Abstract
It is taken for granted that the first man, being half-ape, 'spoke’ by copying them. Research shows that such grunts and cries cannot ‘evolve' into cultured speech because the speech organs and brain structure required for human language are entirety different from those needed for of animal communication. The difference in animal and human thinking processes is not merely one of degree but rather of kind. This difference is seen in the use of signs vs. symbols, of emotional and situational language v.v. conceptual, objective language. No animal communication system can account for the human one. Perhaps, then, speech is instinctive? No, for people, however primitive, have been found without a language. Yet unless spoken to, one does not learn to speak as demonstrated by feral (wild) children and deaf-mutes(like Helen Keller). So the question is - who spoke to the first human being - Adam to teach him? About all that scientific investigation can do is to demonstrate what cannot be the origin of this extraordinary trait of human nature. The only light we have is from revelation. The first two chapters of Genesis not only tell us Who spoke first but also how the process of language was acquired. But the implications of the necessity of this unique faculty in terms of his humanity and the purpose of his very creation are profound.
Highlights
Many years ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from animal to man, that transition took place with the acquisition o f speech
Since it is the only story that shows insight into the nature o f m an’s first steps at conversation, it is o f peculiar interest - whether w e view it as fantasy or as fact
The question still remains, as we consider this extraordinary and long overlooked or minimized trait o f human nature: W here and how did it all begin? W e have the case of two Indian children, Amala and Kamala, neither o f whom had spoken one word between them, they shared each other’s company
Summary
Many years ago Humboldt observed that if there was a transition from animal to man, that transition took place with the acquisition o f speech (see Lyell, 1873: 518). He added, with rare insight, that in order to speak, man must already have been human. The problem of accounting for the origin o f speech appeared to him to be insoluble. Because o f the influence o f D arw in’s theories, it seemed at one time unnecessary to question the derivation o f human speech from animal cries. Following in the steps o f earlier social anthropologists who were arranging the various pri mitive cultures in a sequence from the simple to more complex, thereby illustrat ing m an’s supposed climb to Parnassus, those who philosophized about language assumed that the strange grunts, clicks and grimaces o f the lowliest ‘savages’ were evidence that speech, like all else, had evolved by barely perceptible steps from simple to complex (see Goldenweiser, 1945:508)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
