Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T19:15:02.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mean length of utterance and the acquisition of Irish*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Tina Hickey
Tina Hickey*
Affiliation:
Linguistics Institute of Ireland
*
Linguistics Institute of Ireland, 31 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin 2, Ireland.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One of the most widely used indices of language development is a measure of utterance length in morphemes (MLUm). This study examines the applicability of MLUm to the acquisition of Irish. MLUm was calculated for data from Cian, aged 1;11–3;0. Even when an attempt was made to ‘assume the maximum’ by counting all possible morphemes, the correlation between a morpheme MLU (MLUm) and a word count MLU (MLUw) was very high (0·99). This points to MLUw being as effective a measure of Irish development as MLUm, as well as being easier to apply and more reliable. MLUw was calculated for the two younger children in the study (Eibhlís 1;4–2;1 and Eoin 1;10–2;6). An examination of the relationship between the three children's MLUw values and their grammatical complexity as measured on ILARSP (the Irish adaptation of LARSP) indicates that MLUw is a useful preliminary index for early development in Irish. However, further data are necessary to check whether MLUw loses its predictive relationship with grammatical complexity after a certain point. The study emphasizes the caution necessary in applying MLU to languages whose acquisition has not hitherto been studied, and underlines the role of MLU as a preliminary measure, which must not be overinterpreted.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 18 , Issue 3 , October 1991 , pp. 553 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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.)

Footnotes

*

The author wishes to thank Michael Carman, Diarmuid Ó Sé and two referees for their comments on earlier versions of this paper.

References

REFERENCES

Arlman-Rupp, A., Van Niekerk-de Haan, D. & van de Sandt-Koenderman, M. (1976). Brown's early stages: some evidence from Dutch. Journal of Child Language 3, 267–74.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. (1985). Acquisition of Japanese. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Conant, S. (1987). The relationship between age and MLU in young children: a second look at Klee & Fitzgerald's data. Journal of Child Language 14, 169–73.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1974). Review of R. Brown ‘A first language’. Journal of Child Language 1, 289–307.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (1979). Working with LARSP. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability: a procedure for assessment and remediation. New York: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Darley, F. & Moll, K. (1960). Reliability of language measures and size of language sample. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 3, 166–73.Google Scholar
Dromi, E. & Berman, R. (1982). A morphemic measure of early language development: data from modern Hebrew. Journal of Child Language 9, 403–24.Google Scholar
Fletcher, P. (1985). A child's learning of English. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Greene, D. (1966). The Irish language: An Ghaeilge. Cork: Mercier Press.Google Scholar
Hickey, T. (1987). The early acquisition of Irish: grammatical patterns and the role of formulas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Reading, England.Google Scholar
Hickey, T. (1990 a). ILARSP: a grammatical profile of Irish. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 4, 363–76.Google Scholar
Hickey, T. (1990 b). Identifying formulas in first language acquisition. Paper presented at the 5th International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Budapest.Google Scholar
Klee, T. & Fitzgerald, M. (1985). The relation between grammatical development and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Journal of Child Language 12, 251–69.Google Scholar
McCloskey, J. & Hale, K. (1984). On the syntax of person-number inflection in Modern Irish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 487–533.Google Scholar
McKenna, A. & Wall, E. (1986). Our first language: acquisition of Irish. Dun Laoghaire: Glendale Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. & Chapman, R. (1981). The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 24, 154–61.Google Scholar
Nice, M. (1925). Length of sentence as a criterion of a child's progress in speech. Journal of Educational Psychology 16, 370–409.Google Scholar
Oftedal, M. (1962). A morphemic evaluation of the Celtic initial mutations. Lochlann 2, 93–102.Google Scholar
Park, T. -Z. (1981). The development of syntax in the child with special reference to German. Innsbruck: Innsbrucker Beitrage zur Kulturwissenschaft. Sonderheft 45.Google Scholar
Plunkett, K. (1985). Learning strategies in two Danish children's language development. Child Language Seminar Papers 1985, Reading: University of Reading.Google Scholar
Richards, B. (1989). Language development and individual differences. A study of auxiliary verb learning. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Rondal, J., Ghiotto, M., Bredart, S. & Bachelet, J. -F. (1987). Age relation, reliability and grammatical validity of measures of utterance length. Journal of Child Language 14, 433–46.Google Scholar
Siegel, G. (1962). Interexaminer reliability for mean length of response. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 5, 91–5.Google Scholar
Stenson, N. (1981). Studies in Irish syntax. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar