ELT VOICES – INDIA

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR TEACHERS OF ENGLISH

FEBRUARY 2014 | VOLUME 4, ISSUE 1 | ISSN 2230-9136 (PRINT) 2321-7170 (ONLINE)

Intelligence and First Language Acquisition FARID GHAEMI1, FARZANEH SABOKROUH2

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses the link between intelligence and first language development (acquisition). First, it reviews the existing theories of intelligence and then briefly highlights the gist of the studies concerning the interdependency of first language acquisition and intelligence. Finally, it concludes that the present attempts regarding the exploration of the nature of the interrelationship between child language acquisition and intelligence is mainly focused on general intelligence (g) factor and few, if any, attempts have been made to discover the connections of the more modern theories of intelligence such as multiple intelligences or emotional intelligence and first language acquisition.

1. Assistant professor in TESL/TEFL, Karaj branch, Islamic Azad University, Iran 2. Ph.D. candidate in TEFL, Islamic Azad University, Iran ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

Introduction

Generally, it is accepted that there is a positive relationship between language ability and intelligence as measured by a standard intelligence test. The relationship has been suspect since the understanding and making use of words play a key role in many of the IQ tests. The question has long been raised if a child receives a high score on a verbal intelligence test because he has a good command of language, or if he has a good command of language because of his verbal intelligence. This has been termed the "overlap" of linguistic ability and general intelligence (Watts, 1944).

While the connection between verbal capacity and measured IQ is most remarkable, the IQ tests are greatly correlated with and possibly depend on facility in language. This concept of likelihood of the dependence on language implies the restrictions of these IQ tests and the disagreement about the validity of the scores (Mussen, 1963). It can be anticipated that a nonverbal type intelligence test would give way to an IQ score representing those cognitive capacities not particularly verified or involved by linguistic ability.

As has been put forward by Bruner (1964), Piaget (1958), and Vygotsky (1962) language smoothes the progress of thought processes. The inquiry concerning the verbal-type test might be pertinent to whether the child in asked to respond verbally or not. Along with following orders, provided verbally or nonverbally, one can question if the child is utilizing language in solving manipulative and perceptual problems offered in the testing condition. Dixon (1967) found that children who are capable of talking over the stages and operations as they perform them have a better opportunity of being successful.

Starting in the 1950s, the linguist Noam Chomsky (1986) reasoned that there must be a substantial innate component underlying language acquisition. He contrasted the abstractness of some kinds of language knowledge with the plodding concreteness of the information that seemed likely to be available to infants in their experience of other people talking. Chomsky's arguments were a major stimulus to studies of first language acquisition, not only by people who found his arguments persuasive, but also by a spectrum of others, some reacting strongly against Chomsky's position and some who were merely interested to see whether observations of the process of language acquisition would refute or confirm a view arrived at by logical conjecture. Everyone acknowledges that language acquisition is the product of both the intrinsic genetically-determined make up of human children (their nature) and their life experiences as they are growing up (the nurture that they receive from the environment). A chimpanzee brought up in a human household does not learn to talk, because chimpanzees evidently do not have the relevant aspects of human nature. Children who suffer the cruelty of isolation from interaction also do not learn to talk, through not having been adequately nurtured.

If this nature-based approach to first language acquisition is true then intelligence does not play a crucial role in first language development. On the other hand, intelligence would play a crucial role in first language development and deciphering linguistic experiences if one relied on nurture-based approaches to first language acquisition.

235|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

For most aspects of language development, we do not know whether nature or nurture is the dominant influence. Some theorists stress the importance of humans being born to become language users (nature), while others emphasize the several years of daily experience that preschoolers get with language in use (nurture). Proportions attributable to nature and nurture can be estimated by comparing identical twins with non-identical twins, but opinions regarding which measures of language achievement are the interesting and important ones depend on one's theoretical predilections — whether the indicators should be vocabulary size, or children's ability to make judgments about the semantic effects of certain syntactic structures, or some index of subtlety in conversation, etc — so twin comparisons do not fully resolve the issue. Child language researchers also want to know in detail how nature and nurture work together to achieve language acquisition, not just what percentage of the outcome each can be held responsible for (Clarke, 2009).

A distinction that most child language theorists accept is the one that Chomsky drew between competence (a person's internalized language knowledge) and performance (actual linguistic behaviour — different from competence because language users are subject to memory limitations, errors, interruptions, etc). Competence is what researchers would like to know about. Performance is one kind of evidence that child language researchers can use. Beyond this, however, there are disagreements. Formalists see competence as concerned with the rules and principles according to which linguistic forms — sentences especially, but also words and phonological units — are patterned. Researchers with sociolinguistic priorities talk, instead, about communicative competence (which, in addition to knowledge of form, includes knowledge about how to make appropriate use of language). Functionalists tend to view the patterns that formalists study as largely arising from the use of language in communication.

Different approaches are inclined to rely on different sorts of data. For instance, a formalist who is centrally interested in children's acquisition of syntax does not have much interest in holophrases, because a child whose ‘sentences’ are limited in length to one ‘word’ does not appear to have any syntax on the production side. Formalists often concentrate on evidence from comprehension, as a kind of performance less susceptible to memory and skill limitations and, therefore, likely to reflect competence more closely. Functionalists are interested in comprehension too. However, they usually regard holophrases as important, being the child's earliest ways of initiating verbal communication. A theoretician with a cognitive orientation will generally want to know not only about children's language development — formal as well as communicative — but also about concurrent developments in the child's thinking abilities outside of language. These tend to be of less interest to formalists, who usually assume that the human predisposition for language is not just a spin off from general cognitive endowment (Clarke, 2009).

However, both camps rely on intellectual power either explicitly or implicitly. To decipher linguistic experiences children have to rely on their general intelligence. On the other hand, in order to form and test their linguistic hypotheses their general intelligence may play an essential role due to the mental processing rate.

Contemporary Theories of Intelligence

236|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

Despite what was mentioned above was basically based on the concept of IQ, there exist some other theories of intelligence presented more recently. This section covers these theories considering the fact that these theories may be fundamentally diverse in terms of their definition or put more technically core construct.

CHC Theory (Cattell-Horn-Carroll)

The theory of intelligence mainly used in IQ tests is the CHC theory, an amalgamation of the Cattell-Horn theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence (Horn & Cattell, 1966) and Carroll’s (1993) Three-Stratum Theory. The Cattell-Horn and Carroll’s (1996) models fundamentally initiated from the same point—Spearman’s (1904) g- factor theory; despite the fact that they developed differently, they came to astonishingly almost the same conclusions about the variety of cognitive abilities. Cattell bases his comments on Spearman’s g to hypothesize two kinds of g: Fluid intelligence (Gf), that is, the capability to solve original problems by utilizing reasoning and Crystallized intelligence (Gc), a knowledge-based capability highly dependent on education and acculturation.

This model includes both the notion of a general intelligence g though this facet is rarely stressed and the conception of many different aspects of intelligence (Flanagan et al., 2007). For the most part on account of the influence of CHC theory, almost all existing IQ tests have changed their focus from a small number of part scores to a present-day prominence of anywhere from 4 to 7 cognitive abilities. The argument about which is “better,” one intelligence versus many aspects of intelligence, still continues (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002).

PASS Model

It is Luria’s (1966, 1970, 1973) neuropsychological model, which marks three Blocks or functional components, has been applied broadly to IQ tests. Consistent with this model, the first functional component is in charge for focused and sustained attention. The second functional component receives and stores information with both simultaneous and successive processing. Simultaneous processing is linking information together; pieces are synthesized together much as one might appreciate a painting all at once, for example. Successive processing is interpreting each piece of individual disjointedly.

Theory of Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences (MI Theory) was first published in the influential book, Frames of Mind, in 1983. This and his succeeding works and theory (e.g., Gardner, 2006) emphasize the necessity for educators and psychologists to expand their definitions of intelligence. Gardner has defined intelligence as “an ability or set of abilities that permit an individual to solve problems or fashion products that are of consequence in a particular cultural setting” (Ramos-Ford & Gardner, 1997).

MI Theory proposes eight intelligences: linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, bodily-kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. Gardner (1999) has also explored the possibility of additional intelligences, including spiritual and existential intelligences.

237|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

Instead of relying mainly on traditional factor analytic analyses, Gardner founded his theory on an analysis of the research literature using eight criteria, namely, (a) potential isolation by brain damage, (b) the existence of idiot savants, prodigies, and other exceptional individuals, (c) an identifiable core operation or set of operations, (d) a distinctive development history (i.e., it should be possible to differentiate experts from novices in the domain), (e) an evolutionary history and evolutionary plausibility (i.e., its precursors should be evident in less evolved species), (f) support from experimental psychological tasks, (g) support from psychometric findings, and (h) susceptibility to encoding in a symbol system (e.g., Gardner, 1997).

Gardner’s theory has been exceedingly high-ranking, especially among educators, and given both the popularity and unique approach to the study of intelligence, the frequent criticisms of the theory are not unexpected. These criticisms have varied from the philosophical (White, 2008) to the empirical (Visser, Ashton, & Vernon, 2006), from the conceptual (Jensen, 2002) to the cognitive (Lohman, 1991), with several, further wide-ranging reviews (Klein, 1997).

It should be mentioned that Gardner has been a strong defender of MI Theory, regardless of the nature of the criticisms (e.g., Gardner, 1998). For instance, encountering unfailing criticism of how MI Theory has been used in classroom contexts, Gardner (1995, 1998) has responded that such applications are often based on misinterpretations of the theory, and that misapplication of a theory is not essentially convincing proof of the flaw of a theory.

Theory of Successful Intelligence

The theory of successful intelligence includes four key elements (Sternberg, 1997). The first key element is that “success is attained through a balance of analytical, creative, and practical abilities” (pp. 297-298). According to Sternberg, these three abilities, in combination, are important for success in life. Analytical intelligence is required to solve problems and to judge the ideas. Sternberg believes that most tests of general intelligence are assessing analytical intelligence. Creative intelligence is needed to devise good problems and solutions, and Practical intelligence is required to utilize the ideas and analysis in a successful way in one’s everyday life.

According to Sternberg (1997), a second basic element is that “intelligence is defined in terms of the ability to achieve success in life in terms of one’s personal standards, within one’s sociocultural context” (pp. 296-297). Sternberg states that intelligence testing has first and foremost centered on the prediction of success in an academic setting. The theory of successful intelligence emphasizes the significance of going beyond just the academic sphere to account for success in whatever goals individuals set for themselves. The third element is that “one’s ability to achieve success depends on one’s capitalizing on one’s strengths and correcting or compensating for one’s weaknesses” (pp. 297-298).The fourth basic element is that “balancing of abilities is achieved to adapt to, shape, and select environments” (p. 298). Intelligence does not involve merely adapting oneself to go well with the environment (adaptation), it also involves the ability to adjust the environment to suit oneself (shaping) and, sometimes, to find a new setting that is a better match to one’s skills, values, or desires (selection).

Emotional Intelligence

238|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

Theories of emotional intelligence (EI) are founded on the observation that individual differences exist in the extent to which individuals can reason about and utilize emotions to improve thought (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Since its commencement, EI has been used to cover a range of qualities and concepts, mixing personality traits with socio-emotional abilities (Petrides & Furnham, 2003), producing what Mayer et al. ( 2000) refer to as “mixed models” of EI. This state of affairs has encouraged a variety of critiques of EI, arguing that EI is too all encompassing to have scientific utility ( Locke, 2005).

Multiple Cognitive Mechanisms Approach

Latest evidence recommends that the general cognitive ability factor (g) may not encompass a single cognitive mechanism but instead is supported by multiple, interacting mechanisms that become associated with each other throughout the course of development (van der Maaset al., 2006). Three cognitive mechanisms that have received the most attention are working memory, processing speed, and explicit associative learning. Working memory engages the capacity to maintain, update, and manipulate information in the face of distraction and competing representations. Processing speed involves the speed at which simple cognitive operations can be performed. Explicit associative learning involves the ability to remember and voluntarily recall particular associations between stimuli.

Parieto-frontal Integration Theory

Consistent with the parieto-frontal integration theory (P-FIT), the neural source of intelligence is distributed all over the brain. Jung and Haier (2007) reviewed 37neuro-imaging researches of intelligence including both functional and structural MRI imaging techniques and a variety of measures of psychometric intelligence. They found some uniformity in the brain regions that relate to intelligence. Although Jung and Haier (2007) found evidence that connected areas were distributed all over the brain, they also discovered that brain activations concerning intelligence were mostly in the parietal and frontal regions.

Minimal Cognitive Architecture

Based on Fodor’s (1983), grouping of central processes of thought processing input modules, M. Anderson’s (2005) theory of minimal cognitive architecture puts together general and specific abilities in a developmental theory of human intelligence. In accordance with Anderson, knowledge is obtained through two diverse processing routes. Route one entails “thoughtful problem solving”, displays great individual differences and is confined by processing speed. Anderson (2005) claims that “it is this constraint that is the basis of general intelligence and the reason why manifest specific abilities are correlated (p. 280).” The vital processing mechanism of the first route comprises two processors: verbal and spatial. These two processes should be normally distributed, uncorrelated with each other, and have their own unique explanatory powers.

Dual-Process Theory

239|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

The Dual-Process (DP) theory of human intelligence (Kaufman, 2009) integrates modern dual-process theories of cognition into a theory of human intelligence. By assuming that there exist momentous individual differences in both controlled and automatic forms of thought, the theory classifies a variety of constructs regarding human cognition that are at any rate to some extent distinguishable and exhibit individual differences significantly associated with a wide-range of socially valued intelligent behaviors (Kaufman, 2009).

Key Researches on Intelligence Language Connection

The methodologies of the researches concerning the role of intelligence in first language acquisition usually utilized in studying concept development require over-simplification of concepts to be learned in relation to the demands of school and often engage inductive and sensory modes. Representative studies of this nature include Stern (1965) who studied learning and transfer and a concept rehearsal condition.

Studies of intellectual growth show the role of language in thought processes and concept development and appear to imply the effect of such influence on the consequences of standardized evaluative measures of intelligence. The effect of language on cognitive growth and evaluation has been noted by Hunt (1964) in the intellectual inferiority apparent among so many children of parent slow educational and socioeconomic status, regardless of race. Hunt (1964) describes the children who are apt to have various linguistic liabilities as having perceptual deficiencies in the sense that they recognize fewer objects and situations and have fewer interests than do most middle-class children.

The link between intelligence test, language skills, and environment designates further interdependence. Since middle-class children develop better language skills, they tend to have an advantage in intelligence tests. Since they may be extremely motivated to achieve in school and in academic tasks, they are possibly achieve the goals better in a testing condition than do the lower-class children with less language and less motivation. Although acknowledgment of language development has had an impact on school programs generally, the immense program of improving and enriching the environment of the lower-class child has placed particular emphasis on communicative and cognitive aspects of language in educational activities (Sandel, 1998).

Language can be considered with regard to its association with intelligence to have a primary role in the acquisition of cognitive skills, in the performance of cognitive tasks and in the evaluation of intellectual ability, as well as in its interrelationship and interdependence with intelligence in the development of the "whole child". It can be expected that intelligence as represented by a derived IQ rating will have a influential effect on certain quantitative characteristics of children's oral and written language production (Sandel, 1998).

Conclusion

With regard to current flourishing developments in psychology concerning the modern theories of intelligence, present attempts in the field of first language acquisition is mainly focused on the earlier concepts of intelligence and the extent and nature of their association with first language development.

240|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

There are different views on which aspects of human nature could be a basis for language acquisition. Some (called cognitive theorists) concentrate on the possibility that it is the power of our general intelligence that enables us to discover how language works and to become language users. Others (who could be called social interactionists) are more inclined to see early sociability and opportunities for interactions with people as making language acquisition possible. The Chomskyan position is that the innate foundation for language acquisition is neither general intelligence nor sociability but a capacity specifically for language.

Different theoretical positions are not unthinkingly adhered to. Researchers with a given emphasis — on form or function or interaction or whatever — tend to feel that theirs is the most persuasive and promising approach. However, they generally take some notice of concepts and results from other approaches — and then modify their theories to try to accommodate conceptions that appear to challenge their current positions. This is probably valuable: complex phenomena are more likely to be understood when simultaneously studied from different directions and when not everyone has the same preconceptions.

Probing the current body of research in the field of first language acquisition, few researchers have touched the likelihood of possible connections between modern conception of intelligence, say multiple intelligences theory or the theories of emotional intelligences, and first language development.

This gap highlights future trend of the studies focusing on the link between child language acquisition and intelligence. Numerous studies are needed to shed light on the interdependency of the concepts and modules presented in the aforementioned theories of intelligence and first language development and explore other intellectual facets of fist language acquisition rather the general intelligence g factor.

References

[1] Anderson, M. (2005). Marrying intelligence and cognition: A developmental review. In R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Pretz (Eds.), Cognition & intelligence: Identifying the mechanisms of the mind (pp. 268-288). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

[2] Bruner, J.S. (1964). The course of cognitive growth. American Psychologist, 19(1), 1-15.

[3] Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

[4] Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use, New York: Praeger.

[5] Clark, E.V. (2009). First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[6] Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (2nd Ed). New York: Wiley.

[7] Fodor, J. (1983). The modularity of mind. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.

241|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

[8] Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.

[9] Gardner, H. (1995). Reflections on multiple intelligences: Myths and messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 77, 200- 209.

[10] Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary cognitive achievements: A symbol systems approach. In W. Damon (Editor-in-Chief) & R. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, 5th ed., Vol. 1 (415-466). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

[11] Gardner, H. (1998). A reply to Perry D. Klein's "Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight." Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 23 , 96-102.

[12] Gardner, H. (1999). Are there additional intelligences? J. Kane (Ed.), Education, information and transformation, pp. 111-131, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

[13] Gardner, H. (2006). Multiple intelligences: New horizons in theory and practice. New York: Basic Books.

[14] Horn, J. L., & Cattell, R. B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57,253–270.

[15] Hunt, McV., J. (1964). How children develop intellectually. Children, 11(3), 83-91.

[16] Jung, R. E., & Haier, R. J. (2007). The parieto-frontal integration theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences,30, 135-187.

[17] Kaufman, A. S. (2009). IQ testing 101. New York: Springer.

[18] Klein, P. D. (1997). Multiplying the problems of intelligence by eight: A critique of Gardner’s theory. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 22 , 377-394.

[19] Locke, E. A. (2005). Why emotional intelligence is an invalid concept. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 425-431.

[20] Lohman, D. F. (2001). Fluid intelligence, inductive reasoning, and working memory: Where the theory of multiple intelligences falls short. In N. Colangelo and S. G. Assouline (Eds.), Talent development IV: Proceedings from the 1998 Henry B. and Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development. (pp.219-227). Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.

[21] Luria, A. R. (1966). Human brain and psychological processes. New York: Harper &Row.

[22] Luria, A. R. (1970). The functional organization of the brain. Scientific American, 222, 66-78.

[23] Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology. London: Penguin.

242|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)

ELT VOICES – INDIA February 2014 | Volume 4, Issue 1

[24] Mayer, J. D., Caruso, D. R., & Salovey, P. (2000). Emotional intelligence meets traditional standards for an intelligence. Intelligence, 27 , 267-29.

[25] Mussen, P.H. (1963). The psychological development of the child. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

[26] Petrides, K. V, & Furnham, A. (2003). Trait emotional intelligence: Behavioral validation in two studies of emotion recognition and reactivity to mood induction. European Journal of Personality, 17, 39-57.

[27] Piaget, J. (1958). The child's conception of the world. New York: Humanities Press.

[28] Ramos-Ford, V., & Gardner, H. (1997). Giftedness from a multiple intelligences perspective. In N. Colangelo & G. A. David (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2 ed., pp. 439-459). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

[29] Salovey, P., and Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 9, 185-21.

[30] Sandel, L. (1998). The relationship between language and intelligence: Review of historical research. Retrieved December 5, 2013, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED470647.

[31] Stern, C. (1965). Labeling and variety in concept identification with young children. Journal of Educational Psychology,56 (5), 235-240.

[32] Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence: How practical and creative intelligence determine success in life. New York, NY: Plume.

[33] Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). The general factor of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

[34] van der Maas, H. L. J., Dolan, C. V., Grasman, R. P. P. P., Wicherts, J. M., Huizenga, H.M., & Raijmakers, M. E. J. (2006). A dynamical model of general intelligence: The positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review,113, 842−861.

[35] Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). Beyond g: Putting multiple intelligences theory to the test. Intelligence, 34, 487-502.

[36] Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

[37] Watts, A.F. (1948). The language and mental development of children. Boston: D.C. Heath.

[38] White, J. (2008). Illusory intelligences? Journal of Philosophy of Education, 42, 611-630.

243|ELT Voices – India International Journal|ISSN 2230-9136 (Print) 2321-7170 (Online)