Social:Language acquisition

From HandWiki

Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive and comprehend language (in other words, gain the ability to be aware of language and to understand it), as well as to produce and use words and sentences to communicate.

Language acquisition involves structures, rules and representation. The capacity to successfully use language requires one to acquire a range of tools including phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and an extensive vocabulary. Language can be vocalized as in speech, or manual as in sign. Human language capacity is represented in the brain. Even though human language capacity is finite, one can say and understand an infinite number of sentences, which is based on a syntactic principle called recursion. Evidence suggests that every individual has three recursive mechanisms that allow sentences to go indeterminately. These three mechanisms are: relativization, complementation and coordination.[1]

There are two main guiding principles in first-language acquisition: speech perception always precedes speech production and the gradually evolving system by which a child learns a language is built up one step at a time, beginning with the distinction between individual phonemes.[2]

Linguists who are interested in child language acquisition for many years question how language is acquired, Lidz et al. states "The question of how these structures are acquired, then, is more properly understood as the question of how a learner takes the surface forms in the input and converts them into abstract linguistic rules and representations."[3]

Language acquisition usually refers to first-language acquisition, which studies infants' acquisition of their native language, whether that be spoken language or signed language as a result of prelingual deafness, though it can also refer to bilingual first language acquisition (BFLA), which refers to an infant's simultaneous acquisition of two native languages.[4] This is distinguished from second-language acquisition, which deals with the acquisition (in both children and adults) of additional languages. In addition to speech, reading and writing a language with an entirely different script compounds the complexities of true foreign language literacy. Language acquisition is one of the quintessential human traits,[5] because non-humans do not communicate by using language.[6]


Learning box for language acquisition

Some early observation-based ideas about language acquisition were proposed by Plato, who felt that word-meaning mapping in some form was innate. Additionally, Sanskrit grammarians debated for over twelve centuries whether humans' ability to recognize the meaning of words was god-given (possibly innate) or passed down by previous generations and learned from already established conventions: a child learning the word for cow by listening to trusted speakers talking about cows.[7]

Philosophers in ancient societies were interested in how humans acquired the ability to understand and produce language well before empirical methods for testing those theories were developed, but for the most part they seemed to regard language acquisition as a subset of man's ability to acquire knowledge and learn concepts.[8]

Empiricists, like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, argued that knowledge (and, for Locke, language) emerge ultimately from abstracted sense impressions. These arguments lean towards the "nurture" side of the argument: that language is acquired through sensory experience, which led to Rudolf Carnap's Aufbau, an attempt to learn all knowledge from sense datum, using the notion of "remembered as similar" to bind them into clusters, which would eventually map into language.[9]

Proponents of behaviorism argued that language may be learned through a form of operant conditioning. In B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behaviour (1957), he suggested that the successful use of a sign, such as a word or lexical unit, given a certain stimulus, reinforces its "momentary" or contextual probability. Since operant conditioning is contingent on reinforcement by rewards, a child would learn that a specific combination of sounds stands for a specific thing through repeated successful associations made between the two. A "successful" use of a sign would be one in which the child is understood (for example, a child saying "up" when he or she wants to be picked up) and rewarded with the desired response from another person, thereby reinforcing the child's understanding of the meaning of that word and making it more likely that he or she will use that word in a similar situation in the future. Some empiricist theories of language acquisition include the statistical learning theory. Charles F. Hockett of language acquisition, relational frame theory, functionalist linguistics, social interactionist theory, and usage-based language acquisition.

Skinner's behaviourist idea was strongly attacked by Noam Chomsky in a review article in 1959, calling it "largely mythology" and a "serious delusion."[10] Arguments against Skinner's idea of language acquisition through operant conditioning include the fact that children often ignore language corrections from adults. Instead, children typically follow a pattern of using an irregular form of a word correctly, making errors later on, and eventually returning to the proper use of the word. For example, a child may correctly learn the word "gave" (past tense of "give"), and later on use the word "gived". Eventually, the child will typically go back to learning the correct word, "gave". Chomsky claimed the pattern is difficult to attribute to Skinner's idea of operant conditioning as the primary way that children acquire language. Chomsky argued that if language were solely acquired through behavioral conditioning, children would not likely learn the proper use of a word and suddenly use the word incorrectly.[11] Chomsky believed that Skinner failed to account for the central role of syntactic knowledge in language competence. Chomsky also rejected the term "learning", which Skinner used to claim that children "learn" language through operant conditioning.[12] Instead, Chomsky argued for a mathematical approach to language acquisition, based on a study of syntax.

As a typically human phenomenon

The capacity to acquire and use language is a key aspect that distinguishes humans from other beings. Although it is difficult to pin down what aspects of language are uniquely human, there are a few design features that can be found in all known forms of human language, but that are missing from forms of animal communication. For example, many animals are able to communicate with each other by signaling to the things around them, but this kind of communication lacks the arbitrariness of human vernaculars (in that there is nothing about the sound of the word "dog" that would hint at its meaning). Other forms of animal communication may utilize arbitrary sounds, but are unable to combine those sounds in different ways to create completely novel messages that can then be automatically understood by another. Hockett called this design feature of human language "productivity". It is crucial to the understanding of human language acquisition that we are not limited to a finite set of words, but, rather, must be able to understand and utilize a complex system that allows for an infinite number of possible messages. So, while many forms of animal communication exist, they differ from human languages in that they have a limited range of vocabulary tokens, and the vocabulary items are not combined syntactically to create phrases.[13]

General approaches

A major debate in understanding language acquisition is how these capacities are picked up by infants from the linguistic input.[14] Input in the linguistic context is defined as "All words, contexts, and other forms of language to which a learner is exposed, relative to acquired proficiency in first or second languages". Nativists such as Noam Chomsky have focused on the hugely complex nature of human grammars, the finiteness and ambiguity of the input that children receive, and the relatively limited cognitive abilities of an infant. From these characteristics, they conclude that the process of language acquisition in infants must be tightly constrained and guided by the biologically given characteristics of the human brain. Otherwise, they argue, it is extremely difficult to explain how children, within the first five years of life, routinely master the complex, largely tacit grammatical rules of their native language.[15] Additionally, the evidence of such rules in their native language is all indirect—adult speech to children cannot encompass what children know by the time they've acquired their native language.[16]

Other scholars, however, have resisted the possibility that infants' routine success at acquiring the grammar of their native language requires anything more than the forms of learning seen with other cognitive skills, including such mundane motor skills as learning to ride a bike. In particular, there has been resistance to the possibility that human biology includes any form of specialization for language. This conflict is often referred to as the "nature and nurture" debate. Of course, most scholars acknowledge that certain aspects of language acquisition must result from the specific ways in which the human brain is "wired" (a "nature" component, which accounts for the failure of non-human species to acquire human languages) and that certain others are shaped by the particular language environment in which a person is raised (a "nurture" component, which accounts for the fact that humans raised in different societies acquire different languages). The as-yet unresolved question is the extent to which the specific cognitive capacities in the "nature" component are also used outside of language.


Emergentist theories, such as MacWhinney's competition model, posit that language acquisition is a cognitive process that emerges from the interaction of biological pressures and the environment. According to these theories, neither nature nor nurture alone is sufficient to trigger language learning; both of these influences must work together in order to allow children to acquire a language. The proponents of these theories argue that general cognitive processes subserve language acquisition and that the end result of these processes is language-specific phenomena, such as word learning and grammar acquisition. The findings of many empirical studies support the predictions of these theories, suggesting that language acquisition is a more complex process than many believe.[17]


Although Chomsky's theory of a generative grammar has been enormously influential in the field of linguistics since the 1950s, many criticisms of the basic assumptions of generative theory have been put forth by cognitive-functional linguistics, who argue that language structure is created through language use.[18] These linguists argue that the concept of a language acquisition device (LAD) is unsupported by evolutionary anthropology, which tends to show a gradual adaptation of the human brain and vocal cords to the use of language, rather than a sudden appearance of a complete set of binary parameters delineating the whole spectrum of possible grammars ever to have existed and ever to exist.[19] On the other hand, cognitive-functional theorists use this anthropological data to show how human beings have evolved the capacity for grammar and syntax to meet our demand for linguistic symbols. (Binary parameters are common to digital computers, but may not be applicable to neurological systems such as the human brain.)[citation needed]

Further, the generative theory has several constructs (such as movement, empty categories, complex underlying structures, and strict binary branching) that cannot possibly be acquired from any amount of linguistic input. It is unclear that human language is actually anything like the generative conception of it. Since language, as imagined by nativists, is unlearnably complex,[citation needed] subscribers to this theory argue that it must, therefore, be innate.[20] Nativists hypothesize that some features of syntactic categories exist before a child is exposed to any experience - categories on which the child maps words of their language as they learn their native language.[21] A different theory of language, however, may yield different conclusions. While all theories of language acquisition posit some degree of innateness, they vary in how much value they place on this innate capacity to acquire language. Empiricism places less value on the innate knowledge, arguing instead that the input, combined with both general and language-specific learning capacities, is sufficient for acquisition.[22]

Since 1980, linguists studying children, such as Melissa Bowerman,[23] and psychologists following Jean Piaget, like Elizabeth Bates[24] and Jean Mandler, came to suspect that there may indeed be many learning processes involved in the acquisition process, and that ignoring the role of learning may have been a mistake.[citation needed]

In recent years, the debate surrounding the nativist position has centered on whether the inborn capabilities are language-specific or domain-general, such as those that enable the infant to visually make sense of the world in terms of objects and actions. The anti-nativist view has many strands, but a frequent theme is that language emerges from usage in social contexts, using learning mechanisms that are a part of a general cognitive learning apparatus (which is what is innate). This position has been championed by David M. W. Powers,[25] Elizabeth Bates,[26] Catherine Snow, Anat Ninio, Brian MacWhinney, Michael Tomasello,[13] Michael Ramscar,[27] William O'Grady,[28] and others. Philosophers, such as Fiona Cowie[29] and Barbara Scholz with Geoffrey Pullum[30] have also argued against certain nativist claims in support of empiricism.

The new field of cognitive linguistics has emerged as a specific counter to Chomskian Generative Grammar and Nativism.

Statistical learning

Some language acquisition researchers, such as Elissa Newport, Richard Aslin, and Jenny Saffran, emphasize the possible roles of general learning mechanisms, especially statistical learning, in language acquisition. The development of connectionist models that are able to successfully learn words and syntactical conventions[31] supports the predictions of statistical learning theories of language acquisition, as do empirical studies of children's detection of word boundaries.[32] In a series of connectionist model simulations Franklin Chang has demonstrated that such domain general statistical learning mechanism could explain a wide range of language structure acquisition phenomena.[33]

Statistical learning theory suggests that, when learning language, a learner would use the natural statistical properties of language to deduce its structure, including sound patterns, words, and the beginnings of grammar.[34] That is, language learners are sensitive to how often syllable combinations or words occur in relation to other syllables.[35][36][37] Infants between 21 months and 23 months old are also able to use statistical learning to develop "lexical categories", such as an animal category, which infants might later map to newly learned words in the same category. These findings suggest that early experience listening to language is critical to vocabulary acquisition.[38]

The statistical abilities are effective, but also limited by what qualifies as input, what is done with that input, and by the structure of the resulting output.[34] One should also note that statistical learning (and more broadly, distributional learning) can be accepted as a component of language acquisition by researchers on either side of the "nature and nurture" debate. From the perspective of that debate, an important question is whether statistical learning can, by itself, serve as an alternative to nativist explanations for the grammatical constraints of human language.


The central idea of these theories is that language development occurs through the incremental acquisition of meaningful chunks of elementary constituents, which can be words, phonemes, or syllables. Recently, this approach has been highly successful in simulating several phenomena in the acquisition of syntactic categories[39] and the acquisition of phonological knowledge.[40]

Chunking theories of language acquisition constitute a group of theories related to statistical learning theories, in that they assume the input from the environment plays an essential role; however, they postulate different learning mechanisms.

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology have developed a computer model analyzing early toddler conversations to predict the structure of later conversations. They showed that toddlers develop their own individual rules for speaking with slots, into which they could put certain kinds of words. A significant outcome of the research was that rules inferred from toddler speech were better predictors of subsequent speech than traditional grammars.[41]

The approach has several features that make it unique: the models are implemented as computer programs, which enables clear-cut and quantitative predictions to be made; they learn from naturalistic input, made of actual child-directed utterances; they produce actual utterances, which can be compared with children's utterances; and they have simulated phenomena in several languages, including English, Spanish, and German.[citation needed]

Relational frame theory

Main page: Philosophy:Relational frame theory

The relational frame theory (RFT) (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, 2001), provides a wholly selectionist/learning account of the origin and development of language competence and complexity. Based upon the principles of Skinnerian behaviorism, RFT posits that children acquire language purely through interacting with the environment. RFT theorists introduced the concept of functional contextualism in language learning, which emphasizes the importance of predicting and influencing psychological events, such as thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, by focusing on manipulable variables in their context. RFT distinguishes itself from Skinner's work by identifying and defining a particular type of operant conditioning known as derived relational responding, a learning process that, to date, appears to occur only in humans possessing a capacity for language. Empirical studies supporting the predictions of RFT suggest that children learn language via a system of inherent reinforcements, challenging the view that language acquisition is based upon innate, language-specific cognitive capacities.[42]

Social interactionism

Social interactionist theory is an explanation of language development emphasizing the role of social interaction between the developing child and linguistically knowledgeable adults. It is based largely on the socio-cultural theories of Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky, and made prominent in the Western world by Jerome Bruner.[43]

Unlike other approaches, it emphasizes the role of feedback and reinforcement in language acquisition. Specifically, it asserts that much of a child's linguistic growth stems from modeling of and interaction with parents and other adults, who very frequently provide instructive correction.[44] It is thus somewhat similar to behaviorist accounts of language, though it differs substantially in that it posits the existence of a social-cognitive model and other mental structures within children (a sharp contrast to the "black box" approach of classical behaviorism).

Another key idea within the theory of social interactionism is that of the zone of proximal development. Briefly, this is a theoretical construct denoting the set of tasks a child is capable of performing with guidance, but not alone.[45] As applied to language, it describes the set of linguistic tasks (proper syntax, suitable vocabulary usage, etc.) a child cannot carry out on their own at a given time, but can learn to carry out if assisted by an able adult.

Syntax, morphology, and generative grammar

As syntax began to be studied more closely in the early 20th century, in relation to language learning, it became apparent to linguists, psychologists, and philosophers that knowing a language was not merely a matter of associating words with concepts, but that a critical aspect of language involves knowledge of how to put words together—sentences are usually needed in order to communicate successfully, not just isolated words.[8] A child will use short expressions such as Bye-bye Mummy or All-gone milk, which actually are combinations of individual nouns and an operator,[46] before it begins to use gradually more complex sentences. In the 1990s within the Principles and Parameters framework, this hypothesis was extended into a maturation-based Structure building model of child language regarding the acquisition of functional categories. In this model, children are seen as gradually building up more and more complex structures, with Lexical categories (like noun and verb) being acquired before Functional-syntactic categories (like determiner and complementiser).[47] When acquiring a language, it is also often found, in languages such as English, that the most frequently used verbs are irregular verbs.[citation needed] Young children first begin to learn the past tense of verbs individually; however, when they acquire a "rule", such as adding -ed to form the past tense, they begin to exhibit occasional overgeneralization errors (e.g. "runned", "hitted") alongside correct past-tense forms. One influential proposal to the origin of these errors is as follows: the adult state of grammar stores each irregular verb form in memory as well as a "block" on the use of the regular rule for forming that type of verb. In the developing child's mind, retrieval of that "block" may fail, causing the child to erroneously apply the regular rule instead of retrieving the irregular.[48][49]

A Merge (linguistics)-based Theory. In Bare-Phrase structure (Minimalist Program), since theory-internal considerations define the specifier position of an internal-merge projection (phases vP and CP) as the only type of host which could serve as potential landing-sites for move-based elements displaced from lower down within the base-generated VP structure – e.g., A-movement such as passives (["The apple was eaten by [John (ate the apple)"]]), or raising ["Some work does seem to remain [(There) does seem to remain (some work)"]])—as a consequence, any strong version of a Structure building model of child language which calls for an exclusive "external-merge/argument structure stage" prior to an "internal-merge/scope-discourse related stage" would claim that young children's stage-1 utterances lack the ability to generate and host elements derived via movement operations. In terms of a Merge-based theory of language acquisition,[50] complements and specifiers are simply notations for first-merge (= "complement-of" [head-complement]), and later second-merge (= "specifier-of" [specifier-head], with merge always forming to a head. First-merge establishes only a set {a, b} and is not an ordered pair—e.g., an {N, N}-compound of 'boat-house' would allow the ambiguous readings of either 'a kind of house' and/or 'a kind of boat'. It is only with second-merge that order is derived out of a set {a {a, b}} which yields the recursive properties of syntax—e.g., a 'house-boat' {house {house, boat}} now reads unambiguously only as a 'kind of boat'. It is this property of recursion that allows for projection and labeling of a phrase to take place;[51] in this case, that the Noun 'boat' is the Head of the compound, and 'house' acting as a kind of specifier/modifier. External-merge (first-merge) establishes substantive 'base structure' inherent to the VP, yielding theta/argument structure, and may go beyond the lexical-category VP to involve the functional-category light verb vP. Internal-merge (second-merge) establishes more formal aspects related to edge-properties of scope and discourse-related material pegged to CP. In a Phase-based theory, this twin vP/CP distinction follows the "duality of semantics" discussed within the Minimalist Program, and is further developed into a dual distinction regarding a probe-goal relation.[52] As a consequence, at the "external/first-merge-only" stage, young children would show an inability to interpret readings from a given ordered pair, since they would only have access to the mental parsing of a non-recursive set. (See Roeper for a full discussion of recursion in child language acquisition).[53] In addition to word-order violations, other more ubiquitous results of a first-merge stage would show that children's initial utterances lack the recursive properties of inflectional morphology, yielding a strict Non-inflectional stage-1, consistent with an incremental Structure-building model of child language.

Generative grammar, associated especially with the work of Noam Chomsky, is currently one of the approaches to children's acquisition of syntax.[54] The leading idea is that human biology imposes narrow constraints on the child's "hypothesis space" during language acquisition. In the principles and parameters framework, which has dominated generative syntax since Chomsky's (1980) Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, the acquisition of syntax resembles ordering from a menu: the human brain comes equipped with a limited set of choices, from which the child selects the correct options by using the parents' speech, in combination with the context.[55]

An important argument, which favors the generative approach, is the poverty of the stimulus argument. The child's input (a finite number of sentences encountered by the child, together with information about the context in which they were uttered) is, in principle, compatible with an infinite number of conceivable grammars. Moreover, few, if any, children can rely on corrective feedback from adults when they make a grammatical error, due to the fact that adults generally provide feedback regardless of whether a child's utterance was grammatical or not, and children have no way of discerning if a response was intended to be a correction. Additionally, when children do understand that they are being corrected, they don't always reproduce accurate restatements.[dubious ][56][57] Yet barring situations of medical abnormality or extreme privation, all the children in a given speech-community converge on very much the same grammar by the age of about five years. An especially dramatic example is provided by children who, for medical reasons, are unable to produce speech and, therefore, can never be corrected for a grammatical error but nonetheless, converge on the same grammar as their typically developing peers, according to comprehension-based tests of grammar.[58][59]

Considerations such as those have led Chomsky, Jerry Fodor, Eric Lenneberg and others to argue that the types of grammar the child needs to consider must be narrowly constrained by human biology (the nativist position).[60] These innate constraints are sometimes referred to as universal grammar, the human "language faculty", or the "language instinct".[61]

Representation in the brain

Recent advances in functional neuroimaging technology have allowed for a better understanding of how language acquisition is manifested physically in the brain, Language acquisition almost always occurs in children during a period of rapid increase in brain volume. At this point in development, a child has many more neural connections than he or she will have as an adult, allowing for the child to be more able to learn new things than he or she would be as an adult.[62]

Sensitive period

Language acquisition has been studied from the perspective of developmental psychology and neuroscience,[63] which looks at learning to use and understand language parallel to a child's brain development. It has been determined, through empirical research on developmentally normal children, as well as through some extreme cases of language deprivation, that there is a "sensitive period" of language acquisition in which human infants have the ability to learn any language. Several findings have observed that from birth until the age of six months, infants can discriminate the phonetic contrasts of all languages. Researchers believe that this gives infants the ability to acquire the language spoken around them. After such an age, the child is able to perceive only the phonemes specific to the language learned. The reduced phonemic sensitivity enables children to build phonemic categories and recognize stress patterns and sound combinations specific to the language they are acquiring.[64] As Wilder Penfield noted, "Before the child begins to speak and to perceive, the uncommitted cortex is a blank slate on which nothing has been written. In the ensuing years much is written, and the writing is normally never erased. After the age of ten or twelve, the general functional connections have been established and fixed for the speech cortex." According to the sensitive or critical period models, the age at which a child acquires the ability to use language is a predictor of how well he or she is ultimately able to use language.[65] However, there may be an age at which becoming a fluent and natural user of a language is no longer possible; Penfield and Roberts (1959) cap their sensitive period at 9 years old.[66] Our brains may be automatically wired to learn languages,[citation needed] but the ability does not last into adulthood in the same way that it exists during development.[citation needed] By the onset of puberty (around age 12), language acquisition has typically been solidified and it becomes more difficult to learn a language in the same way a native speaker would.[citation needed] Just like children who speak vocally, deaf children go through the same critical period. Deaf children who acquire their first language later in life show lower performance in complex aspects of grammar.[67] At this point, it is usually a second language that a person is trying to acquire and not a first.[15]

Assuming that children are exposed to language during the critical period,[68] it is almost never missed by cognitively normal children—humans are so well prepared to learn language that it becomes almost impossible not to. Researchers are unable to experimentally test the effects of the sensitive period of development on language acquisition, because it would be unethical to deprive children of language until this period is over. However, case studies on abused, language deprived children show that they were extremely limited in their language skills, even after instruction.[69]

At a very young age, children can already distinguish between different sounds but cannot produce them yet. However, during infancy, children begin to babble. Deaf babies babble in the same order when hearing sounds as non-deaf babies do, thus showing that babbling is not caused by babies simply imitating certain sounds, but is actually a natural part of the process of language development. However, deaf babies do often babble less than non-deaf babies and they begin to babble later on in infancy (begin babbling at 11 months as compared to 6 months) when compared to non-deaf babies.[70]

Prelinguistic language abilities that are crucial for language acquisition have been seen even earlier than infancy. There have been many different studies examining different modes of language acquisition prior to birth. The study of language acquisition in fetuses started back in the late 1980s when different researchers discovered that very young infants could discriminate their native language from other languages. In Mehler et al. (1988),[71] infants underwent discrimination tests and it was shown that infants as young as 4 days old could discriminate utterances in their native language from an unfamiliar language, but could not discriminate between two languages when neither was native to them. These results suggest there are mechanisms for fetal auditory learning, and other researchers have found further behavioral evidence to support this notion. Fetus auditory learning through environment habituation has been seen in a variety of different modes, such as: fetus learning of familiar melodies (Hepper, 1988),[72] story fragments (DeCasper & Spence, 1986),[73] recognition of mother's voice (Kisilevsky, 2003),[74] and more evidence of fetus adaptation to native linguistic environments (Moon, Cooper & Fifer, 1993).[75]

Prosody is the property of speech that conveys an emotional state of the utterance, as well as intended form of speech (whether it be a question, statement or command). Some researchers in the field of developmental neuroscience would argue that fetal auditory learning mechanisms are solely due to discrimination in prosodic elements. Although this would hold merit in an evolutionary psychology perspective (i.e. recognition of mother's voice/familiar group language from emotionally valent stimuli), some theorists argue that there is more than prosodic recognition in elements of fetal learning. Newer evidence shows that fetuses not only react to the native language differently from nonnative, but furthermore that fetuses react differently and can accurately discriminate between native and nonnative vowels (Moon, Lagercrantz, & Kuhl, 2013).[76] Furthermore, a new study in 2016 showed that newborn infants encode the edges of multisyllabic sequences better than the internal components of the sequence (Ferry et al., 2016).[77] Together, these results suggest that newborn infants have learned important properties of syntactic processing in utero, that can be seen in infant knowledge of native language vowels and the sequencing of heard multisyllabic phrases. This ability to sequence specific vowels gives newborn infants some of the fundamental mechanisms needed in order to learn the complex organization of a language. From a neuroscientific perspective, there are neural correlates have been found that demonstrate human fetal learning of speech-like auditory stimulus that most other studies have been analyzing (Partanen et al., 2013).[78] In a study conducted by Partanen et al. (2013),[78] researchers presented fetuses with certain word variants and saw that these fetuses exhibited higher brain activity to the certain word variants compared to controls. In this same study, there was "a significant correlation existed between the amount of prenatal exposure and brain activity, with greater activity being associated with a higher amount of prenatal speech exposure," pointing to the important learning mechanisms present before birth that is fine-tuned to features in speech (Partanen et al., 2013).[78]

The phases of language acquisition in children

Vocabulary acquisition

The capacity to acquire the ability to incorporate the pronunciation of new words depends upon many factors. Before anything the learner needs to be able to hear what they are attempting to pronounce. Another is the capacity to engage in speech repetition.[79][80][81][82] Children with reduced abilities to repeat nonwords (a marker of speech repetition abilities) show a slower rate of vocabulary expansion than children for whom this is easy.[83] Several computational models of vocabulary acquisition have been proposed so far.[84][85][86][87][88][89][90] Various studies have shown that the size of a child's vocabulary by the age of 24 months correlates with the child's future development and language skills. A lack of language richness by this age has detrimental and long-term effects on the child's cognitive development, which is why it is so important for parents to engage their infants in language. If a child knows fifty words or less by the age of 24 months, he or she is classified as a late-talker and future language development, like vocabulary expansion and the organization of grammar, is likely to be slower and stunted.[citation needed]

Two more crucial elements of vocabulary acquisition are word segmentation and statistical learning (described above). Word segmentation, or the segmentation of words and syllables from fluent speech can be accomplished by eight-month-old infants.[35] By the time infants are 17-months-old, they are able to link meaning to segmented words.[36]

Recent evidence also suggests that motor skills and experiences may influence vocabulary acquisition during infancy. Specifically, learning to sit independently between 3 and 5 months has been found to predict receptive vocabulary at both 10 and 14 months of age,[91] and independent walking skills have been found to correlate with language skills around 10 to 14 months of age.[92][93] These findings show that language acquisition is an embodied process that is influenced by a child's overall motor abilities and development. Studies have also shown a correlation between Socio-Economic-Status and vocabulary acquisition.[94]


Children learn, on average, ten to fifteen new word meanings each day, but only one of these words can be accounted for by direct instruction.[95] The other nine to fourteen word meanings need to be picked up in some other way. It has been proposed that children acquire these meanings with the use of processes modeled by latent semantic analysis; that is, when they meet an unfamiliar word, children can use information in its context to correctly guess its rough area of meaning.[95] A child may expand the meaning and use of certain words that are already part of its mental lexicon in order to denominate anything that is somehow related but for which it does not know the specific words yet. For instance, a child may broaden the use of mummy and dada in order to indicate anything that belongs to its mother or father, or perhaps every person who resembles its own parents, or say rain while meaning I don't want to go out.[96]

There is also reason to believe that children use various heuristics to properly infer the meaning of words. Markman and others have proposed that children assume words to refer to objects with similar properties ("cow" and "pig" might both be "animals") rather than to objects that are thematically related ("cow" and "milk" are probably not both "animals").[97] Children also seem to adhere to the "whole object assumption" and think that a novel label refers to an entire entity rather than one of its parts.[97] This assumption along with other resources, such as grammar and morphological cues or lexical constraints, may help aid the child in acquiring word-meaning, but they also conflict some of the time.[98]

Neurocognitive research

According to several linguists, neurocognitive research has confirmed many standards of language learning, such as: "learning engages the entire person (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains), the human brain seeks patterns in its searching for meaning, emotions affect all aspects of learning, retention and recall, past experience always affects new learning, the brain's working memory has a limited capacity, lecture usually results in the lowest degree of retention, rehearsal is essential for retention, practice [alone] does not make perfect, and each brain is unique" (Sousa, 2006, p. 274). In terms of genetics, the gene ROBO1 has been associated with phonological buffer integrity or length.[99]

Although it is difficult to determine without invasive measures which exact parts of the brain become most active and important for language acquisition, fMRI and PET technology has allowed for some conclusions to be made about where language may be centered. Kuniyoshi Sakai proposed, based on several neuroimaging studies, that there may be a "grammar center", where language is primarily processed in the left lateral premotor cortex (located near the pre central sulcus and the inferior frontal sulcus). Additionally, these studies proposed that first language and second-language acquisition may be represented differently in the cortex.[15] In a study conducted by Newman et al., the relationship between cognitive neuroscience and language acquisition was compared through a standardized test procedure involving native speakers of English and native Spanish speakers who have all had a similar amount of exposure to the English language(averaging about 26 years). Even the number of times an examinee blinked was taken into account during the examination process. It was concluded that the brain does in fact process languages differently, but instead of it being directly related to proficiency levels, it is more so about how the brain processes language itself.[100]

During early infancy, language processing seems to occur over many areas in the brain. However, over time, it gradually becomes concentrated into two areas – Broca's area and Wernicke's area. Broca's area is in the left frontal cortex and is primarily involved in the production of the patterns in vocal and sign language. Wernicke's area is in the left temporal cortex and is primarily involved in language comprehension. The specialization of these language centers is so extensive that damage to them results in a critical condition known as aphasia.[101]

Artificial intelligence

Some algorithms for language acquisition are based on statistical machine translation.[102] Language acquisition can be modeled as a machine learning process, which may be based on learning semantic parsers[103] or grammar induction algorithms.[104][105]

Prelingual deafness

Prelingual deafness is defined as hearing loss that occurred at birth or before an individual has learned to speak. In the United States, 2 to 3 out of every 1000 children are born deaf or hard of hearing. Even though it might be presumed that deaf children acquire language in different ways since they are not receiving the same auditory input as hearing children, many research findings indicate that deaf children acquire language in the same way that hearing children do and when given the proper language input, understand and express language just as well as their hearing peers. Babies who learn sign language produce signs or gestures that are more regular and more frequent than hearing babies acquiring spoken language. Just as hearing babies babble, deaf babies acquiring sign language will babble with their hands, otherwise known as manual babbling. Therefore, as many studies have shown, language acquisition by deaf children parallel the language acquisition of a spoken language by hearing children because humans are biologically equipped for language regardless of the modality.

Signed language acquisition

Deaf children's visual-manual language acquisition not only parallel spoken language acquisition but by the age of 30 months, most deaf children that were exposed to a visual language had a more advanced grasp with subject-pronoun copy rules than hearing children. Their vocabulary bank at the ages of 12–17 months exceed that of a hearing child's, though it does even out when they reach the two-word stage. The use of space for absent referents and the more complex handshapes in some signs prove to be difficult for children between 5 and 9 years of age because of motor development and the complexity of remembering the spacial use.

Cochlear implants

Other options besides sign language for kids with prelingual deafness include the use hearing aids to strengthen remaining sensory cells or cochlear implants to stimulate the hearing nerve directly. Cochlear Implants are hearing devices that are placed behind the ear and contain a receiver and electrodes which are placed under the skin and inside the cochlea. Despite these developments, there is still a risk that prelingually deaf children are may not develop good speech and speech reception skills. Although cochlear implants produce sounds, they are unlike typical hearing and deaf and hard of hearing people must undergo intensive therapy in order to learn how to interpret these sounds. They must also learn how to speak given the range of hearing they may or may not have. However, deaf children of deaf parents tend to do better with language, even though they are isolated from sound and speech because their language uses a different mode of communication that is accessible to them; the visual modality of language.

Although cochlear implants were initially approved for adults, now there is pressure to implant children early in order to maximize auditory skills for mainstream learning which in turn has created controversy around the topic. Due to recent advances in technology, cochlear implants allow some deaf people to acquire some sense of hearing. There are interior and exposed exterior components that are surgically implanted. Those who receive cochlear implants earlier on in life show more improvement on speech comprehension and language. Spoken language development does vary widely for those with cochlear implants though due to a number of different factors including: age at implantation, frequency, quality and type of speech training. Some evidence suggests that speech processing occurs at a more rapid pace in some prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants than those with traditional hearing aids. However, cochlear implants may not always work.

Research shows that people develop better language with a cochlear implant when they have a solid first language to rely on to understand the second language they would be learning. In the case of prelingually deaf children with cochlear implants, a signed language, like American Sign Language would be an accessible language for them to learn to help support the use of the cochlear implant as they learn a spoken language as their L2. Without a solid, accessible first language, these children run the risk of language deprivation, especially in the case that a cochlear implant fails to work. They would have no access to sound, meaning no access to the spoken language they are supposed to be learning. If a signed language was not a strong language for them to use and neither was a spoken language, they now have no access to any language and run the risk of missing their Critical period.

See also


  1. Lightfoot, David (2010). "Language acquisition and language change". Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1 (5): 677–684. doi:10.1002/wcs.39. ISSN 1939-5078. PMID 26271652. 
  2. Fry, Dennis (1977). Homo loquens, Man as a talking animal. Cambridge University Press. pp. 107–108. ISBN 978-0-521-29239-9. 
  3. Lidz, Jeffrey; Waxman (16 April 2003). "What infants know about syntax but couldn't have learned:experimental evidence for syntactic structure at 18 months". Cognition 89 (2003) B65-B73. 
  4. See, fex., Bergman, C. (1976). 'Interference vs. independent development in infant bilingualism'. In: Bilingualism in the bicentennial and beyond. Ed. by G. Keller, R. Teschner, and S. Viera. New York: Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingüe, pp. 86-96. Genesee, F. (1989). 'Early bilingual development: One language or two?' In: Journal of Child Language 6, pp. 161-179. Houwer, A. de (1990). The acquisition of two languages from birth: A case study. Cambridge: CUP. Houwer, A. de (1995). 'Bilingual language acquisition.' In: Handbook on child language. Ed. by P. Fletcher and B. MacWhinney. Oxford: Blackwell. Hulk, A. and Müller, N. (2000). 'Bilingual first language acquisition at the interface between syntax and pragmatics'. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 3 (3), pp. 227-244. Paradis, J. and F. Genesee (1996). 'Syntactic Acquisition in Bilingual Children: Autonomous or Interdependent?' In: Studies in Second Language Acquisition 18, pp. 1-25. Serratrice, L., Sorace, A. and S. Paoli. (2004). 'Crosslinguistic influence at the syntax-pragmatics interface: Subjects and objects in English-Italian bilingual and monolingual acquisition'. In: Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7 (3), pp. 183-205.
  5. Friederici, AD. (Oct 2011). "The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function". Physiol Rev 91 (4): 1357–92. doi:10.1152/physrev.00006.2011. PMID 22013214. 
  6. Kosslyn, Stephen M.; Osherson, Daniel N. (1995). An invitation to cognitive science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-65045-8. OCLC 613819557. 
  7. Matilal, Bimal Krishna (1990). The word and the world: India's contribution to the study of language. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-562515-8. OCLC 24041690. 
  8. 8.0 8.1 Innateness and Language. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2017. 
  9. Kendra A. Palmer (2009). "Understanding Human Language: An In-Depth Exploration of the Human Facility for Language". Retrieved 22 August 2012. 
  10. Noam, Chomsky; Skinner, B. F. (1959). "A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior". Language 35 (1): 26–58. doi:10.2307/411334. 
  11. Harley, Trevor A. (2010). Talking the Talk: Language, Psychology and Science. New York, NY: Psychology Press. pp. 68–71. ISBN 978-1-84169-339-2. 
  12. Harris, Margaret (1992). Language Experience and Early Language Development: From Input to Uptake. UK: Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0863772382. 
  13. 13.0 13.1 Tomasello, Michael (2008). Origins of human communication. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-20177-3. OCLC 439979810. 
  14. Kennison, Shelia M. (2013-07-30). Introduction to language development. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. ISBN 978-1-4129-9606-8. OCLC 830837502. 
  15. 15.0 15.1 15.2 Sakai, Kuniyoshi L. (2005). "Language Acquisition and Brain Development". Science 310 (5749): 815–819. doi:10.1126/science.1113530. PMID 16272114. Bibcode2005Sci...310..815S. 
  16. Lust, Barbara (2006). Child Language Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9780511803413. 
  17. Brian MacWhinney, ed (1999). The Emergence of Language. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 978-0-8058-3010-1. OCLC 44958022. 
  18. Tomasello, Michael (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-01030-7. OCLC 62782600. 
  19. Mameli, M.; Bateson, P. (Feb 2011). "An evaluation of the concept of innateness.". Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 366 (1563): 436–43. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0174. PMID 21199847. 
  20. Lidz, Jeffrey; Lasnik, Howard (Dec 2016). "The Argument from the Poverty of the Stimulus". The Oxford Handbook of Universal Grammar 1. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573776.013.10. 
  21. L., Bavin, Edith (2009). The Cambridge Handbook of Child Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 15–34. ISBN 9780511576164. OCLC 798060196. 
  22. Tomasello, Michael (2000). "First Steps Toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition". Cognitive Linguistics 11 (1–2): 61–82. doi:10.1515/cogl.2001.012. 
  23. Majid, Asifa; Bowerman, Melissa; Staden, Miriam van; Boster, James S (2007). "The semantic categories of cutting and breaking events: A crosslinguistic perspective". Cognitive Linguistics 18 (2). doi:10.1515/COG.2007.005. ISSN 0936-5907. 
  24. Bates, E.; D'Amico, S.; Jacobsen, T.; Székely, A.; Andonova, E.; Devescovi, A.; Herron, D.; Lu, CC. et al. (Jun 2003). "Timed picture naming in seven languages". Psychon Bull Rev 10 (2): 344–80. doi:10.3758/BF03196494. PMID 12921412. PMC 3392189. 
  25. Powers, David M. W.; Turk, Christopher. (1989). Machine learning of natural language. London ; New York: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 978-0-387-19557-5. OCLC 20263032. 
  26. Bates, E; Elman, J; Johnson, M; Karmiloff-Smith, A; Parisi, D; Plunkett, K (1999). "Innateness and emergentism". A companion to cognitive science. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 590–601. ISBN 978-0-631-21851-7. OCLC 47008353. 
  27. Ramscar, Michael; Gitcho, Nicole (2007). "Developmental change and the nature of learning in childhood". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (7): 274–9. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2007.05.007. PMID 17560161. 
  28. "Innateness, Universal Grammar, and Emergentism (2008)".,_UG,_Emergentism.pdf. 
  29. Cowie, F. (1999) What's Within? Nativism Reconsidered (Oxford University Press, New York).
  30. Barbara Scholz; Geoffrey Pullum (2006). Robert J. Stainton. ed. "Irrational Nativist Exuberance". Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science: 59–80. [yes|permanent dead link|dead link}}]
  31. Seidenberg, Mark S.; J.L. McClelland (1989). "A distributed developmental model of word recognition and naming". Psychological Review 96 (4): 523–568. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.523. PMID 2798649. 
  32. Saffran, Jenny; R.N.Aslin; E.L. Newport (1996). "Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants". Science 274 (5294): 1926–1928. doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1926. PMID 8943209. Bibcode1996Sci...274.1926S. 
  33. Chang, Franklin; Dell, Gary S.; Bock, Kathryn (2006). "Becoming syntactic.". Psychological Review 113 (2): 234–272. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.113.2.234. ISSN 1939-1471. PMID 16637761. 
  34. 34.0 34.1 Saffran, Jenny R. (2003). "Statistical language learning: mechanisms and constraints". Current Directions in Psychological Science 12 (4): 110–114. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01243. ISSN 0963-7214. 
  35. 35.0 35.1 Saffran, Jenny; Aslin, Newport (1996). "Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants". Science 274 (5294): 1926–1928. doi:10.1126/science.274.5294.1926. PMID 8943209. Bibcode1996Sci...274.1926S. 
  36. 36.0 36.1 Graf Estes, Katharine; Evans, Alibali, Saffran (March 2007). "Can Infants Map Meaning to Newly Segmented Words? Statistical segmentation and word learning". Psychological Science 18 (3): 254–260. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01885.x. PMID 17444923. 
  37. Lany, Jill; Saffran (January 2010). "From Statistics to Meaning: Infants' Acquisition of Lexical Categories". Psychological Science 21 (2): 284–91. doi:10.1177/0956797609358570. PMID 20424058. 
  38. Lany, Jill; Saffran (January 2010). "From Statistics to Meaning: Infants' Acquisition of Lexical Categories". Psychological Science 21 (2): 284–91. doi:10.1177/0956797609358570. PMID 20424058. 
  39. Freudenthal, Daniel; J.M. Pine; F. Gobet (2005). "Modelling the development of children's use of optional infinitives in English and Dutch using MOSAIC". Cognitive Science 30 (2): 277–310. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_47. PMID 21702816. Retrieved 2 April 2009. 
  40. Jones, Gary; F. Gobet; J.M. Pine (2007). "Linking working memory and long-term memory: A computational model of the learning of new words". Developmental Science 10 (6): 853–873. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00638.x. PMID 17973801. Retrieved 2 April 2009. 
  41. "Modeling children's early grammatical knowledge". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106 (41): 17284–9. October 2009. doi:10.1073/pnas.0905638106. PMID 19805057. Bibcode2009PNAS..10617284B. 
  42. Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition (Hardcover). Plenum Press. 2001. ISBN 978-0-306-46600-7. OCLC 51896575. 
  43. Bruner, J. (1983). Child's Talk: Learning to Use Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  44. Moerk, E.L. (1994). "Corrections in first language acquisition: Theoretical controversies and factual evidence". International Journal of Psycholinguistics 10: 33–58. 
  45. Vygotskii [Vygotsky], L.S. 1935. "Dinamika umstvennogo razvitiia shkol’nika v sviazi s obucheniem." In Umstvennoe razvitie detei v protsesse obucheniia, pp. 33–52. Moscow-Leningrad: Gosuchpedgiz.
  46. Fry, Dennis (1977). Homo loquens, Man as a talking animal. Cambridge University Press. pp. 117. ISBN 978-0-521-29239-9. 
  47. Radford, Andrew (1990). Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax. Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-16358-9. 
  48. "Overregularization in language acquisition". Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Serial No. 228 57 (4): 1–182. 1992. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5834.1992.tb00313.x. PMID 1518508. 
  49. Carlson, Neil; Heth, Donald (2007). Psychology the Science of Behaviour. Pearson Education:New Jersey. 
  50. Galasso, Joseph (2016). From Merge to Move: A Minimalist Perspective on the Design of Language and its Role in Early Child Syntax. LINCOM Studies in Theoretical Linguistics 59. ).
  51. Moro, A. (2000). Dynamic Antisymmetry, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph Series 38. MIT Press. ).
  52. Miyagawa, Shigeru (2010). Why Agree? Why Move?. MIT Press. 
  53. Roeper, Tom (2007). The Prism of Grammar: How child language illuminates humanism. MIT Press. ).
  54. Lillo-Martin, Diane C.; Crain, Stephen (1999). An introduction to linguistic theory and language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. ISBN 978-0-631-19536-8. OCLC 799714148. 
  55. Baker, Mark Raphael (2002). The atoms of language. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-860632-1. OCLC 66740160. 
  56. Marcus, Gary F. (1993). "Negative evidence in language acquisition". Cognition 46 (1): 53–85. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(93)90022-n. PMID 8432090. 
  57. Brown, Roger; Camile Hanlon (1970). "Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech". in J. R. Hayes. Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley. 
  58. Lenneberg, Eric (1967). Biological Foundations of Language. New York: Wiley. 
  59. Stromswold, Karin (11 December 2009). "Lessons from a mute child". Rich Languages from Poor Inputs: A Workshop in Honor of Carol Chomsky. MIT, Cambridge, MA. 
  60. Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on Language. New York: Pantheon Books. 
  61. Pinker, Steven (2007). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (P.S.). Harper Perennial Modern Classics. ISBN 978-0-06-133646-1. OCLC 778413074. 
  62. Nadia, Steve. "Kid's Brain Power". 
  63. White, EJ.; Hutka, SA.; Williams, LJ.; Moreno, S. (2013). "Learning, neural plasticity and sensitive periods: implications for language acquisition, music training and transfer across the lifespan.". Front Syst Neurosci 7: 90. doi:10.3389/fnsys.2013.00090. PMID 24312022. 
  64. "Infants show a facilitation effect for native language phonetic perception between 6 and 12 months". Developmental Science 9 (2): F13–F21. February 2006. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2006.00468.x. PMID 16472309. 
  65. Pallier, Cristophe. "Critical periods in language acquisition and language attrition". 
  66. Penfield, Wilder (1959). Speech and Brain-mechanisms. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 242. ISBN 9781400854677. 
  67. Newport, Elissa (1990). "Maturational constraints on language learning". Cognitive Science 14: 11–28. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_2. 
  68. Purves, Dale; Augustine, George J.; Fitzpatrick, David; Katz, Lawrence C.; LaMantia, Anthony-Samuel; McNamara, James O.; Williams, S. Mark (2001-01-01) (in en). The Development of Language: A Critical Period in Humans. 
  69. Curtiss, Susan (1977). Genie: a psycholinguistic study of a modern-day "wild child". Boston: Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-12-196350-7. OCLC 3073433. 
  70. Schacter, Daniel L.; Gilbert, Daniel T.; Wegner, Daniel M. (2011) [2009]. "9". Psychology (Second ed.). United States of America: Worth Publishers. pp. 351–352. 
  71. Mehler, Jacques; Jusczyk, Peter; Lambertz, Ghislaine; Halsted, Nilofar; Bertoncini, Josiane; Amiel-Tison, Claudine (1988). "A precursor to language acquisition in young infants". Cognition 29 (2): 143–178. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(88)90035-2. 
  72. Hepper, Peter (11 June 1988). "Fetal "Soap" Addiction". Lancet 331 (8598): 1347–1348. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(88)92170-8. 
  73. DeCasper, Anthony; Spence, Melanie (1986). "Prenatal maternal speech influences newborns' perception of speech sounds.". Infant Behavioral Development 9 (2): 133–150. doi:10.1016/0163-6383(86)90025-1. 
  74. Kisilevsky, Barbara; Hains, Sylvia; Lee, Kang; Xie, Xing; Huang, Hefeng; Ye, Hai; Zhang, Ke; We, Zengping (2003). "Effects of experience on fetal voice recognition". Psychological Science 14 (3): 220–224. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.02435. PMID 12741744. 
  75. Moon, Christine; Cooper, Robin; Fifer, William (1993). "Two-day-olds prefer their native language". Infant Behavioral Development 16 (4): 495–500. doi:10.1016/0163-6383(93)80007-U. 
  76. Moon, Christine; Lagercrantz, Hugo; Kuhl, Patricia (2013). "Language experienced in utero affects vowel perception after birth: A two-country study.". Acta Paediatr 102 (2): 156–160. doi:10.1111/apa.12098. PMID 23173548. 
  77. Ferry, Alissa; Fló, Ana; Brusini, Perrine; Cattarossi, Luigi; Macagno, Francesco; Nespor, Marina; Mehler, Jacques (2016). "On the edge of language acquisition: inherent constraints on encoding multisyllabic sequences in the neonate brain.". Developmental Science 19 (3): 488–503. doi:10.1111/desc.12323. PMID 26190466. 
  78. 78.0 78.1 78.2 Partanen, Eino; Kujala, Teija; Näätänen, Risto; Litola, Auli; Sambeth, Anke; Huotilainen, Minna (2013). "Learning-induced neural plasticity of speech processing before birth". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (37): 15145–15150. doi:10.1073/pnas.1302159110. PMID 23980148. Bibcode2013PNAS..11015145P. 
  79. Bloom L.; Hood L.; Lichtbown P. (1974). "Imitation in language: If, when, and why". Cognitive Psychology 6 (3): 380–420. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(74)90018-8. OCLC 65013247. 
  80. Miller, George A. (1977). Spontaneous apprentices: children and language. New York: Seabury Press. ISBN 978-0-8164-9330-2. OCLC 3002566. 
  81. Masur EF (1995). "Infants' early verbal imitation and their later lexical development". Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 41 (3): 286–306. OCLC 89395784. 
  82. "Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children, A longitudinal study". Journal of Memory and Language 28 (2): 200–213. 1989. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(89)90044-2. 
  83. Gathercole SE (2006). "Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship". Applied Psycholinguistics 27 (4): 513–543. doi:10.1017/S0142716406060383. Archived from the original on 2011-06-05. 
  84. Gupta Prahlad; MacWhinney Brian (1997). "Vocabulary acquisition and verbal short-term memory: Computational and neural bases". Brain and Language 59 (2): 267–333. doi:10.1006/brln.1997.1819. PMID 9299067. 
  85. Regier Terry (2003). "Emergent constraints on word-learning: A computational review". Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (6): 263–268. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00108-6. PMID 12804693. 
  86. Regier, T. (Nov 2005). "The emergence of words: attentional learning in form and meaning". Cogn Sci 29 (6): 819–65. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog0000_31. PMID 21702796. 
  87. Hadzibeganovic Tarik; Cannas Sergio A (2009). "A Tsallis' statistics based neural network model for novel word learning". Physica A 388 (5): 732–746. doi:10.1016/j.physa.2008.10.042. Bibcode2009PhyA..388..732H. 
  88. Roy Deb K.; Pentland Alex P. (2002). "Learning words from sights and sounds: A computational model". Cognitive Science 26: 113–146. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2601_4. 
  89. Fazly Afsaneh; Alishahi Afra; Stevenson Suzanne (2010). "A Probabilistic Computational Model of Cross-Situational Word Learning". Cognitive Science 34 (6): 1017–1063. doi:10.1111/j.1551-6709.2010.01104.x. PMID 21564243. 
  90. Yu Chen; Ballard Dana H (2007). "A unified model of early word learning: Integrating statistical and social cues". Neurocomputing 70 (13–15): 2149–2165. doi:10.1016/j.neucom.2006.01.034. 
  91. Libertus Klaus; Violi Dominic A (2016). "Sit to talk: Relation between motor skills and language development in infancy". Frontiers in Psychology 7: 475. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00475. PMID 27065934. 
  92. "Infant language development is related to the acquisition of walking". Developmental Psychology 50 (2): 336–348. 2014. doi:10.1037/a0033238. PMID 23750505. 
  93. "A cross-national investigation of the relationship between infant walking and language development". Infancy 20 (3): 283–305. 2015. doi:10.1111/infa.12071. 
  94. Letts, Carolyn (March 2, 2013). "Socio-economic status and language acquisition: children's performance on the new Reynell Developmental Language Scales.". International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders 48 (2): 131–143. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12004. PMID 23472954. [yes|permanent dead link|dead link}}]
  95. 95.0 95.1 Landauer, TK; Dumais, ST. (1997). "A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition". Psychological Review 104 (2): 211–240. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.211. 
  96. Fry, Dennis (1977). Homo loquens, Man as a talking animal. Cambridge University Press. pp. 115–116. ISBN 978-0-521-29239-9. 
  97. 97.0 97.1 Markman, Ellen M. (1990). "Constraints Children Place on Word Meanings". Cognitive Science 14 (1): 57–77. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1401_4. 
  98. Hansen, Mikkel B.; Markman, Ellen M. (2009). "Children's use of mutual exclusivity to learn labels for parts of objects." (in en). Developmental Psychology 45 (2): 592–596. doi:10.1037/a0014838. PMID 19271842. 
  99. Bates, TC.; Luciano, M.; Medland, SE.; Montgomery, GW.; Wright, MJ.; Martin, NG. (Jan 2011). "Genetic variance in a component of the language acquisition device: ROBO1 polymorphisms associated with phonological buffer deficits". Behav Genet 41 (1): 50–7. doi:10.1007/s10519-010-9402-9. PMID 20949370. 
  100. Newman, A. J.; Tremblay, A.; Nichols, E. S.; Neville, H. J.; Ullman, M. T. (2012). "The influence of language proficiency on lexical semantic processing in native and late learners of english". Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 24 (5): 1205–1223. doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00143. PMID 21981676. 
  101. Schacter, Daniel L.; Gilbert, Daniel Todd.; Wegner, Daniel M. (2011). Psycholog. New York, NY: Worth Publishers. p. 357. ISBN 978-1-4292-3719-2. OCLC 696604625. 
  102. Och, Franz Josef; Ney, Hermann (2004). "The Alignment Template Approach to Statistical Machine Translation". Computational Linguistics 30 (4): 417–449. doi:10.1162/0891201042544884. 
  103. Chen, David L., and Raymond J. Mooney. "Learning to sportscast: a test of grounded language acquisition." Proceedings of the 25th international conference on Machine learning. ACM, 2008.
  104. Chater, Nick, and Christopher D. Manning. "Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition." Trends in Cognitive Sciences 10.7 (2006): 335-344.
  105. Zuidema, Willem H. "How the poverty of the stimulus solves the poverty of the stimulus." Advances in neural information processing systems. 2003.

Further reading

External links