Abstract
In language acquisition studies, the names Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky are not uncommon. They were known becau they were the founders of language acquisition theories, which act as guidance for rearchers to study language and language acquisition. Although the two theorists were the main contributors in the study of language, they had a different and contradictory viewpoint. Piaget emphasized on the role of cognitive development factors in language acquisition, whereas, Chomsky focud on the role of genetic endowment factors. This paper discuss the differences in Piaget’s and Chomsky’s approaches to language acquisition in an attempt to prent a new perspective showing that each has a place. A special focus is given to their differences in opinions and approaches towards the study of syntax and mantics, which are the two important components of a language.
Introduction
How children acquire language is one of the key mysteries facing scientific enquiry into humans. One of the reasons the topic excites so much interest is that many regard language as a defining characteristic of our species – a capacity that distinguishes us sharply from other creatures, and gives us enormous evolutionary advantages (Durkin, 1995). Thus, there are veral theoretical approaches to the explanation of language acquisition, and this paper shall consider only two of them. This paper compares the Piagetian and Chomskian views on language acquisition and attempts to prent a new perspective to indicate that each has a place. Recently, a similar attempt has been made by Rowe (1997) who tried to explain the differences between the two theories bad on the process of language acquisition. However, this paper discuss their differences in the study of syntax and mantics, which are the two important components of a language.
One of the earlier theories on language acquisition was propod by Noam Chomsky, a b
iological theorist. Chomsky once said, “As far as we know, posssion of human language is associated with a specific type of mental organization, not simply a higher degree of intelligence” (1972, p.70). Bad on this quotation, it is clear that Chomsky did not consider the development of human language as a part of their cognitive (or intellectual) development. However, he claimed that human linguistic capacities are a highly specialized part of human genetic inheritance, largely parate from other human faculties and more plausibly viewed as a kind of innate knowledge that grows independently in human mind (Gardner, 1980). This is a hotly debated issue that draws people’s attention, especially Jean Piaget. Piaget disagreed with Chomsky’s argument becau he claimed that human linguistic capacities could be considered as a product of general “constructed” intellectual development (Gardner, 1980). Due to the competing views, a debate between Piaget and Chomsky was held in 1975. In this paper, the two main areas of disagreement - syntax and mantics - between Piaget’s and Chomsky’s accounts of the acquisition of language will be discusd. It is hoped that the discussion may help to resolve the above issue. Before turning to this discussion, an overview of each approach is prented.
A Brief Overview Of Piaget’s And Chomsky’s Theories
In the study of how language is acquired, Piaget, who was a cognitive developmentalist, discusd his theory in terms of the links between cognitive development and the development of various aspects of language (Piaget, 1980). Piaget believed that language has a complex structure, which emerges as a result of continuing interaction between children’s current level of cognitive functioning and their current linguistic and non-linguistic environment (Bohannon, 1993). This interactive approach is known as Piagetian Constructivism (Piattelli-Palmarini, 1980). On the other hand, Chomsky, who was a nativist and also a psycholinguist, disagreed with Piaget’s account becau he viewed cognition and language as relatively parate but related abilities (Gardner, 1980). Chomsky commented that the general mechanisms of cognitive development could not account for the abstract, complex, and language-specific structures of language. Moreover, he stated that the linguistic environment was also unable to account
for the structures that appear in children’s language. He claimed that the environment played at most as triggering role, and shaping mechanism in the maturation of language (Gardner, 1980). Therefore, he concluded that “language or at least aspects of linguistic rules and structure must be innate” (Bohannon, 1993, p.262). This nativist approach is called Chomskian Innatism (Piattelli-Palmarini, 1980).
The Differences Between Piaget’s And Chomsky’s Accounts On Syntax
The first clear-cut difference between Piaget’s and Chomsky’s accounts can be en in the acquisition of syntax, a central component of language. Syntax refers to the form, or structure, of a language - “the rules that specify how words are combined to form meaningful ntences” (Shaffer, 1993, p.363). Chomsky’s approach has put emphasis on a t of grammatical rules that would generate syntactic descriptions for all of the permiss
ible and non permissible ntences in any given language (Gardner, 1980). Chomsky argued that an adequate grammar must be generative or creative in order to account for the myriad of ntences that speakers can produce and understand. He also believed that a true grammar should describe the speaker’s knowledge of all permissible utterances (competence) rather than just the utterances typically produced (performance) (Bohannon, 1993). Hence, he introduced a lf-devid grammar known as Transformational Generative Grammar, or TGG (Chomsky, 1965).
