— Overview
The essay compares three accounts of how a young child comes to a language. Behaviorism, as it rose in twentieth-century psychology, explained action as a response to what is outside the person, rather than as something that simply begins within. Pavlov and Bandura are named among those who worked in that line; it was Skinner, the essay says, who most actively applied the view to a child’s language. In this account, operant conditioning — a stimulus that strengthens or weakens a particular act or utterance — is how a child is thought to learn to speak, and the people and situations around the child matter a great deal.
The recap also notes a cost: a tightly standardized way of teaching can hem in a child’s freer thought, and interest is easily lost. Nativism takes the other side. Against Skinner’s view that language grows mainly from what comes after birth, the American linguist Chomsky and the German linguist Lenneberg held that language development is strongly shaped by what is inborn and biological. Chomsky held that every human being is born already able to learn a language, and that a child acquires speech through that capacity.
Lenneberg held that the human language capacity is innate, and that language development and bodily development are correlated. Interactionism, the third account, says that a language is acquired through several factors at once — social and linguistic conditions around the infant or young child, and the child’s own cognition. Language, in this view, already holds social experience; to learn it is also to take in a society’s values and ways of thinking.
One strand, a cognitive interactionism, treats the child’s own powers as larger than the teacher’s, and smaller than in Skinner; a recap point is that animals may have a measure of intelligence yet do not move from that intelligence into language. A social interactionist strand still treats the child as the subject of learning, but sees teaching as able to come before, and to shape, the growth of thought, rather than waiting on cognition first.
The two are left as the material distinguishes them. A balanced language education, the recap says, has to be fitted to each child, so a teacher needs to know the child before teaching begins: to balance helping a child learn alone and teaching directly; to give reading, writing, and listening a more even share; to put a play of interest into talk; and to judge the child’s language as a whole, including the literacy of the classroom.
This page stays with those three accounts and with that classroom advice.
— Contents and key concepts
Behaviorism, and a nativist reply
Behaviorism, as it rose in twentieth-century psychology, explained action as a response to what is outside the person. Pavlov and Bandura are named in that line; it was Skinner, the essay says, who most actively applied the view to a child’s language. Operant conditioning — a stimulus that strengthens or weakens a particular act or utterance — is how a child is thought to learn to speak, and the people and situations around the child matter a great deal. The recap also notes a cost: a tightly standardized way of teaching can hem in a child’s freer thought, and interest is easily lost.
Nativism takes the other side. Against the view that language grows mainly from what comes after birth, Chomsky and Lenneberg held that language development is strongly shaped by what is inborn and biological. Chomsky held that every human being is born already able to learn a language. Lenneberg held that the human language capacity is innate, and that language development and bodily development are correlated.
Interactionism, and advice for a classroom
Interactionism says that a language is acquired through several factors at once: social and linguistic conditions around the child, and the child’s own cognition. To learn a language, in this view, is also to take in a society’s values and ways of thinking. A cognitive strand treats the child’s own powers as larger than the teacher’s; a social strand still treats the child as the subject of learning, but sees teaching as able to shape the growth of thought rather than waiting on cognition first.
A balanced language education, the recap says, has to be fitted to each child. A teacher needs to know the child before teaching begins, to balance help and direct teaching, to give reading, writing, and listening a more even share, and to judge the child’s language as a whole, including the literacy of the classroom. This page stays with those three accounts and with that classroom advice. The same Korean report, at fuller length, is on CampusDown.
Sources
- Three accounts of early language. Behaviorism in twentieth-century psychology: action as a response to what is outside; Pavlov and Bandura named; Skinner most actively applied the view to a child’s language. Operant conditioning (strengthen or weaken an act or utterance); the surrounding people and situations matter. Recap cost: standardized teaching can hem in freer thought; interest is easily lost. Nativism, against a mainly acquired view: Chomsky (born already able to learn a language); Lenneberg (innate capacity; language development and bodily development are correlated). Interactionism: social, linguistic, and cognitive factors together; learning a language is also taking in a society’s values. Cognitive strand: the child’s powers larger than the teacher’s; animals may have intelligence yet do not move from it into language. Social strand: the child remains the subject of learning; teaching may come before and shape thought. Balanced education fitted to each child; know the child first; balance help and teaching; even shares of reading, writing, listening; judge language as a whole, including classroom literacy. This page stays with those three accounts and that classroom advice.
Last updated: 14 November 2026
Refund policy
- Change of mind / refund requested after partial use / more than 7 days after purchase
◆ Exceptions
- File errors / cannot download or open the file
◆ How to request a refund: send a 1:1 inquiry via Customer Service at the top