Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T08:16:47.226Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's overregularization of English plurals: a quantitative analysis*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Gary F. Marcus
Gary F. Marcus*
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
*
Department of Psychology, Tobin Hall, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA. E-mail: marcus@psych.umass.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper brings a quantitative study of children's noun plural overregularizations (foots, mans) to bear on recent comparisons of connectionist and symbolic models of language. The speech of 10 English-speaking children (aged 1;3 to 5;2) from the CHILDES database (MacWhinney & Snow, 1985, 1990) were analysed. The rate of noun overregularization is low, mean = 8·5%, demonstrating that children prefer correct to overregularized forms. Rates of noun overregularization are not significantly different from their rates of past tense overregularization, and noun plurals, like verb past tenses, follow a U-shaped developmental curve in which correct irregulars precede the first overregularized forms. These facts suggest that plural and past tense overregularizations are caused by similar underlying processes. The results pose challenges to connectionist models, but are consistent with Marcus et al.'s (1992) blocking-and-retrieval-failure model in which regulars are generated by a default rule while irregulars are retrieved from the lexicon.

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 447 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

[*]

I thank Steven Pinker, Fei Xu and two anonymous reviewers for comments on an earlier draft. This research was funded by an NDSE Graduate Fellowship to Marcus, NIH Grant HD 18381 to Steven Pinker (MIT), and grants from NIMH (training grant T32 MH18823) and the McDonnell-Pew Program in Cognitive Neuroscience to MIT's Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences.

References

REFERENCES

Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection principle. Linguistic Inquiry 10, 533–81.Google Scholar
Berko, J. (1958). The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14, 150–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohannon, J. N. & Marquis, A. L. (1977). Children's control of adult speech. Child Development 48, 1002–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. L. & Slobin, D. I. (1982). Rules and schemas in the development and use of English past tense. Language 58, 265–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cazden, C. B. (1968). The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child Development 39, 433–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., Rothweiler, M., Woest, A. & Marcus, G. F. (1992). Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition 45, 225–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grudin, J. & Norman, D. A. (1991). Language evolution and human–computer interaction. Proceedings of the thirteenth annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Higginson, R. (1985). Fixing–assimilation in language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. & Inhelder, B. (1974/1975). If you want to get ahead, get a theory. Cognition 3, 195–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. J., Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Hollander, M. & Coppola, M. (1994). Sensitivity of children's inflection to grammatical structure. Journal of Child Language 21, 173–209.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuczaj, S. (1977). The acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1978). Processing a first language: the acquisition of morphophonology. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Leinbach, J. (1991). Implementations are not conceptualizations: revising the verb learning model. Cognition 40, 121–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. E. (1985). The Child Language Data Exchange System. Journal of Child Language 12, 271–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. E. (1990). The Child Language Data Exchange System: an update. Journal of Child Language 17, 457–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maratsos, M. (1993). Artifactual overregularizations? In Clark, E. (ed.), The proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual Child Language Research Forum. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition 46, 53–85.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, G. F. (in press). The acquisition of inflection in children and multilayered connectionist networks. Cognition.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Brinkmann, U., Clahsen, H., Wiese, R., Woest, A. & Pinker, S. (in press). German inflection: the exception that proves the rule. Cognitive Psychology.Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., Pinker, S., Ullman, M., Hollander, M., Rosen, T. J. & Xu, F. (1992). Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57 (4, Serial No. 228).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mervis, C. B. & Johnson, K. E. (1991). Acquisition of the plural morpheme: a case study. Developmental Psychology 27, 222–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: analysis of a Parallel Distributed Processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28, 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. (1991). U-shaped learning and frequency effects in a multi-layered perception: implications for child language acquisition. Cognition 38, 43–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, K. & Marchman, V. (1993). From rote learning to system building: acquiring verb morphology in children and connectionist nets. Cognition 48, 21–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prasada, S. & Pinker, S. (1993), Similarity-based and rule-based generalizations in inflectional morphology. Language and Cognitive Processes 8, 1–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Rumelhart, D. & McClelland, J. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English verbs. Implicit rules or parallel distributed processing? In McClelland, J., Rumelhart, D. & the PDP research group (eds), Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sachs, J. (1983). Talking about there and then: the emergence of displaced reference in parent–child discourse. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's language, Vol. 4. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Xu, F. & Pinker, S. (In press). Weird past tense forms. Journal of Child Language.Google Scholar