Learning a Language without Speaking It

            Andrew Carnie’s book on syntax begins in a highly accessible manner, but quickly ramps up its technical approach regarding the formation of sentences. Carnie begins with basic premises such as a definition of syntax as a cognitive science, grammatical rules, and the scientific method. In the chapters that follow, he delves into the various properties of these grammatical rules by delineating the specific, or rather multifaceted, usage of objects such as adjectives, nouns, and adverbs in the English language. At the heart of Carnie’s discussion of human language, which he deems “infinite” and “productive”, is the underlying assumption that the acquisition of language rules is largely innate. I find this topic incredibly interesting as it addresses many of the questions that kept coming to my mind during last week’s readings by Kenstowicz and Gussenhoven.

            Andrew Carnie introduces the assumption that when parents attempt to “instruct” their children in language, they usually fail. He goes on to say that children still acquire language in the face of a “complete lack of instruction”. I find this to be a bold claim that warrants a better definition of what is meant by “instruction”. Perhaps, parents find no success when attempting to correct their children’s grammar, but it is likely that parents provide children with words to which they can map their innate understanding of language. Is this not a form of “instruction”? Rather, I am more concerned with what exactly a “complete lack of instruction” looks like in the context of language acquisition. I am curious as to the sort of language that two children, raised in isolation with no prior language exposure, would develop. Would such a language be more representative of the “universal language” that Carnie describes?

            Carnie also briefly describes the difference between Language, which is the ability to speak, and language, a particular instance of the ability to speak such as English or French. I am curious about the case in which a person is able to understand a specific language, but is unable to respond in said language. This example hits close to home as I often find that I can understand when my mother occasionally speaks to me in Tagolog, but I can only respond to her in English. What exactly is going on, from a physiological standpoint, which prevents people from speaking a certain language even when they have arrived at a point where they can “understand” it? More importantly, what separates an innate understanding of a “universal language” from an understanding of all existing languages?