Displaying 1 - 4 of 4
-
Kidd, E. (2006). [Review of the book Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax by William O'Grady]. Journal of Child Language, 33(4), 905-910. doi:10.1017/S030500090622782X.
-
Kidd, E., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Examining the role of lexical frequency in children's acquisition of sentential complements. Cognitive Development, 21(2), 93-107. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.01.006.
Abstract
We present empirical data showing that the relative frequency with which a verb normally appears in a syntactic construction predicts young children's ability to remember and repeat sentences instantiating that construction. Children aged 2;10–5;8 years were asked to repeat grammatical and ungrammatical sentential complement sentences (e.g., ‘I think + S’). The sentences contained complement-taking verbs (CTVs) used with differing frequencies in children's natural speech. All children repeated sentences containing high frequency CTVs (e.g., think) more accurately than those containing low frequency CTVs (e.g., hear), and made more sophisticated corrections to ungrammatical sentences containing high frequency CTVs. The data suggest that, like adults, children are sensitive to lexico-constructional collocations. The implications for language acquisition are discussed. -
Kidd, E. (2006). The acquisition of complement clause constructions. In E. V. Clark, & B. F. Kelly (
Eds. ), Constructions in acquisition (pp. 311-332). Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information. -
Kidd, E. (2004). Grammars, parsers, and language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 31(2), 480-483. doi:10.1017/S0305000904006117.
Abstract
Drozd's critique of Crain & Thornton's (C&T) (1998) book Investigations in Universal Grammar (IUG) raises many issues concerning theory and experimental design within generative approaches to language acquisition. I focus here on one of the strongest theoretical claims of the Modularity Matching Model (MMM): continuity of processing. For reasons different to Drozd, I argue that the assumption is tenuous. Furthermore, I argue that the focus of the MMM and the methodological prescriptions contained in IUG are too narrow to capture language acquisition.
Share this page