Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T09:18:58.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The influence of discourse context on children's provision of auxiliary BE*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2008

ANNA L. THEAKSTON  and
ELENA V. M. LIEVEN
ANNA L. THEAKSTON*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, UK
ELENA V. M. LIEVEN
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig
*
Address for correspondence: Anna L. Theakston, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Tel: (44) 161 275 2600. e-mail: anna.theakston@manchester.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children pass through a stage in development when they produce utterances that contain auxiliary BE (he's playing) and utterances where auxiliary BE is omitted (he playing). One explanation that has been put forward to explain this phenomenon is the presence of questions in the input that model S-V word order (Theakston, Lieven & Tomasello, 2003). The current paper reports two studies that investigate the role of the input in children's use and non-use of auxiliary BE in declaratives. In Study 1, 96 children aged from 2 ; 5 to 2 ; 10 were exposed to known and novel verbs modelled in questions only or declaratives only. In Study 2, naturalistic data from a dense database from a single child between the ages of 2 ; 8 to 3 ; 2 were examined to investigate the influence of (1) declaratives and questions in the input in prior discourse, and (2) the child's immediately previous use of declaratives where auxiliary BE was produced or omitted, on his subsequent use or non-use of auxiliary BE. The results show that in both the experimental and naturalistic contexts, the presence of questions in the input resulted in lower levels of auxiliary provision in the children's speech than in utterances following declaratives in the input. In addition, the children's prior use or non-use of auxiliary BE influenced subsequent use. The findings are discussed in the context of usage-based theories of language acquisition and the role of the language children hear in their developing linguistic representations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 129 - 158
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

REFERENCES

Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language 26, 339–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akhtar, N. & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33, 952–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bloom, L., Miller, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Variation and reduction as aspects of competence in language development. In Pick, A. D. (ed.) Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology,Vol. 9, 3–55. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Bock, K. (1986). Syntactic persistence in language production. Cognitive Psychology 18, 355–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1995). Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10, 425–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (1998). The emergent lexicon. Papers from the regional meetings, Chicago Linguistics Society 2, 421–35.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dabrowska, E. (2000). From formula to schema: the acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Linguistics 11, 1–20.Google Scholar
Fey, M. & Loeb, D. (2002). An evaluation of the facilitative effects of inverted yes-no questions on the acquisition of auxiliary verbs. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 45, 160–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D. & Markman, A. (1995). Similarity is like analogy: structural alignment in comparison. In Cacciari, C. (ed.) Similarity in language, thought, and perception. Brussels: BREPOLS.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M. & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language 50, 182–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., Miller, C., Deevy, P., Rauf, L., Gerber, E. & Charest, M. (2002). Production operations and the use of nonfinite verbs by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 45, 744–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L., Miller, C., Grela, B., Holland, A., Gerber, E. & Petucci, M. (2000). Production operations contribute to the grammatical morpheme limitations of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Memory and Language 43, 362–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M., Theakston, A. L. , A. L., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2000). The use and non-use of auxiliary ‘BE’. In Clark, E. (ed.) The Proceedings of the Thirtieth Annual Child Language Research Forum, 51–8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk: Vol. 2. the database. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2005). The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development 20, 121–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before others? Journal of Child Language 25, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickering, M. & Branigan, H. (1999). Syntactic priming in language production. Trends in Cognitive Science 3, 136–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Richards, B. (1990). Language development and individual differences: a study of auxiliary verb learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘What children do know?’ Journal of Child Language 27, 157–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. V. M. & Theakston, A. L. (2005). The incidence of error in young English children's wh-questions. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 48, 384–405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, C., Lieven, E. V. M., Theakston, A. L. & Tomasello, M. (2003) Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science 6, 557–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, C., Lieven, E. V. M., Theakston, A. L. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Structural priming as implicit learning in language acquisition: the persistence of lexical and structural priming in 4-year-olds. Language Learning and Development 2, 27–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. Journal of Child Language 28, 127–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2002). Going, going, gone: the acquisition of the verb ‘Go’. Journal of Child Language 29, 783–811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2004). Semantic generality, input frequency and the acquisition of syntax. Journal of Child Language 31, 61–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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, 247–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M. & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of the input in the acquisition of third singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 46, 863–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Brooks, P. (1998). Young children's earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 9, 379–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1994). Optional infinitive, head movement and the economy of derivations. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds) Verb movement, 305–50. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, S. (2003). Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English. Journal of Child Language 30, 75–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed