ARRIETA, Laurena Mae J.

2018-12089

Task #3 – Theories on the Nature of Language

The Behaviorist, Empiricist, or Structuralist Theory suggests that language acquisition is

based on conditioning (Shormani, 2014). This theory maintained that language acquisition is a
habit-forming process, which Skinner then compared with how rats and chimpanzees
responded to reinforcement. This further emphasized that language acquisition is unconscious
and that certain behaviors are acquired through exposure and conditioning. A prime example of
this is how children learn how to read and speak; in teaching in the early grades, teachers would
come up with rewards to get students to read aloud (amongst other things), which will condition
the child to perform in a satisfactory manner to receive such awards.
I personally believe that this theory is correct although in my readings, I have seen that it
is quite controversial with linguists. While I do agree that conditioning is not always applicable to
how children learn languages, it is important to understand that language is a result of a series
of habits and mannerisms that we may see as “conditioning” because exposure to something,
with reinforcement or not, is conditioning.
The Nativist Theory argues that language learning is a far more complex learning than
what the behaviorist theory suggests and that language learning is in-born and innate to the
child. This theory believes that there is a theoretical device in our brain known as the Language
Acquisition Device (LAD) and there is what we call a universal grammar that is essentially part
of an individual’s genetic make-up. This innate ability to learn language aspect of this theory
would explain why humans are capable of a higher kind of communication than other beings.
I stand by the Nativist Theory for this has potentially given answers to certain questions
about the human ability to learn language. Although the Language Acquisition Device is at this
point in time, a theoretical device located in the brain, I would argue that there really is
something in the human brain that permits language learning that other species do not have
access to. I believe that if there is such a thing, we would owe it to evolution. However, what I
did not particularly like about this theory is that it did not study children and their interaction with
carers and everything about the theory is theoretical. Having such evidences would have
supplemented Chomsky’s claims further.
The Cognitive Theory as theorized by Piaget, argued that a child has to understand a
certain concept before he is able to communicate words related to said concept. This places the
ability to acquire language in the context of a child’s cognitive development (Montsaye
Academy, n.d.).
I have nothing much to say about the cognitive theory as I do not believe in it. Much is to
be said about the limitations it places on the capability of a child to demonstrate a higher
language ability than their current cognitive disposition and how it undermines said capability.
Also, as the child continues to develop past the 18-month mark, the correlation becomes harder
to make and observe.
The Constructivist Theory is the opposite of the Behaviorist Theory (Asia e University,
2012) and argued that the role of the child is to discover the world through experience and the
reflection of those experiences. The child is in-charge of what they make of these experiences,
hence the word construct.
Although the constructivist theory is a response to the behaviorist theory, I think it holds
true that experiences and what we make of these experiences help us understand and
communicate deeper with people with the same shared experiences. Although they are
opposites of each other, it is interesting to see that the nature of language isn’t just one-sided
and absolute.
The Sociological Theory argues that children have the innate desire to communicate with
the world around them (Khan Academy, 2015) . To put it simply, the desire to be perceived by
the world around them motivates the speaker to learn the language to be able to be understood
and heard. This results in a reciprocal process of communication where a back and forth
between individuals is observed.
As I have expressed in Task #2, I believe that language should be placed in a social
context and this theory perfectly encapsulates the idea I had that language emerged and
continues to exist due to social necessity.
“Connectionism is a movement in cognitive science that hopes to explain intellectual
abilities using artificial neural networks (also known as “neural networks” or “neural nets”).”
(Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 1997) The Connectionist Theory explores these neural
networks and its connections with language learning. In simple terms, this theory examines how
words are uttered and used through the exploration of neural networks or neural nets.
This theory is a bit too complex for me since it has been a long time since I studied
neurology, but in my understanding of the texts I have read, the stimuli created by the desire to
communicate is then diverted into a complex network of neurons, thereby producing the words
needed for communication. With my understanding of how neurons work, I would have to agree
that this comes into play during language learning.
The six theories all have described the nature of language that align with what I think the
nature of language is. I think that these theories alone would not suffice or be all encompassing;
some theories lack supplementation that other theories can provide. I think the best combination
of theories that would be consistent with what I think the nature of language is is the Innatist
Theory together with the Connectivist Theory. These both deal with the brain and somehow, it
made sense to me to have them grouped together.
To sum it all up, to some extent, I agree with all of the theories on the nature of
language. It is worth noting that some are more theoretical than others especially the Nativist
theory and that more could have been expounded if only the author researched on the
relationship between the child and the carer.

REFERENCES:

1. Asia e University. (n.d.) Learning theories- behaviorism.

http://peoplelearn.homestead.com/BEduc/Chapter_6.pdf. Accessed on 20
October 2012
2. Khan Academy. (2015). Theories on the early stages of language acquisition.
https://www.khanacademy.org/test-prep/mcat/processing-the-environment
/language/a/theories-of-the-early-stages-of-language-acquisition#:~:text=
 The%20interactionist%20approach%20(sociocultural%20theory,is%20de
pendent%20upon%2C%20social%20interaction.
3. Montsaye Academy (n.d.) Theories of language acquisition.
https://www.montsaye.northants.sch.uk/assets/Uploads/English-Languag
e-Summer-Work-2.pdf
4. Shormani, M. (2014). Mentalo-Behaviorist approach to language acquisition.
http://dx.doi.org/10.12785/jtte/020201
5. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (1997). Connectionism.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/connectionism/#ConSemSim