A corpus-based study to evaluate the generativist explanation of children’s error patterns in questions

Yiran Du

doi:10.54475/jlt.2023.007

Authors

Yiran Du University of Liverpool https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6576-0073

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54475/jlt.2023.007

Keywords:

generativism, child language acquisition, Universal Grammar, yes-no question, wh-question, error

Abstract

This study explores whether the generativist account, specifically the integration theory, could explain children’s percentage of errors in questions in general and whether it also applies to yes-no and non-subject wh-question. The current study adopts a corpus-based method to compare 2-to-3-year-old children’s percentages of errors in questions (and in yes-no and wh-question separately) including auxiliary DO and auxiliary HAVE. The results show that children’s rate of errors in questions including auxiliary DO is higher than that including auxiliary HAVE, which is also applicable to yes-no and non-subject wh-questions. The findings indicate that the generativist theory of child language acquisition could successfully explain children’s patterns of errors in questions. This study also emphasises the impact of the question type which should be carefully considered when constructing and improving the generativist theory of child question formation. The study provides empirical evidence for improving and refining the generativist account of child language acquisition generally and language question acquisition specifically.

Author Biography

Yiran Du, University of Liverpool

Yiran Du is currently an undergraduate in University of Liverpool and will study in University of Oxford (MPhil in Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics). His research interests are psycholinguistics, semantics, and language acquisition.
E-mail: hsydu14@liverpool.ac.uk

References

Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F., Theakston, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children’s non-subject wh-questions: ‘What experimental data can tell us?’ Journal of Child Language, 33(3), 519–557. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007513

Babyonyshev, M., Ganger, J., Pesetsky, D., & Wexler, K. (2001). The Maturation of Grammatical Principles: Evidence from Russian Unaccusatives. Linguistic Inquiry, 32(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/002438901554577

Bellugi, U. (1965). The Development of Interrogative Structures in Children’s Speech. In K. Riegel (Ed.), The development of language functions (pp. 103–138). University of Michigan.

Bellugi, U. (1971). Simplification in children’s language. In R. Huxley & E. Ingram (Eds.), Language acquisition: Models and methods (pp. 95–119). Academic Press.

Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless Sentences in Child Language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4), 491–504.

Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1987). The Maturation of Syntax. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds.), Parameter Setting (Vol. 4, pp. 123–172). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-3727-7_6

Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1992). Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical principles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10(2), 147–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00133811

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1959). Language, 35(1), 26–58. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/411334

Chomsky, N. (1964). Current Issues in Linguistic Theory. Mouton.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. Columbia University Press.

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding: The Managua lectures.

Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language. Praeger.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist grogram. MIT Press.

Clahsen, H. (1990). Constraints on Parameter Setting: A Grammatical Analysis of Some Acquisition in Stages in German Child Language. Language Acquisition, 1(4), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0104_3

De Villiers, J. (1991). Why Questions? University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 17(1), 155–173.

Erreich, A. (1984). Learning how to ask: Patterns of inversion in yes – no and wh -questions. Journal of Child Language, 11(3), 579–592. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900005961

Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: An essay on faculty psychology. A Bradford book. MIT Press.

Fodor, J. D., & Sakas, W. G. (2004). Evaluating models of parameter setting. 1, 1–27.

Garnham, A. (2013). Language, the Mind, and the Brain. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the History of Linguistics (1st ed., pp. 674–690). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585847.013.0031

Guasti, M. T., Thornton, R., & Wexler, K. (1995). Children’s negative questions: The case of English. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, 19, 228–239.

Haan, G. de. (1987). A theory-bound approach to the acquisition of verb placement in Dutch. In G. de. Haan & W. Zonneveld (Eds.), Formal parameters of generative grammar (pp. 15–30). University of Utrecht.

Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In S. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development: Syntax and semantics (pp. 245–274). Erlbaum.

Hattori, R., Alejn, B., Micciulla, L., & Smith, C. E. (2003). Why do children say did you went?: The role of do-support. Supplement to the Proceedings of the 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development.

Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The Faculty of Language: What Is It, Who Has It, and How Did It Evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569

Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Reidel.

Ingram, D., & Tyack, D. (1979). Inversion of subject NP and aux in children’s questions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 8(4), 333–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01067137

Jordens, P. (1990). The acquisition of verb placement in Dutch and German. Ling, 28(6), 1407–1448. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1990.28.6.1407

Kania, U. (2016). The acquisition and use of yes-no questions in English: A corpus-study from a usage-based perspective. Narr Francke Attempto.

Klee, T. (1985). Role of Inversion in Children’s Question Development. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 28(2), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2802.225

Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic Regulation in the Speech of Children. In J. Lyons & R. J. Wales (Eds.), Psycholinguistic Papers (pp. 183–203). Edingurgh University Press.

Kuczaj, S. A. (1976). Arguments against Hurford’s ‘Aux Copying Rule’. Journal of Child Language, 3(3), 423–427. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900007297

Labov, W., & Labov, T. (1978). Learning the Syntax of Questions. In R. N. Campbell & P. T. Smith (Eds.), Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language (pp. 1–44). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-2532-1_1

Lust, B. C. (1999). Universal grammar: The strong continuity hypothesis in first language acquisition. In Handbook of child language acquisition. (pp. 111–155). Academic Press.

Lust, B. C. (2006). Child Language: Acquisition and Growth. Cambridge University Press.

MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Lawrence Erlbaum.

Maratsos, M., & Kuczaj, S. A. (1978). Against the transformationalist account: A simpler analysis of auxiliary overmarkings. Journal of Child Language, 5(2), 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900007510

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158

Miller, G. A. (2003). The cognitive revolution: A historical perspective. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(3), 141–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00029-9

Newell, A., Shaw, J. C., & Simon, H. A. (1958). Elements of a theory of human problem solving. Psychological Review, 65(3), 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048495

Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (7th edition). Open University Press.

Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes: An investigation of the physiological activity of the cerebral cortex. Oxford University Press.

Pinker, S. (1984). Language Learnability and Language Development. Harvard University Press.

Pullum, G. K., & Scholz, B. C. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 18(1–2). https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.19.1-2.9

Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: The nature of early child grammars of English. Blackwell.

Radford, A. (1994). The syntax of questions in child English. Journal of Child Language, 21(1), 211–236. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900008722

Rowland, C. (2013). Understanding Child Language Acquisition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203776025

Rowland, C. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition, 104(1), 106–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.011

Rowland, C. F., Fletcher, S. L., & Freudenthal, D. (2008). How big is big enough? Assessing the reliability of data from naturalistic samples. In H. Behrens (Ed.), Corpora in Language Acquisition Research: History, methods, perspectives. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject–auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘What children do know?’ Journal of Child Language, 27(1), 157–181. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000999004055

Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. M., & Theakston, A. L. (2003). Determinants of acquisition order in wh-questions: Re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal of Child Language, 30(3), 609–635. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005695

Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. M., & Theakston, A. L. (2005). The Incidence of Error in Young Children’s Wh -Questions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(2), 384–404. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/027)

Santelmann, L., Berk, S., Austin, J., Somashekar, S., & Lust, B. (2002). Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: Dissociating movement and inflection. Journal of Child Language, 29(4), 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000902005299

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal Behavior. Appleton-Century-Crafts.

Stromwold, K. (1990). Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.

Tavakolian, S. (1981). The conjoined clause analysis of relative clauses. In Language acquisition and linguistic theory (pp. 167–187). MIT Press.

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 alternative account. Journal of Child Language, 28(1), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900004608

Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F. (2005). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: BE and HAVE. Cognitive Linguistics, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.1.247

Thornton, P., & Houser, C. (2005). Using mobile phones in English education in Japan: Using mobile phones in English education in Japan. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(3), 217–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00129.x

Tomasello, M. (2005). Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 22(2–4). https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.2005.22.2-4.183

Traxler, M. J. (2016). Psycholinguistics: Language and cognition. In K. Allan (Ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Linguistics (pp. 281–295). Routledge.

Vainikka, A. (1993). Case in the Development of English Syntax. Language Acquisition, 3(3), 257–325. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0303_3

Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40(1–2), 21–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(91)90046-7

Valian, V., & Casey, L. (2003). Young children’s acquisition of wh -questions: The role of structured input. Journal of Child Language, 30(1), 117–143. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000902005457

Watson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069608