Cover not available
Part of
Acquisition and Development of Hebrew: From infancy to adolescence
Edited by Ruth A. Berman
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 19] 2016
► pp. 201–224

The nature of CDS in Hebrew

Frequent frames in a morphologically rich language

| Hebrew University Jerusalem
The chapter explores the distribution and content of frequent frames – recurring multiword sequences – appearing at the start of utterances in speech directed to young Hebrew-speaking children. Previous work has documented the existence and prevalence of such frames in several languages (English, German, and Russian). Here, analysis of a dense corpus of Hebrew child-directed speech was undertaken with two goals in mind. The first aims at examining the distribution of multiword elements in Hebrew child-directed speech, to ascertain whether frequent frames are found in a morphologically rich language like Hebrew and, if so, to see how pervasive they are compared to other languages, and how consistent across different caretakers. The second goal is to explore the content of frequent frames in Hebrew to address such questions as: Do they provide children with relevant morphological and syntactic information? Are they frequent enough to be employed in learning? Results show that frequent frames do occur in Hebrew, that they are relatively consistent across caretakers, and that they illustrate a range of grammatical relations. These findings expand our understanding of frequent frames in general, while also adding to the relatively sparse information on the nature of child-directed speech in Hebrew.
Keywords: child-directed speech, corpus study, cross-linguistic, distributional information, frequent frames, gender-marking, grammatical relations, Hebrew, inflection, input, language acquisition, learning, morphological acquisition, morphology, multiword units, syntactic acquisition, usage-based, variation
Published online: 25 August 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.19.07arn
References (57)
References
Abbot-Smith, K. & Tomasello, M. 2006. Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review 23: 275–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Albert, A., MacWhinney, B., Nir, B. & Wintner, S. 2013. The Hebrew CHILDES corpus: Transcription and morphological analysis. Language Resources and Evaluation 47(4), 973–1005. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Armon-Lotem, S. & Berman, R. 2003. The emergence of grammar: Early verbs and beyond. Journal of Child Language 30(4): 845–877. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. 2010. Starting Big: The Role of Multiword Phrases in Language Learning and Use. PhD dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. & Snider, N. 2010. More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language 62(1): 67–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. & Clark, E.V. 2011. Why brush your teeth is better than teeth – Children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development 72: 107–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnon, I. & Cohen Priva, U. 2013. More than words: The effect of multi-word frequency and constituency on phonetic duration. Language and Speech 56(3): 349–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C. & Matthews, D. 2008. Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science 19(3): 241–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. 2009. Modeling children’s early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(41): 17284–9. DOI logo
Berman, R. 1978. Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv: University Publication Project.Google Scholar
. 1985. The acquisition of Hebrew. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition D.I. Slobin (ed.), 255–371. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
. 1990. On acquiring an (S)VO language: Subjectless sentences in children’s Hebrew. Linguistics 286: 1135–1166.Google Scholar
Berman, R.A. (2002). Crosslinguistic comparisons in later language development. In The Diversity of Languages and Language Learning. S. Strömqvist (ed.), 25-44. Lund: Center for Languages and Literature.Google Scholar
Berman, R. & Ravid, D. 2000. Research in acquisition of Israeli Hebrew and Palestinian Arabic. Hebrew Studies 41: 83–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. & Lustigman, L. 2014. Emergent clause-combining in adult-child interactional contexts. In Language in Interaction. Studies in Honor of Eve V. Clark [Trends in Language Acquisition Research 12], I. Arnon, M. Casillas, C. Kurumada, & B. Estigarribia (eds) 281–302. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English: Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bod, R. 2009. From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science 335: 752–93. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bracha Nir, B.M.S.W. 2010. A Morphologically-Analyzed CHILDES Corpus of Hebrew. LREC . <[URL]>
Bybee, J. 1998. The Emergent Lexicon. In The 34th Chicago Linguistic Society CLS 34: The panels, 421-435. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. 2003. A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science 27(6): 843–873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Culicover, P.W. & Jackendoff, R. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Da̧browska, E. & Lieven, E. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3): 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. 2007. Frequency effects in language acquisition, language use, and diachronic change. New Ideas in Psychology 252: 108–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, J. 2009. On the meaning of words and dinosaur bones: Lexical knowledge without a lexicon. Cognitive Science 33: 547–582. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 1973. Complex NP’s, resumptive pronouns, and word order in Hebrew. In Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, C.T. Corum, T., C. Smith-Stark & A. Wieser (eds),135–146. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
. 1976. On the VS order in Israeli Hebrew: Pragmatics and typological change. In Studies in Modern Hebrew Syntax and Semantics, P. Cole (ed.), 153–181. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E. & Levine, S. 2002. Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology 45(3): 337–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A. & Lieven, E. 2009. Can input explain children’s me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language 36(5): 1091–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, E.V.M., Pine, J.M. & Baldwin, G. 1997. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24(1): 187–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J. & Tomasello, M. 2003. Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30(2): 333–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. 2008. Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In, Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition, P. Robinson & N.C. Ellis (eds), 168–196. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Salomo, D. & Tomasello M. 2009. Two-year-old children's production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3): 481-508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E. 2010. Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua 120(11): 2546–2556. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. First language development: A usage-based perspective on past and current research. Journal of Child Language 41(Suppl. 1): 48–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. 2000. The CHILDES Project: Tools For Analyzing Talk. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McClelland, J.L. 2010. Emergence in cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science 2(4): 751–770. <[URL]> DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mintz, T.H. 2003. Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition 90(1): 91–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L.R. & Hoff-Ginsburg, E. 1998. Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children’s early verb use. Journal of Child Language 25(1): 95–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peters, A.M. 1977. Language learning strategies : Does the whole equal the sum of the parts ? Language 53(3): 560–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1983. The Units of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1999. Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language. New York NY: HarperCollinsGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M., Yarlett, D., Dye, M., Denny, K. & Thorpe, K. 2010. The effects of feature-label-order and their implications for symbolic learning. Cognitive Science 34(6): 909–957. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M. (2013). Suffixing, prefixing, and the functional order of regularities in meaningful strings. Psihologija 46(4): 377–396. <[URL]> DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ravid, D., Dressler, W.U., Nir, B., Korecky-Kröll, K., Souman, A., Rehfeldt, K., Laaha, S., Bertl, J., Basbøll, H. & Gillis, S. 2009. Core morphology in child directed speech: Crosslinguistic corpus analyses of noun plurals. In Corpora in Language Acquisition Research: History, methods, perspectives [Trends in Language Acquisition Research 6], H. Behrens (ed.), 149–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reali, F. & Christiansen, M.H. 2007. Word chunk frequencies affect the processing of pronominal object-relative clauses. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology (2006) 60(2): 161–70. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C.F. & Pine, J.M. 2000. Subject–auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: “What children do know?” Journal of Child Language 27(01): 157–181. <[URL]> DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidl, A. & Johnson, E.K. 2006. Infant word segmentation revisited: Edge alignment facilitates target extraction. Developmental Science 9(6): 565–573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stoll, S., Abbot-Smith, K. & Lieven, E. 2009. Lexically restricted utterances in Russian, German, and English child-directed speech. Cognitive Science 33(1): 75–103. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A.L, Lieven, E.V.M, Pine, J.M. & Rowland, C.F. 2001. The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: an alternative account. Journal of Child Language 28: 127-152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tremblay, A., Derwing, B., Libben, G. & Westbury, C. 2011. Processing advantages of lexical bundles: Evidence from self-paced reading and sentence recall tasks. Language Learning 61(2): 569–613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Uziel-Karl, S. 2001. A Multidimensional Perspective on the Acquisition of Verb Argument Structure. Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University.Google Scholar
. 2006. Acquisition of verb structure from a developmental perspective: Evidence from child Hebrew. In The Acquisition of Verbs and their Grammar: The Effect of Particular Languages, N. Gagarina & I. Gülzow (eds), 33: 15–44. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Theakston, Anna & Elena Lieven
2017. Multiunit Sequences in First Language Acquisition. Topics in Cognitive Science 9:3 ► pp. 588 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.