Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:10:36.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The acquisition of some Dutch morphological rules*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Catherine E. Snow ,
Norval S. H. Smith  and
Marian Hoefnagel-Höhle
Catherine E. Snow
Affiliation:
Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam
Norval S. H. Smith
Affiliation:
Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam
Marian Hoefnagel-Höhle
Affiliation:
Institute for General Linguistics, University of Amsterdam
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The acquisition of the morphological rules for plural, agentive, and diminutive suffixes in Dutch was studied. Subjects included 7- and 12-year-old native speakers, and second-language learners in three age groups (5–10 years, 12–18 years, and adult). The first- and second-language learners showed very similar orders of acquisition for the rule systems governing plural and diminutive, but the second-language learners showed a subtle form of interference from their first language in acquiring the agentive. The findings suggest that morphological acquisition proceeds piecemeal, with the learning of specific word ending + allomorph sequences, and that generalizations at the level of morphological rules may not be made even after several years of correct performance with the allomorph in question.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , October 1980 , pp. 539 - 553
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Anderson, R. (1977). The impoverished state of cross-sectional morpheme acquisition/accuracy methodology. In Henning, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the first Los Angeles second language acquisition forum. Los Angeles: U.C.L.A.Google Scholar
Anisfeld, M. & Tucker, G. R. (1967). English pluralization rules of six-year-old children. ChDev 38. 1201–17.Google ScholarPubMed
Bailey, N., Madden, C. & Krashen, S. (1974). Is there a ‘natural sequence’ in adult second language learning? Language Learning 24. 233–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cancino, H. (1976). Grammatical morphemes in second language acquisition: Marta. Qualifying paper, Harvard Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. (1968). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. ChDev 39. 433–48.Google ScholarPubMed
Derwing, B. & Baker, W. (1977). The psychological basis for morphological rules. In Macnamara, J. (ed.), Language learning and thought in infants. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. & de Villiers, P. (1973). A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. JPsycholingRes 2. 267–78.Google ScholarPubMed
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974 a). Natural sequences in child second language acquisition. Language Learning 24. 37–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1947 b). Errors and strategies in child second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly 8. 129–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H. & Burt, M. (1974 c). A new perspective on the creative construction process in child second language acquisition. Working Papers in Bilingualism 4.Google Scholar
Fathman, A. (1975). The relationship between age and second language productive ability. Language Learning 25. 245–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1974). A preliminary report on the development of grammatical morphemes in a Japanese girl learning English as a second language. Working Papers in Bilingualism, No. 3.Google Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1975). Learning to speak a second language: what exactly does the child learn? In Dato, D. (ed.), Developmental psycholinguistics: theory and application. Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Kessler, C. & Imar, I. (1977). The acquisition of English syntactic structures by a Vietnamese child. In Henning, C. (ed.), Proceedings of the first Los Angeles second language acquisition forum. Los Angeles: U.C.L.A.Google Scholar
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1976). An explanation for the morpheme acquisition order of second language learners. Language Learning 26. 125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1975). Rules, rote and analogy in morphological formations by Hungarian children. JChLang 2. 65–77.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1976). Hungarian research on the acquisition of morphology and syntax. JChLang 3. 397–410.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1978). The acquisition of morphophonology. Monogr.Soc.Res.Ch.Devel. 43. Nos. 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosansky, E. (1976). Second language acquisition research: a question of methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
Snow, C. & Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1978). The critical period for language acquisition: evidence from second language learning. ChDev 49. 1114–28.Google Scholar
Wode, H. (1977). Free vs. bound forms in three types of language acquisition. Kiel Arbeitspapiere 19.Google Scholar