Re: First language acquisition


noesy_parker wrote:
"Peter T. Daniels" <grammatim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:1158164760.890133.149870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:



Not at all. I do, however, believe the linguists who have recorded
their babies' every utterance and described the earliest stages of
language acquisition, around the world. If they say a rudimentary
grammar is in operation from the very first utterances, I tend to
believe their testimony.

Did they say what you asserted - "A human cannot learn vocabulary without
grammar, or vice versa."? "Having a rudimentary grammar from the very
first utternances" is not the same as "can't learn vocabulary without
grammar".


What is your evidence for "absence of grammar"?


Only from observations of babies talking. I can't believe that the first
few utterances of a baby, saying something like "dada" has any grammar in

Then you'd better define "utterance." If it's not part of a language
(yet), then obviously there's no grammar.

it. It may get more complex very quickly, but not very first few
utterances which, as far as I can see, are largely mimicking of what the
parents say (which they often repeated over and over again to the baby
before it can even speak). I don't really know what the linguists means
when they say "from the very first utterances", what time period are they
talking about and do they mean "meaningful utterances"?

Depends, I guess, on what you mean by "utterances." I don't think a
psycholinguist would consider an act of mimicry to be an utterance.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: First language acquisition
    ... vocabulary without grammar, or vice versa. ... The baby may just be imitating what a parent is ... grammar is in operation from the very first utterances, ...
    (sci.lang)
  • Re: First language acquisition
    ... I do, however, believe the linguists who have recorded ... grammar is in operation from the very first utterances, ... Only from observations of babies talking. ...
    (sci.lang)