Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:13:12.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In search of resilient and fragile properties of language*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2014

SUSAN GOLDIN-MEADOW
SUSAN GOLDIN-MEADOW*
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
*
Address for correspondence: Susan Goldin-Meadow, University of Chicago, Department of Psychology, 5848 South University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637. tel: 773-702-2585; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Young children are skilled language learners. They apply their skills to the language input they receive from their parents and, in this way, derive patterns that are statistically related to their input. But being an excellent statistical learner does not explain why children who are not exposed to usable linguistic input nevertheless communicate using systems containing the fundamental properties of language. Nor does it explain why learners sometimes alter the linguistic input to which they are exposed (input from either a natural or an artificial language). These observations suggest that children are prepared to learn language. Our task now, as it was in 1974, is to figure out what they are prepared with – to identify properties of language that are relatively easy to learn, the resilient properties, as well as properties of language that are more difficult to learn, the fragile properties. The new tools and paradigms for describing and explaining language learning that have been introduced into the field since 1974 offer great promise for accomplishing this task.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue S1: Reflections: 40 years of JCL , July 2014 , pp. 64 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

Supported by R01DC00491 from the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders and by P01 HD 040605 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: the acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(1), 1–31.Google Scholar
Cartmill, E. A., Armstrong, B., Gleitman, L., Goldin-Meadow, S., Medina, T. & Trueswell, J. (2013). Quality of early parent input predicts child vocabulary three years later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(28), 11278–83.Google Scholar
Cartmill, E. A., Hunsicker, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). Pointing and naming are not redundant: children use gesture to modify nouns before they modify nouns in speech. Developmental Psychology, in press.Google Scholar
Coppola, M. & Newport, E. (2005) Grammatical subjects in homesign: abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(52), 19249–53.Google Scholar
Coppola, M. & Senghas, A. (2010). The emergence of deixis in Nicaraguan signing. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign languages: a Cambridge language survey, 543–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coppola, M., Spaepen, E. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2013). Communicating about quantity without a language model: number devices in homesign grammar. Cognitive Psychology 67, 1–25.Google Scholar
Demir, O. E., Levine, S. C. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Narrative skill in children with early unilateral brain injury: a possible limit to functional plasticity. Developmental Science 13(4), 636–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fedzechkina, M., Jaeger, T. F. & Newport, E. L. (2012). Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 17897–902.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. M. (2005). Language learning with an injured brain. Language Learning and Development 1(3/4), 265–88.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. M., Goldin-Meadow, S. & Gleitman, L. (1978). Beyond Herodotus: the creation of language by linguistically deprived deaf children. In Lock, A. (ed.), Action, symbol, and gesture: the emergence of language, 351–414. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Flaherty, M., Goldin-Meadow, S., Senghas, A., Coppola, M. & Gleitman, L. (2013). Animacy and verb classes in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Poster presented at the 38th meeting of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Franklin, A., Giannakidou, A. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Negation, questions, and structure building in a homesign system. Cognition 118(3), 398–416.Google Scholar
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In Kuczaj, S. A. (ed.), Language development: syntax and semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L. & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition 73(2), 135–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleitman, L. R. (1990). The structural sources of word meaning. Language Acquisition 1(1), 3–55.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A. & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words. Language Learning and Development 1(1), 23–64.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. & Newport, E. (1996). The invention of language by children: environmental and biological influences on the acquisition of language. In Gleitman, L. & Liberman, M. (eds), An invitation to cognitive science, 2nd ed., Vol. 1: language, 1–24. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (1982). The resilience of recursion: a study of a communication system developed without a conventional language model. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art, 51–77. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). The resilience of language. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Butcher, C. (2003). Pointing toward two-word speech in young children. In Kita, S. (ed.), Pointing: where language, culture, and cognition meet. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Butcher, C., Mylander, C. & Dodge, M. (1994). Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gesture system: What's in a name? Cognitive Psychology 27, 259–319.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Levine, S. C., Hedges, L. V., Huttenlocher, J., Raudenbush, S. & Small, S. (2014). New evidence about language and cognitive development based on a longitudinal study: hypotheses for intervention. American Psychologist in press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C. (1983). Gestural communication in deaf children: the non-effects of parental input on language development. Science 221, 372–4.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C. (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature 91, 279–81.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Mylander, C. & Franklin, A. (2007). How children make language out of gesture: morphological structure in gesture systems developed by American and Chinese deaf children. Cognitive Psychology 55, 87–135.Google Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1986). Function and structure in maternal speech: their relation to the child's development of syntax. Developmental Psychology 22, 155–63.Google Scholar
Hunsicker, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Hierarchical structure in a self-created communication system: building nominal constituents in homesign. Language 88(4), 732–63.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Selzer, M. & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology 27, 236–48.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J. & Hedges, L. (2010). Sources of variability in children's language growth. Cognitive Psychology 61, 343–65.Google Scholar
Iverson, J. M. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science 16, 368–71.Google Scholar
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
LeBarton, E. S., Raudenbush, S. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). Experimentally-induced increases in early gesture lead to increases in spoken vocabulary. Journal of Cognition and Development in press.Google Scholar
Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, P., Banich, M. & Duda, E. (1987). Factors affecting cognitive functioning of hemiplegic children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 29, 27–35.Google Scholar
Levine, S. C., Suriyakham, L. W., Rowe, M. L., Huttenlocher, S. & Gunderson, E. A. (2010). What counts in the development of young children's number knowledge? Developmental Psychology 46, 1309–19.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language 53, 152–68.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk, 2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A., Miller, R. & Bates, E. (1991). Babble and first words in children with focal brain injury. Applied Psycholinguistics 12, 1–22.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. E. (1977). Facilitating children's syntax acquisition. Developmental Psychology 13, 101–7.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. (1991). Contrasting conceptions of the critical period for language. In Carey, S. & Gelman, R. (eds), The epigenesis of mind: essays on biology and cognition, 11–130. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L., Gleitman, H. & Gletiman, L. R. (1977). Mother, I'd rather do it myself: some effects and noneffects of maternal speech style. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition, 109–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newport, E. L. & Meier, R. P. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1: the data, 881–938. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Özçalişkan, S. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture is at the cutting edge of early language development. Cognition 96, B01–113.Google Scholar
Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Singer, J. D. & Snow, C. E. (2005). Maternal correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary production in low-income families. Child Development 76(4), 763–82.Google Scholar
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C. & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children's spatial thinking: Does talk about the spatial world matter? Developmental Science 14, 1417–30.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009a). Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry. Science 323, 951–3.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009b). Early gesture selectively predicts later language learning. Developmental Science 12(1), 182–7.Google Scholar
Rowe, M. L., Levine, S. C., Fisher, J. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). The joint effects of biology and input on the language development of brain-injured children. Developmental Psychology 45, 90–102.Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274, 1926–8.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, B. B. (1985). The acquisition of Kaluli. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1: the data., 525–93. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. (1995). Children's contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. (Unpublished PhD dissertation) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Senghas, A. (2003). Intergenerational influence and ontogenetic development in the emergence of spatial grammar in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cognitive Development 18(4), 511–31.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1966). The acquisition of Russian as a native language. In Smith, F. & Miller, C. (eds), The genesis of language: a psycholinguistic approach, 129–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Introduction: Why study acquisition crosslinguistically? In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1: the data., 3–24. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1992). The crosslinguistic endeavor. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), A cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Volume 3, 1–13. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Snedeker, J., Geren, J. & Shafto, C. L. (2007). Starting over: international adoption as a natural experiment in language development. Psychological Science 18(1), 79–87.Google Scholar
Stiles, J., Reilly, J. S., Levine, S. C., Trauner, D. & Nass, R. D. (2012). Neural plasticity and cognitive development: insights from children with perinatal brain injury. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H. & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Emergence of syntax: commonalities and differences across children. Developmental Science 11, 84–97.Google Scholar