first words

[Bruno Estigarribia]

>
>  My questions are:  Is the definition of a ‘word’ in child language  
> acquisition determined by form or consistent meaning, or both?  If by  
> form, how close to adult pronunciation does it have to be to be a  
> word?  Can a ‘word’ include an unconventional non-speech  
> vocalization, like an imitation of an animal sound, or a gesture, or  
> must it fall within the speech sounds of the native language and be a  
> recognizable approximation of adult pronunciation, subject to the  
> motor articulation skills and emerging phonological rules of the  
> child?  To be a ‘word’, can it be comprehensible to the only the  
> child’s intimates, or understandable to more than the child’s  
> immediate circle?
>
> If being a ‘word’ depends on having a regular extension of the word’s  
> meaning, will an intentional non-speech sound or gesture with  
> consistent context-bound meaning that is understood by the child’s  
> intimates qualify?  Or, at the other end of the spectrum, must the  
> ‘word’ have conventional adult extensions of meaning to be considered  
> a ‘real word’? Will possessing some extensions of the adult meaning,  
> even if irregular and underextended, suffice?   My question boils  
> down to this:  What are the various criteria for determining where on  
> the continuum, between the two milestones of the onset of intentional  
> vocalizations and the word spurt, do researchers distinguish  
> vocalization from word?
>
A great discussion with several threads now...
My two cents: "word" is indeed a tricky term in linguistic theory, and 
it may not be a very useful one. Clearly there are at the very least 
three concurrent aspects to words: the form aspect, the 
context-appropriateness aspect (I dislike unnecessary coinages, but I 
hesitate to call it "meaning"), and the interpersonal aspect (somebody 
referred to Vygotsky earlier), that is, the recognition of the 
conventionality and social life of signs. These aspects can be grasped 
at different times, and they themselves are complex and acquired 
piecemeal (witness the numerous phonetic deviations in child language, 
and underextensions and overextensions). Of course one does not want to 
wait until children have full command of all these aspects to credit 
them for knowing some word, but at the same time, saying a child knows 
word X is impossibly vague. It is always better -if possible- to just 
describe exactly the extent of knowledge involved, especially for "first 
words". (Now comes the bit of self-publicity) When my son was 6 months 
old, every time we would go down the stairs he would look at the lamp 
above and blow air between his teeth. He's a learner of Argentinian 
Spanish and the corresponding word would have been "luz" [lus]. A couple 
of weeks later, he would (sometimes) turn and look at lamps or lights 
whenever we said "luz" (he looked at an unfamiliar lamp on command when 
we went to visit my family in Argentina a month later, to his grandma's 
and grand-aunt's delight). If I hadn't been a linguist, I would have 
certainly missed that. It was obvious to me that he had made SOME 
connection (btw, this production never left his vocabulary, it just got 
better articulated and extended). Was that a word? What would you know 
about my son's linguistic knowledge if I had just said that at 6 months 
he knew the word "light"? Each one of you would have come to different 
conclusions...
Sorry I can't quote relevant literature making these points (which I'm 
sure exists). Just some musings...
Keep it coming!

Bruno Estigarribia
Ph.D. candidate
Stanford Linguistics