Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

In search of resilient and fragile properties of language*

  • SUSAN GOLDIN-MEADOW (a1)

Abstract

Young children are skilled language learners. They apply their skills to the language input they receive from their parents and, in this way, derive patterns that are statistically related to their input. But being an excellent statistical learner does not explain why children who are not exposed to usable linguistic input nevertheless communicate using systems containing the fundamental properties of language. Nor does it explain why learners sometimes alter the linguistic input to which they are exposed (input from either a natural or an artificial language). These observations suggest that children are prepared to learn language. Our task now, as it was in 1974, is to figure out what they are prepared with – to identify properties of language that are relatively easy to learn, the resilient properties, as well as properties of language that are more difficult to learn, the fragile properties. The new tools and paradigms for describing and explaining language learning that have been introduced into the field since 1974 offer great promise for accomplishing this task.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: Susan Goldin-Meadow, University of Chicago, Department of Psychology, 5848 South University Avenue, Chicago, IL 60637. tel: 773-702-2585; e-mail: sgm@uchicago.edu

Footnotes

Hide All
[*]

Supported by R01DC00491 from the National Institute of Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders and by P01 HD 040605 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: the acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.
Brentari, D., Coppola, M., Mazzoni, L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). When does a system become phonological? Handshape production in gesturers, signers, and homesigners. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30(1), 131.
Cartmill, E. A., Armstrong, B., Gleitman, L., Goldin-Meadow, S., Medina, T. & Trueswell, J. (2013). Quality of early parent input predicts child vocabulary three years later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(28), 11278–83.
Cartmill, E. A., Hunsicker, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). Pointing and naming are not redundant: children use gesture to modify nouns before they modify nouns in speech. Developmental Psychology, in press.
Coppola, M. & Newport, E. (2005) Grammatical subjects in homesign: abstract linguistic structure in adult primary gesture systems without linguistic input. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(52), 19249–53.
Coppola, M. & Senghas, A. (2010). The emergence of deixis in Nicaraguan signing. In Brentari, D. (ed.), Sign languages: a Cambridge language survey, 543–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coppola, M., Spaepen, E. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2013). Communicating about quantity without a language model: number devices in homesign grammar. Cognitive Psychology 67, 125.
Demir, O. E., Levine, S. C. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Narrative skill in children with early unilateral brain injury: a possible limit to functional plasticity. Developmental Science 13(4), 636–47.
Fedzechkina, M., Jaeger, T. F. & Newport, E. L. (2012). Language learners restructure their input to facilitate efficient communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 17897–902.
Feldman, H. M. (2005). Language learning with an injured brain. Language Learning and Development 1(3/4), 265–88.
Feldman, H. M., Goldin-Meadow, S. & Gleitman, L. (1978). Beyond Herodotus: the creation of language by linguistically deprived deaf children. In Lock, A. (ed.), Action, symbol, and gesture: the emergence of language, 351414. New York: Academic Press.
Flaherty, M., Goldin-Meadow, S., Senghas, A., Coppola, M. & Gleitman, L. (2013). Animacy and verb classes in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Poster presented at the 38th meeting of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
Franklin, A., Giannakidou, A. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Negation, questions, and structure building in a homesign system. Cognition 118(3), 398416.
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In Kuczaj, S. A. (ed.), Language development: syntax and semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L. & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulations of vocabulary learning. Cognition 73(2), 135–76.
Gleitman, L. R. (1990). The structural sources of word meaning. Language Acquisition 1(1), 355.
Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A. & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words. Language Learning and Development 1(1), 2364.
Gleitman, L. & Newport, E. (1996). The invention of language by children: environmental and biological influences on the acquisition of language. In Gleitman, L. & Liberman, M. (eds), An invitation to cognitive science, 2nd ed., Vol. 1: language, 124. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (1982). The resilience of recursion: a study of a communication system developed without a conventional language model. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art, 5177. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2003). The resilience of language. New York: Psychology Press.
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Butcher, C. (2003). Pointing toward two-word speech in young children. In Kita, S. (ed.), Pointing: where language, culture, and cognition meet. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Butcher, C., Mylander, C. & Dodge, M. (1994). Nouns and verbs in a self-styled gesture system: What's in a name? Cognitive Psychology 27, 259319.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Levine, S. C., Hedges, L. V., Huttenlocher, J., Raudenbush, S. & Small, S. (2014). New evidence about language and cognitive development based on a longitudinal study: hypotheses for intervention. American Psychologist in press.
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C. (1983). Gestural communication in deaf children: the non-effects of parental input on language development. Science 221, 372–4.
Goldin-Meadow, S. & Mylander, C. (1998). Spontaneous sign systems created by deaf children in two cultures. Nature 91, 279–81.
Goldin-Meadow, S., Mylander, C. & Franklin, A. (2007). How children make language out of gesture: morphological structure in gesture systems developed by American and Chinese deaf children. Cognitive Psychology 55, 87135.
Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1986). Function and structure in maternal speech: their relation to the child's development of syntax. Developmental Psychology 22, 155–63.
Hunsicker, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2012). Hierarchical structure in a self-created communication system: building nominal constituents in homesign. Language 88(4), 732–63.
Huttenlocher, J., Haight, W., Bryk, A., Selzer, M. & Lyons, T. (1991). Early vocabulary growth: relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology 27, 236–48.
Huttenlocher, J., Waterfall, H., Vasilyeva, M., Vevea, J. & Hedges, L. (2010). Sources of variability in children's language growth. Cognitive Psychology 61, 343–65.
Iverson, J. M. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture paves the way for language development. Psychological Science 16, 368–71.
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
LeBarton, E. S., Raudenbush, S. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2014). Experimentally-induced increases in early gesture lead to increases in spoken vocabulary. Journal of Cognition and Development in press.
Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, P., Banich, M. & Duda, E. (1987). Factors affecting cognitive functioning of hemiplegic children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 29, 2735.
Levine, S. C., Suriyakham, L. W., Rowe, M. L., Huttenlocher, S. & Gunderson, E. A. (2010). What counts in the development of young children's number knowledge? Developmental Psychology 46, 1309–19.
MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language 53, 152–68.
MacWhinney, B. (1995). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk, 2nd ed.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marchman, V. A., Miller, R. & Bates, E. (1991). Babble and first words in children with focal brain injury. Applied Psycholinguistics 12, 122.
Nelson, K. E. (1977). Facilitating children's syntax acquisition. Developmental Psychology 13, 101–7.
Newport, E. L. (1991). Contrasting conceptions of the critical period for language. In Carey, S. & Gelman, R. (eds), The epigenesis of mind: essays on biology and cognition, 11130. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Newport, E. L., Gleitman, H. & Gletiman, L. R. (1977). Mother, I'd rather do it myself: some effects and noneffects of maternal speech style. In Snow, C. E. & Ferguson, C. A. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition, 109–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Newport, E. L. & Meier, R. P. (1985). The acquisition of American Sign Language. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1: the data, 881938. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Özçalişkan, S. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2005). Gesture is at the cutting edge of early language development. Cognition 96, B01113.
Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Singer, J. D. & Snow, C. E. (2005). Maternal correlates of growth in toddler vocabulary production in low-income families. Child Development 76(4), 763–82.
Pruden, S. M., Levine, S. C. & Huttenlocher, J. (2011). Children's spatial thinking: Does talk about the spatial world matter? Developmental Science 14, 1417–30.
Rowe, M. L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009a). Differences in early gesture explain SES disparities in child vocabulary size at school entry. Science 323, 951–3.
Rowe, M. L. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009b). Early gesture selectively predicts later language learning. Developmental Science 12(1), 182–7.
Rowe, M. L., Levine, S. C., Fisher, J. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2009). The joint effects of biology and input on the language development of brain-injured children. Developmental Psychology 45, 90102.
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N. & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274, 1926–8.
Schieffelin, B. B. (1985). The acquisition of Kaluli. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1: the data., 525–93. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Senghas, A. (1995). Children's contribution to the birth of Nicaraguan Sign Language. (Unpublished PhD dissertation) Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Senghas, A. (2003). Intergenerational influence and ontogenetic development in the emergence of spatial grammar in Nicaraguan Sign Language. Cognitive Development 18(4), 511–31.
Slobin, D. I. (1966). The acquisition of Russian as a native language. In Smith, F. & Miller, C. (eds), The genesis of language: a psycholinguistic approach, 129–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Introduction: Why study acquisition crosslinguistically? In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1: the data., 324. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Slobin, D. I. (1992). The crosslinguistic endeavor. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), A cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Volume 3, 113. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Snedeker, J., Geren, J. & Shafto, C. L. (2007). Starting over: international adoption as a natural experiment in language development. Psychological Science 18(1), 7987.
Stiles, J., Reilly, J. S., Levine, S. C., Trauner, D. & Nass, R. D. (2012). Neural plasticity and cognitive development: insights from children with perinatal brain injury. Oxford University Press.
Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H. & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Emergence of syntax: commonalities and differences across children. Developmental Science 11, 8497.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

In search of resilient and fragile properties of language*

  • SUSAN GOLDIN-MEADOW (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.