Speaker
Description
Halliday’s (1975) study of the beginning of language in the human infant and the nature of that early language broke new ground in comparison with contemporary studies such as Brown (1973) and Bowerman (1973). Hitherto, the beginning of language had been equated with the acquisition of words recognizable as lexical items from the adult language around 12–18 months. The acquisition of syntax was situated around 24 months. Against this, Halliday (1975: 6) posited that children “start to mean” from about 9 months by creating their own linguistic signs, i.e. idiosyncratic fixed associations of meaning and form. Having grasped the principle of symbolic communication, infants first create their own protolinguistic symbols, in which sounds or gestures are associated with general functional meanings. The latter are subcategorized into specific developmental functions, e.g. instrumental: demanding objects; regulatory: commanding people; interactional: mediating joint attention. One of the earliest signs (9–13.5 months) of the child studied by Halliday sounded [na̅], typically repeated, e.g. /na̅na̅na̅na̅/, and meant ‘give me that’. To express this meaning, the child also used the gesture of firmly grasping an object, which contrasted with touching the object lightly to convey ‘don’t give me that’ (id.: 148ff). Such protolinguistic signs might pass as meaningless babble or gesturing if not decoded by caregivers. Following the protolanguage (9–16 months), Halliday (1975: 41, 111) posited a transition towards the adult language, in which lexicogrammar (words-in-structure) is inserted between the expression and meaning sides of the sign and dialogue (assumption and projection of speech roles) begins to be construed. This becomes a full-fledged move into the adult language from 18 months onwards.
We confront this account with the development of gestural signs by two infants, Zeno and Luca, as audiovisually recorded from 12 months on by their mother. While verbally and gesturally interacting with them, she recognized, consolidated and co-created her children’s fixed idiosyncratic associations of gestures and meanings. This confirms Halliday’s basic claims about protolanguage. For instance, from 12 months on Luca signalled ‘more’ by establishing with her right hand a reference point in the palm of her left hand, from which she then drew an arc. Luca used this sign to ask for e.g. more food or for a repeat of rough-and-tumble play.
By the same token, study of these data leads us to query some of Halliday’s analyses and distinctions such as the emergence of dialogue and syntactic structure in the transition stage from 16–18 months. In fact, Luca signposted dialogue already at 12 months. For instance, she demanded action with the ‘more’ sign, which request her mother queried, and which Luca then confirmed by reiterating the ‘more’ sign. Likewise, Luca construed structures already at 14 months, e.g. indexing her brother Zeno (in reality or on a photo) and then identifying him as ‘Zeno’ by drawing the letter Z in the air. Finally, we consider the question whether the abstract distinction between representational and interpersonal organization emerges only in the adult language (as posited by Halliday 1975) or is already present in the protolanguage (cf. McGregor 2019).
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bowerman, Melissa. 1973. Learning to talk: A cross-linguistic study of early syntactic development, with special reference to Finnish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1975. Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Arnold.
McGregor, William. 2019. The evolutionary origins of interpersonal grammar. Functions of Language 26: 112–135.
| Principal domain of study | English linguistics and applied linguistics |
|---|