A TWO-YEAR-OLD CHILD S SELF-REFERRING EXPRESSIONS

(1)

147

A TWO-YEAR-OLD CHILD S SELF-REFERRING EXPRESSIONS

Patuan Raja

FKIP Universitas Lampung

Abstract: The present article discusses self-referring expressions used by a two-year-old male child. The study was a parental diary study, and the data the child s spontaneous utterances were gathered through a participant-observation conducted for one year, from age 1;6 to 2;6. During the one-year observation, the subject was recorded to use his own name, saya, aku, and nggi to refer to himself. The child s use of self-referring expressions is then discussed in light of the notion of creative process of language acquisition.

Key words: self-referring expressions, language acquisition, creative process.

Fry (1979) proposes two principles of language acquisition: (1) recognition comes before production, and (2) the system is built up a step at a time. The first principle implies that comprehension of the linguistic environment which a child is exposed to is the general prerequisite of language acquisition. However, Clark and Clark (1977) observe that the path toward acquiring lexical items does not necessarily start with comprehension. Some of the time, a child may use a certain item in his/her production without fully understanding its meaning or its distributional restrictions.

The second principle suggests that the process of the lexico-grammar creation takes some time and does not happen all at once. This is supported by Peters (1986) who says that children acquire language, that is, create lexico-grammar system, by means of repeatedly constructing, testing, and revising hypotheses. Through this process, children construct hypotheses based on language exposure, they test hy-

potheses against language exposure, and they revise hypotheses based on feedback they get from language exposure. This view differs from the nativist s view of language acquisition, which postulates that the process of acquisition is basically a matter of parameter setting (Ingram, 1989). In other words, to the nativist, language acquisition process consists of two phases: pre- and post-parameter setting.

As if to emphasize the centrality of exposure in language acquisition, Bruner (1983) hypothesizes that a child masters some general aspects of communicative use before he makes much progress in either the semantic or syntactic domain. Although Bruner holds that pragmatics, semantics and syntax are not derivable from each other and that their development is independent from one another, he apparently believes that the development of pragmatics, or the communicative use of language, aids, guides, and makes possible the creation of the lexico-grammar system.

(2)

BAHASA DAN SENI, Tahun 35, Nomor 2, Agustus 2007 148

This is supported by Hatch (1978), who claims that the acquisition of communicative ability precedes that form. In this view, known as interactionism, the creation of lexico-grammar is a result of the development of communicative ability. Hatch (1978) believes that One learns how to do conversations, one learns how to interact verbally, and, out of this interaction, syntac- tic structures are developed. In similar vein, Cherry (1979) asserts that ... the so- cial interactions in which the child partici- pates directly in the alternating roles of speaker and listener are among the most important experiences for the child develop- ing communicative competence .

The present article is intended to dis- cuss how an Indonesian two-year-old male child used self-referring terms when he was between the age of 1;6 and 2;6, and exam- ine this use of expressions in light of the notion that language acquisition is a creative process of hypothesis-making, testing, and revising, made possible by communicative use of language.

METHODS

The study was originally aimed at ex- amining the language of a male child in the Telegraphic and Simple Sentence Stages, including lexical, phonological, morpho- logical, syntactic, and semantic aspects (Raja, 2003). The child, Mika, is the fifth in the family; his four elder brothers are Mada, aged 12 at the start of data collection, Mirza, 9, Mara, 5, and Mogi, 3. It was a naturalistic parental participant-observation study since the researcher acted both as an observer and as a participant in the setting in which the data were collected. The linguistic production of the child was recorded for a year, from age 1;6 to 2;6. In the analysis, the year is divided into quarters, Quar- ters 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as into weeks, Week 1 through Week 52, for more detailed discussion.

In addition to the spontaneous utterances that the child produced, the necessary context of his utterances was also recorded, which is of two types: linguistic and situ- ational (Brown and Yule, 1983). Besides, another type of context, i.e., social and psychological environment, was also taken into account, which Ochs (1979) defines as [the] world in which the language user op- erates at any given time... [which is] shaped both by culture-specific values and expecta- tions, and by cognitive and interactional processes that affect language users... All these were first recorded in plain field notes, which were then transformed into classified cards for codification and further analysis. In the analysis, the child s multi- word utterances are classified into two broad categories: non-predicative and predicative, following Miller and Ervin-Tripp (1973), who assert that two constituents put together make a construction which might be either predicative or non-predicative.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Terms of Address

From the very start of the observation, the subject was recorded to have made use of terms of address as pronouns: bapak, ibu, aa [a?a?], and mbak. In addition, he also employed proper names as pronouns, e.g., he used Mika to refer to himself and ada for Aa Mada, aija for Aa Mirza, aa [a:a] for Aa Mara, and nggi for Aa Mogi to refer to his elder brothers.

This is no wonder since his speech community the family he was born into were used to using terms of address and proper names in place of pronouns. Thus, for example, Mada the eldest child would use Mada to refer to himself when talking to the parents and Aa when talking to his younger brothers. He would use bapak and ibu to address his parents and dede or dede plus a proper name, e.g., dede Mika, when

(3)

Raja, A Two-Year-Old Child s Self-Referring Expressions 149

addressing any of his younger brothers.

In addition to Mika, which he pronounced as ika, ngka, or mika, the subject of the present study was recorded to produce three other lexical items to refer to himself during the one-year observation: saya, aku, and nggi.

Self-Referring Expression Saya

The word saya, pronounced by the child as aya or caya, was recorded to occur three times only during the one-year observation: in Weeks 7, 8, 50 (see Extracts¹01 to 03). It seems then that Mika the subject did not really prefer this item over the oth- ers, which were much more frequently used, especially Mika and aku, perhaps because he might have found it ineffective or perhaps because it was simply very rarely used by the members of the small speech community he grew up with.

Extract 01 Saya [1]

F was at his desk. K approached him, ex- tending a pair of socks.

K : Pak, ni. Ni. Ake.

F then squatted, seated K on the floor, and put the socks on.

K : Aki aya. Aki aya. Aki aya. Aki aya aki aya aki aya aki

F : Dah.

(1073) 1;6(3) Extract 02 Saya [2]

F walked to the bathroom. Seeing this, K followed him inside.

K : Pipish. Pipish.

F : Pipis?

F guided K to the large bathroom, but K pointed to the small one.

K : Nini. Nini.

F opened the door, and tried to get hold of

1 In extracts, which are directly taken from classified cards, K stands for Mika, G Mogi, R Mara, Z Mirza, D Mada, M Mother, and F Father.

K s hands to help him climb the two steps up to the toilet bowl. But K pulled his hands and folded them on his chest.

K : Aya. Aya.

He did not want to be held.

F : Ya. Naeklah.

F let him climb up the steps himself.

(1251) 1;6(5) Extract 03 Saya [3]

In the living room. RGK were sitting on the floor crowding Z, who was playing selling food. He had already sold a plate of something to R, who was now enjoying it a number of smallish toys on a piece of paper.

K : Caya. Caya.

Z : Ya.

But Z now looked at G.

Z : Mas yang ini pesen berapa porsi?

G : Ya.

Z : Berapa?

G : Dua.

K : Ika dua.

Z : ... (no response)

Z was busy preparing the dish for G, while G and K looked on.

(3490) 2;5(11)

Self-Referring Expression Aku

The word aku was produced quite pro- ductively and evenly throughout the one- year observation. At first, Mika used it as single-word utterances; the first occurrence was recorded in Week 3, at age 1;6(20) (see Extracts 04 to 06). As he used it, aku was mostly produced when there was some competition in claiming possession over something or in getting a turn at something between him and his elder brothers.

Extract 04 Aku as Single-Word Utterance [1]

ZR were drawing, sitting on the floor in the living room. K approached them. He got hold of one of R s pieces of paper.

Z : Mara! Mara! Kertasnya tuh!

(4)

R looked up, and took his paper from K.

R : Punyaku!

K : Aku. (looking at R)

F : Makanya kasih Dedenya kertas, Mara.

R : Ini aja nih. (giving K another piece) Still facing R, K took it, and held it behind his back, out of R s sight.

K : Aku!

R : Eh! Kamu ini!

K : Amu!

R : Kamu!

K : Amu!

(0456) 1;06(20)

GK sitting on the chairs in the front room.

G was holding his celemek. He got down, spread his celemek on the chair, climbed up again, and sat on his celemek on the chair, looking at K. K had been watching. Now, he got down from his chair, approached G, got hold of G s celemek, and tried to pull it from under G.

K : Aku. Aku.

G looked at K, and pinched K s tummy. K pushed G s hand off his shirt, withdrew, and climbed up the chair he had been sitting on.

(0842) 1;7(7)

M was in the living room, spoon-feeding RG, who were playing, sitting on the floor.

R : Aku dulu.

G : Nggi uwu.

K had been in the front room with F. Now, he got down, and walked to the living room, and approached M.

K : Aku. Aku.

M : Tunggu dong. Sabar. Panas ini.

K : Anash.

M bent and gave K a spoonful. G then approached M.

G : Aku. (note: This is the first time G uttered aku)

M gave G a spoonful.

(0847) 1;7(7)

The first aku in multi-word utterance was recorded five months later in Week 23, at age 1;11(8) (see Extracts 07 to 09). It is interesting to note that the first occurrence (Extract 16) shows that the child was still mixing up the syntactical use of Mika and aku he produced an utterance with two syntactical subjects: aku andi Ika. However, this incidence, which might be taken to mean that to the child there was a definite difference between Mika and aku in terms of semantic and/or pragmatic functions, was recorded to occur once only. In the subse- quent instances of aku in multi-word utterances, the child demonstrated that in his lexico-grammar system the syntactical cate- gory of Mika and that of aku were identical, and thus they were strictly used in comple- mentary distribution.

Extract 07 Aku in Multi-Word Utterance [1]

K had just been washed, standing outside the bathroom. M was drying him. He then pulled the towel away from M.

K : Babapak. Babapak.

K dragged it to F, and F dried him. F then took a bottle of oil, meanwhile K had gone to the bedroom, where ZM were. F followed him and tried to rub his chest.

F : Diem. Diem.

G entered the bedroom.

G : Nggi andi. Nggi ngga andi.

M : Nggak usah. Mogi jangan mandi.

K looked at G.

K : Aku andi Ika.

G looked at K, then looked up at M.

G : Ugi andi!

M : Ganti baju aja ya?

F then dressed K, while M changed G.

(2089) 1;11(8)

G entered the living room. He had been playing outside. He looked at M who was sitting.

(5)

G : Mandi. Mandi Bu. Nggi mandi.

G took off his shorts and shirt, and ran toward the bathroom. K then approached M.

K : Aku andi. Uka, Bu. Uka. Andi.

K pulled and pulled at his shirt, and then M helped him take it off. He then took his shorts off himself, and ran into the bathroom, where G was.

(2127) 1;11(11)

FRK were in the living room. K was holding a toy. R approached him, and tried to take it from him. But K did not give it up.

R : Biarin. Nggak kasih men. Nggak kasih men.

K : Aku meng!

R : Nggak. Biarin. Orang nggak kasih pinjem.

K looked at F.

K : Meng Pak ya? Meng Pak ya?

F : Ya.

K looked at R.

K : Aku meng.

R : Nggak kok. Nggak kasih men.

Biarin.

R then walked to the front room.

(2187) 1;11(14)

Although syntactically identical, Mika and aku were not semantically interchange- able. For one thing, as has been mentioned previously, the members of the small speech community in which the child grew up were not used to using aku to refer to themselves.

Aku must have been an embodiment of the influence of the local language upon them Javanese. At the start of the observation, the family had been living in Malang for one year and a half. Two of the subject s elder brothers went to school in Malang for three years. The researcher himself could not help but notice and even put it down as a note in his fieldnotes what he thought of as the first occurrence of the subject s elder brother Mogi s aku (see Extract 06), when the child was 2;11. As comparison, at age 1;8, when the family had been living in Ma-

lang for three months only, the word aku was not found in Mogi s vocabulary (Raja, 2000).

Fromkin et al. (1990) postulate that ...

in learning a language, children learn which words are taboo and these taboo words differ from one child to another, de- pending on the value system accepted in the family or group in which the child grows up. As one member of the small speech community in which the subject was born into, and an important member at that since he is the father and so serves as an early model for his children, the researcher once felt that the use of aku was reflective of a person who is rather proud, excessively confident, definitely egoistic, and not very cooperative the list is not exhaustive, by the way. Thus, he used to feel that his children should not use it especially when talking to him or to other grown-ups. He might of course be mistaken, but surely this attitude must have been reflected in his verbal behavior. And, apparently, the mother of the child as well as a friend of the family shared this attitude (see Extracts 10 to 13).

In Extract 10, the subject s mother re- acted to his aku with affection. Never- theless, she was actually sending a message that there was something not fitting in what he had said. Also, his response in the form of a shy smile might indicate that he received her message all right. One thing for sure is that, if he had used ika or ngka in- stead of aku, his mother might not have re- acted the way she did. In Extract 11, he received a response in the form of an explo- sion of laughter from a socially significant and physically impressive male grown-up in response to his aku. The sudden, loud, yet somehow friendly laugh might have been triggered by a number of things working together at the same time, but the child s aku must have been one of them.

From his father (Extracts 12 and 13), he received a different response which somehow made him change his aku to ika. In Ex-

(6)

tract 12, the change was accompanied with a cooperative particle ya Pak, and in Extract 13, it was accompanied with a phonological change from teh to the diminutive nteh.

These corrective changes seemed to affect the quality of his father s further response as well: more talkative and amiable in Ex- tract 12 and less threatening in Extract 13.

Extract 10 Aku: Sociolinguistic Rule [1]

K was lying face-down on the mattress in the living room, and M was sitting near him. K then broke wind.

M : Ih kentut. Siapa yang kentut?

K : Aku.

M : Aku!

M then reached for K, and tried to roll him over.

M : Aku! Coba lihat. Yang mana sih aku itu?

K rolled over, and looked at M, smiling shyly and then covering his face with his celemek.

(2332) 2;1(3)

Om Zul, a friend of the family, was visiting.

He intended to leave and F prepared to take him home with the motorcycle. OzMRGK were in the living room when F got out of the bedroom, handing a coat to Oz. G looked up.

G : Bapak au ana? Eja?

F : Bapak mau pergi sebentar. Nganter Om Zul.

K : Aku ikuk dong. (Aku ikut dong) Oz : Ha... ha... ha... ha... (laughing loud) Oz then bent down and lifted K up.

F : Nggak. Bapak sebentar kok.

(2334) 2;1(3)

F was sitting at his desk. There was his cof- fee glass with only the dregs in it. K approached him.

K : Tuh. Bapak inum api.

F : Abis.

K : Abish? Aku? Aku?

F : ... (not responding, just looking at K) K : Ika ya Pak?

F : Iya. Tadi Mika minum kopi Bapak ya?

K : ... (smiling at F)

F then lifted K, and seated him on his lap.

(2413) 2;1(10)

F was at his desk. K walked to the cupboard shelf. He got hold of a bag-tea box, and toyed with it.

F : Tarok, Mika. Tarok. Punya Ibu itu.

K : Aku teh Pak ya?

F : Bapak bilang tarok. Bukan maenin.

K : Ika nteh Pak ya? (Mika teh Pak ya?) F : Ya. Tarok.

K put the box back on the shelf, and walked away.

(3643) 2;1(29)

The previous lengthy discussion is meant to point out that at least by age 2;1 the subject was to some extent aware of the existence of sociolinguistic rules of who- speaks-to-whom as well as of the con- notative load the sociolinguistic signifi- cance of some lexical items, especially self-referring terms ika and aku, and that he was capable of successfully repairing and adjusting his linguistic output to the demand of these subtle rules.

However, Mika continued to use aku to refer to himself when talking to his parents and to his elder brothers up to the end of the observation. This might be because after some time living in Malang the family learned that aku in Bandar Lampung is semantically not the same as aku in Malang and might have different sociolinguistic significances. Whatever factors underlied it, this certainly shows that the linguistic norms of the larger community of the child, which might be competing and conflicting with those of his immediate family, seemed to be more influential, especially concern-

(7)

ing the use of aku.

Self-Referring Expression Nggi

In addition to the lexical items Mika, saya, and aku, the subject of the present study for a period of twenty weeks from Week 4 to Week 23, i.e., from age 1;6(22) to age 1;11(4), was observed to also use another lexical item (see Extracts 14 to 17) to refer to himself: nggi, which was actually the subject s elder brother Mogi s version of his own name. In other words, nggi was used by Mogi to refer to himself, much the same as ika was used by Mika the subject to refer to himself. Altogether there were as many as 20 instances of nggi recorded in the classified cards.

The first and second instances were recorded on the same day (Extracts 14 and 15). This phenomenon was so strange that the researcher specifically put a note on the second recording (Extract 15). In the twelfth instance of its occurrence, the child s mother became explicitly aware of his pecu- liar way of referring to himself, and then she even tried to correct him (Extract 16).

Similar to the first, the last recorded instance (Extract 17) would have gone unno- ticed since Mogi was there in the setting if there had previously been no other records of the subject s using his elder brother s name to refer to himself.

Extract 14 Nggi [1]

F had just finished preparing RGK their fa- vorite bowl of noodle. Now they stood crowding around F who was sitting on the bench in the living room, holding the bowl.

R : Mara dulu.

G : Nggi dulu.

K : Nggi u.

F : Ya. Ya. Tunggu. (blowing at the hot noodle)

K : Uwu. Uwu. Uwu. (giving G a chal- lenging look)

G : ... (no response) R : Aku, aku.

F gave R a spoonful of noodle.

K : Mam. Bapak, mam. (closing in) F then gave K a spoonful.

(0499) 1;6(22) Extract 15 Nggi [2]

F walked to the bedroom, taking off his shirt. K followed him.

K : Nggi kuk, Pak.

F : Bapak nggak kemana-mana kok.

K : Bapak, Nggi kuk. Nggi kuk.

F : Bapak nggak kemana-mana!

F hung his shirt behind the door, looked at K a second, and started to the bathroom. K then walked to the living room.

Note: This is the second time today that K used nggi to refer to himself.

(0504) 1;6(22) Extract 16 Nggi [3]

FMK were in the front room. K was standing on the couch looking outside. T happened to walk in the street M asked her to buy something. K then shouted.

K : Mbaaak! Nggi kuk!

But T did not hear him, and passed by. M looked at F.

M : Dia mah Nggi ya?

F : ...

M then faced K, and touched K s chest.

M : Ini siapa ini?

K : Ika.

M : Iya. Bukan Nggi!

K : ... (no response, just looking at M) (0678) 1;6(29)

Extract 17 Nggi [4]

FZRGK were in the living room, watching TV. K had been sitting on F s lap but now he got down. Seeing this, G came to F, and tried to sit on his lap. F helped him up. K now came back, and looked at F.

K : Eh. Eh. Ni. Ni. Nggi ni.

F : O ya. Ntar. Aa Mogi di sini. (seating G on his left thigh). Dede Mika sini. (lifting K and seating him on his right thigh)

R : Udah pernah ini! (commenting on

(8)

the film on TV)

Z : Iya! Udah pernah ya!

R : Iya. Watu... (continuing his com- ment)

K looked at G.

K : Ama. Ama, A, ya? Ama, ya?

But G did not look at K. He was looking at the tv screen.

G : Beyom.

Z : ... (no response) R : ... (no response) (2024) 1;11(4)

This phenomenon might be originated from the conversational strategy that Mika employed of imitating what his elder brother said. Although only an imitation or even a repetition, it did fulfill a pragmatic function. At least, it could indicate his pres- ence to his interlocutor, and it could even help him perform a turn in a conversation.

This shows that the child had demonstrated the competence to make his illocution un- derstood by his interlocutors before he showed an adequate mastery of the lexico- grammar needed to encode the message for the illocution. Quite in the same vein, Carter (1979) finds that eight classes of prelin- guistic communicative behavior exhaus- tively ... [made up] a communication system existing before any appreciable convention- alization had occurred. In other words, he claims that, before acquiring lexico- grammar, his subject had already possessed and utilized a non-linguistic system of communication. This phenomenon, then, might be taken to somehow support the po- sition that communicative use of language aids, guides, and makes possible the creation of the lexico-grammar system.

Language Acquisition as a Creative Pro- cess

The subject s borrowing, using, and eventually abandoning a certain lexical item which served as a pronoun of some short in

his lexico-grammar system somehow clari- fies the creative process of language acquisition a process of making, testing, and revising hypotheses. He borrowed nggi since he had been exposed to his brother s way of self-referring. He obviously postu- lated a hypothesis that nggi was a generic self-referring expression, like the pronoun saya. In his daily interactions, he then tested this hypothesis against the available linguistic exposure. He obtained various inputs, including that from his mother (Extract 16).

Based on these, he revised his hypothesis abandoning the whole idea that he could employ nggi to refer to himself. This lends confirmation to Peters (1986) proposition that language acquisition is a process of hypothesis making, testing and, revising, made possible by communicative use of language.

This phenomenon of borrowing, using, and eventually abandoning a certain self- referring expression might be related to the tension between competence and langue.

On the one hand, there is Chomsky s competence which permits language users to exercise a lot of creativity. On the other hand, there is Saussure s langue which imposes limits to this creativity through collective solidarity and loyalty. Mika showed inner creativity when he borrowed his elder brother s way of self-referring nggi and used it in his lexico-grammar system as a way to refer to himself. However, the lexico-grammar systems of the people around him, which he should observe if he wanted to be not only comfortably under- stood by but also socially identified with them, imposed restriction on this particular linguistic creativity. In Extract 16, his mother even articulated this restriction explicitly by in effect saying, If you want to refer to yourself, use ika not nggi. Thus, the phenomenon nggi might reflect the ever-contesting forces of an individual s linguistic competence and the imposing so- cietal langue.

Concerning this opposition between

(9)

langue and competence, St. Clair (1980) ob- serves that, The Saussurean concept of langue... is a social fact that exists outside the individual... The Chomskyean concept of competence is a psychological fact, and it exists within the individual... Langue is Saussure s term to mean the language system shared by a community of speakers, other terms for which are collective mind, collective consciousness, and collective competence (Crystal, 1991; Richards et al., 1992; and St. Clair, 1980). Thus, langue exists as a social fact and resides outside the individual speakers. On the other hand, competence is the famous Chomsky s term to refer to the system of rules that native speakers have so that they are able to produce and understand an infinite number of sentences (Crystal, 1991; Richards et al., 1992; and St. Clair, 1980). Thus, competence is a psychological fact and rests within the minds of the individual speakers.

A printed dictionary of a language would be a good example of an attempt to record the collective lexical knowledge shared by the community of speakers of the language, i.e., the lexical aspect of langue. On the other hand, the words of the language that the individual speakers have mastered and can use actively as well as passively reasonably with varying depth and breadth from one speaker to another would consti- tute the lexical aspect of their linguistic competence. Leech (1977) labels it the in- built dictionary which everyone of us car- ries around as part of his mental equipment as a speaker of a language .

For some reason, undoubtedly pressed by his needs to express certain meanings, Mika the subject of the present study had reached the point where he had to borrow his brother s way of self-reference, the be- ginning of which could very likely have happened by chance. This should be related to the competence, the psychological fact of language, which permits a lot of individual creativity on the part of its speakers. How-

ever, there evidently seem to be external restrictions to this inner creativity. The fact is that, although the people with whom he in- teracted were capable of understanding him whenever he used his borrowed nggi, they, notably his mother, did not readily approve of such conduct (Extract 16). For the child, then, these people, or more accurately the lexico-grammar systems of these people, should be the embodiment of the langue, the social fact of language, which imposes a degree of collective solidarity and loyalty on its speakers.

Thus, the tension between inner creative competence and social conven-tional system might serve to account for the phenomenon that children in acquiring a first language might be so creative as to borrow in a sense, create a self-referring expression, use it communicatively quite successfully for some time, and then aban- don it.

CONCLUSION

The present article concerns self- referring expressions used by a two-year old: own name, saya, aku, and nggi. To conclude, a number of things could be for- warded. First of all, at age 2 the child ap- peared to have been aware of the existence of sociolinguistic rules of who-speaks-to- whom as well as of the socio-linguistic sig- nificance of some lexical items, especially self-referring terms ika and aku, and that he was capable of successfully repairing and adjusting his linguistic output to the demand of these subtle rules of speaking.

Secondly, the linguistic norms of the larger community of the child, meaning in this case the speech community of Malang, which might be competing with and conflicting the linguistic norms of his immediate family, seemed to be more influential, as shown by the fact that he was recorded to continue using self-refering aku in his speech throughout the observation year.

(10)

Third, the child s borrowing, using, and eventually abandoning a certain lexical item, nggi, to serve as a pronoun of some sort in his lexico-grammar system might reflect the ever-contesting forces of an individual s linguistic creative competence and the society s imposing conventional langue.

Finally, the nggi phenomenon could also be taken to reflect the basic processes through which children acquire language repeatedly constructing, testing, and revising hypotheses, which is made possible by exposure. From exposure hypotheses are drawn, against exposure they are tested, and based on feedback from exposure they are revised.

REFERENCES

Brown, G., and Yule, G. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Bruner, J. 1983. The Social Context of Lan- guage Acquisition. In Harris, R. (Ed.), Approaches to Language. Oxford: Per- gamon Press.

Carter, A. L. 1979. The Disappearance Schema: Case Study of a Second-Year Communicative Behavior. In Ochs, E., and Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.), Develop- mental Pragmatics. New York: Aca- demic Press.

Cherry, L. J. 1979. A Sociocognitive Ap- proach to Language Development and Its Implications for Education. In Garnica, O. K., and King, M. L. (Eds.), Language, Children and Society: The Effect of So- cial Factors on Children Learning to Communicate. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Clark, H. H. and Clark, E. V. 1977. Psy- chology and Language: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics. San Diego: Har- court Brace Jovanovich.

Crystal, D. 1991. A Dictionary of Linguis- tics and Phonetics, 3^rdedition. Oxford:

Basil Blackwell.

Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., Collins, P., and

Blair, D. 1990. An Introduction to Lan- guage. Sydney: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Fry, D. 1979. How Did We Learn to Do It?

In Lee, V. (Ed.), Language Development.

London: Open University Press.

Hatch, E. M. 1978. Discourse analysis and second language acquisition. In Hatch, E.

M. (Ed.), Second language acquisition:

A book of reading. Rowley, Massa- chusetts: Newbury House Publishers.

Ingram, D. 1989. First Language Acquisi- tion: Method, Description, and Explana- tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leech, G. 1977. Semantics. New York:

Penguin Books.

Miller, W. R., and Ervin-Tripp, S. M. 1973.

The Development of Grammar in Child Language. In Ferguson, C. A., and Slo- bin, D. I. (Eds.), Studies of Child Lan- guage Development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ochs, E. 1979. Introduction: What Child Language Can Contribute to Pragmatics.

In Ochs, E., and Schieffelin, B. B. (Eds.), Developmental Pragmatics. New York:

Academic Press.

Peters, A. M. 1986. Early Syntax. In Fletcher, P., and Garman, M. (Eds.), Language Acquisition: Studies in First Language Development. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Raja, P. 2000. The Phonological Processes of Two Indonesian Children in the Tele- graphic Stage. Paper presented at The Fourth International Symposium on Ma- lay/Indonesian Linguistics (ISMIL 4), Jakarta, 26-27 July 2000.

Raja, P. 2003. The Language of an Indone- sian Child Named Mika in the Tele- graphic and Simple Sentence Stages.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ma- lang: Universitas Negri Malang.

Richards, J. C., Platt, J., and Platt, H. 1992.

Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. Essex:

(11)

Longman.

(12)

St. Clair, R. N. 1980. The Contexts of Lan- guage. In St. Clair, R. N., and Giles, H.

(Eds.), The Social and Psychological Contexts of Language. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.