Chomsky had a nativist perspective about language development. This perspective argues that humans are biologically programmed to gain knowledge. Chomsky believed that all humans have a language acquisition device (LAD). The LAD contains knowledge of grammatical rules common to all languages. The LAD also allows children to understand the rules of the language they are learning. Chomsky also developed the concepts of transformational grammar, surface structure, and deep structure. Transformational grammar is grammar that transforms a sentence into a question. Surface structures are words that are actually written. Deep structure is the underlying message or meaning of a sentence. (Matlin, 2005) I agree with Chomsky’s theory as I am a walking example of it.
For many years it was believed that children learned language through imitation. People believed that children stored sentences in their heads and then used the correct one when the time came along. Chomsky then showed this view to be incorrect. We do not simply repeat or imitate language for we are always making up sentences that are grammatically correct. If we only imitated language our language would be very narrow. It is because we follow a grammar system and built in grammar rules that we can invent new sentences that we never heard before. Chomsky believed that children had a remarkable grasp of these rules. He only observed children informally but Roger Brown, who was inspired by Chomsky, serves to help illustrate some findings he made of children’s linguistic capacities. Children are capable of transforming statements into questions. Brown was able to prove this over the years by tape recording a few children’s spontaneous speech. He called this transformation “tag questions” in which a child would end statements with a short question using correct, complex grammar rule such as the one in which if the statement was negative or affirmative the tag question should be the opposite. Also, the child was able to use the right pronoun and knew how to use the correct form of the auxiliary verb. This child’s name was Adam and he was 4 years old. This study illustrates Chomsky’s point that children master complex linguistic rules and procedures in a very short time. Chomsky also introduced the term “deep structure.” This was to help understand how we transform sentences. “The deep structure is the basic structure on which we perform various operations to create new sentences” (Crain, 2005)
Although, Chomsky’s views were found vague and inconsistent because he never studied children himself he inspired many psycholinguists whom made many findings. One of which were the stages of grammar learning. The stages went as follows:
1- Early language learning (birth-1 year old) during this stage the babies begin to make slight body movements to respond to speech and they start gurgling and cooing.
2- One word utterances (1- 1 and a half) at this age children begin producing single words.
3- Two word utterances (1 and a half-2) during this age children start making two word sentences such as “I play”
4- Developing grammar (2-3 years old) during this stage children begin to make three or more words sentences, they begin to use subjects and verbs that go beyond agents and action.
5- Transformation (3-6 years old) during this stage child begins to use more complex rules of grammar and they start being able to switch statements into questions.
6- Adult Grammar (7-10 years old) during this stage children learn to imply more complex rules of grammar.
Chomsky felt that the children’s linguistic capacity were too good to blame on the environment, he believed that it was innate. He believed this innate guidance was called a “universal grammar” and children automatically know the general form any language can take. However, he believed that the “universal grammar” had some holes as it left certain parameters open. He, however, assured that children must have this innate grammar and that regardless of how they shaped their language, without this “universal grammar” they could never master such a complex system in such short time.
I was born in the Dominican Republic and raised by a non-English speaking family. I, however, am fluent in both languages. I, like Chomsky, believe that if I had acquired my languages from imitating my parents and/or rest of my family and surroundings my vocabulary wouldn’t be so proper in either language, not because my family doesn’t speak proper Spanish, but because I grew up in a culture that cuts words in half and takes away and add letters from words and I am proud to say I speak in full sentences. Although I attended school in New York I was thrown in a bilingual program that did not take the time to teach me English, they were so concerned about me being left behind because of the language barrier that they would teach me everything in Spanish instead, this not being any grammar rules. However, after a few months I had to be transferred out the bilingual program into a regular program because they felt it was holding me back, because I started speaking English. Everyone was so surprised at my advance. I can’t say I learned English from imitating others. Yes, they did help shape it, but if it weren’t for the innate universal grammar Chomsky theorized we have I don’t think I would have mastered either languages so well. When I turned 18 I wanted to “perfect” my Spanish and my English some more and just for the fun of it I started taking meta-language classes for both languages. In this course I was learning the name of rules because as far as applying the rules I already knew how to. Where did I learn to apply these rules? No one ever sat with me and explained to me that you use an apostrophe when you are going to express ownership of a person, animal and/or object. But my biggest surprise was taking Spanish classes. The amount of rules I was given and I never even had to take notes, one example and I already knew what they were talking about. When people from back home ask me how I do so well in Spanish classes I always tell them “teachers are only giving you the name of a rule you apply on a daily basis, you make up sentences of your own using these rules and you don’t even know it, just get the name of the rule, an example and pull out the rest from what you already know,” which is what I always do. I am taking a Spanish course this semester and my lowest grade has been a 99 on my exams. I find myself knowing exactly what the professor is talking about with very little explanation. When he first starts talking about the rule I may be confused because I’m not sure what form of the language he is referring to but once he gives the first example I catch right on and realize I’ve been applying this rule to my vocabulary for as long as I could remember. For example when it comes to accent marks I always knew where to mark the accent and when, I just never knew there was a name for words that were marked on the last syllable or the first. I didn’t know the name for certain accents and why they were there I just knew that because of the pronunciation of the words and the syllable that was stressed most had to be marked with an accent. I feel that by taking courses and other extracurricular activities in both languages I learned the names of the rules I was applying but not how to apply these rules as I already knew how and I’ve never been able to explain this up until now because I now know that we have an innate universal grammar.
Chomsky theorized that we have a universal grammar and that we are born with a Language Acquisition Device, that although the environment helped shape our vocabulary they were not fully responsible because if this was so our language would have been extremely limited. I agree with this because if it weren’t for this I don’t think 27 years is enough to have mastered two languages the way I have mastered English and Spanish. Yes, I do have slips in both, but Chomsky said himself, that this universal grammar has some holes because some rules that apply to one language don’t apply to another and this can affect my grammar sometimes.