The Priority of Comprehension

This chapter explores the implications of two observations that should be reasonably obvious, or at least familiar, but when they are considered together, they lead to an unfamiliar but interesting way of thinking about the early stages of language. The first of the two observations is simply that all of us, humans and animals alike, are always able to understand more than we can say. Comprehension runs consistently ahead of production. The second observation extends the first: both humans and animals are sometimes able to interpret another's instrumental behavior even when that other individual had no intention at all to communicate. In the first part of this chapter I seek to justify these two observations. I will then consider their implications for our understanding of the origins of language.

Children, who appear to learn their first language with such magical ease, give us the most familiar example of the priority of comprehension. Parents are always convinced that their children understand far more than they can say. Linguists have occasionally been sceptical of the superior comprehension of children, partly because a vaguely behaviourist bias makes the ‘behaviour’ of speaking seem more important than mere ‘passive’ comprehension, but also for the much better reason that it really is very difficult to study comprehension. How do we know whether or not a child understands, and how do we know how he understands?