The consensus belief is that the capacity for language is innate, while others believe its

There are 4 theoretical perspectives. The different theoretical perspectives vary in their focus on the role of nature and nurture as well as the emphasis on one or more of the five aspects of language knowledge. Throughout this chapter, the focus will be on recognizing how nature and nurture interact and can be related. It provides a framework for understanding the complex ways children develop language as they interact with people and objects in their environment, school and home

All language theorists acknowledge nature and nurture both play significant roles in children’s language development. However, the theoretical debate to whether nature or nurture is the dominant tool during a child’s language

Nature and nurture both play a significant role in language development. Language development refers to how children understand, organise, speak and use words in order to communicate at an effective, age-appropriate level (Karen Kearns, 2013, P.105). For centuries, theorists have been debating the roles of nature versus nurture. Although, each child’s language will develop at their own pace and there will be many individual differences based on culture, ethnicity, health and ability. As well as physical, social, emotional and cognitive development in which will contribute to a child’s language development.

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

Do we learn language from our experiences and environment, or are we just born with the ability? “Genie” seemed to be a great “experiment” that helped me understand this questions. She was exposed to almost no language in a critical time in her life. Genie was kept in almost complete isolation for her entire life. She was strapped to a potty chair in a room always alone and had no outside stimulation. When Genie was found she had many different characteristics that did not fit with her age. She could barely walk almost infant like in the way her arms and legs looked. Her language was minimal, slow using mostly grunting sounds and would spit a lot, probable due to lack of

They were both intelligent, and chasing a dream, but they were different intelligences, and different

The case of “Genie” is a tragic look at the effects of child abuse and neglect on childhood development. Genie’s case was particularly extreme, as she lived the first 13 years of her life in isolation and confinement. With little to no human interaction throughout her entire life, she developed no language skills. Researchers were extremely interested in this case, as it gave them a chance to explore two theories of language development. One theory is Noam Chomsky’s view that children are born with an innate ability to learn and understand language. Chomsky termed this structure in our brain the “Language Acquisition Device” (LAD). An alternate theory by Eric Lenneberg stated that language development is a result of our environment, and stressed the importance of critical periods. Lenneberg believed that the critical period for language development only lasted until around 12 years of age, and inability to develop language during these critical periods would result in major deficits.

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

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

In the other hand, behaviorists view language as complex and leaned skill, much like playing piano and dancing. B.F. Skinner argued that language represents nothing more than chains of responses acquired through reinforcement. Putting differently, children learn though process of reinforcement. For example, baby babbles “mama” the mother happily reward the baby with a hug and kisses and eventually will push the baby to say “mama” more and more; due to these reward children are motivated to repeat the behavior, thereby shaping their language and ensuring their development. Children’s language is being built up, this describe a way in which children environmental experiences influence and improve their language skills. Also that’s why parents

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.

The idea of critical period for language acquisition was first brought into view by Eric Lenneberg in 1967. The critical period hypothesis states that idea that the learning of a language must be done within a certain time frame after a child's birth, or else it will be impossible for the acquisition of language to happen. Though Lenneberg may have not been the one to have thought up the idea, he was the person who had popularized it making psychologist question whether or not such a thing as a critical period exists(Snow). This hypothesis first came up from studying people who acquired some sort of damage to the left hemisphere of the brain, leading a patient to obtain aphasia. People who were unfortunate enough to obtain this type of language impairment were more likely to recover to having normal language abilities, if they acquired

Over the course of time the topic of language has been a catalyst for many discussions and debates as to if it is learned throughout one's life, or is it a hard copy instinct the one is born with. Many scientists and writers in the humanities field have their own opinions as to what they believe about language and its plight in human society. One writer challenges many of our educators and scholars today by expressing his thoughts on the instinct to understand, learn, and speak language.

A differing view that contrasts the Nativist theory of innate language acquisition is from the theorists Sapir and Whorf. The two never wrote the hypothesis together, but due to similarities in the thesis they are often cited together (Whorf was a student of Sapir). Their concept is based upon an Empiricist approach in suggesting that language is acquired through circumstantial upbringing. A test was submitted using variances in colour and number labelling known as the ‘Colour Terminology Research’.

The notion of “critical period” closely connecting with “plasticity” for language acquisition is a period, somewhere in childhood or at puberty, after which leaning language becomes markdly more difficult. First proposed by Lenneberg in 1967, Critical Period Hypothesis predicts that “younger is bertter”, complete acquisition of speech can occur only before the end of neurological plasticity and speech acquired after this event will be acquired more slowly and will be less successful. He notes that the age at which persistent aaphasic symptoms result from left-hemisphere injury is approximately the same age,around puberty, at which “foreign accent” became likely in SLA. Researchers differ over when this eriod comes to an end. A particularly convincing study made by Johnson and Newport suggests that the period ends at about age 15. grammaticality judgment was tested in a large group of subjects who had immigrated to the United States at