Rather why? than how??

Up to what point the use of language is biological and physical or cognitive?

Humans, as every living being, are born with a predisposition to live as good, and the easier as we
can, to make our survival easier, thats the center and objective of every action we take, and
everything we learn.

We are born with the basics pre recorded in our brains.

If you are thirsty, drink water. If you are hungry, eat.

As a new born, it wont take long before you realize that if you cry, someone will attend to your
necessity, but also we are born with tools to make easier to get food and water, and will help us to
get them when daddy or mommy dont be there to get us the food or water.

Like our legs and feet to walk, or our arms and hands to take things, and as a new born, you dont
know how to use them for those functions, but you watch them and feel them, and you start to
understand how they can help you.

But at the same time you learn how to control your body (support your own head, first 3 months;
use hands as support, first 6 months; stand up by yourself and use your hands to hold things, first 8
months; and start walking, first 12 months (1)) also you are learning the easiest and fastest way to
get the things you want, paying attention to your surroundings, also as the time goes by. The
attention from our parents start reducing, so now, if we cry, daddy wont come and try everything to
calm you as when you were new born, so we have to start asking for specific things or cares.

We walk to the bottle of water and try to take it, but soon we legalize we not only have our legs to
walk to the bottle, and our hands to try to take it, we discover that if we make that sound that
mommy says when giving me the water (why do you cry? Do you want some bread? (Hands bread)
do you want your toy? (Hands toy) do you want water? (Hands water) the water will come
along; we dont even have to walk.

Then we start to discover new words and the reactions that our parents have before them. I need
water, then I need daddy, then I need my favorite toy, I just have to repeat that set of sounds. (2)

More than a skill, language is a tool, and more than language is predisposed, we are predisposed to
do get what we need easier.

In language in the center of grow and maturation by Eric H. Lenneberg he say parents inability
to train the children at this stage to join the words daddy and by-by into a single utterance cannot be
explained on the grounds of motor incompetence, because at the same time age children babble for
periods as long as the duration of a sentence the retarding factor for language acquisition here
must be a psychological one, or perhaps better, a cognitive one and not mechanical skill
In my personal opinion, if a baby dont join those words is because he dont have to, he doesnt
need to, also I reckon the author under rate mechanical skills, as if the arms or hands were just
something obvious, primal, he say but the specific history for speech control stands apart
dramatically from histories of finger and hand control I dont think thats a fair comparison.

I thing the table he presents (3) its ok until the year 4, when he compares 4 years, jump over rope;
hops on right foot; catches ball in arms walk line language is well established; deviations from the
adult norm tend to be more in style than in grammar as if the development of both were now
completed and there were just aspects to polish.

He can ask for something or express something that is upsetting him but why cant he say it using
signs language? Because he doesnt need to, its easier say it with his mouth rather tan his hands, or
not easier but thats how his parents teach him, and communicate with him, because thats how they
knew to.

So, in my opinion there should be another table of comparison, to understand not only how fast
spoken language is learned compared to the mechanical movements of the body, but also how other
languages could be learned at the same time, and how he may learn another languages as he grows
up.

A physical comparison and a non physical comparison.

Physical

Cry Move fingers randomly

Babbling Move fingers consciously

and watch and feel how
they move
Reduplication frequent Thumb apposition

Identical sound Hold things, hold himself

sequences* standing

*At this point his use of his hands and arms to move them at will, and larynx and lungs to produce
sounds at will is almost complete, but then starts the second table, the table of development of
language, with the new and perfected tools he now have.
Non physical

(The real development

Repeat words knowing equivalent)
what they mean Starts repeating sign
words with hands
Make more complex Make more complex
sentences sentences with hands

Starts singing good, Play an instrument

transmitting emotions transmitting emotions

Why did I put music as a comparison point?

Because in my opinion thats the next step of vocal and physical communication, another language,
more complex, a little bit harder to learn, also harder to understand.

Now, I also disagree with the description that the RAE gives to language

RAE describes it as:

1. m. Set of articulated sounds with which the human manifests what he thinks or feels.

2. m. Language ( system of verbal communication).

3. m. Way to express yourself. Cult language, rude, simple, technical, forensic, vulgar.

4. m. Style and manner of speaking and writing of each individual person.

5m. Use of Speech.

6. m. Set of signals that give a hook. The language of the eyes, the language of flowers.

7. m. Report. Set of signs and rules that allow communication with a computer.

Now, how would I describe language?

As the set of sounds, moves or actions with witch humans express their feelings and thoughts
expecting that the message or emotion they express drive to a reaction on certain individual or a
group of people.
(1) Appendix 1 Developmental milestones in motor and language development (adapted from
Lenneberg 1967, 128)
(2) The first words of a human, short survey, Fernando Rafael Nava G. 2017.
(3) Language in the context of growth and maturation. Eric H. Lenneberh. Table 6.1.