De La Salle University

Department of English and Apllied Linguistics

Manila, Philippines
---------------------------------------Metacognitive Reading Report #2
Topic: Christiansen, M. & Chater, N. (2008). Language as shaped by the
brain.
De Bot,K., Lowie, W. & Verspoor,M. (2007). A Dynamic
Systems Theory
approach to second language acquisition
Submitted to Dr. Marianne Jennifer M. Gaerlan
Submitted by Pilar S. Caparas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I.Topics or concepts which are not clearly understood (or need more
reading):
1.1 A Dynamic Systems Theory Approach to SLA
1.2 The origin of UG-Logical problem of language evolution.
1.2.1 Adaptationists
1.2.2 Non-Adaptationists
II.Insights
2.1 I agree that Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) is useful to account
Second language development although it does not reject nor affirm the
principles of Universal Grammar, although Larsen-Freeman (2002)sees that
UG is seemingly part of DST. It is useful because accordingly it recognizes
the language (be it first, second or third), language learners (young or old),
and language communities (in naturalistic or instructional settings) are each
complex, dynamic sysytems. Systems are groups of entities or parts that
function together. The term dynamic as it is used in DST has a fairly
straightforward

meanings and refers to the changes that a system

undergoes due to internal forces and to energy from outside itself. This is

also the reason why some scholars call the term second language
development instead of second language learning in reference to the
relative usefulness of DST in SLA. The major property of DST is change
overtime.

2.2 Based on my reading, I could infer that DST posits and combines
other principles of language learning or language acquisition. The article
says that the dance metaphor is used to make clear that cognitive, social
and environmental factors continuously interact, resulting in co-regulated
interactions and the emergence of creative communicative behaviors.
Initially, it somehow acknowledges the importance of cognitive factors and
thus seemingly shares the view of Emergentism that posits that language
acquisition is a cognitive process that emerges from the interaction of
biological pressures and the environment. It also seemingly shares the view
of the Social interactional theory which posits that language development
occurs in the context of social interaction between the devekloping child and
knowledgeable adults who model language usage and scaffold the childs
attempts to master language. It also seemingly shares Relational frame
theory which posits that children acquire language purely through interacting
with the environment. With this observation, and taking the best feature of
DST which is change overtime,I beganto hypothesize that the dynamic
change which the DST is positing has been the same changes observe by
liguists in their studies of language acquisition in children since time

immemorial. If this could be seemingly true, thenI could say that DST lies on
a safer ground advocating other theories and coming up with one term (like
Change) and overplay its features. Thus, making the theory less novel. This
is just an insight, and this insight is an observation of scholars practices of
coming up of new terms and claim them as their contribution to the field..
They are very good because their contributions seem original, scaffolding
other theories and seem novel. I began to like DST. It is useful as I said
earlier.

2.3 The title of the article by Christiansen and Charter is a screaming

contradiction whih takes the starting point that posits the question: Why is
language so well suited to being learned by the brain? instead of Why is
the brain so well suited to learning language? The latter question relates to
the idea that because the brain has a language faculty, it is well suited to
learn the language. The articles proposes that language has adapted
through gradual processes of cultural evolution to be easy tolearn to produce
and understand. They argued that UG could not hav arisen either by
biological. Language has been shaped to fit the human brain, rather than
vice versa. Thus, the former question takes a counter argument of
Chomskyanism.

2.4 The many scholars and followers of Chomsky who were impressed
by his theories together with the anti-nativists have begun to question the

soundness of the theory which has been for a long time hailed and highly
held. This is normal in the field of research. In Christiansen and Charters
article, it highlights the contention that it is not the brain that fits the
language, but the language as shaped to fit the brain. It denies the universal
grammar of Chomsky and his failure to recognize the role of culture in the
acquisition. The arguments are strong. However, I share other scholars
review that they overplayed the role of the brain as an organism because
it lessens the capacity of the brains systematicity. Moreover, I observed that
since Chomskys empirical basis of his contention is based on logically
rational explanation of the acquisistion of language, other scholars found it
as a point of their arguments against it since Chomsky uphold that the
abstraction is something to be discovered out there. But we can not also
deny that the explanation of Chomsky is based on scientific explanation that
could also account the systematic view on language acquisition. At this
point, I recommend further reading of Chomskys theory and the opposing
arguments.

III.Discussion Questions
I formulated the following questions based on my reading of the
article:
3.1 Is DST a combination of various theories?

3.2 Can we say that DSTs major feature which is change overtime in
the language development in human beings is really a new concept or
an extracted concept from other theories?
3.3 Does Christiansen and Charters argument: Language as shaped
by the brain a modern denial of Universal Grammar?
3.4 Is there really an unlearned linguistic which the UG fails to
address?
3.5 Can we possibly say that Chomskynism has evolved from
innovation to irrelevance as other scholars claim?