APPLIED LINGUISTICSUCM,

Reading 2

Lightbown, P. and N. Spada (2006: l-27)

LANGUAGE LEARNING INEARLY CHILDHOOD

LANGUAGE AceursrrtoN is one oF rhe most impressive and Fascinating

aspects of human development. We listen wirh pleasure to the sounds mxdsby a three-month-old baby. \(e laugh and'answer' the conversarional 'ba-ba-

ba babbling ofolder babies, and we share in the pride and joy ofparentswhose one-year-old has urtered the first 'bye-bye'. Indeed, learning a

language is an amazing fleat-one that has arrracted the attenrion of linguisrsand psychologists for generarions. How do children accomplish this? \Whar

er-rables a child not only ro learn words, but ro put them together iunreaningful sentences? Vhar pushes children to go on developing complexgrarnmarical language even though rheir early simple communication is

successFul for most purposes? Does child language develop similarly aroundrhe world? How do bilingual children acquire rnore than one language?

In this chaprer, we will look bricfly at some oF rhe characteristics of rhelanguage ofyoung children. \(e will then consider several rheories thar havebeen offered as explanations flor how language is learned. There is animmense body of research on child language. Akhough much research hasbee n done in middle-class North American and European families, there is arich body ofcross-linguisric and cross-cukural research as well. Researchershave rravelled all over rhe world ro observe, record, and srudy childrerr's earlylangr.rage developrnenr. Our purpose in this chlpter is to couch on a fewmain poirrrs in rhis research, primarily as a prepararion for rhe discussion ofsEcoND LANcuAGE acqr,risirion, which is rhe focus oltthis book.

The first three years: Milestones anddevelopmental sequencesOne remarkable thing abour nrnsr LANGUAGE acquisirion is rhe highdegree oF similariry in the early language oF children all over rh. worl-d.Researchers have described or:vELo p M ENTA L sEeu EN c ES for many aspectsof first language acquisirion. The earliest vocalizarions are simply theinvolurrtary crying rhat babies do when they are hungry or uncomFqlu[ls.

Language learning in earfi childhood

Soon, however, we hear the cooing and gurgling sounds ofcontented babies,lying in their beds looking at fascinaring shapes and movemenr aroundrhem. Even though they have litrle control over rhe sounds they make inthese early weeks of life, infanm are able ro hear very subrle differencesberween the sounds of human languages. In cleverly designed experimenrs,Perer Eimas and his colleagues (1971) demonstrared rhat riny babies canhear the difference be rween 'pa' and 'be, for example. And yet, ir may bemany months before their own vocalizarions (babbling) begin to reflecr rhecharacteristics ofrhe language or languages rhey hear.

By rlre end oFtheir first year, most babies rurdersrand quite a lew frcquentlyrepeated words. They wave when someone says 'bye-bye'; they clap whcnsomeone says 'pat-a-cake'; they eagerly hurry ro rhe kirchen when 'jr.ricc andcookies' are mentioned. At rwelve months, most babies will have begun roproduce a word or rwo that everyone recognizes. By the age of rwo, rnosrchildren reliably produce at least fifry diffi:renr words and some produccmany more. Abour this tirne, rhey begin to conrbine words inro simplesenteuccs such as 'Momrny juice' and 'baby fall down'. These senrcnccs arcsomcrirnes called'telegraphic' because thcy leave our such things as articlcs,prepositions, and auxiliary verbs. \7e recognize them as senrences because,even though FUNcr'roN woRDs and cnnuunrlcAL MoRpHEMEs arenrissing, the word order refects rhc word order of rhe language rl-rey archcaring and because the conbined words havc a meaning relarionship rhatrnakes rhenr nrore rhan just a list oFwords. Thus, for an English-speakirrgchild, 'kiss baby' docs nor urean rhe sarne rhing as 'baby kiss'. Rcmarkably,we also see evidence, even in these early seurences, thar children are doingrnorc rlrar) irnperfectly irnitaringwhar thcy have lreard.'fheir rwo- and rhrce-word scnrences show signs that 'n"r*:lifiTffll,.'il:ff ffit,ril;on hr mcan 'Daddy lcll down' or'Daddydro please do rhar funuy rhing whcrc youPre

children s cognitive developmenr. For example, children do not use reurpor.aladverbs such as tonrorrow or'lasr wcek' until rhcy dcvclop some under-sranding o[time. In orhcr cases, the devcloprnental sequcnces sccm ro rcflcctthe gradual rnasrery ofthe linguistic elenrenrs for expressing ideas th:rr havebeen present in children's cognirive undersranding for a long rinre. Forexample, children can distinguish betwecn singular and plural long beforethey rcliably add plural endilgs ro nouns. Masrcring irrcgular plurals rakes

Language learning in early chillbood

even more rime and may nor be complecely under control until rhe school

years.

Grammatical morphemes

In the 1960s, several researchers focused on how children acquire gram-

marical morphemes in English. One oFthe besr-known studies was carried

out by Roger Brown and his colleagues and students. In a LoNGttuotleLstudyoFtlre language development of three children (called Adam, Eve, and

Sarah) rhey found that fourteen grammatical morphemes were acquired in a

remarkably similar sequence. That research is reported in Brownk 1973

book. The lisr below (adapred From thar book) shows some of rhe

morphemes they studied.

present progressivc -lzlg (Mornrry rurt n rzg)

plurrl -s(1ivo bookr)irregular past fbrrns (Baby arazrr)

possessive i(Daddy i hat)

copula (Annie rs happy)uricles the and rt

rcgular pasr -azl(She wa'lkeflthird person singular simple Prescnt -r (She runr)

auxiliary /r (Hc rrconring)

Brown end his collergucs found that a child who had nrastered the

gran)matical morphcrncs ar rhe bottom of rhe list was sure to havc mastcrcd

those at thc top, but thc reverse was llot true. Thus, rhere was evitlcnce ltrr a

'devcloprncntal sequetrcc' or order of ac<;uisiriort. Howcvcr, the children didnot accluire the nrorpherncs ar the same rge or rate. Eve had mastered ncarlyall the rnorphenres bcforc shc was rwo-lnd-a-half ycars old, whilc Sarah andAdrm wcre still working on them whctr rhey were thrce-and-a-half or [our.

Brownt longitudinal work w:rs cotrfirnrcd in a cnoss-stc't'loNAI- study ofrwcnty-onc children. Jill and Peter de Villiers (1973) found that childrenwho correctly used thc nrorphcmes rhat Adanr, Eve, and Sarah had acquiredlatc werc also able ro use rhc ones that Adanr, Eve, and Sarah had acquiredeerlicr.'l'he childrcn rnrstered the nrorphemes at different ages, just as

Adanr, llvc, arrd Sarah had done, but the order of thcir acquisirion was very

similar. -l'hey

were sin-riler to each othcr and similar to Adam, Evc, and Sarah.

Many hypothcses hrve becn advanccd to explain why thcse gramu-rarical

rrrorphcrncs are acquircd irr the obscrvcd order. Researchcrs have studied the

frcquency with which tlrc morphe mes occur in parents' speech, the cognirivecomplcxiry of tlre Irtcauitrgs rcprescntcd by each nrorpheme, and rlte

difficulry of perceiving or protrouncing them. ln thc end, there has been tro

siurple satisfactory explnnation fbr thc scqucnce, and most researchers irgree

ltngutge lurttittg itt e,trly tlti//lno/

that the order is determined by an inreracrion amons a number of di(ferenrlactors.

To supplemenr the evidence we have from sirnply observing children, somecarefully designed procedures have been developed ro further explorechildren's knowledge of grammarical morphcmes. One of rhe firsr and bestknown is the so-called 'wug tesr' developed by Jean Berko Gleason in rhe1950s. In this 'test', children are shown drawings of imaginary creatures withnovel nanres or people perlorming mysterious acrions. For example, rhey arctold, 'Here is a wug. Now there are rwo of rhenr. There are rwo

-'. or 'Here

is a man who knows how to bod. Yesrerday he did rhe same ching. Yesrcrday,he

-'.

By completing these sentences widr 'wugs' and 'bodded', childrendemonsrrate rhat they know rules for the formarion of plural and sinrplc pasrin Engli.sh. By generalizing rhese pamerns to words they have never heardbefore, they show rhar rheir language is nor jusr a lisr of mernorized wordpairs such as 'book/books'and irod/nodded'.

The acquisition of other language fearures also shows how childrcn'slanguage develops sysremarically, and how rhey go beyond whar rhcy havcheard ro create new forms and srructures.

NegationChildren learn rhe funcrions of negarion vcry carly. Thar is, they learn tocommenr on rhe disappearance of objecrs, ro refirse a suggesrion, or rejecr anasscrrion, evcn ar the single word stage. However, as Lois Bloonr's (1991)longitudinal srudies show, even rhough children urderstand thesc fu'ctionsard cxp'css rhcr' wirh single words a.d gesrures, ir rakes some tirnc bcforerhey can express thern in sentences, using the appropriare words and wordorder. Thc lollowing srages i' rhe developmenr oF .egario. havc bee'observed in rhe acquisirion ofE'glish. si.rilar stagcs have becn obscrvcd i'other languagcs as well (Wode 198 I ).

Stage INcgarion is usrrally expressetl by thc word 'no', cithcr rll alonc or as rhc firsrword in thc uttcrance.

No. No cookic. No conrb hair.

Stage 2LJrrerances grow longer and rhe scnrencc subjcct mly be includecl.'fhenegative word appears.jusr bcfore the verb. Se'tences expressi.g rejecrior orprohibition often use'don'r'.

Daddy no comb hair.Don't touch thar!

Language learning in ear$ cbildhood

Stage 3The negative elenrent is inserted into a more cornplex sentence. Childrenmay add forrns of rhe negative other than'no', including words like'can't'and 'doni'. These senrences appear to follow che correct English patrern ofarraching rhe negative to the auxiliary or rnodal verb. However, children do

not yet vary these Forms for differenr persons or tenses:

I crn't do it. He dont want it.

Stage 4Children begin to attach the negarive eletnent to the correct Form oF

auxiliary verbs srrch as'do' lnd 'be':

You didnt have supper. She doesn't want it.

Even thor-rgh their languagc systern is by now quire complex, they nray stillhavc t{if ficrrlty with sorne othe r Features rclared to negatives.

I doni have no nrore candics.

QuestionsThe chellenge oFlearning courplcx language systcms is also illustrated in drc

developnrenrll srrges through which children lcarn ro ask questions.

'Ihcre is a rernarkable cor-rsisrency in the way children lcarn to forrn<prestiorrs in English. For onc thing, rhe re is l predictable order in which rhe'lah w<-rrds'ernerge (Bloonr l99l). 'What' is generally tlre 6rsr rzL quesrionworcl to bc uscd. It is oftcn l.'arncd as prrr of a crruNK ('Whassar?') and ir issome tirnc bc[ore rhe child learns tl'rat therc irrc varilrions of rhe fonn. suches'What is that?'and'WIrat arc rhese?'

'Wherc' arrd 'who' enrcrgc vcry soon. ldentifying and locaring pcople andobjccts arc wirhin thc childt undersranding oF rhe world. Furrhermore,adults rcncl to ask childcen jusr rhese rypes ofquesrions in rhe early clays oFlrurguagc lcarning, For cxarnplc, '\(hcre'.s Monrmy?', or'Vhoi thar?'

'Why' cmerges around drc end of the second yerrr and becomes a Favourirelor the ncxt year or two. Children scenr ro ask an endless number oFquestions begirrning with 'why', having discovercd how effecrively this lirrlcword gers adults to engagc irr conversariorr, fbr exanrple, 'Vhy thar lady has

blue hair?'

finally, wlren thc child hls a bctrer uudcrsrlnding of mauncr and time,'how' l nd'when' enrcrgc. ln conrrast ro'what','wher e', and'who' questious,children somctimes ask rhe rnore cogrritively diFficulr 'why', 'whcn', and'how' qucstions without always ulrdersrauding rhe answers rlrcy get, as thelollowing convcrsarior.r with a [our-year-old clearly shows:

Language learning in early childhood

Child Vhen can we go ourside?Parent In about five minutes.Child l-2-3-4-5tlCanwego now?

The abiliry ro use rhese quesrion words is ar leasr pardy ried ro children'scognitive development. It is also predicted in part by rhe questions childrenare asked and the linguistic complexiry of quesrions wirh differenr uL words.Thus it does not seem surprising rhat rhere is consisrenry in the sequence o[their acquisition. Perhaps more remarkable is the consisrency in the acqui-sition of word order in qucstions. This developmenr is not based on learningnew meanings, but rarher on learning differenr linguisric forms ro expressmeanings that are already undersrood.

Stage IChildren's earliest questions are single words or sirnple rwo- or rhrce-wordscntertces wirh rising intonarion:

Cookie? Mummy book?

At rlre same rinre, tlrey may produce some correcr questrons-correcrbecause they havc been learned as chunks:

Vheret Daddy? Vhar's rhar?

Stage 2As they bcgir ro ask rnore new questions, children use the word order of thedeclarative senrence, wirh rising intonarion.

Yotr likc rhis? I have some?

-l'hey conrinuc to produce rhe correct chunk-lcarned forms such as'Whattthar?' alongside rllcir own created quesrions.

Stage 3Cradually, children norice rhar rhe strucrurc of questions is diFferent andbcgin to produce quesrions such as:

Can I go? Are you happy?

Although some quesrions ar rhis sragc match the adulr parrern, rhey nray beright.forthe wrong rerson. To describe this, we need to see the patter' fror'the childt perspccrive rather than from the perspective of rhe adul, grrrn-"r.'Wc call this stage 'fronring' because the child's rule seems to be rhat quesrionsare formed by purring sonrerhing-x verb form or question word-ar rhe'front'of a senrence , leaving thc rest of the se ntence in its starcrnenr lorm.

Is the reddy is tired? Do I can have a cookie?\Vhy you don't havc one? \(hy you catched ir?

Language learning in early chiAhool

Stage 4At ,"t"g. 4, some questions are formed by subject-auxiliary inversion' The

q,r..ri'on, resemble those of stage 3, but there is more variery in the

auxiliaries that appear be[ore the subject.

Are you going to plaY with me?

At rhis srage, children can even add'do' in quesrions in which rhere would be

no auxiliary in the declarative version o[ thc senrence.

Do dogs like ice cream?

Even at this stage, however, children seem able to use either inversion or a

ub word, bur-nor borh. Therefore' we may find inversion in 'yes/no'

quesrions but l)or in xut questions, unless rheyare ronvulntc units such as

'What's that?'

Stage 5Ar rt^ge 5,1>orh wh- and'yes/no' questions are formed correctly'

Arc rhcsc your boom? Vhy did you do thar? Does Daddy lrave a box?

Negative qucstions may still be a bir too dif6cult.

Vhy the teddy bear can't gt.r outside?

And cven though performance on rlrosr quesrions is correct, there is still one

more hurdle. Ylhen wh- words appear in subordinate clauses or embedded

quesrions, children overgetteraliz.c the inverted lorm thar would bc correct

for simple questiotrs and produce sentences such as:

Ask him why can'r he go out.

Stage 6At this srage, children are able to corrcctly fornr all question rypes, includingnegative and conrplex cmbeddcd qucstions-

Passage through developmental sequences does not always follow a sready

uninterrupced path. Children appear to learn new things and then fall back

on old patterus when there is added stress in a uew situacion or when they are

using other uew elements in their language. But the overall path takes them

toward nrastery of the language that is spoken around thcm.

The pre-school yearsBy the age o[ [our, most children can ask questiotts' give commands, rePort

,e.l everits, aud create stories abour intaginary ones-using correct word

order and gramtnatical markers trost of the time. In fact, it is generally

accepted that by age four, childrcn have mastered the basic srrucrures oFrhe

Lttryutge lcnrnitry in etrly cLiLlbool

language or languages spoken to them in these early years. Three- and four-year-olds continue to learn vocabulary ar rhe rare ofseveral words a day. Theybegin ro acquire less frequent and more complex linguisric strucrures such as

passives and relative clauses.

Much of children's language acquisition efforr in rhe lare pre-school years is

spent in developir.rg rheir abilicy to use language ir) a widening socialenvironment. They use language in a greacer variery of situarions. Theyinteract more often with unfamiliar adults. They begin to ralk sensibly onthe telephone to invisible grandparcnts (younger childrcn do nor urrdcr-stand that their telephone parrner canllor see wnar rhey see).'I'hey rcquirethe aggressive or cajoling language rhrr is nceded to defend their roys in rheplayground- They show that chey hlve learned rhe diFferencc berwcen howadults ralk to babies and how rhey ralk to each orher, and rhey usc thisknowledge in elaborate pretend play in which rhey practise using rhcsediffercnt'voiccs'. ln this way, rhey explore and begin to undersrand how andwhy language varies.

In thc pre-school years, they also develop METALrNculsi'rc AvARENEss,thc abiliry to treat language as an ob,ject separlre From the meaning itcorrveys.

-fhrec-year-old children can rell you thet itt'silly'to say'drink rhe

chair', because it doesnt make sense. However, llthough rhey would neversay'cakc thc eat', thcy arc less sure that rhcrc's anyrhing wrong wirh ir. Theynray show th:rr thcy know itt a bir odd, bur they will focus rnainly on rhcFact rhar they can undcrstand whar ir nreans. Five year-olds, on rhc orhcrlrand, know rhat'drink rhe chair'is wrong irr a diffcrent way frorn'cal<e rhcear'. They can rell you rhar one is 'silly' but the orhcr is 'rhc wrong wrrylrorrnd'.

The school yearsAlrhough pre-school children acquirc cornplcx knowledgc and skills fbrlanguegc and language use, rhe school settingwill requirc ,li* *"y, ol-usinglanguagc and bring new opportunitics [br Ianguage dcvelopnrcn t.

childrc'devclop the abiliry to u'dcrsra'd la'guage a'd r<l usc ir ro cxprcssrhemselves in rhe pre-school years. ln the school years, rhese abiliries expandand grow. Children also develop morc sophisricated rnetalinguisricawareness. Leaming ro read gives a nrirjor boost ro rhis aspecr of langulgcdevelopment. Seeing worcls rcpresentcd by letters and orher symboli on rpage leads children ro a new undcrstanding rhar languagc has fornr as well as

meaning. Reading reinforces rhc undersranding rhar :r 'word' is scpar:rrcfrom the rhing ir represenrs. Unlike rhree-year-olds, children who carr rcadunderstand that'rhe'is a word, jusr as'house'is. They understand thar

Language learning in early childltool

'caterpillar' is a longer word than 'train', even though the obiecc it represents

is substantially shorter! Metalinguistic awareness also includes the discovery

of such rhings as ambiguiry. Knowing thar words and sentences can have

muhiple meaning gives children access to word iokes, rrick quesrions, and

riddles, which they love to share wirh their Frie nds and family.

One of the nrost impressive language developments in the early school years

is rhe astonishing growth of vocabulary. Many words are acquired in early

childhood, when rhe repetirion oIordinary events and experiences provides

frequenr cxposure to a lirnired nurnber of words. Children enrer school wirhthc ability to undcrstand and produce hundreds or evetl a few rhousand

words. Many nrore are learned at school. In both the spoken and writtenlanguage Jt school, some words (lor exarnple, 'homework', 'ruler', and

'workbook') appear frequeutly in siruations where their meaning is eitherimmediately or gradually revealed. Vords like 'poPulation' or 'latitude'

occur less freqtrently, bur rhey are made important by their significance in

acadenric subject n)atter. Vocabulary grows at a rate berween several hundred

and morc than a thousand words a ycar, depending mainly on how much

and how widcly children rcad (Nagy, Hernratr, and Anderson 1985). Thckind o[vocabulary growth requircd for school success is likely to conre From

both reading for assignmeurs and rcading for pleasure, whethe r llarrative ornon-ficrion. Dce Gardner (2004) suggests thar reading a variery of text rypes

is an essenrial part of vocabulary growth. His research has shown how the

rangc ofvocebulary in uarrativc texts is differenc From that in non-ficrion.'l-herc arc words in non-Gction tcxrs thar arc unlikely to occur in stories ornovels. In eddition, non-fiction tcnds to include nrore opportuuities to see a

word in its diffbrcnr lornrs ([or exarnple, 'nrumnry', 'nrumrnies', 'munr-nrified').'l'he importance o[ reading fbr vocabulary growth is scen whcrrolrservaur pxrcnrs rcporr a child using r new word bur nrispronouncing ir ina way thar revcals it has bcen encountered only in written forrtr.

Anorher iurpolrant dcvclopnrent in the school years is the acquisirion oFdifferent language REGIs'r'DRs. Childrcn leern how writrcn language dilFersfrotn spoken language, how the languege used ro speak to rhc principal is

dif rent frorn the lengulge oFthe playground, how rhe language of a scienccreporr is differcnt Frorn rhe language of a narrativc. AsTerry Piper (1998)lud orhcrs lr:tvc documcnted, sonrc childrcn will have cvcn nlore ro lcarn.1-hey conre ro school speaking an erhnic or rcgional vARlETy of rhe schoollanguage thar is quite diflerenr from rhe one used by rhe teacher. They willhavc tt-r lcarrr thar inorhcr variety, o[ten lelerred to as the s'fANDAnr)vARIETy is rcquired lor succcssful acadernic work. Other children arrive atschool speaking a diffcrenr language alrogerher. For thcse childrcn, rhe workof language lcarning in the early school years preser)ts additionalopporruniries and chellenges. Ve will retunl to this topic whcn we discuss

Br LINGUALTsM in early childhood.

Lrtgrr,rye learning in early chillhood

Explaining first language acquisitionThese descriptions of language development from infancy rhrough the earlyschool years show thar we have considerable knowledge of whar childrenlearn in their early language developmenr. More conrroversial, however, are

questions about how this remarkable developmenr takes place. Over rhe past6fry years, three main rheoretical positions have been advanced to explain ir:behaviourist, innatist, and inreracrional/developmenral perspecrives.

The behauiourist perspectiae: Say what I say

BEHAvrouRrsM was a rheory of learning thar was very influenrial in the1940s and 1950s, especially in the Unitcd Srates. Virh regard ro languagelearning, the best-known proponenr of rhis psychological rheory wasB. F. Skinner. 'lraditional behaviourisrs hyporhcsized that when childrenimitared the language produced by rhose around rhem, rheir attemprs roreproduce whar they heard received'posirive reinforcemenr'. This could takerhe form of praise or.jusr successful conrmunicarion. Thus encouraged byrheir environment, children would continue to imitate and pracrise rhesesounds and parrcrns unril rhey formcd 'habits' of correct languagc use.According ro this view, rhe qualiry and quanriry of the language thc childIrears, as well as the consisrency of rhe reinforcemenr oFfered by others in theenvironlnenr, wor,rld shape the childk langurgc behaviotrr. This theory givcsgreat importancc ro rhe environmenr as rhe sourcc of evcryrhing rhc childneeds to lcarn.

Analysing children's speech: Definitions and examples-fhe behaviourists viewed imitati'nand, practiceas the prinrary proccsses inlanguagc developmcnr. To clarifi what is nreirnr by rhese rwo rcrms, considerrhe following dcfinitions and examples.

lru::r::. word-fbr-word reperition o[ all or part of someonc clsc's

Mother Shall we play with rhe dolls?Lt.y Play wirh dolls.

Pracrice: repctirive manipulation oF [orrn.

Cindy *j:r:

carrors. The other one ear carrors. They borh ear

Now exarnine the transcripts Fr ryn. -fhev were all

abour rwenry-four monrhs old s rhey played wirha visiring adulr. Using thc defi percr imitates rheadult in rhe following dialogue.

Language learning in early childhood

Perer (24 months) is playing wirh a dump truck while rwo adults' Patsy and

Lois. look on.

Peter Get more.

Lois You're gonna Put more wheels in the dump truck?

Peter Dump truck' \(iheels. Dump truck'(later)

Patsy \What happened to it (rhe truck)?

P.te. (looking under chair for it) Lose it. Dump truck! Dump truck!

Fall! Fall!

Lois Yes, the dump truck fell down.

Peter Dump truck fcll down. Dump truck.

(Unpublished data from P. M. Lighrbown)

If we analysed a larger sanrple oFPeter's speecl-r, we would see that 30-40 pcr

cent of his r",,,.n.", werc ir.irations of whar someolle else had irrst said' We

would also see that his inritations wcre not random. That is, he did not

sirnply inritarc 30-40 per ccnr of evcrything he hcard- Detailcd rnalyses oF

l"rg. .r,r-,p1., o[ ['eter's speech over about a year showed that he irnirated

*.rids at',d sentettce structures that werejtrsr beginning to appear in his

just begun ro uuderstand and usc, nor simply on what is 'available' in the

environnrenr- For examplc, considcr how Cindy imitates and practises

languagc irr thc lollowing c<lttvcrsatiotts.

Cindy (24 n)onths, l6 days) is looking ar a picture of a carrot in a book and

trying to gct Patsy's attetttion.

Cindy K.rwo? kewo? kawo? kawo? k:rwo?

Patsy \flhat are the rrbbits eating?

Cindy They eating... kando?

Patsy No, that's a carrot.Cindy Carror. (poinring to each carrot on the pagc)

-l-he othcr...cerrot. Thc other carrot. 'f hc orlrer carrot'

(A lcw nrinutcs later, Cindy brings Parsy a stufFed toy rabbit.)

Patsy Vhat does this rabbit like to cat?

Cindy (incornprehensible) cat rhe crrrots.

(Cindy gcts another sruffed rabbir.)

Cindy He (incomprehensible) eat carrots. The other one €at cartots.

They both eat carrots.

ll

I ttryttt!t' lntrnittg itr ttrly rltilllnotl

(Onc week later, Cindy operrs the book ro the same page.)

Cindy Heret the carrots. (pointing) Is thar a carrot?Patsy Yes.

(Unpublished data from P M. Lighrbown)

Cindy appears ro be working hard on her language acquisirion. She pracrisesnew words and structures in a way thar sounds like a sttrdent in some Foreign

language classes! Perhaps mosr interesting is that she remembers the 'lan-

Buage lesson' a week later and rums straight to the page in rhe book she hadnot seen since Patsyt last visit. What is mosr striking is thar, like Peter, herimitation iurd practice appear to be focused on whar she is currently'workingon'.

The sanrples ofspeech from Peter and Cindy scenl to lend sonre supporr co

the behaviouri.st explarlation of language acquisition. Evcn so, as we saw, rhe

choice of whar to imitare and practise seerued deterrnined by somerhinginside tl're child rather than by the environment.

Not all children irnitare and 'pracrise' as much as Pcrer and Cindy did. Thcarnount of inritation in the speech of orhcr children, whose developnrenrproccedcd ar a rate comparable ro rhar of Cindy and Perer, has beencalculatetl at less than I 0 per cenr.

Considcr tl're exlmples of imiration and practice in the Following conversa-tion betwccn Klthryn and Lois.

Kathryn (24 rnonths)

Lois Did you see rhe roys I broughr?Kathryn I bring toys? Choo choo? Lois broughr rhe choo choo rrain?Lois Yes, Lois brought rhe choo choo rrein.Kathryn (reaching for bag) I want play wirh choo choo train. I want

play wirh choo choo train. (raking out slide) Wanr play.Whar's rhis?

Lois Oh you know what rlrar is.

Kathryn l)ur dowrr on floor. This. I do dris.

(Kathryn prrrs rhe slide on the floor.)

Kathryn (rakingout rwo cars of train) Do rhis. I wanr do this. (tryingro pur rrain togerher) I do rhis. I do this.

Lois OK. You can do ir. You can do ir. Look I'll show you how.

(Lois puts it together.)

Kathryn (searchilrg in box) I get more. Ccr a more. No more clroochoo rrain. Ger rruck. (raking out rruck) Kathryn truck.Vhere? \7here a more choo choo rrain?

Language learning in early chillltood

Lois Inside. It's in the box.

Kathryn ljf"

choo? (taking out Part of train) This is a choo choo

(Frorrr Bloorn and Lahey 1978 135)

Like Cindy, Karhryn sometitnes repeats herself or Produces a series of related

'practice' sentences, but she rarely imirates the other speaker. Instead, she

*:.il.*:lt-.rs qucstions and elaborarcs on rhe other speaker's questions or

Thus, clrildrcn vary in rhe amoullt of imitation they do' In addition, meny

o[rhe things they sey show rhar rhey are using language crearively, nor iustrepeating what they have hcerd. This is evident in the following cxanrples.

Patterns in hnguageThe firsr cxanrple shows a chilcl in the process of learning parrcrtrs iu

languirge, in this case thc rules oF word formariott, and overgeneralizirlg

thctn ro new contexts. Randall (36 months) Irad a sore on his hand'

Mother Mrrybe we nced to takc yotl to rhe doctor.

Randall \flhy? So hc can doc nry litrle bunrp?

l{andall fbrn-rs thc vcrb 'doc' fi<-rrn the troun 'doctor', by arlalogy with tlrnrcrs

wlro finn, swimtners who swittr, atttl ,tctors who act.

/Nor l putF,4'tJtmnon,al! b1

rrytelt !

UrtfaniliarfontruLuEvcrr older children havc to work out sotnc puzzles, for exatlplc, whenlanriliar language is uscd in uufinriliar ways, rs irr the cxlmplc bclow \i?hen

t3-r-

tfu. plates oo

/Yo* nea,n, l TuEthe ptaLes ont e\.' t4ble .

--

t4 Lttttguilgt lutrttittu i tt r'tt l.y t ltilrllnol

David (5 years, I monrh) was at his older sister's birrhday party, toasts were

proposed with grape juice in stemmed glasses:

Fadrer I d like to propose a roast.

Several minutes later, David raised his glass:

David I d like to propose a piece ofbread.

Only when laughter sent David slinking lrom the table did the group realizethat he wasn't inrentionally making a play on words! He was concentratingso hard on performing the lascinating new gesture and the formulaicexpression 'Id like to propose ...' that he failed to realize thar the word hethought he knew-'tox51'-yyx5 llot the same toast and could nor be

replaced with its apparent near-synonym-'a piece of bread'.

Question formationRandall (2 years, 9 rnonths) asked the following questions in various siru-ariorrs over the course of a day.

Are dogs can wiggle rheir tails?

Are those are my boots?Are this is hoc?

Ranclall had conclucled that the rrick of asking quesrions was to pur'are' arthe bcginning oFrhe sentence. His quesrions lre good examplcs of Stage 3 inq[restior) developrnen t.

Order of euents

Ilandall (3 years, 5 rnonths) was looking for a rowe l.

You took all the towels away because I can't dry rny hands.

He nreant 'l cant dry my hands because you took all the towels away', but hcmadc a misrake about which clause comes firsr. Children ar rhis stage oflanguage dcvelopmenr tend ro rnenrion evenrs irr the order of theiroccurrence. In rhis case, the rowels disappeared before Randall atrempred todry his hands, so that's whar he said firsr. He did nor yet understand how aword like'before' or'because' changcs the ordcr o[cause and eflecr.

These examp.les of childrens speech provide us wirh a window on rhe processof language learning. lmirarion and practice alone cannot explain sorne oFrheforms createcl by the children. They are not merely reperirions oFsentencesthat they have heard from adulrs. Rather, children appear to pick out parrernsand generalize them ro new conrexts. They create new lorms or new uses ofwords. Their new senrences are usual[y comprehensible and often correcr.

Behaviourism seerns ro ofFer a reasonable way oF undersranding howchildren learn some of rhe regular and routine aspecrs of language, especiallyar the earliest stages. However, children who do litrle overr imitarion acquire

Language learning in early childhottd

language as fully and rapidly as those who imirare a lot. And although behav-

iourism goes some way to explaining the sorrs of ovERGENERALIZATIoN

that children make, classical behaviourism is not a satisfactory exPlanation

for the acquisition of the more complex grammar rhat children acquire.

These limitatior-rs led researchers to look for diFferenr exPlanations forlanguage acquisition.

The innatist PersPectiae: Ifs all in your mindNoam Chomsky is one o[the mosr influenrial figures in linguistics, and his

ideas about how language is acquired and how ir is srored in dre mindsparked a revolution in rnany aspects of linguistics and psychology,

inclrrding the srudy of language acquisition. A central part of his thinking is

that all hurnan languages are fundamentally innare and rhat the same

universal principles underlieall o[rhem.In his 1959 reviewo[B. F. Skinner's

book Verbal BeLauior, Chomsky challenged the behaviourisr exPlanation [orlar.rguage acquisition. He argucd that children are biologically Programmedfor language and that language dcvelops in the cltild in just thc sarne way that

other biological functions develop. For exanrple, every child will learn ro

walk as long as adequatc nourishmetrt and reasonable Freedom oFmovementare providcd. The child does uot have to be taught. Most children learn towalk at lbour rhe sanre age, ancl walking is cssentially the slme in all noln-ral

hurnan beings. For Chomsky, language accluisition is very similar. Theenvironrnenr n-rakes only a basic contribution-in this case, the availabiliryof pcople who speak to drc child. The child, or rathcr, the child's biologicalendownrent, will do the rest.

Chomsky argued rhar rhc bchaviorrrist theory lailcd to account For 'the

logical problenr of language ac<luisition'-the ltact rhar children cone toknow more about thc structurc ofrhcir language than they could reasonablybc expectecl to lc:rrn on the basis of the samplcs of language they hear. Thelanguagc children arc exposcd to includes false starts, incomplere sentences,

and slips oF the tongr.rc, and yet thcy learn to distinguish berween gram-nratical and ungr:rnrrnatical sentences. He concluded rlrat children's nrindsare not blank slares to bc filled by imitating language rhey hear in rheenvironrnent- Instead, he hyporhesized, cbildren are born wirh a specificinnate abiliry to discover fbr rhenrselvcs thc underlying rtrles ofa languagesysteln on the basis ofthe samples oFa natural language they are exposed to.'l'his irrnate crrdownrent was secn as a sort oF tenrplatc, containing theprinciplcs that are universal ro all human langueges. This untvens.ll-cRAMMAIt (uc) would prever)t the child frorn pursuing all sorts of wronghypotheses about how languagc systen)s nright work. If children are pre-equipped with UG, then what they have to lcarn is the ways in which thelanguage they are acquiring m:rkes use o[these principles.

r5

t7IC' I t t t gr t,tg, l,:, n' t r i r tg i r t t t rly, h i I r / l,oul

Consider rhe Following sentcnces, takcn fronr a book by Lydia Vhire(1989). These English sentences contain the rcflexive pronoun 'himself'.

Borh rhe pronoun and the noun it refers to (rhe antecedent) are printed iniralics. An asrerisk ar the beginning ofa sentence indicates rhat the sentenccis ungrammatical.

r Jobn saw himselfb * Himselfsaw John.

ln (a) and (b), ir looks rs if the reflexive pronoun must Follow the noun itrcFers to. But (c) disproves this:

c Looking after ltintselfbores John.

IIwe consider s€ntences such as:

d John said that Fred|ked himsclJ.'

e *Joltnsild that Fred liked hirnsclf.f John rcld Billrcwash bimselfg *Joltn told Bill to wash bimsalf

wc rnighr conclude rhar the noun clclsest to rhe reflexivc pronoun is rhc:.rnrcccclent. However, (h) shows that this rulc won't work e irher:

h Joltnprontiscd Bill to wtsh himvlf

Anr{ it'.s evcn nlore complicared than rlret. Usually tlrc reflcxivc mr.rst be irrthc sanre clausc as the antecedenr as in (:r) and (d), but not always, as in (h).l:urrhermore, thc reflexive can be in the strbjcct position in (i) bur nor in (j).

i Joltttbclicves bimself rc be intelligent (non-finitc clausc).j ^Joltn bclievcs rhrr himsell'is intclligenr (linire clausc).

Irr sorne cases, rnore rhan one aurecedclrt is possiblc, as in (k) whcrc thcrcHexive could rcfer ro eitherJohn or Bill:

k John showed Bill a picrure of hinrsclf.

When wc lool< rrr this kind oFconrplexiry, it secrns ir would be very hard roIc:rrn. And yer, nlosr school age children would be able ro correctly inrcrprerthe granrrnirtical seutences and recognize rhe ungrammaricality oF thcothe rs. l{cscarchcrs who srudy langrrage ac<lLLisition lrorn thc innaristperspectivc argue that such colnplcx grarnntar could nevcr bc learned purelyon rhe basis oF irnitating and pracising senrences available in the inpur.'fhey hyporhesize that since all childrcn ecquire rhc languegc of rheirenvironnrenr, they nrust have some inu:rte r.ncchanisnr or knowledgc thatallows rhenr to discover such cornplex syunu in spite of lirnitations of rhcinput. They hyporhesize Furthcrmore thar rhc innarc mechanisrn is usedexclusively ftrr lenguage lcrluisi rion.

Language learning in carly childhool

The innatist perspecrive emphasizes the fact that all children successfullyacquire rheir narive language (or languages if they live in a multilingualcommuniry). Childrcn who are profoundly deaf will learn sign language ifrhey are exposed to it in infancy, and their progress in the acquisirior: ofthatlanguage sysrem is similar to hearing childrent acquisition of spokenlanguage. Even children with very limited cognitive abiliry develop quitecomplex language systems iFthey are brought up in environments in whichpeople interact with them. Children master the basic syntax and morph-ology of rhe language spoken to them in a variety 6f 6sndi6ier15-56n-rswhich would bc expected to enhance languagc development (For example,cariug, attentive parenrs who focus on rhe child's language), and some whichmight be expecred ro inhibit ir (for exanrple, abusive or rejecring parents).Childrcn achicve difFerent levels ofvocabulary, creativiry, social grace, and so

on, but virrually all lchieve nlasrery oF the srruccure oF rhe language or'

languagcs spoken ro rhem. Tlris is scen rs support for rhe hyporhesis tharlanguage is sornehow separate from other aspects oFcognitive developrnenrand may depend on a specific module oFthe brain.

The Critical Period HypothesisChomsky's ide:rs are oFten linked ro the cn.r-rrcAL pEnroD Hyl,o'r'nrsrs(cnu)-rhe hypothesis that aninrrls, inclLrding hurnans, are gencricallyprograrnrled to acquire cerrain kinds of knowlcdge and skill ar specific timcsin lile. Ilcyond rhose'crirical pcriods', ir is eirher difficult or impossible roactpire rhose abilitics. Wirh rcgarcl ro llngurge, the CPH suggcsrs rharchildren who arc nor given acccss ro l:rngr.rage in infancy and eerly childhood(becatrse ofdeafness or exrrcrne iso[ation) will ncver acquire language if thesedcprivations go on lor roo long.

It is difficult to 6nd evidence fbr or againsr rhe CPt-l , since rrearly ell child-ren lre cxposed ro languagc ar arr carly age. Howcver, history has docuurenreda fcw 'narural experinrenrs' where childrcn hevc bcen dcprived of conracrwirlr langrragc. li,vo of thc rlost femotrs clrscs arc rlrose of Vicror and Genie.

In 1799, a boy who became known as Vicror wes found wandcring naked inrhe woods in Frunce. Whcn he was caprured, hc was abour rwelve years oldand conrple rcly wild, lpparently having hud no conract wirh humans. Jean-Merc-Caspard ltard, a young docror accusromed ro workir.rg wirh deafchildren, devoted five years to socializing Vicror and rrying to reach hinrlanguage. Although he succeedcd ro sorne exrenr in developing Vicror'ssociabilicy, memory, and ,judgcrncnr, rhere was litrle progress in his languageabiliry. Victor responded only ro sounds that had had nreaning for him in rhelorest, such as the cracking of a nur, animal sounds, or rhe sound of rain. Heeventually spokc only rwo words, his favourite food 'lait' (milk) and hisgovernesst frequcnt exclamarion 'O Dicu!' (Oh, Codl). He said 'lait' onlywhen he saw a glass of nrilk. He never uscd rhe word to ask for it.

lluyutt( fun,tittg irt url.y tl,i/llnol

Nearly rwo hundred years larcr, Ge nie, a rhirtcen-year-old girl who had been

isolated, neglected, and abused, was discovered in California (Rymer 1993).Because of the irrational demands of a disturbed father and the submissionand fear of an abused morher, Genie had spent more than eleven years tied toa chair or a crib in a small, darkened room. Her Father had forbidden his wifeand son to speak to Genie and had himself only growled and barked at her.

She was beaten when she made any kind of noise, and she had long sinceresorted ro complete siler:ce. Genie was undeveloped physically, emotion-ally, and inrellectually. She had no language.

Afrer shc was discovered. Genic was cared lor and educated wirh thcparticipation of many teachers and therapists, including Susan Curtiss(1977). After a brief period in a rehabilitarion centre, she lived in a losrerhome and attended special schools. Cenie made remarkable progress inbecorning socialized and cognitively aware. She developed deep personalrelationships and strong individual rasres and traits- Neverrhelcss, after fiveycars of exposure to langLrage, Ge nie's language was nor like that of a rypicalfive-year old. There was a larger rhan normal gxp between cornprchensiorrlnd procluction. She used grarnmaricll lorms inconsisrenrly and ovcruscdfirrrnr.rlaic and routinc spcech.

Alrhough Victor and Cenie appear ro provide evidence in suppor:r of thcCPLI, it is diFficult to argue rhar thc hypothesis is confirmed on thc besis ofcvidcnce fionr such unusual cases. \0(e cannor know with ccrtainry what orherI:rcrors besides biological maruriry mighr havc corrrributed to rheir inabiliry t<r

lcanr lenguagc. It is nor possible ro dercrnrinc wherhcr either oIthem sufferedfiorn brain clanrlge, developmenral de lays, or a spccific language inrpeirrncrrr,cvcn befole thcy were separated fronr rrorrnal lruur:rn iureraction. Flowcvcr,there arc sornc clrildren who comc from ordinary honres, yet do not hrveilcccss to hngtrage ar rhc usual rimc. This is rhe casc for somc prof<rundly deafchildrcn who l-rrve hearir-rg parenrs. Hearing parcnrs may not realize thar rlrcirchild car-rnor hear because rhe child uses othcr senscs to irrreracr in anapparcnrly nonnal way.'fhus, rlre carly childhood period may be norrnal andloving bur devoid oFlanguage drar rhe childreu can acccss. l'hesc childrcn'sllter cxpcrience in learning sign language has bccn rlre subjccr of sourcimportanr rcselrch related ro rhe critical period.

Elissa Newporr (1990) and her colleagues studied deaf users oInvpnrr:nNslc N LANG uAcE (AS L). Only 5-l 0 per cenr of rhe profotrndly dealarc bornro dea[parcnr.s, and only rhcse children:rre likely to be exposcd ro ASL fronrbirrh. The rcnreinder of the proloundly deaf population begin learning AS Lat different ages, oFren when rhey start atrending a residcntial school wheresign languagc is used for day-ro-day cornmunicarion.

Like oral and written lenguages, ASL rnakes use oIgrammarical markers toindicatc such things as rinre ([or cxanrple, past tense) and number. Thcsc

Language learrring in early chiAhooct

markers are expressed through specific hand or body movemens. The

researchers studied the abiliry to Produce and comprehend grammatical

markers in Narive signers (who were exPosed ro ASL from birth), Early

learners (who began using ASL berween four and six years ofage), and Late

learners (who began learning AS L after age rwelve).

They found no dilference berween rhe groups in some asPects of rheir use ofASL. However, on tests focusing on grammatical markers, the Native group

used the forms more consistently rhan rhe Early group who, in turn, used

the rn nrore consistently than the Late group. The rese:Irchers concluded thet

their study supports the hyporhesis that there is a crirical period For firstlangrrage acquisition, whcther thar Iangtrage is oral or gestural.

'\7e will rcrlun to a discussion of the CPH in Chapter 3 when we look at che

age issuc in sccoud languagc acquisirion.

The innatisr pcrspective is thus partly based orr evidence [or a crirical period.

It is also seen as an explanarion for'the logical problem of langtrage acqui-

sition', that is, thc question of how adult speake rs comc to ktrow the complex

structure of their first lauguage on rhc basis of languagc that thcy acrually

Inte ract i o n is t/ deu e lopm en ta I P ersP e c tia es :Learningfrom inside and outCognitivc antl t{cvelopnrcntal psychologists argue tllat the innatists place toomrrch enrphrsis on rlrc 'finel state' (thc cortale'reNcE of adult NrrtvEsPEAKERS) and not enough on rhe dcvclopnrcntal aspects of languageacquisirion. In thcir view lrrnguage rcquisition is bur orre example oFthehunrln clrild's lenrarkable abiliry to lerrn fronr experience, and thcy see rro

rueed ro assurre that therc :rre specific brairr structures devotcd to languagcaccluisition.

-l-hcy hypothcsize rhar whirt childrcn need to kuow is cssentially

available in the language rhcy are exposed to as rhcy hear it rrsed in thousandsof hours of intcrecrions with the people and objecrs aror.rnd chern.

Devclopnrcntal psychologists and psycholirrguists have focr.rscd on rlrcintcrplay betwecn the innatc learning abitiry of children and rhe cnviron-n)el)t in which thcy develop.'l-hesc rcsearchers attribrrre considerably rnorcimportance to the environurent than the innatists do even thoLrgh they also

rccognize e powcrful learning rncchanisrn in rhc hunran brlin. Thcy sce

language acquisition as sinrilar ro and inHucnccd by the acquisition ofotherkinds ofskill lnd knowledgc, rathcr thau as sornething thar is different fromand largely inclcpendenr oF rhe chilcl's experiencc and cognitivc dcvelop-nrent. lndeed, rescarchers such as Dan Slobin (1 973) have long ernphasizcdthe close relationship betwecn childrcrr'.s cognitive dcvelopnrent and theiracquisition of lan guage.

t9

20 Langrnge learning in early childhood

Piaget andVygotskyOne of the earliest proponenrs oFrhe view that children's language is builr ontheir cognitive developmenr was rhe Swiss psychologist/episremologisr, JeanPiager (1951/1946). In che early decades oF rhe rwentieth century, Piagetobserved infants and children in their play and in rheir inreraction wirhobjects and people. He was able to trace the development of rheir cognitiveunderstanding of such things as object permanence (knowirrg rhat thingshidden from sight are srill there), rhe srabiliry ofquanriries regardless o[changes in their appearance (knowing rhar ren pernies sprcad out ro lorm a

long line are not more nunrerous than ren pennies in a tighrly squeezed Iine),and logical inferencing (figuling our which properries sf x 5ss sf 1ed5-5i2s,weight, marerial, erc.-cause some rods to sink and orhers ro floar orr warer).It is easy to see from thi.s how children's cognitive development would partlydererrnine how rhey use language. For example, rhe usc ofcertain terms suchas 'bigger' or 'morc' dcpend on the childrcn's undersranding of rhe conccprsrhey represent. The developing cognirive undersranding is built on rheinreractiorr becwcen rhe child end the things rlrar can be observed ornranipulated. For Piager, language was one of a nurnber of symbol sysrernsthar are developcd in childhood. Language can be used ro represerlr

I;fj:t::,:l* chilclrcn have acquired rhrough physical inreracrion wirh thc

Anothcl inflrrential srudent o[ child devclopmcnr was rhe psychologisrl-cv Vygorsky (1978). He observed inreractions ernong children and alsoberweer children .nd adulrs i' schools i' rhe soviet Unio' in rlre 1920s a.d1930s. He concluded rhat language develops prinrarily from social inrer-actio'. Hc rrguccl that ir a supporrive interactive enviro'menr, childre' arcablc to.advance ro a higher level of knowledge and pcrformance. Vygotskyreferrcd to rhis rncraphorical place in which the children could do morethan thcy would be capable of independenrly as rl.re zoNE oF pRoxrMALI)EvELOpMriN'r- (zpo). He observed rhe imporrance of conversations thatchildren have wirh adulrs and with othcr children and saw i' rrrese

Cross-cultural research

Since the 1970s, researchers havc srudied childrent language learningenvironmenrs in a great ma'y different culrural communiries. The researchhas focused not only on rhe development oflanguage icself, but also on theways in which the environmenr provides whar children need for languageacquisirion. Starring in the mid-1980s, Dan Slobin has edired a s..i., oF

Language learning in early chilclltool

volumes devored to international research on language acquisirion, provid-ing examples and analyses of child language and rhe language learning

.rruiron-.,'r, Frotn communities around rhe world. One of rhe most

remarkable resources for child language researchers is the Child Language

Data Exchange Systenr (curloes), where researchers have conrributedmillions of words of child language data in dozens of languages in recorded

and transcribed Forms (MacVhinney 1995; http://childes.Psy.cmu.edu/)'

One result of the crossculrural research is the description oFthe differences in

childlearing pattcrns. Catherine Snow (1995) and others have studied the

apparent effecrs on language acquisition of the ways in which adults ralk to

and inreract with young children. In middle-class North American hotnes,

researchers obscrved thar adults often modif' the way they speak wlren

ralking to litrle children. -I-his

c tl I ro-ol nEcr ED sPEEcH may be characre r-

ized by r slowcr ratc of delivcry, higher pitch, more varied inronation,shorter, sirnplcr sentellce pattertrs, stt'css otl key words, Frecluent rePetitioll,and parephrase. Furrhernrore, ropics of conversation emphasize the child's

imrlediatc environnreur, the'here and tr,:w', or experiences thar the adulrknows thc child has had. Adults oFtetr repcat rhe content o[a child's urrer-

ance, bur they cxpand or llEcAst ir itrto :t gr:rnrruatically correct sentencc.

For exarrple, when Pcter says, 'Dunrp truck! Durnp truck! Fall! Fa[l!', Lois

responds, 'Yes, the dump rruck Fcll down.'

Rcscarchcrs working in a 'language soci'.rliz:rrion' Frarlrework have sttrdiedlanguage acquisition in children from a variery of culrural groups. They have

found thar the kind oI child-clirccred speech observed in nriddle-classAmerican homes is by no means universal. In some societies, adults do n<lr

engage in conversation or verbal play with very young children.

2

)722 Language learning in early childhood

For example, Bambi Schieffelin (1990) found thar Kaluli mothers in Papua

New Guinea did not consider cheir children to be appropriate conver-

sarional partners. Martha Crago (1992) observed thar in traditional Inuitsociery children are expected to watch and listen to adults. They are notexpected or encouraged to participate in conversarions with adults uncil they

are older and have more developed language skills. Other researchers have

observed that in some societies, young children interact primarily with oldersiblings who serve as their caregivers. Even within rhe United States, ShirleyBrice Hearh (1983) and others have documented substantial differences inthe ways in which parents in different socioeconomic and ethnic groupsinreracr wirh rheir children. Thus, the patterns of parent-child interactionand child-directed speech that were firsr observed in middle-class NorthAmerican families are far from universal. Nevertheless, in every sociery,

children are in situarions in which they hear language that is meaniugful tothem in their environment. And chey achieve full comperence in rhe

comuruniry language. Thus, it is di[6culr ro judge the long-term effect of dre

modi6cations that some adults make in speech addressed ro children.

The importance of interactionThe role of interaction becween a languagc-learning child and an

rNTEuLocul'on who responds in some way ro the child is illuminated bycases whcrc such inte racrion is missing. Jacqueline Sachs and her colleagucs( l98l ) srudicd the language developmenr of a child rhey called Jim. He wasa hearing clrild oFdelf parents, and his only conracr wirh oral languagc wasthlough telcvision, which he warched Frequer.rtly. The family was unusurl inthar thc parcnts did not use sign languagc wirh Jirn. Thus, alrhough in othcrrespccts hc was well carcd for, Jim did nor begin his linguistic dcvelopruerrrin a norrnal environment in which a parenr cornmunicated wirh hirn ineirher oral or sign language. A language asscssnlcnr ar rhree ycars and ninemonrhs indicared that he was well below ege level in all aspects of language.Although hc artempted ro express ideas appropriarc ro his age, he uscdun usual, ungramrnarical word order.

Vhen Jim began conversarional sessions with an adulr, his cxpressiveabilitics began to improve. By the age of four years and rwo monrhs nrost ofthc urrusual speech parterns had disappeared, replaced by srructures morctypical of his age. Jims younger brorher Glenn did nor display rhe same rypeoF larrguage delay. Glenn's linguistic environmenr was different in rhat hehad his older brother as a conversarional partner.

Jirn showed very rapid acquisition ofthc srrucrures oFEnglish once hc beganto interact with an adult on a one-ro-onc basis. The fect rhar he had failcd toacquire language normally prior to rhis experience suggesrs that inrpersonalsources oFlanguage such as television or radio alonc are not sufficicnt. One-

Langrage learning in early chiUhood

to-one interaction gives the child access to language that is adjusted ro his orher level o[ comprehension. When a child does not undersrand, the adultmay repeat or paraphrase. The response of the adult may also allow childrento find our when their own utcerances are understood. Television, forobvious reasons, does not provide such interaction. Even in children'sprogrammes, where simpler language is used and topics are relevant toyounger viewers, no immediate adjusrment is made for rhe needs of anindividual child. Once children have acquired some language, howevettelevision can be a source oflanguage and culrural informarion.

ConnectionismAnother recenr view of language acquisirion comes from coN ue crloN IsM.Connectionists diFfer sharply from rhe Chomskyan innarists because theyhypothesize that language acquisition does not require a separate'module oIthe mind' but can be explaincd in rerms of learning in general. Furrhcrrnore,connectionists argue that whlr children need to know is essencially availableto them in the language rhey are exposed to. Some of the research hasinvolved conrputer simularions in which language sanrples are provided as

input to a fairly sirnplc program. The goal is ro show thar rhe compurerprograrn can 'learn' certain rhings if it is exposed ro rhem enough. Theprogram can even generalize beyond whar it has acrually been exposed ro andmeke thc sanre kinds of crcativc 'misrakes' that children rnakc, such as

putting a regular -elending on an irrcgular verb, For exam ple, ented.

Researchers such as JefFrcy Elnran and his colleagues (1996) explainlanguage acquisition in rerms of how children acquirc linlcs or'connecriorrs'berween words and phrases an<l thc situarions in which they occur. Theyclainr thar when childrcn hear a word or phrase irr the conrext of a spccificobjecr, cvcnt, or person, an associariorr is creared in the child s mind bctweenthe word or phrase and whar ir represenrs. Thus, hearing a word brings tomind rlre object, and seeing the objecr brings ro rnind the word or phrase.

iggcr rhec, a childand onlyhcard in

more contexts-picture books, frrrry toys, sorneonc else's cat-thc childrccognizcs and uscs rhe word as tlic lebel fbr all thesc cats. Howcver, at a

latcr point, the word nray bc generalized ro orhcr lurry crearures as well,indicaring thar conncctions heve been nrade ro clraracreristics of the carand nor to an cntity rher adults know as 'cat'. -fhen there is anorherlearning proccss involved in'pruning' rhc connectiorrs so rhar'cat' appliesonly to lclines-tt lcasr until rnorc rnctaphorical urearrings are learncd larcrin life.

25.1,4 Language learning in early childhood

In a connecrionist model, language acquisirion is not iust a Process oFassociar-

ing words with elements of external realiry. It is also a process of associating

words and phrases with the other words and phrases rhat occur wirh thern, or

words wirh granmatical morphemes that occur wirh them. For example,

children leaming languages in which nouns have grammatical gender learn to

associate the appropriare article and adjecrive [orms wirh nouns. Similarly, they

learn to associace pronouns with the verb Forrns that tnark person and nutnber.

They learn which remporal adverbs go with which verb tenses. According to

cor)nectionist theory, all this is possible because oIthe child's general abiliry to

develop associations berween things thirt occur togcrher-

OF particular inrporrance to the connectionist hypothesis is rhe fact that

childre n are exposed to many thousands of opportunities to leltrn words and

phrases. Leaning takcs place gradually, as the number oF links berween

lenguage and nreaning are built up. They argue that acqtrisition oflanguage,while rernarkable, is not rhe only renrarkeblc Fear acconrplished by tlre child.They cornparc it to orher cognitive antl perceptual learning, includinglcarlring to'scc'.

r t. I I I ILanguage olsoroers an(t oelaysAlrhough rrrost childrcn progres.s through thc st:rgcs of language clevclop-nrcrrt wirhout significant difhculry or dclay, therc are some chiltlrcn For

wl'rorn this is not rhe casc. A discussion of rhe various rypcs o[disabilities-inclrrding deafness, arriculatory problems, dyslexie, etc.-rhat sonrcrimesallcct larrgtragc rlcvelopnrcnt is outs.ide the scope of this book. lt is esscntialthet parctrrs atrd teachcrs be cncouraged to scek pr:oFessional advicc if theylccl rlrar a child is not dcveloping languagc nornrally, kceping in rnirrd rhatthc rirngc fbr ir<.rrnral' is wide indeed.

Whilc rnost children producc recognizablc firsr worcls by rwclve rnorrrhs,sonre mey not speak before the age of rhrec years. ln vcry your)g childrcu,orre way to deterrnine whether delayed languagc rrHecrs a problcnr or sirnplyan individr-ral difference within the norrnel range is to dcte rrninc whether rhechild responds to language and appears ro rrndcrsrard cvcn iFhc or she is rrotspcrking. For older childrcn, delays in leerning to rearcl that sccrn our ol-kee ping with a child's overall intellecturl frrncrioning may suggcsr that thcreis a specific problem in that donrlin Sonre children seem ro begin rc'rdingelrnost by magic, discovering thc rnystclics of prinr with lirrlc direcrinstructiott. For rnost children, instructiorr thlr inclucles sonre s)/ste,natic:rttcnt;on to sound-lcrrer correspclndenccs allows thent ro unlock thetreit.sure chest of reading Both groups fill with e norrnrrl rangc. For solncchildren, however, re:rtling presents such great challenges thrt thcy neecl

cxpcrr help beyond whar is available in a typical clrrssroonr.

Language learning in early childhood

fuJim Cummins (1984, 2000) and others have poinred out, one particulargroup of children who have ofren bcen misdiagnosed as having languagedelays or disorders are children who arrive at their first day oFschool withoutan age-appropriare knowledge of the language of the school. This includesimmigranr children who speak anorher language at home, minorirylanguage children whose home language is different from the schoollanguage, and children who speak a differenc variety ofthe school language.Unlortunarcly, it often happens that these children's knowledge of a differentlanguage or language variety is interpreted as a lack oIknowledge oflanguagein general. As a result, they are sonretimes placed in remedial or specialeducation classes. It is often rhe case thar the school is not equipped toprovide err adequare asscssrnent of children's abiliry to use rheir homelanguage. Schools may nor have programnres for second language learuersthat allow the nr to continue ro usc their lrome language. The development oIbilingual or second language learning childrcn is ofenornrous inrporralrce.Indeed, the rnajoriry of the world's childrelr are exposed to Inore than onelanguage, either in early childhood or Fronr the time they enter school.Rescarchers havc recently medc irnporrant progrcss in providing guidelinesthar can lrclp cducarors disringuish berween disabiliry and divcrsiry(Seymour and Pelrson 2004).

Childhood bilingualismEaLly childhood bilinguelisnr is a realiry lor rnillions oFchildren throughourthe world. Sonre children learn mulriple languages from carliesr childhood;orhers accluirc additional languages whcn thcy go to school. The acquisirionand nrainrcnance of rlore rhan one language can open doors ro rlanypersonal, sociel, lnd economic opporrunities.

Chiklren wlro lcarn rnorc rhan onc lenguagc fronr earlicsr chikihood arerc[errcd to as 'simultaneous bilinguals', whcrcas tlrose who leanr anotlrcrlanguage lirtcr nray be cllled'sequential bilinguals'.'l-herc is a considcreblcbody of rescnrch on chiltlrer-r's lbiliry ro learn nrore rhan one languegc intheir earliest years. We sourerinles hear pcople cxpress rlrc opinion that itis roo diflctrlt for childrcn ro cope wirh two languages. They lear rharthc childrcn will be confusecl or will nor learn eithr:r language well.Howcver, rhcre is lirrle suppolt fbr the rnyth rhar learning rrore thau onelarrguage in carly childhood is a protrlcrn Forchildrcn (Cenesee, Crago, rurdParedis 2004). Although sonrc srudies show rninor cerly delays for simul-trncous bilinguals, therc is no cvidcrrcc rhar learning rwo langulges sub-stanti:rlly slows dowlr rhcir linguisric dcveloprncrrt or inrerf'ercs wirhcognirive and ac:rdcmic devclopnre nr. lndeecl rnany simulrlneous bilingualsechicve high lcvcls of proficiency in borh languagcs. Ellen Bialvsrok (1991,

27'26 Langnge learning in early cbildhood

2001) and other developmental psychologists have found convincing

evidence that bilingualism can have posirive effects on abilities rhar are

relared to acadernic success, such as metalinguistic awareness. Limitationsrhat may be observed in the language of bilingual individuals are more likelyro be related ro the circumstances in which each language is learned than to

any limitarion in the human capaciry to learn Inore than one language. For

example , if one language is heard much more ofien than the other or is more

highly valued in rhe communiry that language may eventually be used berter

than, or in preFercnce to, rhe other.

There nray be relson to be concemed, however, abour situarions where

children are cut off from their family language whetr they are very young.Lily Vong-Fillmore (1991) observed rhat when children are 'subnrerged' ina dilfcrent language lor long periods in pre-school or day care, theirdcve lopnrent of che Family language nray bc slowcd down or sralled bcfore

rhcy have developed an age-appropriare mastery of the new language.

Eventually they rnay stop speaking rhe fanrily llnguage altogether.

\Wallace Lanrbert ( I 987) callcd this loss of one larrguage on rhe way ro lcarn-ing anclther sulr-r'I{ACTIvE Brr.rNGUALrsM. It cen have negative conse-

qucnces [or chilclrcn's self-esteenr, lnd their relationships wirh Familymenrbers are also likely to be affectcd by sucl-r carly loss oF rhc FamilyIrngrragc. ln thcsc crrses, children secrn ro conrinrrc ro bc ceughr bcrwccrr twol,rrrgrurgcs: thcy havc nor yet mastercd rhe one hnguage, and thcy hlve notconrinued to devclop the other. Drrring the rransition pcriod, rhey may fallbchind in rheir acadcnric learning. Unforrunarely, rhc 'solurion' cducarorssomctinrcs propose to parents is rhar rhey should stop speaking rhe fhrnilylangu:rgc ar horne and concenrrate insread on speaking rhe school languegcwitlr their children.'fhc evidence suggesrs rhar a bcrrer solurion is to strivelbr noutr lvD ull.rNGUA1.1514-1hg maintenancc oF rhc hornc languagewhilc rhc sccond langtrage is bcing learned. This is cspecially rruc if rhcp:rrclrts are:rlso lcarners o[rhc sccond language. If parents conrinue to use

rhc larrgtragc that rhey know besc, rhey are ablc to exprcss their knowlcdgelnd idc:rs in ways that are richer and nrore clabortte rhan they can nranage ine lenguage rlrcy do not know as wcll. Using rlrcir own language in faruilysctrings is also l way For parenrs ro mainrain the ir own self-esreern, especiallyas they may bc srruggling with rhc ncw langulge outside rhe lrourc, at

work, or itr the c<,tnmunity. Mrintaining thc fanrily language also creates

opporrunitics lor thc children to continue both cognitive and alfectivedevelopmenr in a language rhey understand easily while rhey are srilllearning the sccond lauguage. As Virginia Collier (1989) and others hevcshown, the process oFdeveloping a second language takes years. Bu t reachcrs,

-'rts, arrd srudcrrts necd to know thar the bcncfirs ofadditive bilingualisnr

"rd oatience and effort.

Language learning in earfi cltildhool

SummaryIn rhis chapter we have Focused on solne of rhe research on children'slanguage rhar has inf r.renced second language acquisirion research. W'e havedescribed three broad theoretical perspecrives lor explaining first languageacquisition. In Chapter 2, we will look at rhe theorerical perspecrives rharhave been proposed to explain second language acquisirion.

Sources and suggestions for further readingBaker, C. 2001 . Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 3rdedn. Clevcdon: Mulrilingual Marrers.

Berko Gleason, J. (ed.). 2005. The Deuelopment of Lnngurtge 6rh cdn.London: Allyn and Blcon and Longrrrln [)ublishers.

Cummins, J. 2000. Language, Power anl Pedtgogy: Bilingual Children irt theCrossfirc. Clcvedon : MulriIi ngual Marrcrs.

Elman, J. L., E. A. Bates, M. H. Johnson, A. Karmiloff-Smith, D. Parisi,and K. Plunkert. 1996. Rethinking Inndtutus: A Connectionist Persprctiuc ottDeuelopntntt. Cambridgc, MA: MIT Prcss.

Genesee, F. (cd.). 1995, Eluating Seconl Ltnguage Children: l-he lVholcChild, tfulVhole Curritulun, theWhole Conrtturtity. Crnrbridge: Crrrnbr idgeUniversity l)rcss.

Ginsburg, H. and S. Opper. 1969, Piageti 'l'heory of Irttellecuml Dcuchtp-ment: An Inrruductiott. Englcwood Clifl's, NJ: Prcnrice-Hirll.

Oller, D. K. rrnd R. E. Eilers (cds.). 2002. Lnnguage antl LircruqDe uc Ltpntc tt t in B ili ngr t l Clt iUren. Clcvcdon : Multilingual Marrers.

Pinker, S. f 994. Tlte Lungtnge Insrrzcr Ncw York: Villianr Morrow.

Piper, T. 1998. Lntryutgt rtnl Leuruiug:'l'he Horne tnd Scbool yeurs 2nd edrr.Uppcr Srddlc Rivcr, NJ: Mcrrill/Prcnticc-llall.

Schieffelin' B. and E. ochs (cds.). lg86. Lartgutge socializttion AtrossC) ult ures. Oanrbridgc: Carrrbridge Univcrsity Press.

Vells, G. 1986. Children Learning Lttngutge and using ltutgrnge to Learn.Portsnrouth, NFI: l [cincnrann.

Vertsch, J. V. 1985. Vygotsky atd tlte So, inl Fonttation of Mind. Canrbriclgc,MA: Harvard Univelsiry Plcss.