INTERNATIONAL ISLAMIC UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
ENGL 2030 PSYCHOLINGUISTICS
SECTION I
AN ANALYSIS ON FIVE THEORIES OF
CHILD’S LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
By: Bambang Trisno Adi
9620371
For: DR Haja Mohideen
The children language learning has been capturing the scholars’ intention, that many of them have been conducting their researches to uncover how it develops. As regard this matter, in this brief essay, the writer will describe five theories - nativist, cogitive, connectionist, behaviourist and social interactionist - with reference to their strengths and weaknesses.
NATIVIST THEORY
Nativist theory was formerly initiated by Naom Chomsky, a well-known linguist who was interesting in philosophy and mathematics (Salkie 1). It was he who proposed a new perspective in linguistics. Having been trained in the two disciplines, he contributes his efforts in describing language as a scientific study, inquiring fundamental principles underlying all languages in the world. Only by replying those inquiries can linguistics be considered as scientific. Through this methodology, he subsequently introduced the terms Language Acquisition Device (LAD) and Universal Grammar (UG) to elaborate how children acquire their first language in very short moment. Considering conception of the two notions, the nativists continue to observe children language learning to support what they perceive as innateness.
Firstly, LAD is closely related to what Chomsky regards as an ‘initial state’, which simply refers to innate linguistic capacities possessed uniquely by human beings (Salkie 19). For an animal can not be trained to use language. Therefore, according to nativist theory, the human mind has certain inherent properties, tendencies and initial assumptions as regard children language learning. The children have been ready to absorb any simple of language that adults around them speak, make ‘hypothesis-formation and testing’ about how it works and finally acquire the adults’ mature speech. This initial state is preprogrammed in the individual s as to be tuned with any input it has. It does not need any specialized language to do its job. Therefore, ‘nativists view language as a hard-wired bioprogram that will develop once the infants exposed to language’ (Gleason 331).
Departing from the notion of LAD that implies the principles shared by all possible human languages, Chomsky then constitutes the concept of UG. In other words, the universal grammar, the writer considers UG as a logical consequence the postulated LAD. It is in accordance with how he defines UG as ‘the system of principles, conditions and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages by (biological) necessity…’ (Track 293). Logically, the nativists perceive that the infants may be innately equipped with linguistic parameters that they adjust accordingly when they hear and observe the adults around them use particular language (Gleason 331). For example, a Malay child may come to know that the Malay language is basically Subject-Predicate-Object constructed; its plural noun is made by doubling the singular noun, such as the word orang-orang which simply means people; etc.
Comprehending the concepts of LAD and UG, the nativists uphold that they have provided an answer of why – in spite of the adults’ initiative examples – the children sometimes produce and insist on ungrammatical utterances and incomplete expressions. Because they actively exercise their innate linguistic properties and not merely imitate what the adults construct. Having known that the verb past form is made by adding –ed, for instance, they assume the past form of verbs take, make and eat are simply taked, maked and eated, etc. However, according to the writer, to say that the children need not any explicit teaching or experience or imitation form the adults or those who are around them as the nativits would argue is not that sound and consistent. For it may contradict how they view language as the development of hard-wired bioprogam through exposure to a particular language. Conventionally judging, the exposure to a particular language is impossible without the presence and assistance of others. Therefore, the explicit experience are inevitable as part of children language learning.
In addition to that, responding to the fact that the children sometimes produce new utterances they have never heard, though they may be ungrammatical or even incomplete, what should be noted is that they have employed their innate faculties to set the rules they come across. That is why the nativists argue that it is sufficient to assume that language is an autonomous faculty, apart from intelligence and cognitive activity, and children are innately drawn to acquire it (Gleason 331). After all, the writer observes that to consider the autonomy of language from cognitive activity is ironic. For it would be the same as accepting an output in one hand but denying how the input is put in process to produce th output in another. It is obvious that children’s generating rules includes the cognitive process. Thus, in this case, the cognitive process serves as a means of children language learning and can not be separated from their language faculty.
COGNITIVE THEORY
Responding the nativists who hold linguistic process as autonomous, the cognitive theorists comprehend language as a subordinate part of cognitive development. Therefore, it depends on how advanced the children apprehend various concepts of things. In other words, they initially observe objects around them through their sensory faculties. Only then will they map the language into that prior observed concepts of objects. This assumption is vividly elaborated by Piaget, one of prominent proponents of cognitive theory, saying that ‘infants must learn about the world around them …through active experimentation and construction’(Gleason 336).
For instance, an infant observes a family cat in his house and his experience with it. Through his sensory observation and frequent getting in touch with the cat, he brings it into conceptualization as it meows, eats in the kitchen and is warm and furry. The moment he grabs its characteristics in his mind is what is regarded as learning about the world around him. Having learned concept of cat, he begins to map the words cat of kitty into that concept. Based on this set of prior cognitive experience and structure, a language is mapped and thus it follows the principles which are not different from other cognitive principles.
Assessing what the cognitive theorists assume concerning the children language learning, the writer would, to so some extent, agree that prior to communicate the language, the children need to know what it is. In other words, they have to understand things to which the language refers before meaningful expressions are produced. However, it is more appropriate and consistent with how language is regarded as a subordinate part of cognitive development to say that what the children experience is natural skill of language learning, instead of considering it as a set of stage mastery for particular linguistic behaviour. Otherwise, the real relationship between linguistic and cognitive activities may be blurred, even separated (Gleason336). If it is so, the cognitive theorists will ironically support the nativists who view language as an autonomous faculty.
Apart from that, the writer assumes that the cognitive theorists will not be able to describe the following fact. There were researchers observed a group of handicapped children who had their limbs missing during their mothers’ pregnancies. Therefore, they were unable to have the sensorimotor experience considered to the prerequisite of language development. ‘Yet they developed full, sophisticated language faculty’(Gleason 336). Though the cognitive theorists may simply consider the fact as an exception, to some extent, the writer would regard as an evidence to show the autonomy of language faculty as nativits believe.
CONNECTIONIST THEORY
According to the writer, the connectionist theory is closely related with the pervious two theories , especially with the cognitive theory that views language as a subordinate part of cognitive development. However, discussing children language learning in unique human mind system, the connectionists come up with a more detailed and systematic description. They propose what is known as Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP) models.
The writer basically would regard PDP model as further elaborated version of cognitive theory. For if the cognitive theorists believe that the children initially understand the concept of things and then map language into that concept, the connectionsts would describe what happens once that conceptualization takes place. Concerning that particular stage, the connectionists expound that the children gather what they term processing units. In the case of understanding the word cat, for instance, the processing units would be its characteristics. Those processing units, which later will act as stimuli, operate simultaneously – in parallel – to build an image, a model, which constitutes the meaning of the word cat. To work in parallel is possible fro the human mind can operate what they term neural connections that enable the processing units to develop into a model. Therefore, if some of the word’s stimulus characteristics are received, they will activate another units and their corresponding connections to produce a model. And when this model reoccurs, the system may be considered to have recognized the stimuli. Subsequently, even incomplete stimulus may be sufficient to figur out the full model (Gleason 338).
By that neural connections system, the connectionists propose an alternative explanation for the acquisition of grammar. For instance, the children sometimes make mistakes in acquiring correct inflectional system of past tense. Unlike the nativists, the connectionists would perceive it as a consequence of neural connections system, which works through processing units that constitute ‘input frequencies of the phonological characteristics word stems and the corresponding phonological patterns…’. ‘Parker, however, argue that the connectionists have not modelled everything that even a 4-year-old can do, and that the most parsimoniuos explanationfor grammar is still that the child internalizes a set of rules of principles’. In other words, the induction rule ‘underlies the regular inflectional system and [the] children do possess important underlying knowledge about verbs’(Gleason 339).
BEHAVIOURIST THEORY
One of the influential figures of this theory is Skinner. In his book Verbal Behaviour, he emphasizes the significant role of the environment and adults in children language development (Mohideen 1). In other words, ‘the language is acquired according to the general laws of learning and is similar to any other learned behaviour’(Gleason 332). The general laws of learning include at least three kinds : classical conditioning, operant conditioning and social learning.
Firstly, the classical conditioning learning is basically learning through stimulus and response. For example, shoeing a bottle and saying, ”Bottle!”, whenever a mother feeds her child, she has given a stimulus for her child to understand the word bottle. Later, to merely mention the word bottle is sufficient to make her child react as if there is a real bottle, which simply indicates that her child has understood the word. Secondly, the operant conditioning learning is identical to learning through reinforcement, which may be rewarding responses - such as praise and smile - to closer approximations of children’s language attempts. Thirdly, social learning occurs when the children begin to observe and imitate people around them. In that moment, they basically do not need to be awarded as they also learn how to behave as the adults. Thus, experiencing these three kinds of learning, the children develop their language faculty.
However, what is to be noted here in that many aspects of children language learning can not be easily described through the general laws of language learning. For as a matter fact, children can say something they have never heard and simplistically modify it that they do not say the things they hear most commonly.
SOCIAL INTERACTIONIST THEORY
Though this theory may be originated from the behaviourist theory, the writer would consider the former as more moderate than the later. Because the social interactionists also regard the existence of special neuropsychological endowments, children’s innate linguistic faculties as proposed by Chomsky’s LAD. Yet they also believe that biological factors, which are significant and necessary, are not sufficient to guarentee that language will develop well. They hold that the children do not purely acquire language through their own mental activity, rather partially ‘through mediation and help of others’(Gleason 337).
Finally, out of the five theories, he writer observes that there are two major divisions. Both are the nativist theory, which initiates the cognitive and conncetionist theories, and the behaviourist theory that perpetuates the social interactionist theory. Each of the two, based on their proponents’ specialization and consideration, emphasizes only some factors and phenomena and even neglect what the other says. As the consequence, ‘the researchers advocating the two … spend too much time trying to score at the expense of the other’ (Mohideen 4). However, the writer would agree with DR. Haja Mohideen who suggests that since the two ‘put forward valid reasons[,] … the logical thing to do would be to combine both positions and opinions in our understanding of first language development (4). And to some extent, the writer also considers that the suggestion may have been reflected by the social interactionist theory.
WORKS CITED
Gleason, Jean Berko. Nan Bernstein Ratner. Psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1993.
Mohideen, Haja. Mind Your Child’s Language Development. Kuala Lumpur: IBS Buku Sdn Bhd, 1995.
Salkie, Raphael. The Chomsky Update: Linguistics and Politics. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd., 1990.
Trask, R.L. A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in Linguistics. New York: Ruotledge Inc., 1993.