Universality and Language-Specificity in the Acquisition of Path Vocabulary

Megan Johanson,A. Papafragou

Abstract:It is widely acknowledged that aspects of the acqui sition of spatial language may reflect a shared, perhaps universal, conceptual system of space (Bowerman, 1996; Mandler, 1992; Pinker, 1994). To the extent t hat children learning different languages learn spatial words in a consis tent pattern, they may all be relying on a similar conceptual system. Johnston an d Slobin (1978) found support for this view in a study that compared chil dren learning English, Italian, Turkish, and Serbo-Croatian. These researchers foun d that in all of these languages, expressions that meant something close t o ‘in’, ‘on’, and ‘under’ were learned before expressions that meant ‘beside’ , ‘b hind’, ‘front,’ and ‘between’. They concluded that children’s conceptua l bi ses were responsible for this consistent timetable of spatial language a cquisition. Despite commonalities in the cross-linguistic encod ing of space, languages are also characterized by important differences in spatial encoding (Gilbert, Regier, Kay & Ivry, 2008; Levinson, 1997); furtherm ore, the acquisition of spatial expressions follows language-specific patte rns early in language development. One example of a commonly studied diff erence between languages in the encoding of spatial relations is t he degree-of-fit distinction that Korean-speakers generally encode and English-speake rs do not (Choi & Bowerman, 1991). Another example of a difference in how spatial information is encoded is the path/manner distinction in the do main of motion (Papafragou, Massey, & Gleitman, 2002): some languages, such as Greek, tend to encode path information in the verb of a sentence and mann er i formation elsewhere (path language) whereas other languages, such as En glish, encode manner information in the verb and path information in adp ositions (manner language). In both of these cases, language-specific encoding patterns seem to be acquired early by children learning their native tongue (Cho i & Bowerman, 1991; Papafragou et al., 2002, respectively). Our objective is to explore the contributions of Un iversality and LanguageSpecificity to language acquisition by focusing on the language used to describe