Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
communication
In his book The Language Instinct (1994) Steven Pinker pointed out two fundamental facts about
human language that were used by linguist Noam Chomsky to develop his theory about how
we learn language. The first is that each one of us is capable of producing brand new sentences
never before uttered in the history of the universe. This means that:
A language cannot be a repertoire of responses; the brain must contain a recipe or program that
can build an unlimited set of sentences out of a finite list of words. That program may be called
a mental grammar (not to be confused with pedagogical or stylistic "grammars," which are just
guides to the etiquette of written prose.)
The second fundamental fact is that children develop these complex grammars rapidly and
without formal instruction and grow up to give consistent interpretations to novel sentence
constructions that they have never before encountered. Therefore, [Chomsky] argued, children
must be innately equipped with a plan common to the grammars of all languages, a Universal
Grammar, that tells them how to distill the syntactic patters out of speech of their parents.
(Pinker, p. 9)
Children have the ability to produce much greater language output than they receive as input
but it is not done idiosyncratically. The language they produce follows the same generalized
grammatical rules as others. This leads Chomsky to conclude that (quoted in Pinker, p. 10):
The language each person acquires is a rich and complex construction hopelessly
underdetermined by the fragmentary evidence available [to the child]. Nevertheless individuals
in a speech community have developed essentially the same language. This fact can be
explained only on the assumption that these individuals employ highly restrictive principles
that guide the construction of grammar.
The more we understand how human language works, the more we begin to realize how
different human speech is from the communication systems of other animals.
Language is obviously as different from other animals' communication systems as the
elephant's truck is different from other animals' nostrils. Nonhuman communication systems
are based on one of three designs: a finite repertory of calls (one for warnings of predators, one
for claims of territory, and so on), a continuous analog signal that registers the magnitude of
some state (the livelier the dance of the bee, the richer the food source that it is telling its
hivemates about), or a series of random variations on a theme (a birdsong repeated with a new
twist each time: Charlie Parker with feathers). As we have seen, human language has a very
different design. The discrete combinatorial system called "grammar" makes human language
infinite (there is no limit to the number of complex words or sentence in a language), digital
trunk, or our inability to use our hands to fly the way bats can, are signs that we are
evolutionarily inferior compared to them
We just occupy different end points on the evolutionary bush.