Language acquisition has been a topic of debate since long time. Many speculations were and are made even today about the actual way by which language is learnt by humans. Some attribute it to our evolution from primates who show although to a much lesser extent, the ability to communicate through verbal language; some say it is acquired through interaction with other people, but one of the most widely discussed and revolutionary idea about language acquisition was proposed by Noam Chomsky. Jean Aitchison has discussed the views of Chomsky about innateness of language and how his views changed with time.
One of the qualities that allow humans to use language more effectively than any other animals is creativity. We utter different and unique sets of words everyday without putting in much effort, although the situations and events we come across might be similar. Chomsky proposed that language learning is not about using a vocabulary having infinite words, it consists of learning a set of rules to use the words as required. He said that children are endowed with the ability to construct the rules to make sense of the speech they hear around them and gradually use it for communication. Aitchison explains the analogy between a child and a linguist as suggested by Chomsky for understanding language. A child just like a linguist tries to find patterns in the speech of people and makes hypotheses about the rules that determine these patterns. As the child observes that these rules do not apply to all the patterns, she again makes guesses about the rules and so on. While doing this continuous testing, the exceptions are usually ignored and the characteristics of rules move towards generalisation. This was attributed to the presence of an innate hypothesis-making device by Chomsky. But this was not all since babies easily acquire any language they hear most often. Chomsky asserted that children already must be having the knowledge of the structure of language, i.e., what does language consist of and how it is shaped. This applied to any language spoken by humans and thus was called as knowledge of language universals.
Suppose a child is exposed constantly to Bengali language, she will know that the letters ‘v’ and ’s’ and the sounds corresponding to them are not a part of the language. So, if she hears such a word beginning with these sounds, either she will reject them as an element of different language or modify them to fit her rules of the language. Thus a name like ’Vivek’ will be pronounced as ‘Bibek’ or ‘Sagar’ will be pronounced as ’Shagor’, etc. Thus, not only the elements like letters of alphabet but the sounds of letters also become internalised in the grammar for the child. These are the substantive universals of language. Along with this, the child also recognises that the language is bound by a structure which can be different for different languages. So for example, a sentence like
One of the qualities that allow humans to use language more effectively than any other animals is creativity. We utter different and unique sets of words everyday without putting in much effort, although the situations and events we come across might be similar. Chomsky proposed that language learning is not about using a vocabulary having infinite words, it consists of learning a set of rules to use the words as required. He said that children are endowed with the ability to construct the rules to make sense of the speech they hear around them and gradually use it for communication. Aitchison explains the analogy between a child and a linguist as suggested by Chomsky for understanding language. A child just like a linguist tries to find patterns in the speech of people and makes hypotheses about the rules that determine these patterns. As the child observes that these rules do not apply to all the patterns, she again makes guesses about the rules and so on. While doing this continuous testing, the exceptions are usually ignored and the characteristics of rules move towards generalisation. This was attributed to the presence of an innate hypothesis-making device by Chomsky. But this was not all since babies easily acquire any language they hear most often. Chomsky asserted that children already must be having the knowledge of the structure of language, i.e., what does language consist of and how it is shaped. This applied to any language spoken by humans and thus was called as knowledge of language universals.
Suppose a child is exposed constantly to Bengali language, she will know that the letters ‘v’ and ’s’ and the sounds corresponding to them are not a part of the language. So, if she hears such a word beginning with these sounds, either she will reject them as an element of different language or modify them to fit her rules of the language. Thus a name like ’Vivek’ will be pronounced as ‘Bibek’ or ‘Sagar’ will be pronounced as ’Shagor’, etc. Thus, not only the elements like letters of alphabet but the sounds of letters also become internalised in the grammar for the child. These are the substantive universals of language. Along with this, the child also recognises that the language is bound by a structure which can be different for different languages. So for example, a sentence like
S V O
“He will not have tea” will become
S O V
“O cha khabe na” in Bengali.
Chomsky said that the child will have the knowledge of this sentence structure consisting of meaning, word arrangement and sound patterns of that particular language to which she is exposed. In this example the first sentence indicates that the subject is a male, while in Bengali the sentence never indicates the gender of the subject. This is also part of the grammar which the child constructs as she listens to more and more speech of people around her. These are the formal universals of language. Knowing these language universals helps the child in constructing and speaking sentences in a standard manner. Chomsky suggested that in order to understand sentences spoken by others, the child must know that every sentence has an inner deep structure and a surface structure which is visible outside. Grammar of the language has a set of rules which help in identifying these structures and these rules are called as grammatical transformations. Aitchison explains that not being able to recognise these structures may create ambiguity since the surface structures look similar but may have different meanings.
All these constituted a Language Acquisition Device including a supposedly evaluation procedure which helps the child choose a grammar fitting all kinds of sentences. But Aitchison says that Chomsky could never explain this evaluation procedure. Thus, some of Chomsky’s ideas were unclear and complicated and had very little specifications for the propositions he made. Later Chomsky realised the fact that a child is exposed to very limited speech (poverty of stimulus) and that it is not possible for the child to acquire the language in its proper form from this inadequate data. Chomsky therefore asserted that the innate LAD is not sufficient and a Universal Grammar exists in the brain which is a separate faculty for language learning.
Universal grammar was considered a biological entity and thus it provided a strong support for Chomsky’s theory of innateness. He also made an analogy between the computer system and the UG saying that it has modules which have different functions but when they interact with each other, the system works efficiently. Chomsky claimed that this UG was partially wired-up and there were switches which had to be set at particular position once the language data was sufficient to make hypothesis about the rules. The options for the switch positions are the parameters which change values depending on the language. For example in English, a question begins mostly with a Wh-word followed by the subject while in Bengali the subject comes at the end preceded by the verb. For example,
Chomsky said that the child will have the knowledge of this sentence structure consisting of meaning, word arrangement and sound patterns of that particular language to which she is exposed. In this example the first sentence indicates that the subject is a male, while in Bengali the sentence never indicates the gender of the subject. This is also part of the grammar which the child constructs as she listens to more and more speech of people around her. These are the formal universals of language. Knowing these language universals helps the child in constructing and speaking sentences in a standard manner. Chomsky suggested that in order to understand sentences spoken by others, the child must know that every sentence has an inner deep structure and a surface structure which is visible outside. Grammar of the language has a set of rules which help in identifying these structures and these rules are called as grammatical transformations. Aitchison explains that not being able to recognise these structures may create ambiguity since the surface structures look similar but may have different meanings.
All these constituted a Language Acquisition Device including a supposedly evaluation procedure which helps the child choose a grammar fitting all kinds of sentences. But Aitchison says that Chomsky could never explain this evaluation procedure. Thus, some of Chomsky’s ideas were unclear and complicated and had very little specifications for the propositions he made. Later Chomsky realised the fact that a child is exposed to very limited speech (poverty of stimulus) and that it is not possible for the child to acquire the language in its proper form from this inadequate data. Chomsky therefore asserted that the innate LAD is not sufficient and a Universal Grammar exists in the brain which is a separate faculty for language learning.
Universal grammar was considered a biological entity and thus it provided a strong support for Chomsky’s theory of innateness. He also made an analogy between the computer system and the UG saying that it has modules which have different functions but when they interact with each other, the system works efficiently. Chomsky claimed that this UG was partially wired-up and there were switches which had to be set at particular position once the language data was sufficient to make hypothesis about the rules. The options for the switch positions are the parameters which change values depending on the language. For example in English, a question begins mostly with a Wh-word followed by the subject while in Bengali the subject comes at the end preceded by the verb. For example,
“Where are you going?” will become
“Kothaye jachho tumi?”
According to Chomsky, the child will come to know about these parameters as they are exposed to the language more and more. Till this time the concept of deep structure and surface structures remained the same but the number of grammatical transformations had reduced, making the system more rigid than before. But by the 1990s, his focus shifted from the rules of language acquisition to the variation in languages. He said that the principles in each of the module of the UG remain the same, just the external conditions change, causing differences between languages. Now what he proposed was called as the Minimalist Program which excluded the deep and surface structures but retained the switches, principles and parameters. It tried to address the question of linking meaning and sound. A string of words is the input to the computational system which accepts or rejects the combination of words based on whether it fits the principles or not. This system also checks for the correct pronunciation of the words thus taking care of both sound and meaning.
According to Chomsky, the child will come to know about these parameters as they are exposed to the language more and more. Till this time the concept of deep structure and surface structures remained the same but the number of grammatical transformations had reduced, making the system more rigid than before. But by the 1990s, his focus shifted from the rules of language acquisition to the variation in languages. He said that the principles in each of the module of the UG remain the same, just the external conditions change, causing differences between languages. Now what he proposed was called as the Minimalist Program which excluded the deep and surface structures but retained the switches, principles and parameters. It tried to address the question of linking meaning and sound. A string of words is the input to the computational system which accepts or rejects the combination of words based on whether it fits the principles or not. This system also checks for the correct pronunciation of the words thus taking care of both sound and meaning.
Aitchison says that although Chomsky’s ideas went through a lot of changes over the years, he still could not answer exactly what was innate and how in spite of variations, children learn languages so easily. Her statements indicate that she agrees with Chomsky on most of the points but towards the end of the chapter turns to Tomasello for analysing language as a product of socio-cognitive skills.
References
Aitchison, J. (2008). A blueprint in the brain? Could any linguistic information conceivably be innate?. In The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics (5th ed.) (pp. 96-114). London, New York, NY: Routledge
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.