Transcript document
First Language
Acquisition
Sources:
Brown
Lightbown & Spada
NAM/nam
Theories of L1 Acquisition
Behaviorism
“Say what I say”
Innatism
“It’s all in your mind”
Interactionism
“A little help from my friends”
Behaviorism
Skinner (1957).
People’s behaviors are directly observable, rather than the mental
systems underlying these behaviors. Children are born with a mind
that is like a blank state.
Language → verbal behavior
Children learn language through: I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
R_________
Tabula rasa
Stimulus Response
Conditioning
Reinforcement
Observation:
Is this enough to explain how human beings learn a language?
Innatism
Criticism on Behaviorism for LA
Poverty of the stimulus → we end up knowing far more about language
than is exemplified in the language we hear around us.
Problems with Input → Slips of the tongue, false starts, ungrammatical
and incomplete sentences, the data children are exposed to is
impoverished
LA is a creative process. Children are not given explicit information
about the rules:
No instruction or correction.
Children are equipped with an innate template or blueprint for language
→ Universal Grammar (UG).
Children go through similar universal LA stages regardless of cultural and
social circumstances.
Children construct rules which are structure dependent →
children do create phrase structures, and the rules they
acquire are sensitive to this structure.
Example: What accounts for the difference between
“and” and “with” in:
Jill ate bagels and cream
Jack went up the hill with Jill.
and their corresponding possible wh. Questions:
What did Jill eat bagels with _________________?
Who did Jack go up the hill with______________?
Bagels and cream → coordinate NP (2 NP conjoined with
and)
Bagels with cream → NP composed of an NP followed by a
PP (NP + PP)
Children never violate a coordinate structure constraint like:
*Who did Jack and ________ go up the hill?
*What did Jill eat bagels and ___________?
The innateness hypothesis:
An answer to the logical problem of language acquisition:
What accounts for the easy, rapidity and uniformity of
language acquisition in the face of impoverished data?
Children acquire a complex grammar quickly and easily
without any particular help beyond exposure to the
language, they do not start from scratch.
The child constructs his grammar according to an innate
blueprint (UG)
All children proceed through similar development stages.
Characteristics
Universal Grammar (+UG))
Principles intact (UG)
Parameters (For specific language) yet unset
Acquisition based on data input
Learning procedure (LAD)
Hypothesis testing
Parameter setting
Markedness differential
Hypothesis
Linguistic rules can be either part of the :
“Core Grammar” (UG)
.- Follow general principles of language
.- Considered to be less complex
.- Unmarked
“Periphery”
.- Specific to each language
.- Considered to be more complex
.- Marked
Language Acquisition Device (LAD)
Universal Grammar (UG)
Systematic; rule-governed acquisition
Creative construction
“Pivot” grammar
Critical Period Hypothesis
“Victor” and “Genie”
Interactionists
PIAGET (1969):
Language is not based on a separate ‘module of the mind’.
it can be explained in terms of learning in general:
“language acquisition is similar to the acquisition of other skills or knowledge”
Language is a number of symbol systems which are developed in
childhood. Language serves children to represent the knowledge acquired
through physical interaction with the environment.
Social interaction and environment.
Cognitive development and use of the language.
Functions of language through interaction
Child-directed speech: Jim’s case
VYGOTSKY (1978):
Importance of conversations which children have with adults and
with other children
These conversations constitute the origins of both language and
thought.
Thought is essentially internalized speech, and speech emerges in
social interaction.
More recently, constructivists have focused their research on the
social meaning of language.
“Function are the meaningful, interactive purposes, within a social
(pragmatic) context, that we accomplish with forms.” (Brown 2000:
28).
They criticized the innatists’ generative rules as being abstract,
formal, explicit and only concerned with the forms of language,
ignoring the functions of meaning within social interaction
(pragmatics).
BLOOM (1971):
Criticized innatists’ pivot grammars: the
relationship between a pivot word and an open
word was not always of the same nature.
In the utterance: “Mommy sock”, she found, at
least, three relations:
agent-action (Mommy is putting the sock on)
agent-object (Mommy sees the sock)
possessor-possessed (Mommy’s sock).
Bloom’s conclusion: Children learn underlying
structures, and not superficial word order.
Issues in L1 Acquisition:
Universals
Principles
Parameters
Language and thought
Imitation
Practice
Input/discourse
Pivot grammar n
Now-discarded theory of grammatical
development in L1A. Children were said to
develop two major grammatical classes of
words:
1.- pivot class: small group of words attached to
other words, e.g. on, allgone, more
2.- “open class” (e.g. shoe, milk) to which pivot
words were attached.
The child’s early grammar was thought to be a
set of rules which determined how the two
classes of words could be combined to produce
utterances such as allgonemilk, shoe on.
Longman Dictionary of Linguistics, Applied Linguistics and ELT.