The Role of Nurture in Language Acquisition: A

Reflective Argument

Principles and Theories of Language Acquisition and Learning

Principles and Theories of Language Acquisition and Learning

The Role of Nurture in Language Acquisition: A Reflective Argument

The Nature vs. Nurture debate in language acquisition has been a longstanding discussion among
linguists and psychologists. While the Nature perspective emphasizes innate abilities and genetic
predispositions, the Nurture perspective argues that environmental factors and social interactions
are crucial for language development. This reflection will defend the Nurture perspective,
illustrating how personal experiences and environmental influences have shaped my
understanding and acquisition of language.

The Nature perspective suggests that individuals are born with inherent linguistic abilities,
supported by theories such as Noam Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. Proponents argue that
certain aspects of language are hardwired into our brains, allowing children to acquire language
naturally. For instance, Chomsky asserts that our understanding and knowledge of language is
“part of our biological endowment, genetically determined, on par with the elements of our
common nature that allow us to grow arms and legs rather than wings” (Chomsky, 1988, as cited
in Barry, 2017). However, my experience learning to speak the Moro language through
interactions with my Muslim friends and colleagues demonstrates that language acquisition is
profoundly influenced by external factors and social interactions.

The Nurture perspective posits that language ability is shaped by the environment (O’Brien &
Langmack, n.d.). This viewpoint emphasizes that factors such as social interactions and cultural
exposure significantly shape language development. Understanding the cultural context of a
language can lead to a more comprehensive grasp of its nuances and intricacies (Karlik, 2023).
For example, grasping idiomatic expressions often requires knowledge of the cultural
background
from which they arise. In my journey, engaging with native speakers and immersing myself in
their cultural practices has enriched my understanding of the Moro language and its significance
within the community.

Furthermore, a study conducted by Karma Tshering (2021) concluded that “interaction is a

recursive process in language learning and acquisition.” This study, conducted with Bhutanese
children, applied the interaction approach, which considers learning through input (exposure to
language), production of language (output), and feedback resulting from interaction (Gass &
Selinker, 2003, as cited in Tshering, 2021, p. 2). The findings indicated that interaction provides
opportunities to use the target language in social contexts, enhancing second language learning
and development in children.

While the Nature perspective highlights the biological basis for language, it is supported by
Chomsky’s theory that language is a distinct, biologically determined faculty of the human
brain.
In On Nature and Language, Chomsky (2002) explains that humans are genetically predisposed
to acquire language, with the brain equipped with a specific system for language processing.
This
biological endowment, known as Universal Grammar, provides the underlying structure for all
languages. Chomsky further emphasizes the role of critical periods in language acquisition and
the existence of brain areas, like Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas, that are specialized for language.
These insights reinforce the argument that language is deeply rooted in our biology.
The Nurture perspective, however, emphasizes the importance of interaction and cultural context
in developing linguistic skills. Lev Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory, initially developed in 1934
and expanded in 1978, has become foundational in research on cognitive development,
particularly within sociocultural contexts (McLeod, 2024). Building on Vygotsky’s ideas,
Lantolf,
Thorne, and Poehner (2014) highlight that language acquisition is shaped by social and
historical
contexts, where human consciousness and language evolve through interactions with others and
the cultural artifacts surrounding them. Additionally, in Acts of Meaning, Jerome Bruner (1990)
challenges traditional views of biology’s role in human nature, asserting that “it is culture, not
biology, that shapes human life and the human mind, giving meaning to action” (p. 34).

B.F. Skinner also supports this view in Verbal Behavior, arguing that “verbal behavior is shaped
and sustained by a verbal environment—by people who respond to behavior in certain ways
because of the practices of the group to which they belong” (Skinner, 1957a, as cited in Passos,
2012). Skinner proposed that language is a learned behavior, shaped by environmental
interactions. His theory of operant conditioning suggests that children learn language by
imitating
sounds, which are then reinforced or discouraged by responses from those around them
(Staddon,
2023). In Verbal Behavior (1957), Skinner emphasizes that language development relies heavily
on reinforcement within a child’s environment, viewing language acquisition as behavior shaped
by social responses. Matos and Passos (2006) expand on this by examining the linguistic
foundations behind Skinner’s work, emphasizing that the concept of verbal operants presents
language as a social practice, deeply rooted in the dynamics of verbal communities. This
interdisciplinary approach allows for a richer understanding of language learning as behavior
shaped by social reinforcement.
The Interaction Hypothesis, proposed by Long (1996), posits that language acquisition is
facilitated through interaction, particularly when learners are given opportunities to negotiate
meaning and receive corrective feedback. Mackey (1999) provides empirical support for this
hypothesis, showing that different types of interaction—such as clarification requests and
recasts—promote language development. Her study with adult ESL learners demonstrated that
these types of interactional adjustments help improve learners’ question formation skills and
overall grammatical accuracy, underscoring the value of active engagement and feedback in
language acquisition.

In classroom settings, interaction is crucial for language acquisition, as it allows learners to

engage
in exchanges that provide meaningful practice and feedback, aligning with the Interaction
Hypothesis. Seedhouse and Walsh (2010) argue, from a Conversation Analysis perspective, that
learning in a second language classroom is a socially distributed process. They propose that
learning is reflected in the evolution of learners’ classroom talk, emphasizing that studying these
interactions can reveal how learners process and integrate new language elements through
interactional competence. Finally, Wegener (1885/1971) underscores the sociocultural nature of
language, describing it as “a collective name, indeed an abstraction, for certain muscular
movements…connected with a definite sense for many persons of a social group” (as cited in
Passos, 2012).

My experiences in learning the Moro language were significantly shaped by my environment.

Born
 and raised in Silik, Pikit, Cotabato, where the population consists mostly of Muslims and
Christians, I
was naturally exposed to their diverse cultures from a young age. I often spent time with both
Christian and Muslim friends, exchanging cultural insights and comparing our traditions.
Language frequently became a topic of discussion; we would translate each other’s languages,
exploring both the similarities and unique elements between them. This environment of mutual
curiosity and cultural exchange taught me language in an organic, engaging way that formal
lessons could never replicate.

It was during my work experience that I truly recognized my knowledge of the Moro language.
My Muslim colleagues would speak to me using their language, and I would respond in kind.
These interactions underscore the power of environment and social dynamics in shaping
language
skills.

In reflecting on the roles of nature and nurture in language acquisition, I contend that both are
essential, albeit in different contexts. Nature plays a more significant role in First Language
Acquisition (FLA), as children naturally acquire their mother tongue through exposure and
interaction within their environment. Conversely, in Second Language Acquisition (SLA),
nurture
appears to be more pivotal. Based on my experiences, learners depend on structured input,
interaction, and social engagement to develop their language skills. This distinction highlights
the
importance of nurturing environments in facilitating successful language learning experiences,
though further research could illuminate these dynamics more comprehensively.
To support this further, Steven Pinker, in his book The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates
Language (1994), emphasizes the innate ability of humans for language, which he refers to as
the
“language instinct.” This supports the notion that nature plays a significant role in FLA, as
children seem to acquire their mother tongue effortlessly and rapidly, often without formal
instruction. He also acknowledges that SLA is influenced more heavily by environmental
factors,
such as exposure to the language and structured learning experiences. This reflects the
significance of nurture in the second language context, where learners benefit from instructional
methods and social interactions.

The Nature vs. Nurture debate in language acquisition reveals valuable insights into both
biological predispositions and environmental influences. While the Nature perspective,
supported
by Chomsky’s Universal Grammar—which posits that humans are born with an innate capacity
for language—emphasizes an innate linguistic ability, my experiences underscore the critical
role
of nurture. From growing up in Pikit, Cotabato, surrounded by a blend of Muslim and Christian
cultures to engaging with Moro speakers in my work environment, I found that language
learning
was deeply influenced by social interactions and cultural immersion. These experiences suggest
that language is not merely a product of biological endowment but is profoundly shaped by the
environments and social contexts in which we live.

Recognizing the influence of nurture in language acquisition highlights the importance of

fostering
supportive, culturally rich environments for language learners. In my journey, I have come to
realize that learning a language transcends the mere mechanics of vocabulary and grammar. It
involves a profound engagement with the people who speak that language and the cultural
nuances
embedded within it.

To illustrate this further, the case study by Kathy Escamilla (1994) on the sociolinguistic
environment of a bilingual school reveals that the success of bilingual education programs is
contingent upon the larger school environment. Escamilla found that for children to truly
become
bilingual and biliterate, the environment outside the classroom must support the use of both
languages with equal enthusiasm. While the study observed that two languages were used in the
school, they did not share equal status, which hindered the full potential of bilingual acquisition.
This case underscores the importance of a nurturing environment where both languages are
valued
equally, further supporting the argument that cultural context and social interactions are vital for
effective language learning.

By prioritizing nurturing environments in language education, we can help learners develop not
only the ability to communicate but also the cultural fluency necessary to thrive in an
interconnected world. These nurturing experiences empower learners to explore, engage, and
immerse themselves in the rich tapestry of human experience that language embodies, ultimately
leading to meaningful, lasting connections to both the language and the culture it represents.
References:

Barry, E. (2017, December 19). Universal grammar or intention reading? Language Debates.
https://languagedebates.wordpress.com/2017/12/19/universal-grammar-or-intention-reading-
pattern-finding-emma-barry-explores-two-key-theories-of-language-learning/
Bruner, J. S. (2006). Acts of meaning. MIT Media Lab.
https://mf.media.mit.edu/courses/2006/mas845/readings/files/bruner_Acts.pdf

Chhim, P. (2016). A study on the effectiveness of bilingual education in Bhutan. Bhutan Journal
of Research and Development, 5(1), 93-106.
https://bjrd.rub.edu.bt/index.php/bjrd/article/download/93/41/114

Chomsky, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (n.d.). On nature and language. [PDF file].
https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/11645926_901534169906970_1046271445_n.pdf/On-
Nature-and-Language-by-Noam-Chomsky-Adriana-Belletti-Luigi-Rizzi-z-lib.org-1-1.pdf

Coloma, R. J. (2011). Theoretical perspectives on bilingual education: A sociolinguistic

approach. Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 213-227. https://www.jstor.org/stable/329956

Escamilla, K. (1994). The sociolinguistic environment of a bilingual school: A case study

introduction. Bilingual Research Journal, 18(1-2), 21-47. Retrieved from
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=escamilla+sociolinguistic+environment&oq=escamilla+soci#d=gs_qa
bs&t=1729909559866&u=%23p%3Dty9hW4QM5poJ

Habibullah Pathan, R. A. M., Memon, S., Khoso, A. R., & Bux, I. (2018). A critical review of
Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory in second language acquisition. International Journal of English
Linguistics, 8(4), 232. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=sociocultural+theory+language+acquisition&oq=study+on+sociocult
ural+theory#d=gs_qabs&t=1729901347387&u=%23p%3DCBVD2HhFIeoJ
Harris, D. W. (n.d.). Language acquisition: The role of interaction. Retrieved from
https://danielwharris.com/teaching/268/readings/Pinker.pdf

Learning language through interaction: A study. [Webpage]. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=learning+language+through+interaction+study&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t
=1729903734646&u=%23p%3Ds5K5BwX_Ua0J
Lytle, K., & Kuhl, P. K. (2018). Social interaction and language: A neurobiological view. [PDF
file]. https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-
21/330959604_513946577585968_2495864770943211831_n.pdf/
2018_lytle_kuhl_socialinteractionandlanguage_neurobiologicalview_.pdf

Meinecke, C. (2021). Nature, nurture, and language. [PDF file].

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-
21/404766365_190949904086413_1268861464737760207_n.pdf/
NatureNurtureAndLanguage.pdf

Nottingham University. (n.d.). Foundation.

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/helmopen/rlos/child/foundation/

Nottingham University. (n.d.). Foundation [Child development resources].

https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/helmopen/rlos/child/foundation/index.html

On Nature and Language. (2015). On Nature and Language by Noam Chomsky, Adriana Belletti,
Luigi Rizzi. https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-
21/11645926_901534169906970_1046271445_n.pdf/On-Nature-and-Language-by-Noam-
Chomsky-Adriana-Belletti-Luigi-Rizzi-z-lib.org-1-1.pdf

Pinker, S. (1992). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. Retrieved from
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338037.pdf

Skinner, B. F. (n.d.). Verbal behavior. [PDF file]. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?

hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=skinner
%27s+verbal+behavior+study+in+language+&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1729901809912&u=%23p
%3DTrQdFfinpUEJ

Toma, A. (2022). Nature vs. nurture debate in language acquisition.

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/11645553_1667203556843766_424505139_n.pdf/
Nature_vs_Nurture_Debate_in_Language_Acq.pdf
Viera, R. (2011). Implications of universal grammar for bilingual education. PMC Journal, 8(2),
1-14. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3359847/

Wilks, K. (2021). Language learning through interaction. https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-

21/274846854_498788945026539_3102706334071803307_n.pdf/
LanguageLearningthroughinteraction.pdf