Effect of subject types on the production of auxiliary is in young English-speaking children.

PURPOSE In this study, the authors tested the unique checking constraint (UCC) hypothesis and the usage-based approach concerning why young children variably use tense and agreement morphemes in obligatory contexts by examining the effect of subject types on the production of auxiliary is. METHOD Twenty typically developing 3-year-olds were included in this study. The children's production of auxiliary is was elicited in sentences with pronominal subjects, high-frequency lexical noun phrase (NP) subjects (e.g., the dog), and low-frequency lexical NP subjects (e.g., the deer). RESULTS As a group, children did not use auxiliary is more accurately with pronominal subjects than with lexical NP subjects. Furthermore, individual data revealed that although some children used auxiliary is more accurately with pronominal subjects than with lexical NP subjects, the majority of children did not show this trend. CONCLUSION The symmetry observed between lexical and pronominal subjects supports the predictions of the UCC hypothesis, although additional mechanisms may be needed to account for the asymmetry between subject types in some individual children. Discrepant results between the present study and previous studies were attributed to differences in task formats and children's developmental levels.

[1]  Pamela A Hadley,et al.  The onset of tense marking in children at risk for specific language impairment. , 2005, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[2]  Andrew Radford,et al.  Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The Nature of Early Child Grammars of English , 1990 .

[3]  M. Rispoli,et al.  Case and agreement in English language development , 1999, Journal of Child Language.

[4]  Stephen Wilson Lexically specific constructions in the acquisition of inflection in English , 2003, Journal of Child Language.

[5]  B MacWhinney,et al.  Phonological priming in children's picture naming , 2000, Journal of Child Language.

[6]  Kenneth Wexler,et al.  The development of inflection in a biologically based theory of language acquisition. , 1996 .

[7]  M. Rispoli,et al.  The growth of tense productivity. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[8]  Julie C. Sedivy,et al.  Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution , 2002, Cognitive Psychology.

[9]  J. Pine,et al.  Tense over time: testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model as an account of the pattern of tense-marking provision in early child English* , 2008, Journal of Child Language.

[10]  C. Dollaghan,et al.  Grammatical morpheme production in 4-year-old children. , 2002, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[11]  R. Rush,et al.  The vocabulary of first-grade children , 1982 .

[12]  D. Slobin The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition , 1987 .

[13]  M. Tomasello Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition , 2003 .

[14]  F. Ferreira,et al.  How incremental is language production? Evidence from the production of utterances requiring the computation of arithmetic sums , 2002 .

[15]  David Adger,et al.  Core Syntax: A Minimalist Approach , 2003 .

[16]  Peter M. Duppenthaler Maturational Constraints on Language Learning , 1990 .

[17]  R. Brown,et al.  A First Language , 1973 .

[18]  Fernand Gobet,et al.  Modeling the Developmental Patterning of Finiteness Marking in English, Dutch, German, and Spanish Using MOSAIC , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[19]  Anna L Theakston,et al.  The influence of discourse context on children's provision of auxiliary BE* , 2008, Journal of Child Language.

[20]  Joan L. Bybee 4. Sequentiality as the basis of constituent structure , 2002 .

[21]  T. Jaeger,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[22]  Irina A. Sekerina,et al.  The kindergarten-path effect: studying on-line sentence processing in young children , 1999, Cognition.

[23]  M L Rice,et al.  Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. , 1995, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[24]  G. Conti-Ramsden,et al.  Development of copula and auxiliary BE in children with Specific Language Impairment and younger unaffected controls∗ , 2002 .

[25]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: BE and HAVE , 2005 .

[26]  Ben Ambridge,et al.  Testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model using an elicited imitation paradigm , 2006, Journal of Child Language.

[27]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions , 2006, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[28]  Maryellen C. MacDonald,et al.  Linking production and comprehension processes: The case of relative clauses , 2009, Cognition.

[29]  P. Bloom Subjectlees sentences in child language , 1990 .

[30]  B. MacWhinney The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk , 1992 .

[31]  Carson T. Schütze,et al.  Productive inventory and case/agreement contingencies: a methodological note on Rispoli (1999) , 2001, Journal of Child Language.

[32]  P. Dixon Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs , 2008 .

[33]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[34]  E. Belgin,et al.  CBP02 Turkish adaptation of speech and language disorders test: “Preschool Language Scale, fourth edition: PLS-4” , 2007 .

[35]  Elena Lieven Learning the English auxiliary: A Usage-based Approach, In H. Behrens (Ed.): Corpora in Language Acquisition Research: Finding Structure in Data , 2008 .

[36]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  Regular morphology and the lexicon. , 1995 .

[37]  M L Rice,et al.  Tense over time: the longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. , 1998, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[38]  Alison J. Bahnsen,et al.  Predictors of morphosyntactic growth in typically developing toddlers: contributions of parent input and child sex. , 2011, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[39]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: a longitudinal elicitation study. Part 1: auxiliary BE. , 2009, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[40]  Arturo E. Hernandez,et al.  Balancing bilinguals: lexical-semantic production and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. , 1999, Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR.

[41]  Kenneth Wexler,et al.  Subject Case in Children With SLI and Unaffected Controls: Evidence for the Agr/Tns Omission Model , 1998 .

[42]  Ewa Dąbrowska,et al.  Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions , 2005 .

[43]  Ping Li,et al.  Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary , 2008, Journal of Child Language.

[44]  H. Bergh,et al.  Examples of Mixed-Effects Modeling with Crossed Random Effects and with Binomial Data. , 2008 .

[45]  Jon F. Miller,et al.  Assessing Language Production in Children: Experimental Procedures , 1981 .

[46]  M. Tomasello Do young children have adult syntactic competence? , 2000, Cognition.

[47]  J. Jaccard Interaction effects in logistic regression , 2001 .

[48]  K. Wexler Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage: a new explanation of the optional infinitive stage , 1998 .

[49]  Philip S. Dale,et al.  Macarthur Communicative Development Inventories , 1992 .

[50]  P. Menyuk,et al.  Variability in children's use of grammatical morphemes , 1992, Applied Psycholinguistics.

[51]  Ewa Dabrowska,et al.  From formula to schema: The acquisition of English questions , 2001 .

[52]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Early noun vocabularies: do ontology, category structure and syntax correspond? , 1999, Cognition.

[53]  Bertram F. Malle,et al.  The evolution of language out of pre-language , 2002 .

[54]  L. Goffman,et al.  Growth of Language Skills in Preschool Children With Specific Language Impairment: Implications for Assessment and Intervention , 2000 .

[55]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  Testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model: why the data on children's use of non-nominative 3psg subjects count against the ATOM , 2005, Journal of Child Language.

[56]  Andrew Radford,et al.  Minimalist Syntax: Exploring the Structure of English , 2004 .

[57]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  The acquisition of auxiliaries BE and HAVE: an elicitation study* , 2005, Journal of Child Language.