Your task is to pick ONE side of the debate and argue why you think either the nativist theory or social learning theory has MORE of an influence on language development. Include details about your chosen theory to support your answer. Provide counter-arguments for the criticisms of your chosen theory. Also, incorporate how deaf children's sign language development can add to your supporting points. After you answer the previous questions, you may add other examples from class (Genie article, notes, videos) to strengthen your debate.Respond to the blog
Length: 15 sentences
Due: Monday, January 30th
Value: 10 points
I think Chomsky’s theory has more of an influence on language development. His theory talks about Nativism, which emphasizes the active role of the learner. He also refers to Language Acquisition Device (LAD). LAD programs children’s brains to analyze the language they hear and to figure out its rules. Newborns are born with perceptual mechanisms that are turned on to the properties of speech. These innate characteristics suggest that children are born with the ability to differentiate sounds and analyze rules of a language that they hear. Chomsky even goes into the structure of a human’s brain. He talks about how human’s brains have one side that is larger than the other, which refers to an inborn mechanism for sound and language processing maybe found in the larger part of the brain. There are still some questions that other psychologists ask about the theory that aren’t really clear. Why some children acquire language more rapidly and efficiently than others, Why children differ in linguistic skill and fluency, why speech development appears to depend on having someone to talk with, and why the theory doesn’t address motivational aspects of language development. Children who are deaf use sign language as their first and only language. Sometimes deaf children make their own sign language, like children who say made up words that aren’t taught or they haven’t heard before. They also have an inborn capacity to acquire language, deaf or not, which can be activated or constrained by experience. Deaf children hand babble, stringing meaningless motions together and repeating them over and over. Children who are deaf prove Chomsky’s theory; with out any type of reinforcements they can learn an entire language just as well as children who aren’t deaf.
ReplyDeleteNurture
ReplyDeleteI think the social learning theory has more of an influence on language development. According to the theory, developed by B.F. Skinner, language learning, like other learning is based on experience. Children learn language through operant conditioning. Caregivers reinforce sounds that resemble adult speech and infants repeat the reinforced sounds. Babies imitate the sounds adults make and are reinforced by doing so. However, some people argue that observation, imitation, and reinforcement probably do contribute to language development but they cannot fully explain it. I agree with this statement because although these things cannot explain language development, Chomsky’s nativism theory cannot explain it either. These people also argue that adult speech is an unreliable model to imitate. I disagree with this statement because although adult speech is not always grammatically correct, it is essential for all children’s language development. Nurture also has more of an impact on deaf children’s language development. Just as hearing babies of hearing parents imitate vocal utterances, deaf babies of deaf parents seem to imitate the sign language they see their parents using. As parents reinforce these gestures, the babies attach meanings to them. Another example of how nurture has more of an impact on language development than nature arose in 1970 with a girl named Genie. Although Genie was born a healthy, normal baby, she never heard language during many crucial years. Therefore, she was never able to fully learn how to speak.
B.F. Skinner’s theory was that language learning, like other learning, is based on experience. It also says that things such as learning words will only come through selective reinforcement. Several criticisms come along with this theory. It is said that observing, imitating, and reinforcement of the actions contribute of language development, but cannot fully explain it. It is described that word combinations and nuances are so complex that they could not be achieved by imitation and that action being reinforced. Adult speech itself is also very unreliable model to imitate and often ungrammatical. The last criticism is that this learning theory does not account for the children’s imaginative ways. This means instances such as when children make up words that they have never heard before, for example, saying, “I am yawny” when they are tired. How children learn sign language is structured like the spoken language. This follows the theory because children seem to imitate their parents’ sign language. I believe that B.F. Skinner’s theory of social learning is more influential over the child. Seeing as though children work mainly on imitating what they see in everyday life. They do not think of what they should or want to say, so they imitate what they hear others saying and see others doing. I believe that childhood is largely based upon imitation. An example of this is Genie. She was raised not spoken to whatsoever, leaving her unable to speak properly ever again. Therefore, the nurture of the child, how they are raised, and what they imitate will largely influence how they develop and the person that they become.
ReplyDeleteNativism is theory of language development proposed by Noam Chomsky. The idea behind it is that, unlike Skinner's theory which supposes that language is almost entirely imitated, Chomsky's theory supposes that there is a basic component of language that every human being has that is completely inborn. Chomsky's theroy is based around the idea that a vital component of language can be labeled with the variable X. If a child grows up under normal conditions then that basic inborn component, X, will make it's self present. So long as the child is in an environment that isn't oppressive then the child's inborn component will activate. Every child is born with the capability to imitate language, but language imitation is flawed. When a parent speaks, the parent may use false starts, figurative language, poor grammar, and any other number of mistakes in speech. Despite the parent's language, a child can still grow up with a normal, functional, speaking ability and a good lexicon. This supports Chomsky's theory because it asserts that the child may imitate the parent, but its ability to understand what it is saying and what the meaning of what its saying is largely inborn. The child may develop a sense of vocabulary from imitation but its sense of grammar and meaning is something that is in the child's brain and is activated by the world around the child. The theory has been criticized because Skinner's theory of imitation seems to make more sense, that imitation is the basis of language development. However, Chomsky's theory asserts that imitation is merely a catalyst to activate a part of the brain that allows language development to flourish and surpass simple imitation of basic words and sentences. Even deaf children perform more than mere imitation. Deaf children at first make actions for simple tasks, such as eating and drawing, but once their ability to understand written and sign language is developed, they learn words without ever hearing them spoken. They learn what a word means and have the mental capability to grasp and understand complex words without hearing them spoken. Even deaf children have this inborn activated ability to comprehend language past imitation. Imitation is where language begins, but it is through Chomsky's theory of an inborn mental language acquisition device, that language actually develops and flourishes and becomes a means of communication rather than imitation.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate for language development, I think nurture has more of an influence. The nature side, which is named the nativist theory, emphasizes the active role of the learner. Noam Chomsky, who came up with the theory, suggests that an inborn language acquisition device programs children’s brains to analyze the language they hear and to figure out its rules. On the other hand, B.F. Skinner defends the nature side, also called the social learning theory, by saying that language learning is based on experience. At, first babies utter sounds at random but caregivers reinforce the baby’s sounds with their attention and interaction with the baby. Only through observation, imitation, and reinforcement does language develop. Some criticisms of Skinner’s theory is by Chomsky are 1) word combinations and nuances are so many and so complex that they cannot all be acquired by specific imitation and reinforcement 2) caregivers often reinforce utterances that are not strictly grammatical and 3) adult speech itself is an unreliable model to imitate, as it is often ungrammatical, containing false starts, unfinished sentences, and slips of the tongue. The studies of deaf children also support the social learning theory. Some examples are that just like hearing babies mimic their parent’s words, deaf babies watch their parents’ hands and mimic the hand signs. At first, the baby’s hand motions are meaningless but then they repeat the movement, which is called hand – babbling. When the parents’ reinforce the signing, the babies attach meaning to the signings.
ReplyDeleteAmanda Nichols
ReplyDeleteMrs. Delle Cave
Child Psychology
27 January 2012
I believe that nurture has more of an influence on language development than nature. According to Skinner’s social learning theory, language learning is based on experience. The parents reinforce sounds and words to bring out an effect on the child’s language development. However, there are some criticisms to Skinner’s theory. Some believe that word combinations are so complex that they can’t be acquired by imitation and reinforcement. Also, the learning theory doesn’t account for children’s imaginative ways of saying things they have never heard. Genie’s story goes along with Skinner’s theory. She was secluded from the world and never spoken to for most of her life. She proved that a certain amount of language can be learned after the critical period. Deaf children’s sign language development also supports Skinner’s theory. Deaf children can imitate the sign language they see their parents using and when reinforced the children can attach meaning to the signs. They can also repeat motions. Overall, the nurture side of the debate has more of an influence on language development due to Skinner’s social learning theory.
B.F. Skinner’s theory on language development is based on the nurture side of the debate. His theory states that language learning is based on experience and that babies learn through operant conditioning. Babies tend to imitate sounds that they hear from adults and as this process continues, children are reinforced for speech. Although this theory makes an excellent point on babies’ language development, Skinner’s philosophy has some criticism. His opponent Chomsky claims that babies can’t fully understand all the complex word combinations that they cannot all be acquired by specific imitation and reinforcement. He also states that caregivers reinforce utterances that are not strictly grammatical. Skinner’s theory can also be applied to deaf children. Deaf babies learn sign language by imiatating sign language that they see their parents using. They start stringing meaningless motions together and then repeating them over and over. This kind of learning is called hand babbling. This type of language development was learned by Genie, a girl who was kept contained in a room until she was 13. She learned how to speak small words and string them together by environmental influences. She would hear words and repeat them over and over becoming reinforced for speech. Although she learned some words, she did not fully learn how to use speech. This language development theory is a reliable theory based on nurture and how the environment has a big effect on babies.
ReplyDeleteTaylor Nieves
ReplyDeleteAll children are born with the capacity to learn language. Chomsky’s Nativist theory emphasizes the active role of the learner and claims the human brain has an innate capacity for acquiring language know as the language acquisition device. This device programs children’s brains to analyze the language they hear and to figure out its rules. Children’s first sentences are not random because they have a primitive understanding of grammar. Chomsky says that this device must be activated by exposure to language before puberty in order for a child to acquire language. Newborns have the ability to differentiate sounds. According to the video “A Baby’s World: The Language of Being,” every baby has the ability to learn any language and recognize 150 sounds from any language. In other words, babies are born international. The brains of human beings contain a structure that is larger on one side than on the other, suggesting that an inborn mechanism for sound and language processes may be located in the larger hemisphere. Though it does not explain why some children acquire language more rapidly and efficiently than others, almost all children master their native language in the same age-related sequence without formal teaching. Chomsky’s theory does not explain why speech development appears to depend on having someone to talk with, not merely on hearing spoken language but when parent’s talk to babies, the sing-song voice they use helps babies process words easier and Chomsky says babies learn to talk as naturally as they learn to walk. Sign language is structured much like spoken language and is acquired in the same sequence. Some deaf children make up their own sign language when they do not have models to follow. This is evidence that imitation and reinforcement alone cannot explain the emergence of linguistic expression. Deaf babies begin hand-babbling between the ages 7 and 10 months and begin to use sentences in sign language at about the same time hearing babies begin to speak in sentences. This suggests an inborn language capacity may underlie acquisition of both spoken and signed language and advances in both kinds of language are tied to brain maturation.
Chomsky’s views on language development states that human beings have an inborn capacity for language acquisition. This theory is known as nativism. The nativism theory supports the nature side of the nature vs. nurture argument. What Chomsky’s theory suggests is that an inborn Language acquisition device programs children’s brain to hear and then analyze to learn the rules of that language. This is supported from the baby’s ability differentiate similar sounds which suggests they are born with perceptual mechanisms that are tuned to the properties of speech. Also all children from all races master their native language within the same age-related sequence without formal teaching. Also humans are the only animals that have a larger hemisphere that suggests that an inborn mechanism for language is located in it. Another supporting argument for the nativism theory is the existence of sensitive periods for language. This critical period has been proven by Genie who missed the period and because of that was unable to truly learn to speak. Genie was only able to learn a few words but that was not enough to communicate on a normal level. The nativism theory however is flawed. It cannot explain the language mechanisms. It also does not explain how children can learn on different levels and different speeds. Also it does not explain why children even though they have these mechanisms still need someone to talk to them for them to learn. The nativism theory, like all theories, is flawed but its arguments far out way the arguments of the alternitive theory.
ReplyDeleteI believe that language development is influenced more by nurture than nature. The social learning theory of B.F. Skinner is more accurate than the native theory. Although children are preprogrammed to speak, certain environmental factors trigger the development. By hearing language spoken by surrounding adults, the child will begin to imitate what they hear. Through operant conditioning, the child will begin to imitate words spoken by nearby adults. When they do this they receive attention from these adults and therefore, are positively reinforced imitate the language they hear. Without hearing language spoken, a child will never fully develop language skill after the critical period. This can be seen in Genie. She was not talked to and had minimal contact with other humans. She never developed language because it was never presented to her. Because she began to be taught language after puberty, she was not able to fully develop language skills. She was only able to speak two to three word sentences and she was not able to ask questions. Without the environmental trigger, language did not develop. This theory has been proved true with deaf children also. When a deaf baby has deaf parents, they have been seen imitating their parents’ sign language. Although this theory is very logical, criticism about this theory is that observation, imitation, and reinforcement contributing to language development cannot be fully explained.
ReplyDeleteSamantha Crosby
ReplyDeleteNature vs nurture
I believe B.F. Skinner’s theory is correct. Skinner maintained that language learning, like other learning, is based on experience. According to social learning theory, babies imitate the sounds they hear adults make and are reinforced for doing so. The environment has everything to do with learning. If a child grows up in an enriched environment, they will earn to speak quicker. The parents play a role in the learning of language because if they reinforce the talking of their child, the child will continue to talk more and more. If the parents ignore the child when they start to babble or speak, the child will not talk as much because they are not being reinforced for babbling. Observing what the parents do and say is a major key to learning language. If they child sees the parent talking, the child will want to talk. They will imitate what the parents or siblings are saying. Genie was the child who was never spoken to. She never had the opportunity to learn. Language because know one talked to her. She never heard any words so she couldn’t imitate anything. There are criticisms of this theory. Observation, imitation, and reinforcement contributing to language development cannot fully be explained. Deaf babies will imitate the parent’s use of sign language if the parents are deaf. As parents reinforce these gestures, the babies attach meaning to the signs.
B.F.Skinner’s Theory and the social learning theory influence the nurture aspect of growth. Nurture is through experience and learning. The social learning theory is based on experience through repetition. When you are first learning to speak, repeating words to yourself and out loud help make memorizing and speaking words easier. However, there are some criticisms on this theory. For example many people believe that the social learning theory ignores the fact that individuals have different genetic, brain, and learning differences, therefore making learning harder. Many also believe that the social learning theory can be harsh on a child's ability to learn. A deaf child's sign language proves these criticisms wrong. Through hand babbling, deaf children learn to communicate through repetition of motions and stringing together the meaning of many different words. This contradicts the criticisms because learning how to hand-babble requires repetition of the motions over and over again. This involves a person nurturing and helping the child to succeed in this skill. Another example of how the social learning theory is influences by nature is Genie. Genie is a girl who was in solitary confinement her whole childhood. She never learned to speak and missed her critical period of learning. Through scientists’ help and the care of others, Genie was able to learn words. However, this progress did not last a long time because Genie’s mother refused to let her interact with scientists anymore. Although she was taken away from the help she truly needed, Genie proved that the social learning theory with the help of nurturing, had helped her learn to speak. Genie is a prime example that nurture can help a child learn and grow in the area of language development.
ReplyDeleteI think that Social Learning Theory has more of an influence on a child’s speech then the Nativist theory. B.F. Skinner is the person who thought of the Social Learning Theory. He said that learning language is based on experience, much like other language. He also said that children learn language through operant conditioning, first a child will utter sounds, and then the parents will reinforce the sounds that are similar to adult speech, which then makes the child repeat those same sounds. So, when a child is not spoken too they have nothing to being reinforced, and they have no experiences to base their language off of. For example the video we watched on Genie showed this. Genie was held isolated from the world, and was never spoken to, therefore her language could never develop fully. Once she started being talked to, and was taught what words meant, her language increased dramatically. Granted, her language could never fully develop because she missed the critical period for grammar, however the amount of progress she made in the short amount of time where people were trying to teach her shows that she had the possibility to learn a great deal of language and words. Another example is how deaf children cannot say almost any words, which is because they have never heard any. However a person who is deaf can learn an entire language with their hands because they can attribute the things they see and learn from others to hand symbols. Deaf babies will do something called hand-babbling, which if it is reinforced the babies will assign words to go with their hand symbols. This shows that in order to speak you must learn and hear from other people, and you cannot just think of things on your own. Some of the criticisms of this theory are that adult speech is an unreliable model to imitate since it is often ungrammatical, has false starts, and unfinished sentences. Also this theory doesn’t answer how children have imaginative ways of saying things they have never heard of before.
ReplyDeleteSkinner’s theory states that learning is based on experience and that children learn through operant conditioning. I believe more in this theory of language development because I feel that children will learn language more when their environment promotes it. Children will begin to mimic sounds that their parents or caregivers make, allowing the child to learn how to speak and understand the language around them. Learning language is a difficult task for a child but reinforcement helps make the task easier. When a child begins to “coo”, showing their mother what they want or need, they are being reinforced for these actions allowing them to understand that this behavior is helpful and needed. Eventually the children will begin to learn how to say short words and eventually phrases, that will get entire thoughts across. Genie is a perfect example of this theory. After being locked away for thirteen years of her life, Genie was let out into the world around her. She had no language development at all. After working with Researchers for a few years, Genie was able to learn over a hundred words and more about the world around her. She was never actually able to completely learn her native tongue because of her age. She missed her critical period for making the connections. She did however prove many theories wrong, by being able to acquire some language development at her age. Criticisms of this theory include that word combinations and nuances are so many and complex, that they cannot all be acquired by specific imitation and reinforcement. I strongly believe in this theory that your environment influences language development more than your genetics.
ReplyDeleteThere are two basic theories for language development. Chomsky’s theory is that people have a basic pattern of learning language inside of their brain since they were born. Skinner’s theory is that people have to be taught how to speak by someone for language acquisition. I agree with Chomsky theory. People usually don’t remember how they learned to speak, but everybody speaks their first language without any problems. Chomsky’s view is nativism, which emphasizes the active role of the learner. He proposed that the human brain has an innate capacity for acquiring language. Learning language is a difficult problem for children, but reinforcement from the people around them makes it easier. Chomsky says, “Human brain contains a language acquisition device (LAD) which automatically analyzes the components of speech a child hears”. The human brain has special function. Learning language for a human is very easy because the human brain already contains ability of language, so even children start to speak language naturally in their early age.
ReplyDeleteThere are many criticisms of Chomsky’s theory. It does not tell us why some children acquire language more rapidly than others. It does not address the motivational aspects of language development and it doesn’t tell us why speech development depends on having someone to talk with. Children acquire language at different times due to a variety of reasons.
With deaf children, when they don’t have their own models, they make up their own sign language. Chomsky’s theory seems more realistic in the development of language with children.
I think the nativism theory has more of an influence on language development. I believe this because every baby, no matter where they are born or what language is native to them speak the same up to a certain point. Obviously they don’t learn this babbling from their parents. Babies are also able to differentiate between sounds that we as adults cannot and by listening to this, they can figure out the rules to their language. Chomsky believes that this is due to a language acquisition device that every human is born with. Also, deaf children who do not have a model to follow for sign language make up their own sign language. This proves that every baby has the innate need to communicate with others and when not helped by others, they figure it out themselves. Also, deaf babies babble just like children who are not hearing impaired. While some may believe that babbling is an attempt at imitating language babies hear from others, this does not explain how a deaf child would do this. However, there are many criticisms against the nature debate. For example, the nativist approach does not explain why one baby may learn language easily and fast, but another may struggle with learning. It also doesn’t explain why motivation by reinforcement helps a baby learn to speak. The prevalence of imitation of words and sentences spoken by parents or caregivers would not be explained by the nativism theory either, but overall I believe that the nature approach is more influential to the development of language in babies.
ReplyDeleteLanguage development is mainly from social learning. B.F. Skinner’s theory proves this point by saying that language is based on experience. Skinner states three key points to language development; observation, imitation, and reinforcement. Children are reinforced for uttering sounds at random to babbling and extending their words to resemble adult speech using operant conditioning. They hear sounds made by adults around them and repeat as long as they are praised with smiles and positive reinforcement. After the baby is comfortable experimenting their own voice for the first couple times, the parent beings to use selective reinforcement so that the baby learns what the word means or represents. Example, the baby’s favorite word is “na-na” (short for banana), the parents should only praise the child when a real banana or picture of a banana is present. This creates word learning for the child to develop his or her vocabulary. As seen in the Genie study, she had a major set back in her speech and vocabulary due to lack of experience with social learning. Genie never had the reinforcement the average child receives at such a young age. She was never taught that speaking herself was an appropriate thing to do. Studies have proved that deaf children begin to “hand-babble” around the same time normal children do. They experiment with their reinforcement on what words represent which objects that they want. At first they are just random hand motions but with the positive reinforcement they become clear signals that mean “I’m hungry” or “More please”. They follow the same age range of putting together sentences that a normal speaking child does too.
ReplyDeleteKristie Avena
ReplyDeleteAccording to Skinner’s theory, language is based on experience. Children learn language through operant conditioning. Some criticisms that are associated with this theory are that caregivers reinforce the sounds that happen to resemble adult speech with smiles, praise, and attention. The social learning theory states that babies imitate the sounds they hear adults make and then are reinforced for doing so. I believe that nurture affects language because as children we were corrected for our mistakes in language and we had our parents to help us sound out words and teachers to help us with the rules of grammar. This theory can also be proved through the study of Genie. Even though she missed the critical period for language she was still able to sound out some words even though she spoke like a toddler. A deaf child uses a phrase called hand-babbling where the child will string together meaningless motions and then repeat them. Their environment produces deaf children’s language because they have parents to help them with sign language and teach them the meaning in the use of each hand motion. Even though deaf children may have a more difficult time acquiring language then start to make sentences and comprehend their language the same time hearing babies do.
I believe B.F. Skinner’s social learning theory has more of an influence on language development. His theory maintained that language learning is based on experience. According to classic learning theory, children learn language through operant conditioning. According to social learning theory, babies imitate the sounds they hear adults make and are also reinforced for doing so. The parent reinforces the sounds that happen to resemble adult speech with smiles and attention leaving the infants to repeat the reinforced sounds. Word learning depends on selective reinforcement. The criticisms of the theory are believed that word combinations are so complex that they can’t be acquired by imitation. They also said that reinforcement and the learning theory doesn’t account for children’s imaginative ways of saying things they’ve never heard. My counter argument towards this is that the caregiver won’t expect an infant to imitate a difficult word. Instead, they would start out with smaller words and slowly challenge them with new and bigger words. Also, I believe each child is born with unique and creative ideas. Once they begin to learn language that are being reinforced they can attach meaning to them and make connections with other words. Deaf children’s sign language development relate to this theory because deaf babies imitate the sign language they see parents using and string together meaningless motions and repeat them. Even though Genie was around an environment with no interaction or word use, the first seven months she spent in the hospital she learned to recognize a hundred new words. She also proved Eric Leneberg wrong in one sense says Fromkin since the child “showed that a certain amount of language can be learned after the critical period.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that the nativist theory has more of an influence on language development. Chomsky, who supported this theory, says there is an emphasis more on the learner than on the teacher. Everyone has an inborn language acquisition device that allows language to come very naturally with development, but there is a critical period that children must take advantage in order to learn language. I support this this theory because it is proven that children with vastly different experiences and cultures all tend to learn language at the same rate and follow generally the same process. Children also babble in the same way around the world, and not only until language continues to strengthen do distinctions of the native tongue start to appear. The use of grammar also supports Chomsky's theory because even when children can only say sentences of a few words, they are usually in correct grammatical order. They understand just by listening to adult conversations. They don't necessarily always need to be directly taught. As for the critical time period there have been many situations where a child who has not learned language at a young age is very restricted when it comes to learning it later. It is also proven that language functions are localized in the brain. Even children who are not spoken to directly can pick up on language. As far as the deaf children's sign language, children start to sign even before they learn a language, whether they be deaf or not. Pointing is a type of sign. Pointing comes innate with any child. The Genie story proves the point of the critical period. She had no interaction until she was 13 years old. Because of this she was able to learn certain aspects of language that were still innate to her, but she could not expand to a full use of language.
ReplyDeleteSocial learning theory, the theory that the learning of language is based on experience. This means that children learn words and sentence structure through examples around them. Listening to adults speak the children will mimick and imiate them. Eventually adding meaning to the sounds and putting the words together to create a complete spoken thought. One of the main criticisms to the nurture theory is that the children can't explain it and word combinations are complex and cannot be acquired simply through specific imitation and reinforcement. However it is proven that children need a stimulating environment in order to progress with language. Hearing conversations between adults, the children process all the words in their heads and eventually put meaning to it and use them their selves after practice. This theory is further proven through the example of deaf children and learning their own language - signing. They watch the hand movements of their parents and imitate them and eventually learn to communicate through their own hands.The story of Genie supports this theory. She was neglected from normal childhood experiences. For the first thirteen years of her life she was confined to one room. Therefore, when finally released into society, she could not behave the same as a normal child her age. She could not speak and although they taught her some vocabulary, she never learned language because that implies she understood grammar and fundamentals as well. This proves there is a critical learning period in which either the environment is stimulating and the child progresses normally, or they lose the ability forever. If language development was a natural ability as the nativist theory states, then Genie would have been able to learn language no matter when she started with it because it should be a natural ability.
ReplyDeleteThe debate between nature versus nurture will continue on forever. The language debate it is between Chomsky’s Theory which is that humans are born with the capacity for language acquisition. Chomsky’s theory had some downfalls. He did not explain the mechanisms operate. Also it did not address motivational aspects. Such as it not explain wether the child’s parent was encouraging or not. Skinner’s Theory which is that children learn language through operant conditioning. I think that Skinner’s theory is right because the influence of parents or guardians helps the child develop faster or even develop an accent. Language is not just words it is also grammar. The influence of nurture is better for the child to learn more grammar. Skinner proved his point based on experience. For example children in other countries have different accents and speak different languages. Those children had to have learned that from their surroundings. Operant conditioning will teach children their own native tongue. Skinner’s Theory also applied to deaf children. Instead of verbal repeating, it would become repeating hand motions.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the two theories on language development both provide convincing arguments and evidence towards how language is developed, I believe that Skinner's theory of social learning has more of an influence on language development. Skinner says that learning is based on experience and that children learn language through operant conditioning. Babies at first utter sounds that have no meaning, but these sounds are reinforced through praise, attention, and smiles. The social learning theory says that babies imitate the sounds they hear adults make and are reinforced for doing so. Through the child’s life, they are continuously reinforced for speech that is more and more adultlike. Some criticisms towards this theory is even though observation, imitation, and reinforcement do contribute to language, they do not explain it fully. Word combinations and nuances are so complex that they could not possibly be all acquired by imitation and reinforcement. Also adult speech can be unreliable because of the many grammatical errors we use. An example of why this theory has more of an influence is shown through imitation. Children hear words, and repeat them without meaning. Later the child can relate that word to the object. This is an example of learning what an object is, and a baby cannot just naturally know language. Another example to prove Skinner’s theory correct is Genie. It was so difficult for Genie to learn language after not speaking for thirteen years. She was not born with language, and after some time she learned some language but could not say any sentences. Genie missed critical period of learning language. Genie’s case proves that language is taught, and not inherited. Learning how to walk is not the same as learning language. Skinner’s theory relates to deaf children because deaf babies of deaf parents seem to imitate the sign language they see their parents use. Just as hearing babies babble, deaf babies hand babble. Parents reinforce these hand gestures and then the babies attach meaning to them. Skinner’s social learning theory states that language is learned, not a natural occurrence.
ReplyDeleteChomsky’s theory of language development better explains my beliefs of how language develops. The theory that Chomsky came up with was that all human beings have the inborn capacity for language. I think this is true. For babies, language cannot be taught. Their brains are not yet fully developed enough for language to be taught with all the language rules and grammar guidelines. Babies start practicing speaking when it comes to babbling. They make these sounds that show that their speech is developing; they just have not yet mastered any of the words in their native language. Babies do make mistakes with this and usually make up their own words or say the wrong form of verbs. This shows that babies learn language at their own pace and in time, will correct themselves eventually. Chomsky’s theory, called nativism also states that newborns have the ability to differentiate similar sounds that show they are born with the mechanisms that will turn into speech. So this shows that babies do not need to be taught the language that they will speak, they will learn it on their own. This is a perfect example of how all kids master their native language without any formal teaching taking place. Although, there are arguments shown that this theory does not explain why some babies develop language more rapidly than others. Also, another criticism would be why does speech development have to be linked with being able to have someone to talk to. In this case, Genie would be the perfect argument to prove Chomsky’s theory wrong. She was never able to learn language because she was never talked to. This theory also can help in the way deaf babies learn sign language. All babies babble, even deaf ones, just in a different way. Deaf babies hand babble. This is how they develop sign language. So even though these babies babble differently, they still have the innate mechanism that gives them the language developmental skills needed.
ReplyDeleteThe nature vs. nurture debate is a very heated topic among psychologists and even the general population. Is language inborn? Do children need to be taught how to speak their language? According to Chomsky's Theory (LAD) language is inborn. His view is nativism which emphasizes the active role of the learner. The human brain has an innate capacity for acquiring language. In my opinion, if children all babble in the same way before they develop the language of their parents; then naturally they are programmed for all languages. The LAD programs children's brains to analyze the language they hear and figure out its rules. If a certain child who grows up in an environment with bilingual parents can easily pick up two languages then that proves to me that all children are born with the ability to learn several languages. If language development was attributed to just environment, then how do you explain children's ability to say things that they have never heard? Children make up imaginative ways of saying things that they have never word in order to associate an object. Children naturally have word coinage in which they make up their own word because they don't know the proper word to use. That shows that they have an inborn form of primitive grammar. Children have no terrible errors in word displacement. For example, they will say "daddy eat" instead of "eat daddy." This shows that they have an innate ability to form sentences in the correct order.
ReplyDeleteI think Noam Chomsky’s theory that language is an inborn capability is correct. His theory is called nativism, which states that human beings have an inborn capacity for language. Chomsky believes that a child has the knowledge to develop any language because they have the innate ability to infer rules from any language. His theory goes on to explain that while language is inborn it needs to be activated by a language acquisition device. A language acquisition device is an inborn mechanism that enables children to infer linguistic rules from the language that they hear. This argument can be supported by the example of babbling. Before language begins all children babble with babies in every culture babbling similarly. Every child that is developing normally puts together consonant vowel strings, no matter what culture they are from or what language they have been exposed to. Chomsky’s theory applies to deaf children because they hand-babble before learning sign language. Just as hearing children use strings of sounds before speaking deaf children use random, meaningless hand motions before using sign language. Also, deaf babies make all the same advances with sign language that hearing children do with speech at the same times. An example from the video showed that babbling is considered to be pre-programmed because it cannot be learned from a parent. Babbling is the foundation for language development because their sounds begin to become more like their native language. The ability for language is innate but this ability needs to be given attention just like any other developing skill.
ReplyDeleteI believe that nature is a more influential factor in language development of children. Chomsky’s theory, called nativism, states that human beings have an inborn capacity for language acquisition. He suggested that children’s language acquisition device programs their brains to analyze the language around them when stimulated. Researchers have found that human’s brains have a structure that is bigger on one side, usually in the left hemisphere, which suggests that the inborn mechanism for language processing is local to that hemisphere. There are several examples that support this side of the argument. First, all babies babble in the same way. No matter where they are from or what language they are surrounded by, every baby will babble the same and usually around the same time. Also, babies have an inborn sense of grammar. This is present when two word phrases become important. Babies will usually say words in the correct order with out being tought, such as “dog eat” instead of “eat dog.” There are also several examples which go against the nature argument, like the case of Genie. Chomsky’s theory state that language is nature, but because she was never spoken too, Genie did not develop language on her own. This supports the nurture argument, showing that human interaction and stimulation was a necessity. In situations with deaf children, nature continues to play a strong role in language development. Just as hearing babies learn to babble on their own, deaf babies learn to sign on their own. Their abilities to either pick up on their parents signs or create their own signs shows that language is inborn, no matter how it is expressed.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I think the Nurture side of the debate (Skinner’s Social Learning Theory) has more of an influence on language development. Skinner says that learning is based on experience. It states that children learn language through operant conditioning, which is learning based on positive or negative reinforcement. First babies utter sounds at random. The caregiver will reinforce the sound that resembles adult speech with smiles, attention and praise. After those reinforcements the baby will repeat those sounds. Skinner’s theory says that infants will imitate sounds they hear from adults while still being reinforced by it. Skinner’s theory is also proven in a deaf children study. The deaf children would imitate the sign language they saw their parents using. This is like “hand-babbling”, which is when babies string together meaningless motions and repeat them over and over again. An example that supports this theory is Genie. Genie could not fully learn language because she missed the critical period of learning. Because of that Genie could never fully learn how to speak. Although this is a very convincing debate there are some criticisms. Criticisms state that the complexity and wide range of many word combinations and nuances that they cannot all be learned by specific imitation and reinforcement.
ReplyDeleteNoam Chomsky’s nativist theory states that language acquisition is an inborn characteristic of human babies and supports the nature side of the nature-nurture debate. Chomsky’s theory plays more of a role in childhood language development because there are more examples that illustrate the theory. One example is how all babies start to babble, reach the two-word phrase and learn to ‘talk’ at relatively the same age. Even deaf babies ‘hand babble’ (make random motions with their hands that later turn into words) at the same age that normal children babble. Another example of Chomsky’s theory is the evidence that babies can differentiate between different consonant sounds, suggesting that babies are programmed to analyze and recognize different properties of speech. Another idea, presented in the study of Genie ( a thirteen year old girl who was never exposed to language a child), is the idea of ‘critical periods’ or age frames in which the brain is sensitive to learning. After these critical periods, as shown in Genie, certain aspects of language cannot be understood such as grammar. This supports the nature side of the debate because the human brain is programmed to accept and retain knowledge and understanding of language at this time, and the body may shut down the language areas of the brain if they are not used. This leads into the support for this theory that is located directly inside the brain. In human brains, there is a structure that is larger on one hemisphere meaning that the language and sound memories are stored in the larger hemisphere, generally the left. The criticisms of this theory include the vague nature of an inborn learning mechanism and the fact that some children learn language faster than others. This theory also doesn’t include the idea that babies are rewarded for speaking and learning the associations of words to objects or actions. Another fact that seems to counteract this theory is that children develop different skills or fluency and that speech development depends on being talked to, not just hearing spoken language. These criticisms can be explained through other nature sides of the debate. Learning speed, skill level and fluency can depend on IQ or genetic mental disability, inherited traits, though they can involve environmental factors such as poor teaching. And learning definitions through association or operant conditioning still involves development in the left hemisphere of the brain during a critical period.
ReplyDeleteI think nurture has the most influence on language development. Like other learning, language learning is based on experience. According to classic learning theory, children learn language through operant conditioning. At first, babies utter sounds at random. Caregivers reinforce the sounds that happen to resemble adult speech with smiles, attention, and praise. Infants then repeat these reinforced sounds. According to social learning theory, babies imitate the sounds they hear adults make and, again, are reinforced by doing so.
ReplyDeleteAspects of learning theory have also been used to explain how deaf babies learn sign language. Just as hearing babies of hearing parents imitate vocal utterances, deaf babies of deaf parents imitate sign language they hear their parents using, first stringing together meaningless motions and then repeating them over and over in hand babbling. As parents reinforce these gestures, the babies attach meaning to them.
A 2002 study by researchers at the University of Chicago revealed that syntax, or sentence structure, is learned rather than innate. Researchers found that speaking to young children in complete and complex sentences, rather than using "baby talk," helps them to develop the ability to understand and use complex sentence structures. Cognitive psychologists already knew that "the degree of complexity in children's language was directly related to that of their parents," but had not yet determined whether this was due to a genetic advantage or because of the child's environment. Researchers studied preschool classrooms to evaluate the effects of teachers' sentence structure and language use on children. Students of teachers who frequently used complex sentences developed advanced language skills twice as fast those in classrooms where the teacher used simpler language.
I agree with the nurture side of the language debate. BF Skinner reinforces this belief with his theory. Skinner said that children learn language through operant conditioning. He says that when babies coo and babble, caregivers reinforce these sounds with praise and infants continue to make them. Skinner also says when the family dog comes in the room and the caregiver says “doggy” that reinforces what words go with what object. The case of Genie also proves this because Genie was not spoken to for so long that she missed the critical period for language learning, and so she barely speaks, even today with lots of training. Another case, similar to Genie’s that proves nurture is that of the Wild Boy. A 12 year old boy was found in Aveyron in the 18th century and was brought to Jean Itard, who cared for him and tried to teach him to speak, however, The Wild Boy had also passed his critical period, and never spoke. One criticism of the nurture side is that all babies begin to babble around the same time, and that all babies, even babies who’s parents do not speak the same language, babble the same way. This means that some language must be innate. Nurture applies to deaf children because babies of deaf parents begin to imitate sign language, and they end up hand-babbling which is when they string random signs together. All together, I believe that the nurture side wins the argument.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Noam Chomsky’s nativist theory has more of an influence on language development. Noam Chomsky claims that children are born with a language acquisition device. This device enables children to infer linguistic rules from the language they hear. This theory claims that when children are exposed to language a device in their brain they will automatically allow them to learn language without reinforcement from their environment. This is proven by the fact that all children master language in an age related sequence. While children are mastering language they will say things that they have never heard before. This proves that children do not only learn language from reinforcement and imitation. The nativist theory explains this by recognizing that the mechanism they have for language development allows them to learn linguistic rules from what they her. Because of this, children will often over generalize grammar rules and apply them to all sentences. Along with this the nativist theory is supported by the fact that human beings who are the only animals with fully developed language contain a structure in their brain that is larger on one side than the other. This suggests that human beings may contain an inborn mechanism for sound and language processing on the larger hemisphere of their brain. This theory is also supported by the existence of sensitivity periods. Lastly this theory is supported by the studies of death children. Deaf children who have parents who sign will begin hand babbling at the age hearing children begin babbling. This shows that all children contain a device that allows them to start learning language even if they cannot her it. Also when deaf children do not have a parent who teaches them to sign, they will make up their own sign language. Although this theory is heavily supported it does contain flaws. One major criticism of this theory is that it does not explain how the language acquisition device operates. Another criticism of this argument is that it does not address why language development also depends on talking to someone and not only hearing language.
ReplyDeleteI believe the nativist theory has more of an influence on language development than the social learning theory. Noam Chomsky believes that we are born with a set of rules about language in our heads which he refers to as “universal grammar.” The set of language learning tools children are born with are referred to as their language acquisition device (LAD). Many critics claim that Chomsky focuses too much on grammar and not enough on whether a sentence means anything or not. This may be true, but language would not make any sense without grammar rules. Chomsky focuses on the importance of children being able to form correct sentences as they grow up, instead of focusing on incorrect two word sentences that children use a stepping stones towards real sentences. Chomsky’s language acquisition device explains how deaf children are able to learn sign language. While sign language has no vocal words, it is still similar to normal language in that it follows a similar structure. It is also easier to create thoughts through hand gestures, so deaf children still pick up the ability to use gestures just as quickly as normal children pick up spoken language. Chomsky’s LAD also explains why Genie was not able to fully use correct grammar and language, because the LAD must be activated by being exposed to the language during the critical period. Genie has no such experience during her critical period, because her parents did not talk to her, and so the only words she heard were before being locked in her room at a very early age.
ReplyDeleteSkinner's Theory is based on experience when it comes to language. Experience comes from the environment, after all. So experiment is therefore considered as nurture based. Skinner says that children learn language through operant conditioning. Operant conditioning comes with learning from a certain stimulus in an environment and is totally based on nurturing. Caregivers reinforce the sounds that happen to resemble adult speech with smiles, attention, and praise. That's why parents learn that their kids and their overregularization and word coinage disappear as they grow up and continue to be exposed to adult speech. The more exposed they are, the faster they will adapt the correct use of words, sentence structure, etc. The child will only develop their language skills if they have a stimulating environment that will inspire them to broaden their linguistic abilities. A perfect example for why Skinner’s theory on language development is nurture based is Genie. Genie was isolated for the first 13 years of her life, with no emotional contact whatsoever. During the crucial times where it was highly essential to stimulate Genie’s brain with word usage and sentence structure did not occur. And when that crucial time is missed, it is very unlikely to ever learn how to speak correctly. That’s why Genie can only learn vocabulary words and has absolutely no sense of grammar. English and the ability to talk involves being able to be grammatically correct with sentences, not ungrammatical and unable to construct sentences. Genie will unfortunately not be able to speak like a normal girl her age, just because she didn’t get the nurturing in her environment that was required. Genie’s brain was absolutely capable of grasping the linguistic qualities of speaking, but this just shows how nurture wins the debate over nature this time. It’s just like you’re given fresh fruits and vegetables, but you wait months before you even eat them. What do you get with month old fruits and vegetables? Rotten, molded ones. That’s just like Genie’s brain, it was all ready to go, but she did not receive the nurturing that was required for her to develop her linguistic abilities. As for the topic of deaf children, deaf babies imitate the sign language that they see parents using. They’re professionals at imitating motions, even if the motions are meaningless. Since deaf children are born without being able to hear, they will never know how it sounds like to talk and they’ll never hear themselves talk. Which is why they have to rely on their environment and nurture their parents will be dedicating to them. When a deaf baby is reinforced, they will attach meaning to their motions by their parents. So this here proves that nurture wins over nature when it comes to linguistic abilities.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the debate of nature or nurture, I can say that clearly both have a big influence on child development. B. F. Skinner’s theory supports mostly the side of nurture. The fact is that the environment does have a large influence on language development. We know this from the video of Genie. Genie was never exposed to anyone in her rare case of entrapment. When she was finally discovered she was tested on and made progress toward learning language. Another example that supports B. F. Skinner’s theory would be the video on baby’s language development. The part of the video where it explains that all babies babble and that they have the capability to learn any language. The language that they learn is greatly influenced by their native language though. Skinner’s theory is criticized saying that these imitations that babies will do need to be reinforced in some way. This is true, which leads to the deaf child’s sign language development. Just as babies do vocal babbling, there is something called hand babbling. Hand babbling is learned if the baby or the parents are deaf. Hand babbling is defined as just meaningless motions and then repeating them over and over. With good reinforcement, they will both lead to normal language development. I believe that the nurture side of the debate wins in language development, especially since babies have the capability to learn any tongue.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Skinner’s theory, the social learning theory, has more of an influence on language development. His theory takes on the nurture side of childhood development. Skinner’s theory says that a child’s development of language is based on experience, it is not innate. I believe this theory has more of an influence because a child learns more from the people around them. They hear their parents and the people around them conversate and pick up on the little things and build their vocabulary and word choices. Also, I believe Skinner’s theory has more of an influence because when children see objects, animals, or people around them they tend to pick up what is going on quicker and build their knowledge not just through their imagination but real life objects. Criticisms towards this theory say that word combinations are so complex that they can not be acquired by imitation and reinforcement. I don’t agree with this statement because children can pick up on little things by imitating and receiving reinforcement and learn more and build the language capabilities by the little words or sounds they imitate from people and the environment around them. Another critical statement made towards this theory is that it doesn’t account for children’s imaginative ways of saying things they never heard. Deaf children learn sign language through reinforcement and repetitiveness, which shows that children learn language through their environment. The imitate the sign language they see their parents using and eventually develop a very intelligent language.
ReplyDeleteI believe that nativist theory has more of an influence on language development. All children have different ways and progressions on their language development but I think nature plays a big role in that. All children no matter where they are born or from all have the same five cries as well as babbling sounds. It just goes to show you that all babies are the same when learning to talk for the first time. The criticisms about the nativist theory is that once they grow older, their culture and language that’s spoken around them starts to show and have an effect on how they speak as well as how much parents teach their children. When they are young and developing language though, it’s innate because all babies have the same progression and developmental steps they go through when starting to talk. A lot of babies have language explosion that develops around 16-24 months and start forming telegraphic sentences at 18-24 months. All babies go through over extension, under extension, over regularization, and have different types of gestures at 12 months. These are reasons why I strongly believe that nature is a larger part of babies’ language development. Chompsky’s theory was that nativism impacts the active role of the learner. He proposed that the human brain has an innate capacity for requiring language. Some criticisms of his theory is that it does not explain precisely how such a mechanism operates. It does not tell us why some children acquire language more rapidly and efficiently than others. I believe that every baby is different and they all have a wide variety of learning time for their language. Deaf children on the other hand relate to these theories differently. For babbling, they relate by first stringing together meaning-less motions and then repeating them over and over. It goes like that for all deaf children and that’s how they’re language develops.
ReplyDeleteThe social learning theory has more of an influence on language development. Though the ability to talk is inborn, the complexities of the individual language come from nurture. This is evidenced by the fact that what language a baby speaks is dependent on the language it hears and is enforced to speak. The social learning theory emphasizes learning through reinforcement and experience, which I believe is the way most children learn language.
ReplyDeleteSome say that the combinations and nuances of language are too complex. However, by that logic, no one would understand them, seeing as the nuances of every language are vastly different and therefore cannot be accounted for in the LAD. Therefore, there has to be some way that children pick up these nuances, because being preprogrammed for every nuance in every language would be simply too much for the brain. Some would also say that adult language is unreliable to imitate. While that is true, most of the language that children are exposed to or corrected on repeatedly is correct. In addition to that, sentence fragments often allude to the underlying grammar without being perfectly grammatically correct.
As for deaf children, the Bedouin Sign Language is passed from parents to children, which is how most variations of sign language probably continue. Sign language “words” can easily be invented, though, which makes it hard to determine the role of nature or nurture in this process.
Children start to make babbling sounds that are like their native language between 3 and 6 months, enough time to have sufficiently heard that language and start to imitate it. They will also start to recognize sentence structure between 6 and 12 months, likewise after enough time being exposed to it.
The environment has more of an effect on a baby’s ability to learn how to speak. B.F Skinner’s theory on children learning to speak is based on experience. This is shown when a baby starts to make sounds and the parent responds by praising and smiling at the child. Babies mimic the sounds they hear the adults around them make. When the babies imitate the adults, they are rewarded for their speech. If a baby points to an object, the baby most likely wants to know what the object is called. The parent would say what the object is and the baby would now know what that particular object is called. Deaf babies apply to this theory as well as hearing babies. Deaf babies mimic their deaf parents signing to each other. This is just like when hearing babies mimic what their parents are saying. Deaf babies also do hand-babbling which is when the baby begins to repeat meaningless hand motions over and over again. Hearing babies do this except by making different sounds which is called babbling. Chomsky argues that observation, imitation, and reinforcement contribute to the development of language but it does not fully explain the development. The experiment conducted by King Frederick II contradicts Chomsky’s theory. In the experiment, King Frederick ordered that certain newborn babies not to be talked to by anyone. As a result, the babies died. In conclusion, the environment has a major influence on the language development of babies.
ReplyDeleteI think Skinner’s social learning theory explains language development better than Chomsky’s nativist theory. Skinner’s theory is better because environment does have an impact on language development. Skinner’s theory states that learning is based on experiences and children learn language through operant conditioning. When babies utter sounds at random, their caregivers reinforce the sounds that happen to sound like adult speech. They reward the baby with smiles, praise and attention. The infants repeat these words because they know that they will be rewarded in the end. Word learning depends on selective reinforcement. Children’s utterances are reinforced for speech that is more and more adult-like. However there are criticisms to Skinner’s theory. One criticism is that there are so many word combinations and nuances, and that they are so complex that they all cannot be acquired by specific imitation and reinforcement. Also this theory does not account for children’s imaginative ways of saying phrases that they have never heard before. For deaf children, they will imitate the sign language they see their parents using just like talking babies imitate vocal utterances. This is known as “hand-babbling,” they string together meaningless motions and repeating them over and over again. One can see that Skinner’s theory is better, take the Genie case. Genie was unable to talk because no one was allowed to talk to her. She never had the opportunity for someone to praise her when she said an adult-like word.
ReplyDeleteLauren Master
ReplyDeleteChild Psych
Both nature and nurture effect language development but believe that nurture has a bigger factor. The social learning theory has more of an influence on language development. Skinner says that language is based on experience. According to classic learning theory children learn language through operant conditioning. Babies first utter sounds at random and if the caregivers reinforce the sounds infants will then repeat the sounds. Babies also imitate the sounds they hear adults make and are reinforced for doing them. Word learning depends on selective reinforcement. Children are reinforced for speech that is more adultlike. Observation, imitation, and reinforcement do contribute to language development. It is said that word combinations and nuances are so complex that they cannot all be acquired by specific imitation and reinforcement. Also that the learning theory does not account for children’s imaginative ways of saying things they have never heard before. Aspects of the learning theory have been used to explain how deaf babies learn sign language. Deaf babies of deaf parents seem to copy the sign language they see their parents using. First babies do meaningless motions and then repeat them over and over. As parents reinforce these gestures the babies attach meaning to them. Genie is an example on the nurture side because even though she was never taught at a young age to speak when she got older and she was exposed to learning how to talk she caught on quickly and began to say words.
I believe that B.F Skinner’s social learning theory has a greater influence on child language development. The social learning theory supports that a child’s language learning is based on experience which includes, and is mostly reliant on, the environment. It is key that children see their parents and people around them talking so they will have the incentive to communicate with them too by speaking. It is also important that parents praise the child when he or she is starting to babble or communicate with them. Without the parent’s example and praise, would the child learn how to speak their language? Chomosky states that children’s ability to speak their language is innate. If this is true, wouldn’t all children speak or talk at the same time? This also brings up how deaf children learn to develop sign language. Deaf children learn through seeing sign language and interacting with those around them who sign. Without this environmental exposure how would deaf children learn how to communicate with our world? Sign language in deaf children is not innate; just like children who have normal hearing. They cannot totally depend on their innateness to learn how to speak. This is shown through Genie’s story because no one ever talked to her and her parents didn’t no give her the example of talking and did not praise her when she did start to make sounds. Therefore the environment has a key role in language development and I support the social learning theory.
ReplyDeleteMoira Zechman
ReplyDeleteIn the debate over language development being more nature based or nurture based I believe that nurture plays a bigger role than nature. The theory B.F. Skinner came up with, he states that language is based on experience and how the child’s parents reinforce sounds and words. If a child is brought into the world with the abilities to talk but never hear any words they will never learn to talk. Children need to hear these conversations to be able to develop their own language. Some criticisms to Skinner’s theory are that word combinations are so complex that they cannot be acquired by specific imitation. Although infants can imitate certain words, they still do not have meaning to those words. If the child never heard any communication between others they could not imitate, and overall not learn to communicate themselves. Babies are born able to learn any language but cannot speak one without hearing it and being raised with it. Skinner’s theory relate to deaf children because when using his theory a child would never be able to learn language. Children need to be shown or hear to ever learn and connect words with actual meanings. In Genie’s case she was raised for 13 years without ever being spoken to. Therefore, she grew up without the ability to communicate through speaking. Although she showed signs of early language abilities by making noises and trying to communicate, indicated by her mother, she had missed her chance and was never able to speak and use words with grammatical accuracy.
Noam Chomsky's nativist theory emphasizes the role of inborn characteristics (nature), while B.F. Skinner's social learning theory emphasizes the role on the surrounding environment on language development (nurture) and they both present good arguments in the debate between nature vs. nurture. But, I feel that between the examples and studies that we have examined show that language development is more influenced by nurture for many reasons. For one, findings show that a baby’s language, like other developmental learning, is based on experience. In one theory supporting this, known as classical learning theory, children learn language through operant conditioning. Meaning that at first, babies utter sounds at random and caregivers reinforce the sounds that may resemble adult speech with smiles, attention, and praise. As a result, the baby will repeat the sounds in which they received praise for. Another theory supporting nurture is the social learning theory. This is when babies imitate the sounds they hear adults make, and again are reinforced for doing so. Both of these theories have been proven and supported through many case studies and experiments. Children are also reinforced when a word, for example “kitty”, is said when the actual object appears, the cat. These theories combined show that nurture and a baby’s environment is critical and crucial in language development. A specific experiment that has been done that supports the nurture side is the case of Genie. It proves that the environment is central to language development because in this case, Genie was never exposed to language and as a result could never fully develop a proper understanding of language. Since she was never spoken to, she never heard adult speech that she would be able to imitate to learn how to use her vocal cords correctly. Since she was never reinforced when she did talk, it caused her to second guess herself and forget about what she would say. Because Genie was in an unfavorable environment, she will never learn language to the full extent. Another reason that supports the nurture side of the debate is the study of deaf children’s development in learning sign language. The study showed that deaf children taught sign language using classical learning theory and social learning theory could develop sign language at the same time a hearing-able child learns to talk. These theories were shown in this study when deaf children would copy parents’ hand movements they saw and if they received any praise or encouragement would continue to repeat this action.
ReplyDeleteBut, there are some criticisms for B.F. Skinner’s social learning theory. One says that his theory cannot fully explain a child’s development of language. Meaning that because word combinations and nuances are numerous and complex that they cannot all be acquired by specific imitation and reinforcement. Another criticism is that a caregiver may reinforce a child’s grammar if it makes sense. For example, when a child says, “Grandpa go bye-bye” a parent will not correct them because it makes sense even if there are grammatical errors. Because adult speech is ungrammatical at times with false starts, unfinished sentences, and slips of the tongue, a child cannot learn correct language and grammar rules just by hearing adult speech and repeating it. Finally, the last argument against Skinner’s theory is that it does not take into account for children’s imaginative way of saying things they’ve never seen.
As seen in the first paragraph, there are many theories, ideas, and studies that can support the nurture side. But, as seen in the second paragraph, there are criticisms of this that support the nature side. Between a fair balance of nature and nurture, a child’s language development will be achieved.
Jeff Prettyman
ReplyDeleteChild Psych.
While it is true that language is inborn in all humans, nurture is more important since language can be learned only through experience. Without experiencing any language, it is not possible for humans to learn language. Infants learn by being reinforced when they hear adults speaking. The infants then observe and eventually try to repeat these reinforced sounds and try to imitate them. A perfect example of this is when deaf babies of deaf parents learn to imitate sign language by watching their parents use sign language. Deaf babies learn by nature just as babies who listen to their parents do because they could never learn sign language on their own just as babies with hearing could not learn to speak languages.
Identical Twin studies also leans towards the nurture side of the debate. They may have similar traits but are almost never exactly the same because of the different environments these children grow up in. Behavior is only partly formed by our genes. Our behavior is mostly based off our different experience and develops over time by these experiences. Another example is a girl named Genie. She was locked in isolation for the first 13 years of her life and never learned English because she was never exposed to it. After being discovered and put into the care of therapists, she was able to learn the basics of language such as vocabulary and simple sentences. This is significant because the nature side of the language debate states that children cannot learn language after missing the critical period of 3 years old to puberty. Overall, nature and nurture mixes together to form our personality and abilities but I believe without all the different experiences and exposures in our lives, then we would never be who we are today.
The mind behind the social learning theory, B.F. Skinner, states that language learning is based on experience, or environment. The theory maintains that children learn language first through observation, then imitation which must then be reinforced. A child will observe a parent's language and pick up on it, imitating the sounds and such. Then, the words that resemble adult-like language will elicit positive responses from parents, such as a smile or praise. This is an example of how children learn through operant conditioning. This type of operant conditioning must be selectively reinforced, which means that when a child says "kitty", it should only be reinforced when the family cat is in the room. Otherwise, the child will have trouble grasping that "kitty" means cat. Skinner's opponent, Noam Chomsky, theorizes that the ability to learn language is inborn, and so nature plays a bigger role in language development of children. He also argues that while imitation, observation, and reinforcement do influence language learning, linguistics are too complex for a child to learn simply by imitating an adult's speech, in addition to the fact that adults don't always use proper grammar. However, Chomsky's criticisms of the role of environment in language learning are disproved mainly by research of children such as Genie. For the first thirteen years of her life, she was not allowed to talk or make noise, and wasn't spoken to at all. Once she was rescued from her abusive home, she was taught words and picked up on most of the language and meaning of words. However, since she had not been allowed to speak for many years, it took a while for her to really understand meanings of words, and she never grasped the basic rules of grammar. Genie disproves Chomsky's idea that language is inborn because if it was, Genie would have been able to speak like any other human being, despite not having learned the rudimentary basics of language. Also, Chomsky's theory that language is innate does not explain why some children learn language more rapidly than others. Skinner's theory of social learning applies to deaf children because deaf children with deaf parents have been able to learn through imitation of their parents. Deaf children have been known to do something called "hand babbling", where he or she sees the parent talking through sign language and imitates those hand movements. While it may be true that language learning is innate and every child comes equipped with it, they cannot learn language solely because of nature. Children need the right environment, where they are spoken to and are positively reinforced for imitating adult language. I think that environment plays a bigger role in language learning, but nature also influences it, so what a child really needs is a good balance between both nature and environment.
ReplyDeleteI believe that B.F. Skinner's learning theory has more influence over a child's language development than nativism. Children may understand what their parents say to them but they don’t know how to speak back to them. Children need to observe people speaking. When they are old enough they can start to imitate words and phrases that they hear. When they speak and are reinforced they learn language. When a child points to an object that is there way of communicating until they learn the words. Observation, imitation, and reinforcement probably have influence on learning but it cannot be fully explained. Another criticism of this theory is that parents don’t have the best grammar, but it provides a basic structure of how sentences are to be made. Deaf babies of deaf parents imitate the sign language they see their parents using. Deaf babies hand-babble, like hearing babies babble, and start to put the hand motions with meaning. Genie did not learn to speak until 13. Before that she did not speak because she never heard it and was never taught. She missed the critical period of learning, but she was able to learn what objects were. She was unable to learn to form sentences but through reinforcement she was able to put meaning to words. This is why I think the social learning theory has more influence over a child’s learning.
ReplyDeleteI think nurture has more of an influence on child development. B.F Skinners Social learning theory proves the nurture side of the debate. Although the ability to talk is inborn, an individual’s specific language comes from nurture. Babies learn to make their sounds into words by imitating what they hear adults saying and are reinforced for doing so. Learning words depends on selective reinforcement; an example of this is the word “kitty” being reinforced only when the cat is around. Deaf children sign language supports the nurture side. Deaf children learn sign language by watching their parents or other adults’ movements. The children will imitate their movements even if they have no purpose, giving meaning to signs that have none. This shows that a child’s environment has an affect of deaf children’s learning of language as well. Genie is another example that proves the nurture side of the debate. Genie missed the crucial time when sentence structure and word usage is learned, therefore, she has no sense of grammar. Without the right environment Genie will never be able to develop correctly the linguistics of speaking. Overall I believe that, although nature plays a part in child development, more of it comes from nurture.
ReplyDeleteHaley Olsen
ReplyDeleteChild Psych
B. F. Skinner’s theory is based on children learning through experience hen they are learning how to talk. The environment plays a huge role in helping babies learn how to interact with the world around them through language. Parents are constantly talking to their babies in high-pitched voices so it’s easier for the babies to understand. Parents also are constantly telling them the names of things and talking to them and sometimes they don’t even realize how much children will learn from them doing that. Through exposure to language, children can easier learn how to fix the mistakes in their speech they make such as over regularization. The baby will only further develop his or her language skills if they have a stimulating atmosphere that will motivate them to expand their linguistic abilities. A perfect example to support Skinners theory is Genie, who was never exposed to any language until she was 13 years old. Since her father ordered her brother and mother to never speak to her, Genie never learned how to communicate with others, showing that language is not innate but is learned. When Genie started working with speech therapists and other scientists to help her learn how to speak, she only learned more or less than a hundred words. Her brain was not capable of learning a language because of the neglect she received as a child. Even after all of that she never learned proper grammar or how to form full sentences, which is what language is all about. This shows how important it is for children to be exposed to language as soon as possible so they can acquire the skills needed for communicating with the world around them.
I believe that nurture is more effective on language learning than nature. B.F Skinner believes that language learning is based on experience and how parents reinforce sounds and words. There are some criticisms though to this theory, such as word combinations being so complex that they can’t be acquired by specific imitation. The critics also say adults may reinforce utterances that are not grammatically correct. A supporting example of this is Genie. Genie did not learn to talk until her adolescence years because she was secluded from the world so she never had a chance to hear others talk. Once she was taught how to talk she developed a wide variety of vocabulary and grammar. Another supporting example of how nurture is more effective than nature is that deaf children learn sign language by watching and imitating their parents. Nurture has more of an effect that nature because even though we may be born with an innate capacity for acquiring language, we still need to have reinforcements to teach how exactly how to talk.
ReplyDeleteI think Chomsky’s theory of the Nativist approach is more accurate than the Social Learning approach. The Nativist theory emphasizes the active role of the learner. The human brain has an innate capacity for acquiring language. People can not explain how children come up with words that they have never seen before. This is a good example of the fact that language is a Nativist approach. Also, studies show that children of all ethnicities and languages all babble the same and the language sequence is also the same. For example a Chinese baby’s babbles will sound exactly like an American baby’s babbles and both babies will say their first word around 12 months old. Surprisingly, babies do not mke terrible errors in word placement. This means that naturally, babies know that daddy eat makes more sense than eat daddy. Deaf children’s sign language development supports the Nativist approach because babies are able to string together meaningless motions then repeat them. Also, they make up own sign language when they don’t have models. Even non def babies use hand motions to point things out or get their point across, without seeing their parents make such motions. In genie’s case, she disproved that there is a critical period to learn language. Genie was still able to learn words and understand certain things people were saying. This proves that there is an inborn ability to be able to understand language even after a critical period.
ReplyDeleteI believe that B.F. Skinner's learning theory has more influence over a child's language development than nativism. The environment plays a huge role in helping babies learn how to interact with the world around them through language. For example, adults speak in parentese to attract the child’s attention and to keep them captivated. When children make grammatical errors while speaking, parents and adults need to correct their error so to help the child understand the rights and wrongs of speaking. When a child points to an object, they are trying to communicate without the direct need of language. Genie, the girl kept from the world in her own home, is a perfect example. It is said that there is a critical period when people need to learn basic skills or they will never learn them at the same rate when the critical period is over. Because Genie was never spoken to for the first thirteen years of her life, she missed the critical period of speech. After working with speech therapists, Genie did finally begin to speak. Although she only mastered small sentences, mostly fragments, she did overcome the theory that language is an inborn mechanism. Another criticism of this theory is that parents, although they use improper grammar, provide the basis of sentence structure for children. An example of why this theory has more of an influence is shown through imitation. Children hear words, and repeat them without meaning. Later the child can relate that word to the object. This is an example of learning what an object is, and a baby cannot just naturally know language. Deaf babies of deaf parents imitate the sign language they see their parents using. Deaf babies hand-babble, like hearing babies babble, and start to put the hand motions with meaning.
ReplyDeleteI personally think the nativism theory has more of an influence on language development. I believe this because every baby, no matter where they are born or what language is native to them speak the same up to a certain point. Obviously they do not learn their babbling from their parents. Babies are also able to differentiate between sounds that we as adults cannot and by listening to this, they can figure out the underlying structure of our language. Chomsky believes that this is due to a language acquisition device that every human is born with. Also, deaf children who do not have a model to follow for sign language make up their own sign language. This proves that every baby has the innate need to communicate with others and when not helped by others, they figure it out themselves. Also, deaf babies babble just like children who are not hearing impaired. While some may believe that babbling is an attempt at imitating language babies hear from others, this does not explain how a deaf child would do this. However, there are many criticisms against the nature debate. For example, the nativist approach does not explain why one baby may learn language easily and fast, but another may struggle with learning. It also doesn’t explain why motivation by reinforcement helps a baby learn to speak. The imitation of words and sentences spoken by parents or caregivers would not be explained by the nativism theory either, but overall I believe that the nature approach is more influential to the development of language in babies.
ReplyDelete