Are Children Born with Innate Knowledge of Grammatical Rules - Research Paper Example

Number Module Number Lecturer’s July 2, To what Extent does Research on Past Tense Morphology suggest that Children are born with Innate Knowledge of Grammatical Rules? A lively debate typifies the area of language acquisition. The issue of native or nonnative knowledge of grammatical rules with regard to processing past tense morphology is a major facet of this discussion. Theoretical standpoints on language acquisition in children, particularly with regard past tense morphology, contrast sharply. Dual-mechanism rule-based approach differs with the single-system constructivist approach, and the nativist and generativist approach differ with either of the two. The extent to which each of these theoretical views support the concept of acquisition of past tense morphology as an innate ability differ considerably. The aim of this paper is to examine the extent to which research backing these models supports the notion that children are born with an innate knowledge of grammatical rules, with an inclination on the acquisition of past tense morphology. Introduction The area of language acquisition in children is full of arguments and counterarguments among major linguists. Many times, the viewpoint either group assumes completely contradicts the contrary group’s argument. The theoretical approach is in wide usage in interpretation phonological and semantic acquisition of linguistic abilities in children, and major controversies are noticeable along this dimension. Major contributors to this debate are Pinker and his colleagues on one side, and McClelland and their colleagues on the contrary side. McClelland and Patterson are largely sympathetic to the proposition of connectionists with regard to acquisition of linguistic knowledge. However, the standpoints of either team of sociolinguists are particularly divergent with regard to acquisition of past tense morphology in children. This controversy is of much interest to linguists, and necessitates further probing and examination of the tenets on which either ideology rests. The purpose of this paper is to debate the extent to which the two groups of researchers discuss the occurrence of innate knowledge of grammatical rule s in children. Early Studies on Language Acquisition Earlier studies on the acquisition of past morphologies gave insight into a number of factors affecting the process of past tense verbal inflection in children. Kuczaj’s (589) study was one of the pioneering works on language acquisition of language in children with regard to past tense inflection. Unlike prior presumptions about past tense inflection in children, the study showed that the regular rule of ‘ed’ is not more likely to be overgeneralized to irregular forms such as ‘hit’ than other forms of irregular forms. In addition, there was a partial validity of the one of the study’s hypotheses that the two types of overgeneralization errors highlighted by the study had inquisitional relevance. Consequently, limited use of regular verbs was significant in reducing the number of overgeneralization errors. In summary, Kuczaj (589) backs the theory that acquisition of past tense morphology in children is dependent on learning environment. Consequently, past tense inflection is not an innate process but a rule-based process based on knowledge on words and rules for processing past tense verbal inflections. Innate Understanding of Past tense with regard to Rule-Based model of language acquisition In their defense of the rule-based model, Pinker and Ullman appear to oppose the suggestion that the understanding of past tense morphology is in anyway innate in children’s acquisition of language. According to Pinker, children rely on learning to acquire knowledge on the use of past tense forms of verbs. Children learn the use of past tense from common forms of past tenses, specifically the use of ‘d’ and ‘ed’. Children then create rules based on these rules, which also explains why most mistakes made with regard to past tense morphology assume the common form of creating past tense. The understanding of other forms therefore requires the learners to invoke the use of memory to avoid the overgeneralization errors resulting from the use of common methodology of creating past tense. Consequently, Pinker suggests that a child’s knowledge of use of past tense morphology relies principally on learning experience, and commitment to memory of the exceptional verb forms. This argument clearly suggests that Pinker does not subscribe to the perception that past tense morphology is innate in children. Connectionists Approach to Language Acquisition With regard to the single-system connectionist model, inflectional morphology is a field of linguistics that necessitates further research to comprehend the method of word profiles and their consequential acquisition by children. Connectionists have consistently made use of the single-system model to analyze both noun and verb inflections, which, according to the two sociolinguists, could incorporate some errors given the inherent differences in the acquisition of nouns and verbs by children. The study on the issue by Plunkett and Juola (463) found gaps in the use of the connectionist model. For instance, noun inflections are acquired earlier in comparison to verbs. Furthermore, the research showed that errors in creating past tense inflections in children were heavily impacted by phonological conditioning, overgeneralizations, and effects of frequency. These findings are more descriptive of the rule-based model put forth by Pinker. While questioning the suitability of the single-system model as architecture of explaining inflectional morphology in general, the research reinforces the idea that past tense morphology is not innate. A connectionist’s Approach to verb formation McClelland and Patterson (10) propose an integrated connectionist approach to verb formation in children, and categorically cite its difference with Pinker’s (472) rule based model to word formation. According to McClelland and Patterson (10), the integrated connectionist approach incorporates single network of units and connections for generation of both regular and irregular verbs. This viewpoint is markedly different from the approach suggested by Pinker, which proposes a dual-mechanism in word formation, which McClelland describes as ‘words and rules’ method. Therefore, the integrated connectionist approach, since it relies on the same channels to produce both regular and irregular verbs, the network exhibits a natural tendency to generate past tense forms for unfamiliar irregular verbs as it would for regular verbs. To explain further, children have the innate ability to copy the features of the stem of the unique past tense form and use the same on new irregular verb forms. To some extent, this approach shows an appreciation for innate knowledge for past tense morphology, to which the rule-based model appears starkly opposed. This is because the method assumes that the children already possess a network through which they process all past tense forms whether irregular or regular, and do not have to remember a set of rules for regular verbs and memorize the irregular verbs in order to make accurate use of past tense inflections to verbs. Dual Mechanism Rule-Based Approach versus the Single-System Connectionist Approach The past tense acquisition debate by children is born of controversial research findings on children’s use of past tense in the English language. Contradicting viewpoints begin to emerge with regard to the theoretical interpretation of the research findings. For instance, children often make the mistake of using ‘goed’ other than ‘went’ in the past tense use of the word ‘go’. The problem extends to a number of other irregular verbs. This observation lays the basis for Pinker’s (472) theoretical view of children’s acquisition of grammatical skill. According to Pinker, the way in which children make mistakes is methodical, hence the proposition that linguistic learning is rule-based, a stand contradictory to the connectionists view. Connectionists refute the claim that actual rules apply in the processing of language. Language acquisition, according to connectionists, is interactive, chance-based, and context-sensitive. From the connectionists point of view, the addition of ‘d’ or ‘ed’ to words to make them past tense is independent of the word’s meaning, phonology, frequency of occurrence, and other attributes that relate to the verb under analysis. This paper explores to what level either viewpoints suggest that children have innate knowledge understanding of grammatical rules, specifically with regard to past tense morphology. According to McClelland and Patterson (2002), prior claims by Pinker on acquisition of past tense and other inflection in children contradicts more recent research findings. Pinker (452) proposes a two-way system of forming past tenses, a rule system, and a lexical memory mechanism. However, McClelland’s research indicates that gradual acquisition of past tense inflection, graded sensitivity to phonological and semantic content, and a simple system for regular and irregular forms relying on both phonological and semantics influence the development of past tense inflection in children. All the three tenets back the connectionists’ theory, which strongly contradicts the rule-based dual mechanism theory. In general, McClelland’s proposition seeks to oppose the dual mechanism of language acquisition with regard to past tense in favor of a unified connectionist approach. In effect, the two methods differ as to whether acquisition of past tense inflection is innate or acquired through learning. Although the two viewpoints vary widely in their approach to explaining linguistic acquisition in children, Pinker appears more elucidative in his stand on whether or not children are born with innate knowledge of grammatical rules. Pinker’s approach, which rests on a syntactical explanation of the language acquisition process, among others, highlights that human cognitive mechanisms are innate, a view unapparent in earlier discussions on this model. The alternative view propagated by McClelland and Patterson, though categorically opposed to Pinker et al.’s rule based methodology; imply that the acquisition of knowledge by children is innate, at least to some extent. To explain further, McClelland claims that the method of acquiring past tense morphology is interactive and context-sensitive, and that the learner harbors the capacity to adjust to the circumstances and process language through the Parallel Distributed Processing (PDP), commonly referred to as the connectionist approach. While support for the presence of support for a notion of innate ability in language acquisition is self-evident, the extent to which this argument appears reticent. In a rebuttal to McClelland and Patterson’s opinion, which was in opposition to the rule-based approach, Pinker takes a less controversial stand, which hints a support for innate abilities to acquisition of past tense morphology in children. Pinker claims that the ‘rules’ suggested by his choice model, the rule-based model, invoke a combination of factors acquired over time, which are applicable by rules of chance. Additional factors Pinker cited as contributory to the understanding of acquisition of past tense morphology include phonotactic naturalness, depth of processing grammatical structure, and noisiness of neural computation. All these characteristics are highly attributable to subjective understanding of language, rather than rules and amount of contact with language. The drift of this argument, therefore, appears predisposed to supporting the controversial view that the acquisition of past tense morphology in children is inborn on some level. Overgeneralizations and categorizations instrumental in past tense morphology According to Ragnarsdottir et al. (577), in a research on Icelandic and Norwegian children aged four to eight years old, the study revealed that factors considered instrumental in acquisition of other language also played an important factor in acquisition of English language. These elements include type frequency, phonological consistency, and token regularity. The study also showed that children exhibited two weak forms of verb formation process. Peculiarly, weakness from the use of one verb form to another shifted with the children’s development. In conclusion, the research proposed that acquisition of language is dependent on generalizations of comparable verb forms and categorization of similar verb forms affect the process of language acquisition in children. This view is consistent with Pinker’s rule-based model for language acquisition with regard to past tense morphology. Therefore, the notion that past tense acquisition is an inherent ability in language acquisition is largely contrary to the findings of this research. The generativist and nativist approach to language acquisition in children One sweeping assumption stands out and characterizes the generativist approach to understanding of language acquisition in general is that children have a full representation of the adult system of linguistic processing (Ambridge & Lieven, 14). In addition, the generativist and nativist theoretical framework presumes that the children have an underlying linguistic representation upon which processes and constraints operate. While the radical linguistic outlook observes that children cannot match adult sound in language representation, they possess a set of inborn linguistic rules and processes. These rules, are innate, and hardwired into the children’s linguistic processing mechanisms, and are indistinguishable from those found in adults. Therefore, generativist wholly embrace the notion that children are born with the innate ability to process language, which in effect means that a child’s knowledge of past tense morphological inflection is innate, nor acquitted as contrary ethical standpoints would suggest. The generativist approach bears a high relation to the nativist approach, whose overarching presumption is that key aspects in children’s acquisition of language are not learnt, but rather innate or native to a child’s linguistic constructs. The span of linguistic assumptions based on the nativist approach cover all major areas of language acquisition such as syntax, inflection morphology, and phonology. To some extent, the nativist approach is more categorical in its embrace of innate knowledge of language abilities in comparison to the generativist approach, although the two methods are indistinguishable in some respects. Some sociolinguists use the two approaches interchangeably when examining a range of linguistic aspects (Ambridge & Lieven, 13). Past tense morphology with regard to children with specific language impairment, a comparison Rice, Wexler, and Marquis (1126) conducted a study on acquisition of irregular past tense by children with specific language impairment (SLI). The study compared two elements in morphological inflection: phonological aspects of language and syntactic aspects of language. Although syntactical variations were apparent when the SLI children were compared with the normal children, with the SLI children having a lower performance, phonological differences were statistically insignificant. Therefore, the pattern related element of past tense inflection was similar among all children, while syntactical aspects of past tense inflection differed. This conclusion suggests an innate ability to form past tense on the syntactical dimension, as shown by the results. The phonological aspects suggest that the ability to learn language skills is affected by linguistic limitations. Oetting and Honorov (62) replicated the results of this research in a similar sociolinguistic research, where phonological differences between SLI children and normal children were unapparent, unlike syntactical differences in acquisition of past tense morphology. Consequently, to a considerable extent, children exhibit innate knowledge of past tense morphology, specifically with regard to phonological morphology. Conclusion Pinker and McClelland differ widely on the method through which children are able to form past tense forms of different verbs in the English language. According to Pinker, a dual mechanism exists which helps in development of the past tense words, the rules and words logic. Pinker argues that children remember a rule on formation of past tense, which they apply to most verbs. However, for the irregular verbs, the children have to remember the actual past tense for them to state the correct past tense form of a word. On this account, Pinker appears to have little support for the notion that children have an inherent knowledge of grammatical rules, particularly with regard to past tense morphology. Generally, Pinker suggests that the art of processing words is learnt, and largely depends on the mental faculties of memory to produce correct word forms. The connectionist approach to processing of past tense morphology is supportive of the notion that children have inherent abilities to form past tenses from verbs. According to the model, proposed by McClelland and Patterson, a network already exists in the mind, which processes verbs based on their similarity to previous forms, whether regular or exceptional. This approach deeply contrasts to the rule-based logic developed by Pinker and Ullman, which proposes that the ability to process past tense forms from verbs is principally dependent on learning. Consequently, McClelland supports the idea that an innate past tense processing morphology exists. However, the constructivists support for innate acquisition of language ideology in children is partial. Generativists approach to language acquisition in general, including past tense morphology, fully backs the controversial proposition that children are born with innate knowledge of past tense morphology. This viewpoint is understandable, as generativists assume that children possess an adult-like system of language processing. In advancing their claim, generativists compare a child’s ability to process language with an adult’s with regard to inherent rules of language, and processing abilities for linguistic information. Consequently, children have innate knowledge of past tense inflection. In summary, from a dual-mechanism rule-based rules and words approach, children have no innate ability to process past tense morphology. However, according to single-system constructivist approach, the innate ability is partial in the process of acquiring past tense morphology in children. Finally, the generativist and nativist approach fully supports that the past tense inflection mechanism is already inborn, and learning experience has little to do with the process. Generally, different viewpoints differ in the extent to which they back the proposition that knowledge of grammar and particularly past tense morphology is innate in children language processing mechanisms. Recommendations Presently, many linguists assume particular paradigms on the language acquisition debate, without considering viewpoints of other sociolinguistic theorists. For real progress to happen with regard to the language acquisition debate, an even-handed approach is necessary, which should take into consideration the strengths and weaknesses of each viewpoint in order to arrive at a conclusive stand on the debate on language acquisition. For instance, the rule-based model to language acquisition differs greatly with the constructivist view with regard to past tense morphology in children. The dual-mechanism theoretical stand differs even further with regard to past tense inflection when compared with the generativist and nativist view of language processing. Clearly, a sound and unified approach based on empirical research in necessary to explain with accuracy the process of language acquisition, for the sake of advancing the field in its entirety. Works Cited Ambridge, B, and Lieven, E. Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches. Cambridge University Press. 2011. Kuczaj, S. “The Acquisition of Regular and Irregular Past Tense Forms”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 1977. 16(5) 589-600 McClelland, J and K. “Patterson Rules or Connections in Past-Tense Inflections: What does the Evidence Rule Out?” Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2000 Oetting, J, and Honorov, J. “Past Tense Marking by Children with and without Specific Language Impairment.” Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research. 1997. 40 62-74. Pinker, S and M Ullman “The Past-Tense Debate.” Trends on Cognitive Sciences. 2002. 6(11) 456-462 Pinker, S and M Ullman. “Combination and Structure, not Gradedness, is the Issue.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2002. 6(11) 472-474 Plunkett, K, and Juola, P. “A Connectionist Model of English Past Tense and Plural Morphology.” Journal of Cognitive Science. 1999. 23(4) 463-490. Ragnarsdottir, H, Simosen, H, and Plunkett, K. “The Acquisition of Past Tense Morphology in Icelandic and Norwegian Children: An Experimental Study.” Journal of Child Language. 1999. 26(3) 577-618. Rice, M, Wexler, K, Marquis, J, and Hershberger, S. “Acquisition of Irregular Past tense by Children with Specific Language Impairment.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 2011. 43, 1126-1144 Read More