Here's why:
Arguments against conditioning as the sole explanation:
* Poverty of the stimulus: Children are exposed to a limited and often imperfect amount of language data. Yet, they manage to acquire complex grammatical rules and structures that they haven't explicitly heard. This suggests an innate capacity for language.
* Creativity in language: Humans can produce and understand novel sentences they've never encountered before. This demonstrates that language is not simply a learned response to specific stimuli.
* Universal grammar: All languages share underlying similarities in syntax and structure, hinting at a universal, innate grammar that guides language acquisition.
* Critical periods: The ability to acquire language fluently diminishes after a certain age, suggesting a biologically determined window for optimal language development.
How conditioning contributes:
* Reinforcement: Positive feedback and praise for correct language use reinforce language learning.
* Imitation: Children learn by mimicking the speech patterns of others.
* Classical conditioning: Associating words with objects or events can facilitate vocabulary acquisition.
A more comprehensive view:
Current understanding suggests that language development is a complex interplay of:
* Innate biological factors: Our brains are wired for language acquisition, with specific areas dedicated to processing sound, grammar, and meaning.
* Environmental input: Exposure to language is crucial for triggering and shaping these innate abilities.
* Social interaction: Language is learned in a social context, through interaction and feedback from others.
* Cognitive abilities: Language learning relies on memory, attention, and problem-solving skills.
Conclusion:
While conditioning plays a role, it is not the sole determinant of language development. A complex interplay of biological, environmental, and cognitive factors contribute to the intricate process of language acquisition.