Empiricism and nativism

Empiricism and nativism

Empiricism and nativism are two approaches to development that psychologists have argued for a long time. The empiricism approach believes that knowledge comes from sensory experience. On the other hand, nativism claims that people are born with innate knowledge, and it only starts to show up as people grow. I lean more on the empiricist approach because it can be proved in many ways. According to empiricists, a person must see, hear, or touch something to know about it. I believe most of the things I learned through experience, and I came to know them after interacting. For instance, a child will know fire causes pain when she ditches her hand into the fire, or she observes somebody going through pain after he or she gets burned. All these activities involve the sensory experience of touch and sight. Nativists argue that language is an innate force, and it only starts to show itself as a child develops. I believe language is a result of sensory experience as children have to see and hear adults or other children conversing, and start to mimic them. Furthermore, a person develops a language of the surrounding. For example, a U.S child brought up in a French family will learn to speak in French, because it is the language she was introduced to.

The information I have learned about nativism and empiricism can be helpful when it comes to dealing with children. As a supporter of empiricism, I believe that we adults act as mentors for children. They emulate and practice what they see us do and say. For instance, one child might see a particular word as abusive, while another might see it as an ordinary word. The difference can be explained through the experience the children have had. As a result, I believe it is essential to limit our actions in the presence of children because they will copy what we do.

Question

According to nativism, language is an innate force. Why do children adopt the language they first come into contact with?