2010년 3월 30일 화요일

Do we have U.G. in our mind?

According to Chomsky, we all have universal grammar (U.G.). That is, all human beings are generally equipped with abilities that enable them to acquire language. Does U.G. really exist in our mind?

I’ve wondered how children acquire language so fast in spite of the lack of stimulus. A baby who does not say any words can suddenly utter very simple and basic words. In an instance, the baby begins to say his daily life with perfect sentences. How can we explain the developmental process of the language ability of children? Furthermore, how can we account that children can utter quite complex sentences in a relatively short space of time? The key point is that we have U.G. in our brain.

There is a marvelous case which is about Christopher, a linguistic savant. A linguistic savant is a kind of metal disorder that someone has very low non-verbal I.Q. but he can communicate in a number of languages. Also, the linguistic savant can read, write and hear on a number of languages even though he cannot utter fluently in those languages. There is a guy whose name Christopher, one of the unique linguistic savants. He could comprehend and distinguish more than 20 languages. Neil Smith, a researcher, tried to make an experiment to prove U.G. through his case. He made a language which was out of U.G. theories or rules, but the manipulated language was completely rational and logical. Many people who had an average or high verbal I.Q. could learn the manipulated language and even make a past tense or negative sentence. However, Christopher could not do that.

I think that this is an obvious evidence for U.G., Chomsky’s theory. Christopher could acquire those languages not because of high rational and logical intelligence but because of biological endowed innate system in his some part of brain.

댓글 2개:

  1. you mentioned that babies acquire language in spite of the lack of stimulus, but I think babies get surrounded by enourmous stimulus as soon as they are born. The enourmous and accumulated stimulus would be the force babies to utter something for the first time, I think.
    I guess I just can't believe in UG :-)

    답글삭제
  2. Both of your viewpoints are valid. In line with Jung Ah's position, many people would argue that Christopher's extraordinary knack for learning languages provides evidence that there is a separate innate faculty reserved just for language acquisition -- a language organ of some sort. But then, there are many others who support Yookyoung's view on the important role of input in language acquisition. . .

    답글삭제