-
Abstract
In
language acquisition studies, the names Jean
Piaget and Noam Chomsky are not
uncommon. They were known because they
were the founders of language acquisition
theories, which act as guidance for
researchers to study language and language
acquisition. Although these 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
focused on the role of genetic
endowment factors. This paper discusses the
differences in Piaget?s and Chomsky?s
approaches to language acquisition in an
attempt to present 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
semantics, 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 several 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 present 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
based on the process of language
acquisition. However, this paper discusses their
differences in the study of syntax and
semantics, which are the two important
components of a language.
One
of
the
earlier
theories
on
language
acquisition
was
proposed
by
Noam
Chomsky, a biological theorist. Chomsky
once said, “As far as we know, possession
of
human
language
is
associated
with
a
specific
type
of
mental
organization,
not
simply
a
higher
degree
of
intelligence”
(1972,
p.70).
Based
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
separate 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
because he claimed that human linguistic
capacities could
be considered as a
product of general “constructed”
intellectual development (Gardner,
1980). Due to these competing views, a
debate between Piaget and Chomsky was held
in 1975. In this paper, the two main
areas of disagreement
- syntax and
semantics -
between
Piaget?s
and
Chomsky?s
accounts
of
the
acquisit
ion
of
language
will
be
discussed. It is hoped that the
discussion may help to resolve the above issue.
Before
turning to this discussion, an
overview of each approach is presented.
A Brief Overview Of
Piaget?s And Chomsky?s Theories
In the study of how language is
acquired, Piaget, who was a cognitive
developmentalist, discussed 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 because
he viewed cognition and language as relatively
separate
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 mu
st 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
acco
unts can be
seen 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 sentences” (Shaffer, 1993, p.363).
Chomsky?s approach
has put
emphasis on a set of grammatical rules
that would generate syntactic descriptions for
all of the permissible and non
permissible sentences 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
sentences 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