My critical view about Chomsky’s
First Language Acquisition
The aim of this essay is to deal with Chomsky’s theory about First
Language Acquisition (FLA). I will explore some beliefs and arguments related
to this interesting topic as well as mention which I find more feasible.
Chomsky’s First Language Acquisition theory was a controversial theory
through the late sixties. After several studies his theory was quite
acceptable. Chomsky strongly claims that humans are born with an innate
language faculty in their minds. He believes that all languages share
grammatical structures. This is called Universal Grammar (UG) which can be
described into different perspectives. On the one hand, it states that all
languages are governed by a set of universal principles; on the other hand, it
points out that the mind is equipped with parameters which are set intuitively
by the child through the input he/she receives. This procedure can be
metaphorically compared to a blackbox. Children hear sentences said by their
parents (the primary data); they process the information within their blackbox
(LAD) and then they acquire linguistic competence (generative grammar). In my
opinion, it is very difficult to contradict Chomsky’s theory. There are many
characteristics that prove that his theory is true and I extremely support it,
as the following ones.
To begin with, Universal Grammar is constructed with a number of
universal principles. One of the most significant principles is structure
dependency. This principle states that every sentence in every language must
have at least a subject and a verb. What distinguishes one language from
another are the parameters. For instance, one parameter in the LAD is head
setting. For example, some languages such as English are head first; others
such as Japanese are head last.
Several arguments have been used to support the existence of Universal Grammar.
For example, Chomsky opposed Skinner’s theory of language acquisition. Skinner
believes that the acquisition of a language is throughout the input children
receive, which is positively or negatively reinforced. In response to that,
Chomsky has proposed the poverty of stimulus arguments, stating that the input
children receive cannot be the reason for the language children produce. For
instance, how do children acquire a language when they don’t know what they
can’t say? How do they learn to speak
correctly when the input they receive is sometimes incorrect? According to
Chomsky, they do so through an innate capacity. Considering the previous debate,
I believe that the only possible explanation is innateness. I strongly agree
with Chomsky’s idea of universal grammar.
This
evidence was proved on various forms of acquisition including blind, deaf and
dumb children language acquisition. American Sign Language was established for
the acquisition of language on deaf people. Deaf children naturally acquire sign
language very much in the same way as hearing children acquire spoken language.
The main feature is gesture. Both children, hearing and deaf, use gestures to
communicate in their early age. Gestures are used in everyday situations and
for common requests. In the case of blind people language consisted of symbols
on the keyboard. No matter the way in which these particular children acquire
language, the important thing is that they support the theory of universal
grammar as all have their structured language and children could acquire them
naturally.
Another important feature of Universal Grammar is that it matures. There
is evidence that language faculty matures from a semantic phase to a syntactic
phase, a child produces sentences to convey meaning, then switches to syntactic
organization. Therefore, if Universal Grammar matures, we can say that
Universal Grammar is part of our genetic inheritance, part of our biology. For
example, it is different to learn to walk because the more we practice, the more
we develop this skill. However, language is part of the human inheritance; it
is an internal development whose only requirement is exposure to language
evidence to trigger the setting of the parameters of Universal Grammar. Taking
this into account, we can differentiate between learning to write and learning
to read in the sense that speaking is acquired naturally; it is genetically
inherited without being taught. However, learning to write and read need to be
taught.
Futhermore, bearing in mind the previous characteristics of Universal Grammar
an essential factor to acquire a language is the evidence children encounter. For that reason the speech of the caretaker is
relevant to explain first language acquisition. In Chomsky’s words there are
three types of evidence; firstly positive evidence, for example SV order; then
direct negative evidence, correction of speech, and lastly indirect negative
evidence, when certain forms are omitted in the sentences so that the children
can set a parameter. Chomsky claims that positive and indirect negative
evidence are relevant to the acquisition of a language. In this aspect I also agree
with Chomsky, I believe that one depend on one another to make possible the acquisition.
To conclude, despite the strong arguments against Chomsky’s theory of
language acquisition, I find his theory the most tenable one I have studied. I
support innatism and its principles and parameters theory. Apart from the sound
logical basis of the theory I have been able to witness to language acquisition
process of my own little nephews. They
are able to say words that they have never heard by the simple exposure to the
language. Another reason to support this theory is that it has been proved that
particular languages such as the American Sign Language also have their own
language structure which enables deaf children to acquire a language. Chomsky’s
work about language is one of the most significant theories in the history of
language.
