Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-8zxtt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-12T19:09:19.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Count/mass category acquisition: distributional distinctions in children's speech*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Peter Gordon
Peter Gordon*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
*
Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The count/mass distinction represents a categorical differentiation of nouns into count nouns which can be individuated when quantified (e.g. a car, several tables) and mass nouns which may not (cf. *a water, *several sands). The emergence of this distinction was examined in the longitudinal speech data of two children. In the first analysis, use of count nouns and mass nouns was compared in noun phrase contexts that require count nouns (e.g. a X, another X). It was found that from the earliest samples children used more count nouns in these contexts, hence showing a distributional distinction of noun types. This result suggests very rapid acquisition of count/mass subcategories. A series of further analyses assessed the possibility that early differentiation of count and mass nouns may be due to rote learning. No evidence was found for this proposal. A final analysis examined the development of a rule that requires that singular count nouns must be modified by a determiner. Acquisition here was found to be more protracted in nature since determiners are not used consistently in ‘telegraphic’ speech. Problems concerning the learnability of the obligatory determiner rule are discussed along with some speculations concerning the role of semantics in the acquisition of the count/mass distinction.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 1988 , pp. 109 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

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 research reported here was part of a doctoral dissertation in the Psychology Department at MIT. The author wishes to thank Susan Carey, Steven Pinker, Lila Gleitman, Liz Spelke and Virginia Valian for helpful comments. Special thanks go to Susan Ervin-Tripp for making available the data for the analyses.

References

REFERENCES

Baker, C. L. (1978). Introduction to generative transformational syntax. Englewood NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 533–81.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C. (1986). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google 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. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55. 767–811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. (1983). The mass-count distinction: children's uses of morphosyntactic vs. semantic approaches. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 22. 58–65.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. (1985). ‘He has too much hard questions’: the acquisition of the linguistic mass-count distinction in much and many. Journal of Child Language 12. 395–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gordon, P. (1981). Syntactic acquisition of the count/mass distinction. Papers and Reports in Child Language Development 20. 70–7.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (1982). The acquisition of syntactic categories: the case of the count/mass distinction. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, M.I.T.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. (1985). Evaluating the semantic categories hypothesis: the case of the count/mass distinction. Cognition 20. 209–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimshaw, J. (1982). Form, function and the language acquisition device. In Baker, C. L. & McCarthy, J. D. (eds), The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Katz, N., Baker, E. & Macnamara, J. (1974). What's in a name? A study of how children learn common and proper names. Child Development 45. 469–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1982). Names for things: a study of human learning. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1982). Basic syntactic processes. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development: syntax and semantics. Vol. 1. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. & Chalkley, M. (1980). The internal language of children's syntax. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's language. Vol. 2. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Miller, W. & Ervin, S. (1964). The development of grammar in child language. In U. Bellugi & R. Brown (eds), The acquisition of language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 29. No. 92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1985). Language Segmentation: operating principles for the perception and analysis of language. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition: theoretical issues. Vol. 2. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1982). A theory of the acquisition of lexical interpretive grammars. In Bresnan, J. & Kaplan, R. (eds), The mental representation of grammatical relations. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language developmemt. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1966). The acquisition of Russian as a native language. In Smith, F. and Miller, G. A. (eds), The genesis of language. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1986) Syntactic categories in the speech of young children. Developmental Psychology 22. 562–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. & Culicover, P. W. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar