Not partially fluent
Hi~ What do you think the part underlined mean? It's not clear to me.
Toddlers are not fluent. It is natural. So, here I don't understand the part "not partially fluent" well, which seems to mean that toddlers are partially fluent.
Can you understand the phrase and comment some?
Thanks~
The common belief in the 20th century was that children learn to talk
by copying what they hear. The copycat theory cannot explain why toddlers
are not partially fluent. If you listen to adults talk they do not often
model one-word sentences: “beer,” “TV,” “remote”
Top answer
e. they would reproduce fluent-sounding phrases and sentences that they had heard. But in fact toddlers are not partially fluent (they are not in any way fluent), and the copycat theory can't explain this.
- e.
- they would reproduce fluent-sounding phrases and sentences that they had heard.
- But in fact toddlers are not partially fluent (they are not in any way fluent), and the copycat theory can't explain this.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
As I understand it, it is arguing that if toddlers simply copied what they heard then they would be "partially fluent", i.e. they would reproduce fluent-sounding phrases and sentences that they had heard. But in fact toddlers are not partially fluent (they are not in any way fluent), and the copycat theory can't explain this.
0
Related Questions