User:Lmfye/sandbox
Theories of Language Acquisition
[edit]A range of theories regarding language acquisition have been proposed. Some theories, such as innatism, Psychological nativism, and Generativism, propose that the child is born prepared in some manner with language capacities. Other theories, such as Behaviorism and Relational frame theory, hypothesize that language is simply learned as one learns to ride a bike. As theories continue to develop to support either the Nature or the Nurture side of the Nature/Nurture debate (add link to nature/nurture section in big issues section above), theories which support aspects of both nature and nurture are emerging such as, Social interactionism, Usage Based Theory, Emergentism, and Empiricism.
"Nature" Theories
[edit]Philosophers in ancient societies were interested in how humans acquired the ability to understand and produce language, well before empirical methods for testing those theories were developed, but for the most part they seemed to regard language acquisition as a subset of man's ability to acquire knowledge and learn concepts.[1] Some early, observation based ideas about language acquisition were proposed by Plato, who felt that word-meaning mapping in some form was innate. Additionally, Sanskrit grammarians debated for over twelve centuries whether humans' ability to recognize the meaning of words was god-given (possibly innate) or passed down by previous generations and learned from already established conventions —e.g. a child learning the word for cow by listening to trusted speakers talking about cows.[2]
Innatism
[edit]description
prominent theorists
supporting research/studies
- method used
- results
- interpretation of results
Psychological nativism
[edit]description
prominent theorists
supporting research/studies
- method used
- results
- interpretation of results
Generativism
[edit]Generative grammar is currently one of the principal approaches to children's acquisition of syntax.[3] The leading idea is that human biology imposes narrow constraints on the child's "hypothesis space" during language acquisition. In the Principles and Parameters Framework, which has dominated generative syntax since Chomsky's (1980) Lectures on Government and Binding, the acquisition of syntax resembles ordering from a menu: The human brain comes equipped with a limited set of choices, and the child selects the correct options using her parents' speech, in combination with the context.[4][5] An important argument in favor of the generative approach is the Poverty of the stimulus argument. The child's input (a finite number of sentences encountered by the child, together with information about the context in which they were uttered) is in principle compatible with an infinite number of conceivable grammars. Moreover, few if any children can rely on corrective feedback from adults when they make a grammatical error.[6] Yet, barring situations of medical abnormality or extreme privation, all the children in a given speech-community converge on very much the same grammar by the age of about five years.[4] An especially dramatic example is provided by children who for medical reasons are unable to produce speech, and therefore can literally never be corrected for a grammatical error, yet nonetheless converge on the same grammar as their typically developing peers, according to comprehension-based tests of grammar.[7][8]
Generativism is associated especially with the work of Noam Chomsky. However, Jerry Fodor, Eric Lenneberg and others also argue that the types of grammar that the child needs to consider must be narrowly constrained by human biology (the nativist position).[9] These innate constraints are sometimes referred to as universal grammar, the human "language faculty," or the "language instinct." [10]
supporting research/studies
- method used
- results
- interpretation of results
"Nurture" Theories
[edit]In a more modern context, empiricists like Hobbes and Locke argued that knowledge (and for Locke, language) emerge ultimately from abstracted sense impressions. These arguments lean towards the "nurture" side of the argument- that language is acquired through sensory experience. This led to Carnap's Aufbau, an attempt to learn all knowledge from sense datum, using the notion of "remembered as similar" to bind these into clusters, which would eventually map into language.
Behaviorism
[edit]Proponents of Behaviorism argued that language may be learned through a form of operant conditioning. Because operant conditioning is contingent on reinforcement by rewards, a child would learn that a specific combination of sounds stands for a specific thing through repeated successful associations made between those two things. A "successful" use of a sign would be one in which the child is understood (for example, a child saying "up" when he or she wants to be picked up) and is rewarded with the desired response from another person, therefore reinforcing the child's understanding of the meaning of that word and making it more likely that he or she will use that word in a similar situation in the future.
In B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behaviour (1957), he suggested that the successful use of a sign such as a word or lexical unit, given a certain stimulus, reinforces its "momentary" or contextual probability. Some Empiricist theories of language acquisition include statistical learning theories of language acquisition, Relational Frame Theory, functionalist linguistics, social interactionist theory, and usage-based language acquisition. Skinner's behaviourist idea was strongly attacked by Noam Chomsky in a review article in 1959, calling it "largely mythology" and a "serious delusion".[11] Instead, Chomsky argued for a more theoretical approach to language acquisition, based on a study of syntax.
supporting research/studies
- method used
- results
- interpretation of results
Relational frame theory
[edit]The relational frame theory (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, 2001), provides a wholly selectionist/learning account of the origin and development of language competence and complexity. Based upon the principles of Skinnerian behaviorism, RFT posits that children acquire language purely through interacting with the environment. RFT theorists introduced the concept of functional contextualism in language learning, which emphasizes the importance of predicting and influencing psychological events, such as thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, by focusing on manipulable variables in their context. RFT distinguishes itself from Skinner's work by identifying and defining a particular type of operant conditioning known as derived relational responding, a learning process that to date appears to occur only in humans possessing a capacity for language. Empirical studies supporting the predictions of RFT suggest that children learn language via a system of inherent reinforcements, challenging the view that language acquisition is based upon innate, language-specific cognitive capacities.[12]
prominent theorists
supporting research/studies
- method used
- results
- interpretation of results
"Nature" and "Nurture" Theories
[edit]Social interactionism
[edit]Social interactionist theory consists of a number of hypotheses on language acquisition. These hypotheses deal with written, spoken, or visual social tools which consist of complex systems of symbols and rules on language acquisition and development. The compromise between “nature” and “nurture” is the “interactionist” approach. In addition, for years psychologists and researchers have been asking the same question: what are the language behaviors that nature provides innately and what are those behaviors that are realized by environmental exposure, which is nurture.
prominent theorists
supporting research/studies
- method used
- results
- interpretation of results
Usage Based Theory
[edit]description
prominent theorists
supporting research/studies
- method used
- results
- interpretation of results
Emergentism
[edit]Emergentist theories posit that language acquisition is a cognitive process that emerges from the interaction of biological pressures and the environment. According to these theories, neither nature nor nurture alone is sufficient to trigger language learning; both of these influences must work together in order to allow children to acquire a language. The proponents of these theories argue that general cognitive processes subserve language acquisition and that the end result of these processes is language-specific phenomena, such as word learning and grammar acquisition. The findings of many empirical studies support the predictions of these theories, suggesting that language acquisition is a more complex process than many believe.[13]
MacWhinney's competition model supports Emergentism.
supporting research/studies
- method used
- results
- interpretation of results
Empiricism
[edit]Although Chomsky's theory of a generative grammar has been popular with some linguists since the 1950s many criticisms of the basic assumptions of generative theory have been put forth by cognitive-functional linguistics who argue that language structure is created through language use.[14] These linguists argue that the concept of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is unsupported by evolutionary anthropology, which tends to show a gradual adaptation of the human brain and vocal cords to the use of language, rather than a sudden appearance of a complete set of binary parameters delineating the whole spectrum of possible grammars ever to have existed and ever to exist. On the other hand, cognitive-functional theorists use this anthropological data to show how human beings have evolved the capacity for grammar and syntax to meet our demand for linguistic symbols. (Binary parameters are common to digital computers but may not be applicable to neurological systems such as the human brain.)
Further, the generative theory has several hypothetical constructs (such as movement, empty categories, complex underlying structures, and strict binary branching) that cannot possibly be acquired from any amount of linguistic input, it is unclear that human language is actually anything like the generative conception of it. Since language, as imagined by nativists, is unlearnably complex, subscribers to this theory argue that it must therefore be innate. A different theory of language, however, may yield different conclusions. While all theories of language acquisition posit some degree of innateness, a less convoluted theory might involve less innate structure and more learning. Under such a theory of grammar, the input, combined with both general and language-specific learning capacities, might be sufficient for acquisition.[citation needed]
Since 1980, linguists studying children, such as Melissa Bowerman, and psychologists following Jean Piaget, like Elizabeth Bates and Jean Mandler, came to suspect that there may indeed be many learning processes involved in the acquisition process, and that ignoring the role of learning may have been a mistake.[citation needed]
In recent years, the debate surrounding the nativist position has centered on whether the inborn capabilities are language-specific or domain-general, such as those that enable the infant to visually make sense of the world in terms of objects and actions. The anti-nativist view has many strands, but a frequent theme is that language emerges from usage in social contexts, using learning mechanisms that are a part of a general cognitive learning apparatus (which is what is innate). This position has been championed by Elizabeth Bates,[15] Catherine Snow, Brian MacWhinney, Michael Tomasello,[16] Michael Ramscar,[17] William O'Grady,[18] and others. Philosophers, such as Fiona Cowie[19] and Barbara Scholz with Geoffrey Pullum[20] have also argued against certain nativist claims in support of empiricism.
supporting research/studies
- method used
- results
- interpretation of results
References
[edit]- ↑ "Innateness and Language". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- ↑ Bimal Krishna Matilal (1990). The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language. OUP.0
- ↑ Crain, Stephen and Diane C. Lillo-Martin (1999). An Introduction to Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link) - 1 2 Crain & Lillo-Martin, op.cit.
- ↑ Baker, Mark C. (2001). The Atoms of Language: The Mind's Hidden Rules of Grammar. New York: Basic Books.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: publisher location (link) - ↑ Brown, Roger and Camile Hanlon. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Cognition and the development of language, ed. J. R. Hayes. New York: Wiley
- ↑ Lenneberg, Eric. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.
- ↑ Stromswold, Karin. 2009 - Lessons from a mute child. Paper presented at 'Rich Languages from Poor Inputs: A Workshop in Honor of Carol Chomsky'. MIT, Cambridge, MA, 11 December 2009.
- ↑ Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.
- ↑ Pinker, Steven (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper Collins.
- ↑ Chomsky Noam (1959). A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior Language, 35: 26-58.
- ↑ Steven C. Hayes, Dermot Barnes-Holmes, Brian Roche, ed. (2001). Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition (Hardcover). Plenum Press. ISBN 0-306-46600-7.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) - ↑ Brian MacWhinney, ed. (1999). The Emergence of Language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-3010-3.
- ↑ Tomasello, Michael (2005). Constructing a Language: a Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
- ↑
Bates, E. and Elman, J. and Johnson, M. and Karmiloff-Smith, A. and Parisi, D. and Plunkett, K. (1998). "Innateness and emergentism". A companion to cognitive science. Oxford / Basil Blackwell: 590–601.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ↑ Cite error: The named reference
ohcwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ↑ Ramscar, Michael (2007). "Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood". Trends in Cognitive Science. 11 (7): 274–9. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.05.007.
- ↑ William O’Grady (April 2008). "Innateness, universal grammar, and emergentism". Lingua. 118. (4): 620–631.
- ↑ Cowie, F. (1999): What’s Within? Nativism Reconsidered (Oxford University Press, New York).
- ↑ Barbara Scholz and Geoffrey Pullum (2006). Robert J. Stainton (ed.). "Irrational Nativist Exuberance" (PDF). Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science. Oxford / Basil Blackwell: 59–80.