DOCUMENT 1

The study of language acquisition has long been a fascinating domain for linguists
and psychologists alike. Three major theoretical approaches—environmentalist, innatist,
and interactionist—offer distinct perspectives on how humans acquire language. In this
essay, I will delve into the fundamental differences between these approaches, drawing
insights from both linguistics and psychology.
Firstly, the environmentalist perspective, also known as behaviorism, posits that
language acquisition is primarily a result of environmental influences, particularly
through reinforcement and conditioning. This view, championed by B.F. Skinner,
emphasizes the role of imitation and reinforcement in shaping language development.
According to behaviorists, children learn language by imitating the speech of those
around them and receiving positive reinforcement for correct usage.
From a linguistic standpoint, behaviorism focuses on observable behaviors such as
speech production and comprehension. Psychologically, it aligns with the principles of
operant conditioning, where behaviors are strengthened or weakened based on the
consequences they bring. However, behaviorism has been criticized for oversimplifying
language acquisition and neglecting the innate capacities of the human mind.
In contrast, the innatist perspective, championed notably by Noam Chomsky,
proposes that humans are biologically predisposed to acquire language. This approach
emphasizes innate linguistic structures and mechanisms, positing the existence of a
universal grammar that underlies all human languages. According to innatists, language
acquisition unfolds according to predetermined cognitive processes, unaffected by
external stimuli alone. Chomsky's notion of a "language acquisition device" (LAD)
suggests an innate capacity for language learning, which is triggered by exposure to
linguistic input but operates independently of it. Children have internalized an underlying
system of rules that they can understand and create new sentences never learnt before.
The interactionist perspective, on the other hand, integrates elements of both
Discourse analysis of Schiffrin and Systemic Grammar of Halliday, emphasizing the
change from studying isolated sentences to understanding how sentences are connected.
In addition, it also studies both the structure and the function to understand language.
Halliday emphasizes the importance of context in shaping language use and meaning. He
argues that language cannot be separated from its situational context and social
environment. Therefore, language learning involves not only mastering linguistic
structures but also understanding how language is used in different contexts to achieve
communicative goals.
In summary, the environmentalist, innatist, and interactionist perspectives offer
contrasting views on the mechanisms of language acquisition. Environmentalists attribute
language learning to external stimuli and reinforcement, while innatists emphasize the
role of innate linguistic knowledge. Interactionists, on the other hand, highlight the
dynamic interplay between biological, cognitive, and social factors in shaping language
development. Each approach brings valuable insights to our understanding of language
acquisition, and ongoing research continues to refine and integrate these perspectives. By
understanding the major differences between these theoretical approaches, researchers
and educators can gain valuable insights into the nature of language acquisition and tailor
instructional practices to better support learners.