Answering Questions About CEMLA
Addressing Important Questions about the Complex Emergent Model of Language Acquisition
Dear Thinkers,
I am happy to report that the Complex Emergent Model of Language Acquisition (CEMLA) has garnered significant interest since its launch last week. It is a new lens through which to understand how humans acquire language.
Traditional models approach language learning as a series of linear stages with static rules. But CEMLA views it as a complex adaptive system, where linguistic elements interact dynamically, self-organise, and give rise to the emergent properties of language. Using principles of complexity theory, CEMLA captures the non-linear, fluid nature of language acquisition, where understanding emerges through interaction with diverse linguistic input.
Since introducing CEMLA, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. It’s clear that this model fills a critical gap in how we understand the dynamism of language learning. It has also sparked a number of important questions. So before going further into my research and building upon this framework, I felt it pertinent to tackle some of the most pressing inquiries related to how CEMLA interacts with existing linguistic theories.
Specifically, I’ve chosen five key questions that not only reflect external concerns but also challenge my own thinking and research over the past year. These questions cover CEMLA’s relationship with Universal Grammar, input variability, and how it aligns with biolinguistics and other cognitive theories, such as Jerry Fodor’s Language of Thought Hypothesis.
By answering these questions, my goal is to further refine and clarify CEMLA. If, at the end of this article, you find that there are some more pressing questions that need to be addressed, feel free to shoot them to me. I will certainly make sure to cover them in future articles. Rest assured, there is much more to discuss in the coming weeks.
Is CEMLA a Reductionist Framework?
This one’s easy - No. In fact, it is the opposite. In my paper, I propose that CEMLA is deeply rooted in complexity theory, which directly contrasts with reductionism.
Reductionism breaks down phenomena into simpler components, often viewing language acquisition as a series of linear steps or isolated processes, such as learning sounds first, then words, followed by grammar rules, etc. CEMLA explicitly rejects these static, linear models.
CEMLA conceptualises language acquisition as a complex system, where linguistic elements interact in ways that create emergent properties. For instance, learning a single word like "dog" does not just add one isolated piece of information but triggers connections across sensory experiences, emotions, and related words. These interactions form a web of understanding that constantly evolves, demonstrating self-organisation, feedback loops, and phase transitions in language learning.
Does CEMLA Align with Chomsky’s Universal Grammar?
I found many people confused about this in their reviews, and I get why. Many people see UG and reductionism going hand in hand and so assume that since CEMLA is based on Complexity theory, it has to be inherently unaligned with UG. This is a misunderstanding. So let me clarify this in (hopefully) no unclear terms. Also, if you’d like a primer on what UG is, I recommend reading this article that I had written earlier. While I have discussed Chomsky and UG plenty of times across many different articles, this primer that I shared is the best, most concise explanation of UG that I have.
CEMLA aligns with Chomsky’s UG, or at the very least, doesn’t contradict it. I don’t see CEMLA in conflict with Universal Grammar (UG). In fact, I see it as a natural extension to it. UG serves as the starting point, the inherent structure or blueprint that allows humans to develop language in the first place. CEMLA builds on that foundation by explaining how language acquisition actually plays out in the brain.
Without an inherent capacity for language, like the one outlined in UG, it wouldn’t be possible for a complex adaptive system for language to emerge. But having the capacity with minimalistic rules and algorithms doesn’t mean the system is reductionist in nature. So while I completely reject reductionism in the context of language, I do believe that a structured base is essential. Having a base doesn’t translate to reductionism and UG itself, in my opinion, cannot be classified as reductionist.
How can we have a complex system that processes multimodal sensory input and produces language if there isn't some underlying set of rules or predispositions guiding it? Whether we’re talking about modern Large Language Models (LLMs) or the human brain, the principle is the same. Emergence happens when there’s a structured foundation.
Even in its nascent stages, you can already see emergent properties in LLMs. Even so, classifying them as purely reductionist is incredibly uncomfortable. So how then can we expect to reduce human language, which is infinitely more complex, into neat little parts? UG might say that recursive syntax is a universal feature of human languages, but CEMLA shows how and why that recursion emerges, how it strengthens through exposure, and how it fits into the larger network of linguistic connections. CEMLA is about understanding how we get from a set of rules to a fully functional, fluent system through adaptive learning and interaction.
How Does CEMLA Reconcile Input Variability Factor with ‘Poverty of Stimulus’?
So this is the next obvious question and a good one at that. If CEMLA doesn’t contradict UG, how can we interpret it in terms of Poverty of Stimulus? By the way, if you’d like more clarity on The Poverty of Stimulus, suggested by Chomsky, I highly recommend reading this article that I had published on Arkinfo Notes. At the risk of self-publicity, I have to say it is, by far, the most intuitive explanation on the Poverty of Stimulus.
Now coming back to the question, first, let’s define these terms in the context of language acquisition. The poverty of stimulus argument claims that the linguistic input we receive, especially in early childhood, is too limited and imperfect to account for the full richness of our linguistic knowledge. Therefore, proponents of Universal Grammar argue that there must be some innate structure guiding language acquisition.
On the other hand, CEMLA’s input variability emphasises the rich, diverse, and unpredictable nature of the language we’re exposed to, which pushes our adaptive systems to develop robust linguistic abilities.
In my view, there is nothing to reconcile as I don’t see any inherent contradictions here. But if we were to ‘reconcile the two’ in a manner of speaking, then CEMLA starts with the premise that some inherent linguistic structure exists, as we discussed earlier, with Universal Grammar. This inherent capacity forms the base upon which language can emerge. However, CEMLA also emphasises that this base structure isn’t enough by itself. It only sets the stage for the adaptive, emergent process of language learning.
The role of input variability becomes crucial here. While the initial input might be sparse (as per the poverty of stimulus argument), the brain’s inherent capacity is designed to handle this scarcity by leveraging feedback loops, self-organisation, and phase transitions. The brain actively reorganises and strengthens its internal networks as it encounters linguistic input, allowing even minimal input to result in substantial linguistic growth over time.
The key to how CEMLA reconciles these concepts is the brain’s ability to make the most of the input it receives, regardless of how limited or variable it might be. CEMLA posits that even sparse input provides enough variability for the brain’s adaptive mechanisms to generate rich linguistic understanding. For instance, a child might only hear a few examples of a grammatical structure, but through the adaptive process of CEMLA’s feedback loops, these sparse examples can trigger a cascade of interactions within the brain’s linguistic network, leading to a more comprehensive understanding of the structure.
As CEMLA suggests, language learning thrives at the edge of chaos. The richness and variability in the input we encounter, even if it seems impoverished at first glance, forces the system to adapt, reorganise, and strengthen its connections. This doesn’t require perfect, exhaustive input. The brain’s adaptive capacities are capable of filling in the gaps and generating a broader understanding from seemingly limited input.
So, while the input might be sparse, the emergent properties of language learning can still arise. CEMLA proposes that linguistic structures, like grammar and syntax, emerge from the interactions between linguistic elements rather than being explicitly provided in the input. This emergence allows the system to overcome the limitations of the poverty of stimulus.
A child might only hear fragmented sentences or imperfect grammar, but because the brain’s network is adaptive, it can generate the necessary connections between linguistic elements over time. This leads to the gradual emergence of grammatical understanding, even from limited input.
So think of it this way - in terms of variability of input in language acquisition, more is better, but less is not bad. Our brain's ability to self-organise, and emergent properties take care of a lot of these issues for us. It is an evolutionary system, which means it's built to withstand the poverty of stimulus. It thrives on input variability but it survives just as well in poverty of stimulus.
Does CEMLA Align with Traditional Biolinguistics?
Yes, CEMLA aligns well with the core principles of biolinguistics, especially the foundational ideas proposed by Eric Lenneberg, but it does something even better, it actually extends those ideas by integrating a complexity theory perspective. If you are unaware of Lenneberg’s works, reading this article that I had written earlier this year might serve as a good starting point. I have discussed his works and ideas in detail in it.
Lenneberg’s work established the biological foundation of language acquisition, proposing that humans have an innate biological capacity for language, which emerges as a natural outcome of human maturation. CEMLA builds on this biological foundation but offers a deeper explanation of how this capacity interacts with external input to give rise to complex linguistic systems.
Lenneberg believed that language acquisition is tied to brain development, maturing along a predetermined path during critical periods of growth. This fits well with the foundational ideas we discussed in CEMLA, where I acknowledge that there’s a necessary inherent structure, the base, upon which language acquisition builds. Again, there is no problem in having a UG as long as we acknowledge and view human language as a complex emergent system.
The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH), suggested by Lenneberg, argues that there’s a specific window during which language acquisition must occur. During the critical period, the brain is most malleable and adaptive. The brain’s capacity for self-organisation and feedback-driven adaptation is heightened during this period, allowing it to rapidly reorganise and strengthen linguistic connections in response to input. As I mentioned in my previous answer, it is important to keep in mind that language is a complex emergent system, but it is also an evolutionary system. Therefore, evolutionary systems do tend to have critical periods of acquisition as it is a matter of survival of the species. As exposure increases, phase transitions occur, leading to sudden leaps in understanding.
After the critical period, the brain becomes more rigid. Using CEMLA’s model we can understand this as the learning rate (η). Evolution has essentially played its role at this point and given you a language that is functional for the environment you are in. Therefore, priority for its acquisition is naturally lowered and the learning rate goes down.
Lenneberg also argued that language is species-specific, a unique trait of human biology that distinguishes us from other animals. CEMLA is fully in line with this idea. The capacity for language, as seen through both biolinguistics and CEMLA, is unique to humans due to the specific cognitive and neural architectures we possess. So we have no conflict there either.
Is there room for ‘Language of Thought Hypothesis’ in the CEMLA Framework?
This is a sticky wicket. Fodor’s LOTH posited that thinking occurs in a mental language. This is a system of symbols and syntax that represent propositions in the mind. I had written a detailed article on Jerry Fodor’s theory earlier this year. If you are unaware of LOTH, this might be a good primer, especially the last section of the article, where I shared some of my own thoughts on LOTH and Fodor’s approach to language.
According to Fodor, this internal language, or "Mentalese," functions much like any other formal language, with structured rules that govern how thoughts are represented and manipulated.
This is problematic, because LOTH suggests that thinking is fundamentally symbolic and modular. Fodor’s theory depends on structured mental representations that follow logical, formal rules, similar to how language has grammar.
CEMLA is opposed to this line, because it views language not as a pre-structured, modular system but as an emergent property of dynamic networks in the brain. In CEMLA, linguistic understanding arises from the interaction of multiple inputs and adaptive processes rather than from a fixed, symbolic system. CEMLA is more focused on non-linear emergence and feedback loops, where language structure is not predetermined but evolves through exposure and adaptation.
CEMLA rejects the idea that language (or thought) can be fully explained through formal symbols and rules. Fodor’s hypothesis suggests that there is a mental grammar that allows for the manipulation of symbols in structured ways. This aligns more closely with computational models of cognition, where language and thought are viewed as rule-governed, formal systems.
Fodor suggests that modular cognitive systems are responsible for different aspects of thought, where each module processes specific types of information (such as syntax, semantics, or logical reasoning). This modularity suggests that thought and language are segregated into specialised cognitive domains, which work independently.
CEMLA is fundamentally opposed to such rigid modularity. It views language acquisition as a networked, holistic process, where different elements, i.e., grammar, semantics, phonetics, are all interconnected and emerge through interaction. Fodor is a formalist in his approach. CEMLA places heavy emphasis on emergence. The brain adapts to linguistic input through self-organisation and feedback loops, which is the opposite to the formal, symbol-manipulating system proposed by Fodor.
Where LOTH and CEMLA may find some alignment is in their shared belief in cognitive universality. Fodor suggested that all humans think in Mentalese. CEMLA suggests that there are underlying universal principles that guide how language emerges, especially given that CEMLA builds upon the base structure provided by Universal Grammar. But the key difference lies in how this universality is understood. In LOTH, universality is about the formal properties of the mind and how it processes information. In CEMLA, universality is more about the adaptive capabilities of the brain to handle linguistic input.
This is great. CEMLA is here to stay. The framework appears to make a lot of sense and answers amny questions on language acquisition.