Lies about CI's

[rockdrummer]

Ladies...

Defining natural language

Source: Natural language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though the exact definition varies between scholars, natural language can broadly be defined in contrast on the one hand to artificial or constructed languages, such as computer programming languages like Python and international auxiliary languages like Esperanto, and on the other hand to other communication systems in nature, such as the waggle dance of bees. Although there are a variety of natural languages, any cognitively normal human infant is able to learn any natural language. By comparing the different natural languages, scholars hope to learn something about the nature of human intelligence and the innate biases and constraints that shape natural language.
Linguists have an incomplete understanding of all aspects of the rules underlying natural languages, and these rules are therefore objects of study. The understanding of natural languages reveals much about not only how language works (in terms of syntax, semantics, phonetics, phonology, etc.), but also about how the human mind and the human brain process language. In linguistic terms, natural language only applies to a language that has evolved naturally, and the study of natural language primarily involves native (first language) speakers.
The theory of universal grammar proposes that all natural languages have certain underlying rules which constrain the structure of the specific grammar for any given language.
While grammarians, writers of dictionaries, and language policy-makers all have a certain influence on the evolution of language, their ability to influence what people think they ought to say is distinct from what people actually say. The term natural language refers to actual linguistic behavior, and is aligned with descriptive linguistics rather than linguistic prescription. Thus non-standard language varieties (such as African American Vernacular English) are considered to be natural while standard language varieties (such as Standard American English) which are more prescribed can be considered to be at least somewhat artificial or constructed.
[edit]Native language learning

Main article: Language acquisition
The learning of one's own native language, typically that of one's parents, normally occurs spontaneously in early human childhood and is biologically driven. A crucial role of this process is the ability of humans from an early age to engage in speech repetition and so quickly acquire a spoken vocabulary from the pronunciation of words spoken around them. This together with other aspects of speech involves the neural activity of parts of the human brain such as the Wernicke's and Broca's areas.
There are approximately 7,000 current human languages, and many, if not most seem to share certain properties, leading to the belief in the existence of Universal Grammar, as shown by generative grammar studies pioneered by the work of Noam Chomsky. Recently, it has been demonstrated that a dedicated network in the human brain (crucially involving Broca's area, a portion of the left inferior frontal gyrus), is selectively activated by complex verbal structures (but not simple ones) of those languages that meet the Universal Grammar requirements.[1][2]

 

[jillio]

Wiki?

And, if you had read it, this defines a natural language as one that develops naturally. As ASL has developed naturally for the purpose and the population which uses it. Has virtually nothing to do with fluency or acquisistion.

 

[rockdrummer]

Wiki?

^ A. Moro, M. Tettamanti, D. Perani, C. Donati, S. F. Cappa, F. Fazio “Syntax and the brain: disentangling grammar by selective anomalies”, NeuroImage, 13, January 2001, Academic Press, Chicago, pp. 110-118
^ Musso, M., Moro, A. , Glauche. V., Rijntjes, M., Reichenbach, J., Büchel, C., Weiller, C. “Broca’s area and the language instinct,” Nature neuroscience, 2003, vol. 6, pp. 774-781.
^ Early Voices: The Leap to Language nytimes article by Nicholas Wade
^ [1]
^ "Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition", accessed 28 June 2007, ISBN 1 55671 159 X
^ Paolillo, J.C. & Das, A.: "Evaluating Language Statistics: The Ethnologue and Beyond". 2006
^ Gerrand, P.: "Estimating Linguistic Diversity on the Internet: A Taxonomy to Avoid Pitfalls and Paradoxes" JCMC 2007
^ Gopsill, F. P., "A historical overview of international languages". In International languages: A matter for Interlingua. Sheffield, England: British Interlingua Society, 1990.
^ Proponents contend that there are 200-2000 native speakers of Esperanto.
^ Gode, Alexander, Interlingua-English: A dictionary of the international language. New York: Storm Publishers, 1951. (Original edition)
^ Gopsill, F. P., "A historical overview of international languages". In International languages: A matter for Interlingua. Sheffield, England: British Interlingua Society, 1990.
^ Gopsill, F. P., "Naturalistic international languages". In International languages: A matter for Interlingua. Sheffield, England: British Interlingua Society, 1990.
^ Emmorey, Karen. Language, cognition, and the brain: insights from sign language research (2001), p. 11.
^ Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct
[edit]References

ter Meulen, Alice, 2001, "Logic and Natural Language," in Goble, Lou, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Blackwell.

 

[jillio]

^ A. Moro, M. Tettamanti, D. Perani, C. Donati, S. F. Cappa, F. Fazio “Syntax and the brain: disentangling grammar by selective anomalies”, NeuroImage, 13, January 2001, Academic Press, Chicago, pp. 110-118
^ Musso, M., Moro, A. , Glauche. V., Rijntjes, M., Reichenbach, J., Büchel, C., Weiller, C. “Broca’s area and the language instinct,” Nature neuroscience, 2003, vol. 6, pp. 774-781.
^ Early Voices: The Leap to Language nytimes article by Nicholas Wade
^ [1]
^ "Ethnologue: Languages of the World, Fifteenth edition", accessed 28 June 2007, ISBN 1 55671 159 X
^ Paolillo, J.C. & Das, A.: "Evaluating Language Statistics: The Ethnologue and Beyond". 2006
^ Gerrand, P.: "Estimating Linguistic Diversity on the Internet: A Taxonomy to Avoid Pitfalls and Paradoxes" JCMC 2007
^ Gopsill, F. P., "A historical overview of international languages". In International languages: A matter for Interlingua. Sheffield, England: British Interlingua Society, 1990.
^ Proponents contend that there are 200-2000 native speakers of Esperanto.
^ Gode, Alexander, Interlingua-English: A dictionary of the international language. New York: Storm Publishers, 1951. (Original edition)
^ Gopsill, F. P., "A historical overview of international languages". In International languages: A matter for Interlingua. Sheffield, England: British Interlingua Society, 1990.
^ Gopsill, F. P., "Naturalistic international languages". In International languages: A matter for Interlingua. Sheffield, England: British Interlingua Society, 1990.
^ Emmorey, Karen. Language, cognition, and the brain: insights from sign language research (2001), p. 11.
^ Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct
[edit]References

ter Meulen, Alice, 2001, "Logic and Natural Language," in Goble, Lou, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Blackwell.

Thanks. I have easy access to all of these. I will check them out. If applicable, especially to the deaf, I will add them to my extensive data bank of research.

Can we assume that you have read and understood all of these and that you can select points to support your argument? Just looking through the titles, it can be safely assumed that the vast majority have virtually nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Philosphy is not relevent, naturalistic national language is not relevent, detangling grammar by selective anomalies is not relevent, and on and on. Indication of indiscriminate copying and pasting without ever having bothered to understand the topic.

 

[rockdrummer]

Thanks. I have easy access to all of these. I will check them out. If applicable, especially to the deaf, I will add them to my extensive data bank of research.

Can we assume that you have read and understood all of these and that you can select points to support your argument? Just looking through the titles, it can be safely assumed that the vast majority have virtually nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Philosphy is not relevent, naturalistic national language is not relevent, detangling grammar by selective anomalies is not relevent, and on and on. Indication of indiscriminate copying and pasting without ever having bothered to understand the topic.

All of those sources are where the information came from in the Wikki that you laughed at. And now you are suggesting I have an argument. All I did was provide information that is backed up by what many would consider reliable sources that describe what "natural / native language is" I am not taking sides but only trying to provide objective reliable information. Hopefully it passes your standards.

 

[GrendelQ]

Philosphy is not relevent, naturalistic national language is not relevent, detangling grammar by selective anomalies is not relevent, and on and on. Indication of indiscriminate copying and pasting without ever having bothered to understand the topic.

Don't be so self-critical, Jillio -- you just get emotional sometimes, we let it slide because you make up for a few mechanical errors and lack of perspective by being so kind, open-minded, and just so damn hip.

 

[jillio]

All of those sources are where the information came from in the Wikki that you laughed at. And now you are suggesting I have an argument. All I did was provide information that is backed up by what many would consider reliable sources that describe what "natural / native language is" I am not taking sides but only trying to provide objective reliable information. Hopefully it passes your standards.

And none of them have anything to do with what we were discussing. Thanks for proving my point. You really need to understand the topic before looking for relevent research.

 

[jillio]

Don't be so self-critical, Jillio -- you just get emotional sometimes, we let it slide because you make up for a few mechanical errors and lack of perspective by being so kind, open-minded, and just so damn hip.

Oh, my. You know when you start ad hominems it is because you are unable to discuss the topic with relevent points.

And none of those citations have anything to do with the topic. If you understood the topic, that would not have to be pointed out to you.

 

[jillio]

But, hey...I'm in the mood to educate today. Let's take this excerpt from RD's Wiki copy and paste:

The learning of one's own native language, typically that of one's parents, normally occurs spontaneously in early human childhood and is biologically driven. A crucial role of this process is the ability of humans from an early age to engage in speech repetition and so quickly acquire a spoken vocabulary from the pronunciation of words spoken around them. This together with other aspects of speech involves the neural activity of parts of the human brain such as the Wernicke's and Broca's areas.
There are approximately 7,000 current human languages, and many, if not most seem to share certain properties, leading to the belief in the existence of Universal Grammar, as shown by generative grammar studies pioneered by the work of Noam Chomsky. Recently, it has been demonstrated that a dedicated network in the human brain (crucially involving Broca's area, a portion of the left inferior frontal gyrus), is selectively activated by complex verbal structures (but not simple ones) of those languages that meet the Universal Grammar requirement

Now, those of you who are so certain that I am wrong, apply this to the deaf child and show me how, exactly it is used to support your assertion that spoken language is the "natural" language of the deaf child. BTW, you might want to clarify "natural" from "native" as you are using the terms incorrectly.

 

[shel90]

"But hey" dear Jillio, you know very little about me and your assumptions are generally wrong, so please stop the personal insults and attacks on me that you are so fond of. Perhaps it helps to ease some frustration or bitterness that makes you behave the way you do, but your viciousness and spite just harms the dialogue.

If a child is not exposed to ASL in his or her daily life, it cannot be considered his or her natural language simply by default because the child is deaf or HOH. Most deaf children born to hearing families in the US encounter ASL naturally in their lives about as much as they do Auslan, BSL, LIS, or Balinese, etc. A child's natural language is what develops spontaneously based on what is in use around the child, initially that used by parents and surrounding family, then in the surrounding community, and later, in school. Deaf children in the US aren't spontaneously acquiring LIS. They are also not spontaneously acquiring ASL without directed learning and immersion.

Whatever language a child is both immersed in and has access to is what develops as child's natural language. If a deaf child has access to speech sounds (via CIs/HAs) and is surrounded by a family and community using spoken language, this will be his natural language. If a deaf child is surrounded by family and community using ASL, this will be his natural language. A child without significant exposure to ASL as a primary means of communication around him won't develop that language spontaneously (naturally). My deaf child won't develop Chinese Sign Language spontaneously -- even though she's a card-carrying deaf Chinese -- because it's not in use around her.

If it is so true then why my brother and so many others (yes, children with CIs) who were immersed in spoken English weren't able to acquire it as naturaly as they did with ASL?

ASL is much more natural to me than speaking English now even though I learned ASL at 25 years old.

ASL is 100% accessible to deaf and even hearing kids because they can pick it up without any barriers using their sight but spoken English is via auditority and only hearing kids with perfect hearing can acquire it naturally. Deaf children need AVT or therapy to acquire spoken English skills.

However despite the barriers via auditoritally, many deaf children were able to pick up English through print since it is visual like ASL and there is no visual barrier.

Blind children is a different story. They won't be able to learn English naturally via the printed version wouldn't they? They need brialle or hear it via auditoritally if they have no hearing losses.

That is what we are trying to say to many of you.

 

[jillio]

I think we need to put on our helmets, Shel. Lots of brick walls in here lately.:roll: Can't for the life of me understand why a hearing parent would come to a deaf forum just to keep telling the deaf that they are wrong about their deafness and their lives and experience.

 

[GrendelQ]

If it is so true then why my brother and so many others (yes, children with CIs) who were immersed in spoken English weren't able to acquire it as naturaly as they did with ASL?

ASL is much more natural to me than speaking English now even though I learned ASL at 25 years old.

ASL is 100% accessible to deaf and even hearing kids because they can pick it up without any barriers using their sight but spoken English is via auditority and only hearing kids with perfect hearing can acquire it naturally. Deaf children need AVT or therapy to acquire spoken English skills.

However despite the barriers via auditoritally, many deaf children were able to pick up English through print since it is visual like ASL and there is no visual barrier.

Blind children is a different story. They won't be able to learn English naturally via the printed version wouldn't they? They need brialle or hear it via auditoritally if they have no hearing losses.

That is what we are trying to say to many of you.

Why do you think you did not acquire ASL "naturally" as a child?

 

[GrendelQ]

Can't for the life of me understand why a hearing parent would come to a deaf forum just to keep telling the deaf that they are wrong about their deafness and their lives and experience.

Can't you? It's exactly what you are doing here, Jillio.

 

[jillio]

Why do you think you did not acquire ASL "naturally" as a child?

Duh....she was not exposed to it. Shel has stated numerous times that she was raised and educated orally. But that doesn't mean that she acquired the English language naturally, either.

 

[jillio]

Can't you? It's exactly what you are doing here, Jillio.

I'm not telling the deaf they are wrong about anything. I am telling you, a hearing parent, that you are far too certain about too many things that you don't have a clue about in the very short amount of time that you have been parenting a deaf child. Big difference. But, par for the course that you would misread the post you quoted.

 

[kokonut]

Can't you? It's exactly what you are doing here, Jillio.

 

[GrendelQ]

Duh....she was not exposed to it. Shel has stated numerous times that she was raised and educated orally. But that doesn't mean that she acquired the English language naturally, either.

Thank you. ASL did not develop spontaneously based on common use around her (which is what makes something a "natural language" vs. one that is taught, acquired through directed learning). I'd bet ASL would have been her natural language if her family used it, if she attended an ASL-based school. But it wasn't.

 

[deafgal001]

Can't you? It's exactly what you are doing here, Jillio.

In here it is not HLAA(or SHHH or AGbell) everyone here are dealing with their deaf side it seem. Yes even oral only.

 

[kokonut]

In here it is not HLAA(or SHHH or AGbell)

Yet, AD is made up of deaf, hh, and Deaf people with CI, hearing aids, Cuers, ASLers, SEEers, PSEers, lip-readers, late-deafened, oral-aural users and so on.

 

[jillio]

Thank you. ASL did not develop spontaneously based on common use around her (which is what makes something a "natural language" vs. one that is taught, acquired through directed learning). I'd bet ASL would have been her natural language if her family used it, if she attended an ASL-based school. But it wasn't.

You are still misusing the term "natural" language. What you are talking about is "native" language. And from what you say, your daughter did not have a "native" language when she came into your care.

Now if you want to discuss what is the most natural (eg easily acquired) mode of language for a deaf person, that is another topic.

Lack of exposure does not determine the naturalness of the mode. Hence, so many deaf kids restricted to using their weakest sense for language.