Psycholinguistic Theory A Semantic/Cognitive Model

Because Chomsky minimized the role of semantics. In (1963), it was argued that there should be a full account of “semantics” when describing the language. WHY? Because Chomsky minimized the role of semantics. For Example; The [noun] pushed the door angrily.* As a result, any interpretation of any utterance should include its underlying semantic features and relationships. According to Chomsky, any noun can fit this position and the sentence will grammatically correct. But what about the word “shoes’ or ‘ ball’?? Though grammatically correct , they don’t make any sense.

Case Grammar It is a generative system that attempts to explain the influence of semantics on the syntactic structure of a language. It proposes that there is an underlying level of deep structure consisting of universal semantics concepts that specify word relationships. These semantic concepts are distinct from syntactic relationships forms of the surface structure.

A case is a semantic function for a noun phrase. For Example; The [noun] pushed the door angrily.* Case function is marked by word order or morphological markers. There are SEVEN universal rules (p.41) (agentive- dative- experience- factitive- instrumental – locative – objective) ** only nouns that causes action. So ‘ball’ is not acceptable.

Case grammar accounts for the structure through the semantic functions of nouns in relation to verbs. For Example; The boy used the screwdriver to open the door. [agentive] [instrumental] [objective]

The Semantic Revolution (1960-1970) Lois bloom found that syntactic rules were inadequate for describing the difference in meaning of the utterances. For example; “Mommy sock”  picking up her mother’s stocking  when her mother put her socks on So, the meaning is different, though the surface structure was the same. Lois Bloom applied Chomsky’s syntactic analysis technique to children language. She analyzed the langauge of three children at early multi word stage.

Bloom found that children’s speech contains consistent relationships among entities in the children’s world and these relationships are expressed by simple word order rule. For Example; ‘agent + action Dad throw X + location Go Car

As a result, Bloom’s research signaled a new era in child language study (1970). It started a “semantic revolution” which indicated a transition from the syntactic – transformational to a semantic analysis. So, children’s language has been analyzed in relation to the child’s intended meaning interpreted from the linguistic and non linguistic context. (i.e. Rich interpretation)

It was hypothesized that the early child language semantic of language developed prior to syntax. Schlesinger (1976) stated that in early child language semantic relationships are expressed very clearly in word order. * Greenfield and Smith (1976) found out that the semantic grammar can be used to describe children’s initial single word stage. So, semantic approach assumes that content (meaning) precedes language form. Later acquired syntactic forms are used to expressed older semantics. ** For example ‘ Mommy sock”  ‘Mommy’s sock” ** eg. Possession example

The semantic revolution has weaken the notion of innateness of language rules. WHY? According to the semantic theory, semantics is a method of representing mental experience which is universal. Semanticists assumed that common rules represent a general pattern of cognitive development NOT innate structure.* (thought before language) A child learn the relationship between entities within the environment, and these relationships are reflected in the semantic structure produced by the child. In other words, the development of semantic relationship reflects the development of cognitive structures.

The Semantic/Cognitive Hypothesis It stated that children’s early language utterances are expressions of perceived semantic relationships rather than expressions of innate preprogrammed syntactic relationship as Chomsky proposed. Perception and understanding of semantic relationships are the result of human cognitive development.

The Semantic/Cognitive Hypothesis is an information-processing approach. The child abstracts the basic relationship from physical environment and rules from the linguistic environment. This information is internalized and categorized to appear in the child’s language. language input is interpreted using linguistic rules that reflect cognitive relationships. Language development is a product of the strategies and processes of general cognitive development.

Limitations of the theory Cognition alone is not an adequate explanation. - some children with normal cognitive abilities don’t acquire the language. - cognition does not always influence the language. It did not explain the how/why of language acquisition. It does not explain the link between the cognition and language acquisition. It does not explain why children’s cognition concepts become linguistically encoded.