Cited by 597Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationCategorization, perception, and language

Frequent frames as a cue for grammatical categories in child directed speech

Mintz, Toben H·2003·Cognition

Abstract

This paper introduces the notion of frequent frames, distributional patterns based on co-occurrence patterns of words in sentences, then investigates the usefulness of this information in grammatical categorization. A frame is defined as two jointly occurring words with one word intervening. Qualitative and quantitative results from distributional analyses of six different corpora of child directed speech are presented in two experiments. In the analyses, words that were surrounded by the same frequent frame were categorized together. The results show that frequent frames yield very accurate categories. Furthermore, evidence from behavioral studies suggests that infants and adults are sensitive to frame-like units, and that adults use them to categorize words. This evidence, along with the success of frames in categorizing words, provides support for frames as a basis for the acquisition of grammatical categories.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0010-0277(03)00140-9

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Children are sensitive to frequent frames, defined as ordered pairs of words that frequently co-occur with exactly one word position intervening.

    “In a different context, a number of studies (Mintz, 2003; Chemla, Mintz, Bernal, and Christophe, 2009; Weisleder & Waxman, 2010; but see Erkelens, 2009; Stumper, Bannard, Lieven & Tomasello, 2011) have demonstrated that children are also sensitive to frequent frames: “ordered pairs of words that frequently co-occur with exactly one word position intervening (occupied by any word)” (Mintz, 2003, p.”

    From The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition (2015) · cites this paper as Mintz, 2003

  • Formulaic contexts and slot-and-frame patterns can strongly constrain the nature of the slot-filler.

    “Formulaic contexts as well as slot-and-frame patterns (Braine, 1976) or frames (Mintz, 2003) can strongly constrain the nature of the slot-filler (e.g., the context once upon a __ highly predicts the word time; the context a lot of __ highly predicts nouns; the frame to __ it highly predicts verbs, etc.).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mintz, T. H.
Affiliations
University of Southern California (US)
Corresponding author
Mintz, Toben H
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-11
Volume
90
Issue
1
Pages
91-117
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2125856668
Cited by
597
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 42 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 33
FWCI
19.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Intel Corporation
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD 040368, R01HD040368)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
grammatical categories, child-directed speech, word classification, distribution patterns, co-occurrence patterns, language acquisition
MeSH terms
Child Development, Cognition, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Language Development, Linguistics

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