Evaluate the idea that children’s linguistic development is the result of an innate capacity to learn language (30 marks)

 Innateness is the idea that children have an inbuilt capacity from birth that allows fast and effortless acquisition of language. This idea was formed by Chomsky who believed humans were born with a Language Acquisition Device (LAD) and this natural ability to pick up language comes from the idea of universal grammar, human languages sharing properties. This is a nativist argument and can be opposed by the nurture argument: that development is based on interaction. They oppose these ideas through the suggestions that language is acquired by both observing and imitative behaviours of others through reinforcement and parental support, as suggested by Skinner.

Innateness to learn English is the central line of argument on the nature debate. Nativists believe the mistakes in children’s language provide evidence of innateness because children could not have copied these. For example, in text A when Jess says, ‘I not know’ and ‘them not go there’ she has struggled to form the negative version. For example, one Jess has deleted the auxiliary verb ‘do’ when adding the negative marker ‘not’. Since Jess is unlikely to be imitating adult speech, as suggested by the blocking principle by Pinker that adults are less likely to make grammatical errors, it alludes to an internal blueprint trying to apply what she’s heard to her own output. However, in this instance that internal device has misapplied the rule. Chomsky believed this inbuilt ability was language-specific and believed that this was Jess’ attempt to utilise her internalised grammar. ‘Universal’ grammar includes features such as nouns that appear in all languages. But grammatical variations require some form of parametric variations within the child that helps their language development in line with where they live i.e. an English child learning English. Examples of variation can be seen between English and Japanese. English uses a subject-verb-object arrangement, whilst Japanese uses subject-object-verb order. In the transcript, Jess has already established what language she is hearing and has switched her parameter accordingly. She says, ‘you put heads together’ which doesn’t appear to make perfect sense but does follow correct syntax such as with the plural of ‘heads’ rather than using ‘heades’, suggesting this grammar is done on instinct. This also supports Lenneberg’s idea of virtuous errors proving the existence of a LAD since they were a logical by-product of the attempt at grammar. Once a child has established the language and uses their inbuilt ability to ‘switch on' the right language, changes cascade through what they say and brings their language closer to the ‘standard adult’. This suggests that development depends on an inbuilt capacity to identify and apply the language. Behaviourists, however, argue that language is acquired through observation and imitation and oppose the nativism theory with children acquiring the accent of their primary caregiver as well as repeating lexemes heard most often like sayings.  

 

This idea of innateness also extends to the way in which children use their language when talking about specific things with Jess in text B saying ‘zebra (.) tiger’ suggesting she overextended the concrete noun zebra to describe any animal with stripes and therefore categorised the animals together. This suggests children have inbuilt rules and frameworks to help them describe the world around them as suggested by the nativist theory. However, similar mistakes may not be corrected by the child since they are unaware of the error, and Brown and Hanlon found that parents are unlikely to correct the child. They studied parents and their children and found that parents are unlikely to correct their child with minor grammatical mispronunciations and, when they don’t give explicit approval or disapproval, children don’t get the opportunity to alter their language. This means mistakes in a child’s language can go unchallenged, suggesting there must be some innateness to make the acquisition possible, otherwise Jess’ language would be full of mistakes. On the other hand, the social interaction approach believes that our experiences with caregivers are crucial for developing early language. Research has found that on average, children are spoken to 7,000 times a day, much of this is made up of child-directed speech (CDS). CDS contains features such as simplified vocabulary and grammar, tag questions and recasting with the aim of making the language easier to process and acquire. For example, in text A, mum recasts Jess’ mistake by modelling the correct form ‘in the middle’ where she includes the demonstrative determiner ‘the’ that her daughter deleted. Saxton said that by recasting the mistake, mum provides an immediate contrast of the child’s attempt and the ‘correct’ adult version. This leads by example in a less intrusive way but also reinforces the bits the child did well for example pronunciation of ‘middle’. Bruner described this kind of support on children’s language as scaffolding, where parents provide a framework or structure for the child that is gradually removed, allowing the child to speak alone. This appears to have worked temporarily on line 17 where Jess correctly says, ‘in the middle’. However, this is temporary because in line 22 she uses the pronoun ‘them’ as opposed to the correct ‘the’ (them middle). Cazden said that scaffolding fails because children chose to ignore corrections or advice if the form is too far away in their Z.P.D to access. He found that parents focused more on the truth of the children’s words, rather than the grammatical correctness of it and this undermines the importance of interaction in linguistic development.   

 

The cognitive approach is like that of nativists in that it believes we have an inbuilt ability for linguistic development. However, the cognitive approach believes that this ability is not isolated and is part of a child’s wider development. Piaget said that understanding leads to language development and we cannot linguistically articulate ideas we do not understand. Object permanence is important in this, once a child has understood that everything exists even when we cannot see it, their vocabulary grows. This happens at around Jess’ age (age 3) and causes the Naming Explosion. This is demonstrated when Jess says ‘eggo, lion, rainbow pooh bear’, as she shows off how many nouns she can recall. At this stage, children begin to use pronouns too, such as Jess who uses ‘I’ and ‘you’ with ease. The importance of grasping concepts to aid language development does suggest that there is an innate capacity somewhere. Constructionists believe that our language is less to do with innateness and more to do with what language we experience. This provides the basis for our early language. Unlike Chomsky, constructionists see a very rich language surrounding the child, one that they can hear and use to create their own structures. When Jess perfectly produces the utterance ‘that’s the end’ whilst still making other virtuous errors, it suggests she may have learnt the utterance. This is explained by constructivists as children picking up chunks and then generating productive structures by adapting what they’ve heard to create new forms. Ibbotson suggested children spot patterns such as ‘I am X’ and ‘I want X’ where X is a variable/ slot they can fill with different items. This provides a structure for the child to learn more complex syntax. Therefore, Jess saying ‘that’s the end’ could help her to swap the abstract noun ‘end’ for different variables to use more creative language. This suggests that what children hear around them is important for language development. 

 

In conclusion, it appears that children do have innate capacity because they learn language almost effortlessly compared to other abilities. This allows them to overcome errors that may not be corrected and attempt to use grammar. However, because children are surrounded by such a rich environment with lots of languages, interaction must play a part too. It is the act of both interaction and their innate capacity, however, that allows them to form their language; development cannot rely on a single part of development.