Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Chapter 7: Acquisition in the prepositional domain
0 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present the findings from a longitudinal study
of preposition acquisition; these findings support the fine-grained approach to the
prepositional domain detailed in Chapters 3 and 4. While a number of studies in
different fields provide partial evidence for the analysis offered here, they do not
provide comprehensive, conclusive evidence (Chapter 5). The fact that children are
known to acquire language in developmental stages where lexical classes of elements are
acquired before functional ones provides a rich testing ground for the view that syntactic
domains are comprised of four discrete categories. If syntactic domains in general, and
the prepositional domain in particular, are comprised of elements with various
designations for lexical and functional information, then the purely lexical elements of the
domain (adverbs, in the prepositional domain) should be acquired first, and the purely
functional elements (functional prepositions) should be acquired last. The ordering of
the intermediary categories (particles and semi-lexical preposition) will determine which
of two features [±Lexical] and [±Functional] is more highly ranked; the order of
acquisition of these two categories cannot be predicted based on anything internal to the
model, and is left to emerge from the data. Thus there are two possible developmental
orders that are possible. In the first, particles are acquired before semi-lexical
prepositions (1), and in the second, the particles follow the semi-lexical prepositions (2).
192
(1) Predicted order of acquisition:–Functional +Lexical Adverb–Functional –Lexical Particle+Functional +Lexical Semi-lexical preposition+Functional –Lexical Functional preposition
(2) Predicted order of acquisition:–Functional +Lexical Adverb+Functional +Lexical Semi-lexical preposition–Functional –Lexical Particle+Functional –Lexical Functional preposition
In both of these two possible orders, the purely lexical elements (adverbs) are acquired
first and the purely functional elements (functional prepositions) are acquired last; the
exact order of the two remaining elements (semi-lexical prepositions and particles) is left
to discovery in the data.
In examining the data from the five children studied (see Chapter 6 for the details
of the subjects and methodology), strong evidence of the predicted order of elements is
found. First, the general results will be presented, followed by a brief discussion of the
adult data. Then we turn to an examination of the rates of accuracy and the order of
acquisition that was found. Finally, additional patterns in the data that support
differences in the four prepositional elements will be discussed.
1 Results
To begin with, a total of 38,052 contexts in the data of the five children examined were
identified that contained or should have contained material homophonous with
prepositional elements. As explained in Chapter 6, a number of utterances were
excluded from the coding process because they were unintelligible (as indicated in the
transcript), ambiguous, or didn’t necessarily reflect the child’s own analysis (like
193
recitations and perfect imitations); these excluded contexts are listed as ‘other’ in the
tables showing the overall totals, and aside from these initial tables, will not be discussed
further. Setting aside the excluded ‘other’ contexts, a total of 25,695 obligatory
prepositional contexts (both correct and incorrect) were coded for status as
prepositional elements (adverb, particle, semi-lexical preposition, or functional
preposition) on the basis of the distributional patterns presented earlier (Chapters 2 and
4, especially, and as reviewed in Chapter 6). The general breakdown of the contexts can
be found in the appendix, in Tables (9.1), (9.2), and (9.3) for the main group of children,
the adult data, and the two additional children, respectively. Tables listing the frequency
of word-forms for each prepositional category are also provided in the appendix.
Of the 25,697 prepositional contexts, Adam’s data accounted for 7783 of these
contexts, and Eve’s contained 2062 total contexts. In Naomi’s data, 2325 prepositional
contexts were identified, and Nina’s contained 8355 contexts. 5172 contexts were
identified in Sarah’s data. The distribution of correct and incorrect uses across MLU
Groups and across prepositional type is shown in Tables (7.1) and (7.2), respectively.
194
Correct ContextsCorrect ContextsCorrect ContextsGroup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7MLU 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 2.0-2.49 2.5-2.99 3.0-3.49 3.5-3.99 4.0+ Totals
AdamAdverb * * 267 511 137 1,006 409 2,330Particle * * 16 58 24 130 83 311
Semi-Lexical Prep * * 184 668 206 2,268 716 4,042Functional Prep * * 1 39 23 274 87 424
Total 0 0 468 1,276 390 3,678 1,295 7,107
EveAdverb * 66 53 160 290 * * 569Particle * 1 2 8 57 * * 68
Semi-Lexical Prep * 31 46 223 760 * * 1,060Functional Prep * 1 9 16 88 * * 114
Total 0 99 110 407 1,195 0 0 1,811
NaomiAdverb 49 42 107 248 204 151 96 897Particle 1 3 11 20 32 27 13 107
Semi-Lexical Prep 0 13 78 201 324 311 204 1,131Functional Prep 0 0 0 1 31 48 25 105
Total 50 58 196 470 591 537 338 2,240
NinaAdverb * 114 264 638 206 356 269 1,847Particle * 8 3 17 23 86 26 163
Semi-Lexical Prep * 212 376 1,679 879 1,505 806 5,457Functional Prep * 9 14 138 94 171 91 517
Total 0 343 657 2,472 1,202 2,118 1,192 7,984
SarahAdverb * 52 226 165 488 511 * 1,442Particle * 10 19 18 74 83 * 204
Semi-Lexical Prep * 79 266 435 859 1,324 * 2,963Functional Prep * 0 8 93 84 160 * 345
Total 0 141 519 711 1,505 2,078 0 4,954
TOTAL 50 641 1,950 5,336 4,883 8,411 2,825 24,096* No data available
Table (7.1): Correct contexts, child data
195
Error ContextsError ContextsError ContextsGroup 1 2 3 4 5 6 7MLU 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 2.0-2.49 2.5-2.99 3.0-3.49 3.5-3.99 4.0+ Totals
AdamAdverb * * 12 6 3 1 3 25Particle * * 0 0 0 2 2 4
Semi-Lexical Prep * * 191 220 19 64 7 501Functional Prep * * 24 62 26 24 10 146
Total 227 288 48 91 22 676
EveAdverb * 0 1 2 1 * * 4Particle * 0 0 0 2 * * 2
Semi-Lexical Prep * 34 83 58 32 * * 207Functional Prep * 3 11 6 18 * * 38
Total 37 95 66 53 251
NaomiAdverb 0 0 0 3 1 0 1 5Particle 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 4
Semi-Lexical Prep 0 5 17 20 10 9 0 61Functional Prep 0 1 4 5 2 0 3 15
Total 0 6 22 28 15 10 4 85
NinaAdverb * 5 2 7 4 7 11 36Particle * 0 0 3 0 0 0 3
Semi-Lexical Prep * 73 42 137 18 20 6 296Functional Prep * 4 8 15 3 5 1 36
Total 82 52 162 25 32 18 371
SarahAdverb * 2 1 0 0 6 * 9Particle * 0 0 0 0 0 * 0
Semi-Lexical Prep * 38 48 16 24 23 * 149Functional Prep * 5 9 5 22 19 * 60
Total 45 58 21 46 48 218
TOTAL 0 170 454 565 187 181 44 1,601* No data available
Table (7.2): Incorrect contexts, child data
The adult data contained 13,501 total prepositional contexts. Adam’s mother
accounted for 25% (3,426 contexts) of the adult data, Eve’s mother accounted for 13%
(1,813 contexts), Naomi’s parents accounted for 6% (866 contexts), Nina’s mother
accounted for 40% (5,487), and Sarah’s mother accounted for 14% (1,897 contexts).
196
The distribution of total correct contexts for each prepositional category is provided in
Table (7.3). No totals are given for errors, as only 12 errors occurred (evenly distributed
across all adults), giving the adults an error rate of .08%.
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7MLU 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 2.0-2.49 2.5-2.99 3.0-3.49 3.5-3.99 4.0+ Totals
AdamAdverb * * 187 254 48 125 97 711Particle * * 13 35 9 27 14 98
Semi-Lexical Prep * * 469 800 107 537 314 2,227Functional Prep * * 90 121 19 113 47 390
Total 0 0 759 1,210 183 802 472 3,426
EveAdverb * 94 86 32 189 * * 401Particle * 4 4 1 30 * * 39
Semi-Lexical Prep * 213 298 108 554 * * 1,173Functional Prep * 40 45 13 102 * * 200
Total 0 351 433 154 875 0 0 1,813
NaomiAdverb 10 54 46 28 26 41 20 225Particle 3 4 14 7 13 15 5 61
Semi-Lexical Prep 25 83 71 78 87 107 46 497Functional Prep 4 17 16 13 18 8 7 83
Total 42 158 147 126 144 171 78 866
NinaAdverb * 108 91 350 81 183 121 934Particle * 6 15 22 7 31 11 92
Semi-Lexical Prep * 301 313 1,402 349 935 402 3,702Functional Prep * 59 87 266 96 150 101 759
Total 0 474 506 2,040 533 1,299 635 5,487
SarahAdverb * 34 88 93 147 107 * 469Particle * 7 23 24 26 23 * 103
Semi-Lexical Prep * 97 191 202 377 257 * 1,124Functional Prep * 19 29 44 58 51 * 201
Total 0 157 331 363 608 438 0 1,897
TOTAL 42 1,140 2,176 3,893 2,343 2,710 1,185 13,489* No data available
Table (7.3): Correct contexts, adult data
197
2 Adult data
In this section, the distribution of the four prepositional categories in the adult
data will be considered. By examining the use of these four elements in the adult
language, a baseline of adult patterns is established, so that the linguistic target that the
children are aiming for is known. This may also help to differentiate between patterns
of normal prepositional usage and patterns due to acquisition in the child data.
In order to establish the patterns of adult usage of the four prepositional
categories, the proportion of use of each element in each MLU Group was calculated
(the total number of uses of a prepositional element in a specific MLU Group was
divided by the total number of prepositional uses found in that MLU Group). The
results of this calculation can be seen in Table (7.4).
Interestingly, all adults show identical patterns of use for the four prepositional
elements: all parents use far more semi-lexical prepositions than any other prepositional
elements. This category accounts for an average across parents of 62.4% of all
prepositional contexts. The second most frequently used prepositional elements were
the adverbs, which accounted for 22.3% of all adult contexts. This was followed by the
functional prepositions, which accounted for an average of 11.4% of usage across all
adults, and particles, which accounted for 3.8% of all adult prepositional usage. As can
be seen in Table (7.4), all parents follow this pattern very consistently, with only slight
variations between MLU Groups and individuals. Looking at the means across parents
in each of the MLU Groups (Figure 7.1), the pattern shows very little variation over
198
time: adverbs show a slight decrease in frequency over time, but the other three elements
remain essentially flat from MLU Group 1 through MLU Group 7.
* No data available
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7MLU 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 2.0-2.49 2.5-2.99 3.0-3.49 3.5-3.99 4.0+ Mean St. Dev.
AdamAdverb * * 25% 21% 26% 16% 21% 22% 4%Particle * * 2% 3% 5% 3% 3% 3% 1%
Semi-Lexical Prep * * 62% 66% 58% 67% 67% 63% 4%Functional Prep * * 12% 10% 10% 14% 10% 12% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
EveAdverb * 27% 20% 21% 22% * * 22% 3%Particle * 1% 1% 1% 3% * * 2% 1%
Semi-Lexical Prep * 61% 69% 70% 63% * * 66% 4%Functional Prep * 11% 10% 8% 12% * * 10% 1%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
NaomiAdverb 24% 34% 31% 22% 18% 24% 26% 26% 5%Particle 7% 3% 10% 6% 9% 9% 6% 7% 2%
Semi-Lexical Prep 60% 53% 48% 62% 60% 63% 59% 58% 5%Functional Prep 10% 11% 11% 10% 12% 5% 9% 10% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
NinaAdverb * 23% 18% 17% 15% 14% 19% 17% 3%Particle * 1% 3% 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 1%
Semi-Lexical Prep * 64% 62% 69% 65% 72% 63% 66% 4%Functional Prep * 12% 17% 13% 18% 12% 16% 14% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
SarahAdverb * 22% 27% 26% 24% 24% * 24% 2%Particle * 4% 7% 7% 4% 5% * 6% 1%
Semi-Lexical Prep * 62% 58% 56% 62% 59% * 59% 3%Functional Prep * 12% 9% 12% 10% 12% * 11% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table (7.4): Proportion of prepositional elements in each MLU Group, Adult data
199
70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Adverbs Particles Semi-Lex Preps Funct Preps
Grp 1
Grp 2
Grp 3
Grp 4
Grp 5
Grp 6
Grp 7
Figure (7.1): Average proportion of use across MLU Group, adult data
3 Child acquisition patterns
In order to determine what the order of acquisition of prepositional elements is,
the generally accepted threshold of 90% correct usage in obligatory contexts (along the
lines of Brown (1973)) will be used. Brown’s (1973) actual criterion of 90% accuracy
level in three consecutive files was not adopted here. The files were examined using this
criterion first, but because the particles occurred so infrequently, three files rarely
occurred consecutively. Using this criterion in Naomi’s data showed that particles were
acquired in MLU Group 5, despite the fact that they occurred intermittently at accuracy
level of 100% since the first MLU Group. In Sarah’s case, the semi-lexical prepositions
would have been accepted as acquired in MLU Group 2, despite the fact that in the
immediately following files, semi-lexical prepositions are used with the following
accuracy levels: 0%, 33%, 40%. Her ability to correctly use semi-lexical prepositions
continues to vacillate through MLU Group 3 (13 of 25 files are below the 90% rate, and
of those, 6 show accuracy levels of 50% to 67%), and in MLU Group 4 her usage is
consistently above 90% (with one file falling below the 90% mark). A similar situation
200
occurs in Adam’s data, with his use of functional prepositions. Outside of these
problems, the pattern of acquisition shown by the three-consecutive files approach and
the MLU Groups averaging approach were identical. In one child, Eve, the timing of her
acquisition of functional particles becomes clearer with a file-by-file approach, as will be
discussed below.
Table (7.5) shows the percent of correct usage in each MLU Group for each
child’s use of the prepositional elements (rates above 90% are shaded). Each score
reported in the tables below is the result of dividing the number of correct uses of a
prepositional element by the total of all obligatory contexts for that element. In the next
five subsections, the acquisition patterns of each child will be briefly outlined, followed
by a summary of the patterns identified.
201
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7MLU 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 2.0-2.49 2.5-2.99 3.0-3.49 3.5-3.99 4.0+
AdamAdverb * * 96% 99% 98% 100% 99%Particle * * 100% 100% 100% 98% 98%
Semi-Lexical Prep * * 49% 75% 92% 97% 99%Functional Prep * * 4% 39% 47% 92% 90%
EveAdverb * 100% 98% 99% 100% * *Particle * 100% 100% 100% 97% * *
Semi-Lexical Prep * 48% 36% 79% 96% * *Functional Prep * 25% 45% 73% 83% * *
NaomiAdverb 100% 100% 100% 99% 100% 99% 99%Particle 100% 100% 92% 100% 94% 100% 100%
Semi-Lexical Prep n/a 72% 82% 91% 97% 97% 100%Functional Prep n/a 0% 0% 17% 94% 100% 89%
NinaAdverb * 96% 99% 99% 98% 98% 96%Particle * 100% 100% 85% 100% 100% 100%
Semi-Lexical Prep * 74% 90% 92% 98% 99% 99%Functional Prep * 69% 64% 90% 97% 97% 99%
SarahAdverb * 96% 100% 100% 100% 99% *Particle * 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% *
Semi-Lexical Prep * 68% 85% 96% 97% 98% *Functional Prep * 0% 47% 95% 79% 89% *
* No data availableTable (7.5): Percent correct usage, child data
3.1 Adam
Of all the children, Adam’s data begins the latest: in MLU Group 3. At this
point, he has fully acquired adverbs and particles, using them accurately in 96% (279
total obligatory contexts) and 100% (16 total contexts), respectively. These highly
accurate levels of use continue throughout the remaining MLU Groups. In contrast,
Adam’s semi-lexical and functional prepositions in MLU Group 3 are not fully acquired.
The semi-lexical prepositions are used correctly 49% (375 contexts) of the time at this
202
stage, and the correct uses continue to increase until they reach 92% (225 contexts)
correct usage in MLU Group 5; the rate of correct usage continues to increase in MLU
Groups 6 and 7, with 97% (2332 contexts) and 99% (723 contexts) rates of correct use.
The functional prepositions in Group 3 are used correctly only 4% (25 contexts) of the
time, and continue to increase, with 39% (101 contexts) and 47% (49 contexts) in the
next two stages. Adam’s use of functional prepositions reach 92% (298 contexts)
accuracy in MLU Group 6, and remains at 90% (97 contexts) in MLU Group 7.
Overall, the adverbs and particles in Adam’s speech are both used appropriately in over
90% of all contexts throughout all MLU Groups, and no conclusions can be made with
regard to the order of acquisition of these two elements. However, it is clear that the
semi-lexical prepositions are not fully acquired until later (MLU Group 5), and the
functional prepositions are fully acquired even later, in MLU Group 6.
3.2 Eve
Eve’s use of prepositional elements mirrors Adam’s in many ways. Her first
MLU Group 2 shows full acquisition of adverbs and particles, with 100% correct use
for both (66 adverb contexts and 1 particle contexts), and these high rates of correct use
remain at or near 100% in all subsequent stages. The semi-lexical prepositions are used
correctly 48% (65 contexts) of the time in MLU Group 2, and increase in correct usage
until they are fully acquired in MLU Stage 5, with a rate of 96% (792 contexts). The
functional prepositions are used correctly in only 25% of the four obligatory contexts in
Eve’s initial MLU Group, and gradually increase in correct usage until MLU Group 5,
where they are used correctly 83% (106 contexts) of the time. While this is not above
203
the 90% threshold for full acquisition, a closer look shows that she has reached the point
of full acquisition by the end of MLU Group 5. Her first two files in the group show
accuracy levels of 40% and 50%; her rate of usage increases over the next couple of files,
and her last four consecutive files are all above 90%. As with Adam’s data, no
conclusions can be reached about the acquisitional order of adverbs and particles.
However, it is clear that in Eve’s data, semi-lexical prepositions are acquired after
adverbs and particles, and before functional prepositions.
3.3 Naomi
Of all the children examined, Naomi’s data offers the most complete view of the
acquisition of prepositional elements, because her data extends fully from MLU Group
1 to MLU Group 7. In her earliest MLU Group, she used both adverbs and particles
correctly 100% of the time (49 adverb contexts and 1 particle contexts), showing her
acquisition of these elements. The use of these two elements remains well above 90% in
all subsequent MLU Groups. Naomi used no semi-lexical prepositions in MLU Group
1, and in MLU Group 2, her rate of correct usage is 72% (18 contexts). This rate
increases over time, and surpasses the 90% threshold of acquisition in MLU Group 4,
with a rate of 91% (221 contexts). The rate of correct usage continues to increase, and
finally reaches 100% (204 contexts) in MLU Group 7. No contexts requiring functional
prepositions occur until MLU Group 2, and her rate of correct usage in this stage as well
as the next is 0% (1 context in MLU Group 2, and 4 contexts in MLU Group 3): all
obligatory contexts contain errors in these two stages. Her ability to use functional
prepositions continues to improve over time, and reaches the rate of full acquisition in
204
MLU Group 5 with a rate of 94% (33 contexts). This rate reaches 100% (48 contexts)
in MLU Group 6, and dips slightly to 89% (28 contexts) in the final MLU Group.
Importantly, Naomi’s data display exactly the same pattern that was exhibited in Adam
and Eve’s data: semi-lexical prepositions are acquired later than adverbs and particles,
but before functional prepositions. While the examination of accuracy rates indicate that
adverbs are particles are acquired at the same time, a closer examination of Naomi’s data
suggests that there is in fact a difference between these two elements. This point will be
returned to later, when the earliest child files are examined.
3.4 Nina
Similar to the previous three children, Nina’s use of both adverbs and particles is
above 90% in her first available MLU Group, with adverbs being used correctly in 96%
of 119 obligatory contexts, and particles being used correctly in all eight obligatory
contexts. Her rate of correct usage generally hovers around 100%, except in MLU
Group 4, where the particles are used correctly only 85% (20 contexts) of the time.
Nina uses semi-lexical prepositions correctly in 74% of 285 required contexts in MLU
Group 2, and in the next MLU Group she has them fully acquired, using them correctly
90% (418 contexts) of the time. In the subsequent stages her correct usage increases,
and reaches 99% (812 contexts) accuracy in MLU Group 7. Functional prepositions are
used correctly at a rate of 69% (13 contexts) in MLU Group 2, and are fully acquired
with a 90% (153 contexts) of accuracy in MLU Group 4. Nina’s rate of correct use
continues to increase in all subsequent groups, and reaches 99% (92 contexts) in MLU
Group 7. Once again, this child’s pattern mirrors the others: semi-lexical prepositions
205
are used at fully acquired rates after adverbs and particles are acquired, but before
functional prepositions are; no difference between adverbs and particles can be drawn.
3.5 Sarah
As expected, Sarah’s data matches the patterns of the other four children. Her
use of adverbs and particles begins at the fully-acquired rates of 96% (54 contexts) and
100% (10 contexts) in MLU Group 2, and both remain at or near 100% in all subsequent
files. Semi-lexical prepositions are used correctly in 68% of the 117 required contexts in
Sarah’s MLU Group 2, increasing to 85% (314 contexts) in MLU Group 3, and finally
surpassing the threshold for acquisition in MLU Group 4 with a rate of 96% (451
contexts). In all remaining stages, her use of semi-lexical prepositions continues to
climb. Sarah’s MLU Group 2 contains only five incorrect contexts for functional
prepositions, giving her a rate of 0% correct usage. This increases to 47% (17 contexts)
in MLU Group 3, and jumps to 95% (98 contexts) in MLU Group 4, followed by 79%
(106 contexts) and 89% (179 contexts) rates of correct use in MLU Groups 5 and 6. It
doesn’t appear that the 95% accuracy rate found in MLU Group 4 truly establishes the
start of Sarah’s full acquisition, as she never again reaches that rate of use in the
remaining stages.
In fact, the sudden increase in Sarah’s functional preposition use at this stage is
due to one particular file (File 53), where Sarah and her mother are looking at a catalog
together, and Sarah points at every item, saying phrases like “get one of those” or “I
want one of those”. These two phrases alone occur a total of 33 and 10 times,
respectively; Sarah’s use of of is so high in this file (51 instances) that is accounts for
206
15% of all of her functional prepositions. As seen in Table (7.6), if this file is taken out
to adjust for the unusually high number of uses, her patterns of development appear
more level, and don’t show the drastic increase, followed by an immediate fall to 79% in
the next file. However, in both MLU Groups 4 and 6, Sarah is very close to reaching
90% accuracy.
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7MLU 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 2.0-2.49 2.5-2.99 3.0-3.49 3.5-3.99 4.0+
SarahAdverb * 96% 100% 100% 100% 99% *Particle * 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% *
Semi-Lexical Prep * 68% 85% 96% 97% 98% *Functional Prep * 0% 47% 89% 79% 89% *
* No data availableTable (7.6): Sarah’s adjusted data
As with the other children, Sarah’s data clearly show that semi-lexical prepositions are
acquired after adverbs and particles, and they also seem to be acquired before functional
prepositions. Again, no conclusion regarding the order of acquisition of adverbs and
particles can be drawn.
3.6 Summary of acquisition patterns
While slight variations occur from child to child with regard to the exact timing of
when semi-lexical and functional prepositions are acquired, all show identical patterns
with regard to linear ordering. In all five children, the adverbs and particles are used rates
well above 90% from their earliest stages, indicating that these elements are acquired
very early on. After the adverbs and particles, the level of 90% correct usage is attained
for semi-lexical prepositions. The functional prepositions are acquired after the semi-
lexical prepositions. Three children (Adam, Naomi, and Nina) clearly reach the 90%
207
threshold, and Eve reaches the 90% threshold in her last four files in MLU Group 5 (her
last available group). Sarah, except for the exceptional ‘catalogue shopping’ file, never
seems to reach the 90% threshold, but remains on the cusp. These patterns are laid out
schematically in Table (7.7), where the MLU Group of acquisition is listed.
Importantly, these data support the conclusion that semi-lexical and functional
prepositions represent different types of prepositions, and that there is an acquisitional
difference between adverbs/particles, semi-lexical prepositions and functional
prepositions. The probability1 that all five children would follow the same acquisitional
pattern with three elements is p = .00463. However, because of the similarity between
the acquisitional patterns of adverbs and particles, no conclusion can be made from this
data about these two elements relative to one another. This will be explored further in
the next section.
Adverbs/ Semi-Lexical FunctionalParticles Prepositions Prepositions
Adam 3 5 6
Eve 2 5 (last 4 files of 5)
Naomi 1 4 5
Nina 2 3 4
Sarah 2 4 (after 6)
Table (7.7): Acquisitional ordering of prepositional elements, child data
3.7 Geraldine, Melissa, and Naomi
So far, no differences seem to emerge in the patterns of acquisition of adverbs
and particles. Part of this problem is related to the fact that all but Naomi’s data begin
1 The probability is based on the fact that there are 3! possible orders that can occur. If each of these 6orders is equally likely, then the probability of five kids following the same order is 1/6 to the thirdpower.
208
at MLU Group 2 or later. Additionally, Naomi’s data in the previous discussion of
acquisition rates seemed to indicate that she uses adverbs and particles in identical ways.
A closer examination of her earliest MLU Group shows that there is, in fact, evidence
for a difference between adverbs and particles. In her first MLU Group, there is one
single particle that is used correctly, giving her 100% accuracy in her use of particles.
This MLU Group contains seven files spanning ages 1;2,29 to 1;9,10. What is not clear
from the charts and discussion above is that this single particle occurs in the last file of
this MLU Group. By contrast, the 49 adverbs that are used are distributed among the
different files. In short, it seems that this one particle is very close to emerging in MLU
Group 2.
Because none of the other children selected for the study have data that were
collected this early on, confirmation of this pattern cannot be found in this dataset.
Instead, we turn to two other children, whose data begin during the MLU Group 1 and
continue into MLU Group 2: Melissa and Geraldine. As can be seen in Table (7.8),
these two children mirror Naomi’s pattern, as described previously. Note that this table
shows all contexts that occurred in the three children’s data during MLU Groups 1 and
2; as no errors occurred in this MLU Group, all are instances of correct usage.
209
Naomi GeraldineGeraldineGeraldine MelissaMLU Adverb Particle MLU Adverb Particle MLU Adverb Particle1.83 0 0 1.21 7 0 1.20 1 01.31 27 0 * 1.29 1 01.14 2 0 * 1.22 1 01.39 10 0 * 1.25 0 01.47 7 0 * 1.39 2 01.26 3 0 * 1.43 2 01.40 0 1 * *
Grp 1 49 1 Grp 1 7 0 Grp 1 7 01.62 1 0 1.70 14 0 1.67 13 41.58 19 3 1.78 9 0 1.84 8 01.79 10 0 1.72 9 0 1.71 10 31.54 8 0 1.52 7 0 *1.67 3 0 2.88 6 1 *1.72 1 0 1.96 0 3 *
Grp 2 42 3 Grp 2 45 4 Grp 2 31 7* No data available
Table (7.8): Distribution of early adverb and particle uses
Importantly, all three children show a delay in the production of particles. Adverbs are
produced for a period of time, and then the particles start to be produced. When
particles do appear, they are used perfectly with rates of 100% accuracy.
Of course, one cannot rely on spontaneous production data that has been
collected periodically, as the first use may not be the actual first use (especially with a
construction like particles that have a low rate of use in general speech), but could be
representative of the earliest production of the construction. While this evidence is not
conclusive, it does indicate that a difference between adverbs and particles exists.
However, there is clearly a need for additional supportive evidence before this
distinction can be conclusively accepted.
210
4 Additional evidence for differences in the prepositional domain
There are two further pieces of evidence that can be drawn from this child data
that support the view that the prepositional domain can be decomposed into four
component parts. First, there are differences in errors, and second, there are differences
in the rates of frequency that remain constant across speakers. Neither of these areas
provide evidence that is as strong as the comparison of correct to incorrect uses in
obligatory contexts, but both contribute a better view of what is occurring.
4.1 Errors
The vast majority of errors were omissions (83%), followed by substitutions2
(13%) and other miscellaneous errors (4%); Tables (7.2) and (7.9) provide the specific
patterns for each child. Additionally, no patterns emerge with regard to prepositional
element: omissions occurred more frequently in every prepositional type than any other
kind of error, except in Nina’s adverbs, where she had 24 miscellaneous errors, in
contrast with only 7 errors of omission and 5 substitutions, and Adam’s particles, where
3 substitution errors contrast with one omission.
2 Substitutions were further examined to see whether any patterns could be established in the types ofelements that were used as the substituting elements; no clear patterns were found.
211
Element type Adverb Particle Semi-lexical Functional TotalAdam
Omissions 1.9% 0.1% 66.4% 20.6% 89.1%Substitutions 0.7% 0.4% 7.0% 0.6% 8.7%
Other 0.9% 0.0% 0.7% 0.6% 2.2%Total 3.6% 0.6% 74.1% 21.7% 100.0%
EveOmissions 0.8% 0.8% 75.7% 12.7% 90.0%
Substitutions 0.8% 0.0% 6.8% 2.0% 9.6%Other 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4%Total 1.6% 0.8% 82.5% 15.1% 100.0%
NaomiOmissions 3.5% 2.4% 60.0% 16.5% 82.4%
Substitutions 1.2% 0.0% 7.1% 0.0% 8.2%Other 1.2% 2.4% 4.7% 1.2% 9.4%Total 5.9% 4.7% 71.8% 17.6% 100.0%
NinaOmissions 1.9% 0.3% 58.5% 6.5% 67.1%
Substitutions 1.3% 0.5% 18.9% 2.4% 23.2%Other 6.5% 0.0% 2.4% 0.8% 9.7%Total 9.7% 0.8% 79.8% 9.7% 100.0%
SarahOmissions 2.8% 0.0% 55.5% 27.1% 85.3%
Substitutions 1.4% 0.0% 11.5% 0.5% 13.3%Other 0.0% 0.0% 1.4% 0.0% 1.4%Total 4.1% 0.0% 68.3% 27.5% 100.0%
Table (7.9): Error types as a percent of each child’s total errors
Additionally, all children made more errors with semi-lexical prepositions than
any other prepositional element: the total of 1214 semi-lexical errors represents 76% of
all errors. As the overall rate of use of semi-lexical prepositions far outweighs any other
prepositional element (they account for 61% of all correct contexts and 57% of all
obligatory prepositional contexts), this is to be expected. Similarly, particles, which are
the least used element across all five children (accounting for 4% of all correct contexts
and 3% of all total contexts), also account for the lowest proportion of errors (a total of
13 particle errors were made, representing 0.8% of all errors). Interestingly, adverbs,
212
which represent 29% of all prepositional contexts (7085 contexts total), have far fewer
errors than functional prepositions, which represent only 6% of the data (1505
contexts). With 78 errors, adverbs represent 5% of all errors made, while the 295 errors
made with functional prepositions accounts for 18% of all errors. This would seem to
indicate that for some reason functional prepositions are disproportionately
problematic, and supports the view that purely functional elements would be the most
problematic for children to acquire. The high semi-lexical rate of error and corresponding
low particle one cannot be taken as indicators of their status in the prepositional domain,
as these error rates may simply be projections of their overall rates of usage. With
functional prepositions, this is clearly not the case, as they are used much less often
than adverbs, but errors occur in these functional contexts far more frequently than in
the adverb contexts.
It must be noted that adverbs and particles may have such generally low error
rates because obligatory contexts where the adverb or particle is omitted can’t always be
identified. If, for instance, a child produces the utterance ‘I wanna go’ and means to say
‘I wanna go out’, the researcher has no way of knowing that a prepositional context is
occurring. This is very problematic with adverbs, which are often purely
optional—unless something in the context can provide clear cues to meaning, the context
must be taken as a non-prepositional one. A similar scenario occurs with particles;
while not optional, if they are missing from a context, the verb usually makes sense and
creates a grammatical phrase without the particle (consider eat up the jello/eat the jello);
again, without clear, contextual cues, the missing particle cannot be detected. Semi-
213
lexical and functional prepositions, because of their Case-assigning properties act to
relate elements in a sentence; omissions of these elements are usually clearly identifiable
on the basis of syntax alone. Context, however, usually plays a role when substitutions
are being identified. That is not to say that errors in adverb and particle contexts aren’t
coded, but it is to recognize the limitations of research based on spontaneous
production. Other methods, such as elicitation tasks would provide clearer evidence of
errors, because the target utterances can be more closely (although not completely)
controlled for.
Lastly, and importantly, the rates of errors as a percent of total prepositional
contexts support the view that there are acquisitional differences between the four
prepositional elements. Functional prepositions are the most problematic elements for
children, with a rate of 19.6% (295 total errors in 1505 contexts containing functional
prepositions). Semi-lexical prepositions are the second most problematic elements, with
a rate of 8.3% (1214 errors in 14653 semi-lexical contexts). Particles have a rate of 1.5%
(13 errors in 853 particle contexts), and adverbs have an even lower rate of 1.1% (79
errors in 7085 adverb contexts). These figures show that the prepositional elements can
be ordered according to how problematic they are for children to use: adverbs are the
least problematic, followed by particles, semi-lexical prepositions, and finally functional
prepositions.
4.2 Frequency of use
One interesting characteristic of the adult data was that all the adults converged
on a single pattern of distribution for all four prepositional elements; not only were the
214
levels of use ordered similarly in all adult data, but all adults showed a nearly identical
rate of distribution. As seen in Table (7.10), semi-lexical prepositions were used the
most, followed by adverbs, functional prepositions, and particles. And all of the adults
use very similar frequencies for each of the four categories.
Adam Eve Naomi Nina Sarah Mean St. Dev.Adverb 22% 22% 26% 17% 24% 22% 3%Particle 3% 2% 7% 2% 6% 4% 2%
Semi-Lexical Prep 63% 66% 58% 66% 59% 62% 4%Functional Prep 12% 10% 10% 14% 11% 11% 2%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Table (7.10): Frequency of use, adult data
The children also show a similar pattern, but not until the later MLU Groups
(Table (7.11)). In all children the proportion of functional prepositions to all
prepositional elements increases over time; the children begin their first available MLU
Groups with no uses, or with a very small percentage. As this increases proportionally
over time, the adverbs decrease. Semi-lexical prepositions also increase over time, but
particles show a lot of variation, and no specific pattern can be identified. These
patterns can be seen graphically in Figure (7.2).
215
Group 1 2 3 4 5 6 7MLU 1.0-1.49 1.5-1.99 2.0-2.49 2.5-2.99 3.0-3.49 3.5-3.99 4.0+ Mean St. Dev.
AdamAdverb * * 57% 40% 35% 27% 32% 40% 12%Particle * * 3% 5% 6% 4% 6% 4% 1%
Semi-Lexical Prep * * 39% 52% 53% 62% 55% 52% 8%Functional Prep * * 0% 3% 6% 7% 7% 4% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
EveAdverb * 67% 48% 39% 24% * * 45% 18%Particle * 1% 2% 2% 5% * * 2% 2%
Semi-Lexical Prep * 31% 42% 55% 64% * * 48% 14%Functional Prep * 1% 8% 4% 7% * * 5% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
NaomiAdverb 98% 72% 55% 53% 35% 28% 28% 57% 26%Particle 2% 5% 6% 4% 5% 5% 4% 5% 1%
Semi-Lexical Prep 0% 22% 40% 43% 55% 58% 60% 36% 22%Functional Prep 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 9% 7% 2% 4%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
NinaAdverb * 33% 40% 26% 17% 17% 23% 27% 9%Particle * 2% 0% 1% 2% 4% 2% 2% 1%
Semi-Lexical Prep * 62% 57% 68% 73% 71% 68% 66% 6%Functional Prep * 3% 2% 6% 8% 8% 8% 5% 3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
SarahAdverb * 37% 44% 23% 32% 25% * 32% 9%Particle * 7% 4% 3% 5% 4% * 4% 2%
Semi-Lexical Prep * 56% 51% 61% 57% 64% * 58% 5%Functional Prep * 0% 2% 13% 6% 8% * 6% 5%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%* No data available
Table (7.11): Proportion of prepositional elements in each MLU Group, child data
216
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%0%
Adverbs Particles Semi-lex preps Funct preps
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Figure (7.2): Average proportion of use across MLU Group, child data
Overall, it is clear that the relative distribution of adverbs, particles, semi-lexical
and functional prepositions is the same for children and adults, in that they all use more
semi-lexical prepositions than any other prepositional element. This is followed by
adverbs, and then functional prepositions, with particles accounting for the smallest
rates of use. While the children do not show the same rates of use as the adults in all
MLU Groups (their initial stages, of course, contain fewer instances that the adults),
their rates of usage mirror the adult patterns in their last available MLU Group.
5 Conclusion
In examining the data of Adam, Eve, Naomi, Nina, and Sarah, the predictions
made in Chapter 5 have been supported. It was hypothesized that if the lexical and
functional qualities of different prepositional types were accurately captured, then
differences in the acquisition of these elements should be identified. More explicitly, it
was predicted that the purely lexical elements, those lacking functional content but
having lexical content (the [+Lexical, –Functional] category) should be acquired first, and
217
the purely functional ones, those having functional abilities, but lacking lexical content
(the [–Lexical, +Functional] category) should be acquired last. This prediction was
borne out, as adverbs were acquired first, and functional prepositions were acquired last.
Additional evidence for differences between prepositional elements was drawn from
error patterns, where more errors were made with functional prepositions than adverbs.
Differences in the rate of frequency of each prepositional category were also identified.
It was found that functional features outranked lexical features in establishing the
order of acquisition of all four prepositional categories. That adverbs would be acquired
before functional prepositions was predicted; the ordering of particles and semi-lexical
prepositions was left open. It was found that particles were acquired before semi-lexical
prepositions, leading to the overall acquisitional ordering found in (4).
(4) Observed order of acquisition:–Functional +Lexical Adverb–Functional –Lexical Particle+Functional +Lexical Semi-lexical preposition+Functional –Lexical Functional preposition
It can be concluded that the application of the functional features rank higher than the
lexical ones in establishing the acquisitional ordering of prepositional elements.
Importantly, the children’s patterns of acquisition cannot be attributed to input
frequency or simplification. Because adults produced prepositional elements with the
same level of frequency of use over time, it cannot be claimed that the children’s lack of
functional prepositions early on is related to lack of exposure. Additionally, it cannot be
concluded that the elements that the children hear most frequently (the semi-lexical
prepositions) will be acquired faster than the other elements (semi-lexical prepositions
218
are acquired after adverbs and particles. The conclusion must be that there is something
about the linguistic structures themselves that must be responsible for the patterns
found in the data.
Lastly, these data seem to support a constructionist approach, rather than a
maturational approach to language acquisition. Under the Maturation Hypothesis
(Chomsky 1988), linguistic principles are seen a biologically constrained, and thus the
certain linguistic structures become available at certain, preset periods. This predicts
that the child should show a “swift and error-free onset” of the targeted structure
(Braunwald 1985: 105). In contrast, the Continuity Hypothesis emphasizes the
progression of one stage to the next, and the each linguistic structure would be built
gradually over time. In the prepositional domain, the children seem to be gradual
building toward use of prepositional elements: their rates of correct usage grow gradually
over time, until the child has fully mastered the element. This is especially true with the
semi-lexical and functional prepositions, which both demonstrate periods of numerous
errors before correct usage is attained. Additionally, as the timing of acquisition varies
for each of the children (the elements are not acquired at the same chronological age nor
at the same linguistic stage, as indicated by MLU), a preset period of maturation seems
unlikely.