Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseHave you ever wondered how babies learn to speak so quickly? By age 3, most children can form complex sentences without formal teaching. This remarkable ability suggests that humans might be born with special brain structures designed for language learning. Two major theories explain this: Universal Grammar and the Critical Period Hypothesis.
Key Definitions:
Noam Chomsky revolutionised our understanding of language by proposing that humans have an inborn "language faculty." He argued that all languages share fundamental similarities in their deep structure, even though they appear very different on the surface. This suggests our brains come pre-wired with basic grammatical principles.
Chomsky's Universal Grammar suggests that despite the incredible diversity of world languages, they all follow similar underlying rules. Think about it - whether you speak English, Mandarin, or Swahili, all languages have ways to ask questions, make statements and express past and future events.
Several key pieces of evidence support the idea that language ability is innate:
Children learn language incredibly quickly - mastering thousands of words and complex grammar rules by age 4, despite limited formal instruction.
Children learn correct grammar even when exposed to incomplete or incorrect language input from adults around them.
All languages share certain features like nouns, verbs and ways to form questions, suggesting an underlying universal structure.
When adults from different language backgrounds are forced together (like during slavery), they create pidgin languages - simplified communication systems. Remarkably, their children don't just learn these pidgins; they automatically transform them into full creole languages with complex grammar. This suggests children's brains naturally impose grammatical structure on language, supporting Universal Grammar theory.
The Critical Period Hypothesis, developed by Eric Lenneberg, suggests there's a biological "window" for language learning. Just like birds must learn to sing during a specific period in their development, humans may have an optimal time for acquiring language naturally and completely.
The critical period is linked to brain development and plasticity. During childhood, our brains are highly flexible and can easily form new neural connections. As we reach puberty, brain plasticity decreases, making language learning more difficult.
Language functions gradually become concentrated in the left hemisphere during childhood. This specialisation may explain why early language learning is more successful - the brain is still flexible enough to adapt.
Some of the most compelling evidence for the critical period comes from tragic cases of language deprivation. These natural experiments, though ethically troubling, provide unique insights into how timing affects language development.
Genie was discovered in 1970 at age 13, having been severely isolated and abused. Despite intensive language therapy, she never developed normal grammar or syntax. Her case suggests that without early language exposure, the critical period window may close permanently. However, critics argue her other traumas may have affected her language development independently.
Studies of deaf children learning sign language show clear critical period effects. Children who learn sign language from birth develop native-like fluency. Those who learn after age 6 show increasingly impaired grammar and those learning after puberty never achieve native-like proficiency, despite years of practice.
The critical period also affects second language acquisition. Research consistently shows that younger learners achieve better pronunciation and more native-like grammar than older learners, even with identical instruction and motivation.
Near-native proficiency possible in all aspects of language, including accent and complex grammar.
Good proficiency achievable, but subtle accent and grammar differences may persist.
Fluency possible but typically with noticeable accent and occasional grammar errors.
Modern neuroscience provides additional support for biological explanations of language acquisition through brain imaging and genetic studies.
Specific brain regions appear dedicated to language processing, suggesting evolutionary adaptation for communication.
These brain regions specialise in language production and comprehension respectively. Damage to these areas causes specific language deficits, supporting the idea that language has dedicated neural hardware.
People with Williams syndrome have intellectual disabilities but often show remarkable language abilities, speaking fluently with rich vocabulary and complex grammar. This suggests language ability can develop independently of general intelligence, supporting the idea of a specialised language faculty.
While biological explanations provide compelling evidence, they're not without criticism and limitations.
The biological approach successfully explains several puzzling aspects of language development:
However, critics raise several important points:
Social interaction and environmental input clearly matter for language development. Children raised in rich linguistic environments develop better language skills than those with limited exposure.
Additionally, the critical period may be more flexible than originally thought. Some adults do achieve near-native proficiency in second languages and the brain retains more plasticity throughout life than previously believed.
The biological explanation of language acquisition, encompassing Universal Grammar and the Critical Period Hypothesis, provides valuable insights into how humans develop language. While not explaining everything about language learning, these theories highlight the remarkable biological foundations that make human communication possible. Understanding these mechanisms helps us appreciate both the universality of language across cultures and the importance of early language exposure for optimal development.