Ultraconserved words point to deep language ancestry across Eurasia

The search for ever deeper relationships among the World’s languages is bedeviled by the fact that most words evolve too rapidly to preserve evidence of their ancestry beyond 5,000 to 9,000 y. On the other hand, quantitative modeling indicates that some “ultraconserved” words exist that might be used to find evidence for deep linguistic relationships beyond that time barrier. Here we use a statistical model, which takes into account the frequency with which words are used in common everyday speech, to predict the existence of a set of such highly conserved words among seven language families of Eurasia postulated to form a linguistic superfamily that evolved from a common ancestor around 15,000 y ago. We derive a dated phylogenetic tree of this proposed superfamily with a time-depth of ∼14,450 y, implying that some frequently used words have been retained in related forms since the end of the last ice age. Words used more than once per 1,000 in everyday speech were 7- to 10-times more likely to show deep ancestry on this tree. Our results suggest a remarkable fidelity in the transmission of some words and give theoretical justification to the search for features of language that might be preserved across wide spans of time and geography.

“Bad talk” made good: language variety in four Caribbean British children’s poets

This article looks at how four British-based poets born in the Caribbean exploit the rich language repertoire available to them in their work for children and young people. Following initial consideration of questions of definition and terminology, poetry collections by James Berry, John Agard, Grace Nichols and Valerie Bloom are discussed, with a focus on the interplay and creative tension between the different varieties of Caribbean creoles (“Bad Talk”) and standard English evident in their work. Variation both between the four poets’ usage and within each individual poet’s work is considered, and a trend over time towards the inclusion of fewer creole-influenced poems is noted. This and other issues, such as the labelling of the four poets’ work as ‘performance poetry’ and the nature of the poets’ contribution to British children’s literature, are considered in the conclusion.

Linguistic interfaces and language acquisition in childhood: introduction to the special issue

Much contemporary L1 acquisition theory and empirical research are guided by the hypothesis that acquisition delays in children are often related to the integration of information across grammatical and other cognitive modules, such as syntax and discourse-pragmatics (see e.g., Grinstead, 2010). This special issue brings together cutting edge research from all relevant paradigms addressing interface issues in child language acquisition and provides a platform for the study of the interaction between different levels of linguistic knowledge. In this introduction, we present the reader with the tools needed to best understand the contributions of the individual studies and what they bring to bear on larger theoretical questions as a collective.

Why all counter-evidence to the critical period hypothesis in second language acquisition is not equal or problematic

That adult and child language acquisitions differ in route and outcome is observable. Notwithstanding, there is controversy as to what this observation means for the Critical Period Hypothesis’ (CPH) application to adult second language acquisition (SLA). As most versions of the CPH applied to SLA claim that differences result from maturational effects on in-born linguistic mechanisms, the CPH has many implications that are amendable to empirical investigation. To date, there is no shortage of literature claiming that the CPH applies or does not apply to normal adult SLA. Herein, I provide an epistemological discussion on the conceptual usefulness of the CPH in SLA (cf. Singleton 2005) coupled with a review of Long's (2005) evaluation of much available relevant research. Crucially, I review studies that Long did not consider and conclude differently that there is no critical/sensitive period for L2 syntactic and semantic acquisition.