No abstract

Family systems theory and attachment theory have important similarities and complementarities. Here we consider two areas in which the theories converge: (a) in family system theorists' description of an overly close, or "enmeshed," mother-child dyad, which attachment theorists conceptualize as the interaction of children's ambivalent attachment and mothers' preoccupied attachment; (b) in family system theorists' description of the "pursuer-distance cycle" of marital conflict, which attachment theorists conceptualize as the interaction of preoccupied and dismissive partners. We briefly review family systems theory evidence, and more extensively review attachment theory evidence, pertaining to these points of convergence. We also review cross-cultural research, which leads us to conclude that the dynamics described in both theories reflect, in part, Western ways of thinking and Western patterns of relatedness. Evidence from Japan suggests that extremely close ties between mother and child are perceived as adaptive, and are more common, and that children experience less adverse effects from such relationships than do children in the West. Moreover, in Japan there is less emphasis on the importance of the exclusive spousal relationship, and less need for the mother and father to find time alone to rekindle romantic, intimate feelings and to resolve conflicts by openly communicating their differences. Thus, the "maladaptive" pattern frequently cited by Western theorists of an extremely close mother-child relationship, an unromantic, conflictual marriage characterized by little verbal communication and a peripheral, distant father, may function very differently in other cultures. While we believe that both theories will be greatly enriched by their integration, we caution against the application of either theory outside the cultures in which they were developed.

A body part as object (BPO) gesture is one of the error patterns in apraxia. In the BPO gesture, people represent objects by their hands. To clarify the neuronal background of the BPO gesture, we compared the brain activation during the BPO gesture with that during ordinary pantomime in normal subjects using functional magnetic resonance imaging. Both the BPO gesture and the pantomime induced activation in the left parietal areas (Brodmann's area (BA) 7, 40), irrespective of the hand used. These areas might be activated by a common process of tool-related gestures. The BPO gesture also activated the right supramarginal gyrus (BA 40). This activation might reflect the characteristic process of BPO, the correlation of hands with tools by their forms and movements.

The research described in this paper examined how Japanese and Chinese children learn the classifier system. The acquisition of the classifier system is worthy of investigation because the nature of the classifier lexicon is very different from that of the noun lexicon, even though both nouns and classifiers deal with the classification of objects and other entities in the world. We believe that comparing the acquisition patterns of the two classes of words and identifying similarities and differences will give us important insights into the nature of lexical acquisition. Lexical nature of numerical classifiersNumerical classifiers are lexical items that are attached to a noun when quantity is specified. Their status is somewhat similar to quantifiers in English such as a piece of, a portion of. The important difference between English quantifiers and numerical classifiers is that English quantifiers are used for quantifying only mass nouns, while grammar demands that numerical classifiers be applied to all nouns when quantifying them. Thus, in quantifying, Abstract: Classifiers are like nouns in that they classify entities in the world into lexical categories. However, the lexical nature of the classifier system is very different from that of nouns. We discuss how Japanese and Chinese children learn the meanings of classifiers. We focus on two specific questions: How classifier acquisition is different from noun acquisition; and what the prerequisites are for spontaneously extracting the meanings of classifiers. It is shown that children are very conservative in assigning meaning to classifiers. The pace of learning largely depends on semantic complexity, across languages and within each language. Furthermore, we suspect that learning the meanings of classifiers requires a certain cognitive ability -an ability to synthesize pieces of partial knowledge and form them into a cohesive whole. It may be only when children have developed such an ability that they are able to extract the complex semantic rules of classifiers on their own. We conclude that children take very different routes in learning nouns and classifiers: Unlike noun acquisition, classifier acquisition is guided by a slow, bottom-up process.