Constructing a Language by Michael Tomasello

The Usage-Based Model in Intention-Reading

4 December 2007 Presented by: Rebecca Pardue and Natalia Bermudez

By WHOM? Michael Tomasello!

Presently at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology: Department of Developmental and Comparative Psychology (Leipzig) DUKE UNIVERSITY, B.A. Psychology, 1972 UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA, Ph.D. Experimental Psychology, 1980

Usage-Based Linguistics
 


 

Human beings arent born with specific set of communicative behaviors (unlike animals) Generative grammar is not as complexly confusing, and language acquisition can be explained by being integrated with other cognitive and social-cognitive skills. *Intention-reading: share attention with others and follow it, imitatively Pattern-finding: form perceptual and conceptual categories and analogies Usage-based linguistics: language structure emerges from language use! Includes the core grammar as well as idiosyncratic and things in between. Grammaticalization: linguistic constructions are themselves meaningful linguistic symbols, NOT algebraic procedures

Origins of Language
  

  

Around 9-12 months infants understand the social world Begin gaze-following and social referencing Behaviors are triadicinteractions between both objects and people to share attention. They learn there is a joint attentional frame, defined intentionally and form a common ground. First, infants monitor intentional states of others towards outside objects and engage with them as a scaffold Second, infants monitor intentional states of adults towards themselves and their attentional states This helps them understand communicative intentions
 

It is crucial to basic symbol learning And to pragmatic context skills

Pointing is an early triadic gesture of intention

Words
 

Wordlearning easier when adults name new objects as the focus of attention Tomasellos studies show that children dont need adults to direct attention and name objects, they can discern adults focus of attention in complicated situations. Also, adults specific behaviors (smile or nod) arent enough to indicate intended referent Children use a variety of cues to read adult referential intentions, showing flexible understanding A child discerns through intentional reading which object or action an adult refers to with a new word

Complex Constructions and Discourse

 

 

 

Children focus attention on topic of conversation, not on linguistic structures! Early on, children first distinguish between what is presently in the joint attentional frame and what is new to a conversation Around 24 months, children can talk about a focused topic in a joint-attentional frame 5 year olds use about twice as many nominals (referents) as younger children, showing they understand the listener is following They also talk about a central theme and make it the subject of the conversation Pressure to adjust utterance to listeners understanding in discourse circumstances lead them to develop theory of mind

Biological, Cultural, and Ontogenetic Processes



*The fundamental unit of intentional action (and of language learning) is stored exemplars of utterances
 

Ex: thank you, I wanna X, Im Xing How X contributes to larger communicative structure

   

In experiments of cultural learning, young children can reproduce adults intended (not accidental) actions when they dont even perform it To learn a language: (1) hear an adult utterance, (2) segment communicative intention into component parts, and (3) store comprehended utterance and components

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRpuFGWs2hQ

Application: Intention Reading and Children with Autism

Why Study Autism?

  

Attention reading a major component of development Consistent with usage-based model Emphasizes the significant of joint attention by linking cognitive linguistics with experimental psychology Suggests an alternative to normal development based on learning without embodiment

Overview of Autism
 

 

 

Brain development disorder Diagnosed based on key behaviors rather than cause or mechanism Known to be inherited, but still poorly understood Characterized by abnormalities in social interaction and communication Usually diagnosed by age 2 Syndrome-specific deficit of joint attentional skills

Nonlinguistic Cognitive Abnormalities

 

Hyper-systemizing Creating rules to describe internal events that can not be understood otherwise Cannot empathize with others or understand their motivations Limited ability to see the big picture

Delays in Acquisition: The Autistic Patterns

    

Nearly 50% do not acquire language at all No babbling or gesturing at 12 months Lacking single words at 16 months Lacking two-word spontaneous phrases at 24 months Attention sharing tests very important in diagnostics

Abnormality in Language Structure and Use

 

Verbal communication sometimes limited to labeling Sentences usually only represent the world at it is, marked by the lack of embedded clauses, propositional attitudes, lack of discourse on ongoing or past activity Conversational deficits: does not distinguish between new and given info, rarely express intention, inability to understand literal vs. intended meanings, difficulty with irony, jokes, and lies Avoidance of representations of emotional states Narrative discourse: do not consider listener's needs, lack of causal explanations Cut off from social-historical aspects embodied in language

 

Theory of Mind in Social Cognition



The first sign of mind in communication is in conceptualizing others as intentional, volitional beings Understanding that others have minds is the enables joint attention Longitudinal studies found that responses in individual autistic toddlers to bids for joint attention predicted language gains several years later [independent of IQ level] Those with the poorest non-linguistic joint-attentional skills have the lowest linguistic performance Evidence that joint attention is a precurser to language -They develop around the same time (~1 year old) in normal children -They simultaneously in autistic children, occurring at varying ages - In some autistic children neither can develop in verbal children there is not one without the other

 

Alternate strategies in acquisition



Heavier reliance on lexical and syntactic knowledge: more knowledge is needed to pass theory of mind tests such as false belief tests due to lack of empathy Different linguistic cues to cope with lack of socialcognitive development and symbolic understanding Lack of symbolic skills make it difficult to focus attention: the preferred approach is repetitive tasks to make up for the deficit Tomasello theorizes that they integrate information into contexts through piecemeal efforts that are not embodied, leading to inefficiency Hypothesis that excesses in neurons cause overconnectivity in key brain regions

Bibliography


Flusberg, Helen. Evaluating the theory of mind hypothesis of autism. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 16.6 Dec. 2007. Holth, Per. An operant analysis of joint-attentional skills. The Journal of Early and Intensive Behavioral Intervention. 2.3 Fall 2005. Norbury, Courtney Frazier. Barking up the wrong tree. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 90.2 Feb 2005. Rogers, Sally J. Imitation and the social mind. London: Guilford Press, 2006. Tomasello, Michael. Constructing a Language. Harvard University Press, 2003. Tomasello, Michael. The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. Harvard University Press, 1999. Watt, Nola. Prelinguistic predictors of language outcome at three years of age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Science. 49.6 Dec 2006.