Language, language development, language acquisition ....

I guess you mean something like these examples:

Because I do not want to derail my own thread, I link to this post:
[list][list][list][list][list][list][list][list][list]
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=179879&p=2506760#p2506760
[/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u][/list:u]

No. Speech is very much more than that.

I agree with the above but
note the difference in views between Chomsky and George Lakoff & Johnson.

Chomsky’s theory assumed that the structure of language is “autonomous” — independent of meaning and communication. In 1963, George stumbled upon the first of hundreds of counterexamples.
georgelakoff.com/press/academic-biography/

In the topic of language we need to take into account the Broca’s area within the brain, its development and maintenance.

Like any other mental fields, the theory and philosophy of language should be presented within a systematic framework but not to the extent of being too pedantic and dogmatic.

I know Chomsky’s language theory very well, because I have studied linguistics as well. Philosophically, Chomsky is influenced by the German philosophers Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Wilhelm von Humboldt.

Do you know Daniel L. Everett?

The newest “alternative” to Chomsky?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEjJgvuH-RU[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii-ppBYsPKY[/youtube]
[tab][youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIbD7O79Goc[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QNZJSQLim0[/youtube][/tab]

See also:

No.

There is no native morality but a native system of values. Babies do not have morality; morality requires that the child can understand most of the language of those who have already morality. The language of those who have already morality leads to the understanding of morality, to a consciousness of morality, ethics, philosophy of law, … and so on. It is a question of a language-dependent education. A baby understands baby talk and merely a very, very little of the language of those who have already morality; so a baby is not able to understand enough of the language with morality, thus a baby is not able to understand morality.

A baby has values, is able to value; but a baby has no morality, is not able to judge morally.

Please, do not confuse morality with values, norms, rules, laws.

Do you think that language is based on an instinct?

A) No.
B) Yes.
C) I do not know.

If you voted “B”: What do you think about that kind of instinct?

B1) It is an interactional instinct.
B2) It is a mere language instinct.
B3) It is an interactional and a language instinct.
B4) It is neither an interactional nor a language instinct.

Hmm… I would say more of (B) than of (A).
But I am not clear on what you mean by “interactional” vs “language”.
To me, a language is an “interactional” device.

For example: A prenatal human interacts with the mother’s womb, a postnatal baby interacts with the mother, other familiar persons, and surrounding things; but a non-baby (an “ababy” [Mutcer?]) child interacts and speaks with many humans and many things, thus already uses a real language (e.g.: English).

Because of RM:AO, especially of SAM? So if you decided to vote “B” by considering RM:AO, especially SAM, then I would say your further vote should be “B1”.

I don’t see that RM:AO has anything to do with it. To me languages are a subset of the set of all interactions. It is instinctive to attempt communication, but most structured communication, “languages”, are taught. So instinct gets the effort started and society eventually structures the effort into a formal language.

So I guess that I would have to go with (B3) - both.

Without it human beings would not have come into the world:

=>#

Why do humans have their language?

  1. Language is a very much elaborated form of communication (information system) - there is an interdependence between language and communication (information system).
  2. Language serves and supports thinking - there is an interdependence between language and thinking.
    1 + 2) Language is a cultural tool - there is an interdependence between language and culture.

Without language humans would almost exclusively be like animals: (1) they would not speak but merely communicate like animals; (2) they could not have philosophy and other elaborated systems of thinking; (1 + 2) they would not have their own cultural tool, the typical human tool for culture.

For example:

If you are capable of using fire, then you are powerful and can defend yourself against all animals, sit at your bonfire and talk with other hunters about the hunt, about the past and the future, thus you have more leisure, more luxury; and this gives you and your culture a push in all directions, especially in spritual / intellectual directions, and then a feedback from all those directions.

Language has an innate and a non-innate feature. The capability of language learning is an innate feature, but if the environment of the said infant is without language, then this infant will not learn any language, and if an adult has never had any language experiences, then the language learning is almost impossible for this adult. So there is a critical point of time as a border for the capability of language learning. The capability of language learning gets lost (the older a human becomes the more the capability of language learning gets lost), generally and especially, if there is no language environment, no possibility of language exercises.

The workload and the speed of a little child’s language learning are not to top after the age of that little child who learns the language for the first time.

Language is more than communication. The science of language is called “linguistics”. The following Illustration shows linguistics as the system of language within the “universe of the eight greatest systems” (physics, chemistry, economy, semiotics, linguistics, philosophy, mathematics):

8_w.jpg

Seems odd that in that picture biology and economics are on the same level. :confusion-scratchheadblue:

And where is Governance? :-k

Yes, but it merely seems so. I had to decide whether I name that system “economics” or “politics” or “sociology”, and I decided to name it “economics”. The word “economics” has its roots in the Ancient Greek words “oikos” (“house”, “flat”, “home”) and “nomos” (“law”). This is close to “SAM”, isn’t it? :slight_smile:

So the governance is in the system “economics”.

And biology and economics are on the same level (2) and also not on the same level (II and III):

8_w.jpg
Physics: 1a and Ib.
Chemistry: 1b and IIa.
Biology: 2a and IIb.
Economics: 2b and IIIa.
Semiotics: 3a and IIIb.
Linguistics: 3b and IVa.
Philosophy: 4a and IVb.
Mathematics: 4b and Ia.

  1. Anorganic.
  2. Organic.
  3. Mental.
  4. Spriritual.
    I) Order (means mainly ordinary mode of being).
    II) Matter (means mainly material mode of being).
    III) Function (means mainly functional mode of being).
    IV) Consciousness (means mainly conscious or phenomenal mode of being).

Although the word “economics” can be used in a variety of ways, unless very obviously differentiated, it refers to money. And when money is used to govern without the other two segments of governing, it degrades into nothing but extortion - modern USA and Europe.

Perhaps “Sociology” would fit better?

Arminius, are you writing this for yourself?
Because almost all posts are yours. it is not to get opinions, or information, I think.