The Deaf and Their Acquisition of the Various Systems of Communication: Speculation against Innatism

Abstract

The acquisition of an oral language has been attributed to an innate ability, a view that is known as linguistic innatism. This ability is alleged to be something like a transformational-generative grammar and is further claimed to be genetically transmitted. This article examines three stances of linguistic innatism, represented by Chomsky, Langacker, and Chafe. In the course of the discussion, it indicates the conflict, ambiguity, and inconsistency in and among them. It goes on to challenge linguistic innatists for proof, as people (e.g., deaf-mutes) may acquire an entirely different system of communication, such as sign language, without a single trace of an oral language.

The conclusion drawn is that, if a sign language is treated on a par with an oral language, then language is neither species-specific nor species-uniform, because other species are now known to be capable of learning a sign language. Innatism is not denied or eradicated altogether. Instead, it is maintained that, if innatism is valid at all, it pertains to what may be called the general faculty which differs not in kind but in degree from that possessed by other species, such as the primates. The confusion on the part of linguistic innatists lies in their failure to define what a language is. Too often they play with the word language by changing it from one meaning to another. In the absence of a commonly-agreed-upon definition, linguistic innatism is sheer nonsense.