lecture 5 - theories and diversity of language development Flashcards

Question

Understanding development: Multiple levels over developmental time

Answer 1

ACORNS: Accessible Cause-Outcome Representation and Notation System; Moore & George, 2011 genes are not static, their expression is influenced what we expeience in our environment eg sleep/wake cycle so the social environment can push and change how our biology works and how our brain is built and so on. so we we do behavioural interventions we can see change at the Level of the brain diagram in notes - cascade shows when have dangerous material in environment eg sulphur it changes some of the genetic expressions - dont need to know diagram for exam

Answer 2

Theoretical perspectives * Nature * Nurture * Interactionism! * Diversity of language development

Answer 3

Animal Language Abilities – Summary Dogs (e.g., Rico): Learned over 200 object labels and could fetch items by name, even when the owner wasn’t visible—ruling out the "Clever Hans" effect. Demonstrated the “novel name = nameless object” principle, similar to children’s early word learning. However, Rico's understanding was limited to object names without grasping semantic relationships (e.g., categories like toys). Implication: Suggests that general learning mechanisms, not just language-specific ones, may support early vocabulary acquisition in children. Parrots (e.g., Alex the African Grey): Trained by Pepperberg over 13 years to learn ~80 words, including nouns, adjectives, and some verbs. Could classify objects, understand same/different, and count to six. Showed basic use of syntax and category combination but had limited verbs and function word use, indicating restricted language capacity. Dolphins (Phoenix & Akeakamai): Trained in artificial languages (visual and acoustic) and tested for comprehension, not production. While they grasped some syntax, they lacked function words and more complex linguistic structures. Primates (Chimpanzees): As our closest relatives, they are often studied for language learning. However, mastering true language requires both word meaning (semantics) and syntax (rules for combining words). Most evidence shows primates struggle to achieve both, especially syntax.

Answer 4

- We have seen that primates have a rich communication system that they use in the wild. The cognitive abilities of a chimpanzee named Viki aged 3½ years were generally comparable to those of a child of a similar age on a range of perceptual tasks such as discriminating and matching similar items, but broke down on tasks involving counting (Hayes & Nissen, 1971). - Experiments on another chimp named Sarah also suggested that she performed at levels close to that of a young child on tasks such as conserving quantity, as long she could see the transformation occurring. For example, she understood that pouring water from a tall, thin glass into a short, fat glass did not change the amount of water. Hence the cognitive abilities of apes are broadly similar to those of young children, apart from the latter’s linguistic abilities. This decoupling of linguistic and other cognitive abilities in children and apes has important implications. - First, it suggests that for many basic cognitive tasks language is not essential. - Second, it suggests that there are some non-cognitive prerequisites to linguistic development. Third, it suggests that cognitive limitations in themselves might not be able to account for the failure of apes to acquire language.

Answer 5

- The earliest attempt to teach apes language was that of Kellogg and Kellogg (1933), who raised a female chimpanzee named Gua along with their own son. (This type of rearing is called crossfostering or cross-nurturing.) Gua only understood a few words, and never produced any that were recognizable. - Hayes (1951) reared a chimp named Viki as a human child and attempted to teach her to speak. This attempt was also unsuccessful, as after 6 years the chimpanzee could produce just four poorly articulated words (“mama,” “papa,” “up,” and “cup”) using her lips. - Even then, Viki could only produce these in a guttural croak, and only the Hayes family could understand them easily. With a great deal of training she understood more words, and some combinations of words. These early studies have a fundamental limitation. The vocal tracts of chimps are physiologically unsuited to producing speech, and this difference alone could account for their lack of progress (see Figure 3.3). Nothing can be concluded about the general language abilities of primates from these early failures.

Answer 6

Vocal Limitation, Manual Dexterity: Chimpanzees can’t speak due to vocal tract design but are adept with their hands, making them suitable for sign language or symbol-based systems. Washoe’s Background: Female chimpanzee raised as a human child (Gardner & Gardner, 1969, 1975), participating in daily human activities. She was taught American Sign Language (ASL)—a full language with syntax and vocabulary. Language Development: By age 4: Knew ~85 signs; later expanded to 150–200. Signs included nouns, verbs, adjectives, pronouns, and negatives. Made overgeneralization errors like children (e.g., "flower" for any nice smell, "hurt" for tattoo). Coined new phrases: e.g., "water bird" for duck, when lacking a known sign. Used sign combinations up to 5-sign strings (e.g., “Out open please hurry”). Syntax and Comprehension: Responded to WH-questions (e.g., “what,” “where”). Showed sensitivity to word order (e.g., distinguishing “You tickle me” vs. “I tickle you”). Cultural Transmission: Washoe’s adopted son Loulis spontaneously learned signs from her. Evidence of teaching and observation-based learning, suggesting cultural transmission. Still debated whether this constitutes true language or just advanced communication

Answer 7

- A different approach was taken by Premack (1971, 1976a, 1976b, 1985, 1986a). Sarah was a chimpanzee trained in a laboratory setting to manipulate small plastic symbols that varied in shape, size, and texture. - The symbols could be ordered in certain ways according to rules. Together, the symbols and the rules form a language called Premackese. - One advantage of this set-up is that less memory load is required, as the array is always in front of the animal. Sarah produced mainly simple lexical concepts (strings of items together describing simple objects or actions), and could produce novel strings of symbols. These, however, were generally only at the level of substituting one word for another. - For example (with the Premackese translated into English), “Randy give apple Sarah” was used as the basis of producing “Randy give banana Sarah.” She produced sentences that were syntactically quite complex (for example, producing logical connectives such as “if … then”), and showed metalinguistic awareness (reflectiveness) in that she could talk about the language system itself using symbols that meant “… is the name of.” However, there was little evidence that Sarah was grouping strings of symbols together to form proper syntactic units.

Answer 8

- Terrace, Petitto, Sanders, and Bever (1979) described the linguistic progress of a chimpanzee named Nim Chimpsky (a pun on Noam Chomsky). They taught Nim Chimpsky a language based on ASL. Nim learned about 125 signs, and the researchers recorded over 20,000 utterances in 2 years, many of them of two or more signs in combination. They found that there was regularity of order in two-word utterances— for example, place was usually the second thing mentioned— but that this broke down with longer utterances. Longer utterances were largely characterized by more repetition (“banana me eat banana eat”), rather than displaying real syntactic structure. - Terrace et al. were far more pessimistic about the linguistic abilities of apes than were either the Gardners or Premack. Unlike children, Nim rarely signed spontaneously; about 90% of his utterances were in reply to his trainers and concerned immediate activities such as eating, drinking, and playing, and 40% of his utterances were simply repetitions of signs that had just been made by his trainers. However, O’Sullivan and Yeager (1989) pointed out that the type of training Nim received might have limited his linguistic skills. They found that he performed better in a conversational setting than in a formal training session. There have been other famous attempts to teach language to primates. Savage-Rumbaugh, Rumbaugh, and Boysen (1978) reported attempts to teach the chimpanzees Lana, Sherman, and Austin language, using a computer-controlled display of symbols structured according to an invented syntax called Yerkish. The symbols that serve as words are called lexigrams (see Figure 3.5). The linguistic abilities of other primates such as gorillas have also been studied (e.g., Koko, reported by Patterson, 1981).

Answer 9

✅ Initial Promise Early studies appeared to show that apes demonstrated key features of language (Hockett’s design features): Discreteness: Specific signs for specific words. Displacement: Referred to unseen objects. Reflectiveness: Discussed the symbol system (e.g., Sarah). Openness: Combined signs in novel ways. Tradition: Signs passed to offspring (e.g., Washoe to Loulis). Grammar: Claimed use of syntactic rules. ⚠️ Methodological Criticisms Iconicity vs. Symbolism: Many ASL signs are iconic (e.g., "give" = gesture toward self), raising doubts about their symbolic nature. However, many ASL signs are arbitrary, and it's accepted as a real language by deaf communities. Overinterpretation: Trainers may have interpreted gestures as meaningful signs. Observers like deaf signers reported Washoe’s output was much more limited than claimed. Lack of Systematic Data: No comprehensive recordings or contextual corpora—mostly anecdotal and summary data. Could obscure errors or randomness (e.g., was "water bird" meaningful or one of many random combinations?). Repetition & Stock Phrases: Signing often repetitive (e.g., “me banana you banana”), unlike structured child speech. Imitation was common; creative, spontaneous use was rare. Simulations: Programs like Thompson & Church's showed performance could be replicated without real language understanding—just association and situational cues. ❌ Linguistic Limitations Compared to Children Utterances were context-bound (lack of temporal displacement). Syntax was inconsistent, especially in longer utterances. Weak understanding of syntactic relations (e.g., couldn’t generalize sentence structures or reject ill-formed ones). Chimps rarely asked questions—unlike curious human children. Did not spontaneously use symbols to refer or reason—required explicit training. Unlike children, chimps did not use language to learn about language. ⚖️ Conclusion Early research had significant limitations due to flawed methods and overinterpretation. Later studies learned from these issues (e.g., Savage-Rumbaugh’s work). Overall, the evidence suggests apes’ linguistic abilities are limited—perhaps capable of symbolic communication but not full language

Answer 10

Recent studies involving pygmy chimpanzees (bonobos), especially Kanzi, challenge previous views on animal cognition. Kanzi, unlike other apes, acquired symbol understanding by observing his mother’s training and interacting in natural settings, not through food-based reinforcement. He learned symbols and showed comprehension of both English and Yerkish, performing similarly to a 2-year-old child. By 30 months, he knew seven symbols, and by 46 months, he knew nearly 50, producing over 800 combinations. He understood word order and verb meanings, with over 80% of his output being spontaneous. However, Kanzi’s abilities have been debated. Critics like Seidenberg and Petitto (1987) argue that Kanzi’s understanding of names differs from humans. His grammatical acquisition was slower than humans, and his sentences lacked the complexity of a 3-year-old’s. Some believe Kanzi lacks function words and recursive grammar. Nevertheless, supporters like Savage-Rumbaugh (1987) argue that critics underestimate chimpanzee abilities and overestimate young children's linguistic skills. Kanzi’s success may stem from early language exposure, similar to its importance in humans

Answer 11

Studies on teaching apes language show that they can learn associations between symbols and objects, but they struggle with the complexity of human language. Rivas (2005) analyzed chimpanzee sign use and found that it mainly involved actions and objects, with little syntactic or semantic structure. Apes' use of signs often resembles simple associations rather than true word meaning, as seen in pigeons’ conditioned responses to words. Key questions about whether apes can learn names consistently across contexts and understand word meaning in the same way humans do remain unresolved. For example, while some apes like Kanzi can quickly learn new words, there is no evidence they understand word meanings in the same way humans do, as seen in Nim's inability to distinguish between apples and bananas when presented together. On the other hand, Sherman and Austin could group lexigrams into superordinate categories, which is more advanced. Syntactically, apes' ability to combine symbols seems rule-governed but likely results from conditioning, rather than creative rule use. Unlike humans, who use recursion to form infinite sentence structures, apes cannot process hierarchical grammar. While some monkeys can learn simple grammars, they fail to handle more complex structures like recursion, a feature central to human language. Research also reveals that only humans have recursion, a key linguistic feature, although other aspects of language, like anatomy and control of speech, are unique to humans. While apes can learn symbols and basic syntax, they lack the ability to acquire human-like syntax, suggesting their language abilities are closer to protolanguage. The comparison between chimps and children remains unclear due to challenges in researching apes raising offspring, but current evidence suggests that apes' language abilities are limited compared to human language.

Answer 12

The issue of animal language is important for several reasons beyond intellectual curiosity: Insight into Language: The debate helps clarify the unique aspects of human language, distinguishing it from simpler animal communication, like vervet monkeys' alarm calls. Cognitive and Linguistic Differences: While young children and chimpanzees share similar cognitive abilities, their linguistic abilities differ significantly, suggesting that language processes are distinct from other cognitive functions. Chomsky’s Theory: Noam Chomsky argued that human language is a special faculty with a biological basis, independent of other cognitive processes. He proposed that only humans possess a "language acquisition device" (LAD) that allows them to learn language, which is species-specific and innate. This theory emphasizes the uniqueness of human language, particularly the ability to use recursive syntactic rules, which apes lack. Discontinuity Between Humans and Apes: Chomsky’s view was supported by Premack, who acknowledged a major gap between the linguistic abilities of children and chimpanzees. While children naturally acquire language, apes must be explicitly taught, reinforcing the idea that humans have innate, hard-wired language capabilities not found in other animals.

Answer 13

The critical period hypothesis suggests that second language acquisition becomes more difficult with age. Johnson and Newport (1989) explored this hypothesis, distinguishing two ideas: the maturational state hypothesis, which claims language learning ability declines with age, and the exercise hypothesis, which states this ability is lost if not exercised early. Research has shown mixed results. Snow (1983) argued that adults might not be worse than children at learning a second language, with exposure time being a more significant factor. Snow and Hoefnagel-Hohle (1978) found that young children (3–4 years old) were less successful at learning Dutch than adults, suggesting that the advantages of the critical period might be overstated. Moreover, some adults perform nearly as well as native speakers, while others may not. The key factor seems to be the time spent learning the language, rather than age alone. Studies by Johnson and Newport (1989) provided evidence for a critical period in acquiring the syntax of a second language, showing that younger immigrants to the USA had a distinct advantage in grammatical judgment tasks. However, they also found that later arrivals (ages 16-40) showed less proficiency, though the variance in their language abilities was high. This suggests a change in language acquisition capacity around age 16, but other researchers suggest an earlier cutoff, around age 5 (Birdsong & Molis, 2001). Some studies, such as Birdsong and Molis’ replication of Johnson and Newport’s work, found no abrupt discontinuity at age 16 and reported that some late learners reached near-native performance, challenging the critical period hypothesis. In conclusion, there is evidence for a gradual decline in second language acquisition abilities, particularly for phonological development. The critical period hypothesis remains controversial, with evidence supporting both gradual and more abrupt declines in language learning ability after a certain age.

Answer 14

The critical period hypothesis suggests that without linguistic input during a certain period in childhood, children may struggle to acquire language normally. Extreme cases of linguistic deprivation, such as those involving feral children, provide insight into this hypothesis. For example, "wolf children" raised by animals, like the famous "Wild Boy of Aveyron" found in France in 1800, often show no language skills, despite attempts at education. More recent cases, such as the wolf children of India and the monkey boy of Burundi, also illustrate failures in language acquisition after severe deprivation. One of the most notable cases is that of "Genie," a child isolated from normal language exposure from the age of 20 months until she was 13 years old. Her father had a strong aversion to noise, leading to an environment of extreme social and linguistic deprivation. After being rescued, Genie showed some ability to learn language, but her syntactic development was severely impaired. She had difficulties with grammar, question words, verb tense, and sentence transformations. Despite efforts to teach her, her language abilities never reached the level of a typical child her age. Research on Genie ended prematurely due to legal and financial issues, leaving many questions about her development unanswered. Genie's case suggests that while some language learning is possible beyond the critical period, it is much more limited, particularly when it comes to syntax. The extreme deprivation she suffered may have contributed to her difficulties, but it’s unclear whether she had developmental delays before her confinement. Her father believed she was developmentally delayed and locked her away to protect her, which complicates understanding of her case. On the other hand, the case of "Isabelle," who was kept isolated with her deaf-mute mother until age 6½, shows that children can recover from linguistic deprivation if they receive early exposure to language. Isabelle was initially at the developmental level of a 2-year-old but quickly caught up after being exposed to language, showing that early intervention can allow for normal language development. In conclusion, while linguistic deprivation during the critical period can cause lasting difficulties, especially with syntax, children who receive early linguistic input can recover to a great extent. However, the effects of other types of deprivation, such as social or nutritional, make it challenging to separate their impact on language development

Answer 15

The critical period hypothesis (CPH) posits that there is a specific window during childhood when language acquisition is most efficient. However, there are two main reasons to reject a strong version of this hypothesis: children can acquire some language outside the supposed critical period, and lateralization of brain functions, which is related to language, does not occur solely during this period. Despite these arguments, a weakened version of the hypothesis, often called the "sensitive period hypothesis," can still be defended. This version suggests that there is a sensitive period for language acquisition, particularly for complex aspects of syntactic processing, and that the critical period applies to more than just spoken language. Research supports this weaker version. For example, Newport (1990) found that congenitally deaf individuals show evidence of a critical period in acquiring American Sign Language (ASL), especially regarding morphologically inflected signs. However, while adults can learn ASL, they do so less efficiently. The reasons for a critical or sensitive period for language acquisition are explained in several ways. One explanation, the nativist view, suggests that the brain is pre-programmed to acquire language early in life. Bever (1981) argued that this critical period is a normal aspect of brain growth, with a loss of plasticity as brain cells specialize. Locke (1997) proposed that this sensitive period arises due to the interaction between the development of specialized neural systems, early perceptual experiences, and specific changes in linguistic development. If language areas are not properly activated during early development, it can lead to issues similar to physical damage in the brain. Another explanation, the maturational view, suggests that cognitive and neurological systems lose their advantages as they mature. For example, children’s limited short-term memory or ability to remember specific word associations might actually benefit language learning by helping them focus on smaller, manageable units before moving on to more complex structures. This idea, known as “less is more,” argues that limited cognitive resources help children avoid being overwhelmed, allowing them to master simpler language elements first, which they can build on later. Additionally, connectionist models of language acquisition suggest that as the brain develops, it becomes more specialized and less plastic, which may account for the difficulty of learning complex language features as one grows older. The differences between these explanations mainly lie in whether the constraints on language learning are linguistic-specific or more general and whether the timing of language acquisition is genetically controlled. Recent work, especially using connectionist models, has lent more support to the maturational explanation, though it’s possible that the nativist and maturational views are not mutually exclusive. A system that matures and becomes more efficient at learning language would offer an evolutionary advantage

Answer 16

- Further evidence that there is a strong biological drive to learn syntax comes from the study of pidgin and creole languages. - Pidgin s are simplified languages that were created for communication between speakers of different languages who were forced into prolonged contact, such as the result of slavery in places like the Caribbean, the South Pacific, and Hawaii. - A creole is a pidgin language that has become the native tongue of the children of the pidgin speakers. Whereas pidgins are highly simplified syntactically, creole languages are syntactically rich. They are the spontaneous creation of the first generation of children born into mixed linguistic communities (Bickerton, 1981, 1984). - Creoles are not restricted to spoken language: hearing-impaired children develop a creole sign language if exposed to a signing pidgin. A community of deaf children in Nicaragua developed their own sign language from scratch (Kegl, Senghas, & Coppola, 1999). - Furthermore, the grammars that different creoles develop are very similar. Deaf children who are not exposed to sign language (because they have non-signing hearing parents) nevertheless spontaneously develop a gesture system that seems to have its own syntax (GoldinMeadow, Mylander, & Butcher, 1995). - They also develop within-gesture structures analogous to characteristics of word morphology. It is as though there is a biological drive to develop syntax, even if it is not present in the adult form of communication to which a child is exposed. Bickerton calls this idea the language bioprogram hypothesis: children have an innate drive to create a grammar that will make a language even in the absence of environmental input.

Answer 17

Genetic linguistics explores the role of genetics in language acquisition and proficiency, with specific language impairment (SLI) providing significant evidence for an innate aspect of language. SLI is a disorder affecting about 5% of the population, characterized by severe difficulties with spoken language, despite normal IQ, hearing, and brain function. Affected individuals often struggle with speech sounds, grammar, and vocabulary acquisition, but there is no obvious neurological impairment. SLI tends to run in families, which suggests a genetic component. For instance, the KE family in London has a history of language disorders across three generations, with many members struggling with speech production, language comprehension, and grammar, particularly with regular and irregular inflections. Research on this family found that SLI is likely caused by a dominant gene, possibly located on a segment of chromosome 7, labeled SPCH1. Later studies also identified the FOXP2 gene, which plays a crucial role in language development, especially in controlling facial movements and articulatory skills associated with speech. Despite the clear genetic involvement, there is debate about the specific nature of the impairment. Some studies suggest that SLI may not be strictly a grammatical disorder but could stem from underlying issues with sound processing. Children with SLI often struggle with phonological tasks, such as recognizing sounds or repeating nonwords, which are essential for grammatical development. For example, the ability to form verb tenses correctly depends on identifying the final sound of a word, which may be impaired in individuals with SLI. Joanisse and Seidenberg (1998) argued that these phonological processing issues underlie syntactic problems, making SLI a more general language processing difficulty. There are also arguments that SLI affects more than just language. For instance, affected members of the KE family had slightly lower performance IQ scores, and some researchers suggest that their difficulties might involve more general cognitive processes like sequencing sounds. On the whole, while SLI provides strong evidence for a genetic basis of language, the relationship between specific genes like FOXP2 and language is complex. The genetic influence on language proficiency is not limited to innate knowledge of linguistic rules but also involves general cognitive and phonological processing abilities. Thus, while genetic factors play a crucial role in language development, SLI's manifestation suggests that language difficulties can be quite broad and not restricted to grammar alone.

Answer 18

1. Developmental Approach to Down Syndrome (DS) ○ The study frames DS not as a collection of deficits but as an adaptive system with a different starting point (trisomy 21). ○ The emerging characteristics of DS are seen as adaptations to atypical constraints that initially serve a functional purpose but may later contribute to developmental challenges. 2. Neural Plasticity and Specialization Constraints ○ Trisomy 21 affects neural plasticity, which influences the brain’s ability to adapt and specialize. ○ Infants with DS show differences in how their brains develop, leading to less efficient information processing and atypical motor activity. 3. Perception and Attention Challenges ○ Infants with DS have perceptual difficulties in vision, hearing, and touch, which impact their ability to sample and process environmental information. ○ They often take longer to orient their attention, potentially missing key learning moments. 4. Motor Development Delays ○ Reduced motor activity affects early exploration, which in turn impacts cognitive and language development. ○ The delay in motor skills contributes to differences in perception-action cycles, crucial for interacting with the environment. 5. Role of Social Interaction ○ Infants with DS tend to rely heavily on social interactions as an adaptive strategy to compensate for their cognitive and motor challenges. ○ Parental involvement is especially crucial in shaping their learning experiences. 6. Diverging Developmental Trajectories ○ As children with DS grow, their cognitive and motor development diverges increasingly from typically developing (TD) peers. ○ Language delays become more pronounced, with expressive language skills lagging behind receptive language. 7. Individual Differences and Variability ○ There is vast individual variability among children with DS in terms of motor, language, and cognitive development. ○ Some children may follow typical developmental paths for a while before their progress slows down. 8. Future Research and Interventions ○ The study calls for early and intensive behavioral interventions to optimize developmental outcomes. ○ It also explores the potential for pharmacological interventions to support cognitive and neural development. This research emphasizes the importance of seeing DS as a dynamic developmental process influenced by a combination of biological, environmental, and social factors