Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:20:31.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Words in discourse: a dialectical approach to the acquisition of meaning and use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Elena Levy  and
Katherine Nelson
Elena Levy*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut and Haskins Laboratories
Katherine Nelson
Affiliation:
City University of New York Graduate Center
*
[*] Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut at Stamford, Scofieldtown Road, Stamford CT 06903, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Word learning by young children is viewed as a problem of deriving meaning from the use of forms in discourse contexts. Uses of causal and temporal terms in private speech by a child studied longitudinally from 1;9 to 3;0 are analysed from this perspective. Evidence is presented that words are first constrained to uses in specific discourse contexts, and later used more flexibly and with greater control over the semantics of the terms. Derivation of meaning from discourse is described as a dialectical process, and as such it is claimed to be more consistent with the full range of observational data, and with theories of word learning applicable to older children and adults, than other current theories of lexical acquisition in early childhood.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 367 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. C. & Nagy, W. E. (1989). Word meanings. Technical Report No. 485. Urbana-Champaign: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Anglin, J. (1977). Word, object and conceptual development. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Au, T. K. & Glusman, M. (1990). The principle of mutual exclusivity in word learning: to honor or not to honor? Child Development 61, 1474–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrett, M. D. (1986). Early semantic representations and early word-usage. In Kuczaj, S. A. II & Barrett, M. D. (eds), The development of word meaning: progress in cognitive development research. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. & Capatides, J. B. (1987). Expression of affect and the emergence of language. Child Development 58, 1513–21.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K. & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. Journal of Child Language 7, 235–61.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganization processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (ed.), Language acquisition: the state of the art. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Byrnes, J. P. (1991). Acquisition and development of if and because: conceptual and linguistic aspects. In Gelman, S. A. & Byrnes, J. P. (eds), Perspectives on language and cognition: interrelations in development. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1971). On the acquisition of the meaning of before and after. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 10, 266–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1973). What's in a word? On the child's acquisition of semantics in his first language. In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1990). On the pragmatics of contrast. Journal of Child Language 17, 417–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
French, L. A. (1988). The development of children's understanding of ‘because’ and ‘so’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 45, 262–79.Google Scholar
French, L. A. & Nelson, K. (1985). Young children's understanding of relational terms: some ifs, ors and buts. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, J. (1989). Monologue as a speech genre. In Nelson, K. (ed.), Narratives from the crib. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Gildea, P. M., Miller, G. A. & Wurtenberg, C. L. (1990). Contextual enrichment by videodisc. In Nix, & Spiro, (eds), Cognition, education and multimedia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. & Wanner, E. (1982). Language acquisition: the state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (ed.). Language acquisition: the state of the art. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: the case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language 21, 125–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harner, L. (1982). Talking about the past and future. In Friedman, W. J. (ed.), The developmental psychology of time. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hood, L. & Bloom, L. (1979). What, when, and how about why: a longitudinal study of expressions of causality in the language of two-year-old children. Chicago: Society for Research in Child Development Monographs.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language: a study of determiners and reference. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. (1985). Language and experience: evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Levy, E. (1989). Monologue as development of the text-forming function of language. In Nelson, K. (ed.), Narratives from the crib. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. (1982). The child's construction of grammatical categories. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1991). The whole-object, taxonomic, and mutual exclusivity assumptions as initial constraints on word meanings. In Gelman, S. A. & Byrnes, J. P. (eds), Perspectives on language and thought: interrelations in development. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
McNamara, T. P. & Miller, D. L. (1989). Attributes of theories of meaning. Psychological Bulletin 106, 355–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (1974). Concept, word, and sentence: interrelations in acquisition and development. Psychological Review 81, 267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (1986). Event knowledge: structure and function in development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (ed.). (1989). Narratives from the crib. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1991). The matter of time: interdependencies between language and thought in development. In Gelman, S. A. & Byrnes, J. P. (eds), Perspectives on language and cognition: interrelations in development. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1992). Contexted relevance and the acquisition of shared meaning. Paper given at the British Child Language Seminar, Glasgow.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K., Hampson, J. & Shaw, L. K. (1993). Nouns in early lexicons: evidence, explanations and implications. Journal of Child Language 20, 61–84.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. & Levy, E. (1987). Development of referential cohesion in a child's monologues. In Steele, R. & Threadgold, T. (eds), Language topics: essays in honour of Michael Halliday, Vol. I. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1929). The child's conception of the world, translated by , J. & Tomlinson, A.. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1987). Cognitive implications of a referential hierarchy. In Hickman, M. (ed.), Social and functional approaches to language and thought. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Language and thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weir, R. M. (1962). Language in the crib. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weist, R. M. (1986). Tense and aspect: temporal systems in child language. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition (2nd edn). Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar