I really struggled to wrap my head around "Where Do the Rules Come From?" Section of Chapter 1 discussing Universal Grammar. I was very resistant to the idea that we do not learn language and that it is not taught to us. Carnie compared speaking to walking: that humans have an instinct to walk and that was not really taught to us either. I understand that we have instincts to walk and communicate, but this argument makes it seem like we are almost programmed...Moreover, it seems to undercut the value of falling down when walking or misspeaking and being corrected in the process of being able to speak language.
My perspective on this began to shift a little bit when Carnie distinguished between conscious and subconscious knowledge. But how is acquiring knowledge different from learning it? I struggled with this distinction as well. I had to learn how to tie my shoes, which was a conscious effort, but now as I tie my shoes its subconscious. Are they related? I do not have to consciously form basic sentences, but there are still plenty of rules of grammar I don't fully know or words I have not yet been taught.
Chapter 2 expands on this too. New words could be formed at any time. Or that what we are taught parts of speech are are not always how words are used in sentences. How many times have I asked someone or someone asked me "that's a word right?" just because we took a word and added a suffix to convert it into how we want to use it. In this sense, I understand I wasn't taught that directly but I didn't know that when I was young. Does our language facility in our brain just gradually increase in function as we age if we do not learn more language?
I was looking at this section specifically, too--we actively learn the technicalities and vocabulary of language in school at a young age, and these details then become part of our everyday language foundation. So how much of language is actually learned? And what happens when we learn multiple languages and already have some sort of basis for syntax?
ReplyDeleteAndi, I also found this Carnie's point to be debatable. It seems to me that a child alone wouldn't be able to understand the components of grammar if let to live alone. As you mentioned, I also find myself still questioning my own grammar and punctuation. Hence, I do not believe grammar to be innate. I think that if people were to correct my grammar, I would be very open to listen to their suggestions and correct myself if need be. If grammar is innate, I would then have to question the purpose behind having editors who focus on correcting one's grammar. Perhaps it may become subconscious once it is already learned, but I feel it is not comparable to blinking or walking.
ReplyDeleteI like the point you made about “the value of falling down when walking or misspeaking and being corrected in the process of being able to speak language.” However, I think that Carnie’s point is that children can be corrected, but that does not mean that they are learning/being taught language, because they do not necessarily change their mistakes. Like Carnie said about the infinite nature of language, there is no way anyone could hear all the possible sentence constructions possible in the universe, so language cannot be learned because we do not have all the knowledge for it to be a learned skill. As for your comment about learning to tie your shoes, that was one action that did not involve complex variations, techniques and modifications, as language does. Once you learn to tie your shoes, you have one simple technique and you are done. Language, on the other hand, has so many rules that create so many infinite sequences and recursions. Therefore it is unlike “learning” a simple task such as learning to tie your shoes or ride a bike. Instead, language must be “acquired” because it is too complex to boil down to a simple taught technique.
ReplyDelete