Can English be learned with a dictionary alone?

[Fuz]

So I had no idea what forum this question should have been posted in, but here it is...

Is it possible for a person, (like for example a Chinese man, or for even more simply, an alien), that knows literally 0 words in the English language, to pick up an English dictionary (assuming that he understood he was reading a dictionary) to go through and 'decipher' most, if not all, words and their meanings/definitions by reading their English definitions alone?

For example, start with the word 'aardvark' and take the first word that pops up in its definition and look up THAT word in the dictionary, read the first word in its definition, look it up, etc. until you have gone through the whole dictionary (or most of it at least) so that you can, in a sense, *understand* English.

If the above isn't possible, could it done with the understanding of what at least one, maybe a couple words mean to start off? e.g. with the knowledge of what the English words 'the', 'and', 'a' etc. mean before you pick up the dictionary?

Fuz

 

[Evo]

So I had no idea what forum this question should have been posted in, but here it is...

Is it possible for a person, (like for example a Chinese man, or for even more simplicity, an alien), that knows literally 0 words in the English language, to pick up an English dictionary (assuming that he understood he was reading a dictionary) to go through and 'decipher' most, if not all, words and their meanings/definitions by reading their English definitions alone?

For example, start with the word 'aardvark' and take the first word that pops up in its definition and look up THAT word in the dictionary, read the first word in its definition, look it up, etc. until you have gone through the whole dictionary (or most of it at least) so that you can, in a sense, *understand* English.

If the above isn't possible, could it done with the understanding of what at least one, maybe a couple words mean to start off? e.g. with the knowledge of what the English words 'the', 'and', 'a' etc. mean before you pick up the dictionary?

Fuz

Sure, you could learn the dictionary definitions for words in another language, but that doesn't mean that you can speak that language or know how words are used differently in context. All you would have is a list of words.

 

[lisab]

Do you mean an English-to-English dictionary...like, just a plain dictionary?

Or a Chinese (for example)-to-English dictionary?

Unfortunate "dictionary" can be both of those.

 

[micromass]

A language is a lot more difficult than simply knowing words. I dare to say that I know quite a lot of english words, but I talk it very badly. So just knowing words will get you somewhere, but you won't really "know" the language...

 

[Fuz]

Do you mean an English-to-English dictionary...like, just a plain dictionary?

Or a Chinese (for example)-to-English dictionary?

Unfortunate "dictionary" can be both of those.

I'm talking about straight up pure English-to-English dictionary.

Sure, you could learn the dictionary definitions for words in another language, but that doesn't mean that you can speak that language or know how words are used differently in context. All you would have is a list of words.

I see your point, I'm just wondering if one could *understand* the *meaning* of the words by deciphering the definitions using definitions alone.

 

[micromass]

I'm talking about straight up pure English-to-English dictionary.



I see your point, I'm just wondering if one could *understand* the *meaning* of the words by deciphering the definitions using definitions alone.

Why don't you try it?? Take a Greek dictionary and try to decipher everything!

 

[Fuz]

Why don't you try it?? Take a Greek dictionary and try to decipher everything!

Ha, it was just a hypothetical. I'm just wondering if it could theoretically be done given as much time as you need.

 

[lisab]

I'm talking about straight up pure English-to-English dictionary.

Then, I think it would be very very difficult. Even if you could get it figured out (I guess it would be a huge logic puzzle, cross referencing the definitions with the alphabetized words), you'd have no idea how to speak it. Like micromass said, there's more to a language than just what the words mean.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Speaking practically, I think it is possible, but difficult. The reason I say so is that it is rare to find a person who doesn't already know a few English words, and who speaks a language that doesn't have any English cognates. Also, the dictionary may contain pictures that would provide clues.

However, lacking those and similar aids, I think it is impossible. I remember, when first learning geometry, the reason why point and line are undefined. The reason, I was told, is that they would have to be defined in terms of other words which would then need defining themselves. The result would either be endless definitions of words in terms of other words, or circular definitions.

 

[Fuz]

Then, I think it would be very very difficult. Even if you could get it figured out (I guess it would be a huge logic puzzle, cross referencing the definitions with the alphabetized words), you'd have no idea how to speak it. Like micromass said, there's more to a language than just what the words mean.

You're right, it's basically a very difficult logic puzzle. I guess you don't have to know HOW to speak it correctly, but given the definitions, could you discover what an 'animal' is? or know what a 'tree' looks like by understanding what the words 'big' and 'green' mean. (hmm, I guess a little picture of the color green could be shown, because describing what a color looks like is pretty much impossible...)

 

[Fuz]

Speaking practically, I think it is possible, but difficult. The reason I say so is that it is rare to find a person who doesn't already know a few English words, and who speaks a language that doesn't have any English cognates. Also, the dictionary may contain pictures that would provide clues.

The situation is just a hypothetical logic based question. For the sake of the question, the person knows absolutely no words in the English language.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

The situation is just a hypothetical logic based question. For the sake of the question, the person knows absolutely no words in the English language.

Then you read the wrong half of my post.

 

[rhody]

Fuz,

I have a Hungarian friend, Victor who imigrated here in the early 1960's and spoke no English, he swears to this day he learned English by watching soap opera's on TV.
He still has an accent, but I have no trouble understanding him. For what it is worth, I thought I would pass it on.

Rhody...

 

[lisab]

You're right, it's basically a very difficult logic puzzle. I guess you don't have to know HOW to speak it correctly, but given the definitions, could you discover what an 'animal' is? or know what a 'tree' looks like by understanding what the words 'big' and 'green' mean. (hmm, I guess a little picture of the color green could be shown, because describing what a color looks like is pretty much impossible...)

I suppose it would depend on the dictionary. Some are quite miserly with their definitions.

If, as you suggest, the dictionary exceeds the usual effort (like printing a small patch of green for "green"), perhaps one could cobble together a rudimentary understanding. But that would mean going beyond simply using words to define other words. Once you start using pictures, your original problem becomes easier. In this situation, a picture is worth probably well over a thousand words!

Tough problem, though!

 

[micromass]

Another question. Given a computer and an internet that uses only one language. For example, everything about the computer is written in portugese, and all the internet is written in portugese. Is it possible to eventually learn that language?? I actually think that this may take shorter than one thinks...

 

[I_am_learning]

Another question. Given a computer and an internet that uses only one language. For example, everything about the computer is written in portugese, and all the internet is written in portugese. Is it possible to eventually learn that language?? I actually think that this may take shorter than one thinks...

That would be lot easier. Because we have an interacting environment. We hit the X button on the corner. A pop-up appears, with #%#~ and @#$* . You hit one, and the program exits. Then you know that means.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I actually think that this may take shorter than one thinks...

No matter how long it takes, I don't see how one can think it will take shorter than one thinks.

 

[micromass]

Are you claiming that logic and sequences are the same as pattern recognition?

So, from what I understand, you're claiming that language is an acquisitive ability because the baby "learns" to "associate" words with "physical/emotional" things. is that what you're saying? so based on your theory, our senses play an important role in the process of learning our mother-tongue. what if a person was blind and deaf, would he/she still be able to learn his/her mother-tongue as well as a normal person?

Blind AND deaf?? Well, I would guess that it would indeed be quite difficult for such people to talk like normal people...

 

[AdrianZ]

Blind AND deaf?? Well, I would guess that it would indeed be quite difficult for such people to talk like normal people...

Yes. blind AND deaf. and I didn't mean talking, because a deaf person can't talk(speak). but do you think if they were asked to write down what they want to say, they'd have problems with their language skills?

 

[micromass]

Yes. blind AND deaf. and I didn't mean talking, because a deaf person can't talk(speak). but do you think if they were asked to write down what they want to say, they'd have problems with their language skills?

I'd also be guessing that they'd had much trouble learning to read and write...

And by the way, deaf people can learn how to talk! It happened before. But it requires practise.

 

[AdrianZ]

I'd also be guessing that they'd had much trouble learning to read and write...

but there are more than 10 internationally known cases that have succeeded to read and write being deafblind. even some of them have succeeded to earn degrees in university like Helen Keller.

And by the way, deaf people can learn how to talk! It happened before. But it requires practise.

maybe. that's possible but naturally most deaf people can't talk like a normal person.

 

[Evo]

but there are more than 10 internationally known cases that have succeeded to read and write being deafblind. even some of them have succeeded to earn degrees in university like Helen Keller.

And you disagree that she had a hard time.

maybe. that's possible but naturally most deaf people can't talk like a normal person.

Hmmm, that might be because they can't hear.

 

[turbo]

@OP, you ought to ask Borek. He is a mentor here. His wife is a Polish speech therapist and his written English is fantastic. Still, he has said that if he and I got together, we'd have to communicate with pencil and paper because he has no idea how most English words are pronounced. I'll bet he could pick it up pretty quickly, with his knowledge of written English, but I can attest that it can be very difficult to parse spoken languages that have lots of alternative spellings, silent letters, etc. I had trouble learning how to speak French in HS, though I was able to understand it with no trouble when I was a pre-schooler.

 

[Fredrik]

So I had no idea what forum this question should have been posted in, but here it is...

Is it possible for a person, (like for example a Chinese man, or for even more simply, an alien), that knows literally 0 words in the English language, to pick up an English dictionary (assuming that he understood he was reading a dictionary) to go through and 'decipher' most, if not all, words and their meanings/definitions by reading their English definitions alone?

For example, start with the word 'aardvark' and take the first word that pops up in its definition and look up THAT word in the dictionary, read the first word in its definition, look it up, etc. until you have gone through the whole dictionary (or most of it at least) so that you can, in a sense, *understand* English.

If the above isn't possible, could it done with the understanding of what at least one, maybe a couple words mean to start off? e.g. with the knowledge of what the English words 'the', 'and', 'a' etc. mean before you pick up the dictionary?

Fuz

It's not possible. (I haven't read most of the replies, but I assume that you meant an English-English dictionary). It would be like trying to understand the meaning of "left" and "right" from the following two definitions: "your left thumb points to the right", "your right thumb points to the left". Dictionary definitions are similar to that. The reason why we can make sense of any definitions at all (of terms in the English language, stated in English) is that there are plenty of words that have been defined to you in a very different way. For example, someone can show you a door and tell you that "that's a door".

Another problem is that the language isn't completely defined by the dictionary, but that's a smaller problem, since there might be enough examples in the dictionary for you to figure out most of the grammar on your own.

 

[Hepth]

I don't see how its possible at all unless you have at least 1 cipher, whether it be an image next to some words, or a word or two translated first.

Its basically not even a logic puzzle, its an encrypted text whose set of definitions are a complete and closed set.

Hmm, I would think your only possible approach would be using statistics. Determine the frequency of adjectives and nouns in most dictionary definitions for other languages and then find the most commonly used words in this X language dictionary, match them, and decipher from there.
But if your first word is wrong, itll be a long time before you realize your mistake, and there's no guarantee the same word occurs most frequently in both languages' dictionaries.

 

[Integral]

No IQ would have nothing to do with a scenario like this.

What the OP should consider is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

Not really sure that is correct Evo. The Navy based it intelligence measure on how well you did on their language test. They presented a simplified form of Latin and you had to work with it. The better you did the higher they gauged your basic intelligence.

However, assigning a specific IQ number is a waste of time, just leave it at the higher your intelligence the better your luck would be in figuring out the language. I really feel that learning a language with just a dictionary would be a hard row to hoe. You need the grammar book to go along with it.

 

[Evo]

Not really sure that is correct Evo. The Navy based it intelligence measure on how well you did on their language test. They presented a simplified form of Latin and you had to work with it. The better you did the higher they gauged your basic intelligence.

But that was their own test not a standardized IQ test. I don't believe in standardized IQ tests, their purpose is to help disabled children, not pad the egos of certain types of people.

However, assigning a specific IQ number is a waste of time, just leave it at the higher your intelligence the better your luck would be in figuring out the language. I really feel that learning a language with just a dictionary would be a hard row to hoe. You need the grammar book to go along with it.

And an encyclopedia. I read both growing up.

 

[turbo]

And an encyclopedia. I read both growing up.

My father and mother bought us the World Book encyclopedias when I was young and I read them from cover to cover. Later, my aunt and uncle bought a set of Compton's encyclopedias and each summer (when my cousins didn't need urgent access to references) I borrowed them one by one and read those, too. I don't have an eidetic memory, by any means, but when I was a process chemist in a brand-new pulp mill, the operators in the pulping control room used to call me "World Book". When things were settled down and running well, we'd challenge each other to trivia quizzes - even stupid stuff. One night, I walked into the control room to get digester sensor readings, and the shift foreman said "LSMFT" to me. Without missing a beat, I said "Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco". IIR, about $20 changed hands right then. Smirks, grins, and chastened looks abounded.

 

[skippy1729]

This is reminiscent of Searle's Chinese Room argument against strong Artificial Intelligence--- knowledge of syntax alone cannot give rise to knowledge of semantics.

 

[Evo]

My father and mother bought us the World Book encyclopedias when I was young and I read them from cover to cover. Later, my aunt and uncle bought a set of Compton's encyclopedias and each summer (when my cousins didn't need urgent access to references) I borrowed them one by one and read those, too. I don't have an eidetic memory, by any means, but when I was a process chemist in a brand-new pulp mill, the operators in the pulping control room used to call me "World Book". When things were settled down and running well, we'd challenge each other to trivia quizzes - even stupid stuff. One night, I walked into the control room to get digester sensor readings, and the shift foreman said "LSMFT" to me. Without missing a beat, I said "Lucky Strike Means Fine Tobacco". IIR, about $20 changed hands right then. Smirks, grins, and chastened looks abounded.

Yeah, a dictionary adds to your vocabulary, an encyclopedia adds to your knowledge.

Do kids now days even read encyclopedias?

 

[Evo]

Would you consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia? That's all I use.

I don't oppose it, but it can be wrong or biased. But then, what can't? Always check any source of information against other well documented sources.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, a dictionary adds to your vocabulary, an encyclopedia adds to your knowledge.

Do kids now days even read encyclopedias?

I don't think so. When I was 10, my parents bought a house across the road from where we lived, and my "bedroom" ended up being a walk-in closet with a tiny ell filled with books. The books were cheap hard-bound reprints of classics from the last 100 years or so, and I read those books every night. I had a cheesy WTGrant am radio, and I'd lie there in my bed listening to either Buffalo or Boston every night, reading Verne, Dickens, Twain, Cooper, and others. Luckily, my 5th-6th grade teacher had a large personal library, and she kept loaning me books and assigning reports. When I hit JH and HS, I had no trouble acing book reports, because Mrs. Clark was so demanding and so specific. Even if I was reading Sherlock Holmes stories or some other escapist stuff, she would make me back off from the crime-fighting and tell her about the motivations of the characters. I have a feeling that she was not too keen on Mr. Holmse's substance-abuse, but she was pretty taken with the logic and problem-solving involved in Doyle's stories and encouraged that.

 

[256bits]

Can one learn a new language from a dictionary only?
( Tarzan lived with the apes and he learned how to understand English using only the books his parents had left behind )

Seriously,
Remember the Egyptian hieroglyphs. They were incomprehensible to scolars of centuries past. What was needed was a cipher ( somebody mentioned cypher - I cannot find the post ) and how the Rosetta stone finally came by to fulfil this task, The rosetta stone has on it 3 languages - the hieroglyphs, Ancient greek, and Demontic. Only by comparison was the code of the ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs cracked.

So no, I do not believe, one could not learn from dictionary alone. One would need outside hints and comparisons.

 

[BobG]

Most dictionaries have pictures.

For example, mine has a diagram of the heart and arteries going into the heart. From that diagram alone, a person could learn the meaning of a few words if he knew his anatomy. The pictures for "antler" would give him the names for "reindeer", "fallow deer", and "moose" provided he had knowledge of deer and related animals. Of course, the picture for "anvil" probably wouldn't help him until he learned at least a few supporting words. Instead of just showing an anvil, it shows a man pounding something on an anvil - it's not clear what the word "anvil" refers to (in fact, one would probably think it's a verb describing the action of shaping metals by hammering). Bench mark would probably leave him totally confused, considering the context in which that word is usually used today (in fact, he might think it's a unit of money).

It would be really tough, but I think there's enough clues that a person could learn quite a few nouns, which could lead to adjectives. For example, "green" is the color of grass" (my dictionary is from the 80's and is in black and white, so they just can't show you the color).

I'm thinking verbs would be really hard to figure out (at least using my dictionary which has no pictures describing verbs). Just by frequency, one could figure out the group of words that must be articles, conjunctions, etc, such as "the", "a", "and", "but", etc. The fact that the English language has no gender would make distinguishing between them a lot harder.

The key would be to figure out the sentence structure. If the person is human and you assume the language will have the same general structure, such as a subject, verb, and direct object, then you can figure out which part of the sentence must be the verb, even if you don't know what it means. From that, you could figure out the pattern for adverbs, and the adverbs that are similar to adjectives could even give you some clue of what the verb is. I'm not sure you could actually narrow that down to a specific verb, though, and that would really make getting the whole language deciphered really tough.

I think you'd need a book that actually showed people committing verb-like activity to really decipher the language.

 

[BobG]

Not really sure that is correct Evo. The Navy based it intelligence measure on how well you did on their language test. They presented a simplified form of Latin and you had to work with it. The better you did the higher they gauged your basic intelligence.

Probably Latin based, in the sense that they followed similar patterns in the languages they invented. But the DLAB test was a pretty fun test. They invented their own languages since the object was to test the person's ability to learn a new language; not test how many languages he already knew. The audio portion of the test was really intense when they started tossing sentences similar to "The presenter was present to present the presents at the present presentation" and the only way you could figure out what the sentence meant was the word endings (since most languages have genders for nouns, standard endings for their verbs, adjectives, etc).

 

[Evo]

I think you'd need a book that actually showed people committing verb-like activity to really decipher the language.

See Spot run!

From "Fun with Dick and Jane", those were the books I had growing up. Our book on health was from the 1920's and gave instructions on how to make pin curls and describes the main girl character getting a "bob".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_and_Jane

 

[BobG]

See Spot run!

From "Fun with Dick and Jane", those were the books I had growing up. Our book on health was from the 1920's and gave instructions on how to make pin curls and describes the main girl character getting a "bob".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_and_Jane

I loved Dick and Jane!

I'd probably like the health book even better, though. Any book where the main girl character gets a Bob instead of a Dick is a good book.

 

[Evo]

I loved Dick and Jane!

I'd probably like the health book even better, though. Any book where the main girl character gets a Bob instead of a Dick is a good book.

 

[DoggerDan]

I think you'd be more successful with their equivalent of See Spot Run.