Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:39:19.054Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Going beyond information theory to explain early word choice: a reply to Roy Pea*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Patricia M. Greenfield
Patricia M. Greenfield
Affiliation:
University of California
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1980 , pp. 217 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

[*]

I should like to thank the following people for helping me by their thoughtful discussion of Pea's critique and/or an earlier version of my response: Jerome Bruner, Cathy Dent, Campbell Leaper, David Olson, Roy Pea and Patricia Zukow. The preparation of this reply was aided by a grant from the Spencer Foundation. Address for correspondence: Department of Psychology, University of California, 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90024.

References

REFERENCES

Bloom, L., Miller, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Variation and reduction as aspects of competence in language development. In Pick, A. (ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1974). Length constraints, reduction rules, and holophrastic processes in children's word combinations. JVLVB 13. 448–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherry, E. C. (1957). On the validity of applying communication theory to experimental psychology. BJPsychol 48. 176–88.Google ScholarPubMed
Cherry, E. C. (1966). On human communication. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Garner, W. R. (1962). Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. (1978). Informativeness, presupposition, and semantic choice in single-word utterances. In Waterson, N. & Snow, C. (eds), Development of communication: social and pragmatic factors in language acquisition. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. (1979). The role of perceptual uncertainty in the transition to language. Paper presented in a symposium on the transition from sensorimotor to linguistic communication at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research on Child Development,San Francisco, March.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. & Dent, C. H. (in press). A developmental study of the communication of meaning: the role of uncertainty and information. In French, P. (ed.), The development of meaning: pedolinguistic series. Japan: Bunka Hyoron Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. & Zukow, P. G. (1978). Why do children say what they say when they say it?: an experimental approach to the psychogenesis of presupposition. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's language, Vol. I. New York: Gardner.Google Scholar
Pea, R. (1979). Can information theory explain early word choice? JChLang 6. 397–410.Google ScholarPubMed