I had a very similar response to Devin to some of Emig’s
claims about writing and talking, specifically the assertion that “writing is a
learned behavior; talking is natural, even irrepressible behavior.” Talking is
also a learned behavior, as anyone who observes infants and toddlers can attest
to. Perhaps this article was written before the studies on nonsocialized humans
and their inability to verbally communicate, but I’m pretty sure that acquiring
talking skills is generally considered a learned behavior. Emig later asserts
that “writing is more readily a form and source of learning than talking.” This
might be true for some people, but what about people who don’t like to write or
who aren’t strong writers?
I can see
how writing can be a great way to learn,
in that one learns “by doing,” “by depiction in an image” and by symbolic
“restatement in words,” (124). Emig cites Luria’s convincing claims on writing
as a “repeated mediating process of analysis and synthesis.” Their ideas on the
value of the pace and practice of writing and its ability to connect the past,
present and future resonated with me. Certainly, I want to have these ideas in
mind when I teach and encourage students to write.
Emig says
herself that her article is “at once over-elaborate and under specific.” I
found I could let go of some of her assumption/assertions that seem dubious to
me when I approached the piece as one of philosophical musings and ideas
instead of a definitive guide to the benefits of writing.
[re-pasted from devon's response]
ReplyDeletei have to say i disagree. talking is not a learned behavior. "how to talk" maybe is, but most linguistics studies have shown that it is innate amongst al human beings, hence natural. i'd like to know what studies on "non-socialized human beings" there are. are these the "feral children" syndromes and all that?
observing children and toddlers under actual scientific conditions has shown that they indeed can already "think" linguistically, only the vocal apparatus is under-developed and they can't yet form the "correct" sounds. most behaviorist linguistics, still en vogue in university rhetoric and literary studies, has pretty much been demolished completely in linguistics and the harder sciences.
the whole theory of generative grammar (and field of cognitive science at that), for instance, is based on the fact that all humans talk without learning. the normal child learns, at peak phases, literally hundreds of words a day. these aren't "taught" but "come naturally." i think the point that is made is that children learn how to "speak correctly" but that speech itself isn't taught behavioristically, but the linguistic ability is 'genetically' encoded in human beings.