Overview

Central questions about first language acquisitionMethods of studying first language acquisitionFirst language acquisition as an innate behaviorTheories of first language acquisitionMilestones in first language acquisition

First language acquisition

i.e. developmental (as opposed to experimental) psycholinguistics

How is it that by age 5 children know their language? What they do along the way and why? Is language development independent of intelligence, other cognitive skills? How is it that children are able to completely master a first language, whereas adults

rarely can completely master a second language?

Methods of studying first language acquisition

Production studies

Productions are spontaneous or elicitedspontaneous production studies: typically diary of subject is kept from ages 1-3;

this type of study is good for studying the age of acquisition of phonology, lexiconelicited production studies: e.g. which doll should he pick up? kid might answer:

the one that's jumping or the jumping one; this type of study is good for eliciting knowledge of syntax at a particular age

Comprehension studies

act-out taskse.g.: experimenter: "make the hippo jump over the rhino. then make bullwinkle

jump over him." kid: moves the toys these don't work with really young children

judgement taskse.g. experimenter: "X happened. is that right?" kid: yes/nothese can be used with younger children

perception tasks

can be used even with infants: measure pacifier sucking rate, heart beathabituation to task (e.g. listening to [pa]): measured by slower sucking ratenew sound presented (e.g. [ba]): sucking rate increases

introspectionnot well explored as experimental techniqueprobably works well with older kids only

Production lags behind comprehension

How to determine if child has acquired a particular characteristic?Assumption: correctly produced --> acquired; if mistakes are made has not acquired that feature; but language learners can correctly comprehend much more than they can produce

Recognition of polite forms precedes the ability to produce them.

Puppets requesting candy used direct forms like:‘Give me candy.’

Or indirect forms like:‘I would like some candy.’ Or: ‘May I have some candy?’

Indirect forms were judged more polite.

Direct vs. indirect commandsdirect commands produced before indirect commands, but even before indirect commands are produced, their politeness function is acquired:

“The children listened to two different puppets requesting candy, and had to decide who asked most nicely for it. For example, one puppet might say:

Give me candy.And the other:

I would like some candy.Or:

May I have some candy?Bates (1976) found that children three years old thought the puppet that asked indirectly was more deserving of the candy, but they could not explain this choice. If pressed for an explanation, they often said “this puppet said ‘please’,” although none of the puppets did! So it seems as though recognition of polite forms precedes the ability to produce them.”

Recognition of sounds precedes the ability to produce them.

“fis” example in O’Grady p. 444: ‘One of us, for instance, spoke to a child who called his inflated plastic fish a fis. In imitation of the child’s pronunciation, the observer said:

“This is your fis?” “No,” said the child, “my fis”. He continued to reject the adult’s imitation until he was told, “That is your fish.” “Yes,” he said, “my fis.”

(Child can recognize sh vs. s before able to produce both sounds.)

Theories of first language acquisition

competence: list-like and rule-like

acquisition of list-like competence (knowing which words/morphemes are part of your language):

by the time a child is 6, typically has a vocabulary of about 14,000 words. children may acquire much of this kind of competence through something like memorization (but probably involves much more structure--semantic decomposition/componential analysis).

Theories of acquisition of rule-based competence:acquisition of rule-like competence (rules for phonology, morphology, syntax). different hypotheses:

Imitation hypothesis: children learn solely by imitating what they hear Reinforcement hypothesis: children learn by being positively or negatively

reinforced for certain kinds of behavior Active construction of grammar hypothesis: children are actively constructing and

refining a grammar of the language of their environment (much like linguists).

Evidence for Active construction of grammar hypothesis:

Children don't get a lot of correctionsthey do get some lexical/content correctionsthey don't get a lot of grammatical corrections

(problem for reinforcement hypothesis)

Children don't absorb a lot of the corrections they do hear

Child: My teacher holded the baby rabbits and we patted them.Adult: Did you say your teacher held the baby rabbits?Child: Yes.Adult: What did you say she did?Child: She holded the baby rabbits and we patted them.Adult: Did you say she held them tightly?Child: No, she holded them loosely.

adult: held, said twice, ignored both times

Child: Nobody don’t like me.Mother: No. Say ‘nobody likes me’.Child: Nobody don’t like me.

(preceding dialogue repeated 8 times)

Mother: Now listen carefully. Say ‘nobody LIKES me’.Child: Oh...Nobody don’t LIKES me.

(problem for reinforcement hypothesis)

Children produce novel utteranceschildren can come up with novel sentences: children produce sentences they have never heard before--such as sentences which are ungrammatical by adult standards: new syntax:‘other one spoon’new morphology:causative:'you're fedding me up'(wants mother to change sister’s diaper before feeding her) ‘Don’t eat her yet. She’s smelly!’‘These flowers are sneezing me!’nouns used as verb:‘Put me that broom. Let’s get brooming.’‘Why you didn’t jam my bread?’‘I hate you and I’ll never unhate you or nothing!’

(problems for Imitation hypothesis: these are not obviously not imitations of the adult language)

Children make systematic, not random, errorsthere is a systematicity to their errors which suggest that they are learning rules; i.e. errors are ruleschildren appear to be equipped with some knowledge of what a possible human lg is

Phonological

Natural, not random, classes of consonants

Inventory of English consonants (age 2)voiced and voiceless stops, voiceless fricatives, nasals, labial glide

p b t d k g

f s hm nw

Inventory of English consonants (age 4) (adult system, minus interdental fricatives, [])

p b t d k gt d

f v s z hm n

lw r j

Novel phonological rules

child target rule:“[gu] here” glue no consonant clusters are allowed“it not [lu] off” flew“no me [lip]” sleep“[kak] ticking” clock“daddy [kk]” stick“allgone [t]” twig“eat [ol]” granola“more [brd]” bread“mummy [gb]” give syllable-final consonants are stops“me got [æpm]” asthma“me [ll]” little only vowels can be syllable peak“bus [ltu] no” little“it [btu] me” bitten“take [mnæn]” banana all consonants in a word must be either oral or nasal

Morphological

Regularizing and overgeneralizing errors tend to decrease after age 2:

Regularization of plurals: gooses Regularization of past tense forms of verbs: heared, hitted, goed, bringed, comed; I

tooked it smaller Regularization of comparative forms of adjectives: He hitted me. He’s a puncher he

is. He’s being badder and badder.

Semantic

Overextension/broadening:

child’s word first referent extensions‘mooi’ moon cakes, postmarks, round marks on window,

the letter O, round shapes in books‘bird’ sparrows cow, dog, cats, any moving animal‘fly’ fly specks of dirt, dust, all small insects, child’s

own toes, crumbs, small toad‘koko’ rooster crowing piano, phonograph, tunes played on violin,

accordian, all music, merry-go-round‘wau-wau’ dog toy dog, soft slippers, picture of old man in

furs, all animals

note that overgeneralization makes the most of a small vocabulary

Underextension/narrowing:

semantic underextension also happens but is less frequent than overgeneralization

child’s word first referent extensions‘car’ the family’s Pontiac none‘plant’ the fern in the kitchen none‘mow-mow’ the family’s cat none‘dish’ the child’s dish none

Syntactic

Three stages in the acquisition of negative sentences

stage productions rule1 No...wipe finger. Attach ‘no’ or ‘not’ to the beginning of a

sentence.No a boy bed.No singing song.No the sun shining.No money.No sit there.No play that.No fall!Not...fit.Not a teddy bear.More...no.Wear mitten no.

2 No square is...clown.

I can’t catch you. ‘no’, ‘not’, ‘can’t’, and ‘don’t’ appear after the subject and before the verb

I can’t see you.We can’t talk.I don’t want it.Don’t bite me yet.No pinch me.He no bite you.He not little, he big.That no Mommy.There no squirrels.Touch the snow no. ‘no’ can appear at the end of a sentenceThis a radiator no.

3 We can’t make another broom.

no’, ‘not’, ‘can’t’, ‘don’t’ and ‘won’t appear after the subject and before the verb

I don’t want cover on it.I gave him some so he won’t cry.I didn’t see something.I not hurt him.I not cryingThat not turning.Don’t put the two wings on.I didn’t did it.You didn’t caught me.I am not a doctor. ‘not’ appears after forms of ‘be’It’s not cold.This not ice cream.I isn’t...I not sad.

3rd stage shows some remaining problems with auxiliaries ‘be’ (I not crying), forms of ‘be’ (I isn’t),

First language acquisition as an innate behavior

intense interest in first lg. acquisition by linguists because characteristics of first lg acquisition seem to support Innateness Hypothesis. i.e., children must be equipped from birth with certain lg. learning capabilities.

first language acquisition seems to be an innate behavior, with the characteristics identified by Lenneberg (discussed in File 82); cf. differences between walking, learning to play football or ballet dancing (not innate behaviors)

Characteristics of first language acquisition

(all terms used by Chomsky)

Poverty of stimulus`very limited data suffice for the language faculty of the mind/brain to provide a rich and complex language'. children are exposed to:

adult performance, not competence, with variety of speech errors, omissions; somehow they figure out competence underlying performance.

motherese: slowed down (more pauses); short, simple sentences; repetitions; exaggerated intonation; higher pitch overall, diminutives; motherese appears to be universal or nearly so

Speed of learning Lack of instruction Cross-linguistic regularities in learning Uniformity of resulting grammars

Characteristics of innate behaviors

Innate behaviors: walking, languageNot innate behaviors: playing football, ballet dancing, etc.

1. Emerge before needed.lg, walking emerge before child has to fend for him/herself; ballet might never emerge without instruction/coaching

2. Not the result of a conscious decision.learning ballet, someone has to decide to take ballet lessons

3. Not triggered by (extraordinary) external events (other than immersion in linguistic environment).

acquisition of skill in ballet is triggered by immersion in ballet environment and drilling in ballet skills

4. Not effected by explicit instruction:child is not explicitly taught to speak or walk, in fact, resist correction; ballet is explicitly taught, corrections are an important part of learning process

5. Normal stages of achievement, independent of environment, can be identified. in talking, walking there are milestones, normal achievements (see file 86), which occur at typical ages independently of language environment;

mastery of certain ballet skills depends on individual; students of ballet take different amounts of time to master a pirouette (apocryphal story: it takes 1 million repetitions to nail a pirouette), and some might never master a pirouette

6. Critical age

hypothesis: there appears to be a critical age for language learning. explains: (1) why adults don't learn a second language easily, with full mastery (particularly of phonology) (2) children learn languages easily without teaching, but if not exposed to a language, lg. ability atrophies after certain point, just as there is a critical age for acquisition of vision

case of Genie (described in Readings) (discovered age 14 in 1970, studied 1970--1979), other feral children (Isabelle mentioned in Files). Genie turned out to be more advanced cognitively than linguistically

is there a critical age for learning to walk? cf. evidence concerning critical age for development of vision

is there a critical age for learning of ballet? (some required abilities, such as extreme flexibility and ability to spin, do seem to be acquired more easily by children than adults)

lateralization and Critical Age hypothesis: thought possibly lateralization of brain related to critical age hypothesis

lateralization (for some skills) found in fetuses, newborns, infants (males?)

but possibly 2 hemispheres not so specialized for lg. or certain other functions at birth:infants whose left hemispheres removed (eg. tumor)---young brains can recover

from trauma whereas adult brains cannot: if left hemisphere at birth, right hemisphere can take over language functions so that language use in later years is almost perfect (incomplete mastery of syntax);

adult brains cannot do this. in fact, if hemisphere is damaged at adolescence or later, and damage is to left hemisphere in strongly lateralized subject, then there will be lifelong speech problems

so, when does lateralization of brain cease? originally thought puberty--when ability to learn lg. ceases, but some new evidence that lateralization possibly finished by age 5--note most of lg. acquired by age 5

Heny suggests that lateralization precedes language; perhaps in an evolutionary sense, lateralization paved the way for language and language gravitation to left because of specialization for analytical, sequential processing

Regular milestones in first language production

children learn language in stages; basically, the older they get, the better they get.

these stages found in all languages!

Babbling

0-1 months: crying, coughing2-3 months: cooing, gooing; velar consonants4-6 months: produce greater variety of sounds, sounds more like language7-9 months: CV syllables, often reduplicated; e.g. [tata]12 months: relatively long sequences of gibberish18-20 months: babbling ceases

universal characteristics of babbling; babbling independent of what sounds are heard:deaf children babblehearing children of deaf parents babble. some sounds produced may not be heard in child's house;

possibly children are learning difs. between sounds of their lg., sounds not in their lg., practicing right ones. also start producing correct intonation contours of sentences.

Categorical perception of speech sounds

said above that production lags behind comprehension some spectacular evidence that comprehension, categorization of speech sounds begins at quite an early age

When sounds are perceived, they are assigned to categories (phonemes). Phonetic categories have prototypical (good examples) and non-prototypical (bad examples) members. There are differences between languages with respect to prototypes: adult Swedish speakers' prototype /i/ is different from English speakers' prototype /i/; Swedish speakers will often judge English /i/ more like Swedish /e/.

Prototypes are like “perceptual magnets'': sounds which are at a certain perceptual distance from the prototype are perceived as more like the prototype than sounds which are at the same perceptual distance from a non-prototype.

in research by Pat Kuhl, it has been shown that there are phonetic category prototypes--`exceptionally good instances of phonetic categories'. i.e., there is a range of possible pronunciations of /i/; adults judge some of these as better instances of /i/ than others.

for adults, these prototypes are like ``perceptual magnets'': sounds which are at a certain perceptual distance from the prototype are perceived as more like the prototype than sounds which are at the same perceptual distance from a non-prototype. this is perceptual magnet effect of prototype.

differences between languages with respect to prototypes: adult Swedish speakers' prototype /i/ is different from English speakers' prototype /i/; Swedish speakers will often judge English /i/ more like Swedish /e/.

Advantages of categorical perception

Best et al. (1988) Examination of perceptual reorganization for nonnative speech contrasts: Zulu click discrimination by English-speaking adults and infants. J. of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 14:345--360.

`the perceptual reorganization at 10-12 months that Werker found closely parallels the universal milestones of beginning word comprehension and, for many infants, the first productions of words...the prephonemic sensitivity of infants under 10-12 months of age for many nonnative contrasts is surely well suited to their ability to learn whichever language surrounds them. However, as they become attuned to the ambient language and first begin to use words, phonemic perception should presumably aid their language acquisition. If phonemic perception entails assimilation of incoming sounds to the categories employed in the native language, then it may benefit the infant by sharpening the lines of structural organization within the phonological system of their language and by helping to establish perceptual constancy among the acoustic variations of words pronounced in different contexts and by different speakers. These benefits would presumably continue to aid efficient speech perception by adults, thus accounting for their continued difficulty with discriminating nonnative sounds that are assimilated to a single native phonemic category.'

Adults

adults perceive speech sounds

Linguistic experience influences categorical perception. E.g., Japanese speakers are not good at distinguishing [r] and [l]; English speakers are. Categorical perception thus interferes with the ability to discriminate phonetic contrasts.

Miyawaki et al. (1975) "An effect of linguistic experience: The discrimination of [r] and [l] by native speakers of Japanese and English." Perception and Psychophysics 18:331--340.

Miyawaki et al. showed that Japanese speakers are not good at distinguishing [r] and [l]; English speakers are

``13 'speech' stimuli...varied in the initial stationary frequency of the third formant (F3) and its subsequent transition into the vowel over a range sufficient to produce the perception of [ra] and [la] for American subjects and to produce [ra] (which is not in

phonemic contrast to [la]) for Japanese subjects. Discrimination tests of a comparable set of stimuli consisting of the isolated F3 components provided a ``nonspeech'' control. For Americans [39 adults], the discrimination of the speech stimuli was nearly categorical, i.e. comparison pairs which were identified as different phonemes were discriminated with high accuracy, while pairs which were identified as the same phoneme were discriminated relatively poorly. In comparison, discrimination of speech stimuli by Japanese subjects was only slightly better than chance for all comparison pairs. Performance on nonspeech stimuli [the synthesized control], however, was virtually identical for Japanese and American subjects; both groups showed highly accurate discrimination of all comparison pairs. These results suggest that the effect of linguistic experience is specific to perception in the ``speech mode''.'

current question: some non-phonemic contrasts easier to discriminate than others. which ones and why?

Children

Infants are born able to: discriminate fine phonetic differences(perceive boundaries between sounds outside of their own language) normalize across speakers categorize in different contexts

Six-month-olds

The ability to discriminate phonetic contrasts diminishes after about 10-12 months with lack of exposure to phonetic contrasts; i.e. categorical perception (ability to distinguish some nonphonemic contrasts declines) emerges.

evidence that ability to hear contrasts between sounds used in different languages diminishes after about 10-12 months; i.e. categorical perception (ability to distinguish some nonphonemic contrasts declines) emerges between 6-10 months

why? even at 6 months, infants are starting to categorize sounds, organizing speech sounds according to whether or not they are good examples of the sounds they hear; i.e. phonetic prototypes (ability to tell good members of a category from bad) emerge by 6 months

6-month-old infants learning American English treat Swedish /y/ (high front rounded vowel) as a non-prototype (bad example of a phonetic category).Thus exposure to a specific language alters infants' perception of speech by 6 months of age.

prototypes and acquisition: Kuhl has shown that `by 6 months of age, infants tested in the US and Sweden show that the perceptual magnet effect is language-specific. Infants from the two countries exhibit the magnet effect only for the phonetic prototypes of their own native language. 6-month old Amer. English infants tested on Swedish vowel prototypes. treated /i/ as prototype; treat /y/ as non-prototype. 6-month old Swedish infants tested on Amer. English vowel prototypes. treat /i/, /y/ as prototypes. Thus exposure to a specific language alters infants' perception of speech by 6 months of age.

one of the functions of motherese might be to provide better prototypes (at least for vowels; note "vowel-drenched" nature of motherese)

Ten-month olds

series of experiments by Werker et al. (1981) Developmental aspects of cross-language speech perception. Child Development 52:349--355. Werker and Tees (1984) Cross-language speech perception: Evidence forperceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development 7:49--63.

in both articles, showed that adults do worse than infants on tasks discriminating non-phonemic contrasts.

in W81,

Janet Werker (UBC), in a series of experiments:

Compared English adults, English infants (around 6-8 months), and Hindi adults wrt ability to discriminate two pairs of Hindi phonemes not used in English: /tha/ vs. /da/ and /a/ vs. /ta/. Showed that:

English infants at ages 6-8 months can discriminate these sounds as well as Hindi adults can

English adults cannot discriminate these sounds as well as Hindi adults, particularly bad at place of articulation contrast.

English children at ages 12, 8, and 4 years were as bad at this as English adults.

Compared English adults, English infants (around 6 months), Thompson speaking adults wrt to discrimination of Thompson /k'i/ vs. /q'i/: 80% of the English infants could discriminate the sounds only 30% of the English adults could discriminate the sounds ten-month-old infants did no better than English adults

`young infants discriminate the place of articulation contrasts according to linguistic category without specific linguistic experience, whereas adult speech perceptual ability is

more limited, reflecting discrimination of only those contrasts which are phonemic in the listener's native language.'

in other experiments, Werker found that the ability to discriminate the /k'i/ vs. /q'i/ contrast was absent by 10 months:

`by 10 to 12 months the infants were performing as poorly as the young children and adults...infants being raised to speak Hindi or Thompson sounds could still discriminate the relevant contrasts at 11 to 12 months of age' in another experiment, found that same infants who could discriminate the sounds at 6 months could not discriminate the sounds at 10-12 months. `specific linguistic experience is necessary to maintain phonetic discrimination ability. Without such experience, there is a loss in this ability by 10 to 12 months of age.'

Summary

so categorical perception emerges around 10-12 months (approximately same age words and word meanings begin to be acquired---different type of categorization 'bird', 'chair')

note that perceptual magnet effect of prototype (perception of outlying segment as actually closer to prototype than it is acoustically) tends to promote categorization: emergence of prototype and emergence of phonemic categories obviously closely related

but whereas chinchillas and monkeys exhibit categorical perception, monkeys do not exhibit perceptual magnet effect

One-word stage

one-word, holophrastic stage begins at apx. 12 mos-13. (notice some overlap between babbling, one-word stages)

words used as sentences; starting to acquire word meaningtypically functions of these utterances are communicating child's action or desire

for action, emotion; namingsimpler sound structure at this stage. CV syllables; CVCV word

words known by Eve at 15 months:

Mommy cupDaddy what?Go wawa [water]gimme go?baba [grandma] nana [blanket]dollie

2-word stage

2-word stage -- apx. 2 years. Recall that overgeneralization starts to decrease around this time

Eve at 18 months:

more grapejuice right downeating no celeryopen toybox Mommy readwrite a paper my pencilMommy head? drink juiceMommy soup Oh! Horsie stuckWhat doing, Mommy?

examples of speech of two year old: content words in some phrases:it ballKatherine sockallgone stickymore wet

language is `telegraphic':no inflectional affixes (e.g., genitive or 3s -s), minimal use of syntactic `function' words (e.g., determiners like a/an);pronouns rare

unitary intonation contour spread of 2 words suggests that children at this stage seem to know 2 words are unit, not just 2 separate 1-word stage utterances

Beyond 2-word stage

from 2-word stage, utterances get longer; adult-like grammar acquired by age 4--5

Eve at 27 months: has accomplished a lot:I go get a pencil ‘n write.Put my pencil in there.Don’t stand on my ice cubes.An’ I want to take off my hat.You come help us.Gapping:Just like Mommy has, and David has, and Sara has.Wh-word at beginning of sentence, + inversion:What is that on the table?Multi-clause sentence:I put them in the refrigerator to freeze.

but inconsistent use of ‘be’This is not better.See, this one better but this not better.There some cream.Possessive pronouns:Put in you coffee.Agreement:They was in the refrigerator, cooking.Past tense forms:That why Jacky comed.We’re going to make a blue house.Indefinite article:You make a blue one for me.I have a fingernail.And you have a fingernail.How ‘bout another eggnog instead of cheese sandwich?

first only content words added; then grammatical morphemes, bound and free (e.g. prepositions), usu. acquired in certain order:

-/z/ plural acquired before -/z/ genitive, 3s present

later will compare child lg. acquisition, chimp lg. acquisitionwill see that chimps don't seem to get beyond 2-word stage, if they get there at

all. results of experiments suggest ability to learn language a species-specific property

of humans

Language acquisition by special populations

Downs syndrome children

Chomsky (Knowledge of Language, pp. 38--39):

Children afflicted with Down's syndrome (Mongoloids), who are incapable of many intellectual achievements, nevertheless appear to develop language in something like the normal manner, though at a much slower pace and within certain limits. Blind children suffer serious deprivation of experience, but their language faculty develops in a normal way. They even exhibit a remarkable capacity to use the visual vocabulary (such terms as "stare," "gaze," and "watch") in much the way that people with normal vision do. There are cases of people who have acquired the nuances and complexities of normal language, to a remarkable degree of sophistication, though they have been both blind and deaf from early childhood, from under two years old in some cases, a time when they were able to speak only a few words; their access to language is limited to the

data they can obtain by placing their hand on the face of a speaking person (it may be significant, however, that none of the people who have succeeded in acquiring language in this way were deaf and blind from birth). Such examples illustrate that very limited data suffice for the language faculty of the mind/brain to provide a rich and complex language, with much of the detail and refinement of the language of people not similarly deprived. There are even examples of children who have created a system much like normal language without any experience with language at all---deaf children who had not been exposed to the use of visual symbols but who developed their own species of sign language...

Deaf children

visual babbling

Children in a bilingual environment

Summary

Characteristics of first language acquisition suggest that language is an innate behavior.

There is a “Critical Period” for the acquisition of a first language. Comprehension precedes production (spectacularly so: categorical perception). Children do not learn grammar solely by imitation or reinforcement; they learn by

working out rules for themselves.