I don't have much time these days to follow or contribute to
discussions. Browsing through this thread this evening, though, I
came across a problem that I am seeing more and more often:
misunderstanding of the term "innate". I feel this is an important
technical term that those in our field should not use overly broadly.
The difference between innate and acquired knowledge is too important
where language is concerned.
"Innate" means "hardwired"; it indicates behaviors and abilities that
are part of our genetic endowment. They are things we are programmed
to know/do, and can't help doing if all other conditions are equal.
This contrasts with intuitive, acquired, or learned knowledge and
abilities. These are achieved by instruction or practice or "figuring
it out". "Intuitive" is usually used as a term that indicates
knowledge that rests below the level of conscious awareness. We have
acquired or learned it, but we do not apply it consciously. It works
automatically, without the need for us to attend to what we are
doing. Riding a bicycle becomes intuitive once we master the
necessary balance and control, but it is not innate. We use innate
abilities of balance, muscle control, vision, etc. to negotiate this
artificial practice. Consciously applied knowledge is both learned
and applied with conscious attention. This is the case with learning
"about" language -- learning terms for part of speech, learning names
and skills for identifying sentence elements, etc. The line between
conscious and intuitive knowledge blurs for well-trained grammarians.
Sometimes I have to think about which punctuation mark is needed in a
given spot; most of the time, I just put in what feels right (like
the semicolon and comma in this sentence).
Where language and punctuation are concerned, this is an important
difference. Although linguists and other scholars of the mind argue
about exactly how language is innate -- whether there are brain parts
devoted exclusively to language, or language is acquired using
generalized cognitive abilities, or whether it is some mix of the two
(which I believe at the moment, but for some time it will remain an
unsettled question) -- I doubt that anyone could claim that humans
are not born to acquire language.
Whatever this "bioprogram" is, it is general: exposure to any
language will trigger it in infants and toddlers. In other words, we
are born ready for _any_ language, not French, Zulu, Guarani, or
Laotian.
Knowledge of punctuation could not possibly be innate. Punctuation is
part of written language, which arose very late in the history of our
species (about 5,000 years ago and more recently), in just a few
places (East Asia, Sumeria, and the Yucatan Peninsula). As one or two
people have pointed out, not all writing systems use any punctuation.
This is certainly true of early writing systems.
Knowledge of punctuation can become intuitive. It does so for those
people (like me and Edgar Schuster's grandchildren) who just "absorb"
it from generous reading. (In my case, grammar instruction was mixed
in.) It seems to me that my students have intuitive knowledge of
punctuation; it just happens not to conform to the current formal
rules (which have changed significantly since just a century or so
ago. It was quite common for there to be commas after long subjects
in writing up to the mid-19th C. or later). If this were not true,
their mistakes would not follow such consistent patterns -- e.g.,
putting a comma after a long (and sometimes now even short) sentence
subject phrase; using semicolons to introduce a list; putting a comma
after "such as," comma splices; fragments, and so on. They use what
should be dashes in appropriate places, only they are hyphens, not
dashes, and the spacing around them is wrong -- they tend to use a
space on just one side of the hyphen, instead of one on each side or
none at all. They use periods correctly most of the time, but tend to
use question marks incorrectly when a question is inside another
sentence (e.g., "We should wonder why so many children are not able
to read at grade level?")
They usually use commas either on both sides or one side of a title
no matter whether it is needed or not ("Toni Morrison's novel,
Beloved is justifiably famous" -- "Toni Morrison's novel, Beloved, is
justifiably famous" -- "Toni Morrison's novel Beloved is justifiably
famous". The second is appropriate if other authors and novels are
being discussed; the last if we are picking out one vs. other novels
of Morrison's or are making first mention of any novel. The first is
never correct (at least it would be a real chore to create a context
that would make it correct). My students most always use commas in
these cases when they aren't needed, or they use only one.
I doubt that they are thinking consciously about every single
punctuation mark they use. Even if they are, they must be using some
kind of "feeling" to judge whether the usage is right or wrong.
Punctuation errors aren't random. Where there is a pattern, there is
a system. When the system operates without much conscious awareness,
intuition is involved.
But the intuitive knowledge is not innate. We have innate abilities
to see print and to use our hands precisely enough to write, type,
etc. (though writing activities are not innate; they are invented
technology). If innate abilities are involved in punctuation, they
are indirectly involved, coming from whatever innate system governs
things like breath groups and meaning chunks (which become structure
chunks in language).
Dr. Johanna Rubba, Ph. D.
Associate Professor, Linguistics
Linguistics Minor Advisor
English Dept.
Cal Poly State University San Luis Obispo
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Ofc. tel. : 805-756-2184
Dept. tel.: 805-756-2596
Dept. fax: 805-756-6374
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL: 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/
|
