There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are little linguists involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that toktok is the native word for fire, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like The large box is a noun phrase and The box was painted by Nancy is in the passive voice, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that masters of a language have knowledge about their language?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CAT Exam > CAT Questions > There are some accounts of the nature of lang...

Join the Discussion on the App

There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certain situation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.
If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.

Q. Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?

a)
The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.
b)
The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.
c)
When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.
d)
Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.
e)
Both 2 and 4

Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

FREE This question is part of

XAT Verbal And Logical Ability MCQ Quiz - 2

Attempt Test

Attempt this Test

Verified Answer

There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem t...

The argument simply put is that masters of a language have also mastered the grammatical structure of that language in technical terms - in terms of the grammar, rules, syntax etc. According to option 3, knowledge which one uses in acquiring a language is not used by a mature learner. This would weaken the given argument that linguistic knowledge (in terms of meanings of words as well as knowledge of concepts such as grammatical structures) is necessary.
The other options by implication communicate that the rules are important or they are deployed.
Hence, the correct answer is option 3.

View all questions of this test

View all answers Start learning for free

< Previous Question Next Question >

Explore Courses for CAT exam

Similar CAT Doubts

Group QuestionAnswer the questions based on the passage given below.There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are little linguists involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that toktok is the native word for fire, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like The large box is a noun phrase and The box was painted by Nancy is in the passive voice, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.According to the passage, an infant learner of a language....

View answer

In December 2010 I appeared on John Stossels television special on scepticism on Fox Business News, during which I debunked numerous pseudoscientific beliefs. Stossel added his own scepticism of possible financial pseudoscience in the form of active investment fund managers who claim that they can consistently beat the market. In a dramatic visual demonstration, Stossel threw 30 darts into a page of stocks and compared their performance since January 1,2010, with stock picks of the 10 largest managed funds. Results: Dartboard, a 31 percent increase; managed funds, a 9.5 percent increase.Admitting that he got lucky because of his limited sample size, Stossel explained that had he thrown enough darts to fully represent the market he would have generated a 12 percent increase the market average a full 2.5 percentage points higher than the 10 largest managed funds average increase. As Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel elaborated on the show, over the past decade more than two thirds of actively managed funds were beaten by a simple low-cost indexed fund [for example, a mutual fund invested in a large number of stocks], and the active funds that win in one period arent the same ones who win in the next period.Stossel cited a study in the journal Economics and Portfolio Strategy that tracked 452 managed funds from 1990 to 2009,finding that only 13 beat the market average. Equating managed fund directors to snake-oil salesmen, Malkiel said that Wall Street is selling Main Street on the belief that experts can consistently time the market and make accurate predictions of when to buy and sell. They cant. No one can. Not even professional economists and not even for large-scale market indicators. As economics Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson long ago noted in a 1966 Newsweek column: Commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions!Even in a given tech area, where you might expect a greater level of specific expertise, economic forecasters fumble. On December 22, 2010, for example, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece on how the great hedge fund financier T. Boone Pickens (chair of BP Capital Management) just abandoned his Pickens Plan of investing in wind energy. Pickens invested $2 billion based on his prediction that the price of natural gas would stay high. It didnt, plummeting as the drilling industrys ability to unlock methane from shale beds improved, a turn of events even an expert such as Pickens failed to see.Why are experts (along with us nonexperts) so bad at making predictions? The world is a messy, complex and contingent place with countless intervening variables and confounding factors, which our brains are not equipped to evaluate. We evolved the capacity to make snap decisions based on short-term predictions, not rational analysis about long-term investments, and so we deceive ourselves into thinking that experts can foresee the future. This self-deception among professional prognosticators was investigated by University of California, Berkeley, professor Philip E. Tetlock, as reported in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment. After testing 284 experts in political science, economics, history and journalism in a staggering 82,361 predictions about the future, Tetlock concluded that they did little better than a dart-throwing chimpanzee.There was one significant factor in greater prediction success, however, and that was cognitive style: foxes who know a little about many things do better than hedgehogs who know a lot about one area of expertise. Low scorers, Tetlock wrote, were thinkers who know one big thing, aggressively extend the explanatoryreach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who do not get it, and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters. High scorers in the study were thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trad e), are sceptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible ad hocery that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess. Being deeply knowledgeable on one subject narrows focus and increases confidence but also blurs the value of dissenting views and transforms data collection into belief confirmation. One way to avoid being wrong is to be sceptical whenever you catch yourself making predictions based on reducing complex phenomena into one overarching scheme. This type of cognitive trap is why I dont make predictions and why I never will.Q. What does Paul Samuelsons statement Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! imply?I. Wall Street indexes are too pessimistic in their predictions.II. Wall Street indexes need to be more optimistic about their predictions.III. Wall Street indexes are much better at predicting recessions than anyone realizes.IV. Wall Street indexes make plenty of extreme predictions, out of which only some come true.

View answer

In December 2010 I appeared on John Stossels television special on scepticism on Fox Business News, during which I debunked numerous pseudoscientific beliefs. Stossel added his own scepticism of possible financial pseudoscience in the form of active investment fund managers who claim that they can consistently beat the market. In a dramatic visual demonstration, Stossel threw 30 darts into a page of stocks and compared their performance since January 1,2010, with stock picks of the 10 largest managed funds. Results: Dartboard, a 31 percent increase; managed funds, a 9.5 percent increase.Admitting that he got lucky because of his limited sample size, Stossel explained that had he thrown enough darts to fully represent the market he would have generated a 12 percent increase the market average a full 2.5 percentage points higher than the 10 largest managed funds average increase. As Princeton University economist Burton G. Malkiel elaborated on the show, over the past decade more than two thirds of actively managed funds were beaten by a simple low-cost indexed fund [for example, a mutual fund invested in a large number of stocks], and the active funds that win in one period arent the same ones who win in the next period.Stossel cited a study in the journal Economics and Portfolio Strategy that tracked 452 managed funds from 1990 to 2009,finding that only 13 beat the market average. Equating managed fund directors to snake-oil salesmen, Malkiel said that Wall Street is selling Main Street on the belief that experts can consistently time the market and make accurate predictions of when to buy and sell. They cant. No one can. Not even professional economists and not even for large-scale market indicators. As economics Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson long ago noted in a 1966 Newsweek column: Commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions!Even in a given tech area, where you might expect a greater level of specific expertise, economic forecasters fumble. On December 22, 2010, for example, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece on how the great hedge fund financier T. Boone Pickens (chair of BP Capital Management) just abandoned his Pickens Plan of investing in wind energy. Pickens invested $2 billion based on his prediction that the price of natural gas would stay high. It didnt, plummeting as the drilling industrys ability to unlock methane from shale beds improved, a turn of events even an expert such as Pickens failed to see.Why are experts (along with us nonexperts) so bad at making predictions? The world is a messy, complex and contingent place with countless intervening variables and confounding factors, which our brains are not equipped to evaluate. We evolved the capacity to make snap decisions based on short-term predictions, not rational analysis about long-term investments, and so we deceive ourselves into thinking that experts can foresee the future. This self-deception among professional prognosticators was investigated by University of California, Berkeley, professor Philip E. Tetlock, as reported in his 2005 book Expert Political Judgment. After testing 284 experts in political science, economics, history and journalism in a staggering 82,361 predictions about the future, Tetlock concluded that they did little better than a dart-throwing chimpanzee.There was one significant factor in greater prediction success, however, and that was cognitive style: foxes who know a little about many things do better than hedgehogs who know a lot about one area of expertise. Low scorers, Tetlock wrote, were thinkers who know one big thing, aggressively extend the explanatoryreach of that one big thing into new domains, display bristly impatience with those who do not get it, and express considerable confidence that they are already pretty proficient forecasters. High scorers in the study were thinkers who know many small things (tricks of their trad e), are sceptical of grand schemes, see explanation and prediction not as deductive exercises but rather as exercises in flexible ad hocery that require stitching together diverse sources of information, and are rather diffident about their own forecasting prowess. Being deeply knowledgeable on one subject narrows focus and increases confidence but also blurs the value of dissenting views and transforms data collection into belief confirmation. One way to avoid being wrong is to be sceptical whenever you catch yourself making predictions based on reducing complex phenomena into one overarching scheme. This type of cognitive trap is why I dont make predictions and why I never will.Q. What is the difference between foxes and hedgehogs?I. Foxes know many little things, while hedgehogs know one big thing.II. Foxes know one big thing, while hedgehogs know many little things.III. Foxes think of themselves as good predictors, while hedgehogs think the opposite of themselves.IV. Foxes do not boast that they are good predictors, while hedgehogs think of themselves as highly skilled.

View answer

Thinking negatively, expecting the worst, seeing the downside of positive situations, and even downright expecting failure, all convey a kind of backwards- thinking, emotional insurance policy. Our desire to want to be right is a common reason we subconsciously choose negative thinking. Sometimes, as foolish as it sounds, we would rather be right about our negative predictions than have a positive outcome prove us wrong. And since negative thinking leads to negative actions, or no action at all in many cases, by thinking negatively we create a self- fulfilling prediction for ourselves. In other words, we think negatively, predict a negative outcome, act negatively, and then receive a negative outcome that fulfills our prediction.Life simply isnt black or white - 100% of this or 100% of that - all or nothing. Thinking in extremes like this is a fast way to misery, because negative thinking tends to view any situation thats less than perfect as being extremely bad. Assigning meaning to a situation before you have the whole story makes you more likely to believe that the uncertainty you feel (based on lack of knowing) is a negative sign. On the flip-side, holding off on assigning meaning to an incomplete story is a primary key to overcoming negative thinking.Q.Which of the following is most unlikely to be an illustration of thinking in black and white?

View answer

Directions : Read the following case and answer the questions that follow:Ram arrived on Monday at India Audit, just in time to hear the outburst from the Managing Partner's office. It was in the middle of the busy season for India Audit, and the office had tons of paperwork lying all around. The Managing Partner Laxman, was bright, hard-working, and a good auditor. But during the busy season it was inevitable that delays would occur as clients would not be ready, or some misplaced work caused uncontrollable delays. As these events kept repeating over the last few days, Laxman's temper tended to get shorter.Despite the stress during the busy season, Ram really enjoyed working at India Audit. This was his first job and he had been steadily climbing up the corporate ladder. Today Ram was working on the Audit of India Old Age Homes(IOAH) - A small non-profit organization helping take care of old age men and women. The organization had just 5 staff, and today the accountant in charge of keeping track at India Old Age Homes, Shweta, had quit and joined India Audit. As Ram took his seat, Laxman waved at him to join him in his office - Laxman at this point introduced Shweta to Ram and told him that she would be assisting him with the audit of IOAH.As Ram returned to his desk after the introduction, he noticed that files for Construction India Limited had come in and the client was demanding that the audit be completed immediately. Construction India had been using the services of India Audit for over a decade now, and had been a very lucrative client. Ram was also aware that IOAH audit was not expected to be completed for at least a month. So, Ram kept aside IOAH files, the accounting files that Shweta had worked on while at IOAH, and started working on a more pressing matter of Construction India.Next Monday, when Ram arrived at his office, he was again waved into Laxman's Office. Laxman had just had a call from his superior and learnt that IOAH audit files to be completed in the next few days. He asked Ram how far he had gotten with it - to which Ram replied that he had hardly spent anytime on it as the Construction India audit had arrived last week. At this point Laxman Interrupted and said - "Ram, there is a lot of pressure on me to get IOAH done over the next couple of days. So, I have decided to ask Shweta to complete the required work and submit - All you will have to do is sign on it, and IOAH will be taken care of".As Ram left the office he did not feel right - Shweta could not audit her own work at IOAH.

View answer

Top Courses for CATView all

Quantitative Aptitude (Quant)

Crash Course for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series 2024

3 Months Preparation for CAT

CAT Mock Test Series and 500+ Practice Tests 2024

Top Courses for CAT

View all

There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CAT 2024 is part of CAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CAT exam syllabus. Information about There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice There are some accounts of the nature of language learning that seem to imply that masters of a language have knowledge about their language. According to some accounts, a child learning a language is involved in much the same sort of activity as a field linguist who is trying to figure out the language of the natives she is studying. The field linguist is involved in constructing a theory of the native language: the linguist formulates hypotheses about what certain words and phrases mean, tests these hypotheses (perhaps by making predictions about what the natives would say in a certainsituation, or by talking to the natives and making predictions about their replies to her), and modifies her theory in light of the results of those tests. The idea is that infant language learners are “little linguists” involved in the same sort of process. Of course, on this picture of language learning as theory construction, the theory construction takes place at a subconscious level and the hypotheses are formulated in the so-called Language of Thought, which is distinct from any natural language.If this account of language learning is true, then it must be the case that language learners have linguistic knowledge. For one, the language learners will know the results of their theory. In much the way that the linguist, at the end of the day, knows that “toktok” is the native word for “fire”, so the language learner will know the meanings of the words of the language he has learned. Second, the language learner must have knowledge of the concepts required for the formulation of his hypotheses. If, for instance, the hypotheses formulated by the language learner include claims like “‘The large box’ is a noun phrase” and “The box was painted by Nancy’ is in the passive voice”, then the language learner must know what noun phrases are and what it means for a sentence to be in the passive voice. To formulate hypotheses about noun phrases, the passive voice, and other semantic and syntactic categories, the language learner must have knowledge about those categories. Or, to put the point another way, the language learner must possess the concepts he deploys in the hypotheses he formulates in the process of learning the language.Q.Which of the following, if true, would weaken the school of thought that believes that “masters of a language have knowledge about their language”?a)The speaker of a language has all sorts of knowledge of the syntax and semantics of the language and actively uses them while speaking the language.b)The speaker of a language has mastery of semantic and syntactic categories and deploys them actively while speaking.c)When a mature user of language is using the language s/he is no longer utilizing the knowledge which s/he made use of in acquiring it.d)Ordinary language users possess structures of knowledge, reasonably so called, of a complex system of rules or principles of language.e)Both 2 and 4Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CAT tests.

Explore Courses for CAT exam