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

Origin myths Evenas young researchers,we sawseveral reasons to doubtthe beliefthatlanguage has its primary origininbiology. For a start, languages changemuchfaster thanourbrains canevolve.Ittook less than8000years for languages as diverse as Danish,Hindi, Polish, andWazirito evolve froma common proto-Indo-Europeanorigin,for example, whereashumanevolutionis onthe timescale Hofhundreds ofthousands of years.Besides, ARRIET NOBLE > evolutionhasno foresight, so couldn’thave adapted our early ancestors inAfrica to deal withthe subsequent spectacular diversity oftheworld’s languages.Rather, biological evolutionadapts organisms to their local environment, as illustrated byCharles Darwin’s studies of Galapagos finches,which revealed thatthe birdshad evolved into different specieswithbeak variations each exquisitely adapted to cracknuts, eat cactus fruits or catchinsects.Iflanguage evolved throughbiological adaptation,wewould expect distinct adaptations ofinnate grammars to the differentlocal linguistic environments.Butthis isn’tthe case:distantly related populations showno signs ofhaving brains adapted to their particular language. After all, across theworld,immigrant children easily learnthe language oftheirnewhome. Iflanguage doesn’t come frombiology, then,where does it come from?We believe the answer is culture: language evolution is cultural evolution.And that,we argue, requires a rethink ofhowlanguageworks, too.Itisn’t agameoftennis inwhichmessages are lobbed back and forthbetweenminds, whichsystematically extractthe information. AsCook’smeetingwiththeHaushreveals, people collaborate to build a shared understanding incrementally,improvisation byimprovisation,just as inagameof charades. Ifwe are correct,theworld’s 7000or so differentlanguages are the result of countless repetitions of suchcharade-like games.

• Origin myths Evenas young researchers,we sawseveral reasons to doubtthe beliefthatlanguage has its primary origininbiology. For a start, languages changemuchfaster thanourbrains canevolve.Ittook less than8000years for languages as diverse as Danish,Hindi, Polish, andWazirito evolve froma common proto-Indo-Europeanorigin,for example, whereashumanevolutionis onthe timescale Hofhundreds ofthousands of years.Besides, ARRIET NOBLE > evolutionhasno foresight, so couldn’thave adapted our early ancestors inAfrica to deal withthe subsequent spectacular diversity oftheworld’s languages.Rather, biological evolutionadapts organisms to their local environment, as illustrated byCharles Darwin’s studies of Galapagos finches,which revealed thatthe birdshad evolved into different specieswithbeak variations each exquisitely adapted to cracknuts, eat cactus fruits or catchinsects.Iflanguage evolved throughbiological adaptation,wewould expect distinct adaptations ofinnate grammars to the differentlocal linguistic environments.Butthis isn’tthe case:distantly related populations showno signs ofhaving brains adapted to their particular language. After all, across theworld,immigrant children easily learnthe language oftheirnewhome. Iflanguage doesn’t come frombiology, then,where does it come from?We believe the answer is culture: language evolution is cultural evolution.And that,we argue, requires a rethink ofhowlanguageworks, too.Itisn’t agameoftennis inwhichmessages are lobbed back and forthbetweenminds, whichsystematically extractthe information. AsCook’smeetingwiththeHaushreveals, people collaborate to build a shared understanding incrementally,improvisation byimprovisation,just as inagameof charades. Ifwe are correct,theworld’s 7000or so differentlanguages are the result of countless repetitions of suchcharade-like games.