Holophrasis

An early stage in language development is called the holophrastic stage, meaning a single word serves the function of an entire phrase. "Ball" could mean "look there's a ball," or "that ball is red too," or "I want to play with a ball," and on.

Some theories about language development state that once enough words are accumulated, suddenly syntax begins to emerge. This has been applied both developmentally (ontogenetically) and evolutionarily (phylogenetically). These theorists suppose that human language developed in the species (reflected in the trajectory of individuals today) when a growing vocabulary reached a critical mass, and voilá grammar appeared.

My own views are somewhat different. One way to present the difference is a contrast between synthesis and analysis. The view that we begin with naming (especially of objects), then we link these things together, eventually leading to mature syntax, is the view that language is at base a combining of elements (synthesis). An example of this might be: ball, my, red, fun ... "my red ball fun". But how do we explain holophrasis? How do we get from "ball" to "my ball" to "my red ball fun" eventually to "my red ball is fun to play with"?

I would argue that language emerges more as analysis than synthesis. Quite likely a child's language (and by analogy the development of language in the species) comes about through first grasping medium-sized concepts, assigning labels to these, then moving on through analysis to ever more specific (on the other end, more general) ideas. Thus, as a child acquires a word such as doggie, the word may at first be applied also to cows and cats and sheep. The category becomes more specific as more experience is accumulated, and as more words are obtained or invented to cover these distinctions.

Thus, dog is revised as dog/cat/cow/sheep; perhaps also the supercategories of pet and animal are surmised and their labels assigned; and perhaps also lower level distinctions are made, either of individual animals (Spot, Harlequin, Tom, Fluffy) or of classes (Poodle, Greyhound, St. Bernard). Certainly this doesn't all happen at once, nor rapidly, nor necessarily in this order. The point however is that analysis from hazy concepts to more specific ones, reflected in language as a move from vague, broad symbols, to more-finely expressed ones is the likely process.

Evolutionarily, it is assumed therefore, regardless of how the first words arose (which I make no effort to try to reconstruct), new words were devised as experience and communicative intent made them necessary. If a hominid culture had but one tool, tool could suffice to describe their technology. But as their repertoire of tools grew, one needed to distinguish between a tool for cutting, one for digging, and one for crushing.

I view the child's task as similar. The major difference is language already exists. The child's experience is not only an attempt to make sense of the world, but also to make sense of the behaviors of people in it, who have a metacognitive ability to consider and communicate about these experiences. The greater their experience, the more they are able to dissect their concepts, and to realize distinctions in language use. The relationship between language and thought is not entirely clear. It is difficult to sustain the view that language is necessary for thought. However, one thing is certain, language permits the outward expression of our inner thoughts, giving us perhaps the only immutable (albeit it at times difficult to decipher) evidence of the nature of these thoughts.

Here's a rundown of the theory I sustain. We begin with a single symbol representing a broad range of ideas. It is assumed that a child's early thinking about the world (and much of our thinking subsequently) is rather hazy and nonspecific. Experience is complicated. We at first relate a word to an experience as a whole. The more often this or similar circumstances are repeated, we are able to focus on different aspects of the whole, drawing out various portions into our conscious attention. As we do this, we find the need for greater distinctions in our thinking, reflected as well in our use of language.

The infant begins with "ball" representing a whole range of potential scenarios containing a ball. While adult language may view this word as a noun, representing a concrete object in the world, it is unlikely however that the initial acquisition of a word at this stage is of the same type. Ball to a young language-learner is not a discreet object, so much as a variety of experience.

The main lesson to take away from this, regarding our parenting, is that we should not assume the child's first use of a word corresponds neatly with our own usage. We should work to become aware of the complexity of circumstances in which a given word is used, and understand the child's task to be abstracting from this broad experience an ever more detailed understanding both of the world, and of human culture and language.

By repeating and varying these circumstances, and using similar and subtly varied language, we aid the child in their quest toward knowledge and understanding.