Children’s tolerance of word-form variation

Paul R. Bruening, Patricia J. Brooks, Louis Alfieri, Vera Kempe, Ineta Dabašinskienė

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

How much morphological variation can children tolerate when identifying familiar words? This is an important question in the context of the acquisition of richly inflected languages where identical word forms occur far less frequently than in English. To address this question, we compared children’s (N = 96, mean age 4;1, range 2;11–5;1) and adults’ (N = 96, mean age 21 years) tolerance of word-onset modifications (e.g., for stug: wug and wastug) and pseudoaffixes (e.g., kostug and stugko) in a labelextension task. Word-form modifications were repeated within each experiment to establish productive inflectional patterns. In two experiments, children and adults exhibited similar strategies: they were more tolerant of prefixes (wastug) than substitutions of initial consonants (wug), and more tolerant of suffixes (stugko) than prefixes (kostug). The findings point to word-learning strategies as being flexible and adaptive to morphological patterns in languages.
Original languageEnglish
Article number401680
Number of pages12
JournalChild Development Research
Volume2012
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

tolerance
Language
experiment
language
learning strategy
substitution
Learning
benzoylprop-ethyl

Cite this

Bruening, P. R., Brooks, P. J., Alfieri, L., Kempe, V., & Dabašinskienė, I. (2012). Children’s tolerance of word-form variation. Child Development Research, 2012, [401680]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/401680
Bruening, Paul R. ; Brooks, Patricia J. ; Alfieri, Louis ; Kempe, Vera ; Dabašinskienė, Ineta. / Children’s tolerance of word-form variation. In: Child Development Research. 2012 ; Vol. 2012.
@article{8bffc9abd0f745b2b02b87837a5a79bd,
title = "Children’s tolerance of word-form variation",
abstract = "How much morphological variation can children tolerate when identifying familiar words? This is an important question in the context of the acquisition of richly inflected languages where identical word forms occur far less frequently than in English. To address this question, we compared children’s (N = 96, mean age 4;1, range 2;11–5;1) and adults’ (N = 96, mean age 21 years) tolerance of word-onset modifications (e.g., for stug: wug and wastug) and pseudoaffixes (e.g., kostug and stugko) in a labelextension task. Word-form modifications were repeated within each experiment to establish productive inflectional patterns. In two experiments, children and adults exhibited similar strategies: they were more tolerant of prefixes (wastug) than substitutions of initial consonants (wug), and more tolerant of suffixes (stugko) than prefixes (kostug). The findings point to word-learning strategies as being flexible and adaptive to morphological patterns in languages.",
author = "Bruening, {Paul R.} and Brooks, {Patricia J.} and Louis Alfieri and Vera Kempe and Ineta Dabašinskienė",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1155/2012/401680",
language = "English",
volume = "2012",
journal = "Child Development Research",
issn = "2090-3995",
publisher = "Hindawi Publishing Corporation",

}

Bruening, PR, Brooks, PJ, Alfieri, L, Kempe, V & Dabašinskienė, I 2012, 'Children’s tolerance of word-form variation', Child Development Research, vol. 2012, 401680. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/401680

Children’s tolerance of word-form variation. / Bruening, Paul R.; Brooks, Patricia J.; Alfieri, Louis; Kempe, Vera; Dabašinskienė, Ineta.

In: Child Development Research, Vol. 2012, 401680, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Children’s tolerance of word-form variation

AU - Bruening, Paul R.

AU - Brooks, Patricia J.

AU - Alfieri, Louis

AU - Kempe, Vera

AU - Dabašinskienė, Ineta

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - How much morphological variation can children tolerate when identifying familiar words? This is an important question in the context of the acquisition of richly inflected languages where identical word forms occur far less frequently than in English. To address this question, we compared children’s (N = 96, mean age 4;1, range 2;11–5;1) and adults’ (N = 96, mean age 21 years) tolerance of word-onset modifications (e.g., for stug: wug and wastug) and pseudoaffixes (e.g., kostug and stugko) in a labelextension task. Word-form modifications were repeated within each experiment to establish productive inflectional patterns. In two experiments, children and adults exhibited similar strategies: they were more tolerant of prefixes (wastug) than substitutions of initial consonants (wug), and more tolerant of suffixes (stugko) than prefixes (kostug). The findings point to word-learning strategies as being flexible and adaptive to morphological patterns in languages.

AB - How much morphological variation can children tolerate when identifying familiar words? This is an important question in the context of the acquisition of richly inflected languages where identical word forms occur far less frequently than in English. To address this question, we compared children’s (N = 96, mean age 4;1, range 2;11–5;1) and adults’ (N = 96, mean age 21 years) tolerance of word-onset modifications (e.g., for stug: wug and wastug) and pseudoaffixes (e.g., kostug and stugko) in a labelextension task. Word-form modifications were repeated within each experiment to establish productive inflectional patterns. In two experiments, children and adults exhibited similar strategies: they were more tolerant of prefixes (wastug) than substitutions of initial consonants (wug), and more tolerant of suffixes (stugko) than prefixes (kostug). The findings point to word-learning strategies as being flexible and adaptive to morphological patterns in languages.

U2 - 10.1155/2012/401680

DO - 10.1155/2012/401680

M3 - Article

VL - 2012

JO - Child Development Research

JF - Child Development Research

SN - 2090-3995

M1 - 401680

ER -

Bruening PR, Brooks PJ, Alfieri L, Kempe V, Dabašinskienė I. Children’s tolerance of word-form variation. Child Development Research. 2012;2012. 401680. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/401680