Cover not available
Article published In:
Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 12:2 (2021) ► pp.185–209

The development of morpho-syntactic productivity in Italian-speaking children

| University of Erlangen-Nuremberg
| University of Erlangen-Nuremberg | University of Birmingham

According to usage-based models of language acquisition, young children’s grammatical knowledge is best described in terms of lexically specific templates rather than abstract constructions. In this study, we tested the usage-based account by examining the acquisition of Italian, a language with relatively free word order and rich inflectional morphology. We exposed two groups of Italian-speaking children (aged 3;01 and 4;05) and adult controls to a nonce verb and to a familiar verb in an imperative construction. We then prompted production of those verbs in a different morphological form (past tense) and a different syntactic construction (transitive). While both child groups showed adult-like productivity with morphology, there were significant group differences in syntactic productivity.

Keywords: first language acquisition, usage-based models, Italian, morphology, syntax
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Design: Productivity as a function of the interaction of age, vocabulary, familiarity and construction
    • 2.2Participants
    • 2.3Procedure
    • 2.4Adults
    • 2.5Vocabulary
    • 2.6Notes on methodological choices
    • 2.7Coding and reliability
      • 2.7.1Morphology
      • 2.7.2Syntax
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Predictors of productivity in children
    • 3.2Comparison with adults
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
    • 4.1Research questions
      • RQ1:Is vocabulary size a better predictor of productivity than age?
      • RQ2:At what age can Italian-speaking children be said to have adult-like productivity (morphological and/or syntactic)?
    • 4.2Some final remarks
  • Acknowledgment
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 31 January 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lia.20004.mio
References
Abbot-Smith, K., & Behrens, H.
(2006) How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(6), 995–1026. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M.
(2001) What preschool children do and do not do with ungrammatical word orders. Cognitive Development, 161, 679–692. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Abbot-Smith, K., & Serratrice, L.
(2015) Word order, referential expression, and case cues to the acquisition of transitive sentences in Italian. Journal of Child Language, 42(1), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Airenti, G.
(2015) Theory of mind: A new perspective on the puzzle of belief ascription. Frontiers in Psychology, 61, 1184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akhtar, N.
(1999) Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 261, 339–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M.
(1997) Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology, 331, 952–965. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L.
(1988) From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Dale, P., & Thal, D.
(1995) Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), The handbook of child language (pp. 96–151). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & Goodman, J. C.
(2001) On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from acquisition. In M. Tomasello & E. Bates (Eds.), Language development: The essential readings (pp. 134–162). Malden, MA and Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Booij, G.
(2010) Construction Morphology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 4(7), 543–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A.
(2012) Young children fail to fully generalize a novel argument structure construction when exposed to the same input as older learners. Journal of Child Language, 391, 457–481. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caselli, M. C., Casadio, P., & Bates, E.
(1999) A comparison of the transition from first word to grammar in English and Italian. Journal of Child Language, 261, 69–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cipriani, P., Chilosi, A. M., Bottari, P., & Pfanner, L.
(1993) L’acquisizione della morfosintassi in italiano : Fasi e processi. Padua: Unipress.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E.
(2004) Language, mind and brain: Some psychological and neurological constraints on theories of grammar. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
(2009) Words as constructions. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 201–223). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devescovi, A., Caselli, M. C., Marchione, D., Pasqualetti, P., Reilly, J., & Bates, E.
(2005) A cross-linguistic study of the relationship between grammar and lexical development. Journal of Child Language, 32(4), 759–786. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’Odorico, L., Fasolo, M., Cassibba, R., & Costantini, A.
(2011) Lexical, morphological, and syntactic characteristics of verbs in the spontaneous production of Italian children. Child Development Research, 171, 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C.
(2002) The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello (2000). Cognition, 82(3), 259–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Galazka, M. A., & Ganea, P. A.
(2014) The role of representational strength in verbal updating: Evidence from 19- and 24-month-olds. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1211, 156–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
(1999) The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), The emergence of language (pp. 197–212). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, P. L.
(2006) Social cognition. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol 2: Cognition, perception, and language (pp. 811–858). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Google Scholar
Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A.
(2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674. [URL]. DOI logo
Langacker, R. W.
(1991) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive applications. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(2008) Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, L. B.
(2009) Novel verb productivity in young English and Spanish speakers. Journal of Psychological Arts and Sciences, 11, 1–5.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M.
(2008) Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marchman, V. A., & Bates, E.
(1994) Continuity in lexical and morphological development: A test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21(2), 339–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Munakata, Y., McClelland, J. L., Johnson, M. H., & Siegler, R. S.
(1997) Rethinking infant knowledge: Toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. Psychological Review, 104(4), 686–713. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Noble, C., Rowland, C., & Pine, J.
(2011) Comprehension of argument structure and semantic roles: Evidence from English-learning children and the forced-choice pointing paradigm. Cognitive Science, 351, 963–982. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pizzuto, E., & Caselli, M. C.
(1994) The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Y. Levy (Ed.), Other children, other languages: Issues in the theory of language acquisition (pp. 137–188). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sannio Fancello, G. & Cianchetti, C.
(2010) Test di valutazione del linguaggio. Livello prescolare. Trento: Edizioni Erickson.Google Scholar
Strobl, C., Malley, J., & Tutz, G.
(2009) An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application, and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging, and random forests. Psychological Methods, 14(4), 323–348. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M., & Abbot-Smith, K.
(2002) A tale of two theories: Response to Fisher. Cognition, 83(2), 207–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoo, W., Ference, B. A., Cote, M. L., & Schwartz, A.
(2012) A comparison of logistic regression, logic regression, classification tree, and random forests to identify effective gene-gene and gene-environmental interactions. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 2(7), 268–268.Google Scholar