Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:38:56.932Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Infinitives or bare stems? Are English-speaking children defaulting to the highest-frequency form?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 July 2013

SANNA H. M. RÄSÄNEN ,
BEN AMBRIDGE  and
JULIAN M. PINE
SANNA H. M. RÄSÄNEN*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
BEN AMBRIDGE
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
JULIAN M. PINE
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
*
Address for correspondence: Sanna Räsänen, Department of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Bedford Street South, Liverpool, United Kingdom. tel: +441517941109; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Young English-speaking children often produce utterances with missing 3sg -s (e.g., *He play). Since the mid 1990s, such errors have tended to be treated as Optional Infinitive (OI) errors, in which the verb is a non-finite form (e.g., Wexler, 1998; Legate & Yang, 2007). The present article reports the results of a cross-sectional elicited-production study with 22 children (aged 3;1–4;1), which investigated the possibility that at least some apparent OI errors reflect a process of defaulting to the form with the highest frequency in the input. Across 48 verbs, a significant negative correlation was observed between the proportion of ‘bare’ vs. 3sg -s forms in a representative input corpus and the rate of 3sg -s production. This finding suggests that, in addition to other learning mechanisms that yield such errors cross-linguistically, at least some of the OI errors produced by English-speaking children reflect a process of defaulting to a high-frequency/phonologically simple form.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 4 , July 2014 , pp. 756 - 779
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

[*]

The authors would like to thank Hopscotch, Bizzkidz, and Oakdale Children's Day Nurseries in Liverpool for their participation. This research was funded by an ESRC PhD Scholarship awarded to the first author.

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
Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analyzing linguistic data: a practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blom, E. (2007). Modality, infinitives, and finite bare verbs in Dutch and English child language. Language Acquisition 14, 75–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bromberg, H. S. & Wexler, K. (1995). Null subjects in child Wh-questions. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 221–47.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. & Bellugi, U. (1964). Three processes in the child's acquisition of syntax. Harvard Educational Review 34, 133–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1968). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child Development 39, 433–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dabrowska, E. & Szczerbinski, M. (2006). Polish children's productivity with case marking: the role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological diversity. Journal of Child Language 33, 559–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finneran, D. A. & Leonard, L. B. (2010). Role of linguistic input in third person singular -s use in the speech of young children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 53, 1065–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2006). Modeling 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. Language Learning and Development 5, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M. & Gobet, F. (2010). Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of Optional Infinitive errors across languages: a comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model. Journal of Child Language 37, 643–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, L. (1996). Prosodic structure in young children's language production. Language 72, 683–712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, T. & Wexler, K. (1996). The optional-infinitive stage in child English. In Clahsen, H. (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition, 1–42. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. & Hyams, N. (1998). Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua 106, 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, D. & Thompson, W. (1996). Early syntactic acquisition in German: evidence for the modal hypothesis. Language 72, 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordens, P. (1990). The acquisition of verb placement in Dutch and German. Linguistics 28, 1407–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, G. (2002). The use and function of nonfinite root clauses in Swedish child language. Language Acquisition 10, 273–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laalo, K. (1994). Kaksitavuvaihe lapsen kielen kehityksessä. Virittäjä 97, 430–48.Google Scholar
Laalo, K. (2003). Early verb development in Finnish: a preliminary approach to miniparadigms. In Bittner, D., Dressler, W. U. & Kilani-Schoch, M. (eds.), Development of verb inflection in first language acquisition: a cross-linguistic perspective, 323–50. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. & Yang, C. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition 14, 315–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk: Vol. 2. The database. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Matthews, D. E. & Theakston, A. L. (2006). Errors of omission in English-speaking children's production of plurals and the past tense: the effects of frequency, phonology, and competition. Cognitive Science, 30 1027–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oetting, J. & Horohov, J. (1997). Past tense marking in children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40, 62–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Poeppel, D. & Wexler, K. (1993). The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language 69, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. & Ploennig-Pacheco, I. (1995). The morphosyntax of subjects and verbs in child Spanish: a case study. Essex Reports in Linguistics 5, 23–67.Google Scholar
Rizzi, I. (1994). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: the case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 3, 371–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C. F. & Theakston, A. L. (2009). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: a longitudinal elicitation study. Part 2: The modals and auxiliary DO. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52(6), 1471–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Schutze, C. T. & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 670–81. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Song, J. Y., Sundara, M. & Demuth, K. (2009). Phonological constraints on children's production of English third person singular -s. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52, 623–42.CrossRefGoogle 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
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of input in the acquisition of third-person singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research 46, 863–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toivainen, J. (1980). Inflectional affixes used by Finnish-speaking children aged 1–3 years. Helsinki: Suomen kirjallisuus seura.Google Scholar
Valian, V. & Aubry, S. (2005). When opportunity knocks twice: two-year-olds' repetition of sentence subjects. Journal of Child Language 32, 617–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van der Lely, H. K. J. & Ullman, M. T. (2001). Past tense morphology in specifically language impaired and normally developing children. Language and Cognitive Processes 16, 177–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivation in child grammar. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfood, D. (eds.), Verb movement, 305–50. 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
Wijnen, F. (1998). The temporal interpretation of Dutch children's root infinitivals: the effect of eventivity. First Language 18, 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed