This article seeks to explore the debate and differences between the nativist and constructivist approaches to language development in children.

The first 200 words of this essay...

Precis 1; Akhtar, 2004

This article seeks to explore the debate and differences between the nativist and constructivist approaches to language development in children. It also reviews possible benefits that may arise from such conflicting perspectives. Nativists are strong supporters of the Innateness Hypothesis and the theory of Universal Grammar. However, constructivists focus more on how children 'get from here to there' (Tomasello, 2003). Constructivists are committed to studying the relations between language development and other simultaneously developing social and cognitive skills whilst nativists are more interested in 'pure' linguistic ability that is unaffected by non-linguistic influences. Nativists suggest that linguistic knowledge is innate and modular and accounts for children's linguistic development in terms of Universal Grammar. Constructivists fundamentally differ from nativists as they aim to account for development in the child's language system and how it relates to other areas of development. Nativists and Constructionists also differ greatly in terms of what is considered worthy of study. Crain & Thornton believe that useful data only comes from specific types of experiments, they are interested mainly in children's 'optimal performance', and so deliberately design experiments to elicit adult like performance from children. Whilst constructivists tend to focus on errors