Make Millions Of Coals Go In There.

[rionaleonhart]

A couple of nights ago, I dreamt that I was being strangled by a Furby. They don't even have arms!

Anyway, I have been musing on the wonders of the Internet. One of the things I like most about the Internet is the way you can learn all sorts of pointless trivia as you leap about from page to page.

Therefore, here is a pointless trivia entry! Tell

Comments

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[hikari_datenshi]

I'm not too bothered by the rejection of Sapir-Whorf - I remember thinking that it was a bit of an odd one, when I read about it. The whole idea that a person's thoughts are limited by what language they speak seems unfeasible, to me, and bordering on language imperialism, somehow. But then again, parts of it are more believable - like the idea that many languages are able to be more semantically fine-tuned than English (the whole thing with multiple words for snow, etc.).

I agreed with Pinker's thoughts on language being instinctual - an evolutionary trait to help communication between hunter-gatherers (these seemed to correlate with language origins, too).

But then again, you also have to take into account the reports of feral children, which quite thoroughly debunk the idea of innate language that Chomsky was so fond of. Tomasello favoured cognitive linguistics, and the idea that language is usage- and interaction-based - backed up by the feral children reports, this makes a lot of sense.

And then on the other hand, Chomsky's ideas of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) and the inexplicably rapid pace that children learn language also make a good deal of sense.

I always thought that a lot of the theories had at least some merit.

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[apiphile]

But then again, you also have to take into account the reports of feral children

That occurred to me today; feral children were a pet fascination of mine a few years ago, and it didn't quite seem to fit with what I understand of Chomsky.

So basically I have to pick and choose from a variety of linguistics and not just take one person's word as law? ;)

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[hikari_datenshi]

Yes! That's exactly it, hehe. And they all try to debunk each other anyway, so really, the best thing you can do is read widely and sort of... cobble together a feeling about what you think it's all about. If you can, I'd also try and have a look at language origins - that puts a different slant on things, plus it's super interesting, to boot. Skulls! Lots of skulls!!

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[apiphile]

What saddens me is that I'm looking to read about the bridge between linguistics and neuroscience, but googling "neurolinguistics" just gives me creepy websites about how to hypnotise women into sleeping with you.

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[hikari_datenshi]

That's the problem, really. Linguistics is a science, but there's not much cross-disciplinary action going on within it. It also doesn't help that everyone's still completely mystified where language comes from, let alone whether it's an actual place they can point to in the brain or not. XD

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[dracothelizard]

Have you tried looking on things like Pubmed? There might be some free research articles on the subject.

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[apiphile]

Hrm. I have access to fuck-all, but I do have friends with unfettered access who don't mind downloading things...

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[dracothelizard]

And probably features 100% less creepy men trying to hypnotise women. Damn you, neurolinguistic programming.

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[culf]

I don't have anything interesting to add to this conversation, I just wanted to say I love your Bullshitters icon!

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[dracothelizard]

But isn't the thing with feral children that they're often found alone rather than in groups with other feral children? I mean, if they're alone, they wouldn't need to communicate.

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[hikari_datenshi]

In the majority of cases about feral children, they were found kept locked up by their parents/guardians, and they'd been given negative reinforcement every time they tried to speak. It's not the point that they didn't need to communicate, it's that they were beaten, deprived of food and light, etc. if they tried to. And after a certain age (not much older than four or five), your brain stops being able to learn language properly, which is why a lot of feral children never actually learn to speak a language completely - they may have the appearance of knowing some vocabulary, which they do, but they don't have the vital understanding that other children get from learning language from the beginning.

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[dracothelizard]

Oh, right, I was thinking of those feral children found in the wilderness rather than locked up by abusive parents.

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[sashwizzled]

I wouldn't have said a person's thoughts were limited by the language they speak, only that they're different. For example, in Japanese, the numbering system is the same as English up to ten thousand, which is called one man. Thus when you get to what is in English one hundred thousand, in Japanese it's 10man.

Because I grew up learning English, my entire thought process goes in thousands up to one million. A Japanese person's brain goes in 10,000s up to 100,000,000 (which is an oku). I wouldn't have said either one is limited by that.

But then, my understanding of Sapir-Whorf isn't much more than basic.

Also, with feral children, doesn't it depend on the age they are when they're brought back into society? At a very young age, they can quickly learn a language and almost perfectly communicate in it by adulthood, but any older than into their teens and they've just lost the knack and never get it again. Am I wrong in saying that doesn't debunk the idea since Chomsky's LAD only applied to younger children?

To be honest, though, I know very little about linguistics, so if I'm totally off base, please do correct me. I shall learn something. XD

Re: Linguistics - language acquisition (could get a bit long ^_^;; )

[hikari_datenshi]

I think (if I remember correctly), the idea of the LAD is that everyone has it, but it sort of... turns off, in a way, after a certain age that no-one has ever agreed on. The problem with the feral children accounts and Chomsky's theories is that Chomsky's innate language theory assumes that all language is an innate part of us, as humans - an essential part of our genetic makeup, almost. In essence, that we don't need any outside input to learn a language. And this is where the theory falls down in the face of the feral children accounts - these children did not have the input they needed early in life, from an outside source, to furnish them with their language. If Chomsky was right, and language was innate, feral children would have language, no matter what their situation. They would be able to learn without problems later on in life, no matter what age they were found. But as the accounts show, children found after the cut-off age never quite learn language fully. Sure, they acquire vocabulary, and they can string together sentences, but they don't have that understanding of grammar that a normal child would acquire from their outside source - their parents, the world around them, etc. The problem, really, seems to be the isolation factor.

I agree with you about Sapir-Whorf - it seems like a strange idea to put forward, really. Of course people's thoughts will be different depending on their language - language shapes us as a person, and that obviously includes our thoughts and how we perceive the world. To be honest, I don't remember too much about their theories because I found them to be a bit... I don't know, non-applicable. I never really read much more around them because of that.

...I have rambled! Many apologies. XD I don't get many opportunities to talk about this sort of stuff nowadays, so it's nice to engage in real discussion with people about it. And you clearly do know some things about linguistics! :D