Saturday, April 25, 2009

General Cognitive Development

A number of researchers have proposed that there is no need for a specific language acquisition device, since language abilities may simply be a function of general cognitive mechanisms. This type of approach would follow the typical modern synthesis model of Darwinian evolution, which takes into account both genetic preadaptations and environmental influences. The bioprogram does not consider the environmental and social influences of language acquisition. Instead, he states that its function is solely language oriented, and flexible enough to create a new language within the space of one generation, in the absence of an adequate model of natural language.

Bickerton employs the development of pidgins and creoles as an analogy for both the acquisition of language in modern children and the origin of language abilities in general. However, according to Alleyne (1996:111) proponents of the bioprogram hypothesis base their conclusions according to the following hierarchy: 1) a feature is found in one or several creoles, and one or several children; 2) speakers of creoles were originally children; therefore 3) feature was acquired by creole languages from speakers of child language. However, it does not seem reasonable to assume that a child is born with a preadapted grammar for any human language nor that this linguistic capacity would be able to develop without some outside influence (Aitchison 1998:24). Additionally, while the bioprogram is used as a model of first (child) language acquisition, it is not clear how it would be employed in later (adult) language acquisition (Bloom 1984:190; Marantz 1984:200).Both Cromer (1984:193) and Wang (1984:211) believe that language is processed by a general problem solving device which does not require that a species specific language processor.

Lightfoot (1984:198) states that Bickerton's bioprogram is an attempt at solving the poverty of stimulus problem. Poverty of stimulus implies that children are exposed to an insufficient amount of linguistic information and yet can learn a language with the speed within a couple years after birth (ibid.). However, he questions how much one can actually know about the input the first speakers of Hawaiian Creole English. Lightfoot (1984:199) and Knight (1998:97) question why, if the bioprogram is encoded genetically, would any language ever develop away from the bioprogram grammar, and how a child could ever develop rules that are not part of the bioprogram grammar.

There is no evidence to conclude that there is a specific module in the brain for language acquisition. Instead, linguistic abilities may simply be another function of a general cognitive problem solving mechanism which evolved for an entirely different purpose. However, there seems to be some innate preadaptation for human beings to decode the vocalizations of others. This is accomplished in such a manner that it appears as though these vocalizations and productions follow strict grammatical rules. Although, in real world situations, there seems to be more flexibility in grammatical structure than is implied in the literature. Hence, it may appear that children of immigrants/slaves create a functioning creole from an ill formed pidgin.