Re: Gender in language

In article <1ogjtxj98l496.dlg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Oliver Cromm <lispamateur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

* Nathan Sanders wrote:

Non-human animals do not use language, nor can they learn it. Newborn
puppies raised by English-speakers do not learn English [...]

Thus, if we can learn X and animals cannot, then (our ability to
learn) X must be "hard-wired".

Ok then, so is (our ability to learn) building airplanes?

The process by which humans learn how to build airplanes in no
relevant way resembles how we learn language.

Language acquisition happens instinctively for *every single* normal
human baby (and many abnormal ones) in essentially the same
progression, as long as they are immersed in a linguistically-rich
environment, regardless of their desires, their effort, or how much
they are "taught".

This is completely different from how humans learn how to build
airplanes (or play chess, or most other mental feats many of us can
achieve), because it requires active (conscious) study, cannot be
learned by all normal humans, and does not follow the same precise
progression for those who are able to learn how to do it. It is
heavily dependent on our desire to learn, or our effort, and the
quantity and quality of our instruction.

The question is whether the language faculty is a separate faculty or
just an application of our general ability to learn.

That is indeed the question. Certainly, the human ability to learn
goes well beyond other animals' abilities to learn, at least with
respect to language. Thus, whatever we do when we learn language is
not just some general animal learning, but something specific to
humans.

Can it all be boiled down to more basic principles of human cognition
that are not specifically designed for language? That is, is it true
for all linguistic features that they are each underpinned by some set
of cognitive principles, such that each of those principles also
underpins some non-linguistic feature? Perhaps.

However, there are a lot of things about language that don't seem
immediately amenable to a general cognitive analysis: the seeming
contradiction between the linguistic use of reduplication versus
anti-echo effects like the Obligatory Contour Principle; island
constraints on wh-movement; why more complex creoles arise during
acquisition of pidgins; why syllable onsets are preferred and more
varied while syllable codas are avoided and/or less varied
cross-linguistically; why cognitive disorders such as Williams'
Syndrome often have no ultimate effect on linguistic functionality,
while at the same time, some genetic defects such as Specific Language
Impairment have no apparent effect on any other cognitive functions;
etc.

Nathan

--
Nathan Sanders
Linguistics Program
Williams College
http://wso.williams.edu/~nsanders/

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Latin in the future?
    ... learn and use language before language was invented, ... the language capable humans could separate into isolated groups before ... inventing language. ... the ability to learn and use language had already developed. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Latin in the future?
    ... learn and use language before language was invented, ... the language capable humans could separate into isolated groups before ... inventing language. ... the ability to learn and use language had already developed. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Latin in the future?
    ... learn and use language before language was invented, ... the language capable humans could separate into isolated groups before ... inventing language. ... the ability to learn and use language had already developed. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Yet Another Roswell Thread
    ... Language where memes fit very well and where memetic markers (such as ... some kind of a transformation occured among modern ... But modern humans appear to have ... I have a particular country in mind here. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Do children learn language more easily?
    ... Certainly, some child-specific needs exist, such as stimuli for normal development of various organs and systems, but I doubt children are consciously aware of these needs to the degree required to properly account for Rosenfelder's idea of an active, need-based, motivational model of language acquisition, especially since the critical periods for most types of stimulus-driven development end well before children achieve adult linguistic competency. ... I think that it might be a mistake not to argue the *drive* to acquire language separately from the *ability* to acquire language. ... children may be so good at deriving language from their environments that they don't require any more impetus than their normal socialization needs. ... I've seen several references to the age 10 being a cutoff for ease of socialization. ...
    (sci.lang)