Interesting, Herb. I know a child and know of one other who could "speak volumes" before they knew any words. Vocal patterns just flew out of them at a VERY early age. Ed Schuster On Dec 9, 2008, at 8:50 PM, STAHLKE, HERBERT F wrote: > There does appear to be some language-specific knowledge that we > have at birth, knowledge of the prosodics of our mother's tongue. > While the subtleties of consonant and vowel acoustics don't pass > through skin, subcutaneous fat, muscle, amniotic fluid, and other > tissues, changes in loudness, pitch, and duration appear to. There > is observational and experimental evidence that neonates already > have some productive and receptive knowledge of intonation, stress, > and rhythm. This is, however, not innate, because it differs from > language to language. It's learned from the time the fetus's > hearing begins to function. > > Herb > > Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. > Emeritus Professor of English > Ball State University > Muncie, IN 47306 > [log in to unmask] > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of Spruiell, William C [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: December 9, 2008 5:53 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...) > > Just to chime in on Herb's point a bit (and apologies in advance to > Herb if I'm mischiming) -- > > In at least one of the generative models, UG was viewed as > specifying (among other things) that children were born expecting > that there would be at least two distinct lexical classes that serve > as heads of phrases (this was to reflect the observation that all > languages seem to have something like a noun/verb distinction, but > without entailing that there was some kind of *semantic* > universality to nouns and verbs). One of the fundamental statements > about the structure of sentences was (is?) that they have two parts, > and each part is a projection of something different (a sentence > cannot, for example, be "noun phrase + noun phrase" by default; it > has to be "NP + VP," etc.). The *order* of the two parts varies from > language to language, as does the degree to which the order is > fixed, but the claim is that that binary split exists in all > languages. This position entails that the child doesn't have to > "deduce" the lexical split from input; s/he arrives expecting one, > and simply has to figure out which actual words go in which category. > > That kind of stipulation is rather obviously internal to Language- > with-a-capital-L. Innate knowledge of lexical categories isn't > innate knowledge of, say, the entrée/dessert distinction. Opposing > theories attempt to account for the universality, or near- > universality, of the noun/verb distinction by appealing to a mix of > general processing strategies and perceptual constraints (e.g. short- > term memory constraints favor a message design in which old > information is regularly repeated so that it won't be lost; old > information is positioned as "static" since it's *not* what's > focused on, and words for objects (the prototypical noun) refer to > comparatively static phenomena, leading to a conflation between "old > information" and "the class of words that includes words for > objects"). > > We still, alas, have no licensed telepaths able to scan the thought > processes of one-year-olds, so it's difficult to "prove" either of > those positions. > > Sincerely, > > Bill Spruiell > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of STAHLKE, HERBERT F > Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2008 4:31 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...) > > Chomsky posited a Language Acquisition Device as a "mental organ." > It was that that made rapid acquisition possible. As the theory of > Universal Grammar began to take shape, it was seen as fleshing out > the LAD. Chomsky's position was that we are genetically endowed not > just with a capacity for language learning, something that most > cognitivists would agree with, but rather with a knowledge of > Language, not of a specific language but of the principles by which > all human language operates. One of the best recent presentations > of the innatist view is Mark Baker's The Atoms of Language: The > Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar (Basic Books 2002). > > Herb > > Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D. > Emeritus Professor of English > Ball State University > Muncie, IN 47306 > [log in to unmask] > ________________________________________ > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask] > ] On Behalf Of Patricia Lafayllve [[log in to unmask]] > Sent: December 9, 2008 10:22 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...) > > Janet asks a good question, and one I have been wracking my brain > around... > > My assumption has always been that language is innate, and the > potential to > acquire grammar is *(probably)* innate, but that grammar in and of > itself > needs to be learned... > > Or am I remembering all that wrong? *wink* It is possible! > > -patty > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Castilleja, Janet > Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 6:47 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Mixed construction (was A short note on...) > > Just out of curiosity, did Chomsky ever actually say that grammar was > innate? Or did he say the potential to acquire grammar was innate? > Wouldn't that be a very different thing? > > Janet Castilleja > > 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/ > > 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/ 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/