Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T14:39:10.528Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pronoun case overextensions and paradigm building*1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Matthew Rispoli
Matthew Rispoli*
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
*
Address for correspondence: Department of English, PO Box 6032, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011–6032, USA.
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pronoun case errors, or overextensions, like *me want it are characteristic of English child language. This paper explores a hypothesis that the morphological structure of a pronoun influences the pattern of these errors. The Language Acquisition Device (LAD) attempts to analyse English pronoun case forms into stems and affixes, but cannot because of their irregularity. Nevertheless the LAD extracts a phonetic core for each pronoun (e.g. /m-/ for the ist sg., /h-/ for the 3rd masc. sg.). The phonetic core blocks the overextension of suppletive nominative forms like I and she. This hypothesis predicts strong differences in the frequency and types of errors between pronouns with suppletive nominatives and those without. Evidence for this hypothesis was found in a transcript database of twelve children, with data collected in one hour samples every month from 1;0 to 3;0. 20,908 pronouns were examined, 1347 of which were errors. Statistical analyses of these data provide support for this hypothesis.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 1994, pp. 157 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported in part by a grant (HD 03144) from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the Bureau of Child Research and the Department of Human Development of the University of Kansas. The author would like to thank Tessa Fouquet and Jennifer Lane for their contribution in the analysis of the English data; Robin Chapman, Diane Frome Loeb, Pamela Hadley, Richard Ingram and Anne Vainikka for discussion and criticism; and last but not least, Betty Hart for her selfless labour in developing the JGLP database.

[1]

The forms studied as pronouns in this paper are the personal pronouns I, me, he, him, she, her, they, them, together with the related determiners (or possessive adjectives) my, his, her, their.

References

REFERENCES

Aksu-Ko, ç & Slobin, D. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1. The data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budwig, N. (1989). The linguistic marking of agentivity and control in child language. Journal of Child Language 16, 263–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hart, B. (1991). Input frequency and children's first words. First Language 11, 289–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huxley, R. (1970). The development of the correct use of subject personal pronouns in two children. In d'Arcais, G. Flores & Levelt, W. (eds.), Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Ingham, R. (1992). The optional subject phenomenon in young children's English: a case study. Journal of Child Language 19, 133–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaper, W. (1976). Pronominal case-errors. Journal of Child Language 3, 439–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeb, D. & Leonard, L. (1991). Subject case marking and verb morphology in normally developing and specifically language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 29, 481–93.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. (1969). Sentences children use. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children. Austin, TX: Pro Ed.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Small children's small clauses. Transactions of the Philological Society 86, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: the nature of early child grammars of English. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M. (1993). The acquisition of pronoun case. Unpublished manuscript, Northern Arizona University.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 2. Theoretical issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tanz, C. (1974). Cognitive principles underlying children's errors in pronominal casemarking. Journal of Child Language 1, 271–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar