A child learning to speak will not understand
herself as in a process of learning. She will feel that what she is doing is what
those around her are doing. Unlike someone learning a second language, she has
no idea of what speaking is beyond what she is doing herself.
I’m not sure, but it seems somewhat meaningless to say of a child that she either understands or doesn’t understand herself as in a process of learning language. It seems to me that not enough sense has been given to either claim.
ReplyDeleteBut then you say that the child will feel she’s doing what those around her are doing. I’m not sure about that. It seems to me possible to say that the child will know that she is not quite capable of doing what those around her are doing—that they can do things she can’t—even if she doesn’t really have a very clear conception of what they do. Could we say that the child “senses” that there is speaking beyond what she is doing? Would this be in tension of what you say?
And then you say that the child has no idea of what speaking is beyond what she is doing herself. I don’t feel quite comfortable with that. The relation between the speaking adult and the non-speaking child is not like the relation between us and a tribe that lives with a number system that consists of ‘1,’ ‘2,’ ‘3,’ ‘4,’ and ‘many.’ This tribe is not in the process of growing into being like us. The child is. It is growing into our form of life. So in the tribe’s case, it would be an imposition to understand what they do in terms taken from the language we use to describe what we do. In contrast, if we describe the non-speaking child in terms taken from the language we use to describe what we do when we speak, would that be an imposition? – My sense is that you are right (if I understand you) to think that there would be somewhat of an imposition here; but at the same time, it would not be an imposition of the same sort as the imposition I just described with the tribe. If I’m right, then perhaps the problem is to describe the exact character of the imposition in the child’s case. And part of the problem is that even if there is an imposition here of a terminology that doesn’t quite fit the child’s level of activity, we don’t really have an alternative terminology: This is the terminology that belongs to this form of life—the one the child is growing into. And again, the child is not quite yet in our form of life, but saying that does not imply that she has another form of life. She is not transitioning between forms of life; she is acquiring a form of life.
– Does that make sense? Is this helpful?