Skip to main content

Beyond Cognitive Determination

Interactionism in the acquisition of spatial semantics

  • Chapter
Ecology of Language Acquisition

Part of the book series: Educational Linguistics ((EDUL,volume 1))

  • 299 Accesses

Abstract

The above two very different quotations touch on one of the crucial issues within developmental psycholinguistics: is language acquisition mainly determined by cognitive, language-independent categorization or by categories inherent in the target language itself? An important type of evidence to consider in tackling this question is production and comprehension data indicative of the sequence in which particular words, ‘word senses’, or grammatical constructions are acquired by children, i.e. what is often referred to as acquisition order. In particular, this chapter addresses the issue of whether cognitive categorization, and especially cognitive asymmetry, is a sufficiently good predictor of acquisition order, i.e. if expressions corresponding to cognitively more ‘basic’ structures will ontogenetically precede expressions corresponding to more complex structures. The hypothesis that this is the case is what I will refer to as the cognitive determination hypothesis with respect to language acquisition. It is often reflected in the work of developmentalists who place a pivotal role on pre-linguistic categories, such as Cromer (1991) and Mandler (1996). Linguists working within the framework of cognitive semantics occasionally make implicit use of this hypothesis in appealing to acquisition order as evidence for the “cognitive reality” of particular analyses! Perhaps one of the most explicit expressions of the cognitive determination hypothesis is presented by H. Clark:

Since time is a spatial metaphor, the use of a term to denote time must have been preceded by the use of the comparable term to denote space. In general, therefore, spatial expressions should appear before time expressions, and in particular, each term that can be used both spatially and temporally should be acquired in its spatial sense first (1973, p. 57).

We saw a flock of sheep. There’s a sound that the baby makes when she sees furry animals. She also makes that sound when she sees her mother and me naked.—Richard Brautingan, Trout Fishing in America

The relationships that cannot be the product of the child’s isolated constructional efforts must be given to it by the community.—Rita Nolan, Cognitive Practices

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bates, E. & Elman, J. (1992). Connectionism and the study of change. In M. Johnson (Ed.), Brain development and cognition: A reader. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowerman, M. & Choi, S. (1991). Learning to express notion events in English and Korean: The influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition, 41(1–3), 83–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. (Eds.) (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowerman, M. (1996). Learning how to structure space for language: A cross-linguistic perspective. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garret (Eds.), Language and space. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugman, C. (1981). Story of OVER. MA Thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Reproduced by LAUD (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. (1973). Space, time, semantics and the child. In T. E. Moore (Ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cromer, R. (1991). Language and thought in normal and handicapped children. Cambridge, Mass: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flavell, J. H. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 15–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. A. (1983). The nmodularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geert, P. van (1985). “In”, “on”, “under”: an essay on the modularity of infant spatial competence. First Language, 6, 7–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopnik, A., Choi, S. & Baumberger, T. (1996). Cross-linguistic differences in early semantic and cognitive development. Cognitive Development, 11 (2), 197–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kozima, H. and Zlatev, J. (2000). An epigenetic approach to human-robot communication. Proceedings of the International workshop on robot and human interactive communication (ROMAN-2000)(pp. 346–351), Osaka.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levinson, S. (1994). Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics, 32, 791–855.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandler, J. (1996). Preverbal representation and language. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garret (Eds.), Language and space. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1979). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. and Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1923). Le langage et la pensée chez l’enfant. Paris: Delachaux & Niestleé.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, E.S. (1995). The ecological approach to language development: A radical solution to Chomsky’s and Quine’s problems. Language & Communication, 15 (1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rice, S. (1999). Patterns of acquisition in the emerging mental lexicon: The case of to and for in English. Brain and Language, 68, 268–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richthoff, U. (2000). En svensk barnspråkskorpus-uppbyggnad och analyser. Licentiate Dissertation. University of Göteborg: Department of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, R. H. (1989). A short history of linguistics. London: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandra, D. & Rice, S. (1995). Network analyses of prepositional meaning: Mirroring whose mind—the linguist’s or the language user’s? Cognitive Linguistics, 6 (1), 89–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sinha, C., Thorseng, L., Hayashi, M. & Plunkett, K. (1994). Comparative spatial semantics and language acquisition: Evidence from Danish, English and Japanese, Journal of Semantics, 11, 253–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slobin, D. (1985). The cross-linguistic study of the language-making capacity. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language-acquisition. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strömqvist, S., Ragnarsdóttir, H., & Richthoff, H. (2001). Input and production in the early development of function words. In J. Weissenbom and B. Höhle (Eds.), Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, lexical and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J.R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J.R. (1993). Prepositions: Patterns of polysemization and strategies of disambiguation. In C. Zelinsky-Wibbelt (Ed.), The semantics of prepositions. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev, J. (1997). Situated embodiment: Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. Stockholm: Gotab Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev, J. (2001). The epigenesis of meaning in human beings, and possibly in robots. Minds and Machines, 11, 155–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev, J. (in press-a). Spatial prepositions: polysemous or general? In H. Cuyckens and D. Sandra (Eds.), Cognitive linguistic approaches to lexical semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruvter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev, J. (in press-b). Holistic spatial semantics of Thai. In E. Casad and G. Palmer (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics and non Indo-European languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zlatev, J. (in press-c). Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook in Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2002 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Zlatev, J. (2002). Beyond Cognitive Determination. In: Leather, J., van Dam, J. (eds) Ecology of Language Acquisition. Educational Linguistics, vol 1. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0341-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0341-3_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-6170-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0341-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics