Editing 2567: Language Development
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
This parody of language development parallels the discredited {{w|theory of recapitulation}} in embryo development, sometimes expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", in which a developing animal embryo (ontogeny) was once thought to go through stages resembling successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal's remote ancestors (phylogeny). It also plays off of misconceptions about language evolution. Many people assume that ancient languages are more "pure" and "primitive" and that modern languages are more "complex" and "advanced". The comic takes this idea to its logical conclusion by joking that children should successively graduate between historic languages while learning to speak, which is more obviously absurd — it would take years to acquire any of the languages involved. | This parody of language development parallels the discredited {{w|theory of recapitulation}} in embryo development, sometimes expressed as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", in which a developing animal embryo (ontogeny) was once thought to go through stages resembling successive adult stages in the evolution of the animal's remote ancestors (phylogeny). It also plays off of misconceptions about language evolution. Many people assume that ancient languages are more "pure" and "primitive" and that modern languages are more "complex" and "advanced". The comic takes this idea to its logical conclusion by joking that children should successively graduate between historic languages while learning to speak, which is more obviously absurd — it would take years to acquire any of the languages involved. | ||
| β | In linguistics, reconstructed words from proto-languages are commonly marked with an asterisk (*) to show that the word forms are not attested by any historical sources but created as a proposed ancestor word. The baby says the Proto-Indo-European roots that the words "milk" and "please" are derived from. Obviously, the speakers of Proto-Indo-European did not speak in roots, but used words made from the roots, so the way the baby talks does not reflect any stage of development of the proto-language. | + | In linguistics, reconstructed words from proto-languages are commonly marked with an asterisk (*) to show that the word forms are not attested by any historical sources but created as a proposed ancestor word. Somehow, the baby seems to actually pronounce these asterisks. The baby says the Proto-Indo-European roots that the words "milk" and "please" are derived from. Obviously, the speakers of Proto-Indo-European did not speak in roots, but used words made from the roots, so the way the baby talks does not reflect any stage of development of the proto-language. |
Some sounds babies make are hard to interpret.{{citation needed}} However, humans have a tendency to recognize known things and patterns. They see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Thus, a parent familiar with Proto-Indo-European may falsely hear their baby speak Proto-Indo-European by misinterpreting unintelligible sounds. | Some sounds babies make are hard to interpret.{{citation needed}} However, humans have a tendency to recognize known things and patterns. They see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Thus, a parent familiar with Proto-Indo-European may falsely hear their baby speak Proto-Indo-European by misinterpreting unintelligible sounds. | ||
