Children and Scalar Implicatures Prove Language is *Not* Innate

The two papers presented this week showed that children have trouble computing scalar implicatures only when the scalar implicature lacks context; children can learn how to interpret the implicit meaning behind a implicature through context.

Barner et al. suggest that children fail to compute scalar implicatures because they lack the knowledge of relevant scalar alternatives to words like “some”. Children failed to reject false statements that were context-independent but correctly rejected statements with context-dependent. Stiller et al. concludes that we learn implicatures through real-world knowledge, linguistic structure, and social reasoning. In the Stiller et al. study, children had little problem navigating ad-hoc scales that were made from contextual rather than linguistic factors.

The idea that computing scalar implicatures is learned brings to mind another idea that we studied previously: is language innate? Carnie notes “children still acquire language in the face of complete lack of instruction.” For instance, Marcus et al. 1992 observed this interaction between adult and child:

Adult: Where is that big piece of paper I gave you yesterday.

Child: Remember? I writed on it.

Adult: Oh that’s right, don’t you have any paper down here, buddy?

However, if children are learning about when to use a certain scalar implicatures through their real-world experiences, linguistic structure, and social reasoning, shouldn’t we conclude that language is learned? To me, the idea that children can better understand scalar implicatures through context means that at least some aspects of language are learned.

I could see how someone who believes language is innate would argue that a child’s ability to figure out scalar implicatures through context is innate, thus language is altogether innate. However, I would argue that even if children have the innate ability to reason through scalar implicatures given context, this does not mean we can conclude that language is innate. Rather this is an argument that supports their innate ability to reason, not to use language. Thus, these findings by Barner et al. and Stiller et al. are evidence that language is learned rather than innate.