Longman Group UK Limited,

Contents
Longman House, Burnt Mill,
Harlow, Essex CM20 2JE, England
and Associated Companies throughout the world.

Published in the United States of America

by Longman Publishing, New York

0Longman Group UK Limited 1993 Preface xi

All rights reserved; no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a Acknowledgements xiii
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without either the prior
written permission of the Publishers or a licence permitting restricted copying in
the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd., 90 PART 1: FIRST LANGUAGE 1
Tottenham Court Road, London W1P 9HE.

First published 1993 1. How children learn language 3

1.1 The development of speech production 3
ISBN &582 05982.8 PPR
1.2 Speech understanding and its importance 16
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data 1.3 Parentese and Baby Talk 22
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library 1.4 Imitation and correction 25
1.5 Discussion questions 27
Library o f Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Suggested readings 28
Steinberg, Danny D.
Introduction to psycholinguistics/Danny D. Steinberg.
p. cm.
a 2. Animals and language 30
, 2.1 Teaching language to the chimpanzee, gorilla
Includes bibliographical references and index.
1. Psycholinguistics. I. Tirle.
P37.S77 1993 I and dolphin 30
4011.9-dc20 92-38645
2.2 Animal c o m m u ~ ~ i c a t in
i o ~the
~ wild 40
CIP 2.3 Animal comn~unicationand human
1 language 42
sct in Linotron Bembo 11/12pt by 8U
I 2.4 Pygmy chimp reheats dcbatc 43
Printed in Ilong Kong 2.5 Conclusions regarding animals and languagc 45
W 11
'0 1 v 2.6 Discussion questions 46
1 Suggested rcadings 47

I 3. Wild children and language 48

, 3.1 Legends, evil kings and cmpcrors 48
3.2 Victor: the Wild 13oy of Avcyron 50
I 3.3 Genic: raised in solitary confincrr~cnt 55
3.4 Isabcllc: confincmcnt with a mutc mother 59
viii Contents Contents ix
I

3.5 Helen: the famous deaf and blind girl 61
3.6 A critical age for first-language acquisition? 63
3.7 Discussion questions 65
Suggested readings 66
4. Sign language, written language and the
deaf 67
4.1 Soundless language 67
4.2 Language without speech 67
4.3 Gestures and signs 69
4.4 Sign languages 73
4.5 The sign language struggle in deaf education
4.6 The Oral Approach 82
4.7 The Written Language Approach 84
4.8 A parting note on deaf education 89
4.9 Discussion questions 90
Suggested readings 90
6.5 The psychological unreality of Chomsky's
grammar 128
6.6 The anti-Mentalist skeletons in Chomsky's
closet 129
6.7 Discussion questions 131
Suggested readings 131
7. Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 133
7.1 Where do language ideas come from? 133
7.2 Empiricist and Rationalist answers 135
80 7.3 Chomsky's Universal Grammar 137
7.4 Arguments re intelligence and Universal
Grammar 139
7.5 Mentalism and Behaviourism contrasted 153
7.6 Discussion questions 155
Suggested readings 156

8. Language, thought and culture 158

PART 2: LANGUAGE AND MIND 93
5. Mental grammar 95
5.1 Grammar and psycholinguistics 95
5.2 Chomsky's competence and performance
distinction 96
5.3 Chomsky's grammatical conceptions 97
5.4 Linguistic challenges to Chomsky's
grammar 110
5.5 Discussion qucstions 1 13
Suggested rcadings 114
6. Sentence processing and psychological
reality 116
6.1 Meaning, sound and syntax relations in
Chomsky's grammar 116
6.2 Why Chomsky's grammar is not a performance
model 117
6.3 Typcs of performancc modcls 119
6.4 Somc fcaturcs of scntcncc production and
understanding 123
8.1 The arrest of the Sunday School teacher 158
8.2 Speech as the basis of thought 159
8.3 Arguments against this idea 160
8.4 Language as the basis of thought 163
8.5 Arguments against this idea 166
8.6 Wherc language does affect thought 169
8.7 Thought as the basis of language 170
8.8 Discussion questions 171
Suggested readings 173
9. Language and the brain 174
9.1 Brain structurc and function 174
I 9.2 Hcmisphcric dominance and lateralization 177
9.3 Languagc areas and functioning 181
9.4 Brain n~aturation and critical age for learning
language 184
I 9.5 Langilagc disorders 186
9.6 Mcthods of investigating brain and langi~agc 194
7 Mind and brain 197
9.8 1)iscussion qi~cstions 190
Suggested readings 200
x Contents

PART 3: SECOND LANGUAGE 201

Children vs adults in second-language

acquisition 203
10.1 A common belief 203
10.2 Psychological factors affecting second-languagc Preface
learning 203
10.3 Social situations affecting second-language
learning 210
10.4 Who is better? 213
10.5 Critical age 215
10.6 Discussion questions 217 With this book I wish to introduce the interested reader t o
Suggested readings 217 Psycholinguistics, that field of inquiry where language is
regarded from a psychological perspective. As such, Psycho-
11. Second-language teaching 219 linguistics inevitably intersects with psychology, linguistics,
11.1 Dimensions and methods 219 philosophy, education and other disciplines, as well. While
11.2 Traditional methods 221 this is an introductory book, the reader is nonetheless taken
11.3 The Chomskyan revolution and contemporar) to the heart of matters and contemporary controversy. This
methods 228 is so whether the issues are of a theoretical or a practical
11.4 Conclusions 238 nature.
11.5 Discussion questions 240 Prior knowledge of any discipline is not presupposcd. I
Suggested readings 241 have tricd my best to introduce readers to the essential
, concepts of the constituent subfields with a view to gaining
12. Bilingualism and cognition 242 knowlcdgc and understanding issucs so that rcadcrs may bc
12.1 Varieties of bilinguals 242 ablc to think for thcmselvcs and conduct enquiries on thcir
12.2 Is bilingualism beneficial or detrimental? 243 own.
12.3 Simultaneous and sequential learning Thc book is divided into threc parts: First Lan<qua<qe,
situations 250 I Langua,qe arzd M i n d and Second Lan(rr~a~qe.Whilc cvcry chaptcr
12.4 Transfer Effect of L1 on L2 learning 254 in thc book is self-sufficient and can be rcad directly, I
12.5 Discussion questions 258 would rcconln~cndthat, for full advantage, chapters within
Suggcstcd readings 258 cach part be rcad in ordcr. Whilc thc parts thcmsclvcs may
, bc rcad in any ordcr, it would bc best that Firfst Lnr~qrda~qc~
, prcccdc Second Lnn,q~~a,qcsincc so many of thc problems and
Author lndex 260 issucs rclcvant to Sccond Lari~qi~a~qc arc introduced and
Subject lndex 263 , claboratcd on in Firs/ Lar~qrrqqc~. Thcn, too, because Lni<qrrqqc~
and M i n d involvcs rather cllallcnging topics and issucs, I
i would suggcst that rcadcrs dcnl with First I,ari<qi/qc~bcforc
I doing Lar,~qua,qc and M i n d . 1:iust 1-nrtqlrqqc is dcslgncd to
provide ideas, raise questions nnd stimulntc the kind of
thinking that will make l-ot~q~dnqc,orrd M i ~ t ic~lgngingto
I read.
Thc rcndcr m a y wonder why I selected thc group
xii Preface

photograph of Alexander Bell, Helen Keller and Ann

Sullivan Macy for the frontispiece. Besides being grez
heroic people who served the cause of humanity, their live
and work bring to the fore so many of the fundament:
problems facing Psycholinguistics: What is the origin I
language? What is the origin of thought? Does one depend on ti, Acknowledgements
other? What is the nature of language? How may language t
acquired? As I hope the reader will discover during th
course of this book, Bell was a true psycholinguist both i
thought and deed long before that word was invented.

Tokyo D.D.! I would like to acknowledge my great debt to Mr Jeff

]uly 1992 Matthews of Naples, Italy. He made substantial contributions
to earlier drafts of a majority of the chapters of the book. I
would also like to express my gratitude to Ms Armene Modi
of the Language Institute of Japan and Dr Yasuaki Abe of
Nanzan University for their helpful suggestions concerning
earlier chapter drafts and to Prof Geoffrey Leech for his many
', useful editorial comments.

i We are grateful to the following for permission to reproduce

copyright material:
Cambridge Univcrsity Press and the author David Crystal for
\I
our Figure 4.1 'Finger Spelling: the one-handed American
method and the two-handed British mcthod' and the top
illustration in Figure 9.1 being an ovcrhead view of the brain,
from pagcs 223 and 258 in T h e Cambridc~eEncyclopedia of
( Language, 1087; Croom Helm for Figurc 4.2 from M.
Brennan, 'Marking Time in British Sign Languagc' in J.G.
Kylc and B. Woll (cds) Lan,quage in Slqn: A n International
, Perspective on S(qn Lan~qi~a,qe (1983); Mouton dc Gruytcr for
Figurc 4.3 'Amcrican sign languagc scntcnccs' from Scott I<.
j Liddcll (1980) Amrrican S$n Lan,qua,qe Syntax; I'rcnticc Hall,
Erlglcwood Cliffs, New Jcrscy for lower illustration (side
view of the brain) in Figurc 9.1 from I. Taylor and M. Taylor
; Psyc/~olin~quistics: 01000, p. 364;
1-vnrnir;q and Usiw,q Lart,qi~a,q~
I'rincctoll Univcrsity l'rcss for Figures 9.2 and 9.3 from W.
3
U
lJcnficld and L. llobcrts Spwrh nrld Rvnin Mcrl~nr~isr~is(1959).
I
We 11avc been unablc to trace tllc copyright holdcr for the
frontisyiccc photograph and would apprcciatc any informa-
tion that woi~ldcn;iblc 11st o d o so.
 CHAPTER 1

How children learn language

We have minds and in our minds w e have language. But

how did language get there? H o w did w e learn to produce
and understand speech? At birth w e cannot speak, nor can
we understand speech. Yet, by the age of 4 years wc will
have learned the basic vocabulary, syntax (grammatical
rules and structures) and pronunciation of our language.
This is true of children the world over, whatever thc
I
language of their people may be. And, whilc they still have
passives and other elaborate syntactic structures to lcarn
(along with a never-ending stock of vocabulary itcms),
ncvcrthcless, by that age they will have ovcrcome thc most
difficult obstaclcs in languagc Icarning. Indced, the languagc
I proficiency of the 4- o r 5-ycar-old is often the envy of the
adult sccond languagc lcarncr who has becn struggling for
ycars to mastcr thc languagc. It is onc o f the fundamental
tasks o f the ficld of psycholinguistics to cxplain how all of
1 this has occurred.
For rcasons that will bccomc morc apparcnt latcr,
languagc learning must be scparatcd into t w o distinct, but
rclatcd, psychological proccsscs: that o f spccch production
/ and that of spccch iindcrstanding. I shall dcal with cach in
, turn and then considcr how thcy arc rclatcd.

1.I The development of speech production

i
I 1 . I .I Vocalization
' Whilc 1,;ibics ;I few nlonths old d o not spitak, they do nlakc
sounds throiigh their ~iioiiths. 111 fact, they 11l;tkc quitc a
v;lriety o f sou~lds.Thcy cry, tllcy coo like pigcons, thcy
4 First language
gurgle, suck, blow, spit and make a host of other virtua
indescribable noises. However, while these are not spee
sounds their production gives the child exercise in articu
tion and control. Importantly, too, the child gets practice
coordinating breathing with the making of sounds. Tht
same sounds (crying, cooing, etc.) are made by infants
over the world. Even deaf children make them. Dl
children, however, do not progress to babbling, the nc
level of vocalization that has some resemblance to speec
Babbling is a type of vocalization where the child u
speech sounds, mainly vowels and consonant-vowel s)
ables, e.g. 'a', 'u', 'ma', 'gi', 'pa'. The child's repetit
uttering of these sounds give them a speech-like quali
e.g. 'mama', 'gigi', 'papa', especially when these sounds .
involved with the features of the intonation pattern of th
language, as they tend to be. As the period of babbli
progresses, the more it sou~ldslike the speech of 1
language to which the child is being exposed. Arounc
months of age, Japanese-exposed children start t o sou
somcwhat Japanese, English-exposed children start to sou
somewhat English, Chinesc-exposed children start to sou
somewhat Chincsc, and so on. By 10 or 11 months child]
will often babble in pseudo non-word 'scntences' us)
declarative, question and exclamatory intonation pattcr
That babies should first acquirc the intonation patte
of their language, even beforc producing any words, is 1
so surprising. After all, whcn any of us hcars a n
language for thc first timc, what wc tcnd to licar first is
rhythm, pitch and stress pattcrns. Wc don't know how
cut the flow of a scntcncc into words, and ncithcr docs t
child. We bccomc familiar with the melody, so to spc;
bcforc wc gct to thc words. It is this mclody, this intonati
pattcrn, that thc infant Icarns first to rccognizc and thcn
imitate.
1.I .2 The one-word utterance
When do childrcn start to say tllcir first words? It m
surprise you t o learn that rcscarcli o n this cluestion is not
;111 co~~clusivc.
Act~lallythis [lot ;In easy qucstion to answc
not olily bccnt~scthcrc is n vcry wide range of individ~
How children learn language 5
differences but also because the precise determination of just
when a word has been learned is not easy to make.
First words have been reported as appearing in normal
children from as young as 4 months to as old as 18 months,
or even older. O n the average, it would seem that children
utter their first word around the age of 10 months. Some o f
this variability has to do with physical development, such as
the musculature of the mouth and throat, which is necessary
for the proper articulation o f sounds. Undoubtedly, too,
certain brain development is also involved since the creation
of speech sounds must come under the control of speech
areas in the cerebral cortex.
. The advice columnist Ann Landers once stated, in
response to a query, that children would not be able t o
speak until well after 6 months of age. She had cited the
opinion given to her by a leading paediatrician. A flood o f
letters immediately poured in from parents w h o disagreed
with her (really with the paediatrician!) on thc basis o f
experience with their own children. A great many parents
claimed that their children uttered words as young as 4 and
5 months of age. At 4% months one boy was saying
'Mama', 'Daddy' and 'no' while at 5% months one girl was
saying 'bottle', 'Daddy', 'bath' and 'byebye'. Evcn granting
the tendcncy of parents to exaggerate their childrcn's
accomplishments, such obscrvations havc a ring of truth
about thcm given thc large number of rcsponses which Ann
Landcrs rcccivcd. (I mysclf rc~ncmbcrone littlc girl who
livcd ncxt door and was fluently producing scntcnccs whcn
only 8 months of age!)
Dcspitc such great diffcrcnccs in the onsct of spccch, by
the time childrcn arc around 3 years of agc, diffcrcnccs havc
largcly disappcarcd. Thc slowcr ones catch up ;lnd the early
spcakcrs no longer sccln to havc an advantage. Incidclltally,
it nliglit bc notcd, too, in this regard that tllcrc is no known
relationship bctwccn intclligcncc and the onsct of spccch for
normal childrcn. As a ni:lttcr of h c t , ninny vcry ~ ; I I I ~ O L I S
pcoplc, includi~lgAlbert Ei~istcin,arc reputed to have bccn
slow to talk. O n e should not infer from this, I~owcvcr,that
thcsc pcoplc wcrc ; ~ l s oslow to rrrrric~r.staild spccch. Thc
contrary is more likely to 11:lvc hccn the c:~sc.(I>iscussio~~ of
thc rc~latio~isliipb c t w c c ~spccch
~ productiol~;111diindcrstand-
ing is prCscntcd Iatcr in rliis cliaptcr.)
 6 First language
T o determine just when a word has been learned
generally not an easy matter. Simply the saying of sounc
that correspond to a word in the language is not enough.
parrot can d o a good job of mimicking but w e do nc
attribute language knowledge to it. Along with tf
researcher and the eager parent, what we look for is tl
meanindul use of sounds. If the child says 'banana' or son
approximation of those sounds, and does so only whc
seeing or touching that object (and not other objects such
people or cars), then we might consider that the 'chi
knows that word. (Often only a parent can identify tl
i sounds the child makes because of the peculiarity of tl
1 child's speech.) In order to do a thorough scientific study
determine when children learn their first word, tl
I dedicated researcher would have to be on call every day fi
1 almost two years in order to check out parents' claims. Ax
even this may not be enough since some parents may mi
the signs of when the first word has been learned! Lit1
wonder then that solid data on this issue are hard to cop
by-
T h e many uses of a sincqleword
A single word, even the same one, can be used for ma1
different purposes. A word can be used to name an objec
e.g. 'mama' for 'mother', 'nana' for 'banana'. These sar
words can also be used to request something, e.g. 'marr
for 'I want my mother' and 'nana' for 'I want a banana'.
word can also be used to emphasize actions such as
greeting, c.g. 'hi' with a wavc of the hand, or in lcav
taking, e.g. 'bye-bye' with a different wavc of the 11an
Single words can even bc used to express complr
situations. O n e rcscarchcr, for cxan~plc, noted a chi
saying 'pcach' + 'Daddy' + 'spoon' in a situation where h
father had put a piece of a pcach onto a spoon. I t is bclicvc
for the following reasons, that the child here was using
series of tlircc single-word uttcranccs rather than one thrc
word sentence: tl~crcwas a slight pause between word
tlicrc was n o scntcncc intonation, a ~ ~thed cllild had 011
Isccn a t n singlc-word st:~gcof production. Other rcscarchc
hnvc doctimcntcd tlic same pl~cnomcnon.
When one rcflcc-ts o n the multiple uses to whicll a chi
How children learn language 7 I
puts single words, one can only conclude h o w reasonable it
is of the child to d o this. Lacking the knowledge and ability
1
t o form proper sentences, the child uses t o the utmost the
limited resources that it has, i.e. single words without any
syntax. Actually that is what w e all tend t o d o in a foreign
language situation when w e have only single words at our
disposal. Even with such limited language w e can d o some
shopping, order food in a restaurant, take trains and so on.
This use of a single word t o express a whole sentence
(technically, a 'holophrastic' use, in the child language
literature) can be effective when the situation is simple and
obvious enough so that the listener can guess the intended
meaning. But, when more complex or precise communica-
tions are required, single words d o not suffice. Speakers will
need a greater linguistic command o f the language t o
achieve such purposes.
1.I .3 Two- and three-word utterances
At 18 months or so, many children start t o produce two-
and three-word utterances. Again the reader is cautioned
that this is but an average and that there is great individual
variation in this regard. Table 1.1 shows a typical list o f
such utterances along with what a mature speaker might say
in the same circumstances (a 5-year-old could be considered
a 'mature' speaker in this regard!) and the possible purposes
that the child may be using the utterances for (technically,
'speech acts').
The most striking features about the dozen or so vcry
ordinary utterances shown here arc the variety of purposes
and the complexity of ideas which they exhibit. At only a
year and a half, children use language to request, warn,
refuse, brag, question, answer and inform. In order to gain
these ends the utterances that they use express such ideas as
quantity ('more'), possc~ssion ('my'), nqyotion ('no sleep'),
locntion ('banana table') and nttrihrrtc ('big', 'red').
Even such a small sanlplc of utterances as this demon-
strates how advanccd the cliild is from a cognitive point of
vicw. The thinking and conccpti~alabilities of the vcry young
child arc quite rcnlarkablc. Acti~allyit was just until the past
few dcci~dcs,when the study ofchild language intensified, that
tllc truc conccptilal abilitics of the y o u r ~ gchild began to be
8 First language How children learn language 9

Table 1.1 Some two-word utterances and their purpose could never be discovered if nouns, verbs and adjectives
were not understood first. O n l y a child w h o already can
Child's utterance Mature speakers' equivalent Purpose understand words like 'banana' and 'table' is i n a position t o
Want cookie I want a cookie Request guess what a preposition like 'on' might mean when
More milk I want some more milk Request someone says 'The banana is o n the table', and, the banana
MYcup This cup is mine Warning is o n the table for the child t o see.
Mommy chair This chair belongs to Mommy Warning Another important grammatical characteristic o f the
Mommy chair Mommy is sitting in the chair Answer (to child's utterances is the lack o f inflections, inflections being
question) changes in the forms o f words. Thus, w e see 'dog' instead o f
Big boy I am a big boy Bragging 'dogs', 'sit' for 'sitting', 'jump' for 'jumped', and 'John car' for
Red car The car is red Inform 'John's car'. Rarely d o plurals, verb endings, tense markings
No sleep I don't want to go to sleep Refusal and other inflections appear. Again, this makes good sense.
Where doll? Where is the doll? Question When listening t o speech, the child seeks o u t the essence o f
Daddy bring Daddy will bring pizza Inform words, discarding extras which are burdensome to figure out.
Givecandy Give me some candy Request
Banana table The banana is on the table Inform/ Later the child will learn t o add inflections but this refinement
answer must wait until basic words are learned first.
It is because two- and three-word utterances are mainly
formed o f content words, lacking function words and inflec-
appreciated. In the past those abilities were greatly undcre, tions, that this stage o f development in a child's speech is often
timated. And yet, the child's speech, in all likelihood, m u referred to as the tele'qraphic stage. Being short in length and
reflect only a small part o f what the child knows and with content words predominating, such utteranccs havc the
thinking. For, the child already can understand much mol essential charactcristics o f a telegram message.
speech than he o r she can produce (more dctailcd discussion o
this later) and undoubtedly has thoughts and conccpts that a]
1.I .4 Function words and inflections
well in advance o f the attained level o f speech understanding
Returning to Table 1.1, w e may note that in terms of O n c c two- and three-word utterances havc bee11 acquired,
grammatical analysis o f the utterances, onc principal charac thc child has s0111ethi11g on which to elaborate. Function
teristic is the infrequent appearance of function words such ; words likc prcpositions, the article and auxiliaries arc then
articles, prepositions, auxiliaries (be, havc) and niodals (wil acquired, as arc inflections likc the plural and tcnsc
can). Mainly it is 11ouns, verbs and adjectives which appear i markings. T h e best single study on this topic was done by
the utterances. This is not surprising when one considers th; the noted psycliolinguist, Roger Brown. 111 a long-tcrm and
it is thcsc classes of words which carry the most infornlatio very detailed study with three children, Brown focused on
(which is why they arc often rcfcrrcd to as corrtcrlt classcs) an thc acquisition o f different function words and inflections,
would be the first that childrcn would learn to understand. hcrcaftcr rcfcrrcd to as grammatical nlorphcmcs. A mor-
would be strangc indeed to find a child whose first words we1 pheme is ;I root word o r a part o f a w o r d that carries a
anything likc 'is', 'with', 'can' o r 'the'. ~llcaning.Thus, for cxamplc, the word 'clcphnnts' co~isists
T h e child uses c o m b i n a t i o ~ ~ofs content words wit11 th of t w o n~orplic~ilcs, 'clcpllant' and I'lural ('s'), as docs the
expectation that the listc~lcrwill undcrstnnd thc relati011 word ' r n ~ ~consisting
', o f 'run' and I'ast.
bctwccn itcnls, such as in '13annnn t:~blc'for 'The banana I 'Ten Ixlsic niorphcmcs from tllc I3row1i study arc shown
or/ the t;~blc'. In time the child docs Icarn to i ~ s cf ~ ~ n c t i o . in Tnblc 1.2 in the order in wllich they wcrc ncquircd.
words properly such as in 'to M ~ I I I ; 'rr~itlr ~ ' , John', 'tlrc~truck' (Actunlly the nun1bc.r is I I if thc Third I'crso~l Rcgulnr and
'cnndy arrtl c;lkc'. Mowcvcr, the fii~ictionso f such word irrcgi~lnrarc counted scp;\r;itcly.) Snniplc child uttcrnnccs
 10 First language How children learn language 11 I
I
<
illustrating these morphemes are also shown. Thus, we sc It involves psychological learning principles that are of a
that Present Progressive, Prepositions ('in' and 'on') and tl universal and well-understood nature. As such, they will
regular Plural were learned well in advance of morphem hold for children learning the grammatical morphemes o f
like the Article, Third Person (Regular and Irregular), ar any language.
the Auxiliary 'be' in both its Regular and Contracted form Even though Brown's morpheme data are based o n
only three children and the order would probably not be
Table 1.2 Morpheme acquisition order and explanatory variabl, exactly the same for all English-speaking children, nonethe-
less the general order does fall in with what w e would
Sound, expect. A very different order would be quite counterintui-
Environmental change
Order Morpheme Examples observability differenc~ tive. By posing important questions raised by the data and
then providing answers to these questions, I hope that I may
Present Girl playing High High demonstrate this to the reader's satisfaction.
Progressive
Prepositions: Ball in water High High
I. Why might the Plural and Possessive be learned before
in, on the Third Person? Since all three regular suffix
Plural cars, boys, High Low morphemes of Plural, Possessive and Third Person
fishes have exactly the same sound forms Is/, /z/ and /iz/ and
Past Irregular came, fell, Medium High the selection of any of these suffixes are governed by
went the same sound rules, the reason for the ordering must
Possessive Jack's, Ann's, High Low be attributable to some factor other than the sound
Liz's system.
Articles a dog, the dog Medium High 2. Why might the Present (Progressive) be learned beforc
Past Regular jumped, Medium Low the Past (Regular o r Irregular)?
hugged, 3. Why might thc Past Irregular be learned bcforc thc Past
wanted
Third Person: Regular?
Regular talks, sings, Low Low 4. Why might the Auxiliary 'be' be lcarncd in the Regular
watches form before the Contracted form?
Irregular does, has Low High Lct us now consider possible answers to thcsc qucstions:
Auxiliary be I a m playing, Low High
Regular You are
playing, Shc is I. Plurnl and Possessive before Third Person
playing
Auxiliary k~ I'm, You're, Low Low Thc I'lural and I'osscssivc arc much morc involvcd with
Contracted She's mcai~ingand information, including physical situations and
objects that arc readily observed in the cnvironn~cnt.Thus
the child can easily discern onc vcrsus t w o cookies, one
Why thcsc nlorpl~cincsshould have bccn acquired i vcrsus two or thrcc cats, his or her toys versus ailotllcr
this ordcr has been the subjcct of 111iich spcculation. SOIIIC child's toys, ctc. O n the other halid, the Third I'crson is
likc I)ulay, Hurt and I<rashcn, for cxamplc, intinl;ltc tha inore involved with gramm;ltical rcquircmcnts and scrvcs
thcrc is a sort of prcdctcrmiilcd ordcr in the child's mina less vital comnlunicativc needs. The same is true for thc
governed by, :IS yet, i i ~ i k i ~ o wmechanisms,
n and that thl Auxiliary, as well.
morphcmcs :ippcar in the ordcr they do hccnusc of this. M: So, cvcn though the chiltl learns thc sound rille for
owl1 cxpla~lntionof this ordering is nlorc direct and simple ;lpplying Is/, 17.1 ; ~ n d/iz/ and iiscs it for the I ' o s s ~ s s i v aiid
~~
12 First language
Plural, only later does the child use the rule for constructin,
the Third Person. Undoubtedly this is due to the concept c
Third Person being of little importance as compared t
those expressing ideas about plurality and possession.
2. Present before Past
For the present tense, the child will hear speech involvin
that tense (the mother says, 'The dog is barking') at tf
same time that objects, events and situations in the wor!
are experienced (the child hears the dog barking). Howeve
for the past, the child hears speech ('The dog barked') whc
the object, event or situation is no longer there to be direct1
experienced. This being the case, in order to identify tf
speech sounds which signal the past, the child must remembl
the environmental event which occurred in the past and the
realize that the sound change is an indication of a past even
e.g. 'barked' as opposed to 'barking'.
Clearly, a great deal of thought and analysis is rcquirc
for the child to learn the past. First, the child must acqui
the morphcmc structurc for the present. Then, on the bas
of that, the child can learn the past. If the child docs not fir
Icarn the prcscnt morpheme, it is inconceivable that tl
child would ever Icarn the morphcmc structurc for pa:
W h c ~ ilistening to people speak, a child who knows I
language cat1 only begin with an analysis of tlic prcscnt.
people spoke only of things past, the child wo~ildnot like
Icarn any language since there would be ~ ~ o t l i i ning tl
immcdiatc environment to relate their spccch to. TI
prcscnt tc~iscmust be the basis for the child's 1c:lrning tl
past tcnsc.
Silicc idc:~of past is i~ivolvcdwith both thC irrcgiilnr a1
rcg\~l:lrpast, tlic csplnnation for the ordcr of nccliiisitic
of tlicsc two past forms 111i1stlie clscwlicrc. Supposc v
coliipnrc the prcscnr fornls of vcrhs with the p;lst forms.
How children learn language 13
I
Past Regular: jumpljumped, jogljogged, wantlwanted
We can see that the sound changes from present to past are
much more noticeable for the irregular verbs than the
regular ones. Since a sound difference must be first noticed
before it can be learned, and since the irregular ones are
more noticeable, we would expect them t o be learned
earlier. Another factor here is that the irregular verbs tend
t o be ones that are especially important in everyday life.
This, too, might give these often-called 'strong verbs' an
additional advantage.
4. Auxiliary (be': Regular l~eforeCo~ztracted
Let us compare the regular (uncontracted) and contracted
forms: aml'm, isl's, arel're. In all cases the uncontracted
form constitutes a complete syllable and word while the
contracted forms d o not. N o t only is a syllable easier to hear
than a non-syllable but the syllable word will be givcn some
dcgrcc of stress and pitch which will further makc it easier
to hear.
Based, then, on the above analysis of the four questions, w e
can say that two variables account for the ordcr of
acquisition: Mcaningf~ilncssor Ease of Obscrvability in the
Environ~ncntand Sound Change I>iffcrcricc (~loticcability),
with thc first playing the prcdonii~iantrolc. ('l'rcdominant
rolc' mcnning hcrc that valucs on the Environmental
Obscrvability arc givcn rnorc weight that tliosc on the
Sound Cliangc 1)iffcrcncc variable.) A n ~ o r p h c m cthat is
high o n both, such as l'rcscnt I'rogrcssivc, will be Icarncd
before Contracted Ausilinry which is low o n botli. If w e
assign in the tnblc a high, medium or low value o n cnch o f
the two variablcs for a11 of the niorpl~cmcs, we scc that
niorc highs arc : ~ the t top of the list :111dnlorc lows ;1rc ;lt the
bottom. Silcli ;In outCo~iic- provic1c.s support for our theory
in cxplaini~igtllc acquisition ordctr of thc niorpllcnics.
I % i ~w1i:lt
t of t l ~ cprCpositiolis 'in' ; ~ n d'on' ;111dtllc r;lting
of 'high' t1i;lt I gave t1ic111in theb t,ll>lc? Thc rc:lson I 1-;1tc
tlicsc filnction words ;IS Iiighly ~ i ~ c ; l ~ ~ i ~ is i Ig>f~iC~; IlL I Sthe
~
physic;ll rcl;~tionswliic.l1 tl~c-ysig11:11;lrc i n i p o r t ; l ~ ~ int tcrnis
 14 First language
of communication, e.g. 'The apple is on the box', 'Th
apple is in the box'. Although, as compared to the conter
classes of nouns, verbs and adjectives, their meaningfulne:
is lower, once the child has learned content words, th
meaningfulness of these prepositions becomes quite higl
Then, too, they have the advantage of their relations beifi
directly observable in the physical environment; the!
relations involve objects that are stationary with respect 1
one another. Such clearly observable object-plus-object rel.
tions, it seems to me, make these prepositions relative
easy to learn. Other prepositions like 'to', 'at' and 'wit
j perhaps lack all these advantages.
1
I
Afootnote on morpheme knowledge
Back in the 1950s, a fascinating piece of morpheme resear~
was done by Jean Berko Gleason. She tested young childrc
with respect to their knowledge of certain morphemes, suc
as the Plural, by means of a simple but ingenious procedur
For example, she showed a child a drawing of ,
unusual little creature. She said to the child, 'This is
"wug".' Then while pointing to a drawing of two of tl
crcatures, she said, 'Now there are two of thcm. These a
two -', and waited for thc child to offer the completic
word. A child who produccd 'wugs' could be said to kno
this aspcct of the plural. Other aspects of the Plural we
also tcsted, again using strange creatures with namcs th
thc child would have never heard beforc, c.g. 'nii
Glcason's rcscarch not only scrves to remind psycholi~
guists how important and uscf~ilthc principle of produ
tivity can be in establishing what children know, but it a15
illustratcs how, with imagination, good rcscarch can 1
donc with young children.
1 .I .5 Developing complex sentences
With lo11gc.r uttcra~~ccs, simple structurcs typically dcvclc
into more complcx ones. Children start to m;lkc 11cgativc
qiicstions, relative claiiscs nnd other complcx structures. P
an cxnmplc of how such structilrcs nlny bc acquired, tl?
tlctnilcd dcvclop~ncntof scntcncc ncgntio~lis i~lstructivci
this rcg;~rd.
How children learn language 15
I
he acquisition of negation, according t o Bellugi and ' !
Klima and others who later replicated their research,
develops in three main periods. An outline of each of these
periods along with sample sentences follows.
Period 1
' N o money'; 'Not a teddy bear'; ' N o play that';
' N o fall'; ' N o singing song'; ' N o the sun shining'
In this first period , generally a negative marker (Neg)
of some sort, 'no' or 'not', is placed at the front of an
affirmative utterance (U). Thus we see utterances of the
typically of the form, Neg + U. Children everywhere seem
to do much the same thing. French children, for example,
place non or pas before U while Japanese children place the
Japanese negative marker nai after the U ( U + Neg) in
accord with the observed structure of their language.
Period 2
'I don't want it'; 'I don't know his namc';
'Wc can't talk'; 'You can't dancc'; 'Book say no';
'Touch thc snow no'; 'That no Mommy';
'Hc no bitc you'; 'I no want cnvclopc';
'Thcrc 110 squirrels'
Wc scc in this sccond pcriod, that tlic ncgativc markcr
tends to appcar intcrnally within uttcranccs. Tlic auxiliary
'do' begins to appcar although in conibination with the
ncgativc markcr (don't). Uttcranccs arc still of a rather crude
nature, though, and ~ ~ c g n t i vimpcrativcs,
c 'Touch tlic snow
no', nrc as poorly formed as thcy were in the prcvious
pcriod ('No play thnt', 'No fill').
'I'aul can't Ilnvc o~lc';'This c.;~n'tstick'; '1 didn't did it';
'You did~l'tc;lught me'; 'l>on11;1won't let go';
'I an1 not n doctor'; "T'liis nor ice-crc;l~ii';
 16 First language
'Paul not tired'; 'I not hurt him';
'Don't touch the fish'; 'Don't kick my box'
The child has now a good idea of when 'do' must t
inserted ('You didn't caught me', 'Don't touch the fish
Don't kick my box') and when 'do' is not inserted ('I a1
not a doctor', 'Donna won't let go'). The child still makc
errors but seems to grasp the basic notion that 'do' is nc
added when there is a modal ('can', 'will': 'This can't stic
[adhere?]', 'Donna won't let go') or when 'be' is the verb (
am not a doctor'). After this period, it is only a matter (
months before most of the problems in negative making a1
i, successfully dealt with.
Bellugi and Klima found that the three children in the
study (the same three who were in the Brown morpherr
acquisition study) all took about 6 months to pass throug
the three periods. Still, there were great individual di
ferences as to when they began the negative productions (
the first period: one of the children began as early as 1'
years of age while the others didn't begin until they we]
around 2Y2 years.
While such wide differences in speech production a1
typical of very young children, by 4 or 5 years of age it seerr
I that most differences level off. And, while there are st]
passives and other complcx structures for children to maste
by this age they arc able to produce most of the essenti.
structures of their language (this is evidently a worldwic
phenomenon, whatever the language). It is perhaps by 9 or 1
ycars of age that all of the structurcs of the language have bee
acquired.
1.2 Speech understanding and its importance
1.2.1 Speech understanding, the basis of speech
production
Wc have seen how childrcn develop thc ability to produc
sentences. 1311t, wli;it is the sourcc of that ability? Conside
such typic:ll childrc~l's uttcranccs as 'W;~ntbanana', 'Nc
sleep', 'Why it's not working?' ;lnd 'Whcrc I can fin(
How children learn language 17
I
them?'. Since children are not born with the knowledge of I
any particular language, it is necessary that they be exposed ,
to the language in order to learn it. It is further necessary
that the speech to which children are exposed be related to
objects, events and situations in the environment and to
experiences in their minds.
Children will not learn speech, if they are exposed only
to speech sounds. Even if the child hears a spoken word a
, thousand times, e.g. 'dog', there is no way for the child to
discover the meaning of the word unless some environmen-
tal clue is provided - in this example, a dog or a picture of a
dog. Even abstract words (discussed later) must be learned
in some such way.
While the ability to utter speech sounds, such as 'dog',
in appropriate situations (when a dog is prcscnt or is
barking, for example), is a good indicator that the child
knows the word, simply being able to utter the sound form
is of no significance. This is like someone being able to
repeat the Japanese word inu. Anyone can do this but unless
'
that person knows the meaning of that word, which is
'dog', we would not say thc person knows that word. A
parrot can learn to utter many words and sentcnccs but wc
do not regard the parrot as having knowledge of language
in any significant sense. What is critical is that the child
know thc mcaning of what is uttered. Evcn if a child learns
to imitate somc words, we would not say that thc child
knows thosc words unless thc child demonstrates in somc
, way that hc or she knows the mcaning of the word. Wc can
judgc this if thc child uses the word correctly, or if thc child
responds appropriately in some bchavioural way, such as by
looking, pointing or following somc command.
Now, in order for a child to learn the meaning of thc
sound form of a word, the child must first hear t h ~ word t
spokcn by others. (The child cannot know bcforchand that
onc object has the namc of 'mama' while anothcr has the
namc of 'dog'.) At the sanic time that the word is spoken
somc rclcvant cnvironmcntal cxpcricncc must occur (the
appcnrancc of the child's mother, for cxan~plc).Thcsc being
the ncccssary conditions for Ic;lrnil~g,it is clc;lr that the cl~ild
n ~ u s tlearn to undcrsta~ldspcccll hcforc he or she is ablc to
produce i t ( n ~ c ; l n i ~ ~ g f i ~Iltl yis) . necessarily thc case that
speech undcrstnntlirig prcccdcs spccch production. Spccch
18 First language
production, therefore, is dependent on speech understar
ing and its development follows that of speech understar
ing.
Aside from the above considerations, there is empiri
evidence that speech comprehension develops in advance
speech production. Parents have always noted that child
are able to respond appropriately to speech that is m
complex than what they (the children) are able to say. Besi
parental observations, findings from research studies wh
were especially designed to compare understanding and p
duction also demonstrate the primacy of understandi
Huttenlocher, for example, studied four children and f o ~
that they were able to understand speech at a level well bey(
that to which they had progressed in production. The child
were able to respond appropriately to commands even w:
these commands involved vocabulary and structures that t'
had never used in their own speech. One young boy,
example, responded appropriately (by pointing) to s
distinctions as 'baby's diaper' versus 'your diaper', and 'bat
bottle' versus 'your bottle'. (The 'baby' here referred to
the boy's younger sister!)
Similarly, in another study, Sachs and Truswell f o ~
that children who could say only single words ('k:
'smell', 'ball', 'truck', etc.) could understand speech st1
turcs composed of more than a single word. The chilc
provided appropriate rcsponscs when given comma
consisting of novel two-word syntactic combinations, s
as 'Kiss ball' and 'Smell truck'.
Thcrc is the observation, too, that some child
completely skip over earlier stagcs of spccch productiol-
nlorc advanced stagcs. The physicist Einstein and
13ritish writer Carlyle arc reputed to have bccn slow
starting to spcak, but when they did they spoke
scntcnccs. Such a phcnomcnon is con~plctclyunderstand:
when one considers that children first acquire knowlcdgc
language through spccch u~ldcrstnnding and that dc
occurs only with the expression of such k~lowlcdgc,
productio11. Without the lal~guagc knowlcdgc ncqu~
through speech undcrstandi~~g, Einstein, C;lrlylc or any,
clsc for th:lt matter would not 11;lvc bccn ablc to utter cvc
word nlc:r~lingfillly,Ict nlonc ;I sclltcncc.
Evidcncc with Il;~~~dicappcd childrc~11pcrliaps provi,
How children learn language 19
I
even stronger evidence. In m y own research, I have come
across children who were mute since birth but yet, having
normal hearing, were able to understand what anyone said
to them. O n e such 3-year-old Japanese girl I studied could
not utter a single word but was normal in all other respects.
(Her other motor skills were so good she could even ride a
bicycle.) O n being tested, she could respond appropriately
to such commands (in Japanese) as 'Put the red paper under
the table' and 'Bring me the little doll from the other room'.
With the assistance of one of m y students, I was even ablc
to teach this child to understand to read (understand the
meaning of) nearly 100 Chinese characters.
- Yet this little girl's achievement pales before that of
Christopher Nolan (this case is further described in Chapter
8), a novelist of some renown in the English language. Since
birth Nolan has had little control over the muscles of his
body. Control is so poor that he cannot sit without support
and even has trouble swallowing'food. Fortunately, Nolan's
hearing was normal and so he learned to understand speech.
Only many years later was he able to producc (by selecting
letters using a pointer attached to his head) his first words.
Like Nolan, there are a great many other people who arc
born with little control of their body but who do learn to
understand speech, although they may not be ablc to
producc any without difficulty. Thus, after having con-
sidered the various aspects of the relationship of spccch
understanding and speech production, we can conclude that
language learning may occur without production but not
without understanding.
1.2.2 Learning abstract words
When accluiring the n~canings of words, children soon
ilndcrstand and producc somc that arc quite abstract. Words
expressing fcclings (liungcr, pain, joy) and con~plcxideas
(lie (untruth), honest, guess) arc just somc of those Icnrncd.
Ijut, how arc they Icnrncd? It cannot be hy sinlplc ;~ssoci;~tion
coch : lthe spccrh C,rm 'dog' with thc ol,jcct 'dog7 bcc;~osc
fcclings ; ~ n diJc;ls arc not in tlic pllysicnl c.~lvirollnlc~lt
for
the child to ohscrvc, i l l the way that hc. or sllc c;111
 20 First language
observe a dog. Experiences in the mind are of a diffe
nature. What the child must d o in order to learn the meal
of abstract words is to observe speech, along with situat
and events in the physical environment and then relate the,
experiences and processes in the mind. Such learning seen
be so mysterious as to be almost magical, yet, the fact is
children d o learn such words. Let us consider now just
this might be done.
For example, how might the words 'hungry' and 'I
be learned? First the child must take note of when
words are spoken by others and the situations in which
I occur. The child might cry and the mother might then
'Are you hungry?'. O r , the child might point to a ba
i and the mother might say, 'Do you want a banana? Are
hungry?'. The mother might use the word 'hungry' bec
she might estimate that it has been some time since the
last ate. Considering 'hurt', perhaps the child falls ar
bruised on the knee. The father might say, 'Poor girl. I
it hurt?'. O r , on receiving a needle injection, the child c
and the father says, 'It hurts, doesn't it? H o w about s
ice-cream?'.
I It is up to the child to remember what words
spoken ('hungry' and 'hurt') and to rclate them to partic
I
I
feelings (hunger and pain) that the child has cxpcrienct
the mind. After a number of such instanccs whcrc cc
words and certain fcclings arc cxpcricnccd togctlicr,
( child will have cnough information to make a guc:
which sound form relates to which fccling. When thc (
I
then ,expcrienccs further instances, the child can tcst wht
hc or shc is correct, i.c. whcthcr the sound form of 'hun
rclatcs to the fccling of hunger, and, the sound forn
'hurt' rclatcs to thc fccling of pain.
Words like 'lie' (falsehood) and 'guess' will also 1
cnvironmcntal situations and mental states for the chi1
bring togctlicr. Tlicsc gcncrally will he more difficul
identify than fcclings because they involve piirc (I
fccling) ideas. The child will have to make infcrcnccs f
complex situations in order to extract such ideas.
cxanlplc, after telling his nlothcr sonlcthing that hc kn
is ilntrilc ('I didn't hit her'), the littlc hoy's niothcr 111
say ; ~ ~ i g r i l 'Tliat's
y, a lie!'. What the littlc boy must dc
discovc.r the nlcnning for this s o ~ ~ nfor111 d of 'lie' is: rc
How children learn language 21
I
that he has told a lie (he can review this by comparing what !
he said with what he knows to be the actual situation, and
I note this discrepancy - the discrepancy between saying and
situation being the concept of lie), and then assign this
concept to the sound form. Whether this hypothesis is
accurate or not is something the child will test when he
hears the word 'lie' again.
1.2.3 Memory and language acquisition
Underlying all of the remarkable accomplishments of the
child in language acquisition is one crucially important
psychological factor, that o f memory. For, in the course o f
learning to identify the words of the language, devising
rules for their use, and relating speech to the environment
( and mind, the child utilizes a phenomenal memory capacity.
The child must remember a multitude of particular words,
phrases and sentences, along with the contexts (physical and
mental) in which thcy occurred. Such data provide the basis
for structural analyses.
If, for cxamplc, children did not rcmcmber many of the
words, phrases and scntcnccs that thcy heard, thcy would
havc littlc basis for discovering abstract meanings and rules.
The various syntactic structures that wcrc mcntioncd and
discussed carlicr, negation for instance, rcquircs that the
child rcn~cmbcrmany ncgativc scntcnces. If the child could
not rcmcmbcr ncgativc scntcnccs that had bccn cxpcricnccd
previously, thc child would havc nothing with which to
compare a prcscntly occurring scntcncc, and, thus could not
makc significant infcrcnccs as to its structiirc. Without a
good nicnlory, language learning would not bc possible.
Aside from tllc common observation that children
often rcmcmbcr, word for word, stories which they arc
told, childrcli also learn a host of idioms in phrasc and
scntcncc form. Thcrc is n o rcason, tlicrcforc, not to believe
that children also store in mcnlory n n~ultitudcof ordinary
phrases and scntc~iccs,which call scrvc them for analysis
later. Such a prodigious memory capacity, it is worth
I noting, is not uniquc to lan!:uagc. For, in Illany other arcas
1
of lifc - in rcmcmbcri~igfnccs, ol?jccts, nlusic, past events
1,
I
and v;lst qua~ltiticsof knowledge in a variety of fields - the
1 cxtclit of ;I child's nlclnory is simil;lrly rc~n;lrknblc.

22 First language
1.3 Parentese and Baby Talk
1.3.1 Parentese
Parentese (a term which I use to replace the oft-u
'Motherese') is used to refer to the sort of speech t
children receive when they are young. The speech wl-
parents and others use in talking to children has a numbe
distinctive characteristics. For example, parents' gener
talk to their children about what is happening in
immediate environment and not about abstract or rew
I objects and events. A sentence like 'The dog wants wa
rather than 'I might start reading that psycholinguis
I
book tomorrow' is what a 1- or 2-year-old is likely to hc
Also, sentences tend to be short and the structures sim]
e.g. 'The dog wants water' rather than 'The dog which
been running a lot wants to drink some water'. Vocabul:
too, tends to be simple, 'see' rather than 'notice' and 'h;
rather than 'difficult'. When sentences are spoken
children, the speech tends to be slower, the pitch higher ,
more pauses inserted than would occur if the same senten
were spoken to mature speakers. Also, more words
given stress and emphasis. Such exaggerations undoubte
I serve to highlight and to focus the child's attention
important sentence constituents. (More on this on page 1~
Parents, too, use granlmatical speech when talking
their children. Research by Ncwport, Labov and 0th
show that few of the sentences arc ungrammatical in natL
i Such consistency undoubtedly is useful to the child whc
searching to discover thc structures which undcrlic sf
tcnccs. lncidcntally, thc findings that scntcnces are mail
grammatical lays to rcst Chomsky's mistakcn claim that
child rcccivcs scntcnccs which arc largcly ~ungran~matit
'dcgcncratc' being the term he uscs.
I t is interesting that not only adults, but childrcn, tc
tend to use I'arcntcsc when talking with younger childrt
It has been found, for example, that Cycar-olds produc
simplified speech w11c11 talking to Zycar-olds but I
to adults (some of the 4-year-olds even did not ha
youngcr siblings). Although n ~ u c hof this rcscarch has bc
done with English, thcrc is good reason to suppose tl
si~ch;I phenomenon is ul~ivcrs,llsince the s;llnc has be
1
How children learn language 23
I
observed in many language communities. People who wish
to communicate will naturally use speech that is at a
linguistic level they think the hearer will understand.
The characteristics of Parentese evidently are ones
which serve to make the acquisition of language under-
standing and production easier for a learner. This is not to
say that if parents did not use Parentese, their children
would not learn language. Undoubtedly they would learn
t language anyway. But, given the obvious facilitating nature
of Parentese and the way it naturally arises, it may well be
that children who receive such language input learn to
understand speech faster than children who do not.
Baby Talk is different from Parentese. While Parentese uses
regular vocabulary and syntax, Baby Talk involves the use
of vocabulary and syntax that is overly simplified and
reduced. Curious though, from a psycholinguistic view, is
the fact that most of the features which Baby Talk adopts
are thosc which have their basis in the early speech of
childrcn. Parents and others evidently believe that thosc
features, when rcintroduccd back to the child, scrvc to
foster communication.
Most Baby Talk involvcs modifications in vocabulary.
Therc arc already cstablishcd words likc 'bow-wow' (dog),
'pec-pce' (urinc) and 'choo-choo' (train) in English and, it1
Japancsc, 'wan-wan' (dog: thc standard word for which is
inu), 'shcc-shcc' (urinc) and 'bu-bu' (car: the standard words
for which arc jidosl.ta or kurumn). From such cxamplcs, wc
can scc that thc main sound structurc of such words tcnds to
be d o m i ~ ~ a t cby
d a Consonant +Vowcl syllable unit which
is rcpcatcd (duplicated).
Another construction principle for mnny 13aby Talk
words, is that they rcprcscnt (somewhat) the sounds which
varioi~sthings n1;lkc. Thus, 'bow-wow' ;lnJ 'wan-wan' arc
simulations of the b:irking of dogs, 'bil-bu' is supposed to
be the sound 111ndc by a car c n g i ~ ~ c: ~, n d'cIioo-c11oo' tlic
I sound madc by ;I tr;~in.That such ;I sound :IS'choo-choo' is
1
Incant to ;lppro?cin~atc to 11ow 1;irgcly extinct steam
4
loconiotivcs hothcrs 11c.ithcr parent nor c.hild. I-lcrc thc word
h;ls hcco~nc.part of stnnd:lrd 1l;lby Talk voc.;lbulnry.
24 First language
Besides standard Baby Talk vocabulary ('standard'
the sense that the item has already been coined and adop
by others), it is not uncommon for a family to create .
use its own words, words which are not used outside of
family. Often these words derive from mispronoun
words which their child produces. For example,
attempting to imitate the word 'vomit', one child I kn
said 'vompo'. After that the parents used 'vompo' insteac
vomit in talking to the child. Sometimes a- few s
vocabulary items might be retained by parents for sentim
tal reasons.
In English Baby Talk, it might be mentioned
passing, it is common to add the 'iy' sound to words end
in a consonant, e.g. 'birdy' for bird, 'horsie' for h o ~
'kitty' for kitten. This provides the vowel for
completion of the paradigmatic Consonant + Vo-
syllable. Since the 'iy' suffix also serves a diminutive ;
affectionate function in English, this may also serve
promote its usage.
Syntax plays a less prominent role in Baby Talk tl
does vocabulary. Parents seem only occasionally to
Baby Talk syntax. When they do, their utterances
strikingly similar to those in the children's telegraphic st.
of speech production. A mother might say, for exam1
something like 'Mommy givc Tony banana' instead of
syntactically proper 'I will givc you a banana'. In such
utterance, neither the modal 'will' nor the article 'a' has bc
included. And, the proper names 'Mommy and 'Tony' h;
been substituted for the personal pronouns 'I' and 'yo
Ccrtainly, fixcd proper narncs arc easier for the young ch
to understand than are items involving shifting speaker-hca
rclations. It is latcr that the child learns to cope with I
coinplcxitics of 'I' and 'you'. Such proper name substit
tions, it should be noted, also occur in Parcntcsc and tl-,
arc not solcly fcatures of Baby Talk.
Whcthcr Baby Talk should or should not be used
sometimes a conccrn of parents, with intensity of concc
varying grcatly from country to country. In Canada and t
US, there sccins to be little such concern, whilc in Jap
thcrc sccms to be a lot. Since 13aby Talk is a transitic
phase, in that it is not continued for very long (childra
thcit~sclvcswill soon replace it rathcr than being rcgardcd
How children learn language 25
'I
babies b y older children), and since Baby Talk (like I
'!
Parentese) appears to be a universally occurring natural
phenomenon, it would seem to me that Baby Talk could be
beneficial t o some small degree for the child in learning
language. Certainly, there is no good reason t o think of it as
being harmful. That most parents (and grandparents) derive
special enjoyment from using Baby Talk with their children
m i g h t well serve to reinforce social solidarity.
1.4 Imitation and correction
1.4.1 The role of imitation
It was once widely believed by theorists that children
acquire language entirely through imitation, i.e. by copying
the speech that they hear. It is undoubtedly true that
children d o imitate a great deal of what they hear. They d o
learn to say such words and phrases as 'dog', 'Papa', 'run',
'happy', 'no', 'Why not?', 'bread and butter', 'Not now',
etc. They do imitate the intonation pattcrns and sounds of
thcir language, and thcy d o tend to approximate the proper
ordcr of words in a scntcncc.
O n the other hand, whilc somc languagc lcarning docs
involvc imitation, this principlc is inadequatc to cxplain thc
fundamentals underlying thc acquisition of language. Bc-
causc imitation involvcs thc rcproduction of speech, it
thcrcforc cannot cxplain how spccch is undcrstood, thc
knowlcdgc of which is thc basis of spccch production. N o r
can it cxplain thc child's acquisition of i~lorphcmcssuch 2s
thc I'lural or I'ast Tcnsc, or structural nlanipulations such as
thosc of Ncgation and Question.
T o illustratc how in~itationcannot account for rulcs, let
11s consider, in somc detail, crrors that childrcn makc.
English children c o ~ ~ ~ m o producc
nly words like 'mouses',
'shccps', 'gooses', 'gocd', 'comcd', 'fallcd' and 'hrcakcd'.
Why d o cl~ildrcnproducc such words? C:lcarly, this cannot
be duc to inlitntion since children gcncrally d o not hear
pcoplc say such words. T h c most satisfnctory answer is that
children have for~nulatcdrulcs in thcir nlinds, and c o ~ ~ s t r u c t
such words o n the llasis of these rules. The s;lmc must be
 26 First language
said for children saying things like 'No heavy', 'No tho
shining', 'When we can go?' and 'He is doing what?'.
these are not utterances made by adults, and since
regularly appear, they cannot be ones that children
imitated. They must be ones created on the basis of
which the children have devised.
While exceptions to rules must be learned, such
pluralizing nouns ('mice' and not 'mouses') and in m:
the Past Tense ('went' and not 'goed'), and while fu
aspects regarding negation and question-making mun
developed, the errors in themselves provide strong evic
that rule-learning (Regular Plural, Regular Past) has t
place. Rules, by their very nature, cannot be imit
Rather, they are abstract constructions o f the mind. I
do not appear in the physical environment - only sy
sounds representing words and sequences of words do.
on the basis of these observables that abstract and
observable principles and rules are created in the mind
then applied later in production. Thus, while imitation
play an important role in language acquisition, it is a lin
one - limited to certain aspects of speech production
1.4.2 The role of correction
Like imitation, the role of correction in language acquisi
has been widely misconceived. Correction is iiot
important factor in that process. While it used to be tho1
that correcting children's speech is essential for irnprc
mcnt, research has shown that such is not thc casc. In ac
fact, parcnts pay little attention to thc grammatical corr
ncss of thcir children's spccch. Rather than correcting
child's grammar, parcnts arc more intcrcstcd in respond
to: the truth va114e of what is said (thcy will scold a child v
says 'I didn't docd it' when he or shc is lying), the sc
clpproprintnrc.ss of what is said (a child who says to a visit
aunt, 'lladdy no like you' will be givcn a talking to later
not on syntax) or t l ~ rcli~r~clri~c.ss
o f what tllc child says (
parent will praise the child).
When parcnts do attempt to corrcct tllcir childre
spcccli, the rcsults arc oftCli fruitless ;111d frustr;ltil
Consider the f o l l o w i ~ ~exchange
g 1)c.twcc.n ;I nlothcr a11d s
(notcd hy McNcill):
How children learn language 27
I
Son: Nobody don't like me.
Mother: Nobody likes m e .
I
T h e above sequence is repeated by mother and son seven
more times.
Mother (in desperation): N o w , listen carefully. N o b o d y
likes m e .
Son: Oh! Nobody don't likes m e .
While some progress was achieved (the son added 's' t o
'like'), the major concern of the mother, the improper
occurrence of the auxiliary 'do', was not noticed by the
child as needing correction.
Undoubtedly, there are instances where a parent's
correction does result in improvement. Still they are not
great in number. In any case what serves typically as
correction is the mere repetition of the child's utterance in
corrected form. T h e child is really givcn no direct clue as t o
exactly what is wrong with the utterance that he o r she has
produced. And, to give the child a direct explanation (even
if a parent were able to formulate the problem) would often
be absurd. The mother in the example above could hardly
say to the child, ' N o w , Johnny, you don't add "do" in that
sentence to make it ncgativc because the scntcncc is already
ncgativc; the word ''nobody" is the negative of "so1nc-
body". '
Children naturally corrcct thcir own mistakes over
time, without the intervention of othcrs.
1.5 Discussion questions
Which is primary: spccch production o r spccch undcr-
standing? Why?
Elow is it possible for childrcn to begin by speaking
I
whole sentences without going t h r o i ~ g lthe ~ one- ; ~ n d
two-word production stagcs?
Why d o cliildrcn product, 'tclcgr;lpliic.' spccc.li?
Why arc sonic niorpllcliics, such ;IS tllc I'osscssivc~ ;IIIJ
the I1:lst, Ic;~rncdfaster th;r11 otllcrs, such ;IS thc' 'l'llircl
I'crso~l S i ~ ~ g t i land
; ~ r tlic Auxili;lry 'hc'?
What is tllc soulid rule, th;lt governs thc 1 1 s of ~ :ldiiillg
28 First language
r How children learn language 29
I
's', '2' or 'iz' to make regular plurals, possession and Slobin, D. (ed.) (1986) T h e Crosslinguistic Study of Language
third person? Acquisition, vol. 1: The Data. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hint:Consider whether the final (last) sound in Taylor, I. and Taylor, M. M. (1990) Psycholinguistics: Learning and
word to which the suffix is to be added is a conson Using Language. Englewood Cliffs, N J : Prentice-Hall.
or a vowel, and what type of consonant it is. 1
might use the following words as examples: crc Journals
crows; Bob, Bob's; cat, cats; Chris, Chris'; pic
pieces; judge, judges. Journal of Child Language
6. A child says, ' I no want some candy.' What must First Language
child still learn in order to make a proper negat Journal o f Psycholinguistic Research
Child Development
sentence?
7. How might a child learn the meaning of 'idea' as
'That's a good idea!'?
8. Do you know some words in Baby Talk of a langu
other than English? Generally, what is the form of
sound structure of these words? Does it agree u
what has been said in the chapter?
9. Would you recommend the use of Parentese or B,
Talk in speaking to a child?
10. What evidence is there that children learn rules wl
they learn language? In your discussion present d
concerning one morphcrne, such as Plural or Past, :
also one sentence structure rule, such as negation.
11. Can rules be learned by imitation?
12. How might a child gct rid of errors without be.
corrected by others?

Suggested readings

I3rown, R. (1973) A First Lar;qrragc: The Early Staps. Cambrid)

Mass.: Harvard Univcrsity I'rcss.
Dc Villicrs, J. G. and Ilc Villicrs, P. A. (1978) I,anGqrrl
Arqrrisition. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univcrsity I'rcss.
I)ulay, H., I3iirt, M. and I<raslicn, S. (1982) Lar~~qrra~qc Trr
Oxford: Oxford Univcrsity I'rcss.
(;oodluck, N. (1001) 1,nr~qrtqyArqrrisitiorr: A 1,ir;qrristic. 111trodrrrtic
Oxford: I%lackwcll.
Ingrnm, I ) . ( 1 0 1 ) i t 1 1 1 1 a q Arqiisitio~. (:nn~hrid&
( : : l ~ ~ i b r i d gU~iivcrsity
~ l'rcss.
Itcich. 1'. A. (1080) I.ar~qrrnqc, 1~c.r~c~lnprrrc~rrt.
Englcwood Cliffs, I\
l'rc~lticc-I 1:lIl.

CHAPTER 2
Animals and language
Human beings have language, but what about animals?
chimpanzees, dolphins o r other creatures have language a
use it to communicate with one another as we do? Are
minds of higher animals similar to our minds? And wha
they don't have their o w n language, can we teach th
some sort o f human language? But if they can't le.
language, would this mean that they are lacking
intelligence, o r would it mean that they lack a spec
language ability that only humans are born with?
The study of animals and language is, of cour
interesting for its own sake, but it is interesting too in ha
animal research findings may relate to a better understa~
ing of fundamental psycholinguistic conccptions and p
cesses. Let us begin our inquiry with a rcvicw o f rcsca
which attempts to tcach language to animals.
2.1 Teaching language to the chimpanzee, gorilla a1
dolphin
An animal rcscarchcr's dream:
I h;ld . . . incredible fnnt;isics about thc p o ~ s i h i l i t i ~os f ;
I m l g ~ ~ a g cO. n e of them was th;rt I could g o t o some scctioll
Afiic;l where thcrc arc cliinlps i l l the wild nnd Il;lvc Ninl 11
chimp to w h o m I tnught sign I:111gu;rgcl scrvc ;IS ; I I ~inrcrprctcr r
kinds of c o ~ l l ~ l l ~ ~ l i c tlxit
; ~ t i ;II.C
o ~ l I I I ~ ~ I ~ O to
W IIII I I I ~ ; I I I'Thnt
S . is
woultl ask N i m , 'wh;lt is th;rt chirlrp o v c ~tllcrc s;iying to the otl;
c-lii~~ip'
: I I I ~ Nil11 wo111d cxpI;lir~i t to I I ~ L , ill sigti I ~ I I ~ I I ; I ~ L * .
I Icrl>c.rt 'T'crr:~
Animals and language 31 I
I
2.1 .I Vicki: the speaking chimp
T h e first known comprehensive scientific attempt to teach
language to our nearest evolutionary relations was carried
out in the 1940s by a husband and wife team o f
psychologists, Cathy and Keith Hayes. T h e Hayes raised a
baby female chimp, Vicki, along with their o w n baby son,
Donald, with the hope that Vicki would learn speech as
Donald would. Vicki was treated as a full member o f the
family; she ate her meals at the table, played games at home
and went. o n outings. .However, despite all their efforts,
after three years Vicki had only learned t o utter four words:
'mama', 'papa', 'up' and 'cup', and these were so poorly
pronounced they were hard to understand. Yet during the
same amount of time, Donald had become fluent in the
language. In the face o f such disappointing results, the
Hayes felt obliged to abandon the project.
2.1.2 Washoe: the signing chimp
In 1966, another husband and wife team o f psychologists,
Allen and Beatrice Gardner, attempted to teach sign
language to a baby chimp, a female they called Washoe
(rhymes with 'show'). They reasoned that any attempt to
tcach chimps to speak was doomed to failure because of the
simple fact that chimps d o not possess the necessary vocal
apparatus for human spccch. Vicki's failure t o learn to talk
could plausibly bc said to bc duc to a simple physiological
failurc arid not a mental onc. Since chimps are so adcpt at
using thcir hands, the Gardncrs conccivcd o f the idea o f
tcaching them a modified form o f Amcrican Sign Languagc
(ASL), a language used by the hearing-impaircd in the
Unitcd Statcs.
It might bc noted hcrc that ASL is a gcnuinc and
conlplctc langliagc, as arc many othcr sign languages, such
as 13ritish Sign Languagc and French Sign Language. It has a
vocabulary and a syntax just as an ordinary speech-based
lal~guagedocs; anything that can be said in English can be
cxprcsscd in sig11 I a ~ ~ g i ~ a M
g eO. W C V Cit~ differs
, from linear
sl>ccch in that it involves three dinicnsions with hci;ll and
othcr body movcnlcnts as well as hand movcnlcllts. A
wllolc word call bc cxprcsscd by a hand cot~figurntion.ASL
is not h;lscd o n fi11gc.r spclli~lj:, which is ;I Icttcr-hy-letter
 32 First language
system, nor is its grammar very similar to Engl
grammar. (For a more detailed discussion o f sign langua
see Chapter 4.)
1 O n e o f Washoe7s early signs was 'open', which
',
1 expressed by a throwing out o f the arms. After about fi
years with the Gardners, Washoe learned a vocabulary
about 130 signs and, according to the Gardners, displa.
two- and three-word utterances, such as, 'Go sweet', wl
she wanted to be taken to the raspberry bushes, and '0;
food drink', when she wanted something out o f the refrig
ator. T h e two- or three-word length of utterance is simila
that produced by human children around the age of 2 yea
The Gardners givc the impression that the language
the signing ape and that o f the signing child is very sim
and that differences can only be found through cl
analysis. In one study, they go so far as to claim the apt
\ be superior to the child. However, as Premack and o t
researchers have noted, after three years Washoe's achie
ment never advanced beyond its very elementary level.
contrast, by the age o f 3, ordinary children have lean
thousands o f words and construct sentences o n the basis
an abstract syntax, including the making o f such coml
cated negatives as, 'I don't know his name', 'Paul can't h:
one' and 'I am not a doctor'. (Whether o r not to add 'do'
a ncgative sentence or where a ncgative rnarkcr likc 'not
to bc placed is not a simple matter.) Hearing-impail
childrcn w h o have learned ASL from infancy also acquir~
similarly high lcvcl of linguistic knowledge.
Ilcspite the Gardncrs' claims that Washoc's cal
acquisition of signs is analogous to the development
language in human childrcn, the truth of the matter is tt
Washoc ncvcr progressed beyond the linguistic lcvcl of t
average 1 V2- or Zycar-old child. The many years o f trainii
and exposure to sign language which Washoc expcriciic~
could not advance her beyond thc most clcmcntary lcvcl
human achicvc~iicnt.
2.1.3 Son of Washoe and a chimp signing communit
Aftcr a nuinbcr of ycnrs, Waslioc was moved to a Licility i
tlic state of Washirlgto~~: ~ n dbcc;lmc part of tlic rcscnrc
conciuctc.d hy Ilogcr and Ilchhy Foi~ts (anothcr couple:
Animals and language 33
w h o were working with a number of chimps. T h e Fouts
regard their chimp subjects fondly and are currently
involved in a project to establish a primate reserve in that
state, where chimps would be given some o f the rudiments
o f human culture, such as tools, for example, so that they
could start their o w n community.
T h e Fouts' primary interest is in looking at h o w
language may o r may not develop in the social context o f
that community. O n e of their major focuses is o n Washoe's
'adopted' son, Loulis, w h o , they say, is acquiring signs n o t
only from Washoe but from the other chimps. T h e Fouts
have witnessed Washoe demonstrating signs for Loulis and
even helping to mould Loulis' hands into the proper
configurations. They say, too, that they have observed
three-way chimp conversations. For them, all of this
demonstrates that language in the chimpanzee can advance,
once given a start, without the intervention o f humans. To
date, though, little further progress has been made in this
regard.
2.1.4 Lana: the computer chimp
T h e Rumbaughs (another husband and wife team!) taught
the chimp Lana a simple artificial language called Ycrkish
(aftcr the Yerkes primate ccntrc). This language consisted o f
scvcn colours and nine gcomctrical shapes which rcprcs-
cntcd mainly objccts and actions. These items wcrc
displayed on a large keyboard. Lana had to press certain
keys in the right scqucnce to make requests, likc 'Plcasc
machine givc milk' o r 'Please T i m givc ball'. Lana Icarncd
hundrcds of sentences in this fashion. She had nanics for
people, food, objccts and even a special phrase 'that-which-
is' to name things she did not know the name of. Once she
cvcn asked the trainer to lcavc the room (with a polite
'please'!) aftcr he had purposely niixcd 11p one of I ~ c r
sentences to test her rcactioii.
Sue Savage-IIu~iibaughlicrsclf believes that apes hnvc
but a li~ilitcdIanguagc acquisition ability. She has cxprcsscd
the opinion thnt pcrhnps the media raised hopes too higli for
a ~ ~ i n i aInnguagc
l rcscnrch, nlthough it might he snit1 thnt
animal rcscarchcrs thc~nsclvcshave hnrdly hccn modcst o r
cai1tion:lry in tlic clniins they 11:lvc mndc. Sllc says it is not
U
C
([I
 h g
-z 2 $
Y*

s E>
0
2-,2
CJ
b
m
&&-C
e cd 2 $
Y

rn.50 E
g = $5
m 5 3

C 0 &
so,,
-c . C .=
L 2 . z ~ :
"
xu 3 ,'
3
'"m ZZ2
CJ 0y Y

5:
5 3
g $,
'
a u
=
V)
- C ) e
'JC
Z Z C Y
0 L "
3
.
I
:
Y
-
rn v l l k-'JC
2 4 L0. P" ' CU ' f . 2 w
vl

" % 5 . as 3 -Fi -
c E "
LI .-
0 s

-2
4 Y

vl
2~ Sa T,c sY-CJ
a> S
: 2 > &2:
I
6 2 2
=

"
z
P .,."
0
bl?
gi "
= "I:=
%s u p L C :

x"or
"5 5 22 Y

;. " " z2
:+.& g
0 '"
a
c h

L.z- 5 - - " 2 .=;

-
24
.- -
+
5 e<hx 5 = 52s
I/?, d c -
cd 2
.2 u
Y
n L+ "22 5 - a= e
2""
5 g z . 5 ;."L ,
C0 ,
:.=
2 - g
3
CI u
m u" a3 TYj 5
'
I
2' "
- --
" L a 2 5 E
eyom'5
L

c;? - h"2
.C
L
h
4

Y
a
vl
- ..>- s'f .-=s-
'-
p C a fl
L d a

-z2C)- -u
" S
"
m
L'5 r c
C)
a 5 2 5 2-
,-
&.?
L 2
4 = 5

9.zz c, L
g
' x =

,z e - 5
-
a 9 . + e -
L
3 :
-

<z a
L .Z- x c > -
a z
f f
%,::

- \-"

3.5
C) "

='3 -L z
4-8 -
C)

22'3
- 4 2 . '
Ccu 3
s 2
Ey,
5
LI
"-
,a
$6
2
>
d

-
&TS
3 3-5
2 s
" 0 3
m > 5
n c
e .- L
. G- 2
5 :.;
- a C I
hA u
40 First language
should be understood, providing, of course, that
meaning of particular words are already known. Thus, a
acquiring the notions of direct and indirect object, Akeaka-
responded correctly on her first exposure to the sente
'person left frisbee fetch' (take the left frisbee to the persc
Herman rejects the criticism that the dolphins are me,
carrying out the same kind of stimulus-response-sha
behaviour as do many marine park dolphins and whales.
correctly points out that it could not be simple stimul
response-shaped behaviour because the dolphins respc
appropriately to specific commands which they have nc
received before.
It might be noted here that although the dolpl
responded to commands, this cannot be taken as evidence
they have learned the grammatical structure for comma
This is because all dolphin 'sentences' had the m e a n i n ~
commands. In other words, the dolphin does not know
syntactic difference between an imperative, a question
declarative sentence form because there is nothing wl
marks a sentence as being a command or not a command.
sentences were of one form. There is, thcreforc, nothing
command syntactic form for the dolphins to learn.
Besides the lcarning of other syntactic structures, it ,
rcnlains for further rcscarch to demonstrate w h c ~
dolphins would bc able to express in production what t
already have learned in tcrms of language understandl
Givcn what we know about child languagc acquisition .
the relationship of spccch u~~dcrstanding and spccch p
duction, we might expect that the dolphins would dcvc
the production capacity with little difficulty, provided tl
arc give11 a convenient I I I C ~ I I S for physical expression.
2.2 Animal communication in the wild
H u ~ n n nspeech is only one sm;lll part of the com~nunicat
illvcntory of chirps, hisses, growls, s~lorts, whist1
gcsturc.s, lx~rksand bilzzcs wl~icliwc find i l l the rcst of t
n~~inlnl kingdon). Aninlnls con11nunic;ltc tllrough ;I wi
varicty of means, and though not cvcrythi~lgc o ~ n i n gfro
cini~nalsis c o n l ~ ~ l u ~ i i c ; ~i l lt inilturc,
vc :lt ;I Ixlsic lcvcl nnini;
Il;lvc I I I ; ~ I I of
~ the s;lnlcb rc;lsons ns wc d o for pnssi~
Animals and language 41
information: to get food, to find a mate, t o warn and
threaten others, etc.
Many animals use sound signals, but many also use
other modalities. Substances involving smell may be used as
signals, as in the case of ants, which leave chemical trails for
nestmates to follow in finding food. Visual signals may, for
example, be used by dogs to threaten o r attract; the baring
of teeth and tail-wagging serves to convey such intentions.
T h e most complex type o f communication in the wild,
unsurprisingly, involves that of the higher primates.
Richard Seyfarth and Dorothy Cheney report that wild
vervet monkeys make specific sounds that are more
cpmplicated than hitherto believed. For example, these
monkeys' alarm calls seem to be predator-specific. Thus,
while one type of grunt indicates 'Beware, here comes an
eagle!', another type of grunt indicates 'Beware, here comes
a leopard!'.
( The calls of birds can announce, among other things, a
readiness to mate, give alarm and defend territory. As
researchers have determined, the bird calls and songs of
particular spccics are largely inborn, although there are
certain aspects of these calls and songs which will not
develop unless the young bird is exposed to the voice of the
adult bird. O f SOIIIC intcrest to the studcnt of languagc is the
ability of certain spccics of birds, most notably the parrot
and thc mynah bird, to imitate human spccch with amazing
clarity. O n e bird can have a repertoire of a ~ ~ u n ~ bo fc r
phrases and scntcnccs, such as, 'Hello, how arc you?' and
'Get away from thcrc!'. Rarely though docs the bird
prodi~ccan utterance in a relevant contcxt. It can produce
speech, but has no understanding of it, nor docs it ever
produce uttcranccs other than thosc i t has been spccifically
trained on.
O f great interest, too, is the way honey bees inform
other bccs of the presence of food in the vicinity. They use
hot11 vision and toucl~.A bcc reporting back to the hive will
go through n scrics of movements, n kind of dance, to tell
other bees if n nectar sourcc is nc:lr o r distant, and,
moreover, if i t is distant, jr~st how far ;~w:lyand i l l wll;lt
clircction. Otllcr bccs can get the n1css;lgc not o ~ l l y by
sccing thcsc movcmcnts but hy t o u c l l i ~ ~ gthat, is, hy
;ipproaching tllc scoi~thcc and fCclillg its m o v c ~ l l c ~ l with
ts
.A
7: -
2 2
'
I:
 44 First language
words and learned to use grammatical rules. This started
the whole animal and language controversy once again.
an article in the book 'Langtlage' and Intelligence in Monk
and Apes, UCLA psychologist Patricia Marks Greenfi
and Sue Savage-Rumbaugh (of Lana fame - see abo
claim that tiny Kanzi, when around 5 years old, lear:
over a period of 5 months to use grammar equal to that
II 2-year-old human child. According to Greenfield,
i( makes short, telegraphic sentences talking about relati
ships between actions and objects, objects and locations,
so forth' and has acquired grammatical rules that allow 1
to produce an infinite number of sentences and even ink
his own symbols and use them consistently. All cc
munication is done with hand gestures and s y n ~ b o l so
I computer keyboard. Kanzi is said to have a vocabulary
about 250 printed words.
i Even complex relations arc said to be diffcrc~ltiatcd
Kanzi. If Kanzi wcrc going to bitc his sistcr Mu
playfully, he might sign 'bitc Mulika', but if his sistcr
him, he would sign 'Mulika bitc'. Thus, order,
important syntactic feature, would signal a differcncc
meaning.
Well, as might be cxpcctcd, neither I-Icrbcrt T e r ~
I nor Noam CIio11~skyhave been much convinced by tl-
rcsults. Tcrracc says,
Wc'vc had c l a i ~ l ~like
s this bcforc and o n closcr scrutiny
animals wcrc found t o be responding t o cuing (sul~lc,inndvcr
gcsturcs by carcgivcrs) or rewards. Th;lt kind of rcsponsc is
terribly pertinent to l a n g u q y .
Chomsky is less gcntlc in his criticis111. A cliimpnn
using grammar 'is not a logical impossibility, but i t IS
outlandish t1i;lt I don't know of any biologist who has tnl
the possibility seriously'. I-lc pcrsu;lsivcly ;lrgucs that
pygmy chimps rcnlly hnd the ;lbility to 11sc grnlnn.lnr
nlillions of ycnrs past, tllcy surcly would hnvc iiscd it
now hccnusc I;~ngii;lgcis so hio1ogic;llly ntlv;l~~tngcoiis.
complctc,ly unknow11 hiologic;~llytl1;lt :Iny orgnnisnl c o ~
h;lvc n c-.lp;lcity tli;lt woulil hC highly v;lli~;~l>lc. for survi
hilt wor~lcl 11ot 11sc it1. It clocs i~ldccclscclli rnthcr odd
think that ;III nninl;~lwould Il;ivc c.volutio~~;lrily
tllc, Ilighly c-o~ilplcsc;lp:lc.iry ti)r I : ~ I ~ ~ : ~
1 ~I ;1Iwol~ld
t~ c
Animals and language 45
have used that capacity, until humans from some univer-
sities came along to show them how.
2.5 Conclusions regarding animals and language
(
T h e research with animals clearly shows that animals have
only a rudimentary language ability, whether in the wild o r
through training. What is puzzling and requires explanation
is why their language ability is so low when their overall
intellectual ability is so much higher. Apes exhibit, for
example, intelligent complex behaviour regarding social
organization, food acquisition and problem solving. Why,
then, are they not ablc to learn more o f the sign language
taught to them? After all, human children learn sign
language in all o f its complexity. And w h y couldn't they at
i
least learn to understand human speech given that they havc a
hearing acuity which is as good as o r better than human
I hearing? After all, thcrc are human beings w h o arc born
without thc ability for spccch production, yct they can learn
to understand human language in all o f its complexity.
And why, too, cannot otherwise intclligcnt chimps be
ablc to dcal with numbers and d o elementary arithmetic?
T h e chimp Ai at I<yoto University's l'rimatc Research
Institutc was ablc to escape from her padlocked cage (taking
) hcr oran-iitnn fricnd with her!) by finding a hidden key and
opcning the lock. Yet, after years o f ingenious and
dedicated training by psycllologist Matsuzawa, she could
only count and understand n u n ~ b c r sup to six. She couldn't
,, h a ~ ~ d scvcn,
lc nor could she do elementary subtraction. Yet
docunicntccl studics with apes going as far back as the First
World War (the research of the rcnowncd Wolfgang Kohlcr)
dcmonstrntc that tlicy ;ire creative :lnd i ~ l v c ~ l t i vinc solviiig
other typcs o f prohlcms.
' Co~ltcmpor;irytlicorists basically offer t w o typcs o f
cxpl;lnatio~~s on tlic issue of ;~nini:llsvs I ~ i ~ n i ; ~inn sthe
ncqt~isitio~lof I;ln~:11:1gc. (Tllcsc arc co~lsidcrcd i l l dct;lil
C:li;iptcr 7.) 1)iagc.t. I'11t11;inl;111dother clnpiricists hold that
tlcvc.lop ;111im:llsI:ick ccrt;lin aspccts o f gcncr;ll intclligcncc wllicll nrc
n 11ccdc.d for I c ; ~ r n i ~conlplcx
~g I;l11gu:igc. C:holilsky, ~ I the
I
46 First language
other hand, argues that the effect is due t o animals be
born without a special language ability, an ability tha
little related t o intelligence. Whether animals lack ir
ligence o r lack a special language abi1ity.i~related t o
fundamental issue o f h o w h u m a n beings, themsel.
acquire language. Do w e acquire language through ir
ligence o r through a special language ability? Despite m
argument, dispute and even a little objective inquiry,
question as yet remains unresolved. In any case, whethc
be special intelligence o r a special innate language abilit:
seems evident that animals do n o t have it.
2.6 Discussion questions
1. Does a parrot that spcaks have language?
2. T h e typical child by 4 ycars o f age has lcarncd c
2000 words. W h y d o yo11 think that Washoc cc
learn only about 230 signs aftcr ovcr thrcc ycars
training and not many m o r e aftcrwards?
3. A m o n g the various means dcscribcd in this chaptcr
teaching languagc t o animals, i.c. human spc
sounds, sign language, plastic tokens, ctc., which
you fccl is thc best, and w h y ? Can you think o f anot
method which might be bcttcr?
4. If apcs arc s o intclligcnt, as sonle people say, w h y 11
they ncvcr developed a sign languagc o n their o
similar to human sign languagc?
I 1'211-23 troglodytes. 13rcliri nrrd Larqrrnqc*, 6, 265-300.
5. When a d o g rcsponds to commands, likc 'Fetch' a
'Sit' has the d o g Icarncd the s y ~ ~ t a c t inotion
c of I
in~pcrntivc?
6. Is there n wny o f cxpnnding o n Mcrllr;1n's c x p c r i m c ~
with dolphins to involve ;l vnricty o f syntactic strl
cures? (:o~lsidcr, for cxnmplc, trying to tcnch n clucstib
structure through getting rcspollscs t o clucstio11s wlli
rcrlt~irc;i simple 'yes' o r 'no' :Illswcr. O r , you ~ n i g
consider the teaching OF the conditio~laliflrhc.11 stru
turc.
7. 111 what wnys is t l ~ clil~!:t~istic crc:~tivity cs11ibirc.d I.
thc ;11ii111;1ls
w h i c l ~wcrc tliscussc.d sin1il:ir to o r dit-t-c\rc~
froni Iiulnnn li11!:11istic c.rc;~tivity?
Animals and language 47
Suggested readings
Cheney, D. L. and Seyfarth, R. M. (1982) H o w vervet monkeys
perceive their grunts: Field playback experiments. Animal
Behaviour, 30, 737-5 1.
Gardner, B. T. and Gardner, R. A. (1975) Evidence for sentence
constituents in the early utterances of child and chimpanzee.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, 244-67.
Greenfield, P. M. and Savage-Rumbaugh, S. (1990) Article in
K. T. Parker and K. R. Gibson (eds), 'Language' and Intellkence
in Monkeys and Apes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hayes, C . (1951) The Ape in Our House. New York: Harper.
Herman, L. M., Richards, D. G. and Wolz, J. P. (1984) Com-
.prehension of sentences by bottlenosed dolphins. Cognition, 16,
129-219.
Hockett, C. F. (1959) Animal 'languages' and human language. In
J. N. Spuhler (ed.), The Evolution of Man's Capacity for Cultrrre.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Matsuzawa, T. (1985) Use of numbers by a chimpanzee. Nature,
315, 6014, 57-9.
I'attcrson, F. (1978) Conversations with a gorilla. National
Gco*qraphir, 154, 438-65.
I'rcniack, 13. (1971) Language in the chimpanzcc? Srience, 172,
808-22.
l'remack, D. (1986) Ca~~qqni! or tkc Frrtrrre History of the Ariirnal
Lari,qrrqqc, Controvcr:vy. Cambridge, Mass.: M I T I'rcss.
Savage-Il~in~baugh,E. S. and IXiimba~~gh, I>. M. (1'978) Sym-
bolization, languagc, and chimpanzcc: A thcorctical rccvalua-
tion based o n initiill languagc acquisition process in four young
Tcrracc, M. S., I'ctitio, L. A., Sanders, ll. J. and 13cvcr, T. G.
(1070) Can an ape crcatc a scntci~cc?Srirrrrc,, 206, 8'91-900.

CHAPTER 3
Wild children and language
I by the shepherd to have been becos, o r something sounding
It seems that people have always wondered about whet1
language is instinctive, something that is as natural
humans as walking and smiling. They have also wonder
too whether, even without experiencing language, childr
I would be able to produce it on their own. Even as recent
\ the sixteenth century, we have such a brilliant thinker
Montaigne saying,
I believe that a child brought up in completc solitude, far from
intercourse (which would bc a difficult cxperiment to carry o
would have somc kind of spccch to cxprcss his idca, for it is I
likely that naturc would dcprivc us of this rccoursc whcn she I
given it to many othcr animals.
I
Some havc even thought that children who had not bc
exposed to spccch, would speak in the original language
humankind. Montaigne bclicvcd this too, and hc a1
bclicvcd that many animals have language. As the chaptc
in this book on child language and 011 animals and langua
testify, pcoplc arc still very miic11 interested in thcsc and
othcr related questions as well, such as wl~cthcrthcrc is
age beyond which a person would be iinablc to lea
lan~iiqc.
3.1 Legends, evil kings and emperors
According to Icgcnd, some cxpcrimcnts have :~lrcadyhcc
carried out to dctcrniinc what I;lngtiagc, if any, childrc~
would develop if they h;ld ncvcr hccn cxposcd to spcccll
Thc ancient (heck 11istori:in I lcrodoti~swrote of ;I stor!
Wild children and language 49
which he heard from priests in Egypt about one of their
kings, Psamtik I, w h o reigned in the seventh century BC.
According t o the tale (which was already more than 300
years old when Herodotus heard it), Psamtik gave t w o
infants to a shepherd with the instruction that they be raised
without anyone speaking in their presence. T h e king
assumed that, without outside interference, the children
would eventually speak the original human language. T h e
children's first word (and perhaps only word!) was reported
like it. After inquiring of his learned advisers as to what
what language that word might be in, the king was told that
such sounds meant 'bread' in the Phrygian language, a
language then spoken in what is n o w central Turkey.
Psamtik felt that hc had his answer regarding original
languagc, although sceptics havc suggested that the sounds
could havc come from the children imitating sheep o r goats!
Akbar the Great, the Mogul Emperor of India in the
sixteenth century, is also reported to have carricd out a
similar experiment. However, in this instance, after years of
confincmcnt, the infants did not speak at all. Likewise it is
said that James IV of Scotland also conducted such an
cxpcrimcnt with infants. When he heard their first uttcrings,
the king declared that they wcrc in perfect Hebrew!
After the passage of ccnturics and even millennia, thcrc
is no way of knowing whether these monstrous cxpcri-
n ~ c n t swere rcally done in thc way that is reported or that
the results claimed were what was rcally found. Whatcvcr the
case they do reflect an overall h u n ~ a n fascination with
Iangi~agc2nd the for111 that a supposed 'natural' language
would take. Mcdiacval Europcan scholars, too, spcr~tmuch
timc talking about and cvcn trying to reconstruct the langungc
that tlicy bclicvcd was spoken by Adam and Eve. 'Natural
n1:11i' was one o f the topics o f tllc Enlightcilmcnt, too, and
from liousscaii's 'noble savage' to Edgar Iiicc 13iirroi1gl1s'
'T;lrzan' we 11;lvc bcc~idrawn t o the idca of ;I hiimn~ibeing
untouched hy civilizntio~l.A l t h o i ~ g lcducntctl
~ pcoplc today
do not bclicvc that ;I child deprived o f I:l~lgii;~gc fro111birth
woiild start spc:lki~lgthe. originirl I;~~i~:iingc o f I i u ~ i l a n k i ~or
~d,
;lily Iangliagc a t a11 for th;lt ~n:lttc.r, tl1c.t-c, is grc;lt scientific
intcrcst in origii1;ll I:lngu;igc(s) ,lnd i l l the cffccts of I;l~lgii:~gc
dcprivatio~l.I )cprivatio~~ or isol;ltio~lcnscs may hC iihlc ro tc'll
50 First language
us something about the nature of human language, h o
learned, and when it is best learned.
Since ethical considerations deter scientists frorr
ducting language deprivation experiments with chl
scientists have been on the lookout for cases which
naturally, so to speak, i.e. without their intervention
as through peculiar circumstances o r the pervers
human behaviour. Over the past few centuries thert
been a number of reported cases of children raisg
wolves, pigs, sheep and other animals. (A fasci
collection of such cases is described in Malson's boo1
Children.) Then, too, there are childrcn who have appa
survived on their own for years in the wild; g r o w i ~
even without the aid of animals. O n a different level,
are the cascs of children who have been kept in confink
or isolation by their parents o r others, and conseql
were not exposed to language. But there arc also a
number of childrcn who have bccn cared for by 1
parcnts, but who, bccausc of a physical disability, SL
dcahcss, havc noncthclcss bccn dcprivcd of lang
Studying thc dcaf, too, thcrcforc might also provide u:
insight into certain psycholinguistic questions in m u c
same way as docs the study of childrcn who havc grov
in the wild or in isolation.
Unfortunately, as far as the cascs involving
childrcn arc conccrncd, most of the rcports arc not adc,
for scrious scicntific analysis. Too oftcn thcy arc basc
fragmentary data usually with no details other than
such and such a child had been found in such and suc
environment. The exact naturc o f their Ia11gi1agc \
found, and the cliildrcn's subscqucnt Iangiiagc dcvclopn
were not properly studied, niost having lived ill an
bcforc thcrc was widespread scientific psycl~ological
li~~guistic intcrcst in the matters r;~isc.dhy tllcir condit
I-1owcvCr, S O I I I ~cases / I ( I I J ( ~I ~ C C I Iwell ~ O C I I I ~ ~
and
CI~~C~,
the most important of thcsc th;it will bc prcsc.~itcd licrc
3.2 Victor: the Wild Boy of Aveyron
fi~ into tllc n1;lttcr of wilci c-llild
S c i c ~ ~ t i i~~vcstig:ltio~i
illcrc;\scd dram;ltic:\lly in j;11111;1ryof t l l ~yc:lr 1800 w11e1
Wild children and language 51
boy was captured in the woods near the village of Saint-
Sernin in the Aveyron district of France. H e appeared to be
11 o r 12 years old, was naked except for what was left of a
tattered shirt, and he made n o sounds other than guttural
animal-like noises. His general appearance and behaviour
were typical of the wild men of popular legend and he
seemed to have survived on his o w n for years in the wild.
Probably he had been abandoned originally but at what age
or by whom could not be ascertained. Attempts to trace his
personal history failed and nothing could be uncovered of
his life before his being discovered.
Fortunately for the boy, the France o f 1800 was alive
with a spirit of scientific inquiry and a sympathy for lost
children. When Sicard, the noted director o f the Institute for
Deaf-Mutes in Paris, heard of the boy, he made efforts and
was successful in getting custody of him. Sicard's mission in
life was the education of the deaf and he had already had
considerable success with deaf children, many of whom had
bccn discarded as retarded by the community. H e demon-
strated that, to a significallt degree, many such childrcn
could bc taught to communicate in sign languagc and could
also learn to read and write. Sicard delighted in showing off
the childrcn, for thcy proved thcmsclvcs quitc capable of
cngagi~lg (through writing) in intclligcnt and oftcn witty
banter with his scientific collcagucs.
Sicard perceptively noted that thcrc sccmcd to be
strong siinilaritics bctwccil this newly found wild child who
had been dcprivcd of language by isolation and those
cl~ildrcnwho had bccn dcprivcd of language and normal
social co11t;lct bccausc of dcafi~css.He was cngcr, therefore,
to apply to the Wild I3oy (as he was the11 called) sonic of the
methods he Iiad dcvclopcd in educating the dcaf.
It w;is not long, though, bcforc Sicard's optimism
fi~cicdin the face of the lack of progress with tlic Wild I3oy
of Avcyron. N o t only did the boy f i i l to learn nny Iangungc
1>iit liis bchnviour was cl~litcunlike th:~tof thc other childrcn
in the i~lstitutc.After O I , I ~ a few n i o ~ ~ t hthe
s , instltutc ~ s s ~ ~ ~ d
a report stating that thcrc Ii;~dhcc~ln o progress with tllc
hoy and that none could rcaso~~:\hly hc expcctcd. 'They
rcgnrdcd hini ;is bci~lguntc;lch:~hlc;111d g;lvc LIP 011 Ilini.
Forrull:lccly, Ilowcvcr, the boy's c'duc-;ltiol~w ; ~ stllc11 t;1kc11
ovcbr hy n~iotllcrcngcr c.duc;lror, tllc, c-rc.~tivc: I I I ~~~~~~~~:ltc~cI.
 52 First language
Jean-Marc Gaspard Itard. Itard set up an ambit.
programme for the boy, with goals which included soci,
well as language training. Itard's success with the
1
clearly shows that the assessment made by Sicard and
I others at that institute had been quite incorrect.
T h e Wild Boy was given the name Victor by Itard
his education began with intense work that involvc
I variety o f games and activities which Itard designel
I
j/ socialize Victor and make him aware of the world arc
him. These had a dramatic effect. Victor took pleasu
long walks, taking baths, dressing himself and setting
table. Where, at the time o f his capture, Victor had
example, been virtually insensitive to temperature an(
I 1
with his hands, he now insisted o n the bath water being
right and having utensils when eating. While earlier he
not reacted at all to the passing countrysidc durii
carriage ride, he now took obvious pleasure in the cha
I of scenery. He enjoyed guessing games, cspccially o
shcll game varicty, such as whcrc onc trics to follov
quick movements o f tlic hand in which a chestnut is
and thcn guesses under which of thrcc cups tlic chcstr
hidden. H e cxprcsscd a widc rangc of emotions and dc
through movcmcnt, or 'action language' as Itard callc
His scnscs appcarcd normal, from his rcaction to the t
around him.
Spcccl~training with Victor, however, proved t
vcry frustrating for Itard. I t centred around simply t r y i ~
get Victor to rcpcat sonlc words and spcccli sounds. TI:
consistently failed to do, and ltard concluded that it
ilnrcalistic to expect speech from an adolcsccnt w h o liac
spent virtually his cntirc life in the wild. Ncvcrthi
Victor could disti~lgtlishspeech sounds from other so
in the cnviroiimcnt ;ind hc was cvcn ;iblc to diffcrcntiat~
sounds of ~lornlal spcccli fro111 the poorly pronou
spcccli sounds nindc by tlic deaf children in the inst
whcrc he now resided.
Victor's spcccli tr;lining first rcsultcd ill his hcing
to rcpcat the sound 'li', :~pparcntlyhis pcrso~l;llcontrac
of the name Julie, the n;llllc of the dal1glltc.r of ;In ;issista~
tllc i n s t i t ~ ~ t c111
. additio~l,hc would rcpc:rt the ~>hr;isc
IIicyl!' ('Oh <;od'), wllii-11 hc picked up fro111onc of I t n
:issist;l~lrs,M;idn~llc(;uCrin. I lc ;llso Ic:ir~~cd t o say the* w
Wild children and language 53
for 'milk' (lait, in French). With regard to this word,
however, Itard noted that Victor would generally just repeat
, it when given milk, but not really use the word in a
communicative sense, such as in asking for milk.
Itard decided to abandon attempts to teach Victor
language b y speech imitation and moved o n to another o f
his goals, to sharpen the boy's perceptual abilities. H e
embarked o n a programme o f having Victor learn to match
colours and shapes, and then match drawings with the
objects they represented. Following an insightful idea, he
then set about teaching Victor the letters o f the alphabet
using cut-out letters. T h e boy learned the milk word lait
again, but this time in the form o f alphabetic letters. Victor
was able to spell it out, at first upside down, since that is
how he had first seen it from across the table. O f his o w n
accord, he later picked out those letters and used them to
spcll out a request for milk when he was taken o n a visit to
somconc's housc. Clearly, Victor had learned the relation
bctwccn written symbol and object. In its o w n way, this
accomplishment may have been as exciting and as dramatic
for Victor as it was for Helen Keller when she first realized
that the movcmcnts made o n her hand (a symbol)
rcprcscntcd watcr (an objcct).
At first, Victor took written words such as <book> to
mcan a specific objcct, a particular book, but cvcntually hc
Icarncd to associate the words with classes o f objccts, in this
cxaniplc, all books. [Note: words cncloscd in angle brackets
will indicate that a writtc~iform is being dcscribcd. Also,
although the words arc written in English, it is Frcnch
spelling that is i~iiplicd.]H c also went through some of the
same problcms of ovcrgcncralization that ordinary cliildrcti
go through in learning la~iguagc,classifying, for cxaniplc
<knife> with <razor>. I lc Icarncd ;~c!jcctivcs sucli as
<big> and <small>, <hot> and <cold> and a variety o f
colour words. I-lc also Icnrncd vcrhs such ;IS <cat>,
<drink>, <touch> and <throw>. Each o f thcsc words
was written on a card for hini. In tlic hcginning, lie
con~munic;ltcciwith othcrs using thc word c;lrds. Later he
I was :~hlcto write tlic words I~inisclf-,fro111 nicniory. (As is
notcd in C:llaptcr 4, 1 rc.iiiscovcrcd the s;lnlc*idc:~and applied
it to tcncliing lang~i;lgc. to deaf c1iilclrc.11 in the US and
Japan.)
 54 First language
Thus, in less than a year after the boy was given ul
practically being an imbecile, Itard was able to issue a re]
stating, in effect, that Victor's senses, memory and attens
were intact, that he had the ability to compare and juc
and that he could read and write to a significant extent. .
far as Victor's continuing lack of speech was concerl
Itard concluded that isolation and age might have cat
that particular language ability to weaken. Correct o r .
this conclusion regarding speech anticipated, by ovc
century, modern theorizing concerning the existence
'critical age' for language learning! Unfortunately, Itard
not consider written language (as evidenced by Vict
ability to read and write) as a language accomplishn
equal to that of speech. (In Chapter 4, it will bc shown
language in the written or sign modc is in no way infe
to that in the speech modc.)
Itard could not explain why Victor could acq
reading and writing but not specch. Neither can any
else, for that matter, since whether or not Victor suffi
from brain damage or a congcnital brain disordcr such
his specch colllprchcnsion and production were 1:
affected is something that can ncvcr be known. Itard
none of the brain-imaging devices we now have
examining the condition of the brain (scc Chapter 9) and
post-mortcm was pcrformcd on Victor's brain. I t
unfortunate, too, that Victor's brain was not prcscrvcd,
if it had bccn, thcrc would bc tlic possibility of cxaminin
today for abnormalities. [This is not as wild as it n
sound. Ilcccntly a brain that had bccn prcscrvcd for o
one liundrcd ycars - that of a language-damaged patient
13roca (tlic eminent ni~ictccnth-century Frcrlch ~lcurolog
- tons nnalyscd for abnormnlitics by complltcr imngi
(Chapter 9). The results clearly confirnlcd Ilrocn's hyl
tlicsis concerning the cause of the pnticnt's I:lngu:
disordcr! 1
lluring the Inst of the five yc:lrs hc h;ld dcvotccl
Victor, Itard tried olicc again to tc;lch the boy to spc:rk. I
used I:~borious rnctllods t11;lt Il;ld hccn used with sol
succcss 011 tlic cicbnf using tllc scrlsc OF sight ;lnd touch
milkc rhc~nu~~dcrst;lnd just how t l ~ cvocal cords vihrnr
whcrc tlic t o n g ~ ~isc pl:lcc.d, Iiow rhe f:.lci;rl nlt1sc1c.s 111ov
ctc. Once ng;~ili thcsc ;lttlb~ill~ts I;~ilecI; so011 .~I'T~~rw;rrt
Wild children and language 55
Itard decided to end his work with Victor. Itard arranged
for Victor to live nearby in a house with Madame Gutrin,
Itard's assistant. Victor lived there for 18 years, continuing
to be mute until his death in 1828.
Victor's case greatly interested French scholars and he
became a focal point of the philosophical debate between the
followers of Descartes, who believed that humans were
born with certain ideas in their minds, and the followers of
'
John Locke, who believed that humans had n o ideas in their
(
minds at birth. Itard's conclusions were couched within
a Lockeian philosophical framework, offering Victor's
accomplishments as evidence that human beings are almost
'blank slates' to be written upon by our experiences in the
environment and society. (A detailed consideration of the
views of Lockc and Descartes are presented in Chapter 7.)
3.3 Genie: raised in solitary confinement
The casc of the Wild Boy of Aveyron may havc bccn a casc
of simple child abandonment, something which was not and
still is not uncon71non in some parts of the world, especially
whcrc a child is considered in some way to be physically or
n~c~itally unfit to s~irvivc.Although Victor seems to havc
grown up alone in tllc wild, a t least he did develop
4 co~isidcrablcsurvival skills over time and was frcc. Enforced
isolation, however, is al~otlicr matter. Thcrc arc cases of
children being isolated fro111 cvcn the oi~tsidcenvironment
i
; ~ n dmistrcntcd to ;ill cxtcnt that i t is difficult to talk about
dispnssionntcly. A girl called (;cnic is one such casc.
<;cnic. (n psci~donym)was discovcrcii in the late 1070s
in ;I city in the United St;ltcs. Slic was 13Yz ycars old and
5
lind hccn locked in ;I snlnll room in her house by her filthcr
\ for tlic preccdi~lg 12 yc;lrs! Iluring t l l ~ciny she h;ld bccn
) kcpt 11:rkcd except for n harness whic.li held Iicr to an infirnt's
toilct sc;lt. A t night she was put into :I rcscr;lini~~g sleeping
b;l+: 2nd pl;lccd in n crib which was i l l cf-fcct a cngc.. She was
I
fed 1 ~ 1ncvcr
t F P O ~ C I I to. 1Ic.r fi~tlicrhc*:it 1lc.r frcclucntly with
1' 3 woode11 stick nnd growlrd st hcr like ;I dog while doing
$ 0 . Slic hc:rrtl 110 h11nl;lll voiccs, ;rccordi~~g to hcr nlotllcr,
56 First language
and her only contact with another human was when be
fed and beaten. Other than a few pieces of plastic or pa
that she was given to play with, she had nothing to look
nothing to touch, nothing to do. Genie's mother, who li
in the house, eventually escaped taking the child with he
was in this way that the case was discovered by
authorities. The father committed suicide on the day he
to be put on trial for mistreating the child.
At the time of her discovery, Genie was in a pi1
physical condition. Furthermore, she had been beaten
virtual silence and appeared to have no language. Basec
information later provided by her mother, the girl
already begun to acquire language just prior to
confinement, which was when she was 20 months o f ;
Like Victor, during hcr first few weeks of freed,
Genie was alert and curious. But, unlike Victor,
displayed some ability to understand and even imi
(although poorly) somc individual words, such as 'mott
'red' and 'bunny'. She could not understand a sin
sentence, howcvcr. Generally, she rcspondcd only
gestures and to thc intonation of words. lhttcries
psychological tcsts indicated that her cognitive abilities v
little more than those of a 2-year-old, with her langu
displaying many of the same characteristics of 2-year-old
thcy g o through the initial stages of language Icarninj
Aftcr just a few months of carc, howcvcr, Gc
changed considerably. Shc grcw, gained weight and strcn
and was ablc to g o on long walks. Whilc her original spc
production had been limited to a few uttcranccs such as 'I
more' and 'stoppit', by the end of a few months she 1
acquired the words for hundreds of ol)jccts! Shc had
intense curiosity aboiit the names of things in tllc w o
around her. Sooil she begail to undcrsta~~d somc of 1
Ianguqe used in her presence. For inst;lncc, whcn ;~iiotl
s had, and he 11
child was asked how many b a l l o o ~ ~Ilc
answcrcd 'thrcc', ;llthough hc really h;ld only two, (;ell
observing the exch;lngc, gave the child :~nothcr balloo
(Thus hc would have thrcc, so that what he h:~dsaid wou
bc true.) Other incidents, too, indicatcd that shc w
I>cginnii~gto learn to undcrst:lnd morc th;~nthe singlc w o ~
uttcranccs that she would 11s~.
Altllough (;c-iiic undcrstood inany tllings said to hc
Wild children and language 57
she often gave a delayed response to simple commands.
Sometimes she delayed as long as 5 o r 10 minutes before
carrying out such a simple request as t o open a door.
Whether this was due to the persistence of the memory of
being beaten by her father o r due to some other cause is
, something which could not be determined. Her o w n speech
nonetheless progressed to longer utterances. These often
began with routine items like 'Give me' and 'May I have'
and her speech was generally composed o f such expressions.
Thus, Genie had proceeded, as most children do, from the
one-word to the multi-word telegraphic stage. T h e dif-
ference is that while ordinary children are typically around
1Y2 o r 2 years when they make this transition, Genie was 14
years old.
During the first five years after her liberation, Genie
was cared for by an affectionate foster mother and was
given much attention by concerned researchers. As a result,
she dcvcloped wcll socially. She enjoyed going to stores,
walking about, playing games and became quite fond of
music. Shc was attentive to the conversation around her and
sccincd to understand much of it. However, the quality of
hcr spccch showed little advancement; her uttcranccs
rcmaincd simplc and often ungrammatical. (The proper use
of tcnsc, the article and prcpositions, for example, wcrc
absent from her spccch.) Still, shc was ablc to convey
C O I I ~ ~ ~ meanings
CX such as whcn shc rccallcd somc details of
hcr own terrible past, producing such uttcranccs as, 'Father
take piece wood. Hit. Cry'. And, shc did usc spccch to d o
many of the same things that other children do, to make
rcqi~csts,play games which rcquirc using words, and cvcn
tell lies.
Aftcr about a year had passed since she was first
\ discovered, (;cnic was evaluated again on her ianguagc
ability. She was tcstcd, for cxamplc, on a variety of
synt;~cticstructurcs such as her understanding of sin~plc
ncg;~tion,being rcquircd to respond correctly to scntenccs
like 'Show m c the hu1l11y that docs riot / i f l ~ ~ ia. c;~rrot' as
I
opposed to 'Show nlc the h i ~ n n ythat has a c:lrrot.' She was
tcstcd on her understanding of sin~plcacijjcctives, such as
'big' and 'little1 ('l'oint to tllc /)<ecircle.'). She was rccluircd
I
t o place oljccts 'in', 'under', 'next to', ' b c h i ~ ~ dctc.,
', with
respect to otllcr oljccts to scc if she understood tllc
58 First language
relationships expressed by those prepositions. She had
distinguish singular from plural ('Point to the balloon'
opposed to 'Point to the balloons'), the difference b e t w ~
'and' and 'or' ('Point to the spoon and the pencil' ver
'Point to the spoon or the pencil'). The tests incluc
pronouns, tenses, superlatives ('big', 'bigger', 'bigges
activelpassive ('The dog chased the boy' versus 'The t
was chased by the dog'), WH-questions (Who . . .?, W
. . .?, Where . . .?, etc.), relative clauses ('The boy whl
tall took the book') and complex negations ('The book t
is red is not on the table'). Genie showed good compreh
sion for most test items although she had difficulties M
disjunction (eitherlor), tense, and subject and object p
nouns. Clearly her ability to understand speech 1
improved quite rapidly.
Although Genie made good progress in speech p
duction, that progress was very slow. It took a few yc
for her to advance to the tclegraphic stage and thcn somc
go on to longer and morc mature utterances. In spite of
fact that her spccch was oftcn dcficient and ungrammatic
she was ablc to use language to express complex rc
tionships. Utterances likc 'Father take piccc wood. E
Cry' show this quite clcarly.
Genic generally spoke very littlc, mainly speaking 01
when spokcn to. Thcrc were no spontaneous outbursts
the language play that one finds in normal childrcn as tl-
learn language. The aftcr-cffcct of ycars of being beaten I
making the slightest sound may have resulted in a mu
greater gap than is fourid in normal childrcn bctwccii spec
i~ndcrstanding and production. Normally, with time t
gap bctwccn the two abilities dccrcascs as speech productic
progresses iintil children get to the point wlicrc they can s
most of cvcrything that they can iindcrstand. I11 (;ciiic
case, Iiowcvcr, the diffcrci~ccrciiiaincd great.
Genic's Ianguagc ;lccluisition was stiidicd for nbol
eight ycars, after wliicl~tinic she inadc littlc progrcss. I-11
langiiagc ;lbility, both in tcrnis of' undcrstandi~ig a n
production, rcm;lincd hclow nornlnl and her spccch c o ~
tiniicd to be ii11grnnlmatic;~l.(;cnic, likc Victor, was nc
able to nccluirc ;I i~orninlIcvcl of I:i~~gu;igc
despite receiving
grc;lt aliioilnt of a r c and attcntio~l.
Wild children and language 59
3.4 Isabelle: confinement with a mute mother
In 1942, Marie Mason reported a case that concerned a
child, Isabelle (a pseudonym), who, because of her confine-
ment with a mute mother, did not begin learn to acquire
language until she gained her freedom at 6'/2 years of age.
The mother of Isabelle had sustained a brain injury at
the age of 2, and as a result never developed speech.
According to Mason, 'She could neither talk, nor read, nor
write . . . she was totally uneducated . . . [and] con~muni-
cated with her family by means of crude gestures of her
own origination.' At the age of 22, the woman had a child,
Isabelle. During the period of her pregnancy, and for six-
and-a-half years after the child's birth, the mother and child
had apparently been locked in a room behind drawn shades.
The mother finally escaped, taking Isabelle with her, which
was whcn Isabelle's case was brought to the attention of
authorit'ies. This led to Isabelle's admittance at the age of
6'/2 to the Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, in
Novcmbcr of 2938. Mason was Assistant Director of thc
Spccch Clinic of thc hospital and she undertook the task of
trying to help Isabcllc.
After overcoming an initial shyncss, the child displayed
\ curiosity about her cnviroomcnt, pointing and gesturing to
objects which interested her. I t was dctcrmincd that
although lsabcllc had no spccch production ability ('. . . she
inadc no attcinpt to rcproducc these concepts orally'),
) nonctliclcss '. . . shc distinctly indic:itcd a comprchciision of
their m c a ~ ~ i n glsabcllc
'. had readily grasped the fiindamcntal
linguistic priiiciplc that spccch sounds wcrc synibols for
Ol?jccts.
Although the cliild displ;lycd normal hearing, initial
/ psycliologicrl tcsts wcrc discourngi~~g
lii~giiisticdcvclopnlci~t.
3s to the potriltial for
. . . gcsturc w:ls her only motlc of cxprc*ssio~l.. . . Sllc rcvc;llcd
the pcrforn~:r~~cc, of ;I thrcc.-yc~;~rold c-hilcl wit11 con~plctibf:rilurc*or1
; I I I ~ test illvolvi~lglil~j:~~istic-skill . . . . Thc gc,ncr;rl i~i~prcssion
I
was t1i;lt shc w:~swholly u~lcduc.;lhl~, :~ncl r11;rr :my :Ittct1npt to
tcnc.11 I1c.r to spc;rk, :~f'tc*rso l o ~ ~;Ii :~wriodot'silcncc. would nlcbct
with Iiilt~rc,. 111 spitc ol'tl~is,1 ilc%c-idccl to 111;lkc. the. :ltrclnpr o l i I I I Y
own ; r s s ~ ~ ~ ~tli:ir ~ p Is:rhcllc's
t i o ~ ~ t i i l ~ ~ to
r c spc;~kw:rs dt~cto tllc six
:111d:I h : ~ I fyih;rrsof isol:~tio~l wit11 :I nlI1t.c ; I I I ~dc:rl' ~llorhc~r.
I
60 First language
Isabelle made her first attempt at vocalization just o
week after Mason's first visit with her. T h e child's fi;
spoken sounds were approximations o f 'ball' and 'car'
response t o being shown a ball and a toy car and b e i ~
prompted b y Mason through gestures t o try and say t .
I
words. Subsequently,
. . . Isabelle's acquisition of speech seemed to pass throc
\'
I successive developmental changes. While it is true that her earli
/ vocal utterances were those of a child of a year and a half or t
years, it is also true that she passed through each successive st;
more rapidly than the normal child whose speech maturat
begins at two or before and extends over a longer period of tir.
In less than three months after her entrance to I
I I
hospital, Isabelle was producing sentence utterances! '
find this entry in Mason's journal:
1 seemingly overwhelming sensory handicaps, Sullivan Macy's
Fcb. 8, 1939. Says the following scntcnccs voluntarily: That's
baby; I love my baby; opcn your cycs; close your cycs; I dc
know; I don't want; that's funny; at's [that's] minc (whcn a n o t
child atten~ptcdto take one of hcr toys).
After just one ycar, 'Isabcllc listens attentively whil
story is read to her. She retells the story in her o w n limi
vocabulary, bringing out the main points.' After a ycar r,
a half, the report o f a student teacher working with Isabc
noted that the child's questions n o w included c o m p
structi~rcssuch as, 'Why docs the paste come o u t if c
upsets the jar?' and 'What did Miss Mason say when y
told her I cleaned n ~ yclassroon~?'.Wc find represented
these scntcnccs W H questions (why, whcrl, ctc.)with t
auxiliary 'do', cnlbcddcd scntcnccs, c o ~ ~ d i t i o n aco11-joini
l I woilld like to mention in passing hcrc that Sullivan
and proper tensing!
Thus, after only 20 m o ~ ~ t hIsabcllc
s, '. . . had progress
from her first spoke11 word to fill1 Ic.ngth scntcbnccs .
[andl . . . intclligcnt questioning'. (:o~~cluding11c.r :~rticl
Mason states:
Hcrc is ;I little child I I O W cigl~tyc:lrs old, who in n pcriod of Ic
tl1;111 two yc;lrs, llns 111ndcstriking soci:~l; I ~ ~ I I S ~ I I tI o~ I:I ~ l ~i vS i ~
ant1 lic;lri~~gworld ;lftcr six ycnrs i l l :i world ol'sil~~icc, fc:~r,:11:
isol:ltio~~;
:I child who C:III comm~~nicarc with or11c.r~ i l l sl~ccchaft(
six :111d:I I1;lIf yc:lrs of priniitivc f;cstriri~lf:to n nitltc :111ddc:
motlii*r . . . .
Wild children and language 61
Truly this was a remarkable achievement. H o w different
f r o m the outcomes with Victor and Genie!
I
3.5 Helen: the famous deaf and blind girl
A n y discussion o f language deprivation m u s t include the
case o f Helen Keller, a person w h o was blind and deaf since
infancy. Actually Keller was b o r n normal then, d u e t o
illness, she became deaf and blind at the age o f 19 months.
Thus, before tragedy struck, she had already had experi-
enced the initial stages o f language acquisition. That,
however, was the extent o f language exposure until six
years later, at age 7, when Anne Sullivan Macy was engaged
by Kcllcr's parents t o teach her languagc. In spite o f Keller's
efforts to teach Helen language through the sense o f touch
were succcssf~~l. Helen learned language through touch and
later even learned t o speak, b y directly touching the voice
articulators (mouth, lips, vocal chords through the throat,
ctc.) o f Sullivan Macy and others. (See frontispiece.)
I-Iowcvcr, because she was unable t o hear and thus could
not receive any auditory feedback, her o w n speech was
s o ~ n c w h a tstrange; she spoke in a high-pitched somcwhat
monotone, voice. She further Icarncd t o interpret and
producc 13raillc. T o crown these accomplishn~cntsKcllcr
wcnt on to graduate from Radcliffc (Harvard University)
ruith 1iorior.trs and t o become an acclaimed Iccturcr and writer
in the service o f handicapped people.
Macy was rccommcndcd as Helen's teacher to I<cllcr's
parents by none other than Alexander C;rahnm Dell. I3cforc
hecoming E ~ n ~ o u;ISs the inventor o f the telephone, 13cll was
a tlotcd educator ;lncl researcher o f the deaf, as was his
Scottish father hcforc him. Since, too, I3cll's nlothcr and his
own wife wcrc dc:lf, I3cll was, thcrcforc, iluitc Elnlilinr with
dc;~filcss the prohlcnls involved in deaf c d ~ i c : l t i o ~ ~ .
I<cllcr's autohiogrnphy, '17ro Story MY I.jJi', is
E~scinating to rc:rd. T h a t d r ; i n ~ ; ~ t inlonlcnt
c when she
Icarnc.d Ilcr first word is m o v i ~ l g l ydcscril>cd in it:
O n c d;ly, wliilc I w:ls plnyi~~g
with rny r~c\wdoll, Miss S ~ ~ l l i v : ~ n
i
64 First language
exposure to written language was rather effective, it is n
clear why Victor was unable to fully master this mode
communication. Certainly he never achieved in writt
language the equivalent of Genie's level o f speech cor
I prehension, let alone the advanced levels of Isabelle a
Helen.
1,
Genie, at 13 years, was about Victor's age (11 or
i years) before she was exposed to language. Neverthele
I
despite over 11 years of isolation, she was able to develoj
much higher level of language than Victor, her achievemc
II mainly in the area of speech comprehension. G e n ~
accomplishment in this respect establishes that if there i
critical age for acquiring the fundamentals o f a fi
language, grammatical structures, grammatical rules a
I vocabulary, the limiting age could not be very young,
! Genie was over 13 years old when she began to lc.
language.
That Genie's speech production ability was faulty
terms of pronunciation may bc rclatcd to factors wh
operate in the acquisition of second-language pronunciat
by ordinary pcoplc (scc Chapter lo), where it has bc
found that thc ability to control certain muscles of thc boc
in particular the articulators of speech (the tongue, n ~ o u
vocal chords, ctc.), generally begins to dcclinc around 10
12 ycars of age. T h e fact that Genic had not used spec
from infancy until she was 13 ycars old probably put lie1
a disadvantage morc than would be the case for a t y p ~
second-language learner of thc same age. At least
ordinary second-language learner would, in using his or I
first language, have had the benefit of exercising I
articulators of speech for over a decade. Even so, we can1
be surc that Genic's poor speech ability was not thc result
soinc negative psychological influc~~cc due to her mistrc
mcnt. After all, she had been punished scvcrcly fc~rye;
just for making any sort of sound.
The 1;lnguagc ;icl~icvcmcnts o f 1s;lhcllc and l lcl
contrast sharply with those of Victor and C;cnic. Wliy wc
thcsc two girls nhlc to do so wcll? The fict t11;lt I-lclcn 11
bccn cxposcd to Innguagc d u r i ~ i gher first 10 ~nontllsof I;
could not have been the deciding factor bccnl~sc1s;lbcllc 11;
1l:ld no s~rch chxposurc. Wllat tllcy llavc i l l conlmo
howcvcr, is t l ~ c . ; ~ g c ;it which, ;~ftc.r thc pcriod
J Wild children and language 65
deprivation, language exposure and teaching began: Isabelle
was 6 years old, while Helen, at 7 years, was almost the
same age. Victor and Genie were almost twice as old as
these girls in this regard. It could well be - as some
,
theorists, such as Lenneberg, suggested - that the biological
ageing o f the body, particularly the brain, is a principle
factor governing various aspects o f the language acquisition
process.
In any case, whatever the underlying cause might be,
can w e conclude that the critical age for full first-language
learning lies somewhere under Victor and Genie's ages o f 12
and 13 years ('under' because they had difficulty learning)
but over Isabclle and Helen's ages o f 6 and 7 years ('over'
because they did learn)? Perhaps so. However, w e cannot at
all be surc since the poor performance o f Victor and Genie
may havc been the result o f other factors. We d o not know
how Victor (assuming he was not congenitally retarded o r
had some brain dysfunction) and Genie would have farcd if,
during thcir pcriod o f language deprivation, they had not
been isolated but instead been socially accepted. What if
they had been cared for and loved? After all, Helen was
given special and tcndcr care by her parents and even
Isabcllc, although shut away in a small room, had the love
and conipanionsliip o f her mother.
It is clear fro111 our consideration o f the cascs o f wild
children that the ideal experimental situation for studying
the problcii~of a critical age for first-language learning has
not yct prcscntcd itself. Lct us hope for humanity's sake that
it ncvcr docs.
( 3.7 Discussion questions
I
1. Why might Isabcllc havc progressed morc rapidly than
C;cnic in hot11 speech ~indcrstandiiig and production?
' 2. c h i c Icarncd to speak but Victor did not. Why d o you
I think it 1i;lppciicd this way?
3. Wliy do yo11 tl~illkI-lclcn IZcllcr did so nlucll better i l l
lang1l;lgc ;ind other asyccts of life (hecoming ;in
honours grndi~atc fro111 n rcnowncd university ;inti
hcco~ni~lg: ;I Iccturcr anti writer) tlia~ithe other childrc~l
( wlio si~llbrcd I:rng11;1gcdcprivatio~l?
66 First language
4. At what age do you think it would be too late for
person to learn any significant part of a first languag
5. If the perfect experiment regarding language d e p r i ~
tion were done, what do you think the results would
and why?
Suggested readings
Curtiss, S. (1977) Genie: A Psycholinguistic Study of a Modern-L
'Wild Child'. New York: Academic Press.
Keller, H. (1972) T h e Story of M y L q e . New York: Col
Macmilla~l International. Originally published in 1903
Doubleday.
Lane, H. (1976) T h e Wild B o y of Aveyroiz. Cambridge, Ma
Harvard University Press.
Malson, L. (1972) W o l f Childver~and the Problein o f Hcrrnun N a t u
with the Complete T e x t o f the Wild B o y of A v e y v o i ~ .New Yc
Monthly Rcvicw.
Mason, M. K. (1942) Learning to speak after years of silei
Jordrnal of Spc~ecl~and Henrir;q Disorders, 7 , 4, 295-304.
I in confiision.
CHAPTER 4
Sign language, written
language and the deaf
4.1 Soundless language
Can language exist in the mind without speech? H o w can a
soundless language like sign language be acquired? O d d as
such questions may appear, there are good psycholinguistic
reasons for asking them, for an inquiry into such questions
will provc to be quite rcvealing with regard to the
psychological nature o f language and the various sensory
medi~ilnsby which it may bc acquired. Furthermore, in
thc coursc o f such an inquiry, a nunlbcr o f controversial
issucs will arise, issucs which arc o f grcat practical
importancc for deaf people in terms of comn~unicationand
education. I t will bccomc clcar that, without a firm
grounding in psycl~olinguisticconcepts, attempts to deal
sensibly with such practical language problems will rcsult

1 4.2 Language without speech

) I j y now most of us have had thc opportunity to r r p r r i e ~ i c c

sign Ianguagc, if only to scc it occasionally in the corncr o f
! o11r T V scrc~c~is.Thcrc w c c;ul scc a person trnnslnting
! spccch illto sign for the bcncfir o f c4c:lf ;11lc1less s ~ v c r c l y
/
'
llc:iring-i~~~p;lirccl viewers. You mny wonder, : ~ n d quite
jiistifiahly, whCthcr those s i g ~ ~tri~ly s arc p:rrt o f ;I I ; ~ i ~ g n : ~ g c
o r arc j t ~ s t;I collcc-tion of gcsrlircs tli:~t I;~ck'thc sophistic.;i-
t i o ~ io f ;I I;i~igu;lgcI>:lsc*do i l sl~cc.cli.
'
I low c;l~iwc ji~dlgc wlic.tlicr pcrsolls w h o i ~ s c'sign
I ; I I ~ ~ ~ tri~ly
I:I~C li;lvc
~ ' l;lii~;t~:~gc~?Wliilc~so~iic*iiiiglir : ~ t t c ~ i ~ p t
68 First language
to present a lengthy treatise o n the nature o f language a
then use that as a criterion, I would rather like to offe
simpler, and, I believe, more effective, criterion. Can
not agree that a person has a language if that person
communicate by signing whatever can be communicated by spec
This seems reasonable because w e can all agree that pec
who communicate in speech d o have language. O f cou:
this criterion must allow for a difference in the phys
means o f communication: signing rather than speech. 7
is not a critical concession, for, just as w e regard
physical acts of producing and hearing speech as bf
different in some way from language (which exists in
minds), so, too, can we regard the producing and seeins
signs as being similarly different from language. Langu;
of course, does depend on some physical mode for
acquisition and use, but the point here is that the mode r
not be limited to sound. Even touch can be used as a m
by persons who are both deaf and blind (as it was by H,
Keller).
What we are rcally intcrcsted in herc is whcthc
sentence like 'If the weathcr had bccn finc so that Ma
unclc could havc comc to givc hcr thc moncy, thcn
might havc bought that ncw stcrco' could bc convc
through signing? Such a communication cxprcsscs a var
of cornplcx scmantic functions and rclations (qucst
conditional, timc, ctc.) and involvc a numbcr o f cvcnts
situations, nonc of which, intcrcstingly cnough,
occurrcd. (According to thc scntcncc: thc wcathcr was
finc, thc unclc didn't comc to givc Mary moncy, nnd M
did not buy a stcrco.) A pcrson who could producc
undcrstand comn~unicationssuch as this, cvcn though t
arc t l ~ r o u g sign
l ~ rather spccch, surely can rcasonably snic
have language.
Well, research docs show that signers of such s
languages as Anicric;l~~ Sign Language, French Sign L
gungc, 13ritish Sign Lmngiingc, and ccrtain others call indl
commi~nicatc in sign wh;ltcvcr is cxprcsscd in spec
However, this m;ly not \ye true tliough of otlicr s
languages w11icli arc i~iconlplctcsy~ltacticallyo r arc litnil
in tcrtns of vocal>i~lary.Incomplctc sign I a n g ~ ~ a g c ~
tyl7ic;llly found i l l dcvcloping cou~ltrics,altllougl~in cv
Sign language, written language and the deaf 69
some developed nations, sign language may suffer from
deficiencies. In Japan, for example, where the national
government prohibits the teaching and use o f sign language
in public schools, standardization and vocabulary are
problems. (The rationale for this anti-sign position is
considered in a later section.)
Returning to the language criterion, not only can a
fluent signer o f a complete sign language such as American
Sign Language (ASL) sign whatever a speaker can say, but
the signer communicates at the same speed as a speaker
does. T h e speed at which signers produce sentences (more
precisely the propositions which underlie sentences) in a
sign conversation tends to be the same at which speakers
produce sentences in a speech conversation. This occurs
even though a signer, as does a speaker, has the ability to
exceed this speed. There seems to be an optimum speed at
which humans are able comfortably to process language
information, whether that information is in the form o f
speech o r sign.
Bcforc considering the essentials o f sign language, it
will bc uscful, and intcresting, to examine a related means
o f communication that is used by hearing persons: gestures.
Although gestures may bc cornplcx, they arc but collections
o f signs and d o not form a true languagc; there is no
grammar with which gcsturcs may be combincd to form
thc cquivalcr~to f scntcnccs, cxcept of thc most rudimentary
sort ('You comc', 'I hungry'). Ncvcrthclcss, they d o play an
important part in communication both in conjunction with
spccch and as an altcrnativc for spccch.
4.3 Gestures and signs
4.3.1 Gestures without speech
I'coplc use n vnricty of body nlovcmcnts to convey
mcssngcs. Most o f these nlovcmcnts, cnllccl g c s t i ~ r ~ s ,
mainly involve thc face and hands although the posture o f
thc body is i ~ n p o r t a n t ;IS well. Wc irsc gcstIlres to
coniniunic;~tc ;I variety o f types of mcssngcbs, ;IS, for
cx:lmplc~:greetings (hcllo, goodl>yc - by lnoving the 11;11lds
70 First language
and arms); requests and commands (come, go, stop -
moving the hands); insults (the sticking out of the ton
by children, the raising o f the middle finger by adu
answering (yes, no, I don't know - by moving the he
evaluating (goodlperfect - by making a circle with
thumb and index finger; and victorylsuccess - by ma1
the V sign); descriptions (tall, short, long - by use of
hands and arms), referring (self, other, this one, that 01
by pointing) and scolding (a facial scowl). These are
some o f the categories for which w e have gestures that
be used for communication independently o f speech.
Some gestures are almost universal, such as the mo-
of the hand or arm towards the body to indicate 'cc
(Americans make a sweeping motion of the arm from
elbow towards thcir own body with the hand hcld
vertical position while Japanesc havc thcir arm outstrct,
horizontally but movc only their hand with the palm fa
downwards), or in pointing to onc's body to indicate '
(Americans point to thcir chest whilc Chincsc point to I
nose - to m y knowledge no c o n ~ n ~ u n i tpoints y bclow
waist). Most gcsturcs, howcvcr, arc specific to cult1
linguistic or geographic areas. Thus Sri Lankans shake I
head in a way which, whilc indicating 'ycs' or 'agrccm
for them, indicates 'no' or 'disagrccn~cnt' for En!
speakers. (I once was the adviser of an MA student fron
Lanka, and cvcn though I knew that her shaking of the 1
indicated agreement with what I was saying, I ncvcr cc
get used to it.) And, while the Japancsc place their in
fingers sticking upwards on the sides of tllcir head
indicate that someone is 'angry', a person from Frs
visiting Japan might, in searching for a meaning, inter]
the gcsturc as indicating 'cuckold', after tllc French I;111gu
expression 'wearing of the horns'.
Facial nlovcmcnts, in p;lrticular, arc ilscd cvcrywl
to express a wide range of cnlotions :~ndfeelings. We do
need actually to utter the words 'I :In1 . . . {hap
Sign language, written language and the deaf 71
brow'). States o f aversion, confusion, attention, distress,
love, annoyance, superiority, belligerence, doubt, stupidity,
bewilderment, determination, and so on, can all be
conveyed by various combinations o f facial expression,
,
hand movement and body posture.
In examining gestures, it becomes obvious that some
gestures are more related to, o r suggest, the ideas that they
are intended t o represent than are others. T h e hand and arm
(
gesture for 'come', pointing to your o w n body for 'self or a
smile gesture for 'friendliness', for example, have a certain
closeness. These kinds o f gestures having a close rela-
tionship between gesture and meaning are called iconic
gestures. These iconic gestures contrast with ones that are
more abstract, such as the shaking o f hands to signify
agreement in the closing o f a business deal. This would be a
non-iconic gesture. It gives less clue as to meaning than the
iconic gcsturc. Such being the case w e would expect iconic
gcsturcs to be easier to acquire than non-iconic ones. Some
gcsturcs, howcvcr, are not so easy to categorizc. Would you
bc ablc to guess that a listener's noisy sucking in of breath
whilc the eyes look upwards signals 'dccp consideration for
what thc spcakcr has said' in certain segments o f Japancsc
i socicty? I was baffled when I first canlc upon it!
Bcsidcs thc gcncral gcstures uscd in a culturc, thcrc are
also rcstrictcd gcstures which are known and uscd by small
groups. Tllcsc arc typically to bc found in spccializcd fields
1 of work.
Stock trading Wc havc all sccn pictures o f stocks being
bought and sold on the floor o f an exchange. With thosc
f ~ ~ r i o uhand
s and fingcr signals, stocks arc named, prices
quoted and dcals arc closed.
Ii i r At a racc-track in Britain, you might scc a
nlan putting one right fingcr in his left car. Hc is not
rclicving a11 itch but, as a bookmaker (a bet taker), 11c is
indicating that the odds on a certain horse arc 6 to 4.
1

Mltsir A symphony conductor often pi~llsthe pal111

surprised, disgusted, di.;nppoilltcd, cscitcd, ;Ingry, ctc
wI1c11 we have i l l our non-vc.rIx11 rcpcrtoirc tllc :Imnz.
flcsihility to roll our cyc.; in cxnspcratio~l, contract (
hrow i l l c o ~ ~ s t c r n ; ~ t and
i o ~ i haughtily raisc our cycl>ro
(from which, hy the way, wc get anot11c.r 11;lughty sort
word, 's~lpcrciliour', nic;111ing, from Idatin, 'r;liscd c)
I back towards the body to request less v o l t ~ n ~fro111 c the
orchestra.
Sports Itcfcrccs and j t ~ d g c silsc elaborate hand and arm
gcsturcs to indicate tllc state o f play and the assignn~cnto f
points and pc~~altics.
1 1 i i o i If you wcrc an announcer prcscnting the
72 First language
news, and the person in charge drew his or her index fing
across the throat, you would bring your talking to a clo:
O n the other hand, if you were on a dark deserted street ir
dangerous part of town with two rough-looking charactc
approaching you, and one signalled the other with tl
gesture while looking your way, you would start runnin
4.3.2 Gestures with speech
Despite the great number of gestures which are available 1
use, it is clear that most of the gesturing that people eng:
in when they communicate are coordinated with speec
While some of these gestures have an iconic sign functiol
i.e. can be used by itself to convey a meaning - others
not. A good example of the latter is beat, where one's ha
or finger is kept in motion and is synchronized with wha
person is saying.
Beats are constant in form and do not change with I
content of the sentences. In making beats, pcople will mc
their hands up and down or back and forth. This tends to
done in the periphery of gesture space, such as to the sic
not in the central portion. The purpose of bcats, accordi
to McNcill in his insightf~llanalysis of gesturcs, is basica
to emphasize the discourse function of concurrent spcec
Beats do not add to the content of a description or story t
rather serve to emphasize the introduction of new char;
ters, the setting of a scene, the O C C L I ~ ~ C I I C Cof SOIIIC eve1
and the likc. McNcill presents the following case cxalnp
A person (A) has been shown a film and is asked to t 2
about it. A says that the charactcr in the film llns
girlfriend, and as A says 'his girlfriend' he makes n bent.
then says that her first name is Alicc and, as hc says 'Alicc
he nlakcs anothcr bcat. A then goes on to say that 11
family 11amc is White and, as he says 'White', hc mnk,
anothcr bcat. Thrcc bcats wcrc performed succcssivcly I
this little bit of n;~rrntivc, o11c bcat per piccc of n c
informatio~l.However, i t sllould be noted that many bca-
may occilr with :I si~lglcS C I I ~ C I I C Cnnd that 11cw illfornlntio
is not :llways involved. For c s ; l ~ ~ ~ pMcNcill
lc, dcscrihcs on
5-yc;lr-old child saying, in response to being nskcd whn
somctllil~gis, 'It's solnc.thi11gc.lsc.' As he was saying this th,
child's hand rose lip and dowll thrcc timcs on the arnlrcst o
I Sign language, written language and the deaf 73
the chair he was sitting in. Thus, even young children
acquire quite early the gestures which accompany the speech
of their language.
The use of beat, however, is more pronounced in some
' cultures than in others. Italians and Jews, for example, seem
t o d o it more than Japanese and Britons. O n e Jewish man
talking t o another man might even tap the other on the
stomach. (I doubt that a Japanese could even be trained to
I d o this!)
Besides beats, people make another, perhaps more
important type of gesture along with speech. This is the
iconic or content gesture which, according to McNeill and
his colleagues' research, occurs just once within each clause.
Such gestures occupy the central gesture space and can add
, to or make more explicit some part of a description or a
; story line. Thus, for example, when people are asked to
describe something they see and they utter sentences likc
, 'He is trying to go u p the inside of the drainpipe' and 'He is
going up through the pipe this time', in both cases the
speakers make an upward gesture, either with the finger or
4 the hand. The gesture is made while that important portion
of the sentence (italicized) is being uttered.
Making 11ote of what pcople d o when thcy talk, such as
1 their production of icon and beat gesturcs that thcy make,
can be a very interesting pastime. You will be surprised at
what you learn, if you can stiflc that urge to smile or laugh
aloud.
I
4.4 Sign languages
) 4.4.1 Types of sign language
Sign Innguagcs use hand, facc or other body movc~ncntsin
a three-dimc~lsional space as the physical mcnns of conl-
municntion. 1 r i 1 c i : I l y thcrc arc two types of sign
Inngilagc and thcsc ciiffcr as to whcthcr or not the signs
rcprcscnt ordinary (spccch-based) Iangu:~gcs.Thus, thcrc arc
sign Inngungcs which rcprcscnt the words (tlirough signs)
nnd their order ns they appcnr i l l ordin:lry Innguagcs, such ;IS
Swedish, E~~glisli and Frcnch, and there arc sig11 I:lng~~;lgcs
such ;IS Amcricnn Sign La11gu;1gcn11d Ijritish Sign Ln~lgu;~gc
74 First language
which have their own words and grammatical systems fc
the generation of sentences.
4.4.2 Sign languages representing spelling or speech ,
Sign language based on ordinary language can be of t n
different kinds. O n e such kind represents words by spellir
them out in terms of individual signs, where each s i ~
represents a letter of the alphabet. Hand and fing
configurations are used to indicate letters, such as making
V with the index and middle fingers or an 0 with tl
thumb and index finger. Thus, a word such as enough wou
be signed letter by letter, e, n, o, u, g and h, followir
English spelling. Words and entire sentences are commun
cated in this letter-by-letter method. The ordcr of letters
exactly the one that occurs in the writing of the ordinal
language.
There are both one- and two-hand systems of fing
spelling (Figurc 4.1). The Americans and Swcdcs, fi
example, use one hand, while the British use two. Uscrs
Figure 4.1 Fingcr spcllillg: 1 :111d2 I1:11ldcd
Sign language, written language and the deaf 75
both systems can sign relatively quickly but both processes
are rather laborious. The two-handed system is faster and
I provides more easily identifiable letters but it does not allow
a hand free for other uses. Only a few deaf schools (like the
Rochester School in America) rely wholly on finger spelling
to express all communications. (The sentence 'The boy
coughed' is expressed as the series o f individual letter signs:
t, h, e, b, o, y, c, o, u, g, h, e, and d.) Signers of all systems,
i though, must learn to use finger spelling since most proper
nouns like Manila, Caroline and Kensington, d o not have
their own special individual signs. Such proper nouns must
+ be finger spelled.
- More popular than The Rochester Method of finger
spelling is a kind of sign language which uses whole signs
for each speech word or meaningful word part (morpheme).
For 'coughed', for example, there would be one whole sign
for 'cough', and another for the past tense. Seeing Essential
, English and Signing Exact English are typical of such sign
systcms. Thcse language systems, which, for want of a
, name, I shall call Signing Ordinary Language (SOL),
follow in signs the exact linear flow o f spoken words. Thus,
'I askcd John for the cards' would havc a sign for each
I English n~orphcmcin that sentence, signed in the same
, ordcr as the spoken sentence: I ask+ + +
P A S T Jolzn +for
+
+ t h ~ card + P L U R A L . The word 'askcd' has a separ-
ate sign for the root 'ask' and a separate sign for the
suffix marking past tense. Similarly, 'card' and a sign which
marks the plural havc scparatc signs. These systcms arc
relatively new, having been devised by educators in the past
40 years.
A SOL system has certain important advantages for the
Icarncr. Ijy learning it, not only will the person be ablc to
coi~~municatc with other hcaring-impaired pcrso~ls (who
k11ow the systcnl) but the Icarncr will have knowledge of
the syntnx and vocnbulary of the ordinary language as well.
The ordinary languagc would then not hnvc to be Icarncd as
a remote second Iangtiagc (as far as vocabul;iry and syntax is
concerned) by pcrsons whose nativc 1a11gu;1gc is an
incicpcndcnt sign Iangi~agc. For the s:lnic reason, too,
Ic;~rningto read will not he as difficult. In nddition, the SOL
system has rhc advantage of bcing c:~sicrfor hearing pcrsons
76 First language { . Sign language, written language and the deaf 77
to learn than independent sign languages since S O L is base same w a y as are spoken w o r d s s o as t o provide variation i n
o n the grammar which hearing people already kno. grammatical classes and meaning.
1
through speech. This is particularly advantageous to tl- !
parents o f deaf children w h o naturally want t o establish a. Present C n
means for communicating with their children as quickly :
possible. Most deaf children, it is worth noting in th
regard, are born to hearing parents.
Despite its many advantages, S O L suffers from 01
serious, perhaps fatal, disadvantage. Deaf signers general
d o not like it. They find it m o r e cumbersome and le
natural t o use than a sign language that has evolved throuf
extensive use in the deaf community.

4.4.3 Independent sign languages (SL) 5-4 L

GO WIN

Some characteristics of S L
T h e signs o f a sign language that is indcpcndcnt o f a spccc
based languagc (hercaftcr, SL) can bc b r o k c ~ i d o w n in
three basic componcnts: lzatld cor!fi,quratiorr, h o w thc hand
formcd; place of articmlatiorl, whcrc tlic hand is formcd; ar
movement, h o w thc hand moves. At the word level o f ;
ordinary language, thcrc arc not only words which diff;
coniplctcly in meaning from onc another, but also wori
which arc very ~ n u c hrclatcd, differing only in morpliolog:
o r tlicir sound form. For cxamplc, in E~lglish from tf
word 'conlparc', words likc 'comparcd', 'comparcs', 'con
paring' and 'comparison' arc derived. Such morphologic;
changcs also have thcir equivalents in SL. Acljusting th I : I
movcmcnt o f a sign by changing the speed or tension o WENT WON
rate o f repetition, gives ;III SL the ability to dcrivc noun Figure 4.2 1)ritish sign Ia~igiingcvcrbs
from vcrbs, such as 'coniparison' from 'comp;lrc', ;IS well a
produce derivations which arc unicluc to the SL. Fo Just h o w signs tcnd t o be made when comparing ASL
example, in ASL the signs for 'church', 'pious', ant to say, Chincsc Sign L a ~ ~ g i ~ ((:SL), wc w e find not
arrow-mi~ldcd' (!) differ only in t l ~ cninnncr of movcmcn uncxpcctcdly that not only ;ire the signs tl~cmsclvcs
involved. Thcrc ;Ire, then, ullinflcctcd forms o f signs whicl complctcly clifkrcnt, but, also, that ASL ilscs :I slightly
call hc. dcfi ncd hy the fc;lti~rcso f place, confi gu1-.ltiol11rtio anc marc pi~lchcdh:lnd configuration, with tllc fingers curling
nlovCnicnt, with v;lri;ltio115 i l l movcmcnt providing the under, fist-likc, into the p;llnl, much nlorc s o th;ln i l l <:SL.
nic;llis for ~liorphologicxl v;lrintion ;111d c l ~ a ~ i g iel l- ~; I S I > ~ C ~ . If a signer o f (:SL Ic:lr~~cd t o sign ASL with ;ill the corrcct
S1, words ;111d 111orl>hc111cs arc. m ; l ~ ~ i p i ~ l ; i tinc d 1li11ch the fcnturcs of n r t i c i ~ l ; ~ t nlcntioncd
io~~ nhovc, yet kchpt his o r IIC-r
I
78 First language Sign language, written language and the deaf 79

hand configuration in the less pinched CSL fashion, the

result would be perfectly understandable to a signer of ASL,
yet there would be something different about it. It would bc
the sign language equivalent of speaking with a foreigr
accent!
Incidentally, this might be a good place to emphasizt
that, contrary to common expectation, there is n o universa
\'
j sign language. There are even strong dialectic difference.
11
within a language. For example, signers from Paris havc

/ difficulty in understanding signers from Lyon, and via

versa. You may be surprised to know, too, that America1
I Sign Language and British Sign Language (Figure 4.2) arl
not mutually comprehensible. American Sign Languagc
/
(a) 'fhc scqucllcc of signs 'woman-forgct-piirsc' is u\cd as a statement,
(Figure 4.3) actually has more in common with French Sigl The wornat1 forgot tlzepurse (the articles are not separately signed).
I Language than with British Sign Language because it (ASL
was derived from French Sign Language in the ninetccntl
century. Sign languages, like speech-based languages, havl
their own historic origins around the world and dcvclol
along their own individual lines.

The syntax of sixn l a n g u a ~ e

In a speech-based language, individual words arc structure(
I together into sentcnccs according to syntactic rulcs, thc
hcart of the grammar of a languagc. SL, too, has rulc
which govern the relationship bctwcen individual signs in ,
scntcncc. While the words and morphemes of scntcnccs il
languagcs such as Signing Exact English are signcd in tlic ail
on a sort of imaginary two-dimensional blackboard, in :
word-by-word (and morphcmc) lincar scqucncc, SL scn-
tcnces arc radically diffcrcnt. They arc not lincar scqucnccc
but tlircc-dinicnsiond creations. Such a spacc nllows for
combinations of nicanings and the siinultancous blending of
a number of meaning clcn~cntsthat cannot be produced
linearly. As a result, signcd scntcnccs can bc produced
quickly and with a niininiuni of effort.
The proper indexing or apportionment of spacc is
crucial to producing grammatical scntcnccs in SL. For
cxamplc, nouns, pronouns and vcrbs have to be assigncd
points in the spcakcr's spacc. Thcsc points liavc to be
diffcrcntintcd throughout a scntcncc 2nd rcmniii as rcfcrcncc
points such that the con~poncntrclntions of thc scntcncc, the
( h ) ' 1 ' 1 1 ~ S I I ~ I 5ign
~ sc(~uc*ncc
is : ~ c c o ~ ~ ~ ~ )by
i ~;Ir Ior\v:lrd
~ i c ( I nlovc~ilcrltof t l ~ c
hci~tl:~ntlslioultlcrs, ant1 thc cychrows arc r:liscil: this woulil express the ycs-no
qucslion, I)irl rlre worncmforget thr pltrsr?
Figurc 4.3 American sign Inngiiagc sentences (captions addcd by
I ) ; ~ n n y 1). Stcinbcrg)
noun phrasc sul,jcct, the verb, and the noun phrasc oljcct,
arc rc1;ltcd to one* anotllcr ill a coherent f;ishion. T h e area in
front of a spcnkCr1storso is a field in which, for cxamplc,
p r o n o u ~ rcfcrc~nc~cs
~ can bc signcd - n 'hc' o r 'she' left
Ilanging in spacc, ns it were - nnri referred back to as
'rcl:~tivc p r o ~ l o ~ i ~ l sVerbs
'. of nlovcmcnt follow paths
through this spnccs froni point to point, their stnrt and end
points indicnti~lgstiljc.ct ; ~ n do1:jcc.t rcl:itions. V;lrintions of
~ n o v c ~ i ~ ccan
n t occllr within this sp;ic.c t o show tinic and
aslwct, a n d s p : i c ~ ~ ~ chcn nbt~iltw i t l l i ~sp:lccs
~ t o clnhcd O I I C
scntcncc witllii~nnothcr, to co1ltr;lst onc' c'vcbi~twirh :~notllr.r
i
80 First language
or to refer to something further back in time. Violation of
the rules which govern the relationship between signs will
lead to confusion, with the occurrence of poorly formed and
ambiguous sentences, very similar to what happens in
speech when rules of grammar are broken.
The parallels between the acquisition o f language
through speech and sign language are very striking. Ir,
acquiring SL as a first language, deaf children g o througk
stages of language acquisition which are similar to those 01
hearing children. Their signing goes through a single-sigr
stage and even a telegraphic stage of simple sign pro.
ductions where inflections and function signs are n o
included. However, there are linguistic problems, whicl
deaf children must face and overcome, that are unique tc
SL, such as the proper indexing of space. While younf
signers at the age of 3 will not yet have fully differcntiatec
their signing space correctly, this will have been accomplishec
by the age of 5. It is by this agc that all of the csscntials o
the formal language system will havc bcen acquired.
4.5 The sign language struggle in deaf education
4.5.1 SL out of the closet and into respectability
As rcccritly as thc 1970s some tlicorists dcnicd that a sigr
languagc could be a gcnuinc language. Such scholarly dcnia
rcflcctcd thc biascd opinion of many hearing pcrsons, a
wcll. Much o f thc original bias against SL stcmnicd from :
poor iindcrstanding of the nature of Ianguagc. Until thc
nicntalist revolution in linguistics and psychology, whict
was spcarhcadcd by Chomsky in the IOOOs, langiiagc wa!
generally equated with speech in a bchnviouristic type o m
conccption. With the advent o f r ~ ~ c n t a l i s nlanguagc
~, begal-
to bc widely perceived as a kind of knowledge i l l the minc
that is related to but is i~ldcpcndcnt of its physical
manifestation in spccch. Such a concc~~tiinl scpar;ltion was
just what sign language rcscarchcrs nccdcd for pursuing
thcir investigations into SL. They were then ;iblc to
SL gramm;ir for the mind, ;I n l c ~ ~ t n l
formiil;itc nn ;~hstr;~ct
grnlnnlar that was similar in csscncc. to thosc th;it l ~ c b ; ~ r i ~ ~ g
Sign language, written language and the deaf 81
people were believed to have.
T h e strong belief held by many deaf educators and the
general public that speech was necessary for one t o be
human could be challenged. Signers could n o w , like
speakers, be said to have language; although they did not
have speech. Language and not speech could be regarded as
the true distinguishing human characteristic. T h e change
started slowly in the 1960s but soon gathered momentum
and by the middle o f the 1970s the proponents o f SL began
to succeed. Soon SL was actively taught in a large number
o f schools for the deaf in the US, Sweden, and other
countries.
. It was during this same period that, with the boost
given to SL by educators and researchers, the SL deaf
community came out o f the closet, so to speak. Signers
began to gain confidence and pridc and to communicate
such feelings to the public at large. N o longer did the SL
dcaf and thcir hearing friends and relatives feel embarrassed
as they once did.
Whcn some 20 years ago actress Louise Fletcher (a
'
hcaring pcrson) made her acceptance speech for an Academy
Award for hcr rolc in the film O n e Flew O v e r the Cuckoo's
Nest, shc causcd quite a stir when she simultancously
intcrprctcd hcr own spccch into ASL for the benefit of her
dcaf niothcr and fathcr w h o wcrc at homc watching thc
show o n tclcvision. It is now conlmonplacc in Illany
! countries to scc various T V programmes, mcctings and
: special cvcnts with siniultancous interpreters prcscnt for the
bcncfit of thc dcaf. T h e problcms o f dcaf pcoplc and o f dcaf
education cven bccamc a nlajor thcnlc in anothcr wcll-
known film, Childrcv~of a Lesser God. This award-winning
film also scrvcd to dispcl sornc o f thc misconceptions held
by tlic public. Then, too, just a few ycars ago, an incidcnt
occurrcd which also scrvcd in some degree to makc the
hearing con111ii1nity more awarc of thc dcaf and SL. A
hcaring woman was appoilltcd dean at America's only
collcgc for thc dcaf, (;allaudct Collcgc in Washington, I)(:.
I%ccaiiscshe could not communicate in ASL - thc language
in g c n ~ r a lLISC by studcrlts and E~culty o n c;lmpiis - thc
stutlcnts bcg;ln protcst demonstrations, which wcrc rcportcd
o n all the mnior ~ l c w s~ ~ c t w o r k This
s. publicity, a11d tllc
cnsuin!: sympathy for thc aims o f the studcllts, forced tlic
82 First language
university directors to back down and appoint a dean wj
was bilingual in spoken English and ASL. I might menti
here that Thomas Gallaudet (1787-1851), after whom t
college is named, contributed significantly to the creation
the original ASL on his return to America after study .
France.
SL sign language has become so widespread that mi
people in the deaf community in the United States a
Canada now use ASL in communicating with one anoth
SL allows them to communicate in a highly efficient M
with a means that is most congenial to them. Even in Jap
where sign language of any sort is prohibited in the pul
schools, deaf people manage to learn Japanese SL outside
the regular schools. Often the social welfare department c
city will offer SL courses. (I attended one such cven.
course when I lived in Hiroshima.) SL has naturally beco
a part of thc deaf community despite the national gove
ment's opposition to it. Even at a school for the dcaf
Hiroshima wherc sign language was banned, I saw stude
signing to one another whcn their teachers weren't looki~
Actually, sincc their spccch and writing abilities w
minimal, thcrc was no other effective means for thcm
communicate with one another. Thcrc is no stopping pco
from learning SL from others if that is how thcy wish
communicate.
H o w dcaf pcoplc are to communicate with n~cmbcrs
the dominant hearing community is a different problc
and remains so. Barring the unlikely event that hcari
pcoplc will lcnrn SL on a mnss scale, it is ncccssary for t
dcaf to acquirc somc means of communicatio~~ with I~cnri
persons. In this regard two main npproncllcs arc avnilab
One is the trnditionnl Ornl Approach. The other, lit1
known, is the Written Lnnguagc Approach.
4.6 The Oral Approach
The gcncr;il public nsidc, jlist who is i t tli;lt the SL pcop
h;ivc been struggli11g with for rc.cog~iitioli ovcbr the. year
Wcll, thcsc. 1i:lvc. I>c.cli thc proponc*lits of tlic tc.;~ching (
spcccli, gclic.r:illy c-;~llcdtlic. 0r;ll Appro:~cli. 'I'lic O r .
Ap~>ro:~cIih;ls n wortliy aim, t o tc~;~cIit l i c hc;lri~ig-ilii~>nirc
Sign language, written language and the deaf 83
to produce and understand speech so that they can
communicate with the hearing community. Unfortunately,
historically, its supporters, w h o controlled education in the
schools, advocated the use o f speech to the exclusion of any
other means of communication. T h e use of SL was proscribed
even for communication among deaf persons. While the
Oral Approach advocates, such as Daniel Ling and the
Ewings, may even admit that sign language is a language,
they argue not only that the learning and use of sign
language negatively affects the acquisition of speech but that
without speech there will be defective thinking. (The
teaching of reading and written language are attacked for
similar reasons, which is w h y the teaching of reading in so
many deaf schools was - and often still is - delayed until
children are beyond the second o r third grade.) These
contentions, which have n o basis in cmpirical observation
o r psycholinguistic theory, are false. If anything, knowledge
of SL and reatling facilitate the acquisition o f speech. And, as
far as thought is concerned, deaf people without speech are
found to test nearly as highly in intelligence as hearing
people. It is unfortunate that such erroneous ideas continue
to bc hcld in so many places.
Thc Oral Approach focuses on thc teaching of spccch
production. Childrcn from thc the agc o f 2 o r 3 years
onwards arc spccially trained in thc skill of articulating
spcccll sounds. Also, it is not uncommon at prcscnt to havc
somc computcrizcd cquipmcnt that displays sou~lds and
assists in thc teaching. Many children d o respond and d o
acquirc n fair ability to spcak. For the most part, howcvcr,
thcsc arc children who havc only a modcratc hcaring loss.
Those with profound impairment typically d o poorly.
The understanding of speech is usually fostcrcd through
both exploiting any residual hcaring that learners may have
and tlic tc;lching of 'spccchrcading', c o ~ n m o n l yknown as
'liprcnding.' With spccchrcnding, ,111 ndcpt person can
interpret nhout l ~ a l fof w l ~ n tis snid, wllich, given the g-rc;lt
nniount of rcdundnncy in ordi~laryspccch, is enough to
guess nioc;t of the content. Many sou11cls, howcvcr, ;lrc
p;lrticul;irly dil'ficult to diffcrcntintc vis~l;~lly; thc'sc- includc
most vowels, c.g. 'a', 'c', 'II', 'i', nlid rn:lny c o r ~ s o ~ ~ ;suclil~its
;IS 'k', Lgl,'I), r , 's , sll', 'c.11' :111tl'j.' 111 ;~clciitioii,in ccrt;li~i
L 1 1
I:11igua~:cs, s11c.11;IS J ; ~ p ; ~ l ~ cwliicli
sc, csliil>it rcl;itivcly little
 84 First language
lip and facial movement, the articulation of speech
especially difficult to deal with.
As was noted above, a great problem with the O r
Approach is that it tends only to work for a portion of tf
, hearing-impaired population. Research shows, unsurpri:
ingly, that the less people can hear, the less they will be ab
to produce and understand in terms of speech. Thu
', relatively few children who are born with a severe (
I
I\ profound hearing loss (over 75 or 80 decibels in their bett
I
ear) acquire any significant degree of speech. Even tho
1 with a lesser hearing loss often do not acquire sufficient
clear pronunciation such that they are understood I
ordinary hearing persons. As a result of a pure O r
Approach education, many hearing-impaired persons a
not only unable to communicate with the hearing con
1 munity but are unable to communicate adequately wig
\ their hearing-impaired colleagues. It was this tragic situ.
tion, one that continues in many placcs today, th
convinced many educators of the deaf, that cducation
programmes should include sign languagc in thcir cu
I riculum along with speech training. Thcsc programme
which generally go by thc namc of Total Con~municatiol
spread in thc 1970s in the US, Canada and othcr countrie
While Total Communication is now widely acccptcd I
many countries, nevcrthclcss, thcrc is still grcat rcsistanc
(as in Japan) to admitting sign language into the cducation.
curriculum for thc hearing-impaired.
4.7 The Written Language Approach
4.7.1 The importance of literacy a n d essentials of t h e
approach
Although Total Coi11nlii11icatiollhas in~provcdthc lot of thc
deaf in a significant way by providing sign Ial~g~lagc i i ~
addition to spccch training, one great educational prohlc~n
rcmains, that of literacy. On the average, hcaring-i~npaircd
persons, still (cvcn aftcr a Total Cominu1lic:ltion cd~ication)
graduate from high school with a reading lcvcl ccliiivalc*nt
only to th:lt of ;I hcaring cllild in (;r:~tic 5 of clcmciitary
Sign language, written language and the deaf 85
school. (Their writing ability is poorer.) This is true for the
US, Japan and other developed countries and is even lower
in less-developed countries. The problem is that reading and
writing are dependent on knowledge of ordinary speech-
based languages; we use our knowledge of the grammar of
the ordinary language both to understand what we read and
to produce what we write. Since the hearing-impaired
person's knowledge of speech-based language is usually
quite limited, the ability of that person to acquire literacy
based on that knowledge is similarly limited.
Given the overwhelming necessity of being able to read
and write in order to function well in modern society, it is
not surprising that we find that most hearing-impaired
people are able to secure only low-level jobs, when they are
able to secure jobs at all. A high level of literacy is essential
if the hearing-impaired are to realize their potential.
Towards this end, I believe that an approach, one that I call
the Written Language Approach, can be of benefit.
The essential idea of this approach is that the meaning-
ful written forms of an ordinary speech-based language such
as English or Spanish (its words, phrases and sentences) are
acquired through direct association with objects, events and
situations in the environment. Thus, just as hearing children
learn language by initially associating the speech sounds that
they hear with environmental experiences, hearing-impaired
childrcn can learn language in a similar way, but through an
association of written forms with cnvironmcntal experi-
cnccs. As a rcsult, hearing-impaired children will acquire
csscntially thc samc vocabulary and syntax of the languagc
of hcaring childrcn because, in the writing of a languagc
such as English, Danish or Chincsc, virtually all of thc
vocabulary and syntactic structures that appcar in spccch
also appcar in writing, c.g. subject-verb relations, objcct-
vcrb relations, ilcgation, question, rclativc clausc formation,
passives.
This is not to say that thcrc arc no diffcrcnccs i l l spccch
and writing. Esscntially, though, o11c basic grammar
undcrlics both forms of cxprcssion. And, because virtually
any sci~tcnccor idea that can bc cxprcsscd in spccch can be
cxprcsscd in writing, we can say, by analogy, that written
Iang~iagccan bc rcgardcd as a complctc language. Its 111ain
diffbrcncc with spcccll concerns thc physical nlcai~s of
86 First language
transmission - writing involves light, while speech involvc
sound.
4.7.2 Historical perspective
Actually, the ideas which I propose here are by n o meal
new. Further, they have a remarkable history although fe
in deaf education are aware of them. When I first conceivt
of these ideas, I truly believed they were original with m
It was only after successfully completing original researc
with American and Japanese deaf children using tE,
approach, did I discover that a hundred years earlier, no1
other than Alexander Graham Bell had taught writtt
language to a 5-year-old deaf boy with some success ar
that 200 years before him a thinker by the name of Dalgarr
had, in 1680, formulated the same approach a t Oxford! Bt
was well aware of Dalgarno's conception, for, in 1883 Bc
stated,
I believe that George Dalgarno . . . has given us the truc princip
to work upon when he asserts that a dcaf person should be taugl
to read and write in as ncarly as possible the same way that youn
ones are taught to speak and understand their mother tongue. R
should talk to thc dcaf child just as wc do to the hcaring onc, wit
the exception that words arc to bc addrcsscd to his cyc instcad (
his ear.
Perhaps Itard may have been aware of Dalgarno's ideas, fo
he, too, used a written languagc approach with thc Wilc
Boy of Avcyron and was quite successful in that approacl
as coniparcd to his cfforts in using spccch (Chapter 3).
Somehow in the 1970s the idea of the Writtcr
Langi~agcApproach bcgan to sprout once again. I t camc tc
mc and it came to Shigctada Suzuki, a dcaf educator in
Japan; I liavc heard runiours of so111c work in Europc but
havc not been able to vcrify these. Other than 111y work
with English and Japanese, and Suzuki and his collcagucs
with Japa~~cse, no otl~crserious rcscarcl~as bccn done ~lndcr
this conception. In fact, to my knowledge (and dismay), it
SCCIIIS that 110 one cvcn talks ahout tllcsc ideas.
Sign language, written language and the deaf 87
4.7.3 Written language and reading distinguished
At this point it would be well to consider the distinction
between written language and reading. T h e main difference
is that written language is learned directly from the
environment without the use of any prior linguistic
medium, such as sign language o r speech. Reading, by
contrast, is learned through a linguistic medium. Thus,
when w e say that a hearing person has learned to read, we
presume that that person already had language prior to
learning to read. We furthermore presume that reading was
taught through the medium o f that language, i.e. speech.
Typically we point t o a written word and say it ('dog').
And, in reading a book we point to written words and say
them ('The little dog ran to the girl'). T h e child interprets
the written words by means of the vocabulary and syntax
which the child has already learned in speech. This is the
essence of reading.
However, suppose w e consider a hearing-impaired
child who does not know speech or sign, and we point to
the written word 'dog'. That child will not be able to
understand the meaning of this word. If, however, a picture
of a dog is placed alongside the written word, then thc child
will havc the opportunity of learning the meaning of the
word. A child who learns languagc in this way can bc said
to havc learned writtcn languagc. T h e writing itsclf is the
primary mcdium for languagc concepts. The child must.
discover the meaning of the writtcn vocabulary items and
then induce thc syntactic relations that pertain to those
items, just as hcaring children do with spccch.
Learning to read is a much casicr process than Icarr~ing
to interpret writtcn languagc, since, in learning to read one
will not havc to acquirc the grammar of the languagc. Thc
grammar is already known bcforc the first rcading lesson
begins. T o Icarn to read, onc siniply has to lcarn how visi~al
writtcn forms correspond to known spccch sound forms.
T o Icarn writtcn languagc, however, the vocabulary,
~norpliology,syntax and other aspects of tlic grammar must
all be ;~cr~uircdon the basis of the visual writtcn forms and
their rcl;~tionship to n~caningf~llobjects, situations and
cvcnts. Thc hearing-impaircd cl~ildmust undcrgo tllc samc
1voccss of Inngii;~gclearning that the hearing child did in
 88 First language
acquiring language. Such a process can be expected to
more time-consuming than learning to read.
4.7.4 Assessment of the Written Language Approacb
There are a number of distinct advantages to the Writt
Language Approach:
1
1. T h e learning medium is appropriate. Perception of writ!
items depends on vision, a medium in which
I
normal hearing-impaired have full capability.
2. Written language knowledge need not be acquired by
instructors. Parents and teachers of the hearing-impai
I
I
1
do not have to learn the written language in order
teach it; they already know the writing system and hi
to use it. (Hearing parents who wish to acquire s-
language which they can pass on to their children m
spend years in learning it, just as they would any o t
second language.) Only relatively simple instructio
methods and techniques need be acquired.
3. Instruction can begin early. Parents of hearing-impai
children can teach their children written language
homel during the children's most formative ye;
Children as young as 6 months can be exposed
written language in a natural way, and learn in
supportive comfort of their own home. Children
hearing parents need not have to wait for two or th
ycars beforc their parents learn somc sign langu~
which can be passed on to them. Nor would child1
have to wait at home before they can be takcn to schc
for what is nccessarily a limited amount of si
languagc or speech instruction, givcn thc nurnbcr
hours that the child can spend in school.
4. All hearinpimpaired children can henqfit. Effort dcvotcd
teaching written languagc is never wastcd sincc wh;
cvcr is lcarncd will improve thc child's lcvcl of literal
in the filturc, whcther thc child lcarns spccch or sit
languagc.
5. Written lan<qun,qi. acqrrisition is con~patihle with 0th
npproaches. Written language can bc taught in conjun~
tion with othcr approachcs, with spccch or sip
language, without ; ~ n ydctrin~entto the integrity (
thcsc approaches.
Sign language, written language and the deaf 89
6. Written language knowledge can facilitate speech. In learn-
ing written language, the syntax and vocabulary that
underlies the speech of an ordinary language are also
learned. Acquisition of such knowledge will reduce the
burden of oral speech instruction and facilitate the
acquisition of speech.
7. Written language can raise intellectuality. Being able to
interpret written language will allow the person access
to books, magazines and a variety of other written
materials, materials which are essential for personal
intellectual growth and provide an entry to higher
education.
While understanding written language presents no special
obstacle to the young child, producing written language
does. It is difficult for a young child to write. For, until a
child reaches 4 years of age, or so, he or she does not have
adequate neuromuscular control to be able to write, and to
write for long periods. There is little the young child can do
to communicate with others in writing, except to carry
around an alphabet board or word cards (like those Itard
made for Victor). Advancing technology, however, may
provide a solution to this problem in the form of a laptop
keyboard and display scrcen which a young child could
carry around. There is no good reason not to makc written
languagc a part of evcry hcaring-impaired child's cducation.
O f course, thc Writtcn Languagc Approach cannot solve all
of thc communication problcms of the hcaring-impaired,
but it can solve somc important oncs.
4.8 A parting note on deaf education
A numbcr of diffcrcnt approaches to dcaf education have
bccn discussed, Sign Languagc, thc Oral Approach, Total
Communication, and thc Writtcn Languagc Approach. In
rr~y opinion, the hearing-impaired would benefit by the
application of all of thcsc approaches. While solnc ap-
proachcs may be more beneficial than others, dcpcnding on
t l ~ cdcgrcc of hearing loss, it is a 111attcr ofjustice that cvcry
hcaring-impaircd person should bc give11 the opportunity to
expand their linguistic skills through each and cvcry one of
thcn~.
90 First language Sign language, written language and the deaf 91

4.9 Discussion questions (ed.), A Bicentennial Monograph on Hearing-Impairment Trends in

the U S A . Washington, DC: A. G. Bell Associates.
1. Can there be language without sound or speech? Gustason, G., Pfetzing, D . and Zawolkow, E. (1975) Signing
2. Why is a sign language, such as American Sig Exact English. Los Alamitos, CA: Modern Signs Press.
Language, a true language? Kyle, J. G. and Woll, B. (1985) Sign Language: The Study of Deaf
People and Their Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University
3. How do the gestures used by ordinary persons as the
Press.
speak differ from sign language? Liddell, S. (1980) American Sign Language Syntax. The Hague:
4. How does the gesture of 'beat' function in speech? Mouton.
5. What are some characteristics of the American Sip McNeill, D. (1987) Psycholinguistics: A New Approach. New York:
Language system? Harper & Row.
6. Do you think that Signing Exact English or Seeir Meadow, K. P. (1980) Deafness and Child Development. London:
Essential English should replace American Sign La1 Arnold.
guage? Moores, D. F. (1978) Educating the Deafi Psycholo'qy, Principles and
7. What do you think about the dispute in deaf educatic Practice. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
concerning the Oral Approach and the Sign Langua! Steinberg, D. D. (1984) Psycholinguistics: the writing system as a
method? native language for the deaf. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 5, 4, 36-45.
8. How does written language as a first language diff
Steinberg, D. D. and Harper, H. (1983) Teaching written
from reading? language as a first language to a deaf boy. In F. Coulmas and K.
9. Why do hearing-impaired people generally have lo\ Ehlich (eds), Writing in Focus. The Hague: Mouton.
level jobs? How may the Writtcn Languagc Approat Suzuki, S. and Notoya, M. (1984) Teaching written language to
benefit the hcaring-impaired in this rcgard? dcaf infants and preschoolers. Topics in Language Disorders, 3,
10. Suppose your child wcrc born dcaf. What sort 10-16.
language education would you want for your chilc
Journals
Suggested readings American Anrrals o f the Deqf
Jorrrnal of Sppcrrh and Haarin<q Disorders
Anthony, D. (1971) Seeing Essential En,qlish. Anaheim, Californi Sign Lon~qrrqqe Strrdics
Educational Services Division, Anaheim Union High Schol Voltn Rcvipcrr~
District.
Bcll, A. G. (1883) Upon a nicthod of teaching language to a vcr
young congenitally dcaf child. Amerirnrr Anrrals (!/' tlrr? Ilcwf an
131rrrrl1,28, 3, 124-30.
Conrad, 11. (1979) T l ~ cDcqf Srlrool Child: Larr,qrrnqc. cirrrl (:c!qrri/i~,
F~rrrrtions. London: H:~rpcr 1L Itow.
Ilalgarno, G. (1071) llidnsralon~pl~r~s, or tlir dr!/' and tl1rrr111rrrari'
trrtor. Mcnston: Scolar I'rcss. (Clriginnlly published by Tlicntc
in Oxford, Oxford, 1080).
Ewing, A. and Ewing, E. C . (1004) 'l"c~nrlriri,pI>r,~f(:/rildrc.rr ti
'lhlk. Manclicstcr: Manchcstcr University 1'rc.s~.
Furth, I-I. (;. (1071) Linguistic deficiency ;rnd tliinki~ig:rcsc;~rcli
with deaf s~~l?jccts, 1004-1000. I?F)~r/iol~~piral
l~rrllpctirr,76, 33-72.
(;:lrrctson, M. I). (1070) Total c o m ~ ~ i \ ~ n i c a t i 111
o r ~It.
. 1:risinn
 CHAPTER 5
Mental grammar

5.1 Grammar and psycholinguistics

5.1.I How do speakers produce and understand

sentences?
H o w do w e produce and understand sentences? What role
does a mental grammar, the grammar w e have in our
minds, have in such essential communicative processes?
These questions lie at the heart o f psycholinguistics and
some understanding o f them is essential, despite the high
dcgrce o f complcxity and abstractness which the subject
matter presents.
In this regard linguists have long puzzled over what the
main goal o f linguistics should be. Is it to describe a
languagc? O r , is it to dcscribc what speakers k n o w about a
languagc? Thcrc is a distinction hcrc, one that has important
implications for psycholinguists.

5.1.2 Linguistics as psychology

, In the first half of the twcntictli ccntury, lingi~ists wcrc
, divided on the issue. Sonic linguists, likc I3loomficld,
argued for the psychological vnlidity of the dcscriptions
they were writing. They held that what thcy wrotc nbout
was 11ot only n clcscriptioll o f l a ~ ~ g u a gbut
c it was nlso n
description of what people hnd Icnrncd. Such tlicorists
regarded tl~cmsclvcsns denling with n psycliologicnl product,
Ilunl;l~l I c n n ~ i l ~ gOtlicrs,
. Ilowcvcr, s i ~ c l ;IS
~ 'Tw;~ddcll,
rcjcctcd such n go:~I for lingiiistics. Thcy considcrcd the
dcscriptioll of I;inl:uagc, not the psychologic.al aspccts of
pcoplc, t o hc tllcir goal. Further, tl~corcticnlcl~titicslikc tllc
?.Z"&"
3 0 2
; &o- do m .-z
cy-f
.
2
S'ECE 2
E %sE w
~cd& 2 2- C ,5" j
0
0 ~
M Q )0 0
3 d . g ~
.-
u
-e,f)og m
Ea , C E =
5
:i ;y
Eco.22
..?
0 C o z * m CY
3 & > 82 -a
'5; $ 'C
m o cd $ ..Cg 3z
vl

.- e, 0
3 as
:";="
$ d & sugC2r

"
3

8'58 2 ,, .?A
g m 3 5
$2 * 2
.3 3 &
0s 5
.s :2;s. 3S..-D
m
$0 r
b
m u ,

8 : ~ $ 5 ~ -
ZE;;E"."C
ZLg
;;= SF & :-
LI 0
3
P7 a.3 m 0 5
98 Language and mind
tures' grammar in the 1950s, there was the Aspect,
(Standard Theory) grammar in the 1960s. Then there w;
the Extended Standard Theory grammar in the 197(
followed by the GovernmentIBinding grammar in tl-
1980s. N o w , in the 1990s, once again w e hear rumbling
with Chomsky proposing to abandon D-structure, th
deep level o f structure the name o f which has becon
familiar even to many outside o f linguistics.
Still, despite far-reaching changes in the details o f l-
grammars, Chomsky has continued to maintain o.
fundamental notion, which is that the syntax o f t
grammar is primary, with meaning (and sound) b e i ~
secondary. (Abandonment of D-structure, as Chomsl
now suggests, in no way implies that syntax would n
continue to be primary.) This is to say that the meaning o
sentence is specified as a function o f its syntactic form, a
not vice versa. This relationship, which Chomsky claims
be innate and universal, is shown in Figure 5.1. This idea
how a grammar is to bc organized, howcvcr, has the effe
as shall bc argued later in this and the following chapter,
rendering Chomsky's csscntial grammatical theorizing
psychologically invalid. By his own criterion, thc linguis
grammar must bc psychologically valid.
7 Meaning
Figure 5.1 I<clatio~~ship
of sync;lx, meaning and sound
5.3.1 The Standard Theory
of 11
It was in 1'965 that (:hornsky proposed, in his As~~e~c-ts
Tlrc~ory of Syrrtnx, the thcory of gra111111ar t11;it bccam
known as the Stand;~rdThcory (ST). While tl~isversion 113
bccn greatly revised by later fornlulatio~~s rcsi~ltingin hi
( ; o v c r ~ ~ m c n t / I % i ~ ~((;I3)
d i n g thcory, i t is uscfi~lto gCt soln
undcrst;lnding of thc Sc;ind:ird Thcory bcforc dc;~lingwit1
(;I%.
Thc S T gr;lnllll;lr cssc.11tially c-onsists of v;lrious scts o.
Mental grammar 99
rules: syntactic, semantic and phonological. Each set o f rules
is systematically integrated and serves to provide, for every
i sentence, a linguistic description o r representation at four
different levels. There is a sound level (Phonetic Interpreta-
tion) where the phonetic sound pattern o f a sentence is
I represented; there is a meaning level (Semantic Interpreta-
, tion) where the meaning and logical relations in a sentence
are represented; and, there are t w o syntactic levels (Deep
Structure and Surface Structure) where various syntactic
1 aspects o f a sentence are represented. Deep Structure
represents the underlying syntactic form o f the sentence
while Surface Structure represents its more overt form.
I
. A schema o f the Standard Theory grammar is shown in
Figure 5.2. This grammar, while incorporating ideas from
his earlier Syntactic Structures' grammar, is much more
complex and comprehensive. In the schema w e see that the
grammar consists o f various components - the syntactic,
semantic and phonological - and a lexicon o r vocabulary
repository which consists o f morphemes and idioms. T h e
syntactic component consists o f t w o types o f syntactic rules,
1 Phrase Structurc rules (also known as Base rules) and
Transformational rules. Each o f these sets o f syntactic rulcs
is rcsponsiblc for an output: the Phrase Structurc rulcs
1 providc Dccp Structurc whilc thc Transformational r ~ ~ l e s ,
operating on Dccp Structurc, provide Surfacc Structure.
T h c phonological component consists o f Pho1101ogical rulcs
which opcratc on thc Surfacc Structurc to providc thc
, I'honctic Intcrprctation o f a scntcncc. T h c semantic com-
poncnt consists of Scmantic rulcs which opcratc on thc samc
Surfacc Structurc to providc thc Scmantic Intcrprctation o f a
scntcncc.
Lct us now look at thc contents o f thc various
conlponcnts of t11c grammar and scc how thcy fi~nctionto
gcncratc rcprcscn tations.
The I'hrasc Structurc (1's) r ~ ~ l cprovidcs thc basic con-
s t i t ~ l ~ structiirc
nt of a scntcncc. Essentially, thcy providc an
an;llysis of n sentence into its ulldcrlying phrases whicl~arc
fi~rtllcranalyscd into words anti word parts. Tllcsc words
and word p;lrts (~llorphcmcs);ind idio~llsarc stored in the
-r:
d
.-

-3
I.:
102 Language and mind
shows the PS rules in terms of their successive applicatio~
Equivalent tree structure forms are shown alongside. Th
final structure, the one in which the lexical items have bee
inserted, is Deep Structure and it is shown at the end.
Thus the Deep Structure of the sentence 'The bo
bought candy at the store' is generated through tt '
application of the rules. S is the given starting point since
is from this letter (it is vacuous and has no content) that tl
appropriate first rule of S + N P + VP is determined. T1
various rules shown in Figure 5.3 define the phrase structu
of that particular sentence. With the insertion o f lexic
items following the application of these PS rules, the Dec
Structure is defined as the result.
The history of a sentence, from the elemental S and
+ NP + VP structures through various intermediate stru
tures to the final Deep Structure, is called a derivation. Th.
however, is only part of the derivation of a sentence.
complete derivation will be obtained only after releva
Transformational, Phonological and Semantic rules ha
been applied, as well.
The PS rules which have presented abovc arc but pal
of more complex rules. Thus, for example, in ordcr
account for the subjcct N P in a scntcncc likc 'The girl wl
dropped the spoon laughed', wherc thc scntcntial clause
'who dropped the spoon' modifies thc N P 'thc girl',
structurc likc N P + N P + S is proposcd. All of thc variol
N P realizations that havc bccn hcrctoforc mentioned may 1
suminarizcd in the formulations: N P 4 NI' + (S) and N
+ (I>) + N , whcrc parenthcscs indicate that thc cnclosc
itcm is optional, i.c. it may or may not occur. Thc!
formulations dcscribc different NI' structurcs such as N, I
+ N and N P + S.
I t is important to notc that rulcs may bc rcapplicd. Th.
allows for the gcncration of a complcx NP structurc lik
that (cn~boldcncd)in the scntcncc, 'Dogs which attaci
girls who scll flowers likc cookies', whcrc the N:
consisting of the N 'dogs' is modified by the S 'which attac!
girls', which, in turn, the NI' of 'girls' is modified by the !
of 'wllo scll flowers.'
Thc V1' rulc, too, likc the N1' rule, n ~ u s rbc specified sc
as to account for all VI' str~icturcs which appcnr i~
sc~~tcnccs. (:onscqucntly, VI' structiirc~s in scntcnccs likc
Mental grammar 103
+
'John ran' (V), 'John ate the hamburger' (V NP), 'John
went to school' (V + PrepP), 'John was happy' (V + Adj)
and 'John believes the world is round' (V +
S), along
with many others, must be incorporated into the rule.
Because rules may be reapplied (the important 'recur-
sive' property of Chomsky's system), the Phrase Structure
rules together with the Lexicon can generate an infinite
number of Deep Structures which are not limited in length.
That some of these may be so long or complex that they
would never be realized in actual speech is beside the point.
The main consideration is that the system has an infinite
potential, just as speakers have an infinite potential, even
though that potential is never realized.
Transformational rules and Suvface Stvucture
In Chomsky's system, Deep Structure is but one of two
levels of syntactic representation of a sentence. There is a
second structure, Surface Structure, and this onc is the
outconze of Transformational rules operating on the Deep
Structurc. Consider a sentence like 'Open the door.' O n the
surface, this sentence consists of a single VP. Here VP + V
+ NP, thcn N P + D + N , where V + 'open', D + 'the'
and N + 'door'. However, underlying that Surface
Structurc of VP is the Dcep Structure of S + N P +VP,
wherc thcrc is a subject NP. That N P consists of N, and N
+ 'you' (thc understood addrcsscc). Figure 5.4 shows thc
Dccp and Surfacc Structurcs for thc scntcncc 'Opcn the
door'.
From thc point of view of the PS rules, thc Surfacc
Structurc of a simple VP for a scntcnce likc 'Opcn thc door'
is malformed. For, thcrc is no PS rulc whcrc S + VI'. O n
thc othcr hand, thc original Deep Structurc of that scntcncc
i.c wcll formed, conforming as it docs to thc S + N1' + VI'
rulc. In C h o i ~ ~ s k y 'Standard
s Theory gran1nlar only Deep
Structurcs nccd conform to I'S rulcs. (In the current (;I3
framework, undcr 'I'rojcctiot~ Principle', surfncc S-struc-
tiircs ns wcll as deep 1)-structures nus st conform to
rcqiiircmcnts imposed by the 1's rulcs.)
How, thcn, d o thcsc Surfacc Structures conlc a b o ~ ~ t ?
Wcll, tl~cyarc the result of the application of Transform;l-
tion rulcs - rulcs which dclctc, add and movc m;ltcri;il - ; ~ n d
 104 Language and mind Mental grammar 105

sentence like 'John bought a coat at the store and so did

Mary'. Here w e have t w o sentences in a conjoined
, + +
structure, St CONJ S2, where the S1 of 'John bought a
coat at the store' conforms to PS rules, but the S2 of 'SO did
Mary' does not. The Surface Structure o f S2 ('SO did Mary')
\ is quite different from its underlying Deep Structure, which
would be 'Mary bought a coat at the store'. Virtually that
Deep
Structure I
N V
r - 5 NP 1
same Deep Structure can also be said to underlie such
sentences as 'John bought a coat at the store and Mary
bought a coat at the store, too' and 'John bought a coat at
the store and Mary did, too'. Thus, T rules, when applied
to Deep Structures, can provide different Surface Structure
outcomes. (In Chomsky's later theorizing, T rules are said
to leave some 'trace' or marker in the S-structure after
application so as to ensure that the proper meaning can be
; recovered.)
the door

, Phonological rules and Phonetic Interpvetation

Given the Surface Structure that has been generated, it is
E then up to the rules of the phonological component to
interpret that structure so that it is rendered into a sequence
of sound symbols; that product is called the Phonetic
) Intcrprctation of the sentence.
Thc Surface Structure, it should be noted, contains
lexical itcms which are specified in something like the
fcaturcs of phoncmcs. Thus, although the words of
Surfacc , scntcnccs in the tcxt above and in the figures have bcen
Stnrcturc written in conventional orthography, as in 'Opcn thc door',
that was donc only for convcnicncc. Thcy rcally should
havc bccn writtcn in thcir underlying phonological forms,
, forms which, along with the syr~tacticinforn~ationin thc
Surfacc Structurc, allow for conversion to phonetic sym-
bols.
thc door Consider a scntcncc likc 'Marcs cat oats'. In that
structure, Icxical items arc prcsc~ltcdin phonological form,
Figure 5.4 Thc Deep Structurc and SurCqcc Structurc for 'Opc i.c. / n ~ c r z / , /it/ and lots/. I t is the f ~ ~ n c t i o nof thc
thc door' 1'honologic;~l rulcs to change the Surfucc Structure into a
I'honctic Interpretation, which is a scqucncc of wholly
which II~IVC been applied to the Ilccp Structurc. IIccl pho~lcticsyn~bolsthat, in effect, rcprcscnts the pronii~~cia-
Structures arc transformed into Surfilcc Structures hy 1llc:ln tion of the sentence. Thus, when spoken ; ~ at natural spccri,
of Transformation (T) rulcs. Consider i l l this r c ~ a r d ; 'Marcs cat oats' would sound likc Imcrziydowtsl. I3y the
 108 Language and mind Mental grammar 109

Deep and Surface Structure sub-theories embodying different principles and parameters.
D-structure requires a description of the Phrase Structure
i and this is achieved by the X-bar syntax, an elaboration of
' earlier Phrase Structure syntax. This syntax also integrates
the Lexicon with syntax being concerned, as it is, with the
characteristics of lexical categories (Noun, Verb, Preposi-
tion, etc.) and the properties of the lexical items of which it
is composed; this, for example, specifies that the verb 'want'
\ must be followed by an object N P but 'elapse' does not.

X-bar theory T h e Projection Lexicon

D-Structure Principle I

the shoe hurts

theta functions

Semantic Interpretation

l'rol.>osition Casc Theory movement -Bounding Theory /

I
Predicate Argument, Argument,

Proposition I'ropositio~l
I'honctic Logical

, Figure 5.6 A schcm;l ofchomsky's G I 3 grnm~~iar

Tlic I'rojcction I'rinciplc, which projects thc charactcristics

of lcxicnl elltries onto the syntax, co~i~iccts I>-structure to S-
structure and con~icctst l ~ cLcxicon to Logical Form (LF) by
specifying the possible contexts in which a p;lrticiilnr lexical
Figure 5.5 Sc.mnntic. prol,osition;~lstructure of '7'11~shoc hr~rt! itcnl can occur.
The fi111ction;ll rcl;ltio~lship h c t w c c ~ ~ the parts of a
syntax, rnca~li~lg and soul~drcm;lins tllc s;lnlc: only sy11t;lsi scntcncc is spcciticd in (;I3 throi~ghthct;~roles (similar to
gcr~crativc. This is the case cvc.11 though (;I3 t:r;lnllll;l FilI~~~ore'sS C I I I ; I I I ~ ~C T)~. I I Si l l, n scntcllce such ;IS 'The
C ~SCS
illvolvcs a c o ~ l t i ~ l t ~ i~ltcr;\ctioll
oi~s ;1111011g C ~ O I I I P O I I C I ~n~l lSc boy g-;lvc ehc tcachcr nn apple'. thcrc arc thrcc theta ro1c.s:
 110 Language and mind
'the boy' refers to the initiator or agent of the action; 'a1
apple' refers to that thing that is affected by the action; ant
'the teacher' refers to the entity receiving the thing. Thet
roles, which involve semantic relations, are distinguishel
from cases which are structural, e.g. in 'He drives a jeep
'he' is in the Nominative case. O n e principal function c '
government, in Chomsky's theory, is to ensure that a wor
is assigned the proper case. Thus, in the sentence 'The do
bit him', the verb governs the N P which follows it so th.
'him' rather than 'he' is selected. H o w the nouns in such
sentence are related to each other and whether they refer t
the same entities or other expressions is the function (
Binding Theory. Thus, while in the sentence 'him' does nc
relate to the antecedent pronoun, a word like 'himself ('Tt
dog bit himself) would.
The relationship between D-structure and S-structure
restricted in terms of what can be moved, where it can t
moved from,where it can be moved to, and how far it ca
be moved (the distance is limited by Bounding Theory
One great problem that Chomsky had with his carlic
transformationally oricntcd syntax was that there we1
insufficicnt restrictions on the positing of transformation!
Transformations had become so powerfi~l and rcadil
available for the writing that their cxplanatory valuc wa
I
I
seriously reduced. GB thcory has attcinptcd to rcmcdy suc
a deficiency by specifying paran~ctcrs and restrictin,
I movement.
I Structurc (likc Chomsky's S-structurc but w i t h o ~ traccs)
5.4 Linguistic challenges to Chomsky's grammar
Challcngcs to Chomsky's grammar have mainly stcmmcc
from two sourccs: (1) disagrccn~cntwith the organizatio~lof
his grammar whcrc syntax is given a priiilary rolc ovcl
semantics; and (2) disagrccmcnt with tlic adequacy of his
structural characterization of such basic syntactic rclatiolls
and constitilcnts, pnrticularly Subject, Ilircct Ol?jcct, Indirect
Oljcct and Verb I'hrasc. T l ~ cfirst sourcc h;ls give11 risc to
such g r ; i n ~ ~ ~ i ;is
; l r (;cncrntivc
s Semantics C;rall~lilar((;corgc
Lakoff, Iloss, McCawlcy) Scrn;lntic Case C ; ~ ; I I I I I I I ; I ~
(Fillmore), Cognitive (;rammar (Langi~ckcr);111dMolltag~lc
(;rammar (Mont;lguc, I'nrtcc, l'ctcrs) while the sccond has
Mental grammar 111
led to grammars such as Relational ~ r a m m a k(Perlmutter,
Postal, Johnson) and Lexical Functional Grammar (Bres-
i nan). Given space limitations, I will deal only with the first
of these source categories. Besides, I believe this category
holds the most promise for psycholinguistics.
5.4.1 Meaning-basedgrammars
I In his description of grammar, you will recall, Chomsky
begins neither with the meaning of the sentence nor with its
sound pattern. Rather, he begins with the specification of
syntax, a syntax which functions independently ('auto-
nomously') with the meaning and sound forms of the
sentence being the output of that syntax. In Chomsky's
terms, only syntax is 'generative'. Semantics and phonetics
play secondary roles, functioning only t o interpret the
syntactic structure which is provided as input.
Chomsky's notion of an autonomous syntax was
strongly attacked in the 1970s by a group o f linguists calling
, thcmselves Generative Semanticists. They regarded mean-
ing or scmantics as the basis for grammatical theorizing. It
was thc logical semantic representation o f a sentence (like
, Chomky's Scmantic Interpretation and Logical Form) that
' was to scrvc as the conceptual starting point for thcir
grammars. Syntax was givcn a sccondary rolc. The rolc of
syntax (and tlic Lcxicon) was to providc the propcr Surface
~t of
a scntcncc. This was accomplisl~cdthrough thc use of OIIC
type of syntactic rulc, thc Transformation rulc. Whcn the
Surhcc Structurc had bccn forrncd by thcsc rulcs, then
I'hoiiological rulcs would bc applicd to providc thc Phonetic
I1cprcscnt;ltion (likc C110n1sky's I'ho~~cticIntcrprctation or
Forin). A scllcma of this conception of grammar is shown
ill Figurc 5.7.
This scheina differs in ;I niiml~crof importalit charac-
tcristics froin C:homsky's conccption of grammar. Firstly,
scmantics is givcn the prinlary rolc. Syntas is give11 orlly ;I
secondary rolc, whicll is to providc n rc.nlization of the
sci~iat~tic rcprcscl1t;ltion. Thc.11 thcrc is only oiic typc. of
synt:ictic rule, tlic* TraiisfOr111atio11;11;tlicsrc ;ire 11o I'llrasc~
Structurc n ~ l c s . Accordingly, tllcrc is o ~ ~ lorlib
y lcvcl of
112 Language and mind
Logical Semantic Representation
Surface Structure
Phonetic Representation
Figure 5.7 Generative semantics grammar
syntactic representation, Surface Structure; there is no Dee
or D-structure.
Thus, for example, given the Logical Semantic Represen
tation of the sentence 'The shoe hurts' with its comple
propositional structure of arguments and predicates, Trans
formation rules with the Lexicon would apply to provid
the Surface syntactic form of N P ('the shoc') +
V ('hurts')
A Transformation rule places the NP of 'the shoc' in thc
subject position and another Transformation rule select:
'hurt' from the Lexicon bascd on thc underlying meaning 01
'cause pain'. I-'honological rulcs would then convcrt tht
Surface Structure to thc appropriate I'honctic Reprcscnta-
tion.
Such a derivational process captured the imagination of
many linguists and psycholinguistics in the 1970s. For
linguists, mcaning was given its rightful predominant
here W A S the oiitlinc of n trtic
positioll. For psycl~oli~lgirists,
psychologicnl process, that of productior~, whcrc from
mcnning one proceeds to sountl. In co~ltr:~distinctionto
Mental grammar 113
Chomsky's peculiar arrangement, here the components of
meaning, sound and syntax were arranged in a psychologi-
cally advantageous fashion.
By 1980, however, most of the original proponents of
Generative Semantics grammar had abandoned the theory.
Why this happened is not so much due perhaps to
shortcomings of the theory itself as it was to a lack of
perseverance on the part of its proponents in developing it
to meet ever-arising problems. Certainly, Chomsky's
peculiar grammatical framework was less promising. Yet,
Chomsky has prevailed. One factor contributing to Chom-
sky's success has been the tenacity with which he holds to
his- principles. He continually works at dealing with
problems within his own framework so that his grammati-
cal theory is always evolving. Thus, when, for example,
semantics was recognized as lacking in his Syntactic
Structures' theory, Chomsky did not hesitate to incorporate
Katz' semantic ideas into the semantic component for his
Standard Theory. Nor did he refuse Fillmore's ideas of
semantic case grammar for his theta conceptions in GB
theory. It is unfortunate that Generative Semanticists did
not make a comparable effort to deal with problems within
their paradigm. (See Newmeyer, 1986, for a readable
discussion of other Generative Semantics problems.)
In any case, Generative Scmantics has disappeared from
the linguistic scene. Howcvcr, in thc 1980s two new
meaning-based grammars rose from its ashes, Cognitive
Grammar (Langackcr, Gcorgc Lakoff) and Functional
Grammar (Dik, Connolly), both of which are creative
dcvelopmcnts dcrivcd from the Generative Semantics model.
The future may well lic with such meaning-based grammars.
For, as Langacker (1991, p. 275) puts it,
. . . it is ultimately as pointless to analyze grammatical units
without reference to thcir semantic valuc [as in Chomsky's
'autonomous syntax'] as to write a dictionary which omits thc
meanings of lcxical items.
5.5 Discussion questions
1. What is a mental grammnr?
2. Why is ;I n~cntalgrarnm:lr important for psycholinguis-
tics?
114 Language and mind Mental grammar 115
!
3. What is competence, according to Chomsky? Is Chomsky, N. (1986) Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin and
Universal Grammar? Use. New York: Praeger.
Cook, Vivian James (1988) Chomsky's Universal Grammar: A n
4. What is performance, according to Chomsky?
5. Suggest Deep Structures in tree structure form for t!
! Introduction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
4 Dik, S. C. (1991) In Droste and Joseph (1991), pp. 247-74.
following sentences: Droste, F. G. and Joseph, J. E. (eds) (1991) Linguistic Theory and
(a) Bob chased the man. '
,
Grammatical Description. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(b) The man who discovered the robbers called t 1 Fillmore, C. (1977) The case for case reopened. In P. Cole and J.
police.
(c) The police arrested the man who stole the car
the theatre.
(d) Be honest.
' Saddock (eds), Syntax and Semantics: Grammatical Relations. New
York: Academic Press, pp. 59-81.
Horrocks, G. (1987) Generative Grammar. London: Longman.
Lakoff, G. (1971) On generative semantics. In D. D. Steinberg
(e) Gene sang then danced. and L. A. Jakobovits (eds), Semantics: A n Interdisciplinary Reader
1 in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology. New York: Cambridge
(f) For sentence (c) give a second Deep Structure. ( University Press, pp. 232-96.
one interpretation o f the sentence, the police c
Langacker, R. (1987) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford,
the arresting at the theatre. In the other interprel CA: Stanford University Press.
tion, the car was stolen at the theatre.) Newmeyer, F. J. (1986) Linguistic Theory in America (2nd edn).
6. Give a phonetic representation o f the sentence: Lam New York: Academic Press.
eat ivy.
7. Suggest semantic rcprescntations for:
(a) T h e collar pinches.
(b) The dog frightened John. (Hint: T h e verb 'frightc
can be analyscd as 'cause to be afraid'.)
8. In what way do Phrase Structiirc rulcs differ frc
Transformation rules or movcmcnt?
9. What does 'autonon~oussyntax' mean?
10. In what ways does a meaning-based grammar li
Generative Semantics grammar differ from Chomsk:
granlmar?
11. Why have many linguists and psycholinguists foul
n~caning-based grammar morc apycaling psycl~olof
cally than Chomsky's syntax-bascd grammar?

Suggested readings

Aisscn, J . L. (1001) Ilcl:ltion:~lgrnmm;lr. In 1)rostc : I I I ~Josc~.

(IOOI), pp. 03-102.
I3rcsnnn, J. (1078) A realistic tr;insforn~:rtio~ial grnnimnr. In IL
I-lnllc ;lnd J. 13rcsn:11i(i.ds), I.ir!~rristic. '7'lrc~oryclrrti I's)~rlrolo,~ir,
Krality. C;;irnhridgc, M;rss.: MI-1' I'rcss, pp. 1-50.
(:holnsky, N.( I O H I ) I,c,r~rrrc~x
o~r(;ovc-rrrrrrc-rrtcirrti ljirrtliry. I >ordrccli
I~lollnnrl:Foris I)ublic;ltio~ls.

CHAPTER 6
Sentence processing and
psychological reality
6.1 Meaning, sound and syntax relations in
Chomsky's grammar
While over the past decades, Chomsky's theory of gramma
has developed into one of increasing complexity an
abstractness, at the same time certain essentials have nc
changed. The fundamental conception, as to how the thrc
basic components of the grammar - mcaning, sound, an
syntax - are related to one anothcr, remains the samc. .
schema of this relationship, as was disciisscd in the p r c v i o ~
chapter, is shown in Figure 6.1.
MEANING
SYNTAX Logical Form (LF)
Figure 6.1 Chomsky's sound, 1ncani11gand syntax rclatio~is
Chonlsky claims that the organization of his gramm:
is designed so as to account for the relationship of sound t
meaning through the medium of syntax. What is strikin
licrc, tliough, is the way C h o ~ n s k y r.cl:~tcs sound a n
mcaning. Chomsky docs not hcgin with the ~iicaningof th
scntcncc nor tlic sound pattern of the scntcncc; he begin
with the sy~itaxof the sc~ltcncc.111 fict, he st;lrts with tll
lcttcr S, which, altllough one nliglit bc tcmptcd to intcrprc
it as nlcaning 'scntcncc', ;~ctunllyhas no significa~lcci~
(:holi~rky's schcnic. T l ~ cs t r u c t ~ ~ r tI1;it
c s rcprcscblitt11c sounc
Sentence processing and psychological reality 117
or Phonetic Form (PF) and the meaning o r Logical Form
(LF) of a sentence are first generated from the syntax, which
is activated by the vacuous S. ('Generate' is used here by
'
Chomsky in an idiosyncratic way to mean 'define' and not
'produce'.) T h e meaning of the sentence does not determine
I
syntax nor does the sound pattern of the sentence determine
syntax. Rather, syntax functions independently ('auto-
nomously') of meaning and sound. The meaning and sound
pattern o f a sentence is defined by the function o f syntax. In
this conception, only syntax is 'generative'. (An outline of
Chomsky's grammar can be found in Chapter 5.)
6.2 - Why Chomsky's grammar is not a performance
model
Given how meaning, sound and syntax are related in
Chomsky's grammar, it will become clear why that
grammar could not possibly be a model o f speaker
'
performance either for the production o r for the under-
standing of sentences. Let us first consider what the true
! process of speaker production must involve. Such a process
must begin with the ideas of what a person wants to
express, and, it must end with speech sounds. A speaker has
i some ideas he or she wishes to express and then uses speech
sounds to try to communicate those ideas. In Chomsky's
tcrminology, this proccss would begin with something like
Logical Form (LF) and end with thc Phonetic Form (PF).
I For spcakcr understandin,q the truc process would
involvc a rcvcrse ordering. First w c hcar the speech sounds
that someone uttcrs and from thosc sounds wc recover thc
mcaning tlicy rcprcscnt. 111 Chomsky's tcrminology, thc
1 process would begin with the PF and end with thc LF.
The csscncc of the production and understanding
pcrformancc proccsscs arc as shown below. (Thc question
mark ( 2 ) along with syntax is mcrcly to indicate that other,
unspecified, components arc i n c l ~ d c d . Thc
) ordcr in Chom-
sky's grammar is also prcscntcd for con~parisonpurposes.
Scrrterrcc production pc.cfi:formnncc.order
Meaning (LF) + ISyntax + ?I + Sound (I'F)
Scrrterrce rrndcrstnndin,q pc'rfi:formnnccorder
Sound (PI-') + [Syntax + ?I + Meaning (LF)
118 Language and mind
Chomsky grammar order
4 Sound (PF)
Syntax
+ Meaning (LF)
From this, it is clear that Chomsky's grammar cou
not be used directly as either a model of production o r .
understanding. Chomsky is aware of this and has lo1
cautioned readers not to interpret his grammar as a kind
performance process. As Chomsky (1967; pp. 435-6) saj
It would be tempting but quite absurd, to regard it [the g r a m m
as a model of performance as well. Thus, w e might propose tl
to produce a sentence, the speaker goes through the success;
steps of constructing a base-derivation [D-structure] line by 11
from the initial symbol S, then inserting lexical items a
applying transformations to form a surface structure, and fina
applying the phonological rules in their given order. . . . Therc
not the slightest justification for any such assumption. In fact,
implying that the speaker selects the general properties o f senter
structure before selecting lexical items (before deciding what hc
going to talk about), such a proposal seems not only withc
justification but entirely counter to whatever vague intuitions c
may have about the processes that underlie production.
Neithcr meaning nor sound is a starting point. Rathc
meaning and sound are the products of syntax; they are n
related to one another in any direct way.
N o w , if Chomsky's grammar is not itsclf a perfc
mance process, then in what sense is it rclcvant to t
production and understanding of sentences? Obvious
Chomsky considers it relevant, otherwise he would n
claim, as hc does, that a mental granlmar cxists in pcoplc
minds. He is quite emphatic in this regard, having state
Hcncc, in the technical sense, linguistic theory is mcntnlistic, sin
it is concerned with discovering a mental reality underlying actu
behavior.
(Chomsky, 1005, p.
TIic linguist's grammar is a scientific theory, correct insofir ns
c o r r c s p o ~ ~ dtos the intcrn,~lly rcprcscntcd grnmnlilr.
(C;lionisky, 1080, p. 221
Obviously cvcry spc;~kcr of :I I;lngiiagc lins n ~ ; ~ s t c r c dnn
intcrn:llizcd a gcncr:rtive gr;1mnl;tr t1i:lt cbxprcsscs his kllowlcdgc c
his 1n11g11:lgc..
((:Iion~sky, 1005, p. H
Sentence processing and psychological reality 119
In order to support his claim that his grammar is
psychologically real, even though it is neither a model of
i production nor of understanding, Chomsky has made it an
: essential part of the performance process. He asserts that his
grammar will be used in both the processes of sentence
! production and understanding. In this regard, the speaker
must develop some sort of use rules, heuristics, o r strategies
so that the grammar can be used for such performance
processes. T h e sort of model that Chomsky has in mind is
\ discussed in the following section.
1
6.3. Types of performance models
Essentially, two basic performance conceptions are possible.
The first conception takes what I call a Resource Grammar
approach. (Formerly I have referred to this as a 'componen-
tial' model.) Here, the grammar is used as a sort of resource
in order that a speaker may engage in the process of
X producing or understanding sentences. So that the knowl-
edge embodied in the grammar can be tapped, certain
strategies or heuristics are necessary. This approach is the
one that Chomsky advocates.
j Thc second conception takes, what I call, a Process
Grammar approach. Hcrc, a grammar (or grammars) is itself
a process in thc production o r understanding of sentences.
For example, since semantic-based grammars like Func-
1 tional Grammar and Gcncrativc Semantics Grammar follow
thc Pcrformancc Production Order (shown above), such
grammars could thcmsclvcs bc rcgardcd as a pcrformancc
modcl of scntcncc production. Grammar is itself a proccss.
i
6.3.1 Chomsky's resource grammar performance
model
To understand Cl~omsky'sconception, nn a~lalogy111ight bc
helpful hcrc. Consider the solvi~lgof arithmetic problems
such ;IS multiplicatio~~and division. Esscntial to tllc solving
of such problcrns is thc n~nltiplicationtablc, a tablc whicl~
includes all products and con~bi~iations,c.g. a 1 0 X 1 0 t;zlslc,
wlicrc 1 x 1 = 1, 1 x 2 = 2, and s o on to 1 0 x 10 = 100.
120 Language and mind Sentence processing and psychological reality 121
Such a table by itself, however, will not solve a proble~
like 468 X 32 = - -?- -. Multiplication Division
In order to solve this problem (by hand or mentally answer answer
we must know what digits are to be multiplied together ar
in what order, and we must know what numbers to reco
and which to hold in storage. Thus, we start with 2 X 8 (t':
rightmost digits of each of the two numbers) and follo Use rules Use rules
Multiplication Multiplication
this with 2 x 6 (moving one digit leftward on the longt problem
-b
number). How much is 2 x 8 and 2 x 6? Well, for the
answers we dip into our memorized multiplication tat
where we find that 2 x 8 = 16, and 2 x 6 = 12. For t Figure 6.2 A resource model of arithmetic performance
product of 16, we record the 6 and hold the 1 in storage. 1
use storage when the product consists of more than o to the production and understanding of sentences is like that
digit. And so the process continues. We use resour of the multiplication table. One grammar serves as a
knowledge, the multiplication table, and we use rules tl- resource for performance. Since there are two performance
enable us to access that knowledge. Thus, we may say tl- processes to be explained, two sets of Use rules are
two types of knowledge are involved here, the multiplic required: one set for production, the other for understand-
tion table and a set of rules that uses that table for t ing. The schema shown in Figure 6.3 represents Chomsky's
purpose of solving multiplication problems. conception of a language performance model.
The multiplication table is also an indispensat
resource that we use when we want to do division, as in Speech Meaning
problem like 48319. Here, we must apply a different set sound
use rules than those we apply for multiplication. F
example, in solving this division problem (according to o;
method), we first take the lcftmost digit of the number
be divided (4), and see if it is equal to or lcss than tl
number we are dividing by (9). Since 4 is lcss than 9, thc
we go on to the next digit to the right (8). We then divic
48 by 9. In order to carry out this division, however, \;r
Mcnning -b ++I
Usc rulcs
production Grnmnlnr
Use rules
understanding Speech
so~111d

n ~ u s tuse the multiplication table. There we search for
product where 9 times something is either equal to or Ic:
than 48, and select 9 x 5 = 45 (we reject 9 x 6 = 54 bccaus
it is more than 48). We record the 5, subtract 45 from 4t
and continue on witli the application of various rules unt
we arrivc a t an answer.
A niodcl of arithmetic pcrformancc bascd o n thi
discussion is shown in Figure 6.2. There we see that t11
multiplicatiori table is used as a resource for the solving o
multiplication and divisio~iproblems. There is one set o
Use rulcs for performance proccss of ~~~iiltiplicatio~l ant
anotlicr set for the pcrfornlancc process of division.
C:lio~nsky's view of the rolc of n grammar witli respect
Figure 6.3 Chornsky's resourcc grnniniar pcrformancc modcl
Essentially, production pcrforn~anccinvolves meaning
or idcas ns input, and spcccli as output, whilc undcrstanding
involves spcccli as input and caning as output. When
given input, one of the sets of Use rulcs will interact with
the g r a ~ i i n u rto provide an output.
Just what these Use rulcs might he has not been
Chomsky's concern. That burden is o ~ i ctliat lic has assigned
psyclioli~~g~iists, a n assignment bascd on a division of labour
that lie himself cstablislicd. According to tliat division, i t is
for the linguist to describe gr;llnlnar whilc i t is for the
psycliolinguist to dcscrihc how th;lt granllnnr is to he i~scti
122 Language and mind
in performance. Many psycholinguists, particularly in t t
early revolutionary days of Chomsky's grammatical theori:
ing, have willingly accepted their given assignment.
6.3.2 A process grammar performance model
In contrast to Chomsky's resource grammar conception
performance, there are process type of grammars that a
part of the process itself - for example, some o f t.
grammars discussed in the previous chapter, such as t
semantic-based grammars (Functional Grammar, main
derived from Generative Semantics Grammar) and psych
logical process grammars (Cognitive Grammar). T
semantic-based grammars could serve directly as models
sentence production since they take the meaning o f the se
tence as input and provide the sound pattern of the senten
as output. However, to suppose that a speakcr would actual
go step by step through such a grammar to produce a senten
is doubtful. This would bc too time consuming a procer
A speaker would takc short-cuts by proccssing differe
levelsat the same time. (See Section 6.4 bclow for furth
discussion on this point.)
That thc production and con~prcl~cnsion proccsscs a
in some way intcrrelated must surely bc thc casc. Both mc
share the samc Icxicon, for cxamplc, although how cal
proccss gains access to and uses the lexicon undoubtcd
will bc different. The same could bc said for syntact
principles. Surely there must be a relationship, for cxampl
bctwecn the knowledge needed to construct an intcrrogati~
form and the knowledge nccdcd for idcntifying the san-
form. Such considcrations, incidentally, w o i ~ l dnot lead to
grammar likc Chomsky's bccausc Cho~nsky'scompctcncc 1
not written with such problcms in mind.
Any complctc modcl of speaker performance, morc
ovcr, must takc into account morc than si111pIc nicaning
The scntcnccs we utter arc i~ttcrcdfor n purpose, to fl:lttcr
to insult, to praise, ctc. Then, too, politcncss, in long wit1
other intcrpcrsonal variables, also scrvcs to dctcr~nincthc
form and content of a scntcncc. ('Open the window' ;ini
'Would you plcasc he so kind as to open the window?' nlny
havc the s;lnlc purpose but they differ grc;~tlyin politc.11css
Icvcl.) Such pragnl;itic aspects oi' I;lngu;~gc ;Ire clc;lrly
Sentence processing and psychological reality 123
essential to any model of speaker performance. As Leech
(1983) persuasively argues, these are best conceived o f as a
set of variables which operate to determine the form o f the
initial semantic structure and are not included in the
grammar itself.
6.3.3 No workable performance model yet with
Chomsky's grammar
Although it has been more than 25 years since Chomsky
first proposed his competence-performance distinction and
the model of performance it entails, as yet n o workable
performance model using his grammar has been formulated.
Even some of Chomsky's most ardent and brilliant
psycholinguistic supporters, e.g. McNeill, Bever, Mehler
and Garrett, have not succeeded in the task. O n e cannot
help but wonder, therefore, w h y this is the case. T w o
distinct possibilities come to m y mind. Either psycholin-
guists are not smart enough t o create a workable model, or,
there is something wrong with Chomsky's conception o f
grammar such that a performance model cannot be devised.
I belicve the latter to be the case, not only because I am a
psycholinguist looking for a face-saving device but because
thcrc arc strong reasons for doubting the psychological
validity of Chomsky's grammatical theorizing. Beforc
dcaling with this issuc (Scction 6.5 bclow), I would first like
to considcr in morc dctail the pcrformancc proccsses o f
production and understanding.
6.4 Some features of sentence production and
understanding
6.4.1 Explaining the speed of conversations
Have you ever wondcrcd how i t is that w e ;ire so cli~ickn t
producing and undcrst;inding scntcnccs in ;I convcrs:ltion? I t
is truly ;im;~zinghow ni;iny scntcnccs arc dealt with in ;I
short mount of'tinlc. I-low this is done nccds explaining. 111
this rcgnrd, Inany psycholinguists, including ~i~ysclf-,
hclicvc
that such spccd is nladc possible by n spc;~kcror 11c:ircr
hnving knowledge and str;itcgic.s th;it oftell c,~~:il>lc
onib to
124 Language and mind I Sentence processing and psychological reality 125
jump directly from meaning t o sound and vice ver:
Motivation, perception of the world, etc
without the mediation of syntax in the process o f unde
standing and producing sentences.
A strict sequencing among the semantic, syntactic ar i
.
phonetic levels need not be observed. It would not 1 * Knowledge
4
necessary to wait until an entire level of structure of t! i Thought Process Stock of Conceptual Elements
sentence is formed (the entire Surface Structure, ff i
t and Relations
example) before proceeding to the next level of structur I I I
Rather, one could be doing different things with differe
parts of the sentence. In production, for example, while I t
Purpose + Proposition
part of surface structure is already being converted (essence of thought to be communicated)
Phonetic Form, other parts of Surface Structure could
just in the process of being formed from the seman
structure. Then, too, because the production of a senten Pragmatics
involves the output of words in a linear order, i.c. wor
must be uttered in a proper sequence, some portions o f t t
sentence could be uttered in speech even while 0th Semantic S t ~ c t u r e
portions are still in the process of formation. (complete thought to be communicated)
In this respect, familiar phrases and sentences a
especially useful. Items like 'the little boy', 'bread a1
butter', 'Wherc is it?' and, for linguists, a host of itcms fro
linguistic arguments such as Chomsky's 'John is eager Basic Strategies
please', 'John is easy to plcase' and 'Colourlcss green ide
sleep furiously'. Undoubtcdly thcsc phrases and sentenc
are stored in memory in their cntircty, in tcrms of thc
Transformational Rules Storcd Items
meaning, sound and syntactic propcrtics, just as arc sing
I
words like 'dog' or 'cclipsc'. Such itclns would not nccd
bc created or analyscd in a way that novel phrascs a1
sentences must be. Whcn one wishes to cxprcss or I
understand the meaning of somc of thcsc stock itcms, thc
could be trcated as wholes and grammatical principles ncc
not be applied. The more frequently a word, phrase c
scntcnce occurs, thc more accessible it will bccon~c fc
speedy use.
v
I'l~o~~ctic.
Structurr

6.4.2 Some features of sentence production

The nim of thc production proccss is to provide n set o
sounds for thc thought that the spcakcr wishes to convey
The csscntinls of that proccss arc shown in Figure 0.4.
Thc following arc somc bricf remarks on the com-
poileiits xld their opcr;~tionsin thc proccss. Figure 6.4 Scntcncc yroduction proccss
126 Language and mind
Thought Process This universal process uses knowledge
and a stock of concepts to create thoughts. It is stimulatec
by various mental and environmental influences.
Purpose + Proposition This is the essential though
which a person wishes to communicate to someone. It i
conceptual and non-linguistic in nature. Communication o
this thought may be realized through linguistic o r behav
ioural means. The purpose o f a thought involves suc
intentions as questioning, asserting, denying and warnin
with respect to a proposition. T h e proposition consists c
two basic types of concepts: arguments (usually realized a
nouns in language) and predicates (usually realized as vert
and adjectives).
Pragrnafics and Semantic Structure Politcness, persuasio
and other pragmatic factors will influence what the fin:
meaning of the sentence (Semantic Structure) will be. It
this Semantic Structure that will get realized in speech. Par1
o f this structure can bc phoneticizcd directly or through th
syntax and phonological rulcs.
Basic strat~~qiesThis component identifies certain prc
perties of the Semantic Structurc and assigns scarchcs to E
done of thc Stored Items and Transforn~ational rule!
Immediate recovery of aspccts o f thc Phonctic Structurc I
possible without convcrsion to thc syntactic Surfacc Struc
ture.
Phonetic Strticture and acoustic- siqnal T h c I'honcti
Structure is a psychological (non-physical) lcvcl whic.
reprcscnts the pronunciation o f thc sentcncc. I t consists o
discrctc spccch sounds and prosodic features (pitch, stress
ctc.). 0 1 1 thc basis of the l'honctic Structurc, the ~ i i o v c
mcnts of the articulators of spccch (tonguc, lips, voca
chords, ctc.) arc controlled so as to provide physical speech.
which appcars in the environment as the acoustic signal.
6.4.3 Some features of sentence understanding
Given spccch sounds ;IS input, the prohlcm is to cspl;~in
how we recover the idcns th:it arc rcprc.sc~ltcd hy those
sounds. The discussion which I sh;rll prcscllt hcrc docs ,rot
rcgard such :I process ;is bci11g princip;llly oric~ltc'd to
recovering synt;~cticstructurc.~within ;I (:ho~nsky;~nfr:ln~c-
work. Tliis h:ls bc.c11 ;~ttcnlptc.tl by I 3 ~ c r ,(;;~rrctt.Jerry
Sentence processing and psychological reality 127
Fodor, Foss and Hakes with little success. Such Chomskyan
theorists see the immediate goal o f the sentence-understand-
ing process as the determination o f syntactic D-structure,
after which the Logical Form will be recovered by means of
S-structure.
For example, Fodor, Bever and Garrett have postulated
that a string o f incoming words are first identified in terms
of their grammatical class (noun, verb, etc.) so that for
English a syntactic strategy like
A F U N D A M E N T A L S Y N T A C T I C STRATEGY
+ + +
N P V NP += Subject Verb Direct Object +
can apply. This means that the first N P is identified as the
Subject, while the N P that follows the V is identified as the
Direct Object. This would fit a large number o f English
sentences such as 'Mary pushed Sally' and 'The cat chased
the mouse'. After the syntactic D-structure consisting o f
Subject + Verb + Object is recovered, then other syntactic
and then semantic rules from the grammar are applied to
determine the semantic structure (LF) o f the sentence.
In m y estimation, and that o f others like Schlesinger
and Wanner, such a view o f the process o f sentence
understanding is mistaken in the extreme. A more par-
simonious and relevant approach is one that is geared to the
inlmcdiatc rccovcry o f the meaning aspccts o f a scntcncc.
Basic stratcgics, thcrcforc, arc bcttcr spccificd in terms o f
scmantic aspccts. Thus, rathcr than the stratcgy o f NP V +
+ NT' += Subjcct, ctc., thc stratcgy would bc a scmantic
stratcgy, son~cthinglikc
A F U N I I A M E N T A L S E M A N T I C STRATEGY
Living Thing + Action + Thing + Agent +
Action + Action's Object
Hcrc, with the idc~~tificatio~i o f the individual concepts of
'Living Thing', 'Action' and 'Thing', t l ~ cscmantic roles of
'Agent' and 'Action's Oljcct' arc a s s i g ~ ~ c d(to 'Living
Tllillg' 'Thi~lg', rcspcctivcly) with respect to ' A c t i o ~ ~ ' .
Tllus, given ;i scntcnce likc ' M ; ~ r yp~lshcd S;llly7, t l ~ cfirst
word of ' M ; ~ r y '(:issunling for c o ~ ~ v c ~ ~ i;Ic single
l ~ c c word-
hy-word n11;ilysis) will hc illinicdi:itc.ly idc11tific.d in tllc
128 Language and mind
Stored Items (Lexicon) as the name of a person, person
being an item that includes the meaning of living thing. Tht
strategy would tentatively assign 'Mary' the role of Agent
(the cause of an action). The strategy is then primed tc
expect some sort of action to appear next. When the worc
'pushed' is heard, this expectation is confirmed. Thc
strategy then expects the occurrence of some sort of thing
which will be assigned the role of Action's Object (thc
semantic rather than the syntactic object). This will bc
confirmed when the word 'Sally' appears, for it will bl
identified as the name of a person, which includes in it
meaning, thing. 'Sally' will then be assigned the semanti,
role of Action's Object. In this way, the basic semanti,
structure can be recovered without having to work througl
syntactic rules. O f course, sometimes it will be necessary tc
resort to grammatical rules in order to identify structures
However, fundamental understanding strategies should a1
be formulated in semantic rather than syntactic terms.
6.5 The psychological unreality of Chomsky's
grammar
6.5.1 The psychological contradiction in Chomsky's
theorizing
Chomsky claims that the principlcs and rulcs of hi:
grammar are psychologically real. I do not believe that chi:
is logically possible due to an essential contradiction ir
Chon~sky'stheorizing.
When wc look at the content of the principles arid
parameters which Chomsky writes, we find that they are
ncccssarily based 011 what lie conccivcs to be the rclationship
of meaning, sound and syntax. This could not he othcrwisc
sincc the specific rulcs of a grainmar cannot be written
indcpcndcntly of the postulated rclationship o f syntax to
meaning and sound, i.c. the directional rclationsl~ipobtain-
ing anlolig the lcvcls of 1)-structiirc, S-structure, Logical
Fornl and I'honctic Form. Thus, for cxnniplc, syntactic
pri~lciplcs:lrc written with the purpose. of co~~vcrting I>-
structures to S-structurcs. I'hr:lsc Structure rulcs arc writtci~
with the purpose of converting tllc 1cttc.r S to :I 19-srructurc.
Sentence processing and psychological reality 129
Phonological and Semantic rules are likewise written so as
to account for certain levels o f structure; from S-structure to
LF and PF. T h e content o f the rules of grammar are thus
determined b y the directional relationship which C h o m s k y
postulates w i t h respect to the levels of his grammar.
But, what does Chomsky say about this directional
relationship in his grammar? H e declares, and rightly so,
that it would be 'absurd' to propose that in producing a
sentence a speaker would start from the initial letter S,
construct a D-structure line by line, then insert lexical items
and apply transformations to form a S-structure, etc. As he
emphasizes in the quotation cited earlier in this chapter,
'. . . such a proposal seems not only without justification
but entirely counter to whatever vague intuitions one may
have about the processes that underlie production.'
Thus, Chomsky asserts, the process of generating a
linguistic derivation is not a process that a speaker would
ever employ in producing a sentence. The same, of course,
would be true for the understanding of sentences - a
performance process that must begin with sound and not
the letter S and a variety of syntactic principles. This being
the case, it is clear that the directional order of structure
construction in C h o m s k y l s grammar is a psychological jiction
Izavit?<qno basis in actual speaker performance.
Now, since the direction order in Chomsky's grammar
is psychologically unreal, and sincc the content of his
grammatical principlcs arid parameters arc determined by
this dircctional order, we can only concludc that C/zomskyls
principles and paranzeters are as psycholo~qically unreal as the
psyclzolqqically rrnrc~alovdcr on u ~ h i c hthey were based. (For more
details on this argument, see Stcinbcrg, 1976 and 1982,
pp. 77-80.)
Given such a psychological self-coiitradictioii, it is clear
' that Chomsky's graii~matical theorizing is con~plctcly
flawed psychologically. It remains the same sort of
fornialistic non-psychologic;11 theory of grammar that lie
origiilnlly proposed in thc 1050s.
6.6 The anti-Mentalist skeletons in Chomsky's closet
How is i t that (:hornsky's theorizing has rcsultcd i l l this
internal psyc11ologic:il contradiction? A study o f (:hornsky's
130 Language and mind
early writings provides the answer to this question. T h
facts show that Chomsky was not always a Mentalist an
that the psychological theorizing for his grammar cam
some years later. For, prior to the 1960s, Chomsky did nc
hold that the rules of his grammar had counterparts in th
minds of speakers. N o r did he hold that his gramrn;
represented speaker knowledge. N o t only that, but, as
have detailed elsewhere (Steinberg, 1982), Chomsky in ti
1950s was anti-Mentalistic, formalistic and even a Behaviouri
supporter!
Let us consider a few quotations from Chomsky.
He [mentalist philosopher Wells] offers this in criticism
Bloomfield's program of avoiding mentalistic foundations fc
linguistic
" theorv. . . . I do not believe that this is relevant I
Bloomfield's anti-mentalism. The fact that a certain gener
criterion of significance [reductionism] has been abandoned do,
not mean that the bars are down. and that 'ideas' and 'meaning"
become proper concepts for linguistics, any more than it meal
that ghosts are proper conccpts for physics. . . . it seems to n
that it u ~ i l lrule ocrt rnentalism for w h a t were essentinlly Bloori?field?
reasons, i.e., its o6scurity and 'qeneral uselessness in lin<qrdistic tlzeor
(Chomsky, 1955; I , 19-20; author's italr
Here wc find Chomsky supporting B l o o ~ ~ ~ f i c lad ,prc
Behaviourist linguist, in his attack on Mcntalism, idcas an
meanings. (Ideas and meanings arc attackcd bccausc suc
abstract entities lcad to a thcory of mind.)
Surpriscd! H o w about this onc?
Whatcvcr the situation may be in other sciences, I think that thci
is hope of developing t h a t aspect of linguistics theory bcin
studicd hcrc on the basis of a small number of nrimitivcs. and tli;
irrtvodrrctiori of disl7ositiorrs (or rrrc~rrtn/ist tcrrrrs) is cit/rr7r irrcs/cr~nrrt,(
trilIinlirc's ,/I(. tlr1,Or)~.
(Chon~sky,1055; 1. 20-1 ; author's itnlil
Is it any wonder t h c ~ ithat Chomsky's grnmniatical theor-
in the 1050s had no n~caningor scmnntic conlponcnt? 11
fact, in his 1055 work, C:honisky devoted over ;I huiidrct
pagcs to ; ~ t t ; ~ c kthe
i ~ ~rclcvnlicc
g o f scnl;intics to grnmin;ir
'Tllc scmnlltic coniponcnt of his grnnin1;lr w;ls o ~ i l y;iddcd i i
tlic lOOOs, ;it which tinlc (:lioliisky h;id t;ikcn up thC c;~usc
of iiiclit;llisni. Eve11 so, scnia~itics w;ls givcn o ~ i l y :
sCcolid;lry rolc. Synt;ls co~itini~cd t o hc givcll tlic ~>riiii;~ry
Sentence processing and psychological reality 131
autonomous role in the grammar, the same role that it had
in Chomsky's original work in the 1950s.
It is because Chomsky continued to give syntax a
primary role, while at the same time making mentalistic
claims about his grammar, that Chomsky fell into psycho-
logical self-contradiction. N o t even his brilliant com-
petence-performance solution was enough to save the
theory, although it did serve to detract critics from focusing
: psychological attention o n the grammar.
( 6.7 Discussion questions
1. Can Chomsky's grammar serve as a model o f speaker
production o r understanding?
2. Can a semantic-based grammar serve as a model of
speaker production o r understanding?
3. What is Chomsky's competence-performance distinc-
tion?
4. Why does Steinberg believe that Chomsky is obliged to
postulate a resource type o f performance model rather
than a proccss type for his grammar?
5. Why does Stcinberg assert that the rules o f Chomsky's
grammar arc gcncrally psychologically invalid?
6. H o w , in Stcinbcrg's view, did thc internal contradic-
tion in Chomsky's psychologizing about grammar
'
arisc?
7. Considering thc proccss o f scntcncc understanding,
Stcinbcrg argucs that scmantic-bascd stratcgics arc
morc csscntial than syntactic oncs. What is his
argi11nc11t?
Suggested readings
Chon~sky, Nonm (1 055) '17re l.o,qircll Strrrrtrrrc 01' l.iri,qrristic T11eor)r.
Library a t the MIT, (:an~hridgc, Mnss. (7'his is the origin;ll
uncditcd version; thc puhlislicd version omits nl:lny relevant
pnss:rgcs.)
(:hornsky, No:in~ (1005) Aspc,rts o f tlrc- 'l'lrr*ory (11' S y r r t n , ~ .
(::~rnhridgc, M;iss.: MIT I'rcss.
132 Language and mind
Chomsky, Noam (1967) The formal nature of language. In I
Lenneberg, Biological Foundations of Language. New York
Wiley.
Chomsky, Noam (1980) Rules and Representations. New Yor
Columbia University Press.
Dechert, Hans W. and Raupach, Manfred (eds) (1987) Psycholi
guistic Models of Production. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishin
Fodor, Jerry A,, Bever, Thomas G. and Garrett, Merrill F. (197
T h e Psychology of Language. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Garman, Michael (1990) Psycholinguistics. Cambridge: Cambrid
University Press.
Leech, Geoffrey (1983) Pvinciples of Pragmatics. London: Longma
Levelt, Willem, J. M. (1989) Speaking: from Intention to Avticu
rion. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press (Bradford Books).
Steinberg, Danny D. (1976) Competence, performance and t
psychological invalidity of Chomsky's grammar. Synthere, :
37S86.
Steinberg, Danny D. (1982) Psycholin<quistics: Larz~~ua~qe,
Mind L
World. London: Longman.
Taylor, Insup and Taylor, M. Martin (1990) Psyc/zolinguist
Learning and Usirrg Language. Englcwood Cliffs, NJ: Prcnti,
Hall.
CHAPTER 7
Language: from intelligence or
innate ideas?
7.1 Where do language ideas come from?
7.1 .I The quest for the perfect circle
W e have minds and w e have ideas in o u r minds. W e have
language ideas there, and all sorts o f other ideas. B u t where
d o these ideas come from? H o w did the ideas w e have in
o u r minds get there in the first place? T o illustrate the
problems involved in attempting t o answer such cpis-
temological questions, let us first look into o n e idea in detail
- a familiar one: the perfect circle.
You look at a wheel and wonder if it is a perfect circle.
Probably not, you think. B u t then what exactly is a 'circle',
particularly a 'perfect circle'? Would you be able t o identify
o n c if you saw it? Y o u look at thc sun, a full m o o n , a round
coin. H o w can you tcll whcthcr any o f these circles is
pcrfcct o r not?
Y o u might think that, by measuring thosc objects - thc
coin, for cxamplc - yo11 could find out. You say that from
thc ccntrc point outward to all cdgcs, the distancc should bc
cqual. 13ut, h o w d o you k n o w cxactly whcrc thc ccntrc
point is, and whcrc cxactly is thc bcginning o f thc cdgc?
H o w is it possible to establish thcsc s o that thc incasuring
can bcgin? Wcll, you might n o w think o f anotlicr approach,
drawing lincs from tlic edge inward towards the middle o f
the coin. Supposc you inanagc to get a11 of your lincs to
riicct, car1 you bc siirc that they nlcct cx;lctly? Even with tlic
most sopliisticatcd n ~ c a s u r i ~instriin~c.nts,
~g tlicrc will bc
some dcgrcc o f error. Ijiit, rnc:lsi~rcn~cntaside, Ict 11s
consider, c.vc11 marc importantly, whc-thcr, pllysically, a
pcrfcct circle ;~ctuallydocs csist in the world. Wcll, all w e
 a r:
- 3 s
0 V
'ac 3

.-
3_-
C 3 'd
L -
xsJ

3 7 .?
Su-
138 Language and mind
all human beings, i.e. they are universal, and are the basis
on which human grammars are constructed. (The construc-
tion principles themselves are part of the language faculty.)
Virtually an infinite number of grammars (enough tc
account for any human language) can be constructed fron-
this finite set of ideas. It is this innate set of language idea:
that Chomsky refers to as the Language Faculty oi
Universal Grammar (UG). (In the past Chomsky referred tc
it as the 'Language Acquisition Device' or LAD.) Languagc
experience, of a particular human language, is necessar)
before U G can operate so as to provide the child with :
grammar of that language. Without such experience, ;
person could not acquire language.
Chomsky (1988m pp. 133-4) states that U G consists of
fixed and invariant principles . . . and the parameters of variatior
associated with them. We can then, in effect, deduce particulal
languages by setting the parameters in one or anothcr way. . .
The environment determines the way the parameters of univcrsa
grammar are set, yielding different languages.
Universal Grammar also allows for basic catcgorie5
(verbs, nouns, adjcctivc and adpositions (prepositions 01
postpositions)) and phrases that arc associated with thcsi
categories (verb phrasc, noun phrasc and adpositional
phrases). Only occasionally docs Chomsky get very specific
about the content of U G such as whcn lie attributcs thc
concept of 'climb' to it:
. . .try to dcfine a word like 'table' or 'book' or wliatcvcr, and
you'll find it's extremely difficult. . . . A rcccnt issue o f a
linguistics journal . . . has a long dctailcd articlc trying to givc tlic
meaning of the word 'climb'. And it is very complicated, but
every child learns it perfect right away. N o w that can only mean
one thing. Namely, human naturc [innate idcas] givc us the
conccpt 'climb' for frcc. That is, thc coticcpt 'clinib' is just part of
the way in wliicli we arc able to interpret cxperic~iccto use bcforc
we even have the experience. This is probahly true for most
conccpts tliat have words for t h c ~ nin Iang~~;lgc. This is tlic* way
wc Icnrn language. Wcs siwrply Icnvrr /Irc8 l n l ~ c l /lrn/ ,qoro.v rrfi/lr /Irt.
pucc.uis/in,q rorrrcsp/. So in otlicr words, it is ;is if the child, prior to
any cxpcricncc, has a long list of concepts likc 'climh', : ~ n dtlicn
the child is looking ;it thr world to figurc o i ~ twl~iclisound gocs
wit11 the co~lccpt.
(017. cit., pp. 100-1 ;~t~tIior's italic)
Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 139
Chomsky views the acquisition of any particular
language as occurring independently of intelligence, logic or
, reason. The faculties of the mind thus are conceived of as
generally operating relatively independently of one another;
Universal Grammar and not intelligence (or logic or reason)
is what will provide for language acquisition. Mathematics,
it might be noted for future reference, was earlier regarded
by Chomsky as being associated with logic and not at all
,I related to Universal Grammar. H e revised this position in
the 1980s, however, due to a telling argument by Putnam in
the 1970s (to be discussed later). Chomsky n o w argues that
mathematics itself is derived from Universal Grammar.
'
Thus, U G is said to account not only for language but for
mathematics as well.
7.4 Arguments re intelligence and Universal
Grammar
Until Chomsky came along in the 1960s with his Rationalist
idcas, western philosophy and psychology tended to
be dominated by such doctrines as Behaviourism and
Logical Positivism, ones that are antipathetic to the study of
mind. Chomsky not only succeeded in bringing down
Bchaviourism but he succeedcd in making his own
particular brand of Rationalism respectable. By brilliant
strikes against I3chaviourism on two fronts, through
pcrsuasivc linguistic and psycholinguistic argumentation
(scc Stcinbcrg, 1982, Chapter 1, for one summary)
and through advocacy of Rationalist notions, Chomsky
thoroughly discrcditcd Uchaviourisrn. Howcvcr, o ~ i c cmen-
, talism bcca~ncrcspcctablc, the door was opened too for
u~iwclcoliicnicntalist guests, tlic Empiricists. 'Thcsc thinkers
have sincc bcconic Chon~sky's main thcorctical philo-
sophical and psychological opponents, with I'utnam and
I'ingct among the most prominent in this group. The result
has bccn that Chon~sky'sarguments favouring Ilationalis~il
arc n o longer accorded the uncriticnl acccptancc they once
c11.joycd.
I would likc to present licrc some of the main
arguments that Chomsky has offcrcd in support of innate
140 Language and mind
language ideas. At the same time I shall present counter.
arguments that opposition theorists have raised in objectiol
to those arguments.
7.4.1 Chomsky's ease and speed of child acquisition
argument
According to Chomsky, 'A young child is able to gai
perfect mastery of a language with incomparably greate
ease' [than an adult] and 'Mere exposure to the language, fc
a remarkably short period' seems to be all that a child need
to develop the competence o f the native speakcr. Since th
child's remarkable accomplishment in acquiring the gram
mar could not have been through the lengthy accumulatio
of languagc learning that the child would have had t
experience if one were postulating an Empiricist-bast
acquisition process, then, Chomsky argues, this could on1
have occurred with the assistance of the innate languap
faculty (also called Universal Grammar). It is through tf
help of innatc language idcas that the acquisition of languag
is madc so easy and rapid. T h e Empiricist cannot accoul
for such casc and spccd of acquisition.
7.4.2 Objections t o ease and speed of child
acquisition argument
Putnam (1967) has countered Cho~nsky's argument b
comparing the number of hours spent by a child in lcarnin
l a n g ~ a g cwith that of an adult learning :I language. H
col~tcndsthat a child of 4 or 5 years who has Icarncd th
essentials of the language s p c ~ ~ dmuch s more timc in th
process than would an adult, and that this timc is not a shor
timc at all.
To bcttcr understand I'ut~~am'sargumc~lt,Ict 11s crcatc
our own co~lcrctcexample. First Ict 11s estimate the numbc,
of Ilours of exposure to the Iangiingc tl1;lt a11 ordi11;lry 4.
year-old child gets. Wc could ;issu~licthat the ~lunlbcro.
hours per d;ly th;lt the child is csposcd to 1angii;lgc is :11>oi11
10. O f course, whcn tllc child was yotlngcr, tllc cllild woulc'
11:lvc slept morct, Ixscn ;~w;lkcIcss, ctc. Ilut, Ict 11s t:lkc I0
hours as ;I roi111d ti g i ~ r c .( A fcw h o t ~ r shc~ri,or tllcrc won't
111;1kc* nlucll diffc~rc~~cc., :IS you will scc..) N o w , since thcrc
Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 141
are 365 days in a year, that gives us 3650 hours per year.
Over a period o f four years, that is 14,400 hours (3650 x 4).
Is 14,400 hours a large number o f hours o r not? Well,
let us compare it with the number o f hours that, say, a
student is exposed to in one language course at school over
the period o f a semester. If the student has 5 class hours per
week and studies for 2 hours after each class hour (too
idealistic? but let's give Chomsky the benefit o f the doubt)
that makes 15 hours per week. If one semester lasts 18
weeks, then that would be a total of 15 x 18 = 270 hours
for the semester. Let us say the student studies all the year
round by taking three semesters o f the language; that would
make 270 x 3 = 810 hours. N o w , if the student had as
many exposure hours as the child, then the student would
have to study a language at school for (14,400/810), the
equivalent o f 17.8 years! Is 17 years long enough for an
adult to learn the essential grammar o f a language? Putnam
thinks so, and so would most people. If the adult could trim
some years from that 17 in order to accomplish the task (a
not unlikely possibility) the adult (contrary to Chomsky's
presupposition) would then be an even faster learner than
the child.
T h e number of hours that a child spends in lcarning its
native larlguagc is not small (which implies not so easy),
when compared to that o f an adult learning a second
languagc. That being the casc, there is n o need to crcatc
something special to assist the child in language learning.
Language acquisition can be accounted for by step-by-step
learning along E~npiricistlincs. Thcrc is no llccd to posit the
existence o f innatc languagc idcas, mai~ltainsPutnam.
Another problem, OIIC that I would like to offer,
concerns an implied premise for C h o ~ ~ ~ s k yargument. 's
llccausc Chomsky states that children Icarn faster than
adults, and that this superior spccd is the rcsult of thc child
Ilaving U ~ ~ i v c r s a(;ranimar
l to help out, the implication is
that adults d o t r o t have tllc, bc~lcfito f innatc Iangi1;1gc idc;ls.
Why should this bc so? If adults arc dcnicd tllc bc~icfito f
Univcrs;ll r r the11 Univcrs;ll r a r citllcr
wc.;~kc.nsor dries up altogc.thcr with ; ~ g c Yet,. this cot~ldnot
bc so hccnusc ; ~ d i ~ l clrcv
t s ;rhlc Ic;lr11 forcigu In~lguagcs. If
(:honlsky wishes to argue hcrc thnt :ldults wot~lil,with the.
wc-;lkc.~li~ig
or loss of Univcrs;ll ( ; r a r n ~ n ; ~ rI1;lvc
, to Ic.nr11
 142 Language and mind
language in some step-by-step Empiricist way (rather than
by the flash o f Rationalism) then he would have to argue
that such learning is not possible. Otherwise he would be
i contradicting one of his other major arguments for the
,
existence of Universal Grammar: the argument that every
language has certain essential principles or functions that
could not possibly be acquired through experience. (See the
'i
;i
last Chomsky argument presented in this section.) Yet, it is
a fact that, given enough time and proper language and
I environmental input, adult language learners can learn a
foreign grammar rather well - pronunciation problems
I aside.
I
Everything considered, it would seem to Chomsky's
advantage to drop this argument in favour of Universal
Grammar in its entirety. The argument suffers irremediably
I from both empirical and internal theoretical flaws.
; convincingly demonstrated that, as Labov (1970, p. 42)
7.4.3 Chomsky's inadequate language data argument
Chomsky argues that children's acquisition of a wcll-
formed grammar of the language, despite their bcing
exposed to inadequate language data, is evidence of the
assistance of innate language idcas. T h e language data,
Chonlsky (1967, p. 6) insists, arc 'meager in scope', and
'dcgcncratc in quality'. They consist, 'irr layqe rnec?srrvp, o f
/ sentences that deviate in form fro111 the idealized structurcs
defined by the grammar that he [the child] develops'
(cmphasis addcd). Such imperfect language data alone could
not provide the basis for a perfect grammar.
Furthcrn~orc, thcsc data are a minute sample of the
lingi~isticmaterial that has been thoroughly mastered'. Here
Chomsky stresses that cvcn structurcs and principles that d o
not appear in the language data arc ncvcrthclcss accluircd.
Empiricist principles, depending as they do 011 the cxpcri-
cncc of relevant dnta, arc thcrcforc iinablc to cxpl;li~ihow ;I
wcll-formed grammar could be accluircd given such in~pcr-
fcct and insufficient I:111guagc data. Such ill;ldcquatc data
would ncccssnrily result in nn inndccluatc gr:lrnnlar if one
took the En~piricist point of view. As Chomsky ( I O H O ,
p. 12) puts it,
It scc~iist11c.r~ is little hope in :~ccounti~lg
for o ~ l rknowlcdgc [of
Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 143
language] in terms of such [Empiricist] ideas as analogy,
induction, association, reliable procedures, good reasons, and
justification in any generally useful sense, or in terms of
'generalized learning mechanisms' (if such exist).
This latter reference, the reader might n o w recognize,
is a dig at Putnam and his theory o f General Multi-Purpose
Learning Strategies.
7.4.4 Objections t o the inadequate language data
argument
Impevfecf language data as input
Empirical research by Labov, Newport and others have
neatly phrases it,
Thc ungrammaticality of every-day speech appears to be a myth
with no basis in actual fact. In the various empirical studies which
wc havc conducted . . . the proportion of truly ungran~n~atical an
ill-formed sentenccs falls to less than two percent.
Newport, in a long-term study with 15 mothers,
reports an incidcncc of only 1 ungrammatical utterance in
1500. (See Cromcr, 1980, for a review o f such studies.)
While Chomsky could, 011 the basis o f thcsc findings,
I have dropped his 'dcgcncratc' argument without much loss
j to his overall theory, he chose not to. H e presents the
, following countcr-countcr-argurncnt ( C h o n ~ s k y ,1975, f i ~ .
6), obviously with Labov's the 2 per cent finding in mind.
. . . supposc that a scientist were prcsentcd with data, 2 per cent
'
of which arc wrong (but he doesn't know whicl~2 per ccnt).
t Then, he faces sonlc serious difficulties. . . . The fnct that thcsc
difficulties do not sccln to nrisc for the Innguagc Icnrncr, who is,
of course, faced with dcgcncr:~tc d ; ~ t ;of'~ cxpc.ricncc, rccluircs
explanation.
Instcad o f proposing a coniplcx tllcory of innate
langi~agc idcas to try to deal with the 2 per ccnt
u n g r a m n ~ ~ t i c nsentences
l (wliicli can bc due to ;I spc:lkcr
bcing intcrrirptcd in nlid scntcncc, n cl1;lngc of 111inc1,ctc.),
would it not bc nlucli sinlplcr to supposc. that the* child
144 Language and mind
simply disregards those sentences he or she cannot analyse?
T o think that the child would attempt to construct a whole
grammar to account for these few ungrammatical sentences
is unreasonable. Is it not more likely that the child will focus
on the 98 per cent that are grammatical and simply discard
the sentences which present particularly difficult problems?.
True, a meticulous scientist might spend a great amount of
time puzzling over the 2 per cent. There is no good reason,
though, to think that a child would do the same, especially
since, once spoken, the physical data disappear and the
child's attention is drawn to other things. Neither does the
child write down data for future reference. Such problem
data, therefore, can easily be disregarded by the child.
Minute sample as illput
As to Chomsky's claim that only a 'minute sample' of
language is experienced, I am aware of no empirical
evidence which he presents to support that claim. It could
well be that the sentences which thc child cxpcricnccs (finite
though their numbcr may be) docs contain in thcm an
adequate reprcscntation of the syntactic structurcs which the
child has learncd. Thc multitude of child language studies
that have been done seem to bear this out. Rcscarchcrs do
not report that children have learncd of structurcs without
cvcr having been exposed to sentences bearing those
structurcs.
7.4.5 Chomsky's poverty of stimulus argument
This argument is similar to the one just discussed except
that it focuses 011 special linguistics prohlcms, particularly
complcx striicti~rc-dependent rules. Chomsky clain~sthat
ccrtain structurcs arc acquired by childrcn despite the input
data being 'inlpovcrishcd' or lin~itcd. In support of his
view, Chonlsky presents n nuni13cr of cxninplcs. A typical
cxamplc, one hc prcscnts in detail, concerns the formation
of simple clucstions. Let us consider th:~tcx;implc.
The followi~lgarc dcclnrativc-cluestion pairs givcn hy
C:homsky (in I'i;~trclli-l';rl~i~:irini,10X0, p. 30):
( 1 ) (:I) T'hc man is hcrc. - Is tllc niail hcrc?
Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 145
(b) T h e man will leave. -.Will the man leave?
Chomsky asks the reader to consider t w o possible hypotheses
(H) to account for these pairs. For both (a) and (b), the
declarative is first analysed and then, on the basis of this
analysis, the interrogative is formed.
Chomsky first offers HI.
HI: process the declarative from beginning to end {left to right),
word by word, until reaching the first occurrence of the words is,
will, etc.; transpose this occurrence to the beginning {left),
forming the associated interrogative.
Thus, for the sentence 'The man is here', one would
proceed from 'The' to 'man' to 'is' and when one gets to 'is'
one takes 'is' and places it in front of all o f the preceding
words, in this case 'The man'. Thus, the result will be 'Is +
the man here', which is the proper interrogative.
Chomsky then offers H2.
H2: same as HI, but select the first occurrence of is, will, etc.,
following the first noun phrase of the declarative.
Thus, as in HI, one processes the sentence from the
beginning. However, unlike HI, one looks for a noun
phrase. When the identification o f a noun phrase, in this
casc 'Thc man', has bccn made, and when the word 'is'
which in~mcdiatclyfollows is also identified, only then is
thc word 'is' placcd at thc beginning of the scntcnce. (This
transposition is the samc as in H I . ) T h e result is, as with
I-11, thc propcr intcrrogativc of 'Is the nlan hcre?'.
Thus, wc scc that whilc both hypothcscs will yicld thc
propcr intcrrogativc, onc hypothesis, H2, is much more
complex than the othcr, H I . HI only rcquircs an analysis of
a scqucncc of words, whcrcas H2 rcquircs not only an
analysis of n scqucncc of words but also into an abstract
phrasc, the 'noun phrase'. As Chomsky rightly says, 'The
phrases arc "abstract" in that thcir bound:~ricsand labcling
arc not in gcncral pl~ysicallymarked in any way; rather,
they arc mental constructioi~s'. In other words, our
gro11pi11~ of words into a no1111p11r;lsc likc 'the man' o r o f
nlorc complcx ones likc 'the 11:lppy m:rn7 and 'the m;ln who
is I~crc'is not somcthiiig thnt we cnn ohscrvc in the pllysical
world. 0 1 l l y the individ11:rl words :lppc:lr in thc world. Tlic.
g r o i ~ p i ~ i:\lid
g I;lbclli~~g
arc done i l l our minds.
146 Language and mind
Chomsky then introduces new data to complete thc
basis of his argument.
(2) (a) The man who is here is tall. - Is the man w h o i:
here tall?
(b) The man who is tall will leave. - Will the ma!
who is tall leave?
Chomsky then states, correctly, that the data in (2) ar
predicted by H2 but that they refute H I . For, since H
involves a noun phrase in its operation, and since 'the ma,
who is tall' is the first principal noun phrase, then the 'i:
which is in that noun phrase (heavy type) will not be shifte
to the front of the sentence. Rather the proper 'is' the on
that serves as the main verb (relating 'man' and 'tall') will b
shifted.
O n the other hand, H 1 would wrongly generate th
interrogatives shown in (3). (Thesc sentences are als
provided by Chomsky.)
(3) (a) Is the man who hcrc is tall?
(b) Is the man who tall will lcavc?
These ungramn~atical scntcnccs would occur sincc, i
(3) (a), the wrong 'is' (the onc that is in thc rclativc clausc c
'who is here') is sclcctcd bccausc H I , you will recall, simp1
spccifics that the first 'is' is to be sclcctcd for placcmcnt. I
(3) (b) the incorrect 'is' and not thc corrcct 'will' has bcc:
sclcctcd because, according to HI, thc-first instance of cithc
'is' or 'will' is sclccted.
O n thc basis of thcsc data, Chomsky thcn makes hi
argument. First, hc states as follows,
A scientist observing English spcakcrs, given such data as (1:
['The man is licrc', etc.1, woulcl naturally sclcct liypothcsis HI
over tlic far more complex hypothesis 1-12, which postulate!
abstract mental processing of a non-trivial sort hcyond 1-11,
Similarly, given such data :IS (1) it is rc;lson:lhlc to ;~ssu~nc
t h a t :In
'unstri~cturcd'child would assunlc tli;lt H1 is valid. In fact, ;IS we
know, it is not, and 1-12 is (111orcnearly) corrcct. ((:hornsky
properly cautions nor^ nc:~rly'I~ccnuscother mod:rls (can, ~ r l n y )
and otlicr phcnonlcna such as the auxili;rry (h:~vc)h;lvc. also to hc
:iccountcd for hy thc* rule. 1
Then, hc go's on for the conclusion,
Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 147
i
'!
. . . how does a child know that H2 is correct (nearly), while H1
is false? It is surely not the case that he hits on H1 (as a neutral
scientist would) and then is forced to reject it on the basis of data
\
I such as (2). No child is taught the relevant facts. Children make
many errors in language learning, but none such as (3), prior to
appropriate training or evidence. . . . [the child] will unerringly
' employ H2, never HI, on the first relevant occasion (assuming
: that he can handle the structures at all). . . . The child need not
consider HI; it is ruled out by properties of his initial mental state
[Universal Grammar].
Thus, Chomsky argues, because there is insufficient lan-
guage data in the environment, a 'poverty o f the stimulus',
i there is no way that the child could have acquired H2 by
a n y Empiricist means. The relevant data is simply not there
to be experienced. That being the case, the only reasonable
thing is to assume that the child was assisted by innate
' language ideas, Universal Grammar.
7.4.6 Objections t o Chomsky's poverty of s t i m u l u s
argument
T o bcgin with, Chomsky is undoubtedly correct in holding
that a child would not develop H 1 so that errors like those
in (3) would result. Howcver, does it then follow that thesc
empirical findings rcquirc the use of a genetic Univcrsal
Grammar, a Universal Grammar which would 'rule out' H I
and thcrcby allow the child to focus on H2? I believe not. I
would like to offer a simpler explanation for why the child
a
would fornlulatc H2 - one that docs wot rcquirc the
postulation of innate languagc idcas.
Let 11s considcr thc child's learning of Iailguagc. 13cforc
attcmpti~ig to deal with questions, the child deals with
' dcclarativcs first. This is ;11so a gcncr:ll f i ~ ~ d i ning child
I
Innguagc stiidics. (I3y imp1ic:ition C l ~ o m s k yis in agreement
since both his 1-11 slid 1-12 hypothcscs derive the question
from the dcclar;ltivc.) Now, in tllc m;lstcring of dcclnr;ltivcs
the child n~tist and docs ;tccl~iirc the plir;~scstructure of
I scntc11c.c~.Otllcrwisc. the child woulcl not bc al7lc to
t~~ldcrst:ind the mc;ining of dcclarntivc scntcl>c.cs.Tllat l , c i ~ ~ g
thc C;ISC,it is clc;ir tI1;lt the child h:is k~lowlcdgc.OF p11r:lsc
striicturcs, eve11 l~c;/;)rc~ hc or slic attc~liptsto dc;ll with thc
more c o n ~ ~ ~ l c ~ s - c l i ~ cLitrIictiircbs.
~ s t i o i ~ I~~c-icjc~~t;llly,
nc.cltiiri~ig
148 Language and mind
phrase structures for the comprehension of declaratives,
Chomsky would likely admit, is not so formidable a task
that a Universal Grammar need be posited for its explana-
tion.
Now, since the child knows and understands phrase
structures, which are essential to comprehending the
meaning of declarative sentences, then, when the child hears
questions that are spoken by others, the child will naturally
attempt to understand the meaning of those questions by
means of those same phrase structures. The child cannor
help but formulate a hypothesis which will incorporate
phrase structure in dealing with interrogative sentences, fol
it is only through using phrase structure that the child wil
be able to understand the meaning of those sentences. Thc
child is thus obliged to search for such structures.
It is worth noting that since parents would not utte7
such malformed scntences as those in (3), then thc
interrogative sentences which the child hcars will gcncrall:
be well formcd, likc thosc in (1) and (2). As a result, thl
presentation of such propcr and rclcvant input on the part o
parents will scrvc to assist the child in dcvcloping thl
correct hypothcsis for dcaling with qucstions. Stimulu.
input, thus, is quite adcquatc and not at all 'impoverishcd
as Chomsky claims.
Let mc put the main objcction another way. Sincc, il
thc child's acquisition of languagc, spccch understandint
ncccssarily prcccdcs spccch production (see Chapter 2 for .
discussion of this f~lndamcntalprinciple), the cl~ildwill lcarl
to understand thc mcaliing of question structures (througl
the usc of phrase structure) bcforc he or she is nblc tc
producc such structurcs. That bcing the casc, when the chilc
attempts to producc a question on his or her own, the chilc
will automatically use the same structural knowledge t h a ~
was already acquired during the process of 1indcrst;lndinp
the question structurcs. The child will not consider anything
likc HI bccausc H2 will simply pop out o n the hnsis of prior
learning.
One fiirthcr issue I would likc to raise is this. Just who
is that '~iciitral sciclltist' th:lt C:Iio~~iskyis ;\IW;IYS t;~lking
about? This snmc scientist, you will rcc;ill, ;~lso:~ssistcd
Chomsky in for~liulatinghis :~r!:unlclit ;~g;lilistI,;lbov. O n e
cannot help hut wonder how ol?jcctivc rhis scic~irisrrc;llly
Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 149
is. Could it be that he o r she is secretly in Chomsky's
employ?
7.4.7 Chomsky's irrelevance of intelligence a r g u m e n t
Chomsky holds that language acquisition is essentially
independent o f intelligence. In support of this thesis he
argues that grammar is so peculiar, so different from any
other kind of knowledge that it cannot be a function of
rational operating intelligence. It is because animals are born
only with intelligence and not with innate language ideas
that they cannot learn language to any significant degree.
An animal that is otherwise intelligent in so many realms of
life (like Washoe and Koko in Chapter 3), is unable to learn
more than the simplest of language structures. This is
evidence for Universal Grammar in humans, a species-
specific innate language structure that does not appear in
animals.
Chomsky has also argued that, concerning humans,
'. . . vast differences in intelligence have only a small effect
on resulting competence [knowledge o f a particular gram-
mar]' (Chomsky, 1967, p. 3). By this he implies that if
intclligcncc is rclevant to language acquisition, then more
intelligent peoplc should acquire a greater competence.
But, more intclligcnt pcrsons d o not acquire a greater
compctcncc than d o lcss intelligent persons, he says. That
bcing thc casc, hc thcn concludes that different degrees of
intclligcncc do not affect language acquisition, and, intcl-
ligcncc itsclf is irrclcvant to the acquisition of languagc.
Sincc the uniformity of compctencc regarding all linguistic
csscntials obscrvcd among speakers of a language is not duc
to intclligcncc, it must bc diic to something clsc. That
sol~lcthingelse must bc Univcrsnl Grammar, according to
Chomsky.
7.4.8 Objections t o t h e irrelevance of intelligence
argument
(:Iionlsky1s argunicnt col~ccr~iing tllc inability o f othcrwisc
intclligcnt anini;lls to ;icqiiirc Inng1i;lgc need not hc ;lttrihutcd
t o thcir lack OF Univcrsnl (;r;~mlnnr.T11c.y 11l;lyjust 3s well
 p
.
$ 2 5 :5 y.5
E.-c . 2 3 52-a
a
5 a+ . fz 5 Z G
G

+a+
;
,a
rd
. E & * 1
g
m e
-
% * Z 2 5 O J u
3,'m c -6
.u 20 02 3
0
4
. 2
Z Z E Z - 2 d
a a, m ' e .iu 0
g m = o u , c,
a.'
SL +,
O+'E J
0 rd 2
,$z$ a w G 3

0
u
rd"
o" 2 2 s0E 2 LJ
e z":'29.c0 -m CU
h0 a,,
A -ard
",-EBa, ."?
~2 E * E
5;
a>
0 0 0.-
, v% Z Lr a o = t s > ac
m , +,o m
v , e~a =f w g.53
 152 Language and mind
Thus, according to Chomsky7s latest formulation (one
that he probably would never have made had he not been
goaded by Putnam), mathematics is a product, directly and
indirectly, of Universal Grammar. However, one cannot
but wonder whether by expanding the scope of Universal
Grammar in order to take in problem areas (areas that
I challenge the very existence of U G ) like mathematics, U G
IL
!
has become too powerful a theory, one that could possibly
I( encompass any complex abstract field of human endeavour.
I
That being the case, unless Chomsky is able to specify in
more detail the contents of UG, U G seems to simply serve
as a filing cabinet for problems which are filed away for
I I
1
later consideration and then forgotten.
7.4.9 Conclusion
Neither the Rationalist nor Empiricist side can be said to
have presented definitive arguments for their positions.
Such a state of affairs should not be surprising sincc the
controversy dcals with such highly abstract, complex and
often vaguc entitics such as ideas, knowlcdgc, rules,
principles and intelligcncc. Explaining the source of such
ideas as God, infinity, truth and grammatical structures is
not easy to do.
For thc Empiricist it is not easy to explain how, for
1 example, thc concept of infinity is derived from cxpcricncc
only with the finite. H o w could perfection in anything
I
come from environmental experience which is by its vcry
nature limited to finite and often impcrfcct individual
physical objects? H o w could intclligcncc (I'utnam's GMI'LS)
or thc csscncc from which intclligcr~ccis formed (I'iagct's
schcmas) havc dcvclopcd gcnctically so that it will yield
abstract knowlcdgc when cxposcd to cxpericncc?
Nor is it at a11 casy for thc Rationalist to explain how
idcas bccon~cinnate in the first place. Could this havc been
through cxpcricncc initially, genetic mutation or some as
yet undiscovcrcd nlcchanisni? Certainly 1~csc;irtcs'sin~plc
answer that it was God who put idcas (including the idea of
God itsel0 into thc minds of hunians is no longer
scientifically acceptable.
It would not bc surprisi~lg,then, if a neutral observer
were to rcmnin ur~convinccd one w;iy or another o n this
i Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 153
4
Rationalist-Empiricist grand debate. This debate, which has
, gone unresolved for thousands o f years, may well continue
( for thousands more.
\
7.5 Mentalism and Behaviourism contrasted
\ 7.5.1 Self-test: are you a Behaviourist or a Mentalist?
Before the test, how about a little warm-up?
I You are playing tennis. Your opponent is standing on
the left towards the front o f the court so you place a shot to
the back on the right. A simple enough event but not so
simple when w e ask h o w your action, the placing of the
shot, is to be explained? More particularly, did your mind
have anything to d o with creating this action? Did your
mind in any way influence the movements of your arm and
' hand?
O r , to take an example involving language, you ask a
fricnd if you could borrow a videotape. H o w is your
speech, the spoken request for the videotape, to be
cxplaincd? Did your mind have anything to d o with
1 creating this spccch? 13id your mind in any way influence
the crcating of the scntcnccs and their pronunciation
through thc organs of spccch (vocal chords, mouth, tongue,
lips, etc.)?
1
T h e general qucstion this raises is: H o w is human
bchaviour, including thc psycholinguistic problems con-
c c r n i ~ ~tllc
g production and understanding o f speech, to bc
cxplaincd? Is mind nccdcd for thc explanation? Is mind
1 essential to thc understanding of these language proccsscs?
So much for the warm-up. N o w , for thc tcst.
Instructions: Tliis is not an essay tcst. Simply answer 'Yes'
or 'No' to the following clucstions.
1. 110 lrrrrr~nris Irnvc nrirrds!
(A niind is wid to have, for example, consciousness,
feelings and idcas.)
2. ll'lrrrrrrnrrs Irnvc rnirrds, do tlrclir rrrirrci.q .\.irflr.rcvrrctlrc l~olrc~r~iorrv
of tlrcaiv botlic~s?
154 Language and mind
(The tennis shot and the talking about a videotape are
cases in point here.)
3. Should the subject matter of psychology and linguistics includc
the study of mind?
(You could agree with Questions 1 and 2 but disagret
with this one.)
Scoring: A 'No' to any one o f the above, makes you ;
Behaviourist. A 'Yes' to all three makes you a Mentalist.
Mentalists like Locke, Descartes, Piaget, Putnam anc
Chomsky would answer all three questions in the affirm
ative. Anti-Mentalists, like the Behaviourists, would giv,
one or more negatives. For example, John B. Watson, thc
founder of the doctrine of Behaviourism, would have giver
a resounding 'No' to the first question had he taken the test
Naturally, he would have followed with negativc answer
to the other two questions.
Watson regarded mind and consciousncss as rcligiou
superstitions, and, as such, irrelevant to the study o
psychology. He statcd that
. . . belief in the existence of consciousncss goes back to th
ancient days of superstition and magic. . . . These co~~ccpts - systcm of rulcs in the mind - that was the principal causc of
these heritages of a tinlid savage past - have made thc cmcrgcnc
and growth of scientific psychology extremely difficult. . . . Nc
onc has cver touched a soul or seen one in a test tube or has in an3
way come into relationship with it as he has with other ol~jectso
his daily existence.
(Watson, 1924, pp. 2-3
Watson's view that thc mind docs not exist was toc
radical for most Dchaviourists. Most 13chaviourists wil
allow that the mind cxists (a 'Ycs' to Qucstion 1) and they
may cvcn allow that mind plays a rolc in dctcrniini~~p
bchaviour (a 'Ycs' to Qucstion 2). However, n o 13ch;1viourist
agrees that mind is a proper objjct for scic~itificstitdy.
Skinner was ;I 13cliaviourist who agreed that t l ~ cmind
exists. Hc said, 'The h c t of privacy (no11-oljcctivc sitl?jcct
events) cannot, of course, be clucstioncd I n great dcparturc
from W ; ~ t s o ~ vicwl'
~'s (Skiilncr, 1004, p. 2). I-lowcvcr, he
vchcn~cntlydcnicd tli;lt it llad any rolc in thc d c t c r ~ n i n ; ~ t i o ~ l
of bc~Ii;1viour. For hiin, tlic ~ n i n d cxists but only :IS ;I
rcflcction of bodily processes. (This has bccn tr;lditioi~;llly
Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 155
called an 'epiphenomenal' view, and is shared by others
such as the Behaviourist philosopher, Ryle.) T h e contents o f
the mind o r states of mind are said not to influence
behaviour. O n e may feel pain as the result of being stuck
with a pin; however, that feeling in the mind will have
nothing to d o with any behaviour that follows. Thus,
Skinner (1971) maintained that 'It [Behaviourism] rejects
explanations of human behavior in terms of feelings, states
of mind and mental processes . . .' (p. 35). In an address to
the American Psychological Association just prior to his
death, Skinner (1990), an anti-Mentalist to the very end,
stated that '. . . cognitive science is the creationism of
psychology' (p. 6).
Chomsky, as was noted at the beginning of the
chapter, played a significant role in the downfall of
Behaviourism. His review o f Skinner's 1957 book Verbal
Behavior (Chomsky, 1959) was devastating to Behaviourist
explanations of language learning and processing. But this
alone is insufficient to explain Chomsky's success, since,
ever since its inception, other cogent criticisms of Behav-
iourism had been offered. It was Chomsky's brilliant
altcrnativc for accounting for language - a generative
Chomsky's success. (Sec Steinbcrg, 1982, pp. 1-47, for a
dcscription of Chomsky's idcas.) Psychology, linguistics,
philosophy and a varicty of othcr ficlds, including anthro-
pology and music theory, have not bccn the same sincc.
7.6 Discussion questions
1. What is the dispute bctwccn Empiricists and Rationalists
1 all about?
2. In wliat wily docs Chomsky diffcr from traditional
Ilationalists likc Ilcscartcs?
3. In wliat csscntinl ways clo the Enipiricists, Lockc,
I'iagct aild I'iitnnm, diffcr from one another?
1 4. According to C:lionlsky, arc humans horn with the
gr;lmnlnr of some 1;111g~tagc?
5. 'rllc ahility of ;lninials to Ic;~rnI;~nguagc:l~idto 1c:lrn to
co1111tis very low. I-low woultl ;III E~llpiricist likc
I
1'utn;lnl explain this? I low wo~tlci :I 1l;ltion;llist likc.
<:ho~nskycxpl;lin this?
156 Language and mind Language: from intelligence or innate ideas? 157

6. Chomsky asserts that the concept of climb is innate Skinner, B. F. (1964) Behaviorism at fifty. In T. W. Wann (ed.),
(p.138). How can such a claim be supported? Denied? Behaviorism and Phenomenology. Chicago: University of Chicago
7. In claiming that the concept of climb is innate, 1 Press.
Chomsky is making claims about ideas outside of the Skinner, B. F. (1971) Humanistic behaviorism. T h e Humanist,
realm of language. How far do you think he might May-June, 35.
develop his theory in this non-language area? Skinner, B. F. (1990) T h e American Psychological Association ( A P A )
8. Chomsky argues that the basis for question formation Monitor, 21, 10, 1, 6.
Steinberg, Danny D. (1982) Psycholinguistics: Language, Mind and
must be innate. Are you convinced by his argument? World. London: Longman.
9. How does Putnam's mathematics' argument relate to 1 Watson, John B. (1924) Behaviorism. New York: Norton.
Chomsky's theory of Universal Grammar?
10. Can a theory like Universal Grammar be true even
though arguments produced in its favour are weak or
invalid?
11. Are you a Behaviourist? Explain your answers on the
self-test.
12. How do you think you got the concept of a perfect
circle?

Suggested readings

Botha, Rudolph P. (1989) Challen~qiri'q Chomsky. Oxford: Basil

Blackwell.
Chomsky, Noam (1959) Rcvicw of Skinner's Verbal Behavior.
Lan'qua,qc, 35, 26-58.
Chomsky, Noam (1967) Rcccnt contributions to thc theory of
innate ideas. Synthese, 17, 2-1 1 .
Chomsky, Noam (1975) Conditions on rulcs of grammar. Articlc
bascd on Iccturcs prcscntcd a t thc Linguistic Institute, Univcr-
sity of South Flor~da.
Chomsky, Noam (1986) K I I O I I J /of'P (La~\qrln'q~: ~ ~ ~ ~ Its Nntrlr(>, Oriqin
and Use. Ncw York: I'racgcr.
Chomsky, Noam (1988) Lar!qrtqc, nrrti Prohlc,rrrs of Kr~orr~l~c[qc.
Cnmbridge, Mass.: MIT I'rcss.
Cronicr, 11. F. (1980) Empirical cvidcncc in silpport of non-
cnlpiricist theories of mind. Thc, Rc~lrclr~iornlnrrd llrairi Sric,rrcc~s,3 ,
10-18.
Lnbov, William (1970) Thc study of Iangi~agcill its social context.
Strcdirrrrr (;errc~rcllc, 23, 1-43.
I'iatclli-l'nlniarini, Mnssimo (4.)(1080) l.c~r~qrrc!qc~ crtrd l.c,trrrrir!q:
'7'/1(' 1)c.lrntc' lrc~trr~c~c~rr
Jcrnrr I'ic~pc~tclrrtl Nocirrr Clrorrrsky. ( : n n l h r i d ~ ~ ,
Mass.: I lnrvnrd U~~ivcrsity I'rcss.
I'urn;~nl, I-lil:lry (1007) The 'i~~natcncrs hypotlicsis' ;rrld cxplann-
tory modcls in lin~:uistics. Syrrtlrc~sc~,17, 13-32.

CHAPTER 8
Language, thought and culturc
1I
8.1 The arrest of the Sunday School teacher
I Humboldt, in 1836. That is, a language by its very nature
; Probably no topic is more central to psycholinguistics t h a ~
that which concerns the relationship of language, though
and culture. Does language influence thought? Does it creat
thought? Can we think without language? Does languag
affect our perception of naturc and society? Before attempt
. i n g to answer these questions, I would like to bcgin in
rather indirect way by first telling you a story, a true story
It concerns a Sunday School tcachcr in thc U S and a 10
ycar-old boy who was his studcnt. Thc tcachcr was arrcstcc
by the police. His crimc? Well . . .
In May of 1920, in Hamilton County, Ncbraska,
rural area of the United States, a teacher, M r Robert Mcycr
was arrested for violating state law. Meyer had b c c ~
teaching Bible stories in German at Zion Parochial school tc
a 10-year-old boy. Nebraska law forbade thc tcaching of :
second language to children under -the age of 13. N o t onl!
Ncbraska but 21 other states as well prohibited the tcachini
of forcign languages, cxccpt 'dcad' languagcs such as Latir
and Grcck. According to Nebraska's 1019 Sinlnn Act,
'
No pcrson . . . shnll tcnch a n y sul?icct to ;illy pcrso11 i l l :ill)
language othcr thn11 the English I:~ngungc.Lnnguagcs other t h a ~
English niny bc taught only ;if'tcr ;i pupil shall h;ivc . . . p:~sscdthc
cighth grndc. . . . A n y pcrson who violates ; ~ l i yof the provisioll:
of this act shnll be dccmcd guilty of ;I niisdcn~c;l~lor and, 11po1,
convictio~~, sh:dl hc sul?icc.t t o ;i tillc o f 11ot less rha11 twenty-fivc
dollars (525), Iior Illore tl1;111 o11c li1111~1rcd cIoll;~rs($100) or bc
co~~fincd in the county j:~il for a n y period nor cxcccdilig t h i r t y
days for c:ich offense.
If fot~ndguilty, Mcycr coi~ldhnvC hcc.11 fined or eve11
sent to jail.
Language, thought and culture 159
T h e states had passed these laws essentially with the
German language as the target. America had just finished a
war with Germany and there was a hatred of Germany and
things German, particularly its military values, ideals and
political institutions. T h e law reflected the widespread belief
that the German language was the embodiment of all that
was evil in German culture and that to teach such a language
to young Americans would be immoral and corrupting.
Meyer decided t o appeal his case to the Supreme Court
of the State of Nebraska. Ironically, lawyers for the state of
Nebraska took essentially the position presented in the
German language by the German philosopher, Wilhelm von
represents the spirit and national character o f a people. If
this were true, then, by teaching them the grammar,
structure and vocabulary of the German language, Meyer
could indeed have been harming American children by
making them into German militarists right there on the
plains of Nebraska.
The Nebraska Supreme Court denied Meyer's appeal,
but Meyer did not submit. H e then took his case to the
highest court in the country, the United States Suprcme
Court, wherc he won his case. That court overturned his
conviction and dcclarcd unconstitutional all laws in the
Unitcd Statcs which forbadc the tcaching of a forcign
Ianguagc. In its 1922 ruling thc court stated as one basis for
its dccision, 'Mcrc knowledge of thc Gcrman language
cannot rcasonably bc rcgardcd as harmful.'
Wc scc in this story that a seemingly purcly thcorctical
issuc can havc vcry practical conscqucnccs in cvcryday lifc.
In making a Icgal dccision on thc mattcr, thc court also
1~1adca psycholinguistic dccision, on the rclationship of
Ianguagc, thought and culturc. Was the court corrcct? It is
this question that wc shall now consider.
8.2 Speech as the basis of thought
Over tllc yc;irs, n nunlhcr of idc;is 11;lvc bccn prcscntcd
which nrc widcsprcnd :ind h;ivc rcccivcti sc11ol;irly support.
O n e of thcsc ic1c;is is that thou~:Iit conlcs from spccch.
Accordi~igly. thougllt is not somctlling difkrc-nt froln
160 Language and mind
speech, but is actually a kind of speech that is not spoken
aloud. It is speech that controls what and how we think;
thought does not control what we say. Typically it is
Behaviourists who have expressed this view.
The founder of Behaviourism, John B. Watson, said ir!
1924, for example, that thought is 'nothing but talking tc
ourselves' and that this talking to ourselves originates frorr
speaking aloud. Following Watson, the linguist Bloomfielc
and the philosopher Ryle proposed similar views on botf
the nature of thought (a kind of speaking to ourselves) anc
the origin of thought (from speaking aloud). For Bloom-
field, thinking was a system of movements that had beer
reduced from actual speech to the point where they were nc
longer visible. For Ryle, much ordinary thinking was at
internal monologue where, in order for us to talk tc
ourselves (to think), 'We should have previously learned tc
talk intelligently aloud and have heard and understood o t h e ~
people doing so.' The psychologist Skinner, too, empha
sized that thought 'is not some mysterious process respon
sible for bchavior but thc vcry bchavior itself.
8.3 Arguments against this idea
8.3.1 In speech, understanding precedes production
Normal children learning a language understand speed
before they arc ablc to n~eaningfullyproducc it. A l-ycar-
old child, for cxamplc, may be ablc to undcrstand a scntcnct
like 'l'ut thc banana on thc table' or 'I'ut the cup undcr thc
chair', yet still only be ablc to say single isolatcd words, or
cvcn no words a t all. Rcscarchcrs studying children havc
found that children's understanding of spccch is well i n
advancc of their ability to produce it. For cxnnlylc, in onc
study children who could say only si~lglcwords such as
'ball', 'truck', 'kiss' and 'smell' could undcrstnnd entirely
new structures composcd of more than one word, c.g, 'I<iss
ball' a ~ i d'Smell truck'. Wc know tllc children understood
what was said to the111bccnusc they did wll;it they were told
to do - u~iusunlacts of kissi~lg:I bill1 ; ~ n dsniclling ;I truck,
tllings tlicy had never done I>cforc.
'rhcn thcrc. is the cnsc of ;I ~ l o r i n ; child
~l (my son) who
Language, thought and culture 161
from 1 to 2 years of age was taught to read and understand a
number of written words, phrases and sentences even before
he had actually developed the ability to say them. He could
respond correctly to written sentences like 'Shut the door',
'Push the button' and 'Hit the ball', even though he couldn't
say any of them. The fact that children with little or no
speech can understand speech or read what is written surely
demonstrates that these children have formulated concepts
and ideas - in short, are thinking. Since they have thought
and since this thought did not originate in their being able
to speak, one must conclude that speech production is not
the basis of thought.
8.3.2 Speech understanding by people with speech
disabilities
Those born without the ability to speak, but who are
otherwise intellectually normal, can learn to understand
speech even though they cannot produce any. There is, for
example, the case of a 3-year-old Japanese girl who was
mute from birth but could hear and was normal in all other
respects. The fact that she could respond correctly to a
variety of complex commands proved that she could
understand what was bcing said to her. If someone said,
'Ric, put the rcd paper undcr thc table', or 'Bring me a
banana from the cupboard', she could do it. Furthermore,
shc was cvcll taught (at 3 ycars of age) to read complex
Japancsc characters (kanji), which she demonstrated by
putting writtcn cards on objects or by responding appropri-
ately to writtcn commands. The fact that she could
undcrstand spccch and could read a little is clear cvidcncc
that she had ideas and was a thinking person. The vcry
existence of her thought shows that thought could not have
come from her ability to speak - because she had n o such
ability!
Not long ago the case of ;li~thorChristopher Nolan
came to the world's attention. Nolan's 1987 book lirrdor tlrc
1i:')woftlrc. Clork has hccn compared to the writings of Ycats
and Joyce. Yet since birth Nol:ln h;ls had but little control
over his hody, cvcn h ; l v i ~ ~difficulty
g in swnllowing food.
Me nlust hc strapped to his whcclch;~irbcc;~t~sc I1c c ; l ~ ~ n o t
slipport hinlsclf. With o ~ l l y sligllt nli~sc-lecontrol ;lt his
162 Language and mind
disposal, he was able to 'type' his manuscript using a
pointer attached to his head to point to letters. Yet while he
has never had the ability to produce speech, he obviously is
not only able to think but even to think more creatively
than a large majority of the speaking population.
8.3.3 Thinking while paralysed by a drug
In 1947 one group of researchers (Smith, Brown, Tomas
and Goodman) wondered what would happen to a person's
thought if the body were almost completely paralysed.
Their wondering led to Smith having himself injected with
a curare-like drug which induces complete paralysis o f the
voluntary muscles of the body. Since only smooth muscle
systems such as the heart and digestive system continue to
function undcr the drug, Smith even needed the assistance
of an artificial respirator in order to breathe.
When the effects of the drug wore off, Smith rcportcd
that he had bcen able to think quite clearly and could solve
the series of problems given to him. At thc risk o f his lifc,
Smith had madc a scientific point. Sincc while paralyscd he
could in no way spcak and could makc only minimal bodily
rcsponses, it is clear that thought was not dcpcndcnt on
body movcmcnt o r movcnlcnts of the organs of speech,
because thcrc were no movcmcnts, not cvcn subliminal
ones. Unlcss onc wants to advancc thc intcrcsting but
unlikcly notion that the hcart bcat o r perhaps bowcl
movcmcnts arc somehow at thc basis of thinking, thcn it
would indccd sccm that speech-associated musclc movc-
mcnts arc not ncccssary for thought.
8.3.4 Talking about one thing while thinking about
another
Supposc you arc talking to someone, say, about a movie
you both h;lvc sccn, and fi~rthcr suppow that you arc
thinking about so~ilctliingclsc at the snmc tinic, such ns
whcrc you arc going for dinner. Wc often spcnk ahout one
thi11g ;ind think ahout :inother at tllc same tinlc. We 111igIit
eve11 tell ;l lie, s;iying we Il;lvc cl;joycd so~~ic.o~ic's
conip;lny,
while thillki~lgw1i;lt ;I tcrriblc time wc 11;ld. All of this is
clc;ir c-viticncc. tll;lt two disti~ict yrocc,sscs with dift'crc.nt
Language, thought and culture 163
content, speech and thought, are occurring simultaneously.
This would be impossible if thought were merely some
kind o f internalized speech, for if w e were speaking aloud
w e would not be able to use our vocal apparatus to talk to
ourselves. Therefore, according to Behaviourist doctrine,
w e would not be able to think because our speech organs
are already in use. Obviously there is something seriously
wrong with this theory - it does n o t fit the facts.
This might be the place t o point o u t that just because
many o f us talk aloud to ourselves while thinking does not
imply that w e are using speech t o think with. A more
adequate interpretation is that the speech is simply a
reflection of the thoughts w e already have. W e are only
giving voice to our thoughts when w e speak t o ourselves.
What w e utter occurs after w e have formed a thought. We
often tend to speak aloud when n o one else is around o r
when w e are under stress. We are so used to putting our
thoughts into speech that this process needs to be inhibited,
otherwise w e might place ourselves in embarrassing situa-
tions. When there is n o one around w e find it easier to relax
these inhibitions.
8.4 Language as the basis of thought
Many pcoplc bclicvc that thc language system, with its
grammatical rules and vocabulary, forms thought o r is
ncccssary for thought, and that a particular languagc
imposes particular idcas o f nature o r of one's culture. This
vicw, likc that o f Humboldt's cited abovc in thc case o f the
Sunday School tcachcr, is gcncrally rcfcrrcd to as the
Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis o r Linguistic Relativism. It is a
nlorc sophisticntcd thcory than thc prcvious 'Spccch is the
I3asis of Tl~ouglit'onc sincc it involvcs language in gcncral
and not s i n ~ p l yS ~ C C C ~production.
I Howcvcr, whcthcr this
thcory will stand up undcr cxami~lationis s o n ~ c t h i n gwe
have yct to asscss.
Sapir spokc o f 1;inguagc as n 'tyrant' that not only
reflects cxpcricncc, but wliich actu;llly defines i t , iniposing
L I ~ C I I I i ~ s p ; ~ t i c u l aand
r s idcas about the world. Wliorf, wlio
was Sapir's studc~lt, also sl~arcd his views stating t l i ; ~ t
'Inngi~agc is not mcrcly a reproducing i n s t r ~ ~ m c nfor t
164 Language and mind
voicing ideas but rather is itself the shaper of ideas . . . We
dissect nature along lines laid down by our native language. '
Ideas, he further claimed, are not independently derived but
are given by the grammar of our language. Thus Whorf
asserted that the ideas of speakers of different languages
would differ from slightly to greatly, depending on how
different the various languages were. According to this
theory, a speaker of Japanese, for example, would have very
different ideas from a speaker of English because the
grammars of the two languages are so very different. Or.
the other hand, a speaker of German would automaticall)
have more similar ideas to the speaker of English becaust
the grammars are less different.
Whorfs research with the American Hopi Indian:
convinced him that their language forced them to see tht
world in a completely different way than do speakers o
European languages. He believed that thc Hopi languagc
had few words rclating to time, and that this gave then
radically different concepts of space and time. In the Hop
language, Whorf claimed, for examplc, that you coulc
never use spatial terms to rcfer to timc, such as 'bcforc
noon', because the Hopis lack the conccpt of timc scen as ;
continuum. Spcakers of some languagcs - for cxample
English - usc spatial terms for 'front' when thcy want tc
indicatc thc futurc ('to look forward to something')
presumably because they see themsclvcs as moving forwarc
through timc.
More recently, however, othcr rcscarchcrs liavc founc
that Whorf was wrong in claiming that the Hopi languagc i:
a 'timclcss' one. Gippcr, for cxamplc, who lived with ;
Hopi family for a pcriod of timc and studied their langiiagc
found tliat whilc Hopi docs not havc a for~naltcnsc, i~
ncvcrthclcss contains a wliolc scrics of cxprcssions for tirilc
Many of thcsc cxprcssions appcar as adverbs or prcposi-
tions. (Evcn English uscs non-tcnsc cxprcssions of tinic,
such as 'I lcavc tomorrow', instead of '1 will Icavc
tomorrow'.) According to Malotki, another rcscarclicr whc
spent years living with the Hopi, 'They Ithc Hopis] livc
with timc cvcry momcnt of their livcs, hut not like thc
white man' (from :I 1080s Anicrican television progranllnc
on language and tlic mind). His dctailcd rcsc:lrch h:~sshown
that tlic 1.-lopisiisc a variety of ti111creferents such as periods
N Language, thought and culture 165
i
relating to harvest, the moon, the sun, and other significant
i events. We do much the same in English ('Let's go when it
1 gets dark', 'I'll fix it when the weather gets warm'). Malotki
very neatly concludes (again from the same television
programme), 'People are not different because of their
languages, but because of their experience. Deep down,
we're all the same. It couldn't be otherwise.'
There are dramatic vocabulary differences from lan-
guage to language. The Inuit (commonly called 'Eskimos')
\
I have a large number of words involving snow. For
I
example: apun = 'snow on the ground'; qanikca = 'hard
1 snow on the ground'; utak = 'block of snow'. However,
simply focusing on single-word vocabulary can be very
misleading. English speaking skiers, for example, do, in
fact, create phrases such as 'powder snow', 'wet snow',
'flaky snow', to describe different snow types for which
Inuit languages have single words. It is need that motivates
us to create vocabulary. Phrases such as 'baby blue' or
4 'powder snow' serve just as well as their one-word
countcrparts in other languages.
Then, too, some languages have only a small number
of colour words. The Dani language of New Guinea has
only two colour words, one for light colours and one for
11' dark colo~irs.If language were the basis of thought and of
thc pcrccption of nature, onc would expect speakers of this
languagc, with such a linlitcd rcpcrtoirc of colour terms, to
havc pcrccptual difficulty in distinguishing colours they
/ havc no tcrrns for. Thc rcscarch of Kay and McDanicl,
Hcidcr and othcrs, howcvcr, has shown that this is not the
case. Spcakcrs of languagcs which havc only two, thrcc or
four colour tcrrns arc as capable of distinguishing among thc
1 many colour bands of thc visiblc spcctrum as thosc whosc
languages have more than eight basic colour terms. People
can scc the diffcrcnccs but will not give them a name L I I I ~ C S S
thcrc is a good reason to do so. Thc claitn that you cannot
scc thc difkrcncc in colours bccausc you lack the words for
those colours niakcs as rni~chsense as saying you cannot
hcar the diffcrcncc bctwccii two musical notes because yo11
do not know the tcrrns '13-flat' and 'F-sh:~rp'.
A very strong cxprcssion of tlic idea tliat Ia~lgiiagc
dctc.rmincs thought is offcrcd by I<orzyhski, wlio mid thnt
the sul?jcct : ~ n dpredicate form of Iangu:1gc 'Icads to thc
166 Language and mind
humanly harmful, gross, macroscopic, brutalizing, biologj
cal, animalistic types of orientations . . . such "Fiihrers" s
different Hitlers, Mussolinis, Stalins, etc.' From this, on
pictures hordes of Mongols and Huns sweeping through th
centuries like millions of vicious, difficult-to-conjugal
irregular verbs, good people at heart, perhaps, but helple:
captives of their own bloodthirsty subject-predicate view (
the universe, and, hence, forever doomed to burn ac
pillage!
Korzybski claimed, too, that the improper use
language causes damage to the brain and insanity, but th
we could correct this situation through retraining the cc
pathways in our brains by the proper use of language.
proper correspondence between language and brain, he sai,
would eliminate maladies such as arthritis and alcoholisr
Cure the language and you cure the patient.
Just as silly, if somewhat less dramatic, is the view
the Japanese educator, Takao Suzuki, who holds that '\
recognize the fragments of the universe as objects
properties only through words . . . without words \;
could not even distinguish dogs from cats'. One wonde~
too, if Suzuki has ever noticed that dogs and cats can t,
each other apart even if they have no words for 'cat' a1
'dog'. If they can do this without words, why cal
humans?
8.5 Arguments against this idea
Lct us now look at somc special situations conccrnin
languagc and tliought which, I sliall argue, sheds light o
t11c true nature of the rclationsliip bctwccn languagc an
thought.
8.5.1 Deaf children without language can think
Thcrc arc many deaf cl~ildrcnwho do not begin t o accluir
Ianguagc iintil a rather late age, often after 3 or 4 years w h c ~
they begin to attc~ldspccial scliool. I-Iowcvcr, if you wcrc
to observe young deaf cliildrc~~ playing in a pl;lygra~ind
yo11 would not notice nliicli diffcrc~~cc bctwccn t l ~ c ~and
Language, thought and culture 167
ordinary hearing children. They are not animalistic crea-
tures. At play and when participating in activities around
the home, they behave just as intelligently and rationally
with respect to their environment as do hearing children.
If one holds that language is the basis for thought, one
would have to argue that these children do not think and are
either wild animals or automatons. And, if one holds that
grammar determines how we analyse nature, then it must
be argued that either the non-language deaf children cannot
I
analyse nature or they do so radically differently from
hearing children who do have language. But it has never
been observed that children who learn language at a late age
undergo a radical change in perception. Rather, research
points to the opposite conclusion. Furth, for example,
provides research data which show no difference in
intelligence between mature hearing and deaf persons, even
though the language knowledge of the deaf is generally far
below that of the hearing population.
The case of Helen Keller, who became deaf and blind
due to disease at the age of 18 months, is relevant and
interesting in this regard. After her illness, she was not
exposed again to language until she was 8 years old. In her
autobiography, The Story of My Life, Keller talks of her
teacher's 'despair' and her own 'repentance' and 'sorrow'
whcn shc had behaved badly (a more detailed discussion of
this incidcnt is dcscribcd in Chapter 3). These were
cxpcricnccs for which shc had no words at the time (it is
unlikcly that shc would havc learned such words in her
infancy) but for which shc had concepts. If shc could not
think, she would not Iiavc bccn ablc to rcmcmber details of
licr past mental states. Her mcmorics of her past, bcforc shc
had tlic languagc with which to express them, were more
than just a scqucncc of fcclings and cmotio~is.Kcllcr had
thoughts and idcas which she had organized into a cornplcx
conceptual framework. Clearly, such a n~cntalconstruction
as this did not rcquirc language for its cstablisl~mcnt.
8.5.2 Bilinguals are not schizoids
According to Whorf, common cxpcricncc docs not rcsult in
con1111011ideas. Sin~plyknowing a Ianguagc affects our view
n of reality. Spcakcrs of diffcrcllt languages arc led by the
168 Language and mind
same physical evidence to the same picture of the universe
only to the extent that 'their linguistic backgrounds arc
similar or can in some way be calibrated'. Given this view
it would be predicted that bilingual persons who knew ver)
different languages would have two different or opposinj
views of reality. The existence of persons who speak two o
more quite different languages but have one coherent viev
of the universe would contradict the Sapir-Whorfial
presumption that different languages generate differen
realities.
The fact is that people do not develop multipl
personalities or behavioural problems from learning two c
more languages. The world is full of normal bilingual:
even trilinguals. I know of a family in America in which
child was exposed to three languages, English, Japanese an
Russian, all at the same time. The father spoke only Englis
to the boy, the mother spoke only Japanese, and th
grandmother, who lived in the same household, spoke on1
Russian. By the age of 3, thc boy spoke English with tE
father, Japanese with the mother, and Russian with tE
grandmother. Whcn hc went out to play, thc child bchavc
no differently from his playmates, who wcrc Englis
monolinguals. A sccond boy was born into thc family an
he, too, bccamc trilingual in the samc way. And, just as h
brother, he had no confi~sed 'picture of the univcrsc' c
dcfccts in thinking.
8.5.3 Creoles: new languages from old
Rclatcd to bilinguals not having split rnillds because o
Icarning two languages is thc case of cu~olc Ianguagcs. /
creole language is a language that has developed through th,
contact of' two established languages. Supposc. you mcct .
Tibetan who docs not know your l a n g i ~ a g ~What
. do yo1
do? I11 order to co~nmunicntc,you will both use somc of thc
other's words and in time come to agree on some gr;i111111ar
An English-Tihctnn pidgin could result. This pidgin would
have some of the fcatllrcs of thc 'Me Tarzan, You Jane' kind
of talk so popi~lar in I-lollywood films. As ;I pidgin, i t
would bc ;I hnsic, practical nlcalls of co~nmu~iic:ltio~l
consisting of n simple vocnbulary ;ind n sin~plifcd gr;illlm;ir;
;I prinlitivc typc of I n ~ ~ g u ; ~ g c .
Language, thought and culture 169
What is of interest for our discussion, however, is what
happens t o pidgins over a period of time, when their
speakers are in contact, marry and have children. These
pidgins become fully developed languages, which are called
'creoles' by linguists. A creole has all of the aspects of a true
natural language. A prime example of entirely different
languages becoming a creole is Tok Pisin (Talk Pidgin), the
offi'cial language of Papua N e w Guinea. There, English
blended with native New Guinea languages t o produce a
! new language. Research shows that many creoles develop
along remarkably similar lines and, in many instances,
develop rather quickly, even within the space of a few
generations.
Now, if one were to take the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis
seriously, such creoles would not have been able to develop
because of the inherent conflict of the views of nature and of
the world which the original languages supposedly embody.
Languages could only blend into a creole if the original
component languages represented similar perceptions and
thoughts. The fact that creoles actually have developed with
the English language (and other European languages, as
well) and other languages in Melanesia, Africa and else-
where is evidcnce that basic perception and basic thought
! are sharcd in somc non-linguistic form by humans cvery-
whcrc.
( 8.6 Where language does affect thought
Although I havc argucd for thc view that language is not thc
basis of thought, by this I d o not wish to imply that never
1 languagc affects thc content or direction of particular
thoughts. Thus, while language is ncitl~cr thc basis of
thought nor is necessary for the f~lllnctioning of thought,
language can affect thought oncc thought is cstablishcd. For
cxamplc, language may be i~scd to provide us with 1 1 ~ 1 4 )
I
idcns. If you read thc scntcncc, 'Ludwig van I3ccthovcn was
I
a good football plnycr, w1ic11he was sober', that is probably
a scntcncc yo11 have never been exposed to bcforc, yet you
can u ~ ~ d c r s t a nit.
d It is important to rc;llizc though that
'
novcl (new) scntcnccs such as this d o not involve novcl
I words or gr;~~~inlatic;ll rulcs. Whnt is 11ovcl is their
170 Language and mind
arrangement. Thus, such sentences are created and under-
stood on the basis of what the speaker already knows about
the language in terms of its grammar and vocabulary. If
new words are introduced, they can be explained in terms
of vocabulary which is already known.
Language is also used to bring about a change in beliefs or
values. People who have undergone religious or political
conversion are often said to think differently. What has
really become different, however, is not their basic logical
processing or conceptual categories, but the truth and
attractiveness values which they attach to certain ideas. For
example, people become convinced, through the medium of
language, that the world is round instead of flat (despite
their perception to the contrary). O r , people are swayed to
and away from capitalism or communisnl by attaching,
through the medium of language, new emotions and values
to these ideological systems. People may be pcrsuaded to
change, and though we might say that thcy arc 'thinking
differently', what has rcally changed arc their values and
goals. What they previously regarded as bad or false, thcy
may now think of as good or true, or vice vcrsa.
8.7 Thought as the basis of language
8.7.1 The non-linguistic origin of meaning
Exccpt for the minor case of onon~atopocia,the relationship
betwccn thc sound of a word and its meaning is convcn-
tional. The n~caningthat is to bc associatcd with a scqucncc
of spccch sounds docs not comc with it; it must be acquired.
Mcaning for words is acquired in four main ways: (1) a
sound form is associatcd with an objcct, situation or cvcr~t
in thc world, c.g. the soimd 'dog' with thc objcct 'dog'; (2)
a sound form is associatcd with an idea or cxpcric~lccin the
mind, c.g. the sound 'pain' with the feeling of 'pain'; (3) nn
analysis of known component morphcnlcs may suggest n
mcaning, c.g. the 11lca11ing of rrtrprirnitivc c;111he gained
through knowledge of r r r r and t~rirr~itir~c;
(4) hy n linguistic
description (definition) or by linguistic context (guessing
based on the meanings of other words). With respect t o
Language, thought and culture 171
1
these four ways of acquiring word meaning, only the latter
two involve linguistic sources. Yet, even these had their
/ origins in the first two. Thus, the ultimate source of
meaning is based on experiences of the world and mind,
experiences which are of a non-linguistic nature. It must
therefore be the case that thought, with its ideas and
, concepts, is created in the mind by a process that is
independent of language.
I
8.7.2 The true relationship between language and
i thought
Thus, after due consideration, the most plausible version of
the relationship between language and thought is that thc
thought system in the mind has its origins in sources that
arc distinct from language. Only when thought is suffi-
, cicntly developed through the child's experience of objects,
events and situations in the world can language begin to bc
learned. Then, over a period of time, the complete language
system is formed but through this medium of thought.
Thc philosopher, John Locke, some centuries ago
; proposed prcciscly this view: that thc relationship between
i languagc and thought is such that thought is independent of
languagc, with languagc deriving from thought. Givcn such
a rclationship, language can thcrcby f ~ ~ l fits
i l primary role,
which is as an instrument for thc cxprcssion or communica-
tion of thought. I find no good rcason to challcngc this
vicw.
I 8.8 Discussion questions
1. What significance is there in tlic fact that it is possible
to hum a 111clodyor sing the words of a song and think
of s o n ~ c t l ~ i nelse
g a t the same time? H o w would this
relate to the spccch as the basis of thought notion?
2. 'I know what I want to say, but I can't find the worti.'
What implicatior~sdocs this phcnonle~lonhave for the
l;~ngi~agc 2nd thoi1gl1t controvcrsy?
172 Language and mind
3. 'That which w e call a rose by any other name woulc
smell as sweet.' If we changed the name of the flowe
to 'bigstink', would it still smell as sweet or wa
Shakespeare wrong? What would an advertising ager!
say?
4. Some advocates of non-sexist language claim t h ~
language 'reinforces' habits of thought. In this regar
consider that Japanese men and women are all addresse
in the same way, with a sun ending, Tanaka-sar
Suzuki-san. (There is n o differentiation as there is i
English with M r and Ms (Miss, Mrs).) Should 01:
argue, therefore, that the Japanese language reinforct
the notion of equality for men and women?
5. I do not believe that sexist language ('All Inen ar
created equal7) affects our values. Yet, I d o believe th:
such language can give offence. A m I being consistent
6. Consider a monolingual English-speaking family i
America. The mother and father are both Christian an
Republicans. Their son and daughter, though, a1
atheists and Democrats. H o w does this situation (
same language but diffcrcnt world views rclatc to th
claim that a language has a world view inhcrcnt in it
7. Many countries having widely different languages ma
sharc similar political, social and religious vicws. Fc
example, China, North Korea and Cuba sharc Con:
munist ideology, an ideology that was mainly formu
latcd by German speakers. H o w docs this situation c
diffcrcnt languagcs (the Chinese, Korean and Spanis
languages are all vastly diffcrcnt from one another) bu
similar world vicws rclatc to the claim that cacl
language has n world vicw inherent in it?
8. Since the cstablishmcnt of t l ~ ccon~munistgovcrnmcn
in 1949, the culture of China has changed greatly i~
politic;ll, social, ccononiic, cducatio~~al and rcligiou5
tcrnls. Yet, the Chinese Ianguagc has changed rclativel)
littlc in terms of its basic syntax and pl~onolog)
although somc vocnbulary changes sucli ns in forms of
address, c.g. co~nradc,have occurred. Mow docs chi:
fflct ( t h a t the world view of a pcoplc h,is chnngca
r;~dicallybut the l a ~ ~ g u n ghas c changcci littlc) rclatc to
tlic claim t h a t k ~ ~ o w i na ngd using n particular I;lng~~agc
sIi;lpcs o~lc'sworld vicw?
Language, thought and culture 173
Suggested readings
Carroll, John B. (ed.) (1956) Language, Thought and Reality:
Selected Writing of Benjamin Lee Whovf. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press.
Furth, H. G. (1971) Linguistic deficiency and thinking: research
with deaf subjects, 1964-1969. Psychological Bulletin, 76, 58-72,
Humboldt, Wilhelm von (183611971) Linguistic Variability and
Intellectual Development. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami
Press.
Kay, P. and McDaniel, C. K. (1978) The linguistic significance of
the meanings of basic color terms. Language, 54, 61W6.
Korzybski, A. (1933) Science and Sanity: A n Introduction to Non-
Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (4th edn, 1958),
Lakeville, CN: The International Non-Aristotelian Publishing
Co.
Liu, L. G. (1985) Reasoning counterfactuality in Chinese: Are
thcre any obstacles? Cognition, 21, 239-70.
Malotki, E. (1983) Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal
Concepts in the Hopi Language. New York: Mouton.
Malotki, E. (c. 1985) Television programme: The Mind's Lan-
page. Station WNET New York.
McNeill, David (1987) Psycholinguistics: A New Approach. New
York: Harper & Row.
Nolan, Christophcr (1987) Under fhe Eye of the Clock. London: Pan
Books.
Steinberg, Danny D. and Chen, Shing-rcn (1980) A threc year old
n~utc-hcaringchild learns to rcad: thc illustration of fundamcn-
tal rcading principles. Workiti,~Papers in Lin<~uistics(University
of Hawaii), 12, 2, 77-91. Also in Dokrrsyo Ka'qaku (Scicncc of
Iicading), 24, 4, 134-41 (in Japancsc).
US Suprcmc Court Ticports (1922) October Tcrm, Meycr v.
Nebraska, pp. 392-403.

CHAPTER 9
Language and the brain
I
9.1 Brain structure and function
1
,
If you are left-handed, you have probably been dis-
criminated against at one time o r another: most school desks
I are built to be written on by right-handers, scissors work
much better if you are right-handed, and in some cultures
you are not permitted to eat or cven touch food with your
left hand. The Devil, too, is said to bc left-handed, and
many words such as 'sinister' and 'gauchc' comc from
words meaning 'Icft'. 'Dexterity' comes from thc Latin
word for 'right'. Bcing 'right' in the moral scnsc of the
word also dcrivcs from thc use of the right hand.
Nature, too, scems to discriminate against Icft-handcrs,
for they are morc likely to suffcr from a variety of languagc
disorders and learning disabilities than do right-handcrs. It
may also be that left-handers die youngcr (Halpcrn and
Corcn, 1991 N e w England journal of Medicine, ool. 325).
Observcd differences in mortality (adjusting for scx dif-
fcrcnccs) though may simply reflect thc widcsprcad effort of
parents and teachers earlier in the ccntiiry to convert Icft-
handcd children to right-handedness. Thus thcrc may be no
true difference bctwecn the proportion of older and younger
tinturn1 Icft-handcrs in the gcncral population (Salivc, Giiralnik
and Glynn, Fcb. 1993 Amc.rica~Jouninl of P~hlirHcaltlr).
Intcrcstingly, tl~crcis a higher proportion of natural Icft-
handcdncss for males than fcinalcs and this sccms to occur
cvcrywhcrc in the world. Sonic cstiniatcs in the U.S. indicate
about 10n/o for nlalcs and 4% for females. The effect of sexual
hormones rclcascd in thc hrai~lduring the dcvclopn~cntof the
foetus may he the cause of this phcnomcnor~.
Left-handcrs nccd not throw up their hands in despair,
however, bccaiisc anlong t h c n ~thcrc is a grcatcr proportion
Language and the brain 175
of artists, musicians and writers than is found among right-
handers. And, if you use both hands equally well, i.e. are
ambidextrous, you can take heart, for you are in the
company of such people as Leonardo da Vinci, although
you might not like the word 'ambidextrous' since it comes
from Latin, meaning to have t w o right hands!
Handedness is directly related to the structure and
development of the brain. T h e brain and the spinal cord,
together, make up the central nervous system. From the top
of the spine upwards are the medulla oblongata, the pons
Varolii, the cerebellum and the cerebral cortex (cerebrum) in
that order. These four major parts of the brain form an
integrated whole by means o f connective tissue. T h e first
three are concerned with essentially physical functions,
including breathing, heartbeat, transmission and coordina-
tion of movement, involuntary reflexes, digestion, emo-
tional arousal, etc. In comparing the brains of lower
vertebrates with those o f higher vertebrates and primates,
such as man and the apes, the most noticeable difference is
in the part o f the brain which developed last in the course of
evolution, the cerebral cortex. While in fish, for example,
the ccrcbral cortex is barely visible and is one of the smallest
parts of the brain, in humans it has increased in size and
complexity to become the largest part o f the brain. T h e
cerebral cortex, itself, is a layer of grooved, wrinkled and
winding tissue. In time, duc to dcnsc growth in the number
and complexity of brain cells, the ccrcbral cortex takes on a
pinkish-grey appcarancc, giving us the common term 'grcy
matter' for referring to this part of the brain o r our
intclligcncc.
Tlic ccrcbral cortex is characterized by a division into
halves, tcrincd licmisplr(~rcs,which arc conncctcd by tissue
called the r o p s callosrrm. T h e corpus callosum, it should be
noted, is not only a coilncctor for the licmisphcrcs, but is
the principle integrator of the mental processes carried out
in the t w o hci~iisphcrcs. T h e gcncr;~lappcarancc of thc
cerebral hcmisplicrcs as a wllolc is that of a waln~itwith tlic
two ad-joined parts, mirror images of one ailothcr. Each
ccrchral hciiiisphcrc is divided into four scctio~ls: tllc
froiit;ll, parietal, tcn1por;ll and occipit;ll lobes. This is n
convciiicilt division of the brain into parts, loosc.ly 1~1sc.d011
physical fcati~rcs. Functions s~icli ;IS cognitio11 (to soinc
176 Language and mind I Language and the brain 177
Overhead View J
degree) occur in the frontal lobe, general somasthetic
LEFT C E R E B R A L R I G H T CEREBRAL ] sensing (in the arms, legs, face, etc.) in the parietal lobe,
Median hearing in the temporal lobe and vision in the occipital lobe.
HEMISPHERE HEMISPHERE
longitudinal As we shall see later, some of these areas are also involved
fissure
in the structure and function of language.
Frontal As far as our linguistic abilities are concerned, how-
lobes
ever, it is not evident exactly how important the actual size
and weight of the brain are. Whales and elephants have
bigger brains, including more cortex, but they also have
\ bigger bodies, so perhaps the ratio of brain to body size and
weight which is important. However, the brain of the
average 13-year-old human weighs 1.35 kg (3 lb) and the
i proportion to a body weight of 45 kg (99 Ib) is 0.03 (1 : 34)
Parietal
and this is the same ratio as in a 3-year-old chimp. Thus,
lobes while brain size is almost certainly related to general
intelligence in a very broad sense as one moves up the
Occipital lobes evolutionary ladder from species to species, size alone is not
the crucial factor which would explain human language and
Side View non-human lack of language. Structural differences must
exist which account for intelligence, language and other
highly cognitive functioning.
Ccntrnl sulcus

PARIETAL
9.2 Hemispheric dominance and lateralization
1
/
'
L ,
Thc brain controls thc body by a division of labour, so to
Arcuate
speak. Thc lcft hcmisphcrc controls thc right side of the
body, including the right hand, thc right arm and the right
sidc of thc facc, whilc thc right hcmisphcrc controls the lcft
sidc of thc body. Thosc who havc suffcrcd a strokc (ccrcbral
I I ' hacmorrhagc) providc clcar cxamplcs of how this kind of
Auditory cross-ovcr control opcratcs. A strokc in thc right hemis-
Lntcrnl fissure
phcrc of thc brain will lcavc victims affcctcd on the lcft sidc
of the body. Thus, thcy can lose control ovcr the musclcs in
the lcft hand, lcft Icg and thc lcft side of thc facc (including
\ ' l ' l ~ M l ) O l ~ A'l . that sidc of the tonguc and mouth), with thc result that thcir
L0I)E ability to rnovc thc lcft arin and Icg and to spcak clearly will
T h e lcft hcniisphcrc of the hurn:111 ccrchral cortcx (sitlc view). It s l ~ o w sthc he affected.
I:~~ihqiage nrcils - Ilroca's : I I I ~ Wcrnickc's co1111cctcdhy the, nrcllntc Ciscicul~~s, I-lowcvcr, n strokc would not affcct vision and Ilcnring
nntl the nngulnr gyrus; Tour lol)cs - liontnl. parict:~l,occipiti~l,nnd ccrnlroml; in cxactly the salilc way. A strokc in the rclcval~t:lrcns in
:III(Itlic l:itcr:~lfissure a1111tllc cv11tri11SIIIC~IS,
onc sidc of the brain w o ~ ~ not
l d nuto~naticallyrci~dcri~sclcss
Figure 9.1 'Illc hr:~in:ovc.rhc:ld :III~ sidc views the cyc and car on the oppositc sidc of thc body, 11ccnusc
178 Language and mind
there is a criss-cross control when it comes to our organs ( normally have a thicker left hemisphere (one specialization
sight and hearing. For sight, there is what is termed 'fielc
of vision', in which the connections from each eye a
separated, sending the left half (left field) of what it sees
one hemisphere and the right half (right field) to the othe
The left and right fields are then integrated as a whole in tl
brain. Hearing works in a somewhat similar fashion wi
fibres of the acoustic nerve in each ear distributing tl
incoming signal to both hemispheres. More fibres from tl
left ear cross over and connect directly to the rig
hemisphere than the number of fibres connected directly
the left hemisphere. Conversely, more fibres from the rig
ear cross to the left hemisphere than the number of fibr
connected to the right hemisphere.
Now, even though the hemispheres of the brain divi*
the labours of the body, they do not do so evenly. In
sense, we might say that the body cannot serve tv
masters; one side must take charge. Perhaps, to have t
two hemispheres competing over which hand should
used first to fight off an attacker o r to hunt with would n
be advantageous for the survival of thc species. TI
phenomenon, whcrc onc hemisphere is thc major
controlling one, is called dominaitce.
For right-handed persons, the left hemisphere gcncral
dominates the right hemisphere, with thc result that tho
people tend to prefer their right hands. Countcr
cxpcctations, only about 40 per cent of left-handcrs ha.
right-brain dominance. The majority havc Icft-brain donlii
ancc but their dominance is much lcss marked than
naturally right-handed persons. This lack of strong domil
ancc for Icft-handcrs is bclicvcd to bc a factor contributir
to spcaking problc111s and to various reading and writin
dysfi~nctions, such as reversal of lcttcrs and words whc
reading and writing. (Forcing 11aturally Icft-hatldcrs to 1
right-handers docs not rcn~cdy such problcms but on1
scrvcs to worsen them and create others.)
Also, somc studies suggest that thcrc arc diffcrc~lcc
bctwcc11 the brains of malcs and fcmalcs. In one cxpcrinlcnl
Marion I)ia~nond a t the Uilivcrsity of C:llifornia ;,
13crkclcy, has shown th;lt i~!jccring sex Ilor~noncs intl
youi~grats call ;~ffcctthe dcvclopnlcnt of t l ~ cthickness ;1111
size o f thc hcn~isphcrcs of their hrnins. Wllilc fcn~:ilc
Language and the brain 179
of which involves general sensory functions) and males have
a thicker right hemisphere (one specialization o f which
involves visual-spacial functions), her injection of hormones
had brought about a reversal o f hemisphere thickness in the
sexes by the time the rats became young adults. A related
study with human children (aged 2 to 8 years), who had
high levels o f androgen (a predominantly male hormone)
due to a genetic glandular disorder, was recently published
in a 1992 issue of the journal Psycholog.ica1 Sciences. The
researchers found that the girls with this condition (of being
exposed to the male hormone as foetuses), when given t w o
sets of toys that children traditionally show preference for by
sex, played twice as long with so-called boys' toys (blocks,
trucks, cars) than girls w h o had not had such an exposure.
The brain assigns, as it were, certain structures and
functions to certain hemispheres of the brain. Language,
logical and analytical operations, and higher mathematics,
for cxample, generally occur in the left hemisphere of the
brain, while the right hemisphere is superior at recognizing
emotions, recognizing faces and taking in the structures of
things globally without analysis. This separation of struc-
turc and function in the hemispheres is technically referred
to as lateralization: incoming experiences are received by the
lcft o r right hcmisphcre depending on the nature of thosc
cxpcricnccs, bc thcy speech, faces o r sensations of touch.
Associated with latcralization is what might be termed
'carcdncss', whcrc right-handed pcrsons with lateralization
for language in thc left hcmisphcrc will perceive morc
rcadily spcec-11 sounds through thc right car than the Icft. For,
whcn speech sounds arc prcscntcd simultancously to both
cars (dichotic) in listening cxpcrimcnts, thosc to the right
car arc preferred. For cxamplc, a person with normal
hearing who is simultancously prcsc~ltcdwith 'ba' through
an carphonc on tllc lcft car and ' d ; ~ through
' an carphonc on
the right car, will perceive 'cia' morc strongly o r dominantly.
This is probably because 'da' passes directly to the 1angii;lgc-
processing centres in the lcft hc~misphcrc while the '173'
spccch sound coming in the lcft cbnr must tr:lvcl n longer
route; the. ' 1 ~ 'will automatically go to the right 11cniisphcrc
first, hilt then he rcroutcd to the I;1ilguagc ;lrcb:lcin rllc. lcfr
hc~nisphcrcthrough thc corptls c ; l l l o s ~ ~ c~oi l~ l ~ l c ' c t i o(As
~~.
180 Language and mind
noted above, incoming sound mainly crosses over to thc
opposite hemisphere.) Because of the longer path the speed
sound presented to the left ear must travel, that sounc
would arrive at the language centre after that of the sounc
presented to the right ear. Arriving later may well be wha
weakens its effect. This situation does not hold for all type
of sound, however. Music and non-linguistic sounds, noise
and animals sounds, for example, are perceived mor
strongly in the left ear, since they are processed in the rigk
(non-language) hemisphere.
For our purposes, we are concerned with the lateraliza
tion of language - that is, the areas of the brain which ar
involved in the usc of language. Research has clearly show
that language centres predominate in the left hemisphere i
right-handed people and sometimes in the right hemispher
for left-handed people. The main language centres in the le
hemispheres are Broca's area, in the front part of the brair
Wernicke's area, towards the back, and the aiigular gyrti.
which is even further back. Broca's arca and Wernickc's arc
are connected by tissue (thc arcuate fasciculus). Thcsc arc:
are not found in the right hemisphere.
Whilc thc two hcn~isphcrcssuperficially appcar to b
identical mirror images of one another, research h:
demonstrated that this is not thc casc, ncithcr structural1
nor functionally. Wada has shown that infants at birth hav
a bulge in thc lcft hcmisphcrc, whcrc languagc is typical1
located, but not in the corrcsponding arca of the rig1
hemisphere. Also, in a group of 100 normal hun~an:
Gcschwind and Lcvitsky havc dcmonstratcd that Wcrnickc'
i Thc modcl most rcscarchers usc today in describing how we
arca is gcncrally larger than thc corresponding arca in th
right hcmisphcrc. Morcovcr, such asymmetry of the brai~
is cvcn prcscnt in the foctiis, appearing by thc 31st wcck
Certain aspects of latcralization havc bee11 dramaticall.
1 obscrvcd that Uroca's arca was ncar that part of the brain
confirmed by the work of Spcrry, who separated th
hemispheres of thc brain by severing the connecting tissue
thc corpus callosum, of a number of patients. (The piirposl
of the proccdurc was to treat cxtrcmc cases of epilepsy.
With the corpus callosum n o longer intnct, inforn~ntionnc
longcr flowed from henlisphere to hc~nisphcrc;Is it docs i~
normal persons. Tllc ftlllctio~lsof the conlplctc hrnin wcrc
no long" i~~tcgratcd. I3y cxpcri~~lc~~t:rlly
;~llowinginforma-
ti011 to reach o11ly o ~ i c hcmisphcrc or the other, c.g.
Language and the brain 181
showing written words to the right visual field only,
researchers were thus able to test the abilities of the separate
hemispheres. It was found that 'split-brain' persons still
could use speech and writing in the disconnected left
hemisphere but that their right hemisphere had little such
capacity. In normal persons, the right hemisphere has more
capability.
When tactile (touch) information passed to the left
hemisphere, split-brain patients were completely capable of
verbally describing objects and talking about things they
had just touched, for example. If, however, patients
experienced things only with the right hemisphere, they
could not talk about the experience at all, since the
information could not be passed through the severed corpus
callosum to the left hemisphere for expression in speech.
The right hemisphere, in general, was also incapable of
imagining the sound of a word, even a familiar one, and
patients failed simple rhyming tests, such as determining by
reading, which word, 'pie' or 'key', rhymes with 'bee',
while the right hemisphere was better at spatial tasks such as
matching things from their appearance, e.g. being able to
corrcctly reassemble halves of photographs. Generally, these
tests showed that only the left hemisphere is used for
speaking and writing.
9.3 Language areas and functioning
comprehend languagc is still onc largely based on that
proposcd by Wcrnickc ovcr a century ago. Wcrnickc
which involvcs thc muscles which control spccch while thc
arca which hc idcntificd, later callcd Wcrnickc's arca, was
near the part of the brain which rcccivcs auditory stimuli.
I
13ascd on these observations, Wcrnickc hypothesized that
I the two areas must in s o n ~ cway be co~~ncctcd.Later
research showed that they arc indeed connected, being
co~~ncctcd by the arcuatc fasciculus.
Thus, according to Wcrnickc, o n hearing a word, the
sotinci of the word goes from the ear to the auditory :Ire3 of
the tcn~por:~l lobe a ~ l dthe11 to Wcrnickc's ;Irc;l. If a heard
186 Language and mind
where speech articulators such as the vocal chords, tongut
and mouth are controlled by muscles, an adult's difficulty ir
acquiring native-speaker pronunciation in a second languagt
is probably part of the overall decline in motor skills whicl
occurs around puberty. Clearly, one will make a bette
gymnast o r pianist if one starts at age 7 than if one starts a
age 27. Undoubtedly, the decline in motor skills is relate(
to the maturation of the brain, although just what tha
development might be has yet to be determined. Similarly
it is likely that the rote memory ability (simple association
which declines with age (see Chapter 10) is also related tc
the maturation of the brain. Since other aspects of seconc
language learning do not decline with age (the learning o
the abstract rules and principles of a grammar seen
unaffected), it may be that, as far as language is concerned
only motor skills and rote memory decline as the result o
brain maturation.
9.5 Language disorders
Language disorders, known as aphasias, arc prcsumcd tc
have as their cause some form of damagc to somc spccific
site in the hemisphere where language is locatcd. Suct
damage causes characteristic problems in spontancou!
speech, as well as in the understanding of spccch ano
writing. An extensive study, using radioisotope scanning, in
1967 by Bcnson servcd to support thc traditional distinction
that aphasias arc generally classifiablc into two groups,
Broca's aphasias and Wcrnickc's aphasias, by finding
abnormalities in the two areas. (In most persons, I3roca's
arca is locatcd in the frontal lobc of the lcft hcmisphcrc and
Wcrnickc's arca is in the temporal lobc of that samc
l~cn~ispl~crc.)In addition to these two basic groups, other
dysfiinctions were found.
9.5.1 Broca's aphasia
The trnditional view of 13roca's arc:r is that it coordinates
spcccl~~ n o v c m c ~ ~I tt swas
. in 1861 that t l ~ cFrcnclima~~,
I'aul
I%rocn,pnblishcd the first in n scrics of studies o n Inngungc
and hr;lin. This w;ls the hcginning of the triic scicntitic
Language and the brain 187
study of cases of aphasia, a term which describes a very
broad range of language disorders which is commonly
caused by tissue damage o r destruction in the brain. Car
accidents, war injuries and strokes are frequent causes of
such injuries. Broca was one of the first researchers to
discover that damage to certain portions of the brain, but
not to others, will result in speech disorders. T h e portion of
the brain which he identified as involving the coordination
of speech movements continues to bear his name.
O n e particular condition, n o w called 'Broca's aphasia',
is characterized by meaningful but shortened speech and
also occurs in writing. Grammatical inflections are often
lack.ing, such as the third person present tense '-s' ('Mary
want candy' for 'Mary wants candy') and the auxiliary 'be'
(tJoe coming' for 'Joe is coming'), as are articles, preposi-
tions and other so-called function words. In a way, the
speech is similar to that of children at the 'telegraphic' stage
of speech production (Chapter 1).
Although the feature o f Broca's aphasia most noted is
the fragmentary nature of speech production, it has only been
recently discovered that speech comprehension is also affected.
In one cxpcriment, a patient with Broca's aphasia, when
presented with thc sentence, 'The apple that the boy is
cating is red', could understand the sentence, particularly
with rcgard to who is doing thc eating (the boy is doing the
eating). Howcvcr, when presented with thc sentence 'The
girl that the boy is looking at is tall', the samc patient could
not figurc out who was doing thc looking (the boy is
looking at the girl). In the first sentence, onc can guess the
mcaning from knowing the vocab~ilaryitcnls 'apple', 'hoy'
and 'vat', and from knowing what usually happens in the
world (boys cat apples and not vice versa). 13ut you cannot
giicss t11c ~ncaninj:of the second scntcncc simply from the
vocabulary, b c c n ~ ~ sboys c look at girls and girls look a t
boys. T o u ~ ~ d c r s t a nsuchd a scntcncc, one must be nblc to
analysc its syntactic relations. Thus, thcrc is ;I loss of
syntactic knowlcdgc i l l both spcccl~production ;lnd ul~dcr-
s t a ~ ~ d i n for
g thosc with 13rocn1s ap11;rsin. I~ltcrcstingly,
~ x o p l cwith 13roc;r's npliasia c;ln oftell sing very well, cvcn
using thc same words and structi~rcswliich they ;ire iil~ahlc
to uttcr i l l c ~ n v ~ r s n t i o nThis
. shows th;lt 1)rocn's ;lphasia is
not simply a hrcnkdown i l l the 11111scl1l;lr co11t1.01ol'spc.c.ch
188 Language and mind
movements, since those with this disorder can pronounc,
words to some extent. The loss, therefore, must extend tc
something of a deeper nature, probably involving intentio:
and control.
9.5.2 Wernicke's aphasia
This condition is characterized by speech which ofte
resembles what is called nonsense speech or double-talk.
sounds right and is grammatical but it is meaningless. It ca
seem so normal that the listener thinks that he or she has, :
is often the case in ordinary conversation, someho.
misheard what was said and therefore did not understand i
A patient with Wernicke's aphasia may say, 'Before I was i
the one here, I was over in the other one. My sister had t t
department in the other one', 'My wires don't hire right' c
'I'm supposed to take everything from the top so that we d
four flashes of four volumes before we get down low'.
Patients with Wernicke's aphasia also comn~onlypri
vide substitute words for the propcr ones on the basis (
similar sounds, associations or other features. Thc wor
'chair', for example, elicited the following in some patient
'shair' (similar sound), 'table' (association), 'thronc' (rclatc
meaning), 'wheclbasc' (uncatcgorizablc) and 'You sit on i
It's a . . . (word loss). As with Broca's aphasia, Wcrnicke
aphasia can also cause a sevcrc loss of spccch understanding
although the hearing of non-verbal sounds and nus sic ma
be unimpaired.
9.5.3 Other speech-related aphasias
In addition to thc kinds of aphasias whicl~call occur fro11
da~nagcto the two main languagc centres of the brain
Broca's arca and Wcrnickc's arca, thcrc arc other aphasia
which occur due to danlagc a t sitcs near or bctwce~lthosc
arcas and at othcr sitcs in the brain as yet ~~ndctermincd
Ilarnagc to the area which lcads into Wcrnickc's arca fron
thc auditory cortcx may result in purc. rvord dcqfirclss, whcrc
one cannot rccognizc the sounds of'words as specc11 but C ~ I ;
hcar othcr types of sounds. For cx;ln~plc,a person might bc
able to hcar music quite clearly 2nd even sing a ~nclody
which he or shc has just heard, but he unnblc to rccog~~izc
the lyrics of that song ns words.
,i Language and the brain 189
A condition known as conduction aphasia is characterized
by a poor ability to repeat words despite relatively good
i' comprehension. Persons with this aphasia might substitute a
closely related sound for the one they actually hear, e.g. for
'teethe' they say 'teeth' and for 'bubble' they say 'bupple'
(here inventing a new word but one that fits the way sounds
4 are combined to make English words). Some may also have
'
the ability to repeat strings of four or five digits, e.g. 4-5-9-
2, 3-8-4-2-7, yet be unable to repeat a simple three-syllable
sentence accurately, e.g. 'Joe is here., 'Betty sang'.
Anornic aphasia involves problems in finding the proper
' words for spontaneous speech, even though language
comprehension and repetition are good. Typically, such a
person has difficulty finding the correct names for objects.
This is a phenomenon which we all experience on a much
reduced non-pathological level at times, e.g. 'Hand me that
. . . uh . . . uh . . . uh . . . thing over there.'
There are also reported cases of patients being unable,
I
in response to a verbal command, to perform skilled motor
movements with their hands, even though they understand
4 the command and their spontaneous hand movements are
perfectly normal. Thus, while a person might spon-
taneously be able to pick up a pen, he or she may not be
1 able to perform the same task when asked to do so. This
? inability to respond appropriately to verbal commands is
callcd apraxia.
Thcrc is also 'qlohal aphasia, a terrible condition in which
many or all aspccts of languagc arc scvcrcly affected,
' presumably duc to n~assivcdamagc a t numcrous sites in the
lcft hcmispherc or to critical conncctions bctwccn language
arcas. Such paticnts dcmonstratc littlc spccch conlprehcn-
sion and display, a t best, s o n ~ cstcreotypic and automatic
1 scqucnccs of speech sounds. One woman who had suffered
a massivc stroke could say nothing but four nonscnsc
syllables, 'ga dak la doh', cvcry timc she tried to spcak.
In trying to dcternlinc what kind of aphasia will be
produccd by what kind of dan~agc,thcrc arc a nunlbcr of
, variables that must be taken into consideration. I t is not just
t l ~ clocation of d:lmagc to the brain wl1ich ~ ~ ~ a t t citr sis, also
i m p o r t a ~ ~tot know what the nature of thc damagc or the
lesion is. Was tissuc completely destroyed or was the
damagc slight? Did the da~nagcoccur suddenly or gr:ldually
over time? Since childhood Icsions may Icavc a mild deficit
 0
.UC-
crr
Q)
.J v? h
2 3 2
': 3z zzz
L C . ,

D Z Z
-
G ? S
i)
3
-2
z C
>
7
-
3

5L.S
--
2-
L)
L
rl-:
C
c

$ ka
194 Language and mind
with substitutions made in terms of the three characteristics
of signs (configuration, location and movement), the result
is the production o f many meaningless individual signs or of
signs which have meaning but are nonsensical in sentences.
And, just as in Wernicke's aphasia for speech, much
substitution occurs within the same lexical category: nouns
for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc. Furthermore, substitution
occurs, too, along semantically related lines, such a:
'daughter' for 'son' or 'bed' for 'chair', producing similarl)
bizarre results. O n e signing patient displayed Wernicke's
aphasia symptoms in his writing as well as sign language.
leading researchers to conclude that there is a genera
linguistic dysfunction at work and not just a mot01
dysfunction impairing the ability to sign.
Signers who have suffered damage to the righi
hemisphere generally do not display aphasia symptoms ir
the production of signs. Their sign production sccms tc
remain grammatical and unimpcdcd. Howcvcr, thcsc samc
persons are likely to suffer some impairment in thci~
comprchension of signs. Why it should be thc casc that thcii
ability to understand signs is disturbed but their ability tc
producc signs is not, as yet remains uncxplaincd.
In any case, thc sanlc gcncral pattcrns of aphasi:
cmcrgc in sign as with speech. l'aticnts with lcft-hcmisphcrt
damagc suffer the same aphasias whcthcr their language is :
spoken one or a signed one. Thus, cvcn though the rich,
hcmisphcrc is disposed to process spatial tasks, when thc
task involvcd is a linguistic onc and spatial syntax i:
involvcd, thc lcft I~cmisphcrc asscrts dolninance. Clcarl)
this shows that it is the lcft hcmisphcrc that is specially
ccli~ippcdto handlc Ianguagc, whcthcr the modality of thc
languagc be that of spccch or sign.
9.6 Methods of investigating brain and language
9.6.1 Established m e t h o d s : post-mortem, injured
people, electrical stimulation
The, co~iipnr;~tivclylittle undcrst;i~idi~igwc 1i:rvc of the
basis of I ; ~ n g \ ~ nigl lctllc I,r:~iliis the result of tllc
~ici~rologicnl
;~pplicntionof ;I rc~l;~tivcly sni;~ll~ i i ~ l i i h cofr ~ ~ i c ~ t l i o Tlic
ds.
Language and the brain 195
' oldest method, that used b y Broca himself, is the post-
mortem examination o f the brains o f patients w h o had
displayed language disorders while they were alive. T h e
abnormalities he found in certain areas o f their brains in
post-mortems correlated with the language symptoms they
displayed while alive. Another method involves observing
the language o f patients w h o have had brain operations. A
person might require - because o f an accident o r a tumour
for example - the removal o f a lobe o f the brain
(lobectomy) or even o f an entire hemisphere (hemispherec-
tomy). Then, too, the study o f the language of living
patients with severe brain damage caused by accidents or
war-time injuries was and still is a fruitful method o f
investigation.
A more recent method, pioneered by Penfield in the
1950s, involves the electrical stimulation o f the cerebral
cortex in patients w h o are conscious during brain surgery
(electroencephalography). O n being stimulated, patients
would report, for example, that they remember childhood
cvcnts or old songs. ( H o w to verify what the patient says
about thc past is a problem.) T h e use of this procedure has
been very limited since it is restricted to the open brain areas
o f pcrsons w h o arc undergoing surgery without the use of
anacsthcsia.
9.5.7 N e w high-tech m e t h o d s : CAT a n d PET
In rcccnt years, revolutionary ncw mcthods have bccn
dcvclopcd which Icnd thcmsclvcs nicely to thc study of
language and thc brain. Thcsc involvc powerful ncw
tcchniqi~cs in radiological imaging. CT (bcst known as
C A T , Computcrizcd Axial Tomography) and P E T (I'ositron
Eniission Tomography) arc the most widcly used in this
rcgard. 130th o f these tccl~niqucs use the brain as it is,
witl~outsurgery or any othcr radical proccdurc. As such
they may be used with normal persons as wcll as those with
17r;lin problc~iis.
A C A T scan involvcs usi~iga11 X-ray sotlrcc so ;IS to
m;lkc Ilunicrous slice sc;lns, thc images of whicli arc
integrated I>y computcr to construct ;111 image o f tlic wliolc
I7r;lili or portio~iof'it. (:urioiis scientists rccc.ntly used (:AT
to cs;~niilic;I sccrioli o f thc Imin o f 1jroc;l's origi11;il p:~ticnt,
 196 Language and mind
Leborgne, who is better known in scientific literature as
'Tau'. (He was nicknamed this because that sound was the
only one that he could utter.) The brain has been preserved
for over a 100 years in a medical museum in Paris! Modern
I
researchers were able to re-examine, as it were, the patient,
to determine just which areas of the brain had been affected.
I Tomography has shown that Broca was essentially correct
in concluding that the language deficits of the patient had
indeed involved trauma to the area of the brain which bears
I
his name.
Fascinating though the C A T method may be, undoub-
tedly the most exciting one to come along to date (in 1972:
i \
I
is PET, Positron Emission Tomography. Unlike C A T
which images slices of the brain and integrates them into :
whole by computer, PET allows for the dircct observatior
of the brain as a whole. Like CAT, it also allows for thc
study of language in both the normal or damaged brain
The PET procedure involves injecting a mildly radioactive
substance into the blood and then tracing the blood flou
patterns within the brain by means of special detector*
surrounding the person's head. Thcsc detectors ther
provide a colour image. With PET, areas of thc brain ligh
up in different colours whcn there is an incrcasc in blooc
flow (an indication of increased brain activity). As subjcct
perform various linguistic tasks givcn to them by rcscarch
I
I
crs, it becomes possible to map the areas which undcrlic
language use in the brain in a way that was ncvcr possiblc
before.
In reading, for example, the PET scan shows that ligh
signals from the eyes (as we look at the printed word) arc
scnt to thc visual area of the cortex (in thc occipital lobc'
thcn forward to the visual association arcas. Whcn spccch i:
hcard, on the othcr hand, thc acoustic signals from thc cal
go to thc auditory cortcx (in thc temporal lobc). PET' scan!
arc ablc to dctcrinine how closcly inodcls of spccch
production and understanding a11d models of rcading ant
writing conform to reality.
PET has already providcd cvidencc that counters ollc
vicw of rcading which holds that thc printed word IIILIS~
always bc soundcd out in ordcr to bc undcrstood. I t sl~owcd
that visual forms of words may bc scnt directly to the
scrnantic arcas in thc frontal lobc for con~prchcnsion.Acccsq
Language and the brain 197
I
to the stored auditory form in the angular gyrus for
mentally sounding out words is not necessary in the
recovery of meaning. This direct semantic connection
I occurs mainly with common, familiar words. However,
even when people have learned to read by a method of
( sounding out letters, like Phonics, after repeated exposure
:' to the written words, the sounding-out activity will be
bypassed and the semantic areas will be directly activated.
'
Only when a special task is presented, such as trying to
determine whether 'blue' or 'go' rhymes with 'shoe' (the
words are presented in written form), will a portion of the
. brain near the auditory cortex light up, indicating that
,
internal sounding out is taking place.
New discoveries by using PET are of such widespread
interest nowadays that they are being reported frequently in
the newspapers and magazines. In October 1991 I read
where researchers, investigating the recall of a word,
discovered that both the frontal and visual lobes of the right
' hemisphere are activated. Such functions of the right
hemisphere were previously unknown. Then, on 17 February
4 1992, thc New York Times News Service reported that, by
mcans of PET:
1. The brain distributes language processing over a few or
many cerebral areas. According to researcher George
Ojcmann, many additional areas of the brain, besides
Broca's and Wcrnickc's arcas, are involved in languagc.
2. Second languages arc rathcr looscly organized in thc
( brain. A sccond languagc can evcn be localized in the
right hcmisphcre. Thc casc of Carla, 22, is cited. She
grew up spcaking both hcr nativc Italian and English.
Whcn shc bcgan training to bccomc a simultancous
I translator, hcr languagc abilities in both Italian and
Englisll wcrc localizcd in thc lcft hcmisphcrc. Aftcr
tra~~slationtraining, l~owcvcr, English shifted to thc
right l~cinisphercalthough Italian rcrilaincd on the lcft!
Such findings, if replicated, will s o ~ n c h o wliavc to be
incorporated into gcncral thcory.
9.7 Mind and brain
W11:lt is thc relationship bctwccn mind nnd hrain? Certainly,
198 Language and mind
without brain, there would be no mind. But does th
necessarily imply that the mind is under the complel
control of the brain? These questions take us back t
Chapter 7 where the relationship between mind and bod
was discussed. What was said for body, of course, applies 1
brain since brain is a part of body.
The issue is this: Is there a pevfect correlation between
person's experiences and the events which take place in the brai
While there is strong evidence of a general dependence
mental occurrences on the functioning of the brain, it h
never been shown that the correspondence is so exact tl-
from observation of a person's brain one could arrive at
knowledge of the person's experiences in every detail. Ma1
theorists believe that consciousness plays a role in determi
ing events in the mind and, hence, in the brain; and that,
it were not for conscious control, we would find ourselv
in a continual dream-like state where events would occ
and be experienced in the mind but where we would ha
no power to act in ordcr to control such events.
We have now arrived at another philosophical problci
the issue of frec will and determinism. Arc cvcnts in t
mind wholly determined by other evcnts? Thcsc can
events which had occurred in the brain or cvcnts which h
occurred in mind. T h e determinisn~ of cvcnts can
physical (from thc brain and othcr parts of thc cent1
nervous system) or it can be mcntal (fro111 the operations
the mind), or both, depending on whcthcr one takes
dualist or monist view of thc iinivcrsc. According
dualists, thcrc are two kinds of stuff in the univcrsc, ti
physical and the mental. For monists, thcrc is just one kina
with the physical usually being prcfcrrcd. Othcr rcccl
approachcs, such as Functionalism, have tricd to avoid suc
distinctions altogether by offering pragmatic analysc
These, l~owcvcr, havc not bccn succcssfi~l. Even tk
principal foundcr of Ful~ctionalism,Jcrry Fodor, has foun
it ncccssary to nbandon that philosophy.
Altllough the free will V C ~ S L I Sdctcrminism issue hn
cngagcd thillkcrs for ovcr thousancis of yc;irs nnd m;ln
solutions have hccn proposed concerning its rcsoli~tion,i
h;ls yct to bc solved to thc s;~tisfactionol' ally but tllc 111os
zcalous. Whct11c.r future ckncluiry into the fi~nctionill!: of thc
1 Language and the brain 199
brain can provide a resolution to the issue, remains to be
seen.
i
Discussion questions
Are you right-handed o r left-handed? Are you a
mixture o f both? Why might you have the hand
preference that you have?
Does the size o r weight o f the brain o r the cerebral
cortex have anything t o d o with language in humans?
What functions are typically handled by the left
hemisphere? By the right hemisphere?
What is dominance and h o w does it differ from
lateralization?
Why might left-handed people have reading and
writing problems?
What happens to people's functioning when the
connection between the hemispheres is cut? Also, how
docs this relate to lateralization?
If a person produces fluent but nonsensical sentences
likc 'Wc down and to the other' o r substitutes words
for thc correct word, such as 'pool' or 'wet' for 'water',
what kind of aphasia might this person have?
What aphasia is characterized by spcech such as 'Go
store milk'?
Why might right-handed peoplc gcncrally prefcr listcn-
ing to speech with thcir right car?
If a fricnd of yours was in a car accident and his o r hcr
brain was damagcd, how would you tcst for thc
following languagc f~inctions: (a) spccch production;
(b) spccch iindcrstanding; (c) reading; (d) writing?
110 you think thcrc is a critical agc for first- o r sccond-
language learning?
Why is it necessary for a comprchcnsivc thcory of brain
structure and fi~nction to include localization and
holistic approaches?
What advantagcs docs PET have ovcr traditional
methods of brain invcstigation?
Is brain diffcrcnt from mind? C;in n complctc under-
standing of brain providc a con~plctcunderstanding of
mind?
200 Language and mind

Suggested readings

Blumstein, Sheila (1988) Neurolinguistics: an overview oflanguag i

brain relations in aphasia. In Newmeyer (1988). PART 3
Caplan, D. (1987) Neurolinguistics and Linguistic Aphasiology: /
Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lenneberg, Eric (1967) Biological Foundations of Language. Ne
Second language
York: Wiley.
Newmeyer, F. (ed.) (1988) Linguistics: The Cambridge Survey, v
III, Language: Psychological and Biological Aspects.
Poizner, H., Klima, E. and Bellugi, U. (1987) What the Hat
Reveal About the Brain. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Sasanuma, S. (1985) Surface dyslexia and dysgraphia: how ;
they manifested in Japanese? In K. E. Patterson, J. C. Marsh
and M. Coltheart (eds), Deep Dyslexia. London: Routledge
Kegan Paul.
Sperry, R. W. (1982) Some effects of disconnecting the cereb
hemispheres. Science, 217, 1223-6.

Journals

Brain and Cognition

Brain and Language
Neurolinguistics
Studies in Neurolinguistics
i
CHAPTER 10

Children vs adults in second-

\
language acquisition
i

, 10.1 A common belief

Most people believe that children arc better than adults
when attempting to learn a second language. That seems to
be backed up by common observation, since young second-
language learners d o seem to pick up another language
rather quickly, just by being exposed to it. Whether this
belief is justified is the focus of this chapter. As w e shall see,
all of our psycholinguistic knowledge (and then some) will
i bc nccded in order to approach a reasonable answer to this
problcm.
Factors involved in second-language acquisition can be
i dividcd into t w o kinds, thc psychological and the social.
i Undcr 'psychological' wc shall considcr intellectual process-
i r i ~ ,which is involved in the detcrn~inationof grammatical
structures and rules, memory, which is essential for lcarning
to occur, and lwotor skills, which involve thc use of thc
I
articulators of speech (tongue, lips, vocal chords, ctc.) for
t11c prodiiction of thc sounds o f a second languagc. Undcr
'social' wc shall considcr thc types of situations, scttings and
intcractions which affcct our ability to lcarn a sccond
languagc, in particular thc watrrral and clnssroorn situations.
I

10.2 Psychological factors affecting second-language

learning
I 10.2.1 Intellectual processing
Tlicrc ilrc only two ways to Icarn the stroctiires 2nd rules of
;I scco~ldlanguage: somconc can cxpl;~inthcnl to y o u or you
ciin figure tllcnl out for yourself. T h e first wily niay bc
tcrmcd 'explication', the sccond 'induction'.
 , ' 204 Second language
Explication
Explication is the process whereby the rules and structure:
of a second language are explained to the learner in his 01
\ without much difficulty. For example, a mature Korean
her native language. The person is then expected tc
understand, learn and apply them in the second language
N o second language, however, can be learned entirely b!
\
1,
such means. Although many second-language teacher,
assume that the rules of a language have all been discoverec
and written down, and that all they have to do is reac
enough to find them, this is not so. One cannot go to .
I bookstore and buy a book or any number of books whicl
I 1
I
come close to explaining completely the grammar of an:
language. Even for a language such as English, the mos
1
studied of all languages, one still finds linguistic journal
I discussing the concepts involved in such commonplac~
features of English as the article and tense.
Explaining is rarely done by parents or others w h e ~
children acquire a native language, yet children by the ag
of 4 or 5 understand and speak most of their native languag.
quite well. Parents do not even atterllpt to explain .
relatively simple morpheme rule, likc that of the plural
You don't hear them saying: 'Now, Mary, to make thc
plural of "dog" you add a "z" sound to the end of the word
while with "duck" you add an "s". You do this, Mary
I
because the last sound of "dog" has a voiced consonant an(
the last sound of "duck" has an unvoiced one.' Even i
parents were able to formulate the explanation, which mos
cannot, they know that their childrcn would not be ablc tc
understand it. Similarly, parents do not tell their cliildrcr
that there is a Subject + Verb+ Object ordering in t1ici1
language, or that, in order to negate a scntcncc likc 'John
wanted some cliocolatc ice-cream', do must be inserted, thc
tense on tlie verb must be shifted onto tlic do, the ncgativc
marker not lnust be illscrtcd after do, and rornc must change
to n n y , so that the scntcncc 'John did not want ally chocolate
icc-crcaln' will be the rcsult. It is ollly with :I high degree of
intcllcct~i;rl maturity that n person can understand such
explicit cxplar~ntions.
I-lowcvcr, while some syntactic rulcs niay be so
conlplcx ;111d;~bstractthat few pcoplc otllcr than students of
Children vs adults in second-language acquisition 205
linguistics can comprehend them (let alone remember them
so as to use them correctly!), there are simple rules which
I can be taught by explication to adults and older children
speaker studying English could be told that there is a
'
Subject +Verb +Object order of constituents or that
English requires count nouns to have a plural marker added
when more than one object is involved. O n the basis of
\ these descriptions, a learner can learn relevant usable rules.
In such cases, explication may even be a faster means of
learning than induction, since induction requires that a
learner be repeatedly exposed to words, phrases and
scntences along with relevant situations that give some
indication as to their meaning.
Induction
Learning rules by self-discovery is the essence of the process
, of induction. The child who is exposed to second-language
speech and remembers what he or she has heard will be able
to analyse and discover the generalization or rule that
undcrlics that speech. Actually, not only must the learner
:
devise, co~~sciously or unconsciously, the rule based on the
j
speech that has been heard, but lie or she must also figure
out how those rulcs are to be applied in other cases. For
example, given the scntences 'John danccd then John sang'
'
and 'John danced and then he sang', spoken in a relevant
situation, the lcarncr can determine that the two sentences
arc related, with hc being a replacelllent for Jolin. The
lcarncr 111ust also figure out that while /.re can rcplaccJolzrr in
tlie second of the colljoincd scntcnccs, i t cannot do so in the
first (c.g. in 'I-Ic danccd then John sang') since in that case
the pronoun Iic must rcfcr to sonleone other than John.
With such a rille, the lcarncr is 011 the way to being ablc to
i ~ s c and understand increasingly complicated structures
I .
i ~ ~ v o l v i n gpro~lon~inalizatio~l.
Such p h c n o m c ~ ~ ans pro-
non~inalizatio~~, ncg:ltion and thC plural arc Ic:~r~lcdby
inciuction and hcconlc part of ;I young nntivc speaker's
language knowledge quite early, long before the child cntcrs
scl1001.
m o m
z .$
.
n
$4
y d
s o m
.2 5
g
e,
u
Eo ,-,
o z
5 E'"
U O P I s
0

d U ? 3
Y Z E
Q 0 0
u
.3
.z
2 % ".
Cd rO CJ
bar= .$!
2(
r e E
+
6s

-2*-2
o r o
0
2
a
o-
+
.rp.z
2 a .-E
.3
UAzc ("

a U e L
c u m 0
aG8
I f c a
c *9z2 .s
8 A
$ 2 .-
e r e , 0
o > -d
8c.s b
s ac
0
L%p
0
e CJ r,2
208 Second language
world, built up over decades, remaining intact. O n the
other hand, the ability to deal successfully with material
such as lists of new names and words (clearly relevant to
learning vocabulary in a second language) is affected.
10.2.3 Motor skills
Good pronunciation, which is related to the ability to
control the organs of speech, is clearly an essential part of
learning a foreign language. Jaws, lips, tongue, vocal
chords, etc., are controlled by muscles, all of which are
under the general control of the brain. The organs of speech
have to do the right thing at the right time if one is to
speak, and especially if one is to speak a second language
like a native. Evidence shows that the particular motor skill
of speech pronunciation is best developed at a younger age.
In areas other than language, one can obscrve relatcd
phenomena. Few people who start some new sport or
involve themselves in such disciplincs as gymnastics or
violin playing at the agc of 20 are ablc to attain thc samc
level of proficiency as those who start 10 or so ycars earlier.
Somewhere around the agc of 10 and 12 ycars the ability to
acquire new motor skills begins to decline.
The reason for this dcclinc is as yet unknown, although
since the decline is of such a gcncral nature, involving all
parts of the body, it seems likely to bc duc to some changc
in central functioning in the brain. This is not to dcny,
howcvcr, that there may not be other, secondary rcasons
why a foreign accent persists in a second languagc. One's
pcrceptual ability to hear foreign speech sounds accurately
(cspccially thosc which differ only slightly from sounds in
thc nativc languagc), may also contributc to incorrcct
pronunciation.
Children lcarning a sccond language typically lean1 to
spcak i t with a pronunciation that is indistinguishable from
that of a nativc speaker. Few adults, on thc other halid, arc
ablc to achicvc suc11 a level. What is puzzlillg, howcvcr, is
that thcrc appear to be cxccptiolls among adults. I an1 of the
vicw that solnc adults (mature persons beyond t l ~ c; ~ g cof
pubcrty) do Icarn to spcak a second language with nativc
Children vs adults in second-language acquisition 209
I
pronunciation. (A counterviewpoint on whether there are
truly exceptions is discussed in Section 10.5, 'Critical age'.)
/ Is this simply a matter of individual differences or are some
persons somehow exempt from the barrier experienced by
most adults in learning the pronunciation of a second
' l a n g u a g e ? There is no way of answering this at our current
stage of scientific knowledge. Research studies that have
been done on pronunciation in second-language learning are
unanimous in their findings (e.g. Oyama, 1976; Tahta et al.,
1981; and for a book length consideration see Scovel, 1988).
Younger children in immigrant families, for example, are
1 found to acquire perfect or near-perfect accents, while their
older siblings or parents generally do not, even when these
older people have mastered other aspects of the language
such as its syntax and vocabulary. While there is general
agreement that the ability to acquire pronunciation declines,
there has been little discussion as to whether there is a
' decline in the ability to acquire syntax and other aspects of
language. Most theorists seem to think, and I would agree,
that there is little or no decline in this respect.
A summary of the various psychological factors and
their functioning according to age is shown in Table 10.1.
; Thus, for example, children undcr the age of 7 years are
' ratcd 'high' on all psychological factors except 'explicative'
I
proccssing, whilc, adults are rated 'high' on 'inductive' and
'cxplicativc' proccssing but 'low' on 'mcmory' and 'motor
skills'.
Table 10.1 Psychological and social factors affecting second-
language Icarning for childrcn and adults
I
I'sychological fnctors Social hctors
Intcllcctu:il Situ:~tion
Motor
Ir~tlt~crivcExplicative Memory skills Natural Classroom
C:lliltlrc~~
Untlcr 7 t-lil:l~ Low High I-ligll t-lil:l~ Low
7-12 IFlil:l1 Mcdiuni Mctlll l i ~ l i Mctlll ligh Mi-tliu~n M c d i t ~ l l ~
Adllltz
v I 1I t lip,li 1.ow Low Low 111):I1
210 Second language
10.3 Social situations affecting second-language
learning
What are some of the social factors which might explai
, to devote time to interacting with someone w h o does not
why children and adults seem to differ so much in the
ability to acquire native speech in a foreign language? Such
discussion can be divided into t w o parts, learning in
'natural' setting and learning in the 'classroom'.
10.3.1 The natural situation
, adults. For young children, language is not essential to
A natural situation for second-language learning is 01
where the second language is experienced in a situation th
' each other's company and just speak occasionally. Adults
is similar to that in which the native language is learnel
That is, language is experienced in conjunction with tl
objects, situations and events of everyday life; it is 11,
taught in a classroom. The paradigm case would be that of
young child going to live in another country and learni~
' come from a different school o r town have difficulty in
that country's language, not by any explicit teaching, but t
interacting with playmates, as, for example, an Englisl
speaking 4-year-old girl from London who goes to Bciir
with her parents. Through playing with Chinese childre,
she soon learns Chinese.
Generally speaking, as one gets older there is a dccli~
in the kind of social interaction which promotes languak
learning. Adult second-language learners will have sii
nificantly fewer good language-learning opportunities in
new culturc than will children. O f course, if thc adults sta
at home, thcy will not be able to meet and talk much t
nativc spcakers. If they work, then, because of their lack c
second-language ability, thcy will not be hircd to do wor
that requires nativc spcakers to linguistically interact wit
them. Whether tlicir work allows them to use tlicir nativ
language (as business people, language teachers, ctc.), o
whctlicr their work involves a minimal amount of scconc
languagc (construction work, disliwashing), in cithcr cas
learners will Ilavc but a limited opportunity to cxpcricncc
appropriate scco~~d-languagc dat;l i l l tlic 11ati1r:lls i t i ~ ; ~ t i o ~ l
Except for situations involving love or nloney, it is ;~lnio.;
iml9.ossihlc to imagine n situatio~lin wl~ich;ldults would bi
conti~iu;~lly cxposcd to the s;rnlc good qu;llity ;111di1~1;111tiry
of IanguagC tliat a child rccc.ivcs.
Children vs adults in second-language acquisition 211
For adults, social interaction mainly occurs through the
medium of language. Few native-speaker adults are willing
speak the language. T h e adult foreigner, therefore, will have
little opportunity to engage in meaningful language exchange
except for picking up bits o f language that are experienced
in the workplace o r in shopping. In contrast, the young
child is often readily accepted by other children, and even
social interaction. So-called 'parallel play', for example, is
common among children. They can be content just to sit in
rarely find themselves in similar situations.
The older the child, however, the greater the role that
language plays in social interaction and the more the person
will experience difficulty in being accepted. Peer group
acceptance becomes a problem, especially around the age of
puberty. Even children w h o speak the same language but
gaining acceptance. Without such acceptance, second-
language lcarning in a natural situation can hardly begin.
Because language is essential for social interaction and
, because people gcncrally cravc such interaction, foreign
; adults oftcn tcnd to stick together in a new environment.
1 Friendships for the adult arc easier to form in the old
language and even business can oftcn be conducted at least
partially in thc old languagc. T l ~ c n ,too, many largc cities
, with sizable foreign populations have radio, television and
newspapers in thc forcign languages. All of these things
tcnd to reduce thc amount of second-language exposure for
adults in a way that does not occur for cl~ildrcn.
10.3.2 The classroom situation
The classrooni for sccond-languagc Icarni~igis a planned, o r
some might say, a11 ;~rtificiallyconstr-uctcd, siti~ation.As we
all know, physically, tlicrc is n roo111 which is ;~rr;lngcdso
thnt i t is iso1;ltcd fro111 the rest of life. In the room tl~crcis a
tc;ichcr ;111d;I 1111nil>cro f students. Tlic tc;lchcr is thc one
cvho Icnow.; tlic l:i~lgu;igc~ ;111dtllc S I L I L ~ C I ;1rc
~ ~ S tlicrc to Ie;lr11
g c .tlic. cncloscd sp;lcc of tllc cl;lssroom,
t11c I ; ~ n ~ ; r ~ : ~111
11othi11g 11;lppuis i ~ ~ i l c s stlic tcncllcr n1:tkcs i t 11nppe11.
212 Second language
Students do not act on their own but follow the direction
of the teacher. All other aspects of life are suspended c
subordinated to language learning. This, of course, is ver
different from the home or street where the learner eats at
table, walks around doing things, bathes, plays outdoc
games, etc., all while hearing and using language i
conjunction with these activities.
In the natural situation, language is but one aspect (
life, an aspect which accompanies other life events. In tl:
classroom, however, language itself becomes the prim
aspect of life around which all else revolves. The languag
that is to be experienced by the students is planned. Whi
there are degrees of planning with more or less emphasis c
speech, literacy, spontaneity, etc., nonetheless, the course
events is planned and the teacher is the planner. In
physically isolated room, where only onc person, tl
teacher, is the prime sourcc of the new language, planning
unavoidable. This is true even for methods which attcml
to simulate the natural situation (discussed in some detail
the next chapter) by attempting to reproduce in tl
classroom some of the natural language expcricnccs whit
occur outside the classroom. Exposurc to good natil
speech, role playing and gamcs arc somc of the dcvicl
employed to allow for the natural self-discovery of languat
and its use. Still, it is the tcachcr who plans and contrc
such activities.
There are other characteristics of the planned classroo
situation which distinguish it from thc natural situatiol
Thcsc includc social adjustment to group proccsscs (ind
viduals must subordinate their behaviour and follo*
classroom proccdurcs for thc bcncfit of all), the 11ccd t
attend class in order to lcarn, the nccd for long periods (
conccntration and, whcn rcquircd, having to do how
study. As far as language is conccrncd, the explicit tc;lchin
of granlnlatical structi~rcs and rules niay be involvcc
dcpcnding on thc method used. Using books and takin
notes arc often cxpcctcd of the student. Students have to gc
used to learning language as a acadc~nicsul$cct. Thus, whc
considcring overall the demands of the classroom situntio~i
it is clear that the oldcr one is, the hcttcr one is able to ac!ju~
and function within th;lt siti~;ition.Yoi111gchilcirc~~ will
cluitc poorly in c o ~ n p r i s o nto oldcr childrcn ; ~ n d; ~ d i ~ l t s
Children vs adults in second-language acquisition 213
Whether the classroom is in a school that is in the
community where the second language is spoken is a matter
i of some importance, for this will determine whether
'
students will have access to a natural situation outside of the
class and thereby may supplement their classroom learning.
Thus, for example, Pakistanis learning English in a
classroom in London will have beneficial language experi-
ences outside of the classroom that Pakistanis learning
English in a classroom in Karachi will not. The former
(learning English in Britain) is an English as a Second
Language (ESL) context while the latter (learning English in
I
Karachi) is an English as a Foreign Language (EFL) context.
Because the ESL context provides more language-learning
( opportunities for the second-language learner through
exposure to natural situations outside the classroom, such
learners, unsurprisingly, will generally progress more
rapidly than learners living in an EFL context. Furthermore,
in comparing children and adults, we may say that, given
that the natural situation benefits children more than adults,
the ESL context will benefit children more than it will
adults. O f course, the ESL context will benefit adults too,
but to a lesser degree.
A summary of the social situational factors, natural and
I
\
classroom, and their functioning according to age is shown
on the right sidc of Table 10.1. Thus, for example, whilc
childrcn under thc age of 7 ycars are rated 'high' concerning
the qi~ality and quantity of language interactions in the
, natural situation, thcy arc ratcd 'low' on adjustment and
skills in t l ~ cclassroonl situation. Thc opposite is the case for
the adults who ratc 'low' in the natural situation but 'high'
in the classroo~nsituation.
10.4 Who is better?
13ccausc t l ~ canswer to this qi~cstiondcpcnds o n whether we
;Ire dealing wit11 the natural or the classroom situation, each
situntion n ~ u s tbc considered scpnratcly in relation to the
psycllologicnl f;lctors wllich ;lffcct tllc I c a r ~ ~ of
i ~ Iangungc.
~g
With tllis nppronch, we sh;lll then be able to rc:~chsomc
co~~clusions i n cornpilring the ;~chicvcnlcntsof childrcn ; ~ n d
;~dultsi n scco1ld-I;111gu;1gclearning. The summary data
214 Second language
presented in Table 10.1 will serve to make it easier to dra
conclusions in this regard.
10.4.1 The natural situation
In the natural situation, younger children will do best. First
all, the natural situation is more favourable to childr
because adults undergo a marked decline in the quality a1
quantity of the social interaction conducive to go(
language learning. There is no question that, in a natu
situation, the social activities o f children, especially you.
children, expose them to massive amounts o f good, natu
language. This does not occur for adults, and, in many ca:
not even for older children. In extreme cases, members
these groups may even find themselves in social conditio
which are hostile - conditions which discourage secor:
language learning. Still, the older child will have
advantage over the adult.
Psychologically, while both childrcn and adults ha
optimal powers o f induction, and are able to inducc t
grammar of a second language more o r lcss equally wc
nonetheless, it will be easier for children to Icarn synt
than it will be for adults. This is because adults undcrgc
decline in memory, and, without rcmcmbcrcd data, therc
nothing to analyse. Adults and cvcn oldcr childrcn
longer have thc formidable powers of rote Icarning tl
young children do. Although adults may devise mcmc
strategies and can seek out nlorc practice, ncvcrthclcss, tl
places an additional burden on them, onc that the child dc
not have. Therefore, children, particularly younger ch
drcn, will have an advantage ovcr adults in learning t
grammar of a sccond languagc. For the same reason, ola
childrcn can bc cxpcctcd to 1car11faster than adults, bccau
of a bcttcr 111cnlory.
As we agc and as our ability to acquire new mot
skills dcclincs, our ability to conlmnnd our o r p n s of spec
to carry out the new movcmcnts of n sccond I;lngu;~gc
negatively affected. Thcrcforc, bccausc c h i l d r c ~possess
~ tl
flexibility in nlotor skills which adults d o not hnvc, childrc
will d o much better in nccluiri~lg11ntivc pro~luncintio~l in
sccond Inngungc. Althoi~gliothcr Cictors may be involved
speaking likc ;I nntivc, no~~ctlic*lcss,motor skills is u11doul
I Children vs adults in second-language acquisition 215
, tedly the major contributing factor. Again, as with the
; problem o f memory, adults can attempt t o overcome this
1 deficit, such as through practice. But again, as with
I memory, that adds an additional step to the process and
, makes learning more difficult for them.
1 Thus, it can be concluded that in all respects o f
i language learning, for the natural situation, children will do
better than adults, with younger children doing better than
1 older children.
10.4.2 The classroom situation
i
In the classroom situation, adults will do better than young
children, because, not only are they better in explicative
processing but, simply put, they k n o w h o w to be students.
They have sufficient maturity to meet the rigours o f a
formal learning environment, where concentration, atten-
tion and even the ability to sit still for a long time, all play a
' role in learning.
Because the older child's memory and motor skills are
better than the adult's, the advantage in explicative
processing enjoyed by the adult may not be sufficient to
overcomc thc disadvantages experienced in these areas.
1 Thus, an oldcr child will probably d o better than an adult in
('
thc classroom situation. T h c best age to learn a second
language in a classroom situation is probably that age where
thc individual retains much o f the memory and motor skills
i of thc vcry young, but whcrc thc individual has bcgun to
reason and understand likc an adult. That agc would
probably be somcwhcre around 12 years.
I
I 10.5 Critical age
Once hcforc, in a diffcrcnt co~ltcxt (Chapter 3 on Wild
Children), the c o ~ ~ c c poft a critical age for first-language
Ic;lrning was discussed. Rccall, if you will, that altl~ough
cvidcncc was lacking, some tl~corists hypothcsizcd that
thcrc was a11 ;1ge (puberty, for cxnmplc) h c y o ~ ~which d it
would hc impossihlc t o ;~ccluirca first I;~nguagc. I3r;li11
cl1:lngcs were suggested as ;I possible cxpl;lnntion for such a
psycllolo~:icnl barrier.
 216 Second language
It is reasonable to ask the same question about thc
acquisition of a second language. Is there any barrier to th
learning of a second language and, if so, at what age doe
, this barrier become operational? As far as adults learning
, second language is concerned, we have the commo
observation that a very great number of adult speakers dc
I in fact, learn the syntax of other languages perfectly. Ther
I are those who speak second languages so well that, on th
1'1 basis of the grammar alone (not the pronunciation, whic
I we shall deal with shortly), they would be judged natik
I speakers. There is no evidence, for example, that a speak6
of a Subject + Verb + Object language such as Englis
I cannot learn a different word ordering of sentence cor
1 I
+
stituents, such as the Subject Object + Verb ordering th:
occurs in Japanese. O r that negating a sentence by changin
a word internally, such as is done in Turkish, preseni
1
insuperable problems to speakers who negate sentences i
their native language with unattached negative marker.
such as 'not'. Complicated systems of grammatical case
such as occur in Russian and Finnish, can bc learned by
normal adult Chinese (whose language, like English, has n
cases) who is willing to devote the time to learning them.
is safe to affirm the view that there is no critical agc in tcrm
1 of acquiring thc syntax of a second language.
This brings us to pronunciation. Is it possible to Icarn
second languagc so wcll that one truly sounds likc a nativ
speaker? One psycholinguist, Thomas Scovcl, rcccntly ha
!
I claimed that no adult can ever be successf~~l in that rcgard
'Thc critical period for accentless spcech simply mcans tha
adults will ncvcr lcarn to pass themselves off as nativf
spcakcrs phonologically. . . .' He describes this as 'Thl
Joscph Conrad Syndrome', after thc famous novelist an(
nlastcr of English prosc, who, a nativc spcakcr of I'olish
did not cvcn bcgin to study English until hc was 20. Scovc
has in mind a certain category of adult sccond-languagc
spcakcrs: thosc who have mastcrcd thc granimatical and
co~nmunicativccomplcxitics of another langi~agcbut still
spcak with an accent. Wc could add forn~crUS Sccrctarics
of Statc, Hcnry Icissingcr (who lcft C;crlnany and wcnt to
thc US a t age 14) and Zbignicw 13rzczinski (who lcft his
nativc I'oland and wcnt to Canada a t agc 10) to this class.
While 1 would agree with Scovcl thnt in sccol~d-
Children vs adults in second-language acquisition 217
language acquisition there is not a critical age for syntax, I
cannot agree that there is an absolute critical age for
( pronunciation. There is a critical age for most people, but
not for all. Based on my own personal experience and the
observations of others, I believe that there are persons
whose pronunciation can pass as native speakers in a second
language, a language which they have learned as adults.
However, only if documented cases are provided can
Scovel's absolute critical age notion be disproved.
i 10.6 Discussion questions
1. Can you think of evidence in your own life that your
memory ability and your ability to acquire new motor
skills are not as good as when you were a pre-teen?
, 2. Why is memory so important for language learning?
' 3. Are children better second-language learners in the
natural situation?
1 4. Can adults be better second-language learners than
younger children?
i 5. Do think thcre is a critical age for second-language
acquisition? Consider the cases of both syntax and
! pronunciation.
6. Why, concerning thc classroom situation, is an English
as a S C C O I -Languagc
I~ (ESL) situation morc advan-
I tagcous to second-languagc learners than an English as
a Forcign Languagc (EFL) situation?
7. 110 you personally know any counter-cvidencc to
Scovcl's claim that no adult can learn thc pronunciation
of a second languagc wcll enough to pass as a nativc
spcakcr?
Suggested readings
I)ulny, I-I., Ilurt, M. and I<rnslicn, S. (10H3) I,nryrrn,qr, ' T I I J ~ .
Osford: Oxford University I'rcss.
Lct~inchcrg,Eric I I. (1000) 0 1 1 c s p l : ~ i ~ i i nIn~igu;~gc.
g Sric~rrrcr, 163,
035-43.
218 Second language

McLaughlin, B. (1984) Second Language Acquisition in Childhoo,

(2nd edn). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Oyama, S. (1976) A sensitive period for the acquisition c
a nonnative phonological system. journal of Psycholinguisti CHAPTER 11
Research, 5, 3, 261-84.
Scovel, Thomas (1988) A Time to Speak: A Psycholinguistic Inquir
into the Critical Period for Human Speech. Cambridge: Newbur Second-language teaching
House (Harper & Row).
Tahta, S., Wood, M. and Loewenthal, K. (1981) Foreign accent:
factors relating to transfer of accent from the first language to
second language. Language and Speech, 24, 265-72.

11.1 Dimensions and methods

Second-language teaching is a field which provides an

excellent meeting ground for many o f the theoretical and
practical aspects o f psycholinguistics to come together. It is
here that w e have a chance t o see h o w ideas o f human
language and human learning interconnect.
In m y view, language-teaching methods may be
conveniently characterized o n the basis o f five principal
dimensions:
1. Language Mode: Speech-Reading
2. Meaning: Actual ObjectISituation-Translation
3. Grammar: Induction-Explication
4. I'sychology: Mentalist-Behaviourist
5. Linguistics: Mentalist-Structuralist
Thcsc dimcl~sionsd o not involve all aspects and theories but
only those which have bccn rcalizcd in principal sccond-
language teaching n~cthods.
A brief description of cach o f thcsc dimensions, somc
:ispccts of which have bccn dcscribcd clscwhcrc in this
book, follows.

11.I .I Language mode: speech-reading

Mcthods c;~lihc divicicd illto t w o catcgorics, those wllich
:~ppro;~cIi 1:11iguagcthrough the spoken 3spcc.t~o f 1;111gu;igc
; ~ n dthosc wliich ;~pproachI;i~lgu;~gc* throi~ghlitcr;ic-y. T l ~ c
(;r;~nimnr-Tr;~~lslntionMctliod is virtl~;illy ;~lonc. in the
spew-li ;IS the
litc.r;~cy c;lcc.gory, for :ill ochcrs c.~iipli;~si;rc~
220 Second language
primary means for acquiring a second language. Althougl
teachers using the Grammar-Translation Method wil
include some speech in their curriculum, and teachers usin:
speech-based methods will include reading and writing i~
their curriculum, both are distinct. Generally, the pro
ponents of the speech-based methods regard Grammar-
Translation as the ultimate enemy, since, for them, speech i
primary in the learning of language. Still, that does nc
prevent adherents of speech-based methods from attackin
one another.
11.I .2 Meaning: Actual ObjectISituation-Translation
In providing the meaning of second-language items,
method may use translation (in the native language), as
commonly the case with the Grammar-Translation Methoc
For example, English-speaking studcnts studying Italia
may be told that libro means 'book', and that Conie st6
means 'How are you?'. The meanings of single vocabular
items and entire phrases and sentences may bc learned i
this way. This is very different, though, from acquirin
meaning by being exposed to actual objects or situatiol-
which indicate the meaning of foreign words. For cxamplt
the learner can be shown a book and hear 'lihro', or scc tw
persons meet, with one saying to the other 'Corric sto?'.
, tion would explain thcsc scntcnccs by discussing specific
11.I .3 Grammar: Induction-Explication
Explication involves explanation, in the native Iang~~agc, o
thc grammatical rules and structures of the second Iangungc
For example, a teacher can explain to Japnncsc students i~
+
the Japanese language that English 112s a Sul>jcct Vcrb -t
Object ordering of basic sentence constituc~its.(Jap;~~lcsc
Ilaa
a Subject + Ol>jcct + Vcrb ordcring.) 111 lcarning the samc
by induction, however, studcnts would I~avcto discovcl
that order of constituents o n their own. I t woiild bc
necessary for t h c ~ nto hear scntcnccs of the sort, 'Mary
caught the ball', whilc cxpcricncing :I qitu;~tionin which
such an action (or a picturc of the action) occurs.
Second-language teaching 221
11.I .4 Psychology: Mentalist-Behaviourist
The psychological presumptions of a method can have a
great effect on how that method is formulated and used. A
Behaviourist would prefer, for example, to mechanically
drill students on sentences while a Mentalist would prefer to
have students think about sentences and their structure and
learn about them in this way. For the Behaviourist, there is
nothing for a learner to think about; thinking is irrelevant
for language learning. One's psychological orientation has
definite implications for how and what one is to teach.
11.I .-5 Linguistics: Mentalist-Structuralist
What one believes to be the concept of a sentence, and what
grammatical rules and structures may underlie the sentence,
will affect greatly what one teaches. A Structuralist analysis
of a sentence like 'The dog jumped' is easy to make in that it
+
is a simple order of word classes (Article Noun + Verb),
yet, as Chomsky pointed out in his original attacks on
Structural Linguistics in the 1950s and 1960s, other
scntcnccs having the same observable structure such as 'John
is easy to plcasc' and 'John is eager to please' cannot be
cxplaincd by a simple listing of word classes or even phrase
structi~rcssince both of thcsc sentcnccs are identical in this
regard, c.g., Noun + Vcrb + Adjective + Preposition +
Vcrb. A Mcntalist gralnillarian with a Chomskyan oricnta-
syntactic relations that crndcrlic. those sentences. Thus, a
Mentalist could say that, in 'John is easy to plcasc', 'John'
is thc underlying object of 'plcasc', whilc in 'John is cagcr
, to plcasc', 'John' is the underlying subject of 'plcasc'. In
I practic;~l terms, n teacher would have quite different
explanations to offer stucicnts for such scntcnccs or would
organize sentences for presentation quite differently, dc-
pending on which linguistic theory he or she followed.
11.2 Traditional methods
I<ccping the ;ibovc fivc dirncnsions in mind, Ict us now look
nt a v;iricty of ~nnjorsccond-language tc;~c.hingmethods.
2- 5
c
Ee, 'a0
i
2
X
e , .
6
cd
:e:,
!$3
2 -
Z
a&
3- 0
0 u
W wl
$2

h2-W
n g
%.;c
-Cu $. 4 Ee,
m

e, 8.c .J.o
.-.2g P d P
3:
2 % ~ -
- 'w 3CdSCugz
0 E ,.5
""$8:
G .z
5 3 " hCug E.-
2 o;",, $2
.2m
,3-
3 C g =; 5 s
O % G 0

'C 0 c
0s
d=-~z
O 0
G
.J

gu
psg;2gE
d 8
-Z 3 s ,e ,a
0

L a
-2 02.25 2
0 C, 23 5 m z
6W h Y
sw y.s 3
Z g ~ . S E $ ~ ,
- - , & y u
h 2 . sG
ZU'"
o . z" E
2cd $= g >&0: G . s
u~ 5 m G 3 z
Z 8 s 2z.Z o
Q me, U ,s 2
3 ho
c c o 0 2 3:cu
+ ' ~ G Ga u c d o
226 Second language
production which, in turn, precedes reading and writ-
ing. Elementary social dialogues are introduced almost
immediately: 'How are you?', 'Fine, thanks', as are
questions: 'Where is . . .?', 'When is . . .?', 'Who is . . .?'
and commands for action: 'Stand up', 'Sit down' and 'Give
the book to Mary'.
Sometimes oral pattern drills and memorization of
dialogues were also included in Direct Method lessons. Such
techniques were devised and applied for the purpose of
giving practice in speech production. (Later, these tech-
niques came to be used - over-used is probably more
accurate - by proponents of the Audiolingual Method.)
Sometimes, too, translations might be given, as might
grammatical cxplanations. However, these were used spar-
ingly. For the most part, the Direct Method is typified by
its reliance on natural speech in context and on the students'
mental powers of induction.
The structured nature of the Direct Method is such
that, in the hands of a good teacher, it can be used in
relatively large classes of cvcn 40 students, with tcachcr:
getting students to spcak in chorus. Still, likc thc Natural
Mcthod, and unlikc thc Grammar-Translation Mcthod, the
Direct Method rcquircs a tcachcr with high flucncy in thc
second languagc. Somc school systcllls may find it difficult
to find a sufficicnt number of such tcacl~ers.
11.2.4 The Audiolingual Method
, Chomsky during thc 1950s and scrvcd as tllc basis for the
Dcspitc thc Direct Method's rather long and widespread
acceptance (in other than Grammar-Translation circles), it
was ovcrslladowcd and thcn virtually wiped out with the
advcnt in tllc latc 1940s of thc Audiolingual Method (AM).
The phc~lomcnal rise of AM was due, I believe, to the
popularity of the Anicrican linguistic and psychological
tl~coricswhic11 it incorporated into its foundations. ('The
great popularity of America in the world following the
Second World War is itself n filctor hcrc.) T l ~ cInnguagc
analyses provided by Structural li~lguistsand t l ~ csti~nuliir
and response learning psychology providcd hy 13ch;1vio~1rirts
cndowcd the Audiolil~gu;~l Mctliod with :I c.rcdcncc t1i;rt n o
othcr nicthod could cl;lin~.
Structurnl liliguists rcg;lrdcd wntcncc.; simply ; I S
Second-language teaching 227
sequences of grammatical word classes or phrases. New
sentences would be created by substituting words within a
word class. For example, a sequence such as Article +
Adjective+ Noun + Verb + Article + Noun could yield a
large number of sentences such as 'The rich boy bought a
car' and 'The friendly girl kissed the boy', by substituting
members of the same grammatical class. Because Behaviourist
psychologists, too, regarded sentences as the simple associa-
tion of word classes, it was not much of a step for A M to
adopt the repetition of sentence patterns as a fundamental
learning principle.
Unfortunately for the theory, as Chomsky pointed out,
substitution cannot prevent the creation of sequences like
'The happy dust memorized the table', or 'A poor mountain
elapsed the wine', which also fit the pattern for the sentence
'The rich boy bought a car'. Nor could Structuralist theory
account for a speaker's ability to generate a non-finite
number of grammatical sentences which were not defined
by such sentence patterns.
Rchaviourist psychology, which was the dominant
school of psychology in America for most of the first half of
this ccntury, regarded mind and thinking to be irrelevant
for the understanding and production of speech. Repetition
and mechanical drills wcrc considercd to be the essence of
lcarning, with lcarncrs not acquiring knowledge but
bchavioural rcsponses. The dcfccts of such a view concern-
ing languagc and psychology wcrc demonstratcd by
s~ibscqucnt collapsc of Structural Linguistics and thc
wcakcning of Rc11aviourism in thc 1960s.
Thc Audiolingual Mcthod incorporatcd into its
methodology many of the samc fcaturcs which thc Ilircct
Mctllod had dcvclopcd, namely, planned situations, gradcd
materials and such tcchniqucs as pattcrn drills and dialogiic
n~crnorization.111 contrast with tllc TIM, the Audiolingual
Mctl~odalmost entirely dropped the usc of natural situations
and spontaneous speech. Spccch occurrences were under the
rigorous control of the tcachcr. There was even n tendency
for s o n ~ c AM ;~dvocatcs (likc Moulton) to reduce the
*nca~~ingfi~lncssof the spccch that was taiight - ;I practice
ivl~ich was frowned on hy Cl~arlcs Fries, one of the
bundcrs of tlic' AM ~ncthod.Noncthclcss, AM dcfinitcly
 228 Second language
had characteristics which contrasted sharply with D M .
In its time the Audiolingual Method generated a
enormous amount of enthusiasm. Teachers everywher
I
lined up t o teach second languages according to principle
I
1
which reflected the latest scientific word o n h o w humar
learn language. All the more was the sense o f disappoint
ment when A M failed to produce the fluent communicatin
I
speakers that it was aiming to. T h e drilling of sentenc
patterns and memorization o f dialogues proved inadequal
I to prepare students for communication with speakers in tf
i real world.
11.3 The Chomskyan revolution and contemporary
methods
11.3.1 Chomsky's Mentalism and effect on methods
Chomsky's idea that 'Ordinary linguistic behavior charac
teristically involves innovation, formation of new scntencc
and patterns in accordance with rulcs of great abstractnc:
and intricacy' was a truly revolutionary one. Chomsk
faulted Behaviourism for its inability to account for the fa(
that speakers do not simply imitate but create, by means 1
rules. They make novel sentences and understand scntcncc
they have never heard before. Such languagc crcativit
cannot be explained in the stimulus and response terms o
Behaviourism or the related notions o f Structural Lirlguis
tics, but only through recourse to a mcntal grammar, i.c. .
systcm of abstract language rules which speakers havc i~
thcir minds. Language dcvclops on the basis o f a learner':
knowlcdgc of thcsc rulcs, some o f which arc so abstract anc
intricate that they could not havc been taught but only
acquired by Icarncrs on their o w n . Linguistics and psychol-
ogy rcquircs a mentalistic base, therefore, if languagc and
langiiagc acquisition were to be explained.
While Chonlsky has proposed idcns concerning first
languagc acquisitioi~,I I ~has avoided spccul;~tionwhich is
directly rclcvant to the tcaclling and 1c:lrniilg of n second
language. Ncvcrthclcss, thc effects of his idcas in the ficld o f
second-language tc:~ching hnve Isccn profound. I-lis basic
idcas in linguistics ;111d psychology 11;lvc Isccll applied I>y
others in quitc a variety of ways.
Second-language teaching 229
1
11.3.2 Contemporary methods
Since the downfall o f the Audiolingual Method in the 1960s,
j
: a number of methods have arisen. However, only a small
number have managed to survive, and fewer, still have
, managed to thrive. In the thrive category, w e
have Communicative Language Teaching, Total Physical
: Response and T h e Natural Approach. In the struggle-to-
survive category, w e have Silent Way and Suggestopedia. (I
1 believe that it is time to recognize the passing of
1
Community Language Learning and Cognitive Code.) A
description and assessment o f each of these five methods
now follows.
Total Physical Response
I
Total Physical Response (TPR) is very much a 'natural' type
method: speech understanding precedes speech production,
' which, in turn, precedes reading and writing. Only the
target language is used in the classroom and meaning is
1 derived from actual objects and situations. Students are
encouraged to induce rules o n their o w n and speak when
they arc rcady. Again, as with other natural type methods,
1
things g o best with a small number of students.
Ashcr, the founder of TPR in the 1970s, considers its
unique characteristic to bc the having of lcarncrs perform
physical actions in rcsponsc to the teacher's commands in
; the target languagc. His idca is that mcmory will bc
cnhanccd. with the result that language will be more casily
rcmcrnbcr and acccsscd. Intcrestingly, this idca and the
other major idcas comprising T P I i arc to bc found in thc
, IJircct Method, particularly under Gouin in the ninctccntl~
century and I'almcr in his 1925 book, Lnneyuaeqc. tl~voyqlz
Actions. Ashcr, though, has emphasized physical activity
nluc11 morc than did I'almcr. 111 any case, there is no doubt
that TI'II is a very iiscfiil method and one which dcscrvcs
nttcntion.
Initially, in ;l classrooln o f beginners in Englisl~,
comm;lnds ;Ire given such n$ 'Stand up', 'Sit down', '0pc11
tllc door', 'Wnlk to the t;lblc', 'l'oint to thc table', 'l'oillt to
the cloor', 'Where is the tablc?', 'Whcrc is the hook?', ctc.
Soon nftcr, s o m c t i i ~ ~ ccvcn
s witl~iii t11c sanlc. class hour,
230 Second language
statements or questions are paired with commands, 'This i:
a book. Give the book to Susie', 'The book is on the table
Put the book on the chair', 'Who has the book? You
Alright. Give the book to Anne', 'Where is the ball? O n tht
table? Alright. Tony bring me the ball'. After the prope
groundwork has been laid, students are presented mor
complex sentences, like 'Give the book to Bob and give th'
pen to Jean', 'Walk to the table and then turn around', 'Tak,
the yellow card and place it under the book', 'If you have
blue card then raise your hand', 'If you have the big car,
then place under the small card.'
From the beginning the student is introduced to who1
sentences. The teacher demonstrates the meaning of th
words and sentences by pointing to the objects and b~
following the commands for all to see. It is claimed tha
with this method a student can easily learn around 25 nev
lexical items in an hour, along with a variety of structures.
believe this to be true. In fact, with regard to vocabulary
the number could be much higher. For example, studcnts o
my own psycholinguistics class in Japan, who were givcn .
TPR demonstration lesson in German from my colleaguc
learned to understand more than 50 to 70 different words ir
just a little over an hour. And this was their first cxpcricncc
with German. While hesitant in thcir actions at first
students soon gained in confidence performing their task
swiftly and with assurance. Such bchaviour is a direct
measure of their progress in speech comprehension.
After the teacher has determined that the studcnts arc
firm in what they have learned, they are asked to say what
they have learned to their classmatcs, with thcir classmatcs
performing thc actions. Games can be devised to encourage
speaking.
TPIt has csscntially tlic same advantages and limitations
as the I3ircct Method. Students do learn to communicate in
speech in a natural way and also relatively quickly. I11 order
for this to happcn, liowevcr, they must havc fluent and
crcativc teachers. Nowadays, perhaps the tcachcr need not
be cspccialiy crcativc, since a great deal of curriculu~n
materials havc been dcvclopcd and published for TI'II
instructio~l.TI'R is best used for the introductory phases of
second-language learning. With inore advanced Ianguagc
knowledge, action bccomcs less i~scfiil :~nd rclcva~~tto
Second-language teaching 231
communication. Then, too, there is the problem of
homework. Once out of the classroom, there is nothing a
/ student can do to review or gain new knowledge. In this
regard, adopting the Grammar-Translation Method along
with TPR would be one good solution.
One problem which TPR has, relates to its special
reliance on action ('Physical Response'). For social reasons,
many adults, more so than children, feel embarrassed
marching around a room and doing things. Probably, while
\
the required action could be modified to lessen this
problem, there is not much else a teacher can do to remedy
this situation. Adults become more accepting in time,
especially after they see their teacher doing the same things
that they have to do.
I Communicative Language Teaching
In the early 1970s, Wilkins proposed a system of dividing
' communicative speech into two aspects: functions and
notions. 'Functions' are things like requests, denials,
1 complaints, excuses, etc. They are expressed through whole
sentences and essentially the learner is provided with a
, rncans for performing a givcn function. For example,
learners may be told that, to make a request, they may say
II
'I'lcasc opcn the window', 'Would you mind opening the
window', 'It's awfully stuffy in here, isn't it?', etc.
'Notions' arc cxprcssions of frcqucncy, quantity,
, location, ctc. These arc typically words or phrases within a
scntcncc. For example, studcnts may learn 'I ofren go to the
movies', 'I havc a lot of friends' and 'He's standing hy the
1~illd011~'.
Conlmunicativc Language T c a c h i ~ ~(CLT) g posits that
studcnts want to comn~iinicatcand it cnablcs them to do
just that. Lessons often start with the sii~iultancousreading
;111d hearing of n dialogue bascd on a real-lifc everyday
situ;~tion,sucli ;IS grccting :I friend or buying sonlcthing in a
sllop. I~litinlly,tllcrc is no tr;lnslatio11and 110 cxpla~latio~l of
structure, nltI1ou~h the method docs not cxcliidc native
In11guagc :lids if tll;lt is wll;lt thc sti~dcntsfeel they nccd for a
p,lrtici~lnrpoint. Thcrc i.; total rc.li:lncc on s i t i ~ ; ~ t iand o ~ ~the
s
sttidc~~ts'dc.si~-c to ~ o n l ~ n ~ l i ~ iwithin
c ; ~ t c thosc situ;ltions.
Si11c.c. this k i ~ l c iof rcnc-lii11gstrc.sscxs c o t ~ l n l i ~ i ~ i c a titi o ~ ~ ,
232 Second language
has developed a flexibility which allows anything that wilt
further the communicative competence of a student. Thi:
eclectic approach can include, as noted above, translatior
and grammatical explanations in the native language. If :
teacher feels that an audiolingual technique such as drilling :
phrase a number of times might help a student to learn, the1
this is done, as long as that phrase is later used as an integra
part of speech in a meaningful situation. Often, these art
phrases which the student has initiated, has started to create
but is having trouble with. For example, if a student woulc
like to say in English something like 'I wish I could hav,
gone' but can get out only 'I wish . . .' the teacher migh
model the whole sentence a few times, let the student repea
it a few times, and then return to the situation where thl
student was trying to use it and let him or her use it. Later
there might (but not necessarily) even be an explanation o
the grammar involved, or even a structure drill, letting t h ~
student substitute other past participles in the sentence, thu
producing a number of similar sentences: 'I wish I coulc
have been there', 'I wish I could have done it7, 'I wish I coulc
have seen him'.
In comparing Comrnunicativc Languagc Teaching wit1
strictly speech-oriented methods, the Natural Method
Direct Method, Total Physical Response, thc Natura
Approach (to follow), we can see that therc arc markcc
differences. CLT permits reading and writing almos~
immediately, as long as it serves the cause of communica-
tion. It also permits grammatical explanations, not relying
totally on thc student learning by induction. Furthcrmorc, it
permits translation. In these regards, CLT is a vcry cclcctic
rncthod of languagc teaching, onc which is conccrncd with
gctting peoplc to communicatc by any mcans available. It
can, and often docs, borrow as ~nuclifrom othcr methods as
it dcems necessary. TI'R is oftcn employed by advocates,
particularly for dcvcloping oral skills in the introductory
stagcs of communication. 'Thus CLT may adopt idcas from
mcthods as divers as TI'R and GT, as long as thcy l~clp
studcnts to communicatc.
CLT is probably the most widespread of all tcachi~lg
mcthods today, with the cxccption of <;T, wliicl~ is
common in Asian countries, particul;lrly China and Japan.
CLT is cspccially popular in the U11itcd I<ingclom wlicrc so
Second-language teaching 233
many of its originators and developers have been active
(Widdowson, Wilkins, Alexander, Yalden).
The Natural Approach
I This is the name given by Terrell and Krashen to their 'new
philosophy of language teaching' developed in the early
1980s; it is to be distinguished from the Natural Method,
although the Natural Approach (NA) has a number of
\ similarities with that and other natural type methods. Yet,
perhaps the Natural Approach is more an attempt to
provide a theoretical description of the processes involved in
I
second-language acquisition than it is a body of specific
innovative techniques for teaching.
In agreement with the Natural Method, Direct Method
and TPR, the importance of listening comprehension and
delayed speech production is stressed in the Natural
Approach. Production is delayed until the student is
' believed to be ready. The idea that you can only effectively
produce speech that you already understand is in keeping
1 with the comprehension-precedes-production aspect of
native language acquisition. As for grammatical structures
and rules, thcsc are seldom explained and are expected to be
\ acquired by receiving appropriate language input. In this
rcspcct, scntcnccs are presented in a simple to complex
grading and at a level that niay be slightly higher than
studcnts can understand.
I NA dcfincs itsclf as a mcthod for dcvcloping basic
pcrsonal communication skills, oral and written. Goals of
the method would include the ability to engage in simplc
conversational cxchangcs, to understand announccmcnts in
, public places, to rcad ncwspapcrs, writc pcrsonal Icttcrs,
, ctc. Likc most othcr spcccli-bascd methods, tcachcrs of the
Naturnl Approach makc amplc usc of pictures, objects,
charts 2nd situations in thc classrooni as thc source of
language input.
Such pcrsonal Icarni~lg factors like motivation, sclf-
confidcncc and anxiety arc given special consideration in
NA. Tlicsc constitute what I<rashcn calls the learner's
'Affcctivc Filter' ar~dplay a signific:lnt role in influencing
the a c q t ~ i s i t i o n / l c a r ~ ~ofi ~n~ gI;~ngiiagc.A 'low' Affcctivc
Filtcr is said t o be niost dcsir;iblc, for in such n case studcnts
234 Second language
would be highly motivated, very confident and under little
stress. Such desirable conditions can be fostered if, for
example, students are allowed to communicate in situations
without having to worry about any grammatical mistakes
they may make. A 'high' condition of the Affective Filter
would have the opposite effect. While it is probably the case
that students learn better when they are motivated, not
over-anxious and when they feel relaxed and receive
encouragement for their efforts, to label this as an 'Affective
Filter' is rather pretentious, but harmless, academic jar-
goneering.
The Natural Approach differentiates between acquisitio~z
and learning in a second language. Acquisition is said to
involve a kind of inductive process similar to what occurs in
the acquisition of the native language. Such a process is
claimed to be unconscious. Learning, on the other hand, is
said to be a formal process by which one learns the rules of
a language, i.e. by explication. According to Krashen,
language knowledge which is 'learned' ncver becomes
unconscious or internalizcd as does knowledge which is
'acquired'. This distinction is based on Krashcn's so-called
Monitor Hypothesis. According to the hypothesis, 'lcarncd'
rules are always monitored, i.c. consciously applied in thc
production of sentcnces. N o such 'monitoring' of speech
production, however, is said to occur with grammar that
had been 'acquired'. It is because of thc monitoring proccss
that Krashen claims that once studcnts 'lcarn' grammar
(instead of 'acquiring' it) they will be unable to use it
unconsciously, and thus, effortlessly. Conscqucntly, any
tcaching of grammar by cxplication is co~lsidcrcd ncga-
tivcly.
Thc Monitor Hypothesis, howcvcr, is not ablc to stand
up to criticism, as many thcorists, such as Gregg and
McLaughlin havc cor~vincingly argued. Krashcn has not
rcally answcrcd his critics, nor has 11c providcd cvidcncc in
support of his claim. I<rashcn's claini that knowledge gained
from presentation of rulcs and cxplatlations cannot bccomc
unconscious and auto~naticis counterintuitive to what nl:lliy
pcoplc cxpcricncc whcn they producc sentences in n second
Iat~guagc. Certainly, for cxanlplc, English spcakcrs or
Japancsc who had bee11 told initially that Jnp:lncsc hns ;I
Sulject + +
Ol7jcct Verb ordering would he nmnzcd if
Second-language teaching 235
I
Krashen were to tell them that, in the production of
sentences in their everyday lives, they were consciously
I aware of such an ordering. I feel certain that all second-
language learners can cite such examples (of consciously
learned rules becoming unconscious and automatic) from
their o w n experience (if they can become aware of them!).
O f course, there are times when second-language learners
do become aware of applying grammatical rules in the
construction of sentences. However, this may occur only in
the early stage when the learner has not yet integrated that
knowledge well enough.
I If I may, I would like t o approach this acquisition1
learning issue from a non-language but still quite relevant
perspective. This involves the learning of arithmetic.
Suppose I ask you now to divide 954 by 6, and to do it as
quickly as possible. (You can d o it on paper or in your
head.)
D o you have the answer? N o w , were you conscious of
cvery step you took? I can ask you, according to one
commonly used method of division, if you were awarc that
your first step was to begin by considering the single
lcftmost (not rightmost) digit of 954, which is 9? Then,
, werc you awarc of deciding that, since 6 is equal to or less
, than 9, you must subtract 9 and have 3 remaining? Were
you awarc that bccause the remainder was less than 6 you
would writc a 1 for thc beginning of your answer? What did
you thcn do with that 3? Wcrc you conscious of having to
1 placc thc ncxt lcftmost singlc digit of 954, which is 5, and
thcn trcat thc two digits of 3 and 5 as 35? Ncxt you divided
35 by 6 and got an answcr of 5. But how did you d o that?
Wcrc you conscious of dipping into thc multiplication tablc
(1 X 1 = 1 , 1 X 2 = 2 , 1 X 3 = 3 . . . 6 X 4 = 2 4 , 6 X 5 =
30, 6 x 6 = 36), which you had mcnlorizcd ycars and ycars
earlier? You nccdcd that knowlcdgc to determine that thc
product of 30, which is produccd by 6 x 5, will bring you
closcst to 35 without exceeding it; 24 would not bc as close
as 30, and 30 would cxcccd that number. Thcrcforc, you
sclcctcd 5 :IS an answcr and you then placed that 5 to the
rightmost of your answcr of 1. Yo11 would then havc 15 and
17c on your wny to completing the answer.
Wcrc yo11 awnrc of all tllc steps thnt would hring you
to the nnswcr of 150? Not likely. Yet, all of thcsc steps were
236 Second language
taught to you explicitly in the classroom; through your
teachers' explanation of the process, you 'learned' the
process. N o w , certainly, while the initial learning was
formal and presented through explication, nevertheless,
through time and practice the rules of the process became
unconscious and automatic. Krashen's claim, therefore, that
learning never becomes unconscious and automatic is one
that cannot be upheld with regard to arithmetic knowledge.
This being so, there is no reason t o believe that a specia;
case should be made for one particular kind of knowledge,
language knowledge. It seems clear to me that muck
learning that is gained in a formal situation can becomc
unconscious and automatic. Since Krashen's acquisition1
learning distinction is not a valid one, and since experience
indicates that explicit learning can become unconscious.
there is no good reason to suppose that teaching gramma]
by explication cannot be beneficial.
The Silent Way
The Silent Way, a method dcveloped by Gattegno, is based
on the radical notion that thc classroom, especially thc
teacher, is to be as silent as possiblc. In contrast to othcr
speech-based methods, the method virtually rcvcrses the
natural sequence in first-languagc Icarning, by having
production precede comprehension. Thc tcachcr says littlc
but rathcr encourages the students to talk. As might bc
expected, this is especially difficult and stress provoking
since thc students do not know how to say anything in thc
beginning. 112 this rcgard, alphabetic lcttcrs arc often uscd to
gct studcnts to spcak. Thc tcachcr will point to lcttcrs (on
'Fidcl' pronunciation charts) and by gesture indicatc that
studcnts arc to utter sounds. T h e teacher requires studcnts
to produce as n ~ u c hspccch as possiblc, and as early as
possiblc.
The tcachcr is rcquircd to use a certain set of physical
objects, which Gattcgno specifics. These consist of a
number of colourcd rods of different sizcs, which, when
uscd by the tcachcr, provide a situational colltcxt i l l which
speech is produced. Initially, stiic.lcnts nrc even cncoiir;ll:cd
to makc nonsense soii~ldsin the foreign Iangu;igc, somc-
what like thc babkling of infi~nts a c q u i r i ~ ~ gthcir first
Second-language teaching 237
language. Then, as the instructor points t o printed letters
and encourages students t o say them in sequence, an initial
meaningful syllable is elicited. In the course o f an hour o r so
of instruction, a student will probably have pronounced the
correct word in the target language for 'rod' and a word for
its colour. Then follow a number of expressions involving
relationships, such as, 'The blue rod is next to the red rod',
so that the students are able to describe the rod situation
, which the teacher has constructed. Such relationships can be
extended to persons in the room, such as 'John is next to
Mary'. T h e instructor does not generally model pronuncia-
I
tion, but waits for good pronunciation from someone in the
class and lets that serve as a model.
The underlying approach to this method is said to be
based on the 'creative' aspect of language learning, where
learning is viewed as a process of discovery o r creation on
the part of the student. In essence, the use o f induction on
thc part of the student is relied upon. T h e students are to
induce the grammatical rules and structures which are
inhcrent in the situations presented to them.
Somc participants of Silent Way classes are enthusiastic
about thc mcthod. However, a good many students d o not
rcact positively to the stress of being forced to produce
'
spccch. In this regard, the small groups required for the
Silcnt Way (usually lcss than 15 per group) ensure that n o
onc can hide from thc tcachcr! Interestingly, thc Silcnt Way,
in contradistinction to the Natural Approach and Sugges-
topcdia, assumes that some dcgrec of stress and anxiety is
conducivc to Icarning. It seems to mc that students will
learn iindcr cithcr condition, so long as thcy arc willing
participants.
If one believes the claims made about Suggcstopcdia by its
foilndcr (;corgi Lozanov, then i t is thc closcst thing to thc
'magic nlcthod' which everyone has been looking for in
second-la~lgungcteaching. I3ricfly, Suggcstopcdia purports
to producc in thc stt~dcntsan altered st;itc of co~~sciousncss
which is conducivc to learning. This state, tcrlned 'hypcr-
mncsia' (supcr mcmory) is brought on by certain relaxation
tcch~liq~lcs,il~cluding listcnir~g to ccrtai~i passagcs of
238 Second language
classical music (including Haydn). T h e music must b,
played at a specific tempo to enable it to induce the desirec
state of mental readiness. Furthermore, the learners must b
provided with armchairs and pleasantly decorated rooms
As a result, according to the founder, in 24 days second
language learners can learn 1800 words, speak within th
framework of a whole essential grammar, and read any text
Teaching involves the presentation of dialogues an*
vocabulary which the student is to study and memorizc
T h e materials are presented first in written and then spoke
form, along with a translation of the written form. Th
materials are presented three times to the students. O n th
first presentation the students follow by reading. O n th
second and third, they just listen. It is on the third readin
that the music is played, supposedly inducing hypermnesi
and learning on the part of thc student. In effccr
Suggestopedia is little more than Grammar-Translatio
with music.
What can we say about the cxtraordinary claims c
success which havc bccn made by Lozanov and his sma'
group of followcrs? Thcrc is certainly nothing wrong wit1
the idca of mcmory cnhancement. If a sccond-languag
teaching method comes along and claims, as docs Suggcs
topedia, to greatly enhance memory by rclaxation ant
music thercby allowing for an cnormous amount o
language to be acquired in just a matter of wccks, it shoult
not bc dismisscd out of hand. Thc fact of thc matter thougl
is that aln~ost20 ycars aftcr its introduction, the method
which has bccn givcn a fair try in Inany countries, still ha:
offcrcd no convincing cvidcncc in support of its extravagant
claims. Its o111y lcgacy sccms to bc that of somc teachers
playing music bcforc they begin class in order to calm thc
studcnts down.
11.4 Conclusions
It is safc to say that st~ldcntswill 1c;irn somcthi~lgfrom ;illy
mcthod. N o mcthod is a tot;il fiiilurc hcc;liisc., i l l ;111
methods, studcnts nrc7 exposed to tllc dntn of ;I scconti
langi~agc and nrc give11 the opportunity to Ic.;1r11 rllc
language. I t is also safc t o say, to the d i s ; i p p o i l ~ t l ~of
~ c all,
~~t
Second-language teaching 239
that there is n o magic method. N o method has yet been
devised that will permit people over the age o f 12 o r so to
, learn a second language as effortlessly and as enjoyably as
they did their native language. Still, teachers can d o much
to make the experience for a learner rewarding and
enjoyable, whatever method is employed.
Unfortunately, n o cmpirical research has been done
which evaluates the comparative effectiveness of the teach-
ing methods. It would be extremely difficult to d o the kind
1
of study that such a problem merits. T o conduct a proper
research study for each of the methods being tested: a
variety of students must be matched in ability; a variety of
I
teachers must be matched in language and personal abilities;
and language tests must be available which validly measure
the progress of students. These are but somc of the
problems. In addition, students would havc to be studied
for ycars in order to measure the long-term effects of
Icarning. Little wonder, then, that such important research
has not bcen done.
I
In judging the relative merits of teaching methods, one
must consider goals. Just what is the purpose of having
pcoplc lcar~la sccond language? If thc ability to spcak and
iundcrstand a sccond languagc is thc primary goal, then a
sycccl~-bascd mcthod would bc bcst for them. If, on the
other hand, thc ability to read and writc is thc primary goal,
then Grammar-Translation should bc thc mcthod of choicc.
The goals of a nation arc important in dctcrmining
second-langiiagc tcaching programmes in thc school sys-
tem. O n c country may wish to promote thc study of
rcading and translation of scientific material from a sccond
I;ingiiagc, and would, thcrcforc, wish to stress the know-
lcdgc that is g;~incdthrough reading. In such a casc, the
<;r;inl~n;ir-Tr;i~lslntio~~ In,iy well be appropriate. Other
countries. howcvcr, niay regard communication through
spcccl~ ;is the highest priority. As such, speech-based
~ncthods 111ny hc prcfcrrcd providing, of course, that
adccll~atcfin;i~lc.csarc av;lil;il>lcthr thc spccializcd training o f
tcncllcrs i l l \ucll nlctllods ; I I I ~th;it thc scllool systcln c.ln
:illi)rd tc:ichi~lg c1;isscs with sln;ill niimbcrs of students.
Wl1c.11 I:irgc. I I ~ I I I I ~ of
> ~ stl~cicb~lts
~S ;ircx to be tniight :11id few
tc;ic.hcrs ;ire ;iv;~il;ihlc~. ( ; r ; ~ n ~ n ~ c r - T r ; i ~ ~ smight
l ~ t i o ~well
i he,
240 Second language
chosen by default, since, practically speaking, n o other
choice is viable.
A teacher who can afford the luxury of selecting a
method might well consider putting together a personal
method of second-language teaching. With both speech and
literacy as objectives, for example, one could adopt
Communicative Language Teaching and then supplement it
with physical activities (from Total Physical Response),
pattern practice drills (from the Audiolingual Method) and
explication and translation (from Grammar-Translation).
Given the state of knowledge which w e have today, an
eclectic approach such as this might well be the most
sensible path to follow.
11.5 Discussion questions
1. If you were to begin learning a new language, what
method would you prefer to be taught by, and why?
2. How would you characterize the Co~nmunicative
Language Teaching Method in terms of the five
dimensions offered at the beginning of the chapter?
3. H o w has the Grammar-Translation Method managcd
to survive all of the attacks made on it, particularly
from speech-based methods?
4. Why is a speech-based method generally more strenuous
on a tcachcr than Grammar-Translation?
5. What ideas of Chomsky's brought down the Audiolin-
gual Method?
6. Why may Total Physical Response bc viewed as a con-
temporary version of the IJircct Method?
7. Ask somconc to divide 441 by 7 as quickly as possible.
Aftcr they have finished, ask thein what steps they
were aware of while doing the problem. H o w docs
their answer bcar on Krnsl~cn'sMonitor Hypothesis?
8. Employing the various methods available, dcvisc your
own eclectic method. Give the ratioi~alc for your
sclcction.
9. Outline a rcscarch study that would coniparc the
cffcctivcncss of thc C;ramn~ar-Translation Method and
Total I'hysical Rcspo~~sc. What problcn~sdo you run
up against?
Second-language teaching 241
Suggested readings
Asher, J. (1982) Learning Another Language Through Actions: The
Complete Teacher's Guide Book (2nd edn) Los Gatos, CA: Sky
Oaks Productions.
Gattegno, C. (1976) The Common Sense of Teaching Foreign
Languages. New York: Educational Solutions.
Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's Monitor and Occam's Razor. Applied
I
Linguistics, 5, 2, 79-100.
Krashen, S. D. and Terrell, T. D. (1983) The Natural Approach:
Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon.
Lozanov, G. (1979) Suggestopedy and Outlines of Suggestopedy. New
York: Gordon & Breach Science Publishers.
Fries, C. C. and Fries, A. C. (1961) Foundations for English
Teaching. Tokyo: Kenkyusha.
Palmer, H. and Palmer, D. (1925) Language Through Actions.
Reprint edn. London: Longman Green (1959).
Richards, J. C. and Rodgers, T. S. (1986) Approaches atzd Methods
in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rivers, W. (1981) Teaching Foreign Language Skills (2nd edn)
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sauveur, L. (1878) The Natural Method: Introduction to the Teaching
of Ancient Languages. New York: Holt.
Widdowson, H. G. (1978) Teaching Lanpage as Commurzicatiorz.
Oxford: Oxford Univcrsity Press.
Yaldcn, J. (1983) The Communicative Syllabus: Evolution, Design
and Impll~mentation. Oxford: Pcrgamon.
Journals

1
j CHAPTER 12
Bilingualism and cognition
I 12.1 Varieties of bilinguals
1' T o begin with, for the sake o f clarification, it would be
useful to considcr just what the term 'bilingualism' includes.
Most of us, without a second thought, would think o f a
I constitute a sufficient standard for knowing a language.
bilingual as a person w h o is ablc to spcak and understand
t w o languages (languages like English and Russian) and for
the most part, wc would bc right. That, bcyond this, thcrc
might be 'varieties' o f bilinguals is likcly to strike many of
us as odd. But, w c should rcalizc that thcrc arc people w h o
know a si,qi? language, too, such as British Sign Languagc or
Swedish Sign Languagc, and thcsc arc truc languagcs in
, their own right. Morcovcr, thcrc arc pcoplc who can read a
I second language fluently, cvcn write it well, but w h o
I
cannot spcak or understand it to any significant dcgrcc.
! Midwcstcrn English. Whilc thcsc dialccts d o differ in
These pcoplc havc not learned just reading (reading being
'
foundcd on thc acquisition of speech), but thcy havc Icarncd
thc language in thc written modc. (For a justification of sign
language and written language as genuine langu;igcs, scc
Chaptcr 4.)
Uccausc language in all its complexity can be ncquircd
through a varicty of modalities - s o u l ~ d(s~.ccch), vision
(writing) and visual motio~l(signs) - all adcclu;~tcconcept of
a bilingual should allow for any of thcsc rcalizations. Tllus,
we nlay say th;it ;I person is bilingual if 11c or shC knows ( I )
more t11a11one realization of 1;lnguagc in the s;inic mod,~lity,
for example, t w o sound-bnscd I;~ngii;ig~ssiicll ;IS spoke11
English nlld spokcn (;crman, or t w o sign-b:~scd I;~ngu;~gcs
s i ~ c h as Anicricn~~Sign L:lngii;igc ;lnd J;~pn~lcsc.Sign
Langi~:~gc, or (2) two I;~ngii;~gcs
b:lscd o n diffcrcllt ~nodalitics
(spoken C;crn~niiand Amcricnn Sign Larigungc, for cx:lnlplc).
Bilingualism and cognition 243
There is n o good reason to exclude any o f these combina-
tions from the label o f bilingualism. So long as any
discussion o f bilingualism makes clear just what modality is
being considered and h o w it is being considered, the setting
o f exclusionary standards is unjustified. However, because
the languages that are mostly involved in research o n
bilingualism are speech-based, the discussion presented in
this chapter will focus o n the speech modality. Conclusions
that are drawn for speech-based languages, however, may
be generally extended to languages based o n other
modalities.
Proficiency in a language may be evaluated with respect
to a variety o f variables, including knowledge o f syntax,
vocabulary and pronunciation (signing o r writing for non-
speech). Researchers are not agreed o n what level of
proficiency concerning these variables is necessary to
Researchers establish their o w n criteria study by study.
Therc is general agreement, however, by most contem-
porary theorists that the reading and writing o f a language is
not essential for the bilingual classification. N o t t o regard
someone as bilingual w h o speaks t w o languages, but is
illitcratc in both, would bc absurd.
O n thc other hand, w e probably would not want to
rcgard as bilingual, solnconc w h o knows t w o dialects o f the
sanlc langi~agc,c.g. British Yorkshirc English and Amcrican
significant rcspccts, thc diffcrcnccs arc not s o great that
ling~iistsconsidcr thcm separatc languagcs. T h c acccptcd
term bidinlcrtalism sccnls to bcst dcscribc this phcnon~cnon.
Howcvcr, since bidialcctalism docs to some extent rclatc to
bilingualism, the same concerns that arc raised for bilin-
gi~:ilismcan be cxtcndcd to bidialcctalism.
12.2 Is bilingualism beneficial or detrimental7
Most pcoplc consider hili~lgualisnins s o n ~ c t l l i ~ lgood. g For
o11c thing, knowlc,dgc. of ;~notlicrInngungc cn;~hlcspcoplc to
comn~u~lic;ltc with n~c.~lihcrs o f other ciilti~rcsin thc.ir own
,.
I n n g i ~ q c . T his, i l l tilrn, providc.~ ;I nlch;lns for fiirtlicring
coolw-;~tiori;111d~ i ~ i d c r s t ; ~ ~ :~lilollg
l d i ~ l g 11;1tio11s
;111d~ C ~ P I C S .
 244 Second language
This applies not only between countries but within
countries where there is more than one prevalent o r official
language as in Switzerland o r Canada. There are cases
where an authoritarian regime (like that of North Korea)
:, might wish to curb contact with other peoples by limiting
the teaching o f other languages, or, where an attempt is
; made to destroy a cultural group b y forbidding the use of
'1 that group's language (like the former Soviet Union's ban
; on many languages). Such situations, however, are gener-
'
1
ally regarded as deplorable.
At a personal level, the pleasure and cultural benefits of
i bilingualism, too, are obvious. W h o would not like to be
able to travel around the world, to Paris, Moscow,
/ I
Helsinki, o r Tokyo, and be able to talk with the people
there? What lovers o f movies and theatre would not like to
I
understand performances in the original language?
This being the case, where then is thc controversy?
H o w can one reasonably be against bilingualism? It's like
being against M o m and apple pie, as an American might put
it, and no one would admit to that.
( Firstly, it must bc said that somc o f the arguments are
, ; I not against bilingualism itsclf but thc early acquisition o f the
j second language. It has been charged that acquiring a second
, , language at an early age can be harmful in two main
"respects: linguistically (retarding the acquisition o f thc first
, or second language) and intellectually (retarding thc dcvcl-
, opmcnt of thinking and such cognitive abilities as mathc-
matics and rcading).
Secondly, it must bc said that the criticism that has
bcen lcvcllcd against carly bilingiialism is primarily of
another era, t11c early half of thc twcnticth ccntury. That
, was a timc whcn conceptions and cxpcrir~~cntal mcthodo-
logy involving language and intclligcncc wcrc at a rather
naivc lcvcl and when thc mood in America (where most of
thc rcscarch was donc) was OIIC o f isolationism and a
wariness of foreign influc~~ccs.(Scc thc Mcycr case in
Chaptcr 8 for a reflection of this attitude.) Sonictimcs the
motivation was racist in n a t ~ ~ r c , '
The issuc of effects is an important one and well worth
consideration. What follows is what I considcr to be the
: most important and rcprcscntativc rcscarch on the issuc to
datc. (For morc dctailcd covcr;lgc, the render is rcfcrrcd to
Bilingualism and cognition 245
Hakuta (1986), Taylor & Taylor (1990), and McLaughlin
(1987) .)
12.2.1 Effects on the development of language
As was noted above, the issue here is whether learning a
second language at an early age, while the child is still in the
process o f acquiring the native or first language, has a
negative effect o n acquisition o f the native language. There
is a concern (not at all illogical) that bilingualism might
somehow retard first- o r second-language development so
that, for example, a child raised with t w o languages might
never really learn either language as well as would
monolingual speakers o f those languages.
N e ative reports
'
k
$he most well-known and influential piece o f research for
its time was that o f Madorah Smith, back in the 1930s.
Smith gathered comparative data in Iowa (where she did her'
graduatc work) and in Hawaii o n the language o f pre-school
children; the children were from a variety o f ethnic and
linguistic backgrounds. T h e Iowa children were essentially
white and monolingually English whilc thc Hawaii children
wcrc ethnically divcrsc (of Chincsc, Filipino, Hawaiian,
Japancsc, Korcan and Portugucsc parentage) and bilingual,
I with English as one o f thcir languages. Smith rccorded
scntcnces uttcrcd by the childrcn and cvaluatcd thc scntcnccs
in tcrms o f standard usagc in thc languagcs. T h e principal
finding was that thc bilingual childrcn from Hawaii had
many morc crrors in thcir English spccch than did tllcir
Iowa c o u ~ ~ t c r p a r t swhich
, led Smith to concl~idc that 'I
bilingualism caused retardation in language dcvclopmcnt. /
,
I%ydefining crrors the way shc did, Smith could not
11clp but comc up with the results that she did. For, thc
children in Hawaii in gcncral spokc a sort o f English that
was prcv:~lcntthcrc, which was not t l ~ cso-called 'correct'
English spoke11 by the childrc~lfro111 Iowa. Smith's bias is
r c n ~ i n i s c c ~OF
~ t the I:~tcrwork of Isc.rcitcr, Engclmann and
lhsil 1)crnstcin in the 1060s, w h o claimed th:lt non-stnnd;lrd
spcakcrs of English (inner city hl:icks in thc US ; I I I ~

246 Second language
working-class whites in Britain) had poor language know-
ledge as compared to standard English speakers. T h e
brilliant work o f Labov and other linguistic researchers in
the 1960s and 1970s, however, conclusively demonstrated
that non-standard dialects of English are every bit as
complex as standard dialects (Midwest speech in America,
for example) and must be regarded as linguistically
comparable. Smith's work has other serious methodological
problems, too, particularly the inadequate matching of
monolinguals and bilinguals in terms of their families'
socio-economic and educational backgrounds.
Incidentally, I might mention in passing that when I was a
graduate student at the University o f Hawaii in the 1960s, I
had sought Smith out in order to ask her somc questions
regarding bilingualism. I located her in a home for the aged
(the King's Daughters Home) and found her to bc as bright
and spirited as she was reputed to be. Her opposition to carly
bilingualism, however, had remained unchanged.
Positive reports
More sophisticated investigations in comparing thc linguis-
tic skills of monolinguals and bilinguals havc been done by
Lambcrt and his associates in Canada, whcrc English and
French arc the official languages. (French prcdominatcs in
the province of Quebec whilc English prcdominatcs in thc
othcr provinces.) Many of thc rcscarcll studies havc
involved childrcn in so-called 'language immersion' pro-
grammes. In thcsc programmes, children arc immersed, so
to speak, in thc sccond language, being exposed to a
substantial amount of academic instruction and social
interaction in that sccond language.
O n e long-term study by I3ruck tlt nl. (1970) with n;~tivc
English-spcaking cl~ildrcn in ;I French irnnlcrsion pro-
grammc found that hy the fourth or fifth gradc, the sccond-
l a n g i ~ q cFrench skills, includi~lgrc;lciing ;lnd writing, wcrc
almost as good as those of 11;ltivcFrcncll-speaking childrcn.
I
Importantly, all of this was ;ichicvcd ; ~ tn o loss to their
E ~ ~ g l i sn;itivc
h I;lng~~;igc dcvclopnlcnt (;IS conip;ircd to ;i
control group of Il~lglish monolingual childrc.11). 111 ;~dcli-
tion, the inln~crsio~lgroup did hcttcr thnn the r':~~~:lisll
mo~~olingunl control !:rolll> o11 crcativity tchsts. 111 111;llly
. 7Ok- , , , $ ,
:
Bilingualism and
\
C
3
cases, their mathematics and science scores were als higher.
S i m i l w research has strengthened these findings.
t h e r e is some question, however, as to the validity o f
these findings. Principally, this concerns whether the
parents o
P e children may have in some way affected the
outcome. ,For, even when the pdrents o f the monolinguals
and bilinguals are matched socio-economically and educa-
tionally, n o control is allowed for the attitude and
motivation o f the parents regarding bilingualism3 Perhaps
parents w h o wish to be involved in a bilingual programme
somehow would tend to provide a more advantageous
home environment for their children, intellectually and
linguistically, than would other parents. There is no way
this issue can be resolved unless researchers are allowed to
randomly assign children to monolingual o r bilingual
programmes regardless o f the wishes o f their parents.
Conclusion regarding effect on language
There is n o evidence that early bilingualism has an adverse
effect on language acquisition, be it in the first or second
language. Recent work, moreover, cven tcnds to show
somc bcncficial cffccts for early bilingualisn~,althougkthis
work is not without methodological difficulties. C ~ f t e r
considering the cntirc body o f rcscarch, it would bc difficult
today to find any reputable thcorist w h o would conclude
that carly bilingualism itsclf causes ncgativc linguistic
cffccts. T h e worst that could bc said is that the rcscarch
d
concerning bcncficial cffccts is inconclusivc~ I
12.2.2 Effects on the development of intelligence
Docs Icarning a sccond language at an carly agc, while the
child is still in the process o f acquiring the native or first
language, 11:lvc n negative cffcct on a child's intclligc~lcc,
thinking ability, crcativity o r cognitive arcas such as
mathematics? Somchow, thc burden o f Icarning an addi-
tional Iangi~ngcis co~isidcrcd to havc an adverse cffcct o11
the child's :~hilitics.As was the casc in considering cffccts on
the dcvclopmcnt of I:ingi~agc,most c;lrly rcscarch tended to
find n ~lcgativccffcc-t. 7'hc possibility t11;lt Icarning a sccond
I;lngt~;lgecoi~ld i l l sonic wny havc n positivc cffcct o n
 - 2g-g 5
.0- uc rfnl a f l *
a c 0 sr=*=
L(

ga X c EwC.- 9
2 -c 2ua4
5
m M bl:
c.2
.2 2 2m$ 5 w - 0
.S e S a3
7 & o g c c
0 0
b o r= E
fle a a
3 g;> . $2
a o
5 s : ~
-
2 e8'0&.-E
g
m & $
b o
age E
2 o g o
Q)='
2.2 at+,
2.; 2 0
0.g Q)

a agg
Sgu
.-C =0z a
> Yfl
a 3
t: g - d 0 rd a
a X ,
'6, ~ Q & P
a S!
g2 2 5 3 m uIJ ,
o 5 L "
fl Li.=
A 3 X a m o c 3 0
 250 Second language
their part. Broader measures o f cognitive abilities along
with later age follow-ups is what is needed.
\
Conclusion regarding effect on intelligence
I
Thus, w e find that there is n o evidence that early
1
bilingualism will harm the intellectual o r cognitive develop-
11 ment of the child in any way. N o t only that, but there is
:I evidence, although not strong, that it may perhaps even
.I
\ benefit the child intellectually.
As for future research, given the view I expressed
1 earlier (in Chapter 1) that thought and intellectual process-
1
I
ing develop independently of language, I do not expect that
researchers will ever be able to demonstrate that language
affects intelligence in any important way. Unfortunately,
because editors o f scientific journals tend not to accept (for
publication) research studies that d o not result in statistically
significant differences o r correlations (called 'negativc results'
by experimentalists), substantial experimental cvidencc that
would favour this view is not likely to be forthcoming.
I 12.2.3 Conclusion regarding effects of early
I
bilingualism on language and intelligence
,A consideration o f the research evidence shows no harnifiil
' 'effects eithcr regarding language (first o r sccond) or
i n t ~ l l i ~ c n c eIn! fact, some research suggcsts tllcrc may cvcn
be beneficial cffccts. f ~ i v c nthe advantages of knowing
anothcr languagc and of young children's propensity for
spccdy languagc acquisition, wc must concludc that thcrc is
cvcry rcason to favour early bilingualism.
12.3. Simultaneous and sequential learning situations
Tlicrc arc csscntinlly two conditions according to wliicl~a
pcrson may bccomc bilingual: tlic two Ianguagcs can bc
accliiircd at the same time or in scclucncc. Thc simultnnco\is
Icnrning of t w o Inngungcs occurs only with childrcn, sillcct
Bilingualism and cognition 251
in only the most abnormal o f circumstances would a child
when exposed t o a language not learn it. O n the other hand,
sequential learning can occur with both children and adults;
the second language can be learned in childhood o r after the
person has become an adult.
12.3.1 Simultaneous acquisition
There are t w o situations in which a child may acquire more
than one language at the same time. O n e is when speakers
of the different languages use only one language each when
talking to the child. For example, a mother might speak
only Spanish while the father might speak only English.
T h e one parent using one language only situation ('1P-1L').
T h e other situation is when the same person uses t w o
different languages while speaking to the child. For
cxample, the mother and father use both Spanish and
English when talking to the child. T h e one parent using t w o
languagcs situation ('1P-2L').
It secms that children are so flexible that they can
bccomc bilingual in both languages by the age o f 3 or 4
ycars, rcgardless of their language situation. Although
cvidcncc bearing on this issue is not available, it seems likely
that thc child in thc 1P-1L situation will learn the t w o
languagcs fastcr than thc child in thc 1P-2L situation simply
bccausc o f consistcncy. O n hcari~lgsome speech, the child
would not havc to puzzlc ovcr just which o f the t w o scts o f
language knowlcdge is to bc rcfcrrcd to. I d o not think,
however, that the diffcrcnce in spced o f acquisition bctwccn
the 11'-1 L 2nd 11'-2L situations would bc great; it would be
only a ninttcr o f months, pcrhaps, bcforc the 11'-2L child
would cvc~itiially sort it 311 out.
O n tllc other hand, it may be that 11'-2L childrcn
product more miscd Inngungc scntcnccs (the view o f
McL;~ughlin),wlicrc vocabulnry and syntax of tllc diffcrcnt
Inllgungcs nrc used in the s;111ic sc~itc~lcc, c.g. 'Ope11 thc
rc,izoko' (wlicrc rc~izoko is rcfi-igcrator in Jnpuncsc). O f
coursc, i l l tinic the cliild will ovc,rconic thc, nlisccl inpiit and
get things right. Ovcrnll, it w o i ~ l dsccln th;lt tlic 11'-1 L
iitu,itio~iis hctrcr si11cc ;ic'clliisitio~~
Iiiny hc fastcr n11d less
111ixi11g111ij:Iit oc-cllr.
252 Second language
One of my favourite 1P-2L examples which I like to
cite involves a friend who lives in the US. (The example is
mentioned in another context in Chapter 8.) My friend's
wife is a Japanese speaker, while he is an English speaker,
although they know each other's language. From the time
of the birth of their two sons, who are about three years
apart in age, the mother spoke Japanese and the father spoke
English to the children. T o add to the situation, there was
the live-in grandmother who spoke only Russian to the
children. The result? By the age of 3, each of the boys, in
turn, became trilingual in English, Japanese and Russian.
Because the family lived in an English-speaking neighbour-
hood (in Honolulu), English is what they used when they
went outside to play.
Whether the bilingual child must be conscious of the
existence of two languages in order to make progress in
acquiring them is virtually impossible to determine. One
cannot interrogate a 1- or 2-year-old on such a matter.
However, once the child has acquired some degree of
fluency in languagc, cven very young children may indicate
an awareness of knowing two languages. (For a considcra-
tion of the issue of consciousness in languagc learning, see
Schmidt, 1990.) One Estonian-English bilingual child was
only 2 years old when he exprcssed embarrassment on
becoming aware that he had spoken in Estonian to his
English monolingual cousin (Vihman, 1982). And, De
Villicrs and De Villicrs (1978) citc hearing a 4-year-old say,
'I can spcak Hcbrcw and English', to which his 5-year-old
American fricnd responded with 'What's English?'! I'crl~aps
the monolingual English-speaking child nccdcd somc
knowledge of two langi~agcsbefore hc would understand
what a language is. Likewise, if a pcrson saw things only in
red (through rose-colourcd glasses), you would not cxpcct
that pcrson to be able to undcrstnnd what is meant by
colour. A contrast is csscntial for such n rcnlizntion.
(Relating to this point is the dolphin discussion in Chapter
3. 13ccausc the dolphins hnd lcnrncd Innguagc only in the
impcrntivc format (13ring this, Tnkc that, ctc.), and bccnusc
thcy knew n o other contrnsting sy11t;lctic forms (dcclnrntivc,
question, ctc.), i t was nrgucd t1i;lt the dolphi~lscoulti not
k11ow the synt;~cticforrn of the impcr;ltivc.)
I$cforc closing this scction, I would ndvisc parents (or
Bilingualism and cognition 253
potential parents) who have bilingual abilities and have
decided to raise their children in a bilingual situation to use
the languages in the 1P-1L fashion right from the start. It is
inadvisable to wait until the child is 1 or 2 years of age
before introducing the second language. If such parents
wait, they may not be able to carry out their plan. For, in
the course of a year or two their use of one language will
become so set that they will experience great psychological
difficulty in changing to another. When a social relationship
has been established with the child by means of one
language right from birth, it will not be easy to switch to
a different language.
12.3.2 Sequential acquisition
The sequential kind of bilingual situation occurs for a child
when parents speak one language and the community at
large speaks another. The parents could be immigrants,
foreign residents or simply people who have moved from
one part of a country to another part (from English-
speaking Toronto to French-speaking Quebec City). The
parents speak one language at home, which is different from
the one which the child is exposed to outside the home.
Clearly, sequential acquisition of the second language may
take place at a variety of ages and under a variety of
situations.
Consider, for example, an immigrant couple to America
who come from China. They spcak Chinese at homc with
their infant daughter. Then at the age of 3, the child starts
attending an English-speaking nursery school. By the time
the child is 4, she will be speaking English with her
.playmates and othcrs while continuing to spcak Chincsc at
homc with hcr parents. Thus, thc child learns two
languagcs scqucntially, i.c. where a sccond language is
introduccd after the first languagc has started being learned.
O f coursc, somc of the acquisition of the two languages will
occur si~~~ultancously. What is scqucntial is the different
starting times for the introduction of each language.
In acquiring the sccond language, spccd, proficiency
and fluency will be d c t c r ~ ~ ~ by
i~~certain
c d psychologicnl and
social vnriablcs. A detailed discussion of such varinblcs is
254 Second language
presented in Chapter 8, where child and adult acquisition of
a second language are compared.
12.4 Transfer effect of L1 on L2 learning
12.4.1 Similarity of syntax, vocabulary and sound
system
While linguists agree that no one language is more complex
overall than any other language, and psycholinguists agree
that no one language is easier to learn than any other
language, nonetheless, not every pair of languages can be
expected to be acquired at the same rate. For example, after
having learned English, learning French will not be as
difficult as learning Japanese. There are differences between
English and French syntax but these differences are small in
comparison to the monumental differences between the
syntax of English and Japanese. Furthermore, there are
significant similarities between English and Frcnch in terms
of vocabulary. A learner would not be starting at zero as he
or she would if learning Japanese. The Japanese spcakcr
learning English is placed in a comparable position. Yet,
acquisition of Korean by a Japancsc spcaker is rathcr casy
because those syntaxes are vcry similar.
O n thc other hand, English spcakcrs would not havc as
much trouble with Chinese syntax as they would with
Japanese syntax because Chinesc syntax is morc similar to
English. Yet, whcn it comes to thc sound system, Chincsc,
with its toncs, is so diffcrcnt from English and Japancsc that
the English spcaker will find thc Japancsc sound systcni
casicr to handle.
iUd ~ u s ,wc may concludc that the grcatcr the similarity
bctwccn two languages in tcrnls of their syntax, vocabulary
and sound system, thc 1iiorc rapid thc rate of acquisition in
thc two languages,@ If wc had to scale the importance of
thcsc variables, ~ ~ j d o u b t c d l ywc would give syntax thc
greater wcight. Good pronunciation or a wide vocabulary
can liardly compcnsatc for poor syntax. 111 this rcgard it is
intcrcsting to note that in its rccclit history Amcrica h;ls h;td
two forcign-born Sccrctarics of Statc, I<issingcr and
I3rczinski, who spc:lk English with acccrlts ((;cr~nan 311d
Bilingualism and cognition 255 I
I
Polish, respectively). In other respects, they excel in the ./
English language. Good syntax with good vocabulary is the
best duo combination for language success.
12.4.2 Facilitation, errors, interference, Second
Language Strategy and First Language
Strategy
Facilition
Given the considerations above, it is clear that the
knowledge one has of one's first language may help o r
facilitate the learning of a second language. Even when t w o
languages are very different, from both a linguistic and
psycholinguistic processing viewpoint (producing and under-
standing sentences), there is much facilitation. It is just that
the facilitation is not as noticeable as are errors. It is easier to
spot cases of errors than it is t o spot instances of facilitation.
With cases where both languages have, for example,
the article (as in English and French), gender (designation of
nouns as masculine or feminine, as in French and Italian)
and obligatory marking of nouns when plural, the occur-
rence of positivc transfer to the second language is rapid.
Knowledge of the complexity o f structure, morphology
(word formation) and phonology (sound patterns) in one
language cannot help but serve to facilitate acquisition of the
other language, for thc learner does not have to wonder
' about how to deal with language as he o r she did in first-
langi~agclearning. The sccond-language lcarner has already
dealt with similar languagc problcms in the first language,
not only with rcgard to formal linguistic properties but also
with rcspcct to dcvcloping psycholinguistic strategies that
arc used in the process of producing and understanding
selltcnccs.
I bclicvc that facilitation can bc so grcat that, givcn the
propcr c ~ ~ v i r o n ~ i -
i c ~wlicrc
~t children arc placed in a
'natural', not a 'classroom', situation (scc Chapter 10
' concerning details on this distinction) - a sccond language
can be acquired morc quickly than the first. This would
explain the oft-observed phcnonicnon of young immigrant
childrcn n r o u ~ ~4d o r 5 years of age acclt~iringflucncy in a
sccond 1;lnguagc in less than ;I ycar.
256 Second language
Errors, interjerence and second a n d j r s t language strategies
Because errors are so easy to observe and are good
indicators of a person's level of second-language know-
ledge, there have been many reliable studies done on errors.
There is some confusion, however, when it comes to
interpreting just what the cause of errors might be. In my
opinion, only a minority of errors can be attributed to
interference. Rather, most errors are the result of the
application of what I shall call the 'First Language Strategy'
and the 'Second Language Strategy'. These strategies are
applied when relevant second-language knowledge is not
yet known or incompletely learned.
Consider the following errors made by my Japanese
freshman university students while writing answers to
examination questions:
1. N o w T o m happy is.
This sentence follows Japanese constituent order.
2. Afterwards they ate the dinner.
The article is improperly inserted before the mass noun
'dinner'. There is no previous reference to a specific
'dinner'.
For the sake of fairness, let us now consider an error
commonly made by English speakers who are learning
Japanese. .The English speaker might well produce the
following order of constituents in Japanese:
3.
j o h n M a r y met at the theatre yesterday.
+
Herc thc Japanese Subject Object + Vcrb constituent
ordcr is correct but the advcrbials are improperly
placcd. Thcy should be only at thc beginning of the
sentcncc, not at thc cnd. Thus, 'Ycstcrday at thc thcatre
John Mary met' is thc propcr form (Advcrbial +
Subject + Objcct + Vcrb).
Let us now discuss thcsc scntcnccs and thc problcms
they raise.
#1 Now Tom Ilapp y is Interference
13ccausc the s t i ~ d c ~has
l t had ycars of English and knows
English word ordcr rathcr well, i t is likcly that this is a casc
of intcrfcrcncc. In the process of constrilcting the scntcncc,
Bilingualism and cognition 257
perhaps because of haste (native speakers too make errors in
such circumstances), the Japanese order of constituents
intruded on the process so as to cause the error.
#2 Afterwards they ate the dinner Second-Language
Strategy
The student has to some extent learned the article rule and
its application to types of nouns but perhaps mistakenly
thought that 'dinner' here is a countable noun which
requires the article. Another possibility is that because the
student was unsure of the status of 'dinner', she employed
what could be called an Article Insertion strategy. That is,
when in doubt insert the article, because nouns taking the
article are more frequent in the second language. Thus, this
is the result of applying general knowledge of the second
language to that second language - the Second-Language
Strategy.
#3 John M a r y met at the theatre yesterday First-Language
Strategy
Supposing that the person did not know the English rule;
this could well be an instance, not of interference, but of the
result of using thc First-Language Strategy, i. e., applying
first language knowledge to the second. When second-
language knowledge is lacking, this strategy is very u s e f ~ ~ l .
It is one that, I belicvc, all second-language learners
automatically use and rely on, especially in conversational
situations. Usually it is bctter to say something, cven if
wrong, than to say nothing. This strategy will allow for
something to be said, based on knowledge of the first
language.
12.4.3 The double trouble phenomenon
I an1 a native spcakcr of English. Whcn I started to learn to
spcak Japancsc, French (with which I hadn't been in contact
sincc Icaving Canada for the U S 15 ycars earlier) camc to
mind whcn I tricd to spcak Japancsc. Whcn I latcr took a
trip to Frnncc n few ycars latcr, 111y smattering of Japancsc
u~lcxpcctedlycame to nlind when 1 tricd to spcak French.
I'crhaps foreign lang~~ngcs all are tossed into thc same bag i l l
the mind before t11c.y get sorted out. (I wonder what would
258 Second language Bilingualism and cognition 259 I

happen if I started to learn Chinese, as m y wife would have
m e do!)
12.5 Discussion questions
1. What might be an unusual variety o f bilingualism?
Consider language acquisition modalities.
2. Why do you think childhood bilingualism and not
adult bilingualism is studied for effects o n language and
intelligence?
3. Is early bilingualism harmful regarding language and
intelligence?
4. Might there be harmful effects to children in the
simultaneous acquisition o f three languages? Four?
Five?
5. What advice would you give parents w h o wish to raise
their newborn baby bilingually?
6. What research would you like to see done o n
bilingualism?
7. What language factors would you consider in predict-
ing whether one second language would be easier to
learn than another second language? Givc examples.
8. Give an example o f your o w n for first language
facilitation in learning a second language.
9. What is the 'First Language Strategy'? Givc your o w n
example o f an crror in a second languagc that could be
caused by its opcration.
10. Would a bilingual person necessarily makc a good
professional translator o r intcrprctcr?
Goddard, H. H. (1917) Mental tests and the immigrant. Journal of
Delinquency, 2, 243-77.
Hakuta, Kenji (1986) Mirror of Language: the Debate on Bilingualism.
New York: Basic Books.
Labov, William (1970) The logic of non-standard English. In
James Alatis, (ed.), Report of the Twentieth Annual Round Table
Meeting on Linguistics and Language. Washington, DC: George-
town University Press, pp. 30-87.
McLaughlin, Barry (1987) Theories of Second-Language Learning.
London: Edward Arnold.
Padillo, A. M., Chen, A., Duran, R., Hakuta, K., Lambert, W.,
Lindholm, K. J. and Tucker, G. R. (1991) The English-Only
Movement. American Psychologist, 46, 2, 120-30.
Schmidt, Richard (1990) The role of consciousness in second
language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 2, 17-46.
Smith, Madorah (1939) Some light on the problem of bilin-
gualism as found from a study of the progress in mastery of
English, among pre-school children of non-American ancestry
in Hawaii. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 21, 119-284.
Taylor, Insup and Taylor, Martin (1990) Psycholinguistics: Learning
and Using Language. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Vihman, M. M. (1982) The acquisition of morphology by a
bilingual child: A whole-word approach. Applied Psycholiiz~quis-
tics, 3, 141-60.

Suggested readings

13ai11, I3rucc and Yu, Agnes (1980) Cognitive consequences of

raising childrcn bilingu;~lly: 'One parent, one language'.
Cariadiari Jo~rrnalof Psy~.koloy~1,,
34, 304-13.
I3ruck, M., Lanlhcrt, W. E. and Tucker, (;. 11. (1070) Cognitive
and attitudinal conscqucnccs of bilingunl scliooling: thc St.
Lnnlhcrt project through grndc six. lrrtc~rrratiorraljorrrtrnl o/'
6, 1.3-33.
l~syrlrolir~,q~ris,in,
I)c Villicrs, J . (;. and I>c Villicrs, 1). A. (1078) l.or~qrrqqc*
Arquisition. (:nnihridgc, Mnsl;.: I-1:lrvnrd University I)rcss.
 Author lndex 261
Garman, M., 132 Labov, W., 22, 143, 148, 157, 246,
Garretson, M., 90 258
Garrett, M., 123, 126-7, 132 Lakoff, G., 110, 113, 115
1 Gattegno, C., 236-7, 241 Lambert, W., 246, 258
! Geschwind, N., 180 Landers, A,, 5
I Gipper, H., 164 Lane, H., 66
i Author Index Gleason, J. Berko, 14
Glynn, R., 174
Langacker, R., 111, 113, 115
Leech, G., 132
(

I Goddard, H., 248,258 Leibnitz, G. von, 137

' Goin, F., 229 Lenneberg, E., 65, 184,200,216
Goodenough, F., 248 Levelt, W., 132
Goodluck, H., 28 Levitsky, W., 180
I
I Aissen, J., 114 Coltheart, M., 200 Gould, J., 42 Liddell, S., 91
I Alatis, J., 258 Connolly, J., 113 Greenfield, P., 44, 47 Lilly, J., 37-8
I Alexander, L., 233 Conrad, R., 90 Gregg, K., 234, 241 Lindholm, K., 259

i
i
Anthony, D., 90
Aristotle, 135
Asher, J., 229-30, 241
Cook, V., 115
Coren, S., 174
Cromcr, R., 143, 156
Guralnik, J., 174
Gustason, G., 91
Ling, D., 83
Liu, L., 173
Locke, J., 55, 135, 154-5, 171
Curtiss, S., 66 Hakes, D., 127 Loewenthal, K., 218
I
Bain, B. 249, 258 Hakuta, K., 245,249,258-9 Lozanov, G., 237-8, 241
Bell, A. G., 61, 86, 90 Dalgarno, G., 86, 90 Halle, M., 114
Bellugi, U., 15-16, 200 Dechert, H., 132 Halpern, D., 174 Macy, A. Sullivan, 61
Benson, D. F., 186 Descartes, R., 55, 136-7, 152, Hayes, C., 31, 47 Malotki, E., 164-5
Bereiter, C., 245 154-5 Hayes, H., 31 Malson, L., 50, 66
Bcrko, J. (Glcason), 14 dc Villicrs, J. & de Villiers, P., 28, Heider, E., 165 Marshall, J., 200
Bernstcin, B., 245 252, 258 Herman, L., 38-9, 46-7 Mason, M., 59-60, 66
Bever, T., 47, 123, 126, 132 Diamond, M., 178 Herodotus, 48-9 Matsuzawa, T., 45, 47
Bloomfield, L., 95, 130, 160, 223 Dik, S., 113 Heschl, R., 182 McCawley, J., 110
Blumstcin, S., 200 Drostc, F., 115 Hockett, C., 47 McDaniel, C., 165, 173
Botha, R., 156 Dulay, H., 10, 28, 217 Horrocks, G., 115 McLaughlin, B., 218, 234, 245,
Bresnan, J., 111, 114 Duran, R., 259 Humboldt, W. von, 159, 173 25 1,259
Brigham, C., 248 Huttenlochcr, J., 18 McNcill, D., 26, 72-3, 91, 123,
Broca, P., 54, 186 Einstein, A , , 5, 18 173
Brown, R., 9, I I, 16, 28 Engclniann, S., 245 Ingrani, D., 28 Mcadow, K., 91
Bruck, M., 246, 248 Euclid, 134, 151 Itard, J-M., 52-5, 86, 89 Mehlcr, J., 123
Brzczinksi, Z., 216, 254 Ewing, A. & Ewing, E. C., 90 Montaguc, R., 11 1
Burro~~glis,E., 49 Exncr, S., 182 Jakobovits, L., 1 15 Montaignc, M., 48
Burt, M., 10, 28, 217 Johnson, I]., 11 1 Moorcs, D., 91
Filln~orc,C . , 110-1 1, 113, 115 Joscph, J., 115 Moulton, W., 228
!
Caplan, D., 200 Fodor, J., 127, 132, 100
Carlyle, T., 18 Foss, I)., 127 ' Katz, J., 113 Ncwn~cycr,F., 115, 200
Carroll, J . , 173 Fouts, 1). & Fol~ts,It., 32-3, 35 Kay, P., 165, 173 Ncwport, E., 22, 143
Chcn, A , , 259 Fric~,A , , 24 1 Kcllcr, H., 53, 01, Oh, 68, 107, 185 Nolan, C., 19, 101, 173
(~1ic11,S-It., I73 Frics. (:., 228, 241 Kissingcr, M.,2 10, 254 Notoyn, M., 01
(:hcncy, I?., 41, 47 Fri<i11:1,It,, 00 1 K l i m ~ E.,
, 15-10, 200
Chonlsky, N . , 22, 35, 44-5, 80, Furth, I I . , 107, I73 Kolilcr, W . , 45 <)jcmnnn, <;., 197
06-0. 103, 105, 107, 110-24, Korzybsky, A . , 105-0, 173 Oy.lm:~,S., 200, 218
126-31, 137-52, 154-0, 22 1 , I<rashc~~, S . , 10, 28, 184-5, 217,
223, 227-8, 240 23341,240-1
(:OIL>, I).,I I5 Kylc, J . , PI
 262 Author Index
Palmer, H., 225, 229, 241 Scovel, T., 209,216-18
Partee, B., 111 Seyfarth, R., 41
Patterson, F., 36-7, 47 Shakespeare, W., 172
Patterson, D., 200 Sicard, R., 51
I
I
Penfield, W., 195 Skinner, B. F., 154-5, 157, 160
Perlmutter, D., 111 Slobin, D., 29
I
Peters, S., 111
Petitio, L., 47
Smith, M., 245-6,259
Smith, Brown, Tomas &
Subject Index
i Pfetzing, D., 91 Goodman, 162
Piaget, J., 45, 135-6, 139, 150, Socrates, 137
I
154-5 Sperry, R., 180, 200
' Piatelli-Palmarini, M., 144, 150, Spuhler, J., 47
i 157 Steinberg, D., 91, 115, 13C-2, 173
abstract word learning, 19-21 Broca's Area, 176, 180-4, 187-8,
I Plato, 136-7 Sullivan, A. (Macy), 61
Adam and Eve, 49 192-3, 195, 197
I Poizner, H., 200 Suzuki, S., 86, 91

I i
Premack, D., 32,35-6,47
Putnam, H., 45, 135-6, 140, 143,
15C-2, 154-7
Pythagoras, 134
Suzuki, T., 166

Tahta, S., 209

Taylor, I. &Taylor, M., 29, 132,
Affective Filter, 234, 237
Ai (Japanese chimp), 45, 150
Akbar the Great, 49
Akeakamai (dolphino, 38, 40
American Sign Language (ASLO,
Brzezinski, Z., 216
Bush, President, 175

Carla (second language brain

245,259 location), 197
Raupach, M., 132 Terrace, H., 30, 34, 37, 44, 47 68-9, 76-82
cerebral cortex (cerebrum), 175
Reich, P., 28 Terrell, T., 233, 241 animals raising children, 50 children vs. adults in second
Richards, D., 47 Truswcll, L., 18 aphasias, 186-94 language acquisition, 213-15
Richards, J., 241 Tucker, G., 258-9 Audiolingual Method, 226-8, 240 chimpanzees, 31-8
Rivers, W., 241 Twaddell, F., 95 autonomous syntax, 111-13, Chimpsky, Nim, 30, 34-5
Rodgers, T., 241 116-17
Chomsky
Ross, J. R., 110 Vihman, M., 252, 258 as an anti-mentalist, 129-31
Rousseau, J-J., 49 babbling, 4 competence and performance,
Rumbaugh, D. (see Wada, J., 180 Baby Talk, 23-6 96-7
Savage-Rumbaugh), 33, Wanner, S., 127 bees, 41-2 effect o n teaching methods,
47 Watson, J., 154, 157, 160 Beethoven, L. van, 169 228-9
Rylc, G., 155, 160 Wells, R., 130 Government and Binding (GB)
Bchaviourism, 139, 153-5
Wernickc, C., 181-2 ' biling~lalism Theory, 107-10
Sachs, J., 18 Whorf, R., 164
beneficial or detrimental, 243-5, grammars, 97-1 13
Saddock, J., 115 Widdowson, H., 233, 241
Salivc, M., 174 250 linguistics as psychology, 95-7
Wilkins, I>., 231, 233
Sanders, R., 47 varictics, 242-3 meaning, sound and syntax
Woll, B., 91
Sapir, E., 163 Wolz, J., 47 bilirigualisrn and intclligcncc relations, 116-17
Sasanuma, S., 191, 200 Wood, M., 218 ncgativc rcports, 248 Standard Theory, 98-107
Sauvcur, L., 241 I positivc reports, 248-50 Syntactic Structures, 97
Savngc-Rumb;iugh, S. (sc'c, Yaldcn, J . , 233, 241 : bilingualism and language systcni of rules, 97
I~umbnugh),33, 44, 47 Yu, A.,240,258 ncgativc rcports, 245-6 circle idea, 13.%5
Schlcsingcr, I . , 127 positive rcports, 246-7 classrooni situation, 21 1-13, 215
Schmidt, II., 252, 258 Z;iwc>lkow, E., 01 Binding Thcory, 110 clinib (Chonisky's innatc idcn),
hirds and spccch, 41 138-0
hr:iin ft~nction,174-7 Clinton, I'rcsidcnt, 175
Imin strl~cturc,174-7 Cognitive (;r;inlmnr, 113
Ilritish Sign L : I I I ~ I I(I%SL),
: I ~ ~ OH, color tcrms, 165
77 < : o n ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ iLangu;lgc
c:~tivc
I%ritishS i p L:~ngil:igcvcrhs, 77 Tc:lching (CL'T'O, 2.7 1 , 233,
1lroc;l's aphnsin. I8(+8 240
 264 Subject lndex Subject lndex 265

competence-performance free will, 198 Japanese language and aphasia, 191 Motherese (see Parentese)
distinction, 96-7 French Sign Language, 68 justice (Plato's innate idea), 137 motor skills and pronunciation,
complex sentence production, 208-9
14-16 General Multi-Purpose Learning Kanzi (see pygmy chimp)
Computerized Axial Tomography Strategies (GMPLS), 136 Keller, Helen, 53, 61-5, 167, 185 Natural Approach (NA), 233-6
(CAT), 195-8 Generative Semantics Grammer, Kissinger, H . , 216 Natural Method, 224-5
, Conrad, Joseph Syndrome, 216 110-13 Koko (gorilla), 36-7, 43, 149 natural situation, 210-1 1, 214-15
correction, 26-7 Genie (raised in solitary Nebraska law against second
I
confinement), 55-8,61, 63-6, Lana (chimp), 33, 43, 44 language teaching, 158-9
,I Creoles and thought
incompatibility, 168-9 negation and production, 15-16
185 language affecting thought, 169-70
N i m (see Chimpsky, Nim)
'; I
critical age for first language
acquisition, 63-5
gestures
with speech, 72-3
language and thought, true
relationship, 171
i one-word utterance, 4-7
critical age for language learning without speech, 69-72 language areas of brain, 181-4 Oral Approach, 82-4

I and brain maturation, 184-6

critical age for second language
acquisition, 215-17
i I
deaf children without language
have thought, 166
deaf education, 80-9
Deep Structure (and D-structure),
100-5, 111-13
determinism, 198
dimensions of teaching methods,
219-21
Direct Method, 225-6
dolphins, 37-40
dominance of brain hemispheres,
177-81
'
Donald (raised with Vicki), 31
, Double-Trouble phenomenon, 257
dyslcxias, 19C-1
earcdncss (preference), 179-80
casc and spccd of child acquisition
arguments, 140-2
clcctrical stimulation of brain, 195
Elvar (dolphin), 37
Empiricist I'hilosophy, 135*,
152-3, 171
error analysis, 256
Eskimo (spcv Inuit)
ESL vs. ESL Icnrning context, 213
cxplicntion, 203-5
facilitation in sccontl I;111gi1:1ge
Icnrning, 255
finger spelling, 74-0
First Llngu;~gcstr;ltcgy, 257
Flctclicr, L. (;lctrcss), X I
God (Descartes' innate idea), 137
gorilla (see Kolo)
Government and Binding (GB)
Theory, 107-10
Grammar Dimension:
Induction-Explication, 220
Grammar-Translation (GT)
Method, 219-20,222-4,
239-40
Guerin, Madame, 52, 55
handedness, 174-9
hemispheres of brain, 175-81
holophrastic speech, 7
Hopi language, time conccpt issuc,
164
Hypothesis 1 vs. Hypothcsis 2
argument, 145-9
imitation, role in acquisition, 2 5 4
inadequate data argument, 142-4
induction, 203, 205
innate k~iowlcdgc,136-9
intclligcncc and bilingualisn~,
247-50
intclligcncc and language, 245-7
intclligcncc irrclcvant argument,
149-50
intclligcncc vs. Univcrsal
C;ranini;~r,130-55
intcrfcrcncc in second Innguagc
Icnrning. 255
Inuit (Eskimo), 165
1s:tbcllc (confined with n ~ u t c
motllcr), 50-00, 03-5
language as basis of thought, 16%
arguments against, 166-9
language disorders (see aphasias)
Language Mode Dimension:
Speech-Reading, 219-20
lateralization and brain
hemispheres, 175, 177-81,
185, 197-8
Leborne (Tau), 196
left-handers, 174-9
Leonardo da Vinci, 175
lexicon, 99-103, 112-13
linguistics as psychology, 95-6
Linguistics Dimension: Mentalist-
Structuralist, 221
lipreading (see speechreading)
lobes of brain, 177
localisni and holism, 191-2
Logical Form, 108-9, 111
c Loulis (chimp), 32-3
rnathcmatics argument, 150-2
~ncaning,non-linguistic origins,
170-1
memory
: role in languagc acquisition,
1 206-8
'
in first Iangungc acquisition, 21
~ncntalism.153-5
Mcycr, It. (;lrrcstcd schooltcnchcr),
! 158-0, 244
mi11d ant1 hr:~in,108-0
nlinutc s;~mplc :rrgtlnlcnt, 144
Monitor I lyyothcsis, 234, 730
~llonkcys(vcrvct), 41
~llorl>hcnlc :~ccluisitionortlcr, 0-14
paralysis and thinking, 162
parameters, 110, 138
Parentese (Motherese), 22-3
perfection (Descartes' innate idea),
137
performance models
Chomsky's, 117-19
types, 119-23
Perot, Ross, 175
Phoenix (dolphin), 38
Phonetic Interpretation (and
Representation), 1 0 5 4 , 111
Phonological Rules, 105-6
Phrase Structure Rules, 99-103
Positron Emission Tomography
(PET), 195-8
post-mortcm examination of brain,
194-5
poverty of stimulus argument,
144-9
Process Graniniar performance
modcl, 122-3
I'rojection Principle, 109
I'salmtik I of Egypt, 49
psychological reality, 1 16-31
psychological unreality of
Chomsky's grammar, 128-9
I'sychology f>imcnsion: Mcntnlist-
13chavio~1rist.
221
pygniy chimp (Ki~nzi),4.3-5
l'yth;lgorns, 134
Ilation;~listI'hilosophy, 135-7,
1 53-3
rcading process in brain, 183, 107
reason 2nd Rationalist thcory, 137
 CURTIN UN~VERS~TY
OF TECHNOLOGY
266 Subject Index L I B R A R Y ,
Resource Grammar performance speechreading, 83 aa-q
model, 119-22
Rochester Method, 75
split brain, 180-1
Standard Theory, 98-107 rn
Suggestopedia, 237-8
Sarah (chimp), 35-6, 43 Surface Structure (and S-structur
schizoids and bilinguals, 167-8 103-5, 111-13 '>
second language acquisition Syntactic Structures, 97
factors, 203
talking and thinking
I1;< bCe+qBl531 ,
second language locations in brain,
197-8 simultaneously, 162-3
Second Language strategy, 257 Tarzan, 49
Seeing Exact English, 75 Tau (see Leborne)
Semantic Interpretation (and telegraphic speech, 8-9
Representation), 106-7, 111 thought as the basis of language,
Semantic Rules, 1 0 6 7 , 111 170-1
sentence production process, 123-6 Total Communication, 84
sentence understanding process, Total Physical Response (TPR),
12- 229-3 1,240
sequential bilingual learning transfer effects of Language 1 on
situation, 250-1, 253-4 Language 2,254-7
sex hormones and hemispheres, Transformational Rules, 103-5,
178-9 110-1 1
sign language triangle (Leibnitz' innate idea), 12
as a complete language, 67-8 two and three-word utterances,
independent type, 76-82 7-1 4
representing spelling or speech, U.S. Supreme Court, 159, 173
74-6 understanding precedes
syntax, 78-80 production, 160-1
types, 7 . 4 Universal Grammar (UG) (also
sign language aphasia, 193-4 LAD and Languge Faculty),
Signing Exact English, 75, 78 137-9
Silent Way, 236-7 arguments against, 137-52
sirn~~ltancous bilingual learning
situation, 250-3 Vicki (chimp), 31, 43
snow words. 165 Victor (Wild Iloy of Avc?ron),
social situations in second language 5G9, 61, 6.341, 89
acqi~isition,21(&13 vision fields, 178
speech acts, 7 vocnlization (dcvclopmcnt), .3-4
speech areas of brain, 1x3
spcccll as ba.;is ofthought, 159-160 Washoc (chinlp), 31-3, 43, 46, 14'
argumcnt~against, 160-3 Wcrnickc's aplinsi;~,1HH
speech product~on( d c v e l o p ~ n c ~ ~ t ) , Wcrnickc's Area, 176, 180-4, 186,
-3- 10 188, 101-4, 107
syccch understanding, 16-21 Wild I3oy o f Avcyron (sc~cfVictor)
a.; has~so f trr Written Laligu;~gcApp~.onch,8 4 '

Ycrkish, 33