First Language Acquisition, Part 1 Flashcards
(16 cards)
Explain the McNeil Study (1966)
A mother attempts to instruct her child regarding adult English
Beyond basic words, no one instructs us with language
Shows that:
-attempts to instruct a child don’t work
-Instruction is not primary method through which we learn language
-Children acquire first language effortlessly and with no systematic instruction
What is the input data for children?
Children only hear grammatical sentences from adults (I.e. positive evidence)
Ambient linguistic data available to children (input) does not include ungrammatical sentences (I.e. negative evidence)
How do children interpet novel data?
Can still understand
Children are exposed to only a finite number of sentences but can understand and create novel sentences
Overgeneralization error
Children overgeneralize the use of -ed by attaching it to irregular verbs
E.g. I haved it
However children do not overgeneralize the -ed attachment to “do” and “have” when they function as auxiliary verbs
E.g. they wouldn’t say “doed you come” or “I haved eaten”
shows that their errors are systematic
Four facts about children acquiring first language
No instruction is involved
No negative evidence is available
Finite input but infinite productivity
Non-adult-like errors
Any theory has to minialy account for these four facts
Poverty of the stimulus
what the child gets in their environment isn’t enough for the complete acquisition of their language
What are the theories of first language acquisition?
- Theory of imitation
- Theory of correction/reinforcement
- Innateness model
Theory of initation
Theorizes that children imitate what adult say
If this is true what should we expect to say:
We’d expect children to use all grammatical sentence but this isn’t the case
Children make errors that adults don’t make
This theory does not hold up
Theory of corretion/reinforcement
Children learn their language based on correction of bad sentences and positive reinforcement of correct speech
In reality, there is no systematic positive or negative reinforcement from adults in reality
Theory doesn’t hold up
Brown & Hanlon study (1970)
Adults expressed approval after 45% of the grammatical sentences
Adults expressed approval after 45% of the ungrammatical sentences
Provides evidence that adults don’t really correct or reinforce children’s grammar
They usually correct the content of the sentence not the syntax
Evidence against the reinforcement/correction model
Piedmont, Carolina study (1983)
Largely African American community
Don’t see babies are suitable partners in conversation and rarely address speech to young children
No difference in language accquisition
Evidence against the reinforcement/correction model
Inuit language acquisition
In Inuit culture, children are taught to be quiet around adults
Mother don’t engage in vocal play with children or try to interpret child vocalization as speech
More interested in there comprehension
No correction or reinforcement yet they become competent speakers
Evidence against the reinforcement/correction model
K’iche’ Mayan of Guatemala
Address almost no speech to infants
Around 2 or 3 they begin speaking to children as if they’re adults
Believe the child is a reincarnation of an ancestor so they don’t need to teach them
Evidence against the reinforcement/correction model
Mohawk tribe
Interact with children at a normal rate of speed, as if they are true conversation partners
Very complex verb morphology
Innateness model
Developed by Noam Chomsky with a primary focus in the poverty of the stimulus
Two components: (1) language is innately specified and therefore universal among humans and (2) richly structured
Innate knowledge of language is called Universal Grammar (blueprint for language)
If UG is true, why don’t we acquire the same language?
UG tells us the linguistic categories and basic structures (innate component) but there’s also properties specific to the acquired language (a learned component)
UG is like the seed of grammar that is watered with a specific language
