Skinner view on language acquisition is based on the environment the individual is in. Skinner was a behaviourist who held that all human being are born psychologically empty. According to him syntax is acquired through learning. There however exist no any real distinction between learning and production of language. There is no distinction between thought and language, to know is largely to be able to talk skinner (1957). He therefore held that syntax is acquired through the processes of imitation, reinforcement, discrimination of stimulus and the making of overall generalisations and shaping. The mastery of the acquired syntax is demonstrated through observable responses like speech production. In such a situation therefore one learns the syntax that the person is exposed and reproduces it. For example a child learns to say ‘bye-bye’ when an adult waves the hand and with a high pitched sound says “bye-bye’. In such a situation the adult has to repeat the act severally so that the child leans. Even after discontinuation of the act the child will have already learnt how to say the words ‘bye-bye’. If the child falls down and told it’s painful, the child will associate pain with the falling. This means that active stimulations are made by the bigger people to teach children syntax.
Piaget argues that knowledge and meaning is generated form interaction of humans with their experiences and their ideas. This means that during infancy, the behavioural patterns generated from experiences and their reflexes will comprise the Childs knowledge. This system of knowledge was referred to as schemata. Piaget contended that the process of accommodation and assimilation. What this means is that a child acquires syntax from the environment without active deliberate influence form the grown ups. His general view on syntax acquisition was thus between behaviourist view i.e. language is learnt by reinforcement and the rationalist view of innate acquisition. However he argued that cognitive structures can not be innate. He basically held that children will learn language by echolalia-repetition of own or of others words, monologue-speaking their thoughts loudly or simply speaking to themselves and collective monologue-several children talking in turns though each producing a monologue.
To conclude, Piaget’s point of view is more acceptable, his view was that the acquisition of language is in between the Chomsky’s view and that of Skinner. This is evidenced by the fact that prove on innateness is not clear although this cannot be completely dismissed. This point of view can also be supported by the fact that all children produce some sound at various stages. These sounds produced may be an imitation of what the child has herd or from the Childs’ own thinking. During the early stages the sound produced can not be understood by the grown ups. After some time, the child will tries to imitate the sounds it hears been made by the people. During this time the child may not be addressing any one in particular and this explains the aspects of echolalia and monologue. Deliberate attempts to teach a child language are also made by almost all parents.
Bransford, J., Brown, A. L., and Cocking, R. R. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (expanded edition), Washington: National Academies Press, 2000. Print.
Campbell, R. L. Jean Piaget's Genetic Epistemology: Appreciation and Critique, 2002. Web, 26 April 2011.
Chomsky, Noam. Knowledge of Language. New York: Praeger, 1986. Print.
Chomsky, Noam. The Port-Royal Grammar of 1660 identified similar principles; Language and Mind. Harcourt:Brace Jovanovich, 1972. Print.
John R. Anderson, Lynne M. Reder, Herbert A. Simon, K. Anders Ericsson, and Robert Glaser, Radical Constructivism and Cognitive Psychology, Brookings Papers on Education Policy (1998), no. 1, 227-278. Print.
Wood, D. How Children Think and Learn. 2nd Ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd, 1998. Print.
Tuovinen, J. E. and Sweller, J. "A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples". Journal of Educational Psychology (1999) no 2: 334–341. Print.