Explaining First Language Acquisition Essay

An essay explaining inaugural speech learnedness What is the most realistic theory that explains human beings acquisition of their First Language? Considering the varying theories and perspective on how foremost language is learned, it is evident that no single theory can fully account for the complexity of the issue How 1st language is learned. Based on the previous discussions and scholarly readings we had however, I am beginning to develop a conviction that Innatist theory holds the most realistic and unchanging translation among theories presented on how human beings acquire their mother tongue.The Innatist view also known as the Nativist pi singleered by Noam Chomsky laid out an explanation that every child possesses innate knowledge of language structure (universals) to detect and reproduce his or her 1st language. (Lightbown & Spada, 2006, p. 16). According to Chomsky, we all possess Language Acquisition Device that has predestined people to workout spoken language, and makes us the only beings that can use spoken language. I think this is generally true. No one can argue that human beings are the only species on earth that uses spoken language.Many researches in the past tried to incorporate and teach animals to use any kind and forms of human language but all attempts have failed. I also have observed that the rest of the perspectives (theories) offered in the module to wit connectivist, constructivist, developmentalist and cognitivist are just rehash or mixtures and modified versions of behaviorist and innatist view. Thus, the only two outstanding theories and have original ideas that main served as pillars in First Language acquisition are namely behaviorism and innatism.Although these two opposing theories offers great insights in learning L1, innatists perspective is much more cosmopolitan and consistent than that of the behaviorist. First, behaviorism is machinelike since neither conscious awareness nor intent is assumed to be operationa l in the learner. In contrast, innatism is realistic rather than mechanical since it does consider a child as an inert recipient. Furthermore, the behaviorist doesnt include or advocate the critical period of learning, while innatism takes into account any(prenominal) of critical period hypotheses.Universal grammar is also true in most cases. People who didnt undergo formal instructions or any forms of culture still learn the complexity of their native language. Finally, I think Chomskys ideas explained the facts in a way that no other theories can. Acquiring language is not a normal mental problem. Everyone sees small children pick up language effortlessly. Few, however, notices what an amazing phenomenon this is. Rarely any one would expect a four-year-old to master calculus. hitherto most people would not in be surprised when a four-year-old learns grammar, which is a difficult task. Children learn the rules of their native grammar by hearing a bound set of sample sentences. I n addition, the limited information they receive is mathematically insufficient for them to determine grammatical principles, yet somehow they are still fitting to do so. Reference Lightbown, P. M. , & Spada N. (2006). How Language are Learned Oxford Handbooks for Language Teachers. (3rd ed. ) Oxford University Press