Tuesday 9 December 2014
10 Reasons Why You Should Learn English: A rebuttal.
Are you kidding me? An article in English telling people to learn English as a second language? Where do I even start? In fact I don't think I have to. Enough said.
Tuesday 2 December 2014
Refining my coursework
Upon further research in the area of my coursework investigation, particularly with regards to Piaget's theory of linguistic development I have decided to adjust the scope of my investigation. Where previously I had decided to look at children from ages 4-11, I now intend to widen it to include children up to 16 years old. This is because at 11 years old, many key CLA theories would suggest that the child has still yet to master the nuances of language, meaning that it may be possible to observe further lexical development across that age range, painting a more complete picture using the data collected. Finally, the somewhat abstract nature of the image I selected for the descriptive task means that there is potential for a huge difference in the way a young child would describe it than an older teen. For example, a child might say what they see (a man, a forest, a girl), but a teen might be able to infer more detailed information or use alternative synonyms (a prince, a grove, a maiden)
I also found it very interesting to find that supposedly some children never leave the third stage of Jean Piaget's theory, the 'concrete operational stage'. I have been faced with many teens and adults who seemed barely literate in even their first language, and I would be interested to see if I could find some of these people and see if the data supports this fact or not.
I also think that Jean Aitchison's theories on CLA could bear relevance as well, particularly the network building stage. I am interested to see how likely children over different ages are to describe how elements of the picture relate to each other, for example, upon seeing that there is a sentient tree man, fairies, and other seemingly magical sprites and critters, someone might determine what they see as an 'enchanted forest' or 'magical grove', or perhaps infer from that fantasy setting that the tree man is an 'ent' or 'treant', that the man is a 'prince' or 'adventurer', that the woman is a 'maiden', or a 'princess'. They may even infer some kind of relationship between the two, perhaps they are 'lovers' or 'king and queen'. Since the image gives no outside context, except that which one can infer from common fantasy tropes and cliches, I believe there will be a good deal of varied language used by all children, but that some key themes may crop up again and again.
I also found it very interesting to find that supposedly some children never leave the third stage of Jean Piaget's theory, the 'concrete operational stage'. I have been faced with many teens and adults who seemed barely literate in even their first language, and I would be interested to see if I could find some of these people and see if the data supports this fact or not.
I also think that Jean Aitchison's theories on CLA could bear relevance as well, particularly the network building stage. I am interested to see how likely children over different ages are to describe how elements of the picture relate to each other, for example, upon seeing that there is a sentient tree man, fairies, and other seemingly magical sprites and critters, someone might determine what they see as an 'enchanted forest' or 'magical grove', or perhaps infer from that fantasy setting that the tree man is an 'ent' or 'treant', that the man is a 'prince' or 'adventurer', that the woman is a 'maiden', or a 'princess'. They may even infer some kind of relationship between the two, perhaps they are 'lovers' or 'king and queen'. Since the image gives no outside context, except that which one can infer from common fantasy tropes and cliches, I believe there will be a good deal of varied language used by all children, but that some key themes may crop up again and again.
Thursday 6 November 2014
Isaac Hampson Gets Real... But What Is Real?
A classic lie taught to children these days is that of the five senses. There are in fact far more than five senses, but the five described are simply the most obvious ones. All of them were evolved over the course of Earthling history at different times, and all of them play a huge part in allowing us to understand the world. Different animals rely on different senses to varying degrees, for example humans are often extremely dependent on sight, whereas the ability to smell is at this point more of a nice detail. For a dog however, their sense of smell alone can reach far farther than any human sense. Heck, they can even smell round corners! A dog is considered to be a rather intelligent animal. So is a human. But the two creatures certainly have a very different image of reality.
When we experience the world, we experience it through all of our senses simultaneously. However, despite being completely different processes, the information all converges into one clear picture in our mind. We see the sights, feel the feels, smell the smells, and bring it all together into our experiences. Think of the human mind as a T.V. set. It receives all these electrical inputs and radio signals and runs them through the magical refinery, spitting out an episode of Eastenders.
We look at a table and see a solid, still object. However, what we see is not at all the 'truth' of things. The table appears to be smooth on top, however we know that it is actually made up of atoms, molecules and particles. We cannot make out these individual building blocks on a table any more than an astronaut can make out individual trees on Earth. But, they are there. The problem is, human senses are focused on a larger scale than that. It wouldn't have done us any good to be able to know an atom when we see one across our evolutionary history, so we cannot view them with our naked senses. It is also worth noting that we do not 'see' the table. Our eyes merely trap a certain amount of light, which is translated into nerve impulses, which is then re-translated into what we 'see'. We think that when we wave our hands, we are controlling it because our touch information and sight information correspond, but that is merely because it is all we know. So already we realize we are severely limited in our senses: we can't see things that are too small, or too big. They may as well not even exist to us. We see colours only because of the available spectrum of light. There is no 'durple' light, so we are unable to see the colour 'durple'. In fact colour is an invention of the mind, just like sound.
If a tree falls in a forest with no-one to hear it, does it still make a sound? Well, yes. And no. If there is no-one to hear it of course there is no sound. There is merely vibrations of the air, that if a creature with an ear were to be in range of, could be converted into a sound in the mind. But what this problem really illustrates is not some pseudo-philosophical point, but rather that we are also severely limited in our perceptions of reality by language.
The popular Sapir-Whorff hypothesis illustrates this handily. It is, broadly speaking, the idea that what you call something matters. In the english language, we define sound in this context as 'vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.' This quite handily crushes the 'tree falling in the deserted forest' though experiment, as it becomes clear by the meaning of the words that there was no 'sound'. However, if sound merely meant: 'vibrations that travel through the air or another medium' then the answer would be different. This proves that 'truth' is a purely subjective concept, as different people will use different words to describe things. For example, a prosecutor might say 'This vicious beast savaged my client mercilessly leaving him deformed for life', and the defendant might say 'My harmless little pug only nibbled his finger a bit and gave him a couple of tiny scratches.
And the interesting thing is that this should all be self-evident, but humans are very concerned with the ego, and it is very good far the human ego to think that we are the pinnacle of evolution, gods among beasts, the only truly intelligent life on Earth. Many people would be entirely disconcerted to know that nothing in life could ever be held to be 'certain' or 'true', as there are many people out there who fear nothing more than the unknown, a fact we have only proved after centuries of fearing change, progress, and the unfamiliar.
When we experience the world, we experience it through all of our senses simultaneously. However, despite being completely different processes, the information all converges into one clear picture in our mind. We see the sights, feel the feels, smell the smells, and bring it all together into our experiences. Think of the human mind as a T.V. set. It receives all these electrical inputs and radio signals and runs them through the magical refinery, spitting out an episode of Eastenders.
We look at a table and see a solid, still object. However, what we see is not at all the 'truth' of things. The table appears to be smooth on top, however we know that it is actually made up of atoms, molecules and particles. We cannot make out these individual building blocks on a table any more than an astronaut can make out individual trees on Earth. But, they are there. The problem is, human senses are focused on a larger scale than that. It wouldn't have done us any good to be able to know an atom when we see one across our evolutionary history, so we cannot view them with our naked senses. It is also worth noting that we do not 'see' the table. Our eyes merely trap a certain amount of light, which is translated into nerve impulses, which is then re-translated into what we 'see'. We think that when we wave our hands, we are controlling it because our touch information and sight information correspond, but that is merely because it is all we know. So already we realize we are severely limited in our senses: we can't see things that are too small, or too big. They may as well not even exist to us. We see colours only because of the available spectrum of light. There is no 'durple' light, so we are unable to see the colour 'durple'. In fact colour is an invention of the mind, just like sound.
If a tree falls in a forest with no-one to hear it, does it still make a sound? Well, yes. And no. If there is no-one to hear it of course there is no sound. There is merely vibrations of the air, that if a creature with an ear were to be in range of, could be converted into a sound in the mind. But what this problem really illustrates is not some pseudo-philosophical point, but rather that we are also severely limited in our perceptions of reality by language.
The popular Sapir-Whorff hypothesis illustrates this handily. It is, broadly speaking, the idea that what you call something matters. In the english language, we define sound in this context as 'vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear.' This quite handily crushes the 'tree falling in the deserted forest' though experiment, as it becomes clear by the meaning of the words that there was no 'sound'. However, if sound merely meant: 'vibrations that travel through the air or another medium' then the answer would be different. This proves that 'truth' is a purely subjective concept, as different people will use different words to describe things. For example, a prosecutor might say 'This vicious beast savaged my client mercilessly leaving him deformed for life', and the defendant might say 'My harmless little pug only nibbled his finger a bit and gave him a couple of tiny scratches.
And the interesting thing is that this should all be self-evident, but humans are very concerned with the ego, and it is very good far the human ego to think that we are the pinnacle of evolution, gods among beasts, the only truly intelligent life on Earth. Many people would be entirely disconcerted to know that nothing in life could ever be held to be 'certain' or 'true', as there are many people out there who fear nothing more than the unknown, a fact we have only proved after centuries of fearing change, progress, and the unfamiliar.
Sunday 2 November 2014
Tuesday 30 September 2014
Investigation Ideas
I am still not clear on precisely what the content of my investigation will be, however I have made progress on deciding how I should go about collecting some data. After doing a task which depicted roughly 20 different liquid holding containers, and asked you to name them all, I was sufficiently interested enough in the idea to try and copy it. The things I am now considering is exactly what I am going to be testing for, using this method.
First I will have to design the task, so the first step is to think of a hyponym, then think of a lot of hypernyms that fit into it. Then I have to draw each of those things as accurately as possible. I have considered what that hyponym could be, and thought of a few things, such as fruits, that are quite recognizable but also come in many different varieties. Then I simply have to make a table in which the volunteer can label each of the fruits, and there I have my data, from which I could draw conclusions.
One thing I have thought of testing was the differences between those who were from Bristol and those who were from Bath, and see if any relevant conclusions come up, or indeed, if there are very few differences, that could be relevant too.
First I will have to design the task, so the first step is to think of a hyponym, then think of a lot of hypernyms that fit into it. Then I have to draw each of those things as accurately as possible. I have considered what that hyponym could be, and thought of a few things, such as fruits, that are quite recognizable but also come in many different varieties. Then I simply have to make a table in which the volunteer can label each of the fruits, and there I have my data, from which I could draw conclusions.
One thing I have thought of testing was the differences between those who were from Bristol and those who were from Bath, and see if any relevant conclusions come up, or indeed, if there are very few differences, that could be relevant too.
Monday 29 September 2014
The different ways we acquire language
Language Acquisition Device
Not much is known about the workings of the human brain, and this 'device' is theoretically located somewhere in the human brain, though nothing can be made certain of. It is this device that supposedly allows and helps children to intuit language features as they do, learning at exponentially growing speeds. This is a nativist idea, first proposed by linguist and philosopher Noam Chomsky.
Nativism
The idea that we are born with certain innate understandings or abilities that assist us in acquiring language features. One idea that supports this theory is that there are no records or evidences of human civilizations that did NOT have some kind of language. Another example is that all healthy five year olds will have learned at least one language by that age, though obviously do not yet possess a mastery of that language. By adulthood, they will have mastered the use of their language, and will have a pragmatic understanding of grammatical rules, though both the adult and the child will have difficulty articulating exactly what these rules are, why they know them, and why they even matter.
Behaviorism
This is the idea that we learn language through positive and negative reinforcement, like a dog being trained. It suggests that we learn language by being rewarded when we get it right, and being punished when we get it wrong. However, these studies were carried out on dogs and pigeons, rather than on actual children, so the relevance of the data and conclusions drawn from it are somewhat questionable.
Cognitive Theory
This is the idea that children learn language because they are desperate to, they feel an intense need to express themselves and their desires, which motivates them to be attentive in the presence of experienced language users and inspires them to put their share of the effort in when conversing with other language users.
Input Theory
This is the idea that children learn language by absorbing it, primarily from their caregivers, who are likely to speak to and around them the most. Garegivers are also very likely to use 'parentese', converging with their child's language to accommodate their limited understanding. This is also known as Child Directed Speech. Child Directed Speech is an important part of the learning process, as caregivers will encourage the child to converse by directing the conversation through use of interrogatives and by prompting them in times of uncertainty.
This is the idea that we learn language through positive and negative reinforcement, like a dog being trained. It suggests that we learn language by being rewarded when we get it right, and being punished when we get it wrong. However, these studies were carried out on dogs and pigeons, rather than on actual children, so the relevance of the data and conclusions drawn from it are somewhat questionable.
Cognitive Theory
This is the idea that children learn language because they are desperate to, they feel an intense need to express themselves and their desires, which motivates them to be attentive in the presence of experienced language users and inspires them to put their share of the effort in when conversing with other language users.
Input Theory
This is the idea that children learn language by absorbing it, primarily from their caregivers, who are likely to speak to and around them the most. Garegivers are also very likely to use 'parentese', converging with their child's language to accommodate their limited understanding. This is also known as Child Directed Speech. Child Directed Speech is an important part of the learning process, as caregivers will encourage the child to converse by directing the conversation through use of interrogatives and by prompting them in times of uncertainty.
Monday 8 September 2014
Unspeakably Intriguing
Unspeak is the art of giving hidden meaning to your words. An example of Unspeak could be a mobster who says they are going to 'make you an offer you can't refuse'. What they mean is that they are going to kill you if you do not co-operate with their request, but they mask that meaning by using something of a euphemism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)