Competition Model vs. Exemplar-Based Systems in Language Acquisition
Competition Model (Bates & MacWhinney)
A Leading Theory in Connectionism
The Competition Model proposes that language acquisition involves forming connections between forms and functions. This functionalist approach contrasts with Chomsky’s view, where form and function are inseparable. The model suggests that learners develop mappings in their first language (L1) by identifying cues associated with specific functions. For example, word order cues in “The cat chases the mouse” differ from subject-verb agreement cues in “The cat chase the mice.”
Different cues compete, and learners assign weights to each cue based on experience, probability, and successful interpretations. Evidence for this comes from reaction times, which decrease as children age, indicating stronger cue associations. The dominant cue determines meaning, and cue weights vary across languages, as seen in word order (English), case marking (German, Latin, Japanese), stress (Chinese), and semantic/pragmatic information (Spanish, Italian).
Implications for Second Language Acquisition (SLA)
In SLA, learners adjust their form-function mappings to the L2. Transfer of L1 mappings and cue strengths can lead to misinterpretations, as exemplified by English L1 speakers misinterpreting the Italian sentence “La matita guarda il cane” (The pencil looks at the dog). Acquisition is faster when mappings are frequent and reliable, as seen in the contrast between word order and animacy in “El pan ha comprado María” (The bread has bought Maria).
Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis and Readiness
Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis emphasizes the role of explicit learning in SLA. Learners’ readiness to notice specific features depends on their current interlanguage system and internal mechanisms. For instance, acquiring “I wish” structures might be more challenging for Maria than for Ana. Pienemann’s Multidimensional Model further illustrates this with word order acquisition in L2 German, where the capacity to place adverbs at the beginning of sentences precedes the ability to place verbs at the end. Learners must develop specific capacities sequentially to progress.
Exemplar-Based vs. Rule-Based Knowledge Representation
The debate on how linguistic knowledge is represented centers around two main systems:
A) Rule-Based System (RBS)
RBS, rooted in information processing theory, posits that learners induce underlying rules from input, forming the basis for generalization and transfer. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar (UG) and Language Acquisition Device (LAD) support this view. RBS is considered creative as it allows for novel utterances. However, research challenges the assumptions of RBS being computationally cheap and memory-efficient, as evidence suggests that linguistic knowledge is not solely rule-based.
B) Exemplar-Based System (EBS)
EBS, associated with connectionism, suggests that linguistic knowledge is built upon accumulated formulaic items and chunks, such as phrasal verbs, idioms, collocations, frames, and expressions. Bolinger argues that language relies heavily on lexical elements that defy rule-based descriptions, as seen in “somewhere else” vs. the ungrammatical “*sometimes else.” RBS struggles to account for such exceptions, highlighting the limitations of a purely rule-based approach.