Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
What is Language (Linguistics)
1 Introduction to Language (Linguistics)
1. What is linguistics?
The scientific study of language.
2. What is language?
A cognitive system.
A conventional system of communication.
3. Natural language: language that develops naturally in normal humans (vs. artificial language).
4. Linguistics is NOT:
Learning to speak many languages;
Telling people their grammar ain’t no good;
Literature or style;
Or anything else—it is the scientific study of language.
5. Linguistics is the scientific study of language.
Scientific study =
Observation;
Hypothesis formation;
Hypothesis testing;
Amending hypothesis.
1. What is linguistics?
The scientific study of language.
2. What is language?
A cognitive system.
A conventional system of communication.
3. Natural language: language that develops naturally in normal humans (vs. artificial language).
4. Linguistics is NOT:
Learning to speak many languages;
Telling people their grammar ain’t no good;
Literature or style;
Or anything else—it is the scientific study of language.
5. Linguistics is the scientific study of language.
Scientific study =
Observation;
Hypothesis formation;
Hypothesis testing;
Amending hypothesis.
Content, Format, Aims and Objectives
CONTENTS AND FORMAT
This course provides an up-to-date introduction to the study of linguistics, the discipline that investigates and describes the language, acquisition, production, and comprehension of language. Now that this is the first time the students have this lesson linguistic terms and basics will be presented throughout the course. In addition, the relation between linguistics and second language teaching will be examined thoroughly, thus students will be expected to acquire a broader view on the matter. The course will also look at the language within the society, and will aim to enhance language awareness. The course consists of 14 weeks, three hours each.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The module has four main aims: (i) to provide students with an overview of theoretical models, experimental methods and current issues in linguistics in relation to foreign language teaching,(ii) to enable students to understand and assess current scientific debates in the field, (iii) to help students understand and appreciate the relationship between linguistic data and language learning and teaching theories and models, and (iv) to provide students with the necessary background for studying linguistics, discourse analysis or related topics at an advanced level.
STUDENT CONTRIBUTION
Students are expected to attend regularly, to participate as required, and to contribute actively to class discussions. Reading is expected in advance of a lecture, and will definitely be required afterwards so as to consolidate the understanding of the material and ideas presented in the lecture.
TEACHING METHOD
The course has a mixed lecture-plus-class format. The lectures will be kept reasonably informal, with opportunities for participation by the students. The classes will primarily involve working through selected exercise material.
This course provides an up-to-date introduction to the study of linguistics, the discipline that investigates and describes the language, acquisition, production, and comprehension of language. Now that this is the first time the students have this lesson linguistic terms and basics will be presented throughout the course. In addition, the relation between linguistics and second language teaching will be examined thoroughly, thus students will be expected to acquire a broader view on the matter. The course will also look at the language within the society, and will aim to enhance language awareness. The course consists of 14 weeks, three hours each.
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The module has four main aims: (i) to provide students with an overview of theoretical models, experimental methods and current issues in linguistics in relation to foreign language teaching,(ii) to enable students to understand and assess current scientific debates in the field, (iii) to help students understand and appreciate the relationship between linguistic data and language learning and teaching theories and models, and (iv) to provide students with the necessary background for studying linguistics, discourse analysis or related topics at an advanced level.
STUDENT CONTRIBUTION
Students are expected to attend regularly, to participate as required, and to contribute actively to class discussions. Reading is expected in advance of a lecture, and will definitely be required afterwards so as to consolidate the understanding of the material and ideas presented in the lecture.
TEACHING METHOD
The course has a mixed lecture-plus-class format. The lectures will be kept reasonably informal, with opportunities for participation by the students. The classes will primarily involve working through selected exercise material.
Grading System
Final grade will be based on an oral and a written exam and composed as follows:
1. Individual or team project with final oral presentation (30%). Both project and presentation will have to be agreed upon with me.
2. Online exercises (15%)
3. Homework assignment (15%)
4. Final exam (40%)
1. Individual or team project with final oral presentation (30%). Both project and presentation will have to be agreed upon with me.
2. Online exercises (15%)
3. Homework assignment (15%)
4. Final exam (40%)
Language and Brain
Language and Brain
by Stephen Crain of the University of Maryland, College Park
The Domain of Study
Many linguistics departments offer a course entitled 'Language and Brain' or 'Language and Mind.' Such a course examines the relationship between linguistic theories and actual language use by children and adults. Findings are presented from research on a variety of topics, including the course of language development, language production and understanding, and the nature of language breakdown due to brain injury. These topics provide examples of what is currently known about language and the mind, and they offer insights into the central issues in this area of linguistic research.
Language is a significant part of what makes us human, along with other cognitive skills such as mathematical and spatial reasoning, musical and drawing ability, the capacity to form social relationships, and the like. As with these other cognitive skills, linguistic behavior is open to investigation using the familiar tools of observation and experimentation.
It is wrong, however, to exaggerate the similarity between language and other cognitive skills, because language stands apart in several ways. For one thing, the use of language is universal--all normally developing children learn to speak at least one language, and many learn more than one. By contrast, not everyone becomes proficient at complex mathematical reasoning, few people learn to paint well, and many people cannot carry a tune. Because everyone is capable of learning to speak and understand language, it may seem to be simple. But just the opposite is true--language is one of the most complex of all human cognitive abilities.
The Language Instinct
Even outside the laboratory, one can make many interesting observations that one can make about the course of language development. Many of the most complex aspects of language are mastered by three- and four-year-old children. It is astonishing for most parents to watch the process unfold. What many parents don't realize is that all children follow roughly the same path in language development. And all children reach essentially many of the same conclusions about language, despite differences in experience. All preschool children, for example, have mastered several complex aspects of the syntax and semantics of the language they are learning. This suggests that certain aspects of syntax and semantics are not taught to children. Further underscoring this conclusion is the finding, from experimental studies with children, that knowledge about some aspects of syntax and semantics sometimes develops in the absence of corresponding evidence from the environment.
To explain this remarkable collection of facts about language development, linguists have attempted to formulate a theory of linguistic principles that apply to all natural languages (as opposed to artificial languages, such as programming languages). These principles, known as linguistic universals, offer insight into the acquisition scenario set out before us: why language is universal, why it is mastered so rapidly, why there are often only loose or incomplete connections between linguistic knowledge and experience. These features of development follow from a single premise--that linguistic universals are part of a human 'instinct' to learn language, i.e., part of a biological blueprint for language development.
There is another way in which knowledge of language and real-world experience are kept apart in the minds of children; they do not always base their understanding of language on what they have come to know from experience. For example, children do not combine the words of the sentence 'Mice chase cats' in a way that conforms with their experience; if they did, they would understand it to mean that cats chase mice, not the reverse. In other words, children are able to tell when sentences are false, as well as when they are true. This means that children use their knowledge of language structure in comprehending sentences, even if it means ignoring their wishes and the beliefs they have formed about the world around them.
Modularity
Research on adult language understanding is also concerned with the architecture of the mind and with the possibility that linguistic knowledge and belief-systems reside in separate 'modules'. To investigate the issue of modularity, studies of adult language understanding ask when different sources of information are used in processing sentences that have more than one possible interpretation. It is in the nature of language that many sentences are ambiguous. Yet, ordinarily, by the time a person reaches the end of an ambiguous sentence, only a single interpretation remains, the one that is consistent with the conversational context. In the absence of any context, e.g. in a laboratory setting, the interpretation that survives is often the one that best conforms with a person's general knowledge of the world.
Adopting a modular conception of the mind, some researchers contend that the preference for one interpretation over its competitors is initially decided on linguistic grounds (syntactic and semantic structure); real-world knowledge comes into play only later, on this view. The availability of different sources of information is difficult to determine, however, because the resolution of ambiguity takes place as a sentence is being read or heard, rather than after all the words have been taken in. In order to establish the time-course of various linguistic and nonlinguistic operations involved in language understanding, sentence processing is often measured in real time, by recording the movements of the eyes in reading, for example. The jury is still out on the question of the modularity of mind in language processing, but there are some suggestive research findings, and few researchers in the area would deny the contribution of linguistic knowledge in the process.
Another source of evidence bearing on the modularity hypothesis comes from studies of language breakdown. Language loss, or aphasia, is not an all-or-nothing affair; when a particular area of the brain is affected, the result is a complex pattern of retention and loss, often involving both language production and comprehension. The complex of symptons can be strikingly similar for different people with the same affected area of the brain. Research in aphasia asks: Which aspects of linguistic knowledge are lost and which are spared? The fact that language loss is not always associated with a corresponding loss of pragmatic knowledge supports the modularity hypothesis, bringing the findings of research on aphasia in line with those from the study of child and adult language understanding.
Source:
http://psikoloji.fisek.com.tr/psycholinguistics/Crain.html
by Stephen Crain of the University of Maryland, College Park
The Domain of Study
Many linguistics departments offer a course entitled 'Language and Brain' or 'Language and Mind.' Such a course examines the relationship between linguistic theories and actual language use by children and adults. Findings are presented from research on a variety of topics, including the course of language development, language production and understanding, and the nature of language breakdown due to brain injury. These topics provide examples of what is currently known about language and the mind, and they offer insights into the central issues in this area of linguistic research.
Language is a significant part of what makes us human, along with other cognitive skills such as mathematical and spatial reasoning, musical and drawing ability, the capacity to form social relationships, and the like. As with these other cognitive skills, linguistic behavior is open to investigation using the familiar tools of observation and experimentation.
It is wrong, however, to exaggerate the similarity between language and other cognitive skills, because language stands apart in several ways. For one thing, the use of language is universal--all normally developing children learn to speak at least one language, and many learn more than one. By contrast, not everyone becomes proficient at complex mathematical reasoning, few people learn to paint well, and many people cannot carry a tune. Because everyone is capable of learning to speak and understand language, it may seem to be simple. But just the opposite is true--language is one of the most complex of all human cognitive abilities.
The Language Instinct
Even outside the laboratory, one can make many interesting observations that one can make about the course of language development. Many of the most complex aspects of language are mastered by three- and four-year-old children. It is astonishing for most parents to watch the process unfold. What many parents don't realize is that all children follow roughly the same path in language development. And all children reach essentially many of the same conclusions about language, despite differences in experience. All preschool children, for example, have mastered several complex aspects of the syntax and semantics of the language they are learning. This suggests that certain aspects of syntax and semantics are not taught to children. Further underscoring this conclusion is the finding, from experimental studies with children, that knowledge about some aspects of syntax and semantics sometimes develops in the absence of corresponding evidence from the environment.
To explain this remarkable collection of facts about language development, linguists have attempted to formulate a theory of linguistic principles that apply to all natural languages (as opposed to artificial languages, such as programming languages). These principles, known as linguistic universals, offer insight into the acquisition scenario set out before us: why language is universal, why it is mastered so rapidly, why there are often only loose or incomplete connections between linguistic knowledge and experience. These features of development follow from a single premise--that linguistic universals are part of a human 'instinct' to learn language, i.e., part of a biological blueprint for language development.
There is another way in which knowledge of language and real-world experience are kept apart in the minds of children; they do not always base their understanding of language on what they have come to know from experience. For example, children do not combine the words of the sentence 'Mice chase cats' in a way that conforms with their experience; if they did, they would understand it to mean that cats chase mice, not the reverse. In other words, children are able to tell when sentences are false, as well as when they are true. This means that children use their knowledge of language structure in comprehending sentences, even if it means ignoring their wishes and the beliefs they have formed about the world around them.
Modularity
Research on adult language understanding is also concerned with the architecture of the mind and with the possibility that linguistic knowledge and belief-systems reside in separate 'modules'. To investigate the issue of modularity, studies of adult language understanding ask when different sources of information are used in processing sentences that have more than one possible interpretation. It is in the nature of language that many sentences are ambiguous. Yet, ordinarily, by the time a person reaches the end of an ambiguous sentence, only a single interpretation remains, the one that is consistent with the conversational context. In the absence of any context, e.g. in a laboratory setting, the interpretation that survives is often the one that best conforms with a person's general knowledge of the world.
Adopting a modular conception of the mind, some researchers contend that the preference for one interpretation over its competitors is initially decided on linguistic grounds (syntactic and semantic structure); real-world knowledge comes into play only later, on this view. The availability of different sources of information is difficult to determine, however, because the resolution of ambiguity takes place as a sentence is being read or heard, rather than after all the words have been taken in. In order to establish the time-course of various linguistic and nonlinguistic operations involved in language understanding, sentence processing is often measured in real time, by recording the movements of the eyes in reading, for example. The jury is still out on the question of the modularity of mind in language processing, but there are some suggestive research findings, and few researchers in the area would deny the contribution of linguistic knowledge in the process.
Another source of evidence bearing on the modularity hypothesis comes from studies of language breakdown. Language loss, or aphasia, is not an all-or-nothing affair; when a particular area of the brain is affected, the result is a complex pattern of retention and loss, often involving both language production and comprehension. The complex of symptons can be strikingly similar for different people with the same affected area of the brain. Research in aphasia asks: Which aspects of linguistic knowledge are lost and which are spared? The fact that language loss is not always associated with a corresponding loss of pragmatic knowledge supports the modularity hypothesis, bringing the findings of research on aphasia in line with those from the study of child and adult language understanding.
Source:
http://psikoloji.fisek.com.tr/psycholinguistics/Crain.html
Brain Development and Mastery of Language
Brain Development and Mastery of Language in the Young Years
Parents of young children, and professionals working with them, watch with anticipation the developmental milestones, or indicators that a child is picking up the skills expected at a certain age. In the first year of life that focus is typically on motor skills, then in the second year attention shifts to language development.
This development of communication through language is an instinctive process. Language is our most common means of interacting with one another, and children begin the process naturally. Neurobiologist Dr. Lise Eliot writes that "the reason language is instinctive is because it is, to a large extent hard-wired in the brain. Just as we evolve neural circuits for eating and seeing, so has our brain, together with a sophisticated vocal apparatus, evolved a complex neural circuit for rapidly perceiving, analyzing, composing, and producing language."
We also know, however, that the experiences provided in a child's environment are critical for the development of language. It is this interplay of nature and nurture that results in our ability to communicate, but the process of learning language begins with how the brain is structured.
The brain is structured for language. Neuroscientists tell us that a baby is born with millions and millions of brain cells, all he or she will ever need. Each brain cell has branching appendages, called dendrites, that reach out to make connections with other brain cells. The places were brain cells connect are called synapses. When electrical signals pass from brain cell to brain cell, they cross the synapse between the cells. When synapses are stimulated over and over, that pattern of neural connections is "hard-wired" in the brain. It becomes an efficient, permanent pathway that allows signals to be transmitted quickly and accurately. Advances in brain-imaging technology in recent years have confirmed this process. New technology has allowed us to see that there are physical differences in a child's brain that has been appropriately stimulated, versus one that has suffered lack of stimulation. Those connections that are not stimulated by repeated experiences atrophy, or fade away. It is truly a use-it-or-lose-it situation.
We know that reorganization of the connections between brain cells after birth is highly impacted by experiences provided by the child's environment. Therefore, parents play an invaluable role in influencing the child's cognitive, language, motor, and social emotional development. It is through providing repeated, positive experiences for their child that parents have a lasting impact on their child's brain development.
Beneficial habits. Good nutrition and healthy routines are important to the brain's developmental process. Brain cells are covered with a fatty substance called myelin that insulates the neural pathways to provide for efficient signal transfer. Infants must receive sufficient fat in their diets provided by breast milk or formula prepared in the proper strength. For this reason it is vital that parents do not water down formula. Also, babies need lots of sleep, because their brains need to experience both deep sleep and rapid eye movement sleep for proper development. Establishing routines for eating and sleeping are among the most important things parents can do to assist healthy brain development in their child.
Critical periods for learning language. Critical periods, or windows of opportunity, in brain development accommodate the development of specific skills, language being one of these. During certain times in the child's life, the brain is active in forming connections for specific abilities. While critical periods are prime times for the development of specific neural synapses, skills can still be learned after a window of opportunity has closed, but with greater time and effort. It is during these critical periods that lack of stimulation or negative experiences can have the most impact. Parents can support their child's brain development for language during these times by providing experiences that allow the child to practice emerging skills. Opportunities during the course of the day to engage in face-to-face interaction, hear language being spoken, listen the written word read aloud, and practice associating objects with words provide language experiences without undue stress or over stimulation.
One of the first windows of opportunity for language comes early in life. We know that infants start out able to distinguish the sound of all languages, but that by six months of age they are no longer able to recognize sounds that are not heard in their native tongue. As infants hear the patterns of sound in their own language, a different cluster of neurons in the auditory cortex of the brain responds to each sound. By 6 months of age, infants will have difficulty picking out sounds they have not heard repeated often.
Windows of opportunity for language development occur throughout life. The window for syntax or grammar is open during the preschool years and may close as early as 5 or 6 years of age, while the window for adding new words never closes completely.
Language development begins early. Researchers now tell us that an infant is able to respond to sound 10 weeks before birth, learning the mother's voice and the sound pattern of the language he speaks prenatally through bone conduction. A baby takes comfort in hearing his mother's voice after birth, therefore a mother's lullaby can be very calming, especially if the mother sang to the baby during pregnancy.
While a newborn doesn't use words, he is definitely able to communicate. He can look into his father's or mother's face in a way that tells them he wants to hear their voices. By crying he is able to let them know when he is hungry, cold, needs a diaper change, or has other needs to be met.
An infant's brain responds best to a type of speech called parentese, which adults use naturally when speaking to babies. Parentese uses short, simple sentences, prolonged vowel sounds, more inflection in the voice, and a higher pitch than the speech used when talking to another adult. Studies have shown that when parents spoke parentese, the baby was able to connect words sooner to the objects they represent.
Parents provide the means of learning language. Brain development information simply reinforces much of what early childhood experts have been suggesting for years. The development of language is tremendously influenced by parent-child interactions. In the first year, it is important to talk, sing, and read to the baby often so he can learn the sounds of his native language. In addition to learning the sounds of speech, during the first six months a child's brain begins to learn which mouth movements go with the sounds. That is the reason it is important to have lots of face-to-face conversations with the baby as the parent interprets the world around him. Cooing, and then babbling are milestones in language acquisition. Babies like to mimic what they hear. By speaking to the child and imitating the child's sounds, a parent not only teaches the child sound patterns but encourages taking turns, a process necessary for conversation. Studies have shown that children whose parents spoke to them more often know many more words by age 2 and scored higher on standardized tests by age 3.
In the second year of life, the brain organizes the connections for language when the child sees pictures in a book and hears the parent give names for the pictures at the same time. Parents and other primary caregivers can help language development at this age by reciting nursery rhymes, songs, and poems throughout the day. Activities such as using a mirror to point out and name facial features are also helpful at this age. Ideal times for story telling and reading are quiet, relaxed moments before naptime or bedtime.
Between 24 and 35 months of age the brain is getting better at forming mental symbols for objects, people, and events. This is directly related to the growing ability to use many more words and short sentences.
Delays in language can have a variety of sources. When parents suspect such delays it is always prudent to check with a professional. Repeated ear infections in the first few years delay expressive language. It is always important to watch for signs of ear infections in a young child, such as not turning to sound, pulling one ears, reluctance to suck, resistance to laying down, and having an upper respiratory infection.
Speaking two languages at home. Hearing two languages spoken at home is a real advantage to the child. If a child hears two languages from birth, he will maintain the ability to hear the sounds of both and be able to speak each language with the accent of a native speaker. If parents each speak a different language, it is helpful if the child hears the same language consistently from the parent who is its native speaker. If, for example, the mother is a native English speaker and the father a native Spanish speaker, it will be less confusing for the child to hear each parent speak in his or her native language. The child may mix the languages in his own speech initially, but will typically sort it out by around 2 ½ years of age. Then he will separate the words belonging to each language and know which language to use with which parent. By 7 years of age, the child is likely to be able to cope with the two language systems without a problem, using both vocabulary and grammar appropriate for his age.
If a child enters a preschool and is first exposed to a second language after the age of 3, she will still be able to acquire the second language easily because she knows the rules of communication. In 3 to 7 months the child will begin to understand the second language. After about 2 years she will be able to carry on a fluent conversation. Young children learn a second language more easily than adults because the window of opportunity for learning language is still open for them. Helping the child build her self confidence during the time she is learning a second language is very important. Music is a great way to help the child learn words and phrases in the new language. Talking slowly, clearly, and simply is also helpful. It is also important for parents to continue speaking to the child at home in her native language because it continues to lay the foundation for the second language by providing the basic rules of communication. Also, the parent-child interaction might suffer if the parents speak less to the child in an attempt to use the second language.
Support for parents as their child learns language. Parents play a key role in helping their child learn language. Programs that give parents child development information can help parents understand how to nurture their child's growing language skills. They offer research based suggestions for parents at each stage of development. Parents as Teachers is an example of a parent support and information program, and is one of the models supported by IDRA's Reconnect Project. Parents and professionals can visit the Parents as Teachers Web Site at PATNC.org for more information about the program and suggestions for supporting their child's language development.
Resources:
Barnet, A.B. & Barnet, R.J., The Youngest Minds, Parenting & Genes in the Development of Intellect & Emotion. New York: Simon & Schuster,1998.
Begley, S., Your Child's Brain. Newsweek, 55-62, 1996.
Begley, S., How to Build a Baby's Brain. Newsweek, 28-32, 1997.
Gopnik, A., Ph.D., Meltzoff, A.N., Ph.D., Kuhl, P.K., Ph.D., The Scientist In The Crib, What Early Learning Tells Us About The Mind. William Morrow & Co., 1999.
Johnson, G., Building a Better Brain for Baby. New York Times, 1-6, 1994.
Eliot, Lise, What's Going On in There? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years. New York: Bantam Books, 352, 1999.
Nash, M., Fertile Minds. 1997.
Shonkoff, J.P., From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. National Academy Press: Washington D.C., 2000.
Elaine Shiver, MSSW is a Program Director for the Mental Health Association in Texas where she coordinates training and technical assistance for Parents As Teachers programs in the state.
Parents of young children, and professionals working with them, watch with anticipation the developmental milestones, or indicators that a child is picking up the skills expected at a certain age. In the first year of life that focus is typically on motor skills, then in the second year attention shifts to language development.
This development of communication through language is an instinctive process. Language is our most common means of interacting with one another, and children begin the process naturally. Neurobiologist Dr. Lise Eliot writes that "the reason language is instinctive is because it is, to a large extent hard-wired in the brain. Just as we evolve neural circuits for eating and seeing, so has our brain, together with a sophisticated vocal apparatus, evolved a complex neural circuit for rapidly perceiving, analyzing, composing, and producing language."
We also know, however, that the experiences provided in a child's environment are critical for the development of language. It is this interplay of nature and nurture that results in our ability to communicate, but the process of learning language begins with how the brain is structured.
The brain is structured for language. Neuroscientists tell us that a baby is born with millions and millions of brain cells, all he or she will ever need. Each brain cell has branching appendages, called dendrites, that reach out to make connections with other brain cells. The places were brain cells connect are called synapses. When electrical signals pass from brain cell to brain cell, they cross the synapse between the cells. When synapses are stimulated over and over, that pattern of neural connections is "hard-wired" in the brain. It becomes an efficient, permanent pathway that allows signals to be transmitted quickly and accurately. Advances in brain-imaging technology in recent years have confirmed this process. New technology has allowed us to see that there are physical differences in a child's brain that has been appropriately stimulated, versus one that has suffered lack of stimulation. Those connections that are not stimulated by repeated experiences atrophy, or fade away. It is truly a use-it-or-lose-it situation.
We know that reorganization of the connections between brain cells after birth is highly impacted by experiences provided by the child's environment. Therefore, parents play an invaluable role in influencing the child's cognitive, language, motor, and social emotional development. It is through providing repeated, positive experiences for their child that parents have a lasting impact on their child's brain development.
Beneficial habits. Good nutrition and healthy routines are important to the brain's developmental process. Brain cells are covered with a fatty substance called myelin that insulates the neural pathways to provide for efficient signal transfer. Infants must receive sufficient fat in their diets provided by breast milk or formula prepared in the proper strength. For this reason it is vital that parents do not water down formula. Also, babies need lots of sleep, because their brains need to experience both deep sleep and rapid eye movement sleep for proper development. Establishing routines for eating and sleeping are among the most important things parents can do to assist healthy brain development in their child.
Critical periods for learning language. Critical periods, or windows of opportunity, in brain development accommodate the development of specific skills, language being one of these. During certain times in the child's life, the brain is active in forming connections for specific abilities. While critical periods are prime times for the development of specific neural synapses, skills can still be learned after a window of opportunity has closed, but with greater time and effort. It is during these critical periods that lack of stimulation or negative experiences can have the most impact. Parents can support their child's brain development for language during these times by providing experiences that allow the child to practice emerging skills. Opportunities during the course of the day to engage in face-to-face interaction, hear language being spoken, listen the written word read aloud, and practice associating objects with words provide language experiences without undue stress or over stimulation.
One of the first windows of opportunity for language comes early in life. We know that infants start out able to distinguish the sound of all languages, but that by six months of age they are no longer able to recognize sounds that are not heard in their native tongue. As infants hear the patterns of sound in their own language, a different cluster of neurons in the auditory cortex of the brain responds to each sound. By 6 months of age, infants will have difficulty picking out sounds they have not heard repeated often.
Windows of opportunity for language development occur throughout life. The window for syntax or grammar is open during the preschool years and may close as early as 5 or 6 years of age, while the window for adding new words never closes completely.
Language development begins early. Researchers now tell us that an infant is able to respond to sound 10 weeks before birth, learning the mother's voice and the sound pattern of the language he speaks prenatally through bone conduction. A baby takes comfort in hearing his mother's voice after birth, therefore a mother's lullaby can be very calming, especially if the mother sang to the baby during pregnancy.
While a newborn doesn't use words, he is definitely able to communicate. He can look into his father's or mother's face in a way that tells them he wants to hear their voices. By crying he is able to let them know when he is hungry, cold, needs a diaper change, or has other needs to be met.
An infant's brain responds best to a type of speech called parentese, which adults use naturally when speaking to babies. Parentese uses short, simple sentences, prolonged vowel sounds, more inflection in the voice, and a higher pitch than the speech used when talking to another adult. Studies have shown that when parents spoke parentese, the baby was able to connect words sooner to the objects they represent.
Parents provide the means of learning language. Brain development information simply reinforces much of what early childhood experts have been suggesting for years. The development of language is tremendously influenced by parent-child interactions. In the first year, it is important to talk, sing, and read to the baby often so he can learn the sounds of his native language. In addition to learning the sounds of speech, during the first six months a child's brain begins to learn which mouth movements go with the sounds. That is the reason it is important to have lots of face-to-face conversations with the baby as the parent interprets the world around him. Cooing, and then babbling are milestones in language acquisition. Babies like to mimic what they hear. By speaking to the child and imitating the child's sounds, a parent not only teaches the child sound patterns but encourages taking turns, a process necessary for conversation. Studies have shown that children whose parents spoke to them more often know many more words by age 2 and scored higher on standardized tests by age 3.
In the second year of life, the brain organizes the connections for language when the child sees pictures in a book and hears the parent give names for the pictures at the same time. Parents and other primary caregivers can help language development at this age by reciting nursery rhymes, songs, and poems throughout the day. Activities such as using a mirror to point out and name facial features are also helpful at this age. Ideal times for story telling and reading are quiet, relaxed moments before naptime or bedtime.
Between 24 and 35 months of age the brain is getting better at forming mental symbols for objects, people, and events. This is directly related to the growing ability to use many more words and short sentences.
Delays in language can have a variety of sources. When parents suspect such delays it is always prudent to check with a professional. Repeated ear infections in the first few years delay expressive language. It is always important to watch for signs of ear infections in a young child, such as not turning to sound, pulling one ears, reluctance to suck, resistance to laying down, and having an upper respiratory infection.
Speaking two languages at home. Hearing two languages spoken at home is a real advantage to the child. If a child hears two languages from birth, he will maintain the ability to hear the sounds of both and be able to speak each language with the accent of a native speaker. If parents each speak a different language, it is helpful if the child hears the same language consistently from the parent who is its native speaker. If, for example, the mother is a native English speaker and the father a native Spanish speaker, it will be less confusing for the child to hear each parent speak in his or her native language. The child may mix the languages in his own speech initially, but will typically sort it out by around 2 ½ years of age. Then he will separate the words belonging to each language and know which language to use with which parent. By 7 years of age, the child is likely to be able to cope with the two language systems without a problem, using both vocabulary and grammar appropriate for his age.
If a child enters a preschool and is first exposed to a second language after the age of 3, she will still be able to acquire the second language easily because she knows the rules of communication. In 3 to 7 months the child will begin to understand the second language. After about 2 years she will be able to carry on a fluent conversation. Young children learn a second language more easily than adults because the window of opportunity for learning language is still open for them. Helping the child build her self confidence during the time she is learning a second language is very important. Music is a great way to help the child learn words and phrases in the new language. Talking slowly, clearly, and simply is also helpful. It is also important for parents to continue speaking to the child at home in her native language because it continues to lay the foundation for the second language by providing the basic rules of communication. Also, the parent-child interaction might suffer if the parents speak less to the child in an attempt to use the second language.
Support for parents as their child learns language. Parents play a key role in helping their child learn language. Programs that give parents child development information can help parents understand how to nurture their child's growing language skills. They offer research based suggestions for parents at each stage of development. Parents as Teachers is an example of a parent support and information program, and is one of the models supported by IDRA's Reconnect Project. Parents and professionals can visit the Parents as Teachers Web Site at PATNC.org for more information about the program and suggestions for supporting their child's language development.
Resources:
Barnet, A.B. & Barnet, R.J., The Youngest Minds, Parenting & Genes in the Development of Intellect & Emotion. New York: Simon & Schuster,1998.
Begley, S., Your Child's Brain. Newsweek, 55-62, 1996.
Begley, S., How to Build a Baby's Brain. Newsweek, 28-32, 1997.
Gopnik, A., Ph.D., Meltzoff, A.N., Ph.D., Kuhl, P.K., Ph.D., The Scientist In The Crib, What Early Learning Tells Us About The Mind. William Morrow & Co., 1999.
Johnson, G., Building a Better Brain for Baby. New York Times, 1-6, 1994.
Eliot, Lise, What's Going On in There? How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years. New York: Bantam Books, 352, 1999.
Nash, M., Fertile Minds. 1997.
Shonkoff, J.P., From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. National Academy Press: Washington D.C., 2000.
Elaine Shiver, MSSW is a Program Director for the Mental Health Association in Texas where she coordinates training and technical assistance for Parents As Teachers programs in the state.
Slide Rule Sense
Slide Rule Sense: Amazonian Indigenous Culture Demonstrates Universal Mapping Of Number Onto Space
ScienceDaily (May 30, 2008) — The ability to map numbers onto a line, a foundation of all mathematics, is universal, says a study published May 30 in the journal Science, but the form of this universal mapping is not linear but logarithmic. The findings illuminate both the nature and the limits of the human predisposition to measurement, a foundation for science, engineering, and much of our modern culture.
The research was conducted with the Munduruku, an Amazonian indigenous culture with a limited vocabulary of number words and spatial terms, little or no formal education, and little or no experience with maps, graphs, and rulers.
Munduruku adults and children spontaneously placed numbers on a line in a compressed, logarithmic function, such that smaller numbers appeared at greater spatial intervals. The study suggests that a propensity to relate numbers to space is universal, but that the mapping of successive integers and constant spatial intervals, as on a ruler, is culturally variable and linked in part to education.
The research was conducted by Stanislas Dehaene, professor of cognitive psychology at the College de France in Paris; Elizabeth Spelke, Marshall L. Berkman Professor of Psychology at Harvard University; Veronique Izard, a postdoctoral researcher in psychology at Harvard; and Pierre Pica of Paris VIII University in Paris.
"Our findings suggest that humans have a predisposition to relate two fundamental domains of knowledge: knowledge of number and of space," Spelke says. "The Munduruku are able to place numbers on a line in a systematic way that educated adults employ as well, under certain conditions. This convergence suggests a universal relationship between numbers and space. Nevertheless, the Munduruku do not map numbers onto a line at equal intervals, as we do when we measure objects. Both universal cognitive abilities and culture-specific experiences therefore seem to contribute to the development of a linear number line and the activities that it makes possible: measurement, mathematics, and science."
The researchers studied the ability of 33 Munduruku adults and children to map numerical representations on to a line, with "1" located at the left end of the line, and "10" at the right. In tests of larger numbers, "10" was at the left, and "100" at the right. After presentation of a number stimulus, such as spoken number word in Munduruku or Portuguese, or a visual array of dots or sequence of sounds, the Munduruku indicated the number's appropriate location on the line. The test was presented on a solar-powered laptop deep in the Amazon.
In most cases, the Munduruku placed numbers on the line in a systematically compressed function, devoting more space to smaller numbers than to larger ones. Variation did exist in the amount of participants' education, and some individuals were more familiar with Portuguese than others. Those with more than three years of education tended to place numbers indicated by Portuguese spoken words at equal intervals on the line. However, those same individuals showed a compressed mapping for arrays of dots and for spoken Munduruku words, as did all of the other Munduruku participants.
Munduruku adults and children were also compared to Boston-area adults, who were given a similar set of tests. The Boston-area participants showed linear or nearly linear mappings in all the conditions of the study when they were presented with dot arrays that were small enough to count or with number words. Nevertheless, adults in Boston also showed a compressed mapping when presented with sound sequences or with arrays of dots too large to count. These findings suggest that a compressed mapping of number onto space continues to exist in adults despite years of experience with counting, arithmetic, and measurement.
"It appears that we, as humans, can access two different methods of numerical mapping," says Dehaene. "The logarithmic, ratio-based method is the most intuitive; we inherit it from our primate evolution and we still access it in the absence of precise mathematical tools. Through education, we also acquire a linear mapping. However, this does appear to be a cultural construct."
Previous studies, conducted by the same researchers, have shown that the Munduruku are sensitive to geometry, and understand the differences between different shapes or angles.
Very young children have also been shown to access a logarithmic scale for number mapping, and animals compare numbers in accord with their ratios rather than their interval relationships. In contrast, linear numerical mapping is a uniquely human ability, not shared by animals, and develops in children between the ages of 5 and 7. Because Munduruku adults show the same logarithmic mapping as preschool children, it appears that education and culture-specific experience, rather than universal developmental processes, underlie the emergence of the linear mapping.
The research was supported by the Institut Nationale de la Sante et de la Recherché Medicale (INSERM), the National Institutes of Health and the McDonnell Foundation.
Source:
Harvard University (2008, May 30). Slide Rule Sense: Amazonian Indigenous Culture Demonstrates Universal Mapping Of Number Onto Space. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/05/080529141344.htm
ScienceDaily (May 30, 2008) — The ability to map numbers onto a line, a foundation of all mathematics, is universal, says a study published May 30 in the journal Science, but the form of this universal mapping is not linear but logarithmic. The findings illuminate both the nature and the limits of the human predisposition to measurement, a foundation for science, engineering, and much of our modern culture.
The research was conducted with the Munduruku, an Amazonian indigenous culture with a limited vocabulary of number words and spatial terms, little or no formal education, and little or no experience with maps, graphs, and rulers.
Munduruku adults and children spontaneously placed numbers on a line in a compressed, logarithmic function, such that smaller numbers appeared at greater spatial intervals. The study suggests that a propensity to relate numbers to space is universal, but that the mapping of successive integers and constant spatial intervals, as on a ruler, is culturally variable and linked in part to education.
The research was conducted by Stanislas Dehaene, professor of cognitive psychology at the College de France in Paris; Elizabeth Spelke, Marshall L. Berkman Professor of Psychology at Harvard University; Veronique Izard, a postdoctoral researcher in psychology at Harvard; and Pierre Pica of Paris VIII University in Paris.
"Our findings suggest that humans have a predisposition to relate two fundamental domains of knowledge: knowledge of number and of space," Spelke says. "The Munduruku are able to place numbers on a line in a systematic way that educated adults employ as well, under certain conditions. This convergence suggests a universal relationship between numbers and space. Nevertheless, the Munduruku do not map numbers onto a line at equal intervals, as we do when we measure objects. Both universal cognitive abilities and culture-specific experiences therefore seem to contribute to the development of a linear number line and the activities that it makes possible: measurement, mathematics, and science."
The researchers studied the ability of 33 Munduruku adults and children to map numerical representations on to a line, with "1" located at the left end of the line, and "10" at the right. In tests of larger numbers, "10" was at the left, and "100" at the right. After presentation of a number stimulus, such as spoken number word in Munduruku or Portuguese, or a visual array of dots or sequence of sounds, the Munduruku indicated the number's appropriate location on the line. The test was presented on a solar-powered laptop deep in the Amazon.
In most cases, the Munduruku placed numbers on the line in a systematically compressed function, devoting more space to smaller numbers than to larger ones. Variation did exist in the amount of participants' education, and some individuals were more familiar with Portuguese than others. Those with more than three years of education tended to place numbers indicated by Portuguese spoken words at equal intervals on the line. However, those same individuals showed a compressed mapping for arrays of dots and for spoken Munduruku words, as did all of the other Munduruku participants.
Munduruku adults and children were also compared to Boston-area adults, who were given a similar set of tests. The Boston-area participants showed linear or nearly linear mappings in all the conditions of the study when they were presented with dot arrays that were small enough to count or with number words. Nevertheless, adults in Boston also showed a compressed mapping when presented with sound sequences or with arrays of dots too large to count. These findings suggest that a compressed mapping of number onto space continues to exist in adults despite years of experience with counting, arithmetic, and measurement.
"It appears that we, as humans, can access two different methods of numerical mapping," says Dehaene. "The logarithmic, ratio-based method is the most intuitive; we inherit it from our primate evolution and we still access it in the absence of precise mathematical tools. Through education, we also acquire a linear mapping. However, this does appear to be a cultural construct."
Previous studies, conducted by the same researchers, have shown that the Munduruku are sensitive to geometry, and understand the differences between different shapes or angles.
Very young children have also been shown to access a logarithmic scale for number mapping, and animals compare numbers in accord with their ratios rather than their interval relationships. In contrast, linear numerical mapping is a uniquely human ability, not shared by animals, and develops in children between the ages of 5 and 7. Because Munduruku adults show the same logarithmic mapping as preschool children, it appears that education and culture-specific experience, rather than universal developmental processes, underlie the emergence of the linear mapping.
The research was supported by the Institut Nationale de la Sante et de la Recherché Medicale (INSERM), the National Institutes of Health and the McDonnell Foundation.
Source:
Harvard University (2008, May 30). Slide Rule Sense: Amazonian Indigenous Culture Demonstrates Universal Mapping Of Number Onto Space. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/05/080529141344.htm
Talking Distraction
Talking Distractions: Why Cell Phones And Driving Don't Mix
ScienceDaily (June 1, 2008) — The notion that talking on a cell phone while driving a car isn’t safe seems obvious, yet what happens in the brain while it juggles the two tasks is not.
A study by a University of South Carolina psychology researcher featured in the journal, Experimental Psychology, provides a better understanding of why language – talking and listening, including on a cell phone – interferes with visual tasks, such as driving.
In two different experiments, associate professor of psychology Dr. Amit Almor found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brain’s resources than listening.
“We measured their attention level and found that subjects were four times more distracted while preparing to speak or speaking than when they were listening,” said Almor of the 47 people who participated in the experiment. “People can tune in or out as needed when listening.”
One experiment required participants to detect visual shapes on a monitor, and a second experiment required participants to use a computer mouse to track a fast-moving target on the screen. In both experiments, participants performed the visual task while listening to prerecorded narratives and responding to the narratives.
Almor calls the finding “very strong” and expects it to be even stronger in actual, interactive conversation. He and Tim Boiteau, a graduate student in linguistics, have repeated the experiment using 20 pairs of friends who engaged in real conversation while completing visual tasks. Those results are being compiled this summer.
“I anticipate the effect to be even stronger and more dynamic because, in conversation, people have the urge to contribute,” said Almor. “In conversation, we compete with the other person. I suspect that the greater the urge to speak, the greater the distraction from the visual task.”
In both experiments, Almor placed the participants in a circular, surround-sound environment in which the speakers were hidden and the voice shifted from the front, rear or either side.
Almor found that participants could complete the visual task in front of them more easily when the projected voice also was in front. This effect, while not so strong as the difference between preparing to speak or speaking and listening, suggests that simultaneously performing a language task and a visual task is easier when the tasks are in the same space physically and cognitively.
“Either people are used to face-to-face communication or, when they engage in a language task, they create a mental representation in their mind and place the voice somewhere in space,” Almor said. “In this case, that space is in front of them, which suggests that it may be easier to have all things that require attention occupy the same space.”
The finding may be useful in the development of new technologies, said Almor. In the case of a car, an internal speaker phone could project a speaker’s voice from the front so that it occupies the same place as the visual task of driving. The same could be applied in remote classroom instruction, in PowerPoint presentations and in military and pilot training.
Almor’s findings are particularly relevant in light of recent statistics.
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported in April that 25 percent of all car accidents are caused by distractions. A survey done by Nationwide Mutual Insurance in 2007 indicated that 73 percent of drivers talk on cell phones while driving. Given that cell-phone sales have vaulted to 254 million in February 2008 up from (4.3 million in 1990), according to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, there is good reason for researchers to study the brain and how talking and listening on a cell phone interferes with driving a car.
Source:
University of South Carolina (2008, June 1). Talking Distractions: Why Cell Phones And Driving Don't Mix. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/05/080531084958.htm
ScienceDaily (June 1, 2008) — The notion that talking on a cell phone while driving a car isn’t safe seems obvious, yet what happens in the brain while it juggles the two tasks is not.
A study by a University of South Carolina psychology researcher featured in the journal, Experimental Psychology, provides a better understanding of why language – talking and listening, including on a cell phone – interferes with visual tasks, such as driving.
In two different experiments, associate professor of psychology Dr. Amit Almor found that planning to speak and speaking put far more demands on the brain’s resources than listening.
“We measured their attention level and found that subjects were four times more distracted while preparing to speak or speaking than when they were listening,” said Almor of the 47 people who participated in the experiment. “People can tune in or out as needed when listening.”
One experiment required participants to detect visual shapes on a monitor, and a second experiment required participants to use a computer mouse to track a fast-moving target on the screen. In both experiments, participants performed the visual task while listening to prerecorded narratives and responding to the narratives.
Almor calls the finding “very strong” and expects it to be even stronger in actual, interactive conversation. He and Tim Boiteau, a graduate student in linguistics, have repeated the experiment using 20 pairs of friends who engaged in real conversation while completing visual tasks. Those results are being compiled this summer.
“I anticipate the effect to be even stronger and more dynamic because, in conversation, people have the urge to contribute,” said Almor. “In conversation, we compete with the other person. I suspect that the greater the urge to speak, the greater the distraction from the visual task.”
In both experiments, Almor placed the participants in a circular, surround-sound environment in which the speakers were hidden and the voice shifted from the front, rear or either side.
Almor found that participants could complete the visual task in front of them more easily when the projected voice also was in front. This effect, while not so strong as the difference between preparing to speak or speaking and listening, suggests that simultaneously performing a language task and a visual task is easier when the tasks are in the same space physically and cognitively.
“Either people are used to face-to-face communication or, when they engage in a language task, they create a mental representation in their mind and place the voice somewhere in space,” Almor said. “In this case, that space is in front of them, which suggests that it may be easier to have all things that require attention occupy the same space.”
The finding may be useful in the development of new technologies, said Almor. In the case of a car, an internal speaker phone could project a speaker’s voice from the front so that it occupies the same place as the visual task of driving. The same could be applied in remote classroom instruction, in PowerPoint presentations and in military and pilot training.
Almor’s findings are particularly relevant in light of recent statistics.
The National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported in April that 25 percent of all car accidents are caused by distractions. A survey done by Nationwide Mutual Insurance in 2007 indicated that 73 percent of drivers talk on cell phones while driving. Given that cell-phone sales have vaulted to 254 million in February 2008 up from (4.3 million in 1990), according to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, there is good reason for researchers to study the brain and how talking and listening on a cell phone interferes with driving a car.
Source:
University of South Carolina (2008, June 1). Talking Distractions: Why Cell Phones And Driving Don't Mix. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/05/080531084958.htm
When Using Gestures, Rules Of Grammar Remain The Same
When Using Gestures, Rules Of Grammar Remain The Same
ScienceDaily (July 7, 2008) — The mind apparently has a consistent way of ordering an event that defies the order in which subjects, verbs, and objects typically appear in languages, according to research at the University of Chicago.
"Not surprisingly, speakers of different languages describe events using the word orders prescribed by their language. The surprise is that when the same speakers are asked to 'speak' with their hands and not their mouths, they ignore these orders -- they all use exactly the same order when they gesture," said Susan Goldin-Meadow, lead author of a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
For the study, the team tested 40 speakers of four different languages: 10 English, 10 Mandarin Chinese, 10 Spanish and 10 Turkish speakers. They showed them simple video sequences of activities and asked them to describe the action first in speech and a second time using only gestures. They also gave another 40 speakers of the same languages transparencies to assemble after watching the video sequences. Some of the videos portrayed real people and others animated toys that represented a variety of sentence types: a girl waves, a duck moves to a wheelbarrow, a woman twists a knob and a girl gives a flower to man.
When asked to describe the scenes in speech, the speakers used the word orders typical of their respective languages. English, Spanish, and Chinese speakers first produced the subject, followed by the verb, and then the object (woman twists knob). Turkish speakers first produced the subject, followed by the object, and then the verb (woman knob twists).
But when asked to describe the same scenes using only their hands, all of the adults, no matter what language they spoke, produced the same order ---- subject, object, verb (woman knob twists). When asked to assemble the transparencies after watching the video sequences (another nonverbal task, but one that is not communicative), people also tended to follow the subject, object, verb ordering found in the gestures produced without speech.
The grammars of modern languages developed over time and are the result of very distant cultural considerations that are difficult for linguists to study.
Newly emerging sign languages, however, offer intriguing corroborating evidence that the subject-object-verb (SOV) order is a fundamental one.
SOV is the order currently emerging in a language created spontaneously without any external influence. Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language arose within the last 70 years in an isolated community with a high incidence of profound prelingual deafness. In the space of one generation, the language assumed grammatical structure, including the SOV order.
Moreover, when deaf children invent their own gesture systems, they use OV order. Chinese and American deaf children, whose hearing losses prevent them from acquiring spoken language and whose hearing parents have not exposed them to sign language, use the OV order in the gesture sentences they create.
The research challenges the idea that the language we speak inevitably shapes the way we think when we are not speaking. This study is the first to test the notion with respect to word order.
"Our data suggest that the ordering we use when representing events in a nonverbal format is not highly susceptible to language's influence," Goldin-Meadow and her co-authors write. "Rather, there appears to be a natural order that humans use when asked to represent events nonverbally. Indeed, the influence may well go in the other direction--the ordering seen in our nonverbal tasks may shape language in its emerging stages."
Source:
University of Chicago (2008, July 7). When Using Gestures, Rules Of Grammar Remain The Same. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/06/080630173943.htm
ScienceDaily (July 7, 2008) — The mind apparently has a consistent way of ordering an event that defies the order in which subjects, verbs, and objects typically appear in languages, according to research at the University of Chicago.
"Not surprisingly, speakers of different languages describe events using the word orders prescribed by their language. The surprise is that when the same speakers are asked to 'speak' with their hands and not their mouths, they ignore these orders -- they all use exactly the same order when they gesture," said Susan Goldin-Meadow, lead author of a new paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
For the study, the team tested 40 speakers of four different languages: 10 English, 10 Mandarin Chinese, 10 Spanish and 10 Turkish speakers. They showed them simple video sequences of activities and asked them to describe the action first in speech and a second time using only gestures. They also gave another 40 speakers of the same languages transparencies to assemble after watching the video sequences. Some of the videos portrayed real people and others animated toys that represented a variety of sentence types: a girl waves, a duck moves to a wheelbarrow, a woman twists a knob and a girl gives a flower to man.
When asked to describe the scenes in speech, the speakers used the word orders typical of their respective languages. English, Spanish, and Chinese speakers first produced the subject, followed by the verb, and then the object (woman twists knob). Turkish speakers first produced the subject, followed by the object, and then the verb (woman knob twists).
But when asked to describe the same scenes using only their hands, all of the adults, no matter what language they spoke, produced the same order ---- subject, object, verb (woman knob twists). When asked to assemble the transparencies after watching the video sequences (another nonverbal task, but one that is not communicative), people also tended to follow the subject, object, verb ordering found in the gestures produced without speech.
The grammars of modern languages developed over time and are the result of very distant cultural considerations that are difficult for linguists to study.
Newly emerging sign languages, however, offer intriguing corroborating evidence that the subject-object-verb (SOV) order is a fundamental one.
SOV is the order currently emerging in a language created spontaneously without any external influence. Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language arose within the last 70 years in an isolated community with a high incidence of profound prelingual deafness. In the space of one generation, the language assumed grammatical structure, including the SOV order.
Moreover, when deaf children invent their own gesture systems, they use OV order. Chinese and American deaf children, whose hearing losses prevent them from acquiring spoken language and whose hearing parents have not exposed them to sign language, use the OV order in the gesture sentences they create.
The research challenges the idea that the language we speak inevitably shapes the way we think when we are not speaking. This study is the first to test the notion with respect to word order.
"Our data suggest that the ordering we use when representing events in a nonverbal format is not highly susceptible to language's influence," Goldin-Meadow and her co-authors write. "Rather, there appears to be a natural order that humans use when asked to represent events nonverbally. Indeed, the influence may well go in the other direction--the ordering seen in our nonverbal tasks may shape language in its emerging stages."
Source:
University of Chicago (2008, July 7). When Using Gestures, Rules Of Grammar Remain The Same. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/06/080630173943.htm
Computer Model Reveals How Brain Represents Meaning
Computer Model Reveals How Brain Represents Meaning
ScienceDaily (June 2, 2008) — Scientists at Carnegie Mellon University have taken an important step toward understanding how the human brain codes the meanings of words by creating the first computational model that can predict the unique brain activation patterns associated with names for things that you can see, hear, feel, taste or smell.
The idea that language may affect thought and perception was first put forward by Benjamin Lee Whorf in a book entitled "Language, Thought, and Reality", published in 1956. Much research has been done on the "Whorfian Hypothesis" in the last fifty years, but so far little hard evidence is available either in support of or against the hypothesis.
For example, the Pirahãs, a small community of some 200 hunter-gatherers in the Amazon jungle, speak a language that has no words for numbers beyond two. Researchers have found their ability to conceptualize numbers to be limited, possibly by their language. This work is very suggestive, but it is not based on direct neuro-physiological evidence.
In a series of experiments, the HKU researchers investigated the relationship between language and colour perception, using new neuro-imaging techniques. "By using neural imaging, we have succeeded in showing that brain regions mediating language processes participate in neural networks activated by perceptual decision," explained Dr Luke.
In their experiments, seventeen subjects were asked during neuro-imaging sessions to decide whether two squares were of the same colour. Some of the squares were filled with easy-to-name colours (such as 'red' or 'blue'); others with hard-to-name colours. The result shows that the perception of both kinds of colours involved the same cortical regions which have long been known to be associated with colour vision. However, in comparison with the hard-to-name colours, perception of the easy-to-name colours evoked significantly stronger activation in two additional brain areas that have been found independently to be responsible for word searching suggesting that with colours that have names in a language, there is a close link between language processing and colour perception .
"These findings represent a major break-through on this research topic by providing neuro-physiological evidence in support of the Whorfian hypothesis," said Professor Tan Li-Hai, professor in linguistics of HKU and a member of the research team.
"This work also serves as a demonstration of a new method for the study of the age-old question of how people's experience might be shaped by their language," explained Dr Luke.
Thinkers since antiquity have pondered about the nature of the relationship between language and perception: to what extent are the mental categories that we use to classify objects and their qualities determined by our language? The new findings have opened up new opportunities for the study of the human mind, Dr Luke elaborated.
He said a deeper understanding of the universal basis of language on the one hand, and how different languages may vary in their conceptual bases, should be of direct relevance to language teaching. Further research on the relationship between language and perception may uncover principles that would enhance the effectiveness of people's learning of second and foreign languages.
The research was conducted with the new 3T GE MRI scanner at Queen Mary Hospital, and in collaboration with Professor Paul Kay of the Department of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, a world authority on the Whorfian Hypothesis, and known internationally for his research on the relationship between language and colour perception
Language And Color Perception Linked In Human Brain
Language And Color Perception Linked In Human Brain
ScienceDaily (Apr. 10, 2008) — Does the language people speak influence their perception of the world? Recent findings by a research team at the State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Sciences of The University of Hong Kong (HKU) suggest that it may well. For the first time, the team has found patterns of brain activation that signal a positive relationship between language and colour perception.
The idea that language may affect thought and perception was first put forward by Benjamin Lee Whorf in a book entitled "Language, Thought, and Reality", published in 1956. Much research has been done on the "Whorfian Hypothesis" in the last fifty years, but so far little hard evidence is available either in support of or against the hypothesis.
For example, the Pirahãs, a small community of some 200 hunter-gatherers in the Amazon jungle, speak a language that has no words for numbers beyond two. Researchers have found their ability to conceptualize numbers to be limited, possibly by their language. This work is very suggestive, but it is not based on direct neuro-physiological evidence.
In a series of experiments, the HKU researchers investigated the relationship between language and colour perception, using new neuro-imaging techniques. "By using neural imaging, we have succeeded in showing that brain regions mediating language processes participate in neural networks activated by perceptual decision," explained Dr Luke.
In their experiments, seventeen subjects were asked during neuro-imaging sessions to decide whether two squares were of the same colour. Some of the squares were filled with easy-to-name colours (such as 'red' or 'blue'); others with hard-to-name colours. The result shows that the perception of both kinds of colours involved the same cortical regions which have long been known to be associated with colour vision. However, in comparison with the hard-to-name colours, perception of the easy-to-name colours evoked significantly stronger activation in two additional brain areas that have been found independently to be responsible for word searching suggesting that with colours that have names in a language, there is a close link between language processing and colour perception .
"These findings represent a major break-through on this research topic by providing neuro-physiological evidence in support of the Whorfian hypothesis," said Professor Tan Li-Hai, professor in linguistics of HKU and a member of the research team.
"This work also serves as a demonstration of a new method for the study of the age-old question of how people's experience might be shaped by their language," explained Dr Luke.
Thinkers since antiquity have pondered about the nature of the relationship between language and perception: to what extent are the mental categories that we use to classify objects and their qualities determined by our language? The new findings have opened up new opportunities for the study of the human mind, Dr Luke elaborated.
He said a deeper understanding of the universal basis of language on the one hand, and how different languages may vary in their conceptual bases, should be of direct relevance to language teaching. Further research on the relationship between language and perception may uncover principles that would enhance the effectiveness of people's learning of second and foreign languages.
The research was conducted with the new 3T GE MRI scanner at Queen Mary Hospital, and in collaboration with Professor Paul Kay of the Department of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, a world authority on the Whorfian Hypothesis, and known internationally for his research on the relationship between language and colour perception.
The research was supported by grants from China's National Strategic Basic Research Programme ("973" Programme), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the USA, and HKU.
Journal reference: "Language affects patterns of brain activation associated with perceptual decision", by Li Hai Tan, Alice H.D. Chan, Paul Kay, Pek-Lan Khong, Lawrence K.C. Yip, and Kang-kwong Luke. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), March 2008.
Source:
University of Hong Kong (2008, April 10). Language And Color Perception Linked In Human Brain. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/04/080407201846.htm
ScienceDaily (Apr. 10, 2008) — Does the language people speak influence their perception of the world? Recent findings by a research team at the State Key Laboratory of Brain and Cognitive Sciences of The University of Hong Kong (HKU) suggest that it may well. For the first time, the team has found patterns of brain activation that signal a positive relationship between language and colour perception.
The idea that language may affect thought and perception was first put forward by Benjamin Lee Whorf in a book entitled "Language, Thought, and Reality", published in 1956. Much research has been done on the "Whorfian Hypothesis" in the last fifty years, but so far little hard evidence is available either in support of or against the hypothesis.
For example, the Pirahãs, a small community of some 200 hunter-gatherers in the Amazon jungle, speak a language that has no words for numbers beyond two. Researchers have found their ability to conceptualize numbers to be limited, possibly by their language. This work is very suggestive, but it is not based on direct neuro-physiological evidence.
In a series of experiments, the HKU researchers investigated the relationship between language and colour perception, using new neuro-imaging techniques. "By using neural imaging, we have succeeded in showing that brain regions mediating language processes participate in neural networks activated by perceptual decision," explained Dr Luke.
In their experiments, seventeen subjects were asked during neuro-imaging sessions to decide whether two squares were of the same colour. Some of the squares were filled with easy-to-name colours (such as 'red' or 'blue'); others with hard-to-name colours. The result shows that the perception of both kinds of colours involved the same cortical regions which have long been known to be associated with colour vision. However, in comparison with the hard-to-name colours, perception of the easy-to-name colours evoked significantly stronger activation in two additional brain areas that have been found independently to be responsible for word searching suggesting that with colours that have names in a language, there is a close link between language processing and colour perception .
"These findings represent a major break-through on this research topic by providing neuro-physiological evidence in support of the Whorfian hypothesis," said Professor Tan Li-Hai, professor in linguistics of HKU and a member of the research team.
"This work also serves as a demonstration of a new method for the study of the age-old question of how people's experience might be shaped by their language," explained Dr Luke.
Thinkers since antiquity have pondered about the nature of the relationship between language and perception: to what extent are the mental categories that we use to classify objects and their qualities determined by our language? The new findings have opened up new opportunities for the study of the human mind, Dr Luke elaborated.
He said a deeper understanding of the universal basis of language on the one hand, and how different languages may vary in their conceptual bases, should be of direct relevance to language teaching. Further research on the relationship between language and perception may uncover principles that would enhance the effectiveness of people's learning of second and foreign languages.
The research was conducted with the new 3T GE MRI scanner at Queen Mary Hospital, and in collaboration with Professor Paul Kay of the Department of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, a world authority on the Whorfian Hypothesis, and known internationally for his research on the relationship between language and colour perception.
The research was supported by grants from China's National Strategic Basic Research Programme ("973" Programme), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of the USA, and HKU.
Journal reference: "Language affects patterns of brain activation associated with perceptual decision", by Li Hai Tan, Alice H.D. Chan, Paul Kay, Pek-Lan Khong, Lawrence K.C. Yip, and Kang-kwong Luke. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), March 2008.
Source:
University of Hong Kong (2008, April 10). Language And Color Perception Linked In Human Brain. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 9, 2008, from http://www.sciencedaily.com /releases/2008/04/080407201846.htm
Dungeon children speak in animal language
Dungeon children speak in animal language
By Nick Allen in Amstetten
Last Updated: 2:06PM BST 30/04/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1914157/Austria-Dungeon-children-speak-their-own-animal-language.html
Stefan Fritzl, 18, and his brother Felix, five, learned to talk by watching a television in the dungeon where they were held with their mother Elisabeth Fritzl, 42. But their form of communciation is only partly intelligible to Austrian police officers.
Police chief Leopold Etz, 50, who has met the two boys, said: “It is only half true that they can speak. They communicate with noises that are a mixture of growling and cooing.
“If they want to say something so others understand them as well they have to focus and really concentrate which seems to be extremely exhausting for them.
“Felix prefers to crawl but he can walk upright if he wants.”
Dr Berthold Kepplinger, who examined the brothers at a neuropsychiatric clinic near their home town of Amstetten, said: “They communicate between each other but this is far from a normal way of expressing oneself.
“Their mother taught them to read and write a bit but Elisabeth had lost much of her childhood knowledge after her imprisonment from the age of 18.
“They had no books and the main source of education was the television.”
When he was rescued Felix pointed to the moon, which he was seeing for the first time, and said: “Is that God up there?”
He then made excited gurgling noises when he saw a cow.
Doctors said that since he emerged from his prison he is constantly excited and keeps trying to hit the air with his hand.
When he saw the sun for the first time he was even more excited than when he discovered the moon.
He made a squeaking noise and tried to look directly at the sun. When he realised he couldn’t he kept covering his face with his hand.
When police took him in a lift at the hospital he was petrified and clung on to his mother as the floor moved.
Police said he was stunned when one officers started talking into a mobile phone.
Felix was also excited about the police officer's mobile phones. He was stunned by the ring tones and even more when one of the policemen used his mobile phone to talk.
The youngster also often hums an unknown tune to himself which police believe his mother used to get him to sleep.
Stefan and Felix’s sister Kerstin, 19, became ill in the dungeon and is in a coma.
All three have weakened immune systems, are suffering from vitamin D deficiency and are anaemic.
None of them had ever been seen by a doctor or a dentist and Kerstin has already lost most of her teeth.
The low ceilings in their prison left them all with cramped physical posture.
Elisabeth has aged so much she looks like a sister to her mother Rosemarie, 68.
Austrian psychotherapist and university professor Rotraud Perner said: “A lot will depend on what the children have been told, whether the mother explained to them their life in captivity.
“They may have created their own illusory world. However, a normal life could be possible for them.”
The children will need to wear sun-block cream as their skin gets used to sunlight.
By Nick Allen in Amstetten
Last Updated: 2:06PM BST 30/04/2008
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1914157/Austria-Dungeon-children-speak-their-own-animal-language.html
Stefan Fritzl, 18, and his brother Felix, five, learned to talk by watching a television in the dungeon where they were held with their mother Elisabeth Fritzl, 42. But their form of communciation is only partly intelligible to Austrian police officers.
Police chief Leopold Etz, 50, who has met the two boys, said: “It is only half true that they can speak. They communicate with noises that are a mixture of growling and cooing.
“If they want to say something so others understand them as well they have to focus and really concentrate which seems to be extremely exhausting for them.
“Felix prefers to crawl but he can walk upright if he wants.”
Dr Berthold Kepplinger, who examined the brothers at a neuropsychiatric clinic near their home town of Amstetten, said: “They communicate between each other but this is far from a normal way of expressing oneself.
“Their mother taught them to read and write a bit but Elisabeth had lost much of her childhood knowledge after her imprisonment from the age of 18.
“They had no books and the main source of education was the television.”
When he was rescued Felix pointed to the moon, which he was seeing for the first time, and said: “Is that God up there?”
He then made excited gurgling noises when he saw a cow.
Doctors said that since he emerged from his prison he is constantly excited and keeps trying to hit the air with his hand.
When he saw the sun for the first time he was even more excited than when he discovered the moon.
He made a squeaking noise and tried to look directly at the sun. When he realised he couldn’t he kept covering his face with his hand.
When police took him in a lift at the hospital he was petrified and clung on to his mother as the floor moved.
Police said he was stunned when one officers started talking into a mobile phone.
Felix was also excited about the police officer's mobile phones. He was stunned by the ring tones and even more when one of the policemen used his mobile phone to talk.
The youngster also often hums an unknown tune to himself which police believe his mother used to get him to sleep.
Stefan and Felix’s sister Kerstin, 19, became ill in the dungeon and is in a coma.
All three have weakened immune systems, are suffering from vitamin D deficiency and are anaemic.
None of them had ever been seen by a doctor or a dentist and Kerstin has already lost most of her teeth.
The low ceilings in their prison left them all with cramped physical posture.
Elisabeth has aged so much she looks like a sister to her mother Rosemarie, 68.
Austrian psychotherapist and university professor Rotraud Perner said: “A lot will depend on what the children have been told, whether the mother explained to them their life in captivity.
“They may have created their own illusory world. However, a normal life could be possible for them.”
The children will need to wear sun-block cream as their skin gets used to sunlight.
Animal Debate
Do ANIMALs TALK To EACH OTHER THE WAY PEOPLE Do?
Those are fighting words in the fields of animal and linguistic research. A lot of people are emotionally invested in the idea that language is the one thing that makes human beings unique. Language is sacrosanct. It's the last boundary standing between man and beast.
Now even this final boundary is being challenged. Con Slobodchikoff at Northern Arizona University has done some of the most amazing studies in animal communication and cognition. Using sonograms to analyze the distress calls of Gunnison's prairie dog, one of five species of prairie dogs found in the U.S. and Mexico, he has found that prairie dog colonies have a communication system that includes nouns, verbs, and adjectives. They can tell one another what kind of predator is approaching -- man, hawk, coyote, dog (noun) -- and they can tell each other how fast it's moving (verb). They can say whether a human is carrying a gun or not.
They can also identify individual coyotes and tell one another which one is coming. They can tell the other prairie dogs that the approaching coyote is the one who likes to walk straight through the colony and then suddenly lunge at a prairie dog who's gotten too far away from the entrance to his burrow, or the one who likes to lie patiently by the side of a hole for an hour and wait for his dinner to appear. If the prairie dogs are signaling the approach of a person, they can tell one another something -- about what color clothing the person is wearing, as well as something about his size and shape (adjectives). They also have a lot of other calls that have not been deciphered.
Dr. Slobodchikoff was able to interpret the calls by videotaping everything, analyzing the sound spectrum, and then watching the video to see what the prairie dog making a distress call was reacting to when he made it. He also watched to see how the other prairie dogs responded. That was an important clue, because he found that the prairie dogs reacted differently to different warnings. If the warning was about a hawk making a dive, all the prairie dogs raced to their burrows and vanished down into holes. But if the hawk was circling overhead, the prairie dogs stopped foraging, stood up in an alert posture, and waited to see what happened next. If the call warned about a human, the prairie dogs all ran for their burrows no matter how fast the human was coming.
Dr. Slobodchikoff also found evidence that prairie dogs aren't born knowing the calls, the way a baby is born knowing how to cry. They have to learn them. He bases this on the fact that the different prairie dog colonies around Flagstaff all have different dialects. Since genetically these animals are almost identical, Dr. Slobodchikoff argues that genetic differences can't explain the differences in the calls. That means the calls have been created by the individual colonies and passed on from one generation to the next.
Is this "real" language? A philosopher of language might say no, but the case against animal language is getting weaker. Different linguists have somewhat different definitions of language, but everyone agrees that language has to have meaning, productivity (you can use the same words to make an infinite number of now communications), and displacement (you can use language to talk about things that aren't present).
Prairie dogs use their language to refer to real dangers in the real world, so it definitely has meaning.
Those are fighting words in the fields of animal and linguistic research. A lot of people are emotionally invested in the idea that language is the one thing that makes human beings unique. Language is sacrosanct. It's the last boundary standing between man and beast.
Now even this final boundary is being challenged. Con Slobodchikoff at Northern Arizona University has done some of the most amazing studies in animal communication and cognition. Using sonograms to analyze the distress calls of Gunnison's prairie dog, one of five species of prairie dogs found in the U.S. and Mexico, he has found that prairie dog colonies have a communication system that includes nouns, verbs, and adjectives. They can tell one another what kind of predator is approaching -- man, hawk, coyote, dog (noun) -- and they can tell each other how fast it's moving (verb). They can say whether a human is carrying a gun or not.
They can also identify individual coyotes and tell one another which one is coming. They can tell the other prairie dogs that the approaching coyote is the one who likes to walk straight through the colony and then suddenly lunge at a prairie dog who's gotten too far away from the entrance to his burrow, or the one who likes to lie patiently by the side of a hole for an hour and wait for his dinner to appear. If the prairie dogs are signaling the approach of a person, they can tell one another something -- about what color clothing the person is wearing, as well as something about his size and shape (adjectives). They also have a lot of other calls that have not been deciphered.
Dr. Slobodchikoff was able to interpret the calls by videotaping everything, analyzing the sound spectrum, and then watching the video to see what the prairie dog making a distress call was reacting to when he made it. He also watched to see how the other prairie dogs responded. That was an important clue, because he found that the prairie dogs reacted differently to different warnings. If the warning was about a hawk making a dive, all the prairie dogs raced to their burrows and vanished down into holes. But if the hawk was circling overhead, the prairie dogs stopped foraging, stood up in an alert posture, and waited to see what happened next. If the call warned about a human, the prairie dogs all ran for their burrows no matter how fast the human was coming.
Dr. Slobodchikoff also found evidence that prairie dogs aren't born knowing the calls, the way a baby is born knowing how to cry. They have to learn them. He bases this on the fact that the different prairie dog colonies around Flagstaff all have different dialects. Since genetically these animals are almost identical, Dr. Slobodchikoff argues that genetic differences can't explain the differences in the calls. That means the calls have been created by the individual colonies and passed on from one generation to the next.
Is this "real" language? A philosopher of language might say no, but the case against animal language is getting weaker. Different linguists have somewhat different definitions of language, but everyone agrees that language has to have meaning, productivity (you can use the same words to make an infinite number of now communications), and displacement (you can use language to talk about things that aren't present).
Prairie dogs use their language to refer to real dangers in the real world, so it definitely has meaning.
Chimp Talk Debate
Copyright 1995 The New York Times Company
The New York Times
June 6, 1995, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section C; Page 1; Column 1; Science Desk
LENGTH: 2199 words
Chimp Talk Debate: Is It Really Language?
By George Johnson
PANBANISHA, a Bonobo chimpanzee who has become something of a star among animal language researchers, was strolling through the Georgia woods with a group of her fellow primates -- scientists at the Language Research Center at Georgia State University in Atlanta. Suddenly, the chimp pulled one of them aside. Grabbing a special keyboard of the kind used to teach severely retarded children to communicate, she repeatedly pressed three symbols -- "Fight," "Mad," "Austin" -- in various combinations.
Austin is the name of another chimpanzee at the center. Dr. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, one of Panbanisha's trainers, asked, "Was there a fight at Austin's house?"
"Waa, waa, waa" said the chimpanzee, in what Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh took as a sign of affirmation. She rushed to the building where Austin lives and learned that earlier in the day two of the chimps there, a mother and her son, had fought over which got to play with a computer and joystick used as part of the training program. The son had bitten his mother, causing a ruckus that, Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh surmised, had been overheard by Panbanisha, who lived in another building about 200 feet away. As Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh saw it, Panbanisha had a secret she urgently wanted to tell.
A decade and a half after the claims of animal language researchers were discredited as exaggerated self-delusions, Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh is reporting that her chimpanzees can demonstrate the rudimentary comprehension skills of 2 1/2-year-old children. According to a series of recent papers, the Bonobo, or pygmy, chimps, which some scientists believe are more humanlike and intelligent than the common chimpanzees studied in the earlier, flawed experiments, have learned to understand complex sentences and use symbolic language to communicate spontaneously with the outside world.
"She had never put those three lexigrams together," Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh said, referring to the keyboard symbols with which the animals are trained. She found the incident, which occurred last month, particularly gratifying because the chimp seemed to be using the symbols not to demand food, which is usually the case in these experiments, but to gossip.
In a book to be published later this year, "Apes, Language and the Human Mind: Philosophical Primatology" (Routledge), Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh and her co-authors, Dr. Stuart Shanker, a philosopher at York University in Toronto, and Dr. Talbot Taylor, a linguist at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, argue that the feats of the chimps at the Language Research Center are so impressive that scientists must now re-evaluate some of their most basic ideas about the nature of language.
Most language experts dismiss experiments like the ones with Panbanisha as exercises in wishful thinking. "In my mind this kind of research is more analogous to the bears in the Moscow circus who are trained to ride unicycles," said Dr. Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies language acquisition in children. "You can train animals to do all kinds of amazing things." He is not convinced that the chimps have learned anything more sophisticated than how to press the right buttons in order to get the hairless apes on the other side of the console to cough up M & M's, bananas and other tidbits of food.
Dr. Noam Chomsky, the M.I.T. linguist whose theory that language is innate and unique to people forms the infrastructure of the field, says that attempting to teach linguistic skills to animals is irrational -- like trying to teach people to flap their arms and fly.
"Humans can fly about 30 feet -- that's what they do in the Olympics," he said in an interview. "Is that flying? The question is totally meaningless. In fact the analogy to flying is misleading because when humans fly 30 feet, the organs they're using are kind of homologous to the ones that chickens and eagles use." Arms and wings, in other words, arise from the same branch of the evolutionary tree. "Whatever the chimps are doing is not even homologous as far as we know," he said. There is no evidence that the chimpanzee utterances emerge from anything like the "language organ" Dr. Chomsky believes resides only in human brains. This neural wiring is said to be the source of the universal grammar that unites all languages.
But some philosophers, like Dr. Shanker, complain that the linguists are applying a double standard: they dismiss skills -- like putting together a noun and a verb to form a two-word sentence -- that they consider nascent linguistic abilities in a very young child.
"The linguists kept upping their demands and Sue kept meeting the demands," said Dr. Shanker. "But the linguists keep moving the goal post."
Following Dr. Chomsky, most linguists argue that special neural circuitry needed for language evolved after man's ancestors split from those of the chimps millions of years ago. As evidence they note how quickly children, unlike chimpanzees, go from cobbling together two-word utterances to effortlessly spinning out complex sentences with phrases embedded within phrases like Russian dolls. But Dr. Shanker and his colleagues insist that Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh's experiments suggest that there is not an unbridgeable divide between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, as orthodox linguists believe, but rather a gradation of linguistic skills.
In a forthcoming book, "The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul: A Philosophical Journey Into the Brain" (M. I. T. Press), Dr. Paul Churchland, a philosopher and cognitive scientist at the University of California at San Diego, says linguists should take Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh's experiments as a challenge. He argues that the jury is still out: the rules for constructing sentences might turn out to be not so much hard-wired as a result of learning -- by people and potentially by their chimpanzee relatives.
Animal language research fell into disrepute in the late 1970's when "talking" chimps like Washoe and the provocatively named Nim Chimpsky were exposed as unintentional frauds. Because chimpanzees lack the vocal apparatus to make a variety of modulated sounds, the animals were taught a vocabulary of hand signs -- an approach first suggested in the 18th century by the French physician Julien Offray de La Mettrie. In appearances on television talk shows, trainers claimed the chimps could construct sentences of several words. But upon closer examination, scientists found strong evidence that the chimps had simply learned to please their teachers by contorting their hands into all kinds of configurations. And the trainers, straining to find examples of linguistic communication, thought they saw words among the wiggling, like children seeing pictures in the clouds.
In a widely quoted paper in the journal Science, "Can an Ape Create a Sentence?" Nim Chimpsky's trainer, Dr. Herbert Terrace, a Columbia University psychologist, reluctantly concluded that the answer was no.
A chimp might learn to connect a hand sign with an item of food, skeptics like Dr. Terrace argued, but this could be a matter of simple conditioning, like Pavlov's dogs learning to salivate at the sound of a bell. Most importantly, there was no evidence that the chimps had acquired a generative grammar -- the ability to string words together into sentences of arbitrary length and complexity.
As a young veteran of the original animal language experiments, Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh decided to try a different approach. To eliminate the ambiguity of hand signs, she used a keyboard with dozens of buttons marked with geometric symbols.
In elaborate exercises beginning in the mid 1970's, she and her colleagues taught common chimpanzees and bonobos to associate symbols with a variety of things, people and places in and around the laboratory. The smartest chimps even seemed to learn abstract categories, identifying pictures of objects as either tools or food. Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh reported that two of the chimps learned to use symbols to communicate with each other. Pecking away at the keyboard, one would tell a companion where to find a key that would liberate a banana for them both to share.
Most impressive of all was a bonobo named Kanzi. After futilely trying to train Kanzi's adopted mother to use the keyboard, the researchers found that the 2 1/2-year-old chimp, who apparently had been eavesdropping all along, had picked up an impressive vocabulary on his own. Kanzi was taught not in laboriously structured training sessions but on walks through the 50 acres of forest surrounding the language center. By the time he was 6 years old, Kanzi had acquired a vocabulary of 200 symbols and was constructing what might be taken as rudimentary sentences consisting of a word combined with a gesture or occasionally of two or three words. Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh became convinced that exposure to language must start early and that the lessons should be driven by the animal's curiosity.
Compared with other chimps, Kanzi's utterances are striking, but they are still far from human abilities. Kanzi is much better at responding to vocal commands like "Take off Sue's shoe." In one particularly arresting feat, recorded on videotape, Kanzi was told, "Give the dog a shot." The chimpanzee picked up a hypodermic syringe lying on the ground in front of him, pulled off the cap and injected a toy stuffed dog.
Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh's critics say there is nothing surprising about chimpanzees or even dogs and parrots associating vocal sounds with objects. Kanzi has been trained to associate the sound "dog" with the furry thing in front of him and has been programmed to carry out a stylized routine when he hears "shot." But does the chimp really understand what he is doing?
Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh insists that experiments using words in novel contexts show that the chimps are not just responding to sounds in a knee-jerk manner. It is true, she says, that Kanzi was initially aided by vocal inflections, hand gestures, facial expressions and other contextual clues. But once it had mastered a vocabulary, the bonobo could properly respond to 70 percent of unfamiliar sentences spoken by a trainer whose face was concealed.
None of this is very persuasive to linguists for whom the acid test of language is not comprehension but performance, the ability to use grammar to generate ever more complex sentences.
Dr. Terrace says Kanzi, like the disappointing Nim Chimpsky, is simply "going through a bag of tricks in order to get things." He is not impressed by comparisons to human children. "If a child did exactly what the best chimpanzee did, the child would be thought of as disturbed," Dr. Terrace said.
The scientists at the Language Research Center are "studying some very complicated cognitive processes in chimpanzees," Dr. Terrace said. "That says an awful lot about the evolution of intelligence. How do chimpanzees think without language, how do they remember without language? Those are much more important questions than trying to reproduce a few tidbits of language from a chimpanzee trying to get rewards."
Attempting to shift the fulcrum of the debate over performance versus comprehension, Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh argues that the linguists have things backward: "Comprehension is the route into language," she says. In her view it is easier to take an idea already in one's mind and translate it into a grammatical string of words than to decipher a sentence spoken by another whose intentions are unknown.
Dr. Shanker, the York University philosopher, believes that the linguists' objections reveal a naive view of how language works. When Kanzi gives the dog a shot, he might well be relying on all kinds of contextual clues and subtle gestures from the speaker, but that, Dr. Shanker argues, is what people do all the time.
Following the ideas of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, he argues that language is not just a matter of encoding and decoding strings of arbitrary symbols. It is a social act that is always embedded in a situation.
But trotting out Wittgenstein and his often obscure philosophy is a way of sending many linguists bolting for the exits. "If higher apes were incapable of anything beyond the trivialities that have been shown in these experiments, they would have been extinct millions of years ago," Dr. Chomsky said. "If you want to find out about an organism you study what it's good at. If you want to study humans you study language. If you want to study pigeons you study their homing instinct. Every biologist knows this. This research is just some kind of fanaticism."
There is a suspicion among some linguists and cognitive scientists that animal language experiments are motivated as much by ideological as scientific concerns -- by the conviction that intelligent behavior is not hard-wired but learnable, by the desire to knock people off their self-appointed thrones and champion the rights of downtrodden animals.
"I know what it's like," Dr. Terrace said. "I was once stung by the same bug. I really wanted to communicate with a chimpanzee and find out what the world looks like from a chimpanzee's point of view."
The New York Times
June 6, 1995, Tuesday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section C; Page 1; Column 1; Science Desk
LENGTH: 2199 words
Chimp Talk Debate: Is It Really Language?
By George Johnson
PANBANISHA, a Bonobo chimpanzee who has become something of a star among animal language researchers, was strolling through the Georgia woods with a group of her fellow primates -- scientists at the Language Research Center at Georgia State University in Atlanta. Suddenly, the chimp pulled one of them aside. Grabbing a special keyboard of the kind used to teach severely retarded children to communicate, she repeatedly pressed three symbols -- "Fight," "Mad," "Austin" -- in various combinations.
Austin is the name of another chimpanzee at the center. Dr. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, one of Panbanisha's trainers, asked, "Was there a fight at Austin's house?"
"Waa, waa, waa" said the chimpanzee, in what Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh took as a sign of affirmation. She rushed to the building where Austin lives and learned that earlier in the day two of the chimps there, a mother and her son, had fought over which got to play with a computer and joystick used as part of the training program. The son had bitten his mother, causing a ruckus that, Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh surmised, had been overheard by Panbanisha, who lived in another building about 200 feet away. As Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh saw it, Panbanisha had a secret she urgently wanted to tell.
A decade and a half after the claims of animal language researchers were discredited as exaggerated self-delusions, Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh is reporting that her chimpanzees can demonstrate the rudimentary comprehension skills of 2 1/2-year-old children. According to a series of recent papers, the Bonobo, or pygmy, chimps, which some scientists believe are more humanlike and intelligent than the common chimpanzees studied in the earlier, flawed experiments, have learned to understand complex sentences and use symbolic language to communicate spontaneously with the outside world.
"She had never put those three lexigrams together," Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh said, referring to the keyboard symbols with which the animals are trained. She found the incident, which occurred last month, particularly gratifying because the chimp seemed to be using the symbols not to demand food, which is usually the case in these experiments, but to gossip.
In a book to be published later this year, "Apes, Language and the Human Mind: Philosophical Primatology" (Routledge), Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh and her co-authors, Dr. Stuart Shanker, a philosopher at York University in Toronto, and Dr. Talbot Taylor, a linguist at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, argue that the feats of the chimps at the Language Research Center are so impressive that scientists must now re-evaluate some of their most basic ideas about the nature of language.
Most language experts dismiss experiments like the ones with Panbanisha as exercises in wishful thinking. "In my mind this kind of research is more analogous to the bears in the Moscow circus who are trained to ride unicycles," said Dr. Steven Pinker, a cognitive scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who studies language acquisition in children. "You can train animals to do all kinds of amazing things." He is not convinced that the chimps have learned anything more sophisticated than how to press the right buttons in order to get the hairless apes on the other side of the console to cough up M & M's, bananas and other tidbits of food.
Dr. Noam Chomsky, the M.I.T. linguist whose theory that language is innate and unique to people forms the infrastructure of the field, says that attempting to teach linguistic skills to animals is irrational -- like trying to teach people to flap their arms and fly.
"Humans can fly about 30 feet -- that's what they do in the Olympics," he said in an interview. "Is that flying? The question is totally meaningless. In fact the analogy to flying is misleading because when humans fly 30 feet, the organs they're using are kind of homologous to the ones that chickens and eagles use." Arms and wings, in other words, arise from the same branch of the evolutionary tree. "Whatever the chimps are doing is not even homologous as far as we know," he said. There is no evidence that the chimpanzee utterances emerge from anything like the "language organ" Dr. Chomsky believes resides only in human brains. This neural wiring is said to be the source of the universal grammar that unites all languages.
But some philosophers, like Dr. Shanker, complain that the linguists are applying a double standard: they dismiss skills -- like putting together a noun and a verb to form a two-word sentence -- that they consider nascent linguistic abilities in a very young child.
"The linguists kept upping their demands and Sue kept meeting the demands," said Dr. Shanker. "But the linguists keep moving the goal post."
Following Dr. Chomsky, most linguists argue that special neural circuitry needed for language evolved after man's ancestors split from those of the chimps millions of years ago. As evidence they note how quickly children, unlike chimpanzees, go from cobbling together two-word utterances to effortlessly spinning out complex sentences with phrases embedded within phrases like Russian dolls. But Dr. Shanker and his colleagues insist that Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh's experiments suggest that there is not an unbridgeable divide between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom, as orthodox linguists believe, but rather a gradation of linguistic skills.
In a forthcoming book, "The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul: A Philosophical Journey Into the Brain" (M. I. T. Press), Dr. Paul Churchland, a philosopher and cognitive scientist at the University of California at San Diego, says linguists should take Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh's experiments as a challenge. He argues that the jury is still out: the rules for constructing sentences might turn out to be not so much hard-wired as a result of learning -- by people and potentially by their chimpanzee relatives.
Animal language research fell into disrepute in the late 1970's when "talking" chimps like Washoe and the provocatively named Nim Chimpsky were exposed as unintentional frauds. Because chimpanzees lack the vocal apparatus to make a variety of modulated sounds, the animals were taught a vocabulary of hand signs -- an approach first suggested in the 18th century by the French physician Julien Offray de La Mettrie. In appearances on television talk shows, trainers claimed the chimps could construct sentences of several words. But upon closer examination, scientists found strong evidence that the chimps had simply learned to please their teachers by contorting their hands into all kinds of configurations. And the trainers, straining to find examples of linguistic communication, thought they saw words among the wiggling, like children seeing pictures in the clouds.
In a widely quoted paper in the journal Science, "Can an Ape Create a Sentence?" Nim Chimpsky's trainer, Dr. Herbert Terrace, a Columbia University psychologist, reluctantly concluded that the answer was no.
A chimp might learn to connect a hand sign with an item of food, skeptics like Dr. Terrace argued, but this could be a matter of simple conditioning, like Pavlov's dogs learning to salivate at the sound of a bell. Most importantly, there was no evidence that the chimps had acquired a generative grammar -- the ability to string words together into sentences of arbitrary length and complexity.
As a young veteran of the original animal language experiments, Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh decided to try a different approach. To eliminate the ambiguity of hand signs, she used a keyboard with dozens of buttons marked with geometric symbols.
In elaborate exercises beginning in the mid 1970's, she and her colleagues taught common chimpanzees and bonobos to associate symbols with a variety of things, people and places in and around the laboratory. The smartest chimps even seemed to learn abstract categories, identifying pictures of objects as either tools or food. Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh reported that two of the chimps learned to use symbols to communicate with each other. Pecking away at the keyboard, one would tell a companion where to find a key that would liberate a banana for them both to share.
Most impressive of all was a bonobo named Kanzi. After futilely trying to train Kanzi's adopted mother to use the keyboard, the researchers found that the 2 1/2-year-old chimp, who apparently had been eavesdropping all along, had picked up an impressive vocabulary on his own. Kanzi was taught not in laboriously structured training sessions but on walks through the 50 acres of forest surrounding the language center. By the time he was 6 years old, Kanzi had acquired a vocabulary of 200 symbols and was constructing what might be taken as rudimentary sentences consisting of a word combined with a gesture or occasionally of two or three words. Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh became convinced that exposure to language must start early and that the lessons should be driven by the animal's curiosity.
Compared with other chimps, Kanzi's utterances are striking, but they are still far from human abilities. Kanzi is much better at responding to vocal commands like "Take off Sue's shoe." In one particularly arresting feat, recorded on videotape, Kanzi was told, "Give the dog a shot." The chimpanzee picked up a hypodermic syringe lying on the ground in front of him, pulled off the cap and injected a toy stuffed dog.
Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh's critics say there is nothing surprising about chimpanzees or even dogs and parrots associating vocal sounds with objects. Kanzi has been trained to associate the sound "dog" with the furry thing in front of him and has been programmed to carry out a stylized routine when he hears "shot." But does the chimp really understand what he is doing?
Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh insists that experiments using words in novel contexts show that the chimps are not just responding to sounds in a knee-jerk manner. It is true, she says, that Kanzi was initially aided by vocal inflections, hand gestures, facial expressions and other contextual clues. But once it had mastered a vocabulary, the bonobo could properly respond to 70 percent of unfamiliar sentences spoken by a trainer whose face was concealed.
None of this is very persuasive to linguists for whom the acid test of language is not comprehension but performance, the ability to use grammar to generate ever more complex sentences.
Dr. Terrace says Kanzi, like the disappointing Nim Chimpsky, is simply "going through a bag of tricks in order to get things." He is not impressed by comparisons to human children. "If a child did exactly what the best chimpanzee did, the child would be thought of as disturbed," Dr. Terrace said.
The scientists at the Language Research Center are "studying some very complicated cognitive processes in chimpanzees," Dr. Terrace said. "That says an awful lot about the evolution of intelligence. How do chimpanzees think without language, how do they remember without language? Those are much more important questions than trying to reproduce a few tidbits of language from a chimpanzee trying to get rewards."
Attempting to shift the fulcrum of the debate over performance versus comprehension, Dr. Savage-Rumbaugh argues that the linguists have things backward: "Comprehension is the route into language," she says. In her view it is easier to take an idea already in one's mind and translate it into a grammatical string of words than to decipher a sentence spoken by another whose intentions are unknown.
Dr. Shanker, the York University philosopher, believes that the linguists' objections reveal a naive view of how language works. When Kanzi gives the dog a shot, he might well be relying on all kinds of contextual clues and subtle gestures from the speaker, but that, Dr. Shanker argues, is what people do all the time.
Following the ideas of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, he argues that language is not just a matter of encoding and decoding strings of arbitrary symbols. It is a social act that is always embedded in a situation.
But trotting out Wittgenstein and his often obscure philosophy is a way of sending many linguists bolting for the exits. "If higher apes were incapable of anything beyond the trivialities that have been shown in these experiments, they would have been extinct millions of years ago," Dr. Chomsky said. "If you want to find out about an organism you study what it's good at. If you want to study humans you study language. If you want to study pigeons you study their homing instinct. Every biologist knows this. This research is just some kind of fanaticism."
There is a suspicion among some linguists and cognitive scientists that animal language experiments are motivated as much by ideological as scientific concerns -- by the conviction that intelligent behavior is not hard-wired but learnable, by the desire to knock people off their self-appointed thrones and champion the rights of downtrodden animals.
"I know what it's like," Dr. Terrace said. "I was once stung by the same bug. I really wanted to communicate with a chimpanzee and find out what the world looks like from a chimpanzee's point of view."
Definition of Animal Language
Definitions of Animal language on the Web:
Animal language is the modeling of human language in non human animal systems. While the term is widely used, most researchers agree that animal ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal language
Animal language is the modeling of human language in non human animal systems. While the term is widely used, most researchers agree that animal ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal language
Language Universals II
Language universals
Nearly five thousand languages are spoken in the world today. They seem to be quite different, but still, many of them show similar principles, such as word order. For example, in languages such as English, French, and Italian, the words of the clause take the order of first the subject, then the verb, and then the direct object.
There even exist basic patterns or principles that are shared by all languages. These patterns are called universals.
When the same principles are shared by several languages, we speak of language types. There are several examples for universals.
Semantic universals
There are semantic categories that are shared by all cultures and refered to by all languages - these are called semantic universals. There are many examples of semantic universals. Let's discuss two of them:
One semantic universal regards our notion of color. There exist eleven basic color terms: black, white, red, green, blue, yellow, brown, purple, pink, orange, and grey.
The pattern that all languages universally abide by, is that they do not entertain a notion of a color term outside of that range. This means, any imaginable color is conceived of as a mixture, shade, or subcategory of one of these eleven basic color terms.
As a result, one way of classifying languages is by color terms. The eleven color terms are not in usage equally among the languages on Earth. Not all languages have all basic color terms. Some have two, some three, and some four. Others have five, six, or seven, and some have eight to eleven.
Those with two color terms always have
black and white,
those with three
black, white, and red,
and those with more have additional basic color terms according to the order in the list given above. This is a universal pattern. The languages which have the same basic color terms in common belong to the same language type. Hence, we find seven classes of languages according to this scheme.
Another semantic universal is the case of pronouns. Think of what it is you do when you talk to someone about yourself. There is always the "I", representing you as the speaker, and the "you", meaning the addressee. You could not possibly do without that, and neither could a speaker of any other language on earth. Again, we find a universal pattern here. Whenever you do not talk about yourself as a person, but as a member of a group, you use the plural "we". English is restricted to these two classes of pronouns: singular and plural, each in the first, second, and third person. All languages that evince this structure are grouped into one language type. There are other languages that make use of even more pronouns. In some languages, it is possible to address two people with a pronoun that specifically indicates not just their being plural, but also their being 'two' people; this is then the dual pronoun.
Other examples are languages that have pronouns to refer to the speaker and the addressee together, called inclusive pronouns. Exclusive pronouns refer to the speaker together with people other than the addressee. However, these are not among the European languages.
Phonological universals
Different languages may have very different sets of vowels. If you are familiar with a few foreign languages, you may find it difficult to believe there are universal rules governing the distribution of vowels, but they do exist. Remember our example of basic color terms: A similar pattern could be drawn on the basis of the vowel system. Languages with few vowels always have the same set of vowel types. And if a language has more vowels, it is always the same type of vowel that is added to the set. These vowels may not always sound exactly the same, but they are always created at the same location in our vocal apparatus.
Syntactic universals
Remember the word order of English I mentioned above. Hmhm, you say: that cannot be a universal rule, since you know other sentences from English and possibly from other languages which do not follow this order. You are right, but the order subject, verb, object (SVO) may be defined as the basic order of English sentences. In other languages there are different "basic" orders, such as Japanese (SOV) or Tongan (VSO), a Polynesian language. After an extensive study, one can define two different sets of basic orders that languages follow: First
SVO, VSO, SOV
and second
VOS, OVS, OSV.
What is the difference? In the first set the subject precedes the object, in the second set it follows the object. Since the first set is the one which applies to the basic structures of far more languages than the second one does, the universal rule is that there is an overwhelming tendency for the subject of a sentence to precede the direct object among the languages of the world.
Absolute universals - universal tendencies; implicational - nonimplicational universals
Of course, not all universals can be found in all languages. With so many tongues spoken, it would be hard not to find any exceptions. Most languages have not even been the subject of extensive research as of yet. However, some rules appear without exception in the languages which have been studied so far. We call these absolute universals. If there are minor exceptions to the rule, we speak of universal tendencies or relative universals. In saying this, we take for granted that exceptions may be found in future surveys among languages which have remained unexplored up to the present day.
Sometimes a universal holds only if a particular condition of the language structure is fulfilled. These universals are called implicational. Universals which can be stated without a condition are called nonimplicational. In other words, whenever a rule "If ... then ..." is valid, the universal appears in the structure of the respective language.
There are thus four types of universals: implicational absolute universals, implicational relative universals, nonimplicational absolute universals, and nonimplicational relative universals. The final determination of which type a universal belongs to is dependent on intensive field research.
Source: http://www.uni-kassel.de
Nearly five thousand languages are spoken in the world today. They seem to be quite different, but still, many of them show similar principles, such as word order. For example, in languages such as English, French, and Italian, the words of the clause take the order of first the subject, then the verb, and then the direct object.
There even exist basic patterns or principles that are shared by all languages. These patterns are called universals.
When the same principles are shared by several languages, we speak of language types. There are several examples for universals.
Semantic universals
There are semantic categories that are shared by all cultures and refered to by all languages - these are called semantic universals. There are many examples of semantic universals. Let's discuss two of them:
One semantic universal regards our notion of color. There exist eleven basic color terms: black, white, red, green, blue, yellow, brown, purple, pink, orange, and grey.
The pattern that all languages universally abide by, is that they do not entertain a notion of a color term outside of that range. This means, any imaginable color is conceived of as a mixture, shade, or subcategory of one of these eleven basic color terms.
As a result, one way of classifying languages is by color terms. The eleven color terms are not in usage equally among the languages on Earth. Not all languages have all basic color terms. Some have two, some three, and some four. Others have five, six, or seven, and some have eight to eleven.
Those with two color terms always have
black and white,
those with three
black, white, and red,
and those with more have additional basic color terms according to the order in the list given above. This is a universal pattern. The languages which have the same basic color terms in common belong to the same language type. Hence, we find seven classes of languages according to this scheme.
Another semantic universal is the case of pronouns. Think of what it is you do when you talk to someone about yourself. There is always the "I", representing you as the speaker, and the "you", meaning the addressee. You could not possibly do without that, and neither could a speaker of any other language on earth. Again, we find a universal pattern here. Whenever you do not talk about yourself as a person, but as a member of a group, you use the plural "we". English is restricted to these two classes of pronouns: singular and plural, each in the first, second, and third person. All languages that evince this structure are grouped into one language type. There are other languages that make use of even more pronouns. In some languages, it is possible to address two people with a pronoun that specifically indicates not just their being plural, but also their being 'two' people; this is then the dual pronoun.
Other examples are languages that have pronouns to refer to the speaker and the addressee together, called inclusive pronouns. Exclusive pronouns refer to the speaker together with people other than the addressee. However, these are not among the European languages.
Phonological universals
Different languages may have very different sets of vowels. If you are familiar with a few foreign languages, you may find it difficult to believe there are universal rules governing the distribution of vowels, but they do exist. Remember our example of basic color terms: A similar pattern could be drawn on the basis of the vowel system. Languages with few vowels always have the same set of vowel types. And if a language has more vowels, it is always the same type of vowel that is added to the set. These vowels may not always sound exactly the same, but they are always created at the same location in our vocal apparatus.
Syntactic universals
Remember the word order of English I mentioned above. Hmhm, you say: that cannot be a universal rule, since you know other sentences from English and possibly from other languages which do not follow this order. You are right, but the order subject, verb, object (SVO) may be defined as the basic order of English sentences. In other languages there are different "basic" orders, such as Japanese (SOV) or Tongan (VSO), a Polynesian language. After an extensive study, one can define two different sets of basic orders that languages follow: First
SVO, VSO, SOV
and second
VOS, OVS, OSV.
What is the difference? In the first set the subject precedes the object, in the second set it follows the object. Since the first set is the one which applies to the basic structures of far more languages than the second one does, the universal rule is that there is an overwhelming tendency for the subject of a sentence to precede the direct object among the languages of the world.
Absolute universals - universal tendencies; implicational - nonimplicational universals
Of course, not all universals can be found in all languages. With so many tongues spoken, it would be hard not to find any exceptions. Most languages have not even been the subject of extensive research as of yet. However, some rules appear without exception in the languages which have been studied so far. We call these absolute universals. If there are minor exceptions to the rule, we speak of universal tendencies or relative universals. In saying this, we take for granted that exceptions may be found in future surveys among languages which have remained unexplored up to the present day.
Sometimes a universal holds only if a particular condition of the language structure is fulfilled. These universals are called implicational. Universals which can be stated without a condition are called nonimplicational. In other words, whenever a rule "If ... then ..." is valid, the universal appears in the structure of the respective language.
There are thus four types of universals: implicational absolute universals, implicational relative universals, nonimplicational absolute universals, and nonimplicational relative universals. The final determination of which type a universal belongs to is dependent on intensive field research.
Source: http://www.uni-kassel.de
Language Universals I
Necessary universals of language that can be deduced from its role in communication
1. Abstract
The belief in the innateness of language is based on several arguments, and one of these is that all human languages obey some rules, which are called universals. It is claimed that the fact that all human languages obey these universals show that the latter are built-in in the human genetic information, because otherwise languages would diverge. However, languages are means for communication between humans, and this put some limits on their divergence. Therefore, any universal which may be a result of these restrictions does not require any innate information to explain it, and only universals which cannot be explained in this way can be used for the argument. Hence, it is important to determined which universals are a result of the fact that languages are means for communication among humans. However, this question is rarely, if ever, discussed.
2. The questions to answer, basic assumptions and methodological problems
I am going to discuss two questions.
What are the rules that all languages which are used for communication by systems that are intelligent as humans{1} has to obey?
What are the rules that all languages which are used for communication by systems that are intelligent as humans, and have the known physiological and perceptual characteristics as humans, has to obey?
In the 'known physiological and perceptual characteristics' I include anything that is (almost) universally accepted as such. For example, the limit of amount of phonological information that can be handled at the same time is one such characteristic.
The first question is more general, and would be important for preparation to meet other intelligent races. For understanding human cognition, the second question is the important one.
The most serious danger in this kind of discussion the danger of making ad-hoc assumptions, based on the only intelligent systems that we are familiar with (humans). To try to avoid this danger, I try to explicitly discuss any assumption which I introduce and is not trivial.
The basic assumptions that I make are:
We have a group of intelligent systems.
The group continually develops new areas of mental activity, and increases and changes the scope of existing areas of mental activity.
The individuals of this group cooperate well enough that they reach far better results by cooperation, and cooperation is important in the success of the group.
Cooperation require efficient communication.
The individuals do not have a 'magical' way of communication, and hence require physical means of communication. This means that communication requires some effort and time.
The medium that is used for communication is not the medium of the primary sensory input.
There is a limit on the amount of medium-specific information that an individual can handle at the same time. For Question 1, this limit may be of any value. For question 2, I assume it is quite small. This assumption includes the assumption that there is a limit on the time-resolution in which individuals can identify signals reliably.
There is a limit of the amount of any information (non-medium-specific) that an individual can handle and mentally operate on at the same time.
2. Basic units of communication
For a communication to take place, the result of a communication event, when individual A (the sender) communicate a message X to B (the receiver), has to lead to a consistent correlation between what A is thinking about and what B is thinking about. (Note that the way this 'thinking about' is implemented is irrelevant for communication). For this to happen, X must have a consistent correlation with what A thinks about, and B must be able to interpret X consistently. Thus X must be used in a consistent way, and the first requirement for communication is a set of messages are used in a consistent way. I will refer to the way a message is used as the meaning of the message.
In general, messages can be sequential strings of other messages, but there must be some subset of messages which cannot be decomposed this way. I will call this subset the basic units of the language. The meaning of a basic unit must be known by each individual directly, so each individual must have a way of finding the meaning of a basic unit directly from its sensory input.
The minimum length of the basic units is the resolution of the perception of a signal in the medium. To be reliably understood, they have to be significantly longer than this minimum. The maximum length of the basic units has to be smaller than the amount of medium-specific information that an individual can handle at the same time.
The number of basic units may be restricted by several factors:
The time and other requirements it takes to learn the association between a meaning and a basic unit.
The number of such associations that an individual can efficiently cope with.
The number of reliably differentiated units within the limits of their length.
The first two factors are unlikely to strongly limit the number of basic units. The association of basic unit to meaning is a simple association, and an intelligent system must be able to learn and deal efficiently with large number of these. The third factor may be significant if the limit is very small, but seems to be irrelevant in the case of humans.
Below the limits above, where finding the meaning of a basic unit is fast, processing a basic unit is much more efficient than processing a message which is made of several basic units. This is because it does not require cognitive operations to combine the meaning of each basic unit together. Thus we would expect the number of basic units to grow to these limits, rather than stay small.
Combinations of basic units
The number of different ideas that intelligent systems can reasonably think about is huge, effectively infinite, because these systems combine concepts together in an unrestricted way. It is not possible to match this variety by learning basic units, so to be able to serve as communication tool effectively, a language must be able to form combinations, too. Hence, most of the message in the language must be combinations of basic units.
In general, a group of ideas, each of which is expressed by a basic unit, can be be combined to give several meanings. Therefore, to understand unambiguously a combined message, the receiver must have a way to decide how to combine the meaning of the basic units into the meaning of the complete message. The information for this decision can be conveyed by any combination of several methods:
The meaning of the basic units already gives some information about the possible combination. This information is always available, so it is cheap, hence we should expect this information to be used almost in all languages. This information is limited to the kind of information which can be deduced from meaning of basic units in each specific message, so its contents are very diverse.
The order of the basic units in the message. This is also cheap, but the amount of information in the word order is relatively small. Hence we should expect the order to be used in almost all languages, and to be used to determine features which are very frequently needed to be determined.
Modifying basic units in an arbitrary fashion. This require users of the language to learn the meaning of each individual modification, so it is like adding new basic units. This would be expected to happen relatively rarely.
Modifying basic units in a rule-like fashion. This requires less specific learning, but requires the users to recognize some input as some basic unit with modification. This is restricted to modifications that still allow the identification of the basic unit, which may restrict the number of possible modifications.
Adding specialized basic units, which define the proper combination. This method is unlimited, but is has a cost, because it requires more basic units per message. Therefore we should expect these specialized basic units to be easy to communicate (normally that would mean they are short).
A hybrid of the last two methods, i.e. modifying basic units by adding something.
To understand the message correctly the receiver must use the information in the way the sender intended, so they must share the knowledge of how to do this. Thus there must be some set of rules of combinations, which the users of the language must know.
The kind of combinations of ideas that intelligent systems can think, and therefore may need to express, is not limited, so the rules of the language must not limit the kind of combinations that can be expressed. The easiest way to achieve this, and maybe the only general way, is to make it always possible to modify a message by adding more information to it. In other words, the rules should allow combining any message with further information. A possible restriction on this flexibility is the limit of information that an individual can handled mentally at the same time. However, there is no need for rules to restrict these cases, because these combinations are difficult to produce, and therefore will not be part of the language anyway. Hence, we should not expect any explicit limits on combinations.
Meaning of basic units, modifications and messages
Since language is mostly used to describe the real world, for efficient communication the basic units meanings correspond to the typical entities of the real world. What are these?
At the macro level, where quantum mechanical effects are negligible, the world seems to be made of objects, which have attributes, act in some way, and affect the attributes of some other objects (I use here the word 'attribute' in its widest meaning). Thus the basic message is mostly associating an object with some attribute(s), action or some effect. Therefore we would expect the bulk of the basic units to correspond to one of these, i.e. to be noun, adjective or verb (and adverbs), and the rules of the language to be about combining these kind of basic units.
In addition, as mentioned above, we would expect a language to contain specialized basic units that are used to determine how to combine the meaning of the basic units into the meaning of the full message.
References to objects real world are the most demanding part of the language, because the identity of the object is unrestricted, and the object is external to the language. On the other hand, attributes and effects are restricted by the the kind of objects they are associated with. Thus the language must have tools to make it easier to identify objects, which may be special basic units, or special modifications. The most important problem is multiple references to the same object, which are not only expansive, but also adds to the effort of the receiver the task of figuring out whether they really refer to the same object or not. Thus the language must contain means of easy identification of repeated references to the same object, which should also make it cheap on term of time and cognitive effort.
The structure of a typical message
The typical length of a meaningful message is ultimately restricted by the cognitive abilities of the individuals, i.e. the amount of information that shhe can handle at the same time. If this limit is large, than the length of meaningful messages would be very variable, and restricted by the amount the information the sender want to deliver, the amount of time shhe has to do it, and how long shhe can expect the receiver to to be receiving. If the limit is small, it will determine the typical length of a complete message. In humans, the limit seems to be quite small, corresponding to a medium length sentence. Much longer sentences can be understood only if they are easily decomposable to shorter sentences.
The limit of the amount of medium-specific information that an individual can handle make it easier to handle messages that fit into this limit. If this limit is smaller than the cognitive limit, it would be easier for individuals to understand messages that can be combined in sub-message, each of which fit into the medium-specific limit. If this limit is larger than the cognitive limit, it probably will not have any effect.
Completeness and perfectness of language
While the rules of the language should allow expression of any idea that the systems that use it would like to express, there is no reason why they should allow interpretation of every possible signal. Thus many possible signals will have no interpretation in the language. That include both signals which cannot be interpreted as basic units, and sequences of basic units which cannot be combined using the rules of the language.
Because intelligent systems continually develop new areas of mental activity, the language must continually evolved to deal efficiently with the new areas. The evolution is close to be 'darwinian', because the changes, while not completely random, are not based on understanding of the language and an effort to conserve its global efficiency. As a result, languages continually diverge away from being optimal communication tool, and are pushed back towards communication optimum only when their efficiency start to fall significantly.
In addition, there are many additional forces on languages, which are not consistent, yet may have quite large effects. In humans, at least the following forces are significant:
Using language as defining the identity of a person, e.g. nationality, class etc. This is normally done by introducing features that don't have any communication value.
Using language for artistic expression. This is normally done by messages that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, i.e. they are not optimal communication.
Using language for dis-communication. In many cases, the sender of a message does not really wants to communicate, and the language evolves tools to allow this.
Explicit efforts to improve language. These are sometimes positive, but not always.
The result of the continuous evolution of the language and the additional forces is that languages can never be at a communication optimum, and will always be full of quirks and oddities.
Summary
To summarize, the following rules (at least) apply to all languages that are used for communication:
A language must have rules.
Language must have have basic units, which have their own meaning. For spoken language, these are the words (phrases with a meaning that cannot be deduced from the basic units that make them can also be regarded as basic units).
Most of the of the messages are combinations of several words, according to some rules (grammar).
The basic structure of most of messages is association of some object with attribute or effect.
The rules of combinations are express by one of: meaning of the words, word order, word modifications, special words, modification of words by adding something.
Semantic information normally used whenever it is available to decide about the appropriate combination.
Word order is used for simple and frequently used features of the grammar.
The grammar has to allow combining any message with more information. (This includes the so-called 'recursion').
The main bulk of words mean either an object, an attribute, an action or an effect.
The language must have tools to make identification of objects efficient.
The language must have a way to signify repeated reference to the same object, and make it cheap.
Languages are far from optimum.
Any language that is used for communication by humans must have these features, independently on any innate rules. Therefore, finding these rule does not support theirs innateness.
Other, more specific rules, are more difficult to predict directly from the communicative role of language, because our understanding of language and human cognitive performance is not good enough, but they seems to be plausible. These include:
The fixed location of a header in a phrase. This is an example of using word order for combining the meaning of words to the complete phrase. Fixed location in different types of phrases is presumably less confusing than different word order for each kind of phrase.
Fixed order of subject, verb, object. Again, a usage of word order.
--------------------------------------------
{1} For the definition of "intelligent as humans", I am using my own 'Simplified Turing Test': "A system is intelligent as humans if, after extensive examination, of the people which believe that such systems can exist, more than 96.12% intuitively believe that it is intelligent as humans."
Yehouda Harpaz
yh@maldoo.com
2Nov96
http://human-brain.org/
1. Abstract
The belief in the innateness of language is based on several arguments, and one of these is that all human languages obey some rules, which are called universals. It is claimed that the fact that all human languages obey these universals show that the latter are built-in in the human genetic information, because otherwise languages would diverge. However, languages are means for communication between humans, and this put some limits on their divergence. Therefore, any universal which may be a result of these restrictions does not require any innate information to explain it, and only universals which cannot be explained in this way can be used for the argument. Hence, it is important to determined which universals are a result of the fact that languages are means for communication among humans. However, this question is rarely, if ever, discussed.
2. The questions to answer, basic assumptions and methodological problems
I am going to discuss two questions.
What are the rules that all languages which are used for communication by systems that are intelligent as humans{1} has to obey?
What are the rules that all languages which are used for communication by systems that are intelligent as humans, and have the known physiological and perceptual characteristics as humans, has to obey?
In the 'known physiological and perceptual characteristics' I include anything that is (almost) universally accepted as such. For example, the limit of amount of phonological information that can be handled at the same time is one such characteristic.
The first question is more general, and would be important for preparation to meet other intelligent races. For understanding human cognition, the second question is the important one.
The most serious danger in this kind of discussion the danger of making ad-hoc assumptions, based on the only intelligent systems that we are familiar with (humans). To try to avoid this danger, I try to explicitly discuss any assumption which I introduce and is not trivial.
The basic assumptions that I make are:
We have a group of intelligent systems.
The group continually develops new areas of mental activity, and increases and changes the scope of existing areas of mental activity.
The individuals of this group cooperate well enough that they reach far better results by cooperation, and cooperation is important in the success of the group.
Cooperation require efficient communication.
The individuals do not have a 'magical' way of communication, and hence require physical means of communication. This means that communication requires some effort and time.
The medium that is used for communication is not the medium of the primary sensory input.
There is a limit on the amount of medium-specific information that an individual can handle at the same time. For Question 1, this limit may be of any value. For question 2, I assume it is quite small. This assumption includes the assumption that there is a limit on the time-resolution in which individuals can identify signals reliably.
There is a limit of the amount of any information (non-medium-specific) that an individual can handle and mentally operate on at the same time.
2. Basic units of communication
For a communication to take place, the result of a communication event, when individual A (the sender) communicate a message X to B (the receiver), has to lead to a consistent correlation between what A is thinking about and what B is thinking about. (Note that the way this 'thinking about' is implemented is irrelevant for communication). For this to happen, X must have a consistent correlation with what A thinks about, and B must be able to interpret X consistently. Thus X must be used in a consistent way, and the first requirement for communication is a set of messages are used in a consistent way. I will refer to the way a message is used as the meaning of the message.
In general, messages can be sequential strings of other messages, but there must be some subset of messages which cannot be decomposed this way. I will call this subset the basic units of the language. The meaning of a basic unit must be known by each individual directly, so each individual must have a way of finding the meaning of a basic unit directly from its sensory input.
The minimum length of the basic units is the resolution of the perception of a signal in the medium. To be reliably understood, they have to be significantly longer than this minimum. The maximum length of the basic units has to be smaller than the amount of medium-specific information that an individual can handle at the same time.
The number of basic units may be restricted by several factors:
The time and other requirements it takes to learn the association between a meaning and a basic unit.
The number of such associations that an individual can efficiently cope with.
The number of reliably differentiated units within the limits of their length.
The first two factors are unlikely to strongly limit the number of basic units. The association of basic unit to meaning is a simple association, and an intelligent system must be able to learn and deal efficiently with large number of these. The third factor may be significant if the limit is very small, but seems to be irrelevant in the case of humans.
Below the limits above, where finding the meaning of a basic unit is fast, processing a basic unit is much more efficient than processing a message which is made of several basic units. This is because it does not require cognitive operations to combine the meaning of each basic unit together. Thus we would expect the number of basic units to grow to these limits, rather than stay small.
Combinations of basic units
The number of different ideas that intelligent systems can reasonably think about is huge, effectively infinite, because these systems combine concepts together in an unrestricted way. It is not possible to match this variety by learning basic units, so to be able to serve as communication tool effectively, a language must be able to form combinations, too. Hence, most of the message in the language must be combinations of basic units.
In general, a group of ideas, each of which is expressed by a basic unit, can be be combined to give several meanings. Therefore, to understand unambiguously a combined message, the receiver must have a way to decide how to combine the meaning of the basic units into the meaning of the complete message. The information for this decision can be conveyed by any combination of several methods:
The meaning of the basic units already gives some information about the possible combination. This information is always available, so it is cheap, hence we should expect this information to be used almost in all languages. This information is limited to the kind of information which can be deduced from meaning of basic units in each specific message, so its contents are very diverse.
The order of the basic units in the message. This is also cheap, but the amount of information in the word order is relatively small. Hence we should expect the order to be used in almost all languages, and to be used to determine features which are very frequently needed to be determined.
Modifying basic units in an arbitrary fashion. This require users of the language to learn the meaning of each individual modification, so it is like adding new basic units. This would be expected to happen relatively rarely.
Modifying basic units in a rule-like fashion. This requires less specific learning, but requires the users to recognize some input as some basic unit with modification. This is restricted to modifications that still allow the identification of the basic unit, which may restrict the number of possible modifications.
Adding specialized basic units, which define the proper combination. This method is unlimited, but is has a cost, because it requires more basic units per message. Therefore we should expect these specialized basic units to be easy to communicate (normally that would mean they are short).
A hybrid of the last two methods, i.e. modifying basic units by adding something.
To understand the message correctly the receiver must use the information in the way the sender intended, so they must share the knowledge of how to do this. Thus there must be some set of rules of combinations, which the users of the language must know.
The kind of combinations of ideas that intelligent systems can think, and therefore may need to express, is not limited, so the rules of the language must not limit the kind of combinations that can be expressed. The easiest way to achieve this, and maybe the only general way, is to make it always possible to modify a message by adding more information to it. In other words, the rules should allow combining any message with further information. A possible restriction on this flexibility is the limit of information that an individual can handled mentally at the same time. However, there is no need for rules to restrict these cases, because these combinations are difficult to produce, and therefore will not be part of the language anyway. Hence, we should not expect any explicit limits on combinations.
Meaning of basic units, modifications and messages
Since language is mostly used to describe the real world, for efficient communication the basic units meanings correspond to the typical entities of the real world. What are these?
At the macro level, where quantum mechanical effects are negligible, the world seems to be made of objects, which have attributes, act in some way, and affect the attributes of some other objects (I use here the word 'attribute' in its widest meaning). Thus the basic message is mostly associating an object with some attribute(s), action or some effect. Therefore we would expect the bulk of the basic units to correspond to one of these, i.e. to be noun, adjective or verb (and adverbs), and the rules of the language to be about combining these kind of basic units.
In addition, as mentioned above, we would expect a language to contain specialized basic units that are used to determine how to combine the meaning of the basic units into the meaning of the full message.
References to objects real world are the most demanding part of the language, because the identity of the object is unrestricted, and the object is external to the language. On the other hand, attributes and effects are restricted by the the kind of objects they are associated with. Thus the language must have tools to make it easier to identify objects, which may be special basic units, or special modifications. The most important problem is multiple references to the same object, which are not only expansive, but also adds to the effort of the receiver the task of figuring out whether they really refer to the same object or not. Thus the language must contain means of easy identification of repeated references to the same object, which should also make it cheap on term of time and cognitive effort.
The structure of a typical message
The typical length of a meaningful message is ultimately restricted by the cognitive abilities of the individuals, i.e. the amount of information that shhe can handle at the same time. If this limit is large, than the length of meaningful messages would be very variable, and restricted by the amount the information the sender want to deliver, the amount of time shhe has to do it, and how long shhe can expect the receiver to to be receiving. If the limit is small, it will determine the typical length of a complete message. In humans, the limit seems to be quite small, corresponding to a medium length sentence. Much longer sentences can be understood only if they are easily decomposable to shorter sentences.
The limit of the amount of medium-specific information that an individual can handle make it easier to handle messages that fit into this limit. If this limit is smaller than the cognitive limit, it would be easier for individuals to understand messages that can be combined in sub-message, each of which fit into the medium-specific limit. If this limit is larger than the cognitive limit, it probably will not have any effect.
Completeness and perfectness of language
While the rules of the language should allow expression of any idea that the systems that use it would like to express, there is no reason why they should allow interpretation of every possible signal. Thus many possible signals will have no interpretation in the language. That include both signals which cannot be interpreted as basic units, and sequences of basic units which cannot be combined using the rules of the language.
Because intelligent systems continually develop new areas of mental activity, the language must continually evolved to deal efficiently with the new areas. The evolution is close to be 'darwinian', because the changes, while not completely random, are not based on understanding of the language and an effort to conserve its global efficiency. As a result, languages continually diverge away from being optimal communication tool, and are pushed back towards communication optimum only when their efficiency start to fall significantly.
In addition, there are many additional forces on languages, which are not consistent, yet may have quite large effects. In humans, at least the following forces are significant:
Using language as defining the identity of a person, e.g. nationality, class etc. This is normally done by introducing features that don't have any communication value.
Using language for artistic expression. This is normally done by messages that leaves a lot of room for interpretation, i.e. they are not optimal communication.
Using language for dis-communication. In many cases, the sender of a message does not really wants to communicate, and the language evolves tools to allow this.
Explicit efforts to improve language. These are sometimes positive, but not always.
The result of the continuous evolution of the language and the additional forces is that languages can never be at a communication optimum, and will always be full of quirks and oddities.
Summary
To summarize, the following rules (at least) apply to all languages that are used for communication:
A language must have rules.
Language must have have basic units, which have their own meaning. For spoken language, these are the words (phrases with a meaning that cannot be deduced from the basic units that make them can also be regarded as basic units).
Most of the of the messages are combinations of several words, according to some rules (grammar).
The basic structure of most of messages is association of some object with attribute or effect.
The rules of combinations are express by one of: meaning of the words, word order, word modifications, special words, modification of words by adding something.
Semantic information normally used whenever it is available to decide about the appropriate combination.
Word order is used for simple and frequently used features of the grammar.
The grammar has to allow combining any message with more information. (This includes the so-called 'recursion').
The main bulk of words mean either an object, an attribute, an action or an effect.
The language must have tools to make identification of objects efficient.
The language must have a way to signify repeated reference to the same object, and make it cheap.
Languages are far from optimum.
Any language that is used for communication by humans must have these features, independently on any innate rules. Therefore, finding these rule does not support theirs innateness.
Other, more specific rules, are more difficult to predict directly from the communicative role of language, because our understanding of language and human cognitive performance is not good enough, but they seems to be plausible. These include:
The fixed location of a header in a phrase. This is an example of using word order for combining the meaning of words to the complete phrase. Fixed location in different types of phrases is presumably less confusing than different word order for each kind of phrase.
Fixed order of subject, verb, object. Again, a usage of word order.
--------------------------------------------
{1} For the definition of "intelligent as humans", I am using my own 'Simplified Turing Test': "A system is intelligent as humans if, after extensive examination, of the people which believe that such systems can exist, more than 96.12% intuitively believe that it is intelligent as humans."
Yehouda Harpaz
yh@maldoo.com
2Nov96
http://human-brain.org/
What is English Grammar?
INTRODUCTION.
Many notable writers have expressed various opinions on English grammar, such as the following—
English grammar is a description of the usages of the English language by good speakers and writers of the present day.—Whitney
A description of account of the nature, build, constitution, or make of a language is called its grammar—Meiklejohn
Grammar teaches the laws of language, and the right method of using it in speaking and writing.—Patterson
Grammar is the science of letter; hence the science of using words correctly.—Abbott
The English word grammar relates only to the laws which govern the significant forms of words, and the construction of the sentence.—Richard Grant White
These are sufficient to suggest several distinct notions about English grammar—
Synopsis of the above.
(1) It makes rules to tell us how to use words.
(2) It is a record of usage which we ought to follow.
(3) It is concerned with the forms of the language.
(4) English has no grammar in the sense of forms, or inflections, but takes account merely of the nature and the uses of words in sentences.
What grammar is
Coming back, then, from the question, What ground should grammar cover? we come to answer the question, What should grammar teach? and we give as an answer the definition—
English grammar is the science which treats of the nature of words, their forms, and their uses and relations in the sentence.
All the words in the English language are divided into nine great classes. These classes are called the Parts of Speech. They are Article, Noun, Adjective, Pronoun, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction and Interjection.
Of these, the Noun is the most important, as all the others are more or less dependent upon it. A Noun signifies the name of any person, place or thing, in fact, anything of which we can have either thought or idea.
There are two kinds of Nouns, Proper and Common. Common Nouns are names which belong in common to a race or class, as man, city. Proper Nouns distinguish individual members of a race or class as John, Philadelphia. In the former case man is a name which belongs in common to the whole race of mankind, and city is also a name which is common to all large centres of population, but John signifies a particular individual of the race, while Philadelphia denotes a particular one from among the cities of the world.
Many notable writers have expressed various opinions on English grammar, such as the following—
English grammar is a description of the usages of the English language by good speakers and writers of the present day.—Whitney
A description of account of the nature, build, constitution, or make of a language is called its grammar—Meiklejohn
Grammar teaches the laws of language, and the right method of using it in speaking and writing.—Patterson
Grammar is the science of letter; hence the science of using words correctly.—Abbott
The English word grammar relates only to the laws which govern the significant forms of words, and the construction of the sentence.—Richard Grant White
These are sufficient to suggest several distinct notions about English grammar—
Synopsis of the above.
(1) It makes rules to tell us how to use words.
(2) It is a record of usage which we ought to follow.
(3) It is concerned with the forms of the language.
(4) English has no grammar in the sense of forms, or inflections, but takes account merely of the nature and the uses of words in sentences.
What grammar is
Coming back, then, from the question, What ground should grammar cover? we come to answer the question, What should grammar teach? and we give as an answer the definition—
English grammar is the science which treats of the nature of words, their forms, and their uses and relations in the sentence.
All the words in the English language are divided into nine great classes. These classes are called the Parts of Speech. They are Article, Noun, Adjective, Pronoun, Verb, Adverb, Preposition, Conjunction and Interjection.
Of these, the Noun is the most important, as all the others are more or less dependent upon it. A Noun signifies the name of any person, place or thing, in fact, anything of which we can have either thought or idea.
There are two kinds of Nouns, Proper and Common. Common Nouns are names which belong in common to a race or class, as man, city. Proper Nouns distinguish individual members of a race or class as John, Philadelphia. In the former case man is a name which belongs in common to the whole race of mankind, and city is also a name which is common to all large centres of population, but John signifies a particular individual of the race, while Philadelphia denotes a particular one from among the cities of the world.
What is Grammar II
Grammar is a field of linguistics that involves all the various things that make up the rules of language. Subfields of linguistics that are considered a part of grammar include syntax, phonetics, morphology, and semantics. Grammar is also used as a term to refer to the prescriptive rules of a given language, which may change over time or be open to debate.
Grammar may be separated into two common broad categories: descriptive and prescriptive. Both views of grammar are in wide use, although in general, linguists tend towards a descriptive approach to grammar, while people teaching a specific language – such as English – might tend towards a more prescriptive approach. Usually, there is a bit of give and take in any approach, with a prescriptivist being at least somewhat descriptive, and a descriptivist having some prescriptivist tendencies.
A descriptive grammar tries to look at the grammar of any spoken language or dialect as it actually exists, judging whether a sentence is grammatical or not based on the rules of the speech group in which it is spoken, rather than an arbitrary set of rules. For example, in many speech communities, a sentence such as, “He done got thrown off the horse,” would be entirely grammatical, and an entire set of rules of grammar can be deduced that explain why that formation is grammatical. In another speech community, however, this sentence might be considered ungrammatical, while a version such as, “Him isa throwned offa horse,” would be the grammatical version. In yet another speech community, both would be considered ungrammatical, with only a version such as, “He was thrown off of the horse,” being considered acceptable.
A prescriptive grammar looks at the norms of speech as given by authoritative sources, such as an upper-class or academic subculture, and creates strict rules by which all speech within that language must abide to be considered grammatical. Few linguists take a prescriptive approach to grammar in the modern age, preferring to describe language as it exists in a given speech community. Many teachers, grammar mavens, and pedagogues in general still have a prescriptive approach towards grammar, however, holding to standardized rules as being the only proper way to speak.
Prescriptive grammar is also used to some extent in teaching a language to non-native speakers. When teaching English, for example, it can be useful to employ a “standard” form of English as a baseline to teach from, to help reduce confusion among students. Once the language has been acquired, of course, a less-prescriptive approach will necessarily take over, as the non-native speaker learns regional rules and new dialects that may not conform to the prescriptive grammar he or she originally learned.
Source: http://www.wisegeek.com
Grammar may be separated into two common broad categories: descriptive and prescriptive. Both views of grammar are in wide use, although in general, linguists tend towards a descriptive approach to grammar, while people teaching a specific language – such as English – might tend towards a more prescriptive approach. Usually, there is a bit of give and take in any approach, with a prescriptivist being at least somewhat descriptive, and a descriptivist having some prescriptivist tendencies.
A descriptive grammar tries to look at the grammar of any spoken language or dialect as it actually exists, judging whether a sentence is grammatical or not based on the rules of the speech group in which it is spoken, rather than an arbitrary set of rules. For example, in many speech communities, a sentence such as, “He done got thrown off the horse,” would be entirely grammatical, and an entire set of rules of grammar can be deduced that explain why that formation is grammatical. In another speech community, however, this sentence might be considered ungrammatical, while a version such as, “Him isa throwned offa horse,” would be the grammatical version. In yet another speech community, both would be considered ungrammatical, with only a version such as, “He was thrown off of the horse,” being considered acceptable.
A prescriptive grammar looks at the norms of speech as given by authoritative sources, such as an upper-class or academic subculture, and creates strict rules by which all speech within that language must abide to be considered grammatical. Few linguists take a prescriptive approach to grammar in the modern age, preferring to describe language as it exists in a given speech community. Many teachers, grammar mavens, and pedagogues in general still have a prescriptive approach towards grammar, however, holding to standardized rules as being the only proper way to speak.
Prescriptive grammar is also used to some extent in teaching a language to non-native speakers. When teaching English, for example, it can be useful to employ a “standard” form of English as a baseline to teach from, to help reduce confusion among students. Once the language has been acquired, of course, a less-prescriptive approach will necessarily take over, as the non-native speaker learns regional rules and new dialects that may not conform to the prescriptive grammar he or she originally learned.
Source: http://www.wisegeek.com
What is Grammar
Hear the word glamour and what comes to mind? Celebrities, most likely--limousines and red carpets, swarms of paparazzi and more money than sense. But, odd as it may sound, glamour comes directly from a decidedly less glamorous word--grammar.
During the Middle Ages, grammar was often used to describe learning in general, including the magical, occult practices popularly associated with the scholars of the day. People in Scotland pronounced grammar as "glam-our," and extended the association to mean magical beauty or enchantment.
In the 19th century, the two versions of the word went their separate ways, so that our study of English grammar today may not be quite as glamorous as it used to be.
But the question remains: what is grammar?
Descriptive Grammar and Prescriptive Grammar
In our Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms, you’ll find two definitions of grammar:
The systematic study and description of a language.
A set of rules and examples dealing with the syntax and word structures of a language, usually intended as an aid to the learning of that language.
Descriptive grammar (definition #1) refers to the structure of a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers. Prescriptive grammar (definition #2) refers to the structure of a language as certain people think it should be used.
Both kinds of grammar are concerned with rules--but in different ways. Specialists in descriptive grammar (called linguists) study the rules or patterns that underlie our use of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. On the other hand, prescriptive grammarians (such as most editors and teachers) lay out rules about what they believe to be the “correct” or “incorrect” use of language. (See What Is a SNOOT?)
Interfacing with Grammar
To illustrate these different approaches, let's consider the word interface. The descriptive grammarian would note, among other things, that the word is made up of a common prefix (inter-) and a root word (face) and that it’s currently used as both a noun and a verb. The prescriptive grammarian, however, would be more interested in deciding whether or not it is “correct” to use interface as a verb.
Here's how the prescriptive Usage Panel at The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition passes judgment on interface:
The Usage Panel has been unable to muster much enthusiasm for the verb. Thirty-seven percent of Panelists accept it when it designates the interaction between people in the sentence The managing editor must interface with a variety of freelance editors and proofreaders. But the percentage drops to 22 when the interaction is between a corporation and the public or between various communities in a city. Many Panelists complain that interface is pretentious and jargony.
Similarly, Bryan A. Garner, author of The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style, dismisses interface as "jargonmongers' talk."
By their nature, all popular style and usage guides are prescriptive, though to varying degrees: some are fairly tolerant of deviations from standard English; others can be downright cranky. The most irascible critics are sometimes called "the Grammar Police."
Though certainly different in their approaches to language, both kinds of grammar--descriptive and prescriptive--are useful to students.
The Value of Studying Grammar
The study of grammar all by itself will not necessarily make you a better writer. But by gaining a clearer understanding of how our language works, you should also gain greater control over the way you shape words into sentences and sentences into paragraphs. In short, studying grammar may help you to become a more effective writer.
Descriptive grammarians generally advise us not to be overly concerned with matters of correctness: language, they say, isn't good or bad; it simply is. As the history of the glamorous word grammar demonstrates, the English language is a living system of communication, a continually evolving affair. Within a generation or two, words and phrases come into fashion and fall out again. Over centuries, word endings and entire sentence structures can change or disappear.
Prescriptive grammarians prefer giving practical advice about using language: straightforward rules to help us avoid making errors. The rules may be over-simplified at times, but they are meant to keep us out of trouble--the kind of trouble that may distract or even confuse our readers.
About Grammar & Composition attempts to integrate these two approaches to grammar--or, at the least, present them side by side. For instance, our discussion of the Basic Parts of Speech is primarily descriptive, while our lesson on Correcting Errors in Subject-Verb Agreement is obviously prescriptive.
Thus, the goal of this site is twofold: first, to deepen your understanding of the ways that the English language operates, and second, to serve as a practical guide as you work to become a more confident and effective writer. We look forward to hearing your suggestions on how we might do a better job of meeting both of these goals.
Source: http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/grammarintro.htm
During the Middle Ages, grammar was often used to describe learning in general, including the magical, occult practices popularly associated with the scholars of the day. People in Scotland pronounced grammar as "glam-our," and extended the association to mean magical beauty or enchantment.
In the 19th century, the two versions of the word went their separate ways, so that our study of English grammar today may not be quite as glamorous as it used to be.
But the question remains: what is grammar?
Descriptive Grammar and Prescriptive Grammar
In our Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms, you’ll find two definitions of grammar:
The systematic study and description of a language.
A set of rules and examples dealing with the syntax and word structures of a language, usually intended as an aid to the learning of that language.
Descriptive grammar (definition #1) refers to the structure of a language as it is actually used by speakers and writers. Prescriptive grammar (definition #2) refers to the structure of a language as certain people think it should be used.
Both kinds of grammar are concerned with rules--but in different ways. Specialists in descriptive grammar (called linguists) study the rules or patterns that underlie our use of words, phrases, clauses, and sentences. On the other hand, prescriptive grammarians (such as most editors and teachers) lay out rules about what they believe to be the “correct” or “incorrect” use of language. (See What Is a SNOOT?)
Interfacing with Grammar
To illustrate these different approaches, let's consider the word interface. The descriptive grammarian would note, among other things, that the word is made up of a common prefix (inter-) and a root word (face) and that it’s currently used as both a noun and a verb. The prescriptive grammarian, however, would be more interested in deciding whether or not it is “correct” to use interface as a verb.
Here's how the prescriptive Usage Panel at The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition passes judgment on interface:
The Usage Panel has been unable to muster much enthusiasm for the verb. Thirty-seven percent of Panelists accept it when it designates the interaction between people in the sentence The managing editor must interface with a variety of freelance editors and proofreaders. But the percentage drops to 22 when the interaction is between a corporation and the public or between various communities in a city. Many Panelists complain that interface is pretentious and jargony.
Similarly, Bryan A. Garner, author of The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style, dismisses interface as "jargonmongers' talk."
By their nature, all popular style and usage guides are prescriptive, though to varying degrees: some are fairly tolerant of deviations from standard English; others can be downright cranky. The most irascible critics are sometimes called "the Grammar Police."
Though certainly different in their approaches to language, both kinds of grammar--descriptive and prescriptive--are useful to students.
The Value of Studying Grammar
The study of grammar all by itself will not necessarily make you a better writer. But by gaining a clearer understanding of how our language works, you should also gain greater control over the way you shape words into sentences and sentences into paragraphs. In short, studying grammar may help you to become a more effective writer.
Descriptive grammarians generally advise us not to be overly concerned with matters of correctness: language, they say, isn't good or bad; it simply is. As the history of the glamorous word grammar demonstrates, the English language is a living system of communication, a continually evolving affair. Within a generation or two, words and phrases come into fashion and fall out again. Over centuries, word endings and entire sentence structures can change or disappear.
Prescriptive grammarians prefer giving practical advice about using language: straightforward rules to help us avoid making errors. The rules may be over-simplified at times, but they are meant to keep us out of trouble--the kind of trouble that may distract or even confuse our readers.
About Grammar & Composition attempts to integrate these two approaches to grammar--or, at the least, present them side by side. For instance, our discussion of the Basic Parts of Speech is primarily descriptive, while our lesson on Correcting Errors in Subject-Verb Agreement is obviously prescriptive.
Thus, the goal of this site is twofold: first, to deepen your understanding of the ways that the English language operates, and second, to serve as a practical guide as you work to become a more confident and effective writer. We look forward to hearing your suggestions on how we might do a better job of meeting both of these goals.
Source: http://grammar.about.com/od/basicsentencegrammar/a/grammarintro.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)