Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Hebrew and the Elements of Language

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "JAMES CHRISTIAN READ" <JCR128 AT student.anglia.ac.uk>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: [b-hebrew] Hebrew and the Elements of Language
  • Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 07:18:31 +0100

Hi Karl,

KWR: Ah, but that picture has been proven false. The newborn child already
has heard the sounds of his household, and knows the voices of his
parents and of whoever else lives in the household.

JCR: Agreed.

KWR: I agree with you, however, that the specifics of any particular
language is not hard wired in an infant's brain. The question remains:
is there any aspect of language acquisition that is hard wired, and
can that change upon maturation?

JCR: Hearing is hardwired. The ability to distinguish
first language syllables (an ability which wains with
age) seems to also be hardwired. The ability to
manipulate the larynx etc. is hardwired and the ability
to mimick sounds and produce personalised
approximations of syllables also seems to be hardwired.
The cognitive system, including the ability to hear
and see and to record those events with reprogrammable
circuits is also hard wired. As for nouns, verbs,
adjectives etc. I do not believe they are hardwired.
They are just the byproduct of our hardwired language
learning algorithm.

KWR: The studies that you reference assume that all language learning is
object oriented. But my question, does all language remain object
oriented, or can it change to function oriented? Or in this question,
am I dealing with something that is more cultural than linguistic per
se?

JCR: The studies that I reference are cognitively
psychological in their agenda. They make no reference
to the implications for language. It is my own
personal conclusion that language is therefore object
oriented. I think we are dealing with something more
psychological than cultural or linguistic.

KWR: Now I admit that very early language acquisition is object oriented
(mommy, daddy, doggie, sister, brother, table, chair, foot, etc.)
because these are the elements that can be learned without being
linguistically communicated (e.g. pointed to). Likewise, objects
(though usually not the same ones) are usually the first elements
learned in the acquisition of a second language. My question is, can
the primary focus of language change from object oriented to function
oriented,

JCR: We could make such a suggestion but the question
will always remain "The function of what?"

KWR: Not necessarily. In many contexts, the missing verb can lead to
frustration and inability to communicate. There are many times where a
child will name an object, but what is important is not so much the
object itself, but what it is doing, and in omitting the verb, the
parent can be mystified why the child brought up the object in the
first place. The same with an incomplete inscription.

JCR: Yes! See my reference to how earliest words are
context bound. These facts show that communication is
both object and action oriented. However, the cognitive
basis of such always remains the object itself.

KWR: I mentioned the example of (WP as defined by the function of flying,
not by the form of having wings KNP. In fact, KNP is also used for the
wing of clothing (from the action in clothing that it flaps in the
wind?), so the form/object connected with flying is also used for
non-flying objects and even that could be defined by its action.

JCR: Good point. But we are still at the end of the
day discussing an abstract classification of objects
with a common behaviour rather than specific concrete
objects. The whole basis of understanding such abstract
concepts is built on the solid framework of
understanding of concrete objects which is in turn
built upon the foundations of cognitive understanding
of objects. Abstract behaviour oriented classification of objects can be
considered a mature level of
language as you suggested.

KWR: I suspect it is more cultural, affecting linguistics, than the other
way around, though there is most likely a certain amount of feedback;
namely the culture affects the language, but then the language
restricts expression to culturally accepted norms.

JCR: You are, of course, referring to the Whorfian model of linguistics. It
is undeniable that there is a
level of cultural influence in languages but I wouldn't
go as far as Whorf and give it such primacy.

KWR: But are there not other cultural/cultic aspects that also come into
play? For example, the worship of Baal was exciting, with sexual
orgies, drink, loud music, feasting, etc. with few restrictions on
personal behavior, while the worship of YHWH was often a fairly quiet,
sober affair with many restrictions on personal behavior. Which would
be more enticing?

JCR: Agreed.

James Christian Read - BSc Computer Science
http://www.lamie.org/hebrew - thesis1: concept driven machine translation
using the Aleppo codex
http://www.lamie.org/lad-sim.doc - thesis2: language acquisition simulation



















































































ud music, feasting, etc. with few restrictions on
personal behavior, while the worship of YHWH was often a fairly quiet,
sober affair with many restriction





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page