Nature versus Nurture

A major issue among first language learning researchers is the issue of "nature versus nurture". On one side of this issue are those such as the innatists who believe that the child’s natural or innate language learning ability is the most important factor in first language learning. They believe that the child’s innate language learning ability is more important than the child’s environment. They insist that children would not be able to successfully acquire a first language if they didn’t have some special ability. They also point to evidence that shows how little children’s environment actually affects their language learning. On the other side of the issue are those such as the interactionists and the behaviorists who believe that the help a child receives from caregivers, siblings, or peers is also a very important factor for a child’s success. They believe that children need a nurturing environment in order to succeed. This issue is not just about the role of the environment, because even innatists cannot deny that the environment determines which language a child will eventually speak. Furthermore, nobody can deny that children who are not exposed to any language will not learn any language. The issue is about whether the environment needs to be nurturing for a child to successfully acquire a language, or whether a child’s innate ability and drive to learn and can overcome such problems. In other words, the nature side believes in the ability of children to learn languages naturally without help, while the nurture side believes that they need some help. This issue pits the role of the child’s environment against the contributions of the child in his or her own language learning.

On the nature side of the issue are the innatists, cognitivist language researchers who believe that help, whether it be caregiver speech or encouragement will not seriously affect a child’s first language learning. They believe that mere exposure to a target language will trigger the LAD (i.e., the child’s language acquisition device – a metaphor for the child’s innate ability) and that the LAD will guide the child to decode and acquire the grammatical system of the target language automatically. An extreme version of this idea can be found in the thinking of Noam Chomsky who in 1957 believed that the language input children were exposed to was too complicated or even jumbled up to possibly be sensible to a child or any language learner. Chomsky concluded that the only way children could possibly make sense out of such input were if they had some special ability (i.e. the LAD). Noam Chomsky, Steven Pinker and other innatists have claimed that children do not need help from others (e.g. mothers) to make sense of the language. According to them the caregiver speech mothers use with children is not necessary. Furthermore, they also believe that encouragement or rewards are also unnecessary. To support their claims, they point to over 40 years of research that shows that most children go through the same stages while learning a language. The route children take while learning a language does not seem to vary at all, even if children’s environment may vary. For example, children generally learn how to use the ‘ing’ morpheme to make present progressive sentences very early on, but learn how to use ‘pronouns’ very late. Researchers have found that there is almost nothing they can do to change this order. No amount of teaching will help a child to acquire pronouns much faster than they would if left to their own devices. Furthermore, researchers have also found that there is very little they can do to speed up children’s first language learning. Rewards seem to have little or no affect. Children tend to acquire their first language at roughly the same rate whether their behavior is reinforced or not. Children learning a first language show remarkable similarities despite vast differences in their environment, thus suggesting that there must be some force inside them that controls the process.

On the other extreme of this issue are those, like the behaviorists, who believe that children have no natural language learning ability and that their environment totally controls them and shapes their language learning. Behaviorists believe all children are born empty. This notion is called "tabula rasa". In other words, they do not have any LAD – no innate ability. This notion both causes and solves a logical problem for behaviorists. If children do not have any special ability then how do they learn languages so successfully? Why do they learn languages faster than adults? Behaviorists answer these questions with the very same concept of "tabula rasa". They claim that children pick up new language habits easier because they are empty. Unlike adult second language learners, children learning a first language have no previously learned language habits to interfere with their learning new language habits. Like a sponge that is dry, they soak up new habits faster. Likewise, because children bring absolutely nothing to the language learning process, they do not influence their own learning. They are apt to become whatever their environment makes them. The environment provides models that they mindlessly imitate. The environment also provides caregivers who reward their imitations when correct and correct them when they are wrong. This reinforces children’s imitations and makes them form correct habits. In this way, behaviorists view children’s language learning as being totally shaped by the environment. Therefore, to a behaviorist, nurture, the help of caregivers that comes in the form of models, error correction, and reinforcement, is the only important factor in child first language learning. According to behaviorists, nurturing totally controls children’s language learning. This view is no longer popular however because research has shown us that children’s language learning varies very little, despite major differences in the nurturing they receive. If behaviorists were correct about their idea then we could expect to see children going through totally different stages in language learning, but, they do not.

Somewhere in the middle of the debate over nature and nurture are the interactionists. Interactionists like the innatists are cognitivist language researchers, but they are more interested in the notion of social constructionism – how knowledge is constructed in the mind through social interaction. While interactionists cannot deny the evidence that children have some special language learning ability, they also believe that children cannot learn a language without social interaction. Thus we can say that interactionists believe in both nature (e.g. the LAD) and nurture (e.g. help that comes to children in the form of social interaction).

There is some evidence for the interactionist notion that social interaction is necessary. In one case study, language learning researchers found a child who was not deaf but was being raised by deaf parents on a farm. Because he was growing up in the country he had no neighbors to interact with in English. Because his parents were deaf he did not hear any spoken English from them. Although the child watched many hours of television every day, and therefore was exposed to a great deal of English input, the child still acquired no English. After researchers found him they started trying to interact with him in English. Once this child could interact with others socially in English, this child began to acquire English and soon caught up to the normal level. This shows that non-interactive input is inadequate for child language acquisition. Yet another piece of evidence for interactionism can be seen right here in Korea where many mothers buy English language videotapes for their children hoping that they will acquire English naturally while still young. These children who watch English videos but have no English social interaction make relatively little or no progress in their English. It seems evident that children need more than just input.

Some interactionists have attempted to describe what it is that social interaction has that makes it so important. Firstly, they claim that children’s primary motivation for language learning is to be able to use it socially. If children believe that they will be able to use some form, expression, or word for future social interaction, then they will pay more attention to it, and therefore, learn it. Social interaction makes language seem more meaningful to a child and therefore also makes it more memorable. Secondly, during social interaction, interlocutors will modify their speaking style to help make communication more successful. This modified interaction has been called "negotiating meaning" and the modified speech style of those who are speaking to a child has been called "caregiver speech". During the negotiation of meaning, if the listener doesn’t understand, then the speaker will make changes to aid comprehension. For example, in mother child interaction there is a lot of question and answer in which children can learn new language and test what they think is correct. A child might point to an object, and the mother might name it, and likewise. Also, if children are speaking and they make errors so serious that they interfere with communication, others will patiently help them try to express themselves. If a caregiver knows what the child is trying to say, then she might even "put the words in her mouth". For example, a child pointing to a bottle of juice might hear her mom say, "Do you want some juice?" At that point the child can say "Juice!" While speaking to her child the mother may also speak slower or clearer. In that last example, the mother would have stressed the word "juice" saying it loudly and clearly and perhaps even repeating it many times – "Juice, juice, juice! Baby wants some juice!" When speaking to children, caregivers also use more context to make what they are saying more comprehensible. Caregivers can talk about objects, or pictures that a child can see, thus helping the child to match the new word she is hearing with the meaning. They might also discuss a story or event that the child already knows well and explain what the child doesn’t know well. In other words, social interaction provides children with more comprehensible input and opportunities to test hypotheses they might have about the language. In this view, the nurturing of caregivers is just as important as the natural ability of children.

The debate between those who believe that nature is more important and those who believe nurture is more important may never end. Although behaviorism is virtually dead in language acquisition research, every five years or so interactionists find some good evidence to support their argument against innatists. However, innatists also find some strong evidence every few years or so. Considering the evidence it is safe to assume that language learning happens through both nature and nurture. Children’s natural language learning ability is probably facilitated by the help they receive from others. Without either innate ability or social interaction, the miracle or children’s rapid language learning may not be possible.