When it comes to understanding the human brain, as well as its capacity to learn, various complex theories are brought forward by different psychologists. The ability of the human brain to learn language has been explained by various linguists and psychologists using different theories (Berwick, 2009). The most prominent theories advanced so far are: the nature theory, which emphasizes the fact that the human brain is specially structure for language, and the nurture theory which argues that human capacity to understand and use language is solely attributable to the environment. The two theories are extremist theories since the nature theory emphasizes inborn properties while the nurture theory advocates for behaviorist aspects of the human mind. This paper seeks to discuss the two theories with significant emphasis to the weaknesses and strengths of the arguments of either perspective.
The nature theory
The nature theorists who support the idea that the capability to use and comprehend language is purely inborn adopt a school of thought referred to as nativism (Yusa, 2011). This word implies that the capability is native to the human brain. Talking of the nativism school of thought, it is inevitable to mention Noam Chomsky. This man is famous in the field of linguistics. His fame can be attributed to his powerful arguments in favor of the nature theory. According to linguist Chomsky, the human brain is structured to use language. One of his strongest arguments is the fact that there are some language complexities that are common to all languages. For instance if one says that he has a white house, whichever language he uses, everyone will comprehend that the house in question is white on the outside. This is to say, its outer walls are painted white. No one will think that the white color is on the inside. In a nutshell, even if the inner sides of the wall are painted blue and the outer walls are white, the owner will describe his house as being white, whichever the language.
The second argument advanced by the linguist is that on average, all five-year old children perfectly know and understand approximately six thousand words. According to Chomsky, this is a hint that the amount of language that the human brain understands depending on such natural variables as age. Psychologists argue that the best age bracket for a teenager to become skilled in a second language is the bracket between six and nine years (Moses & Moses, 2010). It is from this proposition that the nativist theorists draw the argument that if at all language is influenced by the surrounding, the age at which children can learn a different language should vary from one environment to another. This argument has been dismissed as being weak since the claims have not been scientifically proven. The theory is therefore dismissed as irrelevant since it is based on assumptions and not substantial facts.
The linguists that embrace the nativist school of nature argue that language is linked to the perspectives and views of Charles Darwin. Chomsky and other like minded linguists argue that early man did not speak like we do. They argue that according to Darwin, early man use elementary language. The need for language back then, according to nativism schools, was to enhance the chances of survival in the world where the resources were limited and only the strongest survived (Dehaene-Lambertz, 2006). In simple terms, according to the proponents of the nature theory, language is purely a biological phenomenon. This theory has been described as weak since it is impossible to differentiate a bright child from a slow-leaner if they are not subjected to some environmental forces and aspects of competition.
The nurture theory
In fact, according to the proponents of this theory, language is acquired through interaction with the environment. Psychologists have argued that the main distinction between the animal kingdom and human beings is the fact that the human is a highly interactive and social creature (Dehaene-Lambertz, 2006). It is from the need to socialize that language arises. The need to survive in a certain environment may drive a person into learning a certain language. The learning of language is purely attributed to the human being's capacity to interact and establish social connections with other people. The constituent of the animal kingdom is said to communicate in some unique ways. Even so, they do not have any complex language. This disqualifies the presumption of the nativist theories.
The strongest point of argument advanced by the behaviorist linguists is the fact that without interacting people cannot come up with a comprehensive common language (Dale et al, 2012). An example is given to children who are born, put together in some secluded place, provided with basic human needs but not talked to. The question is, will such children create a language of their own or will they find alternative ways of communicating. Much as this has not been tried yet, it is an affair of common sense that the kids will not come up with a common language. Further, if the kids are brought up in the same neighborhood, they will learn and communicate using a common language. However, if the children are brought up in different locations; for example, one in France and another in Germany, they will not be able to communicate effectively through language since one will speak French, whereas the other will speak German. The reason behind this is the fact that the kids were brought up in different environments. This argument is practical since people from different regions speak different languages.
The second argument forwarded by the behaviorist theorists is that of neglected children. It is an issue of common sense that a kid neglected by saying German parents and adopted by French parents at a tender age, will not have a single idea of the German language. Instead, the kid will learn to use the language of the parents that adopt them. This again disqualifies the argument that the language learning capabilities are purely genetic. If at all the capability to use language was innate as the nativism proponents argue, the adopted kid would adopt the linguistic tendencies of the biological parents. In favor of this school of thought, psychologists have argued that the full learning capacity of an individual is determined by environmental forces (Dale et al, 2012). For instance, it is argued that if human beings were to grow up in an environment full of peace, all basic human wants and comfort, they could not have been able to explore their potentials.
The arguments of this theory have been said to be strong since they are practicable and observable in the real world. Additionally, not only the linguistic capacity of an individual is determined by the forces of the environment but also the overall conduct of the culture of the population in which the individual lives (Moses & Moses, 2010). Consider for example a child brought up in Saudi Arabia and another brought up in Italy. The children will undoubtedly grow up with different conducts since the two countries hold extremely different religious ideologies. The religion observed by a community impacts heavily on the behavior and language of a person.
The kind of data required to resolve this debate are verifiable reports from practical tested experiments because either way, social scientists argue that neither of the two theories gives an accurate explanation of the acquisition of language (Berwick, 2009). The scientists and linguists argue that the proper explanation of the acquisition of language can be given by a middle standpoint. This is to say that language acquisition depends on both the natural and behavioral capacities of an individual. For instance, the nativism argument that there are some complexities of language that are universal is a valid argument. Perhaps, the fact that the capacity of an individual to learn, understand and use language depends on the way the individual interacts with the community around them, is practical and verifiable. This implies that the social ability of a person is a function of both natural and behavioral aspects of the human being.
In conclusion, the ideas of nativism proponents such as linguist Noam Chomsky and the arguments of such behaviorist linguists such as B. F. Skinner tends to complement each other. This can be illustrated by the fact that without going through the education system, one can never be a science guru or a mathematics whiz kid even if such a person had an intelligent genetic background. Similarly, the education system cannot make a genius out of a person that is from a mentally slow genetic background. In a nutshell a genius can only be made out of a naturally sharp brain that is subjected to the social forces of education. The same applies to the learning of language.
References
Berwick, R. C. (2009). What genes can't learn about language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 106 Issue 6, p1685-1686.
Dale, P. S., Harlaar, N. & Plomin, R. (2012). Nature and Nurture in School-Based Second Language Achievement. Language Learning. Supplement, Vol. 62, p28-48.
Dehaene-Lambertz, G., Hertz-Pannier, L & Dubois, J. (2006). Nature and nurture in language acquisition: anatomical and functional brain-imaging studies in infants. Trends in Neurosciences. Vol. 29 Issue 7, p367-373.
Moses. S & Moses. B. (2010). Goodbye nature vs. nurture debate. New Scientist. Vol. 207 Issue 2778, p03-03.
Yusa, N., Koizumi, M., Jungho K., Kimura, N., Uchida, S., Yokoyama, S., Miura, N., Kawashima, R & Hagiwara, H. (2011). Second-language Instinct and Instruction Effects: Nature and Nurture in Second-language Acquisition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. Vol. 23 Issue 10, p2416-2430
