Conclusion

As Thomas M. Holtgraves said in 2002, “It is hard to think of a topic that has
been of interest to more academic disciplines than language.” Language
can be analyzed at its pure, abstract, and symbolic structural level, but it
should also be studied at biological, psychological, and social levels in interconnected
dynamic systems. Continued endeavors in interdisciplinary investigations
using multiple approaches will surely lead to further understanding
of language.
Sources for Further Study
Blackwell, Arshavir, and Elizabeth Bates. “Inducing Agrammatic Profiles in
Normals: Evidence for the Selective Vulnerability of Morphology Under
Cognitive Resource Limitation.” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 7, no. 2
(1995): 228-257. Raises caution about the interpretation of agrammatic
aphasia as evidence for a grammar module and proposes global resource
diminution as an alternative explanation.
Boroditsky, Lera. “Does Language Shape Thought? Mandarin and English
Speakers’ Conceptions of Time.” Cognitive Psychology 43, no. 1 (2001): 1-22.
Three empirical studies to test the Whorfian hypothesis of language’s
ability to shape speakers’ abstract conceptions.
Chomsky, Noam. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1965. Explains the innate universal grammar and how the transformational
grammar works to map the deep structures to surface structures.
__________. “Language from an Internalist Perspective.” In The Future of the
Cognitive Revolution, edited by David Johnson and Christina E. Erneling.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. Explains why the author insists
on language being modular.
Daniels, Harry, ed. An Introduction to Vygotsky. New York: Routledge, 1996. A
collection of articles about Soviet psychologist L. S. Vygotsky’s theoretical
position on thought and speech.
Gleason, Jean Berko, and Nan E. Bernstein, eds. Psycholinguistics. 2d ed. Fort
Worth, Tex.: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1998. Contributors
discuss language users’ knowledge, the biological bases of human communicative
behavior, speech perception and production, word meaning,
sentence and discourse processing, language acquisition, reading comprehension,
and bilingualism.
Holtgraves, Thomas M. Language as Social Action: Social Psychology and Language
Use. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002. An interdisciplinary
review of the literature that treats language as social action, most relevant to the areas of social psychology, cognitive psychology, and communication.
Kako, Edward. “Elements of Syntax in the Systems of Three Language-
Trained Animals.” Animal Learning & Behavior 27, no. 1 (1999): 1-14. A
systematic analysis of the language performance of a parrot, two dolphins,
and a bonobo against four criteria of syntax.
Lloyd, Peter, and Charles Fernyhough, eds. Lev Vygotsky: Critical Assessments,
Volume II: Thought and Language. New York: Routledge, 1999. Vygotsky’s
views on thought and language (verbal self-regulation, private speech,
and play) are introduced, contrasted to Piagetian views, and tested in
studies.
Lucy, John A. “Linguistic Relativity.” Annual Review of Anthropology 26 (1997):
291-312. A review of the history of the linguistic relativity hypothesis and
various approaches to testing the hypothesis.
McClelland, J. L. “A Connectionist Perspective on Knowledge and Development.”
In New Approaches to Process Modeling, edited by Tony Simon and
Graeme S. Halford. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1995. Discusses
the applicability of a connectionist approach to the rulelike progression
of behavior.
Matatsos, Michael, and Laura Matheny. “Language Specificity and Elasticity:
Brain and Clinical Syndrome Studies.” Annual Review of Psychology 45
(1994): 487-516. A review of module theories of language and alternative
explanations based on clinical studies involving language speakers and
signers.
Piaget, Jean. The Language and Thought of the Child. Translated by Marjorie
and Ruth Gabain. Reprint. New York: Routledge, 2002. Explains the qualitative
differences in children’s egocentric speech and socialized speech
and their relationship to thought, with child language data.
Shore, Cecilia M. Individual Differences in Language Development. Vol. 7 inIndividual
Differences and Development, edited by Robert Plomin. Thousand
Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 1995. Discusses the individual differences in phonological,
lexical, grammatical, and pragmatic development of young children
aged one to three years.
Van Geert, Paul. “A Dynamic Systems Model of Cognitive and Language
Growth.” Psychological Review 98, no. 1 (1991): 3-53. A dynamic system
model analogized to the evolutional system explains how the components
in cognitive and language systems mutually support or compete for
limited internal and external resources for growth.
Yamada, Jeni E. A Case for the Modularity of Language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT
Press, 1991. A case report of Laura, whose vocabulary and grammar
seemed to have developed independently of her rather low cognitive abilities.
Ling-Yi Zhou
See also: Brain Structure; Speech Disorders. 477