Bidirectional Effects of Imitation and Repetition in Conversation: A Synthesis Within a Cognitive Model
Bidirectional Effects of Imitation and Repetition in Conversation: A Synthesis Within a Cognitive Model
复制标题
对话中模仿和重复的双向效应：认知模型内的综合
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
1989
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Laura Stanowicz
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Bohannon;Laura Stanowicz
尽管模仿的历史丰富多彩且充满争议，但它作为语言习得的解释机制却被过早地否定了。在20世纪50年代，行为主义者断言简单或精确的模仿是语言学习的主要手段（例如，Skinner，1957）。批评者后来认为，模仿不能从逻辑上解释儿童丰富的生成性语言行为（见乔姆斯基，1959，1979，1980）。例如，Brown和Bellugi（1964）认为，由于儿童的过度规则化（taked，swimmed）在本质上不是也不可能是模仿的，那么其他习得现象也不可能是模仿的。特别有害的是，儿童的模仿性言语并不比他们自发的话语更复杂（Ervin，1964 Slobin，1967）。随后在20世纪70年代，该领域出现了分歧;具有更多应用兴趣的研究人员继续从事模仿工作，而少数主流发展心理语言学家将模仿降级为关于适当定义的辩论（例如，McTear，1978; Moerk，1977; Snow，1979，198lb; Whitehurst & Vasta，1975）。不幸的是，这种划分扩大了当前理论和应用之间的概念距离，使得现代思想家（例如，Pinker，1984; Wexler & Cullicover，1980）实际上忽略了来自临床或应用来源的仿制数据。事实上，无论是Pinker（1984）还是Wexler和Cullicover（1980）关于语言可学性理论的著作，都没有提到模仿这个术语，也没有引用美国言语和听力协会的应用期刊中报道的模仿或其他现象的数据。毫不奇怪，临床医生可能会对在实践中使用现代理论感到绝望，因为它们似乎太抽象而无法应用，或者与临床人群无关。因此，每一个“阵营”在很大程度上都是独立进行的，专注于语言习得问题的不同方面，没有人试图解释对方的数据。本章的目的是弥合这一裂缝，并重新整合模仿到语言习得的解释模型。
Despite a colorful and controversial history, imitation has been prematurely rejected as an explanatory mechanism in language acquisition. During the 1950s, behaviorists asserted that simple or exact imitation was the primary means of language learning (e.g., Skinner, 1957). Critics later argued that imitation could not logically account for the rich, generative language behavior of children (see Chomsky, 1959, 1979, 1980). For example, Brown and Bellugi (1964) argued that, because children’s overregularizations (taked, swimmed) were not and could not be imitative in nature, then neither could other acquisition phenomena be imitative. What seemed particularly damaging was the observation that children’s imitative speech was no more sophisticated than their spontaneous utterances (Ervin, 1964 Slobin, 1967). What followed in the 1970s was a bifurcation of the field; researchers with more applied interests continued to work in imitation, while a few mainstream developmental psycholinguists relegated imitation to debates over appropriate definitions (e.g., McTear, 1978; Moerk, 1977; Snow, 1979, 198lb; Whitehurst & Vasta, 1975). Unfortunately, this division has widened the conceptual distance between current theory and applications such that modern thinkers (e.g., Pinker, 1984; Wexler & Cullicover, 1980) virtually ignore imitation data from clinical or applied sources. In fact, neither Pinker’s (1984) nor Wexler and Cullicover’s (1980) books on language learnability theory mention the term imitation at all, nor do they cite data on imitation or other phenomena reported in the applied journals of the American Speech and Hearing Association. Not surprisingly, clinicians may well despair of using modern theories in practice, as they appear to be too abstract for application or simply irrelevant for clinical populations. Thus, each “camp” proceeds for the most part, independently, focusing on different facets of the problem of language acquisition, with neither trying to account for the other’s data. The aim of this chapter is to bridge this crevasse and reintegrate imitation into explanatory models of language acquisition.
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1977
期刊：
--
影响因子：
--
作者：
W. Schneider;R. Shiffrin
通讯作者：
W. Schneider;R. Shiffrin