Behaviourism and Mentalism
Behaviourism and Mentalism
Behaviourism and Mentalism
Introduction
During the past forty years there have been two major theories of
language learning by children. But there are two major schools of thought
known as, 'Behaviorists' and 'Mentalists'. One school is of the view that
language learning is entirely the product of experience and that our
environment affects all of us. Others have suggested that everybody has
an innate language learning mechanism. Let us discovery with the help of
these two schools of thought that how do children acquire their mother
tongue. How do they grow up linguistically and learn to handle the
stylistics varieties of their mother tongue? How much of the linguistics
system they are born with and how much do they discover from their
exposure to language?
EXPERIMENT
They put a rat in a box containing a bar. If it presses a bar, it is
rewarded with a pellet of food. Nothing forces it to press the bar. The first
time it probably does so accidentally. When the rat finds that the food
arrives, it presses the bar again. Eventually it finds that if it is hungry it
can obtain food by pressing the bar. Then task is made more difficult. The
rat only gets rewarded if it presses the bar while a light is flashing. At first
rat is puzzled. Eventually it learns the trick. Then the task is made more
difficult again. This time the rat only receives food if it presses the bar a
certain number of times. After initial confusion it learns to do this also.
And so on, and so on.
STIMULUS
RESPONSE
REINFORCEMENT
REPETITION
In operant conditioned, reinforcement plays a vital role. There are two
kinds of reinforcement:
A)
Positive Reinforcement
Praise and rewards are positive reinforcement. Experiments have
shown that positive reinforcement works much better in bringing
about good learning.
B)
Negative Reinforcement
Rebukes and punishments are negative reinforcement.
Language learning is
Operant conditioning
Positive
and
Negative
Reinforcement
Imitation
and
Association
child to process all the language which he hears. This is called the
Language Acquisition Device, and he saws it as comprising a special
area of the brain whose only function was the processing of language.
This function, he argues, is quite separate from any other mental
capacity which the child has.
When Chomsky talks about 'rules', he means the unconscious rules
in a child's mind these rules enables him to make grammatical
sentences in his own language. Chomsky does not mean that a child
can describes these rules explicitly. For example, a four or five year
old child can produce a sentence like I have done my work; he can
do that because he has a 'mental grammar' which enables him to
form correct present perfect structures and also to use such structures
in the right and appropriate situations. But he is unable to define the
formation of present perfect tense.
The thoughts of Mentalists can well be understood with the help of the
following tree diagram.
Input
Mental grammar
(own rules)
LAD
Output
Grammatical
sentences
Both the schools have said significant things, yet neither is perfect.
The mentalists' emphasis on the rule-learning is over enthusiastic, and
the behaviorists' rejection of meaning is entirely unjust. Language
acquisition seems to be a process both of analogy and application,
both nature and nurture. The differences between the empiricists
approach and that of the rationalist can be summarized in the
following manner:
BEHAVIOURISTS APPROACH
MENTALIST APPROACH
1) Language acquisition is a
stimulus- response process.
2) Language is a conditioned
behavior.
Conclusion
This comparative study makes one thing clear: nature and nurture,
analogy and application, practice and exposure are important. Innate
potentialities lay down the framework. Within this framework, there is
wide variation depending on the environment. The kind of language that
children ultimately grow into shaped by the culture-based responses of
the family, if not in a way that can be called imitation, then at least in
terms of things the child chooses to do with its language. But we should
be wary of the idea that all children experience the same practices and
follow the same development path as they grow into their language.
Having been exposed to a small number of utterances, the child begins
to extract the principles underlying the utterances and compose new
utterances of his own. This is the way every child grammar to
communicate in an intelligent manner. He makes mistakes and produces
ungrammatical sentences. His elders correct him; he feeds the
information into his mini-grammar, modifies some of the rules, and again
produces new utterances. In a period of about four years, he is able to
master and internalize all the essential rules of language. This is a proof
that a child's own rules of grammar are more important to him than mere
imitation.