The presence of language stands as a defining human characteristic, setting us apart from other species. Even in early infancy, infants show positive responses to their exposure language’s melodies and tend to withdraw from those speaking a different dialect or language (Kinzler, Shutts, DeJesus & Spelke, 2009). Across the globe, people communicate through a diverse tapestry of approximately 7,000 languages, each imposing distinct demands on its speakers (Boroditsky, 2011).

Consider this: conveying that my aunt gave five blue gloves to her friend varies dramatically across languages. In Mian, the verb choice indicates whether the event occurred recently, yesterday, or in the distant past. Indonesian verbs don’t specify if the event happened or is forthcoming. Turkish verbs reveal whether I was present or heard it from someone else. Russian requires details about the shade of blue. Mandarin necessitates clarifying the aunt’s relation by blood or marriage and her maternal or paternal side. In Arabic, I have to indicate the gender of her friend. In Pirahã, expressing “five” is impossible; they use words for “few” or “many” instead of exact numbers. Despite these language differences, variations in speech don’t necessarily equate to different ways of thinking. How do we ascertain if speakers of Mian, Turkish, Russian, Indonesian, Mandarin, Arabic or Pirahã genuinely perceive, remember, and reason about the world differently due to their spoken languages?

The relation between language and thought

Many hold the belief that thought and language are inseparable, assuming that thinking occurs “in” language, implying that without language, thought itself ceases to exist. Helen Keller’s account (1955) of recognizing the signed symbol for “water” sparking thought and emotions previously absent supports this view. Numerous intellectual figures echo similar sentiments: “The limits of my language are the limits of my world” (Wittgenstein, 1922), and “The ‘real world’ is largely built upon the language habits of the group” (Sapir, 1941, as cited in Whorf, 1956, p. 75). According to this perspective, without language, many thoughts may be inaccessible, and different languages might lead to different modes of thought among various human communities. But is this indeed the case?

In a practical sense, language significantly shapes thought by facilitating the transfer of ideas between minds. According to the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis, individual languages heavily influence the conceptual frameworks available to their speakers, limiting or guiding mental activities like categorization, memory, reasoning, and decision-making. This view suggests that linguistic structures act as a blueprint for an individual’s mental processes. Exploring diverse linguistic systems could shed light on the varied modes of thinking cultivated or influenced by these languages. Slobin’s thinking-for-speaking framework (1996, 2003) suggests that speakers tend to conceptualize events in a way that aligns with their language’s structure, eventually adopting thinking patterns similar to their speech or writing habits over time.

We start with an influential example of language shaping perceptual categories: the phenomenon of categorical perception of phonemes. Initially, children can discern all acoustic-phonetic properties used by languages to convey meaning (Eimas, Siqueland, Jusczyk & Vigorito, 1971). However, around the time when language acquisition begins, infants, approximately a year old, start to lose sensitivity to phonetic differences that aren’t phonemic (i.e., don’t influence higher levels of linguistic structure) in the language they’re exposed to (Werker & Tees, 1984).

Let’s explore Pormpuraaw, where the Kuuk Thaayorre language takes a unique approach to spatial directions. Unlike English, which uses terms like left and right, Kuuk Thaayorre relies on absolute cardinal directions (north, south, east, west, etc.). While English uses cardinal directions mostly for larger scales, Kuuk Thaayorre incorporates them at every level. This means phrases like “the cup is southeast of the plate” or “the boy south of Mary is my brother” are common. In Pormpuraaw, constant orientation is necessary for proper communication.

Stephen C. Levinson’s groundbreaking research over the past two decades revealed that speakers of languages reliant on absolute directions excel in spatial orientation, even in unfamiliar environments. They surpass individuals in similar settings who don’t speak these languages, surpassing what scientists thought humans could achieve. Their languages cultivate and enhance this cognitive skill. Differences in spatial perception can also extend to temporal thinking. For instance, Alice Gaby and colleagues tested Kuuk Thaayorre speakers’ ability to sequence shuffled photographs depicting age progressions, growth, or consumption, observing unique approaches to arranging these images to reflect correct temporal order. They conducted two tests, with each person positioned in a different cardinal direction. In this task, English speakers typically arrange the cards from left to right, reflecting the progression of time. Hebrew speakers, on the other hand, tend to organize the cards from right to left, aligning with their writing direction. However, the Kuuk Thaayorre approach time differently. They arranged the cards from east to west, adjusting their arrangement based on their seated direction—facing south, the cards progressed left to right; facing north, it was right to left; facing east, it moved toward the body, and so forth. This unique spatial orientation was employed spontaneously without any external cues about their facing direction.

Time representations exhibit diversity globally. For instance, English speakers envision the future as “ahead” and the past as “behind.” In 2010, Lynden Miles and colleagues observed that English speakers tend to lean forward unconsciously when contemplating the future and backward for the past. Conversely, in Aymara, a language spoken in the Andes, the past is referred to as “ahead” and the future as “behind.” Interestingly, Aymara speakers’ gestures align with their language; research by Raphael Núñez and Eve Sweetser in 2006 noted that Aymara speakers gesture in front of them while discussing the past and behind them when discussing the future.

In certain languages, the organization of color categories and terms differs significantly from English. For instance, in Berinmo (spoken in Papua-New Guinea) and Himba (spoken in Namibia), there aren’t distinct terms for green and blue; instead, a single word is used to encompass both colors. Research by Roberson et al. (2000, 2005) explored the phenomenon of categorical perception (CP) of color among speakers of English, Berinmo, and Himba. CP refers to the enhanced discriminability of colors that cross a category boundary compared to those within a color category. During the study, participants were shown a colored target and had to identify which of two stimuli presented five seconds later matched the target. Across each language group, performance improved when the target and distractor stimuli had different color names (e.g., in English, a blue target with a purple distractor) compared to when they shared the same name (e.g., two different shades of blue in English). Results indicated CP among all three participant groups, but specifically at color boundaries explicitly marked in their respective languages. Critically, there was no CP effect at the proposed universal boundary between green and blue for speakers of Himba and Berinmo, whose languages do not distinguish between these colors.

Languages differ in how they categorize substances, like distinguishing between mass nouns and count nouns. In many languages, including English, count nouns are commonly used for countable items and appear in both singular and plural forms, allowing enumeration. On the other hand, mass nouns (e.g., sand and dirt) cannot be counted in the same manner and don’t have singular or plural contexts (*some sands and *two dirts). However, in languages like Yucatec Mayan, nouns lack the specification for individuation. Instead of indicating a unit, they refer simply to the substance or material of an object. For instance, rather than saying two candles, they might express “two units of long thin wax.” Lucy (1993) conducted a study with Yucatec Mayan and English-speaking participants. They were shown an object and asked to determine which of two options were most similar, one resembling the original in shape and the other in substance. The study revealed that while English speakers favored the choice that matched in shape, Yucatec Mayans divided their preferences between the two alternatives.

In a study by Boroditsky and colleagues (2003), German and Spanish speakers were asked to describe objects with gender assignments in their respective languages. The descriptions given aligned with the predicted grammatical gender. For instance, when prompted to describe a “key”—a masculine word in German and feminine in Spanish—German speakers tended to use words like “hard,” “heavy,” “jagged,” “metal,” “serrated,” and “useful,” whereas Spanish speakers leaned towards “golden,” “intricate,” “little,” “lovely,” “shiny,” and “tiny.” Conversely, for a “bridge,” feminine in German and masculine in Spanish, German speakers used descriptors like “beautiful,” “elegant,” “fragile,” “peaceful,” “pretty,” and “slender,” while Spanish speakers used “big,” “dangerous,” “long,” “strong,” “sturdy,” and “towering.” Remarkably, these differences persisted despite all testing being conducted in English, a language without grammatical gender.

Evidentiality, a linguistic feature, discloses the source of information regarding past events—whether it’s from direct sensory experience, hearsay, or inference. In languages like Turkish, evidentiality is grammatically embedded, requiring speakers to specify their information source. However, in languages like English, this is more flexible and optional, expressed through vocabulary rather than grammar. In a study by Tosun, Vaid, and Geraci (2013), Turkish speakers were proficient in recognizing firsthand information, similar to English speakers. But when it came to second-hand information, Turkish speakers lagged behind English speakers. Bilingual Turkish-English individuals performed like Turkish monolinguals in Turkish tests and akin to English monolinguals in English tests. However, late Turkish-English bilinguals continued to resemble Turkish monolinguals even in English tests, showing lower accuracy in recognizing second-hand information compared to firsthand details.

Research demonstrates that altering language impacts cognitive processes. Introducing new color terms or altering temporal expressions can shift individuals’ abilities to perceive colors or conceptualize time. This aligns with the Turkish saying ‘one language, one person,’ suggesting that each language learned shapes a distinct cognitive perspective. Considering this, when I encounter the following verses from the Quran, I interpret the purpose behind God’s creation of diversity as a means for us to understand one another better and strive towards personal growth and improvement.

And among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the diversity of your languages and colors. Surely in this are signs indeed for people who have knowledge (of the facts in creation and who are free of prejudices). (30:22)

O humankind! Surely We have created you from a single (pair of) male and female, and made you into tribes and families so that you may know one another (and so build mutuality and co-operative relationships, not so that you may take pride in your differences of race or social rank, and breed enmities). Surely the noblest, most honorable of you in God’s sight is the one best in piety, righteousness, and reverence for God. Surely God is All-Knowing, All-Aware. (49:13)

References

• Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A., & Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought, 22, 61-79.
• Boroditsky, L. (2011). How language shapes thought. Scientific American, 304(2), 62-65.
• Boroditsky, L., & Gaby, A. (2010). Remembrances of times East: absolute spatial representations of time in an Australian aboriginal community. Psychological science, 21(11), 1635-1639.
• Eimas, P., Siqueland, E., Jusczyk, P., & Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science, 171, 303-306.
• Keller, H. (1955). Teacher: Anne Sullivan Macy. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.
• Kinzler, K. D., Shutts, K., DeJesus, J., & Spelke, E.S. (2009). Accent trumps race in guiding children’s social preferences. Social Cognition 27:4, 623-634.
• Levinson, S. C. (2003) Space in language and cognition: Explorations in linguistic diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lucy, J. A. (1993). Metapragmatic presentationals: reporting speech with quotatives in Yucatec Maya. Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, 91-125.
• Miles, L., Nind, L., & Macrae, C. (2010). Moving through time. Psychological Science, 21(2), 222.
• Núñez, R. E., & Sweetser, E. (2006). With the future behind them: Convergent evidence from Aymara language and gesture in the crosslinguistic comparison of spatial construals of time. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 401-450.
• Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I. R., & Shapiro, L. R. (2005). Color categories: Evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 50(4), 378-411.
• Roberson, D., Davies, I., & Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(3), 369.
• Sapir, E. (1941). In L. Spier, Language, culture and personality: essays in memory of Edward Sapir. Menasha, WI: Memorial Publication Fund. Cited in Whorf (1956, p. 134).
• Slobin, D. (1996). From ‘thought and language’ to ‘thinking for speaking’. In J. Gumperz & S. C. Levinson (eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity, 70-96. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Slobin, D. (2003). Language and thought online: Cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the investigation of language and thought, 157-191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Tosun, S., Vaid, J., & Geraci, L. (2013). Does obligatory linguistic marking of source of evidence affect source memory? A Turkish/English investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(2), 121-134.
• Werker, J., & Tees, R. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: Evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development, 7, 49-63.
• Whorf, B.L. (1956). Language, Thought and Reality. Ed. by J. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Ed. by D.F. Pears.

Literature & Languages

Articles

NASA Mission Sheds New Light On the Sun

Bale SD et al. “Highly structured slow solar wind emerging from an equatorial coronal hole.”

Howard RA et al. “Near-Sun observations of an F-corona decrease and K-corona fine structure.”

Kasper JC et al. “Alfvénic velocity spikes and rotational flows in the near-Sun solar wind.”

McComas DJ et al. “Probing the energetic particle environment near the Sun.”

Nature, December 2019.

Although the sun sits at the center of our solar system, its most basic behaviors still remain a big mystery. NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, launched in 2018, aimed to address some of the fundamental questions about the sun: Why is the sun’s outer atmosphere, the corona, so hot? Where does solar wind come from, and what causes it to be shot out of the corona? What makes the sun flare up sometimes, shooting even more excited particles out into space? These are some of the questions that scientists hope Parker can answer before its mission ends in 2025. Meanwhile, Parker got very close to the Sun for several days last November and in April 2019. Parker Solar Probe during its two encounters traveled within 15 million miles of the Sun’s surface, far surpassing the 25-million-mile record first set by NASA’s Helios 2 mission in 1976. Parker has also claimed the title of the fastest human-made object in history from Helios 2, as it surfed near the Sun at over 153,000 miles per hour. Its first batch of released results came from measurements of the corona, which is, remarkably, hotter than the surface itself. The corona extends millions of miles from the surface into space. The region is only visible to the naked eye during a solar eclipse as a golden ring hanging in a darkened sky. The corona emits powerful streams of high-energy particles, known as solar wind, which can be felt all across the solar system. Parker’s data shows that solar winds are far more turbulent near the sun than in our own vicinity. The wind drags the sun’s magnetic field out into space, and even bends the field enough for magnetic forces to completely flip around for a few minutes at a time, pointing back at the sun itself instead of into space. The strength of this effect was completely surprising and puzzling. Scientists also found that shifts in the sun’s magnetic field speed up the particles flowing away from the sun much faster than any of their models had previously predicted.

This really highlights the idea that proximity is everything for studying the sun. Parker continues to edge closer to the sun. As its orbit shrinks, it will eventually reach a perihelion distance of just 6.16 million km in 2025, where it will experience temperatures of nearly 1400°C. Thanks to the protection provided by its specially-designed, carbon-composite heat shield, the probe won’t melt and the spacecraft and its instruments will be kept at a temperature of about 29°C.

Science Stands Behind Bilingual Children

Nicoladis et al. “How to use a wide variety of words in telling a story with a small vocabulary: cognitive predictors of lexical selection for simultaneous bilingual children.” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, October 2019.

A new study shows that bilingual children use just as many words while telling a story in either language as do children who only speak one language. Past research showed that bilingual children score lower than monolingual children on traditional vocabulary tests. However, these new findings may change the understanding of multiple languages and cognition in children. Learning a word is directly related to how much time is spent in each language. For bilingual children, time is split between languages. As expected, they tend to have lower vocabularies in each of their languages. However, this new research shows that as a function of storytelling, bilingual children are equally strong as monolingual children. Researchers examined a group of French-English bilingual children who had been taught two languages since birth, rather than learning a second language later in life. They used a new, highly sensitive measure for examining cognitive flexibility, a participant’s ability to switch between games with different rules, while maintaining accuracy and reaction time. Their study builds on previous research examining vocabulary in bilingual children who have learned English as a second language. Overall, the bilingual children used just as many words to tell a story in English as monolingual children. The children also used just as many words in French as they did in English when telling a story. Their analysis suggests that the number of words that bilingual children use in their stories is strongly correlated with their high levels of cognitive flexibility—the ability to switch between thinking about different concepts. Researchers emphasize that parents of bilingual children do not need to be concerned about long-term school achievement. Vocabulary is a strong predictor of success in education, and so is storytelling. In a storytelling context, bilingual kids are able to use this flexibility to convey stories in creative ways.

New Tomatoes Engineered for Urban Gardens and Outer Space

Kwon CT et al. “Rapid customization of Solanaceae fruit crops for urban agriculture.” Nature Biotechnology, December 2019.

Humanity have a massive problem: feeding our future selves. As a result of rising population, continued destruction due to climate change, and the fact that sustainable land use is becoming ever-more challenging, learning how to grow enough food for everyone is a burning question to address in the agriculture field. In an effort to grow more crops in smaller and less-than-ideal locations, scientists developed new genetically-modified “urban” tomatoes that ripen in compact bunches similar to grapes. These tomatoes resemble a bouquet whose roses have been replaced by ripe cherry tomatoes. They also mature quickly, producing ripe fruit that’s ready for harvest in less than 40 days. Scientist utilized the CRISPR gene-editing technology and produced the new tomatoes by fine-tuning three genes that control the switch to reproductive growth and plant size: 1) the SELF-PRUNING (SP), 2) SP5G, and 3) SIER genes. While the first two genes have the duty prevent growth, flowering and fruiting of the plant sooner, the SIER gene is in charge of controlling the length of the plant’s stems. Altering the first two genes resulted in tomato plants that didn’t produce a lot of fruit and tasted poorly. It was not until the scientists identified the third gene that they were able to produce the desired plant. This study demonstrates that we can produce crops in new ways, without having to tear up our land as much or add excessive fertilizer that runs off into rivers and streams. This could also be a complementary approach to help feed people locally and with a reduced carbon footprint. Climate change is expected to change growing conditions on Earth, worsening conditions for many crops.

Farmers could soon be growing tomatoes bunched like grapes in a storage unit, in a shipping container, on the roof of a skyscraper, and – as humanity stretches out past low Earth orbit toward the moon – eventually, in Mars.

Is it why we cannot attain maximum mental performance?

If you are one of those people who are unsatisfied with their foreign language competence after many years of hard work, practice, and exposure, then this article may be for you. Even though research in foreign language learning enumerates several factors for foreign language failure – social, psychological, cognitive and affective – whose roles cannot be overlooked, my own view is somewhat different: I firmly believe that one of the main reasons why so many people cannot attain maximum performance, not only in foreign languages but also in other subjects, is largely because of “mental pollution.” This is why, I think, children are superior to adults at learning foreign languages, for they are devoid of severe mental pollution.

Let me first clarify what I mean by “mental pollution.” Certain images of different sizes, qualities, and shapes displayed on billboards, shop windows, posters, brochures, magazines, ads, TV, movies, videos, websites – these are mental pollution. Depending on their form and characteristic, they may greatly abuse a person’s mental energy and lead to chaotic and disturbing emotions. The more irrelevant, enticing, or lustful images are, the more detrimental they are to our social and academic life. For example, a small logo of a computer game – perhaps the size of a 5 cent coin – such as the dragon from Mortal Kombat, contains at minimum three kilobytes (3072 characters), which is equal to about 400 English words. Despite the premise that we only use 8-10 percent of our mental capacity, the amount of visual data the human brain is permanently exposed to cannot be underestimated when so many people, especially children, watch TV, play computer games, and surf the internet. Obscene pictures, in particular, are a common form of mental pollution nowadays, and they are some of the most deleterious to the human mind; they drastically increase blood pressure and heart rate and thus weaken the memory. As an example, a study by Brad J. Bushman has apparently revealed that watching violent television programs has adverse effects on one’s ability to remember.

Fethullah Gülen, a renowned modern Islamic intellectual, reminds us of the seriousness of the topic, while more people than ever before complain about forgetfulness and memory weakness. According to Gülen, the process of learning now takes longer than in the past, and forgetfulness, like an infection, has become prevalent among all levels of society due to polluted minds teeming with irrelevant information. He also points out that long ago people complained when they were not able to memorize and recite by heart a page after only one reading. In this day and age, people complain about weak memory and confess that they have great difficulty memorizing a short text that they have read more than 20 times. For a keen memory, his message to the present generation is to stay away from useless routines, frivolous conversations, irrelevant knowledge, and sources of obscenity.

Similar to a computer, the untrained human mind whose protection filter is set to a low level is under constant visual attack. Given this, mental pollution acts like a computer virus, a code that replicates by copying itself to another program, document, or e-mail, thereby seriously slowing down memory operations. Also, it can erase data or damage the computer’s hard disk, which is analogous to long-term memory in the human brain. Interestingly enough, lab experiments on rats have revealed that these animals simply choose to starve to death when they are tempted by brain reward-stimulus circuits in quests for neuro-orgasms. These rats rarely attain balanced brain chemistry, while the orgasm they experience results in a hangover that lasts for weeks. The same condition is also true for the human mind: the unnecessary over-discharge of hormones triggered by electrifying visual stimuli can lead to long-lasting forgetfulness, fatigue, and serious concentration problems. In such a case, a person cannot make sense of whatever he is studying until the side effects of mental pollution are over.

Foreign language learning also substantially suffers from the harmful effects of copious amounts of mental pollution. The modern methodology and technology to facilitate foreign language learning can be hampered by overwhelming exposure to mental pollution. Although they did not have the contemporary language learning resources and facilities, many early scholars and polyglots managed to learn numerous foreign languages. For instance, Guiseppe Caspar Mezzofanti, an Italian cardinal and famed linguist, is believed to have spoken 38 languages and 50 dialects fluently. Similarly, Sir John Bowring (100), Emil Krebs (68), Ziad Youssef Fazah (56), Ali Ufki (16), Muhammad Hamidullah (22), Pamulaparthi Venkata Narasimha Rao (13), Jose Rizal (22), and Sir Richard Francis Burton (29) were able to speak and read in many languages and dialects, as shown in parentheses, and their success is considerably astonishing when we compare them to present academics who have problems at mastering only one foreign language despite the available modern resources. I believe that these past scholars and polyglots, besides their talent and enthusiasm, did not suffer from widespread mental pollution as we do today. For example, the polyglot Mezzofanti was a prodigy in languages mostly because he spent his life in a monastery and therefore was not subject to any form of mental pollution that could preoccupy his mind and weaken his memory.

I am greatly convinced that an oft-overlooked but very serious barrier – mental pollution – which is very common among people, is a crucial reason for many people’s failure to learn a foreign language, among other subjects. In any discipline (academic or non-academic) where memory involvement is important, it is necessary to be aware of mental pollution. As long as we are unable to control our contact with mental pollution, learning new material will be very difficult and time-consuming, no matter how hard we try, and forgetfulness will continue to be unavoidable.

What makes this event unique compared to other attempts at bringing people together to celebrate our heritages, our cultures, and our languages? For me it is the spirit of the philosophical rationale underpinning the organizers of the event: the Horizon Educational Trust, the Gauteng Provincial Department of Arts, Culture and Recreation of South Africa, the South African-Turkish Business Association, and the Turquoise Harmony Institute. What do they share in common that helps them to run a festival of diversity?

First, the festival is deeply focused on the “the diamonds” of the show: namely, the youth, who are students from a range of Turkish schools across the globe who came to showcase their experiences of dialogue, sharing the riches of their own cultures while embracing the opportunities for self-growth, discovery, and development as they learned to speak a common language of respect and value. Yes, there were the perfunctory speeches from dignitaries and sponsors. Yes, the organizers emphasized the role of Turkey offering not just bilateral South Africa-Turkey relations, but also access into the worlds where Turkish conceptions were sowing seeds across the international community. Yes, there was a nod to providing awards to the Mandela family in recognition of his contribution to world peace. But these speeches did not dominate the program; it was clear that the unexpressed agenda of the organizers was directed not towards scoring political points or grandstanding. The event was an opportunity to learn from others through appreciating difference and viewing “others” not as potential threats, a waging of supremacist ideological battles, or the harmful promotion of political factions. We, as the audience, were spectators of a new world in gestation.

The simplicity and genuineness of the hosts came through on multiple levels, but especially in how they promoted the view that cultural dialogues are easily communicated beyond linguistic specifics. The universal languages of arts, music, and dance speak volumes. The festival program directors marked each individual presentation with an evocative introduction translating the songs they rendered and offering connection with the message of the colors of a rainbow world, enriched by our diversity. Whist they hinted at the countries of origin of the performers, they were careful not to set any one up as “exotic others” against some normative hegemony, or in a competitive ascendancy. Each performance was afforded a dignity in its own right and the young stars rose spectacularly to the occasion with confidence and committed expertise. They exuded that this was a festival, not a competition; a celebration of dialogue of selves, not egoistic performances.

Notably, the program was also consciously planned to bring different performers onto the same stage in simultaneous coupled or multiple-group renditions, showing that it is not uniqueness alone that is to be valued, but one’s ability to stand alongside, and in concert with, other perspectives and points of view. We saw Romanian and Georgian songstresses hold back-to-back performances with South African backing vocals. We were mesmerized by a heartfelt Whitney Houston song, “I Am Nothing Without You” performed by an Australian teenager wearing traditional Islamic dress. We witnessed the choral singing of Turkish and South African songs by enthusiastic students on a full stage. A duo of a lanky African American and a suave South African Durbanite executed a spirited “Stand By Me” performance. An elegant impersonation of Adele’s “Someone Like You” by a Catholic girl from the Philippines sent shivers down one spine and brought tears to most eyes:

I wish nothing but the best for you…

The penetrating, almost operative gusto of “Je t’aime” by a pint-sized French lass celebrated the wonderful potential young people possess. Mozambican sisters, and Netherlander siblings, and Madagascar soloist performers continued to show the spirit of the festival by singing in Portuguese, Dutch, and Turkish. Audience members fervently waved randomly distributed miniature flags from all participating countries. Each member of the audience was randomly assigned arbitrary custodianship of these nationalistic symbols. The “We are the World” popular mantra brought all solo performers alongside the whole starry cast in a memorable display of togetherness. A South African dance group exhibited their pot pourri of traditional Turkish folkdances. Local variations of kwaito music and gumboot dancers culminated in a costumed celebration of all performers: North, South, East, and West in a rousing reinterpretation of the Southern anthem, Shoholoza. A tribute from the whole student group to both Mahatma Gandhi (in Gurathi) and Nelson Mandela (in isiXhosa) demonstrated the lessons of these international icons of harmony and commitment to social justice, through quiet, yet powerful engagement and dialogue. The celebratory pictures of their historical lives, presented in a back-to-back sequence, were a tribute by themselves. What a collage of possibilities peppered with the spice of smiles!

The music genres spanned both traditional and modern forms. It was quite evident that the star performers (ranging in age from early to late teens) were selected as exemplars of exceptional artistry. Each performance was reinforced by graphic slides depicting scenes from the performers’ home countries. Natural fauna and flora, cultural and architectural monuments, and significant people or groups formed the worldwide educational tour via the panoramic backdrop visuals. Some graphics told visual stories of evolving forms and features of the worldwide community. The program saw the presentation of singers performing their own and other cultural languages. They adapted costume styles from different settings outside their home countries. The kaleidoscope that emerged was a festival of variety: where people of different groups exchanged dress styles, languages, and dance choreographs to communicate the possibility for the dialogical space that a new cultural movement can embrace.

South Africans are perhaps skeptical of this kind of multicultural celebration due to apartheid. In such a form of cultural celebration, different cultures are placed alongside each other as enclaved entities, highlighting the “boundaries” of one’s beliefs, a celebration of otherness. Such divergence produced a “multi-cultural” endeavor that promoted a political hierarchy of perspectives which took on racialized proportions with disastrous effects.

In present times however, many proponents of the “new era” of cultural affirmation in post-apartheid South Africa see cultural celebration as an attempt to assert a new regime of hierarchies with one cultural form replacing the previously powerful forms. This is also more often associated with the representations of political power which silence those who differ from the majority perspective, the new master narrative, or dominant worldview. How different is this from multi-cultural apartheid?

By contrast, the Turkish school movement inspired by the international Hizmet philosophy of “service to humanity” is characterized by a worldview that celebrates the interdependent common ground across all cultural expressions. Their outward manifestations may differ, but cultural representations highlight the similitude of our humanity, and our quest for dialogue, love, and tolerance. This is embodied by the writings and teachings of a key founder of the Hizmet Movement: Fethullah Gülen. In this version of “inter-culturalism,” the attempt is to develop individuals who are conscious of their own self and their heritage, but not in service of a protectionist or preservationist agenda. From this firm position of self-strength, one is able to reach out to the world of others. We see in others, too, our agenda for our common quests. Our reaching out is a service to realizing peace and harmony – which is a goal sorely needed in a war-torn, politicized and ideologized world, which often uses religious beliefs as rallying points for promoting hostility, supremacy, and divergence. Sometimes these separatist agendas are disguised econometric plots, too! Cultural affirmation is not a hearkening to a fossilized past, but a recognition that our habits and routines can mutate and extend through dialogue and exchange; our borders can be more inviting and more welcoming.

A third kind of cultural engagement is “juxta-culturalism” which merely tolerates different groups walking alongside each other, never interconnecting. This is sadly the lived experiences of many who pursue only a narcissist nationalistic myopic agenda, seeing only the boundaries of geography and politics as the border of their selfhood. This produces expressions of xenophobia which does not recognize the inherent commonality of all human beings. We are all created equal in the eyes of God. Our nationalist identity is only a man-made demarcation, dividing one set of people from another. It is more commonplace that many individuals in our modern global society, live outside the borders within which their forefathers were born. We may draw our cultural roots from one geographic space, but live in another context altogether.

Human history has been replete with stories of crossing borders, migrations due to the ravages of political, economic, or natural disasters. Not all of these journeys are tales of joy. More likely, the fragile settled communities interpret the visiting migrant culture as undercutting the nationalistic goals of their society. Open hostility is unfortunately sanctioned as the appropriate response to keep the outsiders from penetrating our “safe world.” So, which version of cultural affirmation did the festival of language and culture promote?

I think that a version of “trans-disciplinary culturalism” emerged as the young stars of the show interacted to generate a positive energy of harmony by crossing over to the other side. Their own past matters; they remained rooted on their own river banks. But they were confident enough to swim across to the other side. The young performers were firmly grounded in the here and now of the present 21^st century, with all its influences: technology, media, and new musical and art forms, which they transported across the global village. And they dared us to dream of the possibility of building a new, shared cultural world. Their message was simple: we are simultaneously of the past, in the present, and eager to create the future. This movement across time and space, culture and geography, history and identity, are not threatening but enriching.

One of my lasting impressions was the emotional image of students embracing each other at the end of the show: this was the world in dialogue with each other. They had made a connection with those around them that would live on in their lives for many years. They will become the ambassadors of the new world order. The official festival song reverberates:

I saw a luminous future in my dream one night.
Lights were silent pouring down everywhere.
It was like a harmoniously working clock.
Dark nights had gone away.
A new world!
A new world!
They were building a new world.
Everywhere sparkled like the skies.
They were building a new world.

After the ceremony, I chatted with a young 12 year-old Albanian youth to congratulate him on his commanding and welcoming stage performance. He simply smiled broadly.

“No English. Me speak no English.” He smiled and held my hand, clutching his Albanian costume in one hand, his proud flag in another, and his infectious energy pouring out. Despite his lack of English skills, he was able to communicate via his open-hearted spirit.

What a festival of cultures and languages! Not essentialized, but harmonized. It was an expression of joyous humanity.

And there we found our God.

But now I think: was he from Albania or Afghanistan? Why do I not know these countries and their foreign flags? But does it matter?

His heart sparkled.

Reflections on the “13^th International Festival of Languages and Culture”
www.iflc.co.za
“Colours of the world”
18 March 2015
Nelson Mandela Theatre, Braaamfontein, Johannesburg

Michael Anthony Samuel is a professor of education at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, School of Education, Durban, South Africa.

Every language spoken in the world represents a special culture, melody, color, and asset and to everyone the mother language is certainly one of the most precious treasures in our lives. It’s a duty and responsibility to preserve it and pass it down from generation to generation. Whether we are urged by necessity or because of other reasons, learning another language brings a lot of advantages in our life. A new language opens a new window in our world view and makes us more aware, open-minded, and respectful to other cultures, lifestyles, customs and beliefs. Moreover, knowing another language has been proven to contribute to helping us understand our mother tongue better. However, much research indicates that most children eventually learn a second, or even more, languages to a native-like fluency level, what immigrant families are not often aware of is that many of their children are at risk of losing their mother tongue.

Mother language for emotional and mental growth

Mother language has a very powerful impact in the formation of the individual. Our first language, the beautiful sounds of which one hears and gets familiar with before being born while in the womb, has such an important role in shaping our thoughts and emotions. A child’s psychological and personality development will depend upon what has been conveyed through the mother tongue. With this in mind, as psychologists say, it matters tremendously that language expressions and vocabulary are chosen with care when we talk to children. A child’s first comprehension of the world around him, the learning of concepts and skills, and his perception of existence, starts with the language that is first taught to him, his mother tongue. In the same manner, a child expresses his first feelings, his happiness, fears, and his first words through his mother tongue. Mother language has such an important role in framing our thinking, emotions and spiritual world, because the most important stage of our life, childhood, is spent in its imprints. A strong bond between a child and his parents (especially mother) is established by virtue of love, compassion, body language, and also through the most important one, which is the verbal language. When a person speaks their mother tongue, a direct connection establishes between heart, brain and tongue. Our personality, character, modesty, shyness, defects, our skills, and all other hidden characteristics become truly revealed through the mother tongue because the sound of the mother tongue in the ear and its meaning in the heart give us trust and confidence. “If you talk to a man in a language he understands, that goes to his head. If you talk to him in his language, that goes to his heart,” says Nelson Mandela. I came across an interesting article in support of the above. A study was carried out on fifteen Italian interpreters who were working for the European Union and translating in English and Italian. The interpreters were all extremely fluent in English. The study revealed surprising differences in brain activity when the subjects were shown words in their native language versus in other languages they spoke. About 170 milliseconds after a word was shown, the researchers recorded a peak in electrical activity in the left side of the brain, in an area that recognizes letters as part of words before their meaning is interpreted. These brain waves had much higher amplitude when the word was in Italian, the language the interpreters had learned before age five. “The findings show how differently the brain absorbs and recalls languages learned in early childhood and later in life,” said Alice Mado Proverbio, a professor of cognitive electrophysiology at the Milano-Bicocca University in Milan. Proverbio attributed the differences to the fact that the brain absorbs the mother tongue at a time when it is also storing early visual, acoustic, emotional and other nonlinguistic knowledge. This means that the native language triggers a series of associations within the brain that show up as increased electrical activity. “Our mother tongue is the language we use to think, dream and feel emotion,” Proverbio said.

Mother tongue is an indicator of cultural identity

A child connects to his parents, family, relatives, culture, history, identity and religion through his mother tongue. Native language links the child with the culture of the society the child comes from and shapes his identity. A lot of children from immigrant families, who don’t know their native language well, are at a crossroads of identity crisis. When a child doesn’t know his language well we cannot say that he will be nurtured with his culture properly for the fact that the relationship between language and culture is deeply rooted. Mother tongue is one of the most powerful tools used to preserve and convey culture and cultural ties. Children who are unaware of their culture, their language, and their history will lose confidence in themselves, the family, society and the nation to which they belong and will have no other option then seeking an alternate identity. A child will identify himself with the language and culture he knows best. For this reason, the attitudes and beliefs of immigrant parents are so important in this aspect. If they want to prevent this from happening they should find ways to help their children maintain and improve their mother language without neglecting to give affirmative messages and keeping positive attitudes about other cultures. We must not also forget that we live in a multicultural society and we should teach our children to learn about other cultures and respect them as well.

Mother tongue provides the basis for learning another language

Jim Cummins also underscores the importance of preserving mother tongue: “Children who come to school with a strong foundation in their mother tongue develop stronger literacy abilities in the language used at school. When parents or caregivers are able to spend time with their children and tell stories or discuss issues with them in a way that develops their mother tongue vocabulary and concepts, children come to school well prepared to learn the language of their immigrant country and succeed educationally.”

The ability to converse in a language is developed through the mother tongue. The child will get familiarized with the nuances of a language, how to learn it and use it, and this will enable him or her to learn other languages as well. A strong foundation in their first language will contribute to learning another language and help them develop stronger literacy skills in the school language, because children’s literacy knowledge and abilities transfer across languages from mother tongue to the language the child is learning at school. When children continue to develop their abilities in two or more languages throughout their primary school years they gain a deeper understanding of language and gradually acquire knowledge about how it can be manipulated and applied in different ways. They explore the similarities and differences between languages. Unfortunately, for many bilingual children who have little mother tongue support at home, once they start school their mother tongue is gradually replaced by the majority or dominantly used language, especially in the early school years. Some parents and educators believe that in order for children to learn a second language quickly and succeed at school children should use the majority language not only at school, but even at home. In fact the opposite is true. Children can learn two or more languages at the same time. We know children who learn to speak fluently two or three languages in some countries where more than one language are spoken. Researches show that children from immigrant families learn the social majority language in the early years at school very quickly, although it takes longer to learn academic language, and can lose their ability to use their mother tongues easily. They can lose it even in the home context if the mother language is not used constantly at home or among peers of the same community. They may retain comprehension, but will use the majority language with siblings, friends, and parents. Unfortunately, I often see kids from the same minority community speak the majority language instead of their mother tongue among themselves, even when they are outside school. Preferring second language to first language most often occurs because children do not know how to express themselves fluently in their mother tongue in certain contexts and situations. They lack vocabulary and literal expressions in the mother tongue and find it easier to express themselves in the majority language. As children grow up, parents see the linguistic gap between them and their children has widened and leading to an emotional disconnection.

How to promote mother tongue

Keeping mother tongue in a foreign country does not happen spontaneously. Instead, it is an achievement that requires commitment and determination, especially from the family. Parents must establish a strong home language policy and make consistent efforts to help their children develop good literacy skills in their first language.

Here are some ideas about how parents can promote learning mother tongue:

-The first step parents should take is make children love mother tongue by finding ways that motivate and encourage its learning.

-Leave second language to the outside world and speak to children only in your mother tongue at home.

-Devote time each day to reading and writing in mother tongue with children until they become able to read and write it independently.

-Tell stories and discuss interesting topics such as your childhood-children love to hear about parents’ childhoods-your home country celebrations, because this will develop both their oral and vocabulary skills.

-Have books and multimedia for children in the home language.

– Provide a reward system and make learning mother language competitive among children.

-Watch TV series or favorite cartoons with them in the target language.

-Listen to songs in mother tongue.

-Send children to centers that offer courses and other types of learning in your language.

-Provide contexts where children can use home language such as visits to country of origin, organize picnics, cultural events, or celebrations with families from the same community.

-Have them keep journals in home language.

-Communicate your expectations about your home language to your child’s teachers. As professionals, they can encourage and support your child in keeping and developing their home language in many ways.

Hurisa Guvercin is an ESL and Special Education Teacher, currently living in New Jersey.

References

Cummins, Jim. Bilingual Children’s Mother Tongue Why Is It Important for Education? Available at http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/mother.htm. Accessed in June 2009.

International Herald Tribune, May 23, 2008. Brain Activity Reveals Mother Tongue. Available at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/05/23/europe/EU-FEA-GEN-Italy-Language-Of-Thoughts.php

Note

1. “Brain activity reveals mother tongue” published on March 23, 2008 in the International Herald Tribune.

When Did English and Hindi Begin to Differ?

The long-established “comparative method” of linguistics uses vocabulary, the structure of words, and the sound systems of languages to draw language family trees, depicting in what order related languages (such as, English, Hindi, and ancient Hittite) diverged from their mother languages and the relative “relatedness” of sister languages. Dates of divergence are usually referred to dates of historical or archaeological significance. For example, the Romanian language, a relative of Italian, must have been introduced to the region between 112 and 270 AD, when Roman troops occupied Dacia. However, the comparative method does not provide any dates itself, other than those of relative chronology. Lexicostatistics, the rival study for vocabulary change, extracts essential vocabulary from languages, such as “I, three, and hand,” which are assumed to be more resistant to change, and produces a metric of shared cognates and, hence, language kinship. Assuming a constant rate of language change over time, one can extrapolate to pre-history dates for language evolution. For example, one may try to estimate when the proto-Indo-European, the ancestor of English, Hindi, and Hittite, started branching into distinct new languages. Unfortunately, the promise of lexicostatistics (and its method, called glottochronology) became doubtful quickly after its birth. It was criticized very much in the same way as biological phylogenetic analyses were. One example to show the correspondence is that just as the mutation rates of genes (sequences of DNA) may change over time, languages may also be changing faster or slower at certain periods. Lexicostatistics is unreliable, as the similarity between languages could be mere chance convergences, or borrowings, or on the other hand, distant relatives could be unrecognizable after a great deal of divergence. These objections have plagued biology in similar ways.

Phylogenetics and Philology Side by Side

IJeJaEghoManMeHandMainRukaCheriDastHathThreeTroisTriTriaSeTinMotherMereMatMiteraMaderMaNewNouveaunoviykenuryosTazeNeyanoseNezNosMitiNaNak

Figure 1: A partial list

for Indo-European words used by Gray and Atkinson (Dyen, I. Kruskal, J.B. & Black, P., FILE IE-DATA1 at http://www.ntu.edu.au/education/langs/ielex/IE-DATA1)

The recent study by Gray and Atkinson from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, published on November 27 in Nature, uses enhanced methods developed for phylogenetic studies in language tree construction, which produces trees that are consistent with those established by the comparative method. Most importantly, maximum-likelihood models and the Bayesian inference method were employed, both being statistical methods now established in phylogenetics, to counteract any weaknesses found in past attempts of glottochronology. Their method makes it possible to estimate divergence times without a strict rate of change, also enabling the determination of unsubstantiated sections of the tree, and the incorporation of these uncertainties in the calculation of the trees and divergence times. Gray and Atkinson only used fourteen age constraints to calibrate their divergence time calculations in estimating chronology, and after confirming tests eliminated some of these constraints, doubtful cognates, and other problems, they were able to come up with a date for the initial divergence of all Indo-European languages of 7,800 to 9,800 years ago. These dates coincide beautifully with the Anatolian farmer hypothesis, which claims dispersion of Indo-Europeans from Anatolia (modern-day Turkey) with the spreading of agriculture around 8,000-9,500 years ago, a hypothesis now supported by genetic studies that report a Neolithic, Near Eastern contribution to the European gene pool as well.

An Alternative Theory

This study does not extinguish one of the fiercest discussions of this century, which is favored by many linguists, that linguistic evidence favors the Kurgan expansion hypothesis, with Kurgan horsemen invading and spreading from the Asian steppes 6,000 years ago. It is thought that Kurgan horsemen possessed certain advantages, like the knowledge of the wheel and horseback riding, just as the Anatolians knew about farming. These linguists claim that the statistical and computational methods used in biology do not reflect the way languages change, and these methods use only vocabulary, but ignore grammar. This new study is a shot in the arm for the supporters of the Anatolian theory and resurrects glottochronology. Obviously, the discussion is far from being over. To reconcile the two, Gray and Atkinson note that they have observed an intense diversification period in their data at a date of 6,000 years ago, and they refer to an inclusive theory of both Anatolian origin and Kurgan expansion.2

Intertwined Trees

In their article Gray and Atkinson predict the combination of computational phylogenetic methods and vocabulary data to examine archaeological hypotheses in the future, as methods developed for biology continue to establish themselves in social sciences. As David Searls of Glaxo-Smith-Kline Pharmaceuticals concludes in his “News and Views” article in the same issue of Nature,3 “[this work] should stimulate even more cross-fertilization of ideas among those studying the intertwined trees of life and language.”

We express and communicate our feelings, ideas and wishes through language. Cultural transmission and education from generation to generation is through language.

Linguists do not know how many languages there are. There is not even agreement about the number of languages in India. They do not agree on how to define a language and how to differentiate it from other linguistic codes such as dialects or sociolects. We know that languages change according to social context and that each individual has his or her own ideolect, or repertoire of linguistic codes. We also know that the dominance of some linguistic codes over others is related to political and economic power. It has been said that the difference between a language and a dialect is that a language is spoken by a people with an army and a navy. Philosophers and linguists have for centuries debated (and differed) about the origin and development of language.

Secular linguists have proposed four theories, all related in some way to an evolutionist account of human development for the origin of language. Linguists who draw on religious sources have a fifth alternative, namely the idea that language is a Divine gift to human beings -an idea shared by the three major monotheistic religions.

The secular theories of language

Secular linguists at least agree that the question of the origin of human language is still unsolved. After much discussion, they have concluded that the data available on the subject yield little or no evidence about the origin of human language. By means of comparative and reconstructive techniques, they have presented some information about early stages of the development of particular languages.

However, these techniques are applicable only for a period of up to about four to six thousand years. This is far less than the million years that they themselves believe human language to have existed.

Unlike other so-called sciences, linguistics and philosophy of language cannot pretend to have access to data related to the origin of their subject of study. There are no tape recordings which can be served up as ‘the missing link’ between men and monkeys. Therefore, their theories are based on what is observable around them-animal cries, the languages of what they consider ‘primitive’ groups and the speech of infants.

Animal cries

The gap between the meaningful behaviour of animals and human speech is so wide that available evidence does not furnish a bridge. Animal cries are characterized by invariability and monotony. Human language, by contrast, displays infinite variability. If we take animal cries as our starting point and suppose that language developed out of something similar, we face a number of problems. How could an ordered phonemic system grow out of the disorderly monotony of animal cries? How did the meanings of most speech forms come to be arbitrary? How did linguistic structure develop out of the undifferentiated cry? In short, animal cries are so vastly different from human language, it is inconceivable that speech could have evolved from them. Animals, according to Professor James (1938), have all the necessary speech organs but do not have language. Human, speech is obviously and only human.

‘Primitive’ groups

It was once thought that the speech of ‘primitive’ societies was something halfway between animal cries and human language, and that by studying them we could learn how language evolved. But the very notion of ‘primitive’ peoples has long been thought questionable. In any case, their languages are, as a rule, only ‘primitive’ with reference to the vocabulary of modern civilizations; their structures (grammar and syntax) show at least as much (often more) complexity and sophistication than ‘non-primitive’ languages.

The speech of infants

Study of the speech of infants has not yielded any clear results either. From birth, children are under the influence of adult speech, which they proceed to imitate. If all that is needed for language is a process of imitation, why are apes, who imitate humans so well in other respects, linguistically ‘inferior’ to birds, who can imitate us in respect to linguistic sounds? Why do cats and dogs, who have been living with us and observing us for many centuries, fail to imitate the sounds we make when we imitate theirs so well?

Despite these manifest errors in the assumptions on which the theories were based, some linguists still promote four onomatopoeic theories.

The bow-wow theory

This theory suggests speech was invented by attempting to imitate the characteristic sound of the thing referred to. The characteristic that differentiates a dog from other creatures is its bark. That is why, it is said some children call dogs ‘bow-wow’. Another example: the ‘first man’ heard the whistling of the wind and the hissing of the snake and named them ‘wind’ and ‘snake.’

The ding-dong theory

This theory, associated with the German philologist, Max Muller, holds that the origin of language is connected to rhythm. Like bow-wow, it relies on the idea that humans imitate what is around them. It suggests we imitate the rhythms around us developing first a simple hum and later words. The only evidence proposed is the ‘war dances’ and ‘ballads’ which, it is claimed, are common to all ‘primitive’ people.

The pooh-pooh theory

This theory traces language back to the emotional interjections evoked by pain, pleasure, disgust, etc.

Even secular theorists who believe in evolution like Wilbur Urban (1939) dismiss the above theories for being their assumptions and insufficient evidence.

The gesture theory

The idea that the earliest method of communication was through gesture which later developed into language was first proposed by Wilheim Wundt and elaborated by Paget (1935). They suggest that as most of our hand gestures are accompanied by movements of the jaw and many of our verbal expressions are supported by bodily actions, sign and spoken language are intrinsically connected. Among the bits of evidence offered for this hypothesis is the fact that, in English, I and me both involve drawing air inwards whereas you and thou involve the opposite.

This theory has the same weaknesses as the others. The few samples of so-called data are not enough to justify the assumptions that are built on them. All these theories are attempts to contrive ‘evidence’ for what is essentially a belief-a belief that humans evolved from monkeys. Those who do not believe in evolution, but believe that humans were created by an Almighty God do not subscribe to the above theories. They look to revelation.

Language as a divine gift

Language is one of the greatest gifts of the Creator. The Merciful Creator gave his Prophets miracles as evidence for their holy mission. The greatest miracle of prophet Adam was use of language. The event is alluded in the verses of the Qur’an, itself a linguistic miracle:

He taught Adam the names of all things and then set them before the angels, saying: ‘Tell Me the names of these, if what you say be true.’ Then said He: ‘Adam, tell their names.’ And when Adam had named them, He said: ‘Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of the heavens and the earth, and all that you reveal and all that you conceal? (al-Baqara, 2.31-33)

It maybe understood from these verses that man did not invent language, as some scientists claim, but that he received it as a direct gift from God. There was no time that people were without language. We had the potential for speech from the beginning of our existence. On this point, Quintilian said: ‘God, that All-Powerful Creator of nature and architect of the world, has impressed man with no greater characteristic to distinguish him from other creatures, than the faculty of speech.’

This view of language is common to all the monotheistic peoples. The Bible says about language and its origin too:

Whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof (Genesis, 2.19).

Because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth (Genesis, 11.19).

Human speech makes humans human. God created them and honoured them with the ability to speak, thereby distinguishing them from animals. He distinguished them from the angels by teaching the first man, Adam, the names of all things. In doing so, He gave him the key to understanding the world over which he and his offspring were to be made vice-gerents.

REFERENCES

• JAMES L. (1938) Our Spoken Language
• PAGET R. (1935) Human Speech
• URBAN W. (1939) Language and Reality