English, asked by rithikhenry136, 8 months ago

Explain the evolution of language with the involvement of musical theory which was contributed by Otto Jesperson which is called that language is evolved from the sounds of nature such as rain,fire,river,forest,waterfall etc.​

Answers

Answered by Anonymous
0

Answer:

LANGUAGE: Its Nature. Development

and Origin. Demy 8vo. Third Impression.

"Chief among Professor Jespersen's many

qualities we would place not his erudition, vast

as it is, but the lively imagination with which he

plays upon the most unpromising of subjects

and extracts from it its maximum of human

interest."-Spectator.

"Dr. Jespersen is one of the most learned

linguists whom the nineteenth century produced."-Saturday Review.

HOW TO TEACH A FOREIGN

LANGUAGE. Crown 8vo. Fifth

Edition.

"This excellent book gives a lucid exposition

of the reform method. Should be most carefully

studied by every modem language teacher."School World.

CHAPTERS ON ENGLISH. Crown 8vo.

" A brilliant and suggestive essay on the

contemporary evolution of English grammar."

-Times.

-

Page 3

LANGUAGE

ITS NATURE

DEVELOPMENT

AND ORIGIN

BY

OTTO JESPERSEN

PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN

NEW YORK

HENRY HOLT & COMPANY

Page 4

Printed in Great Britain

(A411 rights reserved)

Page 5

TO

VILHELM THOMSEN

Page 6

Glede, nir av andres mund

jeg hbrte de tanker store,

Glade over hvert et fund

jeg aelv ved min foreken gjorde.

Page 7

PREFACE

THE distinctive feature of the science of language as conceived

nowadays is its historical character: a language or a word is no

longer taken as something given once for all, but as a result of

previous development and at the same time as the starting-point

for subsequent development. This manner of viewing languages

constitutes a decisive improvement on the way in which languages

were dealt with in previous centuries, and it suffices to mention

such words as ' evolution ' and 'Darwinism' to show that linguistic

research has in this respect been in full accordance with tendencies

observed in many other branches of scientific work during the last

hundred years. Still, it cannot be said that students of language

have always and to the fullest extent made it clear to themselves

what is the real essence of a language. Too often expressions are

used which are nothing but metaphors-in many cases perfectly

harmless metaphors, but in other cases metaphors that obscure

the real facts of the matter. Language is frequently spoken of

as a 'living organism'; we hear of the 'life' of languages, of

the' birth ' of new languages and of the 'death ' of old languages,

and the implication, though not always realized, is that a language

is a living thing, something analogous to an animal or a plant.

Yet a language evidently has no separate existence in the same

way as a dog or a beech has, but is nothing but a function of

certain living human beings. Language is activity, purposeful

activity, and we should never lose sight of the speaking individuals

and of their purpose in acting in this particular way. When

people speak of the life of words-as in celebrated books with such

titles as La vie des mots, or Biographies of Words-they do

not always keep in view that a word has no 'life' of its own:

it exists only in so far as it is pronounced or heard or remembered

by somebody, and this kind of existence cannot properly be compared with 'life' in the original and proper sense of that word.

The only unimpeachable definition of a word is that it is a human

habit, an habitual act on the part of one human individual which

has, or may have, the effect of evoking some idea in the mind

7

Page 8

LANGUAGE

of another individual. A word thus may be rightly compared

with such an habitual act as taking off one's hat or raising one's

fingers to one's cap: in both cases we have a certain set of muscular activities which, when seen or heard by somebody else,

shows him what is passing in the mind of the original agent or

what he desires to bring to the consciousness of the other man

(or men). The act is individual, but the interpretation presupposes

that the individual forms part of a community with analogous

habits, and a language thus is seen to be one particular set of

human customs of a well-defined social character.

It is indeed possible to speak of 'life' in connexion with

Similar questions