>Charles Nelson wrote:
>
>> I suppose I'm missing something here, perhaps from previous postings, but
>> I've never heard of anyone not acquiring native language rules (except for
>> those that had no exposure to language).
>
>While not intending to place myself in either camp, I wonder what others would
>make of kids who have language disabilities? By this, I mean children who do
>not seem to have acquired their native language rules, without obvious reason
>such as lack of exposure to language, deafness, or head trauma resulting in
>serious brain damage, etc. (The fact that some families seem prone to this
>would argue for either side, I suppose: lack of good models resulting in
>lack of
>acquisition???).
>
>Here in multicultural Toronto, we seem to have more than our share of such kids
>from families whose native language is other than English, who spend years and
>years in ESL classes, only to eventually end up in special language classes.
>Their families later tell you that the child in question never learned the home
>language well, but had always chalked it up to the fact that the kids were
>living in an English-speaking environment and therefore were spending more time
>and effort with English, so it was never an issue at home. Mind you,
>these kids
>represent an *extremely* small minority of ESL students; most ESL students end
>up at least conversationally bilingual.
I'm guessing that when you speak of children not learning their home
(native) language in an ESL environment that you mean they don't speak it
well. Pinker, in his book _The Language Instinct_, writes:
"Surprisingly, though practice is important in training for the gymnastics
of speaking, it may be superfluous in learning grammar. For various
neurological reasons children are sometimes unable to articulate, but
parents report that their comprehension is excellent" (p. 279).
Similarly, although I'm not well-read in this area, I imagine that ESL
children do internalize the rules of their parents' language and have
normal listening comprehension, but for various reasons do not learn to
speak it well.
>> And in the innatist camp, there's disagreement over whether second language
>> learners still have access to a universal grammar.
>
>I would be interested in hearing more about this argument, too.
When speaking of L2 learners not having access to a UG, linguists are
referring to children past a certain critical period, generally after the
age of puberty (although there's debate here, too, on the exact age).
Ellis (pp. 453ff.) notes that some researchers say L2 learners have full
access to UG, others say partial access, and still others say no access.
There's simply not enough evidence yet to decide which view is right. One
thing most people agree on, though, is that people who immigrate at 12
years old or later rarely achieve native fluency. The reason(s) why is
still unclear.
For a good introduction into second language acquisition, you might read:
Rod Ellis. 1994. _The Study of Second Language Acquisition_. Oxford UP.
Charles Nelson
c.nelson who-is-at mail.utexas.edu