Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T23:49:46.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Input effects in the acquisition of verb inflection: Evidence from Emirati Arabic

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2021

Marta SZREDER*
Affiliation:
Department of Speech Language Pathology, United Arab Emirates University
Laura E. DE RUITER
Affiliation:
Eliot-Pearson Department of Child Study and Human Development, Tufts University, USA
Dimitrios NTELITHEOS
Affiliation:
Department of Speech Language Pathology, United Arab Emirates University
*
Address for correspondence: Marta Szreder, United Arab Emirates University College of Medicine and Health Sciences, Department of Speech Language Pathology, PO Box 15551 Al Ain, United Arab Emirates. E-mail: marta.szreder@uaeu.ac.ae
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study investigates the acquisition of the Imperfective verb inflection paradigm in Emirati Arabic (EA), to determine whether the learning process is sensitive to the phonological and typological properties of the input. We collected data from 48 participants aged 2;7 to 5;9 years, using an elicited production paradigm. Input frequencies of inflectional contexts, verb types and tokens were obtained from corpora of child-directed and adult EA. Children's accuracy was inversely related to the input frequency of inflectional contexts, but not related to type and token frequency or phonological neighborhood density. Token frequency interacted with age, such that younger children performed considerably worse on low-frequency tokens, but older children performed equally well on high- and low-frequency tokens. We conclude that learning is input-driven, but that a sufficiently regular paradigm allows children to eventually generalise across all items earlier than in previously studied European languages.

Information

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Table 1. EA verb forms for the root f-ʕ-l ‘to do’, with Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) equivalents for comparison.

Figure 1

Table 2. Subject agreement affixes on the Imperfective and Perfective verb stem of k-s-r ‘to break’ in EA.

Figure 2

Table 3. List of verbs used in the study. All verbs given in 3SG.

Figure 3

Figure 1. A sample still from the animation for the verb ‘carry’.

Figure 4

Table 4. Distribution of scorable and unscorable responses for Emirati Arabic (EA), Finnish (FI), and Polish (PL).

Figure 5

Table 5. Types of responses by verb.

Figure 6

Table 6. Accuracy rates by age group.

Figure 7

Table 7. Errors by inflectional context.

Figure 8

Table 8. All errors due only to incorrect prefix.

Figure 9

Table 9. Substitutions in 3rd person singular by gender.

Figure 10

Table 10. Errors of suffix commission.

Figure 11

Table 11. Errors of suffix omission.

Figure 12

Table 12. Summary of the results of the EMALAC-based Bayesian linear mixed effects model using scorable responses only.

Figure 13

Figure 2. Bar chart illustrating the interaction between Age and TokenFreq for different ages, using only scorable responses. Note that for illustration purposes, the centred token frequency variable has been dichotomised into high and low frequency tokens (mean split), and age is shown in three groups rather than as a continuous, centred variable.

Figure 14

Table 13. Summary of the results of the EMALAC-based Bayesian linear mixed effects model using all responses.

Figure 15

Figure 3. Bar chart illustrating the interaction between age and token frequency for different ages, using scorable and unscorable responses.

Figure 16

Figure 4. Accuracy by inflectional context and age group, based on scorable and unscorable responses.

Figure 17

Figure 5. 95% credible intervals for the all-response EMALAC corpus.

Figure 18

Table 14. Summary of the results of the GUMAR-based Bayesian linear mixed effects model using scorable responses only.

Figure 19

Table 15. Summary of the results of the GUMAR-based Bayesian linear mixed effects model using all responses.

Figure 20

Figure 6. 95% credible intervals in the GUMAR all-response model.