Reflections-on-the-Innateness-of-Language.doc

Reflections on the Innateness of Language1. Introduction1.1 BackgroundWhether language is due to nature or due to learning has always been one of the most controversial issues for philosophers, anthropologists and linguists both in home and abroad for centuries. However, no generally received conclusions have ever been reached since this question was first proposed. In the middle of the 20th century, a breakthrough was made when Noam Chomsky, perhaps the most influential and meanwhile controversial linguist in the 20th century, elaborated his ideas on the nature of language in his review on B. F. Skinners book Verbal Behavior. To the contrary of the view held by Skinner, who believes language is a set of habits gradually built up over the years, Chomsky argues that there must exist in human brain an innately built device of language acquisition, namely, the Language Acquisition Device (LAD). Despite its extreme popularity in the field of linguistics throughout the world, Chomskys theory has aroused great controversy and been criticized a lot especially since 1990s. The opponents of Chomskys theory, following the tradition of Jean Piaget, hold the view that human is endowed with the general cognitive competence to learn things including language rather than a special device for language acquisition. Despite the intense arguments on this issue, with some linguists prefer Chomskys LAD while others may oppose it, nowadays most linguists would agree on the innateness of language, namely, human capacity for language has a genetic basis even though the details of language have to be taught and learned.1.2 Literature reviewThe traditional behaviorism sets up the once dominant view that language is no more than habitual behavior on a stimuli-despondence basis. The famous psychologist B. F. Skinners book Verbal Behavior fully elaborated this idea on language. Noam Chomskys review on this book turned a new page of linguistic studies and laid the foundation of his theory on the nature of language. Later, with a series of publications, to name a few, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965), Deep Structure, Surface Structure and Semantic Interpretation (1971), Language and Mind (1972), Essays on Form and Interpretation (1977), Rules and Representations (1980), Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding (1982), The Minimalist Program (1995), Chomsky modified, improved and developed his theories on the nature of language but always insisted on the existence of the special device for language acquisition. (Zhu, 2008) As Chomskys theories gradually developed and matured, a group of linguists opposed his ideas in a great number of publications, e.g. The Form of Language (1975) and Making Sense (1980) by Geoffrey Sampson, Language Learnability and Language Development (1984), The Bootstrapping Problem in Language Acquisition (1987), Learnability and Cognition (1989) and The Language Instinct: The New Science of Language and Mind (1994) by Steven Pinker, and a new view of language which argue that language acquisition is an ordinary learning process exactly like any other kinds of learning, say, learning to drive, was thus established.1.3 Theories1.3.1 Skinners Elaboration on LanguageAccording to Skinner, no complicated innate or mental mechanisms are needed to acquire language. All that is necessary is the systematic observation of the events in the external world which prompt the speaker to utter sounds. (Aitchison, 2000:7)This explanation of language by Skinner was based on his work with rats and pigeons in which the rats were supposed to learn complex behaviors under the stimuli of food through trial-and-error learning which was proved to be true. Skinner believes that the same goes for the acquisition of language, and he thus holds the idea that language is due to learning. With the development of science, scholars have gained better understanding about the nature of language and gradually deserted this view.1.3.2 Chomskys Innateness HypothesisThough his theories have undergone several stages of development and attacks on his theories never deceased, Noam Chomsky never waved his belief that humans are genetically programmed with knowledge about language. This belief of Chomsky is often referred to as the innateness hypothesis. The innateness hypothesis is the core of Chomskys explorations into the nature of language for all his theories of language nature are based on this innateness assumption. As he puts it, “No one finds it outlandish to ask the question: what genetic information accounts for the growth of arms instead of wings? Why should it be shocking to raise similar questions with regard to the brain and mental facilities?” (Chomsky, 1979: 84) Thus he tries to find out what is exactly innately imprinted for humans in his later works on Universal Grammar (UG), D- and S-structure, and minimalist program. Here it is worthy to point out that Chomsky also admits the necessity of learning in order to fully master a language. (Zhang & Dai, 2008)1.3.3 Another Possibility of Language InnatenessA school of scholars hold the view that humans acquire language because of their general intelligence rather than special mental faculties for language. This view is popular in the field of cognitive linguistics since 1990s. Endowed with the general intelligence to solve puzzles and learn things, humans can learn and accomplish almost anything within the capability of human (Sampson, 1980:178). To speak is just one of these activities human can learn. What should be pointed out and noted is that no special knowledge of language is pre-programmed in mind doesnt mean language is not innate since to acquire or learn a language requires a series of innate capacity.2. DiscussionsIn this paper, instead of making judges on the two former mentioned views on the innateness of language or trying to determine which is right or better, the author intends to find proofs on the basis of former studies by scholars throughout the world to support the notion that a genetic basis is necessary for human to acquire language regardless the disputes over what is exactly innate.2.1 Biological EvidenceAs Jean Aitchison points out, “if an animal is innately programmed for some type of behavior, then there are likely to be biological clues” (Aitchison, 2000: 47). Birds can fly because they have wings. Similarly, human can talk may have its correspondent biological features as well. Therefore, numerous studies have been conducted, especially studies on aphasia and lateralization of human brain, in order to find the biological evidence for innate language capacity. Thus through close observation and experiment, it has been proved true that human vocal tract and brain have a number of slightly unusual features.First, human teeth are unusual compared with those of other animals. They are even in height, and form an unbroken barrier. They are evenly spaced and equal-sized, making the articulation of a number of sounds possible and easier. Second, human lips have muscles which are considerably more developed and show more intricate interlacing than those in the lips of other primates and thus provides great favor for the articulation of a number of sounds. Third, human mouth is relatively small, and can be opened and shut rapidly. This makes it simple to pronounce sounds such as P and B, which requires a total stoppage of the airstream. Fourth, human tongue is thick, muscular and mobile which makes the articulation of a range of vowels possible. Fifth, human larynx is much simpler in structure than that of other primates which makes air move more freely through mouth and nose without much difficulty. (Aitchison, 2000: 48) Sixth, the human brain-body weight ratio is much greater than other animals and thus suggests that human brain is different from that of other animals. Further observations depending on patients with aphasia prove that there are certain specific areas in human brain involved in speech planning, comprehension and articulation of language (Mackay et al. 1987).2.2 Animals Can Never Learn LanguageDuring the past decades, several attempts have been made to teach language to chimpanzees in USA. Not even one chimpanzee could successfully learn language as humans do. Such results and findings suggest that the capacity of acquiring language is innately programmed in human brain.Through continuous observation and exploration into the animal communication systems and human language, linguists have obtained an agreement that language is unique to human and animals cannot naturally talk. But the question whether animals can learn to talk or learn language soon arose, and led to several attempts to teach language to animals. Some birds like parrots can only imitate the sounds or sound strings of human without knowing the meanings, and thus cannot be treated as cases where animals can use language. Therefore, psychologists and linguists turned their attention to apes and chimpanzees who are considered to be the closest relatives of humans. (Aitchson, 2000: 23)In the first several famous attempts to teach language to chimps, the chimps were brought up as human children and were supposed to utter words and sentences. Even though a chimp named Viki did manage to utter four simple words PAPA, MAMA, CUP and UP (Hayes, 1951), none of the chimps in these experiments, strictly speaking, finally could talk in human language. Later technological findings proved that chimps are not physiologically capable of uttering human sounds which justified the failure of the initial attempts. Therefore, later experiments tried to teach sign language to chimps and apes or teach them to press symbols on keyboards instead of directly teaching them to talk.In the experiment conducted by R. Allen Gardner in 1966, a female chimp named Washoe was taught to use modified American Sign Language (ASL) in which signs stand for words. The chimp was kept continuously surrounded by humans who communicated with her and each other by signs. Before she grew too large to continue the experiment, Washoe acquired more than one hundred single words, for example, COME, HURRY, SWEET, etc. Her speech showed some design features possessed by human language. First, her speech had semanticity for she had no difficulty in understanding that a sign means a certain object or action. For example, she spontaneously made the sign for flower when she was shown a picture of flowers. Second, she could generalize from one situation to another. For instance, at the beginning, she could merely use the sign for more in the situation to be tickled by researchers; but she finally could correctly use the sign in many other situations, say, to mean more food. Third, Washoe showed some creativity in her spontaneous use of combinations of signs. For example, she produced two- or three-word sequences of her own invention like OPEN FOOD DRINK (which means “to open the fridge”). (Gardner, 1969)Other experiments obtained similar results as R. Allen Gardners experiment of Washoe, with the chimps in some experiments learning more words or seeming more productive. However, all the chimps in these experiments used symbols primarily to obtain items they wanted, mainly food, and the notion of talking for the sake of talking is largely a human attribute. Despite the fact that some design features like arbitrariness, displacement and creativity were observed in the experiments, none of the chimps could cope with the more complicated properties of language like duality. Therefore, it is proper to infer that humans are innately programmed to acquire language.2.3 Children Language AcquisitionBiologists, psychologists and linguists in different countries have observed and recorded the process of acquisition of different languages in last century in the exploration into the nature of human language. Several facts that seem universal for all children acquiring different languages are interesting and inspiring and may support the idea that language is, to some extent, innate.The first interesting phenomenon found in several separate studies is that language emerges at about the same time in children all over the world. The question naturally arises that why do children normally begin to speak at almost the same time. According to studies, the answer is not likely to be that all mothers in different countries and regions with different languages begin to teach their children to speak at the same time (Lenneberg, 1967: 125). This regularity of onset naturally leads to the inference that language may be pre-programmed in human brain.Another impressive fact common in different studies is that as they acquire language, all children seem to pass through a series of more or less fixed stages, namely, crying (since birth), cooing (normally beginning at 6 weeks), babbling (normally beginning at 6 months), intonation patterns (normally beginning at 8 months), one-word utterances (from 1 year-old), two-word utterances (from 18 months), word inflections (from 2 year-old), rare or complex constructions (from 5 year-old), and mature speech (from 10 year-old). Even though the age at which different children reach each stage varies greatly, the relative order remains the same without much alteration. (Aitchison, 2000: 75-85) This uniformity of language acquisition process of all children all over the world suggests that some universal genetic program for language acquisition may exist in human brain.The third remarkable finding in several observations is that direct teaching is of little help for children in the process of language acquisition. To the contrary of the activities like playing tennis in which sheer painstaking practice and good coaching may lead to success even for those who are not natural talents, the outcomes of language acquisition cannot be significantly improved, say, greatly shortening the total period of mastering a language, by repeated correction or intense practice. This is true in the case in which Braine, a psychologist, spent several weeks in vain attempting to persuade his daughter to say the pattern OTHER + NOUN instead of OTHER ONE + NOUN (Braine, 1971: 161). Similar cases can be easily found in such observations by scholars, and in some cases the repeated corrections may even hinder the process of language acquisition by undermining childrens self-confidence. In contrast, mere exposure to the linguistic environment may be equally efficient for children to acquire language (Nelson, 1973). Numerous such examples provide evidence that conscious learning is not a necessary element in language acquisition which may lead to the conclusion that something is genetically pre-printed in human brain for the use of language.The fourth noteworthy fact about childrens language acquisition is that language develops long before children need to communicate in order to survive. Without some type of inborn mechanism, children would not learn language before they are required to do so, just like learning computers. Whats more, children from different cultures might acquire language at different period of time with significantly different levels of language skills. Nevertheless, the reality is far different from this. As is mentioned above, almost all children from different countries and regions begin to acquire language as early as 6 months years old when they are still fed, tended and protected by their parents, long before language is necessary for them. This fact suggests that childrens language acquisition is somewhat innately guided. (Aitchison, 2000: 67)The last fact that more than one cases of children incapable of speaking because of impoverished linguistic environment may seem to be strong counter-proof for the innateness of language. Several cases in which the children are socially isolated were repeatedly mentioned as the efficacious weapon to attack the view of innateness of language. These children were isolated from normal linguistic environments and thus couldnt talk when first discovered, with some of them never being able to acquire language in their later life. Therefore, Lenneberg proposed the notion of critical period of language acquisition, suggesting there exists a critical point after which language acquisition becomes rather difficult, if not impossible (Lenneberg, 1967). On the basis of these facts, the conclusion that language is due to learning rather than nature may be drawn with little doubt. However, some scholars also pointed out that in some cases the impoverished children tend to catch up quickly once their verbal environment is enriched, as is indicated in the case of Isabelle (Brown, 1958: 192), which implicates that it is too hush to make such an above mentioned conclusion as language is due to learning. Taking all the facts found in former studies and the two contradictory views into consideration, a more accurate conclusion may be reached that some type of natural or innate mechanism exists in human brain to make language acquisition possible while exposure to rich enough linguistic environment is necessary.3. ConclusionsThrough painstaking works, intense arguments and thorough speculat