document_title: Language acquisition

question_text: the emergentist model of language acquisition claims that language emerges primarily from

text: Language acquisition

text: History[edit]

text: Philosophers in ancient societies were interested in how humans acquired the ability to understand and produce language well before empirical methods for testing those theories were developed, but for the most part they seemed to regard language acquisition as a subset of man's ability to acquire knowledge and learn concepts.[6] Some early observation-based ideas about language acquisition were proposed by Plato, who felt that word-meaning mapping in some form was innate. Additionally, Sanskrit grammarians debated for over twelve centuries whether humans' ability to recognize the meaning of words was god-given (possibly innate) or passed down by previous generations and learned from already established conventions: a child learning the word for cow by listening to trusted speakers talking about cows.[7]

text: In a more modern context, empiricists, like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, argued that knowledge (and, for Locke, language) emerge ultimately from abstracted sense impressions. These arguments lean towards the "nurture" side of the argument: that language is acquired through sensory experience, which led to Rudolf Carnap's Aufbau, an attempt to learn all knowledge from sense datum, using the notion of "remembered as similar" to bind them into clusters, which would eventually map into language.[8]

text: Proponents of behaviorism argued that language may be learned through a form of operant conditioning. In B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behaviour (1957), he suggested that the successful use of a sign, such as a word or lexical unit, given a certain stimulus, reinforces its "momentary" or contextual probability. Since operant conditioning is contingent on reinforcement by rewards, a child would learn that a specific combination of sounds stands for a specific thing through repeated successful associations made between the two. A "successful" use of a sign would be one in which the child is understood (for example, a child saying "up" when he or she wants to be picked up) and rewarded with the desired response from another person, thereby reinforcing the child's understanding of the meaning of that word and making it more likely that he or she will use that word in a similar situation in the future. Some empiricist theories of language acquisition include the statistical learning theory. Charles F. Hockett of language acquisition, relational frame theory, functionalist linguistics, social interactionist theory, and usage-based language acquisition.

text: Skinner's behaviourist idea was strongly attacked by Noam Chomsky in a review article in 1959, calling it "largely mythology" and a "serious delusion."[9] Arguments against Skinner's idea of language acquisition through operant conditioning include the fact that children often ignore language corrections from adults. Instead, children typically follow a pattern of using an irregular form of a word correctly, making errors later on, and eventually returning to the proper use of the word. For example, a child may correctly learn the word "gave" (past tense of "give"), and later on use the word "gived". Eventually, the child will typically go back to learning the correct word, "gave". The pattern is difficult to attribute to Skinner's idea of operant conditioning as the primary way that children acquire language. Chomsky argued that if language were solely acquired through behavioral conditioning, children would not likely learn the proper use of a word and suddenly use the word incorrectly.[10] Chomsky believed that Skinner failed to account for the central role of syntactic knowledge in language competence. Chomsky also rejected the term "learning", which Skinner used to claim that children "learn" language through operant conditioning.[11] Instead, Chomsky argued for a mathematical approach to language acquisition, based on a study of syntax.

text: General approaches[edit]

text: A major debate in understanding language acquisition is how these capacities are picked up by infants from the linguistic input.[12] Input in the linguistic context is defined as "All words, contexts, and other forms of language to which a learner is exposed, relative to acquired proficiency in first or second languages". Nativists such as Noam Chomsky have focused on the hugely complex nature of human grammars, the finiteness and ambiguity of the input that children receive, and the relatively limited cognitive abilities of an infant. From these characteristics, they conclude that the process of language acquisition in infants must be tightly constrained and guided by the biologically given characteristics of the human brain. Otherwise, they argue, it is extremely difficult to explain how children, within the first five years of life, routinely master the complex, largely tacit grammatical rules of their native language.[13] Additionally, the evidence of such rules in their native language is all indirect—adult speech to children cannot encompass what children know by the time they've acquired their native language.[14]

text: Other scholars, however, have resisted the possibility that infants' routine success at acquiring the grammar of their native language requires anything more than the forms of learning seen with other cognitive skills, including such mundane motor skills as learning to ride a bike. In particular, there has been resistance to the possibility that human biology includes any form of specialization for language. This conflict is often referred to as the "nature and nurture" debate. Of course, most scholars acknowledge that certain aspects of language acquisition must result from the specific ways in which the human brain is "wired" (a "nature" component, which accounts for the failure of non-human species to acquire human languages) and that certain others are shaped by the particular language environment in which a person is raised (a "nurture" component, which accounts for the fact that humans raised in different societies acquire different languages). The as-yet unresolved question is the extent to which the specific cognitive capacities in the "nature" component are also used outside of language.

text: Social interactionism[edit]

text: Social interactionist theory is an explanation of language development emphasizing the role of social interaction between the developing child and linguistically knowledgeable adults. It is based largely on the socio-cultural theories of Soviet psychologist Lev Vygotsky, and made prominent in the Western world by Jerome Bruner.[15]

text: Unlike other approaches, it emphasizes the role of feedback and reinforcement in language acquisition. Specifically, it asserts that much of a child's linguistic growth stems from modeling of and interaction with parents and other adults, who very frequently provide instructive correction.[16] It is thus somewhat similar to behaviorist accounts of language, though it differs substantially in that it posits the existence of a social-cognitive model and other mental structures within children (a sharp contrast to the "black box" approach of classical behaviorism).

text: Another key idea within the theory of social interactionism is that of the zone of proximal development. Briefly, this is a theoretical construct denoting the set of tasks a child is capable of performing with guidance, but not alone.[17] As applied to language, it describes the set of linguistic tasks (proper syntax, suitable vocabulary usage, etc.) a child cannot carry out on their own at a given time, but can learn to carry out if assisted by an able adult.

text: Relational frame theory[edit]

text: The relational frame theory (RFT) (Hayes, Barnes-Holmes, Roche, 2001), provides a wholly selectionist/learning account of the origin and development of language competence and complexity. Based upon the principles of Skinnerian behaviorism, RFT posits that children acquire language purely through interacting with the environment. RFT theorists introduced the concept of functional contextualism in language learning, which emphasizes the importance of predicting and influencing psychological events, such as thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, by focusing on manipulable variables in their context. RFT distinguishes itself from Skinner's work by identifying and defining a particular type of operant conditioning known as derived relational responding, a learning process that, to date, appears to occur only in humans possessing a capacity for language. Empirical studies supporting the predictions of RFT suggest that children learn language via a system of inherent reinforcements, challenging the view that language acquisition is based upon innate, language-specific cognitive capacities.[18]

text: Emergentism[edit]

text: Emergentist theories, such as MacWhinney's competition model, posit that language acquisition is a cognitive process that emerges from the interaction of biological pressures and the environment. According to these theories, neither nature nor nurture alone is sufficient to trigger language learning; both of these influences must work together in order to allow children to acquire a language. The proponents of these theories argue that general cognitive processes subserve language acquisition and that the end result of these processes is language-specific phenomena, such as word learning and grammar acquisition. The findings of many empirical studies support the predictions of these theories, suggesting that language acquisition is a more complex process than many believe.[19]

text: Syntax and morphology[edit]

text: As syntax began to be studied more closely in the early 20th century, in relation to language learning, it became apparent to linguists, psychologists, and philosophers that knowing a language was not merely a matter of associating words with concepts, but that a critical aspect of language involves knowledge of how to put words together—sentences are usually needed in order to communicate successfully, not just isolated words.[6] A child will use short expressions such as Bye-bye Mummy or All-gone milk, which actually are combinations of individual nouns and an operator,[20] before it begins to use gradually more complex sentences. In the 1990s within the Principles and Parameters framework, this hypothesis was extended into a maturation-based Structure building model of child language regarding the acquisition of functional categories. In this model, children are seen as gradually building up more and more complex structures, with Lexical categories (like noun and verb) being acquired before Functional-syntactic categories (like determiner and complementiser).[21] When acquiring a language, it is also often found, in languages such as English, that the most frequently used verbs are irregular verbs.[citation needed] Young children first begin to learn the past tense of verbs individually; however, when they acquire a "rule", such as adding -ed to form the past tense, they begin to exhibit occasional overgeneralization errors (e.g. "runned", "hitted") alongside correct past-tense forms. One influential proposal to the origin of these errors is as follows: the adult state of grammar stores each irregular verb form in memory as well as a "block" on the use of the regular rule for forming that type of verb. In the developing child's mind, retrieval of that "block" may fail, causing the child to erroneously apply the regular rule instead of retrieving the irregular.[22][23]

text: Generativism[edit]

text: Generative grammar, associated especially with the work of Noam Chomsky, is currently one of the approaches to children's acquisition of syntax.[24] The leading idea is that human biology imposes narrow constraints on the child's "hypothesis space" during language acquisition. In the principles and parameters framework, which has dominated generative syntax since Chomsky's (1980) Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, the acquisition of syntax resembles ordering from a menu: the human brain comes equipped with a limited set of choices, from which the child selects the correct options by using the parents' speech, in combination with the context.[25]

text: An important argument, which favors the generative approach, is the poverty of the stimulus argument. The child's input (a finite number of sentences encountered by the child, together with information about the context in which they were uttered) is, in principle, compatible with an infinite number of conceivable grammars. Moreover, few, if any, children can rely on corrective feedback from adults when they make a grammatical error, due to the fact that adults generally provide feedback regardless of whether a child's utterance was grammatical or not, and children have no way of discerning if a response was intended to be a correction. Additionally, when children do understand that they are being corrected, they don't always reproduce accurate restatements.[dubious – discuss][26][27] Yet barring situations of medical abnormality or extreme privation, all the children in a given speech-community converge on very much the same grammar by the age of about five years. An especially dramatic example is provided by children who, for medical reasons, are unable to produce speech and, therefore, can never be corrected for a grammatical error but nonetheless, converge on the same grammar as their typically developing peers, according to comprehension-based tests of grammar.[28][29]

text: Considerations such as those have led Chomsky, Jerry Fodor, Eric Lenneberg and others to argue that the types of grammar the child needs to consider must be narrowly constrained by human biology (the nativist position).[30] These innate constraints are sometimes referred to as universal grammar, the human "language faculty", or the "language instinct".[31]

text: Empiricism[edit]

text: Although Chomsky's theory of a generative grammar has been enormously influential in the field of linguistics since the 1950s, many criticisms of the basic assumptions of generative theory have been put forth by cognitive-functional linguistics, who argue that language structure is created through language use.[32] These linguists argue that the concept of a language acquisition device (LAD) is unsupported by evolutionary anthropology, which tends to show a gradual adaptation of the human brain and vocal cords to the use of language, rather than a sudden appearance of a complete set of binary parameters delineating the whole spectrum of possible grammars ever to have existed and ever to exist.[33] On the other hand, cognitive-functional theorists use this anthropological data to show how human beings have evolved the capacity for grammar and syntax to meet our demand for linguistic symbols. (Binary parameters are common to digital computers, but may not be applicable to neurological systems such as the human brain.)[citation needed]

text: Further, the generative theory has several constructs (such as movement, empty categories, complex underlying structures, and strict binary branching) that cannot possibly be acquired from any amount of linguistic input. It is unclear that human language is actually anything like the generative conception of it. Since language, as imagined by nativists, is unlearnably complex,[citation needed] subscribers to this theory argue that it must, therefore, be innate.[34] Nativists hypothesize that some features of syntactic categories exist before a child is exposed to any experience - categories on which the child maps words of their language as they learn their native language.[35] A different theory of language, however, may yield different conclusions. While all theories of language acquisition posit some degree of innateness, they vary in how much value they place on this innate capacity to acquire language. Empiricism places less value on the innate knowledge, arguing instead that the input, combined with both general and language-specific learning capacities, is sufficient for acquisition.[36]

text: Since 1980, linguists studying children, such as Melissa Bowerman,[37] and psychologists following Jean Piaget, like Elizabeth Bates[38] and Jean Mandler, came to suspect that there may indeed be many learning processes involved in the acquisition process, and that ignoring the role of learning may have been a mistake.[citation needed]

text: In recent years, the debate surrounding the nativist position has centered on whether the inborn capabilities are language-specific or domain-general, such as those that enable the infant to visually make sense of the world in terms of objects and actions. The anti-nativist view has many strands, but a frequent theme is that language emerges from usage in social contexts, using learning mechanisms that are a part of a general cognitive learning apparatus (which is what is innate). This position has been championed by David M. W. Powers,[39] Elizabeth Bates,[40] Catherine Snow, Anat Ninio, Brian MacWhinney, Michael Tomasello,[41] Michael Ramscar,[42] William O'Grady,[43] and others. Philosophers, such as Fiona Cowie[44] and Barbara Scholz with Geoffrey Pullum[45] have also argued against certain nativist claims in support of empiricism.

text: The new field of cognitive linguistics has emerged as a specific counter to Chomskian Generative Grammar and Nativism.

text: Statistical learning[edit]

text: Some language acquisition researchers, such as Elissa Newport, Richard Aslin, and Jenny Saffran, emphasize the possible roles of general learning mechanisms, especially statistical learning, in language acquisition. The development of connectionist models that are able to successfully learn words and syntactical conventions[46] supports the predictions of statistical learning theories of language acquisition, as do empirical studies of children's detection of word boundaries.[47]

text: Statistical learning theory suggests that, when learning language, a learner would use the natural statistical properties of language to deduce its structure, including sound patterns, words, and the beginnings of grammar.[48] That is, language learners are sensitive to how often syllable combinations or words occur in relation to other syllables.[49][50][51] Infants between 21 months and 23 months old are also able to use statistical learning to develop "lexical categories", such as an animal category, which infants might later map to newly learned words in the same category. These findings suggest that early experience listening to language is critical to vocabulary acquisition.[52]

text: The statistical abilities are effective, but also limited by what qualifies as input, what is done with that input, and by the structure of the resulting output.[48] One should also note that statistical learning (and more broadly, distributional learning) can be accepted as a component of language acquisition by researchers on either side of the "nature and nurture" debate. From the perspective of that debate, an important question is whether statistical learning can, by itself, serve as an alternative to nativist explanations for the grammatical constraints of human language.

text: Chunking[edit]

text: Chunking theories of language acquisition constitute a group of theories related to statistical learning theories, in that they assume the input from the environment plays an essential role; however, they postulate different learning mechanisms. The central idea of these theories is that language development occurs through the incremental acquisition of meaningful chunks of elementary constituents, which can be words, phonemes, or syllables. Recently, this approach has been highly successful in simulating several phenomena in the acquisition of syntactic categories[53] and the acquisition of phonological knowledge.[54] The approach has several features that make it unique: the models are implemented as computer programs, which enables clear-cut and quantitative predictions to be made; they learn from naturalistic input, made of actual child-directed utterances; they produce actual utterances, which can be compared with children's utterances; and they have simulated phenomena in several languages, including English, Spanish, and German.[citation needed]

text: Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology have developed a computer model analyzing early toddler conversations to predict the structure of later conversations. They showed that toddlers develop their own individual rules for speaking with slots, into which they could put certain kinds of words. A significant outcome of the research was that rules inferred from toddler speech were better predictors of subsequent speech than traditional grammars.[55]

text: Representation in the brain[edit]

text: Recent advances in functional neuroimaging technology have allowed for a better understanding of how language acquisition is manifested physically in the brain. Language acquisition almost always occurs in children during a period of rapid increase in brain volume. At this point in development, a child has many more neural connections than he or she will have as an adult, allowing for the child to be more able to learn new things than he or she would be as an adult.[56]

text: Sensitive period[edit]

text: Language acquisition has been studied from the perspective of developmental psychology and neuroscience,[57] which looks at learning to use and understand language parallel to a child's brain development. It has been determined, through empirical research on developmentally normal children, as well as through some extreme cases of language deprivation, that there is a "sensitive period" of language acquisition in which human infants have the ability to learn any language. Several findings have observed that from birth until the age of six months, infants can discriminate the phonetic contrasts of all languages. Researchers believe that this gives infants the ability to acquire the language spoken around them. After such an age, the child is able to perceive only the phonemes specific to the language learned. The reduced phonemic sensitivity enables children to build phonemic categories and recognize stress patterns and sound combinations specific to the language they are acquiring.[58] As Wilder Penfield noted, "Before the child begins to speak and to perceive, the uncommitted cortex is a blank slate on which nothing has been written. In the ensuing years much is written, and the writing is normally never erased. After the age of ten or twelve, the general functional connections have been established and fixed for the speech cortex." According to the sensitive or critical period models, the age at which a child acquires the ability to use language is a predictor of how well he or she is ultimately able to use language.[59] However, there may be an age at which becoming a fluent and natural user of a language is no longer possible; Penfield and Roberts (1959) cap their sensitive period at 9 years old.[60] Our brains may be automatically wired to learn languages,[citation needed] but the ability does not last into adulthood in the same way that it exists during development.[citation needed] By the onset of puberty (around age 12), language acquisition has typically been solidified and it becomes more difficult to learn a language in the same way a native speaker would.[citation needed] Just like children who speak vocally, deaf children go through the same critical period. Deaf children who acquire their first language later in life show lower performance in complex aspects of grammar.[61] At this point, it is usually a second language that a person is trying to acquire and not a first.[13]

text: Assuming that children are exposed to language during the critical period,[62] it is almost never missed by cognitively normal children—humans are so well prepared to learn language that it becomes almost impossible not to. Researchers are unable to experimentally test the effects of the sensitive period of development on language acquisition, because it would be unethical to deprive children of language until this period is over. However, case studies on abused, language deprived children show that they were extremely limited in their language skills, even after instruction.[63]

text: At a very young age, children can already distinguish between different sounds but cannot produce them yet. However, during infancy, children begin to babble. Deaf babies babble in the same order when hearing sounds as non-deaf babies do, thus showing that babbling is not caused by babies simply imitating certain sounds, but is actually a natural part of the process of language development. However, deaf babies do often babble less than non-deaf babies and they begin to babble later on in infancy (begin babbling at 11 months as compared to 6 months) when compared to non-deaf babies.[64]

text: Studies published in 2013 have pushed serious language acquisition back into the fetus' intrauterine life.

text: A fetus begins to hear between 24 and 27 weeks. It has [as of 2015] been known for a decade that fetuses learn general features of their native language, such as rhythm and intonation, but two studies, in 2013, confirmed that they also pick up distinct words and syllables. Brain activity of newborns in one of those studies revealed that they recognized three-syllable nonsense words that had been repeatedly played in their environment prior to birth, but newborns who were never exposed to the words were indifferent.[65][66]

text: Vocabulary acquisition[edit]

text: The capacity to acquire the ability to incorporate the pronunciation of new words depends upon many factors. Before anything the learner needs to be able to hear what they are attempting to pronounce. Another is the capacity to engage in speech repetition.[67][68][69][70] Children with reduced abilities to repeat nonwords (a marker of speech repetition abilities) show a slower rate of vocabulary expansion than children for whom this is easy.[71] It has been proposed that the elementary units of speech have been selected to enhance the ease with which sound and visual input can be mapped into motor vocalization.[72] Several computational models of vocabulary acquisition have been proposed so far.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79] Various studies have shown that the size of a child's vocabulary by the age of 24 months correlates with the child's future development and language skills. A lack of language richness by this age has detrimental and long-term effects on the child's cognitive development, which is why it is so important for parents to engage their infants in language. If a child knows fifty words or less by the age of 24 months, he or she is classified as a late-talker and future language development, like vocabulary expansion and the organization of grammar, is likely to be slower and stunted.[citation needed]

text: Two more crucial elements of vocabulary acquisition are word segmentation and statistical learning (described above). Word segmentation, or the segmentation of words and syllables from fluent speech can be accomplished by eight-month-old infants.[49] By the time infants are 17-months-old, they are able to link meaning to segmented words.[50]

text: Recent evidence also suggests that motor skills and experiences may influence vocabulary acquisition during infancy. Specifically, learning to sit independently between 3 and 5 months has been found to predict receptive vocabulary at both 10 and 14 months of age,[80] and independent walking skills have been found to correlate with language skills around 10 to 14 months of age.[81][82] These findings show that language acquisition is an embodied process that is influenced by a child’s overall motor abilities and development. Studies have also shown a correlation between Socio-Economic-Status and vocabulary acquisition.[83]

text: Meaning[edit]

text: Children learn, on average, ten to fifteen new word meanings each day, but only one of these words can be accounted for by direct instruction.[84] The other nine to fourteen word meanings need to be picked up in some other way. It has been proposed that children acquire these meanings with the use of processes modeled by latent semantic analysis; that is, when they meet an unfamiliar word, children can use information in its context to correctly guess its rough area of meaning.[84] A child may expand the meaning and use of certain words that are already part of its mental lexicon in order to denominate anything that is somehow related but for which it does not know the specific words yet. For instance, a child may broaden the use of mummy and dada in order to indicate anything that belongs to its mother or father, or perhaps every person who resembles its own parents, or say rain while meaning I don't want to go out.[85]

text: There is also reason to believe that children use various heuristics to properly infer the meaning of words. Markman and others have proposed that children assume words to refer to objects with similar properties ("cow" and "pig" might both be "animals") rather than to objects that are thematically related ("cow" and "milk" are probably not both "animals").[86] Children also seem to adhere to the "whole object assumption" and think that a novel label refers to an entire entity rather than one of its parts.[86] This assumption along with other resources, such as grammar and morphological cues or lexical constraints, may help aid the child in acquiring word-meaning, but they also conflict some of the time.[87]

text: Neurocognitive research[edit]

text: According to several linguists, neurocognitive research has confirmed many standards of language learning, such as: "learning engages the entire person (cognitive, affective, and psychomotor domains), the human brain seeks patterns in its searching for meaning, emotions affect all aspects of learning, retention and recall, past experience always affects new learning, the brain's working memory has a limited capacity, lecture usually results in the lowest degree of retention, rehearsal is essential for retention, practice [alone] does not make perfect, and each brain is unique" (Sousa, 2006, p. 274). In terms of genetics, the gene ROBO1 has been associated with phonological buffer integrity or length.[88]

text: Although it is difficult to determine without invasive measures which exact parts of the brain become most active and important for language acquisition, fMRI and PET technology has allowed for some conclusions to be made about where language may be centered. Kuniyoshi Sakai proposed, based on several neuroimaging studies, that there may be a "grammar center", where language is primarily processed in the left lateral premotor cortex (located near the pre central sulcus and the inferior frontal sulcus). Additionally, these studies proposed that first language and second-language acquisition may be represented differently in the cortex.[13] In a study conducted by Newman et al., the relationship between cognitive neuroscience and language acquisition was compared through a standardized test procedure involving native speakers of English and native Spanish speakers who have all had a similar amount of exposure to the English language(averaging about 26 years). Even the number of times an examinee blinked was taken into account during the examination process. It was concluded that the brain does in fact process languages differently, but instead of it being directly related to proficiency levels, it is more so about how the brain processes language itself.[89]

text: During early infancy, language processing seems to occur over many areas in the brain. However, over time, it gradually becomes concentrated into two areas – Broca's area and Wernicke's area. Broca's area is in the left frontal cortex and is primarily involved in the production of the patterns in vocal and sign language. Wernicke's area is in the left temporal cortex and is primarily involved in language comprehension. The specialization of these language centers is so extensive that damage to them results in a critical condition known as aphasia.[90]

text: Artificial intelligence[edit]

text: Language acquisition can be modeled as a machine learning process using grammar induction algorithms.[91][92]

text: As a typically human phenomenon[edit]

text: The capacity to acquire and use language is a key aspect that distinguishes humans from other beings. Although it is difficult to pin down what aspects of language are uniquely human, there are a few design features that can be found in all known forms of human language, but that are missing from forms of animal communication. For example, many animals are able to communicate with each other by signaling to the things around them, but this kind of communication lacks the arbitrariness of human vernaculars (in that there is nothing about the sound of the word "dog" that would hint at its meaning). Other forms of animal communication may utilize arbitrary sounds, but are unable to combine those sounds in different ways to create completely novel messages that can then be automatically understood by another. Hockett called this design feature of human language "productivity". It is crucial to the understanding of human language acquisition that we are not limited to a finite set of words, but, rather, must be able to understand and utilize a complex system that allows for an infinite number of possible messages. So, while many forms of animal communication exist, they differ from human languages in that they have a limited range of vocabulary tokens, and the vocabulary items are not combined syntactically to create phrases.[41]

text: Prelingual deafness[edit]

text: Prelingual deafness is defined as hearing loss that occurred at birth or before an individual has learned to speak. In the United States, three out of every 1000 children are born deaf or hard of hearing. Treatment options include using hearing aids to strengthen remaining sensory cells or cochlear implants to stimulate the hearing nerve directly.[93] Despite these developments, most prelingually deaf children are unlikely to develop good speech and speech reception skills. However, deaf children of deaf parents tend to do better with language, even though they are isolated from sound and speech. Humans are biologically equipped for language, which is not limited to spoken language only. Even though it might be presumed that deaf children acquire language in different ways since they are not receiving the same input as hearing children, many research findings indicate that deaf children acquire language in the same way that hearing children do.[94] Babies who learn sign language produce signs or gestures that are more regular and more frequent than hearing babies acquiring spoken language.[95] Just as hearing babies babble, deaf babies acquiring sign language will babble with their hands.[95] Therefore, the acquisition of sign language seems to have the same developmental track that is seen in hearing children acquiring spoken language.

text: Due to recent advances in technology, cochlear implants allow some deaf people to interact with others more efficiently. There are interior and exposed components that require a medical procedure. Especially those who receive cochlear implants earlier in life show improvements.[96] Spoken language development varies widely for those with cochlear implants due to a number of different factors including: age at implantation, frequency, quality and type of speech training.[96] Some evidence suggests that speech processing occurs at a more rapid pace in some pre-lingually deaf children with cochlear implants than those with traditional hearing aids.[96]


document_title: College World Series

question_text: who has won the most college baseball championships

root

text: College World Series

text: History[edit]

text: Since 1950, the College World Series (CWS) has been held in Omaha, Nebraska.[1][2] It was held at Rosenblatt Stadium from 1950 through 2010; starting in 2011, it has been held at TD Ameritrade Park Omaha. Earlier tournaments were held at Hyames Field in Kalamazoo, Michigan (1947–48) and Wichita, Kansas (1949). The name "College World Series" is derived from that of the Major League Baseball World Series championship; it is currently an MLB trademark licensed to the NCAA.[3]

tag: p

text: Contract extension[edit]

text: On June 10, 2009, the NCAA and College World Series of Omaha, Inc., which is the non-profit group that organizes the event, announced a new 25-year contract extension, keeping the CWS in Omaha through 2035.[4] A memorandum of understanding had been reached by all parties on April 30.[5]

text: The currently binding contract began in 2011, the same year the tournament moved from Johnny Rosenblatt Stadium to TD Ameritrade Park Omaha, a new ballpark across from CenturyLink Center Omaha.

text: Format history and changes[edit]

text:
1947 – Eight teams were divided into two, four-team, single-elimination playoffs. The two winners then met in a best-of-three final in Kalamazoo, Michigan.
1948 – Similar to 1947, but the two, four-team playoffs were changed to double-elimination tournaments. Again in the finals, the two winners met in a best-of-three format in Kalamazoo.
1949 – The final was expanded to a four-team, double-elimination format and the site changed to Wichita, Kansas. Eight teams began the playoffs with the four finalists decided by a best-of-three district format.
1950–1987 – An eight-team, double-elimination format for the College World Series coincided with the move to Omaha in 1950. From 1950 to 1953, a baseball committee chose one team from each of the eight NCAA districts to compete at the CWS, which constituted the entire Division I tournament, as there were no preliminary rounds. (In 1948 and 1949, a selection committee in each of the eight districts chose its district representative based on the committee's own criteria, which might or might not include committee selections, conference champions, and district playoffs.) Through 1987 the College World Series was a pure double-elimination event. That ended with the 1987 College World Series. In 1954, the Division I tournament began having preliminary rounds to determine the eight CWS teams. From 1954 to 1975, the number of teams in the first round of the overall tournament ranged from 21 to 32. The number of first-round teams was increased to 34 in 1976, 36 in 1982, 38 in 1985, 40 in 1986, and 48 in 1987.
1988–1998 – The format was changed beginning with the 1988 College World Series, when the tournament was divided into 2 four-team double-elimination brackets, with the survivors of each bracket playing in a single championship game. The single-game championship was designed for network television, with the final game on CBS on a Saturday afternoon.

tag: ul

text:
1999–2002 – With some 293 Division I teams playing, the NCAA expanded the overall tournament to a 64-team Regional field in 1999—with 8 National Seed teams (the top 8 seeds)—divided into 16 four-team regionals (each region seeded 1 to 4). The winners of the 16 "Regionals" advance to a second round, consisting of 8 two-team, best-of-three-format "Super Regionals". (The National Seed teams that win their regional bracket are placed in different Super Regionals, so that no National Seed teams meet each other in a Super Regional.) The 8 Super Regional winners advance to the CWS in Omaha. While the CWS format remained the same, the expanded field meant that the eight CWS teams now are determined by the second-round Super Regionals. The 64-team bracket is set at the beginning of the championship and teams are not reseeded for the CWS. Since the 1999 College World Series, the four-team brackets in the CWS have been determined by the results of super-regional play, much like the NCAA basketball tournament. Prior to 1999, the four-team brackets were determined by the regional tournaments.
2003–present – The championship final became a best-of-three series between the 2 four-team bracket winners, with games scheduled for Saturday, Sunday, and Monday evenings. In the results shown below, Score indicates the score of the championship game(s) only. In 2008, the start of the CWS was moved back one day, and an extra day of rest was added in between bracket play and the championship series.

text: Division I champions by year[edit]

text:
Year
Champion
Coach
Score
Runner-Up
Most Outstanding Player

1947
California
Clint Evans
17–8, 8–7
Yale

1948
Southern California
Sam Barry
3–1, 3–8, 9–2
Yale

1949
Texas
Bibb Falk
10–3
Wake Forest
Tom Hamilton, Texas

1950
Texas
Bibb Falk
3–0
Washington State
Ray VanCleef, Rutgers

1951
Oklahoma
Jack Baer
3–2
Tennessee
Sidney Hatfield, Tennessee

1952
Holy Cross
Jack Barry
8–4
Missouri
James O'Neill, Holy Cross

1953
Michigan
Ray Fisher
7–5
Texas
J.L. Smith, Texas

1954
Missouri
Hi Simmons
4–1
Rollins
Tom Yewcic, Michigan State

1955
Wake Forest
Taylor Sanford
7–6
Western Michigan
Tom Borland, Oklahoma A&M

1956
Minnesota
Dick Siebert
12–1
Arizona
Jerry Thomas, Minnesota

1957
California
George Wolfman
1–0
Penn State
Cal Emery, Penn State

1958
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
8–7
Missouri
Bill Thom, Southern California

1959
Oklahoma State
Toby Greene
5–3
Arizona
Jim Dobson, Oklahoma State

1960
Minnesota
Dick Siebert
2–1
Southern California
John Erickson, Minnesota

1961
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
1–0
Oklahoma State
Littleton Fowler, Oklahoma State

1962
Michigan
Don Lund
5–4
Santa Clara
Bob Garibaldi, Santa Clara

1963
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
5–2
Arizona
Bud Hollowell, Southern California

1964
Minnesota
Dick Siebert
5–1
Missouri
Joe Ferris, Maine

1965
Arizona State
Bobby Winkles
2–1
Ohio State
Sal Bando, Arizona State

1966
Ohio State
Marty Karow
8–2
Oklahoma State
Steve Arlin, Ohio State

1967
Arizona State
Bobby Winkles
11–2
Houston
Ron Davini, Arizona State

1968
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
4–3
Southern Illinois
Bill Seinsoth, Southern California

1969
Arizona State
Bobby Winkles
10–1
Tulsa
John Dolinsek, Arizona State

1970
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
2–1
Florida State
Gene Ammann, Florida State

1971
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
7–2
Southern Illinois
Jerry Tabb, Tulsa

1972
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
1–0
Arizona State
Russ McQueen, Southern California

1973
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
4–3
Arizona State
Dave Winfield, Minnesota

1974
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
7–3
Miami (FL)
George Milke, Southern California

1975
Texas
Cliff Gustafson
5–1
South Carolina
Mickey Reichenbach, Texas

1976
Arizona
Jerry Kindall
7–1
Eastern Michigan
Steve Powers, Arizona

1977
Arizona State
Jim Brock
2–1
South Carolina
Bob Horner, Arizona State

1978
Southern California
Rod Dedeaux
10–3
Arizona State
Rod Boxberger, Southern California

1979
Cal State Fullerton
Augie Garrido
2–1
Arkansas
Tony Hudson, Cal State Fullerton

1980
Arizona
Jerry Kindall
5–3
Hawaii
Terry Francona, Arizona

1981
Arizona State
Jim Brock
7–4
Oklahoma State
Stan Holmes, Arizona State

1982
Miami (FL)
Ron Fraser
9–3
Wichita State
Dan Smith, Miami (FL)

1983
Texas
Cliff Gustafson
4–3
Alabama
Calvin Schiraldi, Texas

1984
Cal State Fullerton
Augie Garrido
3–1
Texas
John Fishel, Cal State Fullerton

1985
Miami (FL)
Ron Fraser
10–6
Texas
Greg Ellena, Miami (FL)

1986
Arizona
Jerry Kindall
10–2
Florida State
Mike Senne, Arizona

1987
Stanford
Mark Marquess
9–5
Oklahoma State
Paul Carey, Stanford

1988
Stanford
Mark Marquess
9–4
Arizona State
Lee Plemel, Stanford

1989
Wichita State
Gene Stephenson
5–3
Texas
Greg Brummett, Wichita State

1990
Georgia
Steve Webber
2–1
Oklahoma State
Mike Rebhan, Georgia

1991
LSU
Skip Bertman
6–3
Wichita State
Gary Hymel, LSU

1992
Pepperdine
Andy Lopez
3–2
Cal State Fullerton
Phil Nevin, Cal State Fullerton

1993
LSU
Skip Bertman
8–0
Wichita State
Todd Walker, LSU

1994
Oklahoma
Larry Cochell
13–5
Georgia Tech
Chip Glass, Oklahoma

1995
Cal State Fullerton
Augie Garrido
11–5
Southern California
Mark Kotsay, Cal State Fullerton

1996
LSU
Skip Bertman
9–8
Miami (FL)
Pat Burrell, Miami (FL)

1997
LSU
Skip Bertman
13–6
Alabama
Brandon Larson, LSU

1998
Southern California
Mike Gillespie
21–14
Arizona State
Wes Rachels, Southern California

1999
Miami (FL)
Jim Morris
6–5
Florida State
Marshall McDougall, Florida State

2000
LSU
Skip Bertman
6–5
Stanford
Trey Hodges, LSU

2001
Miami (FL)
Jim Morris
12–1
Stanford
Charlton Jimerson, Miami (FL)

2002
Texas
Augie Garrido
12–6
South Carolina
Huston Street, Texas

2003
Rice
Wayne Graham
4–310, 3–8, 14–2
Stanford
John Hudgins, Stanford

2004
Cal State Fullerton
George Horton
6–4, 3–2
Texas
Jason Windsor, Cal State Fullerton

2005
Texas
Augie Garrido
4–2, 6–2
Florida
David Maroul, Texas

2006
Oregon State
Pat Casey
3–4, 11–7, 3–2
North Carolina
Jonah Nickerson, Oregon State

2007
Oregon State
Pat Casey
11–4, 9–3
North Carolina
Jorge Luis Reyes, Oregon State

2008
Fresno State
Mike Batesole
6–7, 19–10, 6–1
Georgia
Tommy Mendonca, Fresno State

2009
LSU
Paul Mainieri
7–6, 1–5, 11–4
Texas
Jared Mitchell, LSU

2010
South Carolina
Ray Tanner
7–1, 2–111
UCLA
Jackie Bradley, Jr., South Carolina

2011
South Carolina
Ray Tanner
2–111, 5–2
Florida
Scott Wingo, South Carolina

2012
Arizona
Andy Lopez
5–1, 4–1
South Carolina
Rob Refsnyder, Arizona

2013
UCLA
John Savage
3–1, 8–0
Mississippi State
Adam Plutko, UCLA

2014
Vanderbilt
Tim Corbin
9–8, 2–7, 3–2
Virginia
Dansby Swanson, Vanderbilt

2015
Virginia
Brian O'Connor
1–5, 3–0, 4–2
Vanderbilt
Josh Sborz, Virginia

2016
Coastal Carolina
Gary Gilmore
0–3, 5–4, 4–3
Arizona
Andrew Beckwith, Coastal Carolina

2017
Florida
Kevin O'Sullivan
4–3, 6–1
LSU
Alex Faedo, Florida

tag: table

text: Team appearances[edit]

text:
School
Appearances
Titles
Years

Alabama
5
0
1950, 1983, 1996, 1997, 1999

Arizona
17
4
1954, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1976, 1979, 1980, 1985, 1986, 2004, 2012, 2016

Arizona State
22
5
1964, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1994, 1998, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010

Arkansas
9
0
1979, 1985, 1987, 1989, 2004, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018

Auburn
4
0
1967, 1976, 1994, 1997

Baylor
3
0
1977, 1978, 2005

Boston College
4
0
1953, 1960, 1961, 1967

Bradley
2
0
1950, 1956

BYU
2
0
1968, 1971

California
6
2
1947, 1957, 1980, 1988, 1992, 2011

Cal State Fullerton
18
4
1975, 1979, 1982, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2015, 2017

Cal State
Los Angeles
1
0
1977

The Citadel
1
0
1990

Clemson
12
0
1958, 1959, 1976, 1977, 1980, 1991, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2010

Coastal Carolina
1
1
2016

Colgate
1
0
1955

Colorado State[a]
1
0
1950

Connecticut
5
0
1957, 1959, 1965, 1972, 1979

Creighton
1
0
1991

Dartmouth
1
0
1970

Delaware
1
0
1970

Duke
3
0
1952, 1953, 1961

Eastern Michigan
2
0
1975, 1976

Florida
12
1
1988, 1991, 1996, 1998, 2005, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018

Florida State
22
0
1957, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2017

Fresno State
4
1
1959, 1988, 1991, 2008

Georgia
6
1
1987, 1990, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008

Georgia Southern
2
0
1973, 1990

Georgia Tech
3
0
1994, 2002, 2006

Harvard
4
0
1968, 1971, 1973, 1974

Hawaii
1
0
1980

Holy Cross
4
1
1952, 1958, 1962, 1963

Houston
2
0
1953, 1967

Indiana
1
0
2013

Indiana State
1
0
1986

Iowa
1
0
1972

Iowa State
2
0
1957, 1970

Ithaca
1
0
1962

James Madison
1
0
1983

Kansas
1
0
1993

Kent State
1
0
2012

Lafayette
4
0
1953, 1954, 1958, 1965

Long Beach State
4
0
1989, 1991, 1993, 1998

Louisiana-Lafayette
1
0
2000

Louisville
4
0
2007, 2013, 2014, 2017

Loyola Marymount
1
0
1986

LSU
18
6
1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2013, 2015, 2017

Maine
7
0
1964, 1976, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986

Massachusetts
2
0
1954, 1969

Miami (FL)
25
4
1974, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1988, 1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2015, 2016

Michigan
7
2
1953, 1962, 1978, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984

Michigan State
1
0
1954

Minnesota
5
3
1956, 1960, 1964, 1973, 1977

Mississippi State
10
0
1971, 1979, 1981, 1985, 1990, 1997, 1998, 2007, 2013, 2018

Missouri
6
1
1952, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1963, 1964

Missouri State
1
0
2003

Nebraska
3
0
2001, 2002, 2005

New Hampshire
1
0
1956

New Orleans
1
0
1984

NYU
2
0
1956, 1969

North Carolina
11
0
1960, 1966, 1978, 1989, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2018

NC State
2
0
1968, 2013

Northeastern
1
0
1966

Northern Colorado[b]
10
0
1952, 1953, 1955, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1974

Notre Dame
2
0
1957, 2002

Ohio
1
0
1970

Ohio State
4
1
1951, 1965, 1966, 1967

Oklahoma
10
2
1951, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1992, 1994, 1995, 2010

Oklahoma State
20
1
1954, 1955, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1993, 1996, 1999, 2016

Ole Miss
5
0
1956, 1964, 1969, 1972, 2014

Oral Roberts
1
0
1978

Oregon
1
0
1954

Oregon State
7
2
1952, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2013, 2017, 2018

Penn State
5
0
1952, 1957, 1959, 1963, 1973

Pepperdine
2
1
1979, 1992

Princeton
1
0
1951

Rice
7
1
1997, 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008

Rider
1
0
1967

Rollins
1
0
1954

Rutgers
1
0
1950

St. John's (NY)
6
0
1949, 1960, 1966, 1968, 1978, 1980

St. Louis
1
0
1965

San Jose State
1
0
2000

Santa Clara
1
0
1962

Seton Hall
4
0
1964, 1971, 1974, 1975

South Carolina
11
2
1975, 1977, 1981, 1982, 1985, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2010, 2011, 2012

Southern California
21
12
1948, 1949, 1951, 1955, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1995, 1998, 2000, 2001

Southern Illinois
5
0
1968, 1969, 1971, 1974, 1977

Southern Miss
1
0
2009

Springfield
2
0
1951, 1955

Stanford
16
2
1953, 1967, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2008

Stony Brook
1
0
2012

Syracuse
1
0
1961

TCU
5
0
2010, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017

Temple
2
0
1972, 1977

Tennessee
4
0
1951, 1995, 2001, 2005

Texas
36
6
1949, 1950, 1952, 1953, 1957, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1992, 1993, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2018

Texas A&M
6
0
1951, 1964, 1993, 1999, 2011, 2017

Texas Tech
3
0
2014, 2016, 2018

Texas–Rio Grande Valley[c]
1
0
1971

Tufts
1
0
1950

Tulane
2
0
2001, 2005

Tulsa
2
0
1969, 1971

UC Irvine
2
0
2007, 2014

UCLA
5
1
1969, 1997, 2010, 2012, 2013

UC Santa Barbara
1
0
2016

Utah
1
0
1951

Vanderbilt
3
1
2011, 2014, 2015

Virginia
4
1
2009, 2011, 2014, 2015

Wake Forest
2
1
1949, 1955

Washington
1
0
2018

Washington State
4
0
1950, 1956, 1965, 1976

Western Michigan
6
0
1952, 1955, 1958, 1959, 1961, 1963

Wichita State
7
1
1982, 1988, 1989, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1996

Wisconsin
1
0
1950

Wyoming
1
0
1956

Yale
2
0
1947, 1948

text: Most CWS wins[edit]

text:
Rank
School
Wins
CWS Winning %
Appearances
Wins per appearance

1
Texas
85
.590
35
2.43

2
Southern California
74
.740
21
3.52

3
Arizona State
61
.616
22
2.77

4
Miami (FL)
48
.533
25
1.92

5
Arizona
43
.589
17
2.53

6
LSU
40
.597
18
2.22

6
Oklahoma State
40
.513
20
2.00

6
Stanford
40
.580
16
2.50

9
Cal State Fullerton
34
.523
18
1.89

10
South Carolina
32
.615
11
2.91

text: [6] [7]

text: Most CWS Finals appearances[edit]

text:
Bold indicates team won the CWS that year
Regular indicates team was Runner-up that year

text:
Rank
School
Champion
Runner-up
Total
Years

1
Southern California
12
2
14
1948, 1958, 1960, 1961, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1995, 1998

2
Texas
6
6
12
1949, 1950, 1953, 1975, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1989, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2009

3
Arizona State
5
5
10
1965, 1967, 1969, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1981, 1988, 1998

4
Arizona
4
4
8
1956, 1959, 1963, 1976, 1980, 1986, 2012, 2016

5
LSU
6
1
7
1991, 1993, 1996, 1997, 2000, 2009, 2017

6
Miami (FL)
4
2
6
1974, 1982, 1985, 1996, 1999, 2001

6
South Carolina
2
4
6
1975, 1977, 2002, 2010, 2011, 2012

6
Oklahoma State
1
5
6
1959, 1961, 1966, 1981, 1987, 1990

9
Cal State Fullerton
4
1
5
1979, 1984, 1992, 1995, 2004

9
Stanford
2
3
5
1987, 1988, 2000, 2001, 2003

text: Most appearances without a CWS championship[edit]

text:
Top 10

Rank
School
Appearances
CWS Winning %
Runner-up
Wins Per Appearance

1
Florida State
22
.397
3
1.33

2
Clemson
12
.333
0
1.00

3
North Carolina
11
.447
2
1.70

4
Northern Colorado
10
.130
0
0.30

4
Mississippi State
10
.357
1
1.11

6
Arkansas
9
.407
1
1.37

7
Maine
7
.333
0
1.00

8
Western Michigan
6
.429
1
1.50

8
St. John's (NY)
6
.333
0
1.00

8
Texas A&M
6
.143
0
0.33

text: Most CWS participants by one conference in a year[edit]

text:
Minimum three participants

Number
Year
Conference
Programs
CWS Winner

4
1997
SEC
Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Mississippi State
LSU

4
2004
SEC
Arkansas, Georgia, LSU, South Carolina
Cal State Fullerton

4
2006
ACC
Clemson, Georgia Tech, Miami (FL), North Carolina
Oregon State

4
2015
SEC
Arkansas, Florida, LSU, Vanderbilt
Virginia

3
1988
Pac-10
Arizona State, California, Stanford
Stanford

3
1990
SEC
Georgia, LSU, Mississippi State
Georgia

3
1996
SEC
Alabama, Florida, LSU
LSU

3
1998
SEC
Florida, LSU, Mississippi State
Southern California

3
2005
Big 12
Baylor, Nebraska, Texas
Texas

3
2008
ACC
Florida State, Miami (FL), North Carolina
Fresno State

3
2011
SEC
Florida, South Carolina, Vanderbilt
South Carolina

3
2012
SEC
Arkansas, Florida, South Carolina
Arizona

3
2014
Big 12
TCU, Texas, Texas Tech
Vanderbilt

3
2016
Big 12
Oklahoma State, TCU, Texas Tech
Coastal Carolina

3
2017
SEC
Florida, LSU, Texas A&M
Florida

3
2018
SEC
Arkansas, Florida, Mississippi State
TBD

text: Championships by conference[edit]

text:
Rank
Conference
Titles

1
Pac-12
17

2
Southeastern (SEC)
11

3
Western Athletic (WAC)
7

4
Big Ten
6

4
PCC-CIBA
6

6
Independents
5

7
Big Eight
4

7
Southwest
4

9
Atlantic Coast (ACC)
2

9
Big 12
2

9
Big West (BWC)
2

9
Big West (SCBA)
2

13
Big South (BSC)
1

13
Missouri Valley (MVC)
1

13
West Coast (WCC)
1

text:
CIBA was California Intercollegiate Baseball Association that competed as a division under the Pacific Coast Conference which operated under its own Charter.[8]
Independents = Miami Hurricanes (4) and Holy Cross Crusaders (1)
SCBA was Southern California Baseball Association (1977–84).
The Big 12 does not claim any national championships, including baseball, that were won as members of the Big Eight and makes no claim to the history or records of the Big Eight.[9][10]
The Western Athletic Conference claims 7 national championships in baseball by former members.[11] There are no gaps in its existence. The Conference has existed continuously since its inception.[12][13]
Coastal Carolina won the 2016 CWS as a member of the Big South Conference less than 24 hours before officially joining the Sun Belt Conference.[14]


document_title: Automotive industry

question_text: who is the largest auto manufacturer in the world

text: Automotive industry

text: History[edit]

text: The automotive industry began in the 1890s with hundreds of manufacturers that pioneered the horseless carriage. For many decades, the United States led the world in total automobile production. In 1929, before the Great Depression, the world had 32,028,500 automobiles in use, and the U.S. automobile industry produced over 90% of them. At that time the U.S. had one car per 4.87 persons.[3] After World War II, the U.S. produced about 75 percent of world's auto production. In 1980, the U.S. was overtaken by Japan and became world's leader again in 1994. In 2006, Japan narrowly passed the U.S. in production and held this rank until 2009, when China took the top spot with 13.8 million units. With 19.3 million units manufactured in 2012, China almost doubled the U.S. production, with 10.3 million units, while Japan was in third place with 9.9 million units.[4] From 1970 (140 models) over 1998 (260 models) to 2012 (684 models), the number of automobile models in the U.S. has grown exponentially.[5]

text: Safety[edit]

text: Safety is a state that implies to be protected from any risk, danger, damage or cause of injury. In the automotive industry, safety means that users, operators or manufacturers do not face any risk or danger coming from the motor vehicle or its spare parts. Safety for the autmobiles themselves, implies that there is no risk of damage.

text: Safety in the automotive industry is particularly important and therefore highly regulated. Automobiles and other motor vehicles have to comply with a certain number of norms and regulations, whether local or international, in order to be accepted on the market. The standard ISO 26262, is considered as one of the best practice framework for achieving automotive functional safety.[6]

text: In case of safety issues, danger, product defect or faulty procedure during the manufacturing of the motor vehicle, the maker can request to return either a batch or the entire production run. This procedure is called product recall. Product recalls happen in every industry and can be production-related or stem from the raw material.

text: Product and operation tests and inspections at different stages of the value chain are made to avoid these product recalls by ensuring end-user security and safety and compliance with the automotive industry requirements. However, the automotive industry is still particularly concerned about product recalls, which cause considerable financial consequences.

text: Economy[edit]

text: Around the world, there were about 806 million cars and light trucks on the road in 2007, consuming over 980 billion litres (980,000,000 m3) of gasoline and diesel fuel yearly.[7] The automobile is a primary mode of transportation for many developed economies. The Detroit branch of Boston Consulting Group predicts that, by 2014, one-third of world demand will be in the four BRIC markets (Brazil, Russia, India and China). Meanwhile, in the developed countries, the automotive industry has slowed down.[8] It is also expected that this trend will continue, especially as the younger generations of people (in highly urbanized countries) no longer want to own a car anymore, and prefer other modes of transport.[9] Other potentially powerful automotive markets are Iran and Indonesia.[10] Emerging auto markets already buy more cars than established markets. According to a J.D. Power study, emerging markets accounted for 51 percent of the global light-vehicle sales in 2010. The study, performed in 2010 expected this trend to accelerate.[11][12] However, more recent reports (2012) confirmed the opposite; namely that the automotive industry was slowing down even in BRIC countries.[8] In the United States, vehicle sales peaked in 2000, at 17.8 million units.[13]

text: World motor vehicle production[edit]

text: 1960s; Post war increase

text: 1970s; Oil crisis and tighter safety and emission regulation.

text: 1990s; production started in NICs

text: 2000s; rise of China as top producer

text: 1950s; UK, Germany and France restarted production.

text: 1960s; Japan started production and increased volume through the 1980s. US, Japan, Germany, France and UK produced about 80% of motor vehicles through the 1980s.

text: 1990s; Korea became a volume producer. In 2004, Korea became No. 5 passing France.

text: 2000s; China increased its production drastically, and 2009 became the world largest producing country.

text: By year[edit]

text:
Year
Production
Change
Source

1997
54,434,000

[16]

1998
52,987,000
-2.7%
[16]

1999
56,258,892
6.2%
[17]

2000
58,374,162
3.8%
[18]

2001
56,304,925
-3.5%
[19]

2002
58,994,318
4.8%
[20]

2003
60,663,225
2.8%
[21]

2004
64,496,220
6.3%
[22]

2005
66,482,439
3.1%
[23]

2006
69,222,975
4.1%
[24]

2007
73,266,061
5.8%
[25]

2008
70,520,493
-3.7%
[26]

2009
61,791,868
-12.4%
[27]

2010
77,857,705
26.0%
[28]

2011
79,989,155
3.1%
[29]

2012
84,141,209
5.3%
[30]

2013
87,300,115
3.7%
[31]

2014
89,747,430
2.6%
[32]

2015
90,086,346
0.4%
[33]

2016
94,976,569
4.5%
[34]

text: By country[edit]

text: The OICA counts over 50 countries which assemble or manufacture automobiles. Of that figure, only 13, boldfaced in the list below, possess the capability to design automobiles from the ground up.[36]

text:
Algeria
 Argentina
 Australia (main page)
 Austria
 Azerbaijan
 Bangladesh (main page)
 Belarus (main page)
 Belgium
 Brazil (main page)
 Bulgaria (main page)
 Canada (main page)
 China (main page)
 Colombia
 Czech Republic
 Egypt
 Finland
 France (main page)
 Ghana
 Germany (main page)
 Hungary (main page)
 India (main page)
 Indonesia (main page)
 Iran (main page)
 Italy (main page)
 Japan (main page)
 Jordan
 Kazakhstan
 Kenya (main page)
 Morocco (main page)
 Malaysia (main page)
 Mexico (main page)
 Netherlands
 Pakistan (main page)
 Philippines
 Poland (main page)
 Portugal
 Romania (main page)
 Russia (main page)
 Serbia (main page)
 Slovakia (main page)
 Slovenia
 South Africa (main page)
 South Korea (main page)
 Spain (main page)
 Sweden (main page)
 Taiwan
 Thailand (main page)
 Turkey (main page)
 Ukraine (main page)
 United Kingdom (main page)
 United States (main page)
 Uzbekistan (main page)
 Venezuela
 Vietnam

text:
Top 20 motor vehicle producing countries 2016

Country
Motor vehicle production (units)

 China

28,118,794

 United States

12,198,137

 Japan

9,204,590

 Germany

6,062,562

 India

4,488,965

 South Korea

4,228,509

 Mexico

3,597,462

 Spain

2,885,922

 Canada

2,370,271

 Brazil

2,156,356

 France

2,082,000

 Thailand

1,944,417

 United Kingdom

1,816,622

 Turkey

1,485,927

 Czech Republic

1,349,896

 Russia

1,303,989

 Indonesia

1,177,389

 Iran

1,164,710

 Italy

1,103,516

 Slovakia

1,040,000

"Production Statistics". OICA.

text: By manufacturer[edit]

text: This is a list of the 15 largest manufacturers by production in 2015[35]

text:
Rank
Group
Country
Vehicles

1
Toyota
 Japan
10,083,831

2
Volkswagen Group
 Germany
9,872,424

3
General Motors
(with SAIC-GM)
 United States
7,485,587
(9,490,835)[a]

4
Hyundai / Kia
 South Korea
7,988,479

5
Ford
 United States
6,396,369

6
Nissan
 Japan
5,170,074

7
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy /  United States
4,865,233

8
Honda
 Japan
4,543,838

9
Suzuki
 Japan
3,034,081

10
Renault
 France
3,032,652

11
PSA
 France
2,982,035

12
BMW
 Germany
2,279,503

13
SAIC
 China
2,260,579

14
Daimler
 Germany
2,134,645

15
Mazda
 Japan
1,540,576

text: Company relationships[edit]

text: This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

text: Stake holding[edit]

text: It is common for automobile manufacturers to hold stakes in other automobile manufacturers. These ownerships can be explored under the detail for the individual companies.

text: Notable current relationships include:[citation needed]

text:
Daimler AG holds a 20% stake in Eicher Motors.
Daimler AG holds a 10.0% stake in KAMAZ.
Daimler AG holds an 89.29% stake in Mitsubishi Fuso Truck and Bus Corporation.
Daimler AG holds a 6.75% stake in Tata Motors.
Daimler AG holds a 3.1% in the Renault-Nissan Alliance.
Daimler AG holds a 12% stake in Beijing Automotive Group,
Daimler AG holds an 85% stake in Master Motors.
FAW Group owns 49% of Haima Automobile.
FCA holds a 90% stake in Ferrari.
FCA holds a 67% stake in Fiat Automobili Srbija.
FCA holds 37.8% of Tofaş with another 37.8% owned by Koç Holding.
Fiat Automobili Srbija owns a 54% stake in Zastava Trucks.
Fiat Industrial owns a 46% stake in Zastava Trucks.
Fujian Motors Group holds a 15% stake in King Long. FMG, China Motor, and Daimler has a joint venture called Fujian Benz. FMG, China Motor, and Mitsubishi Motors has a joint venture called Soueast, FMG holds a 50% stake, and both China Motor and Mitsubishi Motors holds an equal 25% stake.
Geely Automobile holds a 23% stake in The London Taxi Company.
Geely Automobile holds a 49.9% stake in PROTON Holdings and a 51% stake in Lotus Cars.[38]
General Motors holds a 94% stake in GM Korea and SAIC Group holds a 6% stake.
General Motors holds a 20% stake in Industries Mécaniques Maghrébines.
Isuzu owns 10% of Industries Mécaniques Maghrébines.
MAN SE holds a 17.01% voting stake in Scania.
Marcopolo owns 19% of New Flyer Industries.
Mitsubishi Group holds 20% of Mitsubishi Motors.
Nissan owns 34% of Mitsubishi Motors and had the since October 2016,[39] thus having the right to nominate the chairman of Mitsubishi Motors’s board and a third of its directors.[40]
Nissan owns 43% of Nissan Shatai.
Porsche Automobil Holding SE has a 50.74% voting stake in Volkswagen Group. The Porsche automotive business is fully owned by the Volkswagen Group.
Renault and Nissan Motors have an alliance (Renault-Nissan Alliance) involving two global companies linked by cross-shareholding, with Renault holding 43.4% of Nissan shares, and Nissan holding 15% of (non-voting) Renault shares.
Renault-Nissan Alliance holds a 3.1% share in Daimler AG.
Renault holds a 25% stake in AvtoVAZ
Renault holds an 80.1% stake in Renault Samsung.
SAIPA holds a 51% stake in Pars Khodro.
Toyota holds a 100% stake in Daihatsu.
Toyota holds a 50.1% stake in Hino.
Toyota holds a 16.7% stake in Fuji Heavy Industries, parent company of Subaru.
Toyota holds a 5.9% stake in Isuzu.
Toyota holds a 5.05% stake in Mazda, while Mazda holds 0.25% stake in Toyota[41].
Volkswagen Group holds a 99.55% stake in the Audi Group.
Volkswagen Group holds a 37.73% stake in Scania (68.6% voting rights), a 53.7% stake in MAN SE (55.9% voting rights), Volkswagen is integrating Scania, MAN and its own truck division into one division.
Paccar inc. has a 19% stake in Tatra.

text: Joint ventures[edit]

text:
AB Volvo and Eicher Motors has a 50-50% joint venture called VE Commercial Vehicles.
Beijing Automotive Group has a joint venture with Daimler called Beijing Benz, both companies hold a 50-50% stake. both companies also have a joint venture called Beijing Foton Daimler Automobile. BAG also has a joint venture with Hyundai called Beijing Hyundai, both companies hold a 50-50% stake.
BMW and Brilliance have a joint venture called BMW Brilliance. BMW owns a 50% stake, Brilliance owns a 40.5% stake, and the Shenyang municipal government owns a 9.5% stake.
Chang'an Automobile Group has joint venture with Groupe PSA (CAPSA), both hold a 50-50% stake,
Chang'an Automobile Group has joint venture with Suzuki (Changan Suzuki), both hold a 50-50% stake,
Chang'an Automobile Group has joint venture with Ford and Mazda (Changan Ford Mazda), CAG holds a 50% stake, Ford holds a 35% stake, and Mazda holds a 15% stake.
Chang'an and Ford have a joint venture called Chang'an Ford Nanjing. Jiangling and Chang'an have a joint venture called Jiangxi Jiangling.
Chery has a joint venture with Tata Motors called Chery Jaguar Land Rover, both companies hold a 50-50% stake.
Chery and Israel Corporation has a joint venture called Qoros, both companies hold a 50-50% stake.
Daimler AG and BYD Auto have a joint venture called Denza, both companies hold a 50-50% stake.
Dongfeng Motor and Nissan have a 50-50% joint venture called Dongfeng Motor Company.
Dongfeng Motor and PSA Group have a 50-50% joint venture called Dongfeng Peugeot-Citroen,
Dongfeng Motor has a 50-50% joint venture with Honda called Dongfeng Honda,
Dongfeng Motor has a joint venture with AB Volvo called Dongfeng Nissan-Diesel,
Dongfeng Motor has a 50-50% joint venture with Renault named Dongfeng Renault in Wuhan, which was founded in the end of 2013
Ford Motor Company and Navistar International have a 50-50 joint venture called Blue Diamond Truck.
Ford and Sollers JSC have a 50-50 joint venture called Ford Sollers.
Both Ford and Koç Holding own a 41% stake in Ford Otosan.
Ford and Lio Ho Group have a joint venture called Ford Lio Ho, Ford owns 70% and Lio Ho Group owns 30%.
FAW Group and GM has a 50-50 joint venture called FAW-GM,
FAW Group has a 50-50 joint venture with Volkswagen Group called FAW-Volkswagen,
FAW Group has a 50-50 joint venture with Toyota called Sichuan FAW Toyota Motor and both companies also have another joint venture called Ranz.
General Motors and Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), both have two joint ventures in Shanghai General Motors and SAIC-GM-Wuling Automobile. Both also hold an equal 50% stake in General Motors India Private Limited.
General Motors and UzAvtosanoat have a joint venture called GM Uzbekistan, UzAvtosanoat owns 75% and General Motors owns 25%. General Motors and UzAvtosanoat also have a joint venture called UzDaewooAvto both each hold a 50-50 stake.
General Motors, AvtoVAZ, and EBRD have a joint venture called GM-AvtoVAZ, Both GM and AvtoVAZ owns 41.61% and EBRD owns 16.76%.
Hyundai Motor Company and Kibar Holding has a joint venture called Hyundai Assan Otomotiv, Hyundai Motor Group owns 70% and Kibar Holding owns 30%.
Isuzu and Anadolu Group have a 50-50% joint venture called Anadolu Isuzu.
Isuzu and General Motors has a 50-50% joint venture called Isuzu Truck South Africa.
Isuzu, Sollers JSC, and Imperial Sojitz have a joint venture called Sollers-Isuzu, Sollers JSC owns 66%, Isuzu owns 29%, and Imperial Sojitz owns 5%.
Mahindra & Mahindra and Navistar International has a joint venture called Mahindra Trucks and Buses Limited. Mahindra & Mahindra owns 51% and Navistar International owns 49%.
MAN SE and UzAvtosanoat have a joint venture called MAN Auto-Uzbekistan, UzAvtosanoat owns 51% and MAN owns 49%.
Navistar International and JAC has a joint venture called Anhui Jianghuai Navistar.
PSA Groupe and Toyota have a 50-50% joint venture called Toyota Peugeot Citroen Automobile Czech, and another joint venture with Chang'an called Chang'an PSA automobile.
Sollers JSC is involved in Joint ventures with Ford (Ford Sollers) and Mazda to produce cars.
Tata Motors also formed a joint venture in India with Fiat and gained access to Fiat's diesel engine technology.
Tata Motors and Marcopolo have a Tata Marcopolo, Tata owns 51% and Marcopolo owns 49%.
ZAP owns 51% of Zhejiang Jonway.

text: Top vehicle manufacturing groups by volume[edit]

text: The table below shows the world's 10 largest motor vehicle manufacturing groups, along with the marques produced by each one. The table is ranked by 2015 production figures from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA) for the parent group, and then alphabetically by marque. Joint ventures are not reflected in this table. Production figures of joint ventures are typically included in OICA rankings, which can become a source of controversy.[42][43]

text:
Marque
Country of origin
Ownership
Markets

1. Toyota ( Japan)

Daihatsu

Subsidiary
Europe, Asia (except South Korea), Africa, South America

Hino

Subsidiary
South East Asia, Japan, North America, Central America, South America, Caribbean

Lexus

Business Unit
South East Asia, China, Japan, South Korea, Middle East, United States, Canada, Europe, Brazil, Costa Rica, Panama, Chile, Peru, Bolivia, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India

Toyota

Division
Global, except Iran

2. Volkswagen AG ( Germany)

Audi

Subsidiary
Global, except Iran

Bentley

Subsidiary
Global

Bugatti

Subsidiary
Global, except Australia

Ducati

Subsidiary
Global

Lamborghini

Subsidiary
Global

MAN

Subsidiary
Global, except North America

Navistar International

Subsidiary
North America, South America, Russia, UK, Greece, Eastern Europe, India, Middle East, China, Singapore, South Korea

Porsche

Subsidiary
Global, except Iran, North Korea, Syria, Cuba

Scania

Subsidiary
Global, except North America

SEAT

Subsidiary
Europe, China, Singapore, Mexico, Central America, South America, Middle East, Northern Africa

Škoda

Subsidiary
Europe, Asia (Except Indonesia, The Philippines, Iran, Japan, South Korea, North Korea), Central America, South America, Dominican Republic, Northern Africa, Western Africa, Australia, New Zealand

Volkswagen

Division
Global

Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles

Subsidiary
Global

VTB

Business Unit
Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, South Africa

3. General Motors ( United States)

Buick

Business Unit
North America, China, Israel

Cadillac

Business Unit
North America, Middle East, China, Japan, South Korea

Chevrolet

Business Unit
Global, except Australia, New Zealand

GMC

Business Unit
North America, Middle East (except Israel)

Holden

Subsidiary
Australia, New Zealand

JieFang

Business Unit
China

Opel[b]

Business Unit
Europe (except United Kingdom), North Africa, South Africa, Middle East, China, Singapore, Chile

SAIC-GM

Business Unit
China

Vauxhall[b]

Business Unit
United Kingdom

UzDaewoo

Business Unit
Central Asia, Russia

4. Hyundai / Kia ( South Korea)

Genesis

Business Unit
South Korea, Russia, United States, Canada, Middle East

Hyundai

Division
Global

Kia

Subsidiary
Global, except Japan

5. Ford ( United States)

Ford

Division
Global

Lincoln

Business Unit
North America, Middle East, Japan, South Korea, China

Troller Veículos Especiais

Subsidiary
South America, Africa, Australia, Europe

6. Nissan ( Japan)

Datsun

Division
Indonesia, India, Russia, South Africa

Infiniti

Subsidiary
Global, except Japan, South America (excluding Chile), Africa (excluding South Africa)

Nissan

Division
Global

7. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles ( Italy)

Abarth

Subsidiary
Global, except Iran

Alfa Romeo

Subsidiary
Global, except Iran, China, Taiwan, the Philippines

Chrysler

Division
Global, except Europe (excluding United Kingdom, Ireland), Africa (excluding South Africa, Egypt), South Asia, South East Asia

Dodge

Division
Global, except Europe, Africa (excluding South Africa, Egypt), South Asia, South East Asia

Fiat

Subsidiary
Global, except Africa (excluding South Africa), Iran, South East Asia

Fiat Professional

Business Unit
Global, except Africa (excluding South Africa), Iran, South East Asia, United States, Canada

Jeep

Division
Global, except Africa (excluding South Africa, Egypt), South Asia, South East Asia

Lancia

Division
Europe (excluding United Kingdom, Ireland)

Maserati

Subsidiary
Global

Ram

Division
North America, Brazil, Middle East, Peru

8. Honda ( Japan)

Acura

Division
China, Kuwait, North America, Russia

Honda

Division
Global

9. Suzuki ( Japan)

Suzuki

Division
Global, except United States, Canada, North Korea, South Korea

Maruti Suzuki

Subsidiary
India, Middle East, South America

10. Renault ( France)

Alpine

Subsidiary

AvtoVAZ

Joint venture ownership

Dacia

Subsidiary

Renault

Subsidiary

Renault Samsung Motors

Subsidiary

Renault Sport

Subsidiary

text: Car makes and parent companies[edit]

text: The table below lists most car makes and their parent companies.

text:
Parent (Owner)
Parent Country
Make
Make Country

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy
Abarth
 Italy

Honda
 Japan
Acura
 Japan

Polaris Industries
 United States
Aixam
 France

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy
Alfa Romeo
 Italy

Renault
 France
Alpine
 France

Aston Martin
 United Kingdom
Aston Martin
 United Kingdom

Volkswagen Group
 Germany
Audi
 Germany

SAIC-GM-Wuling
 China/ United States
Baojun
 China

Volkswagen Group
 Germany
Bentley
 United Kingdom

BMW
 Germany
BMW
 Germany

Brilliance
 China
Brilliance
 China

Volkswagen Group
 Germany
Bugatti
 France

General Motors
 United States
Buick
 United States

BYD
 China
BYD
 China

General Motors
 United States
Cadillac
 United States

Caterham
 United Kingdom
Caterham
 United Kingdom

Chang'an
 China
Chang'an
 China

General Motors
 United States
Chevrolet
 United States

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy
Chrysler
 United States

Groupe PSA
 France
Citroën
 France

Renault
 France
Dacia
 Romania

Toyota
 Japan
Daihatsu
 Japan

Nissan
 Japan
Datsun
 Japan

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy
Dodge
 United States

Dongfeng Motor Corporation
 China
Dongfeng
 China

Groupe PSA
 France
DS
 France

Dongfeng Motor Corporation
 China
Dongfeng Fengshen
 China

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy
Fiat
 Italy

Wanxiang
 China
Karma
 United States

Ford
 United States
Ford
 United States

Ferrari
 Italy
Ferrari
 Italy

Geely
 China
Geely
 China

Hyundai Motor Group
 South Korea
Genesis
 South Korea

General Motors
 United States
GMC
 United States

Toyota
 Japan
Hino Motors
 Japan

General Motors
 United States
Holden (HSV)
 Australia

Honda
 Japan
Honda
 Japan

Hyundai Motor Group
 South Korea
Hyundai
 South Korea

Nissan
 Japan
Infiniti
 Japan

Isuzu Motors
 Japan
Isuzu
 Japan

Tata Motors
 India
Jaguar
 United Kingdom

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy
Jeep
 United States

FAW Group / FAW-GM
 China/ United States
Jie Fang
 China

Kantanka Group Conglomerate
 Ghana
Kantanka
 Ghana

Koenigsegg
 Sweden
Koenigsegg
 Sweden

Hyundai Motor Group
 South Korea
Kia
 South Korea

Renault
 France
Lada
 Russia

Volkswagen Group
 Germany
Lamborghini
 Italy

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy
Lancia
 Italy

Tata Motors
 India
Land Rover
 United Kingdom

Toyota
 Japan
Lexus
 Japan

Ligier
 France
Ligier
 France

Ford
 United States
Lincoln
 United States

Geely
 China
Lotus
 United Kingdom

Geely
 China
LTI
 United Kingdom

Yulon Motor
 Taiwan
Luxgen
 Taiwan

Mahindra & Mahindra
 India
Mahindra
 India

Suzuki
 Japan
Maruti Suzuki
 India

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy
Maserati
 Italy

Mastretta
 Mexico
Mastretta
 Mexico

Daimler AG
 Germany
Maybach
 Germany

Mazda
 Japan
Mazda
 Japan

McLaren Automotive
 United Kingdom
McLaren
 United Kingdom

Daimler AG
 Germany
Mercedes-Benz
 Germany

SAIC Motor
 China
MG
 United Kingdom

Ligier
 France
Microcar
 France

BMW
 Germany
Mini
 United Kingdom

Nissan / Mitsubishi Group
 Japan
Mitsubishi
 Japan

Morgan Motor Company
 United Kingdom
Morgan
 United Kingdom

National Electric Vehicle Sweden (NEVS)
 Sweden
NEVS
 Sweden

Nissan
 Japan
Nissan
 Japan

Peter Dyson
 United Kingdom
Noble
 United Kingdom

Groupe PSA
 France
Opel
 Germany

Pagani Automobili
 Italy
Pagani
 Italy

Perodua
 Malaysia
Perodua
 Malaysia

Groupe PSA
 France
Peugeot
 France

PGO
 France
PGO
 France

Volkswagen Group
 Germany
Porsche
 Germany

Geely / DRB-HICOM
 China /  Malaysia
PROTON
 Malaysia

Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
 Italy
Ram
 United States

GM Uzbekistan
 Uzbekistan
Ravon
 Uzbekistan

Renault
 France
Renault
 France

SAIC Motor
 China
Roewe
 China

BMW
 Germany
Rolls Royce
 United Kingdom

Saleen
 United States
Saleen
 United States

Iran Khodro (IKCO)
 Iran
Samand
 Iran

Renault
 France
Renault Samsung Motors
 South Korea

Volkswagen Group
 Germany
SEAT
 Spain

BAIC Motor
 China
Senova
 China

Volkswagen Group
 Germany
Škoda
 Czech Republic

Daimler AG
 Germany
Smart
 Germany

Mahindra & Mahindra
 India
SsangYong
 South Korea

Subaru Corporation
 Japan
Subaru
 Japan

Suzuki
 Japan
Suzuki
 Japan

Tata Motors
 India
Tata
 India

Tesla
 United States
Tesla
 United States

Saipa
 Iran
Tiba/Miniator
 Iran

Toyota
 Japan
Toyota
 Japan

Uniti Sweden AB
 Sweden
Uniti
 Sweden

Groupe PSA
 France
Vauxhall
 United Kingdom

Dongfeng Motor Co., Ltd. (Dongfeng-Nissan)
 China/ Japan
Venucia
 China

Volkswagen Group
 Germany
Volkswagen
 Germany

Geely
 China
Volvo Cars
 Sweden

Vuhl
 Mexico
Vuhl
 Mexico

SAIC-GM-Wuling
 China/ United States
Wuling
 China


document_title: Batman: The Telltale Series

question_text: when does the next batman telltale episode come out

text: Batman: The Telltale Series

text: Gameplay[edit]

text: The player takes the role of Batman, both as the superhero and as his alter ego Bruce Wayne. Telltale Games CEO Kevin Bruner has stated that playtime will be split evenly between them, though at times the game will offer the player a choice of whether to approach a situation as Wayne or as Batman.[15][16] The game's narrative offers a "fresh interpretation of the universe set in current times, not tied to any existing iteration of Batman in games, film, or comics", according to Telltale Games.[15] According to Bruner, the game is set a few years after Wayne decides to become Batman, giving them flexibility in their writing and gameplay to give the player some control on how they want to play the character without ties to any established narrative.[16] The game features a branching narrative, similar to past Telltale games, giving the player options in approaching a situation and having that choice affect later events in the game.[15] The game includes action sequences that are resolved similar to Telltale's other games, using quick time events. The series also includes investigation sequences, allowing the player to use Batman's detective skills to progress the story.[16]

text: The series also introduces a new feature called "crowd play", available on both the PC and console versions of the game. Crowd play allows the game to be watched by an audience who can participate in the decision-making process. When this feature is active, the player provides their audience with a link to Telltale's website with a unique code to participate in that session through any web-enabled device. These additional players are given the option to vote at the game's decision points, with the results presented to the main player to judge which decision to make. Optionally, the main player can have the game automatically take the most-popular decision for them. This mode is intended to be used for an audience at the same physical setting, such as a living room or movie theater; though this mode can be used through streaming services like Twitch.tv, Telltale warned that latency issues may hamper the viewing players' experience. Telltale's head of creative communications Job Stauffer said that they had seen their games, as well as older point-and-click titles, popularized on streaming channels. Furthermore, when they premiered Tales from the Borderlands at the Alamo Drafthouse, they found the audience shouting out which choices the demonstrators should take. This led to them working to create a more interactive experience for watchers. They premiered this feature at the San Diego Comic-Con in July 2016 to 500 attendees.[17][18]

text: Plot[edit]

text: In Gotham City, a group of professional mercenaries attempt to break into Mayor Hamilton Hill's vault at Gotham City Hall but they are intercepted by Bruce Wayne, the vigilante known as Batman (Troy Baker). Batman also encounters the elusive cat burglar Catwoman (Laura Bailey), who manages to break into the vault and steal an encrypted data drive. The two of them engage each other in hand-to-hand combat, during which Batman retrieves the drive, but allows Catwoman to escape. Meanwhile, Wayne reunites with his old childhood friend Oswald Cobblepot (Jason Spisak) in Cobblepot Park who informs Wayne that there is a revolution afoot in Gotham City and to be on the right side once it commences.

text: Mysterious accusations come to light that Thomas Wayne (Troy Baker) and Martha Wayne (Lorri Holt) may have had affiliations with the Falcone crime organization. Wayne confronts his friend and mayoral candidate, Harvey Dent (Travis Willingham), about the matter, but he denies any knowledge. Wayne also meets Dent's girlfriend Selina Kyle who Wayne realizes is Catwoman. Wayne manages to convince Kyle to give him the address of the employer she was supposed to deliver the drive to: a warehouse at the Gotham City docks.

text: Wayne heads to the address as Batman only to discover that an explosion had killed numerous mercenaries and police officers prior to his arrival. Batman finds a surviving mercenary on the other side of the warehouse and interrogates him about the incident. The mercenary reveals that Carmine Falcone (Richard McGonagle) had ordered his group to steal barrels of unknown chemicals and the data drive contained the container number, but had to search themselves when Catwoman failed to deliver it. Someone had tipped off the GCPD, resulting in a shootout and an unknown group escaping with the chemicals.

text: Returning to the Batcave, Wayne finishes decrypting the drive and discovers evidence of Falcone's criminal organization, as well as connections between Hill and Falcone. With an opportunity to finally bring down Falcone, Wayne can either take the evidence to reporter Vicki Vale (Erin Yvette) or Lt. James Gordon (Murphy Guyer). Batman confronts Falcone in his office and interrogates him about the chemicals. Falcone admits to having ownership of the chemicals, but denies playing a part in the shootout. Falcone also reveals that everything said about the Wayne family being affiliated with his organization is true and this is confirmed when Batman notices a fallen photograph of Falcone and his parents. An angered Batman leaves Falcone for the police and returns to the Batcave to confront his butler Alfred Pennyworth (Enn Reitel) about the matter.

text: Alfred reveals to Wayne that his parents collaborated with Falcone and Hill to control Gotham and had done it to secure his future. Wayne re-investigates the death of his parents at the hands of Joe Chill (Jarion Monroe) and discovers that it was not a mugging, but an assassination. Wayne confronts Falcone, now in police custody, where he claims that he had nothing to do with the Waynes' deaths before he is shot and killed by a drugged Renee Montoya (Krizia Bajos). Based on Montoya's testimony upon recovering from the drugs, Batman deduces that Cobblepot (now calling himself the "Penguin") had synthesized the stolen chemicals and was behind the assassination. After discovering that Cobblepot plans to kill Catwoman, Wayne arranges a meeting with Kyle where they fight off armed thugs sent by Cobblepot. Wayne and Alfred decrypt the phone of one of the thugs and uncover a voicemail between Hill and Cobblepot. Wayne confronts Hill (Robert Pescovitz) as either himself or as Batman where he reveals that he hired Cobblepot to leak information about the Waynes in order to discredit Dent's campaign.

text: Cobblepot in his Penguin alias, with the help of an armed group, betrays Hill by taking everyone hostage at a public debate between Hill and Dent. Penguin proclaims he is part of a group called the Children of Arkham led by a masked figure named Lady Arkham (Steven Blum) and are dedicated to exposing and eradicating the corruption in Gotham City. As Batman makes a reluctant alliance with Catwoman to fight the Children of Arkham, Hill admits that he was the one who ordered the assassination of the Waynes before he is gunned down by Cobblepot. Penguin and the Children of Arkham escape and release a full list of all the innocent people Thomas Wayne had forcibly committed to Arkham Asylum, further tarnishing the Wayne name.

text: With Hill dead, Dent wins the election in a stalemate. During his term, he begins to show alarming signs of a split personality. Batman learns that Lady Arkham is located at the Sky Train Depot and discovers that the Children of Arkham are planning to use the depot's trains to transport bombs containing the drug and carry out a terrorist attack. Batman destroys the bombs and battles Lady Arkham, but is wounded during the fight and rescued by Catwoman. The next day at a press conference, Wayne is forced by his board of directors to officially resign as the CEO of Wayne Enterprises and allow himself to be replaced by Cobblepot. After taking his place in the crowd, Bruce is met by Vale, who injects him with the chemical and reveals herself as Lady Arkham. She goads Wayne in his drug induced state into violently attacking Cobblepot.

text: Bruce Wayne is committed to Arkham Asylum by Mayor Dent as a result of his attack on Oswald Cobblepot. With the help of a patient, known only as John Doe (Anthony Ingruber), Wayne manages to get himself bailed out of Arkham and decides to investigate the Vale household as Batman. At the Vale residence, Batman discovers that Vale murdered her adoptive parents in order to use her father's company to store the drugs. Batman later discovers that the Cobblepot has used his new position as CEO to compromise Batman's technology. Meanwhile Dent, having fully succumbed to his split personality, publicly announces that he is seizing the Wayne Estate to finance his security system and bombs a city block containing a Children of Arkham base, killing several innocent people in the process. Batman is then given the choice to either stop Cobblepot or Dent. Regardless of the player's choice, both are eventually subdued.

text: Wayne's actions start improving his public image and his position as CEO of Wayne Enterprises is reinstated. Kyle leaves Gotham City after stealing an electronic skeleton key that will allow her to bypass any Wayne Tech. Wayne returns to Wayne Manor to find Alfred missing and receives a video message from Lady Arkham, who has taken Alfred hostage. During the video message, Alfred manages to subtly inform Wayne of his location: the basement of the Vale residence. Batman investigates and finds the Children of Arkham have fled with Alfred. During his investigation, he discovers that the Vales had tortured and abused Vicki as a child which strengthened her desire for revenge. After examining more clues left by Alfred, Batman discovers that Lady Arkham is planning to release the inmates at Arkham Asylum.

text: Batman arrives at Arkham Asylum just as Vicki releases all of the inmates thus insighting a massive riot. While the GCPD attempt to handle the situation, Batman pursues Vicki to the catacombs of the asylum. Batman eventually finds Vicki who threatens to kill Alfred unless Batman unmasks himself. Regardless if the player complies, Batman and Vicki fight one another which eventually results in the catacombs collapsing. Batman and Alfred escape while Vicki is seemingly killed in the destruction.

text: In the aftermath, Gordon becomes the acting police commissioner, the former having been killed by either Dent or Cobblepot earlier in the game, and plans to give a public speech regarding the incident later in the day. Alfred reminds Wayne that both he and Batman will play a large part in reshaping Gotham City's future, and to choose wisely who should show up at Gordon's speech. Regardless, an assassin launches an attack at the speech, but is quickly subdued. Doe, having earlier escaped Arkham during Vicki's riot, is seen sitting alone at a bar watching the event live on television and claiming that he has big plans in the future.

text: Development[edit]

text: Bruner stated that the game would be similar in maturity to their previous titles The Wolf Among Us and The Walking Dead.[15] The game was rendered using a "non-photorealistic" style inspired by comic artists Jim Lee, Greg Capullo and Neal Adams. To meet this, Telltale updated its game engine to be able to produce improved rendering results.[19]

text: Episodes[edit]

text: The game was separated into five episodes, released in approximately monthly intervals for mobile devices, personal computers, and PlayStation and Xbox consoles. The version of the series for the Nintendo Switch was announced in August 2017, though its release date is not yet known.[20]

text:
No.
overall
No. in
season
Title
Directed by
Written by
Original release date

1
1
"Realm of Shadows"
Kent Mudle
Zack Keller, Patrick Kevin Day, Shanon Ingles, Nicole Martinez & James Windeler
August 2, 2016 (2016-08-02)[1]

Bruce comes under public fire after a shocking revelation about his family name comes to light while Batman faces off against crime boss, Carmine Falcone.

2
2
"Children of Arkham"
Jonathan Stauder
James Windeler, Patrick Day, Andrew Hanson, Shanon Ingles & Meghan Thornton
September 20, 2016 (2016-09-20)[6]

Bruce investigates his family's legacy while an old friend becomes a deadly adversary.

3
3
"New World Order"
Jason Pyke
Nicole Martinez, Meredith Ainsworth, Patrick Kevin Day & Jessica Krause
October 25, 2016 (2016-10-25)[10]

Bruce continues to be the subject of public scorn while Batman further investigates the Children of Arkham, who are slowly rising to power.

4
4
"Guardian of Gotham"
Mark Droste
Eric Stirpe, Patrick Kevin Day, Shanon Ingles & Luke McMullen
November 22, 2016 (2016-11-22)[13]

Bruce is committed to Arkham Aslyum shortly after discovering the true identity of Lady Arkham.

5
5
"City of Light"
Kent Mudle
Meghan Thornton, Meredith Ainsworth & James Windeler
December 13, 2016 (2016-12-13)[14]

Batman faces off against Lady Arkham in a final battle that will determine the fate of Gotham City.

text: Reception[edit]

text:
Aggregate review scores

Game
Metacritic

Episode 1: Realm of Shadows
(PC) 74[21]
(PS4) 70[22]
(XONE) 65[23]

Episode 2: Children of Arkham
(PC) 73[24]
(PS4) 66[25]
(XONE) 83[26]

Episode 3: New World Order
(PC) 73[27]
(PS4) 74[28]
(XONE) 73[29]

Episode 4: Guardian of Gotham
(PC) 73[30]
(PS4) 73[31]
(XONE) 75[32]

Episode 5: City of Light
(PC) 75[33]
(PS4) 67[34]
(XONE) 76[35]

text: Batman: The Telltale Series received favorable reviews from critics. Praise was aimed towards Telltale's updated engine, the action sequences, atmosphere, and the portrayal of the titular character. However, the presence of technical issues was criticized and critical reaction to the game's story was generally mixed.

text: Episode 1: Realm of Shadows[edit]

text: Aggregating review website Metacritic gave the Microsoft Windows version 74/100 based on 39 reviews,[21] the PlayStation 4 version 70/100 based on 22 reviews[22] and the Xbox One version 65/100 based on 15 reviews.[23]

text: Episode 2: Children of Arkham[edit]

text: Aggregating review website Metacritic gave the Microsoft Windows version 73/100 based on 20 reviews,[24] the PlayStation 4 version 66/100 based on 13 reviews[25] and the Xbox One version 83/100 based on 8 reviews.[26]

text: Episode 3: New World Order[edit]

text: Aggregating review website Metacritic gave the Microsoft Windows version 73/100 based on 16 reviews,[27] the PlayStation 4 version 74/100 based on 11 reviews[28] and the Xbox One version 73/100 based on 7 reviews.[29]

text: Episode 4: Guardian of Gotham[edit]

text: Aggregating review website Metacritic gave the Microsoft Windows version 73/100 based on 11 reviews,[30] the PlayStation 4 version 73/100 based on 12 reviews[31] and the Xbox One version 75/100 based on 7 reviews.[32]

text: Episode 5: City of Light[edit]

text: Aggregating review website Metacritic gave the Microsoft Windows version 75/100 based on 14 reviews,[33] the PlayStation 4 version 67/100 based on 12 reviews[34] and the Xbox One version 76/100 based on 7 reviews.[35]

text: Second season[edit]

text: Telltale announced during the July 2017 San Diego Comic Con that a second 5-episode season called Batman: The Enemy Within would launch on August 8, 2017, for PC, consoles, and mobile devices. The season focuses on Batman facing "John Doe", who has formed a criminal organization called "The Pact" consisting of supervillains such as the Riddler and Harley Quinn. While this will be a standalone title and does not require the first game, players' choices in the first game can influence the story in The Enemy Within.[36]