Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
The Role of Linguistic Input in the Development of Lexical and Syntactic Competence in Early Childhood:
A Comparative Review of Four Major Theories
Jason Chan (MCI, Innsbruck, Austria)
Abstract
Before acquiring a foreign language, a person must first master their native tongue. The strategies that are associated with this process are highly influential in subsequent foreign language learning efforts. First language acquisition (FLA) is a complex process influenced by a combination of biological, cognitive, and environmental factors. This article explores the role of input in developing lexical and syntactic knowledge during FLA, examining four primary theoretical frameworks: behaviorism, nativism, cognitivism, and interactionism. Behaviorism emphasises imitation and reinforcement as key mechanisms for language learning, while nativism posits an innate language faculty, or universal grammar, that guides acquisition. Cognitivism focuses on the role of cognitive development, suggesting that language acquisition is intertwined with broader cognitive abilities such as memory and problem-solving. Interactionism, on the other hand, highlights the importance of social interaction and the dynamic relationship between a child’s innate abilities and their linguistic environment. The article explores the question of how these theories inform our understanding of vocabulary (lexicon) and syntax development. Lexical knowledge begins with the recognition of sounds and progresses to the acquisition of words, with children rapidly expanding their vocabulary through strategies like fast mapping. Syntactic development involves mastering sentence structures, verb inflection, and complex grammatical rules, often through exposure to varied linguistic input. The interaction between lexicon and syntax is crucial, as children use their growing vocabulary to infer syntactic rules and vice versa. Practical implications for language education are also discussed, emphasising the need for rich, varied linguistic input to support both first and second language learners. The article concludes that while innate predispositions and cognitive abilities are essential, the quality and nature of environmental input play a critical role in shaping a child’s linguistic competence. These insights stress the importance of creating supportive, interactive, and linguistically diverse environments to foster robust language development.
Keywords: Input, Lexicon, Syntax, Language Acquisition Theories, Cognitive Development
1 Introduction
First language acquisition generally refers to the acquisition of a child's mother tongue. It is believed that language development occurs under natural conditions and, therefore, does not require instruction (Kuhl, 2010). Children usually start speaking between the ages of one and two. Although their cognitive development is still in its early stages, they can already form grammatically correct sentences (Tomasello, 2003). While it was previously argued that parents solely influence the development of the surrounding language, today it is believed that social, biological, and cognitive factors also play significant roles in language acquisition (Snow & Goldfield, 2006; Vygotsky, 1978). While there is a genetic predisposition to learning languages (Chomsky, 1965; Pinker, 1994), the process is simultaneously influenced by family and culture (Batoréo, 2012).
Language acquisition is one of a child's most complex tasks during their first years of life. However, children seem to acquire their native language relatively easily and quickly. Nevertheless, this does not mean they speak like adults from the beginning. The questions of how children acquire the complex language system and which developmental phases characterise their acquisition path are central to language acquisition research (Slobin, 1986). There are now an impressive number of studies worldwide on children's first language acquisition, which is sometimes inaccurately labeled as native language acquisition. Recent social and demographic developments have made research into first language acquisition increasingly important because establishing an understanding of first language acquisition is related to and heavily influences second language acquisition research (Lightbown & Spada, 2013; Paradis, 2019). Adequate language support for children and young people to complete their education is a high priority, as most children and young people who are immigrants and attend daycare centers and schools do not learn the country-specific language as a first language but as a second language. This presents educational institutions with different challenges than in the past.
As with all areas of research, various theoretical approaches to the origin of language exist, some of which complement each other. The four most common language acquisition theories are behaviorism, nativism, cognitivism, and interactionism, which shall be explored in more detail in the next section. Despite their differences, they acknowledge the central importance of input in language acquisition (Snow, 1994; Vygotsky, 1978). Input is defined as the language offered and understood by children from their environment (De Houwer, 2011). The input changes naturally depending on which language is spoken to the child. The influence of language use at home on language development has been much discussed, prompting suggestions that the successful acquisition of a second language is based on a well-developed first language (Baker & McCarthy, 1981; Behrens, 2006; Hernandez & Li, 2007).
This paper, while not a traditional review article nor an empirical study, undertakes a critical examination of the role of linguistic input in the development of lexical and syntactic competence in early childhood through the lens of four major theories. It is essential to revisit and scrutinise the role of input at this juncture, despite the concept not being new, because of the evolving understanding of how input functions differently in first language acquisition compared to foreign language learning. As contemporary educational environments become increasingly diverse and as the methods and modalities through which language is taught and learned continue to evolve, a nuanced understanding of input becomes crucial (Kushwaha et al., 2024). This paper underscores the significance of this examination, particularly considering recent shifts towards more interactive and immersive learning contexts that potentially reshape traditional notions of linguistic input (Porter & Castillo, 2023). By reassessing these foundational concepts, the paper aims to contribute to a deeper, more contemporary understanding of how environmental factors integrate with biological predispositions and cognitive capacities to influence language development. This re-evaluation is pivotal for designing educational strategies that are both effective in diverse settings and responsive to the needs of both first and foreign language learners.
2 The Most Important Theories
Depending on which theory is used, different priorities arise when dealing with children regarding language and language development. The following language acquisition theories share common ideas, but they also have significant differences. The discussion will address both the strengths and weaknesses of each theory to provide a comprehensive understanding. The language acquisition models described do not represent the complex nature of first language acquisition but should serve as tools for explaining observations and connections in language acquisition. While all language acquisition theories assume that language, in the narrower sense, is only found in humans, there are essential prerequisites for language acquisition in children, as they need a suitable environment and well-coordinated conditions that complement their development.
2.1 Behaviorism: Imitation and Reinforcement
The behaviorist approach to language acquisition was founded by Watson at the beginning of the 20th century and further developed in the 1950s by Skinner (1957). In its pure form, behaviorism is a learning theory that attributes all behavioral changes to environmental stimuli. According to this theory, children learn language through imitation and reinforcement. By reacting to correct vocalisations with praise and paying no or negative attention to incorrect statements, children are conditioned to produce language accurately.
While Skinner's behaviorist language acquisition theory is now considered outdated, it posits that children are born as a blank slate and are shaped by their environment. Skinner's central thesis is that children acquire language because the environment reacts to correct vocalisations with praise and reacts neutrally or negatively to incorrect vocalisations. This form of learning is known as operant conditioning. The more often a vocalisation or word is reinforced, the more it becomes established in the child's language repertoire. According to Skinner, another basis for language acquisition is that children display imitative behavior and imitate sound combinations and words, which are reinforced by the environment.
However, the behaviorist approach views the child as a black box, ignoring any internal cognitive and emotional processes. This approach cannot explain the acquisition of the complex system of rules underlying every language or the analytical skills children develop (Kidd & Donnelly, 2020; Tomasello, 2003). A fundamental criticism of behaviorism is that human life, which includes language, is much more complex and multilayered than behaviorist theory describes. As Tomasello argues, the importance of social interaction and cultural context in language development cannot be ignored (Tomasello, 2003; Walker et al., 2020).
2.2 Nativism: Innate Language-Specific Skills
American linguist Noam Chomsky is among the academics who criticise behaviorism. Chomsky's work introduces the idea of an innate language faculty, emphasising the role of biological predisposition in language acquisition. According to Chomsky (1965), language is far too comprehensive for a child to learn in a relatively short period solely through imitation and reinforcement. One must assume that a child is not a blank slate but has innate talents and abilities – innate cognitive structures – that enable it to learn language. Chomsky argues that all human languages share common grammatical principles, or universal grammar, that are innate to everyone. In this respect, grammar and language develop relatively independently of cognitive development.
Drawing from his dissatisfaction with behaviorism, Chomsky developed nativism in the 1960s as a critical counterpoint. This theory states that children have an innate ability to learn language. Furthermore, cognitive abilities are necessary to recognise linguistic patterns and memories, and social skills are needed to understand other people's needs. According to him, language acquisition is primarily the acquisition of rules. He believes that linguistic diversity cannot be captured through pure imitation. The basic assumption of nativism is that there is a genetic predisposition to language acquisition.
Like behaviorism, nativism also faces significant criticism. One argument against the assumption of an innate universal grammar is that there are languages with entirely different grammars that a single underlying grammar cannot describe (Hamann & Ruigendijk, 2015). Many also argue that this theory fails to explain why skills that are not language-specific are used to acquire language, such as the formation of categories or the ability to understand relationships between things. Although Chomsky has adapted his original theory several times, nativism, in its original form, is also considered outdated.
2.3 Cognitivism: Concrete Experience with the World
A theory developed in the 1920s, cognitivism, posits that language acquisition occurs through cognitive abilities that develop in the child through interaction with the environment. Through concrete experiences with the senses, the child increasingly acquires the ability to think and speak independently about concrete objects or events. The most important representative of cognitivism is Piaget (1954). Cognitivism views language acquisition as a form of cognitive learning concerning perception, recognition, and thinking – as part of the child's overall development. According to Piaget, language cannot be viewed in isolation and should be understood as an expression of cognitive development. However, this perspective has led to critiques, notably for overlooking the significant impact that social interaction has on language learning.
The cognitive abilities underlying language acquisition include:
- Object permanence: the realisation that things exist even when they are not perceptible, which develops around the seventh and eighth months of life (Piaget, 1954).
- Symbol understanding: the realisation that symbols can represent objects, typically developing between 18 and 24 months.
- Theory of Mind: the ability to assume that others have feelings, intentions, and opinions that do not correspond to one's own. This skill is not fully developed in most children until they are around 4-5 years of age (Kidd et al., 2020). Crucially, this ability is critical for pragmatic language use, as it enables children to understand and appropriately respond to the linguistic and social cues in their environment.
In short, the cognitive language acquisition theory suggests that language acquisition does not occur solely through environmental conditions but through cognitive processes (Brown, 2000). Therefore, the prerequisite for children's cognitive development is active engagement with the environment, through which they learn to expand and classify their knowledge. According to Piaget, language acquisition is based on cognitive abilities further developed through concrete experiences with the environment.
Cognitivism is criticised today for its one-sided focus on information processing during learning. Integrating social factors may provide a more comprehensive perspective, acknowledging the crucial role of social interaction and cultural context in shaping language development.
2.4 Interactionism: Interaction with the Social Environment
In contrast to nativism and cognitivism, interactionism emphasises the role of the social environment in language acquisition. Interactionism sees the social environment as the most critical factor in language acquisition. The founding father of the interactionist language acquisition theory is Bruner (1983), who assumes that language acquisition and the recognition of logical structures occur primarily through interaction with parents and other people in the child's immediate environment. According to Bruner, the innate language acquisition system and cognitive abilities are essential prerequisites for successful language development, even if the social environment plays the most important role.
Bruner expanded the innate language acquisition system (nativism) and cognitive abilities (cognitivism) to include a so-called language acquisition support system. According to Bruner, specific logical structures necessary for language acquisition, such as the subject-object distinction, develop through parent-child interaction during the preverbal or pre-linguistic phase. Interactionism assumes that children have an innate ability and willingness to learn and automatically interact with their social environment. Adult caregivers also possess innate skills to structure interactions with children, facilitating language acquisition.
These innate skills include ‘motherese’, which is mainly used in the child's first year of life: clear prosody, raised pitch, clear emphasis, short sentences, and many repetitions. Adults adapt their interactions to support language acquisition according to the child's current cognitive and linguistic development level. For example, after the first year, adult caregivers use less motherese as other forms of child-friendly language become more important for supporting language scaffolding and teaching (Bortfeld, 2004).
According to interactionism, language is acquired through interaction, i.e. through repeated play, familiar routines, and repeated actions, with consistent patterns of interaction. As development progresses, the interactions become more varied, and the child takes on a more active role. The question of whether internal or external factors play a more significant role in children's language development is an ongoing topic of discussion among linguists. On the one hand, genetic prerequisites for language acquisition are being investigated, while on the other, external influences such as linguistic role models and language promotion are also considered.
Despite the existence of the aforementioned theories, how children learn language has yet to be conclusively clarified. Language acquisition theories, despite their distinct approaches, share significant commonalities that contribute to a holistic understanding of how children acquire language. To varying degrees, all theories acknowledge the relationship between innate capacities and environmental influences:
- Nativism focuses on innate linguistic structures.
- Behaviorism emphasises environmental conditioning.
- Cognitivism and interactionism highlight the roles of cognitive development and social interaction.
These overlaps suggest that language development in children represents a complex process influenced by genetic predispositions, cognitive growth, and environmental stimuli. Thus, integrating these perspectives reveals that language acquisition is not just about internal predispositions or external conditions but a dynamic interaction of both, necessitating environments rich in interaction, cognitive engagement, and supportive reinforcement. Given this complexity, adopting an integrative approach that combines these diverse factors may be most promising for advancing future research in the field. This comprehensive approach could lead to more nuanced understanding and effective strategies in language education and acquisition.
3 The Nature of Input at Different Linguistic Levels
3.1 Lexicon Development
To bridge these insights into the general mechanisms of language acquisition with the specifics of vocabulary development, it is essential to consider how foundational theories influence the nature and organisation of lexical knowledge. Vocabulary development and expansion occur after a slow acquisition of the first words and their meanings. After reaching a more productive vocabulary of about 50 words, further vocabulary acquisition occurs in spurts (Rescorla, 1989). Each new word is part of the language acquisition process, with much information stored in a category system, such as generic terms, synonyms, parts of speech, and personal memories.
While the word form and the word meaning are saved in different places in the mental lexicon (Baker & McCarthy, 1981), the vocabulary, or mental lexicon, is an active memory in which words are systematically organised and linked to one another in the form of lexicon entries. Each lexicon entry consists of various types of information. On the one hand, there is semantic information about the word's meaning. However, to use a word appropriately, more than the meaning is needed. Each lexicon entry contains phonological, syntactic, morphological, and pragmatic information (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2003). Vocabulary is generally defined as the words available to a speaker; if someone has an extensive vocabulary, he or she knows and/or can use many words. A distinction is made between a passive vocabulary, or comprehension vocabulary, and an active vocabulary, or production vocabulary. The passive vocabulary is built up before the active vocabulary and is larger than the active vocabulary in every person (Tomblin & Zhang, 2006).
Although most children produce their first words by the end of their first year of life, vocabulary development begins earlier, i.e. when children first recognise words as sounds. At around eight months, children understand approximately 36 words, and by 16 months, they understand around 190 words (Bloom, 2000). The passive vocabulary of six-year-old children is estimated to contain 9,000 to 14,000 words, while adults have a passive vocabulary estimated at 60,000 to 80,000 words. The active vocabulary initially grows relatively slowly. At around 18 months, it typically contains 50 to 65 words, and at 24 months, it contains around 200 words. In the second year of life, active vocabulary often proliferates, leading to a vocabulary spurt; children may acquire several new words per day. From this point on, it is assumed that children use specific acquisition strategies to build vocabulary more effectively. These strategies help the child determine what a new word refers to. If the child has an initial guess about what meaning a word form might have when heard for the first time, a process known as fast mapping occurs, which involves a quick initial linking of a word form with a meaning (Nippold, 2007). However, these initial entries in the lexicon still need to be completed and differentiated regarding their phonological, semantic, pragmatic, syntactic, and morphological properties.
By the time a child starts school, his or her active vocabulary size is estimated to be around 3,000 to 5,000 words. Adult speakers have around 20,000 to 50,000 words in their active vocabulary. When children produce their first words, these typically include nouns such as mom, dad, car, and ball, as well as expressions like hello, yes, no, and please. Verb particles like on, away, or other particles are also produced early on. In a child’s second year of life, adjectives such as big and small and verbs such as open and paint are added, leading to an increasingly differentiated vocabulary. In contrast to these content words, function words such as articles, prepositions, and conjunctions are acquired later.
3.2 Syntax Acquisition
As children's vocabularies expand and become more differentiated, moving beyond simple noun acquisition to include verbs, adjectives, and later function words, they also begin grappling with more complex linguistic tasks such as syntax. This progression from recognising and producing individual words to constructing syntactically correct and semantically meaningful sentences is a critical aspect of language acquisition, indicating a shift from basic lexical knowledge to more sophisticated language use (Baker & McCarthy, 1981). The individual sentence elements – such as arrangement and position in the sentence, main clause-subordinate clause constructions, correct case use, and verb inflection – are learned during this stage.
Children generally master sentence structures by the age of three, proceeding step by step and systematically through various phases, often referred to as milestones (Bloom, 2000). Four significant milestones can be identified:
Milestone One includes the production of individual words, which, in addition to nouns, may include verb particles such as on or to. This stage is part of the pre-syntactic phase, where children begin to use words meaningfully but have not yet started to form complex sentence structures.
Milestone Two, which typically occurs between 18 and 24 months, is the point at which the child begins to combine words, with verb particles and non-inflected verbs usually appearing at the end of utterances.
Milestone Three, reached around 24 to 30 months, is the point at which children discover the position of the verb in the main clause and begin to grasp subject-verb order.
Milestone Four, reached around 30 months, is the point at which children include the acquisition of subordinate clauses, although they often omit introductory conjunctions like because at the beginning of sentences. This stage marks the emergence of even more complex sentence structures, indicating significant advancements in their linguistic capabilities.
In linguistic theory, the acquisition of a first language is a fundamental topic. It is widely agreed that humans are uniquely equipped for language learning, with innate abilities influenced and shaped by their environments (Chomsky, 1965). Although there is debate over the precise nature of these innate mechanisms and the extent of environmental influence, the complex grammar children develop is not fully explained by the language input they receive. Children are exposed to complete sentences used by adults, not to abstract grammatical rules, yet they manage to develop a complex, hierarchically organised system of linguistic categories and rules. Despite only hearing a limited number of sentences, children can generate and comprehend sentences far beyond this range, including many that do not conform to the grammatical norms presented in their adult language input (Baker & McCarthy, 1981). Furthermore, while children receive examples of what can be said, they also intuitively grasp what cannot be said in their own language. In essence, every typically developing child rapidly constructs a sophisticated, abstract set of grammatical rules based on limited and indirect linguistic evidence, without explicit instruction or correction regarding grammatical errors. This phenomenon, known as the logical problem of language acquisition, highlights the complexities of language learning (Chomsky, 1965).
Linguists often turn to the theory of universal grammar as a solution to the logical problem of language acquisition. Universal grammar suggests a set of innate grammatical principles that act as a blueprint for all human languages, guiding children's language development by limiting their grammatical options (Tomasello, 2003). While the precise details of universal grammar are subject to empirical validation, it aims to explain consistent properties across languages and the specific variations that can be defined within a limited set of parameters. Universal grammar, combined with the linguistic input available, ideally helps children achieve any target grammar.
However, the journey to mastering a target grammar involves various challenges and stages. Children pass through specific phases, such as the well-documented null subject and root infinitive stages, where their language output systematically diverges from adult norms. Understanding these developmental stages is crucial, as it involves distinguishing between linguistic errors that reflect different levels of grammatical understanding and those that arise from limitations in language processing capabilities, such as working memory or articulatory control (Radford, 1990).
In the usage-based variant of construction grammar, it is assumed that linguistic categories are formed and learned during the language acquisition process based on linguistic input and interaction. This does not rule out the possibility that innate knowledge or knowledge acquired in the pre-linguistic phase can play a role, demonstrating the overlapping and non-mutually exclusive nature of various theories (Tomasello, 2003). Usage-based approaches emphasise that language structures emerge from patterns in the input rather than being pre-specified innate structures, highlighting the importance of environmental interaction in language development.
In relation to the language system, this means that both the semantic and formal properties of the lexical units and the structure of the language system must be abstracted from language use. Construction grammar also brings top-down processes of holistic learning into play when the child begins with chunks and only analyses these during language development. Holistic learning processes have been postulated before, but they were often seen as non-productive in a learning process that was essentially bottom-up, moving from simple to complex structures. At first glance, the fact that most children begin with one-word utterances and gradually learn two- and three-word structures seems to contradict holistic strategies. However, the one-word utterances and the early two-word utterances that follow are not syntactically complex but rather structurally unbound sequences of words.
3.3 Interaction Between Lexicon and Syntax
The interaction between lexicon and syntax plays a crucial role in first language acquisition. The lexicon refers to the vocabulary of a language, comprising its words and expressions, while syntax is the set of rules, patterns, and structures used to construct sentences. Together, they form the backbone of linguistic competence, which children develop through exposure to spoken and written language in their environment (Bloom, 2000).
From an early age, children are exposed to a rich variety of linguistic inputs that vary not only in vocabulary but also in syntactic complexity. The quality and complexity of this input have a significant influence on the rate and nature of language development. Research suggests that children who are exposed to a rich lexicon and a variety of syntactic constructions develop robust language skills more rapidly than those who receive more limited linguistic input (Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, 2003).
One of the critical aspects of the interaction between lexicon and syntax in language input is the concept of ‘bootstrapping’. Linguistic bootstrapping is a theory suggesting that children use their knowledge of lexical items to make inferences about syntactic structures and vice versa (Gleitman & Gillette, 1995). For instance, by hearing the word eat used in different contexts (e.g., She eats, or eating quickly), children can infer its meaning and learn about its grammatical properties, such as its use in different tenses and its syntactic role.
Moreover, the frequency and variability of lexical items and syntactic structures in input also play a significant role. Frequent exposure to certain words and patterns can reinforce their usage and understanding. For example, repeated exposure to complex sentences can help children understand and later use similar structures in their speech (Tomasello, 2003). This exposure helps them gradually expand their lexicon and syntactic abilities.
According to the theories previously discussed, the role of caregivers and the broader social environment in facilitating the interaction between lexicon and syntax cannot be overstated. Caregivers intuitively adjust their speech to suit the linguistic level of the child, a phenomenon known as ‘motherese’. This type of speech typically features a higher pitch, exaggerated intonation, and simplified syntactic structures, making it easier for children to discern and learn new words and grammatical patterns (Snow, 1994).
Furthermore, input is not merely about direct interaction, but also about the passive exposure children receive through overhearing conversations between adults or older children. This incidental learning contributes to a deeper understanding of how words and structures are used in different contexts, enriching both the child's lexicon and their syntactic knowledge.
Critically, exposure to a variety of speakers, languages, and communicative situations enhances the child's linguistic flexibility and creativity. Children who are exposed to multilingual environments or to a variety of speakers using different dialects or styles often show greater linguistic adaptability and a more profound understanding of language's social and pragmatic aspects (Liberman et al., 2016).
The interplay between lexicon and syntax in the linguistic input received by children is foundational in shaping their language acquisition journey. The richness, frequency, and diversity of this input not only facilitate the initial learning of words and structures but also enable children to master the more complex aspects of their language, ultimately leading to fluent and flexible use of their mother tongue. This underscores the importance of providing children with varied and rich linguistic experiences during their critical early years of language development.
4 Practical Implications
The implications for language education support and educational goals are critical for ensuring a successful educational trajectory. Language skills are key competencies that significantly influence educational outcomes (Cummins, 2000). In educational settings, special attention is given to children for whom English may be a second language, alongside those who may not receive sufficient linguistic stimulation at home. Research on first and second language acquisition provides invaluable insights for setting educational objectives and supporting language learning mechanisms. These insights help by pinpointing the linguistic capabilities that children typically acquire at different stages and using findings derived primarily from interactive contexts, which inform the design of educational content and the structuring of supportive environments. Such research helps to clarify how the age at which language learning begins and the duration of exposure influence language mastery.
Educators and caregivers alike face significant challenges in supporting language acquisition among children and youth in their day-to-day professional roles. They must assess linguistic abilities accurately and provide appropriate support, necessitating specialised skills in language education across various educational settings (Lee & Oxelson, 2006). From early childhood through to primary and secondary education, the strategies for language support differ. In the early years, it is crucial to foster the development of lexis and syntax to prepare children for more advanced language use in later schooling (Jiménez & García, 2006). For older students, particularly those who start learning English at school age and are therefore late second language learners, educational strategies must be tailored to accommodate their unique needs and the linguistic characteristics of their first languages.
At the primary and secondary levels, the focus is not only on expanding the linguistic abilities of all students within a language-sensitive curriculum but also on specifically aiding children from non-English-speaking backgrounds to acquire sufficient English language skills to fully participate in education (August & Shanahan, 2006). This support includes developing foundational skills in reading, writing, speaking, and understanding. However, the materials often used in these contexts may not always incorporate the latest findings from second language acquisition research or consider the linguistic differences between English and the student's native languages (Lightbown & Spada, 2013).
Borrowing from first language acquisition research, challenges such as verb placement, which can differ significantly between languages, must be recognised and addressed through pedagogical strategies that leverage students’ multilingual abilities (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2004). Adequate support from well-designed educational materials and resources is essential. Despite the challenges, the overarching positive conclusion is that children are fundamentally capable of acquiring English as a second or additional language early on, provided that the necessary conditions are met (Gibbons, 2002). This highlights the critical role of tailored educational approaches in facilitating language acquisition and ensuring educational success for all students.
The neglect of incorporating current second language acquisition research and the lack of consideration for linguistic diversity can significantly impact the effectiveness of language education. For instance, educational materials that do not reflect the latest understanding of how children acquire languages can miss critical aspects such as the importance of input, interaction, and feedback in learning a new language. Moreover, failing to tailor approaches to accommodate linguistic differences can hinder a student's ability to transfer skills from their native language to English, potentially slowing down their learning process (Ortega, 2014).
When educational content overlooks these findings, it may perpetuate methods that focus excessively on grammar and vocabulary memorisation at the expense of communication skills and practical language use. This can lead to less engaging and less effective educational experiences for students, particularly those from non-English-speaking backgrounds, who might benefit more from contextual, meaningful language use that mirrors natural language acquisition processes (Ellis, 2005). To improve pedagogy, it is essential to integrate insights from contemporary linguistic research, which often emphasises the role of meaningful communication and social interaction in language learning. Incorporating strategies that promote active use of the language in varied contexts, acknowledging students' linguistic backgrounds, and adapting teaching methods to be more inclusive and reflective of these principles could enhance language learning experiences and outcomes for all students (Swain & Lapkin, 2013).
5 Conclusion
The need for a nuanced understanding of language input becomes clear. This paper has highlighted the importance of revisiting and reassessing traditional notions in order to align them with the current and future state of language education. By examining how environmental factors integrate with biological predispositions and cognitive capacities, the insights provided in this paper could potentially pave the way for developing educational strategies that effectively meet the diverse needs of learners in varied settings.
For those already familiar with the foundational theories of language acquisition, the significance of interactionism lies in its comprehensive approach that encapsulates both the innate and environmental aspects of language learning. Unlike theories that emphasise either biological predispositions or environmental stimuli in isolation, interactionism provides a nuanced perspective that recognises the symbiotic relationship between a child's inherent capabilities and their social interactions. This integrative view is crucial for understanding how children not only acquire language but also how they use it contextually within their social environments. Furthermore, for educators and researchers, interactionism offers practical insights into designing educational experiences that are not just linguistically rich but also socially engaging. This is particularly important in diverse classrooms where the social context can significantly influence language learning outcomes. By focusing on the interaction between a child's cognitive development and his or her dynamic social environment, interactionism encourages educational practices that are more in line with naturalistic language acquisition processes, which are crucial for effectively supporting both native and foreign language learners in a globalised educational setting.
In conclusion, the insights from this analysis are highly relevant for the majority of language instructors, highlighting critical distinctions and similarities between first language acquisition and foreign language learning. Understanding these mechanisms not only enhances teachers' theoretical knowledge, but also has important practical implications for pedagogical practice. To emphasise the importance of these distinctions, it is important to recognise that while first language acquisition often occurs naturally through immersion and interaction in a language-rich environment, foreign language learning may require more structured and explicit teaching strategies. This difference underlines the need to provide rich, varied and contextually meaningful linguistic environments specifically designed to meet the needs of foreign language learners. In increasingly multicultural and multilingual settings, the integration of these theoretical perspectives into educational policies and practices allows language instructors to effectively support all children, regardless of their linguistic background. By tailoring approaches to accommodate both the naturalistic ways in which children acquire their first language and the more formal methodologies needed for successful foreign language learning, instructors can enhance the development of linguistic skills necessary for successful communication and lifelong learning.
References
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baker, C., & McCarthy, G. (1981). The logical problem of language acquisition. Language acquisition and the theory of universal grammar (pp. 1–25). MIT Press.
Batoréo, H. J. (2012). Syntax, lexicon, morphology, and pragmatics in an early stage of bilingual acquisition: A cognitive approach. Estudos Linguísticos /Linguistic Studies, 6-7, 145-156.
Behrens, H. (2006). The input-output relationship in first language acquisition. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 21(1/2/3), 2–24.
Bloom, L. (2000). Language development from two to three. Cambridge University Press.
Bortfeld, H. (2004). Which came first: Infants learning language or motherese? Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 27. 505 - 506. 10.1017/S0140525X04240110.
Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of language learning & teaching (4th ed.). Longman.
Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child's talk: Learning to use language. Oxford University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Multilingual Matters.
De Houwer, A. (2011). Language input environments and language development in bilingual acquisition. 10.1515/9783110239331.221.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33(2), 209-224.
Gleitman, L. R., & Gillette, J. (1995). The development of language: A psycholinguistic perspective. Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 133-175). Wiley.
Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning: Teaching second language learners in the mainstream classroom. Heinemann.
Hamann, C., & Ruigendijk, E. (Eds.). (2015). Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2013. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Hernandez, T., & Li, P. (2007). The bilingual advantage: Language acquisition and cognitive development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(3), 269-278.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2003). The interrelationship between vocabulary and language development. Language Development: Foundations, processes, and clinical applications (pp. 57-79).
Jiménez, R. T., & García, G. E. (2006). The role of teacher knowledge in the development of language and literacy in bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 30(1), 1-24.
Kidd, E., Bidgood, A., Donnelly, S., Durrant, S., Peter, M. S., & Rowland, C. F. (2020). Individual differences in first language acquisition and their theoretical implications. Language Development Department, Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics.
Kidd, E., & Donnelly, S. (2020). Individual differences in first language acquisition. Annual Review of Linguistics, pp. 6, 319–340.
Kuhl P. K. (2010). Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron, 67(5), 713–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.038
Kushwaha, A., Kushwaha, R., & Ahmad, S. (2024). Transforming Learning: The Power of Educational Technology.
Lee, J. S., & Oxelson, E. (2006). It's not my fault: ESL students' perceptions of being labeled as English language learners. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 25–42.
Liberman, Z., Woodward, A., Keysar, B., & Kinzler, K. (2016). Exposure to multiple languages enhances communication skills in infancy. Developmental Science. 20. 10.1111/desc.12420.
Lightbown, P. M., & Spada, N. (2013). How languages are learned (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Nippold, M. A. (2007). Vocabulary development in children and adolescents: A review of the literature. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(4), 329-338.
Ortega, L. (2014). Understanding second language acquisition. Hodder Education.
Paradis, J. (2019). English second language acquisition from early childhood to adulthood: The role of age, first language, cognitive, and input factors. M. M. Brown & B. Dailey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 11–26).
Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. Basic Books.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. William Morrow and Company.
Porter, S., & Castillo, M. (2023). The effectiveness of immersive language learning: An investigation into English language acquisition in immersion environments versus traditional classroom settings. Research Studies in English Language Teaching and Learning, 1(3), 155-165. https://doi.org/10.62583/rseltl.v1i3.17
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: The nature of early child grammar. Blackwell.
Rescorla, L. (1989). The language development survey: A parent report measure of language growth in toddlers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54(3), 496–503.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Slobin, D. I. (1986). The acquisition of language: Theoretical approaches. Handbook of Child Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 265–320). Wiley.
Snow, C. E. (1994). The effect of social context on language development. Language Development: Foundational and applied perspectives (pp. 1–25).
Snow, C. E., & Goldfield, B. A. (2006). The role of social interaction in language development. Language Development: Foundations, processes, and clinical applications (pp. 43–60).
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (2000). Task-based second language learning: the uses of the first language. Language Teaching Research, 4(3), 251-274. https://doi.org/10.1177/136216880000400304
Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2006). The influence of vocabulary on the development of language. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(4), 1035–1045.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Response to intervention as a framework for instruction and intervention for English language learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(4), 10–19.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Walker, N., Monaghan, P., Schoetensack, C., & Rebuschat, P. (2020). Distinctions in the acquisition of vocabulary and grammar: An individual differences approach. Language Learning, 70(S2), 221-254.
Author
Dr Jason Chan
Assistant Professor of English Language and Business Communication
MCI Management Center Innsbruck, Austria
Email: jason.chan@mci.edu
