ATEG Archives

September 2006

ATEG@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Patricia Lafayllve <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 5 Sep 2006 18:19:25 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (60 lines)
Hello all-

Regarding the summation below - I have a question.

When we talk about language acquisition, the evidence clearly shows that
children do seem to learn language innately.  In fact, if I recall correctly
there are several cases of deprived/abused children never acquire language
after a certain age (I believe 5 or 6, but I would have to fact check to
make that a certainty) - this indicates that the time for learning to speak
is finite and a part of development.

However - and here is my question - is this the same thing as "learning the
rules of language?"

Personally, I have always felt there is a difference between language
acquisition/learning to speak and language/grammar/rules.

The three points of view below seem to be specifically regarding language as
the "set of written rules we learn."  Although they express varying
opinions, all seem to be pointing at the rules of use rather than
acquisition itself.

Am I confused in this?

-patty

-----Original Message-----
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert Yates
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 9:59 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: On innate knowledge of language

There are at least three positions being considered here.

1) My position is that part of our biological endowment is knowledge
about language.  I have offered some evidence for such a claim.

2) The position taken by Johanna and, I assume, Herb, is that our
knowledge of language is the result of some general cognitive
capacities.

3) The position taken by Eduard is that language must be consciously
learned.

As Johanna and Herb have correctly observed, positions (1) and (2) both
agree that by the time children start formal education they have a very
complex knowledge of language.  The teaching implication that both of
these positions reach is that this knowledge can be used to make this
knowledge of language conscious.  

On the other hand, the third position has to offer very different kind
of teaching suggestions because children don't know much about language.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2