Assignment: Application: Literature Review Step II

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 1

Nature vs. Nurture Debate in Language

Acquisition

MOHAMMED SHANAWAZ

ID: 1120697055

ENG 555: Advanced Psycholinguistics

Assistant Professor Abdus Selim

22 August 2011

North South University

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 2

Abstract

How humans possess the language ability is a matter of long controversy

among the linguists. Some of them believe that the ability of language is the

result of innate knowledge. Unlike other species humans possess that innate

ability which is genetically coded. To them language is the outcome of nature

(genes). Conversely, others claim that the ability of language is learned through

experience extracting all the linguistic information from the outside

environment. It is the outcome of nurture (environmental factors/stimuli). At

present, there is no clear winner regarding the debate as both genes and

environmental factors/stimuli seem to play a vital and important role in

language acquisition.

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 3

Nature vs. Nurture Debate in Language Acquisition

A popular Bible story “The Tower of Babel” narrates, the whole world had

one language—one common speech for all people before mankind decided to

build a tower that would reach all the way to heaven. God punished mankind

for the hubris of building this tower by turning their one universal language

into dozens of different languages. The inability to communicate in each other’s

languages finally resulted in mass confusion and the ultimate destruction of

the tower. Well, we do not know whether the story as a whole is a fact or fiction

and which is also not the matter of concern here. What noteworthy in the story

is the significance of language among humans. Truly, how significant the

language is for us! Language is arguably the most unique feature of humans

that distinguishes them from any other living species. We, humans use

language as a remarkable tool for communicating with each other—let’s say for

sharing our thoughts, opinions and views; or expressing our liking, disliking or

desires. Other animals lack that ability of language. Barber (1997) further says

about the significance of language:

It is language, more obviously than anything else, that distinguishes

humankind from rest of the animal world. At one time it was common to

define a human as a thinking animal, but we can hardly imagine thought

without words – no thought that is at all precise, anyway. More recently,

humans have often been described as tool-making animals: but language

itself is the most remarkable tool that they have invented, and is the one

that makes most of the others possible. The most primitive tools,

admittedly, may have come earlier than language: the higher apes

sometimes use sticks as elementary tools, and even break them for this

purpose. But tools of any greater sophistication demand the kind of

human co-operation and division of labour which is hardly possible

without language. Language, in fact, is the great machine-tool which

makes human culture possible. (p.1)

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 4

So, language is the most significant remarkable tool that humans

possess unlike any other living species. But, question could raise that how we,

humans acquire that ability of language which other species cannot. It is a

matter of long controversy among the linguists that how humans possess the

language ability. We find different approaches regarding language acquisition.

Some of the linguists believe that the language ability is the result of innate

knowledge. Unlike other species humans possess that innate ability which is

genetically coded. These linguists believe that language is the outcome of

nature (genes). Conversely, others claim that the ability of language is learned

through experience extracting all the linguistic information from the outside

environment. According to them language is the outcome of nurture

(environmental factors/stimuli). The difference between these innate and

learned approaches to language acquisition or the ability of language that

humans possess is known as nature vs. nurture debate. The study will short

the debate out logically investigating whether nature or nurture or little bit of

both play a vital role in language acquisition.

The first approach concerning nature-nurture debate in language

acquisition is called “nativism”. It is generally the idea that language

acquisition is an innate ability of humans. Thus, the approach is also known

as “innatism”. The idea of “nativism” actually goes back to philosopher Plato

and Kant whose belief was that knowledge originates in human nature. But in

modern times this concept is clearly associated with the renowned linguist

Noam Chomsky who is a strong proponent of the “nativist or innatist theory of

language acquisition” (Bates, n.d.). Chomsky (1988) further clarifies the tie

between his views on the innateness of language and Plato’s original position

on the nature of mind:

How can we interpret [Plato’s] proposal in modern terms? A modern

variant would be that certain aspects of our knowledge and

understanding are innate, part of our biological endowment, genetically

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 5

determined, on a par with the elements of our common nature that cause

us to grow arms and legs rather than wings. This version of the classical

doctrine is, I think, essentially correct. (p. 4)

Nativists/Innatists deeply believe that language acquisition is the result of the

innate knowledge of the language within an infant. Innate is something which

is already there in mind since birth. They also claim that the underlying

principle of language is deeply rooted in human brain. It is genetically coded

among humans since birth unlike other living species. This enable us to

possess the unique language ability which is absent among other species.

According to various articles (“Nature versus Nurture,” n.d.; “Innate or

Learned,” n.d.; “Chomsky’s Theories,” n.d.) on Chomsky’s language acquisition

theory it is found that he has spent a lot of time in developing a theory of

grammar which is widely known “Universal Grammar (UG)”. UG basically

asserts that underlying all the different languages there are some basic

principles. Chomsky also postulated that children are born with a “Language

Acquisition Device (LAD)”. According to him, LAD allows a child to pick up the

underlying grammatical principles of the language concerned. Nativists claim

that “Universal Grammar” is too complex to be acquirable through

environmental stimuli/factors. The proponents of innateness hence believe that

the human brain develops certain brain structures for language acquisition

and use as a result of Darwinian evolution and the “survival of the fittest”

principle. Chomsky often calls the innate knowledge of language by language

faculty considering this as a biologically autonomous system in the brain that

has an initial state which is genetically determined. Nativists further claims

about the innateness of the language ability that humans possess:

The fact that every known human culture developed some sort of

language suggests that there is a genetic basis for the ability to construct

and produce language. Furthermore all human languages seem to have

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 6

some characteristics in common. They all have large vocabularies of

words whose meaning is mediated through a phonological system, they

all have a grammatical system that governs the way in which words are

combined and they change through time by adding new words and losing

old ones. (“Nature versus Nurture,” n.d.)

Conversely, the second approach regarding the nature-nurture

controversy in language acquisition is known as “empiricism”. Empiricists

believe that children learn the language by extracting all the linguistic

information from the environment. To then language acquisition is all about

habit formation and the outcome of nurture. Hence, this approach is also

known as “behaviorism” (Bates, n.d.). This approach is also an ancient one,

going back (at least) to Aristotle, but in modern times it is closely associated

with the psychologist B.F. Skinner who is the well-known proponents of

behaviorism/empiricism. Bates (n.d.) in one of his studies mentions B.F.

Skinner’s view regarding language acquisition:

According to Skinner, there are no limits to what a human being can

become, given time, opportunity and the application of very general laws

of learning. Humans are capable of language because we have the time,

the opportunity and (perhaps) the computing power that is required to

learn 50,000 words and the associations that link those words together.

(p. 2)

Various articles on behaviorism (“Nature versus Nurture,” n.d.; “Innate

or Learned,” n.d.) asserts that the infant can draw sufficient linguistic

information from the well-structured environment. According to

behaviorists/empiricist, language is learned by association and thus, they

claim language acquisition as the associative process. To them language

acquisition is similar as any other learning process related to cognitive

development. They also claim that the beneficial quality of language is

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 7

responsible for the ubiquitous distribution. People who came in contact with it,

adopted it because of its beneficial effects and in this way, language spread

across the earth. Mahoney (n.d.) in one of his articles emphasis the significance

of usage and experience in language acquisition supporting behaviorists’ claim:

Not all linguists believe that the innate capacities are most important in

language learning. Some researchers place greater emphasis on the

influence of usage and experience in language acquisition. They argue

that adults play an important role in language acquisition by speaking to

children—often in a slow, grammatical and repetitious way. In turn,

children discern patterns in the language and experiment with speech

gradually—uttering single words at first and eventually stringing them

together to construct abstract expressions. At first glance, this may seem

reminiscent of how language is traditionally taught in classrooms. But

most scientists think children and adults learn language differently.

While they may not do it as quickly and easily as children seem to,

adults can learn to speak new languages proficiently. However, few

would be mistaken for a native speaker of the non-native tongue.

Childhood may be a critical period for mastering certain aspects of

language such as proper pronunciation. What factors account for the

different language learning capabilities of adults and children?

Researchers suggest accumulated experience and knowledge could

change the brain over time, altering the way language information is

organized and/or processed. (p. 2)

Nature vs. nurture controversy regarding the question how humans

possess language ability has been ongoing for long since among the linguists.

At present, there is no clear winner regarding the debate as both genes (nature)

and environmental factors/stimuli (nurture) seem to play a vital and important

role in language acquisition. We cannot ignore the fact that human behavior is

actually a collaboration of both genetic and environmental aspects. Maybe this

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 8

true for language acquisition as well. Perhaps, some genetic features, such as

our large brain or nutritional requirements have predestined us in some way to

develop vocal communication, which in turn has grown to a full language as a

consequence of environmental factors, such as upbringing, social system or the

use of symbols (“Nature versus Nurture,” n.d.) In an article (“How Do Nature

and Nurture,” n.d.) it has found that how both nature and nurture are equally

important for human development:

The question, “how do nature and nurture influence human

development” has been an ongoing debate for a very long time and at

present there is no clear winner, as both nature (genes) and nurture

(environmental factors) both seem to play a vital and important role in

human development…Nature can be loosely defined as genetic

inheritance or the genetic makeup (the information encoded in your

genes) which a person inherits from both parents at the time of

conception and carries throughout life…The concept of nature thus

refers to biologically inherited tendencies and abilities that people have

and which may get revealed later on as they grow up. In contrast,

nurture can be defined as the different environmental factors to which a

person is subjected from birth to death. Environmental factors involve

many dimensions. They include both physical environments (a good

example is prenatal nutrition) and social environments (such as the

neighborhood, media and peer pressure.) Also, environmental factors

have different levels of impact on human development as they involve

multiple layers of action, ranging from most immediate (families, friends,

and neighborhoods) to bigger societal contexts (school systems and local

governments) as well as macro factors such as politics on the

international level or say global warming. (p. 2)

From the discussion on different approaches concerning language

acquisition, one thing is obvious that not solely nature (genes) or nurture

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 9

(environmental factors/stimuli) rather little bit of both are important for

language acquisition. Not solely the belief of “nativist or innatist” is enough to

answer the question of how humans possess the language ability. The claim of

“behaviorists/empiricist” can also not be ignored regarding the matter. The

innate knowledge of language faculty that children are born with is not enough

to acquire language unless they trigger or get output from the outside

environment. The well-studied case of Genie (O’Grady, W. D., O’Grady, W.,

Dobrovolsky, M., & Katamba, F., 1996) is worthwhile to understand the

importance of both innate knowledge and environmental output in language

acquisition.

Nature vs. Nurture Debate 10

References

Barber, C. (1997). English Language: a historical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Bates, E. (n.d.). On The Nature and Nurture of Language. Retrieved August 09, 2011,

from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.140.3229&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Chomsky's Theories on Language. (n.d.). Retrieved August 09, 2011, from

http://www.brighthub.com/education/languages/articles/71728.aspx

How Do Nature and Nurture Influence Human Development. (n.d.). Retrieved August 09,

2011, from

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/110288.aspx

Is Language Innate or Learned. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2011, from

http://www.brighthub.com/education/languages/articles/71285.aspx

Mahoney, N. (n.d.). Language Learning. Retrieved August 10, 2011, from

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/linguistics/learn.jsp

Nature versus Nurture in Language Acquisition. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2011, from

http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/82090.aspx

O’Grady, W. D., O’Grady, W., Dobrovolsky, M., & Katamba, F. (1996). Contemporary

Linguistics: An Introduction. London: Longman.