First Language Acquisition: Innate or External

...

language grammars”. Evidence from researchers has also shown Chomsky’s LAD theory is plausible. Linguist Derek Bickerton studied the children of escaped slaves who, despite their parents speaking differing languages, were able to communicate by developing their own full language, known by linguists as a creole, (Bickerton 2008: 169/179) supporting Chomsky’s belief that it is impossible to prevent a child learning language.

Following from Chomsky’s publication, Eric Lenneberg, argued in 1967 that LAD could only be successful if it is activated before a certain age, known as the critical period and thought to be around age seven or younger. Brown (2000:53) further expanded this, explaining: “a biologically determined period of life when a language can be acquired more easily and beyond which time language is increasingly difficult to acquire.” The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) as it became known is supported by several documented cases of so-called ‘feral children’ - children who had grown up without the normal structure of family and society, and deprived of human language. Studies of these children showed they failed to acquire language successfully after the CPH had passed.

The most famous case of a feral child is that of Genie, a child discovered in 1970, aged 13, having suffered serious neglect after being raised in near total isolation and deprived of human contact. This negligence had resulted in Genie being unable to communicate, having never had the tools to develop a first language. Following her discovery, scientists, linguists, and psychologists, tried to rehabilitate her and teach her to speak in the hope her progress would help them understand more of language acquisition skills. Initially, Genie’s acquisition of speech was remarkably quick but the success was mainly in extending her vocabulary. She never became a fluent speaker and her grammar skills did not progress past those of an average five year old. It can therefore be argued that Genie failed to learn language, as a child raised in a normal environment would, because the critical learning period had passed.

Alongside the noted supporting evidence and research for Chomsky’s theory, there are also some denunciations. The Nativist proposition is criticised for being too focused on the grammar of language acquisition; and the rules of such; his model also underestimates language as a social phenomenon and does not account for interaction between children and their carer’s, or the reasons why a child may want to speak.

In contrast to Chomsky’s work, the Cognitive theory developed by Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, positioned language acquisition within the parameters of a child’s cognitive development and experience, arguing they were not separate entities and that one could not progress without the other. Piaget did not dispute Chomsky’s view that the development is innate however; he saw no need for a specific LAD within the human brain, believing language development is part of general learning. His view is that a child, through cognitive development, must firstly understand a concept before learning the language to voice the notion, and that the development of language is mainly a consequence of social interactions where children learn and use language to communicate their understanding of their physical interaction with their environment. Eve Clark supports Piaget’s view, “When they learn to speak, they represent their experience in words. They also draw on conceptual knowledge and its organization as they work out the meanings of new words and constructions” (Clark 2000; 8) and “Comprehension…tends to be far ahead of the production. Children understand many words before they can produce them.” (Clark 2000: 16)

Piaget’s work was recognised as greatly influential within first, and second, language acquisition aiding in explaining the order in which certain aspects of language are acquired. However, it was also criticised for focusing on cognitive development without explaining where language comes from. For example, apes develop cognitive skills at a relative rate to young children but acquiring language does not automatically follow. Piaget’s research sample was also thought to be too small – mainly focusing on his own three children and he was thought to have underestimated children’s abilities as research later showed developmental stages are reached earlier than Piaget suspected. He was also criticised for assuming the stages of normal mental development must be followed as studies later demonstrated children could learn to speak fluently despite an intellectual maturity abnormality.

Each of these theories can be categorised into the nature versus nurture debate with the nature side proposing that children have an innate ability to acquire language, and the nurture theorists proposing that interaction and environment around children is how they learn language. Skinner and his behaviourism theory fall firmly in to the nurture camp while Chomsky is definitely on the side of nature. On the other hand, Piaget theorizes it is more nurture but does not refute the possibility that nature does play a part.

After examining the three main theorists, it is apparent that none fully explain exactly how language acquisition occurs nor prove irrefutably that acquiring language is largely a result of natural innate ability, or external factors such as behaviour and environment. However, as supporting evidence is available for each three main schools of thought, it is important not to see them seen as exclusionary to one another, but to observe each can offer a partial explanation to how humans acquire language. They are not conflicting as such, more that they have added to the level of understanding surrounding language acquisition. Bearing this in mind it could be argued that both innate ability and external factors work together to assist children in acquiring their first language. Many aspects of human behaviour can be explained by a collaboration of genetic and environmental influences and this could also be true for language acquisition. However, for a definitive answer as to how humans develop language acquisition, and to reconcile the debate over whether innate ability or external factors, or a combination of both, leads to language acquisition, there requires much more research and scientific analysis.