THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYNTAX OF THE CHILDREN 20-48 MONHTS.
A THESIS
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYNTAX OF CHILDREN AT 20-48 MONTHS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program
as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
WIDI DAMAIYANTI SIMBOLON
Registration Number: 8116112020
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRAK
Simbolon, Damaiyanti Widi. 2016. Perkembangan Sintaksis Anak Usia 2048 bulan. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Negeri Medan.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah 1) sintaksis kategori
yang anak-anak kuasai pada umur 20-48 bulan. 2) Bagaimana perkembangan
sintaksis anak pada umur 20-48 bulan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode
qualitative deskriptif. Sampel penelitian ini adalah anak-anak di tempat penitipan
anak di Sampali Medan. Data penelitian ini adalah ungkapan anak-anak terhadap
orang tua atau penjaga anak-anak yang direkam melalui percakapan mereke
sehari-hari. Data dalam penelitian ini dianalisa dan dikategorikan berdasarkan
teori Miles and Huberman (1994). Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa 1) Diantara lima
kategori dari frasa, dua dari frasa yang telah dikuasai anak 20-48 bulan, yaitu
frasa kata kerja dan frasa kata benda. 2) Dan pola kalimat S+P+Ket adalah level
tertinggi kemudian S+P dan S+P+O dan yang terakhir S+P+O+Ket. Berdasarkan
fungsi kalimat , dua yang anak-anak telah kuasai yaitu kalimat pernyataan dan
perintah. 2) Perkembangan sintaksis adalah a) Diantara dua dari frasa, frasa kata
kerja adalah yang paling cepat dikuasai anak-anak yaitu pada umur 20 bulan,
sedangkan frasa kata benda pada umur 28 bulan, b) semua pola kalimat telah
anak-anak kuasai dari umur 20-48 bulan, c) berdasarkan fungsi kalimat yang
anak-anak kuasai adalah kalimat pernyataan pada umur 26 bulan, dan kedua
adalah kalimat perintah pada umur 40 bulan.
ABSTRACT
Simbolon, Damaiyanti Widi. 2016. The Development of The Syntax of The
Children 20-48 monhts. A Thesis English Applied Linguistics, Graduate
Program of UNIMED
The objectives of the study were to find out: (1) the syntactic category that
children acquire at 20-48 (2) the Development of the syntax of the children 20-48
months. The study was descriptive qualitative. The subjects of the study were 28
children in child care center Sampali Medan . The data of the study were the
transcription of children’s utterences to the parents or care taker recorded from the
conversations in daily activity. The data were identified, analyzed, and
categorized based on Miles and Huberman’s theory. The findings of the study
showed that: (1) Among the five categories of phrases, two of them have been
acquired by the children of 20-48 months, namely verb phrase and noun, and for
Sentence pattern, S+V+C is the highest level of acquisition, then followed by S+V
and S+V+O, and the last is S+V+O+C .While based on the function of sentence,
two of the sentence function have been acquired by the children of 20-48 months
and (2)The development of syntax is (a) among the two phrases the verb phrase is
earliest for the child to acquire as early as the age of 20 months, while the noun
phrase is the second one as early as the age of 28 months (b) All of the patterns of
sentence have been acquired by the children of 20-48 months (c) the earliest
function the child acquired is the declarative function as early as the age of 26, the
second is the imperative as early as the age of 40.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude to the
Heavenly Father, Son of God Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit for His amazing grace
in the completion of this thesis to obtain a Master Degree in Applied Linguistics.
This thesis process is filled with people who challenge, support, love, listen and
frankly tolerate the writer. The process is a rewarding learning experience and the
writer has learned enough about it. This thesis would not have been possible
without the support and input of numerous people to whom the writer expresses
her deeply gratitude.
The writer would like to express the greatest thanks to Prof. Dr. Berlin
Sibarani, M.Pd and Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd, as her advisers for their great
ideas, guidance and patience that lead the writer to the end of completion of this
thesis.
The writer also would like to extend her sincere gratitude to the Head of
English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed, the
secretary of English Applied Linguistics Program, Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni,
M.S and Farid Ma’ruf as an administrator for their assistance regarding the
administrative procedures and support during the writer’s thesis completion
process patiently.
The writer’s great thanks also go to her reviewers or examiners, Prof. Dr.
Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S and Prof. Dr. Sumarsih,
M.Pd for their suggestions, critiques, opinions, and improvements for this thesis.
In addition, the writer would like to thank to all lecturers for their knowledge and
character building during the process of teaching and learning.
Then, the writer’s great respect and heartfelt thanks go to all her lovely
friends in the executive class B LTBI XX as well
Last and most importantly, the writer wishes to express her sincere thanks
to her beloved parents, Mr. M. Simbolon and Ms. Nurmada br Sinaga for their
continued and unfailing love, patience, guidance, prayer and support over years
and their endless faith in the writer’s ability to accomplish this thesis. Her huge
thanks are also dedicated to her great sister, Deasy Simbolon, S.E,her love,
assistance, and support. “Family has been an integral part of this process”.
Finally, the writer’s special love goes to her loving husband, Poltak , S.T
who made an arduous task a more enjoyable and fulfilling experience. Her
husband’s love, support, patience and encouragement have seen her through
uncertain times. For that, the writer can only say ‘thanks my soul mate’.
Medan, 5 April 2016
Widi Damaiyanti Simbolon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
PAGES
Abstract………………………………………………………………
i
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………
iii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………….
v
List of Figures………………………………………………………...
viii
List of Tables………………………………………………………….
ix
List of Lists……………………………………………………………
x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Background of the Study……………………………………….. 1
1.2
The Research Problems…………………………………………....... 9
1.3
The Objectives of the Study ………………………………………... 9
1.4
The Scope of the Study……………………………………………… 9
1.5
The Significance of the Study……………………………………… 9
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1
The Nature of Syntax……….……………………………………... 10
2.1.1. Syntactic Category ………………………………………… 11
2.2
The Acquisition of Syntax…………………………………………. 14
2.3
The Nature of Language Acquisition……………………………… 16
2.3.1 Language Acquisition……………………………………… 19
2.3.1.1 Empiricism………………………………………. 21
2.3.1.2 Nativism…………………………………………. 26
2.4
The Development of Acquisition…………………………………. 32
2.4.1
Pre-Language Stages……………………………………… 34
2.4.2
The One-Word or Holophrastic Stage……………………. 35
2.4.3
The Two-Word Stage…………………………………….. 36
2.5
2.4.2
The One-Word or Holophrastic Stage……………………. 35
2.4.3
The Two-Word Stage…………………………………….. 36
2.4.4
The Telegraphic Speech………………………………….. 37
Factors Affecting Acquisition……………………………………. 40
2.5.1
Input………………………………………………………. 40
2.5.1.1 Positive Evidence…………………………..……… 40
2.5.1.2 Negative Evidence…………………………………. 42
2.5.1.3 Motherese…………………………………………... 43
2.6
Relevant Studies…………………………………………………….45
2.7
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………….. 48
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
3.1
Research Design………………………………………………….. 50
3.2
Subject of the Study……………………………………………….. 50
3.3
Technique of Collecting the Data………………………………… 51
3.4
Technique of Analyzing Data……………………………………… 52
3.5
Trustworthiness of The Study……………………………………… 54
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Data Analysis………………………………………………………. 56
4.1.1
The Syntactic Category Acquired by Children of 20-48 Months
Old…………………………………………………………. 56
4.1.1.1 The Syntactic Category for Phrase Acquired by
The Children……………………………………………….. 56
4.1.2
The Development of The Syntax of The Children with 20-48 months
Old…………………………………………………………………. 65
4.1.2.1 The Development of Phrases Acquisition…………………..65
4.1.2.2 The Development of Sentence Acquisition………………... 69
4.2
Findings……………………………………………………….…… 71
4.3
Discussion…………………………………………………………. 72
CHAPTER V CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
Conclusions………………………………………….…………….. 76
5.2
Suggestions………………………………………………………… 77
References………………………………………………………………….. 78
Appendices…………………………………………………………………. 82
List of Figure
Figure 1 Components of Data Analysis .......................................................... 52
LIST OF TABLES
I.
Table 2.1 The stages of Acquisition Language……………....
39
II.
Table 3.1 The Children’s Age from 20 up 40 Months Old….
51
III.
Table 4.1 Phrase Acquisition………………………………... 60
IV.
Table 4.3 Sentence acquisition based on function…………..
65
V.
Table 4.1.2 The acquisitions of sentence pattern……………
69
VI.
Table 4.1.3 The acquisitions of sentence function…………..
70
List of Lists
List I……………………………………………………………
List II…………………………………………………………..
List III………………………………………………………….
66
66
67
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
The acquisition of a first language is a complex topic that requires an
interdisciplinary approach. It has been traditionally studied within the field of
psycholinguistics, but contributions from other disciplines such as biology,
education or the social sciences are necessary to gain a wider perspective.
Language acquisition serves as one of the central topics in cognitive
science. Every theory of cognition has tried to explain it; probably no other topic
has aroused such controversy. Possessing a language is the quintessence of human
trait: all normal human speak, no nonhuman animal does. Language is arguably
the most important components of culture because much of the rest of it is
normally transmitted orally. It is impossible to understand the subtle nuances and
deep meanings of another culture without speaking its language. Language then is
the main vehicle by which we know about other people‟s thoughts, and the two
must be intimately related.
Every time we speak we are revealing something about language. So the
facts of language structure are easy to come by; these data hint at a system of
extraordinary complexity. Nonetheless, learning a first language is something
every normal child does successfully, in a matter of a few years and without the
need for formal lessons. With language so close to the core of what it means to
be human, it is not surprising that children‟s acquisition of language has received
so much attention. Anyone with strong views about the human mind would like to
show that children‟s first few steps are steps in the right direction.
When children develop such skill is always a difficult question to answer.
Acquiring a language is a skill that children begin to develop with the first sounds
they make as babies. For most children, their first words are made up of simple
sounds such Mama, Dada or Bye-bye. As early as the first and second years,
children‟s speech exhibits a variety of complex ideas (Clark, 2003). For example,
children say such things as „big truck‟ (semantically, the object „truck‟ is assigned
the attribute „big‟) „Daddy chair‟ (the object „Daddy‟ possesses another object
„chair‟), and „Mommy give‟ ( the object „Mommy‟ is the cause of an action of
„giving‟). Next they begin to use complex sentences, to produce longer words that
require more fine motor control by the age of 4 to 4 ½ years. Gradually children
begin to use their speech skills, or sounds, to form language that refers to the use
of words and sentences to convey ideas. By the time they start kindergarten,
children know most of the fundamental of their language. They have speech that
is easily understood by an unfamiliar listener so that they are able to converse
easily with someone who speaks as they do (that is, in their dialect). This
development of oral language is one of children‟s most natural and impressive
accomplishments and as with others aspects of development, language acquisition
is not predictable. One child may say her first word at 10 months, another at 20
months. One child may use complex sentences at 5 ½ years, another at 3 years.
Since language itself does not provide the child with such ideas as object,
attribute, possesses, cause and action the question arises as to how the child
acquired them. Obviously, interaction with the world is necessary. But, were the
basic ideas already in the mind in some form even before
The physical stimuli of the world were sensed, i.e. the innate ideas view of
the relation lists? Or, were the ideas derived entirely through experience with
none being in the mind (latent or otherwise) prior to experiencing of the world,
i.e. the experiential view of the Empiricists? As far as language acquisition data
are concerned, presumably none will serve to settle any of these controversies.
Both the Rationalist and Empiricist theories are sufficiently vague so that any
observational datum can be given an explanation. Aside from such ultimate, there
still a great deal that can be discovered about how human beings acquire
language.
The rules of their language are learned at an early age through use, and
over time, without formal instruction. Thus one source for learning must be
genetic. Human beings are born to speak; they have an innate gift for figuring out
the rules of the language used in their environment. The environment itself is also
a significant factor. Children learn the specific variety of language (dialect) that
the important people around them speak.
It is acknowledged that children work through linguistic rules on their own
not merely through imitating those around them because young children tend to
use forms that adults never use, such examples are best seen through the sentences
uttered by English- speaking children like “ I goed there before” or “I see your
feets” (Genishi, 1988:16-23). These problems of grammar first appear when
children begin to produce multi-world utterances as some researchers have
assumed that children do not start to work on inflectional morphology or on
grammatical morphemes more generally until after they have begun to combine
two or more words (Brown, 1973 in Clark, 2003: 191). Being capable of
producing such utterances, children, in English and many other languages, set out
to alter single words in order to indicate number (the –s ending in English) and
tense (-ed in English), or other inflections of meaning. Just as in word learning,
children frequently make errors of overgeneralization. For instance whenspeaking children learn that the –ed ending indicates past tense, they tend to use it
for all verbs, including those that are irregular and do not take the –ed ending in
adult speech (such as “go” or “think”). This is excellent evidence that children are
learning the systems of their language: they are producing words according to the
basic rules of the language, rather than by simple imitation of the language they
hear. Only after extensive practice with both the rule and its exceptions does the
child learn to speak as an adult. Children eventually learn the conventional past
tense forms for irregular verbs and irregular plural forms like, “went” and “feet”,
as they sort out for themselves the exceptions to the rules of English syntax. As
with learning to walk, learning o talk requires time for development and practice
in everyday situations. Constant correction of a child‟s speech is usually
unproductive.
Moreover, children seem to be born not just to speak, but also to interact
socially. Even before they use words, they use cries and gestures to convey
meaning; they often understand the meanings that others convey. The point of
learning language and interacting socially is not to master rules, but to make
connections with other people and to make sense of experiences for language
occur through an interaction among genes (which hold innate tendencies to
communicate and be sociable), environment, and the child‟s own thinking
abilities.
Given the above views on language acquisition, each must account for
some facts about child language development. First, children learn language
rapidly. In only a few years, children progress from virtually no language
comprehension or production to almost adult capacity. Second, across language,
some systematic regularities exist in what children learn both early and late. As
well as some differences that require explanation.
Sometime during their second year, after children have about 50 of these early
words of English in their vocabularies, they begin to put those words together
into rudimentary two-word sentences (Brown, 1973 in Gleason and Ratner,
1993;366). Words that they said in the one-word stage are now combined into
short utterances. In English such utterances lack articles, prepositions, inflections,
or any of the other grammatical modifications that well-formed adult language
requires.
An examination of children‟s two-word utterances in many different
language communities has suggested that everywhere in the world children at this
age are expressing the same kinds of thoughts and intentions in the same kinds of
utterances (Brown, 1973 in Gleason and Ratner, 1993:366). At this stage, children
acquiring English express basic meanings, but they lack the grammatical forms of
the language that indicate number, gender, and tense. These sentences are limited
in meaning and are produced without function words or inflections. In spite of
that, these two-word utterances do include some kind of grammatical information.
The phrase „ hit Andy” means something different to a child that “Andy hit”.
Children appear to be able to produce this kind of difference as soon as they begin
to produce multi-word utterances, and they comprehend it even earlier. This
brings up an important point in language acquisition and other parts of
developmental psychology: an inability to produce a certain behavior does not
mean that the corresponding cognitive structures are absent. Children are able to
understand grammatically complex sentences and words long before they are able
to produce them.
It must be noted too that language acquisition is marked by individual
variation as well as generalized developmental trends. Thus, some children seem
to appreciate the adult language patterns before being able to produce aspects of
the grammar; such children may use adult- like prosody and “dummy syllables” to
fill in between those vocabulary items they are capable of producing, saying, [wan
a kuki] for “ I want the cookie‟. Children with a more analytic style appear
comfortable producing “ Want cookie”, until they can incorporate the additional
grammatical elements into their output. Similarly, even when children use only
single words to communicate, stylistic variation in the kinds of words most
frequently used by children can be seen. Some children appear to build their initial
lexicons by incorporating many names for objects; other children may include
proportionately more verb or “social” items such as hi, bye, please, and so forth
(Bates, Dale, and Thal, 1995: Nelson, 1973 in Gleason and Ratner, 1993:367).
Most people acquire their own language without fully realizing how it is
taking place. Young children need to use language to make sense of the world
they live in. they gradually learn to understand and use rules of the language
spoken in their society. Their language-using abilities are formed by the
unification of the maturity of the infants‟ rain which is tied very much to their
biological and cognitive development and interplay with many social factors in
their environment.
In general, all normal children, regardless of their culture, develop
language at the roughly the same time along with the same schedules of the
biological and cognitive development. It has been already noted that a child who
does not hear, or is no allowed to use language, will learn no language. The child
must be physically capable of sending and receiving sound signals in a language.
In order to speak a language, a child must be able to hear the language being used.
There are two views which explain how children manage to acquire the
adult language. First, they are empiricists, who propose that language is learned as
a result of experience. This view then is observed through its two theories, the
„imitation‟ and „reinforcement‟ theory. The first thinks that children merely
imitate what they hear. And the second suggests that a child learns to produce the
correct words or sentences because he is positively reinforced when he says
something right and negatively reinforced when he says something wrong. The
other view comes from nativists who propose that language acquisition is the
result of innate capacities to language and is only found in human beings.
Before he produces those spoken words, a child in his life utters very
limited and simple utterances based on the things he sees, feels, and hears which
are usually relied on all the kinds of nonlinguistic-cue-direction of gaze, gestures,
and the context itself. He firstly starts producing babbling sounds which have no
linguistic significance. Then sometimes after one year the child begins to use
single unit utterances to mean everyday objects he sees. As the child has been able
to put two words together to form one sentence, he now starts producing multiple
word utterances.
Based on the description above, the writer found some interesting things in
this study. The appearance of baby‟s first words can be said to depend on some
factors such as culture, social environment, family background, etc. the baby
usually needs a stimulus in order to give a response, just like what behaviorists
believes. Thus it is very possible that the development of language of a child is
different from one another. A child may be able to produce words in earlier age
than another. Based on the writer‟s view children at the same age have significant
differences of development in acquiring syntax. Secondly, the writer is interested
in studying what kinds of syntax that a child of twenty until forty eight months
acquired.
Because this research is a case study of a child of 20-48 months therefore,
the research problem is specifically on the subjects.
1.2 The Research Problems
The main problems that will be discussed in this research are:
1. What syntactic category do the children acquire from the age of 20up 48
months old?
2. How is the development of the syntax of the children with 20-48 months old?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
This study is devoted to analyze the development of syntactical acquisition
of 20- 48 months child and to identify and describe the syntax words the subject
acquired at the age 20-48 months.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
This study is limited only on the development of a 20-48 months child‟s
syntactical acquisition in Indonesian Language that he acquires in speaking
ability.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
It is expected that the findings of this study will be significantly relevant to
the theoretical and practical aspects. Theoretically, the research findings hopefully
can provide significant contribution for a further research on language acquisition
in Indonesian Language of different stages. Practically, on the other hand, this
research hopefully can provide valuable information for parents who are
interested in their children‟s acquiring the language.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J.M. & David , K.& Iggy, R. 1982. Foundation of General Linguistics.
London: George & Unwin.
Bickerton, D. (2001) The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 7, 173-221.
Bloom, L. (1970). Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging
grammars. Cambridge.
Bloom, L.M. 1972. Language Development. Cambridge.
Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan
Approach. London: Arnold.
Bolinger, Dwight. And A. Sears, Donald. 1981. Aspects of Language. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Brandone, C. Amanda. (2002). Language Development. University of Delaware.
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of
acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the
Development of Language. New York: Wiley.
Brown, R. (1973). The Development of Language. New York: Longman.
Brown, R. (1977) 'Introduction' in C. Snow and C. ferguson (eds.).Talking to
Children: Language input and acquisition. New York: Longman.
Brown, H.D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:
University Of Jersey.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York:
Longman.
Cattell, R. (2000). Children’s Language. London:Cassell.
Chomsky, N. 1959. A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language; in
Smolinski, Frank (ED), Landmark of American Language and Linguistics,
35 (1): 26-58. Washington, D.C.USIA.
Clark, E.V. 2003. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cook, V. 1991. Second Language Learning and teaching. London: Arnold.
Cooper, Robin, Aslin, Richard N. (1989). The Language Environment of the
Young Infant:Implications for Early Perceptual Development. Special
Issue: Infant.
Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Demetras, M. J., Post, K. N, & Snow, C. E. (1986) Feedback to first language
learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of
Child Language, 13, 275-292.
Elman, Jeffrey L., Elizabeth A. Bates, Mark H. Johnson, Annette KarmiloffSmith, Domenico Parisi, and Kim Plunkett. 1999. Rethinking innateness:
A connectionist perspective ondevelopment. Cambridge.
Ellidokuzoglu, H. 1999. The Role of Innate Knowledge in Second Language
Acquisition. Science Journal of Army Academy, 1 (1): 13-30.
Ferguson, C. A. & Snow, C. E. (Eds). (1977). Talking to children. Language input
and acquisition. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Fernald, Anne, Kuhl, Patricia K. (1987). Acoustic Determinants of Infant
Preference for Motherese Speech. Infant Behavior and Development. (3)
279-293.
Fodor, J. A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: The MIT Pres.
Fon, Jenice. 2001. Syntax. Ohio State University.
Foss, J. Donald and T. David, Hakes. 1978. Psycholinguistics: And Introduction
to the Psychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Gelderen, Elly Van. 2002.An Introduction to the Grammar of
English.Amsterdam: Arizona State University.
Genishi. C.1988.Young Children’s Oral Language Development. Young
Children, 1 (44): 16- 23.
George, 1980. Let’s Write English. New York. United State of America.
Gleason, Jean Berko and Ratner, Nan Berneisten. 1993. Language Acquisition; in
Gleason,Jean Berko and Ratner, Nan Berneisten (Eds.), Psycholinguistcs
(Pp. 364-375).
Gleason, J. B. (2005). The development of language. USA: Pearson Education
University of USA.
Gold, E. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10,
447-474
Greenbaum, 2002, An Introduction to English Grammar, Edinburg, Pearson
Educational Limited.
Hepper, Peter G, Scott,D., Shahidullah, Sara. (1993). Newborn and Fetal
Response to Maternal Voice. Special Issue:Prenatal and Paranatal
Behavior. Journal of reproductive & infant Phsychology. (11). 147-153.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon
revisited: Mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child
`Language, 11, 81-88.
Hong, Z. F. & Li, S. L. (2004). The impact of foreign spouses’ teaching attitude
on children’s verbal expression. Thesis of the development of children
education. National Hua-lien Teaching College.
Ingram, David. 1974. Phonological rules in young children. Journal of Child
Language 1. 49-64.
Ingram, David. 1989. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
Ingram, D.(1991). First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University .
Kess, J. F. (1993). Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Krashen, S. 1972. Language and the Lefts Hemisphere. UCLA Work Pap.
Phonetics, 24.
Kuhl, L. Patricia. Early Language Acquisition. University of Washington.
Labov, W. (1969) The logic of nonstandard English. Georgetown Monographs on
Language and Linguistics, 22, 1-31.
Marcus, G. F. (1993) Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46],
53-85.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis.London.Sage.
Newport, E., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, E. (1977) Mother I'd rather do it myself:
Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C. E. Snow and
C. A. Ferguson (eds.), Talking to Children: Language Input and
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Olson, S. L. (1986). Mother-child interaction and children's speech progress: A
longitudinal study of the first two years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 32(1), 120.
Painter, Claire. 1984. Into the mother tongue: A case study in Early Language
Development. London: Frances Pinter.
Penner, S. (1987) Parental responses to grammatical and ungrammatical child
utterances. Child Development 58: 376-384.
Pinker, S. (1979) Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217-283.
Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument
structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinker, S. (1994a) The language instinct. New York: Morrow.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior.NY: Appleton. [Spanish translation:
Conducta Verbal. Mexico, Trillas (1957).].
Slobin, D.I. 1994.The Human Language Series 2. Colombia: Colombia
University.
Sutherland, Stuart. 1989. Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology. London:
Macmillan.
Tarigan, Guntur Henry. 1986. Psikolinguistik. Bandung: Angkasa Bandung.
Tarigan, Guntur Henry. 1988. Psikolinguistik. Bandung: Angkasa Bandung.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Whitehurs, G. (1982). Language development. In B. Wolman (Ed), Handbook of
development psychologty. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wilkins, D.A. 1972. Linguistics in Janguageteaching. London: Edward Amold.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF SYNTAX OF CHILDREN AT 20-48 MONTHS
Submitted to the English Applied Linguistics Study Program
as a Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniora
By:
WIDI DAMAIYANTI SIMBOLON
Registration Number: 8116112020
ENGLISH APPLIED LINGUISTICS STUDY PROGRAM
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
STATE UNIVERSITY OF MEDAN
2016
ABSTRAK
Simbolon, Damaiyanti Widi. 2016. Perkembangan Sintaksis Anak Usia 2048 bulan. Linguistik Terapan Bahasa Inggris, Universitas Negeri Medan.
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui apakah 1) sintaksis kategori
yang anak-anak kuasai pada umur 20-48 bulan. 2) Bagaimana perkembangan
sintaksis anak pada umur 20-48 bulan. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode
qualitative deskriptif. Sampel penelitian ini adalah anak-anak di tempat penitipan
anak di Sampali Medan. Data penelitian ini adalah ungkapan anak-anak terhadap
orang tua atau penjaga anak-anak yang direkam melalui percakapan mereke
sehari-hari. Data dalam penelitian ini dianalisa dan dikategorikan berdasarkan
teori Miles and Huberman (1994). Hasilnya menunjukkan bahwa 1) Diantara lima
kategori dari frasa, dua dari frasa yang telah dikuasai anak 20-48 bulan, yaitu
frasa kata kerja dan frasa kata benda. 2) Dan pola kalimat S+P+Ket adalah level
tertinggi kemudian S+P dan S+P+O dan yang terakhir S+P+O+Ket. Berdasarkan
fungsi kalimat , dua yang anak-anak telah kuasai yaitu kalimat pernyataan dan
perintah. 2) Perkembangan sintaksis adalah a) Diantara dua dari frasa, frasa kata
kerja adalah yang paling cepat dikuasai anak-anak yaitu pada umur 20 bulan,
sedangkan frasa kata benda pada umur 28 bulan, b) semua pola kalimat telah
anak-anak kuasai dari umur 20-48 bulan, c) berdasarkan fungsi kalimat yang
anak-anak kuasai adalah kalimat pernyataan pada umur 26 bulan, dan kedua
adalah kalimat perintah pada umur 40 bulan.
ABSTRACT
Simbolon, Damaiyanti Widi. 2016. The Development of The Syntax of The
Children 20-48 monhts. A Thesis English Applied Linguistics, Graduate
Program of UNIMED
The objectives of the study were to find out: (1) the syntactic category that
children acquire at 20-48 (2) the Development of the syntax of the children 20-48
months. The study was descriptive qualitative. The subjects of the study were 28
children in child care center Sampali Medan . The data of the study were the
transcription of children’s utterences to the parents or care taker recorded from the
conversations in daily activity. The data were identified, analyzed, and
categorized based on Miles and Huberman’s theory. The findings of the study
showed that: (1) Among the five categories of phrases, two of them have been
acquired by the children of 20-48 months, namely verb phrase and noun, and for
Sentence pattern, S+V+C is the highest level of acquisition, then followed by S+V
and S+V+O, and the last is S+V+O+C .While based on the function of sentence,
two of the sentence function have been acquired by the children of 20-48 months
and (2)The development of syntax is (a) among the two phrases the verb phrase is
earliest for the child to acquire as early as the age of 20 months, while the noun
phrase is the second one as early as the age of 28 months (b) All of the patterns of
sentence have been acquired by the children of 20-48 months (c) the earliest
function the child acquired is the declarative function as early as the age of 26, the
second is the imperative as early as the age of 40.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, the writer would like to express her sincere gratitude to the
Heavenly Father, Son of God Jesus Christ, and Holy Spirit for His amazing grace
in the completion of this thesis to obtain a Master Degree in Applied Linguistics.
This thesis process is filled with people who challenge, support, love, listen and
frankly tolerate the writer. The process is a rewarding learning experience and the
writer has learned enough about it. This thesis would not have been possible
without the support and input of numerous people to whom the writer expresses
her deeply gratitude.
The writer would like to express the greatest thanks to Prof. Dr. Berlin
Sibarani, M.Pd and Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd, as her advisers for their great
ideas, guidance and patience that lead the writer to the end of completion of this
thesis.
The writer also would like to extend her sincere gratitude to the Head of
English Applied Linguistics Study Program, Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed, the
secretary of English Applied Linguistics Program, Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni,
M.S and Farid Ma’ruf as an administrator for their assistance regarding the
administrative procedures and support during the writer’s thesis completion
process patiently.
The writer’s great thanks also go to her reviewers or examiners, Prof. Dr.
Busmin Gurning, M.Pd, Prof. Dr. Sri Minda Murni, M.S and Prof. Dr. Sumarsih,
M.Pd for their suggestions, critiques, opinions, and improvements for this thesis.
In addition, the writer would like to thank to all lecturers for their knowledge and
character building during the process of teaching and learning.
Then, the writer’s great respect and heartfelt thanks go to all her lovely
friends in the executive class B LTBI XX as well
Last and most importantly, the writer wishes to express her sincere thanks
to her beloved parents, Mr. M. Simbolon and Ms. Nurmada br Sinaga for their
continued and unfailing love, patience, guidance, prayer and support over years
and their endless faith in the writer’s ability to accomplish this thesis. Her huge
thanks are also dedicated to her great sister, Deasy Simbolon, S.E,her love,
assistance, and support. “Family has been an integral part of this process”.
Finally, the writer’s special love goes to her loving husband, Poltak , S.T
who made an arduous task a more enjoyable and fulfilling experience. Her
husband’s love, support, patience and encouragement have seen her through
uncertain times. For that, the writer can only say ‘thanks my soul mate’.
Medan, 5 April 2016
Widi Damaiyanti Simbolon
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CONTENTS
PAGES
Abstract………………………………………………………………
i
Acknowledgement……………………………………………………
iii
Table of Contents…………………………………………………….
v
List of Figures………………………………………………………...
viii
List of Tables………………………………………………………….
ix
List of Lists……………………………………………………………
x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
1.1
The Background of the Study……………………………………….. 1
1.2
The Research Problems…………………………………………....... 9
1.3
The Objectives of the Study ………………………………………... 9
1.4
The Scope of the Study……………………………………………… 9
1.5
The Significance of the Study……………………………………… 9
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1
The Nature of Syntax……….……………………………………... 10
2.1.1. Syntactic Category ………………………………………… 11
2.2
The Acquisition of Syntax…………………………………………. 14
2.3
The Nature of Language Acquisition……………………………… 16
2.3.1 Language Acquisition……………………………………… 19
2.3.1.1 Empiricism………………………………………. 21
2.3.1.2 Nativism…………………………………………. 26
2.4
The Development of Acquisition…………………………………. 32
2.4.1
Pre-Language Stages……………………………………… 34
2.4.2
The One-Word or Holophrastic Stage……………………. 35
2.4.3
The Two-Word Stage…………………………………….. 36
2.5
2.4.2
The One-Word or Holophrastic Stage……………………. 35
2.4.3
The Two-Word Stage…………………………………….. 36
2.4.4
The Telegraphic Speech………………………………….. 37
Factors Affecting Acquisition……………………………………. 40
2.5.1
Input………………………………………………………. 40
2.5.1.1 Positive Evidence…………………………..……… 40
2.5.1.2 Negative Evidence…………………………………. 42
2.5.1.3 Motherese…………………………………………... 43
2.6
Relevant Studies…………………………………………………….45
2.7
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………….. 48
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
3.1
Research Design………………………………………………….. 50
3.2
Subject of the Study……………………………………………….. 50
3.3
Technique of Collecting the Data………………………………… 51
3.4
Technique of Analyzing Data……………………………………… 52
3.5
Trustworthiness of The Study……………………………………… 54
CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
Data Analysis………………………………………………………. 56
4.1.1
The Syntactic Category Acquired by Children of 20-48 Months
Old…………………………………………………………. 56
4.1.1.1 The Syntactic Category for Phrase Acquired by
The Children……………………………………………….. 56
4.1.2
The Development of The Syntax of The Children with 20-48 months
Old…………………………………………………………………. 65
4.1.2.1 The Development of Phrases Acquisition…………………..65
4.1.2.2 The Development of Sentence Acquisition………………... 69
4.2
Findings……………………………………………………….…… 71
4.3
Discussion…………………………………………………………. 72
CHAPTER V CONCLUSSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1
Conclusions………………………………………….…………….. 76
5.2
Suggestions………………………………………………………… 77
References………………………………………………………………….. 78
Appendices…………………………………………………………………. 82
List of Figure
Figure 1 Components of Data Analysis .......................................................... 52
LIST OF TABLES
I.
Table 2.1 The stages of Acquisition Language……………....
39
II.
Table 3.1 The Children’s Age from 20 up 40 Months Old….
51
III.
Table 4.1 Phrase Acquisition………………………………... 60
IV.
Table 4.3 Sentence acquisition based on function…………..
65
V.
Table 4.1.2 The acquisitions of sentence pattern……………
69
VI.
Table 4.1.3 The acquisitions of sentence function…………..
70
List of Lists
List I……………………………………………………………
List II…………………………………………………………..
List III………………………………………………………….
66
66
67
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 The Background of the Study
The acquisition of a first language is a complex topic that requires an
interdisciplinary approach. It has been traditionally studied within the field of
psycholinguistics, but contributions from other disciplines such as biology,
education or the social sciences are necessary to gain a wider perspective.
Language acquisition serves as one of the central topics in cognitive
science. Every theory of cognition has tried to explain it; probably no other topic
has aroused such controversy. Possessing a language is the quintessence of human
trait: all normal human speak, no nonhuman animal does. Language is arguably
the most important components of culture because much of the rest of it is
normally transmitted orally. It is impossible to understand the subtle nuances and
deep meanings of another culture without speaking its language. Language then is
the main vehicle by which we know about other people‟s thoughts, and the two
must be intimately related.
Every time we speak we are revealing something about language. So the
facts of language structure are easy to come by; these data hint at a system of
extraordinary complexity. Nonetheless, learning a first language is something
every normal child does successfully, in a matter of a few years and without the
need for formal lessons. With language so close to the core of what it means to
be human, it is not surprising that children‟s acquisition of language has received
so much attention. Anyone with strong views about the human mind would like to
show that children‟s first few steps are steps in the right direction.
When children develop such skill is always a difficult question to answer.
Acquiring a language is a skill that children begin to develop with the first sounds
they make as babies. For most children, their first words are made up of simple
sounds such Mama, Dada or Bye-bye. As early as the first and second years,
children‟s speech exhibits a variety of complex ideas (Clark, 2003). For example,
children say such things as „big truck‟ (semantically, the object „truck‟ is assigned
the attribute „big‟) „Daddy chair‟ (the object „Daddy‟ possesses another object
„chair‟), and „Mommy give‟ ( the object „Mommy‟ is the cause of an action of
„giving‟). Next they begin to use complex sentences, to produce longer words that
require more fine motor control by the age of 4 to 4 ½ years. Gradually children
begin to use their speech skills, or sounds, to form language that refers to the use
of words and sentences to convey ideas. By the time they start kindergarten,
children know most of the fundamental of their language. They have speech that
is easily understood by an unfamiliar listener so that they are able to converse
easily with someone who speaks as they do (that is, in their dialect). This
development of oral language is one of children‟s most natural and impressive
accomplishments and as with others aspects of development, language acquisition
is not predictable. One child may say her first word at 10 months, another at 20
months. One child may use complex sentences at 5 ½ years, another at 3 years.
Since language itself does not provide the child with such ideas as object,
attribute, possesses, cause and action the question arises as to how the child
acquired them. Obviously, interaction with the world is necessary. But, were the
basic ideas already in the mind in some form even before
The physical stimuli of the world were sensed, i.e. the innate ideas view of
the relation lists? Or, were the ideas derived entirely through experience with
none being in the mind (latent or otherwise) prior to experiencing of the world,
i.e. the experiential view of the Empiricists? As far as language acquisition data
are concerned, presumably none will serve to settle any of these controversies.
Both the Rationalist and Empiricist theories are sufficiently vague so that any
observational datum can be given an explanation. Aside from such ultimate, there
still a great deal that can be discovered about how human beings acquire
language.
The rules of their language are learned at an early age through use, and
over time, without formal instruction. Thus one source for learning must be
genetic. Human beings are born to speak; they have an innate gift for figuring out
the rules of the language used in their environment. The environment itself is also
a significant factor. Children learn the specific variety of language (dialect) that
the important people around them speak.
It is acknowledged that children work through linguistic rules on their own
not merely through imitating those around them because young children tend to
use forms that adults never use, such examples are best seen through the sentences
uttered by English- speaking children like “ I goed there before” or “I see your
feets” (Genishi, 1988:16-23). These problems of grammar first appear when
children begin to produce multi-world utterances as some researchers have
assumed that children do not start to work on inflectional morphology or on
grammatical morphemes more generally until after they have begun to combine
two or more words (Brown, 1973 in Clark, 2003: 191). Being capable of
producing such utterances, children, in English and many other languages, set out
to alter single words in order to indicate number (the –s ending in English) and
tense (-ed in English), or other inflections of meaning. Just as in word learning,
children frequently make errors of overgeneralization. For instance whenspeaking children learn that the –ed ending indicates past tense, they tend to use it
for all verbs, including those that are irregular and do not take the –ed ending in
adult speech (such as “go” or “think”). This is excellent evidence that children are
learning the systems of their language: they are producing words according to the
basic rules of the language, rather than by simple imitation of the language they
hear. Only after extensive practice with both the rule and its exceptions does the
child learn to speak as an adult. Children eventually learn the conventional past
tense forms for irregular verbs and irregular plural forms like, “went” and “feet”,
as they sort out for themselves the exceptions to the rules of English syntax. As
with learning to walk, learning o talk requires time for development and practice
in everyday situations. Constant correction of a child‟s speech is usually
unproductive.
Moreover, children seem to be born not just to speak, but also to interact
socially. Even before they use words, they use cries and gestures to convey
meaning; they often understand the meanings that others convey. The point of
learning language and interacting socially is not to master rules, but to make
connections with other people and to make sense of experiences for language
occur through an interaction among genes (which hold innate tendencies to
communicate and be sociable), environment, and the child‟s own thinking
abilities.
Given the above views on language acquisition, each must account for
some facts about child language development. First, children learn language
rapidly. In only a few years, children progress from virtually no language
comprehension or production to almost adult capacity. Second, across language,
some systematic regularities exist in what children learn both early and late. As
well as some differences that require explanation.
Sometime during their second year, after children have about 50 of these early
words of English in their vocabularies, they begin to put those words together
into rudimentary two-word sentences (Brown, 1973 in Gleason and Ratner,
1993;366). Words that they said in the one-word stage are now combined into
short utterances. In English such utterances lack articles, prepositions, inflections,
or any of the other grammatical modifications that well-formed adult language
requires.
An examination of children‟s two-word utterances in many different
language communities has suggested that everywhere in the world children at this
age are expressing the same kinds of thoughts and intentions in the same kinds of
utterances (Brown, 1973 in Gleason and Ratner, 1993:366). At this stage, children
acquiring English express basic meanings, but they lack the grammatical forms of
the language that indicate number, gender, and tense. These sentences are limited
in meaning and are produced without function words or inflections. In spite of
that, these two-word utterances do include some kind of grammatical information.
The phrase „ hit Andy” means something different to a child that “Andy hit”.
Children appear to be able to produce this kind of difference as soon as they begin
to produce multi-word utterances, and they comprehend it even earlier. This
brings up an important point in language acquisition and other parts of
developmental psychology: an inability to produce a certain behavior does not
mean that the corresponding cognitive structures are absent. Children are able to
understand grammatically complex sentences and words long before they are able
to produce them.
It must be noted too that language acquisition is marked by individual
variation as well as generalized developmental trends. Thus, some children seem
to appreciate the adult language patterns before being able to produce aspects of
the grammar; such children may use adult- like prosody and “dummy syllables” to
fill in between those vocabulary items they are capable of producing, saying, [wan
a kuki] for “ I want the cookie‟. Children with a more analytic style appear
comfortable producing “ Want cookie”, until they can incorporate the additional
grammatical elements into their output. Similarly, even when children use only
single words to communicate, stylistic variation in the kinds of words most
frequently used by children can be seen. Some children appear to build their initial
lexicons by incorporating many names for objects; other children may include
proportionately more verb or “social” items such as hi, bye, please, and so forth
(Bates, Dale, and Thal, 1995: Nelson, 1973 in Gleason and Ratner, 1993:367).
Most people acquire their own language without fully realizing how it is
taking place. Young children need to use language to make sense of the world
they live in. they gradually learn to understand and use rules of the language
spoken in their society. Their language-using abilities are formed by the
unification of the maturity of the infants‟ rain which is tied very much to their
biological and cognitive development and interplay with many social factors in
their environment.
In general, all normal children, regardless of their culture, develop
language at the roughly the same time along with the same schedules of the
biological and cognitive development. It has been already noted that a child who
does not hear, or is no allowed to use language, will learn no language. The child
must be physically capable of sending and receiving sound signals in a language.
In order to speak a language, a child must be able to hear the language being used.
There are two views which explain how children manage to acquire the
adult language. First, they are empiricists, who propose that language is learned as
a result of experience. This view then is observed through its two theories, the
„imitation‟ and „reinforcement‟ theory. The first thinks that children merely
imitate what they hear. And the second suggests that a child learns to produce the
correct words or sentences because he is positively reinforced when he says
something right and negatively reinforced when he says something wrong. The
other view comes from nativists who propose that language acquisition is the
result of innate capacities to language and is only found in human beings.
Before he produces those spoken words, a child in his life utters very
limited and simple utterances based on the things he sees, feels, and hears which
are usually relied on all the kinds of nonlinguistic-cue-direction of gaze, gestures,
and the context itself. He firstly starts producing babbling sounds which have no
linguistic significance. Then sometimes after one year the child begins to use
single unit utterances to mean everyday objects he sees. As the child has been able
to put two words together to form one sentence, he now starts producing multiple
word utterances.
Based on the description above, the writer found some interesting things in
this study. The appearance of baby‟s first words can be said to depend on some
factors such as culture, social environment, family background, etc. the baby
usually needs a stimulus in order to give a response, just like what behaviorists
believes. Thus it is very possible that the development of language of a child is
different from one another. A child may be able to produce words in earlier age
than another. Based on the writer‟s view children at the same age have significant
differences of development in acquiring syntax. Secondly, the writer is interested
in studying what kinds of syntax that a child of twenty until forty eight months
acquired.
Because this research is a case study of a child of 20-48 months therefore,
the research problem is specifically on the subjects.
1.2 The Research Problems
The main problems that will be discussed in this research are:
1. What syntactic category do the children acquire from the age of 20up 48
months old?
2. How is the development of the syntax of the children with 20-48 months old?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
This study is devoted to analyze the development of syntactical acquisition
of 20- 48 months child and to identify and describe the syntax words the subject
acquired at the age 20-48 months.
1.4 The Scope of the Study
This study is limited only on the development of a 20-48 months child‟s
syntactical acquisition in Indonesian Language that he acquires in speaking
ability.
1.5 The Significance of the Study
It is expected that the findings of this study will be significantly relevant to
the theoretical and practical aspects. Theoretically, the research findings hopefully
can provide significant contribution for a further research on language acquisition
in Indonesian Language of different stages. Practically, on the other hand, this
research hopefully can provide valuable information for parents who are
interested in their children‟s acquiring the language.
REFERENCES
Atkinson, J.M. & David , K.& Iggy, R. 1982. Foundation of General Linguistics.
London: George & Unwin.
Bickerton, D. (2001) The language bioprogram hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 7, 173-221.
Bloom, L. (1970). Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging
grammars. Cambridge.
Bloom, L.M. 1972. Language Development. Cambridge.
Bloor, T. and Bloor, M. 1995. The Functional Analysis of English: A Hallidayan
Approach. London: Arnold.
Bolinger, Dwight. And A. Sears, Donald. 1981. Aspects of Language. New York:
Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Brandone, C. Amanda. (2002). Language Development. University of Delaware.
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of
acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the
Development of Language. New York: Wiley.
Brown, R. (1973). The Development of Language. New York: Longman.
Brown, R. (1977) 'Introduction' in C. Snow and C. ferguson (eds.).Talking to
Children: Language input and acquisition. New York: Longman.
Brown, H.D. 1987. Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. New Jersey:
University Of Jersey.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. New York:
Longman.
Cattell, R. (2000). Children’s Language. London:Cassell.
Chomsky, N. 1959. A Review of B.F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior. Language; in
Smolinski, Frank (ED), Landmark of American Language and Linguistics,
35 (1): 26-58. Washington, D.C.USIA.
Clark, E.V. 2003. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cook, V. 1991. Second Language Learning and teaching. London: Arnold.
Cooper, Robin, Aslin, Richard N. (1989). The Language Environment of the
Young Infant:Implications for Early Perceptual Development. Special
Issue: Infant.
Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Demetras, M. J., Post, K. N, & Snow, C. E. (1986) Feedback to first language
learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of
Child Language, 13, 275-292.
Elman, Jeffrey L., Elizabeth A. Bates, Mark H. Johnson, Annette KarmiloffSmith, Domenico Parisi, and Kim Plunkett. 1999. Rethinking innateness:
A connectionist perspective ondevelopment. Cambridge.
Ellidokuzoglu, H. 1999. The Role of Innate Knowledge in Second Language
Acquisition. Science Journal of Army Academy, 1 (1): 13-30.
Ferguson, C. A. & Snow, C. E. (Eds). (1977). Talking to children. Language input
and acquisition. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Fernald, Anne, Kuhl, Patricia K. (1987). Acoustic Determinants of Infant
Preference for Motherese Speech. Infant Behavior and Development. (3)
279-293.
Fodor, J. A. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: The MIT Pres.
Fon, Jenice. 2001. Syntax. Ohio State University.
Foss, J. Donald and T. David, Hakes. 1978. Psycholinguistics: And Introduction
to the Psychology of Language. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Gelderen, Elly Van. 2002.An Introduction to the Grammar of
English.Amsterdam: Arizona State University.
Genishi. C.1988.Young Children’s Oral Language Development. Young
Children, 1 (44): 16- 23.
George, 1980. Let’s Write English. New York. United State of America.
Gleason, Jean Berko and Ratner, Nan Berneisten. 1993. Language Acquisition; in
Gleason,Jean Berko and Ratner, Nan Berneisten (Eds.), Psycholinguistcs
(Pp. 364-375).
Gleason, J. B. (2005). The development of language. USA: Pearson Education
University of USA.
Gold, E. (1967). Language identification in the limit. Information and Control, 10,
447-474
Greenbaum, 2002, An Introduction to English Grammar, Edinburg, Pearson
Educational Limited.
Hepper, Peter G, Scott,D., Shahidullah, Sara. (1993). Newborn and Fetal
Response to Maternal Voice. Special Issue:Prenatal and Paranatal
Behavior. Journal of reproductive & infant Phsychology. (11). 147-153.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon
revisited: Mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child
`Language, 11, 81-88.
Hong, Z. F. & Li, S. L. (2004). The impact of foreign spouses’ teaching attitude
on children’s verbal expression. Thesis of the development of children
education. National Hua-lien Teaching College.
Ingram, David. 1974. Phonological rules in young children. Journal of Child
Language 1. 49-64.
Ingram, David. 1989. First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
Ingram, D.(1991). First Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University .
Kess, J. F. (1993). Psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Krashen, S. 1972. Language and the Lefts Hemisphere. UCLA Work Pap.
Phonetics, 24.
Kuhl, L. Patricia. Early Language Acquisition. University of Washington.
Labov, W. (1969) The logic of nonstandard English. Georgetown Monographs on
Language and Linguistics, 22, 1-31.
Marcus, G. F. (1993) Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46],
53-85.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative Data Analysis.London.Sage.
Newport, E., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, E. (1977) Mother I'd rather do it myself:
Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In C. E. Snow and
C. A. Ferguson (eds.), Talking to Children: Language Input and
Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University.
Olson, S. L. (1986). Mother-child interaction and children's speech progress: A
longitudinal study of the first two years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 32(1), 120.
Painter, Claire. 1984. Into the mother tongue: A case study in Early Language
Development. London: Frances Pinter.
Penner, S. (1987) Parental responses to grammatical and ungrammatical child
utterances. Child Development 58: 376-384.
Pinker, S. (1979) Formal models of language learning. Cognition, 7, 217-283.
Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument
structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Pinker, S. (1994a) The language instinct. New York: Morrow.
Skinner, B.F. (1957). Verbal Behavior.NY: Appleton. [Spanish translation:
Conducta Verbal. Mexico, Trillas (1957).].
Slobin, D.I. 1994.The Human Language Series 2. Colombia: Colombia
University.
Sutherland, Stuart. 1989. Macmillan Dictionary of Psychology. London:
Macmillan.
Tarigan, Guntur Henry. 1986. Psikolinguistik. Bandung: Angkasa Bandung.
Tarigan, Guntur Henry. 1988. Psikolinguistik. Bandung: Angkasa Bandung.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Whitehurs, G. (1982). Language development. In B. Wolman (Ed), Handbook of
development psychologty. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Wilkins, D.A. 1972. Linguistics in Janguageteaching. London: Edward Amold.