Language acquisition is a phenomenon that people are still looking into today, and opinions differ regarding its innateness; some think it’s learned (nurture), others believe it’s acquired (nature). Jackendorff (1994) develops arguments supporting the latter: the argument for mental grammar and the argument for innate knowledge, both of which make a pretty strong case. However, no theory goes by unquestioned, and many have argued against the innateness of language. In this paper, I will be discussing the points made, indicating why they were convincing or pointing out the ones that were less so.
To begin with, the argument for mental grammar states that it is impossible for a child to learn language in all its complexity and develop it the way they do without a set of innate and unconscious “grammatical rules”. For instance, there are many different ways to create sequences of patterned sentences that can be dragged for “infinity”, such as using nouns to construct different sentences in various ways, or counting a certain number of objects. This indicates that there definitely isn’t enough space in a human brain to store every sentence they choose to use, especially since a lot of new contexts and situations are encountered on a daily basis requiring the employment of sentences that one never had to before. Rather, the human brain stores words, their meanings and patterns into which they can fit. These patterns of words can also be used to create patterns of patterns, equipping the human brain with endless possibilities for speech and language: this is basically what “mental grammar” is and how it operates. Furthermore, Jackendorff specifies that it isn’t just about the grammatical aspect of sentences but their meaning as well; we are able to identify a sentence as “making no sense” because of its nonconformity to the grammatical patterns, not for the reason that we simply don’t understand it. In fact, sentences formed in gibberish using patterns of English make more sense than the opposite. However, a distinction must be made between “proper grammar” and the grammar that we’re discussing: informal or “improper” English still follows certain patterns in speaking which abide by the rules of grammar in our brains. This argument was able to grasp my attention due to the fact that it raised many doubts and questions in my mind while I was reading it, as it seemed to me that it was possible for children to gradually learn the words, followed by the patterns, consequently grasping grammar and language. Children start out babbling words, forming incomprehensible sentences at times, but are eventually able to achieve proper grammar that could be due to many environment-related reasons; being corrected, reading, listening and reproducing what they absorb. For instance, most of the women that come from various parts of Africa, the Philippines and India to work in Lebanon are eventually able to communicate with ease in Arabic, especially the ones who live in Lebanese households and are surrounded by Arabic speakers. Nevertheless, as I thought it through, it takes a lot longer for any adult to learn a new language than it does for a child and mistakes in patterns stick with them despite the fact that, unlike a child, an adult is aware of attempting to learn a new language. All of the above-mentioned learning devices, therefore, don’t seem like enough to explain the “natural” absorption or acquisition of language that children achieve, thus diminishing my skepticism, especially after proceeding to the argument for innate knowledge.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
An equally significant argument furthers the points made in the first part; the argument for innate knowledge. Jackendorff (1994) begins by illustrating how a child unconsciously figures out the patterns of sentences without an overwhelming account of the grammatical rules behind it. Constantly speaking around a child and correcting them when they make a mistake can’t possibly be the reason why they figure out language. Children can then be termed geniuses of language-acquisition because of an unconscious power that they have: mental grammar. Henceforth, the language-learning process, just like Universal Grammar (labeled this way due to the ability of children to absorb any language in the world), is unconscious. The Paradox of Language illustrates the contrast between how children pick up language easily while linguists still can’t figure out how it all works and explains the “head start” that children have over linguists. Lastly, the “Genetic Hypothesis” is a sort of explanation as to why children have universal grammar and acquire a mental grammar: the evolution of the human brain’s structure leading to the ability of language acquisition. In short, the argument for innate knowledge “sealed the deal” for me, as it really is probable that just as dogs unconsciously learn to sit and roll over, we were able to develop the aptitude to unconsciously learn language. Nobody can really pinpoint the moment they learned that the subject falls before the verb in a declarative sentence, but we were all able to figure it out without having it dissected for us as children. However, I still believe that there is an environmental component to it all; some children, for instance, speak with more ease in a certain language than others depending on their entourage. In addition, there’s also the question of whether a child could be able to develop language on their own without really being surrounded by it or not.
In conclusion, the arguments for the innateness of language are pretty persuasive and shed a light on language acquisition that gives a lot of insight. It is clear that we’re a long way from figuring out how humans function in regard to language acquisition in childhood, but this analogy “makes sense”. Nevertheless, the environment could be playing an equally unconscious role in language-learning and the development of one’s mental grammar.
Stuck on your essay?
