Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:13:01.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The dynamics of syntax acquisition: facilitation between syntactic structures*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2010

TAMAR KEREN-PORTNOY  and
MICHAEL KEREN
TAMAR KEREN-PORTNOY
Affiliation:
Department of Language and Linguistic Science, University of York
MICHAEL KEREN
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper sets out to show how facilitation between different clause structures operates over time in syntax acquisition. The phenomenon of facilitation within given structures has been widely documented, yet inter-structure facilitation has rarely been reported so far. Our findings are based on the naturalistic production corpora of six toddlers learning Hebrew as their first language. We use regression analysis, a method that has not been used to study this phenomenon. We find that the proportion of errors among the earliest produced clauses in a structure is related to the degree of acceleration of that structure's learning curve; that with the accretion of structures the proportion of errors among the first clauses of new structures declines, as does the acceleration of their learning curves. We interpret our findings as showing that learning new syntactic structures is made easier, or facilitated, by previously acquired ones.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , March 2011 , pp. 404 - 432
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Abbot-Smith, K. F. & Behrens, H. (2006). How known structures influence the acquisition of new structures: The German periphrastic passive and future structures. Cognitive Science 30, 995–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ben-Horin, G. (1976). Aspects of syntactic preposing in spoken Hebrew. In Cole, P. (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew syntax and semantics: The transformational-generative approach, 193–207. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1982). Dative marking of the affectee role: Data from Modern Hebrew. Hebrew Annual Review 6, 35–59.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1990). On acquiring an (S)VO language: Subjectless sentences in children's Hebrew. Linguistics 28, 1135–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1994). Developmental perspectives on transitivity: A confluence of cues. In Levy, Y. (ed.), Other children, other languages, 189–241. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41 (1, Serial No. 164).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. (2001). Phonlogy and language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dromi, E. & Berman, R. A. (1986). Language-specific and language-general in developing syntax. Journal of Child Language 13, 371–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giora, R. (1981). Sentence ordering as a text dependent phenomenon. In Blum Kolka, S., Tobin, Y. & Nir, R. (eds). Studies in discourse analysis, 263–302. Jerusalem: Academon [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1976). On the VS word order in Israeli Hebrew: Pragmatics and typological change. In Cole, P. (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew syntax and semantics: The transformational-generative approach, 153–181. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Glinert, L. (1989). The grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greene, William H. (2000), Econometric analysis, 4th edn.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Hahn, U. & Chater, N. (1998). Similarity and rules: Distinct? Exhaustive? Empirically distinguishable? Cognition 65, 197–230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Homa, D. & Chambliss, D. (1975). The relative contributions of common and distinctive information on the abstraction from ill-defined categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 104, 351–59.Google Scholar
Keren-Portnoy, T. (2002). The development of the verb category in the grammars of children learning Hebrew as their first language. PhD dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Keren-Portnoy, T. (2006). Facilitation and practice in verb acquisition. Journal of Child Language 33, 487–518.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keren-Portnoy, T. (in preparation). Long is easy, short is hard.Google Scholar
Kiekhoefer, K. (2002). The acquisition of the ditransitive structure. Paper presented at the 9th International Congress for the Study of Child Language and the Symposium on Research in Child Language Disorders, Madison, WI, July.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30, 333–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Medin, D. L. & Schaffer, M. M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review 35, 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. L. (1994). On the internal structure of phonetic categories: A progress report. Cognition 50, 271–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, K., McKone, E. & Slee, J. (2003). Dissociations between implicit and explicit memory in children: The role of strategic processing and the knowledge base. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 84, 124–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ninio, A. (1999a). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language 26, 619–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ninio, A. (1999b). Model learning in syntactic development: Intransitive verbs. The International Journal of Bilingualism 3, 111–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ninio, A. (2003). No verb is an island: Negative evidence on the Verb Island Hypothesis. Psychology of Language and Communication 7, 3–21.Google Scholar
Ninio, A. (2005a). Testing the role of semantic similarity in syntactic development. Journal of Child Language 32, 35–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ninio, A. (2005b). Accelerated learning without semantic similarity: Indirect objects. Cognitive Linguistics 16, 531–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ninio, A. (2006). Language and the learning curve: A new theory of syntactic development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosofsky, R. M. (1988). Similarity, frequency, and category representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14, 54–65.Google Scholar
Ravid, D. (1995). Language change in child and adult Hebrew: A psycholinguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryan, Thomas P. (1997). Modern regression methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). The item-based nature of children's early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4, 156–63.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vihman, M. M. (1999). The transition to grammar in a bilingual child: Positional patterns, model learning, and relational words. The International Journal of Bilingualism 3, 267–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziv, Y. (1976). On the reanalysis of grammatical terms in Hebrew possessive structures. In Cole, P. (ed.), Studies in Modern Hebrew syntax and semantics: The transformational-generative approach, 129–52. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Ziv, Y. (1995). A special VS structure in Modern Hebrew. Hebrew Linguistics 39, 29–39 [in Hebrew].Google Scholar