Acquisition of Syntax by Children

Acquisition of Syntax by Children

Innateness and Environment in Child Acquisition of Syntax

Understanding how children acquire language has monumental implications for a variety of studies, including psychology, education, and linguistics. When scientists can prove, definitively, how children acquire language, education programs can be designed in order to build off of that initial acquisition. The psychology of the brain and its development will be better understood, allowing scientists to design treatments for those who have developmental and psychological problems. Finally, linguists who understand how children acquire languages will be able to apply that knowledge to other areas of linguistic study, including second-language learning, one of the most practical applications for linguistics outside of the humanities field. It is perhaps the acquisition of syntax that has the most practical application in this field. As children learn to put sentences together, they form internal grammars that can allow linguists to comprehend how this might be done when one is learning a foreign language, as learning individual vocabulary words of a foreign language is not as difficult as putting sentences together. Thus, a study of children's acquisition of syntax not only allows further insight into the mind of the linguistically developing child, but also into the difficult and controversial subject of second language learning and whether or not it is ever possible to learn a second language to the degree of fluency that is attained by native speakers. For this reason, a study of children's acquisition of syntax is not only important, but it is also crucial to the understanding of both child development and second-language learning. This research will discuss the issue of children's acquisition of language from both a linguistic view, questioning the role of both Noam Chomsky's innateness hypothesis and environment or the caregiver in children's acquisition of Syntax.

I. Background

The conflict of nature vs. nurture affects nearly every discipline. Scientists of all varieties question how much of a person's functions, abilities, and conditions are a result of nature, or biology, and how much is a result of nurture, or environment. In the field of linguistics, this conflict is more appropriately named innateness, or universal grammar vs. environment. The former was proposed by noted linguist Noam Chomsky, who suggested the "innateness hypothesis," which argued that "children are equipped with an innate template or blueprint for language," a concept dubbed universal grammar (Fromkin et al., 2007, p. 319). Chomsky's theory was a reaction to earlier behaviorist principals that suggested language was learned through three principal methods -- imitation, reinforcement, and analogy (Fromkin et al., 2007, p. 314-318). Based on the fact that observations had proved that children learning different languages across the world all seemed to follow the same principals of language acquisition, Chomsky argued that "language is complex, cognitive system that could not be acquired by behaviorist principals" (Fromkin et al., 2007, p. 314).

Although it seems rather complex, Chomsky's innateness hypothesis is perhaps the most easily obtained explanation of children's ability to learn a language. Human beings are programmed with a whole host of cognitive abilities when they are born. We have the instinct to suck, learn how to walk without necessarily being taught, and can think without lessons in how to do so, although we may need training or a specific environment to learn how to think critically, analyze deeply, or produce philosophical arguments. Chomsky's hypothesis simply suggests that language is similar to these other innate abilities that humans can achieve through cognition. In fact, in 1973, Golinkoff noted that children's ability to comprehend and acquire language might be linked to other types of cognitive acquisition, such as the agent -- recipient relationship. Still, Chomsky's theory of language acquisition is the most commonly accepted theory regarding the subject. The theory applies to children's development of words, morphology, and sentences, or syntax. Children also develop meaning, semantics, through properties of language acquisition. But can Chomsky's innateness hypothesis alone really explain how children acquire language? Does this mean that children will acquire language in the same way whether they live with parents who encourage them in developing their linguistic skills or parents who do not see the value of this reinforcement? Considering specifically the acquisition of semantics, I argue that children's language acquisition is a combination of both nature -- or innateness -- and nurture -- or environment.