User:Katealli/sandbox

Sentence word Holophrases Def: A holophrase is “a single-word utterance which is used by a child to express more than one meaning usually attributed to that single word by adults.” (Barrett, 48) This definition raises the question of whether these phrases are “structurally or functionally equivalent to whole phrases of adult language.” (Barrett, 48). In terms of structure, these phrases are seen as “structurally equivalent” to a complete sentence, with meaning expressed implicitly. In terms of function, each utterance serves a specific purpose, with that purpose being derived from intonation and/or gestures.(Hannay, 272) Single word utterances and child language acquisition -Two versions of the Holophrastic Hypothesis are identified as the structural version and the functional version. The structural version argues that children’s “single word utterances are implicit expressions of syntactic and semantic structural relations.” The functional version argues that children’s utterances consist of a “single lexical item used for a particular communicative function.” (Barrett, 47) - There are three arguments used to account for the structural version of the holophrastic hypothesis: The comprehension argument (Barrett,51), the temporal proximity argument (Barrett, 53), and the progressive acquisition argument (Barrett, 55). - The comprehension argument is based on the theory that a child’s comprehension level of language structure is more advanced than their level of production, during language acquisition. (Barrett, 49) However, studies attempting to show the extent to which children understand syntactic structural relation, particularly during the one-word stage, end up showing that children “are capable of extracting the lexical information from a multi-word command,” (Barrett, 51) and that they “can respond correctly to a multi-word command if that command is unambiguous at the lexical level.” (Barrett, 51) This argument therefore does not provide evidence needed to validify the structural version of the holophrastic hypothesis, by failing to prove that children in the single-word stage understand structural relations such as the subject of a sentence and the object of a verb. (Barrett, 52) - The temporal proximity argument argues that two different one-word utterances, which are uttered in “close temporal proximity to one another” (Barrett, 53) - - There are also three arguments used to account for the functional version of the holophrastic hypothesis: The intonation argument (Barrett,62), the gesture argument (Barrett, 65), and the predication argument (Barrett, 70). -       -        - - Some linguists do not support the holophrastic hypothesis. ___ Bloom provides several arguments against the holophrastic position that children have an understanding of the syntax of words during the single-word phase. She states that “having a mental representation of an entire event is, then a necessary condition for the production of multiple-word utterances.”(Bloom/Branigan?, 486) - Bloom also argues that the single-word phase is a period in which “children learn a great deal about relations between objects, people, and events”.(Bloom/Branigan?, 484). - By using either intonation or gesture to accompany single word utterances, there is greater continuity in language development at the functional level than at the structural level. The child will have little grammatical knowledge by using holophrases, complete thoughts are still expressed and grammatical phrases and sentences will eventually form. (Greenfield, 271) During the single word utterance phase of child language acquisition, single word sentences referring to objects and people are most common. Single word phrases that refer to objects, are a statistically significant percentage of utterances produced. (Starr, 706) Holophrases in Japanese A holophrasic or single-word sentence in Japanese is supposed to carry the least amount of information syntactically and the intonation becomes the primary carrier or meaning. (Hirst, 372) Example: A person saying hai on a high level pitch would command attention. Pronouncing the same pitch on a mid tone could answer to a roll-call. Finally, pronouncing this word with a low pitch would acquiesce: accept something reluctantly. (Hirst, 372)