THEORIES LANGUAGE ACQUISITIONLanguage acquisition is the study of the processes through which humans acquire language. By itself, language acquisition refers to first language acquisition, which studies infants' acquisition of their native language, whereas second language acquisition deals with acquisition of additional languages in both children and adults. The process of language acquisition is among the leading aspects that distinguishes humans from other organisms. While many forms of animal language exist, production is often fixed and does not vary much across cultural groups, though comprehension may be more flexible (primates may learn to pick up bird signals)[1] The complexity and referential richness and social contextual variation of human language is not exhibited by any other species. Early views on language acquisition One of the complexities of acquiring language is that it is learned by infants from what appears to be very little input. This has led to the long standing debate on the issue of whether a child is born with some idea of meanings, or whether these are learned based on social convention. Plato felt that the word-meaning mapping in some form was innate. Sanskrit grammarians debated over twelve centuries whether meaning was god-given (possibly innate) or was learned from older convention e.g. a child learning the word for cow by listening to trusted speakers talking about cows[2]. In modern times, empiricists like Hobbes and Locke argued that knowledge (and for Locke, language) emerge ultimately from abstracted sense impressions. 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 to language. Under Behaviorism, it was argued that language may be learned through a form of operant conditioning. 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 it s "momentary" or contextual probability. Generative tradition and a return to nativism This behaviourist idea was strongly attacked by Noam Chomsky in a review article in 1959, calling it "largely mythology" and a "serious delusion"[3]. Instead, Chomsky argued for a more theoretical approach, based on a study of syntax. Chomsky's generative grammar ignored semantics and language use, focusing on the set of rules that would generate syntactically correct strings. This led to a model of acquisition 1 The anti-nativist view has many strands. using learning mechanisms that are a part of a general cognitive learning apparatus (which is what is innate ). it turns out that infinitely many rule -sets or grammars can explain the data[4]. and that ignoring the role of learning may have been a mistake. 2 . and psychologists following Piaget. so discovering one was very difficult. However. usage-based language acquisition.[9] Empiricist views (opposing nativism) Since 1980. linguists studying children. Catherine Snow. initially connected to an organ called the language acquisition device (LAD)[7]. opposition to the nativist position has multiplied. like Elizabeth Bates and Jean Mandler. In recent years. These aspects led Chomsky. Michael Tomasello[1]. William O'Grady[11]. the word organ was replace d by the phrase "language faculty" and Chomsky suggested that what was universal across all languages were a set of principles. that were modified for each particular language by a set of parameters. such as Melissa Bowerman. functionalist linguistics. trained linguists working for decades have not been able to identify a grammar for any human language[5]. This position has been championed by Elizabeth Bates[10]. Subsequently. ignoring semantics or context.which attempted to discover grammar from examples of well -formed sentences. Philosophers. but a frequent theme is that language emerges from usage in social contexts. Brian MacWhinney. The debate has centered on whether the inborn capabilities are language specific or domain-general. Empiricist theories Empiricist theories of language acquisition include Social interactionist theory. Jerry Fodor. statistical learning theories of language acquisition. such as those that enable the infant to visually make sense of the world in terms of objects and actions. and others. What is innate was claimed to be a universal grammar. the input available to the child learner was deemed insufficient (the poverty of stimulus argument). Michael Ramscar[12] and others. Indeed. and allow them to master that grammar by the age of three. Also. came to suspect that there may be many learning processes going into the acquisition process. Relational Frame Theory. Eric Lenneberg and others to suggest that some form of grammar must be innate (the nativist position)[6]. such as Fiona Cowie and Barbara Scholz (with Geoffrey Pullum)[13] have a lso argued against certain nativist claims in support of empiricism. Nativists view that there are some "hidden assumptions" or biases[8] that allow children to quickly figure out what is and isn't possible in the grammar of their native language. The compromise between ³nature´ and ³nurture´ is the ³interactionist´ approach: it demands a particular type of syntagma in recognizing that many factors influence language development. These hypotheses dea l with written. Statistical learning theories of language acquisition Some language acquisition researchers. they produce actual utterances. The approach has several features that make it unique: the models are implemented as computer programs. and German. A significant outcome of the research was that rules inferred from toddler speech were better predictors of subsequent speech than traditional grammars. The development of connectionist models that are able to successfully learn words and syntactical conventions[14] supports the predictions of statistical learning theories of language acquisition. or visual social tools which consist of complex systems of symbols and rules on language acquisition and development. such as Elissa Newport.Social interactionist theory Main article: Social interactionist theory Social interactionist theory consists of a number of proven hypotheses on language acquisition.[18] Relational frame theory 3 . Spanish. believe that language acquisitio n is based primarily on general learning mechanisms. or syllables. phonemes. Richard Aslin. this approach has been highly successful in simulating several phenomena in the acquisition of syntactic categories [16] and the acquisition of phonological kn owledge [17]. spoken. The central idea of these theories is that language development occurs through the incremental acquisition of meaningful³chunks´ (chunks) of elementary constituents. Recently.[15] Chunking theories of language acquisition Chunking theories of language acquisition constitute a group of theories related to statistical learning theories in that they assume that the input from the environment plays an essential role. they learn from naturalistic input. which can be words. They showed that toddlers develop their own individual rules for speaking with slots into which they could put certain kinds of words. namely statistical learning. however. and Jenny Saffran. which enables clear -cut and quantitative predictions to be made. made of actual child-directed utterances. and they have simulated phenomena in several languages. which can be compared with children¶s utterances. as do empirical studies of children's learning of words and syntax. including English. they postulate different learning mechanisms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology have developed a computer model analyzing early toddler conversations to predict the structure of later conversations. Based upon the principles of Skinnerian behaviorism. which tends to show a gradual adaptation of the human body to the use of language. such as word learning and grammar acquisition. and behaviors. Roche. Barnes-Holmes. which emphasizes the importance of predicting and influencing psychological events. RFT posits that children acquire language purely through interacting with the environment. suggesting that language acquisition is a more complex p rocess than many believe. 2001). According to these theories. such as movement. a learning process that to date appears to occur only in humans possessing a capacity for language. RFT theori sts introduced the concept of functional contextualism in language learning. rather than a sudden appearance of a complete set of binary parameters (which are common to digital computers but not to neurological systems such a s a human brain) delineating the whole spectrum of possible grammars ever to have existed and ever to exist. that cannot possibly be acquired from any amount of input. both of these influences must work together in order to allow children to acquire a language. language-specific cognitive capacities. A 4 . by focusing on manipulable variables in their contex t. unlearnably complex. in essence. and strict binary branching. with little response from its champions. Empirical studies supporting the predictions of RFT suggest that children learn language via a system of inherent reinforcements.The relational frame theory (Hayes. The concept of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is unsupported by evolutionary anthropology. feelings. Since the theory is. The findings of many empirical studies support the predictions of these theories. provides a wholly selectionist/learning account of the origin and development of language competence and complexity. empty categories.[19] Emergentist theories Emergentist theories. then it must be innate. such as thoughts. such as MacWhinney's Competition Model. neither nature nor nu rture alone is sufficient to trigger language learning. RFT distinguishes itself from Skinner's work by identifying and defining a particular type of operant conditioning known as derived relational responding. The theory has several hypothetical constructs. posit that language acquisition is a cognitive process that emerges from the interaction of biological pressures and the environment. 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. complex underlying structures. challenging the view that language acquisition is based upon innate.[20] Criticism of nativist theories Many criticisms of the basic assumptions of generative theory have been put forth. these individuals were unable to learn syntax. they discovered that children past a certain age had difficulty learning any language. grew up speaking a grammatically rich language -. Their children. While it was possible to teach vocabulary. to help unravel this mystery. Bickerton found. however. the language exhibited many of the underlying grammatical features of many other natural languages. despite being raised in otherwise healthy environments. lexical functional grammar. a "big bang". Evolution of language Main article: Origin of Language Debate within the nativist position now revolves around how language evolved. Derek Bickerton suggests a single mutation.neither English nor the syntax-less pidgin of their parents. As Nicaraguans attempted to rectify the situation. Until approximately 1986. an American linguist from MIT. and turned out to be incapable of learning language in any meaningful sense. They invited Judy Kegl. combined with both general and language-specific learning capacities. had never acquired language. Kegl discovered that these children had developed their own. distinct. Nicaraguan Sign Language with its own rules of "sign-phonology" and syntax. might be sufficient for acquisition. the input. Additionally. Examples of alternative theories that do not ut ilize movement and empty categories are head-driven phrase structure grammar.different theory of language. While all theories of language acquisition posit some degree of innateness. and is known as Hawaii Creole English. a less convoluted theory might involve less innate structure and more learning. Under such a theory of grammar. This was taken as powerful evidence for children's innate grammar module. may yield different conclusions. Other evidence supporting the nativist position Creolization Main article: Creole language More support for the innateness of language comes from the deaf population of Nicaragua. linked 5 . Furthermore. She also discovered some 300 adults who. Nicaragua had neither education nor a formalized sign language for the deaf. the adults observed that the younger children were using gestures unknown to them to communicate with each other. The language became "creolized". and several varieties of construction grammar.[9] Derek Bickerton's (1981) landmark work with Hawaiian pidgin speakers studied immigrant populations where first -generation parents spoke highly-ungrammatical "pidgin English". The foundations of conceptual thought in infancy.together previously evolved traits into full language. References * Ambrose. internal speech). (1992b). Science. Psychological Review. * Mandler. 99. 2009) proposed the cerebellar decomposition and re-combination of working memory's visual-spatial imagery was selected into language during evolution and is thus selected in infancy because it provides working memory an abstract system of mental events that can more flexibly guide planned behavior (including silent. This broadening of the notion of grammar is based upon Vandervert's (2009) proposal that the cerebellum produces short-cut systems of mental events for all working memory processes that evolved during the evolution of stone tool technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.[21] Others like Steven Pinker argue for a slower evolution over longer periods of time. March 2). Beginning in infancy. Cognitive Development. and provides progressively more detai led communication with others. Noting the fourfold increase in the size of the human cerebellum in the last million years. 6 . S. (2004). short-cut system of mental events we call language. movement. the short-cut system of mental events is constructed from the interaction of models of working memory (visual-spatial at first) and parallel short-cut models manufactured in the cerebellum (streamlined through cerebellar decomposition and re-composition) (Vandervert. 7. 291. Vandervert (2003) has argued that this transformation is what occurs during the construction of the conceptual primitives of language described by Mandler (1992a. and perception selected during hundreds of thousands of years of the evolution of stone tool technology and the interrelated evolution of language. J. 587-604. J. J. 2009). see Ambrose (2001). 273 -285. according to this interpretation of Mandler. According to Vandervert. 1748-1753. * Mandler. How to build a baby II: Conceptual primitives. a universal grammar that applies not only to language but mathematics and musical notation reflects parameters of the structure of the visual-spatial world in relation to composite patterns of planning. * Mandler. (2001. (1992a). Paleolithic technology and human evolution. Vandervert (2003. The foundations of mind: Origins of conceptual thought.[9] Evolution of language in working memory and the cerebellum Vandervert (2009) proposed that language acquisition occurs in the transformation of visual-spatial working memory (which humans share with lower animals) into streamlined. 1992b. For an account of the co-evolution of stone tool technology and language. 2004). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language.M. E. 10(5): 447-474. ^ http://cogprints. (2009). ^ The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language. Charles (2006). Syntax. Language Identification in the Limit. Miller (Eds. The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach (pp. ^ E. 8. ^ a b Tomasello. and Thought Harvard University Press.0 00 years ago: An evolutionary and developmental explanation.).). M. 15-32. 7 . MIT Press 2008 2. J. A. * Vandervert. 30. The Infinite Gift: How Children Learn and Unlearn All the Languages of the World. Shavinina (Ed. L. Reflections on Language. 69-73). and Plunkett. In L.Gold. 2002. Philip. (1966). ^ McNeil. ^ Chomsky. 9780674007932 6. ^ a b c Pinker. 1967 5. 240 pages ISBN 067400793X. V. D. N. 17-30)..htm 4. Human Language and Our Reptilian Brain: The Subcortical Bases of Speech. The neurophysiological basis of innovation. D. Cambridge. L. In F. New York: Pantheon Books. The emergence of the child prodigy 10. (2003). MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. and Parisi. New York: Harper Collins. OUP 1990 3. Oxford. Origins of Human communication. 10.org/1148/00/chomsky. Information and Control. "Innateness and emergentism". 9. ^ Lieberman. "Developmental Psycholinguistics".com * List of language acquisition researchers * STELLA (language courses) References 1. The Journal of Mind and Behavior. (1998).* Vandervert. The international handbook on innovation (pp. A companion to cognitive science (Oxford / Basil Blackwell): 590 -601. ^ Yang. ^ Bates. England: Elsevier Science. (1975). Steven (1994). and Elman. M. and Karmiloff-Smith. Smith & G. New York: Scribner. See also * Language development * Language education * Language school * Language exchange * Learn10 * Learnitlists. 7.and Bimal Krishna Matilal. K. and Johnson. http://bura. "Innateness. Plenum Press.N. PMID 2798649. Retrieved 2 April 2009.brunel. 12.Aslin. ed. Jenny.org/cgi/content/full/274/5294/1926?ijkey=4tT5x Xrt3zjSo. Lingua 118 (4): 620-631. ^ Bickerton. Cognitive Science 30: 277-310.". Gobet. Language and Species. http://www. Gary. 15. ^ Michael Ramscar (2007). "Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. 2009. "Linking working memory and long-term memory: A computational model of the learning of new words. "Irrational Nativist Exuberance".brunel. PhysOrg 19. E. Derek (1990). ed (1999). Trends in Cognitive Science 11 (7): 274 -9. Dermot Barnes-Holmes. Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science (Oxford / Basil Blackwell): 59-80. ed (2001). United States: University of Chicago Press. "A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming.uk/bitstream/2438/618/1/DevSci_revised -final. Gobet (2005). R.L. "Modelling the development of children's use of optional infinitives in English and Dutch using MOSAIC.M. Brian Roche.ac. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ^ William O¶Grady (April 2008). 14.ac.L. 8 . 13.".".M. ISBN 0-306-466007. ^ Jones. Science 274: 1926 -1928. F. Pine. ^ "Toddlers develop individualized rules for grammar". 16. Pine (2007). ^ Brian MacWhinney. 18. universal grammar. Newport (1996). ^ Steven C. Retrieved 2 April 2009. Developmental Science 10: 853 -873. Stainton. ^ Saffran. and emergentism". ^ Freudenthal. J. J.sciencemag. 20. Psychological Review 96: 523-568. J. Hayes. Mark S.uk/bitstream/2438/731/1/oi -paper-all..pdf.11.". F. 17. ^ Seidenberg. McClelland (1989). PMID 8943209.pdf. Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition (Hardcover). The Emergence of Language. 21. Robert J. October 5. ^ Barbara Scholz and Geoffrey Pullum (2006). ISBN 0-8058-3010-3. "Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood". http://bura. Daniel. Retrieved 23 December 2008.