Child Language acquisition (CLA)
Behaviourist psychologist’s theories of CLA:
Classical conditioning can be applied to CLA, this is the theory that
we learn through association. Infants learning to talk may associate certain things with noises/words etc…
Behaviourist psychologists also believe that we learn through imitation and observation.
In his book ‘Verbal Behaviour’ (1957) Skinner proposed that language
acquisition is a solely learned behaviour. (I.e. we are not born with language
in place; we must learn to acquire
language.) And that we learn through
operant conditioning; the idea that
we learn through rewards and punishments. For example, a child
learning to speak may be met with smiling and clapping when they say a
word/sentence correctly and not rewarded if their sentence is incorrect. The
idea being that they will repeat the behaviour which is rewarded.
Chomsky reviewed skinners book, mainly disagreeing with him. For
example, he said that learning to speak cannot be solely due to learning certain
behaviours and the history of reinforcement, because we can say things and do
things which we have not been trained to say/do. He also argued that we can
understand things we have never heard before. Chomsky said that how we respond
to certain things is a result of our views, opinions, understanding of certain
environments and a wealth of knowledge in the region of linguistic rules and
conventions.
Cognitive psychologist’s theories of CLA:
Noam Chomsky believed that we are
born with a Language Acquisition Centre (LAD) which contains the basis of a
language, including major grammatical
structures. This means that children learning to speak only need to learn
vocabulary and apply it to the *syntactic structures from the LAD (*arrangement/structure
of a sentence.)
Chomsky argues that, as the language which adults speak is highly
irregular, CLA cannot come from imitation/observation alone, as children do not
copy speech which is grammatically incorrect. As well as this, children may try
and apply grammar rules to verbs which are irregular, i.e. I runned instead of
I ran. Suggesting that they understand how verbs are usually conjugated.
Chomsky used the sentence ‘colourless
green ideas sleep furiously’ to show that we have a built in awareness of
grammar; we can explain why “colourless green ideas sleep furiously” is
acceptable and why “furiously sleep ideas green colourless” is unacceptable. Chomsky
argued that we can tell the difference between a grammatical and
non-grammatical sentence without ever hearing the sentence before and we can
produce sentences that no one has ever said before.
Evidence to support Chomsky’s theory is that observations of patients
who have suffered damage to their brain (specifically the left hemisphere near
the motor cortex) have suffered a loss of speech, especially in respect with
grammar. They may put words together in the wrong order. Although this can be
treated with language therapists etc… it is difficult to do so, technology has
been invented especially for people who suffer this sort of brain damage in
order for them to communicate effectively. This suggests that language
acquisition, especially grammar, may have some biological origins. An example
is that a patient could use the word ‘wood’ but not ‘would’ (grammatical). (This
theory has mixed opinions; many now believe that it is too simplistic.)
Many argue that although it is somewhat obvious that language cannot be
learned through imitation alone it does not prove that we have a LAD.
Chomsky’s ideas have been criticised due to the differences between
languages, his theory suggests that we are born with the ability to learn any
language seeing as the same principles apply, however he seems not to have
taken into account the huge differences between languages such as sound, grammar,
lexicon and meaning.
Daniel Everett (linguist, who wrote Language: The Cultural Tool) believes
that human animals have language and non-human animals do not have language as
they do not face the same sorts of problems which would necessitate detailed, effective
communication, and that it has nothing to do with the LAD. He studied the Pirahã community in the
central Amazon to translate the bible for them as others “…could not work out
the language…” for example they didn’t seem to talk about the “distant past or
distant future” as this was not necessary for them. His experience changed the
way he viewed language. He disagreed
with Chomsky’s ideas, in an interview he says that, “…language is not something mysterious that is outside the bounds of
natural selection, or just popped into being through some mutated gene. But
that language is a human invention to solve a human problem. Other creatures
can't use it for the same reason they can't use a shovel: it was invented by
humans, for humans and its success is judged by humans.”
No comments:
Post a Comment