The study of language development, one of the most fascinating human achievements, has a long and rich history, extending over thousands of years (Chomsky, 2000). As the nature-versus-nurture argument is inevitable to arise whenever human behaviors are discussed, it is not surprising that language experts have debated the relative influences of genetics and the environment on language development (Hulit & Howard, 2002). Among the various proposals concerning the mechanisms involved in acquiring a language, two opposing theoretical positions, the behaviorist and the nativist, are the most prominent and influential ones (Ayoun, 2003; Garton & Pratt, 1998; Owens, 2001). Due to the indefinite explanation of the exact process, the continuous interest of the inquiring people, and the sheer significance of the precise result, the controversy remains ongoing and popular. In view of the more obvious limitations of the behaviorist interpretation and the prevailing contributions of the nativist interpretation, the latter one is more rational to accept.
Limitations of the behaviorist interpretation
As the name implies, behaviorism focuses on people's behaviors, which are directly observable, rather than on the mental systems underlying these behaviors (Narasimhan, 1998). Language is viewed as a kind of verbal behavior and it is proposed that children learn language through imitation, reinforcement, analogy, and structured input (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2003).
Do children learn language through imitation?
Imitation is involved to some extent, of course, but the early words and sentences that children produce show that they are not simply imitating adult speech. Since there is an infinite number of potential sentences implied, children's complex and creative utterances cannot be explained by a passive response to the language of the environment. In addition, imitation cannot account for common child language mistakes, which are highly unlikely to be failed imitations of what adults would say (Cattell, 2000).
Do children learn language through reinforcement?
Another proposal is that children learn to produce correct (grammatical) sentences because they are positively reinforced when they say something right, and negatively reinforced when they say something wrong. Roger Brown and his colleagues at Harvard University report that reinforcement seldom occurs, and when it does, it is usually incorrect pronunciation or incorrect reporting of facts that is corrected (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2003). In fact, attempts to correct a child's language are doomed to fail. Children do not know what they are doing wrong and are unable to make corrections even when they are pointed out (Hulit & Howard, 2002).
Do children learn language through analogy?
It had also been suggested that children put words together to form phrases and sentences by analogy, by hearing a sentence and using it as a sample to form other sentences. Nevertheless, problem arises constantly as, for instance, children who formulate a rule for forming questions, "move the auxiliary to the position proceeding the subject", will never move the first auxiliary of a relative clause on analogy (Meadow, 2003).
Do children learn language through structured input?
Yet, another suggestion, placing a lot emphasis on the role of the environment in facilitating language acquisition, is that children are able to learn language because adults speak to them in a special "simplified" language sometimes called motherese. (Fromkin, Rodman & Hyams, 2003). Controlled studies demonstrate that motherese does not significantly effective. Moreover, in many cultures, adults do not use a special register with children, and there are even communities in which adults hardly talk to babies at all (Cattell, 2000).
By emphasizing production, the behaviorist minimized comprehension and underlying cognitive process,...