Difference Between Behaviorism And Mentalism 4f6r5z

Difference Between Behaviorism and Mentalism By Megan Kelly ; Updated June 28, 2018 Behaviorism and mentalism are two theories that you learn about in a psychology course. Behaviorism is based on observation and empirical evidence, whereas mentalism relies on pure belief. The theory of behaviorism suggests that behavior is simply a conditioned response to certain triggers, or stimuli, that occurs without regard to feelings. By contrast, mentalism is a theory based on the perceived power of thought pr ocesses, learned through experience or through an apprenticeship with an experienced mentalist. Stimulus Response Behaviorism is a theory that is based around the study of behaviors in humans and animals in response to negative or positive stimulation. One of the most well-known studies in behaviorism is the study conducted by Ivan Pavlov. He observed that, over time, a dog would begin to salivate after hearing a bell ring because the dog associated it with food being placed in front of it. Dogs naturally salivate in the presence of meat, which is an unconditioned response to the simulus of food. Repeated bell ringing associated with feeding is a conditioned stimulus that causes a dog to salivate when a bell is rung, even if food is not offered. This experim ent demonstrates what is known as classic conditioning in behavioral learning theory. Operant Conditioning Operant conditioning is another aspect of behaviorism that studies the behaviors of humans and animals that operate on environmental factors that cre ate negative or positive consequences. Also known as response -stimulus, operant conditioning allows the study participant to associate certain behaviors with either positive or negative consequences and learn from these consequences. One example was found by Edward Thorndike, who observed that cats in a puzzle box associated getting out of the maze with a food reward. This positive reinforcement shaped the behavior of the cats and conditioned them to immediately open the trap door for the reward. Mind Power Mentalism is a part of the field of magic that states that phenomena in the physical and psychological realms are performed by magicians who supposedly possess intuitive and mental powers that are highly developed. Some tricks that are a part of mentalism include mind reading and hypnosis. The illusion of a highly developed intuition is meant to convince the audience that the magician has a connection to the spiritual world or that he possesses supernatural powers.

Tricks A mentalist can perform a variety of tricks that convince the audience that she has extreme mental powers. Some of these tricks include psychokinesis, fortune telling, spoon bending and mind reading. A mentalist also may try to predict outcomes of games, answer questions without knowing the question or burn stigmata of a secretly selected symbol into her skin. Some tricks may have harmful drawbacks, such as skin burns, explosions or physical injury from full-body . Language acquisition seems to be a process both of analogy and application, both nature and nurture. The differences between the empiricists approach and that of the rationalist can be summarized in the following manner: MENTALIST APPROACH 1) Language is an innate, in-born process. 2) Children learn language by application. 3) Language is not a behavior like other behaviors, but a specific mental process. 4) The role of exposure to language is quite vital. 5) Language learning is analytical, generative and creation. 6) Language acquisition is the result of nurture. BEHAVIOURIST APPROACH 1) Language acquisition is a stimulus- response process. 2) Children learn language by imitation and analogy. 3) Language is a conditioned behavior. 4) The role of imitation, repetition, reinforcement and motivation is very significant in language learning. 5) Language learning is based on practice. 6) Language acquisition is the result of nature. Conclusion: Finally, after analyzing both the theories about first language acquisition by the child, such as Behaviourism and Mentalism, it can be concluded that Chomsky subscribes to an entirely different view of learning from that of behaviourists. He follows a mentalist approach which means something which involves the mind and the thought processes. Most psychologists of language agree with this theory. Behaviourism may not tell us much about the way in which we learn our mother tongue, but it can point to successful strategies in the learning of a foreign language when we are older. This comparative study makes one thing clear: nature and nurture, analogy and application, practice and exposure are important. Innate potentialities lay down the framework. Having been exposed to a small number of utterances, the child begins to extract the principles underlying the utterances and compose new utterances of his own. In a period of about four years, he is able to master and internalize all the essential rules of language. BEHAVIORISM VS MENTALISM Behaviourism claims that environment is responsible for learning, this means that this The Behaviourist theory works according to the Habit Formation process, when this is applied to learning

this means that the learner is presented with stimuli on which he makes a specific response to each, and every time the learner is presented with this stimulus he responds with the same response until it becomes a habit. The Mentalist theory came as a reaction to the Behaviourist theory. It opposed the claim that the environment is responsible for learning by proving that the mind is responsible for it. Chomsky said that the human being is endowed since birth with a biological device called the Language Acquisition Devise and it develops like any organ. When applied to teaching , Mentalism means that the learner should use his cognitive abilities in order to learn. This enhances critical thinking and goes hand in hand with the Constructivist theory proving that the learner builds knowledge through time relying on his cognitive strategies. nowadays both theories are widely used. Behaviorism V Mentalism

"Mentalism" Explains the Language Within

Noam Chomsky Chomsky would argue that language is innate. Not that there is a predisposition or innate ability towards a particular type or specific language, but towards an understanding of the universal constructs and patterns of a language system. Interaction is still absolutely necessary, as children learn the specific language by living as a part of that community and experiencing it in daily life. Chomsky rejected the scientific method as an integral part of language study because it limits what we can accept and doesn't necessarily guarantee objectivity. Chomsky discusses the difference between two distinct methods of coding an understanding of language: competence and performance. Competence Competence is defined by Chomsky as the imagined ideal of linguistic structure. It is a knowledge of the structures and total system picture of language. Chomsky has assumed that people possess an innate understanding of linguistic structure, which makes the system and its components largely unconscious to speakers. Performance Chomsky differentiates what happens during communication in real-time as performance. Where competence describes an understanding of the whole system, performance describes the way we actually speak in single instances. The importance of this distinction is that mentalism incorporates an understanding of the difference between the way our brains organize and understand concepts and the way we then employ those concepts in our actual lives. Behaviorism V Mentalism

"Behaviourism" Explains How Children Learn

Burrhus F. Skinner Skinner wanted to study language using the scientific method to make it more credible. He didn't want to allow for the idea of mental structures because the mind (as opposed to the biological construct of the brain) cannot be observed from an objective view. He saw human individuals as complex machines who would respond to external stimulus based on the reinforcement or punishment of past experiences. Skinner Views language as an input-output function with an emphasis on the impact of the external environment. He would believe in traditional theories of acquisition in which learning is driven by the exchange of data and meaning for sound patterns. Skinner would argue that children can be taught by repetition and conditioning. They can pick up meaning through naming processes which introduce them to concrete objects and concepts. Some important arguments were presented against Skinner based on the fact that the number of possible sentence structures is infinite. The unpredictability of these potential structures overturns some of his explanations. Behaviorism V Mentalism

"Behaviourism" Explains How Children Learn

Jean Piaget Piaget believed that learning is a function of the environment. His cognitive theories could be described as post-behaviorist in the sense that they not only allow for mental structures, they actually demand it. The unpredictability of sentence structures and possible utterances is necessary to explain the logical sequences of learning he indicates. He argues that there must be an understanding of basic practical concepts before we can begin to put ideas into words. Piaget discusses two initial stages that he believes must occur prior to language development: Sensori-Motor Exploration In stage one, children learn by using the senses to experience and categorize or identify objects and activities and coming to a conclusion from the experience. These activities build and develop mental structures, which is a key aspect of Piaget's theories. Children also develop an understanding for what Piaget calls "practical schemes of action," which may be more familiar to us as simple matters of cause and effect. Pre-Operational The second stage occurs during the period before the mind can carry out logical or mathematical operations. Once children understand the simpler concept of cause and effect, they can begin to develop what Piaget calls "relational schemes of action," which allows for a more complex understanding of the possibilites of effect within a certain cause. This is also generally the stage at which language develops.

Compare and contrast two theories of language development “Language is the main way in which human beings communicate.” (Beaver, M et Al. 2001. p.139). It is used in different ways to socialise and express a persons needs. There are four main theories of language development but I will explore those of Noam Chomsky and B F Skinner. In the 1960’s Chomsky explored the idea that “language development is innate and genetically predetermined.” (Bruce, T and Meggitt, C. 2005. p.113). He believed that children are born with the necessary physical and intellectual abilities to acquire language, and therefore are able to invent new words and sentences that they have not previously heard. He suggests children learn to talk through their Language Acquisition Device (LAD). He suggests this structure consists of speechproducing mechanisms, the ability to understand, and parts of the brain. Chomsky’s theory is therefore a nature theory as he states the “ability to learn language is instinctive.” (Tassoni, P. 2006. p.424). Skinner’s theory is a nurture theory, as he believes that we learn language through encouragement and reinforcement. He suggests that “we learn language mainly because when babies try to communicate, their efforts are rewarded or reinforced in some way” (Tassoni, P. 2006. p.423) and so this is a nurture approach. Parents or carers reinforce or encourage the baby through smiles, eye and spoken encouragement. Skinner believes that it is “this idea of reinforcement” (Tassoni, P. 2006. p.423) that explains why babies stop making some sounds. He suggests that if the child doesn’t hear any reinforcement or recognition of a sound then they will stop making it. He called this ‘selective reinforcement’. It is this theory that explains, “why children speak in similar ways to their parents, using the familiar phrases and intonation.” (Tassoni, P. 2006. p.423). Skinner’s approach is a behaviourist approach- believing that children learn from other children and adults’ behaviour. These two theories are contrasting as one suggests that language development is through nature, and the other through nurture. In short it is either developed through what we get at birth, or how we are brought up. It is suggested that a child learns language through aspects, nature and nurture, as “there is some genetic sensitivity to language, but that children’s experiences after birth are very important in their development of language.” (Beaver, M et Al. 2001. p.149). Chomsky’s theory is commonly acknowledged as it is comprehensive and explains why all babies’ language development follows a pattern, unlike Skinner’s theory. If Skinner’s nurture approach is accurate then each child’s language development should vary according to the amount of reinforcement and praise they are given. It is universally known that all children through the same stages at similar times, regardless of the amount of reinforcement. So whether a child’s language development is instinctive, or if it is learnt by observation and reinforcement, is inconclusive. However I have seen at placement how children can learn language through praise, encouragement and reinforcement. Structures like Jolly Phonics and Letterland help to reinforce phonetics to children through memory cues and word and letter association. In early years books words are often repeated as the repetition of words helps children to repeat and the information, and therefore allows them to learn. I have also seen in placement in both the reception and Year 1 classes how repetition and reinforcement of words can help children learn. When reading words for the first time, or words that they struggle with, they are encouraged to repeat the word three times. By doing this the repetition helps them to the word. Also when a child is struggling to read a word, they are encouraged to sound the letters out to help them say the whole word. As this is something the children are familiar with and is reinforced often, most will sound the letters out themselves to try and work out what the word says. They have learnt to do this through reinforcement, and through praise from being told when they are doing well. Parents or carers can reinforce and encourage language through the acknowledgment of spoken praise and eye . This helps children gain confidence in what they are saying and children who are actively encouraged to speak will acquire more words and sounds naturally.

When I did a speaking and listening activity with some reception children they showed that at the end of the activity they had recalled some of the basic information that they had told me and were able to repeat this to the class teacher. Through repetition and reinforcement they had been able to and recall information when asked. References:  Beaver, M et Al (2001) Babies and Young Children. Nelson Thornes.  Bruce, T and Meggitt, C (2005) Child Care and Education- 3rd edition. Hodder Arnold.  Tassoni, P (2006) BTEC National Early Years- 2nd edition. Heinemann. CHOMSKY VS SKINNER: DEBATE OF THE CENTURY Introduction

Before the 1960's most psychologists agreed upon BF Skinner's language acquisition theory which explained language acquisition with behaviorist principles which contested that it is through reinforcement that children learn a language. It was not until, as Skinner puts it, "a 55 page typed written review by someone whom I had never heard of named Noam Chomsky" was issued in response to BF Skinner's 1957 book Verbal Behavior in 1958 that a serious debate arose. Within a few years Chomsky's review "began to be widely cited and reproduced" and furthermore "became better known than the original book to which it responded to" leading to a fierce debate among linguists of the era (1). As the two theories and the disparity between them grew further a certain competition between Skinner and Chomsky which had not existed before was implied, and then amplified. Some said that Chomsky was a "modern intellectual descendant" of rationalist Rene Descartes, arguing that humans think even before they are conscious of their own existence, while Skinner was a "modern intellectual descendant" of John Locke, instead arguing for the idea of a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa" (1). BF Skinner was more or less the pioneer of language acquisition theories. His theory that language was acquired under the principles of reinforcement was the first and most widely accepted language acquisition theory of the late 1950's and 1960's. Skinner argued that children acquired language under the principles of reinforcement, that they associated words with meanings. Essentially, if a child correctly pronounces a word or correctly composes a sentence with the correct grammatical structure they are met with reassurance and approval from their caregivers (4). For example, if an infant correctly pronounces the word "milk" and his or her mother responds with a smile and a bottle of milk, the infant is reinforced to pronounce the word the way he or she initially did and is assured of the meaning of the word (4). Skinner was heavily influenced by John Locke and the idea that humans are born with a "blank slate" or "tabula rasa" and was one of the foremost behaviorists of the century. He said that in his opinion explaining "behavior without appealing to any prior causes" is a "hopeless task," which is a behaviorist view (1). For this reason he strongly disagreed with Noam Chomsky and other structuralists. BF Skinner conducted many experiments including placing rats and pigeons into "operant conditioning chambers" to condition them to behave in certain ways (2). He used the principles of his experiments to explain language acquisition. Noam Chomsky is one of the most polarizing figures in the field of linguistics and psychology. He exploded into stardom in the intellectual world in the 1960's when he wrote a critique to the great BF Skinner's book on language acquisition, Verbal Behavior, over time the critique became more accepted than the original work itself and is now one of the most widely cited works in the field of

linguistics. The critique argued that language cannot be solely acquired by reinforcement and that there must be some innate structure or genetic component that helps humans acquire language (3). Chomsky said that the speed of which children acquire language is too rapid and too remarkable for it to possibly be explained by reinforcement, he said that if children acquired language through reinforcement it would take much longer than 2 years for children to understand the basic structures of their first language (4). He also pointed out that of the many species of animals in the world that humans are the only ones capable and creative enough to engage in conversation, meaning that there must be some inborn trait that allows us to learn language (1). That supposition was proven in the 1960's, when a group of linguists tried to teach a chimpanzee, dubbed "Nim Chimpsky" to learn English sign language and engage in conversation with humans, they found that after years of training the chimpanzee could do no more than ask for basic items, meaning that there must be an isolated gene present primarily in humans that allows them to engage in conversation (1). Chomsky also used a more personal approach of common sense, he argued that "humans are not genetically programmed to learn one or another language" and that if he "brought up a Japanese baby in Boston it would speak Boston English" and if he raised his own child in Japan it "would speak Japanese," and vice versa, he used this basic truth to argue that all languages must therefore share the same innate structure, this idea became known as universal grammar (1). Chomsky's main argument against behaviorist views of language acquisition can perhaps be summarized by his quote "if in fact our minds were a blank slate we would be very impoverished creatures, indeed" (1). Over the last 45 years Noam Chomsky's theory of universal grammar has superseded behaviorist theories of language acquisition, namely those of BF Skinner and have become widely agreed upon and studied by the scientific community. THE "DEBATE" The difference between Chomsky and Skinner's beliefs can most simply be put as such: Skinner believes that language is learned, whereas Chomsky believes that language is innate, and is simply developed. It is also important to understand the psychological approaches that each man belongs to, Skinner is a behaviorist, whereas Chomsky is a structuralist. In many ways, the "debate" between the two men is simply a reincarnation of the timless question of "nature versus nurture," which people have found is impossible to answer most of the time. Before analyzing the "debate of the century" it is important to understand that although the two theories were hotly debated, the two men never engaged in dialectical dialogue. In fact, Skinner never bothered to write a response to Chomsky's critique of his Verbal Behavior saying rather immaturely that he had "no inclination to do so at all" because to respond he "should've had to read it and had no intention of doing that" and because he "found it boring" (1). Later on, BBC proposed a televised debate between the two psychologists, which BF Skinner refused, saying that "Chomsky loves to talk, so I told them that I would go on for a debate under the condition that they guarantee that we would receive equal speaking time" he then said jokingly that "if anyone wished to disprove Alfred Adler's thesis that a man goes into a field which he has some natural shortcoming, I suggest he cite Chomsky" (1). At the end of Skinner's life he said that he saw no reason to respond to Chomsky's critique since "a wonderful psychologist named Kenneth MacCorquodale has already picked apart Chomsky's review of my book page by page for me" (1). ers of Chomsky say that "Skinner is nothing but a stimulus response psychologist" or that Skinner thinks "people are nothing more than pigeons" or more humorously that "we should lock up Skinner and give Chomsky a carte blanche" (1). Since Skinner never gave a formal response to Chomsky and allowed a "Chomskyan revolution" to occur in the field of linguistics in the 1960's the verdict as to which psychological mind reigns superior will always be an open ended question, without any sort of consensus. Although it should be known that if there ever was a true debate between Chomsky and Skinner, that Chomsky won under the principles of both forfeiture and acceptance. Chomsky's theory of universal grammar is now the most widely cited linguistic theory and the most respected by the scientific community (5). There are still heavy death metal behaviorist sympathizers, though, but only time will tell whose theory was correct.

CONCLUSION Like many things in psychology, and in a broader sense, science, the issue of language acquisition is still without a definite answer. It is our task as humans to engage in the praxis of inquiry and conversly to seek out evidence and rationale to our claims. People like myself have a certain advantage, though. We are humbled by the lack of acuity that makes us merely observers, but at the same time we hold a position over the brilliant minds that offer up their work for our judgement. No matter how intelligent men like Noam Chomsky and BF Skinner may be, it is still the the observer that holds the power of consensus. The debate between Skinner and Chomsky on language acquisition has become a bone of contention because of the longevity of the debate and the questions it reintroduces. But like the truism that in science there are rarely definite answers, there is another truism which could help us come to a compromise. That is the truism and the possibility that is often overlooked, that maybe, both of these men were correct in their suppositions of language. Which is why I contest that we look at the debate from a biopsychosocial perspective rather than from a behaviorist perspective like Skinner, or a structuralist perspective, like Chomsky. By looking at language acquistion from a biopsychosocial perspective we effectively confront this truism, that in life there is often more than one truth. Lastly, it is important to recognize the contributions that a simple disagreement of men have had on psychology. Both Chomsky and Skinner's theories have led to significant scientific advancements. Skinner's theory of language acquisition and his use of operant conditioning to explain how the process occurs has led to very practical real world applications, such as in the classroom or in the workplace (6). Chomsky's theory of universal grammar has led to and inspired many important studies on idigenous tongues in the Amazon particularly, but also other isolated societies around the world. Such as the study on the Amazon tribe that has no numeracy, which was actually meant to disprove Chomsky, but nonetheless was only conducted because of him (7). In many ways, the lack of agreement upon which theory is correct has driven both Noam Chomsky and BF Skinner to expand upon their theories, conduct new experiments and studies, and perhaps most importantly, inspire new generations of psychologists seeking to continue the endless endeavor of understanding language. -Doug HOW DOES SKINNER AND CHOMSKY'S EXPLANATION FOR THE ACQUISITION OF GRAMMAR DIFFER ? The two men share greatly differing views and ideas to the acquisition of grammar in humans. Skinner, a behavioural psychologist and Chomsky a linguist, their branches of science are already different. Skinner's explanation of language was that any acquisition was due to a learning process involving the shaping of grammar into a correct form by the re-enforcement of other stimulus, correct grammar is positively re-enforced and will be used in the future, and incorrect grammar is negatively re-enforced and will be not be used again. Chomsky differed in his view that human grammar acquisition is an innate biological ability that all humans possess, and viewed some form of `generative grammar' which he felt could explain the rapid acquisition and creative nature of grammar and language. Skinner proposed a `finite', (single word) processing system used in sentence interpretation, whereas Chomsky advocated a model involving whole sentence processing using some form of `transformational' system. Both men have juxtaposing theories on how it is that all humans manage to obtain grammar and seeing as chronologically Skinner was first, here is a good place to start. B.F

Skinner was a Behavioural Psychologist and was unconcerned with any `underlying mental processes' that may have been occurring during learning and denounced these `un-observables' as fictitious. Instead he was concerned with the observable materialistic nature of behaviour. He felt that there was no `underlying' meaning to words and that verbal behaviour was due to the conditioning that occurs between the words and the reinforcement properties of a stimulus. This does not just apply to physical reinforcement stimulation: `that if you ask for "a glass of water", you get one', but also social reinforcement in the form of praise and encouragement i.e. `well done'. This reinforcement is an important concept, and past experiences of verbal behaviour are important in determining whether they will be used again. Skinner used the phrase `Verbal Operant Conditioning' where a verbal response that occurs in a given situation and is followed by a reinforcer becomes more likely to occur again in the same situation. Skinner identified five separate classes of `Verbal Operant' : Mands, Tacts, Ethoics, Textuals and IntraVerbals ( cited in Psychology of Language : Paivio & Begg 1981). He also explained grammatical acquisition using an `Autoclitic', but seeing as the `Autoclitic' uses all five of the `Verbal Operants', a brief explanation of their characteristics had better be given first. The Mand is based on the speaker conveying a command or request for something which is met with it's production. A child knows from it's past history that if it says "milk" it will most probably get milk (milk becomes the reinforcer). The Mand is rooted in the idea of `com-Mand' and `de-Mand'. Tacts on the other hand, are based on child's reference to non-verbal objects and the use of `naming'. Reinforcement occurs through the praise for correct naming i.e. child says "cat" and mother says "good girl, that is a cat". The Echoic Operant is the imitation of speech and can be reinforced by a variety of means including "repeat after me". Textual is the reading part of the `Verbal Operants'. The last, but by no means the least is the Intraverbal operant. This is a form of `word association' where a certain word will control which word is to proceed after it, that only certain words can go after the word that has just been said (a sort of "table, chair" game but involving all types of words). According to Skinner this process is going on all the time whenever we use a word, only a certain set of words can go after it. So we arrive at the `Autoclitic'. This is a form of commentary made upon one of the `Verbal Operants' described above. Correct grammar uses the correct order of `verbal operant' and Autoclitic comment. But Autoclitic comments also take on the form of having verbal operant characteristics. An example (taken from Psychology of Language : Paivio & Begg 1981) is probably needed : `the primary [verbal] operant is the tact `John is in Montreal'. If the speaker says " I hear that John is in Montreal" we have an example of autoclitic words in which `I hear that' is a comment on a primary [verbal] operant that is presumably an echoic (that is, the speaker heard that someone say that John is in Montreal'). Still confused ? `John is in Montreal' is the primary `part' of the sentence involving the words being produced individually using the verbal operants. Then the sentence is commented upon by the `autoclitic' which itself has the characteristic of being echoic. If the

sentence was "I read in the paper that John is in Montreal" then the autoclitic comment would have a `textual' (reading) characteristic. Correct Verbal Operant and Autoclitic comment (correct grammar) will be positively reinforced by praise e.t.c and said again, whereas incorrect grammar will be negatively reinforced ; `no that's wrong' and not be said again (such as a child who says a gibberish sentence like `Montreal read in paper that is John I the') . The complexities of studying such a model, in dissecting each sentence into it's appropriate verbal operant and autoclitic parts, abound. So what evidence have Skinner and Behaviourists produced to validate their claims? Guess et al 1968 (cited in Psychology of Language : Paivio & Begg 1981) described how they taught a mentally retarded girl to make correct grammatical utterances using positive reinforcement of praise and food. Studies on adults giving reinforcement for certain nouns and plurals, found an increase in an occurrence of correct responses, if `praise' was issued (see Holtz & Azrin Conditioning Verbal Behaviour 1966). In general, children are considered to acquire correct grammar through reinforcement of their verbal teachers (particularly their mothers). Yet there is little evidence to such a claim. Not only has it been found that there is no relationship between child correct grammar and parental positive reinforcement it seems that parents are only interested in the correctness of a child's meaning (see Slobin 1975). Also some adult subjects are un- aware of the relationship between correct and incorrect responses and the reinforcement that they receive because of their grammar ( see Konecni & Slamecka 1972). Reinforcement does not seem to occur in the right context but it also seems not to be noticed. Many (including the linguist Noam Chomsky) have advocated that a behavioural stimulus - response system involving reinforcement and a `finite grammar' model, cannot explain the rapid, creative and complex nature of language. Chomsky `stepped into the limelight' in the debate on language and grammar acquisition in his Review Of Verbal Behaviour by B.F Skinner (Chomsky 1959). It is to him that attention will now be turned. Chomsky argued that there was no way that a child can obtain a language from only the `primary linguistic data'(Psycholinguistics 2nd Edition : Slobin 1969) that the child receives from it's teachers and environment. He prescribed that an infant enters this world with a predisposition to learn a language fluently, and this predisposition is encased in our biological make-up, innate to all humans. (A sort of `Language Acquisition Device' or `L.A.D' as it has now become known). One of the manifestations of this was in the form of a `generative grammar', that had the ability to `generate' and create all the words in a linguistic grammar that he viewed Skinner's `finite grammar' (though capable of producing) was far too limited in it's application. Chomsky defined this `generative grammar' as : `finite set of rules operating on a finite vocabulary to generate an infinite number of acceptable grammatical sentences and no un-acceptable ones' (quoted from Psychology of Language : Paivio & Begg 1981). So, from a small number words, using `some rules', we can create a vast (infinite) number of words, you can in fact boil down all the words in the

English Language to around 500 or so. What did the form of this generative grammar take the shape of , and what are these `some rules' that are mentioned above? Chomsky explained the acquisition of grammar using a process of transformation or `Transformational Grammar' which is perhaps `the physical form', and the rules that are `generative grammar'. As may be apparent `transformational grammar' involves the changing of sentences into other states. They are metamorphosed into their `deep' and `surface' structures by a set of rules, or phrase structures. These two `deep' and `surface' structures are then interpreted according to their phonological and semantic meaning. The theory is considerably more complex than can be explained here, and has been revised many times by Chomsky since it's first publication in 1957 (see Chomsky 1965). The result of this, is that once a child can master these rules and transformations, it has the ability to create and expand on his/her grammar by using these rules to create new sentences that it has not heard before (which `finite grammar cannot as the child needs to use or hear the word and find out it's reinforcement properties). A great deal of creativity occurs in child grammatical utterances. Chomsky viewed this creativity as a very important aspect. So what evidence is there to Chomsky's view of `transformational generative grammar' and that this is an innate biological species specific trait ? All languages of the world share similar characteristics of using nouns, verbs, pronouns, though not necessarily in a similar order. Grammar and complex language usage seem also to be a `uniquely human capability' as no other species on the planet seem to posses such proficiency as humans, though there have been some successes in teaching `sign language' to Chimpanzees, it is viewed that any ability that they grasp, cannot be seen as Homologous, similar in structure, to the complex human abilities of language (see Modularity, Domain Specificity and the Development of Language : E. Bates). One theoretical concept, so abstract, so explicit, and usually overlooked, is proposed by S. Pinker & P. Bloom in their article Natural Language And Natural Selection (Behavioral and Brain Sciences 1990). The fact that all human languages use symbol manipulation to make references to something else that they (the symbols) are not physically related to, i.e. some form of `arbitrariness', is an important aspect . The sign is only arbitrary to the thing it comes to represent. For example, the sign for `Genus Canus' can be dog, chien, skili or even ##stlg, it does not matter as long as the word, or sign used, comes to represent the object/concept and is in no way physically related to it. ( Onomatopoeia will not be discussed). But say that every time you wanted to talk about `Genus Canus' you had to produce one, or draw an exact copy, this is not arbitrary or particularly practical. Pinker & Bloom defined this as some form of `universal grammar' that is an innate ability in all of us that uses this `arbitrary symbol manipulation' adapted to it's present complex form by the process of Natural Selection. This human symbol manipulation similarity is an important aspect (Watch out do not confuse your grammars : `universal grammar' (arbitrary symbols ) is different from generative grammar ( rules used to manipulate these arbitrary symbols).

Other evidence to Chomskian claims, can be found in the study of language deficient patients (aphasia). It has long been known that damage to the left hemisphere near the motor cortex (Broca's Area) causes a loss of speech, especially to grammatical elements. One patient could not access the word `would' (grammatical word), but could access the word `wood' (content word) (see Marin Et Al 1976 cited in Psycholinguistics D. I Slobin). Is this localisation of a grammatical area in the left hemisphere ? Further evidence (using P.E.T) has indicated that a conclusion of this nature is much too naive. There is a volume of evidence to Chomsky's claims of an innate generative grammar, though it is difficult (and unscientific) to introspect whether a transformational process occurs during grammar acquisition, this would seem considerably more likely than a `finite' system. These days `generative grammars' have become a widely accepted theory in linguistics and cognitive science, for they manage to answer more of the questions on the rapid and creative nature of grammar acquisition than a Skinnerian, or even a Neo Behaviourist, model can see fit. (Of course behaviourist's do not feel this way and defend their claims adamantly - see What Are The Scope Of Radical Behaviourist Theory : Questions To B.F Skinner By S. Harnad - question F). Recently, contemporary debate has been focused upon the nature of this Language Acquisition Device, which Chomsky proclaims. Just how much innate language ability does a child have when he/she enters this world ? (see Modularity, Domain Specificity And The Development Of Language 1994 - E. Bates). What are the semantic (meaning) components of transformational, and most grammar systems used in language? (This is of particular importance to Psychologists). The detailed and vast nature of language, the difficulty in collecting empirical data during child language acquisition and the fact that language touches on so many areas of Psychology, make validation of Chomsky and Skinner's theories, and any language theories, particularly difficult. Though it would seem more favourable, from the evidence, to accept `some parts' of Chomsky's theory. REFERENCES E. Bates (1994), Modularity, Domain Specificity and The Development of Language - Behavioral and Brain Sciences Harnad ( ), What Are The Scope and Limits Of Radical Behaviorist Theory - py104 Explaining the Mind handout Paivio & Begg (1981), Psychology of Language - Prentice Hall Inc (1981) S. Pinker (1994), Language Acquisition - Behavioral and Brain Sciences S. Pinker & P.Bloom (1990), Natural Language and Natural Selection - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 13

D. Slobin (1979), Psycholinguistics Second Edition - Scott, Foreman and Co (1979,1974, 1971)

Nature: Universal Grammar

Nurture: Behaviorist Reinforcement

Universal Grammar is a theory proposed by Chomsky that claims children have the ability to learn any language. This is due to what he calls Universal Grammar. He proposes that their is a natural ability in the mind of every human that allows them to learn , and that is how language is further developed. Being born with every linguistic tool that one would need, gives humans the ability to learn language essentially on their own.

The behaviorist theory is when negative and positive reinforcements are used to gain a desired result. This is often used in classrooms in which teachers use consequences or rewards to motivate a student to succeed. Skinner believed that this nurture style behavior was the reason for language development in children. His claims were that children are rewarded for correct use of language, and either punished or no action at all for incorrect use of language. Children weren't actually learning language, but instead they were learning about rewards and consequences through the behaviorists theory.

Chomsky VS Skinner There are two basic theories for language acquisition. Noam Chomsky’s theory, which is believed people have a basic pattern of learning language inside of their brain since they were born. On the other hand, B. F. Skinner’s theory which is believed people have to be taught how to speak by someone for language acquisition. I mostly agree with Chomsky theory and partly Skinner theory. People usually don’t how they learned to speak, but everybody speaks their first language without any problems. Some Children even speak more than two languages naturally. Language is a unique system which only humans have. However, if it’s correct rules or grammars of language people might have to study. There also seems to be critical period for learning language. People speak their language without studying. It means people already have an ability of language pattern in their brain. When I was in elementary school there were Japanese classes. I studied writing and reading but not speaking. I could already speak Japanese. I have a two year old niece. She has already started speaking. Of course she has never studied. So, people must have some kind of language ability innately. According to an article I saw in kccesl.tripod.com, Chomsky says “human brain contains a language acquisition device (LAD) which automatically analyzes the components of speech a child hears.” I this theory. The human brain has special function, unlikely other animals. That’s why only humans speak languages. Learning language for a human is very easy because the human brain already contains ability of language, so even children start to speak language naturally in their early age. People in young age are very easy to acquire more than two languages at same time. Even if those languages are very different, and their parents don’t speak those languages. It also proves people must have an ability to function in any language innately. In contrast theory, there is a very famous case. A girl, Genie, was language got deprived during her critical period, which is considered to be between 4 and 12, of learning first language, and she couldn’t acquire her language skill normally even though she studied. This fact s B. F. Skinner’s theory. However, this is a very unusual case. She might not have only language problem, but even mental problem since she was locked in a room for 13 years. There is also a proof that Genie was about speak without studying right after she was locked up. “since her mother reported that she heard Genie saying words right

after she was locked up” from THE CIVILIZING OF GENIE by MAYA PINES. Since Genie’s case was discovered, Chomsky added to his theory that “the innate mechanisms that underlie this competence must be activated by exposure to language at the proper time” from THE CIVILIZING OF GENIE by MAYA PINES. This theory got little closer to B. F Skinner’s theory. Even young children speak language without learning, but they often make mistakes in their speech. While they are growing, their number of mistakes in their speech decreases. They are learning how to speak, so in this case some part of Skinner’s theory is also correct. Similarly, learning second language for people in older age s Skinner’s theory. People have to keep learning language to improve their second language. It hardly ever gets perfect because people have to learn all rules and structures from beginning which don’t apply to their first language. If we have learning language system innately, why can’t we easily adjust to speak another language? We can’t apply Chomsky’s theory at all in this case. In conclusion, until people reach critical period of learning language, people learn their language automatically without being taught because of their innate ability of language. Furthermore, if there are more than two languages which children hear, children will be able to acquire both of them at the same time. Nevertheless, the ability of language has to be activated in the first place by something. Otherwise, people never begin to acquire their language. Once people past the critical period, it is hard to learn any language. Thereby, people in older age usually have problem learning second language. Both Chomsky’s and Skinner’s theories are correct in different cases and language acquisition system works with both of them together.