Language Learning in the Early Years - Literature review Example

Early Language Learning Introduction Whilst there are many theories as well as misconceptions about language development and literacy in children, it can be noted that the aspect of socio-cultural approach to language learning has a bearing on the way children acquire language. According to Lopez (2003, p. 66), “every group in society shares a system of norms, preferences, and expectations that organize the linguistic structure of the group’s language.” Children often learn a language from sounds to words spoken by people in the society around them and they in turn use these to develop their language. Language develops at an early age and is mainly influenced by exposure to the social forces around the people. Thus, it can be noted that language acquisition is inextricably linked to local social processes characterizing a particular group. Language development in children is influenced by learning of symbolic systems and values that that are shared by people who belong to a particular socio-cultural group and it can be noted that factors such as culture, environment as well as motivation also contribute towards language learning in young children (Orlson & Torrance, 1991). From this argument, it can be noted that to a greater extent, culture impacts on the way a child acquires language. On the other hand, it can be noted that literacy development takes a more formal approach compared to learning a language which can be done even if a child cannot read and write. Literacy develops when a mentor closely teaches a child to read and write and this can be done either at home or at school. Hall et al (2003) posits to the effect that culture has a great role to play in language learning by the children. As the child grows, it is in a position to detect sounds and is in a position to differentiate especially speech sound from other ordinary sounds. Thus, it can be said that speech is developed through a child’s attachment to a particular society and culture plays a pivotal role in shaping a child’s language. Culture is comprised of values that are learned and these help children to learn a language from the people around it. Research has shown that children learn to speak the moment they come into contact with a particular group in their societies. The process of language acquisition can be attributed to the work of an American linguist Naom Chomsky (1959) who argues that grammar develops and grows in the mind of children when they are still infants. For instance, the first language or mother tongue can be acquired naturally given the child often develops the same tone as the mother. Chomsky argues that the mind is already structured and that language learning is highly psychological through his theory of Universal Grammar. Chomsky believes that children’s language acquisition is “closely tied to the theory of the mental mechanisms children use in acquiring language” (Pinker, n.d.). A part of the brain which Chomsky called “learning acquisition device” is part of the “human genetic endowment” which makes the person involuntarily and innately learn his natural language (Kellog, 1997, p. 242). If Chomsky’s theory should be followed, there would be no formal pattern as to how children learn how to talk, since they do it “their” way and not because of behavioral ‘patterns.’ Since each child is unique in his way of learning language, there could be no one way to teach it to speak a particular language. Language Learning in the Early Years One of the most unique characteristics of human beings that make them different from animals is that they are capable of using language. Through language, people were able to build civilizations with sophisticated culture and arts which were innovated by the present age for utility and fashion. Truly, human’s leap towards the development of language leads them to discover more about themselves and their surroundings. The transformation of language is magnificent, but what is amazing is how people learn the language in the early years of life considering that babies are born without a language. There are various theories about language development but still there is no absolute principle underlying the process of language acquisition. Bock (2005) revealed more interesting findings about babies and their language. She reported the findings of Patricia Kuhl, a university professor who found that the babies’ mind is set at birth to distinguish different sounds that they have “no trouble hearing distinctions and sorting out sounds” (Bock, 2005, p. 4). The same claim was made five years earlier through an experimental research by Professor Peter Eimas of Brown University. In the experiment, Professor Eimas took advantage of the baby’s habit of sucking. The baby subject, Jean-Paul, is French exposed to French culture and language. The recorded sound pattern of his sucking became the basis of comparison along the process. When he was initially exposed to the Russian language, he sucked the rubber nipple more vigorously and began to subside as he tend to ‘get bored’ with the Russian sound. When the researcher exposed him back to the French language, he showed again the same vigor when he first heard the Russian language (Golinkoff & Pasek, 2000, p. 8). The changing sucking pattern of Jean Paul upon hearing different languages indicates that he was able to distinguish varying sounds. Such evidence would prove that the mind is actually pre-programmed to learn the language. This finding particularly debunks Locke’s Blank Slate Theory. Although the baby has been exposed to French language and culture, which is behavioral in a way, there was no direct behavioral model that the baby followed. Professor Eimas’s research could be one concrete example to prove the accuracy of Chomsky’s claim. Additionally, recent studies in The University of Georgia state that “the baby’s brain cells connect with other cells to form complex pathway” (Bales, 1998, par. 3) which explains why Jean Paul responded upon hearing other language. Thus, Locke’s and Chomsky’s theories are based on the battle of nature versus nurture in the field of language acquisition. Learning through behavioral approach may seem valid in a lot of ways, such as performing the right way of uttering consonant sounds. Environment plays a crucial role in the development of a child’s language learning capability. Demerezen (1988) explains that according to behaviorists, there are five basic tenets of language learning using the behaviorist explanation. First, he contends that “behaviorist theory dwells on spoken language” (Demerezen, 1988, p. 137). Since language was first developed through talking and some languages do not have written forms, it is thought that language learning is basically learned through imitation. Second, “behaviorist theory is the habit formation theory of language teaching and learning” (p. 137). The learner undergoes a “mechanical process leading to habit formation and performance of habits” (p. 137). The third tenet is basically founded by the conditioning theory of B.F. Skinner and Ivan Pavlov where it follows a traditional stimulus-response process. The learner learns clauses and phrases “linearly” in the same way that he learns simple behavioral process to a more complex one. The fourth tenet states that “all learning is the establishment of habits as the result of reinforcement and reward” (p. 137) which means that the same process would be employed in language learning, only that it involves with the development of language learning. The fifth tenet asserts that people can learn language equally “due to its socially conditioned nature” (Demerezen, 1988, p. 138). However, Demerezen (1988) suggest that these tenets are basically constructed with three main concepts which are “imitation, conditioning and reward,” but the “extent and rate” remain to be unexplained which makes these unreliable. Therefore they are flawed. For instance, the fifth tenet seems to be an obvious questionable statement and is a direct opposite of what Chomsky contends. By virtue of saying that people to follow a similar manner of learning a language would be neglecting the unique capability of each person to learn independently. In other words, the tenets of behaviorism do not comply with the modern learning theories which are basically learner-centered. In a behaviorist point of view, the exact time when babies start to learn language is uncertain, since it suggests that learning through imitation, observation, and rewarding takes experience and exposure to the language. The role of the community and family is crucial as they are the prime molders of the child’s learning. However, Crain & Martin (1999, p. 34) do not agree that it is the environment that makes the people learn, rather, it is “acquired through the interaction of innately specified linguistic principles and exposure to language in the childs environment.” In other words, environment is just a tool in developing language and not the ultimate explanation of language acquisition. Although behaviorism once gained the title of being the answer to language acquisition mysteries, the study is just concerned of the “overt observable behaviors” and consequently rejecting the biological aspect of learning, which therefore is “unscientific” (Crain & Martin, 1999, p. 34). Behaviorism failed to acknowledge the mental abilities and processes involving ‘influence’ and stuck to the notion of the environment-driven learning, which is rather short sighted. What behaviorists in the past failed to do is to look into other possibilities, and failed to ask the question of how humans are capable of being influenced. Figure 1 of Appendix A shows the interconnectivity of thought and the environment in the development of language. It is seen in that diagram that there is a “process” in which both mind and environment are actively participating in the performance of linguistic tasks. Unlike speaking, learning to read and write requires more teacher involvement in guiding the child to learn how to read or write although it can also be done at home but with minimal concentration. In schools, literacy is taught in various ways, integrating arts, music, and other disciplines which can be enjoyed by primary school children. In a formal learning environment, the teacher is in a position to motivate the children to learn to read and write while the children are also expected to respond positively given that their mind has matured enough to know the purpose of learning (Swartz, 2004). In as far as literacy is concerned, it can be noted that a child can be formally taught. Vygotsky (1978) supports the concept of learning which can be attributed to the behavioural theory of learning. Behaviour change is the essence of learning and there is an external stimulant that motivates a learner to learn. In this case, formal learning is designed to change the behaviour of the learners such as learning to read and write. Though literacy does not cause a new mode of thought or social change in an individual, it can be achieved through learning (Orlson & Torrance, 1991).However, development of language is expected to take precedence before learning to read or write by a child. It has to be observed that development of speech and literacy are two different concepts given that speech can be developed in an informal setting. Literacy can be developed at home but the school environment is more ideal. The teacher has to go through a rigorous exercise to instruct a child to read and write which is not the case with speech development. Hall et al (2003) suggest that formal learning is applicable to children who are around five years as they begin to learn to read or write. A person can speak a particular language fluently but may not be able to read and write. Therefore, a child can also learn to read and write at home but a formal learning environment is always seen as more effective. According to Whitebread (2002, p. 181), “children need teachers to be sensitive to and respectful of their existing literacy practices.” The level of literacy they possess should serve as a guideline for teachers on what and how to teach. Juel (1999 cited in Whitebread, 2002, p. 181) asserts that the learning environment of primary schools should not be too far from what it is at home. In the same way, they are “warm and supportive,” provides "hands-off" assistance, and portrays "explicit cognitive modelling of reading and writing process.” This is essentially important as the child would adapt to the home school transitions every day. During the child’s primary years, home-school transitions pose a challenge for the child to adapt to different environments, for instance, as a pupil at school and as a family member at home (Ecclestone, Briens, & Hughes, 2009, p. 29). Thus, a sound transition from home to school and vice versa is significant when dealing with the child’s emotional and psychological being. Case Studies: Three Stories of Literacy Case 1 McGlothin (1997) conducted an observation of his son’s language learning process. He observed that the baby’s linguistic capability is dramatic as it changes gradually as a result of different environmental forces. McGlothin (1997) also noted important observations that would help in finding out how children could possibly learn to speak their language. The process was gradual and involved various repetitions which aided the child to remember what he was doing and what it was actually called. The home as a learning environment does not require him to have a specific word that he should learn within the day. No one could tell about how he should go with the pacing, actually, he was in control of everything. One characteristic that is innate with every child and is also apparent with McGlothin’s son is the feeling of enjoyment while he unconsciously learns. The speaking abilities of the child develop naturally, with no one teaching him how to do it. He learns it in his own way with no pressure surrounding him. It is the same principle with teaching young children at primary schools; learning is made effective without making the children feel that it is such a heavy obligation, or else they would find learning to be traumatic. Case 2 Inan (2010, p. 371) examined a case of Mary, a young ESL learner, and her language literacy using methods which would measure her speaking, writing and reading competency. Mary is just 3 and half years old, but she already shows mature characteristics of an ESL learner. Although her father translates English words to Chinese sometimes, Mary is considered above than what is expected as she only had few mistakes with the three activities namely: speaking, writing and reading. Unlike the first case presented, Mary’s experience and her interaction with the researcher is for an observation survey and not based on candid experiences. Mary’s literacy is above average considering her age, but just like other ESL learners, she undergoes the same process in learning the language. The above average performance of Mary during the said observation survey may have been due to two things: effective parent involvement and genetics. The parents played a pivotal role in teaching her to speak, write as well as read. To a certain extent, Mary’s pace of learning can be attributed to the aspect of genetic inheritance of language from the parents as suggested by Chomsky. Case 3 Another case study is that of Tom whose literacy experience is regarded as “active and autonomous” (Bisby, Brooks, & Wolfendale, 1995, p. 207). As what his mother observes, Tom is more comfortable in dealing with learning on his own. His new vocabulary mainly comes from his environment and is “highly aware of language appearing in different forms in his environment...and reconstructs language in ways that informed and pleases him” (p. 208). The process in which he learns language is coming from what he observes from his environment. He does not want to be directly assisted and finds it a bit annoying. Although Tom has shown good writing skills, he does not write the words taught at school, instead, “[he] continued using his favorite writing strategy to find and use new words in his stories” (p. 208). Case Study Analysis All three cases presented unique ways about how a child learns a language. Mary and Tom were both studied by a researcher and their parents, whereas the case of McGlothlin’s son was done by the father, considering that he was not yet of school-age and was just beginning to utter simple words. All subjects began their language acquisition through the basic skills such as translation, repetition, and imitation. There are two prevalent differences among the three cases which affected their literacy experience: purpose and environment. The first subject, which is hardly of school going age, has slower pace when it comes to developing speaking skills. Since he still is making initial attempts to speak, there would be no required amount of language to be learned in a day. Children in cases two and three are of preschool age and are already capable of writing and reading simple words. However, the child in case 2 is more mature than the one in case three even though he is half-year older. Although family practice is not directly associated with this difference, it is still an influence that needs to be considered. The two children may possess the same level of literacy but the only difference is that the other one has more practice and guidance from teachers and parents, while the other prefers to work alone which causes him to have “a low degree of autonomy, authenticity, integration, and social interaction” (Bisby, Brooks, & Wolfendale, 1995, p. 209). The knowledge and attitude they have would be very important in school since there would be proper guidance as to how to use this knowledge effectively. In Tom’s case, it is a good thing that he exhibits good writing skills. However, he should also be properly guided in using this competency. Using language in schools through active learning poses wider opportunities for literacy development. The interaction and participation to guided activities are significant in making literacy efficient. In the aforementioned case studies, there is an obvious link between the environment and the innate capacity of the child to perform linguistic task. The environment plays a pivotal role in shaping the child’s capability to learn to speak or to read and write. For example, the case of McGlothlin’s son suggests that babies have their own way of expressing themselves. From babbling, they tend to utter simple words until such time that they are able to speak clearly. Observably, the initial stages of the child’s attempt to make sentences would not have correct syntax, but changes as the child grows without explaining to him what proper grammar should be. The change is a natural process, which makes Chomsky’s study reasonable. The concept of Universal Grammar might have explained this, which states that the Grammar of the first language does not have to be taught and is wired within the brain. For example, a toddler might say “baby milk want,” but after several years, he would be able to say “I want milk” without having to teach him. As what McGlothlin (1997, n. pag.) noted, “The child is not interested in language for its own sake” and simply undergoes natural, mental transitions and in time, he would be able to utter language just like adults do, not unless if he has communicative disabilities. Conclusion First language acquisition is a natural process that all humans should undergo at the first stages of their lives. There are different theories attempting to explain how infants are able to babble and eventually talk like other people do as they grow up. The concept of Universal Grammar and the existence of language acquisition device in the brain would be the most reasonable among them although other theories are also valid in their own right. However, other theories tend to have certain limitations on their explanation, and there are various gaps that need to be filled up to make them more sound. For example, the behaviorist theories rely on imitation, reward, and response but do explain the extent to which it is most effective and do not explain the mental processes behind it. The socio-cultural theory is only valid for second language learning and not with first language acquisition, where the child should be first exposed to his culture and then adapts a new one in order to learn a foreign language systematically. Such theory would require first language to have an initial step towards learning other language. What makes Chomsky’s theory ideal is that it is not one sided since it considers other theories and integrate them to his own concept. Behavioral theories were part of Chomsky’s study. An interesting thing that could be explored further is the role of parentese in first language acquisition whereby it is believed that the mother tongue is easier to acquire especially by infants. If the study should be done, then there would be more evidence of the existence of LAD in the brain. Since parentese imitates the language of the baby, then it would be hard for babies to develop mature language utterance if behavioral principle should be the basis. However, present studies show the opposite since parentese is known to help the child acquire first language efficiently. References Bales, D., 1998. Building babys brain: learning the language. Better Brains for Babies, [Online] Available at: http://www.fcs.uga.edu/pubs/PDF/FACS01-6.pdf [Accessed 24 March 2011]. Bisby, B.R., Brooks, G. & Wolfendale, S., 1995. Developing language and literacy in the english national curriculum. London: Trentham Books Limited. Bock, P, 2005. How do babies learn to talk? Pacific Noethwest, [internet] 1 Mar. Available at: http://ilabs.washington.edu/news/Times_Pacific_3_6_05.pdf [Accessed 25 March 2011]. Chamberlin, R.P., Wragg, E.C. & Haynes, G.S., 1998. Improving literacy in the primary school. London, Routledge. Chomsky, N 1959, Review of Verbal Behaviour By BF Skinner language 35:26-58. Crain, S. & Martin, D.C.L., 1999. An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. MA: Wiley-Blackwell. Donaldson, M 1978, Children’s Mind, Fontana Press, London. Demerezen, M., 1988. Behaviorist theory and language learning. Hacettepe üniversitesi E~tim Fakültesi Ö~retim üyesi, 3, pp. 135-140. Ecclestone, K., Biesta, G. & Hughes M., 2009. Transitions and learning through lifecourse. Oxon: Taylor & Francis. Golinkoff, M.R. & Pasek, K.H., 2000. How babies talk: the magic and mystery of language in the first three years of life. NY: Penguin Books. Inan, H.Z., 2010. Literacy development of a preschooler: an exemplary case. The Journal of International Social Research, 3 (11), pp. 365-371. Hall, N et al 2003, Handbook for early childhood literacy, Sage Publications, London. Kaluger, G & Kaluger, M 1984, Human Development: The Span of Life, Merril Publishing Company, Columbus Ohio. Kellog, R.T., 1997.Cognitive psychology. London: SAGE Publications. Lopez, PB 2003, Language, literacy and community, Sage Publications. London. McGlothin, D.J., 1997. A childs first steps in language learning. The Internet TESL Journal, [Online]. 3 (10), Available at: http://iteslj.org/Articles/McGlothlin-ChildLearn.html [Accessed 24 March 2011]. Orlson, DR & Torrance, N 1991, Literacy & orality, Cambridge University Press, New York: NY. Pinker, S., (n.d.) Lanuage acquisition. In L. R. Gleitman, M. Liberman, and D. N. Osherson, eds. An invitation to cognitive science. MA: MIT Press. Ch. 6. Steiner, V.J. & Mahn, H., 2010. Sociocultural appraoches to learning development. The Vygotsky Project, [Online] Available at: http://nateweb.info/johnsteiner.htm [Accessed 24 March 2011]. Suharno, 2009. Cognitivism and its implications to second language learning. [diagram] (blog entry). Available at: http://staff.undip.ac.id/sastra/suharno/2009/07/21/cognitivism-and-its-implication-in-the-second-language-learning/ [Accessed 25 March 2011]. Swartz, L et al 2004, Psychology: an introduction, Oxford University Press, New York: NY. VanPatten, B. & Williams, J., 2006. Theories in second language acquisition: an introduction. NY: Routledge. Vygotsky, LS 1978, Mind in Society: The development of higher Psychological Processes, University Press: Boston. Whitebread, D., 2002.The psychology of teaching and learning in the primary school. London: Routledge. Appendix A Figure 1: Process in which the mind and environment actively works together (Suharno, 2009, n.pag.) Read More