Introduction
Why is it that some children at a particular age are able to build simplistic structures with blocks, cry when they are upset or use rudimentary language skills when trying to communicate while others of the same age are not only able to perform difficult piano concertos but are also able to grasp and apply complex mathematical theorems?
It is interesting to note that all humans are born with the same combination of 46 chromosomes which creates the genetic basis for subsequent growth and development yet if this was so why is it that not all young children develop the exceptional skills noted in the given examples?
As such it is questionable as to what skills and abilities within each individual is innate or what is a direct result of “special characteristics” acquired from unique interactions within a particular environment that facilitated the development of advanced skills at early ages (Steen, 2001).
This is but one aspect of the multifaceted debate that is nature versus nurture which has in fact been going on for hundreds of years with varying accounts and experts indicating their support for one particular view over another.
For example, we have the idea of “tabula rasa” (blank slate) developed by John Locke which states that all individuals are born as blank slates and as such the development of their minds will come about as a direct result of unique sensory experiences resulting in different mental capabilities depending on the degree of sensory exposure within a particular environment (Plomin & Asbury. 2005).
On the other end of the spectrum comes the view of modern biological determinism which ascribes to the ideology that all behaviors and abilities are innate and as such comes about as a direct result of genetic potential (Plomin & Asbury. 2005). While both points of view are extreme they are somewhat accurate representations of the current debate regarding inherent over acquired skill sets.
Of particular interest are the views of the debate regarding language acquisition and how much of it does the average individual acquire through environmental stimulus or through inherent genetic capability. What must be understood is that language is not completely genetic in that the process of acquiring a language like English for instance is not something that is inherently part of a person genetic makeup.
For example, the study of Soderman (2010) has shown that a certain degree of critical exposure is needed in order for a child to acquire a language however Soderman (2010) also notes that in various case studies examining how language was acquired it was seen that there were many universal similarities in how children from different races and cultures acquired their respective language (Soderman, 2010).
From this particular perspective it can thus be stated that language acquisition more likely exists in some middle ground of nurture and nature and not exclusively inclines towards a particular aspect of the debate.
Understanding the Acquisition of Language: Theories of Language Acquisition
The Learning Theory
The learning theory developed by researchers Skinner and Bandura, states that language develops through learning and as such ascribes to the nature theory of the debate. In their examination of language acquisition processes it was noted that “infants learned languages through reinforcement, imitation, operant conditioning and observational learning” (Craighead & Nemeroff, 2001).
From the perspective of Skiner and Bandura, continuous exposure to a language rich learning environment is a precondition towards being able to acquire the initial specifics of a language from which its application in daily conversation originates from (Craighead & Nemeroff, 2001).
Without a sufficient learning environment in place Skiner and Bandura state that language acquisition becomes difficult if not impossible due to insufficient input from which an individual can derive the complex vocabulary necessary to create understandable statements and phrases.
On the other hand critiques of this particular theory state that the reinforcement principle which is at the basis of the Skiner and Bandura examination is not actually a necessary element in being able to acquire a language (Morin, 2010).
They point to the fact that children are in effect inherently capable of stating a sentence without hearing it in the past through an inherent means of sentence manipulation.
For example, a parent may say “I dropped the ball on the floor” to indicate the action of dropping a ball on the floor while a child on the other hand is able to take this particular sentence and modify it to match a given situation such as by stating “I dropped the plate down the stairs”. In this example the child never really heard the statement before however was able to learn how to modify it in order to express a given observation.
The Nativist Theory
In the debate of nature versus nurture another interesting point of view is that of the nativist theory which deals with the assumption that language development is an innate feature that develops within individuals (Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 1998).
From the perspective of the proponents of this way of thinking infants are not the blank slates that John Locke leads us to believe rather all individuals come with the innate ability to understand and develop languages on one’s own.
This particular theory is grounded in the fields of genetics and psychology wherein it is stated that all individuals are “genetically programmed” from birth so to speak in order for particular processes and ways of thinking to arise in their minds (Pellegrini & Bjorklund, 1998).
Language from their perspective is thus an innate capacity of human intellectual development and as such comes about through a natural means of acquisition and is not dependent on rote learning or subsequent repetition as seen from the perspective of learning theorists.
Evidence of this can be seen in various instances wherein despite the fact that children were only exposed to the superficial aspects of a language and were not taught the specifics of proper grammar they were still inherently able to rapidly develop the ability to speak grammatically correct sentences (Shanker, 2001).
Such an act is explained by the studies of Noam Chomsky in which he explains that all languages are founded upon universal rules on grammatical structure which correspond to an innate capacity of the human brain to understand them (Shanker, 2001).
This means that all languages have developed along similar lines that the brain can instinctively understand and as such this facilitates an individual’s inherent capacity to learn a language. The inherent problem with this particular theory is that it neglects to take into account principles related to environmental exposure which many psychologists indicate is a prerequisite in order for languages to be properly acquired.
While the theory is sound in principle it lacks sufficient evidence regarding language acquisition being more inclined towards inherent genetic predilections when experience has been shown to be necessary in order for the development of a sufficiently broad vocabulary.
In fact critics of this theory state that while people may have an inherent genetic inclination towards learning a language there are only so many stages an infant can progress in learning a language through genetic capacity alone.
What is needed they say is sufficient experience in order to broaden the amount of information the brain is exposed to thus resulting in the development of a far broader base of words, phrases and experiences which can thus be developed into an individual’s ability to speak a particular language.
Interactionist Theory
One of the best theories that attempts to explain language development is the interactionist theory which specifically states that it is a combination between biological and environmental influences that enable the development of language within individuals at an early age.
What must be understood is that while it may be true that humans have developed the evolutionary capacity to easily acquire a language at an early age this is still dependent on the amount of exposure they have to language itself (Turner, 2000).
For example, the study of Klass (2011) examined different instances in which language was acquired by infants of different ages and as such was able to show that the amount of exposure to a particular language innately affected the rate in which they individuals examined were able to apply the language as well as the extent of their application (Klass, 2011).
It was shown that infants that were exposed to far more language experiences at an early age were not only able to speak earlier but were also able have a far more diversified vocabulary as compared to children of the same age (Klass, 2011).
It was also noted by other studies that such children were also more intellectually proficient and imaginative in terms of their application of skills and speaking ability and as such shows how exposure is an integral aspect to learning (Sethi, 2011).
In the Klass (2011) study fewer exposure rates did not hamper the development of language acquisition skills rather subjects in those particular groups were still able to develop language skills normally which is indicative of an inherent ability to develop language on one’s own so long as proper levels of exposure were implemented.
Evidence of this can be seen in the case examples of Genie and Victor, who are two rather unfortunate examples of what can happen should no language exposure be implemented. Genie was locked away in her room for the first 13 years of her life with no language exposure whatsoever while Victor on the other hand was found in forest at age 12.
Both individuals were found to lack even the basic means of language communication and in fact were unable to be taught even the rudimentary basics of verbal communication due to both individuals being well past the critical stage of language acquisition which is from infancy to puberty. As such the case example of Genie and Victor shows the necessity of language exposure as a means of enabling the learning process to begin.
It is actually advocated by studies such as those by Justice (2008) that parents should implement greater degrees of language exposure and learning to children at earlier stages of development so as to ensure a steady rate of intellectual growth (Justice, 2008).
Not only is this beneficial towards developing a child’s intellectual capacity but it also helps to determine whether a child suffers from any form of learning disability brought about by some form aberrant problem in their brain such as autism or ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder).
Computer Generated Speech
The traditional process of human communication has always involved a certain degree of direct personal interaction between individuals yet with the introduction of new technology preferred methods of communication have become more impersonal resulting in an increasingly isolationist society.
As technology improves methods of communication have steadily become more convenient wherein people are no longer limited in their ability to contact one another but rather can choose from a plethora of choices (Johri, 2012). The creation of mobile phone technology has enabled people to be contacted at anywhere at any time through either a direct phone conversation or a more discreet text message.
Online methods of communication such as email, chat messengers or even online video conferencing services such as those on Skype have made it so that global methods of communication have become far easier and affordable compared to the situation two decades ago where international communication was an arduous affair often involving significant delays, costs or even an inability to be contacted due to ones location (Johri, 2012).
It was through the greater interconnectivity of countries through globalization that communication similarly became more globalized thus making it more convenient for the average user.
It is in this realm of ever evolving methods of communication that the development of computer generated speech in which computers communicate with one another orally presents itself as rather interesting factor in the nature versus nurture debate on human language development.
What must be understood is that in the case of computer generated speech all information and speech generated by the computers communicating with each other is something which is preprogrammed and made to create a method of communication along specific lines.
While this is no different from the means in which the human mind is predisposed towards a particular method of oral communication in the case of computers what must be understood is that there is a distinct lack of “imagination” in the responses.
While a computers program is able to mix together different words and create specific phrases and this in turn is responded to in a specific way by another computer what must be understood is that the computers that are communicating with one another are inherently limited by the specifics of their program and as such cannot go beyond that.
For example, the type of information inputted into a computer is the same type of information that it releases with various programs creating a certain degree of variability but the information is still the same.
When comparing this to the process of human language learning wherein a child is able to create grammatically correct sentences from snippets of information acquired and without having been taught how grammar works in a specific way shows a level of learning that goes “beyond input” so to speak.
Human language development it seems is not limited by the type of input received rather what seems to occur is that there is an inherent predilection in language development wherein proper grammar and sentence creation is almost instinctual in the sense that the brain has a distinct predilection towards forming words and sentences in a particular way.
As mentioned earlier the human language has seemingly developed along a particular course that has been dictated by the way in which the brain constructs sentence patterns and as such shows how language is in part influenced by genetics.
On the other hand as it can be seen in the case of computer generated speech all sentences, phrases and methods of communication are all limited by the input placed into the computer program itself.
Without this input there would be no method of communication at all, it is from this particular example that it can be seen that language development and communication itself is inherently dependent on the amount of “input” one receives and as such computer generated speech does not answer the debate regarding nature versus nurture but rather adds “fuel to the fire” so to speak in promoting even more arguments in the debate.
Reference List
Craighead, W., & Nemeroff, C. B. (2001). Corsini Encyclopedia of Psychology and Behavioral Science. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (US).
Johri, A. (2012). Capable and convivial design (CCD): a framework for designing information and communication technologies for human development. Information Technology For Development, 18(1), 61.
Justice, L. (2008). Experimental Evaluation of a Preschool Language Curriculum: Influence on Children’s Expressive Language Skills. Journal Of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 51(4), 983.
Klass, P. (2011). Hearing Bilingual: How Babies Sort Out Language. New York Times. p. 5.
Morin, J. J. (2010). Why Do Some Children Have Difficulty Learning Mathematics? Looking at Language for Answers. Preventing School Failure, 54(2), 111.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1998). Applied Child Study : A Developmental Approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Plomin, R., & Asbury, K. (2005). Nature and Nurture: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Behavior. Annals Of The American Academy Of Political & Social Science, 600.86-98.
Sethi, A. (2011). Talk to me. Baby Talk, 76(5), 29.
Shanker, S. (2001). What Children Know When They Know What a Name Is: The Non- Cartesian View of Language Acquisition. Current Anthropology, 42(4), 481.
Soderman, A. K. (2010). Language Immersion Programs for Young Children? Yes…But Proceed with Caution. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 54.
Steen, R. (2001). Chapter 2: The Old Nature versus Nurture Debate. In , DNA & Destiny: Nature & Nurture in Human Behavior (p. 21). Perseus Books, LLC.
Turner, B. S. (2000). Blackwell Companion to Social Theory. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.