[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 34 KB, 252x233, 1363999405496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3806614 No.3806614 [Reply] [Original]

Is language innate or learned?

>> No.3806619
File: 111 KB, 600x428, baby-surprise.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3806619

Goo goo ga ga.

>> No.3806617

>>3806614
Both.

>> No.3806625

I'm gonna have to go with de Saussure on this one, and posit that lexical signification is arbitrary, but conveyance of the image is not.

>> No.3806626

Good question. People much smarter than the posters on /lit/ have been thinking/writing about it for years. Why not do a little Googling and read up on the subject? All you're going to get here is half-understood interpretations of those writers loaded with ad hominem and greentext anyway.

>> No.3806629

>>3806614
it's learned innit

>> No.3806633

>>3806626
>People much smarter than the posters on /lit/
this isn't a cinema, friend.

>> No.3806636
File: 33 KB, 625x468, wug.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3806636

innate

>> No.3806638

It's learned, but the human brain has to have an innate ability to do so.

Also not /lit/erature.

>> No.3806642

>>3806638
>implying you can have literature without language

>> No.3806644

>>3806633
What should have I said? "posters of /lit/"? English isn't my native language.

>> No.3806650

>>3806644
I meant to say that you are projecting.

>> No.3806656

language is learned, but the reason we have it is innate

>> No.3806657

Innate, completely. I was speaking English before ever hearing it. My first word was poopoo.

>> No.3806665

>>3806650
What would I be projecting though? I obviously count as a member of the set of /lit/ posters.

>> No.3806668

>>3806626
>implying you are smart

>> No.3806677

Learned.

>> No.3806681

>>3806665
You are making assumptions about the general intelligence of the posters here while some of us may well be clever cunts to the point of outclevering those people writing about this subject for years.

>> No.3806684

>>3806650
>>3806668

lol @ /lit/'s insecurity.

>> No.3806687

>>3806681
I know you aren't, though. I've been posting here for years.

>> No.3806692

>>3806684
>>>/sci/

>> No.3806693

if language is innate, why do you have to LEARN new languages?

Chomsky #rekt

>> No.3806702

>>3806687
Doesn't mean shit, you can live with people for years and never fully comprehend their skills, let alone by some frivolous posts on an image board.

>> No.3806705

Is this even an actual issue? I can't think of any consequences.

>> No.3806715

>>3806705
>all debate must be supplanted by irrefutable evidence for its existence
>I am against empiricism

>> No.3806716

>>3806702
But I don't live with you, I post on a board where people go out of their way to wave their intellectual gonads. We aren't the brightest bunch.

>> No.3806766

>>3806693
>Chomsky

IIRC Chomsky said that the only innate language is the mother tongue (and it's not actually innate, you are just predisposed to learn it if you develop with people that use it), that's why you 'learn' (there is not that innate predisposition) foreign languages.

>> No.3806769

>>3806766
What about those who grow up bilingual?

>> No.3806771

The human brain is predisposed to language and social interaction, but the process is learned. It does not necessarily have to be developed to exist and live, but without such development during the brain's impressionable stage, the window closes. This also could explain feral children. What follows is a fucked-up example.

http://www.tampabay.com/features/humaninterest/the-girl-in-the-window/750838

>> No.3806778

>>3806705

if you see language as a something innate you pretty much learn the boy 'unlock' it, and the one who doesn't are fucked, they just don't have it. If you see it as something that is acquired in a social environment there is no problem with kids that acquired it, but for the ones who doesn't you can search the problem in the way those kids interact with adults/language, and you can 'fix' it.

>> No.3806808

What kind of language are you talking about? If we're talking about general communication then yes, that is innate. But a specific language is of course learned. If there were no structured languages then we'd have to make do with grunts like ye olden cavemen.

>> No.3806827

>>3806771

>process is learned

the process can't be learned. language acquisition modularity is largely mysterious; which is why the process itself cannot be dismantled and structurally analyzed so as to expedite the process of learning. this is reinforced by the fact we do not learn the grammatical/semiotic rules of a specific language when we do learn a language, or rather, we we do not need to learn these rules, and in most cases we do not. the entire linguistic structure is somehow "absorbed" into our brain without us ever being conscious of its abstracted formal rules. and you're partly right, after a certain age the language acquisition module is somewhat diminished, though i would not say that the window is closed entirely. otherwise people would not be able to learn secondary languages.
the feral child's seeming irreversible disability must be tied to trauma to a cognitive system more fundamental than language acquisition.

to answer the thread:
the process is innate, the specific language acquisition module is innate; the language itself is learned.

>> No.3806829

>>3806769

what do you mean? Like kids that are born in a household that speaks one language, but in a society that speaks another (like Mexicans in America)?

I actually don't know what Chomsky says about that (I'm studying psychology but only studied a light introduction to language theories so far). I think (and this is more a personal opinion), that the early exposure to both languages makes it easier to learn both, and there is probably some neuroplasticity involved.

>> No.3806865

This is a terrible question/

>> No.3806883

Spoken language innate,
written language learned.

You have to differentiate, friend.

>> No.3806885

>>3806883
>Spoken language innate,

No?

>> No.3807825

>>3806827
Is there a specific language acquisition module? Or is language acquisition a function of a larger skill acquisition module that is innate for humans?

>> No.3807826

>>3806883
And sign language, where does that fit in? Are spoken & signed language grouped, or is written & signed language grouped?

>> No.3807830

Our biological structure seems geared to facilitate speech to some extent, in a way not present in every species, and thereof it's not a huge leap to imagine we are born with some neurological structures which facilitate the acquisition and use of language. Certainly regions of the brain which are necessary if not necessarily sufficient can be identified, just as we can identify the region in the brains of birds which seems associated with their songs. Obviously, though, there is a learned aspect to language as well.

>> No.3807842

The ability to learn language is innate.
It's about interpreting and creating symbols, whether those symbols are vocal or physical is irrelevant.

>> No.3807846
File: 93 KB, 445x800, plato2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3807846

All knowledge comes from the soul.
Checkmate, relativists.

>> No.3807873

If someone is not around people speaking they will not learn a language, and will by the end of their childhood lose the ability to learn it at all.

>> No.3807933

>>3807873
> will by the end of their childhood lose the ability to learn it at all.
except you don't

>> No.3808564

>>3807933

yes they will

>> No.3808577

>>3807933

I think there are a few feral children documented as not ever learning language enough. Certainly a wrench in Chomsky's cogs.

>> No.3808613

Innate, of course. What the fuck, what you guys are talking about is about speaking.

>> No.3808624

>>3808613

The problem with your argument is that speaking is the first stage of language acquisition.

>> No.3808630

>>3808624

Actually I'm wrong. Pattern recognition is. But still, I think >>3808613 is splitting hairs.

>> No.3808632

the basic capacity is obviously innate. it's been my experience studying linguistics that the innate bit is not nearly as interesting or consequential as the learned, the social, the political, the ideological, that is forms of life (to the detriment of linguistics as a science).

>> No.3808636

>>3806827

This. Language is not innate -- that we are cognitively primed to learn language during early developmental stages is innate. An infant has the ability to differentiate spoken language from other background noise, like car horns honking and ducks quacking, and learn it.

On a side note, these linguists are crazy -- I ready about experiments where pregnant linguists placed microphones inside themselves right in with the fetus to better understand what the fetus heard during development. Dedicated mothers right there.

>> No.3808639

Language is learned, the means to use language (your mouth, tongue, teeth, etc.) aren't

>> No.3808652

>>3808632

If it is innate/genetic, then why can we teach African Grey Parrots to use language when they are so genetically different from us?

>> No.3808653

the language of the question is unclear: language is learned but humans have the innate ability to create infinitely generative languages built in. so the answer is "yes"

>> No.3808667

>>3808652

I think you're confused as to what we mean when we say innate. We are primed by nature to learn language, but that doesn't preclude other species from learning or being taught language, it just means they aren't predisposed to learning said language in the same way we are.

>> No.3808673

>>3806650
>>3806716

I think projecting is putting it mildly.

>> No.3808692

>>3808667

What if other species already have language and we just don't understand it. Remember how when Europeans started exploring the globe and insisting that other races didn't have language because it just sounded like grunting to them?

Giraffes, apparently, are in constant communication with each other. The thing is, they communicate in sounds not audible to the human hearing range.

>> No.3808704

>>3808692

I don't disagree -- one of the most fascinating articles I read in linguistics was discussing the use of language by animals, though it spent a large portion explaining the difference between 'language' and 'communication', and arguing what animals did was the latter.

>> No.3808719

>>3808704
>though it spent a large portion explaining the difference between 'language' and 'communication', and arguing what animals did was the latter.

That seems like playing semantics.

>> No.3808728

Considering children left alone don't develop a language, one must conclude it's learned.

>who taught it first

>> No.3808738

>>3808719

>That seems like playing semantics.

I can't help but note the irony given our topic of discussion.

I don't remember the article, I read it years ago, but it had something to do with the fact that communication was very simplistic and sent a unilateral message. An example is rabbits stamping their feet to signal danger. Language was far more complex and could be used to express a multitude of ideas. In other words, an animal can communicate danger, or mating, but not Hamlet.

This was the crux of the argument as I recall, but again it was a long time ago and this was hardly my area of focus in college.

>> No.3808745

>>3806633
no, this is a imageboard so, 'posters on /lit/' is correct.

Get bent grammar nazi.

>> No.3808751

>>3806642
>implying that starting a mathematical thread on /lit/ is justifiable because it use letters and words.

>> No.3808821

>>3808728
Can't we assume that complex language (speech & writing) developed over a long period time, originating from primitive forms of grunting and body language?

>> No.3808829

>>3808728
>>3808728

Depends on how you define "language", captain nigger.

Can you even into universal grammar?

>> No.3808844

>>3808829

Nope.

>> No.3809516

>>3808652
>African Grey Parrots

they don't use language, they repeat sounds.

>> No.3809556

where else would language have first come from if not in our brains? It is not a physical thing we can observe or make sense of using out sensing

>> No.3809603

>>3809556
>where else would language have first come from if not in our brains?

social interaction

>> No.3809638

both are learned, and greatly impact your view on the world (read up on Humboldt for that).
A black man being raised by a Swedish family will be able to speak perfect Swedish, just like a Swedish boy raised by a Nigerian woman could speak perfect Nigerian.

>> No.3809683

>>3809638
>Nigerian

sapir-whorf nationalist detected

>> No.3810991

>>3809638
We've all read irrelevant theories, you don't need to brag