Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:32:29.512Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Case assignment in English-speaking children: a paired priming paradigm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2016

LISA WISMAN WEIL  and
LAURENCE B. LEONARD
LISA WISMAN WEIL*
Affiliation:
Boston University
LAURENCE B. LEONARD
Affiliation:
Purdue University
*
Address for correspondence: Lisa Wisman Weil, Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Boston University, 64 Cummington Mall, Boston, MA 02215. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study employed a paired priming paradigm to ask whether input features influence a child's propensity to use non-nominative versus nominative case in subject position, and to use non-nominative forms even when verbs are marked for agreement. Thirty English-speaking children (ages 2;6 to 3;7) heard sentences with pronouns that had non-contrasting case forms (e.g. Dad hugs it and it hugs Tigger) and it was hypothesized that these forms would lead to more errors (e.g. Himhugs Barney) in an elicited phrase more often than if the children heard contrasting case forms (e.g. Dad hugs us and we hug the doggie). Tense/agreement features were also examined in children's elicited productions. The findings were consistent with predictions, and supported the input ambiguity hypothesis of Pelham (2011). Implications for current accounts of the optional infinitive stage are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , July 2017 , pp. 943 - 967
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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 the children and families who participated. Thanks also to the research assistants who helped with data scoring: Alyssa Dienhart, Erin Redmaster, and Anyea Livers. Portions of this work were supported by research grant R01 DC009574 from the National Institutes of Health, USA.

References

REFERENCES

Ambridge, B. & Pine, J. (2006). Testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model using an elicited imitation paradigm. Journal of Child Language 33(4), 879–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bencini, G. & Valian, V. (2008). Abstract sentence representation in 3-year-olds: evidence from language production and comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, J. K. & Griffin, Z. M. (2000). The persistence of structural priming: Transient activation or implicit learning? Journal of Experimental Psychology 129(2), 177–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K. & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition 35, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, F., Dell, G. & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113, 234–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charest, M. J. & Leonard, L. B. (2004). Predicting tense: finite verb morphology and subject pronouns in the speech of typically-developing children and children with specific language impairment. Journal of Child Language 31(1), 231–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coker, S., Pine, J. & Gobet, F. (2001). Modelling children's case-marking errors with MOSAIC. In Altmann, E., Cleeremans, A., Schunn, C. & Gray, W. (eds), Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Cognitive Modeling, 55–60. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. & Dunn, D. (2007). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, 4th ed. San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick, S. J., … Stiles, J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59 (5, Serial No. 242).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, V., Bock, J. K., Wilson, M. & Cohen, N. (2008). Memory for syntax despite amnesia. Psychological Science 19, 940–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foltz, A., Thiele, K., Kahsnitz, D. & Stenneken, P. (2015). Children's syntactic-priming magnitude: lexical factors and participant characteristics. Journal of Child Language 42, 932–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. & Gobet, F. (2010). Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of Optional Infinitive errors across languages. Journal of Child Language 37, 643–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garraffa, M., Coco, M. & Branigan, H. (2015). Effects of immediate and cumulative syntactic experience in language impairment: evidence from priming of subject relatives in children with SLI. Language Learning and Development 11, 18–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guile, G. (1994). Find and say. Newmarket: Brimax Books.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M. & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language 50, 182–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A. & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children's me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language 36(5), 1091–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. (2011). The primacy of priming in grammatical learning and intervention: a tutorial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 54, 608–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L., Fey, M., Deevy, P. & Bredin-Oja, S. (2015). Input sources of third person singular -s inconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Child Language 42(4), 786–820.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L., Miller, C., Deevy, P., Rauf, L., Gerber, E. & Charest, M. (2002). Production operations and the use of nonfinite verbs by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45, 744–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., Miller, C., Grela, B., Holland, A., Gerber, E. & Petucci, M. (2000). Production operations contribute to the grammatical morpheme limitations of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Memory and Language 43, 362–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua 120(11), 2546–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeb, D. F. & Leonard, L. B. (1991). Subject case marking and verb morphology in normally developing and specifically language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 34(2), 340–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, C. & Deevy, P. (2006). Structural priming in children with and without specific language impairment. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 20, 387–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. F., Long, S., McKinley, N., Thormann, S., Jones, M. & Nockerts, A. (2005). Language sample analysis II: the Wisconsin guide. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Dept. of Public Instruction.Google Scholar
Pelham, S. D. (2011). The input ambiguity hypothesis and case blindness: an account of cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic differences in case errors. Journal of Child Language 38(2), 235–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pickering, M. & Ferreira, V. (2008). Structural priming: a critical review. Psychological Bulletin 134, 427–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pine, J. M., Conti-Ramsden, G., Joseph, K. L., 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(1), 55–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pine, J. M., Joseph, K. L. & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2004). Do data from children with specific language impairment support the Agreement/Tense Omission Model? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47(4), 913–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Lieven, E. V. M. & Theakston, A. L. (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(2), 269–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L. & Wexler, K. (1996a). A phenotype of specific language impairment: extended optional infinitives. In Rice, M. L. (ed.), Toward a genetics of language, 215–37. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. & Wexler, K. (1996b). Tense over time: the persistence of optional infinitives in English in children with SLI. Proceedings of the Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 20(2), 610–21.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L. & Wexler, K. (1996c). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research 39(6), 1239–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L. & Wexler, K. (2001). Test of Early Grammatical Impairment. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K. & Cleave, P. L. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 38(4), 850–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K. & Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense over time: the longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41(6), 1412–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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(1), 93–116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rispoli, M., Hadley, P. & Holt, J. (2009). The growth of tense productivity. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52(4), 930–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, C., Chang, F., Ambridge, B., Pine, J. & Lieven, E. (2012). The development of abstract syntax: evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition 125, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science 6(5), 557–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schütze, C. T. (2001). On the nature of default case. Syntax 4(3), 205–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, C. T. & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (Vol. 2, pp. 670–81). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Shimpi, P., Gámez, P., Huttenlocher, J. & Vasilyeva, M. (2007). Syntactic priming in 3- and 4-year-old children: evidence for abstract representations of transitive and dative forms. Developmental Psychology 43, 1334–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theakston, A., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of input in the acquisition of third person singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 46, 863–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thothathiri, M. & Snedeker, J. (2008). Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three- and four-year-old children. Journal of Memory and Language 58, 188–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds), Verb movement (pp. 305–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., Schütze, C. T. & Rice, M. (1998). Subject case in children with SLI and unaffected controls: evidence for the Agr/Tns Omission Model. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 7(2–4), 317–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisman Weil, L. & Leonard, L. (2012). Testing the Agreement Tense Omission Model in children with SLI. Paper presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Annual Convention, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar