|
|
This is only a preview of the paper
Click here to register and get the full text.
Existing members click here to login
|
|
|
Language is puzzling. On the one hand, there are compelling reasons to believe that the possession of language by humans has deep biological roots. We are the only species that has a communication system with the complexity and richness of language. There are cases of nonhuman primates who can be taught (sometimes only with heroic effort) some aspects of human language, but their performance comes nowhere close to that of a 6-year-old child. ... Finally, there are significant similarities in the patterns of language acquisition across very different linguistic communities. ... Do we only mean, when we say, "language is innate," that one must possess a human genome in order to speak (hear, read, sign)? ... Although schooling has language as its chief instrument (and often as its chief matter) of study, educational reformers have for centuries brought their severest indictments against the current use of language in the schools. The conviction that language is necessary to thinking (is even identical with it) is met by the contention that language perverts and conceals thought. Three typical views have been maintained regarding the relation of thought and language: first, that they are identical; second, that words are the garb or clothing of thought, necessary not for thought but only for conveying it; and third (the view we shall here maintain) that while language is not thought it is necessary for thinking as well as for its communication.
Approximate Word count = 1109
Approximate Pages = 4.4
(250 words per page double spaced)
|
|
|
|
|
|