Human Language, unique, innate or learnt?

[panpete]

I theorize that originally humans communicated telephathically. Maybe language was originally invented for stories and songs etc.
Maybe, then, it language was developed for more sinister purposes, such as atrophying our telepathic abilities over the aeons.

 

[revol68]

I theorize that originally humans communicated telephathically. Maybe language was originally invented for stories and songs etc.
Maybe, then, it language was developed for more sinister purposes, such as atrophying our telepathic abilities over the aeons.

 

[kyser_soze]

Nothing to suggest mental-ness in the posting history, Dr Revol

 

[weltweit]

It is a nice idea that we might once have been able to telephathically communicate, but I am not sure there is any evidence for it. And, if we were able, then is it possible that other animals are able to? afaik there is a lot of our brain matter that is not used, it does not seem likely that it was there without a purpose, so what is / was its purpose?

 

[maya]

According to the stories of feral children raised by wolves or whatever and returned to civilisation as 14-year-olds with no ability to understand human language at all because their brains never developed beyond the age of babies, I'd say most of the evidence point to the fact that language is an environmental thing- ?
(Plus the stories of seriously neglected kids with junkie mums that never learned to talk because they didn't receive any stimulation at all and so got brain damage... )

 

[weltweit]

According to the stories of feral children raised by wolves or whatever and returned to civilisation as 14-year-olds with no ability to understand human language at all because their brains never developed beyond the age of babies, I'd say most of the evidence point to the fact that language is an environmental thing- ?
(Plus the stories of seriously neglected kids with junkie mums that never learned to talk because they didn't receive any stimulation at all and so got brain damage... )

Yes, the examples seemed to prove that if a person is not exposed to language from an early age, they are not able later to catch up on this missed learning opportunity.

But there was an experiment with a singing bird. I may already have mentioned it on this thread. But they raised some birds in silence and these birds never sang. Then they bred from these birds and the baby birds started singing to each other. While they did not sing like the natural birds they did make a noise. Then the offspring of those birds sang quite fine, just like the birds in the wild sang.

 

[maya]

there was an experiment with a singing bird. I may already have mentioned it on this thread. But they raised some birds in silence and these birds never sang. Then they bred from these birds and the baby birds started singing to each other. While they did not sing like the natural birds they did make a noise. Then the offspring of those birds sang quite fine, just like the birds in the wild sang.

That is interesting... BTW what does science know about numbers/mathematics and the nature/nurture conundrum there? Magpies are found that can count to six or seven, and some infants are (belived to be able to) be able to distinguish between "wrong" and "correct" sums when showed simple addition and then wrong or correct solutions (don't know how well-documented that last claim is)

Perhaps our throat/vocal chords are shaped in such a way that it gives rise to the need to make sounds, or perhaps hearing sounds in the womb makes the foetus more responsive to sounds in general?
Deaf children make noises too, so if only the environment was responsible that wouldn't make sense...

(Sorry, showing my ignorance and lack of education here- just thinking out loud and not claiming to be right in any way, just a bit bored and chatty)

 

[weltweit]

afaict the experiment with the birds was supposed to solve the nature / nurture connundrum for language as they could not very well do it with human babies. And the result, well it seems to be that a major component of language development is nurture, but not all.

 

[gorski]

Interesting how no one even mentions http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/index.htm

http://ojs.uwindsor.ca/ojs/leddy/index.php/JTL/article/viewFile/93/127

...Vygotsky’s cultural historical approach (true to the origins of Vygotskian theory, according to Robbins) as opposed to the sociocultural approach advocated by Wertsch that predominates in North America.

...Humboldt’s influence on Vygotsky, stressing that while trying to comprehend Vygotskian thought, Humboldt, rather than Descartes, should be the starting point. Finally, throughout Chapter 1, the author displays her facility with the ideas of Spinoza, Marx, Humboldt, Chomsky, Fodor, and Durkheim, setting the stage for Robbins’s comprehensive treatment of Vygotskian thought.

...Vygotskian semiotics and Chomskian linguistics are directly counterposed. Throughout the chapter, Robbins posits logical, persuasive, and frequent (pp. 84, 90, 91, 114) criticisms against the very foundation of the Chomskian position. Here is one notable example: “ A problem in Chomskian linguistics is that if one applies the concept of falsification, then aspects such as innatism cannot be disproved.” (p.91). Robbins continues, in this chapter, to argue the Humboldtian (versus Cartesian) and Spinozan influences on Vygotskian thinking, further clarifying these influences, and thereby increasing their credibility in relation to Vygotskian thought.

...focusing on the counterpositions of Vygotsky and Chomsky, stressing that Vygotsky’s philosophical psychology is coherent throughout. In addition, the author states that when using Chomskian theory, one needs to refer to different time periods to find one’s way about his different, disconnected theories. The author concludes that Vygotsky’s approach is holistic, while in contrast, Chomsky establishes discrete elements of a linguistic-grammatical theory.

Just to add a bit of healthy Marxian spice into it...

 

[Jonti]

To be concrete and practical, the book to check is Vygotsky's "Thought and Language".

An infant learns the meaning of signs through interaction with its main care-givers, e.g., pointing, cries, and gurgles can express what is wanted. How verbal sounds can be used to conduct social interaction is learned through this activity, and the child begins to utilize, build, and develop this faculty, e.g., using names for objects, etc.

Vygotsky pointed out that development hinges on the social structure surrounding the child and is not similar to the idea of some computer operating system simply requiring some type of "load" instruction. That is, Vygotsky's work seems to dispel some of the hot air surrounding Chomsky's ideas about "deep grammar" structures existing and just waiting for the instructions to start working; instead thought and language develop, sometimes separately and sometimes requiring each other to act as catalysts.

A number of posters in this thread have making these kinds of points.

 

[gorski]

"Mind in Society (The development of higher psychological processes)", even more so...

I doubt anyone here has done it anywhere near to what he has done. Else we would have known who they are, I wager...

No offence to anyone!

 

[Jonti]

Vygotsky is quoted incessantly in educational journals. This book [Mind in Society: Development of Higher Psychological Processes] contains essays on his outlook and whilst some is useful, much is too esoteric to be useful.

 

[gorski]

For the impatient, prejudiced, vane, immature, arrogant, ignorant...

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Haven't some kids been raised by wolves and monkeys?

 

[ATOMIC SUPLEX]

Haven't some kids been raised by wolves and monkeys?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child