“speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause" - is anybody able to explain this sentence in a comprehensible way?

Any low level explanation will do - I am stuck! :-(

Arne H. Wilstrup
Denmark
 2 3 4 5 6 7 » 30
Arne Wilstrup asks about:
"speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause"

It means: "Speaking does not cause acquisition; acquisition causes speaking." (In the original, "cause" and "result" are nouns; I have paraphrased it using the verb "cause".)
I have no idea what "acquisition" means here.

Mark Brader "People with whole brains, however, dispute Toronto this claim, and are generally more articulate (Email Removed) in expressing their views." Gary Larson
“speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause" - is anybody able to explain this sentence in a comprehensible way?

Probably not, but here's a guess:
People speak because they have acquired the ability to speak. People do not acquire the ability to to speak in order to be able to speak.

That's my reading of it, anyway.

Cheers, Harvey
Canadian and British English, indiscriminately mixed
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
On 03 May 2007, Arne H. Wilstrup wrote

"speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause" - is anybody able to explain this sentence in a comprehensible way?

Probably not, but here's a guess: People speak because they have acquired the ability to speak. People do not acquire the ability to to speak in order to be able to speak. That's my reading of it, anyway.

So let's just say "Speech is a result of language acquisition, not its cause." (It would need a lot of qualification to be perfectly true, of course; but it's easy to imagine a context in which it would be unexceptionable. Why do they make people study this stuff?)

Mike.

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
“speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause" - is anybody able to explain this sentence in a comprehensible way? Any low level explanation will do - I am stuck! :-(

Sounds like he's saying that people speak because they've learned (acquired) language, not that they acquired language in order to speak.
Language created the need for speech, not the other way 'round.

But I could be entirely wrong...

Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Arne Wilstrup asks about:

"speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause"

It means: "Speaking does not cause acquisition; acquisition causes speaking." (In the original, "cause" and "result" are nouns; I have paraphrased it using the verb "cause".) I have no idea what "acquisition" means here.

I didn't think that was the problem. For me, it is "its". Does it mean "its own cause"? That still doesn't make much sense to me.

Rob Bannister
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Arne Wilstrup asks about: It means: "Speaking does not cause ... verb "cause".) I have no idea what "acquisition" means here.

I didn't think that was the problem. For me, it is "its". Does it mean "its own cause"? That still doesn't make much sense to me.

Acquisition's result is speaking. Acquisition's cause is not, therefore, speaking.
My reply is the result of your posting, not its cause.
“speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause" - is anybody able to explain this sentence in a comprehensible way?

Someone is trying to be clever, and is being moderately successful.
I believe this means to say that you can't learn anything by talking, and/or that before one speaks, they should have acquired (which means "to get" or "to gain") knowledge on the topic first.

It's confusing because "Knowledge" is implied. It's teh answer to the question "acquiring what?"
It's a variation on the more colloquial advice to newcomers "keep your ears open and keep your mouth shut."

Todd H.
http://toddh.net /
In our last episode,
(Email Removed),
the lovely and talented Robert Bannister
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
Arne Wilstrup asks about: It means: "Speaking does not cause ... verb "cause".) I have no idea what "acquisition" means here.

I didn't think that was the problem. For me, it is "its". Does it mean "its own cause"? That still doesn't make much sense to me.

The reference of "its" is "acquisition" so:
"speaking is a result of acquisition, not the cause of acquisition."

That is perfectly sensible, but whether it is true or not I do not know.

"Rodent infestation is the result of grain storage, not its cause." (People get rats because they store grain; they don't store grain because they have rats.)
"speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause" (People speak because they have acquired language; they do not acquire language because they speak.)
This is a dubious theory but not an incomprehensible one.

Lars Eighner Countdown: 627 days to go.
==
Boycott the melamine Olympics!
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more