5 ms·

The earliest sounds that babies make tend to be "ma/muh" sounds, as they're smacking their lips to signal for food. Seems likely for language then to develop th

by nybblet 10y ago

The earliest sounds that babies make tend to be "ma/muh" sounds, as they're smacking their lips to signal for food. Seems likely for language then to develop that sound into the word for "mother", the nearest object (food source as the case may be).

wahern 10y ago
This pretty much explains away the entire article. The progression of sounds that a baby learns is well understood, especially the physiological aspects of language development and acquisition. If we accept as a premise that cultures would tend to assign words most relevant to babies according to their physiological capability, then it becomes obvious why words for mother, father, and even facial features would be strongly similar across cultures. And why the similarity will slowly diminish as the meaning of words becomes less important, functionally, for communication with a child. And especially for simple words the phonetics would have very little to do with cognitive development (and evolutionarily-dictated language models), but be controlled almost entirely by a baby's physical constraints--e.g. huge tongue in a tiny mouth, poor motor control, etc.
- int_19h 10y ago
  It does explain similarity of words for familial relations, but not for things like "nose". Babies don't randomly say "nose", or something that sounds similar, while pointing at their nose.
  - snogglethorpe 10y ago
    Yeah, for a very, very, very small subset of words, the very first and most immediate things babies care about, this theory makes some sense. For everything else, not so much.
    - wahern 10y ago
      100 basic words (the corpus of the study) is such a small subset, especially if you posit very strong correlations among subsets of those 100 words most likely to be used in the first year of life. And especially considering that the researchers "reduced all sounds to 34 distinct consonants and 7 vowels." (Consider that the more we reduce and simplify the vocalizations the more likely we should expect correlations. For example, if we simplified all sounds to grunts we should expect tremendous overlap.) The correlation of the corpus of 100 words isn't particularly surprising given what we already know about language development. The null hypothesis was that there'd be no correlation whatsoever (i.e. the sounds would be completely random), which I don't think anybody could reasonably expect.
      - Chathamization 10y ago
        Indeed. Especially when the article gives us this: "...the team found a lot more consistency across languages than they had expected." What does that mean? Were their originally expectations reasonable, or did they merely re-discover the birthday paradox?
  - wahern 10y ago
    No, but they learn the words for various body parts very early in life, usually before the age of 2 and beginning around 1-year-old. A 2-year-old also has significant physiological and neurological constraints on vocalizations. There are also cognitive development constraints, of course. The question is, from where do we get the correlation? If it's physiological or neurological, then there's nothing to support fanciful claims of innate language models. It's the cognitive constraints that can support fanciful claims, but you have to first show that it's those constraints, rather than the physiological or neurological constraints, that are controlling word choice.

by nybblet 10y ago

wahern 10y ago

This pretty much explains away the entire article. The progression of sounds that a baby learns is well understood, especially the physiological aspects of language development and acquisition. If we accept as a premise that cultures would tend to assign words most relevant to babies according to their physiological capability, then it becomes obvious why words for mother, father, and even facial features would be strongly similar across cultures. And why the similarity will slowly diminish as the meaning of words becomes less important, functionally, for communication with a child. And especially for simple words the phonetics would have very little to do with cognitive development (and evolutionarily-dictated language models), but be controlled almost entirely by a baby's physical constraints--e.g. huge tongue in a tiny mouth, poor motor control, etc.

int_19h 10y ago
It does explain similarity of words for familial relations, but not for things like "nose". Babies don't randomly say "nose", or something that sounds similar, while pointing at their nose.
- snogglethorpe 10y ago
  Yeah, for a very, very, very small subset of words, the very first and most immediate things babies care about, this theory makes some sense. For everything else, not so much.
  - wahern 10y ago
    100 basic words (the corpus of the study) is such a small subset, especially if you posit very strong correlations among subsets of those 100 words most likely to be used in the first year of life. And especially considering that the researchers "reduced all sounds to 34 distinct consonants and 7 vowels." (Consider that the more we reduce and simplify the vocalizations the more likely we should expect correlations. For example, if we simplified all sounds to grunts we should expect tremendous overlap.) The correlation of the corpus of 100 words isn't particularly surprising given what we already know about language development. The null hypothesis was that there'd be no correlation whatsoever (i.e. the sounds would be completely random), which I don't think anybody could reasonably expect.
    - Chathamization 10y ago
      Indeed. Especially when the article gives us this: "...the team found a lot more consistency across languages than they had expected." What does that mean? Were their originally expectations reasonable, or did they merely re-discover the birthday paradox?
- wahern 10y ago
  No, but they learn the words for various body parts very early in life, usually before the age of 2 and beginning around 1-year-old. A 2-year-old also has significant physiological and neurological constraints on vocalizations. There are also cognitive development constraints, of course. The question is, from where do we get the correlation? If it's physiological or neurological, then there's nothing to support fanciful claims of innate language models. It's the cognitive constraints that can support fanciful claims, but you have to first show that it's those constraints, rather than the physiological or neurological constraints, that are controlling word choice.