FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94  
95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   >>   >|  
. The experiment showed that the elements of the oriole's song were provided by nature, while the combination of these elements was acquired by imitation. Probably this last is about the result one would get in the analogous case of human speech, if a similar experiment should be tried on children. Without an experiment, we have certain facts that point to a conclusion. The child uses his vocal organs from birth on; and before he reaches the age when he imitates the speech of others, he produces various vowels and consonants, and even puts them together into simple compounds, as "da-da" and "goo-goo." So far, deaf children do about the same as others, affording additional evidence that so much of speech is native. To get real speech, however, further combinations of the speech movements must be made, and the combinations (words) must have meaning attached to them. These higher achievements are evidently the result of learning, since the child uses the words that it hears spoken, and attaches the same meanings to them as people do about it. The child comes to speak the language of those about it, without regard to the speech of its ancestors. His "native language" is therefore acquired, though the elements of vocal utterance are truly native, and apparently are alike all over the world without regard to the various languages spoken. {95} Is Walking Native or Acquired? As another example of this same general problem of distinguishing native from acquired reactions, and of the kind of evidence that throws light on the problem in the absence of direct experiment, let us consider the child's walking. Does the child learn to walk, or does it simply _come_ to walk when its natural development has gone far enough? We think the child learns to walk because it begins very imperfectly and usually takes several weeks before it can be described as really walking of itself. We even think we teach it to walk, though when we examine our teaching we soon convince ourselves that we do not know _how_ we walk, and that what we are doing with the baby is to stimulate and encourage him to walk, protect him from hurting himself, etc., rather than teaching him as we later teach the child to write. An experiment to settle the matter might be conducted along the lines of Spalding's experiment on the young birds. We might prevent the baby from making any attempt to walk till it had fully reached the normal age for walking, and then turn
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92   93   94  
95   96   97   98   99   100   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111   112   113   114   115   116   117   118   119   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

speech

 
experiment
 

native

 

walking

 

elements

 

acquired

 

language

 

combinations

 
spoken
 

evidence


teaching

 

problem

 

result

 

children

 

regard

 
imperfectly
 

begins

 

absence

 
direct
 

throws


general

 

distinguishing

 

reactions

 

development

 
natural
 

simply

 

learns

 

Spalding

 

conducted

 

settle


matter

 

prevent

 
making
 
normal
 

reached

 

attempt

 

convince

 

examine

 

hurting

 

protect


encourage

 
stimulate
 

meanings

 

conclusion

 

organs

 

Without

 

reaches

 

imitates

 
simple
 
compounds