Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:51:04.210Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can information theory explain early word choice*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Roy D. Pea
Roy D. Pea
Affiliation:
The Rockefeller University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One problem of interest in child language study has been specifying what features of the speech situation determine what children will say. Several cognitively based approaches to child language development have proposed principles of ‘informativeness’ to explain the child's choice of word(s). These principles predict that the child will choose the ‘most informative’ element of a situation and encode it in speech. Detailed inspection of this view reveals that the notion of ‘informativeness’ is not rigorously denned as in information theory, and would require the development of formal semantic and pragmatic information theories. Simpler accounts of available data do not require the notion of ‘information’.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , October 1979 , pp. 397 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by Grant No. 15125 awarded by the National Institute of Mental Health. I would like to thank John Dore, Patricia Greenfield, and George Miller for comments on earlier versions of this paper, one of which was presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, California, 15–18 March, 1979. Address for correspondence: Department of Experimental Psychology, The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, New York, New York, 10021, U.S.A.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. (1976). Language and context. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Miller, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Variation and reduction as aspects of competence in language development. In Pick, A. (ed.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1974). Length constraints, reduction rules, and holophrastic processes in children's word combinations. JVLVB 13. 448–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). Logical foundations of probability. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. & Bar-Hillel, Y. (1953). An outline of a theory of semantic information. Technical Report No. 247, Research Laboratory of Electronics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
Cherry, C. (1978). On human communication: a review, a survey, and a criticism. (3rd edn.) Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Fano, R. M. (1950). The information theory point of view in speech communication. JASA 22. 691–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, C. F. & Toulmin, S. (1975). Logic and the theory of mind: formal, pragmatic, and empirical considerations in a science of human development. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 23.Google Scholar
Garner, W. R. (1962). Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. (1978). Informativeness, presupposition, and semantic choice in single-word utterances. In Waterson, N. & Snow, C. (eds), Development of communication. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. & Dent, C. H. (in press). A developmental study of the communication of meaning: the role of uncertainty and information. In French, P. (ed.), The development of meaning. (Paedolinguistic Series.) Japan: Hunka Hyoron.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. & Smith, J. H. (1976). The structure of communication in early language development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. M. & Zukow, P. G. (1978). Why do children say what they say when they say it?: an experimental approach to the psychogenesis of presupposition. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's language, Vol. 1. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Howe, C. J. (1976). The meanings of two-word utterances in the speech of young children. JChLang 3. 29–47.Google Scholar
Jeffrey, W. E. (1976). Habituation as a mechanism for perceptual development. In Tighe, T. J. & Leaton, R. N. (eds), Habituation: perspectives from child development, animal behavior, and neurophysiology. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics, Vol. 1. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
MacKay, D. M. (1969). Information, mechanism, and meaning. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1953). What is information measurement? AmerPsych 8. 3–11.Google Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1954). Communication. In Stone, C. P. & McNemar, Q. (eds), Annual Review of Psychology 5. 401–20.Google Scholar
Miller, M. (1975). Pragmatic constraints on the linguistic realization of ‘semantic intentions’ in early child language (‘telegraphic speech’). Paper presented at 3rd International Child Language Symposium,London.Google Scholar
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, L. (1975). Pragmatics in language deficient children: prelinguistic and early verbal performatives and presuppositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado.Google Scholar
Snyder, L. (1978). Communicative and cognitive abilities and disabilities in the sensorimotor period. MPQ 24. 161–80.Google Scholar
Weisenberger, J. L. (1976). A choice of words: two-year-old speech from a situational point of view. JChLang 3. 275–81.Google Scholar