Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-g8tfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T15:04:24.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When regularization gets it wrong: children over-simplify language input only in production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2018

Jessica F. SCHWAB ,
Casey LEW-WILLIAMS  and
Adele E. GOLDBERG
Jessica F. SCHWAB*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Peretsman-Scully Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540
Casey LEW-WILLIAMS
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Peretsman-Scully Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540
Adele E. GOLDBERG
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Peretsman-Scully Hall, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540
*
*Corresponding author. Email: jschwab@princeton.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children tend to regularize their productions when exposed to artificial languages, an advantageous response to unpredictable variation. But generalizations in natural languages are typically conditioned by factors that children ultimately learn. In two experiments, adult and six-year-old learners witnessed two novel classifiers, probabilistically conditioned by semantics. Whereas adults displayed high accuracy in their productions – applying the semantic criteria to familiar and novel items – children were oblivious to the semantic conditioning. Instead, children regularized their productions, over-relying on only one classifier. However, in a two-alternative forced-choice task, children's performance revealed greater respect for the system's complexity: they selected both classifiers equally, without bias toward one or the other, and displayed better accuracy on familiar items. Given that natural languages are conditioned by multiple factors that children successfully learn, we suggest that their tendency to simplify in production stems from retrieval difficulty when a complex system has not yet been fully learned.

Keywords

language acquisitiongeneralizationprobability boosting

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 45 , Issue 5 , September 2018 , pp. 1054 - 1072
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., Walker, S., Christensen, R. H. B., & Singmann, H. (2015). lme4: linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 [Computer software manual]. Retrieved from <http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4> (R package version 1.1-7).+(R+package+version+1.1-7).>Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. M. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Input effects within a constructionist framework. Modern Language Journal, 93, 418–29.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & Slobin, D. (1982). Why small children cannot change language on their own: evidence from the English past tense. In Alqvist, A. (Ed.), Papers from the 5th International Conference on Historical Linguistics (pp. 29–37). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. E. (2005). Input and SLA: adults’ sensitivity to different sorts of cues to French gender. Language Learning, 55, 79–138.Google Scholar
Culbertson, J., Gagliardi, A., & Smith, K. (2017). Competition between phonological and semantic cues in noun class learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 92, 343–58.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: the emergence of meaning in the study of variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100.Google Scholar
Evans Wagner, S., & Tagliamonte, S. A. (2016). Vernacular stability: comparative evidence from two lifespan studies. Paper presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 45, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
Fehér, O., Wonnacott, E., & Smith, K. (2016). Structural priming in artificial languages and the regularisation of unpredictable variation. Journal of Memory and Language, 91, 158–80.Google Scholar
Ferman, S., & Kami, A. (2010). No childhood advantage in the acquisition of skill in using an artificial language rule. PloS one, 5, e12648.Google Scholar
Gerken, L., Wilson, R., & Lewis, W. (2005). Infants can use distributional cues to form syntactic categories. Journal of Child Language, 32, 249–68.Google Scholar
Harmon, Z., & Kapatsinski, V. (2017). Putting old tools to novel uses: the role of form accessibility in semantic extension. Cognitive Psychology, 98, 22–44.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L., & Chang, A. (2009). Investigating the cause of language regularization in adults: Memory constraints or learning effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(3), 815–21.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L., & Newport, E. L. (2005). Regularizing unpredictable variation: the roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development, 1, 151–95.Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L., & Newport, E. L. (2009). Getting it right by getting it wrong: when learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 30–66.Google Scholar
Janda, L. A. (1996). Back from the brink: a study of how relic forms in languages serve as source material for analogical extension. Munich & Newcastle: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). Micro-and macrodevelopmental changes in language acquisition and other representational systems. Cognitive Science, 3, 91–118.Google Scholar
Kirby, S., Cornish, H., & Smith, K. (2008). Cumulative cultural evolution in the laboratory: an experimental approach to the origins of structure in human language. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 10681–5.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (2001). Principles of linguistic change, vol. 2: social factors. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Macdonald, M. C. (2013). How language production shapes language form and comprehension. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 226.Google Scholar
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2015). Generalizing beyond the input: the functions of the constructions matter. Journal of Memory and Language, 84, 108–27.Google Scholar
Perek, F., & Goldberg, A. E. (2017). Linguistic generalization on the basis of function and constraints on the basis of statistical preemption. Cognition, 168, 276–93.Google Scholar
Pérez-Pereira, M. (1991). The acquisition of gender: what Spanish children tell us. Journal of Child Language, 18, 571–90.Google Scholar
Perfors, A. (2012). When do memory limitations lead to regularization? An experimental and computational investigation. Journal of Memory and Language, 67, 486–506.Google Scholar
Quirk, R. (1960). Towards a description of English usage. Transactions of the Philological Society, 59, 40–61.Google Scholar
Raviv, L., & Arnon, I. (2017). Differences between children and adults in the emergence of linguistic structure. Paper presented at the CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing.Google Scholar
Reali, F., & Griffiths, T. L. (2009). The evolution of frequency distributions: relating regularization to inductive biases through iterated learning. Cognition, 111, 317–28.Google Scholar
Samara, A., Smith, K., Brown, H., & Wonnacott, E. (2017). Acquiring variation in an artificial language: children and adults are sensitive to socially conditioned linguistic variation. Cognitive Psychology, 94, 85–114.Google Scholar
Singleton, J. L., & Newport, E. L. (2004). When learners surpass their models: the acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology, 49, 370–407.Google Scholar
Smith, K., Perfors, A., Fehér, O., Samara, A., Swoboda, K., & Wonnacott, E. (2017). Language learning, language use, and the evolution of linguistic variation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 372, 20160051.Google Scholar
Smith, K., & Wonnacott, E. (2010). Eliminating unpredictable variation through iterated learning. Cognition, 116, 444–9.Google Scholar
Surridge, M. E. (1993). Gender assignment in French: the hierarchy of rules and the chronology of acquisition. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 31, 77–96.Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., & D'Arcy, A. (2009). Peaks beyond phonology: adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language, 85, 58–108.Google Scholar
Thothathiri, M., & Rattinger, M. G. (2016). Acquiring and producing sentences: whether learners use verb-specific or verb-general information depends on cue validity. Frontiers in Psychology, 7.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2011). Sociolinguistic typology: social determinants of linguistic complexity. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E. (2011). Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: an artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory and Language, 65, 1–14.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Newport, E. L., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2008). Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology, 56, 165–209.Google Scholar