Language Theory

Introduction

There are a number of different theories as to how children learn process and acquire language as we pass through the different stages of development to adulthood. From the standpoint of yours truly there is no concrete evidence that gives dominance to one theory over the other. The author believes each perspective and theory of study has some evidence as to why one may hold relevance over the other. However, it is quite difficult to assess which theory is the absolute truth.

Therefore, in the following paragraphs yours truly will briefly summarize the content of each theory and its author believes it is true and the points of view stated to back up each one. In addition, one will draw a comparison between each theory, and how each theory can be applied at home and in the classroom in order to help student with the process of learning and brain development. Lastly, the author will attempt to identify and align the theory and rationalize the theory of each with the concept of project based learning and where it fits into this form of education inside and outside the classroom.

Four Theories

     The first theory that comes to mind is behaviorism. Webster’s dictionary defines the concept as measured responses to stimuli. Based on the reading the concept also discusses the concept as stimulus and response learning. The most basic example is when a child and mother are interacting with each other. The child babbles as the mother communicates with the child the baby is assessing its how to communicate based on the mothers reactions to the sounds. From this perspective language is learned through practice, imitation, reinforcement and habituation. The primary stimuli and teacher is the parent as the child learns through parent response as they utter various sounds.

     The next theory is known as linguistic nativism suggests that the human brain is hard wired to learn language since birth. What this basically entails is that all babies since birth posses that innate ability to communicate. The theory suggests that we are all wired to be able to communicate since birth. It is therefore understood that as babies the sounds such as crying and babbling are primitive ways infants used to communicate. It is also important to note theory is triggered by a number of factors the most important being a child’s environment. Though this is not considered refined language to an adult it is the best way that an infant uses in order to express their needs and how they feel.

     Third is the theory known as the social interactionist. This theory of language acquisition pertains to a child actively being involved in the learning of language and construction of meaning as the reading suggest. This often takes place between caretakers, siblings and others. All interactions from the readings standpoint states they are meaningful and intentional. The last theory to briefly summarize is known as the neurobiological perspective. The aforementioned simply states that infants are born with neurons that are dedicated to the development of language. However, it states that infants are born without any particular language blueprint. The reading also states language is developed through the use of genetics and nature.

Theory Comparisons

     Yours truly will begin by comparing the nature vs. nurture aspect of language acquisition. From the behaviorist perspective according to the reading suggests, infants are taught language by parents accompanied by their environment. In addition, the behaviorist point of view has a vital role in language development. In the example of the reading infants learn language through repetition and conditioning by repeating language and speech they hear. The saying “ watch what you say around infants comes to mind,” as they are very impressionable during early language development and tend to repeat what they hear. From the nativist perspective the behavior that behaviorist described is often predetermined. In other words as the reading states every child as they are born possess the ability to learn language.

     The author believes there may be some validity to it. If one takes a look at a babies eyes you will notice as you interact with them they are learning constantly. It is not a blank stare; the look suggests that they crave interaction in other words they are processing, learning and interacting language naturally. Yours truly believes both theories hold valid points. However, the author believes language acquisition is based upon the moment, situation and the environment. It is important to note that not all children are raised under the same conditions. Therefore the nature vs. nurture is one that will not be solved so easily. In some cases the author believes an infant will use one as dominant making the other recessive it’s impossible to separate them. This is why students don’t learn the same way some are hands on and others are more technical and content. In other words some students maybe able to write better or speak clearly than others or; read with more fluency and communicate differently than others.

     The social interactionist is one that is quite confusing. From the reading one found this theory to be quite confusing. It does not support the nature vs. nurture debate rather it supports the importance of parents, environment, and genetics. In addition, they agree with nativists theory that students are born with the innate ability to learn language. The nativists theory also suggest that children learn language through what is known as child-directed speech. Infants learn primarily through interactions with adults as they learn how to pronounce words and language in this fashion.

     The neurobiological perspective has to deal with the brain functions and the neurons within. According to the reading language development involves the cerebral cortex and a complex genetic blueprint. From the authors standpoint the genetic makeup could also be a main reason why students learn from different perspectives and why infants develop different parts of language including but not limited to oral, literacy and written language. But I digress the two theories share the concept of genetics however they are quite different. The latter deals with a scientific approach to language acquisition on the anatomical level. However, according to the reading and recent studies all the theories are connected in one form or another.

     The author believes that behaviorism inside the classroom is an essential component in helping a child to develop the language skills needed to function as a productive member of society; “I see babies as individuals who are full participants in the experiences of their lives--fully communicative human beings with agency, who seek, build, and maintain relationships that help them grow, develop, and learn about life and love, about caring and fairness, and about all the good and bad that the world has to offer ” (McMullen, M. B. 2010 para 12). Yours truly believes this approach to behaviorism is a great way to help students get acclimated to becoming productive adults. In addition, this type of approach can be practiced at home with the parent and caregiver in order to reinforce the lessons and routine being practiced inside the classroom. Interacting talking and doing both by teachers and parents alike is an essential component. By conferencing and both parties working on reinforcing the same routines will help to the infant to acquire and comprehend language at a much faster rate.

     Nativism as aforementioned is mostly the interaction of language and sounds communicated between the child adult whether it be parent or caregiver inside and outside of the classroom. This form of communication and interaction is absolutely essential for both parent and infant alike; “When talking to young children, parents and other adults use a kind of language that is dubbed as child directed speech (motherese). Characteristics of motherese include higher pitched voice, greater pitch variations, slower rate of speech, shorter, simpler sentences, simple and concrete words, clearer articulation, repetitive speech, and exaggerated facial expression” (Kargar, A. A. 2012 pg 870). Yours truly believes a conference between teacher and parent as it pertains to nativism is but a formality being that the majority of parents do interact with their infants through the use of motherese. This form of communication is both important and necessary form of interaction between child and adult. One believes through daily communication the content between both parties should be what was learned at school and at home in terms of language so it can be reinforced on both ends. Any new positive words or behaviors should be enforced and practiced on both ends especially anything that is phonetic in nature.

           Social interaction is also a major part of a child’s development. This theory deals with being able to communicate with their classmates and not just through words but actions. It is an important aspect of language development. A primary example of this takes place during shared play during center time. Learning how to interpret and communicate with others around them is a mainstay in the development of language. In this instance, teacher while meeting need to discuss how to model the proper principles and behavior both at home and in the classroom in order to ensure that they are properly reinforced in the home and classroom.

           The neurobiological perspective suggests that through brain development and function infants learn language as their brain develops they become more adept at language and start to communicate more proficiently with others. In particular think about as children leave infancy, have a tendency to communicate through mispronounced words and broken sentences.

Theory Rationale

     Form ones standpoint the theory that works best is the behaviorist perspective. The reasoning behind it is the concept of stimulus and response. An infant at a young age responds to how the adult or parent reacts to how the child reacts to them in what can be perceived as a negative or positive response. Lets refer to the reading example of the mother feeding the baby and she says bottle. The child receives and processes this information over time. All human beings learn through repetition. Something done over and over again fosters learned behavior and familiarity. It’s the basis as to why we tell students to study before an exam even offering a review. “Recently, researchers have identified increases in attention to the mouth over the first year of life” (Tenenbaum, E. J., Shah, R. J., Sobel, D. M., Malle, B. F., & Morgan, J. L. 2013 pg 535). What this suggests as yours truly mentioned earlier the eyes pay a pivotal role in the first year of development infants pay attention to your facial expression and how you react. The rationale one proposes as children develop through infancy to pre-K is to label things and explain why one is using the object and the purpose it serves.

     For example; this is a cup we drink water and juice from a cup just to reinforce what the infant knows they do at home when its time to eat and during snack time. Eventually what will happen is the infant will basically be able to tell you the purpose of a cup or point to the cup when they want something to drink and motion how to use it. In addition they will even mention to you when its time to drink or eat a plate serves as the same stimuli. This rationale is the authors firm belief children learn more efficiently by doing. It is the primary premise of project-based learning a form of teaching yours truly is strongly in favor. The aforementioned form of learning works across all grade levels. However one should take a look at the 2nd grade on down projects and play serve a vital role in helping students understand and acquire language.

Summary

     So to summarize language acquisition is based across four different theories each presenting evidence as to why students learn in a particular way. Furthermore, one compared the theories and even though they have differences they are connected in some way. Yours truly went over how the theories could be applied in the home and at school. The author believed the importance of routine in both environments would foster better results in terms of students acquiring language. Each theory shared the common interest of communication between parent and teacher to establish a routine and continuity between classroom and home environment for language acquisition. Lastly, the author talks about the theory which best suites his believe in students learning by doing.

References

McMullen, M. B. (2010). Confronting the Baby Blues: A Social Constructivist Reflects on Time Spent in a Behaviorist Infant Classroom. Early Childhood Research & Practice (ECRP), 12(1), 9.

Kargar, A. A. (2012). The Ecology of First Language Acquisition Nativism and Empiricism: An Appraisal and a Compromise. Journal Of Language Teaching & Research, 3(5), 868-875. doi:10.4304/jltr.3.5.868-875

Tenenbaum, E. J., Shah, R. J., Sobel, D. M., Malle, B. F., & Morgan, J. L. (2013). Increased focus on the mouth among infants in the first year of life: A longitudinal eye‐tracking study. Infancy, 18(4), 534-553. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7078.2012.00135.x