Children all over the world seem to acquire their first language in much the same manner. The stages in their highly structured First Language Acquisition (FLA) process that involve making hypotheses and testing them against the linguistic input they are exposed to, appear to be universal in all children. However, Chomsky′s nativist theory of a Language Faculty that is innate in every healthy human being has been challenged vigorously - especially by advocates of the behaviouristic school.
Alas, there are certain arguments that strongly support the Innateness Hypothesis (IH) and the existence of a Language Faculty1:
1. FLA is uniform
2. FLA is untutored
3. FLA is underdetermined by exposure/data
4. FLA draws from degenerated input
5. FLA features no negative evidence
6. FLA is always successful
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Nature vs. Nurture Debate
3. The Innateness Hypothesis
4. Conclusion
Research Objectives and Focus Areas
This essay explores the ongoing debate between behaviourist and nativist perspectives on first language acquisition (FLA), specifically focusing on Noam Chomsky's Innateness Hypothesis and its implications for the development of syntactic competence in children.
- The role of genetics versus environmental influence in language acquisition.
- Evaluation of arguments supporting the Innateness Hypothesis (e.g., uniformity, lack of negative evidence).
- The process of syntax acquisition and children's internal rule-governed systems.
- The concept of Universal Grammar and parametric variation across languages.
- Analysis of structural dependency and movement constraints in child language production.
Excerpt from the Book
3. The Innateness Hypothesis
One argument supporting the IH is that FLA is uniform. Throughout the process of acquiring their first language every healthy child goes through identical stages of acquisition at a more or less identical age.
All hearing children start of with the perception and production of speech sounds. When exposed to speech sounds not phonemic in the target language, babies will still be able to respond to these phonetic contrasts. Infants distinguish between such allophones of one phoneme such as [ba] and [péa], even if this differentiation does not occur in their language. (Fromkin et al. 2003. 353). Furthermore, babies do not differentiate distinctions that are not in accordance with phonemic contrasts in any language, such as variation in the loudness of a sound, or the realization of sounds lying between two phonemes. (Fromkin et al. 2003. 353)3. This could be an explanation why children can learn any language they are exposed to. “Human brains are so constructed that one brain responds in much the same way to a given trigger as does another brain, all things being equal. This is why a baby can learn any language; it responds to triggers in the same way as any other baby.” (Hostadter, cited in O’Grady. 1996. 464)
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Outlines the universality of first language acquisition and introduces the central debate between the behaviourist school and Chomsky’s nativist theory.
2. The Nature vs. Nurture Debate: Discusses the historical and linguistic discourse on whether language ability is an innate biological development or a result of environmental learning.
3. The Innateness Hypothesis: Examines evidence for the hypothesis, focusing on uniformity, the poverty of stimulus, structural dependency, and the emergence of grammatical rules in children.
4. Conclusion: Synthesizes the arguments by suggesting that while language acquisition appears biologically grounded, a comprehensive explanation likely involves an interaction between innate programming and environmental exposure.
Keywords
First Language Acquisition, Innateness Hypothesis, Universal Grammar, Language Faculty, Syntax, Nature vs. Nurture, Behaviourism, Nativism, Structural Dependency, Linguistic Parameters, Child Language, Phonemic Contrast, Degenerated Input, Negative Evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the debate surrounding first language acquisition, specifically questioning whether the process is guided by an innate, grammar-specific mechanism as proposed by Noam Chomsky.
What are the main thematic areas discussed?
The core themes include the nature vs. nurture debate, the evidence supporting the Innateness Hypothesis, the development of syntactic competence, and the role of Universal Grammar.
What is the central research question?
The research investigates whether the acquisition of a first grammar is guided by an innate, grammar-specific device in the human brain.
Which scientific methodology is employed?
The essay utilizes a qualitative literature review and theoretical analysis, drawing upon linguistic theories and empirical findings from child language acquisition studies.
What topics are covered in the main body?
The main body details the arguments for innateness (uniformity, lack of negative evidence), the debate between behaviourist and nativist perspectives, and specific linguistic phenomena like WH-movement and reflexive pronoun interpretation.
Which keywords define this work?
Key terms include First Language Acquisition, Innateness Hypothesis, Universal Grammar, Syntax, and Nature vs. Nurture.
Why does the author argue that children are not just imitating?
The author argues that children produce novel sentences and over-generalizations (like "goed") that they could not have heard in their environment, proving they are actively constructing grammatical rules.
How does the concept of "c-command" support the Innateness Hypothesis?
The author uses c-command to demonstrate that children possess knowledge of abstract, complex syntactic structures without formal instruction, suggesting these principles must be inborn.
- Quote paper
- Sandra Beyer (Author), 2005, Is the acquisition of a first grammar guided by an innate, grammar-specific device?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/45314
