CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 111Language Development and DisordersCategorization, perception, and languageSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation

Exploring language acquisition in children with a miniature artificial language: Effects of item and pattern frequency, arbitrary subclasses, and correction

Open access
Braine, Martin D.S, Brody, Ruth E, Brooks, Patricia J, Sudhalter, Vicki, Ross, Julie A, Catalano, Lisa, Fisch, Shalom M·1990·Journal of Memory and Language
DOI 10.1016/0749-596x(90)90054-4
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Very little of the artificial language experimentation in the literature has been done with children, although children are the primary target population to which experimenters wish to generalize. For this reason, we used children (7–10 years old) to explore the acquisition of a miniature artificial language with rules, patterns, subpatterns, and exceptions that are quite like those found in inflectional systems of natural languages. The first goal of the study was to explore two aspects of linguistic input—how frequency of presentation affects the relative roles of rote and rule or pattern learning, and the learnability of arbitrary subclasses. A second goal was to determine the effects of immediate corrective feedback on acquisition; and a third goal was to examine adult-child differences in learning. Overwhelmingly, the children learned via rules rather than by rote, but failed to distinguish the arbitrary subclasses. Frequency of presentation had specific effects on the acquisition of items and patterns. The immediacy of feedback had no significant effect on learning. Although there was a small (though significant) difference between the performance of the children and that of some adult subjects, overall, the results support the existence of a class of pattern learning skills that is common to children and adults and includes some aspects of syntax acquisition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/0749-596x(90)90054-4

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In L1 acquisition, high token frequency surface forms are produced earlier and more accurately than other forms and words inflected in lower token frequency forms.

    “In L1 acquisition, high token frequency surface forms are produced earlier and more accurately in those forms compared to production in other forms and compared to production of other words that are inflected in lower token frequency forms (Aguado-Orea, 2004;Braine et al., 1990;Finley, 2018;Marchman, 1997).”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Braine et al., 1990

    The Discussion (page not available in our copy) reports that high-frequency suffixes were learned faster than low-frequency suffixes. The Children, Generalization Phase results also report greater accuracy for primary endings, but individual noun–suffix frequency improved ending accuracy only in a limited condition. Because the children learned a miniature artificial language, these results do not establish the claim as a general pattern of L1 acquisition. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. ANDERSON, J. R. (1983). The architecrure of cogni- tion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  2. BEVER, T. G., FODOR, J. A., & WEKSEL, W. (1965). On the acquisition of syntax: A critique of "con- textual generalization." Psychological Review, 72, 461-482.
  3. BRAINE, M. D. S. (1966). Learning the positions of words relative to a marker element. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 532-W.
  4. BRAINE, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: A theoretical symposium. New York: Academic Press.
  5. BRAINE, M. D. S. (1987). What is learned in acquiring word classes-A step towards an acquisition the- ory. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  6. BRAINE, M. D. S. (1988a). Modeling the acquisition of linguistic structure. In Y. Levy, I. M. Schle- singer, & M. D. S. Braine (Eds.), Categories and processes in language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  7. BRAINE, M. D. S. (1988b). Review of S. Pinker, Lan- guage learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Jour- nal of Child Language, 15, 189-199.
  8. BROWN, R. (1973). Afirst language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  9. BROWN, R., CAZDEN, C., L BELLUGI, U. (1%9). The child's grammar from I to III. In J. P. Hill (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology, 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  10. BROWN, R., & HANLON, C. (1970). Derivational com- plexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.
  11. DEMETRAS, M. J., POST, K. N., & SNOW, C. E. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions. Journal of Child Language, 13, 275-292.
  12. DE VILLIERS, J. G., & DE VILLIERS, A. (1978). Lan- guage acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- versity Press.
  13. FLAVELL, J. H., & WELLMAN, H. M. (1977). Meta- memory. In R. V. Kail & J. W. Hagen (Eds.), Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  14. GREEN, T. R. G. (1979). The necessity of syntax markers: Two experiments with artificial lan- guages. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 481-4%.
  15. HIRSH-PASEK, K., TREIMAN, R., & SCHNEIDERMAN, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon revisited: Mothers' sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language, 11, 81-88.
  16. LENNEBERG, E. H. (1%7). Biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley.
  17. MACWHINNEY, B. (1983). Miniature linguistic systems as tests of the use of universal operating principles in second-language learning by children and adults. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 12, 467-478.
  18. MACWHINNEY, B. (1987b). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  19. MACWHINNEY, B., LEINBACH, J., TARABAN, R., & MCDONALD, J. (1989). Language learning: Cues or rules? Journal of Memory and Language, 28. 255-277.
  20. MEIER, R. P., & BOWER, G. H. (1986). Semantic ref- erence and phrasal grouping in the acquisition of a miniature phrase structure language. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 492-505.
  21. MOESER, S. D. (1977). Semantics and miniature artiti- cial languages. In J. Macnamara (Ed.), Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press.
  22. MOESER, S. D., & BREGMAN, A. (1972). The role of reference in children's acquisition of a miniature artificial language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 75%769.
  23. MOESER, S. D., & BREGMAN, A. (1973). Imagery and language acquisition. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 91-98.
  24. MORGAN, J. L., & NEWPORT, E. L. (1981). The role of constituent structure in the induction of an ar- tificial language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 20, 67-85.
  25. MORI, K., & MOESER, S. D. (1983). The role of syntax markers and semantic referents in learning an ar- tificial language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 701-718.
  26. NEWPORT, E., & SUPALLA, T. (1980). Clues from the acquisition of signed and spoken language. In U. Bellugi & M. Studdert-Kennedy (Eds.), Signed and spoken languages: Biological constraints on linguistic form. Weinheim: Verlar Chemiie GmbH.
  27. PINKER, S. (1984). Language learnability and lan- guage development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  28. SMITH, K. H. (1966). Grammatical intrusions in the free recall of structured letter pairs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, $447454.
  29. SMITH, K. H. (1%9). Learning co-occurrence restric- tions: Rule learning or rote learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 8,319-321.
  30. SMITH, K. H., & GOUGH, P. B. (1966). Transforma- tion rules in the learning of miniature linguistic systems. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 276-282.
  31. VALIAN, V., & COULSON, S. (1988). Anchor points in language learning: The role of marker frequency. Journal of Memory and Lunguage, 21,714X.
  32. WEXLER, K., & CULICOVER, P. W. (1980). Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  33. ZUBIN, D. A., & KOPCKE, K. M. (1981). Gender: A less than arbitrary grammatical category. In R. Hendrick, C. Masek, & M. F. Miller (Eds.), Pa- pers from the Seventh Regional Meeting. Chi- cago: Chicago Linguistic Society. (Received October 19, 1989) (Revision received April 21, 1990)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Braine, M. D. S., Brody, R. E., Brooks, P. J., Sudhalter, V., Ross, J. A., Catalano, L., & Fisch, S. M.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Braine, Martin D.S
ORCID
Brooks, Patricia J
Venue
Journal of Memory and Language
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1990-10
Volume
29
Issue
5
Pages
591-610
ISSN
0749-596X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/0749-596x(90)90054-4
OpenAlex
W2054180118
Cited by
111
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Memory and Language (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • York University
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
Keywords
artificial language learning, child language acquisition, pattern frequency, item frequency, corrective feedback, rule induction, rote learning, syntax acquisition, inflectional morphology, language input

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review