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
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
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.
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.
Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. (Eds.) (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press
Brugman, C. (1981). Story of OVER. MA Thesis, University of California, Berkeley. Reproduced by LAUD (1983).
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.
Cromer, R. (1991). Language and thought in normal and handicapped children. Cambridge, Mass: Basil Blackwell.
Flavell, J. H. (2000). Development of children’s knowledge about the mental world. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 15–23.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). The nmodularity of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Frawley, W. (1992). Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Geert, P. van (1985). “In”, “on”, “under”: an essay on the modularity of infant spatial competence. First Language, 6, 7–26.
Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gopnik, A., Choi, S. & Baumberger, T. (1996). Cross-linguistic differences in early semantic and cognitive development. Cognitive Development, 11 (2), 197–227.
Heine, B., Claudi, U. & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
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.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levinson, S. (1994). Vision, shape, and linguistic description: Tzeltal body-part terminology and object description. Linguistics, 32, 791–855.
MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mandler, J. (1996). Preverbal representation and language. In P. Bloom, M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garret (Eds.), Language and space. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1979). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Miller, G. A. and Johnson-Laird, P.N. (1976). Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Piaget, J. (1923). Le langage et la pensée chez l’enfant. Paris: Delachaux & Niestleé.
Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1956). The child’s conception of space. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
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.
Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
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.
Richthoff, U. (2000). En svensk barnspråkskorpus-uppbyggnad och analyser. Licentiate Dissertation. University of Göteborg: Department of Linguistics.
Robins, R. H. (1989). A short history of linguistics. London: Longman.
Rosch, E. (1978) Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch and B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Taylor, J.R. (1989). Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
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.
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Zlatev, J. (1997). Situated embodiment: Studies in the emergence of spatial meaning. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of Linguistics, Stockholm University. Stockholm: Gotab Press.
Zlatev, J. (2001). The epigenesis of meaning in human beings, and possibly in robots. Minds and Machines, 11, 155–195.
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.
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.
Zlatev, J. (in press-c). Spatial semantics. In D. Geeraerts and H. Cuyckens (Eds.), Handbook in Cognitive Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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