Help! English incomprehensible logic :-(

Arne Wilstrup asks about:
[nq:1]"speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause"[/nq]
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

[nq:1]?speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause" - is anybody able to explain this sentence in a comprehensible way?[/nq]
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 Briti

[nq:1]On 03 May 2007, Arne H. Wilstrup wrote[/nq]
[nq:2]"speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause" - is anybody able to explain this sentence in a comprehensible way?[/nq]
[nq:1]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.

[nq:1]?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! :-([/nq]
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.

[nq:1]Arne Wilstrup asks about:[/nq]
[nq:2]"speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause"[/nq]
[nq:1]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.[/nq]
I didn't think that was the problem. For me, it is "its

[nq:2]Arne Wilstrup asks about: It means: "Speaking does not cause ... verb "cause".) I have no idea what "acquisition" means here.[/nq]
[nq:1]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.[/nq]
Acquisition's result is speaking. Acquisition's cause is not, therefore, speaking.
My reply is the result of y

[nq:1]?speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause" - is anybody able to explain this sentence in a comprehensible way?[/nq]
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.

In our last episode,
(Email Removed),
the lovely and talented Robert Bannister
broadcast on alt.usage.english:
[nq:2]Arne Wilstrup asks about: It means: "Speaking does not cause ... verb "cause".) I have no idea what "acquisition" means here.[/nq]
[nq:1]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

[nq:1]Arne Wilstrup asks about:[/nq]
[nq:2]"speaking is a result of acquisition, not its cause"[/nq]
[nq:1]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. [/nq]
In language learning theory 'acquisition' is the proce

[nq:2]On 03 May 2007, Arne H. Wilstrup wrote Probably not, ... be able to speak. That's my reading of it, anyway.[/nq]
[nq:1]So let's just say "Speech is a result of language acquisition, not its cause." (It would need a lot of ... imagine a context in which it would be unexceptionable. Why do they make people study this stuff?) [/nq]
36GBP per hour to teach in Higher Education with a Mast