Dissecting The Controversial Phenomenon: Behaviorism And Cognitivism Approaches To The Study Of Language

Introduction

Behaviorist and cognitivist approaches to the study of language have been long debated in the literature. They have opposite arguments to one another; furthermore, advocated by celebrated names with their seminal works like C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards’s book “Meaning of Meaning”, Skinner’s Verbal Behavior, Chomsky’s review of Skinner’s Verbal Behavior and so on. Behaviorist theory claims that learning merely consists of the acquisition of new behaviors over environmental conditions. In his seminal work, Verbal Behavior, Skinner argues that verbal behavior emerges in and shaped by a verbal environment (Skinner, 1948). This environment characteristically reinforced in certain ways, like the classical Pavlovian conditioning as he claims. On the other hand, cognitive theory evaluates the second language learning as a reasoned and conscious thinking process; furthermore, according to cognitive theory, this process also includes methodical use of learning strategies. Hence, in this context, this paper will evaluate behaviorist and cognitivist approaches to the study of language by providing a comparison between the two. Then, a historical flow of theories will be provided, from the 1920s to today's world.

Behaviorist and Cognitivist Approaches to the Study of Language: A Comparison of Theories

Behaviorist and cognitivist approaches to the study of language differ in many ways and therefore, explains the language learning process in different ways. In the behaviorist theory, learners are entitled as passive subjects and they merely respond to stimuli given to them. However, the cognitivist theory suggests that learners store, retrieve and process things they learned in order to use in the future, by forming links; and thus shaping a source of information for a living.

In the behaviorist approach, Skinner argues that learning would be classified as operant conditioning: a response gathered as stimuli given to the learner. Negative or positive reinforcement would be provided as a response. According to Pavlov, learners acquire information from classical conditioning. Pavlov argues that an impulsive reaction emerges after a specific stimulus. Lastly, Thorndike underlines that animals acquire by trial and error mechanism only; by another saying, reward, and punishment (Schultz, 2015). He further comes up with the concept of 'Law of Effect' which suggest that an association among response and stimuli is weakened when it is negatively awarded and; conversely, it is strengthened when it is positively awarded. On the other hand, cognitivist theorist Vygotsky suggests that symbols and speech first acquired as a method of communication and then form a person’s thinking. Therefore, Vygotsky claims that symbols of the culture are important in advancing cultural norms of thinking, in learning the language process. Piaget suggests that information is constant interaction among the person and its environment; and thus cognitive development of a person is a constant development of logical deliberation starting from his/her childhood to adult times (Lourenço, 2016).

To sum up, in the behaviorist approach, learners acquire information and language stimuli, reinforcements, trial and error (or reward and punishment) mechanisms, associations, generalizations as well as chaining. In cognitivist theory, learners acquire information and language over metaphors, summaries, analogies, concept mapping, illustrations, and demonstrations and so on.

The Meaning of Meaning – 1920s

In the celebrated book of C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards, which written in 1923, authors argue that people learn by a concept called Semantic Triangle, which contains a symbol, a reference and a referent. In Semantic Triangle, the referent is the thing like a dog named 'Charlie”. The reference is the idea that the dog Charlie exists, which is an 8-year-old dog, loves to lie on the sink. Lastly, the symbol is the word, “Charlie”. It is good to bear in mind that when “Charlie' is the subject of talk, the person who makes the speech also has control over symbol and reference. Nevertheless, if the person who makes the speech only mention about the Charlie who loves to lie on the sink, it will not be possible to fully comprehend the ideas of the given person, until the referent thing will be unveiled with its reference.

Radical Behaviorism

Radical Behaviorism developed by Skinner and it comprises a multipurpose preparation for studying behavior, elucidating the genetic nature of response and stimuli, a quest for describing behavioral components, the notion of verbal behavior and stimulus control, and explaining the descriptive power of contingencies. In his work, Skinner underlines the significance of reinforcement and the association among observable response and stimuli. According to radical behaviorism, the information does not rely on feelings, thoughts or other internal processes, instead, information is the natural events emerges as the consequences of events occur in the environment. Skinner demonstrates this theory with his stimuli, response and reinforcement model (Skinner, 1948).

Chomsky on Language Acquisition

Chomsky came up with a revolutionary idea in language acquisition in the 1960s. According to his interpretations, language is a fundamental instinct for humanity; therefore, it is a basic activity like breathing for humans. An innate knowledge of grammar is acceptable for all people who constitute the foundation for language acquisition: “When we study human language, we are approaching what some might call the ‘human essence,’ the distinctive qualities of mind that are, so far as we know, unique to man. ” According to him, this “human essence” makes people acquire language as an innate talent. This is the most fundamental part which he diverges with Skinner, which will be articulated later.

Chomsky on Skinner

The differentiation between Skinner and Chomsky starts with the very foundation of the learning itself. As mentioned before, Chomsky suggests that language is innate and it is advanced over time. On the other hand, Skinner underlines that language is learned over the interactions with the environment. In these two sides of the debate, Chomsky stands as a structuralist where Skinner remains as a behaviorist. This debate resembles the long rooted debate called “nurture vs nature”, which is one of the most controversial debates in history.

Chomsky attacks to the foundation of Skinner’s ideas, “functional analysis” of verbal behavior, “identification of the variables that control this behavior” and clarification about how they function to determine a specific verbal response. Chomsky states that Skinner uses the experimental results as evidence for the scientific character of system behavior, as well as metaphoric estimations, as evidence for his conclusions. This situation leads to a misconception that Skinners asserts that the theory stand on solid foundations, however, Chomsky argue that despite the fact that terms are used in the real life, similarity of meanings remains vague.

Skinner states that the children born as a blank slate and learns the world over his/her interaction with the environment by a stimulus, response and reinforcement mechanisms. However, on the contrary, Chomsky argues that stimulus, response, and reinforcement mechanism of Skinner is false, even though Skinner underlined that Chomsky failed to understand his interpretations, and Chomsky believes that innate learning mechanism of the children endorse them to discover how the language works.

To conclude humans and animals can communicate over conditioning, like Skinner suggest, with one another, language is not the answer. This is the point where Chomsky accepts the Skinner's ideas since both humans and animals can be conditioned like the example of classical Pavlovian conditioning.

References

1. Amsel, A. (1987). Behaviorism, Neobehaviorism, and Cognitivism in Learning Theory: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Distinguished Lecture Series). Psychology Press.
2. Baum, W. M. (2011). What is Radical Behaviorism? A Review of Jay Moore's Conceptual Foundations of Radical Behaviorism. J Exp Anal Behav. , 95(1), 119–126.
3. C. K Ogden, I. A. (1923). The Meaning of Meaning. NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.
4. Chomsky, N. (1967). A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior Noam Chomsky. Retrieved from https://chomsky. info/1967____/
5. Chomsky, N. (2011). Language and Other Cognitive Systems. What Is Special About Language? Language Learning and Development, 7(4), 263-278.
6. Denham, Kristin & Lobeck, Anne (2009). Linguistics for Everyone: An Introduction. Wadsworth: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
7. Ertmer, P. A. (2013). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 26(2), 43-71.
8. Lazard, G. (2012 ). The case for pure linguistics. Studies in Language, 36(2), 241–259.
9. Lourenço, O. M. (2016). Developmental stages, Piagetian stages in particular: A critical review. New Ideas in Psychology, 40, 123-137.
10. Mahn, H. (2013). Vygotsky and Second Language Acquisition. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed. ), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 1-7). Blackwell Publishing.
11. Peter R. Killeen, F. S. (2009). The Dynamics of Conditioning and Extinction. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process, 35(4), 447–472.
12. Schultz, W. (2015). Neuronal Reward and Decision Signals: From Theories to Data. Physiol Rev, 95(3), 853–951.
13. Skinner, B. F. (1948). Verbal Behavior. Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www. behavior. org/resources/595. pdf