Book•
Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition
01 Jan 2003-
TL;DR: The authors argue that the essence of language is its symbolic dimension, which rests on the uniquely human ability to comprehend intention, and that children pick up these patterns in the buzz of words they hear around them.
Abstract: Drawing together a vast body of empirical research in cognitive science, linguistics, and developmental psychology, Michael Tomasello demonstrates that we don't need a self-contained "language instinct" to explain how children learn language. Their linguistic ability is interwoven with other cognitive abilities. Tomasello argues that the essence of language is its symbolic dimension, which rests on the uniquely human ability to comprehend intention. Grammar emerges as the speakers of a language create linguistic constructions out of recurring sequences of symbols, children pick up these patterns in the buzz of words they hear around them. Constructing a Language offers a compellingly argued, psychologically sound new vision for the study of language acquisition.
Citations
More filters
Book•
01 Jan 2008TL;DR: For instance, the authors argues that human cooperative communication is grounded in a psychological infrastructure of shared intentionality (joint attention, common ground), evolved originally for collaboration and culture more generally.
Abstract: Winner, 2009 Eleanor Maccoby Book Award in Developmental Psychology, presented by the American Psychological Association. and Honorable Mention, Literature, Language & Linguistics category, 2008 PROSE Awards presented by the Professional/Scholarly Publishing Division of the Association of American Publishers. Human communication is grounded in fundamentally cooperative, even shared, intentions. In this original and provocative account of the evolutionary origins of human communication, Michael Tomasello connects the fundamentally cooperative structure of human communication (initially discovered by Paul Grice) to the especially cooperative structure of human (as opposed to other primate) social interaction. Tomasello argues that human cooperative communication rests on a psychological infrastructure of shared intentionality (joint attention, common ground), evolved originally for collaboration and culture more generally. The basic motives of the infrastructure are helping and sharing: humans communicate to request help, inform others of things helpfully, and share attitudes as a way of bonding within the cultural group. These cooperative motives each created different functional pressures for conventionalizing grammatical constructions. Requesting help in the immediate you-and-me and here-and-now, for example, required very little grammar, but informing and sharing required increasingly complex grammatical devices. Drawing on empirical research into gestural and vocal communication by great apes and human infants (much of it conducted by his own research team), Tomasello argues further that humans' cooperative communication emerged first in the natural gestures of pointing and pantomiming. Conventional communication, first gestural and then vocal, evolved only after humans already possessed these natural gestures and their shared intentionality infrastructure along with skills of cultural learning for creating and passing along jointly understood communicative conventions. Challenging the Chomskian view that linguistic knowledge is innate, Tomasello proposes instead that the most fundamental aspects of uniquely human communication are biological adaptations for cooperative social interaction in general and that the purely linguistic dimensions of human communication are cultural conventions and constructions created by and passed along within particular cultural groups. Jean Nicod Lectures A Bradford Book
2,639 citations
TL;DR: A mechanistic account of dialogue, the interactive alignment account, is proposed and used to derive a number of predictions about basic language processes, and the need for a grammatical framework that is designed to deal with language in dialogue rather than monologue is considered.
Abstract: Traditional mechanistic accounts of language processing derive almost entirely from the study of monologue. Yet, the most natural and basic form of language use is dialogue. As a result, these accounts may only offer limited theories of the mechanisms that un- derlie language processing in general. We propose a mechanistic account of dialogue, the interactive alignment account, and use it to de- rive a number of predictions about basic language processes. The account assumes that, in dialogue, the linguistic representations em- ployed by the interlocutors become aligned at many levels, as a result of a largely automatic process. This process greatly simplifies production and comprehension in dialogue. After considering the evidence for the interactive alignment model, we concentrate on three aspects of processing that follow from it. It makes use of a simple interactive inference mechanism, enables the development of local di- alogue routines that greatly simplify language processing, and explains the origins of self-monitoring in production. We consider the need for a grammatical framework that is designed to deal with language in dialogue rather than monologue, and discuss a range of implica- tions of the account.
2,222 citations
TL;DR: The authors reported evidence regarding the nature of those environmental requirements, the ways in which the varied social contexts in which children live meet those requirements, and the effects of environmental variability in meeting those requirements on the course of language development.
1,456 citations
TL;DR: This target article summarizes decades of cross-linguistic work by typologists and descriptive linguists, showing just how few and unprofound the universal characteristics of language are, once the authors honestly confront the diversity offered to us by the world's 6,000 to 8,000 languages.
Abstract: Talk of linguistic universals has given cognitive scientists the impression that languages are all built to a common pattern. In fact, there are vanishingly few universals of language in the direct sense that all languages exhibit them. Instead, diversity can be found at almost every level of linguistic organization. This fundamentally changes the object of enquiry from a cognitive science perspective. This target article summarizes decades of cross-linguistic work by typologists and descriptive linguists, showing just how few and unprofound the universal characteristics of language are, once we honestly confront the diversity offered to us by the world's 6,000 to 8,000 languages. After surveying the various uses of "universal," we illustrate the ways languages vary radically in sound, meaning, and syntactic organization, and then we examine in more detail the core grammatical machinery of recursion, constituency, and grammatical relations. Although there are significant recurrent patterns in organization, these are better explained as stable engineering solutions satisfying multiple design constraints, reflecting both cultural-historical factors and the constraints of human cognition. Linguistic diversity then becomes the crucial datum for cognitive science: we are the only species with a communication system that is fundamentally variable at all levels. Recognizing the true extent of structural diversity in human language opens up exciting new research directions for cognitive scientists, offering thousands of different natural experiments given by different languages, with new opportunities for dialogue with biological paradigms concerned with change and diversity, and confronting us with the extraordinary plasticity of the highest human skills.
1,385 citations
Cites background from "Constructing a Language: A Usage-Ba..."
...In constructivist usagebased approaches, children are assumed to build up syntactic categories and structures of their language gradually, using cues such as frequency and regularity of specific constructions (e.g., Lieven et al. 2003; Tomasello 2003a; 2009)....
[...]
TL;DR: Researchers in this field argue that unusual constructions shed light on more general issues, and can illuminate what is required for a complete account of language.
952 citations
Cites background from "Constructing a Language: A Usage-Ba..."
...In fact, constructionist theories argue that language must be learnable from positive input together with fairly general cognitive abilities [18, 29 ,38], because the diversity and complexity witnessed does not yield to accounts that assume that cross-linguistic variation can be characterized in terms of a finite set of parameters [37]....
[...]
...It turns out that the input need not be nearly as impoverished as is sometimes assumed [39]; analogical processes can be seen to be viable once function as well as form is taken into account [40,41]; there is good reason to think that children’s early grammar is quite conservative, with generalizations emerging only slowly [ 29 ,42,43]; and the ability to record transitional probabilities and statistical generalizations in the input has ......
[...]