FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2052156653> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2052156653 endingPage "341" @default.
• W2052156653 startingPage "336" @default.
• W2052156653 abstract "The Resilience of Language: What Gesture Creation in Deaf Children Can Tell Us about How All Children Learn Language by Susan Goldin-Meadow. (New York: Psychology Press, 2005, 288 pp., $24.95, hardcover) One of the fundamental questions about language development is, what are the unlearned or innate aspects of knowledge that allow language to emerge so quickly in children? In order to situate Goldin-Meadow's approach in The Resilience of Language, it is helpful to consider two examples of the myriad ways researchers have tried to address this question: by comparing perceptual categories with conceptual categories underlying language and by looking at universals across a number of unrelated languages. The advent of methods that could be used to tap infants' perceptual categories has been a boon for researchers interested in children's early knowledge. For example, based on studies from a habituation paradigm, Spelke (1994) argues that infants have very early knowledge about the characteristics of objects. Similarly, Mandler (1996) argues that children have early knowledge about the path of movement of objects, including into and out of containers and on and off [End Page 336] surfaces. This knowledge about the path of movement could lead children to focus on language about how objects move in the world. In fact, children's early language about motion is most often that which is most frequent in their input (e.g., Choi & Bowerman 1991; Sinha and Jensen de López 2000). These results suggest that there may be no simple mapping of early language onto the perceptual categories that can be discerned in infancy. In other words, the knowledge leading to early language use is certainly not exclusively based on earlier perceptual categories. Furthermore, these categories may not be the most important aspects of knowledge on which language use is based. Another way in which researchers have been interested in uncovering innate or unlearned aspects of knowledge is by cross-linguistic comparisons. By looking at a variety of unrelated languages and showing what is common to all languages, researchers can posit what might be part of humans' genetic predisposition to language. For example, lexical categories such as nouns and verbs are universal across languages (Baker 2003). It is therefore possible that knowledge of lexical categories is either unlearned or at least in place by the time children start to produce word combinations (Wexler and Culicover 1980). This claim has been challenged by recent evidence showing that initially children most often use word combinations that they have heard before (Akhtar 1999; Tomasello 2000), suggesting that knowledge of lexical categories may not precede syntactic acquisition but may rather be the result of using a lot of different word combinations (see also Plunkett and Marchman 1993). Characterizing just these two approaches to uncovering innate predispositions to acquire language is by no means exhaustive coverage (see, for example, Slobin 1982). I have characterized these two popular approaches in order to highlight what Goldin-Meadow does differently in The Resilience of Language. In this book she switches the question from What is innate? to What is resilient? By emphasizing the resilience of language rather than innateness, she focuses the question on those aspects of language that can be learned without a model. In doing so, she implies that it may be more appropriate to consider the ontological origins of language in terms of unfolding over a period of time rather than in terms of discrete prelinguistic [End Page 337] knowledge (cf. Piaget 1948). While Goldin- Meadow spends little time justifying the switch in questions, it is certainly warranted by pressures in the field. Researchers in cognitive development and language acquisition have been gradually discovering that questions about innate concepts may be ill framed to answer in biological and therefore psychological terms. By focusing the question on resilience, we may be in a better position to understand how language develops over the lifespan. To support her approach..." @default.
• W2052156653 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2052156653 creator A5067923529 @default.
• W2052156653 date "2006-01-01" @default.
• W2052156653 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2052156653 title "Innate or Resilient? How Children's Gesture Creation Uncovers the Ontological Origins of Language" @default.
• W2052156653 cites W1551770093 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2004411856 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2009720124 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2034515585 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2039762981 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2054620381 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2059785614 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2068155923 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2070653320 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2082568609 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2105337963 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2110017360 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2111449423 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2186780112 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W2796391585 @default.
• W2052156653 cites W614806104 @default.
• W2052156653 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2006.0020" @default.
• W2052156653 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
• W2052156653 type Work @default.
• W2052156653 sameAs 2052156653 @default.
• W2052156653 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2052156653 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2052156653 hasAuthorship W2052156653A5067923529 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C153578388 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C16592111 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C192209626 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C207347870 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C26760741 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C74672266 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConcept C79078291 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C120665830 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C121332964 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C138885662 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C153578388 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C15744967 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C16592111 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C169760540 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C188147891 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C192209626 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C207347870 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C26760741 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C41895202 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C74672266 @default.
• W2052156653 hasConceptScore W2052156653C79078291 @default.
• W2052156653 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2052156653 hasLocation W20521566531 @default.
• W2052156653 hasOpenAccess W2052156653 @default.
• W2052156653 hasPrimaryLocation W20521566531 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W1835460135 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W2016858441 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W2047723373 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W2097458652 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W2130622333 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W2154074156 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W2164271273 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W2340497510 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W2356813761 @default.
• W2052156653 hasRelatedWork W4249679988 @default.
• W2052156653 hasVolume "6" @default.
• W2052156653 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2052156653 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2052156653 magId "2052156653" @default.
• W2052156653 workType "article" @default.