 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
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|
|
 |
| A DISCUSSION OF LANGUAGE ACQUISITION THEORIES |
| Vedat Kiymazarslan |
| ||||||
I. INTRODUCTION A great many theories regarding language development in human beings have been proposed in the past and still being proposed in the present time. Such theories have generally arisen out of major disciplines such as psychology and linguistics. Psychological and linguistic thinking have profoundly influenced one another and the outcome of language acquisition theories alike. This article aims to discuss language acquisition theories and assess their implications for applied linguistics and for a possible theory of foreign/second language teaching. Language acquisition theories have basically centered around “nurture” and “nature” distinction or on “empiricism” and “nativism”. The doctrine of empiricism holds that all knowledge comes from experience, ultimately from our interaction with the environment through our reasoning or senses. Empiricism, in this sense, can be contrasted to nativism, which holds that at least some knowledge is not acquired through interaction with the environment, but is genetically transmitted and innate. To put it another way, some theoreticians have based their theories on environmental factors while others believed that it is the innate factors that determine the acquisition of language. It is, however, important to note that neither nurturists (environmentalists) disagree thoroughly with the nativist ideas nor do nativists with the nurturist ideas. Only the weight they lay on the environmental and innate factors is relatively little or more. Before sifting through language acquisition theories here, therefore, making a distinction between these two types of perspectives will be beneficial for a better understanding of various language acquisition theories and their implications for the field of applied linguistics. In the following paragraphs, the two claims posed by the proponents of the two separate doctrines will be explained and the reason why such a distinction has been made in this article will be clarified. Environmentalist theories of language acquisition hold that an organism’s nurture, or experience, are of more significance to development than its nature or inborn contributions. Yet they do not completely reject the innate factors. Behaviorist and neo-behaviorist stimulus-response learning theories (S-R for simplicity) are the best known examples. Even though such theories have lost their effect partially because of Chomsky’s intelligent review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior (Chomsky, 1959), their effect has not been so little when we consider the present cognitive approach as an offshoot of behaviorism.  The nativist theories, on the other hand, assert that much of the capacity for language learning in human is ‘innate’. It is part of the genetic makeup of human species and is nearly independent of any particular experience which may occur after birth. Thus, the nativists claim that language acquisition is innately determined and that we are born with a built-in device which predisposes us to acquire language. This mechanism predisposes us to a systematic perception of language around us. Eric Lenneberg (cited in Brown, 1987:19), in his attempt to explain language development in the child, assumed that language is a species - specific behavior and it is ‘biologically determined’. Another important point as regards the innatist account is that nativists do not deny the importance of environmental stimuli, but they say language acquisition cannot be accounted for on the basis of environmental factors only. There must be some innate guide to achieve this end. In Table 1 below, a classification around the nurture/nature distinction has been made.
Table 1. Classification of Language Acquisition Theories Around The particular reason why such a distinction between environmentalist and nativist theories has been made in this study is to create a clear-cut picture of the current status of language acquisition theories, present and former studies in the field of language acquisition and language teaching methodology. In the following part, the most important ones of language acquisition theories resulting from the two opposing views mentioned above will be discussed. GO TO PART 1 2 3 4 OR USE THE TABLE OF CONTENTS BELOW: Language Acquisition Theories: Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development Skinner’s Verbal Behavior Piaget’s View of Language Acquisition Cognitive Theory: The Language Acquisition View The Discourse Theory The Speech Act Theory The Universal Grammar Theory The Monitor Model Conclusion Bibliography Appendix |
 Sign Guestbook |
 View Guestbook |
|
|||
 © Vedat Kiymazarslan, 1997-2007 |
|
. |
| Visitors: 156708 |