affects contemporary philosophical methods and arguments. This does not mean, of course, that philosophers in antiquity failed to reflect on the origin and structure of language or its role in thought and relation to objects. But they never came to view something called 'the philosophy of language' as a significant discipline in its own right. Nor did they believe that an inquiry into language could serve as the crucial point of entry into philosophical problems. As a consequence, their views about language are rarely elaborated with anything like the sophistication and power of, say, their views in ethics or epistemology. Dorothea Frede and Brad Inwood offer a crisp and stimulating introduction to the volume, outlining the origins and subsequent development [End Page 369] of ancient philosophical reflections on language, and they offer some plausible suggestions about why so little came so late. They also claim that philosophers of the Hellenistic age should be credited with forging important new philosophical links between technical linguistico-grammatical studies and wider philosophical analyses of human communication. One problem, of course, is that any traces of what has come to be the reigning philosophical synthesis are extremely faint in the Hellenistic period because of the sorry state of the evidence. If one looks hard enough, one can perhaps see adumbrations of such crucial items as Fregean propositions, conceptions of ordinary and meta-languages, and sciences of grammar and linguistics. But the general picture is so consistently blurry that it is probably better just to take individual arguments and doctrines on their own without expecting much clarity about what these important new links actually amount to. The ten essays on offer are what one might expect from those faced with the task of being learned guides in the museum of philosophy. The first four essays focus on Epicurean and Stoic puzzles about the origins of language. Major protagonists are introduced and scanty fragments examined in a counterpoint of paired papers. There is precious little here for the non-specialist, however. Indeed, the evidence is brought out in tones so hushed and reticent, and every claim is so variously qualified, that Tony Long, that most judicious of scholars, is made to seem like a stevedore at a ladies' tea by making the entirely reasonable assumption that the Stoics were influenced by Plato's Cratylus and the proto-formalist account of semantic items found there. Ineke Sluiter, with the help of modern theories of non-verbal communication and 'impression management,' examines the Cynics in 'Communicating Cynicism: Diogenes' gangsta rap.' She plausibly claims that the Cynics made conscious use of their body for philosophical purposes, but then argues that these purposes can best be understood within the transgressive literary traditions of invective and comedy. This is unlikely. When the Cynics masturbate in public, they do so not as creatures of low comedy unable to control their desires; they masturbate in the name of nature, reason, and God. Nor is Diogenes interested in pimping his barrel. Rather than being the theatrical prop of a comedian, the barrel Diogenes lived in aids, as does his rolling around in snow and hot sand, his ascetic askesis. Accordingly, a better anthropological parallel would be provided, perhaps, by Indian holy men living in barrels as part of a heat purification ritual. Viewing the Cynics as gangstas, moreover, fails to explain how they could have been such an important influence on the high-minded and theologically driven Stoics. Charles Brittain offers a spotty but important possible reconstruction of the theoretical underpinnings of what arguably passes for a conception of ordinary thought and language in Cicero. After a superbly informative [End Page 370] paper on ancient analogist and anomalist linguistic theories by David Blank, there follow two specialist papers on Stoic logic and a final paper by Sten Ebbensen detailing Hellenistic influence in the medieval period. As he himself notices, it is impossible...

Reviewed by: Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age Laura Grams Dorothea Frede and Brad Inwood , editors. Language and Learning: Philosophy of Language in the Hellenistic Age. Cambridge-New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Pp. xi + 353. Cloth, $90.00. This collection of papers on Hellenistic philosophy of language resulted from the ninth Symposium Hellenisticum, held in Hamburg in July 2001. It makes an important contribution to the secondary literature on this topic and will be valuable to anyone who studies Hellenistic philosophy. Because some chapters discuss broader issues in the philosophy of language or connect Hellenistic ideas about language to other periods, readers interested in the philosophy of language or ancient philosophy in general should also find this volume worthwhile. Although Frede and Inwood observe that the philosophy of language had not developed into a fully independent area of study during the Hellenistic period, a set of common concerns eventually emerged around such issues as the origins of language or the relations between language and thought. Discussions of these problems became the basis of later philosophical investigation in the Middle Ages and beyond. The ancients studied language in connection with a range of philosophical problems in epistemology, physics, and logic, and did not sever their inquiry from questions of linguistics and grammar. The papers in this collection likewise illuminate the relationship between theories of language and other philosophical issues. The first four chapters examine Stoic and Epicurean ideas about the origins of language, making clear that the question first raised in Plato's Cratylus of whether language is natural or conventional is far more nuanced than a simple dichotomy. James Allen argues that the Stoics' naturalism depends on understanding the origins of language in relation to the development of human rationality. Names satisfy a natural standard of correctness insofar as they result from the successful exercise of reason; thus, the imposition or thesis of names in early human history does not imply a conventional origin. A. A. Long makes the case for an even stronger connection between Stoic naturalism and the Cratylus, as he argues that the Stoics developed each of three distinct naturalist theses (formal, etymological, and phonetic) presented in that dialogue. He concludes with a detailed analysis of the Stoic theory of semantics he finds in chapter 5 of Augustine's De dialectica. These accounts of the Stoics are balanced by two chapters on Epicurean theory. Alexander Verlinsky outlines Epicurus' evolutionist view of the origin of language. In the first stage, words arise as spontaneous utterances which are already articulated and naturally related to their objects, while ambiguities are resolved in the second stage. Catherine Atherton focuses on Lucretius' account, raising challenges for the naturalist view that may also stir the interest of more recent proponents. She argues that the superior capacity for articulation possessed by humans does not adequately account for the emergence of intentional communication, which arises not from uncontrolled vocalizations but from a deliberate attempt to convey meaning. The remainder of the volume addresses various aspects of the use of language. Ineke Sluiter examines the Cynics' rhetoric and concludes that the expression of Cynicism within a certain social context ultimately undermines its anti-conventional message. Charles Brittain explores the use of language as it connects thought to reality. He explains how the development of definitions of concept terms allowed a theory of common sense concerning the relation between concepts and reality to emerge, though he argues that the common sense theory did not arise until Cicero had modified the Stoic view of common conceptions. David Blank examines arguments between the analogist and anomalist views of inflection-derivation (flexion) found in Book 8 of Varro's De lingua latina. He argues persuasively that Crates of Mallos was neither the source of this book nor an anomalist, but had been presented as one of a competing pair of analogy theorists by Varro's empiricist source. Chapters 8 and 9 focus on logical implications of the use of language. Susanne Bobzien argues that the Stoics resolved fallacies of ambiguity, not by examining the intentions of the speaker, but by appealing to the context for clarification. Because the ambiguous term will [End Page 153] have...

The question about when and how language emerged in human evolution has been a major and intriguing question since at least the classical Egyptian times. It is reported that the Pharaoh Psamtik took two children to be raised by deaf-mutes, in order to find out what was the first and natural language.When these childrenwere later observed, one of them said something that sounded like bekos, the Phrygian word for bread. From this, Psamtik concluded that Phrygian was the first and original language. During the following centuries, the origin of language continued as a most intriguing and polemic question. Different approaches and interpretations were proposed throughout the history. At a certain point, the debate became so complex and hot, that in 1866 the Linguistic Society of Paris banned discussion of the origin of language, arguing that it to be an unanswerable problem. Contemporary research on linguistics, archeology, comparative psychology and genetics has significantly advanced in understanding the origins of human language (e.g., Bickerton, 1990; Corballis, 2002, 2006; Enard et al. 2002; Mallory, 1989; Nowak and Krakauer, 1999; Ruhlen, 1994; Swadesh, 1967; Tallerman, 2005). Different disciplines have contributed from their own perspective to make human communication system more comprehensible. Thepurposeof thispaper isnot to furtherreviewanddiscuss thehistoricalorigins of language, but to relate what is known (or supposed) on the origins of language, withcontemporaryneurologyandneuropsychologydata,particularly,with thearea of aphasia. Aphasia knowledge can potentially alsomake a significant contribution to the understanding about the origin and evolution of human language.

Predmet ovoga rada je rasvjetljivanje biti Fihteove filozofije jezika. U prvom planu je analiza Fihteovog spisa „O jezičkoj sposobnosti i izvoru jezika“. U literaturi je poznatiji kao Journal-Aufsatz iz 1795. godine. Obim teksta uslovio je da se samo u nagovještajima, kao predmet kritičko-interpretacijske pažnje, imaju u vidu spis „O izvoru jezika“ (na temelju Platner-Vorlesung iz 1797) te četvrti i peti govor iz Fihteovih „Govora njemačkoj naciji“ iz 1808. godine. Fihteovo filozofsko-jezičko stanovište analizira se po modelu eksplikacije njegove noseće misaone strukture i kapitalnih odredbi jezika i njegovog ontološkog porijekla. Takođe, autor kritički stavlja Fihteovo shvatanje jezika u kontekst vodećih filozofsko-jezičkih i lingvističkih poimanja jezika.

FigureFigureFigureThere is no consensus on the origin of human language. Because we have no direct evidence about when the evolution of language began, we have to rely on indirect evidence (such as comparisons of contemporary languages, fossil records, and studies of primate communication of the language acquisition). That is why the origin of human language has been deemed by many anthropologists to be “the hardest problem in science.” (Studies in the Evolution of Language, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003; http://bit.ly/2bZfe83.) Whether you think the origin of language was abrupt or gradual, genetic or learned, it is undeniable that language is essential for everyday life. It is an indispensible aspect of communication, integral to the fabric of society, regardless of whether you use texting or old-school letter writing, signing or verbal sounds. Words are beautiful. They allow us to paint elaborate pictures in our minds. They can inspire us. They can make us laugh and cry, sometimes at the same time. The right words in the right order, according to Samuel Taylor Coleridge, make poetry. But the wrong words in any order can mean disaster, especially in the emergency department, where our choice of words is especially important. Our patients, who often come into the ED stressed, in pain, and thinking about worst-case scenarios, literally hang on every word we say. Choosing our words wisely is critical. Often we hear certain things being uttered in the ED that make us cringe because they are inappropriate and unprofessional. Sometimes we may say things without considering the full implications behind our words. If you're saying any of the following phrases, please reconsider. 1. “We need to move the meat.” This is the most demoralizing way to describe your desire to see patients efficiently or to handle a busy waiting room. A layperson overhearing himself referred to as “meat” will not only be turned off but also enraged. And he will have every right to be. The term is disgusting, unprofessional, and distasteful. 2. “I'll get rid of him.” This is equally offensive. We know we mean that we'll discharge the patient soon, but to say we'll get “rid of him” or we'll “get him out of here” is unprincipled. 3. “There is nothing wrong with you.” Just because the workup was normal doesn't mean there is nothing wrong with the patient. It likely means that at this time there doesn't appear to be any life-threatening illness or anything requiring immediate surgical intervention. Instead of telling someone nothing is wrong, we should actually go over the laboratory and imaging results, pointing out what each of them tells us about his current medical state. Say something like, “We got back your results, and everything appears to be in the normal range. We ran a CBC, which tests your blood counts. The white cell count, which looks at major infections, came back in the normal range. The hemoglobin result shows that you're not anemic. Your platelets, which are responsible for clotting, are normal. We also ran a basic metabolic panel, which looks at your electrolytes, which are within the normal range — your sodium, chloride, potassium, and calcium. Your kidneys are working well based on the creatinine level. Your glucose is normal, which means that at this point there is no reason to believe you have diabetes. The CT scan of your abdomen and pelvis was read as normal. There are no kidney stones, no abscess, no appendicitis. Your liver and spleen are normal in size.” Following this, your standard detailed return precautions would likely make them feel equally reassured. 4. “The other doctor was wrong.” Health care has good physicians and bad physicians. We all know doctors out there whose management we question. But when caring for a patient in the ED, nothing is gained by throwing another physician under the bus. We often don't have the full story of what transpired during the previous visit. It makes patients lose faith in doctors in general when we blame other physicians. We should concentrate on delivering good care to the patient in front of us. Instead of criticizing the other doctor, we can say something like, “I'm not sure what happened during your previous evaluation, but let's focus on what's going on today.” 5. “There are patients sicker than you.” It may be frustrating to deal with a demanding patient with an ankle sprain when we are trying to keep someone with diabetic ketoacidosis from going into cardiac arrest, but telling a patient he is not sick enough to warrant an ED visit is unprofessional. Patients have no idea of the relativity of sickness. Sometimes they think they have cancer. Often, they are scared and anxious. They're in pain (an ankle sprain can have 10/10 pain). We should never compare them with others or trivialize their complaints. A patient with a sprained ankle or a migraine headache should be treated with as much compassion as a person who presents in cardiac arrest.

Trying to understand the nature and origin of language, this inherent ability of man, has been a common concern among scientists throughout history, as the blessings of the language in the way we use it are exclusively for humans that make it human. Moreover, it is genetically distinct from other living things. The diversity of scientists' views in this area is evidence of the over-complexity of language. This point is clear both in nature and in origin, so far as linguists, philosophers, and mystics have all come to understand the answer to this perpetual question of mankind. On the other hand, the holy Qur'an has the word of God and the book of human guidance among Muslims, so we decided to search for answers to our questions in the holy Qur'an. In this study, on the one hand, we study the views of linguists and philosophers about the origin and nature of language throughout history. On the other hand, we explain what the verses of the Holy Quran have said about this. In essence, the purpose of this study was to study some of the linguistic issues from the perspective of the Holy Quran. What we eventually achieved was a confirmation of the independence of the inherent aptitude of the language from its manifestation in speech and, thus, of the lameness of the language as well. In addition, we find that the holy Qur'an introduces language as a tool of thought and reasoning and recognizes the expression of thought in language, thereby confirming the intimate connection of these two vital elements for the growing human life.

Evolutionary Linguistic Theory (ELT) is an international peer-reviewed journal intended as a platform for discussing the question of the origin and development of the language faculty understood as a specifically dedicated part of the human mind/brain and its connection with the human cognition. The specificity of the journal is to contribute to the ongoing debate on language origin from an explicitly linguistic viewpoint which examines its complex subject from a well-grounded knowledge in theoretical linguistics (with its subsystems, psycholinguistics, neurolinguistics, language acquisition and language change, historical linguistics and philosophy of language), and reaching out into the contiguous scientific disciplines, as psychology, philosophy and cognitive neuroscience. In the following we give a not exhaustive list of matters ELT is concerned with: The design of the language faculty The role of the lexicon in the architecture of the language faculty The role of categorization and features for the origin of language The question of protolanguage Language and thought Language, music and action from an evolutionary perspective Language and other cognitive domains like vision and spatiality from an evolutionary perspective The connection between the internal reality molded by language and the external world Language and the origin of consciousness and subjectness Language and shared intentionality Historical perspectives on the question about the origin of language

This article reexamines J. G. Herder's Treatise on the Origin of Language (1772) and, specifically, the relationship it proffers between pain and the origin of language. Through a close reading of the first part of the treatise, it asks in what sense does Herder's conception of emotion and feeling, particularly pain, as the unremitting source of thought and language—rather than in the instance of their alleged separation from its natural origin—represent the precise moment of the origin of human language. The article argues that for Herder, the birth of human language does not coincide with logos or rationality overcoming subjectivity or physicality, but, rather, a moment of their intimate connectivity. It thus shows that through his use of the term Besonnenheit, Herder preserves this interdependence also at the stage in which language parts from its natural source and becomes distinctly human.

The problem of the meaning in the Epicurean philosophy of language is still today a highly controversial topic. The aim of this paper is to examine the contribution of Ep. ad Her . 37-8 to properly semantic issues. In this perspective, some key-essays on Epicurus’ philosophy of language and epistemology will be reviewed focusing on the problematic relationship between reality, prolepsis and language. It will be argued that – pace scholars such as Glidden and Giannantoni – the Greek philosopher may be credited with a genuine interest in the semantic dimension of human language. It will be further argued that it is the concept of prolepsis to intermediate between semantics and epistemology. In the final sections attention is paid to both Ep. ad Her . 75-6 and Lucretius De rer. Nat. V, 1028-90. Epicurus’ and Lucretius’ ideas on the origin of language are briefly commented upon and their influence on much later thinkers such as Leibniz and Vico is documented.

In my essay I try to explore a parallel between Herder and Humboldt and some modern investigations into the origin of language. Herder favors a pan-psychistic account of nature, and he proposes a theory maintaining that only language can do the business to mediate between the abstract reasoning of man and the content delivered to him by his senses. Humboldt, in his turn, prefers a Kantian transcendental analysis of the form of language, the form being dependent on man’s mental activity and therefore dynamical in character. We may summarize this result in the thesis that Herder is speculating on the origin of language whereas Humboldt attempts to give a theory of the origination of language by synthetic acts. Problems connected with a narrative style of theorizing can also be demonstrated by contrasting two modern authors, namely R. G. Millikan and M. Tomasello.

U radu se analizira Herderova Rasprava o porijeklu jezika. Autor određuje Herderovo mjesto u povijesti filozofije jezika. Suprotno većini autora koji su se bavili recepcijom i kritikom Herderove filozofije jezika, zaključuje da je Herder prvi mislilac koji porijeklo jezika nalazi u slobodnoj duhovnoj biti čovjeka. S te pozicije Herder provodi kritiku teološkog, naturalističkog i konvencionalističkog shvatanja pitanja o porijeklu jezika te utemeljuje vlastiti ontološki obrt od glotogonije prema filozofiji jezika u genuinom smislu.

Different areas of knowledge have contributed to a better understanding of the origins of human language. AIM. To relate our current knowledge about the origins of language with the language pathology found in the case of brain injuries (aphasia). There are two fundamental forms of aphasia, which linked to defects in the lexico-semantic and grammatical systems of language (Wernicke-type aphasia and Broca-type aphasia, respectively). From observations made on children's development of language and experiments with primates, it has been shown that language initially appears as a lexico-semantic system. Grammar correlates with the ability to represent actions (verbs) and depends on what is known as Broca's area and its related brain circuits, but it is also related to the ability to quickly carry out the sequencing of the articulatory movements required for speaking (speech praxis). Language may have appeared as a lexico-semantic system much earlier than language as a syntactic system. The former may have developed around 200,000-300,000 years ago, coinciding with the increase in the temporal lobe, and would have existed in other hominids. Language as a grammatical system appeared perhaps as recently as 50,000 years ago and seems to be exclusive to Homo sapiens.

Linguists do not agree on the origin of human language or the reasons for the human species’ unique possession of language faculty on the path of evolution. Any theoretical approach in cognitive science and linguistics eventually faces an impasse in its quest for the origin of language when reaching the realm of consciousness and mind which requires an accessibility beyond the physical inquiry. This article introduces Mohammad Ali Taheri’s theory of consciousness, T-Consciousness, as the gateway to the origin of language in the human mind. T-Consciousness stands for the non-material and non-energetic constituent of the universe, the third fundamental element which generates both matter and energy. Taheri theorizes that human beings have detected language rather than inventing it, following the Language Software’s primary activation in the human mind through an inter-T-Consciousness-level connection that extracts Fara-lingual information and adapts it into language. This study investigates Taheri’s language theory in relation to Chomsky’s UG theory, and offers a diversifying approach to UG theory, biolinguistics and psycholinguistics. The article introduces the Word’s Unity of Existence/ Vahdat-e Vojood-e Kalameh and conceptualizes the Unified Body of Languages, initiating an interdisciplinary discourse to revisit cognitive science, phenomenology, hermeneutics, and intertextuality.

While all animals communicate, the ability to think and communicate freely using language, as humans do, appears to be unique. What might be the origins of human language? One perspective considers language as an emergent system, a form of cultural evolution, arising from interactions among individuals collectively solving problems in their environment. Another perspective emphasizes the biological evolution of abilities to acquire and use language. For example, while non-human animals do not seem to exchange complex concepts using a variety of combined words, humans acquire this ability effortlessly through typical development. This suggests that humans possess traits that underpin the acquisition of this ability, and that these traits evolved biologically. In this respect, the origins of language are related to evolutionary biology as well as linguistics.