Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
84 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Critical period
|
time in the early stages of an org's life during which it displays a heightened sensitivity to certain envrionemental stimuli, and develops in particular ways due to experiences at this time. if the org doesn't receive appropriate stimuli during this time it may be difficult or even impossible to develop some functions later in life.
|
|
|
|
Critical period of lang acquistion
|
* notion that exposure to a stimulus must occur in a specific and circumscribed period of time in order for learning to occur
*humans must be exposed to lang during a specific maturational state in order for lang to be fully acquired |
|
|
|
"Specific maturational state"
|
Equals critical period which equals maturational constraints on lang acquisition
|
|
|
|
feral children
|
the wild child
lack of early lang input abnormal ling competence ie. morphosyntax difficult to evaluate b/c of neglect/abuse issues and difficulty judging whether intellectual abilities are intact |
|
|
|
EVIDENCE FOR critical period
|
first Sign lang acquisition
--the earlier the child learns, the easier they can acquire lang --conversly, the later they learn, the harder/slower they acquire lang |
|
|
|
Why can children learn a lang better than adults?
Language is Special Theory Lang isn't special |
Chomsky's innate knowledge of grammar
--this knowledge is intact early in life and then deteriorates with maturation --later age of acquistion=less ability to rely on the innate knowledge Lang isn't special: but capability to learn it changes with age precisily because big kids are better than little kids (for other cog skills) |
|
|
|
Bilogical/Neurological explanations as to why children can acquire lang more easily than adults
|
brain is plastic early on but is not later
**but: time locked to puberty, but now new evidence shows that <5 yrs of age --studies using neuroimagaing show similar regions and processing componenents for L1 and L2 |
|
|
|
Less is More Explanation
|
Lang learning declines with AoA because cognitive ablities increase
--young child has more difficulty processing lg chunks of info vs. an adult w/ lg memory span and prcessing capabilities --kids limited processing capacity leads them to learn only component parts of the ling input whereas adults learn the whole complex stimulus --therefore kids may be ina better position to learn the components of lang ie. Grammar |
|
|
|
input-driven/social explanations
|
young kids recieve richer L2 input than oolder kids and than adults
--more likely to switch to L2 as the more dominant lang and lose some of L1 as a result cultural ID plays a role in L2 acquisition motivation, self-consciousness also play role in L2 acquisition |
|
|
|
is there a critical period for lang acquisition?
|
original notions for localized window of from birth to puberty has been proven inaccurate: puberty has very little to do
with it second lang acquisition studies don't really show clear window--more likely a "sensitive period" rather than Critical |
|
|
|
NATURE vs. NURTURE debate
Nature pov |
--lang is innate
--much like walking, may not be able to do it from the start, but you have a blueprint in your mind that unfolds during maturation |
|
|
|
Development of phonology
View of NATURE |
Nature: anatomy and physicolgy of the vocal tract leads to the sounds babies produce
--as motor capacity develops, so does phonology --at same time, ambient lang influences the phonological repertoire --bioloby constraints |
|
|
|
Development of Phonology
View of NURTURE also view to dispute Nurture |
Nurture: kidslearn sounds by imitation and parental reinforcments like parental responsivness leads to more vocalizations
**however, parents delight in NON-speech sounds too... |
|
|
|
Lexical Development:
Nature Nurture inbetween |
Nature: lexical constraints: biological and innate
Nurture: child directed speech, amount of language contributes to vocab growth inbetween: regularities in lang lead the child to parse speech into words (statistical learning) |
|
|
|
Grammatical Development
Nature Nurture |
Nature: overregularization errors, fast development of grammar, inability to learn grammar by non-human primates
Nurture: some gram skills develop very slowly (relative clauses) |
|
|
|
Role of INPUT in Grammar Development
3 reasons FOR |
that Input Contributes:
1. prosodic cues to sentence structure 2. amt of input correlates with rates of grammatical development 3. mothers' repetition and expansion of kids' utterances correlates w/ grammatical dvpmt |
|
|
|
Role of INPUT in grammar
4 reasons Disputing it |
1. kids overgeneralize and this overgeneralization can't be based on input
2. kids also stop overgeneralizing, why? 3. little evidence that overgen and its recovery stem from adults' feedback 4. when feedback does occr, child doesn't pick up on it |
|
|
|
POSITION #1
Grammar is LEARNED |
behavorist approach to lang learning a la Watson and Skinner
Imitiation, classicl conditioning and operant conditioning principles ie. stimulus (word) is associated w/ an internal response (meaning) ie. Successful linguist attempts to get rewarded (reinforced); unsuccessful attempts get ignored or punished phonological, lexical and gram dvpmt are shaped by adults' behavior (ie. their responsiveness to imitation attempts) |
|
|
|
POSITION #2
Grammar is INNATE |
all kids capable of learning any lang
blueprint in brain for all possible langs too much ambiguity between what children hear (ie. Input) and its meaning. this is known as the LEARNABILITY PROBLEM enormous number of possible sent can't be learned thru assoc w/ a specific internal response --kids can produce sents they've never heard before; therefore grammar IS NOT learned by imitation --there is very little feedback on grammatical correctness or incorrectness of prods. ie. no Negative Evidence, so how does a child learn what's right and wrong? |
|
|
|
Learnability Problem
|
when there is too much ambiguitiy between what a child can hear (input) and its meaning
|
|
|
|
Negative Evidence
|
corrective feedback given by a parent when a child produces something incorrectly
|
|
|
|
MODULARITY OF LANG
|
nativist view that lang is "special" and diff from other human abilities, like attention, memory, motor functions etc.
ie. principles that govern acquistion of lang are specifici to the DOMAIN of LANG, that is there is a lang-specific MODULE in the human mind AKA DOMAIN-SPECIFICITY |
|
|
|
Domain Specificity
|
AKA Modularity of Lang
lang is its own domain, separte from other skills like memory, prob solving etc |
|
|
|
Innate Grammar
|
Chomsky
spec prt of brain for LANG evolved to be disticint from other cognition like memory Competence VS. Performance distinction: separate sub-systems for phon, sem, and grammar |
|
|
|
Lang Acquisistion Device (LAD)
|
collection of gram principles like gramm classes (nouns/verbs) and their combos--things that are universal across langs
takes the input (lang around child) and uses it to produce the particular grammar |
|
|
|
PIDGINS
|
langs that develop due to contact between speakers of 3 diff and mutually incomprehensible langs
(driven by slavery, migration, immigration, trade etc.) vocab usually comes from one of the langs develop rapidly and frequently LACK GRAMMAR rather they're for communicating content--highly tied to specific contexts (ie. trade negotitations) |
|
|
|
CREOLES
|
pidgin learned as child's first language
not restiricted in use, and can be used in all communicative functions HAS GRAMMAR |
|
|
|
SUM UP
|
Evidence pro nature includes the learnability argument, lack of negative evidence argument, creolization of languages, and the possibility of the “language” gene
|
|
|
|
5 interactionist approaches to language development
|
1. lang and cognition (piaget)
2. lang and society-culture (Vygotsky) 3. lang and its social function (elizabeth Bates) 4. Usage-based theory of lang acquisition (Michael Tomasello) 5. Parallel distributed processing (Rummelhart and McClelland) |
C
SC SF UB PDP |
|
|
Language as an
Outcome of Cognitive development |
Piaget's theory
lang skills mautre w/ cognitive development with the help of ling enviroment HOWEVER: dissociations between cog and ling dvpmt have been noted |
|
|
|
Language as an outcome of SOCIAL-CULTURAL ENVIROMENT
|
Vygotsky
dpmt based on social interaction and collaborative problem solving raising the bar lang starts as a tool used for social interaction. kids use lang to obtain the help of other to solve probs |
|
|
|
zone of proximal development
|
distance btwn the acutal dvmptal level as determined by indy prob sovling and the elvel of potential dvpmt as determined thru prob solving under adult guidance
|
|
|
|
scaffolding
|
help provided by the caregiver to get the child to the potential developmental level
|
|
|
|
Lang as an outcome of COMMUNICATION=SOCIAL-INTERACTIVE APPROACH
|
combines behaviorist approach (role of environment) and nativist approach (ling rules are unique)
-maturation is seen as crucial for the dev. of lang but the environment is necessary for its emergence --structure of lang is result of its social-communicative function Greatest source of ling input=Child-Directed Speech (CDS) |
|
|
|
USAGE BASED THEORY of lang acquisition
2 sets of skills important |
1. intention reading
--ability to share, follow, and Direct, attention of others --ability to learn the comm intentions of others--unique to humans 2. pattern finding (categorization) --ability to form categories of similar objects and events --ability to perform stat-based distributional analyses --views grammar as a product of lang use |
|
|
|
connectionist models:
parallel processing how to explain lang acquisition |
original idea was to demonstrate that input was sufficient fot eh computer model and presumably the child to learn lang
--started out w/ simulating how adults process lang, and then "taught" the model a lang to simulate lang acquisition --patterns of activation that match adult's speech are strenthened; patterns of activation that are errors are weakened |
|
|
|
Probs w/ connectionism
|
"hidden units"
"assigned weights" which are pre-set before the model starts learning are eerily reminiscent of "innate" constraints --we can't pick out a single neuron and say, "this one is thinking about tomorrow's lecture" |
|
|
|
Speech segmentation:
Analytic vs. Gestalt children |
word babies vs. tune babies
analytic: acquire sounds and syllables ---analytic is predictive of advanced gram dev. gestalt: acquire longer, phrase like units not ind words--attend to prosodic cues |
|
|
|
Word Learning:
Referential vs. Expressive |
Ref: focus on objects-->nouns predominate
express: focus on people (pronouns, function words, social expressions etc) |
|
|
|
referential children
|
--focus on objects
--think that lang is for organizing/talking about objects --more likely to engage injoint attention w/ caregivers --increase the number of pronouns w/ dev |
|
|
|
Expressive children
|
--focus on people
--think lang is for talking about oneself and other people --have equal number of nouns and pronouns from beginning |
|
|
|
difficulties w/ expressive vs. referential distinction
|
--based on parental reports
--word usage varies w/ context --frequency of use vs. number of words not a dichotomy but a continuum |
|
|
|
Nominal vs. Pronominal
|
Nominal: combine 2 context words ie. mikey go
Analytic=Referential=Nominal Pronominal=pronoun, combine a function word w/ a content word (I go, sit down) Gestalt=Expressive= Pronominal |
|
|
|
Routes to Grammar:
Fission vs. Fusion |
fission--breaking down phrasal segments INTO their components parts
Fusion--building up of phrasal segments FROM their component parts |
|
|
|
3 differences in cognitive skills
|
1. percepual acuity
2. attention and memory 3. metalinguistic/ metacognitive awareness |
|
|
|
Perceptual Acuity
|
Auditory Processing
--kids w/ otitis media in infancy exhibit lower vocab scores --need the ability to process and categorize brief rapidly chaning auditory signals (AKA RAP) Visual Processing --children born w/ visual deficits/blindness show some connunicative delay but not much ling delay |
|
|
|
Attention and Memory
|
Joint, selective and sustained attention are all imp for learning lang
memory skill are predictive of word-learning |
|
|
|
Metalinguistic Awareness
Moving word task |
Knowledge about the nature of lang
metalinguistic awareness develops over a period of several years predicts syntactic development and ability to acquire literacy --task--moves the word under a picture to see if the kid would understand that the word despite the pic doesn't change |
|
|
|
Simultaneous Bilingualism
|
two first langs
-a kids is exposed to both langs from birth and learns them at the same time |
|
|
|
Sequential bilingualism
|
consecutive or succesive bilingualism
-kid exposed to one lang fomr birth, a few yrs later a child is oxposed to another lang |
|
|
|
Balanced bilinguals
|
equally high proficiency in both of their langs
|
|
|
|
L1 or L2 dominant bilinguals
|
better in native lang L1 is more dominant than L2 (or vice versa)
|
|
|
|
Code switching
inter vs. intra sentential code switching |
--code-mixing, use of both langs w/in same convo
--not random-constrained by gram social and cultural rules --depends on situation -inter=occurs sent by sent -intra=occurs w/in a sent |
|
|
|
Lexical development in Bilinguals
|
building 2 lexica--unified or single?
lexical gaps--some words are lang specific --bilingual kids score lower on vocab tests, but TOTAL conceptual vocab is comparable or larger than that of a monolingual kid |
|
|
|
Grammatical dev in bilinguals
|
--maintain separate gram rules for ea. lang
--show same gram dev pattern as mono kids --bilings lag on acquisition of lang specific morphemes (ie. spanish gnder by English-Spanish bilingual kids) **but differences disappear by 10 yrs |
|
|
|
acquiring L2 in Childhood
|
Not the same as simultaneous bilingualism
more like L2 adult acquisition often accompanied by a "silent period" very little production, just listening usually accompanied by attrition (loss) of L1 or reversal in dominance |
|
|
|
Cognitive consequences of Bilingualism in
1. metalinguistic awareness 2. phonological awareness 3. executive funciton/selective attnetion |
1. Meta: b/c bilings learn 2 labels for ea. objec they learn the arbitrariness of lang earlier than monolings
2. Phon: 2 phon systems so they pay more attention to the phon characteristics than monolings 3. exec: select on lang and de-select the other bilings focus on relevant dimensions and ignore the irrelevant ones earlier and better than monolings |
|
|
|
Types of Education for Bilinguals
|
ESL--student is provided with English Instruction
Submersion--placed in an english speaking classroom w/ native english speakers, regardless of the student's level of proficiency in English Two-Way immersion--fluent or native speakers of both Eng and another lang are placed in the same class and instructed in both langs alternately |
|
|
|
Dialect
|
rule governed SPEECH HABITS of a particular region or specific social group
regional: lang variety used by ppl living in a restricted geographical area social/cultural: lang variety used by ppl in a shared culture culture is fluid--one can be part of many cultures |
|
|
|
Types of hearing loss
|
prelingual/postlingual
mild/moderate/profound |
|
|
|
Phon dev. in kids w/ hearing loss
|
babbling: around 6-7 when hearing babies stop vocal play and start babbling, deaf children will stop vocalizing
Articulation difficulties: esp for high freq sounds, Prosody very distinct, speech sounds "choppy" not fluid |
|
|
|
Lexical dev with hearing loss
|
words learned thru exposure
limit exposure=limit vocab can't learn vocab by "overhearing" it |
|
|
|
Gram dev with hearing loss
|
difficulty hearing makes it difficutlr to parse out words into their morph components
difficulty w/ auxiliaries, infinitives, and gerunds use very simple syntax |
|
|
|
Reading dev. with hearing loss
|
phon awareness and vocab knowledge are difficult for children who are deaf
--reading abilities of deaf students don't rise above 3rd grade level very simple grammar used in school |
|
|
|
ASL as native lang
|
processed by same brain regions as oral lang (vs gestures)
same oral dev stages exposure to symbolic system facilitates subsequent acquisition of another symbolic system, and even oral lang later on |
|
|
|
3 Steps in managing Hearing Impairment
|
1. early ID
2. Assistive Technology 3. Therapy and schooling |
|
|
|
Speech-reading
|
=Lip Reading
figuring out sounds based on speakers' mouth movements difficult to do w/o auditory info |
|
|
|
McGurk Effect
|
Both signals: audio and visual put together by brain to get best signal
in hearing ppl, being able to combine visual and auditory cues helps in recognizing speech |
|
|
|
Assistive Technologies
|
Assistive listening Devices
amplifies environmental input hearing aides: amps environmental input and sends signal to ear cochlear implants--implantable electrode arrays that stimulte the auditory nerve directly --implanted very young --not a panacea=great variability in success rates |
|
|
|
Educational approaches
|
oral: emphasizes Lip reading, residual hearing, articulation training and auditory rehab
oral+manually coded Eng --same as oral, plus teaching MCE or cued spech to support oral efficiency Oral+ASL (biling/bicultural) --sim to bilingual immersion progs for non-naive speakers of eng --deaf culture is emphasized |
|
|
|
What is intelligence??
|
difficult to measure
some believe in different types of intelligences |
|
|
|
History of intelligence testing
|
early in 20th century universal ed was instituted in France
--ministry concerned w/ prob of educating "idiots" --commission appointed headed by Alfred Binet |
|
|
|
how is IQ Measured
|
Chronological Age (how old the child is)
Mental Age--age at which typically developing children present with a certain cognitive profile (MA/CA) x 100 =IQ |
|
|
|
Intellctual Disability
|
ID=significantly sub-avg general intellectural functioning that's accompanied by significant limitations in adaptive functioning (communication, self-care, home living, social skills etc)
Qualifies for ID under 70 |
|
|
|
Down Syndrome
|
chromosomal abnormality (extra chrom)
Usually accompanied by moderate to severe Intel Impairment IQ usually below 50 most don't achieve typical ling competence |
|
|
|
Lang dev in kids with DS
Phonological Lexical Grammatical |
lang more impaired than other cog functions
production deficits exceed comprehension deficits onset of babbling delayed--phono dev typical of kids continued into teens/adult diff producing intelligible speech lexical dev delayed (1st word around 24 mos) Grammar: prod and comprehension of gram are delayed relative to MA Lang dev. halts at 12yrs mental age of 6 |
|
|
|
Lang dev in DS
|
Pragmatic skills very strong
more mutual gaze than typical kids difficulty with joint attention more interested with social interactions rather than objects but don't do as well with referential tasks--don't mark politeness appropriately |
|
|
|
DS relationship between lang and cognition
|
Shows relationship:
Cog impaired --> Lang delayed however, some aspects of lang dev are even more delayed than cog dev cognition not the only relevant factor in lang dev diff components of lang are affected to diff degrees --> more than 1 cog ability underlies lang |
|
|
|
WIlliams Sydrome
|
very rare genetic disorder
IQ wise, children w/ WS have same level of ID as kids w/ DS |
|
|
|
Lang dev in kids w/ WS
|
Early evidence: Speak in long, gram sent w/ rich vocab, long coherent stories
very social gram is morph correct and syntactially complex good phon memory Later evidence: lang isn't at typical level lexical dev precedes cognitive dev. deficits in morpho-syntactic knowledge tell complex stories but can't answer q's about stories they tell difficulty w/ non-literal lang |
|
|
|
WS relationship between lang and cognition
|
dissociation between intellectual ability and lang dev.
lang may not e affected by a general intellectual impairment lang not completley spared either good at putting on front of ling competence despite limited knowledge of grammar and limited understanding of vocab |
|
|
|
SUM UP diff between DS and WS
|
However, the degree of ID does not predict the extent of language impairment
In DS: lang is more affected than other cog skills In WS: lang is less affected than other cog skills |
|
|
|
SLI definitions
|
Dev lang disorder
deficits in morph and phon memory (can be articulation) genetic component |
|
|
|
Early signs of SLI
|
"late talkers" who don't outgrow it
**Comprehension easier than Production delay in all lang areas: delay greater in production than comprehension |
|
