Predicting children's errors with negative questions: Testing a schema-combination account
Predicting children's errors with negative questions: Testing a schema-combination account
复制标题
DOI：
10.1515/cogl.2009.014
复制
发表时间：
2009-01-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Rowland, Caroline F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ambridge, Ben;Rowland, Caroline F.
从50名3岁、3-4岁、3岁到4岁的儿童中引出了关于3SG辅助词的正面和负面的什么、为什么和是/否的问题。3.为了支持建构主义的“图式-组合”理论，只有正确地提出了特定正面问题类型的儿童(例如，她想要什么？)产生了一个典型的“辅助加倍”错误(例如，*她不想要什么？)对于相应的否定问题类型。这表明，这些错误是通过叠加一个积极的问题框架(例如，事物处理什么？)形成的。和从陈述性话语中学到的不适当的否定框架(例如，她不处理)。此外，在12个词汇框架中，有11个框架的输入频率与正确输出之间存在显著的相关性(例如，事物处理什么？)，尽管一些否定问题类型的错误率高于仅基于输入频率的预期。讨论了问题习得的建构主义和生成主义理论的意义。
Positive and negative what, why and yes/no questions with the 3sg auxiliaries can and does were elicited from 50 children aged 3;3-4;3. In support of the constructivist "schema-combination" account, only children who produced a particular positive question type correctly (e.g., What does she want?) produced a characteristic "auxiliary-doubling" error (e.g., *What does she doesn't want?) for the corresponding negative question type. This suggests that these errors are formed by superimposing a positive question frame (e.g., What does THING PROCESS?) and an inappropriate negative-frame (e.g., She doesn't PROCESS) learned from declarative utterances. In addition, a significant correlation between input frequency and correct production was observed for 11 of the 12 lexical frames (e.g., What does THING PROCESS?), although some negative question types showed higher rates of error than one might expect based on input frequency alone. Implications for constructivist and generativist theories of question-acquisition are discussed.