Early syntactic creativity: a usage-based approach.

The aim of the current study was to determine the degree to which a sample of one child's creative utterances related to utterances that the child previously produced. The utterances to be accounted for were all of the intelligible, multi-word utterances produced by the child in a single hour of interaction with her mother early in her third year of life (at age 2;1.11). We used a high-density database consisting of 5 hours of recordings per week together with a maternal diary for the previous 6 weeks. Of the 295 multi-word utterances on tape, 37% were 'novel' in the sense that they had not been said in their entirety before. Using a morpheme-matching method, we identified the way(s) in which each novel utterance differed from its closest match in the preceding corpus. In 74% of the cases we required only one operation to match the previous utterance and the great majority of these consisted of the substitution of a word (usually a noun) into a previous utterance or schema. Almost all the other single-operation utterances involved adding a word onto the beginning or end of a previous utterance. 26% of the novel, multi-word utterances required more than one operation to match the closest previous utterance, although many of these only involved a combination of the two operations seen for the single-operation utterances. Some others were, however, more complex to match. The results suggest that the relatively high degree of creativity in early English child language could be at least partially based upon entrenched schemas and a small number of simple operations to modify them. We discuss the implications of these results for the interplay in language production between strings registered in memory and categorial knowledge.

[1]  D. Bolinger,et al.  语言要略 = Aspects of Language , 1968 .

[2]  L. Bloom Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars , 1970 .

[3]  Ruth Clark Performing without competence , 1974, Journal of Child Language.

[4]  M. Braine Children's First Word Combinations. , 1976 .

[5]  Roger W. Brown,et al.  A First Language: The Early Stages , 1974 .

[6]  Ruth Clark,et al.  What's the use of imitation? , 1977, Journal of Child Language.

[7]  Stan A. Kuczaj,et al.  Influence of contractibility on the acquisition ofBe: Substantial, meager, or unknown? , 1979 .

[8]  Proceedings of the First International Congress for the Study of Child Language , 1980 .

[9]  C E Snow,et al.  The uses of imitation , 1981, Journal of Child Language.

[10]  Ann M. Peters,et al.  The Units of Language Acquisition , 1983 .

[11]  R. Langacker Foundations of cognitive grammar , 1983 .

[12]  S. Pinker Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure , 1989 .

[13]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  The Child Language Data Exchange System: an update , 1990, Journal of Child Language.

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

[15]  M. Tomasello First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development , 1994 .

[16]  J. Pine,et al.  Individual differences in early vocabulary development: redefining the referential-expressive distinction , 1992, Journal of Child Language.

[17]  J. Pine,et al.  Reanalysing rote-learned phrases: individual differences in the transition to multi-word speech , 1993, Journal of Child Language.

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

[19]  Ray Jackendoff,et al.  The Architecture of the Language Faculty , 1996 .

[20]  J. Pine,et al.  Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development , 1997, Journal of Child Language.

[21]  Brian MacWhinney,et al.  The emergence of language. , 1999 .

[22]  Joan L. Bybee,et al.  The effect of usage on degrees of constituency: the reduction of don't in English , 1999 .

[23]  H. Behrens Lexical representation and acquisition theory. , 2000 .

[24]  David Lebeaux,et al.  Language acquisition and the form of the grammar , 2000 .

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

[26]  Wilbert Spooren,et al.  Subordination and discourse segmentation revisited, or : Why matrix clauses may be more dependent than complements , 2001 .

[27]  W. Bruce Croft Radical Construction Grammar , 2001 .