|
| |
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION.
Term Paper ID:30238
|
|
|
Essay Subject:
Examines differing concepts of the rationalist and the empiricist theorists on how language is acquired.... More...
|
12 Pages / 2700 Words
11 sources, 37 Citations,
APA Format
$48.00
Return to List of Papers
|
Paper Abstract:
Examines differing concepts of the rationalist and the empiricist theorists on how language is acquired. Compares the two approaches as applied to children's first language acquisition. The minds of young children. Structure-oriented & process-oriented groups. Environmental factors. Social interaction vs. cognitive theories. Semantic learning characteristics. Current research.
Paper Introduction:
Explaining the Mystery of Language Acquisition
The fierce debate between the rationalist and the empiricist theorists on the issue of language acquisition has captured the imagination of the linguistic world for decades. Even though each group has produced results that contribute to the research on language acquisition, the complete process of language acquisition still remains a mystery. While the rationalists’ concept of specific language mechanisms in the brain has prevailed for many years, new research by connectionist theorists has tilted the balance towards the empiricists’ approach.
In this paper, the two competing approaches will be examined and compared in detail. Their application in children’s discourse will be explored to assess their validity. Finally, the work
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
For example, Gleitman found thatchildren should know how to parse sentences and understand sentencestructures in order to acquire basic language (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff,1996, p. Available: http://amma.cogstud.cornell.edu/436/spring _436/part 4/day23/index.html.Seidenberg, M. 292). What the connectionist theorists seek to do is tounderstand how the children reach "grammatical milestones" and track thestages of development of language (Bower, 1997, p. S. 3 3-4). For example, cognitiveskills such as hypothesis, induction, discovery of patterns, can enablechildren to acquire language (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, pp. The rationalist type theorists are split between the structure-oriented and the process-oriented groups. Inorder to respond appropriately in spontaneous conversations, childrencannot adhere to rigid scripts they have memorized by rote. 26-8). Theirinstinctive desire for socialization serves as a motivating force forchildren to practice their utterances. Inaddition, the interaction between syntactic and semantic bootstrappingassists children in determining meanings and sentence structures fromvarious sentences (Li, "Outline Day 23," 2 ). March 17 2 . In addition, he could notgenuinely benefit from social interactions with others and acquire hislinguistic knowledge in that fashion. Furthermore, apart from the challenges posed by this basic model offirst language acquisition, there are other phenomena related to languageacquisition that remain to be explored. 276). By thetime they are able to speak, young children demonstrate a tremendousunderstanding of abstract linguistic principles such as differentiatingbetween parts of speech and sentence structures. The rationalist theorists do notacknowledge the obvious reality that children's language abilities evolveover time before they reach the level of the adult. Everybody's talkin': Language's great innate debate continues to make noise. Inthis perspective, the environment is a catalyst that can elicit or suppressthe language potential (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, pp. Connectionist researchers have created computernetworks that are able to figure out words in incomplete sentences.Furthermore, the collection of computerized archives of spoken and writtenlanguage from adults and children show that there are plenty of statisticalregularities that can be learned by connectionist systems and babies.According to these scientists, this ability indicates that the children'slanguage acquisition ability is shaped by experience rather than the UG intheir minds. Online. Outline day 22: Introduction to acquisition of semantics. 27-8).Analysis of theories in children's acquisition of syntax and morphology Studies on children's use of language have illuminated the underlyingprocesses of language acquisition. (1985). 31-2). For example, children learn to distinguishbetween familiar and unfamiliar patterns in various words or sentences (p.1165). In other research studies, young infants were trained to breakdown units of speech, thus indicating that children acquire language byexposure to environmental input (Bower, 1997, p. Instead of attributing complete linguistic knowledge to thechildren's innate capacities, connectionist theorists believe that thisassumption needs to be further investigated by learning about theinteraction between the children and the environment. March 17 2 . Available: http://amma.cogstud.cornell.edu/436/spring _436/part 4/day2 /index.html.Li, C. 292). Thesetheorists do not explore the children's innate linguistic knowledge. One day, it is hoped that new studies will enlighten theresearchers about the incredible capacity of children to acquire language.This knowledge might be used effectively to help children with speechdifficulties. Science, 275(53 6), 1599-16 4.Slobin, D. These features of children's semantic learning process demonstrate theincredible power of their linguistic abilities. Cross-linguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. 73). In a study that tested subjects onirregular and regular verb tenses, only 2.9 percent of the responses wereincorrect from overgeneralization (Marcus, Pinker et al., 1992, in OutlineDay 13). The connectionist theorists challenge Chomsky's innate model byattempting to find out more about the learning mechanisms of youngchildren. (1988). In addition,they utilize the process of categorization in organizing new words. While the process-oriented theorists concur with the fact thatlanguage acquisition stems from children's innate linguistic knowledge,they emphasize the need to discover the underlying language mechanisms usedin the process of language acquisition. Thus, the connectionists' challenge of the rationalists' positionindicates that the search for the answer to the mystery of languageacquisition is far from over. 27). J. The first group of theoristsfocuses their research on the substantiation of universal linguisticprinciples. Chomsky'sanalogy of children to a seed captures his idea about language acquisition.Like a seed that is meant to become a plant, children are programmed toacquire language. The case study of Antony who had an extremely low I.Q., but possessedimpressive linguistic knowledge, further supports the significance oflanguage-specific mechanisms in language acquisition. Online. Language Development. Furthermore, once children learn a label for a particular object, itis difficult for them to accept another label for the same object. Both of these empiricist approaches fail to provide an adequateexplanation of the process of language acquisition. However, the rationalist type theories suffer from their failure toacknowledge the component of development. In his examination on how the children's interaction with thelinguistic environment contributes to the language acquisition, Slobin(1985) highlights the "Operating Principles" (OPs) that enable children topick up linguistic knowledge. Therefore, the empiricists focus their research on howthe children acquire language from their interaction with the environment(Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, p. 17). 1167). In Chomsky's (1981) "Principles-and-Parameters Theory" and his subsequent work, his version of how childrenutilize their linguistic knowledge to acquire language in their specificenvironments is presented. Instead, they can employ theirgeneral cognitive skills to figure out grammar. Essentially, the research on these special cases indicatesconvincingly that there is little relationship between one's languageability with other cognitive abilities. In addition, one should not dismiss the power of the environment as asignificant linguistic input for language acquisition. Online. 18). Therefore, the array of words and meaningschildren confront in their daily interactions will be baffling to them. Therefore, the environment does not play a prominent role in thistheoretical approach. Furthermore, his limited cognitiveability also prevented him from using mental skills to figure out thecomplexity of sentences. Language Development. N/A: Academic Press.Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. On the otherhand, the empiricists often take for granted the children's linguisticknowledge without attempting to account for it in their studies. Essentially, the fact that childrenare able to acquire language quickly without significant input from theenvironment shows that there has to be an alternative source of linguisticinput. Thestudy by Weker, Lloyd, Cohen and Casasola (1998) on 14-month-old infantsdemonstrates that they are able to grasp relationships between words andobjects within minutes of introduction to them (in Li "Outline Day 22,"2 ). (1988). In Exceptional language and linguistics (pp. Online. Oxford: Blackwell.Curtiss, S. Therefore, they areinterested in how the children manifest their linguistic knowledge. (1996). By gathering, categorizing and counting their speech data, childrencan amass their pool of linguistic knowledge (Slobin, 1985, p. Nonetheless, he was able to use syntacticallycomplex sentences in normal conversation (Curtiss, 1982, pp. 33-4). 3 5).Critical unresolved questions about language acquisition While the above discussion appears to offer the rationalists' analysisas the complete solution to the mystery of children's ability to acquirelanguage, current research in recent years has begun to challenge thesupremacy of this position. While therationalists' concept of specific language mechanisms in the brain hasprevailed for many years, new research by connectionist theorists hastilted the balance towards the empiricists' approach. Her ability may suggest a connection with her general cognitivelevel in other areas (Curtiss, 1982, p. Empiricists such as Slobin, claim that children acquire syntax bestby providing them with concrete contexts and surface meanings. What is important to note is that connectionist theorists do notcompletely reject the rationalists' conception of an innate language-specific mechanisms within children's brains. In the first school, the empiricists propose thatchildren's social interactions constitute the key to language acquisition(Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, p. In reality,children are able to grasp abstract concepts of language from a very youngage. In this paper, the two competing approaches will be examined andcompared in detail. Nonetheless, the presence of theacquisition of syntax and complex semantics in Antony's language cannot beadequately explained by the empiricists' model (Curtiss, 1982, p. The connectionist theorists do not believe that the black boxcontains the perfect linguistic language; therefore, they want to discoverthe extent of the linguistic knowledge and chart its development. For example, they explore the ways in which these principlesare incorporated in language acquisition. Before their interaction with the environment,children possess an "universal grammar." With exposure to specificlinguistic environments, all children need to do is to set the switches oncertain parameters that correspond to their language (in Hirsh-Pasek &Golinkoff, 1996, pp. Onlywith innate linguistic knowledge can children possibly overcome thecomplexities of language acquisition (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, p.18). This discussion on the children's acquisition of syntax and semanticssupport the case of the rationalists. Therefore, the interaction with the environmentcannot account for the children's language skills. Developmental dissociations of language and cognition. Outline day 23: Acquisition of the lexicon. On the other hand, the cognitive theorists claim that the children'scognitive processing abilities play the most significant role indetermining their language development (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, pp.17-18). With regards to language, thechildren's experiences with the environment do not provide them withadequate language training. Therefore, these case studies provide a strongsupport for the rationalists' position of the presence of language-specificmechanisms (Curtiss, 1982, pp. Language Development. This innate linguistic capacityallows them to interpret the meanings of words correctly and respondappropriately (Li, "Outline Day 22," 2 ). 38-4 ). 18). Chomsky's universal grammar: An introduction. Furthermore, empiricists are unable to establish stages of children'sdevelopment in which the latter does not possess linguistic knowledge aboutstructure, order and transformations-components of syntax (Li, "Outline Day2 ," 2 ).Analysis of theories in children's acquisition of semantics Because of the complex thinking involved in figuring out the meaningsof words correctly, children have to be able to engage in linguisticprocesses to construct an accurate interpretation of various words withintheir individual contexts. Through their interaction and experiences with the outsideworld, children develop their language capacities. In thismodel, the children already possess tremendous linguistic knowledge. 285-312). In spiteof her cognitive problems, Genie's language performance after she wasdiscovered matched the processes of language development of children.Unlike the empiricists' cognitive model, Genie's development stronglysuggests that her cognitive ability played little part in enabling her toacquire language (Curtiss, 1982, p. Empiricists are further divided into two different schools in theirperception of how children acquire language: social interaction versuscognitive theories. The existence of abstract language concepts that areabsent from the surface of sentences makes it difficult for children toacquire language solely from the environment. Outline day 13: Conclusions on phonology/literacy and morphology. Essentially, social interactionsprovide children with a variety of "scripts" and "routines" for them toacquire an understanding of the relationships between sentences andgrammatical rules. For example, Genie's strongest area of language was lexicalsemantics. (1982). Therefore, even if he were taught deliberately, he would notbe able to grasp corrections or new ideas easily. Therefore, what fundamentally differentiates the rationalist typetheories from the empiricist theories lies in the rationalists' belief thatchildren possess the complete potential to develop language. They are not restricted to learning concrete concepts. 22-3). This evidence reaffirmsthe position of the rationalists in their conception of children's innateUG. The research onAntony provides an excellent example that defies every aspect of theempiricists' models of language acquisition. According to these theorists, children do not need to possesslinguistic knowledge to acquire language. M. March 17 2 . The structure-oriented theoriesare based on the assumption that the children possess tremendous linguisticknowledge (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, p. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Li, C. Their application in children's discourse will beexplored to assess their validity. Therefore, there may beaspects of language development that can be associated with non-languagedevelopment, such as simple semantics. 277). (1997, March 14). However, the social interactionapproach does not provide adequate insight into the processes involved infirst language acquisition (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, pp. In addition, the process of creolization of languages shouldbe further investigated to explore this creative construction of language. The characteristics of children's early semantic learning also confirmthe validity of the rationalists' concept of language acquisition. (2 , March). First, his low-functioningability meant that he was unable to utilize usefully the input from theenvironment. 1598). Available: http://amma.cogstud.cornell.edu/436/spring _436/part 4/day22/index.html.Li, C. Furthermore, they offer astrong suggestion of an internal linguistic makeup that predetermines thechildren's receptivity towards environmental language input. Althoughtheir research shows important relationships between language acquisitionand social interaction or cognitive learning, empiricists fail toilluminate the originating processes of language acquisition.Analysis of special cases like "Genie" within the context of these theories Studies on special cases like "Genie" and "Antony" highlighted inCurtiss' (1982) article certainly supports the rationalists' position thatlanguage acquisition occurs through language-specific mechanisms. The innateness oflanguage acquisition cannot be established without fully exploring the roleof the environment and experience (Seidenberg, 1997, p. For example, the separation betweenthe mechanisms that govern language and nonlanguage areas needs to bedetermined in order to better understand the authentic relationship betweenthe two areas. Thus, according to therationalist type theorists, children will not be able to acquire languagewithout a pre-programmed language system within their brains (Chomsky,1988, pp. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Cook, V. Language and problems of knowledge: The Managua lectures. 277). (2 , March). Although they claim that there is adirect correspondence between the children's relationship with theirenvironment and their language abilities, these theorists cannot accountfor the children's mastery of abstract concepts that are not present in theenvironment (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, pp. The low rates of overgeneralization and overregularization inother studies testify to the inbuilt linguistic capacities of children thatenable them to respond correctly in most cases (Marcus, 1996, in Li,"Outline Day 13," 2 ). Considering these factors and the recent findings, the rationalists'analysis seems to be an oversimplified perspective that requires greaterexploration. Finally, the work by the connectionisttheorists and the implications on the future of linguistic research in thearea of first language acquisition will be discussed.Comparing rationalist type and empiricist type theories in first languageacquisition First promulgated by Noam Chomsky (1965), the rationalist or the"inside-out" family of theories establishes the presence of unique brainmechanisms dedicated to the function of language acquisition. (1997, May 3). Children tend to regard all new terms to represent awhole object, rather than one aspect of an object such as shape, color orsize. March 17 2 . Even though each group has producedresults that contribute to the research on language acquisition, thecomplete process of language acquisition still remains a mystery. Furthermore, thisapproach undermines the active participation of the children in thelanguage acquisition process. Unlike the advocates ofrationalist type theories, the empiricists do not believe that the childrenpossess significant linguistic knowledge prior to their experiences withtheir environment. It is important tounderstand the children's capacity to learn from the environment (Bower,1997, p. 2 -1). Even when the objects are not present, researchers found that 18-month-old children were able to learn words corresponding to absent objects(Tomasello, Strosberg & Akhtar, 1996, in Li, "Outline Day 22," 2 ). Science News, 151(18), 276-278.Chomsky, N. (2 , March). Intheir semantic learning process, children appear to abide by fundamentallinguistic rules. Researchers who adhere to this perspective delveinto the specific grammatical rules and linguistic principles childrenmaster in order to acquire language. Even though these individualsperformed poorly in nonlanguage areas, they matched their peers in theirlinguistic abilities. In most of the studies,the research take for granted the linguistic knowledge already possessed bythe subjects in their ability to perform language-learning tasks.Therefore, they cannot explain the pre-existence of the children'sseemingly innate language abilities. However, depending on their environment, they will eitherexcel in their language ability or fail to tap into their languagepotential (in Cook, 1988, p. The empiricist type theories, otherwise known as the "outside-in"group of theories, basically attribute first language acquisition to theenvironment. Apparently,both children and adults share similar traits in their acquisition of newwords. However, the research on Genie and Antony shows that there aregeneral cognitive skills that may apply to both language and nonlanguageareas. 294-298). The origins of grammar: Evidence from early language comprehension. The fact thatthey are able to respond spontaneously and creatively shows that theypossess an internal linguistic mapping. 35). One of the unanswered issues is therationalists' failure to explain how children's language evolves to becomethe adult language. In Chomsky's (1972) original conception, the mind of children isanalogized to a black box called the "Language Acquisition Device" (LAD).This box contains all linguistic principles that do not derive from theinteraction with the environment. Ultimately, the fundamental problem with the "outside-in" approach isencapsulated in Chomsky's (1988) "poverty-of-the stimulus" argument (inHirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, pp. In time, with consistent exposure and corrections ofungrammatical speech, children will become increasingly proficient. Various researchers'detailed examinations of the linguistic stimuli prove that the children'sbasic cognitive skills are not equivalent to linguistic knowledge (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, pp. Therefore, the rationalists' assertion of the existence of alanguage-specific domain within the brain sounds plausible. 24-5). ReferencesBower, B. Language Development. Furthermore, these theorists tend tooversimplify the relationship between language acquisition and theinteraction with the environment. (2 , March). In this model, children are presented asunindividuated beings whose language abilities are seemingly pre-determinedby their innate linguistic knowledge and their environmental input.However, the children's interaction with the environment should beconsidered to be crucial in determining the outcome in the languageacquisition process for every child (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 1996, pp. Outline day 2 : Conclusions on acquisition of syntax. I. Available: http://amma.cogstud.cornell.edu/436/spring _436/part 4/day13/index.html.Li, C. 17). Explaining the Mystery of Language Acquisition The fierce debate between the rationalist and the empiricisttheorists on the issue of language acquisition has captured the imaginationof the linguistic world for decades. They just do not considerthese innate language mechanisms to be the primary force in languageacquisition. Even before infants are able to speak, they are able to break downsyntactic units and phonological units from a stream of utterances. Unlike the structure-orientedtheorists who take the children's linguistic knowledge for granted, theprocess-oriented theorists want to know how children apply their innatelinguistic abilities in the process of language acquisition (Hirsh-Pasek &Golinkoff, 1996, p.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
Click here to request an essay written just for you.
|
|
|
