Linguistics Encyclopedia.pdf

A-Z 507
2 The onset of language correlates with motor ge.
3 The broad stages of language acquisition are the same in all cultures.
4 All languages, regardless of their outward form are based on the same operating
principles.
5 These operating principles have remained unchanged throughout the history of
humanity.
6 Language is a form of behaviour which can be impaired by brain lesions which may
leave other mental and motor skills relatively unaffected—so there is a clear organic
correlation.
There is not much doubt that claims 1, 2, 3, and 6 are broadly true. And depending on
one’s definition of ‘operating principle’, claims 4 and 5 may well be true also. But
Lenneberg is relying on Chomsky’s notion of universal grammar here; he means, that the
deep structure of all languages is the same, and that if we were now to write a
transformational grammar for an ancient language, its deep structure would be the same
as the deep structure of a modern language. That is, Lenneberg derived claims 4 and 5
from Chomsky’s claims, which they cannot, therefore, be used to defend without
circularity.
Nevertheless, it seems likely that all languages are, in fact, similar in some very broad
respects, that they share some kind of underlying logic, simply because, at ground level,
they are all connected to the same kind of world and used by the same kind of creature
(see further PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE). However, it is not clear that this kind of
vague assent to Chomsky’s innateness claim would please him, because he appears to be
saying that the innate schema which children bring to language is far more specific than
the vague assent allows. Besides, assent to innateness of this vague type does not bestow
on the innateness hypothesis the kind of explanatory force with which Chomsky wishes it
to be endowed. He is claiming that unless the child had a very specific innate knowledge
of a specific universal grammar, language learning would be impossible.
It is possible to list various types of evidence in support of this claim, such as: (1)
Language learning must take place before an individual reaches maturity, because it must
take place along with the brain-lateralization process; this supports the claim that the
development of language can be regarded as similar to the development of a bodily
organ; studies such as Curtiss (1977) tend to support this claim, known as critical-period
theory, as do studies of children of various ages, and of adults, with brain abnormalities.
(2) Errors made in child speech are rule revealing; a child may have learnt to use a li
linguistic form correctly, say, went, but will subsequently start saying goed; this is held to
be because the child has now become conscious of the rule of past formation in
English—a grammatical rule—and this type of learning overrides other types. (3) A
grammar is a very complicated mechanism; yet a very young child learns it, at a time
when its general cognitive development should not, in fact, be capable of coping with
such complexity. The fact that the child learns grammar nevertheless can only be
explained by the presence of the innate faculty, the language-acquisition device, which
is more highly developed—because innately complete—than the child’s other faculties.
This last claim has been disputed by a number of child psychologists. For instance,
Macnamara (1972) finds it just as likely that the reason children can learn language is
that they possess certain other cognitive skills—they may, for example, have a more
general but very extensive capacity for making sense of situations involving any type of