Acquisition of noun derivation in Estonian and Russian L1

Abstract

Abstract. Acquisition of derivation is not a well-studied area in first language research and a comparative approach to the acquisition of derivation in different languages doesn't exist. There is no information on how a child acquires derivation in a language with a rich and regular system of derivational patterns, or in a language where derivation is productive, but the system of derivational patterns is opaque. According to general ideas of complexity in a language, the child should start to use simplex stems first and, only after that, complex ones, that is, complexity should increase in the course of acquisition. Our paper is intended to address these issues, based on longitudinal child data from typologically different languages, Estonian and Russian. The results revealed significant differences in the acquisition of noun derivation in the two languages under observation. The system of noun derivation is acquired at a faster pace in Russian, while Estonian children have far fewer noun derivatives in their speech and they use different derivation suffixes with less regularity. Even so, the so-called building block model may be applied for both languages only partially.*

Acquisition of diminutives in typologically different languages: Evidence from Russian and Estonian

“…Particularly, the data of both girls has more diminutives than that of both boys. Our observations correlate with the results obtained in previous studies (Berko Gleason et al 1990, see also Protassova, Voeikova 2007, Argus, Kazakovskaya 2018.…”

“…Comparison of diminutives (and -more broadly -derivatives) within the two language corpora shows that the percentage of nominal derivatives (see Table 2, line a) and diminutives (see line d) among nouns is higher in the Russian corpora (in lemmas and tokens for both CS and CDS) than in the Estonian data. We can connect these results with the typological differences of these languages: inflectional Russian has more derivatives compared to compounds (Kazakovskaya 2017), whereas more agglutinating Estonian is a mainly compound language, which is mirrored in their acquisition (Argus, Kazakovskaya 2013, 2018. Comparison of corpora within each language shows that in the Russian data (for both lemmas and tokens), Kirill has quite a low percentage of diminutives as well as nominal derivatives, whereas Liza's corpus has the biggest number of nominal derivatives and diminutives from all the Russian and Estonian data under observation.…”

Child nominal derivation and parental input: Evidence from morphology-rich Russian

“…suffix -was used by Filipp with several stems. However, recent studies (Kazakovskaya 2017b, 2018, Argus R. and Kazakovskaya, V. V., 2018 indicated that simplex can occur simultaneously with derivative: e.g., kot-enok 'kitten' (1;8) > kot 'cat' (1;8) or even later, e.g., ptič-k(а) 'bird-DIM' (1;6) > ptic(а) 'bird' (1;8).…”

Tvorba imenica u ranom jezičnom razvoju na temelju podataka za jedno dijete iz Hrvatskog korpusa dječjeg jezika

“…To nije slučaj samo u nas, već neki autori primjećuju isto i u stranim istraživanjima (npr. Argus i Kazakovskaya 2018;Kazakovskaya 2017;Hržica 2021).…”

“…Tako je primjerice jedno dijete iz ruskog korpusa dječjeg jezika do dobi 2;8 proizvelo više od 50 sufi ksa u različitom značenju, od toga gotovo 30 za tvorbu imenica te 1 prefi ks (Kazakovskaya 2017). U govoru ruske djece uočava se da se izvođenje kao tvorbeni način pojavljuje ranije te puno češće od slaganja (Kazakovskaya 2017(Kazakovskaya , 2019Argus i Kazakovskaya 2018).…”