Language Acquisition Device and the Origin of Language

Briana Sobecks
In the early twentieth century, psychologists re- a particular language, the universal grammar can be refined
alized that language is not just understanding words, but to fit a specific language. Even if some children may hear a
also requires learning grammar, syntax, and semantics. specific language pattern more than others, the fact that all
Modern language is incredibly complex, but young chil- children know it indicates a poss ble innate language sense.
dren can understand it remarkably well. This idea supports One of Chomsky’s main tenants in his LAD theory
Chomsky’s idea that language learning is innate. According is the Poverty of Stimulus argument. Though children do
to his hypothesis, young children receive “primary linguistic collect data to learn a language, it is unlikely that the data
data” from what is spoken around them, which helps them they are exposed to is enough to master an entire lan-
develop knowledge of that specific language (Cowie 2008). guage. Instead, they must infer grammatical rules through
Children passively absorb language from adults, peers, an internal sense. There are several cognitive factors that
and exposure to media. However, this data is not sufficient support this argument. Underdetermination states that the
to explain how children can learn unique constructions finite data is applicable in infinite situations. In context,
of words and grammar patterns. Previously structuralists this means that children utilize the finite amount of data
created a list of “phrase structure rules” to generate all they hear to generate any possible sentence. Degeneracy is
possible grammar patterns. However, Chomsky argued that another important factor. In regular speech, people often
grammar must also include “transformations” that combine use abbreviated or grammatically incorrect sentences, yet
old sentence patterns and reorganize them. He called these children still learn proper grammar. Idiosyncrasy is a third
patterns “generative grammars.” For a child to understand concept. Every child is exposed to a different sample of
patterns of this complexity, their language ability must be sentences, yet they all develop the same language abilities.
well developed. The primary linguistic data they’re exposed This points to the idea that children possess an innate way
to isn’t enough to give them this complexity. The complexity to interpret these
of language allows Chomsky to refute B.F. Skinner’s hypoth- sentences and gen-
esis that grammar is developed through operant condition- erate grammatical
ing. Too many usages of each individual word are needed patterns. Fourth is
for conditioning to be a viable option. Since people can say positivity, which
and understand unique sentences, language ability must states that children
transcend pure conditioning. Furthermore, the mechanism only learn correct
for operant conditioning is unlikely to take place in a child’s examples, and do
language development. If a child is trying to learn a new not learn that “non-
grammar pattern and makes a mistake, he or she could example” sentences
either be corrected by their parents or hear the sentence are incorrect, since
said by a more competent speaker. However, parents may they are not ex- Figure 1: Chomsky’s LAD theory corresponds with the localization of language

not correct the child, and even if one child hears the correct posed to incorrect skills in several brain regions, including Broca’s and Wernicke’s Areas.

sentence, it is unlikely that all children will hear a similar sentences. In other
phrase. This does not prove that an innate language learning types of learning, examples are paired with counterexam-
faculty exists, but it does strongly disregard operant condi- ples to ensure full understanding of a concept. In addition,
tioning’s role in language development. children do not receive feedback for their sentence usage in
Chomsky proposed a theory of “universal gram- most cases, which contrasts most learning from parents or
mar,” in which all grammar follows certain rules that teachers, in which feedback is used to reinforce or correct
humans implicitly understand. Since the data that a child is behavior (Cowie 2008).
exposed to is finite, but the number of expressions possible Aside from cognitive factors, biological evidence
in language is infinite, there must be a way for a child to supports the LAD hypothesis, since data suggests localiza-
generate new ideas independent of the vocabulary they have tion of language ability to certain regions of the brain. Bro-
encountered. When first developing the theory, Chomsky ca’s area is a section of the brain that is used for speech pro-
thought that children would do a “scientific inquiry” to duction. If this portion of the brain is impaired, then people
investigate the working patterns of language. Later, psy- are unable to utilize complex grammatical paterns. This
chologists created a “parameter setting” model, saying that indicates that Broca’s area could contain a cognitive faculty
the device is a normal part of development, and as children for language development (Cowie 2008). All these observa-
grow, “switches” are activated to further their learning tions indicate the validity of the LAD hypothesis.
(Cowie 2008). Depending on the more specific patterns of Though B.F. Skinner’s theory of cognitive development of
9 Brain Matters Volume 2
grammar because they can pick up on semantics and put all languages, but narrow down to sounds from only their
information into the correct context. According to support- languages as they grow and mature. However, infants aren’t
ers of cognitive language development, children use innate necessarily corrected in their babbling, so the exact reason
perceptual and cognitive skills to learn language, but these why theynarrow down is unclear. One explanation may be
skills are not language-specific, since they allow children to the exposure to their parents’ grammar and speech pat-
earn other interpersonal communication skills. terns. This data can lead to their cognitive development of
When children learn languages, their early lin- language. When parents speak to children, they use simpler
guistic abilities are constrained by their overall cognitive grammar patterns that are easier for them to learn and com-
function. As a child increases their overall cognitive func- prehend. Researchers found that most of children’s verbal-
tion, their language ability increases as well. Like the innate izations are things they have previously said, suggesting that
language theory, the cognitive language theory states that they practice these phrases to encode them in their brains.
language learning ability increases from input data (Behme Just as cognitive linguistic ability is an application of audi-
2008). However, tory learning, it could also be an application of statistical
unlike the innate learning. Statistical learning is a general ability that has been
language theory, observed in other primates, not simply a separate, innate
cognitive language ability in humans. In a study done by Jenny Saffran, young
theory states that children were able to sense the boundaries between words
children do re- and the distribution of speech sounds (Behme 2008). They
ceive negative evi- track that some words correspond to certain objects even
dence in language before they know the meaning of the words, which would
learning. If a child not have to occur if language learning was innate. Babies
says a sentence can also sense patterns in sounds that appear frequently at
Figure 2: A mother reads to her child. As she reads sentences out loud, her daughter
starts to pick up on patterns in the speech rhythms and grammar.
that others do the beginning or the end of a word, which is another way
not understand, for them to learn words.
then the child will realize that their sentence does not make However, the LAD theory is not without problems.
sense. In addition, if a child expects a certain grammar It states that language is too complex for its syntax to be
pattern but never hears it, they will realize that this pattern learned, but this research indicates that children can ob-
is probably incorrect. Parental feedback also shapes a child’s serve these differences through statistical information. Even
linguistic ability. Demetras, Post, and Snow found that young children pick up on patterns like verb endings that
parents will repeat entire correct sentences from their child, distinguish different parts of speech. Though this does not
but will not fully repeat incorrect ones. If they do repeat an disprove the LAD theory, it does act against the poverty of
incorrect sentence, they will say the correct version instead. stimulus argument.
Children are more likely to repeat their parent’s corrections Another theory
of incorrect sentences than to say the incorrect sentence of cognitive development,
again. posed by John Macnamara,
According to cognitive psychologists, cognitive suggests that an infant
development allows young children to learn complex gram- learns meaning and lan-
mar patterns because the development process starts early, guage independently, and
even before birth. Fetuses can respond to sound at only 22 later combines them as they
weeks old, and will postnatally recognize passages that were mature. Macnamara defines
read to them while in the womb (Behme 2008). Newborn meaning as any idea that a
infants pick up on their own language more than other ones person can express through
only a few days after birth. They are able to discriminate be- language, while the language
tween languages with different rhythmic patterns, and can itself is a collection of rules
discriminate their own language from others after several and structures that are used
months. Since this ability takes time to develop, it suggests to convey this meaning.
that language learning is not innate in itself. Instead, it de- Speech is a way to convey
velops out of their innate auditory ability. this meaning (MacNamara Figuer 3: A young boy plays with a toy truck. The boy knows that
this is a “truck,” but cannot recognize it as a “toy.”
Studies have indicated that very young babies 1972). Language and mean-
can learn patterns of speech, suggesting that the language ing are almost always com-
learning process follows the same process of learning other bined, but they are two separate ideas.For example, individ-
things. Though young children learn language at an early uals with underdeveloped cognitive function are still able to
age, it takes time for them to refine it and produce mean- use other cognitive facilities. Assigning words and objects
ingful words. Children start by babbling in sounds from is more complicated than one expects, since there are often
Brain Matters Volume 2 10
multiple words for objects, and it would be difficult to iden-
tify which word is being referenced. If an adult references
a specific object by name directly, the infant will interpret
this as the object’s name. This also occurs even when the
word is not the object name, but is used in the same con-
text. For example, if a parent tells their child not to touch
an object because “It’s hot,” the child will think the object is
called “hot.” After learning names of objects or other nouns,
children tend to learn conditional attributes of an object,
and finally, they learn permanent attributes. Children
initially cannot discriminate between more and less descrip-
tive words. For example, a child will know the word “truck,”
but will not recognize that his truck is also a “toy.” However,
he will also realize that a collection of toys are called “toys.”
He treats “toys” as a separate idea from his truck. Children
learn more abstract words like “and” at a young age, sug-
gesting that they need this word to give meaning to their
thought processes. Many grammar patterns can express
multiple ideas based on context, and many times, the same
ideas can be expressed through multiple grammar patterns.
Children can learn which patterns work in which contexts
if they discover what the sentences mean independent of
learning the grammar patterns.
Overall, there is compelling evidence for both
the innate and cognitive theories of development. There
is heavy evidence showing the development of linguistic
ability through cognitive processes. Yet these processes do
not disprove the existence of a language acquisition de-
vice. However, the poverty of stimulus argument does not
prove its existence, either. Whether or not there is an innate
language device in humans, it is clear that humans possess
a remarkable ability to understand and produce complex
grammar patterns and meaningful sentences.

References

Behme, Christina, and S. Hélène Deacon. “Language Learning in Infancy:

Does the Empirical Evidence Support a Domain Specific Language Acquisition
Device?” Philosophical Psychology, vol. 21, no. 5, 2008, pp. 641–71. Crossref,
doi:10.1080/09515080802412321.

Cowie, Fiona, “Innateness and Language”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philoso-

phy (Fall 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/
archives/fall2017/entries/innateness-language/>.

Dirven, René; Verspoor, Marjolyn. “The Cognitive Basis of Language.” Introduc-

tion to Linguistics, Universität Koblenz-Landau. 2017. Course handout.

MacNamara, John. “Cognitive Basis of Language Learning in Infants.” Psychologi-

cal Review, vol. 79, no. 1, 1972, pp. 1–13. Crossref, doi:10.1037/h0031901.

Images:
“Mother Reading Book to Child.” PickPik, PickPik.com, 2019, https://www.pick-
pik.com/mother-and-daughter-mother-daughter-blue-child-love-52016.

Offringa, Reid. “Basic Sketch of Brain Areas Involved in Language.” Wikimedia

Commons, 9 Jan. 2006, commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Surfacegyri.JPG.

“Young Child Playing with Toy Truck.” PickPik, PickPik.com, 2019, www.pickpik.
com/young-girl-child-playing-outside-toys-150243.
11 Brain Matters Volume 2