Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-b9rrs Total loading time: 0.472 Render date: 2022-12-06T19:09:15.421Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Continuity in lexical and morphological development: a test of the critical mass hypothesis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Virginia A. Marchman*
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin, Madison
Elizabeth Bates
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
*
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1202 W. Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706, USA.

Abstract

Several recent studies have demonstrated strong relationships between lexical acquisition and subsequent developments within the domain of morphosyntax. A connectionist model of the acquisition of a morphological System analogous to that of the English past tense (Plunkett & Marchman, 1993) suggests that growth in vocabulary size may relate to the onset of over-regularization errors. However, this model suggests that the relationships between vocabulary size and morphosyntactic development are non-linear. Incremental increases in the number of verbs to be learned result in qualitative shifts in the treatment of both previously learned and novel forms, but only after the size of the lexicon exceeds a particular level (i.e. reaches a ‘critical mass’). In this paper we present parental report data from an extensive study of English-speaking children aged 1;4 to 2;6 using the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Toddler form (N = 1130). These data corroborate several findings from previous studies, including the early usage of unmarked verb stems and the correct production of irregular past tense forms. Further, we demonstrate support for the ‘critical mass’ view of the onset of over-regularization errors, focusing on continuity among lexical and morphological developments. In our view, these data suggest that these linguistic milestones may be paced by similar, if not identical mechanisms.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

[*]

This research was conducted, in part, while the first author was a postdoctoral fellow at the McDonnell-Pew Foundation for Cognitive Neuroscience, San Diego, California and the Center for Research in Language (UCSD). Additional support was provided by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Research Network on the Transitions from Infancy to Childhood (Elizabeth Bates, Principal Investigator). The paper is based on a presentation at the Twenty-third Annual Child Language Research Forum, Stanford, CA (1991). Earlier versions appeared in Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 30 (1991) and as Center for Research in Language Technical Report No. 9103 (July 1991) with the title ‘Vocabulary size and composition as predictors of morphological development’. We would like to thank Philip Dale, Kim Plunkett and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions, Larry Fenson for his co-operation, and Stephen Pethick for providing many useful numbers.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, I. (1988). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (eds), The crosslinguistic study of sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Marchman, V., Thal, D., Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J. S., Reilly, J. & Hartung, J. (1994). Developmental and stylistic variation in the composition of early vocabulary. Journal of Child Language 21, 85123.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beeghly, M., Jernberg, E. & Burrows, E. (1989). Validity of the Early Language Inventory for use with 25-month-olds. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berwick, R. (1987). Parsability and learnability. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, & Gleitman, (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, J. (ed.) (1982). The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1968). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child Development 39, 433–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S. (1991). The validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and syntax at 24 months. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 34, 565–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S., Bates, E., Reznick, S. & Morriset, C. (1989). The validity of a parent report instrument of child language at 20 months. Journal of Child Language 16, 239–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dromi, E. (1987). Early lexical development. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Elman, J. (1993). Learning and development in neural networks: the importance of starting small. Cognition 48, 7199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J., Pethick, S. & Reilly, J. (1991). MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: Technical Manual. San Diego: San Diego State University.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Flynn, D., Vella, D., Omens, J., Burgess, J. & Hartung, J. (1989). Tools for the assessment of language in infants and toddlers by parental report. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
Ferguson, C. A. & Farwell, C. B. (1975). Words and sounds in early language acquisition. Language 51, 4959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goldfield, B. & Snow, C. (1985). Individual differences in language acquisition. In Gleason, J. (ed.), Language development. Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. B., Bortolini, U., Caselli, M. C., McGregor, K. K. & Sabbadini, L. (1992). Morphological deficits in children with specific language impairment: the status of features in the underlying grammar. Language Acquisition 2, 151–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, J. (1986). Speech perception and the emerging lexicon: an ethological perspective. In Fletcher, P. and Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition (2nd edn), Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A. (1993). Constraints on plasticity in a connectionist model of the English past tense. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 5, 215–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchman, V. A., Miller, R. & Bates, E. (1991). Babble and first words in children with focal brain injury. Applied Psycholinguistics 12, 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Ullman, M., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J. & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57 Serial No. 228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nelson, K. E. (1981). Individual differences in language development: implications for development and language. Developmental Psychology 17, 170–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, K. E., Baker, N., Denninger, M., Bonvillian, J. & Kaplan, B. (1985). ‘Cookie’ vs. ‘do-it-again’: imitative-referential and personal-social-syntactic-initiating styles in young children. Linguistics 23, 433–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pine, J. M. & Lieven, E. (1990). Referential style at 13 months: why age-defined cross-sectional measures are inappropriate for the study of strategy differences in early language development. Journal of Child Language 17, 625–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1991). Rules of language. Science 253, 530–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28, 59108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. (1991). U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multilayered perceptron: implications for child language acquisition. Cognition 38, 43102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. (1993). From rote learning to System building: the acquisition of morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48, 2169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, L. (1989). The Language Development Survey: a screening tool for delayed language in toddlers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 54, 587–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roeper, T. (1987). The acquisition of implicit arguments and the distinction between theory, process, and mechanism. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tomblin, J. B., Shonrock, C. M. & Hardy, J. C. (1989). The concurrent validity of the Minnesota Child Development Inventory as a measure of young children's language development. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 54, 101–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thal, D. & Bates, E. (1988). Language and gesture in late talkers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 31, 115–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thal, D., Tobias, S. & Morrison, D. (1991). Language and gesture in late talkers: a one-year follow-up. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 34, 604–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M., Ferguson, C. A. & Elbert, M. (1986). Phonological development from babbling to speech: common tendencies and individual differences. Applied Psycholinguistics 7, 340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vihman, M. M., Macken, M. A., Miller, R., Simmons, H. & Miller, J. (1985). From babbling to speech: a reassessment of the continuity issue. Language 61, 397445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
328
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Continuity in lexical and morphological development: a test of the critical mass hypothesis*
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Continuity in lexical and morphological development: a test of the critical mass hypothesis*
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Continuity in lexical and morphological development: a test of the critical mass hypothesis*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *