Language acquisition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (June 2009) |
Language acquisition is the study of the processes through which learners 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.
One hotly debated issue is whether biology contributes capacities specific to language acquisition, often referred to as universal grammar, or the language acquisition device (LAD)[1]. For fifty years, some linguists, notably Noam Chomsky and the late Eric Lenneberg, have argued for the hypothesis that children have innate, language-specific abilities that facilitate and constrain language learning.[2]
Other researchers, including Elizabeth Bates, Catherine Snow, Brian MacWhinney, and Michael Tomasello, have hypothesized that language learning results from general cognitive abilities and the interaction between learners and their surrounding communities. Recent work by William O'Grady proposes that complex syntactic phenomena result from an efficiency-driven, linear computational system. O'Grady describes his work as "nativism without Universal Grammar."
One of the most important advances in the study of language acquisition was the creation of the CHILDES database by Brian MacWhinney and Catherine Snow.
Contents |
[edit] Nativist theories
Nativist theories hold that children are born with an innate propensity for language acquisition, and that this ability makes the task of learning a first language easier than it would otherwise be. These "hidden assumptions"[3] allow children to quickly figure out what is and isn't possible in the grammar of their native language, and allow them to master that grammar by the age of three.[4] Nativists view language as a fundamental part of the human genome, as the trait that makes humans human, and its acquisition as a natural part of maturation. They believe that children learning language are as natural and normal as dolphins learning to swim or songbirds learning to sing.
[edit] Language acquisition device and Universal Grammar
Noam Chomsky originally theorized that children were born with a hard-wired language acquisition device (LAD) in their brains.[2] He later expanded this idea into that of Universal Grammar; a set of innate principles and adjustable parameters that are common to all human languages. According to Chomsky, the presence of Universal Grammar in the brains of children allow them to deduce the structure of their native languages from "mere exposure".
Much of the nativist position is based on the early age at which children show competency in their native grammars, as well as the ways in which they do (and do not) make errors. Some research suggests that infants are born able to distinguish between phonemes in minimal pairs, distinguishing between bah and pah, for example.[3] Another source of support for this viewpoint is that young children (under the age of three) do not speak in fully formed sentences, instead saying things like "want cookie" or "my coat"; however, they do not say things like "want my" or "I cookie", statements that would break the syntactic structure of the phrase, a component of universal grammar.[3] Children also seem remarkably immune from error correction by adults which nativists say would not be the case if children were learning from their parents.[4]
[edit] Critical period hypothesis
The possible existence of a critical period for language acquisition is another nativist argument. Critical periods are time frames during which environmental exposure is needed to stimulate an innate trait. Young chaffinches, for example, must hear the song of an adult chaffinch before reaching maturity, or else would never be able to sing. Nativists argue that if a critical period for language acquisition exists (see below), then language acquisition must be spurred on by the unfolding of the genome during maturation.[4] Much research on the critical age period or window of opportunity (Robertson) http://www.asian-efl-journal.com/marcharticles_pr.php see the Asian EFL Journal http://www.asian-efl-journal.com
Linguist Eric Lenneberg stated, in a 1964 paper, that a critical period of language acquisition ends around the age of 12 years. He claimed that if no language is learned before then (see Feral children), it could never be learned in a normal and fully functional sense. This was called the "Critical period hypothesis." However, the opponents[who?] of the critical period hypothesis say that in this example the child is hardly growing up in a nurturing environment, and that the lack of language acquisition in later life may be due to the results of a generally abusive environment rather than being specifically due to a lack of exposure to language.
The critical period hypothesis of brain plasticity and learning capacity has been called into question. Other factors may account for differences in adult and child language learning. Children’s apparently effortless and rapid language acquisition may be explained by the fact that the environment is set up to engage them in frequent and optimal learning opportunities. By contrast, adults seem to have an initial advantage in their learning of vocabulary and syntax, but may never achieve native-like pronunciation.[5] A more up-to-date view of the Critical Period Hypothesis is represented by the University of Maryland, College Park instructor Robert DeKeyser. DeKeyser argues that although it is true that there is a critical period, this does not mean that adults cannot learn a second language perfectly, at least on the syntactic level. DeKeyser talks about the role of language aptitude as opposed to the critical period.[citation needed]
[edit] Creolization
More support for the innateness of language comes from the deaf population of Nicaragua. Until approximately 1986, Nicaragua had neither education nor a formalized sign language for the deaf. As Nicaraguans attempted to rectify the situation, they discovered that children past a certain age had difficulty learning any language. Additionally, the adults observed that the younger children were using gestures unknown to them to communicate with each other. They invited Judy Kegl, an American linguist from MIT, to help unravel this mystery. Kegl discovered that these children had developed their own, distinct, Nicaraguan Sign Language with its own rules of "sign-phonology" and syntax. She also discovered some 300 adults who, despite being raised in otherwise healthy environments, had never acquired language, and turned out to be incapable of learning language in any meaningful sense. While it was possible to teach vocabulary, these individuals were unable to learn syntax.[4]
Derek Bickerton's (1981) landmark work with Hawaiian pidgin speakers studied immigrant populations where first-generation parents spoke highly-ungrammatical "pidgin English". Their children, Bickerton found, grew up speaking a grammatically rich language -- neither English nor the syntax-less pidgin of their parents. Furthermore, the language exhibited many of the underlying grammatical features of many other natural languages. The language became "creolized", and is known as Hawaii Creole English. This was taken as powerful evidence for children's innate grammar module.
[edit] Evolution of language
Debate within the nativist position now revolves around how language evolved. Derek Bickerton suggests a single mutation, a "big bang", linked together previously evolved traits into full language.[6] Others like Steven Pinker argue for a slower evolution over longer periods of time.[4]
[edit] Empiricist theories
Empiricist theories of language acquisition include statistical learning theories of language acquisition, Relational Frame Theory, functionalist linguistics, usage-based language acquisition, social interactionism and others.
[edit] Statistical learning theories of language acquisition
Some language acquisition researchers, such as Elissa Newport, Richard Aslin, and Jenny Saffran, believe that language acquisition is based primarily on general learning mechanisms, namely statistical learning. The development of connectionist models that are able to successfully learn words and syntactical conventions[7] supports the predictions of statistical learning theories of language acquisition, as do empirical studies of children's learning of words and syntax.[8]
[edit] 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; however, they postulate different learning mechanisms. The central idea of these theories is that language development occurs through the incremental acquisition of “chunks” (chunks) of elementary constituents, which can be words, phonemes, or syllables. Recently, this approach has been highly successful in simulating several phenomena in the acquisition of syntactic categories [9] and the acquisition of phonological knowledge [10]. The approach has several features that make it unique: the models are implemented as computer programs, which enables clear-cut and quantitative predictions to be made; they learn from naturalistic input, made of actual child-directed utterances; they produce actual utterances, which can be compared with children’s utterances; and they have simulated phenomena in several languages, including English, Spanish, and German.
[edit] Social interactionist theory
Social Interactionist approach is a method of language acquisition in which a variety of its forms including written, spoken, or visual as a social tool consisting of a complex system of symbols and rules on the question of language acquisition and development—the compromise between “nature” and “nurture” is the “Interactionist” approach which demands a particular type of syntagma in recognizing that many factors influence language development.
THE INITIAL STAGES
Since its emergence few years ago, the field of interactionist approach to language acquisition research has focused on three areas, namely the cognitive approach to language acquisition process or the developmental cognitive theory of Jean Piaget, the information processing approach or the information processing model of Brian MacWhinney and Elizabeth Bates (the competition model), and the social interactionist approach or social interaction model of Lev Vygotsky[socio-cultural theory]. Although the initial research was essentially descriptive in an attempt to describe language development from the stand point of the social development, most recently, researchers have been attempting to explain few varieties of acquisition in which how learner factors lead to differential acquisitions among learners by the process of socialization; called the theory of “social interactionist approach”.[11]
FROM THE STAND POINT OF VYGOTSKY'S THEORY(the Socio-cultural theory)
Vygotsky, a psychologist and social constructivist, laid the foundation for the interactionists view of language acquisition. According to Vygotsky, social interaction plays an important role in the learning process and proposed the zone of proximal development (ZPD) where learners construct the new language through socially mediated interaction. Although Vygotsky's social-development theory was proposed many years ago, it has then begun to serves as a foundation for the interactionists approaches to language acquisition recently and as the social interactionists model in recent years.[12]
In contrast to the theoretical modalities in behaviourism, the approach to language acquisition emphasizing that children are conditioned to learn language by a stimulus-response pattern, the social interactionist approaches rest on the premises of both the Nativist and the Empiricist approaches.
It levels an outline of a language acquisition theory in combining of both the traditional behavioral and linguistic position in language production; the essentials of this theory, which differentiate it from a semantically based theory, are that the deepest level of representation specifies the communicative intent primarily and semantic content secondarily. Thus, within this theory the language accusation can easily be realized differently in emphasizing the role of the environment in producing such differences, as is most often the case in child language and not infrequently the case in adult language. It is incumbent on this model as on any serious attempt to provide a theory of language acquisition, to answer questions about how the model accounts for changes in the child's knowledge with development, and how the model can be different to account for the adult's language system.
And as the behavioral approaches view that children as passive beneficiaries of the language training techniques employed by their parents and the linguistic approaches view that children as active language processors of whose maturing neural systems guide development; conversely, social integrationists communication enjoys a rather curious position in contemporary theories of language acquisition as a dynamic system where typically children cue their parents in to supplying the appropriate language experience that children require for language advancement. In essence, it turns in supplying of supportive communicative structure that allows efficient communication despite its primitives.[13]
This field of language acquisition has been studied from many angles as such and primarily concerned with the environment in which language learning takes place. From the subset of the perspective by and large neutral as to the role of innateness, it is also compatible with a model of learning that posits as such mechanism must interact with the environment in order to mature. It suggests, for example, that innate linguistic mechanism alone cannot explain children’s mastery of language, and that what is intended is that the relationship of interaction to acquisition per se does not entirely depend on whether there is or is not an innate mechanism that guides the learning task; also suggesting that the linguistic competence goes beyond conditioning and imitation to include also nonlinguistic aspect of interactions.[14]
CURRENT STRAND
Social-interactionists, such as Catherine Snow, theorize that adults play an important part in children's language acquisition (see Moerk, E. L., 1992; also: http://www.jstor.org/pss/1128444). However, some researchers[who?] claim that the empirical data on which theories of social interactionism are based have often been over-representative of middle class American and European parent-child interactions. Various anthropological studies[which?] of other human cultures, as well as anecdotal evidence from western families, suggests rather that many, if not the majority, of the world's children are not spoken to in a manner akin to traditional language lessons, but nevertheless grow up to be fully fluent language users. Many researchers[who?] now take this into account in their analyses.
Nevertheless, Snow's criticisms might be powerful against Chomsky's argument, if the argument from the poverty of stimulus were indeed an argument about degenerate stimulus, but it is not. The argument from the poverty of stimulus is that there are principles of grammar that cannot be learned on the basis of positive input alone, however complete and grammatical that evidence is. This argument is not vulnerable to objection based on evidence from interaction studies such as Snow's, but it is vulnerable to the clear evidence of the availability of negative input given by conversation analysis. In addition, meta-analysis has shown that there is a large amount of corrections made to language produced by children.[15] Moerk (1994) conducted a meta-analysis of 40 studies and found substantial evidence that corrections do indeed play a role. From this work, corrections are not only abundant but contingent on the mistakes of the child.[16] (see behavior analysis of child development).
[edit] Relational Frame Theory
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.[17]
[edit] Emergentist theories
Emergentist theories, such as MacWhinney's Competition Model, 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.[18]
[edit] Criticism of nativist theories
Many criticisms of the basic assumptions of generative theory have been put forth, with little response from its champions. The concept of a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is unsupported by evolutionary anthropology, which shows a gradual adaptation of the human body to the use of language, rather than a sudden appearance of a complete set of binary parameters (which are common to digital computers but not to neurological systems such as a human brain) delineating the whole spectrum of possible grammars ever to have existed and ever to exist.
The 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 input. Since the theory is, in essence, unlearnably complex, then it must be innate. A different theory of language, however, may yield different conclusions. Examples of alternative theories that do not utilize movement and empty categories are head-driven phrase structure grammar, lexical functional grammar, and several varieties of construction grammar. 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.
[edit] See also
- Language development
- Language education
- Language school
- Language exchange
- List of language acquisition researchers
[edit] References
- ^ McNeil, D. (1966). "Developmental Psycholinguistics". In F. Smith & G. Miller (Eds.), The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach (pp. 69-73). Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
- ^ a b Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books.
- ^ a b c Yang, Charles (2006). The Infinite Gift: How Children Learn and Unlearn All the Languages of the World. New York: Scribner.
- ^ a b c d e Pinker, Steven (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. New York: Harper Collins.
- ^ One Language or Two: Answers to Questions about Bilingualism in Language-Delayed Children
- ^ Bickerton, Derek (1990). Language and Species. United States: University of Chicago Press.
- ^ Seidenberg, Mark S.; J.L. McClelland (1989). "A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming.". Psychological Review 96: 523-568. PMID 2798649.
- ^ Saffran, Jenny; R.N.Aslin, E.L. Newport (1996). "Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants.". Science 274: 1926-1928. PMID 8943209. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/274/5294/1926?ijkey=4tT5xXrt3zjSo. Retrieved on 23 December 2008.
- ^ Freudenthal, Daniel; J.M. Pine, F. Gobet (2005). "Modelling the development of children's use of optional infinitives in English and Dutch using MOSAIC.". Cognitive Science 30: 277-310. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/731/1/oi-paper-all.pdf. Retrieved on 2 April 2009.
- ^ Jones, Gary; F. Gobet, J.M. Pine (2007). "Linking working memory and long-term memory: A computational model of the learning of new words.". Developmental Science 10: 853-873. http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/618/1/DevSci_revised-final.pdf. Retrieved on 2 April 2009.
- ^ Gallaway, C. & Richard, B.J. 1994, Input and Interaction in Language Acquisition, Cambridge University Press, UK.
- ^ Garton, A.F. 1995, Social Interaction and the Development of Language and Cognition, Psychology Press, NY.
- ^ Niedzielski, N.A. & Preston D.R. 2003, Flok Linguistics, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin.
- ^ MacWhinney, B. 1987, Mechanisms of Language Acquisition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ.
- ^ Moerk, E.L. (1983). A behavioral analysis of controversial topics in first language acquisition: Reinforcements, corrections, modeling, input frequencies, and the three-term contingency pattern. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 129-155
- ^ Moerk, E.L. (1994). Corrections in first language acquisition: Theoretical controversies and factual evidence. International Journal of Psycholinguistics, 10, 33-58
- ^ 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.
- ^ Brian MacWhinney, ed (1999). The Emergence of Language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 0-8058-3010-3.
