Compare and contrast the main theoretical viewpoints of language acquisition theories PDF

Preview

Summary

Practice essay for exam about langauge acquisition theories...

Description

Compare and contrast the main theoretical viewpoints of language acquisition theories. Language acquisition is the process of learning a native language or a secondary language. Language acquisition is a key question in linguistic and human development studies and in the middle of the 20th centrury theories emerged describing how language is acquired in humans. Language acquisition is unique to humans, and may have a genetic basis due to evolution. Chomsky (1959) describes how language is acquired through nature, and that individuals have an innate hardwired ability where language is developed and processed through a universal grammar device known as a language acquisition device (LAD). On the other hand, empiricists suggest nurtue causes languge acquisition, where a child is a blank slate without an innate module, and both verbal and non verbal language is learnt through social interaction and observation. Cogntive theories state that our cognitive development causes language acquisition, to describe our thoughts and sociointeraction theories states that a genetic preparedness and social input cause us to develop language. Empiricists believe that language is learnt through behaviourism, through observing and expierencing others. Pavlov (1927) described how unconditional stimulus’ become associated with a response, causing a conditioned reflex. Through classical conditioning a child may associate the word “milk” with getting their food, and therefore learn to say it when the child wants milk. Skinner (1957) described how operant conditions helps with this process, a stimulus causes a response which gets reinforced, when a child says “mum” the mum smiles and repeats the word, hugs the baby and this gets reinforced, the child learns that when they say mum they will get attention and nurturing. Mowrer’s (1952) autistic theory of imitation describes how verbal stimuli is associated with good things. Infant vocalisations approximations are reinforced, and the more similar the child sounds to the others talking, the more it gets reinforced. Childrean learn that objects have names through this positive learning process, as they repeat the words that their parents or caregivers are saying. Although it is clear that imitation does play a role in acquisition of language, the learning theories of language have many flaws. The theory is unable to explain how children create spontenous language and the infinite number of sentences that they have never been exposed to before, and therefore acquisition cannot be dependant on input alone. The theory fails to explain infants grammatical understanding, and it is evident that language develops similarly across all languages, which wouldn’t be the case if it was due to pure input. Risley (1966, 1977) described how a mere pairin of reinforcing and stimulus is not sufficient for creating a condition response, which opposes Pavlov (1927) suggestion that classical conditioning causes language. If this was the case, language would occur more in states of deprivation, which is not the case. Risley (1966, 1977) also measured infant and parental sounds, and concluded that they do not sound the same. Clark and Lappin (2013) says the theory lacks evidence, and neglects the probalistic nature of cognition and learning. Breitenstein and Knecht (2002) provide evidence that reinforcement is not needed for language acquisition, they found that pseudowords are correctly translated into their native language from mere exposure, not explicit feedback.

Seligman described how there must be a genetic preparedness in association stimuli, which was supported by Rozin and Garica (1971) study, where rats were fed sacarine and exposed to a light. The rats then showed an aversion to the light, suggesting that individuals have an evolutionary preparedness innate in their physiological structure. To counter this theory, Chomsky (1959) described an innate ability to develop language with a faculty for the acquisition of their natural language, known as a universal grammar. Chomsky described an ability that is hardwired into humans, and underlies all of human language, known as a LAD. The LAD has no specific location in the brain, and is more of a conceptual device. It enables the learning of the grammatical rules of language, such as evident in a WUG test. When asking a child what the plural of a wug is, they automatically add a ‘s’ on to the end. The LAD takes in sounds and organisis them and turns into a specialised system in the language it is predominantly hearing, when input is not received in a certain sound, the phonological system trims these sounds, and then it becomes difficult for the processing of these sounds, causing a critical or sensitive period. Lennenberg (1960) study of a girl called Genie who was isolated and not exposed to language, after being rescued still made little progress with learning a language, as she had missed the critical period for learning. The period is suggested to be between 10-13 years, but is variable (Natalia & Martin, 2001). In the LAD, children can construct longer sentences that are grammatically incorrect, but meaning can be inferred, such as “more outside”, “what doing”. Children also incorrectly apply irregular tesnses, such as adding ‘ed’ on to words like ‘dig’, and the theory of overextension, where a child uses a word such as ‘doggie’ to refer to more than just dogs. Poverty of stimulus argument is apparent, as the linguistic input that a child receives cannot explain the knowledge of language that they have. Evidence for a LAD includes that children do not replicate their parents grammatical errors, if learning through imitation, children would produce exactly the same language as what their parents have. However, the theory fails in that it dosen’t account for the role of interaction in language. Bard and Suchs examined a child who grew up with two deaf parents, the child was encouraged to learn language, via listening to the radio etc. but was unsucsessful, when child saw a speech and language therapist, language was acquired easily due to interaction with a individual speaking and hearing. However, an overwhelming amount of neuroscientific evidence seems to suggest that there is an innate capacity in the brain for learning language. The left hemisphere holds most of the brains language reigons, over 95% of right handed people are left hempishere dominant for language, and over 70% of left handed people. It is evident that language is a modular system, where if one part fails, the others can function normally. Evidence for this occurs in aphasia patients, and stroke paitients, where there is one part of language that is predominantly damaged. For example, in Wernicke’s aphasia, speech is grammatically correct, but semantically wrong, speech is incomprehensible and commonly referred to as “word salad”. This type of aphasia occurs with damage to Wernicke’s area, an area responsible for processing words and sequecnes for context and meaning with the basal ganglia, insular cortex and angulary gyrus. The angulary gyrus has a role in gathering information for understanding of words and contexts, whereas the insular cortex has a role in

motor control, emotion, self-awareness and processing of language. Poeppel (1996) described how this area includes distinct reigons for mediating processes such as word processing and verb generation. Wernicke’s area is located in the left temporal lobe. Broca’s aphasia, on the other hand is the most common type of nonfluent aphsia, semnaticaly correct but grammatically wrong, there is difficulty initating speech. Broca’s area is located in the inferior left pre frontal lobe in th the left hempishere, and is associated with language formation and expression. Just et al (1996) provided evidence for syntactic processing occurring across the inferior prefrontal areas, including Broca’s area. Evidence for innate abilities in humans comes from studies of infants. Entus (1977) examined 3 week old babies and using sucking studies it was identified that they preferred listening in the right ear, which is the same as adults. Molfese (1977) found electrical activity in 1 week old babies differed between hemipsheres, they notes that left hemisphere damage can cause the right hempishere to be dominant, and also a left handed preference, this is because the brain is plastic and specialised, and young babies and children can usually recover from brain damage. Lennenberg (1960) also described how language can develop in the right hemisphere. However, Behme and Deacon (2008) conducted a review that doubted the domain specific device and the innate abiltiies described by Chomsky. Some abilities have to be learned over several months, which the LAD does not explain. Halpern and Oakland (2016) further this as they suggest that an infant does not require language through mastering grammar (whether by expierence or from a LAD) but language is heard in a plastic brain, and organised and transformed in to a mind. Chomsky fails to show how the LAD is specific to language, or explain why time is still needed as no individuals suddenly are able to read and speak. Chomsky fails to explain how some individuals have impairments in language, such as individuals with autism spectrum conditions or speech, language and communication needs. Evidence supporting a LAD includes associations of a gene ROBO1 with language defecits from a faulty phonological buffer, such as dyslexia, specific language impairment and speech sound disorder through twin studies, suggesting that there is a core trait underpinning language acquisition, and therefore there is evidence for a LAD (Bates et al, 2011). Neville and Bavellier (2002) found that individuals who have learnt sign language use the left hemisphere. Emphasis on strong biases for left hemisphere in higher order concepts of language. This study also supplies evidence for the brain being plastic as in deaf and native signers, the right hemisphere is used for comprehension. These findings were also evident in Corina (1997) study of signing in the brain. However, the brains plasticity does have limits. Dube (2001) found early brain damage caused effects of limited production of verbs and a telegraphic speech style, suggesting that the brain isn’t capable of completely erasing a early damage. St Clair (2017) described how the role of mirror neurons may have an effect on language, mirror neurons account for when watchin others, one mirrors their actions. Epigenetics provide insights in to the enviroments role in the mind, Chomsky (1959) argues that language is from a network of neural functions that form various components of language, and that many structures in the lexicon demonstrate presence of syntact structures. It is evident that signals from outside the body are received by biological receptors and processed and

intergrated. A pure biological model does not explain how difficult problems such as logical forms are represented and intepretated in a biological model. This suggests that both biological and social interaction a child expierences has an effect on language acquisition. Congitive theory of language acquisition suggests that the environment and social interaction influences language acquisition. Piaget states that children are active learners, and they cannot be taught before they are ready to learn. Piaget states that we develop language to describe and communicate our thoughts and concepts. For example, when a child develops object permanence, then the language such as “find” and “gone” develops, and that our cognitive development influences our language. The paradoxical view is the Whorfian hypothesis, which states that our language influences our thoughts, and they are characterstic of the language spoken and how cultural differences are formed. This is shown in a study where the participant is told to drawn boy hits girl, and they draw it from left to right, the way in which we read. However, this has not been tested on a population where they read right to left, so we cannot assume the same effect will be found. Piaget states that there are four stages of language acuqistion, senssorimitor is first, lasting until two years of age, it is charactersid by classifying objects, concrete lexis and developing object permanaence. Secondly is pre-occupational, which lasts till age 7, where language is egocentric, and motor and language skills devlelop. Next is concrete operational, until 11 years old, ecogcentric speech ceases to exist, this stage is characterised by logical thinking about concrete objects. Formal operational is the last stage, which lasts from 11 years, it is including abstract reasoning. This theory has positives as it is clear that there is a link between cognitive development and language acqutision, however some aspects aren’t related, as its possible to have low cognitive development but to have fully acquired language. The social interaction theory was devised by Bruner and Vygotsky. Bruner descriped a language acquisition support system which works alongside a LAD, it relies on external support from more knowledgable others, the environment around the individual and their social routine, input is critical in the development of language. In social interaction theory, the child is an active participant who requires support from a more knowledgeable other (MKO), the child has a strong social desire to interact to drive learning and cognition is important in this process. Vygotsky (1978) suggested that language and thoughts are bidirectional but independent, and that they converge through social interaction, and association thoughts with language. Speech helps with practical tasks, as it is an extension of throughts, and a significant moment occur whene speech and a practical activity converge, language is influenced by social interaction. Vygotsky (1962) suggested potential should be measure by what the child can do with help, this is known as the zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is an essential feature of learning where knowledge is built through interaction and cooperation with others (Vygotsky, 1978). ZPD describes the distance between actual development determined by problem solving and under adult guidance or more capable peers (MKO’s) what the child is capable of doing. Spencer (1988) described intelligence as the capacity to benefit from instruction, and that language is a tool for learning and aids understanding. Havisher (1994) suggested teacher acts as a collbaroator

or a coach to provide scaffolding to lead teacher to understanding, more interaction equals better learning, Daniels (1996) agreed by concluding that education is people interacting. Shale (1988) described the ideal educational process, where teacher and student determine what they know, then the teacher may provide additional knowledge, together they navigate the meaning of what is taught, and then it is repeated until the knowledge is validated. Social interaction theory attempts to explain most parts of the language acquisition, and does it sucsessfully. Professional emphasise the roles of language in classrooms and learning, as does the theory. Kingman (1988) described implications for children, speech and communication should be encouraged, as well as explaroty tentative talk used for thinking about problems, discussing tasks and clarifying thoughts. There are some limitations to this theory, the relationship between parental input and language acquisition is difficult to measure, so we do not know what causes changes between stages. The suggestion that egocentric speech is social and helps interaction and when alone we use less implies that speech is influenced by prescence of others, but it does not account for the role of self even though it stresses egocentric speech. Ochs claimed that the empirical data that the theory is based on has been overrepresenative of middle class Americans and Europeans parent-child interactions, and therefore may not be generalisable to other socioeconomic backgrounds....