Have you ever wondered why child language acquisition (CLA) has been a hot topic amongst linguists for decades, and are we any closer in getting an answer? Is language learnt through a combination of cognitive abilities and environmental stimuli or do children have a predetermined ability to acquire language, specifically grammar? As the American linguist Bloomfield (1933, p.29) stated, the process of a child acquiring language is “doubtless, the greatest intellectual feat any of us is required to perform”.
The two main theories of CLA are nativism and social constructivism. Nativists, such as Chomsky, believe that children have a predisposed ability to acquire the grammar of any language thanks to a language acquisition device (LAD). Social constructivists such as Tomosello believe it is more of a combination between cognitive processes and environmental stimuli.
Chomsky, in critiquing the behaviourist Skinner in the late 1950s, popularised the innatist approach (nature) and coined the term Universal Grammar (UG), an inbuilt set of grammar rules which allow a child to acquire any language. Chomsky’s ‘poverty of the stimulus’ theory claims that utterances simply cannot be learned through imitation because children seem to have the ability to create an infinite number of sentences, some of which they wouldn’t have heard uttered before.
Evans (2014, pp.95-96) – a critic of Chomsky – notes that the ‘language as instinct thesis’ believes that “language, or at least Universal Grammar that underpins language, is not learned: the challenge is simply – and clearly – too great”. The task for children to acquire language without UG or an innate ability seems incomprehensible and unachievable. Nativists discredit the assumption that children acquire language via social interaction through the poverty of stimulus argument. Chomsky states that it is impossible for children to acquire language through imitation or social interaction because the input they receive is simply inadequate for something as complex as language (Chomsky, 1980, as cited by Saxton, 2017, p.217). Evidence for the LAD and UG are seen through children’s overgeneralisations. This is where children make errors by applying a generic rule to an irregular item, for example, ‘my foots hurt’. The child has applied the standard rule for plurality but for an irregular form. Another common overgeneralisation is the use of the past suffix ‘-ed’ such as, ‘I wented’ instead of ‘I went’. This seems to supports the existence of a LAD and the presence of a UG because these incorrect forms wouldn’t be learnt as no adult would utter these, so a child couldn’t possibly learn these through imitation. Also, when and if children are corrected they understand the correct form but will still produce the incorrect version.
On the other side of the coin is social constructivism, meaning in use, with which Tomasello proposed the usage-based approach. This approach focuses itself around two processes; intention reading and pattern finding. Intention reading is where children try to comprehend the intentions of adults to form some sort of linguistic communication (Tomasello, 2003, p.3). Within this framework Tomasello notes the importance of joint attention, for example, the shared attention of a third object from a caregiver. If the adult points and says “look at the truck” the child will begin to work out the intention of the utterance. If the child thinks the caregiver is wanting to bring “the truck” to his attention the child would have made the correct intention. Then when the child hears his caregiver using similar utterances with the “look at” structure he will notice the similarity and form generalisations and an understanding for that convention. Pattern finding is what the child must do in order to progress beyond the individual utterances they hear around them from adults (Tomasello, 2003, p.70). Tomasello (2003, p.70) states that “pattern finding is overall the most central cognitive construction in the usage-based approach to language acquisition”. For example, children begin to identify what sort of words are frequently grouped together, such as ‘give’ + noun, like ‘give toy’ or ‘give food’. These constructions build up schemas in the child’s mind until their grammatical ability is ‘adult-like’.
To conclude, the nature vs nurture debate has been hotly debated since the 1950s and still is in the highest academic circles, so we still are no closer in finding a definite answer and probably won’t be in another 50 years. I think the innatist approach is logical in if you believe that language is simply too complex for a child to learn through environmental stimuli. Possibly the sensible answer would be that a combination of both approaches is responsible for how children acquire language in such a short period of time and what seems an effortless process. However I am yet to be convinced of the social constructivist approach.
CHARLIE LEADBEATTER, English language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK
References
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Saxton, M. (2017). Child language: acquisition and development. Los Angeles: SAGE.
Language Debates 
Hi Charlie, I enjoyed reading your blog on the debate of how children acquire language and I think it demonstrates how this debate does not yet have a definitive answer. Do you think we will ever have an answer to this debate or will people be divided on this topic forever?
I agree with your point, that ‘the task for children to acquire language without a UG or an innate ability seems incomprehensible and unachievable’. When reading into the concept of Universal Grammar further, I found Saxton counter argues this idea. Within the context of children learning the past tense inflection, Saxton (2010) explains that rules must be learned from experience (or imitation). Saxton says these rules could not possibly be innate, because languages vary in how they mark tense: ‘add -ed’ works for English, but it does not work for other languages like Japanese and Chinese for example, do not even mark tense on verbs. Do you think this is a valid point?
On the flip side, your arguments about the constructivist side of the debate were interesting. Rowland (2014) explains that Tomasello and other social constructivists, believe that children do not need innate linguistic constraints and instead, are guided by their understanding of what speakers are trying to say. Children use ‘social clues’ to learn the meaning of words. What are your thoughts on this approach?
To clarify, what are your reasons for not yet being convinced of the social constructivist approach?
From my experience with children, I believe that children do acquire certain aspects of speech from the adults they are around (for example their parents). However, I do agree with you, that language is far too complex for children to learn just by imitation. The nativist approach gives a good explanation of how children can acquire such a complex thing like language. However, I think this is just the infrastructure on which language is developed through the environment that the child is in.
References
Saxton, M. (2010). Child language: acquisition and development. London, United Kingdom: SAGE.
Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding child language acquisition. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Hi Charlie,
I believe that this is a really interesting discussion, looking at how children acquire language, it got me thinking about how I personally learnt to talk and working off what friends and family have said, I think that Tomasolli’s usage-based approach seems to be more fitting as children are learning to talk in context. By this I mean that with words for example ‘read’ they can be said differently dependent on the context that they are spoken in, therefore if a child was to innately see that word written down on a form stimuli without hearing it in different contexts then they would have two options of pronouncing it.
However, if they have heard adults using it in different contexts and they mimic the adult then there is more chance of them finding the pattern within in several texts.
Personally, I think there is both processes going on with childhood language acquisition as, they may pick up words and phrases from hearing adults uttering them, but the fundamentals of being able to learn to speak language must be innate as proposed by Chomsky.
Children will all have their own ways of learning a language therefore it may be impossible to study how it is done
Hi Charlie, an excellent read highlighting the long, complex history of the nature vs nurture debate!
In relation to the Chomskyan approach to language acquisition, I am reminded of the historical, linguistic Genie case in 1970. In this case, Genie was deprived of any stimuli for years beyond the critical age period and as a result, never acquired language. In my own understanding of the debate, this case is significant to look back on as it demonstrated evidence to support an innate ability to acquire language. However, it is noted by Jones (1995) that only after years of teaching “[g]enie was able to acquire the morphology and syntax of English and was still in the process of acquiring it when she was 18 years old’ (p. 278). In this case, it is suggested that a combination of both innate and constructivist approaches were at play. In my own experience, children tend to imitate that of their caregivers, and so to this extent, I am in agreement with Tomasello’s (2003) usage-based approaches. Although, as you mention, language acquisition seems to be too complex to be placed in the hands of imitation alone and does not account for overgeneralisations in children’s speech.
Overall, much like yourself, I believe that a combination of both approaches are at work as one approach cannot explain everything in language acquisition, and neither can the other.
References
Jones, P. E. (1995). Contradictions and unanswered questions in the genie case: A fresh look at the linguistic evidence. Language and Communication, 15(3), 261-280. doi:10.1016/0271-5309(95)00007-D
Hi Charlie, thank you for presenting a discussion which shows fair representation of both sides of the debate, whilst simultaneously providing stimulating food for thought.
I have to agree with you – the suggestion of a combination of both approaches also seems the most logical to me. I believe that humans must have a fundamental propensity for language because of their ability to acquire it at such a young age, but this must surely be realised through social situation and circumstance as well.
However, I do believe one of the most frustrating elements of the nativist theory is that it offers little certainty as to exactly what is innate. In an article I read recently, Pinker argues that Chomsky has proposed a succession of technical theories (such as Universal Grammar (UG)) in regards to language acquisition, however, a lot of his claims about language being innate have changed over the decades, and have never been accurate enough to confirm his theory (Horgon, 2016). Although in your blog you mention the overgeneralisation of the ‘-ed’ suffix as support for UG, do you feel there has been enough empirical research to support it?
I’m also curious to know why you are yet to be convinced of the social constructivist approach, as I have found copious amounts of work to suggest that this is a credible theory. One particular study I found recently that piqued my interest was an analysis of toddlers’ early language, carried out at Standard University, which found that rule-based knowledge of grammar emerges gradually, rather than from birth, with a significant increase in knowledge around 24 months (Shashkevich, 2017). Surely this favours a usage-based approach, rather than a nativist one.
I don’t mean in this comment to question the work of such a great linguistic pioneer as Chomsky, but until nativists can prove, through significant evidence, that Universal Grammar exists, I have my suspicions.
References
Horgon, J. (2016, November 28). Is Chomsky’s Theory of Language Wrong? Pinker Weighs in on Debate. Retrieved from Scientific American: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-chomskys-theory-of-language-wrong-pinker-weighs-in-on-debate/
Shashkevich, A. (2017, February 22). Toddlers’ grammar skills not inherent, but learned, new Stanford research says. Retrieved from Stanford News: https://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/22/new-research-toddlers-grammar-skills-learned-not-innate/
Hi Charlie, this was a very interesting read! By highlighting both sides of the debate well make it difficult to form any sort of opinion, or favour one side of the view of how children development and learn a language as both sides are covered so strongly. The quote by Bloomfield that you include is a very true concept and points out that acquiring language is the most important thing any of us can ever learn to do. Thus, being one of the most prominent reasons why it is such a widely discussed and debated topic.
It is interesting to try to support only one of the nativist/generativist views or the constructivist/functionalists. From your blog as well as further reading, when coming across an approach by one that appears plausible, the opposing view seems to have an explanation that makes me personally question what I have just previously read. Both sides put across strong arguments that are both equally acknowledged, hence why this is to quote you ‘a hot topic amongst linguists for decades.’
I agree with your point that there is evidence to support the nativist’s belief of how children acquire language, and especially the rules of grammar through Chomsky’s LAD and UG. You mention that when overgeneralisations occur in children’s speech, they support evidence that the LAD and UG do exist in an innate and pre-wired way. When a child applies the standard rule for plurality, but they use it in the incorrect form it must mean that some sort of pre-wired ability is there as these sorts of expressions are not uttered by adults. It is unlikely that Children would have heard an incorrect and ungrammatical sentence such as “I wented” from an adult meaning that to some extent it could not be imitated. This is where the nativist view states that language is innate and pre-wired from birth which would suggest how a child can form an incorrect irregular form using the correct method though.
In contrast to the nativist view, you equally and fairly show how a there can be different views and arguments to how children acquire and use language. The view proposed by Tomasello is a very important contrasting argument to challenge Chomsky’s view. The usage-based approach, I personally find just as credible as the view imposed by Chomsky, how do you credit it in relation to nativists? I came to this conclusion through extensive reading in this concept in which I found evidence for both sides to be structured well. The constructivist/functionalist view assumes that children are not born with any type of innate knowledge when it comes to language or grammar use. Instead this theory believes that there is to some extent the ability to learn a language is innate but not the ability of any type of pre-wired knowledge of how to use it or put it into practice. Instead children must work this out through imitating adult speech that they hear spoken and used around them. (Ambridge & Lieven 2011, p. 2).
From looking at both sides of the debate, I find that it is immensely difficult to favour one view, as I stated previously, when I think I may begin to side with one view I can then read a contrasting argument from the other approach and find myself agreeing with that point also. Do you agree with this or is there a clear argument that you find more credible? I especially find this with the quote by Tomasello (2003, p.70) that “pattern finding is overall the most central cognitive construction in the usage-based approach to language acquisition”. You include this quote along with the example that children begin to identify what sort of words are frequently grouped together, such as ‘give’ + noun, like ‘give toy’ or ‘give food’.
However, I believe that nativists, especially Chomsky would disagree with this view and instead argue that this is evidence to suggest that language use is innate. Nativists would say that in this case a child would not ‘begin to identify’ words that go together but instead they would naturally be able to do this without thinking. I would have to agree with Tomasello’s quote on this. I believe that children would learn over time and through adult speech imitation which words are grouped together, and they develop this skill by continued language use and progression.
How do you take to the assumption that could it not just be agreed upon that certain aspects of the nativist and the constructivist views are correct about CLA? How would you credit a view that perhaps overgeneralisations are just a natural process that all (English speaking) children go though, and creating an utterance such as “I wented” just seems like the most obvious fit and a natural assumption rather than because they have the help of Universal Grammar?
References
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hi Charlie
I found your blog to be really interesting and informative and enjoyed learning about your view on the nature and nurture debate. I found that I agree with your opinions on this key debates in English Language.
I agree with your emphasis on the important of Child Language Acquisition (CLA) and I think that Bloomfield (1993, p. 29) does demonstrate a key point by stating that CLA is “the greatest intellectual feat any of us is required to perform”. Personally, I would extend this to how CLA begins a child’s journey in terms of communication and learning language and how to talk itself.
What is your opinion on when children begin the learn language? Do you think the three different stages of babbling is the beginning of their first words?
In my opinion I feel like babbling is an incredibly powerful and beneficial tool for babies to be able to do. I feel like it is one of the first examples of children purposefully responding to an adult, agreeing with your points regarding the nativist debate. According to your blog, this largely links to Chomsky and how his ‘poverty of stimulus’ demonstrates that children to have this sense of innate ability to create sounds and sentences.
On the flip side, I do understand Rowland (2014) when it mentions the constructivism theory and how children have a sense of what the speaker is saying to them. However, I would argue that this is largely down to the innate sense of understanding a child has of communication.
For example, Skinner would argue that children learn through positive reinforcement, interlinking with how nativists believe that children do not need to be ‘formally taught’ how to speak, it is simply innate within their brain.
Personally, from looking at both sides of the debate, I agree with your blog and how you believe that the nativist approach is the most logical theory in regards to CLA. As I too find it difficult to understand the logic behind constructivism as I feel as though I am always linking my points back to nativism. I agree when you say that the debate is hotly debated for many years and how there never seems to be a definite answer
.
But for me, I find that the most interesting aspect of CLA, how with every opinion, their seems to be more debates and questions asked
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Rowland, C. (2014) Understanding child language acquisition. London, United Kingdom: Routledge.