Direct negative evidence

Last updated

Direct negative evidence is a term used in the study of the acquisition of language. It describes the attempts of competent speakers of a language to guide the grammatical use of novice speakers, such as children.

Contents

Definition

Negative evidence in language acquisition consists of evidence that demonstrates which grammatical constructions in a language are ungrammatical. [1] Furthermore, Saxton (1997) asserts that negative evidence supplies the " correct adult model" for novice speakers to avoid future grammatical mishaps. [2] Negative evidence corrections, in whatever form they appear, necessarily follow immediately after an incorrect, often ungrammatical, utterance. [3] Note that although parents often understand their children, and these production mistakes aren't usually egregious enough for the parent to not be able to correct it, negative evidence deals with the conventional standards of grammar in a language and the correct model of grammar structures, rather than communicative ones. [4]

Direct negative evidence differs from indirect negative evidence in that it is explicitly presented to a language learner (for example, a child might be corrected by a parent) whereas indirect negative evidence is inferred from the absence of ungrammatical utterances in a given language. Though it is generally agreed that there is positive evidence (i.e. evidence that demonstrates grammatical linguistic constructions) in the language input, there is a dearth of direct negative evidence in the general language learner input since most native or veteran speakers produce grammatical as opposed to ungrammatical speech. [5]

"No Negative Evidence" Problem

One of the difficulties surrounding language acquisition is that the language input is not rich enough for children to develop a correct grammar, otherwise referred to as the argument of the poverty of the stimulus. This is a commonly held position by nativists, who believe that there are innate mechanisms which facilitate language learning. The central idea of the poverty of the stimulus argument is that children could have multiple hypotheses about aspects of their grammar which are distinguishable only by direct negative evidence (or by hearing ungrammatical sentences and recognizing those sentences as ungrammatical). Supporters of the poverty of the stimulus argument then assert that because the negative evidence that is needed to learn language by the input alone does not exist, children cannot learn certain aspects of grammar from the input alone, and there must be some aspects of grammar which involve innate mechanisms. [6]

The view that there is "no negative evidence" in the input is held by a number of researchers in the field of language acquisition who assert that if children are to learn language, then they must be able to learn language by solely examining the positive evidence that they do receive from the input since there is not enough negative evidence to be useful for language learning. [7] Some propose that direct negative evidence would be necessary for children to develop a fully formed grammar, so it has also often been argued that children cannot learn a language by only receiving positive evidence, and that therefore there must be innate constraints on their biology which would allow them to learn language.

Examples of Direct Negative Evidence

Implicit negative evidence is a type of corrective feedback in which parental responses to a child's incorrect statements is indicative of the utterance's ungrammaticality. It is argued that there is a shortage of explicit direct negative evidence in the general input of learners. [5] However, others have conducted studies that demonstrate that there is suitable implicit direct negative evidence present in parental responses to their children. [8] There have been a number of studies regarding this type of evidence in which researchers have demonstrated that parents do respond differently when children utter grammatical or ungrammatical utterances. [9] [8] [10]

There are a number of applications of implicit direct negative evidence which parents utilize in responses to ungrammatical - not necessarily incorrect or unintelligible - utterances. [11] Parents intend to correct their children with these corrective techniques. Recasts are one such kind of evidence, in which a parent "expands, deletes, permutes, or otherwise changes [a child's utterance] while maintaining significant overlap in meaning." [12] Sometimes parents recast children's sentences after children produce ungrammatical utterances, and some believe that children use this evidence to correct mistakes in their grammar, even though recasts can also occur after children construct grammatical utterances. [10] One theory for why the children even react to the negative feed back is that they trust the grammar judgements of adults - given adults are older and more experienced with language, their word choice must be credible and that intended meaning children want to convey has to follow the language constraints imposed by those adults. [3] Experiments have been conducted which have demonstrated that children improve in grammatical forms when parents provide them with any type of immediate implicit direct negative evidence, including recasts, which supports some scholars' claims that direct negative evidence does have an assocaible presence in learner's grammar. [10] [3] Similar studies have been conducted demonstrating that when parents recast children's morphological errors, children sometimes attempt to correct their initial errors. [13] Such conclusions have received some as many such studies do not specify which types of utterances qualify as recasts and why children only pay attention to certain kinds of recasts and not others. [8]

Chouinard conducted a follow up study in which she examined how children respond to parental reformulation (a type of negative evidence in which parents correct an ungrammatical utterance of a child), and she found that children are highly attentive to parental responses and that children respond to this kind of implicit correction in predictable ways. [8] It is argued that parents frequently reformulate children's ungrammatical utterances, [10] usually in an effort to clarify the child's meaning, though not all of the reformulations are intended to correct children's speech errors, such as cases where parents expand a child's utterance to seek additional information . Reformulations are in direct contrast to the child-utterance, which contained an error. The correction takes place in the same location as the error, thus providing the child with evidence for where they made an error. [8] It is the presence of the reformulations as well as the high percentage of correct parental speech that allows children to learn. [8] [14] Children tend to directly respond to these reformulations by either affirming the reformulation or disagreeing with their parent if the parent misunderstood the child's intended meaning. As Levine's study demonstrates that children attend to even parental responses which are non-corrective, other researchers have also conducted studies that demonstrate that children do not need feedback which corrects grammatical errors in order to learn. [15]

Arguments Against Implicit Direct Negative Evidence

Though there have been a number of studies that support the hypothesis that children can use the implicit negative evidence that exists in the input, there have also been studies which stand in stark contrast to this hypothesis. [16] Some linguists, such as Gary Marcus, argue that the implicit negative evidence in the input is insufficient for children to learn the correct grammar of their language. [5] Marcus and others, such as Hendriks [17] and Baker, [18] believe negative evidence is a weak form of evidence because children gradually learn from a limited corpus of correct or incorrect utterances that is grammatical or ungrammatical, which undermines the import of direct negative evidence to begin with. Children do not receive negative reactions for each of their negative utterances. [4] There isn't enough of a correlation between negative evidence from parents to the occurrence of ungrammatical utterances from their children for infant learners to be able to base grammatically on negative evidence, as has been concluded in previous corpus studies. [11] According to Morgan, Bonamo & Travis (1995), there is no evidence that recasts would dissuade a child from his or her ungrammatical utterances. They argue that children may interpret a recast simply as an alternative way to say something and what they had just said is equally valid. [19]

Positive evidence from a parent can immediately be assumed to be grammatical, yet not every parents will correct every child error and some children may even benefit from fewer constraints, [16] which diminishes the necessity of direct negative evidence. In spite of the inconsistencies of the negative evidence in the input, all children eventually arrive at a correct grammar which supports the fact that the negative evidence cannot account for a child's ability to learn a grammar since not all children receive the same negative evidence. [5] To the contrary, Marcus states that the more positive evidence for irregular forms a child is exposed to the less likely they are to overgeneralize grammatical concepts. He explains this as a function of an inherent mechanism and the child can suppress the grammatical rule in cases where it does not apply. Finally, Marcus argues that a child can easily acquire grammatical rules, but cannot receive direct feedback from a parent in every case to determine where irregularities occur, thus making implicit negative evidence practically useless for a language learner.

Related Research Articles

Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive and comprehend language. In other words, it is how human beings gain the ability to be aware of language, to understand it, and to produce and use words and sentences to communicate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Universal grammar</span> Theory of the biological component of the language faculty

Universal grammar (UG), in modern linguistics, is the theory of the innate biological component of the language faculty, usually credited to Noam Chomsky. The basic postulate of UG is that there are innate constraints on what the grammar of a possible human language could be. When linguistic stimuli are received in the course of language acquisition, children then adopt specific syntactic rules that conform to UG. The advocates of this theory emphasize and partially rely on the poverty of the stimulus (POS) argument and the existence of some universal properties of natural human languages. However, the latter has not been firmly established, as some linguists have argued languages are so diverse that such universality is rare, and the theory of universal grammar remains controversial among linguists.

A second language (L2) is a language spoken in addition to one's first language (L1). A second language may be a neighbouring language, another language of the speaker's home country, or a foreign language. A speaker's dominant language, which is the language a speaker uses most or is most comfortable with, is not necessarily the speaker's first language. For example, the Canadian census defines first language for its purposes as "the first language learned in childhood and still spoken", recognizing that for some, the earliest language may be lost, a process known as language attrition. This can happen when young children start school or move to a new language environment.

Total physical response is a language teaching method developed by James Asher, a professor emeritus of psychology at San José State University. It is based on the coordination of language and physical movement. In TPR, instructors give commands to students in the target language with body movements, and students respond with whole-body actions.

Rod Ellis is a Kenneth W. Mildenberger Prize-winning British linguist. He is currently a research professor in the School of Education, at Curtin University in Perth, Australia. He is also a professor at Anaheim University, where he serves as the Vice president of academic affairs. Ellis is a visiting professor at Shanghai International Studies University as part of China’s Chang Jiang Scholars Program and an emeritus professor of the University of Auckland. He has also been elected as a fellow of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

Second-language acquisition (SLA), sometimes called second-language learning—otherwise referred to as L2acquisition, is the process by which people learn a second language. Second-language acquisition is also the scientific discipline devoted to studying that process. The field of second-language acquisition is regarded by some but not everybody as a sub-discipline of applied linguistics but also receives research attention from a variety of other disciplines, such as psychology and education.

Poverty of the stimulus (POS) is the controversial argument from linguistics that children are not exposed to rich enough data within their linguistic environments to acquire every feature of their language. This is considered evidence contrary to the empiricist idea that language is learned solely through experience. The claim is that the sentences children hear while learning a language do not contain the information needed to develop a thorough understanding of the grammar of the language.

Semantic bootstrapping is a linguistic theory of child language acquisition which proposes that children can acquire the syntax of a language by first learning and recognizing semantic elements and building upon, or bootstrapping from, that knowledge. This theory proposes that children, when acquiring words, will recognize that words label conceptual categories, such as objects or actions. Children will then use these semantic categories as a cue to the syntactic categories, such as nouns and verbs. Having identified particular words as belonging to a syntactic category, they will then look for other correlated properties of those categories, which will allow them to identify how nouns and verbs are expressed in their language. Additionally, children will use perceived conceptual relations, such as Agent of an event, to identify grammatical relations, such as Subject of a sentence. This knowledge, in turn, allows the learner to look for other correlated properties of those grammatical relations.

Sequential bilingualism occurs when a person becomes bilingual by first learning one language and then another. The process is contrasted with simultaneous bilingualism, in which both languages are learned at the same time.

Bootstrapping is a term used in language acquisition in the field of linguistics. It refers to the idea that humans are born innately equipped with a mental faculty that forms the basis of language. It is this language faculty that allows children to effortlessly acquire language. As a process, bootstrapping can be divided into different domains, according to whether it involves semantic bootstrapping, syntactic bootstrapping, prosodic bootstrapping, or pragmatic bootstrapping.

The term linguistic performance was used by Noam Chomsky in 1960 to describe "the actual use of language in concrete situations". It is used to describe both the production, sometimes called parole, as well as the comprehension of language. Performance is defined in opposition to "competence"; the latter describes the mental knowledge that a speaker or listener has of language.

In linguistics, grammaticality is determined by the conformity to language usage as derived by the grammar of a particular speech variety. The notion of grammaticality rose alongside the theory of generative grammar, the goal of which is to formulate rules that define well-formed, grammatical sentences. These rules of grammaticality also provide explanations of ill-formed, ungrammatical sentences.

The input hypothesis, also known as the monitor model, is a group of five hypotheses of second-language acquisition developed by the linguist Stephen Krashen in the 1970s and 1980s. Krashen originally formulated the input hypothesis as just one of the five hypotheses, but over time the term has come to refer to the five hypotheses as a group. The hypotheses are the input hypothesis, the acquisition–learning hypothesis, the monitor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis and the affective filter hypothesis. The input hypothesis was first published in 1977.

Crosslinguistic influence (CLI) refers to the different ways in which one language can affect another within an individual speaker. It typically involves two languages that can affect one another in a bilingual speaker. An example of CLI is the influence of Korean on a Korean native speaker who is learning Japanese or French. Less typically, it could also refer to an interaction between different dialects in the mind of a monolingual speaker. CLI can be observed across subsystems of languages including pragmatics, semantics, syntax, morphology, phonology, phonetics, and orthography. Discussed further in this article are particular subcategories of CLI—transfer, attrition, the complementarity principle, and additional theories.

Heritage language learning, or heritage language acquisition, is the act of learning a heritage language from an ethnolinguistic group that traditionally speaks the language, or from those whose family historically spoke the language. According to a commonly accepted definition by Valdés, heritage languages are generally minority languages in society and are typically learned at home during childhood. When a heritage language learner grows up in an environment with a dominant language that is different from their heritage language, the learner appears to be more competent in the dominant language and often feels more comfortable speaking in that language. "Heritage language" may also be referred to as "community language", "home language", and "ancestral language".

The main purpose of theories of second-language acquisition (SLA) is to shed light on how people who already know one language learn a second language. The field of second-language acquisition involves various contributions, such as linguistics, sociolinguistics, psychology, cognitive science, neuroscience, and education. These multiple fields in second-language acquisition can be grouped as four major research strands: (a) linguistic dimensions of SLA, (b) cognitive dimensions of SLA, (c) socio-cultural dimensions of SLA, and (d) instructional dimensions of SLA. While the orientation of each research strand is distinct, they are in common in that they can guide us to find helpful condition to facilitate successful language learning. Acknowledging the contributions of each perspective and the interdisciplinarity between each field, more and more second language researchers are now trying to have a bigger lens on examining the complexities of second language acquisition.

The interaction hypothesis is a theory of second-language acquisition which states that the development of language proficiency is promoted by face-to-face interaction and communication. Its main focus is on the role of input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. It posits that the level of language that a learner is exposed to must be such that the learner is able to comprehend it, and that a learner modifying their speech so as to make it comprehensible facilitates their ability to acquire the language in question. The idea existed in the 1980s, and has been reviewed and expanded upon by a number of other scholars but is usually credited to Michael Long.

Syntactic bootstrapping is a theory in developmental psycholinguistics and language acquisition which proposes that children learn word meanings by recognizing syntactic categories and the structure of their language. It is proposed that children have innate knowledge of the links between syntactic and semantic categories and can use these observations to make inferences about word meaning. Learning words in one's native language can be challenging because the extralinguistic context of use does not give specific enough information about word meanings. Therefore, in addition to extralinguistic cues, conclusions about syntactic categories are made which then lead to inferences about a word's meaning. This theory aims to explain the acquisition of lexical categories such as verbs, nouns, etc. and functional categories such as case markers, determiners, etc.

Statistical learning is the ability for humans and other animals to extract statistical regularities from the world around them to learn about the environment. Although statistical learning is now thought to be a generalized learning mechanism, the phenomenon was first identified in human infant language acquisition.

In language acquisition, negative evidence is information concerning what is not possible in a language. Importantly, negative evidence does not show what is grammatical; that is positive evidence. In theory, negative evidence would help eliminate ungrammatical constructions by revealing what is not grammatical.

References

  1. ↑ Lust, Barbara C. (2006-09-21). Child Language: Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge University Press. ISBN   9781139459273.
  2. ↑ Saxton, M (1997). "The contrast theory of negative input". Journal of Child Language. 24 (1): 139–161. doi:10.1017/s030500099600298x. PMID   9154012. S2CID   31816322.
  3. 1 2 3 Birjandi, Parviz (July 2012). "Negative Evidence in Iranian Children: How do Iranian Parents Correct Their Children's Errors?" (PDF). Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 3: 700–706 – via JSTOR.
  4. 1 2 Why the child holded the baby rabbits: a case study in language acquisition In Language: An invitation to cognitive science, Vol. 1 (1995), 107-133 by S. Pinker edited by L. R. Gleitman, M. Liberman
  5. 1 2 3 4 Marcus, G. F. (1993). "Negative evidence in language acquisition". Cognition. 46 (1): 53–85. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(93)90022-n. PMID   8432090. S2CID   23458757.
  6. ↑ Lasnik, Howard; Lidz, Jeffrey L. (2016-12-22). The Argument from the Poverty of the Stimulus. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199573776.013.10.
  7. ↑ Baker, C. L. (1979). "Syntactic Theory and the Projection Problem". Linguistic Inquiry. 10 (4): 533–581. doi:10.2307/4178133.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Chouinard, Michelle M.; Clark, Eve V. (2003). "Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence". Journal of Child Language. 30 (3): 637–669. doi:10.1017/s0305000903005701. PMID   14513471. S2CID   7187427.
  9. ↑ Penner, Sharon (1987). "Parental Responses to Grammatical and Ungrammatical Child Utterances". Child Development. 58 (2): 376–385. doi:10.2307/1130514. JSTOR   1130514. PMID   3829783.
  10. 1 2 3 4 Saxton, Matthew (2000). "Negative evidence and negative feedback: immediate effects on the grammaticality of child speech". First Language. 20 (60): 221–252. doi:10.1177/014272370002006001. S2CID   113404825.
  11. 1 2 Brown, R., and C. Hanlon, (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes, ed., Cognition and the development of human language. New York: Wiley
  12. ↑ Bohannon, John Neil; III; Neil, John; Bohannon, III; Padgett, Robert J.; Nelson, Keith E.; Mark, Melvin (1996). "Useful evidence on negative evidence". Developmental Psychology. 32 (3): 551–555. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.551.
  13. ↑ Farrar, Michael J (1992). "Negative evidence and grammatical morpheme acquisition". Developmental Psychology. 28 (1): 90–98. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.1.90.
  14. ↑ Snow, C.E.; Ferguson, C. A., eds. (1977). Talking to Children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge Press.
  15. ↑ Bohannon, John N.; MacWhinney, Brian; Snow, Catherine (1990). "No negative evidence revisited: Beyond learnability or who has to prove what to whom". Developmental Psychology. 26 (2): 221–226. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.2.221.
  16. 1 2 Rhode, Douglas L.T.; Plaut, David C. (Spring 1999). "Language acquisition in the absence of explicit negative evidence: how important is starting small?" (PDF). Cognition. 72: 67–109 – via Elsevier.
  17. ↑ Hendriks, Petra (2000). "The Problem with Logic in the Logical Problem of Language Acquisition".
  18. ↑ Baker, C.L.; McCarthy, J.J. (1981). The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  19. ↑ Morgan, James; Bonamo, Katherine; Travis, Lisa (1995). "Negative Evidence on Negative Evidence". Developmental Psychology. 31 (2): 180–197. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.2.180.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.