1. Assignment On Approaches To Language Acquisition
1. 1. Approaches to Language Acquisition Language acquisition is the process by w hich the language capability
develops in a human especially in a child. First language acquisition concerns the development of language in
children, w hile Second Language Learning focuses on language development in adults. Historically, theorists are
often divided betw een emphasizing either nature or nurture as the most important explanatory factor for
acquisition. In this regard tw o different approaches w ere presented to account for the mysterious nature of
language acquisition w hich are being discussed in follow ing 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 w hat languages look like and they have a substantial amount of innate know ledge.
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 know ledge that languages are
hierarchically structured, the know ledge that several w ords can go in the same structural slot as one. Children
realize that language makes use of operations w hich are structure dependent. So that each slot in a sentence
functions as a unit w hich 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 w ith certain expectations. They are pre-w ired w ith some quite specific information about
language. And so approach the data they hear w ith advance know ledge. Of course Chomsky does not assume
that this know ledge is ready
2. 2. w aiting the moment the child is born. It takes time to mature. But w hen the time is right it requires relatively little
exposure to language for the know ledge to emerge. It may be like the grow th of teeth or breasts. Given normal
surroundings, these appear w ithout any great effort on the part of the acquirer. 2. Process Approach. The process
approach postulates that children have inbuilt puzzle solving equipment w hich 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 w ith some sort of process mechanism w hich enables them to
analyze linguistic dada. It is also said that children have no innate know ledge but processing information and
forming internal structures w hen these capacities are applied to the speech the child hears he succeeds in
containing a grammar of this native language. Chidren Wired w ith Know ledge of UG or w ith Puzzle Solving
equipment? Linguistic Know ledge Puzzle Solving Equipment Grammar Differences betw een Content Approach
and Process Approach. It seems some time that these tw o approaches can not be distinguished but keen
observation makes those distinguishable.
3. 3. 1. In both approaches the child may be end up w ith 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 tw o versions. (i) The
intelligent version-the child makes use of the cognitive abilities as he w ould to cope w ith everything else he comes
across in the w orld. (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 aw are 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 alw ays obey universal constraints? The answ er may be yes or not, both. It
means w e are quite unlikely to find similar sentences in children language w hich may contain universal constraints.
Various studies suggest that children are not pre-w ired w ith 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 answ er at random, or utilize a ‘probable w orld strategy’ that is interpret sentences by arranging
the w ords to give the most plausble meaning i Whereas Chomsky insisted on one structurally possible
interpretation of the utterances and that any other interpretation w ould 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 w hat they look for, or w hat to avoid- though some of this know ledge clearly develops over the
course of time. Chomsky’s Sw itch Setting Theory. According to Chomsky Universal Grammar is partly like a
sw itchboard w ith its sw itches in neutral position; children know in advance about the possible routes
4. 4. but they have to find out w hich particular option has been selected by the language they are learning. Once
children discover this, they flick each sw itch 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 w ith longer ones
4. Leaving out the subject pronouns (I, he etc.) and auxiliary verbs (am, is etc.) Because: they have temporarily set
a sw itch w rong, they have w rongly assume that English is a pro-drop language So it is concluded that gradually
children reach a point in maturation w hen they notice the presence of such items Chomsky’s theory raised
follow ing Problems. It is evident that children leave out numerous other things other than pronouns and auxiliaries-
a good theory w ould link all the omissions together. Setting or re-setting a sw itch should have ‘proliferating
consequences’ according to Chomsky such as in the case of re-sw itching 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 w ith only full ‘lexical’ items not
w ith little grammatical items Chomsky’s Head position-Sw itch Children might know in advance that language
structures have a head (key w ord), and that languages tend to put the modifiers (w ords 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 w ords they hear so there is no need to assume that a child has a ‘set parameter’. Furthermore, if a sw itch
2. had been set, w e w ould expect children to iron out various inconsistencies. They should say: ‘Ago tw o w eeks’
instead of ‘Tw o w eeks age’ Where the modifier occurs (exceptionally) after the w ords it modifies. But children show
no real signs of behaving like this and this is the biggest w eakness of sw itch-setting theory: Again a Question. No
one can agree how many sw itches 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 sw itch. 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 w hich are prohibited by language universals. They also do not acquire chunks of language by flicking a
sw itch. 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 Tw o Approaches. Process Approach offers various non-linguistic factors critical for guiding the
child forw ard through the thickets of language. The most important are: 1. Children’s needs; at tw o-word stage
children all over the w orld seem to talk about similar things, concerned primarily w ith the external w orld- both w ith
finding out about it and w ith getting w hat they w ant 2. General mental development 3. Parental speech Flaw But
these factors address only ‘w hat propels children onw ards’ and not ‘w hy there are certain broad outline similarities
in the w ay children acquire language’. Undoubtedly, children talk about everyday needs but it cannot account for
similarities in the development of language structure. No explanation w hy w e find parallel structural developments
in different children. There is no justification w hy children proceed to further stages of language development w hen
their ow n primitive structures have the desired effect. Secondly, if a child uses language creatively and have a firm
grip of linguistic structure but dislikes interacting w ith others so much that never speaks to his parents directly, he
provides evidence against the view that children are social beings w ho 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 w hen 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 grow th 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 w alk 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 w as not poems ( by Kate) It indicates that Language can not only be spared,
but even enriched, w hen other cognitive abilities are impaired. Statistically there is a link betw een 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 w hich language develops on its ow n
(Humboldt, cited in Slobin 1975). There is another idea is being shared in follow ing lines. What is A Linguistics
Process? For know ing linguistic Process it is very necessary to know Bootstrapping approach. It is like a computer
giving some preliminary commands w hich then allow to cope w ith more detailed programmes Linguistic
bootstrapping might w orkas follow s:- Children learn w ords w hich correlate w ell w ith actors, actions and objects
building these up in various semantic relatio nships Example:- Kitty Drink Drink Milk Then they sw itch over to
syntax. They start discovering that there is not necessarily a direct correlation betw een types of w ord and the w orld
Some have a naming-insight w hich triggers a surge forw ard in vocabulary and some may acquire a syntactic-
insight w hich triggers an innate processing device
9. 9. But Language does not correlate sufficiently w ith the w orld 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 w ords such as love, hate, got as
verbs for they do not involve an action, but they do not seem to have such problem
