Question

- Recent models of language acquisition now agree that language is innate in human beings. Give two evidence for innateness hypothesis.  

Answer 1

Evidence in favor of the innateness hypothesis

1. Advocates of the innateness hypothesis have claimed that in the absence of innate language-learning abilities, children with greater exposure to language would have better linguistic competence than those with lesser exposure. In an experiment conducted by M. Crago et. al. on young Inuit children, the researchers observed that these children exhibit the same patterns of language development although they are spoken to less often than children of other communities. Hence, exposure to language is not a significant factor in language development because language is an innate ability of all human beings.

2. In 1967, E.M Gold produced strong evidence in favor of the innateness hypothesis of language learning. In his theory, Gold argued that an abstract language learner cannot learn natural languages from positive data only. Negative data or ungrammatical sentences also have to be frequently used by adults if children are to acquire the language through learning only. However, there is evidence that children learn natural languages even in the absence of negative data. That suggests that there must be an innate language acquisition ability in human beings.

3. The poverty of the stimulus argument presented by Noam Chomsky is another crucial evidence in favor of the innateness hypothesis. According to this argument, the linguistic output of a child surpasses the linguistic input by such a great extent that it is impossible for the child to learn the nuances of the language from such limited evidence. Hence, human beings are biologically endowed with linguistic ability.