Chomsky focuses on the grammar and syntax in language and based his theory around the knowledge of the rules of language. According to Chomsky language should be separated into surface structure; the arrangements of words and deep structure; the grammar used in sentences. It is the connection between these structures that is important and is specified by transformational rules which are different for each language. Chomsky believed it was the Language Acquisition Device (or LAD) that held the innate ability for people to learn language. The LAD perceives similarities in language, it then generates a hypothesis’ about these similarities (i.e. to make a word plural add ‘s’) and finally tests these newly formed words by using them in spontaneous speech. These words are the either rejected or accepted. This theory can be applied to any language and will acquire the grammar of that language. Fowler and Swenson (1979, in Gross, 1999) described this LAD as a biological mechanism that regulates timing and basic structure of language.
Brown and Bellugi (1964) believe that the LAD is the reason why children use words such as ‘swimmed’, ‘drinked’ and ‘hurted’. This spontaneous use of grammatical rules which have not been taught before are not products of imitation but of an over generalisation of an existing rule. These words could not have come from imitation as they are incorrect but would be consistent with the LAD method of discovering if a new word is correct. However the biological theory does not specify how the LAD sifts through the language input to extract these grammatical rules.
Many challenged Chomsky’s theory of the LAD as the notion is very vague and does not offer a complete explanation as to how the LAD works. He later adapted his theory to the Principles and Parameters Theory (PPT) (1986, in Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003). This puts more emphasis on the psychological processes of language and focuses on the structures of language, both deep and surface. This is supported by Aitchison (1970, in Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003) who argues that a process approach more in line with Chomsky’s PPT is a more likely theory. She argues that children have an innate puzzle solving ability and it is this ability that enables them to process linguistic data.
Pinker (1994, in Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003) also provides evidence for a biological basis of language. He says that ‘complex language is universal because children actually reinvent it’. This can be seen in labourers who have been imported into the sugar cane industry from China, Japan and Korea, who developed a pidgin language as a way of communication (Bickerton, 1990, in Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003). The language that the labourers used had no grammatical structure and no consistent word order yet when their children were studied, despite only being exposed to the parent’s speech, they used grammatical rules when talking. This suggests that the ability for language is innate as language seems to develop itself and translate non-grammatical sentences into grammatical sentences. It also shows that the child cannot be simply imitating the language of those around. This idea can be found in other societies as well as it has been found that most adult speech is not grammatical and that despite the parents disregard for grammar that the children still learn a grammatically correct language (Slobin, 1975, in Gross, 1999).
Evidence to suggest reinvention of an existing language has also been replicated in deaf children. Children who had only been introduced to signs that the parents devised to communicate with them, were found to spontaneously devise their own signs and language (derived from the original signs) when grouped with other deaf children, (Kegl et al. 1999, in Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003). Goldin – Meadow and Feldman (1977, in Gross, 1999) also provide evidence for a biological base to language through their studies of four congenitally deaf children who had not been exposed to sign language. These children used their own signs which appeared to show stage one grammar gestures, therefore creating their own language. This eventually developed into two-gesture sentences providing arguments for a gesture LAD. Both Kegl et al. and Goldin-Meadow and Feldman provide support for the fact that humans have an innate ability for language whether it is signed or spoken.
Evidence for a biological approach to language development also comes from research by Eimass, Siqueland, Jusczyk and Vigorito, (1970 in Taylor, 1976) who showed that at the age of only 1 month infants can distinguish between different speech sounds. This suggests that basic capacities for communication and language are in place from a very young age. Our brains and vocal systems are geared towards language and Lennenberg (1967 in Taylor, 1976) says that arrangements of teeth and the size of mouths enable us to make the sounds in the various languages. The left hemisphere of the brain which is predominantly used for language and more specifically the part associated with language processing, has been found to be larger in infants than the corresponding part in the right hemisphere (Witleson and Pallie 1973, in Taylor, 1976). So although humans have no language ability when they are born the equipment to produce language is present, providing strong evidence for a biological theory of language.
Chomsky uses the definition between competence and performance to support his biological approach, whereas Skinner and the behaviourist only talked about performance. However, as Chomsky notes adults who do not always use correct grammar when talking can distinguish between a well formed sentence and those with mistakes – this can be done with reference to competence. He also argues that language is acquired far too quickly for it to be anything but innate. However, Bandura (1971, in Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003) suggests that imitation plays a large role in language development. Imitation may explain why there are differences in the language that is spoken and the different dialects within each language. It can also explain why the child learns the same accent as its social group. But there is no evidence to suggest that reinforcement, as Skinner first suggested, helps with the acquisition of language as Brown et al (1969 in Wells and Nicholls, 1985) found that only semantics; not syntax was corrected, when a mother conversed with her infant.
Fromkin et al, (1974 in Taylor, 1976) gave evidence that there is a critical period in language development, he studied Genie, a girl who had been kept restrained in the dark and that was therefore unable to develop physically or mentally. Although upon her release she improved greatly in other areas her language reached a set level and has not advanced beyond this. When the brain is developing there is more plasticity, it has no specific functions at birth and therefore experience is a big influence on what these functions will be. This critical period may last to early teens. This provides strong evidence that language is biological and follows a period of maturation.
It is clear from evidence provided by psychologists (Chomsky, 1957, Goldin –Meadow and Feldman, 1977 and Brown and Bellugi, 1964 etc.) that an innate ability is involved in the acquisition of language, however this does not explain all features of language development. Chomsky’s biological approach focuses mainly on the acquisition of grammar and the rules employed to develop grammar in language. More recently Piaget has claimed that it is important to look at communication and understanding of language and not to focus solely on grammatical competence, (In Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003). Piaget notes that in the first two years of development intellectual ability relies on sensori-motor skills not from symbols such as language. Piaget believes that the understanding and rules of language developed from the child’s cognitive system, (Cromer, 1974, in Smith, Cowie and Blades, 2003). It is more likely that it is a combination of innate preparedness and cognitive ability that together produce the development of the language system that we communicate with.
1,667 words
REFERNCES:
Golinkoff, R. M. (1984).The transition from pre-linguistic to linguistic communication. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gross, R. (1999) Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour. (3rd Edition) Hodder and Stoughton.
Smith, P. K, Cowie, H. and Blades, M. (2003). Understanding Children’s Development. (4th Edition) Oxford: Blackwell.
Taylor, I. (1976). Introduction to Psycholinguistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Watson.
Wells, G and Nicholls, J. (1985). Language and Learning: An Interactional perspective. The Falmer Press
