No abstract

How do children eventually come to avoid the production of overgeneralisation errors, in particular, those involving the dative (e.g., *I said her ''no'')? The present study addressed this question by obtaining from adults and children (5Á6, 9Á10 years) judgements of well-formed and over-general datives with 301 different verbs (44 for children). A significant effect of pre-emption*whereby the use of a verb in the prepositional-object (PO)-dative construction constitutes evidence that double-object (DO)-dative uses are not permitted*was observed for every age group. A significant effect of entrenchment*whereby the use of a verb in any construction constitutes evidence that unattested dative uses are not permitted*was also observed for every age group, with both predictors also accounting for developmental change between ages 5Á6 and 9Á10 years. Adults demonstrated knowledge of a morphophonological constraint that prohibits Latinate verbs from appearing in the DO-dative construction (e.g., *I suggested her the trip). Verbs' semantic properties (supplied by independent adult raters) explained additional variance for all groups and developmentally, with the relative influence of narrow-vs broad-range semantic properties increasing with age. We conclude by outlining an account of the formation and restriction of argument-structure generalisations designed to accommodate these findings.

A B S T R A C TThis study investigated different accounts of children's acquisition of non-subject wh-questions. Questions using each of 4 wh-words (what, who, how and why), and 3 auxiliaries (BE, DO and CAN) in 3sg and 3pl form were elicited from 28 children aged 3;6-4 ;6. Rates of noninversion error (Who she is hitting?) were found not to differ by wh-word, auxiliary or number alone, but by lexical auxiliary subtype and by wh-word+lexical auxiliary combination. This finding counts against simple rule-based accounts of question acquisition that include no role for the lexical subtype of the auxiliary, and suggests that children may initially acquire wh-word+lexical auxiliary combinations from the input. For DO questions, auxiliary-doubling errors (What [*] We would like to thank the children, parents and teachers of Bishop Billsborrow Memorial Roman Catholic Primary School and St. Catherine's Roman Catholic Primary School, who took part in the research reported here. Our thanks are also due to Daniel Stahl for assistance with statistical analysis, and to two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous version of this manuscript.

Children (aged five-to-six and nine-to-ten years) and adults rated the acceptability of wellformed sentences and argument-structure overgeneralization errors involving the prepositionalobject and double-object dative constructions (e.g. Marge pulled the box to Homer/*Marge pulled Homer the box). In support of the entrenchment hypothesis, a negative correlation was observed between verb frequency and the acceptability of errors, across all age groups. Adults additionally displayed sensitivity to narrow-range semantic constraints on the alternation, rejecting doubleobject dative uses of novel verbs consistent with prepositional-dative-only classes and vice versa. Adults also provided evidence for the psychological validity of a proposed morphophonological constraint prohibiting Latinate verbs from appearing in the double-object dative. These findings are interpreted in the light of a recent account of argument-structure acquisition, under which children retreat from error by incrementally learning the semantic, phonological, and pragmatic properties associated with particular verbs and particular construction slots.*

No abstract

In many cognitive domains, learning is more effective when exemplars are distributed over a number of sessions than when they are all presented within one session. The present study investigated this distributed learning effect with respect to English-speaking children's acquisition of a complex grammatical construction. Forty-eight children aged 3;6-5;10 (Experiment 1) and 72 children aged 4;0-5;0 (Experiment 2) were given 10 exposures to the construction all in one session (massed), or on a schedule of two trials per day for 5 days (distributed-pairs), or one trial per day for 10 days (distributed). Children in both the distributed-pairs and distributed conditions learnt the construction better than children in the massed condition, as evidenced by productive use of this construction with a verb that had not been presented during training. Methodological and theoretical implications of this finding are discussed, with particular reference to single-process accounts of language acquisition.

No abstract

No abstract