Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T15:14:59.874Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The input ambiguity hypothesis and case blindness: an account of cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic differences in case errors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 March 2010

SABRA D. PELHAM
SABRA D. PELHAM*
Affiliation:
University of Florida
*
[*]Address for correspondence: e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English-acquiring children frequently make pronoun case errors, while German-acquiring children rarely do. Nonetheless, German-acquiring children frequently make article case errors. It is proposed that when child-directed speech contains a high percentage of case-ambiguous forms, case errors are common in child language; when percentages are low, case errors are rare. Input to English and German children was analyzed for percentage of case-ambiguous personal pronouns on adult tiers of corpora from 24 English-acquiring and 24 German-acquiring children. Also analyzed for German was the percentage of case-ambiguous articles. Case-ambiguous pronouns averaged 63·3% in English, compared with 7·6% in German. The percentage of case-ambiguous articles in German was 77·0%. These percentages align with the children's errors reported in the literature. It appears children may be sensitive to levels of ambiguity such that low ambiguity may aid error-free acquisition, while high ambiguity may blind children to case distinctions, resulting in errors.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , March 2011 , pp. 235 - 272
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.)

References

Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: The data, 839–78. Hinsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 173–218. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. (1988). On grammar of local prepositions. In Bierwisch, M., Motsch, W. & Zimmermann, I. (eds), Syntax, Semantik und das Lexikon, 1–65. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: The use of single-word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Pronominal–nominal variation in child language. Readings in Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 40(2), 18–24.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S. & Vainikka, A. (1994). The seeds of structure: A syntactic analysis of the acquisition of case-marking. In Clahsen, H. and Rutherford, W. (eds), Language acquisition studies in generative gramaar: Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops, 85–118. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, P. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: The data, 373–524. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1982). The young word maker: A case study of innovation in the child's lexicon. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 390–425. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Czepluch, H. (1996). Case morphology and case system in L1 acquisition: A pilot study of a German child. In Sackmann, R. (ed.), Theoretical linguistics and grammatical description, 89–108. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demetras, M., Post, K. & Snow, C. (1986). Feedback to first-language learners. Journal of Child Language 13, 275–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eisenbeiss, S. (2003). Merkmalsgesteuerter Grammatikerwerb. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, University of Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
Eisenbeiss, S.Bartke, S. & Clahsen, H. (2006). Structural and lexical case in child German: Evidence from language-impaired and typically-developing children. Language Acquisition 13(1), 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1991). Introduction to Government and Binding theory. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haider, H. (1985). The case of German. In Toman, J. (ed.), Studies in German grammar, 23–64. Foris: Dordrecht.Google Scholar
Higginson, R. P. (1985). Fixing-assimilation in language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.Google Scholar
Huxley, R. (1970). The development of the correct use of subject personal pronouns in two children. In Flores d'Arcais, G. & Levelt, W. (eds), Advances in psycholinguistics, 141–65. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Kaper, W. (1976). Pronominal case-errors. Journal of Child Language 3, 439–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornfilt, J. (1994). Some remarks on the interaction of case and word order in Turkish: Implications for acquisition. In Lust, B., Suner, M. & Whitman, J. (eds), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives, 171–99. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. (1976). -ing, -s and -ed: A study of the acquisition of certain verb inflections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1978). The acquisition of German morphology. Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development 43, 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 249–308. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Miller, M. (1979). The logic of language development in early childhood. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, A. E. (1985). The acquisition of German. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, 141–254. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morikawa, H. (1989). Acquisition of the case marking and predicate-argument structures in Japanese: A longitudinal study of language acquisition mechanisms. Tokyo: Kurosio.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1975). The nominal shift in semantic–syntactic development. Cognitive Psychology 7, 461–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pine, J., Rowland, G., Lieven, E. & Theakston, A. (2005). Testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model: Why the data on children's use of non-nominative 3psg subjects count against the ATOM. Journal of Child Language 32, 269–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radford, A. (1990). The syntax of nominal arguments in early child English. Language Acquisition 1(3), 195–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1998). Genitive subjects in child English. Lingua 106, 113–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rispoli, M. (1991). The mosaic acquisition of grammatical relations. Journal of Child Language 18(3), 517–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rispoli, M. (1994). Pronoun case over-extensions and paradigm building. Journal of Child Language 21, 157–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rispoli, M. (2005). When children reach beyond their grasp: Why some children make pronoun case errors and others don't. Journal of Child Language 32, 93–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schütze, C. (1997). INFL in child and adult language: Agreement and case licensing. Unpublished doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. (2001). On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3), 205–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. Proceedings of the BUCLD 20, 670–81.Google Scholar
Stenzel, A. (1994). Case assignment and functional categories in bilingual children: Routes to development and implications for linguistic theory. In Meisel, J. (ed.), Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammatical development, 161–208. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suppes, P. (1974). The semantics of children's language. American Psychologist 29, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suzuki, T. (1999). Two Aspects of Japanese Case in Acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Szagun, G. (2000). Germanic database manual. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Child Language Data Exchange System, 47–51. Available at http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/.Google Scholar
Szagun, G. (2002). Learning the h(e)ard way: The acquisition of grammar in young German-speaking children with cochlear implants and with normal hearing. In Windsor, F., Kelly, L. & Newlett, N. (eds), Investigations in clinical phonetics and linguistics, 131–44. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Szagun, G. (2004). Learning by ear: On the acquisition of case and gender marking by German-speaking children with normal hearing and with cochlear implants. Journal of Child Language 31, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Tracy, R. (1986). The acquisition of case morphology in German. Linguistics 24, 47–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A. (1994). Case in the development of English syntax. Language Acquisition 3, 257–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, K. R. (1985). How much do children say in a day? Journal of Child Language 12, 475–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wexler, K., Schutze, C. & Rice, M. (1998). Subject case in children with SLI and unaffected controls: Evidence for the Agr/Tns Omiision Model. Language Acquisition 7(1), 317–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunderlich, D. (1997). Cause and the structure of verbs. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 27–68.Google Scholar