Why Brush Your Teeth Is Better Than Teeth – Children's Word Production Is Facilitated in Familiar Sentence-Frames
Abstract
Adult production is influenced by the larger linguistic contexts in which words appear. Children, like adults, hear words in recurring linguistic contexts, but little is known on the effect of that context on their speech. We look at the production of irregular plurals in English (e.g., mice, feet) to argue that children attend to the larger phrases words appear in and make use of that distributional knowledge in production. We assess the role of linguistic context by comparing irregular plurals elicited with a general question (What are all these?) versus a lexically specific frequent frame (e.g., Three blind —). In study 1, 4;6 year-olds produced many more correct irregulars after lexically specific frequent frames (72%) than after a general question (32%). Corpus data on spontaneous speech offered analogous findings: Children did not overregularize irregular plurals after lexically-specific frames. In study 2, we confirm children's sensitivity to the relation between particular words and phrases: A familiar frame (So many) enhanced production (52%) but not as much as the lexically specific frames in Study 1. Children's word production is affected by the larger patterns words appear in. Consequently, studies of lexical and morphological acquisition need to take linguistic context into account when assessing children's abilities. This has implications for models of both lexical and morphological acquisition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
The final stage of EIT, production (whether oral or written), could also be sensitive to frequency effects and sequential probabilities at word, morpheme, and, particularly, phrasal levels: a well-entrenched formulaic phrase can support provision of its component morphemes whether they are analyzed or not.
“The final stage of EIT, production (whether oral or written), could also be sensitive to frequency effects and sequential probabilities at word, morpheme, and, particularly, phrasal levels: A well-entrenched formulaic phrase can support provision of its component morphemes whether they are analyzed or not (Arnon & Clark, 2011).”
From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Arnon & Clark, 2011
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 96 · Cited by 147
- Authors
- Arnon, I., & Clark, E. V.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Arnon, Inbal
- Venue
- Language Learning and Development
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-03-31
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 107-129
- ISSN
- 1547-3341 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-5441
- OpenAlex
- W2069840077
- Cited by
- 147
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 9.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Language Learning and Development (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Keywords
- sentence frames, linguistic context, irregular plurals, overregularization, morphological acquisition, vocabulary acquisition, spontaneous speech, elicited production
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