A Developmental-functionalist Approach To Child Language

Nancy Budwig

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781135806316
• Topic: Desarrollo personal
• Subtopic: Historia y teoría en psicología

Although there has been much empirical study within what has been referred to as "functional approaches to child language," there has yet to be a major attempt to compare and contrast such proposals. In addition, much of the work carried out within child language from a functionalist perspective has not been specific with regard to the nature of the approach adopted. In attempting to fill the gap, the author of this book begins with a comparison of various functionalist approaches. By concentrating on one domain -- agentivity and control -- Budwig develops a set of research questions based on an examination of findings stemming from linguistics, psycholinguistics, and developmental psychology, and also provides an in-depth discussion of related methodological issues. In the second part of the book, she traces the development of linguistic means to refer to oneself within a developmental-functionalist perspective. Individual case studies as well as group analyses of six children in the early phases of acquiring English grammar are provided. In the last part, Budwig examines the relationship between forms and functions in development with special attention to potential generalizations about the organization and reorganization of the children's linguistic systems.

P A R T O N E

FOUNDATIONS

C H A P T E R O N E

Functional Approaches to Child Language

The approach adopted in this book is a developmental-functionalist approach to child language. From the start it is important to explain what is meant by the term developmental and what is meant by the term functionalist. Often it is assumed that any approach to child language is necessarily a developmental approach—what is one studying if not language development? I argue throughout this book that we need to be far more concerned with the notion of development than much child language research has been in recent years (see also Bamberg, Budwig, & Kaplan, 1991; Bloom, 1991; Tomasello, 1992). The goal of this chapter is to familiarize the reader with various kinds of functional approaches and to lay out, in particular, some of the assumptions guiding the use of the term developmental-functionalist in this book. I begin with a general discussion of the notion of function. I then describe how this term has been used in linguistic theorizing and in child language research. I conclude this chapter with a discussion of some of the problems inherent in current child language research that has been considered functional in nature.

THE NOTION OF FUNCTION
IN LINGUISTIC THEORIZING

From the outset I should clarify that the use of the term functional in functional approaches to language should not be confused with uses of the term functionalism in psychology and philosophy. Functional approaches to language share little with programs of behaviorists such as Skinner (1957) that have been referred to as a kind of functionalism. The use of the term functional within linguistics and psycholinguistics can also be distinguished from uses within computer science and artificial intelligence that refer to mathematical functions (see Bates & MacWhinney, 1989, for further discussion). To assist in severing the connection between these other uses and the use of the term function in linguistic and child language theorizing, I avoid the term functionalism and use the term functional.

It is important to note that within linguistic theorizing there has been no single functional theory of language. Rather, we find a variety of functional theories, models, and approaches, which differ from one another to various degrees. Although, as we see here, there are many important differences between the various uses of functional in linguistic theorizing, it is possible to find some assumptions that are agreed upon by all (see also Budwig, 1993). I briefly discuss these similarities before focusing on the differences between the various uses.

The first and most important assumption shared by the various approaches that could be considered functional is the belief that language has evolved and is acquired in relation to the communicative functions it serves. Language thus is not an arbitrary and autonomous system but, rather, is organized in relation to the needs of those who use it. As a consequence, all theorists taking a functional approach share the belief that language must be studied in relation to context, regardless of what they take context to mean.

A second and related similarity between the various uses of functional is the belief that language is a system of forms and meanings. Forms are a vehicle through which the meanings can be realized. Thus, in functionally oriented research, forms are viewed as a means to an end rather than as an end.

It has often been suggested that there are basically two broad orientations within linguistic theorizing: a formal orientation and a functional orientation (see for instance, Bates & MacWhinney, 1989; Foley & Van Valin, 1984). We might suggest that what unites various functional theories is a shared disbelief in formal orientations. Functionalists join in rejecting the formalist assumption that language consists of a set of structural descriptions of sentences, as well as formalist beliefs about how language ought to be studied and how language is acquired by the child (see, for instance, Chomsky, 1957, 1975, for a more complete discussion of these points). Although on the one hand, one can draw a division between formal and functional orientations, it seems important to keep in mind that at another level of analysis one could construe formalist accounts of language as reflecting a kind of functionalist orientation (see Silverstein, 1987, for a discussion of this possibility). In addition, as Silverstein (1991) more recently pointed out, some functionalist orientations share many features of formal orientations. The point is that the distinction between the two orientations may not be as clear as it might seem.

More relevant to child language theorizing and the various uses of the notion of function in the child language literature is an understanding of some of the differences between various kinds of functional approaches. I begin now to distinguish some of these approaches (see also Silverstein, 1987). It should be made clear that the numerous orientations falling under the general heading of functional do not divide into neat groups. Nevertheless, for the sake of presentation here, I have opted to divide the various kinds of functional perspectives to language into four groups. First, I discuss a group with a cognitive functional orientation. I then discuss a group that can be characterized as bearing a textual functional orientation. A third group is referred to as adopting a social functional orientation. Members of the final group share an interest in a combination of these orientations; this group will be referred to as adopting a multifunctional orientation. Other groupings are possible, but for the general goal of understanding the role of functional linguistic theorizing in child language research, this grouping seems most appropriate.

Cognitive Orientation

The group labeled cognitive in orientation holds together in a belief that languages are organized around event schemes. Members of this group include Comrie (1981), DeLancey (1984, 1987), Fillmore (1968), and Lakoff (1977), among others. A central assumption for this group is that particular linguistic devices are organized around various perspectives speakers take on events. The events are thought to be organized around prototypes, and deviations from the prototype are thought to be marked by deviations in morphosyntactic patterns. The idea, then, is not simply that particular linguistic devices can be correlated with particular event perspectives but, rather, that the relations between various form-event pairings can be linked at a higher level of organization into a larger system of form-meaning correspondences. The central claim is that alternations between particular grammatical devices (i.e., case markers) indicate a related change in the view the speaker adopts on a given action frame (i.e., degree of participant involvement). These action frames consist of a bundle of both semantic and pragmatic features that are organized around a prototype (see Holisky, 1987, for an illustration of the semantic and pragmatic clusters thought to motivate the use of ergative case with subjects of some intransitive verbs in Tsova-Tush [Batsi]).

Textual Orientation

Approaches in the second group to be discussed can be considered similar (despite important differences) in that they are concerned with the ordering and organization of units of discourse both within and between sentences. Members of this group include proponents of what has been referred to as Prague School functionalism (Firbas, 1964; Firth, 1951, among others), British functionalism (Halliday, 1973), Role and Reference Grammar (Foley & Van Valin, 1984; Van Valin, 1993), as well as Chafe (1980), Tomlin (1987), and others. In contrast to the cognitive functional group, this group is interested in the relation between various aspects of formal structure and the way texts are organized. Focus on narrative discourse has been central to this group.

With regard to the organization of information units within sentences, many of those working within this orientation have focused on two kinds of sentential elements: first, the speaker's point of departure (referred to as either the theme, the topic, or given information), and second, what is said about this (referred to as the theme, the comment, or new information). Research falling under this heading has illustrated the extent to which various linguistic means (i.e., lexical, intonational, or word order phenomena) mark such a contrast.

With regard to the overall organization of texts, other research has examined how certain linguistic devices (i.e., tense-aspect markers, pronominal-nominal shifts) segment given texts into smaller textual units informing the listener/reader about various aspects of the global structuring of information (see, for instance, Chafe, 1980; Tomlin, 1987).

In a separate but related line of theorizing, Foley and Van Valin (1984) and Van Valin (1993) outlined Role and Reference Grammar (RRG), which focuses on the relations between clause-internal morphosyntax, clause linkage, and cross-clause reference tracking mechanisms. This leads to a consideration of such aspects of language as the semantic structure of the clause, case marking, intraclausal syntax, and systems of discourse cohesion. The general point here, shared with many others in the textual functional group, is that the analysis of various aspects of morphosyntax must start from a discourse perspective.

Social Orientation

The first two groups were said to be interested in the connections between grammar and event schemata, and grammar and text organization. The third group is unified by a joint interest in social aspects of language use. We can include under this heading at least three kinds of social functional approaches: first, that of a group of philosophers of language who developed a theory of speech acts; second, that of a group of theorists who examined the relation between language and broader sociological issues; and third, that of a group who focused on sociocultural issues and language functioning. I briefly consider each of these groups.

One subgroup bearing a social orientation can be characterized by an interest in a theory of speech acts. This group (i.e., Austin, 1962; Grice, 1975; Searle, 1969, 1979) worked within the logico-semantic tradition, where the central question concerns the principles by which utterances are assigned meaning in particular settings. This group set out to show that utterances function not only to express propositions about the world (which then can be tested against truth conditions), but also to perform certain actions. Its members were not particularly interested in working with real conversational data occurring in real event time but, rather, tended to work with made-up examples with very little emphasis on aspects of the situations in which such utterances were supposed to take place. The general point of such work was to challenge prevailing views concerning the centrality of truth-conditional analyses of sentence meaning, and to develop a theory of politeness and interaction (see Levinson, 1983, for an excellent summary of this tradition).

Although theorists like Austin and Searle were intrigued by the fact that one and the same utterance could function differently in different language contexts, they never really were interested in broader sociological issues. The second subgroup falling under the social functional orientation focused on these issues. One group of theorists, working within the tradition of conversation analysis, focused on real utterances sequenced in time and was concerned with the internal structure of conversation (see Sacks, Schegloff, & Jefferson, 1974). Another group was more interested in the issue of conversational inference as well as the notion of contextualizationcues—surface devices that play an important role in negotiated meaning in social contexts (Gumperz, 1982).

A final subgroup includes sociocultural approaches to language functioning. This group, though closely related to the sociological one just reviewed, can be distinguished in terms of its emphasis on the relation between language and the cultural setting within which language occurs. What is different here is that focus is not placed so much on the goal-directed nature of an individual's functioning within a given context as on the role of societal issues. The general approach adopted within this framework is ethnographic in nature (see Duranti, 1985; Hymes, 1974, for further elaboration).

Pulling together these separate traditions, what unites such approaches is the belief that language is an instrument of social action. Furthermore, there is a shared belief among these theorists that the use of particular linguistic devices can be related to speakers' attempts to achieve particular social goals. This emphasis on the relation between grammar and the social world is what distinguishes the various kinds of functionalist perspectives grouped under this heading from the approaches described under the previous two headings. Those interested in the relationship between grammar and event schemata or between grammar and text have not been primarily concerned with social issues.

Multifunctional Orientation

Several approaches that can be labeled functional in nature do not fit neatly into one division but, rather, are best characterized as integrating aspects of more than one of the orientations discussed here. I refer to these as multifunctional. Although there are large differences among the various approaches discussed here, for the present purposes it can be noted that a major similarity among most of the approaches labeled as multifunctional is that they attempt to integrate two of the levels of analysis. The most common kind of linkage drawn in multifunctional approaches is between the event schemata orientation and the textual orientation. This kind of integration is illustrated in several different lines of work (see Comrie, 1981; Givón, 1979, 1984a, 1990; Hopper & Thompson, 1980, among others).

One way to illustrate the multifunctional orientation of this group is to consider how such an orientation would approach a given issue. One common issue is that of the relation between grammar, agency, and topicality. Some working within what has been labeled the multifunctional orientation not only draw a connection between the use of particular grammatical forms and reference to agents versus patients—thereby appealing to the event schema orientation—but also examine the relationship between such connections and broader textual issues such as topicality. For instance, Bates and MacWhinney (...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Full Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• Preface
• PART I: FOUNDATIONS
• PART II: CASE STUDIES
• PART III: MECHANISMS OF DEVELOPMENT
• References
• Author Index
• Subject Index