Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T20:09:49.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rules, rote, and analogy in morphological formations by Hungarian children*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Brian MacWhinney
Brian MacWhinney
Affiliation:
University of Denver
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the relative contributions of rote-memorization, analogic formation and rule-operation in the production of plurals by Hungarian children. In order to maximize analogic formations, each of fifteen actual roots was matched to a rhyming nonsense root. The elicited plural responses were characterized in terms of five stages of morphological learning. The importance of rule-operation as an explanation of word formation was evidenced by the fact that children producing responses characteristic of a given stage did not produce responses for later stages. The contribution of analogic formation was seen to be minimal and the effect of rote-memorization only somewhat greater.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 1975 , pp. 65 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1975

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

REFERENCES

Anisfeld, M. & Gordon, M. (1968). On the psychophonological structure of English inflectional rules. JVLVB 7. 973–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anisfeld, M. & Tucker, G. R. (1967). English pluralization rules of six-year-old children. ChDev 38. 1201–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloomfield, L. (1933). Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Bogoyavlenskiy, D. N. (1957). Psikhologiya usvoyeniya ortografii. Moscow: Akad. Pedag. Nauk RSFSR.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1974). On what might constitute a learnable phonology, Lg 50. 270–99.Google Scholar
Bryant, B. & Anisfeld, M. (1969). Feedback versus no feedback in testing children's knowledge of English pluralization rules. JExpChPsych 8. 250–5.Google Scholar
Ervin, S. M. (1964). Imitation and structural change in children's language. In Lenneberg, E. H. (ed.) New directions in the study of language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Esper, E. A. (1973). Analogy and association in linguistics and psychology. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Guillaume, P. (1927). Le développement des éléments formels dans le langage de l'enfant. JPsychNormPathol 24. 203–29.Google Scholar
Kernan, K. T. & Blount, B. G. (1966). The acquisition of Spanish grammar by Mexican children. AnL 8. 1–14.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1974). How Hungarian children learn to speak. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley. Available from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan.Google Scholar
Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. (1967). Course in general linguistics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Stampe, D. (1969). The acquisition of phonetic representation. Papers from the Fifth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society. 443–54.Google Scholar