The Duality of Patterning in Language and Its Relationship to Reading in Children With Hearing Loss

Purpose Duality of patterning has long been recognized as a unique design feature of human language and refers to the distinct bilevel structure in which words comprise one level (semantic) and word-internal, phonetic elements comprise the other level (phonological). This report describes this design feature and offers a perspective on why and how it should help shape reading interventions for children with hearing loss. Method Three components comprise this report. The first main section offers an overview of duality of patterning. The second main section reviews results from a longitudinal study illustrating how children with and without hearing loss acquire each level of linguistic structure and how each level contributes to reading acquisition for each group differently. The third main section of this report provides suggestions for how to incorporate this information into interventions for children with hearing loss. Results Outcomes presented illustrate that semantic structure begins to take form first, with phonological structure following. Semantic structure is related to reading comprehension, and phonological structure is related to word recognition, at least for alphabetic orthographies. Children with hearing loss acquire a less differentiated linguistic system, with structure at the phonological level only partly or coarsely acquired and with a lack of clear distinction from the semantic level of structure. Consequently, the roles of each level of structure in reading acquisition are less clearly defined for children with hearing loss. Conclusion For children with normal hearing, learning to read is compartmentalized: Emerging sensitivity to phonological structure supports development of word recognition, and semantic-level skills support reading comprehension. Hearing loss diminishes language skills overall, but especially phonological sensitivity. Children with hearing loss, especially those with cochlear implants, must rely on all language skills to learn to read, including both word recognition and reading comprehension, which creates a highly inefficient processing strategy.

Meaning in Phonology and Other Departures from Modularity in the Living Language

I review evidence of three kinds relating to leakages in modularity within language domains and between linguistic and nonlinguistic action. One kind of evidence shows that the form-meaning “rift” in language that enables the important principle of duality of patterning and the particulate principle of self-diversifying systems is bridged in many ways. Segmental language forms have iconic meanings, and form-meaning correlations of other kinds emerge cross linguistically. A second kind of evidence occurs in parallel transmission of linguistic prosodic information with iconic and emotional information conveyed suprasegmentally. The final kind of evidence shows the integrality of linguistic and nonlinguistic action (deictic points, speech-accompanying gestures, head motions, facial expressions, etc) in conveying communicative information in public language use. I suggest that these violations of modularity within language and between linguistic and nonlinguistic action reflect the dynamic effects of sets of competing and cooperating constraints including, among others, parity and learnability of language forms that shape communicative actions in social activity.

The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language

Memory is fleeting. New material rapidly obliterates previous material. How, then, can the brain deal successfully with the continual deluge of linguistic input? We argue that, to deal with this “Now-or-Never” bottleneck, the brain must compress and recode linguistic input as rapidly as possible. This observation has strong implications for the nature of language processing: (1) the language system must “eagerly” recode and compress linguistic input; (2) as the bottleneck recurs at each new representational level, the language system must build a multilevel linguistic representation; and (3) the language system must deploy all available information predictively to ensure that local linguistic ambiguities are dealt with “Right-First-Time”; once the original input is lost, there is no way for the language system to recover. This is “Chunk-and-Pass” processing. Similarly, language learning must also occur in the here and now, which implies that language acquisition is learning to process, rather than inducing, a grammar. Moreover, this perspective provides a cognitive foundation for grammaticalization and other aspects of language change. Chunk-and-Pass processing also helps explain a variety of core properties of language, including its multilevel representational structure and duality of patterning. This approach promises to create a direct relationship between psycholinguistics and linguistic theory. More generally, we outline a framework within which to integrate often disconnected inquiries into language processing, language acquisition, and language change and evolution.

The emergence of duality of patterning: Insights from the laboratory

The concept of duality of patterning (henceforth DP) has recently begun to undergo new scrutiny. In particular, the fact that Al-Sayyid Bedouin Sign Language (ABSL) does not appear to exhibit a layer of meaningless units (Sandler et al. 2011) casts doubt on the universality of DP as a defining feature of natural language. Why, then, do the vast majority of the world's languages exhibit DP? Two hypotheses have been suggested. The first is that DP is a necessary solution to the problem of conveying a large number of meanings; the second is that DP arises as a consequence of conventionalization. We tested these hypotheses in an experimental-semiotics study. Our results supported the hypothesis based on conventionalization but were inconclusive with regard to the hypothesis based on the number of meanings. At the same time, the task of measuring DP in an experimental-semiotics study presented interesting challenges, suggesting that the concept of DP may need some overhauling.

The emergence of duality of patterning through iterated learning: Precursors to phonology in a visual lexicon

Duality of Patterning, one of Hockett's (1960) proposed design features unique to human language, refers in part to the arrangements of a relatively small stock of distinguishable meaningless sounds which are combined to create a potentially infinite set of morphemes. Literature regarding the emergence of this design feature is less abundant than that exploring other levels of structure as focus is more often given to the emergence of syntax. In an effort to explore where combinatorial structure of meaningless elements arises the results of two pilot experiments are presented within which we observe human participants modifying a small lexicon of visual symbols through a process of iterated learning. As this lexicon evolves there is evidence that it becomes simpler and more learnable, more easily transmitted. I argue that these features are a consequence of spontaneous emergence of combinatorial, sub-lexical structure in the lexicon, that the pattern of emergence is more complex than the most widely espoused explanation suggests, and I propose ways in which future work can build on what we learn from these pilot experiments to confirm this hypothesis.

What is duality of patterning, anyway?

The notion of duality of patterning (henceforth DoP), at least for readers of this special issue, is probably most closely associated with Charles F. Hockett's project of identifying the ‘design features’ of language in order to characterise the ways in which human language is unique among biological communication systems (Hockett 1958: chapter 64; Hockett 1960; Hockett and Ascher 1964). Roughly speaking, DoP refers to the fact that the meaningful units of language – words or morphemes – are made up of meaningless units – phonemes or features – whose only function is to distinguish the meaningful units from one another. Stated this way, the idea seems quite straightforward, and to have it explicitly stated as a property of language seems a useful insight. In fact, though, of all the design features discussed by Hockett, DoP seems to have engendered the most confusion. The idea that meaningful units are composed of meaningless ones seems simple enough, but many complications arise when we look more closely. The goal of this short paper is to document some of the complications and perhaps alleviate some of the confusion.