Ch. 3 - Fifty Thousand Innate Concepts

Chris OConnor

Ch. 3 - Fifty Thousand Innate Concepts (and Other Radical Theories of Language and Thought)

Please use this thread for discussing Ch. 3 - Fifty Thousand Innate Concepts (and Other Radical Theories of Language and Thought).

seeker · Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2008 8:02 pm Post subject:

It seems to me that the central question here is what mental constructs are innate and what is learned. The second issue addressed is whether language determines thought or vice versa. Pinker makes a good argument that a cognitive framework is built into the structure of the human brain which predetermines our sensory perceptions in terms of space, time, substance, and causality. He argues for a meta-language of concepts that precedes and structures spoken language. Does a newborn baby perceive the world as a changing kaleidoscope of color and sound, upon which pattern must be imposed by experience? Or are some patterns already in place, inherent in the physical structure of the brain, or still dormant in genes that have not yet been activated in the developmental process? Do we think in the words of our native language, or in nonverbal representations of meaning?

To me, Pinker is convincing. Not too surprising, since I haven't been exposed to the arguments of the other schools of thought.

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject:

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject:

JulianTheApostate · Posted: Sat Jan 19, 2008 1:31 pm Post subject:

I made the following statement in the Chapter 2 thread.

Ophelia

I'm reading what I can, not being at ease with linguistics.

I've found a humourous story page 118:

"Incidentally, many people believe that these doublets -- a Germanic word for the animal and a French word for its meat -- come from a time when Anglo-Saxon peasants tended animals but only their Norman overlords got to eat them."

Pinker tells us that the story

a- comes from Ivanhoe

b- is not true!

I learnt that story in high school (with millions of other trustful souls).
In the version of the story I heard it was not implied that only the Norman lords ate meat, but that they brought their own words for what was in their plates. Also of course Invanhoe was not mentioned, since the story was true.

tlpounds · Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: Missing something?

JulianTheApostate wrote that "I made the following statement in the Chapter 2 thread."

tlpounds

In the first part of Chapter Three, there are two very different schools of thought on language that are weighed against the other: extreme nativism and radical pragmatics. The former argues that people are born with an innate inventory of certain basic concepts, as well as an ability to form new ones from experiences that build upon the inborn concepts. Radical pragmatics, on the other hand, refuse to accept the thought that an inherent consciousness of an idea/feeling can exist before being introduced to and learing it is, quite frankly, B.S.
Although, as Seeker said, Pinker makes an extrememly convincing argument for the radical pragmatic side, I couldn't help but wonder what credance there is to extreme nativism. As the adage goes, the truth about language probably "lies somewhere in between." I am skeptical about which concepts would be innate. As some of you have mentioned in your posts, I can't see how somthing that can't be broken down into any simpler defintitions, like a carburetor, could be an innate concept. We must have learned it through experience. However, as a teacher, I have seen many students with disabilities. Some with extreme disabilities can understand and communicate very simple and basic needs. Then, I thought about Helen Keller. How was Ann Sullivan able to teach someone with severley stunted senses? How was she able to teach someone who lived in a world of darkness to learn and to communicate?
The first word Keller was taught, as we've all been told, was water. Yes, Sullivan wrote the word over and over in her hand until she made the connection. But, how could Keller have made the connection in the first place without having some sort of innate idea about what water was? If it wasn't a thing to her in the first place, how was she eventually able to connect actual water to its name?
Surely, there is room for both schools of thought on the idea of language.

JulianTheApostate · Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:42 pm Post subject: Re: Missing something?

Loricat · Posted: Thu Jan 24, 2008 8:56 pm Post subject:

Julian:

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:50 am Post subject:

tlpounds · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:56 pm Post subject:

Mr. Pessimistic wrote,

Mr. Pessimistic · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:17 pm Post subject:

George Ricker · Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 7:17 pm Post subject:

Not only does eternal return sound like bunk, but it also doesn't really answer the objection. We could not have had an innate word for carburetors because we have had human language for tens of thousands of years. Carburetors are very recent developments in that time scale.

I think Pinker's critique of Extreme Nativism is spot on.

George


	FORUMS	ABOUT	BOOKS	VIDEOS	TRANSCRIPTS	LINKS	BLOGS	DONATE	CONTACT