Chapter 3: Why We Have Language

Nothing Like Finding a Voltaire Quote in a Fortune Cookie!

Why We Have Language

Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world.

~Noam Chomsky

Language Selection

To begin to understand language, it is important to ponder how human language has evolved into a communication system different from other animals. The main question to ask is: what selected for language? Different theories have been proposed, but one that seems most plausible is the idea that our ancestor’s foraging strategies changed.[1] Human ancestors were likely faced with two constraints: On the one hand, predators called for an increase in the size of foraging groups, for protection. However, foraging in large groups would have been the least efficient mode for human ancestors because it would have been too hard to find enough food for everyone to eat in a relatively small area. This would have caused a strong selective pressure for them to break up into smaller groups. This adaptation would have caused language to develop out of a need for social control (Bickerton, 159).  Human ancestors had to develop a way to communicate with one another, and recruit members, to direct the group towards obtaining food.

Niche Construction Theory

This niche construction theory, the theory that gives animals themselves a vital role to play in their own evolution, demonstrates how genes and behavior change together (Bickerton, 93). The animals modify their environments, and these modified environments select for further genetic variations in the animals (Bickerton, 99). In the case of human beings, one of the main things gained over time is a large brain. Our need for language resulted in an increase in brain size (Bickerton, 34). The first human ancestors, Australopithecines, had a brain size of about 400-550 cm3. Then, the Homo Habilis had a brain size of about 600-800cm3. The brain continued to increase in size, reaching a measurement of 800-1000cm3 in Homo Erectus and then 1100-1500cm3 in Homo Sapiens.[2] The brain size increased as the need for a more developed communication system grew. Simple gestures and speech sounds moved to the articulation of words, which resulted in the need for a larger and more specialized brain. The human brain developed to be able to receive information from the senses, send it to be analyzed for identification, choose a course of action based on the analysis, and then send an order to execute that action (Bickterton, 193).

Additional Language Theories

Other theories regarding the evolution and adaptation of language have been proposed, and while philosophers and analysts have found flaws within each theory, they are worth taking a look at. Through a richer understanding of the thought process theorists went through when thinking about language, one can understand what needs to be taken into consideration when studying language. Looking at language patterns and comparing syntax and phonology cross-culturally are crucial when working to deepen an understanding of language usage. Below, four different language theories are outlined and one can see why in theory each sounds plausible, but in reality, none of these theories fully explain why humans today have such a unique and specialized communication system.

Ta-Ta Theory

One additional language theory that has been proposed is the Ta-Ta Theory, which holds the belief that body movement preceded language. Sir Richard Paget, who was influenced by Darwin, proposed that language began as an unconscious vocal imitation of bodily movements – such as the way a kid moves his mouth when they use scissors, or when one’s tongue sticks out when trying to thread a needle. Darwin agreed that human language represents the use of oral gestures that began in imitation of hand gestures that were already in use for communication.[3]  However, this raises the question of where did the sophisticated set of gestures for humans to imitate with their mouth gestures come from? This sign language consisting of iconic gestures had to have originated somewhere. It appears that this theory does not fully answer the question of where did language originate from.

Bow-Wow Theory

Another language theory that has been proposed by various scholars, including Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Johann Gottfried Herder, is the bow-wow theory. This theory suggests that the first human languages developed as onomatopoeia, imitations of natural environmental sounds. These scholars believe that man, who was once mute, heard the music of birds, the thunder of clouds, the roaring of the ocean, and the rustling of the forest, and tried to imitate these sounds. These sounds became useful for identifying objects, and from this language became more sophisticated.[4] However, there are problems with this theory. There are very few onomatopoeic words in today’s languages, and these words vary from one language to another. For example, a dog’s bark is heard as au au in Brazil, ham ham in Albania, and wang wang in China (Ahmad and Shah).

Pooh-Pooh Theory

The pooh-pooh theory of language states that speech arose through people making instinctive sounds, caused by pain (Ouch!), surprise (Oh!), or other emotions. The belief is that these involuntary exclamations eventually lead to more developed ideas and emotions. However, the problem with this theory is that no language contains many of these interjections/spontaneous cries, and these noises bear little relationship to the vowels and consonants found in phonology (Ahmad and Shah). Wilbur Marshall Urban (1873-1952), and American philosopher of language, discredited this theory in 1951: “All attempts at explaining the language in this way have been fruitless. There is no tangible evidence, historical or other, tending to show that the mass of speech elements or processes has evolved out of interjections.”[5]

Ding-Dong Theory

One last theory worth thinking about is the ding-dong theory, which was proposed by Friedrich Max Müller, only to later be rejected by him. According to this theory, language began when humans reacted to stimuli in their environment and spontaneously started producing sounds to reflect harmony with the environment (Ahmad and Shah). This theory, favored by Plato and Pythagoras, has problems in that there is no evidence to show any innate connection between sound and meaning apart from some rare instances of sound symbolism.

Summary

Language is a key component of what it means to be human, and without an understanding of how human beings obtained language, it becomes impossible to explain and understand ourselves. Language evolution is part of human evolution, and it makes sense only if considered as a part of human evolution. “Language is what determines the meanings of words and signs and what combines them into meaningful wholes, wholes that add up to conversations, speeches, essays, epic poems. Language goes beyond that even; it’s what makes your thoughts truly meaningful, what builds your ideas into structured wholes.”[6] Once humans developed structural language, humans were able to think conceptually and abstractly; humans were no longer trapped in the here and now. These design features of language will be further explored in Part II. All one needs to understand right now is that social interaction is the pressure that selected for language, and when our ancestors began to learn language, symbols were also created. These symbols set the whole process of language evolution in motion. This language specialization is necessary to consciously perceive and understand how every single human experience plays a crucial role in defining one’s reality.

[1] Bickerton

[2] Salzmann, Zdeněk. Language, Culture, and Society: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. 4th ed. Boulder, CO: Westview, 2007. Print. . Further reference to this source in parentheses (Salzman, p.#).

[3] Ta-Ta Theory.” Free Online Dictionary. Babylon, 2012. Web. 21 July 2012. <http://www.babylon.com/definition/ta-ta_theory/English&gt;. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Free Online Dictionary).

[4] Ahmad, Syed Sajid, and Zia H. Shah MD. “THE BEGINNING OF LANGUAGE: THE INCREMENTAL REVELATION THEORY.” N.p., n.d. Web. 21 July 2012. <http://www.alislam.org/egazette/articles/The-beginning-of-language-200908.pdf&gt;. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Ahmad and Shah).

[5] Marshall, Wilbur Urban. Language and Reality: The Philosophy of Language and the Principles of Symbolism. New York: Macmillan, 1951. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Marshall, pg.#).

[6] Bickerton, Derek. Adam’s Tongue: How Humans Made Language, How Language Made Humans. New York: Hill and Wang, 2010. Print. . Further reference to this source in parentheses (Bickerton, p.#).

Chapter 2: Infant Intelligence

Typical Saturday at Starbucks

Chapter 2:

Infant Intelligence

What could be more exciting than hearing your baby’s first word? As that first word grows into a sentence and later into conversation, you will be watching a miracle—the miracle of language development.

~ Lesia Oesterreich

The Learning Stages of Language

Babies are born with the ability to learn language and all children, regardless of what language their parents speak, learn language in the same way. At birth, babies can already respond to the rhythm of language; they can recognize stress, pace, and the rise and fall of pitch. As early as four months, infants can distinguish between language sounds and other noise, such as the difference between a person’s voice and foot stomps. By six months, infants begin to babble and coo, a sign they are learning language. At this early stage, an infant is capable of making all the sounds (phonemes) in all the languages of the world. This is about 150 phonemes, in about 6,500 languages. However, no language uses all 150 phonemes. For example, English has only about 44 phonemes. Some languages have more, others less. This is why by the time the child is a year old, she will have dropped the sounds that are not part of the language she is learning. By eight months, babies learn this sense of phonemic awareness. Babies learn which phonemes belong to the language they are learning and which do not. By twelve months, babies learn morphemes. They learn when different sounds in a language are combined, they create meaning. For example, the sounds m, ah, m, and ee refer to the person who provides comfort and food – “mommy”. A child’s vocabulary continues to grow throughout her development, and by twenty-four months, children learn how to create sentences, specifically how to put words in the correct order. For example, in English we say: “I want to play outside,” not “Want I outside play.” By thirty to thirty-six months, about 90% of what children say is grammatically correct. With age, children continue to expand their vocabulary and develop more complex language, and by age eleven, their language fully resembles adult language.[1]

The Acquisition of Language

Now, the main question is how and why are babies able to acquire language at such an early age? How do infants determine what words mean, or how to produce grammatical utterances they have never heard before? And, why do they learn language? Is it because their parents teach it to them; or is it simply innate, and therefore they will learn it regardless of environmental factors?

Constructivism and Nativism

There are two poles in the explanation of language acquisition: At the one pole, is the Constructivist view, which argues our experience of the world is dependent upon what our minds bring into perception, and therefore language production is achieved through experience; at the other pole is Nativism, which argues language is innate, there are universal principles which govern language acquisition, and these are prewired at birth. From these two poles, many dimensions in language acquisition are formed. Modern day theorists tend to believe the basic capacity to learn a first language is innate, while particular forms/meaning connections of individual languages are acquired through exposure to a specific speech within a child’s community. The task is to find out what aspects of human language are innate, hard-wired into the infant’s brain structure, and what aspects are learned through experience. The argument in favor of finding a compromise between these two theories is referred to as Internalism and Generativity. This theory argues language development is both biological and social.

Constructivism

To better understand how these two opposite theories can be welded together to explain the acquirement of language, it helps to look at each extreme position individually and thoroughly. First is Constructivism, also referred to as Learning Theory. The main theorist associated with the learning perspective is B.F. Skinner. This theory is rooted in behaviorism, and includes classical and operant conditioning, and social learning.

Skinner’s View on Speech

Skinner argued language development is the result of external reinforcement, and verbal response was contingent on four things: reinforcement, stimulus control, deprivation, and aversive stimulation.[2] When these things interact in a child’s environment, children begin to make certain associations, which is the basis of all language. Skinner then also claimed there were four general types of speech: echoic behavior, mand, tact, interverbals, and autoclitic (Skinner).

Echoic behavior is the primary form of verbal behavior of language learners. These verbalizations include repeated utterances (Skinner):

(1) PARENT: [pointing to cookie] That’s a cookie. Can you say ‘cookie’?

CHILD: Cooookie

Mands, which are short for ‘demands,’ are utterances that are reinforced by the elevation of deprivation. For example, if a child were hungry or cold, his requests, such as saying ‘cookie’ would be considered mands. Directives such as “Stop,” “Go,” and “Wait” also are considered mands (Skinner).

However, a child may simply be naming an object he sees or repeating what he likes when he says “cookie.” These utterances are produced when the speaker is not deprived, but rather is providing information. Utterances with this underlying motivation are called tact, which is short for “contact.”

The fourth type of utterance is the interverbals. These include utterances that are not necessarily to provide information, such as “Please” and “Thank You.” This type of utterance pertains to the interactive nature of the conversation.

The final category, autoclitics, was Skinner’s attempt to deal with internal speech, or thought. Autoclitics are subject to the same effects of reinforcement as verbalized speech, and these thought behaviors influence not only current and future thought but also current and future behavior.

Skinner was strictly a behaviorist, and did not believe the brain had anything to do with language, but rather the “mind” and other phenomena were what led to language when shaped by external sources. Skinner’s theory for how language demonstrates how parents can gradually shape the child’s speech through positive reinforcement and how a child can learn how to imitate through observation, but what Skinner’s theory fails to do take into consideration the complexity of grammar.

Nativism

Noam Chomsky’s View on Language Acquisition

On the contrast, Noam Chomsky believes we do not learn or speak language by purely imitating other people, but rather we are born with the properties of a ‘universal grammar.’ The human mind is not a blank slate at birth, but instead components of the mind are innately determined. Experience does not fill the blank slate, but instead interacts with innate properties to form ‘competence’ in one’s different systems of knowledge.[3]

In his review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, Chomsky criticizes Skinner’s theory as placing limitations on the way causation of behavior can be determined. Skinner fails to demonstrate that behavior of a complex organism requires, in addition to information about external stimulation, knowledge of how the organism processes input information and organizes its own behavior. Therefore, Skinner’s explanation of Verbal Behavior is an untested hypothesis. These characteristics of the organism are a complicated product of inborn structure, the genetically determined course of maturation and past experience.[4] Chomsky claims that upon careful study of Skinner’s book, that Skinner’s claims are “far from justified;” they are metaphoric extensions” and “analogic guesses” (Chomsky). Chomsky claims that the definition of the problem rests with Skinner only concerning himself with the only data available, namely the record of inputs to the organism and the organism’s present response, and trying to describe the function specifying the response in terms of the history of inputs (Chomsky). The fact is simply that it is unknown whether or not verbal behavior is within the domain of Skinner’s system and whether the technical terms: stimulus, response and reinforcement are literally applicable to verbal behavior and functional parts of speech.

What is not unknown is the fact that children, regardless of what part of the world they are born in, acquire language through the same various stages. A child in China will follow the same linguistic patterns of language acquisition as a child in the United States.[5] For Chomsky, this is reason enough to believe that language comes from predetermined knowledge within a child. Universal grammar is a characterization of this innate principle of language faculty. This innate principle includes syntax, phonology, morphology, and semantics (the study of the relation between language and the world, in particular the study of truth and reference). Acquisition of language then, is a matter of adding to one’s store of universal grammar rules, or modifying this system, as new data are processed.[6] Between the ages of three and ten, a child is the most likely to learn a language in its entirety and grasp fluency. After this critical learning period it becomes harder for a child to completely grasp a language. Another factor that supports Chomsky’s theory is that a child does not need a trigger to being language acquisition. A parent does not need to coax a child to speak; if a child is around language production, she will produce language on her own. Also, it does not matter if a child is corrected or not. The child will still grasp the language in the same manner and speak the same way.

Finding Common Ground

Now that the theories of both Skinner and Chomsky have been discussed, it is time to turn to the argument of Internalism and Generativity, which argues that the acquirement of language is both a result of biology and environmental factors; “language functions both as an internalized form of mental grammar in individual brains and as an externalized socio-cultural object existing at an intersubjective plane of reality by shifting between these two poles of reality.”[7]

Generativity and Internalism

The term Generativity was coined by Psychoanalyst Erik Erikson in 1950 to denote “a concern for establishing and guiding the next generation.”[8] It can be expressed in many different fashions, from raising a child to stopping a tradition of drug abuse, to restoring land. You try to “make a difference” with your life, to “give back,” to “take care” of your community and your planet (Kotre). Generativity stems from a sense of optimism within oneself in regards to changing humanity for the better. The conception of the internalist approach is understood as viewing language as a mental grammar that grows and functions like a biological organ. The Internalism vs. externalism dichotomy ceases to exist once they are shown not to be alternative to each other, but rather complementary to each other (cogprints.org). Koster makes this point when he says:

“Our cultural memory is stored in, and distributed over brains, including my own, and over libraries and other collections of media. The same is true for words and other linguistic expressions. It would be absurd to say that I remain within the confinements of I-language when I produce or understand a sentence exclusively with words from my own memory, but that I embark on a short excursion to E-language if I use a dictionary for one word or another in the middle of a sentence” (cogprints.org).

Our experiences help us to create memories, and we use our internalistic mental structures to interpret the perceptions of these experiences. It takes our internal knowledge of language to extrapolate and interpret externalized knowledge of language. This is specifically important in looking at how children develop. Children become linguistically and culturally competent members of their community through interactions with their caregivers and other members of their community.[9]

Summary and Conclusion

It is through this socialization that children learn the appropriate behaviors for their community’s culture; they internalize beliefs and ideas which includes the concept of politeness. These skills are obtained from daily interaction in the home and in the community. It is this type of naturally-occurring language experience that allows for children to gradually construct their personal sense of identity. They begin to find themselves in relation to others. As children acquire their mother tongue in the home, they learn who they are as an individual.

[1] Bainbridge, Carol. “How Do Children Learn Language?” About.com Gifted Children. About.com, 2012. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://giftedkids.about.com/od/gifted101/a/language_learning.htm&gt;. Further reference to this reference in parentheses (Bainbridge).

[2] “BF Skinner, Behavioralism, & Language Behavior.” Northern Illinois University, n.d. Web. 01 July 2012. <http://www3.niu.edu/acad/psych/Millis/History/2003/cogrev_skinner.htm&gt;. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Skinner).

[3] Stark, Aaron. “Noam Chomsky on Language.” N.p., Dec. 1998. Web. 8 July 2012. <http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/199812&#8211;.pdf>. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Stark).

[4] Chomsky, Noam. “A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, by Noam Chomsky.” A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, by Noam Chomsky. Chomsky.info, n.d. Web. 08 July 2012. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1967—-.htm. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Chomsky).

[5] Crabtree, Elizabeth. “Noam Chomsky.” Psychology History. N.p., 1999. Web. 08 July 2012. http://www.muskingum.edu/~psych/psycweb/history/chomsky.htm Further reference to this source in parentheses (Crabtree).

[6] Liu, Ming, and Xin Sheen Liu. “Chomsky and Knowledge of Language.” Philosophy of Language. N.p., 2000. Web. 08 July 2012. <http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Lang/LangLiu2.htm&gt;. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Liu and Liu).

[7] Mondal, Prakash. “Can Internalism and Externalism Be Reconciled in a Biological Epistemology of Language?” Biosemiotics. Springer Science+Business Media, 2 May 2011. Web. 15 July 2012. <http://cogprints.org/7708/1/fulltext.pdf&gt;. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Mondal).

[8] Kotre, John. “Generativity and the Generative Process.” Lives, Memories, Legacies, Stories: The Work of John Kotre. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 July 2012. <http://www.johnkotre.com/generativity.htm&gt;. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Kotre).

[9] Schieffelin, Bambi B., and Elinor Ochs. Language Socialization across Cultures. Cambridge Cambridgeshire: Cambridge UP, 1986. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986).

Chapter 1: What is Language?

Trigger Attempts to Help Me Read

 

Chapter 1:

What is Language?

So this is the real mystery: Even under these loosened criteria there are no simple languages used among other species, though there are many other equally or more complicated modes of communication. Why not? …. This is an apples and oranges problem, not a complicated-vs-simple one.

~Terrance Deacon

 

The Five Key Aspects of Language

The English word language derives from the Latin word, lingua, “tongue,” via Old French. It is easily understood as the communication system that enables humans to communicate with one another. However, language is no easy system. Not only is there more than one type of communication system, but there is so much that goes into the makeup of each cognitive faculty. There are animal languages, computer languages, and human languages. Each system has its own series of signs for encoding and decoding information.

However, the purpose of this paper is not to explore these different methods of communication at large, but rather to strictly explore and analyze how language communication is more complex amongst humans. Language is often thought about in terms of the written word, because when something is written down it becomes a permanent idea. However, in linguistics, speech is valued as being more central to human language. The human ability to speak is often taken for granted. The ability to communicate effectively with one another is actually quite an intricate mental ability, and researchers today still do not have all the answers to how such a skill is possible.

Then He Goes and Rolls

While there are multiple forms of non-verbal communication amongst the human species, such as: sign language, whistle and drum languages, the focus of this paper will be on the acoustic channel, the form of communication used whenever people speak to one another. The words we wish to express at a given moment seem to emerge inexplicably from a sender’s mouth, as sound waves. Then, these sound waves travel to and hit the listener’s ear. Once the sound waves have hit the listener’s ear, an auditory signal is sent to the brain, where it is interpreted. This model seems simple enough, but it takes more valuable information to understand how the process effectively works.

Linguists typically recognize five key aspects of language: “phonology, the sounds of language; morphology, the way words are built; syntax, the ordering of words and other grammatical bits into meaningful language; semantics, the meaning system of language; and pragmatics, the way speakers use words on the basis of social contexts.”[1] Once these main features of language are explained, the significance of language becomes more apparent.

Then Trigger Steals My Food!

Phonology

There is a complex relationship between words and sounds. Understanding phonetics requires and understanding of a particular language’s sound system, an understanding of what goes on in the mouth and throat to produce speech. Phonetics deals with measureable, physical properties of speech sounds themselves, for example, precisely how the mouth produces certain sounds, and the characteristics of the resulting sound waves. When discussing phonetics, it is important to remember the letters are not what matter, but rather individual speech sounds.

IPA Alphabet

A good place to start discussion of the language system is with the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA), an alphabetic system of phonetic notation based primarily on the Latin alphabet. The IPA was first developed in 1886, but since then has undergone a number of revisions.[2] The aim of the IPA is to show pronunciation in a dictionary, to record a language in linguistic fieldwork, to form the basis of a writing system for a language, or to annotate acoustic and other displays in the analysis of speech (IPA, 3). Behind the IPA system are a few theoretical assumptions about speech: some aspects of speech are linguistically relevant, and others are not; speech can be represented partly as a sequence of discrete sounds (segments); segments can be divided into two major categories, consonants and vowels; the phonetic description of consonants and vowels can be made with reference to their auditory characteristics; and finally, some aspects of speech, such as stress and tone, need to be represented independently from segments (IPA, 4). These theoretical assumptions are further explored in this chapter, and a full chart of the IPA symbols can be viewed at the end of this chapter, but for now, it is easiest to focus simply on the symbols necessary to make the basic sounds of North America English, rather than to try and understand all the sounds of the world’s languages.

Vowels

It is difficult to try and understand the complex relationship between letters and sounds in the English language because in many instances, the same vowel sound is spelled differently. For example: heard, herd, turn.

Vowel sounds are produced with relatively free flow of air, and the tongue influences the ‘shape’ through which the airflow must pass. When talking about the place of articulation, linguists refer to the inside of the mouth as having a front versus a back and then a high versus a low area. Linguists would point out that vowel sounds are simply voiced air, meaning that when you produce these sounds, your vocal cords vibrate while you breathe across them. For example, the sound “EEE” is made with the tongue high in the front of one’s mouth, while the sound of “AHH” is made with the tongue low in the back of the mouth (Temple, 84). But this is only the beginning of the understanding of vowels.

There is then the difference between long and short vowels. This, for example, is the distinction between the sound represented by the letter a in mate (a long vowel sound) and the sound represented by the letter a in mat (a short vowel sound). With the pronunciation of each word, one’s mouth is doing something different. When one says a so called“long vowel,” one’s tongue muscles tense up. This is in contrast with what happens when one says a “short vowel.” When one pronounces mat, one’s tongue muscles relax. This is why linguists do not use the terms, long and short, but rather refer to the sound variations as tense and lax.

Now, there is something else Native English speakers do with their pronunciation of vowels that other languages do not do: They make double pronunciations of them (Temple, 85). Look for example at the word eye [aɪ̯]or same [seɪ̯m]. One might thing she is only pronouncing one vowel, such as the vowel “I,” but in fact, you actually run together “ah” and “ee.” These are called diphthongs.

One last common phenomenon in English but rare in other languages is vowel reduction (Temple, 85). In English, in words of more than one syllable, vowels in the unstressed syllable are called schwa; the vowel in the unstressed syllable is said to be reduced. For example, schwa corresponds to the ‘a’ in about [əˈbaʊt] and the ‘e’ in taken [ˈteɪkən].

Consonants

Another important part of phonetics to understand is what happens when breath flow is interrupted in some way. By using the tongue and other parts of the mouth to constrict and shape the oral cavity through which the air is passing, many different sounds can be created, and these various sounds are consonants. To describe the place of articulation of most consonant sounds, it makes sense to start at the front of the mouth and work back. When discussing place of articulation there are: bilabials, which are sounds formed using both upper and lower lips (e.g. pat, bat, mat); labiodentals, formed with the upper teeth and lower lip (e.g. Safe, save); dentals, formed with the tip of one’s tongue behind the upper front teeth (e.g. the, there, then); alveolars, formed with the front part of the tongue on the alveolar ridge (the bony ridge immediately behind and above the upper teeth) (e.g. the sound at the beginning of right and write); palatals, which are produced with the tongue and the palate (e..g. shout, child); velars, sounds produced with the back of the tongue against the velum (the soft palate) (e.g. car, cold); and finally, glottal, the one sound produced without the active use of the tongue and other parts of the mouth, which occurs when the glottis (the space between the vocal cords in the larynx) is open (e.g. the fist sound in who and whose) (Núñez).

The next big component in the discussion of consonants is the manner of articulation, which refers to the pronunciation of the sounds. When you momentarily stop the airstream and then let it go abruptly, you produce stop consonants or plosives, which are the sounds represented by [p], [b], [t], [d], [k], [g]; when you almost block the airstream and have the air push through the very narrow opening, a type of friction is produced and the resulting sounds are called fricatives, represented by, [f], [v], [θ], [d], [s], [z], [ʃ], [_]; if you combine a brief stopping of the airstream with an obstructed release, causing some friction, the sounds [tʃ] and [d_] are created, which are called affricates; nasals are described as the sounds [m], [n], and [ŋ], which occur when the velum is lowered and the airstream is allowed to flow out through the nose; glides, the sounds [w] and [j], are produced when the tongue is in motion to or from the position of a vowel; the glottal stop, represented by the symbol [ʔ], occurs when the space between the vocal cords is closed completely, then released; and lastly is the flap, represented by [D] or sometimes [ɾ] is produced by the tongue tip tapping the alveolar ridge briefly (Núñez).

Conclusion

Phonetic transcription, unlike orthography, displays a one-to-one relationship between symbols and sounds. The main purpose of the IPA is to provide one letter for each distinctive sound, which allows for foreign language students and teachers, linguists, speech-language pathologists, singers, actors, translators, etc. to better step outside of orthography and examine differences in pronunciation between dialects within a given language, as well as to identity changes in pronunciation that take place over time.

Morphology

Morphology is the identification, analysis and description of the structure of a given language’s morphemes and other linguistic units. Words have parts, and each additional part provides a change to the original word, which creates a new meaning. Below three different kinds of morphemes are described:

Free Morphemes

A free morpheme is a morpheme that can stand alone as a word; it does not require another morpheme to be attached to it. For example, Cat would be a free morpheme.

Inflectional Morphemes

Inflectional morpheme is a morpheme that can only be a suffix. It creates the change in the function of a word. In English, there are seven inflectional morphemes: –s (plural) and –s (possessive) are noun inflections; –s (3rd-person singular), –ed (past tense), –en (past participle), and –ing (present participle) are verb inflections; –er (comparative) and –est (superlative) are adjective and adverb inflections.

  • Examples:
    • Plural: Many people own cats.
    • Possessive: Jane’s cat has stripes.
    • 3rd Person Singular: She likes cats.
    • Past Tense: He liked cats.
    • Past Participle: The stolen cat was found unharmed by the police.
    • Present Participle: John told a very interesting story at dinner last night.
    • Comparative: A kitten is much smaller than an adult cat.
    • Superlative: The orange tabby cat was the smallest of the liter.

Derivational Morphemes

Derivational morphemes create a new word out of the word to which it is joined. The change can affect either the semantic meaning or part or part of speech. For example, when you attach -er to swim, you create the word swimmer. When you attach –ness to happy, you create the word happiness.

Conclusion

Understanding the role morphemes play in language acquisition is important in order to make connections between phonological and orthographic characteristics of speech. Without an understanding of the smallest unit in the grammar of a language, one can expect to be lost when trying to interpret larger concepts.

Syntax

Syntax, also referred to as grammar, refers to the set of rules that order words and their inflections meaningfully into sentences. Syntax can be understood as a type of code that allows speakers to encode meaning and for listeners to decode it (Temple, 96). Word order, parts of speech, and special uses of words all affect the meaning of a sentence or passage.

Conscious Knowledge

Syntax occurs at two levels: the conscious level and then the tacit knowledge level. At the conscious level, syntax can be thought of as the rules for how to build a sentence, such as the rule: a verb must agree with its subject in person and number. These rules throw us into a realm of technical notations. Suddenly, we are being asked to access and reiterate what a subject is, what a predicate is, and what other things are involved in constructing sentences.

Tacit Knowledge

However, this does not represent all the knowledge that allows one to produce and understand sentences. We all possess a highly intricate system that allows us to determine whether certain utterances correspond to sentences of our native language. This kind of knowledge, unattainable knowledge of language that allows one to judge whether or not a sentence is natively correct, is tacit knowledge. For example, look at these two sentences:

  • A. This book is difficult to read.
  • B. This book is difficult to be read.

One knows if one is a native English speaker that she can utter sentence A, and this corresponds to an English sentence. In contrast, a non-native English speaker can utter sentence, and while a message can be decoded from it, it does not correspond to any grammatically correct sentence of English. This kind of knowledge seems obvious, but not because of English lessons that are taught in a classroom; rather, because it is a sense of judgment acquired at a young age, that then becomes inaccessible to you.

Plato’s Problem

One might ask, so why do we call this knowledge at all? How can something be considered knowledge if nothing is being taught to anyone? Tacit knowledge appears to be more like instinct than knowledge. This discussion given the title, Plato’s Problem by Noam Chomsky, can be traced back to the fourth century BCE.[4] The argument is specifically seen in Plato’s Meno, in which Socrates demonstrates how an uneducated boy has innate knowledge, a priori knowledge, of geometric principles. Trying to close the gap between knowledge and experience involves working to explain the gap between what one knows and the apparent lack of input from experience, or the environment. Further discussion of this problem will be addressed in the next chapter, which deals explicitly with language acquisition in children.

Semantics

The third key component of language is semantics, best understood as the system of meanings in a language and the way those meanings are encoded in words (Temple, 100). Within this study of meanings, sounds, facial expressions, body language, and proxemics have semantic content. This is in contrast with syntax, which looks explicitly at the units of language without reference to their meaning. Semantic relations between words can be complex, but by going through some of the technical vocabulary that relates to semiotics, it should become a little easier to understand how words, phrases, signs, and symbols gain meaning.

Synonymy

Synonomy, in regards to meaning, refers to the degree of sameness between two terms. For example, eat and consume are two near-complete synonyms. In purely semantic terms, these two words mean the same thing (the ingestion of food), but their use depends on the context they are used in. Consume is more likely to be used by a person who is more intellectual, whereas eat is the more common word. One will find that English has a high number of synonyms because of French influence on the language.

Antonomy

Antonyms are binary oppositions, such as short and tall, big and little, right and wrong. The meaning of one term automatically rejects the other – someone who is short is not tall, someone who is big is not little, and someone who is right is not wrong. Another characteristic of antonyms is they can be gradable or not, depending on whether or not we attach inflectional morphemes to them to create a comparison: deep, deeper, deepest or, sunny, sunnier, sunniest.

Homophones, Homonyms, and Polysemes

Homophones are words that have a similar sound pattern, but are otherwise unrelated. The words may be spelled the same, such as wind (air movement) and wind (to move in a spiral course). Or, the words can be spelled differently. In this case they are also called heterographs. Examples of these include horse and hoarse; nun and none; buy and bye. Homophones are often used to create puns and to deceive the reader, seen in crossword puzzle clues, or to suggest multiple meanings, which are quite often seen in poetry and other forms of creative writing. Then there are also homonyms, which are terms that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings. Examples include: row (to propel with oars) and row (a line of arrangements); bark (the sound a dog makes) and bark (the outer layer of a tree trunk); bank (the edge of a river) and bank (a financial institution). Lastly there is a distinction to be made between homonyms, which are unrelated in origin, and polysemes, which have a shared origin, such as mouth (of a river) and mouth (of a person). For Dick Hebdife, polysemy means that, “each text is seen to generate a potentially infinite range of meanings.”[5] This, in the end changes the whole basis of creating social meaning.

Conceptual Metaphors

Now, discussion has moved away from basic language to an understanding of how descriptions are used to construct meaning. Based largely on ideas put forth by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson in their book Metaphors We Live By, a conceptual metaphor is an expression from ordinary language in which the meaning associated with a target domain is drawn from a source domain that is perceived as sharing certain traits of the target.[6] A few examples are:

  • “Anger is Heat”
    • He has a fiery temper.
    • She is about to explode!
    • “Love is a Journey”
      • This relationship isn’t going anywhere.
      • His marriage is on the rocks.

Conclusion

This is just the beginning of a complex discussion on how metaphors shape human lives. What at first appears as simple ordinary language soon is understood as transformative. “Language is what determines the meanings of words and signs and what combines them into meaningful wholes, wholes that add up to conversations, speeches, essays, epic poems. Language goes beyond that even; it’s what makes your thoughts truly meaningful, what builds your ideas into structured wholes.”[7]

Pragmatics

It can be understood at this point that language ability means more than making appropriate sounds, peaking in words, and stringing words together with understandable syntax. Hymes defined language as meaning having the ability to do things with words.[8] There is a distinction to be made between knowing language and knowing how to use language; linguists talk of language not only in terms of syntax and meaning, but also in terms of speech acts, which are attempts to accomplish things with language. This is one of the most challenging aspects of language learning, and often comes only through experience. Further discussion of pragmatics will take place later on in this paper, but for now, what is important to understand is pragmatics helps in overcoming language ambiguity, because meaning relies on the manner, place, time, etc. of an utterance.

Summary and Conclusion

With an in-depth analysis of the key aspects of language, one now has the necessary framework to begin exploration of more complex thinking. Next, one can look at children’s language-learning process. One will see how many children go through the stages of language learning in the same order, and thoughts behind this central human capacity will be discussed. Then, later on, one will see how when humans interact with one another, experiences are weaved into narratives, and special attention will be paid to words and their meaning.

[1] Temple, Charles A. All Children Read: Teaching for Literacy in Today’s Diverse Classroom. Boston: Pearson and B, 2005. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Temple, p#).

[2] Handbook of the International Phonetic Association: A Guide to the Use of the International Phonetic Alphabet. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge UP, 1999. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (IPA, pg#).

[3] Núñez, Alejandro. “Phonetics and Phonology.” Phonetics and Phonology. Blogspot.com, n.d. Web. 26 June 2012. <http://alejandronunez-a-3.blogspot.com/p/c-ipa.html&gt;. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Núñez).

[4] Chomsky, Noam. Modular Approaches to the Study of the Mind. San Diego: San Diego State UP, 1984. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Chomsky, p#).

[5] Hebdige, Dick. Subculture, the Meaning of Style. London: Methuen, 1979. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Hebdige, p#).

[6] Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live by. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1980. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Lakoff and Johnson, p#).

[7] Bickerton, Derek. Adam’s Tongue: How Humans Made Language, How Language Made Humans. New York: Hill and Wang, 2010. Print. . Further reference to this source in parentheses (Bickerton, p.#).

[8] Hymes, Dell H. Foundations in Sociolinguistics; an Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1974. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Hymes, p#).

Abstract

Where Most of My Writing Happens

 

When thinking about human communication it is easy to understand why the first humans would have developed a word for “water,” or “poison.” This terminology was necessary in order for human ancestors to fulfill basic needs and keep out of harm’s way. However, language development did not end here. This same system of symbols continued to evolve, and gave rise to a higher level of communication that articulates abstract and intangible thoughts and ideas. Why did communication not stop at the basic level? What was the language system trying to keep up with? I believe this cognitive shift occurred when humans began to develop a wider and deeper array of needs, an evolvement from less biological to more psychological needs.

Our human ancestors realized in order to find enough food for everyone to eat they needed to break up into smaller groups and develop a way to communicate with one another. Foraging in small groups worked to our ancestors’ advantage, and a sense of community amongst members began to form.[1] Now that they were able to successfully stay safe and find sustenance, relationships began to grow amongst community members and our ancestors began to develop different kinds of needs, growth needs.[2] These needs refer to intangible things – cognition, aesthetic appreciation, and self-actualization (Maslow, 372). Our ancestors began to develop needs for belonging, love, and affection; a need of respect from others to gain confidence and self-esteem; a need of morality and creativity. In order for humans to reach the greatest level of personal potential and self-fulfillment, a more specialized system of language became required.

Today, we live in a society with a great sense of social organization, and we continually communicate abstractly through the use of facial expressions and bodily gestures, as well as through the use of tropes, non-literal verbal extensions. Thinking more narrowly about non-literal forms of communication, metaphor (a figure of speech that uses a tangible object to represent some intangible quality of one idea, in terms of another) is a major trope in human perception and action.[3] People have the ability to communicate about abstract and intangible experiences because there is a close-knit relationship between metaphors and human cognition. Metaphors help to synchronize mind and body, which is necessary for the conceptualization of the real by rendering the unfamiliar more familiar. This higher level of cognition and intelligence contributes to our full humanity.

Metaphors may actually be people’s primary mode of mental operation. Because the mind experiences the world through the body in which it resides, people cannot help but conceptualize the world in terms of body perceptions. Metaphors create individual realities and therein shape human communication. Without metaphors humans would not be able to reason, create, and explore; They would lose full ability to perceive, interpret, and enhance understanding of the unfamiliar.[4] Without metaphors human minds would remain empty vessels, and would be unable to survive.

Metaphor plays an important role in the teaching-learning process. Educators should be aware of the powerful tool metaphors make when it comes to determining and expressing one’s educational philosophy. Metaphors use symbolism to link ideas about teaching and learning to something more familiar. Analogies are an effective learning tool for reinforcing thinking skills and conceptual understanding, and so educators should also recognize the large impact metaphors have on each individual’s life, and incorporate lessons on the usages of linguistic devices for both speech and writing. Good educators know how to use metaphors and analogies to make new and unfamiliar concepts more meaningful to students by connecting what they already have knowledge of to what they are learning. Education is a time for wonder and reflection; a time for creativity, responsibility, problem-solving, and self-motivation. When educators recognize that education is a journey and not a destination, students will be given the best opportunity to open their minds, develop their strengths, and prepare to explore life’s vast opportunities.

[1] Bickerton, Derek. Adam’s Tongue: How Humans Made Language, How Language Made Humans. New York: Hill and Wang, 2010. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Bickerton, p.#).

[2] Maslow, A.H. “A Theory of Human Motivation.” Psychological Review 50.4 (1943):370-396. PsychINFO. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Maslow, p.#).

[3] Salzmann, Zdenek. Language, Culture, & [and] Society: An Introduction to Linguistic Anthropology. Boulder: Westview, 1993. Print. Further reference to this source in parentheses (Salzmann, p.#).

[4] Hymes, Dell H. Foundations in Sociolinguistics; an Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1974. Print.

Welcome!

Me and My Boys

 

Welcome!

My name is Emily, and I am a Senior at Hobart and William Smith Colleges. I am a philosophy major and am currently working on an honors project titled, Metaphor: Making the Abstract Concrete and Visual. As I continue to work on my thesis I plan to post sections of it here on WordPress, and I would love some feedback. My project is broken down into three parts: First, I am looking into language and human evolution; second, I am looking at communication beyond the literal level; and third, I am looking at the role of metaphor in the classroom setting. Again, I would love feedback from anyone who finds this topic interesting. Share your thoughts, give suggestions, any contribution is appreciated!

Enjoy!

~ECP