See is one of the most common words in English. For instance, while time, the most common English noun, gets 3,550,000,000 Google hits, see gets a very respectable 2,980,000,000. This compares well with talk (711,000,000) and eat (253,000,000). This means that blind children can't really avoid the verb altogether. In fact, look and see are among the very first verbs that blind children learn, just like sighted children.
So what do they think it means?
I probably can't answer the question completely, but here are some relevant research results:
When a sighted 3-year-old is asked to "look up," he will tilt their heads upwards, even if they are blindfolded. A blind 3-year-old raises her hands instead.
If told "You can touch that table, but don't look at it," the blind 3-year-old will lightly touch the table. If you later tell her she cal look at the table, she may explore all the surfaces of the table with her hands.
It's not likely that blind children are explicitly taught these meanings for these words, so they probably created what are very reasonable meanings for them.
(This research is summarized in Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child by Barbara Landau and Lila Gleitman.)
Comments
Constructive Criticism, Sorely Lacking
May 28, 2008 by johnbrandy, 1 year 5 weeks ago
Comment id: 30365
I am inclined to agree that the title would be improved if it ended with a question mark. I suspect that the point of this article as written, was to generate intelligent speculation as to how blind children responded to the statements they were asked, thus challenging the participants in this forum to deeply reflect upon that which was offered. In point of fact, the absence of the researchers "conclusions", as to said behavior of the blind children, compelled me to think deeply and try to reason out what was actually occurring. This seems fair, and perhaps the purpose of this forum. What confuses and bothers me is the lack of constructive criticism herein. This is a science forum, therefore it make perfect sense to frame criticism with scientific discipline and reasoning. Lets assume, for the sake of discussion, that the writer erred, actually, or in terms of someones perception, in the writing of their article. Does that justify the ugly language and thoughtless comments in this blog? Why participate in a science forum if you lack the discipline to evaluate the information that is offered? Such angry responses say nothing about science, but do indicate the limits and poor attitudes of some of the participants. I came to this forum hoping for enlightened dialog and fair play. It is probable that those who have chosen to criticize this article, in the worst terms, will be unreceptive to the need for common decency, and enlightened self-interest. Their example is a clear indication of a dumbed down society.
Sense Substitution and Inherient Ability
June 3, 2008 by johnbrandy, 1 year 4 weeks ago
Comment id: 30341
I would suggest that the blind children are substituting felt-sense for sight. Touch and sound are the only "cognitive" technique that is open to them for relating to the world. Blind children are limited to and responsive to the touch and sounds of their care givers. Therefore this is how they learn to relate to the world. I believe this study demonstrates certain inherent capacities in the developing child. Why and how a blind child, without any training, would point up, when asked to look up, give credence to their capacity for substitution and a yet undefined ability; intrinsically printed in their brain. Why and how a blind child would merely touch a table, when ask to only touch a table, and then proceed to explore the table with their hands, when asked to look at, is consistent with my stated explanation. In short, there appears to be a matrix in the developing brain of young children, blind or sighted, that, through healthy nurturing will, of necessity, be expressed. As well, neurological substitution and adaptation is a well established fact in various disabilities. I offer this for your consideration.
^^
May 12, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 7 weeks ago
Comment id: 29782
this is interesting.
i liked it. =]
this entire page
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29028
is a failure
well, somebody must have liked the post
April 14, 2008 by coglanglab, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29029
So, there seems to be some unhappiness about the depth of this post. Perhaps this a lesson in overly agressive blog entry titles.
If you want to read some more in-depth discussions of language, I would suggest some of the previous posts.
In my defense, most of the readers seem to be coming in through reddit. Which means a fair number of people liked the article. And I still think it's interesting data.
Replying to the person who objected to using Google to get word frequency counts. Word frequency is usually calculated by summing up the occurrences of a word in some corpus of text. Ideally, the corpus is large and contains a wide variety of sources. Sounds like Google.
And, in fact, Google is being increasingly used by linguists, especially for the sort of informal analysis I used here.
googledemic!
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29027
because academics are too silly with all of that "actually having substantial evidence" bullshit. lets just give people some shit i found on google (because typing single words into google and hitting enter is, of course, a perfectly tenable manner of discerning a word's significance).
That's it?
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29023
That's the article?
So....
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29021
Where's the rest of the article?
Such a thought-provoking title... someone should find the answer and write an actual article, and link to it from this blog.
Reminds me of the amazing
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29020
Reminds me of the amazing story of F-Sharp Bell!
XR
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29019
Wth!? That's a misleading title. And that's bullshit.
Muse
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29018
Well, that was an interesting read. It completely fails to live up to the title by delivering approximately zero insight into how blind children learn the meaning of the word 'see' with zero anecdotal evidence and zero research.
Lovely.
It is, in fact, a musing, the sort of thing one normally wonders inside one's head or utters to their partner when having a nice stroll around the local park. It is not something I would expect people to share with the world unless, of course, they are soliciting an answer from more knowledgeable souls.
Hm
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29016
Interesting, but I guess we'll never know the true meaning unless we are blind ourselves. But seems like a good observation to me. They look with their hands.
Jack
Interesting
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29015
So it seems as if "see" and "look" mean to use your greatest source of sensory input to explore something. A sighted person uses eyes, while a blind person uses touch.
So, uhm, how? huh? uh?
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29012
So, uhm, how? huh? uh?
Science Blog?
April 14, 2008 by Anonymous, 1 year 11 weeks ago
Comment id: 29011
Are you serious?