Blank slate or language acquisition device.

MADDI SYMES explores the language

acquisition battleground
From hair colour to height, gender to complexion – we all have characteristics which have
been determined biologically. Whilst these characteristics are undeniably innate, there
are many human traits which are not quite so straightforward; aggression, intelligence,
our unique ability to communicate through language. This longstanding debate had
existed since Francis Galton coined the phrase ‘nature versus nurture’ in 1869 (Cacioppo
& Freberg, 2013, p. 90). Human beings have come so far in scientific discoveries, from
black holes to cancer treatments, so why is it we still don’t know whether language is
innate or learnt? Well, allow me to break it all down for you!

Rationalist René Descartes (1641; cited by Hunt, 2003, p. 32) argued that we have ‘innate
ideas’ whilst empiricist John Locke (1689; cited by Sherman, 2013, p. 26) famously
attacked Descartes claim, stating that the human mind ‘begins’ or enters the world in a
blank state (tabula rasa) – knowledge being acquired through posteriori – through
experience and observations. From an epistemological point of view, we have capacities
to acquire language but clearly have no ability to develop it as we do this in early in life.
Tabula rasa, although tenable in this sense, is simply not true. In the light of contemporary
science it is evident that we begin life with certain characteristics that characterise ‘human
nature’. Evolutionary, biological instincts and that are studied within the discipline of
‘evolutionary psychology’.

When exploring this debate with regards to language we find there are two major schools
of thought – nativists and functionalists. Nativists believe that some aspects of linguistic
knowledge are innate, meaning they are present at birth (Ambridge & Lieven, 2011, p. 1-
3). Holding up a fight for nativism is generativist Noam Chomsky (1976). Generativists
believe knowledge of grammar consists of formal ‘rules’ that operate on abstract linguistic
categories. Chomsky (1976; cited by Kearns, 2010, p. 174) argues that these rules are
innate and that we all have inbuilt, instinctive ‘universal principles’ and rules for grammar.
He calls this our ‘Language Acquisition Device’ (LAD) which is activated when children
are exposed to language (Chomsky, 1976; cited by Kearns, 2010, p. 174). If only it was
that simple, Chomsky!

On the other side of the battle ring is Tomasello (2005; cited by Workman and Reader,
2014, p. 303), a leading figure in the functionalist camp. Functionalists argue that the
ability to learn language is innate, but there is no innate knowledge of grammar, and
grammatical categories are not a priori. Tomasello, a bit like Locke, believes we learn
through exposure to adult speech. A quote by Tomasello (2008) that I came across
reading his chapter, ‘The Grammatical Dimension’ In Origins of Human Communication
reads, “[a]lthough many aspects of human linguistic competence have indeed evolved
biologically, specific grammatical principles and constructions have not” (p. 313) which I
feel summarises the functionalist view well.

So far it seems to be a tie between the two contenders, so let’s step out of the battle ring
and look at an experiment famously known as ‘the wug test’. I first came across the
research a number of years ago when I was reading Davidson’s (2011) book Planet Word
– a great read by the way! Jean Berko Gleason (1958; cited by Davidson, 2011, p. 47)
presented children with a picture of a ‘wug’, a nonsense word describing the creature in
the picture to see whether the children made ‘wug’ into the plural ‘wugs’. The results
suggested children’s ability to form such grammatical structures is varied and depends
on the individual’s development (1958; cited by Davidson, 2011, p. 49). Nativists argue
that this shows children do not simply imitate language as they can produce the correct
grammatical forms for nonsense words they have not heard before (Barry, 2002, p. 184).
However, there have been many criticisms of the ‘wug’ test, and could it be possible that
children have actually acquired these grammatical rules and have learnt to generalise
them?

Gleason has quite a middle ground opinion in believing that there are areas of the brain
which are specialised for language and through hearing and experiencing language and
by interacting with language users, coupled with the capacity for language, language is
built in the brain (1958; cited by Davidson, 2011, p 49). Personally, I have to agree with
Gleason’s (1958) view. I believe that the difficulty in concluding the on-going debate lies
in the fact we cannot (yet) conduct experiments on new-born babies that would provide
substantial evidence to prove which aspects of language are innate and which are
acquired. Will it take breakthrough research to end this battle, or is it simply
unanswerable?
https://languagedebates.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/blank-slate-or-language-acquisition-device-
maddi-symes-explores-the-language-acquisition-battleground/

Language is a construct humans work in every day to express a wide range

of emotions, ideas, concepts, and actions. Yet it still seems to be incredibly
difficult to learn a second language. It seems odd because we didn’t really
have to work to learn the one we know now.

This is a common thought, and it is entirely wrong.

You worked incredibly hard to learn what the people around you were saying.
It didn’t happen overnight, so you should not expect learning another
language to be any easier. In fact, if it takes you less than a few years to be
comfortable using a new language, it was easier than learning your first
language. Remember, you are still studying your first language in high
school, so you aren’t quite as adept at it as you may think you are.

To learn your next language faster, you are probably looking for the right
language theory. IT can help you move faster through the learning process.
However, it is not the only thing you need, in fact its effect will largely be at
the start. Still, knowing it will give you a boost that most people lack.

There is no one better to talk about language theory than the men known for
thinking in terms of theory. They break down the thinking process in a way
that helps you to understand how and why you think in a certain way.

In the end, this will help you keep your thought process where it needs to be
to get the most out of the language learning experiences.

Plato – One of the Biggest Names in Western Philosophy

While he is best known for philosophy, Plato did a good bit of thinking about
language. This shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering the fact that the
use of language was how he got his point across about philosophy.

Plato believed that knowledge was something that humans simply had; it
was innate. His idea is called Plato’s Problem, in which he asked how
humans were able to accomplish so much with so little time given to them.
Language was an innate human element, and that is why most humans are
able to start talking well before they are ten years old.
When you consider that language is part of your thinking process, it will be a
lot less intimidating to simply learn another way to think the thoughts you
already have.

Descartes and Cartesian Linguistics

Descartes subscribed to Plato’s idea that language is simply something

people do naturally. Descartes’ belief was based on the fact that he believed
humans to be largely rational creatures, and language was required to
interact.

The Cartesian movement that started based on his beliefs reflected on the
fact that language was used creatively. Yet there are still many similarities
even between the least similar languages.

This is heartening because it means that you just need to find the similarities
between English and your target language to start understanding how the
language works.

Locke and Tabula Rasa

You have probably heard of the blank slate concept put forth by Locke. It
shows that he did not subscribe to the idea that anything was innately known.
Everyone began with a blank slate that they had to fill, and that includes
language. Everything is learned from our senses.

This can be comforting if for no other reason than because you probably feel
that is where you are right now with your target language.
These three philosophers largely discussed language in passing, not
postulating many specifics. The next four theories are much more language
specific.

Skinner and the Theory of Behaviorism

Skinner agreed with Locke and he spent a lot of time developing the Theory
of Behaviorism from it. His theory says that all behavior is in response to the
stimuli around us. He applied this to language learning through operant
conditioning, which used reinforcement and punishment to teach.

One of the most common examples of this is parents who refuse to

acknowledge a child’s request until the child says “please.” The reward is
getting what was requested, and the idea of saying “please” is reinforced
through that reward.

Theory of Behaviorism says we need feedback to be successful, even in

learning a language.

Chomsky and Universal Grammar

Noam Chomsky was developing his own ideas while Skinner was working
on his Theory of Behaviorism. Chomsky developed the theory of Universal
Grammar. It was pretty much the antithesis of Skinner’s theory. Chomsky
believed in at least some innate ability in humans for language. His proof
was the fact that there are some universal elements in all languages.

While it definitely goes farther to explain learning a first language than

Skinner’s theory, it really doesn’t apply to learning a second language. It
simply reinforces that there are similar elements, but does nothing to help
identify how to learn everything that is completely dissimilar.

Schumann and the Acculturation Model

John Schumann looked specifically at how immigrants learn a new language

once they relocate. His theory is called the Acculturation Model and
addresses language in much more detail than the other theories.

Instead of thinking of language learning in terms of learning for pleasure, he

examined it when it was a necessity. Immigrants learned a new language
with much more pressure from social and psychological areas. It usually
meant either success or failure.

If an immigrant’s language was roughly equal socially to the language of their

new home, they were more likely to learn the language. The same was true
if the cultures were similar. This points out that there are many psychological
and social reasons for learning a language – ideas that were not examined
by any of the earlier philosophers.

Krashen and the Monitor Model

Stephen Krashen compiled several theories about language, theories which

today are the most often used to describe learning a second language. The
following are the primary ideas to take away from his theories.

Acquiring a language is largely subconscious because it stems from natural

and informal conversations.
Learning a language is very much conscious effort and relies heavily on
correction, which is more formal.
Grammar is largely learned in a predictable series and order.
Acquiring a language occurs when it is provided through comprehensible
input, such as talking or reading.
A monitor can be anyone or anything that corrects your language errors and
to pressure you to improve.
The primary take away from the theory is that acquiring and learning a
language are different, but they can have similar elements. Error correction
is essential for both acquisition and learning.

While none of these theories may do much to help you actually learn a
language, it can make you feel better to know that even the knowledge of
learning a language is up for debate. You may feel one or two of them more
closely works for the way you think, and that can help you better understand
how to use that theory to your advantage.
https://www.optilingo.com/blog/general/7-language-learning-theories-by-the-masters-of-thought/