Learnability of a Language Essay

Because of this, they are less concerned about prescribing rules to be followed since the language is going to change anyway. To descriptivists, it seems rather pointless. However, Garner refutes this stance by describing an earthquake. In the grand scheme of everything, a single earthquake hardly amounts to anything. Millions of other natural disasters happen every day in every continent of the earth. What makes that earthquake special? Compared to the rest of the world, it means nothing. But to the people living in the city where the earthquake struck, it means everything. So it is with grammar. One cannot simply say that good grammar and usage does not matter in the grand scheme of things. It matters to the people who are speaking the language right now! Garner argues that the majority of English-speakers have no concern over where their language is headed but are more concerned with correct usage and proper grammar. Garner also points out another issue which refutes the describers belief that language is one of instinct, not of choice. Garner quotes MIT graduate, Steven Pinker, who relates language to the song of the humpback whale. Pinker criticizes the prescriptivists in their stringent rules that confine individuals to make what he believes to be unnecessary choices because he believes that

First, children¡¯s acquisition of language is an innate mechanism that enables a child to analyze language and extract the basic rules of grammar, granted by Chomsky. It basically states that humans are born with a language acquisition device that, the ability to learn a language rapidly as children. However, there is one important controversy in language acquisition concerns how we acquire language; since Chomsky fails to adequately explain individual differences. From the behaviorists¡¯ perspectives, the language is learned like other learned behaviors. It is learned through operant

He makes an important hypothesis that universal grammar (UG). UG is a characterization of these innate principle of language faculty, I-language. (5) He then postulates some detailed structure of UG. It is a system of conditions on grammars, constraints on the form and interpretation of grammar at all levels, from the deep structures of syntax, through the transformational component, to the rules that interpret syntactic structures semantically and phonetically. The study of linguistic universals, which is classified as formal or substantive, is the study of the properties of UG for a natural language. (6) Substantive universals concern the vocabulary for the description of language and a formal linguistic universal involve the character of the rules that appear in grammars and the ways in which they can be interconnected. Language-acquisition device uses primary linguistic data as the empirical basis for language learning to meet explanatory adequacy that is defined in UG, and to select one of the potential grammars, which is permitted by UG.

However, it can be argued with (Bruner 1964) that social interaction doesn’t explain all the complexities of language acquisition. Almost every day the language we hear is often incorrect, poorly defined, incomplete and full of hesitations, mispronunciations and other errors, and yet despite this we still learn to talk following the correct grammatical rules. Again this indicates the idea of Chomsky’s (1968) LAD model that children are born ‘hard-wired’ with the innate knowledge of linguistic rules and so these rules help the baby make estimations and presumptions about the language it is hearing. From these estimations and presumption the child can work out grammatical sets of rules and when more language is exposed to them, the more their language develops. Even within Chomsky’s (1968) LAD theory, undoubtedly he believed the role and promotion of the ‘nature’ aspect is the core foundation on which language can develop. But his theory also requires the role of nurture

To understand children’s language learning we have to go beyond language classrooms. Regarding the child as a language learner we have

Syntax acquisition refers to the ability to organize and structure the sentence components. A child acquires this ability at the age of 18 months. At this age, a child has the capacity to put single words together to form a two-word sentence . This ability is enhanced by how much its primary caregivers socialize a child. Moreover, semantic is concerned with the use of right words within the right context so that the expression can make sense. During the phonological stage, children tend to overuse few vocabularies they possess to refer to numerous objects than it is reasonable. Some linguists hold that children utilize these words judging from similarities of sound, shape, and size. However, as a child interacts more with the language, he/she

Through completing this research, there seems to be a distinct age in which a child must acquire or learn a language. With this in mind, it does seem that Lenneberg’s critical period hypothesis is correct in its assumption. But, it also seems that Lenneberg was incorrect with a few aspects in his hypothesis. For example, he claims that all aspects of a language will be lost once a child reaches the age of puberty or when the brain is fully mature. This claim is counteracted with the research and study done with Genie. Although Genie was unable to acquire all aspects of her language like grammatical meanings and was incapable of producing coherent sentences, she was still able to communicate with two word utterances. Due to

p.21). Children should be expected to pass through the four components of phonological (sounding out simple letters and patterns), syntactic (structuring sentences), semantic (adding meaning to sentences) and pragmatic (creating context in sentences) respectively. As the child’s proficiency in each component increases it may be of benefit to expose the child to language that may be just outside of their knowledge base as suggested by Vygotsky in his “zone of proximal development” theory. (McDevitt, Ormrod, Cupit, Chandler & Aloa, 2013.

Chomsky proposed a theory of language acquisition, which holds that at least some knowledge about language exists in humans at birth. Additionally, that all languages share some properties of organization and structure. (Miller, p. 198)

There are several theories regarding language development. Work by Chomsky, Piaget and Kuhl are critical. Studies by Chomsky, as examined by Albery, Chandler, Field, Jones, Messer, Moore and Sterling (2009); Deloache, Eisenberg & Siegler (2003) argued for the innateness of language acquisition due to its complexity. Development is assisted by a language acquisition device (LAD) and universal grammar both of which holding the propensity for commonalities throughout all languages. LAD is the key to the Syntax rule. The knowledge to master the rules is held unconsciously. Chomsky concludes exposure through auditory channels as being the only requirement for learning. Arguably Kuhl (2010) writes infantile exposure to language through auditory channels only, does not contribute effectively to learning indicating the importance of human interaction. Piaget, as discussed by Ault (1977) postulated language as not being part of the earliest stages of development. Signifying within sensorimotor stage, between birth and two years, the child’s development is too reflexive. Gleitman, Fridlund and Reisberg (2004) discuss the critical period hypothesis and suggest the young brain being more suited to acquisition than the adult brain. Lenneberg (1967) (as cited in Gleitman et al 2004) advocates, brain maturation closes language acquisition capacity window. Kuhl (2010) identified, within the critical period babies develop

Children learn spoken language before they start school through their social groups and develop understandings of everyday spoken registers. Language development continues at school, involving vocabulary and access to more written-like language, which lays the foundation for learning to read.’ (Winch et al., chapter 3 p. 39). Chomsky developed the nativist theory that regards language as a distinctive human achievement, which is an innate structure of the brain. ‘Chomsky came up with the idea of the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). The LAD is a language organ that is hardwired into our brains at birth. Because of this, we are born with the ability to understand and develop language. Once a child is exposed to language, the LAD activates. It allows them to understand the rules of whatever language they are exposed to.’ (Study.com, 2013, chapter 8., Lesson 3). Chomsky emphasises that a child’s language acquisition takes place quickly and effortlessly due to the child having complete linguistic capabilities from birth and need only learn to express this capability regarding oral language. LAD relies indirectly on the language children hear, and input from those around them and serves as a trigger to syntactic structures. Speaking and listening is a crucial resource in student’s learning and literacy development. As student’s start school, there is a deliberate attention and use of metalanguage that they will be using during their schooling

Numerous theories try to explain the process of language acquisition. These theories fall into one of two camps. The environmentalist (or connectionist) theory of language acquisition asserts that language is acquired through environmental factors (Halvaei et al. 811). Theorists in this camp believe that a child learns language by gaining information from the outside world and then forming associations between words and objects. The nativist (or rationalist) approach, on the other hand, asserts that it is innate factors that determine language acquisition. Noam Chomsky, often described as “the father of modern linguistics”, falls into this camp as he believes that speech is the result of hidden rules of language that are hidden somewhere in the brain (Rahmani and Abdolmanafi 2111). Steven Pinker, a colleague of Chomsky, is a renowned psychologist, cognitive scientist and linguist who discusses his own theories on language acquisition in his book Words and Rules.

From a baby 's first word to their first complete sentence, there 's a lot to debate with their language development. The average child has a vocabulary of up to six-thousand words by the time they turn five years old (Brighthubcom, 2016). Language development is one of the most critical roles for an educator in both early childhood and primary settings. It is this ability of language development that is particularly interesting in the nature vs nurture debate. In order for educators to provide effective communication, it is important that they have the knowledge and understanding of the four key concepts of language, such as phonological, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic development and the underlying theoretical perspectives that explain the processes of language acquisition and development.

Some linguistic models try to explain the development of second language acquisition. The three most common models are (1) the Universal Grammar Model, (2) the Competition Model, and (3) the Monitor Model. The Universal Grammar Model refers to the system of principles, conditions, and rules that are properties or elements of all human languages. At the same time, each language has grammatical rules that vary from one language to another. Thus, Chomky states that different languages have a limited possibility of different grammatical structures (1975). Therefore, second language learners base their second language acquisition on universal principles common to all languages, and on the force of the particular rules of each language. All of those can be concluded that as a human, especially as children, we have vary form of rules in language, in this case is second language.

Modern day linguistics has seen the arrival of many different viewpoints of language. Beginning with Noam Chomsky, unquestionably one of the most influential figures in recent linguistics, new theories and ideas have been introduced at a rapid rate. In part due to his status as a revitalizer in the field, but also due to his often controversial theories, Chomsky maintains a place at the center of this discussion. His search for a universal grammar and criticism of pure descriptivism have informed generations of research. Much of this has been reactionary against him, but his influence can not be discounted. His theories of a universal grammar have inspired writers on both sides of the debate. Paul Hopper argues against this view, positing