Q&A from Linguistics Final

7. Present, discuss, and explain the two proposed mechanisms for language acquisition and learning.

Noam Chomsky was the first person to ask the question of where language comes from. For years, the word linguist carried the implication that someone spoke many languages. Chomsky would change the meaning of this word forever. Chomskyan or Nativist linguistics dominated the field for more than 30 years. It begins with Chomsky's poverty of the stimulus. Since there isn't sufficient input to properly equate for the output, the nativists thought there must be a component in the brain to answer this question. The nativists view the brain as modular, components that do not communicate with one another. One of these modules, say the nativists, is a language component. Language is a species-specific property that is there from birth. In other words, humans are born with the a priori knowledge of grammar. The only thing we have to do is expose this language acquisition device, within each of us, to language in the natural world.
Chomsky and colleagues (Fodor and Pinker) posited that our cognition is partitioned into modules. Chomsky and colleagues stated that this module and component of language is present from birth. The ability is there, but it is expressed later in life when certain neurological conditions have matured. There are some examples elsewhere in the body that add evidence to this. The ability to walk is present from day 1, but it takes time for certain motor conditions and muscular conditions to develop for that to occur. Also, it takes the liver about a year after birth in order to function properly. The body must take time to develop into its full potential.
According to this theory, this modular brain has a central processor to direct the activities, but each module does not interact with another module. It can only deal with material that is specific to them. One example of the inability for modules to interact with one another is optical illusions. The eyes, no matter what the cognition is aware of, can't separate itself from the illusion. So the nativists view language acquisition as a priori knowledge; something that comes from within. The environment plays a secondary role in language acquisition. The environment affects the language one acquires and the accent, but the actual mechanism of language is there from birth, and it is this module within the brain that contains this language ability, universal grammar.
According to the nativist tradition, there are three components to language learning. The first component is what we have been discussing, the language-specific module consisting of universal grammar. Most of this linguistic knowledge is innate. There are a finite number of fundamental principles that are common to all languages. For example, all languages have subjects and verbs. There are always some sort of grammatical structures prevalent in all languages too.
The second component is that of parameters. These are the binary rules (parameters) that are specific to each language. There are a number of finite set of parameters that determine syntactic variability between languages. All the parameters are linked, and a child must figure out the parameters for his/her L1. Some examples include Korean's use of status within the language. A Korean child must learn to say ahnyounghaseyo (hello) when speaking to an elder, but amongst friend they can drop the "haseyo" when greeting and just use "ahnyoung." This binary parameter is part of the process of acquiring their L1.
The third component to learning a language is lexical learning. Basically, this equates to learning the words of a language. This aspect takes a long time through a trial-and-error process. Dorit was quoted class as saying, "This is about breaking into the system." To a nativist, the lexicon is considered the least important aspect of language learning.
To sum up the nativists (Chomskyans, generalists), children quickly develop the complexity of language. Children hear a limited amount of sentences, but somehow they know the infinite possibilities of language. There is a lack of stimulus so how is it possible? Nativists think the brain is broken-up into modules. One of these is the species-specific module of language housing universal grammar. This knowledge is a priori knowledge, and it allows the answer for the poverty of the stimulus.
It took more than 30 years for a different perspective on language acquisition to be accepted within the field of linguistics, but during the mid 80s through the mid 90s, new theories were introduced that changed everything. Computers and technology played a huge impact on allowing this transformation take place. Now linguists could apply empirical concepts used in hard science in research to further expand the knowledge base of linguistics.
With this new technology, computers were modeled after human/animal brains. Computers were able to simulate neural networks. Neuroscience added its own bits of information too. We learned that as information gets stored into long-term memory, the brain changes physically. The proteins change in the neurons. The neuron is connected to thousands of other neurons. When one protein changes, essentially the system, as a whole, changes. From this viewpoint, the brain is not linear, it is not binary, it is non-economical, there are no modules, there is no "domain" of language, there are no innate symbolic categories. The brain, with its web of neurons is a complex system, and behaves like all complex systems.
There are emergent properties of a complex system. Cities, historical timelines, economics, sociological situations, and astrophysics are all examples of studies in complex systems. One of these properties is that all complex systems seek order. When looking at a neural network in the sense as a complex system, then we can see the brain is merely a complex system making sense of the information presented to it. The proponents of this idea, connectionists, argue that language is not an a priori feature of the brain. Rather, the brain is a complex neural system, and it merely seeks to create order out of the language it receives. For example, the brain is introduced to a big vehicle with four wheels. It learns that this is a car. The next day, the child sees another big vehicle with four wheels, but it is slightly different. This is also called "car." Eventually, the brain gets enough stimulus to make a category of "car," and is able to put all the "car" information into one folder. That folder will eventually be organized into other larger folders, such as "nouns." The categories EMERGE in the brain after probabilistic computations once enough input has been given to the brain.
Both theories are trying to answer the poverty of the stimulus question. The nativists believe the brain to be modular in nature, and one of the modules is dedicated to language, housing universal grammar. This knowledge is innate knowledge, and the map of language is merely mapped onto the language the child is exposed to. The connectionists use the idea of neural networks in relation to complex systems. Order emerges from the nature of complex systems. The child is exposed to enough language, and the brain self-organizes this information into categories, giving the child the ability to use language in ways that equate to a larger amount than the input. This theory promotes the idea that language isn't a component of the brain, merely that language gets categorized after exposure.