|
語言和語言學 – 開欄文
|
瀏覽3,483 |回應12 |推薦1 |
|
|
|
語言的重要性不需我強調。到目前為止,人們對語言的起源和演化所知不多。語言對人心理與思考的影響更是讓科學家摸不著頭腦。本城市過去也刊登了一些這方面的研究報告。本欄先轉登兩篇相關文章。 第一篇討論關於語言起源以及使用語言所必須具有的先決條件(請見本欄第二篇文章);它們包括身體結構和大腦功能等等面向。 今年是微軟「書寫軟體」發行40周年紀念。第二篇討論微軟「書寫軟體」對一般人在使用語言上的微妙影響(請見本欄第三篇文章)。此文和《網際網路的起源和演化》參看,我們可以體會到技術做為文化的一部分,它是如何在不知不覺中影響著人類的生活。 我計畫抽空整合本城市討論/報導過的各個重要議題;第一步是把相關文章的標題附上超連結合輯起來,以便搜尋。第二步則是把我對它們的觀點做系統性的陳述。
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
「字」從那裏來? ---- Ingrid Schou
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
How did the first words originate? The first words may have emerged 135,000 years ago. What could these guys have been saying to each other? Well, that's hard to say. (Illustration: Fractal Pictures / Shutterstock / NTB) 請至原網頁觀看示意圖 Ingrid Schou, journalist, 11/28/25 If you slide your tongue along your teeth all the way back, you’ll find your molars. “Jeksel” – the Norwegian word for molar – “is a strange word,” my colleague said. “Yes,” I agreed. "Let's find out where it comes from.” According to the Norwegian dictionary, jeksel derives from the Old Norse word jaxl. And that's where the explanation ends. But what kind of word is jaxl? And how did words emerge, way back in the beginning? Probably started as sounds “In short – we don't know,” says Sverre Stausland. He is a professor of linguistics at the University of Oslo. “The first words and languages haven’t left any traces,” says Jan Terje Faarlund, also a linguistics professor at the University of Oslo. Part of the reason is that words arose so long ago – well before humans learned to write and longer still before any audio recorders were available. The latest research suggests that verbal languages may have arisen 135,000 years ago. Ugh! Ouch! Oh! Our human species, Homo sapiens, has existed for around 300,000 years. At least that is what we have solid evidence for to date. Some researchers believe that we may yet find even older skulls and skeletal remains of our species. But regardless, we might have lived without words for more than half of our time as Homo sapiens. That seems almost impossible – but remember that no other species besides ours uses words today either. Nor do dogs or elephants speak with words. “It could be that we used body language,” says Faarlund. Like pointing at things, hugging to show love, or touching our stomachs when we were hungry. “Early humans probably made sounds to express emotions like joy, fear and pain. And then they probably had other sounds to warn of danger, call to each other and so on. Just think of sounds like ugh, ouch, or oh. “Are they really ‘words’ as such?” asks Stausland. From sounds to words Researchers believe that the first proper words most likely originated from imitation. “People would try to imitate the sound that some animal or thing made,” says Faarlund. An example is the ancient Egyptian and Chinese word for cat – “mao,” which is similar to the “meow” sound that cats make. “How the rest of our words originated is a big mystery,” says Faarlund. And the same applies to the word for the tooth at the back of the mouth. Jeksel remains a mystery. “We don’t know where the word comes from,” Stausland says. Words have both a function and a history, but basically they often consist of random sounds. “Words are really just sounds that allow us to distinguish them from each other,” says Stausland. Today, we often use words we already have in our vocabulary to create new ones. Just think of ‘snowboard’ or ‘cellphone’, for example, or the word Lego which is made up of the Danish words leg godt, meaning ‘play well’. "Mamama, papapa" So we don't know what the very first word is. But researchers have tried to find some of the oldest words that still exist. They include "mama" and "papa". “These words are found across many languages in the world,” says Stausland. “It's easy to understand why. Small babies make their first sounds with their lips,” he says. Those sounds correspond to the letters m, p and b, and the vowel a. That's why the first sounds are often "mamama" and "papapa". “When the mother or father is nearby, they think the child is using a word about them. But these are actually just the simplest sounds a baby can make,” says Stausland. Language on the move Our species originated in Africa, and gradually humans spread across the globe. We brought with us the ability to learn languages, and today we have between 6,000 and 7,500 different languages, according to SNL.no. People with different languages met long before there were schools, language books or Google Translate. For example, the Vikings travelled a lot. How did they manage to talk to people? You can read more about that here. Perhaps people in the future will also wonder about what words and languages people used before them. This research will continue to be a difficult task, because languages come and go. UNESCO believes that 1,500 of today's languages are at risk of disappearing. You can read more about that here. References: First traces of language: Miyagawa et al. (2025). Linguistic capacity was present in the Homo sapiens population 135 thousand years ago. Frontiers in Psychology, 16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1503900 First Homo sapiens discovery: Hublin, J.-J. etc. (2017). New fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco and the pan-African origin of Homo sapiens. Nature, 546, 289–292. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22336 Translated by Ingrid P. Nuse Read the Norwegian version of this article at forskning.no
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
考古學家發現未知文字 -- Tim Newcomb
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Archaeologists Found an Ancient Tablet With 39 Letters That Don’t Belong to Any Known Language Google Translate isn’t going to help here. Tim Newcomb, 11/22/25 These Letters Don’t Belong to Any Known Language Dorling Kindersley - Getty Images 請至原網頁觀看新發現未知文字的照片 Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story: * Archaeologists uncovered a basalt tablet in the Bashplemi Lake region of Georgia with an unknown language carved into its face. * The tablet featured 60 characters across seven rows. * Experts said that the etchings showed excellent craftsmanship, even if they can’t yet determine the language’s origin. There’s a new language in town. Well, actually, it’s ancient, and experts can’t even read it yet. But they’re excited to find out more. Archaeologists discovered a basalt tablet about the size of a piece of paper bearing 60 unknown script characters expertly etched onto its surface in the Bashplemi Lake region of Georgia—the same site where some scientists believe the first European, a 1.8-million-year-old hominin, was discovered. According to a study published in the Journal of Ancient History and Archaeology, the tablet—which measured 9.4 inches by 7.9 inches—was made from local vesicular basalt and featured seven rows of writing. “This tablet, which bears 60 signs, 39 of them different, raises the question of the origin of the Georgian script, proto-Georgian,” the study authors wrote. “While the basalt on which it is based is known to be of local origin, its meaning is unknown, and there remains a long way to go to decipher it.” An initial comparative analysis conducted with over 20 languages shows that the characters bear some similarities with the written forms of the Semitic, Brahmani, and North Iberian languages. “Generally, the Bashplemi inscription does not repeat any script known to us,” the authors wrote, “however, most of the symbols used therein resemble ones found in the script of the Middle East, as well as those of geographically remote countries such as India, Egypt, and West Iberia.” Some symbols may have taken inspiration from early Caucasian scripts—whether that be Georgian Mrglovani or Albanian alphabets—but there also seem to be ties to Proto-Kartvelian, Near East Phoenician, Proto-Sinaitic scripts. But without a direct link to any other known pattern of writing, this new find could be a completely unknown language. “The script, some of whose 39 characters are numbers and punctuation marks, may have been an alphabet,” the authors wrote. Researchers believe that the new find bears the strongest resemblances to the Proto-Kartvelian script from the fourth millennium B.C., which was used throughout Georgia and Iberia. But there are also likenesses to Bronze Age Georgian symbols, including “some similarities with Phoenician, Aramaic, and Greek alphabets [that] are not surprising as their role in the region and their relations to local scripts are well-known.” The area in which this tablet was found is already an archaeologically rich location, and adding a new language to the mix only furthers the intrigue of Bashplemi Lake. The 60 total characters etched across seven horizontal rows also showed off intensely skilled craftsmanship, according to the study, and would have been done with advanced tools for the time. Researchers believe the person who crafted the writing used a conic drill to outline the contours of each individual character and a “smooth and round-head tool” to finish the job. Speculation on what it all means—the authors hypothesize that the writing could explain “military spoils, an important construction project, or an offering to a deity”—is all anyone has to go on for now.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
新字新詞 – 來自網路
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文來自網路,時間、作者不詳。或許是中國網民集體創作;兼具幽默感與鬼聰明;在此搏君一笑。 英文⋯⋯時時出新字;中文⋯⋯天天有新詞。 時代發展飛快,想法走在前緣,英文字、詞彙都不夠用了,分享網民新創的英文單字如下: 1. Smilence 笑而不語 2. Togayther 同志終成眷屬 3. Democrazy 瘋狂民主 4. Shitizen 屁民 5. Z-turn 折騰 6. Departyment 宴會部門 7. Chinsumer 在國外瘋狂購物的中國人 8. Sexretary 性感女秘書 9. Circusee 圍觀者 10. Vegesteal 偷菜 11. Animale 獸性男人 12. Gunvernment 槍桿子裏出政權 13. Niubility 牛逼 14. Propoorty 房地慘 15. Stupig 笨豬
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
語言做為操縱/控制的工具 --- The Female Code
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
本文的主題在討論「女性/男性互動關係」。我在下一篇文章會說明:把它放在此欄的原因。請參見此文(該欄2025/10/29)。 These 4 Innocent Words Are How Women Control Men. They sound harmless — until you realize she’s using them to test your worth. The Female Code, 10/19/25 Let me tell you a truth that will burn a little. It’s supposed to. Men don’t get played because women are smarter. Don’t flatter yourself. You get played because you refuse to listen. Not to the words. To the energy. You miss the frequency broadcasting right under the surface. You’re listening for meaning, but you should be feeling for intent. One single, small word can tell the whole story. It can broadcast her entire inner map. And today, I’m going to show you the four words that signal you’re being strung along, ghosted, or kept as the backup. This is the moment you stop being easy to harvest. This is the moment you flip the control back to you. The Intermittent Reinforcement She says, “busy.” On the surface, it’s innocent. We’re all busy. But used at scale? It’s a strategy. It’s intermittent reinforcement disguised as credibility. It’s the occasional signal of attention, followed by long, agonizing gaps of silence. It’s designed to create an emotional craving. It’s a slot machine. You just keep pulling the lever, hoping for a payout that was never meant for you. Think about it. You text her. She replies hours later: “Sorry, swamped with work.” But her Instagram story is a timeline of dinners. Drinks. Late-night laughs with people who are not you. That gap? That mismatch? That’s the reveal. That’s the vacuum where you hand over all your power. Her body and her social media feed are telling you the truth. Your brain is choosing to believe the lie. You’re not losing her time to life. You’re being invited into a pattern where your attention is the prize she wants to collect on demand. So what do you do? You step back. You don’t explain. You don’t justify. You don’t send the “just checking in” text. Silence amplifies value. Your challenge? 72 hours of non-contained silence. Live your life. Loudly. In your world, not in your replies. Let your absence create her curiosity. The Soft Leash Then there’s “maybe.” This is the softest, most comfortable leash you will ever wear. And make no mistake, it is a leash. “Maybe” is not hope. It’s a placeholder. It’s designed to keep you emotionally available without commitment. It keeps you investing your time, your energy, and your focus, all while she evaluates her other options. That little hit of dopamine you get? That feeling that you “still have a shot”? That’s the hook. Energetically, “maybe” is total ambivalence. Her energy is divided. She is not bonded to you. When you feel that split, your energy must shift. From seeking sovereignty. How do you flip this? You treat “maybe” as a hard “no.” You move on. No drama. No petitioning your case. You make firm plans elsewhere. Your unavailability raises her cost to keep you on the hook. Watch what happens. She either returns with clear, undeniable intent… or she fades. Either result is a victory. It’s called The Ranking This one hurts the most. “Friend.” It sounds so safe. So warm. Wrong. In her mind, it’s a rank. It’s a label. It’s a box. She has ranked you as a provider, a protector, or an option. But not a lover. The word “friend” places you in the nonsexual utility compartment. You are now the calm shoulder. The free emotional labor. The one she vents to about the other men she’s actually sleeping with. It is an energetic demotion. Your erotic value has been downgraded to zero. Your masculine energy, which seeks polarity, has just been neutralized. You cannot create desire from this place. It’s impossible. So don’t beg to be upgraded. Don’t try to “nice guy” your way out of the box. You step back. With dignity. Your challenge: two to four weeks of zero free labor. No more listening to her problems. No more being her emotional tampon. Let your absence force a reassessment. Invest in your world, not in her approval. This recalibration will either ignite a new kind of desire or reveal the truth that she only saw you as a tool. Either result is power. The Perpetual Tomorrow And finally, the vaguest of them all. “Soon.” “Let’s hang out soon.” “I’ll text you soon.” “Soon” is a soft, eternal promise. It’s the illusion of progress without a single drop of commitment. It keeps you anchored to a future that will never arrive, while your present remains completely empty. It’s a string attached directly to your patience. A woman who truly, viscerally wants you does not say “soon.” She says “now.” She says “tonight.” She says, “8 pm.” “Soon” is a vague timeline because you are not a priority. Stop hanging on the promise. This is how you cut the rope. You require clarity. One concrete invite. “Let’s get a drink. Wednesday, 8 pm at [Place].” One test. If she can’t commit to a day, a time, and a place… you have your answer. You don’t wait. You move on. Words are just the map. The energy is the territory. She is revealing her intent with every single one of these words. You have a choice. You can continue to cling, to chase, to decode, and to lose yourself in the static. Or you can step into clarity. You can protect your time. You can reclaim your dignity. The man who treats these words as lines in the sand — enforcing them without drama, just with his absence — is the man who commands respect. Respect follows boundaries. Desire follows scarcity. Stop being so easy to read. Stop being so easy to harvest. Your attention is currency. Start spending it with wisdom. So, tell me. Which one of these words have you been tolerating? And what are you going to do about it? I want to read you in the comments. Without filters. Written by The Female Code Exploring the heart of human connection—writing about love, trust, and the art of building meaningful relationships. Published in Write Your World “Write Your World” is a space for storytellers, thinkers, and creatives to share their personal journeys, ideas, and experiences. Here, we believe words have the power to shape reality; join us as we explore life through storytelling.
本文於 修改第 3 次
|
語言起源的新理論 -- Trevor
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
下文提供了大量和語言與相關領域的研究資料,對語言有興趣的朋友有福了。不過,在我這個門外漢看來,宕巴教授的「梳理說」頗有「倒果為因」之嫌(1)。 附註: 1. 此處的「梳理」指群居動物的社交行為;並不是前一陣子在英國引起軒然大波的幼童性侵案。 Maybe Language Was Never About Communication A radical new idea about the evolution of language Trevor, 06/28/25 How did language first evolve? It’s a question that has boggled archaeologists and linguists for well over a century. Although we know a lot about the origins of writing, it is far more difficult to trace the origins of spoken language. In fact, even the best linguistic analyses of language families tend to stop working somewhere around 15,000 years ago (source). Given that language has likely existed for over 100,000 years, the best scientists could do was to come up with strange-named hypotheses like the “pooh-pooh theory” or the “bow-wow theory” (source). Most of them were unverifiable, and thus forever relegated to pure speculation. However, in the last few decades, a new hypothesis on the origins of human language has begun to take hold. And while it is by no means a scientific fact at this point, it has begun to seem like the most nuanced and reasonable hypothesis for how our speech began. So how can we even begin to study the origins or language? Is it even possible to make scientific claims about something so complex and ancient? In order to answer that, we must first look at some of the more popular and common theories of language origins, and see how they stack up against recent evidence. The Big Leap Language is immensely diverse and complex. Across the globe, various types of vocabulary, grammar, sounds, and so on are used by humans to communicate. However, in the 1950s and 1960s, linguists began to realize that despite these surface-level differences, most languages follow similar sets of rules and patterns. This idea, proposed and popularized by American linguist Noam Chomsky, became known as “Universal Grammar” (source). At its core, the idea holds that there are certain deep cognitive structures which inherently limit and control the formation of language in humans, despite cultural or sociological differences. To most linguists, the idea is initially quite compelling. After all, any baby in the world will learn whatever language it is exposed to, regardless of its ethnicity or genetic makeup (source). Thus, these linguists argued that language must be a “package deal”: an all-or-nothing, universal cognitive capability of humans. And because of this, linguists began to believe that the evolution of language must have occurred in some great, dramatic leap in human history. Instead of being a slow, error-riddled process over millions of years, language must have developed suddenly over a few hundred thousand years (or less), and appeared in a fully-formed way almost immediately. This paradigm remained the leading view among psychologists and linguists for the better part of a century, until recent findings by neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists began to show its fundamental flaws. In particular, researchers began to study the evolution of the basic biological requirements that make human speech possible (source). What they found was that this was a gradual process, which took place over at least a million years. It did not happen all at once, in the way that Universal Grammar had proposed. For example, the descent of the larynx (which makes human speech possible) occurred around 100,000 years ago, while the neural networks that make voluntary vocalizations possible in humans (as opposed to involuntary sounds like a dog barking or a cat meowing) evolved more than 1 million years ago. So, ultimately, language did not evolve in some “great leap.” But if the idea of Universal Grammar was so appealing, what are we left with? Can biology alone really provide us with a satisfying explanation of how complex human speech evolved? Language as a Happy Accident If you’ve ever been to a zoo, you’ve almost certainly seen chimpanzees grooming each other. It’s a fascinating trait of primates, which likely evolved to facilitate social bonding and to help maintain individual hygiene (source). However, the British anthropologist Robin Dunbar proposed a shocking idea: what if language itself was originally a form of grooming? He first observed that grooming is sociologically “expensive.” In other words, it requires that groups devote a significant amount of time and energy to maintain social bonds (source). Following this train of thought, Dunbar proposed that as early pre-human populations began to grow beyond a few hundred individuals, a “cheaper” form of grooming would be needed to maintain the same level of social bonding. And language is, fundamentally, much more “cost effective” than physically caring for another individual (source). Thus, Dunbar proposed that language originally evolved as “grooming-at-a-distance”. In other words, language was a simple means of maintaining social bonds without investing so much time and energy into physical grooming. At this point, the idea may sound like nothing more than pure speculation. But interestingly, recent research has begun to lend some credibility to this idea. Talk is Cheap If language evolved primarily to maintain social bonds among rapidly-growing populations, what would we expect to be the primary focus of language? Most likely, it would revolve around relationships and connections. In other words, gossip. Shockingly, studies have shown that at least 65% of all human speech is devoted to gossip (source). Discussing the private lives of others, whether positive or negative, is a major aspect of human language. Linguists and sociologists believe that this is evidence that indirectly supports Dunbar’s hypothesis. After all, if language evolved for the sole purpose of coordinated hunts or relaying crucial information, we would expect to see less “pointless” conversation. But again, this is not what we find. Another line of evidence which seems to support the idea is the fact that larger brains are directly related to larger population sizes (source). In other words, social connections and bonding are a major determining factor in the development of larger brains. And of course, larger brains were necessary for the evolution of complex language. Do these two lines of evidence prove the idea that language evolved as a form of grooming? No. To become accepted as a genuine scientific theory, extensive research must be conducted over the next few decades. However, these two lines of modern research certainly seem to make the hypothesis a promising one, if nothing else. Key Takeaways Is the grooming hypothesis of language evolution true? It’s impossible to give a definite answer yet. Regardless of its validity, Dunbar’s hypothesis provides us with a useful method for how can actually begin to investigate the origins of human language. Rather than being restricted to speculation, perhaps we can begin to use modern human languages and sociology to help us understand the evolutionary trajectory that our speech followed so long ago. However, the idea of language as an accidental byproduct of social evolution is incredibly fascinating, and could explain a wide variety of quirky human behaviors that might otherwise seem strange. Perhaps language didn’t evolve to explain the world, but instead for us to survive in it together. Written by Trevor Linguistics, anthropology, religion, cutlure, and the human mind. Published in Babel Babel is a leading Medium publication focusing on human expression through language and art. We publish stories on the intersection of language, culture, art, and the many ways we communicate. Not a Medium member yet? Use this Friend Link to read for free.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
世界上最古老的語言–E. Yuko
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
What Is the World's Oldest Language? The answer depends on how you frame the question. Elizabeth Yuko, 05/16/25 Getty Images/iStockphoto 請至原網頁觀看照片 Language is constantly evolving. There are currently more than 7,000 languages spoken in the world, but, according to some estimates, at least half of those will be extinct or seriously endangered by 2100. With languages forming, changing, disappearing and being discovered, it’s hard to keep track of which came first. So, what is the oldest language in the world? As it turns out, that’s a complicated question with no single answer. Why It’s Complicated Figuring out which language is the oldest is more complicated than it seems. “When people ask ‘what’s the oldest language?,’ what they're often asking is, ‘what's the oldest example of writing, and what language was used to write it?,’” says Gareth Roberts, an associate professor of linguistics at the University of Pennsylvania. Other ways to approach the question are: What’s the oldest language in a particular geographic region? Or what is the “most conservative” language—one that has changed relatively slowly over time, he explains. Today, we only know of an ancient language’s existence if we find evidence of it in writing—but that doesn’t necessarily give us an accurate picture. “People have been speaking and using signed languages for far longer than they've been writing,” says Claire Bowern, a professor of linguistics at Yale University. “It's possible that there were earlier writing systems that haven't survived. We only know about these ones because they were written on durable items—stone, clay and bone.” Languages are constantly—but gradually—changing, Bowern explains. “Identifying the age of a language is not like saying how old a child is; there's not a defined ‘birth’ point,” she notes. What we do know is that prior to actual language being written down, proto-writing was a way to communicate limited information with simple written marks or pictures. “You could argue that certain cave paintings are a type of proto-writing,” says Daniel Hieber, a linguist who studies endangered languages. Another example is using symbols to document trade deals—like the number of items that have been sent to another group of people. “Over time, that symbol system of tracking trades is actually what developed into cuneiform”—an early writing system, Hieber says. Origins of Language When did early humans first develop spoken language? Something went wrong while setting up a Google DAI stream. (視頻無法觀看) Oldest Language Still Spoken As far as the oldest spoken language? “If we're looking for the languages that are spoken in the world today, and we want to say which of those was written down first, the answer would be Greek,” Roberts says. “That's the oldest example of writing where the language that happened to be written down at the time has a descendant which is still spoken today.” Oldest Written Evidence of Language If the question is what language has the oldest written evidence, then Sumerian and Egyptian are the likely contenders, says Roberts. Both languages emerged around the same time—toward the end of the fourth millennium B.C., or about 5,000 to 6,000 years ago. Some of the earliest evidence of writing is in the form of cuneiform script, characterized by wedge-shaped marks pressed into clay. Cuneiform was initially created by the ancient Sumerians who lived in the Mesopotamia region of the Fertile Crescent situated between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers—most of which is in modern-day Iraq. “There is a longer history of Sumerian cuneiform going back into its proto-writing,” Hieber says. “But they're not writing complete sentences at that point.” Although Sumerians also likely began writing in complete sentences first, there is older documentation of a full sentence written in Egyptian hieroglyphics. “It's quite possible that the first examples we have of writing are, in fact, the oldest examples of writing: Sumerian cuneiform [and] Egyptian hieroglyphic,” Roberts says. That said, they’re not the earliest languages. “Languages have been around for hundreds of thousands of years before that, most likely, or even, being very conservative, about tens of thousands of years,” he explains. Both cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphic do seem to have been invented from scratch, according to Roberts. The Origins of Writing The invention of written language replaced the oral tradition and allowed civilizations to store and share knowledge. Something went wrong while setting up a Google DAI stream. (視頻無法觀看) Oldest Complete Written Sentence The oldest known complete written sentence is in Egyptian hieroglyphs, Hieber says. It appears on the tomb of the pharaoh Seth-Peribsen, and translates to “He has united the Two Lands for his son, Dual King Peribsen.” Like this one, many of the earliest examples of hieroglyphic writing are found on the tombs of Egyptian royalty and elite citizens. The language consists of symbols that look like people, animals and objects which could represent sounds, objects or concepts. There's some debate over whether the Egyptian writing system began as cuneiform, Roberts explains. Though hieroglyphics weren't based directly on cuneiform, he says that it's possible that Egyptians observed cuneiform and thought, “OK, that's a good idea, we could do that in a slightly different way,” and they came up with their own writing system. “My impression," he notes, "is that the dominant view now is that [Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphics] were invented more or less independently at a similar kind of time."
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
DNA分析指向印歐語系可能的源頭 -- Carl Zimmer
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
Ancient DNA Points to Origins of Indo-European Language A new study claims to have identified the first speakers of Indo-European language, which gave rise to English, Sanskrit and hundreds of others. Carl Zimmer, 02/05/25 In 1786, a British judge named William Jones noticed striking similarities between certain words in languages, such as Sanskrit and Latin, whose speakers were separated by thousands of miles. The languages must have “sprung from some common source,” he wrote. Later generations of linguists determined that Sanskrit and Latin belong to a huge family of so-called Indo-European languages. So do English, Hindi and Spanish, along with hundreds of less common languages. Today, about half the world speaks an Indo-European language. Linguists and archaeologists have long argued about which group of ancient people spoke the original Indo-European language. A new study in the journal Nature throws a new theory into the fray. Analyzing a wealth of DNA collected from fossilized human bones, the researchers found that the first Indo-European speakers were a loose confederation of hunter-gatherers who lived in southern Russia about 6,000 years ago. “We’ve been on the hunt for this for many years,” said David Reich, a geneticist at Harvard who led part of the new research. Independent linguists had mixed reactions to the findings, with some praising their rigor and others highly skeptical. Many decades ago, linguists began trying to reconstruct the proto-Indo-European language by looking at words shared by many different languages. That early vocabulary contained a lot of words about things like wheels and wagons, and few about farming. It looked like the kind of language that would have been spoken by nomadic herders who lived across the steppes of Asia thousands of years ago. But in 1987, Colin Renfrew, a British archaeologist, questioned whether nomads who were constantly on the move would have stayed in any one place long enough for their language to catch on. He found it more plausible that early farmers in Anatolia (a region in what is now Turkey) spread the language as they expanded, gradually converting more and more land to farm fields and eventually building towns and cities. The archaeologist argued that an Anatolian origin also fit the archaeological evidence better. The oldest Indo-European writing, dating back 3,700 years, is in an extinct language called Hittite, which was spoken only in Anatolia. In 2015, two teams of geneticists — one led by Dr. Reich — shook up this debate with some remarkable data from ancient DNA of Bronze Age Europeans. They found that about 4,500 years ago, central and northern Europeans suddenly gained DNA that linked them with nomads on the Russian steppe, a group known as the Yamnaya. Dr. Reich and his colleagues suspected that the Yamnaya swept from Russia into Europe, and perhaps brought the Indo-European language with them. In the new study, they analyzed a trove of ancient skeletons from across Ukraine and southern Russia. “It’s a sampling tour de force,” said Mait Metspalu, a population geneticist at the University of Tartu in Estonia who was not involved in the research. Based on these data, the scientists argue that the Indo-European language started with the Yamnaya’s hunter-gatherer ancestors, known as the Caucasus-Lower Volga people, or CLV. The CLV people lived about 7,000 years ago in a region stretching from the Volga River in the north to the Caucasus Mountains in the south. They most likely fished and hunted for much of their food. Around 6,000 years ago, the study argues, the CLV people expanded out of their homeland. One wave moved west into what is now Ukraine and interbred with hunter-gatherers. Three hundred years later, a tiny population of these people — perhaps just a few hundred — formed a distinctive culture and became the first Yamnaya. Another wave of CLV people headed south. They reached Anatolia, where they interbred with early farmers. The CLV people who came to Anatolia, Dr. Reich argues, gave rise to early Indo-European languages like Hittite. (This would also fit with the early Indo-European writing found in Anatolia.) But it was their Yamnaya descendants who became nomads and carried the language across thousands of miles. Some experts praised the work. “It’s a very intelligent scenario that’s difficult to criticize,” said Guus Kroonen, a linguist at Leiden University in the Netherlands who was not involved in the studies. But Dr. Metspalu hesitated to jump from the new genetic data to firm conclusions about who first spoke Indo-European. “Genes don’t tell us anything about language, period,” he said. And Paul Heggarty, a linguist at Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, said that the DNA analysis in the study was valuable, but he rejected the new hypothesis about the first Indo-European speakers originating in Russia as “smoke and mirrors.” In 2023, Dr. Heggarty and his colleagues published a study arguing that the first Indo-Europeans were early farmers who lived over 8,000 years ago in the northern Fertile Crescent, in today’s Middle East. Dr. Heggarty suggested that the CLV people actually belonged to a bigger network of hunter-gatherers that stretched from southern Russia into northern Iran. Some of them could have discovered farming in the northern Fertile Crescent, and then developed the Indo-European language, which would align with his findings. These early farmers could have given rise to Hittite speakers thousands of years later in Anatolia, he said, and later given rise to the Yamnaya. The Yamnaya brought Indo-European languages to northern and Central Europe, Dr. Heggarty argued, but they were only one part of a bigger, older expansion. As the Indo-European debate advances, one thing is clear: Our understanding of its history now stands in stark contrast to the racist myths that once surrounded it. Nineteenth-century linguists called the original speakers of Indo-European Aryans, and some writers later pushed the notion that ancient Aryans were a superior race. The Nazis embraced the Aryan myths, using them to justify genocide. But Dr. Reich said that studies on ancient DNA show just how bankrupt these Aryan stories were. “There’s all sorts of mixtures and movements from places that these myths never imagined,” he said. “And it really teaches us that there’s really no such thing as purity.” Carl Zimmer covers news about science for The Times and writes the Origins column. More about Carl Zimmer
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
字、詞如何在大腦中取得一席之地 -- Cody Cottier
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
索引: countervailing:對抗的,抵消的,制衡的,補償的 gauntlet:公開挑戰(如進行比劃、搏擊、或戰鬥);原意為手套、護手等 idiosyncratic:有氣質的;有特性的 iteration:反覆(通常為了作出改善而重複做某事),反覆運算 PNAS:《美國國家科學院院刊》 primed:被誘導(心理學術語);priming為「誘導」 provocative:挑釁的,(行為或衣服)挑逗性的 quirk:異類,奇葩,古怪的,獨特的 How Words Struggle For Existence in Our Brains Why are some words forgotten over time? Researchers investigate how words secure their place in the vocabulary of the future. Cody Cottier, 03/15/24 (Credit: Kittyfly/Shutterstock 請至原網頁查看圖片) Words, like biological species, are engaged in what Charles Darwin called a “struggle for existence.” Some have what it takes, earning the right to roll off the next generation of tongues, while others get consigned to the pages of Merriam-Webster — or become forgotten entirely. What sets the survivors apart? A recent study in the journal PNAS, by a team of international researchers, found that many successful English words have three crucial traits: they’re acquired early in life, they refer to something concrete, and they’re emotionally arousing. (They offer “sex” and “fight” as two notable examples.) Playing the “Telephone” Game (Credit: ESB Professional/Shutterstock 請至原網頁查看圖片) To figure that out, they asked some 12,000 people to retell short stories. That is, they essentially ran a giant game of “telephone,” where one person whispers something to the person beside them, they repeat it to the next, and so on. As every 8-year-old knows, it’s an object lesson in the challenge of preserving a message across multiple retellings. With enough intervening speakers, “The dog chews shoes” easily transforms into “Which blog do you use?” Yet certain patterns emerge from the inconsistency, revealing which words are likely to make it through the gauntlet. “The beauty of this approach,” says Fritz Breithaupt, a cognitive scientist at Indiana University Bloomington and a lead author of the study, “is that it shows a transition of the original story to something that is more optimally suited to our own cognitive apparatus.” To make that more concrete, the point is that we shape language (often without realizing it) to fit our mental abilities. We pick and choose from the countless words vying for space in our brains. If one is too hard to understand and recall, or if it just doesn’t grab our attention, then we’re likely to discard it, sometimes in favor of an alternative. You don’t hear “pulchritudinous” much these days, because “beautiful” does a better job. Baby Talk (Credit: LeManna/Shutterstock 請至原網頁查看圖片) Unsurprisingly, the words we learn first are some of the best adapted to the environment of our minds. As the speakers retold their stories, they quickly reverted to what they’d learned at a young age. (Of course, we don’t all learn the same words at the exact same moment in life, but there are well-established averages). This suggests that no matter how large our lexicon grows, the sophisticated, technical language of adulthood can’t compete with basic vocabulary. “Baby language is not something we just shed and forget,” Breithaupt says. “It's the core we go back to.” But if that were the only force at work, we’d all be babbling like infants in the most rudimentary terms, never getting far beyond “mama” and “cookie.” There are countervailing (bet that word wouldn’t last two retellings) pressures, social and cultural processes that nudge language in different directions. Technological advances, for example, introduce all sorts of new words (or neologisms), like “television” and “Bluetooth.” They can also originate in the never-ending need to express new ideas, as well as reframe old ones that have “lost their ability to engage the listener,” as the researchers put it. And existing but difficult words may take refuge in subcultures that keep them alive for idiosyncratic purposes, like “hypothesis” in scientific communities and “acquittal” in legal circles. Words We Can Picture Another common characteristic of words learned late in life is abstractness. “Hypothesis” may have called some image to mind, perhaps glass beakers and white lab coats, but it probably didn’t summon anything as distinct as the word “dog.” Research has shown that when language evokes something accessible to our senses, we find it more interesting and understandable. Breithaupt is quick to note that we need abstractions. “Truth,” “love” and “kindness” don’t refer to physical entities, but that doesn’t diminish their importance. In fact, every word is to some degree abstracted from reality. “But ultimately,” he says, “the concrete words, the things we can picture, they have an advantage.” Emotion Rules, Good or Bad The words that stand the test of time also tend to bring out strong emotions. Interestingly, it doesn’t matter whether those feelings are positive or negative — “sex” and “terrorist” are both provocative in their own way. They jump out at us, almost as if seizing cognitive territory by force. This fits with psychological studies showing that emotional arousal enhances memory. The idea is that because we can’t possibly remember everything, we preferentially pay attention to and remember whatever is most significant. And what’s arousing tends to be significant, regardless of its positive or negative associations (snake in the grass, mate in the bed). Words for a Better World (Credit: PeopleImages.com - Yuri A/Shutterstock 請至原網頁查看圖片) To see if these factors scale up, influencing language change over the course of not just a few retellings but entire human generations, Fritz and his colleagues also analyzed a vast set of text from the past 200 years. Incredibly, the many differences between spoken and written language notwithstanding, they found the same three trends toward words that are acquired early, are concrete, and that arouse feeling. There was one unexpected discrepancy, though: Both positively and negatively arousing words had a leg up on neutral ones in the “telephone” experiment, but over long spans of time there seems to be a stronger bias toward the positive. As one potential explanation, Breithaupt points to the work of cognitive psychologist and public intellectual Steven Pinker (who coincidentally edited the paper) on the rise of global wellbeing over the past century. In spite of widespread pessimism about the future of humanity and its home planet, Pinker has argued that the world is in fact a happier, safer, more peaceful place than it’s ever been. “And if that is true,” Breithaupt says, “you would expect language to reflect that somewhat. If you have a lot of suffering and pain and so on, you need the vocabulary that expresses that.” Agents of Creativity (Credit: Kittyfly/Shutterstock 請至原網頁查看圖片) If this all makes us sound a bit like mindless vehicles of linguistic evolution, speaking in words we’re cognitively primed to select, Breithaupt has a more optimistic take. He describes his participants’ retellings as powerfully transformative acts: “We actually are agents of change, agents of creativity. Every single one of us.” In another recent study, published in Scientific Reports in January, he and several colleagues at Indiana University Bloomington found that when you ask the AI system ChatGPT to repeatedly retell a story, it introduces almost no novelty. Humans, by contrast, replace as much as 60 percent of the words and concepts with each iteration. So, amid our collective anxiety over the mushrooming capabilities of artificial intelligence, Breithaupt believes we can take solace in the quirks of human cognition and the innovations they enable. “I think we don't have to be completely afraid of ChatGPT,” he says, “because it will not take that away from us, at least not in an easy, direct way.” 相關閱讀: How Learning a Language Changes Your Brain Words Seem to Lose Their Meaning When We Repeat Them Over and Over. Why? The Biology of Baby Talk
本文於 修改第 4 次
|
埃及人何時開始使用象形文字 - Owen Jarus
|
|
|
推薦1 |
|
|
|
When did the Egyptians start using hieroglyphs? Owen Jarus, 02/13/24 The earliest known Egyptian hieroglyphic writings appear fully formed, either because they were developed on perishable, now-lost materials or because they were quickly "invented by an unknown genius." Ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs carved into sandstone at the Temple of Kom Ombo in Aswan. (Image credit: skaman306 via Getty Images;請至原網頁查看圖片) For thousands of years, the ancient Egyptians inscribed hieroglyphs on tombs, papyri and, in some cases, pyramids. But when were hieroglyphs invented? Research shows that they emerged about 5,200 years ago, at around the same time another writing system, called cuneiform (楔形文字), was being invented in Mesopotamia. "German excavations at Abydos in Egypt have revealed hieroglyphic inscriptions from [circa] 3200 BC," James Allen, a professor emeritus of Egyptology at Brown University, told Live Science in an email. Similarly, Ludwig Morenz, an Egyptology professor at the University of Bonn in Germany, told Live Science in an email that Egyptian hieroglyphs were created "around 3300/3200 BC." Allen said "the hieroglyphic system first appears pretty much fully formed, either because its beginnings were inscribed on perishable materials [that have not survived] or because it was invented by an unknown genius." Why were hieroglyphs invented? Why hieroglyphs were invented is a source of debate, Marc Van De Mieroop, a history professor at Columbia University, wrote in the second edition of his book "A History of Ancient Egypt" (John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2021). At the time hieroglyphs were invented, Egypt was unifying into a single state and administration may have been a reason for their invention. It "is logical that a state of Egypt's size and complexity required a flexible system of accounting that could keep information on the nature of goods, their quantities, provenance and destination, the people in charge of them and the date of transaction," Van De Mieroop wrote in his book. Another theory is that hieroglyphs were invented to help glorify gods and the king, Van De Mieroop wrote, noting that some early carvings showing kings contain hieroglyphs. "The glorification of the king may have been one of the driving forces in the script's invention," he wrote. What is the oldest living writing system? Cuneiform script on a clay tablet that dates to the first millennium B.C. (Image credit: benedek via Getty Images) The Egyptians created hieroglyphs at around the same time as cuneiform was invented in Mesopotamia. Which system was invented first is a matter of debate among scholars. Allen argues that Egyptian hieroglyphs were invented first, saying that the earliest cuneiform inscriptions date to around 2900 B.C. However, many scholars disagree. For instance Orly Goldwasser, an Egyptology professor at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem wrote that cuneiform was likely developed first. "Based on the evidence at hand, it seems most likely that writing was born in Mesopotamia," Goldwasser wrote in a chapter of the book "Pharaoh's Land and Beyond: Ancient Egypt and Its Neighbors" (Oxford University Press, 2017). In either case, cuneiform and hieroglyphs are quite different, and the two systems appear to have developed independently of each other. "Cuneiform and hieroglyphic are too dissimilar for the one to have influenced the other directly," Allen said. Cuneiform signs "represent whole words or syllables," while hieroglyphs "represent words or individual consonants" and don't represent vowels, Allen noted. While there was some contact between the people of Egypt and Mesopotamia, hieroglyphs were developed within the Nile Valley, Morenz said. Goldwasser wrote that while the two systems are quite different, it's possible that the invention of cuneiform in Mesopotamia helped inspire Egyptians to invent hieroglyphs. The last known Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription dates to A.D. 394, according to the University of Memphis in Tennessee. By that point in time, other writing systems such as Coptic were being used in Egypt. Knowledge of how to read and write hieroglyphs became lost and it wasn't until the 19th century, with the decipherment of hieroglyphs, that they were read again. Related: How old is ancient Egypt? How old are the Egyptian pyramids? Was ancient Egypt a desert? Why did ancient Egyptian pharaohs stop building pyramids?
本文於 修改第 2 次
|
印歐語系起源研究的新方法和新理論 -- Kurt Kleiner
|
|
|
推薦2 |
|
|
|
兩個問題: 1) 中國話跟印歐語系有沒有關係? 2) 能不能用這個方法來研究:中國話各種方言之間的淵源和沿革? A new look at our linguistic roots Linguists and archaeologists have argued for decades about where, and when, the first Indo-European languages were spoken, and what kind of lives those first speakers led. A controversial new analytic technique offers a fresh answer. Kurt Kleiner, 02/12/24 Almost half of all people in the world today speak an Indo-European language, one whose origins go back thousands of years to a single mother tongue. Languages as different as English, Russian, Hindustani, Latin and Sanskrit can all be traced back to this ancestral language. Over the last couple of hundred years, linguists have figured out a lot about that first Indo-European language, including many of the words it used and some of the grammatical rules that governed it. Along the way, they’ve come up with theories about who its original speakers were, where and how they lived, and how their language spread so widely. Speaking in whistles Most linguists think that those speakers were nomadic herders who lived on the steppes of Ukraine and western Russia about 6,000 years ago. Yet a minority put the origin 2,000 to 3,000 years before that, with a community of farmers in Anatolia, in the area of modern-day Turkey. Now a new analysis, using techniques borrowed from evolutionary biology, has come down in favor of the latter, albeit with an important later role for the steppes. The computational technique used in the new analysis is hotly disputed among linguists. But its proponents say it promises to bring more quantitative rigor to the field, and could possibly push key dates further into the past, much as radiocarbon dating did in the field of archaeology. “I think that linguistics might be in for a sort of equivalent of the radiocarbon revolution,” says Paul Heggarty, a historical linguist at the Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú in Lima, and a coauthor of the new study; he described the computational approach in the 2021 Annual Review of Linguistics. Revealing dead languages To understand what’s going on, it helps to look at how the study of Indo-European languages developed. During the 16th century, as travel and trade put Europeans in touch with more foreign languages, scholars became increasingly interested in how languages related to one another, and where they might have originated. In the late 18th century, Sir William Jones, a British judge in India, noticed similarities in vocabulary and grammar in Sanskrit, Latin and Greek that couldn’t have been coincidental. Historical linguists have reconstructed much of the grammar and vocabulary of the ancestor to Indo-European languages, to the point where we can piece together what conversations might have sounded like. Turn on closed captions to see a translation of the reconstruction presented here. 請至原網頁觀看視頻;CREDIT: AB ALPHA BETA For instance, the English word “father” is “pitar” in Sanskrit and is “pater” in Latin and Greek. “Brother” is “bhratar” in Sanskrit, “frater” in Latin. Although Jones wasn’t actually the first to notice the similarities, his pronouncement that there must be a common origin helped to spur on a movement to compare languages and trace their relationships. A major advance came in 1882, when Jacob Grimm formulated what would later be called Grimm’s Law. Grimm is best known today as one half of the Brothers Grimm, who collected and published Grimm’s Fairy Tales. (《格林童話》) But in addition to being a folklorist, Jacob Grimm was also an important linguist. Grimm showed that as languages developed, sounds changed in regular ways that could help make sense of how languages were related. For instance, the Indo-European word for “two” was “dwo.” But “dwo” was one of a number of words whose initial “d” changed to “t” as it passed into the common ancestor of English and German. Later, the “t” sound became “ts” in an ancestor to modern German. So the Indo-European word “dwo” became “two” in English and “zwei” (pronounced “tsvai”) in modern German. Other words starting with the “d” sound behaved similarly. Scholars discovered a lot of these sound shift patterns, each obeying different rules, as one language gave birth to another. Together with these sound shifts, linguists also study how words are formed, such as the way that English adds an “s” to make a word plural. They also look at how words are arranged, such as the way that English puts subjects before verbs and verbs before objects. And, of course, they look at shared vocabulary. By comparing all these features of different languages, linguists are able to map how languages descended from one another, and to place them in family trees (系譜) that show their relationships.
Grimm’s Law describes the regularity of how sounds change in languages. The chart shows how some sounds from proto-Indo-European shifted in Germanic languages, such as English, while remaining the same in non-Germanic languages, such as French. Grimm’s Law (請至原網頁查看圖表) Today, linguists are in broad agreement on the basics of Indo-European language groupings and how they are related to one another. They agree that the original language, which they call Proto-Indo-European, split into 10 or 11 main branches, two of which are now extinct. They also generally agree on where to put languages within the main branches. For instance, they know that the Italic branch gave us Latin, which itself developed into the Romance languages such as French, Spanish and Italian. The Germanic branch developed into languages including German, Dutch and English. And the Indo-Iranian branch resulted in languages like Hindi, Bengali, Persian and Kurdish. Ancestral lifestyles By tracing changes in language backwards towards their sources, linguists have deduced many of the basic characteristics of the original Proto-Indo-European language, including some vocabulary, how words were formed and some idea of how they were pronounced. And many linguists think they have even found hints of how the first Proto-Indo-Europeans might have lived. For example, the Proto-Indo-European language had a word for axle, two words for wheel, a word for harness-pole and a verb that meant “to transport by vehicle.” Archaeologists know that wheel and axle technology was invented about 6,000 years ago, which suggests that Proto-Indo-European can’t be any older than that. If it was older — in other words, if it had started to split into other languages before it had words for axles and harness-poles — then its daughter languages would have had to invent their own words for these things. The fact that they use the same words suggests that the split started after these technologies were developed. Other words in the language suggest that the first Indo-European speakers were probably familiar with horses, cattle- and sheepherding, dairy, wool, honey and mead. They seem to have had chiefs (the word “reg” gave us our English word “regal”) and may have been patriarchal (they had words for “in-laws” that applied only to the bride’s side of the family, suggesting that the husband’s family was considered primary). Many linguists think the vocabulary paints a picture of pastoralists — nomadic herders (游牧民族) — who used horses and wagons. Combined with genetic evidence that people dispersed rapidly out of the steppes into central Europe about 5,000 years ago, they conclude that Indo-European languages moved out of the steppes and spread with the pastoralists. According to one theory, Indo-European languages might have been spread by pastoralists traveling in wagons like this Early Bronze Age copper model from Anatolia. 請至原網頁觀看圖片:CREDIT: EDITH PERRY CHAPMAN FUND, 1966 / PUBLIC DOMAIN In 1987, though, the Cambridge archaeologist Colin Renfrew rejected a pastoralist origin for Indo-European. Renfrew reasoned that the dramatic spread of Indo-European languages must have required a bigger push than could be provided by contact with ragtag groups of nomadic herders. For a major shift in which a single language grew to dominate a region stretching from Ireland to India, Renfrew argued, you needed a more powerful force. He found it in the spread of farming. Simply put, as people took up farming their population grew more quickly than that of their hunting and gathering neighbors. As farming expanded, the languages moved with it. Archaeological evidence shows that farming had begun moving out of Anatolia about 3,000 years earlier than the spread of pastoralists out of the steppe. So, Renfrew concluded, farmers were the real force behind the spread of Indo-European. By the time the pastoralists started migrating, the farmers they met were already speaking an Indo-European language. Renfrew largely dismissed the linguistic reasoning that the steppe hypothesis was based on. The commonality of words for wheel, wagon-pole and the like, he said, can be explained by parallel shifts in which different languages draw on the same base meaning when creating a new word. For instance, the original meaning of the Proto-Indo-European word for wheel seems to have meant something like circle, or turn. Different languages might have inherited that basic meaning and drawn on it independently when creating their own words for wheel. Likewise, if the word “thill” for wagon-pole had a more general meaning of stick or pole, it could have been adopted to mean wagon-pole by more than one language. Searching for rigor Arguments like these led a few linguists to try a more quantitative approach to reconstructing the history of Indo-European. For this, they borrowed a technique often used in biology to build evolutionary trees based on measurable traits. Their approach, called computational phylogenetics, treats languages as evolving systems, similar to biological organisms. But instead of tracing changes in DNA, as computational phylogenetics in biology does, the technique in linguistics traces words. Specifically, most analyses have looked at patterns in words that mean the same thing in different languages, and that can be traced back to the same Proto-Indo-European root. The more similar those patterns are, the more closely related languages are generally thought to be. While this may sound like the language trees long used by linguists, the trees produced by computational phylogenetics are far less subjective: The method is governed by strict algorithms and explicitly stated rules. In essence, the computer program works by drawing a language tree and estimating the probability that it is correct given all the data and assumptions. Then the program makes a single change to that tree and compares the probability scores, keeping whichever tree is more probable. The process is repeated, sometimes millions of times, resulting in a set of most-probable trees. These trees show how closely related languages are to one another. To estimate timings — when languages originated and diverged from one another — the researchers also provide the computer program with dates for when they think different languages existed, based on the best estimates of experts. Latin, for instance, existed around 2,050 years ago, Old Icelandic about 800 years ago, and Mycenaean Greek about 3,350 years ago. The computer program uses these anchor dates to create its timing estimates, including a date for the ultimate origin of Indo-European. The results can be combined with the historical record of where languages were spoken to help figure out a likely map of how they spread geographically. And the dates can be combined with the archaeological record and studies of ancient human DNA to see if the Indo-European language lines up with an early farming origin, or a later steppe origin. Contradictory results One such analysis, published in 2012, pointed to an origin of Indo-European about 9,000 years ago in Anatolia, supporting the theory that Indo-European originated with farmers. But just three years later, a different team used much the same data to conclude that the origin was just 6,000 years ago on the steppes, supporting the opposite view that pastoralists were the first Indo-European speakers. How could the two teams reach such different conclusions from such a similar list of words? Two possible origins of Indo-European languages. (請至原網頁查看地圖) Two possible origins of Indo-European languages. Most historical linguists favor the origin illustrated in the top map, where the languages originated in the steppes about 6,000 years ago. A minority favor an origin among farmers about 9,000 years ago. Heggarty delved into the problem and discovered that the issue lay with the dataset used for both of these earlier analyses, which was largely based on one originally put together in the 1960s by Isidore Dyen, a linguist at Yale University. Dyen’s dataset had not been a problem for the research Dyen was doing, but when used for the new computational technique, it was throwing off the findings. Computational phylogeny works best when there is a single word for every root meaning researchers are interested in tracing. But the meaning “dirty,” for instance, can have a number of synonyms in English, including “filthy” and “unclean.” The Dyen dataset included synonyms like these for some words in some languages, but not for others. Including any synonyms at all, Heggarty realized, made the dataset harder for the new computational technique to use. But having an inconsistent number of synonyms — more for some languages, fewer for others — really threw the calculations off. “I said, ‘Look, we have got to do this database completely again, from scratch. (曾頭開始) We have got to do much better,’” Heggarty says. So he and his colleagues chose 170 core meanings they wanted to trace — basic words you would expect languages to preserve, such as words for counting numbers, body parts, colors and things like house, mountain, laugh and night. Then they brought together a team of more than 80 linguists and had them determine, for each of 161 Indo-European languages, the primary word for each concept. Only that word, and none of the synonyms, went into the analysis. “We made a highly consistent database out of it, in a way that nobody has ever done before,” Heggarty says. “And we did a lot of analysis to make sure we chose the most appropriate meanings. If you don’t do your due diligence, your results won’t be valid.” When Heggarty’s team reran the analysis with this new database, their findings broadly agreed with the earlier, farmer-origin theory, locating the origin squarely in Anatolia about 8,000 years ago. From there, some branches of the language moved eastward and gave rise to languages including Persian and Hindustani. Other branches moved west to eventually develop into Greek and Albanian. But the analysis also recognizes the steppes as playing an important role as a secondary homeland for most European languages: After one branch traveled northward from Anatolia to the steppes, it radiated from there into northern Europe, giving birth to Germanic, Italic, Gaelic and other European language families. Not convinced Mainstream historical linguists remain skeptical, however — of computational phylogenetics in general and the new result in particular. The main criticism is that the approach relies mostly on vocabulary and ignores word sounds and structures, such as the stems, prefixes and suffixes that make up a word. And the critics say that word meanings by themselves don’t give enough information to draw firm conclusions, no matter how sophisticated the computation is. Thomas Olander, a historical linguist at the University of Copenhagen, says that the problem with depending on related words is that languages borrow words from one another all the time. Just seeing that there are words in common between two languages, then, doesn’t mean the languages come from the same parent. The fact that English speakers now use the word “sushi,” for example, doesn’t mean that English and Japanese are related languages. Instead, most linguists tend to trust sound shifts — such as the “dwo” – “two” – “zwei” shift — along with similarities in the structures of words that can indicate which language they originated in. Word meanings can also be part of that mix, but they can’t do it alone, Olander says. Heggarty’s tree has other problems, as well. For instance, it shows Celtic languages as being closely related to Germanic languages. But Olander says most historical linguists think Celtic languages are much more closely related to Italic languages. “It’s something that, again, is surprising,” Olander says. “I think ‘surprising’ could be translated to ‘It probably means that that their method is wrong.’” Olander thinks it is far more likely that Celtic and Germanic branches coexisted closely for a long time and loaned one another words. An analysis based solely on shared word meanings shows them as more closely related than they actually are, he says. James Clackson, a linguist at Cambridge University, also finds the early date for Proto-Indo-European, and other details of the tree, unconvincing. But he thinks computational phylogenetics is worth pursuing. And if nothing else, he says, the most recent research created a very high-quality new dataset that will be important to historical linguists in general as they seek to solve many unsettled issues in their field. In the meantime, advocates of computational phylogenetics are likely to continue to promote their methods and seek legitimacy (正確性、”學術界的”權威性) from the wider discipline. Heggarty thinks that as mainstream linguists get more comfortable with the method and the high-quality data it uses, they may give it more of a hearing. Clackson, for one, says he’s willing to be convinced. “It’s a developing field, and it’s worth keeping an eye on,” he says. 10.1146/knowable-021224-1 Kurt Kleiner is a freelance writer living in Toronto.
本文於 修改第 1 次
|
|
|