Bob,
   You are completely misreading my post. I was not arguing that language
could not possibly be innate, and I don't remember expressing disdain.
I was just saying that the position that language is innate has been
used against the teaching of grammar in the public schools. Other ways
of approaching language (cognitive and functional) do not share that
view and are therefore much more compatible with the idea that language
is acquired over a lifetime and is deeply connected to the making of
meaning.
   Langacker responds to the kinds of objections you are making in his
2008 text. I highly recommend it.
   Among other things, cognitive linguists don't find it particularly
useful to look at manufactured sentences like "*Mary is someone that
people like her as soon as they see" and then ask why they don't seem
grammatical. They find it more productive to look at the sentences that
actually occur.
   I don't think it would be productive to repeat the argument between us.
I also don't think it is helpful to imply that Bickerton is "a really
smart person", but Langacker, Goldberg, and Bybee are not. It might be
more useful for you to respond to the substance of my post. Given your
belief that grammar is innate and acquired at any early age, what are
the benefits of teaching grammar is school? Is correctness the only
goal?
   Are you in favor of a comprehensive teaching of grammar in the public
schools? What form would that take?


Craig

Over the years, Craig has expressed a deep disdain for the notion that
> grammar cannot possibly be innate.
>
> In his latest post, he writes the following indicating why we must reject
> innateness:
>
>>>> Craig Hancock <[log in to unmask]> 12/07/08 9:34 AM >>>
>    Innateness is just one part of the theory. If grammar is wired in, then
> it has no central connection to our embodied experience of the world or
> our social interactions or the shared building of meaning within our
> disciplines. The rules are rules about "forms", not observations about
> the rich and interactive construction of meaning.
>
> Some really smart people have considered what "the rich and interactive
> construction of meaning" might mean.
>
> I have over the last several years shared those observations and Craig has
> yet to respond.  In hopes that Craig has now got a response, here are
> there observations Bickerton makes about Craig's that grammar is about
> "our embodied experience of the world or our social interactions or the
> shared building of meaning within our disciplines."
>
> All of the following is from Bickerton (1985).
>
> First, what is in our "embodied experience" that accounts for the fact
> that the following sentences have different meanings.
>
>  	1) John wants someone to work for.
> 	2) John wants someone to work for him.
>
> Second, given the fact that absence of the pronoun him in (1) and (2) make
> a difference, why, with or without the pronoun, (3) and (4) have the same
> meaning (for those who find such sentences possible in their dialect)?
>
>  	3) Which letters did Bill destroy without reading?
> 	4) Which letters did Bill destroy without reading them?
>
> Finally, what, in our experiences, allows (5) and (6) but does not allow
> (7)?
>
>  	5) Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see.
> 	6) Mary is someone that people like as soon as they see her.
> 	7) *Mary is someone that people like her as soon as they see.
>
> Of course, these are questions that someone who sees language as a formal
> system would ask.  And, there are formalist explanations.
>
> However, Craig is committed to a theory of language that claims all of
> these differences are the result of our experience of the world. Someday,
> I hope he will provide that explanation for the sentences above.
>
> ***
> Craig continues:
>
> Innateness also brings with it the widespread belief that children
> know most of an adult language by the time they reach school. We don't
> pay much attention to the complex ways in which that language grows
> and needs to grow as the child enters into more mature roles and more
> mature relationships with the world. Reducing it to acquiring
> "Standard English" is part of the problem.
>
>
> The only work I know which considers how language "grows" is Perera's work
> on how certain grammatical constructions occur only in writing.
>
> I don't know of any systematic teaching of those structures anywhere in
> the curriculum and I have no idea how these structures reveal a person
> having a more mature relationship with the world.
>
> Perhaps, Craig will share with us an example of a grammatical structure
> that when learned(?)/acquired(?) by a language learner is part of the
> maturing he is writing about.
>
> Craig, in that second passage, are you saying if a language learner's
> language does not "grow" that person will be unable to enter into more
> mature roles and more mature relationship with the world?
>
>  Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri
>
> 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/