Language instinct

[STeve555]

if you imagine a human being that is born without all 5 senses. It can not feel/touch, smell, taste, hear, see.

 

let us say that one sense is given back on this person, for instance: touch.

Can it learn, with that sense alone, how to communicate at all?

 

 

Are babies susceptible to language impulses by parents?

 

my question is: is language innate or merely taught?

 

I myself think of how many people are horny daily, and how many people speak.

It is almost equal in amount.

 

so I dare to say language is not something one learns by way of parenthood.

 

It can, at best, be improved by parenthood but even that is given to genetic ability.

 

 

And does it not prove that none of the 5 senses are necessary to think at all?

 

Senses are merely a postpriori happening to some sort of receiver.

 

Something in our brains has to translate the information our 5 senses recieve.....what is that?

 

the sheer fact that we are aware of those 5 senses....is a proof that there is something higher.....because ears, eyes, olfactory and tastebuds, and mirror neurons are not capable of being aware of those 5 senses.

 

so what is that homunculus self?

 

Ever felt sick and knew you were sick and knew you were perfectly ok except your body?

 

get the fuck off that plane.

Edited October 21, 2012 by STeve555

[Ringer]

There are a few problems with your idea. Yes, there are certain areas of language that are innate. The book by Steven Pinker with the same title as this thread gives a really readable view of this. There are also certain areas of language that are taught, as well as parts of taught language that influence different areas of life. Simplistically one could say that linguistic structures tend to be innate while many language specific areas tend to be learned.

 

Your idea that the senses are not necessary to think may be true. But none of your prior reasoning shows that to be true and it depends on how you define thought. The rest just starts becoming word salad. You may want to rewrite it to be more clear.

 

 

 

[Anders Hoveland]

I would be curious as to whether some races of humans might have more of a propensity for some families of languages than others. I would imagine whatever differences there might be would be small, so ideally researchers should look at human branches that have been evolutionary separated the longest from the rest us. Particularly in parts of Africa, or possibly natives in Australia.

[Ringer]

I would be curious as to whether some races of humans might have more of a propensity for some families of languages than others. I would imagine whatever differences there might be would be small, so ideally researchers should look at human branches that have been evolutionary separated the longest from the rest us. Particularly in parts of Africa, or possibly natives in Australia.

 

It's been looked at IIRC. You will notice that as long as a baby of any race is in any area of language before the age of about 3 they can speak the language with no accent. They also have the ability to learn multiple languages accentless so long as the exposure time is early enough as well as ongoing for much of their live's. It's really a very interesting subject, I could recommend quite a few books that are easy reads.

[randomc]

You will notice that as long as a baby of any race is in any area of language before the age of about 3 they can speak the language with no accent. They also have the ability to learn multiple languages accentless so long as the exposure time is early enough as well as ongoing for much of their live's.

 

 

The age suggested in Pinker's book is 12 for native-like fluency.

Edited October 21, 2012 by randomc

[Ringer]

The age suggested in Pinker's book is 12 for native-like fluency.

 

Is that that age from to then of language exposure? Or do you mean they can learn a language fluently until then? I know that the ability to differentiate unfamiliar phonemes drops off much earlier than that.

[randomc]

As far as i remember he was saying if you place (i.e. migration) a child at any age under 12, they'll gain native-like fluency.

 

"I know that the ability to differentiate unfamiliar phonemes drops off much earlier than that. "

 

Citation? I'm not disagreeing, just interested.

[Ringer]

As far as i remember he was saying if you place (i.e. migration) a child at any age under 12, they'll gain native-like fluency.

 

"I know that the ability to differentiate unfamiliar phonemes drops off much earlier than that. "

 

Citation? I'm not disagreeing, just interested.

 

I have to get off for a bit. I'll dig up some papers later on today.

 

 

[edit] Haven't had a chance to get to any journal articles. At any rate wiki says the critical period of language seems to still largely under debate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period_hypothesis.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Ringer

[Jens]

If I remember properly there was this case (in latin america) where a big group of deaf children where basically left alone (besides receiving something to eat and drink). They invented a new sign language.

 

And you should also consider: The human brain is quite adaptive.