My position on innateness is that it is too early for anybody to make
definitive claims. Brain research is beginning to show that language
processing is scattered around the brain, and it may differ across
genders/sexual orientations. It is way too early to determine whether
specific brain parts are devoted to language (claims derived from brain
injury are not as clearcut as they are presented in the literature, as
I learned from a specialized neurolinguistics text). The brain is such
a complex organ, it is likely that there is a mixture of innateness and
modularity and general cognition. Modularity of other functions, such
as vision, make it premature to rule out modularity completely. But
Chomsky and his followers have ruled it in prematurely. I am not
necessarily in agreement with poverty-of-stimulus arguments, but, since
the question overall is far from settled (despite what people on both
sides claim), I don't wish to debate these issues deeply. My interests
lie elsewhere.
As to how much instruction is needed to achieve competence in language
and thinking, we must be very careful what kind of assumptions we make.
Societies that never developed literacy have nevertheless achieved high
levels of logical thought. Even folk tales like the Ananzi stories and
Br'er Rabbit stories show lots of sophisticated logic in what the
tricksters pull off. Anglos (except in the South) have very little
experience of or appreciation for oral cultures; oral performances
typical of these cultures are not valued in our schools, unfortunately.
The current generation is finally getting some exposure to this through
rap and hip-hop, although it's unfortunate that so much of that is
violent and misogynistic. Our cultural situation is very particular,
with a mix of dialect variation, very uneven quality of schooling, lots
of racism still around, and an anti-intellectual culture.
It doesn't make much sense to make claims in a public forum like this,
then qualify them by admitting to bias and an insufficient knowledge
base. There's plenty of research out there. Look for support before you
make a claim.
I'm waiting for takers on my tag-question rules. Prove your unconscious
knowledge to yourself. What rules apply to form the tags (e.g., "can't
she?") on the following:
1. Jane can play the piano, can't she?
2. Patients should trust their doctors, shouldn't they?
3. Susan wouldn't steal my book, would she?
4. Mikey fed the dog, didn't he?
5. Mr. Blake didn't kill his wife, did he?
6. Your train was late, wasn't it?
7. The students weren't in the auditorium, were they?
You'll find that you have to revise your rules a couple of times. There
are seven rules. If I may be so bold, put your money where your mouth
is, see if you "know" these rules consciously or have to figure them
out, and tell me when you remember being taught these rules by anyone,
or seeing them laid out in a grammar book for native speakers (I don't
think they appear even in ESL books). I'd bet money that you can't just
write down these rules without working them out. If we needed conscious
training in grammar rules, you wouldn't be able to form these tags,
because nobody teaches these rules to native speakers. But you forms
tags like this in milliseconds in everyday speech.
People will certainly claim that those of us who advocate methods like
contrastive analysis are biased. Certainly we have opinions. But they
are _informed_, _expert_ opinions derived from many years of reading
replicated research and practicing language study. In general, it is
common nowadays to accuse academics of liberal bias. Well, maybe that
bias comes from the decades of research findings that they have access
to. I wouldn't dream of claiming that I know as much as or more than
someone with a Ph.D. in physics. People are much readier to challenge
experts in linguistics, because language is bound up with cultural
identity (witness the current official-English movement, which is not
at all informed by international findings on language policy) and
political and economic control (e.g., will ballot pamphlets be
published in Vietnamese? Is it fair to deny a native-English speaker a
job because she doesn't speak Spanish? Should someone who uses double
negatives be given a high school diploma?) Also, there is a competing
tradition centered on literature and correctness that has held sway
since the 1600's in Western Europe in general. There are two sets of
"language experts" for people to consult, but most people don't know
about the ones who have taken language study far beyond that competing
tradition.
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Department
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Tel.: 805.756.2184
Dept. Ofc. Tel.: 805.756.2596
Dept. Fax: 805.756.6374
URL: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
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/
|