Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   how did our language derive from nothing?
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 46 of 83 (323687)
06-20-2006 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by fallacycop
06-20-2006 12:31 AM


The grammar organ - is there one?
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.
Yes, sure. And the only possible explanation for biological diversity is that a creator waved his magic wand, and the species all poofed into existence.
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?
Fortran has a grammar. C has a grammar. Pascal has a grammar. Java has a grammar. The evidence that English has a grammar is far weaker.
I personally don't believe that English (or other natural language) has a grammar. Sure, we talk about grammar, and the grammaticality of sentences. But it is a grammar that comes from our attempts to systematize language. We impose that grammar on the language, and it does not fit very well.
Chomsky's book "Syntactic Structures" was published in 1957. It is almost 40 years later, and Chomskyans still have not given us a definitive grammar for the English language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 12:31 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 1:27 AM nwr has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 47 of 83 (323690)
06-20-2006 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by nwr
06-20-2006 1:13 AM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
nwr writes:
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?
Go shame yourself. I stand by my words. would you care to address the point of my post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by nwr, posted 06-20-2006 1:13 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 06-20-2006 1:50 AM fallacycop has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 48 of 83 (323698)
06-20-2006 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by fallacycop
06-20-2006 1:27 AM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
would you care to address the point of my post?
I did address the point of your post. Your post was based on argument from ignorance, so is fallacious. I also hinted at an alternative explanation. I'll spell it out.
1: Natural language is not a grammatical system.
2: Linguists invent a grammar, in their attempt to systematize language.
3: Then then impose that grammatical structure on language, even though it doesn't fit very well.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 1:27 AM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 1:15 PM nwr has replied

  
Rob 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days)
Posts: 2297
Joined: 06-01-2006


Message 49 of 83 (323700)
06-20-2006 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by shankypanky247
08-11-2005 4:02 AM


Language is a direct result of reason (i.e. purpose and understanding)in my opinion. I don't know about a language organ (at least not in the typical sense of the word organ)but if nothing else a complex and rational pattern of energy that is highly ordered and consistant. Without the specifics, it is not simply biological in it's entirety, but rather that the biological funtion was created to compliment a spiritual foundation for the senseble nature of language.
All of that is right off the top of my head so don't ask for sources...
(John 1)In the beggining was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God... ...And the word became flesh, and dwelt among us.
Without something to say, there would be no language. So the 'idea' or 'Spirit', as well as the need or purpose (an assuption of understanding if not a total control of nature by understanding) preceded the physical function.
In fact, for creation to be, God Spoke...
If that seems completely stupid to some of you, oh well, it is just way (way!) under your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by shankypanky247, posted 08-11-2005 4:02 AM shankypanky247 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2006 8:14 AM Rob has not replied
 Message 51 by AdminNosy, posted 06-20-2006 8:15 AM Rob has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 50 of 83 (323781)
06-20-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rob
06-20-2006 2:03 AM


And what evidence do you have there is a 'spiritual foundation' for language?
I am not talking bible quotes here. This is the science section.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rob, posted 06-20-2006 2:03 AM Rob has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 51 of 83 (323782)
06-20-2006 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Rob
06-20-2006 2:03 AM


A short Suspension For Rob
This is more preaching and made up nonsense.
I am suspending you for 12 hours to give you time to think about what you post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Rob, posted 06-20-2006 2:03 AM Rob has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 52 of 83 (323880)
06-20-2006 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by nwr
06-20-2006 1:50 AM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nwr, posted 06-20-2006 1:50 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by rgb, posted 06-20-2006 1:29 PM fallacycop has replied
 Message 54 by nwr, posted 06-20-2006 2:31 PM fallacycop has replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 83 (323897)
06-20-2006 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by fallacycop
06-20-2006 1:15 PM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
fallacycop writes
quote:
And yet, 5 year old kidds speak correctly.
I beg to differ. 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. Yet, they all understand each other very well and somehow can understand me very well. As a matter of fact, my 3 yr old nephew the other day said "Daddy car" while pointing at his dad's car. I think that's a lot better sentencing structure than what the 10 year old hicks and hillbillies use (humor intended).
I really don't think there is such a thing as a "grammar machine". I think people perceive on the common usage of grammar based on what they have heard throughout their lives.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 1:15 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 6:16 PM rgb has replied
 Message 73 by Ben!, posted 06-22-2006 3:37 AM rgb has not replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 54 of 83 (323936)
06-20-2006 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by fallacycop
06-20-2006 1:15 PM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
that depends on how you define grammar
Since you are raising that issue, maybe you should tell us how you define grammar.
The sistematization IS the best atempt of the general purpose machinery of our brains to deal with the nature of humman languages.
You are presupposing that there is such machinery. What is the basis for that assumption?
I'm not denying that humans can handle languages. I am questioning whether there is something that could be called "machinery" involved.
Here are some of the reasons I question Chomskyan assumptions:
  1. People manage to communicate quite well when using broken grammar. Thus the grammar does not seem to be a necessity.
  2. Neuroscientists have not yet discovered this grammar machinery.
  3. Chomskyans talk of "generative grammar". AI/Natural Language research, over a period of 50 years, has not been able to design a generative system that resembles natural language.
  4. If the brain contains a grammar engine, then this would somehow need to be encoded in the genome. It is doubtful that there is enough DNA in the genome to encode a full specification. But it is worse than that. According to Chomskyans, chimpanzees do not have a grammar engine, but humans do. So the grammar engine would have to be encoded in the parts of the DNA that differ between humans and chimps.
  5. There are multiple languages in the world. If there were a grammar engine, you would think that this engine would fix the language, and we would have only one universal natural language.
  6. Natural language seems to be mostly a semantic system, and the grammar (if there is one) seems of secondary importance. Yet a Chomskyan style grammatical account of language does not account for semantics.
  7. Chomskyans distinguish between performance and capacity. The grammatical theories are said to apply to capacity, not to performance. However, all empirical evidence on how people use language has to do with performance. This distinction seems like a sleight-of-hand move that makes the theory immune to contrary evidence (unfalsifiable).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 1:15 PM fallacycop has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 6:10 PM nwr has replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5521 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 55 of 83 (324056)
06-20-2006 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by nwr
06-20-2006 2:31 PM


Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
that depends on how you define grammar
Since you are raising that issue, maybe you should tell us how you define grammar.
Well, clearly if we define it as a rigid set of rules like a computer language grammar, you are right, human languages are non-grammatical.
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
  • People manage to communicate quite well when using broken grammar. Thus the grammar does not seem to be a necessity.
  • Also, as you pointed out, there is a window of oportunity which if missed leads to an impaired ability to speak fluently. So, there is definety something in there that must be learned in order to speak properly. Why not call that (whatever it is) a human language grammar? (despite the fact that such grammar would not be as rule bound as a computer program grammar).
  • People manage to communicate quite well when using broken grammar. Thus the grammar does not seem to be a necessity.
  • 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.)
  • Chomskyans talk of "generative grammar". AI/Natural Language research, over a period of 50 years, has not been able to design a generative system that resembles natural language.
  • I don't know enough about Chomskyan generative grammar to have an opinion on it
  • If the brain contains a grammar engine, then this would somehow need to be encoded in the genome. It is doubtful that there is enough DNA in the genome to encode a full specification. But it is worse than that. According to Chomskyans, chimpanzees do not have a grammar engine, but humans do. So the grammar engine would have to be encoded in the parts of the DNA that differ between humans and chimps.
  • There are multiple languages in the world. If there were a grammar engine, you would think that this engine would fix the language, and we would have only one universal natural language.
  • The grammar itself wouldn't have to be encoded, since it is actually learned from generation to generation. all that has to be encoded is the ability to learn these grammars.
  • Natural language seems to be mostly a semantic system, and the grammar (if there is one) seems of secondary importance. Yet a Chomskyan style grammatical account of language does not account for semantics.
  • I agree that grammar is secondary to semantic.
  • Chomskyans distinguish between performance and capacity. The grammatical theories are said to apply to capacity, not to performance. However, all empirical evidence on how people use language has to do with performance. This distinction seems like a sleight-of-hand move that makes the theory immune to contrary evidence (unfalsifiable).
  • Too much jargon in here in order for me to make sense of it. sorry.
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by nwr, posted 06-20-2006 2:31 PM nwr has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by nwr, posted 06-20-2006 9:52 PM fallacycop has replied

      
    fallacycop
    Member (Idle past 5521 days)
    Posts: 692
    From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
    Joined: 02-18-2006


    Message 56 of 83 (324060)
    06-20-2006 6:16 PM
    Reply to: Message 53 by rgb
    06-20-2006 1:29 PM


    Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
    rgb writes:
    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.
    I find that hard to believe.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by rgb, posted 06-20-2006 1:29 PM rgb has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2006 8:27 PM fallacycop has not replied
     Message 58 by rgb, posted 06-20-2006 9:12 PM fallacycop has replied

      
    ramoss
    Member (Idle past 612 days)
    Posts: 3228
    Joined: 08-11-2004


    Message 57 of 83 (324111)
    06-20-2006 8:27 PM
    Reply to: Message 56 by fallacycop
    06-20-2006 6:16 PM


    Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
    The dialect in the southern states in the rural areas that are predominately black often is influenced by the lingquistic patterns of
    africa. I would say that it the grammar patterns do exist, it just isn't the typical eurpopean/english patterns.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 6:16 PM fallacycop has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 59 by rgb, posted 06-20-2006 9:34 PM ramoss has replied

      
    rgb
    Inactive Member


    Message 58 of 83 (324120)
    06-20-2006 9:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 56 by fallacycop
    06-20-2006 6:16 PM


    Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
    fallacycop writes
    quote:
    I find that hard to believe.
    I'd like to know what makes you think my assessment was not entirely accurate.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 56 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 6:16 PM fallacycop has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 67 by fallacycop, posted 06-21-2006 10:07 PM rgb has replied

      
    rgb
    Inactive Member


    Message 59 of 83 (324128)
    06-20-2006 9:34 PM
    Reply to: Message 57 by ramoss
    06-20-2006 8:27 PM


    Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
    ramoss writes
    quote:
    The dialect in the southern states in the rural areas that are predominately black often is influenced by the lingquistic patterns of
    africa.
    After centuries of white influence and no contact with Mother Africa?
    quote:
    I would say that it the grammar patterns do exist, it just isn't the typical eurpopean/english patterns.
    Some of my friends told me that what I heard was the typical street slangs of those areas. Even after I got down word by word what they were saying, I still couldn't make out what they were trying to say.
    Funny story. I was in a bar one time in chatennooga (sp?) tennessee. There was this man that walked in and started talking with his friend. He was talking really really slowly. I tried to catch every word he was saying and I still couldn't understand what he said. So, I tapped on the shoulder of the guy next to me and ask him what that man just said, and the guy started telling me ....... Again, whatever it was it sounded like the man that just talked moments ago.
    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?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 57 by ramoss, posted 06-20-2006 8:27 PM ramoss has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 61 by nwr, posted 06-20-2006 9:55 PM rgb has not replied
     Message 62 by ramoss, posted 06-21-2006 7:32 AM rgb has not replied
     Message 68 by fallacycop, posted 06-21-2006 10:12 PM rgb has not replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 60 of 83 (324131)
    06-20-2006 9:52 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by fallacycop
    06-20-2006 6:10 PM


    Re: The grammar organ - is there one?
    I can't help but notice that you also refer to human language rules as a grammar.
    I use the common terminology, in order to minimize confusion. In my opinion, what we really have is an ad hoc communication protocol, and what is called "grammar" is mostly a side effect of following a protocol.
    So, there is definety something in there that must be learned in order to speak properly. Why not call that (whatever it is) a human language grammar?
    Because a lot of it is not grammar. Here is an example:
    Kuhl et al., "Linguistic Experience Alters Phonetic Perception in Infants by 6 Months of Age,", Science 255 (1992), pp. 606-608.
    The real question is how do kidds learn languages' rules.
    They learn them at school, in the grammar class
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by fallacycop, posted 06-20-2006 6:10 PM fallacycop has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 66 by fallacycop, posted 06-21-2006 10:00 PM nwr has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024