The input ambiguity hypothesis and case blindness: an account of cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic differences in case errors

Pelham, Sabra D.

doi:10.1017/s0305000909990225

Cited by 13 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are alternative input-related proposals for the source for case errors such as her go and him jump . In her ‘input ambiguity’ hypothesis, Pelham (2011) pointed out that certain pronoun forms, such as you and it , are identical in nominative and accusative case. Furthermore, the pronoun form her is used in genitive as well as accusative case.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Input sources of third person singular -sinconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We tested four predictions based on the assumption that optional infinitives can be attributed to properties of the input whereby children inappropriately extract nonfinite subject-verb sequences (e.g. the girl run) from larger input utterances (e.g. Does the girl run? Let’s watch the girl run). Thirty children with specific language impairment (SLI) and 30 typically developing children heard novel and familiar verbs that appeared exclusively either in utterances containing nonfinite subject-verb sequences or in simple sentences with the verb inflected for third person singular –s. Subsequent testing showed strong input effects, especially for the SLI group. The results provide support for input-based factors as significant contributors not only to the optional infinitive period in typical development, but also to the especially protracted optional infinitive period seen in SLI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Input sources of third person singular -sinconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The blurring of the surface distinction between certain subject and object pronouns in English might represent another factor. As noted by Pelham (), English uses certain pronoun forms for both subject and object roles ( you , it ). Compare, for example, You like dogs and Dogs like you .…”

Section: Factor 2: Case Confusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In German, there is very little subject–object pronoun ambiguity, and object‐for‐subject pronoun errors are much less frequent than in English. On the other hand, case‐ambiguous articles are quite frequent in German, and children often make errors in selecting the appropriate case for articles (Pelham ).…”

Section: Factor 2: Case Confusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five overarching factors central to grammatical learning and treatment in children with developmental language disorder

Leonard

Kueser

2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background During grammatical treatment of children with developmental language disorder (DLD), it is natural for therapists to focus on the grammatical details of the target language that give the children special difficulty. However, along with the language‐specific features of the target (e.g., for English, add –s to verbs in present tense, third‐person singular contexts), there are overarching factors that operate to render the children's learning task more, or less, challenging, depending on the particular target. Aims To identify five such factors that can play a role in the grammatical learning of children with DLD. We use English as our example language and provide supporting evidence from a variety of other languages. Main Contribution We show that the relative degree of English‐speaking children's difficulty with particular grammatical details can be affected by the extent to which these details involve: (1) bare stems; (2) opportunities for grammatical case confusion; (3) prosodic challenges; (4) grammatical and lexical aspect; and (5) deviations from canonical word order. Conclusions During treatment, therapists will want to consider not only the English‐specific features of grammatical targets but also how these more general factors can be taken into account to increase the children's success.

show abstract

“…The frequency of case-distinct (e.g., we-us) versus case-ambiguous (e.g., you-you) pronouns in the input to children by their caregivers may also point to an explanation for why Englishacquiring children produce pronoun case errors. According to the input ambiguity hypothesis of Pelham (2011), a relationship exists between the rate of case ambiguity produced by adult speakers of a language and the case errors produced by children acquiring that language. Pelham (2011) compared corpora of English and German because Englishacquiring children produce pronoun case errors, whereas German-acquiring children rarely produce pronoun case errors but do produce article case errors.…”

Section: The Role Of Inputmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The goal was to determine whether features of pronoun case in the input can be manipulated to prime young English-speaking children to produce more subject pronoun errors. This study provides the first experimental test of the input ambiguity hypothesis (Pelham, 2011) utilizing a new experimental design, a paired priming task.…”

Section: Paired Priming Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Case assignment in English-speaking children: a paired priming paradigm

Weil

Leonard

2016

J. Child Lang.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study employed a paired priming paradigm to ask whether input features influence a child's propensity to use non-nominative versus nominative case in subject position, and to use non-nominative forms even when verbs are marked for agreement. Thirty English-speaking children (ages 2;6 to 3;7) heard sentences with pronouns that had non-contrasting case forms (e.g. Dad hugs it and it hugs Tigger) and it was hypothesized that these forms would lead to more errors (e.g. Him hugs Barney) in an elicited phrase more often than if the children heard contrasting case forms (e.g. Dad hugs us and we hug the doggie). Tense/agreement features were also examined in children's elicited productions. The findings were consistent with predictions, and supported the input ambiguity hypothesis of Pelham (2011). Implications for current accounts of the optional infinitive stage are discussed.

show abstract

The input ambiguity hypothesis and case blindness: an account of cross-linguistic and intra-linguistic differences in case errors

Cited by 13 publications

References 25 publications

Input sources of third person singular -sinconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment

Input sources of third person singular -sinconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment

Five overarching factors central to grammatical learning and treatment in children with developmental language disorder

Case assignment in English-speaking children: a paired priming paradigm

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About