Topic:

Similarities and differences between Behaviorist and

Innatist Theory

The manner in which a child acquires language is a matter long debated by linguists and Child
psychologists. During the twentieth century there has been a great deal of Psycholinguistic
research into how this process takes place. These research findings have revolutionized the way
many linguists regard the language learning process. However, the interpretation of these
investigations has always been under dispute and it consequently divided linguists into adherents
of two contradictory hypotheses: behaviorism on one side and innatism on the other. The
following segment presents a comparative study between these two diametrically opposite
theoretical accounts of language acquisition.

Behaviorist Theory:

The behaviorist perspective dominated the study of learning throughout the 1st half of the
twentieth century. The Behaviorist Theory focuses on the use of imitation and practice for
language acquisition. According to this theory, babies learn oral language from the humans in
their environment through imitation, rewards and practice. When a baby tries to speak a word
and succeeds, parents and other adults in his world often praise him. This propels the child to try
harder to achieve more. Behaviorism is an approach to language acquisition based on the
proposition that behavior can be researched scientifically without recourse to inner mental states.
It is a form of materialism, denying any independent signicance for mind. The behaviorist
theory emerges on the basis of following assumptions:

Language learning is a habit formation resembling the formation of other habits. That is,
a language is learned in the way in which other habits are learned.
Free will is illusory, and all behavior is determined by the environment either through
association or reinforcement.
Human acquire a language as discrete units of habits, independently trained, not as an
integrated system.

This theory puts emphasis on three important factors - stimulus, response and reinforcement. The
stimulus - response - reinforcement chain can be envisaged through the following illustration:
Innatist Theory
Two years later, when behaviorism came in for a bitter criticism, the American linguist Noam
Chomsky (1959) proposed a completely different view of language acquisition. His Innatist view
was a direct challenge to the established behaviorist theories of the time, rekindling the age-old
debate over whether language exists in the mind before experience or not. This oral language
development theory states that learning is a natural process for human beings. The Innatist
Theory gives rise to the Language Acquisition Device (LAD) which is thought to be a part of the
brain that enables all children to grasp language naturally. However, the Innatist Theory fails to
explain why children from different cultures and environments vary in the time taken to develop
oral language. The Innatist Theory is more widely accepted and understood than the Behaviorist
Theory.
The theoretical assumptions underlying the Innatist theory is as follows:

Every human child possesses innate knowledge of language structure which called
Language Acquisition Device or LAD.

Language learning is distinct from other cognitive capacities.

Young children learn and apply grammatical rules and vocabulary as they are exposed to
them and do not require initial formal teaching.
The function of LAD can be visualized through the following illustration:
Similarities between Behaviorist Theory & Innatist Theory
Though there are much debate and differences between Behaviorist and Innatist Theory, they
have some similarities:

1. Both are the theory of language learning.

2. Both of these theories help to describe some aspects of first language acquisition.

3. Neither the behaviorist nor the innatist theories are able to adequately encompass the
complexity of language acquisition.

4. Both of them are some way logical in some aspect of acquiring first language.

5. Both of them are not totally independent, one has been corrected by the other.

6. Both of them have emphasis on a specific part of language learning process, but none of
them is completely/wholly appropriate for first language learning.

Differences between Behaviorist Theory& Innatist Theory

Considering the theoretical principles of Behaviorist and Innatist theory, we find that each theory
holds different aspects of language acquisition. This divergence has created a gulf between the
theories.The difference between Behaviourism and innatism can be described in the following
way:

Behaviorist Theory Innatist Theory

1. According to behaviourism language is
learnt in the way other habits are learnt.
2. Through behaviourist theory, language
acquisition is a stimulus response
process.
3. In behaviourism, knowledge is seen as
constant.
4. In behaviourism learning is said to be
successful when the child can repeat
what was taught.
1. According to innatism language
develops in the same way as other
biological functions.
2. Language acquisition is a congenital
process.
3. In innatism, Knowledge is seen
dynamic.
4. In innatism, learning is said to be
successful when the child can generate
innumerable grammatically correct

5. The behaviourist view holds that
children need formal teaching and
guidance to learn in a correct way.
6. It ignores the creativity of human
beings.
sentences and rejects ungrammatical
ones.
5. The innatist view maintains that
children do not require primary formal
instruction.
6. It views language acquisition as a
creative process.

7. The behaviourist theory is mechanical. 7. The Innatist theory is not mechanical

8. The behaviourist theory cannot explain
how the child precedes in his/her
journey of language acquisition.
9. Language acquisition is the result of
nurture.
since it does consider the child as an
inert recipient
8. The innatist theory gives some rational
explanations about children's language
acquisition procedure.
9. Language acquisition is the result of
nature.

10. The behaviourists believe that human 10. The Innatist believes that human mind
mind is a blank slate. is no tubula rasa.

11. The behaviourists experiment upon 11. The innatist experiment on human
animals, not human beings. child, not animals.
12. Behaviourism is a theory of 12. Innatism is a theory of knowledge, not
behaviour ,not of knowledge of behaviour

13. The behaviourist theory does not 13. But the innatist claim that Language
advocate the critical period of language acquisition only functions if it is
learning. stimulated at the correct time.

14. Behaviourism stresses on correction
and considers it as an essential part in
language acquisition.
15. The behaviourists fail to recognize the
logical problem of language acquisition
14. The innatist view holds that correction
is useless in language acquisition.
15. The Innatist recognizes which they call
the poverty of the Stimulus argument.

From the above comparative study it is obvious that the theories differ from each other in a
many of ways. However, it is hardly possible to take any of these two options directly. Rather, it
might be possible to progress in the direction of regarding the human being as a mixture of
genetically determined capacities and knowledge gained by experience. That means language
acquisition requires situational stimuli plus LAD:
In conclusion, neither account should be totally dismissed. They should be seen as
complementary rather than contradictory.

The End

Psychological research has recently

16. Language learning is a practice based. 16. Language learning is a rule based.

17. According to behaviourism knowledge 17. According to innatism knowledge exits

exits outside of individuals. inside individuals.