Psycholinguistic. Language, Mind and Word 2nd Edition Danny Steinberg PDF
Psycholinguistic. Language, Mind and Word 2nd Edition Danny Steinberg PDF
Psycholinguistic. Language, Mind and Word 2nd Edition Danny Steinberg PDF
Second edition
LONGMAN LINGUISTICS LIBRARY
General editors
Second edition
Danny D. Steinberg
Hiroshi Nagata
David P. Aline
First published 1982 by Pearson Education Limited
Second edition 2001
The right of Danny D. Steinberg, Hiroshi Nagata and David P. Aline to be identified as authors of this
work has been asserted by her in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by
any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in
writing from the publishers.
Notices
Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating
and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such
information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including
parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.
To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume
any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability,
negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas
contained in the material herein.
General Editors:
G EO FF R EY H O RRQ C KS Linguistic Theory
University of Cambridge The Discourse 01Fundamental Werks
ROB ERT OE BEAUG RANDE
OAVIO O ENISQ N
Psycholinguistics
Language, Mind and World The Meaning of Syntax
Second edition A Study in the Adjectives of English
CONNOR FERRIS
DANNY D. STEINBERG
HIR O SH I N AG ATA and DAVIO P. AlINE
Latin American Spanish
Principles of Pragmatics JOHN lIPSKI
GEO FFR EY N . LEE CH
A Linguistic History of Italian
The English Verb MA RTl N M AIDE N
Second edition
F. R. PALMER The History of Linguistics
All edited by GIU LlO LE_ SCHY
Pidgin and Creole Languages
SUZA NNE ROM AINE Volume 111:
Renaissance and Early Modem
General Linguistics Linguistics
An Introductory Survey
Fourth edition Volume IV:
R.H. ROBINS
Nineteenth Century Linguistics
ANNA MORPURGO OAVIES
Generative and Non-linear Phonology
JACQUES OURANO
To come:
Modality and the English Modals Volume V:
Second edition The Twentieth Century
F. R. PALMER
Modern Arabic
Dialects of English Structures, Functions and Varieties
Studies in Grammatical Variation ( LIVE HOLE S
PETER TRUD Glll and
J. K. C HA M BERS (eds) Frontiers of Phonology
Atoms, Structures and Derivations
An Introduction to Bilingualism JACQUES DUR A ND and
C H ARlOTT E H Q FFM AN N FRANCIS KATA MBA (eds)
An Introduction to the Celtic The Structure and History 01
Languages Japanese
PAUl RUS$Ell LONE TAKE UCH I
Linguistic Typology:
Greek Morphology and Syntax
A History of the Language and its JAE JUN G SO NG
Speakers
GEOF FREY HOR ROCK$ Problems and Perspectives:
Studies in the Modern French Language
The New Comparative Syntax W ENDY AYR ES· SE NNE TT and JAN I CE
L1L1A N E HAEG EMAN (ed.) (A RRU TH ERS with RO SAlI N D TEM PLE
Contents
Preface xv
List of Tab/es XV11
List of Figures XYl11
Publisber's Acknoioledgements XIX
References 395
Autbors Index 428
Subject Index 437
Preface
Almost two deca des have passed since the first edirion of this book ap peared.
Since then Psycholingu istics has grown so tha t it is difficult for any one
person to acquire the necessary theoretical and research know ledge of each
of its various fields. Even though, berween the first and present editions, I
devored myself to th e preparation of my 1993 Longman book, All Introduction
to Psycbolinguistics, still I fou nd myself falling beh ind. It was my good fortu ne,
therefore, that I was able to secure the assistance of two very capable
psycholi nguists fo r this seco nd ed itio n. Their know ledge and good sense
creates a book su perio r to any which I could have done alone. T hey hon our
me as co-autho rs.
This book, like th e earlier edit ion, is directed towa rds rea ders who wish
to understand the psycho logy of language as it relates to learning, mind and
br ain as weil as various aspects of society and culture, Although the top ics
which are presented are dealt with in depth and invo lve current issues and
research, non ethel ess, little or no specific knowledge of "ny to pic 's
presupposed on the part of the reader; basic terms and concepts are presented
an d discussed before more complex or abstract rnatters are co nsidered. The
know ledge presented in th is volume is intended to bring the rea der to the
hig hest level of understand ing of the topics considered.
We are indebted to Mr J eff Matthews of Naples who not on ly made
substantial contributions to various chapters of the book but was instrumental
in prov iding us with many source materials. W e would like to th ank Professor.
Steven Davis of Simon Fraser Un iversity for his en lighteni ng discussion on
mind and phi loso phical functionalism, Professor Richard Sch rnidt o f the
U niversity of H awaii for his importa nt comrnents on morpheme learn ing,
P rofessor j ulia H ersehen sohn of th e Un iversity of Seattle for her insightful
suggestions on aspects of C ho msky's Universa l Grammar and Professor j un
Yamada o fHiroshima University for his useful comments on my new th eory
of grammar, Natural Grammar. These scholars, it must be not ed, do not
necessarily agree with th e views expressed in the chapte rs,
xvi PREFACE
DDS
Saitama, J apan
l1 September 2000
List of Tables
1.1 T wo-word child utt eran ces and their semantic analysis 9
1.2 How psychological variables explain order of learn ing
of morphemes 12
2.1 Background of Ame rican and Japanese subjects and
number of iterns learned 88
2.2 Results for Kon rad: Summ ary of words, phrases, and
sentences learned 89
2.3 Samp ie of items learned by Konrad over 15-l1lont h period 90
6.1 Psychological factors and social factors affecting
second-language learnin g for children and adults 177
12.1 T he Nature of the ab Lan guage 356
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 and the top illustration in Figure 1 l.l from Tbe COlllbridge
Encyclopedia ofLtmglloge Cambridge University Press (Crystal, D. [987); Figure
2.2 frorn American Sigu LOllgtloge Syntax Mo nton De G ruyter (LiddelI, Scott
K. 1980); lower illustration in Figure 11.1 from Psycbolinguistics: Learning and
Using 0 Langnage Prentice H all Inc. (Taylor, I. and Taylor, M. 1990); Figures
11.2 and 11.3 from Speech and Brain Mecbanisms Princeton University Press
(Penfield, W . and Roberts, L. [959); Figure 13.2 from Linguistic Theory
and Grammatical Description J ohn Benjamins Publishing Co . Amsterdam/
Philadelp hia (Droste, F. G . and j oseph, J. E. eds 1991).
Whi lst every effort has been made to trace the owners of copyright material,
in a few cases this has proved impossible and we take this oppo rtunity to
offer our apologies to any copyright holders whose rights we may have
unwittingly infringed.
This page intentionally left blank
Part
1
First-Language Learning
This page intentionally left blank
1
How Children Learn Language
W e have minds and in our minds we have th e means for producing and
co mpre he nding speech. But how did we learn to produ ce and compreh end
speech? At birth we cann ot co mpre he nd speec h, nor can we produ ce
speech. Yet, by the age of 4 years we all learn th e basics of our Iangu age. W e
acqu ire vocabulary and gramrnatical rul es for creating a variety of sent ence
struc tu res including negatives, questi on s, and relative clauses. And altho ugh
4-year-o lds still have passives and some other elahorate syn tactic struc tu res
to learn, along with a never-ending stock of vocabu lary items, by rhar age
the y will have overcome the most difficult obsracles in langnage learn ing.
T his is tru e of children the world over, what ever the langu age may be.
In deed, the langn age profi cien cy o f the 4- or 5-year-old is often the envy
o f th e adult second-Ianguage learner, who has bee n struggling for years to
rnaster th e langu age. It is one of the fund amental tasks of psych olinguists to
explain how children learn langu age.
For reasons that will becom e appare nt later, we will separa te langnage
learning into two distinct, but related, psychological proc esses: speecb pro-
duaion and speecb comprebension, W e will deal with each in turn and then
co nside r how they are related ,
could be a great dea l of chance invo lved whe n a chi ld searches for the pro per
articulators of speech with whic h to ma ke a sound,
As far as the esrabl ishment of intentional connections is concerned, our
opi nio n is rhat rwo variables domi nate this process, visibiliry o[ articulators
and ease o[ articulation (first pro posed by Stein berg, (982) . When the chi ld
beco mes motivated to produce meaningfu l speech (th is occurs after th e
child has leamed to understand some words whic h ot her peop le say), the
child begi ns to seek ways to produce desired sounds. T he chi ld th cn becomes
alert to ducs rhat relate to the articulation of the speech sou nds.
The child observes where spe ech sou nds come fro m and notes the rela-
tions between sou nds and rhe position of no ticea ble speech articulators,
particularly the mou th and lips (Ku hl & Meltzo ff, 1988; Legerstee, 1990). It
is mainly movements which the ch ild ohserves and im itates, Since no ticeable
mou th and Iip movern ents are prim arily involved in the articulation of certa in
consonants, it is not surprising, therefore, th at childre n ren d to produce
th ese consonants, suc h as Im/, I p/, and I b/, before the others. Consonanr
sound s like the sto ps Ikl and 191 and the fricatives Isl and /z l, whic h invo lve
the movemen t of no n-visible articulato rs, are gene ra lly learned later.
As for vowe ls, since mo st involve th e use of largely unseen articulators,
chil dre n get litt le aid from direct observation. Rather, they must indu lge in
a lot of trial and erro r in order to secu re th e pro per positions for articu lators .
It see ms tha t th ose sou nds whic h are dosest to th e resting pos ition of
articulators, e.g . back vowe1s such as lai (ws rch), are easier to create and are
learned earlier while rhose sou nds which require more motor contro l to
crea te, e.g. a tensed fro nt vowel suc h as Ii/ (feet), are learned later.
However, over and above the op eration of these variables of ease and visib-
ility, th ere is (as first mentioned above) th e im portant one of cbance. It see ms
that children may d iscover hy chance a particular artic ulator-sound connec-
tion, e.g. th e daughter of Leopold (1953), H ildegard, was able to pronou nce
the word 'pretty' with precision yet she was unable to pron ounce other wo rds
com posed of similar sounds, Interestin gly, although th e word 'pretty' was pro-
nounced accurat ely at first, over time, as her pronunciation of words de-
veloped, the pronu nciation of tha r word dereriorated . Tt seems that if a word
is to be reta ined, the chance discovery of an articul ator-sound con nection must
be followe d by its incorporation with in th e overall develo ping sound system.
because the precise determination of just when a word has been learn ed is
not easy to make and is not standar dized .
T he mere utterance of speech sounds, e.g. ' rnama', may or may no t ind ic-
ate word knowledge. Childre n can be said to have learn ed their first word
when (1) they are able to utter a recogniza ble speech form, and when this is
done (2) in conjunction with some object or event in the enviro nment. T he
speech form may bc imperfect, e.g. 'da' for 'daddy', and the associated meaning
may be inco rrect, e.g. all people are called 'd a', but, as long as the child uses
the speech form reliably, it may be concluded that the child has acquired
some sort of wor d know ledge .
First words have been reported as app earing in childre n from as young as
4 months to as old as 18 months, or cven older. O n the average, it would
seem that children ut ter their first ward areund the age of 10 months, Som e
of this variability has to do with physical developrnent, such as the musculat-
ur e of the mouth , which is essentia l for the proper articulation of sounds.
Cerrain brain development is also involved since the creation of speech
sounds must come und er the control of speech areas in th e cerebral cortex
(Bares, Thai, & j anowsky, 1992).
T he naming of objects is one of the first uses to which childre n put
words, e.g. 'rnama' is said by the child when the mother walks into the roo m.
H owever, naming may be preceded by wor ds which accompany actio ns,
such as ' bye bye' in leave-taking (Greenfield & Smith, 1976).
Ir appears th at children first use noun s as proper nouns to refer to specific
objects (Moskowitz, 1978), after which they may or may not extend the mean-
ing correc tly for common nouns (E. C lark, 1973). For example, while 'dada'
may first be used to identify one parti cular person, it may or may not be
exten ded to includ e all men or all peop le. O r, 'wow-wow' llIay be used to
refer to one dog, and the n be extended to refer to all animals, soft slippers,
or people in furs. In time, of course, th e prop er restr ictions and extensions
are learn ed.
Child utterance Mature speaker utterance Pur pose Semantic relations (expressed or im plied)
Want coo kie. I want a coo kie. Requ est (Experience r)-State-Object
More mil k. I wan t so me more milk. Requ est (Experiencerj-Stare -Object; Quantificatio n
J oe see. I (Joe) see you . Inforrning Experiencer-S tate-(Object)
My cup. T his is my cup. Warni ng Possession
Mommy chair. T his chair belo ngs to Mommy. Warning Possession
Mommy chair. T his chair belo ngs to Mommy. Answer to Q uestion Possession
Mommy cha ir. Mommy is sitti ng in the chai r. Answer to Q uestion Location
Big boy. I am a big boy. Braggin g Attrib ution
Red car . T hat car is red. Naming Attribution :I:
T hat car. T hat is a car, Naming Equation o
:E
No sleep . I don 't want to go to sleep. Refusal Experiencer-State-Negation n
:I:
Not tired. I am not tired. Refusal Experiencer-State -Negation r-
Where doll? Wher e is th e doll? Q uestion Location Cl
;0
m
Truck table. T he tru ck is on the table. Info rming Location Z
D add y run. D addy is ru nning. Informing Agent-Action r-
m
Joe push. I (Joe) pushe d th e cat . Informi ng Agent-Action-(Obj ect) :>
;0
Push cat. I pushed th e car. Informing (Agentj-Action-Objecr z
r-
G ive candy. G ive me the candy. Requ est (Agen t)-Action- Receiver-O bject :>
z
Cl
c
:>
Cl
m
co
10 PSYCHOLI NGUIST ICS
The morphemes in the top thi rd of the table are undoubtedly qualit-
atively different from the morphemes in th e bottom third of the table. The
summary ratings reflect that intuition. This being the case, we can conclude
th at the th ree variables provide a general explanatio n for the learning or der
of morph emes.
grearer the semantic complexity, the slower will be the learnin g (all other
thin gs being equal),
2. Wby are Plural and Possessive learned before Tbird Person? Since all three
regular morphemes of the Plural, Possessive, and T hird Person Singular are
suffixes which have exactly the same sound forms, for example, 'dog/zl'
(Plural), 'Bob /z/' (Poss.), and 'sing/z / ' (Third Person), all end with /z/. In
facr, the three forms of each suffix for each morpheme are exactly th e same,
/s /, /z / , and / iz/. The selection of these suffixes is governed by the sarne
sound conditions (the final sound of the word), Since the three different
morphemes have exactly the same sound patte rn characteristics, the reason
for thei r differential acquisition order must be due to factors otber tban the
sound system; these facto rs are Observability and Meaningfulness.
T he Plural and Possessive are much more involved with observable and
meaningful referents for the child than the Third Person Singular. T hese
[wo morphemes involve physical events, siruations, and objects that are readily
observed in the environment, e.g. for the Plural the child can easily distin-
guish one versus [wo cookies and one versus [wo or more cats, while, for the
Possessive, the child can easily distinguish his or her toys from ano ther
child's toys. T hus th ese are morphemes whose referenrs are easily noticeable
and, in addition, involve referents which are highly meaningful to the child.
T he T hird Person morpheme, on the other hand, involves th e noting of
a singular T hird Person referent , a much less obvious kind of object, being
defined by a more abstract relationship. T he child rypically must pick up the
use of the abstract first and second person (speaker-Iistener) relationship
(I and You) before making the Other (non -speaker, non-hearer) distinction.
We call this an 'abstract' relationship because the '1' changes on the basis of
who is speaking, and the 'You' changes according to who is listening. T he
Person role is more abstract than the unchanging concrete objecrs which are
named in the Plural and the Possessive.
Further more, the idea of T hird Person presupposes prior awareness of
the Plural morpheme because the T hird Person is on ly applied in th e singu-
lar case ('T he boy uiants candy' but 'T he boys tuant candy'.) T hen, too, the
T hird Person serves little to advance communication since even witho ut
it the child can und erstand the speech of others and can be perfectly under-
stood when he or she speaks. T he learning of the Third Person is thus
a formidable task when contrasted with the relatively simple morp heme
aspects of plurality and possession.
3. Wby is Past Irregular leam ed before Past Regzdar? Since the idea of past
is involved with both the Past Irregular and Regular forms, the explanation
for the order of acquisition of these [wo types of past forms must lie other
than in O bservability, i.e. noting that a certain sound indicates th at what is
being said concerns an event which occurred in the past. T hat leaves the
othe r [wo variables: Meaningfulness and Sound Signal. Before we focus on
these variables, it will be instructive to compare th e verb forms of the present
tense with those of the past, for both Irregular and Regular verbs:
18 PSYCHOLING U ISTIC S
If one says these pairs alo ud it will be obvious that th e sound ehanges
fro m Present to Past are mu eh more no tieea ble for th e irregular verbs th an
for th e regu lar ones , T he soun d suffixes of th e Regular Past forms are Itl
( jumped), Idl (jogged), and l id l (wantedi), with the first (Wo (/tl and /d/)
being especia lly hard to hear. Sinee asound differenee must first be notieed
and bro ug ht to atte ntion before it can be learn ed, we woul d expee t th e very
noti eeable irregular forms to be learn ed faster, and th at is th e ease. So , th e
So und Signa l is a erucia l vari able here. H owever, Meaningfu lness is also
at work here beea use, although th e regu lar ver bs are mo re nu merous, th e
ir regular ver bs tend to be highly im po rta nt ones in everyday life. T hese are
th e so-ea lled 'strong' vcrbs of E ng lish. T his extr a mean ingfulness gives th e
irregu lar fo rrns an additio na l boo st in th e proeess of learning, whieh is
why in T able I.2 the Past Irregu lar is given a High on Meaningfulness bur
th e Past Regul ar is on ly given a Medium. But th is is not th e who le story.
Beeause th e irregula r verbs are the most eommo n ones in everyday Iife, th ey
tend to oee ur mo re frequentl y (as ind ividu als) tha n the regu lar verbs. This
higber frequency ofoccurrence o f irregul ar ver bs would also serve to make these
verbs easier to learn. Then, too, there is a wild eard operati ng here whe n we
eo mp are th e Irr egular with the Regul ar Past. T he Irregul ar involves the
learning of a nu mb er (unspecified) of spe cial words for the past forms. T he
Regular, however , in volves th e learning of a rule. We are likely to think that
learn ing a ru le is more diffieult th an learning a number of single wo rds,
This, th en , is ano the r variable to th ro w into the predietion equation.
Fro m th e examp les given above, it is clear th at th e three cornrnon psyeh o-
logieal learn ing variables of Referent O bserva bility, Referent Meaning fulness,
and distin etiven ess of Sou nd Signa l adeq uate ly serve to explain th e learning
of various morphe mes and th e o rder in whieh they are learne d. Fre que ncy
of oeeurre nee operates too but only with in th e eonfines of th e th ree det er-
mining varia bles. See Gi llette, G leitman, G leitma n, and Lederer (1999) for a
reeen t eonsideration of obse rva bility as pro viding an informational eue on
voca bulary learning.
Negation deuelopment
Before presenting some of the acquisition data concerni ng negation, it may
be useful to review some of the fcarures of the negarion process. Let us
consider some sente nces and their negations.
I. Affirmative:Kim is hungry.
I. Negative: Kim is not hungry.
Kim isn't hun gry.
2 Affirmative: Kim
I. wanted some candy.
2 Negative:
I. Kim did not want any candy.
Kim didn't want any candy.
Features of negation
In learn ing to produce these negations, the child must learn a number
of different things. In considering these fearures, let us make negative the
affirmat ive sentence of:
Kim wanted some candy,
I. Where to insert the negative marker.
(a) If the verb is 'be', then NEG is placed after rhe copula 'be' form . T hus,
'Kim is NEG happy' becomes 'Kim is not happy'.
(b) If the verb is not 'be ', then 'not' is placed before the verb. T hus,
fonn ed as the y were in the previous period (''No0 play that' ('Don' t play with
that'), 'No fall' (' Don' t fall': in one interprerationj ).
Period 3. 'Paul can't have one', 'This can't stick', 'I didn't did it', 'You
didn 't caught rne', 'Cause he won't talk', 'Donna won't let go', 'I am not a
doctor', 'This not ice crearn', 'Paul not tired' , 'I not hurt hirn', 'I not see you
anymore', 'Do n' t touch the fish', 'Don'r kick my box'.
In this thi rd period, the period before perfecr negatives are formed , the
copu la 'be' and the modal 'will' appear with negatio n and imperative negat-
ives are fonned with 'do' rather than th e simple negative (' Don't touch the
fish' as opposed to 'Touch the snow no' in earlier periods) . The child now
has a goo d idea of when 'do ' must be inserte d ('You didn' t caught me' , 'I
didn't did it', 'Don't kick my box') and when 'do' is not inserted ('I am not
a doctor ', 'Donna won' t let go') . T he child still makes errors but seems to
grasp the basic notion th at 'do' is not added when th ere is a modal ('can ',
'will': 'This can' t stick [adherer]', 'Donna won't let go') or when 'be' is th e
verb ('I arn not a doctor '), The children's rnastery of negation at this period
is nearly complete. Only a number of relatively rninor problerns, such as
assignment of tense to AUX ('You didn 't caught me', 'I didn 't did ir'),
rernain to be resolved. In th e forrner case the child seems to be confused
about the morpheme structure of 'caught' as 'catch + PAST ' prob ably be-
cause it is an exception whose present form is 'catch', In the latter case, the
child may have confused th e 'do' of the main verb with th e 'do' of AUX.
After th is period, it is only a matter of months before most of th e prob -
lems in negative marking are successfully dealt with, altho ugh children may
rnake occasional mistakes for years after . (The first author observed such
occasional errors in the speech of his 5-year-old niece along with errors in
other morp hemes involving exceptions.)
T he Klima and Bellugi contention that the negative rnarker first appears
outside of the utterance and then makes an internal shift in the second stage
has been criticized by some. In a srudy of children other than the three in
the data used by Klima and Bellugi, Bloom (1970) found that most of th e
utterances in which negation occurs in the initial position could be traced to
a denial of a previous adult utterance. Thus, instead of ''No 0 doll sleep' being
a single sentence indicating 'doll is not sleeping', as per Klima and Bellugi's
analysis, the utterance is regarded as ''No o. Do ll sleep', where the ''No
0' is con-
sidered as a separate response indicating, for example, "That is not correct',
T he whole utterance may then be interpreted as rwo sente nces, in effect,
'That is not right, T he doll is sleeping.'
Drozd (1995) similarly argues that th e utterance initial negation rnarker
can often be explained in context as exclamatory negation. For exarnple, a
child's utterance such as 'No Na thaniel a king' in response to his moth er's
teasing hirn about his [Nathaniel's) behaviour with 'Is 'No athaniel a king?'
could just as easily be explained by understand ing the negation as 'It's not
tru e that I [Natha niel] am king' or in (Wo sentences, 'It's not tru e. N athaniel
22 PSYCHO LI NG UISTICS
is not king.' N ath aniel's respo nse also could be unde rstood as ' Do n't say
arhani el is a king' . H op efully, furt her research will be able to provide a
'No
resolutio n of this issue.
With regard to progress th rough the period s of negation, Klima and Bellugi
found th at the three children in th eir study all took abour six mo nt hs to pass
throu gh all th ree periods. T here were great ind ividual differences, however,
as to when they first began to use the negative (the first period): one of the
chi ldren began as early as 1 year 6 months of age, while the ot hers didn't
begin until they were 2 years 6 months. T he child who began earliest reached
Peri od 3 by 2 years , while th e others reached that same period around
3 years 6 mon th s. Such a difference dramatically demonstrates how vast
individual differences may be in the acquisition of speech . O ne child may
be uttering only single-wor d utterances at 24 months, while anothe r may be
pro ducing elaborate sentences. On the other hand, when they do start, most
seem to pass throug h a similar qu alitative sequential patt ern of development .
Yes-No questions
The formation of Yes-No quesrio ns involves the same basic syntactic con-
siderations as in the formation of negatives. Declarative sentences which
have a copula 'be' , mod al, AUX, etc. must have th at item in th e front of
the sentence in a qu estion (Yes-No questio n Type I). For example,
'J ohn is a very tall boy' and 'ls J ohn a very tall boy?'
Here, copula 'be' is fron ted.
' Bobby can go to th e store' and 'Can Bob by go to the sto re?'
Modal is fro nted.
'M ary is singi ng now ' and 'Is M ary singing no w?'
AUX is fro nted.
In th e case of a lone verb (not a cop ula, no modal or AUX), AUX 'do '
must be added. And furt her , as in t he negative, the tense shifts from th e ver b
to th e AUX (Yes-No question Type 2). For exarnple,
'Kim wanted some candy' and 'Did Kim want allY candy?'
AUX added to front, tense shifts to AUX , lexical concor d,
HOW CHILOREN LEARN LAN GUAGE 23
WH questions
T he WH que stion is so-called because of the similarity of the initial sound
of the various question word s: who, what, wbere, when, how, why, etc, In a
sense \VH words are PRO (reduced substitute) form s since they are form ed
by substitu ting the phra se which is targeted for questioning with an appro-
priate \VH word . T he WH word is always placed ar the beginni ng of the
sentence. As the following example sent ences show, making \VlI questions
involves a high degr ee of comp lexity which th e child must recogn ize and
inte rn alize:
' Tbe girl jump ed on the tab le' and 'Wbo jump ed on the table?'
WH for Subject N P.
'The girl hit tbe boy' and 'Wbo(m) did the girl hit ?'
WH for Obj ect 'No P.
'The baby is on the table' and 'Wbere is the baby?'
\VH for Pr ep Ph rase of Location .
'The monkey will be 01/ the table? become s 'Wbere will the monkey be?'
M odal fro nte d to follow \VH .
'T he monkey is sitt ing on tbe table' becomes 'Wbere is the monkey sitti ng?'
AUX fronted to follow "VH .
T he acquisition of question form s follows a basic pattern for children
(Klima & Bellugi, 1966; McNeill, 1970; Cazden, 1970). Interestingly, chil-
dren take the easy way and begin the pro ductio n of question s not th rou gh
the use of sentencc structu rc but by using inton ation. This is natu ral since in
hearing a sentence witho ut knowin g its meaning it is thc into nation pattern
that dom inates one 's att ention . The first period of question acqu isition is
thu s marked by the use of rising intonation, which may bc used with sing le
words or with phrases, such as 'Sit chair?', 'Ball go?', and some set ph rases
with 'whar' and 'where' , 'What's th at?', 'Where coo kie?'
The next phase consists of the use of Wl-l questions which are simply
tacked on to the beginning of an utteranc e in a similar pattern to nega-
tio n: 'Wbere my mittens?', ' H?1Jy you smiling?' , ' Wb at he can ride in ?', ' fVby
kitty can't stand up?' At th e same time Yes-No T ype 1 fronti ng is used,
'Will you help me?', as weil as Yes-No Type 2, 'Did I caug ht it?', 'Does lion
walk?'
T he final stage consists of the gradual emergence of tag questi ons with ,
at first, no negation on the tag, e.g. " He'1l catch cold, will he?' and then the
final emergence of the co rrect form , e.g., 'We had fun, did n't we?'. T hc full
form is usually acquired by the time children are 4 years old (Brown &
H an lon , 1970).
The order of acquisition of \VH wo rds follows a predictable sequence.
Typically, 'whar' and 'where' are learn ed first, with 'why' app earing next,
and then 'how' and 'when' (M. Smith, 1933; Tyack & Ingram, 1977). T he
order described here is usually explained as one of cogn itive growth on
the part of the child from th e co ncrete to the abstrac t; 'what' and 'where'
24 PSYCHOLINGUI STICS
referring to concrete entities and 'why', 'how', and 'when' to abstract concepts
such as motive, manner and time.
Ho wever, cognitive growth may not be the only factor affecting this order
since studies in second-Ianguage acquisition (Felix, 1976; Lightbown, 1978)
purport to show that older children who would have already developed both
rhe concrete and abstract concepts in their first language nonetheless acquire
the WH question forms in the same order in the second language! Bloom,
Merki n, and Wootten (1982), however, argue against this order, c1aiming
th at what is more likely to be operating here is the relationship of WH
forms to the verbs which th ey appear with. The WH words learned earliest
('what' , 'wherc', 'who'), they say, appear with verbs like 'be' and 'do', while
WH words learned later ('why', 'how', 'when') appear with descriptive verbs.
The learning of WH words may thus be related to learning the use of
certain types of verbs. T his may be true, but the order of WH word acquisi-
tion mayaiso lu ve to do with abstract or concrete concepts. A combination
of effects is quite possible.
There is also always the danger that the researcher will ascribe too much
knowledge to the child. T he child Illay not only be producing language
through use of grammatical rules, but also may be using other strategies
such as memorized chunks of language. For example, in the Bloom et al.
(1982) data, 'what' and 'where' often appeared in what might be considered
unanalysed chunks ('What's that?', 'What (X) doing?', 'What happened?',
'Where (X) go?'). O n the other hand, 'why' and 'how' did not appear to be
used as unanalysed chunks. Perhaps it is the frequent use of unanalysed chunks
that accounts for the earlier acquisition of 'what' and 'where' by children.
above, and may not be complete until the age of 11. Limber (1973) analysed
the emergence of these forms as they began to appear around the age of 2
or 3 years. Almost all of these complex forms consist of clauses thar are
attachcd to the end of utrerances, e.g, 'I want Bill to go'. Only much later
da clauses appear wirhin the utterances, e.g. 'T he man who lives bere is gone'.
Initially, object complernents such as 'I wanna go bome' appear. (An object
comp lement consists of the object plus anoth er verb.) Although the verb
'want' seerns to be the most comm on at this stage, as can be attested to by
any parent, othe r verbs also take corn plements. For exarnple, utterances such
as 'Watch me draw cirdes' and 'I sec you sit down' occur around the same
time. However, the verb 'want' is used in a wider range of const ructi ons and
may serve as a guide for children as they add other verbs to their vocabulary
that must follow similar rules.
Later, WH-dauses appear with abstract adverbials ('Can I do it toben
tue get bomei '). It is interestin g that the adverbs 'when', 'where', and 'how'
emerge before th e noun s that they rep lace. For example, one child produ ced
the sentence 'I show you where we went' with the adverb of place 'where'
about one mont h before producing 'I show you the place we went ' in which
the N P 't he place' is used instead of the adverb of location 'where' . Limb er
argues that this occurs because producing a sentence using adverbs like
'where' is less complex than one using ' the place' and hence the Wl-l -adverb
will tend to appear earlier. However, if one takes a meaning-based view
of gram mar, the WH-adverb is not likely to be a PRO fonn in the first
place, Rath er, phrases like 't he place', 'th e time', and 't he way' are lexical
realizations which derive from these ' VH fonns and thus occur much later
in sentences.
Ve,-b problems
Carol Cho msky (1969) found that some complex gram matical struc tu res
may not be acquired until quite late, even at the age of 10 or 11 years. She
looked at the application of the Mi nimal Distance Principle (MDP)
(Rosenbaum, 1967). When children use the M DP, they somet imes apply it
inco rrectly depending on the verb in the main clause. For example, in the
sentence "[obn told Bill to sbouel the driveway' it is clear to children that Bill
will do the shovelling. On the ot her hand, in a sentence such as 'John
promised Bill to shovel the driveway', children apply the same strategy and
assign the shovelling task to the d osest noun 'Bill' when they ought to be
inte rpreting the meaning so that it is J ohn who will do the work.
Another verb which causes the same problem is 'ask', Childre n ofte n
canno t distinguish berwccn the sentences 'I asked Mary what to do' (where
'I' is the subject of 'do') and 'I told Mary what to do' (where 'M ary' is the
subject of 'do'), In the beginning, 'ask' and 'tell' are not differentiated. T he
rwo verbs can becom e differentia ted, however, when a WH-dause is used;
to 'Ask Peter the colour of the doll's dress' children give th e answe mstead
HOW CHILDR EN LEARN LA NGUA GE 27
of asking for the answer, but to 'Ask Peter tobat colour this tray is' they do
properly ask a question. There is confusion too betwecn 'ask' and ' tell' with
Wll-clauses where the subject does not appear; the child responds to both
as ' tell'. Thus, for examp le, we have the following interchange (C . Chomsky,
1969, p. 57):
It is c1ear that between the ages of 5 and 10 children are still m the
process of learning the more complex aspects of their Ianguage .
T hus far, we have been focusing on the chi ld's development of speec h
production. Now we would like to focus on th e child's develo pment of speec h
comprebension, When, for example, does the und erstandin g of speec h begin
and how does it relate to prod uction ?
listening preferences of th e neo nate (newborn baby) for the mother's voice
and for th e language th e moth er spo ke while pregnant.
DeCasper and Fifer (1980) reco rded mother s reading a story, T hen th eir
3-day-or-younger infants were given a pacifier connected to a computer
which would play recordings of the moth er' s voice or of another woman's
voice. A high rate of sucking on rhe pacifier would activate the playing of
a moth er's voice. Comparing chan ges on the sucking rate with the infant 's
baseline rate, the researchers found th e infants sucked more in order to activate
the tape with their moth er's voice than to hear th e voice of anothe r woman!
T he requirement was then change d so that the infants had to suck ar a
louier rate th an normal in order to hear th eir mothe r's voice. T he infants
quickly changed to slower rates , thus demonstrating th at they could distin -
guish the sound of their moth er's voice and that of another wo ma n, Locke
(1993), however, suggests tha r the learning of the mother's voice may acru-
ally have occurred, not prenata lly, but with in the first 12 hours after birth
when the moth er was talking to th e newborn. Since the measurements were
taken after the 12-hour period, this could weil be the case. If so, then the re
may not have been any prenata l learning.
It is worth mentioning that even if a fetus could hear sounds from th e
outside world, those sounds would have to be th rough the medium of
a liquid in th e fetal sac. T hat being the case, speecb sounds are virtually
indistingu ishable. How much, for example, in ter ms of speech sounds, can
one hear when one is underwater in a pool? General sounds are all tha t
come through, euen toben YOIl knot» the !allgllage. Wh ile th is may be enough
of a basis for a fetus later to distinguish among different voices, it is certa inly
insufficient for identifying speech sounds.
Cbristopber No/an
Christopher Nolan is an Irish writer of some renown in the English lan-
guage. Brain damagcd since birth , No lan has had little contro l over the
muscles of his body, even to the extent of having diffi culty in swallowing
food. He rnust be strapped to his wheelchair because he cannot sit up by
himself. Nolan cannot utter recognizable speech sounds.
Fortunately, though, his brain damage was such that Nolan's intelligence
was undamaged and his hearing was normal; as a result he Iearned to under-
stand speech as a young child. It was only many years later, though, after he
had reached 10 years, and after he had learned to read, that he was given a
means to express his first words. He did this by using a stick which was
attached to his head to point to letters. It was in this 'unicorn' manner,
letter-by-Iett er, that he produccd an entire book of poems and short stories,
Darn-Burst of Dreams (N olan, 1981), while still a teenager. (He was born in
1965.) T his was followed some years later by an autob iographical book,
Under the Eye of the Clock (Nolan, 1988), also written in the letter-by-letter
mode. Nolan's writing is of such quality that it has been compared to the
works of Yeats and Joyce. It was for Under the Eye of the C/ock that 'No olan
received the prestigious Whitbread Award for Biography in 1987. For an
Irish man to receive this British prize was a further mark of the esteem in
which his work was held.
Anne McDona/d
Co incidentally, the fi rst author came across another case similar to 'No
No lan's
while reading the Neui Y01·ker magazine (Specter, 1999). It was that of Anne
30 PSYC H O LI NG UISTIC S
McDonald, another remarka ble person . She was born in Austra lia in 1961,
but du e to brain darnage duri ng birt h Mc Donald has never been able to
control her muscles and speech articulators. H er hearing was fine th ough .
Like Nolan she too has to be strapped to a wheelchair; she uses an elaborate
comp uter device on her lap for issuing recorded messages.
At 16 years of age Mc Donald weighed only 28 pounds (about 13 kg) but
it was at that time that her life changed . Fr iends too k her to an arr gallery
whe re for the first time she discovered art and was 'transfixed by the Ma tisses',
her friend said. De spite her hand icaps, this wornan was then motivated to
study the Philosophy of Science and Fine Ans at th e University of Me lbourne .
She later published a book and continues to write.
Rie
Rie was a litt le J apanese girl whom the first aut hor had the opporrun ity to
study while he was a visiting professor at H iroshim a University back in the
1970s. From bir th Rie was mute, except for being able to utter rwo weakly
whispere d sounds, roughly lil and l ai . Such sounds were not used in any
communicative fashion. In ce ntrast to the conditions ofNolan and Mc Donald,
however, Rie's other rnotor skills appea red normal. She could run and jump
and, when th e firsr aut hor rnet her at th e age of 3 years, could even ride a
tricycle. While Rie pro bably had some sort of brai n darn age to the motor
area of speech, the exact cause of her mu teness was not known.
O n being teste d for her ability to compre hend speech, Rie could respond
appropriately to such complex com mands (in j apanese) as 'Put the red paper
und er the table' and ' Bring rne the little do ll from the other roo m' . H er level
of speec h comprehension was similar to that of other 3-year-olds.
Rie was 3 years old when, wit h a graduate student in psychology from
Hiroshima Un iversity, the first aut ho r began a project to teach her to read
j apanese (Steinberg & C hen, 1980). T he pur pose of the research was to
demonstratc th at you ng mute childr en could be taught to read . After being
given reading instruction for about 10 minutes per day, Rie learn ed to read
over a period of nine months nearly 100 different kanj i words (kanji being
the j apanese version of C hinese characters). Rie ind icated the meanings
of the written words by point ing to objects or by making some behaviouraI
response.
C learly, like Nolan, Rie learned to compreh end speech and even to read
in the absence of any ability to pro duce speech.
many years later, at the age of 30, that Fourcin's subject was provided with
a means for expressing language, a special typewrit er . Almost irnmediately,
on learn ing the mechanics of the typewriter, the person began to communic-
ate by typi ng out grammatical sentences!
Conclusion
Persons who are mute but hearing can develop the ability to comprehend
speech toitbout their being able to produce speech, so long as their basic
intelligence is intact. But how are such people able to comprehend the
sente nces that they do, given that such sente nces reflect the essential char-
acteristics of langua ge, i.e. comp rehension of an unlimited number of novel
grammatical sen tences, recog nitio n of synonymy, of arnbiguity, etc.P (See
Chapter 12 for a detailed descrip tion of such characte ristics.) The answer
must be that these mute persons developed a grammar, a mental gramml/l'
based 011 speecb comprebension, that enabled them to understand the speech to
which they were exposed!
Is the same true for no rmal children ? Let us now consider this question .
T he H uttenlocber study
Hutten locher (1974) studied four young childre n, aged 10 to 13 month s,
over a six-month period and found that they were able to comprehend
speech at a level beyond th at to which th ey had progressed in pro ductio n.
T he children were able to select familiar objects such as 'bottle' or 'dia per'
which were named for them and were able to respond appro priately to
com mand s even though they did not use such words and structures in their
own speech . O ne boy, for example, respon ded appro priately to such dis-
tinctions as 'ba by's diaper' and 'yo ur diaper', and 'baby's' bettl e' and 'your
bottle' (the 'baby' referred to here is the boy's younger sister) . Even if, as
In gram (1989) not es, a scrambled word or der should also have been tested,
th is would not change the interpretation of the outcorne, For it is a fact
thc boy did give approp riatc responses to combinatio ns, combinations which
involved comp lex possessive distinctio ns which he himself had never used
in speech.
truck! Obviously the childre n's level of speech comprehension was weil in
advance of their level of speech producn on.
A child may not even answer and run away. Whi le this in itself does not mean
that the child has not understood, the researcher does not get the desired data.
One method of testing understanding used measuring event- related
porentials (ERPs) in which electrodes are positioned on the child's head so
as to measure electrical activity in the brain in response to language input.
Another method, one used by Hirsch-Pasek and Golinkoff (1991, 1993), has
followed children's visual preference by observing which of two video screens
they warch in response to a specific language stimulus. If the child prefers
the video screen displaying an action which corresponds to the sentence
34 PSYCHO LING UISTICS
th e child has heard , they argue th e child has shown some comprehe nsion
(Go linkoff & H irsch-P asek, 1995). Very indirect data but quite sugges tive
no nerheless,
a parrot can learn as much or more than apes! For deta ils see C hapter 4 on
animals and language learning.)
Speech comprehension precedes and is th e basis of speech production.
How could it be the orher way? It is unimaginable for a person to have the
ability to produce speech without having the ability to comprehen d speech
(or any ot her physical mode of expression - sign, touc h, writing). While we
know of peop le who can comprehend speech without being able to produce
it (the cases of Nolan, Rie, etc. above), the reverse situation does not exist,
T his is necessariiy so and could not be ot herwise for two reasons : (I) A
learner must firsr hear speech sounds before the person knows what sounds
to make, and (2) A learner must hear the speech sounds in coordination with
the experience of objects, situations, or events in the environ ment or the
mind befor e the person can assign a meaning to the speech sounds.
1.4.1. Parentese
During th e 1960s, C homsky's theori zing about inn ate language knowledge
had a dampenin g effect on the study of experie ntia l input, both langu age and
enviro nmental, with respect ro the learn ing of langu age. A sort of mystical
aura do minated the field. Language was not 'learned' bur somehow mysteri-
ously 'acquired'. Typical of views at the time was that of the language philo-
sopher, J erry Fodor. At a talk at th e Un iversity of Hawaii in 1965 (which
the first aut hor attende d), he suggested that a child could learn language
simply by being exposed to sentences, with little or no necessity for relevan t
enviro nmenta l stimuli (objects, events, situations),
T he speech of parents and others was not considered to be special in
assisting the child in learnin g language. A similar view was voiced by McNeili
(1966):
Research has since shown, however, that the natu re of the speech and
environ mental input which children receive is essent ial and is often con -
trived to assist language learning. For example, children who have the mis-
fortu ne to have been exposed to language mainly th rough television or by
overhearing adults ' conversations do not acquire significant language know-
ledge (Todd, 1972; Snow, Arlmann-R upp, Hassing, ]obse, ]ooksen, & Vorster,
1976).
Parentese (coined by the first author in Steinberg, 1993, p. 22) is the sort
of speech th at children receive when th ey are young. Pare ntese is also re-
ferred to as 'Motherese', 'caregiver speech', 'Adult-to-C hild Language' (ACL)
(Reich, 1986), and as 'C hild-Directed Speech' (CDS) (Pine, 1994). All of
these terms take into consideration th e fact that th e child receives input
from many sour ces - mother, father, siblings, relatives, friends, etc, ( N wokah,
1987; Bavin, 1992) - and that such input has speciallinguis tic characteristics.
Grammaticality of input
Ge nerally, the speech directed to children is highly grammatical and sirn-
plified, Ungramm atical sente nces arc found to occur but rarely. Newport
(1975, 1976), for example, in a long-term study with 15 mo the rs, reports an
incidence of only one ungrammatical utterance in 1500 in their speech. Such
grammatical consistency undoub tedly is useful to the child who is searching
to discover the strucrures which underlie sente nces, These research findings
are not perhaps surprising, and they lend evidence against Chomsky's claim
that children learn language despite being exposed to a high proportion of
'dege nerate' sentences (Chomsky, 1967b). Incidentally, Chomsky used this
claim to support his th eory of innate language knowledge, arguing that a
perfect grammar could not be learned fro m irnper fect data , unless inna te
language ideas were available to assist acquisition. (See Chapter 10 for more
details on C homsky' s arguments and our counter-arguments .)
1977a; Seitz & Stewart , 1975), such as 'The dog wants water' as oppose d to
'T he dog which has been runn ing a lot wants to drink some water'.
control through directives and imperatives (Andrews & Bern stein-Ratn er,
1987), and use more difficult vocabulary (Bernsrein- Rame r, 1988).
T hese differences suppon th e 'Fa the r Bridge H ypoth esis' (Berko-Gleason,
19 75) which sta tes th at the child is for ced to make mor e adjustme nts roward s
the father' s speec h such that these adjust me nts direct th e child towards more
complex use of speech as he or she must make grea ter cha nges in orde r to
co mmunicate . This draws the child away from the simplified speech used in
interaction with rhe moth er towards the complex speech employed by the
speech comm un ity in which the child will live. T he refo re, the father's dif-
fere nt style acts as a brid ging device between th e dose child-mother COl Il -
rnunication and communication with o the rs.
Vocabulary
M ost Baby T alk involves modificati on s in vocabulary. There are already
established words like 'bow-wow' (dog) , ' pee-pee' (urine), and 'choo-choo'
(train) in Eng lish and, in J apan ese, 'wan- wan' (dog : the standard word for
which is i1l11), 'shee -shee ' (urine : the sta ndard word is nyoh), and 'bu-bu' (car:
the standa rd words for which are jidosha or kuruma). From such examples,
we can see th at th e main sound structure of such words tend s to be domi n-
ated by a Conso nant + Vowel syllable unit which is often repeated (redu-
plicated). Som etim es it involves a d osed syllable as in 'wan-wan' . T his
sound struc ture o f Baby T alk wor ds, [C + V + (C)] x N (where'Nocan be any
num ber), is corn mon to languages around th e world.
Ano ther co nstruction prin ciple for many Baby Talk wor ds is that they
are supposed to re present th e sounds which various th ings make, i.e. they
are on ornatopoeic, Thus, English ' bow-wow' and J apanese ' wan- wan' are
apparend y sirnulations of th e barkin g o f dogs, J apanese ' bu-bu' is supposed
to be the sou nd made by a car engi ne, and English 'choo-choo' the sound
made by a train, The fact that such asound as 'choo-ch oo' in En glish is
meant to ap proxi rnate ro the largely extinct ste arn locom otive bo the rs
40 PSYCHO LI NGUIS TICS
neither parent nor child. H ere the word has becom e an entry in standard
Baby Talk vocabulary.
Besides standard Baby Talk voca bulary ('sta ndard' in the sense that the
item has already been coined and accepted by othe rs), it is not uncomm on
for a family to create and use its own wor ds, wo rds which are not used
outs ide of the family. Often these words derive fro m mispronoun ced words
which their child pro duces. For example, in atte mpting to imitate th e word
'vo mit', one child said 'vompo', After that the parents used 'vompo' instead
of 'vomit' in talking to th e child. Sometimes a few such vocabulary ite ms
migh t be retai ned by pare nts for senti me ntal reasons, occasionally to the
later embarrassment of the child when it is grow n.
In English Baby Talk, it might be men tioned in passing, it is common to
add th e sound / iy/ to words ending in a co nsona nt, e.g. 'birdy' for bird,
'horsy' for hor se, 'kitry' for kitte n. T his provides the vowel for th e comp le-
tion of th e paradigm atic Consonant + Vowel syllable. Since the /iy/ suffix
also serves a diminutive and affectio nate function in English, this also helps
to promot e its usage.
Syntax
Syntax plays a less prom inent ro le in Baby Talk tha n does vocabulary. Parents
seem only occasionally to use Baby Talk syn tax, When they do, their utter-
ances are strikingly similar to th ose in the child ren's telegraphic stage of
speech production. A moth er might say, for example, something like 'Mommy
give T on y banana' instead of th e syntactically pro per 'I will give you a
banana'. In such an utterance, neither the mo dal 'will' nor the article 'a' has
been includ ed. And the names 'Mommy' and 'Tony' have been substituted
fo r the more difficult perso nal pron ouns '1' and 'you '. Substituti ng prop er
names for personal pron ouns is a commo n featu re of Baby Talk which is
not usually found in speech berween adults (Elliot, 1981). Certainly, fixed
prop er nouns are easier for the young child to und erstand than are items
involving shifting speaker- listener relatio ns. It is later that the child learns
to cope with the speaker-listener complexities of '1' and 'yo u' , Such proper
narn e substitutions, it sho uld be noted, also occur in Parentese and thu s are
not solely features of Baby Talk.
beneficial to some degree for the child in learning language (see next section).
Certainly, there is no good reason to think of it as being harrnful. T hat most
parents (and grandpare nts) derive special enjoyment from using Baby Talk
with their children might weil serve to reinforce the social solidarity of
parent and child.
A caution should be added here regarding the regular use of nonsense
talk and mumblings to the child. It may be used for fun, but only occasion-
ally, since it does little to further language learn ing.
I. 'No heavy' and 'No th e suns hine ', regarding th e N egative, and
2. 'When we can go?' and 'He is doin g what ?' , regarding th e Q uestion .
T hey cannot be imitating such speec h because no one says th ese things for
the chi ld to copy.
Clearly, chi ldren have formulated ru les in their minds according to which
they const ruct novel utterances, T hey learn the P LURAL morphem e and
the PAST ten se morph erne and then app ly those to new cases. T his works
when the new words are regu lar, such as har/ hats and fish/fishes, and carry/
carried and push /pushed . H owever , when the new word is an exception, the
child must learn th at it is an exceptio n and no t apply th e ru le. T his explains
why th e child pr oduces PLURAL words like 'she eps' and 'mo uses'.
What are re ally im eresting are th e cre ations tha t th e child rnakes with th e
PAST regular rule: 'goed ', 'comed', 'falIed' , 'breaked '. T ypically before the
PAST ru le was learn ed, the child had already learn ed many of the PAST
irregular forms, especially go/wem and come/ca me. T he power of thc PAST
rule is so streng th at th e formerly learn ed irregular past forms of 'wem' and
'ca me' are disrcgarded or confused. Sometimes th e child will even produce
forms like 'wen tcd' and 'camed'. T hus, the child typ ically slips back and
loses some of th e earlier learn ed past irregular forms . T he child has then to
rclearn the rn,
The same thing happens with sente nce ru le learning as in 'No heavy' and
'When we can go? ' Again, these are not utt erances that the ch ild can imitate
because no one says them. T he child devclops rules in the mind and th en
HOW CH ILDREN LEARN LANGUAGE 43
uses th ose ru les to make th ese novel creatio ns. These rules are so powerful
that th ey strongly control th e child's ourput,
In th is regard, consider th e following anecdote cite d by Mc Ieill (1966,
p. 69; emphasis ours):
While som e pro gress was achieved (the '5' on 'like'), th e major con cern o f
th e mother , rhc occurrence of rhe auxiliary 'do', was not perc eived by th e
child as needing correctio n! The child was applying the Insert AUX 'do' rule
as he usually did, T his rul e had so powerful an influence on his speec h that
it even affected his listening ability: he was unable to beco me aware that the
mother was not saying the word 'don't'! Actua lly, th e child did not know
that since 'nobody' is th e negative of 'somebody', English does not crea te a
negati ve struc tu re by adding AUX .
Morpheme and st ruc ture rules are learned by childre n and when th ey are,
they may stro ngly affect production . Undo ubredly the prop er form s can be
understood when such fo rms are spoken to th e child. Ir is a different matter
however for the child to Iearn the restric tive application of such rules.
utterance and that of the parenr, (2) determine what the nature of the error
is, and (3) figure out a way to perrnanently change his or her grammar or
strategies so that it yields the paren r's utterance in the future. T his is quite a
burden for a child, so much so th at the child typically ignores the attempr
at correction. T he alternative of telling the child whar the nature of the
problem is would, of course, be absurd, e.g. 'Now,Johnny, because "Nobody"
is already negative, you don't add "do" and a negative marker in front of
the verb.'
Most parents are not interested in the ungrammaticaliry of the utterances
of their children. Rather, they are more interested in the truth value, social
appropriateness, or cleverness of what their children say. A child who says, 'I
no broked it' when she did commit that act will not receive a grammatical
correction such as 'You should say, "I didn' t break it" ', bur more likely will
receive a scolding for lying. Similarly, a child who says to a visiting aunt,
'Mommy no like you' will be given a scolding not on grammaricality but on
good manners. Conversely, the child who notices that her dog is unhappy
on a hot day and then says, 'D oggie want drink ' will not be corrected for
grarnmaticality but will be praised for her perceptiveness.
When acquir ing the meanings of words, children begin with the concrete
and go on to the abstract, T hey begin with physical objects ('mama', 'dog',
'ball', 'table') and direct actiuities (' run', 'jump', 'play', 'give') then move to
relations and statiues ('on', 'sitting'). Soon following will be words involving
mental experiences and relations ('hungry', 'hurt', 'happy', 'want') which then
yield such utterances as 'Mary hurt', 'Jo hn thirsty' and 'Kirry wanr eat'.
Later come complex abstract ideas ('I' (speaker), 'you' (listener), 'tru th', 'lie',
'honest', 'guess', 'hope', 'idea', ' thoughr').
But how are these learned, especially the complex and abstract ones?
Whil e simple association is sufficient for an itern such as dog where the
speech sound 'dog' is associated with the object 'dog', complex hypothesiz-
ing needs to be employed for learning the words for feelings and concepts
since these are not in the physical environment for the child to directly
observe. T he child must make inferences from what people say, and on the
basis of what happens in the environment and the mind, Such learnin g at
firsr glance seems to be so mysterious as to be almost magical, yet the fact is
that children da learn such words. As scientists we must try to explain how
such learnin g occurs.
For exarnple, how mighr the words ' hungry' and 'hurt' be learned? First
the child must take note of when such words are spoken by others and the
situations in which they occur. The child mighr cry and the moth er might
HOW CHI LOREN LEARN LAN GU AGE 45
then say, 'Are you hungry?' T he mother says this because the mother guesses
what the child's internal state might be, based on when the child last ate,
for instance, If the child has the feeling of hun ger, the child may then
guess (after some repeated instances) that 'h ungry' refers to what he or she is
feeling. Or, the child might point to a banana and th e mother might say
in response, 'Do you want a banana?' and the child might get the meaning
of 'want'.
Co nsider 'hurt' . Perhaps the child falls and is bruised on the knee. T he
father might say, 'Poor girl. Does it hurt?' T he child's feeling of pain might
then be associated with the word 'hurt'. O r, on receiving an injection with
a syringe, the child cries, and the father says, 'Ir hurts, doesn't it? Poor
child.'
Ir is up to the child to remember what words were spoken, e.g. 'hungry'
and 'hurt' , and to relate them to part icular feelings thar the child has experi-
enced in the mind, 'hunger' and 'pain', After a number of such instances
where certain words (spoken by others) and certain feelings are experienced
together, the child will have enough information to make a guess at which
sound form relates to which feeling. When the child then experiences fur-
ther instances, the child can test whether he or she is correct, i.e. whether
the sound form of 'hungry' relates to the feeling of hunger and the sound
for m of 'hurt' relates to the feeling of pain. (See Gillette et al., 1999 for a
considered discussion on how verbs of mental experience, e.g. 'think', 'know',
and 'like', can be learned.)
Words like 'lie' (falsehood) and 'guess' must also have particular environ-
men tal situa tions and mental states for the child to bring together. T hese
will be more difficult to identify than feelings because they involve pure
(no n- feeling) ideas, T he child will have to make logical inferences from
complex situations in order to extr act such ideas, For example, suppose after
telling his mother something which he knows is untrue, 'I didn't hit her',
the little boy's mother might say angrily, 'Thar's a Iie!' Whar the litt le boy
must do to discover the meaning for this sound form of 'Iie' is to recall the
intention and what he knew in his mind before he said what he said. He
knows thar what he said ('I didn' t hit her') did not correspond with what
had actually happened before in the world (he did hit her). On ce he has
this siruation in mind, the boy can assign a meaning to the sound form of
'lie', thereby learning the meaning of the word 'lie'. He comes to realize that
the discrepancy betwecn what he says and the siruation or event in the world
is the meaning of the sound for m / lai/, arid then assigns this concept to the
sound form. Wheth er this hypoth esis is accurate or not is something the
child will test when he hears the word 'lie' again.
Regarding hypothesis testing, the third author recalls an interesting and
illuminaring personal experience. W hen Davy was about 4 years old, he
once accidenrally bro ke one of his rnother's favourite larnps. When his moth er
angrily asked him, 'Did you do that by accident or on purpose?', Davy had
46 PSYCHOLINGUI STICS
(0 make a choice. Since he knew the meaning of 'by accident' but not 'on
purpose', and he knew that an accident was something bad, he figured that
'o n purp ose' must be the bett er of the two alterna tives, so he spoke up and
said, '1 did it on purpose.' A bad choice. Wh ack to his rear end!
C hildren are forever hypoth esizing about the speech that they hear and
seeking confirmatio n about their hypoth eses. As we see by this exarnple,
confirmation can come in many different forms!
Even though the conn ection may be made berween the sound form and
the idea, it takes time for the child to learn the full range and restrictions of
the word in relation to the concept. Braine (1976) foun d that the child's first
use of a word was restricted to specific circurnstances. For example, the child
might use ' hurt' only when referring to his or her own pain ('Hurt knee'),
and only later expand the concept to pain feit by others ('H urt cat') . As a
word is experienced in other contexts, the child will expand its contexrual
use as he or she makes compa risons berween the new situation in which the
word is used and the old situations stored in memory.
The use of rnetaph or (00 will help children to comprehend abstract
con cep ts. The Lakoff and Johnson (1980) book, Metapbors W e Live 8y, is
very suggestive as to how children could learn abstract meanings by hearing
meraph or ical usage, altho ugh this is not the int ent of the book. For example,
a child hears his father tell hirn, 'I' m glad you saw the light', after the child
has told the truth about something he had been lying about. The child hears
the word 'light' used in this special way for the first time and tri es to guess
ar the intend ed meanin g. Considerin g the situation and the ordinary mean-
ing of light, the child hypoth esizes that it may mean something like the right
way or the correct thin g to do.
1.7.1 . Memory
U nderlying all of the remar kable accomplishrnents of the child in language
learning is one crucially irnportant psychological factor, that of memory.
Fo r, in the course of learnin g to identify the words of the language, devising
rules for their use, and relating speech to the environment and mind, the
child utilizes a phenomenal memory capacity. The child must remembe r a
multitude of particular words, phrases, and sente nces, along with the con-
texts, both physical and mental, in which they occurred. Such data provide
the basis for struc tu ral analyses and the acquisition of vocabulary.
If children did not rememb er many of the words, phrases, and sente nces
they heard, they would have linl e basis for discovering abstract meanin gs
and mies. The various syntactic struc rures that were mentioned and discussed
HOW CH ILO REN LEA RN LANG UAG E 47
earlier, negation for instance, require that the child remember previously
experienced negative sentences. If the child cou ld not remember negative
sentences th at had been experienced previously, the child would have nothin g
with which to compare a presently occurring sentence, and thus could not
make significant inferences as to its structu re, W ith out a good memory,
language learn ing would not be possible.
Aside from the common observation that children often remember, word
for word, sto ries which th ey are told, children also learn a host of idioms
in phrase and sentence form . T here is no reason, therefore, not to believe
that childre n also store in memory a multitude of ordinary phrases and
sentences, which can serve them for analysis later. Children as young as
8 months begin to remember words. T his was dernonstrated by the infants'
preferen tial listening patt erns to words heard in children's stories which
were read to them (Jusczyk & H oh ne, 1997). The infants turned their heads
more towards th e sound of the words that had occurred in the stories than
towards unfamiliar words. Such a prodigious memory capacity, it is worth
notin g, is not unique to language. For in many other areas of life - in
rememb ering faces, objects, music, past events, and vast quantiti es of know-
ledge in a variety of fields - th e extent of a child's memory is similarly
remarkable.
Two basic types of memory operate in language learnin g: associatiue
lenrning, where a connection is form ed between an object and th e sound-
form name of that object, and episodic memory (Tulving, 1983), where whole
events or situations are remembered along with phrases and sentences that
others have spoken. Such types of memory are essential for determining the
semant ics of syntactic structures such as the Negative, Qu estion , etc., and
for the development of politeness. In th is latter regard, particular words and
struc tu res must be associated with various degrees of politeness in various
situations. T he child must learn that when talking to an adult , 'Wo uld you
please give me another cookie?' is fine, but that 'Give me another cookie' is
not . Similarly, asking an adult, 'How is your child?' is fine, but ' How's your
kid?' is not.
1.7.2. Logic
In learning language, the child must use both induction and deduction in
the analysis of words and senten ces and the formulation of grammar and
strateg ies.
objects are being talked about. T he children then formulate a rule in their
mind s. This rule is tested when the children hear other sente nces uttered by
the mature speakers. T his type of analysis, where (I ) there is a search for
characteristics in speech, and the n (2) those characteristics are related to
objects, siruations, and events, represents the essence of the use of inductive
logic. An abstract rule or principle is gleaned on the basis of acrual data.
The fact that Tom responds to Rose's simple declaration, 'You have more
than me!' by giving her some cookies indicates that T om und erstood her
argum ent . H e did not consider her sente nce as simply stating a fact. Bot h
childre n understood the logical argument implied by Rose's sta terne n t,
Such an advanced level of conceptual development may sur prise many of
us, especially some Piagetian theorists, who, relying on such limit ed notions
as 'conservation', believe that deductive logic develops after the age of 6 years
(Piage t & Inh elder, 1969). A proper language analysis, such as the one
above, demonstrates that age nor ms for the development of deductive logic
must be drastically revised downwards, As for inductive logic, norm s have
yet to be established, but they surely would have to be below th e child's
second or first year.
T hen, too, according to Piaget, intelligence has its basis in the child
performi ng actions with respect to objects in the world . H ere, also, Piaget
was mistaken. Such actions are not essential to the developm ent of intelli-
gence or language. As we noted earlier with the cases of virtua lly paralysed
persons like Nolan and M cDo nald, their lack of such behaviour did not
prevent th eir developm ent of inteIligence and language.
The 1- and 2-year-o ld child is quite an inte llecrual marvel whose thinking
powers should not be und erestimated .
HOW CHll DREN lEARN lANG UAGE 49
Notes
1. T he term experiencer is used differently frorn many theori sts here. \ Ve use it
as indicating a sentient being which experiences states or ideas, A receiuer is
an experiencer who is affected by an action,
2. Regarding Brown's naming of the first morph eme acquired as Present Pro-
gressive, it should probably be termed simply Progressive because only the
'- ing' suffix appears. However, the Present is implied in the child's utter-
ance because the child usually talks abour the here and no w , The auxiliary
'be' which goes along with the Progressive does not appear until much
later. Ir is for this reason thar Present is marked off with parenth eses.
References
Table of Contents
Adelm an, H. (1970). Learni ng to read in the classroom. The Reading Teacber, 2, 28.
Alber t, M . L., & Obler, L. K. (1978). Tbe bilingual brain: neuropsychological and
neurolinguistic aspects 0/ bilingualism . N ew York: Academic Pres s.
Alexand er, L. G . (1978). Mainline beginnen. London : Lon gman.
Andrews, V., & Bernstein-Rarner, N. (1987). Patterns 0 / maternal and patemal
response to language-Iearnen' uerbalization. Paper pre sented at th e Arnerican
Speech and H earing Association Convention, N ew Orl eans.
Anth ony, O . (197 1). Seeing essential English. Anaheim, Calif.: Educational Services
Di vision , Anaheim U nion H igh School District.
Anton y, M . V. (1994). Against function alist theories of consciousness. Mind and
Language, 9, 105-2 3.
April, H. L., & H an, M . (1980). C rossed aphasia in a right-h anded bilingual
aphasie man. Archives 0/ Neurology, 37, 34 1-6.
Ard rey, R. (1970). The social contract, New York : Deli Pu blishin g.
Armst rong, O . M . (1968). A nutterialist throry 0/ m ind. New York: Humanities Press.
Asher, J. (1966). T he learning strat egy of the total physical response: a review,
Modt171 Langtlflg e J OU/71al, 50, 79- 84.
Ashe r, J. (1969). T he total physical response approach to second Ianguage learn ing.
M odt171 Langtlflgr J ou17lal, 53, 133- 9.
Ashe r, J. (1977). Learning anotht1' langtlflge through actions: tbe complete teacber's
gtlidebook. Los G atos, Calif.: Sky O aks Prod uctions.
Asher, J., & Garcia, R. (1969). The optimal age to Iearn a foreign languag e,
M odern Langt/age J ou17lal, 53, 334- 4 1.
Asher, ]., Kusudo , J. A., & Oe La T orre, R. (1974). Learn ing a second Ianguage
throu gh commands: the second field test, Modt171 Langt/agr J ou17lal, 58, 24-32.
Ashto n-W arner, S. (1963). Teacber. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Askov, M ., O tto, W ., & Smith , R. (1972). Assessme nt of the de-Hirsch predictive
index test of reading failure. In R. Auker man (ed.), S011le persistent questums on
beginning reading. N ewark, DeI.: Intern ational Reading Association.
Au, T . K. (1983). C hinese and Engli sh counterfacruals: the Sapir-Whorf
hypothesis revisited. Cognition, 15, 155- 87.
Ausubel, D. (1964). Adults versus children in second- Ianguage learn ing. Modt171
Langt,age Jou17lal, 48, 420 -4.
396 REF EREN CES
Bain, B., & Yu, A. (1980). Cognitive conse quences of raising childre n bilingually:
o ne parent, o ne langnage . Canadian J oum al of Psycbology, 3414, 304-13.
Baker, c., & Prys j on es, S. (1998). Encyclopedia of bilingualism and bilingual
education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingu al M attc rs.
Bancroft, W . J. (1972). T he psycho logy of Suggestopedia o r learn ing witho ut
stress. Tbe Educational Courier, February, 16 -1 9.
Bancroft, W. J. (1978). T he Lozanov method and its American adaptations.
Modem Lallguage J oum al, 6214, 167- 75.
Bares, E. (1979). Tbe tmergrnce of symbols: cognition and communication in illfnllCY,
New York: Acade mic Press.
Bares, E., & M acWhinney, B. (1982). Function alist approa ches to grarnmar .
In E. W armer & L. R. Glei tma n (eds), Langunge acqnisition: tbe state of tbe
art (pp . 173 -21 8). Ca mbridge : Ca mbri dge U niversity Press.
Bares, E ., T hal, D ., & J anowsky, J. S. (1992). Early language developrn en t and its
neu ral corr elates. In I. Rapi n & S. Segalowitz (eds), Handbook of neuropsycbology,
Vol. 6: Cbild neurology (pp. 69- 1(0). Amsterda m: Elsevier .
Bavin, E. (1992). T he acquisi tion of W alpiri as a first langu age. In D . I. Slobin
(ed.), Tbe crosslinguisticsmdy of"mguage acquisition (pp, 309-7 1), Vo l. 3.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlba urn Associates,
Beernan, M. (1993). Semantic pr ocessing in the righ t hemisphere may cont ribute
to d rawing inferen ces fro m disco urse. Brain and Language, 44, 80-120.
Beem an, M . (1998). Co arse serna nt ic coding and discourse co mpre hension. In
M . Beernan & C. Chia rello (eds), Rigbl bemispbere lallglrage comprebension:
perspectiue from Co?,tlilive neuroscience (pp, 255- 84) . M ahwah , NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associa tes.
Beem an, M ., & Chiarello, C. (eds) (1998). Rigbt bemispbere Inllgaage comprebension:
perspeaiuesfrom cognitiue neuroscimce. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bell, A. G. (1883). Upo n a me thod o f teach ing langua ge to a very young
co nge nitally deaf child. American Annals of tbe Deaf and Dumb, 2813, 124- 39.
Bellu gi, U ., & Fischer, S. (1972). A eo mparison of sign language and spo ken
langu age. Cognition, 1, 173- 200.
Bellugi, U ., M arks, S., Bihrle, A. M ., & Sabo, H . (1988). Di ssociation between
langn age an d eognitive funetions in Wi lliams syndro me. In D. Bishop & K.
M ogfo rd (eds), Lallgaage deuelopment in exceptional cirC1l111s1011ccS (pp. 177-89).
London : C hurchill Livingstone .
Bellugi, U. , Wang, P. P., & J erni gan , T. L. (1994). W illiams synd rome: an
unu sual neu ropsychological pro file. In S. Bromart & J . G rafina n (eds), A typical
cO?,tlitive dejüit in deuelopmental disordert (pp. 23-56). Hil lsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlba um Associates ,
Benson, D . F., & Patten, D. H . (196 7). T he use of radioactive isotopes in the
localization of aphasia-producing lesions. Cortex, 3, 258 -7 1.
Ben zaquen ,]., Gagnon, R., H unse, C; & Fo reman, J. (1990). The in trauterin e
sound enviro nme nt of th e hum an fetus du ring labor. AmericanJouma l of
Obstetrics and GJIlecology, 163, 484 -90.
Bereiter, c., & Enge lman n, S. (1966). Teacbing disadvamoged cbildren in tbe
prescbool. Engl ewoo d C liffs, NJ: P renti ce-Hall,
REFE RENCE S 397
Berenbaum, S. A., & Hin es, M. (1992). Early androgens are related to sex-typed
toy preferences. Psychological Science, 3, 203-6.
Berkeley, G . (1710/ 1952). A treatise concerning principles o[ buman klllfWledge.
Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica.
Berko-Gleason, ]. (1975). Fathers and other strangers: men's speech to young
children. Georgetoum University Roundtable on umgnage and Linguisties.
Washington, DC: Georgetown Un iversiry Pr ess.
Bernstein, B. (1960). Language and social class, Britisb J 01ll71al of Sociology, 11,
271-6.
Bernstein, B. (1961). Social structure, language, and learning. Educational Research,
3, 163-76.
Bernstein-Ratn er, N . (1988). Patterns of parental vocabulary selection in speech to
very young children . J oum al o[ Cbild u l1lguage, 15, 48 1-92 .
Bert oncini, ] ., Mo rais, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., McAdams, S., Peretz, 1., & Mehler, J.
(1989). Dichotic perception and laterality in neonates. Bmin and Language, 37,
591-605 .
Besson, M ., Kutas, M ., & van Petten, C. (1992). An event-related potential (E RP)
analysis of semant ic congruity and repetition effects in sente nces. J oum al o[
Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 132-49.
Bever, T . G . (1970). T he cognitive basis for linguistic stru crures. In J. R. H ayes
(ed.), Cognition and tbe deuelopment oflanguage (pp. 279-362). New York: Wi ley.
Bialystok, E. (1979). An analytical view of second language competence: a model
and sorne evidence. Modern Language Jonmal, 63, 257-62 .
Bialysto k, E. (198 1). Some evidence for th e integrity and interaction of two
knowledge sourees. In R. Anderson (ed.), N eui dimensionsin secend langt,age
acquisition researcb (pp. 62- 74). Rowley, M ass.: New bury H ouse.
Bickerton, D. (1990). Lmlgt/age and species. Chicago: University of Chicago Pr ess.
Biegelow, E. (1934). School progress of underage children. Elementary Scbool
J oumaI, 35, 186- 92.
Birdsong, D . (1992). U1timate attainment in second language acquisition.
Language, 68, 706-55.
Bishop, C. (1964). T ransfer effects of word and letter training in reading. J oum al
of Verbal Learning and Verbal Bebauior, 3, 215- 21.
Block, N . (1978). Troubles with functio nalism. In C. W . Savage (ed.), Perception
and cognition: issues in tbe pbilosopby of SciC1lCC ( pp. 261-325). Mi nneapo lis:
University of M innesota Press.
BIoDm, A. H. (1981). Tbe linguistic sbaping o[ tbougbt: 0 study o[ tbe impaa o[
langt/age on tbinking in China and tbe West. H illsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates,
BIoDm, L. (1970). Langtlllge deuelopment: [orm and [unaion in elllerghlg grammars.
Cambridge, Mass.: M IT Press.
BIoDm, L. (1973). One word at 0 time: tbe use o[single word utterances before SJIItax.
T he H ague: Mouton.
BIoDm, L., Lifter, K., & H afitz, J. (1980). The semanties of verbs and the
developmen t of verb inflections in child language. Langt/age, 56, 386- 412.
BIoDm, L., M erkin, S., & W ootten. }, (1982). Wh -Qu estions: linguistic factors that
contribute to the sequence of acquisition. Cbild Deoelopment, 53, 1084-92.
398 REFERENCES
Bloom, R. j., Mull ins, j., & Paternostro, P. (1996). C hanges in processing
adverbial conjuncrs throug hout adulthoa d. Applied Psycbolinguistics, 17/1, 105-1 6.
Bloomfield, L. (1942/ 196 1). Teaching chiJdren to read. In L. Bloom field & C. L.
Harn hart (eds), Let's read. Detroit: W ayne Stare University Press, 1961.
(Original work published in 1942.)
Blount, B. G . (1972). Parental speech and language acquisition: some Luo and
Samoan examples. An tbropologica! Linguistics, 14, 119-30.
Bochner,] . H., & Albertini, ] . A. (1988). Language varieties in the deaf population
and their acquisition by children arid adulrs. In M . Strong (ed.), Lnngunge
learnin g and deafn ess (pp. 3- 48). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bollenbacher, j. (1959). Mu rphy-Durrell reading readiness resr. In O. Buros (ed.),
Fifth mental measurement yearbook (pp. 778- 9). Hi ghland Park, NJ: Gryphen
Press.
Bongaerts, T., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1995). Can late Iearners attain a native
accent in a foreign language? A test of the critical period hypothesis. In
D. Singleton & Z. Lengyel (eds), The nge[actor in secend Inngllnge acquisition
(p p. 30-50). Clevedon, UK: Mu ltilingual Matters.
Bongaerts, T ., van Summeren. c., Planken, B., & Schils, E. (1997). Age and
ultimare attainrne nr in the pronunciation of a foreign language. Studies in Second
Lnngllnge Acquisition, 19, 447- 65.
Bonvillian, j. D., Orl ansky, M . D., & Novack, L. L. (1983). Developmental
milestones: sign language acquisition and motor development, Cbild
Deuelopment, >4/6, 1435- 45.
Bostwick, M. (1999). A m,,1y of an elementary English langt/nge immersion sehool in
J npnn. U npublished doctoral disserration, Temple U niversity, Philadelphia.
Botha, R. P. (1989). Chnllmghlg Chomsky: tbe gme,-ntive gnrdm gnme. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
Braine, M . D. S. (1963). The antoge ny of English phrase strucrure: the first ph ase,
Langllnge, 39, 1-1 3.
Braine, M . D. S. (1971). The acquisition of language in infanr and child. In
C. Reed (ed.), Tbe learning ofInngunge (pp. 7- 96). N ew York: Appleron-
Ce ntu ry-Crofts.
Braine, M . D. S. (1976). C hildren's first word cornbinations, M onograpbs of the
Societyfor Researcb in Cbild Deuelopment, 4111. C hicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Braine, ,'11' . D. S. (1992). What sort of innate strucrure is needed to 'bootstrap' into
syntax? Cognition, 45, 77- 100.
Brandt, M. E. (1974). Rending readiness redefined. U npublished MA thesis,
U niversity of California: San Francisco.
Brannon , E. M., & Terrace, H. S. (1998) Ordering of th e numerosities I to 9 by
monkeys. Science, 282, 746-9.
Brooks, N . (1964). Langt/nge and Inngllnge learning. Ne w York: Ha rcourt Brace &
W orld.
Brown, A., & Smiley, S. (1977). Rating the irnportance of str uctural units of prose
passages: a pro blem of metacognitive development, Cbild Deuelopment, 48, 1- 8.
Brown , H. D. (1987). Principles of Inngllnge leam ing and tenehing (2nd edn),
Englewood Cliffs, Nj: Prentice H all.
REFER ENCES 399
Cha lme rs, D. J. (1997). An exchange with David C halmers . In J . R. Searle (199 7),
Tbe "'ystN) of consciousness. New York: T he New York Review of Books.
Chary, P. (1986). Aphasia in a multilingu al society: a preliminary study. In J . Vaid
(ed.), Lmlgllage processing in bilinguals: psycbolinguistic and neuropsycbological
perspectiues (pp. 183-97). Hi llsdale, H.J: HLawre nce Erlbaum Associates ,
C hastain, K. (1969). T he audiolingua l habit theory versus the cognitive-code
learni ng theory: some theoretical considerations. International Review of Applied
Linguistics, 7, 79-106.
C hastain, K. (1971). T he audio-lingual habit theory versus the cog nit ive-code
learn ing theory: some th eoretical con sidera tion s. In R. C. Lugt on &
C. H . Heinle (eds), Touiard 0 cognitive approacb to second-languag« acqnisition
(p p. 111- 21). Phil adelphi a: The Cente r for Curriculum Developm ent.
Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. (1982). H ow vervet mon keys perceive their
gru nts : field playback cxpcriments. Animal Bebaoiour, 30, 739- 51.
Cheney, D . L., & Seyfarth, R. M . (1990) . Hm» monkeyssee tbe world: inside tbe mind
ofanotber species. C hicago: Chicago University Press.
C heyd leur, F. (1932). An experiment in adult learn ing of Fre nch at the Madison,
Wi sconsin Voca tional School. JOllrnal of Edncational Research, 4, 259- 75.
C hiarello, C. (1998). On codes of meaning and the meaning of codes: semantic
access and retrieval withi n and between hemisph eres. In M . Beeman &
C. Ch iarello (eds) , Right bemispbere langllage comprebension: perspectiue from
cogtlitive neuroscience (pp . 141- 60). Ma hwah , N) : Lawrence Erl baum Associates.
C hiar ello, c., & Beeman, M . (1998). Introduction to the cogni tive neuroscience
of right hernispher e language comprehension. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello
(eds), Right bemispbere lallgttnge comprebension:perspettiuefrom cognitiue
neuroscience (pp. ix-xii). Ma hwah, N): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
C hihara, T., & O ller , J. (1978). Attitudes and attained pro ficiency in EFL: a
sociolinguistic srudy of adult j apanese speakers. Langttnge Learning, 28, 55- 68.
C homsky, C. (1969). Tbe acquisition of syntax in childrm from 5 to 10. Cambridge ,
Ma ss.: M IT Pr ess.
Chomsk..y , N . (1955). Tbe logieal structure of lingtlistic theory. Ph .D . dissertatio n
(Microfilm). Ca mbridge, Ma ss.: M IT L ibrary.
Chomsky, N . (195 7). Syntattic structures. T he H agu e: Mouton.
Chornsky, N . (1959). Review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior, Langtlage, 35, 26-58.
Chomsky, N . (1962) Explanatory mod els in linguistics. In E. N agel, P. Suppes,
& A. T arski (eds), Logic, metbodology, and philosophy ofscience, Stanford, Cali f.:
Stanford University Press.
C homsky, N. (1965). Aspects of tbe theory of syntax. Cambridge, M ass.: M IT Press.
Chornsk.y, N . (1966) . Cartesian linguistics. New Yor k.. H arp er & Row.
C ho rns k..y, N. (l967a). The formal nature of langu age. In E . Lenneberg, Biologicnl
foundations of lmlgtlage (pp. 397- 442) . New York: Wiley. Also in N. C ho msky
(1972), Langtlage and mind (enlarged edn). New York: H arcourt Brace
J ovanovich .
C ho rnsk..y, N . (1967b). Recent contributions to the theory of innate ideas, Synthese,
17, 2-11.
C ho msky, H. H. (1968). Langtlage and mind. H. ewH York: I-1arcourt Brace j ovanovich .
Chomsky, N . (197 5). Co ndition s on rules of grammar. Article based on lectures
presented at the Linguistic Institu te, University of South Florida , Also in
REFERENCE S 40 1
N . Ch om sky (1977), Essays on[orm and interprrtation (pp. 16 3- 210). New York:
North -Holland.
C homsky, H.. H (1980.). Rnles and reprrsmtations. New York: Columbia Univers ity Press.
Chomsky, H. . H (1980b). O n cogni tive strucrures and their development: a reply 10
Piaget. In M . Piatt elli-Palmarini (ed.), umgllage and learning: tbe debatr benoem
Jean Piaget and NUI11// Cbumsky (pp. 35-52). Ca mbri dge, M ass.: Harvard
U niversity Press.
C ho msky, N . (1980c). Discussion of Putnam's commenrs, In M . P iattell i-Palm arini
(ed.), Lnngllage and learning: tbe debate betuieen J ean Piaget and NUIlm C bums ~J'
(pp. 310-24). Ca mbridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Cho msky, N. (198 Ia). Leerures UII governmm t and binding. Dordrecht, N eth erlands:
Fo ris Publi cation s.
C ho msky, N . (198Ib). Principl es and pararneters in syntactic theory. In
N . H ornstein & D. Lighthood (eds), Explanation in linguistics: tbe logical
problem uf langllage acquisition (pp. 32-75). London : Longma n.
Cho msky, H. H.. H(1986). Knuwledge uf langllage: its nature, urigin and use. H.
H H York :
I ew
Praeger.
Chomsky, N . (1988). Lnngllage and problems uf Imuwldge. Ca mbridge, Mass.: ,\ IIT
Press.
Chomsky, N . (1991). Linguisties and adjacem field: a perso nal view. In A. Kasher
(ed.), TbrTbe an turn (pp, 3-25). O xford: Basil Blackw ell.
CbU11ts~J'minimalist
Chomsky, N . (1995). Tbe minimalist program. Ca mb ridge , Mass.: ,\ IIT Pr ess.
Clark, E. V. (1973). \Vb at's in a word? O n the child's acqui sition of seman ties in
his first language. In T. E. M oor e (ed.), Cugnitive deuelopment and tbe acquisition
of langnage (pp. 65-110). N ew York: Acade rnic Press.
C lark, E. V., & Barron, B. (1988). A thrcwer-button or a button-thrower?
C hildren's judgem ents of grammatical and ungr arnmatical compound noun s.
Linguistits, 26, 3- 19.
C lark, E. V., & H echt , B. F. (1983) . Co mprehensio n, produ crion, and langu age
acquisition. Annual Rroirw uf Psycbulugy, 34, 325-49.
Cohen, A. (1998). Strategies in learning and using a second langnage. Lon don :
Le ngma n.
Comenius (Jan Amos Komensky) (1568). Didaerica magna. (1896, 1967) Tbe great
didaaic of Jubn Amos Commius (in English). New Yor k: Russell & Russell.
Co nrad, R. (1979). Tbe deaf scboulcbild: langtlllge and cognitiuefunaions. Londo n:
Ha rper & Row.
Cook, V. (1977) . Cogniuve processes in seco nd language learn ing. International
Reuiet» uf Applied Linguistia, 15, 1- 20.
Corder, S. (1981). Error analysis and illtcrlallgtlage. Oxford : O xford University
Pre ss.
Coulmas, F. (1989). Tbe writing systems of tbe uorld. O xford: Blackwell.
Cou lson, 5., King, j. W ., & Kut as, M . (1998a). Expecr the unexpected: event-
related brain response to morph osyntactic violations. Lnnguage and Cognitive
Processes. 13, 21-58.
Co ulson, 5., King,j . W., & Kutas, M . (1998b). ERPs and do main specificity:
beatin g a straw horse. Lnngnage and Cugnitive Processes. 13, 653-72.
C rane, T . (1995). Tbe me ntal causanon debate. Proceeding: of tbe Aristotelian
Soeiety, Supp lemen tary Vol., 69, 211-36.
4 02 REFERENCES
Faust, M. , & Kraver z, S. (1998). Levels of sentence eonstra int and lexical decision
in the rwo hemispheres. Brain end Language, 62, 149- 62.
Feigl, H . (1958). 10e mental and the physical. Minnesota Studies in tbe Philorophy 0/
Scimce, 2, 370-497.
Feldman, H . M . (1994) . Language developmenr after early unilateral brain injury:
a replication stu dy. In H . Trager-Flusberg (ed.), Constraints on language
acquisition (pp, 75-90). H illsdale, NJ: Lawrenee Erl baum Associates.
Feldrnan, H . M ., H olland, A. L., Kemp, S. S., & j anosky.} . E. (1992). Language
developm en t after unilateral brain injury. Brain and Language, 42, 89-102 .
Felix, S. (1976). Wh-p ronouns and seeond language aequisition. Linguistische
Bericbte, 44 , 52-64.
Ferguso n, C. A. (1964). Baby talk in six languages. American Anthropologist, 66,
103- 14.
Ferguson, C. A. (1977). Baby ralk as a simplified register. In C. E. Snow & C. A.
Ferguson (eds), Talking to cbildrm: langllage input and acquisition (pp, 209-35).
New York: Cambridge Universiry Press.
Ferguson, C. A., & Garnica, O . K. (19 75). T heories of phonologica l development,
In E. H. Lenneberg & E. Le nneberg (eds), Foundations 0/language deve!op1llmt:
a mllltidiseiplinary approach, Vol. I (pp. 153- 80). [ew York : Acadernic Press.
Fletcher-Flinn, C. M ., & Thompson , G. B. (2000). Learning to read with
underdeveloped phonemie aware ness but lexicalized pho nological reeod ing:
a case srudy of a 3·year·old. Cognition, 74, 177- 208.
Flynn, S., & M artoh ardjono, G . (1994). Mappin g frorn the initial state to rhe final
state: the separa tion of universal principles and language-specific prop erti es.
In B. Lust, M . Suner & ]. Whitman (eds), Synractic theory arid first langt/age
acquisition: cross-linguistic perspeaiues, Vol. 1 (pp. 319-35). H illsdale, N) :
Lawren ce Erlbaum .
Fodor, ). A. (1976). Tbe langt/Oge 0/thought. Sussex: H arvester Press.
Fodor, ). A. (1980). Me thodological solipsism co nsidered as a resea rch stra tegy in
cognitive psychology. Bebauioral and Brain Stim ces, 3,9- 16.
Fodor, ). A., Bever, T. G. , & G arrert, M . F. (1974). Tbe psychology 0/ langt/age.
New York: McGraw·HiIl.
For estell, P. H. (1988). Reporting on relatio nships berween symbolica lly-narned
objects by a dol ph in (Tllrsiops trtmcatus'[ : U npublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Hawaii, Honolu lu.
Fourcin, A. ). (1975). Language develo prnent in the absence of expressive speec h.
In E. H . Lenn eberg & E. Le nneberg (eds), Foundations o/ Iangt/Oge druelopmmt:
a multidisciplinary approacb, Vo l. I (pp. 263-8). New Yor k: Academic Press.
FOUlS, R. S. (1973). Acquisition and testing of gestural signs in four youn g
chimpanzees . Science, 180, 978- 80.
FOUlS, R. S. (1983a). Chimpanzee language and elephant tails: a th eor etieal
synthes is, In). de Luce & H. T . Wil der (eds), Langt/Oge in primates (pp, 63-75).
New York: Spri nge r-Verlag.
FOUlS, R. S. ( 1983b). Signs of the apes, songs of the whales. \ VGB H Boston :
NOVA Videotape.
FOUlS, R. S., FOUlS, D. H. , & van Cantfort, T. E. (1989). The infant Lou lis learns
signs from cross-fostered chimpanzees, In R. A. Gardner, B. T. Gardner, &
REFERENCES 405
T. E. van Cantfort (eds), Teaehing sign langtlage to chimpanzees (pp. 293- 307).
Albany, NY: Stare University of New York Press.
Fouts , R. S., & MilIs, S. T. (1997). Next of kin: 1IIY conuersations with cbimpanzees.
New York: William Morro w & Co mpany.
Fowler, A. E., G elman, R., & G leitman, L. R. (1994). T he course of language
learnin g in children with Down Syndrom e. In H . Trager-F1usberg (ed.),
Constraints in langtlage acquisition (pp, 91- 140). Hillsdale, N]: Lawren ce Erlbaum
Asso ciates.
Fowler, W . (1962). T eaching a rwo-year-old tu read. Genetic Psyehology M onograpbs,
66, 181- 283.
Frank, P. (1953). Einstein, his life and tim es. N ew York: Knopf. Qu otation appears
in S. I. H ayakawa (ed.) (1954), Langtlage, meaning and maturity, N ew York:
Ha rper & Row.
Fries, C. C. (1945). Teoehing and learnin g English as a foreign langtlOge. Ann Arbor,
Mich.: University of M iehigan Press.
Fries, C. C. (1949). Teaehing of English. Ann Arbor, Mich .: G eorge W ahr Publishin g.
Fries, C. C. (1952). The structure of English. Ne w York: H arcourt, Brace & W orld.
Fromkin, V., Krashen , S., Curtiss, S., Rigler, D., & Rigler, M. (1974). The
devclopmenr of language in G enie: a case of language beyond the critieal
period. Brain and Langtlage, 1, 87- 107.
Furn ess, W . H . (1916). O bservations on ehe rnentaliry of chimpanzees and orang-
utans. Proreedings of tbe American Philosophieal Society, Philadelphi a, 55, 281- 90.
Furrow, D., N elson, K., & Benedict, H . (1979). Moth ers' speech tu children and
syntactie development: some simple relationships. J OII17IOI of Child Langtlage, 6,
423-42.
Furth, H. (1966). Thinking uiitbout langtlage. Ne w York: Free Press.
Fur th , H . (1971). Linguistic deficiency and thinking: research with deaf subjects,
1964-1 969. Psyehologieal Bnlletin, 76, 58-72.
Gallaudet Research Institute (1985). Gallaudet Research Institute Neusletter.
W ashingron, DC: Gallaudet Co llege.
Galloway, L. M ., & Scarcella, R. (1982). Ce rebral organization in adult second
langu age acquisition: is rhe right hemisphere mor e involved? Brain and
Langtlage, 16, 56-60.
Ganno n, ] . R. (1981). Deaf hmtage: a narrative history of deaf America. Silver
Sprin g, M d.: National Association of the Deaf.
Gannon, P.]., H olloway, R. L., Broadfield, D. c., & Braun, A. R. (1998).
Asymmerry of chimpanzee planum temp orale: humanl ike patt ern of Wernicke's
brain language area homolog. Scimce, 279, 220-2.
G ardner, B. T ., & Gardner, R. A. (1975). Evidence for sentence constitue nts in
the early utte rances of child and chimpanzee, J onrnal of Experimental Psyehology:
General, 104,244-67.
Ga rdner , R. A. (1985). Social psyehology and secend langtlOge learning: tbe role of
at titudes and motiuation, Lond on: Edward Arnold.
Ga rdner, R. A., & Gardner, B. T . (1969). T eaching sign language tu a
chimpanzee. Science, 165, 664- 72.
Ga rdner, R. A., & Lambert, W . E. (1972). A ttit udes and motiuation in secend-
langtlage learning. Rowley, Mass.: Ne wbury House,
40 6 REFERENCES
variation in rate and style of language acqui sirio n , Jouma l of Cbild Lauguage,
20,3 13- 42.
Harley, B. (1986). Age in second laugtlage acquisition. Clevedon, UK : M ultilingual
Ma ttcrs.
Harley, B., & Doug, H . (1997). Language aptitude and second language
proficiency in c1assroo m learners of different starring ages. Studies in Secend
Laugtlage Acquisition, 19/3, 379-400.
Ha user, M. D. (1996). Tbe euolution of communication. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hayes, C. (1951). Tbe ape in our bouse. New York: Random House.
Heider, E. R. (1972). Universals in color naming and memory. J oumal of
Experimental Psyebology, 93, 10-20.
Henley,H. H. H. HM., & Krarnarae, C. (1991). Ge nder, power, and miscommunication.
In N. Cou pland. H . Giles, & H . W iemann (eds), 'M iscommunication ' and
problematic tal]: (pp. 18- 43). New bury Park: Sage.
Herman, L. M., & Forestell, P. H . (1985). Reportin g presence or absence of
named objects by a language-tr ained dolphin. Neuroseiente and Bebnuioral
Reviews, 9,667-81.
I-Ierm an, L. M ., Kuczaj 11, S. A., & Holder, M. D. (1993). Responses to
anomalous gestura l sequences by a language-trained dolphin: evidence for
processing of sernantic relations and syntactic informat ion. J oumal of
Exp erim ental Psyebology: General, 122/ 2, 184- 94.
Herm an, L. M ., Richards, D. G., & W olz, j. P. (1984). Com prehension of
sente nces by bottlenosed dolphins. Cognition, 16, 129-2 19.
Herman, L. M., & Wol z, j. P. (1984). Vocal mimicry of computer-gen erate d
sounds and voeal labeling of objects hy a bottlenosed dolphin, Tursiops truncatus .
Jouma l of Comparatiue Psycbology, 98/ 1, 10- 28.
Hillyard, S. A., & Picton, T . W . (1987). Electrophysiology of cognitio n. In
F. Plum (ed.), Handbook ofpbysiology, Section I: Neuropbysiology (pp. 519-84).
N ew York: American Physiological Society.
Hino, N . (1988). Yakudoku: Japan's domina nt tradition in foreign language
learning. JALT J oumal, 10,45- 55.
H irsch-P asek, K., & Go linkoff, R. M . (1991). Language comprehension:
a new look at some old themes. In N . A. Krasnegor, D. M. Rumbaugh,
R. L. Schiefelbusch, & M. Sruddert -Kennedy (eds), Biologieal and bebauioral
determinants of laugttage deuelopment (pp. 301-20). H illsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Hirsch-Pasek, K., & Go linkoff, R. M . (1993). Skeletal supports for grammatical
learning: what the infant brings to the language learning task, In C. K. Rovee-
Collie r (ed.), Aduances in iufmuy researcb, Vol. 10 (pp. 299-338). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Hladek, E., & Edwards, H . (1984). A comparison of mother-father speech in the
naturalisric horne environment, J01lmal of Psycbolinguistic Research, 13, 321-3 2.
Hobson, j. (1959). Lee-Clark reading readiness tes t, In O. Buros (ed.), Fiftb mental
111eaSU"f111ent Yfarbook. Hig hland Park, NJ: Gryp hen Press.
Hoff-Gi nsberg, E. (1990). Materna l speech and the child 's development of syntax:
a further look. J oum al of Cbild Laugtlage, 17, 85-99.
Holder, M . D., Hennan, L. M., & Kuczaj 11, S. A. (1993). A bottlenosed dolphin's
responses to anomalous sequences expressed within an artificial gestural
REFERENCES 409
Klar, A. (26 O cr. 1999). A gene for hand edn ess. United Press International (UPI) ,
Ca mbridge, M ass,
Klein, D., Zarorre, R. j., Milner, B., M eyer , E., & Evans, A. C. (1994). Left
putarnin al acri vation when speaking a seeo nd language: evide nce from PET.
Neurokeport, 5, 229; - 7.
Klim a, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syn tactic regularities in the speech of ehildren.
In j. Lyons & R. j. W ales (eds), Psycholingt/istic pnpers ( pp. 183- 208).
Edinburg h: Edinburgh University Pres s.
Klima, E. S., & Bellugi , U. (1979). Tbe sig1lS of Inngt/ngr. Cambridge, M ass.:
Harvard U niversity Press.
Kno pman, D. S., Selnes, O . A., Rub ens, A. B., Klassen , A. c., M eyer, M ., &
Nieeum, N . (1980). Regio nal blood Aow du ring verba l and nonverbal auditory
activatio n. Brain and Langt/ngr, 9, 93-112 .
Kob ashigawa, R. (1969). Reperit ion s in a rnother 's speec h to her ehild. In The
struc rure of lingui stie inpu t to ehildren. Langt/ngr Brhnvior Researcb Laborntory,
\ Vorking Paper N o. 14, U niversity of Californ ia, Berkeley.
Kolers, P. (1970). T hree stages of reading, In H . Levin & j. \ Villiams (eds), Basic
studies on reading. New York : Basic Books .
Korzy bski, A. (1933). Science nnd snllity: an introduaion to non-Aristotelian systems
and gmrrn/ semantia. 4th ed n, 19; 8. Lakeville, Conn.: The Int ern ational N on-
Aristoteli an Publi shing Co.
Krashen, S. D. (1973). Lateralization , langu age learni ng, and the critical period :
so rne new evidence, Langt/ngr Learning, 23, 63-74.
Krashen, S. D. (1982). Principlesnnd practice in secend Inngt/ngr acquisition. O xford:
Pergamon .
Krashen, S. D. , & Pon, P. (197;). An error analysis of an advaneed ESL learner:
th e import anee of the Monitor. Working Paperson Bilingt/nlism, 7, 12;- 9.
Krashen , S. D ., & Scarcel la, R. ( 1978) . On ro utines and patrern s in language
acquisi tio n and perform ance. Langt/ngr Leam ing; 28, 283- 300.
Krashen , S. D., & Terrell, T. D . (1983). T be Natural Approneh: Inngt/ngr acquisition
in tbe dassroom, Oxford : Pergam on .
Kuhl, P. K, & M eltroff, A. N. (1988). Speech as an interm odal object of
peree ption. In A. Yonas (ed.), Perceptual drorlop1l1mt in infimcy. Minnesota
Symposin 011 Child Psych% gy, Vo l. 20 ( pp. 23;-66). H illsdale, NJ : Lawrence
Erlbaum Associares,
Kut as, ,\ 1., & H illyard , S. A. (1980). Readin g senseless sente nces: brain pot entials
reflect semantic incongruiry, Scimce, 207, 203- ; .
Kuras, M ., & Kluender, R. (1994). What is who vio1ating? A reco nsideration of
linguistie violations in light of event -related brain potentials. In H .-J. Hein ze,
T. F. M unte, & G . R. Mangu n (eds), Cognitivr rIrcrropbysi% gy (pp. 183-210).
La J olla: Birkhau ser Boston.
La Forge, P. G . (1983). Counseling and rulture in second Inngt/ngr acquisition. Oxford :
Pergamon .
Labov, W . (1970). T he logie of non-stand ard Eng lish. In j. Alaris (ed.), Rrport of
tbe Tuientietb Almt/ni Raund Table Mrrting on Ungt/istics 011d Lang/lOgr (pp. 30-
87). W ashin gton. DC : Georgetown U niversity Pr ess.
Lado, R. (19;7). U ng/listics across cultures: npp/ird linguistits for Inng/lngr tearbrrs. Ann
Arbor, M ich .: U nivers ity of Mi eh igan Press.
412 REFERENCES
Lahey, M. , Liebergott , J. , C hesnick, M., Menyu k, P., & Adams, J. (1992). Variabiliry
in children 's use of grammatical mo rpbemes. Applied Psycbolinguistics, 13, 373-98.
Lakoff, G . (1987). W07J1m, fire, and dangerons things: what categories reveal about tbe
mind. Ch icago : U niversity of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G ., & J ohnson , M. (1980). Metapbors we live by. Chicago: Unive rsity of
C hicago Pr ess.
Lakoff, R. (1975). LangtlOge and u iomen's place. New York: H arper & Row.
Lambert , W. , & T ucker, R. (1972). BilingtlOl education of cbildren: tbe St Lambert
experiment, Rowley, M ass.: Newbury House.
Lamm, 0 ., & E pstein, R. (1999) . Left-handedness and achievements in foreign
langu age srudies , Brain and Language, 70, 504- 17.
Lane, H . (19 76). Tbe Wild BoyofAveyron. Ca mbri dge, Mass.: H arvard U n iversity Press .
Lane, H. S., & Baker, D. (1974). Reading achievement of the dea f: ano ther look.
Volta Review, 76,489-99.
Langacker, R. W . (1991). Cognitive grammar. In F. G . D roste & J. E. Joseph
(eds), Lingtlistie tbeory and grammatieal description (pp. 275-3 06). Amsterd am :
J oh n Benjamin s.
Lantolf, J. P. (1986). Silent Way in a university setti ng : an applied resea rch report.
Canadian Modem Langtlage Review, 43, 34-58.
Lantz, D. (1963). Color naming and color rrcognition: a study in tbe psyehology of
langtlage. Doctoral dissert ation, H arvard U niversity.
Lapkin , S., Swain, M ., & Shapso n, S. (1990). French imme rsio n research agenda
for the 90s. Canadian Modern Langtlage Review, 46, 638- 74.
Law, G. (1995). Ideologies of Eng lish langu age education in J apan. JA LT J Ollm al,
17,2 13-24.
Leca nue t, J. -P ., Granier- Defe rre, C; & Busnel, M . C. (1989). Differential fetal
aud itory reactiveness as a function of stimulus characreristics and stare. Seminars
in Perinatology, 13, 421- 9.
L egerstee, M. (1990). Infants use multimodal inform arion to irnitate speec h
sounds, Inf ant Bebavior and Druelopmmt, 13, 343-54.
Le nhoff, H . M ., Wang, P. P., Green berg, F., & Bellugi, U. (1997). Wi lliams
syndrome and the brain. Scientific American, December, 42- 7.
Lenn eberg, E. H . (1962). U nderstu nding langu age witho ut th e ability to speak:
a case report. Joumal of Abnormal Social Psyehology, 65, 419- 25.
Le nneberg, E. H . (1967). Biologieal[oundations of langtlage. New York: W iley.
Lenneberg, E. H. (1972). Pr erequi sites for langu age acqu isition by the deaf. In
T . I. O'Rourke (ed.), Psycbolinguistics and total communiauion: the state of tbe art ,
American A nnals of the Deaf (Monograph).
Lenneberg, E. H., Rebelsky, F. G ., & Nicho ls, I. A. (1965) . The vocalization of
infants born to deaf and hearing parents, Human Deuelopmmt, 8, 23-37.
Leopold, W. F. (1947). Speech detielopmem of a bilingtlOl cbild: a lingtlist's record,
Vol. 2: Sound learning in tbe firn two yea". Evanston, IIl.: Northwes tern
U niversity Press.
Le opo ld, \ V. F. (1953). Pattern ing in children's langu age learnin g. Langtlage
Learning. ), 1-14.
Levorato, M ., & Caccia ri, C. (1995). T he effects of different tasks on th e
co mprehensio n and production o f idioms in children. ]oumal of Experimental
Psyehology, 60/ 2, 261- 81.
REFERENCE S 4 13
Levy, Y., Amir, N ., & Shalev, R. (1994). Mo rpho logy in a child with a
congenital, left-hernisphere brain lesion: implications for normal acquisition.
In H . Trager-Flusberg (ed.), Constraints on langl/age acquisition (pp. 49- 74).
Hill sdale,H. J:H Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lewis, D. ( 1980). M ad pain and Martian pain. In N . Block (ed.), Readings in the
philosophy of psyehology, Vo!. I (pp. 216- 22). Cambridge , M ass.: MIT Press.
Liberma n, A. M. (1957). Some results of research on speech percept ion. J Ol/m al of
tbe Acoustic Society of A merica, 29, 117- 23.
Lib erm an, I. Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1991). Phon ology and beginning reading:
a tu tori a!. In L. Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (eds), Leaming to read: basic researcb
and its implications (pp. 3- 17). Hillsdale, N) : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lieberman, P. (1967). Intonation, perception, and laugl/age. Cambridge, M ass.:
MI T Pr ess.
Lightbown, P. (1978). Qu estion form and question function in the speech
of young French L2 learners. In M . Paradis (ed.), Aspects of bilingl/alism
( pp. 2 1-43). Columb ia, SC : H orn beam.
Lilly, J. C. (1962). Vocal behavior of the bottlenose dolphin. Proceedings of tbe
American Pbilosopbical Society, 106, 520-9.
Lilly, J. C. ( 1965). Vocal mimicry in Tursiops: ability to match nu mhers and
du rations of human vocal bursts. Science, 147, 300- 10.
Limber, J. (1973). T he genesis of complex sentences. In T . Moore (ed.), Cognitive
deuelopment and the acquisition of langl/age ( pp, 169- 85). N ew York: Academic Pr ess.
Locke, J. (1690). An essay concerning human understanding, Book III, ch. ii, sect, I
(Great books of the Westem World). Chicago: Encyclopaed ia Britannica (1952).
Locke, J. L. (1993). T be ehild's patb to spoken langl/age. Ca mhridge, Mass.: Ha rvard
Un iversity Press.
Lou , M . (1988). T he history of language use in the ed ucation of th e deaf in the
United Stares. In M. Stron g (ed.), Lauguage lea17liug and dea/ uess (pp, 75-98).
Ca mbridge: Cambridge University Pr ess.
Lozanov, G . (1978). SI/ggestology and outlines of SI/ggestopedy . New York : Go rdon &
Breach.
Lukm ani, Y. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Lauguage
Learning, 22, 261- 73.
Lyon, J. (1996). Beeomiug bilingual: langl/age acquisition in a bilingual community ,
Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
M ac1ntyre, A. (1970). N oam Cho msky's view of language (Stu art H ampshire's
interview of N oam Cho msky). In M . Lester (ed.), Readings in applied
tr1l11sjöl7Jtntionai grammar, Ist edn (pp. 96- 113). N ew York: Holt , Rinehart &
W inston,
M aloktki, E. (1985). Telecision programme: T be mind's language. Station \VNET
N ew York .
M aloney, J. C. (1987). T be mundane matter of tbe mental laugl/age. Cambr idge:
Ca mbridge U niversiry Press.
Mal son, L. (1972). Wolf childrm and tbe problem of buman nature - witb tbe complete
text of the Wild Ba:; of A veyrou. N ew York: M onthly Review.
M an n, V. A. (199 1). Phonological abilities: effective predictors of futu re reading
abiliry, In L. Rieben & C. A. Perfetti (eds), Leamiug to read: basic researcb and its
implications ( pp. 121- 33). Hi llsdale, N) : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
414 REFEREN CES
Maratsos, M. P., Kuczaj, S. A., Fox, D., & C halkley, M . A. (1979). Some ernpirical
stu dies in the acquisitio n of transfon national relations: passives, negatives and
the pasr tense. In \'1. A. Coll ins (ed.), Cbildren's langt/age nnd communlcation: tbe
Minneseta Symposiu711 on Child Psychology, '101. 12 (pp. 1-45). H illsdale, N]:
Lawrenee E rlbaum Associates.
Martin, L. (1986). Eskimo words for snow: a case study in genesis and decay of an
anthropologieal examp le, American Antbropologist, 88, 418- 23.
M ason, M . K. (1942). Learn ing to speak after six and one- half years of silence.
J oum al 0/Speecb and Hearing Disorders. 7/4, 295-3 04.
Masur, E. G. (1995). In fants' early verbal imitation and their later lexical
developme nt, MC17111 Palmer QlIfl11erly, 41, 286-3 96.
Mat suzawa, T . (1985). Use o f numbers by a chimpanzce. NaNI1'e, 315, 57-9.
M ayber ry, R., & Fischer, S. D. (1989). Looking throu gh phonological shape to
lexical meanin g: the bottl eneek of non -native sign language proeessing. Memory
and Cognition, 17, 740-54.
MeC on nell-Ginet, S. (1998). T he sexual (re)produetion of meaning: a discourse
based the ory . In D. Ca meron (ed.), Tbe[nninist critique o/ Iangttage: a render
(pp, 198-2 01). London: Rou tJedge.
M eGuinness, D ., MeGu inn ess, c., & Do nohue, j. (1995). Phonological train ing
arid the alphabet prineiple: evidenee for reciprocal causaliry. Reading Research
Ouan erly, 30, 830-52.
M eLaughlin, B. (1978). T hc Mon itor model : some meth odologieal considera tions.
Lll1lgtlage L earning, 28, 309-32.
MeLaughlin, B. (1987). Tbeories 0/second-Iangttage leaming. Lo ndo n: Edward
Arnold.
M eLaughlin, B. (1992). T he rise and fall of British emergcntism . In
A. Beckermann , H . Flohr , & j. Kim (eds), EmergNlcc or reduction
(pp, 49-73). Berlin: De G rnyte r.
MeN eill, D . (1966). Developmenral psyeholinguisties. In F. Smith & G . M iller
(eds), Tbe genesis o/ Iangttage: a psycholingt/istic approacb ( pp. 15- 84). Ca rnbridge,
Mass .: MIT Press.
,'vIcN eill, D. (1970). Tbe acquisition o/ Iangllage: tbe study 0/deuelopmental
psycholi11gttistics. New York: Harper & Row.
McNeill, D . (1987). Psycbolinguistics: a nrw approacb, New York: H arper & Row.
MeN eill, D ., & MeN eill, N. B. (1968). \ Vhat does a child mean when he says
' no'? In E. Za le (ed.), Langttage and 1fl11gttage bebauior (pp, 51-62). Nc w York:
Appleton-Cen rury-Crofts.
M eadow, K. (1966). Tbe effects 0/early m anua l commun ication and /a111ily clima te on
tbe dea]' cbild': early deoelopment, Unpublished docroral dissertation, University of
Ca lifom ia, Berkeley.
M eadow, K. (1980). Deafn ess and child deuelopment, London : Arno ld.
Me hler, J. (1989). Langu age at the initial state. In A. Ga laburda (ed.), Fr'01n rrading
to neurons (p p, 189- 214). Ca mbridge , M ass.: MIT Press.
Meh ler , j., jusczyk, P., Lam bertz, G ., Hal sted, N. , Ber toncini, J., & Amiel-T ison,
C. (1988). A prccursor of language aequ isition in young infants. Cognition, 29,
143- 78.
Metropolitan Readiness Tests (1933-6). Ne w York: Hareourt, Braee & W orld,
REF EREN CES 415
M iles, H . L. (1983) . Apes and language: the seareh for eom mun ieative eompe tenee .
In JH. De Luee & H. T. W ilder (eds), Lnngungc in primates: perspeaiues and
H.
implications ( pp. 43-6 1). New Yo rk: Springer-Verl ag.
M iles, H. L. (1990). The eog nitive foundatio ns for referenee in a sign ing
or anguta n. In S. T. Parker & K. R. Gi bson (eds), Langungc and imclligC11cc in
1I10nkeys I1Ild npcs: comparatiue deuelopmental perspectiues (pp . 511- 39). Cambridge:
Ca mbr idge Univ ersity Press.
MiIl, J. (1829). Analysis o[ tbe pbC11omC11n of tbe bU1l11111mind. N ew Yor k: A. M .
Kelley ( 1967).
MiIl, J. S. (1843). A systelll o[logic, ratiocinatiue I1Ild inductioe; being a correctiue vie»
of tbe principles o[ evidC11CC and tbe metbods o[SciC11tifU invcstigntion, 8th edn.
London : Longm ans, G ree n and Co . (1930).
Mill er , G . A. ( 1962). Some psyeho logieal studies of gram mar. American Psycbologist,
17, 748- 62.
Morgan , C. L. ( 1923). Emergent euolution. Londo n: William & Northgare.
Morphett , M . c., & W ashburne , C. (1931). When should ehildren begin to read?
Elc111C11tnry Scbool ] ounlnl, 31, 496 -503 .
M oskowitz, B. A. (1978). T he aequisition of language. Scim tific American,
N ouember, 92- 108.
M owrer, O . H . (1960). Learning tbeory and tbe symbolic processes. New York: W iley.
Moya, K. L., Benowitz, L. 1., Levine, D. N., & Finklestein, S. (1986). Covar iant
defieits in visuospatia l abilities and reeall of verbal narrat ive afte r right
hemi sph er e stroke. COI1CX, 22, 381-97.
M üller , R.-A. (1996). Innaten ess, auto norny, un iversality? Ne urologieal app roaehes
to language. Bebauioral and Brain SciC11CCS, 19, 6 11- 75.
M urray, A. D .,Joh nson,J ., & Peters,J . ( 1990). Fine-tuning ofutter anee length to
preverb al infants: effeets on later language development. ] ounlnl o[ Cbild
Laugllngc, 17, 511- 25.
Murray, D ., & Rob erts , B. (1968). Visual and audi tory pr esentation rate anti short
term memory in ehildren. Britisb ] ollnlnl o[ Psycbology, 59, 119-2 5.
Na kazima, S. (1962). A comparative stu dy of the speec h developments of japanese
and Ame riean E ng lish in ehildh ood. Studies in Pbonology, 2, 27- 39.
Na tio n, I. S. P. (1990). Teacbing and learning vocnbulnry. Boston : H einle & H ein le.
Ne ufeld, G . (1978) . On th e aequisition o f prosodie and articularory features in
adult language learning. Canadian Modem Languagc Review, 34, 163- 74.
Neville, H . J., ßaveli er , D ., Corina, D . P ., Rauschecker , J. P ., Karni , A., Lalwan i,
A., Braun , A., C lark, V. P .,Jezzard, P., & T urn er, R. (1998). C erebra I
organizatio n for language in deaf and hearing sub jects: biologieal constrain ts
and effeets of experienee. Procerdings o[ tbe National Acadc11lY o[ SCiC11CC, 95,
922-9.
N eville, H . J ., Co ffey, S. A., Lawson , D. S., Fischer , A., Emmorey, K.,
& Bellugi, U . (1997). Neural systems mediatin g Ameriean Sign Language:
effeets o f sensory experienee and age of aequisitio n. Brain and Langllngc,
57/ 3, 285- 308.
Ne wpo rt, E. L. ( 1975). M otberese: tbe speecb o[1I1Otbm to young cbildren, Tecbnical
RCp011 No. 52. Ce nter for H uman Information Proeessing, University of
Californ ia, San Diego .
4 16 REFERENC ES
Newpo rt, E. L. (1976). Mo the rese: th e speech of moth ers to young children. In
N . ]. Castellan, D. Pisoni , & G. Potts (eds), Cognitive tbeory (pp. 177- 2 10).
New York: Wi ley.
Newport, E. L. (1990). M aturation al constrai nts on language learn ing. Cognitive
Seience, 14, 11- 28.
Newport, E. L., G leitman , H., & G leitman, L. (1977). Mother, I'd rathe r do it
myself: some effects and non-effects of matemal speech style. In C. Snow &
C. Ferguson (eds), Talking to cbildren : input and acquisition (p p. 109-49). New
York: Academic Pr ess.
Newport, E. L., & Supalla, T. (1980). C lues from the acquisition of signe d and
spoke n langu age. In U. Bellugi & M . Studder t- Ken nedy (eds), Signedand spokm
lal/gl/age: biological constraints 01/ linguistic firnt. W einh eim . Verl ag Chemie.
Niyekawa-Howard , A. (1972). T he current starus of th e Iinguistic relativity
hypothe sis. Workil/g Papers in Lil/guistics, University of Ha waii, 42, 1- 30.
Nolan, C. (198 1). Dam -burst of dreams. Athens, Oh io: Ohio Universiry Pr ess.
olan, C. (1988). Under tbe <Je of tb e dock. Lond on: Pan Books.
Nwo
Nwokah, E. E. (1987). M aidese vs, M oth erese: is the language input of child and
adult caregivers similar? umguage and Speech, 3D, 2 13- 37.
O ller, D . K., & Eilers, R. E. (1982). Similarity of babblin g in Spanish- and
English- Iearn ing babi es, Journal of Cbild Languag», 9, 565- 77.
O ller ,]., Baca, L., & Vigil, F. (1978). Attirudes and atta ined proficiency in ESL: a
sociolingu istic study of M exican- Americans in th e Southwest. TESOL Quarterly,
11, 173- 83.
Oll er,]., Hudson , A., & Liu, P. (1977). Att itudes and attained proficiency in ESL:
a socio lingu istic srudy of native speakers of Chinese in th e Unired Stares.
Lal/guage Leaming. 27, 1- 27.
O'M alley, J. M., & Chamo t, A. U. (1990). Learnil/g strategies in secend lal/guage
acquisition. C ambridge : Ca mbr idge University Pr ess.
Osgood, C. E. (1953). Metbod and theory in experim ental psychology. New York:
O xford University Press.
Osgoo d, C. E. (1971). Where do sent ences come fro m? In D . D. Stein berg &
L. A. j akobovits (eds), Semantics: an interdisciplinary reader in philosopby,
tinguistia, and psycbology (pp, 497-5 29). New York : Carnbridge University
Press.
Osgood, C. E. (1980). Leerures Ott lattguage perfoT7!tattCe. New York:
Springer-Ve rlag.
Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & T annenba um, P. H. (1957). Tb e measurement of
meaning. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press.
Os terhout, L., & H olcomb , P.]. (1992). Evenr-re lated brain potenti als elicired by
syntactic ano maly, J Ol/rnal of frIC7Ito,] and Lattguage, 31, 785-806.
Ostrander, S., Schroeder , L., & Ostrander, N . (1979). Superlearning. New York :
Deli.
O xford, R. (1990). Lal/gt/age learnittg strategies: uibat every teacber sbould kn o» . Ne w
York: Newbury H ouse.
O xford, R. (1996). Lattgttage learnhzg strategies areund tbe u iorld: cross-cultural
perspectiues (T echnical Report No. 13). Honolulu: Second Language Teaching
and Curriculum Cen ter , University of H awaii at M anoa,
RE FERE NCES 4 17
Per fett i, C. A., & Rieben, L. (1991). Introductio n, In L. Rieben & C. A. Perferti
(eds), Learning to read: basic researcb and its implications (pp. vii-xi). H illsdale, H. H
Lawrence E rlba um Associates .
Pestalo zzi, J. H. (180 1/ 1898). Wie Gertmde ibre Killder lebrnt (Huw Gertrude teacbes
ber cbitdren). Lo ndo n: George Alle n & Unwi n.
Petirto, L. A., & Ma renterte , P. F. (199 1). Babb ling in the manual mode: evide nce
for the o ntogeny of language. Science, 251, 1493- 6.
Phi lips, S. U., Stee le, S., & Tanz, C. (eds) (1987). ulIlgllllge, gmder and sex in
comparmiue perspectiue. C ambridge: Ca mbridge U nivcrsity Press.
Ph illip s, J. R. (1973). Syntax and voca bulary o r rn oth ers' speec h to young children:
age and sex com parisons. Cbild Deuelopment, 44, 182- 5.
Piaget , J. (1955 ). Tbe lallgt/llge and tbougln of tbe cbild. C Ieveland, Ohio: WorId.
Piaget , J. (1968). Q ua ntification, conservation, and nativis m, Science, 162, 976 -9.
Piager, J., & Inh eld er, B. ( 1969). Tbe psyebolog;; of tbe cbild. New York : Basic Books.
Piartelli-Palmari ni (ed.) (1980). LlIlIgllllge IIlId learnino: tbe debate betuieen J el/ll Pillget
IIlId NOIIIII Cbomsky, Ca mbridge, M ass.: H arvar d U nivcrsity Pr ess.
Pike, K. L. (195 4). Lallgllllge in relation to 11 unified tbeory of tbe structure of human
bebauior. G lenda le, Ca lif.: Summer Institute of Lin guistics.
Pine, J. M . (1994). T hc langua ge of pri mary carcgivers. In C. Ga llaway &
B. J. Richards (eds), Input and interaction in IlIlIgtlllge acquisition (pp. 15-37).
Ca mb ridge : Ca m bridge University Press .
Pin ker, S. (1984). LlIlIgt'llge leam ability IIlId II/Ilgt/llge deuelopment. Ca m br idge , M ass.:
Harvard University Pr ess.
Pinker, S. (1994). Tbe IlIlIgtll/ge instinct. New York: W illiam M o rrow.
Pin ker, S., & Bloom , P. (1990). H.arura H l language and natural selectio n , Behauioral
and Brain Sciences, 13, 707-84.
Poizn er, H ., Bartiso n, R., & Lane, H . (1979). Ce reb ral .symmetry for Ameri can
Sign Langnage- the effects of movi ng sti muli. Brain and Lallgtll/ge, 7/3, 35 1-62 .
Poizn er, H ., Klim . , E . S., & Bellug i, U . (1989). Wbllt tbe bands reueal about tbe
brain. Ca m bridge, Mass .: M IT P ress.
Poli tzer, R., & Weiss, L. ( 1969). D evelopm ent al aspects of auditory discrim ination,
echo response and recall. Modem Lllllgt/Ilge Joumll l, 53, 75-85.
Pr emack, D . (1970). A function al analys is of language. JOlln11l1 of Experimental
Analysis of Bebauior, 14, 107-2 5.
Prernack, D . ( 197 1). Language in the chimpanzee? Science, 172, 808-22.
Premack, D . (1976). lntelligence in IIpe IIlId 1111111. H illsdale , N): Lawren ce Erlba um
Assoc iates.
Preston, D . (1989). SociolinguistitsIIlId second lallgt/llge acquisition. Oxford: Blackw ell.
Pu al, R., & Alforde, S. (1993) . G rammatica l morpheme acquisition in 4-year-olds
wit h no rmal, irnpaired, and late-deve loping langnage. J Ollm1/1 of Speecb and
Hearing Research, 36, 127 1- 5.
Putn am, H . (196 7). The 'innateness hypo thesis' and explanatory models in
lingu istics. Synthese, 17, 12- 22.
Putnam , H . (1980). What is inn ate and why: co mments on the deb ate, In ,v!.
Piatt elli-Palmarini (ed.), Lallgt/I/ge lind learn ing: tbe debilte benxeen J el/II Pillget IIlId
NOIIIll Cbolllsly (pp. 287-309). Ca m bridge , Ma ss.. Harvard University P ress.
Pye, C. (1983). MIIYlI1I1I10tberese: 1111 etbnograpby of Ouicbe MIlYI/II speecb toYOlmg
cbildren. Un publi she d manuscript,
REFERENCE S 4 19
Sapir ,!'. (1921). Languoge: an introduction to tbe stlldy of speecb. New York :
H arcourt, Brace & World.
Sapir, E. (1929). The starus of linguistics as a science. LanlfllOge, 5, 207- 14.
Sasan uma , S. (1994) . Neuropsycho logy of readin g: universal and language-specific
fearure s of read ing impairment, In P. Bertelson, P. Eele n, & G . d'Ydewalle
(eds), International perspectiues on psycbological science, Vol. 1: Leuding tbemes
(pp. 105-25). H ove, UK : Lawre nce E rlbaurn Associates,
Saunders, M . D. (und. ted). Ambidexterity exercise. C reative Altern atives, 46 3 Kern
Spri ngs Road, Wood srock VA 22664, USA.
Sauveur, L. (1878). Tb e Natural M etbod: introduction to tbe teoching of ancient
longl/oges. New York: H olt.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., McDonald, K., Sevcik, R. A., H opkins, W . D ., &
Rubert, E. ( 1986). Spontaneou s symbol acquisitio n and cornmunicative use by
pygmy chimpanzees (Pan pan iscus). J onnlOl of Experimental Psycbology: General,
U 5, 211- 35.
Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S., & Rumbaug h, D . M . (1978). Symb olization , langu age,
and chim panzees: a theoreti cal ree valuation based on initial langua ge acqui sition
processes in four youn g Pan troglodytes. Brain and Lanlfllage, 6, 265- 300.
Savage-Rumbaugh , E. S., Shanker, S., & Taylor , T . (1998). Apes, lanlfllOge and tbe
human mind. Oxford: Oxford Uni versity Press.
Scarcella, R., & Biga, C. (1981). In pu t, negoriatio n and age differences in second
language acquisiti on , Languoge Lenrning, 31, 409-3 7.
Schaler , S. (1991). A man u iit bout words. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Scherer, A., & W ertheime r, M . (1964). A psycbolinguistic experiment in foreigu
lanlflloge teacbing , New York: M cGraw HilI.
Schlesinger, I. M . (1982). Steps to InnlfllOge: touiard a tbeory of lonlfllage acquisition.
H illsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Schmidt, R. (1990). The rol e of con sciousness in second language learnin g, Applied
Linguistio, 11/2, 129-5 8.
Schmi dt, R. (199 5). Consciousness and foreign Ianguage learning: a rutorial on th e
role of atrention and awareness in learn ing. In R. Schmidt (ed.), Altemion and
nuiareness in f oreigu ImllfllOge learn ing (pp. 1- 63). Honolulu: U niversity of
Haw.ii Pr ess.
Schulw itz, B. S. (1977). T he teacher: fosterin g interest and achievem ent. In
L. O llila (ed.), Tb e kindergarten cbild and reoding (pp. 40-5 5). N ewark , DeI. :
Intern ation al Read ing Associarion,
Schumann, J. (1978). Tbe pidginizotion process: 0 model for secend lanlflloge acquisition.
Rowley, M ass.: N ewb ury H ou se.
Schumann, J. (1986). Research on the acculruration mod el for second language
acquisiti on . '[ournal ofMultilingual and Multicultural Deuelopmmt, 7, 379-92.
Scollon, R. (1976). Conuersations witb a oneyear old: a case stlldy of tbe deuelopment
[oundation of syntax. H onolulu: Un ivcrsity of H awaii Pr ess.
Scouten, E. (1963). Thc place of rhe Rochester Method in American edu cario n of
the deaf. Report of tbe Proceedings of tbe International Congress on Education of tbe
Deaf, pp. 429- 33.
Scou tcn, E. (1967). The Rochester M cthod , an oral-rnultisensory app roach for
instru cting pre-lingually deaf children, A merican An nals of tbe Deaf, 1/2,
50-5.
REFERENCES 42 1
Slobin, D. 1. (1975). On the natu re o f talk in childr en. In E. H . Lenn eberg, &
E. Lenneberg (eds), Foundations of langllage deuelopment: a multidisciplinary
approacb. Vol. 1 (pp. 283- 98). N ew York : W iley.
Smart , J.J. C. (1959). Sensatio ns and brain pro cesses. Pbilosopbical Review, 68,
141-56.
Sm ith, A., & Sugar, O . (1975). Developm en t of above norm al language and
intelligence 21 years after left hemisph erectom y. Neurology, 25, 8 13-18.
Smith, F. (1982) . Understanding reading. H.ewH York: C BS Publi shing.
Smi th, M . E. (1933). T he influence of age, sex and situa tion on the frequ eney,
form and function of questions asked by preschool children. Cbild Deuelopment,
4, 20 1-13.
Smit h, 'v!. E. (1939). Some light on the prob lem of bilingual ism as found from a
study of the pro gress in mastery o f English amo ng pre-schoo l childre n of non-
Ame rican ancestry in H awaii. Genette Psycbology Monograpbs, 21, 119- 284.
Smith, P. (1970). A compnrison of tbe audiolingual and cognitiue approacbes toforeign
languag« instruction: tbe Pennsyhiania Foreign Lnllguage Projen. Philadelphia:
Ce nte r for Cur riculum Development ,
Smith, S. M ., Brown , H . 0 ., Toman, ] . E. P., & Goodma n, L. S. (1947). The lack
of cere bral effects of d-tubocurar ine, A nestbesiology, 8, 1- 14.
Snieze k, J. A., & ] azwinski, C. H . (1986). G ender bias in E nglish: in search offair
language. J ou17lal of Applied Social Psytbology, 16, 642-62.
Snow, c., & Hoefnagel-Hohle, M. (1978). The critical age for language
acquisition: eviden ce from second- languag e learn ing. Cbild Deuelopment, 49,
1114 - 28.
Snow, C. E. (1972). M other s' speec h to childr en learning language. Cbild
Deuelopment , 43, 549-65 .
Snow, C. E., Ar lma nn-Rupp, A., H assing, Y., ] ob se, ]., ] ooksen, ]., & Vors ter, J.
(1976). Mothers' speech in th ree social classes. J Ollmal of Psycbolinguistic
Research, 5, 1- 20.
Snowd en. C. T . (1993). Linguistic phenomenon in the natural comrn unica tion of
animals. In H . Roitbla t, L. M . H erman, & P. E. H. achtigall
H (eds), Lnnguage and
communicatlon: comparatiue perspeaiues (pp. 175- 94). Hi llsdale, H. NJ:HLawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Soares, C. (1982). Co nverg ing evidence for left hem isph ere langua ge lateralization
in bilingu als. Neurcpsycbologia, 20, 653- 9.
Soares, C. (1984). Left- hernisphere language later alization in bilinguals: use of the
concurre nt act ivities paradigm . Brain and Langttage. 23, 86- 96.
Söder bergh , R. (1971). Resding in early cbildbood. Stockholm: Almquist and W iksell.
(Reprinted by Georgetown U niversity Press, W ashin gton , DC , 1977.)
Söderberg h, R. (1976). Leam ing to read bettoeen two and jive: S011le obseruations 011
nOl7l/01 bearing and deaf cbildren, Stockho hn U niversitet, Institut en for Nordiska
Spraa k (Preprint No. 12).
Solom on , A. (28 Aug. 1994). Defiantl y deaf. Net» Y01'k Times Magazine, H.ewH Yor k:
NY, pp. 38+.
Specter , M. (6 Sept . 1999). The dangerous ph ilosoph er. Tbe Neui Yorker, 46-55 .
Sp erry , R. W . (1969). A modified conce pt of conscio usness. Psycbological Review,
76, 532-6.
REFERENCES 423
Steinberg, D. D., & Sakoda, K. (1982). Hoikuen 2 saiji noyomi no shidou (Te aching
2-year-olds to read in a pre-school), Dokusho Kagaku (Science of Reading -
Japan), 2613, 115- 30.
Steinberg, D. D., & Steinberg, M. T. (1975). Reading before speaking. Visible
Language, 9, 197- 224.
Steinberg, D . D., & Ta naka, M. (1989). Ni sai kara domua ga yomeni (Reading from
2 years of age). T okyo: Go ma Shobo.
Steinberg, D. D., & Xi, J. (1989). Liang sui you er ke yue du (Two-year-olds can
read: teach your child to read). T ianjin: T ianjin Peoples Publishing House.
Steinberg, D . D., & Yamada, J. (1978-79). Are whole word kanji easier to learn
than syllable kana? Reading Research QUfl11erly, 14/ 1, 88-99.
Steinberg, D. D., & Yamada, J. (1980). Shoji nouryoku batt atsu ni kansuru
kisotekikenkyuu (The ability of young children to write). Kyooiku Shinrigaku
Kenkyut: (Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology), 28/4, 46- 54.
Steinberg, D. D., Yamada, J., Nakano, Y., Hirakawa, S., & Kanemoto, S. (1977).
Meaning and the learning of kanji and kana. Hirosbima Forum for Psychology, 4,
15- 24.
Steinberg, D. D., Yoshida, K., & Yagi, R. (1985). 1 saiji oyobi 2 saiji ni taisuru kntei
deno yomi no sbidou (Teac hing reading to 1- and 2-year-olds at home). Dokusyo
Kagaku (Science of Reading - Japan), 29, 1- 17.
Stemmer, B., & Joanette, Y. (1998). The inrerpretation of narrative discourse of
brain-damaged individuals within the framework of a multilevel discourse
model. In M. Beeman & C. Chiarello (eds), Right bemispbere langttage
comprebension: perspectiue from cognitive neuroscience (pp, 329- 48). Mahwah, N] :
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Srevick, E. W. (1976). Memory, mean ing and me tbod: some psychological perspeaiues on
langtlage leam ing. Rowley, Mass.: Ne wbury House.
Stevick, E. W . (1980). Teacbing langtlages: a way and ways. Rowley, Mass.: New bury
House.
Stoel-Gammon, c., & Coo per, J. A. (1984). Patterns of early lexical and
phonological development. J ournal ofChild Langtlage, 11, 247- 71.
Stokoe, W . c., Casterline D. c, & Cro neberg, C. G. (1965). A dictionary of
American Sign Langttage on lingtlistic principles. Washington. DC: Gallaudet
College Press.
Strong, M . (1988). A bilingual approach to the education of young deaf children:
ASL and English. In M. Strong (ed.), Langtlflge learning and deafn ess (pp. 113-
29). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Supalla, S. J . (1990). Manua lly Coded English: the modaliry question in signed
language development . In P. Siple & S. D. Fischer (eds), Tbeoretical issues
in sign langnage researcb, Vol. 2, pp. 85-109. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Sussman, H . M ., Franklin, P., & Simon , T . (1982). Bilingual speech: bilateral
control? Brain and Langtlage, 15, 125- 42.
Suzuki, S., & N otoya, M. (1984). T eaching written language to deaf infants and
preschoolers. Topics in Langttage Disorders. 3, 10--16.
Suzuki, T. (1984). W ords in context , Tokyo: Kodansha International.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1982). Evahiming bilingttal education: a Canadian case study.
Clevedon, UK : Multilingual Matters.
REFER ENCE S 4 25
T waddell, W . (1935). On defining the phon ern e. In M. Joos (ed.) (1957), Reading in
linguistics (pp. 55-79). Wash ingron, DC : American Council of Learned Societies,
Reprimed as Readillgs in Linguistics, 1. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Tyack, D., & Ingram, D. (1977). Children's production and comprehension of
questio ns. Jouma l of Child Lnnguage, 4, 211- 24.
US Supreme Court Reports (1922). Ocro ber T erm, Meyer v. Nebraska, pp. 392-403.
Vaid, J. (1987). Visual field asymmetries for rhyme and synractic categoty
judgemems in monolinguals and fluenr and early and late bilingua1s. Brain nnd
Lnnguage, 30, 263- 77.
van Wagen en (1933-58). Reading Readiness Scales. van Wage nen Psycho-
Educarional Research Laborareries. Minneapolis.
van W uijtswinkel, K. (1994). Critieal period effeetr on tbe acquisition o[gra1llmatieal
eumpetmee in a secend language. Unpublished Master' s thesis, University of
N ijmegen, T he Ne therlands.
Varadi, T. (1983). Strategies of rarger language learner comrnunication: message
adjustment. In C. Faerch & G. Kasper (eds), Strategies in interlangtlage
comnmnication (pp. 79-99). London: Longman.
Vargha-Khadem, F., Carr, L. J., Isaacs, E., Brett, E., Adams, c., & Mishkin,
M . (1997). On set of speech after left hemispherectomy in a nine-year-o ld boy.
Brain, 120, 159- 82.
Varg ha-Khadem, F., Wat kins, K. E., Alcock, K. J., Fletcher, P., & Passingharn,
R. E. (1995). Praxic and nonverba l cognitive dificits in a large family with
genetically transmirred speech and language disorder , Procerdings of the National
A eademJ of Seimces o[ USA, 92, 930-33.
Vargha-Khadem, F., Watkins, K. E., Price, C. J., Ashburner, J., Alcock, K. J.,
Connelly, A., Frackowiak, R. S. J ., Friston, K. J., Pembrey, M. E., Mishkin, M.,
Gardian, D. G., & Passingham, R. E. (1998). Ne ural basis of an inherited
speech and language disorder, Proeeedingt of tbe NationalAcademy o[Seimces of
USA, 95, 695- 700.
Velten, H . V. (1943). The growth of phonemic and 1exical patterns in infam
language. LnllgtUlge, 19, 281- 92.
Vette rling-Braggin, M. (ed.) (1981). Sexist langtlage: a modern pbilosopbical analysis.
Torawa, NJ: Littlefield.
Vihrnan, M. NI. (1982). T he acquisition of morphology by abilingual child: a
whole-word approach, Applied Psycbolinguistics, 3, 141-60.
Vihman, M. M., Macken, M. A., M ilIer, R., Simmo ns, H. , & MilIer, J. (1985).
Fro m babbling to speecb: a re-assessrnent of the continuity issue. Languag«, 61,
397- 445.
von H umboldt, W. (1836). Über die Verscbiedenbeit des menschlieben Sprachbaues
und ibren EinfillS aufdie geistige Entwiekelzmg des Menschmgescbleas (Linguisti:
uariability and intellectual deuelopmmt) . Cora l Gables, Fla.: Un iversiry of Miarni
Press (1971).
Vygotsky, L. S. (1934/ 1962). Thought and langtlage. Cambridge, Mass.: M IT Press.
W ada, J. A., Clarke, R., & Hamm, A. (1975). Cerebral hemispberic asymmetry in
humans. Archives ofNeurology, 32, 239- 46.
Wa llman, J. (1992). Aping language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wa lrers, J., & Zatorre, R. J. (1978). Laterality differences for word identification
in bilinguals. Brain nnd Lmlgtlage, 6, 158- 67.
REFERENC ES 427
W armer, E. (1980). T he ATN and the sausage machine: which one is baloney ?
Cognition, 8, 209-25 .
Watso n, J. (1924 ). Bebauiorism. N ew York: No rton.
\Vells, G . (1978). What m akes for successful language develop men t? In
R. Ca mpbe ll & P. Smith (eds), Recent aduances in tbe psycbology of langl/age
(pp , 449-69). New York: Plenum .
Wells, R. S. ( 1954). Meaning and use in lingui stics today, Word, 10, 235-50.
Wenden, A., & Rub in, J. (1987). Learner strategies inlangl/age lea17ling. N ew York:
Prentice H all.
White, L., & G enes ee, F. (1996). How nativ e is near -native? The issue of ultimate
atta inment in adult second langua ge acquisirion, Secend Langt,age Researcb, 1213,
233-65 .
W iddowson, H . G . ( 1978). Teacbing Englisb as communication. Oxford : Oxfo rd
Uni versity Press.
Wi lkins, D. A. (1972). Tbe lingt' istic and situational content of tbe common core in a
unit/credit systelll. Stra sbo urg: Council of Europe.
Wi lkins, D . A. (1976). Notional syllahuses. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
W illiams, S. (1968) . Bilingt,al experiences of a deaf cbild. E RIC Do cument
Reproduction Service No. E D 030 092 .
Wi lson, K., & No rman, C. A. (1998). Differe nces in word reco gnition based
on approach to read ing instruction. Albert a J Ol/17Ial of Educational Research, 44,
221-30.
W itte lson, S. F., & Pallie, W. (1973). Left hemispher e specialization for langu age
in the newborn. Brain, 96, 64 1-6.
Witty, P., & Kopel, D . (1936). Preventing reading disability: the read ing readiness
factor, Educational Adm inistration and Superuision, 28, 40 1-18.
Wuillemin , D. , Richa rdson, B., & Lynch, J. (1994). Right hemisphere involvem ent
in processing later-learned langu age in multilingu als. Brain and Lallgl/age, 46,
620-3 6.
Yalden, J. (1983). T be communicatiue syllabl/s: euolution, design and imp lementa tion.
Oxfo rd: Pergamon.
Yamada , J. E. (1990). A case for tbe modularity of100/gt/oge. Cambridg e, Ma ss.:
Bradford Books/ MfT Pres s.
Yamad a, J. (1997). Learning and information proces sing of kanji and kan«. H iro shima:
Keisuisha .
Yeoman, E. (1996). The meaning of meanin g: affective engagement and dialogu e
in a second language. Canadian M odern Langttage Review, 52, 596 -6 10.
Yoder, P . J., & Kaiser, A. P . (1989). Altern ative explanations for the relationship
berween matemal verbal interaction style and child language development.
J Ol/17Ial of Cbild Langttnge, 16, 141-60.
Yussen, S., & Levy, V. (1975). Developmen tal changes in predicti ng o ne's own
span of short- terrn mernory. J01l17l01 of Experimental Cbild Psycbology, 19, 502-8.
Zato rr e, R. J. (1989). O n the rep resentation o f multiple languages in the brain: old
problems and new directions. Brain and Lallgttnge, 36, 127-47.