THE ARCHAEOLOGY OF LANGUAGE — THE DEEPEST LAYER OF SCIENCE
##article.abstract##
INTRODUCTION: Was Linguistics Ever Really a Science?
If linguistics were truly a science, it would have developed a clear, empirical, biologically grounded methodology by now. But until the emergence of the “Odam Tili” (Human Language) theory, what we called linguistics was merely a collection of texts, metaphors, and speculative frameworks with no solid grounding in anatomy, physiology, or natural logic [1, 6].
Dr. Mahmudjon Kuchkarov dismantled this pseudo-scientific foundation and proposed a radical alternative — a scientific linguistics rooted in the human body, in sound, in motion, and in meaning. He calls this new approach the “Archaeology of Language.”
##submission.citations##
1. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
2. Darwin, C. (1871). The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. John Murray.
3. Deacon, T. (1997). The Symbolic Species: The Co-Evolution of Language and the Brain. W.W. Norton.
4. Lieberman, P. (1984). The Biology and Evolution of Language. Harvard University Press.
5. Pagel, M. (2017). Q&A: What is human language, when did it evolve and why should we care? BMC Biology.
6. Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct. HarperCollins.
7. Saussure, F. de (1916). Course in General Linguistics. McGraw-Hill.
8. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
