Carnie presents to the reader an excellent introduction to the syntax of English. The structure of sentences and the rules that govern the language are important to understand before one can begin to understand the finer points of sentence construction.
Carnie also presents considerable proof that there is some innate understanding of these rules within our minds, as an infinitely recurring method cannot be learned through simply seeing multiple examples. Furthermore, our knowledge of endings of certain adjectives and adverbs makes it possible for us to categorize words that are previously unknown to us.
I found this unconscious learning of language very interesting in the context of my own personal language knowledge. I speak English and Kannada, my native Indian language, and a few other European languages, but I was taught these languages in completely different ways. I learned the grammar of English in school through exercises like diagramming sentences and such, but Kannada was completely taught to me through speaking.
Curiously, since we have already discussed how children must learn the rules of a language, this means that I have innately learned the rules of the grammar of Kannada. However, I could not explain or tell you exactly what these rules are. In fact, I had to say multiple sentences to myself to identify that Kannada uses both the Subject-Object-Verb and Object-Subject-Verb orderings interchangeably.
Furthermore, I don't think I know anything about the endings of verbs or nouns or adjectives off the top of my head, I have to say a bunch of words before figuring it out. This means that to me, even though I cannot tell you the constituents of the language or its rules, some part of my unconscious must be able to understand this. This is clear because I can further identify what "sounds right" and "sounds incorrect"
To conclude, I think that Carnie's description of the innate learning ability of language is correct, and this innate learning ability can be entirely unconscious. Similar to how we do not need to learn morphology or phonology, we apparently do not need to formally learn syntax, either.
Carnie also presents considerable proof that there is some innate understanding of these rules within our minds, as an infinitely recurring method cannot be learned through simply seeing multiple examples. Furthermore, our knowledge of endings of certain adjectives and adverbs makes it possible for us to categorize words that are previously unknown to us.
I found this unconscious learning of language very interesting in the context of my own personal language knowledge. I speak English and Kannada, my native Indian language, and a few other European languages, but I was taught these languages in completely different ways. I learned the grammar of English in school through exercises like diagramming sentences and such, but Kannada was completely taught to me through speaking.
Curiously, since we have already discussed how children must learn the rules of a language, this means that I have innately learned the rules of the grammar of Kannada. However, I could not explain or tell you exactly what these rules are. In fact, I had to say multiple sentences to myself to identify that Kannada uses both the Subject-Object-Verb and Object-Subject-Verb orderings interchangeably.
Furthermore, I don't think I know anything about the endings of verbs or nouns or adjectives off the top of my head, I have to say a bunch of words before figuring it out. This means that to me, even though I cannot tell you the constituents of the language or its rules, some part of my unconscious must be able to understand this. This is clear because I can further identify what "sounds right" and "sounds incorrect"
To conclude, I think that Carnie's description of the innate learning ability of language is correct, and this innate learning ability can be entirely unconscious. Similar to how we do not need to learn morphology or phonology, we apparently do not need to formally learn syntax, either.
I find it pretty interesting that you have never learned your native language's grammar and are still completely able in speaking the language. I know that here at Stanford they teach language in a 'communicative approach.' I am taking Spanish this year it is strange to me how little focus there is on grammar. In high school, grammar was one of the biggest parts of learning Spanish. You said that you learned English through schooling: do you think that had you learned English only in the school environment you would never be as fluent as you are in Kannada? Obviously you are here now and are immersed in the culture and therefore are fluent but if you had only learned English in India how do you suppose it would have affected you? So far, I do believe Carnie in his declaration that grammar is not as important as speaking with others. When I read his argument about learning a language I wondered about this and appreciated how Stanford teaches language.
ReplyDelete