topics: |  language-acquisition | education

A complete disappointment of a book.  The first chapter, which is the only
chapter dealing with language acquisition, starts out well with a good
amount of data, showing some coherence with behaviourist theories.  Then it
goes into the innatist argument.  But there is no real comparison of the
various points of view, and the authors simply cop out and fail to take a
coherent stance.  While it gives behaviourism a deserving nod, by
emphasizing imitation and practice in children, the authors do not appear
to be well-versed on much of the post-chomskyan debate, and particularly
the usage-based (functional, e.g. Tomasello, MacWhinney) position which
seems to be gradually merging into the cognitive linguistic position
(Langacker). 

The rest of the book is a mishmash of second language learning theories
etc.  It is meant for language teachers, but perhaps the field of language
teaching is quite divergent from the field of language acquisition
research.  Or that the theories takes time to trickle down into pedagogical
approaches.

At the very least, the title is rather overboard.  No doubt driven by
commercial impulse, it puts off the reader rather badly. 

The text is enlivened by several cartoons.

 

ch 1 Learning a first language

Say what I say: the behaviourist position

behaviourism: language learning is simply a matter of imitation and habit
   formation. Children imitate the sounds and patterns which they hear around
   them and receive positive reinforcement - can just be successful
   communication...  Thus encouraged, they continue to imitate and practise
   these sounds and patterns until they form 'habits' of correct language
   use.

	Mother: Would you like some bread and peanut butter?
	Katie: Some bread and peanut butter.

overgeneralization

1 Kyo: (6,10) I'm hungry.
  Dad: We'll have some poppy seed bread in a little while.
  Kyo: No. I want it now.
  Dad: We have to wait 'til it's de&osted.
  Kyo: But I like it frossed.

3 Michel (2,10) Mummy, I'm hiccing up and I can't stop.

4 Mother: Get undressed (after many repetitions)
  David: (3,11)L I'm getting undressed.
                 I'm getting on dressed.
                 I'm getting on dressed.
                 I'm getting off dressed.

5 At birthday party:
	Father (raises stemmed glass w juice): I'd like to propose a toast.
After [some time], David (5,1) raised his glass and said
	I'd like to propose a piece of bread.

6 Mother: I love you to pieces.
  David (4,1): I love you three pieces.

Incomplete acquisition errors

7 Randall (2,9) : Are dogs can wiggle their tails?

8 Randall (3,5) : You took all the towels away because I can't dry my
	      	hands.

The behaviourist explanations for language acquisition offer a reasonable
way of understanding how children learn some of the regular and routine
aspects of language. However, their acquisition of the more complex
grammatical structures of the language requires a different sort of
explanation and we will see below some of the proposals for going beyond
the behaviourist view.

Innatist view: Chomsky

For Chomsky, language acquisition is very similar to the development of
walking. The environment makes a basic contribution - in this case, the
availability of people who speak to the child. The child's
child's biological endowment will do the rest [innatist position].
Chomsky argues that the behaviourist theory fails to recognize what has
come to be called 'the logical problem oflanguage acquisition'. This logical
problem refers to the fact that children come to know more about the
structure of their language than they could reasonably be expected to learn
on the basis of the samples of language which they hear.

... children are born with a special ability to discover for themselves
the underlying rules of a language system.
Chomsky originally referred to this special ability as being based on a Ian-
guage acquisition device (LAD) - an imaginary 'black box'
somewhere in the brain, with only the principles which are universal to all
human languages.  language samples child is exposed are then matched w the
innate knowledge of basic grammatical relationships to result in lg-specific
structures.  In recent writings, the child's innate endowment is being called
Universal Grammar (UG) - a set of principles common to all languages.

e.g. rules for reflexives:
	a. John saw himself
	b. '* Himself saw John.
so does the reflexive have to follow the noun it refers?
	c Looking after himself bores John.
	d. John said that Fred liked himself
	f. John told Bill to wash himself
does the reflexive always bind with the nearest noun?
        h. John promised Bill to wash himself
so there is considerable complexity, so that the child may not hear enough
instances.

[AM: does not discuss what rule in UG helps this process]

Furthermore, the reflexive can be in the subject position in (i) but not in (j).

	i. John believes himself to be intelligent (non-finite clause).
	j. *John believes that himself is intelligent (finite clause).

In some cases, more than one antecedent is possible, as in (k) where the re-
flexive could refer to either John or Bill:
	k. John showed Bill a picture of himself

By now, you are probably quite convinced of the complexity of the rules
pertaining to interpreting reflexive pronouns in English. The innatists argue
that children could not discover the distribution of reflexive pronouns by
trial and error. In fact, they simply do not make enough mistakes for this
explanation to be plausible. The innatists conclude that a child's
acquisition of these grammatical rules is guided by principles of an innate
Universal Grammar.

Biological basis for the innatist position

Chomsky's ideas are compatible with those of biologist Eric Lenneberg who
also compares learning to talk with learning to walk: children who for
medical reasons cannot move about when infants may soon stand and walk if
their problems are corrected at the age of a year or so. Similarly, children
who can hear but who cannot speak can nevertheless learn language,
understanding even complex sentences.

The Critical period' hypothesis:

Lenneberg observed that this ability to develop normal
behaviours and knowledge in a variety of environments does not continue
indefinitely and that children who have never learned language (because of
deafness or extreme isolation) cannot return to normal if these
deprivations go on for too long. He argued that the language acquisition
device, like other biological functions, works successfully only when it is
stimulated at the right [maturational stage] - the' critical period'.

Natural experiments: sign language acquisition

Elissa Newport and her colleagues have studied deaf users of American Sign
Language (ASL) who acquired it as their first language at different ages.

Results of the research showed a clear pattern. On word order, there was no
difference between the groups. But on tests focusing on grammatical mark-
ers, the Native group outperformed the Early learner group who outper-
formed the Late learner group. The Native signers were highly consistent in
their use of the grammatical forms. Although the other two groups used
many of the same forms as the Native group, they also used forms which are
considered ungrammatical by the Native signers. For example, they would
omit certain grammatical forms, or use them in some obligatory contexts but
not in others. The researchers conclude that their study supports the hypo-
thesis that there is a critical period for first language acquisition.

Interactionist position

is a third position - mixing innate abilities with features of interaction.
no references are given - possibly the authors' own position.

[does not refer to the body of work on cognitive linguistics (tomasello,
bowerman, carpenter, langacker) or on functional linguistics (bybee, givon)
as alternatives to the chomskyan position. ]

Which theory?

We have presented three different theories of language acquisition, each of
which can be corroborated by evidence. As we have seen in the transcripts
from Peter and Cindy (pages 3 and 4), children do imitate and practise,
and that practice can explain how some aspects of the language such as word
meanings and some language routines are learned. We saw in the example of
reflexive pronouns, however, that imitation and practice alone cannot
account for the complexiry of the knowledge that all children eventually
attain. The acquisition of such complex language seems to depend on
children's possession of some knowledge which permits them to process the
language they hear and to go well beyond these and even beyond simple
generalizations. The discussion of the interactionist position (especially the
case of Jim) showed that children who are exposed to language in the
absence of one-to-one interaction do not develop language normally.

[cops out in terms of choosing a theory]
One way to reconcile the behaviourist, innatist, and interactionist explana-
tions is to see that each may help to explain a different aspect of children's
language development. Behaviourist explanations may explain routine
aspects, while innatist explanations seem most plausible in explaining the
acquisition of complex grammar. Interactionist explanations are necessary
for understanding how children relate form and meaning in language, how
they interact in conversations, and how they use language appropriately.

Also deals with second language acquisition.