Innatist and Interactionist Learning Approaches of Elementary School Students’ Language Acquisition
Petra Kristi Mulyani(1*)
(1) Southern Illinois University Carbondale
(*) Corresponding Author
Abstract
Language acquisition starts in childhood. Oral language is the initial language to learn. Within it, lies norms to make language functional. Children start to function the language through communication. Communication provides an identity that shapes them into different settings. As language acquisition is unique and individual, experts have been studying to interpret it. There are at least three theorists of language acquisition. They are a behaviorist, innatist, and interactionist. Experts are debating on which theory provides the most appropriate approaches for the students. The discussion will compare innatist and interactionist approaches to the students’ first and second language acquisition. It describes how the educational program would be like when using innatist and interactionist learning approaches. There are also critiques on innatist and interactionist approaches. A suggestion is provided to strategically integrate both approaches to understand language acquisition process in both first and second language students.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bui, Y. N., & Fagan, Y. M. (2013). The effects of an integrated reading comprehension strategy: A culturally responsive teaching approach for fifth-grade students’ reading comprehension. Preventing School Failure, 57(2), 59-69. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2012.664581
Chapman, R. S. (2000). Children's language learning: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines, 41(1), 33-54.
Cohen-Cole, J. (2015). The Politics of Psycholinguistics. Journal of The History of The Behavioral Sciences, 51(1), 54-77. doi:10.1002/jhbs.21700
Chomsky, N. (2002). Syntactic structures (2nd ed.). Berlin, NY: Mouton de Gruyter.
Dulay, H. C., & Burt, M. K. (1974). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 8(2), 129.
Eckman, F. R. (2004). Universals, innateness, and explanation in second language acquisition. Studies in Language, 28(3), 682-703.
Gardner, H. (1995). Green ideas sleeping furiously. The New York Review of Books (Vol. 42, No. 5). New York: Rea S. Headerman.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principles and practices in second language acquisition. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207-228.
Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child Language, 5(1), 1-15. doi:10.1017/S0305000900001896
Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2013). Reading, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for teaching K-12 English learners (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson.
Radick, G. (2016). The unmaking of a modern synthesis: Noam Chomsky, Charles Hockett, and the politics of behaviorism, 1955-1965. ISIS: Journal of The History of Science in Society, 107(1), 49-73.
Rhyner, P. M. (2007). An analysis of child caregivers' language during book sharing with toddler-age children. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 28(3), 167-178.
Sato, M. (2015). Density and complexity of oral production in interaction: The interactionist approach and an alternative. IRAL: International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 53(3), 307-329. doi:10.1515/iral-2015-0016
Seidenberg, M. S. (1997). Language acquisition and use: Learning and applying probabilistic constraints. (Cover story). Science, 275(5306), 1599-1603.
Shanker, S. (2002). The generativist-interactionist debate over specific language impairment: Psycholinguistics at a crossroads. American Journal of Psychology, 115(3), 415.
Swanson, H., Orosco, M., Lussier, C., Gerber, M., & Guzman-Orth, D. (2013). The influence of working memory and phonological processing on English language learner children's bilingual reading and language acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 838-856.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.22146/jh.33457
Article Metrics
Abstract views : 15710 | views : 8871Refbacks
Copyright (c) 2019 Humaniora
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.