Skip to main content Accessibility help

Can input explain children's me-for-I errors?*



English-speaking children make pronoun case errors producing utterances where accusative pronouns are used in nominative contexts (me do it). We investigate whether complex utterances in the input (Let me do it) might explain the origin of these errors. Longitudinal naturalistic data from seventeen English-speaking two- to four-year-olds was searched for 1psg accusative-for-nominative case errors and for all 1psg preverbal pronominal contexts. Their caregivers' data was also searched for 1psg preverbal pronominal contexts. The data show that the children's proportional use of me-for-I errors correlated with their caregivers' proportional use of me in 1psg preverbal contexts. Furthermore, the verbs that children produced in me-error utterances appeared in complex sentences containing me in the input more often than verbs that did not appear in me-for-I errors in the children's speech. These findings are discussed in the context of current explanations for children's case marking errors.


Corresponding author

Address for correspondence: Minna Kirjavainen, School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. e-mail:


Hide All

We would like to thank Brian and his family, and Fraser and his family, for their time and patience, the team of research assistants who collected and transcribed the data, and Jeannine Goh for supervising the dense database project. Thanks also to Julian Pine for helpful discussions about the data and to the editors and two anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions. This research was funded by a Max Planck PhD studentship to the first author.



Hide All
Ambridge, B. & Pine, J. (2006). Testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model using an elicited imitation paradigm. Journal of Child Language 33, 879–98.
Bloom, L., Hood, L. & Lightbown, P. (1974). Imitation in language development: If, when and why. Cognitive Psychology 6, 380–420.
Budwig, N. (1989). The linguistic marking of agentivity and control in child language. Journal of Child Language 16, 263–84.
Budwig, N. (1996). What influences children's patterning of forms and functions in early child language? In Slobin, D., Gerhardt, J., Kyratzis, A. & Jiansheng, G. (eds) Social interaction, social context and language: Essays in honour of Susan Ervin-Tripp, 143–56. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Budwig, N. & Wiley, A. (1995). What language reveals about children's categories of personhood. In Sperry, L. & Smiley, P. (eds) Exploring young children's concepts of self and other through conversation, 21–32. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Bybee, J. (1998). The emergent lexicon. Papers from the Regional Meetings, Chicago Linguistics Society 2, 421–35.
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), 251–82.
Francis, N. & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage: Lexicon and grammar. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Aguado-Orea, J. & Gobet, F. (2007). Modelling the developmental patterning of finiteness marking in English, Dutch, German and Spanish using MOSAIC. Cognitive Science 31(2), 311–41.
Hoekstra, T. & Hyams, N. (1998). Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua 106, 81112.
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E. & Levine, S. (2001). Language input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology 45, 337–74.
Kuczaj, S. (1976). -ing, -s and -ed: A study of the acquisition of certain verb inflections. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Naigles, L. & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before others? Journal of Child Language 25, 95120.
Pine, J. M., Joseph, K. L. & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2004). Do data from children with specific language impairment support the agreement/tense omission model? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 913–23.
Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Lieven, E. V. M. & Theakston, A. L. (2005). Testing the Agreement/Tense Omission Model: Why the data on children's use of non-nominative 3psg subjects counts against the ATOM. Journal of Child Language 32, 269–89.
Rispoli, M. (1994). Pronoun case overextensions and paradigm building. Journal of Child Language 21, 157–72.
Rispoli, M. (1998). Me or my: Two different patterns of pronoun case errors. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41, 385–93.
Rispoli, M. (1999). Case and agreement in English language development. Journal of Child Language 26, 357–72.
Rispoli, M. (2005). When children reach beyond their grasp: Why some children make pronoun case errors and others don't. Journal of Child Language 32, 93116.
Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject–auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘What children do know?’ Journal of Child Language 27, 157–81.
Schütze, C. T. (1997). INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Schütze, C. T. & Wexler, K. (1996). Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In Stringfellow, A., Cahma-Amitay, D., Hughes, E. & Zukowski, A. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 2, 670–81. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Suppes, P. (1974). The semantics of children's language. American Psychologist 29, 103114.
Theakston, A. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2008). The influence of discourse context on children's provision of auxiliary BE. Journal of Child Language 35(1), 129–58.
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb Verb-Argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of Child Language 28, 127–52.
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2002). Going, going, gone: the acquisition of the verb ‘Go’. Journal of Child Language 29, 783811.
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2004). Semantic generality, input frequency and the acquisition of syntax. Journal of Child Language 31, 6199.
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2005). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: BE and HAVE. Cognitive Linguistics 16, 247–77.
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M. & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of the input in the acquisition of the third person singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 46, 863–83.
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209253.
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vainikka, A. (1994). Case in the development of English syntax. Language Acquisition 3, 257325.
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106, 2379.
Wexler, K. (2003). Lenneberg's dream: Learning, normal language development, and specific language impairment. In Levy, Y. & Schaeffer, J. (eds) Language competence across populations: Towards a definition of specific language impairment, 11–61. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Wexler, K., Schütze, C. T. & Rice, M. (1998). Subject case in children with SLI and unaffected controls: Evidence for the Agr/Tns Omission Model. Language Acquisition 7, 317–44.


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed