Please post your online discussion from Chapter 2 of the reading before we meet for our first Friday class. You can post it here, as a response to this topic. Here is the question:
Which Approach makes the most sense to you as a viable Approach to First Language Acquisition: Behaviorist Approaches, Nativist Approaches, or Functional Approaches? Why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Having in mind what was discussed during the class and reading chapter 2, the first thing that undoubtedly didn’t go unnoticed was that – “the Behavioristic approach focused on the immediately perceptible aspects of linguistic behavior – the publicly observable responses.” What bothers me about this is that fact that this theory strives to study language from a very superficial standpoint. It somehow narrows language down to its external and “observable” manifestation. It neglects all the inner cognitive processes going on in the mind even when language is not put into speech. If we take it for granted that adults do use inner speech, where as infants most probably do not, as they don’t know the language yet, then, when does inner speech begin to appear? Where do we draw the line? Can we do that? The Behavioristic approach, as I have understood it, does not deal with inner speech as it is not observable. Even the observable manifestations of language are not investigated in entirety. Behaviorists observed only the interactions between people, as they investigated stimuli and responses. This inevitably excludes monologues. Many a times we witness a little child rambling to itself, to the toys, dolls, an imaginary friend, to no one in particular, and so on. This is also an observable manifestation of language; however, it is not dealt by the Behavioristic approach. Overall, my point is that the supporters of this approach limited language to a set of reflexes.
ReplyDeleteReading about the Nativist approach, it is safe to say that there are some points which I strongly support. Namely, it is undoubtedly true that – “language acquisition is innately determined”, as nature has endowed only human beings with this genetic ability to produce speech. Also, human beings are the only ones endowed by nature with the ability to reason. This brings us to the second Nativist theory I was fond of, which is – “the child’s language at any stage is systematic in that the child is constantly forming hypotheses on the basis of the input received and then testing those hypotheses in speech (and comprehension). As the child’s language develops, those hypotheses are continually revised, reshaped or sometimes abandoned.” This statement may well account for learning in general, not just learning a language.
Having in mind that the human being is continually “forming hypotheses on the basis of the input received” this brings us close to the Functional approach. Namely, as the input is the determining factor regarding whether the hypothesis will be “revised, reshaped, or sometimes abandoned,” and as the input is determined by the environment, then it is the environment and the innate ability to produce speech which are the main players in all language processes. To what point a child’s language can develop is determined by genetics, more precisely by its intellectual capacity; yet, how much the child’s language will actually develop is determined by the influence of the immediate environment on the child. This environment involves – both the authoritative people and the random people in the child’s life; the opportunities of education; the mentality and characteristics of the living environment; the events in the child’s life; and so on.
Finally, the Nativist approach has produced some logical and fairly sound theories, so is the case with the Functional approach. However, a combination of the two approaches might lead to unprecedented theories in the field.
The approach that makes more sense to me as a viable approach to the first language acquistion is the behaviorsit approach for the reason that it focuses more on the aspect of linguistic behavior the observal responses and the relationship of those responses and events in the world of the children which surrounds them.
ReplyDeleteEveryone is consious tha little children babble and cry through that they show something they produce sounds and want to talk.after a year or when the child is two years old they began to say words and try to talk and this is very important the way parents talk with them because todays children are very smart and they all the time imitates us and try to listen and see all the thing that we do so later one they could do the same thing. this depends a lot from the way how the parents talk with their children and of course the parenst culture and mentality.
according to skinner, verbal behavior like other behavior is contrrolled by its consequences, and if a child look for something and say just a word to their parentsfor example bathroom and the parents knows what to do, and over repeated instances, is conditionated.
Another point is that parents should be very carefull when they will talk in front of their children becasue they may use that word and they even dont know that that word mean it may be a slang one so parents should be very carefull whoil saying the words.
The Functional Approach is concerned with the role that language structures play in actual communication, the strategies used to produce coherent communication, and they investigate language in context.( CAS LX 400 Second Language Acquisition What is a functionalist)Thus, this approach makes more sense than the others do, and its principles contribute more to the language teaching/learning processes.
ReplyDeleteIt is very logical that the most recent approaches offer better solutions to problems as they cover the gaps and compensate for the weaknesses of the previous ones. Every new approach is a step closer to what we consider the ‘general truth’. However, new approaches are not inventions and they do not represent a product of someone’s moment of inspiration. They represent either a continuation of the existing one or a contrast to it. In the search of improvement, we should not forget that the other approaches were also based on observations, hypothesis and arguments and were scientifically approved.
For example, the Behaviorist Approach is reasonably no longer in use in Language teaching environments as its main principles seem inapplicable to the modern concepts of the learning processes. However, we cannot say that it is completely out of date and from today perspective, a useless, old approach that needs to be studied for historical purposes. Recent studies in Speech Pathology, for example, have shown that its contribution to treatment of children with autism is immense (Kelly McKinnon, A Team Approach to Teaching Language: Behaviorists and Speech Pathologist Working Together- BCBA Session*.) Namely, children with autism respond only to stimulus-response language training, which is a fundamental principle of the Behaviorism Approach, and Speech & Language therapy is a primary method of their general medical treatment.
In the chapter, First Language Acquisition, I found some interesting ideas about behavioristic, nativist and functional approaches. Each of these approaches deals with first language acquisition. “The behavioristic approach focused on immediately perceptible aspects of linguistic behavior – the publicly observable responses.” this means that the behavioristic approach study things that are easily noticed. Therefore, I think that the behavioristic approach does not give us a clear picture of the first language acquisition process. According to this approach, children learn better when they are reinforced for a correct response. But, as Natasha has mentioned “many times we witness a little child rambling to itself, to the toys, dolls, an imaginary friend, to no one in particular, and so on”. So, while children are playing they continue to talk even if they are not reinforced. Thus, I think that children do not have to be reinforced for each correct response in order to acquire their first language. Children start to produce sound and words which might not make sense. But, they continue in this way even if they are not understood by their parents. Therefore, I think that children do not always “produce linguistic responses that are reinforced”.
ReplyDeleteThe second approach that deals with the first language acquisition is the nativist approach. According to this approach “language acquisition is innately determined”. An important factor that makes me agree with this statement is the fact that all the children start to speak almost at the same age even though they do not speak the same language. “The child’s language at any stage is systematic in that the child is constantly forming hypotheses on the basis of the input received and then testing those hypotheses in speech (and comprehension)”. While children are speaking, they try to analyze the input and to reason their thoughts. So, based on the nativist approach children have the ability to speak and to reason.
The facntional approach is also an important approach for two reasons. The first reason is that “what children learn about the languages is determined by what they already know about the world” and second reason is that “social system operate in human behavior.” In order to understand better the input, children compare it with the information that they already have. Therefore, children take into consideration their knowledge about the world when they analyze the input. Social system is another factor that affects the language development.
Based on the all things that I have mentioned before, I think that nativist and functional approaches makes the most sense to me as viable Approaches.
Focusing on the chapter discussed last class, the most important things mentioned in this chapter are the different approaches for first language acquisition. The behaviorist approach focuses mainly on the external factors of the linguistic behavior. When focusing on this approach, we have in mind that the language is acquired only by stimulating and responding to that stimulation. This stimulation includes only external factors which can be seen or can be heard. Even though this approach may be important especially for children who learn the language, again I would not agree totally with this approach. The criticisms of this approach focus more on the overemphasis of the external factors and ignore the internal factors, which include the role of the learner himself. Since everything in this approach is connected to responding to a particular stimulus, this approach overemphasizes also the process of imitation. Taking all these issues into account, I would not strongly base the learning of a language on this approach because this approach is based mainly on reactions of a stimulus. On the other side, the Nativist approach is more focused on the innate process, explaining that there is a particular device inside of us which gives us the possibility to learn things not only by external factors. This makes me believe that this approach is more adequate for learning a language rather than the approach mentioned before. This theory focuses on the idea that the learning of the language is different from learning other things, and that we are born with a certain knowledge which differs for each person. Another thing which is considered to be very important about this theory is that this theory considers the students’ difficulties with the language as reasonable issues, not as errors. Human beings are the only living creatures who are able to think and reason, and the supporters of this approach remain on the idea that people learn the language by thinking, reasoning, creating hypothesis, and finding a better solution and the best way to learn something. The human beings create hypothesis from the input they get from the stimulus, and after receiving this input they create hypothesis, comprehend and communicate the message. As the children start to make hypothesis about the particular input that they received, they try to think, reason, create many hypothesis and choose the most appropriate hypothesis which will be adequate for learning the language. In this way the students come close to the third approach, the Functional approach. Children learn the language successfully for the reason that they realize that language could help them do things appropriately. As the learners receive an input, this input is determined by the nature of the learner, the ambient that the learners are in and the ability to create a certain discussion. This is why the Nativist and the Functional approaches are closely connected to each other. Focusing on these two approaches I would say that these two approaches are considered to be more important and useful for learning a language.
ReplyDeleteHi everyone!I am glad that we are going to discuss together and express our opinions this semester again!
ReplyDeleteI think that all the three approaches we had to read in chapter 2 have their importance and 'present' a help, a guidance for learners.The Behaviorist Approach deals with behaviour.When my pupils do well a particular task or activity,or 'behave' well in class,I give them rewards such as excellent grades,cookies,bubble gums or something else.I realize that this action helps a lot;so,in the next class they want to get rewards again.I think that most of the matter isn't about the rewards,but about the idea of being 'the best',the winner.
However,my pupils are very young,from 1st until 4th class in primary school and it's a fact that they would prefer eating something sweet and delicious.They are children.I mentioned this because I wanted to explain the 'behaviour' and its importance.I think that this approach could work with this age,in elementary level and very young age.
From my experience,i have realized that if we as teachers behave bad with our pupils or punish them,it won't help the both sides.For example,if I would except from them to do something very difficult,or punish them and become 'arrogant',their behaviour would change for bad.They can become arrogant,indisciplined,or angry too.However,sometimes different behaviours help.For example,if we criticize our pupils and talk to them in order to change their 'bad' behaviour,it can help for good.
I liked the Nativist Approach a lot.It is a fact that we are born with a capacity to learn languages.But,another fact is that it takes and needs time.People cannot learn a whole language only for one day.There should be a repetition,every day to learn a couple of new words.I liked the idea of our professor Sabrina,when she told us about her nephew.he didn't know how to say:"We went there".Instead of,he said:"We goed there".It sounded to me funny and sweety.this child knew that the words in the past should have an -ed suffix,so he followed that rule.I think that even adults can make these kinds of mistakes.The pivot grammar facilitates the learning of the foreign language a lot.
Children don't have many 'stressful' situations and they 'pick up' things in their way.They don't care about grammar.I think that it is right.First,it is important to learn new words,understand them and then comes the time to learn the grammar,to extend their knowledge,and vocabulary.I think that this approach is very useful.
The Functionalist Approach is more appropriate for older learners at school.However,Bloom had problems with the pivot grammar.For example,if one child says:"Daddy horsey",it can have many meanings.The first one would be (Daddy is on the horse);the second(Daddy's horse),the third meaning(Daddy sees the horse),then(daddy,watch the horse)etc.This can be a confusion sometimes.However,there is a way to understand children.We should be good 'investigators' for our children.We as teachers and future parents should understand and accept their 'world'.
However,I think that the functionalist approach deals with the function of the language,not only with its forms and rules.We should be careful in our tecahing in order the language knowledge to 'function'.
I think that there should be a combination of these three approaches in order the learning of the first language,even second or third language learning to be successfully 'grasped'.Finally,there should be a good 'behaviour,a 'native' speaker presentation and teaching how to 'function'that language we teach.so,the combination of the three above approaches makes a sense to me as viable for FLA.
Best wishes,
Lindita Latifi
Taking into consideration the three approaches mentioned in chapter 2, the Behavioristic approach, Nativist approach and the Functional approach which deal with the first language acquisition and it’s usage, according to my opinion and as my colleagues said, all approaches have their importance when we come to the study of language.
ReplyDeleteBehavioristic approach is mostly viable when teaching very young children because as kind we behave with young children by showing and explaining them the things as better they would understand the new words.Children are sensitive and they need special treatment, special lectures in order to make them the things interesting so they can get involved. On the other hand the Functional approach deals with the form and the function of the word, the way how we write and how to produce the new words. I think that this approach makes more sense, because we learn a language in order to communicate, to give and to receive messages, to learn how to write and how to read and this is what the functional approach offers. However, as I wrote at the beginning all approaches mentioned in chapter 2 make sense in First Language Acquisition, and all of them would be viable approaches to FLA.
As we have already mentioned in class, there are First Language Acquisition theories, or approaches, which hold true to what they have found, i.e. their names support their basic concepts. All three approaches, the Behaviorist, the Nativist, and the Functional, present valid and reasonable findings which make sense. It is only normal that the first theory will lead to an improved one, and the improved one to a more sophisticated one. However, this shouldn’t imply that one is better than the other, and once a new approach comes on the scene we should close the eyes to the previous theories or approaches, and think that the most recent one is the best.
ReplyDeleteIf all three approaches are combined, they all fit the puzzle perfectly and contribute to a three-in-one approach to First Language Acquisition. However, if I were to choose one of the three I would chose the Nativist approach, in combination with the Functional Approach. The Behaviorist Approach in my opinion is more geared towards general behavior. Language is behavior, linguistic behavior, but Behaviorism, as a theory is well accepted in terms of actions, good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate, actions which students should work on once they have already acquired language, i.e. classroom behavior management. What happens when we observe a child who says something and we cannot understand him/ her? We don’t speak BABY TALK. BABY TALK IS OBSERVABLE, but how do we interpret it? How can we make a positive or negative reinforcement to baby talk, when we do not understand it? We can assume, but an assumption is not always right. I do agree that it is right to correct a child when he /she says: “ Me like this,” because this is a stage far beyond baby talk. And, if not corrected on time, it might lead to difficulties acquiring the appropriate form later on. The same happens with ESL beginners, but it is a phase. First language learners and second language learners have to go through it, but we have to correct them. We correct them, we give them positive reinforcement, but they keep making the mistake until THEY are ready to get it right, and go on to the next step. So, sometimes, even positive reinforcement doesn’t work. We can produce positive stimulation for the learners, but whatever comes from within the learner is something this approach doesn’t observe.
The Nativist approach seems to me more reasonable because I do believe that we are born with the LAD. We instinctively utter something when somebody asks us a question, even if we don’t understand it. And, we say I DON’T UNDERSTAND using our native language, and we shrug our shoulders because it is our instinct to respond. We ask a two year old, who just started talking, some questions and he /she replies using baby talk; because it is only natural to respond. It is too bad that we cannot actually see this LAD, but that doesn’t mean that it is not there. Thus, I will conclude that learners perceive a certain notion, they think about it, and then they try to express meaning about this notion. Language according to the Nativist approach is meaning; the child tries to send meaning across, not structure. Nativist deal with meaning, while Behaviorist with structure. We cannot ask for structure from young children, it is only normal that they are not familiar with it. Even ESL students first deal with meaning, then structure. To add the Functional approach to this Nativist approach, it will make even more sense, because then the notion of using language for specific functions, or specific meanings is totally supported. According to Michael Halliday, there are 7 language functions of a child:
• “Instrumental: This is when the child uses language to express their needs (e.g.'Want juice')
• Regulatory: This is where language is used to tell others what to do (e.g. 'Go away')
• Interactional: Here language is used to make contact with others and form relationships (e.g. 'Love you, mummy')
• Personal: This is the use of language to express feelings, opinions and individual identity (e.g. 'Me good girl')
• Heuristic: This is when language is used to gain knowledge about the environment (e.g. 'What the tractor doing?')
• Imaginative: Here language is used to tell stories and jokes, and to create an imaginary environment.
• Representational: The use of language to convey facts and information.“ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Halliday)We can see from the examples that the child sends meaning across, related to specific functions, not structure. We should definitely correct the structure, but it is the meaning we look for, simply because language is above all meaning, then structure. I think that these two approaches go hand in hand, and that’s why I choose these two as a combination.
I must say that I did read some of the comments, unfortunately I do not agree with all of them, because it is only normal that we all have different opinions.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I have to say that I'm going to choose one approach only because I have too, meaning that I'm not fond of any of these approaches.
In my opinion, The Behaviorist Approach is the one that could have better results acquiring a language. I have never used it, because I think that once you bring the candies in the classroom you would have too bring them every time, but I do believe that this stimulating process is fruitful. This approach would especially work with young learners, because they enjoy rewards more then older learners (14-16 years old students). But the weak points is that this approach deals only with structure, there is no or little meaning involved, meaning that the language learned will be hard to be put in practice outside the classroom.
However, on the other hand it could well be combined with the Nativist Approach, which deals more with meaning. A structure combined with the appropriate meaning would make a winning combination. After all, that is what we are trying to teach all this time, isn’t it?
From all three approaches, the most reasonable and quite catchy I found the Functional approach, which describes the overall development of children’s interaction with the environment with a complementary interaction between their developing perceptual cognitive capacities and their linguistic experience. What children learn about language is determined by what they already know about the world. Let me paraphrase Piaget’s findings with an example: Many course-books begin their function with “getting to know you activity”, and then probably it is followed by the function of making requests, e.g. could you..can you.. Is it all right if I … Usually, these forms are practiced through communicative exercises, involving pair work and group work. It’s interesting to compare this approach with a grammatical syllabus, where structures of using the word “would” appear in later stages of the syllabus, whereas in a functional syllabus “would” seems to appear at a very early stage because of its significance in exponents such as Would you like… which the beginners find it very useful for their early communication.
ReplyDeleteWhat I didn’t like about this approach was– the difficulty in deciding the order in which different functions should be presented, e.g. should we complain or apologize, make a difference or distinguish etc. and the other problem lies in the wide range of grammatical structures needed to manipulate basic functions at different levels of formality, e.g. could I . . .as opposed to would you mind…?
According to the researchers of these Approaches and their theories we can say that all of them differ from each other. They all have different theories about the Language Acquisition. However, the most reasonable sense and theory that I would agree the most would be the Nativist Approach.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, because I do not have the same opinion with the supporter of the Behavioristic Approach who believes that all human and all of the species comes as a “blank slates” which is not true because we all carry some basic information or certain units or words in us that later on can be formed into a meaningful words and sentences which we will produce good language. On the other hand, as Nativist Approach explains that all humans and all species, within them keeps a storehouse of knowledge and all of them are able to learn to speak. Nativist also believes that even when a “poverty of content” exists in a certain environment, children still learn to speak because of their language acquisition device. Nativists believe that actual study of learning must focus on events that can be observed and after that that can be measured. Another good theory that nativist came into knowledge is that how children system of language works and they have said that they learn systematically by their regular trying because children learn language as an integrated system and not as a separate discrete items.
The Nativist approach makes us to think about what is learnt is not planned to be learnt , it becomes spontaneously to children’s mind. The way children learn the language cannot be described step by step. Children do not learn the things separately for example one period they can learn how to use nouns, then verbs, after that adjectives. They learn the language systematically. It is mentioned that Berko has discovered that a young child around four years is able to use the plural of nouns, present progressive, past tense the third person singular, possessives at the same time and in unordered way. They automatically make a sentence identifying the word formations without any trouble. As it is the example: when it is talked about a wug the child will be able to use it in plural if it is necessary. I think this approach is more productive because the children learn the language only by thinking about what they are speaking, analyzing it for example to analyze whether in that sentence it is used play or plays or which way of politeness to use, or to convince the audience. This means that they do not learn by heart and for that reason the language cannot be forgotten for a short period of time. It is the best way because it is the best for all years of our life. Children as children use Nativist Language using baby language and at the end they can understand each other which mean that they use Nativist Language. Latter on they start to learn the real language which happens at the same age to almost all children. Again they use Nativist Language. For that reason I think that it is the most useful approach for children.
ReplyDeleteDifferent theories are claimed about the process of language acquisition, so how people learn or master the language. As a result of this a lot of positions and approaches are created, based on their beliefs and arguments these positions try to describe the nature of communication system. They have the same goal, but their beliefs and points differ. These positions are concentrated on different areas and see this process from different views. Three main positions or approaches are Behaviorist, Nativist and Functional approach. I think that three approaches present efficient things, but the most valuable issues are covered from Functional and Nativist approach.
ReplyDeleteBehaviorist approach- is focused on behavior and doesn’t go far enough; peoples’ behavior is important, but I don’t think that is the behavior through which can be determined language acquisition.
Nativist approach- people are born with the capacity to learn a language. So it our brain’s capacity that enables learning a language, it has the power and is able to make us learn a language. It is just our brain’s capacity that enables mastery of native language even thought it appears to be very difficult and abstract. I think that is something innate that that makes people such a perfect beings that can acquire such a complex system such as language. We have something innate that enables us to acquire a language, this innate ability make us to acquire a language as something natural. Nativist theories present that “the child’s language at any stage is systematic in that the child is constantly forming hypotheses on basis of the input received and then testing those hypotheses in speech (and comprehension)”. I think that this statement is reasonable, child’s language is really systematic, as their language develops through the stages children unconsciously create rules and efficient ways how to use the language, so they start to make hypothesis based on the input that they receive and as language develops they test hypotheses that they have, actually they explore with the language till they form the proper forms. The test of hypothesis and their validity make children to create their own rules, not being conscious about them.
Functional approach- sees the language acquisition deeper, here we have form but also and meaning. I think that meanings that are created from social interaction are very important about language acquisition. Forms of language can be achieved through interaction; according to functional findings forms are accompanied by meanings that are created in social interaction.
Blood concluded that children learn underlying structures and not superficial word order. So they learn through the situations, context and interaction, in this way they develop their language because it is not possible for them to learn through orders; they aren’t able to capture them. They take what is obvious for them, what makes sense, what fulfills their needs and so on.
The behaviorist approach tells us that the language is learned by stimulating and responding to stimulation. As I understood, according to the behaviorist model all humans’ behaviors are positively reinforced, negatively reinforced, or even punished. So, if our behavior is positively reinforced, or praised, then we normally repeat it. But, if it is negatively reinforced or punished, then we stop doing that, or saying that. This model was used in the classical methods of teaching and learning languages. Teachers, who believed this approach to be successful, also believed that children learn in this way too. This approach is thought to be effective if we have to do with children at the very yang stage by using language games (repeating, pointing at things and imitating) It means to show them pictures or to bring things in to class so they can see the word and remember how to say it. This is good especially when we are learning nouns like: book, water, chair etc. And later on, expressions such as imperatives can be learnt very easily by acting in class with them.
ReplyDeleteBut, this is not the whole language. How are children going to understand the meanings of abstract words such as “hate” or “like”? This approach failed to make differences and explain meanings of words in larger sense and language was limited.
In the other hand, nativist approach makes more sense, because I agree that we all have the device of learning a language and we don't come to this world empty and that there is a "black box" inside of us that explains a lot of issues.Language is learned step by step and it gives importance to the meaning of the words and develope pupils creative thinking.
When we are talking about Language Acquisition, I have in mind something that is natural adopted or accumulated without making bigger efforts for having it. I think that the Language Acquisition is mostly related to the Nativist approach. I believe that every human person has innate abilities to acquire the language naturally and manage with it systemically and logically. When I say natural, I think of the little children when they acquire the language. They are not taught by anyone, they simple grasp and adopt the words form their audio source which is presented naturally. Using their language acquiring abilities they construct a speaking system, which they use it later in their speech. Moreover as they are more exposed to the language or their language source, they acquire and develop more and more advanced speaking system. Their speaking system reaches even a level, where they adapting and creating a rule governed grammar system. By acquiring the language naturally children also acquire a grammar system. We can elicit this by example where the children uses general rules for plural ‘s like: tooths, mans, sheeps etc; ro when they use the past simple rule like: writed, maked, seed. This shows that the children acquire their language naturally, even they are taught to use exceptions they often rely to their natural adapted grammar rule system. Also, we can compare the case with the Second Language learners; they also do these kinds of mistakes when they try to speak as much fluently. When they do that they rely on their natural acquired speaking system, not paying attention to what they’ve been taught.
ReplyDeleteWell, I must say that all three approaches make sense to me and they are on some way effective by themselves for language acquiring. The Functional approaches, I must say, are combination of the other two and according to me they are the best way of acquiring the language effectively, correctly and successful. As the author of the course reader said 'Language was one manifestation of the cognitive and affective ability to deal the world, with others and with the self.' So, the combination of interacting with the people and a little bit of nature is the best recipe for acquiring the language, because we cannot stop the socialization, neither the ability of the learner to precept the things into his surroundings.What I really support is the idea of the author that functional approaches help the learner to acquire the language by thinking about it and by developing it as the time is passing. I think this is really true and realistic.
ReplyDeleteAs we can see from the comments, there were chosen different approaches to first language acquisition. Therefore, the three approaches are viable and practical to work with. Even though the behaviorist approach might be an appropriate approach for children to learn a language, I think that they cannot learn a language only through imitation; they want something else which will motivate them learn a language and use it. Children learn the language in their way, and most of the time when they speak they use only nouns. Their purpose is to transmit the message and to get what they want. Children do not use the correct tense, they just believe that all tenses are the same: such as instead of WENT they use GOED or instead of I DON’T WANT THIS they say I NO WANT THIS. Furthermore, the approach that I would choose is the functional approach, because this approach emerges as the approach that would help the learners have a positive interaction, and this approach is focused on the linguistic field. Also, it would be e good idea if the functional approach is combined with the nativist approach.
ReplyDeleteThe nativist approach has to do with meaning, and this approach sees the children's language as a logical system. The functional approach focuses more on the ability that every child has in learning a language effectively. Also, the learners realize that the language can assist them in doing things properly. Moreover, because of this, these two approaches are in accordance with each other and we might have greater success by combining them both.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs my colleagues already have mentioned and as we have previously discussed in class together we looked through Chapter 2, which dials with First Language Acquisition. More precisely, we have discussed and revised the three main approaches that attempt to construct the theory of First Language Acquisition. Therefore, we have seen three different approaches such as behavioristic approach, nativist approach and functional approach. What is common about those three approaches was the filed that they dial with as I have already mentioned, that is First Language Acquisition. In addition, all three approaches consist with different theories and each give a different view of first language acquisition. However, all three approaches have their own weight and each of them makes a sense more or less regarding the first language acquirement. Nevertheless, in my opinion, nativist approach along with functional approach seem to me most convenient to first language acquirement.
ReplyDeleteFirst, behviouristic approach, as I have understood from reading the chapter is very limited because it does not involve the inner part of language learning and cognitive processes that actually involve language learning such as for instance, meaning, speech, the capacity to acquire a language, language development etc. Therefore, it is like that because behavioristic approach bases its principle on observation of linguistic behavior that is acquiring the language through reinforcing responses. Therefore, it is something that is not enough in learning a language since learning a language is a much more complex process. As an outcome, I would not strongly recommend this approach since it is limited. On the other hand, nativist approach focuses on the inner part of learning the language. More precisely this approach bases its principles on the fact that we the human beings have innate capacity or device that enable us to acquire a language and that is something that I definitely agree with. Thus, we the human beings are the only beings who are able to reason, and therefore we all have the capacity to produce speech involving the cognitive processes. Therefore, children learn the language through thinking, reasoning, forming hypothesis, form the input that they gain, understand it and being able to produce it. As an outcome until this point, children reach the third approach that is functional approach. After that as they become able to form hypothesis about the particular input that they received they become able to form a language discourse in order to express his her needs. An therefore they may develop their language through interactions occurred in the environment. Therefore these two approaches are in a way connected and it seems to most appropriate for learning a language.
From the literature that I reviewed and read in the past weeks about the First Language acquisition and the lecture that you presented us, I totally agree that the behaviorist and nativist approaches go arm in arm with the functional approach which completes the child`s or individual`s process of acquiring a language, so these approaches have their weight in language learning .
ReplyDeleteIt is known that from the Ancient time even without having decided about these approaches the human brain has had and still has the ability to learn and grasp things that sees also the words and sounds that hears, so based on this I can assume that children may learn the language by being imposed to a speaking environment, by the process of acquiring the language the child later in his/her life adds to his vocabulary also the functionality, this is when comes Chomsky`s example on how the children learn the grammar.
According to him : ”children are able to learn the "superficial" grammar of a particular language because all intelligible languages are founded on a "deep structure" of grammatical rules that are universal and that correspond to an innate capacity of the human brain. Children at first may over generalize grammatical rules and say, for example, goed (meaning went), a form they are unlikely to have heard, suggesting that they have intuited or deduced complex grammatical rules (here, how to conjugate regular verbs) and failed only to learn exceptions that cannot be predicted from a knowledge of the grammar alone.”
The ability of constructivism , social interaction , cognition and functions of the language are part of the functional approach , which help the individual to add to his/her pool of vocabulary that has been created in his/her brain.
I can only assume and say that the three approaches can just fulfill the possible weakness of one of the selected approaches.
I would say that all different approaches to First Language Acquisition that we have previously discussed could make sense depending on the point of view they are observed from.
ReplyDeleteThe first approach or the Behaviouristic one does make sense because it is something that can be observed rather than an assumption. However, it has its disadvantages because it focuses only on the external factors and imitation neglecting the internal ones.
The Nativist Approach, on the other hand, makes sense because, it is the language, among other things, that separates and differentiates human beings from other living beings. It is something unique and innate to them. However, it does not account for the external factors, such as the effect the environment has on language and it is difficult to observe the LAD.
The Functional Approach puts an emphasis on the basic role of the language – to communicate. It also takes into consideration the individual characteristic of each person’s language which is caused by the influence and effect of the environment and the person’s knowledge of the world.
A combination of the three would be the best approach to First Language Acquisition.