One vs. more than one: antecedents to plural marking in early language acquisition
One vs. more than one: antecedents to plural marking in early language acquisition
复制标题
DOI：
10.1515/ling.2009.004
复制
发表时间：
2009-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.1
通讯作者：
Nikitina, Tatiana V.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Clark, Eve V.;Nikitina, Tatiana V.
当儿童第一次在语言中标记区别时，他们可能会使用语义上可能的但非常规的表达。这可以从他们最初尝试用英语表达“不止一个”的尝试中看出（传统上是通过使用复数变化来表达的）。我们通过（a）纵向观察儿童对一个和几个物体的指称，（B）引出描绘一个和两个、三个或四个物体的图片的指称，以及（c）引出关于两个或更多物体的“什么”和“多少”问题的答案，来探索儿童对“不止一个”的最早表达。纵向观察表明：（1）复数结尾（-s）是零碎出现的;（2）儿童在常规语-s之前使用数词+裸词干名词（两个毯子）。然后，我们用25个2岁和3奥尔兹的孩子的图片引出了单数和复数表达。大多数孩子只对少数几个项目使用复数-s;数字依赖于数字+裸茎形式（两个鸭子）;少数使用量词，如更多，还有一些迭代与指向手势（例如，对于三只猫，依次为每只猫+点）。知识的复数标记是不同的知识计数：两岁的奥尔兹回答了什么问题与常规或非常规的复数为9个对象，但管理多少问题只有两个或三个，做得很差，与四个或五个，通常未能回应六个或更多，与研究结果的概念发展的数字。
When children first mark distinctions in language, they may use semantically possible but nonconventional expressions. This can be seen in their initial attempts to express 'more-than-one' in English (conventionally conveyed by, use of the plural inflection). We explore children's earliest expressions for 'more-than-one' by (a) examining longitudinal records for references to one vs. several objects, (b) eliciting references to pictures depicting one vs. two, three, or four objects, and (c) eliciting answers to what-vs. how many questions about two or more objects.Longitudinal observations show that (1) the plural ending (-s) emerges piecemeal; and (2) children use numeral + bare-stem nouns (two blanket) before conventional -s. We then elicited singular and plural expressions using pictures from 25 two- and three-year-olds. Most children used plural -s for only a few, items; a number relied on numeral + bare-stem forms (two duck); a few used quantifiers like more, and a few iteration with pointing gestures (e.g., for three cats, cat + POINT for each in turn). Knowledge of plural marking was distinct from knowledge of counting: Two-year-olds answered what questions with conventional or non-conventional plurals for to nine objects, but managed how many-questions only for two or three, did poorly with four or five, and typically failed to respond for six or more, consistent with findings on the conceptual development of number.