Tio Essay

Britney Stapelfeld

Ingl 3225 sec. 086

Prof. Catherine Fleck




Tió Essay Analysis


1. In paragraph 10) Tió makes the strong claim that language and thought are so intimately connected that if one becomes corrupt, the other putrefies. What is your reaction to this statement, based on what you have learned about language in this class?

By making this claim, Tió is clearlysuggesting that language and thought are closely connected in our minds; in addition he is easily implying that language is a human invention that is taught. In other words, Tió believes language is something we have learned to recognize and it is closely connected to our thoughts. In contrast, I completely disagree with his argument. First of all, language is not a human invention that can be entirelytaught; nevertheless language is a natural occurring system that exists in the minds of native speakers. If language were a human invention it would eventually show improvement overtime, just like every human invention, whereas language does not. Similarly, if language were a human invention we would be able to find that some groups of people have a better version of that particular language thanothers, this clearly does not happen. Finally, if language were a human invention it would be possible to analyze and explain language by the process of “backwards engineering”, instead not a single language has ever been completely decoded or reduced. Having clear that language is not a human invention; we can determine that humans have an innate component to language and we are born with agenetic basis for language. The Poverty of the Stimulus Argument effectively demonstrates this, as it states:
1. Premise One: All normal children learn at least one language.
2. Premise Two: The knowledge children acquire of their language far exceeds the input they receive in the environment.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, there must be an innate component to language.
In conclusion, since humans havean innate component to language that is not dependant on thought, since it is instinctual as we speak, language cannot be corrupted because it is already genetically encoded in our minds. Finally, thought cannot corrupt our language or vice versa, because language occurs naturally to humans and cannot be affected by anything, especially not thought since they are two completely different thingsthat are not dependant one from the other.

2. In paragraph 15) Tió absolutely rejects the notion of a lengua puertorriqueña, arguing instead that there is only one Spanish language that unites "veinte pueblos."
a. Do you agree with this argument? Is there, in fact, a lengua puertorriqueña?

Tió is clearly stating that Spanish is one language, in other words there exists a “correct” form ofSpanish, while others are “corrupted” by the very speakers of the language. If this were true then why are there hundreds of varieties of Spanish spoken in Spain, the Carribean, and Latin America? All of these varieties of Spanish differ in lexicon, the sound system and in morphology and syntax. The Real Academia Española and therefore Tió, believe that Spanish originated in Spain, and Castilianwas the first variety to be standardized, which only means it was the first variety of Spanish to be encoded in dictionaries and grammar books. On one hand, they also believe that language is some kind of cultural and human invention, they believe that by standardizing the language has caused an improvement in it, and they also tend to believe that “great authors” and other illustrious people“worked” on the language until they perfected it. On the other hand, it is clear that none of this is true. As we have stated on question two, language is not a human invention, it is an innate component to language that cannot even be traced or fully explained because of its complexity. So clearly, there cannot be a “correct” or “incorrect” form of a language. Finally, it is impossible to have a...