Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T12:39:29.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Holophrases, speech acts and language universals*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

John Dore
John Dore
Affiliation:
Bernard M. Baruch College, City University of New York and The Rockefeller University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The arguments both for and against viewing the child's initial one-word utterances as HOLOPHRASES are reviewed. Some theoretical problems – concerning the innateness of language, the acquisition of syntax, the status of prosody and the child's comprehension of language during the one-word stage – with the holophrase controversy are pointed out. We suggest that an unresolvable theoretical stalemate exists because proponents on both sides of the controversy mistakenly assume the centrality of the notion sentence in discussing holophrases. An alternative view of early language development, which takes the SPEECH ACT as the basic unit of linguistic communication, is offered as a solution to the problems with the holophrase controversy as it now stands. We propose a more integrated description of the relations between functional and grammatical aspects of early communicative competence than is currently provided by sentence-oriented theories. In particular, we suggest that the child's PRAGMATIC INTENTIONS gradually become GRAMMATICALIZED as semantic and syntactic structures. Finally, three entities – communicative functions, referring expressions and predicating expressions – are proposed as LANGUAGE UNIVERSALS, as distinct from grammatical universals.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 1975 , pp. 21 - 40
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. London: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Bever, T. G., Fodor, J. A. & Weksel, W. (1965). On the acquisition of syntax: a critique of ‘contextual generalization’. PsychRev 72. 467–82.Google ScholarPubMed
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: the use of single word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1962). On learning the grammatical order of words. PsychRev 70. 323–48.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Dore, J. (1973 a). The development of speech acts. Ph.D. Thesis, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Dore, J. (1973 b). A developmental theory of speech act production. TNYASci 35. 623–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Dore, J. (1974). A pragmatic description of early language development. JPsycholingRes 3, 343–5O.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. M. (1973). Children's sociolinguistic competence and dialect diversity. In Language acquisition and communicative choice. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P., Smith, J. & Laufer, B. (in press). Communication and the beginnings of language: the development of semantic structure in one-word speech and beyond. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1971). Transitivity in child language. Lg 47. 888–910.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1922). Language: its nature, development and origin. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kaplan, E. L. (1969). The role of intonation in the acquisition of language. Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Langendoen, D. T. (1972). Is the theory of generative grammar relevant to neurobiology? Paper presented at Neurosciences Research Program Work Session on Language and the Brain: Developmental Aspects,20 November.Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leopold, W. F. (1949). Speech development of a bilingual child: a linguist's record. In Grammar and general problems in the first two years. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1973). Deixis as the source of reference. (Mimeograph of work in progress), Edinburgh University Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1970). The acquisition of language. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. & Bernholtz, N. (1969). Prosodic features and children's language production. Research Laboratory of Electronics Quarterly Progress Reports 93.Google Scholar
Miller, G. (1970). Four philosophical problems of psycholinguistics. Philosophy of Science 37. 183–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reber, A. (1973). On psycho-linguistic paradigms. JPsycholingRes 2. 289–320.Google ScholarPubMed
Schlesinger, I. (1971). Production of utterances and language acquisition. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: an essay in the philosophy of language. London: C.U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shipley, E. F., Smith, C. S. & Gleitman, L. R. (1968). A study in the acquisition of language. Lg 45. 322–42.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. (1966). Discussion of McNeill's ‘Developmental psycholinguistics’. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. A. (eds), The genesis of language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1971). Developmental psycholinguistics. In Dingwall, W. O. (ed.), A survey of linguistic science. Maryland: University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Stevenson, A. (1893). The speech of children. Science 21. 118–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Werner, H. (1957). The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view. In Harris, D. B. (ed.), The concept of development. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar