Jump to: Board index
March 6th, 2012, 4:12 am
March 8th, 2012, 4:43 am
March 10th, 2012, 3:42 am
March 11th, 2012, 3:54 am
Belinda wrote:Any referent, even water and even the planet Venus, is both concept and reality. The ontological status of concepts and realities is the question.
It is nothing to do with the "ontological status of concepts and realities," whatever the "ontological status of realities" means. We are talking about how words are used, and whether nouns are rigid designators (which I think not). The ontological status of anything is irrelevant in this case.
March 15th, 2012, 4:06 am
In a way, I think these two language sets are analogous to sculpter carving an image in a block of wood.
The I-language is like the block of wood. The E-language is like the carving tools. And the meaning is like the final image that we end up with. The [meaning/images] is not exclusively in either the [I-language/wood] or the [E-language/tools], but collectively in the union of both. If we have limited [E-language/tools] because we were raised by wolves (only have a butter knife instead of a sharp blade) then our final images (the sophistication of our language) will be crude. Conversely, if we have a good block of wood (a sharp, word oriented mind) then the tools that we use will also produce a
finer final product.
March 16th, 2012, 4:12 am
March 17th, 2012, 4:41 am
March 18th, 2012, 5:59 am
Antone wrote:I find this to be such a bizzarely irrational statement that I'm not sure how to address it without sounding insulting. lol.Metaman wrote: Speaking precisely, I don’t think we learn language. I think the proper way to describe what happens is that the language faculty grows.
If we don't "learn" langauage, then why not say that we don't learn MATH or PHILOSOPHY. Our brain simply grows to a more advance (or complicated) state... and the math is magically there.
If only this were true!
The reason is that maths and philosophy are not innate. Most likely, we have some kind of reasoning faculty, which we then use to do philosophy and maths. But maths and philosophy themselves have to be taught.
You have to remember that the I-Language is a biological module/organ. We don’t say that we learn to develop our arms; we say that our arms grow. We don’t say that we learn to develop eyes; we say that our eyes grow. The same is true of the I-Language. We don’t learn it—it is innate—and so it grows, like all other bodily organs.
Obviously, our I-Language needs social (environmental) input to get going. But this is true of all our bodily organs. For our eyes and arms to grow they need proteins, which we get from the environment (food). And so, just because the I-Language needs some environmental (social) input doesn’t mean that it is not internal, or innate.
March 19th, 2012, 3:54 am
Not necessarily. Suppose the chile knows the words "mama" and "get" and the father says, "Go to mama and get x and y." The child will toddle over to mama who will hand the child [x] and [y]. If the child starts to leave before being given [y] the "moma" will say, "Hold up you forgot y," and then give them [y]. In this way, the child not only learn what [and] is but they learn to distinguish between [x] and [y].
March 20th, 2012, 3:54 am
March 27th, 2012, 5:06 am
March 28th, 2012, 5:18 am
First, there is ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE between [languagte use] and [language competence]. If we use the language in a certain way then we are competent. If not, then we are not. So I'm not sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make. Second, there is no such thing as language itself. That's like saying I want to study [Oak tree itself]. You can study individual Oak trees--which is like studying the mI-languages; or you can study what it is about some trees that make them part of the Oak tree family--which is like studying the mE-language.
March 29th, 2012, 4:38 am
experimental evidence shows that adults treat children differently depending on whether they think the baby is a boy or a girl. For example, the adult will coo and make bagy noises to the girl more often. The adult will smile more, and hold the baby more, etc.
My point is that from these very meager, empoverished inputs, the average child learns how to behave like a boy or a girl; including all the complex social interactions that we generally take for granted and never think about. Occasionally, this learning process goes ary and a girl grows up to be a Tomboy or a boy grows up with overtly effeminate mannerisms and so forth. But (generally speaking) the learning process is remarkably effective at creating gender appropriate behavior from a very minimal amount of data input.
Language is a little more complex, but the input isn't so subtle either. My point is that if we can learn gender roles from minimal input, we can also learn language--particularly when we already have a strong affinity for learning language, where presumably there is far less affinity for learning gender roles.
March 30th, 2012, 6:02 am
Not a bad argument... Basically (I assume) you're saying that body language is a type of language... and so is controlled by the same mental function... so my argument is invalid. [/quote]The swimmer can also swim in asses' milk or beer. If it it true that young babies can swim instinctively, then that more mature people may be averse to swimming in beer is not evidence that the swim instinct of young babies does not exist, but it is evidence that by the time that a baby is socialised she may be socialised into aversion to swimming in any medium other than asses' milk. Or whatever medium. I do not know of any research but it is a reasonable assumption that only young babies, if those, are able to swim without being inducted into the proper swimming motions.The environment somehow triggers something that isn't learning. It somehow sets parameters, without learning what those parameters are. It's a bit like saying that a swimmer doesn't really need water to swim... the water just triggers the innate ability to swim. It sets the parameters for where the swimmer can swim. But the swimmer doesn't actually need the water to swim.
Antone wrote:It's a lot more than being a parrot. The animals follow rules of grammar, initiate conversation; ask for things and even combine words in creatively unique and untaught ways to produce new (more complex) ideas and so forth... So by any rational definition it is a language. A fairly simple one, but still a language.
The chimp who was taught to use many symbols to make his wants known was unable to use those symbols creatively. A banana always meant a banana and he would not have understood any joke about phallic symbolism.
Antone wrote:Belinda wrote: that socialisation of the small child is fastest when the child is very young. Also language acquisition together with other social behaviours is subsumed under socialisation.
Not entirely true. The child has an instinct to eat. But it doesn't know how to chew up a hamburger. Even thought the child is obviously hungry, sometimes, a child doesn't even realized that it needs to suck on the mother's tit, and needs to be coaxed into taking the nipple into its mouth and then sucking... On a more biological level, some children are alergic to mothers milk, or formula milk, or maybe they just don't like the taste of it as an infant. My Brother, for example, had to have whale milk when he was young--he couldn't handle mother's milk or cow milk. But now he can drink both just fine.Belinda wrote: The young child is inherently able to eat and her social environment directs how she learns to eat her food off a floor or off a plate.
My point is that while there is an important and distinct role that instinct plays, it doesn't happen without learning. I suspect that a child has what might be called an "instinct to walk". A child who is born with one leg will learn to walk on one leg (if the adults in his life don't give off body language clues which tell the child he shouldn't be walking). A child born with NO leges will learn to walk, on his hands. But if you essentially restrain the child, by protecting it from dangerous things like toppling over onto its arms, it won't learn. Similarly, if you tie the child's legs together... it won't learn to walk.
And if there isn't anyone else to talk to, the child won't learn to talk.
I would argue that he still has an I-language. He knows inside his own mind the difference between a [tree[ and some [grass], for instance. unless he LEARNS to use a language, he won't be able to speak an E-language. He will still know what he himself means, when he communicates with himself, so to speak, but he won't be able to express himself to others clearly.
It is accomplished through the inherent language instinct, plus the particular linguistic socialisation of the child.So the social environment somehow directs what the child says, without the child ever learning the word [dog] or [perro]? Again, how is this magical feat accomplished?Belinda wrote: The young child is inherently able to speak a native language and her social environment directs whether she says dog or perro, or both.
April 3rd, 2012, 4:10 am
Belinda wrote:Does anyone know about strokes and other brain pathologies that affect language abilities? I imagine that anatomical correlations if sufficiently extensive of language behaviour with brain lesions/wholeness would provide the definitive answer.
-- Updated Wed Apr 04, 2012 4:26 am to add the following --
I have thought of a different approach to the original question 'Is water hydrogen hydroxide?' So-called qualia are as I have argued bits of knowledge which are difficult or more likely, impossible, to communicate.
But the attribute of water that it is hydrogen hydroxide is knowedge that can be publically demonstrated by a chemistry teacher. Now I come to the crunch! The contexts for individuals of this teaching event are not the same despite the best efforts of the chemistry teacher or the author nof the chemistry text book.One learner may have learned it from a book while cosy on a sofa in front of a warm fire with a fag and a beer ready to hand. Another may have learned it from an unpopular teacher with a bad cold while worrying that the class bully is ready to strike. Etc. Therefore that water is hydrogen hydroxide is not as pure a bit of knowledge as I first assumed but is intimately linked in the individual's memory with affect and other pieces of memories.