Theories of Language Development
Theories of Language Development
Theories of Language Learning
Linguistic Nativists:
Believe certain mechanisms are exclusively for learning language.
Posit innate biases.
View word-learning and syntax-learning as separate processes.
Suggest innate syntactic representations require minimal input.
Usage-Based Theorists:
Propose language is learned through mechanisms used in other domains, such as:
Socio-cognitive skills (e.g., joint attention, Theory of Mind).
Pattern (statistical) learning.
Emphasize the necessity of sufficient input for language acquisition, including syntax.
Suggest syntax learning is initially based around frequent words.
Theories and Evidence: Lexical Semantics
Semantics
Deals with meanings expressed in words and sentences.
Example:
"Look at the dog!"
The Induction Problem
Refers to the challenge of determining the correct referent of a new word.
Example: Hearing "kuri" and trying to figure out if it means "ear," "paw," "stroke," or "bark."
Quine, 1960
Theories of Word-Learning
Linguistic Nativists:
Propose innate word learning biases (assumptions).
Highlight the whole-object assumption (Markman, 1991).
Usage-Based Theorists:
Emphasize socio-cognitive skills:
Joint attention.
Intention-reading.
Theory-of-Mind.
Linguistic Nativist Theories of Word Learning
Detail innate word-learning biases (assumptions).
Focus on the whole-object assumption (Markman, 1991).
Evidence for Whole Object Assumption
Against?: Korean and Mandarin-speaking children use proportionally more verbs than English-speaking children (Bloom et al, 1993; Gopnik & Choi, 1995; Tardif, 1996).
For?: Even children learning languages such as Japanese and Mandarin in which they hear more verbs show tendency to map new words onto objects rather than actions (Imai et al., 2005, 2008)
The Induction Problem
"kuri" = the whole dog.
Quine, 1960
The induction problem
“kuri” = dog? or woman?
Quine, 1960
and how does the child learn names for object parts or properties?
Theories of Word-Learning
Linguistic Nativists:
Innate word learning biases (assumptions).
The whole-object assumption (Markman, 1991).
Mutual-exclusivity assumption (Markman & Wachtel, 1988).
Usage-Based Theorists:
Socio-cognitive skills:
Joint attention.
Intention-reading.
Theory-of-Mind.
Evidence for Mutual Exclusivity Assumption
18-month-olds (Markman & Wachtel, 1988; see Diesendruck & Markman, 2001, for 24-month-olds)
2 Objects (1 familiar + 1 unfamiliar)
Show me the Modi
Show me one of them
Theories of Word-Learning
Linguistic Nativists:
Innate word learning biases (assumptions).
The whole-object assumption (Markman, 1991).
Mutual-exclusivity assumption (Markman & Wachtel, 1988).
Usage-Based Theorists:
Socio-cognitive skills:
Joint attention.
Intention-reading.
Understanding what others know.
Joint Attention
Triadic Interaction between child, adult, and object or event.
Gaze-Following & Word-Learning
Observed in 16-19-month-olds (e.g., Baldwin, 1991).
Intention-Reading & Word-Learning
Example: 24-month-olds understanding that a novel word refers to an object an adult is looking for (Tomasello & Barton, 1994: Study 4).
100% understood.
Knowing What Others Know
Children understand that adults intend a novel object when asking to show the "NOVEL WORD".
Theories of Word-Learning: Comparison
Linguistic Nativists:
Word learning is mostly innate.
Emphasize whole object and mutual exclusivity assumptions.
Usage-Based Theorists:
Focus on socio-cognitive skills and caretaker relationships.
Stress the importance of linguistic input.
Theories and Evidence: Syntax Development
Syntax
Defined as rules for combining words into sentences.
Examples:
A. The carrots are defending the trucks.
B. Are defending the trucks the carrots.
C. The carrots the trucks are defending.
D. Defending carrots the are the trucks.
Rules vary depending on the language:à SVO structure Kelley, Jones & Fein, 2004
Theories of Language Learning (Syntax Focus)
Linguistic Nativists:
Certain mechanisms only used for learning language.
Innate biases exist.
Word-learning and syntax-learning = separate.
Innate syntactic representations: minimal input needed.
Usage-Based Theorists:
Syntax learning (initially) based around frequent words.
Language learned via mechanisms used in other domains:
Socio-cognitive (e.g. joint attention).
Pattern (statistical) learning.
Is Syntax Based on Words?
Verb-island hypothesis (Tomasello, 1992).
Holophrases = rote-learning of common phrases
FORM: Wheredaddygone
MEANING: tell.me.Daddy.location
Evidence for Lexically-Based Syntax
Production:
e.g. Akthar & Tomasello, 1997: Exp 2; Brooks & Tomasello, 1999: Exp 1; Tomasello & Brooks, 1998; Dodson & Tomasello, 1998, cf. Braine, Brody, Fisch, Weisberger & Blum, 1990
Comprehension:
Akthar & Tomasello, 1997: Exp 2 & 3 (although see Fisher, 1996).
Dittmar, Abbot-Smith, Lieven & Tomasello (2014)
One example: Matthews, Lieven, Theakston & Tomasello (2005)
Hear ungrammatical word order with highly frequent or less frequent verbs (eg. ‘Bear frog pushed’ vs. ‘Bear frog shoved’).
DV: which word order do they use themselves?
Evidence Against Lexically-Based Syntax
Comprehension using preferential looking:
e.g. Gertner, Fisher & Eisengart (2006) – 25 and 21 months
Children looked at the action which matched the sentence syntax (e.g. the first named animal = the ‘agent’ or ‘doer’ of the action)
Used novel verbs (so correct interpretation of the ‘event’ could not be based around knowledge of a familiar verb)
Joint Attention & Syntax
Typical development: Levels of early shared attention correlated with later sentence production (e.g., Tomasello, Mannle & Kruger, 1986).
Children on the autistic spectrum: correlated with syntax (e.g. Rosenthal Rollins & Snow, 1998).
Predicts syntax development many years later (e.g. Sigman & Ruskin, 1999; Gillespie-Lynch et al., 2015).
Role of Input in Syntax Acquisition
Relationship between degree to which children’s sentence comprehension improves (42 – 50 months) and the proportion of multi-clause sentences (and mean number NPs per sentence) (Huttenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman & Levine, 2002).
Patterns in the input can also explain error patterns in early child language (Rowland, Pine, Lieven & Theakston, 2005; Kirjavainen, Theakston & Lieven, 2009).
Evidence That Input Only Plays Minimal Role in Syntax Acquisition?
Very early preference for word order (with familiar words) of target language (Gervain et al., 2008).
Statistical Learning
Defined as the ability to implicitly learn the probabilities with which particular contexts predict the occurrence of certain items.
Statistical Learning & Syntax
Implicit statistical learning related to degree of syntactic priming in typically-developing primary school aged children (Kidd, 2012).
Related to comprehension of passives (e.g. ‘it has been washed by Mum’) and relative clauses (e.g. the man who I saw yesterday) (Kidd & Arciuli, 2016).
Theories and Evidence: Pragmatic Development
Pragmatics
How people use language to communicate.
How people use context to work out what somebody means.
Pragmatic Skills
Irony/sarcasm understanding
Conversation skills
Referential communication
Conversation skills: Monologuing
Conversational skills: on topic response
When Can Children Maintain a Conversation Topic?
Piaget (1926): Prior to age 4, children do not really contribute to conversation topics.
Research in the 1980s: young children can maintain conversations
Primary school aged children struggle with back and forth conversation
Dorval & Eckerman, 1984; Brinton & Fujiki, 1984; Main & Zimeski, 2009; Baines & Howe, 2010
What Allows Children to Be Good at Pragmatics?
Core language (words and syntax)?
Theory of Mind (as assessed by false belief understanding)?
Executive Functioning (inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, working memory)?
Theory of Mind: Common Measures
‘Pre-cursors’ to ToM: diverse desires, diverse knowledge
First-order False belief understanding (e.g. Sally-Anne)
‘Advanced’ Theory of Mind:
Second-order FB (understanding a belief about a mental state)
Understanding why people tell lies
Moral judgments of accidental vs. intentional bloopers.
Wellman & Liu, 2004
Relationships Between ToM and Contingent Responding
Slomkowski & Dunn, 1996:
38 kids, affective perspective-taking and false belief understanding assessed at 40 months
correlated with ‘connected discourse with friends’ at 47 months
Hale & Tager-Flusberg, 2006:
57 autistic children, ToM battery contributed unique variance to contingent conversational responses (assessed concurrently) when statistically controlling for age, IQ and vocabulary in a regression
Executive Functions (EF)
= Aspects of memory, control and flexibility needed for planning and considering consequences to actions (Alvarez & Emory, 2006; Diamond, 2013).
Three key components of EF:
Inhibitory control
Mental set switching / cognitive flexibility
Working memory
EF Component 1: Inhibition
Inhibition refers to the ability to override or suppress automatic, dominant, or proponent (previously reinforced) responses that would otherwise interfere with the efficient attainment of a cognitive or behavioural goal (e.g., Christ et al., 2007)
EF Component 2: Set Shifting
Set shifting involves shifting back and forth between multiple tasks, operations, or mental sets (Monsell, 1996)
It involves disengaging attention from one thing and focusing on another
EF Component 3: Working Memory
Working memory refers to the ability to temporarily store and manipulate/process information (Baddeley, 2000)
Frequently measured in adults using “n-back” tasks
Participants monitor a continuous sequence of stimuli (e.g., letters) and respond when the presented stimulus matches one presented n trials previously (Owen et al., 2005).
Referential Communication
Interpreting Verbal Reference
When interpreting linguistic reference (e.g. ‘the duck’) even three-year-olds do take into account:
what the speaker can see (e.g. Nilsen & Graham, 2009)
how the speaker perceives an object (e.g. Moll & Meltzoff, 2011)
However, even adults show inconsistencies with this (e.g. Brown-Schmidt, 2009)
Usage-Based Theorists and Pragmatics
Argue that tuning into pragmatics and communicative intention-reading occurs BEFORE children have learnt verbal language
Argue that this motivation for tuning into the perspectives, interests, knowledge of others is what allows core language acquisition to occur (e.g. Tomasello, 2019)
Language input amount is crucial for core language development – but recent studies show even more important is turn-taking between adults and children in infancy à predicts spoken language development (e.g. Zimmerman et al., 2009, Pediatrics; Donnelly &
Theories Summary
Linguistic nativists argue that human children could not learn word meanings and syntax without having innate learning mechanisms and innate representations specific to these domains.
Usage-based theorists argue that word meanings and syntax can be learnt via learning mechanisms, the combination of which is specific to humans. Crucially, none of these learnings mechanisms are only used for learning language (i.e. they are not domain- specific).
Proficient pragmatic language development is likl.
Here's a simplified summary of the theories of language development, focusing on lexical semantics, syntax, and pragmatics, along with key studies:
Theories of Language Development
1. Lexical Semantics (Word Meaning)
The Induction Problem: How do children figure out what a new word refers to?
Linguistic Nativists: Propose innate biases like the whole-object assumption (children assume a new word refers to the whole object, not parts or attributes). Studies:
Markman, 1991: Whole-object assumption.
Usage-Based Theorists: Emphasize socio-cognitive skills like joint attention and intention-reading.
Evidence:
Bloom et al, 1993; Gopnik & Choi, 1995; Tardif, 1996: Korean and Mandarin-speaking children use proportionally more verbs than English-speaking children
Imai et al., 2005, 2008: Even children learning languages such as Japanese and Mandarin in which they hear more verbs show tendency to map new words onto objects rather than actions.
Markman & Wachtel, 1988;Diesendruck & Markman, 2001: Evidence for Mutual Exclusivity Assumption- 18-month-olds
2. Syntax (Sentence Structure)
Linguistic Nativists: Believe in innate syntactic representations that need minimal input; word-learning and syntax-learning are separate.
Usage-Based Theorists: Syntax learning is based on frequent words and learned through general cognitive mechanisms like pattern learning and socio-cognitive skills. Syntax learning is initially based around frequent words.
Verb-island hypothesis (Tomasello, 1992).
Evidence:
Akthar & Tomasello, 1997: Exp 2; Brooks & Tomasello, 1999: Exp 1; Tomasello & Brooks, 1998; Dodson & Tomasello, 1998, cf. Braine, Brody, Fisch, Weisberger & Blum, 1990: Production Evidence for Lexically-Based Syntax
Akthar & Tomasello, 1997: Exp 2 & 3; Dittmar, Abbot-Smith, Lieven & Tomasello (2014): Comprehension Evidence for Lexically-Based Syntax
Matthews, Lieven, Theakston & Tomasello (2005): Hear ungrammatical word order with highly frequent or less frequent verbs (eg. ‘Bear frog pushed’ vs. ‘Bear frog shoved’)- which word order do they use themselves?
Gertner, Fisher & Eisengart (2006): Comprehension using preferential looking
Tomasello, Mannle & Kruger, 1986: Levels of early shared attention correlated with later sentence production
3. Pragmatics (Language Use in Communication)
Focuses on how context influences meaning, including conversation skills and understanding sarcasm.
Key Factors: Theory of Mind (ToM) and Executive Functions (EF).
Theory of Mind (ToM): Understanding others' mental states (beliefs, intentions).
Executive Functions (EF): Cognitive skills for planning and controlling behavior.
Inhibition: Ability to suppress automatic responses.
Set Shifting: Ability to switch between tasks.
Working Memory: Ability to store and manipulate information.
Evidence:
Slomkowski & Dunn, 1996: affective perspective-taking and false belief understanding assessed at 40 months correlated with ‘connected discourse with friends’ at 47 months
Hale & Tager-Flusberg, 2006: ToM battery contributed unique variance to contingent conversational responses
Nilsen & Graham, 2009; Moll & Meltzoff, 2011: three-year-olds take into account what the speaker can see & how the speaker perceives an object.
Good Pragmatics and Factors:
Core language (words and syntax)?
Theory of Mind (as assessed by false belief understanding)?
Executive Functioning (inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, working memory)?
4. Statistical Learning
Implicitly learning probabilities of item occurrences in certain contexts.
Evidence:
Kidd, 2012: Implicit statistical learning related to degree of syntactic priming in typically-developing primary school aged children.
Kidd & Arciuli, 2016: Related to comprehension of passives and relative clauses.
Here's a detailed explanation of the studies mentioned in the notes:
1. Lexical Semantics (Word Meaning)
Markman (1991) - Whole-object assumption:
Explanation: This study supports the idea that children naturally assume a new word refers to the entire object, not just parts of it or its properties. For example, if a child is shown a car and told a new word, they will assume the word refers to the whole car, not just the tires or the color.
Bloom et al. (1993); Gopnik & Choi (1995); Tardif (1996) - Verbs in Korean and Mandarin:
Explanation: These studies found that children learning Korean and Mandarin use more verbs compared to English-speaking children. This suggests that the types of words children learn early can depend on the language they are learning.
Imai et al. (2005, 2008) - Object Bias:
Explanation: Even when children hear more verbs (like in Japanese and Mandarin), they still tend to map new words onto objects rather than actions. This indicates a general preference for associating new words with objects.
Markman & Wachtel (1988); Diesendruck & Markman (2001) - Mutual Exclusivity Assumption:
Explanation: These studies showed that young children (e.g., 18-month-olds) tend to assume that each object has only one name. So, if they know the name of one object, they will assume a new word refers to a different, unfamiliar object.
2. Syntax (Sentence Structure)
Akthar & Tomasello (1997); Brooks & Tomasello (1999); Tomasello & Brooks (1998); Dodson & Tomasello (1998); Braine, Brody, Fisch, Weisberger & Blum (1990) - Production Evidence for Lexically-Based Syntax:
Explanation: These studies provide evidence that children's early syntax (sentence structure) is closely tied to the specific words they know. Children tend to use syntactic structures they have heard with particular verbs, showing that their syntax is initially built around these 'islands' of knowledge.
Akthar & Tomasello (1997); Dittmar, Abbot-Smith, Lieven & Tomasello (2014) - Comprehension Evidence for Lexically-Based Syntax:
Explanation: Similar to the production studies, these comprehension studies indicate that children understand sentences better when the syntax is linked to familiar verbs. This supports the idea that children's understanding of sentence structure is based on their knowledge of individual words.
Matthews, Lieven, Theakston & Tomasello (2005) - Ungrammatical Word Order:
Explanation: This study found that children's own word order usage is influenced by how often they hear specific verbs. They tested children with both frequent and less frequent verbs in ungrammatical sentences to see which word order the children would adopt.
Gertner, Fisher & Eisengart (2006) - Preferential Looking:
Explanation: Using a preferential looking paradigm, this study showed that children could match the syntax of a sentence to a corresponding action, even with novel verbs. This suggests that children have some abstract syntactic knowledge that is not entirely tied to specific words.
Tomasello, Mannle & Kruger (1986) - Shared Attention:
Explanation: This study demonstrated that the amount of shared attention children experience early in development is related to their later ability to produce sentences. Shared attention helps children connect language with context and meaning.
3. Pragmatics (Language Use in Communication)
Slomkowski & Dunn (1996) - Affective Perspective-Taking:
Explanation: This study found that children's ability to understand emotions and beliefs at 40 months old was related to their ability to have connected conversations with friends at 47 months old. This suggests that understanding others' perspectives is important for developing social communication skills.
Hale & Tager-Flusberg (2006) - Theory of Mind and Conversation:
Explanation: This study focused on children with autism and found that their performance on Theory of Mind tasks was related to their ability to have contingent (relevant) conversational responses. This highlights the importance of understanding others' mental states for effective communication.
Nilsen & Graham (2009); Moll & Meltzoff (2011) - Speaker's Perspective:
Explanation: These studies showed that even three-year-olds consider what a speaker can see and how they perceive objects when interpreting language. This indicates that young children can take into account the speaker's perspective when understanding language.
4. Statistical Learning
Kidd (2012) - Syntactic Priming:
Explanation: This study found that implicit statistical learning is related to how well children use syntactic priming (the tendency to reuse sentence structures they have recently heard). This suggests that statistical learning helps children learn and use syntactic patterns.
Kidd & Arciuli (2016) - Passives and Relative Clauses:
Explanation: This study showed that statistical learning abilities are related to children's comprehension of complex syntactic structures like passive sentences and relative clauses, indicating that statistical learning plays a role in understanding complex grammar.
Here are a few university-level essay questions based on the provided notes, along with guidance on how to approach them:
**1. "Compare and contrast the linguistic nativist and usage-based theories of language acquisition. To what extent does empirical evidence support each perspective, particularly in the domains of lexical semantics and syntax?"
How to Answer:
Introduction: Briefly define linguistic nativism and usage-based theory as two opposing frameworks for understanding language acquisition. Highlight the core tenets of each, focusing on the roles of innate knowledge versus experience and general cognitive mechanisms.
Lexical Semantics: Discuss how each theory explains word learning. For nativism, emphasize innate biases like the whole-object and mutual exclusivity assumptions, citing Markman (1991), Markman & Wachtel (1988), and Diesendruck & Markman (2001). For usage-based theory, detail the importance of socio-cognitive skills like joint attention and intention-reading. Include empirical evidence such as Bloom et al. (1993), Gopnik & Choi (1995), and Tardif (1996) to show cross-linguistic differences in verb acquisition.
Syntax: Explain nativist views on innate syntactic representations and minimal input. Contrast this with the usage-based perspective, which emphasizes learning syntax through frequent words and general cognitive mechanisms. Reference Tomasello's (1992) verb-island hypothesis. Include studies on production and comprehension, such as Akthar & Tomasello (1997), Brooks & Tomasello (1999), and Dittmar, Abbot-Smith, Lieven & Tomasello (2014), to support the idea of lexically-based syntax. Also, discuss contradictory evidence from Gertner, Fisher & Eisengart (2006), which suggests abstract syntactic knowledge.
Critical Analysis: Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of each theory. Acknowledge that neither theory fully explains all aspects of language acquisition. Discuss the possibility of integrative approaches.
Conclusion: Summarize the main points of comparison and contrast. Reiterate the importance of both innate predispositions and environmental input in language development.
**2. "Executive functions and Theory of Mind are critical for pragmatic language development. Critically evaluate the evidence supporting this claim, and discuss the implications for children with developmental disorders."
How to Answer:
Introduction: Define pragmatics as the use of language in context. Introduce Theory of Mind (ToM) and executive functions (EF) as cognitive skills believed to underpin pragmatic abilities. Briefly outline the key components of EF (inhibition, set shifting, working memory).
Evidence for ToM: Discuss studies showing the relationship between ToM and pragmatic skills. Reference Slomkowski & Dunn (1996) and Hale & Tager-Flusberg (2006) to illustrate how ToM abilities correlate with conversational skills and contingent responding.
Evidence for EF: Explain how each component of EF (inhibition, set shifting, working memory) contributes to pragmatic competence. Provide examples of how these functions are necessary for understanding sarcasm, maintaining conversation topics, and interpreting verbal references.
Developmental Disorders: Discuss the implications of impaired ToM and EF for children with developmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Explain how deficits in these areas can lead to difficulties in social communication and pragmatic language use.
Critical Analysis: Acknowledge potential limitations or alternative explanations. Discuss the challenges of disentangling the contributions of ToM, EF, and core language skills to pragmatic development.
Conclusion: Summarize the evidence supporting the role of ToM and EF in pragmatic development. Emphasize the importance of these cognitive skills for effective social communication and the implications for intervention in developmental disorders.
**3. "Statistical learning has a significant role in language acquisition? Discuss with reference to syntax and pragmatics."
How to Answer:
Introduction: Define statistical learning as the ability to implicitly learn the probabilities. Then introduce syntax and pragmatics.
Statistical Learning and Syntax: Discuss studies