From the reading "How the brain handles language," I thought it was very intuitive how brain and different parts of our body interacts to accept languages and to transfer it. Different parts of brain are responsible for each body parts and they work together to generate a word, sentence, and meaning. Broca's area is used for a production of language while Wernicke's area is used when we comprehend language. I also learned that the left hemisphere of my brain would be used dominantly than my right hemisphere since I'm right handed.
There are two different theories of "examining the relationship between words and things." Two views are naturalist view and conventionalist view, which are suggested by Plato and Aristotle. Naturalist view supports the idea that there is a connection between the sound and the referred thing. On the other hand, Conventionalist view supports the idea that there is no connection between the sound and the referred one. Additionally, idea that "sense" is how you describe something linguistically as opposed to the "reference" is a physical table outside of language was interesting. To the extension of these, it was also surprising to learn that our thoughts are limited by the languages we know of.
Comments
Solid summary, Jimin. In thinking about your own about the ways in which you process language yourself, do you think the naturalist or the conventionalist view predominates? In other words, is the 'general idea' of meaning more important, or do you think the specific, empirical elements of the world take priority?