Rethinking the Syntactic Burst in Young Children

Chapter
Part of the Theory and Applications of Natural Language Processing book series (NLP)

Abstract

Recent proposals about children’s first language acquisition have stressed usage-based acquisition and suggest that children have no language specific innate knowledge but instead use general cognitive abilities, such as perception, memory, and analogical processing, to acquire their mother tongue. These proposals do not, however, account for one argument raised by proponents of innate grammar approaches, which is the speed and correctness of children’s language acquisition, which could be described as a syntactic burst usually occurring around age two to three. In this chapter, a testing procedure is proposed to demonstrate that the acquisition of usage-based and fixed-form patterns can account for this syntactic burst. The analysis is conducted with the large Manchester corpus from the CHILDES database. It is demonstrated that fixed-form patterns extracted from child input and used in their raw and unprocessed form can, if combined freely, account for the children’s subsequent language production. Results show that young children’s grammatical abilities (before age three) could result from simple mechanisms and that complex linguistic mastery does not need to be available early in the course of language development.

Keywords

Word Order Language Acquisition Common Noun Exact Reconstruction Syntactic Knowledge 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Bloom, P. (1999). Theories of word learning: Rationalist alternatives to associationism. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia, (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brown, R. W. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of verbal behavior, by B. F. Skinner. Language, 35, 26–58.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Elman, J. L., Bates, E., Johnson, M., Karmiloff-Smith, A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1996). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ingram, D. (1989). First language acquisition : Method, description, and explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jusczyk, P. W. (1997). The discovery of spoken language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Konopczynski, G. (1998). De l’énoncé présyntaxique à la phrase canonique: Aspects syntactico-prosodiques. Revue PArole, 7–8, 263–287.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacWhinney, B. (1975). Rules, rote, and analogy in morphological formations by hungarian children. Journal of Child Language, 2, 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Maratsos, M. P., & Chalkley, M. A. (1980). The internal language of children’s syntax: The ontogenesis and representation of syntactic categories. In K. E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s language (Vol. 2). New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Peters, A. M. (1995). Strategies in the acquisition of syntax. In P. Fletcher, & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pine, J. M. & Lieven, E. V. M. (1997). Slot and frame patterns and the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 123–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct: How the mind creates language. New York/London: William Morrow & Co (New York)/Penguin (London).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ritchie, W. C., & Bhatia, T. K. (1999). Child language acquisition: Introduction, foundations, and overview. In W. C. Ritchie, & T. K. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of language acquisition. San Diego: Academic.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sinclair, H., & Bronckart, J. P. (1972). S.V.O. a linguistic universal? A study in developmental psycholinguistics. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(3), 329–348.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (1999). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of ‘mixed’ verb-argument structure at stage 1. In M. Perkins & S. Howard (Eds.), New directions in language development and disorders (pp. 119–129). New York: Plenum Press. P. 247.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209–253. P. 8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisitiond. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tomasello, M., & Stahl, D. (2004). Sampling children’s spontaneous speech: How much is enough? Journal Of Child Language, 31(1), 101–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wexler, K. (1982). A principle theory for language acquisition. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition – the state of the art (pp. 288–315). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MoDyCo-INSERM, CNRSParis Ouest Nanterre La Défense UniversityNanterre cedexFrance

Personalised recommendations