Being a Cognitive Science major, the selected readings were nothing short of fascinating to me. The chapter regarding anatomical structures presented biology as a building block for understanding language acquisition. Though not necessary, understanding structures such as Broca’s and Wernicke’s area helps to relate language back to its original roots: the brain. The brain’s ability to maintain a symphony of visual stimuli in both recognition and production is incredible, and the ability to eventually communicate complex thoughts was something I came to understand. Though the, “left” vs. “right” brain discussion is certainly vital, I believe that, in actuality, people shouldn't focus too much on biological differences when learning a language. Rather than getting caught up on the fact that one does not possess strong “left” abilities, everyone also has a corpus callosum and is more than capable of learning language– biology should not be a deterrent.
As for the philosophical debates, I was quite interested in the Plato and Socrates illustrations, due to some courses in rhetoric which I am taking now. Plato’s polemical views on rhetoric stem from an idea that one’s sense trumps all, which is in opposition to the Socratic paradigm. This reminds me of a quote from Dostoevsky and his thoughts on thought itself, using language to communicate said thoughts could be seen as an inherently impossible task, and I conjecture language will never be a perfect 1:1 expression of consciousness. Perhaps this is why I’m ambivalent about Plato and Socrates since both sense and reference are needed, and why I enjoyed this reading so much as it positioned biological principles as a step to understanding varying philosophical premises.
Comments