Jean Berko Gleason

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wug test)
Jump to: navigation, search
Jean Berko Gleason
JeanBerkoGleason.jpg
October 2011
Born Jean Berko
1931
Columbus, Ohio
Fields Psycholinguistics
Institutions Boston University
Alma mater Radcliffe College · Harvard University
Doctoral advisor Roger Brown
Known for Research in language acquisition, aphasia, and language attrition; the Wug Test
Spouse Andrew M. Gleason
Website
Departmental page · Personal page

Jean Berko Gleason (born 1931) is a professor emerita in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences (formerly the Department of Psychology) at Boston University,[1] a psycholin­guist who has made fundamental contribu­tions to the understanding of language acquisition in children, aphasia, gender differences in language development, and parent-child interactions.[2]

Of her Wug Test, by which she demonstrated that even young children possess implicit knowledge of linguistic morphology, it has been said, "Perhaps no innovation other than the invention of the tape recorder has had such an indelible effect on the field of child language research", the "wug" (one of the imaginary creatures Gleason drew in creating the Wug Test) being "so basic to what [psycholin­guists] know and do that increasingly it appears in the popular literature without attribu­tion to its origins."[2]

Biography[edit]

With Andrew Gleason, 1958

Jean Berko was born to Hungarian immigrant parents in Cleveland, Ohio.[3] After graduating from Cleveland Heights High School in 1949, Gleason earned a B.A. in history and literature from Radcliffe College, then an M.A. in linguistics, and a combined Ph.D. in linguistics and psychology, at Harvard; from 1958 to 1959 she was a postdoctoral fellow at MIT.[4] In graduate school she was advised by Roger Brown, a founder in the field of child language acquisition. In January 1959 she married Harvard mathematician Andrew Gleason; they had three daughters.[5]

Most of Gleason's professional career has been at Boston University, where she served as Psychology Department chair and director of the Graduate Program in Applied Linguistics; Lise Menn and Harold Goodglass were among her collaborators there.[5] She has been a visiting scholar at Harvard University, Stanford University, and at the Linguistics Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.[6] Although officially retired and no longer teaching, she continues to be involved in research.[7]

Gleason is the author or coauthor of some 125 papers on language development in children, language attrition, aphasia, and gender and cultural aspects of language acquisition and use;[8] and is editor/​coeditor of two widely used textbooks, The Development of Language (first edition 1985, eighth edition 2012) and Psycholin­guistics (1993).[6] She is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Psychological Association, and was president of the International Association for the Study of Child Language from 1990 to 1993, and of the Gypsy Lore Society 1996 to 1999.[9] She has also served on the editorial boards of numerous academic and professional journals, and was associate editor of Language from 1997 to 1999.[4]

Gleason was profiled in Beyond the Glass Ceiling: Forty Women Whose Ideas Shape the Modern World (1996).[6][6] A festschrift in her honor, Methods for Studying Language Produc­tion, was published in 2000.[2] Since 2007 she has delivered the "Welcome, welcome" and "Goodbye, goodbye" speeches at the annual Ig Nobel Awards ceremonies.[10]

Selected research[edit]

Children's learning of English morphology—​the Wug Test[edit]

One of Gleason's hand-drawn panels from the original Wug Test (1958)

Gleason devised the Wug Test as part of her earliest research (1958), which used nonsense words to gauge children's acquisition of morphological rules—​for example, the "default" rule that most English plurals are formed by adding an /s/, /z/ or /ɨz/ sounds e.g. hat–hats, eye–eyes, witch–witches.[11] A child is shown simple pictures of an imaginary creature or activity,[12][13] with a nonsense name, and prompted to complete a statement about it:

This is a WUG. Now there is another one. There are two of them. There are two ________.[11]

A critical attribute of the test is that the "target" word be a made-up (but plausible-sounding) pseudoword, so that the child will never have heard it before. A child who knows that the plural of witch is witches may have heard and memorized that pair, but a child responding that the plural of wug (which he has presumably has never heard) is wugs, has apparently inferred (perhaps unconsciously) the basic rule for forming plurals.[11][A]

The Wug Test also includes questions involving verb conjuga­tions, possessives, and other common deriva­tional morphemes such as the agentive -er (e.g. "A man who 'zibs' is a ________?"), and requested explana­tions of common compound words e.g. "Why is a birthday called a birthday?"[B] Other items included:

  • This is a dog with QUIRKS on him. He is all covered in QUIRKS. What kind of a dog is he? He is a ________ dog.[14]
  • This is a man who knows how to SPOW. He is SPOWING. He did the same thing yesterday? What did he do yesterday? Yesterday he ________.[14]

(The expected answers were QUIRKY and SPOWED.)[11]

Gleason's major finding was that even very young children are able to connect suitable endings—​to produce plurals, past tenses, possessives, and other forms—​to nonsense words they have never heard before, implying that they have already internalized systematic aspects of the linguistic system which no one has necessarily tried to teach them.[14] However, she also identified an earlier stage at which children can produce such forms for real words, but not yet for nonsense words—​implying that children start by memorizing singular–plural pairs they hear spoken by others, then eventually extract rules and patterns from these examples which they apply to novel words.[11]

The Wug Test was the first experimental proof that young children have extracted generalizable rules from the language around them, rather than simply memorizing words that they have heard,[15][2]:2 and it was almost immediately adapted for children speaking languages other than English, to bilingual children, and to children (and adults) with various impairments or from a variety of cultural backgrounds.[2]:3 Its conclusions are viewed as essential to the understanding of when and how children reach major language milestones, and its variations and progeny remain in use worldwide for studies on language acquisition.[2]:8 It is "almost universal" for textbooks in psycholin­guistics and language acquisition to include assignments calling for the student to carry out a practical variation of the Wug Test paradigm.[2]:7

The Wug Test's fundamental role in the development of psycholin­guistics as a discipline has been mapped by studying references to Gleason's work in "seminal journals" in the field, many of whom carried articles referencing it in their founding issues:[2]:4

A review of citation lists [for Gleason's paper] over the years gives an interesting mini-view of the evolution of developmental psycholin­guis­tics ... In the first 15 years following publica­tion, the article was extensively cited by researchers attempting to validate its utility and extend its finding to nontypical popula­tions. Over time, however ... the fact that almost any human being can do that task ... became much less interesting than the question of how it is accomplished.[2]:4

According to Ratner and Menn, "As an enduring concept in psycholin­guistic research, the wug has become a generic, like [kleenex] or [xerox], a concept so basic to what we know and do that increasingly it appears in the popular literature without attribu­tion to its origins ... Perhaps no innovation other than the invention of the tape recorder has had such an indelible effect on the field of child language research."[2]:8

It has been proposed that Wug Test–like instruments be used in diagnosis of learning disabilities, but in practice success in this direction has been limited.[2]:4

Parent-child interactions[edit]

Another of Gleason's early papers "Fathers and Other Strangers: Men's Speech to Young Children" (1975) explored differences between mothers' and fathers' spoken interac­tion with their children, primarily using data produced by two female and two male daycare teachers at a large university, and by three mothers and three fathers, mostly during family dinners. Among other conclusions, this study found that:

  • mothers used less-complex construc­tions in speaking to their children than did fathers;
  • mothers generated lengthier and more complex construc­tions in speaking to their eldest child than to their younger children;
  • fathers issued significantly more commands than did mothers, along with more threats and more teasing in the way of name-calling; and
  • the fathers' language also reflected traditional gender roles in the families (such as in an example in which a father, playing a game with his son, directs the son to the mother when the need for a diaper change arises).[16]

In a fair contrast,[clarification needed] male and female daycare teachers generated language that was analogous both quantitatively and qualitatively, with both focusing on dialogue based in the present and on the immediate needs of the children. Differences included that the male teachers tended to address the children by name more often than did the female teachers, and that the male teachers issued more imperatives than did the female teachers.[17]

Acquisition of routines in children[edit]

Gleason's research eventually extended into the study of children's acquisition of routines—​that is, standardized chunks of language (or language-plus-gesture) that the culture expects of everyone, such as greetings, farewells, and expressions of thanks. Gleason was one of the first to study the acquisition of politeness, examining English-speaking children's use of routines such as thank you, please, and I'm sorry. Researchers in this area have since studied both verbal and non-verbal routiniza­tion, and the development of politeness routines in a variety of cultures and languages.[18]

The Halloween routine[edit]

Gleason's 1976 paper with Weintraub, "The Acquisition of Routines in Child Language", analyzed performance on the culturally standardized Halloween Trick or treat routine in 115 children aged two to sixteen years. Alterations in ability and the function of parental contribu­tion were analyzed concerning cognitive and social components. They discovered that in the acquisition of routines (in contrast to acquisition of much of the rest of language) parents' major interest is for their children achieve accurate performance, with little stress on children's understanding of what they are expected to say. Gleason and Weintraub found that the parents rarely if ever explain to children the meaning of such routines as Bye bye or Trick or treat—​there was no concern with the child's thoughts or intentions as long as the routine was performed as expected at the appropriate times. Thus, parents' role in the acquisition of routines is very different from their role in most of the rest of language development.[19]

"Hi, Thanks, and Goodbye"[edit]

External video
Jean Berko Gleason, Hi, Thanks, and Goodbye. NOVA's Secret Life of Scientists and Engineers

Gleason and Greif analyzed children's acquisition of three ubiquitous routines in "Hi, Thanks, and Goodbye: More Routine Information" (1980). Subjects were eleven boys and eleven girls[clarification needed] and their parents (drawn from a larger study of twenty-four children and their parents). At the conclusion of a parent-child play period, an assistant entered the playroom bearing a present, in order to evoke routines from the children. The study's purpose was to analyze how parents communicate these routines to their children; major questions proposed included whether or not some routines were more obligatory than others, and whether mothers and fathers provide different models of politeness behavior for their children. The results suggest that children's spontaneous construction of the three routines was low, with Thank you the rarest. However, parents strongly encouraged their children to generate routines and, typically, the children complied. In addition, parents were more likely to prompt the Thank you routine than the Hi and Goodbye routines. Parents practiced the routines themselves, though mothers were more likely than fathers to speak Thank you and Goodbye to the assistant.[20]

Apologies[edit]

Gleason and Ely made an in-depth study of apologies in children's dialogue in their paper, "I'm sorry I said that: apologies in young children's discourse" (2006),[21] which analyzed apology term usage (in parent-child dialogue) of five boys and four girls, aged one to six years. Their research suggested that apologies appear later in children than do other politeness routines, and that as the children grew older they developed a progressively refined expertise with this routine, gradually requiring fewer direct prompts and producing more elaborate apologies instead of just saying "I'm sorry". They also found that parents and other adults play an important role in fostering growth of apologetic abilities through the setting of examples, by encouraging the children to apologize, and by speaking specifically and purposefully to them about apologies.[21]

Attention to language in family discourse[edit]

With Ely, MacGibbon, and Zaretsky, Gleason also explored the discourse of middle-class parents and their children at the dinner table in, "Attention to Language: Lessons Learned at the Dinner Table" (2001), finding that the everyday language of these parents involves a remarkable portion of attention to language. The dinner-table conversa­tion of twenty-two middle-class families, each with a child between two years and five and one-half years old, were recorded, then analyzed for the existence and activity of language-centered terms, including words like ask, tell, say, and speak. Mothers spoke more about language than did fathers, and fathers spoke more about it than did children: roughly eleven percent of mothers' sentences contained one or more language-centered term, and the corresponding proportions for fathers and children were seven percent and four percent. Uses that were metalinguistic (for example, accounting for and remarking on speech) exceeded uses that were pragmatic (for example, managing how and when speech appears).[22]

The more that mothers used language-centered terms, the more the children did as well—​but this was not true for fathers. The results imply that in routine family conversa­tions, parents supply children with considerable information on the way language is used to communicate information.[22]

Foreign-language studies[edit]

Gleason has carried out significant research involving the learning and maintenance of second languages by sequential bilinguals. She has studied the acquisition of a second language while retaining the first (additive bilingualism),[23] examining discourse behaviors of parents who follow the one person-one language principle by using different languages with their child[24] She has also studied language attrition, the loss of a known language through lack of use,[25] and suggests that the order in which a language is learned is less important in predicting its retention than the thoroughness with which it is learned.[26]

Psychophysiological responses to taboo words[edit]

An unusual study carried out with Harris and Aycicegi, "Taboo words and reprimands elicit greater autonomic reactivity in a first language than in a second language" (2003), investigated the involuntary psychophysiological reactions of bilingual speakers to taboo words. Thirty-two Turkish-English bilinguals judged an array of words and phrases for "pleasantness" in Turkish (their first language), and in English (their second), while their skin conductance was monitored via fingertip electrodes. Participants manifested greater autonomic arousal in response to taboo words and childhood reprimands in their first language than to those in their second language, confirming the commonplace claim that speakers of two languages are less uncomfortable speaking taboo words and phrases in their second language than in their native language.[27]

Maintenance of first and second languages[edit]

In "Maintaining Foreign Language Skills", which discusses "the personal, cultural, and instruc­tional factors involved with keeping up foreign language skills" (1988), Gleason and Pan consider both humans' remarkable capacity for language acquisition language, and their ability to lose it. In addition to brain damage, strokes, trauma and other physical causes of language loss, individuals may lose of language skills due to the absence of a linguistically supportive social environment in which to maintain such skills, such as when a speaker of a given language relocates to a place where that language is not spoken. Culture also factors in. More often than not, individuals speaking two or more languages come into contact with one another, for reasons ranging from emigration and inter­rela­tion­ships to altera­tions in political borders. The result of such contact is typically that the community of speakers undergoes a progressive shift in usage from one language to the other.[28]

Aphasia[edit]

Gleason has also done significant research on aphasia, a condition (usually due to brain injury) in which a person's ability to understand and/or to produce language, including their ability to find the words they need and their use of basic morphology and syntax, is impaired in a variety of ways.[29][30]

In "Some Linguistic Structures in the Speech of a Broca's Aphasic" (1972) Gleason, Goodglass, Bernholtz, and Hyde discuss an experiment carried out with a man who, after a stroke, had been left with Broca's aphasia/agrammatism, a specific form of aphasia typically impairing the production of morphology and syntax more than it impairs comprehension. This experiment employed the Story Completion Test (often used to probe a subject's capacity for producing various common grammatical forms) as well as free conversa­tion and repetition to elicit speech from the subject; this speech was then analyzed to evaluate how well he used inflec­tional morphology (e.g. plural and past tense word endings) and basic syntax (the formation of, for example, simple declarative, imperative, and interrogative sentences).[31]

To do this the investigator, in a few sentences, began a simple story about a pictured situation, then asked the subject to conclude the narrative. The stories were so designed that a non–language-impaired person's response would typically employ particular structures, for example the plural of a noun, the past tense of a verb, or a simple but complete yes-no question (e.g. "Did you take my shoes?").[31]

Gleason, Goodglass, Bernholtz, and Hyde concluded that the transition from verb to object was easier for this subject than was the transition from subject to verb, and that auxiliary verbs and verb inflections were the parts of speech most likely to be omitted by the subject. There was considerable variation among consecutive repeat trials of the same test item, although responses on successive attempts usually came closer to those a normal speaker would have produced. The study concluded that the subject's speech was not the product of a stable abnormal grammar, and could not be accounted for by assuming that he was simply omitting words to minimize his effort in producing them[31]—​questions of significant theoretical controversy at the time.[32]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Very young children are baffled by the question, sometimes responding with two wug. Preschoolers ages 4 to 5 test best in dealing with /z/ after a voiced consonant, and generally say that there are two wugs, with a /z/; they do almost as well with the voiceless /s/. They do less well in dealing with /z/ in other environments such as after nasals, rhotics, and vowels. Children in the first year of primary school were almost fully competent with both /s/ and /z/. Both preschool and first-grade children dealt poorly with /ɨz/, giving the correct answer less than half the time, possibly because it occurs in the most restrictive context. Also, because the root of the test word often ended in /s/ in these cases, the children may have assumed that the word was already in its plural form. Even though the children were all able to produce the real plural "glasses" they generally responded two "tass" rather than two "tasses" when shown more than one nonsense creature called a "tass".[11]
  2. ^ [11] Preschoolers tend to form compounds rather than agentives e.g. a man whose job it is to "zib" is a zibman, and often explain compound words in terms of their cultural, rather than linguistic, features e.g. a birthday is called birthday because one receives presents.

Select publications[edit]

In chronological order

  • Brown, R.; Berko, J. (1960). "Word Associa­tion and the acquisition of grammar". Child Development 31. pp. 1–14. 
  • Goodglass, H.; Berko, J. (1960). "Agrammatism and English inflec­tional morphology". Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 3. pp. 257–267. 
  • Goodglass, H.; Gleason, J. Berko; Hyde, M. (1970). "Some dimensions of auditory language comprehension in aphasia". Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 13 (3). pp. 595–606.  (Editor's Award)[clarification needed]
  • Goodglass, H.; Gleason, J. Berko; Bernholtz, N. A.; Hyde, M. R. (1972). "Some linguistic structures in the speech of a Broca's aphasic". Cortex 8. pp. 191–212. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1973). T. Moore, ed. "Code Switching in Children's Language". Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language (Academic Press). pp. 169–167.[clarification needed]. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Goodglass, H.; Green, E.; Ackerman, N.; Hyde, M. R. (1975). "The retrieval of syntax in Broca's aphasia". Brain and Language 2. pp. 451–71. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1975). "Fathers and Other Strangers: Men's speech to Young Children". 26th Annual Georgetown University Roundtable (Georgetown University Press). pp. 289–97. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Weintraub, S. (1976). "The acquisition of routines in child language". Language in Society 5. pp. 129–36. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1977). C. Ferguson; C. Snow, eds. "Talking to Children: Some Notes on Feedback". Talking to Children: Language Acquisition and Input (Cambridge University Press). pp. 199–205. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1978). A. Caramazza; E. Zurif, eds. "The Acquisition and Dissolu­tion of the English Inflec­tional System". Parallels and Divergencies (The Johns Hopkins University Press). 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Weintraub, S. (1978). K. Nelson, ed. "Input Language and the Acquisition of Communicative Competence". Children's Language 1 (Gardner Press). pp. 171–222. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1979). O. Garnica; M. King, eds. "Sex differences in the language of children and parents: The early evidence". Language, Children, and Society (Pergamon Press). 
  • Goodglass, H.; Blumstein, S.; Gleason, J. Berko; Green, E.; Hyde, M.; Statlender, S. (1979). "The effect of syntactic encoding on sentence comprehension in aphasia". Brain and Language 77. pp. 201–9. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Goodglass, H.; Obler, L.; Green, E.; Hyde, M. R.; Weintraub, S. (1980). "Narrative strategies of aphasic and normal speaking subjects". Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 2. pp. 370–382. 
  • Masur, E.; Gleason, J. Berko (1980). "Parent child interaction and the acquisition of lexical informa­tion during play". Developmental Psychology 16. pp. 404–9. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1980). H. Giles; W. P. Robinson; P. M. Smith, eds. "The acquisition of social speech and politeness formulae". Language: Social Psychological Perspectives (Pergamon Press). pp. 21–7. 
  • Greif, E. B.; Gleason, J. Berko (1980). "Hi, thanks, and goodbye: More routine information". Language in Society 9. pp. 159–66. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1980). "Reflec­tions: The child as informer". Language Arts, May. 
  • Bellinger, D.; Gleason, J. Berko (1982). "Sex differences in parental directives to young children". Journal of Sex Roles 8 (11). pp. 1123–39. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1982). L. Obler; L. Menn, eds. "Converging evidence for linguistic theory from the study of aphasia and child language". Exceptional Language and Linguistics (Academic Press). 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Greif, E. B. (1983). B. Thorne; C. Kramerae; N. Henley, eds. "Men's speech to young children". Language, Gender, and Society (2nd ed.) (Rowley, MA: Newbury House). pp. 140–150. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Goodglass, H. (1984). "Some neurological and linguistic accompaniments of the fluent and nonfluent aphasias". Topics in Language Disorders 4 (3). pp. 71–81. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Perlmann, R. Y.; Greif, E. B. (1984). "What's the magic word: Learning language through routines". Discourse Processes 6 (2). pp. 493–502. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1984). "Exceptional routes to language acquisition. Review of K. Nelson (Ed.), Children's Language". Contemporary Psychology 29 (1). pp. 32–3. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko, ed. (1985). The Development of Language. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Perlmann, R. Y. (1985). H. Giles; R. N. St Clair, eds. "Acquiring social variation in speech". Recent Advances in Language, Communica­tion, and Social Psychology (London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). pp. 86–111. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Reger, Z. (1985). J. Grumet, ed. "Aspects of Language Acquisition by Hungarian Gypsy Children". Papers from the Fourth and Fifth Annual Meetings, Gypsy Lore Society, North American Chapter (New York: Gypsy Lore Society). pp. 76–83. 
  • Pan, B. Alexander; Gleason, J. Berko (Sep 1986). "The study of language loss: Models and hypotheses for an emerging discipline". Applied Psycholin­guistics 7 (3). pp. 193–206. doi:10.1017/S0142716400007530. 
  • Menn, L.; Gleason, J. Berko (1986). J. A. Fishman et al., ed. "Babytalk as a stereotype and register: Adult reports of children's speech patterns". The Fergusonian Impact I (Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter). pp. 111–125. 
  • Kohn, S. E.; Wingfield, A.; Menn, L.; Goodglass, H.; Gleason, J. B.; Hyde, M. H. (1987). "Lexical retrieval: The tip of the tongue phenomenon". Applied Psycholin­guistics 8. pp. 245–66. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1988). F. Kessel, ed. "Language and socializa­tion". The Development of Language and Language Researchers (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). pp. 269–80. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Wolf, M. (1988). "Child language, aphasia, and language disorder: Naming as a window on normal and atypical language processes". Aphasiology 2. pp. 289–94. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Pan, B.A. (1988). J. Berko Gleason, ed. "Maintaining foreign language skills". You CAN Take It With You (Prentice Hall Regents). pp. 1–22. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1991). "Language without Cognition". Science 1252. pp. 116–20. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Ratner, N. Bernstein, eds. (1993). "Psycholin­guistics". Harcourt, Brace. 
  • Perlmann, R. Y.; Gleason, J. Berko (1993). "The neglected role of fathers in children's communicative development". Seminars in Speech and Language 14. pp. 314–24. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Perlmann, R. Y.; Ely, D.; Evans, D. (1994). J. L. Sokolov; C. E. Snow, eds. "The babytalk register: Parents' use of diminutives". Handbook of Research in Language Development Using CHILDES (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1994). "The furnishings of the mind are modular". Contemporary Psychology 39 (3). pp. 314–15. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (1994). C. Roman; S. Juhasz; C. Miller, eds. "Sex differences in parent-child interac­tion". The Women and Language Debate (Rutgers University Press). pp. 254–63. 
  • Tingley, E.; Gleason, J. Berko.; Hooshyar, N. (1994). "Mothers' lexicon of internal state words in speech to children with Down syndrome and to nonhandicapped children at mealtime". Journal of Communica­tion Disorders 27. pp. 135–55. 
  • Ely, R.; Gleason, J. Berko (1995). P. Fletcher; B. MacWhinney, eds. "Socializa­tion across contexts". The Handbook of Child Language (Oxford: Blackwell). pp. 251–70. 
  • Ely, R.; Gleason, J. Berko; McCabe, A. (1996). ""Why didn't you talk to your Mommy, Honey?": Parents' and children's talk about talk". Research on Language and Social Interac­tion 29 (1). pp. 7–25. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Ely, R.; Perlmann, R. Y.; Narasimhan, B. (1996). D. I. Slobin; J. Gerhardt; A. Kyratzis et al., eds. "Patterns of prohibi­tion in parent-child discourse". Social interac­tion, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). pp. 205–217. 
  • Leaper, C.; Gleason, J. Berko (1996). "The relation­ship of play activity and gender to parent and child sex-typed communica­tion". Interna­tional Journal of Behavioral Development 19. pp. 689–703. 
  • Goodglass, H.; Wingfield, A.; Hyde, M. R.; Gleason, J. B.; Bowles, N. L.; Gallagher, R. E. (1997). "The importance of word-initial phonology in prolonged naming efforts by aphasic patients". Journal of the Interna­tional Neuropsychological Society 3. pp. 128–38. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Ely, R. (1997). C. Mandell; A. McCabe, eds. "Input and the acquisition of vocabulary: Examining the parental lexicon". The Problem of Meaning: Behavioral and Cognitive Perspectives (Elsevier). 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Ratner, N. Bernstein., eds. (1998 (Published November 1997)). Psycholinguistics (2nd ed.). Harcourt Brace.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Melzi, G. (1998). "The mutual construc­tion of narrative by mothers and children: Cross cultural observa­tions". Journal of Narrative and Life History 7 (1–4). pp. 217–22. 
  • Ely, R.; Gleason, J. Berko (1998). A. Aksu-Ko; E. Erguvanli-Taylan; A. Sumru Ozsoy et al., eds. "What Color is the Cat? Color Words in Parent-Child Conversa­tions". Perspectives on Language Acquisition: Selected Papers from the VIIth Interna­tional Congress for the Study of Child Language (Istanbul: Bogazici University). 
  • Ely, R.; Gleason, J. Berko; MacGibbon, A.; Zaretsky, E. (2001). "Attention to Language: Lessons Learned at the Dinner Table". Social Development 10 (3). pp. 355–73. 
  • Goodglass, H.; Wingfield, A.; Hyde, M. R.; Gleason, J. Berko; Ward, S. E. (2001). "Aphasics' access to nouns and verbs: Discourse vs. confronta­tion naming". Brain and Language 79 (1). pp. 148–50. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko (2003). "Language Acquisition: Is it Like Learning to Walk, or Learning to Play the Piano?". Contemporary Psychology 48 (2). pp. 172–4. 
  • Harris, C. H.; Aycicegi, A.; Gleason, J. Berko (2003). G. Adelman; B. H. Smith, eds. "Taboo Words and Reprimands Elicit Greater Autonomic Reactivity in a First than in a Second Language". Applied Psycholinguistics (CD-ROM) 24 (3rd ed.) (Elsevier Science). pp. 561–579. 
  • Ely, R.; Gleason, J. Berko (2006). "I'm sorry I said that: Apologies in young children's discourse". Journal of Child Language 33. pp. 599–620. 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Ely, R.; Phillips, B.; Zaretsky, E. (2009). D. Guo; E. Lieven, eds. "Alligators all around: The acquisition of animal terms in English and Russian". Crosslinguistic Approaches to the Psychology of Language: Research in the Tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). 
  • Gleason, J. Berko; Ratner, Nan Bernstein, eds. (2009). "The Development of Language" (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson/​Allyn & Bacon. 

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Jean Berko Gleason, PhD Professor Emerita". Retrieved 28 January 2013. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Lise Menn; Nan Bernstein Ratner (2000). Lise Menn; Nan Bernstein Ratner, eds. In the Beginning Was the Wug. Methods for Studying Language Produc­tion (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates). pp. 1–26. ISBN 0805830332. 
  3. ^ Bonvillain, N. (1993). Language, culture, and communica­tion: the meaning of messages. Prentice Hall. ISBN 9780135226407. 
  4. ^ a b Jean Berko Gleason – Curriculum Vitae 
  5. ^ a b Gleason, Jean Berko (2007). ). Cram101 textbook outlines to accompany: the development of language. Academic Internet Publishers. 
  6. ^ a b c d Sian Griffiths and Helena Kennedy, ed. (1996). Beyond the Glass Ceiling: Forty Women Whose Ideas Shape the Modern World. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-4773-2. 
  7. ^ Skarabela, Barbora (July 2006). "An interview with Jean Berko Gleason". IASCL – Child Language Bulletin 26 (1). Retrieved 4 July 2014. 
  8. ^ "Jean Berko Gleason – Biographical Summary". 
  9. ^ Gleason, Jean Berko; Ratner, Nan Bernstein, eds. (2009). The development of language (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson. ISBN 9780205593033. Retrieved 1 July 2014. 
  10. ^ "Strange News: Silly Science Honored With Ig Nobel Prizes". NPR. November 26, 2010. 
  11. ^ a b c d e f g Berko, Jean (1958). "The Child's Learning of English Morphology". Word: 150–177. 
  12. ^ Topics in Language Acquisition
  13. ^ Balota, David A.; Marsh, Elizabeth J., eds. (2004). Cognitive psychology: key readings. Hove ; New York, N.Y.: Psychology press. p. 526. ISBN 1841690651. 
  14. ^ a b c Nancy Rosenbaum (October 30, 2011). "Sunday Morning Exercise: Take "The Wug Test"". On Being. 
  15. ^ Karmiloff, Kyra; Karmiloff-Smith, Annette (2001), Pathways to Language: From Fetus to Adolescent, Harvard University Press, ISBN 9780674008359 
  16. ^ Gleason, Jean Berko. (1975) "Fathers and other strangers: men's speech to young children". In Daniel P. Dato, ed., Developmental Psycholin­guistics: Theory and Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  17. ^ Gleason, Jean Berko (1975). "Fathers and Other Strangers: Men's speech to Young Children". 26th Annual Roundtable: 289–297. 
  18. ^ Matthews, Danielle, ed. (2014). Pragmatic development in first language acquisition. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. p. 324. ISBN 978-9027234704. 
  19. ^ Gleason, Jean Berko; Weintraub (1976). "The acquisition of routines in child language". Language in Society: 5, 129, 136. 
  20. ^ Gleason, Jean Berko; Greif (1980). "Hi, Thanks, and Goodbye: More Routine Information". Language in Society: 9, 159–166. 
  21. ^ a b Gleason, Jean Berko; Ely (2006). "I'm sorry I said that: apologies in young children's discourse". Journal of Child Language: 33, 599–620. 
  22. ^ a b Gleason, Jean Berko; Ely, MacGibbon & Zaretsky (2001). "Attention to Language: Lessons Learned at the Dinner Table". Social Development 10.3: 5, 129–136. 
  23. ^ Duarte, Joana (2010). Bilingual language proficiency. Munster: Waxmann. p. 32. ISBN 9783830923176. 
  24. ^ Halliday, M. A. K., ed. (1990). Learning, Keeping and Using Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins. ISBN 9781556191046. 
  25. ^ Clark, Eve V. (2003). First language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521629973. 
  26. ^ Schmid, Monika S. (2002). First language attrition, use and maintenance: the case of German Jews in anglophone countries. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. p. 13. ISBN 9789027241351. 
  27. ^ Gleason, Jean Berko; Harris & Aycicegi (2003). "Taboo Words and Reprimands Elicit Greater Autonomic Reactivity in a First than in a Second Language". Applied Pyscholinguistics: 1–22. 
  28. ^ Gleason, Jean Berko; Pan (1988). "Maintaining Foreign Language Skills". You CAN Take It with You: 1–22. 
  29. ^ Menn, Lise, ed. (1990). Agrammatic aphasia a cross-language narrative sourcebook. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. ISBN 9789027273512. 
  30. ^ Rosenberg, Sheldon (1982). Handbook of applied psycholinguistics. Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates. ISBN 9780898591736. 
  31. ^ a b c Gleason, Jean Berko; Goodglass, Bernholtz, Hyde (1972). "Some Linguistic Structures in the Speech of a Broca's Aphasic". Cortex: 191–212. 
  32. ^ Miceli, Gabriele (1998). Gianfranco Denes; Luigi Pizzamiglio, eds. "Grammatical deficits in aphasia". Handbook of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology (Psychology Press). 

External links[edit]