Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
(5.2) Theories of Language acquisition in relation to beginning reading…
(5.2) Theories of Language acquisition in relation to beginning reading instruction :
Nativist Theories
Lenneberg (1967) proposes a theory of language acquisition heavily buttressed by biological evidence from studies of normal language development in children and of abnormal language development brought about congenitally, as in nanocephalic dwarfism, or environmentally, as in brain damage or aphasia
He elaims that language acquisition is a natural activity, much as learning to walk is a natural activity.
A major requirement for any theory of language acquisition is that it explain a known phenomenon, which means that theories of development must be related to particular grammatical analyses, to particular theories about language itself.
Learning, as this term is traditionally defined, is not involved. Instead, Lenneberg carefully locks language acquisition into the general biological development of the organism.
McNeill (1966, 1968, 1970a, 1970b) He says that anyone who wishes to study the problem of language acquisition must begin with a knowledge of what it is that the child must acquire
The learning mechanisms, such as certain modes of perception, abilities in categorization, and capacities for transformation, are biologically given
McNeill (1966, 1968, 1970a, 1970b) He says that anyone who wishes to study the problem of language acquisition must begin with a knowledge of what it is that the child must acquire
Atheoretical Studies
Language acquisition is the process by which huma n beings acquire the ability to perceive and understand language, as well as to produce and use words and sentences to communicate.
"First words" are pronounced at a characteristic time, grammatical distinctions are "acquired," often by eliminating various "errors," and vocabularies "expand" as the child's dictionary gains entries.
They insist that it is im- possible to describe language acquisition without first spelling out either a spec ific theory of language or a general theory of learning.
Cognitive Theories
In general cognitive and mental development is the critical determinant of language acquisition.
Like Fodor (1966), Slobin (1966a, 196613). They says: It seems to me that the child is born not with a set of linguistic categories but with some sort of process mechanism-a set of procedures and inference rules, if you will-that he uses to process linguistic data.
Slobin is a cognitivelearning theorist who regards the human learner as an active participant in learning rather than as a relatively passive reactor to external stimuli
Cromer (1968) provides further evidence of the role of cognitive abilities in determining the language the child can use.
Linguistically-oriented Theories Versus Learning-oriented Theories
The child must bring to the language learning situation some amount of intrinsic structure. This structure may take the form of general learning principles or it may take the form of rela- tively detailed and language- specific information about the kind of grammatical system that underlies natural languages. But what cannot be denied is that any o rganis m that extrapolates from its experience does so on the basis of principles that are not them- selves supplied by the experience. (1966:106)
Behavioristic Theories
In his book Verbal Behavior (1957), Skinner proposes acompre
hensive theory of language acquisition and language behavior in which specific linguistic behaviors are acquired through operant onditioning and then extended through response generalization
The theory proposed by Staats and Staats involves the learning of a finite set of responses according to certain probabilities of occurrence.
Chomsky, declaring that:
A refusal to study the contribution of the child to language learning permits only a superficial account of language acquisi- tion, with a vast and unanalyzed contribution attributed to a step called ’ generalization’ which in fact includes just about every- thing of interest in this process. If the study of language is lim- ited in these ways, it seems inevitable that major aspects of verbal behavior will remain a mystery. (1959:58)
Garrett and Fodor (1968) argue, the facts of language are abstractions which children must acquire from masses of highly variable data.
Braine (1963a, 1963b , 1965 ) If there is a possibility that the simpler or two possible gramatical solutions might require the more complex acquisition theory, then the domain over which simplicity is taken cannot be restricted to grammar alone and must include acquisition theoryotherwise the grammarian merely purehases simplicity at the psychologist’s expense. (1965:491).
Bever, Fodor, and Weksel (1965a, 1965b), they say that the child must learn abstract structures for which no word order patterns exist in the data to which he is exposed.
Jenkins and Palermo (1964), they propose that the child learns the stimulus and response equivalences that can occur in the frames. They heavily emphasize imitation, either overt or covert, as a force in establishing bonds between stimuli and responses, and they claim that the child generalizes to form classes of responses. However, they do not explain how control of such classes allows the child to construct longer sentences.
