<P> In order to reconstruct the evolutionary transition from early language to languages with complex grammars, we need to know which hypothetical sequences are plausible and which are not . In order to convey abstract ideas, the first recourse of speakers is to fall back on immediately recognizable concrete imagery, very often deploying metaphors rooted in shared bodily experience . A familiar example is the use of concrete terms such as' belly' or' back' to convey abstract meanings such as' inside' or' behind' . Equally metaphorical is the strategy of representing temporal patterns on the model of spatial ones . For example, English speakers might say' It is going to rain,' modeled on' I am going to London .' This can be abbreviated colloquially to' It's gonna rain .' Even when in a hurry, we don't say' I'm gonna London'--the contraction is restricted to the job of specifying tense . From such examples we can see why grammaticalization is consistently unidirectional--from concrete to abstract meaning, not the other way around . </P> <P> Grammaticalization theorists picture early language as simple, perhaps consisting only of nouns . Even under that extreme theoretical assumption, however, it is difficult to imagine what would realistically have prevented people from using, say,' spear' as if it were a verb (' Spear that pig!'). People might have used their nouns as verbs or their verbs as nouns as occasion demanded . In short, while a noun - only language might seem theoretically possible, grammaticalization theory indicates that it cannot have remained fixed in that state for any length of time . </P> <P> Creativity drives grammatical change . This presupposes a certain attitude on the part of listeners . Instead of punishing deviations from accepted usage, listeners must prioritize imaginative mind - reading . Imaginative creativity--emitting a leopard alarm when no leopard was present, for example--is not the kind of behavior which, say, vervet monkeys would appreciate or reward . Creativity and reliability are incompatible demands; for' Machiavellian' primates as for animals generally, the overriding pressure is to demonstrate reliability . If humans escape these constraints, it is because in our case, listeners are primarily interested in mental states . </P> <P> To focus on mental states is to accept fictions--inhabitants of the imagination--as potentially informative and interesting . Take the use of metaphor . A metaphor is, literally, a false statement . Think of Romeo's declaration,' Juliet is the sun!' Juliet is a woman, not a ball of plasma in the sky, but human listeners are not (or not usually) pedants insistent on point - by - point factual accuracy . They want to know what the speaker has in mind . Grammaticalization is essentially based on metaphor . To outlaw its use would be to stop grammar from evolving and, by the same token, to exclude all possibility of expressing abstract thought . </P>

Write a note on the orgin of english