The time when children acquire language is endlessly fascinating, and I wish
I knew -- when my kids were doing it -- what I know now. For a fascinating
example, consider the way they pick up notions of "classes objects". When I
took
my son out I'd point at a large variety of different kinds of dogs and say
"doggy". I'd do the same with other animals -- pigeons look a lot different
from
sparrows, but I'd cry, "Bird!" I knew it would give him a giggle, and it did,
when I pointed at a large four-legged creature and said, "Doggy!" and he was
able to correct me: "No! Horsey!" He'd acquired the "concept" of different
classes.
Alas, though such notions are useful, in time -- especially when we try to
parse them philosophically -- we are over-matched, and we resort to
polysyllabic
foggery to hide our confusion from ourselves. For example: beware of what the
adoption of a term like "referent" can do to your thinking about language.
In a message dated 3/23/08 10:35:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I'm not sure I agree entirely with anyone here about this issue. Semiotics
> appears to be a model, but of what? Is semiotics supposed to represent the
> way signs work within a system of logical notation or in our mind/brain?
>
> If semiotics is supposed to model the way signs work in our mind/brain then
> the only process, it seems to me, that we have to work with is one of
> association.
>
> Through repetition or some other form of acquisition we learn to associate
a
> word (say "doggy") with a particular taxonomical class of objects (say
> domesticated canine mammals). At first the young language learner
> associates the word with the referent (a live tail wagging dog). A later
> development in the acquisition of language is the insertion of a general
> idea or "signified" between the word (signifier) and referent. This step
> transforms language from an attempt to name the things of the world to a
> system of organizing the things of the world.
>
> Back to the mind. The qualia which comes to mind through the process of
> association is a function of the structure of the brain/mind and the
> experience of the language user. This is true for the signifier, signified
> and the referent.
>
> 1. The word "doggy" must be distinguished from other signifiers, such as
> "soggy", "dopey" or "sloppy". Our ability to perceive the word correctly
> and distinguish it from other words is a function of both our senses and
our
> experience with the language.
>
> 2. The idea or signified which is associated when a language user hears
the
> word "doggy" is dependant upon both the user's experience with domesticated
> canine mammals and the way those objects have been compared or contrasted
> with other objects. Depending on the experience of the user, the idea or
> notion signified by "doggy" may or may not include: work dogs, wild dogs,
> house dogs, hot dogs or dead dogs. But, when a language user hears the
term
> "doggy" they are not likely to associate the rules for set
> inclusion/exclusion for domesticated canine mammals. Rather, the qualia
> would more likely be a token "doggy" such as a memory of a domesticated
> canine mammal from the user's past or metonymical image such as the such as
> the image of a "petting a fuzzy white lap dog". It would not be surprising
> for a person to experience a cluster of related associations when hearing
> the term. Only in confusing or ambiguous cases would the relational rules
> be associated. I believe it is also true that two language users could
have
> different relational rules for a signified concept and without appreciating
> that their understanding varies from other users.
>
> 3. The only available mental process for a signified concept to represent
> or refer to a particular object in the world (physical, abstract or
> imaginary) is through association. Associations are to some extent
> predictable, but they are not yet understood as necessary. Even a
> conditioned reflex will merely increase the probability that a particular
> association will result. I would say that a term ("signified") represents
> an object ("referent") if and only if a non-distracted and experienced
> language user will probably experience the term as a request to focus her
> attention on the object.
>
> Mike Mallory
>
>
>
**************
Create a Home Theater Like the Pros. Watch the video on AOL
Home.
(http://home.aol.com/diy/home-improvement-eric-stromer?video=15?ncid=aolhom00
030000000001)
