Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:48:17.331Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What can adult speech tell us about child language acquisition?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 January 2016

Marjoleine Sloos  and
Jeroen Van De Weijer
Marjoleine Sloos
Affiliation:
Aarhus University
Jeroen Van De Weijer
Affiliation:
Shanghai International Studies University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This contribution explores a methodological problem in language acquisition studies. Much research in language acquisition has shown that children use statistical learning as a strategy in the acquisition of their native language (Saffran et al. 1996 and many others). Frequency of occurrence is also believed to determine the order of acquisition of phonological structures in the construction of the grammar (Boersma and Levelt 2000, Levelt et al. 2000, van de Weijer and Sloos 2013). How do we obtain the relevant frequency information for acquisition studies?

Ideally, we should take into account children's speech or child-directed speech (CDS), depending on the purposes of the investigation. Investigations into the construction of the lexicon and acquisition of the grammar depend on the input, the perception, and the lexical storage of the child, and therefore, frequency data on CDS seem most desirable.

Type
Squib/Notule
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 75 - 83
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association. 2015

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baayen, Harald, Piepenbrock, Richard, and van Rijn, Hedderik. 1993. The CELEX lexical data base on CD-ROM.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul and Levelt, Clara. 2000. Gradual constraint-ranking learning algorithm predicts acquisition order. In Proceedings of the 30th Child Language Research Forum, ed. Clark, Eve Vivienne, 229–237. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.Google Scholar
Brak, Jantina. 2011. L'acquisition segmentale et suprasegmentale des enfants français. Master's thesis, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 2007. From usage to grammar: The mind's response to repetition. Language 82:711–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, Lieven, Elena V.M., and Tomasello, Michael. 2003. A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science 27:843 –873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dominey, Peter Ford and Dodane, Christelle. 2004. Indeterminacy in language acquisition: The role of child directed speech and joint attention. Journal of Neurolinguistics 17:121–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fagyal, Zsuzsanna, Kibbee, Douglas, and Jenkins, Frederic. 2006. French: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles Albert. 1964. Baby talk in six languages. American Anthropologist 66:103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fougeron, Cécile and Smith, Caroline L.. 1993. Illustrations of the IPA: French. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 23:73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foulkes, Paul, Docherty, Gerard, and Watt, Dominic. 2005. Phonological variation in child-directed speech. Language 81:177–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Deidre. 1982. Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In Language development, Vol. 2: Language, thought and culture, ed. Kuczaj, Stan A., 301–334. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodman, Judith C, Dale, Philip S., and Li, Ping. 2008. Does frequency count? Parental input and the acquisition of vocabulary. Journal of Child Language 35:515–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gougenheim, Georges, Michea, René, Rivenc, Paul, and Sauvegot, Aurélien. 1956. L'elaboration dufrançais élémentaire. Paris: Didier.Google Scholar
Jescheniak, Jörg D. and Levelt, Willem Johannes Maria. 1994. Word frequency effects in speech production: Retrieval of syntactic information and of phonological form. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 20:824–843.Google Scholar
Levelt, Clara C, Schiller, Niels Olaf, and Levelt, Willem Johannes Maria. 2000. The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition 8:237–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Rose, Yvan. 2000. Headedness and prosodic licensing in the L1 acquisition of phonology. Doctoral dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Saffran, Jenny R., Aslin, Richard N., and Newport, Elissa L.. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274:1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shapiro, Bernard J. 1969. The subjective estimation of relative word frequency. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8:248–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stites, Jessica, Demuth, Katherine, and Kirk, Cecilia. 2004. Markedness vs. frequency effects in coda acquisition. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Brugos, Alejna, Micciulla, Linnea, and Smith, Christine E., 565–576. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Swingley, Daniel. 2007. Lexical exposure and word-form encoding in 1.5-year-olds. Developmental Psychology 43:454–;464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van de Weijer, Joost. 1999. Language input for word discovery. Doctoral dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.Google Scholar
van de Weijer, Jeroen and Sloos, Marjoleine. 2013. Learning markedness constraints: The case of French. In Linguistics in the Netherlands, ed. Aalberse, Suzanne and Auer, Anita, 188–200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar