 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Overview
The Natural Approach
Application
From Theory to PracticeHow to Apply the ApproachHow We Applied ItTreatment of ErrorsTheory
Language Acquisition TheoriesLA Theories (Part 2)LA Theories (Part 3)LA Theories (Part 4)Computers and L2 Acquisition
CALL and AcquisitionComputer Supported LearningThe Role of Innate Knowledge
Innate Knowledge in L1 and L2Plato and ChomskyDomain Specific or GeneralPiaget and SkinnerNativismWanna ContractionUniversal GrammarTurkish LearnersSummaryThe Role of Receptive Skills
From Reception to ProductionStudiesExperimental DesignLeisure Time ActivitiesConclusionOnline Sources
The Internet TESL JournalTESOL Articles OnlineTESL EJEnglish Proficiency PlusEFLWEB MagazineHands on EnglishNCLEnotesCALL JournalTeach EnglishOther TESL/TEFL Web Sites
Ellidokuzoglu on KrashenEducational TechnologyKrashen and SLA TheoriesNCLE Eric DigestsMultilingual Research CenterEL EastonLibrary
NCLE PublicationsLanguage Education AssociatesALI Applied Linguistics IndexBooksArticles in Turkish
Temel PrensiplerEdinme - ÖgrenmeDil Edinim CihaziDil BilgisiEdinimi HizlandirmaYeni Yuzyilda Dil Ogretimi|
|
| The Role of Innate Knowledge in First and Second Language Acquisition |
| by Hasanbey Ellidokuzoglu |
| ||||||
III. INNATE KNOWLEDGE:DOMAIN-SPECIFIC OR GENERAL? Many scientists, especially the psychologists, however, are hesitant to attribute a domain-specific innate linguistic knowledge to the human infant. These psychologists view the human brind as a homogeneous computational system which analyze varying types of data using general information processing principles. Postulating a language-specific mechanism within such a general-purpose computational system is considered to be a violation of Occam's principle which favors minimum amount of principles to account for maximum amount of data rather than ad hoc explanations restricted to specific phenomena. Piaget, being a typical representative of this reductionist paradigm, views language acquisition as an instance of general human learning with no appeal to domain-specific innate knowledge. He asks, 'If one wants to introduce innateness into language, why not introduce it into the symbolic function in its totality, and finally into anything that is general' (Piaget, 1980, p.167). It is believed that linguistic concepts are reducible to general cognitive terms: ...Piagetians seek precursors of all aspects of language in the child's sensorimotor interaction with the environment ....Playing with containers--embedding objects one into another--is considered a necessary precursor to the embedding of clauses....Notions such as noun phrase, verb phrase, subject and clause are ... said not to be available to the young child's linguistic computations before the acquisition of elaborate cognitive structures. (Karmiloff-Smith, 1992, p.34) Please, Click On The Parts Below To Read More: 4. Parallelism between Piaget and Skinner 5. Nativism and Occam's Razor 6. Wanna Contraction 7. Universal Grammar 8. Wanna and Turkish Learners of English 9. Conclusion |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
|||
 © Vedat Kiymazarslan, 1997-2007 |
|
. |
| Visitors: 09388 |