Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:50:54.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of Optional Infinitive errors across languages: A comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2010

DANIEL FREUDENTHAL ,
JULIAN PINE  and
FERNAND GOBET
DANIEL FREUDENTHAL*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
JULIAN PINE
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
FERNAND GOBET
Affiliation:
Brunel University
*
Address for correspondence:Daniel Freudenthal, School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Bedford Street South Liverpool, L69 7ZA, United Kingdom. tel: 0151 794 1108; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this study, we use corpus analysis and computational modelling techniques to compare two recent accounts of the OI stage: Legate & Yang's (2007) Variational Learning Model and Freudenthal, Pine & Gobet's (2006) Model of Syntax Acquisition in Children. We first assess the extent to which each of these accounts can explain the level of OI errors across five different languages (English, Dutch, German, French and Spanish). We then differentiate between the two accounts by testing their predictions about the relation between children's OI errors and the distribution of infinitival verb forms in the input language. We conclude that, although both accounts fit the cross-linguistic patterning of OI errors reasonably well, only MOSAIC is able to explain why verbs that occur more frequently as infinitives than as finite verb forms in the input also occur more frequently as OI errors than as correct finite verb forms in the children's output.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 37 , Special Issue 3: Computational models of child language learning , June 2010 , pp. 643 - 669
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

We would like to thank the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig for allowing us access to the Leo Corpus. This research was funded by the ESRC under Grant Number RES-062-23-1348.

References

REFERENCES

Aguado-Orea, J. (2004). The acquisition of morpho-syntax in Spanish: Implications for current theories of development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2006). The input–output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes 21, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bol, G. W. (1996). Optional subjects in Dutch child language. In Koster, C. & Wijnen, F. (eds), Proceedings of the Groningen Assembly on Language Acquisition, 125–35.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. & Tremblay, A. (2008). Prosodically-conditioned variability in children's production of French determiners. Journal of Child Language 35, 99–127.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Aguado-Orea, J. & Gobet, F. (2007). Modelling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German and Spanish using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science 31, 311–41.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2005). Simulating Optional Infinitive errors in child speech through the omission of sentence-internal elements. In Bara, B. G., Barsalou, L. & Buchiarelli, M. (eds), Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 708–713. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2006). Modelling the development of children's use of Optional Infinitives in Dutch and English using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science 30, 277–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2009). Simulating the referential properties of Dutch, German and English root infinitives in MOSAIC. Language Learning and Development 5, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Jones, G. & Gobet, F. (submitted). Simulating the cross-linguistic pattern of finiteness marking in children's declaratives and Wh- questions in terms of edge effects in utterance learning.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. & Hyams, N. (1998). Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua 106, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N. (1996). The underspecification of functional categories in early grammar. In Clahsen, H. (ed.), Generative perspectives in language acquisition, 91–128. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jordens, P. (1990). The acquisition of verb placement in Dutch and German. Linguistics 28, 1407–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, K. L. & Pine, J. M. (2002). Does error-free use of French negation constitute evidence for Very Early Parameter Setting? Journal of Child Language 29, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Legate, J. A. & Yang, C. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the develoment of tense. Language Acquisition 14, 315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1978). The acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 43, 1–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analysing talk, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Phillips, C. (1995). Syntax at age two: Cross-linguistic differences. In Schütze, C., Ganger, J. & Broihier, K. (eds), Papers on Language Processing and Acquisition. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 325–82.Google Scholar
Pierce, A. (1992). Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English. Kluwer: Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pine, J. M., Conti-Ramsden, G., Joseph, K., Lieven, E. V. M. & 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, 55–75.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D. & Wexler, K. (1993). The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language 69, 1–33.Google Scholar
Pye, C. (1983). Mayan telegraphese: Intonational determinants of inflectional development in Quiche Mayan. Language 59, 583–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pye, C., Pfeiler, B., De León, L., Brown, P. & Mateo, P. (2007). Roots or edges? Explaining variation in children's early verb forms across five Mayan languages. In Pfeiler, B. (ed.), Learning indigenous languages: Child language acquisition in Mesoamerica, 15–46. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1994). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 3, 371–93.Google Scholar
Szagun, G. (2001). Learning different regularities: The acquisition of noun plurals by German-speaking children. First Language 21, 109–141.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of Child Language 28, 127–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivation in child grammar. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds), Verb movement, 305–365. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106, 23–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. (2003). Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English. Journal of Child Language 30, 75–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2004). Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 451–56.Google Scholar