The Implications of Dan Slobins Statements on Second Language Acquisition - Essay Example

The Implications of Dan Slobin’s ments on Second Language Acquisition The Nativist theory of a universal grammar, which is innate in all of us, that acts as a precondition for learning language is the theory where Dan Slobin based his statements (quoted later in this essay). This means that everyone is born with an innate fundamental knowledge structure that predetermines the learning of language. While the concept of a universal grammar is helpful in explaining the starting point of first language acquisition, the question now remains if it can also be applied to second language acquisition. This paper will explore how this theory benefits, if it indeed does, second language acquisition. [Name] [Professor/Class] [University] [Date] The Implications of Dan Slobin’s Statements on Second Language Acquisition Language is essential in being able to communicate properly and communication is essential to societal life, where a person needs to be able to understand and be understood by other people in order to survive. Thus, the study of language acquisition and development in children is well-covered as many delve into the process in order to help teachers and parents to promote a healthier and more successful language development in children in order for them to be well-equipped to live in the world. And with the diversity of language comes the need not only to fluently speak one language, but to also learn a second, or even a third, language. Immigration and inter-racial marriages are two very common happenings in the 22nd Century. Gone were the days when immigrants were treated like outcasts and racial discrimination was considered normal. Today, anyone can choose to migrate to another country in order to find a better life. Because of the phenomenon of immigration wherein a country is made more diverse and multicultural, it is but inevitable for inter-racial marriages to flourish. Because of these two factors combined and the subsequent success of international and multinational corporations, schools have felt it necessary to equip their students with the knowledge of a foreign language. In fact, “the number of people in the United States who speak more than one language has doubled to almost 50 million during the past 20 years” (Talaris Research Institute, 2005). Hence, children nowadays are pressured to become at least bilingual and at best multilingual. These factors that necessitate second language acquisition only serve to reinforce the need for a solid foundation of a first language. Of course, in order to proceed to second language acquisition, the successful development of a first language is necessary. There have been many theories, studies, and models that were created over the years. And while there are still numerous innovative studies being done that will produce breakthrough results, it is imperative to take a look at the literature provided by past theorists and linguists. Dan Slobin (quoted in Fromkin et al, 2003) stated that: The capability to learn language is deeply ingrained in us as a species, just as the capacity to walk, to grasp objects, to recognize faces. We dont find any serious differences in children growing up in congested urban slums, in isolated mountain villages, or in privileged suburban villas. This paper will explore Nativist theories of language, as the statement above is nativistic in nature, and whether or not it has merit in first and second language acquisition. First Language Acquisition Language Acquisition is “a natural developmental process of gaining knowledge and mastery of a speech system in a living environment” (Pham, 1994). “Language is a code that we learn to use in order to communicate ideas and express our wants and needs” (Surrency, n.d.). It starts from birth with the newborn baby being aware to the sounds around them, as shown by their reaction to them, and is reinforced by their immediate environment as the years go by and their brain develops to accommodate the understanding and use of syntax and semantics (Bowen, 2006). In this way, language acquisition is akin to physical growth and development. As the infant grows to become a child, and so on, his/her brain develops and becomes capable of more and more language functions. The pattern is familiar: cries evolve to babbles, babbles are shaped into words, and words are joined to create sentences. This sequence describes the path taken by all children as the language they hear around them is examined, internalized, and eventually developed into native-speaker competence. (Bialystok 2001) Language development in children can be simplified in the statement above. It is a consistent process which everyone who has a child or has been around an infant through his/her growing years has witnessed. “Children learn language and speech by “listening to the language around them and practicing what they hear”” (Surrency, n.d.). Environment is an important factor in the rate and success of language acquisition. That is why children who live in a specific area and around a particular group of people adapt not only the main language, but the diction and accent of the adults as well. There are four minimum requirements that are inherent to language. First, there should be a reference to things or events in the outside world. Language naturally refers to what happens to the immediate environment of the one speaking it. Since it has its relation to the environment of the speaker, culture has an effect on it. Culture effectively becomes ingrained in language, and thus is its second requirement. In fact, one way of transmitting culture is through language. The reverse is likewise true; language is also transmitted via culture. Meanings assigned to words, in countless instances, are culture specific (Anisfield, 1984). The third minimum requirement of language is its productivity. An infinitely large number of new messages can be created by combining elements in a systematic way. The number of combinations becomes even bigger with the cultural aspect in language. As many different cultures there are, so are the numbers of variations that may result in language. Its cultural specificity, also results to some level of arbitrariness in language. Thus, the form of message is symbolic and does not directly represent the meaning (Anisfield, 1984). However, foremost to these four factors is the proposal of Nativist theorists, like Noam Chomsky, that there is an innate knowledge that all of us are born with that predetermines us to learn language (Anderson, 2005). This is what Dan Slobin meant by his statements above. It does not matter where a baby is born for everyone has an innate capability to learn language. Nativism There are numerous sets of theories in linguistics that attempt to explain the process of language acquisition. The Empiricists propose that language acquisition in children is relatively due to the experiences brought about by the environment (Matthews, 1997). Behaviorists attest to this by treating a new-born baby as a “blank slate” that gets filled up through inputs made by the environment and the conditioning brought about by the parents, which is essentially the stimulus-response theory (Hadley, 1997). Rationalists acknowledged the factor of innate knowledge, although they mainly believe that experience is the major factor in learning language (Anderson, 2005). Proponents of Nativism, on the other hand, believe that “the new born is equipped with a language acquisition device (LAD) which enables it to acquire languages (in contrast to other abilities) and with a universal grammar” (Intemann, 2006). The language acquisition device is what Chomsky (1980) terms universal grammar, “a certain mental structure consisting of a system of rules and principles that generate and relate mental representations of various types.” This means that children are equipped with this universal grammar even before the effects of experiences, may be considered learning, or inputs are factored in (White, 2003). Universal grammar transcends the differences in languages. It is basic and universal in that it is a “system of principles, conditions, and rules that are elements or properties of all human languages not merely by accident but by necessity” (Chomsky, 1975 quoted in Thomas, 2004). This generative theory suggests a general component in every person’s genetic make-up that is the starting point of language acquisition which makes him or her capable of learning language—whatever language it may be (Thomas, 2004). With this innate universal language embedded in all humans, children then learn to phonetically shape their language to imitate or conform to their environment’s language—whether it is English, Greek, Finnish, German, or Japanese (Thomas, 2004). With this Nativist view of language acquisition and its starting point, the statement of Dan Slobin at the start of this essay is explained. Now comes the question of whether this theory can be applied to second language acquisition. Does the Nativist view help in any way in the study of second language acquisition? Second Language Acquisition In today’s world wherein immigration is rampant and inter-racial marriages are very common, bilingualism is definitely a plus. It can be said that bilingualism is both a product and a result of immigration and inter-racial marriages. Immigration of families to different parts of the world, other than their own native country, necessitates foreign language acquisition in order for these families to function normally in their respective adoptive countries. Hence, the children attain bilingualism in the event that their native language is retained. Inter-racial marriages, on the other hand, produce children who acquire both parents’ languages, especially when spoken at home. Bilingualism The explosion of international and multinational businesses is also a very big factor in the spread of bilingualism. Parents who have business dealings abroad tend to learn the language of the country and person they are doing business with on a regular basis. Most of the time, in an attempt to mix family quality time with business, parents bring their children with them to their country of business. Consequently, these parents instigate in their children the learning and use of language of the country they frequently visit. For example, an American father who has a business franchise or branch in Italy would always bring his family there to hit two birds with one stone—that is family vacation while doing business. With the frequency of their so-called vacations, the children naturally acquire Italian as a second language, especially if there are social motivations important to them, like making friends. Because of this business factor, schools felt the need to incorporate the teaching of foreign language as a way of preparing the children for their future in business. Bilingualism then became a tool to succeed in different careers, especially in business. “To begin with the increase in the learning of languages; this has to do with the fact that both school education and international contacts are more important in the lives of most people nowadays than they were 100 years ago” (Janson, 2002). Bilingualism is a product of second language acquisition. With the factors affecting its importance and its clear advantages in the 20th century, it is not a wonder why there are so many studies being conducted on second language acquisition. It is necessary to analyze it as a means helping and making it easier for parents and teachers to teach children a second language or for them to raise a child in an environment conducive to the learning of a second language. However, before the environment and experience can be considered a factor, the preconditions of children having an innate capability to learn language must first be looked at. It has been proposed that universal grammar has an effect on second language acquisition. Limitations of Nativism Because of the theory that asserts a universal language that is fundamental in language of young children, it can be supposed that it also has an effect on second language acquisition, as the former is much the same as the latter. However, even if the developmental process is the same in the sense that the learner passes through the same stages, the effect of the concept of a universal grammar is limited. Scientists and linguists recognize the fact that any language can be easily learned before the age of three because of the fact that children’s minds are more malleable to adapt to the changes in language due to their innate openness to learn language as stipulated by Bob Hadley (2005) in the following statements: … all languages have the same basic structural foundation. While children are not genetically “hard-wired” to speak a particular language like Dutch or Japanese, universal grammar lets them learn the rules and patterns of these languages—including those they were never explicitly taught. Some linguists believe that universal grammar and its interaction with the rest of the brain is the design mechanism that allows children to become fluent in any language during the first few years of life…. Children may also have a heightened ability, compared to adults, to learn second languages—especially in natural settings. Age is certainly a major factor in the rate and success of the acquisition of a second language. This is because young children do not have the speech inhibitions that older children have (Pham, 1994). These inhibitions make it harder for older children to learn a second language. “When a language is learned during childhood, it is processed as if it were the person’s native language. This is more natural and easier than when the language is acquired later on in life” (Surrency, n.d.). Dual language acquisition is when a child learns two languages at the same time. This is where the theory of universal grammar can have the most impact. The differences in first language acquisition lie in the first three stages wherein the child’s single-word statements are a mix of the two languages. Only in the subsequent and more advanced stages starting at the age of four will the child start to learn the distinction between the two languages. Dual language acquisition is slower as the child is learning two different languages, the distinction between the two, and the time and place it is appropriate to use one language and not the other. Although this process is more difficult, as mentioned above, the mind of a very young child (3 years old and below) is still malleable and impressionable. Thus, learning the two languages simultaneously is still easy because the universal grammar is still functioning perfectly. However, in the case of second language acquisition wherein the second language is learned after the first language has already been established as the primary language of the child, the innate universal grammar of the child has already been overshadowed by inhibitions and other external factors like the environment. Because the first and primary language has already been ingrained in the child, he or she now has the capacity to draw a clear distinction between different languages and therefore, use the first language as basis for second language acquisition, rather than universal grammar. As explained by Lydia White (2003): L2 learners already have a means of representing language, namely the grammar of the mother tongue. Thus, it might be that there is, in fact, no underdetermination problem: if L2 learners demonstrate the relevant kind of unconscious knowledge, it might be the case that they are drawing on the L1 grammar, rather than on UG itself…. Thus, the innate knowledge proposed by Nativists that creates the deterministic nature of learning language through the universal grammar is then irrelevant and muddled at best when second language acquisition is involved. Conclusion Although the concept of the universal grammar that Chomsky and other Nativists proposed is applicable and certainly helpful in the study of first language acquisition because it explains the initial state of a new-born’s mind in that it is not a blank slate, but rather it is already equipped with a tool that predetermines language acquisition, it is almost irrelevant in second language acquisition. Nativism is applicable only to dual language acquisition wherein the second language is treated as a first language because both are learned at the same time and at an early age wherein the universal grammar is still fully intact. However, due to the factor of age and the experiences it brings about, the statement that Dan Slobin made and Nativist theories are immaterial when it comes to second language acquisition—with the premise that a primary language has already been learned and mastered by the child. This is because age brings about certain inhibitions that eclipse the usefulness of the universal grammar. Most importantly, the presence of a primary language makes it almost impossible to determine if the child is still able to draw from the universal grammar when learning a second language as it is highly probable that the child is already using the primary language as a basis for learning the second language and not the universal grammar. There are many factors in play when it comes to second language acquisition, like the presence of teachers, parents, and the environment; universal grammar is the least of these factors. References Anderson, D. (2005). Theories of First Language Acquisition. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://kiri.ling.cam.ac.uk/psych/docs/first.pdf Anisfeld, M. (1984). Language Development from Birth to Three. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in Development: Language, Literacy, and Cognition. England: Cambridge University Press. Bowen, C. (2006). Developmental Milestones for receptive & expressive language acquisition. speech-language-therapy.com. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://members.tripod.com/Caroline_Bowen/devel2.htm Fromkin, V. et al. (2003). An Introduction to Language. 7th Edition. Heinle & Heinle Pub. Hadley, B. (2005). Language Learning. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/linguistics/learn.jsp Intemann, F. (2006). Nativist Theory of Language Acquisition. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://www.tu-bs.de:8080/~intemann/BA/grammar-lexis/nativist.pdf Janson, T. (2002). Speak: A Short history of Languages. New York: Oxford University Press. Matthews, P. H, (1997). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pham, L. Winter (1994). Infant Dual Language Acquisition Revisited. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, vol. 14, pp. 185-210. Surrency, P. (n.d.). Children and Foreign Language Acquisitio., Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://www.lakecitycc.edu/howl/howl103/non-fiction/PamSurrencyChildrenandLanguage.html Talaris Research Institute (2005). Two Languages Spoken Here. Retrieved March 19, 2007 from http://www.talaris.org/spotlight_bilingual.htm Thomas, M. (2004). Universal Grammar in Second Language Acquistion: A History. New York: Routledge. White, L. (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Read More