Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T19:35:52.162Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Formulaic Language in L1 Acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 December 2012

Colin Bannard  and
Elena Lieven
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recognition that speech formulas play a role in first language acquisition—that children reuse sequences of words taken directly and seemingly unanalyzed from the input—goes back to the earliest days of the field. Until fairly recently, however, such formulaic language was considered part of an early and soon-superseded stage of development. The last decade has seen the rise of a perspective on language development in which such formulas are central to language acquisition across development. According to this perspective, which is often known as the usage-based theory of language development, acquisition begins when children identify, infer a communicative function for, and start to utilize pieces of language of different sizes (single words and multiword sequences). Generalization, and as a result grammar, is an emergent property resulting from the ongoing coexistence of such sequences in a shared representational space. The growth in popularity of such an account, which represents a radical break from traditional models of grammatical development, has resulted in large part from the appearance of very large corpora of child–caregiver interactions. Such corpora have supported a new understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing the learner, as well as allowing new naturalistic analyses of children's productions and the creation of stimuli for experiments, all of which offer considerable support for the usage-based position. This article offers a review of these developments.

Type
SECTION A: COGNITIVE PERSPECTIVES ON FORMULAIC LANGUAGE
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 32 , March 2012 , pp. 3 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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.)

References

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2011). Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

This textbook provides an evidence-based review of the central issues in first-language acquisition research, including many of the examples discussed in this article.

Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children's repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248.

This article reports on a repetition experiment in which two- and three-year-old children were found to be better (fewer errors, shorter duration) at producing the first three words of frequent four-word sequences (e.g., a drink of milk) than they were at producing the same three words when part of infrequent sequences (e.g., a drink of tea). It provides the first experimental evidence that young children have dedicated representations for frequent multiword sequences.

Matthews, D., & Bannard, C. (2010). Children's production of unfamiliar word sequences is predicted by positional variability and latent classes in a large sample of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 34, 465–488.

This article provides experimental evidence that two- and three-year-old children extract generalizations from the input when sequences of repeated words occur with points of significant variation (e.g., they extract the schematic phrase a piece of X when exposed to multiple sequences such as a piece of toast, a piece of string, etc.). The article also explores some distributional factors that appear to determine when children will identify such patterns.

Rowland, C. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions. Cognition, 104, 106–134.

This article reports on a corpus analysis of the questions produced by 10 children. When a very large proportion of the error-free questions were structured around highly frequent formulas, errors occurred when children were required to deviate from such patterns. The article concluded that children's early questions are produced by reusing word sequences taken directly from the input.

Stoll, S., Abbot-Smith, K., & Lieven, E. (2009). Lexically restricted utterances in Russian, German, and English child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 33, 75–103.

This article describes an analysis of the word sequences children hear in three different languages and provides evidence that opportunities for formulaic learning abound in even languages with freer word order and richer morphology than English.

REFERENCES

Aguado-Orea, J. J. (2004). The acquisition of morpho-syntax in Spanish: Implications for current theories of development (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Rowland, C. F. (2009). Predicting children's errors with negative questions: testing a schema-combination account. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 225–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F., Theakston, A. L., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: “What experimental data can tell us?” Journal of Child Language, 33, 519–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aslin, R. N., Saffran, J. R., & Newport, E. L. (1998). Computation of conditional probability statistics by 8-month-old infants. Psychological Science, 9, 321–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., & Lieven, E. (2009). Repetition and reuse in child language learning. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. (Eds.), Formulaic language: Vol. 2. Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, functional explanations (pp. 297–321). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Modeling children's early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 17284–17289.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children's repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brandt, S., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Development of word order in German complement-clause constructions: Effects of input frequencies, lexical items, and discourse function. Language, 86, 583–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, S., Verhagen, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2011). German children's productivity with simple transitive and complement-clause constructions: Testing the effects of frequency and variability. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 325–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction-based analysis of child-directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chemla, E., Mintz, T. H., Bernal, S., & Christophe, A. (2009). Categorizing words using “frequent frames”: What cross-linguistic analyses reveal about distributional acquisition strategies. Developmental Science, 12, 396–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dąbrowska, E., & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children's question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A. (2009). The acquisition of questions with long-distance dependencies. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 571–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 97–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erkelens, M. A. (2009). Learning to categorize verbs and nouns: Studies on Dutch. Utrecht, the Netherlands: LOT.Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., & Gobet, F. (2010). Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of Optional Infinitive errors across languages: A comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model. Journal of Child Language, 37, 643–669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ginzburg, J., & Sag, I. A. (2000). Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning, and use of English interrogatives. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1995). Beyond modularity: A developmental perspective on cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children's me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language, 36, 1091–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krajewski, G., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2012). Productivity of a Polish child's inflectional noun morphology: a naturalistic study. Morphology, 22, 1, 9–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, 30, 333–370.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieven, E., Salomo, D., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Two-year-old children's production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 481–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk: Vol. 2. The database (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., & Bannard, C. (2010). Children's production of unfamiliar word sequences is predicted by positional variability and latent classes in a large sample of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 34, 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mintz, T. (2003). Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech. Cognition, 90, 91–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onnis, L., Waterfall, H., & Edelman, S. (2008). Learn locally, act globally: Learning language with variation set cues. Cognition, 109, 423–430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar: A first course. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions. Cognition, 104, 106–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: “What children do know!” Journal of Child Language, 27, 157–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926–1928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sag, I. A. (2010). English filler-gap constructions. Language, 86, 486–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoll, S., Abbot-Smith, K., & Lieven, E. (2009). Lexically restricted utterances in Russian, German, and English child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 33, 75–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stumper, B., Bannard, C., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2011). “Frequent frames” in German child-directed speech: A limited cue to grammatical categories. Cognitive Science, 35, 1190–1205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar