According to the Oxford English Dictionary, ‘language’ is defined as ‘The method of human communication, either spoken or written, consisting of the use of words in a structured and conventional way’. This definition is agreed by all as a correct and accurate definition of the word. Although there is a general consensus on its meaning, some people’s views differ greatly in terms of acquiring language and through this, two main theories are debated as to which is true as well as which is more influential in developing language. The first theory is a ‘Nurture’ approach developed by Skinner and other behaviourists, which is the theory that language is developed through a child adapting to the environment around them and acquiring language over time. Whereas the second theory is a ‘Nature’ approach to language developed by Chomsky and other nativists, which suggests that children are born with the abilities of language acquisition and learning and that the child is the main focus in language development and not the environment around them.
The theory that focuses on the ‘Nurture’ side of language acquisition is led by behaviourists such as Skinner. They focus on how the environment in which a child is surrounded by and the continual development and practice lead to the most effective method of acquiring language. ‘”the behaviorist theory of stimulus-response learning, particularly as developed in the operant conditioning model of Skinner, considers all learning to be the establishment of habits as a result of reinforcement and reward” (Wilga Rivers,1968). In Skinner’s opinion, babies were seen as empty vessels which language had to be put into. Through this, he would gain information children’s language through what was called ‘operant conditioning’. Here the child tries to use language and through trial and error will eventually succeed in using the words correctly. Through positive gestures from the person teaching the child ie: smiles or approval, the child receives a response in which they are pleased by. This is similar to the theory of Pavlov’s Dogs where he would develop a connection between the ringing of a bell and providing food, leading to the dogs beginning to drool. This is a similar instance with children learning language in Skinner’s opinion as the child’s verbal behaviour is reinforced by a positive response to a correct answer. Another key idea in Skinner’s theory was children developing language acquisition skills through imitation. This focuses on where the child repeats what the adult says and in turn develops the ability to say it over time. A large criticism Skinners theory faces is one of a lack of evidence in practical experiments in relation to his thesis. ‘It is clear that what is necessary in such a case is research, not dogmatic and perfectly arbitrary claims, based on analogies to that small part of the experimental literature in which one happens to be interested.’ (Chomsky, 1959). Skinner’s ideas of reinforcement of language through people and the environment around the child are very important when it comes to the development of language acquisition for children, but to claim that a baby has no cognitive ability whatsoever in regards to language is a very narrow-minded and ignorant approach in my opinion as ‘‘behavioral studies in infants indicate that a considerable amount of language learning already takes place in the first year of life in the domains of phonology, prosody and word segmentation.’’ (Dehaene-Lambertz et al, 2006).
In terms of a ‘Nature’ based outlook on language acquisition development, the theory led by nativists such as Chomsky and Pinker believe that the infant brain has the natural capabilities to process and understand language. A lot of evidence points to this as being somewhat true. ‘Infants exhibit sophisticated speech perceptive capacities, such as phoneme categorization, normalization and languages discrimination.’ (Dehaene-Lambertz et al, 2006). Chomsky believes that children do not need any teaching to learn how to speak and supports his theory due to many different reasons. Children do not need to have a trigger or prompt to begin acquiring language as that happens naturally as the child attempts to develop language on its own. The fact that the optimal learning age is between 3 and 10 also supports his theory, as it shows that the child can become fluent and get a better understanding of the language completely. Chomsky believes that each child has a ‘language acquisition device’ and that this ‘innate learning mechanism enables a child to figure out how the language works.’ (Traxler, 2012). Overall, the nativist belief is that as long as there is someone there to communicate with the child, its biological nature will do the rest in terms of acquiring the language. The main criticism that Chomsky’s ideals face is that formal education is not seen as essential for language development. If this theory became the primary view on language then there would be no function for teachers as language learning would become inevitable. This is a dangerous way to look at teaching as if we taught like this, we run the risk of the children never developing their language to their potential as not reinforcing language with the children could become detrimental.
Although both theories have valid points but also have their own share of criticism, in my opinion I feel a combination of both viewpoints would be most affect method of developing children’s language acquisition. This view is known as an ‘Interactionist‘ method of language development which takes positive points and ideas from both sides to greatly benefit the child’s language learning and ability to develop this skill. ‘’The interactionist approach stresses the unification of nature and culture’’ (Toulmin,1978). I believe that children do possess an innate ability to process language which would side with a nativist viewpoint but I also feel that a child’s language can be developed through using and adapting to the environment around them through experiences that they face as they grow up. ‘’ Although human speech production does not become significant before the end of the first year of life, infants display early sophisticated perceptive capacities that are rapidly modified by their linguistic environment’’ (Dehaene-Lambertz et al, 2006). In the classroom, this could lead to greater learning for the children, as based on this theory, the natural foundation for language acquisition is already there and is built on or developed with the help of the people around them and interactions they will face. Even Chomsky, one of, if not the leading and most prominent nativist, concedes that some of what behaviourists value is key in language acquisition, in addition to a more nativist outlook. ‘‘As far as acquisition of language is concerned, it seems clear that reinforcement, casual observation, and natural inquisitiveness (coupled with a strong tendency to imitate) are important factors, as is the remarkable capacity of the child to generalize, hypothesize, and ‘process information’ in a variety of very special and apparently highly complex ways which we cannot yet describe or begin to understand, and which may be largely innate, or may develop through some sort of learning or through maturation of the nervous system.’’ (Chomsky, 1959). This shows that although people such as Skinner and Chomsky can seem set in their views, their main focus is actually finding the correct and most effective way to develop a child’s language acquisition and learning. In my opinion, this is a clear indication as to why a more holistic, interactionist approach would be most effective and influential in this area.