The pairing of these readings led me from one train of thought to another.
As I read Gussenhoven, I kept asking myself how do we learn all of these differences in speech? Many of the speech organs are not foreign to me in their names, but as I kept reading about more and more of them, or their complexities, or how they interacted with each other, I couldn't believe we are in control of all of that. Yet, we do not really process what we need to do with a certain organ in order to make that sound. Moreover, when we're learning language, how do we start? We just listen and imitate, trial and error. However, whenever I think about how I learned English, it was not through coaching of my vocal cords, pitch, phonation, or anything. It was just listen and repeat, or read and sound out. How does when hearing a sound my brain know what part of my vocal tract to activate when trying to imitate sounds or words?
I am shocked we are able to learn language at all. After continuing to Kenstowicz (and saying 'writer' and 'rider' back to back for a solid two minutes straight), I realized there are so many other things we are expected to just "know," whether its adding or taking away from what is truly there based on context, grammar, other vowels. However, with every theory of pronunciation, there seems to be an exception. Yet, if someone does not know one of these infinite, often inconsistent, pronunciations, they are looked down upon or as if they are an outsider. That comment really struck me because it also illustrates how much language connects us, but getting to that point requires constant spoken practice, and correction from those who already speak. In addition, how much do these pronunciations change from generation to generation, or on larger scales due to imitation learning and practice?
Andi, I find your question about learning language to be one that I've thought a lot about as well. While we were reading Gussenhoven, my first reaction to discussing phonetic symbols was "Aha! A universal alphabet!"; the fact that we have created distinct systems of visual symbology that corresponds to /a particular set/ of sounds that we /then/ all agree correspond to some kind of conceptual meaning blows my mind. What must the first emergence of language have been like – people exchanging sounds using parts of their bodies that were initially designed to serve a completely separate purpose, and that's not even considering how language does absolutely change over time! I think I read somewhere that the modern American accent is probably closer to the seventeenth-century English accent than modern England, so pronunciation absolutely does shift /constantly./
ReplyDeleteTo what extent is the learning of linguistic skill culturally inculcated? That is to say, is it the case that babies mimic the simplest phonics of the country they are in (ex. "mama" in the UK/US) or do they all make similar sounds which are only honed at the point that they learn to listen/imitate? I think this might go some way to resolving the question of *how we learn*. If it is culturally inculcated from the start, it seems relatively clear to suggest that children just experiment till they can mimic the sound they're hearing. If it isn't, it becomes harder to understand how children magically alight at the right phonics and the mechanism to pronounce them.
ReplyDelete