See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/312474843

Language: Nativism

Chapter · September 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 7,549

1 author:

David S. Smith
Robert Gordon University
18 PUBLICATIONS   50 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by David S. Smith on 09 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

N
Nativism
David Smith
Psychology, BPP University, London, UK
Synonyms
Language acquisition device; Universal grammar
Definition
Language is an innate faculty which humans are
biologically prepared to develop in contrast to
other species.
Introduction
Naturalistic accounts of language acquisition,
such as Chomsky’s linguistic nativism, claim
that our capacity for producing and understanding
verbal correspondence is coded into our brains
from birth. On its conception, in his 1959 review
of Skinner’s Verbal Learning, this type of expla-
nation stood in contrast to the dominant empiricist
views emphasizing learning and conditioning.
Previously, researchers had explained linguistic
development as a product of external variables,
equating it to the vocalizations of other animals.
A knowledge of grammar was then believed to be
derived from domain general learning
# Springer International Publishing AG 2016
T.K. Shackelford, V.A. Weekes-Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_3355-1
mechanisms, with individuals’ capacities for lan-
guage originating from the conditions of their
physical environment. The nativist perspective
challenged a prevailing focus on simplistic causal
explanations for linguistic development. Instead it
addressed the complex organs that allow for lan-
guage to be produced and comprehended.
Accordingly, though the specifics of a language
were learned, the human capacity for it was
thought to be the product of at least one species
specific, genetically endowed, unit. That sugges-
tion marked a paradigm shift in how linguists
regarded the internal processes that determine
language production and comprehension, and is
sometimes credited with spurring the cognitive
revolution.
Key Concepts
The nativist hypothesis reasons that language fac-
ulties emerge as organically as an ability to walk,
with children’s brains calibrated to extract content
from limited samples of communication. Dedi-
cated linguistic modules are therefore considered
a fundamental part of the human genome. Thus
rather than thinking of infants as blank slates,
nativists characterize them as information proces-
sors in possession of an internal knowledge of
syntax i.e., the principles and processes which
govern form. Ergo people’s capacity for organiz-
ing language is treated largely independent of that
which they encounter in their surrounding worlds.
2 Nativism
Chomksy (1980) notes that often a child’s
knowledge of grammar greatly exceeds the inputs
and reinforcement they are given. Moreover, their
daily use of language will often comprise novel
strings of words that have not been previously
spoken by or to them. They will also achieve
their creative expertise despite rarely encounter-
ing negative evidence i.e., information regarding
which strings of utterances are not grammatical.
These occurrences make it infeasible that their
language capacity is learned through habituation.
Instead, despite the relative poverty of their stim-
ulus, their brains must have an inherent means to
generatively order its limited vocabulary into, or
respond to, a seemingly infinite variety of combi-
nations. Hence they can identify Chomksy’s cre-
ation “colorless green ideas sleep furiously” as
grammatically plausible despite it being semanti-
cally meaningless and the odds of them hearing it
prior being improbable.
Chomsky (1980) labelled the chief tool, to this
acquisition process, universal grammar. This term
refers to a set of instinctive language-general prin-
ciples of categories, mechanisms, and constraints
including the ability to distinguish nouns from
verbs, or function words from lexical words.
One principle is syntax being dependent on struc-
ture rather than sequence. In English, a question
form of the statement “Dean Robertson will cross
the road” sees the third word shifted to before the
first and second, to become “will Dean Robertson
cross the road?” However, the same technique
applied to “the slow chicken will cross the road”
results in the ungrammatical form “chicken the
slow will cross the road?” Inconsistencies such
as this necessitate that speakers have a knowledge
of structural components, rather than relying on
linearity for clarity. In these examples, “Dean
Robertson” and “the slow chicken” are both
noun phrases, despite their variable forms.
Whereas “will” is future-interrogative and so
needs to be moved to the beginning in order to
form a question.
Also included in universal grammar are param-
eters, referring to language-specific variations.
For example, English is head-initial, with a noun
of verb preceding compliments in the same
phrase, while Japanese is head-final. It is these
specifications that allow speakers to create syn-
tactically correct sentences that elucidate the rela-
tionships between subjects. The continuity
assumption (Pinker 1994) suggests these innate
parameters are reliable throughout people’s lives
meaning, once developed, young children’s syn-
tactic competence matches that of adults. The
amount and scope of principles and parameters
are still subject to rigorous debate, with
researchers estimating there being anything from
tens to hundreds.
Chomsky draws a parallel between thought
and language, conceptualizing the latter to be a
means of externalizing the former. In doing so he
reverses the Aristotelian view of speech as sound
with meaning, by labelling it meaning with sound.
Yet he stops short of analyzing its adaptive origins
in terms of the specific demands it had to meet.
Other researchers have attempted to tackle this
issue, so as to align knowledge of why humans
have language with how it works. Notably, Dun-
bar (1993) explored its origins as a means to allow
for vocal grooming, or gossip, by permitting
simultaneous interactions between multiple mem-
bers of a social group. Pinker (1994) agrees with
language being an instinct akin to spiders weaving
webs or beavers constructing dams. Though he
suggests its purpose was to meet the reliance on
knowledge that would have been crucial to the
continued survival of hunter-gatherer societies.
What both of these theories have in common is
they support the nativist model in suggesting that
language acquisition is not a byproduct of general
learning tools.
This is not to suggest language acquisition is
inevitable under nativist accounts. Rather, it has
been claimed that children require access to sam-
ples of a naturally occurring inputs to initially
stimulate the process. Lenneberg (1967) specu-
lated a salient role of biological age, anticipating
a critical period for language acquisition between
18 months and early puberty most people. Similar
phenomena have been seen in cross-species, with
researchers determining the effects that the timing
of relevant environmental inputs can have on how
attuned an organism’s capacities are to the envi-
ronment it has been exposed to e.g., imprinting in
young animals. As per Chomsky’s nativism, this
Nativism
theory suggests language occurs through matura-
tion instead of feedback. Lenneberg argued that
this constraint is owed to a decrease in neural
plasticity following hemispheric lateralization,
where evidence for lateralization in language is
robust.
Outside such a timetable, a child will be neither
able to learn, nor meaningfully produce, language
regardless of the inputs that follow. But provided
this threshold is reached then they ought to learn it
without a need for formal tuition. While the crit-
ical period has since been revised to a sensitive
one, following some exceptional data, there
appears to be a consensus that age is a key issue
in learning a first language.
Evidence for Linguistic Nativism
The best evidence of linguistic nativism is in the
seemingly streamlined process by which lan-
guage, including sign, is acquired. From any
other species, the most intelligent member would
be unable to achieve that which we expect from
any normally developing one of our own.
Whether they are raised in a small mountain vil-
lage, or a vast metropolis, children encounter
equivalent milestones in the same order, despite
often considerable variance among their inputs
where Brown (1973). Their use will also be crea-
tive and not necessarily tied to a context, like the
communication systems of other animals empiri-
cists had thought analogous. It would be difficult
to explain this humanity-wide mutual incidence,
and the resultant grammatical consensuses,
through nonbiological models. A uniform sched-
ule, regardless of the quality of exposure, there-
fore hints at an innate underlying cause.
Furthermore, to test the poverty of the stimulus
argument Marcus (1993) explored the feedback
that young speakers receive. In outlining the inad-
equate responses, that corrected meaning over
grammar, he suggested internal factors and an
innate knowledge must be crucial to constraining
their generalizations e.g., past tense errors like
“maked” or “goed.”
A biological premise for language is further
supported by consistent patterns of specific
3
linguistic faculties being deleteriously impacted,
following damage to particular neurological
regions, despite other cognitive capacities
remaining intact (Hickok and Poeppel 2007).
Modern imaging techniques, along with neuro-
psychological data, have revealed a network of
regions specialized to comprehending language
or articulation. Popular examples include the
frontotemporal region, being localized to enunci-
ation, the posterior temporal area being linked to
understanding and the bridging tract to repetition.
Combined these deficits reinforce language as a
natural phenomenon, by highlighting a network of
neurological substrates selectively dedicated to its
function in the absence of obvious associations
with other abilities.
Tragic childhood neglect stories suggest that
the roles of these regions are subject to a sensitive
period (discussed in Pinker 1994). Famously,
Genie was rescued from prolonged isolation at
age 13. While she regained some of her language
capacities, including basic syntax and an ever-
growing vocabulary, she was unable to apply or
follow complex grammatical features. This deficit
continued despite her being subject to a stimulus-
rich environment which actively encouraged her
to learn: something that would have nurtured her
abilities according to empiricist accounts. In con-
trast, Isabelle was saved aged six and a half and
was soon able to learn language and to use it as
meaningfully as her peers. There are ambiguities
surrounding the specific role of trauma, or the
condition of each subject prior to their mistreat-
ment. Even so, the stark difference in recovery
between these examples advocates the existence
of a time restricted window important for normal
development.
A more routine illustration of the same phe-
nomenon can be found in adults acquiring a sec-
ond language, with some data showing a linear
relationship between age of learning and subse-
quent struggles (Patkowski 1980). This line of
research is considerably less conclusive than the
case studies, with many notable instances of
learners beginning in adulthood and still achiev-
ing fluency. Nevertheless, it is generally acknowl-
edged that some aspects, such as picking up the
native accent, are limited to children being raised
4 Nativism
with a second language and not adults gaining
one. For that reason it may be the neuromuscular
components, such as phonology and pronuncia-
tion, which are subject to a sensitive period versus
the contents of speech per se (Singleton 1995).
However, comparisons with the unguided charac-
ter of first language acquisition are potentially
limited since adults learning a second language
will typically do so intentionally.
Conclusion
Chomsky’s seminal 1950s critique of empiricism
provided a new layer of analysis for thinking
about language, arguing that previous means had
proven inadequate. Here, he extended a topic most
frequently thought of through the lens of observ-
able patterns and conditioning into an area ripe for
interdisciplinary research. In particular, he called
for a computational approach to linguistics that
emphasized the species-exclusive nature of its
bestowal. Universal grammar is a concrete theory
that can be used to explain recurrent findings in
the linguistics literature, including standardized
procurement and selective dysfunction following
lesions. That a young boy will learn to talk, in a
way that his puppy never will, ties the aptitude to
our unique biology. But prior to Chomsky, there
was minimal consideration of its relative contri-
bution or the mechanisms that may underlie
it. Nativism changed this by adding modularity
to the lexicon with which language, along with
how other cognitive functions, was thought about.
The details of this model, along with its evolu-
tionary source and the comparative role of culture,
are still hotly contested today. Nonetheless, the
View publication stats
framework provides a means to better understand
how humans are able to generate speech so effort-
lessly, be it for the most urgent or trivial matters.
Cross-References
▶ Language Acquisition
▶ Noam Chomsky
▶ The Language Modularity
References
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages.
London: George Allen & Unwin.
Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of verbal behavior by
B. F. Skinner. Language, 35, 26–57.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size,
group size and language in humans. Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 16(4), 681–735.
Hickok, G., & Poeppel, D. (2007). The cortical organiza-
tion of speech processing. Nature Reviews Neurosci-
ence, 8, 393–402.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of lan-
guage. New York: Wiley.
Marcus, G. (1993). Negative evidence in language acqui-
sition. Cognition, 46, 53–85.
Patkowski, M. S. (1980). The sensitive period for the
acquisition of syntax in a second language. Language
Learning, 30(2), 449–468.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: Wil-
liam Morrow and Co.
Singleton, D. (1995). A critical look at the critical period
hypothesis in second language acquisition research. In
D. Singleton & Z. Lengyel (Eds.), The age factor in
second language acquisition: A critical look at the
critical period hypothesis (pp. 1–29). Clevedon: Mul-
tilingual Matters.