Termiz state University foreign phylology faculty 404-group student Xudoyberganova Dilshodaʼs presentation

Of course,biology stillplays a role.There is nodoubt,for example,thatparticular regions ofthehumanbrainare especially involvedin language, andthatthenatureofour vocaltract is crucialfor allowingus toarticulatewords. Butour speciesdidn’t evolve a specific instinct justfor language.Instead,our ability toplay linguistic charadespiggybacksonvarious skills thatpredate the emergenceoflanguage. Inthis respect,language resembles reading. Until about a century ago,fewpeople could readandwrite, soliteracy can’tbe abiological adaptation.Instead,itis aproductof cultural evolution, argues StanislasDehaene atthe Collègede France inParis.Andwritingis shaped bypre-existing cognitive abilities,including anancientprimate visual system,which helps toexplainthepuzzlingdiscovery thatbaboons candistinguishEnglishwords from nonsense sequences ofletters. Likewise,the humanbrainhas shaped language.Indeed, we find itusefulto think oflanguage as a self- organisingevolutionarysystem– anorganism adapted to a specificniche:thehumanbrain. Buthowcould repeated improvised games oflinguistic charades generate the grammatical complexity oflanguage? Linguists looking athowlanguages change over timehaveuncovered a compelling alternative toChomsky’suniversal grammar thatprovides the answer.Today’sgrammatical patterns arose througha gradual process knownasgrammaticalisation,inwhichwords become bleached ofmeaning and take on purely grammatical roles,while their sounds are ofteneroded to be easier to say.Consider negationinFrench. First,the Latinnon dico (I donot say) becomes je ne dis –withnon eroded to ne. Thenwords suchas pas (step) are added, as inje ne marche pas (Iwon’twalk a step). Over time, ne…pas becomes bleached of anymeaning about steps, so that anounfor a concrete observable actionnowhas anabstract grammatical role.Withgrammaticalisation, the patterns of grammarneedn’t be builtinto our genes.Instead,they emerge spontaneously over centuries andmillennia.

Of course,biology stillplays a role.There is nodoubt,for example,thatparticular regions ofthehumanbrainare especially involvedin language, andthatthenatureofour vocaltract is crucialfor allowingus toarticulatewords. Butour speciesdidn’t evolve a specific instinct justfor language.Instead,our ability toplay linguistic charadespiggybacksonvarious skills thatpredate the emergenceoflanguage. Inthis respect,language resembles reading. Until about a century ago,fewpeople could readandwrite, soliteracy can’tbe abiological adaptation.Instead,itis aproductof cultural evolution, argues StanislasDehaene atthe Collègede France inParis.Andwritingis shaped bypre-existing cognitive abilities,including anancientprimate visual system,which helps toexplainthepuzzlingdiscovery thatbaboons candistinguishEnglishwords from nonsense sequences ofletters. Likewise,the humanbrainhas shaped language.Indeed, we find itusefulto think oflanguage as a self- organisingevolutionarysystem– anorganism adapted to a specificniche:thehumanbrain. Buthowcould repeated improvised games oflinguistic charades generate the grammatical complexity oflanguage? Linguists looking athowlanguages change over timehaveuncovered a compelling alternative toChomsky’suniversal grammar thatprovides the answer.Today’sgrammatical patterns arose througha gradual process knownasgrammaticalisation,inwhichwords become bleached ofmeaning and take on purely grammatical roles,while their sounds are ofteneroded to be easier to say.Consider negationinFrench. First,the Latinnon dico (I donot say) becomes je ne dis –withnon eroded to ne. Thenwords suchas pas (step) are added, as inje ne marche pas (Iwon’twalk a step). Over time, ne…pas becomes bleached of anymeaning about steps, so that anounfor a concrete observable actionnowhas anabstract grammatical role.Withgrammaticalisation, the patterns of grammarneedn’t be builtinto our genes.Instead,they emerge spontaneously over centuries andmillennia.