Both learning and social learning theories claim that adults play an important role in children’s acquisition of language. Learning theories place an emphasis on the process of classical (for language learning) and operant (for language production) conditioning. According to social learning theories, language is learnt through processes of reinforcement, modelling and feedback (Whitehurst & DeBaryshe, 1989). One of the most famous supporters of the learning theory approach was Skinner (1957, referred to in Lock, 1980), who believed that environmental effects such as reinforcement and imitation could entirely explain the process of language acquisition. Lock (1980) suggested that for the development of language the child ‘relies to a great extent upon the abilities already developed by others, abilities which are transmitted to him through the process of social interaction’ (Lock, 1980, p. 1). According to Lock, the child becomes able to communicate because he is treated ‘as if’ he could (Lock, 1980, p. 194). Therefore, according to both the strong and the weak versions of (social) learning theories,
The areas in which evidence in favour of the social basis perspective has been found will now be discussed.
In contradiction to Chomsky’s ‘poverty of the stimulus’ approach, other studies have suggested, that adults speech to children is in fact different to the language adults use between themselves (e.g. Snow, 1972). This child-directed speech, was found to be more fluent, shorter, intelligible and grammatical; less hesitant and mumbled and with a higher pitch and finely tuned to the child’s psycholinguistic capacities. The evidence for the existence of child-directed speech suggested that ‘there is less need for an elaborate innate component than there first seemed to be’ (Snow & Ferguson, 1977, p.20, cited in Goodluck, 1991). Child-directed speech was found to assist children in acquiring language-particular rules, which are aspects of a language which can not be predicted from the principles of universal grammar (Goodluck, 1991). Furthermore, the high pitch of motherese was suggested to make it an especially attractive signal for infants, engendering a focus on speech input amongst pre-linguistics (Jusczyk and Bertoncini, 1988 referred to in Goodluck, 1991). At later stages the child-directed speech was proposed to provide a safe environment in which the child would be able to practice it’s language skills (Goodluck, 1991). The re-casting and presentation of unfamiliar constructions was also suggested to accelerate language learning (Goodluck, 1991). However, child-directed speech has been found to be influential mainly during the very early stages of language development, decreasing rapidly towards the end of children’s second year, when a vocabulary explosion occurs. At this point, children learn new words at an average of about nine new words every day, which seems difficult to explain in terms of classical conditioning (Durkin, 1995). Furthermore from the age of three, children have been found to use the complex passive sentence construction, even though it is used infrequently in adults speech (see Marchman et al., 1991, for a review and new data, referred to in Durkin, 1995). Studies by both Barrett, Harris and Chasin (1991) and Hart (1991) confirmed a strong relationship between parental input and the first word’s children uttered, but as the children’s vocabulary increased, the relationship decreased. Evidence of parental fine-tuning similarly suggested, that although early on (between 18 and 25 months) a positive relationship between the complexity of paternal speech and features of syntactic development is noticeable, at later stages of language development (between 24 and 25 months), this relationship is absent (Gleitman, Newport & Gleitman, 1984). ‘Thus some degree of correlation may be there when language is minimal, but it reduces or even disappears as language gets going’ (Durkin, 1995). However, even in the acquisition of early vocabulary, evidence against the importance and influence of child-directed speech hypothesis has been substantial. First of all, it has mainly been found to be characteristic of adults speech to children in Western middle class settings. In other cultures and social classes, children are not addressed through the use of motherese (see Snow, 1986 for a review). Amongst Kaluli and Samoan people (Schieffelin & Ochs, 1983) for instance, motherese is not used. Instead, children are expected to adapt to the requirements of different situations at a very early age. Nevertheless, independently of whether child-directed speech is used or not, children from all cultures and social classes end up acquiring a complete knowledge of their native language, suggesting that child-directed speech cannot be essential to the language learning process (Golinkoff, 1991). Evidence from twin and triplet studies such as that of Schaerlaekens (1973, referred to in Durkin, 1995) also suggests, that the individual difference for both the rate of development and the structures of their early grammars are difficult to account for in terms of fine tuning or the influence of parental language on the shaping of language acquisition (Durkin, 1995). To conclude, although child-directed speech may not be essential for language acquisition, evidence suggests, that at least for the acquisition of the first words, it may influence or even accelerate the process. Furthermore it may be, that even if the direct role of adult’s speech and communication declines as children’s vocabulary increases, it may be that indirectly the early influences of parents on language acquisition influence the speed and quality of later acquisition by giving children the framework to learn more quickly from other sources.
The frequency of joint attention, especially between the mother and the child, has been found to correlate with early individual differences in language development in a series of studies. Tomasello, Mannle and Kruger (1986) for instance ascertained that the amount of time that the mother and child spent together in joint attentional episodes when the child was 15 months old positively correlated to the child’s vocabulary at the age of 21 months. Furthermore they found, that there was a negative correlation between the extent to which mothers try to direct their children’s attention or behaviour and the amount of object labels in the children’s vocabulary. Tomasello and Farrar (1986) further established, that when words were presented by adults, those words of objects on which the child was already focusing were learnt much better than those object names that required the child to shift her/his attentional focus. According to Bruner (1978, referred to in Durkin, 1995) parents and infants develop activity routines which enable the creation of shared frameworks, that help the child to learn to use language. These different studies suggest, that joint-attention may accelerate early language development.
Studies on picture book reading by Whitehurst et al. (1988) suggested that children whose parents had received instructions on how to optimise their reading of picture books to young children, did not only score significantly higher on post-tests of expressive language ability than control children whose parents had been instructed to read in their usual way, they were also found to have higher mean lengths of utterances and frequencies of phrases and lower frequencies of single words.
Goldfield (1986, referred to in Durkin, 1995) found that referential children’s mothers are more likely to put a label on and describe toys, whilst the mothers of expressive children focus more on interpersonal subjects and are more socially expressive.
It may only be through child-adult communication, that the child will learn that it’s wishes are not always fulfilled just by them wanting them. Miss-communication between children and adults and children’s increasing understanding of the fact that they often have to communicate with the adults around them to get what they want, may increase children’s motivation to learn the language of their community. Furthermore attachment theories suggest, that later cognitive and social skills may be affected by the quality of attachment in earlier years (Bowlby, 1988). The child’s security of attachment may be affected by the child’s parents use of language or communication style, which then may affect cognitive development which in turn may have an influence on the child’s language acquisition speed.
In conclusion of this section, it should be mentioned that child-directed speech, joint attention, the difference of the input received by referential and expressive children, influences of optimised picture book reading and increased motivation of children to learn language because of the nature of the interactions with their parents provide support for the social basis hypothesis and therefore suggest that the type of adult language and communication can have an influence on children’s language acquisition. However, this influence has not only been found to be significant only in the very early phases of language acquisition, it has also not been found to be necessary for normal language acquisition to occur.
The nativist, empiricist and (social) learning theories and the social basis hypothesis all place a varying importance on the role of adult’s language and communication in language acquisition. As Pinker put it, as long as the child’s language acquisition device is triggered during the sensitive period, the process of language acquisition will occur, as ‘there is virtually no way to prevent it from happening short of raising a child in a barrel’ (1984, p.29). However, cognitive and environmental factors can most likely influence this process. Cognitive development may promote the use of structures already available in the linguistic system of the child, thereby speeding up the language acquisition process. Specific interact ional and communication styles between adults and children such as joint-attention, specific ways of picture book reading, and certain types of adult language usage such as ‘motherese’ may accelerate the language acquisition process. At this stage, it is important to continue research to increase the understanding of the extent to which and what kind of early environmental influences have the strongest effects not only on early and later language development but also on cognitive and social development. Especially research amongst young children who are either delayed or come from low social classes (Whitehurst et al., 1994) has suggested, that for them environmental stimulation of their linguistic and cognitive skills can be crucial to avoid them from falling behind cognitively and socially at an older age.
Word count: 2005
References:
Barrett, M., Harris, M., & Chasin, J. (1991). Early lexical development and maternal
speech: A comparison of children’s initial and subsequent uses of words. Journal of Child language, 18, 21-40.
Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. London:
Routledge.
Bruner, J.S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R.J.
Jarvella, & W.J.M. Levelt (Eds.), The child's conception of language. New York: Springer-Verlag (referred to in Durkin, 1995).
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study of a modern day ‘wild child’. New
York: Academic Press.
Durkin, K. (1995). Developmental social psychology: From infancy to old age. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Gleitman, L.R. Newport, E.L. & Gleitman, H. (1984). The current status of
the motherse hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 11, 75-76.
Golinkoff, R.M. (1983). The Transition from prelinguistic to linguistic communication.
Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Goodluck, H. (1991). Language Acquisition: a linguistic introduction. Oxford: Basil
Blackwell.
Marchman, Virginia A., Bates, Elizabeth, Burkardt, Antoinette and Good, Amy B.
(1991). Functional constraints of the acquisition of the passive: toward a model
of the competence to perform. First Language, 11, 65-92 (referred to by Durkin, 1995).
Hart, B. (1991). Input frequency and children’s first words. First language, 11, 289-300.
Jusczyk, P.W. & Bertoncini, J. (1988). Viewing the perception of speech detection as an
innately guided learning process. Language and Speech, 31, 217-238 (referred to in Goodluck, 1991).
Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley
Lock, A. (1980). The guided reinvention of language. London: Academic Press.
Peters, S. (1972). Goals of Linguistic Theory. Prentice Hall (cited by Goodluck, 1991).
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Schaerlaekens, A.M. (1973). The Two-Word Sentence in Child Language Development: a
Study Based on Evidence Provided by Dutch-speaking Triplets. The Hague/Paris: Mouton (referred to in Durkin, 1995).
Schieffelin & Ochs, (1983). In R.M. Golinkoff. The Transition from prelinguistic to
linguistic communication. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Snow, C.E. (1972). Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Development,
43, 549-565.
Snow, C.E. & Ferguson, C.A. (1977). Language Input and Acquisition (Conference).
Talking to children: Language input and acquisition : papers from a conference sponsored by the Committee on Sociolinguistics of the Social Science Research Council (USA) Cambridge : Cambridge University Press (cited in Goodluck, 1991).
Tomasello, M., Mannle, S., & Kruger, A. (1986). The linguistic environment of one to two
year old twins. Developmental Psychology, 22, 169-176.
Tomasello, M. & Farrar, M.J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child
Development, 57, 1454-1463.
Whitehurst, G.J., Arnold, D.S., Epstein, J.N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M. & Fischel, J.E.
(1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30 (5), 679-689.
Whitehurst, G.J., Falco, F.L., Lonigan, C.J., Fischel, J.E., DeBaryshe, B.D., Valdez-
Menchaca, M.C. & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24 (4), 552-559.
