Cover not available

Article published In: Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 12:2 (2021) ► pp.185–209

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The development of morpho-syntactic productivity in Italian-speaking children

 | University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
 | University of Erlangen-Nuremberg | University of Birmingham
Published online: 31 January 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.20004.mio
Abstract
According to usage-based models of language acquisition, young children’s grammatical knowledge is best described in terms of lexically specific templates rather than abstract constructions. In this study, we tested the usage-based account by examining the acquisition of Italian, a language with relatively free word order and rich inflectional morphology. We exposed two groups of Italian-speaking children (aged 3;01 and 4;05) and adult controls to a nonce verb and to a familiar verb in an imperative construction. We then prompted production of those verbs in a different morphological form (past tense) and a different syntactic construction (transitive). While both child groups showed adult-like productivity with morphology, there were significant group differences in syntactic productivity.
Résumé
Selon les théories basées sur l’usage, les connaissances grammaticales des jeunes enfants se prêtent mieux à une description en termes de patrons partiellement lexicalisés que de constructions abstraites. Dans cette étude, nous évaluons cette approche en examinant l’acquisition de l’italien, une langue présentant un ordre des mots relativement libre et une morphologie flexionnelle riche. Nous avons exposé deux groupes d’enfants apprenant l’italien (âgés de 3;01 et 4;05 ans) et un groupe témoin d’adultes à un verbe inventé ainsi qu’à un verbe familier dans une construction impérative. Nous avons ensuite incité les participants à utiliser ces verbes dans une autre construction morphologique (temps passé) et une autre construction syntaxique (transitive). Alors que les deux groupes d’enfants utilisent la morphologie verbale de manière productive comme les adultes, nous avons trouvé des différences significatives entre les groupes dans la productivité syntaxique.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Design: Productivity as a function of the interaction of age, vocabulary, familiarity and construction
    • 2.2Participants
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Adults
    • 2.5Vocabulary
    • 2.6Notes on methodological choices
    • 2.7Coding and reliability
      • 2.7.1Morphology
      • 2.7.2Syntax
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Predictors of productivity in children
    • 3.2Comparison with adults
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
    • 4.1Research questions
      • RQ1:Is vocabulary size a better predictor of productivity than age?
      • RQ2:At what age can Italian-speaking children be said to have adult-like productivity (morphological and/or syntactic)?
    • 4.2Some final remarks
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
References (36)
References
Abbot-Smith, K., & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995–1026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2001). What preschool children do and do not do with ungrammatical word orders. Cognitive Development, 161, 679–692. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Abbot-Smith, K., & Serratrice, L. (2015). Word order, referential expression, and case cues to the acquisition of transitive sentences in Italian. Journal of Child Language, 42(1), 1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Airenti, G. (2015). Theory of mind: A new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 1184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 261, 339–356. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology, 331, 952–965. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E., Dale, P., & Thal, D. (1995). Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 96–151). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bates, E., & Goodman, J. C. (2001). On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition. In M. Tomasello & E. Bates (Eds.), Language development: The essential readings (pp. 134–162). Malden, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Booij, G. (2010). Construction Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 543–555. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. (2012). Young children fail to fully generalize a novel argument structure construction when exposed to the same input as older learners. Journal of Child Language, 391, 457–481. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caselli, M. C., Casadio, P., & Bates, E. (1999). A comparison of the transition from first word to grammar in English and Italian. Journal of Child Language, 261, 69–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cipriani, P., Chilosi, A. M., Bottari, P., & Pfanner, L. (1993). L’acquisizione della morfosintassi in italiano : Fasi e processi. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2004). Language, mind and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009). Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 201–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devescovi, A., Caselli, M. C., Marchione, D., Pasqualetti, P., Reilly, J., & Bates, E. (2005). A cross-linguistic study of the relationship between grammar and lexical development. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 759–786. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’Odorico, L., Fasolo, M., Cassibba, R., & Costantini, A. (2011). Lexical, morphological, and syntactic characteristics of verbs in the spontaneous production of Italian children. Child Development Research, 171, 1–17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fisher, C. (2002). The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello (2000). Cognition, 82(3), 259–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galazka, M. A., & Ganea, P. A. (2014). The role of representational strength in verbal updating: Evidence from 19- and 24-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1211, 156–168. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1999). The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 197–212). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2006). Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, P. L. (2006). Social cognition. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 811–858). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A. (2006). Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674. [URL].
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive applications. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lewis, L. B. (2009). Novel verb productivity in young English and Spanish speakers. Journal of Psychological Arts and Sciences, 11, 1–5.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A., & Bates, E. (1994). Continuity in lexical and morphological development: A test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21(2), 339–366. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Munakata, Y., McClelland, J. L., Johnson, M. H., & Siegler, R. S. (1997). Rethinking infant knowledge: Toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. Psychological Review, 104(4), 686–713. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noble, C., Rowland, C., & Pine, J. (2011). Comprehension of argument structure and semantic roles: Evidence from English-learning children and the forced-choice pointing paradigm. Cognitive Science, 351, 963–982. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pizzuto, E., & Caselli, M. C. (1994). The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Y. Levy (Ed.), Other children, other languages: Issues in the theory of language acquisition (pp. 137–188). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sannio Fancello, G. & Cianchetti, C. (2010). Test di valutazione del linguaggio. Livello prescolare. Trento: Edizioni Erickson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G. (2009). An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods, 14(4), 323–348. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Abbot-Smith, K. (2002). A tale of two theories: Response to Fisher. Cognition, 83(2), 207–214. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yoo, W., Ference, B. A., Cote, M. L., & Schwartz, A. (2012). A comparison of logistic regression, logic regression, classification tree, and random forests to identify effective gene-gene and gene-environmental interactions. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(7), 268–268.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue