2) INNATISM: IT’S ALL IN YOUR MIND

Chomsky (1959) argues that behaviorism cannot provide sufficient explanations for

children’s language acquisition for the following reasons:

Chomsky (1959) argues that behaviorism cannot provide sufficient explanations for

children’s language acquisition for the following reasons:

–Children come to know more about the structure of their language than they could be

expected to learn on the basis of the samples of language they hear.

–The language children are exposed to includes false starts, incomplete

sentences and slips of the tongue, and yet they learn to distinguish between

grammatical and ungrammatical sentences.

–Children are by no means systematically corrected or instructed

on language by parents.

Children are biologically

programmed for language

Language develops in the child

In the same way of other biological

functions

language

acquisition

learning to walk.

LAD: LANGUAGE ACQUISITION DEVICE ( or BLACK BOX)

– It contains all and only the principles which are universal to all human languages

(i.e.. Universal Grammar – UG).

If children are pre-equipped with UG.

What they have to learn is

The ways in which their own language make use of those principles

children need access only to

samples of a natural language

CONCLUSION

• Children’s acquisition of grammatical rules is guided by principles of an innate UG

which could apply to all languages.

• Children “know” certain things of the language just by being exposed to a

limited number of samples.

Evidence used to support Chomsky’s innatist position:

Virtually all children

successfully learn their native language

at a time in life

when they would not be expected

to learn anything else so complicated

(i.e. biologically programmed).

–Language is separate from other aspects of cognitive

developments

(e.g., creativity and social grace)

and may be located in a different “module" of the brain.

The language children are exposed to does not contain

examples

of all the linguistic rules and patterns.

Animals cannot learn

to manipulate a symbol system

as complicated as

the natural language

of a 3- or 4-year-old child.

Children acquire grammatical

rules without getting explicit

instruction.

The biological basis for the innatist position:

The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) –Lenneberg: • There is a specific and limited time period (i.e.,

“critical period”) for the LAD to work successfully.

• Only when it is stimulated at the right time

Two versions

STRONG

ONLY BY PUBERTY

WEAK

AFTER PUBERTY IT WILL BE MORE DIFFICULT AND INCOMPLETE

Virtually every child learns language on a similar schedule in spite of different

environments.

– Three case studies of abnormal language development - evidence of the CPH • Victor – a boy of about 12 years old

(1799)• Genie – a girl of 13 years old (1970)• Deaf signers (native signers, early

learners, vs. late learners)