Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T11:49:29.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Tense over time: testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model as an account of the pattern of tense-marking provision in early child English*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2008

JULIAN M. PINE ,
GINA CONTI-RAMSDEN ,
KATE L. JOSEPH ,
ELENA V. M. LIEVEN  and
LUDOVICA SERRATRICE
JULIAN M. PINE*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
GINA CONTI-RAMSDEN
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
KATE L. JOSEPH
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
ELENA V. M. LIEVEN
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig and University of Manchester
LUDOVICA SERRATRICE
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
*
Address for correspondence: Julian M. Pine, School of Psychology, University of Liverpool, Bedford Street South, Liverpool L69 7ZA, UK. Tel: +44 (0)151 794 1113. e-mail: Julian.Pine@Liverpool.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Agreement/Tense Omission Model (ATOM) predicts that English-speaking children will show similar patterns of provision across different tense-marking morphemes (Rice, Wexler & Hershberger, 1998). The aim of the present study was to test this prediction by examining provision rates for third person singular present tense and first and third person singular forms of copula BE and auxiliary BE in longitudinal data from eleven English-speaking children between the ages of 1 ; 10 and 3 ; 0. The results show, first, that there were systematic differences in the provision rates of the different morphemes; second, that there were systematic differences in the rate at which all of the three morphemes were provided with pronominal and lexical subjects; and, third, that there were systematic differences in the rate at which copula BE and auxiliary BE were provided with the third person singular pronominal subjects It and He and the first person singular subject pronoun I. These results replicate those of Wilson (2003), while controlling for some possible objections to Wilson's analysis. They thus provide further evidence against the generativist view that children's rates of provision of different tense-marking morphemes are determined by a single underlying factor, and are consistent with the constructivist view that children's rates of provision reflect the gradual accumulation of knowledge about tense marking, with much of children's early knowledge being embedded in lexically specific constructions.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 55 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Bedore, L. M. & Leonard, L. (2001). Grammatical morphology deficits in Spanish-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 905–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C. (1968). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child Development 39, 433–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cleave, P. L. & Rice, M. L. (1997). An examination of the morpheme BE in children with Specific Language Impairment: the role of contractibility and grammatical form class. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 40, 480–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hadley, P. A. & Rice, M. L. (1996). Emergent use of BE and DO: evidence from children with Specific Language Impairment. Language Acquisition 5, 209–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, J. & Schery, T. (1976). The use of grammatical morphemes by children with communicative disorders. In Morehead, D. & Morehead, A. (eds) Normal and deficient child language, 239–58. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B.. (2000). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk, 3rd ed. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1997). Language typology, prosody and the acquisition of grammatical morphemes. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.) The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, Volume 5: Expanding the contexts, 135–97. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. M. & Rowland, C. F. (1998). Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category. Linguistics 36, 807–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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, 269–89.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K. & Cleave, P. L. (1995). Specific Language Impairment as a Period of Extended Optional Infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 38, 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, 1412–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., Marquis, J. & Hershberger, S. (2000). Acquisition of irregular past tense by children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 43, 1126–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schütze, C. T. & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In Stringfellow, A., Cahma-Amitay, D., Hughes, E. & Zukowski, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 670–81. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure. Journal of Child Language 28, 127–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2000 a). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000 b). The item-based nature of children's early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 156–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivation in child grammar. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds) Verb movement, 305–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106, 23–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. (2003). Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English. Journal of Child Language 30, 75–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed