Slashdot Mirror
Deaf Children Invent Language
gmuslera writes "According to this story, Nicaraguan deaf kids, without knowing any existing sign language, invented their own language on their own, and it keeps evolving. Is this going in the same way as Varley's The Persistence of Vision?"
There is a big difference here. The story you relay has happened many times before all over. But andn this is a BIG BUT, the people involved already knew some language, and those rules probably influenced the language they created.
In this case, these kids knew NO LANGUAGE at ALL. They just made one up out of THIN AIR. This is a very big difference.
People wil invent a language, a way to communicate, where none exists. There is *no* hype - languague is a natural instinct for humans in the same way as fighting & fucking. See Steven Pinkers "The Language Instinct" for a beautiful essay on it all.
Seems a bit of a risk to deprive these children of learning an existing sign language just for the sake of an experiment.
They were deprived of learning an existing sign language because they are deprived, not as the result of any experiment.
Havn't you seen any of those Sally Struthers commercials?
Are they going to lock some normal Nicaraguan children up and see if they come up with a new spoken language?
Pretty much all children come up with a new spoken language. Yeah, it's based on the old one, but it comes out new. You'll understand this better when you hit 40 or 50 and find yourself walking around muttering under your breath that you don't understand a damned thing kids say these days.
Just imagine what it was like before the invention of the dictionary and standarized spelling and grammar as a somewhat stablizing force.
And we still got ebonics. The kids made it up as they went along. The professorial types then make a career out of analyzing it. Hence the invention of dictionaries and standarized spellings, but the language always comes first, then gets codified as "correct" after the fact.
The O.E.D. isn't so a much definitive reference to the English language so much as it is a biography of the language.
Or, to put it another way, a history of the way kids talk.
KFG
Obviously the children are going to need to develop some way to communicate with the world around them. Almost all deaf children (and young hearing children) develop some form of gesture language before "proper training" is given. Think a young hearing child who walks to their parents holding their arms up in the air wanting to be picked up for a hug, it's the same principle.
As for the origin of sign language, it's as old as the origin of Native American tribes. Anyone who has taken an ASL course would know that Native American tribes used signs as a sort of inter-tribal language among themselves.
Even after that, it is not rare for an isolated group of people to develop a language of their own. That is exactly how sign language developed (Somebody didn't just make up a system of sign language out of pity for the deaf who couldn't possibly communicate on their own). Even now, a small group of people often come up with their own system for basic communication needs (i.e. mother and baby, a deaf person without formal education and his close family, etc.) Also, twins are known to come up with their own languages--this is a very well documented case.
This article falls short of other details that might have been interesting. It says,
That method of communicating now shows similarities to other languages, researchers say in Thursday's issue of the journal Science.
What similarities? That it is used to communicate (isn't it how one defines language)? Knowing the diversity of modern languages, I find it difficult not to find any similarity to other languages. Do they tend to put the subject in front of everything else? Every language does that (for obvious reasons...). Do they tend to omit the subject? I know Korean does that regularly, whereas in English it's done only when brevity is paramount. Do they sometimes put the object first? Find any inflected language and you can do that there as well (usually means emphasis on the object, though). Tell me when the children have matured enough to learn multivariable calculus on their own and they happen to use the inverted capital delta for their "del" operator. Then I will be astonished at the similarity. Frankly, I doubt that this new language thing will go far (same case with twin language--for the twins to live in the world, they have to learn the language of their society, the process which inevitably all but destroys their own language). Or, if it is to "evolve" to show a parallel structure, well, expect to have generations of isolated (hereditary) deaf children for a century or a millenium.
Even the article's sidenotes about similarity among existing languages is trivial.
The mothers in every country reported that their children learned significantly more nouns than other types of words. The researchers said this held true regardless of whether the language emphasized nouns, as does American English, or verbs, as does Korean.
Might as well say, "The mothers in every country reported that their children learned significantly more words related to food or household item than words used to describe linear vector spaces or binary operation structure." Of course they know more nouns! That's what the mothers teach most, because it's the easiest thing to teach ther children. And, I'll bet, among nouns, the children know more concrete nouns abstract nouns. It's not just that. In all the languages I know (and I know more than 2, if you count a few dead languages), nouns comprise the biggest group of part of speech. Also, usually, there is always a way to make a word from any other part of speech (excepting a few specialized parts like conjunctions or articles) into a noun (but not the other way around--for example, how would turn the noun "apple" into a verb?).
This study reveals nothing new--that is, other than the fact that there are too many (useless) researchers around the world with too much time on their hands (even then, that's not new either, eh?).
As others have already pointed out, this case is given a good treatment in Steven Pinkers very readable book THE LANGUAGE INSTINCT.
In the study of langauge acquisition there is the fact that language is underdetermined. Also called the poverty-of-stimulus arguement. Basically, the input that a child is presented with is not enough to "teach" them the langauge. This fact was noted by Noam Chomsky, from which he came up with the influential Universal Grammar theory. Steven Pinker expands on this and adds in a twist - that langauge is something evolved (like the trunk on an elephant is an evolutionary feature). Basically they claim that there is a langauge module in the brain.
Chomsky has updated his theory and lots of others (people in pure linguistics, applied linguistics, cognitive theory, second language acquistion researchers etc) have extended his work. If I remember correctly, the basic take on the theory these days is that there are principles and parameter of language syntax that are thought to be innately present in the brain. (I am doing research right now looking for evidence of UG in language acquisition.)
The case of the children in Nicaragua is old news .... but it IS used as an arguement for the presence of Universal Grammar. The langauge did NOT (as a poster above gushed) "appear out of thin air". Those kids did have some exposure to a pidgen sign langauge used by parents (not a full language). This is akin to the spoken-language phenomena whereby language goes from being a pidgen ... to a creole (fully syntactic langauge). This has happened many times in many places (Hawaii for example). The people in the universal (or generative) grammar camp say that grammar (principles) are in the brain, so language WILL develop unless actively prevented. (There are cases of that too - like a girl named Genie who was kept locked up for 13 years or so .... and could never become fluent after.)