So, I was talking to griffen.

[conuly]

He's apparently started to internalize ASL, which is just *so cool*, and I said it must be his "natural language". I just invented that to mean that this was easier for him to think in than many other languages, but it started me thinking - is it normal to have an internal cue towards a certain type of language structure - even when it's not your own?

Ages back, I started (but never finished, or even did very much with) a conlang that formed verbs from everything. Even though this never went anywhere, and I was done with it within a few days, since then I think things in terms of "bed-going" or "door-closing". It's just easier to say "I door-closed" than "I closed the door". Clearly, this isn't normal English structure. I'm a monolingual speaker (more's the pity...). So why do I find it easier to use this foreign construction? I shouldn't, should I? But I definitely do.

Comments

[scottrossi.livejournal.com]

you bring up a good point on languages. from what i have read, particularly noam chomsky (that man again! lol) he seems to think, and present good evidence for this thought, that humans are born with certain lingual guidelines and internalizations preprogrammed into them. he says language is something natural, something evolved and that we are instantly capable of being speaking creatures from birth, it is what we are taught that determines what language we speak. so independently, you are confirming what is being theorized by the pros!!

[conuly]

I know of his theories. The problem is that different languages have different structures. Why does a structure that is not found in my language seem easier than one that is? If that structure is more natural, why does English use an alternative structure?

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

Because English is a stupid language. This is my firm belief.

[griffen.livejournal.com]

Try more: English is *not* a language. It's a pidgin, a trade language, made up of several other more simpler languages and handsfuls of stuff from yet others.

[conuly]

That's incorrect, Griffen.

First of all, there's no such thing as a "simple" language - except, perhaps, pidgins.

Secondly, if you would care to examine pidgins, you'll see that English clearly isn't one. A pidgin is the first language of nobody, and has no grammar. English is obviously many people's first language, and has a quite complex grammar, if I do say so myself.

Some people do argue that English is a creole, which is possible, but there is no way to argue that English is a pidgin.

*shrug*

[griffen.livejournal.com]

I'll let you argue it with my Anthropology teacher, then.

Re: *shrug*

[conuly]

I wouldn't waste my time. Give him a good intro-to-linguistics book and tell him to look up "pidgin" "creole" and the first chapter, which should involve common myths, like the idea of a simple or complex language.

Re: *shrug*

[conuly]

Or her.

(I'm in a bad mood from lack of food. Sorry)

[wodhaund.livejournal.com]

And I agree!

It is a clever smattering of languages, but a smattering nonetheless.

I do like the word smattering.

[leora.livejournal.com]

I really don't think that flows from Chomsky's work at all. He says everyone is preprogrammed for basic language and that all human languages choose options that fit with our pre-programming. But that says nothing about why an individual human would find one particular option easier than another.

I do, however, think that individual people may be biased toward certain particular choices.

Also, humans in general seem to be biased toward certain choices, since some errors occur quite commonly in some languages and the parallel errors do not occur often in other languages. Such as, most English-speaking children will use double negatives for a while until they get the hang of not doing so. Whereas I think it's less common for Spanish speakers to not use the double negatives that are required. Kids will experiment with dropping the subject if it's obvious even if they've never heard a dropped subject (hard to check for the opposite effect as I don't know of any languages that require subject dropping).

But I am not a linguist and I don't even play one on tv. So take all this with some salt, unless you are on a low sodium diet.

[conuly]

Or the th sound. In English, it's common knowledge that this is a hard sound for kids to master - and no matter how uncommon we say it is, it occurrs in a number of very common words, such as the, this, that, then, there, these, those, they.... However, I've heard of an Indian language where it's not. No clue as to why, it's just not.

[farraige.livejournal.com]

the term is 'marked'. as you know, there are some native accents of English that avoid this sound altogether (Cockney, and the tendency to -th-front is spreading wildly in this country) -- John Wells termed this "stubborn infantilism". It goes nicely with other mechanics of lazy speech evident in those accents.