The following paper elaborates to what extent input plays a central role in First and Second Language Acquisition and what influence it has in the universal grammar approach to language acquisition and the usage-based approach. Moreover, two papers will be examined and analyzed in the second part of the thesis.
The mastery of one or even more languages can be judged as a necessary foundation of every human being. People’s participation in social processes can only be guaranteed by expressing, interacting and communication trough language. Thus, one can become part of a society by interaction and communication. From birth, infants tend to express themselves, initially through non-verbal communication which is subsequently replaced or extended by single words to first exclamations and incomplete sentences. Thus, as soon as toddlers use more than two words to express themselves, it is often referred to as telegraphic style.
Due to the importance of learning to speak, linguists, psychologists and other scientific field experts have been studying the background and context of language acquisition for quite a long time such as B. F. Skinner who examined language learning already in the 1940s/50s. His sophisticated behavioristic approach, nowadays regarded as outdated, saw the infant as a tabula rasa, i.e., as a kind of blank page which has to be filled or written on. This approach considered the acquisition of language based on a stimulus-response model, in which the environment plays a central role in the learning process. The infant, however, has almost no active role within this process but rather acts as an imitator. Over the years, numerous other theories of language acquisition have been developed and established.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
2 The Role of Input for First and Second Language Acquisition
2.1 Universal Grammar
2.2 Usage-Based Approach
3 Theoretical Approaches and Analysis
3.1 Paper 1: “What infants know about syntax but couldn’t have learnt: experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months.”
3.2 Paper 2: “Learning antecedents for anaphoric one”
4 Conclusion
5 Bibliography
Objectives & Core Themes
The primary objective of this thesis is to examine the role of linguistic input in the processes of First Language Acquisition (FLA) and Second Language Acquisition (SLA), specifically by comparing the Universal Grammar (UG) perspective and the Usage-Based Approach to investigate how language is effectively acquired.
- Comparison of Universal Grammar and Usage-Based theories
- Evaluation of the importance of external input versus innate knowledge
- Analysis of specific experimental papers on infant syntactic acquisition
- Discussion of the role of social interaction in language learning
- Critique of the "poverty-of-the-stimulus" argument
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 Paper 1: “What infants know about syntax but couldn’t have learnt: experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months.”
Lidz, Waxman and Freedman (2003) support in their paper the nativist perspective, by clarify through their study on infants that a learner of a language has “a set of representational presuppositions inside the mind” (Lidz/Waxman/Freedman 2003: 302) since certain linguistic knowledge could not be acquired through input.
In the introduction, they emphasize the Chomskyan idea of language acquisition by presenting its view of deficient and insufficient input and explaining the poverty-of-the-stimulus (POS) argument. Accordingly, they point out that every human being is biologically predisposed with innate linguistic structures and principles regarding language acquisition ability. Moreover, they emphasize that there are also critics of the POS argument who argue that the input is sufficient to acquire a language in interaction with general learning mechanisms.
They then derive their research approach, through which they aim to show that correct grammar is apparently not an essential component of the language learning experience.
For this purpose, they explain the hierarchical structure of NP and the anaphoric uses of one, distinguishing between a flat structure hypothesis and a nested structure hypothesis. They claim that children know that the anaphoric use of one refers to the phrasal category N′ and thus the use of a nested structure hypothesis. Moreover, the researchers argue that the infants are aware that one does not refer to the category N° and therefore the use of a flat structure. Since such situations, where the correct structure is unambiguously endorsed, probably not occur frequently enough in the input to affect learning should this ultimately be evidence of innate language knowledge and support the POS argument.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: This chapter provides the theoretical context of language acquisition, establishes the difference between FLA and SLA, and introduces the central role of input.
2 The Role of Input for First and Second Language Acquisition: This chapter explores how input is perceived within different theoretical frameworks, examining the distinction between native and non-native proficiency.
2.1 Universal Grammar: This chapter outlines Chomsky’s theory, focusing on the Language Acquisition Device (LAD), innate knowledge, and the concept of the poverty-of-the-stimulus.
2.2 Usage-Based Approach: This chapter discusses the theory that language emerges from communication and social interaction, rejecting the idea of purely innate linguistic knowledge.
3 Theoretical Approaches and Analysis: This chapter presents the methodological plan to investigate two specific papers concerning syntactic structure and anaphoric elements.
3.1 Paper 1: “What infants know about syntax but couldn’t have learnt: experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months.”: This chapter analyzes a study supporting the nativist viewpoint through experimental evidence on infant linguistic awareness.
3.2 Paper 2: “Learning antecedents for anaphoric one”: This chapter reviews a critical counter-study that challenges the experimental findings and methodology of the first paper.
4 Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the arguments from both theories, concluding that language acquisition is a complex, multifactorial process.
5 Bibliography: This section lists all scientific sources used throughout the thesis.
Key Terms
Language Acquisition, Universal Grammar, Usage-Based Approach, Input, First Language Acquisition, Second Language Acquisition, Poverty-of-the-Stimulus, Language Acquisition Device, Syntax, Anaphoric, Nativism, LAD, Social Interaction, Age of Learning, Innate Knowledge
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this thesis?
The thesis explores the extent to which linguistic input affects the process of language acquisition, debating whether it is driven by innate structures (Universal Grammar) or environmental interaction (Usage-Based Theory).
What are the central thematic fields discussed?
The work covers First and Second Language Acquisition, the role of social interaction, theoretical linguistic models, and experimental studies on infant syntax.
What is the core research question?
The research investigates whether input is a crucial variable in language acquisition or if internal, innate structures play a more dominant role in the development of linguistic proficiency.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author uses a literature-based comparative analysis, synthesizing existing theories and evaluating specific empirical studies to contrast the Universal Grammar and Usage-Based models.
What does the main body cover?
The main body examines the conflicting theories of Chomsky and Tomasello, provides a detailed analysis of two conflicting empirical papers regarding infant syntax, and discusses the implications of these studies.
Which keywords best describe the paper?
Key terms include Universal Grammar, Usage-Based Approach, Language Acquisition, Input, Poverty-of-the-Stimulus, and Nativism.
How does the Universal Grammar approach explain language acquisition?
It assumes that humans are born with an innate "language organ" or device that allows for the acquisition of complex grammar even when the received input is insufficient or flawed.
What primary criticism does Paper 2 raise against Paper 1?
Paper 2 argues that the experiments in Paper 1 are methodologically flawed and fail to prove that the infants possessed innate knowledge, suggesting that the results might be explained by contextual factors.
Does the author favor one theory over the other?
The author maintains a balanced perspective, concluding that while both theories contribute to our understanding, the complexity of language acquisition likely requires an all-encompassing, multifactorial view.
- Citar trabajo
- Anonym (Autor), 2023, Approaches to Language Acquisition. The Role of Input for First and Second Language Acquisition, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1511792
