Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

@layman,

I'm just making this up as I go, but I'm taking you to be saying something like this.

1. A tiger's growl is a unique sound.
2. If a chimp could imitate this sound, and made it, then...
3. Other chimps might well realize that he was warning them that there was a tiger in the vicinity.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

I'm just making this up as I go, but I'm taking you to be saying something like this.

1. A tiger's growl is a unique sound.
2. If a chimp could imitate this sound, and made it, then...
3. Other chimps might well realize that he was warning them that there was a tiger in the vicinity.

That's an interesting point and it may have something to do with the way words evolved but chimps in nature I believe emit a shrieking howl at the presence of danger, which in fact the do perceive.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/chimpanzees-intentionally-warn-their-friends-about-danger-2373802/

1 Reply

@jerlands,

Quote:

when chimps warn each other about impending danger, the noises they make are much more than the instinctive expression of fear—they’re intentionally produced, exclusively in the presence of other chimps, and cease when these other chimps are safe from danger.

This not might sound like much, but linguists use intentionality as a key hallmark of language.

Exactly. Language is not "instinct." It requires a calculation of cause and effect. You can't have an "intention" without having a (presumably favorable) outcome in mind which you desire to achieve. In my book that amounts to "thinking."

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Exactly. Language is not "instinct." It requires a calculation of cause and effect. You can't have an "intention" without having a (presumably favorable) outcome in mind which you desire to achieve. In my book that amounts to "thinking."

I don't know that language isn't instinct.. for that matter what is instinct and is it separate from the mind in lower forms of life? I think evolution of language developed as perception developed. You see expression changes as man switches from maternal to paternal worship around the 7th millennium so what happened to language? We don't have record and I'm not so into the study to have real insight.

I mean ants communicate but the development of vocal cords allowed greater expression and I think song.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

I don't know that language isn't instinct.. for that matter what is instinct...?

Well, trying to define "instinct" and then use that definition meaningfully is problematic, I agree.

To me, "language" is simply communication. It doesn't have to be written, or even verbal. But it does require that symbols be mutually understood.

From what I've read, "scout" bees can go a long way from the hive, discover a source of food (say pollen), then fly back to the hive and do a "dance" in front of the other bees, who will then know exactly where that pollen is located.

Even assuming that each particular movement of the scout bee was "instinctively" understood by all, the bee would still have to combine those symbols in a unique way which corresponds to the situation at hand. This would require "manipulating" the universal symbols in a way that couldn't have been inherited. In other words, it requires what I would call "thought."

2 Replies

@layman,

Beyond that, the idea that language is "inherited" (instinctive) is totally foundationless. Is there something in the genes of a chinaman that causes him to come out of the womb understanding chinese? How about the many other languages, past and present, that people speak (or have spoken)? All "inherited?"

I don't think so. Homey don't play dat.

Human languages are arbitrary and invented (created), then learned by succeeding generations, not "inherited."

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

Well, trying to define "instinct" and then use that definition meaningfully is problematic, I agree.

instinct is defined as:

Quote:

an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli

So it's a behavior but I see that we can choose certain responses, it seems it's just another signal we're given like any other sense.

layman wrote:

To me, "language" is simply communication. It doesn't have to be written, or even verbal. But it does require that symbols be mutually understood.

Yeh, like sign language. But the definition of language involves the human exclusively.
Communication doesn't seem to require language but language is communication. I see flaws in that though and maybe the definition of language should include "a fixed pattern of communication."

1 Reply

@jerlands,

The key word in that definition of instinct being "innate," eh? That's the part I was focusing on.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

The key word in that definition of instinct being "innate," eh? That's the part I was focusing on.

Yeh so language may have risen as an innate response to communicate but with greater expression, this sounds like evolution. But what formed the expressions?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

layman wrote:
The key word in that definition of instinct being "innate," eh? That's the part I was focusing on.

Yeh so language may have risen as an innate response to communicate but with greater expression, this sounds like evolution. But what formed the expressions?

Other than indirectly (such as evolving brain matter, and the like), I can't see how "evolution" has anything to do with language. As I said, languages are created, not inherited.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Other than indirectly (such as evolving brain matter, and the like), I can't see how "evolution" has anything to do with language. As I said, languages are created, not inherited.

Here's the thing... I don't see man as the creator, I see everything man puts together comes from preexisting source... even imagination. I don't think we can touch upon anything but some form of reality or another and I also believe it to be an innate urge to become as real as possible (except if you're trying to escape something.). So in the formation of language I'm guessing it has some relationship to things perceived at that time. As for languages being created I'm not excluding intelligent design but I see that evolution occurs in everything and language is only a reflection of what we can touch upon.

0 Replies

This may seem completely off-topic, but it aint, in my opinion. Why is the kid in this video laughing?

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Why is the kid in this video laughing?

Somewhere I saw a video on the game "peek-a-boo" and infants reactions.
It explains a kids perception of "elsewhere" isn't fully developed and it's startling when something suddenly appears. I think the kid is reaction to the changes in images or possibly the movements.

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

layman wrote:
Why is the kid in this video laughing?

Somewhere I saw a video on the game "peek-a-boo" and infants reactions.
It explains a kids perception of "elsewhere" isn't fully developed and it's startling when something suddenly appears. I think the kid is reaction to the changes in images or possibly the movements.

Yeah, distorted or not, kids have perceptions. But do they have "thoughts," even if they can't talk? Why isn't this kid crying, acting frightened, startled, or something else other than laughing? Is the laughing "instinctive," ya figure?

0 Replies

At the risk of getting my head bitten off, neither of the 'debaters' here seem to have heard of Chomsky or other major contributors to the vast realm of language acquisition literature.

Chomsky argued that language competence was innate in humans, but performance was subject to intelligence and environment. A distinction is made between human language, and other species communication, because 'human competence' is partially defined by the unique ability to produce and understand a potentially infinite set of utterances from a finite set of elements.

With respect to this thread, it follows that semantics or 'meaning' as far as all species are concerned, cannot be divorced from the context in which language elements are acquired. And in the case of humans, 'generative semantics' involving combinations of multiple elements is the norm.

2 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Chomsky argued that language competence was innate in humans, but performance was subject to intelligence and environment.

Yes, that is true. Chomsky is right on this. Aristotle, Plato's Socrates, and Averroes and other philosophers as well have had similar thoughts on the innateness of language. But Chomsky is by far the most eloquent and precise on this. There is an old interview of Chomsky where he nails down this subject quite elaborately. Here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdUbIlwHRkY&t=22m00s

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

because 'human competence' is partially defined by the unique ability to produce and understand a potentially infinite set of utterances from a finite set of elements.

Interesting that the human body can manufacture millions of different proteins using something like 25,000 encoding genes from 20 amino acids.

0 Replies

@carpenters,

Quote:

Chomsky is by far the most eloquent and precise on this. There is an old interview of Chomsky where he nails down this subject quite elaborately.

Here Chomsky takes a quasi-platonic view of innate "concepts" awaiting a word to describe them, but still says it's not "really" that.

He also says that "it's so far beyond what we even know how to study that you can only wave your hands at it...let me say that I'm not speaking about this from any expertise....there's nothing in linguistic theory which gives answers to this question."

He's offering philosophical speculation, that's all. He is not offering his thoughts as the inevitable product of scientific research, by any means.

2 Replies

@layman,

One of the most fundamental (1 of 3) tenets of logical thought is that of (self) "identity," i.e,, that "A = A."

An interesting study of children on this was done quite a while back. At an early age (say 3-4) kids can't really grasp and apply the concept of identity. They are shown two glasses, each with an (identical) amount of liquid in them and asked which has more.

One glass is a long, narrow container like a test tube, and the other is a short, large-diameter mug.

They invariably say the narrow glass contains "more" because the liquid in it goes "higher."

Then the liquid in one glass is dispensed with and the water remaining in the other is poured into it. This is done repeatedly as the kids watch and the kids still always say the test tube is the one with more water in it, even when the exact same water (and therefore an identical amount) is poured from one to another.

Kids can't typically grasp this until later ages like 5 or 6.

Certainly they are not "born with" an innate concept of "equality" as Plato would claim.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

One of the most fundamental (1 of 3) tenets of logical thought is that of (self) "identity," i.e,, that "A = A."

You inserted "self" into that definition.

I don't really know but it seems the part of the human brain responsible for rational thought doesn't fully develop until around the age of 25 years. It seems our educational system is confused. We should probably teach play in the early years and later on in life concern ourselves with reason.

1 Reply

Does an ‘individual’ word have meaning…?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know