Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-23T18:10:29.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abstract categories or limited-scope formulae? The case of children's determiners*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

VIRGINIA VALIAN ,
STEPHANIE SOLT  and
JOHN STEWART
VIRGINIA VALIAN*
Affiliation:
Hunter College and CUNY Graduate Center
STEPHANIE SOLT
Affiliation:
CUNY Graduate Center
JOHN STEWART
Affiliation:
CUNY Graduate Center
*
Address for correspondence: Virginia Valian, Department of Psychology, Hunter College – CUNY, 695 Park Avenue, New York, NY, 10065, USA. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Six tests of the spontaneous speech of twenty-one English-speaking children (1 ; 10 to 2 ; 8; MLUs 1·53 to 4·38) demonstrate the presence of the syntactic category determiner from the start of combinatorial speech, supporting nativist accounts. Children use multiple determiners before a noun to the same extent as their mothers (1) when only a and the or (2) all determiners are analyzed, or (3) when children and mothers are matched on determiner and noun types and determiner+noun tokens. (4) Overlap increases as opportunity for overlap increases: children use multiple determiners with more than 50% of nouns used at least twice with a determiner and with 80% of nouns used at least six times with a determiner. (5) Formulae play a limited role in low-MLU children's determiner usage, increasing with MLU. (6) Less than 1% of determiner uses are errors. Prior results showing no overlap are likely a sampling artifact.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , September 2009 , pp. 743 - 778
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

[*]

This work was supported in part by an award from the National Science Foundation to Hunter College (SBE-0123609). Earlier versions of the results were presented at the Architectures and Mechanisms of Language Processing (AMLaP) conference in Aix-en-Provence in September 2004 and at the Boston University Conference on Language Development in November 2006. We thank A. Geogo, M. Lesnick, T. Lesnick, B. Marroquín, D. Sette and C. Theodorou for their help in hand-coding and hand-analyzing computer outputs. We thank our reviewers for their detailed, thoughtful and constructive comments, which led to new data analyses.

References

REFERENCES

Abbot-Smith, K. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review 23, 275–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abney, S. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Abu-Akel, A., Bailey, A. L. & Thum, Y-M. (2004). Describing the acquisition of determiners in English: A growth modeling approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 33, 407–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bohnacker, U. (1997). Determiner phrases and the debate on functional categories in early child language. Language Acquisition 6, 49–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisenbeiss, S. (2000). The acquisition of the DP in German child language. In Friedeman, M.-A. & Rizzi, L. (eds) Acquisition of syntax. Issues in comparative developmental linguistics, 27–62. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Gelman, S. A. & Taylor, J. (1984). How two-year-old children interpret proper and common names for unfamiliar objects. Child Development 55, 1535–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerken, L. A., Landau, B. & Remez, R. E. (1990). Function morphemes in young children's speech perception and production. Developmental Psychology 26, 204–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Höhle, B., Weissenborn, J., Kiefer, D., Schulz, A. & Schmitz, M. (2004). Functional elements in infants' speech processing: The role of determiners in the syntactic categorization of lexical elements. Infancy 5, 341–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ihns, M. & Leonard, L. (1988). Syntactic categories in early child language: Some additional data. Journal of Child Language 15, 673–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Katz, N., Baker, E. & Macnamara, J. (1974). What's in a name? A study of how children learn common and proper names. Child Development 45, 469–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kupisch, T. (2007). Testing the effects of frequency on the rate of learning: Determiner use in early French, German and Italian. In Gülzow, I. & Gagarina, N. (eds) Proceedings of the workshop on input frequencies in acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept, 83–113. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter: Studies on Language Acquisition (SOLA) 32.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1991). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. & Demuth, K. (eds) (1996). Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Murphy, G. L. (2004). The big book of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M. & Lieven, E. V. M. (1997). Slot and frame patterns and the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics 18, 123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pine, J. M. & Martindale, H. (1996). Syntactic categories in the speech of young children: The case of the determiner. Journal of Child Language 23, 369–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radford, A. (1990). The syntax of nominal arguments in early child English. Language Acquisition 1, 195–223.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 alternate account. Journal of Child Language 28, 127–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Stahl, D. (2004). Sampling children's spontaneous speech: How much is enough? Journal of Child Language 31, 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valian, V. (1986). Syntactic categories in the speech of young children. Developmental Psychology 22, 562–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40, 21–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waxman, S. R. & Booth, A. E. (2001). Seeing pink elephants: Fourteen-month-olds' interpretations of novel nouns and adjectives. Cognitive Psychology 43, 217–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zamparelli, R. (2000). Layers in the determiner phrase. New York: Garland.Google Scholar