CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 64Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationReading and Literacy Development

Errors of Omission in English‐Speaking Children's Production of Plurals and the Past Tense: The Effects of Frequency, Phonology, and Competition

Open access
Matthews, Danielle E., Theakston, Anna L.·2006·Cognitive Science
DOI 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_66
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

How do English-speaking children inflect nouns for plurality and verbs for the past tense? We assess theoretical answers to this question by considering errors of omission, which occur when children produce a stem in place of its inflected counterpart (e.g., saying "dress" to refer to 5 dresses). A total of 307 children (aged 3;11-9;9) participated in 3 inflection studies. In Study 1, we show that errors of omission occur until the age of 7 and are more likely with both sibilant regular nouns (e.g., dress) and irregular nouns (e.g., man) than regular nouns (e.g., dog). Sibilant nouns are more likely to be inflected if they are high frequency. In Studies 2 and 3, we show that similar effects apply to the inflection of verbs and that there is an advantage for "regular-like" irregulars whose inflected form, but not stem form, ends in d/t. The results imply that (a) stems and inflected forms compete for production and (b) children generalize both product-oriented and source-oriented schemas when learning about inflectional morphology.

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 · 10.1207/s15516709cog0000_66

Cites

49 of 49 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?

  • Children often produced *two mouse because the target mice is less frequent in the input than the competitor mouse, but rarely produced *two foot because the target feet is more common in the input than the competitor foot.

    “For example, focusing on zero-marking errors in the domain of noun plural marking, Matthews and Theakston (2006) found that children often produced *two mouse, because the target (mice) is less frequent in the input than the competitor (mouse), but rarely produced *two foot, because the target (feet) is more common in the input than the competitor (foot).”

    From The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition (2015) · cites this paper as Matthews and Theakston (2006)

    The Results (§2.2) find that five-year-olds inflected irregular nouns more often when the plural was relatively more frequent, and Appendix A shows fewer omissions for foot than mouse at age five. But Table 1 (shown under General Discussion in our copy) counts 535 uses of feet versus 547 of foot, so feet was not more common in the measured input. The paper reports a group-level frequency effect, not a demonstrated cause for the two individual examples; omissions of foot were also not rare among the youngest children. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The positive association between contingency and accuracy in this study is consistent with previous usage-based literature that has repeatedly demonstrated the facilitative role of contingency in language acquisition, processing, and use.

    “This finding is consistent with findings reported in the previous literature on usage-based theories that have repeatedly demonstrated the facilitative role of contingency in language acquisition, processing, and use (e.g., N. C. Ellis et al., 2014;Matthews & Theakston, 2006).”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Matthews & Theakston, 2006

    The General Discussion (page not available in our copy) reports that, for high-frequency irregular plurals, an inflected form that is more frequent relative to its stem is less likely to be omitted. This supports a related association between relative frequency and children's inflection accuracy, but the paper does not establish a general facilitative role for contingency across language acquisition, processing, and use. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In L1 acquisition, the relative frequency of different forms of the same word predicts usage and error patterns in morpheme acquisition.

    “We have already described how, in L1 acquisition, the relative frequency of different forms of the same word have been found to predict the usage and error patterns in morpheme acquisition (Bybee, 1985;Hay, 2001;Matthews & Theakston, 2006).”

    From Effects of Availability, Contingency, and Formulaicity on the Accuracy of English Grammatical Morphemes in Second Language Writing (2022) · cites this paper as Matthews & Theakston, 2006

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

1 of the 50 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. D¹browska, E. (2001). Learning a morphological system without a default. Journal of Child Language, 28, 545-574.
  2. Maratos, M. (2000). More overregulations after all. Journal of Child Language, 28, 32-54.
  3. Stemberger, J. (1993). Vowel dominance in over-regularizations. Journal of Child Language, 20, 503-521.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Matthews, D. E., & Theakston, A. L.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Matthews, Danielle E.
ORCID
Venue
Cognitive Science
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-11
Volume
30
Issue
6
Pages
1027-1052
ISSN
  • 0364-0213 (ISSN-L)
  • 1551-6709
DOI
10.1207/s15516709cog0000_66
OpenAlex
W2144870834
Cited by
64
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Cognitive Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (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 › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
omission errors, inflectional morphology, plural inflection, past tense inflection, English-speaking children, word frequency, phonology, morphological development

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