Introduction
NANCY BUDWIG
Clark University
SUSAN ERVIN-TRIPP
University of California, Berkeley
The central claim is that LMC constructs similar early grammars from all input languages. The surface forms will, of course, vary, since the materials provided by the input languages vary. What is constant are the basic notions that first receive grammatical expression, along with early constraints on the positioning of grammatical elements and the ways in which they relate to syntactic expression.
Dan I. Slobin (1985, p. 1161)
I will propose, however, that such theorists-including myself-have erred in attributing the origins of structure to the mind of the child, rather than to the interpersonal communicative and cognitive processes that everywhere and always shape language in its peculiar expression of content and relation.
Dan I. Slobin (2001, p. 407)
Slobin argues that crosslinguistic study provides a method that ācan be used to reveal both developmental universals and language-specific developmental patterns in the interaction of form and contentā (Slobin, 1985, p. 5). While the specific proposals Slobin has endorsed over time have changed, the general idea that crosslinguistic study provides a method for revealing how children construct language anew has remained constant. How did Slobin come to build a lifetime program of research around crosslinguistic study?
Dan Slobinās development of the field of comparative child syntax can be foreseen from his own history. He grew up in a multilingual family, spent a year with his family in Vienna at 14 and by the time he went to graduate school he could speak Yiddish, Russian, Hebrew, Spanish, and German, so typological contrasts were familiar to him. As a senior at the University of Michigan he completed an honors thesis on psycholinguistics and heard Roger Brown talk about Jean Berkoās work on childrenās grammatical creativity. The move to Harvard in 1960 to pursue a Ph.D. with Brown and with George Miller seemed a natural. He participated in the analysis of child syntax first on the transcripts of Adam, Eve, and Sarah in Brownās seminar. His dissertation was on grammatical processing, completed quickly to come to the job offered him by the Berkeley Psychology Department.
Arriving in Berkeley in 1963, he soon took part in an interdisciplinary seminar that met regularly to discuss communicative competence, a concept Dell Hymes proposed, which extended the boundary between competence and performance to include cultural and situational knowledge (see Ervin-Tripp, in press; Gumperz & Hymes, 1964). Dell Hymes, John Gumperz, Susan Ervin-Tripp, and Dan Slobin worked with students on a project to study crosslinguistic and cross-cultural contexts of language socialization. This led to the development of a Field Manual to help coordinate such research. Dan Slobin entered into this enterprise with gusto, taking on writing the comparative syntax section of the manual, and eventually editing the whole manual, called the Cross-Cultural Study of the Acquisition of Communicative Competence. Slobin had been told by a mentor that he should find a challenging topic rich enough for a lifetime commitment of his research. He had found it. This project made it clear to him that the method of comparative crosslinguistic study could provide a natural experiment for the study of the acquisition of grammar in relation to a cognitive common ground. Since cognition, he believed at the time, was everywhere alike, developmental differences would be due to the syntactic means available.
Soon after this work on the Manual, which continued in his coordination of the field workers, he developed a new major crosslinguistic acquisition project, in which samples of adult-child speech would be gathered and comparable elicitation experiments would be performed in Serbo-Croatian, Turkish, English, and Italian. He had deliberately chosen languages where the syntactic challenges to children differed. It was these two projects in cross-cultural work that laid the groundwork for his major theoretical proposal of Operating Principles. The importance of this project has over the years attracted participation from scholars working in a wide range of languages. Slobin has edited a series of books refining and enriching his first theoretical description; the contributions to this section are testimony to the enduring importance of the project.
The eight chapters in this section suggest ways that ongoing research has been influenced by Slobinās thinking about language learning in crosslinguistic perspective. Our introductory chapter is divided into three parts. First, we begin with a brief overview of some of the key aspects of Slobinās views on crosslinguistic study, beginning with his discussion of the language-making capacity, operating principles and basic child grammar and tracing this forward to his later work on language typology. We conclude this first section by considering ways the eight chapters draw upon Slobinās ideas about universals and particulars of acquisition. Second, we turn to two ways the authors in this section push Slobinās thinking in new directions, first by focusing on issues of methodology and second, examining typology in use. Finally, we offer our own reflections for future lines of research examining language development within a crosslinguistic perspective.
THE LANGUAGE-MAKING CAPACITY, BASIC CHILD GRAMMAR, AND THE SHIFT TOWARD LANGUAGE TYPOLOGY
In one way or another, the eight chapters in this section draw upon Slobinās discussion of the relative role of universals and particulars in the acquisition process. Slobinās original theoretical perspective was built on the idea of the language-making capacity (LMC) and operating principles. Slobin originally argued that the LMC and Operating Principles provide the child with mechanisms to construct similar grammars regardless of input language. These early grammars were referred to as Basic Child Grammar: āWhat is constant are the basic notions that first receive grammatical expression, along with early constraints on the positioning of grammatical elements and the ways in which they relate to syntactic expressionā (Slobin, 1985, p. 1161). Later the idea that children start with a core set of basic notions that they give grammatical treatment to regardless of input language was retracted. In 1997, in the final volume of the crosslinguistic series, Slobin argued that there is a collection of grammatically relevant notions but āthere are too many different packagings of such semantic and pragmatic characteristics to build in all of the possible packages in advance or rank them in terms of ānaturalnessā or āaccessibilityā (Slobin, 1997, p. 301). From here Slobin went on to argue that typological aspects of the input language as used in practice played a far greater role in childrenās use and development of grammatical systems than his earlier work had suggested.
The eight chapters in this section collectively develop aspects of arguments Slobin has made previously. Gleason, Phillips, and Ely focus on the lexicon, examining the acquisition of animal terms in Russian and English. They highlight the importance of studying lexical development crosslinguistically in order to conclude something about the universality of the acquisition process. Gleason et al. argue that animal terms are acquired as part of broader interaction routines that bridge to decontextualized discourse, and that despite some differences in frequency and density of the lexicon, there is universal interest by two-year-olds in talk about the animal world.
The other chapters focus more squarely on the acquisition of grammar. Two of the papers explicitly examine Slobinās early claims about Basic Child Grammar. Goldin-Meadow, ĆzyĆ¼rek, Sancar, and Mylander undertook a remarkable extension of the comparative method to the homesign of deaf children born to hearing parents in China, Turkey and the United States. The children have contextual and gestural input to language formation, but they were not exposed to conventional sign language or to speech training. When the developmental course of homesign was followed, there were striking similarities in the types of semantic elements expressed, types of gesture combinations, and the order at sentence level. Among these similarities were focusing on patient first (by pointing or iconic gesture), and on results. They suggest, consistent with Slobinās discussion of Basic Child Grammar, that the constructions they found show conceptual starting points for grammatical notions that are highly accessible to all children. In contrast, Kyratzis challenges Slobinās early focus on the Manipulative Activity Scene. Consistent with Slobinās later ideas about more flexible starting points for children, Kyratzis argues that the transitivity parameters that children come to use in a particular situation may be shaped by the pragmatic uses they themselves put their language to, which in turn may derive from the pragmatic functions of language with peers, the language that they hear spoken around them in that situation, and by the socialization influences and ideologies that they are exposed to in their language community.
Several other chapters that focus on grammar are concerned with Slobinās more recent interest in the role of typology. Behrens, for example, looks at the early use of particles that encode deixis in German-speaking children and fi...