What defines a human being?

[arakura]

I could, and might answer this question more completely when I'm not on my phone, but I would posit that the essence of human grammar is built into our dna as a part of being a human, much like our human hands and legs also are naturally and definitively human in shape. This grammar is the reason our words (lots of animals make sounds that mean certain things) ascend a new level of ability and take us to an incalculably vast ability to say whatever it is we want to say.

There are other things, and I would also agree that the biological arguments are probably the most valid, but also probably not what the philosophers in here were looking to find. I would also say that this grammar argument also falls under the purview of a biological argument, because it's something built into us as any other thing is.

And finally, I'd like to say that if you aren't happy accepting the strict and hard biological definitions, you'll probably never get an actual answer, because there are too many nuances to the more philosophical takes on this question. All of these definitions generally sprout from one our two things: we're smart, and we are born from humans in the human shape.

But not all humans are smart.

[Chewy]

But what about the first human who evolved?   Also, does that mean anyone with a genetic disorder "mutated" from human will not be human anymore?

He decided he no want to be normal ape. He want to be smart ape with no back problems. Smart ape calls itself "human" then smarter ape invents name homo sapien for the smartest apes

 

Humans who mutate are slightly different. They still human when mummy and daddy are human.

 

 

Summed up with simple language in three lines.

If you want complex language but better answer then look in this direction ^

[Stray Cat]

I could, and might answer this question more completely when I'm not on my phone, but I would posit that the essence of human grammar is built into our dna as a part of being a human, much like our human hands and legs also are naturally and definitively human in shape. This grammar is the reason our words (lots of animals make sounds that mean certain things) ascend a new level of ability and take us to an incalculably vast ability to say whatever it is we want to say.

There are other things, and I would also agree that the biological arguments are probably the most valid, but also probably not what the philosophers in here were looking to find. I would also say that this grammar argument also falls under the purview of a biological argument, because it's something built into us as any other thing is.

And finally, I'd like to say that if you aren't happy accepting the strict and hard biological definitions, you'll probably never get an actual answer, because there are too many nuances to the more philosophical takes on this question. All of these definitions generally sprout from one our two things: we're smart, and we are born from humans in the human shape.

But not all humans are smart.

This one's easy.  Grammar is by no means built into our DNA, it's a part of our learned culture.  Language is a part of encultration, the accepting of a person into one's culture.  If a person isn't accepted into a culture, even though they're around said culture then they won't learn the language.  Perfect example of this, Feral Children, specifically this one right here.   The girl was raised by humans...as a dog.  She acted like a dog, ate and defecated like a dog, and despite being around people speaking human language, she didn't speak a word of it, because she was enculturated as...a dog.   Also, in most cases it's nearly impossible to get these cases to speak human language.  Therefore, there's no way any part of human language aside from the necessary physiology can be a biological factor, it's a cultural factor established during formative years of childhood.  

[arakura]

http://puu.sh/aZpsK/2aa32b245b.jpg

http://puu.sh/aZpth/fc124cffe5.jpg

http://puu.sh/aZptW/27f9e97bcf.jpg

http://puu.sh/aZptP/7d35c3df12.jpg

 

(sorry I couldn't embed them, they were blowing up really huge for some reason. If you're intrested in the topic, you shouldn't have the hardest time clicking on the links though. The third picture just adds the few lines at the bottom of the page to the 2nd picture.)

 

These are words from Steven Pinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker) in his 1994 book, "The Language Instinct" and I find little way to combat them.  Not captured on camera are the many references to pidgins created over years by adults that are suddenly and predictably creolized in one generation by children around the world (the children add the grammar all by themselves, living in a community where only a raw pidgin is spoken), the aphasics who are perfectly intelligent, and the mentally handicapped who are perfectly well spoken. There's a few more examples, but they are pretty lengthy so I'll leave it here. I'm interested in what you have to say. Do you think he is wrong?

[Stray Cat]

http://puu.sh/aZpsK/2aa32b245b.jpg

http://puu.sh/aZpth/fc124cffe5.jpg

http://puu.sh/aZptW/27f9e97bcf.jpg

http://puu.sh/aZptP/7d35c3df12.jpg

 

(sorry I couldn't embed them, they were blowing up really huge for some reason. If you're intrested in the topic, you shouldn't have the hardest time clicking on the links though. The third picture just adds the few lines at the bottom of the page to the 2nd picture.)

 

These are words from Steven Pinker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Pinker) in his 1994 book, "The Language Instinct" and I find little way to combat them.  Not captured on camera are the many references to pidgins created over years by adults that are suddenly and predictably creolized in one generation by children around the world (the children add the grammar all by themselves, living in a community where only a raw pidgin is spoken), the aphasics who are perfectly intelligent, and the mentally handicapped who are perfectly well spoken. There's a few more examples, but they are pretty lengthy so I'll leave it here. I'm interested in what you have to say. Do you think he is wrong?

Some of the pictures are hard to read so I didn't read it all but I've looked it up and I get the gist of what he's saying. 

 

First of all, he seems to be saying that the human "faculty" for language is instinctual.  Faculty means and innate or acquired ability to act or do something.  So it could go either way.  

 

So let's look at some of his work:

•  Language Learnability and Language Development (1984), in Pinker's words "outlin[ing] a theory of how children acquire the words and grammatical structures of their mother tongue"- OK that's obviously learnt from the mother so chalk one up for culture.
• 1999 book, Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. Pinker argued that language depends on two things, the associative remembering of sounds and their meanings in words, and the use of rules to manipulate symbols for grammar. He presented evidence against connectionism, where a child would have to learn all forms of all words and would simply retrieve each needed form from memory, in favour of the older alternative theory, the use of words and rules combined by generative phonology. He explains this by arguing that every irregular form, such as 'took', 'came' and 'got', has to be committed to memory by the children in each generation, or else lost, and that the common forms are the most easily memorized.- So this is just dealing with how the child remembers sounds, and since they're remembered they have to hear the correct one somewhere right.  I'm going with parents so that's not instinctive but cultural.
• In 1990, Pinker, with his MIT graduate student Paul Bloom, published the paper "Natural Language and Natural Selection", arguing that the human language faculty must have evolved through natural selection. The article provided arguments for a continuity based view of language evolution, contrary to then current discontinuity based theories that see language as suddenly appearing with the advent of Homo sapiens as a kind of evolutionary accident.- O.k. so language evolves, makes sense.  But this says nothing about passing it on so neither. 
• Pinker's 1994 The Language Instinct was the first of several books to combine cognitive science with behavioral genetics and evolutionary psychology. It introduces the science of language and popularizes Noam Chomsky's theory that language is an innate faculty of mind, with the controversial twist that the faculty for language evolved by natural selection as an adaptation for communication. Pinker criticizes several widely-held ideas about language – that it needs to be taught, that people's grammar is poor and getting worse with new ways of speaking, the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis that language limits the kinds of thoughts a person can have, and that other great apes can learn languages. Pinker sees language as unique to humans, evolved to solve the specific problem of communication among social hunter-gatherers. He argues that it is as much an instinct as specialized adaptative behavior in other species, such as a spider's web-weaving or a beaver's dam-building.-Here's your argument let's go over them one by one​

1. "Faculty for language evolved by natural selection as an adaptation for communication"-There's that word faculty again. 
2. Language needs to be taught.- Inheritance doesn't work this way. You mean to tell me I'm not going to have to teach my child how to speak.  He'll just know that.  I want to learn Japanese it should be instinctual lets see........nope I got nothing.  Maybe a few, grammar rules they learn out of luck/convince/whatever but there's no way they can just talk.  I call BS on this one.  If he goes into more examples I'd love to hear them. 
3. People's grammar is getting worse.-Relative to what, previous language yes, yes it is.  Language evolves, I don't disagree with that, but someone has to teach it.  People can come up with new ideas, but if they're not passed on they don't matter.  Going from what I understand of your above example, children all around the world started using some grammar rule.   I find it really hard to believe that they didn't hear it from somewhere.  If it was random, then here's probably what happened, one child came up with it, and passed it to other children in the area.  If no one passed it on or used it, it wouldn't exist anymore.  So yea, language changes, but it isn't embedded in our DNA.  I'll give you the ability to speak is, the higher brain power to attempt to communicate is.  If I waive my hand in front of my mouth rapidly, maybe people from every culture will understand that I ate something hot.  
4. The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis that language limits the kinds of thoughts a person can have-K
5. Other great apes can learn languages.- But wait a moment, wait a moment, he also says that "Pinker sees language as unique to humans, evolved to solve the specific problem of communication among social hunter-gatherers" - Which one is it huh, which one.  Is it human only or is it not?  I demand answers!  Let's look at it both ways shall we.  Other apes can speak language.  I agree with this.  They are physiologically incapable of speaking but sing language works fine, if raised like a normal human child they can learn it, make new words, etc. (See my post above on Washoe for more details).  Let's look at the other way.  It evolved for social purposes which is a cultural thing.  It doesn't necessarily say it's embedded in our DNA just evolved.  I'll take that as a win-neutral for me, you can choose. 
6. He argues that it is as much an instinct as specialized adaptive behavior in other species, such as a spider's web-weaving or a beaver's dam-building.- So he's saying it's instinctive but what is.  Here's a good wrap up point and what I'm willing to see;  Certain grammar rules are as instinctive as a goose's urge to fly south during the winter (I think this is all hes saying but I'd still chalk some of it up to convenience's sake).   But without previously being taught a language, similar to a goose not being taught to fly by it's mother, this means nothing.  Nurture can be taught to any living creature and can only work within the bounds of the given nature.  Language must be taught to children, by someone (parent, adult figure, etc.) or they won't learn it.  

Also for fun here are some people's arguments:

• One prominent opponent of Pinker's view is Geoffrey Sampson whose 1997 book, Educating Eve: The 'Language Instinct' Debate has been described as the "definitive response" to Pinker's book. Sampson argues that while it may seem attractive to argue the nature side of the 'nature versus nurture' debate, the nurture side may better support the creativity and nobility of the human mind. Sampson denies there is a language instinct, and argues that children can learn language because people can learn anything.
• The assumptions underlying the nativist view have also been criticised in Jeffrey Elman's Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development, which defends the connectionist approach that Pinker attacked. In his 1996 book Impossible Minds, the machine intelligence researcher Igor Aleksander calls The Language Instinct excellent, and argues that Pinker presents a relatively soft claim for innatism, accompanied by a strong dislike of the 'Standard Social Sciences Model' or SSSM (Pinker's term) which supposes that development is purely dependent on culture. Further, Aleksander writes that while Pinker criticises some attempts to explain language processing with neural nets, Pinker later makes use of a neural net to create past tense verb forms correctly. Aleksander concludes that while he doesn't support the SSSM, "a cultural repository of language just seems the easy trick for an efficient evolutionary system armed with an iconic state machine to play."

[arakura]

I'll give you that some of this is true, but you nitpick a lot of details unfairly, such as the word 'faculty'. regardless of the fact that your dictionary said it meant "innate or acquired" he explicitly stated in one of the pages that I referenced that he believed it was innate. You're trying to take down his argument because he used a word that *can* mean something he obviously didnt intend it to mean? I dont see the logic and you just seem to be nitpicking.
 

 

 

 Language Learnability and Language Development (1984), in Pinker's words "outlin[ing] a theory of how children acquire the words and grammatical structures of their mother tongue"- OK that's obviously learnt from the mother so chalk one up for culture.

This dates ten years before the work that I'm citing. I hope you believe me when I say that I don't believe everything I did ten years ago. Things change, and unless you can find a more recent work where he says the opposite of what he's saying in 1994, then it shouldn't matter that two writings of his ten years apart are significantly counter to each other. That's how learning works.

 

 

999 book, Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. Pinker argued that language depends on two things, the associative remembering of sounds and their meanings in words, and the use of rules to manipulate symbols for grammar. He presented evidence against connectionism, where a child would have to learn all forms of all words and would simply retrieve each needed form from memory, in favour of the older alternative theory, the use of words and rules combined by generative phonology. He explains this by arguing that every irregular form, such as 'took', 'came' and 'got', has to be committed to memory by the children in each generation, or else lost, and that the common forms are the most easily memorized.- So this is just dealing with how the child remembers sounds, and since they're remembered they have to hear the correct one somewhere right.  I'm going with parents so that's not instinctive but cultural.

This one I'm less sure of countering, but it seems to me that those arent the key details to his idea about grammar being instinctual. Those forms arent inherent to anything, they are just anomalies, right? Why would it matter if they were irregular or not? I'm not saying the words in a language dont source from society itself, I'm saying that a lot of the grammar doesnt. Those are words, not grammar structures. Again, not too confident on this one, would love to hear what you have to say about this.

 

 

In 1990, Pinker, with his MIT graduate student Paul Bloom, published the paper "Natural Language and Natural Selection", arguing that the human language faculty must have evolved through natural selection. The article provided arguments for a continuity based view of language evolution, contrary to then current discontinuity based theories that see language as suddenly appearing with the advent of Homo sapiens as a kind of evolutionary accident.- O.k. so language evolves, makes sense.  But this says nothing about passing it on so neither.

Inherent traits evolve all the time, just like the hands or wings of bats. This is exactly his point. Also dont know much about this, but it doesnt seem to counter or affirm either of our points too much...

 

 

"Faculty for language evolved by natural selection as an adaptation for communication"-There's that word faculty again.

get over it. your definition says "innate OR acquired". He chose one and disregarded the other very explicitly. It bothers me that you bring it up like it's some big crime.

 

Language needs to be taught.- Inheritance doesn't work this way. You mean to tell me I'm not going to have to teach my child how to speak.  He'll just know that.  I want to learn Japanese it should be instinctual lets see........nope I got nothing.  Maybe a few, grammar rules they learn out of luck/convince/whatever but there's no way they can just talk.  I call BS on this one.  If he goes into more examples I'd love to hear them.

Words need to be taught, not language. If you did actually read those pages, then I would like to hear how you explain his proposition in other ways? How else would a child understand exactly the proper terms for that piece of grammar. Billions of children dont "learn out of luck/(convienience?)/whatever". It's not just "whatever", it's something. You call BS but you have no clue what else it could be and dont even put forth a counterexplanation for his statements, as far as I can tell. Also, you're way older than the age of three when he says that this grammar explosion occurs. maybe if you were three and lived in japan you could instinctively learn it. Oh wait, that's what millions upon millions of Japanese children do. Why does he need to shower you in examples if you wont even respond to one of them properly?

 

 

The Sapir–Whorf hypothesis that language limits the kinds of thoughts a person can have-K

whole other can of worms, but we can go there i guess...

 

 

Other great apes can learn languages.- But wait a moment, wait a moment, he also says that "Pinker sees language as unique to humans, evolved to solve the specific problem of communication among social hunter-gatherers" - Which one is it huh, which one.  Is it human only or is it not?  I demand answers!  Let's look at it both ways shall we.  Other apes can speak language.  I agree with this.  They are physiologically incapable of speaking but sing language works fine, if raised like a normal human child they can learn it, make new words, etc. (See my post above on Washoe for more details).  Let's look at the other way.  It evolved for social purposes which is a cultural thing.  It doesn't necessarily say it's embedded in our DNA just evolved.  I'll take that as a win-neutral for me, you can choose.

I'm actually interested in this. I've not read enough to know all of his beliefs in this matter, so I'll let you have this one I guess. I have no idea if great apes can learn language or not, but as far I know, they dont naturally do so. Also, have there been studies of whether or not this ape sign language is a pidgin or an actual language with grammar rules? If you can confirm that they have grammar, then I'll give it to you. I'm not dead set on following everything Pinker says.

 

 

 Language must be taught to children, by someone (parent, adult figure, etc.) or they won't learn it. 

I'd say that this is blatantly wrong. You never stop to separate vocabulary from grammar. I've read of several examples where non-grammatical pidgins created by older populations are transformed into grammatical languages in one generation of children. They arent taught grammar rules, they have their own that are brought into the language. I'm NOT trying to say they naturally know words. Neither of us believe that. But I am saying that they naturally are aware of some sense of grammar, such that they can add it to a language that has none without any external influence. More than that, there are examples of deaf families where the parents have no normal grammar rules due to learning sign language late in life. In these cases, the child naturally learns to exhibit reliable forms of grammar on their own. He gives examples of each of these events that I mentioned.

 

 

• One prominent opponent of Pinker's view is Geoffrey Sampson whose 1997 book, Educating Eve: The 'Language Instinct' Debate has been described as the "definitive response" to Pinker's book. Sampson argues that while it may seem attractive to argue the nature side of the 'nature versus nurture' debate, the nurture side may better support the creativity and nobility of the human mind. Sampson denies there is a language instinct, and argues that children can learn language because people can learn anything.
• The assumptions underlying the nativist view have also been criticised in Jeffrey Elman's Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development, which defends the connectionist approach that Pinker attacked. In his 1996 book Impossible Minds, the machine intelligence researcher Igor Aleksander calls The Language Instinct excellent, and argues that Pinker presents a relatively soft claim for innatism, accompanied by a strong dislike of the 'Standard Social Sciences Model' or SSSM (Pinker's term) which supposes that development is purely dependent on culture. Further, Aleksander writes that while Pinker criticises some attempts to explain language processing with neural nets, Pinker later makes use of a neural net to create past tense verb forms correctly. Aleksander concludes that while he doesn't support the SSSM, "a cultural repository of language just seems the easy trick for an efficient evolutionary system armed with an iconic state machine to play."

Umm, certainly some points (like the rats) sound like they make sense, but I'd need to read more than a wikipedia summary to know anything reasonably arguable. I do appreciate the food for thought, though, because I'm not try to argue a point just to argue it. What matters is what actually exists, and if it's not Pinker's explanation, then it's not and he was wrong. It's just that I dont believe you've done a good job deconstructing his beliefs. You neglected to respond to any of the specific situations that he brought up.

 

And as a final thought, I know I didnt respond to your comment on the feral child without language. What I would say is that the child new no words and because of that had nothing to put his innate grammar to use with. In the presence of other humans, people will learn words in order to communicate. Words are most definitely a product of society. Deaf individuals who have no contact with anyone who wishes to speak to them using sign language dont develop a language either (there's no need for the words, and thus the grammar is left untouched, or so it seems to me). I think that makes sense (at least it does to me).

 

Sorry if this came off as aggressive. I know we're both just trying to bring out the truth and that it's a simple matter of believing different interpretations, so no hard feelings hopefully.

[Stray Cat]

I'll agree with the faculty thing and as for the 10 years ago, you'll see there are just as many mistakes are there are advancements in knowledge.  Science goes back and says "oh wait we were wrong" fairly often so I wouldn't write that off just yet. 

 

You're counterargument seems to be based solely on the point that "yea they learn the words but the grammar is inherent".   I disagree and say that they have to pick up the grammar from somewhere. 

 

Words need to be taught, not language. If you did actually read those pages, then I would like to hear how you explain his proposition in other ways? How else would a child understand exactly the proper terms for that piece of grammar. Billions of children dont "learn out of luck/(convienience?)/whatever". It's not just "whatever", it's something. You call BS but you have no clue what else it could be and dont even put forth a counterexplanation for his statements, as far as I can tell. Also, you're way older than the age of three when he says that this grammar explosion occurs. maybe if you were three and lived in japan you could instinctively learn it. Oh wait, that's what millions upon millions of Japanese children do. Why does he need to shower you in examples if you wont even respond to one of them properly?

 

Let's start with this.  I would love to hear how you teach a child language without proper grammar use being taught somewhere.  Going back to the Japanese argument again.  How can I teach you what it is without giving you a grammar basis to build upon.  Say I want to teach you the word "cow".  My options are say "this is a cow" or point to a cow and draw the sign for cow in your hand as in sign language.  In the first option, I've inadvertently taught you correct grammatical ordering so that ones out.  In the second example, you're brain is filling in the "this is" on it's own.  I don't know enough to know if a child who was just taught vocabulary without ever using the first or being taught proper grammar would be able to learn it on their own.  Even in sign language people learn "Me" name or "that" something which is grammar. 

 

"I'd say that this is blatantly wrong. You never stop to separate vocabulary from grammar. I've read of several examples where non-grammatical pidgins created by older populations are transformed into grammatical languages in one generation of children. They arent taught grammar rules, they have their own that are brought into the language. I'm NOT trying to say they naturally know words. Neither of us believe that. But I am saying that they naturally are aware of some sense of grammar, such that they can add it to a language that has none without any external influence. More than that, there are examples of deaf families where the parents have no normal grammar rules due to learning sign language late in life. In these cases, the child naturally learns to exhibit reliable forms of grammar on their own. He gives examples of each of these events that I mentioned."

 

On to the examples.  For the pidgins, my understanding is that they are a kind of made up language to allow communication between groups who speak two different languages.  The key point, is that the groups already speak a language and that they already have learned a language and its corresponding grammar to base their new invention on.  This shifts the argument away from inhering grammar to are grammar rules universal which I do not know.  That along with the second example. Unless I"m missing it, I don't seen him giving me an example of  a case of people who have been taught NOTHING but vocabulary and inherently can use proper grammar.  But I do, feral children (see below). 

 

I'm actually interested in this. I've not read enough to know all of his beliefs in this matter, so I'll let you have this one I guess. I have no idea if great apes can learn language or not, but as far I know, they dont naturally do so. Also, have there been studies of whether or not this ape sign language is a pidgin or an actual language with grammar rules? If you can confirm that they have grammar, then I'll give it to you. I'm not dead set on following everything Pinker says.

 

Great apes use a very simplistic language but it is considered language nonetheless.  They can be taught american sign language and communicate with humans and other apes with said sign language.  In one case, a child bonobo learned language and grammar in sign language by, eavesdropping on her mothers lessons.  Mother's have also taught it to their babies.  They also invent new word orders to create new words.  As for grammar: "One day, Rumbaugh used the computer to say to Kanzi, "Can you make the dog bite the snake?" It is believed Kanzi had never heard this sentence before. In answering the question, Kanzi searched among the objects present until he found a toy dog and a toy snake, put the snake in the dog's mouth, and used his thumb and finger to close the dog's mouth over the snake."  If that doesn't demonstrate knowledge of grammar idk what does. 

 

And as a final thought, I know I didnt respond to your comment on the feral child without language. What I would say is that the child new no words and because of that had nothing to put his innate grammar to use with. In the presence of other humans, people will learn words in order to communicate. Words are most definitely a product of society. Deaf individuals who have no contact with anyone who wishes to speak to them using sign language dont develop a language either (there's no need for the words, and thus the grammar is left untouched, or so it seems to me). I think that makes sense (at least it does to me).

 

 

Right there you're proving my point but in reverse.  You can't use the "inherent' grammar rules without language.  But you can't learn the language without grammar as a basis.  These two things are inseparable in my view.  So if you can't learn one without the other, and one you can only learn through society and therefore culture, the same should be true of the other.  So if you can prove these things can be learned separately we can continue. 

 

Sorry if this came off as aggressive. I know we're both just trying to bring out the truth and that it's a simple matter of believing different interpretations, so no hard feelings hopefully.

 

NP, I'm enjoying this.  

[arakura]

It's like 3 am here, so I'll probably give better response in the morrow, but a few things I'd like to say:

 

 

Let's start with this.  I would love to hear how you teach a child language without proper grammar use being taught somewhere.  Going back to the Japanese argument again.  How can I teach you what it is without giving you a grammar basis to build upon.  Say I want to teach you the word "cow".  My options are say "this is a cow" or point to a cow and draw the sign for cow in your hand as in sign language.  In the first option, I've inadvertently taught you correct grammatical ordering so that ones out.  In the second example, you're brain is filling in the "this is" on it's own.  I don't know enough to know if a child who was just taught vocabulary without ever using the first or being taught proper grammar would be able to learn it on their own.  Even in sign language people learn "Me" name or "that" something which is grammar.

I'll give you that some grammar is hard to not instill in children while communicating with them, as you pointed out here. But what I will go on to say is that this doesnt prove anything either way. The more complex question of how the children understand the agreement rule (as well as other complex grammar) still stands. They learn it without being explicitly taught. Or even feasibly picking it up as they go. So it seems natural to assume that it's something built into them to understand. Also, cases in which mothers do not talk to their children have been recorded, and no speech impediments were noted in these cases in which children had a dramatically reduced exposure to speech. I think, I'll have to double check to make sure that wasnt a claim of his and that he actually has some evidence on that point.

 

 

 

On to the examples.  For the pidgins, my understanding is that they are a kind of made up language to allow communication between groups who speak two different languages.  The key point, is that the groups already speak a language and that they already have learned a language and its corresponding grammar to base their new invention on.  This shifts the argument away from inhering grammar to are grammar rules universal which I do not know.  That along with the second example. Unless I"m missing it, I don't seen him giving me an example of  a case of people who have been taught NOTHING but vocabulary and inherently can use proper grammar.  But I do, feral children (see below).

Pidgins are langauges that consist purely of vocabulary and irregular grammar use. They are used when two populations of adults come into contact with each other and have to find a way to communicate. I think I should explicitly say that this whole "grammar is inherent" idea really applies itself to three year olds when learning. You wont find a teenager easily picking up the agreement rule (or analogous grammar structure) for a new language (and it's even more interesting in that three-year-olds have horrible deduction skills, so they would seem to be the worst at i). That is why pidgins exist. Adults cannot just instill grammar into their new languages (pidgins). But when children grow up hearing pidgins they instill the grammar themselves and creolize it.

And he does give some examples of people who have been taught nothing but vocabulary and inherently can use proper grammar: the deaf family in which the parents used irregular and infrequent grammar, while the child learned to use grammar on his own. And also the examples of creolizations are situations in which children are faced with an environment consisting only of vocabulary and then adding the grammar themselves, without any teaching or any intervention. He cites a few examples if you want me to find the pages.

 

I'll edit this tomorrow when I'm less blaah, but this is a good convo imo. And yes, you are right about developments over time leading to the denunciation of previous beliefs. I'm just saying that what he argued in 1984 was obviously less recent and thus he must have changed his mind. It's also feasible that new data has since come out which disproves some of what either or both of us has stated, but the wikipedia page has led me to believe this isnt the truth.

[Chewy]

A slightly deep question suddenly went crazily deep and scientific.....

[Stray Cat]

I'll give you that some grammar is hard to not instill in children while communicating with them, as you pointed out here. But what I will go on to say is that this doesnt prove anything either way. The more complex question of how the children understand the agreement rule (as well as other complex grammar) still stands. They learn it without being explicitly taught. Or even feasibly picking it up as they go. So it seems natural to assume that it's something built into them to understand. Also, cases in which mothers do not talk to their children have been recorded, and no speech impediments were noted in these cases in which children had a dramatically reduced exposure to speech. I think, I'll have to double check to make sure that wasnt a claim of his and that he actually has some evidence on that point. 

 

You're argument is just going into semantics IMO and drifting away from the question as a whole.  All you can prove is "children understand some grammar rules without being taught".  So as I said before, I'll give you that some of the finer points of grammar may be instinctual and if you want to go a step further and call that biological more power to you.  BUT, using that point to say that Language, as a whole, is biological integrated into us is complete nonsense.  That's like saying "Oh because this child understands Bernoulli's principle instinctively he's clearly qualified to build an airplane."   You're more than welcome to get aboard that airplane but I'm going to stay on the ground thank you. There are many, many, many other parts that have to be taught in order for either of these things to work properly.  Again, I find it hard to believe the haven't picked it up or had contact with it somewhere but I'll coincide some grammar rules are instinctual.  Beyond that, you've yet to prove anything. 

 

Pidgins are langauges that consist purely of vocabulary and irregular grammar use. They are used when two populations of adults come into contact with each other and have to find a way to communicate. I think I should explicitly say that this whole "grammar is inherent" idea really applies itself to three year olds when learning. You wont find a teenager easily picking up the agreement rule (or analogous grammar structure) for a new language (and it's even more interesting in that three-year-olds have horrible deduction skills, so they would seem to be the worst at i). That is why pidgins exist. Adults cannot just instill grammar into their new languages (pidgins). But when children grow up hearing pidgins they instill the grammar themselves and creolize it.

And he does give some examples of people who have been taught nothing but vocabulary and inherently can use proper grammar: the deaf family in which the parents used irregular and infrequent grammar, while the child learned to use grammar on his own. And also the examples of creolizations are situations in which children are faced with an environment consisting only of vocabulary and then adding the grammar themselves, without any teaching or any intervention. He cites a few examples if you want me to find the pages.

 

So you're saying if it only applies to 3 year olds I should just throw all examples of anyone not 3 years old out the window, duly noted.  However, I'll go into it anyway.  I still disagree on this point.  How can you prove adults aren't instilling grammar into their new languages.  They already know a language so what makes you think it's not a simple matter of combined transfer in which they teach each other.  There are many forms of non-verbal communication which could be used to confer and teach each other and create a shared grammar system in the new language so whose to say that's not how it occurs?  Also, irregular and infrequent grammar is still grammar nonetheless and even if you're telling me there was no one else but the parents interacting with the child (which I highly doubt) they still probably got enough to piece rules together. 

When you look at it, language is shared system with many different origins but also some shared origins.  I'm not a linguistic specialist so I cannot say where the rules they invent came from but that would be interesting to see.  If they're rules to a language they've never been exposed to and have no way of knowing I'd be more likely to coincide than if they come from an exposed language or one they've encountered at some point.  

 

Again I go back to the feral children, a point you neglected and multiple cases have proven that it is nearly impossible to teach them proper language and grammar rules because they missed the age at which they were supposed to be taught language and grammar rules. This shows that the biology of the brain makes it easier to learn language at a certain age range (which is a well documented facts) but still shows that it has to be taught.  If grammar was instinctual, would they not be able to learn it at any age?   Again I will coincide that some grammar rules are instinctual, but I don't think that means all grammar, let alone language, is built into our DNA.

[madvanced]

 

You're argument is just going into semantics IMO and drifting away from the question as a whole.  All you can prove is "children understand some grammar rules without being taught".  So as I said before, I'll give you that some of the finer points of grammar may be instinctual and if you want to go a step further and call that biological more power to you.  BUT, using that point to say that Language, as a whole, is biological integrated into us is complete nonsense.  That's like saying "Oh because this child understands Bernoulli's principle instinctively he's clearly qualified to build an airplane."   You're more than welcome to get aboard that airplane but I'm going to stay on the ground thank you. There are many, many, many other parts that have to be taught in order for either of these things to work properly.  Again, I find it hard to believe the haven't picked it up or had contact with it somewhere but I'll coincide some grammar rules are instinctual.  Beyond that, you've yet to prove anything. 

 

 

So you're saying if it only applies to 3 year olds I should just throw all examples of anyone not 3 years old out the window, duly noted.  However, I'll go into it anyway.  I still disagree on this point.  How can you prove adults aren't instilling grammar into their new languages.  They already know a language so what makes you think it's not a simple matter of combined transfer in which they teach each other.  There are many forms of non-verbal communication which could be used to confer and teach each other and create a shared grammar system in the new language so whose to say that's not how it occurs?  Also, irregular and infrequent grammar is still grammar nonetheless and even if you're telling me there was no one else but the parents interacting with the child (which I highly doubt) they still probably got enough to piece rules together. 

When you look at it, language is shared system with many different origins but also some shared origins.  I'm not a linguistic specialist so I cannot say where the rules they invent came from but that would be interesting to see.  If they're rules to a language they've never been exposed to and have no way of knowing I'd be more likely to coincide than if they come from an exposed language or one they've encountered at some point.  

 

Again I go back to the feral children, a point you neglected and multiple cases have proven that it is nearly impossible to teach them proper language and grammar rules because they missed the age at which they were supposed to be taught language and grammar rules. This shows that the biology of the brain makes it easier to learn language at a certain age range (which is a well documented facts) but still shows that it has to be taught.  If grammar was instinctual, would they not be able to learn it at any age?   Again I will coincide that some grammar rules are instinctual, but I don't think that means all grammar, let alone language, is built into our DNA.

 

 

Stray Cat is right, grammar isn't embedded in any way or form in our DNA. Actually Human kind is the most precocious being on the planet earth, we learn more from experience rather than instinct, in other animals that isn't so. That's why the Human baby is so defenseless compared to any other animal's cubs, because we lack so much in instinctive knowledge we can learn much more than other animals. This is the reason we can learn forms of speech, rational though, etc. However we tend to learn from our surroundings and certain kinds of knowledge can only be acquired at certain age ranges, the reason why "feral children" have enormous setbacks when found. There was one kidnapping case, I don't remember if it was the Fritzl or the Natascha Kampusch case that there were children with difficulties learning due to their environment. Humans by a general rule learn too little from their instincts. If you also compare grammar knowledge, kids can form somewhat coherent sentences but they are never long nor complex because they can't understand most grammar, neither in knowledge nor in instinct.

[Chewy]

I was going to read ^ but its literally a wall of text. Cant you guys sum up your point?

[arakura]

I'd agree this is getting kind of off-topic (and I never much cared for the question anyway xD), but you are putting the word 'language' in my mouth. I'm saying grammar. You're saying language for me. Grammar is something that makes a human a human. And no one has offered even an attempt to explain my first example with the agreement rule. And madvanced clearly hasnt seen animal babies. Humans just happen to be K-strategists and thus put a lot of effort into raising few babies over long periods of time. I dont know where this ridiculous notion that babies of other species can defend themselves, but baby deer (you know, the ones that can barely/cant walk when they are very young) would like to say otherwise. Oh, and pretty much every other type of baby. And studies have shown that the complexity of sentences 3-year-olds can form much exceeds the language used to speak to them. Furthermore, the idea that humans dont have the instincts that animals do is kind of ridiculous. We just happen to grow up in a society that tries its hardest to destroy them.

 

 

Again I go back to the feral children, a point you neglected and multiple cases have proven that it is nearly impossible to teach them proper language and grammar rules because they missed the age at which they were supposed to be taught language and grammar rules. This shows that the biology of the brain makes it easier to learn language at a certain age range (which is a well documented facts) but still shows that it has to be taught.  If grammar was instinctual, would they not be able to learn it at any age?   Again I will coincide that some grammar rules are instinctual, but I don't think that means all grammar, let alone language, is built into our DNA

 First of all, did not neglect this question (like everyone with the agreement rule, seriously, let's just alllll ignore it and keep talking anyway). and stop saying stuff like "supposed to be taught language and grammar rules". It's not semantics when you blatantly suggest that I'm saying they learn grammar rules. My whole point is that they arent. Seriously how is that an unimportant detail. As for your question at the end, what about puberty? Some innate mechanisms obviously have certain ages where they begin functioning and end functioning. What if 3 years old is when grammar puberty happens, or something. And of course they learn better at a younger age. I dont think adults have a problem learning the vocabulary in a new language, it's just weird to put it together.

[Stray Cat]

I'd agree this is getting kind of off-topic (and I never much cared for the question anyway xD), but you are putting the word 'language' in my mouth. I'm saying grammar. You're saying language for me. Grammar is something that makes a human a human. And no one has offered even an attempt to explain my first example with the agreement rule. 

The first example is what I'm coinciding so that's why I'm not countering.  I've given you that a few grammar rules may be innate, so if that's all you're arguing I'll give it to you, I haven't even read the book so I can't fully disprove it anyway. 

 

And madvanced clearly hasnt seen animal babies. Humans just happen to be K-strategists and thus put a lot of effort into raising few babies over long periods of time. I dont know where this ridiculous notion that babies of other species can defend themselves, but baby deer (you know, the ones that can barely/cant walk when they are very young) would like to say otherwise. Oh, and pretty much every other type of baby.  And studies have shown that the complexity of sentences 3-year-olds can form much exceeds the language used to speak to them. Furthermore, the idea that humans dont have the instincts that animals do is kind of ridiculous. We just happen to grow up in a society that tries its hardest to destroy them.

Once we get out of insects this is pretty much true.  Maturity rates differ from animal to animal, mammals taking the longest time.  I would differentiate that just because someone is being spoken to doesn't mean they're not hearing other things.  If you talk to the baby with minimal grammar, and then go talk to your family normally about a complex issue, and you think the baby still isn't listening and learning you're crazy. 

 

As for your question at the end, what about puberty? Some innate mechanisms obviously have certain ages where they begin functioning and end functioning. What if 3 years old is when grammar puberty happens, or something. And of course they learn better at a younger age. I dont think adults have a problem learning the vocabulary in a new language, it's just weird to put it together.

I realize that question kinda conflicts with some of my previous points so I'll give you that.   Obviously certain process occur at certain ages in our life.  And you're right its the grammar is harder to learn, not the vocabulary.  There are some things that are easier for adults to learn than children. Yet I would think that if they can do these pidgin languages they could learn other languages easily.  So you would be saying the grammar gene is activated at 3, lasts for a certain period and then shut off, which is hard to image but not physiologically impossible.

 

I'd agree this is getting kind of off-topic (and I never much cared for the question anyway xD)

 I'm done if you are. XD

[arakura]

Nah man, if you agree that at least some is innate, then we're all good. Was a good run, though. I was seriously surprised by how much you put into it. And yea, the point about babies hearing more than what we say to them is true, but I would still say they can speak more than what we would expect from them, grammatically speaking.

 

And about the pidgins, they are easy to learn for adults because they are basically just words with no real structure of grammar.

 

And yea, I'm not sure if "grammar" is the most fulfilling or even the most pertinent response to the question, but it's an interesting argument to have. Thank you for your time

[Stray Cat]

Nah man, if you agree that at least some is innate, then we're all good. Was a good run, though. I was seriously surprised by how much you put into it. And yea, the point about babies hearing more than what we say to them is true, but I would still say they can speak more than what we would expect from them, grammatically speaking.

 

And about the pidgins, they are easy to learn for adults because they are basically just words with no real structure of grammar.

 

And yea, I'm not sure if "grammar" is the most fulfilling or even the most pertinent response to the question, but it's an interesting argument to have. Thank you for your time

 

I consider this an interesting topic.  My education and study has tended to focus more on the nurture side than nature. I don't know enough to deny that some grammar rules may be innate.  It's one of those issues that probably has so many influencing factors it's difficult to tell what influences what and probably both parts are right to some degree.  Even though linguistics isn't my specialty I still had fun with this, so any time.