There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.----William Shakespeare
Neurocognition is inspiring on a daily basis. We know syntax is not merely for language use for example, but for music as well. We do what we think is right and occasionally we know it's wrong but we still do it. And that's called crime or sin or a loan word that I have no idea what it is.
Putting rhythm, semantic rhyming, and visual priming into language acquisition is what I'm interested in for the time being. In order to realize this goal I need to change the course selection for next semester and find out relevant research organization. The chance is so rare that it couldn't be a good choice, but I'll do it anyway since according to some philosopher one person only gets one lifetime and should do what he or she (or she or he) thinks is right.
Language acquisition is clearer than before and vaguer at the same time. We know when and where children do what but we have no idea why they do that. We believe they learn causality later but use it as the first priority. But do they realize it already and seek for the trace? Or they get the conclusion after observing the world?
When we try to combine words into meaning and develop the semantic format of natural languages, we always make things either more complicate or simpler than it appears to be. Is the correct description of language a correct way in the faculty of language?
Happy New Year
No comments:
Post a Comment