How did we learn a language?

[andromedanut]

Let's say I say to you.. bumbilrorg.. I could say this to you a million times but you'd never know what it means.. so how in tarnation did we end up knowing our first languages words meanings?? Does this prove that we were made to know our language and possibly other things? Someone explain this to me please! 

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, andromedanut said:

Let's say I say to you.. bumbilrorg.. I could say this to you a million times but you'd never know what it means.. so how in tarnation did we end up knowing our first languages words meanings?? Does this prove that we were made to know our language and possibly other things? Someone explain this to me please! 

Ask your parents. 

[Sensei]

Even simple living organisms send out visual, audible or chemical signals to inform about predators, danger, food sources or other information.

The more complex the organism, the larger and more complex the dictionary.

2 hours ago, andromedanut said:

Let's say I say to you.. bumbilrorg.. I could say this to you a million times but you'd never know what it means..

Through observation - I could see a correlation between when you say a word and a thing, an action taken by you or someone else.

[Genady]

See how dogs learn to understand humans.

[joigus]

 

This is unknown, and it quite depends on what is the level at which you want to answer the question (biological?, social?, etc). A good starting point for you to start getting some ideas is, as always:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_language

If I had to pick a guess, I'd say it starts by correlation between gestures and other sensorial pieces of input and vocalisations (as @Sensei suggested), and the connection being "confirmed" by developing the neural connection during the growth of an individual. Many animal species have alert calls that are specific to the kind of threat. So there's this, and then there's also parental reinforcement, etc, which isn't essentially different IMO.

A Google search "how did language start?" produces:

Quote

The gestural theory states that human language developed from gestures that were used for simple communication. Two types of evidence support this theory. Gestural language and vocal language depend on similar neural systems. The regions on the cortex that are responsible for mouth and hand movements border each other.

From there, it could be argued that any cognitive refinement that helps remove ambiguity by using sound codes (or, in fact visual codes, like in sign languages) would be highly favoured from an evolutionary POV. For that to happen, the brain has to be wired properly. So:

From a biological perspective, it seems to be related with lateralisation of the brain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

And then, for higher language function we have the highly specialised FOX-P2 gene.

Relatively recently, it was discovered that mute children who live in some kind of (restricted, mute) society, spontaneously develop a sign language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaraguan_Sign_Language 

Think about it --and this goes in the direction of @exchemist and @Genady--: If you grow up in France, what are the chances that you will end up saying fenêtre instead of "window"?

[Genady]

To learn language and to learn meaning of words are not the same thing. Dogs can do the latter but not the former.

Also consider that dogs in China and dogs in France understand each other's communication. OTOH, people speaking Chinese and people speaking French don't understand each other's language. However, like the dogs, they understand each other's communication.

It is not difficult to see how we can learn the meaning of words related to things and actions that are here-now. It is not so easy to see how to learn the meaning of words such as 'yesterday' or 'side'.

[TheVat]

I'm not sure if Chomsky has it quite right, but his theory of innate language is a good starting point to the whole question of language acquisition.  Here's a little intro:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-language/

 

With advances in syntax and semantics came the realization that knowing a language was not merely a matter of associating words with concepts. It also crucially involves knowledge of how to put words together, for it's typically sentences that we use to express our thoughts, not words in isolation.

If that's the case, though, language mastery can be no simple matter. Modern linguistic theories have shown that human languages are vastly complex objects. The syntactic rules governing sentence formation and the semantic rules governing the assignment of meanings to sentences and phrases are immensely complicated, yet language users apparently apply them hundreds or thousands of times a day, quite effortlessly and unconsciously. But if knowing a language is a matter of knowing all these obscure rules, then acquiring a language emerges as the monumental task of learning them all. Thus arose the question that has driven much of modern linguistic theory: How could mere children learn the myriad intricate rules that govern linguistic expression and comprehension in their language — and learn them solely from exposure to the language spoken around them?

Clearly, there is something very special about the brains of human beings that enables them to master a natural language — a feat usually more or less completed by age 8 or so. §2.1 of this article introduces the idea, most closely associated with the work of the MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, that what is special about human brains is that they contain a specialized ‘language organ,’ an innate mental ‘module’ or ‘faculty,’ that is dedicated to the task of mastering a language...

 

[Genady]

5 minutes ago, TheVat said:

But if knowing a language is a matter of knowing all these obscure rules, ...

But if it is not the case - and I think, it is not - then the questions and the answers are elsewhere.

[Phi for All]

7 hours ago, andromedanut said:

I could say this to you a million times but you'd never know what it means..

Hopefully around the 20th time you say it, when my face is still a blank, you'll realize you need to point at something, or pantomime what bumbilrorgging looks like, or draw the concept in the dirt with a stick. If you actually tried to say this to me a million times, I'd get my own stick way before you finished.

7 hours ago, andromedanut said:

Does this prove that we were made to know our language and possibly other things?

Made to know, like from the womb? No, language is learned. We don't have a lot of innate abilities. 

[TheVat]

28 minutes ago, Genady said:

But if it is not the case - and I think, it is not - then the questions and the answers are elsewhere.

Yes, the article points to critcisms of innate grammar and what Chomsky called universals.  The section on language localization presents strong critiques of innateness.

First, as Elman et al. 1996 argue, neural localization of function can occur as a result of virtually any developmental trajectory: the localization of some function bears not at all on its innateness....

[Janus]

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

I'm not sure if Chomsky has it quite right, but his theory of innate language is a good starting point to the whole question of language acquisition.  Here's a little intro:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/innateness-language/

 

With advances in syntax and semantics came the realization that knowing a language was not merely a matter of associating words with concepts. It also crucially involves knowledge of how to put words together, for it's typically sentences that we use to express our thoughts, not words in isolation.

If that's the case, though, language mastery can be no simple matter. Modern linguistic theories have shown that human languages are vastly complex objects. The syntactic rules governing sentence formation and the semantic rules governing the assignment of meanings to sentences and phrases are immensely complicated, yet language users apparently apply them hundreds or thousands of times a day, quite effortlessly and unconsciously. But if knowing a language is a matter of knowing all these obscure rules, then acquiring a language emerges as the monumental task of learning them all. Thus arose the question that has driven much of modern linguistic theory: How could mere children learn the myriad intricate rules that govern linguistic expression and comprehension in their language — and learn them solely from exposure to the language spoken around them?

Clearly, there is something very special about the brains of human beings that enables them to master a natural language — a feat usually more or less completed by age 8 or so. §2.1 of this article introduces the idea, most closely associated with the work of the MIT linguist Noam Chomsky, that what is special about human brains is that they contain a specialized ‘language organ,’ an innate mental ‘module’ or ‘faculty,’ that is dedicated to the task of mastering a language...

 

Using the one non-English language I'm a little familiar with, Let's take word order for example:

"Koira etsii kissaa" and "Kissaa etsii koira", both mean "The dog is looking for a cat."

"Koiraa etsii kissa" and "Kissa etsii koiraa", both mean " The cat is looking for a dog"

What changes with word order is the emphasis.

Koira etsii kissaa = The DOG is looking for a cat.

Kissaa etsii koira = The dog is looking for a CAT.

In a somewhat similar fashion,

Karhut ovat tuolla = The bears are over there.

Tuolla ovat karhut = There are bears over there.

Or take the simple "I am"

in English one would say:

"I am John"

"I am cold"

"I am crying"

in Finnish they are:

"Olen John"*

"Minulla kylmä"

"Itken"*

* Can be preceded by "minä", but often isn't.

[iNow]

How are we defining "language?" Is it a "language" when two atoms interact to form molecules, or when quarks and subatomic particles engage the various fields in spacetime?

Basically, is it "language" when two hydrogens and one oxygen join to form water in an immaculately precise and consistent way? If so, then our own vocabularies and syntax structures and abilities all stem from that same one basic root, IMO. 

[Genady]

25 minutes ago, Janus said:

Using the one non-English language I'm a little familiar with, Let's take word order for example:

"Koira etsii kissaa" and "Kissaa etsii koira", both mean "The dog is looking for a cat."

"Koiraa etsii kissa" and "Kissa etsii koiraa", both mean " The cat is looking for a dog"

What changes with word order is the emphasis.

Koira etsii kissaa = The DOG is looking for a cat.

Kissaa etsii koira = The dog is looking for a CAT.

In a somewhat similar fashion,

Karhut ovat tuolla = The bears are over there.

Tuolla ovat karhut = There are bears over there.

Or take the simple "I am"

in English one would say:

"I am John"

"I am cold"

"I am crying"

in Finnish they are:

"Olen John"*

"Minulla kylmä"

"Itken"*

* Can be preceded by "minä", but often isn't.

I suspect that for any linguistic rule we can come up with, there exists an extant or an extinct language that breaks it.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

It is not so easy to see how to learn the meaning of words such as 'yesterday' or 'side'.

The great advantage of living in the UK.
You can say "it rained yesterday" to illustrate the meaning of the word, without being confused by the idea that we might have the same weather two days running.
I can, in general, point at the side of something.

The dog is at the side of the tree.

 

1 hour ago, Genady said:

I suspect that for any linguistic rule we can come up with, there exists an extant or an extinct language that breaks it.

Is there a rule that says that any long discussion about language ends up full of phrases like this?

 

 

[Genady]

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

The great advantage of living in the UK.
You can say "it rained yesterday" to illustrate the meaning of the word, without being confused by the idea that we might have the same weather two days running.
I can, in general, point at the side of something.

The dog is at the side of the tree.

 

Is there a rule that says that any long discussion about language ends up full of phrases like this?

 

 

I'm sorry, but because of a form of APD I cannot decipher words of songs in any of four languages that otherwise I don't have difficulties to understand.

[John Cuthber]

9 minutes ago, Genady said:

I'm sorry, but because of a form of APD I cannot decipher words of songs in any of four languages that otherwise I don't have difficulties to understand.

Does this copy of the lyrics help?

When the Tower of Babel fell
It caused a lot of unnecessary Hell.
Personal rapport became a complicated bore
And a lot more difficult than it had been before
when the Tower of Babel fell.

The Chinks and the Japs and the Finns and Lapps
were reduced to a helpless stammer.
And the ancient Greeks took at least six weeks
to learn their Latin grammar.
The guttural wheeze of the Portuguese
filled the brains of the Danes with horror.
And verbs not lust
Caused the final bust
in Sodom and Gomorrah.

If it hadn't been for that bloody building falling flat
I should not have had to learn Italiano
And keep muttering Si, si and Mi chiamano Mimi
Like an aging metropolitan soprano!
I should not have had to look at this ghastly little book
Til my brain becomes as soft as mayonnaise is.
Messrs Hugo and Berlitz
Must have torn themselves to bits
Dreaming up so many useless, useful phrases.

Pray tell me the time
It is six, it is seven
It's half past eleven,
It's twenty to two.
I want thirteen stamps.
Does your child have convulsions?
Please bring me some rhubarb.
I need a shampoo.

How much is this hat?
I desire some red stockings.
My mother is married.
These boots are too small.
My aunt has a cold.
Shall we go to the opera?
This meat is disgusting.
Is this the town hall?

How much is this ribbon?
It's cheap.
It's expensive.
What very fine linen.
What pretty cretonne.
What time is the train?
It is late.
It is early.
It's running on schedule.
It's here.
It has gone.

I've written six letters.
I've written no letters.
Please fetch me a horse.
I have need of a groom.
This isn't my passport.
This isn't my hatbox.
Please show me the way to Napoleon's tomb.

The weather is cooler.
The weather is hotter.
Pray fasten my corset.
Please bring me my cloak.
I've lost my umbrella.
I'm in a great hurry.
I'm going.
I'm staying.
Do you mind if I smoke?

This man is the purser.
This isn't my cabin.
This egg is delicious.
This soup is too thick.
Please bring me a trout.
What an excellent pudding.
Pray hand me my gloves.
I'm going to be sick.

[Genady]

10 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Does this copy of the lyrics help?

When the Tower of Babel fell
It caused a lot of unnecessary Hell.
Personal rapport became a complicated bore
And a lot more difficult than it had been before
when the Tower of Babel fell.

The Chinks and the Japs and the Finns and Lapps
were reduced to a helpless stammer.
And the ancient Greeks took at least six weeks
to learn their Latin grammar.
The guttural wheeze of the Portuguese
filled the brains of the Danes with horror.
And verbs not lust
Caused the final bust
in Sodom and Gomorrah.

If it hadn't been for that bloody building falling flat
I should not have had to learn Italiano
And keep muttering Si, si and Mi chiamano Mimi
Like an aging metropolitan soprano!
I should not have had to look at this ghastly little book
Til my brain becomes as soft as mayonnaise is.
Messrs Hugo and Berlitz
Must have torn themselves to bits
Dreaming up so many useless, useful phrases.

Pray tell me the time
It is six, it is seven
It's half past eleven,
It's twenty to two.
I want thirteen stamps.
Does your child have convulsions?
Please bring me some rhubarb.
I need a shampoo.

How much is this hat?
I desire some red stockings.
My mother is married.
These boots are too small.
My aunt has a cold.
Shall we go to the opera?
This meat is disgusting.
Is this the town hall?

How much is this ribbon?
It's cheap.
It's expensive.
What very fine linen.
What pretty cretonne.
What time is the train?
It is late.
It is early.
It's running on schedule.
It's here.
It has gone.

I've written six letters.
I've written no letters.
Please fetch me a horse.
I have need of a groom.
This isn't my passport.
This isn't my hatbox.
Please show me the way to Napoleon's tomb.

The weather is cooler.
The weather is hotter.
Pray fasten my corset.
Please bring me my cloak.
I've lost my umbrella.
I'm in a great hurry.
I'm going.
I'm staying.
Do you mind if I smoke?

This man is the purser.
This isn't my cabin.
This egg is delicious.
This soup is too thick.
Please bring me a trout.
What an excellent pudding.
Pray hand me my gloves.
I'm going to be sick.

Yes, it does. Thank you. Only needed to google 'Hugo and Berlitz'.

Are you familiar with a very funny 'Wicked' languages series? E,g,. Wicked French for the Traveler: Tomb, Howard: 9780207166655: Amazon.com: Books

[Genady]

7 hours ago, TheVat said:

Yes, the article points to critcisms of innate grammar and what Chomsky called universals.  The section on language localization presents strong critiques of innateness.

First, as Elman et al. 1996 argue, neural localization of function can occur as a result of virtually any developmental trajectory: the localization of some function bears not at all on its innateness....

This is a strong criticism. The other direction of criticism that I see is based on Machine Learning success. Perhaps it is not how humans learn languages, but anyway it shows experimentally that there are alternative, not rule based ways to learn.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

This is a strong criticism. The other direction of criticism that I see is based on Machine Learning success. Perhaps it is not how humans learn languages, but anyway it shows experimentally that there are alternative, not rule based ways to learn.

It’s no coincidence that buzzy AIs like ChatGPT and all the rest are called Language Models.