Watch this video in URDU: In previous lectures, we talked about different properties of language like duality, cultural transmission, productivity which suggest that it is extremely unlikely form animals to understand or produce human language, however some people do not believe that this is the case.
Read the retaliated description below:
Follow me at the following platforms:
You Tube:
Follow me at Facebook:
Follow me at Twitter:
Follow me at Instagram:
Follow me at Tumblr:
Follow me at Mix:
Follow me at VK
Follow me at Linkedin:
George Yule, in his book, The Study of Language, explains this concept in the following way:
If these properties make human language such a unique communication system, then it would seem extremely unlikely that other creatures would be able to understand it. Some humans, however, do not behave as if this is the case. Riders can say Whoa to horses and they stop, we can say Heel to dogs and they will follow at heel (well, sometimes), and a variety of circus animals go Up, Down and Roll over in response to spoken commands. Should we treat these examples as evidence that non-humans can understand human language? Probably not. The standard explanation is that the animal produces a particular behavior in response to a sound stimulus, but does not actually “understand” what the noise means.
If it seems difficult to conceive of animals understanding human language, then it appears to be even less likely that an animal would be capable of producing human language. After all, we do not generally observe animals of one species learning to produce the signals of another species. You could keep your horse in a field of cows for years, but it still won’t say Moo. And, in some homes, a new baby and a puppy may arrive at the same time. Baby and puppy grow up in the same environment, hearing the same things, but two years later, the baby is making lots of human speech sounds and the puppy is not.
0 Comments