Title |
How Much of Language Acquisition Does Operant Conditioning Explain?
|
---|---|
Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, October 2017
|
DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01918 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Christopher B. Sturdy, Elena Nicoladis |
Abstract |
Since the 1950s, when Chomsky argued that Skinner's arguments could not explain syntactic acquisition, psychologists have generally avoided explicitly invoking operant or instrumental conditioning as a learning mechanism for language among human children. In this article, we argue that this is a mistake. We focus on research that has been done on language learning in human infants and toddlers in order to illustrate our points. Researchers have ended up inventing learning mechanisms that, in actual practice, not only resemble but also in fact are examples of operant conditioning (OC) by any other name they select. We argue that language acquisition researchers should proceed by first ruling out OC before invoking alternative learning mechanisms. While it is possible that OC cannot explain all of the language acquisition, simple learning mechanisms that work across species may have some explanatory power in children's language learning. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 10 | 20% |
Spain | 5 | 10% |
United Kingdom | 3 | 6% |
Japan | 3 | 6% |
Canada | 2 | 4% |
Italy | 1 | 2% |
Georgia | 1 | 2% |
Mexico | 1 | 2% |
Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 22 | 44% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 41 | 82% |
Scientists | 7 | 14% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 4% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 113 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 18 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 17 | 15% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 12% |
Researcher | 5 | 4% |
Student > Postgraduate | 5 | 4% |
Other | 18 | 16% |
Unknown | 37 | 33% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 32 | 28% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 6% |
Linguistics | 7 | 6% |
Neuroscience | 6 | 5% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 6 | 5% |
Other | 14 | 12% |
Unknown | 41 | 36% |