![]() This mode of complexity is especially pertinent to language because every module of grammar (syntax, semantics, phonology) is composed of constituent elements that dominate other subconstituent structures. Thus, complexity from an epistemic perspective bears on phonological descriptions and the general outline of treatment, and is of further concern to health care providers given the costs associated with the administration and duration of treatment.Ĭomplexity from an ontological perspective refers to the constituent elements of a system and their hierarchical organization. Likewise, to meet these goals, the duration and/or frequency of the treatment sessions may need to be increased. This phonological description, in turn, may warrant an increased number of treatment goals to bring the child’s sound system into conformity with the target language. For example, to adequately characterize a given child’s pattern of errors, it may be necessary to appeal to multiple and varied phonological processes, and these may further interact (e.g., Dean, Howell, Waters, & Reid, 1995 Dinnsen & O’Connor, 2001 Greenlee, 1974 Tyler, Edwards, & Saxman, 1987). As applied to the clinical domain, complexity at an epistemic level begins with the assessment process in the initial description of a child’s errored sound system. Complexity is also reflected in the level of detail associated with solving a problem, or in the energy, time, or money expended to solve that problem. From this vantage, complexity is reflected in the number of descriptor terms that are needed to define a system. These include complexity from epistemic, ontological, and functional perspectives.Ĭomplexity from an epistemic perspective refers only to the description of a system, and therefore is most elementary. In this regard, Rescher (1998) makes an important contribution by defining three “modes” or ways of conceptualizing complexity. Yet, it is striking that few have offered a comprehensive operational definition of complexity. Three questions are addressed: (a) What is “complexity”? (b) How does complexity trigger language learning? and (c) What aspects of linguistic complexity enhance phonological generalization in the clinical setting? It will be shown that parallel instances of complexity are also exemplified in other facets of child development.Ĭomplexity has been the focus of study in a broad range of disciplines, including but not limited to linguistics ( Dahl, 2004 Mohanan, 1992), cognitive and developmental psychology ( Casti, 1994 Thelen & Smith, 1994), education ( Gagné, 1977), philosophy ( Peirce, 1935), evolutionary biology ( Holland, 1995), and computer science ( Simon, 1981). The emphasis herein is on the phonological properties of language and their acquisition by children with functional phonological delays. This complements and extends prior discussions of the developmental and clinical factors that are associated with complexity ( Gierut, 2001 Gierut, Morrisette, Hughes, & Rowland, 1996). In this article, complexity is examined within this broader theoretical context to best illustrate its clinical utility. How then does a child use less-than-perfect input to guide language learning in extracting salient islands of information that are, in turn, revealing of linguistic structure? And importantly, for children with language delays, how can the input best be structured and presented in clinical treatment so as to facilitate the language learning process? These questions form the basis of learnability theory and its explicit focus on complexity as the trigger of language learning. Linguistic input is thus the primary evidence for language learning, whether one views language as innately guided ( Chomsky, 1999) or computationally derived ( Bates & MacWhinney, 1987).ĭespite its importance, the linguistic input that a child receives is often variable, degraded, or even lacking in cues that would help to uncover the structure and organization of the language being learned ( Gleitman & Newport, 2000). In order to achieve this, a child must attend to the available input of the surrounding speech community ( Morgan & Demuth, 1996). ![]() ![]() In a matter of just about 36 months, a child typically produces novel sentences that involve complicated constructions, words that reference abstract ideas or absent entities, and sound sequences that mark the distinctive contrasts of the native language. Children’s acquisition of language occurs rapidly, with relatively few errors and seemingly without effort.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |