When I read the section on Innatism (with Chomsky) I was completely turned off of the rest of the reading. I feel that the way this frame of thought was written about it was a complete joke. The content from this section belongs in a science-fiction story. That anyone could possibly believe that a child learns to speak the same way they learn to walk, crawl or blink is incomprehensible. I remember reading Chomsky's beliefs in the past and not having any strong reaction to them, but this time I was surprised to find out he dabbled in sci-fi. I am a fan of science-fiction, but it has no place as a proposed theory.
Having vented that I can identify much more with language learning as a cognitive/interactive process. Once I calmed down and reapproached the reading. I feel that there is necessarily thought put into language learning, for most people. Mostly I believe the approach/method that works best varies between individuals. I'm most comfortable reading for pleasure in my own language so I feel I learn best by having some basics and then tackling the style of reading I most enjoy in my L1 to improve my L2 vocabulary and understanding of grammatical structure. On the other hand two very good friends of mine, also voracious readers, are much more comfortable simply jumping in and speaking ASAP. I very much believe language acquisition is individual.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
So am I hearing you right that different theoretical positions are going to resonate differently to different individuals?
I found that Chomsky was making an interesting point in the comparison, as he said that a child will walk provided proper nourishment and freedom. If we continue this analogy to language learning, a child will talk if adults talk to him, and offer communication.
I do like his linguistic theories about theory of grammar and lexicology.
I like the innatist perspective and agree with it. I think the way you are interpreting it is the issue.
I took it as the building blocks are there, and all that we need to do is expose them to the correct order of things and they will eventually be put together.
I agree that the process varries from individual to individual. Just like people learn other material differently, it makes sense that they would learn language differently.
Yes, I think that each position reaches a different person, or a different part of a person.
Perhaps my real problem with the innatist theories was in the way it was written. I remain completely unconvinced right now that the ideas are even remotely reasonable. I'm afraid I've shut down on the concept.
I quite like chomsky's views is this called individual differences?
Post a Comment