Another beautiful example of thought, precise writing, and humor from Humbugs!. Keep Tony Westkamper writing!
One in every three secondary school leavers failed in English, year after year, decade after decade. This seriously affected their career prospect in an age of global economy. I gave up a HK$2.5m directorate job in the Government, took early retirement and set up Le Beaumont Language Centre (2004-14) as a teaching and research base. We were the first ones to merge language study with neuroscience. I was particularly impressed by Charles Nelson's findings on the neurogenesis of the neurons in the Broca's area which peaked out at the end of the 9th month after birth. We admitted infants one month after birth into our multilingual playgroup. They embarked on a 5-nation tour, an hour a day, Monday to Friday, conducted by graduate teachers from England, France, Spain, Germany, Japan and or China. The babies all grew up into linguistic geniuses by the age of 3. They were super intelligent. We also observed how 12,000 kids of different ages acquired different number of languages for different durations with different outcomes, burning HK$112m in 10 years.
The Beaumont Study (2004-14) is probably the most important study after the classic Abecedarian Study (1972-77) in the past century. For 10 years, we observed at close distance how a large number of infants acquired languages.
The following are our key findings.
1. The brain is made up of billions of neurons and trillions of synapses. A memory is formed when 2 neurons connect in a synapse. The brain is a huge memory base.
2. Language is made up of 2 components, a sound database developed from interaction with people during the first 9 months after birth, and a matching software inherited from the genes. The sound database and the matching software form the voice recognition system.
3. The voice recognition system is at the 'developmental' mode during the first 9 months. It can recognize the sounds of whatever language the infant interacts with and input them into his voice database. The baby is only interested in sounds, not in meaning. Grammar does not come into the picture.
4. The voice recognition system is at the 'application' mode from the 10th month onwards when the baby begins to imitate sounds. He 'recognizes' the sound he hears by matching the incoming soundbites with those in the voice database.
5. You 'hear' what the matching software can find in the voice database. If the incoming sound cannot be found in the voice database, its looks for the nearest sound in the voice database. This is what you 'hear' and what you imitate. This minor distortion of sounds gives rise to ascents.
6. All languages are built on sounds made from mouth. Sounds made with mouth opened are called vowels. The mouth can only make limited number of shapes, flat or round, wide opened, half-opened, or relaxed. It gives rise to the 5 cardinal vowels, which were first recorded in Latin, now shared by languages from English to Japanese. You can find the 5 cardinal vowels in practically all languages in the world.
7. A language is the outcome of a natural developmental process, based on the manipulation of our data from our memory, or learning process. Language starts from the memory of sounds to form phonemes in the first year, the association of sounds with objects and actions to form vocabulary in the 2nd year, and the application of the memory of patterns of usage to form grammar in the 3rd year. We have observed our polyglots compressing the time scale in the 3 processes involved. But the sequence is the same.
8. Even IQ is the application of the database of dynamic memories acquired during interaction with people, in games, in life experience and in problem solving.
The Beaumont Study discovered the following,
1. A biological basis for language development, i.e. the language neurons, which are designed to record voice. The timeline of the developmental path was first identified by Charles Nelson. Joan Stiles pointed out that language neurons used during the first 9 months were fed and kept and those not used were deprived of nutrition and perished with time.
2. The brain is but a huge storage space of gargantuan proportion. The contents are input from the child's interaction with the outside world.
5. Like the computer, there are 2 types of memories,
a) Memories in the Central Processing Unit forming the Operating System. The developmental process of this type of memory is time sensitive. It is related to the exponential growth of functional neurons in the early years, viz. the first 3 months for vision; the first 9 months for language; and the first 3 years for cognition.
b) Memories in the hard disc, which is not time sensitive.
6. Language acquisition is a deceptively simple process in memory. The only thing we inherited from our genes is a simple matching mechanism for the operating systems, for vision, language or cognition. It is void of any contents. Chomsky's grammar genes is an adult's postulation of a much simpler process in the language development of a baby.
Sam TS Chow
Founder, Le Beaumont Language Centre (2004-14)
Love to hear from you! email@example.com
No, merge works recursively. Merge is just a computational operation whereby two syntactic units are combined together to form another syntactic object (for example, "the cat was killed" and "when it was hit by a car" produce, when operated upon by merge, the sentence "the cat was killed when it was hit by a car"). Merge is recursive because it is an operation that can be applied to its own output (in the last example, the inputs were "the cat was killed" and "when it was hit by a car", the computational operation was merge and the output was "the cat was killed when it was hit by a car"; via the application of the same merge operation, this output can then be combined with yet another syntactic unit, like "that was traveling at sixty kilometers an hour" for example, to form another linguistic unit: "the cat was killed when it was hit by a car that was traveling at sixty kilometers an hour"). So merge works just like any recursive function does in the theory of computation, which is why merge has the property of recursion. There's no "downgrade" from recursion to merge, you just didn't understand the theory.
Moreover, Everett's argument is fallacious in the most vulgar sort of way. Chomsky's claim is roughly the following: (1) if humans acquire recursive languages, then humans must have a genetic capacity that allows them to mentally process recursive languages. Anyone who knows their logic is aware of the fact that this conditional does not imply the following proposition: (2) if humans have a genetic capacity that allows them to mentally process recursive languages, then humans must acquire recursive languages. That is, in general, "if A then B" does not imply "if B then A". In finding an example of a human language that does not feature recursion, all Everett has done is to disprove proposition (2), but this proposition is not implied by Chomsky's actual claim, and so Everett's (very much disputed, if not refuted) discovery is irrelevant as far as the viability of Chomsky's program is concerned.
As for a younger generation of linguists abandoning ideas of innate grammar, well that might be partially true. At the same time, there are academics trying to argue that there are no such things as genetic programs, and that all talk of information being encoded in DNA is meaningless. In both cases, this doesn't represent the majority view, which is fortunate because in both cases it simply demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of theory of computation. As far as I can tell, dissent from this basic view of Chomsky's amounts to an infantile and misdirected fear of genetic determinism (of course, many people, like Pinker for example, dissent from Chomsky in the finer details, and that's where the media coverage should be concentrated; at the moment, what the media is doing is analogous to claiming that the general theory of relativity has been disproved instead of focusing coverage on the more subtle disputes--the ones of actual importance to physicists--that exist between scientists who accept general relativity).
Hi, just wanted to question the assumption of these peoples "living on the edge of survival". I believe quite the opposite was true.
It's fun to consider the possibility this reaction (if accurately reported) is similar to what you may expect from people who've seen similar ships before.
Enjoyed article, thank you.
Nice historical story. I think the problem with modern vaccination schedules is the sheer amount of different strains the body is forced to deal with. The multiple of vaccines that are stacked and given at a rate that may very well be overloading a young, developing immune system. This, in addition to, the adjuvants, which often contain mercury are quite possibly too much at one time for anyone who might be dealing with other environmental issues. I'm of the belief that vaccines do have a place, but the schedule of multiple vaccines may not be the best thing for a young child. Personally, my youngest was hospitalized after a round of vaccinations, so it's a bit scary when something meant to help can also harm, And can have long lasting consequences for both children and parents. The debate is fierce, and we can look to the fluoridation of our water supplies when nothing positive has been proven by ingesting it. If you are a proponent of flouride, then why not just go for tablets or drops that each family can decide, depending on their individual needs. The FDA hasn't signed off on water treatment, so why are we so adamant about medicating an entire water supply when studies have shown that the amount of water actually ingested is less than 10%. So we are fluoridating our lawns, gardens, at a very real cost to the communities, the least bringin up questions of how to effectively manage real health issues and solutions.
In Print This Week:
Sep 29, 2016
vol XXVII issue 39
The Last Days of the Budget Motel
The North Coast Journal Weekly
Website powered by Foundation