Cited by 103Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation

CAMERON-FAULKNER, THEA, LIEVEN, ELENA, THEAKSTON, ANNA·2007·Journal of Child Language

Abstract

The study investigates the development of English multiword negation, in particular the negation of zero marked verbs (e.g. no sleep, not see, can't reach) from a usage-based perspective. The data was taken from a dense database consisting of the speech of an English-speaking child (Brian) aged 2;3–3;4 (MLU 2·05–3·1) and his mother. The focus of the study was the emergence and usage of negators in the child's and mother's speech (e.g. no, not, can't, won't, don't). Two analyses were conducted: firstly, the emergence and usage of all negators in Brian's speech and in the input were calculated in order to present an overall picture of negator usage across the sample. The findings indicate a gradual and systematic development of negator selection in Brian's speech which follows the trajectory no–not–'nt. The pattern of negator emergence was found to follow the frequency of negators in the input; that is negators used frequently in the input were the first to emerge in the child's speech. Secondly, a more fine-grained analysis of utterances containing negated zero marked verbs (neg V utterances) was conducted on both the child's and mother's speech. In the first instance the development of negator selection for all neg V utterances was calculated. The results indicated the same no–not–'nt cline as attested in the initial analysis. A function-based analysis of neg V utterances was also conducted which indicated that the speed of movement across the no–not–'nt cline varied from one function to the next. A function-based analysis of the input suggested that the speed at which Brian moved across the cline within a particular function could be traced to function-based frequency effects in the input. Thus the findings of the study indicate function-based, input-driven learning which is consistent with the usage-based approach. However the findings also indicate creative learning on the part of the child from the earliest stages of multiword negation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0305000906007884

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • High-frequency strings not only prevent error when used correctly, but seem to cause errors when used incorrectly (Cause Error Thesis).

    “The second type of frequency effect is also one that we have encountered previously: high-frequency strings not only prevent error when used correctly, but seem to cause errors when used incorrectly (Cause Error Thesis).”

    From The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition (2015) · cites this paper as Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, and Theakston (2007)

  • Early verbal negation in one child was largely ungrammatical and reflected creative use, but these early errors were frequency driven by the most frequent, functionally generic, and salient single word negator 'no' in the input.

    “For example, in a study of early negation, Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, and Theakston (2007) reported that early verbal negation was largely ungrammatical (e.g. no move, no drop it), and therefore reflected creative use on the part of the child (multiword utterances containing the negator no were very rare in the caregiver's speech). However, they argued that these early errors were in fact frequency”

    From The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition (2015) · cites this paper as Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, and Theakston (2007)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CAMERON-FAULKNER, T., LIEVEN, E., & THEAKSTON, A.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Venue
Journal of Child Language
Published
2007-04-02
Volume
34
Issue
2
Pages
251-282
ISSN
  • 0305-0009 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-7602
OpenAlex
W2117600021
Cited by
103
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
4.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Child Language (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
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 › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
usage-based learning, child language acquisition, mother-child speech
MeSH terms
Child Language, Child, Preschool, Cognition, Female, Humans, Linguistics, Male, Verbal Behavior, Verbal Learning, Vocabulary

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