See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329362314

Theoretical Perspectives on First Language Acquisition: a contrast between

the nativists and interactionists perspectives 1

Preprint · June 2017

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.10238.02884

CITATIONS READS

0 743

1 author:

Abukari Kwame
University of Saskatchewan
8 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Indigenous land rights and nation state territorial sovereignty View project

The language of illness: A geospatial mapping of illness distributions based on online conversational lexemes. View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Abukari Kwame on 03 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Theoretical Perspectives on First Language Acquisition: a contrast
between the nativists and interactionists perspectives1

Abukari Kwame
Department of Language and Culture
The Arctic University of Norway, Tromso
abukarikwames@yahoo.com
June 2017

Abstract
How children break into language has been an interesting issue to both linguists and behavioural
psychologists for decades. Various competing theories and models have been put forth to account for
child language acquisition. Among these theories are the Universal grammar (nativism/innateness) and
the interactionists perspectives. This paper explores how these two theories account for the acquisition
of phonology and sign language by reviewing current studies in the field of child first language and
simultaneous bilingual first language learners. Based on empirical research findings, I argue that the
main difference between these two theories is on the role of input in language acquisition, given that
both theories agree on innate biological endowment to language learning. I therefore propose that the
innateness and interactionists arguments can be framed in terms of language competence vs.
performance, in child first language acquisition.
Key words: Universal grammar, L1 acquisition, interactionism, poverty of the stimulus, input

1. Introduction
Language acquisition has been a very fascinating phenomenon among humans, especially
among infants. The acquisition of first language (L1A) is by far, the most interesting and
debated issue among both linguistic researchers and behavioural psychologist, to which several
theoretical proposals have been made. Starting from the second half of the 20th century, several

1
An earlier version of this paper was presented as course requirement in ENG-3040, First language Acquisition,
and subsequently submitted as a Course paper in the same course. I am grateful to Prof. Yulia Rodina and the
ENG-3040 Class for their comments and suggestions during the Course seminar.

1
questions were raised among researchers concerning the nature of language and how children
acquire their L1. Among some of these questions were: How do children break into language?
How does the knowledge of language emerge in early infancy and grow? What kind of
linguistic knowledge do children display during their course of development across different
languages? These questions stimulated exciting responses and theoretical perspectives which
led to the discovery of some observations about the nature of language and L1A among infants.

Among the notable observations are that children acquire their L1s very fast, successful and
with less effort. They do this under varying conditions, in a limited amount of time and in a
similar fashion cross linguistically (Guasti 2002). Also, the input children receive is often
degenerate, impoverished and contains errors. As O’Grady argues, while children are still in
diapers, they can figure out what several thousand words mean, how they are pronounced, and
how they can be put together in sentences of their languages (O’Grady 2005:1). Furthermore,
it has been argued that, unlike learning a second language (L2) in adulthood, L1A does not
require systematic instruction from parents, where children are taught the rules of their
language and what kind of sentences they can and cannot say. And in some case, children resist
the correction their parents offer them. Despite all these inadequacies, normal developing
children do acquire their native languages successfully. These observations thus called for
theoretical proposals to account for how children acquire this complex phenomenon in that
simple and effortless fashion. The generativist/nativism and interactionists scholars have thus
made proposals to account for L1A. These theories have offered explanations on how the
knowledge of language emerges in early infancy and the kind of linguistic knowledge children
display at different times throughout their developmental trajectories.

My aim in this paper is to compare the Nativist and the Interactionist theories in terms of their
perspectives on the nature of language and how they account for the acquisition of phonology
and sign language using the results of both empirical research and theoretical discussions. The
paper is thus structured as follows: In section 2, I will present these theories and highlight their
main arguments or assumptions about the nature of language. The Nativist perspectives will be
presented in 2.1 while the Interactionist perspectives will come in 2.2. Since, the role of input
in L1A seems to constitute a source of disagreement between the two theories, that will be
discussed in section 3. In that section, I will look at the role of input (both input quality and
quantity) and other factors that might influence in L1A. In section 4, I will discuss how the
Generativist/nativist theory account for the acquisition of phonology and sign language in 4.1
and then do same for the Interactionist theory in 4.2. Section 5 will cover a discussion of the

2
two theoretical perspectives based on research findings. In that section, I will try to link the
two theories together in a way to point out how they complement each other in accounting for
language acquisition. Then, I draw my conclusion in section 6.

However, before I move to the next section, I will like to state that the term L1 as used in this
paper means the acquisition of first language, which includes both monolingual first language
(ML1A) and simultaneous bilingual first language acquisition (SBL1A). Kupisch and Rothman
(2016:5) argue that a child bilingual (2L1) is typically described as an individual who is
exposed to two languages from birth or very early on in childhood before three or four years
of age. Within the SBL1A, both bilingual first language learners and heritage first language
learners are considered, since both involve the acquisition of two languages very early on at
the same time. However, Early child second language learners (ECL2A) will not be part of this
analysis for the reason being that during the acquisition of the second language, their first
language already seems fairly in place. As a result, early child second language learners are
more like adult second language (L2) learners.

2. The Generativist/Nativism and Interactionist perspectives on L1A

The focus of this section is to briefly present the main arguments of each theory highlighting
their major areas of convergence and differences. This will; therefore, serve as a background
to which later sections will relate.

2.1 The Nativists perspectives on L1A

The Generativist account (also known as nativism) is one of the earliest theories to account for
human language acquisition. One of the earliest proponents of this theory was Chomsky (1959)
who argued that all human languages are based on some innate universal principles given the
fact that children so easily master the complex operations of language despite the limitations
in the input. Thus, Chomsky maintained that humans are born with some innate knowledge of
certain principles that guide them in developing the grammar of their language, hence, the
proposal for Universal Grammar (UG). In pursuance of this UG proposal, Chomsky argued
that the human brain contains a limited set of rules for organizing language (the Universal
Grammar) that facilitates the entire language development in children based on the samples of
natural language they are exposed to. As a result, human language learning ability is facilitated
by a predisposition that our brains have for certain structures.

3
This line of reasoning has variously been called the Innateness Hypothesis, Universal
Grammar, Language Acquisition Device (LAD) and Generativist account. It is also important
to note that since this early proposal, nativism has seen transformation in diverse ways among
various scholars. Even within Syntax, we have seen transformation from the Principles and
Parameters theory of UG to Government and Binding (GB) theory and to the Minimalist
Program (Haegeman 1994; Chomsky 1995, 2005, 2013). As Chomsky (2005) noted, language
learning is influenced by genetic endowment, experience, and principles that are language
independent. Furthermore, a central argument for innate language knowledge is the notion of
Poverty of the Stimulus. This stems from the fact that children come to possess the knowledge
of their languages more than what is available in the input. Hence, the argument that natural
language grammar is unlearnable, given the relatively limited data available to children.
Moreover, the input is degenerate, rarely contains negative evidence and full of slips of the
tongue. Given the fact that infants do successfully acquire their native languages despite the
poor nature of the input and without explicit teaching, this has often been term the logical
problem of language acquisition. Accordingly, Nativists scholars maintained that only minimal
input is needed to facilitate acquisition and that language acquisition cannot be based purely
on imitation/interaction (Pinker 1994; O’Grady 2005). Also, related to this perspective of
language acquisition is the notion of critical/sensitive period, even though this has been highly
contested among generativist/nativist scholars. A little will be said about this in section 3,
where the role of input in L1A is discussed.

In summary, the Nativists’ proposal for language acquisition is that humans have a biological
predisposition for language learning. Language acquisition is not based on imitation or
observation of the adult speakers. They argue that only a minimal input is required to set the
UG Principles and Parameters to work. This suggests that linguistic input and the language
environment only play a partial role in language acquisition.

2.2 The Interactionists perspectives on L1A

Interactionism is a theoretical approach which recognizes the role of experience, the
environment as well as the contribution of innate learning abilities in language acquisition.
According to interactionist scholars, the environment cannot be a passive agent in language
learning. Piper (1998) claims that in L1A, the social interaction and the environment are the
most determineing factors. She also sees parents as being crucial in the process where their
interaction with children shapes the learning process to which the children themselves are
active participants. Similarly, Vygotsky (1978) argued that language develops primarily

4
through social interaction. He maintained that in supportive interactive environment, children
advance to higher levels of language knowledge and performance. And that conversations with
adults and other children are important, as they provide the child with supportive structure that
helps them to ground the knowledge they have already acquired and to learn new knowledge.
Additionally, Chapman (2000) observes that language acquisition is born out through the
child’s interaction with the caregivers. This notion has also been supported by Matychuk
(2005) as he notes that interactionists would argue that the mother’s or caregiver’s role is of
prime importance within the environment of the child and that parents also aid in language
acquisition by focusing the child’s attention on the immediate environment. Other
interactionists scholars maintain that for L1A to occur, it must normally take place in the
context of a rich interaction between the child and his parents. This notion of rich interaction
presupposes that not every interaction may be essential for L1A. This raises the question of
what quality of interaction is required in L1A and how can that be assessed?

Further, this theory maintains that factors such as linguistic structures, cognitive abilities, and
the social and linguistic environments all work together to influence language acquisition. That
is, proponents maintain that linguistic input and social factors are more important than
emphasis on innate endowment. Thus, children developmental stages and cognitive abilities
(maturation) all have influences on language acquisition. Even though this theory recognizes
the role of innateness in language acquisition, it argues that this cannot be the central issue in
language acquisition. Instead, the language environment, levels of children cognitive
development and most importantly, the input (child directed speech through caregiver talk or
motherese) are the crucial factors in L1A. However, some innateness scholars (O’Grady 2005)
believe that motherese or caregiver talk is only useful in as much as it helps in getting the
child’s attention and holding it, but certainly not crucial in language acquisition.

In summary, the main argument of the interactionists’ perspectives on L1A is that in as much
as innateness is acknowledged in language acquisition, it is not the most important factor in
language learning. Instead, the crucial factors for successful language acquisition are
experience, the child’s cognitive development, the language environment (social interaction)
and the linguistic input (especially child directed speeches).

From these two theoretical propositions on L1A, it appears that they both agree on two things;
the role of linguistic input and innate abilities in language learning. However, they differ in

5
how important, especially, the role of input is to language learning. This calls for a brief
discussion of input in L1A. Thus, the focus of the next section.

3. The role of input in L1A

Before I delve into details on the role of input in language acquisition, I will briefly elaborate
on the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) in language acquisition, since this relate to exposure
to linguistics input and the age of onset in language learning.

The CPH even though has been observed in other biological organisms, its occurrence in
language learning has evoked some contestations among scholars. The CPH was popularized
by Eric Lenneberg (1967) in his Biological Foundations of Language where he postulates that
the ability to acquire a language is biologically linked to age (and maturational constraints).
Lenneberg set the onset of the critical period at approximately two years of age and the end at
puberty (around 13 years of age). It is argued that within this age frame, the window of
opportunity for language learning is high. Thus, the ability to acquire linguistic competence
reaches its peak, thereafter, it declines. The CPH indicates that language has a critical period
for learning which can develop fully among children if only it is acquired before puberty. To
provide an explanation for the occurrence of the critical period, Lenneberg (1967) claimed that
the cause of the phenomenon was due to the brain’s cerebral lateralization and plasticity. Brain
lateralization as a process involves the localization of some cognitive activities on one or the
other side of the brain’s two hemispheres, where language functions become lateralized to the
left hemisphere. This means that from infancy up to around puberty, the development of the
brain in which certain cognitive functions are localized within certain cerebral regions would
have been completed and, hence, language acquisition would be more difficult after this period
than before. Accordingly, Lenneberg maintains that individuals who for some reason are
deprived of the linguistic input which is needed to trigger L1 acquisition during the critical
period will never learn any language normally.

Even though there are evidence that certain brain regions and language learning have
correspondence, where damage to such regions affect language, but not other cognitive
abilities. Studies on feral children (such as Genie and others) have also produced mixed results.
More so, second language acquisition processes have also added more concerns about the CHP
(Slabakova 2016). This has, therefore, made some scholars to rather propose sensitive periods
(Hensch 2004) to the acquisition of some aspects of language, such as the phonology and
morphosyntax. Given that exposure to linguistic input early on is crucial in language

6
acquisition as the lack of that has some implications for language learning, the rest of the
section will cover the role of input in language learning.

The relevance of linguistic input has been acknowledged across board in language acquisition.
What is at issue is the nature of the input and whether it contains enough information to help
children extract the grammar of their language from it. Other factors relating to input are
frequency and transparency and how that can influence in L1A. In a review on how input
impacts on L1A, Gathecole and Hoff (2008) discuss the nature of input and how it facilitates
acquisition. They also looked at how input influences the sequence and speed of acquisition
and whther the input alone is sufficient to account for L1A acquisition. In their review, the
authors noted that input does serve as a source of corrective feedback in the sense that when
children produce well-formed utterances, adults are likely to repeat that but modify children
uttearnces when ungrammatical forms are produced, in order to provide correction. They also
obseved that input can give structure revealing information from which children can induce
form-meaning correspondence. In addition, Gathecole and Hoff argued that input frequency
affects acquisition speed (early acquisition) but not the sequence in terms of comparison
between monolinguals and bilinguals as well as monolinguals within varied input contexts.
Lastly, the authors observed that transparency/opacity of structures in the input also matter. For
example, they found that acquisition of grammatical gender occur early among Spanish
children than among Welsh children due to the transparent nature of gender marking in the
Spanish input.

Further more, in a study on the role of input in grammatical gender acqusition, Rodina and
Westergaard (2015:15) argued that children knowledge of grammatical gender among
Norwegian-Russina bilinguals was found to be dependent on the transparency of the gender
system in the target language as well as the amount of exposure they had at home. They
observed that gender was late acquired among Norwegian children than among Russian
children due to its transparency in Russian. The authors also indicate that the amount of parental
input was a very important factor in the acquisition of Russian gender. Rodina and Westergaard
concluded that in bilingual acquisition where factors such as transparency, input, age of onset,
and quantitative/qualitative differences are concerned, the amount of exposure is crucial in the
acquisition of complex and non-transparent forms than early exposure.

Another interesting issue on the role of input in language acquisition is the quality of the input.
Unsworth (2013) notes that input quality (richness) can be conceived as input from a variety

7
of different sources and within different domains as well as the speakers providing the language
input. She argues further that, it can also relate to whether the input is coming from a native or
non-native, since some research findings suggest that non-native speaker inputs may not be
very useful for language acquisition. Moreover, studies on heritage speakers also reveal that
variation in input, especially input quality, is what makes heritage speakers different from
monolingual speakers of the heritage language on the one hand and other bilingual speakers on
the other (Rothman 2009; Kupisch and Rothman 2016).

In summary, the role of input in L1A is affected by several factors: the frequeny or quantity of
the input to learners, the input quality, transparency of linguistics phenomena in the input as
well as language complexity. All these variables, in relation to the nature of the input, will yield
varying results in language acquisition process as well as the kind of acquisition involved
(either monolingual or simultaneous bilingual acquisition).

4. On the acquisition of Phonology and Sign language

Having examined both the critical period and the role of input in L1A in the previous section,
this section will concentrate on exploring how these two theories are able to account for the
acquisition of phonology and sign language. the Generativist/Nativist theory and how it
accounts for these phenomena will be discussed first before the Interactionist theory.

4.1 Nativism and the acquisition of phonology and Sign language

Children’s ability to discriminate speech sound segments of different languages have been
observed as very fascinating. Research reports have shown that both monolinguals and
bilinguals infants are sensitive to the phonetic and phonological cues of languages spoken
around them even in utero. Infants can also discriminate all the speech sounds of various
languages very early on. Based on these phenomenal skills, infants are often referred to as
“citizens of the world” (Patricia Kuhl 2000; Gervain and Mehler 2010). Patricia Kuhl observes
that children can make most of the phonetic distinctions attested in the world’s languages as
well as their native language from other languages by using rhythmic patterns and cues in the
adult speech. Kuhl (2000) further maintains that children ability to parse speech correctly at
the phonetic level is universal across languages. In a study to determine 6 month infants’ speech
sound discrimination ability, Kuhl (2004) found that American and Japanese babies both
discriminated the English liquids /r, l/ even though adults Japanese speakers may have
problems with these sounds. That is, the difference between /r/ and /l/ is phonemic in English

8
and results in difference in word meaning but not in Japanese. Hence, adult Japanese speakers
will perceive /r/ and /l/ as phonetic variants of the same phoneme.

In another study to test infants ability to dicriminate natural language sounds, Nine-month-
old American infants listened to four native speakers of Mandarin during 12 sessions. After
these sessions, the infants were tested with a Mandarin phonetic contrast that does not occur in
English. The results show that the American babies discriminated the Mandarin sounds just
like Taiwanese babies (Kuhl 2004:837). In addition, the Taiwanese babies in America who
listened to the speech sounds for 12 hours were as good as those in Taiwan who have been
listening to their mothers for months. The findings of these experimental studies could raise
some issues about input quantity, since 12 hours exposure had similar effects as children who
have had expossure to their linguistic input for months. Nonetheless, Kuhl (2000, 2004) noted
that children ability to discriminate sounds of the worlds languages declines around 10 months
of age. This means that the critical period for phonology can be quite early. In similar study,
Gervain and Mehler (2010:120) also found that children discriminate speech sounds early on
by using statistical and linguistic cues such as acoustic variations, stress patterns and rhythms.
Based on this observation, Gervain and Mehler claim that this early language discrinimation
ability in children might represent some form of imprinting to the properties of their native
language and that this early innate abilities in children lay the foundation for later language
learning.

Furthermore, the innate abilities for language learning have also been noted in the acquisition
of creole languages. According to Pinker (1994:33), the linguist Derek Bickerton noted that all
it takes to develop a pidgin to a complex language is by exposing the pidgin to a group of
children early on. Thus, when pidgin is acquired as the native language of children, it becomes
a creole with rich expressions and grammatical complexity. Pinker (1994) argued that children
who have very poor input in their surroundings tend to be creative in their use of language,
where categories that they deem essential but which are not present in the input or their
environment are invented.

In the domain of sign language, it has been observed that these languages are found wherever
there is a community of deaf people. Pinker (1994:36-37) observed that until recently, there
was no sign language in Nicaragua due to the isolated nature of deaf people. However, the
education reforms of 1979 in Nicaragua created a school for the deaf. However, efforts made
to develop a sign language yielded less results. Fortunately, the children invented their own

9
sign systems while playing on the playgrounds or in the school busses. This resulted in the
Lenguaje de Signos Nicaraguense (The Nicaraguan Sign Language, LSN). As Pinker related,
the LSN sign language was further developed into a new complex system known as Idioma de
Signos Nicaraguense (ISN) by younger children. The later sign language (ISN) became more
standardized, with many grammatical forms and rich expressions. The fact is that with the little
input, the first sign language was developed and as younger children were introduced to it, they
further developed it into a standard sign language with complex grammar and rich expressions.
This development instantiates the nativist notion of innate linguistics ability in humans which
require only a minimal input to trigger language acquisition.

Also, Pinker reports the sign language acquisition of a deaf boy named Simon. Simon was born
to a deaf parents who did not acquire sign language until around age 15 or 16 years. As a result,
their sign language was very poor. Simon’s parents had problems with verb inflections of the
American Sign Lnaguage (ASL) and aslo poorly dealt with phrasal fronting. However, Simon
developed a perfect signing from the impoverish input and signing system from his parents
(Pinker 1994: 38-39). As Pinker pointed out, “Simon’s superiority to his parents is an example
of creolization by a single living child” (p.39). It is reported that Simon could interprete
complex videotaped events, use the ASL verbal inflections and undertsand sentences with
moved topic phrases without much difficulty as compared to his parents. This report further
provides evidence for successful language acquition with minimal input, hence, supporting the
innate endownment of the human species for language learning.

4.2 Interactionism and the acquisition of phonology and sign language

As presented in section 2.2, the interactionist theory on language acquisition argue for the role
of experience, cognitive development and both the social and linguistic environments as
constituting the most important factors in language learning. Therefore, both social interaction
and language input are acclaimed the essential ingredients to L1A. Based on these factors,
evidence presented in this section will be based on how language input, the relevance of child
directed speech (CDS), and social interaction promotes L1A. Note that proponents of this
theory recognize innateness in language acquisition.

To discuss the interactionists arguments in relation to phonology and sign language, I will first
discuss the role of social interaction in language acquisition. Among Interactionist scholars,
one interesting aspect of the role of social interaction in L1A is joint attention. Chapman
(2000:40-43) reports that studies on child-adult interactions show that frequent verbal

10
interactions helps in rapid language acquisition. He indicated that joint attendtion contexts of
early word enhance children word learning abilities, when both children and parents are
involved. Also, Dominey and Dodane (2004:129) observe that in child directed speech,
caregivers modify the normal prosodic structure of speech, so as to draw the infant’s attention
to relevant aspects of the speech signal. The caregiver can also signals the infant’s attention to
relevant aspects of the surrounding world so that they are both jointly attending to a common
aspect of the situation.

A clear evidence on the role of both social interaction and child directed speech to language
learning is the case of the American infants’ ability to discriminate Madarin sounds (Kuhl
2004). As noted early, during this experiment, American babies were exposed to Madarin for
12 sessions and when tested, their skills were as good as the Taiwanese babies exposed to the
same input. However, in order to determine the role of the human being in this experiment, the
same stimulus was presented to the infants through video (TV) show and audio recordings. The
results showed no learning whatsoever, which confrims the role of social interaction and CDS
in acquisition. Kuhl further claims that social interaction enhances language learning in both
speech production and speech perception, where the presence of a human being interacting
with a child has a strong influence on learning. Kuhl added that the impact of social interaction
on human language learning has been sadly illustrated by the few instances in which children
have been raised in social isolation, where social deprivation has had a severe and negative
impact on language development.

In relation to sign language acquistion, the relevance of social interaction has also been reported
in Pinker. During the development of the Lenguaje de Signos Nicaraguense (LSN), Pinker
(1994:36) reported that through children interaction on the playground and in the school buses,
they were able to pool together the makeshift gestures they used with their families at home to
develop the LSN sign language, although it lacked consistent grammar.

Since I have already discussed the role of input in L1A in section 3, and implicitly in this
section, I will leave it out here. However, I will make reference to input in relation to social
interaction in section 5. The point is that, where there is social interaction, both linguistics and
non-linguistic inputs are produce since speech production and or perception as language
phenomena seem to be linked to social interaction.

11
5. Discussion
From the analysis presented so far in section 4, it appears that in both the nativists and
interactionsists accounts of L1A, innate abilities, social interaction and the linguistics inputs
are all relevant in language acquisition. From the evidence presented in relation to the
acquisition of phonology, it has been noted that children ability to discriminate speech sounds
is universal. Infants do not only discriminate the segmental phonemes of their language, but
they do so across different other languages using variation in linguistic cues such as rhythm
and other acoustic signals. However, this ability declines towards around the 12th month of age,
where infants now progress towards their native languages. This can be interpreted as the
beginning of the appearance of language specific Parameters as advocated in the UG Principles
and Parameters. Child directed speech or the role of the caregiver and social interaction were
also found to be crucial in child language acquisition. From Kuhl’s (2004) study, it was found
that no learning was observed when the infants were presented the stimulus through video (TV)
and audio recording without the physical presence of their caregivers. The conclusion then is
that it takes the presence of the human being for babies to take their statistics of learning.
Nonetheless, more studies need to be conducted in this direction to make it clear whether the
physical presence of the human being is the essentail ingredient or the sound (acoustic) signals
and rhythms.

Similar studies that can be interpreted in line with the arguments of this paper is that of Slavkov
(2015). Slavkov conducted a longitudinal study on a child named Sophie who was born to an
English (ENG) and Bulgarian (BG) parents and raised in the context of a bilingual first
language acquisition. Slavkov reports that using the one-parent one-language (1P/1L) model,
the mother who was a native English speaker uses only English with Sophie while her father
uses Bulgarian. According to Slavkov, at around the age 1.5 years and 1.6 years respetctively,
Sophie began acquiring grammatical categories such as possession and determiners, which are
morphologically different in ENG and BG, suggesting early separation and parallel
development of the two languages. Also, Slavkov noted that in addition, Sophie showed
evidence of bilingual metalinguistic awareness at 1.5, as she distinguished explicitly between
ENG and BG, and produced equivalent utterances in the two languages upon request. However,
at around 1.7. Sophie ENG language use increased as she began to attend a half-day English-
speaking day care which led to a reduction in the use of BG, and her bilingual language
development started shifting from being active to passive speaker. Slavkov stated that Sophie’s
parents felt that ENG input and interactions, in relation to BG, had increased

12
disproportionately. As a result, this equipped Sophie with better linguistic, communication and
socialization tools, on which she capitalized, and naturally turned BG into her weaker language
which continued up to age 2.3. Fortunately, Sophie and her father took a 10-days trip to
Bulgaria. During their 10 days stay, Sophie’s passive Bulgarian knowledge gets revitalized and
remain active after the trip.

Slavkov’s (2015) study illustrates two important issues relating to the focus of this paper. First,
it shows that even though Sophie was a passive user of Bulgarian at around 2.3 years of age,
the UG Principles and Parameters for BG were already established which explains why the 10-
days trip helped in reactivating this innate linguisitc ability. On the other hand, it also
reinfornces the relevance of input (both quality and quantity) and social interaction in language
acquisition as Slavkov argues. Thus, Slavkov noted that the amount and type of input that
Sophie received in BG was crucial. Further, and that since Sophie received daily input in BG
from her father, and based on that input alone she was developing as a productive bilingual,
her subsequent loss of production in BG was related to socialization rather than an input
deficiency (2015:729).

From Pinker’s (1994) reports on the development of the Nicaraguan sign language and the
acquisition of sign language by Simon from his deaf parents, we again see the role of innate
abilities in language learning. On the one hand, Simon receieved an impoverish signing input
from his parents and developed his signing to a complex system. On the other hand, through
soacial ineraction, the early LSN sign language was created.

In addition, both the relevance of innateness and the role of input in language acquisition have
been noted in other studies (Rothman 2009; Cabo and Rothman 2012; Kupisch and Rothman
2016). In these studies, heritage bilingual speakers are examined in terms of their acquisition
development and in comparison with both monolinguals and other bilinguals. Rothman and
colleages in these studies challenged the term incomplete acquisition as used in the acquisition
literature to refer to heritage language learners. For instance, it is argued that “incomplete
acquisition as a term used to describe differences between monolingual controls and heritage
speaker (HS) bilinguals is theoretically flawed and misleading, if not unintentionally
insensitive” (emphasis in original) (Kupisch and Rothman 2016:3). Kupisch and Rothman
(2016) observed that in heritage bilingual acquisition, structures that are not attested in the
input may likely not be acquired, hence, no need lableling HS as incomplete acquisition, since
in the first place, what is to be acquired is not there.

13
In Cabo and Rothman (2012) it was found that the input available to HS is inherently different
from what monolinguals receive. As a result, Cabo and Rothman believed that the differences
and modifications in the available input, due to cross-generational attrition, must contribute to
HS competence differences. Nevertheless, they observed that not all heritage grammars are
different from monolinguals. In relation to that, Kupisch and Rothman (2016) propose that the
reasons for the difference between heritage bilingual speakers and monolinguals can be
manifold, including issues related to quantity and quality of the input and access to literacy
training, which all apply to monolinguals as well.

The arguments presented by Kupisch and Rothman (2016) raises some questions relating to
innatesness and the minimal input requirement to trigger language acquisition. In most
innateness arguments, one of the logic often cited is the poverty of the stimulus argument,
which mainatins that if certain language structures are not attested in the input but which
children come to acquire will consitute a case of poverty of the stimulus argument.
Accordingly, the acquisition of such language structures are an instantiation of UG Principles
and Parameters. But from the case highlighted in the HS scenario, it follows logically that, the
input (in terms of quality and quantity) is very relevant in heritage bilingual acquisition.

Finally, in examining the role of cognitive development to L1A as argued by the interactionsist,
it has been observed that language acquisition in children is constraint by both language
experience and cognitive capabiblities and maturation. First, as reported in Matychuk (2005),
maturational theoriests claim that the onset of human speech sounds will be gradual and based
on the biological predetermined program. Thus, infants in all linguistic environments will show
the appearance of specific sounds at approximately the same age range. This means that child
langauge development is to some extent also contigent on maturation. Another arguments in
support of maturation is that children prefer simple structures at first to complex ones and then
build on it as they develop. This is usually observed in the acquisition of some morphosyntactic
forms and structures.

In relation to cognitive abilities, it is observed that complex structures may require more
cognitive resources and abilities to parse, hence, the acquisition of such structures come at a
later stage in the acquisition process. As Gathecole and Hoff (2008:118) stated, “input clearly
interacts with cognition in determining what the child acquires when”. The role of cognitive
preparedness in L1A has been demonstrated in the acquisition of lexical items, such as
comparative forms. The findings of such studies made Gathecole and Hoff (2008) to conclude

14
that if what is frequent in the input corresponds to complex cognitive concepts, the forms may
be learned early with a simpler meaning or may wait for the child’s cognitive understanding to
advance to a certain level, before such forms and structures can be acquired.

6. Conclusion
This paper examines the theoretical proposals made by both the nativist and interactionist
theories in L1A in the areas of phonology and sign language acquisition. Using evidence from
published studies, many interesting observations have been noted. First, evidence from
language impaired children give credence to biological and brain involvement in language
development. Secondly, issues relating to critical/ sensitive periods in the development of some
sub systems of language also point towards innateness. Thirdly, given that language always
develop in the community of humans (with some cases of no proper language among isolated
children) means that social interaction is important. Furthermore, the development of sign
language, as reported in this paper, also provides support for both interaction and innateness in
the acquisition process. Accordingly, I argue that the role of input and human interaction
(motherese) are both important as innateness proposal is in the acquisition of L1A. Therefore,
the arguments between the innateness proponents and the interactionist advocates can best be
seen in terms of the competence vs. performance debate. For a child to actively participate in
social interaction where language is appropriately used (performance), he/she must have some
level of linguistic competence. However, both competence and performance, to some extent,
may be restrained by certain fundamental factors, as the learner’s age and cognitive abilities.

15
References
Cabo, P. Diego and Jason Rothman. (2012). The (il)Logical Problem of Heritage Speaker
Bilingualism and Incomplete Acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 33(4), 450-455.
doi:10.1093/applin/ams037
Chapman, S. R. (2000). Children's Language Learning: An interactionist perspective. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(1), 33-54.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. MIT.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(1), 1-22.
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of projection. Lingua, 130, 33-49.
Dominey, P. F. and C. Dodane. (2004). Indeterminacy in language acquisition: the role of child
directed speech and joint attention. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 17, 121-145.
doi:10.1016/S0911-6044(03)00056-3
Gathecole, V.C.M. and Erika Hoff. (2008). Input and the acquisition of language. In Blackwell
Handbook of Language Development (pp. 107-127). doi:10.1002/9780470757833.ch6
Gervain, J. and Jacques Mehler. (2010). Speech perception and language acquisition in the first
year of life. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 191-218.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100408
Guasti, T. M. (2002). Language Acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Governemtn and Binding Theory (2nd ed.). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Hensch, T. (2004). Critical period regulation. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 549-579.
Kuhl, K. P. (2000). A new view of language acquisition. National Academy of Science
Colloquium, PNAS, 97(22), 11850-11857.
Kuhl, K. P. (2004). Early Language Acquisition: Cracking the speech code. Nature
Review/Neuroscience, 5, 831-842.
Kupisch, Tanja and Jason Rothman. (2016). Terminology Matters! Why difference is not
incompleteness and how early child bilinguals are heritage speakers. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 1-19.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundation of Language. Wiley.
Matychuk, P. (2005). The role of child-directed speech in language acquisition: a case study.
Language Science, 27, 301-379.
O'Grady, W. (2005). How Children Learn Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16
 Pinker, S. (1994). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language. William Morrow
and Company.
Piper, T. (1998). Language and Learning: The Home and School Years. (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Rodina, Yulia and Marit Westergaard. (2015). Grammatical gender in bilingual Norwegian-
Russian acquisition: The role of input and transparency. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 1-18. doi:10.1017/S1366728915000668
Rothman, J. (2009). Understanding the nature and outcomes of early bilingualism: Romance
languages as heritage languages. International Journal of Nilingualism, 155-163.
Slabakova, R. (2016). Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Slavkov, N. (2015). Language attrition and reactivation in the context of bilingual first
language acquisition. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism,
18(6), 715-734. doi:10.1080/13670050.2014.941785
Unsworth, S. (2013). Current issues in multilingual first language acquisition. Annual Review
of Applied Linguistics, 33, 21-50. doi:10.1017/S0267190513000044
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In G. a. (eds.), Readings
on the Development of Children (pp. 34-40). New York: Scientific American Books.

17

View publication stats