INTRODUCTION
The manner in which a child acquires language is a matter long debated by linguists and
child psychologists alike. During the twentieth century there has been a great deal of
psycholinguistic research into how this process takes place. These research findings have
revolutionized the way many linguists regard the language learning process. However, the
interpretation of these investigations has always been under dispute and it consequently
divided linguists into adherents of two contradictory hypotheses: behaviorism on one side
and innatism on the other. The following segment presents a comparative study between
these two diametrically opposite theoretical accounts of language acquisition, along with a
brief inquiry into their theoretical assumptions:
BEHAVIOURISM
The behaviorist perspective dominated the study of learning throughout the first half of the
twentieth century. Behaviorism is an approach to language acquisition based on the
proposition that behaviour can be researched scientifically without recourse to inner mental
states. It is a form of materialism, denying any independent significance for mind. Its
significance for psychological treatment has been profound, making it one of the pillars of
psychological language acquisition theory. The behaviourist theory emerges on the basis of
following assumptions :
Language learning is a habit formation resembling the formation of other habits. That
is, a language is learned in the way in which other habits are learned.
Free will is illusory, and all behaviour is determined by the environment either through
association or reinforcement.
Only human beings have the capacity for language learning. They acquire a language as
discrete units of habits, independently trained, not as an integrated system.
This theory puts emphasis on three important factors – stimulus, response and
reinforcement. The most influential version of this theory is put forward by the American
Psychologist B. F. Skinner (1957). According to Skinner the approach of the theory
emphasises several important factors:
Firstly, it considers the immediately observable aspects of situational stimuli.
Secondly, it stresses the language behaviour.
Thirdly, the theory also emphasises the verbal and behavioural responses.
The theory is based on the premise that effective language behaviour consists of producing
responses to the correct stimuli. The link between stimuli and responses becomes habitual
1
as a result of getting reinforcement. If a child produces an alternative which is appropriate to
the situation, the mother will reward him/her with some sign of approval. And the response
is more likely to occur in similar situations in the future time. If the child produces an
utterance which is inappropriate to the situation, he/she will not be rewarded.
Consequently, the child will not repeat the same response to the same situation. The
‘stimulus – response – reinforcement’ chain can be envisaged through the following
illustration:
Positive Reinforcement
Stimulus
Child
Response
Negative Reinforcement
INNATISM
Two years later, however, behaviourism came in for a bitter criticism when the American
linguist Noam Chomsky (1959) proposed a completely different view of language
acquisition. His innatist view was a direct challenge to the established behaviourist theories
of the time, rekindling the age-old debate over whether language exists in the mind before
experience. The theory has laid out an explanation of human language faculties that has
become the model for investigation in other areas of psychology. The theoretical
assumptions underlying the Innatist theory are as follows:
Every human child possesses innate knowledge of language structure to detect and
reproduce language. That is, language acquisition depends on an unobservable
mechanism called Language Acquisition Device or LAD. The LAD is supplied to human
children with birth. The LAD contains language universals, that is, the structures and
sounds common to all human languages and dialects.
Language learning is distinct from other cognitive capacities.
Young children learn and apply grammatical rules and vocabulary as they are exposed
to them and do not require initial formal teaching (Foley).
Chomsky theorized that the child, from his/ her birth is exposed to language that functions
as a trigger for the LAD. The LAD has the capability to formulate hypotheses about the
structure of the language to which the child is exposed. The child is of course quite
unconscious about this process.
The hypotheses are checked in the child’s own language production. They are also regularly
checked against the further data or input that his/her exposure to the language provides. As
2
he/she finds that his/her hypotheses, do not account for all the data he/she modifies the
hypothesis and checks them again.
Through the process of checking and rechecking hypothesis, the child broadens his/her
range of hypotheses and forms an initial grammar of the language. The grammar goes
through successive modifications and resembles the adult grammar by employing his/her
linguistic competence, the child can generate innumerable grammatically correct sentences
and rejects ungrammatical ones. The function of LAD can be visualized through the
following illustration:
The Language that the
child is exposed to
LAD
Hypotheses
Checking & rechecking
Initial grammar
Modification
Generation of
grammatically
correct sentences
DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE VIEWS
Considering the theoretical principles of Behaviourism and Innatism individually, it seems
that each theory accounts for different aspects of language. Both the behaviourist and the
innatist theory provided some fresh insights into the psychological theories of language
learning. The proponents of both schools contributed much to explain the possible logical
explanation for language acquisition. But they moulded their models from different
standpoints. Skinner’s behaviourism and Chomsky’s innatism are very much contradictory
when they are judged in terms of their individualistic theoretical bases. The theories, indeed,
stress on two distinct hypotheses of language acquisition. This divergence has created a gulf
between the theories. Several differences arise between the behaviourist and the innatist
theories of language acquisition :
3
1. According to behaviourism language is learnt in the way other habits are learnt. On the
other hand, according to innatism language develops in the same way as other biological
functions.
1
2. The behaviourist theory maintains a focus on the change in observable behaviours as the
manifestations of learning. Innatism, on the contrary, focuses on an unobservable change in
mental knowledge.
2
3. The behaviourist theory asserts that any piece of information in the mind could be accessed
by any other cognitive process. On the other hand, the innatist theory argues that language
constitutes a species-specific and unique cognitive system, separate from other systems of
systems of cognition.
3
4. The Behaviourist theory ignores completely the inborn aspect of human knowledge, that is,
the existence of congenital potential which makes learning possible. The innatist
perspective, championed by Chomsky and his followers, holds that children, indeed, all
human beings, are innately predisposed to unravel the complex code of language (Pinker).
4
5. In behaviourism situational stimuli are considered as an essential prerequisite for learning.
In innatism, on the other hand, exposure to language in situations is a mere precondition for
the activation of the language acquisition device, and is irrelevant to the actual course
learning takes (Barman, Sultana, and Basu 31).
5
6. In behaviourism knowledge is seen as constant. Contrariwise, in innatism, Knowledge is seen
dynamic.
6
7. In behaviourism learning is said to be successful when the child can repeat what was taught.
In innatism, on the other hand, learning is said to be successful when the child can generate
innumerable grammatically correct sentences and rejects ungrammatical ones through the
process checking and rechecking the hypotheses of the structure of the language to which
he/she is exposed.
7
8. The behaviourist view holds that children need formal teaching and guidance to learn in a
correct way. Quite the opposite, the innatist view maintains that young children learn and
apply grammatical rules and vocabulary as they are exposed to them and do not require
preliminary formal instruction.
8
9. The behaviourist theory states that children's activity is limited to a passive reception of the
stimuli coming from the environment. They do not make any conscious effort to organise
the accumulating experience, since they are equipped with no mechanism warranting this
process. Quite the reverse, the Innatist theory judges the child as an active participant, not a
passive and stimulus-response machine.
9
10. The Behaviourist theory ignores completely the creativity of human beings, whereas the
innatist theory views language acquisition as a creative process.
10
4
11. Whereas Behaviourism has no evolutionary premise, Innatism has one. Chomsky disciples
and not a few cognitive theorists hold that all learning takes place because it is an innate
characteristic of mankind that has proven to have evolutionary advantages (Pinker).
11
12. The behaviourists experiment upon animals, not human beings. Contrariwise, the Innatists
experiment on human child, not animals.
12
13. The behaviourist theory does not advocate the critical period of language learning. But the
innatists claim that Language acquisition only functions if it is stimulated at the correct time.
13
14. The behaviorists fail to recognize the logical problem of language acquisition which the
innatists call the poverty of the Stimulus argument.
14
15. Behaviourism stresses on correction and considers it as an essential part in language
acquisition. On the contrary, the innatist view holds that correction is useless in language
acquisition.
15
16. The behaviourist theory is mechanical, since neither conscious awareness nor intent is
assumed to be operative here. In contrast, the Innatist theory is not mechanical since it does
consider the child as an inert recipient.
16
17. The behaviourist theory cannot explain how the child proceeds in his/her journey of
language acquisition. Contrariwise, the innatist theory gives some rational explanations
about children’s language acquisition procedure.
17
The difference between Behaviourism and innatism can be encapsulated in the following
way :
Behaviourism
Innatism
Acquisition is an outcome of experience
Acquisition is an outcome of condition
5
Acquisition is a stimulus response process
Acquisition is a congenital process
Children learn language by imitation
Children learn language by application
Language learning is practice-based
Language learning is rule-based
Language acquisition is the result of nurture
Language acquisition is the result of nature
Stresses on observable behavior
Stresses on internal thought processes
Human mind is a blank slate
Human mind is no tabula rasa
Knowledge exists outside of individuals
Knowledge exists inside individuals
Learning is determined by the environment
Learning is determined by the individual
Learning requires formal guidance
Learning requires no formal assistance
Considers the child as a passive recipient
Considers the child as an active participant
Language learning is a mechanical process
Language learning is a creative process
Is a theory of behaviour, not of knowledge
Is a theory of knowledge, not of behaviour
Language is akin to other forms of cognition
Language is a separate module
6
THE VERDICT
From the above comparative study it is obvious that the theories differ from each other in a
myriad of ways. The study furthermore demonstrates that innatism is much more
comprehensive and consistent than that of behaviourism. The innatist perspective offers
the promise of enhanced learning and creative thinking - both of which are vital for the
child’s psycho-linguistic development.
Nowadays, however, it is hardly possible to espouse any of these two options directly.
Psychological research has recently progressed in the direction of regarding the human
being as a mixture of genetically determined capacities and knowledge gained by experience
(Konieczna). The human child indeed, acquires language from his/her environment by
imitating behaviours of other members of society. But the innatist theory exclusively ignored
this issue and viewed language acquisition as the special product of LAD. Chomsky, the chief
proponent of innatism opined that exposure to language is a marginal prerequisite for the
activation of the LAD, and is irrelevant to the actual learning process. But this innatist claim
is not entirely satisfying because history (e.g. Genie, Victor) evince that the child cannot
learn language if he/she is isolated from society or human contact. Ruth Clark pointed out
that:
has a fuller role to play in language learning than Chomsky implies,
“ Situation
though not precisely the role assigned to it by the behaviourists (Barman, Sultana,
and Basu 31).
”
It might be possible that children are required a biological trigger for language acquisition
but the genetic trigger could not be activated if there is nobody around them, from whom
they could learn behaviour. That means language acquisition requires situational stimuli plus
LAD:
Situational
Stimuli
LAD
Language
Acquisition
In conclusion, neither account should be totally dismissed. They should be seen as
complementary rather than contradictory. Statements about their validity should be
examined carefully in the light of new available data.
7
Works Consulted
Barman, Dr. Binoy, Zakia Sultana, and Bijoy Lal Basu. ELT: Theory and Practice. Dhaka:
FBC, 2006. 24-38.
“Behaviourism.” Encyclopaedia Britannica. CD-ROM. US: [Britannica Store], 2003.
“Behaviorist Learning Theory.” Innovative Learning. 2008. InnovativeLearning.com. 20 Sep 2008
< http://www.innovativelearning.com/educational_psychology/behaviorism/index.html >.
Clark, Herbert H. and Eve V. Clark. Psychology and Language: An Introduction to Psychology. n.p.:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977. 258.
Cook, V[ivian] J[ames]. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell,
1988. 1-2.
Foley, Mary Ann. “Cognitive Psychology.” Microsoft Encarta. DVD-ROM. Redmond: Microsoft, 2005.
Harmer, Jeremy. The Practice of English Language Teaching. 3rd ed. England: Longman-Pearson,
2001. 68-69.
“Innatism.” Wikipedia. 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 20 September 2008
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innatism >.
Konieczna, Ewa. “First Language Acquisition”. Uniwersytet Rzeszowski. 2008. univ.rzeszow.pl.
20 September 2008 <http:// www.univ.rzeszow.pl>.
“Learning Theories/Behavioralist Theories.” Wikibooks. 2008. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 20
September 2008 <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Learning_Theories/Behavioralist_Theories>.
Pinker, Steven. How the Mind Works. New York: Norton, 1997.
--- .The language instinct. New York: Perennial-Harper, 1995.
Scovel, Thomas. Psycholinguistics. Oxford: OUP, 1998. 17-18
“Second Language Teaching and Learning.” Macquarie University: Australia’s Innovative University.
2008. Macquarie University. 20 September 2008 < http://www.ling.mq.edu.au>.
Varshney, Dr. R.L. An Introduction of Linguistics & Phonetics. Dhaka: BOC, n.d. 306-311.
Yule, George. The Study of Language. 2nd ed. Cambridge: CUP, 1996. 177.
GB †bvU m¤ú‡K© †Kv‡bv cÖkœ _vK‡j wR‡Ám Ki“b: www.amarnotes.com/forum wVKvbvq|
8
GwU Avgvi‡bvU‡mi GKwU Ask hv‡Z gMR LvwU‡q‡Qb Zvbfxi kvgxg © Avgvi‡bvUm
†jLK: Zvbfxi kvgxg, shameembd@yahoo.com, shameemsmail@gmail.com
†idv‡iÝ:
- Dc‡i Works Consulted Ask †`Lyb|
fyj †c‡j Error Report w`b| mve‡R‡± Error wj‡L cvwV‡q w`b: amarnotes@gmail.com wVKvbvq|
Version 1.0.1:
Version 1.0.1:
16 DEC 2008
03 APR 2009
9