Introduction
The three main theories of language development are the nature theory (Chomsky), the nurture theory (Skinner) and the interactionist perspective. Chomsky’s theory points to the innate abilities of individuals to interact through language. This capability is due to a language acquisition device which is a hypothetical mental module that allows humans to learn a language. Skinner’s behaviorist theory of language learning, on the other hand, holds that it is learned through reinforcement and punishment. Behaviorists believe that children learn language by observing and copying the linguistic patterns they hear around them. The interactionist perspective combines aspects of both theories. It is necessary to analyze both theories and note that language as an instrument of communication is a product of both approaches, namely, both nature and behavioral and educational factors.
Skinner’s Theory and Chomsky’s Critique
Chomsky clearly elaborates on the connection between nature and language learning. There is no doubt that language can be acquired through nature and children mostly learn through it. Arguing that language is exclusively a product of nature, as Chomsky does, is to ignore the important role that culture and society play in shaping language. In fact, scientists have found that both nature and nurture are necessary for language acquisition (Yang et al., 2017). Children need exposure to language to learn it, but they similarly need certain genetic traits in order to be able to gain expertise in it. Therefore, while Chomsky may be right that nature plays a role in language acquisition, he is wrong to dismiss the role of nurture altogether (Yang et al., 2017). Additionally, for individuals to progress from simple grunting and gestures to expressing complex ideas, they must be exposed to a rich linguistic environment.
Similarly, there is concrete research that supports the idea that people learn through nature. One such example is a study that showed that infants would imitate an action they see someone else do (Yang et al., 2017). For example, the infants were more likely to imitate someone who was reaching for an object out of their scope than someone who was not trying to get the object (Yang et al., 2017). It is innate skills that, according to the study, contribute to the development of children’s ability to use the language.
Alternatively, language is something that is greatly affected by nurture. How a person is raised can strongly contribute to the way they learn. For example, if a child grows up in a household where Spanish is spoken, it is highly likely they will learn to speak Spanish themselves. On the other hand, if a child grows up hearing only English, chances are they will only know how to speak English (Mulyani, 2019). There is no doubt that language can be acquired through nurture; after all, babies are able to learn a language without any prior experience.
The interactionist perspective of language acquisition suggests that humans learn language through social interactions with other people. This perspective is based on the idea that humans are social animals who need to communicate with others in order to survive and thrive (Mulyani, 2019). According to the interactionist perspective, children learn language by observing and imitating the people around them. They hear the words that people use and then start using these words themselves. In addition, children learn language by observing the gestures and facial expressions of the people around them (Mulyani, 2019). The interactionist perspective emphasises the importance of social interaction in learning the language.
Outside of behaviorism, Chomsky’s article is considered a classic and is cited as decisive evidence of the failure of behaviorism as a general concept of animal and human behavior. A number of authors consider the review not only a criticism of Skinner’s book, but a fundamental text of cognitive psychology. Smith argued that the review “laid the foundation for modern mentalistic linguistics and cognitive science in general” (Zhou, 2020, p. 56). Mehler concluded that “the decline of behaviorism seems to be connected with the birth of modern psycholinguistics” (Zhou, 2020, p. 59). However, it should be noted that it is impossible to unambiguously interpret only one of the theories and approaches as correct.
Based on the above analysis, it is necessary to find out that the language is formed and is an instrument at the same time when both approaches are combined. In other words, both behaviorism and cognitive psychology are the sources of language as a human complex mechanism aimed at communication and perception of the world (Zhou, 2020). Skinner and Chomsky agreed on the main aspects of language, including the influence of context on the understanding of meaning and the importance of language for self-awareness and personal experience (Zhou, 2020). Even if Skinner’s account is reductionist, it does not rule out the causal relationships that characterize “verbal behavior.”
The nature of language is such that only the behavior and cognitive skills of an individual in the aggregate can influence both its formation and changes. This is explained by the fact that language is understood not only as a set of letters, sounds and meanings, but slang, tones, and style (Louwerse, 2021). If the cognitive principle is perceived as the only possible factor influencing the development of speech and writing, then a serious omission is allowed (Louwerse, 2021). For example, members of the marginal classes, poor families, and cities have distinctive characteristics, such as the lack of pronunciation of certain letters, speech defects, and a particular style. It means vernacular, mat, a large number of phraseological units and interjections. The manner of the rhea differs from the upbringing of the individual, and this refers not only to the parents, but to the environmental environment as a whole (Louwerse, 2021). However, Chomsky’s cognitive approach does not take these factors into account, which casts doubt on the correctness of his reasoning.
However, it must be emphasized that Skinner’s point of view by itself cannot be correct either. The fact is that numerous experiments were carried out according to the criteria set by the researcher. The results refuted Skinner’s point of view, pointing only to the scientist’s absolute correctness (Louwerse, 2021). Some authors note that both Chomsky’s and Skinner’s analyzes are not necessarily mutually exclusive and may even complement each other (Louwerse, 2021). Both theories are successful in their own way in prediction and are developed within the framework of their own research programs. Therefore, it was concluded that the choice of theory is associated with value judgments (Louwerse, 2021). Finally, it is worth emphasizing that the behavioral and cognitive approaches are not fundamentally contradictory to each other, but can be combined (Louwerse, 2021). This leads to the fact that the language must be considered as a consequence of two approaches at once.
Conclusion
As a conclusion, it is necessary to note once again that Skinner’s theory has enough gaps and conventions, therefore it was rightly criticized by Chomsky. At the same time, one cannot ignore the categorical nature of the latter in that it assumes the cognitive skills of the individual as the only possible preconditions for the formation of a language. The fact is that the language has an extensive, complex and dynamic structure, which is characterized by interaction with a large number of factors. Therefore, the most correct conclusion is that the mechanism of communication depends not only on the behavior of the individual and his upbringing, but on the nature.
References
Louwerse, M. (2021). Keeping those words in mind. How language creates meaning. Prometheus.
Mulyani, P. K. (2019). Innatist and interactionist learning approaches of elementary school students’ language acquisition. Humaniora, 31(1), 14. Web.
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103-119. Web.
Zhou, F. (2020). Models of the human in twentieth-century linguistic theories. System, order, creativity. Springer Nature Singapore.