![]() |
Natural Language
This may not be the type of thing you guys like to talk about but I love this kind of thing. And I especially love that my kids think like this as well.
On the way to church my daughter posed a question. She said... I wonder if there is a natural language that we would speak if we were not taught a language growing up? Now that is a pretty good question. I don't know how much it would resemble what we view as language but I have feeling that there would be some sort of language that would come to pass because we would find a way to communicate. We would find words or utterances to symbolize certain things and we would communicate in that manner. She also wondered how much it would resemble our languages. I think it might have some occasional resemblances to at least the older languages because many languages have similar words for the same item although I am aware that often this is because one language adapts a word from another language. Anyway... this is the type of thing I like to ponder. Any thoughts? |
Re: Natural Language
Wouldn't it be like the communication of the people that have been found wandering in the wilderness, or shut up in basements?
The stories I've heard like that, there is some type of guttural communication. The woman and children who were kept in that basement by that horrific man, they communicated with each other, but it didn't sound like the way we speak. It'd be interesting to know if all of these different people could communicate with each other. The wilderness people, basement people, etc. If there is a universal code. |
Re: Natural Language
Quote:
This is the type of thing I find very interesting. I am sure there is an amazing human capacity to communicate with one another. We find a way to do what we need and we truly need to communicate. Not only from a practical standpoint but also for the facilitation of relationship etc. |
Re: Natural Language
Quote:
Hey! Think I could make lots of money by pitching that as a reality show??? :D |
Re: Natural Language
Quote:
|
Re: Natural Language
I can't remember who, but someone was just discussing this within the last week. They said there was a study done (early 70s?) where a group of toddlers was cared for but not spoken to. The kids grew for several years without language. They grunted and pointed and gesticulated but never did develop a natural language of their own. I can't find any reference to the study they referred to, but here is an interesting link: http://www.feralchildren.com/en/language.php
This doesn't mean that language wouldn't develop over a period of years. IMO, I suspect that language would never develop as we know it. Words would probably be much simpler. (what person, never having experienced language, is going to make up "supercallafragilasticexpialadocious," after all?) A more advanced sentence structure and abstract terms would take years if not decades or centuries to develop in a vacuum. Here is another website about language development experiments and sentence fragmenting (the ability to distinguish separate words in the midst of a sentence-my problem with comprehending spoken spanish) http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep06/words.html |
Re: Natural Language
Quote:
|
Re: Natural Language
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/langu...es/000078.html
Late in the 16th century, the Mogul emperor Akbar the Great tested his hypothesis that babies raised without hearing speech would be unable to speak. He had twelve infants raised by mute nurses in a house where no speech could be heard. Several years later, he went to the house and found that none of the children spoke. Instead, they conversed only in signs. Akbar's hypothesis seemed to be supported: no oral input, no oral language language learning. |
Re: Natural Language
Quote:
|
Re: Natural Language
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:10 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.