Innateness hypothesis

Last updated

In linguistics, the innateness hypothesis, also known as the nativist hypothesis, holds that humans are born with at least some knowledge of linguistic structure. On this hypothesis, language acquisition involves filling in the details of an innate blueprint rather than being an entirely inductive process. [1] [2] The hypothesis is one of the cornerstones of generative grammar and related approaches in linguistics. Arguments in favour include the poverty of the stimulus, the universality of language acquisition, as well as experimental studies on learning and learnability. However, these arguments have been criticized, and the hypothesis is widely rejected in other traditions such as usage-based linguistics. The term was coined by Hilary Putnam in reference to the views of Noam Chomsky.

Contents

Linguistic nativism

Linguistic nativism is the hypothesis that humans are born with some knowledge of language. It is intended as an explanation for the fact that children are reliably able to accurately acquire enormously complex linguistic structures within a short period of time. [3] The central argument in favour of nativism is the poverty of the stimulus. Additional arguments come from the fact that language acquisition among children occurs in ordered developmental stages [4] and that adult learners – having passed the critical age for language acquisition – are typically unable to acquire native-like proficiency in a second language. [5]

Poverty of the stimulus

Poverty of the stimulus arguments claim that the evidence a child receives during language acquisition is not sufficient to determine the eventual linguistic output. For instance, in one such argument formulated by Noam Chomsky, he argued that children's experiences with polar questions in languages such as English language would not favor the actual subject–auxiliary inversion rule over a hypothetical one which pertains to linear order rather than hierarchical structure. [6] [7] [8]

Pullum and Scholz summarised the properties of a child's environment. [9] They identified properties of positivity, degeneracy, incompleteness and idiosyncrasy. Under positivity, they assert that children are only exposed to positive linguistic data. Moreover, there is lack in negative data that aids a child in identifying ungrammatical sentences that are unacceptable in the language. [9] [10] It is also claimed[ by whom? ] that children are unable to acquire a language with positive evidence alone. In addition, under degeneracy, it is stated that children are often exposed to linguistic data that are erroneous. This is supported by Zohari, who states that in adult speech, erroneous utterances that include speech slips, ungrammatical sentences, incomplete sentences, etc. are often observed. [11] Furthermore, the linguistic data each child is exposed to is different (i.e. idiosyncrasy) and there are many utterances that a child might not have heard (i.e. incompleteness). However, despite the properties mentioned above, children would eventually be able to deliver a linguistic output that is similar to the target language within a relatively short amount of time. [11] In contrast, when placed in certain environments, other organisms are unable to attain the language mastery humans have reached. [12]

The validity of poverty of stimulus arguments is not universally accepted, and is the subject of ongoing debate. [13] [14]

Critical-period hypothesis

The critical-period hypothesis of the linguist Eric Lenneberg states that full native competence in acquiring a language can only be achieved during an optimal period. [15] This hypothesis supports the innateness hypothesis about the biological innateness of linguistic competence. Lenneberg expressed that age plays a salient role in the ability to acquire language. According to him, a child before the age of two will not sufficiently acquire language, while development of full native competence in a language must occur before the onset of puberty. [16] This suggests that language is innate and occurs through development instead of through feedback from the environment. [17] As a result, should a child not hear any language during this period, the child would not be able to learn nor be able to speak. This hypothesis is also said[ by whom? ] to explain why adults do not acquire languages as well as children.

The case of the feral child Genie provides evidence for the critical-period hypothesis. When discovered, she was without language. Genie's subsequent language-acquisition process was studied, whereby her linguistic performance, cognitive and emotional development was deemed abnormal. Genie was said[ by whom? ] to have right-hemisphere language, resembling other cases where language was acquired outside of the "critical period". [18] This would lend support to Lenneberg's hypothesis. Moreover, some saw the case of Genie as a support to the innateness hypothesis. When the LAD is not triggered during the critical period, the natural process of language acquisition cannot be reached. [19] However, Genie's case is complex and controversial. It has been argued[ by whom? ] that it does not support linguistic innateness. Some[ which? ] have asserted that there is at least a possible degree of first-language acquisition beyond the critical period. [20] [21] Moreover, emotional and cognitive deprivation may have also played a part in Genie's linguistic and cognitive difficulties. [21] [22]

The development of the Nicaraguan sign language (NSL) by students in a school for the deaf also lends evidence to the critical-period hypothesis. Initially a pidgin sign language with simple grammar, it had large grammatical differences and variations across signers. Eventually, the pidgin became a full-fledged language (like a creole) as younger signers developed a significantly more grammatically-structured and regular system [23] such as specific grammatical structures [24] Often, the differences in abilities between younger and older students learning to use sign language are said to suggest evidence for a critical period. The spontaneity of the development of NSL also suggests that there is an innate element to the process of language learning. [25]

Nonetheless, the critical-period hypothesis in relation to language acquisition is also widely debated. Other research has also indicated that any age effects depend largely on the opportunities for learning, learning situations and how significant the initial exposure is. [26]

Universal grammar

The term universal grammar refers to the set of constraints on what a possible human language could be. Within approaches that accept universal grammar, language acquisition is viewed as a process of using sensory input to filter through the set of possible grammars that conform to UG. [27] [28]

Language acquisition device

According to Chomsky, humans are born with a set of language-learning tools referred to as the LAD (language acquisition device). The LAD is an abstract part of the human mind which houses the ability for humans to acquire and produce language. [29] Chomsky proposed that children are able to derive rules of a language through hypothesis testing because they are equipped with a LAD. The LAD then transforms these rules into basic grammar. [29] Hence, according to Chomsky, the LAD explains why children seem to have the innate ability to acquire a language and accounts for why no explicit teaching is required for a child to acquire a language.

Linguistic empiricism

Empiricism is the theory that all knowledge is based on experience derived from the senses. [30] Empiricists only study observable behaviour instead of unobservable mental representations, states and processes. They claim that sense and experience is the ultimate source of all concepts and knowledge. [31] On the other hand, linguistic empiricism is a perspective where language is entirely learned. These data-driven theorists also support that children do not have linguistically-specific knowledge at birth. Language and grammar are only learned through exposure and accumulated experience. This is also called the "nurture" perspective as opposed to the "nature" perspective (linguistic nativism).

Chomsky's innateness hypothesis contradicts the belief by John Locke that our knowledge, including language, cannot be innate and is instead derived from experience. [32] Geoffrey Sampson also showed the same stand by stating that "Our languages are not inborn but are learned wholly with experience." [33] Empiricists have criticised concepts like generative grammar that support linguistic nativism. In fact, some would argue that "language structure" is created through language use. [34] Moreover, they assert that theories like the LAD are unsupported by empirical evidence.

Arguments

Contrastive analyses about the innateness hypothesis have been done by Jacek Fisiak in 1980. [35] According to Fisiak's analysis, Putnam, Hiż and Goodman criticized Chomsky's innate hypothesis by stating that:

  1. The fact that languages have similar properties is common and natural. [35] There is no necessity to appeal to innate concepts for the explanation of this fact. Goodman also expressed that claims about language universals are dubious. He argues that it is not surprising that languages in the world will coincidentally have features in common. [36] Therefore, the claim that common features, which have been identified as natural 'language universals', should not be supported. [36]
  2. The hypothesis cannot be supported by empirical evidence. [35]

It is hard to explain what it is for someone to have an innate concept since empirical evidence to support this theory is hard to find. [37] In other words, there is no way to falsify the theory unless empirical evidence is found.

Over the years, many theories that are against language innateness have been developed to account for language acquisition. Many have championed that human beings learn language through experience with some leaning towards children being equipped with learning mechanisms while others suggesting that social situations or cognitive capacities can account for language learning.

Bates and Elman summarised a research conducted by Saffran, Aslin and Newport [38] that supports that learning is "a purely inductive, statistically driven process". [39] In the research, it was found that 8 month old infants were able to use simple statistics to identify word boundaries in speech. The results of the research highlight that language acquisition is a process of learning through statistical means. Moreover, it raises the possibility that infants possess experience-dependent mechanisms that allow for word segmentation and acquisition of other aspects of language. [40] As a result, Bates and Elman found that this contradicts the extensive view that human beings are unable and cannot utilize generalized statistical procedures for language acquisition. [39] This is empirical evidence for linguistic empiricism, thereby going against the innateness hypothesis.

Michael Tomasello's findings highlight the significance of a usage-based theory of language acquisition and indicates that there is a relation between cognitive and social skills with linguistic competence. [34] This shows the importance of the role of experience in language acquisition. By empirically studying the developmental stages of child language acquisition, he argues that children have specific cognitive capacities at birth that promote growth in linguistic competence and specific interpersonal abilities that aid language learning. [41] However, he emphasised that this does not prove that language is innate. In addition, his experiments indicate that children's awareness and understanding of the intentional communicative cues displayed by others is a salient social cognitive skill that determines their ability to learn words. [42] Tomasello also stated that young children's initial multi-word productions are very concrete as they are based on specific words and phrases instead of innate and abstract linguistic categories. [43] Hence, this would explain why grammar development is progressive and word-specific.

Geoffrey Sampson also supports that the "richness of the environment" plays a role in language acquisition. [44] For example, Sampson observed that not only human beings but all species are capable of recognizing speech. [45] This ability indicates that a child is equipped with the capacity for normalisation which plays a fundamental role in acquiring the phonology of a language. Therefore, he contends that a child is born with the ability to learn and this is through testing and guessing instead of the innate ability that nativists support.

See also

Related Research Articles

Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive and comprehend language. In other words, it is how human beings gain the ability to be aware of language, to understand it, and to produce and use words and sentences to communicate.

Universal grammar (UG), in modern linguistics, is the theory of the innate biological component of the language faculty, usually credited to Noam Chomsky. The basic postulate of UG is that there are innate constraints on what the grammar of a possible human language could be. When linguistic stimuli are received in the course of language acquisition, children then adopt specific syntactic rules that conform to UG. The advocates of this theory emphasize and partially rely on the poverty of the stimulus (POS) argument and the existence of some universal properties of natural human languages. However, the latter has not been firmly established, as some linguists have argued languages are so diverse that such universality is rare, and the theory of universal grammar remains controversial among linguists.

Cognitive linguistics is an interdisciplinary branch of linguistics, combining knowledge and research from cognitive science, cognitive psychology, neuropsychology and linguistics. Models and theoretical accounts of cognitive linguistics are considered as psychologically real, and research in cognitive linguistics aims to help understand cognition in general and is seen as a road into the human mind.

Eric Heinz Lenneberg was a linguist and neurologist who pioneered ideas on language acquisition and cognitive psychology, particularly in terms of the concept of innateness.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Generative grammar</span> Research tradition in linguistics

Generative grammar is a research tradition in linguistics that aims to explain the cognitive basis of language by formulating and testing explicit models of humans' subconscious grammatical knowledge. Generative linguists, or generativists, tend to share certain working assumptions such as the competence–performance distinction and the notion that some domain-specific aspects of grammar are partly innate in humans. These assumptions are rejected in non-generative approaches such as usage-based models of language. Generative linguistics includes work in core areas such as syntax, semantics, phonology, psycholinguistics, and language acquisition, with additional extensions to topics including biolinguistics and music cognition.

In the philosophy of mind, innatism is the view that the mind is born with already-formed ideas, knowledge, and beliefs. The opposing doctrine, that the mind is a tabula rasa at birth and all knowledge is gained from experience and the senses, is called empiricism.

Principles and parameters is a framework within generative linguistics in which the syntax of a natural language is described in accordance with general principles and specific parameters that for particular languages are either turned on or off. For example, the position of heads in phrases is determined by a parameter. Whether a language is head-initial or head-final is regarded as a parameter which is either on or off for particular languages. Principles and parameters was largely formulated by the linguists Noam Chomsky and Howard Lasnik. Many linguists have worked within this framework, and for a period of time it was considered the dominant form of mainstream generative linguistics.

In linguistics, Poverty of the stimulus (POS) arguments are arguments that children are not exposed to rich enough data within their linguistic environments to acquire every feature of their language. Poverty of the stimulus arguments are used as evidence for universal grammar, the notion that at least some aspects of linguistic competence are innate. The term "poverty of the stimulus" was coined by Noam Chomsky in 1980. Their empirical and conceptual bases are a topic of continuing debate in linguistics.

In the field of psychology, nativism is the view that certain skills or abilities are "native" or hard-wired into the brain at birth. This is in contrast to the "blank slate" or tabula rasa view, which states that the brain has inborn capabilities for learning from the environment but does not contain content such as innate beliefs. This factor contributes to the ongoing nature versus nurture dispute, one borne from the current difficulty of reverse engineering the subconscious operations of the brain, especially the human brain.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Plato's problem</span>

Plato's problem is the term given by Noam Chomsky to "the problem of explaining how we can know so much" given our limited experience. Chomsky believes that Plato asked how we should account for the rich, intrinsic, common structure of human cognition, when it seems underdetermined by extrinsic evidence presented to a person during human development. In linguistics this is referred to as the "argument from poverty of the stimulus" (APS). Such arguments are common in the natural sciences, where a developing theory is always "underdetermined by evidence". Chomsky's approach to Plato's problem involves treating cognition as a normal research topic in the natural sciences, so cognition can be studied to elucidate intertwined genetic, developmental, and biophysical factors. Plato's problem is most clearly illustrated in the Meno dialogue, in which Socrates demonstrates that an uneducated boy nevertheless understands geometric principles.

The generative approach to second language (L2) acquisition (SLA) is a cognitive based theory of SLA that applies theoretical insights developed from within generative linguistics to investigate how second languages and dialects are acquired and lost by individuals learning naturalistically or with formal instruction in foreign, second language and lingua franca settings. Central to generative linguistics is the concept of Universal Grammar (UG), a part of an innate, biologically endowed language faculty which refers to knowledge alleged to be common to all human languages. UG includes both invariant principles as well as parameters that allow for variation which place limitations on the form and operations of grammar. Subsequently, research within the Generative Second-Language Acquisition (GenSLA) tradition describes and explains SLA by probing the interplay between Universal Grammar, knowledge of one's native language and input from the target language. Research is conducted in syntax, phonology, morphology, phonetics, semantics, and has some relevant applications to pragmatics.

Bootstrapping is a term used in language acquisition in the field of linguistics. It refers to the idea that humans are born innately equipped with a mental faculty that forms the basis of language. It is this language faculty that allows children to effortlessly acquire language. As a process, bootstrapping can be divided into different domains, according to whether it involves semantic bootstrapping, syntactic bootstrapping, prosodic bootstrapping, or pragmatic bootstrapping.

The critical period hypothesis is a theory within the field of linguistics and second language acquisition that claims a person can only achieve native-like fluency in a language before a certain age. It is the subject of a long-standing debate in linguistics and language acquisition over the extent to which the ability to acquire language is biologically linked to developmental stages of the brain. The critical period hypothesis was first proposed by Montreal neurologist Wilder Penfield and co-author Lamar Roberts in their 1959 book Speech and Brain Mechanisms, and was popularized by Eric Lenneberg in 1967 with Biological Foundations of Language.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Biolinguistics</span> Study of the biology and evolution of language

Biolinguistics can be defined as the study of biology and the evolution of language. It is highly interdisciplinary as it is related to various fields such as biology, linguistics, psychology, anthropology, mathematics, and neurolinguistics to explain the formation of language. It seeks to yield a framework by which we can understand the fundamentals of the faculty of language. This field was first introduced by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, professor of Linguistics and Cognitive Science at the University of Arizona. It was first introduced in 1971, at an international meeting at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).

Traditional transmission is one of the 13 design features of language developed by anthropologist Charles F. Hockett to distinguish the features of human language from that of animal communication. Critically, animal communication might display some of the thirteen features but never all of them. It is typically considered as one of the crucial characteristics distinguishing human from animal communication and provides significant support for the argument that language is learned socially within a community and not inborn where the acquisition of information is via the avenue of genetic inheritance.

Domain-specific learning theories of development hold that we have many independent, specialised knowledge structures (domains), rather than one cohesive knowledge structure. Thus, training in one domain may not impact another independent domain. Domain-general views instead suggest that children possess a "general developmental function" where skills are interrelated through a single cognitive system. Therefore, whereas domain-general theories would propose that acquisition of language and mathematical skill are developed by the same broad set of cognitive skills, domain-specific theories would propose that they are genetically, neurologically and computationally independent.

<i>Educating Eve</i> 1997 book by Geoffrey Sampson

Educating Eve: The 'Language Instinct' Debate is a book by Geoffrey Sampson, providing arguments against Noam Chomsky's theory of a human instinct for (first) language acquisition. Sampson explains the original title of the book as a deliberate allusion to Educating Rita (1980), and uses the plot of that play to illustrate his argument. Sampson's book is a response to Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct specifically and Chomskyan linguistic nativism broadly.

The main purpose of theories of second-language acquisition (SLA) is to shed light on how people who already know one language learn a second language. The field of second-language acquisition involves various contributions, such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and education. These multiple fields in second-language acquisition can be grouped as four major research strands: (a) linguistic dimensions of SLA, (b) cognitive dimensions of SLA, (c) socio-cultural dimensions of SLA, and (d) instructional dimensions of SLA. While the orientation of each research strand is distinct, they are in common in that they can guide us to find helpful condition to facilitate successful language learning. Acknowledging the contributions of each perspective and the interdisciplinarity between each field, more and more second language researchers are now trying to have a bigger lens on examining the complexities of second language acquisition.

Statistical language acquisition, a branch of developmental psycholinguistics, studies the process by which humans develop the ability to perceive, produce, comprehend, and communicate with natural language in all of its aspects through the use of general learning mechanisms operating on statistical patterns in the linguistic input. Statistical learning acquisition claims that infants' language-learning is based on pattern perception rather than an innate biological grammar. Several statistical elements such as frequency of words, frequent frames, phonotactic patterns and other regularities provide information on language structure and meaning for facilitation of language acquisition.

The basis of Noam Chomsky's linguistic theory lies in biolinguistics, the linguistic school that holds that the principles underpinning the structure of language are biologically preset in the human mind and hence genetically inherited. He argues that all humans share the same underlying linguistic structure, irrespective of sociocultural differences. In adopting this position Chomsky rejects the radical behaviorist psychology of B. F. Skinner. Chomsky argues that language is a unique evolutionary development of the human species and distinguished from modes of communication used by any other animal species. Chomsky's nativist, internalist view of language is consistent with the philosophical school of "rationalism" and contrasts with the anti-nativist, externalist view of language consistent with the philosophical school of "empiricism", which contends that all knowledge, including language, comes from external stimuli.

References

  1. ↑ "Innateness hypothesis | Define Innateness hypothesis at Dictionary.com". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2013-09-15.
  2. ↑ "The 'Innateness Hypothesis' and Explanatory Models in Linguistics" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2016-01-02. Retrieved 2020-08-21.
  3. ↑ Goldberg, Adele E (2008). "Universal Grammar? Or prerequisites for natural language?". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 31 (5): 522–523. doi:10.1017/s0140525x0800513x.
  4. ↑ Laurence, Stephen; Margolis, Eric (2001). "The Poverty of the Stimulus Argument" (PDF). The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 52 (2): 217–276. doi:10.1093/bjps/52.2.217.
  5. ↑ Clark, Alexander Simon; Lappin, Shalom (2010). Linguistic nativism and the poverty of the stimulus. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
  6. ↑ Chomsky, Noam (1972). Language and mind (Enl. ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
  7. ↑ Pinker, Steven (1991). "Rules of Language". Science. 253 (5019): 530–535. Bibcode:1991Sci...253..530P. doi:10.1126/science.1857983. PMID   1857983.
  8. ↑ Thomas, Margaret (2002). "Development of the Concept of 'the Poverty of the Stimulus'". Linguistic Review. 19: 51–71.
  9. 1 2 Pullum, Geoffrey K.; Scholz, Barbara C. (2002). "Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments". Linguistic Review. 19 (1/2).
  10. ↑ Longa, Víctor M (2008). "What about a (really) minimalist theory of language acquisition?". Linguistics. 46 (3): 541–570. doi:10.1515/ling.2008.018. hdl: 10651/5722 . S2CID   33454994.
  11. 1 2 Zohari, Parissa (2004). "Language acquisition and the argument from the poverty of the stimulus". ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.
  12. ↑ Chomsky, Noam (2012). "Poverty of Stimulus: Unfinished Business". Studies in Chinese Linguistics. 33 (1): 3–16.
  13. ↑ Laurence, Stephen (2001). "The Poverty of the Stimulus Argument" (PDF). The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 52 (2): 217–276. doi:10.1093/bjps/52.2.217.
  14. ↑ Cowie, Fiona (1999). What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  15. ↑ Lenneberg, E.H. (1967). Biological foundations of language . New York: Wiley. ISBN   9780471526261.
  16. ↑ Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological Foundations of Language . New York: Wiley. ISBN   9780471526261.
  17. ↑ "Chomsky and language learning" . Retrieved 14 October 2014.
  18. ↑ Curtiss, Susan (1977). Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-Day "Wild Child". Boston, MA: Academic Press. p. 234.
  19. ↑ Brown, D.H. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching (4 ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
  20. ↑ Snow E., Catherine; Hoefnagel-Höhle, Marian (1978). "The Critical Period for Language Acquisition: Evidence from Second Language Learning". Society for Research in Child Development. 49 (4): 1114–1128. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1978.tb04080.x.
  21. 1 2 Mayberry, Rachel I.; Eichen, Ellen B. (1991). "The critical period for language acquisition and the deaf child's language comprehension: a psycholinguistic approach". Journal of Memory and Language. 30 (4): 486–512. doi:10.1016/0749-596x(91)90018-f.
  22. ↑ Sampson, Geoffrey (1997). Educating Eve: The 'Language Instinct' Debate. London: Cassell.
  23. ↑ Sandler, Wendy. "Sign language: An overview" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2014-08-03. Retrieved 2014-10-17.
  24. ↑ Senghas, Ann (1995). "The Development of Nicaraguan Sign Language via the Language Acquisition Process". Proceedings of Boston University Child Language Development. 19: 543–552.
  25. ↑ "Children create new sign language". BBC News. 16 September 2004. Retrieved 16 October 2014.
  26. ↑ Lightbown, Patsy M. (2000). "Classroom SLA research and second language teaching". Applied Linguistics. 21 (4): 431–462. doi:10.1093/applin/21.4.431.
  27. ↑ Chomsky, Noam (1975). Reflections on Language . University of Michigan: Pantheon Books. pp.  3–35.
  28. ↑ Lewis, John D; Elman, Jeffrey L (2002). "Learnability and the Statistical Structure of Language: Poverty of Stimulus Arguments Revisited". Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. 26 (1): 359–370.
  29. 1 2 Volkmar, Fred R. (2013). Encyclopedia of Autism Spectrum Disorders. New York, NY: Springer New York.
  30. ↑ "Empiricism". Oxford Dictionaries. Archived from the original on July 21, 2012. Retrieved 16 October 2014.
  31. ↑ Markie, Peter (2017). "Rationalism vs. Empiricism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 9 January 2019.
  32. ↑ Book, I; II, Book II; Locke, John. An essay concerning human understanding. Edwin Mellen Press.
  33. ↑ Sampson, Geoffrey (1978). Linguistic universals as evidence for empiricism. Cambridge Univ Press. pp. 183–206.
  34. 1 2 Tomasello, Michael (2009). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
  35. 1 2 3 Fisiak, Jacek (1981). Theoretical issues in contrastive linguistics. John Benjamins Publishing.
  36. 1 2 Chapman, Siobhan (2000). Philosophy for linguists: an introduction. Psychology Press.
  37. ↑ Markie, Peter (19 August 2004). "Rationalism vs. Empiricism". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 17 October 2014.
  38. ↑ Saffran, Jenny R; Aslin, Richard N; Newport, Elissa L (1996). "Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants". Science. 274 (5294): 1926–1928. Bibcode:1996Sci...274.1926S. doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1926. PMID   8943209. S2CID   13321604.
  39. 1 2 Bates, Elizabeth; Elman, Jeffrey (1996). "Learning Rediscovered". Science. 274 (5294): 1849–1850. Bibcode:1996Sci...274.1849B. doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1849. PMID   8984644. S2CID   34955173.
  40. ↑ Jenkin, Lyle (2000). Biolinguistics: Exploring the Biology of Language. Cambridge University Press. p. 264.
  41. ↑ Joseph T, Kessler (2010). "Michael Tomasello on Language Development: The Puzzle of Human Linguistic Uniqueness". Handbook of Child Psychology: Cognitive Development: 132.
  42. ↑ Hurford, James R. "Review of Michael Tomasello and Elizabeth Bates (eds.), Language Development: the essential readings" . Retrieved 17 October 2014.
  43. ↑ Tomasello, Michael; Bates, Elizabeth (2001). Language Development: The Essential Readings. Blackwell Publishers. p. 388.
  44. ↑ Jabli, Taieb. "Chomskyan Rationalist Approach to Language Acquisition Versus The Empiricist Approach". Academia.edu. Retrieved 15 October 2014.
  45. ↑ Geoffrey, Sampson (2005). The 'Language Instinct' Debate. New York: Continuum.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.