|
Language Acquisition
Language acquisition is the learning of language in general.
The manner in which a child acquires language is a matter long debated
by linguists and child psychologists alike. The father of most nativist
theories of language acquisition is Noam Chomsky, who brought greater
attention to the innate capacity of children for learning language, which
had widely been considered a purely cultural phenomenon based on imitation.
Nativist linguistic theories hold that children learn through their natural
ability to organize the laws of language, but cannot fully utilize this
talent without the presence of other humans. This does not mean, however,
that the child requires formal teaching of any sort. Chomsky claims that
children are born with a hard-wired language acquisition device (LAD)
in their brains. They are born with the major principles of language in
place, but with many parameters to set (such as whether sentences in the
language(s) they are to acquire must have explicit subjects). According
to nativist theory, when the young child is exposed to a language, their
LAD makes it possible for them to set the parameters and deduce the grammatical
principles, because the principles are innate.
The view that, "This is still a very controversial view, and many
linguists and psychologists do not believe language is as innate as Chomsky
argues." is diminishing with further studies. Mark Baker's work,
The Atoms of Language (2004)presents a pretty convincing argument that
there are not only certain "parameters" (as Chomsky called them)
that are innate switches in our LAD, but we are very close to the point
where these parameters could be put together in a "periodic table
of languages" as determined by their parameter features. As well,
there are significant studies in biogenetics that strongly suggests that
the genetic factors that combine to build the brain contain redundant
systems for recognizing patterns of both sight and sound. There are important
arguments both for and against Chomsky's view of development. One idea
central to the Chomskian view is the idea of Universal Grammar, which
posits that all languages have the same basic underlying structure, and
that specific languages have rules that transform these underlying structures
into the specific patterns found in given languages. Another argument
is that without a propensity for language, human infants would be unable
to learn such complete speech patterns in a natural human environment
where complete sentences are the exception. This is sometimes mis-characterised
as the poverty of stimulus argument. Psychologists such as Catherine Snow
at Harvard, who study parent-child interaction, point out that children
do not have to deduce the principles of language from impoverished and
ungrammatical scraps of talk. Many studies of child directed speech or
CDS have shown that speech to young children is slow, clear, grammatical,
and very repetitious, rather like traditional language lessons. Social
interactionists, like Snow, theorize that adults play an important part
in children's language acquisition.
However, some researchers 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 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 now take this into account in their analyses.
Furthermore, as any parent knows, children often pay scarce attention
to what they are told to say, instead sticking to their own ungrammatical
preferences.
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.
However, a powerful argument against Chomskian views of language acquisition
lies in Chomskian theory itself. 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. 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.
Linguist Eric Lenneberg states that the crucial period of language acquisition
ends around the age of 12 years. He claims that if no language is learned
before then, it can never be learned in a normal and fully functional
sense. This is known as the "Critical Period Hypothesis."
An interesting example of this is the case of Genie, otherwise known
as "The Wild Child". A thirteen-year-old victim of lifelong
child abuse, Genie was discovered in her home on November 4th, 1970, strapped
to a potty chair and wearing diapers. She appeared to be entirely without
language. Her father had judged her retarded at birth and had chosen to
isolate her, and so she had remained up until her discovery.
It was an ideal (albeit horrifying) opportunity to test the theory that
a nurturing environment could somehow make up for a total lack of language
past the age of 12. Unfortunately, she was unable to acquire language
completely. Due to this and other complications, she eventually ended
up in an adult foster care home.
Detractors of the "Critical Age Hypothesis" point out that
in this example and others like it (see Feral children), 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.
However, there exists emerging evidence of both innateness of language
and the "Critical Age Hypothesis" 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 seem to be unable
to learn syntax.
The developmental period of most efficient language learning coincides
with the time of rapid post-natal brain growth and plasticity in both
humans and chimps. Prolonged post-natal brain growth in humans allows
for an extended period of the type of brain plasticity characteristic
of juvenile primates and an extended time window for language learning.
The neotenic pattern of human brain development is associated with persistence
of considerable language learning capacity into human adulthood.
Derek Bickerton's (1981) landmark work with Hawaiian pidgin speakers
studied immigrant populations where first-generation parents spoke highly-ungrammatical
"pidgin English". Their children, it was found, grew up speaking
a grammatically rich language -- neither English nor the broken 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.
|