Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Meaning development in one child acquiring Dakota-Sioux as a first language Nokony, Alicia Alexander 1977

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1977_A8 N64.pdf [ 6.76MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094371.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094371-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094371-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094371-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094371-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094371-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094371-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094371-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094371.ris

Full Text

MEANING DEVELOPMENT IN ONE CHILD ACQUIRING DAKOTA-SIOUX AS A FIRST LANGUAGE  by  ALICIA ALEXANDRA NOKONY B.A. (Adv.), U n i v e r s i t y  of Saskatchewan, 1972  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of L i n g u i s t i c s  We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1977  ( c ) A l i c i a Alexandra Nokony, 1977  In  presenting  an  advanced  the I  Library  this  degree shall  f u r t h e r agree  for  scholarly  by  his  of  this  written  thesis at  it  purposes  for  freely  permission may  representatives. thesis  partial  the U n i v e r s i t y  make  that  in  is  financial  of  The U n i v e r s i t y  British  2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , Canada V6T 1W5  Columbia,  British  by  for  gain  Columbia  shall  the  that  not  requirements I  agree  r e f e r e n c e and copying  t h e Head o f  understood  Linguistics  of  of  for extensive  permission.  Department  of  available  be g r a n t e d  It  fulfilment  of  be a l l o w e d  or  that  study.  this  thesis  my D e p a r t m e n t  copying  for  or  publication  without  my  ABSTRACT This i s a report on research into the language development of c h i l d who  i s acquiring Dakota-Sioux as a f i r s t language.  one  Features of  his language system show him to be at a period i n development corresponding to Brown's (1973) Stage I, Halliday's (1975) Phase I I , and (1962) sensorimotor substage VI;  Piaget's  i n other words he i s just beginning to  produce multi-morphemic utterances, take part i n dialogues and a c t i v e l y use symbolic representations  i n play and verbal interactions.  The  report focusses on the development of meaning and i s based on the assumpt i o n that a child's a b i l i t y to express meanings involves not only semantic knowledge (that i s , the a b i l i t y to describe r e l a t i o n s and to r e f e r using formal l i n g u i s t i c devices), but also pragmatic or functional s k i l l s (that i s , knowledge about how  language can be used to perform communica-  tion functions, such as regulating the behaviour of others, personal opinions and feelings, e t c . ) .  expressing  Overriding both these areas,  however, i s the understanding that language i s one part of a larger symbolizing  capacity i n humans and that language development, therefore,  i s above'all related to t h i s aspect of cognitive development.  The  analysis of the data collected from this c h i l d i s structured around his propositional meanings, his functional meanings, some semantic considerations of his lexicon, and phenomena, which I have l a b e l l e d gestural representations, which appear to offer strong support for the notion of semiological genesis as described by Piaget.  iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter ONE THE INTRODUCTION  1  Purpose Statement o f the problem Assumptions Background Definitions L i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e study TWO  THE STUDY Study s e t t i n g and i n f o r m a n t s Data c o l l e c t i o n ,, t r a n s c r i p t i o n and t r a n s l a t i o n Overview o f Dakota-Sioux The sound system Morphology Syntax D e s c r i p t i o n of the data T r a n s c r i p t i o n conventions  THREE  12  . . .  PR0P0SITI0NAL MEANING Introduction 'Lean' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n 'Rich' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Brown's study Mean l e n g t h o f u t t e r a n c e The ' p i v o t ' l o o k A. /ka/ . v B. "hey" C. /ye/ o r /ya/ D. /eya/ Word o r d e r i n the two-morpheme u t t e r a n c e s The semantic r e l a t i o n s Howe's a l t e r n a t i v e t o ' r i c h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' Summary  FOUR  1 1 2 4 10 11  FUNCTIONAL MEANING Introduction Language use H a l l i d a y ' s phases F u n c t i o n a l components o f the a d u l t language F u n c t i o n s of Phases I and I I L o c a t i o n o f G a b r i e l i n H a l l i d a y ' s model Phase I f u n c t i o n s i n G a b r i e l ' s speech E f f e c t o f i n t e r v i e w i n g on G a b r i e l ' s speech  12 14 15 16 17 19 20 22 26  . . .  26 26 29 30 32 35 37 40 40 41 42 43 49 51 54 54 54 57 58 59 61 61 63  iv  DIALOGUE  64  A s s i g n i n g and a c c e p t i n g r o l e s Speech r o u t i n e s About d i a l o g u e Initiations A. A d u l t - i n i t i a t e d exchanges B. C h i l d - i n i t i a t e d exchanges Dialogue p a r t i c i p a t i o n Adult modelling Other d i s c o u r s e a b i l i t i e s Summary FIVE  LEXICAL MEANING IN SEMANTIC AND  64 66 67 69 69 70 73 77 78 81  SEMIOLOGICAL TERMS . . .  Introduction SOME SEMANTIC CONSIDERATIONS OF GABRIEL'S LEXICON  83 83  . . .  84  E s t a b l i s h i n g the l e x i c o n  84  L e x i c a l categories E x p r e s s i v e and r e f e r e n t i a l language s t y l e s C o g n i t i o n and semantic range Development of word meanings: categorization . . . . A. /cicx/ B. /baya/ C. / b a p i / , /koka/, /kukuSi/, / 2A2AHI/ , /raumu/ . . . D. "Andy", /net/, /mama/ E. / l a l a / , /wewe/  87 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  SYMBOL TO SIGN  97  Index, symbol and l i n g u i s t i c s i g n 97 Evidence f o r r e p r e s e n t a t i o n 100 A. Adultomorphisms 100 B. D e f e r r e d i m i t a t i o n s 101 C. Immediate i m i t a t i o n of new models 102 D. Ludic imitations 103 Representations i n dialogue 105 A. E l i c i t e d i m i t a t i v e responses 105 B. G e s t u r a l i m i t a t i o n s i n spontaneous speech . . . 107 C. Two more c o g n i t i v e l y complex uses of g e s t u r a l morphemes I l l D. Onomatopoeic i m i t a t i o n s 113 CONCLUDING REMARKS  116  V  SIX  CONCLUDING REMARKS Semiology, pragmatics and semantics S e m i o l o g i c a l development Pragmatic or f u n c t i o n a l development Semantic development F i n a l comment  118 118 119 121 122 125  BIBLIOGRAPHY  126  APPENDIX I  131  APPENDIX I I  145  vi LIST OF TABLES  2.1 2.2  2.3 2.4 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 5.1  Phonemes of Dakota-Sioux (Santee d i a l e c t ) Age, MLU, upper bound (UB), number of u t t e r a n c e s , time i n hours, l o c a t i o n , and p a r t i c i p a n t s i n 16 s e s s i o n s with Gabriel . Examples of G a b r i e l ' s p h o n o l o g i c a l system T r a n s c r i p t i o n conventions Brown's o p e r a t i o n s of r e f e r e n c e and p r e v a l e n t semantic r e l a t i o n s f o r Stage I Brown's s t u d i e s ordered d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y a c c o r d i n g to M.L.U., i n c l u d i n g G a b r i e l P r o p o r t i o n s of two-morpheme types r e p r e s e n t e d by f o u r presumptive p i v o t s i n G a b r i e l ' s corpus Percentages of a l l u t t e r a n c e tokens r e p r e s e n t e d by u t t e r a n c e s w i t h 'ka' Percentages a p p r o p r i a t e word o r d e r i n two-morpheme u t t e r a n c e s i n the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s e s s i o n s S e s s i o n a l r e s u l t s from G a b r i e l f o r semantic r e l a t i o n s expressed i n multi-morphemic u t t e r a n c e s Percentages p r e v a l e n t r e l a t i o n s f o r G a b r i e l compared w i t h r e s u l t s from Brown's study Howe's c a t e g o r i e s a p p l i e d to G a b r i e l ' s multi-morphemic utterances Gabriel's lexicon  16  21 23 25 31 33 33 34 34 45 46 52 85  vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am g r a t e f u l to the following people f o r their assistance and support during the preparation of this report: Dr. David Ingram, my  thesis adviser, for giving me excellent  i n s t r u c t i o n i n the area of c h i l d language, and for h i s guidance, encouragement and patience during research preparation, data c o l l e c t i o n , analysis and w r i t i n g of the  manuscript,  Dr. Dale Kinkade, thesis committee member, for his c r i t i c a l reading of the manuscript  and his advice regarding analysis of the adult speech data,  Dr. Mary C. Marino, Department of Anthropology and  Archaeology,  University of Saskatchewan, for her time i n helping me set up the research s i t u a t i o n , and for invaluable advice concerning f i e l d work, p a r t i c u l a r l y with reference to the transcription and translation problems of Dakota, Ms. Wilma Wasicuna, my research assistant^, for her understanding  of  the research situation, and for her care and patience during c o l l e c t i o n of the data, Gabriel Sutherland, Esther B e l l , Raymond Brown, study subjects, and their families, for their participation,.cooperation and generosity during the time I spent with them i n the f i e l d , Mr. Frank Eastman, Chief, Oak Lake Band, Pipestone, Manitoba, for his permission for the study to take place, the Administrators, Oo-za-we-kwun Centre, Wheatlands, Manitoba, f o r l e t t i n g me use their f a c i l i t i e s during part of the data taping, Ms. Anni Davison, Dr. Bernard Mohan and Mr. Simon Richards, for their thoughtful c r i t i c i s m and advice.  I am further grateful to the Canada Council f o r funding of the research phase of this study, from July to December, 1974, and to the B.C. Government Careers '75 Program f o r f i n a n c i a l support during part the time I spent on analysis of the data.  CHAPTER ONE  THE INTRODUCTION  Purpose The purpose o f t h i s r e p o r t i s to c h a r a c t e r i z e the meaning d e v e l o p ment of one c h i l d , G a b r i e l , who i s i n the e a r l y stages o f a c q u i r i n g Dakota-Sioux  (Santee) as h i s f i r s t  language.  H i s development  i n e d from t h r e e d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l approaches.  The f i r s t  approach  i s aimed a t d e s c r i b i n g t h e emergence of syntax as p r o p o s i t i o n a l t u r e s e x p r e s s i n g semantic r e l a t i o n s . pragmatic development,  i s exam-  struc-  The second f o c u s e s on f u n c t i o n a l -  language use r a t h e r than language c o n t e n t .  The  t h i r d approach i s concerned w i t h s e m i o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t — t h e g r a d u a l g e n e s i s o f l i n g u i s t i c s i g n s , a c o g n i t i v e achievement which i s r e l a t e d to the c h i l d ' s g e n e r a l s y m b o l i z i n g  capacity.  Statement of the problem Most s t u d i e s i n t h e f i e l d of developmental p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s have been conducted w i t h c h i l d r e n a c q u i r i n g E n g l i s h o r o t h e r Indo-European languages.  The c o l l e c t i o n of d a t a from a s u b j e c t a c q u i r i n g an American  I n d i a n language, Dakota-Sioux  (Santee), posed t h e t y p i c a l  i n v o l v e d i n r e s e a r c h i n g e x o t i c languages. the f i e l d  difficulties  D u r i n g the time spent i n  I r e q u i r e d the a s s i s t a n c e . o f a b i l i n g u a l m o t h e r - s u b s t i t u t e ,  who i n t e r a c t e d w i t h t h e s u b j e c t and h e l p e d i n t h e t r a n s c r i p t i o n and t r a n s l a t i o n o f the t a p e s .  Every e f f o r t was made t o keep the t a p i n g  1  2 sessions consistent and as similar to the child's d a i l y routine as could be managed.  To f a c i l i t a t e comparison of the study with other cross-  l i n g u i s t i c studies, I followed suggestions made by Slobin et a l (1967) i n A F i e l d Manual for cross-cultural study of the acquisition of communi c a t i v e competence with respect to the c o l l e c t i o n procedures and the most common measures to be made on the data. This research was undertaken at a time when many new studies were appearing dealing with semantic acquisition and demonstrating the l i m i t s of more standard forms of analysis ( i . e . , s t r i c t l y syntactic a n a l y s i s ) . In an e f f o r t to account f o r various s i g n i f i c a n t features of Gabriel's speech, such as the 'gestural morphemes', which f a l l outside the range of more t r a d i t i o n a l analyses, I took a broader a n a l y t i c a l approach, organizing the data according to the following three models: 1.  Roger Brown's (1973) examination of sentence-meaning  i n terms of a  posited set of prevalent semantic r e l a t i o n s , 2.  M. A. K. Halliday's (1975) functional model of language a c q u i s i t i o n , and  3.  Jean Piaget's (1962) description of the emergence of the symbolizing capacity i n the c h i l d .  Assumptions This study has been based on a number of assumptions which largely deal with the nature of language and the change i n orientation of recent c h i l d language studies. 1.  Language consists of utterances which perform communicative  functions  (such as requesting, denying, etc.) and f a c i l i t a t e thought, express underlying semantic relations (perhaps a universal set of these), and which use a set of formal l i n g u i s t i c devices (syntactic, l e x i c a l and  3 phonological) (Slobin, 1973, 179).  The a c q u i s i t i o n of language,  therefore, involves the development of s k i l l s at a l l these l e v e l s , not just that of formal l i n g u i s t i c devices. 2.  Language i s a symbolic system;  that i s , the relationship between  the formal expressive devices (phonemes, words and word orders) and the semantic notions underlying them i s a r b i t r a r y , unmotivated and non-direct.  At the same time i t i s conventional, i n that a l l  speakers of a language c o l l e c t i v e l y "agree" to make the same s i g n i f i e r - s i g n i f i e d connections.  This aspect of language i s not  immediately apparent to the c h i l d , as can be seen from the onomatopoeic and idiosyncratic words which t y p i c a l l y appear i n the early lexicon. 3.  4.  If we are to study language acquisition properly, then we cannot ignore semantics, for i t i s essential to know what the c h i l d means by what he says, and to know how he understands what he hears. One of the most basic steps the c h i l d has to take i n acquiring h i s f i r s t language i s to attach meaning to words, and therefore semantics i s central to the study of language development. Furthermore, the acquisition of semantic knowledge needs to be better studied i n r e l a t i o n to the development of the child's perceptual and cognitive a b i l ities. Language, after a l l , i s what provides the c h i l d with a means of encoding and communicating h i s percepts and thoughts about the world around him (Clark, 1973, 110). Child language models are, among other things, models of performance. The s t r i c t e r syntax-based studies which predominated during the s i x t i e s often included attempts at writing grammars of the data. van der Geest says that this practice f a i l s because . . . i t neglects the fact that i n l i n g u i s t i c s grammars are written to make l i n g u i s t i c i n t u i t i o n s e x p l i c i t , rather than to describe the products of l i n g u i s t i c a b i l i t i e s . . . [and therefore] . . . a mismatch arises between the purpose of grammars i n l i n g u i s t i c s i n i t s narrow sense and the use of c h i l d grammars i n the f i e l d of developmental psycholinguistics, which l a t t e r are designed to account for the child's productions (1975, 1).  A number of features i n the child's communicative system should but cannot be dealt with adequately i n a syntax-based model (van der Geest, 1975, 1).  In f a c t , Bates suggests that syntax emerges  "developmentally and l o g i c a l l y " from semantics, just as semantics emerges from pragmatics, making the mastery of the broader communi c a t i v e system an i n t e g r a l part of the a c q u i s i t i o n of language structure (Bates, 1976, 420). 5.  While cognitive and pragmatic development appear to occur somewhat independently of l i n g u i s t i c development, encompassing and influencing the l a t t e r , the c h i l d i s f u l l y developed neither i n t e l l e c t u a l l y nor i n terms of pragmatic s k i l l s when i t f i r s t s t a r t s to speak. The child's meaning potential i s different from that of an adult and so adult-referenced analyses may not be very revealing of a c q u i s i tion processes.  Background There has been a major s h i f t i n case studies of c h i l d language a c q u i s i t i o n away from the analysis i n i s o l a t i o n of s t r i c t l y ( i . e . , phonological, l e x i c a l and syntactic) data.  linguistic  A consensus exists  among many investigators that early syntactic development i s i n e x t r i c ably t i e d to cognitive and pragmatic development, and that analysis of one area requires the i n c l u s i o n of the others.  Since language i s both  pragmatic and expresses meanings, the growth of l i n g u i s t i c knowledge e n t a i l s the a c q u i s i t i o n of a meaning system derived from the child's interaction with h i s environment. Bowerman (1976) points out that the s h i f t partly r e f l e c t s a reaction to the n a t i v i s t model of language, which she describes as follows:  5 According to the n a t i v i s t view, man's capacity for language i s a specialized component of his b i o l o g i c a l makeup and does not a r i s e d i r e c t l y from more general cognitive a b i l i t i e s . The c h i l d i s seen as coming to the language learning task equipped with much inborn knowledge of language structure; he requires only a cert a i n amount of l i n g u i s t i c input to activate this knowledge [Chomsky, 1965, 1968; Katz, 1966; McNeill, 1966, 1970, 1971] (Bowerman, 1976, 100). The focus of n a t i v i s t studies has been on the writing of grammars of the child's l i n g u i s t i c output at various points during development, the researcher being constrained by the model to the analysis of syntactic and phonological processes.  The d e f i n i t i o n of language for the purposes  of these a c q u i s i t i o n studies excludes pre-syntactic, non-adult word data, thus removing a considerable portion of the child's early vocalizations from analysis;  i t also avoids any speculations as to semantic i n t e r p r e -  tations or communicative functions. While acknowledging the obvious importance of the child's i n t e l l e c t u a l development and s o c i a l i z a t i o n experiences,  the n a t i v i s t view  holds them to be merely ' f a c i l i t a t i n g conditions' for the pre-programmed emergence of the individual's s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c competence (see Chomsky, 1975).  Maclay (1971) points out that the n a t i v i s t s are thus  taking as given the as yet problematic  point that l i n g u i s t i c knowledge  and a c q u i s i t i o n are d i f f e r e n t from general cognitive knowledge and processes.  He says, "The  importance of the independence of l i n g u i s t i c  knowledge (for Chomskians) has rested on the presumed i m p o s s i b i l i t y of handling the t o t a l knowledge of speakers i n any coherent way 1971,  180)."  reasons;  Chomsky may  (Maclay,  have taken this p o s i t i o n for p r a c t i c a l  he says that i t i s presently impossible  to form a complete  theory of human knowledge and that we should r e s t r i c t ourselves ingly.  accord-  Indeed, his influence on the course of l i n g u i s t i c research  has  6 been so profound that only i n recent years have developmental psychol i n g u i s t s started to seriously challenge this a c q u i s i t i o n paradigm. This has led to, among other things, the acceptance of previously inadmissible data (such as the non-adult words and gestural morphemes included i n the present  study) and the exploration of the relationship  between language and cognition. The f i r s t important e f f o r t by l i n g u i s t s to include semantic knowledge at the deep structure l e v e l of a transformational-generative was made by Katz and Fodor (1963). Chafe (1969), Lakoff  model  Generative semanticists such as  (1970), and McCawley (1968) further blurred the  d i s t i n c t i o n between semantic and syntactic knowledge.  Maclay notes,  however, The fact that any b i t of human knowledge may be involved i n the judgments of speakers about the interpretation of sentences i s not, i n i t s e l f , conclusive evidence that such knowledge must be part of a l i n g u i s t i c description (Maclay, 1971, 180). While Maclay's point may  be well-taken with regard to adult language, i t  has been convincingly argued (see, for example, Sinclair-de-Zwart, Halliday, 1975; 1976)  Greenfield and Smith, 1976;  Ingram, 1976;  1971;  Bates,  that the a c q u i s i t i o n of a f i r s t language i s a s p e c i a l case and  that models which are based on integrating cognitive and  linguistic  developments have offered valuable insights into the a c q u i s i t i o n process and are helping to explain many phenomena which occur i n c h i l d speech. Bloom (1970), i n one of the f i r s t published reactions to the 'lean' characterizations of c h i l d speech which resulted from the nativi s t approach and dominated t h e l l i t e r a t u r e of the s i x t i e s , suggested that obligatory elements that were t y p i c a l l y missing from the c h i l d ' s e a r l i e s t multi-morpheme utterances  could be retrieved by attending to  7 the context  i n which an utterance was  made.  She posited  syntactic structures for these incomplete utterances  underlying  on the basis of  semantic interpretation, with a Deletion rule to account for what didn't appear i n the surface utterance.  This method of analysis, the  a t t r i b u t i n g of deep syntactic knowledge to children before i t i s apparent from surface structure i n their speech, i s called the interpretation' approach. to Schlesinger  'rich  Brown (1973) reached a s i m i l a r conclusion  (1971) i n describing the onset of syntax as a period  during which the c h i l d i s acquiring a set of basic semantic relations which i n turn r e f l e c t his sensorimotor i n t e l l i g e n c e . Underlying  the 'rich interpretation' approach i s the assumption  that the adult interpretation of context  i s adequate for assessing  the  child's meaning intentions and thereby establishing the underlying structure of the as yet deformed utterances. icisms of this assumption.  Howe (1976) offered two  crit-  F i r s t , since most situations present many  possible aspects to be commented upon, any one of a number of adult expansions of a two-term c h i l d utterance with obligatory elements missing could be acceptable.  Second, evidence from studies i n cog-  n i t i v e development, p r i n c i p a l l y those of Piaget, indicate quite strongly that the child's view of the world i s very d i f f e r e n t from that of the adult.  This makes adult i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of c h i l d speech a more i n t e r e s t -  ing comment on the role of adult i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of language than on the meaning intentions of the c h i l d . by  The  recognition  'rich i n t e r p r e t a t i o h i s t s ' :of Piaget's work has led to, among other  things, a r e f i n i n g of the semantic knowledge once attributed to the child.  Sinclair-de-Zwart  (1974) pointed out, for example, that  one  could not posit a 'Negative of non-existence' i f the c h i l d making the  8 u t t e r a n c e had not y e t a t t a i n e d t h e concept o f o b j e c t permanence ( 4 ) . These semantic-based language, what Bates  s t u d i e s focus on the r e f e r e n t i a l a s p e c t s of  (1976) c a l l s "meaning as e n t i t y o r o b j e c t . "  more r e c e n t development  i n the f i e l d  A  i s t h e examination o f the pragmatic  aspect of language, "meaning as a c t . "  The p o s i t i o n t h a t n o t a l l mean-  i n g s can be reduced t o r e f e r e n c e i s p a r t of the b a s i s o f s e v e r a l r e c e n t studies.  Halliday  (1975) p o i n t s out t h a t g i v i n g i n f o r m a t i o n (the most  c l e a r l y r e f e r e n t i a l use of language)  i s r e a l l y o n l y one among o t h e r  language f u n c t i o n s , a l t h o u g h i t i s the one which dominates about  language.  our t h i n k i n g  He says t h a t t h i s f u n c t i o n appears r e l a t i v e l y l a t e i n  language development,  a f t e r e a r l i e r "developmentally s i g n i f i c a n t " prag-  m a t i c f u n c t i o n s , such as t h e R e g u l a t o r y ( c o n t r o l l i n g the b e h a v i o u r o f o t h e r s ) and the I n s t r u m e n t a l ( g e t t i n g t h i n g s ) . child  I t i s n ' t u n t i l the  i s u s i n g t h e I n f o r m a t i v e f u n c t i o n t h a t the meanings of h i s u t t e r -  ances d e r i v e p r i n c i p a l l y from the r e f e r e n t i a l c o n t e n t o f t h e messages; i n e a r l i e r u t t e r a n c e s , meanings a r e " d e r i v e d from what i t i s the c h i l d i s making t h e system do f o r him" ( H a l l i d a y , 1975, 6 3 ) . Bates s a y s , A c c o r d i n g t o the " a c t " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a t l e a s t p a r t of the c h i l d ' s meaning may be s e n s o r i m o t o r , d e s c r i b e d " i n s i d e " t h e c h i l d as a s e t of a c t i o n schemata r a t h e r than a s e t o f deep s t r u c t u r e s i n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l sense. Hence, most of the semantics of e a r l y c h i l d speech i s i n f a c t pragmatic; t o understand i t we must have knowledge of the c o n t e x t w i t h i n which a sentence i s used. Combinatori a l meanings, or p r o p o s i t i o n s , a r e not e n t i t i e s t h a t the c h i l d has but performances, i n v o l v i n g procedures f o r u s i n g words i n c o n t e x t (Bates, 1976, 424). E s s e n t i a l l y r e i t e r a t i n g H a l l i d a y ' s p o s i t i o n , she adds t h a t . . . an examination of the f i r s t uses of r e f e r e n c e by c h i l d r e n l e a d s t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t r e f e r e n c e i t s e l f grows out of p r o c e dures f o r g e t t i n g t h i n g s done. There i s a game, o r a c t i v i t y o f " r e f e r r i n g " , which emerges g r a d u a l l y as a d i s t i n c t k i n d o f o p e r a t i o n among a s e t o f pragmatic procedures f o r d o i n g t h i n g s t o the world (424). H a l l i d a y b e g i n s h i s study w i t h the e a r l i e s t  f u n c t i o n a l l y and s t r u c t u r a l l y  9 c o n s i s t e n t v o c a l i z a t i o n s and and  a d u l t - s h a p e d words.  base t y p i c a l of c h i l d  gestures  child,  long b e f o r e  Such an approach c o n s i d e r a b l y  syntax  extends the  data  language s t u d i e s .  Accompanying the s h i f t t h e r e has  of one  i n d i r e c t i o n of c h i l d language  been renewed i n t e r e s t i n the works of P i a g e t .  e r s have been i n v e s t i g a t i n g v e r y  literal  achievements d e s c r i b e d  and  by P i a g e t  For example, G r e e n f i e l d , N e l son and  studies  Some r e s e a r c h -  c o n n e c t i o n s between c o g n i t i v e  specific  linguistic  abilities.  Saltzman (1972) s t u d i e d  the c h i l d ' s  m a n i p u l a t i o n of s e r i a t e d cups i n an attempt to f i n d p a r a l l e l s w i t h grammar.  These s t u d i e s remain r a t h e r s p e c u l a t i v e .  w i t h language as one g r a d u a l l y out  p a r t of a l a r g e r s y m b o l i z i n g  of the sensorimotor p e r i o d .  necessary f o r conceptual different  of concern.  The  or  Semiology i s  on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between its signified  the content of the s i g n i f i e d  possible s i g n i f i e r - s i g n i f i e d  (what  the  i s not  r e l a t i o n s h i p s are many,  language r e q u i r e s t r u e s i g n s — r e l a t i o n s h i p s which are a r b i t r a r y and  unmotivated, j u s t as the word The  deals  c a p a c i t y to symbolize i s  drawing, e t c . ) and  'means');  himself  c a p a c i t y which emerges  or r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l thought.  (a word, g e s t u r e ,  s i g n i f i e r represents  but  The  from semantics i n t h a t i t focuses  a signifier  Piaget  'black'  i s s u e of s e m i o l o g i c a l genesis  has  i s to the pigment i t r e f e r s t o . been r e l a t i v e l y u n e x p l o r e d ;  most  w o r d s t u d i e s are semantic, i n v e s t i g a t i n g the c h i l d ' s c a t e g o r i z i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n order Nelson, 1973; extracted  to uncover r e f e r e n c e  Bowerman, 1976).  from P i a g e t  patterns  Morehead and  the o b s e r v a t i o n s  (see C l a r k ,  Morehead  1973;  (1974), however,  which demonstrate a development  from the most p r i m i t i v e s i g n , the s i g n a l , to l i n g u i s t i c s i g n s d u r i n g first  two  y e a r s of l i f e .  The  present  the  study documents a case which  appears to support the n o t i o n of s e m i o l o g i c a l genesis  as P i a g e t  describes  10 it. It i s the aim of this study to characterize how one c h i l d i s learning to mean by examining his semantic, pragmatic and semiological development.  The discussion i s based on the assumption,  now gaining much  support, that l i n g u i s t i c competence implies more than syntactic knowledge and that careful observation and improved experimental  procedures  w i l l y i e l d data to support the construction of an expanded model.  Definitions Meaning—what i s s i g n i f i e d , represented or intended by an expression i n context. Semantic—having  to do with the expression of meanings by formal  l i n g u i s t i c devices. Pragmatic—having  to do with the use of language i n context.  Semiology—having  to do with the relationship between a s i g n i f i e r  (form) and i t s s i g n i f i e d (content). Symbol—a semiological term r e f e r r i n g to a content-expression pair where the expression i n some way resembles  the content.  Gestural morpheme—a gestural imitation of some referent which, because of i t s occurrence i n the context of discourse, has symbolic status, functionally d i s t i n c t from simple imitations. U t t e r a n c e — f o r the purposes of this study, either a v o c a l i z a t i o n or a gestural imitation or a combination of both made by the c h i l d , bounded (in the case of vocalizations) by a perceptible pause and f a l l ing under an intonation contour. D a k o t a — i f not specified, Dakota w i l l refer to the Santee d i a l e c t .  11 Limitations of the study There are various reasons why the descriptions made and the conclusions drawn i n this study must be q u a l i f i e d to some extent.  While  the study spans f i v e months, data were collected only during the f i r s t three weeks and on the l a s t day of this period, r u l i n g out the observat i o n of gradual developments throughout this time.  Although every  e f f o r t was made to achieve accuracy i n transcription and t r a n s l a t i o n , there remain u n i n t e l l i g i b l e utterances i n the data.  The c o l l e c t i o n  of the data was meant to be observational but i n t e r a c t i o n with the c h i l d often took the form of an interview.  Since only one main subject i s  reported on, i t i s possible that the interesting features of h i s speech system are i d i o s y n c r a t i c and thus of limited interest i n terms of language a c q u i s i t i o n i n general.  CHAPTER TWO  THE STUDY  Study s e t t i n g and The  informants  data which a r e d i s c u s s e d  i n t h i s r e p o r t were c o l l e c t e d as p a r t  of an i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g t h r e e c h i l d r e n who were a c q u i r i n g DakotaSioux (Santee) as a f i r s t tape-recorded  during  language.  The speech from these c h i l d r e n was  16 p l a y s e s s i o n s , 15 i n a three-week p e r i o d when  G a b r i e l , t h e p r i n c i p a l s u b j e c t , was 2;4(0) t o 2;4(22), and one f u r t h e r s e s s i o n f i v e months l a t e r when he was 2;9(0). good-natured, r e a s o n a b l y normally The  both m e n t a l l y  G a b r i e l was a h e a l t h y ,  t a l k a t i v e c h i l d who appeared t o be  and p h y s i c a l l y d u r i n g  developing  the time o f the study.  o t h e r two c h i l d r e n , E s t h e r and Raymond, were both f o u r years o l d .  E s t h e r , G a b r i e l ' s c o u s i n , was present  a t a l l t a p i n g s e s s i o n s , and  G a b r i e l ' s i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h her form an important p a r t o f h i s speech sample.  Raymond, one of t h e younger c h i l d r e n o f a n e i g h b o u r i n g  took p a r t i n o n l y t h r e e t a p i n g s e s s i o n s and spoke v e r y time.  Only the data  from G a b r i e l a r e d i s c u s s e d  little  family, during  this  here.  G a b r i e l and h i s f a m i l y were l i v i n g i n an I n d i a n community made up of s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t  tribes.  T h i s community i s a j o b - t r a i n i n g c e n t r e  l o c a t e d on a former a i r f o r c e base i n Manitoba. own house;  a group o f Dakota f a m i l i e s who had moved from the same  reserve approximately f o r t y miles centre.  Each f a m i l y had i t s  Gabriel's parents'  away l i v e d as neighbours a t the  house i s next door t o h i s aunt Wilma's 12  13 house, where most of the t a p i n g s e s s i o n s were h e l d . c o n s i s t s of h i s mother and  f a t h e r and  Donna, 5, Cory, 1, and N e i l , who sessions  was  (ages at time of s t u d y ) .  Gabriel's family  f o u r o t h e r c h i l d r e n , Kimberley, born between the 15th and  16th  Wilma i s G a b r i e l ' s mother's  sister;  apart from b e i n g a f r e q u e n t c a r e t a k e r of the c h i l d r e n , she took the of m o t h e r - s u b s t i t u t e  d u r i n g 14 of the 16 p l a y s e s s i o n s , i n t e r a c t i n g  G a b r i e l and E s t h e r and  a s s i s t i n g w i t h the t r a n s c r i p t i o n and  of the t a p e s .  not unusual  I t was  6,  role with  translation  f o r the c h i l d r e n to have a number of  d i f f e r e n t c a r e t a k e r s and playmates i n t h i s extended f a m i l y s i t u a t i o n . The  grandmother, u n c l e s and  aunts, and  took the c h i l d r e n to t h e i r homes.  c o u s i n s o f t e n came to v i s i t  Among the o t h e r c h i l d r e n who  times j o i n e d i n the p l a y w i t h E s t h e r and  G a b r i e l were E s t h e r ' s  L o r r a i n e , 10, Wilma's daughter Gwen, 7, and Only Dakota was  spoken i n G a b r i e l ' s home and  language i n Wilma's home. E n g l i s h and Dakota;  a c o u s i n Annette,  E s t h e r was  approaching  i t was  14.  the  principal  f l u e n c y i n both  however, w h i l e G a b r i e l ' s l e x i c o n i n c l u d e d many  g o a l i n c o l l e c t i n g the data was  play i n a reasonably  somesister  E n g l i s h words, he d i d not respond to E n g l i s h speech d i r e c t e d a t The  or  natural setting.  him.  to observe the c h i l d r e n at  Twelve of the 16 s e s s i o n s took  p l a c e i n Wilma's l i v i n g room, where the c h i l d r e n p l a y e d w i t h v a r i o u s t o y s , p i e c e s of f u r n i t u r e , drawing m a t e r i a l s , magazines and catalogues.  The  volume.  o t h e r f o u r s e s s i o n s were taped  The  t e l e v i s i o n was  h o s p i t a l b u i l d i n g at the c e n t r e ; brought a l o n g on these  occasions.  sometimes turned on, but  mail-order  without  i n an empty room of a  the toys and  c o l o u r i n g books were  14 Data c o l l e c t i o n , t r a n s c r i p t i o n and translation In an e f f o r t to keep a f a i r l y regular routine i n the sessions, most tapings were done between 9:00 and noon when the children were most a l e r t and p l a y f u l .  The children were introduced to the taping equipment  during the f i r s t session and were only occasionally distracted by i t . Taping was done on a Wollensak r e e l to r e e l recorder, using 5" Ampex tapes at a recording speed of 3 3/4 i p s .  I usually sat i n a corner of  the room, taking a running t r a n s c r i p t i o n and making contextual notes. I limited my own interactions with the children because Gabriel was more verbal with Wilma, and Esther tended to answer my Dakota questions in English, a strategy not uncommon for b i l i n g u a l children, who mark the speakers around them as belonging to one or the other language group. Each tape was transcribed the day i t was recorded. usually took only s l i g h t l y longer than taping.  Transcription  This was partly because  of the running transcription made during the recording, but also because patterns quickly emerged i n the data, with the same conversational routines being re-enacted between Gabriel and Esther and between Gabriel and Wilma.  I abandoned my plan to make taped notes because of the  confusion my commentaries caused Wilma and the children.  Wilma provided  both a loose and a l i t e r a l t r a n s l a t i o n of a l l the taped utterances, both the adults' and the children's. for almost half of the sessions.  These are recorded i n the data books I t seemed unnecessary to translate the  entire corpus, except for new vocabulary items which appeared i n l a t e r sessions.  A l l utterances were transcribed along with contextual notes.  Two further transcriptions were made a f t e r leaving the f i e l d ; were on a superior Sony playback machine.  these  The transcriptions are  15 r e c o r d e d i n l a b . notebooks; Appendix I .  samples from the corpus a r e g i v e n i n  Conventions used i n t r a n s c r i p t i o n a r e e x p l a i n e d i n T a b l e  2.4.  Overview o f Dakota-Sioux Dakota-Sioux i s a member o f the Siouan f a m i l y of languages Siouan phylum).  I t i s spoken e x t e n s i v e l y i n t h e mid-western  S t a t e s and i n seven communities  i n mid-western Canada.  (Macro-  United  The Dakota-  Sioux (Santee) p o p u l a t i o n has been e s t i m a t e d v a r i o u s l y t o be between 5000 and 10,000 p e o p l e , t h e m a j o r i t y of whom speak t h e i r language.  Dakota-  Sioux (Santee) i s one o f f o u r major branches o f Sioux p r o p e r , the o t h e r t h r e e b e i n g Teton Sioux or L a k o t a , A s s i n i b o i n e o r Nakota, and Yankton. The names Dakota, L a k o t a and Nakota i n d i c a t e one f a i r l y r e g u l a r s u b s t i t u t i o n among the f i r s t  three d i a l e c t s .  sound  According to informants,  t h e r e i s some degree of i n t e l l i g i b i l i t y among them, a l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e many l e x i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s .  Each of t h e major d i a l e c t s has s u b - d i a l e c t s ;  the speech of G a b r i e l ' s community, f o r example,  was s l i g h t l y  from t h a t o f another Santee band i n n o r t h e r n Saskatchewan p r o n u n c i a t i o n s and l e x i c a l i t e m s .  Dakota i s s t i l l  of many c h i l d r e n growing up i n Sioux communities, of E n g l i s h i s s p r e a d i n g .  different  i n certain  the f i r s t  language  although the i n f l u e n c e  G a b r i e l was exposed t o E n g l i s h on t e l e v i s i o n  and i n p l a y w i t h o l d e r neighbourhood c h i l d r e n .  I n the f i n a l s e s s i o n he  i s u s i n g s e v e r a l E n g l i s h words, even though h i s sentences a r e too s h o r t to determine any s y n t a c t i c p r e f e r e n c e . There a r e t e x t s w r i t t e n i n Dakota, m o s t l y b i b l i c a l , the 1800's.  d a t i n g back t o  There a r e a l s o s e v e r a l p u b l i s h e d works d e a l i n g w i t h Siouan  languages, e.g., R i g g s , 1893;  Boas and D e l o r i a , 1941;  Buechel, 1970;  16 Carter,  1974.  I b r i e f l y describe  some f e a t u r e s  f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , but t h e c o m p l e x i t i e s are not y e t p a r t of G a b r i e l ' s aimed at any p h o n o l o g i c a l  immature  of the language i n the  o f Siouan morphology and s y n t a x speech system, nor i s the study  analysis.  The sound system According to Carter  (1974), Dakota has 25 phonemes, i n c l u d i n g  and n a s a l i z e d vowels, v o i c e d stop.  oral  and v o i c e l e s s v e l a r f r i c a t i v e s and a g l o t t a l  See T a b l e 2.1 below f o r a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the phonemes of Dakota-  TABLE 2.1 PHONEMES OF DAKOTA-SIOUX (SANTEE DIALECT)  Bilabial  Plosive Voiced Voiceless unaspirated Voiceless aspirated Glottalized Nasal Fricative Frictionless continuants  Dental/ Alveolar  b  d  P  t  Consonants PalatoPalatal Alveolar  m s  c  §  z  Vowels  mid low  i  back  i  u u  e  o  c  e  a a c  Glottal  I  k k2 h  x  y  w  high  h  c-2 z  front  k  c  h t ti n  h  Velar  y h  17 Sioux.  Stress  i n Dakota i s phonemic;  that i s , there  a r e minimal p a i r s ,  as i n E n g l i s h , where s t r e s s placement changes meaning, e.g., /majja/ and  /ma^a/  'goose'.  'field'  The r u l e s f o r s t r e s s movement a r e complex, but i n  m u l t i - s y l l a b l e words, s t r e s s o f t e n f a l l s on the second s y l l a b l e .  Conson-  ant c l u s t e r i n g i s common w i t h i n and a c r o s s morpheme b o u n d a r i e s .  Carter  l i s t s 41 intramorpheme c l u s t e r s , e.g., /spaya/ 'wet/, /mnl/ 'water', / p S a / 'sneeze' (1974, 36).  Some s c h o l a r s have chosen t o r e p r e s e n t  ated, v e l a r p a l a t a l i z e d and g l o t t a l i z e d  the a s p i r -  (or e j e c t i v e ) consonants as con-  sonant c l u s t e r s ( f o r example, Hollow, 1970;  Matthews, 1955);  (1964) handles t h e g l o t t a l i z e d consonants as geminates.  Levin  The s u b - d i a l e c t  spoken by G a b r i e l ' s speech community d i s p l a y e d q u i t e c l e a r a s p i r a t e d , v e l a r p a l a t a l i z e d and g l o t t a l i z e d  forms, as c o n t r a s t e d  group i n n o r t h e r n  Another Siouan f e a t u r e i s r e d u p l i c a t i o n ,  Saskatchewan.  which occurs o f t e n ;  there  i s a l s o some evidence f o r sound symbolism.  b a s i c s y l l a b l e s t r u c t u r e i s (C)CV(C). normal c o n v e r s a t i o n ; r i s i n g intonation.  w i t h the Santee  Intonation  The  and p i t c h a r e v a r i e d i n  i n t e r r o g a t i v e s do n o t r e q u i r e , but o f t e n have, The a d u l t s i n v o l v e d  i n t h i s study sometimes spoke  sentences i n a k i n d o f h i s s , w i t h exaggerated lengthening.:of  vowels.  This  seemed to occur when they were speaking of s u r p r i s i n g events o r b e h a v i o u r s , and  i t was not u n l i k e p a r a l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s i n E n g l i s h  G a b r i e l ' s own sound system i s o u t l i n e d l a t e r i n t h i s  conversation.  chapter.  Morphology Dakota-Sioux i s a s y n t h e t i c langauge and has r e l a t i v e l y v e r b a l morphology.  Carter explains  intricate  that t h i s i n t r i c a c y i s  . . . due i n l a r g e p a r t t o t h e e f f e c t s o f numerous concord and p r o nominal t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s . These s y n t a c t i c r u l e s a l l have the g e n e r a l e f f e c t o f i n c r e a s i n g t h e semantic content o f verb nodes a t the expense of t h e i r a s s o c i a t e d noun nodes; much of t h i s i n c r e a s e d  18 semantic content i s l i t e r a l i z e d as surface verb a f f i x e s , t y p i c a l l y prefixes (1974, 118). There are two classes of verb stem, the s t a t i v e and the active, to which are  affixed the various classes of verbal morphemes.  According to  Stanley (1971), there are 19 classes of these morphemes, 12 prefixed and 7 suffixed.  Some of these also have male and female variants.  The  following are a few of the more common verbal a f f i x e s . 1.  /uk-/—stem class 3, f i r s t person p l u r a l marker.  2.  /ya-/, / n i - / , / c i - / — s t e m class 9, second person active, second person s t a t i v e , and a collapsed form of the f i r s t person singular subject acting on a second person singular object, respectively.  3.  /ka-/, /pa-/, /pu-/, /ya-/, /yu-/—stem class 12, instrumental p a r t i c l e s meaning, respectively, 'by sudden impact', 'with pressure away from the body', 'with pressure i n an i n d e f i n i t e d i r e c t i o n ' , 'by means of the mouth or teeth', and 'by handling or manipulating with motion directed toward the body'.  4.  /-pi/--stem class 14, p l u r a l of one or more nouns within the scope of the verb stem to which t h i s morpheme i s attached.  5.  /-kta/—stem class 15, potential marker.  6.  /-sni/—stem class 17, negative marker.  7.  /-ye/ or /7-e/—stem class 18, predicative marker.  There i s evidence of only the predicative marker /-ye/ or /-e/ i n Gabriel's speech.  Most of these morphemes represent fine semantic  d i s t i n c t i o n s beyond the comprehension  of a c h i l d h i s age.  The morpho-  phonological changes which accompany their use are an added d i f f i c u l t y in their a c q u i s i t i o n .  Dakota morphophonology i s very complex, so that  root words are d i f f i c u l t to separate and reconstruct i n analysis.  19 Carter describes the following morphophonological processes:  vowel  deletion, syncope, stress movement, ejection ( g l o t t a l i z a t i o n ) , aspirat i o n , velar p a l a t a l i z a t i o n , l a t e r a l i z a t i o n , stop voicing, equi-vowel deletion and syneresis.  One would expect mastery of t h i s aspect of the  language to occur r e l a t i v e l y l a t e (e.g., Moskowitz, 1973). Syntax Dakota-Sioux i s an SOV language.  The only major feature which  does not conform to the t y p i c a l SOV pattern i s the occurrence of adject i v e s , demonstratives and genitives after the nouns they modify.  It i s  s t i l l too early to see c l e a r l y even this most basic syntactic pattern i n Gabriel's speech, as he has only begun producing multi-morphemic ances.  utter-  The adult speech from the study, however, provides examples of  many d i f f e r e n t sentence patterns, some of which follow.  (See Table 2.4  at the end of this chapter for explanation of t r a n s c r i p t i o n and translation 1.  symbols.) Simple declarative (active verb stem): Cici  ni +  mons. you 2.  3.  4.  yaxte  kte ye.  bite  P.  "Monster w i l l b i t e you."  F.  Simple declarative, negative (stative stem): Wastg  S n i ye.  good  N.  " I t ' s not good."  F.  Interrogative (with question word): Taku  cletka  ha?  what  you-drink Q.  "What are you drinking?"  Interrogative (yes-no): Ca c  +  ni +  you-angry  ze ha? Q. -  "Are you angry?"  20 5.  Complex interrogative (yes-no), negative: Duksa  o  you-cut 6.  +  _y_a + k i h i  you-are able  gni ha? N.  "Can't you cut i t ? "  Q.  Imperative: Haake  oye kaya.  "Make some clothes."  clothes some make 7.  8.  Imperative, negative: 2iya  2u  s*ni.  run  do  N.  "Don't run."  Complex declarative: Wa  +  hde  I  go-home  kah| was*te if  good  kte de. P.  "If I go home, this one w i l l be good."  this  Gabriel's syntax i s dealt with i n some d e t a i l i n Chapter Three.  See Taylor  (1974) and Rood (1973) for transformational analyses of aspects of Sioux syntax. Description of the data Thirty-two and one half hours of tape-recorded data were obtained during the observation time, for a t o t a l of 7130 utterances from the princi p a l subject, Gabriel.  Gabriel's utterances were numbered f o r each session,  with an average of 446 utterances per session.  See Table 2.2 below for  sessional information. Calculation of mean length of utterance (MLU) was done for the purposes of "locating" Gabriel i n r e l a t i o n to other children i n other studies. Since there i s no agreement among researchers as to the use of this measure across children acquiring only English as a f i r s t language, i t i s obvious that the problems i n c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c application are considerable.  Rather  than try to equate the grammatical morphemes i n terms of syntactic complexity,  21 TABLE 2.2 AGE, MLU, UPPER BOUND (UB), NUMBER OF UTTERANCES, TIME IN HOURS. LOCATION, AND PARTICIPANTS IN 16 SESSIONS WITH GABRIEL  Sess.  Age  MLU  U.B.  no. u t t s .  Length hrs.  Participants besides Location/time  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, E s t h e r  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, E s t h e r  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, E s t h e r , H a z e l , Annette, Lorraine  2  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, E s t h e r , Annette, M a r i n a , Raymond, Gwen  315  2  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, E s t h e r , M a r i n a , Annette, Raymond  4  463  2  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, E s t h e r , Mar i n a , Raymond, L o r r a i n e , Annette  1.82  5  736  2k  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, E s t h e r , Lorraine  2;4(11)  1.29  5  113  1  Wilma's, P.M.  Annette, E s t h e r , Lorraine  IX  2;4(12)  1.32  4  555  3  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, E s t h e r , Lorraine, Hilda  X  2;4(13)  1.59  4  686  2k  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, E s t h e r , Annette, V i o l a  XI  2;4(14)  1.46  4  241  1  Wilma's, A.M.  Wilma, H a z e l , Esther, Lorraine, Donna,  XII  2;4(19)  1.50  4  452  2  h o s p i t a l , A.M. Wilma, E s t h e r  XIII  2;4(20)  1.42  5  535  3  h o s p i t a l , A.M. Wilma, E s t h e r  XIV  2;4(21)  1.23  4  669  3  Wilma's, A.M. H a z e l , Wilma, h o s p i t a l , P.M. E s t h e r  X XV  2;4(22)  1.18  4  487  2  h o s p i t a l , A.M. Wilma, E s t h e r  2;9(0)  1.42  4  283  2  Wilma's, P.M.  I  2;4(0)  1.38  4  409  II  2;4(1)  1.30  4  122  III  2;4(4)  1.24  4  554  k 2  IV  2;4(5)  1.17  4  510  V  2;4(6)  1.27  5  VI  2;4(7)  1.48  VII  2;4(8)  VIII  XVI  Marina, Esther, Donna, Kimberley, Donald  22 I have used the measure as though Dakota and l e s s e q u a l l y a c c e s s i b l e i n order consecutive  utterances  the e x c e p t i o n s  departed  to o b t a i n a rough comparison.  from each s e s s i o n s t a r t i n g w i t h  I took  100  the second tape  (with  of s e s s i o n s I I and VI, which were v e r y s h o r t s e s s i o n s ) ,  o m i t t i n g u n i n t e l l i g i b l e and most cases  E n g l i s h morphemes were more or  to the c r i t e r i a  uninterpretable utterances.  While I adhered i n  e s t a b l i s h e d by Brown (1973) f o r MLU  from these by i n c l u d i n g c e r t a i n g e s t u r a l morphemes and  forms ( f i l l e r s ) , such as  'huh', 'hey', and  counts,  I  dialogue  a s s i g n i n g morpheme s t a t u s to  /-ye/, which appeared to be a p u r e l y s y n t a c t i c element i n G a b r i e l ' s system. Table tem,  2.3  although  below g i v e s a rough c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of G a b r i e l ' s sound  i t i s obvious t h a t many of h i s p r o d u c t i o n s  terms of p h o n o l o g i c a l processes (1974).  Notably  sonants.  are e x p l i c a b l e i n  d e s c r i b e d by Ingram (1976) and  absent from h i s system are p a l a t a l i z e d and  O i l e r et a l  glottalized  con-  S i m i l a r l y , s t r e s s placement, n a s a l i z a t i o n of vowels and a s p i r a t i o n  were i n c o n s i s t e n t . speech was ing  sys-  I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t , w h i l e h i s spontaneous  phonologically deviant  from the a d u l t e q u i v a l e n t , he was  produc-  f a i r l y precise gestural imitations.  Transcription The  conventions  t r a n s c r i p t i o n system used d u r i n g t h i s study was  e x i g e n c i e s of the f i e l d Smith, p e r s o n a l venient t h i s was  situation.  symbols and  intended  I t i s i s a combination of I.P.A.,  a d a p t a t i o n to the t y p e w r i t e r .  to be a p h o n o l o g i c a l study  e x c e p t i o n a l l y p r e c i s e , the p h o n e t i c  and  the  Trager-  Because  the equipment was  not  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s are not v e r y d e t a i l e d .  While a l l u t t e r a n c e s have been t r a n s c r i b e d i n f u l l , been used to reduce the b u l k i n t r a n s l a t i o n s . the p h o n e t i c  out of  t r a d i t i o n a l orthography which seemed the most con-  f o r r a p i d o n - s i t e notes and not  devised  c e r t a i n a b b r e v i a t i o n s have  These a b b r e v i a t i o n s and  symbols I have used n o n - c o n v e n t i o n a l l y  are given i n Table  a key 2.4  to  below.  TABLE 2.3 EXAMPLES OF GABRIEL'S PHONOLOGICAL  Adult sound  Gabriel's substitutes  SYSTEM  Examples  Vowels 1 «  e a a« o u u Consonants p b t d c k g m n s z V  s  x  i, i e, a , o a, > o a o, c a u , o, o a  VI. 92. " b i b i " , 'baby'+bibi X I I I . 1 6 1 . c i , ' w a n t ' - ^ c i ; X I I I . 1 6 2 . ci->-ci VI. 112. "Annette'Vnet; V I I . 648. wewe, 'hurt'->wawa; V I . 2 8 . w£we, 'hurtVwowo V I I I . 1 0 . hiy£, ' n o ' + h i y a ; V I I . 6 0 0 . h i y a - v h i y | 2 ; V I I . 624. k a , ' t h a t ' - v k o V I I . 6 8 1 . h f p a , ' s h o e ( s ) '->h|pa IV. 57. "boat'Vbop; X I I I . 1 3 8 . "boat"-ybap I I I . 4 3 1 . i b u , 'sleep'->al>u; I V . 1 0 . "Andrew"->ando; X I I . 389. "moo-moo"-«iiamu X I I . 4 0 5 . S u k f , 'horse'-*k£ka; I I I . 1 2 7 . s u k | + k 6 k a  V I I . 6 5 0 . waxpe\ 'tea'-s-pe; V I I . 2 0 3 . i x p a y e , ' f a l l ' + b o y a p,b VI. 140. babaya, "bye-bye'Vbabaya; V I I . 10. "birdie"->p6d3i b, p XIV. 163. "truck"-vdak t , t Y , d , ; I V . 3 3 1 . " A n n e t t e " - n i e t ; V. 3 1 2 . " A n n e t t e " - > n e t y ; X I I . 273. t d k u , 'what'+k5ku IV. 200. d e , 'this'->da; V I I . 10. " b i r d i e ' V p o d j i ; V. 1 0 . " b i r d i e " - > b u c i d, d j , c V I . 1 7 6 . i c u , ' t a k e ' - ^ c u ; V I . 1 7 7 . icu-^-tu; V I . 2 8 1 . c i c i , 'monster'->-cid 1; c, t , d, XIV. 299. c i c f - > S i c i ; V I I . 659. s i c e , 'bad'+Size; V. 2 8 0 . c i c i + d j i d - j i s\ 2, d j V I I . 5 9 8 . k a , ' t h a t ' ^ k a ; X I I I . 4 2 4 . k a k a , 'that*->gaka k, g XIV. 638. G a b r i e l + g e j b l g V I . 1 3 4 . "mdma"->mama m n , m, d V I I . 87. henana, 'that's all'-Hiana; I I I . 281. m n i , 'water'^mimi; X I I . 257. "Annette"-*let s, s , d_j, I I I . 2 3 7 . " p u s i " , 'pussy'->pusi; X I V . 4 5 3 . " j u i c e ' ^ u S ; I V . 1 3 1 . "pusi"-> i pud^i; I I I . 239. " p u s i " + p p z i (no e x a m p l e s ) s, k V I I . 659. s i c e , 'bad'+size; I I I . 1 2 7 . sukf., ' h o r s e ' + k o k a  Table 2.3 (continued) Adult Sound 2 x v v w 1 y h  Gabriel's substitutes i, d j y v w, v 1, y y h, k  Examples VII. 704. wazi, 'one'+zi; VI. 270. w ^ i ^ i (no examples) (only i n phonological play) VI. 8. yuyu (while playing with a toy car) ( i n borrowed English word) XVI. 47. T.V."-M:£vi VII. 648. wewe, 'hurt'->wawa; IV. 70. wewe->vawa VI. 367. l a l a , 'candy'->lala; XII. 243. lala+yala VII. 78. iyaye, 'go'->yaya V. 138. ha, 'yes'+ha; XV. 153. "horse"->kors  25 TABLE 2.4 TRANSCRIPTION CONVENTIONS  A.  P h o n e t i c symbols c  —  I.P.A. /+f/  z"  —  I.P.A. / j /  §  —  I.P.A. / j /  V  —  nasalized  PPPP  —  multiple  WORD  —  c a p i t a l i z e d word, exaggerated  —  major s t r e s s  C*  —  consonant w i t h s t r o n g  /2.A2/m/  —  phonetic representation G a b r i e l ' s words  1  b , g P , k  Translation '  '  bilabial  flap pitch  aspiration o f h o r s e n e i g h i n g , one o f  no a s p i r a t i o n , s l i g h t v o i c i n g  / —  /  vowel  more d e t a i l e d p h o n e t i c  representation  conventions  —  can't  F.  —  /ye/, sentence-ending p a r t i c l e meaning " I t ' s a f a c t "  Q.  —  /ha/, i n t e r r o g a t i v e p a r t i c l e  N.  —  /Sni/, negative p a r t i c l e  P.  —  /kta/,  Pl.  —  / - p i / , p l u r a l marker  —  /ce/, g e n e r i c p a r t i c l e , meaning " t h i s i s how i t i s "  —  u n d e r l i n e d p a r t s o f examples a r e d e s c r i p t i o n s o f g e s t u r a l reps.  G. '  ' A An E  —  translate  p o t e n t i a l marker  Alicia  G  Gabriel  Annette  H  Hazel  Esther  Lorraine  Lo W  —  Wilma  CHAPTER THREE  PRO-POSITIONAL MEANING  Introduction An examination o f G a b r i e l ' s multi-morphemic  u t t e r a n c e s i s under-  taken i n t h i s chapter f o r the purposes of a) t e s t i n g Brown's (1973) hypotheses about the n a t u r e of e a r l y morpheme combinations, v i z . as b e i n g s e m a n t i c a l l y m o t i v a t e d i n the form of a s m a l l s e t o f semantic r e l a t i o n s and o p e r a t i o n s of r e f e r e n c e , and b) e v a l u a t i n g the  'rich  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' of c h i l d r e n ' s u t t e r a n c e s through which these o p e r a t i o n s and r e l a t i o n s have been  ^uncovered'.  Brown c o l l a t e d and surveyed the d a t a from s e v e r a l c h i l d s t u d i e s from a v a r i e t y of languages.  Using a ' r i c h  language  interpretation'  approach, he found what he c o n s i d e r e d t o be " i m p r e s s i v e u n i f o r m i t i e s " i n the p a t t e r n s of semantic and grammatical development dren.  i n these  chil-  The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n f o c u s e s on Brown's Stage I , the p e r i o d  of e a r l y syntax, which he c l a i m s i s the time when the c h i l d i s l e a r n i n g to express a s m a l l s e t of b a s i c semantic r e l a t i o n s and o p e r a t i o n s of reference.  'Lean'  interpretation The p r e v a i l i n g paradigm  t i e s was  the s o - c a l l e d  f o r c h i l d language s t u d i e s d u r i n g the s i x -  ' n a t i v i s t ' model proposed by Chomsky (1957,  A c c o r d i n g to t h i s model, the c h i l d  1965).  i s i n n a t e l y p r e d i s p o s e d to a c q u i r i n g 26  27 the  s t r u c t u r e s of human language and the r u l e s which generate and  trans-  form them, s t r u c t u r e s and r u l e s which form a l o g i c but a l o g i c which i s different  from g e n e r a l c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s .  The f i r s t  "real"  language  i s produced when the c h i l d s t a r t s to s t r i n g r e c o g n i z a b l e words t o g e t h e r to  form the e a r l i e s t  syntactic structures.  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n a l - g e n e r a t i v e grammar t o c h i l d the  The f i r s t  attempts t o a p p l y  language d a t a were based on  n o t i o n t h a t the c h i l d moved through s u c c e s s i v e approximations to the  a d u l t grammar.  U s i n g e i t h e r l o n g i t u d i n a l d a t a or data from c h i l d r e n of  d i f f e r e n t ages and l e v e l s of language development,  these i n v e s t i g a t o r s  wrote grammars at v a r i o u s p o i n t s i n the a c q u i s i t i o n p e r i o d i n o r d e r t o determine the course of the c h i l d ' s approach t o a d u l t competence (Brown and F r a s e r , 1963;  M i l l e r and E r v i n , 1964).  The c o n s t r a i n t s of e a r l y  c h i l d speech d a t a , where word c l a s s e s and grammatical modulations a r e o m i t t e d , and of the syntax base of the Chomskian model meant t h a t e x p l a n a t i o n s had to be based on s u r f a c e l e v e l e v i d e n c e . It  i s the o p i n i o n of most i n v e s t i g a t o r s today t h a t t h e s e s t u d i e s  c o n s i d e r a b l y underestimated the l i n g u i s t i c knowledge of the c h i l d , which i s why studies.  they a r e sometimes r e f e r r e d t o as 'lean i n t e r p r e t a t i o n '  Two  d e s c r i p t i v e models x^hich appear e x t e n s i v e l y i n c h i l d  language l i t e r a t u r e from t h i s p e r i o d a r e the t e l e g r a p h i c speech and p i v o t : grammar models.  Brown d i s c u s s e s and d i s m i s s e s them b o t h on the  same d i s t r i b u t i o n a l grounds on which they a r e based, but a l s o  because  he f e e l s they do not c a p t u r e enough of the c h i l d ' s e x p r e s s i v e competence at the b e g i n n i n g of syntax. Early child  speech was  l a b e l l e d t e l e g r a p h i c speech because the  e a r l y u t t e r a n c e s of c h i l d r e n resemble i n many ways the language used i n telegrams;  t h a t i s , content words (nouns, v e r b s ) a r e r e t a i n e d ,  less  28 e s s e n t i a l functors are omitted.  Explanations for this  b a s e d on t h e p e r c e p t u a l s a l i e n c y o f c o n t e n t words m a j o r s t r e s s i n t h e s p o k e n u t t e r a n c e ) and i n g s of content words  grammatical). not  As  (these tend  the a v a i l a b i l i t y  (these o f t e n have r e a l w o r l d  to f u n c t o r words w h i c h d e s i g n a t e  finer  Brown d e m o n s t r a t e s ,  'look' were to receive  o f t h e mean-  r e f e r e n t s , as  relationships,  opposed  sometimes p u r e l y  however, t e l e g r a p h i c speech i s  an a c c u r a t e d e s c r i b e r o f t h e e a r l y s p e e c h o f a l l c h i l d r e n .  p o i n t s out  t h a t many c h i l d r e n u s e  morpheme c o m b i n a t i o n s ,  and,  f u n c t o r words from the s t a r t o f  q u i t e o f t e n , they  are e s s e n t i a l to the meaning, from t h e i r analogy,  t h e r e f o r e , i s a weak  The  He their  omit content words, which  earliest  constructions.  The  one.  s e c o n d m o d e l , p i v o t grammar, e v o l v e d o u t  of the  striking  a p p e a r a n c e i n e a r l y u t t e r a n c e s t h a t t h e r e w e r e two w o r d c l a s s e s  operat-  i n g , one  other  with  w i t h high c o m b i n a t o r i a l frequency  low c o m b i n a t o r i a l f r e q u e n c y  ( t h e p i v o t s ) and  ( t h e open c l a s s w o r d s ) .  the  T h i s model i s  most o f t e n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h M a r t i n B r a i n e  (1963), although M i l l e r  Ervin  Braine e x t r a c t e d only the  ( 1 9 6 4 ) made s i m i l a r  suggestions.  w o r d u t t e r a n c e s f r o m p r o t o c o l s c o l l e c t e d by m o t h e r s o f t h r e e Using  t h e s e d a t a he  p o s i t e d t h e w o r d c l a s s e s , p i v o t and  positional restrictions may  not  occur  as a f i n a l  related pivot.  to t h e i r occurrence,  o t h e r s t u d i e s , as B r o w n ( 1 9 7 3 ) , Bowerman ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,  a clear  an i n i t i a l  pivot  l a n g u a g e d a t a f r o m many  and  Bloom (1970) have  Brown does a c k n o w l e d g e , t h o u g h , t h a t e a r l y c h i l d ' p i v o t l o o k ' , w h i c h he  described  T h e s e d i s t r i b u t i o n r u l e s , h o w e v e r , seem  t o a p p l y more n e a t l y t o B r a i n e ' s d a t a t h a n t o c h i l d  shown.  two-  children.  open, and  e.g.,  and  differentiates  speech o f t e n  f r o m p i v o t grammar.  ' l o o k ' i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f G a b r i e l ' s d a t a and w i l l  be  examined  has  This shortly.  29 'Rich'  interpretation The  the  ' r i c h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' method e v o l v e d to a l a r g e e x t e n t out of  f a i l u r e of e a r l i e r models to account f o r more than some s u r f a c e  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of e a r l y word combinations.  The approach was  showing t h a t c h i l d r e n have u n d e r l y i n g grammatical competence,  aimed a t which can  be r e t r i e v e d by a t t e n d i n g t o the meanings (as f a r as they can be r e c o n s t r u c t e d ) of t h e i r e a r l y u t t e r a n c e s .  Brown (1973) says t h a t  'rich  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' r e v e a l s that Stage I c h i l d r e n express remarkably meanings,  which suggests to him t h a t t h i s p e r i o d of language  similar  development  i s m o t i v a t e d by the a c q u i s i t i o n a l importance of a u n i v e r s a l s e t of c o g n i t i v e l y a c c e s s i b l e semantic r e l a t i o n s and o p e r a t i o n s of r e f e r e n c e . T h i s approach to the a n a l y s i s of f i r s t multi-morphemic l e a s t two s t e p s removed from p i v o t grammar.  First,  u t t e r a n c e s i s at  i t assumes under-  l y i n g grammatical s t r u c t u r e f o r the c h i l d ' s u t t e r a n c e s , and, second, i t makes the o b s e r v a t i o n of c o n t e x t an e s s e n t i a l p a r t of d e t e r m i n i n g more a c c u r a t e l y what meanings a r e i n t e n d e d by the c h i l d lying structure i s inferred).  The major proponents of ' r i c h  t a t i o n ' i n c l u d e Brown, Bloom (1970), S c h l e s i n g e r (1973).  (through which  (1971), and  under-  interpreSlobin  Howe (1976), i n a c r i t i c a l review of the approach, notes t h a t ,  a l o n g w i t h a t t e n t i o n to c o n t e x t , the expansion of the c h i l d ' s  deformed  u t t e r a n c e s i n t o p l a u s i b l e grammatical u t t e r a n c e s i s another s t r a t e g y used f o r r e c o n s t r u c t i n g deep s t r u c t u r e . of  both s t r a t e g i e s ;  my  own  Brown a p p a r e n t l y has made use  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of G a b r i e l ' s  multi-morphemic  u t t e r a n c e s f o r the purposes of a p p l y i n g a Brown-type a n a l y s i s a r e based on c o n t e x t u a l n o t e s .  30 Brown's study While  the  ' r i c h i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' method has  l e d , i n some c a s e s , t o  r e s e a r c h e r s p o s i t i n g f o r m a l l i n g u i s t i c c a t e g o r i e s i n the deep s t r u c t u r e (see, f o r example, M c N e i l l , 1970), Brown p r e f e r s s e m a n t i c a l l y - d e f i n e d configurations.  U s i n g the semantic models of F i l l m o r e , Chafe and  S c h l e s i n g e r , he has o r g a n i z e d a l l o f the multi-morphemic u t t e r a n c e s i n twelve c h i l d  language c o r p o r a i n t o the d e s i g n a t e d r e l a t i o n s and  t i o n s of r e f e r e n c e and has found  t h a t t h e r e appears  which account investigated.  why  Through t h i s p r o c e s s  t o be a s e t of b a s i c semantic  he  relations  f o r about 70% of the two-term u t t e r a n c e s i n the d a t a See T a b l e 3.1  and p r e v a l e n t semantic The  q u a n t i f i e d the r e s u l t s .  opera-  below f o r Brown's o p e r a t i o n s of r e f e r e n c e  relations.  impressiveness  of t h i s f i n d i n g l e d Brown to s p e c u l a t e as to  Stage I u t t e r a n c e s were so uniform.  He suggests t h a t  . . . a major dimension of l i n g u i s t i c development i s l e a r n i n g t o express always and a u t o m a t i c a l l y c e r t a i n t h i n g s (agent, a c t i o n , number, tense and so on) even though these meanings may be i n many c o n t e x t s q u i t e redundant. . . . I t may be t h a t a u t o m a t i z i n g a c e r t a i n number of meanings l e a v e s the human's l i m i t e d c e n t r a l chann e l c a p a c i t y f r e e t o cope w i t h the e x i g e n c i e s of p a r t i c u l a r communi c a t i o n problems, which r e q u i r e t h a t one say what i s n e c e s s a r y , omit what i s not, and use a l e x i c o n and syntax f a m i l i a r t o the p a r t i c u l a r audience (Brown, 1973, 245). He adds t h a t Stage I speech, w h i l e s e m a n t i c a l l y t i e d immediate c o n t e x t , s t i l l  to the  demands t h a t l i s t e n e r s have some f a m i l i a r i t y  w i t h the c h i l d ' s background knowledge i n order to i n t e r p r e t ances.  child's  i t s utter-  The c h i l d , on the o t h e r hand, p e r s i s t s i n p r o d u c i n g  'deficient'  u t t e r a n c e s because most of h i s communications take p l a c e i n h i s home, where he i s u s u a l l y understood.  In other words, the c h i l d can commun-  i c a t e s u c c e s s f u l l y f o r some time w i t h a v e r y simple syntax through he i s becoming f l u e n t i n e x p r e s s i n g a s m a l l s e t of r e l a t i o n a l  and  which  31 TABLE 3.1 BROWN'S OPERATIONS OF REFERENCE AND PREVALENT SEMANTIC RELATIONS FOR STAGE I  Operations of reference Nomination  That c a r  Recurrence  More c o o k i e  Nonexistence  A l l gone j u i c e  Reference t o s e l f o r mother  H i mommy  Semantic  relations  Two-term  relations  Agent and a c t i o n A c t i o n and o b j e c t Agent and o b j e c t A c t i o n and l o c a t i v e E n t i t y and l o c a t i v e P o s s e s s o r and p o s s e s s i o n E n t i t y and a t t r i b u t e Demonstrative and e n t i r y Three-term  Baby eat See sock Mommy sandwich F a l l grass Baby c h a i r Baby toy Doggie w h i t e Train  relations  Agent, a c t i o n and o b j e c t Agent, a c t i o n and l o c a t i v e A c t i o n , o b j e c t and l o c a t i v e A c t i o n , o b j e c t and l o c a t i v e  Dog eat cake Daddy s i t t h e r e Mommy m i l k t a b l e Put baby b a t h  Four-rterm r e l a t i o n s Agent, a c t i o n ,  o b j e c t and l o c a t i v e  Mommy put book  table  32 r e f e r e n t i a l meanings.  A f t e r examination of these meanings, Brown i s  c o n f i d e n t t h a t they conform to the c h i l d ' s c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s p e r i o d when morpheme combinations appear  ( l a t e sensorimotor  Because c h i l d r e n go through r o u g h l y the same k i n d of  a t the  intelligence).  socialization  (exposure t o a r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l group of people d u r i n g the e a r l y y e a r s ) and because  c o g n i t i v e development  i s assumed t o f o l l o w a s i m i l a r  course  w i t h a l l c h i l d r e n , Brown f e e l s t h a t the s e t of r e l a t i o n s and o p e r a t i o n s which he has p o s i t e d w i l l d e s c r i b e the meanings of a l l Stage I c h i l d r e n , no matter what language they are l e a r n i n g  (198).  a n a l y s i s to y e t another language, Dakota-Sioux,  I have extended i n o r d e r to t e s t  this  this  hypothesis.  Mean l e n g t h of u t t e r a n c e Brown ordered the s t u d i e s he reviewed a c c o r d i n g to the d e v e l o p mental measure o f mean l e n g t h o f u t t e r a n c e . problems  t h a t a r e encountered  Without m i n i m i z i n g the  i n a p p l y i n g t h i s measure a c r o s s c h i l d r e n  and a c r o s s languages, Brown s t a t e s t h a t , " . . . index o f development  from about  1.0  to 4.0;  MLU  i s a good simple  i t c o n t i n u e s t o be r e s p o n -  s i v e to what the c h i l d i s l e a r n i n g but i t i s p r i m a r i l y r e s p o n s i v e to d i f f e r e n t k i n d s of knowledge at d i f f e r e n t times (185)." what Brown i s r e f e r r i n g t o here i s the i n c r e a s e i n MLU  An example of d u r i n g Stage  which he says i s caused by the compounding o f semantic r e l a t i o n s than by embedding.  T a b l e 3.2  I  7  rather  below p l a c e s G a b r i e l a l o n g w i t h Brown's  c h i l d r e n a c c o r d i n g to t h i s measure.  Some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s  encountered i n d e t e r m i n i n g a r e l a t i v e l y G a b r i e l have a l r e a d y been d e s c r i b e d  comparable  (see p. 21).  MLU  I  figure for  I use the measure  here t o i n d i c a t e r o u g h l y where he stands i n r e l a t i o n t o the c h i l d r e n  TABLE 3.2 BROWN'S STUDIES ORDERED DEVELOPMENTALLY  Kendall I  1.10  GABRIEL  1.38  Seppo I  Kendall II  1.48  1.42  ACCORDING TO M.L.U., INCLUDING GABRIEL  Viveka  Sipili  Tofi  Eve I  Sarah I  Seppo II  Rina I  Pepe  Adam I  1.50  1.52  1.62  1.68  1.73  1.81  1.83  1.85  2.06  TABLE 3.3 PROPORTIONS OF TWO-MORPHEME TYPES REPRESENTED BY FOUR PRESUMPTIVE PIVOTS IN GABRIEL'S CORPUS  III  IV  VII  Session XIII XII  Pivot  I  II  /ka/ /ye/ "hey" /eya/  32 29 7 14  32 42 11 0  30 19 15 8  38 11 3 14  31 14 3 6  22 22 0 9  17 21 6 11  Total percentages  82  85  72  66  54  53  55  XV  Aver.1  XVI  Aver.2  31 16 5 9  30 7 16 5  29 21 8 9  0 24 10 12  26 21 8 9  61  58  67  46  64  XIV  TABLE 3.4 PERCENTAGES OF ALL UTTERANCE TOKENS REPRESENTED BY UTTERANCES WITH 'ka'  No. of morphemes  I  II  III  IV  VII  Session XII XIII  XIV  XV  Aver.l  XVI  Aver. 2  one two more  39 30 17  21 11 5  41 30 11  57 35 9  62 74 41  28 30 23  20 11 11  61 29 10  37 22 9  41 30 15  3 0 1  37 27 14  percentage per s e s s .  21  30  15  20  24  18  8  15  14  19  1  17  TABLE 3.5 PERCENTAGES APPROPRIATE WORD ORDER IN TWO-MORPHEME UTTERANCES IN THE REPRESENTATIVE SESSIONS  Session I  %  100  II  100  i n  IV  VII  XII  92  95  87  95  XIII  100  XIV  XV  XVI  89  96  95  Aver.  95  35 in  t h e s t u d i e s w h i c h Brown r e v i e w e d .  earlier  are  Gabriel's  r e l e v a n t b e c a u s e t h e y may  be  qualifications  responsible for  t o d e t e r m i n e how  l o n g he  s t a r t of data  p l a c e s him  had  characteristic  i n e a r l y Stage I .  been producing  collection;  seem t o f i t i n t o a n u t t e r a n c e  or r e d e f i n e d prevalence  as an  category  operation  of u t t e r a n c e s  'pivot look'  The  before  combinations says i s  particular  i s 'Demon-  occurring i n this The  category  e i t h e r a semantic  of r e f e r e n c e .  of Stage I speech.  unable  o f B r o w n ' s w h i c h he  relation  Brown a l s o s a y s t h a t category  the  i s responsible  'pivot look'  i s very  for  strong  prompted c l o s e r e x a m i n a t i o n i n terms of  s e m a n t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s w h i c h Brown says g i v e r i s e  'pivot  I was  however, most of G a b r i e l ' s  of e a r l y Stage I .  G a b r i e l ' s s p e e c h s a m p l e and  The  misrepresenting  morpheme c o m b i n a t i o n s  s t r a t i v e + E n t i t y ' , w h i c h B r o w n s a y s c a n be  the  mentioned  performance.  G a b r i e l ' s a v e r a g e MLU  the  The  in  the  to i t .  look'  Brown s a y s  that  . . . t h e p i v o t l o o k i s n o t t h e same as t h e p i v o t grammar. The l o o k d e r i v e s p r i m a r i l y f r o m an i m p r e s s i o n t h a t t h e r e i s a s h a r p d i s c o n t i n u i t y of c o m b i n a t o r i a l frequency i n the c h i l d ' s words; some, t h e p i v o t s o c c u r r i n g i n n u m e r o u s d i f f e r e n t c o m b i n a t i o n s and o t h e r s , t h e o p e n w o r d s o c c u r r i n g i n v e r y few c o m b i n a t i o n s ( 1 6 9 ) . By  t a k i n g j u s t t h e one  criterion  f o r a p i v o t , t h a t of o c c u r r i n g i n a  l a r g e number o f d i f f e r e n t t w o - w o r d c o m b i n a t i o n s , B r o w n f o u n d t h a t  the  presumptive pivots obtained  could  t h e m s e l v e s be recurrence,  the  latter  f r o m 22  r e c l a s s i f i e d as h i s o p e r a t i o n s  nonexistence,  observes that  i n t h i s way  and  reference  to s e l f  the meanings of the o p e r a t i o n s  stages  of sensorimotor  of  different studies  reference—nomination, or mother.  of r e f e r e n c e  Brown a l s o are part  i n t e l l i g e n c e , which apparently  of  coincide  with Stage I i n Brown's analysis.  He says,  The combination of cognitive a c c e s s i b i l i t y to the c h i l d , expressi b i l i t y by a small lexicon, and the widest compositional p o t e n t i a l might be expected to make operations of reference very prevalent in Stage I speech and partly responsible for the pivot look of such speech (169). I examined Gabriel's two-morpheme combinations to determine whether such operations of reference occurred and whether they could account for the d e f i n i t e pivot look of his speech.  Following Brown, any word..which  occurred i n many d i f f e r e n t two-word combinations was presumptive pivot.  considered as a  A l l of the multi-morpheme utterances were organized  by session into Braine-type charts, with sub-groups based on number of morphemes i n each utterance type and a l l combinations of similar structure, for example, /ka/ + Word, l i s t e d together.  Opposite each u t t e r -  ance type were the utterance numbers for the tokens which occurred i n a session.  (See Appendix II f o r an example of this data organization.)  F a m i l i a r i t y with the data gave r i s e to my f i r s t i n t u i t i o n s about which morphemes would qualify as pivots.  The subsequent quantification sup-  ported the choice of the four morphemes shown i n Table 3.3 "(p.33).  This  table has been assembled from the two-morpheme data from ten representative s e s s i o n s — s e s s i o n s I, I I , I I I , IV, VII, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI.  and  Because of the four and one half month gap between sessions XV  and XVI, session XVI i s separated from the others i n some of the calculations . The morphemes which I have found operating as presumptive pivots i n Gabriel's language system d i f f e r somewhat i n nature from those which Brown discovered i n the 22 studies he examined.  It appears that one  of them, /ye/, i s a grammatical p a r t i c l e and that another of them, "hey", i s an exclamation.  None of the four expresses the operations  37 of recurrence, nonexistence or reference to s e l f or mother.  One of  them, however, the presumptive pivot /ka/, f i t s the description Brown gives f o r the operation of nomination. A.  "/ka/.  There are three s t r i k i n g aspects of Gabriel's use of  this morpheme. 1.  In those utterances i n which i t occurs, /ka/ i s almost always i n i n i t i a l position i n two-morpheme utterances.  2.  Utterances with /ka/ account for an average of 29% of a l l two-morpheme utterance types i n the f i r s t nine representative sessions, and 35% of two-morpheme tokens.  3.  In session XVI, /ka/ appears to drop out of Gabriel's system, representing only 1% of a l l utterance tokens, 0% of twomorpheme  combinations.  In the adult language /ka/ i s a d e i c t i c which means 'that farther away (sometimes out of reach, sometimes out of s i g h t ) ' .  As a demon-  s t r a t i v e i t w i l l normally follow the noun i t modifies;  as a pronominal  subject or object i t w i l l precede the verb stem according to the t y p i c a l SOV sentence pattern.  In Gabriel's system, a simple syntactic rule of  the form /ka/ + (Word) + (Word) would appear to account for most of the utterances i n which i t occurs. two-morpheme combinations;  /ka/ not only appears frequently i n  i t occurs as a one-word utterance, and i n  three- and four-morpheme utterances.  Table 3.4 (p.34:) gives information  on the t o t a l occurrence of this morpheme i n the ten representative sessions;  the figures given are based on tokens not types. As can be seen from the table, i n two sessions /ka/ as a one-word  utterance accounted for over 60% of a l l one-word utterance tokens.  In  session VII, which i s the largest sample from Gabriel (736 utterances i n  38 2 i hours) and has  the h i g h e s t MLU  (1.82  a c r o s s s e s s i o n s of 1.38), /ka/ was utterance  tokens, 41%  as compared w i t h the average  present  of a l l single-word  f i r s t n i n e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s e s s i o n s /ka/  Tables  3.3  of a l l two-morpheme  of morpheme combinations g r e a t e r than two  as w e l l as r e p r e s e n t i n g 62%  of a l l u t t e r a n c e  i n 74%  utterances.  i s present  and  i n an average of  3.4  l o o k extends i n t o s e s s i o n XVI,  e s i s i s weak.  The  f o r an average of 46% I t may  be,  reasons c o u l d be p u r e l y gram-  i n s t e a d , t h a t /ka/  12%  to s e l f ,  two-morpheme combinations A new  While "me"  they are s e m a n t i c a l l y v e r y d i f f e r e n t and  and  morpheme does occur  utterances  of an o p e r a t i o n of r e f e r e n c e , t h a t of  making the d i s a p p e a r a n c e of the one  final  t h a t i s , one  of the two-morpheme combinations.  morpheme i s the E n g l i s h pronoun "me". q u a l i f y as o c c u r r e n c e s  i s replaced i n this  the same n a t u r e ;  r e p r e s e n t i n g the o p e r a t i o n of nomination. making up  Since the p i v o t  of two-morpheme t y p e s , t h i s hypoth-  i n a l a r g e number of d i f f e r e n t  s e s s i o n XVI,  by  however, w i t h the other presumptive p i v o t s  s e s s i o n by another morpheme of roughly appearing  19%  p o i n t out the v i r t u a l d i s a p p e a r a n c e of '/ka/  m a t i c a l , i n d i c a t i n g a growing s y n t a c t i c s o p h i s t i c a t i o n .  accounting  Over the  tokens, which remains a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n .  the time of the s i x t e e n t h s e s s i o n .  still  morphemes,  from most /ka/  in  This could reference combinations,  the appearance of the o t h e r most  likely coincidental. I f t h e r e were a semantic e x p l a n a t i o n ,  i t c o u l d be based on  the  importance of the o p e r a t i o n of nomination i n G a b r i e l ' s e a r l y s e s s i o n s . T h i s i n t u r n c o u l d be r e l a t e d e i t h e r to c o g n i t i v e - l i n g u i s t i c f a c t o r s (the phenomenon of naming which has been noted i n e a r l y c h i l d samples) or to the i n t e r v i e w n a t u r e 15 s e s s i o n s .  speech  of the data c o l l e c t i o n i n the  Other c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are i t s simple  phonological  first  shape  39 and  the f a c t t h a t i t occurs not i n f r e q u e n t l y i n the a d u l t data,  lengths  of u t t e r a n c e s .  Although i t d e s i g n a t e s  in all  a f i n e r semantic  dis-  t i n c t i o n i n t h e a d u l t language (/he/ means 'that w i t h i n r e a c h ' , /ka/ means 'that f a r t h e r away'), G a b r i e l appears t o use i t as t h e e q u i v a l e n t of the E n g l i s h i n h i s system;  'that'.  I t operated as a g e n e r a l , m u l t i - p u r p o s e term  he used i t t o i n i t i a t e exchanges w h i l e p o i n t i n g a t  o b j e c t s he hadn't y e t used the names f o r ; a d u l t "What's t h a t " q u e s t i o n s appropriate  he used i t i n response t o  i n much t h e same way, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the  l e x i c a l item was not a v a i l a b l e t o him;  he a l s o used i t w i t h  r i s i n g i n t o n a t i o n i n a number o f s i t u a t i o n s which c o u l d have been  inter-  preted  that".  as "What i s i t " ,  "Can I have i t " ,  In the two-morpheme u t t e r a n c e t i o n s as e x p r e s s i n g  types,  " I s i t O.K. t o p l a y w i t h  I i n t e r p r e t e d 68% of /ka/ combina-  the b a s i c semantic r e l a t i o n  f o l l o w i n g Brown's d e f i n i t i o n s f o r t h i s r e l a t i o n . imately  'Demonstrative + E n t i t y ' , The other  approx-  one t h i r d of /ka/ types were h i s ' E n t i t y + A t t r i b u t e ' or 'Other  constructions'. One p o s s i b l e r e a s o n f o r t h e predominance o f t h e 'Demonstrative + E n t i t y ' r e l a t i o n i s the question-answer n a t u r e o f t h e data c o l l e c t i o n i n sessions  I-XV.  In response t o G a b r i e l ' s q u i e t e r times, Wilma o f t e n  asked "What's t h i s / t h a t " q u e s t i o n s s e s s i o n XVI, on t h e other taneously.  to e l i c i t  speech from him.  In  hand, he was l e f t more or l e s s t o speak spon-  I f t h e r e were some way o f b e i n g  c e r t a i n that the data  c o l l e c t i o n method a f f e c t e d h i s responses t o t h a t e x t e n t ,  t h e f i g u r e s on  p r e v a l e n c e of o p e r a t i o n s  of r e f e r e n c e ,  of t h e semantic r e l a t i o n  'Demonstrative + E n t i t y ' , w i l l be much l e s s  impressive  and comparison w i t h other  p a r t i c u l a r l y of nomination, and  s t u d i e s w i l l be more d i f f i c u l t .  40 B. "hey"  "hey".  I have i n t e r p r e t e d the two-morpheme u t t e r a n c e s w i t h  as e x p r e s s i o n s o f the o p e r a t i o n of nomination,  c o n t r a r y t o how  Brown seems t o t r e a t o c c u r r e n c e s o f such morphemes. t h a t such forms have l i t t l e ing  interest  While he says  (180), I f e e l t h a t G a b r i e l i s say-  something l i k e "Look a t " or "See" when he uses t h i s word.  one-word u t t e r a n c e s and multi-morpheme combinations,  In b o t h  i t served t h e  purpose of f o c u s s i n g the a t t e n t i o n o:f-"others on h i s own i n t e r e s t s . While  i t wasn't always c l e a r l y r e f e r e n t i a l  ( f o r example, when i t  o c c u r r e d w i t h a v e r b ) , i t was one o f the ways i n which G a b r i e l systemati c a l l y introduced objects into discussion;  i n t h i s r o l e "hey" i s sup-  p o r t e d by p h o n o l o g i c a l s i m i l a r i t y t o the a d u l t Dakota d e i c t i c /he/, which o c c u r r e d o f t e n i n the speech C.  /ye/ or /ya/.  around him.  The p a r t i c l e /ye/ ( u s u a l l y /ya/ i n G a b r i e l ' s  p r o d u c t i o n s ) i s the next most f r e q u e n t presumptive w i t h /ka/, i t s o c c u r r e n c e  As  i n two-morpheme u t t e r a n c e s i s p o s i t i o n a l l y  r e s t r i c t e d , i n t h i s case t o f i n a l p o s i t i o n without wise,  p i v o t t o /ka/.  i t occurs f r e q u e n t l y i n the a d u l t speech;  exception.  Like-  /ye/ i s the female  speech v a r i a n t o f the d e c l a r a t i v e sentence ending p a r t i c l e , which means, roughly;,, " i t i s a fact"."'"  J u s t as a p h o n e t i c segment, /ye/ ( o r /ya/)  has wide d i s t r i b u t i o n i n Dakota, f o r example, as a v e r b a l p r e f i x (see p. 1 9 ) , and i t i s easy f o r a c h i l d finally  t o produce.  While  i t occurred only  i n two-morpheme u t t e r a n c e s , i t was sometimes m e d i a l i n u t t e r a n c e s  l o n g e r than two morphemes, g i v i n g the i m p r e s s i o n t h a t i t operated r a t h e r as a type of morpheme boundary than simply an u t t e r a n c e boundary.  "Stale  With  c h i l d r e n n o r m a l l y a c q u i r e the female speech v a r i a n t s f i r s t because of t h e i r constant exposure t o females d u r i n g t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f life. At around t h e age o f 5 they r e c e i v e more f o r m a l t r a i n i n g i n a p p r o p r i a t e male speech forms.  41 such a meaning ( i . e . , as a boundary marker), c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of /ye/ u t t e r a n c e s i n t o semantic r e l a t i o n s c a t e g o r i e s i s not p o s s i b l e .  Indeed,  Brown d e s c r i b e s t h r e e types of " o t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n s " which c o u l d not be classified.  Of t h e s e , the c a t e g o r y o f " i d i o s y n c r a t i c and  terms" seems best to account f o r G a b r i e l ' s use of /ye/.  inflexible Brown e l a b o r -  a t e s t h a t such a form i s one ". . . t h a t i s p e r c e p t u a l l y s a l i e n t  and  h i g h l y f r e q u e n t i n the speech of a p a r t i c u l a r p a r e n t (which becomes) lodged i n the speech of t h a t p a r e n t ' s c h i l d a f u l l range of a p p r o p r i a t e environments e x p l o r e t h i s , i t may  though i t w i l l not be used i n  (179-80)."  Although I didn't  be t h a t the f r e q u e n t a d u l t expansions of G a b r i e l ' s  one-word u t t e r a n c e s , making them i n t o more complete u t t e r a n c e s o f t h e form Word + /ye/, c o u l d have encouraged G a b r i e l t o form an 'Add r u l e i n h i s own i n the d a t a . a  system.  There a r e examples  of such b u i l d - u p  /ye/'  sequences  A l t h o u g h Wilma t r a n s l a t e d Word + /ye/ u t t e r a n c e s as " I t ' s ", I would h e s i t a t e to c l a s s i f y G a b r i e l ' s Word + /ye/ u t t e r -  ances as i n s t a n c e s of the o p e r a t i o n of nomination. D.  /eya/.  than /ye/.  T h i s f o u r t h presumptive p i v o t i s even l e s s  precise  I t g e n e r a l l y appears i n f i n a l p o s i t i o n , and G a b r i e l seems  to p r e f e r t o use i t f o l l o w i n g h i s i m i t a t i o n s of a c t i o n s o r comments on the end s t a t e s of o b j e c t s or on t h e i r u s u a l motions or a c t i v i t i e s . Wilma t r a n s l a t e d i t as " i t  says or goes l i k e t h a t " .  This i s l i k e l y  another i d i o s y n c r a t i c and i n f l e x i b l e term which has been r e i n f o r c e d i n the c h i l d ' s system.  The one problem w i t h a p p l y i n g  d e s c r i p t i o n to e i t h e r /eya/ or /ye/ i s t h a t G a b r i e l does some f l e x i b i l i t y  coincidentally  i n t h i s use of b o t h of them;  this  demonstrate  t h a t i s , each appears t o  be under some c o n t r o l i n h i s morpheme combination s t r a t e g i e s , perhaps i n the way  t h a t Dore et a l (1976) suggest, as p l a c e h o l d e r morphemes,  42 i n c i p i e n t sentence ending they do not  p a r t i c l e s , or verbs  (21-23).  In e i t h e r  case  l e n d themselves e a s i l y to a n a l y s i s as o p e r a t i o n s of r e f e r e n c e .  i Word order i n the two-morpheme u t t e r a n c e s Brown concludes  t h a t word o r d e r i s one  of the s i m p l e r d e v i c e s  avail-  a b l e to c h i l d r e n to formall}' mark t h e i r . s e m a n t i c i n t e n t i o n s i n Stage I (167), and he concludes Slobin's  from evidence  i n E n g l i s h a c q u i s i t i o n studies that  (1971) o p e r a t i n g p r i n c i p l e - ' — p a y a t t e n t i o n to the order of words  and morphemes—has some v a l i d i t y ,  i n terms of the c h i l d ' s competence.  r e f e r s t o Bloom's (1970) p o s i t i o n on the c h i l d ' s use of word  He  order:  . . . when a Stage I c h i l d speaking E n g l i s h uses two or t h r e e words i n an u t t e r a n c e i n j u s t t h a t s e r i a l o r d e r which i s a p p r o p r i a t e to the context of r e f e r e n c e as an a d u l t sees i t , then the c h i l d has made a k i n d of d i s c r i m i n a t i n g response which may be taken as e v i dence t h a t he i n t e n d s the semantic r e l a t i o n s the o r d e r i m p l i e s and not j u s t the meanings of the i n d i v i d u a l words (Brown, 65). In f a c t , w i t h u t t e r a n c e s  so s h o r t and w i t h the p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r e x t r a p -  o l a t i o n so numerous i n most speech c o n t e x t s , the c h i l d ' s combinations of morphemes may  i n d i c a t e n o t h i n g more than h i s d e s i r e to comment on  o b j e c t s / e v e n t s which to him  are i n j u x t a p o s i t i o n .  Howe (1976) p o i n t s  out the c i r c u l a r i t y of Brown's (and Bloom's) p o s i t i o n ;  Brown has  p r e t e d t h e semantic i n t e n t i o n s u n d e r l y i n g the c h i l d ' s u t t e r a n c e s paying a t t e n t i o n to word order and word o r d e r to express  those  then c r e d i t e d the c h i l d w i t h  intentions.  She  a l s o suggests  F r a s e r , 1963;  Brown and  B e l l u g i , 1964)  t a i n s word o r d e r i n i m i t a t i o n s . bears  that various researchers have found  While one may  interby  using  that  i s a h i g h degree o f i m i t a t i o n i n the c h i l d ' s u t t e r a n c e s d u r i n g p e r i o d of language development and  two  there  this  (Brown and  t h a t the c h i l d main-  wish to assume t h a t  on the c h i l d ' s use of word o r d e r i n spontaneous speech, Howe  c a u t i o n s t h a t such a r e l a t i o n s h i p has not y e t been e s t a b l i s h e d (43).  this  43 The adult Dakota speech i n Gabriel's environment order.  Table 3.5  i s r e l a t i v e l y fixed i n  (p. 34) gives the percentage of Gabriel's two-term  utterances which maintain appropriate word order. With an average of 95% appropriate word order, I w i l l assume that Gabriel has either internalized or evolved some notion of morpheme sequencing.  No tests were performed to determine his comprehension  of  contrastive orders, however, and so the results are of limited interest. Sequencing of the verbal a f f i x e s , which w i l l come at a l a t e r time i n development, w i l l provide a clearer test of his attention to this aspect of language. The semantic relations The semantic characterization of Gabriel's utterances so f a r has been confined to pivot type constructions.  These constructions have  the form of a small set of fixed constants i n combination with a large set of variables, which Brown says mainly express operations of r e f e r ence (nomination, recurrence, non-existence and reference to s e l f or mother).  I found s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t results with the presumptive  pivots I i d e n t i f i e d i n Gabriel's speech  samples.  The search f o r the semantic r e l a t i o n s Brown says are expressed by the child's early morpheme combinations involves redefining the .operations of reference where possible and i d e n t i f y i n g correlates of adult semantic functions i n the child's data.  Brown states his relations i n  terms similar to those i n Chafe's (1969) and Fillmore's (1968) models. He raises the consideration that " . . .  description i n terms of a set of  prevalent semantic relations may be l i t t l e more than a technique of data reduction, a way of describing the meanings of early sentences short of  44  l i s t i n g them a l l .  . . . (173)", but the fact that, i n his findings, most  of the interpretable utterances f e l l into only eight of a l l the possible relations a human language i s capable of expressing and this with s u r p r i s ing uniformity across children and languages, suggests that there i s some p r i n c i p l e underlying the r e s u l t s .  Howe points out that Bloom, Schlesinger  and Slobin, working separately from Brown and independently  of one another,  arrived at very similar conclusions about the semantic intentions expressed by the child's early multi-morphemic utterances  (Howe, 29), although  suggests a very d i f f e r e n t reason for this consensus.  she  Brown feels con-  fident enough about his hypothesis to make the stronger claim of i n v a r i ance across languages i n this development, saying that these basic meanings (his semantic relations) are somehow "made a v a i l a b l e " to the c h i l d when he starts to form  sentences.  It has already been shown that one construction type i n Gabriel's corpus—/ka/ + Word—accounted for a large number of Gabriel's morpheme utterances.  two-  Many of the tokens of this type f i t the descrip-  t i o n of the r e l a t i o n Demonstrative + Entity and so a high representation in this category can already be expected.  R e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the other  presumptive pivots i n Gabriel's corpus wasn't possible;  for example, my  tentative i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of "hey" + Word utterances as equivalent to "look at" + Word could not r e a l l y be extended to f i t the r e l a t i o n a l category of Act + Object without a great deal of speculation.  Tables  3.6 and 3.7 below give the results of my analysis of Gabriel's multimorphemic utterances i n terms of Brown's d e f i n i t i o n s of the prevalent semantic r e l a t i o n s . A glance at Table 3.6 reveals that most posited r e l a t i o n s are barely or not at a l l represented  i n Gabriel's multi-morphemic utterances.  45 TABLE 3.6 SESSIONAL RESULTS FROM GABRIEL FOR SEMANTIC RELATIONS EXPRESSED IN MULTI-MORPHEMIC UTTERANCES  Constr. I MLU  No. o f types*  II  III  IV  Session XII VII  XIII  XIV  XV  XVI  Aver.  1.38 1.30 1.24 1.17 1.82 1.50 1.42 1.23 1.18 1.38  53  23  73  49  138  90  82  95  81  54  02 02 02 00 00 00 09 30  04 00 00 00 04 04 00 30  12 00 00 00 04 00 08 26  12 00 00 04 00 02 06 27  17 00 00 00 05 01 11 , 20  12 00 00 00 01 00 09 26  06 00 00 00 04 00 12 12  09 01 01 00 05 02 06 12  09 00 00 00 01 00 15 21  15 04 00 02 00 00 02 02  10 007 003 006 02 01 08 21  2-morph. relations Ag.+Act. Act.+Obj. Ag.+Obj. Act.+Loc. Ent.+Loc. Poss.+Poss. Ent.+Attr. Dem.+Ent. 3-morph. relations  -  Ag.+Act.+Obj. Ag.+Act.+Loc. Ag.+Obj.+Loc. Act.+Obj.+Loc.  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 . 00  00 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  02 00 00 00  00 00 00 00  Total %  45  42  50  51  54  48  34  36  46  27  43  *minus u n i n t e r p r e t a b l e s  f  TABLE 3.7 PERCENTAGES PREVALENT RELATIONS FOR GABRIEL COMPARED WITH RESULTS FROM BROWN'S STUDY  Constr.  Kendall I  MLU  1.10  Multimorph. types  100  % prev. reis.  81  Gabriel  1.38  43  Seppo I  Kendall II  Viveka  Sipili  Tofi  Eve I  Sarah I  Seppo II  Rina I  Pepe  Adam I  1.42  1.48  1.50  1.52  1.60  1.68  1.73  1.81  1.83  1.85  2.06  111  152  112  112  75  146  183  272  203  242  229  67  72  69  30  51  58  44  74  70  70  64  47 The average a c r o s s the t e n s e s s i o n s i s 43%, which p l a c e s him, as i s shown i n T a b l e 3.7, Sarah I.  between the two low f i g u r e s of 30% f o r S i p i l i  and 44% f o r  The average a c r o s s the twelve Brown c h i l d r e n i s 63%  morphemic u t t e r a n c e s e x p r e s s i n g semantic r e l a t i o n s .  multi-  Because G a b r i e l  f a l l s s i g n i f i c a n t l y s h o r t of t h i s f i g u r e , i t i s i n o r d e r t o s p e c u l a t e as to  p o s s i b l e reasons f o r the d i s p a r i t y . First,  any s i m i l a r i t i e s between G a b r i e l ' s data and t h a t of  and Sarah I c o u l d be r e v e a l i n g .  Brown f e e l s c e r t a i n t h a t the low  f i g u r e s o b t a i n e d f o r the l a t t e r two  c h i l d r e n can be e x p l a i n e d by the manner  i n which t h e i r d a t a were c o l l e c t e d .  He s a i d t h a t the mothers o f these  c h i l d r e n c r e a t e d an u n n a t u r a l speech environment i n an e f f o r t  to e l i c i t  Sipili  speech.  "The  by a s k i n g them q u e s t i o n s  r e s u l t i n g p r o t o c o l s f o r the c h i l d r e n  were, c o n s e q u e n t l y , o v e r l o a d e d w i t h the names of t h i n g s , simple nominat i v e s l i k e a book, which were not counted among the p r e v a l e n t r e l a t i o n s (Brown, 178)." of  the f i r s t  A l t h o u g h t h i s type of ' i n t e r v i e w i n g ' was  characteristic  f i f t e e n s e s s i o n s w i t h G a b r i e l , many of the i n s t a n c e s of nom-  i n a t i o n which r e s u l t e d q u a l i f i e d t i o n s and were counted. 'spontaneous',  f o r r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as semantic  In a d d i t i o n , s e s s i o n XVI, which was  a l s o showed the lowest percentage semantic  rela-  more  relations—26%.  A second c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the r e l a t i o n a l results.  I f one were t o remove the f i g u r e s i n the c a t e g o r y Demonstrative  + E n t i t y from T a b l e 3.6,  i t would l e a v e G a b r i e l p r o d u c i n g h a r d l y  semantic r e l a t i o n s a t a l l , l e t a l o n e any u t t e r a n c e s , whatever Not a l l of G a b r i e l ' s u t t e r a n c e s were responses to q u e s t i o n s .  any  the t y p e . S i n c e the  r e l a t i o n Demonstrative + E n t i t y i s e s s e n t i a l l y a naming f u n c t i o n , I assume t h a t naming was  an important f u n c t i o n performed by h i s speech  d u r i n g the p e r i o d of the f i r s t  f i f t e e n s e s s i o n s , both i n response t o  48  questions e l i c i t i n g the names of objects and i n spontaneous speech. In addition, i t should be noted that Gabriel i s starting to i n i t i a t e dialogue, and one of his strategies for doing this i s to point things out and name them, sometimes with a r i s i n g intonation as i f i n v i t i n g responses.  I w i l l discuss nominatives further when I look at Howe's  suggested utterance categories for early speech. It i s interesting to note that Brown bases his calculations on multi-morpheme types. semantic types. conclusions.  I was unable to find out i f he meant by that  If this was not the case, one can draw two possible Either the results w i l l contain that error which ' r i c h  interpretation' i s supposed to avoid (that i s , counting as the same two i d e n t i c a l surface l e v e l utterances which d i f f e r i n deep structure) or i t may be that m u l t i - r e l a t i o n a l (or polysemantic) types do not occur in the 12 corpora (as tended to be the case for G a b r i e l ) , something that.'.could have s l i g h t l y interesting implications. There i s an additional factor i n my analysis of Gabriel's morpheme combinations, and that i s the d i f f i c u l t y I experienced ing Brown's r e l a t i o n a l categories to much of the data.  i n apply-  Provided with  contextual notes taken during the course of the tapings, the help of the caretaker-translator during t r a n s l a t i o n s , and s u f f i c i e n t knowledge of the language to understand p r a c t i c a l l y everything Gabriel said, I could s t i l l not f e e l e n t i r e l y confident about c l a s s i f y i n g i n such s p e c i f i c terms many of the utterances. deeper than d e f i n i t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s .  I believe the problem l i e s  49 Howe's alternative to 'rich interpretation' Christine Howe (1976) attacks the basic assumption of the ' r i c h interpretation' method—that children always intend one of the meanings adults might express.  She says,  At the present state of knowledge, there are grounds for assuming that three very general concepts are available by the time of the f i r s t two-word utterances, namely 'action of concrete object' (regardless of the r o l e of the object i n the action), 'state of concrete object' (whether i t be an 'attribute', a 'location', or a 'possession') and 'name of concrete object' (which Piaget [1962] has shown also to be acquired by the end of the second year) (Howe, 36). In other words, i f we take as a p r i o r i that the child's utterances express and r e f l e c t his knowledge of the world, we must be careful i n how we characterize that knowledge.  Howe notes that we have only  sketchy information about the child's construction of r e a l i t y ;  what we  "know" has been derived from the cognitive studies of Piaget and others. Brown considers Piaget's description of sensorimotor i n t e l l i g e n c e i n j u s t i f y i n g the semantic r e l a t i o n s he has posited;  however, as Howe  points out, he uses the established categories of 'name of object', 'state of object', and 'action of object' as a base from which he extrapolates to the more complex prevalent r e l a t i o n s . Agent + Act + Object utterances  (For example,  ". . . presume the a b i l i t y to d i s t i n -  guish an action from the object of the action and the s e l f from other persons or objects [Brown, 200].")  Howe says we should not so r e a d i l y  attribute to children knowledge about r e l a t i o n s such as Agent + Act + Object even though the apparent prerequisites are there. Howe also attacks the research strategies employed by 'rich interpretationists'.  She describes these as follows:  S p e c i f i c a l l y , i f information about the non-verbal s i t u a t i o n preceding each two-word utterance was available, i t was f e l t that  50 the s i t u a t i o n r e f e r r e d to c o u l d be determined by d i r e c t o b s e r v a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n between the r e f e r e n t s of each word. On the o t h e r hand, i f such i n f o r m a t i o n was not a v a i l a b l e , i t was f e l t t h a t the s i t u a t i o n r e f e r r e d to c o u l d be i n f e r r e d by expanding the two-word u t t e r a n c e i n t o a f e a s i b l e grammatical sentence, which m a i n t a i n e d the word order of the u t t e r a n c e wherever p o s s i b l e , and by assuming t h a t the s i t u a t i o n r e f e r r e d to by t h a t grammatical sentence was the r e f e r e n t of the two-word u t t e r a n c e (40). In l i g h t of her  o b j e c t i o n to the b a s i c assumption of the  p r e t a t i o n ' approach, the f i r s t the a d u l t ' s and  'rich  s t r a t e g y commits the e r r o r of  the c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n s  of any  i s the added c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t o b s e r v a t i o n  given  equating  situation.  interpretation is feasible.  sometimes  This d i f f i c u l t y i s  i n the second s t r a t e g y employed, where almost any can be  There  of the s i t u a t i o n does not  always c l e a r l y r e v e a l the meaning of the c h i l d ' s u t t e r a n c e s ; more than one  inter-  inherent  two-word combination  expanded i n a number of ways without seeming i m p l a u s i b l e .  In  a d d i t i o n , i n the second s t r a t e g y , word o r d e r ,  i n s t e a d of r e f e r e n t  s i t u a t i o n , was  meaning.  used to determine the intended  While Howe's approach means a r e t u r n to a l e a n e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the c h i l d ' s u t t e r a n c e s ,  i t i s one  r a t h e r than on l i n g u i s t i c knowledge. general,  they were easy to apply  c l e a r from h i s u t t e r a n c e s  based on c o g n i t i v e Because her  to G a b r i e l ' s d a t a .  i f he was  more d i f f i c u l t .  proposal,  namely t h a t  categories I felt  are it  so was  commenting on the name, s t a t e or  a c t i o n o f an o b j e c t , whereas d e t e r m i n a t i o n r o l e s was  considerations  o f semantic r e l a t i o n s or  Howe notes another a t t r a c t i o n of  her  . . . many of the u t t e r a n c e s e x p r e s s i n g each of these concepts have c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s u r f a c e s t r u c t u r e f e a t u r e s . Specifically the presence of a v e r b of a c t i o n s i g n i f i e s u t t e r a n c e s about the a c t i o n s of c o n c r e t e o b j e c t s ; the presence of an a d j e c t i v e s i g n i f i e s u t t e r a n c e s about the s t a t e s of c o n c r e t e o b j e c t s ; and the presence o f a d e m o n s t r a t i v e pronoun, an i m p e r s o n a l pronoun or a p r o l o c a t i v e (or a few, more i d i o s y n c r a t i c , i n t r o d u c e r s l i k e see) s i g n i f i e s u t t e r a n c e s about names of o b j e c t s (36).  51 I attempted to apply these categories to Gabriel's multi-morphemic utterances and the r e s u l t s are given i n Table 3.8 below. demonstrates, i f nothing more, that i t was  easier to account for more  of Gabriel's utterances using the broader classes. that most of Gabriel's utterances of objects.  This table  It also shows  are about the names of or the actions  Howe's point i s that, while this seems to say  little  about the child's a c q u i s i t i o n of language, i t says most of what we say about the meanings of the f i r s t two-word utterances. that the 'rich interpretation' approach has opened a new  She suggests area i n  a c q u i s i t i o n studies which needs to be further investigated. that Brown's, Bloom's, Schlesinger's and  can  She says  Slobin's  . . . most s i g n i f i c a n t , though unintentional, contribution to the study of c h i l d language development could be their demonstration of the strategies parents use to interpret their children's speech. Parents assume that the two-word utterances of t h e i r children express one of the meanings they would themselves express. Parents use word order and their perceptions of the r e l a t i o n between referents of their children's utterances as clues to i n t e r p r e t a t i o n (45). If we accept Howe's c r i t i c i s m s , we must assume that grammars cannot be written for early c h i l d speech, even i f a semantically-defined model i s used. Summary An analysis of Gabriel's multi-morphemic data based on Brown's (1973) model was  taken i n order to examine one aspect of learning  to mean—the construction of propositions.  how  The pivot look which Brown  predicts for Stage I.'(or early syntactic) speech i s apparent i n Gabriel's corpus, and q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of the two-morpheme utterances possible presumptive p i v o t s — / k a / , "hey", /ye/ and /eya/.  revealed Of  only /ka/ seemed to be a clear example of a pivot which created  four  these,  TABLE 3.8 HOWE'S CATEGORIES APPLIED TO GABRIEL'S MULTI-MORPHEMIC UTTERANCES  Category  Session XII XIII  I  II  III  IV  VII  XIV  XV  XVI  28  31  40  54  27  43  A l l multimorph. 35  28  36  51  36  65  58  49  41  54  60  46  7  11  A l l multiTotal % morph. 11  Aver.  51  34  30  64  40  45  49  47  38  67  43  43  40  40  53  62  24  48  37  31  38  38  38  52  18  41  11  5  24  16  8  11  7  12  21  8  11  5  21  14  8  12  9  10  11  100  100  100  100  94  99  99  99  99  100  A l l multimorph. 100  96  93  93  88  97  95  97  99  95  Action 2-morph.  Name 2-morph. All  multi-  morph.  State 2-morph.  2-morph.  53 operations of reference utterances; confidence.  "hey" was so c l a s s i f i e d with less  The order of Gabriel's multi-morphemic utterances was con-  sistent and appropriate as far as could be determined through comparison with adult sequencing.  C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of the multi-morpheme utterances  in terms of Brown's posited semantic r e l a t i o n s showed that these categories accounted for considerably fewer of Gabriel's structures than the average found by Brown (Gabriel's 43% compared to Brown's average across 12 children of 63%).  Three considerations are raised by this r e s u l t ;  that the interview nature of the f i r s t f i f t e e n sessions made Gabriel's data unnaturally overloaded with nominatives;  that one r e l a t i o n domin-  ated to the near exclusion of others, namely Demonstrative + E n t i t y , indicating that naming i s an important  function of early c h i l d speech;  and that Brown's categories are too s p e c i f i c to apply to the deformed and ambiguous utterances of Stage I.  Howe's (1976) c r i t i c i s m s of the  'rich interpretation' approach used by Brown and others were introduced in r e l a t i o n to the t h i r d consideration.  One further c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of  the multi-morphemic utterances, this time i n terms of the three general utterance categories suggested by Howe—name of object, state of object, and action of object—account  for almost a l l of Gabriel's utterances and  indicate that most of them express either the names or the actions of obj ects. While Howe urges caution i n the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of meanings of the f i r s t two-word utterances, there are other issues i n the determination of meaning development which are currently under i n v e s t i g a t i o n .  Among  these are the r o l e of discourse and the functions of c h i l d language i n communication situations.  Propositional meaning as characterized by  Brown i s most properly termed semantic;  pragmatic meaning as determined  through the child's use of language i s the focus of the next chapter.  CHAPTER FOUR  FUNCTIONAL MEANING  Introduction T h i s chapter  considers  Gabriel's a b i l i t y  t o mean as a f u n c t i o n of  h i s performance i n language i n t e r a c t i o n s , p a r t i c u l a r l y dialogue  patterns.  i n h i s emerging  D i s c u s s i o n i s shaped by H a l l i d a y ' s (1975) f u n c t i o n a l  model of language a c q u i s t i o n , i n which he s t a t e s t h a t the t o t a l  semantic  or meaning system a c h i l d a c q u i r e s does not j u s t c o n s i s t o f r e f e r e n t i a l (word meaning) and r e l a t i o n a l is,  encompassing these,  ( p r o p o s i t i o n a l meaning) components;  a f u n c t i o n a l component whereby the c h i l d  t o use language to perform d i f f e r e n t numerous aspects  communicative t a s k s .  there learns  There a r e  to the a c q u i s i t i o n o f pragmatic f l u e n c y , but t h e focus  here i s G a b r i e l ' s i n i t i a t i o n of and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d i a l o g u e ,  a devel-  opment which marks h i s i n c r e a s i n g s o c i a l involvement and which b r i n g s his personal  language system under the i n f l u e n c e o f t h e c o l l e c t i v e  adult  system.  Language use Bates  (1976) p o i n t s out t h a t meaning s t u d i e s i n developmental  p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s tend  t o be o f two t y p e s :  those which t r e a t meaning as  o b j e c t and focus on the meaning o f words and p r o p o s i t i o n s , and those which t r e a t meaning as a c t and d e a l w i t h She notes t h a t language p h i l o s o p h e r s 54  the uses o f language i n c o n t e x t .  such as Strawson (1950) and Frege  55 (1952) stress that not a l l meaning can be reduced to reference, but rather that speakers are active i n the creation of meaning i n d i f f e r e n t i n fact they consider  contexts;  'referring' to be "an a c t i v i t y or use of language  by speakers rather than an object or property of sentences (Bates, 423)." One  form of this approach i s t y p i f i e d i n studies such as Greenfield  and Smith (1976) and P a r i s ! (1974), which Bates reviews.  These writers  are concerned with incorporating some notion of the c h i l d ' s actions i n i t s construction of meanings, represented  perhaps by sensorimotor struc-  tures and i n e x t r i c a b l y t i e d to the environment of the referents.  They  say that the c h i l d constructs his meanings by a combination of a l i n g u i s t i c expression which encodes some aspect of the context which i s at the same time related to the context surrounding  that aspect.  They add,  "The connection between the e x p l i c i t l y symbolized and encoded meaning and the i m p l i c i t , perceptual-motor meaning i s often indicated with such overt acts as pointing, orientation of the body, eye contact, etc. 423)."  (Bates,  These gestures help adults to respond more appropriately to what  the c h i l d i s trying to make his language do for him at a time when his l i n g u i s t i c devices are too i d i o s y n c r a t i c or i n s u f f i c i e n t .  Any  assumptions  about the c h i l d ' s meaning potential or intentions must r e l a t e d i r e c t l y to the context of utterances, since his construction of r e a l i t y i s so  context-  bound at the time of early speech. Halliday's work i s more concerned with the established functions of language (such as getting things, regulating others, expressing feelings, e t c . ) .  He  personal  says,  The r e l a t i o n s h i p of t a l k to the environment l i e s i n the t o t a l semiotic structure of the i n t e r a c t i o n : the s i g n i f i c a n t ongoing a c t i v i t y (and i t i s only through this that 'things' enter into the picture, i n a very i n d i r e c t way), and the s o c i a l matrix within which meanings are being exchanged (Halliday, 141).  56 In other words, language i s much more than j u s t words and about o b j e c t s  and  events and  the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between them;  s o c i a l instrument through which a c u l t u r e and w i t h i n i t are being l e a r n s how before  acquired.  the r u l e s f o r  i t is a operating  In f a c t , H a l l i d a y says t h a t the  to perform a number of d i f f e r e n t meaning f u n c t i o n s  he has  the words or grammatical s t r u c t u r e s to r e a l i z e  meanings i n the a d u l t language. appear v e r y  sentences  The  e a r l y , b e f o r e what has  b e g i n n i n g of language, and  long those  f a c t t h a t t h e s e f u n c t i o n s seem t o  t r a d i t i o n a l l y been c o n s i d e r e d  t h a t they are the same as the  around which the a d u l t language i s c o n s t r u c t e d ,  then  (420). of the f i r s t  of recent  s t u d i e s to a t t r i b u t e  of h i s model i s t h a t he a c c e p t s as language any  t i o n a l l y consistent phonological language, then, can be  and  g e s t u r a l forms;  On  func-  the b e g i n n i n g s of  found i n the c h i l d ' s f i r s t v o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n s ,  b e f o r e words i n the a d u l t sense and  before  syntax, at a time when he i s  l e a r n i n g t h a t v o i c i n g i s an a c t i o n j u s t as are p o i n t i n g and H a l l i d a y takes as a p r i o r i t h a t language, even a r t i f i c i a l some f u n c t i o n i n r e l a t i o n to the speaker and  audience.  Bates  power to pragmatic development i n an a c q u i s i t i o n model.  important aspect  serves  that  linguistic  development i s pragmatic, from which semantic development and  explanatory  the  functions  (Halliday, 9).  expresses a s i m i l a r view, s t a t i n g t h a t the c h i l d ' s base  H a l l i d a y ' s work i s one  as  suggests to him  they are what i s b a s i c i n the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s  s y n t a c t i c development proceed  child  grasping. utterances,  h i s environment  T h i s a p p l i e s as w e l l to c h i l d language as to a d u l t  and  language.  H a l l i d a y d i v i d e s the a c q u i s i t i o n p r o c e s s i n t o t h r e e phases which d i f f e r from one and  another i n terms of degree of f u n c t i o n a l e l a b o r a t i o n  communicative competence.  While, i n the e a r l i e s t  phase, f u n c t i o n  57 equals use, the construction of a lexicogrammatical system i n the second phase makes possible multifunctional utterances which, i n the t h i r d phase, f i n a l l y acquire the shape they have i n the adult language.  As  Halliday says, the functional component i s part of the nature of language.  Language i s organized around the expression  of  functions  which are shaped by t y p i c a l interactions between humans i n their roles as speaker and hearer.  The c h i l d acquiring language i s acquiring knowledge  of what he can do i n r e l a t i o n to others and what language can do to a s s i s t him i n these interactions.  Halliday's phases In Halliday's study of his c h i l d Nigel, Phase I started at 0;9 lasted u n t i l about 1;6, appeared.  during which time six basic language functions  The phonological  the c h i l d .  and  Phase II was  forms used to express them were invented  by  marked by the sudden increase i n adult-word  vocabulary and the appearance of word combinations—the lexicogrammatical system which makes possible multifunctional utterances  and leads to the  major work of acquiring the formal structure and rules of the adult language, which Halliday describes as the job of Phase I I I . The focus of the following discussion i s on Phase II speech. Apart from the vocabulary increase and onset of syntax mentioned above, two other important developments occur i n Phase I I .  These are  dialogue,  participated i n and i n i t i a t e d by the c h i l d , and a seventh function, which Halliday c a l l s the Informative function.  Both phenomena signal a marked  development i n the child's knowledge about language. dialogue  i s conducted according  A successful  to a complex of rules which are  defined  by the culture i n general and f i t t e d to each p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l s e t t i n g .  58 Learning  how  dialogue  situations.  cates  to mean n e c e s s i t a t e s The  l e a r n i n g how  appearance of the  to be competent i n  Informative  function  t h a t the c h i l d r e a l i z e s t h a t language can be used not  express needs and  emotions, but  to g i v e and  only  indito  receive information.  appearance of t h i s f u n c t i o n i s t i e d to the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y  to  The  'represent'  i n P i a g e t i a n terms (Phase I I corresponds i n many ways to P i a g e t ' s motor substage VI and  Brown's Stage I ) .  t r a n s i t i o n a l phase because i t was  sensori-  H a l l i d a y terms Phase I I as  during  t h i s time t h a t he noted  a  the  development of a major d i v i s i o n between the b a s i c m a c r o - c a t e g o r i e s of pragmatic  (performative)  and  mathetic  f e e l s correspond to the i d e a t i o n a l and  ( i d e a t i o n a l ) f u n c t i o n s , which  he  i n t e r p e r s o n a l components of  the  a d u l t f u n c t i o n a l system.  Functional  components of the a d u l t  In h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the  language  sources of f u n c t i o n a l c o n c e p t s , H a l l i d a y  says, . . . the a d u l t language d i s p l a y s c e r t a i n f e a t u r e s which can o n l y be i n t e r p r e t e d i n f u n c t i o n a l terms. These are found, n a t u r a l l y , i n the area of meaning: the semantic system of the a d u l t language i s v e r y c l e a r l y f u n c t i o n a l i n i t s c o m p o s i t i o n . . . . But what i s r e a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t i s that t h i s f u n c t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e i s c a r r i e d over and b u i l t i n to the grammar, so t h a t the i n t e r n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of the grammatical system i s a l s o f u n c t i o n a l i n c h a r a c t e r (16). He d i s t i n g u i s h e s among t h r e e  'sets of o p t i o n s ' which he  the f u n c t i o n a l component of the semantic system: i n t e r p e r s o n a l and  textual.  s t r a i n t s (as d e s c r i b e d  The  the i d e a t i o n a l ,  d i s t i n c t i o n i n v o l v e s s y s t e m i c con-  by F i r t h ' s [1957] s y s t e m - s t r u c t u r e  t h a t a speaker's s e l e c t i o n s i n one c h o i c e s w i t h i n t h a t s e t and not  says c o n s t i t u t e  set of o p t i o n s  the c h o i c e s  theory) such  a f f e c t o n l y the  i n the other  sets.  other words, i f a speaker makes a statement about something he  other In  has  59 observed  (an i d e a t i o n a l language u s e ) ,  the p o s s i b i l i t y o f u s i n g (an i n t e r p e r s o n a l  he does not exclude h i m s e l f  from  t h a t statement, say, t o i n f l u e n c e h i s audience  language u s e ) .  The i d e a t i o n a l (or o b s e r v e r )  options  r e l a t e t o t h e content of what i s s a i d , language as a means o f t a l k i n g about t h e r e a l w o r l d ;  the i n t e r p e r s o n a l  (or i n t r u d e r )  options  are the  means whereby t h e speaker p a r t i c i p a t e s i n t h e communication s i t u a t i o n , expressing  judgments and a t t i t u d e s , e t c . ; t h e t e x t u a l f u n c t i o n i s what  i s i n t r i n s i c t o language, what r e l a t e s u t t e r a n c e s  one t o another and t o  the c o n t e x t , so t h a t speech i s not j u s t l i s t s o f words  (16-17).  F u n c t i o n s of Phases I and I I In o r d e r t o c h a r a c t e r i z e the f u n c t i o n a l p o t e n t i a l o f the c h i l d acquiring  language, H a l l i d a y brought t o g e t h e r h i s o b s e r v a t i o n s  language use by t h e c h i l d , t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f u n c t i o n , and c o n s i d e r a t i o n s transmission  i n the a c q u i s i t i o n process.  On the b a s i s of these he o f Phase I ( 1 8 ) :  I n s t r u m e n t a l — T h i s i s the use o f language f o r g e t t i n g t h i n g s s a t i s f y i n g one's needs, a k i n d o f 'I want to be  2.  linguistic  o f the r o l e o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n and c u l t u r a l  proposed the f o l l o w i n g as the f u n c t i o n s 1.  about  of  . . .'function.  done o r I t tends  object-oriented.  R e g u l a t o r y — T h i s i s t h e use o f language f o r c o n t r o l l i n g the b e h a v i o u r of o t h e r s ;  i t i s focussed  on a p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l , a 'Do t h a t  . . .'  function. 3.  I n t e r a c t i o n a l — T h i s i s the use of language f o r i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h including greetings  4.  Personal—This  others,  and i n v i t a t i o n s t o p l a y .  i s the use o f language f o r e x p r e s s i n g  d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the s e l f from the environment.  the p e r s o n a l i t y ,  H a l l i d a y c a l l s i t the  60 'Here I come' f u n c t i o n . 5.  H e u r i s t i c — T h i s i s t h e use of language t o explore often  6.  i n terms o f a s k i n g  Imaginative—This  t h e environment,  f o r t h e names o f t h i n g s .  i s t h e use o f language f o r play  A seventh f u n c t i o n — t h e  Informative  and  pretending.  function—appears  Phase I I and i s t h e use o f l a n g u a g e t o communicate  later i n  information.  Halliday points out, The i d e a t h a t l a n g u a g e c a n b e u s e d a s a means o f c o m m u n i c a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t o someone who d o e s n o t a l r e a d y p o s s e s s t h a t informat i o n i s a v e r y s o p h i s t i c a t e d one w h i c h depends on t h e i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n o f a whole complex s e t o f l i n g u i s t i c concepts t h a t t h e young c h i l d does n o t p o s s e s s . I t i s the only purely i n t r i n s i c f u n c t i o n of language, the only use of language i n a f u n c t i o n that i s d e f i n a b l e s o l e l y by r e f e r e n c e t o language. . . . I t i s u s e f u l , however, t o r e f e r t o i t a t t h i s p o i n t , p a r t i c u l a r l y because i t tends t o predominate i n a d u l t t h i n k i n g about language. This, i n f a c t , i s o n e o f t h e r e a s o n s why t h e a d u l t f i n d s i t s o d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e image o f l a n g u a g e t h a t a v e r y young c h i l d h a s i n t e r n a l i z e d (21). It  seems t h a t H a l l i d a y f e e l s t h a t s u c h a p r e c o n c e p t i o n  t o some e x t e n t  f o r t h e f o c u s on s e m a n t i c c o n t e n t r a t h e r  m e a n i n g t a k e n i n many c h i l d As  stated  functions  fall  language  e a r l i e r , H a l l i d a y says t h a t , during i n t o two m a j o r c a t e g o r i e s :  feature  t r a s t i v e use of i n t o n a t i o n . Gabriel's of  than  performative  Phase I I , these  t h e p r a g m a t i c and t h e m a t h e t i c ; functional categories, the  i n t e r p e r s o n a l and t h e i d e a t i o n a l , r e s p e c t i v e l y . on a s t r i k i n g  responsible  studies.  t h e s e a p p e a r t o c o r r e s p o n d t o t h e two a d u l t  conclusion  may b e  H a l l i d a y bases  of N i g e l ' s Phase I I u t t e r a n c e s ,  T h e r e was no e q u i v a l e n t  c o r p u s , however, and t h e r e  of Nigel's  a con-  phenomenon i n  i s the p o s s i b i l i t y  such a d i s t i n c t i o n i s an i d i o s y n c r a s y  this  that  system.  the marking  61 Location of Gabriel i n Halliday's model From what has already been described of Halliday's phases, i t seems clear that Gabriel i s i n Halliday's Phase I I . word combinations;  He i s producing  his lexicon i s s t i l l small r e l a t i v e to the adult  vocabulary (about 100 items) and p a r t i a l l y consists of idiosyncratic form, but i t i s growing.  He exhibits a l l of the Phase I functions i n  his speech and i s a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n and i n i t i a t i n g dialogue. Phase I functions i n Gabriel's speech The following are examples from the data intended to show that Gabriel has mastered the s i x Phase I functions.  They have been gathered  from a survey of a l l sessions and represent t y p i c a l utterances i n the corpus. (1)  Instrumental.  Session I I I , 2;4(4), u t t s . 278-281.  (Gabriel i s asking his cousin Annette for a drink of water. p e r s i s t s u n t i l he gets one.) G:  Hey. Hey. Net. Ka "  (2)  Regulatory.  "  Annette that  mimi.  "Hey. Hey. Annette.  He That water."  /mni/ = water  Session I I , 2;4(1), u t t s . 36-39  (Gabriel and Wilma are looking through a mail-order catalogue.) G:  Hiyu.  come-here  K|:  +  zl.  "Come here.  That one."  that /wa2i/ = one  (Wilma starts to turn to the next page.) G:  Hiya\  HiyS.  "No. No."  (Gabriel t r i e s to stop her from turning the page.) (3)  Interactional.  Session IV, 2;4(5), u t t s . 114-117  (Gabriel i n i t i a t e s a turn-taking game with Esther, whom he c a l l s 'Andrew', around the a c t i v i t y of pushing a toy truck along the f l o o r to one another.)  62 G:  Eya  Andu.  Eya,  eya  Andrew Personal.  Andu.  Eya.  "Go (?) Andrew, go (?), e t c . "  Andrew  Session VII, 2;4(8), utts. 47-48.  (Gabriel and Esther fight over some toy animals.) G:  Andrew.  "Andrew."  II A:  Andrew  aim  ha?  sleep  Q.  " G:  Ka  /mam^Ln/.  that  "Is Andrew sleeping?"  "That's mine."  "mine"  (Gabriel then slaps Esther.) Heuristic.  Session IV, 2;4(5), u t t . 70  (Gabriel watches Wilma putting calomine l o t i o n on her arms.) G:  KS  /vawa/?  that  /w£we/ = hurt  Imaginative.  "That hurt?"  Session IV, 2;4(5), u t t s . 347-348  (Wilma holds a ceramic ornament of a horse against Gabriel's back where he can't see i t . ) W:  G:  He  taku  ha?  that  what  Q.  Cici.  "What's that?"  "Monster."  monster W:  G:  Cici  S n i y£.  monster  N.  Hiya. no  " I t ' s not a monster."  F. "No." (negative disagreement)  63 It didn't seem that q u a n t i f i c a t i o n of the data i n terms of the functions would be p a r t i c u l a r l y useful.  The predominance of  one  function over the others might r e f l e c t some functional p r i o r i t i e s i n the child's system, but the main point i s that the c h i l d i s capable of using language i n a number of functional s i t u a t i o n s . t i o n of these situations i s s t i l l problematic; utterances may  The  many of the child's  accomplish something they were not intended  result of interactant misinterpretation.  identifica-  to, as a  In addition, what I have  chosen as examples of the Phase I functions i n Gabriel's speech  may  not i n fact correspond to what Halliday intended, but this would be  the  result of trying to match two children on the basis of possibly i d i o syncratic category d e f i n i t i o n s . Effect of interviewing on Gabriel's speech I noted e a r l i e r that much of Gabriel's speech i n the f i r s t sessions was  i n response to e l i c i t a t i o n questions  fifteen  designed to get him to  speak more.  In terms of a Brown-type study, such a c o l l e c t i o n procedure  i s considered  undesirable because e l i c i t e d speech tends to be of..one  type, simple nominations, as opposed to spontaneous speech which i s usually more various.  While interviewing could r e s u l t i n a functional  skew (for example, many H e u r i s t i c utterances), any adult i n t e r a c t i o n with the c h i l d , no matter how to language development. utterances  modelled, i s considered  to be contributing  It i s i n l i s t e n i n g to and responding to the  of others and i n experiencing  that the c h i l d acquires i t himself.  language i n the s o c i a l setting  As might be expected, i n a compari-  son; of the two sessions where Gabriel's t o t a l output was  the greatest  and the smallest, there were more speech e l i c i t a t i o n s directed towards  64 Gabriel, more responses made to Gabriel's i n i t i a t i o n e f f o r t s and fewer of Gabriel's i n t e r a c t i o n attempts ignored i n the session where his output was  greatest. DIALOGUE  Assigning and accepting rdles The basic rule of dialogue i s that i t requires the assigning  and  accepting of the rdles of speaker and hearer i n a kind of turn-taking pattern. listen  The child must understand that when he speaks someone should  ( i f i t i s to be a successful exchange) and that when he has spoken  he can sometimes expect a reply (or, i f he has not spoken f i r s t , that he should attend to speech directed toward him).  The most elementary form  of rfile assignment and acceptance i n Gabriel's data can be seen i n the turn-taking games he plays (usually with Esther).  The games are often  invented on the spot, revolving on some simple a c t i v i t y , the simple r u l e — " f i r s t my turn, then yours".  and involving  They are examples of  ludic behaviour and are often accompanied by laughter, gasps and exaggerated  intonations;  generating (7)  one game seems to serve the sole purpose of  excitement.  Session XIII, 2;4(20), u t t s . 216-252 (Gabriel i n i t i a t e s this game by t e l l i n g Esther to dance.) G:  CI  Andu  ci.  "Dance Andrew dance."  /waci/ = dance Andrew dance (Esther dances, s i t s down and then t e l l s Gabriel to dance; he does so, ending with the exclamation /ha£h/ and s i t s down for Esther's turn. The game continues i n this way for several minutes with the children dancing and laughing.)  65 (8)  Session VII, 2;8(8), u t t s . 2-4 (Esther makes a face and says "Andrew". Gabriel c a l l s her this.) E:  Andrew.  G:  Afidu.  E:  Afidu.  G:  Afidu.  E:  Andrew.  She i s amused that  G: Aridu. E: (9)  Afidu.  Afidu.  Session.,IT,' 2;4(5) , u t t s . 193-213 (Gabriel i n i t i a t e s this game by throwing a toy boat and t e l l i n g Esther to get i t . When she brings i t back, he throws i t again and t e l l s her to get i t . Esther's r61e here i s i n response to Gabriel's commands; she doesn't say anything herself.) G:  Du.  Andu.  Du.  "Get i t , Andrew.  Get i t . "  /icu/—-go-take Andrew go-take (10)  Session XIV, 2;4(21), u t t s . 366-375 (Gabriel and Esther are colouring i n colouring books.) G:  Hey!  (he gasps.)  " E:  Hiyti!  Hiyti!  "Hey! Come here.  Come here."  come-here come-here  Gabriel! "  Hiyti!  "Gabriel!  Come here!"  come-here  G:  Hiyu!  (+5) Hiyu  E:  Hiyu!  Hiyti  Gabriel!  "Come here.  Come here Gabriel."  G:  Hiyti!  Andu  hiyti  "Come here.  Andrew come here, e t c . "  E:  Hiyti  hiyti  Gable  Afidu.  hiyti. de:  "Come here. (+5) Come here Andrew."  "Come here, come here Gabriel, this."  (Esther points to a picture of a duck i n the colouring book.)  66 These exchanges require cooperation around a very simple two-person activity.  They also give the children a chance to practise c e r t a i n  p a r a l i n g u i s t i c elements, raised pitch, varied intonation, gasping and so on.  In example (10), /hiyu/, "come here", seems almost an empty form  used by the children to transmit excited tones;  the excitement  appears  to be contrived, as the exchange ends with their looking at a picture of a duck which they have seen many times before.  Even though these are  play behaviours,they incorporate a skeleton dialogue structure.  Speech routines Another type of i n t e r a c t i o n which serves as a model for dialogue i s the practised speech routine, similar to "Hello, how are you—I'm f i n e " . In Gabriel's case, the best example of such a routine i s the scenario which i s enacted almost every time Wilma l i g h t s a cigarette and l e t s Gabriel blow out the match. (11)  Session IX, 2;4(12), utts. 187-188 (Wilma l i g h t s a cigarette and holds the match out for Gabriel to blow on.) W:  Hiyu.  Waka,  i  /pu/  ahe  +  come-here /wayaka/ = look 'blow' do "Come here. G:  kte  Ka.  P.  "That."  Tdkex?  "How?"  how G:  Kd  /pu/  ya.  OO that 'blow'  ye.  F.  (Gabriel blows out the match.)  F.  Look, blow t h i s . "  that W:  +  oo  1  "That 'blow'."  67 W:  /pu/  ahe  +  kte  ha?  P.  Q.  "Did you blow i t out?"  oo  'blow'  do  This routine recurs i n the data with several small v a r i a t i o n s . The basic elements which always occur are the stimulus (a l i t match) which marks the entry point to the exchange, either an i n v i t a t i o n from Wilma to Gabriel or a request from Gabriel to Wilma to blow out the match, the incorporation of Gabriel's onomatopoeic word /pu/  into  oo  Wilma's utterances during the exchange, the blowing out of the match, and a yes/no question from Wilma as to whether i t has been extinguished, which marks the exit from the exchange. Even though the parts i n a routine have been made r e l a t i v e l y automatic through practice, i t i s more l i k e a dialogue than are the turntaking games.  It involves more than just simple r e p e t i t i o n of one  utterance or act.  There i s a mixture of questions and answers r e l a t i n g  to an ongoing a c t i v i t y i n the context. exchange are not arbitrary i n the way  The beginning and end of the that the games seem to be.  degree of cooperation required between the participants i s higher.  The The  match routine has the same general structure as many of Gabriel's more spontaneous (that i s , unpractised) exchanges with Wilma, and i t operates as one model for new  interactions.  About dialogue There i s no elegant way  of presenting the discourse s k i l l s that  Gabriel i s acquiring at the time of the sampling.  The p r e d i c t a b i l i t y  which exists i n normal spontaneous dialogue involves  speaker-hearer  expectations which are acquired over a l i f e t i m e and which r e l a t e to the functions of dialogue, only one of which i s to convey information.  68 Gabriel's emerging s k i l l s range from i n i t i a t i o n strategies to reparation attempts, when he has realized that he i s not being properly  understood,  to sustaining responses. B a s i c a l l y , there are two kinds of dialogue with G a b r i e l — t h a t i n i t i a t e d by the adult and that i n i t i a t e d by the c h i l d .  Depending on  how a dialogue i s i n i t i a t e d , the person addressed must respond not only with a possible response but also with an appropriate one.  In adult-  i n i t i a t e d exchanges Gabriel did the following: (a)  answered questions or obeyed commands  (b)  gave a general response form, such as /ka/  (c)  requested more information or a r e p e t i t i o n by using "hmmm?" or "huh?"  In G a b r i e l - i n i t i a t e d dialogues, h i s interactants d i d the following: (a)  gave back the child's utterance i n question form;  repeated  (b)  made neutral responses l i k e "ohhh" which were intended to show interest  (c)  reworded and/or expanded the child's utterance  (d)  gave new information With the f i r s t seven sessions I attempted to paragraph the data;  that i s , I marked off the changes i n topic.  This procedure i s hardly  accurate, even when pauses, new referents and new speakers are noted;  I  could not be sure that what seemed l i k e a change of topic to me actually was for Gabriel.  A set of exchanges containing references to several  d i f f e r e n t toys, f o r example, might s t i l l be better considered as one dialogue event i n terms of flow and functional character.  In general,  though, pauses and changes of referent were used here as signals for the purpose of determining the boundaries of s p e c i f i c exchanges. "  69 Initiations H a l l i d a y notes t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g q u e s t i o n s a r e the most common way o f i n i t i a t i n g d i a l o g u e .  However, such d i a l o g u e s can o n l y  s t a r t t o be p a r t i c i p a t e d i n by t h e c h i l d a t t h e b e g i n n i n g o f Phase I I , when he can answer i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g q u e s t i o n s , and can o n l y be i n i t i a t e d by t h e c h i l d  l a t e r i n the phase when he masters t h e Inform-  a t i v e f u n c t i o n and i s thus a b l e to ask h i s own i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g questions A.  (48). Adult-initiated  exchanges.  The examples g i v e n here a r e  i n t e r a c t i o n s i n i t i a t e d by Wilma, who was G a b r i e l ' s p r i n c i p a l and  i n t e r l o c u t o r during the s e s s i o n s .  c e r t a i n predominant c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  caretaker  Her exchanges w i t h G a b r i e l had The o r i e n t a t i o n was toward  G a b r i e l ' s i n t e r e s t s — h i m s e l f , t h e immediate s u r r o u n d i n g s  and p e o p l e .  Wilma used simple and c l e a r language, sometimes w i t h exaggerated t i o n to gain Gabriel's a t t e n t i o n .  intona-  Most exchanges began w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n -  s e e k i n g q u e s t i o n s such as "What's t h a t ? " , "Who's t h a t ? " , "Where i s "How does i t g o / t a l k ? " .  ?",  Other exchanges p o i n t e d t h i n g s out, f o r example,  "Look here, t h e r e ' s a  ."  w i t h s e v e r a l i n i t i a t i o n attempts,  There was constant m o d e l l i n g ,  sometimes  t o h e l p G a b r i e l understand.  This i s  a t y p i c a l exchange: (12)  S e s s i o n I , 2;4(0), u t t s . 36-38 (Wilma and G a b r i e l a r e l o o k i n g a t p i c t u r e s i n a m a i l - o r d e r W:  His that  taku  ha?  what  Q.  G:  Huh?  W:  He  taku  ha?  that  what  Q.  "What's t h a t one?"  "Huh?" "What's t h a t ? "  catalogue.)  70 G:  W:  Ka  /babi/  ya.  that  "baby"  F. (?)  Ka  "baby"  ha?  that G:  11  "That's  a baby."  "That's  a baby?"  Q"Yes."  Ha. c  yes Most of Wilma's e l i c i t a t i o n d i a l o g u e s w i t h G a b r i e l began w i t h a Wh-question and ended w i t h a yes/no q u e s t i o n . G a b r i e l was a b l e t o form v a r i o u s responsesy  Within t h i s  framework  almost a l l o f them  to the immediate c o n t e x t , but some r e q u i r i n g the r e c a l l o f past  relating events.  The s u p p l y i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n i n t h i s way no doubt c o n t r i b u t e s t o the c h i l d ' s mastery o f the I n f o r m a t i v e f u n c t i o n . B.  C h i l d - i n i t i a t e d exchanges.  t i o n s c o n s i s t e d of an engagement  Most o f G a b r i e l ' s d i a l o g u e  initia-  u t t e r a n c e , u s u a l l y "hey", sometimes  accompanied by p o i n t i n g o r eye c o n t a c t w i t h an o b j e c t o f i n t e r e s t , but mostly w i t h attempts t o make eye c o n t a c t w i t h the h e a r e r s/he was a t t e n d i n g . continue,  t o make sure  Sometimes eye c o n t a c t was s u f f i c i e n t f o r him t o  sometimes he waited  f o r a v e r b a l response.  These responses  tended t o be q u e s t i o n s , guesses about what he wanted t o say or was i n t e r e s t e d i n having others look a t . f o l l o w e d the p a t t e r n o f example  Once begun, most o f h i s d i a l o g u e s  (12) above, w i t h Wilma t a k i n g up h i s  comment and making i t i n t o a yes/no q u e s t i o n f o r him t o answer. The example below i s o f one o f G a b r i e l ' s u n s u c c e s s f u l  engagement  attempts. (13)  S e s s i o n I I I , 2;4(4), u t t s . 531-539 ( G a b r i e l i s p o i n t i n g a t t h e T.V. where a c a r t o o n i s showing.)  71 G:  Net.  Hey  Annette  "  Net.  Ka.  Annette  that  Hey!  Hey! Hey! Ka.  Hey!  Net!  "Annette.  Hey Annette.  That."  Net. "Hey, e t c . "  Net!  (When Annette doesn't respond, he l e t s t h e e f f o r t  drop.)  The next example i s more s u c c e s s f u l : (14)  S e s s i o n I I I , 2;4(4), u t t s . 2-11 ( G a b r i e l comes i n t o t h e room and sees t h e t o y animals.) G:  Hey.  /£A2W  " W:  'horse'  ka.  /2A2AIII/.  that  'horse'  "Hey.  Horse t h a t .  Horse."  "Where?"  Tukte? where  G:  Ka  /mumu;/.  that  "moo-moo"  "That moo-moo."  W:  "Moo-moo"? Oh.  "Moo-moo? Oh."  G:  Ka  /mumu:/.  "That moo-moo."  that  "moo-moo"  W:  Tokex eha  ha  /2A2;>m/?  how  Q.  "  say  "How does i t say /2A2AIII/?  "Horse."  Sukf. horse G:  Hey.  W:  Tokex  eya ha? Tokex?  how  say Q.  G:  (+3) /mumu;/.  /mumu/.  "Hey.  Hey. Hey. Moo-moo."  "How does i t t a l k ?  how "Moo-moo."  How?"  Example (14) i s primarily mathetic i n nature.  The following example,  however, where Gabriel i s asking for a drink of water, i s pragmatic. Once he has his water, having had to persist i n his request f o r some time, h i s next utterance i s mathetic. (15)  Session I I I , 2;4(5), utts. 483-493 (Gabriel wants his cousin to give him some water.) G:  Hey. Ka. "  L:  Net.  Ka  that Annette  memx.  "Hey. That. Annette. That water.  that /mnx/ = water  Memx (imitating Gabriel).  "Water."  /mnx/ = water G:  Net! Net!  "Annette.  An: Hey? G:  Ka  "Hey?" memx.  that  "That water."  /mnx/ = water  (Annette gives him some water. G:  Ka  Net  mamx  that Annette water W:  On Net "  G:  Annette."  mnx  ya.  He turns to Wilma.) "That Annette water."  F. niclu  ha?  "Oh, Annette gave you some water?"  Annette water you-give Q.  Ha. c  "Yes."  yes W:  Ofih.  A b r i e f survey of four representative sessions ( I , VII, XV and XVI) showed that most of Gabriel's i n i t i a t e d interactions were mathetic in nature.  The 'intruder' element i s of course present i n the engagement  e f f o r t s which preface the interactions, but the tone of the dialogue seems to be observational.  Halliday says that, f o r the c h i l d , ". . , . language  evolves i n the context of his thinking about the universe no less than i n the context of his exploiting i t (75)." Dialogue p a r t i c i p a t i o n There were three basic response types Gabriel made i n adulti n i t i a t e d exchanges.  The f i r s t of these—answering, questions or obeying  commands—is the most sophisticated. utterance,  I t requires attention to the adult  comprehension of both i t s intent and r e f e r e n t ( s ) , and then  appropriate verbal or actional response.  At the time of sampling,  Gabriel's performance was s t i l l very unstable.  He could name the i n d i -  cated referent or suggest a referent i n response to "What's that" questions (within the constraints of his lexicon); questions,  however, other Wh-  l i k e "What's he doing", "Where i s i t " , "Who,is i t " , and even  yes/no questions at times drew poor responses, i f any at a l l .  In many  ways, the other two types of response—the general response form and the maintaining  form—compensated for his i n a b i l i t y to answer many questions  at t h i s time. The general response form, usually /ka/, accompanied by a pointing gesture, worked as a substitute for the actual name of an object. Gabriel also used t h i s form without pointing, on which occasions i t was sometimes too vague for his interlocutors to go on.  The following two  examples show his use of t h i s general form. (16)  Session I, 2;4(0), u t t . 200 (Wilma points to a picture.) W:  G:  De  taku  he  de?  this  what  Q.  this  "What's t h i s ? '  KS.  (Wilma points to a d i f f e r e n t picture.)  "That."  74 W:  Wayaka  t 6. X  look (17)  Taku  ha?  what  Q.  "Look h e r e .  What's t h i s ? "  S e s s i o n IV, 2;4(5), u t t s . 30-34 W:  G:  W:  De  taku  he  de?  t h i s what  Q.  this  Ko.  Ko.  that  that  "What's t h i s ? "  "That.  Taku?  That."  "What?"  what G:  Ko.  Ka.  that  that  "That.  That."  W:  "Boat"?  "Boat?"  G:  Ka  "That  /bop/.  that  boat."  "boat"  In example (17), Wilma f i n a l l y p r o v i d e s the l e x i c a l i t e m G a b r i e l has been unable t o produce situations,  and he then forms an a p p r o p r i a t e u t t e r a n c e .  In these  /ka/ i s l i k e a p l a c e h o l d e r , a l l o w i n g G a b r i e l to take on a  d i a l o g u e r61e without h a v i n g t o wait f o r an i n c r e a s e i n h i s v o c a b u l a r y . The t h i r d it  type of response i s s l i g h t l y l e s s ambiguous o n l y i n t h a t  seems t o s i g n a l t h a t G a b r i e l does not understand  cannot answer i t even though he may  the q u e s t i o n  or  understand or t h a t he has not been  a t t e n d i n g but i s i n t e r e s t e d i n keeping some s o r t of i n t e r a c t i o n g o i n g . T h i s i s the m a i n t a i n i n g response "huh" uttered with r i s i n g intonation. it  i s used.  o r "hmmm" (or sometimes " h e y " ) ,  The f o l l o w i n g examples demonstrate  how  75 (18)  S e s s i o n I V , 2;4(5), u t t s . 174-182 (Wilma i s t r y i n g t o get G a b r i e l t o i m i t a t e the word /ihimu/, which means " t i g e r " . ) W:  Kuna.  /Ihimu/  aya.  hurry  "  say  Huh?  W  /ihimu/  eya. say  G:  Huh?  W:  Ktina.  Hey?  hurry  "  W: G:  Say / i h i m u / . "  "Huh?"  G:  G:  "Hurry.  K£.  /mu/.  that  /Ihimu/  "Say  /Ihimu/."  "Huh?" "Hurry. "That.  Hey?" /mu/."  "/mu/?"  /mu/?  "Yes."  Ha. yes /Ihimu/.  "/ihimu/."  Huh?  "Huh?"  /Ihimu/.  "/Ihimu/."  Huh?  "Huh?"  /Ihimu/.  "/Ihimu/."  /e mu/.  "/e  mu/."  "Yes."  Ha. yes  W:  /e mu./.  "/e  Hd,  "Yes,  yes  /ihimu/.  mu/." /ihimu/."  76 (19)  S e s s i o n X, 2;4(13), u t t s . W:  Kci  Andrew  with  "  G:  Huh?  W:  Andrew £z"a "  384-388  xza  dukse + k t e + ye.  her  you-cut P.  "Cut i t out w i t h Andrew.  I "Huh?"  her  "Are you going t o c u t w i t h Andrew?"  dukse + k t e + ye. you-cut P.  F.  G:  Huh?  "Huh?"  W:  Andrew i z a paha yukse + k t e + ya?  " I s Andrew c u t t i n g h e r h a i r ? "  "  her h a i r  cut  P.  F.  G:  Huh?  "Huh?"  W:  Andrew?  "Andrew?"  G:  Huh?  "Huh?"  W:  Andrew 12a yukse + k t e + y a .  " I s Andrew c u t t i n g ? "  "  her  cut  P.  F.  G:  Andrew?  "Andrew?"  W:  Ha.  "Yes."  c  yes Use  of t h i s m a i n t a i n i n g response e f f e c t i v e l y a l t e r s t h e a d u l t s t r a t e g y i n  both example i n t e r a c t i o n s .  Wilma r e p e a t s h e r u t t e r a n c e s  s e v e r a l times,  sometimes changing them, u n t i l G a b r i e l g i v e s a response other than "huh"; she then r e c o n s t r u c t s h e r r e p l i e s i n terms of the response he has made. I t would seem t h a t G a b r i e l has a v e r y economical d i s c o u r s e system. Three w o r d s — " h e y " ( f o r i n i t i a t i o n s ) ,  /ka/ and "huh" ( f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n ) —  a r e a l l he needs t o be i n v o l v e d i n d i a l o g u e s ; i n t e r l o c u t o r s a r e as c o o p e r a t i v e as Wilma.  t h a t i s , as l o n g as h i s  Adult modelling It i s only with a great .deal of modelling, restructuring and exper imenting that Wilma i s able to make continuing dialogues out of Gabriel' s t i l l vague verbal responses.  Among the obvious ways i n which she r e -  shapes her own speech to accommodate him, the most important  seem to be:  (a)  r e p e t i t i o n of h i s and her own utterances  (b)  acceptance of h i s personal words and conversation 'topics'  (c)  l i m i t i n g her contradictions and corrections of what he has said.  Some examples are given here. (20) Session IV, 2;4(5), utts. 39-40 W:  De  "moo-moo"  this G:  W:  "  Cici  ya.  monster  F.  Oh "  cici monster  ye de. F.  "This i s a moo-moo."  this "Monster."  ya?  "Oh, a monster?"  F.  G: H|.  "Yes."  yes W: (21)  Ohhh.  "Ohhh."  Session XV, 2;4(22), utts. 19-22 W:  Cory "  istima  h5?  sleeping  Q.  G:  Huh?  W:  Cory  is'tima  ha?  "  sleeping  Q.  Abu  "Is Cory sleeping?"  "Huh?"  "Is Cory sleeping?"  eya ha?  sleeping go Q.  "Is he sleeping?"  78 G:  Huh?  W:  Cory "  G:  "Huh?" abu  eya  s l e e p i n g go  ha?  " I s Cory s l e e p i n g ? "  Q.  Ha.  "Yes."  yes W:  G:  Oh,  tokiya?  "  where  Cuci  abu  "Oh, where?"  ya.  "Cory s l e e p i n g . "  Cory s l e e p i n g F. W:  Ohh.  "Ohh."  These examples demonstrate the l i m i t a t i o n s t o G a b r i e l ' s involvement discourse.  In an a d u l t d i a l o g u e t h e r e i s a constant  t i o n s o f both speaker and hearer  in  s h i f t i n g of p o s i -  i n their relative roles.  In dialogues  w i t h G a b r i e l , i t i s the a d u l t who must keep r e p o s i t i o n i n g h i s / h e r utterances i n accord with G a b r i e l ' s .  Other d i s c o u r s e  abilities  G a b r i e l i s s t a r t i n g t o show other d i s c o u r s e s k i l l s which i n d i c a t e t h a t he i s becoming more aware o f the need t o adapt h i s own u t t e r a n c e s t o some extent  i n o r d e r t o be understood.  he c o r r e c t s h i s own speech spontaneously;  On two o c c a s i o n s , f o r example, he a l s o c o r r e c t s o t h e r s '  r e p e t i t i o n s of h i s u t t e r a n c e s , or he t r i e s out s e v e r a l responses' i n an effort  t o be more a p p r o p r i a t e .  of t h e constant  These k i n d s of r e p a r a t i o n s a r e t y p i c a l  adjustment t o the s o c i a l s e t t i n g  i t s e l f ) which i s necessary  ( i n c l u d i n g the discourse  i n a d u l t language use.  As H a l l i d a y says,  they mark a pragmatic development, a use of language f o r imposing the s e l f on the speech s i t u a t i o n i n a language-defined  way.  These a r e some  79 examples from G a b r i e l . (22)  S e s s i o n V I I , 2;4(8), u t t s . 31-33 ( G a b r i e l pushes a t o y horse G:  KA  BAYA!  over.) "That f e l l - b r o k e . "  that f a l l - b r e a k E:  Babaya.  (attempting t o imitate)  "Bye-bye."  "bye-bye" F. G:  /p6  "Fell-broke."  ya7.  fall-break "Fell-broke." E:  /b6 y a / .  A:  Ixpaye  ya\  fall  F.  W:  (imitating)  Ixpaye yi.. fall  "It  f e l l down."  "It  f e l l down."  F.  G:  /pa y a / .  W:  Ha.  "Fell-broke."  "Yes."  yes (23)  S e s s i o n V I I , 2;4(8), u t t s . 147-150 (I G:  t e a r t h e c e l l o p h a n e o f f a tape box.) Ka" that  A:  puya.  "That  break."  break (?)  Ka  puya?  that  break  "That b r e a k ? "  ( G a b r i e l hands me another new tape box and i n d i c a t e s t h a t he wants the c e l l o o f f i t too.) G:  Ka that  boya. break  "That  break."  80 A:  G:  Ixpaye  ha?  fall  Q.  Hiya no  A:  ka  " F a l l down?"  ka  boya.  "No t h a t t h a t  /b6ya/."  t h a t t h a t break (?)  Ixpaye?  " F a l l down?"  fall G:  Hiya no  (24)  ka  boya  t h a t break  ka.  "No t h a t /boya/ t h a t . "  that  S e s s i o n V I I , 2;4(8), u t t s . 301-302 G:  Hey mama  babaya.  " W:  "Hey, mama bye-bye."  "bye-bye"  Hiya.  "No."  no G:  Mama "  W:  Ha yes  It  abu  +  sleeping mama "  ya?  "Mama s l e e p i n g ? "  F.  abu  +  sleeping  ye.  "Yes, mama i s s l e e p i n g . "  F.  seems c l e a r from these examples t h a t G a b r i e l i s s t a r t i n g t o know  enough about language t o r e a l i z e when some s o r t o f c l a r i f i c a t i o n i s necessary.  The word /boya/, which has many p h o n e t i c  variants,  presents  an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n problem s i n c e i t resembles a number o f p l a u s i b l e a d u l t words and i s used i n such a wide range o f s i t u a t i o n s by G a b r i e l . however, appears t o have some sense o f t h e intended  and r e c e i v e d messages  o r , a t l e a s t , o f t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f h a v i n g been m i s i n t e r p r e t e d , from the e x c e p t i o n  he takes t o how o t h e r s  There a r e o b v i o u s l y verbal interactions.  repeat  Gabriel,  judging  o r expand t h i s word.  many t h i n g s which G a b r i e l cannot y e t do i n h i s  He asks no Wh-questions;  only  /ka/ w i t h  rising  81 i n t o n a t i o n accompanied by a p o i n t i n g g e s t u r e name.  He  forms.  doesn't ask p e r m i s s i o n  to do t h i n g s ;  Examples from s e s s i o n s X I I I and  c h a i r i s a c a r and among the few past events.  resembles a request  XIV,  t h e r e a r e no  for a  'Can  I'  where G a b r i e l pretends a  r e c a l l s the b l i n d r a t t l i n g a g a i n s t the window are  i n s t a n c e s of h i s symbolic  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and  referring  to  In a d d i t i o n , he responds o n l y to h i s c a r e t a k e r s .  Summary In a c q u i r i n g a language a c h i l d  i s not o n l y l e a r n i n g words  and  s y n t a c t i c r u l e s , he i s t a k i n g on a communication system which performs various interactional functions.  According  to H a l l i d a y the c h i l d demon-  s t r a t e s f u n c t i o n a l development l o n g b e f o r e the emergence of a lexicogrammatical  structure;  formal  t h i s f u n c t i o n a l development i s t i e d  f u n c t i o n a l components of the a d u l t language system, e s s e n t i a l l y ( i n t e r p e r s o n a l ) and  i d e a t i o n a l (observer)  functions.  He  to  the  pragmatic  a l s o notes  t h a t the most s o p h i s t i c a t e d b a s i c f u n c t i o n , t h a t of u s i n g language to exchange i n f o r m a t i o n , i s one f a c t , we  t h a t we  tend  to take most f o r granted;  do much more w i t h our language than g i v e i n f o r m a t i o n .  the c h i l d may  p a r t i c i p a t e i n proto-dialogues  during h i s early  ment, h i s a b i l i t y to answer i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g Phase I I , marks the s t a r t  of r e a l d i a l o g u e .  questions,  While develop-  early in  Through t h i s development  the c h i l d becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y i n v o l v e d i n the s o c i a l s e m i o t i c and p e r s o n a l language system i s brought under the i n f l u e n c e of the adult  in  his  collective  system. An examination of G a b r i e l ' s data from a f u n c t i o n a l p e r s p e c t i v e  r e v e a l s t h a t he i s u s i n g language to perform a l l of the s i x b a s i c t i o n s mentioned by H a l l i d a y .  He  i s a b l e to answer  func-  information-seeking  82 q u e s t i o n s , though o n l y i m p e r f e c t l y , and he appears t o have developed some immature d i a l o g u e i n i t i a t i o n and p a r t i c i p a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s .  The  words "hey", f o r engaging an audience, and "ka" and "huh", as g e n e r a l response form and m a i n t a i n i n g form, r e s p e c t i v e l y , make up t h e most f r e q u e n t l y used elements i n h i s d i a l o g u e system.  G a b r i e l l i v e s i n an  environment of m a t h e t i c speech, w i t h those around him going out of t h e i r way t o p o i n t a t t h i n g s and name them and draw r e l a t i o n s h i p s between them; what he doesn't seem a b l e t o understand i s d i g e s t e d f o r him by h i s interlocutors.  What c o n s t i t u t e s d i a l o g u e i n h i s speech p r o d u c t i o n i s  a c t u a l l y a sometimes l o o s e l y connected s e r i e s o f e g o c e n t r i c u t t e r a n c e s , h i g h l y dependent  on m o d e l l i n g and expansion by the a d u l t  interactants.  CHAPTER FIVE  LEXICAL MEANING IN SEMANTIC AND  SEMIOLOGICAL TERMS  Introduction One  important mechanism f o r the e x p r e s s i o n  T h i s chapter  focusses  on G a b r i e l ' s l e x i c a l development, but  different perspectives. ize  of meaning i s the word:.  The  b r i e f l y h i s vocabulary  first  g o a l of the chapter  i n terms of v a r i o u s  from  i s to  The  i n s t a n c e s of g e s t u r a l i m i t a t i o n s  o c c u r r i n g w i t h G a b r i e l ' s speech can be analysed to P i a g e t ' s  character-  i s s u e s which have emerged  through s t u d i e s i n t o the meanings of the c h i l d ' s e a r l y words. second g o a l i s to demonstrate how  two  d e s c r i p t i o n s of s e m i o l o g i c a l  as proto-words  according  genesis.  Recent s t u d i e s of c h i l d language a c q u i s i t i o n which have turned a P i a g e t i a n model i n examining the r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i v e l i n g u i s t i c development have c e n t r e d the c h i l d ' s meaning p o t e n t i a l . meanings the c h i l d  l a r g e l y on the problem of  Many i n v e s t i g a t o r s now  i s c a p a b l e of e x p r e s s i n g  of c o g n i t i v e concepts  to  and  determining  assume t h a t  the  are drawn from a r e p e r t o i r e  ( f o r example, o b j e c t permanance), which he i s  a l r e a d y a c t i v e l y b u i l d i n g up by the time he  first  s t a r t s to speak.  Another q u e s t i o n which a r i s e s from c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the c o g n i t i v e l i n g u i s t i c r e l a t i o n s h i p i s to what extent r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the emergence of formal the d e v i c e s Piaget's  f o r the e x p r e s s i o n  c o g n i t i v e achievements a r e  l i n g u i s t i c structures  of those meanings, d e v i c e s  p o s i t i o n on language i s t h a t i t i s j u s t one  83  (that i s ,  such as words).  p a r t , although  the  84 major p a r t , of a l a r g e r s y m b o l i z i n g c a p a c i t y which p l a y and  i m i t a t i v e behaviour during the sensorimotor p e r i o d .  acquisition, logical The  according to t h i s view,  genesis, which  i s by  data from G a b r i e l are p a r t i c u l a r l y ( o v e r 20%)  development.  o f h i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y 100 imitative,  some  observed  idiosyncratic  The m o s t s t r i k i n g a s p e c t o f h i s s y s t e m  of g e s t u r a l i m i t a t i o n s i n v e r b a l s y n t a c t i c  o t h e r types of g e s t u r a l b e h a v i o u r .  The  frames,  is his  as c o n t r a s t e d w i t h  a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e s e phenomena  make n e c e s s a r y a r e - e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u s o f h i s more morphemes i n a h i e r a r c h y o f l i n g u i s t i c  semio-  interesting i n this respect i n  morphemes a r e c l e a r l y u n c o n v e n t i o n a l — s o m e word-like inventions.  Language  d e f i n i t i o n a p a r t of  i n P i a g e t ' s model i s a c o g n i t i v e  that a s i g n i f i c a n t portion  use  starts to evolve i n  adult-shaped  signs.  SOME SEMANTIC CONSIDERATIONS OF GABRIEL'S LEXICON  E s t a b l i s h i n g the The  lexicon  c h i l d begins speaking with a very l i m i t e d vocabulary.  investigators  ( f o r e x a m p l e , N e l s o n , 1973)  vocabulary expansion follows a f a i r l y The  first  rapid  growth,  a c q u i r e d , seems t o be  have noted, however, t h a t  regular pattern across  c o r r e l a t e d w i t h the onset  combinations,  the appearance of c o g n i t i v e  (sensorimotor substage V I ) .  100 morphemes i n G a b r i e l ' s c o r p u s , o u t o f 7130 s m a l l e r subset of these forms the w o r k i n g below l i s t s  English  of word  behaviours  t h e t r a n s i t i o n b e t w e e n s e n s o r i - m o t o r i n t e l l i g e n c e and  tational intelligence  5.1  children.  a f t e r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 50-100 w o r d s h a v e b e e n  t h e b e g i n n i n g s o f d i a l o g u e and marking  I counted  utterances;  represenjust  over  a much  core of h i s v o c a b u l a r y .  a l l o f h i s morphemes i n ' a l p h a b e t i c a l ' o r d e r  orthography).  Several  Table  (according to  85 TABLE 5.1 GABRIEL'S LEXICON  1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47.  abu 'sleep' "Andy" "Andrew" 'Esther' au 'bring' "baby" "byebye" b6p 'boat' "boom" boya ' f a l l down' bi[=pahi] 'pick up' "bo'di" 'birdie' "bag" bika[=pika] 'cards' biba (ref. toy) "bad boy" ci[=ci] 'want' c i c i 'monster' ceye 'cry' cu[=icu] 'take' cica[=sice] 'bad' cekaya 'weasel' ciza[=ksiz'e] 'fight' caktlya 'road' de 'this' "Donna" "dak"[= "truck"] "da'da"[="Santa"] eyd er 'defecate' "Giba"[="Gabriel"] "GAn"[="Gwen"] "go way" hm, "huh" hfpa 'shoe' "hey" ha_ 'yes' hiya 'no' "hati"[="hockey"] [2/vlAm] 'horse' hiyu 'come here' "hat" "Hiwda"[="Hilda"] "hors"[="horse"] l s i [ = i s ^ i S i ] 'uncle' "d5us"[=" j u i c e " ] "d5u"[="too"] ka 'that distant'  SCW name name ASW AEW ECW AEW AEW ASW ASW AEW AEW ASW PS AEW ASW SCW ASW ASW ASW ASW ASW ASW ASW name AEW AEW PS SCW name name AEW AEW ASW AEW ASW ASW AEW PS ASW AEW name AEW ASW AEW AEW ASW  48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69.  "ka"[="car"] ka <5[=ka onmf] 'that turns' k6ka[=S^k|] 'horse' "kai"[="bike"] kuya 'down' kuku§i 'pig' kla[=k2<i] 'give' kakiya 'over there' kad|[=k^da] 'dump' l a l a 'goodie' mimi[=mni] 'water' "mine" "mamti[="moo-moo"] "mama" "me" ma (exclamation) "ma^"[="man"] "net"[="Annette"] "nej.n" [="Lorraine"] nana ' a l l gone' od£[=6hd<5] 'coat' pu 'blow'  AEW ASW ASW AEW ASW ASW ASW ASW ASW SCW ASW AEW ECW AEW AEW ASW AEW name name ASW ASW PS  OO 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78.  pa2a[=paha] 'head' ASW pppp (motor noise) PS "papi"[="puppy"] AEW pdtet 'two' PS pusi 'cat' ASW,AEW "poo-poo" AEW "Tuti"[="Cory"] name "T.V." AEW wa2i 'one' ASW  79.  wade[=waySkad6] 'look'at t h i s ' ASW wawa[=w6 we] 'hurt' SCW waxp§ 'tea' ASW waci 'dance' ASW "W<3ma[ [="Wilma"] name wana 'now' ASW wd[=owa] 'write' ASW wa 'I' ASW ye ASW? yaya[=iyaye] 'go away' ASW zamiya 'to go "zoom"' PS za[=wicasta] 'man' ASW zaza[=yuzafa] 'wash' ASW  80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91.  c  T a b l e 5.1  ( c o u n t i n g words ejL, q£t, bx., e t c . ) s : : : (tape r e c o r d e r ) PS PS 6kak<5ka (turkey n o i s e s ) Z a l ( s d . i n dance r o u t i n e ) PS PS (pretends t o comb h a i r ) PS (claps i n imit.) PS (waves i n i m i t . ) ( f a l l s over on couch i n PS imit.) PS (makes f a c e i n i m i t . ) ( o i l w e l l a c t i o n w i t h hand)PS PS (dances i n i m i t . ) PS Imqj. j ^ u / ( c a t ' s meow) ( h i t t i n g a c t i o n i n i m i t . ) PS ( g u i t a r p l a y i n g i n i m i t . ) PS  92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105.  ASW SCW PS AEW ECW  (continued)  = = = = =  a d u l t Sioux word Sioux c h i l d word p e r s o n a l symbol a d u l t E n g l i s h word E n g l i s h c h i l d word  87 The , c r i t e r i a used for counting a morpheme as a productive word were f a i r l y simple.  E l i c i t e d or spontaneous imitations were not  counted unless they appeared elsewhere i n non-imitative circumstances. Because h i s core vocabulary was so small, new items tended to be quite noticeable.  When they occurred I was able to check with Wilma as to  whether he could have acquired such items (for example, after hearing the word used often i n h i s environment, or after being instructed i n i t p r i o r to a taping session).  When she could not v e r i f y a p a r t i c u l a r  word, i t was included i n the count i f i t occurred i n a sentence i n discourse with a discernible referent.  L e x i c a l categories Many c h i l d language studies u n t i l recently rejected phonological forms which did not resemble adult words.  The results of research into  the phonological processes at work i n the child's early speech have made i t possible to recover underlying adult forms from the child's productions.  There remain i n most corpora, however, forms which cannot be  derived from adult-shaped words, forms which have been invented by the child.  Most investigators now consider these as words i f they are  r e l a t i v e l y consistent i n form and function. proto-words;  Halliday c a l l s these forms  he was able to find phonologically and functionally con-  sistent forms i n the speech of h i s son as early as 0;9.  Dore et a l  (1976) make reference to phonologically consistent forms (PCF's) which operate i n the child's early speech as words, sometimes without semantic content, such as 'dummy elements' which may be serving proto-syntactic r61es (20-22). Many of the morphemes I have included i n Table 5.1 are not derived  88 from adult Sioux or English words.  There are three basic word o r i g i n  categories i n Gabriel's l e x i c o n : (a)  Adult words (Sioux and English)  (b)  Baby words (Sioux and English)  (c)  Personal words (verbal and gestural).  The inclusion of these l a t t e r , the gestural morphemes, involves a r a d i c a l departure from standard analysis.  These are not e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c  phenomena, such as pointing along with a request f o r an object or headshaking along with an utterance of r e j e c t i o n ;  rather, they are instances  of gestural imitation which are set into syntactic frames and are produced i n r e l a t i o n to some referent, present or absent.  The personal  words also include onomatopoeic forms, such as /2A2,AIII/ f o r "horse", and Gabriel's own word-like inventions, such as /potet/ f o r "two". The p r i n c i p l e of phonological consistency must be relaxed i n the consideration of most early c h i l d language data.  Phonological instab-  i l i t y i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of early c h i l d speech.  Carter (1975) claims  to have found evidence that the s t a b i l i z a t i o n of phonetic forms leads to semantic d i s t i n c t i o n s which were previously fuzzy and overlapping i n the child's system (for example, the emergence of "more" and "my" from less d i s t i n c t forms i n the speech of a c h i l d she studied) (244-245).  Phono-  l o g i c a l homonymy combined with semantic overlap may i n fact delay the s t a b i l i z i n g of some forms; Gabriel—/baya/. of most forms.  at least, there i s one possible example from  His system i s marked by the phonological inconsistency The variations of just the one morpheme /baya/ which  occurred i n one session are given here.  89 /baya/  /ba:ya:/, /pa;:ya:/, /baya/, /bo/, /puya/, /bo:/, /bo:eya/, In  /bo:ya/, /baye/,  /b&/,  /bdya/,  /boya/  terms of t h e r e f e r e n c e s i t u a t i o n s , p o s s i b l e a d u l t forms o f t h e  word /baya/ a r e / i x p a y e / , " f a l l  down", /yugpuye/,  " p e e l " , and /bumiya/,  a p e r s o n a l and f a m i l y form meaning " i t went boom" o r " i t f e l l  down".  D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e c h i l d ' s v o c a b u l a r y , then, i n v o l v e s adjustment in  t h e u s u a l d e f i n i t i o n s o f a-word.  The r a p i d  l e x i c a l expansion which  seems t o take p l a c e a t around the same s t a g e o f development  Gabriel i s  at  d u r i n g the sampling i s an i n c r e a s e i n a d u l t - s h a p e d forms, r a t h e r than  in  p e r s o n a l forms.  language;  T h i s marks a growth i n the c h i l d ' s knowledge about  t h a t i s , t h a t words have c o l l e c t i v e meanings and a r e p a r t o f  a collective  system.  E x p r e s s i v e and r e f e r e n t i a l language Nelson  (1973) and Dore  styles  (1974) h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t c h i l d r e n have  d i f f e r e n t language s t y l e s , some u s i n g language more f o r making r e f e r e n c e to  o b j e c t s and events i n t h e w o r l d , some u s i n g language as a t o o l f o r  interactions with others.  N e l s o n c a l l s t h e s e the r e f e r e n t i a l and  e x p r e s s i v e s t y l e s , w h i l e Dore uses t h e terms c o d e - o r i e n t e d and messageoriented .  Bowerman (1976) s u g g e s t s t h a t language s t y l e might have some  e f f e c t on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e a r l y  lexicon.  L e a r n i n g t o r e f e r t o t h i n g s appears t o n e c e s s i t a t e a c q u i r i n g words, but l e a r n i n g l i n g u i s t i c ways t o m a n i p u l a t e and i n t e r a c t w i t h people can i n v o l v e e i t h e r l e a r n i n g words ("please", "want", "thank you", "bye bye") o r l e a r n i n g i n t o n a t i o n p a t t e r n s which can be used "wordl e s s l y " (Dore, 1974) or i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h words (Bowerman, 122). The s t y l e s mentioned day has d i s c u s s e d .  above correspond t o t h e m a c r o f u n c t i o n s H a l l i -  Gabriel's utterances f a l l  i n t o b o t h c l a s s e s and i t  i s not c l e a r t h a t t h e p e r s o n a l words he produces a r e t h e r e s u l t o f a macro-functional preference.  90 Cognition and semantic range Much of the work that has been done on word meanings has on children at the one-word stage.  Bloom (1970, 1973)  focussed  and Ingram  (1974), among others, have discussed the p o s s i b i l i t y of assigning underlying structure (and thus semantic interpretations beyond simple nomination) to one-word utterances.  Dore et a l (1976) introduce c r i t e r i a for  assuming that single words a c t u a l l y do r e f e r .  Because there i s no  surface syntax, i t has been necessary to r e l y on contextual information and assumptions about the child's cognitive l e v e l i n order to interpret one-word utterances. Gabriel has already started to produce morpheme combinations, although i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these i n terms of semantic r e l a t i o n s i s s t i l l difficult.  The one r e l a t i o n for which there i s clear evidence i s  Demonstrative + Entity, a r e f e r e n t i a l r e l a t i o n .  Gabriel also appears to  have word categories corresponding  'verb' and, i n a few  cases, 'modifier'.  to 'noun' and  His words r e f l e c t customary a c t i v i t i e s (sleeping,  washing, being picked up, dancing, e t c . ) , objects i n the environment (toys, food, animals, etc.) and f a m i l i a r people (mother, father, cousins, sisters).  Deictic words such as /ka/ occur frequently, as well as words  l i k e "yes", "no" and "hey". are few  Words describing the properties of objects  ("bad", "down", "gone").  Some studies have attempted to estab-  l i s h what kinds of categories the c h i l d i n i t i a l l y names, for example, objects which can be manipulated or which change;  I made no attempt to  test Gabriel's knowledge of categories defined i n this way.  He  has  attained object permanence, e.g., he follows the path of objects which r o l l out of sight and opens boxes and bags to find objects normally placed i n them;  he has also acquired an understanding  of cause and  91 effect r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and i s exhibiting more complex play  behaviours.  On the basis of these features i t i s possible to i d e n t i f y with some confidence the semantic range covered by Gabriel's words. Development of word meanings:  categorization  Bowerman (1976) says that the a c q u i s i t i o n of word meanings involves the mastery of categorization r u l e s .  According to Piaget, the  c h i l d begins categorizing at a very early age;  he w i l l form classes of  graspable objects, objects which r a t t l e , objects which can be put into the mouth, etc.  Words often become labels for categories of referents  which are united by certain features. concerning how  There are two competing theories  those categories are formed and what kinds of features  form the basis for them.  Clark (1973) suggests that the c h i l d groups  objects according to v i s u a l l y perceptual features (or otherwise salient features l i k e sound, taste or f e e l ) .  Nelson (1973) says that the c h i l d  names categories which are based on functional s i m i l a r i t i e s (for example, objects which are eaten, objects which are thrown, etc.).  The r o l e of  perception i n Nelson's theory i s to i d e n t i f y an object as a probable instance of a concept (Bowerman, 124). there i s some experimental  Bowerman says that, although  evidence to support Nelson's p o s i t i o n , Clark's  theory accounts better for the data at present  (Bowerman, 124).  It i s possible to test the two hypotheses to some extent i n the overextension  data from Gabriel.  Overextension i s one type of  categor-  i z a t i o n error which children often make i n word use, where the word i s used for appropriate referents but also for others which have been incorr e c t l y included within the category on the basis of some s i m i l a r i t y to appropriate class members.  Unfortunately, attempting  to make some  92  l o g i c out of the c h i l d ' s o v e r e x t e n s i o n s means imposing an a d u l t  inter-  p r e t a t i o n on d a t a which d i f f e r i n many ways from the a d u l t system. c h i l d may  be u s i n g p u r e l y i d i o s y n c r a t i c f e a t u r e s  The  (his personal experi-  ences w i t h the r e f e r e n c e o b j e c t s ) i n o r d e r to extend the range o f a word. B e a r i n g t h i s i n mind, I have attempted  t o e x p l a i n some examples of the  semantic range of some of G a b r i e l ' s overextended morphemes. A.  /cici/,  "monster".  a paper c u t - o u t i n the shapeco'f a man,  a p o s t e r of a man  feedback s q u e a l on the tape r e c o r d e r microphone,  on  horseback,  some l i z a r d s  on  Sesame S t r e e t , the wind blows a branch a g a i n s t the window, Wilma h o l d s a ceramic ornament a g a i n s t G a b r i e l ' s back, G a b r i e l h i d e s around a c o r n e r t o s c a r e someone, some v o i c e s down the h a l l w a y , an computer on T.V.,  g o r i l l a s on T.V.,  moving l i p s on T.V.,  animated  a turn-  t a k i n g game w i t h E s t h e r where they p r e t e n d t o s c a r e one another by saying / c i c i / ,  a p i c t u r e of a b u f f a l o on a r e c o r d album c o v e r ,  G a b r i e l puts a bag over h i s head and dances, says / c i c i /  after  i m i t a t i n g Wilma s a y i n g "boo", p i c t u r e of a s o l d i e r on the cover of a c o l o u r i n g book, a Smokey the Bear ad on T.V., t u r t l e i n a c o l o u r i n g book, a t i n y toy man  a picture of a  i n s i d e a toy c a r , I knock  q u i e t l y on a w a l l , I slam a door i n the k i t c h e n , the wind knocks V e n e t i a n b l i n d r a p i d l y a g a i n s t the window s i l l ,  G a b r i e l p u l l s a net  bag over E s t h e r ' s f a c e (perhaps to make her i n t o a monster?), and E s t h e r p l a y a t u r n - t a k i n g game o f go-to-sleep-wake-up is  a  Gabriel  where  /cici/  the s i g n a l t o wake up, the basement door banging i n the wind, a  game w i t h E s t h e r where they both growl at one another and p r e t e n d t o be monsters,  G a b r i e l l o o k s a t the window s i l l  V e n e t i a n b l i n d a day e a r l i e r and says / c i c i / ,  which was  h i t by the  G a b r i e l pretends t h e r e  93 i s a monster o u t s i d e  the room making t u r k e y n o i s e s , a p i c t u r e o f a  clown on a c o l o u r i n g book, I take G a b r i e l ' s photograph ( t h e clown on the c o l o u r i n g book i s a l s o h o l d i n g a camera). I t would appear t h a t the word / c i c x / i s t h e l a b e l f o r a v e r y c a t e g o r y o f t h i n g s which a r e s c a r y o r a r e meant t o s c a r e . e s t i n g t o note t h a t w h i l e G a b r i e l o b v i o u s l y s t i l l be used t o f r i g h t e n him;  It i s inter-  c o n t r o l s t h i s word, i t can  f o r example, Wilma c o u l d get G a b r i e l t o  come back i n t o the room by s a y i n g  "Come back, / c i c i /  i s coming".  f e a t u r e s which r e l a t e a l l o f t h e above r e f e r e n t s appear t o be both t i o n a l and p e r c e p t u a l ;  large  The func-  f u n c t i o n a l i n t h a t they arouse f e a r and r e q u i r e  a c e r t a i n response, p e r c e p t u a l  i n t h a t they i n v o l v e s t a r t l i n g  noises,  images, or s e n s a t i o n s . B.  /baya/, " f a l l  down", "break", "come a p a r t " .  a s t u f f e d dog w i t h a t o r n ear, G a b r i e l f a l l s down, G a b r i e l pushes a toy Volkswagen under the c o f f e e t a b l e , G a b r i e l s t a l l s t h e tape on the tape r e c o r d e r , box,  G a b r i e l wants the c e l l o p h a n e  taken o f f a tape  t h e top o f t h e t o y Volkswagen comes o f f , G a b r i e l p l a y s w i t h the  ceramic ornaments (one o f which i s c h i p p e d ) ,  t h e g o r i l l a on T.V.  f a l l s down, t e e t h on T.V. b i t e i n t o a cucumber, G a b r i e l wants an orange p e e l e d ,  Esther  t e a r s a page out o f s t o r y book, G a b r i e l throws  t o y animals i n t o t h e a i r , a s t i c k e r f a l l s o f f G a b r i e l ' s f a c e t o t h e f l o o r , t h e t o y h o r s e w i t h a broken t a i l , and fall  G a b r i e l breaks a t o y boat  t r i e s t o f i x i t , G a b r i e l i s g e t t i n g a h a i r c u t and sees some h a i r t o t h e f l o o r , t h e top o f t h e e c r a y o n box comes open.  Almost a l l o f t h e above r e f e r e n t s i n v o l v e a c t i o n s which change t h e s t a t e of some o b j e c t  and a r e b a s i c a l l y  perceptual.  94  C.  /bapi/, "puppy". Yogi Bear, puppy, toy sheep, g o r i l l a on T.V.,  ornament of a dog.  /k6ka/, "horse", horse, Yogi Bear, /kukusi/, "pig". horse, toy sheep,toy puppy, only the red horse. /2A2Xm/, "horse". horse, stuffed puppy, sheep, ornament of Dachshund, /mumu/, "cow". horse, toy donkey, toy c a l f . The referents for the above examples are no doubt related through perceptual a t t r i b u t e s . about the same size;  Most of them were toys i n mixed colours and i n fact, Gabriel seems to be trying to make one  d i s t i n c t i o n clear i n the l a t e r s e s s i o n s — t h a t the red toy horse i s a / k u k u s i / , "pig", while the other toy horses (which are black and grey) are "horses"—a purely perceptual d i s t i n c t i o n , as the toy horses were i d e n t i c a l i n every other way.  Anothercanimal word / b 6 d i / , " b i r d i e " ,  was used appropriately, but i t i s already a very general term encompassing f l y i n g two-legged objects. D.  "Andy" (his father's name).  his father, a picture of a man  i n a mail-order catalogue, a workman  f i x i n g the lock on the front door, a man on T.V. walking, a paper cut-out i n the shape of a man,  a male v i s i t o r ,  /net/, "Annette" (a teen-age cousin). Annette, Marina (another teen-age g i r l ) , Lorraine (a 10-year-old cousin),  me.  95 /mama/, "mama". Marina, his mother, an old lady on T.V.,  a young lady on T.V., a  paper cut-out i n the shape of a woman, some women i n a mail-order catalogue. Most of these examples appear to be based on perceptual s i m i l a r i t i e s , although /net/, "Annette", could be a functional grouping i n that the referents a l l play with him and look after him.  While he uses  proper names to refer to many people (instead of to one each), i t i s s t i l l possible that he has a well-established notion of the correct referents.  Unfortunately, I didn't test this p o s s i b i l i t y .  The following example demonstrates the perceptual basis for Gabriel's use of the words /mama/ and / c i c i / : (1)  Session VIII, 2;4(11), u t t s . 3-5 (Gabriel watches a T.V. commercial during which a b e a u t i f u l redheaded woman turns into Smokey the Bear.) W:  He that  taku what  G:  Mama.  W:  Mama  G:  ha?  "What's that?"  Q. "Mama."  taku?  "  what  Ka  mama.  "Mama what?"  "That mama."  that W:  Mama  eha ha?  "  Q.  (The woman i s transformed G:  Cici monster  "Is that mama?"  a. F.  into Smokey the Bear.) "Monster."  96 E.  /lala/,  gum,  "goodie."  banana, plums, candy, Wilma's makeup bag,  j u i c e , doughnuts,  /wewe/, " h u r t " . Wilma rubbing  calomine l o t i o n on f i b r e g l a s s s c r a t c h e s on h e r arms,  G a b r i e l ' s mosquito b i t e s , c u t s on E s t h e r ' s l e g , G a b r i e l bumps h i s head, o l d l a d y i n w h e e l c h a i r  on T.V., Wilma i s p u l l i n g on G a b r i e l ' s  f i n g e r , s m a l l w h i t e s t i c k e r s I use f o r i d e n t i f y i n g t h e tape  reels.  These two words a r e Sioux baby words and were a p p l i e d v e r y  gener-  a l l y by t h e a d u l t s i n t h e i r c o n v e r s a t i o n s w i t h t h e c h i l d , much l i k e an E n g l i s h - s p e a k i n g a d u l t might use t h e term "n6-no" or "yu'm-yum".  /ldla/  used i n r e f e r e n c e t o Wilma's makeup bag (which he was t r y i n g t o open a t the time he s a i d /lala/)may be r e l a t e d t o t h e f a c t t h a t Wilma and G a b r i e l ' s mother c u s t o m a r i l y kept  gum and c a n d i e s i n s i d e t h e i r handbags.  The use o f /wewe/ f o r t h e s t i c k e r s comes possibly, from t h e i r resemblance to bandages, which a r e a p p l i e d t o some o f t h e phenomena which a r e u s u a l l y c a l l e d /wewe/. The  evidence  from G a b r i e l would appear t o support  t h e theory  that  shared p e r c e p t u a l f e a t u r e s a r e used i n h i s c l a s s i f y i n g r e f e r e n t s , as seen i n t h e examples o f o v e r e x t e n s i o n s  i n h i s data.  J u s t as t h e c h i l d ' s meanings f o r h i s words a r e i n i t i a l l y so a r e t h e shapes o f many o f h i s words. i n t h e e a r l y s t a g e s , p r i m a r i l y t o extend world  The a b i l i t y t o symbolize  serves,  t h e c h i l d ' s knowledge o f t h e  ( f o r example, through t h e l a b e l l i n g o f p e r c e p t u a l o r f u n c t i o n a l  c a t e g o r i e s ) , but i t soon becomes t h e core o f h i s s o c i a l S u c c e s s f u l symbolic and  personal,  interactions.  communication i s t h e r e s u l t of a complex o f s o c i a l  e x p e r i e n t i a l f a c t o r s among which a r e :  97 (a)  t h e c h i l d ' s r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t symbols can be exchanged n o t m e r e l y f o r t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f needs and d e s i r e s b u t f o r g i v i n g and g e t t i n g information  (b)  (Halliday's Informative function)  t h e e v o l u t i o n o f what i s i n i t i a l l y of symbols i n t o t h e a r b i t r a r y , system  of l i n g u i s t i c  a p r i v a t e and i n d i v i d u a l  system  c o n v e n t i o n a l and r u l e - g o v e r n e d  signs which  i s the adult  language.  SYMBOL TO SIGN  Index,  symbol and l i n g u i s t i c The  signifier)  ability  sign  t o s y m b o l i z e — t h a t i s , t o s u b s t i t u t e some f o r m ( t h e  f o r some c o n t e n t  (thes i g n i f i e d ) — c h a r a c t e r i z e s a  development a t t h e end o f t h e s e n s o r i m o t o r end  o f t h e second  child  to child).  which  operates  year of l i f e ,  although c o g n i t i v e growth v a r i e s  immediately  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n or thought; through  p e r i o d (roughly toward t h e  The c h i l d moves b e y o n d s e n s o r i m o t o r  through  significant  present  stimuli,  intelligence,  to conceptual  he c a n t h e n work o u t m e n t a l  combinations  evoked s t i m u l i and i s a b l e t o s t a r t p r e d i c t i n g t h e f u t u r e and  re-enacting the past.  According to Piaget, the symbolizing function i s  o r g a n i z e d i n a s i m i l a r way t o o t h e r c o g n i t i v e f u n c t i o n s , w h i c h that the a b i l i t y and  t o symbolize  evolves through  a process  accommodation c o o r d i n a t e d by t h e c h i l d ' s a c t i v i t i e s  internal logic. behaviour  The o r i g i n s o f t h i s  of sensorimotor  means  of assimilation and d e v e l o p i n g  f u n c t i o n c a n be observed  children, especially during the last  stages of t h i s p e r i o d , substages  i nthe two s u b -  V and V I , t h e t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d  between i n t e l l i g e n c e based on s e n s o r i m o t o r which  from  activities  and i n t e l l i g e n c e  i s representational, that i s , sign-based. S i g n i s a g e n e r i c t e r m r e f e r r i n g t o a u n i t y o f some s i g n i f i e r  with  98 some s i g n i f i e d .  In s e m i o l o g i c a l terms,  r e l a t i o n s h i p which may  t h e r e are d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f  o b t a i n between a s i g n i f i e r and i t s s i g n i f i e d ,  among which are the index, symbol, and  linguistic  sign.  The  index i s  a r e l a t i v e l y p r i m i t i v e s i g n i f i e r - s i g n i f i e d r e l a t i o n s h i p such t h a t signifier  i s a t r a c e of the s i g n i f i e d .  the  The n e i g h i n g of a horse or the  i m p r i n t o f i t s hoof are i n d e x i c a l s i g n i f i e r s i n t h a t they i n d i c a t e , t o someone f a m i l i a r w i t h a n i m a l s , the e x i s t e n c e ( p r o x i m a l i n the  first  i n s t a n c e , though not n e c e s s a r i l y so i n the second) of some hoofed that neighs.  Developmentally,  P i a g e t ' s s e n s o r i m o t o r substage Morehead (1974) c a l l  the index makes i t s appearance i n IV i n the form of what Morehead  'shared p r o p e r t i e s '  (172);  and  t h a t i s , the c h i l d i s  a b l e to r e c o g n i z e f e a t u r e s of an event which are common to h i s a c t i o n schemata.  animal  own  The meaning which he then draws out of the event i s  t h a t which i s a t t a c h e d to the p a r t i c u l a r schema w i t h which i t shares features.  The  index  (or 'shared p r o p e r t i e s ' ) o p e r a t e s as a  between the o u t s i d e models and the c h i l d ' s own  behaviour.  ance of t h i s phenomenon i s taken to be the f i r s t  mediator The  appear-  evidence t h a t some  r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s f o r the c h i l d between a s i g n i f i e r and a  signified,  a l t h o u g h such a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not y e t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l and  is still  a t t a c h e d to the p r e s e n t . The symbol i s a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l s i g n i n t h a t the r e - p r e s e n t s , or i s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r , the s i g n i f i e d and may p u r p o s e f u l l y t o communicate the l a t t e r . terms,  signifier be  In c l a s s i c a l s e m i o l o g i c a l  symbol r e f e r s t o a s i g n i n which the s i g n i f i e r p h y s i c a l l y or  f u n c t i o n a l l y resembles  the s i g n i f i e d .  An example i s the s c a l e s o f  j u s t i c e , a symbol o f i m p a r t i a l i t y , but an u t t e r a n c e such as a  used  "There's  " where the i m i t a t i o n of a h o r s e n e i g h i n g i s embedded i n  99 the  sentence frame i s also an instance of a motivated s i g n i f i e r - s i g n i f i e d  relationship. ive  Here, the s i g n i f i e d "horse" i s represented by an imitat-  s i g n i f i e r "neighing".  The appearance of deferred imitations,  marking the beginning of substage VI, i s the f i r s t evidence that the c h i l d i s capable of representation.  Imitation of an absent model (or  referent) implies that thei model has been replaced by a mental image (the  s i g n i f i e d ) upon which the imitation (the s i g n i f i e r ) i s based.  The  mental image i s necessary for any kind of symbolizing, and i t i s from a phenomenon which f i r s t appears i n substage V—adultomorphic, or adultl i k e , behaviours—that stable and s p e c i f i c mental images can start to be inferred. Whatever shape the child's early s i g n i f i e r - s i g n i f i e d relationships assume, they r e f l e c t i n various ways h i s distance from the c o l l e c t i v e sign system which i s the adult language. i s called a l i n g u i s t i c sign. representational. ways.  A word of an adult language  Like the symbol, the l i n g u i s t i c sign i s  It d i f f e r s from the symbol, however, i n two important  F i r s t , unlike the symbol, the l i n g u i s t i c sign i s not based on a  necessary resemblance between the s i g n i f i e r and the s i g n i f i e d ; the  rather,  s i g n i f i e r - s i g n i f i e d relationship i s unmotivated and a r b i t r a r y .  There i s , for example, no motivation for the connection between the s i g n i f i e r /hors/ and the s i g n i f i e d , the mental image of a horse. Second, whereas the child's f i r s t signs are private and i n d i v i d u a l , the l i n g u i s t i c sign i s c o l l e c t i v e , or conventional;  that i s , a l l speakers  of English have agreed more or less that /hors/ s h a l l designate a fourlegged solid-hoofed animal that neighs. Piaget's work implies that there i s a time i n development when the child's knowledge of language may be more accurately determined from h i s  100 imitative and play behaviours than from his utterances.  This means that  even the adult-sounding words and word combinations which a c h i l d uses during this early time might be described as motivated because of t h e i r i d e n t i t y (for the child) with the situations i n which they were f i r s t incorporated into the child's symbolic system and i n which they are subsequently used. a l , no date;  (See Barthes, 1967;  for more on  de Saussure, 1966;  and Heath et  semiology.)  Evidence for representation Gabriel's use of gestural imitations appears to provide an i n t e r esting demonstration of the t r a n s i t i o n between sensorimotor i n t e l l i g e n c e and sign-based i n t e l l i g e n c e and thus of the connection between language development i n p a r t i c u l a r and the symbolizing function i n general. Before discussing these phenomena i t should be established that Gabriel i s i n fact able to represent, as indicated i n behaviours which are c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of substage VI.  The f i r s t four examples occur outside  of discourse but are related to Gabriel's symbolizing a c t i v i t i e s . Assuming that there i s a semiological development, these data and the curious mixture of gestures and adult-sounding words which Gabriel uses i n dialogue appear to be precursory to h i s use of l i n g u i s t i c signs. A.  Adultomorphisms.  Although adultomorphisms are presumably  substage V behaviours, I give some examples of Gabriel's here to show that we can i n f e r the formation of stable and s p e c i f i c mental images. (2)  Session I, 2;4(0) Gabriel sees a cup, goes over to i t , picks i t up and drinks from i t .  (3)  Session XVI, 2;9(0) Gabriel picks up a broom and starts sweeping the f l o o r with i t .  101 (4)  Session VII, 2;4(8) Gabriel picks up an LP album, takes i t to the.^stereo and t r i e s to lift B.  the l i d which covers the turntable. Deferred imitations.  Examples of deferred imitation indicate  that the c h i l d has been able to i n t e r n a l i z e a mental image of an action or  event without going through the usual channel of imitating i t on the  spot.  The separation i n time and space of s i g n i f i e r from what i s s i g -  n i f i e d i s necessary for true language. (5)  Session I, 2;4(0) (The model for this imitation i s the male "fancy-dancing" performed at the summer pow-wow dances which are held across the P r a i r i e s . I c i t e this as an example of deferred imitation, although Gabriel may have actually imitated the model i n i t s immediate context.) Gabriel starts to dance, s h i f t i n g h i s weight from one foot to the other for every two beats he i s marking out with h i s arms;  arms  are held close to his sides, elbows bent and hands clenched as though holding shakers.  To f i n i s h the dance, he suddenly throws  back h i s arms and jumps, landing with h i s feet spread, and says /hah/. I include the following example only because i t shows c l e a r l y  how  Gabriel has had to evoke a mental image of something which happened a day previous. (6)  Session XIV, 2;4(21), u t t s , 266-270. (A day e a r l i e r the wind has caused the Venetian blind to r a t t l e sharply against the window s i l l , to which Gabriel said / c i c i / . Now he looks at the window s i l l with the b l i n d stationary and says:) G:  Hiyu  cici.  W:  come-here monster Hey?  "Come here, monster." 'Hey?'  102 G:  Cici.  "Monster."  W:  Cici?  "Monster?"  G;f.  Ha.  "Yes."  yes W:  Ni  +  you G:  yaxtake  +  bite  kte.  /2ah/!  " I t w i l l b i t e you.  Hah!"  P.  Cici.  "Monster."  / c i c i / here i s not a l a b e l f o r the window, but t h e s i g n i f i e r  f o r a past  r e f e r e n t which he has i n t e r n a l i z e d . C.  Immediate i m i t a t i o n of new models.  i m i t a t i o n s a r e t r i a l s and bear o n l y gross The  Most o f t h e c h i l d ' s e a r l y  resemblance t o t h e i r models.  growth i n p r e c i s i o n o f i m i t a t i o n s and the a b i l i t y  t o i m i t a t e new  models p r e c i s e l y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e c h i l d has i n t e r n a l i z e d the model before (7)  i m i t a t i n g i t r a t h e r than by_ i m i t a t i n g i t .  S e s s i o n X I I I , 2;4(20) E s t h e r puts a box o f crayons under her c h i n and h o l d s by p r e s s i n g her c h i n down a g a i n s t h e r c h e s t .  them t h e r e  G a b r i e l watches h e r ,  then p i c k s up h i s own box o f crayons and does t h e same,  still  facing her. (8)  Session  IX, 2;4(12)  I f a n my f a c e w i t h a notebook.  G a b r i e l i s c l o s e t o me watching.  He p i c k s up a tape r e e l box, t u r n s to f a c e i n the same d i r e c t i o n as I am f a c i n g and s t a r t s t o f a n h i s f a c e w i t h t h e box, l o o k i n g back at me once o r t w i c e . (9)  S e s s i o n X I I I , 2;4(20) E s t h e r burps a f t e r e a t i n g a doughnut and d r i n k i n g some j u i c e . G a b r i e l makes b u r p i n g laugh.  noises while  looking at her.  Then they both  103 Through t h i s a b i l i t y t o i m i t a t e new models p r e c i s e l y , the c h i l d becomes b e t t e r a t c o o r d i n a t i n g h i s own a c t i o n s without e x t e r n a l p r a c t i c e and i s a l s o a b l e t o expand h i s v o c a b u l a r y a c o u s t i c models.  The elements of double knowledge of o b j e c t s  t r e a t s as a f a n i n example [ 8 ] play  through i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n o f new (Gabriel  what he o t h e r w i s e t r e a t s as a box) and o f  ( G a b r i e l ' s games w i t h E s t h e r o f t e n take the form o f a t u r n - t a k i n g  process  i n v o l v i n g mutual i m i t a t i o n as i n example [ 9 ] )  are further e v i -  dence t h a t t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f a s s i m i l a t i o n and accommodation has taken place,  (e.g., as d i s c u s s e d  i n Piaget,  1 9 6 3 ) , thus a l l o w i n g the d i f f e r -  e n t i a t i o n o f s i g n i f i e r and s i g n i f i e d which i s n e c e s s a r y f o r language and  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l thought.  two  complementary processes  which P i a g e t describes  A s s i m i l a t i o n and accommodation a r e t h e  which make up the mechanism o f a d a p t a t i o n ,  uses as a model f o r c o g n i t i v e development.  those b e h a v i o u r s o f the c h i l d which attempt,' t o reshape  e x t e r n a l events and o b j e c t s t o some p e r s o n a l has  constructed.  i n t e r n a l model the c h i l d  Accommodation a p p l i e s t o those e f f o r t s by t h e c h i l d  to change h i s i n t e r n a l model t o resemble t h a t presented world.  Assimilation  Many k i n d s o f p l a y a r e a s s i m i l a t o r y , w h i l e  by the e x t e r n a l  i m i t a t i o n i s accom-  modatory. D.  Ludic  representations  imitations. i n play.  G a b r i e l i s capable of some i n t e r e s t i n g The k i n d o f p r e t e n d i n g  i n t h e example below  i n v o l v e s t h e i n v e n t i o n of a h y p o t h e t i c a l s i t u a t i o n o f f a l l i n g and  b e i n g wakened by a monster.  s l e e p e r and monster;  asleep  E s t h e r and G a b r i e l take t u r n s  being  both use exaggerated i n t o n a t i o n s t o express the  urgency o f t h e 7 s i t u a t i o n they a r e a c t i n g o u t .  104 (10)  S e s s i o n X I I I , 2;4(20), u t t s . 353-355 (Esther E:  pretends to  Gable.  (She  sleep.)  wants G.  to waken her.)  "Gabriel!"  Gabriel G:  Hey  cici.  "Hey,  (Esther wakes up E:  Ake  r i g h t away.)  Gabriel.  again  Iw|ka.  sleep.)  E:  Cici  Gabriel.  H|ta.  "  move  Taku  "Again, G a b r i e l .  "  "  ( G a b r i e l pretends to  W:  monster."  u  u  +  monst. come  ha?  ye.  "Gabriel. Move. Monster i s coming."  F.  Hey?  "What's coming?  Hey?"  what come Q. E:  Ake  Gabriel.  again G:  (The The  "Again G a b r i e l . "  "  Hey?  "Hey?"  game c o n t i n u e s w i t h E s t h e r l y i n g down to s l e e p i m i t a t i o n s of examples (7) and  accommodation, where the our  to an  purposes of p l a y . Gabriel's are no This  of  pure  v e r y w e l l w i t h example  presence of these two  system i n d i c a t e s t h a t h i s s i g n i f i e r s  to s u i t  the  behavi(10),  assimilatory  k i n d s of i m i t a t i o n i n ( i m i t a t i o n s or words)  l o n g e r t i e d through t h e i r s i g n i f i e d s to the o r i g i n a l r e f e r e n t s .  l e v e l of a b s t r a c t i o n  signs.  They c o n t r a s t  adapted h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s The  instances  c h i l d ' s e f f o r t s are at moulding h i s own  e x t e r n a l model.  where G a b r i e l has  (8) are  next.)  i s n e c e s s a r y f o r the use  of true  linguistic  105 Representations i n dialogue The examples given i n the preceding  section are representational,  but they are not symbolic i n the sense that I use here.  The  for symbolic representations are that they occur i n discourse involve an attempt by Gabriel to represent  criteria and  something to someone else.  The occurrences of gestural imitations i n his corpus actually seem to be instances of the Informative transmitting information.  function, the exchange of symbols for  While representation c l e a r l y need not be  verbal representation, not a l l children manifest the gestural and verbal combinations which Gabriel uses i n dialogue.  The fact that he does so  i s , I f e e l , p a r t i c u l a r l y revealing of what Piaget claims are the symbolic origins of l i n g u i s t i c signs. A.  E l i c i t e d imitative responses.  It has already been mentioned  that Wilma often e l i c i t e d speech from Gabriel by asking him about f a m i l i a r objects and people. of questions  she asks him  It may  questions  be that the p a r t i c u l a r kinds  (especially about the a c t i v i t i e s of persons  and objects) are an influencing factor i n his own d i a l o g u e - i n i t i a t i n g attempts, where he reports on just those aspects of the environment. It i s also possible that he i s cognitively attuned to them already. In any case, the examples given below show the simplest use of gestural imitation to represent exchange.  a referent, response to an a d u l t - i n i t i a t e d  Greenfield and Smith (1976) say that this i s more complex  for the c h i l d than i s his p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n exchanges he has himself  (181).  It may  initiated  be, then, that imitation i s an easier response  than supplying a verbal response;  however, since Gabriel does not yet  use words i n reference to these two objects, except for the forms /ca/, "comb", i n imitation of the adult form /ipakca/, and /yeye/, uttered  106 while looking at some guitar pictures, both occurring l a t e r i n the data, imitation may be the only form of response available to him at t h i s time. The element /eyaY has been cautiously translated here as "goes", although i t may i n fact not have t h i s meaning for Gabriel.  I t seems to  function as some sort of action morpheme i n Gabriel's system and, when used with his gestural imitations, may be intended to s i g n a l to h i s hearer(s) that the imitation i s a comment to be attended to.  Wilma's  use of this term, which she translated as meaning "Like that" or " I t goes l i k e that" are l i k e an "Oh r e a l l y " comment meant to keep the exchange with Gabriel a l i v e . (11)  Session IV, 2;4(5), u t t . 289 (Wilma and Gabriel are looking at pictures i n a mail-order c a t a l ogue. Wilma points to a picture of a hair comb.) W:  TSktuk hu + p what  G:  do  +  ye ha?  "What do they do?"  P l . G. F. Q.  Gabriel pretends to comb his hair with his hand from his crown to his forehead.  W:  Eya ha?  "Like that?"  Q. (12)  Session I, 2;4(0), utts. 333-336 (Wilma and Gabriel are looking at pictures of guitars i n the catalogue.) W:  G:  12  taku  ha?  it  what  Q.  Eya.  (no action)  "What's t h i s ? "  "Goes."  107  W:  Eya  ha?  "Like that?'  Q. G:  Eya.  W:  Tokex ecu +  ca ha?  how  G.  G:  "Goes."  do  "Mow i s i t used?"  Q.  Gabriel goes through the actions of playing a guitar, holding his hands close to h i s chest and wiggling h i s fingers.  W:  Ake  "Do i t again."  iya.  again go Tokex ecu + c  ca ha?  how  G.  De  do  Q.  dow|. + kta ye.  this sing  P.  G:  P.  "This w i l l sing."  F. " I t w i l l sing."  Dowa + kta ye. sing  "How i s i t used?"  F. "yes."  H|. yes  W:  Tokex ahiya ha?  Decex?  how  like-this  sing  Q.  "How does i t sing?  Like t h i s ? "  (She points to more guitars.) "Goes."  G: Eya.  B.  Gestural imitations i n spontaneous speech.  imitations described i n the preceding  The gestural  section, as responses to questions  which e l i c i t e d imitative responses, could be considered both expected and appropriate.  The appearance of the gestural morphemes i n more  108 spontaneous  speech strengthens my case that these phenomena are i n fact  proto-words.  The following examples show how Gabriel i s able to comment  on events he hasn't yet acquired the adult words f o r .  His e f f o r t s are  systematic i n that he engages the p o t e n t i a l audience and then makes h i s statement, using a combination of verbal and gestural elements, usually ending with the form /eyaV.  These are instances of immediate imitation,  occurring i n the presence of t h e i r s t i m u l i , but i t i s clear how they are symbolic representations while examples (7) and (8) are not.  Here, the  imitations are substituted for the events themselves i n discussion of them. (13)  Session VII, 2;4(8), utts. 351-353 (Gabriel sees a baby on t e l e v i s i o n clap i t s hands together.) G:  W:  Bibf  yd?  baby  F.  "Baby?"  Ha..  "Yes."  yes G:  Ka  b i b i he claps h i s hands together eya\  "That baby claps."  that baby W:  Eya  ha?  "Like that?"  Q. G:  Ha. c  "Yes."  yes W:  Oh.  G:  He claps h i s hands together again.  "Oh."  109 (14)  S e s s i o n I I I , 2;4(4), u t t s . 450-453 ( E s t h e r i s showing G a b r i e l how E:  Gabriel  (+3)  to wave good-bye.)  W|ka.  "Gabriel.  (+3)  Look."  /wayaka/ = " l o o k " ( E s t h e r demonstrates G:  Hey!  waving a c t i o n . )  He waves to her  Ka.  "Hey!"  (He t u r n s t o Wilma.)  "Goes wave."  ey£.  (He p o i n t s to E s t h e r . )  "That."  that W:  Tokex how  G:  hecu  ha?  that-do  T6kex  eya  how  say  "How  d i d she do  that?"  "How  do they say i t ? "  Q. +  ci G.  +  ya F.  M? Q.  "Bye-bye."  /babaj./. "bye-bye"  (15)  S e s s i o n V I I , 2;4(8), u t t s . 39-43 ( E s t h e r i s p l a y i n g w i t h t o y s on the f l o o r . them over.) G:  Ka  /pa:ja:/.  that f a l l W:  G:  (?)  (He g a s p s ) . Ko.  She knocks some of  "That f e l l  down.  That."  that  Taktuk  hii ha?  "What d i d she  do?"  what  do  /a^2u/  / c i / he f a l l s over on h i s s i d e on the c h e s t e r f i e l d  Q. eya.  Andrew "Andrew goes f a l l perhaps  down." (or  "Andrew goes c a u s e s -  to-fall.")  110 W:  Eya  ha?  "Like  that?"  Q. G:  Ha.  "Yes."  c  yes (16)  S e s s i o n XVI, 2;9(0), u t t s . 88-95 ( G a b r i e l watches a man on T.V. make a f a c e , d r o p p i n g h i s mouth open and widening h i s eyes i n an exaggerated way.) G:  Hey!  /maa/  He i m i t a t e s the f a c e eya.  G a b r i e l makes f a c e a g a i n .  /net/!  (He gets Marina's a t t e n t i o n . )  "Hey!  Makes a f a c e . "  "Man makes f a c e . "  "Annette."  Annette He makes f a c e  eya.  "Makes f a c e . "  He makes f a c e . /a%ndu/.  "Makes f a c e . "  (he shakes E s t h e r ' s  arm.)  "Andrew!"  Andrew (Esther l o o k s a t him.) G:  G a b r i e l makes f a c e a g a i n  eya\ Eya. "Makes f a c e .  Makes f a c e . "  I t appears t h a t G a b r i e l has a r u l e f o r forming sentences u s i n g g e s t u r a l morphemes, perhaps o f the form: ka Sentence  —>-({^ } ) G e s t u r a l  T h i s sentence p a t t e r n p r o v i d e s  G a b r i e l with  i m i t a t i o n /eya/ a frame i n t o which he can a t  some p o i n t s u b s t i t u t e l i n g u i s t i c s i g n s f o r the g e s t u r a l morphemes he now uses.  Note t h a t , i n example (14), he does exchange the word /babdi/ f o r  the i m i t a t i o n o f waving bye-bye a f t e r Wilma e l i c i t s  the word.  One more obvious p o i n t about the examples i s t h a t G a b r i e l does not  Ill attempt to represent the shapes of objects, t h e i r size or l o c a t i o n , but only their customary actions, underlining the sensorimotor nature of his knowledge of the world. C.  Two more cognitively complex uses of gestural morphemes.  next two examples show how gestural imitations.  The  extensive i s Gabriel's strategy of using  The f i r s t example, (17), involves a gestural  representation which cannot be i m i t a t i v e of an immediately present stimulus since the represented  event did not take place.  could be an instance of prevarication.  In f a c t , i t  Gabriel reconstructs a cause  he hasn't observed, given only the e f f e c t .  In order to do t h i s , he  must f i r s t form a mental image of what might have happened, and, i n the case of prevarication, deform that image i n order to re-assemble the incorrect representation.  He has been witness to the events preceding  the e f f e c t , so i t i s plausible that he i s being d e l i b e r a t e l y misleading. . (17)  Session VI, 2;4(7), u t t s . 178-182 (Marina has brought her younger brother, Raymond, to Wilma's house, intending to leave him to play. When she leaves, however, he starts to cry, so she comes back to get him and they leave together.) W:  G:  Taktuk  hu  ha?  what  do  Q.  c  Abu  y£.  sleep  F.  De  (to Gabriel)  What's he doing?"  "Sleep." (perhaps speculating on where Raymond has gone)  /aendu/ he pretends to s t r i k e with his hand  eya  this Andrew:.  that "Andrew h i t this  W:  TSktuk  hu  ha?  what  do  Q.  t  k6.  "What did she  one."  do?"  112 G:  /e/  he performs the same h i t t i n g action yaya... goes "Goes h i t . "  W:  Oh "  G:  eya  -  ha?  "Oh,  l i k e that?"  Q.  Ha\  "Yes."  yes While i n that example there i s contextual support for others to interpret Gabriel's comments, the next example shows that, removed from the referent event, his reconstructions using these personal symbols are not as successful.  gestural  The l i m i t a t i o n s of the personal  as opposed to the a r b i t r a r y and conventional  symbol,  l i n g u i s t i c sign, become  apparent when Gabriel attempts to use his private gestural  representation  to r e l a t e an incident to his mother. (18)  Session I,. 2;4(0), reported by Wilma after the session was  over  (Gabriel and Esther and I had been playing a Sleeping Beauty game where one of us pretended to be asleep and was woken by another with a kiss on the cheek.) When Wilma took Gabriel home, his mother was waiting on the front step.  He secured her attention and said /net/, pointing to  Wilma's house, which i s next-door. his mother's cheek  Then he reached up and kissed  and said /eya/, pointing to Wilma's house next  door. In order for his communication to be successful, i t was  necessary  for Wilma to translate for Gabriel's mother what her shared experience with Gabriel that morning led her to interpret from h i s gestures and words.  In f a c t , many children who  use personal  symbols i n early speech,  either verbal or gestural, are only comprehensible to t h e i r caretakers.  113 A c o r o l l a r y t o t h i s i s t h a t the l e n g t h o f time t h a t p e r s o n a l persist  symbols  i n the language system o f a c h i l d may be a f u n c t i o n o f how f a r  h i s s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s extend beyond D.  Onomatopoeic  imitations.  the-.immediate  family.  In a d d i t i o n t o the g e s t u r a l mor-  phemes, G a b r i e l has i n v e n t e d some onomatopoeic  symbols based on sounds  which a r e a t t a c h e d t o o b j e c t s and events i n h i s environment. example i s t h e morpheme /pu/, which accompanies  One such  h i s blowing out t h e  oo match whenever Wilma l i g h t s a c i g a r e t t e .  I n f a c t , Wilma has adopted  t h i s morpheme o f h i s when she wants him t o blow one o u t . (19)  S e s s i o n I I , 2;4(1), u t t s . 83-91 (Wilma l i g h t s a c i g a r e t t e . ) G:  Hey!  Ka.  KS.  Ka.  "Hey.  That. That. That. Blow."  /ptiV + ye.  oo " G: W:  that that that  F.  Ka /pti/ + y a . Hey?  oo  t h a t blow Ka.  Ka.  that that W:  blow  KS.  blow."  "That.  That.  That."  that  /pu/ i y e + blow go HS.  "That  F.  kta?  oo G:  "Hey?"  " Y o u ' l l blow i t o u t ? "  P.  c  "Yes."  yes Another of G a b r i e l ' s onomatopoeic  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s perhaps p r o v i d e s  an example o f how a p e r s o n a l symbol can e v e n t u a l l y be r e p l a c e d by a l i n g u i s t i c sign.  G a b r i e l uses b o t h an i m i t a t i o n of a h o r s e n e i g h i n g ,  p h o n e t i c a l l y o f the shape /2A2A"m/, and the form /koka/, d e r i v e d from the a d u l t Dakota word /SukS/, t o r e f e r t o h i s t o y h o r s e s and t o p i c t u r e s of  114 horses.  These two forms are used interchangeably throughout the sessions  in a number of syntactic frames or as one-word utterances.  In session  XV, however, while playing with the boy animals, Gabriel uses  /I^IKXH/  along with /koka/ and then appears to "introduce" the English word /hors/ into h i s lexicon.  He has certainly heard the English word i n the speech  around him, but Wilma was sure i t was the f i r s t use i t himself.  time she had heard him  The example has been edited i n order to present the two  following observations: (a)  the use of a l l three forms f o r the same referent  (b)  the p r a c t i s i n g of the new form /horsV i n syntactic frames both of the  (2)  old forms have been used i n .  Session XIV, 2;4(22), u t t s . 125-158 1. (Gabriel picks up one of the small toy horses; broken o f f . ) G:  Hey!  /koka/  boya.  "  horse  broken  W:  Hey?  G:  K6ka  "Horse broken."  §uk|? "Horse?"  H|i. Koka  boya.  yes horse broken W:  "Yes.  Horse broken."  Suka ixpaye ha? horse f a l l  G:  (?)  b6ya.  horse G:  Horse broken."  "Hey?"  horse broken W:  "Hey!  its tail is  H|.  K6ka  Q.  "Did  the horse f a l l down?"  b6ya.  yes horse broken  "Yes.  Horse broken."  115 3uka  ixpaye  ye.  "Yes.  The horse f e l l down."  W:  Ha.  G:  Hey!  "Hey."  W:  Hey?  "Hey?"  G:  Bapi.  "Puppy."  "puppy" W:  "Puppy?"  /bapi/? "puppy"  G:  /ZA2AITI/.  /UlW-  /ZAUHI/.  horse  horse  horse  "Horse. Horse. Horse."  (He p i c k s up another toy horse.) Hey.  Hey.  /hors/  iya.  "Hey.  Hey.  Horse goes."  "horse" 2. (The f o l l o w i n g u t t e r a n c e s have een removed from the s u r r o u n d i n g d i a l o g u e , but r e p r e s e n t spontaneous u t t e r a n c e s u s i n g the new form /horS/ i n o l d s y n t a c t i c frames.) G:  Hey!  /hors*/  /bab|i/.  "horse"  /hors/  "horse" / c i c i /  /hors/.  "  "horse"  Hey "  /hors*/  Horse  bye-bye."  "bye-bye"  /d^id^isV.  Hey  "Hey.  "Horse monster,  = monster  "Hey h o r s e . "  iyaya.  " h o r s e " goes  "Hey h o r s e goes."  116 Hey  /horsV  "  "horse"  Hey  potet  new  iya.  h o r s e broken."  "Hey  two  horses  go."  "horse"  word /horsY i s brought i n t o G a b r i e l ' s system through o l d  s t r u c t u r e s i n which i t s p r e c u r s o r s o t h e r new  "Hey  broken  /horsV  two The  /paya:/.  have been used.  a d u l t forms w i l l r e p l a c e p e r s o n a l  I t c o u l d be  symbols a c c o r d i n g  that  to  this  o p e r a t i n g p r i n c i p l e which has been observed i n the speech systems of other  children:  Use  o l d s t r u c t u r e s f o r p r a c t i s i n g new  f o r p r a c t i s i n g new Unfortunately, t h e r e any two  forms;  use o l d forms  structures.  the d a t a don't appear t o i n c l u d e o t h e r examples, nor  reference  o l d forms had  to horses i n the f i n a l s e s s i o n to t e s t whether  i n f a c t been  was the  replaced.  CONCLUDING REMARKS  In t h i s chapter b o t h a semantic and  I have attempted to view G a b r i e l ' s l e x i c o n from •  semiological perspective.  on word c a t e g o r i e s and i n g t e n t a t i v e l y t h a t he  f i r s t part  focussed  semantic range i n G a b r i e l ' s v o c a b u l a r y ,  indicat-  i s using perceptual  extend h i s l e x i c a l items.  The  l i n g u i s t i c s i g n s from p e r s o n a l  The  f e a t u r e s i n order  second p a r t d i s c u s s e d  to o v e r -  the emergence of  symbols, an approach which appears to  account q u i t e w e l l f o r i d i o s y n c r a t i c phenomena i n G a b r i e l ' s language system.  These phenomena, g e s t u r a l and  match the d e s c r i p t i o n s g i v e n by P i a g e t between s e n s o r i m o t o r i n t e l l i g e n c e and  onomatopoeic  representations,  of t r a n s i t i o n a l b e h a v i o u r s sign-based  or r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l  117 intelligence; I have t r i e d  they thus appear t o be p r e c u r s o r s to l i n g u i s t i c  t o show t h a t these d a t a p r o v i d e q u i t e c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e  t h a t t h e r e i s a c o n n e c t i o n between the c h i l d ' s e a r l y i m i t a t i v e and h i s e v e n t u a l c a p a c i t y to use l i n g u i s t i c adult  signs.  language.  behaviours  s i g n s as a speaker of an  CHAPTER SIX  CONCLUDING REMARKS  Semiology, pragmatics arid semantics T h i s r e p o r t has been shaped by the assumption  t h a t language a c q u i s -  i t i o n i n v o l v e s the a c q u i s i t i o n of s e m i o l o g i c a l , pragmatic and  semantic  knowledge, a l l of which can be observed i n the speech system of the c h i l d b e f o r e he has developed any s y n t a c t i c s o p h i s t i c a t i o n .  This  position  i m p l i e s t h a t t r a d i t i o n a l syntax-based s t u d i e s , b e g i n n i n g as l a t e as the multi-morphemic  stage and a t t e m p t i n g t o e x p l a i n even the e a r l i e s t morpheme  combinations i n p u r e l y s y n t a c t i c terms, have missed a c o n s i d e r a b l e range of  l i n g u i s t i c and l i n g u i s t i c - r e l a t e d data from the c h i l d which more r e c e n t  i n v e s t i g a t i o n s a r e s u g g e s t i n g have e x p l a n a t o r y power i n an model.  A c c o r d i n g t o the broader view, language i s f i r s t  b o l i c system and the c a p a c i t y to symbolize i s a c o g n i t i v e the  b a s i c s t e p s of which take p l a c e d u r i n g the f i r s t  acquisition of a l l a symachievement,  two y e a r s o f l i f e .  Language i s a l s o an a c t i v i t y through which the c h i l d can r e a l i z e a range of  g o a l s and p o t e n t i a l s r e l a t e d t o h i s e v e r - i n c r e a s i n g involvement i n the  s o c i a l meaning system; the  i n o t h e r words, every o c c u r r e n c e of speech, w i t h  p o s s i b l e e x c e p t i o n of language p r a c t i c e , has f u n c t i o n a l meaning a p a r t  from the semantic content of the words and word combinations b e i n g used. Semantic knowledge, the a b i l i t y t o express r e f e r e n t i a l and  relational  meaning through f o r m a l l i n g u i s t i c d e v i c e s , d e r i v e s i n p a r t from pragmatic development  but:.also from b a s i c c o g n i t i v e developments, 118  such as  categorizing  119 a n d r e c o g n i z i n g o b j e c t p e r m a n e n c e (± e x i s t e n c e ) , a g e n c y , the s e p a r a t i o n of s e l f  from environment.  On  the assumption that  guage i s u s e d t o e x p r e s s meaning w h i c h i s d e r i v e d activities  and w h i c h r e f l e c t s  location,  from such  lan-  cognitive  the c h i l d ' s growing knowledge of t h e  w o r l d , r e s e a r c h e r s are a t t e m p t i n g t o d e s c r i b e the development linguistic  and  d e v i c e s i n terms of semantic a c q u i s i t i o n .  For  of f o r m a l  example,  e a r l y s y n t a x i s seen as t h e e x p r e s s i o n o f a s e t o f u n i v e r s a l  basic  semantic r e l a t i o n s which i t i s claimed are c o g n i t i v e l y a v a i l a b l e to the sensorimotor c h i l d ;  g r a m m a t i c a l m o d u l a t i o n s i n d i c a t e an awareness  of  f i n e r d i s t i n c t i o n s w h i c h t h e c h i l d comes t o r e a l i z e c a n b e e x p r e s s e d formally. What I h a v e b r i e f l y  described here i s a h i e r a r c h y of  i n the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of language.  At the outside l e v e l ,  system of symbols w h i c h , at the next l e v e l , a number o f d i f f e r e n t  abstraction language i s a  a r e put t o use t o p e r f o r m  f u n c t i o n s w h i c h , a t t h e n e x t more p r e c i s e  i n v o l v e the e x p r e s s i o n of the c o n t e n t s o f i n d i v i d u a l symbols their  specific real world referents.  child  is fully  language  signs,  I t must a l s o be assumed t h a t  c o m p e t e n t a t n o n e o f t h e s e l e v e l s when h e  first  t o i n t e r a c t v e r b a l l y and t h a t s e m i o l o g i c a l , p r a g m a t i c and developments  or  level,  the  begins  semantic  w i l l be o c c u r r i n g s i m u l t a n e o u s l y d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d  of  early  acquisition.  Semiological The signifier) referent).  development  ability  to symbolize c o n s i s t s of s u b s t i t u t i n g  f o r some c o n t e n t ( a s i g n i f i e d , The  signifier-signified  some f o r m  (a  o r m e n t a l image o f a r e a l w o r l d  relationship i s called a sign;  range i n c o m p l e x i t y from the s i g n a l , which i s almost l i k e a r e f l e x  signs and  120 i n v o l v e s no m e n t a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n to the and  linguistic  i n which the  arbitrary  and,  s i g n , or word, which i n v o l v e s signifier-signified  develops across  Piaget  reaching  continue  to use  the  s t a t u s of  a full  that  the  the  study of  linguistic  acting, etc.). early child  The  in out  some n e c e s s a r y way  to the  i t has  Piaget  child's  says that t h i s  i m i t a t i v e and  can  considerably  f o r the  child  The  discovered  theory  of  child's earliest  Gabriel's  o f o n o m a t o p o e i c and  what I c o n s i d e r linguistic  t o be  signs.  he  has  signifier  started signs.  i s related  this  could  end  basic  of the  of  the  sensorimotor  level—the  word—  a phenomenon w h i c h a p p e a r s While the  a d u l t - s h a p e d words can  only  be  inferred,  symbolic precursors  These forms bear a p h y s i c a l resemblance to activities  to  motivated  g e s t u r a l morphemes a s w o r d s  c l e a r e v i d e n c e of the  r e f e r e n t s b a s e d e i t h e r on  arise  representing,  through observation  semiological genesis.  nature of the use  posi-  c a n n o t assume  linguistic  child,  lives,  adult's.  data from G a b r i e l i n c l u d e d  support Piaget's  One  i s c a p a b l e of  p l a y behaviours toward the  from the  and  throughout t h e i r  full  p e r i o d , h i s knowledge of language at the v e r y differs  behaviour  a p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n schema o f h i s .  that the be  a  (even though people  i s producing before  signified;  been e s t a b l i s h e d  speakers of  clear.  symbols, i n which the  of a word's a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h  Until and  t o be  the  i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s  demonstrating r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l behaviour are T h e y a r e more l i k e l y  representation  reflexive signal  signs  speech are  a d u l t - s h a p e d words a c h i l d  a mental  child's signing  range of d i f f e r e n t signs  drawing, gesturing,  t i o n f o r the  says that  (by  t h i s range, s t a r t i n g w i t h the  finally  c r i e s are s i g n a l s ) ,  r e l a t i o n s h i p i s unmotivated,  t h r o u g h c o l l e c t i v e agreement  language), exact.  in  (the baby's f i r s t  provides to their  t h e y p e r f o r m o r d i s p l a y o r on  the  121 sounds they make, and Gabriel uses them i n a range of verbal syntactic frames instead of their l e x i c a l equivalents  (which I assume he doesn't  yet have), thus expanding on an as yet limited vocabulary.  It may  be  possible to suggest that i d i o s y n c r a t i c aspects of his syntax are related to the imperfect knowledge of the conventional nature of language the gestural and onomatopoeic representations  reveal.  Pragmatic or functional development One of the more important claims that Halliday (1975) makes i s that language i s used for many other purposes than the exchange of  information,  although i t i s this function which predominates i n adult thinking about language.  In fact, Halliday says that the Informative  function i s a  sophisticated one, defined i n purely language terms as the exchange of symbols for the purposes of transmitting and receiving information; i t i s the l a t e s t to appear Of seven basic functions.  and  The c h i l d uses  language to perform much the same functions as an adult:  to regulate  the behaviour of others, to get things, to interact s o c i a l l y , to express personal feelings, to discover things about the world and to develop and extend the imagination.  These functions appear long before the c h i l d  has acquired a lexicogrammatical  structure which w i l l enable him to  encode functional meanings i n the adult language;  t h i s indicates that  functional meaning i s independent to some extent from the a c q u i s i t i o n of formal l i n g u i s t i c devices. or pragmatic by d e f i n i t i o n . language i s organized  A l l language use, however, i s functional Halliday points out that the adult  around functional components.  The c h i l d , there-  fore, must be functionally fluent before he can acquire, say, interrogative or imperative  structures.  122 Besides  the lexicogrammatical  s t r u c t u r e , t h e a d u l t language  i n c o r p o r a t e s a system f o r v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n — t h e d i a l o g u e . ability  The c h i l d ' s  t o answer i n f o r m a t i o n - s e e k i n g q u e s t i o n s , and l a t e r t o a s k such  q u e s t i o n s , marks, a c c o r d i n g participation. in  system  the social  the c o l l e c t i v e An  to Halliday, a potential f o rtrue  T h i s development i n d i c a t e s h i s i n c r e a s i n g  involvement  s e m i o t i c and what w i l l be t h e q u i c k l y g r o w i n g i n f l u e n c e o f a d u l t language system on h i s p e r s o n a l  examination  language  system.  o f G a b r i e l ' s l a n g u a g e u s e shows t h a t h e h a s m a s t e r e d  the s i x b a s i c f u n c t i o n s and i s s t a r t i n g relation  dialogue  t o d e m o n s t r a t e some c o m p e t e n c e i n  t o t h e g i v i n g and g e t t i n g o f i n f o r m a t i o n .  H i s performance i n  d i s c o u r s e r e v e a l s t h a t he has a c q u i r e d a few p r i m i t i v e  strategies for  initiating  and p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n v e r b a l i n t e r a c t i o n s .  His principal  initiating  p a t t e r n i s t o e n g a g e a n a u d i e n c e b y means o f t h e w o r d " h e y "  accompanied by eye c o n t a c t the  focus  and sometimes p o i n t i n g g e s t u r e s  of h i s interest.  of response.  to identify  P a r t i c i p a t i o n r e v o l v e s on t h r e e b a s i c  The f i r s t , a n s w e r i n g a q u e s t i o n o r o b e y i n g  types  a command, i s  t h e one he i s l e a s t adept a t ; however, t h e g e n e r a l r e s p o n s e f o r m / k a / and  t h e m a i n t a i n i n g r e s p o n s e f o r m " h u h " o r "hmmm" ( w i t h r i s i n g  intona-  t i o n ) a r e used e x t e n s i v e l y and a l l o w him t o t a k e p a r t i n a p e r f u n c t o r y way i n many d i a l o g u e s i t u a t i o n s .  Verbal i n t e r a c t i o n s w i t h him a r e  a c t u a l l y l o o s e l y connected egocentric utterances i n t e r l o c u t o r s through  Semantic The semantic  extensive modelling  and  tied  t o g e t h e r by a d u l t  expansion.  development word and t h e word c o m b i n a t i o n u n i t s o f a language.  or p r o p o s i t i o n a l meanings.  o r s e n t e n c e a r e t h e two m a j o r  They e x p r e s s According  r e f e r e n t i a l and r e l a t i o n a l  to several researchers ( f o r  123 example, Bowerman, 1976;  Clark, 1973; Nelson, 1973), the a b i l i t y to  categorize i s entailed by the formation of word meanings.  On the basis  of his sensorimotor knowledge of the world, with i t s perceptual and funct i o n a l components, the c h i l d categorizes objects and events and labels them, using h i s own personal symbols or adopted adult words.  Whether  he r e l i e s more on perceptual or functional features i n this a c t i v i t y i s s t i l l a matter of debate, although data apparently support the perceptual feature hypothesis.  Categorization strategies are revealed, i t i s  claimed, through c h i l d word use errors, errors such as overextension, where the c h i l d applies the word correctly to the class members but extends i t to non-members which presumably resemble the class members i n some way. That the child's f i r s t two-morpheme utterances almost always express one of a small set of semantic relations i s the position of Brown (1973).  He arrived at this conclusion through a semantically-character-  ized ' r i c h ' interpretation of the early syntactic structures of a number of c h i l d language samples from d i f f e r e n t languages. relations which he proposes—agent  The prevalent  and action, action and object, agent  and object, action and l o c a t i v e , entity and l o c a t i v e , possessor and possession, entity and a t t r i b u t e and demonstrative and e n t i t y — a n d four 'operations of reference'—nomination, nonexistence, recurrence and reference to s e l f or mother—can, he claims, be derived from sensorimotor concepts which are normally available to the c h i l d at the beginning of syntax.  Interpreting two words occurring together as evidence of the  child's underlying r e l a t i o n a l knowledge involves the assumption  that the  c h i l d both understands and wants to express those aspects of situations which tend to be obvious to, and thus taken for granted by, adults.  124 Some researchers (for example, Howe, 1976;  Tran Due Thao, 1973)  feel,  however, that this overestimates the child's semantic potential at the time of early speech.  Howe suggests instead very general utterance  categories based on what we can be much surer i s within the child's c o g n i t i o n — t h e categories of name of object, state of object and action of o b j e c t — a l l of which can be determined from the surface structure of the  child's utterances.  The occurrence of two words together could  merely be the child's expression of h i s recognition of a simple juxtaposition, rather than of a semantic r e l a t i o n . In the Brown-type analysis of Gabriel's multi-morphemic data, I found that a s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower percentage of h i s utterances expressed one of the relations proposed by Brown.  That percentage consisted  almost exclusively of the one relation—Demonstrative + E n t i t y — w h i c h i s a naming r e l a t i o n closely t i e d to the operation of reference, nomination. Brown suggests that the 'pivot look' of the early syntax of many c h i l dren i s caused by the frequency of the operations of reference i n their speech at this time.  Using this framework I was able to i d e n t i f y four  'presumptive pivots' i n Gabriel's two-morpheme utterances, one of which, /ka/, accounted for almost one t h i r d of his t o t a l corpus.  The predom-  inance of this operation, and thus of the r e l a t i o n Demonstrative + Entity (through r e d e f i n i t i o n ) , may be explained as an effect of the interview nature of the f i r s t f i f t e e n data sessions, although t h i s isn't a strong argument i n Gabriel's case.  It may also indicate that  naming i s an important a c t i v i t y f o r t h i s c h i l d , something he accomplishes through a simple syntactic pattern of /ka/ + Word. the  The low counts for  other relations could be due to hesitations I f e l t about assigning  rather complex interpretations to s t i l l very deformed and ambiguous data.  125 Although Brown has defined his utterance categories semantically and t i e d them to sensorimotor cognitive achievements, i t remains that they are e s s e n t i a l l y syntactic categories.  Howe's more general  classification  accounts for almost 100% of Gabriel s. multi-morphemic data, which, as 1  she says, may not say much about the meanings a l c h i l d at the point of early syntax has, but i t says a l l we can confidently say about semantic meaning at t h i s stage of knowledge.  F i n a l comment The intention of this report was to characterize according to three levels of l i n g u i s t i c analysis the meaning development of one c h i l d who, because he i s acquiring a language other than English that has not been reported on before i n terms of a c q u i s i t i o n , offers an i n t e r e s t i n g case f o r comparison of c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c s i m i l a r developments.  126 BIBLIOGRAPHY B a r t h e s , R. Bates, E.  Elements of Semiology. Pragmatics  London:  and s o c i o l i n g u i s t i c s .  Cape E d i t i o n s , In D. Morehead  1967. and  A. Morehead ( e d s . ) , Normal and d e f i c i e n t c h i l d language. B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1976, 411-463. Bloom, L. Language development: form and f u n c t i o n i n emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. P r e s s , 1970. Bloom, L. One word a t a time: the use of s i n g l e - w o r d u t t e r a n c e s b e f o r e syntax. The Hague: Mouton, 1973. Boas, F., & D e l o r i a , E. of S c i e n c e s , 1941,  Dakota Grammar. 23, 1-183.  Memoirs of the N a t i o n a l Academy  Bowerman, M. E a r l y s y n t a c t i c development: a c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c study w i t h s p e c i a l r e f e r e n c e to F i n n i s h . London: Cambridge, Univ. P r e s s , 1973. Bowerman, M. Semantic f a c t o r s i n a c q u i s i t i o n of r u l e s f o r word use and sentence c o n s t r u c t i o n . In D. Morehead and A. Morehead ( e d s . ) , Normal and d e f i c i e n t c h i l d language. B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1976, 101-179. B r a i n e , M. D. S. The ontogeny o f E n g l i s h phrase s t r u c t u r e s : phase. Language, 1973, 39(1), 1-14. Brown, R. A f i r s t language: the e a r l y s t a g e s . Harvard U n i v . P r e s s , 1973.  the  first  Cambridge, Mass.:  Brown, R., and B e l l u g i , U. Three p r o c e s s e s i n the c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of syntax. Harvard E d u c a t i o n a l Review, 1964, 34, 133-51. Brown, R., and C. F r a s e r . The a c q u i s i t i o n of syntax. In C. N. C o f e r and B. S. Musgrave ( e d s . ) , V e r b a l Behaviour and L e a r n i n g . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964. Buechel, Rev. E. L a k o t a - E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y (ed. by Rev. P i n e Ridge: Red Cloud I n d i a n S c h o o l , 1970.  P.  Manhart).  C a r t e r , A. The t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of s e n s o r i m o t o r morphemes i n t o words: a case study of the development of "more" and "mine". J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language, 1975, 2, 233-250. C a r t e r , R. Teton Dakota Phonology. U n i v e r s i t y of Manitoba Anthropology Papers. Winnipeg, Man.: Univ. of Man., Dept. of Anthropology, 1974. Chafe, W. E s t i m a t e s r e g a r d i n g the p r e s e n t speakers of North American I n d i a n languages. I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l of American L i n g u i s t i c s , 1962-3, 28-9, 162-172.  127 Chafe, W. Meaning and the structure of language. Press, 1970. Chomsky, N. Syntactic structures. Mouton, 1957.  Janua Linguarum No. 4.  Chomsky, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Press, 1965. Chomsky, N.  Chicago:  Reflections on language.  at the Univ. The Hague:  Cambridge, Mass.:  New York:  M.I.T.  Pantheon, 1975.  Clark, E. What's i n a word: on the child's a c q u i s i t i o n of semantics i n his f i r s t language. In T. E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the a c q u i s i t i o n of language. New York: Academic Press, 1973, 65-110. Dore, J . A pragmatic description of early language development. of Psychological Research, 1974, 4, 423-30.  Journal  Dore, J . , Franklin, M., M i l l e r , R., and Ramer, A. Transitional phenomena i n early language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 1976, 3, 13-28. Due Thao, T. Paris:  Recherches sur l ' o r i g i n e du langage et de l a conscience. Editions sociales, 1973.  Edwards, D. Sensorimotor i n t e l l i g e n c e and semantic r e l a t i o n s i n early c h i l d grammar. Cognition: International Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 2/4, 395-435. Ferguson, C , & Slobin, D. (eds.). Studies of c h i l d language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973. Fillmore, C. The case for case. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals i n l i n g u i s t i c theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968, 1-87. F i r t h , J . A synopsis of l i n g u i s t i c theory. Studies i n l i n g u i s t i c analysis (Special volume of the P h i l o l o g i c a l Society). Oxford: Blackwell, 1957. Francis, H. Structure i n the:-.speech of a 2% year-old. The B r i t i s h Journal of Educational Psychology, 1969, 39, 291-302. Frege, G. Philosophical writings. Oxford: Blackwell, 1952.  P. Geech and M. Black (eds.).  Greenfield, P., Nelson, K., and Saltzman, E. The development of r u l e bound strategies for manipulating seriated cups: a p a r a l l e l between action and grammar. Cognitive Psychology, 1972, 3, 291-310.  128 Greenfield, P., & Smith, J . language development. Halliday, M. A. K. of language.  The structure of communication i n early New York: Academic Press, 1976.  Learning how to mean—explorations i n the development London: Edward Arnold, 1975.  Heath, S., MacCabe, C., and Prendergast, C. Signs of the times: introductory readings i n textual semiotics. London: no. publ., no date given. Hollow, R. A note on Assiniboine phonology. International Journal of American L i n g u i s t i c s , 1970, 36, 296-298. Howe, C. The meanings of two-word utterances i n the speech of young children. Journal of Child Language, 1976, 3, 29-47. Ingram, D.  T r a n s i t i v i t y i n c h i l d language.  Language, 1971, 47, 888-809.  Ingram, D. Phonological rules i n young children. Language, 1974, 1, 49-64.  Journal of Child  Ingram, D. Phonological d i s a b i l i t y i n children. Studies i n language d i s a b i l i t y and remediation 2. London: Edward Arnold, 1976. Katz, J . , & Fodor, J . The structure of a semantic theory. 1963, 39, 170-210.  Language,  Lakoff, G. L i n g u i s t i c s and natural l o g i c . In Studies i n generative semantics 1. Phonetics Laboratory, Univ. of Michigan, 1970. Levin, N. The Assiniboine language. Research Center i n Anthropology, Folklore and L i n g u i s t i c s , University of Indiana, Publ. no. 32, 1964. McCawley, J. The role of semantics i n a grammar. In E. Bach and R. Harms (eds.), Universals i n l i n g u i s t i c theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1968, 124-169. Maclay, H. Overview. In D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds.), Semantics: an i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y reader i n philosophy, l i n g u i s t i c s and psychology. London: Cambridge, Univ. Press, 1971, 157-182. McNeill, D. The a c q u i s i t i o n of language: the study of developmental psycholinguistics. New York: Harper and Row, 1970. Matthews, G. A phonemic analysis of a Dakota d i a l e c t . International Journal of American L i n g u i s t i c s , 1955, 21, 56-59. M i l l e r , W., and Ervin, S. The development of grammar i n c h i l d language. In U. B e l l u g i and R. Brown (eds.), The Acquisition of Language. Monographs of the Society f o r Research i n Child Development, 1964, 29(1), S e r i a l No. 92, 9-34.  129 Morehead, D., & Morehead, A. From s i g n a l to s i g n : a P i a g e t i a n view of thought and language d u r i n g the f i r s t two y e a r s . In R. S c h i e f e l busch and L. L l o y d ( e d s . ) , Language p e r s p e c t i v e s — a c q u i s i t i o n , r e t a r d a t i o n and i n t e r v e n t i o n . B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s , 1974, 129-152. Moskowitz, A. On the s t a t u s of vowel s h i f t i n E n g l i s h . In T. Moore ( e d . ) , C o g n i t i v e development and the a c q u i s i t i o n o f language. York: Academic P r e s s , 1973, 223-60.  New  Nelson, K. Some e v i d e n c e f o r the c o g n i t i v e primacy o f c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and i t s f u n c t i o n a l b a s i s . M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Quart. Behav. Dev., 1973, 19, 21-39. O i l e r , D. K., Wieman, L. A., Doyle, W. J . , and Ross, C. C h i l d , speech, b a b b l i n g , and p h o n o l o g i c a l u n i v e r s a l s . Papers and r e p o r t s on c h i l d language development 8. S t a n f o r d , 1974, 33-41. P a r i s i , D., and G i a n e l l i , W . Language and s o c i a l environment a t 2 y e a r s . Unpublished m a n u s c r i p t , I n s t i t u t e of Psychology, N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l of Research, Rome, 1974. P i a g e t , J . The c o n s t r u c t i o n of r e a l i t y B a l l a n t i n e Books, 1954.  i n the c h i l d .  New  York:  P i a g e t , J . P l a y , dreams and i m i t a t i o n i n c h i l d h o o d . L i b r a r y , 1962.  New  York:  Norton  P i a g e t , J . The o r i g i n s of i n t e l l i g e n c e i n c h i l d r e n . L i b r a r y , 1963.  New  York:  Norton  Riggs, S. R. (ed.).  Dakota grammar, t e x t s , and ethnography. J . 0. Dorsey Washington: Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1893.  Rood, D. A s p e c t s of s u b o r d i n a t i o n i n Lakhota and W i c h i t a . Papers from the Comparative Syntax F e s t i v a l , Chicago L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , 1973, 71-88. de Saussure, F.  Course i n g e n e r a l  linguistics.  New  York:  McGraw-Hill,  1966. S c h l e s i n g e r , I . P r o d u c t i o n of u t t e r a n c e s and language a c q u i s i t i o n . In D. S l o b i n ( e d . ) , The o n t o g e n e s i s of grammar. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1971, 63-101. S i n c l a i r - d e - Z w a r t , H. A p o s s i b l e theory of language a c q u i s i t i o n w i t h i n the g e n e r a l framework of P i a g e t ' s developmental t h e o r y . In D. E l k i n s and J . F l a v e l l ( e d s . ) , S t u d i e s i n c o g n i t i v e development. O x f o r d : a t the U n i v . P r e s s , 1969, 326-336. S i n c l a i r - d e - Z w a r t , H. Language a c q u i s i t i o n and c o g n i t i v e development. In T. Moore ( e d . ) , C o g n i t i v e development and the a c q u i s i t i o n of language. New York: Academic P r e s s , 1973, 9-26.  130 S i n c l a i r - d e - Z w a r t , H. On pre-speech. Papers and r e p o r t s on c h i l d language development 8. S t a n f o r d , 1974. S l o b i n , D. ( e d . ) . The o n t o g e n e s i s of grammar: New York: Academic P r e s s , 1971.  a theoretical  symposium.  S l o b i n , D. ( e d . ) . A f i e l d manual f o r c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c study of t h e a c q u i s i t i o n of communicative competence. U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Berkeley: a t the Bookstore, 1967. S l o b i n , D. C o g n i t i v e p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r the development o f grammar. In C. Ferguson and D. S l o b i n ( e d s . ) , S t u d i e s o f c h i l d language development. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1973, 175-210 Strawson, P.  On r e f e r r i n g .  Mind, 1950, 59.  S t a n l e y , R. Boundaries i n phonology. C l u b , 1971.  Bloomington, I n d i a n a :  Univ. Ling  T a y l o r , A. Some t r a i t s o f t h e Dakota language r e v i s i t e d : Lakhota c l a u s final enclitics. Paper d e l i v e r e d a t American Anthrop. Assoc. meeting, Mexico C i t y , 1974. van d e r Geest, T. Some a s p e c t s o f communicative competence and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r language a c q u i s i t i o n . Assen, The N e t h e r l a n d : K o n i n k l i j k e van Gorcum & Comp. B.V., 1975.  APPENDIX I Excerpts from data sessions I and VII Session I, 2;4(0), utts. 1-43 W:  Iyuteka! " S i t down!" s i t down (I point to a picture of a l i t t l e boy i n the catalogue.) "Is that a boy?" A: Hoks'ina waz*£? c  boy one W: Be t£ku he dd? Hey? this what Q. this " (She l i g h t s a cigarette.) Kuna /pu/ + yekte yd.  **  oo  again blow go Kuna. c hurry /pu7. (He blows.)  oo A: W:  Hey?'  "Hurry, blow this out."  oo  hurry blow go P. F. Ake\ /pri/ iya*.  G:  "What's this?  blow Ah, wa§t£. good  "Again.  Go blow."  "Hurry." "Blow." "Ah, good." it  II  "Get i t . Did you break i t ? "  Icu! Dukse" + kte h£? "Who broke i t ? " get you-break P. Q. Tuwe" yuks£ ha? "What's that?" who break Q. A: He takd ha? "What are these?" W: Dena taku Q. ha? Hey? that what these what toQ. (Wilma points a page of shoes i n the catalogue.) "Hmmm?" G: Hmmm? W: Dena taku ha? "What are these?" these what Q. Talcu ha? He taku ha? "What's that? What i s i t ? " what Q. that what Q. Dena taltu ha? He taku ha? "What's that? What are thes these what Q. that what Q. "Shoes." G: H£pa. shoes "Shoes?" W: H|pa? shoes "Hey." G: Hey. "Hey?" W: Hey? "Shoes." G: H^pa + ye. shoes F.  132 "Shoes?" H|pa? shoes "What a b o u t t h i s ? What i s ha? Taku De IS t o ? what this i t — Q. "Shoes." /h|:pa/ + ye. G: F. shoes "How's t h a t ? ' W: T6kex? how "Shoes." /h|:pa/ + ya. G: F. shoes "Shoes?" ha? /h£:pa/ + yA W: F. Q. shoes "Yes." G: H£. yes "What's t h i s ? " Dis' t a k u ha? W: (de+is*) this w h a t Q"That one. T h a t . " /xa/. G: K a e z i . (ka) (wazi) that t h a t one "What i s i t ? What's t h i s , T a k u h a ? De taku ha, Esther? W: w h a t Q. t h i s w h a t Q. ( E s t h e r i s l o o k i n g a t "p i c t u r e s o f women i n t h e c a t a l o g u e . ) "Women." E: W£ya. "Women? Y e s . " W i y a ? H § . W: women Q. "This. What's t h a t ? " /de:/. He t a k u h a ? this t h a t w h a t Q. (Wilma p o i n t s t o a p i c t u r e o f a s l e e p i n g baby.) "Baby." G: /babaya/. baby F. "Hey?" W: Hey? "Baby." G: /babaya/. baby F. "Is i t sleeping?' W: Oh. A b u + y e h a ? " sleep F. Q. "Huh?" G: Huh? " I s t h i s one s l e e p i n g ? " W: De a b u + y e . t h i s sleep F. "What i s i t d o i n g ? T h i s o n e . " T a k t u k hu ha? /de:/. what do Q. this "Huh?" G: Huh? "This." W: /de:/. G: K a abu + y e . Ka. "That s l e e p i n g . That." that sleep F. that W: Hey? Taktuk h£ ha? "Hey? What i s i t d o i n g ? " " what do Q. Cici. G: K a . "That. Monster." that monster Hiya. Cici + s n i + ye. W: "No. I t ' s not a monster." no monster N. F. Taku ha? Taku? "What i s i t ? W h a t ? " what Q. what  W:  133  (Gabriel points to another baby i n the catalogue.) "That baby." G: Ka /beibi/ + ya. that "baby" F. "Is i t a baby?" /beibi/ he? "baby" Q. "Yes." Ha. o yes "Yes." Ha. yes "That baby." Ka babi + ya. that "baby" F. "What about this? Who's that?" De i s t o . He tuwa ha? this i t — that who Q. "Shoes. That." G: H^pa + ya. Ka. shoes F. that "Hmmm?" W: Hmmm? "That shoes." G: Ka h^pa + ye. that shoes F. "Yes." W: H|. yes (Wilma points to some clothes.) "What's this? De taku ha? this what Q. "Monster." G: C i c i . monster "Look at this monster, What about De i s t o . W: Ma de c i c i . this?" wow this monster this i t — "That shoes." Ka h^pa ye. G: that shoes F. "Shoes? II W: H|pa + ya ha? F. Q. shoes "Yes." G: H|L yes "Where do they wear them?" W: Tukted u + P + ce he? G. P l . use where Q"Huh?" G: Huh? "Where do they wear them?" he? ce W: Tukted "u + P + G. P l . where c Q. "Huh?" use G: Huh? "Where do they wear them? he? ce W: ..Tukted u + P + G. Pl. where c Q. "Huh?" use G: Huh? dena? ce he W: Tukted iye u + P + G. Q- these Pl. i t use where "Where do they wear these?' "Huh?" G: Huh? "This." W: /de:/. "Huh?" G: Huh? "How do you say i t ? II W: Tokeca eha? (why) how say  134  G:  W: G:  W:  G: W: G: W: G: W: G: W: G:  Ka /ha:pa/ + y e . t h a t sfioes F. Ka babaye. Ka. t h a t baby F. t h a t Hiya. no Hmmm. yes^ His' t a k u ha? (he+18) that what Q. Huh? He taku ha? t h a t what Q. Ka b a b i y a . t h a t " b a b y " F. Ka /bgibi/ ha? t h a t "baby" Q. Ha. yes De is* to? this i t — Hiya ka e z i . no that one Huh?  2i.  "That  shoes."  "That baby.  That."  "No." "Yes."  "What's t h a t  one?"  "Huh?" "what's  that?"  "That baby." " I s that a baby?" "Yes." "What a b o u t  this?"  "No t h a t o n e . " ( ? ) "Huh?" "One."  (wazi) one "Are you g o i n g t o c u t w i t h s c i s s o r s ? " W: IytisSda g dukse + k t a ha? s c i s s o r s use you-cut P. Q. "Are you g o i n g t o c u t one?" Waz"i d u k s e + k t a h a ? one you-cut P. Q. "Yes." G: H|. yes ( G a b r i e l a n d E s t h e r a r e now p l a y i n g w i t h s c i s s o r s a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n p a p e r . ) "O.K. C u t . " W: Ih£. Yuksa. O.K. cut " C u t t h i s way." Decex i y a . l i k e - t h i s go "Cut l i k e t h i s . " Decex yuksa.. l i k e - t h i s cut "Cut w i t h t h e s c i s s o r s h e r e . " Ded iyuzda yuksa. here s c i s s o r s cut (Wilma p o i n t s t o a baby i n t h e c a t a l o g u e . ) He taku h a ? Hey? He taku ha? t h a t what Q. " t h a t what Q. "What's t h a t ? Hey? W h a t ' s t h a t ? " G: /b^.bi/. "Baby." "baby"  135 W:  G:  "Baby? Oh." / b ^ l b i / ? Oh. baby "What's t h a t ?" He t a k t u k u + yaka ha? t h a t what use Q. "Does he wear i t on h i s c h e s t ? " Maku ged i£ he? chest t h e r e use Q. Duksa + y.a-.:+ k i h i + S n i ha? Hey? "Can't you cut i t ? " you-cut you a b l e - t o N. Q. " "Are you going to c u t ? " D_ukse + k t e ha? you-cut P. Q. "Yes." H|. yes  S e s s i o n I , 2;4(0),  utts.  81-106  W:  W|ka + de. He tSku ha? i (wayaka) look this t h a t what Q. G: Ka pppp yo. (motor n o i s e ) that F. ( G a b r i e l i s l o o k i n g a t toys i n the W: Hey? G: Ha. yes W: Tokex eya + ce ha? how talk G. Q. G: Pppp + y a . F. W: Eya ha?  G: W: G: W: G:  W: G:  Tokex eya + ce ha? how talk G. Q. P 6 t e t pppp. two Eya + ca he? Izumiya talk G. Q. go-zoom Potet pppp eye. two F. Eya ha? Ohhh. — Q. Hey. Go p o t e t pppp ya (ka) " t h a t two F. Wak^n i y a y e + kte? up-there go P. H|. yes  ) "Look a t t h i s .  What's t h a t ? (+2)"  "That pppp."  talogue.) "Hey?" "Yes." "How  does i t t a l k ? "  "PPPP-" "Like that?" "How  does i t t a l k ? "  "Two pppp." ha? Q.  "Is  i t l i k e that?  Does i t go zoom?  "Two pppp." "Like that? ka.  "Hey.  Ohhh."  That two pppp.  that "Is  i t going t o go up?"  "Yes."  That."  1 3 6  W: G: W:  G: W:  /ka:ki/ iyaye + kte? o v e r - t h e r e go P. Huh? Tokex i y a + c e he? how go G. Q. Potet e tokex i y a + c e he? two - how go G. Q. P o t e t pppp y a . F. two Eya ha?  G:  Hf.  W: G:  yes Oh. Eya!  Q-  i t going  t o go o v e r  there?"  "Huh?" "How d o e s i t g o ? " "How do t h o s e "Two  „1  two go?  pppp."  "Like that?" "Yes."  Eya!  Hey? Ke p o t e t pppp y a . t h a t t w o — — F. W: P o t e t pppp a h a ? two Q. G: Ha. yes W: De n a k o w a ^ i iyaye + k t eye. t h i s a n o t h e r o n e go P. F. G: Hmmm? Ka /z'yaz'ya/. K a pppp g o . (iyaye) that go that "go" W: (gasps) Iyaye + kte? to P. G: Iyaya. go W: Ha. yes P o t e t pppp i y a y a . G: Hey. two go W: Ha. yes G: Ka yaya. t h a t go W: I y a y a ? Hmmm? go  W: G:  "Is  "Oh." "Go! Go!" "Hey?" "That two pppp." " T h o s e t w o go p p p p ? " "Yes." "Another one i s going "Hmmm?" "That go. "Is  t o go.  T h a t pppp g o . "  i t going  t o go?"  "Goes." "Yes." "Hey.  Two pppp g o . "  "Yes." "That goes." " I t goes? Hmmm?"  G a b r i e l has i n v e n t e d t h e word / p o t e t / w h i c h h e u s e s i n r e f e r e n c e t o p a i r s o f o b j e c t s . I n t h i s case he i s r e f e r r i n g t o (and Wilma i s conformi n g ) a t o y a i r p l a n e . He o f t e n u s e s / p o t e t / when t h e r e f e r e n t a p p e a r s t o b e airplanes; one p o s s i b l e reason f o r t h i s i s t h a t h i s house i s near an a i r f o r c e c a d e t t r a i n i n g camp w h e r e c a d e t s a r e g i v e n g l i d e r t r a i n i n g . Most o f the time he sees a i r p l a n e s , t h e n , i s i n p a i r s , w i t h t h e g l i d e r b e i n g towed.  137 G: W:  "Yes."  Ha. c  yes Ake w a ^ i /oya/ dekte. a g a i n one —P. De i s to. this i t — Huh? 1  G:  "Look a t another one." (?) "What about  this?"  "Huh?"  S e s s i o n I , 2;4(0), u t t s . 187-198 G:  W: G: W: G: W:  WawH. (wewe) hurt Hey? (He p o i n t s t o mosquito Ka wawa. bites.) that hurt Wewe he? h u r t Q. H|. yes Pazo t o . show — He tSktuk hand ha? t h a t what you-do Q. Wawa. hurt Wewe ha? h u r t Q.  yes Ohhh. /ni:na/ n i + yaza_ ha? much you h u r t Q. G: H|. yes W: Ohhh. (Wilma i n d i c a t e s t h e tape r e c o r d e r . ) W: He t6keca ha? t h a t why Q. G: Hey ka. Ka. Z i . Ka z i ya. (wazi) (wazi) " that t h a t one t h a t one F. Taktuk hy ha? what do Q. Ka. that Tokex eya ha? how t a l k Q. / s : / eya. "shh" —  "Hurt."  'Hey "That h u r t . " "Does i t h u r t ? " "Yes." "Show me." "What a r e you d o i n g ? " "Hurt." "Hurt?" "Yes." "Ohhh." "Does i t h u r t you a l o t ? " "Yes." "Ohhh." "What's t h a t  for?"  "Hey t h a t . That. One. That one."  "What does i t do?" "That." "How does i t t a l k ? " " I t goes  'shhhh'."  138 Session I, 2;4(0), u t t s . 222-227 Waxpe detka iS mni detk| he? tea you-drxnk or water you-drink Q. G: H|. yes W: Talcu? what G: /peV • (waxpd) tea W Waxpd? tea G: Ha. yes W: Ohhh. G: /epeV + ya. (waxp6) tea F. W: /peV ha? (waxp£) tea Q. G: H|. yes W: Ohhh.  W:  "Did  you drink tea or water?"  "Yes." "What?" "Tea." "Tea?" "Yes." "Ohhh." "Tea." "Tea?" "Yes." "Ohhh."  Session I, 2;4(0), utts. 309-330 G:  Hey. (+4) "Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey." Pdya. (I've cut a piece of paper.)"Fall-break." fall-break W: IxpSye ha? "Did i t f a l l ? " fall Q. G: H|. "Yes." yes W: Oh. P£ye ha? (Imitating "Oh, did i t f a l l ? " (ixpaye) Gabriel.) fall Q. G: H|. "Yes." yes (Gabriel squeals.) Kaya. "Fall." (imit. of ixpaye?) fall (Wilma suggests that he draw a cow on the paper.) W: Wak.ade /mumu/ owa + kaya ye. "Look. Draw a cow." (waydka+de) look "moomoo" write make F.  A: G:  W: (Es G:  W:  W:  G: W: G:  W: G:  W: G: W:  /mimf/ + •ya. (mni) water Mnx ya? w a t e r F. Ha. /mimx/ + y a . c (mnx) yes water Mnx d a t k a ha? water you-drink Q t h e r has asked f o r a d r i n k o f water /mimx/ + y a . (mnx) water ya? ( I m i t a t i n g G a b r i e l ) /mimx/ + (mnx) F. water A n d r e w /mimx/ + y e . (mnx) " water F. A n d r e w /mimx/ + y a h e ? (mnx) " water F. Q. H|. yes Ohhh. /ci/. Da. Hey °°(cicx) (de) " t h i s monster Nx2a mnx + y a h e ? F. 0. you water H|. yes He /mimx/ + y a (mnx) that water F. Afidu / m i m i / + ya. (mni) Andrew w a t e r G a b r i e l naku mni + y a ha? F. Q. " also water Hey? G a b r i e l naki£ m n i + y a h a ? " also water F. Q. Andrew /mimi/ + y a . (mni) " water F.  "Water."  "Water?" "Yes.  "Did  Water."  you drink  water?"  a n d i s now d r i n k i n g i t . ) "Water."  "Water?"  "Andrew w a t e r . "  "Andrew ( h a s ) w a t e r ? "  "Yes." "Ohhh." "Hey. This.  "Did  Monster."  y o u ( h a v e ) some w a t e r ? "  "Yes." "That  water."  "Andrew w a t e r . "  "Did  G a b r i e l have water  too?  "Hey?" "Did  G a b r i e l have water  "Andrew w a t e r . "  too?  140 Session VII, 2;4(8), utts. 119-123 (Gabriel s t a l l s the tape on the tape recorder.) G:  E: G:  Ka b6. that broken Ka /m^jn/. (To Esther.) that "mine" Abu. GSble c i c a . (s'i'ce) sleep Gabriel bad Aridu cica.  "That broken." "That mine." "Sleep.  Gabriel bad?"  "Andrew bad."  (sice)  E: G: E: G:  Andrew bad Gable c i c a . Gabriel bad ANDU DIDA!  "Gabriel bad." "Andrew bad."  (Sice)  Andrew bad GABLE CICA! Gabriel bad Andu. Andrew  "Gabriel bad." "Andrew."  Session VII, 2;4(8), utts. 179-188 "What are you doing?" Taktuk han£ ha? what you-do Q. Annette (Gabriel i s at the l i v i n g room door looking out into the hallway, has just l e f t the room.) "Annette candy." G: Net lala. Annette candy "Hey?" W: Hey? G: Net yaya. "Annette go." Annette go W: Annitte iyaya? "Did Annette go?" go G: Net ka + ya. "Annette there." Annette there F. W: Toki? "Where?" where G: Net ka + ya. "Annette there." Annette there F. W: Toki? "Where?" where "Annette there." G: Net ka + ya. (+4) Annette there F. "Don't touch." W: Yfize + s n i . touch N. "Annette there. Annette." Net. G: Net ka + ya. Annette Annette there F.  W:  141  W: G: W: G: W: G: W: G: W: G: W: G: W: G: W: G: W: G: W: G.  Hiyu.  Hiyu.  (Gabriel steps out ofthe room)  come-here come-here Net kS + ya? Annette there F. Hiyu. come-here Kakekakd? (kakiya) there Hey? Net kd + ya? Annette there F. Hiya. no / k a k i y a / Net. (kakiya) over there Annette Ha. yes Net ka. Annette there Annette i y a . Annette abu + ya. sleep go Net abu + ya? Annette sleep F. Hg. Ak^n abu + ye. F. yes up sleep Net kaya? Annette there F. H|. yes ka + ya' Net Annette there F. H|. yes Net ka + YA! Net ka + ya. Annette there F. Annette there F. Hey? Nits' ka + ya? Annette there F.  "Come here.  Come here."  "Annette there?" "Come here." "There?" "Hey?" "Annette there?" "No." "Annette over there." "Yes." "Annette there." "Annette went away. sleeping." "Annette sleeping?" "Yes.  Annette's  She's sleeping up there."  "Annette there?" "Yes." "Annette there?" "Yes." "Annette there. Annette there." "Hey?" "Annette there."  Session VII, 2;4(8), u t t s . 213-224 (Gabriel h i t s h i s head accidentally against the wall.) G: Andu /ga/! (he gasps.) "Andrew that." Andrew that E: Gable. "Gabriel." Gabriel G: Andu wewe + ya. "Andrew hurt." Andrew hurt F.  142 (Gabriel points to h i s head and goes to Wilma. He i s attempting to blame Esther.) "Hurt." G: Wewe. hurt "That hurt." KS wewe. that hurt "Gabriel." A: Gabriel. "That hurt." G: Ka wa. that hurt "Hey?" W: Hey? G: Ka wa. "That hurt." W: Wewe ha? "Hurt?" hurt Q. "What are you doing?" Taktuk han§ ha? what you-do Q. "Andrew hurt." G: Andu wewe + wa. (ye) Andrew hurt F. "Hey?" W: Hey? G: Andu wewe + ya. "Andrew hurt." Andrew hurt F. Ib6to ha? "Did i t bump?" bump Q. HS. "Yes." yes Tukted? Hey? "Where? Hey?" where " /bubu:/ bu + ya. "Boom-boom." (?) "boom" ("boom" i y a = i t went boom) IxpSye ha? "Did i t f a l l ? " fall Q. Afidu /am::!/.. "Andrew me." Andrew — "me" De tSku he de? (She t r i e s to change subject.) "What's t h i s ? " this what that this "That boom." (or bump) Ka /b6:/. that "boom" (or = iboto, 'bump')  Session VII, 2;4(8), utts. 271-279 (Gabriel goes to the front door.) E: "Bye" Gabriel. G: "Bye." (+3) W: TukidS ha? where-go Q. G: MSma /babSya/. "bye-bye" F. W: HiyS inSxa + sne. (sni+ye) no N. F.  "Good-bye Gabriel." "Good-bye." (+3) "Where are you going?" "Mama bye-bye." "Noa.  Don't  ."  (Gabriel wants to go home.) G: Hey. Henana. " that a l l (no more) Ka. /babij./. that "bye-bye"  "Hey. That's a l l . " "That.  Bye-bye."  Session VII, 2;4(8), utts. 484-498 (Gabriel i s playing with the boy animals.) W: Tukte /mumu/ ge; a he? where "moomoo" that i s Q. G: Hey? W: Tukte /mumu/ ge a ha? where moomoo that i s F. /2A2AW eya. (neigh) T6kex eya ha? W Q. how G: Hey? W: T<5kex eya ha? how Q. /lAUm/ eya. (neigh) Ka / 2 A Z W eya. that (neigh) W: /2A2AIH/ eya ha? (neigh) Q. Hmmm. (hf) yes W: Tukted /mumu/ ge a ha? (tukte+is) where i t moomoo that i s Q. TuktS /mumu/? G: Huh? Ka /2A2/\m/ eya. that (neigh) W: Eya ha? Q. Ka /2A2AITI/ eya. that (neigh) W: Eya ha? Q. Na Wilman. here Wilma Hey. Kd /2A2AHI/ eya. " that (neigh) /hausa/ /hausa/ / l i S a / . "husha" "husha" L i c i a  'Where i s that cow?" "Hey?" "Where i s that cow?" "Goes /2A2Am/." "How does i t t a l k ? " "Hey?" "How does i t t a l k ? " "Goes /2A2Xm/." "That goes /2A2/W." "Does i t say /2A2Xm/?" "Yes." "Where's that cow?"  "Where's the cow?" "Huh?" "That goes /2A2W." "Like that?" "That goes /2A2£III/." "Like that?" "Here Wilma." "Hey.  That goes /2A2AW.  "Husha-husha L i c i a . "  144 G:  Hiyu . come-here Lo: H i y a . Na. no here W: H e c u + n i G a b r i e l .  "Come h e r e "No.  ."  Here."  " D o n ' t do t h a t ,  Gabriel."  " (2ni)  G:  t h a t do N. " Wewe + k t e y a . hurt P. F. He k a . K a . that that that  /2v\2jCm/ e y a .  " Y o u ' l l get hurt." "That  that.  That."  "Goes /2A2AV."  (neigh) "Does i t go /2/\2/\m/?" eya. h a ? (neigh) Q. "Boo. B o o . " Lo. "Boo. B o o . " ( L o r r a i n e b r u s h e s h e r h a i r f o r w a r d over h e r f a c e and c r a w l s on h e r hands and knees p r e t e n d i n g t o b e a m o n s t e r . ) E: /midja/, /midja/. (Wants L o r r a i n e t o c a r r y h e r o n h e r b a c k . ) 'Me. Me.' (raize) (raize) ™~ " me me "Me, Gwen." /midja/ Gwen. (mile) me "Come h e r e . " Hiyu.  W:  W:  G: W:  /2/\2Am/  come h e r e Iya u + s n i . run do N. "Don't c h a s e them a r o u n d . " H e y . A n n e t t e /mumu/ a y a . " " moo-moo A n n e t t e "mooo" a y a h a ? Q.  "Don't r u n . " "Don't c h a s e them a r o u n d . " "Hey. A n n e t t e g o e s moo-moo." " D i d A n n e t t e s a y "Moo"?"  145 APPENDIX I I B r a i n e - t y p e c h a r t o f multi-morphemic u t t e r a n c e s i n s e s s i o n I I I Types  Tokens  Two morphemes 1. ka 2. ka 3. ka 4. ka 5. ka 6. ka 7. ka 8. ka 9. ka 10. :,ka ka 11. 12. ka 13. ka 14. ka  Andy bdya cici eya kdka mimx "mine" "moo-mdo" Net 16/ (=homni) h^pa /p^2a/ (=wap*alia) "puppy" waxpe  500 369 357, 169 459, 281, 226 5, 6 294 553, 174 406, 133, 522,  540 460 286, 291, 486  ;  554 407, 408 135, 137, 141 524  395 148 157 67, 102, 103, 231 210 106 516 211, 230, 545 300 64  15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24.  ay a ya bibi ye (="baby") /b6/ ye ( = " b a l l " ) c i c i ye ci ye (=ci)  25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32.  hey hey hey hey hey hey hey hey  33. 34. 35. 36.  /bam/ eya (="boom") Dorina eya" " h e l l d " eya" /mf :/ eya  415 389 94, 95 544  37. 38. 39.  /2A2AW  babdba  /lAliym/  ka"  380 224, 232, 233, 363 3  llfiU&l  ye  /ka7 ye (='*car") "moo-moo" ye mimi ye henana ye  331 184 534 379, 187, 275, 397, 65  bx eyd hey hiyii kd  mt  puppy wa.z'x -  (="bye-bye")  449 376, 551, 44 532, 538 398  146 40. 41. 42. 43.  Andrew "bye-bye" Andrew iyaye Andrew "mine" Andy iyaye  262, 263 269 240 266, 267, 268  44. 45.  potet eya potet £  28 124, 317 320 472  46. . c i c i ' ka 47. eya ka 48. 49. 50.  Net Net Net  koko (=kakiya ?) iyaye "mine"  51. 52. 53.  "bad boy" hiyu kaye kuka /iyap/ (=suka "hurry up")  271 270, 277 351 53, 481, 548, 549 70 529  Three morphemes 151 359, 360 68  54. 55. 56.  ka ka ka  "baby" ye " b i r d i e " ye c i c i ye  57. 58.  ka ka  /IAIAW  59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64.  hey hey hey hey hey hey  ka  "puppy"  ka  HiKlAm/  Andrew paye c i c i yaka "moo-moo" ye potet ye  527 100 302 319 311 125  65. 66. 67.  Net Net Net  "bye-bye" ye "boom" eya mine eye  99, 200 416 147  68. 69. 70. 71. 72.  Andrew "bye-bye" ya Donna "bye-bye" ya Andrew "mine" eye "bye-bye" ya ka kaka koka c i ,  iye  "moo-moo"  Andy  229 498  264 78 91 274 546  147 Four morphemes 73. 74.  ka Net mamx ya (=mni) Net Woma "bye-bye" ya (=Wilma)  492 198  Unintelligibles 75. 76.  hey Net ka. x x x ka  77.  k a k a 2  lala  2  424 276 474  ooo ooo 78.  kokaya  (ixpaye ?)  128  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094371/manifest

Comment

Related Items