Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Okay, so I suggested a ‘language forum.’ But no such luck. The admin suggested using the ‘other topics’ forum. So... here I am. And here is language post numero uno:
My view is that they actually know better than we adults do. They know how our language should work as opposed to how it does work. Children, in their formative years (linguistically speaking) have an uncanny ability to pick up language or languages. They can absorb several at the same time. Their brains recognize language patterns. In a perfect world those patterns would apply as a blanket statement over the entire language. But, the child doesn’t know that there are logical flaws in our language; that is when ‘kiddie mistakes’ happen. There just going with the pattern.
For instance: I work today. I worked yesterday.
That is the regular pattern for present and past tense first person: work ---> worked
That’s the way all verbs should work. The child’s mind picks up on what should happen, not what does happen. So: I go to play. I goed to play. I eat a carrot. I eated a cookie.
That is the pattern, or it should be. Yet, for whatever reason, it’s not. But why? I know that’s what we are used to, and it would sound funny to us any other way. But it doesn’t sound funny to a child because the child is relying on logical rules to decide what a past tense should be or a future tense or participle. Why shouldn’t all verbs follow the same set of rules as they do in a child’s mind before we indoctrinate him/her? Wouldn’t it make life easier for learners and speakers alike?
So... does that four year old really know more about the language (or at least what it should be) than his/her parents?
Keep in mind this is hypothetical. We all know nothing is going to change; so if the topic bends you out of shape, don’t bother with it. This is just a diversion for those interested in linguistics.
Last edited by 2goldens; 08-01-2009 at 08:43 PM..
Reason: Moved from Other Topics
the discrepancies are later corrected the flaws do not put the learning curve in the ditch.
you are right correct time to learn is during rapid mapping period.
the discrepancies are later corrected the flaws do not put the learning curve in the ditch.
you are right correct time to learn is during rapid mapping period.
Yes, absolutely.
But what I'm getting at is, should the language really be the way children often form it. So, in essence, do they actually have a better intuition of how a language should be constructed than we, as adults do? I mean if you think about it, other than it sounds silly to us, why shouldn't it be 'I goed to the store yesterday.'? After all, that IS the pattern.
It would be interesting to research why our English grammar patterns aren't more regular. Were they more regular in the past (say in Chaucer's time) or are they actually becoming more regular over time. Will we, one day, be saying 'I goed to the store yesterday'? -- especially in light of all of the speakers of other languages who learn English and somewhat rely on those patterns that aren't there and make those 'kiddie mistakes.' Should the patterns be more consistent?
i dont think language is as the child thinks it should be. the child is being logical, forming a blanket over every verb and just adding an ED to the end to make it past tense (in this example)
is it logical since you as the teacher have already explained tha this is how it usually is---YES!
but at the same time, it doesnt "sound" right because as adults we understand the difference between an educated tongue and one that is not. yes it is easier to just form the same rules for every single word in the language, but it just cannot be so and still SOUND correct. after all, language to me is like an art. it must sound beautiful to the ear that understands the words.
Location: land of quail, bunnies, and red tail hawks
1,513 posts, read 3,388,998 times
Reputation: 3540
I was very proud when my toddler said, "I amn't (am not) going to do this." She had picked up on the concept of contractions. Yay! She "got it right" even though she got it wrong.
If I recall correctly, the construction of much of our "weird" usage once made sense. However, as language and pronunciations changed over time, usage stayed the same which led to some awkward constructions by today's understanding.
Okay, going back to some of the other comments. Yes, I realize that adhering to the patterns and not having grammatical exceptions would 'sound' really odd to us. Those of us who are smug would say 'uneducated'--and we all know there are those in parts of our county who do speak that way to any extent. And yes, they are marginalized.
But at the same time, being 'educated' is subjective and time dependent. If someone from 200 years ago heard our common speech patterns today, they would probably think we were all absolute morons.
And yes, we teach our children the way 'it ought to be' (according to us). But if that child continued to speak via our grammar patterns (say he/she were isolated in an area where that speech was the norm), and suddenly he/she were thrust into our 'real' American English, he/she would find the way we speak very strange. So 'beauty' and 'the way it should be' is completely in the hands of the way the majority in a given area speaks.
Someone above mentioned that 'language is an art.' Yes, that is one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it is that it is a tool for communication. It would be interesting to see where the English language stands in say 500 years. Will it be a logical, streamlined, easy to use/learn mode of communication, or will it go the other direction and become this artsy menagerie of pretty sounds that are joined with no logical pattern and which relies 100% on rote memorization to use?
As a side note: There are languages that follow the logical patterns of their grammar nearly 100%, yet still have a long tradition of literature and art. For instance, the Turkish language, although having a rather complex grammar, follows its grammar rules nearly completely, with (I believe) only one exception on verb conjugations.
Then you have languages like Esperanto (my current favorite), which is absolutely regular, with no exceptions, has a very simple construction, and is very beautiful (sounding much like Italian with a hint of Slavic mixed in). Anyone who has studied Esperanto cannot deny the power of having an easy grammar that is 100% regular. Once you know the pattern, that's it, you know it and it applies to the entire language. For me, at least, that is so refreshing compared to the massive amounts of effort I put into languages like French, Norwegian, Spanish and others that I study.
And before anybody accuses me... YES, I am all for a logical, uncluttered, easy to use, learn and understand language. I confess... I am biased. But, I must say, my bias is somewhat justified. I’ve worked for 15 years in a shared department (developmental math, English, writing, and ESL) at a University. I’ve seen the massive amounts of time it takes to get just a basic grasp of English (and other languages) for non-natives. I am convinced that the biggest reason for that is the plethora of grammatical exceptions. I offer that if the language were completely regular, it would take 10 – 20% of the time in now does to attain fluency. And that would undoubtedly have a positive economic impact and save much time for the learner. Of course, it wouldn’t do much for the English as a Second Language industry!
Sorry about the huge post, but I could talk shop about language all day... and night... and week!
i hope you dont think i missed the part where you called me "smug"....did you come here to ask a question, or to convince people of how wrong they are for having an opinion?
i hope you dont think i missed the part where you called me "smug"....did you come here to ask a question, or to convince people of how wrong they are for having an opinion?
No, no, no... I'm not singling you out. It's a common thing. All of us engage in it. I do just as much as anyone else. It's just that I, by nature, like to analyze these sorts of things and ask why it is the way it is. I have a hard time with the idea of 'because that's the way we do it' or 'it's tradition' or whatever. I guess I'm just one of those 'better mouse trap' people, for better or worse.
Of course we all have a right to our opinion on these matters and when some one comes along and says that's stupid or starts name-calling, it's of absolutely no value to the discussion... so, I wasn't calling you smug -- it was a blanket statement with me being under the blanket as well.
Part of the reason I came here was to discuss whether or not our language would be easier to navigate, easier to learn, and easier to use if it were regular in its grammar. My opinion is obviously that it would be. But remember, this is all hypothetical anyway and nothing is apt to change anytime soon. You have to have a love for languages to even discuss such matters...
... it must sound beautiful to the ear that understands the words.
And to further your point about language being an art: I do understand what you are saying. I’m not completely coming from the utilitarian side of the isle. I’ll admit that I don’t really think in English that way so much, but for instance, I’ve been learning French. Simply put, it’s insane! It’s illogical. The spelling conventions are almost as bad as English. There are way too many exceptions, grammatically. Yet at the same time, it is seductively beautiful. It’s smooth and alluring. Even in written form (although horribly difficult to remember because of the lack of logical order) it looks as nice as it sounds. Hearing a ballad in French is about as artsy and seducing as it gets.
So, yes, I understand your comment about the artistic side of language. But, by the same token, that artistic side tends to be the polar opposite of the utility of the language in terms of structure and usage. So, again, just ideas for further exploration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And here is language post numero uno:
