Language

Language development

Mastering a language may seem daunting, especially for adults learning a second tongue, yet children typically acquire language skills fairly easily. According to B.F. Skinner’s (1957) behaviorist approach, language proficiency hinges on active use and reinforcement, even for one’s native language.

In contrast, Noam Chomsky’s (1965) nativist theory argues that language acquisition is largely driven by biology. Children naturally develop language without structured instruction, suggesting an innate capacity to learn any language. This view also highlights the presence of a universal grammar shared by all societies, which systematically includes basic grammatical structures (such as nouns and verbs). Despite this universality, native speakers are generally unable to articulate exactly why their language is structured as it is.

Research further suggests that language acquisition is most effective during a critical period in early childhood, after which mastering new languages becomes more challenging. Infants, from birth, display preferences for their mother’s voice and can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar languages. By age five, children usually achieve significant fluency in their native tongue.

The social interventionist approach presents a more integrative viewpoint, positing that both inherent predispositions and environmental interactions are crucial. In this model, learners benefit from guidance or modeling by more skilled language users, a principle that holds especially true for second-language acquisition. Emphasizing a social-cognitive framework, this theory argues that a supportive social network substantially enhances a child’s language development.

Stages of language acquisition

Influence of language on cognition

Language serves as a vehicle for conveying ideas—whether through speaking, writing, or nonverbal signals—and is at once shaped by our thought processes while also contributing to them. We frequently acquire new terminology and explore emerging concepts through some form of communicative exchange.

For decades, psychologists have debated whether language dictates how people think or whether our mental constructs shape the way we speak. Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf proposed that language strictly governs thought, sometimes referred to as linguistic determinism. By this view, the vocabulary and structures of a language limit or direct how individuals conceptualize experiences. An oft-cited example is the single English term “love,” compared to other languages that have multiple, more nuanced words describing love’s different forms. Critics, however, argue this perspective is overly rigid and not strongly supported by empirical evidence.

Still, language may influence cognitive processes. English speakers primarily use horizontal phrases to discuss time, such as “running behind schedule,” whereas Mandarin Chinese speakers employ both horizontal and vertical imagery—describing the past as “up” or the future as “down.” When tested on tasks that use vertical cues to recognize temporal relationships, Mandarin speakers generally respond more quickly than English speakers. Such findings suggest that linguistic patterns can shape how efficiently people perceive or process certain types of information.

Brain areas that control language and speech

Brain regions involved in language

Two crucial brain areas facilitate different aspects of language:

1. Broca’s area (left frontal lobe)
   Role: Primarily responsible for producing language—both spoken and written.
   Impact of damage: Individuals may understand language but cannot speak or express themselves in writing. For instance, someone might perform everyday tasks like shopping but be incapable of forming verbal or written responses.
2. Wernicke’s area (temporal lobe near the auditory cortex)
   Role: Critical for comprehending speech.
   Impact of damage: Although speech production is still possible, understanding spoken or written language becomes difficult. Language output may resemble grammatical structure but lack meaning, potentially including the incorrect use of similar-sounding words, unrelated words, or reversed syllables (e.g., substituting “bowl” for “plate” or “dog” for “fruit”).