REVISED JOURNAL ENTRY 2
REFLECTING ON UNIVERSAL GRAMMAR
The idea of Universal Grammar (UG) fascinates me because it tries to explain something amazing: how children learn language so quickly and with so little effort. I believe humans are born with a natural ability for language, but we also need real-life interaction to develop it fully. It’s not just about what we’re born with (nature) or what we learn from others (nurture); it’s both working together.
I remember reading Margarida Petter last year. In her article “Linguagem, Língua e Linguística”, she explains how human communication is completely different from animal communication. Humans don’t just make sounds to signal danger or food—we use words to name things, share ideas, talk about the past and future, and even imagine things that don’t exist. Animals communicate in simple, instinctive ways, but human language is complex and structured (as Saussure pointed out), and something we’re naturally wired for (as Chomsky argued). This special ability is why even tiny babies start picking up language so early. It’s not just about speaking—it’s what makes human society and culture possible.
When I think about how children learn language, it amazes me. No one sits a two-year-old down and teaches them grammar rules, yet they start putting words together in meaningful ways on their own. How? Chomsky’s theory helps explain this: kids don’t just copy what they hear—they create new sentences they’ve never heard before. That’s something simple imitation can’t explain. After all, they’re not crows or parrots!
But the environment matters too. A child might have the natural ability to learn language, but without real conversation, that ability won’t develop properly. Like I said in our forum, just watching videos or listening to TV isn’t enough—kids need to talk, make mistakes, and get responses. Language isn’t just about rules; it’s about connecting with others.
Another point that stands out to me is how UG explains that all languages are different but still share some basic patterns. Every child has the same mental "tools" for language, but how they use them depends on the language(s) they’re exposed to. That’s why children everywhere hit similar developmental milestones, even if their languages sound completely different.
From my own experience learning and teaching second languages, I believe the best approach is a balance. Our brains are built for language, but we also need real, meaningful practice—whether acquiring our first language or learning a second. Language starts in the mind, but it grows through talking, listening, and interacting with the world.
To end, I’m left wondering: if we are all born with this remarkable potential, how can we better support learners who struggle to develop language, whether due to neurological conditions, lack of exposure, or trauma? How far can UG take us in answering that?
