Errors in early word use

Last updated

Errors in early word use or developmental errors are mistakes that children commonly commit when first learning language. Language acquisition is an impressive cognitive achievement attained by humans. In the first few years of life, children already demonstrate general knowledge and understanding of basic patterns in their language. They can extend words they hear to novel situations and apply grammatical rules in novel contexts. [1] Although children possess an impressive ability to acquire and comprehend language early in life, they make many errors and mistakes as they enhance their knowledge and understanding of language. Three prominent errors in early word use are overgeneralization, overextension, and underextension.

Contents

The majority of words that children first learn are often used correctly. However, estimates indicate that up to one-third of the first fifty words that children learn are occasionally misused. Many studies indicate a curvilinear trend in naming errors and mistakes in initial word usage. In other words, early in language acquisition, children rarely make naming errors. However, as vocabulary enhances and language growth accelerates, the frequency of error increases. The amount of error decreases again as vocabulary continues to improve. [2]

Scholars debate the underlying developmental causes and reasons for these mistakes. One theory, the semantic feature hypothesis, states that mistakes occur because children acquire the basic features of a word's meaning before learning its more specific aspects. [3] For instance, the child may initially use the word basketball in reference to any round object, but then change its meaning to a round, orange, and grooved ball that bounces. Children may overextend the meaning of basketball to any round object until they learn the more specific aspects of the word's meaning. Other theories suggest that errors in early word use are the result of an inability on the part of the child to retrieve the correct word. Although the child might have accurately comprehended the word at one time, they are unable to actively retrieve the word or its meaning from their rapidly growing vocabulary. [2]

Overregularization (overgeneralization)

Overregularization is defined as the "application of a principle of regular change to a word that changes irregularly." [4] Examples of overregularization in verb use include using the word comed instead of came. Examples in noun use include using the word tooths instead of teeth. The error is usually seen after children have learned language rules because children apply learned rules to irregular words. Pertaining to the examples, the child using the word comed may have originally used came correctly. Once the child learned the '-ed' suffix rule that commonly forms the past tense; however, the child applied the rule to a verb whose correct grammatical form is irregular. The same applies to the tooths example, but the language rule is the addition of the suffix '-s' to form the plural noun. [5] Overregularization research led by Daniel Slobin argues against B.F. Skinner's view of language development through reinforcement. It shows that children actively construct words' meanings and forms during the child's own development. [6]

Differing views on the causes of overregularization and its extinction have been presented. Gary Marcus et al. published a study in which they monitored the speech of 83 children and recorded the spoken past tense of irregular verbs. They argue that children store irregular verbs in their memory and separately develop a rule for the production of the past tense form of any verb. To correctly use an irregular verb, children must retrieve that verb from their memory and block the rule; however, children's retrieval is often imperfect. They conclude the cause of overregularization with: "When retrieval fails, the rule is applied, and overregularization results." Their study's results found overregularization to be rare with a mean of 2.5% of the spoken irregular verbs, to be used for most irregular verbs from the ages of 2 years old until school ages, to be used less often with the irregular verbs that the child's parents speak more often, and to follow a pattern of "U-Shaped Development" in which the child uses the correct form of the irregular verb before overregularizing it. [7] According to Marcus, overregularization ends when the child develops sufficiently strong memory traces to irregular forms.

Michael Maratsos disagrees with Marcus's causal claim. He argues that the overregularized verb form and the correct irregular form compete for usage, as "the two forms are both initially acceptable alternatives." The child increasingly chooses the irregular form, beating the overregularized one, because the child only experiences the irregular form. Maratsos argues that because children often use both the irregular and overregularized forms of the same verb, even in the same speech sample, the blocking theory proposed by Marcus proves problematic. If retrieval blocks the rule, it is unlikely that the rule would be 'un-blocked' soon after. He argues it seems more likely that environmental input and learning accounts for the gradual decline in overregularization. Moreover, the competition theory accounts for the highly varied rates of overregularization seen in Roger Brown's longitudinal study of Adam, Abe, and Sarah. Abe had an extremely high rate of overregularization, 24%, compared with Adam's rate of 3.6%, and Sarah's of 7.9%. Maratsos claims Abe was intellectually gifted, "likely the best overall learner and retriever of words." If Abe retrieved words well, then having such a high rate of overregularization is incompatible with Marcus's theory, which holds retrieval failure responsible for overregularization. Rather, Abe's bigger vocabulary exposed him to more regular words, resulting in a stronger competition between the irregular and overregularized forms and a higher potential rate of failure. [8]

Overextension

Overextension is an error in early word use in which a child uses a single word to label multiple different things in a manner that is inconsistent with adult usage. There are three types of overextensions. Categorical overinclusions involve using one word within a category to label a closely related referent that falls in the same category. Examples are seen in references to people (e.g. daddy for all men), animals (e.g. dog for horses and other quadrupeds), vehicles (e.g. truck for bus), foods (e.g. apple for oranges), and numerous other categories. Analogical overextensions involve inferring a similarity between a word's standard referent and its labeled referent in the absence of any actual relationship. Inferred similarities are most often perceptual, such as when a child uses ball to refer to all round objects (e.g. the moon). Predicate statements involve an attempt to comment on the relationship between an immediate referent and an absent entity. This is evident when a child uses doll to refer to an empty crib where the doll usually is located. [9]

Like overgeneralizations, overextensions are believed to stem from limitations in vocabulary, which are the result of weak knowledge and/or immature retrieval ability. [10] Clark and Clark (1977) have put forth a two-stage account of how overextensions develop. In the first stage, a child focuses on a particular feature of an object and refers to that feature using a single new word. Gradually, the child realizes that the word has a more specific meaning but does not know the other words that are required to be more precise. In the second stage, the child overextends the word, using it as a form of shorthand when referring to things that are similar to the standard referent. For example, the child uses dog to refer to any animal with similar features, namely four legs. [11]

After increasing until a certain point, overextensions diminish over time as the child receives corrective feedback. This feedback most often comes from parents and teachers, who help the child revise his or her word meaning boundaries. [12] However, parents can also unintentionally prolong the use of overextensions. Parents often respond to overextensions with acceptance, and the use of joint labeling (e.g. referring to both wolves and dogs as puppies) reinforces overextended language. [13]

Underextension

Underextension, which is roughly the opposite of overextension, occurs when a child acquires a word for a particular thing and fails to extend it to other objects in the same category, using the word in a highly restricted and individualistic way. For example, a child may learn the word flower in connection with a rose but fail to extend its meaning to other types of flowers. [14] Although research more commonly addresses the underextension of nouns, this error can also apply to verbs. For example, a child might underextend the verb sit and only use it with reference to the family dog's sitting but no one else's. [15]

Underextension is generally thought to be less common, or perhaps just less noticeable, than overextension, but according to Margaret Harris, recent research shows an increasing number of reports of underextension. According to Harris, there are two different kinds of underextension. The first is "context bound", in which a child produces a word only in a limited and specific context. An example is when a child only uses the word duck when hitting a toy duck off the bathtub and chuff-chuff only when pushing a toy train. [16]

The second type of early underextension involves restricting a word to a particular referent instead of a particular situation. This kind of underextension is not context-bound but contextually flexible, and suggests that children are using words in a genuinely referential way. Harris mentions examples of this type of underextension from her own research, such as the use of the word clock only to refer to wall clocks and light only to refer to ceiling lights with a shade.

As is the case with overextension, parents can contribute to a child's prolonged underextension of words. When speaking to their children, parents may not give every instance of a category of objects its correct name, especially in unusual situations, triggering word errors. In a study by Thomas G. White, preschool children ages 3 to 5 did not apply labels (e.g., food) to category instances that were rated as atypical by adults. The study also showed that mothers used superordinate terms much less in atypical instances than typical instances. This suggests that the labels children hear their parents apply may affect underextension. However, as children grow older, their vocabularies grow and instances of underextension decline. [17]

Related Research Articles

A lexicon is the vocabulary of a language or branch of knowledge. In linguistics, a lexicon is a language's inventory of lexemes. The word lexicon derives from Greek word λεξικόν, neuter of λεξικός meaning 'of or for words'.

Language acquisition is the process by which humans acquire the capacity to perceive and comprehend language, as well as to produce and use words and sentences to communicate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Utterance</span> Smallest unit of speech

In spoken language analysis, an utterance is a continuous piece of speech, often beginning and ending with a clear pause. In the case of oral languages, it is generally, but not always, bounded by silence. Utterances do not exist in written language; only their representations do. They can be represented and delineated in written language in many ways.

Baby talk is a type of speech associated with an older person speaking to a child or infant. It is also called caretaker speech, infant-directed speech (IDS), child-directed speech (CDS), child-directed language (CDL), caregiver register, parentese, or motherese.

In cognitive psychology, fast mapping is the term used for the hypothesized mental process whereby a new concept is learned based only on minimal exposure to a given unit of information. Fast mapping is thought by some researchers to be particularly important during language acquisition in young children, and may serve to explain the prodigious rate at which children gain vocabulary. In order to successfully use the fast mapping process, a child must possess the ability to use "referent selection" and "referent retention" of a novel word. There is evidence that this can be done by children as young as two years old, even with the constraints of minimal time and several distractors. Previous research in fast mapping has also shown that children are able to retain a newly learned word for a substantial amount of time after they are subjected to the word for the first time. Further research by Markson and Bloom (1997), showed that children can remember a novel word a week after it was presented to them even with only one exposure to the novel word. While children have also displayed the ability to have equal recall for other types of information, such as novel facts, their ability to extend the information seems to be unique to novel words. This suggests that fast mapping is a specified mechanism for word learning. The process was first formally articulated and the term 'fast mapping' coined Susan Carey and Elsa Bartlett in 1978.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vocabulary development</span> Process of learning words

Vocabulary development is a process by which people acquire words. Babbling shifts towards meaningful speech as infants grow and produce their first words around the age of one year. In early word learning, infants build their vocabulary slowly. By the age of 18 months, infants can typically produce about 50 words and begin to make word combinations.

Language development in humans is a process starting early in life. Infants start without knowing a language, yet by 10 months, babies can distinguish speech sounds and engage in babbling. Some research has shown that the earliest learning begins in utero when the fetus starts to recognize the sounds and speech patterns of its mother's voice and differentiate them from other sounds after birth.

Semantic bootstrapping is a linguistic theory of child language acquisition which proposes that children can acquire the syntax of a language by first learning and recognizing semantic elements and building upon, or bootstrapping from, that knowledge. This theory proposes that children, when acquiring words, will recognize that words label conceptual categories, such as objects or actions. Children will then use these semantic categories as a cue to the syntactic categories, such as nouns and verbs. Having identified particular words as belonging to a syntactic category, they will then look for other correlated properties of those categories, which will allow them to identify how nouns and verbs are expressed in their language. Additionally, children will use perceived conceptual relations, such as Agent of an event, to identify grammatical relations, such as Subject of a sentence. This knowledge, in turn, allows the learner to look for other correlated properties of those grammatical relations.

In linguistics, the term lexis designates the complete set of all possible words in a language, or a particular subset of words that are grouped by some specific linguistic criteria. For example, the general term English lexis refers to all words of the English language, while more specific term English religious lexis refers to a particular subset within English lexis, encompassing only words that are semantically related to the religious sphere of life.

Bootstrapping is a term used in language acquisition in the field of linguistics. It refers to the idea that humans are born innately equipped with a mental faculty that forms the basis of language. It is this language faculty that allows children to effortlessly acquire language. As a process, bootstrapping can be divided into different domains, according to whether it involves semantic bootstrapping, syntactic bootstrapping, prosodic bootstrapping, or pragmatic bootstrapping.

The term linguistic performance was used by Noam Chomsky in 1960 to describe "the actual use of language in concrete situations". It is used to describe both the production, sometimes called parole, as well as the comprehension of language. Performance is defined in opposition to "competence"; the latter describes the mental knowledge that a speaker or listener has of language.

Speech production is the process by which thoughts are translated into speech. This includes the selection of words, the organization of relevant grammatical forms, and then the articulation of the resulting sounds by the motor system using the vocal apparatus. Speech production can be spontaneous such as when a person creates the words of a conversation, reactive such as when they name a picture or read aloud a written word, or imitative, such as in speech repetition. Speech production is not the same as language production since language can also be produced manually by signs.

In George Orwell's dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, Newspeak is the fictional language of Oceania, a totalitarian superstate. To meet the ideological requirements of Ingsoc in Oceania, the Party created Newspeak, which is a controlled language of simplified grammar and restricted vocabulary designed to limit the individual person's ability to think critically or to articulate subversive concepts, such as personal identity, self-expression, and free will. In Oceania, such thoughts are thoughtcrimes that contradict Ingsoc orthodoxy.

Regularization is a linguistic phenomenon observed in language acquisition, language development, and language change typified by the replacement of irregular forms in morphology or syntax by regular ones. Examples are "gooses" instead of "geese" in child speech and replacement of the Middle English plural form for "cow", "kine", with "cows". Regularization is a common process in natural languages; regularized forms can replace loanword forms or coexist with them.

In language change, analogical change occurs when one linguistic sign is changed in either form or meaning to reflect another item in the language system on the basis of analogy or perceived similarity. In contrast to regular sound change, analogy is driven by idiosyncratic cognitive factors and applies irregularly across a language system. This leads to what is known as Sturtevant's paradox: sound change is regular, but produces irregularity; analogy is irregular, but produces regularity.

The mental lexicon is defined as a mental dictionary that contains information regarding the word store of a language user, such as their meanings, pronunciations, and syntactic characteristics. The mental lexicon is used in linguistics and psycholinguistics to refer to individual speakers' lexical, or word, representations. However, there is some disagreement as to the utility of the mental lexicon as a scientific construct.

Word learning biases are certain biases or assumptions that allow children to quickly rule out unlikely alternatives in order to effectively process and learn word meanings. They begin to manifest themselves around 18 months, when children begin to rapidly expand their vocabulary. These biases are important for children with limited processing abilities if they are to be successful in word learning. The guiding lexical principles have been defined as implicit and explicit strategies towards language acquisition. When a child learns a new word they must decide whether the word refers to the whole object, part of the object, or the object's characteristics, solving an indeterminacy problem.

Syntactic bootstrapping is a theory in developmental psycholinguistics and language acquisition which proposes that children learn word meanings by recognizing syntactic categories and the structure of their language. It is proposed that children have innate knowledge of the links between syntactic and semantic categories and can use these observations to make inferences about word meaning. Learning words in one's native language can be challenging because the extralinguistic context of use does not give specific enough information about word meanings. Therefore, in addition to extralinguistic cues, conclusions about syntactic categories are made which then lead to inferences about a word's meaning. This theory aims to explain the acquisition of lexical categories such as verbs, nouns, etc. and functional categories such as case markers, determiners, etc.

A regular verb is any verb whose conjugation follows the typical pattern, or one of the typical patterns, of the language to which it belongs. A verb whose conjugation follows a different pattern is called an irregular verb. This is one instance of the distinction between regular and irregular inflection, which can also apply to other word classes, such as nouns and adjectives.

In language acquisition, negative evidence is information concerning what is not possible in a language. Importantly, negative evidence does not show what is grammatical; that is positive evidence. In theory, negative evidence would help eliminate ungrammatical constructions by revealing what is not grammatical. Direct negative evidence refers to comments made by an adult language-user in response to a learner's ungrammatical utterance. Indirect negative evidence refers to the absence of ungrammatical sentences in the language that the child is exposed to. There is debate among linguists and psychologists about whether negative evidence can help children determine the grammar of their language. Negative evidence, if it is used, could help children rule out ungrammatical constructions in their language.

References

  1. ↑ Gentner, D.; Namy, L. L. (2006). "Analogical Processes in Language Learning". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 15 (6): 297–301. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00456.x. S2CID   5689326.
  2. 1 2 Gershkoff-Stowe, L. (2001). "The Course of Children's Naming Errors in Early Word Learning". Journal of Cognition and Development. 2 (2): 131–155. doi:10.1207/s15327647jcd0202_2. S2CID   144892917.
  3. ↑ Gruendel, J. M. (1977). "Referential Extension in Early Language Development". Child Development. 48 (4): 1567–1576. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1977.tb03967.x.
  4. ↑ Parke, Ross D.; Gauvain, Mary (2009). Child Psychology: A Contemporary Viewpoint. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. p. 258. ISBN   9780071283281.
  5. ↑ Parke, Ross D.; Gauvain, Mary (2009). "Language and Communication". Child Psychology: A Contemporary Viewpoint. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. pp. 257–259. ISBN   9780071283281.
  6. ↑ Corsetti, Renato; Pinto, Maria Antonietta; Tolomeo, Maria (2004). "Regularizing the Regular: The Phenomenon of Overregularization in Esperanto-speaking Children". Language Problems & Language Planning. 28 (3): 261–282. doi:10.1075/lplp.28.3.04cor. hdl: 11573/401219 .
  7. ↑ Marcus, Gary F.; Pinker, Steven; Ullman, Michael; Hollander, Michelle; Rosen, John; Xu, Fei (1992). "Abstract". Overregularization in Language Acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. Vol. 57. [Society for Research in Child Development, Wiley]. pp. 5–6. doi:10.2307/1166115. JSTOR   1166115. PMID   1518508.
  8. ↑ Maratsos, Michael (2000). "More Overregularizations after All: New Data and Discussion on Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen & Xu". Journal of Child Language. 24 (1): 183–212. doi:10.1017/S0305000999004067. PMID   10740972. S2CID   32342942.
  9. ↑ Rescorla, Leslie A. (1980). "Overextension in Early Language Development". Journal of Child Language. 7 (2): 321–335. doi:10.1017/s0305000900002658. PMID   7410497. S2CID   17145854.
  10. ↑ Gershkoff-Stowe, Lisa (2002). "Object Naming, Vocabulary Growth, and the Development of Word Retrieval Abilities". Journal of Memory and Language. 46 (4): 665–687. doi:10.1006/jmla.2001.2830. S2CID   46499741.
  11. ↑ Clark, Herbert H.; Clark, Eve V. (1977). "Psychology and Language". Journal of Child Language. 4 (2): b1–b3. doi:10.1017/S0305000900001562. S2CID   250120686.
  12. ↑ Chapman, R. S.; Thomson, J. (1980). "What is the source of overextension errors in comprehension testing of two-year-olds? A reply to Fremgen and Fay". Journal of Child Language. 7 (3): 575–578. doi:10.1017/S0305000900002865. PMID   7440678. S2CID   31094819.
  13. ↑ Gruendel, Janice M. (1977). "Referential Extension in Early Language Development". Child Development. 48 (4): 1567–1576. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1977.tb03967.x.
  14. ↑ Fernández, Eva M.; Cairns, Helen Smith (2011). Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN   978-1-4051-9152-4.
  15. ↑ Naigles, Letitia R.; Hoff, Erika; Vear, Donna; Tomasello, Michael (2009). Flexibility in Early Verb Use: Evidence from a Multiple-N Diary Study. Boston, Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 4. ISBN   9781444333572.
  16. ↑ Harris, Margaret (1993). "Vocabulary Development". Language Experience and Early Language Development: From Input to Uptake. Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. p. 71. ISBN   9780863772382.
  17. ↑ White, Thomas G. (1982). "Naming Practices, Typicality, and Underextension in Child Language". Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 33 (2): 324–46. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(82)90024-8.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.