A Reanalysis of Lenneberg's "Biological Foundations of Language" by a Behaviorist and a

Nativist
Author(s): Stephen I. Sulzbacher and D. Kimbrough Oller
Source: Behaviorism, Vol. 2, No. 2 (Fall, 1974), pp. 146-161
Published by: Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27758818 .
Accessed: 21/10/2011 09:42
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Behaviorism.

http://www.jstor.org

of Lenneberg's

A Re analysis
of Language

Foundations
Biological
and
a Nativist

by a Behaviorist

Stephen

I. Sulzbacher

and D.

Kimbrough

University

Oiler1

of Washington

(1967) significant mono

retrospective analysis of Lenneberg's
between markedly differing perspectives
graph represents an effort at communication
book addresses itself directly to
Because
science.
Lenneberg's
concerning psychological
the controversy between empiricism and nativism, any theoretical review of the book is
This

collaborative

1970, or Bern and Bern, 1968). This paper will in some

likely to take sides (cf. Hockett,
measure present both viewpoints in a fashion similar to Salzinger
(1973). The issues
involved will be explored largely in the light of research done since the publication of
book and therefore this paper should be considered more as a discussion of
Lenneberg's
issues than as a review of the book. Given the authors' acknowledged
differences, itwas

book and separate replies to the

to present separate comments on Lenneberg's
the differing
A single joint review would probably have obscured
commentaries.
we
have hoped to clarify. Because of the breadth of Lenneberg's work, it
opinions which
in general, to confine comments to the authors' own areas of
has been necessary,

decided

expertise

and to emphasize

in the discussion

the general

theoretical orientation

of the

monograph.
The

Analysis

Nativist's

The Book's

Nativistic

Theme

is no different from other

says, "Man
page 298 of his book, Lenneberg
''
This sentence provides a fine illustration of how misleading a statement can be
animals.
when presented out of context. In fact, Lenneberg's
primary thesis in Biological
On

Oiler
of Pediatrics
and D. Kimbrough
Professor
I. Sulzbacher
is Assistant
(the behaviorist)
Stephen
on Language
and the Committee
of Speech
in the Dept.
is a Senior Research
Associate
(the nativist)
to either author at: Child Development
Address
at the University
ofWashington.
correspondence
Learning
This study was
98195.
Univ. ofWashington,
and Mental Retardation
Seattle, Washington
Center, WJ-10,
and
Health
Human
of
National
Institute
Child
the
in
(NIH-NICHHD
Development
part
by
supported

71-2446 COA #3) and Maternal and Child Health Service Project #913.

146

Stephen

I. Sulzbacher-D.

Kimbrough

Oller

is thatman is different?
thatman in unique in the animal
of Language
to
learn and use natural language. The
kingdom by virtue of his innately given ability
quoted statement was intended tomean thatman is like other animals in that both display

Foundations

the discussion
behaviors. Hopefully,
that follows will be sufficiently
species-specific
so
we
accurate
cannot
and
be
that
of
accused
general
citing him out of context more than

once.

The most

significant general contribution of the book seems to be the gathering

a
of
together
variety of valuable findings and convincing arguments indicating the
existence of specific innate factors which make human language learning possible. The
and neurologists who have
presentation brings to bear (1) the work of aphasiologists
shown that there are relatively localized centers in the human brain (both cortically and
subcortically) which seem to be necessary for normal language function;2 (2) results
from physiology suggesting that there are special neural adaptions inman for control of

such factors as respiration during speech; (3) results of aphasiology, psycholinguistics

and speech pathology which make a case for a "critical"
period of development after
which the normal learning of language becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible;
(4) results from geneticists whose examinations of family histories and the development
of identical and fraternal twins suggest strongly that there is an inherited basis for

disorders; (5) arguments and results from linguistics and psycholinguistics

is a complicated phenomenon,
the existence of
indicating that language development
which could hardly be explained purely in terms of environmental contingencies; and (6)
language

work

of physiologists,
neurologists and psychologists
suggesting that rhythm3 is a
central organizing principle for behavior in general and language in particular, and that
All of
rhythms inman are controlled by underlying innate physiological mechanisms.

these results serve to support the nativist conviction that language

constructs
explained purely in terms of traditional behavioristic

learning cannot be
like classical
and

instrumental conditioning. Lenneberg shows that in addition to such traditional notions,

we must include in our model of
language learning an innate human propensity for
structures.
The
breadth of Lenneberg's
treatment and the care with
mastering linguistic
which

he presents various difficult arguments make his discussion

and convincing currently available,
language themost comprehensive
book is now more than seven years old.
is Lenneberg's

of innateness

in

even though the

discussion

of rhythm in human behavior. He

numerous
and
1951,
persuasively argues (citing Lashley,
others) that serial ordering of
cannot
units
be
terms
for
in
of an associative chaining
linguistic
adequately accounted
one
must invoke a hierarchical model which suggests central nervous
model, but that
Particularly provocative

system control of serial ordering. His argument suggests a model of linguistic structure
where rhythm plays a primary role, the sort of model presented more recently by Martin
(1972) who argues that rhythm provides a bridge between perception and production, as
well as providing the framework within which segmental
phonology operates. The
2
is actually one of the more moderate
of recent localizationists
1971).
Lenneberg
(cf. Whitaker,
3"
as used here refers to the placement
and accenting of behavioral
units in time. Linguistic
Rhythm"
factors like intonation, syllable stress, and syllable duration.
It should be noted
rhythm, then, encompasses
that these are not mutually
exclusive
of the speech signal.
characteristics
factors, but rather are overlapping

147

A Reanalysis

of Lenneberg's

Biological

Foundations

of Language

importance of rhythm has not been as yet incorporated into the prevailing
in
(as evidenced
linguistic theoretical frameworks of generative syntax and phonology

central

Chomsky, 1965; Chomsky and Halle, 1968; Harms, 1968). The argumentsof Len
neberg and Martin make

a case

Criticisms

for considerable

by the Nativist

revision of these frameworks.

of Lenneberg's

Book

Although the book is appealing in terms of its scientific directions, there are several
treatment isweak as regards details. For instance, on the basis
points where Lenneberg's
"There
is no
of his review of histological
studies of the human brain, he concludes:
(p. 61). How
cytoarchitectural pecularity of the cortical areas involved in language"

ever, what has actually been found in histological studies is that there are some apparent
gross similarities between the cytoarchitecture of cortical areas involved in language and
'
'
of areas involved in language have not
other cortical areas. The fact that 'peculiarities'
of
not
not
The lack of a demonstration
do
exist.
been
found
does
prove they
yet

differences may simply be an indication of the relatively gross nature of the research
comparing the histology of these cortical areas.
At another point, Lenneberg provides an unfortunate conclusion to a brief discussion
of skeletal features of fossil man by saying:
. . . that vocalizations
of fossil men did not
We may deduce from this evidence
to
of
sounds
the
resemblance
bear any close acoustic
any modern tongue
speech
...
(p. 261).
In fact, we know that the human speech
This is not in fact a deduction, but a conjecture.

of undergoing quite gross structural changes without eliminating the

to this fact.
possibility of quite normal sounding speech. Lenneberg himself refers
Adult patients with oral pathology [for example, amputation of the tip of the
to produce
tongue (Brodnitz, 1960), harelip or cleft palate] manage nevertheless
to those of normal speech ...
sounds that are fair approximations
(p. 51).
More recent research has shown that even in cases of relatively radical glossectomy
apparatus

is capable

and Dimmick,
LaRiviere,
1972) and in a case of total motorie incapability of
movements
the
of
1972)
(Fisher and Logemann,
lips and facial muscles
controlling
to
of
literature
Lenne
referred
can
berg
produce quite normal sounding speech.
subjects
are
of
control factors
this sort in substantiation of his belief that neurological
greater
(Seilo,

sounds. If neurological
importance than anatomical ones in the production of speech
then there is no
factors are primary (and on that point Lenne berg is very persuasive),
modern
men
not
have
reason
could
fossil
obvious
speech sounds on
produced quite
why
feature
the
which
skeletal
about
the basis of neurological mechanisms
analyses cited by
Lenne berg can tell us very little.

In another spot, Lenneberg argues reasonably that the acquisition of rule-ordering4

cannot be accounted for solely in terms of factors like attention or relative salience of
in an
for certain
in order to account
of rules is a technical necessity
linguistic data
44'Ordering"
two ordered rules (i.e., one rule always applying before the other
manner. Often by formulating
economical
three or more unordered
necessitate
to any linguistic string), we can account for linguistic data that would
rules.

148

Stephen

I.

Sulzbacher-D.

Kimbrough

Oller

phonetic elements. But he includes in his discussion the unfortunate claim that "all [my
(p. 304). It is not
emphasis] rules of generative grammar have an order of application"
with
this
intended
clear
what
passage,
given the relatively
Lenneberg
completely
nature of his discussion,
but the statement needs to be recast in the
non-technical
perspective of the controversy which currently exists in generative linguistics
the nature of ordering of linguistic (especially phonological)
rules (for recent
a crucial problem of ordering, see Anderson,
Chafe
1970).
(1968) makes
case that
to
the
it
is
apparent claim)
normally
(contrary
Lenneberg's

concerning
treatment of
it clear that
in a set of

rules some will require ordering constraints and some will not. Further
phonological
more, there are clearly various types of ordering (Kiparsky, 1968; Stampe, 1972) with
quite different properties.
a Biological
last chapter of Lenneberg's
book ("Toward
a
introduces
Development")
couple of serious confusions. The
The

Theory of Language
first one concerns an

apparent misunderstanding
by Lenneberg of the distinctions of generative linguistics
between competence and performance, and between underlying and surface structure.
with his own notion of "latent structure"
equates Chomsky's "competence"
Lenneberg
4
or the 'propensity for language" (p. 384) which he later defines as the innately specified

This equation is faulty since a native speaker's "competence"

terminology includes a body of knowledge which is not innately specified.
For instance, an English speaker's competence
includes the knowledge of a learned
as
as
numerous
lexicon
well
which are specific to English and
rules
English
linguistic

mechanism

inChomskian

of language.

thus could not be thought to be fully determined by innate factors.

Furthermore, Lenneberg apparently uses the terms "latent structure" and "underly
ing structure" interchangeably. This usage introduces a further confusion since the

generative linguist's notion of underlying structure does not necessarily include all (or
even most) of the innate factors of language which Lenneberg implies in his usage. There
is now accruing considerable
that there exist universals
evidence
(and hence innate
factors) of such non-underlying (i.e., not pertaining to the output of the phrase structure
component of a grammar) operations as syntactic transformations (see, for instance,
Bach, 1965); there is also much recent evidence that there exist universals of phonologi
cal processes
1972; Stampe,
(see Miller,
1969).
A final confusion appearing in Lenneberg's
last chapter is embodied

in his untenable

assertion concerning the "tolerance"

of language to changes introduced by speakers:
The freedoms that individuals may take do not appear to be regulated by any
constant and everpresent forces. Consequently,
languages may move through
one
a
in
of
mart
any
y possible directions, and certain features may
history
great
or reappear again and again without any apparent order (p. 389).
and
systematicity of linguistic change has been accepted as a methodological
theoretical given in linguistics at least since the last quarter of the nineteenth century

The

disappear

when

the writings of the Junggrammatiker (neogrammarians)

formalized the notion of
laws" (Osthoff and Brugmann,
Robins
1878).
(1967) in his Short History of
out
that
the
ideas about historical linguistics have
Linguistics
points
neogrammarians'
"sound

been incorporated in large part into contemporary thought. Recently, Stampe (1969)
pointed out thatmany systematic historical sound changes have parallels in systematic

149

A Reanalysis

of Lenneberg

s Biological

Foundations

of Language

sound substitutions and in synchronie phonological

processes of adult gram
same
constant
innate forces should be invoked to account
Stampe argues that the

childhood
mars.

sound changes

for historical
processes.

as childhood

substitutions

and synchronie

adult

"constant and ever

languages' changing according to no ' 4
seems to be based partly upon his observation that a painstaking search
in historical changes (Cowgill,
1963; Hoenigswald,
1963) revealed very

Lenneberg's
present forces"
for univerals

as well

claim about

little that the authors were willing to regard as evidence for such univerals"
(p. 387).
however, were looking not just for systematicity of historical
Cowgill and Hoenigswald,
changes, but for systematicity of highly specific sorts based upon their personal interests

and research paradigms. Both authors were aware of the interpretive limitations of their
refers to his investigation of ten Indo-European
languages as a
paradigms. Cowgill
"preliminary

exploration"

of possible

consistent drift in Indo-European

with respect to

various highly specific morphological indices developed by Greenberg (1960).

Hoenigswald,
pointing out the limitations of his own framework in the statement,
we are only beginning to construct a framework of minimal formal concepts . . .

(p. 24)

goes on to say:
It is possible

like transformational grammar which promise

that new approaches
to unify synchronie typology in a hitherto unsuspected sense may also bring new
...
(p.
principles of importance to an understanding of the universals of change

39).
limitations of their paradigms, both Cowgill and Hoenigs
In spite of the acknowledged
wald refer to certain regularities5 of historical change revealed by their work. The term
of their careful scholarly
is invoked sparingly by the authors because
"universal"
approach and because of the specific nature of their investigations.
Conclusions
in
which
technical and terminological
the specific
appear
problems
as
an
treatment
to
take
his
for
the
reader
it
is
book,
encyclopedic
important
Lenneberg's
overview, and not as the final word in twenty fields of study. On questions of specifics,
the book is not always strong. On the other hand, at a more general theoretical level, I
Given

thework is persuasive. Lenneberg has amassed much information to support the

It should be noted that in
that
there are innate factors in language development.
claim
theme of the work.
once
basic
nativistic
the
attached
criticizing the book, I have not

believe

refers to the languages

5Cowgill
At the earliest period which
rising in the Indo-European

trend.
he studied as showing a clear developmental
can reach, the number of morphemes
our reconstructions
per word was
and then turned
it reached a maximum
each dialect
dialects. Within

ever since (p. 102).

it has been moving
goes on to point out that
Cowgill
...
...
is too simple
Further data, of course, could reasily reveal that this scheme
(p. 102).
refers to the fact that
Hoenigswald
'is' indeed regular everywhere
work from all over suggests that sound change
Recent comparative
on earth ...
(p. 29).
But with

downward,
characteristic

in which

direction

caution

150

Stephen

I. Sulzbacher-D.

Kimbrough

Oller

it is
In one important regard Lenneberg's
book is a lengthy promissory note. While
to
it
does
little
about
the
idea
that
there
exist
innate
very convincing
language capacities,
over
seven
specify the nature of these capacities. Of course this is not surprising, since

years later, it is still true that very little has been done to specifically
child's innate linguistic endowment. Future studies in the biological
language seem bound to attempt such characterization.6
The

Behaviorist's

characterize

foundations

the
of

Analysis

is no inherent conflict between

students of biological as opposed to environ

Indeed, the two kinds of studies should
development.

There

influences on language
complement each other. Yet Lenneberg

mental

as if to exclude

presents his discussion of biological factors in

that the study of environmental variables might
in the concluding statement of his book, he speaks of the

the possibility

language
be significant. For instance,
question about "how much or what

it [the environment] contributes to the development

and claims parenthetically that "the answers are almost too obvious to
attention" (p. 394). This unsubstantiated and alienating claim is not, I
a crucial issue in the long-term evaluation of Lenneberg's
book since the fact of

of language"
deserve much
believe,
thematter

is that Lenneberg
simply does not give a careful treatment to the question of
the effect of environmental factors in language learning. In fact, very little research has
been done from the perspective of modern psycholinguistics on the effect of environmen
tal factors in language learning (notable
press). Such a treatment will doubtless
fundamental

interest in environmental

such an interest.

in
1965, and Dale,
exceptions are Cazden,
have to be given by someone who has a
factors, and Lenne berg apparently does not have

is particularly interesting to both behaviorists and nativists because it is the

Language
scientifically observable, behavioral phenomenon which most closely approximates the
unobservable process inman which we call "thinking."
Another interesting feature of
an
is
that
the
of
its
is
process
language
acquisition
apparently irreversible phenomenon,
since once acquired, it cannot be easily erased and then re-taught. These two characteris
tics of language make its study at once fascinating and frustrating. These properties have

led some nativists,notablyChomsky (1959) and Lenneberg (1967, p. 266), toconclude

that language behavior is different from all other behavior. Others, notably Skinner
(1957) have suggested that language behavior is no different from any other behavior,
except that its environmental effects are usually mediated
socially through another
organism.

theoretical position is based on an extensive review of work done by

Lenneberg's
others and his own research in various areas including: (1) language development
in
normal children, deaf children and adults, aphasie adults, mongoloid
children and a
child; and (2) cognition and language as seen in studies of color
motorically-handicapped
6
At present

the specific formulation of a theory of

is in
innately given human language
learning capacities
very preliminary
stages with primary attention being directed toward the area of phonology
1972;
(Stampe,
and Warren,
In syntax, reviews of pertinent discussions
are provided
in
Edwards,
1971; Oiler
1973).
Bowerman
Further references can be found in Hockett
(1973).
(1970).

151

A Reanalysis

of Lenneberg

s Biological

Foundations

of Language

perception and naming. His belief that language is primarily determined by genetic
rather than environmental factors draws heavy support from his studies of congenitally
to that of
deaf children who, at an early age, produce speech-like babbling comparable

their hearing peers. Further support for his contention that there are critical periods
(and that language will not develop normally unless it
during which language "unfolds"
occurs during these critical periods) is taken from studies of aphasies which correlate the
age at which insult to the central nervous system occurred with the degree of subsequent
language and motor function recovery. Lenne berg also correlates measures of anatomi
cal development with general physical growth and development, and he suggests that the
support the
degree of correlation between these variables and language development
contention that all of these variables are controlled by the same basic factor: genetic
determination.
in support of his position are derived
Nearly all of the data presented by Lenneberg
from descriptive studies on relatively large samples with statistical analysis by means of
itmust be admitted thatmany of his arguments based on these
correlations. Although

studies do intuitively make sense, his use of such evidence to suggest that the
phenomena described are genetically caused is untenable (as Lenneberg himself admits,
p. 248), since unfortunately statistical correlations may not be used to imply causality of
correlative

any sort (for a discussion of thismatter, see Sax, 1968). By careful analysis of data on
to arrive at more clearcut
environmental factors in language learning, it is possible
Once
inferences with respect to causality through direct experimental manipulation.
again, then, we see a clear need for cooperation
and developmentalists.
In Lenneberg's
states that:

discussion

of the biological

rather than conflict among behaviorists

(genetic)

foundations

of language,

he

in
system] develops ontogenetically
capacity [for a communications
the course of physical maturation; however, certain environmental conditions
must also be present to make it possible for language to unfold. Maturation
The basic

to a state thatwe call language readiness (p. 375).

brings cognitive processes
Lenne berg leaves unanswered is how, and towhat extent, it is possible to alter the
rate or the direction of the maturational process. A molecular
biologist would suggest

What

could be employed; similarly, the behaviorist would suggest

that genetic manipulations
into the maturational
that some of the steps nature has programmed
schedule, either
chemical, genetic, or environmental, are not absolutely necessary and that some of these
steps may, in fact, be detrimental. The behaviorist would contend thatwe might be able

to improve upon nature's program (Baer, 1966).

Further clarification of Lenneberg's
position is found elsewhere:
We are, therefore, suggesting, as a working hypothesis that the general non
and limiting
specific states of maturation of the brain constitute prerequisites
cause
not
are
its
factors for language development.
(p. 169,
specific
They
emphasis added).
Lenneberg goes on to say in the concluding paragraph of his book:
Thus no features that are characteristic of only certain natural languages, either
or semantics, are assumed here to be innate.
particulars of syntax or phonology,

152

Stephen

I. Sulzbacher-D.

Kimbrough

Oller

there are many reasons to believe that the processes

by which the
a
comes
are
outer
structure
of
natural
realized,
about,
deeply rooted,
language
innate properties of man's biological nature (p. 394).
species-specific,

However,

Thus, Lenneberg
appears to agree
constraints. The nativist-behaviorist
MacCorquodale
(1957) Verbal

(1970)
Behavior

in his commentary on Chomsky's

(1959) review of Skinner's
has very elegantly stated a similar position:

incompatibility or even mild inconsistency between the

principles of genetic evolution and the principle of reinforcement. Reinforce
ment has many necessary points of contact with genetics. Reinforceability
is
are
itself a genetically-determined
born
rein
characteristic; organisms
simply
There

is no

that language is modifiable within certain genetic

argument is then on the nature of these constraints.

lethal

They have evolved thatway. The fact that organisms behave at all is
to genetic determination. Stimulus generalization
and response induction
are genetically determined characteristics. The only incompatibility between
forceable.

due

and learning by reinforcement is that if some behavior is

wholly genetically determined, as unconditioned reflexes are, then no learning is
needed to account for its occurrences.
Such behaviors hardly 'disprove' rein
genetic determination

forcement

theory, of course,

(p. 93)

The "processes"
spoken of by Lenneberg in the above passage and the genetically
can be
determined characteristics of "reinforceability"
spoken of by MacCorquodale
seen to be conceptually similar factors. The
positions of the two authors are not, at this
level, incompatible in the least, in spite of Lenneberg's
protestations that reinforcement
no
in
role
plays
important
language learning.
One way to view the difference between so-called innate behavior and "learned"
is in the amount of time required for an individual to acquire or modify that
The behaviors typically thought to be innate are those which often can be
elicited after only one trial (i.e., conditioned reflexes, such as the eye blink) and which
are difficult to eliminate from the individual's repertoire. Learned behavior is typically

behavior

behavior.

as requiring somewhat more time and a greater number of trials for

acquisition to occur. More important, however, is the fact that procedures can easily be
specified which will effectively eliminate learned behaviors from the individual's reper

characterized

toire. Bolles

(1970) has persuasively argued this point with regard to avoidance learning.
The rather obvious implication for those who might insist that all language is learned is
that many aspects of language are unfortunately most difficult to eliminate from a
person's repertoire. Although there are considerable technical as well as ethical difficul
ties in designing experiments to suppress various aspects of
language in children, I
believe such studies with humans would complement the studies of language acquisition
(Gardner and Gardner, 1969; Premack and Premack, 1972) and lead us
by chimpanzees
to a clearer understanding of language behaviors. I agree with Bolles (1972) that facile
reference to a universal law of reinforcement is no longer an adequate explanation of
these phenomena.
In his discussion of physiological
correlates of language behavior,
that a fundamental theme of his book is that:

Lenneberg

states

The foundations of language are ultimately to be found in the physical nature of

153

A Reanalysis
man ?

of Lenneberg

s Biological

Foundations

of Language

and physiology ?
and that language is best regarded as a
a
of
universal
to a species
very
particular adaptation
process
physiological
our
communication
of
function:
members
specific ethological
among
species (p.
106).
In addition to stressing the role of the physiology and anatomy of the human vocal
anatomy

in shaping human language, he also states:

Everyone knows that it takes a human brain to acquire a natural language such as
English, and this is true of language production as well as comprehension
(p.

apparatus

53).
the fact that "Everyone
knows . . ."is simply a way of concealing a lack
Overlooking
of data, this statement clarifies one of Lenneberg's
in theory.
apparent inconsistencies
Although itmight be true that vocally-expressed
language (speech) could be specific to
humans, this is certainly not the case for language development and production through
on several occasions
another expressive mode. However,
throughout the book, Len
the
word
to the
substitutes
for
and
this
is often misleading
neberg
"speech"
"language"
states:
reader. For example, Lenneberg
It would be circular or meaningless
to state that only man has a cortical speech
area, because cortical language maps are based on observation of behavior. We
cannot observe language interference in an animal that does not speak. Such an

animal, by definition, lacks speech areas (p. 62, emphasis added).

Elsewhere he makes a similar logical slip:
...
the practical failure of our attempts to train closely related species to utter
or even to understand sen
intelligible words, to use sentences meaningfully,

is
tences out of context makes such an assumption
[that language production
on
reasonable
mechanisms]
(p. 76).
dependent
specific physiological
Itmust be pointed out, however, that other places in the book Lenneberg uses the two

terms appropriately. In any event, Premack (1971), Premack and Premack (1972) and
Gardner and Gardner (1969) have demonstrated language acquisition in chimpanzees by
employing non-vocal language. These studies have also clearly demonstrated the error of
some of Lenneberg's
be learned.

assumptions

regarding aspects of language which he felt could not

Lenneberg develops
regards what he calls reference, the
and things, and the role of our capacity for naming in the
organization of cognition. His chapter on language and cognition is fascinating since he
in a manner essentially similar to that
develops his arguments for stimulus generalization
Another major premise
relationship between words

taken by Sidman (1960), and then proposes

argument goes as follows:
Most
from

a theory of cognition.

Lenneberg's

main

and
by a process of categorization,
two further processes
derive:
and interrelating of categories or the percep

organize the sensory world

this basic mode
of organization

animals

differentiation or discrimination,
activities
tion of and tolerance for transformations. In man these organizational
are usually called concept formation; but it is clear that there is no formal
and animal's propensity for re
difference between man's
concept-formation
sponding

to categories

of stimuli. There

154

is, however,

a substantive difference.

Stephen

total possibilities

The

I. Sulzbacher-D.

for categorization

Kimbrough

Oller

are clearly not identical across

species

(pp. 331-332).
argument is basically

the animal begins

that, in the course of normal development,
and
then
to
stimulus
almost
any
through a process of
response
by making
as
to
it
discriminates
among various
categorization
begins
respond differentially
on
to suggest that:
categories of stimuli. Lenne berg goes
It does not appear to be possible to teach a dog to do the 4name-specific stimulus
. . .There is no con vicing
that every child does automatically.
generalization'
evidence that any animal below man has ever learned to relate any given word to

His

the same

the same range of stimuli that is covered by thatword in common

language usage

(p. 329).

at some length on the semantics of metaphors as evidence that animals could

never comprehend this complex feature of language. Itwould seem to be a simple tour de
force for a behaviorist to teach an animal a large range of stimuli each of which signals the
same response and thereby teach the animal to respond to "metaphoric"
meanings at

He dwells

statement. How
least as often as the average adult human; thus refuting Lenneberg's
from this discus
soe
more
be
derived
could
far
ever,
interesting experimental questions
a
man
exhibit before a
sion: such as, how many dog-like and unclean behaviors must

child unfamiliar with the common metaphor would label him as a "dirty dog?" This kind
of research, while certainly entertaining, would also be useful in defining which stimulus
cues are necessary and sufficient for a given normal (or exceptional)
child to apply a
a
given label to physical object.

concept of transformation is based on his theory of two-level cognitive

functioning. Lenneberg suggests that organisms must transform input from the environ
ment to fit grammatically-structured
categories which are,
to acoustic patterns that
transformations, applicable
biologically
specialized
Lenneberg's

in man

This type of transformational

the function of communication.
. . . this
the importance of
given,
emphasizes
capacity
those language
and
makes
distinction
Chomsky's
competence-performance
theories doubtful that are primarily based upon a response-shaping
hypothesis.
have

is clearly biologically

A comparison of language in retarded children with language development of

normal children indicates that there is a natural language-learning
strategy that
cannot be altered by training programs (pp. 325-326).
is suggesting that this "deeply rooted" biologically given grammar is the
Lenneberg
primary factor of cognition and that a secondary factor of transformations is the environ
mental overlay which can be more easily adapted through training. This interesting
book.
position deserved more space and development than itwas given in Lenneberg's
In summary, one can say that Lenneberg has extrapolated from limited data what
may be an untenable theoretical position. But as a practical matter, he has synthesized
some impressive and useful findings from various disciplines and has thereby made a
substantial contribution to our understanding of language. Similarly, he has developed
an elegant method of describing language
conclude, as Gray (1970) has, that:

acquisition.

155

This

state of affairs leads one to

A Reanalysis

of Lenneberg

s Biological

Foundations

of Language

In fact, both the linguist and the behaviorist have critical information to bring to
the problem. Linguists can provide the information relative to selectivity. That
is, information about the structure and development of language can provide a

basis for determining which language units are critical and also for determining
can
in what order they should be conditioned
into the behavior. Behaviorists

provide themethod by which the critical units can become incorporated into the
of learning principles and conditioning
child's behavior pattern. Knowledge
can
a
basis
for
language acquisition procedures which are
methodology
provide
efficient and objective. The situation could be seen in terms of the curriculum
from linguistics and the delivery system from behaviorism.
The

Rebuttal

Nativist's

inmean
belief that it is possible,
on
to
the
other
factors.
Lenneberg,
ignore biological
ingful psychological
experiments,
hand, claims that biological and environmental factors of learning cannot be practically
belief, itcan be said that external stimuli
separated in research. In support of Lenneberg's
Sulzbacher

maintains

the traditional behavioristic

to respond in ways which are inevitably limited by the biological

induce organisms
of organisms referred to by Mac
of
the
capacities
organisms. The "reinforceability"
one
in the above cited passage is
biological factor which differs from species
Corquodale

to species and which must influence the results of any experiment employing reinforce
to
ment with animals or humans. Lenne berg's position suggests that it is necessary
formulate a theory of biologically given learning capacities, and through experimental
research
biological

to evaluate

the influence

of environmental

factors

in the context

of

this

framework.

in this country
Lenneberg also expresses the belief that, historically, psychologists
unaware
have been largely
of the necessity in research of dealing simultaneously with
biological and environmental factors. He argues that "behavior must always be investi
runs counter
gated in terms of specific species," and further claims that "this proposition
to the belief of many psychologists"
he
Later
says:
(p. 3).
Behavior
is far from themonolithic,
clear-cut, self-evident phenomenon post

ulated by psychologistsa generationago (p. 126).

Later yet, he points out that in spite of the traditional belief of behavioristic psychologists
in the power of classical and op?rant conditioning:
there is no evidence that intensive training procedures can produce higher stages
of language development
(p. 178).

ineffectiveness of programmed
refers to a "relative
Furthermore, Lenneberg
training
is
If
rate
of
the
added]
379).
Lenneberg
(p.
upon
language acquisition"
[emphasis
on
notions
of
behavioris
certain
these
then
traditionally-accepted
points,
basically right
tic psychology will have to be revised in order for the framework of traditional be
havioristic psychology to be maximally effective in contributing to the study of language
to address the research problem of
learning. It will be necessary for behaviorists
which stimulate certain maturational
factors
the
environmental
discovering
"triggering"
factors of language

learning, rather than addressing

156

the purely technological

problem

(to

Stephen

I. Sulzbacher-D.

Kimbrough

Oller

refers) of discovering how much the program specified by nature can

be changed.
nor the present author intends to suggest that technological
Neither Lenneberg
never
could
be
answered. But at the present state of our knowledge about
questions

which Sulzbacher

to begin by clarifying certain

language and language learning, it is most reasonable
more-or-less metatheoretical questions (about the importance of biology in an adequate

theory of learning) and to obtain a much more substantial understanding of biological

factors than is presently available. Once scientific knowledge of these factors has been
codified, significant technological questions can be more appropriately handled.
Surely most behaviorists will disagree with the foregoing passage as a characteriza
tion of history and future directions in the study of behavior. This interpretation is offered

simply in the hope that itwill make a littlemore clear the motivations of Lenneberg's
theoretical and methodological
approach.
in this
Another issue of great difference between the two orientations expressed
review can be illustrated in the context of Sulzbacher's
claim that Lenneberg conceals a

'Mack of data" by using the phrase "everyone knows."

Interesting experiments are ones
which might reveal characteristics of language or language learning of which we would
otherwise be unaware. Uninteresting ones deal with issues which are experientially
or otherwise

trivial. The question Lenneberg refers towith his phrase "everyone

that
it
takes a human brain to learn a human language) is, I believe,
(viz.,
obvious
and
does not deserve experimental testing. The nativist's defini
experientially
tion of "data"
is sufficiently broad to include information which is not experimentally

obvious
knows"

logic and some on non

a
to
set
of assumptions. Many of
experimental experience.
these assumptions should not be subjected to test simply because such tests would be (in
the nativist's opinion) a waste of time. Trivial experiments to demonstrate obvious truths

obtained.

Some

of

this information
Such

is based

on natural

information amounts

can be designed and conducted ad infinitum.

'
Perhaps the particular objection Sulzbacher has to 'everyone knows" (' 'that it takes
a human brain to learn a human language")
ismost directly revealed by his comment that

the Premacks and Gardners "have demonstrated language acquisition in chimpanzees.

. . ." This claim or its
a
equivalent has been advanced so many times that it deserves
to
not
The
of
have
been
shown
the
Sarah
and
Washoe
reply.
clearly
"languages"
chimps
possess many standard properties of natural human languages. Among these are recur

structural ambiguity, and all of the properties which are

self-embedding,
accounted
for
in
terms
of permutation transformations (for definitions of these
properly
crucial properties, see such works as Chomsky,
1957, 1965; or Langacker,
1968). This
list of properties could go on and on. Furthermore the list does not point out the fact that
siveness,

the chimps'

linguistic systems are much more limited than natural languages in quantita
tive as well as qualitative respects. Lenneberg's
basic position does not crucially depend
to
the
upon
chimps' inability
acquire any particular feature of language, but rather it
on
the
of
non-human animals to acquire the totality of natural language
depends
inability
(including all the complicated
syntactico-semantic
of language from both a comprehension

aspects

157

structures as well

and a production

as phonological
standpoint). The

A Reanalysis

of Lenneberg

s Biological

Foundations

of Language

Gardners

and the Premacks themselves are aware that they are only
teaching certain
select features of natural languages to their chimps.7
In fairness, it should be acknowledged
that the Premacks' and Gardners'
fascinating

work has demonstrated

languages which
Lenneberg claims

the ability of chimps

Lenneberg's
position would

to employ one of the features of natural

suggest non-humans could not acquire.

that productivity (the ability to combine communicative

units in novel
for
novel
is
in
the
of
animal
communi
ways
communications)
"totally lacking
examples
cation" (p. 233), Sarah's and Washoe's
include
do
this
languages
productivity feature,
albeit in a very limited fashion.
almost always turn out to be frustrating.
Arguments about animal communication
'
Fodor ( 1967) has claimed it to be irrelevant that a chimp once almost learned to say 'cup.
I agree. It seems tome that it is time to leave the controversies over whether or not other
species can learn language and get on with the characterization of the biological
learning
man.
man
of
various
knows"
is
different.
capacities
"Everyone
species, especially
book is a
Let's see ifwe can characterize these differences in a useful way. Lenneberg's
major

step in that direction.

The

Behaviorist's

Rebuttal

should any behaviorist in his right mind (sic) read Biological

Foundations
of
are
book
there
After
in
of
three
all
all,
pages out of 465 on
Language?
Lenneberg's
only
which there ismention of environmental influences upon language development
(pp. 12,
135 and 136). On the other hand, Lenneberg and other mentalists devote considerable
Why

effort to discussions

structures generated by underlying grammars which they

of "deep"
assert include many innate and universal properties which are unique to human beings.
The underlying grammars generate all language and dictate themanner inwhich specific
is synonomous with "ac
languages are learned. In linguistics, the term "generate"
counts for" (Dale,
1972). The words deep and generate are precisely defined technical
terms to the linguist but appear to have been misunderstood
by others, notably those of a
outlook. It took a careful reading of Lenneberg's
book, and a
book, Dale's
more
discussion with Oiler, for this behaviorist, at least, to understand
adequately what
behavioral

these terms meant.

structure"

The uninitiated, such as the present writer, might well assume that
or the
construct like the "id"
implies a fictitious, unobservable

"deep
and that generative grammars refer to equally absurd mechanisms
"unconscious,"
located in the chromosomes
from which language springs at the appropriate time in the
to a behaviorist
it might not be
history of an organism. However,
developmental
to view the underlying grammars as empirical sets of limits within which
unacceptable
verbal responses can be defined to occur. The generative grammar becomes acceptable
to a behaviorist as a set of rules which describe and categorize language responses in the

a grammar of the sort possessed

thatWashoe
does not even possess
( 1970) presents evidence
by
discusses
are producing
utterances
who
of a comparable
(1973)
length. Brown
morphemic
and Sarah and natural human
between
the language possessed
differences
languages.
by Washoe
7Brown

children

158

I. Sulzbacher-D.

Stephen

same sense
made

Kimbrough

Oller

itmust be
theory describes the behavior of atoms. However,
that these generative rules, just as with the rules of atomic physics, are
and not causal.
that atomic

clear

descriptive
In some

surface
sense, an analogy can be drawn between the deep-structure,
structure distinction made by linguists and the distinction between response rate and
response topography made by behaviorists. The behaviorist has typically considered

topography (that is, whether a rat presses the bar with his snout, forepaw,
hindpaw, tail or whatever) as relatively uninteresting in revealing anything about the
laws of behavior. However,
behaviorists have looked beyond the topography at the rate
of lever pressing to discover more universal laws about animal behavior. In a similar
response

linguists have constructed laws about language behavior which have wider
applicability when they look beyond the surface structure and look at grammatical
components not immediately evident in spoken sentences. To date, the usefulness of
these deep structure grammars has not been widely established among social scientists,
fashion,

but then it took several decades

as major

determinants

before schedules of reinforcement were widely

accepted

of human behavior.

the distinction between environmental and biological

factors, the be
Regarding
haviorist finds this distinction to be unnecessary. The behaviorist does, however, require
experimental verification of the degree towhich any variable relevant to human behavior

can be changed. The existence of

behaviors is certainly not denied (cf.
species-specific
but
it
is
Skinner, 1969, pp. 199-203),
important that we obtain data on the degree of
specificity and define the conditions under which such behaviors can be modified.
'
Experiments challenging concepts that4 'everybody knows' have been at the heart of
every major scientific advance. To cite but on example, theWright brothers literally flew
into the face of rationalist's arguments that their experiments were trivial since itwas

thought that 4'everybody knew thatman could not fly."

At least one nativist (Brown, 1973, p. 33) concedes that confident pronouncements
by Lenneberg and others served only to spur behaviorists into experimentation which has
caused

linguists to re-examine
work of Premack and Gardner

their grammatical
analysis of the
theorizing. Brown's
is an example of how scientific progress can be made,
information
and linguists concurrently. The be
utilizing
generated by behaviorists
haviorist then would be well advised to read Lenneberg's
book since itdoes systematize
data relevant to the analysis

of human and infra-human language

behavior.

REFERENCES
S.R.
Anderson,
5, 53-72.
E.

Bach.

On

An outline

of the phonology

of modern

Icelandic

vowels.

Foundations

of language,

1969,

some

recurrent types of transformations.

In C.W.
Kreidler
(Ed.), Report
of the sixteenth
on linguistics and language
table meeting
studies. Washington,
D.C.:
Georgetown
1965.
Press,
University
An age-irrelevant
at the meeting
of the American
Baer, D.M.
concept of development.
Paper presented
New York,
1966.
Association,
Psychological
revisited. Journal of the Experimental
Bern, D.J. & Bern, S.L. Nativism
Analysis
1968, / /,
of Behavior,
497-501.
annual

Bolles,

R.C.
32-48.

round

Species-specific

defense

reactions

and avoidance

159

learning. Psychological

Review,

1970, 77,

A Reanalysis

of Lenneberg's

Foundations

Biological

of Language

R.C.

Bolles,

Bowerman,
Brodnitz,
R.

Brown,

and learning. Psychological

Reinforcement,
Review,
1972,
expectancy
M. Early
London:
Press,
syntactic development.
Cambridge
University
F.S.
after glossectomy.
in Phoniatrie
Current Problems
Speech
Logopedics,
first sentences

The

of child

and chimpanzee.
1970.
Press,

In R.

Brown

(Ed.),

79, 394-409.
1973.

New York: The Free

papers.
R. A first language:
The early stages.
Mass.:
Harvard
Cambridge,
University
to the child's acquisition
C. Environmental
assistance
of grammar. Unpublished
Cazden,
1965.
tion, Harvard
University,
Brown,

Chafe, W. On
115-136.

the ordering

N.

Chomsky,

of phonological

rules. International

of American

Journal

1973.

Press,
doctoral

disserta
1968,34,

Linguistics,

structures.
The Hague:
1957.
Mouton,
Syntactic
of Verbal Behavior
Review
Skinner. Language,
by B.F.

N.

1959, 35, 26-58.

N. Aspects
MIT
1965.
Press,
of the theory of syntax. Cambridge:
N. & Halle,
M. The sound pattern of English.
New York: Harper
and Row,
Chomsky,
W.
Uni versais
in Indo-European
In J. Greenberg
diachronic
(Ed.),
Cowgill,
morphology.
MIT
1963.
Press,
language.
Cambridge:

Chomsky,

/, 68-72.
Selected

1960,

Psycholinguistics:

Chomsky,

P.S.

Dale,

in maternal

Hesitations
M.L.

Edwards,

One

child's

speech.

acquisition

(Stanford

In press.
and Speech.
Language
of English
and Reports
liquids. Papers
101-109.
1971,5,

Development
University),
J.A. Physiologic
and acoustic
Fisher, H.B. & Logemann,
analysis of articulatory
A case
at the meeting
of the American
paralysis:
study. Paper
presented
San Francisco,
1972.
Association,
Fodor,

are we nativists?

J.A. Why

Address

given

at the American

Psychological

1968.
Universals

on Child

Language

compensations
and
Speech

Association,

of

in facial
Hearing

Washington,

1967.

D.C.,

September,
R. A. & Gardner,

to a chimpanzee.
B.T.
664-672.
Science,
1969,165,
Teaching
sign language
In
R.H.
Bradfield
Behavior
(Ed.),
Language
acquisition
through programmed
conditioning.
The human effort. San Rafael,
1970.
Calif.:
Dimensions
Pub.,
modification:
J.H. A quantitative
to the morphological
International
Journal
Greenberg,
approach
typology of language.

Gardner,
Gray, B.B.

1960,26,
of American
Linguistics,
R. Introduction
to phonological

Harms,

C.F.

Hockett,
217,

The

(5),

foundations

141-144.

178-194.

Cliffs,
theory. Englewood
of language
inman,
the small-mouthed

Prentice-Hall,
animal. Scientific

H.M.
Are
there universals
of linguistic change?
In J. Greenberg
MIT
1963.
Press,
language.
Cambridge:
P. Linguistic
and linguistic change.
universals
In E. Bach & R. Harms
Kiparsky,
1968.
linguistic
theory. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston,
R. Language
and its structure. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, & World,
Langacker,
Hoenigswald,

K.S.
Lashley,
behavior.
Lenneberg,
MacCorquodale,

The

problem of serial order

New York: Wiley,
1951.

in behavior.

In L.A.

1968.

N.J.:

Jeffress

(Ed.),

American,

1970,

(Ed.),

Universals

of

(Eds.),

Universals

in

mechanisms

in

1968.

Cerebral

E. Biological
K. On

Analysis
J.G.
Martin,
Review,
P.D.

New York: Wiley,

1967.
foundations
oflanguage.
Journal
review of Skinner's
Verbal
Behavior.
of the Experimental
Chomsky's
1970, 13, 83-99.
of Behavior,
versus serial structure in speech and other behavior.
(hierarchical)
Psychological
Rhythmic
1972, 79, 487-509.

in linguistics, No.
Some context-free processes
11, Ohio
affecting vowels. Working papers
State University,
1972.
at the
I. Implications
of systematic
and Warren,
Oller, D.K.
Paper presented
instability in child phonology.
1973.
Stanford Child Language
Palo Alto,
Forum,
. . .
1878.
S. Hirzel,
K. Morphologische
Osthoff, H. and Brugmann,
Untersuchungen.
Leipzig:
D. Language
in chimpanzee.
Science,
1971, 772, 808-822.
Premack,
92-99.
to an ape. Scientific American,
D. Teaching
A.J. and Premack,
Premack,
1972,227(f),
language

Miller,

1967.
Indiana University
short history of linguistics.
Press,
Bloomington:
to
A
of
Neisser's
with
Pandora.
review
Ulric
the
black
box,
Cognitive
Salzinger,
apologies
Journal
1973, 19, 369-378.
Analysis
of Behavior,
Psychology.
of the Experimental
1968.
research.
Prentice-Hall,
Cliffs, N.J.:
Sax, G. Empirical
Englewood
foundations
of educational

Robins,

R.H.

K.

Inside

160

Stephen

Seilo,

I. Sulzbacher-D.

Kimbrough

K.C.
C. & Dimmick,
M.T.,
LaRiviere,
intelligibility
Speech
at the meeting
and articulatory observations.
Paper presented
San Francisco,
1972.
Association,

Sidman,

M.

Skinner,

B.F.

Skinner,

B.F.

Crofts,
D.
Stampe,
Chicago
Stampe, D.
1972.
Whitaker,
Inc.,

Oller

of a glossectomee:
of the American

1960.
New York: Basic Books,
of scientific research.
1957.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts,
behavior.
New
A theoretical
analysis.
Contingencies
of reinforcement:

acoustic
Perceptual,
and Hearing

Speech

Tactics

Verbal

York:

Appleton-Century

1969.
The

linguistic
A dissertation
H.A.

of phonetic
1969.
society,

acquisition

On

representation.

on natural phonology.

the representation

Unpublished

of language

Papers

doctoral

in the human

1971.

161

the fifth regional

from

dissertation,

brain.

Edmonton:

meeting

University
Linguistic

of the

of Chicago,
Research,