Analysis of Tom

Analysis of Tom -  Child Language Acquisition

Imitation and reinforcement are the most crucial tools for children’s language acquisition’

Perhaps the foremost theory about imitation and reinforcement was conducted by theorist Skinner, who constructed the idea of operant conditioning having a substantial impact on children’s language and their development. Operant conditioning is the proposition that children develop their language through response from their caregivers, whether it be through positive or negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement is the process in which the caregiver almost rewards the child for accurate language use or good behavior, which can be accomplished through praise or echoing the child’s previous utterance to show positivity. The main purpose of positive reinforcement is to enhance the child’s positive face needs, in the hope that they will repeat the same accuracy/behavior in the future. However, negative reinforcement is the idea that caregivers model the children’s language, meaning that there is no praise for the child. The same principle can be shown with a child’s behavior in which a form of praise or treat is taken away. For instance, if a child is consistently behaving in a ‘naughty’ manner, then his caregiver may not give him any more chocolate for the rest of the day. This idea of operant conditioning focuses specifically on how caregivers act around the children, suggesting that the actual behavior of those around the child will directly impact their language use in the future. Still, the idea that imitation and reinforcement is the most crucial tool is one that questions and debates the importance of other theories.

There is a clear exhibition of positive reinforcement within text A, which is used frequently by Tom’s mother. At the beginning of the transcript, Tom uses the declarative utterance ‘the bike (.) the dad bike’; a usage of over-generalisation, potentially because Tom labels every bike ‘dad bike’ due to conversation in the past. The interlocutor, Tom’s mother, then replies ‘dad’s bike’ which shows Tom the standard form of how to show possession and standard rules of grammar. What perhaps is most influential in the mother’s utterance is her recasting of ‘dad’s bike’, and how she maintains this positive reinforcement despite Tom using non standard. If the mother expressed a negative approach to show Tom the standard version, for instance, ‘no you say dad’s bike’ perhaps the inclusion of the interjection ‘no’ may affect Tom’s negative face needs. This may mean that Tom will perhaps feel more nervous when communicating in future conversations, in the fear that he will be ‘told off’. Instead, his mother’s response in the adjacency pair suggests that he is not being criticised for using the non standard form, but is encouraged to use the standard ‘dad’s bike’ possessive. Later on in the conversation, we can see that his mother’s use of positive reinforcement has clearly worked, as Tom consistently employs the standard form and also embeds the noun phrase ‘dad’s bike’ into compound clauses. For instance, within the compound clause ‘I am on dad’s bike but I not on dad’s bike’, Tom uses the standard usage of the noun phrase twice and although he is still making the categorical overextension of the noun phrase ‘dad’s bike’, he is using it in a standard form. It is this idea that perhaps amplifies the importance of Skinner’s theory to child language acquisition, and perhaps shows how the mother’s behavior is a key element to the child’s language development.

Still, the notion of positive and reinforcement being a crucial tool can be debated when looking at text B. Within the interrogative clause ‘is these drawing Cartoon Network cup of tea mum’ perhaps what is most interesting is the actual construction of the clause, and how there is no agreement between the relational verb ‘is’ and the determiner ‘these’. We can potentially interpret this data as an idea that Tom is in the telegraphic stage, as it could be debates that he is still developing his knowledge on standard grammar rules.  Throughout the conversation, Tom fails to imitate standard grammar forms as exemplified by his caregiver. This poses the question as to whether we do actually learn language from imitation, or if we already have innate ability to already understand grammatical rules. How can children learn language from imitation when caregivers so frequently utilise non standard grammar? We can take a Chomskyan perspective to counter argue operant conditioning and its impact on children’s development. Chomsky constructed the idea that from a nativist perspective, a child cannot just learn grammar. Instead it is hardwired into our brains, with the child being able to obtain these grammatical rules when they are ready, as apposed to actually being a teaching process. We can apply this when looking at text A, as when he elides the suffix in the dynamic verb ‘make’, this means that there is no agreement between the dynamic verb and the abstract noun ‘noises’. His mother then recasts the phrase with the standard agreement of ‘makes noises’. It is unlikely that Tom learnt this phrase from his mother – presumably because she would naturally have a better understanding of grammar - therefore we cannot assume that imitation is the key to child’s development.

However, within the conversation the foremost aspect of analysis is the importance of contextual factors, and how this can manipulate language. Within the conversation it is not evident what time of day it is, the emotions of the participants or the actual positioning of the participants. For this reason, it may not show an accurate representation of the participant’s typical language, meaning that the application of theories and debates may not be reflective of their language. Perhaps for this reason, it may show that imitation is not actually the most crucial tool for child language acquisition, as it is heavily dependant on the actual context itself.