On Sun, 3 Sep 2006, Robert Yates wrote...

>I will let Johanna explain what perspective she speaks from.
>
>However, many of the claims in the following are just plain wrong. 
>
>>>> [log in to unmask] 09/03/06 7:37 AM >>>
>
>Johanna speaks from the transformational/generative perspective 
which 
>*assumes* that *native* speakers of a language know the *grammar* of 
>that language. Unfortunately, this theory has never been supported 
with
>evidence. There is evidence, though, that children never exposed to
>language will never speak a human language. Language, as cognitive
>linguistics affirms is learned, and not innate. 
> 
>***
>For the teaching of grammar to native speakers, this debate has
>important consequences.  If Eduard is right, then a lot of grammar
>categories have to be explicitly taught because students don't know
>them.  If language is innate, then a lot of grammar instruction can 
be
>dispensed with (does any native speaker get taught how the article
>system in English works?), and for those categories that are 
important
>for students to know explicitly, we can define those categories in 
such
>a way as to show students how their innate knowledge can identify 
them.
>
>Much of Eduard's claims that language cannot be innate go to the 
poverty
>of the stimulous argument that is made by innatists.  Essentially, 
all
>native speakers know things about their language that cannot 
possibly be
>in the input.  There is evidence for the poverty of the stimulous
>argument.
>
>I) We all know that children produce utterances that they have never
>heard.  If language is not innate and the language we use crucially
>depends on the input, we left trying to explain how that is 
possible. 
>
>Moreover, even those of us who have full native-speaker competence 
can
>make judgements about possible sentences that we have never been 
exposed
>to.  An example I like to use is relativizing the genetive of the 
object
>of a comparative.
>
>1)  There is the woman whose daughter my daugher is prettier than.
>
>That is a perfect good sentence in English; it is not possible in 
most
>languages of the world; and I am confident most of us have never 
heard
>or read it.  Eduard's claim is that linguistic categories are not
>"innate." It will be interesting to read an explanation about how we
>"learned" that (1) is possible without any reference to abstract
>linguistic categories.  
>
>II)  It should be observed that dogs are talked to all the time and
>never learn the language that is address to them.  Obviously, 
children
>need some kind of input, but the serious issue is what does the 
nature
>of that input have to be.  Contrary to what Eduard claims, there is
>evidence that that input can be very, very minimal.
>
>First, there is the work on home sign by Susan Goldin-Meadow and
>colleagues.  Home sign is the gestural system of deaf children born 
in
>hearing households in which no one has learned or will learn America
>Sign Language.  I recommend the following article by Goldin-Meadow 
and
>Mylander in Language.
>
>Goldin-Meadow, S and Mylander. (1990).  Beyond the input given: The
>child's role in the acquisition of language.  Language, 66, 323-
355.   
>
>Goldin-Meadow and Mylander discuss one child who developed agreement
>morphology (hand shape was different depending on the object being
>manipulated) that the child regularly used.  NO ONE in his family
>regularly used hand shape in this way.  In other words, this child
>created a morphological system without any input.  This is predicted 
by
>the innatist claim.  I have no idea the story that someone who 
believes
>language is not innate would tell.
>
>Second, there is the work of Jenny Singleton with Simon.  You can 
find
>this research cited in Chapter Two of Pinker's The Language Instinct.
>(An aside: Sampson makes no mention of this work in his book refuting
>Pinker.)
>
>Simon was born deaf to deaf parents.  Simon's only ASL (American sign
>language) was from his parents who had learned ASL late and were not
>native-like in their signing.  Singleton found that Simon's ASL did 
not
>look like his parents' ASL but like kids born to native ASL 
signers.  In
>other words, Simon went beyond the language he had been exposed to 
and
>regularized it.  These results are predicted by the innatist 
hypothesis
>and not by a claim that language must be "learned." 
>
>III) I found nothing particular insightful in Sampson's book refuting
>the innatist hypothesis.  I will consider an example that Sampon 
spends
>a lot of spacing on: yes - no questions in which there is a tensed
>clause in the subject. 
>
>Sampson is correct to observe Chomsky has cited such sentences, and
>beginning linguistics texts, use such sentences as evidence that we 
have
>knowledge about language that is not in the input.  Here is the 
example
>used by Sampson.  Notice that in the following sentence only "will" 
can
>be moved to make a good yes-no question and "are" can't.  
>
>2) Will those who are coming raise their hands?
>3) *Are those who coming will raise their hands?
>
>For innatists, the kind of knowledge we have to know (2) is possible 
and
>(3) is not cannot come from the input.  Try to explain why (2) is
>possible and not (3) without any grammatical categories.  Remember if
>language is not innate, then children don't have those categories.  
Note
>that (4) is possible.
>
>(4) Are those [children] coming?
>
>It is instructive to observe how Sampson refutes the poverty of the
>stimulous claim about such yes-now questions.  On page 82, he 
provides a
>number of examples from a written corpus of 90 million words.  He 
says
>he found many examples, but doesn't tell us how many.  Children are 
not
>really exposed to those written sources, so this really is not any
>refutation.
>
>Sampson reports he could not find any examples of such questions in a
>spontenous speech corpus.  It is very revealing to read his 
speculation
>on why he was unsuccessful: 
>
>Certainly the possibility exists, as always, that my failure to find 
the
>[relevant examples in the spoken language corpus] was because of some
>shortcoming in the search patterns I used used and there really are
>examples which my automatic search missed.  (Sampon (2005), The
>'language instinct' debate, p. 82)
>
>For those of us how are native speakers, we don't  have any 
shortcomings
>in our search patterns for such sentences, and more importantly, we
>don't even know what we are searching for to determine whether the
>search was successful or not. Of course, this is not problematic if
>language is innate, but Sampon's own speculation here shows how
>difficult it is to connect just input to what we know is possible in 
a
>language. 
>
>Much of grammar is innate.  We can use this fact to help us teach
>grammar to native speakers.  This is not a new observation.  Both
>DeBeaugrande and Noguchi  have made this proposal and shown how 
native
>speaker intuitions can help students understand grammar.
>
>Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
>
>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/

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/