Overview Of Chomskys Theory English Language Essay

Overview Of Chomskys Theory English Language EssayIntroductionThe read/write head to consider is how children acquire actors line and at which stage they could improve their speaking and listening skills. In particular, syntax and vocabulary be the main concern of the expression acquisition state. The task of psycholinguistics is to discover the relationship between wrangle and the human judgment (Field 2003). Many theories, at that placefore, take hold emerged in exploring this relationship, which seek to explain the route in which children agnize and acquire delivery. Over the last five decades these theories entertain offered various ideas and interpretations of the relationship. For example, in Behaviourist theory, which is associated to skinners research into language, language acquisition is considered a accruement of habits. It is concept that children pack how to class correct utterances through positive reinforcement from the mint around them (Patten and Be nati 2010). Cognitive theory, which is associated with Piaget, is considered a way of discovering how individuals create and use language in their social context (ibid, p71). Interaction theory, related to Bruner, holds that language deducts from the interaction between children and their environment (ibid, p99). There argon, however, dickens theories in the relevant acquisition literature which pit angiotensin converting enzyme another and provoke countless argues Chomskys theory and Tomasellos theory. In Chomskys theory, children biologic anyy possess an innate strength to acquire their language. This expertness is mainly specific to language. Whereas, in Tomasellos theory language is acquired through language use by means of social skills, much(prenominal) as, joint attention and general learn mechanisms (Behrene 2009).This paper seeks to search these two theories in order to contrast them. The first and second parts of the paper present an overview of the main ideas i n the two theories. The third part focuses on their different aspects, including the poverty of stimulant drug agate line, linguistic creativity, modularity and language specific domain versus domain- general learning mechanisms. The fourth and final part, discusses some weak points in the two theories.Overview of Chomskys (Innatist) theoryIn language acquisition domain, Chomskys theory is c in alled an innatist theory, because he proposed that children biologically possess suitable sneak knowledge for the task of first language learning .This abstract knowledge shapes the linguistic system which they learn. In fact, through this innate knowledge children toilet discover the rules of their language system and reduce hypothesis organisation and guessing. (Patten and Benati 2010). Chomskys main argument is that all human beings are born with an innate knowledge which is particularly designed for language acquisition (ibid). This argument is indeed, opposed to the wizard that language is a result of the interaction between human beings and the environment or item-usage learning (e.g. Skinner, 1957 Tomasello, 2003). Furthermore, The term Language Acquisition Device (LAD) was coined by Chomsky in this context to refer to such innate knowledge or the little black box (Patten and Benati 2010).The (LAD) comprises the habitual principles of all languages, by which children can be kept on track and not conf employ by all the complex rules of particular languages. When this (LAD) is activated, the child can discover the structure of the language s/he is to learn by matching the innate knowledge of basic well-formed relationships to the structures of the special language in the environment (Lightbown and Spada 1999). However, since the 1960s, instead of (LAD) world(a) grammar hypothesis (UG) was introduced by Chomsky. It was given much concern by him instead of, the (LAD), because, in Chomskys view this hypothesis means that there is an innate knowledge sourc e which governs the shape of internal language (Patten and Benati 2010). It should be noted that the first appearance of Chomskys theory was in 1959 in his critical review of Skinners book Verbal Behavior in 1957. Chomsky in his review pointed out more shortcomings in applying Skinners theories to language acquisition. For example, Skinners experiment using rat boxes is not relevant to language because the behaviour of rats is unlike human behaviour. As a result, Skinner has a mistaken understanding of the nature of language. Furthermore, the environment considered solely as learning mechanism can not be the root word of language acquisition and therefore, mans mightiness to acquire language must be innate (Aitchison, 2007).Overview of Tomasellos theory (usage-establish theory)The account of language acquisition provided by Tomasello comes under the comprehensive of usage-based theories. Recently, a new view of language and human linguistic competence has emerged (Tomasello 200 3). This view comes from a set of theories usually called cognitive-functional linguistics, and also called usage -based linguistics in order to emphasize their main ideas that language structure is produced or appears from language use (e.g. Langacker, 1987a Croft, 1991 Tomasello, 1995, 2003). It is note worthy that this view stands in direct opposition to Chomskys innatist theory. Because, Tomasello in his theory is mainly concerned with the question of how children get from here to there from the constructions of infant level speech to the abstract constructions of cock-a-hoop thought through one set of processes of acquisition (Tomasello 20033). In Tomasellos theory it is impossible that humans can have been born with a specific collection of communicative behaviours only for language. This collection more probably learned by children during their years from the linguistic conventions used around them. They must possess flexibility in order to learn twain the different word s and the suitable expressions of all(prenominal) language and the different types of abstract constructional pattern which historically these languages have grammaticized (ibid). Tomasello emphasizes, however, four points in his theory First, the innate skills which people have are not specific to language but can be used as means for language learning.Second, theory of foreland is rudimentary to symbol use, because humans can understand symbols while nonhuman do not possess this big businessman, because they use signal system. Thirdly, word-learning skills include joint attention, which means the ability that children possess in their first year old whereby they can understand other people as endal agents and interact socially through an quarry to which both pay attention children note this attention to both it and themselves Intention reading, means the ability to understand the social world around them through imitating handsome acts the construction-learning skills encom passing analogy and pattern-finding. The latter means the distributional analysis based on statistical information in the primary linguistic info and the ability to form perceptual and conceptual figures of alike objects or situations (Tomasello 2003).The differences between the two theoriesIt is noteworthy that the accounts provided by Chomsky and Tomasello comprise many opposed aspects, of which the main ones are as follows3.1. Poverty of stimulus argumentThe basic argument of the nativist theory is based on Chomskys assumption of the poverty of stimulus (1965).This assumption means that the data provided by the input to which people exposed are not rich enough to account for language acquisition (Patten and Benati2010). In other words, it means that the language to which children are exposed as their input or the primary linguistic data is solely a set of individual utterances yielding some abstract principles of grammar which seem ambiguous for language acquisition .The best solution he can provide is the commonplace grammar hypothesis (UG), which means that all humans are born with an innate universal language containing a number of abstract principles which can lead the acquisition process (Tomasello 2003).Despite the fame of the poverty of stimulus argument in the language acquisition domain and childrens language research, it has certain, if we contrast it with the account provided by Tomasellos usage-based theory. We find that the research into the developmental psychology of language acquisition has provided many arguments which support the richness of stimulus in usage-based theories (e.g Clark2003, Tomasello 2003). In fact, the significance of social pragmatic interaction in language acquisition is evidenced by commodious findings in this domain (Tomasello 2003). To put it more simple, Tomasello in his theory emphasizes thatThere is no poverty of the stimulus when a structured inventory of construction is the adult endpoint (Tomasello 20037).H e notes that the hypothesis of an innate universal grammar has two major(ip) problems, namely, first, the linking problem and the problem of continuity. The first problem is how children can connect their abstract universal grammar with the particular language which they learn. The second problem deals with the developmental changes in childrens language, for example, how people can understand childrens language during their developmental change if we accept that universal grammar is forever and a day the same. It, therefore, seems useful to provide a description or explanation of child language acquisition which ignores any hypothesis of universal grammar which creates these problems (Tomasello 2003). Accordingly, it is important to note that Chomsky and Tomasello are opposed on the argument of the poverty of stimulus. Tomasellos view, however, seems stronger, because nativists provide no support for their claims. As Pullum and Scholz (200247) point out, the poverty of stimulus ar gument unsounded awaits even a single good supporting example. Moreover, Akhtar (2004) seems to agree with this criticism, in that she indicates that this argument was the basis for a number of nativist claims, yet indeed lack supporting confirmable evidences.3.2. Language is creativeAnother difference between Chomsky and Tomasello is the formers belief that language is creative. From Chomsky perspective, creativity in language has three- fold support. First, people possess the ability to understand and produce strange sentences which they have never before heard or spoken (Aitchison 2007). Second, the creative use of language is free from the external and internal affects of the stimulus control (Chomsky 1968). Third, the way in which people use the language considered to be coherent and appropriate to the situation (Hegde 1980). By the way of contrast, we can see that Tomasello does not ignore creativity in language, but he has little concern for it. According to him, it results from the attempt of humans to create categories in their own language (Tomasello 1995).Chomsky asserts that the creativity in language is something which can not be acquired solely through environmental learning methods (Aitchison 2007). Tomasello contrastingly asserts that, during a period of time, children obtain the communicative conventions are obtained step by step from the people around them. For example, their social cognitive skills and developing cognition are utilised to internalise these conventions. Childrens basic abilities are used to learn their first words. They create concepts so as to understand adult speech and then to produce suitable new words in their communicative contexts (Tomasello 1995).It is thought, however, from the contrast between the two views that Chomskys view about the creativity of language has some limitations. For one thing, nativists assert that every utterance we hear and say is only novel and accepted. This assertion seems to be wrong. The reason is that to accept it we would need to choose that each word or sentence has a separate existence. Moreover, we have to assume that our past language experience is sufficient to provide a work out understanding of the present utterances. But, if these assumptions are accepted, the result will be that human communicative behaviour has no continuity(Hegde 1980).The second point, on the creativity of language free from the control of stimulus, seems to be weak, because, as discussed above in section (3.1) no evidence has been offered in its support.Furthermore, with regard to the third point, in Chomskys view the way that people use language is coherent and appropriate to the situation. It could be argued that this point is fair vague, since Chomsky admits that he can give no clear meaning to the terms appropriateness and coherent in this context (ibid). However, he stresses that the creative aspect of language is common. Humans constantly create novel utterances and many who lack this ability might be brain damaged (Aitchison 2007). This view would be more normal if it took into account the effect of environmental learning methods in producing our utterances, since the one question that needs to be asked here is, how humans can produce them without communication with their input.3.3. ModularityIn the theatres of linguistics and philosophy of mind, the idea of modularity has raised a great deal of concern (Garfield 1987). There seems to be another difference between Chomsky and Tomasello, about the modularity of mind in language acquisition. To illustrate, the definition of modularity accord to Crystal (1998 246) isA term used in recent discussion of language in two slenderly different ways. On the one hand, it is proposed, especially in J. A. Fodors The Modularity of Mind, that the mind is modular in the brain that it consists of a number of different systems ( modules) each has its own typical properties , such as the language system and the visi on system. On the other hand, it is suggested, especially in government-binding theory that language system itself is modular in the sense that it consists of a number of different subsystems which interact in specific ways.The concept of modularity is that the brain is divided into separate parts, an idea to which Chomsky gives much attention (1965).He identifies the language area as a separate faculty of mind, in that language is autonomous in the mind and a separate module in the brain (Aitchison 2007). Furthermore, he goes on to argue that the human mind is, like other complex biological systems, modular in its internal formation (Chomsky 1984).The main idea of modularity, according to him, is that the modularity of syntax means that the structures of syntax are not the same as the structures exist in other cognitive (Chomsky 1968 cited in Tomasello 1995). By the way of contrast, we can see that Tomasello does not agree that language is a separated module in the brain, because, by his reasoning, in order to have a perfect grammatical theory the syntactic abilities should be combined into cognition and not like an autonomous sub-system (Parisse 2005).To sum up, Chomskys view is a modular view in which there are different sub-parts in the mind each one possessing special characteristics. Tomasello, however, take the non-modular view that there are general principles employed in all cognitive domains which control the mind (Archibald 1993).However, to return to the account of modularity provided by Chomsky, one of the difficulties with this account is the claim that syntactic structures are not like the structures which exist in other cognitive domains. This seems to be wrong, because it gives the idea that the syntax module is innate, yet if we give the example of the game of chess, we find that it possesses a number of unique structures, such as, the images of a knight fork or queen-a side attack- in human cognition. But there is no need to presume that thi s uniqueness chess- typifying form needs an innate mental form (Bates et al. 1991).Moreover, the structures of cognitive thought which adults utilise in order to play the game of chess come through a process in which people employ general cognitive processes to face their problems in their social interaction which they may have had in learning to play a constructed game (Tomasello1995). Hence, it is thought that Chomskys view seems to be weak because it is difficult to specify which part of the brain is responsible for language. As Bates asserts, it still far from lettered perfectly which parts of the brain are responsible for language (Bates in press, cited in, Tomasello 1995).3.4. Language- specific versus domain- general learning mechanismsAnother point of difference between Chomsky and Tomasello concerns the way in which children acquire language. is another different point between Chomsky and Tomasello. The difference lies in the contention over whether language should be a s pecific domain or a domain general learning mechanism. A specific domain in this context means a domain specific to language, whilst, domain general refers to learning mechanisms which are not specific to language, yet applied generally.From Chomskys perspective, since, human beings are able to learn language and animals are not, this ability is considered genetically inherited (Aitchison 2007). Nativist theory, in fact, hypothesises that children are born with universal grammar (UG), a set of innate principles and parameters. This possession helps children to learn language without making errors as they learn (Conroy and Thornton 2005). Therefore, this assumes that children possess a pre- existing domain- specific innate form which specifies the form of their language knowledge. Moreover, in language learning in particular, syntax children obtain ability without exposure to adequate stimulus (Chomsky 1986, Pinker 1994).However, Tomasello believes that it is false to suppose that children have genetically endowed grammar (Tomasello 2003). To his mind, children in order to learn their language employ item-based learning incorporate with some general learning mechanisms that are used in other cognitive domains , such as, analogy (Conroy and Thornton 2005). Moreover, in Tomasellos view the properties of language structure come from joint attention figures and not from innate language specific mechanisms (Segalowitz 2001). As a result, Tomasello significantly did not ignore language universals however, to him they not universals of form or a special type of syntax or linguistic symbols but are instead, the universals of human communication and cognition. For example, human beings use language in similar social contexts in order to provide solutions in language for communicative tasks, such as, describing specific entities (Tomasello 2003). Consequently, Chomskys view that language has a specific-domain is weak , because languages differ in their grammatical re lations, of subject and object, for example, Acehnese, an Indonesian language, and Tagalog, a Philippine language, do not possess these grammatical relations ( Tomasello1995).4. Some weakness in both theoriesTomasello, then, introduced a new model of usage-based theories in language acquisition in which he paid attention to a main set of skills, namely, intention reading, joint attention and pattern-finding skills. These skills are general skills utilised also in other types of cognition and not in language alone. Furthermore, although they are innate, they are not like the universal grammar (UG) invented by Chomsky, because they are not specific to language (Tomasello, 2003). But Tomasellos account seems to entail some limitations. It is thought that he does not provide a clear explanation for the fact that these skills are sufficient for language acquisition. As Wilson (2006138) points outTomasellos central claim is that joint attention and intention reading are foundational and requisite for language acquisition. It does seems reasonable to assume that they are necessary for language development, but the big question is, are they sufficient? Can they entirely account for all of the complexities of language from parsing speech stream to the emergence of complex grammatical structures?Hollich et al. (2000), on the other hand, seems to agree with this criticism, because they assert that Tomasellos theory, which is one of the social constructivist theories, does not possess a complete or sufficient explanation for the fact that children can produce increasingly inserted sentences in their utterances. Moreover, the problem with these theories is that they still offer no clarification of childrens ability to discover the relationships between language units.In contrast to this, Chomskys theory is considered one of the famous theories in the language acquisition domain. It has indeed, affected the entire literature language acquisition, because of the controvers y surrounding it. Yet this theory too attracts a number of criticisms.In this section, we focus on four critical points made against this theory. A major criticism concerns the universal grammar hypothesis (UG) which has been discussed above. Although (UG) aroused widespread interest in language acquisition debates, it is thought, that it is based solely on abstract thinking and lacks a posteriori support. As Kadarisman (2007a) points out, the concept of universal grammar must be without meaning unless it has empirical evidence. But, without adequate explanations, it seems to be more a slogan than a scientific effort. Moreover, referable to its abstraction, (UG) neglects the local importance of language used in the cultural context (Becker 1995). Second, Chomskys theory is criticised for relying on logical arguments only. As Palmer (2000) indicates, Chomskys nativist claims remain are still the same as they have been fir the past two decades. Because his claims are based on logica l arguments instead of, direct evidences or reasonable interpretations, his arguments have no external support. Tomasello seems, agree with Palmer in this criticism because he states that Chomsky in his account relies strongly on logical arguments, not using the scientific chew over of human behaviour and cognition (Tomasello 1995).Third, it is criticised because it can not be tested. This creates some contention around Chomskys account. The reason is that his theory has no clear cut procedures which could be examined. To put it more simple, Chomsky considered theory-construction in linguistics as similar to theory- construction in the physical sciences, particular, physics. Yet, there is a deference between these two domains, because, the numeral model in physics depends on physical phenomena and is testable, whereas, Chomskys model relies on subjective judgments made by individual native speakers who may disagree with each other. Consequently, it can not be tested (Moor and Carl ing 1987).Fourth, Chomskys theory is criticised in terms of its ideas, if considered as philosophic ideas, for instance the adoption of such innatist ideas as, the universal grammar (UG) hypothesis which is based on the hypothesis of an innate language faculty. Subsequently, many linguists (e.g. Hegde, 1980 Moore and Claring, 1987) have strongly criticised these ideas. For example, Hegde asserts that the concept of a nativist theory is merely part of an ancient philosophical idea. Furthermore, Moore and carling believe that Chomskian linguistics are linked by these ideas to philosophy, in particular, epistemology, the part of philosophy concerned with knowledge theories.ConclusionThe domain of language acquisition possesses a varied collection of theories. Their main concern is to discover the way in which people, in particular children, can acquire language. The accounts given by Chomsky and Tomasello can be critically contrasted, as seen above. They obviously stand on two opposit e sides. In Chomskys theory, children are born with an innate ability by which they acquire their language, whereas, in Tomasellos theory, language is acquired through language use and not by biologically innate ability. Furthermore, the innate abilities which children have are not specific to language. However, the main aspects which have been contrasted in this paper comprised first, the poverty of stimulus argument, in which, according to Chomsky, the input is not sufficient to acquire language, while, from Tomasellos perspective there is no poverty of stimulus second, Language to Chomsky is creative, because it is free from the control of stimulus while in Tomasellos view language results from the attempt of humans to create categories in language third, modularity, Chomskys assertion that the mind is separated into sub-parts, whereas Tomasello believes, that general principles control the mind and fourth, Language- specific versus domain- general learning mechanisms either ther e are universals specific to language, as in (UG) hypothesis of Chomsky or, as Tomasello states universals is not specific to language but apply to all human communication and cognition.Hence, we can conclude that Chomskys account strongly relies on the hypothesis of universal grammar (UG) to support his view on the poverty of stimulus argument, creativity of language, modularity and the language- specific domain. It should be noted that the universal grammar hypothesis (UG) brought a great deal of debate among scholars of language acquisition, even though one of its limitations is that it has no empirical evidence to support it. Tomasellos account, conversely, depends on general skills in language acquisition, such as, joint attention, intention reading and pattern finding skills. Yet he did not provide adequate explanation to convince us that these are sufficient for language acquisition.