Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T01:11:17.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reanalysing rote-learned phrases: individual differences in the transition to multi-word speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Julian M. Fine  and
Elena V. M. Lieven
Julian M. Fine*
Affiliation:
University of Nottingham
Elena V. M. Lieven
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
*
[*] Address for correspondence: Department of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study investigates the possibility that the previously documented relationship between referential–expressive and nominal–pronominal styles (Nelson, 1975) may be best explained not so much in terms of ‘object-orientation’ or ‘noun-preference’, as in terms of the direction from which different children break into structure, with some children tending to construct patterns by combining two or more items from their single-word vocabularies and others tending to develop patterns by gaining productive control over ‘slots’ in previously unanalysed phrases. In order to do so it makes use of a methodology for distinguishing between productive and unanalysed multi-word speech proposed in Lieven, Pine & Dresner-Barnes (1992) which is applied to observational and maternal-report data from a longitudinal study of seven children between the ages of 0; 11 and 1; 8. The results suggest not only that variation in children's early word combinations can indeed be explained in terms of different routes to multi-word speech, but also that, far from being atypical, a strategy involving the breaking down of originally unanalysed phrases may be used by all children, though to varying degrees.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , October 1993 , pp. 551 - 571
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Barrett, M. (1989). Early language development. In Slater, A. & Bremner, G. (eds), Infant development. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, L. (1980). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1985). What shapes children's grammars? In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 2. Theoretical issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 40 (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. (1976). Children's first word combinerions. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41 (1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bretherton, I., McNew, S., Snyder, L. & Bates, E. (1983). Individual differences at twenty months: analytic and holistic strategies in language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 10, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, S. & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean. Cognition 41, 18–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, R. (1974). Performing without competence. Journal of Child Language 1, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampson, J. (1989). Elements of style: maternal and child contributions to referential and expressive styles of language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Levy, Y. (1983). It's frogs all the way down. Cognition 15, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, Y. (1988). The nature of early language: evidence from the development of Hebrew morphology. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M. & Braine, M. D. S. (eds), Categories and processes in language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. (1980). Different routes to multiple-word combinations? Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 19, 34–44.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M. & Dresner-Barnes, H. (1992). Individual differences in early vocabulary development: redefining the referential-expressive distinction. Journal of Child Language 19, 287–310.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 38 (1–2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. (1975). The nominal shift in semantic-syntactic development. Cognitive Psychology 7, 461–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition, Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M. (1990). Individual differences in early language development and their relationship to maternal style. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M. & Lieven, E. V. (1990). Referential style at thirteen months: why age-defined cross-sectional measures are inappropriate for the study of strategy differences in early language development. Journal of Child Language 17, 625–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rispoli, M. (1991). The mosaic acquisition of grammatical relations. Journal of Child Language 18, 517–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlesinger, I. M. (1988). The origin of relational categories. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M. & Braine, M. D. S. (eds), Categories and processes in language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar