二语习得+马雪雪

My Understanding of “Wolf Child” Story and “Poverty ofStimulus” ArgumentAbstract: Poverty of stimulus argument argues that there is a great gap between language input and language competence in language acquisition by children. So that children must rely on the innate language knowledge--universal grammar. However, non-nativists oppose this argument and emphasize the importance of language input. This paper intends to argue against the poverty of stimulus hypothesis by analyzing the famous story of “wolf child” story, so as to strengthen the value of language input. Key words: “wolf child” story; “poverty of stimulus” argument; language input; universal grammar; language innateness hypothesisI. IntroductionThe acquisition of first language has always been the core subject in the field of linguistic research, and it is also a specific phenomenon of epistemology in the linguistic study. To solve this problem, in 1950s, Chomsky proposed the famous language innateness hypothesis. This hypothesis plays a significant role in language acquisition and has once become the most popular finding in linguistics and even psychology (Deng, 2008). But with deeper study of this hypothesis, many defects has emerged gradually. Many scholars has begun to question this argument from different perspectives. Nativists represented by Chomsky hold that humans are born with language knowledge, and one of the powerful argument is the poverty of stimulus argument. Poverty of stimulus argument is the core point of generative linguistics and also the foundation of language innateness hypothesis.According to poverty of stimulus argument, though children are exposed with insufficient and incomplete language input, they ultimately become quite proficient native language users with profound and complex language knowledge system. The gap between the acquired language knowledge and language input makes generative linguists come to the view that it is the language acquisition device (the universal grammar) that contributes to the language acquisition success. However, there is some opposing evidence which says that language acquisition relies greatly on language input. This position takes language as nurture not nature. And “wolf child” story is a good case in point.II. Analysis o f “wolf child” story and “poverty of stimulus” argument “Poverty of stimulus”argument is the core point of language innateness hypothesis, which believes that there are abundant language mistakes in language input, and nativists hold that there are ungrammatical materials in the language that are exposed to children, as stops, speech errors, incomplete thought and so on (Hornstein & Lightfoot, 1981). Chomsky also put up with the idea that languagecompetence and language input owned by children are not equivalent. There is a great gap between them, so that children need the help of language acquisition device, the general principle of language born with human beings called universal grammar. To support this point, language nativists tries to explain poverty of stimulus” argument in three aspects: lack of positive evidence, lack of negative evidence and the limit of evidence ( Deng, 2008).For the advocates of “poverty of stimulus”argument, without language input children can also acquire a language due to the innate language acquisition device and with the general help of universal grammar. However, for non-nativists, the reason why language innateness hypothesis advocates “poverty of stimulus” argument is that they do not have a comprehensive understanding of the abundance of language input and the complexity of language acquisition device. Meanwhile, views held by interaction theory says that there are a number of factors that contribute to children acquisition, such as social, biological, cognitive, and so on (Ellis, 1985). Language acquisition, to a greater extent depends on the interplay among these factors. That is to say, without these cognitive factors, language acquisition will fail. But for “poverty of stimulus”argument children can acquire a language successfully with endowed language faculty. However, it is not the case. Here is a good case “wolf child” story, which can give a sound understanding of “poverty of stimulus” argument.The “wolf child” story happened in India. In October, 1920, an Indian missioner called Singh found two girls nurtured by two wolves in forest of Calcutta. The older one was about 8 years old, and younger one was about one and a half. By assumption, they were taken away to the cavern by female wolf when they were half year around. Singh named the older one Kamala, and the younger one Amala. She took them to the orphanage, but they got used to live like a wolf, and could not learn to behave like human beings. They did not understand human language, and they could not even pronounce a single language syllable. In sum, all they did was like a wolf. Singh took good care of them and taught them patiently. Broadly speaking, younger Amala learned quicker than older Kamala. After two months teaching, Amala can pronounce “bhoo (water)”. But, unfortunately, she died less than a year. For Kamala, it took her 25 months to learn the first word “ma”. She acquired only 6 words in 4 years, and after 7 years her vocabulary grew to 45 words. And she had once made 3-word-sentence. She learned to walk with knee over 16 months after she came to the orphanage, 32 months later she began to stand up straight, and after more than5 years she was capable to walk, while to run quickly she chose to crawl with all fours. Kamala died till she was 17 years old. Till she died she did not learn to speak like human and her IQ only equaled to a three or four years old child.The “wolf child” story tells us that environment is very important. And it also proves that human language knowledge is not endowed by birth. Human being are socially advanced animals, they are not separated and from the social environment. And human brain is the product of long-term embodiment in the world. Humans do not have consciousness without their interaction with outside world. Language, as the major means of imitating our mental experience, is one of the cognitive faculty of human brain. Language acquisition depends on language use in daily life. So languageinput is extremely critical for acquiring a language. Since, without input, there is no output. This is the view observed by the interaction theory and cognitive linguistics. That is to say if they are isolated from language community and lack of language input, they are unlikely to acquire a language. That is to say, language faculty is not born with human beings, it is learned by usage.If the language acquisition device works, then the wolf child would be able to acquire a language she has been exposed to and also she would be able to speak language with affluent language input. Obviously, it is not the case. For with patient education, with abundant language input, with good learning environment, and in such highly qualified language community, the wolf children failed to speak like a real human person. So, it is evident that the “poverty of stimulus” argument held by the language innatists fails to work here. With the inborn language acquisition device but no language input as stimulus, after they pass the critical period, language acquisition can not be achieved.III. ConclusionFrom the explanation of the famous “wolf child” story, it comes to be clear that language input plays critical role for children to acquire a language, and the “poverty of stimulus”argument held by language nativists is too extreme. Without proper language input as stimulus, only the language acquisition device comprising the certain universal language feature called the universal grammar will not contribute to successful language acquisition. Actually, language acquisition is quite a complex process with many factors interplay together, such as linguistic, social, biological, cognitive, and so on.ReferencesEllis, R. (1985). Understanding second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford university press.Horstein, H. & Lightfoot. D. (1981). Explanation in linguistics: The logical problem of language acquisition. London: Longman.邓，劲雷. (2008). 语言天赋说的理据缺陷. 湖北：黄冈师范学院学报. 28 (5).。