Picture source
Psycholinguistics
About nature-nurture controversy.
Nature theory is language is natural for human, its mean that language made for human. Human being is predisposed to speak a language. The evidence is all normal human being can talk and no other primate can talk as human does or its called species specific. The other evidence is, human being is born equipped with LAD (Language Acquisition Device) in their brain.
Nurture theory is language is only something to learn. There are three theory in the nurture. The first one is the most important in language acquisition is input. The second one is human mind is blank-sheet, environment creates the system. The last one is, every human will only speak a language which he exposed.
In my opinion about, which one that comes to be true for me is, nature. Why I choose nature, because there are some reason, they are. First, human being is predispose to speak a language. The second reason is a human being is born with given a "LAD". The third reason is, human has linguistics intelligence. The last reason is human speak a language because internal rewarded.
The another opinion based on the Jean Aitchison's book "The Articulate Mammal" Chomsky claims that the mind is ‘constituted of “mental organs” just as specialized and differentiated as those of the body’ (1979: 83), and that ‘Language is a system . . . easy to isolate among the various mental faculties’ (1979: 46). This is the claim which we are trying to evaluate. The second misunderstanding involves a mistaken belief by some people that ‘innate’ means ‘ready-made for use’. By innate, Chomsky simply means ‘genetically programmed’. He does not literally think that children are born with language in their heads ready to be spoken. He merely claims that a ‘blueprint’ is there, which is brought into use when the child reaches a certain point in her general development. With the help of this blueprint, she analyses the language she hears around her more readily than she would if she were totally unprepared for the strange gabbling sounds which emerge from human mouths. Or perhaps a better metaphor would be that of a seed, which contains within itself the intrinsic ability to become a dahlia or rose, provided it is planted and tended. Chomsky argues that ‘language grows in the mind or brain’ (Chomsky 1988: 55). He explains the situation by quoting the eighteenth-century thinker James Harris: ‘The growth of knowledge . . . [rather resembles] . . . the growth of Fruit; however external causes may in some degree cooperate, it is the internal vigour, and virtue of the tree, that must ripen the juices to their maturity’ (Chomsky 1986: 2)
About nature-nurture controversy.
Nature theory is language is natural for human, its mean that language made for human. Human being is predisposed to speak a language. The evidence is all normal human being can talk and no other primate can talk as human does or its called species specific. The other evidence is, human being is born equipped with LAD (Language Acquisition Device) in their brain.
Nurture theory is language is only something to learn. There are three theory in the nurture. The first one is the most important in language acquisition is input. The second one is human mind is blank-sheet, environment creates the system. The last one is, every human will only speak a language which he exposed.
In my opinion about, which one that comes to be true for me is, nature. Why I choose nature, because there are some reason, they are. First, human being is predispose to speak a language. The second reason is a human being is born with given a "LAD". The third reason is, human has linguistics intelligence. The last reason is human speak a language because internal rewarded.
The another opinion based on the Jean Aitchison's book "The Articulate Mammal" Chomsky claims that the mind is ‘constituted of “mental organs” just as specialized and differentiated as those of the body’ (1979: 83), and that ‘Language is a system . . . easy to isolate among the various mental faculties’ (1979: 46). This is the claim which we are trying to evaluate. The second misunderstanding involves a mistaken belief by some people that ‘innate’ means ‘ready-made for use’. By innate, Chomsky simply means ‘genetically programmed’. He does not literally think that children are born with language in their heads ready to be spoken. He merely claims that a ‘blueprint’ is there, which is brought into use when the child reaches a certain point in her general development. With the help of this blueprint, she analyses the language she hears around her more readily than she would if she were totally unprepared for the strange gabbling sounds which emerge from human mouths. Or perhaps a better metaphor would be that of a seed, which contains within itself the intrinsic ability to become a dahlia or rose, provided it is planted and tended. Chomsky argues that ‘language grows in the mind or brain’ (Chomsky 1988: 55). He explains the situation by quoting the eighteenth-century thinker James Harris: ‘The growth of knowledge . . . [rather resembles] . . . the growth of Fruit; however external causes may in some degree cooperate, it is the internal vigour, and virtue of the tree, that must ripen the juices to their maturity’ (Chomsky 1986: 2)
According to the explanation above, we can conclude that, Chomsky assumed that human being is not born with complex language and the language ready to used, but just given 'blue print' only which is will learn to analysis the language that he or she hear around and than processes to transformational process from deep structure to surface structure to making complex understanding the language and making brief the meaning of the words. Its all my conclusion, how about you....???
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar