Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:53:03.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Error patterns in young German children's wh-questions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2012

DANIEL SCHMERSE ,
ELENA LIEVEN  and
MICHAEL TOMASELLO
DANIEL SCHMERSE
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
ELENA LIEVEN
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
MICHAEL TOMASELLO
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, Germany
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article we report two studies: a detailed longitudinal analysis of errors in wh-questions from six German-learning children (age 2 ; 0–3 ; 0) and an analysis of the prosodic characteristics of wh-questions in German child-directed speech. The results of the first study demonstrate that German-learning children frequently omit the initial wh-word. A lexical analysis of wh-less questions revealed that children are more likely to omit the wh-word was (‘what’) than other wh-words (e.g. wo ‘where’). In the second study, we performed an acoustic analysis of sixty wh-questions that one mother produced during her child's third year of life. The results show that the wh-word was is much less likely to be accented than the wh-word wo, indicating a relationship between children's omission of wh-words and the stress patterns associated with wh-questions. The findings are discussed in the light of discourse–pragmatic and metrical accounts of omission errors.

Type
Brief Research Reports
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 656 - 671
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

Address for correspondence: Daniel Schmerse, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology – Developmental and Comparative Psychology, Deutscher Platz 6 Leipzig 04103, Germany. e-mail: [email protected]

References

REFERENCES

Ambridge, B., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of non-inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: ‘What experimental data can tell us?’ Journal of Child Language 30, 519–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, H. (2006). The input–output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes 21, 2–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 491–504.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., Kursawe, C. & Penke, M. (1995). Introducing CP: wh-questions and subordinate clause in child language. Paper presented at the Groningen Assembly on Language Acquisition, Groningen, Center for Language and Cognition, September, 1995.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1994). On the underspecification of functional categories in early grammars. In Lust, B., Suñer, M. & Whitman, J. (eds), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives, 119–34. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. & Gobet, F. (2007). Meter based omission of function words in MOSAIC. In Lewis, R. L., Polk, T. A. & Laird, J. E. (eds), Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Cognitive Modelling, 219–24. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (1991). The metrical basis for children's subjectless sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 30, 431–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerken, L. A. (1994). Young children's representation of prosodic structure: Evidence from English-speakers' weak syllable omissions. Journal of Memory and Language 33, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, M., Reyelt, M., Benzmüller, R., Mayer, J. & Batliner, A. (1996). Consistency in transcription and labeling of German intonation with GToBI. In Bunnell, T. & Isardi, W. (eds), Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing, Philadelphia, 1716–19. Philadelphia, PA: I. E. E. E.Press.Google Scholar
Hamann, C. (2002). From syntax to discourse: Pronominal clitics, null subjects, and infinitives in child language. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, C., Penner, Z. & Lindner, K. (1998). German impaired grammar: The clause structure revisited. Language Acquisition 7, 193–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, C. & Plunkett, K. (1998). Subjectless sentences in child Danish. Cognition 69, 35–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hansson, K. & Nettelbladt, U. (2006). Wh-questions in Swedish children with SLI. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 8, 376–83.Google Scholar
Hughes, M. & Allen, S. (2006). A discourse-pragmatic analysis of subject omission in child English. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T. & Zaller, C. (eds), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Child Language Conference, 293–304. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Jordens, P. & Dimroth, C. (2006). Finiteness in children and adults learning Dutch. In Gagarina, N. & Gülzow, I. (eds), The acquisition of verbs and their grammar: The effect of particular languages, 173–200. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, K. & Michaelis, L. A. (1998). Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection. Linguistics and Philosophy 21, 477–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Penner, Z. (1994). Asking questions without CPs? On the acquisition of root wh-questions in Bernese Swiss German and standard German. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. (eds), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 177–214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C., Pine, J., Lieven, E. & Theakston, A. (2005). The incidence of error in young children's wh-questions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 48, 384–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santelmann, L. (2004). Wh-questions in early Swedish. In Josefsson, G., Platzack, C. & Håkansson, G. (eds), The acquisition of Swedish grammar, 261–308. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selkirk, E. (1984). Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Speyer, A. (2008). Topicalization and clash avoidance: On the interaction of prosody and syntax in the history of English with a few spotlights on German. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Steinkrauss, R. (2009). Frequency and function in wh-question acquisition: A usage-based case study of German L1 acquisition. Groningen dissertations in linguistics, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Szagun, G. (2004). Learning by ear: On the acquisition of case and gender marking by German-speaking children with cochlear implants and with normal hearing. Journal of Child Language 31, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tracy, R. (1994). Raising questions: Formal and functional aspects of the acquisition of wh-questions in German. In Tracy, R. & Lattey, E. (eds), How tolerant is Universal Grammar: Essays on language learnability and language variation, 1–34. Tübingen: Niemeyer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Kampen, J. (1997). First steps in wh-movement. Delft: Eburon.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2009). Usage-based vs. rule-based learning: The acquisition of word-order in wh-questions in English and Norwegian. Journal of Child Language 36, 1023–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wode, H. (1975). Some stages in the acquisition of questions by monolingual children. Word 27, 261–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar