Effect of subject types on the production of auxiliary is in young English-speaking children

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Volumn 53, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 1720-1741

  Guo, Ling Yu ^a,b   Owen, Amanda J ^a   Tomblin, J Bruce ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Input frequency; Morphosyntactic development; Tense and agreement morphemes; Unique checking constraint hypothesis; Usage based approach

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LANGUAGE TEST; LINGUISTICS; MALE; PRESCHOOL CHILD; SEMANTICS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CHILD LANGUAGE; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LANGUAGE TESTS; LOGISTIC MODELS; MALE; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; SEMANTICS; VOCABULARY;

EID: 78650484831     PISSN: 10924388     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2010/09-0058)     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
2. Ambridge, B., & Pine, J. (2006). Testing the agreement/ tense omission model using an elicited imitation paradigm. Journal of Child Language, 33, 879-898. (Pubitemid 44721132)
3. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1997). Guidelines for audiologic screening. Rockville, MD: Author.
4. Avram, L. (2002). An introduction to language acquisition from a generative perspective. Bucharest, Romania: Editura Universitatii din Bucuresti.
5. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D., & Bates, D. (2008). Mixedeffects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
6. Balason, D., & Dollaghan, C. (2002). Grammatical morpheme production in 4-year-old children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 961-969.
7. Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 491-504.
8. Brooks, P. J., & MacWhinney, B. (2000). Phonological priming in children's picture naming. Journal of Child Language, 27, 335-366.
9. Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes, 10, 425-455.
11. Bybee, J. (2002). Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure. In T. Givon & B. Malle ( Eds.), The evolution of language out of pre-language (pp. 109-134). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
12. Da̧browska, E. (2000). From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics, 11, 83-102.
13. Da̧browska, E., & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 437-474. (Pubitemid 41329327)
14. Dixon, P. (2008). Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 447-456.
15. Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J.,. .. Reilly, J. (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. San Diego, CA: Singular.
16. Ferreira, F., & Swets, B. (2002). How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 57-84.
17. Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Aguado-Orea, J.,&Gobet, F. (2007). Modeling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science, 31, 311-341.
18. Gennari, S. P., & MacDonald, M. C. (2009). Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses. Cognition, 111, 1-23.
19. Gerken, L. (2000). Examining young children's morphosyntactic development through elicited production. In L. Menn & N. B. Ratner ( Eds.), Methods for studying language production ( pp. 45-67). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Goffman, L.,&Leonard, J. (2000). Growth of language skills in preschool children with specific language impairment: Implication for assessment and intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 151-161.
21. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
22. Goodman, J., Dale, P.,&Li, P. (2008). Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 35, 515-531.
23. Hadley, P., Rispoli, M., Fitzgerald, C., & Bahnsen, A. (in press). Predictors of morphosyntactic growth in typically developing toddlers: Contributions of parent input and child sex. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research.
24. Hadley, P., & Short, H. (2005). The onset of tense marking in children at risk for specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1344-1362. (Pubitemid 43357518)
25. Jaccard, J. (2001). Interaction effects in logistic regression. Thousand, Oaks, CA: Sage.
26. Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards logit mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434-446.
27. Joseph, K. L., Serratrice, L., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2002). Development of copula and auxiliary BE in children with specific language impairment and younger unaffected controls. First Language, 22, 137-172.
28. Kohnert, K. J., Bates, E., & Hernandez, A. E. (1999). Balancing bilinguals: Lexical-semantic production and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42, 1400-1413. (Pubitemid 34309503)
29. Lahey, M., Liebergott, J., Chesnick, M., Menyuk, P., & Adams, J. (1992). Variability in children's use of grammatical morphemes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 13, 373-398.
30. Lee, J., & Thompson, C. (2008, November). Tracking eye movements during argument and adjunct production in agrammatism. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Chicago, IL.
31. Lieven, E. (2008). Learning the English auxiliary. In H. Behrens ( Ed.), Corpora in language acquisition research ( pp. 61-98). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
32. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. L.,&Tomasello,M. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 27, 403-422. (Pubitemid 44491908)
34. Miller, J. F. (1981). Assessing language production in children: Experimental procedures. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
35. Moe, A., Hopkins, C., & Rush, R. T. (1982). The vocabulary of first-grade children. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
36. Newport, E. (1990). Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 14, 11-28.
37. Pine,J. M.,Conti-Ramsden, G., Joseph, K. L.,Liebergott, J., &Serratrice, L. (2008). Tense over time: Test the agreement/ tense omission model as an account of the pattern of tensemarking provision in early child English. Journal of Child Language, 35, 55-75.
38. Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. L. (2005). Testing the agreement/tense omissionmodel: Why the data on children's use of nom-nominative 3psg subjects count again the ATOM. Journal of Child Language, 32, 269-289. (Pubitemid 41017808)
39. Quené, H., & van den Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixedeffectsmodelingwith crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413-425.
40. Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Cambridge, England: Basil Blackwell.
41. Radford, A. (2004). Minimalist syntax: Exploring the structure of English. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
42. 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, 850-863.
43. Rice, M., 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, 1412-1431. (Pubitemid 28563625)
44. Rispoli, M. (1999). Case and agreement in English language development. Journal of Child Language, 26, 357-372.
45. Rispoli, M., Hadley, P., & Holt, J. (2009). The growth of tense productivity. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 930-944.
46. Samuelson, L., & Smith, L. (1999). Early noun vocabularies: Do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? Cognition, 73, 1-33.
47. Schütze, C. T. (2001). Productive inventory and case/agreement contingencies: Amethodological note to Rispoli (1999). Journal of Child Language, 28, 507-515.
48. Schütze, C. T., & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahan- Amitay, E. Hughes, & A. Zukowski ( Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Boston University Conference of Language Development ( pp. 670-681). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
49. Slobin, D. (1985). Cross-linguistic evidence for the languagemaking capacity. In D. Slobin ( Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition: Volume 2. Theoretical issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
50. Spivey, M. J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., & Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 447-481.
51. Theakston, A. L., & Lieven, E. V. (2005). The acquisition of auxiliaries BE and HAVE: An elicitation study. Journal of Child Language, 32, 587-616.
52. Theakston, A. L., & Lieven, E. (2008). The influence of discourse context on children's provision of auxiliary BE. Journal of Child Language, 35, 129-158.
53. Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2005). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: BE and HAVE. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 247-277.
54. Theakston, A. L., & Rowland, C. F. (2009). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: A longitudinal elicitation study. Part 1: Auxiliary BE. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1449-1470.
55. Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209-253. (Pubitemid 30047050)
56. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usagebased theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
57. Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M., & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition, 73, 89-134.
58. Werner, E., & Kresheck, J. D. (1983). Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool (SPELT-P). Sandwich, IL: Janelle Publications.
59. Wexler, K. (1996). The development of inflection in a biologically based theory of language acquisition. In M. Rice ( Ed.), Toward a genetics of language (pp. 113-144). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 103, 23-79. (Pubitemid 128401769)
61. Wexler, K. (2003). Lenneberg's dream: Learning, normal language development, and specific language impairment. In Y. Levy&J. Schaeffer ( Eds.), Language competence across populations: Toward a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 11-62). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. Wexler, K., Schütze, C., & Rice, M. (1998). Subject case in children with SLI and unaffected controls: Evidence for the Agr/Tns omission model. Language Acquisition, 7, 311-344.
63. Wilson, S. (2003). Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English. Journal of Child Language, 30, 75-115. (Pubitemid 36385766)
64. Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (2002). Preschool Language Scale-Fourth Edition (PLS-4). San Antonio, TX: Pearson.