Ch. 2 - Down the Rabbit Hole
Please use this thread for discussing Ch. 2 - Down the Rabbit Hole.
-
In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Ch. 2 - Down the Rabbit Hole
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17033
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 22
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3520 times
- Been thanked: 1313 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
-
-
Masters
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:28 am
- 18
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 41 times
Though Chapter 2 has some interesting ideas, I really had to push myself to get through it over the holidays. The difficulty was that, even though Pinker's conclusions about the human mind were intriguing, the linguistic analysis he used to get there became tiresome and monotonous.
His approach was to examine English verbs, and to consider which sentence structures various verbs allowed. For example, these two sentences both include the verb load :
I'll come back later and describe those insights in more detail.
His approach was to examine English verbs, and to consider which sentence structures various verbs allowed. For example, these two sentences both include the verb load :
With some verbs, only structures similar to the first sentence are generally spoken, while other verbs appear only in sentences similar to the second. Pinker grouped the verbs into lists based on the allowed sentence structures, and search for patterns in those groupings. Since small children can figure out how to speak grammatically, even for rarely heard words, and similar patterns appear in other languages, the verb groupings provide insight into how the human mind understands the world.Hal loaded the wagon with hay.
Hal loaded hay into the wagon.
I'll come back later and describe those insights in more detail.
The second chapter hasn't grabbed me. A possible cause is that I'm tired and lacking in sleep. It's possible that Pinker hasn't done a good enough job - though I'd say that's highly improbable. It's possible that I've heard it all before. It's possible that I'm more inclined to deal with semantics than syntax. It's possible that all of the above have played a part in my reaction. Who can say?
I hear you, in that Pinker gets into the syntax a bit in this chapter, describing one very specific example of one type of verb & its syntactic ramifications...but he's getting a bit geeky here.
My BA is in Linguistics, and I've taken courses on syntactic theories, semantics, et. al. and I understand his excitement. Reading this chapter, I think I know what it feels like to be trapped in a conversation by a (ooh, to pick an example out of the air) Babylon 5 fan(atic) [I am one, so beware! ], and that person is trying to explain why this is the most utterly amazing thing on the planet. And he knows, that when you do 'get it', you'll become an addict too.
My linguistic geek-dom is coming back to me (although his use of the words "theta-role assignment" makes me break out in a cold sweat with flashbacks to a 400-level course). Child language acquisition is incredibly exciting, it essentially drives all of linguistic research (very over-simplifying comment there!): Why/How is every child born able to learn any natural language? Expose them to meaningful discourse in other languages on a regular basis, they'll learn those too, all with perfect pronunciation and a natural grasp of the grammar.
I'm going to go and finish reading this chapter now!
My BA is in Linguistics, and I've taken courses on syntactic theories, semantics, et. al. and I understand his excitement. Reading this chapter, I think I know what it feels like to be trapped in a conversation by a (ooh, to pick an example out of the air) Babylon 5 fan(atic) [I am one, so beware! ], and that person is trying to explain why this is the most utterly amazing thing on the planet. And he knows, that when you do 'get it', you'll become an addict too.
My linguistic geek-dom is coming back to me (although his use of the words "theta-role assignment" makes me break out in a cold sweat with flashbacks to a 400-level course). Child language acquisition is incredibly exciting, it essentially drives all of linguistic research (very over-simplifying comment there!): Why/How is every child born able to learn any natural language? Expose them to meaningful discourse in other languages on a regular basis, they'll learn those too, all with perfect pronunciation and a natural grasp of the grammar.
I'm going to go and finish reading this chapter now!
"All Beings are the Owners of their Deeds, the Heirs to their Deeds."
-
-
Masters
- Posts: 450
- Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:28 am
- 18
- Location: Sunnyvale, CA
- Has thanked: 5 times
- Been thanked: 41 times
- Mr. P
-
- Has Plan to Save Books During Fire
- Posts: 3826
- Joined: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:16 am
- 19
- Location: NJ
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- Gender:
I am totally enjoying the second chapter. Maybe because I am not too familiar with this stuff. I never studied language in depth so this is an educational experience for me. I have been wanting to study more linguistics since reading a sci-fi novel a few years ago called "Bable-17" by Samuel Delany. It was about the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. Here is a brief summary for those interested.JulianTheApostate wrote:If you're bogged down in Chapter 2, you can skip ahead to Chapter 3, which is more interesting, without missing much. Don't give up on the book because Chapter 2 is daunting. (I'm not saying you would, but some people might be tempted to do so.)bradams wrote:The second chapter hasn't grabbed me.
Mr. P.During an interstellar war one side develops a language, Babel 17, that can be used as a weapon. Learning it turns one into an unwilling traitor as it alters perception and thought. The change is made more dangerous by the language's seductive enhancement of other abilities. This is discovered by the beautiful starship captain, linguist, poet, and telepath Rydra Wong. She is recruited by her government to discover how the enemy are infiltrating and sabotaging strategic sites. Initially Babel-17 is thought to be a code used by enemy agents. Rydra Wong realises it is a language, and finds herself becoming a traitor as she learns it. She is rescued by her dedicated crew, figures out the danger, and neutralizes its effects.
When you refuse to learn, you become a disease.
Mr. P -- very cool. There are a whole whack of SF books that play with language, but I'd not heard of that one.
One of my favourites is Native Tongue (and a couple of sequels) by Suzette Haden Elgin, a SF writer and Linguistics prof. She used the realm of SF to play with the W-S hypothesis as well. (oooh, I googled it, and it's available online through Google Books!) [I've just had a very busy day at work, and my brain is not working well enough to write a synopsis, or even find one! Sorry, another day...if anyone is interested! ]
One of my favourites is Native Tongue (and a couple of sequels) by Suzette Haden Elgin, a SF writer and Linguistics prof. She used the realm of SF to play with the W-S hypothesis as well. (oooh, I googled it, and it's available online through Google Books!) [I've just had a very busy day at work, and my brain is not working well enough to write a synopsis, or even find one! Sorry, another day...if anyone is interested! ]
"All Beings are the Owners of their Deeds, the Heirs to their Deeds."
Yeah... The second chapter was a bit dense. I made it to page 60 and then decided I would skip the rest and start on chapter three. Shameful!JulianTheApostate wrote:If you're bogged down in Chapter 2, you can skip ahead to Chapter 3, which is more interesting, without missing much. Don't give up on the book because Chapter 2 is daunting. (I'm not saying you would, but some people might be tempted to do so.)bradams wrote:The second chapter hasn't grabbed me.
There was a line from chapter two, thouh, that I spent some time with: "...Certain aspects of geometry and physics are salient enough to the minds of English speakers to determine how they construe events."
First, I wondered why Pinker named English speakers only. Are not French speakers, Spanish speakers, Japanese speakers --speakers of any and every language -- just as succeptible to vary in their interpretation of events according to the laws of geomoetry and physics? What makes English speakers so special in their relationship between language and science? I mean, there were other cultures that were flourishing in mathematics and astronomy (Arabic and African cultures particulalry come to mind) long before modern day English came to be? Yet, we should think our language is the only one capable of being modified ever so slightly by math?
On another note, all this talk from chapter two about how children are much more adept at learning language than their older peers made me think of my time in Japan. One of my friends who was an English teacher moved there with her daighter. She was the only "foreign" child in the whole daycare that she attended. She took to Japanese like a duck to water. We were just amazed at how effectively she could understand and speak the langauge. Then, we realized that if we didn't have to speak English all day everyday, and that if the only way we could communicate with each other was through another language, then we would learn pretty quickly how to do that. We all have the capacity to learn language just as easily as a child --no matter our age. However, after we have learned one language, can meet all of our needs in that language, and are settled in a routine around that language, it just simply isn't as necessary as it is for children to pick up a new way to communicate.
- Ophelia
-
- Oddly Attracted to Books
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:33 am
- 16
- Location: France
- Been thanked: 35 times
tlpounds wrote:
a- not as easily as children
b- in many cases, not as well.
Children learn easily because, as you note, they need to communicate with others (their play mates for example) but also because they are good at hearing , recognizing and imitating the sounds of a foreign language.
Also, an important point is that young children have nothing else to do than learn how to speak, and can devote a lot of their energy to it, as opposed to the adult who has to attend to all his obligations.
If an adult HAD to learn to learn a language in a situation of survival he would do it, but I think it would be very stressful, whereas a child learns naturally.
Then in most cases the results will be different. Most adults don't hear the sounds of a foreign language well because the mother tongue acts as a screen -- even the child is not 100% free from that screen. As soon as people start talking around a new norn baby the screen is being built.
Yes, adults can learn foreign languages, butWe all have the capacity to learn language just as easily as a child --no matter our age. However, after we have learned one language, can meet all of our needs in that language, and are settled in a routine around that language, it just simply isn't as necessary as it is for children to pick up a new way to communicate
a- not as easily as children
b- in many cases, not as well.
Children learn easily because, as you note, they need to communicate with others (their play mates for example) but also because they are good at hearing , recognizing and imitating the sounds of a foreign language.
Also, an important point is that young children have nothing else to do than learn how to speak, and can devote a lot of their energy to it, as opposed to the adult who has to attend to all his obligations.
If an adult HAD to learn to learn a language in a situation of survival he would do it, but I think it would be very stressful, whereas a child learns naturally.
Then in most cases the results will be different. Most adults don't hear the sounds of a foreign language well because the mother tongue acts as a screen -- even the child is not 100% free from that screen. As soon as people start talking around a new norn baby the screen is being built.
Ophelia.
I think another reason, and this one has no empirical backing that I know of, is that when you have been thinking and speaking in one language for a very long time, as an adult has, you might try to translate the new language into the old one and back again when communicating rather than directly tying the language into your concepts.