|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: how did our language derive from nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
fallacycop writes
quote: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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
fallacycop Member (Idle past 5521 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 5521 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
fallacycop writes
quote:I'd like to know what makes you think my assessment was not entirely accurate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
rgb Inactive Member |
ramoss writes
quote:After centuries of white influence and no contact with Mother Africa? quote: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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024