Approaches to Language Acquisition

                Language acquisition is the process by which the language capability
d...
waiting the moment the child is born. It takes time to mature. But when the time is right it
requires relatively little ex...
1. In both approaches the child may be end up with same set of language universals
          and they are the result of in...
but they have to find out which particular option has been selected by the language they
    are learning. Once children d...
Children are consistent in their treatment of heads and modifiers may be
because they are sensitive to the order of the wo...
Comparison of Two Approaches.

                   Process Approach offers various non-linguistic factors critical for
   g...
grasp of language structure. Main studies suggest that cognitive development can not
provide the definite key to acquisiti...
language structure. There is no step by step programming. Motherless is not a syntax-
teaching language children are selec...
But Language does not correlate sufficiently with the world around so children can not
persist in using meaning to guide t...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Assignment On Approaches To Language Acquisition

2,125 views

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,125
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
66
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Assignment On Approaches To Language Acquisition

  1. 1. Approaches to Language Acquisition Language acquisition is the process by which the language capability develops in a human especially in a child. First language acquisition concerns the development of language in children, while Second Language Learning focuses on language development in adults. Historically, theorists are often divided between emphasizing either nature or nurture as the most important explanatory factor for acquisition. In this regard two different approaches were presented to account for the mysterious nature of language acquisition which are being discussed in following lines. 1. Content Approach. 2. Process Approach. 1. Content Approach by Noam Chomsky According to Chomsky, children learn language so efficiently and so fast because they know in advance what languages look like and they have a substantial amount of innate knowledge. Children seem to know that language is rule-governed, that a finite number of principles govern the enormous number of utterances they hear going on around them. They also have knowledge that languages are hierarchically structured, the knowledge that several words can go in the same structural slot as one. Children realize that language makes use of operations which are structure dependent. So that each slot in a sentence functions as a unit which can be moved around. Briefly a content approach postulates that a child’s Brain naturally contains a considerable amount of specific information about language. Chomsky Claims that children come to language learning with certain expectations. They are pre-wired with some quite specific information about language. And so approach the data they hear with advance knowledge. Of course Chomsky does not assume that this knowledge is ready
  2. 2. waiting the moment the child is born. It takes time to mature. But when the time is right it requires relatively little exposure to language for the knowledge to emerge. It may be like the growth of teeth or breasts. Given normal surroundings, these appear without any great effort on the part of the acquirer. 2. Process Approach. The process approach postulates that children have inbuilt puzzle solving equipment which enables themto process the linguistic data they come across. Chomsky’s theory that children innately contain large chunks of specific information about language is disputed by a number of people. These researchers claim that , instead of possessing advanced information, children are born with some sort of process mechanism which enables them to analyze linguistic dada. It is also said that children have no innate knowledge but processing information and forming internal structures when these capacities are applied to the speech the child hears he succeeds in containing a grammar of this native language. Chidren Wired with Knowledge of UG or with Puzzle Solving equipment? Linguistic Knowledge Puzzle Solving Equipment Grammar Differences between Content Approach and Process Approach. It seems some time that these two approaches can not be distinguished but keen observation makes those distinguishable.
  3. 3. 1. In both approaches the child may be end up with same set of language universals and they are the result of inbuilt analytic procedures but not there are at the beginning. 2. Process Approach comes in two versions. (i) The intelligent version-the child makes use of the cognitive abilities as he would to cope with everything else he comes across in the world. (ii) The linguistic version- child’s processing mechanisms are geared specifically for language. Content intelligence process or linguistic process It is said that Children are aware of universal constraints; they never utter a sentence impossible one for human languages. It can be said a best evidence for content approach. But the question rises that “Do children always obey universal constraints? The answer may be yes or not, both. It means we are quite unlikely to find similar sentences in children language which may contain universal constraints. Various studies suggest that children are not pre-wired with absolute information about language universals from the beginning and the universal constraints are acquired gradually. Young children often do not pay attention to the syntax, and either answer at random, or utilize a ‘probable world strategy’ that is interpret sentences by arranging the words to give the most plausble meaning i Whereas Chomsky insisted on one structurally possible interpretation of the utterances and that any other interpretation would go against universal constraints but the most plausible conclusion is that children do not have any firm, fixed beliefs about language as they acquire it; they do not seem to know what they look for, or what to avoid- though some of this knowledge clearly develops over the course of time. Chomsky’s Switch Setting Theory. According to Chomsky Universal Grammar is partly like a switchboard with its switches in neutral position; children know in advance about the possible routes
  4. 4. but they have to find out which particular option has been selected by the language they are learning. Once children discover this, they flick each switch and the system functions. Chomsky focuses on 1. children’s omissions for evidence 2. their Use of incomplete utterances 3. The brief type of utterance often alternates with longer ones 4. Leaving out the subject pronouns (I, he etc.) and auxiliary verbs (am, is etc.) Because: they have temporarily set a switch wrong, they have wrongly assume that English is a pro-drop language So it is concluded that gradually children reach a point in maturation when they notice the presence of such items Chomsky’s theory raised following Problems. It is evident that children leave out numerous other things other than pronouns and auxiliaries- a good theory would link all the omissions together. Setting or re-setting a switch should have ‘proliferating consequences’ according to Chomsky such as in the case of re-switching of the pronouns and auxiliaries- but, in fact, the auxiliaries creep in one by one over several months. Moreover, there are several possible explanations for children’s early omissions: leaving out unstressed items, at early stage they cope with only full ‘lexical’ items not with little grammatical items Chomsky’s Head position-Switch Children might know in advance that language structures have a head (key word), and that languages tend to put the modifiers (words relating to the head) constantly either before or after it. Mystery Solved.
  5. 5. Children are consistent in their treatment of heads and modifiers may be because they are sensitive to the order of the words they hear so there is no need to assume that a child has a ‘set parameter’. Furthermore, if a switch had been set, we would expect children to iron out various inconsistencies. They should say: ‘Ago two weeks’ instead of ‘Two weeks age’ Where the modifier occurs (exceptionally) after the words it modifies. But children show no real signs of behaving like this and this is the biggest weakness of switch-setting theory: Again a Question. No one can agree how many switches there are or how exactly they are set for language acquisition. It is just too messy a process to be explained by the flick of a switch. It does not appeal. Conclusion It can be concluded that Children do not appear to have firm advance expectations about language and do not necessarily steer clear of sentences which are prohibited by language universals. They also do not acquire chunks of language by flicking a switch. Chomskyean ‘universals’ may still exist but triggered by simple data, requiring very little effort on child’s part and develop gradually.
  6. 6. Comparison of Two Approaches. Process Approach offers various non-linguistic factors critical for guiding the child forward through the thickets of language. The most important are: 1. Children’s needs; at two-word stage children all over the world seem to talk about similar things, concerned primarily with the external world- both with finding out about it and with getting what they want 2. General mental development 3. Parental speech Flaw But these factors address only ‘what propels children onwards’ and not ‘why there are certain broad outline similarities in the way children acquire language’. Undoubtedly, children talk about everyday needs but it cannot account for similarities in the development of language structure. No explanation why we find parallel structural developments in different children. There is no justification why children proceed to further stages of language development when their own primitive structures have the desired effect. Secondly, if a child uses language creatively and have a firm grip of linguistic structure but dislikes interacting with others so much that never speaks to his parents directly, he provides evidence against the view that children are social beings who cater for their needs through communication. Another point, Cognitive development: commonly held notion that language acquisition is both dependent on it and caused by it. The development of comparative constructions occurs at a time when a child start recognizing the things.” But, the simultaneous development of different abilities does not prove that one is dependent on the other for in a normal child many aspects of growth take place at around the same time. In many children general cognitive development is unrelated to their
  7. 7. grasp of language structure. Main studies suggest that cognitive development can not provide the definite key to acquisition of language structure- even though it is clearly important for meaningful communication. Here is an example. Kate is over 40, but her case is strange. Her mantle age has been assed at around that of a 07 seven years old. She is a great poet. She can not solve even the simplest verbal intelligence test problems, and has huge difficulties using language in every days, situations. Here are few lines of her poetry, declaring her disability. I got it My disability Not never to walk from it It shares my space, breathes the same air I can not have the day off I lost the Me I got under everything That was not poems ( by Kate) It indicates that Language can not only be spared, but even enriched, when other cognitive abilities are impaired. Statistically there is a link between items produced frequently by parents, and those acquired early by the child, Fine-tuning hypothesis (Cross 1977): parents gradually increase the complexity of their speech as the child becomes ready for each new stage. Parents subconsciously attune their output to their child’s needs. Other than children’s innate ability, mothers posses an inner language teaching device. But no doubt, parents attune to their child’s interests but not
  8. 8. language structure. There is no step by step programming. Motherless is not a syntax- teaching language children are selective due to their inbuilt filter. It has been observed that Parental speech is more coherent & “language can not really be taught. One can only offer the thread along which language develops on its own (Humboldt, cited in Slobin 1975). There is another idea is being shared in following lines. What is A Linguistics Process? For knowing linguistic Process it is very necessary to know Bootstrapping approach. It is like a computer giving some preliminary commands which then allow to cope with more detailed programmes Linguistic bootstrapping might work as follows:- Children learn words which correlate well with actors, actions and objects building these up in various semantic relatio nships Example:- Kitty Drink Drink Milk Then they switch over to syntax. They start discovering that there is not necessarily a direct correlation between types of word and the world Some have a naming-insight which triggers a surge forward in vocabulary and some may acquire a syntactic-insight which triggers an innate processing device
  9. 9. But Language does not correlate sufficiently with the world around so children can not persist in using meaning to guide them By classifying verbs as actions children can make strange over-generalizations Example:- She is noising She is busying It can be concluded that Children can fail to recognize words such as love, hate, got as verbs for they do not involve an action, but they do not seem to have such problem

×