Has Anyone Ordered Abortion Pill Online

Differences between human and animal language: de Saussure to Chomsky

In view of the language we've seen this semester, always appeared - all linguists and his theories - in one way or another differentiation between human and animal language. Split them Ferdinard de Saussure in his theory proposed in Course in General Linguistics (1916) to cut the tongue as the object of study and establish it as a system that works as a social product, adding to this that Language is a form not a substance. Where did it originate language? Answer this question we can clarify the position of De Sausurre about the premiere of this essay.

[...] The starting point of the circuit in the brain of one of them (people: sender and receiver) [...] Supóngame a given concept in the brain triggers an image sound it, and this phenomenon entirely psychological , followed in turn physiological process: the brain transmits the organs of phonation momentum corresponding to the image: [...]

[De Saussure 76-77]

We understand that the concept of language and thus communication, originates in the brain requiring primarily a psychological phenomenon, physiological , and ultimately physical. Animal language lacks all these requirements, as we determine that an animal not having the chance to develop the complex process of communication, lack of a language, even if that differs from language to language Saussure, the animal language lacks a system. I can discuss my stance finally, study the language of bees. Perhaps, Is there a system in that language? deepen

Akmajian In the text Linguistics: An Introduction to Language and Communication , we are introduced in the studies conducted by Karl Von Frisch for communication of bees as a next to linguistic theories.

We show two ways that the bees have to fulfill the tasks in the hive: the circle dance (short distances) and the dance of tail (long distances),

understand

these two forms of communication as an opportunity to perform in community but Is this a psychic level? Do you meet the double articulation of Martinet? And primarily what sets Bloomfield: Bees - animals - have a high degree of differentiation that humans pose?

If we use the case of bees to discuss all the positions of many linguistic theories that have come in the course of the field, always find something in common: language is uniquely human. One can understand the motivations of Bees have a utilitarian purpose, but it is so limited the pseudo-system of bees, that there is no double jointed, you can organize data experience infinite, unable to determine the degree of differentiation, can only act on these two times: dance dance in a circle and tail, certainly not enough to be a language.

Before the acquisition of the language of bees, I want to emphasize the theme of language as something exclusively human, for I will use a piece of Edward Sapir Chapter Introduction: definition of language "appeared in the book Language: An Introduction to study of discourse (1922) :

Language is a uniquely human method, and not instinct, to communicate ideas, emotions and desires through a system of symbols produced deliberately [...]

[Sapir 14]

In the case of bees and in the language of animals in general, we are dealing with purely instinctive actions, without any possibility of a type of communication as to language Sapir is fully linked with our habits of thought, something that animals do not pose, so we conclude that in a strictly scientific and not emotional (pets) can not speak a language when referring to animals.

is in the text Language (1933) Leonard Bloomfiel where this distinction can be pinpointed, he admits that certain types of animals such as ants and bees have the same coordination to establish community work, respond to stimuli but that are of instinctive, true to his current describtimismo suggests that the big difference is that humans have the ability to speak where the transmitter and receiver communicate using speech acts.

human speech differs from the action in the form of signals that cause the animals, even those that use voice, for their differentiation. Dogs for example, make only two or three kinds of sounds bark, growl, howl, a dog can determine the action of another, but only through those few signals. Parrots can do a lot of sound, but apparently did not respond differently to different sounds. [...] In speech human different sounds have different meanings.

[Bloomfield 30, 31]

There is no doubt in his assumption, even animals that can produce sounds, are distinguished by their high degree of differentiation , therein lies the other hand, you can better understand the example you make:

When we give to someone, for example, the address of a house that has never seen, we are doing something that an animal can not do.

[id 31]

Bloomfield gives all the importance to his theory the possibility of teamwork with humans, and if speech is fundamental .

Overall already understand the difference between human language and animal, many things divide us - already mentioned - that the animals can not be run by its limitation, all part from the acquisition of language to its implementation, and this is where I introduce myself, returning to the communication of the bees and the acquisition of their innate communication system (of the dance to get into the diapers) seems relevant to relate it to language proficiency established by Chomsky in the text Current Status Linguistics: current trends " (1967) which stipulates that the human and comes with the language in the brain as an innate and does not see language as American structuralists in spice- Bloomfield - that study lies in its language as a matter of training and habit - linked to psychology behaviorist - Chomsky for imitation and society are needed to establish the language, is something that brings the human and in their individual capacity when dealing with this.

looks My doubt now that we have made more than clear that the animals pose no language, how is it possible that the bees come to the innate power? Difficult to answer, that ability gives the label of being a "complex communication system [ Akmajian 41], but I think it works the innate level as in humans - according to Chomsky - that ability I would venture to say that it is simply a factor of training and habit, otherwise everything stipulated by linguists of the distinction between human language and animal would go to black.

References

· De Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Madrid: Alianza, 1993.

· Akmajian, A. Linguistics: an introduction to language and communication. Madrid: Alianza, 1995.

· Martinet, André. linguistic elements general. Madrid: Gredos, 1968.

· Sapir, Edward. "Introduction: definition of the language" In: Language: An introduction to the study of discourse. New York: Harcourt-Brace, 1921.

· Bloomfield, Leonard. Language . Lima: Universidad Mayor de San Marcos, 1963.

· Chomsky, Noam. "Current Status of linguistics: current trends "in: Inglés teaching forum (1967.) Translation of Lidia Contreras. Internal document. Letras.PUC School.