From birth to 18 months, an infant develops rapidly and forms the basis for their
communication methods. They move through four key stages in infancy, all the way from
prelinguistic to the holophrastic stage. Language development has been observed as a function of
schemas or thinking conditions, as an innate, universal, embedded understanding, and a
reflection of the reinforced surrounding support system. All of these theories in action offer
profound insights as children progress in their own time through the stages of language
acquisition. As Early Childhood Educators in classroom settings with infants, our role is to be
engaging, encouraging and consistent as we help build their fundamental language skills. We can
aid in the frequency and variation of babbling sounds to enhance development in early childhood
infant classrooms.
Infant Language Development Stages
The initial stage of language development opposes the definition of the concept-
involuntary sounds prompted by internal and external stimuli because at this early stage the
sounds are involuntary (Minnesota State University Moorhead, 2010). This denotes why this
stage is prelinguistic or pre-operational. Minnesota State University Moorhead (2010) goes on to
state, cries for varying needs are the main source of communication and the repetitive act (most
concentrated between 0-3 months) strengthens the infant’s vocal tract tone. There is minimal
control on the infant’s part, except for some muscular contractions in the tongue. They are
responsive to differing phonetic inputs observable in their alteration in sucking patterns.
Minnesota State University Moorhead (2010) claims this accounts for the cooing present in the
prelinguistic stage of language development around the 2–3-month mark. Cooing is
characterized by vowel-like sounds that are the wobbly start to intentional verbal
communication.
Minnesota State University Moorhead (2010) states, cooing is followed by babbling, an
exciting milestone marked by the larynx dropping at around four months and the roomier
pharyngeal cavity. In connection to the cephalocaudal trend we see development from the head
down, so even at this early age the child is impressively able to raise and lower the jaw.
According to Minnesota State University Moorhead (2010), a more movable jaw effects the
positions available to the lips and tongue therefore a cacophony of vowel sounds is created. They
tend to follow certain patterns or either repetitive (featuring mono-syllable cycles) or variegated
(alternating varied syllable cycles) as they babble. The consonants featured in the babbling stage
of language development for infants universally are: “/b/ /d/ /g/ /p/ /t/ /k/ /m/ /n/ /w/ /j/ /h/”
(Minnesota State University Moorhead, 2010, para. 4). The globe-spanning similarity in these
babbling patterns lends itself to the ease of the technique to make sound which is the simple
vowel-consonant combination and the open and close of the mouth. Minnesota State University
Moorhead (2010) claims the actual babbling often begins around the 6-month mark and
continues until approximately one year of age. They are experimenting heavily laying an
essential framework for eventual speech development. During this time, they are also building up
their inner catalogue of familiar voices as well as expanding the amount and quality of response
to stimuli as their babbling is often the start to vocally assigned meaning. This time frame (6-9
months specifically) is also host to an influx of gestures with associated meaning used in
building social relationships, communicate needs and initiate interactions. Infants use their
bodies to wave, point or reach often in combination with babbling to convey messages.
Minnesota State University Moorhead (2010) goes on to say, the single-word or
holophrastic stage is the cap end of general infant (0-18 months) language development. We find
milestones like first words and combining communication methods like gestures to express a
desire. Single words are so striking from the mouths of 12–18-month year olds due to the novelty
of the experience and because they are used so poignantly to convey a whole concept or idea.
The words they choose are most likely connected to everyday occurrences, the people closest to
them and familiar objects. The formation of the chosen words are most commonly vowel-
consonant combinations like no, ma, da and in the following order of likelihood: “primarily
noun-like (e.g. [da] (dog)...verbs second (e.g. [go]) and adjectives [ha] (hot) third...[words may]
also include displeasure/rejection words (e.g. [no]) [and] social interaction words (e.g [bai bai]
(bye-bye) [nai nai] (night-night))” (Minnesota State University Moorhead, 2010, para. 4). The
language in their environment is heavily referenced in the infant’s catalogue of words and sounds
and their use and understanding of this meaningful language sums up the profound impact of this
stage.
Theoretical Perspectives on Language Acquisition
There are two influential theories to analyze regarding infant language development
which are cognitive theory and nativist theory. They both have significant value and easily
coexist as pathways of understanding and reinforcing development. LaMarr (2022b) suggests we
should look to Jean Piaget’s cognitive theory for an understanding of stages linked to observed
patterns of how thinking processes progress in infancy. What Noam Chomsky proposes is
nativist theory, associated with a universal language acquisition device (LAD) that equips all
children with exposure to language with innate grammatical and syntax understanding (Dunne,
2023). Infant language development is foremost an individualized experience dependent onfactors
like cognitive abilities and environmental stimuli. Both working theories look to inherent
processes for the core of their argument and ask caregivers or educators to lean into the infant’s
natural pacing and abilities and allow them to evolve in a rich environment.
Jean Piaget had a great deal of influence in the field of child development. The specific
contribution he imparted in the realm of infant language acquisition details the cognitive
progression during the sensorimotor stage between 0-2 years (LaMarr, 2022b). His theory of
cognitive development highlights stages and substages of significance featuring milestones that
are universal to a certain degree. The timing may differ, especially for children with neurological
differences, but these occurrences are a shared human experience. The stage relevant to the
infant age bracket (0-18 months) is titled sensorimotor and its virtues include exploration
through the senses and all kinds of motor activities (LaMarr, 2022b). The substages are more
specific cognitive development markers like reflexive behaviours taking prevalence from 0-1
months, primary circular reactions from 1-4 months, repeating actions, like self-soothing using
their own body, are centre stage. 4-8 months takes on the central focus of secondary circular
reactions where their actions extend to their environment, and they are seen reproducing
combinations that offer interesting effects (LaMarr, 2022b). These early physically evident
substages are home to the cognitive stage known as pre-symbolic where they are performing
gestures, expressions, and abstract vocalizations to communicate (LaMarr, 2022b). There is also
sound to meaning associative connections starting to inform their interactions with the
environment. 8-12 months is the physically evident substage of coordination of secondary
reactions which overlap with the cognitive transition to symbolic thought (LaMarr, 2022b).
Awareness of their environment expands as do their intentional actions to interact with and
manipulate it; the actions can be combinations of steps to reach a specific goal. Tertiary circular
reactions are the prominent observation between 12 and 18 months along with the first-words
stage which are the bookends to the overarching sensory motor stage that encapsulates infancy.
Primitive problem solving, variation in their actions as they assess consequences, and an influx
of curiosity goes hand in hand with first word utterances. Their fast-growing knowledge base of
everyday experiences and symbolic understanding is reflected in the use of first words (LaMarr,
2022b). These initial steps in the sensory motor stage allow for exploration of their environment
with their bodily senses and growing physical capabilities. They develop a beginner inner map of
mental representation and then start navigating that plotted space.
Nativist theory states infants are born hardwired to acquire a working understanding of
language (LaMarr, 2022a). Chomsky stood by the inborn linguistic capabilities of an infant’s
mind and molded his awe and fascination with these neuroscientific brain mechanisms into a
concept called LAD. The ‘device’ he identified is activated upon hearing people communicate
and its role is to pick up on the basic structures of the surrounding language (as early as in utero)
and begin applying them with what they were consciously taught. LAD is comprised of inlaid
processes the mind completes upon exposure to a specific language so that the young learner
may innately grasp its key aspects such as verbs versus nouns and past versus present tense
differentiation, formatting a question and a counting system (Dunne, 2023). This phenomenon is
attributed to the evidential trend that the detailed comprehension of language young children
display could not have been explicitly taught (LaMarr, 2022a). These complexities, in the eyes of
Chomsky, can be attributed to the theoretical existence of "universal grammar" instead of simply
reiterating the surrounding application of language, in which learning of a child’s first language
does not rely on an innate grammar model (LaMarr, 2022a). Instead, the new research shows that
young children use various types of thinking that may not be specific to language at all—such as
the ability to classify the world into categories (people or objects, for instance) and to understand
the relations among things. These capabilities, coupled with a unique human ability to grasp
what others intend to communicate, allow language to happen.
Theoretical Perspectives Limitations
Chomsky’s nativist theory has recently been scrutinized in the article “Evidence rebuts
Chomsky’s theory of language learning” by Paul Ibbotson (2016). He offers insight into the
newest findings rebutting Chomsky’s computerization of human biology, claims based on
assumption, and over generalization. Ibbotson offers a more informed perspective with the core
of the argument, being that children learn intuitively and by discerning patterns. He sources the
human history of language development and psychology as the overarching influence. Instead of
a pre-installed grammar device, their sophisticated categories for the world, intention reading,
and cognitive abilities are cited. These findings and calls for further investigation better
acknowledge the complexities of the over 6000 languages with differing grammatical structures
as well as urge a better understanding of children. There are several rebuttals against cognitive
theory, all along the lines of overly generalized timelines and how the stages like sensory motor
or pre-operational don’t always coincide with milestones of language development. Both theories
receive criticism about vague mentions of cultural and social influence on the respective stages
and inlaid grammar mechanisms when in reality these external inputs are observed today as
crucial aspects to consider.
The Early Childhood Educator’s Role
Caregivers in infant classrooms have several overarching responsibilities in regard to
language development: we must be engaging, supportive and well informed while allowing their
milestones to be reached on their timeline. Responsive caregiving and a language-richenvironment
means provoking an emotional connection to language and plentiful, diverse ways
of interacting with and observing its use. There should always be great care taken to prompt
interaction and offer high-quality responses to an infant’s cues because secure attachment and
the willingness to do something new go hand in hand. It takes trust and sensitivity to foster the
beginnings of language in a classroom. Describing what you are doing, using a variety of
vocabulary words and child-directed speech (CDS) are advised for supporting their cognitive
growth (Boyd et al., 2021). Piaget’s theory does not specifically mention CDS, but the alignment
of purpose and results reveal congruence. Due to the high pitch, repetition, and precise
pronunciation, the levels of engagement, information processing, and emotional connection are
well established. Maintaining an attentive presence in the classroom and assisting and allowing
for children to progress in their own time is our ultimate role.
Self-Evaluation
Researching the topic of language development in infants was very illuminating as the
relevant history has been rapidly transforming and there is so much passion amongst those
discussing the changes and evidentiary support. I find language really interesting and the
intuitive, progressive, pattern-based development road we all take in our own time to be so
valuable to analyze.
The challenges I was faced with were narrowing in on what I could thoroughly analyze in
the allotted time. I found the two most widely studied and improved upon
theories very grounding for honing the focus of my paper. The bias for believing what has been
traditionally laid out for us in Noam Chomsky’s nativist theory was challenged and reconciled in
the process. It is possible to understand these theories came from a place of excited assumption
and can be underdeveloped or authored by those carrying certain biases. We can integrate their
work with what has since been uncovered and slightly adapt their language to find their core
message immensely helpful in combination with more refined current contexts.
References
Boyd, D., Bee, H., & Johnson, P. (2021). Revel Lifespan Development (7th ed.). Pearson Canada.
Dunne, L. (2023, April 25). Noam Chomsky’s radical approach to language. The Collector.
https://www.thecollector.com/noam-chomsky-radical-approach-to-language/
Ibbotson, P. (2016, September 7). Evidence rebuts Chomsky’s theory of language learning.
Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-
s-theory-of-language-learning/
LaMarr, T. (2022a, April 28). 12.3: Nativism. Social Sci LibreTexts.
https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Toddl
er_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/12%3A_Theories_of_Language_Acqu
isition/12.03%3A_Nativism
LaMarr, T. (2022b, April 28). 12.4: Cognitive theory. Social Sci LibreTexts.
https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Early_Childhood_Education/Infant_and_Tod
dler_Care_and_Development_(Taintor_and_LaMarr)/12%3A_Theories_of_Language_A
cquisition/12.04%3A_Cognitive_Theory
Minnesota State University Moorhead. (2010, September 16). Language acquisition part 1.
https://web.mnstate.edu/houtsli/tesl551/LangAcq/page1.htm
Add comment
Comments