Asymmetry in Children’s Linguistic Production and Comprehension: A Review and Criticism of Bidirectional Optimality Theory

Bazoubandi, Hossein; Mirdehghan, Mahinnaz

doi:10.22054/ls.2019.36631.1138

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

¹ Assistant Professor of Linguistics, Vali-e-Asr University of Rafsanjan, Iran

² Associate Professor of Linguistics, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran;

https://doi.org/10.22054/ls.2019.36631.1138

Abstract

It is quite evident that children are capable to understand meanings which they are unable to produce correctly. Recent studies have also provided evidence that children occasionally produce correct forms that they do not understand yet. The present study seeks to focus on the question of “how is it possible for children to produce correct forms that are not yet understood by them?” This question has recently came into the sharp focus of linguistics and psycholinguistics studies, and various explanations have been proposed thereof. Using a descriptive-analytic method, this paper aims to identify these studies and the explanations in which the asymmetry between linguistic production and linguistic comprehension have been dealt with. Among later explanations, the Bidirectional Optimality Theory (BOT) shows some potentiality in dealing with the asymmetry between these two dimensions and it seems more valid than other explanations accordingly. Nevertheless, the main hypothesis of the present research states that this almost strong theory also faces major challenges which question its validity. To support the claim, the paper indicates the following challenges: a) absence of a single concept about bidirectional optimality; b) confusion as to blocking process; c) disagreement over the way of ranking, type and number of constraints on a specific subject; and d) lack of transparency in adopting an appropriate comprehension model (e.g., top-down or bottom-up). As a result, BOT, like other approaches in the field, is not able to explain this asymmetry adequately in terms of theory and methodology.

Keywords

References

استاینبرگ، دنی. (1381). روانشناسی زبان. ترجمة ارسلان گلفام. تهران: انتشارات سمت.

دبیرمقدم، محمد. (1383). زبانشناسی نظری. ویراست دوم. تهران: انتشارات سمت.

میردهقان، مهینناز. (1387). حالت نمایی افتراقی در زبانهای هندی / اردو، پشتو و بلوچی، در چارچوب بهینگی واژنقشی. تهران:دانشگاه شهید بهشتی.

همایون، همادخت. (1371). واژهنامه زبانشناسی و علوم وابسته. تهران: مؤسسة مطالعات و تحقیقات فرهنگی (پژوهشگاه).

Aitchison, J. (2008). The Articulate Mammal: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics (Fifth edition). London: Routledge.

Bates, E., P. S. Dale & D. Thal. (1995). “Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development”. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (eds.). Handbook of Child Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. 96-151.

Bates, E. & J. C. Goodman. (1997). “On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: evidence from acquisition, aphasia, and real-time processing”. Language and Cognitive Processes. 12/5-6. 507-584.

Bates, E., D. Thal, B. L. Finlay & B. Clancy. (2002). “Early language development and its neural correlates”. In I. Rapin & S. Segalowitz (eds.). Handbook of Neuropsychology. Vol. 8: Child Neurology (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. 109-176.

Beaver, D. I. (2004). “The optimization of discourse anaphora”. Linguistics and Philosophy. 27. 3-56.

Beaver, D. and H. Lee. (2004). “Input-output mismatches in OT”. In R. Blutner & H. Zeevat (eds.). Optimality Theory and Pragmatics. England: Palgrave-Macmillan. 112-154.

Benedict, H. (1979). “Early lexical development: comprehension and production”. Journal of Child Language. 6. 183-200.

Bloom, P., A. Barss, J. Nicol, & L. Conway. (1994). “Children’s knowledge of binding and coreference: Evidence from spontaneous speech”. Language. 70. 53-71.

Blutner, R. (2000). "Some aspects of optimality in natural language interpretation”. Journal of Semantics. 17. 189-216.

------------ (2009). “Optimality-theoretic pragmatics meets experimental pragmatics”. ZAS Papers in Linguistics. 51. 27-52.

Blutner, R. & H. Zeevat. (2004). “Pragmatics in optimality theory”. In R. Blutner et al. (eds.). Pragmatics and Optimality Theory. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 1-24.

Burke, D. M., & D. G. MacKay. (1997). “Memory, language and ageing: Philosophical transaction of the royal society”. Biological Sciences. 352. 1845-1856.

Burke, D. M., D. G. MacKay, & L. E. James. (2000). “Theoretical approaches to language and aging”. In T. Perfect & E. Maylor (eds.). Models of Cognitive Aging. Oxford: University Press. 204-237.

Chapman, R. S. and , J. F. Miller. (1975). “Word order in early two and three word utterances: Does production precede comprehension?”. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research. 18. 346-354.

Chien, Y.-C. and K. Wexler. (1990). “Children’s knowledge of locality conditions on binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics”. Language Acquisition. 1. 225-295.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Clark, E. (1993). The Lexicon in Acquisition. Cambridge: University Press.

Conroy, S., E. Takahashi, J. Lidz, & C. Phillips. (2009). “Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with principle B”. Linguistic Inquiry. 40. 446-486.

Crain, S., R. Thornton, C. Boster, L. Conway, D. Lillo-Martin & E. Woodams. (1996). “Quantification without qualification”. Language Acquisition 5. 83-153.

Cutler, A. and D. A. Swinney. (1987). “Prosody and the development of comprehension”. Journal of Child Language. 14. 145-167.

De Hoop, H. and I. Krämer. (2005/6). “Children’s optimal interpretations of indefinite subjects and objects”. Language Acquisition.13. 103-123.

De Villiers, J.G., J. Cahillane & E. Altreuter. (2007). “What can production reveal about principle B? ”. In K. U. Deen, J. Nomura, B. Schulz & B. Schwartz (eds.). The Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition–North America. University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4. 89-100.

Dick, F., E. Bates, B. Wulfeck, J. Utman & N. Dronkers. (2001). “Language deficits, localization, and grammar: Evidence for a distributive model of language breakdown in aphasics and normal”. Psychological Review. 108 (4). 759-788.

Fischer, S. (2004). “Optimal Binding”. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 22. 481–526.

Foulke, E., & T. Sticht. (1969). “Review of research on the intelligibility and comprehension of accelerated speech”. Psychological Bulletin. 72. 50-62.

Fraser, C., U. Bellugi & R. Brown. (1963). “Control of grammar in imitation, production, and comprehension”. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior. 2. 121–135.

Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & E. Hahn. (2013). “Word comprehension and production asymmetries in children and adults”. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology.114. 489–509.

Goldin-Meadow, S., M. E. P. Seligman, & R. Gelman. (1976). "language in the two year old". Cognition. 4. 189-202.

Grimshaw, J. and S. T. Rosen. (1990). “Knowledge and obedience: The developmental status of the binding theory”. Linguistic Inquiry. 21. 187-222.

Grodzinsky, Y & T. Reinhart. (1993). “The innateness of binding and coreference”. Linguistic Inquiry 24. 69-102.

Hendriks, P. (2008). “A unified explanation for production/comprehension asymmetries”. In A Gavarró Algueró & M. J. Freitas (eds.). Proceedings of GALA 2007. Newcastle upon Tyne. UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 240-251.

Hendriks, P., H. de Hoop & M. Lamers. (2005). “Asymmetries in language use reveal asymmetries in the grammar”. In Proceedings of the 15th Amsterdam Colloquium. 113-118.

Hendriks, P. and J. Spenader. (2005/6). “When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns”. Language Acquisition. 13. 319-348.

Hendriks, P. and C. Koster. (2010). “Production/comprehension asymmetries in language acquisition”. Lingua. 120. 1887-1897.

Hurewitz, F., S. Browne-Schmidt, K. Thorpe, L. R. Gleitman & J. Trueswell. (2000). “One frog two frog, red frog blue frog: Factors affecting children’s syntactic choices in production and comprehension”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 29. 597-625.

Jäger, G. (2002). “Some notes on the formal properties of bidirectional optimality theory”. Journal of Logic, Language and Information. 11. 427–451.

Jakobson, R. (1941/1968). Child Language, Aphasia and Phonological Universals. The Hague: Mouton.

Joshi, A. K. (1987). “Generation - a new frontier of natural language processing?”. Theoretical Issues in Natural Language Processing. 3. 181-184.

Kager, R. (1999). Optimality Theory. Cambridge: CU Press.

Koster C., J. Hoeks & P. Hendriks. (2011). “Comprehension and production of subject pronouns: Evidence for the asymmetry of grammar”. In A. Grimm, A. Müller, C. Hamann & E. Ruigendijk. (eds.). Production-Comprehension Asymmetries in Child Language. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 99-122.

Layton, T. L. & S. L. Stick. (1979). “Comprehension and production of comparatives and superlatives”. Journal of Child Language. 6. 511-527.

Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive Meanings: The Theory of Generalized Conversational Implicature. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Mattausch, J. (2004). On the Optimization & Grammaticalization of Anaphora. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Berlin: Humboldt University

McClellan, J., C. Yewchuk & G. Holdgrafer. (1986). “Comprehension and production of word order by 2-year-old children”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research. 15. 97-116.

Griffin, Z. M. & V. S. Ferreira. (2006). “Properties of spoken language production”. In M. J. Traxler and M. A. Gernsbacher (eds.). Handbook of Psycholinguistics (2nd edn). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 21-59.

Mirolli, M., F. Cecconi & D. Parisi. (2007). “A neural network model for explaining the asymmetries between linguistic production and linguistic comprehension”. In S. Vosniadou, D. Kayser & A. Protopapas (eds.). Proceedings of the 2007 European Cognitive Society Conference. Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum. 670-675.

Pinker, S. (1981). “Comments on the paper by Wexler”. In C. L. Baker and J. J. McCarthy (eds.). The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: MIT Press.

------------ (1996). Language Learnability and Language Development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Prince, A., & P. Smolensky. (1993/2004). Optimality theory: Constraint Interaction in Generative Grammar. Rutgers University and University of Colorado at Boulder. Technical Report RuCCSTR-2 (available as ROA 537-0802). Revised version published by Blackwell. 2004.

Reinhart, T. (2004). “The processing cost of reference-set computation: Acquisition of stress shift and focus”. Language Acquisition. 12. 109-155.

-------------- (2006). Interface Strategies: Optimal and Costly Computations. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Smolensky, P. (1996). “On the comprehension/production dilemma in child language”. Linguistic Inquiry. 27. 720-731.

Spenader, J., E. J. Smits & P. Hendriks. (2009). “Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem”. Journal of Child Language. 36. 23-52.

Sperber, D., & D. Wilson. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.

Warren, R. M., C. J. Obusek, R. M. Farmer, & R. P. Warren. (1969). “Auditory sequence: Confusion of patterns other than speech or music”. Sience. 164. 586-587.

Wilson, C. (2001). “Bidirectional optimization and the theory of anaphora”. In G. Legendre, J. Grimshaw, & S. Vikner (eds.). Optimality-Theoretic Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Language Science

Asymmetry in Children’s Linguistic Production and Comprehension: A Review and Criticism of Bidirectional Optimality Theory

References

References

Volume 5, Issue 8
March 2019
Pages 63-97

Asymmetry in Children’s Linguistic Production and Comprehension: A Review and Criticism of Bidirectional Optimality Theory

References

References

Volume 5, Issue 8March 2019Pages 63-97

Volume 5, Issue 8
March 2019
Pages 63-97