The child language acquisition (CLA) – ‘nature vs nurture’- debate is one of the most renowned among linguists. The question ultimately asks: do children have an innate capability to understand and produce grammar and basic language rules, or is their acquisition of language as a result of social interaction and more general cognitive tools? Language is not simply just one skill which humans have to acquire, but embodies a range of different abilities needed in order to achieve this (Rowland, 2014, pp.2). So, can we really determine the root of CLA if there are so many components within any language?
Let’s first take the nativist approach or ‘nature’ approach. The celebrated linguistic Chomsky proposed that children have an innate ability to acquire grammar, regardless of the language community they are born into. This is, according to Chomsky, due to what he called a Language Acquisition Device (LAD), a cognitive function which all humans are born with. He claims there is a Universal grammar (UG) which refers to a set of grammatical rules which are applicable to all languages and are also built within cognitive processes. For example, if a child whose native language was English was given a nonsense word such as ‘yag’ used for a noun and the child was put into a situation where a plural was necessary, despite never having heard the plural before, they would likely automatically reply with ‘yags’ (or if another language, the appropriate plural inflection for that language). This follows grammatical conventions due to the UG. Rowland (2014, pp.235) explains that nativists argue that “language is unlearnable from the environment alone”.
Baker (2003) conducted a study which showed how English and Japanese have some hidden similarities and patterns within the language (Baker, 2003, pp. 350 as cited by Rowland, 2014, pp.235). This seems to support Chomsky’s idea that there are parameters within UG that can be unlocked depending on the language being learnt. For example, the subject-verb-object sentence structure in English is a parameter, however, in a different language this may differ. These parameters are unlocked by triggers when the child acquires a language so will therefore learn under one specific parameter. Universal grammar can be said to be an advantage for children and would give them a “head start” when acquiring language (O’Grady, 2005, pp.184). Criticisms showcase how having a UG alone is not how children are able to acquire grammar.
Social constructivists – who propose that ‘nurture’ plays a role in grammatical development – argue that because all languages are different, how is it possible to have a UG? Tomasello suggests a usage-based approach. Children are able to acquire language without the presence of a hypothetical UG (Tomasello, 2005, p.3). There are two processes children go through in order to acquire language, the first being ‘intention-reading’. This is where a child is able to share attention with adults over objects (Bakeman & Adamson, 1984, as cited by Tomasello, 2005, p.3). One example of this can be shown through an adult pointing to a plane in the sky and uttering “there is a plane” to the child. The child will associate this utterance with the adult bringing a plane to their attention. After the utterance “there is” repeated, the child will begin to learn that this means the adult is bringing any given object to their attention and not just a plane. Under this view, it is essential that certain parts of the body are developed enough in order to carry out intention reading (Ambridge & Lieven, 2011, p.365). This process not only allows for linguistic development but also allows children to develop play and cultural norms (Tomasello, 2005, p.4). The second process is ‘pattern finding’. This is where a child is able to form categories of similar objects or occurrences (Rakison & Oakes as cited by Tomasello, 2005, p.4). For example, a child will put all animals into a category through the use of analogies to allow for better understanding under more manageable data stores.
To conclude, as proven, this debate is still to this day one which cannot be simply answered. I know it’s best not to sit on the fence with these approaches, however I solely believe that it has to be a combination of both nature and nurture. Environmental stimuli plays a massive factor within a child’s learning, however, how is it possible for a child to acquire grammatical rules without the presence of a UG and without any input from adults?
ANNA EYRE, English Language undergraduate, University of Chester, UK
References
O’Grady, W. D. (2005). How children learn language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding child language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Language Debates 
Hi Anna,
I really enjoyed reading blog post, and I think you summarise the two sides of the Nature vs Nurture argument succinctly. The examples you provide exemplify the difficulties linguists face when discussing Child Language Acquisition, as every study presented in the blog post offers contradictory conclusions. For example, the studies arguing for ‘intention-reading’ and ‘pattern-finding’, as referenced by Tomasello (2005, pp. 3-4), are incompatible with those supporting Universal Grammar.
I agree with you that the most likely conclusion, if linguists are to ever reach such a unanimous decision, is that the human brain combines pre-existing linguistic rules and guidelines with real-life experience of the language being used by fluent speakers, over the course of the child’s early years, and further into education. Truthfully, though, I doubt any such definitive decision will ever be made, as the means by which to properly analyse what occurs in a human brain during language production are not yet unobtrusive enough. It seems the constructivists and the nativists have no choice but to continue arguing.
Hi Anna, this is an interesting and well-balanced summary of the arguments of the sides of the acquisition debate.
I find it very difficult to believe that language acquisition can be a solely innate process. Pinker’s suggestion that language “develops in the child spontaneously, without conscious effort or formal expression” (2003, p. 18) seems rather hard to believe when you consider the time and effort put into teaching children language both in the home and at school, and especially that time which is spent attempting to expand the vocabularies of young children.
The example you have given of the ‘yag’ experiment, which is very similar to (and most likely influenced by) Jean Berko Gleason’s ‘wug’ experiment, does seem to present interesting evidence supporting the ‘nativist’ theory of language acquisition. However, could it not be suggested that the findings of this experiment could easily be underwritten by the possibility of bias? The children interviewed could easily have been exposed to similar words of the same word class in the same/very similar sentences in the household in which they have grown up, and therefore know by association which plural suffix to apply. It could even be that the child will have mistaken the nouns provided for ones they already know – such as ‘bag’ or ‘mug’.
Furthermore, it is presumptuous and slightly egocentric to believe that, as some nativists believe, our species is the only one on the planet which has evolved with a LAD or Universal Grammar system, while so much of DNA is shared with other organisms. Other species’ like ours may not (yet) have evolved to build nuclear power stations and made it to the moon, but that does not mean that their methods of communication are as inferior as presumed. They have clearly continued the existence of each species – which is the main aim of language.
Evans (2014) suggested that while a child may come into the world biologically prepared for language, “language exposure must take place in a normal human socio-cultural context, resulting in distinct varieties” (p. 95). This suggestion raises queries surrounding the existence of regional varieties of languages. If the nativist theory uses the idea of parameters to explain children’s ability to learn entirely different languages with this one system, then I wonder what their justification for the emergence of regional variety may be? This area would need more clarification before I am able to consider the nativist theory as convincing.
Evans, V. (2014). The language myth: Why language is not an instinct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinker, S. (2003). The language instinct. London: Penguin.
Hi Anna,
I really enjoyed reading your blog post about the ‘nature vs nurture’ debate surrounding language acquisition. I found it to be interesting and very well balanced, examining both sides of the argument in a fair and responsible manner.
From the onset, I agree with you. The ‘nature vs nurture’ debate is extremely central to linguistics and I believe that it is a debate that will continue to be discussed for many, many years and unfortunately, I doubt there will ever be a definite answer.
As you suggest you believe language learning requires a combination of both nature and nurture, I believe Karmiloff- Smith’s opinion will be of interest to you. Karmiloff – Smith notes that “all scientists… from the staunchest Chomskian nativist to the most domain – general empiricist… agree that development involves contributions from both genes and environment” (1998, p. 389).
I wonder whether in the future, there will be more of a focus on which side of the debate is most useful for deciding how best to teach children language skills as opposed to a straightforward right or wrong answer to the debate.
References:
Karmiloff- Smith, A. (1998) Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders. Trends in cognitive sciences, 2(10), 389-398.
Hi Anna
Your blog included a lot of interesting facts and opinions on this largely debated topic! I agree with your conclusion that it simply does not have a straightforward answer on whether it is nature of nurture. As, we as English Language students have been studying this debate since our GCSE’s up until undergraduate level, and I still cannot decide.
I believe that both genetics and the environment play a large role in the acquisition of grammar. I feel as though the environment a child grows up in is incredibly important to their acquisition of language and their general cognitive tools. As Rowland (2014, p. 2) stated; “language is not simply just one skill which humans have to acquire but embodies a range of different abilities needed in order to achieve this [language]”.
On one hand I would agree with social constructivists who would say that from the environment a child’s linguistic ability is developed as well as their ability to develop play and cultural norms (Tomasello, 2005, p. 4). I feel as though a child need to learn how to play and be social in order to become a well-rounded human as well as it being a natural and unforced way to learn language. However, I do agree with the nativist approach who follow the conventions of universal grammar.
References
Rowland, C. (2014). Understand child language acquisition. Abingdon: Routledge.
Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.