Cover not available
Part of
Current Perspectives on Child Language Acquisition: How children use their environment to learn
Edited by Caroline F. Rowland, Anna L. Theakston, Ben Ambridge and Katherine E. Twomey
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 27] 2020
► pp. 221–246

Understanding the cross-linguistic pattern of verb-marking error in typically developing children and children with Developmental Language Disorder

Why the input matters

| University of Liverpool
| University of Liverpool
| London School of Economics and Political Science

Verb-marking errors such as ‘*That go there’ and ‘*We make this yesterday’ are a characteristic feature of children’s early language. In this chapter, we review work on the cross-linguistic pattern of verb-marking error that suggests that these errors reflect the incorrect use of non-finite forms in finite contexts (often referred to as ‘Optional Infinitive (OI) errors’). The vast majority of this research has been conducted within the generativist tradition and has assumed that OI errors reflect an underlying maturational difference between the child and the adult grammar. However, we show that a detailed analysis of the cross-linguistic data reveals patterns that are difficult to explain in these terms, and can be more readily explained under the assumption that OI errors are learned directly from the input as a result of weaknesses in the child’s ability to process longer utterances. The implication is that the cross-linguistic pattern of verb-marking errors in children’s early language can only be properly understood by focusing on the relation between the kind of errors that young children make and the semantic-distributional properties of the language to which they have been exposed.

Article outline
  • Preface
  • Introduction
  • Wexler’s Unique Checking Constraint (UCC) account of the OI stage
  • An alternative account of OI errors
  • Modelling cross-linguistic differences in children’s rate of OI errors
  • Modelling other aspects of the data on OI errors
  • The Modal Reference Effect and the Eventivity Constraint
  • The cross-linguistic patterning of OI errors in declaratives and Wh-questions
  • Comparing MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model
  • The problem with English
  • An input-driven model of the pattern of verb-marking error in children with DLD?
  • Conclusion
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 17 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.27.10pin
References
Aguado-Orea, J.
(2004) The acquisition of morpho-syntax in Spanish: Implications for current theories of development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Aguado-Orea, J., & Pine, J. M.
(2015) Comparing different models of the development of verb inflection in early child Spanish. PLoS One, 10(3), e0119613. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P.
(1990) Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 491–504.Google Scholar
Boser, K., Lust, B., Santelmann, L., & Whitman, J.
(1992) The syntax of CP and V2 in early child German: The strong continuity hypothesis. Proceedings of NELS, 22, 51–65.Google Scholar
Brown, R.
(1973) A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Déprez, V., & Pierce, A.
(1993) Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 24(1), 25–67.Google Scholar
Engelmann, F., Kolak, J., Granlund, S., Szreder, M., Ambridge, B., Pine, J., Theakston, A., & Lieven, E.
(2019) How the input shapes the acquisition of verb morphology: Elicited production and computational modelling in two highly inflected languages. Cognitive Psychology, 110, 30–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferdinand, A.
(1996) The development of functional categories: The acquisition of the subject in French (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Aguado-Orea, J., & Gobet
(2007) Modeling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German and Spanish using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science, 31(2), 311–341.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., & Gobet, F.
(2006) Modeling the development of children’s use of optional infinitives in Dutch and English using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science, 30(2), 277–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Simulating the referential properties of Dutch, German and English root infinitives. Language Learning and Development, 5, 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of Optional Infinitive errors across languages: A comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model. Journal of Child Language, 37(3), 643–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Jones, G., & Gobet, F.
(2015a) Simulating the cross-linguistic pattern of Optional Infinitive errors in children’s declaratives and Wh- questions. Cognition, 143(1), 61–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2015b) Defaulting effects contribute to the simulation of cross-linguistic differences in Optional Infinitive errors. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 746–751). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Fey, M., Leonard, L. B., Bredin-Oja, S., & Deevy, P.
(2017) A clinical evaluation of the competing sources of input hypothesis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 60, 104–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grinstead, J., De la Mora, J., Vega-Mendoza, M., & Flores, B.
(2009) An elicited production test of the optional infinitive stage in child Spanish. In J. Crawford, K. Otaki, & M. Takahashi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition – North America (pp. 36–45). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Harris, T., & Wexler, K.
(1996) The optional infinitive stage in child English: Evidence from negation. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives in language acquisition (pp. 1–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoekstra, T., & Hyams, N.
(1998) Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua, 106, 81–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N.
(1996) The underspecification of functional categories in early grammar. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives in language acquisition (pp. 1–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ingram, D., & Thompson, W.
(1996) Early syntactic acquisition in German: Evidence for the modal hypothesis. Language, 72(1), 97–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jordens, P.
(1990) The acquisition of verb placement in Dutch and German. Linguistics, 28, 1407–1448. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, G.
(2002) The use and function of non-finite root clauses in Swedish child language. Language Acquisition, 10(4), 273–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kueser, J. B., Leonard, L. B., & Deevy, P.
(2018) Third person singular -s in typical development and specific language impairment: Input and neighbourhood density. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 32(3), 232–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legate, J. A., & Yang, C.
(2007) Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition, 14(3), 315–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B.
(2014) Children with specific language impairment (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B., & Deevy, P.
(2011) Input distribution influences degree of auxiliary use by children with specific language impairment. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 247–273. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Fey, M., Deevy, P., & Bredin-Oja, S.
(2015) Input sources of third person singular –s inconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Child Language, 42, 786–820. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lightbown, P.
(1977) Consistency and variation in the acquisition of French (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Columbia University, New York, NY.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
(2000) The CHILDES project: Tools for analysing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Phillips, C.
(1995) Syntax at age two: Cross-linguistic differences. In C. Schütze, J. Ganger, & K. Broihier (Eds.), Papers on language processing and acquisition. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 26, 225–282.Google Scholar
Plunkett, K., & Strömqvist, S.
(1992) The acquisition of Scandinavian languages. In D. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D., & Wexler, K.
(1993) The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language, 69, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Purdy, J. D., Leonard, L. B., Weber-Fox, C., & Kaganovich, N.
(2014) Decreased sensitivity to long-distance dependencies in children with a history of specific language impairment: Electrophysiological evidence. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54, 1040–1059. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radford, A., & Ploennig-Pacheco, I.
(1995) The morphosyntax of subjects and verbs in child Spanish: A case study. Essex Reports in Linguistics, 5, 23–67.Google Scholar
Räsänen, S. H. M., Ambridge, B., & Pine, J. M.
(2014) Infinitives or bare stems? Are English-speaking children defaulting to the highest-frequency form? Journal of Child Language, 41(4), 756–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016) Comparing generativist and constructivist accounts of the acquisition of inflectional morphology: An elicited production study of Finnish. Cognitive Science, 40(7), 1704–1738. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L., Noll, K. R., & Grimm, H.
(1997) An extended optional infinitive stage in German-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment. Language Acquisition, 6, 255–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P. L.
(1995) Specific Language Impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 850–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Hershberger, S.
(1998) Tense over time: The longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1412–1431. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(1993/1994) Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 3(4), 371–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R.s.nen, S. H. M., Ambridge, B., & Pine, J. M.
(2014) Infinitives or bare stems? Are English-speaking children defaulting to the highest-frequency form? Journal of Child Language, 41(4), 756–779. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rubino, R. B., & Pine, J. M.
(1998) Subject-verb agreement in Brazilian Portuguese: What low error rates hide. Journal of Child Language, 25(1), 35–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salustri, M., & Hyams, N.
(2003) Is there an analogue to the RI stage in the null subject languages? In B. Beachley, A. Brown, & F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (692–703). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Santelmann, L.
(1995) The acquisition of verb second grammar in child Swedish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Schütze, C. T., & Wexler, K.
(1996) Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahma-Amitay, E. Hughes, & A. Zukowski (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 670–681). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google 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(1), 127–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V., Tomasello, M.
(2003) The role of the input in the acquisition of third person singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 46(4), 863–877. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Valian, V.
(1991) Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40(1–2), 21–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, K.
(1985) How much do children say in a day? Journal of Child Language, 12, 475–487. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K.
(1994) Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations. In N. Hornstein & D. Lightfoot (Eds.), Verb movement (pp. 305–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1998) Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106(1–4), 23–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wijnen, F.
(1998) The temporal interpretation of Dutch children’s root infinitivals: The effect of eventivity. First Language, 18(4), 379–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wijnen, F., Kempen, M., & Gillis, S.
(2001) Root infinitives in Dutch early language: An effect of input? Journal of Child Language, 28(3), 629–660. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Freudenthal, Daniel, Fernand Gobet & Julian M. Pine
2024. MOSAIC+: A Crosslinguistic Model of Verb‐Marking Errors in Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder. Language Learning 74:1 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Levy-Forsythe, Zarina & Aviya Hacohen
2022. Finiteness marking in Russian-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment. First Language 42:1 ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 23 april 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.