REVISED JOURNAL ENTRY 1
Today, while studying different theories of language acquisition, I was struck by how each perspective offers a distinct lens through which we can understand how we learn to speak. From behaviourism to connectionism, the interplay between these theories made me reflect on my own experiences with languages, reminding me of my General Linguistics classes in the second semester and even prompting me to revisit my old notes before writing this.
Among the theories, Chomsky’s innatism stood out to me the most. The idea that we are born with a kind of "universal grammar" fascinates me. It resonates with how I felt as a child when encountering new languages—it often felt intuitive, as if something inside me already knew how to structure sentences. At the same time, I agree with the critiques that innatism alone cannot account for language learning without sufficient exposure and interaction. Still, the notion that we’re biologically prepared to learn any language aligns with what I’ve observed in multilingual environments.
Reflecting on this made me recall moments from my own language learning. For instance, when I learned the past tense in English, I first memorized “I ran,” but later began saying “I runned” as I internalized the regular -ed rule and overapplied it. This type of mistake illustrates how our minds recognize patterns and try to generalize them—something that both innatism and connectionism can help explain. Interestingly, I’ve seen similar errors in Portuguese and Spanish, such as “eu correu” or “yo corré,” which suggests a shared developmental stage across languages.
While innatism is compelling, it makes more sense to me when considered alongside other theories. Vygotsky’s emphasis on social interaction reminded me of how I often adjust my language when talking to family members with less formal education, shifting to a more colloquial register so we can connect more easily. This shows how language isn’t just internal—it’s social, dynamic, and deeply relational.
Reading about these theories also brought Saussure to mind. Although his work isn’t directly about language acquisition, his idea that “the point of view creates the object” made me reflect on how each theory frames language differently. His view of language as a socially constructed system seems to echo both Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory and the neural-network logic behind connectionism. It’s amazing how these frameworks intertwine.
Ultimately, I realized that no single theory tells the whole story. Language acquisition seems to be a blend of biology, environment, cognition, and interaction. This complexity excites me—it’s a reminder that both mistakes and successes are part of the learning journey. Studying linguistics always leaves me with more questions than answers, but it also deepens my appreciation for the mystery of human language. I want to continue exploring how these theories apply to learning foreign languages—not just because I love them, but because I want to be the best language teacher I can be.
