Language Learnability and Language Development

Question: Discuss about the Language Learnability and Language Development. Answer: Introduction: Language refers to an essential means of communication with a massive adaptive value. In the past decades, debates have been held about the key processes involved in language accusation. Elaborating child language acquisition has been an exciting and controversial endeavor as one of the most important cognitive achievement in infancy and childhood that serve almost all psychological, communicative and social ability. To a larger extent, the ability of a human to acquire language has been discovered to be innate. There are different theories of language acquisition which have evolved and been discussed over time. They include the behaviorist theory, nativist or innateness theory, and integrationist theory. In behaviorist theory, B.F Skinner argued that environmental factors dictate language development. On the other hand, Chomskys theory of Innateness emphasized on biological determinism. The paper evaluates the nativist theory of language acquisition accompanied by other theories. Chomsky believed that the acquisition of language was accountable to the innate human nature. Here he challenged the behaviorist theory to move from behavior and empiric to rationalism and cognitive (Chomsky 2014). As such, his argument was to look at approaches hat sought to determine the relationship between an organism-environment and its behavior. To him, infants and children easily learn the language at speed the behaviorist theory does not explain. There are a countless number of sentences in a language and would be unreasonable for a child to learn language by imitation. Therefore, to Chomsky, a child is born with a language acquisition device that allows him or her to acquire grammar of the surrounding language. A child has an innate idea of universal grammar which allows them to put together words to make sentences that are new to them. They learn rules of language, and in their way, they apply them. His thoughts are detailed persuasive and inspiring in the school of linguistic and philosophy. As the language in children cannot be learnt through imitation, Chomsky argued that language is not dependent on cognitive processes. It is rather acquired when the child is incapable of challenging intellectual achievements. For instance, such a language as English, an end is added on some of the verbs on their past tense. More often than not, children apply the rule on all words producing incorrect verbs. Since children are not likely to imitate something they have not heard, Chomsky found this mistakes being inconsistent with Skinner as he emphasized on imitation. Children therefore only learn rules of language and not any given verbal response as Skinner viewed it. According to Skinner, behaviorist approach, the learning of language by children is the same as the ay children learn everything else (Lawrence, C.D., 2008). Through established principles of conditioning, imitation, and reinforcement. The behaviorists believe that by controlling reinforcement adults encourage the youn g ones to learn the right pronunciation and meaning of words. Thus, the language exposure alone cannot guarantee grammar to the children. Additional, the innate structure provides children with assistance to language. Nature equipped human with Language Acquisition Device (LAD) which facilitated the learning of language. The nativists argued that the same way that a bird learns to fly is the same way that human learns the language. They saw the biological equipment responsible for this. The biological structure consists of the brain and neural wiring that enhances the preparedness of discriminating phonemes and acquire morphemes and rules of syntax. In his work, Chomsky (2014) replaced Language Acquisition Device (LAD) with the idea of Universal Grammar (UG). These are universal principles which dictate the form of any human language and the parameter that determine the highly restricted variation between languages. Following the argument that language grows rather than being learned. The behaviorist theory stipulated that there is a discrepancy between grammatical knowledge that the child had to acquire and the unclea r nature of the phonetic strings which the child hears. Thus an innately directed discovery procedure had to be there. Also, the poverty of the stimulus argued that the search space of the child must be restricted or his discovery of grammar become inconceivable in a short period. On the other hand, Chomsky argued that language grows in a child and he challenged the evidence of degeneracy with the characteristics of Child-Directed Speech and how competence grew with time filtered its performance. The growing complexity and development of language raised questions. Being a slow process, it is full errors and so what takes it long to set the parameters? What determines its sequence in language acquisition? This is explained by the continuity hypothesis which says that at birth, all parameters and principles are available but cannot be used immediately after birth as they consider other factors. For instance, with the different categories, a child has to identify the words belonging to the different categories and use them in a sentence through memory (Clahsen, 2007). Secondly, the development sequence accounts its hypothesis to the consequence of neurological maturation. Despite having the innate nature, children do not face all their innate knowledge immediately, but rather it grows gradually. Parameters become structured, and their setting follows a certain ordered path such that the setting one parameter is dependent on the prior set parameter. The continuity hypothesis conc ludes assumes that adult grammar is predefined and therefore the child has to make critical decisions affected by the parameter setting, but childs language is similar to that of the adult. Interestingly, it is assumed that the grammatical knowledge of a child lacks important pieces of information which are acquired as maturation occurs. Following his view, Chomsky, there is a defined critical period of hypothesis which language acquisition happens. An adult learner is expected to employ general learning mechanism not intended for language acquisition. Creolization explains the innateness of language among the deaf. It uses the example of deaf inhabitants of Nicaragua where there was no education and the official sign language till 1986. At the past, certain age children had no problem acquiring language. Language experts noticed that the younger children had no problem making use of unfamiliar gestures as a way of communicating. This problem was solved they sought recommendations from an American linguist (Judy Kegl) from MIT. She disclosed that their sign language had its syntax. Surprisingly, it is a challenge for the adults to learn syntax if they had never acquired any language (Chomsky, N., 2014).For instance, in Hawaii, Bickerton's investigated immigrant where he found out that they had an incorrect pidgin language. Their language was characterized by basic syntactical characteristics of their mother language. On the other hand, nativist uses the evolution of language to describe how language developed. Derck Bickerton's suggest that through a single mutation, a connection was formed that later evolved into a complete language. The evolution of language challenges the behaviorist theory by describing a different operant conditioning known as derived relational responding that takes place on human and possesses a capacity for language. Research further shows how children learn language acquisition through fundamental reinforcement and not on cognitive capacity or innate predisposition. The reason Chomsky believed that children had an innate capacity for learning a language is that to them; language acquisition was quick and effortless. The skill grows in a short time, and so he believes they have an inbuilt capacity. Also, language development has the tendency of unfolding at the same pace for almost all the children. Despite being reared I different environments. There are different factors for the acquisition of language. The necessary condition and the sufficient conditions. Environment factors focus on the impact of environment on language, innate and cognitive processes. Just like the behaviorist theory, Chomsky work has also been criticized. The Interactionist theory makes reference to the fact that both biology and experience contribute to the overall language acquisition in both infants and adults. Reference is made to the learning, and cognitive processes in a child growing up in a native homestead whose progress in learning a native language are evidently faster than that of an adult foreign national trying to learn the same language. The theory, therefore, can be found at fault with evidence supporting the fact that the neural circuits supporting language learning are not prewired but rather they emerge progressively as on interacts with the new language. (Larsen-Freeman, 2011)Opine that the gradual changes in the Connectionist Network that underpin language acquisition and skills are more responsible for the acquisition of that language itself more than the nativist theory of language acquisition. It is imperative to state at this point that b oth the social factors and environmental factors contribute to the wholesome acquisition of language development in both children and adults. The theory by Chomsky has proved to consist of more strict binary branches and complex components that it appears empty and inapplicable. Tapping into the immense potential of humans in the strength of natural selection, imitation, and the genetic predisposition giving humans the ability to acquire language rules opened by nativists, the interactionist theory finds its strong grounding that it is as a result of interacting with all these dimensions that language is learned and enhanced. It is Chomskys approach to the process of learning a language that the genetic predisposition contributes a great art in the said acquisition. There is numerous basis to support this, in fact that is easy for a native Mexica will be able to learn the Mexican dialect with more ease than a Mexican American who in their young adult life wishes to learn the dialect. It is evident that the nativist rationale presents a more enabling environment for the young Mexican to master the language with more ease as compared to a learner Mexican young adult. Naturally and by genetic predisposition, it is far easier for one to learn a language of their origin with precision and a little effort and this makes the Chomskys Naturalist theory both substantive and definitive of the process of language acquisition. Chomskys finding that language acquisition device (LAD) is more an intrinsic nature of man to acquire language for use in their day to day living (Chomsky 2007). His justification derives from the ease with which a child will learn the language within a short span of time with least effort, yet it becomes a little complex for an adult to master the same language. Scientifically, with the rapid and spontaneous multiplication of cells in babies brains cannot alone be the reason for their ability to learn the language within such a short time. The tendency to grasp a language within similar timelines is also a matter that has its strength adding to Chomskys theory. It can only suffice to say that there is something more innate that allo ws for such a cross-cutting phenomenon. The finding is that biological maturation as opposed to personal experience and environmental factors. Behavioral scientists have come out to support this that there is a tendency of similarity in the growth patterns of children across the world characterized by an innate ability learn and acquire language In his work, Chomsky gives a series of basic assumptions with behavioral and other experimental schools of thoughts. Organisms are in natural essence endowed with the desire to acquire language and do not, for instance, learn a language just for the sake of it, but that it enables them to perform basic functions. He equates the need for birds to fly to the need for human beings to communicate. He puts in an effort towards this end challenging the verbal behavior influenced by idiosyncratic history and particular experiences of the speaker. His works are to the effect that the language of communication between human beings is characterized by the various formations of the elements in the brain that bring about speech comprehension and production. He calls this Universal Grammar.His assumption of a metal system he refers to as Universal Grammar he acknowledges that can be met by criticism and this, in essence, makes him agree in part that it is a result of some general purpose reinforcement mechanism as also implied by interactionists. In acknowledging this, he relates the formation of cells in the brain to that of cells in other parts of the nervous system and found it befitting to note that there also exists the probability that certain cell formations favor the existence of a universal grammar somewhere in the mind of humans. This discussion though placed neither here nor there as put by some philosophers to face him of not indicating the characters he alludes. For instance belief, mind and purpose are found, especial ly here he deviates from that pursuit and generalizing it as properties of the nervous system. It has not come out clearly as yet, the actualization of his propositions. Chomsky (2014) says that a language is a set of infinite sentences each with infinite length and constructed out of a finite set of elements. He proposes both formal and informal language patterns and proceeds to label them as; informal constituting what I agreed upon to be a sentence provided, they are not faced with the problem of memory or time, and formal for that which is agreed to constitute grammatical rules formulated by the linguist. Also, one would argue for a genetically set grammar. The terminological matter is irreverent to evaluate the element of Chomsky position, especially in his argument that there is an innate language module. His unit of analysis and data in his work have been seen to be judgmental. As the children develop their language, he states that their sentences are not well-formed. Here he has little concern about the inflexible rule of grammar, for example, the right use of the objective case but with regulative of in a language that is respected by native utterers without formal training (Larsen-Freeman, 2011). Further, children make a lot of mistakes in their language learning but do not assume until rectified. In most cases, there is no relevant evidence for the English speakers just like there is no traditional grammar. In a similar situation, the problem is raised in the use of questions. There are general principals if Chomsky structure of language is analyzed that are violated (Drnyei, 2009). For instance, the principle of reciprocal expression with each other as an example might not refer to antecedent outside the clause which occurs if the latter happens to the subject of an infinitive. Little in respect to this principle is provided to the children, but they easily learn to follow this formal instruction. Also, in the theory of learning, nobody has proposed or given an explanation on these principles, and thus Chomsky assumes that essential elements of the grammar of a human language must, therefore, be expressed in the gen etic code. Further, he suggests that Universal Grammar has the basic principles that are common to all human languages and limits particular grammars which can be acquired. In conclusion, there are different theories that have been used to describe the process of language Acquisition development among them being behaviorist theory, nativist, and interactionists. The fundamental strategies in behaviorist theory are reinforcement, imitation and rewarding. Nativist, on the other hand, view the process of language learning as innate with the similar universal principal. The interactionist believes that language acquisition is similar to child experiences and cognitive development. References Ambridge, B. and Lieven, E.V., 2011. Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge University Press. Chapelle, C.A., 2009. The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer?assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93(s1), pp.741-753. Chater, N. and Christiansen, M.H., 2010. Language acquisition meets language evolution. Cognitive Science, 34(7), pp.1131-1157. Cook, V. and Newson, M., 2014. Chomsky's universal grammar. John Wiley Sons. Couloumbis, T.A. and Kentikelenis, A.E., 2007. GreekTurkish relations and the Kantian democratic peace theory. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 7(4), pp.517-532. Chomsky, N., 2007. Approaching UG from below. Interfaces+ recursion= language, 89, pp.1-30. Chomsky, N., 2007. Of minds and language. Biolinguistics, 1, pp.009-027. Chomsky, N., 2014. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (Vol. 11). MIT press. Cowie, F., 2008. Innateness and language. Drnyei, Z., 2009. The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Harley, T.A., 2013. The psychology of language: From data to theory. Psychology press. Hoff, E., 2013. Language development. Cengage Learning. Kirby, S., Dowman, M. and Griffiths, T.L., 2007. Innateness and culture in the evolution of language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(12), pp.5241-5245. Kuhl, P.K., 2010. Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron, 67(5), pp.713-727. LARSENFREEMAN, D.I.A.N.E., 2007. Reflecting on the cognitivesocial debate in second language acquisition. The Modern Language Journal, 91(s1), pp.773-787. Larsen-Freeman, D., 2011. A complexity theory approach to second language development/acquisition. Alternative approaches to second language acquisition, 4872. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Long, M.H., 2014. An introduction to second language acquisition research. Routledge. Lawrence, C.D., 2008. English Oral Language Usage of Caregivers in Selected Orphanages of Eastern India: A Phenomenological Study (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama at Birmingham). Mitchell, R., Myles, F. and Marsden, E., 2013. Second language learning theories. Routledge. Pinker, S., 2009. Language learnability and language development, with new commentary by the author (Vol. 7). Harvard University Press. Richards, J.C. and Rodgers, T.S., 2014. Approaches and methods in language teaching. Cambridge university press.