Theories of Language A Panoramic Confusion!!!

The current knowledge of language development includes a large amount of

theory, research, and debate from a variety of fields. These include psychology,
philosophy, sociology, linguistics, medicine, computers, biology, neurology, speech
and language pathology, education etc. What is known about language has come
far in recent decades due to a recent flurry (burst) of activity in these disciplines,
and as a result of the interdisciplinary sharing of information between the groups.
Still, there are many questions.
The nature-nurture debate rages, as do arguments regarding the pros and
cons of specific theories of language acquisition. The search for autisms (a disorder
of

neural

development characterized

by

impaired social

interaction and verbal and non-verbal communication, and by restricted, repetitive

or stereotyped behavior) elusive cure has gained unprecedented heights of
popularity. And, how has language evolved? Or has it? To what extent, if any, does
language precede thought? These and similar quests have sparked considerable
debate but little consensusand one large question still looms: Is it possible to
devise a systematic way to teach language?
Recent theorists and researchers have lined up to either support their favorite
traditional theories or to develop unique descriptions of language that may
provide insightful clues into answering some of the existing questions. Theory of
minds relevance in recent explanations of autism is one such example (BaronCohen, Leslie, and Frith, 1985).
The number of other language theories is extensive. An incomplete list of
these theories range from behaviorism, Chomskys nativist theories (universal
grammar, principles and parameters, minimalism, etc.), connectionism, optimality
theory,

Vygotskys

social

interactionism,

Piagets

cognitive

constructivism,

information processing theory, neural network models, interactionist approaches

such as Bruners LASS and Bates and MacWhinneys functionalism; and models that
stress pragmatics, such as speech acts theory and Grices conversational maxims.
This list doesnt even include more philosophical models such as structuralism,
semiotics, logical positivism, Freges direct reference theory, or Wittgensteins
picture theory; waning models such as case grammar, pivot grammar, and the
1

semantic relations approach; or many of the more recent theories being promoted
and debated in specific circles; including Ullmans dual systems model, Jerry
Fodors language of thought (mentalese), Tomasellos usage based grammar,
Jackendoffs conceptual semantics, and Sperber and Wilsons relevance theory.
Many drawbacks exist to the language teacher when attempting to use
current research and theory in functional practice. An obvious drawback is that
there are likely too many theories to choose from. Having a wide selection of
options often obscures the availability of the best option (Schwartz, 2004). Also,
because so much of the theories exist as explanations of hidden processes, they
tend to be so general that teaching assumptions dont apply across categories of
language or from individual to individual. Connectionist ideas may inspire treatment
relevant to semantics, such as graphs and webs.

An instructor could teach

implications and sarcasm as implied in pragmatic theories or one may use

underpinnings from theory of mind explanations to inspire joint attention and
reciprocal turn taking.
While these explanations apply to specific parts of language, others dont
even apply to instruction at all. How would you teach optimality theory to a
preschooler? And

beyond

futuristic

gene

manipulation,

improving

universal

grammar is impossible. The time and resource limitations involved in using

evidence based practice in language therapy have been eloquently discussed in
Brackenberry, Burroughs, and Hewitt, 2008. Compounding difficulties greatly is the
predominance of some theories (nativist) that work from the assumption that
because grammar is analogous (similar) to an organ that grows, it cant be taught
(Chomsky, 1980).
That no one language acquisition theory has been settled upon indicates that
no one method of language teaching can currently be deemed the best.