Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T05:28:59.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Building Language Competence in First Language Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Elena Lieven
Elena Lieven*
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany; School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, UK
*
E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most accounts of child language acquisition use as analytic tools adult-like syntactic categories and grammars with little concern for whether they are psychologically real for young children. However, when approached from a cognitive and functional theoretical perspective, recent research has demonstrated that children do not operate initially with such abstract linguistic entities, but instead on the basis of distributional learning and item-based, form-meaning constructions. Children construct more abstract, linguistic representations only gradually on the basis of the language they hear and use and they constrain these constructions to their appropriate ranges of use only gradually as well – again on the basis of linguistic experience in which frequency plays a key role. Results from empirical analyses of children’s early multiword utterances, the development of the transitive construction and certain types of errors are presented to illustrate this approach.

Type
Focus: The Origin of Language
Information
European Review , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 445 - 456
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Jusczyk, P. W. and Aslin, R. N. (1995) Infants’ detection of the sound patterns of words in fluent speech. Cognitive Psychology, 29(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Jusczyk, P. W. and Hohne, E. A. (1997) Infants’ memory for spoken words. Science, 277(5334), 1984–1986.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Gómez, R. L. and Gerken, L. A. (1999) Artificial grammar learning by 1-year-olds leads to specific and abstract knowledge. Cognition, 70(2), 109–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Mandler, J. M. (2000) Perceptual and conceptual processes in infancy. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Carpenter, M., Nagell, K. and Tomasello, M. (1998) Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63(4), V–143.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Tomasello, M. (2008) Origins of Human Communication (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Crain, S. and Pietroski, P. (2001) Nature, nurture and universal grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24(2), 139–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Radford, A. (1990) Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English syntax (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell).Google Scholar
9.Hyams, N. (1986) Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters (Dordrecht: D. Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Roeper, T. and Williams, E. (eds) (1987) Parameter Setting (Dordrecht: D. Reidel).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Tomasello, M. (2003) Constructing a Language: a Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition (Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press), p. 174.Google Scholar
12.Goldberg, A. (2005) Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure (Oxford: Oxford University Press).Google Scholar
13.Dąbrowska, E. (2004) Language, Mind and Brain (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. M. and Rowland, C. F. (1998) Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category. Linguistics, 36(4), 807–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E. and Tomasello, M. (2003) A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27(6), 843–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Stoll, S., Abbot-Smith, K. and Lieven, E. (In press) Lexically restricted utterances in Russian, German and English child directed speech. Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
17.Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J. and Tomasello, M. (2003) Early syntactic creativity: a usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30(2), 333–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Dąbrowska, E. and Lieven, E. (2005) Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(3), 437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Lieven, E., Salomo, D. and Tomasello, M. (Submitted) Two-year-old children’s production of multiword utterances: a usage-based analysis.Google Scholar
20.Slobin, D. I. and Bever, T. G. (1982) Children use canonical sentence schemas – a crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12(3), 229–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Bates, E. and MacWhinney, B. (1987) Competition, variation, and language learning. In: MacWhinney, B. (ed.) Mechanisms of Language Acquisition (Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum), pp. 157–193.Google Scholar
22.Chan, A., Lieven, E. and Tomasello, M. (Submitted) Children’s understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German and English.Google Scholar
23.Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. and Tomasello, M. (2008) German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 79(4), 1152–1167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Tomasello, M. (2000) Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74(3), 209–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Tomasello, M. and Abbot-Smith, K. (2002) A tale of two theories: response to Fisher. Cognition, 83(2), 207–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Fisher, C. (2002) The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: a reply to Tomasello (2000). Cognition, 82(3), 259–278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27.Gertner, Y., Fisher, C. and Eisengart, J. (2006) Learning words and rules: abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science, 17(8), 684–691.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28.Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. and Tomasello, M. (2008) Young German children’s early syntactic competence: a preferential looking study. Developmental Science, 11(4), 575–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29.Valian, V. (1991) Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40, 21–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. and Rowland, C. F. (2001) The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: an alternative account. Journal of Child Language, 28(1), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31.Schuetze, C. and Wexler, K. (1996) Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In: MacLaughlin, D., McEwen, S. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Boston: Cascadilla Press), pp. 670–681.Google Scholar
32.Wexler, K. (1998) Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106(1–4), 23–79, p. 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33.Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. and Rowland, C. F. (2005) The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: BE and HAVE. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 247–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34.Pine, J., Conti-Ramsden, G., Joseph, K., Lieven, E. and Serratrice, L. (2008) Tense over time: testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model as an account of the pattern of tense-marking provision in early child English. Journal of Child Language, 35(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35.Freudenthal, D., Pine, J., Aguado-Orea, J. and Gobet, F. (2007) Modelling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German and Spanish using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science, 31, 311–341.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36.Santelmann, L., Berk, S., Austin, J., Somashekar, S. and Lust, B. (2002) Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: dissociating movement and inflection. Journal of Child Language, 29(4), 813–842.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37.Rowland, C. F. and Pine, J. M. (2000) Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘what children do know!’ Journal of Child Language, 27(1), 157–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38.Rowland, C. F. (2007) Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition, 104(1), 106–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39.Dąbrowska, E. (2004) Rules or schemas? Evidence from Polish. Language and Cognitive Processes, 19(2), 225–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40.Aguado-Orea, J. (2004) The Acquisition of Morpho-syntax in Spanish: Implications for Current Theories of Development (University of Nottingham).Google Scholar
41.Slobin, D. I. (1997) The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 5. Expanding the Contexts (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).Google Scholar
42.Dąbrowska, E. and Szczerbiński, M. (2006) Polish children’s productivity with case marking: the role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological diversity. Journal of Child Language, 33, 559–597.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed