Biological Predispositions to Learn Language

  • L. R. Gleitman
Part of the Dahlem Workshop Reports book series (DAHLEM, volume 29)

Abstract

Language learning clearly is an outcome of specific exposure conditions, but just as clearly requires specific biological adaptations. There is no controversy about this claim as stated, for it is obvious to the point of banality. To believe that special biological adaptations are a requirement, it is enough to notice that all the children but none of the dogs and cats in the house acquire language. To believe that language is nevertheless learned, it is sufficient to note the massive correlation between living in France and learning French, and living in Germany and learning German. Controversy does arise, however, on the issue of whether language knowledge is based on a specific and segregated mental faculty or, instead, utilizes the same machinery in the head that is implicated in the acquisition of all complex cognitive functions. Many linguistic theories postulate not only a distinct mental representation or faculty of language (a “language organ,” in Chomsky’s wording, functioning as autonomously as, say, the liver), but a highly modularized system internal to language itself (13). Proponents of such positions expect that language learning will be largely maturationally determined, that the maturation functions may be quite separate from those in other cognitive domains, and that different modules within the language system may mature quasi-independently. In clear contrast, most developmental psycholinguists hold that language acquisition is best described by a global learning procedure that is responsible for the acquisition of, e.g., knitting, arithmetic, and ancient history as well as, say, English (e.g., (3, 50)).

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. (1).
    Bates, E., and MacWhinney, B. 1982. Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Language Acquisition: State of the Art, eds. E. Wanner and L.R. Gleitman. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. (2).
    Bellugi, U. 1967. The acquisition of negation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.Google Scholar
  3. (3).
    Bever, T.G. 1982. Some implications of the nonspecific bases of language. In Language Acquisition: State of the Art, eds. E. Wanner and L.R. Gleitman. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. (4).
    Bickerton, D. 1975. Dynamics of a Creole System. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. (5).
    Bloom, L. 1970. Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. (6).
    Bloom, L.; Lightbrown, P.; and Hood, L. 1975. Structure and variation in child language. Monog. Soc. Res. Child. Dev. 40 (Serial No. 160).Google Scholar
  7. (7).
    Bradley, D.C.; Garrett, M.F.; and Zurif, E.G. 1979. Syntactic deficits in Broca’s aphasia. In Biological Studies of Mental Processes, ed. D. Caplan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  8. (8).
    Brown, R. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. (9).
    Brown, R., and Hanlon, C. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Cognition and the Development of Language, ed. J. Hayes. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. (10).
    Bruner, J.S. 1974/75. From communication to language: A psychological perspective. Cognition 3: 255–287.Google Scholar
  11. (11).
    Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. (12).
    Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on Language. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  13. (13).
    Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.Google Scholar
  14. (14).
    Dorian, N. 1978. The fate of morphological complexity in language death. Language 54 (3): 590–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. (15).
    Feldman, H.; Goldin-Meadow, S.; and Gleitman, L. 1978. Beyond Herodotus: The creation of language by linguistically deprived deaf children. In Action, Symbol, and Gesture: The Emergence of Language, ed. A. Lock. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. (16).
    Fernald, A. 1982. Acoustic determinants of infant preference for “motherese.” Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  17. (17).
    Fernald, A. 1983. The perceptual and affective salience of mothers’ speech to infants. In The Origins and Growth of Communication, eds. C. Feagans, C. Garvey, and R. Golinkoff. New Brunswick, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
  18. (18).
    Fowler, A. 1981. Language learning in Downs Syndrome children. Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  19. (18).
    Fowler, A. 1981. Language learning in Downs Syndrome children. Manuscript, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  20. (20).
    Furrow, D.; Nelson, K.; and Benedict, H. 1979. Mothers’ speech to children and syntactic development: Some simple relationships, J. Child. Lang. 6: 423–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. (21).
    Garrett, M.F. 1975. The analysis of sentence production. In The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, ed. G.H. Bower, vol. 97 New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. (22).
    Gentner, D. 1982. Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity vs. natural partitioning. In Language Development: Language, Culture, and Cognition, ed S. Kuczaj. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. (23).
    Gleitman, H., and Gleitman, L.R. 1979. Language use and language judgment. In Individual Differences in Language Ability and Language Behavior, eds. C.J. Fillmore, D. Kempler, and W.S-Y. Wang. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  24. (24).
    Gleitman, L.R., and Gleitman, H. 1970. Phrase and Paraphrase. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  25. (25).
    Gleitman, L.R.; Newport, E.L.; and Gleitman, H. 1984. The current status of the Motherese hypothesis. J. Child. Lang. 11 (1): 43–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. (26).
    Gleitman, L.R., and Rozin, P. 1977. The structure and acquisition of reading I: Relations between orthographies and the structure of language. In Toward a Psychology of Reading, eds. A. Reber and D. Scarborough. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. (27).
    Gleitman, L.R., and Wanner, E. 1982. Language acqusition: The state of the state of the art. In Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, eds. E. Wanner and L.R. Gleitman. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. (28).
    Gleitman, L.R., and Wanner, E. 1984. Current issues in language learning. In Developmental Psychology, ed. M. Bornstein. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, in pressGoogle Scholar
  29. (29).
    Gold, E.M. 1967. Language identification in the limit. Inform. Control 10: 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. (30).
    Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. (30).
    Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  32. (32).
    Kean, M.L. 1979. Agrammatism: A phonological deficit? Cognition 7 (1): 69–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. (33).
    Lackner, J.R. 1976. A developmental study of language behavior in retarded children. In Normal and Deficient Child Language, eds. D.M. Morehead and Â.E. Morehead. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
  34. (34).
    Landau, B. 1982. Language learning in blind children. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  35. (35).
    Landau, B., and Gleitman, L.R. The Language of Perception in Blind Children. Harvard University Press, in press.Google Scholar
  36. (36).
    Lenneberg, E. 1967. Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  37. (37).
    Linebarger, M.C.; Schwartz, M.F.; and Saffran, E.M. 1983. Sensitivity to grammatical structure in so-called agrammatic aphasics. Cognition 13 (3): 361–392.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. (38).
    Marin, O.; Saffran, E.; and Schwartz, M. 1976. Dissociations of language in aphasia: Implications for normal function. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 280: 868–884.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. (39).
    Miller, G.A., and Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. (40).
    Nelson, K. 1979. Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monog. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 38 (Serial No. 149): 1–2.Google Scholar
  41. (41).
    Newport, E.L. 1977. Motherese: The speech of mothers to young children. In Cognitive Theory, eds. N.J. Castellan, D.B. Pisoni, and G. Potts, vol. 2. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. (42).
    Newport, E.L.; Gleitman, H.; and Gleitman, L.R. 1977. Mother, I’d rather do it myself: Some effects and noneffects of maternal speech style. In Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition, eds. C.E. Snow and C.A. Ferguson. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. (43).
    Newport, E.L., and Supalla, T. 1980. The structuring of language: Clues from the acquisition of signed and spoken language. In Signed and Spoken Language: Biological Constraints on Linguistic Form, eds. U. Bellugi and M. Studdert-Kennedy. Dahlem Konferenzen. Weinheim/Deerfield Beach, Fl./Basil: Verlag Chemie.Google Scholar
  44. (44).
    Pinker, S. 1979. Formal models of language learning. Cognition 7: 217–283.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. (45).
    Pinker, S. 1982. A theory of the acquisition of lexical interpretive grammars. In The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, ed. J. Bresnan. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  46. (46).
    Premack, D., and Premack, A.J. 1983. The Mind of an Ape. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  47. (47).
    Rosch, E.; Mervis, C.B.; Gray, W.D.; Johnson, D.M.; and BoyesBraem, P. 1976. Basic objects in natural categories. Cog. Psychol. 8: 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. (48).
    Rozin, P., and Gleitman, L.R. 1977. The acquisition and structure of reading II: The reading process and the acquisition of the alphabetic principle. In Toward a Psychology of Reading, eds. A. Reber and D. Scarborough. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  49. (49).
    Sankoff, G., and Laberge, S. 1973. On the acquisition of native speakers by a language. Kivung 6: 32–47.Google Scholar
  50. (50).
    Slobin, D.I. 1973. Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Studies of Child Language Development, eds. C.A. Ferguson and D.I. Slobin. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  51. (51).
    Slobin, D.I. 1977. Language change in childhood and in history. In Language Learning and Thought, ed. J. Macnamara. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  52. (52).
    Slobin, D.I., and Bever, T.G. 1982. Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12 (3): 229–266.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. (53).
    Snow, C.E., and Ferguson, C.A., eds. 1977. Talking to Children: Language Input and Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. (54).
    Wexler, K. 1982. A principle theory for language acquisition. In Language Acquisition: State of the Art, eds. E. Wanner and L.R. Gleitman. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. (55).
    Wexler, K. and Culicover, P. 1980. Formal Principles of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  56. (56).
    Zwicky, A.M. 1976. On clitics. Paper read at the Third International Phonologie-Tagung at the University of Vienna, Sept. 2, 1976.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Berlin, Heildelberg, New York, Tokyo: Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • L. R. Gleitman
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of PsychologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations