EESL 5310: Reflection #1

Generally speaking, I am distrustful of opinions stated in absolutes; on one extreme or another. Of the many opinions and theories posed in regards to first language acquisition, I am less inclined to give much credence to those expressed in recognition of either nature or nurture as the sole influence. It is doubtful to me that one does not influence the other.

Behaviorist theories credit imitation and association, posing that another person’s praise for correct language reinforces the behavior. Innatists attribute language acquisition to an innate, biological LAD (language acquisition device), claiming children enter their lives prewired for linguistic analysis. Yet, neither theory can account for all situations. For example, children format and create sentences they have never heard before with vocabulary they have acquired, denouncing the strictly behaviorist theories. And yet, a child will continue to pronounce words or format sentences ‘incorrectly’ (according to the culture) without the interventions of reading or interactions with a person modeling accuracy.

It seems evident to me that as neither theory can account for every situation, there must be a more accurate explanation—and I believe it is likely to be found in some melding of the extreme theories, and not evidenced in absolutes.

So far, I tend to agree most frequently with the Interactionist theories. “…caregivers play a critical role in adjusting language to facilitate the use of innate capacities for language acquisition” (Peregoy, 2001). Vygotsky’s theories of ZPD and scaffolding seem to apply to language acquisition: a parent listens to their child and responds with expanded form, reinforcing understood concepts, yet modeling a more mature, appropriate, or correct usage. I believe the Interactionist opinion that acquisition emerges from communication.