Understanding Language Acquisition

Lough Neagh, near Bushmills

It has been a long, uneven process. It has taken me twenty years to distill everything I have observed about language acquisition into one word, rather, one acronym.

Gialil  (Gall, without the auxiliaries)

Grammar is Acquired. Language is Learned.

Seo dhuit é. どうぞ


In the unlikely event that this is true—stranger things have happened—the rest of the (so-called) language acquisition literature is an untidy footnote to this simple observation. And the field needs a new label.

I should probably leave it there, in the interests of brevity, were it not that brevity and I have rarely shared any deep interests, or modi operandi: she cuts too many corners, leaves so many stones unturned. We're not even on first-name terms. (She might be called Amy or Eve; Anastasia or Evangeline would be a cruel irony). Hence, some elaboration is necessary, or—if not entirely necessary—forthcoming regardless...

There is only one problem with claiming that grammar is acquired. That problem is not that it annoys anti-nativists, since straw men are pretty unrufflable, at least figuratively speaking; even if they weren't—straw men, or unmoved by ruffling, take your pick—I would cheerfully stoop to the challenge. Everyone with enough intelligence to understand the question is a nativist to some extent: not even the most dyed-in-the-wool emergentist—an unfortunately inapt metaphor—believes that the smartest sheep can learn syntax. No, the problem is that after 20 years, I have less idea than ever what grammar is. I know what a grammar is, of course; three years in Japan have not robbed me of that fine distinction. Grammar, on the other hand, may be more like the 'present King of France'; if Minimalists are right, it's just as bald. Thus, a better formulation might be: 'Grammar [if such a thing exists] is acquired.' Though, it must be admitted, Gisateialil hardly rolls of the tongue with the same...languid motility.

Then there's the problem of language, or rather Language (the concept, not the journal). Chomsky's surely correct—merely confidently rehearsed?—assertion of the stupendous incoherence of notions like 'the English Language', 'French Grammar', etc should  have persuaded language teachers and other language professionals, including SLA researchers, to jack it in or sling their hook, or otherwise extricate themselves from the Querk of confusion and despond that is Language, years ago. That they remain unpersuaded—and/or, in the field—may be due to the fact that: (i), most said language professionals have never read Chomsky on E-language; (ii), have, but don't believe him—which in this instance is like not believing in man-made climate change; or (iii), which is the case of many of my colleagues, believe the assertion, but think it doesn't apply to them: 'E-language is incoherent alright, but we are studying Interlanguage/we are teaching TOiEC'. Hm. Unlike the participants in their experiments, who wouldn't pay a brass farthing to acquire a such a coherent theoretical construct, but who fork out millions of yen and sundry other currency units to learn "English". (I shouldn't complain perhaps, since it is the incoherence, and unattainability of language, that guarantees me my job and lets me send my bilingual children to international schools. Let incoherence prevail!)

The point of all this is that Language is not learned or taught; but aspects of languages—the 90% we care about—are learned, and require constant reinforcement to reach convergence. In spite of appearances, 'learn English' is not an accomplishment predicate, nor is it an achievement: at best, it is an activity, though usually not a very active one: a dynamic state (of mind) possibly... If one cannot even classify the associated predicate, the chances of adequately grasping the concept are remote. And grasping the concept of language would seem to be necessary condition for learning it. So, perhaps a better way to express this would be: 'some aspects of language are partially internalized through experience.'

Which brings us to:

Gisateialil, Saolapite.

Much better, I don't think. Should have listened to brevity. Or to Robert Benchley:

'Drawing on my fine command of the English language, I said nothing.'