Potentiality or Innateness?

Noam Chomsky suggested that humans are born with a “language organ” that incorporates an innate mechanism for comprehension of certain characteristics of grammar. He maintains that intrinsic “universal grammar” knowledge allows children to recognize which type of grammar is used by their native language. Without this system, Noam claims, children could not learn language as quickly and as easily as they do.

Many researchers, while agreeing that language learning is special, disagree with the notion that a special “organ” exists for language. MacWhinney asserts that language learning is special, and that varieties of aspects including neural, cognitive, and social factors play a role. I tend to agree with MacWhinney’s theory.

I believe that labeling language as innate is underestimating the social factors that are key to one’s language acquisition. I am more inclined to believe that the potential to learn language is innate. The word “innate” conveys to us that something is present at birth and initiated from the intellect rather than from experience. A child will not acquire language without experience. Breathing, crying, and sucking are but a few of the innate abilities that infants come into the world with, language is not.

Among the reasons for my dissent from the innate theory is the evidence of plasticity. If language was innate and a special organ or area were required in order for one to procure language then if that area of the brain were damaged language could not be learned. That, however, is not always the case. The research indicates that if impairment occurs in the area of a developing brain (before one year old) that is ideal for language, other parts of the brain, usually the right hemisphere will pick up the language. This in my mind negates the Chomsky theory at the very least.

Another reason for my dissent is the fact that the quality of a child’s language, particularly grammar and vocabulary, seem to have much more to do with the child’s experience as opposed to the child’s intellect. If a child incorrectly uses me and her when she and I is appropriate, or exchanges seen for saw, or say I gots instead of I have, and no one corrects them they have no innate knowledge that informs them of their error, they simply continue speaking this way until someone corrects them.

I have children who are adopted. One child in particular came into our home at the age of fourteen. His vocabulary was inferior and he had little comprehension of the rules of grammar, in fact, he spoke as if English were his second language, saying things like beltseat instead of seatbelt. This made sense when we discovered that his family had never owned a car and he had little experience with seatbelts. Although research indicates a critical period, occurring prior to adolescence this child learned rapidly through experience and correction. Two years later, he speaks quite eloquently, using a variety of words and using them correctly. I believe that experiencing proper language and being corrected was critical for him, there did not appear to be any innate functioning or universal grammar mechanisms at work to help him establish a normal functional level of language.