Language Acquisition

The examination of linguistic development is one of the most intriguing human successes, with a history that extends over thousands of years. As the nature-versus-nurture argument is unavoidable to occur whenever human manner is discussed, it is not shocking that language specialists have deliberated the comparative influences of genetics and the environment on language progression (Hulit & Howard 2002). Among the numerous suggestions regarding the concepts involved in language acquisition, the behaviorist and the nativist are two opposing theories which are the most well-known and influential. Due to the on-going attraction of curious people and the importance of the result, the controversy continues to grow in society. Since there are more apparent restrictions of the behaviorist analysis, the prevailing investigations of the nativist interpretation are more rational to acknowledge.

Rather than focusing on a person’s mental system, behaviorism focuses on a person’s behavior which is directly discernible (Narasimhan, 1998). Language is seen as a type of verbal behavior and it is indicated that children learn language through mimicry, reinforcement, parallelism, and constructive input (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2003). Although imitation is comprised to some extent, the early words and sentences that children display reveal that they are not merely imitating adult speech. Because there is an abundance of possible sentences insinuated, children’s elaborate and creative attempts cannot be explained by an influenced response to their environment. In addition, imitation cannot rationalize language mistakes of an ordinary child, which are largely unlikely to be failed imitations of what adults would say (Cattell, 2000). If a young child acquires language solely on adult imitation, his/her vocabulary would consist of an uncountable number of words. What is often seen, however, is that children can barely make out any form of the words he/she is trying to imitate.

Positive and negative reinforcement play a big role in a child’s development of language. They learn to produce correct grammatical sentences because they are confidently reinforced when they say something right and negatively reinforced when they say something wrong. Roger Brown and his colleagues at Harvard University recount that linguistic augmentation is uncommon, and when it does occur, it is usually inaccurate pronunciation or an improper facts report that is corrected (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2003). In fact, efforts to improve a child’s language are destined to fall short. Children are unsure of what they are doing is wrong, and are generally incapable to correct themselves even when their mistakes are pointed out (Hulit & Howard, 2002). A majority of parents will often laugh when their child tries to speak a word or sentence which comes out wrong. Instead of pointing out the mistake, the parents will see the situation as amusing, causing their children to get a false sense of achievement.

Linguistic agreement is what children use to form sentences. They do so by hearing a sentence, and by using it as an example to form other sentences. Regardless, problems are consistently encountered; for example, children who conceive a rule for forming questions, “move the auxiliary to the position preceding the subject” will never influence the first auxiliary of a relative clause on concordance (Meadow, 2003). Unless a child is taught at a very young age, that child generally will not be able to form correct grammatical sentences until he/she is older. Young adults and children are still often corrected by peers, parents and teachers on their grammar. The most common seen, especially in school, is when children say “good” when “well” should be used instead.

Since role of the environment promotes language acquisition, most children are capable of acquiring the language because adults speak to them in a distinct “simplified” language sometimes noted as “motherese” (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2003). However, controlled studies illustrate that “motherese” is not significantly effective. Furthermore, in many cultures, adults do not use simplified language with children, and their children have the same capabilities at forming a correct grammatical sentence as do the others. In today’s world, many women are working outside of the home, leaving their children in the care of a babysitter who usually has no intention of “baby” talking and thinks it will corrupt a child and negatively affect their speech development.

The behaviorists’ perception does not consider what children bring to the learning task at hand. As Owens (2001) has indicated, the extent of the failure of behaviorist effort to clarify verbal behavior shows the importance of the elements overlooked from consideration. In opposition with the behaviorists, the nativists assert