Showing posts with label cats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cats. Show all posts
Friday, July 30, 2010
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Superwoman in DC Comics. Who is She? Who are They?
Superwoman is the name given to several fictional characters published over the years by DC Comics, most of them being, like the popular Supergirl, a woman with powers similar to those of DC's highly popular Superman. The name "Superwoman" was originally copyrighted by Detective Comics[1] in an effort to prevent competitors from using it. As was the practice, an ashcan copy was created with the title of Superwoman. The cover was a reproduction of More Fun Comics[2] with the interior content reprinting of the third issue.[3] The first true appearance of Superwoman, which is usually thought to have been one of many trial runs for the future introduction of Kara Zor-El as Supergirl years later, was printed in Action Comics.[4]
The theme would be revisited in a 1947 Superman[5] comic in which a pair of fraudulent magicians cast a "spell" on Lane, making her believe she has superpowers. Superman is forced to play along with the ruse for a time, using super-speed to invisibly intervene in Lane's adventures, supporting the illusion. She briefly sports a costume modeled on Superman's before the spell is "broken". A story from Action Comics has Lois actually gaining superpowers thanks to one of Lex Luthor's inventions, and launches a short-lived career as "Superwoman."[6]
Later stories would sporadically feature tales in which Lois gained superpowers and functioned as a "Superwoman" of sorts, but all of these were, like the 1951 tale above, only temporary, with the powers wearing off by the end of the story. A typical example of this is "The Turnabout Powers" from Superman Family,[7] where the Earth-Two Lois Lane gained powers from her husband (the Earth-Two Superman) through the unexpected effect of an exotic extraterrestrial plant Superman had brought into their home. The plant's death reversed the effect. Another example would be in the Batman/Superman: World's Finest mini-series where Mr. Mxyzptlk briefly transformed Lois into a "Superwoman" with costume and powers.
At the end of All-Star Superman #2,[8] Lois Lane is presented with a formula called "Exo-Genes" created by Superman that allows her to have his powers for 24 hours, and she became Superwoman. During her adventures with her new Kryptonian powers,[9] she was wooed by two superhumans named "Samson" and "Atlas", and was captured by a time-Ultrasphinx. Her powers faded away at the end of the day. Notably, her costume seemed to be exactly the same as that of the Anti-Matter Universe's Superwoman (see below), but in Superman's colors; both outfits were designed by Frank Quitely.
The Pre-Crisis version of Superwoman was killed, along with the rest of the CSA, when they were trying to save Earth-Three from being destroyed by the Anti-Monitor's antimatter wave.[10]
Superwoman continues to make occasional appearances as a member of the Crime Syndicate, most recently appearing in storylines in the Justice League and Superman comics. Unlike her pre-Crisis counterpart, her magic lasso doesn't change shape, but releases the inhibitions of anyone tied with it (just as Wonder Woman's compels victims to tell the truth). She also possesses heat vision, as Superman and Ultraman do.
Taking the alias Lois Lane, Superwoman is an Amazon by birth, and has risen through the ranks to become the chief editor of the Daily Planet in what she calls "Patriarch's World". This disguise resembles Wonder Woman's secret identity of Diana Prince. At the Planet, Superwoman is shown to upset her colleagues; the antimatter-Cat Grant refers to Superwoman as "Queen Bitch",[12] and negatively alludes to her "friendship" with the antimatter Jimmy Olsen.
Olsen is the only civilian who knows of Superwoman's secret identity. A compliant sexual deviant, he does what she tells him in exchange for the favour of watching when she changes her outfit and receiving pieces of it for his "disguise kit". He is so besotted that he ignores her gibes and insults, even when she taunting refers to him as, "Superwoman's Snitch, Jimmy Olsen," and prints it in the Planet.
Also in the Earth 2 story, her lover Ultraman hates Superwoman's frigidity towards him. Meanwhile, she is carrying on a torrid affair with Owlman, and they sneak trysts whenever they feel Ultraman is not watching. However, from his floating fortress (the antimatter counterpart to the Fortress of Solitude), Ultraman doesn't hesitate to fire warning bursts of heat vision towards them whenever he catches them together.[11]
Like the antimatter iteration of the character, she is indeed both a Lois Lane and Wonder Woman counterpart, despite possessing Kryptonian abilities such as heat vision. In Countdown, she is recruited into the Monarch's army but has her eyes gouged out by Red Robin (Jason Todd) of New Earth, who may or may not have been carrying Kryptonite.
The Superwoman (along with Batwoman and Superlad) from Superman/Batman #24.
In Superman #349,[15] Superman returns from an interstellar mission to find that everyone on Earth are of opposite sex. Among them are Penny White (a female Perry White), Jenny Olsen (a female Jimmy Olsen), Louis Lane (a male Lois Lane), Batwoman (a female Batman, rather than the actual character), Wonder Warrior (a male Wonder Woman), Black Condor (a male Black Canary), and Superwoman (his female counterpart) herself. Believing he crossed into a parallel universe, Superman flies back to space to find a dimensional portal, but is blocked by an invisible barrier. He notices the parallelism fails when he sees Superwoman and Clara Kent (Superwoman's presumed secret identity) are two separate people.
After a battle with Superwoman, Superlad (a male Supergirl), and Wonder Warrior, Superman figures out that his foe Mr. Mxyzptlk is behind this gender-reversed world. This was partly due to the discrepancy of Clara Kent and Superwoman being different people. However, Mxyzptlk's biggest mistake was being too vain to give himself a reverse-gender counterpart in Superwoman's rogues gallery in The Daily Planet morgue; all of Superwoman's foes were reverse-gender counterparts to Superman's foes - except for Mxyzptlk. Superman discovers as well that he was never in a parallel universe, but rather on Earth, which Mxyzptlk had altered with his magic. After using Wonder Warrior's magic lasso to make Mxyzptlk say his name backwards and thus returning to his native dimension, the effects of Mxyzptlk's magic (including the existence of Superwoman) vanish, returning the Earth to normal.
In December 2007, Superwoman and Batwoman were featured in Countdown Presents: The Search for Ray Palmer: Superwoman/Batwoman #1. It features Earth-11 as part of the new DC Multiverse and presents a male version of Wonder Woman called Wonder Man, who originates from a society of male Amazons. It also depicts that world's version of Amazons Attack!
The Dana Dearden Superwoman.
Obsessed Superman fan Dana Dearden dated Jimmy Olsen to get close to Superman, and when that didn't work she stole mystic artifacts which granted her the strength of Hercules, the speed (and flight) of Hermes, the thunderbolts of Zeus, and the sight of Heimdall. Dana donned a green-and-purple uniform,[18] with "Superwoman" written down the leggings, and called herself Superwoman, and tried to get Superman to fall in love with her. He rejected her advances, and Jimmy called her Obsession. She vanished attempting to help Superman rescue people from a burning ship. When Superman was split into his Red and Blue energy forms,[19] Superwoman returned hoping that one of the Supermen would return her feelings, but Maxima intervened, and used her telepathy to convince Superwoman that she would destroy Superman with her love. The telepathic illusion wore off[20] and she would try to win Superman over again, this time in a red-and blue costume very similar to his, and claimed to be his wife. She died trying to protect him from demons, since she knew he was vulnerable to magic.
New Krypton Superwoman.
Gina Torres will voice the Crime Syndicate version of her in Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths.
DC Comics Presents Annual #4 Superman and Superwoman (1985)
Contents |
Lois Lane
Main article: Lois Lane
The appearance of the name "Superwoman" in a DC comic was a story in Action Comics[4] where Lois Lane dreams that she has gained superpowers from a blood transfusion from Superman and launches a career as Superwoman.
The theme would be revisited in a 1947 Superman[5] comic in which a pair of fraudulent magicians cast a "spell" on Lane, making her believe she has superpowers. Superman is forced to play along with the ruse for a time, using super-speed to invisibly intervene in Lane's adventures, supporting the illusion. She briefly sports a costume modeled on Superman's before the spell is "broken". A story from Action Comics has Lois actually gaining superpowers thanks to one of Lex Luthor's inventions, and launches a short-lived career as "Superwoman."[6]
Later stories would sporadically feature tales in which Lois gained superpowers and functioned as a "Superwoman" of sorts, but all of these were, like the 1951 tale above, only temporary, with the powers wearing off by the end of the story. A typical example of this is "The Turnabout Powers" from Superman Family,[7] where the Earth-Two Lois Lane gained powers from her husband (the Earth-Two Superman) through the unexpected effect of an exotic extraterrestrial plant Superman had brought into their home. The plant's death reversed the effect. Another example would be in the Batman/Superman: World's Finest mini-series where Mr. Mxyzptlk briefly transformed Lois into a "Superwoman" with costume and powers.
At the end of All-Star Superman #2,[8] Lois Lane is presented with a formula called "Exo-Genes" created by Superman that allows her to have his powers for 24 hours, and she became Superwoman. During her adventures with her new Kryptonian powers,[9] she was wooed by two superhumans named "Samson" and "Atlas", and was captured by a time-Ultrasphinx. Her powers faded away at the end of the day. Notably, her costume seemed to be exactly the same as that of the Anti-Matter Universe's Superwoman (see below), but in Superman's colors; both outfits were designed by Frank Quitely.
Luma Lynai
Main article: Luma Lynai
A woman from the distant planet of Staryl, Luma Lynai wins the heart of Superman. Just as Superman derives his powers from a yellow sun, Lumisa derived her gifts of super-strength and flight from an orange sun. Their romance doesn't last, as Luma becomes deathly ill under the rays of a yellow sun, and Superman can't leave Earth undefended. She physically resembles an adult Kara Zor-El, with a similar costume, except instead of being blue-and-red with a pentagonal S shield, Luma's costume is white-and-green with a circular S emblemCrime Syndicate of America
See also: Alternate versions of Wonder Woman
Earth-Three
In 1964, an evil counterpart of Wonder Woman from a parallel universe named "Superwoman" was introduced. This Superwoman was a member of the Crime Syndicate of America, a villainous counterpart of the Justice League of America from the parallel world of "Earth-Three" (vs. the Justice League's world of "Earth-One"). Superwoman, like Wonder Woman, was an Amazon, and possessed similar powers of super-strength and flight. Unlike most/all other versions, her magic lasso could change shape into any form she desired.[volume & issue needed]The Pre-Crisis version of Superwoman was killed, along with the rest of the CSA, when they were trying to save Earth-Three from being destroyed by the Anti-Monitor's antimatter wave.[10]
Antimatter Earth
In Post-Crisis continuity, as established in the 1998 graphic novel JLA: Earth 2 by Grant Morrison, Superwoman (and the rest of the Crime Syndicate) comes from a parallel world similar to Earth, but located in an antimatter universe (also home to the planet Qward).[11]
Superwoman continues to make occasional appearances as a member of the Crime Syndicate, most recently appearing in storylines in the Justice League and Superman comics. Unlike her pre-Crisis counterpart, her magic lasso doesn't change shape, but releases the inhibitions of anyone tied with it (just as Wonder Woman's compels victims to tell the truth). She also possesses heat vision, as Superman and Ultraman do.
Taking the alias Lois Lane, Superwoman is an Amazon by birth, and has risen through the ranks to become the chief editor of the Daily Planet in what she calls "Patriarch's World". This disguise resembles Wonder Woman's secret identity of Diana Prince. At the Planet, Superwoman is shown to upset her colleagues; the antimatter-Cat Grant refers to Superwoman as "Queen Bitch",[12] and negatively alludes to her "friendship" with the antimatter Jimmy Olsen.
Olsen is the only civilian who knows of Superwoman's secret identity. A compliant sexual deviant, he does what she tells him in exchange for the favour of watching when she changes her outfit and receiving pieces of it for his "disguise kit". He is so besotted that he ignores her gibes and insults, even when she taunting refers to him as, "Superwoman's Snitch, Jimmy Olsen," and prints it in the Planet.
Also in the Earth 2 story, her lover Ultraman hates Superwoman's frigidity towards him. Meanwhile, she is carrying on a torrid affair with Owlman, and they sneak trysts whenever they feel Ultraman is not watching. However, from his floating fortress (the antimatter counterpart to the Fortress of Solitude), Ultraman doesn't hesitate to fire warning bursts of heat vision towards them whenever he catches them together.[11]
Earth-3
In 52 Week 52, a recreation of Earth-3 was shown as a part of the new Multiverse. In the depiction were characters that are altered versions of the original Justice Society of America, including Wonder Woman. The character is not identified in 52,[13] but later in Countdown to Final Crisis, which identifies her as Superwoman of the Crime Society of America, on an alternative world which is a reversed version of Earth-2. Based on comments by Grant Morrison, this alternate universe is not the pre-Crisis Earth-Three, making this a new character unrelated to previous versions.[14] Grant Morrison also suggests that the Earth-3 and Antimatter Superwomen both exist post-52.Like the antimatter iteration of the character, she is indeed both a Lois Lane and Wonder Woman counterpart, despite possessing Kryptonian abilities such as heat vision. In Countdown, she is recruited into the Monarch's army but has her eyes gouged out by Red Robin (Jason Todd) of New Earth, who may or may not have been carrying Kryptonite.
Mxyzptlk's Superwoman
After a battle with Superwoman, Superlad (a male Supergirl), and Wonder Warrior, Superman figures out that his foe Mr. Mxyzptlk is behind this gender-reversed world. This was partly due to the discrepancy of Clara Kent and Superwoman being different people. However, Mxyzptlk's biggest mistake was being too vain to give himself a reverse-gender counterpart in Superwoman's rogues gallery in The Daily Planet morgue; all of Superwoman's foes were reverse-gender counterparts to Superman's foes - except for Mxyzptlk. Superman discovers as well that he was never in a parallel universe, but rather on Earth, which Mxyzptlk had altered with his magic. After using Wonder Warrior's magic lasso to make Mxyzptlk say his name backwards and thus returning to his native dimension, the effects of Mxyzptlk's magic (including the existence of Superwoman) vanish, returning the Earth to normal.
Laurel Kent
A new Superwoman named "Laurel", apparently a female version of Superman from a parallel Earth (now identified as Earth-11), appeared for the first time in Superman/Batman,[16] and was featured an issue later.[17] In Earth 11's alternate universe, much like in the one featured in "The Turnabout Trap!"), reversed-gender characters exist relative to those resident on New Earth: there is a Batwoman (female Batman), Superlad (male Supergirl), and a female Darkseid known as the "Dark Queen". (It is notable that in pre-Crisis continuity, "Laurel Kent" was the name of a 30th century descendant of Superman who occasionally appeared in stories featuring the Legion of Super-Heroes, and was replaced in continuity by Laurel Gand.)In December 2007, Superwoman and Batwoman were featured in Countdown Presents: The Search for Ray Palmer: Superwoman/Batwoman #1. It features Earth-11 as part of the new DC Multiverse and presents a male version of Wonder Woman called Wonder Man, who originates from a society of male Amazons. It also depicts that world's version of Amazons Attack!
Kristin Wells
Main article: Kristin Wells
Another version of Superwoman, this one a heroic character, came about in the form of Kristin Wells, who was created by Superman comic writer Elliot S! Maggin. Wells first appeared in Maggin's Superman novel Miracle Monday, but he later introduced her in the pages of DC Comics Presents as Superwoman. The character Wells is a 29th-century descendant of Jimmy Olsen. Wells time travels to the 20th century, where the technology she had brought from the future gives her super powers. It is this iteration of the character which appears briefly in Superman: Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow?Dana Dearden
Lucy Lane
Main article: Lucy Lane
Lucy Lane first appeared as Superwoman in Supergirl #35, her costume a nod to that of the Bronze Age Superwoman Kristin Wells and containing a containment field that simulated Kryptonian powers. However, Lucy's identity was not revealed until near the story arc's end. During her tenure as Superwoman, she was blackmailed by her father, General Sam Lane, into performing acts of villainy such as killing Agent Liberty, who had been spying on General Lane and Lex Luthor.[21] (This resulted in her being the focus of the Supergirl Faces of Evil issue.) She later attacked Reactron, which tipped off readers that Superwoman was not Kryptonian (in that that villain's Gold Kryptonite power source had no effect on her[22]). Supergirl unmasks Superwoman[23], and accidentally kills her by rupturing the containment field of her suit, causing Lucy's body to contort and explode.[24] In the Supergirl annual Lucy is brought back to life by the suit as it steals the life of a another person.Other uses
Various comic stories, pre- and post-Crisis, have offered glimpses of possible futures assuming that one of the various incarnations of Supergirl would eventually change her codename to Superwoman. One example is a 1980 issue of Superman Family,[25] in which all the stories are set in the then-futuristic 1999 or 2000 (the timeframe is cited only as "the turn of the century") with the characters aged appropriately, including an older Linda Danvers (Kara Zor-El) who divides her time between adventuring as Superwoman and serving as governor of Florida. Alternately, some stories assume one of Superman's female descendants would assume the name "Superwoman", like his daughter Kara and great-granddaughter Lara from the Elseworlds series, Superman & Batman: Generations.In other media
A version of Superwoman appeared on Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman in the season three episode, Ultra Woman[26]. Clark lost his powers when a red kryptonite laser beam hit him and transferred his powers to Lois. Both of them were unaware of the transfer, until Lois pulled down an iron gate with her bare hands. Mrs. Kent made her a costume and Clark introduces her to Metropolis as Ultrawoman.Gina Torres will voice the Crime Syndicate version of her in Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths.
Notes and references
- ^ January 1942
- ^ Issue #73
- ^ Action Comics #3 —
- ^ a b Issue #60 — May 1943
- ^ Issue #45, in a story titled "Lois Lane, Superwoman!" — (March-April 1947)
- ^ Issue #156 — released May 1951
- ^ Issue #207 (May-June 1981)
- ^ Issue #2
- ^ All-Star Superman #3
- ^ Crisis on Infinite Earths #1
- ^ a b Greenberger, Robert (2008), "Crime Syndicate", in Dougall, Alastair, The DC Comics Encyclopedia, New York: Dorling Kindersley, pp. 89, ISBN 0-7566-4119-5, OCLC 213309017
- ^ "JLA: Earth 2"
- ^ 52 (52): 11/3-4 (May 2, 2007), DC Comics
- ^ Brady, Matt (2007-05-08). ""THE 52 EXIT INTERVIEWS: GRANT MORRISON"". Newsarama. http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900. Retrieved 2007-05-12.
- ^ Superman, volume 1, #349 (in a story entitled "The Turnabout Trap!")
- ^ Issue #23 — released November 2005
- ^ Issue #24
- ^ Adventures of Superman #538 — September 1996
- ^ Superman: The Man of Tomorrow, Issue #10
- ^ Adventures of Superman #574 — released January 2000
- ^ Action Comics #873
- ^ Supergirl #38
- ^ Supergirl #40
- ^ Supergirl #41
- ^ #200 — released April 1980
- ^ November 12, 1995 (Episode 7)
External links
| Creators | |
| Superman Family | Superman (Clark Kent) · Superboy (Kal-El; Kon-El) · Supergirl (Kara Zor-El; Matrix; Linda Danvers; Cir-El) Chris Kent · Eradicator · Krypto · Maxima · Mon-El · Power Girl · Steel · Superwoman (Kristin Wells) · Jor-El · Zor-El · Lara · Alura |
| Supporting Characters | Bibbo Bibbowski · Cat Grant · Professor Hamilton · Inspector Henderson · Ma and Pa Kent · Lobo · Lois Lane · Lucy Lane · Sam Lane · Lana Lang · Lori Lemaris · Lyla Lerrol · Steve Lombard · Jimmy Olsen · Pete Ross · Maggie Sawyer · Ron Troupe · Dan Turpin · Perry White |
| Villains | Atomic Skull · Bizarro · Bloodsport · Brainiac · Bruno Mannheim · Conduit · Darkseid · Doomsday · Faora · General Zod · Gog · Hank Henshaw · Imperiex · Intergang · Jax-Ur · Kryptonite Man · Lex Luthor · Livewire · Metallo · Mongul · Morgan Edge · Mr. Mxyzptlk · Parasite · Prankster · Silver Banshee · Superboy-Prime · Terra-Man · Titano · Toyman · Ultra-Humanite · Ultraman |
| Locations | |
| History and themes | |
| Publications | |
| Miscellanea | |
Sunday, December 6, 2009
My inner Cat Blog
Friday, December 4, 2009
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Another interesting Article - The Origin of Language (by Edward Vajda)
... Yesterday we discussed the gulf that separates the creative use of language by humans from the inborn signals of animals. Bees returning from their first flight out of the hive know perfectly how to perform their complex nectar dances. With humans, the precise form of language must be acquired through exposure to a speech community. Words are definitely not inborn, but the capacity to acquire and language and use it creatively seems to be inborn. Noam Chomsky calls this ability the LAD (Language Acquisition Device). Today we will ask two questions: how did this language instinct in humans originate? And how did the first language come into being?
Concerning the origin of the first language, there are two main hypotheses, or beliefs. Neither can be proven or disproved given present knowledge.
1) Belief in divine creation. Many societies throughout history believed that language is the gift of the gods to humans. The most familiar is found in Genesis 2:20, which tells us that Adam gave names to all living creatures. This belief predicates that humans were created from the start with an innate capacity to use language.
It can't be proven that language is as old as humans, but it is definitely true that language and human society are inseparable. Wherever humans exist language exists. Every stone age tribe ever encountered has a language equal to English, Latin, or Greek in terms of its expressive potential and grammatical complexity. Technologies may be complex or simple, but language is always complex. Charles Darwin noted this fact when he stated that as far as concerns language, "Shakespeare walks with the Macedonian swineherd, and Plato with the wild savage of Assam." In fact, it sometimes seems that languages spoken by preindustrial societies are much more complex grammatically than languages such as English (example: English has about seven tense forms and three noun genders; Kivunjo, a Bantu language spoken on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, has 14 tenses and about 20 noun classes.) There are no primitive languages, nor are any known to have existed in the past--even among the most remote tribes of stone age hunter-gatherers.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to prove that the first anatomically modern humans possessed creative language. It is also impossible to disprove the hypothesis that primitive languages might have existed at some point in the distant past of Homo sapiens development.
2) Natural evolution hypothesis. At some point in their evolutionary development humans acquired a more sophisticated brain which made language invention and learning possible. In other words, at some point in time humans evolved a language acquisition device, whatever this may be in real physical terms. The simple vocalizations and gestures inherited from our primate ancestors then quickly gave way to a creative system of language--perhaps within a single generation or two. /Mention the hypothesis about rewiring the visual cortex of the brain into a language area./ According to the natural evolution hypothesis, as soon as humans developed the biological, or neurological, capacity for creative language, the cultural development of some specific system of forms with meanings would have been an inevitable next step.
This hypothesis cannot be proven either. Archeological evidence unearthed thus far, seems to indicate that modern humans, Homo sapiens, emerged within the last 150,000 years. By 30,000, BC all other species of humanoids seem to have been supplanted by Homo sapiens. Could the success of our species vis-a-vis other hominids be explained by its possession of superior communicative skills? Speaking people could teach, plan, organize, and convey more sophisticated information. This would have given them unparalleled advantage over hominid groups without creative language. Of course, no one knows whether other species of humanoids--Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalis -- used creative language. Perhaps they also did. In any case, Homo sapiens, "the wise human," should perhaps really be called Homo loquens, "the speaking human" because language and humans are everywhere found together, whereas wisdom among humans is much more selectively distributed.
Invention hypotheses. Moving on to our second question, if humans acquired the capacity for language either by divine gift or by evolution, then exactly how might humans have devised the first language? There are several hypotheses as to how language might have been consciously invented by humans based on a more primitive system of hominid communication. Each hypothesis is predicated on the idea that the invention of language and its gradual refinement served as a continuous impetus to additional human mental development. None of the invention hypotheses I will mention is convincing and most sane linguists agree that the origin of language is still a mystery. But the inventive, sarcastic names given these hypotheses by their critics prove that even linguists can at times be creative.
First, there are four imitation hypotheses that hold that language began through some sort of human mimicry of naturally occurring sounds or movements:
1) The "ding-dong" hypothesis. Language began when humans started naming objects, actions and phenomena after a recognizable sound associated with it in real life. This hypothesis holds that the first human words were a type of verbal icon, a sign whose form is an exact image of its meaning: crash became the word for thunder, boom for explosion. Some words in language obviously did derive from imitation of natural sounds associated with some object: Chinook Indian word for heart--tun-tun, Basque word for knife: ai-ai (literally ouch-ouch). Each of these iconic words would derive from an index, a sign whose form is naturally associatied with its meaning in real space and time.
The problem with this hypothesis is that onomatopoeia (imitation of sound, auditory iconicity) is a very limited part of the vocabulary of any language; imitative sounds differ from language to language: Russian: ba-bakh=bang, bukh= thud. Even if onomotopoeia provided the first dozen or so words, then where did names for the thousands of naturally noiseless concepts such as rock, sun, sky or love come from?
2) The "pooh-pooh" hypothesis holds that the first words came from involuntary exclamations of dislike, hunger, pain, or pleasure, eventually leading to the expression of more developed ideas and emotions. In this case the first word would have been an involuntary ha-ha-ha, wa-wa-wa These began to be used to name the actions which caused these sounds.
The problem with this hypothesis is that, once again, emotional exclamations are a very small part of any language. They are also highly language specific. For instance, to express sudden pain or discomfort: Eng. ouch; Russ. oi.; Cherokee eee. Thus, exclamations are more like other words in that they reflect the phonology of each separate language. Unlike sneezes, tears, hiccoughs or laughter, which are innate human responses to stimuli, the form of exclamations depends on language rather than precedes language. Also, exclamations, like most other words are symbols, showing at least a partially arbitrary relationship between sound and meaning.
3) The "bow-wow" hypothesis (the most famous and therefore the most ridiculed hypothesis) holds that vocabulary developed from imitations of animal noises, such as: Moo, bark, hiss, meow, quack-quack. In other words, the first human words were a type of index, a sign whose form is naturally connected with its meaning in time and space.
But, once again, onomotopoeia is a limited part of the vocabulary of any language. The linguistic renditions of animal sounds differ considerably from language to language, although each species of animal everywhere makes essentially the same sound:
4) A somewhat different hypothesis is the "ta-ta" hypothesis. Charles Darwin hypothesized (though he himself was sceptical about his own hypothesis) that speech may have developed as a sort of mouth pantomime: the organs of speech were used to imitate the gestures of the hand. In other words, language developed from gestures that began to be imitated by the organs of speech--the first words were lip icons of hand gestures.
It is very possible that human language, which today is mostly verbal, had its origin in some system of gestures; other primates rely on gesture as an integral part of communication, so it is plausible that human communication began in the same way. Human gestures, however, just like onomotopoeic words, differ from culture to culture. Cf. English crossing the finger for good luck vs. Russian "fig" gesture; nodding for yes vs. for no in Turkish and Bulgarian; knocking on wood vs. spitting over the left shoulder three times.
A second set of hypotheses on language origin holds that language began as a response to some acute necessity in the community. Here are several necessity hypotheses of the invention of language:
Each of the imitation hypotheses might explain how certain isolated words of language developed. Very few words in human language are verbal icons. Most are symbols, displaying an arbitrary relationship of sound and meaning. (Example: the word tree in several languages: Spanish árbol; French arbre; Slovak strom; Georgian he; Ket oks; Estonian puu; German Baum; Russian derevo; Latvian koks; Hawaiian lä'au)
And each of the necessity hypotheses might explain how involuntary sounds made out of need in certain contexts might have come to be manipulated as words for an object even out of context. However, the extended use of natural indexes still leaves unexplained the development of grammar--the patterns in language which have definite structural functions but no specific meaning. The creative, generative aspect of human language that we call grammar is language's most unique feature. Where did grammar come from? There is nothing like grammar (patterns with definite functions yet no set meaning) in animal systems of communication.
In isolated instances it can be shown that a grammatical pattern developed from chance lexical combinations:
There are two age-old beliefs regarding the origin or the world's present linguistic diversity.
1) The oldest belief is that there was a single, original language. The idea of a single ancestor tongue is known today as monogenesis. In Judeo-Christian tradition, the original language was confused by divine intervention, as described in the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis. There is a similar story from the Toltecs of pre-Columbian Mexico, who tell of the building of the great pyramid at Cholula, and the dispersal of the builders by an angry god. And similar stories are found in other parts of the world.
It may be interesting to note here that people who believe in a single origin for language have different hypotheses as to what that first language may have been.
a) A Basque scholar claimed that the first language was Basque.
b) A German philologist of the last century maintained that German was the first language and that all other languages are inferior corruptions of it. Other European linguists conferred the same exalted status on Greek or Sanskrit.
c) One Swedish philologist claimed that in the Garden of Eden God spoke Swedish, Adam spoke Danish and the serpent spoke French.
2) There is a second hypothesis of human origin and, consequently, of the origin of human language: the hypothesis of parallel evolution. This hypothesis holds that, as humans evolved parallel in more than one location; each group developed its own unique language. The hypothesis of the multiple origin of humankind is sometimes called the Candelabra theory. The candelabra hypothesis tends to be favored in East Asia and by a smaller number of scientists in the West. The hypothesis of multiple linguistic origins that often goes along with this hypothesis is known as polygenesis. Each of the original languages then would then have diverged into numerous forms. The major language families of today would be descended from these separate mother tongues.
3) Scientific monogenesis: The Mother Tongue theory.
Theories of monogenesis do not necessarily derive from religious belief. Many modern scholars believe in a theory of monogenesis that has come to be called the Mother Tongue Theory. This theory holds that one original language spoken by a single group of Homo sapiens perhaps as early as 150 thousand years ago gave rise to all human languages spoken on the Earth today. As humans colonized various continents, this original mother tongue diverged through time to form the numerous languages spoken today. Since many scientists believe that the first fully modern humans appeared in Africa, the mother tongue theory is connected with a more general theory of human origin known as the Out of Africa theory. Currently, the theory of evolutionary monogenesis tends to be favored by a group of linguists working in the United States.
Regardless of the origin of language, the fact remains that there are over 5,000 mutually unintelligible forms of human speech used on Earth today. And, although many are radically different from one another in structure--the differences are superficial since each and every one of these languages can be used creatively.
Languages do not differ in terms of their creative potential but rather in terms of the level upon which particular distinctions are realized in each particular language. What is expressed concisely in one language requires a phrase in another language. (Examples of aspect and evidentiality; also words like Swahili mumagamagama "a person who habitually loses things" and Russian zajchik "the rainbow reflection from glass." Linguists study how each particular language structures the expression of concepts. Such cross-language comparisons fall under a branch of linguistics called language typology.
If the structural diversity of human languages is superficial, then why in language typology important? Why do so many linguists spend so much time studying language diversity?
1) First, to try to trace the original mother tongue (or mother tongues). Linguists who compare modern languages try to reconstruct ancient languages are called comparative linguists.
2) Second, because languages change more slowly than the environment in which they are spoken, languages contain all sorts of indications of bygone culture. For historians and anthropologists, language provides a special window into the past: ursus/bear/ medved; time/tide/vremya. Study a language--any language--and you will learn much about the history of the people who speak that language. You will also be taking a crucial step toward understanding the contemporary culture of the speakers. Linguists who study language from this cultural standpoint are called anthropological linguists.
Remember that--contrary to the hypothesis of linguistic determinism--studying a language will not help you predict the future for the people who speak that language. The future will happen with little regard for language structure, and language will be shaped by that future, not the other way around.
And this is why will we spend the next four weeks studying the morphology, syntax and phonology of diverse languages. And during the second half of the course we will return to questions of language in society and the connection between language and the brain.
Edward Vajda is a professor in Western Washington University's Department of Modern and Classical Languages. He received his degrees from Indiana University and the University of Washington, and has also studied at Moscow State University. He has been on Western's faculty since 1987. He teaches Russian language, culture and history, as well as general linguistics and Inner Asian and Siberian peoples. He is currently serving as director of the Center for East Asian Studies and also as the Associate Director of the Center for International Studies. He also serves as an editor of the New York-based linguistics journal "Word" . Fluent in several languages, he has authored six books, dozens of articles and hundreds of reviews (see his CV for more information). Dr. Vajda is interested in documenting endangered languages of Siberia and has conducted original fieldwork with Ket, a language spoken by fewer than 100 people in the remote Yenisei River basin. In August 2008 he became the first North American to live and work with the Ket in their Sub-Arctic homeland. He is affiliated with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig, Germany), where in August 2006 he presented evidence supporting a genetic connection between Ket and the Athabaskan, Eyak, and Tlingit (Na-Dene) language family of North America. In February 2008 he presented more evidence at a symposium in Fairbanks, Alaska. The "Dene-Yeniseian Hypothesis" is gaining acceptance as the first demonstrated link between an Old World and a New World language family. Vajda received Western's Excellence in Teaching Award in 1992.
http://pandora.cii.wwu.edu/vajda/about.htm
Concerning the origin of the first language, there are two main hypotheses, or beliefs. Neither can be proven or disproved given present knowledge.
1) Belief in divine creation. Many societies throughout history believed that language is the gift of the gods to humans. The most familiar is found in Genesis 2:20, which tells us that Adam gave names to all living creatures. This belief predicates that humans were created from the start with an innate capacity to use language.
It can't be proven that language is as old as humans, but it is definitely true that language and human society are inseparable. Wherever humans exist language exists. Every stone age tribe ever encountered has a language equal to English, Latin, or Greek in terms of its expressive potential and grammatical complexity. Technologies may be complex or simple, but language is always complex. Charles Darwin noted this fact when he stated that as far as concerns language, "Shakespeare walks with the Macedonian swineherd, and Plato with the wild savage of Assam." In fact, it sometimes seems that languages spoken by preindustrial societies are much more complex grammatically than languages such as English (example: English has about seven tense forms and three noun genders; Kivunjo, a Bantu language spoken on the slopes of Mount Kilimanjaro, has 14 tenses and about 20 noun classes.) There are no primitive languages, nor are any known to have existed in the past--even among the most remote tribes of stone age hunter-gatherers.
Nevertheless, it is impossible to prove that the first anatomically modern humans possessed creative language. It is also impossible to disprove the hypothesis that primitive languages might have existed at some point in the distant past of Homo sapiens development.
2) Natural evolution hypothesis. At some point in their evolutionary development humans acquired a more sophisticated brain which made language invention and learning possible. In other words, at some point in time humans evolved a language acquisition device, whatever this may be in real physical terms. The simple vocalizations and gestures inherited from our primate ancestors then quickly gave way to a creative system of language--perhaps within a single generation or two. /Mention the hypothesis about rewiring the visual cortex of the brain into a language area./ According to the natural evolution hypothesis, as soon as humans developed the biological, or neurological, capacity for creative language, the cultural development of some specific system of forms with meanings would have been an inevitable next step.
This hypothesis cannot be proven either. Archeological evidence unearthed thus far, seems to indicate that modern humans, Homo sapiens, emerged within the last 150,000 years. By 30,000, BC all other species of humanoids seem to have been supplanted by Homo sapiens. Could the success of our species vis-a-vis other hominids be explained by its possession of superior communicative skills? Speaking people could teach, plan, organize, and convey more sophisticated information. This would have given them unparalleled advantage over hominid groups without creative language. Of course, no one knows whether other species of humanoids--Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalis -- used creative language. Perhaps they also did. In any case, Homo sapiens, "the wise human," should perhaps really be called Homo loquens, "the speaking human" because language and humans are everywhere found together, whereas wisdom among humans is much more selectively distributed.
Invention hypotheses. Moving on to our second question, if humans acquired the capacity for language either by divine gift or by evolution, then exactly how might humans have devised the first language? There are several hypotheses as to how language might have been consciously invented by humans based on a more primitive system of hominid communication. Each hypothesis is predicated on the idea that the invention of language and its gradual refinement served as a continuous impetus to additional human mental development. None of the invention hypotheses I will mention is convincing and most sane linguists agree that the origin of language is still a mystery. But the inventive, sarcastic names given these hypotheses by their critics prove that even linguists can at times be creative.
First, there are four imitation hypotheses that hold that language began through some sort of human mimicry of naturally occurring sounds or movements:
1) The "ding-dong" hypothesis. Language began when humans started naming objects, actions and phenomena after a recognizable sound associated with it in real life. This hypothesis holds that the first human words were a type of verbal icon, a sign whose form is an exact image of its meaning: crash became the word for thunder, boom for explosion. Some words in language obviously did derive from imitation of natural sounds associated with some object: Chinook Indian word for heart--tun-tun, Basque word for knife: ai-ai (literally ouch-ouch). Each of these iconic words would derive from an index, a sign whose form is naturally associatied with its meaning in real space and time.
The problem with this hypothesis is that onomatopoeia (imitation of sound, auditory iconicity) is a very limited part of the vocabulary of any language; imitative sounds differ from language to language: Russian: ba-bakh=bang, bukh= thud. Even if onomotopoeia provided the first dozen or so words, then where did names for the thousands of naturally noiseless concepts such as rock, sun, sky or love come from?
2) The "pooh-pooh" hypothesis holds that the first words came from involuntary exclamations of dislike, hunger, pain, or pleasure, eventually leading to the expression of more developed ideas and emotions. In this case the first word would have been an involuntary ha-ha-ha, wa-wa-wa These began to be used to name the actions which caused these sounds.
The problem with this hypothesis is that, once again, emotional exclamations are a very small part of any language. They are also highly language specific. For instance, to express sudden pain or discomfort: Eng. ouch; Russ. oi.; Cherokee eee. Thus, exclamations are more like other words in that they reflect the phonology of each separate language. Unlike sneezes, tears, hiccoughs or laughter, which are innate human responses to stimuli, the form of exclamations depends on language rather than precedes language. Also, exclamations, like most other words are symbols, showing at least a partially arbitrary relationship between sound and meaning.
3) The "bow-wow" hypothesis (the most famous and therefore the most ridiculed hypothesis) holds that vocabulary developed from imitations of animal noises, such as: Moo, bark, hiss, meow, quack-quack. In other words, the first human words were a type of index, a sign whose form is naturally connected with its meaning in time and space.
But, once again, onomotopoeia is a limited part of the vocabulary of any language. The linguistic renditions of animal sounds differ considerably from language to language, although each species of animal everywhere makes essentially the same sound:
a) Dog:bow-wow; Chinese:wu-wu; Jap.wan-wan Russ gaf-gaf, tyaff-tyaff;Thus, the human interpretation of animal sounds is dependent upon the individual language, and it seems unlikely than entire vocabularies derived from them.
b) Cat-meow, Russ.myaoo, Chin--mao, Jap.nya-nya purr in French is ron ron.
c) Pig: oink-oink; Russ. hryu-hryu; Chin.--oh-ee-oh-ee; Jap. bu-bu.
d) Russian rooster: kukareiku. Japanese kokekoko
e) Russian owl:ukh; Cherokee goo-ku Spanish, Japanese-- no special word
4) A somewhat different hypothesis is the "ta-ta" hypothesis. Charles Darwin hypothesized (though he himself was sceptical about his own hypothesis) that speech may have developed as a sort of mouth pantomime: the organs of speech were used to imitate the gestures of the hand. In other words, language developed from gestures that began to be imitated by the organs of speech--the first words were lip icons of hand gestures.
It is very possible that human language, which today is mostly verbal, had its origin in some system of gestures; other primates rely on gesture as an integral part of communication, so it is plausible that human communication began in the same way. Human gestures, however, just like onomotopoeic words, differ from culture to culture. Cf. English crossing the finger for good luck vs. Russian "fig" gesture; nodding for yes vs. for no in Turkish and Bulgarian; knocking on wood vs. spitting over the left shoulder three times.
A second set of hypotheses on language origin holds that language began as a response to some acute necessity in the community. Here are several necessity hypotheses of the invention of language:
1) Warning hypothesis. Language may have evolved from warning signals such as those used by animals. Perhaps language started with a warning to others, such as Look out, Run, or Help to alert members of the tribe when some lumbering beast was approaching. Other first words could have been hunting instructions or instructions connected with other work. In other words, the first words were indexes used during everyday activities and situations.There are no scientific tests to evaluate between these competing hypotheses. All of them seem equally far-fetched. This is why in the late 19th century the Royal Linguistic Society in London actually banned discussion and debate on the origin of language out of fear that none of the arguments had any scientific basis at all and that time would be needlessly wasted on this fruitless enquiry. Attempts to explain the origin of language are usually taken no more seriously today either. Recently, commedian Lily Tomlin came up with her own language invention hypothesis: she claimed that men invented language so that they could complain.
2) The "yo-he-ho" hypothesis. Language developed on the basis of human cooperative efforts.
The earliest language was chanting to simulate collective effort, whether moving great stones to block off cave entrances from roving carnivores or repeating warlike phrases to inflame the fighting spirit.
It is fairly certain that the first poetry and song came from this aspect of beginning speech. Songs of this type are still with us: Volga boatmen, military marching chants, seven dwarfs working song.
Plato also believed that language developed out of sheer practical necessity. And Modern English has the saying: Necessity is the mother of invention. Speech and right hand coordination are both controlled in the left hemisphere of the brain. Could this be a possible clue that manual dexterity and the need to communicate developed in unison?
3) A more colorful idea is the lying hypothesis. E. H. Sturtevant argued that, since all real intentions or emotions get involuntarily expressed by gesture, look or sound, voluntary communication must have been invented for the purpose of lying or deceiving. He proposed that the need to deceive and lie--to use language in contrast to reality for selfish ends-- was the social prompting that got language started.
Each of the imitation hypotheses might explain how certain isolated words of language developed. Very few words in human language are verbal icons. Most are symbols, displaying an arbitrary relationship of sound and meaning. (Example: the word tree in several languages: Spanish árbol; French arbre; Slovak strom; Georgian he; Ket oks; Estonian puu; German Baum; Russian derevo; Latvian koks; Hawaiian lä'au)
And each of the necessity hypotheses might explain how involuntary sounds made out of need in certain contexts might have come to be manipulated as words for an object even out of context. However, the extended use of natural indexes still leaves unexplained the development of grammar--the patterns in language which have definite structural functions but no specific meaning. The creative, generative aspect of human language that we call grammar is language's most unique feature. Where did grammar come from? There is nothing like grammar (patterns with definite functions yet no set meaning) in animal systems of communication.
In isolated instances it can be shown that a grammatical pattern developed from chance lexical combinations:
a) suffix -hood from OE word haeda= state. childhood, boyhood, puppyhood.But these are isolated instances. How language developed a complex grammar remains a complete mystery. This means that how language developed is equally a mystery. We simply don't know how language may have actually evolved from simple animal systems of sounds and gestures.
b) Continuous action: form of verb to be + main verb comes from a locative phrase I am working > I am at working-- cf. the song I'm a working on the railroad.
Hypotheses regarding Language Diversity
Regardless of whether language was a special gift from the gods, a natural evolutionary acquisition, or an ingenious, conscious human invention made at some specific moment in our species' distant past, the fact remains that language does exist. And since so many languages exist today, a second question arises: Was there one or more than one original language? Was there one or more than one invention of language? There are about 5,000 languages spoken on Earth today. We know that there were even more spoken in the past, when most people lived in small bands or tribes rather than in large states.There are two age-old beliefs regarding the origin or the world's present linguistic diversity.
1) The oldest belief is that there was a single, original language. The idea of a single ancestor tongue is known today as monogenesis. In Judeo-Christian tradition, the original language was confused by divine intervention, as described in the story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis. There is a similar story from the Toltecs of pre-Columbian Mexico, who tell of the building of the great pyramid at Cholula, and the dispersal of the builders by an angry god. And similar stories are found in other parts of the world.
It may be interesting to note here that people who believe in a single origin for language have different hypotheses as to what that first language may have been.
a) A Basque scholar claimed that the first language was Basque.
b) A German philologist of the last century maintained that German was the first language and that all other languages are inferior corruptions of it. Other European linguists conferred the same exalted status on Greek or Sanskrit.
c) One Swedish philologist claimed that in the Garden of Eden God spoke Swedish, Adam spoke Danish and the serpent spoke French.
2) There is a second hypothesis of human origin and, consequently, of the origin of human language: the hypothesis of parallel evolution. This hypothesis holds that, as humans evolved parallel in more than one location; each group developed its own unique language. The hypothesis of the multiple origin of humankind is sometimes called the Candelabra theory. The candelabra hypothesis tends to be favored in East Asia and by a smaller number of scientists in the West. The hypothesis of multiple linguistic origins that often goes along with this hypothesis is known as polygenesis. Each of the original languages then would then have diverged into numerous forms. The major language families of today would be descended from these separate mother tongues.
3) Scientific monogenesis: The Mother Tongue theory.
Theories of monogenesis do not necessarily derive from religious belief. Many modern scholars believe in a theory of monogenesis that has come to be called the Mother Tongue Theory. This theory holds that one original language spoken by a single group of Homo sapiens perhaps as early as 150 thousand years ago gave rise to all human languages spoken on the Earth today. As humans colonized various continents, this original mother tongue diverged through time to form the numerous languages spoken today. Since many scientists believe that the first fully modern humans appeared in Africa, the mother tongue theory is connected with a more general theory of human origin known as the Out of Africa theory. Currently, the theory of evolutionary monogenesis tends to be favored by a group of linguists working in the United States.
Regardless of the origin of language, the fact remains that there are over 5,000 mutually unintelligible forms of human speech used on Earth today. And, although many are radically different from one another in structure--the differences are superficial since each and every one of these languages can be used creatively.
Languages do not differ in terms of their creative potential but rather in terms of the level upon which particular distinctions are realized in each particular language. What is expressed concisely in one language requires a phrase in another language. (Examples of aspect and evidentiality; also words like Swahili mumagamagama "a person who habitually loses things" and Russian zajchik "the rainbow reflection from glass." Linguists study how each particular language structures the expression of concepts. Such cross-language comparisons fall under a branch of linguistics called language typology.
If the structural diversity of human languages is superficial, then why in language typology important? Why do so many linguists spend so much time studying language diversity?
1) First, to try to trace the original mother tongue (or mother tongues). Linguists who compare modern languages try to reconstruct ancient languages are called comparative linguists.
2) Second, because languages change more slowly than the environment in which they are spoken, languages contain all sorts of indications of bygone culture. For historians and anthropologists, language provides a special window into the past: ursus/bear/ medved; time/tide/vremya. Study a language--any language--and you will learn much about the history of the people who speak that language. You will also be taking a crucial step toward understanding the contemporary culture of the speakers. Linguists who study language from this cultural standpoint are called anthropological linguists.
Remember that--contrary to the hypothesis of linguistic determinism--studying a language will not help you predict the future for the people who speak that language. The future will happen with little regard for language structure, and language will be shaped by that future, not the other way around.
And this is why will we spend the next four weeks studying the morphology, syntax and phonology of diverse languages. And during the second half of the course we will return to questions of language in society and the connection between language and the brain.
About Professor Vajda
Edward Vajda is a professor in Western Washington University's Department of Modern and Classical Languages. He received his degrees from Indiana University and the University of Washington, and has also studied at Moscow State University. He has been on Western's faculty since 1987. He teaches Russian language, culture and history, as well as general linguistics and Inner Asian and Siberian peoples. He is currently serving as director of the Center for East Asian Studies and also as the Associate Director of the Center for International Studies. He also serves as an editor of the New York-based linguistics journal "Word" . Fluent in several languages, he has authored six books, dozens of articles and hundreds of reviews (see his CV for more information). Dr. Vajda is interested in documenting endangered languages of Siberia and has conducted original fieldwork with Ket, a language spoken by fewer than 100 people in the remote Yenisei River basin. In August 2008 he became the first North American to live and work with the Ket in their Sub-Arctic homeland. He is affiliated with the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology (Leipzig, Germany), where in August 2006 he presented evidence supporting a genetic connection between Ket and the Athabaskan, Eyak, and Tlingit (Na-Dene) language family of North America. In February 2008 he presented more evidence at a symposium in Fairbanks, Alaska. The "Dene-Yeniseian Hypothesis" is gaining acceptance as the first demonstrated link between an Old World and a New World language family. Vajda received Western's Excellence in Teaching Award in 1992.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.
