Vocal motoric foundations of spoken language - a commentary on Iverson's 'Developing language in a developing body: the relationship between motor development and language development'.
Vocal motoric foundations of spoken language - a commentary on Iverson's 'Developing language in a developing body: the relationship between motor development and language development'.
复制标题
口语的声乐运动基础 - 对艾弗森“在发育中的身体中发展语言：运动发展与语言发展之间的关系”的评论。
DOI：
10.1017/s0305000909990456
复制
发表时间：
2010
影响因子：
2.2
通讯作者：
Oller,Kimbrough
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Oller,Kimbrough
艾弗森的这篇文章（本期）提供了一个有说服力的论据，从几十年来构成主要理论方法的简单的语言学习析因分析模型，转向与动态系统和综合跨模态思维兼容的更综合的观点。她通过强调将儿童视为环境中的多面行动者的重要性，以及这些运动行为在为学习和获得复杂技能（尤其是语言）奠定基础方面的重要性，来论证这一更广泛的观点。因此，她提出了一种系统的方法来思考语言的基础，承认并强调行动的各种组成部分与获得相关技能和相关技能组成部分的潜力之间的相互作用。这些观点与普遍认为语言是一种孤立的、高度模块化的能力，与认知和运动生活的其余部分无关（或几乎没有关系）的观点形成鲜明对比（乔姆斯基，1966）。我对这篇评论充满热情，除了对它的基本主旨吹毛求疵外，我什么都没有，所以我的倾向不是批评它，而是给它补充一些东西。艾弗森明确地在她的评论中留下了一些我认为很重要的东西。她希望表明，在语言习得的研究中，与发声本身有关的运动发展是重要的。我完全同意，但我还要指出，发声的运动发展本身作为语言交流能力的基础在很大程度上被忽视了，这种忽视阻碍和推迟了早期口语及其习得的可行科学的建立。艾弗森承认，除了与发声有关的运动发展本身，这两者都不是
The article by Iverson (this issue) provides a persuasive argument for change from the simplistic factorial analytical model of language learning that constituted the primary approach to theory for decades toward a more synthetic view compatible with dynamic systems and integrated crossmodality thinking. She argues for this broader view by highlighting the importance of considering the child as a multi-faceted actor upon the environment, and in terms of the importance of these motoric actions in laying the groundwork for learning and acquisition of complex skills, especially language. She thus suggests a systems approach to thinking about the underpinnings for language that acknowledges and emphasizes the interactions of various components of action with the potential for acquiring related skills and components of related skills. These ideas stand in contrast with the common notion that language is an isolated, highly modularized capacity, unrelated (or scarcely related) to the remainder of cognition and motoric life (Chomsky, 1966).Being so enthusiastic about this review, and having nothing but quibbles to moderate its basic thrust, my inclination is not to critique it, but to add something to it. Iverson explicitly left something that I think is central out of her review. She wished to show that motoric development OTHER THAN THAT WHICH CONCERNS VOCALIZATION PER SE is important in the study of language acquisition. I agree heartily, but I wish to argue in addition that MOTOR DEVELOPMENT OF VOCALIZATION ITSELF has been largely ignored as a foundation for the speech communication capacity, and that this omission has hampered and delayed the establishment of a workable science of early spoken language and its acquisition. Iverson conceded that motor development other than that which concerns vocalization per se is neither