Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-t89mg Total loading time: 0.663 Render date: 2023-02-03T08:01:40.567Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Korean-speaking children’s constructional knowledge about a transitive event: Corpus analysis and Bayesian modelling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2022

Gyu-Ho SHIN*
Affiliation:
Department of Asian Studies, Palacký University Olomouc, tř. Svobody 26, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic
Seongmin MUN
Affiliation:
Department of English Language and Literature, Chosun University, 309, Pilmun-daero, Dong-gu, Gwangju, 61452, Republic of Korea
*
Corresponding author. Gyu-Ho Shin, Department of Asian Studies, tř. Svobody 26, 779 00 Olomouc, Czech Republic. Email: gyuho.shin@upol.cz

Abstract

We investigate Korean-speaking children’s knowledge about clause-level constructions involving a transitive event – active transitive and suffixal passive – through corpus analysis and Bayesian modelling. The analysis of Korean caregiver input and children’s production in CHILDES revealed that the rates of constructional patterns produced by the children mirrored those uttered by the caregivers to a considerable degree and that the caregivers’ use of case-marking was skewed towards single form-function pairings (despite the multiple form-function associations that the markers manifest). Based on these characteristics, we modelled a Bayesian learner by employing construction-based input (without considering lexical information). This simulation revealed the dominance of several constructional patterns, occupying most of the input, and their inhibitory effects on the development of the other patterns. Our findings illuminate how children shape clause-level constructional knowledge in Korean, an understudied language for this topic, as a function of input properties and domain-general learning capacities, appealing to the usage-based constructionist approach.

Type
Article
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Abbot-Smith, K., Chang, F., Rowland, C., Ferguson, H., & Pine, J. (2017). Do two and three year old children use an incremental first-NP-as-agent bias to process active transitive and passive sentences?: A permutation analysis. PloS one, 12(10), e0186129. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186129CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abbot-Smith, K., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. The Linguistic Review, 23(3), 275290. https://doi.org/10.1515/TLR.2006.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agresti, A., & Coull, B. A. (1998). Approximate is better than “exact” for interval estimation of binomial proportions. The American Statistician, 52(2), 119126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1998.10480550Google Scholar
Aguado-Orea, J., & Pine, J. M. (2015). Comparing different models of the development of verb inflection in early child Spanish. PloS one, 10(3), e0119613. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119613CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alishahi, A., & Stevenson, S. (2008). A computational model of early argument structure acquisition. Cognitive Science, 32(5), 789834. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210801929287CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Allan, L. G. (1980). A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 15(3), 147149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03334492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Bidgood, A., Twomey, K. E., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., & Freudenthal, D. (2015a). Preemption versus entrenchment: Towards a construction-general solution to the problem of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization. PloS one, 10(4), e0123723. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0123723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Blything, R. P. (2016). A connectionist model of the retreat from verb argument structure overgeneralization. Journal of Child Language, 43(6), 12451276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000915000586CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C. F., & Theakston, A. L. (2015b). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 42(2), 239273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500091400049XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Maitreyee, R., Tatsumi, T., Doherty, L., Zicherman, S., Pedro, P. M., Bannard, C., Samanta, S., McCauley, S., Arnon, I., Bekman, D., Efrati, A., Berman, R., Narasimhan, B., Sharma, D. M., Nair, R. B., Fukumura, K., Campbell, S., Pye, C., Pixabaj, S. F. C., Paliz, M. M., & Mendoza, M. J. (2020). The crosslinguistic acquisition of sentence structure: Computational modeling and grammaticality judgments from adult and child speakers of English, Japanese, Hindi, Hebrew and K’iche’. Cognition, 202, 104310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2020.104310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Modeling children’s early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(41), 1728417289. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0905638106CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barak, L., Goldberg, A. E., & Stevenson, S. (2016). Comparing computational cognitive models of generalization in a language acquisition task. In Su, J., Duh, K. & Carreras, X. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2016 conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (pp. 96106). Association for Computational Linguistics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barak, L., & Goldberg, A. (2017). Modeling the partial productivity of constructions. In the proceeding of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence 2017 Spring Symposium on Computational Construction Grammar and Natural Language Understanding: Technical Report SS-17-02 (pp.131138). AAAI.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 173218). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In MacWhinney, B. & Bates, E. (Eds.), The cross-linguistic study of sentence processing (pp. 376). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Behrens, H. (2006). The input–output relationship in first language acquisition. Language and Cognitive Processes, 21(1-3), 224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01690960400001721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron‐Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27(6), 843873. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2706_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2007). What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation. Journal of Child Language, 34(2), 251282. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cho, S. W. (1982). The acquisition of word order in Korean. Unpublished Master’s thesis. Department of Linguistics, University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Choo, M., & Kwak, H-Y. (2008). Using Korean. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chung, G. (1994). Case and its acquisition in Korean. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Linguistics, University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., & Smolensky, P. (2012). A Bayesian model of biases in artificial language learning: The case of a word‐order universal. Cognitive Science, 36(8), 14681498. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01264.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dąbrowska, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Rapid learning of an abstract language-specific category: Polish children’s acquisition of the instrumental construction. Journal of Child Language, 35(3), 533558. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000908008660CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Desagulier, G. (2016). A lesson from associative learning: asymmetry and productivity in multiple-slot constructions. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 12(2), 173219. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, M., Abbot‐Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). German children’s comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development, 79(4), 11521167. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01181.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garcia, R., & Kidd, E. (2020). The acquisition of the Tagalog symmetrical voice system: Evidence from structural priming. Language Learning and Development, 16(4), 127. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2020.1814780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: a construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (2019). Explain me this: Creativity, competition, and the partial productivity of constructions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. T., Zheng, X., Meng, X., & Snedeker, J. (2013). Children’s assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language, 69(4), 589606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2013.08.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibbotson, P., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Prototype constructions in early language acquisition. Language and Cognition, 1(1), 5985. https://doi.org/10.1515/LANGCOG.2009.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jin, K-S., Kim, M. J., & Song, H-J. (2015). The development of Korean preschooler’ ability to understand transitive sentences using case-markers. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 28(3), 7590.Google Scholar
Kim, M. (2010). Syntactic priming in children’s production of passives. Korean Journal of Applied Linguistics, 26(2), 271290.Google Scholar
Kim, S., O’Grady, W., & Cho, S. (1995). The acquisition of case and word order in Korean. Language Research, 31(4), 687695.Google Scholar
Kim, S. Y., Sung, J. E., & Yim, D. (2017). Sentence comprehension ability and working memory capacity as a function of syntactic structure and canonicity in 5-and 6-year-old children. Communication Sciences & Disorders, 22(4), 643656. https://doi.org/10.12963/csd.17420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. J. (1997). The acquisition of Korean. In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition 4 (pp. 335443). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kruschke, J. (2015). Doing Bayesian data analysis: A Tutorial with R, JAGS, and Stan (2nd edition). London: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2017). Entrenchment in Cognitive Grammar. In Schmid, H-J (Ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: how we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge (pp. 3956). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lee, C., & Cho, S. W. (2009). Acquisition of the subject and topic nominals and markers in the spontaneous speech of young children in Korean. In Lee, C., Simpson, G. B. & Kim, Y. (Eds.), The Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics 3 (pp. 2333). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, H. R. (2004). 2sey hankwuk atonguy cwue paltal thukseng [A study of early subject acquisition in Korean]. Communication Sciences and Disorders, 9(2), 1932.Google Scholar
Lee, K. O., & Lee, Y. (2008). An event-structural account of passive acquisition in Korean. Language and Speech, 51(1/2), 133149. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309080510010801CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, Y. L., Kim, M. J., & Song, H. J. (2013). The development of Korean children’s abilities to use structural cues for sentence comprehension. The Korean Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26(4), 125139.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency. Lingua, 120(11), 25462556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2010.06.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E. (2016). Usage-based approaches to language development: Where do we go from here?. Language and Cognition, 8(3), 346368. https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2016.16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupyan, G., & Christiansen, M. H. (2002, January). Case, word order, and language learnability: Insights from connectionist modeling. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 24. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/8nf95595 on 03 July 2019Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The Competition Model. In MacWhinney, B. (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Matusevych, Y., Alishahi, A., & Backus, A. (2016). Modelling verb selection within argument structure constructions. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 31(10), 12151244. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2016.1200732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messenger, K., & Fisher, C. (2018). Mistakes weren’t made: Three-year-olds’ comprehension of novel-verb passives provides evidence for early abstract syntax. Cognition, 178, 118132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.05.002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nguyen, E., & Pearl, L. (2019). Using developmental modeling to specify learning and representation of the passive in English children. In Brown, M. M. & Dailey, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 469482). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
No, G. (2009). Acquisition of case markers and grammatical functions. In Lee, C., Simpson, G. B. & Kim, Y. (Eds.), The Handbook of East Asian Psycholinguistics (Vol. 3) (pp. 5162). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Özge, D., Küntay, A., & Snedeker, J. (2019). Why wait for the verb? Turkish speaking children use case markers for incremental language comprehension. Cognition, 183, 152180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.026CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearl, J., & Russell, S. (2001). Bayesian networks. In Arbib, M. A. (Ed.), The handbook of brain theory and neural networks (pp. 157159). Boston, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., & Xu, F. (2011a). A tutorial introduction to Bayesian models of cognitive development. Cognition, 120(3), 302321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Regier, T. (2011b). The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition, 118(3), 306338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramscar, M., Yarlett, D., Dye, M., Denny, K., & Thorpe, K. (2010). The effects of feature-label-order and their implications for symbolic learning. Cognitive Science, 34, 909957. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01092.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, C. F., Chang, F., Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. (2012). The development of abstract syntax: Evidence from structural priming and the lexical boost. Cognition, 125(1), 4963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2012.06.008CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saffran, J. R., Aslin, R. N., & Newport, E. L. (1996). Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274(5294), 19261928. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.274.5294.1926CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shin, G-H. (2020). Connecting input to comprehension: First language acquisition of active transitives and suffixal passives by Korean-speaking preschool children. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Hawai‘i at Mānoa.Google Scholar
Shin, G-H. (2021). Limits on the Agent-First strategy: Evidence from children’s comprehension of a transitive construction in Korean. Cognitive Science, 45(9), e13038. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13038CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sohn, H. M. (1999). The Korean language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2011). Constructional preemption by contextual mismatch: A corpus-linguistic investigation. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(1), 107129. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2011.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoll, S., Abbot‐Smith, K., & Lieven, E. (2009). Lexically restricted utterances in Russian, German, and English child-directed speech. Cognitive Science, 33(1), 75103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2008.01004.xCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strotseva-Feinschmidt, A., Schipke, C. S., Gunter, T. C., Brauer, J., & Friederici, A. D. (2019). Young children’s sentence comprehension: Neural correlates of syntax-semantic competition. Brain and Cognition, 134, 110121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandc.2018.09.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theakston, A. L. (2004). The role of entrenchment in children’s and adults’ performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development, 19(1), 1534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.08.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theakston, A. L., Ibbotson, P., Freudenthal, D., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Productivity of noun slots in verb frames. Cognitive Science, 39(6), 13691395. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12216CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2009). The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In Bavin, E. L. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of child language (pp. 6987). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wittek, A., & Tomasello, M. (2005). German-speaking children’s productivity with syntactic constructions and case morphology: Local cues act locally. First Language, 25(1), 103125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723705049120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, F., & Tenenbaum, J. B. (2007). Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review, 114(2), 245272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.2.245CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeon, J. (2015). Passives. In Brown, L. & Yeon, J. (Eds.), The handbook of Korean linguistics (pp. 116136). Oxford: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

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.

Korean-speaking children’s constructional knowledge about a transitive event: Corpus analysis and Bayesian modelling
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.

Korean-speaking children’s constructional knowledge about a transitive event: Corpus analysis and Bayesian modelling
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.

Korean-speaking children’s constructional knowledge about a transitive event: Corpus analysis and Bayesian modelling
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? *