|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: how did our language derive from nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
nwr writes:
This is strong evidence that language actually depends on some internal specific brain mechanism as oposed to depending on general purpose learning abilities as you said you believe to be the case.
Right. Language acquisition has to start relatively early, or there will be problems.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
nwr writes:
Humans certainly have a natural ability for language. It is known that a group of deaf children, if not raised with a sign language, will spontaneously invent their own sign language. nwr writes: Given the first paragraph above, it is not surprising that your view is the minority view
The minority view, which I share, is that language is a social adaptation that evolved to support communication between members of a society. While there are certainly brain regions specialized for language, particularly Broca's area, the minority view is that language ability mainly depends on general purpose learning abilities. Philosopher Hilary Putnam is one of the advocates of this position.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
nwr writes:
I was 13 and leaned how to do it with my uncle who was 46. He learned it better then me.
I don't know your background, so I don't know where you were during the Rubik's cube mania of around 23 years ago.It was clear that children picked it up much more readily than adults. So, by the kind of argument you are using, we should conclude that there is a specific internal brain mechanism for handling a Rubik's cube. I guess we all inherited a Rubik's cube gene. I wonder where that came from. I never heard of any 4-5 year old kids that could do well the Rubiks cube. They seem to have no problem with complex grammer concepts(intuitivily) that baffle school age kidds, Even when they are trying to learn their own 1st language grammar rules. Clearly kidds can marter language skills in a intuitive way much better then they can do it in a explict way. For the former they rely in some specific brain capability which is not available for the latter. the latter relies in general purpose learning abilities.Think about it. how many kidds have you met that can do algebra at the age of 5(intuitively) better then they can do it at age 10 (explicitly)? clearly we do not have an internal brain mechanism for handling algebra, the way we can handle grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
nwr writes: thank you very much for making my point. that was exactly the point I was making. he is proficient at speaking grammatically but still have no idea what grammar is about. How come? how is that possible? the only possible explanation is that when speaking he uses a grammar machine that is hidden deep inside his brain and not available to the general purpose machinery. In other words: he can think grammatically without being able to think about grammar. In the other hand nobody can think algebrically without being able to think about algebra. That's a huge difference.
Sorry, that's wrong. Ask a 4-5 year old about grammar concepts, and he won't understand what you are talking about. He may have good proficiency at speaking grammatically, but he knows little of grammar concepts.Again, you are making the mistake of looking to a fixed universal learning age. It's just a fact that a 13 year old can learn algebra far better than can a 23 year old.
Not so fast. We are talking about the same person here. The same person that learns grammar at the age of 5 (learns to make grammatical sentences, that is) will struggle with it at age 14 (may have a hard time grasping it's concepts, because his general purpose machinery is not adequate for this kind of learning). So, your comparisson of a 13 year old with a 23 year old is not a good analogy, since it compares two different people (one that learned grammar at the age of 13 with one that didn't until the age of 23). for your analogy to be a valid one, you would have to be able to say that some people can do algebra at the age of 13 (or whatever) and then this same person at the age of 23 (or whatever) finds himself struggling to understand some basic algebra concept. that just doesn't happen (unless some brain damage in a car crash or something like that happened somewhere in btween).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
nwr writes: Go shame yourself. I stand by my words. would you care to address the point of my post?
Shame on you! How can you recognize the argument from ignorance, when the creationists use it, yet then go and use a similar argument from ignorance yourself?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
1: Natural language is not a grammatical system.
that depends on how you define grammar
2: Linguists invent a grammar, in their attempt to systematize language.
no problem here
3: Then then impose that grammatical structure on language, even though it doesn't fit very well.
may be they shouldn't do that then. may be their expectations of what the natural grammar should be must be re-assesed.
4: A child who wants to understand the concepts of this grammar, must first study the systematization. This takes time, and is harder than actually learning the language itself. But that is exactly the point I'm making, in case you haven't noticed. The sistematization is harder then the language itself. The sistematization IS the best atempt of the general purpose machinery of our brains to deal with the nature of humman languages. The fact that this atempt is partially successful attests to the fact that this general purpose is inadequate for that task. And yet, 5 year old kidds speak correctly. How do they do it, is the question. I concede that I should have added an "as far as I can see" disclaimer two posts ago. So I'll reinstate my afirmation here:AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, the only possible explanation is that when speaking he uses a grammar machine that is hidden deep inside his brain and not available to the general purpose machinery. In other words: he can think grammatically without being able to think about grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
that depends on how you define grammar
Since you are raising that issue, maybe you should tell us how you define grammar. But this definition seems to leave to much out. I can't help but notice that you also refer to human language rules as a grammar. For instance
I think the matter here does not lie in whether human languages are grammatical or not. The real question is how do kidds learn languages' rules. Do they make use of their generel purpose abilities alone? Or do they use some specific ability that evolved for that specific "purpose". I think the answer is the latter. (For some reason I get the feeling that may be we have different understandings about what should be considered part of the general purpose abilities.)
I still don't see how anybody can understand something at age of five using their general purpose capabilities and then go ahead and fail grammar school at the age of thirteen. That is my main point of contention here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
rgb writes: I find that hard to believe.
If you ever visit the United States, make sure to visit the backwatered sections of states like Alabama, Tennessee, or Mississippi. There, you'd find 10 year olds that are still talking in baby language (or whatever language they use there). I'm not talking about just the difference in accent. I'm talking about extremely poor grammar and disjointed sentences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
nwr writes:
Yes. But how do they do it?
Without schooling, I think most kids never learn grammar rules, and never need to learn them. Yet they will still learn to speak in ways that are considered adequately grammatical.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
fallacycop writes
Because kidds learn to speak the local dialect fluently elsewhere in the world. Why wouldn't those kids do it? May be you were expecting them to learn official english "grammar" instead of the local dialect. It seems that this wouldn't be a fair expectation.
quote:I'd like to know what makes you think my assessment was not entirely accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
It amazes me that we "northerners" can't understand "them" but for some reason they can understand us pretty well. Why do you suppose that is? I suppose they have heard the nothern dialect often enough to learn it through Radio, TV, and other sources.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
nwr writes: Ok. So the language goes through a process of acomodation because the original language was probabily too terse. How does that link to the absense of a specific (as oposed to general) mental capability being involved in the process?
So sure, the language continues to evolve (as all natural languages do). But after a couple of generations, it settles down to a language that children can easily acquire.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
rgb writes: I think it is unfair to describe their sentences as being disjoint or ungrammatical. They are likely to be perfectly formed sentences acording to the local dialect grammar.
You haven't answered my question at all. All I said was that these kids living in those areas speak in what appears to me to be broken English and disjointed sentences. You then said that you found it hard to believe that these kids were speaking the way I described it. Yet, now you are admitting that it was possible for these kids to have learned a different dialect. Then you went on to describe what you thought was my expectation. While what you said is true, I still don't see how that answered my question. So, let me ask again. Why do you think my assessment of how these kids in those areas talk was not entirely accurate?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
nwr writes: I guess most researchers take the ease with which young kidds learn a language as evidence for it. I also remember seeing many other lines of evidence in Steven Pinker's book "The Language Instinct" which were quite convincing. One that springs back to my mind is the fact that some people are born with specific languages impairment which does not prevent them from performing in any other areas in an observable way.
I'm not claiming to be able to prove a negative. At present, I don't see that a hypothesized grammar organ explains anything, and I can find no evidence that there is such.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5551 days) Posts: 692 From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil Joined: |
nwr writes: If there were physiological changes that evolved that are specifically important to language, what would be the point of not calling those physiological changes a language organ?
Nobody denies that there are physiological changes that evolved that are important to language. What is argued is the nature of those changes.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024