The Spanish journal of psychology, 2004

Following Noam Chomsky’s 1959 critical analysis of the Empiricist BF Skinner, in his now famous book about language acquisition ‘Verbal Behaviour’, Chomsky developed the generative theory of language acquisition (LA). From which Chomsky eventually proposes the concept of ‘Universal Grammar’ (UG). Since then a number of other key approaches have been theorized, which argue both for and against the validity and defining terminology of Chomsky’s seminal ‘Nativist’ work. The late 1960’s and early 1970’s saw a resurgence in the Functionalist (a school of the ‘cognitive behavioural analysis’) approach to LA, and Chomsky himself has also been instrumental in refining and redefining his conceptions to address criticisms and enhance his original theory to encompass the vast array of divergent linguistic study that has followed his original theory of UG. These two renowned approaches to understanding LA were not operating in isolation, other researchers were at the same time, providing important and ground-breaking ideas enhancing the understanding of LA, the Generative and Functional approaches remain the most influential and overarching schools of thought into how LA occurs. This paper investigates theories related to the early stages of LA, the ongoing influence of Skinner’s ‘Empiricist’ and Chomsky’s ‘Nativist’ theories and touches on how the fundamental ideas in these conceptual frameworks have been refined by later linguistics research. Have the considerably diversifying modern approaches to tackling the science of LA, managed to reinforce or refute Chomsky’s and Skinner’s theories? The conclusion to this paper will consider whether these concepts are indeed mutually exclusive?

Philosophical Papers, 2023

The present essay aims at critically evaluating Chomskyan position on language acquisition as it affects the age-old nature-nurture debate in philosophy. The Chomskyan arguments have been found to be problematic as they undermine the role of experience with the native language input to which all humans are exposed as a matter of their day-to-day upbringing in any society. The primary role of experience for Chomskyans is just to trigger one of the options from a genetically prespecified list of possible values and language acquisition is often talked in terms of growth of bodily organs rather than because of learning. The trouble however is that Chomskyans have been found to be wanting in specifying the processes which their account would require for realization of the purported goal of mastery of one’s native language and such lacuna in their accounts is never adequately addressed. When we look at the process of language acquisition and empirical facts surrounding it, then we find that no satisfactory account appears possible without taking cognizance of the role of the linguistic input and mechanisms involved in processing it. Consideration of these facts tends to considerably strengthen the neuroconstructivist account as articulated by Karmiloff-Smith and others as a more plausible and satisfactory approach for understanding the process of language acquisition.

2013

Is language a capacity originating primarily from the brain, or a system originating primarily from the environment? Is it “genetically endowed and readymade” or “environmentally fashioned and evolving”? In other words, is it the progeny of innate knowledge of some kind latent in the brain, or the progeny of the environment of the child; or is it neither this nor that; or more than this and that? This article is meant to explore and investigate these questions. In doing so, the article explores a number of theories in the field of first and second language acquisition; theories such as those advocated by Bloomfield, Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday.