Linguistic Knowledge Possessed by Human Being at Birth - Coursework Example

Linguistic Knowledge Possessed by Human Being at Birth Introduction Scientific theory attempts to look into the possibilities pertaining linguistics knowledge acquisition. The knowledge can be possessed at birth or acquired the environmental perceptions. This might answer to the concerns whether or not human infants possess linguistic knowledge at birth and the nature of that knowledge. The acquisition of human language begs explanations. Nearly every speaker of the native languages across the world tends to attain the same structured or rich linguistic knowledge as they become adults. The consideration includes the input from the environment and the level of knowledge of a language learner at any given time. Critical analysis tends to show that the human beings can possess linguistics knowledge at birth. The innate skills on linguistics are increasingly referred to at nativism. However, the position is contended by critics who argue that human skills in linguistics are data-driven and that learning plays a critical role in the process. This position suggests that children can only learn a language from environmental stimulus. This conclusively states that children have no linguistic knowledge at birth. The theory of nativism has increasingly come under criticism. However, there are no plausible alternatives given to the theory. The critics have failed to dent the nativism theory itself (Wright, 2010). Arguably, the possession of linguistic knowledge at birth, and the nature of that knowledge have not been proved beyond doubt. The concept is perceived to be a healthy assumption in light of the data available and the increasing understanding of the global community (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). This suggests that the burden of proof should be left to the critics of the theory. The nativism theory Establishment There is an assumption by this theory that adults converge on the same interpretation of what is or is not grammatical. The presumption says that the different languages have similar judgments on grammaticality of the speakers (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). Therefore, the linguistic knowledge in human beings is natural and inborn. The nature of the innate linguistics knowledge incorporates the understanding of lingual concepts at the foundational level (Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 1999). This is to suggest that any fine-tuning of the language does cannot overrule the innate linguistics knowledge. Grammaticality of a language refers to whatever a native speaker can consider to be a possible use of linguistics communication (Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 1999). This possibility is pragmatic and not logical. The theory suggests that the grammaticality of a language is defined through group think (Levine & Munsch, 2011). It is product of shared societal values and perceptions. Stringent definition of the linguistics knowledge and grammaticality would mean that the results from people speaking different languages would be similar (Cahn et al, 1984). Yet the languages have different phonemes and structures. However, a subjective definition of the theory, when applied to each person, would mean there is no constancy in communication. This would mean that grammar has no meaning (Hetherington & Parke, 1981). Therefore, understanding this argument means that a language must have similar rules to all speakers. Majority of the speakers within a language define it (Whitehead, 2002). Grammar may be universal to majority of adults but it tends to be absent among newborns (Levine & Munsch, 2011). Children are thought to begin without any specific knowledge of any language. The gradual nature of the learning process among children and the fact that children only learn the language spoken around them, are indicative (Hetherington & Parke, 1981). The maturation process of children entails the process of children attaining the linguistic knowledge to communicate with ease. The levels of the knowledge grow to be at par with everyone else (Levine & Munsch, 2011). Therefore, observation is their native language (Cahn et al, 1984). Children tend to abstract from the sentences they hear. They are able to discover the structural rules that form the language (Skinner, 1957). To some extent, some of the learning process is driven by the environment. However, this learning process is not enough to give them the complicated structural knowledge that follows to adulthood. This is confounded by the fact that children have different experiences in life (In Fodor et al, 1964). The emergence of an inconsistency becomes imminent (Golinkoff & Hirsh-Pasek, 1999). The emergent groups are the children with no specific language and those who have experiences with languages (Cahn et al, 1984). However, both groups end up having the same intuitions about linguistic knowledge in adulthood. This happening is only accounted for by nativism theory. The theory states that linguistic knowledge is attained with little or none evidence from the environmental stimulus (Allwright & Hanks, 2009). The linguistic knowledge possessed by children cannot exclusively be attributed to the environment (Shore, 1995). Therefore, there must be innate linguistic knowledge at birth. The other premise is the fact that humans are known to create sentences they never heard before (McGilvray, 1999). Language acquisition is not imitative (Gleason & Ratner, 2012). There must be something that guides children innately when they learn or receive environmental stimulus and the rules that govern language (In Fodor et al, 1964). The critics Michael Tomasello, FCL and other arguments According to the argument by the critics, learning is data driven. He argues that young children operate with adult-like competence. Therefore, the full syntactic knowledge possessed by children should not be taken to mean that the linguistic knowledge is innate. The critics argue that how the innate knowledge of the children becomes translated to speech production is ever clear (Sampson, 2005). Therefore, they say the nativism theory is speculative and presumptuous. Some research indicates that procedural complexity causes linguistic errors among children and not syntactic incompetence. Children are unable to exhibit knowledge even when they have it (Gleason & Ratner, 2012). The critics argue that children lack the knowledge on syntax. This affects the verb formation. However, there is a concept that the linguistic knowledge is innate but not active at birth. Tomasello argues that the concept of nativism is based on presumption and speculations. However, the data-driven theory tends to aggress with nativism of important aspects (Gleason & Ratner, 2012). A telling example is the fact that nativism assumes that language is attained in a gradual process of setting parameters and maturation. A study by Tomasello indicates that children respond to environmental stimuli and the procession of the linguistic knowledge depends of the quality of the learning process. A child is able to make use of a collaboration of contextual, functional information and syntactic information from the environment. A child is able to interpret and distinguish what a speaker is trying to say or communicate by varing parts of the speech structure. According to Pullum & Scholz, the theory suggesting that human infants have some linguistic-specific innate knowledge has not been supported by any empirical work. Their argument is that the nativism theory has not proven the falsity of the data-driven theory. There is a need to decipher whether the native theory raises any substantive issue given that the claims are not supported by any facts. The negative argument has been ignored by those critics of the nativist theory (Friederici et al, 2008). The researchers attempt to find out the role of parents in correcting grammatical errors through reprimanding. Evidence There exist two facts with regard to language acquisition which have not been addressed by the data driven theory (Friederici et al, 2008). Firstly, children believe that certain ungrammatical structures turn grammatical without any evidence of input. Secondly, children have the capacity to create a language or add to its complexity in multiple ways. The data driven theory has no capacity to address the issues raised by the two facts (Cowie, 1998). A telling example involves a child hypothesizing a novel structure in the case where English –speaking infants uphold the “medial-wh” phenomenon. Children tend to stick with to a surprisingly detailed hypothesis which is not evidenced among adults speaking the language. A study by Thomson involved elicitation of questions from 3-4 year old children speaking in English. The study revealed that one third of the children in the study added a wh-word during the productions. Example, who did we view who went inside? This structure is nonexistent among the adults. The grammaticality of the structure remains unambiguous and is perceived to be new (Gabbay et al, 2012). However, studies show that children have the capacity to produce statements and to judge the grammaticality of the statements. Most of the interviewed children and where inserting the ‘medial-wh’ word did not believe the insertion was grammatical. However a third of the children thought the word was grammatical. This meant that children don’t just produce such words, they also consider them grammatical. This is a direct contradiction to the data-driven theory which suggests that children develop their linguistic skills from the environmental input solely (Friederici et al, 2008). Similar productions have also been considered in German. Further investigations indicate that there are striking similarities between child English and German constructions. This means that these lessons and behaviors are not leant from the environment. Given that the children are not given the same basic structures from the onset, the specific and distinct similarities show that there is innate linguistic knowledge among infants at the point of birth. The children show much confidence in their insertion (Chomsky, 1959). The similarity between the medial wh insertion in English and German is beyond chance. The similar applied both in application structure and context. Children’s constructions are necessary to reveal their capacity to develop a language. Data-drive theory cannot explain any form of language creation (Cowie, 1998). Rather, the theory presupposes the existence of an already developed language. The same trend would mean that multiple adults would choose different hypotheses if the rules and structures of the language were to be chosen consciously (Friederici et al, 2008). This would lead to much confusion. Another theory may be developed which suggests that an individual can develop a language and decide its rules or structures. For this to happen, a language has to exist first (Mahulkar, 1974). Adults have a difficult time learning a new language. This means that they only time humans are swift in learning and creating a native language is during childhood. Tomasello (2000) conducted a study to text the grammatical formations and its impact of subject objects and verbs in English. However, this would be checked against different subject formation like VSO, SVO and SOV. The children involved in the study produced different utterances that involved different configurations of the subject verb object arrangement. The study involved listening to the speeches with different sentence configurations. The study involved 12 children in total. It was observed that the children behaved differently when they heard non-canonical VSO or SOV forms. The different behavior was at different ages. 6 of the 12 children constantly corrected the non-canonical adult’s words to canonical SVO arrangement. The study indicated that the children were producing structures that never occur in their environment. This agrees with nativist’s argument. The study assumed that children have parameters like VSO, SVO and SOV. Language acquisition is not merely imitative (Chomsky, 1959). However, the proponents of the native theory argue that Tomasello deviates from the findings of the study when he suggests that children cannot hypothesize linguistic structures. The study shows that children did so with regard to the VSO and SVO construction of sentences. Therefore, the argument that children overly rely on data-driven skills in linguistic knowledge has not been exhaustively explained or supported. This has been further complicated by the fact that the nativism theory does not negate the fact that a learning process plays a significant role in the growth of a child (Cahn et al, 1984). Rather, the theory only suggests that such knowledge is not sufficient to induce impeccable skills at the stage of adulthood. According to Pullum and Scholz, adults can possess different grammars because of environmental deficiency. This argument suggests that they object nativism because language grows and can cause people to change the use of the main-auxiliary hypotheses (Chomsky, 1959). Children have the capacity to decipher information and look for the correct structure. They can accept statement as being grammatical or ungrammatical. The research needed Most of the researches conducted on the linguistic knowledge of the children have strongly suggested that language must be verbal. The contesting arguments indicate that most of the promises have been conducted upon language as words only. However, the sign language and sentimentalism can reveal the ability of humans to communicate and how much it depends on instincts or environment. For example, sign language can be learnt by people who are deaf and dumb. The Braille has also been used among the blind. Therefore, the authoritative research must address the role of human senses in communications. Human’s senses are innate (McGilvray, 1999). Therefore, the native theory and the data-driven theory must discuss the role of senses adults and children. Conclusion In conclusion, the essay question enquired to establish whether human beings possess linguistic knowledge at birth and what knowledge. The native argument suggests that human beings possess linguistic knowledge at birth. The theory argues that human infants have the knowledge to decipher language, sentence constructions and structures and to determine whether they are grammatical or not. However, the theory is criticized by the data-driven argument which suggests that interaction with the environment is responsive for human linguistic knowledge (Mahulkar, 1974). A number of studies indicate that human infants have developed language. This is seen in the English and German case where children insert medial-wh word in similar contexts but different dialects. The other case is seen after children listen to a speech and react to the constructions they consider ungrammatical. Further research is needed to incorporate sign language among people who lost ability to communicate verbally. This might indicate whether linguistic knowledge is entrenched in human senses or is a product of imitative response to environment. References Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: An introduction to exploratory practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cahn, S. M., Kitcher, P., & Sher, G. (1984). Reason at work: Introductory readings in philosophy. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chomsky , N. (1959). Review of B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior. Language, 1(35), 26-58. Cowie, F. (1998). Whats Within?: Nativism Reconsidered. Philosophy of Mind Series. Oxford University Press, USA. Friederici, A. D., Thierry, G., & Friederici, A. (2008). Early Language Development. Bridging brain and behaviour. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Gabbay, D. M., Thagard, P., Woods, J., Kempson, R., Fernando, T., & Asher, N. (2012). Philosophy of Linguistics. Burlington: Elsevier Science. Gleason, J. B., & Ratner, N. B. (2012). The development of language. Boston: Pearson Education. Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1999). How babies talk: The magic and mystery of language in the first three years of life. New York: Dutton. Hetherington, E. M., & Parke, R. D. (1981). Contemporary readings in child psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill. In Fodor, J. A., In Katz, J. J., Quine, W. V., & Chomsky, N. (1964). The structure of language: Readings in the philosophy of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall. Levine, L. E., & Munsch, J. (2011). Child development: An active learning approach. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE. Levine, L. E., & Munsch, J. (2011). Child development: An active learning approach. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE. Mahulkar, D. D. (1974). Linguistic foundations of human knowledge. Baroda: Faculty of Arts, M.S. University of Baroda. McGilvray, J. A. (1999). Chomsky: Language, mind, and politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Sampson, G. (2005). The "language instinct" debate. London: Continuum. Shore, C. M. (1995). Individual differences in language development. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behaviour. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Tomasello, M. (2010). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Whitehead, M. R. (2002). Developing language and literacy with young children. London: Chapman. Wright, W. E. (2010). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice. Philadelphia: Caslon Pub. Read More