reinforcement, by initially reinforcing words that sound adult-like, and eventually only full and coherent sentences. However, using transcripts of naturalistic dialogue between three parents and their children, Brown and Hanlon (1970) found that the parents’ responses to their child’s incorrect grammar (whether utterances were well-formed or not) was contingent upon the actual meaning of what was being said rather than the correct or incorrect grammatical structure. This severely discredited the assumption that reinforcement can account for linguistic development. In addition, McNeill (1966) proposed that not enough feedback on grammar is given and children do not always respond. Furthermore, Braine (1971) suggested that the children of parents who are very corrective of their children’s grammar actually develop grammar more slowly than others. Indeed the notion that parents do not correct grammar would suggest that they are more likely to reinforce incorrect grammar than correct grammar (Slobin, 1979).
Bandura (1971), a social learning theorist, proposed the concept of ‘abstract modelling’ – the notion that children extract rules of language by analysing the language that they imitate. Bates et al (1982) supported this hypothesis, finding that children who imitate others seem to develop language more rapidly than those who do not. However, the causal direction of this association cannot be ascertained, and Whitehurst and Vasta (1975) found that imitation did not influence grammatical development. In addition, imitation cannot account for the phenomenon of overgeneralisation (foots – foots) nor for novel utterances such as the frequently quoted “All gone sticky” (Braine 1971), which are highly unlikely to have been spoken by an adult. Having looked at the role of reinforcement and imitation, the essay will now examine other aspects of the environment that are considered to contribute to the emergence of language.
There is substantial research evidence associating language stimulation and interaction with caregivers with children’s acquisition of language. For example, Clarke-Stewart (1973) found that children whose mothers talk to them more have a greater vocabulary, and it has been suggested that parents who talk more have children whose language development is more advanced (Hoff-Ginsberg, 1991; Wells and Robinson, 1982). The way in which adults speak to children is also believed to be a factor in promoting language development; i.e., research findings indicate that the use of ‘motherese’ or ‘child-directed speech’ – the special way in which adults talk to children, typically using short, simple sentences, exaggerated intonation, gestures and higher pitch – facilitates the development of language (Snow, 1977), though some studies challenge the theory (Newport, E.L, Gleitman H & Gleitman L.R., 1977) and the use of ‘motherese’, while almost universal, is culturally determined. Samoans, for example, reject the notion of child-centredness and do not alter their speech when talking to children.
In addition, the importance of the environment in interaction with the child is highlighted in social interaction theory. Bruner (1978) suggests that adults provide a ‘scaffold’ for the child, a theoretical framework known as a Linguistic Acquisition Support System (LASS) in which they facilitate language development by fine-tuning language to the child’s ability and by gradually providing less assistance as the child’s competence increases (e.g. by gradually requesting more information from the child during verbal exchanges). It is also believed that adults help children acquire language through routines known as ‘formats’ in which language is learned in context and by teaching children social conventions such as ‘thank you’. Having considered the role of nurture in language acquisition, the essay now focuses on the nativist perspective.
Clearly, language must have a biological basis. Firstly, language is species-specific, though some researchers clearly disagree. However, despite extensive attempts at teaching chimpanzees to use language via sign language, none has ever advanced beyond the rudimentary language skills of a two or three-year-old child. The human brain is specialised for language, for instance, it is known that Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area in the temporal lobe are the most relevant parts of the brain for language and language is lateralised in the left hemisphere in the vast majority of people.
Nativist theorists hold that the amazing speed and relative ease with which children learn the grammatical rules of the language they hear around them, from a very limited and grammatically incorrect sample of language and without teaching, cannot be attributed to nurture (Chomsky, 2000). This is known as the ‘poverty of the stimulus’ hypothesis – which infers that the language to which children are exposed is poor and therefore cannot account for the acquisition of language. This, however, contradicts the ‘motherese hypothesis’, which holds that speech to children is in fact simpler and easy to understand. Though, clearly, adult-adult speech is likely to be marked by the flaws Chomsky points out.
Chomsky suggests that human beings are endowed with an innate system specifically designed for language learning, which he termed a ‘Language Acquisition Device’. However, he does acknowledge that the LAD needs input from the environment in order to mature, “We can think of the initial state as a ‘language acquisition device’ that takes experience as ‘input’ and gives the language as an ‘output’” (Chomsky 2000, p4). According to Chomsky, the LAD underlies children’s ability to produce utterances they have never heard before and accounts for the universal features of language, i.e. that every language is composed of nouns, verbs, subjects and objects. Indeed the assumption that all languages share the same properties – a ‘Universal Grammar’ and a ‘surface structure’ (organisation of words in an utterance) and ‘deep structure’ (the meaning) is central to the LAD. He holds that a ‘Transformational Generative Grammar’, a set of rules applied to the deep structure to transform it to the surface structure, underpins the ‘creativity’ in language, i.e. the fact that we can produce an infinite number of utterances from a finite number of words. More recently he proposes a Principles and Parameters theory, the notion that language has universal principles, with parameters being set from language to language (Chomsky, 1986). The notion that all languages have the same underlying properties, however, seems overly simplistic. All languages do have the same categories of grammar, but in many cases the differences become far more complex. For example, Bates (….) points out that Chinese has no grammatical inflections, whereas Eskimos are confronted with a language in which “an entire sentence consists of a single word with more than a dozen inflections” p16.
A large body of empirical evidence supports the theory that young children grasp grammatical rules and therefore that the ability to use language may be innate.. Furthermore, research findings indicate that children can infer the meaning of novel verbs and nouns from their structural knowledge, hypotheses respectively known as ‘syntactic bootstrapping’ (Gleitman 1999) and ‘semantic bootstrapping’ (Pinker, 1994). It is believed that children use this knowledge to guide their word learning (Brown, 1957). For example, in one study, three- and four-year-olds were shown a picture of a pair of hands sifting through a bowl of red confetti. When asked if they could see “sebbing” the children pointed to the pair of hands, and when asked if they could see the “seb” they pointed to the bowl (Brown 1957). However, it is possible that they are merely drawing short-term inferences, as this does not indicate whether the children actually store the word for subsequent use.
Further, nativists argue that language acquisition follows a predictable sequence of milestones throughout the world and liken it to other maturational occurrences such as walking (Lenneberg, 1967). For example, babbling occurs at around six to nine months – even in deaf children initially, which suggests that language follows a biologically-given pattern. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that children can learn – and actually invent – a language if exposure to language is minimal or absent, as evidenced in the case of groups of deaf children who develop gestural systems to communicate with one another. Goldin-Meadow and Feldman (1977) studied such a group of congenitally deaf children aged around three and found that the gestural system they developed shared many similarities with spoken language. Firstly, gestures were used in combinations that seemed to possess a grammatical structure, and secondly, the number of gestures the children were able to use seemed to increase at a similar rate as words in spoken language in hearing children. Similarly, studies of creolisation, whereby a pidgin language is transformed into a Creole by virtue of being learned by children as a first language, strongly suggest that children impose universal properties on the language they learn. A pidgin is a rudimentary language with very little grammar and is developed by different language communities living together in order that they can communicate. While researching two groups of emigrants to Hawaii around the beginning of the 20th century, the first comprising people who emigrated during adulthood and learned the Hawaiian pidgin (HPE), and the second group comprising those who had emigrated as children and learned HPE while growing up, Bickerton (1981) observed that the children’s language – now known as Hawaiian Creole English (HCE) – possessed a grammar and was fluid, whereas the adult’s language remained inconsistent. Similar findings have emerged from studies into Nicaraguan Sign Language (NSL), which was also created initially as a pidgin language (Pinker 1994).
Nativists also see the evidence for a ‘critical period’ for language acquisition in humans – thought to be up to age 12 – as an indication of innateness. The most compelling evidence in this connection can be found in the case of ‘Genie’, an abused child who spent most of her childhood in a baby crib, deprived of human contact. When she escaped her ‘prison’ at the age of 13, she could not speak and had motor difficulties. Despite years of intensive training in learning how to speak, her vocabulary and cognitive abilities developed significantly, but her syntax never advanced beyond that of a very young child’s (Curtiss, 1977) However, it has been suggested that Genie was retarded or that the extreme deprivation and abuse she suffered were a major contributory factor (Flanagan, 1996). In contrast, a child called ‘Isabelle’ who was similarly deprived of human contact, and found at the age of 7 with the cognitive abilities of that of a two-year-old child, managed to rapidly catch up with her peers and acquire normal grammar (Davis, 1947). The evidence above would support the hypothesis that language learning becomes almost impossible after the ‘critical period’ (Lenneberg 1967). Importantly, it also lends support to the theory that language is truly innate, an ability distinct from general intelligence (Pinker 1994). While these cases support the theory that we are biologically ‘pre-programmed’ to acquire language, they also illustrate the necessity of input from the environment to allow our genetic endowment to properly develop.
In conclusion, a significant body of empirical evidence into adult-child interaction and language stimulation indicates that the child’s environment is fundamental in the development of language, though not in the way originally perceived by behaviourists and learning theorists. Similarly, there is strong evidence to indicate that humans may be predisposed to learn language: language is confined to humans, the brain is specialised for language, there are universal milestones in language acquisition, language seems to have universal properties and there seems to be a critical period for language development. In reality, neither nature nor nurture in isolation can explain the emergence of language and the two seem inextricably linked. Unlike the social interactionist approach, neither the traditional behaviourist approach nor the nativist approach acknowledges that the child in turn acts on his environment. It therefore seems that a combination of various aspects of nativism and various aspects of social interactionism would more adequately explain the relative contributions of nature and nurture in language development.
References
Bandura, A (1971) An analysis of modeling processes in A. Bandura (Ed)
Psychological Modeling New York: Lieber-Atheron
Berko, J. (1958) The Child’s learning of English Morphology. Word, 14 150-177
Bates, E; McNew, S; MacWhinney, B; deVescovi, A; and Smith, S (1982) Functional constraints on sentence processing: a cross-linguistic study Cognition 11. p245-299
Bickerton, D (1981) Roots of Language Ann Arbor, Michigan: Karoma
Braine, M.D.S. (1971) The acquisition of language in infant and child in C.E. Reed (Ed)
The Learning of Language New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts
Brown, R (1957) Linguistic determinism and parts of speech Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 55, p1-5
Brown, R and Fraser, C (1963) The acquisition of syntax in CN Cofer and B Musgrave (eds)
Verbal Behavior and Learning: Problems and Processes p158-201 New York: McGraw Hill
Brown, R and Hanlon, C (1970) Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech in J.R Hayes (Ed) Cognition and The Development of Language John Wiley & Sons, New York P11-53
Bruner, JS (1977) Early social interaction and language development in HR Schaffer (eds) Studies in Mother-Child Interaction London: Academic Press
Chomsky, N. (1958)
Chomsky, N (1986) Knowledge of Language, Its Nature, Origin and Use New York: Praeger
Chomsky, N (2000) New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind Massachussets: Cambridge University Press
Clarke-Stewart, A. Infant day care: maligned or malignant? American Psychologist, 44 266-273
Curtiss, S (1977) Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-day ‘Wild Child’ New York: Academic Press
Davis, K (1947) Final note on a case of extreme social isolation American Journal of Sociology 52, p432-437
Flanagan, C (1996) Applying Psychology to Early Child Development Hodder & Stoughton
Gleitman, H., Fridlund, A, Reisberg, D (1999) Basic Psychology New York: WW Norton
Goldin-Meadow, S and Feldman, H (1977) The development of language-like communication without a language model Science 197 p401-403
Hoff-Ginsberg, E (1991) Mother-child conversation in different social classes and communication settings Child Development, 62, P782-796
Lenneberg, E.H (1967) Biological Foundations of Language New York: Wiley
McNeill, D (1966) Developmental Psycholinguistics in F. Smith & G.A. Miller (Eds)
The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Mitchell, PC (1992) The Psychology of Childhood: Falmer Press
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network (2000) The relation of child care to cognitive and language development Child Development 71, 4 p960-980
Newport, E.L, Gleitman, H, and Gleitman, L.R. (1977) “Mother I’d rather do it myself”: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style in C. Snow & CA Ferguson (eds) Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Pinker, S (1994) The Language Instinct London: Penguin Books
Slobin, D (1979) Psycholinguistics Glenview: Scott, Foresman
Snow, C. E. (1977) Mother’s speech research: from input to interaction in C Snow and C Ferguson (eds) Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Watson, J. (1924) Behaviorism New York: WW Norton
Wells, C. G. and Robinson, W.P. (1982) The role of adult speech in language development in C. Fraser and K. Scherer (Eds) The Social Psychology of Language Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press
Whitehurst, G and Vasta, R (1975) Is language acquired through imitation? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 4, P37-59
