More handpicked essays just for you.
Introduction on essay There are many theories on the origin and development of language but till this day we have no scientific evidence which can pro...
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
How can it be that something so uniquely human and commonplace in our everyday existence as language, could transcend the limits of our immediate understanding? We all know how to speak and comprehend at least one language, but defining what we actually know about that language an infinitely more demanding process. How can a child without previous knowledge of the construction and concepts of language be born into the world with an innate ability to apprehend any dialect? Mark Baker, in his book The Atoms of Language, seeks to address these unsettling questions, proposing as a solution, a set of underlying linguistic ingredients, which interact to generate the wide variety of languages we see today. Despite the vast number of superficial differences …show more content…
A result of this oversimplification is that it renders elements too general to portray a complete picture of the material being discussed. For example, the lack of justification Baker provides for his assertion that it is legitimate to contrast one domain ruled by the laws of nature (chemistry) with another generated and perpetuated exclusively within the minds of man (language), opens the first of several holes within his argument due to superfluous simplification. Why should a creation of man parallel a creation of nature? What proof can be provided to show that comparison between the two domains will yield genuine conclusions? Without any evidence or discussion provided by Baker pertaining to these questions, it is difficult to embrace the legitimacy of his comparison and to accept the other assertions that he makes using this analogy as a foundation. This deficiency, however, is understandable, given that this book is targeted for an audience possessing very little previous linguistic
The article The Strange Persistence of First Languages by Julie Sedivy was an intriguing and eye-opening piece of writing to read. The concepts she brought to life through her explicit writing revealed many things I had never heard of before. The further I read, the more I wanted to know and the deeper my interest became. As a monolingual, this article was insightful, captivating and ultimately provided me with a new perspective on language.
Amy Tan talks of the English she grew up with. Tan describes an English her mother uses and an English she shares with her husband. Tan sprinkles in the emotional intricacies of a personalized language that is burdened by misconceptions and apprehensively describes this language as “broken,” but expression through the use of a “broken language doesn’t invalidate what is being said, it doesn’t devoid passion, intention or imagination it simply differs from a normality. Envisage expression as ubiquitous. The differences rest in the vessels used to express. Here, I am using the English language, a grandiose entangling of words and a structured system, to indite my thoughts.
The film goes into basic information about many of the worlds’ countless distinct languages and language families and how they are diversified throughout the world. The film highlights how a single ancestor language can evolve into a variety of unique languages. These languages divide and change until eventually they become mutually. Many of these languages can be traced back and included in language families. Not all languages can be traced back so easily and because the mutually unintelligibility is so high, similarities to other languages cannot be found.
Sometimes we think that words are a way to express what we have on our minds. Right? Think again. Guy Deutscher justifies just that. Our mother tongue does train our brains into thinking a certain type of way, also altering our perceptions of reality. In the NY Times article, “Does Your Language Shape How You Think?,” Guy points out that the mother tongue is Hebrew and leaves us with how we perceive the world. Guy’s protestor, Benjamin Lee Whorf, exclaims that language doesn’t have a particular word for a concept and that the concept itself could not be understood by the speaker. Guy argues that he does not have enough evidence that will substantiate the theory. He claims that Whorf is wrong on so many
Second Paper “I shall briefly explain how I conceive of this matter. Look round the world: Contemplate the whole and every part of it: You will find it to be nothing but one great machine, subdivided into an infinite number of lesser machines, which again admit subdivisions, to a degree beyond what human senses and faculties can trace and explain. All these various machines, and even their most minute parts, are adjusted to each other with an accuracy, which ravishes into admiration all men, who have ever contemplated them. The curious adapting of means to ends, throughout all nature, resembles, though it much exceeds, the production of human contrivance; of human design, thought, wisdom, and intelligence. Since therefore the effects resemble each other, we are led to infer, by all the rules of analogy, that the causes also resemble; and that the author of nature is somewhat similar to the mind of man; though possessed of much larger faculties, proportioned to the grandeur of the work, which he has executed.
His conclusion is that sensible ideas, being so remarkably and reliably coordinated, must be the product of nothing other than an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God, or an infinite mind. Sensations, then, are created out of God 's will and are in conformity with what he calls the “Laws of Nature,” which provides us with the ability to make predictions about and find correlations amongst these ideas (36; sec. 30). Berkeley further expounds on the character of sensory ideas, reassuring the reader that they contain a greater reality than ideas of imagination and should be thought of as “real things.” Ideas of the latter variety are akin to “images of things,” or mere imitations of real things. Neither class of ideas can exist unperceived but, nevertheless, imagination is under the power of human will and sensation under that of God. (37; sec.
Undertakings from courtship to commerce, Gallagher writes, could not be carried “without some degree of imaginative play” (346). The institution of natural science consisted of a symbolic universe superimposed upon the technical universe in which a repertoire of abstract categories was methodically speculated upon. Unalike its subsequent modes of inquiry, the emerging discipline of psychology, for example, held the metaphysical materialist supposition in abeyance and rather rendered “immaterial substances as a (putative) object of empirical study” (Hatfield
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
Rowland, Caroline. "8 - Explaining Individual Variation." In Understanding child language acquisition. New York: Routledge, 2013. 204-220.
Clark, Virginia P., Paul A. Eschholz, and Alfred F. Rosa. Language: Introductory Readings. 7th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. Print.
There are three main theories of child language acquisition; Cognitive Theory, Imitation and Positive Reinforcement, and Innateness of Certain Linguistic Features (Linguistics 201). All three theories offer a substantial amount of proof and experiments, but none of them have been proven entirely correct. The search for how children acquire their native language in such a short period of time has been studied for many centuries. In a changing world, it is difficult to pinpoint any definite specifics of language because of the diversity and modification throughout thousands of millions of years.
Language is a part of our everyday lives, and we can describe the meaning of language in many ways. As suggested in Gee and Hayes (2011, p.6 ) people can view language as something in our minds or something existing in our world in the form of speech, audio recordings, and writings or we can view language as a way of communicating with a group of people. Language can be used to express our emotions, make sense of our mental and abstract thoughts and assists us in communicating with others around us. Language is of vital importance for children to enable them to succeed in school and everyday life. Everyone uses both oral and written language. Language developed as a common ability amongst human beings with the change
Still today, it is the commonly held belief that children acquire their mother tongue through imitation of the parents, caregivers or the people in their environment. Linguists too had the same conviction until 1957, when a then relatively unknown man, A. Noam Chomsky, propounded his theory that the capacity to acquire language is in fact innate. This revolutionized the study of language acquisition, and after a brief period of controversy upon the publication of his book, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, in 1964, his theories are now generally accepted as largely true. As a consequence, he was responsible for the emergence of a new field during the 1960s, Developmental Psycholinguistics, which deals with children’s first language acquisition. He was not the first to question our hitherto mute acceptance of a debatable concept – long before, Plato wondered how children could possibly acquire so complex a skill as language with so little experience of life. Experiments have clearly identified an ability to discern syntactical nuances in very young infants, although they are still at the pre-linguistic stage. Children of three, however, are able to manipulate very complicated syntactical sentences, although they are unable to tie their own shoelaces, for example. Indeed, language is not a skill such as many others, like learning to drive or perform mathematical operations – it cannot be taught as such in these early stages. Rather, it is the acquisition of language which fascinates linguists today, and how it is possible. Noam Chomsky turned the world’s eyes to this enigmatic question at a time when it was assumed to have a deceptively simple explanation.
Languages are continually changing and developing, and these changes occur in many different ways and for a variety of reasons. Language change is detectable to some extent in all languages, and ‘similar paths of change’ can be recognised in numerous unrelated languages (Bybee, 2015, p. 139). Since users of language all over the world have ‘the same mental processes’ and ‘use communication for the same or very similar ends’ (Bybee, 2015, p. 1), similar changes occur on the same linguistic aspects, and in many cases these changes produce similar results in multiple languages. However, language change is limited by the function it performs. Languages must be learnt to such an extent which allows communication between the generation above and below one’s own (McMahon, 1994, p. 5). Hence language change is a gradual, lethargic process, as only small changes in
Language has oral, written and non-verbal aspects, that can be seen and heard, and which are socially and culturally influenced. Although languages have common features, these social and cultural influences also create great diversity among languages and varieties, often leading to a perception that some varieties have greater value or status. In addition, social and cultural context play a large role in meaning-making. Children develop language as a result of social and cultural interactions, based on a growing awareness of the functions of language, and how language can be used. This understanding of the different types and uses of language increases as children experience language outside of the home. As their understanding of these different roles of language grows, children gain the ability to select and use the appropriate language for a particular context or