Catálogo de publicaciones - revistas

<jats:p> In this commentary on the article by Kidd and Garcia, we point out that research on natural signed languages is an important component of the goal of broadening the database of knowledge about how languages are acquired. While signed languages do display some modality effects, they also have many similarities to spoken languages, both in function and in form. Thus, research on signed languages and their acquisition is important for a fuller understanding of the diversity of languages. Since signed languages are often learned in contexts other than those of typical input, it is also important to document the effects of input variation; we also see it as critical that input be provided as early as possible from models as fluent as possible. Finally, we call for removing existing barriers to training and education for would-be researchers, especially those interested in working on signed languages. Importantly, we advocate for the recognition of signed languages, for signed language research, and for the empowerment of community members to lead this research. </jats:p>

<jats:p> The commentary amplifies Kidd and Garcia’s call for increased attention to language diversity in research on language acquisition by noting several implications of language diversity for acquisition theory and practice. An examination of the languages discussed in six recent articles on acquisition theory echos Kidd and Garcia’s observations on the inordinate role that better-studied languages play in acquisition research. Documenting the acquisition of 7,000 languages over the coming decade requires a new infrastructure for acquisition research. Sketches of child languages offer a community-based solution to processing bottlenecks and promote the use of indigenous languages. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Kidd and Garcia report that language acquisition studies are skewed toward monolingual and English-speaking populations. This commentary considers Kidd and Garcia’s arguments in light of our research on mother-preschooler discourse and non-verbal communication in Thai monolingual and Thai-English bilingual children. We discuss lessons learned from testing linguistically diverse children and underscore the importance of research on non-WEIRD (Western, Industrialized, Educated, Rich, and Democratic) populations. We advocate for the inclusion of children who speak understudied languages and those who speak multiple languages in developmental science. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Kidd and Garcia provide a critical analysis of linguistic representation in child language acquisition. Their findings expose a rich irony: a field of study for which diversity of experience is a basic assumption has remained non-diverse in its empirical and theoretical pursuits. In this commentary, I discuss deep-rooted structural factors that have contributed to Western dominance in child language acquisition research. Future progress relies on our ability to enhance the visibility of under-represented participants, researchers, and evaluators. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Kidd and Garcia remind us of the urgency of gathering comparable child language data across languages and cultures. They provide useful guidelines, and more are suggested here. Languages used for comparative analysis should be picked with regard to precise typological contrasts, pinpointing structures that promise to reveal processes of acquisition. Our knowledge gap may not be as severe as it seems to the authors; nevertheless, we are faced with daunting tasks of collecting data and preparing them for detailed analysis. </jats:p>

<jats:p> In this commentary, I refer to the issue of typological differences and how they impact the acquisition data by discussing findings from Bangla. Previous and ongoing studies of the acquisition of Bangla reveal that several claims regarding children’s linguistic trajectory, emerging from some of the well-studied languages, are not confirmed. I also argue that language acquisition research is not adequately supported in the Global South and propose a few ways to support research on under-studied languages. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Kidd and Garcia demonstrate that the field of language acquisition must consider a more diverse range of languages. This is certainly needed, to gain a deeper understanding of the basic mechanisms of language acquisition; to achieve that, we need more longitudinal studies of several children per language, with (trained) fluent-user transcription and analysis. This could, for example, help to establish the size of the unit from which the child extracts generalizations and builds categories and networks in phonological development. </jats:p>

<jats:p> Discussing the issue of representativeness from a bilingual perspective, we address how the problem is multiplied in the case of bilingual first language acquisition (BFLA). Given 7,000 languages, there are over 24 million possible language pairs that bilingual children might acquire. In current research and databases including CHILDES, English and Indo-European languages dominate: even non-Indo-European languages are typically paired with an Indo-European language. Referring to studies involving East Asian languages, we outline how genetic, contact, and typological relationships between language pairs may influence the course of BFLA. </jats:p>