DANCEST 805 Lecture Notes - Lecture 27: Language Acquisition Device, Davidoff, Developmental Coordination Disorder
summary Eysenck Part 3 Language +
chapter 10
is language innate?
According to Harley language is s system of symbols and rules that enable us to
communicate. Its primary function is communication.
There is a lot of controversy around this topic.
According to Chomsky people have a language acquisition device, an innate knowledge of
grammatical structure. Children do require some exposure, but this is to specify which
language they will obtain→ many experts regard this notion implausible.
Beckerton put forward the language bioprogramme hypothesis; children will create
grammar even if not exposed to a proper language→ support comes from pidgin languages
Evidence that a language can develop w/o exposure to a properly developed language
comes from the deaf Nicaraguan children, who developed their own sign language, not
resembling Spanish or other languages.
People have an innate motivation to acquire and learn a language, also to communicate, but
there is no sound/ strong evidence in support of a language acquisition device.
There’s also the genetic approach; there are huge individual differences in language ability→
mutations in the FOXP2 gene have been found in a British family w/ severe verbal dyspraxia.
This gene is likely involved in the brain mechanisms enabling speech.
Whorfian hypothesis
The best-known theory about the interrelation between language and though is the
hypothesis of linguistic relativity/ Whorfian hypothesis, which states that language
influences or determines thinking.
There are 3 versions:
Strong hypothesis→ language determines thinking
Weak hypothesis→ language influences perception
Weakest hypothesis→ language influences memory
Evidence
Heider: colour categorization and memory should vary as a function of native
language
− Compared Americans w/ The Dani
− Colour memory was comparable in both groups
Roberson was unable to replicate these findings using English people and Berinmo
Roberson, Davidoff and Davies conducted further research on Berinmo;
− It’s easier to discriminate between stimuli belonging to 2 different categories,
than w/I category
− English speakers distinguish between blue and green
− Berinmo people distinguish between nol (green) and wor (yellow)
− Language determined performance→ both groups showed categorical
perception based on their native language.
Winawer et al.: Russian language has 2 different words for dark blue and light blue
− Clear evidence of categorical perception
Hoffman, Lau and Johnson:
− Bilinguals thinking in Chinese used Chinese stereotypes in free interpretations
− Bilinguals thinking in English used English stereotypes in free interpretations
− ➔the inferences we draw are/ can be influenced by the language in which
we’re thinking
Casanto:
− English speakers used distance metaphors to describe duration of an event
− Greek speakers use amount metaphors to describe duration of an event
− English speakers’ duration estimates would be influenced by distance→
length of line
− Greek speakers’ duration estimates would be influenced by amount→
amount of liquid in tank
− Supported by findings
Evaluation
Over the years there has been increasing support of the Whorfian hypothesis on several
kinds of tasks→ supporting the weakest and weak versions.
There has even been modest evidence for the strong hypothesis → what is lacking is a
detailed specification of how language influences cognition.
Chapter 10 language comprehension
Introduction
There has been much more research on reading comprehension than listening, but what is
true of reading is generally true of listening.
There are 2 main levels of analysis in sentence comprehension:
1. Analysis of syntactical structure of the sentence→ parsing
2. Analysis of sentence meaning→ pragmatics
Individuals w/ high working memory capacity exhibit superior language skills to those w/ low
capacity.
Parsing
The most fundamental issue is to work out when different types of information are used, the
relationship between syntactic and semantic analysis→ 4 possibilities;
1. Syntactic analysis precedes semantic analysis
2. Semantic analysis precedes syntactic analysis
3. Syntactic and semantic analysis occur at the same time
4. Syntax and semantics are very closely related and have a hand-in-glove relationship
(Altmann, personal communication)
Syntactic ambiguity
→ at the global level; whole sentence
→local level; different interpretations possible at some point during parsing
One way listeners work out the syntactic or grammatical structure is w/ the use of prosodic
cues; stress, intonation and duration. They’re most likely to be used in ambiguous sentences,
implicit prosodic cues appear to be used during silent reading.
Intonational boundaries (speech) and commas (text)→ similar ERPs
Other aspects of prosody influence eye movements and reading time.
Listener’s interpretations of ambiguous sentences were influenced by prosodic cues
before the start of the ambiguous phrase→ predict to-be-presented info
Theories of parsing
We can categorise theories or models based on when semantic info influences parsing;
Garden-path model: the initial attempt to parse a sentence involves using only
syntactic info
Constraint-based model: all sources of info are used from the onset
Unrestricted race-model: combines both aspects
Garden-path model
The garden-path model is based on the following assumptions:
1. Only one syntactical structure is initially considered for any sentence
2. Meaning is not involved in the selection of this structure
3. The simplest structure is chosen, making use of 2 principles:
a. Minimal attachment; the grammatical structure involving the fewest nodes is
preferred
b. Late closure; new words in a sentence are attached to the current phrase or
clause, if grammatically possible
c. If there’s conflict between the 2 principles → resolved in favour of minimal
attachment
4. If the initial syntactic structure constructed for a sentence is incompatible w/
additional info→ 2nd stage of processing in which the original structure is revised
Document Summary
According to harley language is s system of symbols and rules that enable us to communicate. There is a lot of controversy around this topic. According to chomsky people have a language acquisition device, an innate knowledge of grammatical structure. Children do require some exposure, but this is to specify which language they will obtain many experts regard this notion implausible. Beckerton put forward the language bioprogramme hypothesis; children will create grammar even if not exposed to a proper language support comes from pidgin languages. Evidence that a language can develop w/o exposure to a properly developed language comes from the deaf nicaraguan children, who developed their own sign language, not resembling spanish or other languages. People have an innate motivation to acquire and learn a language, also to communicate, but there is no sound/ strong evidence in support of a language acquisition device.
