So far as I am familiar with cognitive science people and linguists, 'hardwired' is used as a synonym for 'innate', that is, part of the biological structure of the brain. NO particular language's rules (French, English, Japanese) are innate to any child. The analogy is hardware vs. software in computers. So while computers have the potential in their circuitry to run different kinds of software, the hardware is not the software. The software is the program that directs what the hardware does. A particular language is like software, while the innate predisposition to learn language is like hardware. Children come into the world hardwired or ready for various abilities: our particular type of 3D color vision is innate; the pitch range we can hear is innate; the ability to learn to walk is innate; the ability to perceive space in certain ways is innate; the ability to recognize a human face is innate; the ability to categorize is innate; and the ability to learn language is innate. In other words, human beings have evolved such that they are born 'expecting' language in their environment and they learn it flawlessly, whether it is presented to them as spoken or signed, and whether they ever go to school or not. They have an innate potential to learn any human language that is presented to them in infancy and toddlerhood. I don't know any linguist who would contest this. What is contested is the exact nature of this innate readiness for language. We know that it DOES NOT take the form of any particular language--so no child is hardwired to say 'n'est-ce pas?' (French) or 'how ya doin'?' So far as I know, among linguists the debate is about how specific to language this innate readiness is. Is there an exclusive 'language organ', a module or modules of the brain devoted exclusively to language, and is not used for any other cognitive functions? This is Chomsky's claim. Or is there a close relationship between readiness for language and other cognitive skills such as figure/ground perception, categorizing and generalizing abilities? Many linguists believe this is closer to the truth (and it sounds like Bruner's position is on this side of the argument). So there is a great debate about the nature of our inbuilt capacity for language, but I know of no one who doubts that that capacity is inbuilt. I don't see how this can be an argument against grammar instruction in schools. The main aim of traditional grammar instruction to get kids to use a particular kind of English--standard written English. Many children come to school having acquired a different kind of English at home. So they still must learn standard written English. Since this English changes, children often have to be taught things that the conservative school grammar wants to retain, but which has been lost in their home version of English (such as the 'who/whom' distinction, rapidly disappearing even from middle-class English). Also, the knowledge of a particular language that children build with their innate competence remains at a subconscious level. In order to become aware of what they have internalized about their native language, it is necessary for people to learn grammatical terms and techniques of analysis. This is also, for some, an aim of grammar instruction--to give people a metalanguage they can use to talk about language, just as studying physiology gives you a specialized language to talk about the body. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Johanna Rubba Associate Professor, Linguistics English Department, California Polytechnic State University One Grand Avenue • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Tel. (805)-756-2184 • Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone. 756-2596 • E-mail: [log in to unmask] • Home page: 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/