Deficit Theory (Eller 1989)

The Deficit Theory attempts to explain why certain disadvantaged students show a high failure rate
in school. These students coming from socio-economically disadvantaged homes, show a lack of
verbal stimulation and entered school without the necessary linguistic resources for success.

These children, labelled verbally deficient may actually be highly competent language user, however
they do not find themselves in situations where they are able to demonstrate their specific language
competence. When a child is in the presence of an authority figure of a different social class, he or
she tends to be more introverted. An important consideration for those working with high school
students is to realize that one vernacular (language) is not inherently superior to another. Such
understanding will enhance a students' desire to develop during three years of critical language
growth.

In an attempt to explain deficiencies in lower socioeconomic students’ success rate, some researchers
in the 1990s began to postulate that failure among those students occurred because there was not
sufficient verbal foundation in the home for success (Eller, 1989). Such a framework was also evident
in the writing of LeBrun in what he calls “a feral child” in the report of Victor of Aveyron. In the
cases where young children lack the verbal tools to interact socially, there are often harsh outcomes.
Research indicates that those individuals who are prone to linguistic privation are often at risk to
experience psychological problems as well. Eller (1989) rightly adds that all children who enter
school “are highly competent language users…” but because of language and cultural diversity, they
may not always be in a position to demonstrate their abilities. Eller told the difficult truth, that “their
language may be perceived as deficient”.

Eller, Rebecca G in "Johnny Can't Talk, Either: The Perpetuation of the Deficit Theory in
Classrooms", Reading Teacher, page 670-74 May 1989, Analyzes the "deficit theory," which
suggests that children from lower socioeconomic environments enter school without the linguistic
resources needed for success. Suggests that teachers avoid labeling children as verbally inept when
their language does not conform to the teacher's linguistic model.

The automatic assumption that some students are more prone to academic success than others is
known as the 'deficit theory'. Some teachers have in mind a picture of the perfect student. When
students who do not fit that picture enter the classroom, these teachers might have lower expectations
of that student's ability to achieve. The deficit theory is not just teacher's problem; it is that we all
have to deal with. To some extent we all make hasty first impressions.

The deficit theory is a danger in education because teacher expectation can have a large influence on
how a student performs. If a teacher believes that only students of higher socioeconomic status
families can succeed in advanced classes, then that teacher will likely teach in a way so that only hose
students will succeed. For example, a teacher might inadvertently give more attention, effective
instruction, and better grades to the students who are expected to perform well. Conversely, if teachers
expect a student to do poorly, they'll probably deliver instruction of lower quality in response to the
lowered expectation.
Other than poor student performance, the deficit theory also encourages student delinquency.
Students can tell when teachers have a low level of expectation. They also know when they are seen
as 'remedial' by their teachers. When teachers hold deficit theory attitudes and judgment, they believe
it is impossible for students to improve. A feeling of helplessness settles in. That feeling in turn leads
students to become apathetic towards their own learning. Eventually they lose interest in school and
end up causing problems in the classroom or dropping out entirely.
Implications of the theory
Let us think about what we can do when we come across situations like this.

1. Avoid labelling children as verbally incompetent: This theory has been analysed and
criticised by many. At the same time, the educational implications are clear. Researchers agree
that children from lower socio-economic environments enter school without the linguistic
resources needed for success. At the same time, they suggest that teachers should avoid
labelling children as verbally incompetent when their language does not conform to the
teacher’s linguistic model.
2. Focus on remediating problems: They also suggest that there is something wrong either with
the child or in the environment, who differs from those who naturally succeed in school, and
propose focusing on remediating problems, rather than appreciating the strengths all children
bring to the classroom upon which a teacher can build to extend knowledge.
3. Develop a culture to bridge the gap: The researchers also recognise that children who grow
up in poverty have a culture that does not align well with the ways schools create knowledge.
If teachers make an effort to bridge this gap, rather than focusing on a student, then all students
can succeed in school.
4. Elaborate whenever you use the standard language: Talk more, let your words be
communicable to the students, elaborate on what you are saying, let them hear more the
patterns of the language you want them to use, do not use abbreviated speech.
5. Do not expect elaboration from students: Normally students are expected to give answers in
full sentences from the beginning. Do not expect this. If they cannot frame a complete
sentence, you complete the sentence. With more exposure, they will be capable of
constructing full sentences. Wait until then.
6. Create a human environment in the classroom: Create a fearless environment and
humanistic culture. Do not use harsh words, do not humiliate.

Continuity & Discontinuity Theory

The origin of language will always continue to be a puzzling question for researchers and linguists.
So much is unknown about where language could have originated from resulting in much
interpretation and theory. Both a continuity approach and a discontinuity approach exist in the debate
of the origin of language.

Continuity Theory
The continuity approach has a Darwinian perspective of language suggesting the potential for
language to have evolved from more primitive forms of animal communication. This theory makes a
connection between our human language and the rather advanced forms of animal communication
such as bird and whale songs and even the complex chirps of crickets. To fully grasp this approach
of continuity, we can also consider language as “a topic like echolocation in bats or stereopsis in
monkeys” as suggested in an article by Pinker and Bloom which depicted language as a necessity to
properly function in life. Researchers in the field today try to connect even our most abstract ability
of language to Darwin’s theory of evolution. This impresses upon us the idea that language has
evolved from precursors within us and without these “hard-wired devices” humans would be without
the capabilities of language.

“Continuity theories” are based on the idea that language is so complex that one cannot imagine it
simply appearing from nothing in its final form: it must have evolved from earlier pre-linguistic
systems among our primate ancestors.

Discontinuity Theory
“Discontinuity theories” are based on the opposite idea — that language is a unique trait so it cannot
be compared to anything found among non-humans and must therefore have appeared fairly suddenly
during the course of human evolution. Another contrast is between theories that see language mostly
as an innate faculty that is largely genetically encoded, and those that see it as a system that is mainly
cultural — that is, learned through social interaction.

However the approach of discontinuity depicts language as too complicated to have ever come from
mere animals, expressing that language is unique to humans and far more complex than other forms
of communication on Earth. Noam Chomsky defends this position and suggests the concept of a
“language organ”. Yet, rather than accepting that this “organ” could have evolved from pre-existing
structures in the body, Chomsky instead suggests that language could be due to a sporadic mutation
in our species.

Noam Chomsky is a prominent proponent of discontinuity theory. “The views of Noam Chomsky on
the nature of UG (innate universal grammar) have long been dominant within the field of linguistics,
but they themselves have undergone marked changes from decade to decade” (Christiansen, 59). He
argues that a single chance mutation occurred in one individual on the order of 100,000 years ago,
triggering the “instantaneous” emergence of the language faculty (a component of the mind-brain) in
“perfect” or “near-perfect” form. The philosophical argument runs, briefly, as follows: firstly, from
what is known about evolution, any biological change in a species arises by a random genetic change
in a single individual which spreads throughout its breeding group.