Assaiqeli Article
Assaiqeli Article
Children have an enviable capacity for acquiring competence in whatever language or languages they
get exposed to and in a manner so rapid, so creative, so uniform, so systematic, so regular and indeed
so easy compared with the mammoth task that they within a remarkably short span of time accomplish
victoriously. This marvellous phenomenon unique only to humans has instigated scholars to propound
various theories that aim to account for this feat, where some have argued that language is a genetic
capacity originating from the brain, while others contended to look at it as a system originating from the
environment. While the former approach views language acquisition as genetically endowed and
readymade, the latter sees it as environmentally fashioned and evolving. Using the descriptive
method, this paper, following a brief discussion of early bilingualism, and an initiatory section on the
father of modern linguistics, explored and contrasted, within this context, these approaches
concerning the processes and source of linguistic knowledge. Emphasising a third view, the
sociolinguistic approach, the paper verified that language acquisition and learning was neither solely
the result of innate knowledge (first position); nor the progeny of the environment of the child alone
(second position); but rather the product of and interplay between both social interaction and cognitive
development.
Key words: Language acquisition, genetic capacity, process, innate knowledge, environment, social
interaction, behaviourists, mentalists, environmentalists, sociolinguistic, social semiotic.
INTRODUCTION
Children imitate the sounds and patterns which they have to learn.
they hear around them and receive positive Every child has a blueprint of language
reinforcement [] for doing so. Thus universals in his brain (Aitchison, 1974:151).
encouraged by their environment, they continue
to imitate and practise these sounds and way it can take place except in these contexts.
patterns until they form habits of correct As well as being a cognitive process, the
language use (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 9) learning of the mother tongue is also an
interactive process. It takes the form of the
[] children must be born with some innate continued exchange of meanings between the
knowledge of the deep structure, of the self and others. The act of meaning is a social
properties of language (for example, the LAD act (Halliday, 1975: 139-140).
and UG). They acquire language so easily and
so fast because they know, in outline, what it is Bloomfield, Skinner, Chomsky and Halliday, advocates
of four different theoretical approaches or positions to one language with unselfconscious ease. This
language acquisition and language learning, have each unselfconscious ease and this unique aptitude of young
significantly contributed to the study of language, making children for acquiring language within a remarkably short
it a distinct field of study and an autonomous scientific time is indeed phenomenal. This becomes, as noted,
discipline. Structuralism, behaviourism, cognitivism and even more phenomenal when children who are exposed
the social semiotic are the four schools or views adopted to two or three or more languages can acquire them with
by the four above mentioned linguists, respectively. Each the same ease and success. According to Crystal (2003:
of these approaches or views concerned in a way or 17), children are born ready for bilingualism. He
another with the logical problem of language acquisition adduces that some two-thirds of the children on earth
introduces one of the main theories of first and second grow up in a bilingual environment and develop
language acquisition. Within this context, this paper competence in it (2003).
explores and contrasts the views and positions Bilingual acquisition or the acquisition of two languages
underlying the structuralist, behaviourist, innatist and either simultaneously or sequentially is a marvel that
sociolinguistic approaches to language acquisition and concerns linguists, language teachers and should equally
learning, espoused by Bloomfield, Skinner, Chomsky, concern parents who speak two different languages or
and Halliday, respectively. who can provide a bilingual environment for the child
In doing so, the paper brings into light the theoretical since birth. Typically, this could be the case of a spouse
views of a number of other linguists and psychologists on of different extraction or even two spouses of the same
the highly contentious but equally interesting area or origin but one is capable of speaking a foreign or a
areas of language acquisition and learning, language second language. This is typical of Arabic or French or
development, language and the transmission of culture Malay language teachers teaching English as a second
and the construction of reality. or foreign language. In such households where there is
Language acquisition, this logical problem, as once richer and various linguistic input where parents, maids
formulated by Chomsky, has for generations baffled and and possibly grandparents, for example, have different or
intrigued linguists, psychologists, researchers, and can speak more than one language, the question of
language teachers and practitioners everywhere. bilingualism, particularly early or simultaneous childhood
Different explanatory theories or hypotheses and various bilingualism, should be a point of major concern.
approaches and views have been put forth in endeavours People and even some language teachers and
to account for this marvellous human phenomenon, and researchers, however, are divided as whether the child
indeed, as put by Bloomfield (1933) cited in Fromkin and should be exposed at an early age to more than one
Rodman (1998: 317), the greatest intellectual feat language simultaneously. They are divided as to whether
anyone of us is ever required to perform. the focus should be on the first language first alone, and
Language acquisition, this feat, unique only to Homo only after the child has mastered the syntactic structures
sapiens, becomes even more baffling and more intriguing of the first language can he or she be exposed to a
as we study the potential of simultaneous childhood second language. Each side has its own battery of
bilingualism, of raising children as bilingual or trilingual or reasons why simultaneous bilingualism or the
indeed even polyglots since their very early years in life. simultaneous introduction of a second or third language
According to Lightbown and Spada (1999), there is a should or should not be encouraged.
considerable body of research on the ability of young Opponents of early childhood bilingualism believe that
children to learn more than one language in their earliest simultaneity of language acquisition right since birth is
years. The evidence suggests that, when simultaneous detrimental in three respects. First, it slows down or
bilinguals are in contact with both languages in a variety retards the learning of the first native language. Second,
of settings, there is every reason to expect that they will it would affect the childs cognitive development and his
progress in their development of both languages at a rate abilities of reading, arithmetic and other mental
and in a manner, which are not different from those of processes (Steinberg et al., 2001). Third; it would
monolingual children (3). confuse the child and thus affect his mastery of either
Thus, Lightbown and Spada (1999) come to the language due to the childs inability to distinguish
conclusion that children who have the chance to learn or between two different and complex emerging grammars/
be exposed to multiple languages from early childhood systems. Besides these concerns or reservations or (mis)
and to maintain them, throughout their lives are fortunate conceptions levelled against early bilingualism is the fear
indeed and families that can offer this opportunity to their of subtractive bilingualism, a case in which the childs
children should be encouraged to do so (4). native language may completely or partially get lost as
Many other linguists and researches in the area of another system is taking hold when the childs first
language acquisition have unanimously agreed that language skills have not yet been fully mastered
children have the aptitude to acquire their native (Lightbown and Spada,1999).
languages with ease and success. Crystal (2003: 11), for Proponents of early bilingualism, on the other hand,
example, asserts that young children acquire more than state that what may sound or look for an adult as
148 Int. J. English Lit.
confusion or retardation is not as it actually seems and considerably and are beginning to appear in
that the child is aware of the presence of two grammars two-word and three word sentences [] such
or operating systems or languages operating as [] bye-bye Daddy, gimme toy, and so
simultaneously and differently; but that he or she is in forth. The production tempo now begins to
need of some time to sort them out. Lightbown and increase []. By about age three, children can
Spada (1999:4), along with those who share their view, comprehend an incredible quantity of linguistic
as noted above, therefore, conclude that children who get input; their speech capacity mushrooms as they
the opportunity to learn a number of linguistic systems or become the generators of nonstop chattering
languages from infancy and to maintain them throughout and incessant conversation [] (21)!
their lives are fortunate indeed, and parents or
households that can offer such opportunity to their little This prodigious aptitude or fluency, Brown (2000) further
ones should by all means do so. states, Continues into school age as children internalize
Now, how do those little ones master such a tall order increasingly complex structures, expand their vocabulary,
with such effortlessness is the question this paper, and sharpen communicative skills (21). Here, at school
through a review of the most prominent theories in this age, young children not only continue to learn language
area, seeks to address and investigate. and learn through language but also learn about
language, to use terms used in functional linguistics
theory. In other words, children at school age begin to
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION learn what to say and what not to say as part of their
learning of the social functions of their language or
How does language acquisition or learning occur? This is languages (2000).
a question or rather a conundrum or mystique that has Towards the end of this vivid description of the
puzzled and intrigued many minds for a long time. Early universal pattern that children go through in their process
language acquisition, this effortless, extraordinary feat, of language acquisition, Brown (2000) asks:
unique or common to all children brought up in normal
environments, is not only a perplexing puzzle but also an How can we explain this fantastic journey from
impressive fact of the marvellous capacities Allah, the that first anguished cry at birth to adult
Omnipotent has endowed the rational animal with. competence in a language? From the first words
Indeed, as Dan Slobin (1994) quoted in Fromkin and to tens of thousands? From telegraphese at
Rodman (1998) states: eighteen months to the compound complex,
cognitively precise, socioculturally appropriate
The capacity to learn language is deeply sentences just a few short years later (21)?
ingrained in us as a species, just as the capacity
to walk, to grasp objects, to recognize faces. We These are, as noted in the introduction, the sorts of
dont find any serious differences in children questions this paper raises and addresses.
growing up in congested urban slums, in Now, in an attempt to answer such questions, a number
isolated mountain villages, or in privileged of theories of language acquisition has been put forth to
suburban villas (317). explain this extraordinary aptitude of children for
acquiring linguistic knowledge.
Indeed, nothing can actually be thought of as more Besides the role of the social milieu or environment,
remarkable than the childs extraordinary ability to what all such theories are in a way or another meant to
construct his or her meaning potential (Halliday, 1975), account for is the working of the human mind. They all
the potential of what can be meant (124) the potential of use metaphors to represent this invisible reality
the semantic system, the semantic options or paradigms (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 45). For example, such
that make up this meaning potential. theories or approaches give primary importance to
In lucid, eloquent terms, Brown (2000) describes the learners innate ability or characteristics. Some others,
capacity of children to acquire language as follows: however, stress the role of the social milieu in shaping
language learning. The difference, for example between
As small babies, children babble and coo and the position of the innatists and that of the connectionists
cry and vocally or nonvocally send an is that while the former view language input in the
extraordinary number of messages []. As they environment as a trigger to activate innate knowledge,
reach the end of their first year, children make the latter see such input as the principal source of
specific attempts to imitate words and speech linguistic knowledge (42). Interactionists, another group
sounds they hear around them, and about this of theorists of language acquisition, on the other hand,
time they utter their first words. By about 18 emphasize the role of the modification of interaction in
months of age, these words have multiplied conversations (45) as the primary means to language
Assaiqeli 149
acquisition. As such, connectionists and interactionists So while parole (speech/speaking) or what Chomsky
attribute considerably more importance to the environ- (1986) later called performance or E-language is the
ment than the innatists do (22). external or outward manifestation of language (Brown,
Thus, and apart from Hallidays sociolinguistic 2000:10), langue (language) or what Chomsky (1986)
conception of language learning, theorists are either called competence or I-language is the internal hidden
mentalistor environmentalist in their approaches to abstract system of language (Aitchison, 1974: 30). The
language learning. Consequently, a Halliday (1975) state distinction is a useful one, since it recognizes the need
that from the mid 1960s onwards, two conceptions of for idealisation and abstraction, as well as concern with
language learning dominated the scene: that viewing actual data (30).
language learning as genetically endowed and Maybe a shortcoming to Saussurean linguistic thought,
readymade and that viewing language learning as Saussure stated the importance of langue, the deep
environmentally fashioned and evolving (139). abstract structure that generates parole. So Saussures
In the following pages, following a brief section on the focus was not on the actual use of language (parole) as
key linguist whose work has revolutionised linguistic would be the case by more recent critical approaches to
thought by breaking with tradition and heralding a new language study such as Critical Discourse Analysis
era of linguistic inquiry, the paper sheds light on four of (CDA), but rather on the unobservable underlying
these positions or theories of language acquisition and system of language (langue); a fact about linguistics
language learning: structuralism, behaviorism, innatism found paradoxical by CDA scholars such as Fairclough
and Hallidays sociolinguistic approach. (2001).
As we shall see in our discussion of structuralism,
behaviourism and innatism, in later years, different
FERDINAND DE SAUSSURE schools of thought gave more importance to one of those
two levels of logos: parole and langue, at the expense of
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857 to 1913), a founder of the other.
modern linguistics (Fairclough, 2001: 5), or the father of
modern linguistics, the linguist whose work was
described in Western linguistic thought as a Copernican BLOOMFIELDIAN STRUCTURALISM
revolution (Harris and Taylor, 1989:177); the terminus ad
quem or end of a certain long-held view of the focus of Before I discuss Bloomfields version of structuralism, it is
linguistic research; the one who viewed language as a important that I make clear what Saussure meant by the
stable, structured system (xviii); indeed the first person term structural or structural linguistics. According to
to point out clearly that language was not a haphazard Saussure, as put in the words of Aitchison (1974),
heap of individual items but a highly organised structure structural linguistics:
in which all the elements are interdependent (Aitchison,
1972: 21), a major contribution to modern linguistic enquiry. Does not in general refer to a separate branch
Saussure is the linguist from whom we date the era of or school of linguistics. All linguistics since de
synchronic or structural or descriptive linguistics, as Saussure is structural, as structural in this sense
opposed to diachronic or historical linguistics, another merely means the recognition that language is a
great contribution to 20th-century linguistics. The one patterned system composed of interdependent
accredited with such a significant contribution or shift in elements rather than a collection of unconnected
linguistic enquiry, Saussure, in a third significant individual items (21).
contribution to modern linguistics, made a useful
distinction between two levels of language which he Thus, Saussures conception of structural is far more
designated as langue and parole below (1972). comprehensive than that of Bloomfield as discussed
It is these contributions that gave birth to structuralism, below.
behaviourism, innatism, and other schools of linguistic Influenced by Saussure, Leonard Bloomfield, in his
thought. notable work Language (1933), endeavoured, through
Saussure, whose posthumously published Cours de the creation of his own version of structuralism, to lay
linguistique gnrale (1916) launched 20th century down a rigorous framework for the description of
structuralism on its course (Harris and Taylor, 1989: languages (Aitchison, 1974: 33). According to Brown
xviii), claimed that there was a difference between (2000), Bloomfield stated that only the publically
parole (what Skinner observes, and what Chomsky observable responses could be subject to investigation.
[though with some difference] called performance) and The linguists task according to the structuralist, was to
langue (akin to the concept of competence, or our describe human languages and to identify the structural
underlying and unobservable language ability) (Brown, characteristics of those languages (8). Thus, Bloomfields
2000: 10). focus was on parole or speaking: the observable or
150 Int. J. English Lit.
outward manifestation of language. So in contrast to (2000: 183) describes how generative linguistics shifted
Saussures focus, Bloomfield and other structural or the focus in language study from the study of language
descriptive linguists of the 1940s and 1950s, chose regarded as an externalized object to the study of the
largely to ignore langue and to study parole (Brown, system of knowledge attained and internally represented
2000:10). So giving precedence to structure over in the mind/brain. Chomskys central, thought-provoking
function, Bloomfield, as noted by Aitchison (1974) question, according to Fromkin and Rodman (1998: 340)
considered that: was: What accounts for the ease, rapidity and uniformity
of language acquisition in the face of impoverished
Linguistics should deal objectively and data?
systematically with observable data. So he was In other words, Chomsky is more intrigued by langue,
more interested in the forms of a language than the hidden abstract system or structure or mechanism
in meaning. The study of meaning was not which gives birth to parole. He takes childrens marvel of
amenable to rigorous methods of analysis and parole as a catalyst to dig deep in the human brain to
was therefore, he concluded, the weak point in investigate this underlying hidden system that
language study, and will remain so until human exponentially generatesparole or the enviable and
knowledge advances very far beyond its present amazing inborn human predisposition to speech that in a
state (33). relatively short period of time makes young children
veritable chatterboxes.
Due to Bloomfields negligence of meaning and his Bloomfieldian linguistics concentrated on describing
description of it as something that is beyond sets of utterances which happened to have been spoken.
investigation, the influence of Bloomfieldian structural As mentioned by Aitchison (1974), Chomsky criticised.
linguistics declined in the late 1950s and 1960s, giving Bloomfieldian linguistics by stating that it was: Both far
rise in its place to the theory of Generative Grammaror too ambitious and far too limited in scope. It was too
Generative Linguistics, developed by Noam Chomsky. ambitious in that it was unrealistic to expect to be able to
Brown (2000) states: lay down foolproof rules for extracting a perfect
description of a language from a mass of data. It was too
The revolution brought about by generative limited because such grammars had no predictive power.
linguistics broke with the descriptivists They catalogued what had happened, but did not predict
preoccupation with performance [parole] -the what would happen (78).
outward manifestation of language-and capi-
talized on the important distinction between the
overtly observable aspects of language and the Behaviourism: Say what I say
hidden levels of meaning and thought [langue] Behaviourism, a psychological theory of learning, was
that give birth to and generate observable advocated by B. F. Skinner (1904 to 1990) in his Verbal
linguistic performance (10). Behavior, published in 1957. In his highly criticised Verbal
Behavior, Skinner attributed learning to imitation,
Meaning, as noted above, had no place in Bloomfields practice, reinforcement or positive feedback and habit
work. It was not amenable to rigorous methods of formation.
analysis and therefore ought to be excluded.Bloomfields Behaviourism is behaviour that can be observed and
preoccupation was with the way items were arranged to measured (MOHE KSA: 31). In this sense, behaviourism
form a total structure, to the exclusion of all other aspects is close to Bloomfieldian structuralism. Just like
of linguistics (Aitchison, 1974: 21 to 22). In other words, structuralism, behaviourisms focus was on parole, on
Bloomfield was concerned with grammar in its narrow performance, on the outward observable aspects of
sense; grammar as networks of structure without any language, not langue, the holistic, internal, abstract and
relation to function. unobservable system of language.
Chomsky (11965; 986), however, as I shall elaborate Talking about behaviourism, Lightbown and Spada
when I discuss innatism, was concerned more with (1999) mention:
langue or what he called I-language (Internalized
Language) or competence, which refers to speakers Children imitate the sounds and patterns which
linguistic knowledge (Fromkin and Rodman, 1998: 12) of they hear around them and receive positive
the languages they speak. He has shifted attention away reinforcement (which could take the form of
from detailed descriptions of actual utterances, and praise or just successful communication) for
started asking questions about the nature of the system doing so. Thus encouraged by their
which produces the output (Aitchison, 1974). environment, they continue to imitate and
Thus, in his 1986 book: Knowledge of Language: Its practise these sounds and patterns until they
nature, origin and use, Chomsky, according to Grundy form habits of correct language use (9).
Assaiqeli 151
Thus, for behaviourists, imitation and practice are the According to Fromkin and Rodman (1998),
essential mechanisms for the language to be acquired or behaviourism or the imitation theory cannot hold or
learned. account for another important phenomenon:
While Skinners view of language learning does
actually, at least on the intuitive level, explain some Children who are unable to speak for
aspects of language acquisition, the fact remains that it is neurological or physiological reasons learn
short of giving an adequate explanation for the language spoken to them and understand what
complexities of language acquisition. As Lightbown and is said. When they overcome their speech
Spada (1999) point out, imitation and practice alone impairment they immediately use the language
cannot explain some of the forms created by the children. for speaking (329).
They are not sentences that they heard from adults.
Rather, children appear to pick out patterns and then So, incapable of explaining language acquisition whether
generalize them to new contexts (15). L1 or L2 or any L for this matter,the behaviourist account
Indeed, my own child, Muhammad, at the age of 23 despite its intuitive appeal, has, in the words of Lightbown
months, for example, knowing how a spider looks like, and Spada (1999)proven to be at best an incomplete
once at the sight of my hairy chest, pointed to my chest explanation for language learning (36).
and much to my delight he excitedly exclaimed, Spider! Now, I turn attention to another more complex theory of
It is certain that this overgeneralisation of the hair of my language acquisition. That is the theory of the innatists or
chest, which to him, resembled the tiny and many feet innatism as advocated by Noam Chomsky whose critical
(eight actually in number) of a spider was never made by views of Skinners Verbal Behavior cannot be more
any adult around him. vehement or vociferous.
In another incident, the researcher discovered that he
used to refer to his carrycot as ship, which indeed
looked like a ship. No one had ever told him that that was Innatism: Its all in your mind
a ship, but he creatively and because of a vocabulary gap
due to his young age, thought of it as a ship. Chomskys (1965) hypothesis about the existence of
On a third occasion, at the age of 2, 10, at the sight of a innate properties of language to explain the childs
boat sailing in the deep, Muhammad jubilantly shouted, mastery of incredible linguistic input in a remarkably short
The boat is swimming! Now, his choice of the word time despite the highly abstract nature of the rules of
swimming, though inappropriate due to an age-induced language rocketed linguistics and child language
vocabulary gap, is nonetheless creative and novel. And acquisition research to the sky (Aitchison, 1974).
that is the point here: his use or lexical selection was ForChomsky and contrary to behaviourists, linguistic
creative and novel. His word choice was creative in the behaviour is innate, not learned. He argues that children
sense that it served the communicative purpose; and are biologically programmed for language and that
novel in the sense that no adult had previously said that language develops in the child in just the same way that
or said that way. Such novel productions, frequently other biological functions develop (Lightbown and
produced by children, this linguistic ingenuity and novelty Spada, 1999: 15). Hence, according to Brown (2000),
on their part, render the behaviourist theory for language Chomsky argues that we are born with a genetic
acquisition at best insufficient. capacity that predisposes us to a systematic perception
Furthermore, it has been observed that the rules of language around us, resulting in the construction of an
children construct are structure-dependent. That is, internalized system of language (24). So, while
children use syntactic rules that depend on more than behaviorism looks at what can be observed and
their knowledge of words. They also rely on their measured, cognitivism is about what occurs in the head
knowledge of syntactic structures, which are not overtly of the learner (MOHE KSA, n.d.: 34).
marked in the sentences they hear (Fromkin and Such genetic Chomskyan view of language acquisition
Rodman, 1998: 340). It has also been observed that gave birth in the late 1950s to generative linguistics, the
child grammar is rule governed at every stage programme of linguistics...investigating language as a
(Aitchison, 1974:153). That is, the grammar of a child is biologically endowed cognitive faculty (Cook, 2003: 128).
systematic rather than hap-hazard. An example of the The notion of innateness with its proposition of the LAD
rule-governed nature of child language are forms such as (Language Acquisition Device) and its later developed
mans, foots, gooses, which children produce frequently. hypothesis of Universal Grammar has successfully
Such plurals occur even when a child understands and managed to cast strong doubts about the sufficiency of
responds correctly to the adult forms, men, feet, geese Skinners theories of operant conditioning and imitation. It
(154). This is proof, Aitchison (1974) concludes that a has showed, as Brown (2000); Aitchison (1974) point out
childs own rules of grammar are more important to him how limited the behaviouristic, stimulus-response (S-R)
than mere imitation (154). theory is in accounting for the generativity or productivity
152 Int. J. English Lit.
of child language, aspects of meaning, abstractness, of language universals in his brain. All he has to
childs production of creative and novel utterances, and do is to discover how his own language fits into
enviable mastery within a short period of a huge task, these universal patterns. In transformational
which Chomskys nativist approach or view seemed to terms, a child has innate knowledge of universal
account for more adequately. In this context, Aitchison deep structures. All he has to learn are the
(1974) states: relevant transformations for converting this deep
structure into the surface realization of his own
Few people in the 1950s queried the processes language (151 to 152).
by which language was acquired. Most assumed
that children imitated the adults around them, As observed by Lightbown and Spada (1999),
and that their speech gradually became more Chomskys theory of language acquisition is based on
accurate as it moved closer to the models they the hypothesis that innate knowledge of the principles of
were copying. There seemed to be little mystery Universal Grammar (UG) permits all children to acquire
attached to this straightforward process (151). the language of their environment, during a critical period
in their development (36). Thus, they further state that
Aitchison (1974) further states that Chomsky and his according to Chomskya childs mind is nota tabula rasaor
acolytes, however, drew attention to a number of blank slate to be filled merely by imitating language they
pointsneglected in many previous studies. They first hear around them in their social milieu. Instead he
pointed out the unselfconscious ease with which, and the claims that children are born with a special ability to
short duration during which children acquire their discover for themselves the underlying rules of a
languages, where the major part of acquisition takes language system (16).
place approximately in eighteen months (eighteenth- To be activated, this genetic capacity or this innate
thirty-sixth month). And all children, even relatively knowledge of language, however, requires a social milieu
stupid ones, do this seemingly effortlessly and in which the child can have the opportunity to engage in
competently (151).Secondly, Chomsky and his followers personal conversations and social interaction. Absence of
observed that adult speech was the only apparent source such social milieu will forego the opportunity of the child
of linguistic data from which a child worked in achieving to acquire language. A child who is brought up in isolation
this complex task. Yet adult speech is extremely of any social contact, for example, will not acquire
confusing. There are numerous unfinished sentences and language. Therefore, for such innate linguistic knowledge
ungrammatical utterances. How do children extract a to be activated, the child must be brought up in a normal
grammar from this jumble? (151). environment. The role of the environment in activating
Coming to this conclusion, Chomsky hypothesised or such innate knowledge can be likened to the trigger of a
proposed the notion or hypothesis of innateness; that gun.
there are innate properties responsible for language Thus, Lightbown and Spada (1999) state:
acquisition;that children, as noted earlier, are biologically
programmed for language and that language develops in the environment makes a basic contribution-in
the child in just the same way that other biological this case, the availability of people who speak to
functions develop (Lightbown and Spada, 1999: 15). the child. The child, or rather, the childs
Now, it is possible here to argue that the proposition or biological endowment, will do the rest. This is
presumed idea of adults ungrammaticality or known as the innatist position. Chomsky
semigrammaticality underlying Chomskys innatist proposed his theory in reaction to what he saw
approach is a myth as Labovs (1970) studies showed. as the inadequacy of the behaviourist theory of
Other linguists have also found that the speech learning on imitation and habit formation
addressed to children is carefully orchestrated and (Chomsky, 1959) (15).
grammatically precise. This is to a great extent true but
the question to be addressed here is whether what Indeed, the ease, creativity, novelty, rapidity, uniformity,
mothers (or whoever takes care of the child) utter to their systematicity, regularity, structure-dependence, rule-
children enough to make them speak fluently in a few governed nature of child grammar, and a host of other
years later. According to Chomsky and his followers, as characteristics of child language make the views and
mentioned by Aitchison (1974): theories of imitation, reinforcement, and analogy obsolete
as adequate accounts accounting for this most
[] children must be born with some innate extraordinary feat every one of us in their early lives goes
knowledge of the deep structure, of the through, seemingly effortlessly and brilliantly. These
properties of language (for example, the LAD views as Fromkin and Rodman (1998) state:
and UG). They acquire language so easily and
so fast because they know, in outline, what it is Cannot account for the nonrandom mistakes
they have to learn. Every child has a blueprint children make, the speed with which the basic
Assaiqeli 153
rules of grammar are acquired, the ability to The social semiotic is the system of meanings
learn language without any formal instruction that defines or constitutes the culture; and the
and the regularity of the acquisition process linguistic system is one mode of realization of
across diverse languages and environmental these meanings (139).
circumstances (331).
Thus, when we talk about language as a social semiotic,
Now, while it is obvious that the behaviourist account of interpreted within the context of culture, and this culture is
how children acquire and master a language is interpreted in terms that are semiotic. Therefore, culture
inadequate and even nave, hence providing the ground and language are bound together. Language takes shape
for the innatist account, is it on the other hand completely in a particular culture, and culture is shaped and we talk
plausible that this feat mastered by young children the about culture and context, or what Halliday (1978) calls
result of innatestructure or properties; that the child is the sociocultural context. Therefore, language is
being born with knowledge innatism or the linguistic interpreted by a particular language, hence Hallidays
knowledge (deep structure/Universal Grammar) of the view of language as a social semiotic.
language he/she gets exposed to? Before proceeding any further, it is worthwhile to note
In addition to the question marks raised about the basis at this point that Hallidays view of language as a social
Chomsky (1965) predicated his innateness hypothesis semiotic (or one part or mode of the social semiotic)
on that the linguistic input that children hear or receive comes within the context of language learning and how a
from those around is extremely confusing and is N child learns his/her mother tongue, that is how he/she
characterised by numerous unfinished sentences and builds up what he (1975) calls his/her meaning potential,
ungrammatical utterances, is it really true that the role of that is the potential of what can be meant, the potential
environment and experience in language acquisition just of the semantic system, the semantic options or
a mere trigger, and not the principal source of and behind paradigms that make up this meaning potential
this linguistic knowledge, claimed by nativists to be innate (124).Thus, following his definition of the social semiotic,
in us? With these doubts or enquires in mind, I now move quoted above, Halliday (1975) adds:
on to explore a third view of language acquisition and
language learning? The childs task is to construct the system of
meanings that represents his own model of
social reality. This process takes place inside his
Halliday and language as a social semiotic head; it is a cognitive process. But it takes place
in contexts of social interaction, and there is no
Now, we begin to explore the Hallidayan conception of way it can take place except in these contexts
language and language learning. So this section seeks to (139).
explore Hallidays sociolinguistic approach to language
learning, his elaborate work and view of language as a Halliday (1975: 139 to 140) further adds:
social semiotic.
Besides the key words, function,system, and As well as being a cognitive process, the
choice in Hallidays work on language and learning, learning of the mother tongue is also an
which drive the whole theory of Systemic Functional interactive process. It takes the form of the
Linguistics (SFL) or functional grammar, culture, text, continued exchange of meanings between the
and context also feature as significant terms in his self and others. The act of meaning is a social
language as a semiotic system, away from the language act (139 to 140).
system itself (Halliday, 1975: ix) operates within the
social context of a culture, and that culture is being learnt Therefore, for Halliday (1975), language learning is,first a
and transmitted through language, on the one hand and process, not a genetic capacity; and second, it is a
produced by language on the other. Thus, a child, in process that is both cognitive and interactive; that is, the
the act of learning language, is also learning the culture social semiotic, of which the linguistic system is one
through language. The semantic system which he is mode of realization, is the system or network of
constructing becomes the primary mode of transmission meanings that develops gradually and progressively as
of the culture (ix to x). the child cognitively grows through (maturation) and
According to this view, language and culture are social interaction. He builds the semiotic of his own
brought together where language or systems of society, through interaction in family, in peer group, and,
meanings (semioticsystems/discourse) in general (of later, in school - as well as in a host of other
which language or the linguistic semiotic system is only microsemiotic encounters [] (143 to 144).
one mode of realization of these meanings (Halliday, Hallidays description of language as a social semiotic
1975: 139) are constituted by and interpreted within the reflects the notion that it is through language that a social
154 Int. J. English Lit.
system and a semantic system are constructed. In the development a child or learner is capable of when
process of building up the social semiotic, the network of interacting with an adult or a more advanced peer or
meanings that constitutes the culture the child is proficient learner. Thus, unlike Chomsky and the
becoming a member of the species social man innatists, and even Halliday to a certain extent, Vygotsky
(Halliday, 1975: 121). concludes, as stated in Lightbown and Spada (1999: 23)
Through language, the child learns the culture, the that language develops entirely from social interaction.
receptacle in which language and other semiotic systems Another prominent figure who can be thought of as
take place and operate. The reality that the child espousing the interactionist position as an explanation for
constructs is that of his culture and sub-culture, and the language acquisition and learning,and hence influencing
ways in which he learns to mean and to build up the Hallidayan conception is the Swiss psychologist,
registersare also those of his culture and sub-culture Piaget (1896 to 1980). Again, unlike the innatists who
(Halliday, 1975: 143). Thus, both language and culture view language as stemming primarily from one particular
are interrelated semiotic systems, which make up the localised region of the brain as opposed to social
social system. Halliday (1975) describes this very interaction - and thus operating independently of other
complex situation or this language-culture imbrication as cortical organs or brain functions; the notion known as
intertwined semiotic systems that constitute or take place modularity of the brain (Fromkin and Rodman 1998:
within one another as follows: 35), Piaget views language learning and development as
stemming from socialinteraction. In the words of
In principle, a child is learning one semiotic Lightbown and Spada (1999), Unlike the innatists, Piaget
system, the culture and simultaneously he is did not see language as based on a separate module of
learning the means of learning it - a second the mind (23).
semiotic system, the language, which is the However, whether Halliday was influenced by Firth,
intermediary in which the first one is encoded Saussure, Vygotsky, and Piaget or any other
(122). interactionist or connectionist is not an issue. The fact
remains that it was Halliday who developed our
For Halliday (1978), language is a social phenomenon; it conception of language through his conception of it as
exists in a social context. Thus, language is social social and semiotic together, hence his view of language
because it takes place within the social context of culture; associo-semiotic or social semiotic.
and is semiotic because the culture itself is interpreted in Chomsky and the innatists see the role of social
semiotic terms (1978). interaction as only a trigger. However, Halliday (besides
It is interesting to note, at this point, that this view is cognitive development) sees it as principal. Therefore,
more comprehensive or more explicitly formulated and while Chomsky and the innatists see logos as originating
more adequate or explanatory than that of Chomsky who primarily from the mind, and hence their emphasis on
views language primarily in innatist terms; as the product innatism, Halliday (also unlike interactionists who see
of a genetic capacity rather than a process of cognitive only interaction as the cause behind learning) sees logos
development and social interaction. Hallidays conception or language learning as a processoperating in the mind
of language as socio-semiotic or sociolinguistic is more but taking place in contexts of social interaction, and
plausible an explanation and more in line with language hence his emphasis on social interaction.
as operating only in a sociocultural context. The notion of language as social, as noted, is rooted
Hallidays notion of language as social seems to be in the research of interactionists or those holding the
derived from Malinowskis (1884 to 1942) concepts of interactionist position in language acquisition and
context of culture and context of situation, as modified language learning, those who deem (modified) social
and made explicit by Firth (Halliday, 1975: 125). interaction or the role of the environment, as opposed to
According to Firth (1968), for language to operate, a the brain or any innate capacities, as the key in the
context of culture, and that of situation are needed. One process of language acquisition and language
may also say that the notion of language as semiotic development throughout life. So, Hallidays depiction of
(social semiotic) might have been inspired by Saussure language as social and that it is a social phenomenon,
who viewed language in his theory of semiology as and that it exists in a social context is not new.
semiotic. However, as this paper has shown, what is
So, in his formulation of his theory of language as a sophisticated here is the combined notion of language as
social semiotic, it is clear that Halliday has built upon social semiotic together, which brings the semiotics of
other works that treated language from a sociocultural the culture at the level of grammatical constituent, at the
perspective. A prominent figure, here, would be Lev level of clause. Hence, it is not only the context of
Vygotsky (1896 to 1934) whose sociocultural theory of situation where semiotic signs operate but also the
language and learning was based on his Zone of sociocultural context of culture where sociocultural signs
Proximal Development (ZPD), or the level of language operate as well. It is semiotics within a sociocultural
Assaiqeli 155
context, it is the operation and development of semiotic place in the childs head, stresses that the act of
systems of which language is one within the social meaning is a social act. So, while Chomsky views
context of culture, hence again Hallidays sophisticated language as an innate capacity, as being rooted in the
observation or notion of language as the social semiotic, human brain, Halliday views language as a semiotic or
the network or system of meanings which constitutes the social semiotic built up based on aprocessthat takes
culture. place in the mind, and another taking place in contexts of
social interaction. Thus, Unlike Chomskys view of
language as a syntactic system innate in the mind,
CONCLUSION Halliday views language, not as a capacity we carry
around in our brains,but rather a resource, a cultural
Within the context of language acquisition and language resource shaped and constructed through the
learning, this paper, following a brief discussion of early microsemiotic encounters a child goes through:
bilingualism, encouraged in this paper, and a section on
the father of modern linguistics, explored and Hallidays theory is not just a theory of language,
investigated the views and philosophies of each of it is a theory of behaviour; not in the sense of
Bloomfield, Skinner, Chomsky, and Halliday regarding Skinners theory of behaviour, but in how,
important issues in language acquisition and learning. through interactions we become cultural
The paper stated that children have a marvellous subjects, so that our lives embody our culture
capacity for acquiring competence in whatever language with all its complexities, ambiguities and
or languages they get exposed to, and in a manner so contradictions []
rapid, so creative, so uniform, so systematic, so regular, (http://golum.riv.csu.edu.au/~srelf/SOTE/EML50
and indeed so easy compared with the mammoth task 4/Halliday.htm).
that they, within a remarkably short span of time,
accomplish victoriously. Thus, in Language as Social Semiotic, published in 1978,
In endeavours to account for this fantastic journey Halliday writes:
that begins with an anguished cry at birth and culminates
in adult competence in language a few years later, The child learns his mother tongue in the context
linguists have propounded a number of theories of behavioural settings where the norms of his
explicating the processes and source of this linguistic culture are acted out for him and enunciated for
knowledge. Drawing on Saussures useful distinction him in settings of parental control, instruction,
between what he called parole and langue, most personal interaction and the like; and,
theories, apart from Hallidays, gave paramount reciprocally he is socialized into the value
importance to either the role of the environment, or systems and behaviour patterns of the culture
hidden innate properties. through the use of language at the same time as
Thus, the paper explored two major approaches or he is learning it (23).
polar positions regarding the source of linguistic
knowledge: the environmentalists who view language as So, culture and language emerge and develop
environmentally fashioned and evolving, and the concurrently or simultaneously. As the child learns
mentalists who view language as genetically endowed language (a semiotic system), he/sheis also acquiring the
and readymade (139), or a biologically endowed culture, the social norms and value systems, etc. (other
cognitive faculty (Cook, 2003: 128).While behaviourists, cultural semiotic systems).
connectionists, and interactionists (with some variation) Halliday, whose explanation, in my opinion, is the most
are examples of the first position, the cognitivistsor plausible, thus views language or linguistic knowledge as
innatists are examples of the second, the mentalists. the product of both social interaction and cognitive
Halliday, however, with whose view this paper takes side, development.Thus, unlike Chomsky who looks at
sees language as taking place in the mind but shaped language from a psychological point of view and is thus
and constructed in contexts of social interaction. concerned with the question of how language is stored
Within the scope of this paper, the paper has shown and processed in the mind, hence his innatist account;
that Skinner and Bloomfield are examples of the former Halliday who looks at language from a sociological or
position which is amenable to measurement and sociolinguistic point of view is more concerned with the
observation, investigation and scrutiny, while Chomsky questions of why and howchildren learn language, and
and his acolytes as examples of the latter position, the what people do with language and how language
mentalist or intraorganism approach, the langue or the mediates meaning, hence is his sociolinguistic or socio-
hidden and unobservable aspects of language.Halliday, semiotic view or account of language. Hence, according
whileacknowledging that the construction of the system of to Chomsky, children learn language because they are
meanings (the social semiotic) is a process that takes biologically programmed to do so, the brain is programmed
156 Int. J. English Lit.
or predisposed genetically in a way that would make Harris R, Taylor TJ (1989).Landmarks in Linguistic Thought: The
them acquire it; and they do that through (the core or Western Tradition from Socrates to Saussure. Great Britain:
Routledge.
general principles of) UG. For Halliday, however, children Lightbown PM, Spada N (1999). How Languages are Learned
learn language for purposes of communication and nd
(2 edn.).Oxford: Oxford University Press.
interaction; and they do that through using the resources MOHE KSA (n.d.). Successful E-Learning Management Programme.
of the language: semantics, lexicogrammar, and National e-Learning and Distance Learning Center.
Steinberg DD, Nagata H, Aline D (2001). Psycholinguistics: Language,
phonology. Thus, while Chomskys concern is about nd
Mind, and World (2 edn.). Harlow, England: Longman.
structure, Hallidays concern is about use or function Theories of Language: Hallidays Theory-language as a social semiotic.
(What people do with language and how language Retrieved Feb. 24, 2010.
http://golum.riv.csu.edu.au/~srelf/SOTE/EML504/Halliday.htm
mediates meaning?).
Now, though the paper has projected the Hallidayan
account whichviews language as taking place in the mind
but is shaped and constructed in contexts of social
interaction, as the most plausible explanation of this
fantastic, enviable and marvellous phenomenon, the
fact remains that language acquisition and language
learning with all their complexities represent a puzzle for
linguistic, psychological, and neurological scientists which
will not soon be solved (Lightbown and Spada, 1999:
45), as a complete theory of language acquisition is
probably, at best, a long way off (45). The complexities
of language acquisition will possibly continually remain a
driving force for continuous attempts at more adequate
explanations for this marvellous human feat with which
Allah glory be to Him - has distinguished the human
being from all other living species.
REFERENCES
Appendix B(i). Simultaneous Childhood Bilingualism: Muhammads Level of Acquisition of the English Language System by
Age 2: A corpus based on a parental diary of speech development (as part of the social semiotic the child is progressively
constructing).
)-(
)-(
) -(
)(
) -(