Cited by 116Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationChild and Animal Learning Development

The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: BE and HAVE

Open access
Theakston, Anna L., Lieven, Elena V. M., Pine, Julian M., Rowland, Caroline F.·2005·cogl

Abstract

This study examined patterns of auxiliary provision and omission for the auxiliaries BE and HAVE in a longitudinal data set from 11 children between the ages of two and three years. Four possible explanations for auxiliary omission—a lack of lexical knowledge, performance limitations in production, the Optional Infinitive hypothesis, and patterns of auxiliary use in the input—were examined. The data suggest that although none of these accounts provides a full explanation for the pattern of auxiliary use and nonuse observed in children's early speech, integrating input-based and lexical learning-based accounts of early language acquisition within a constructivist approach appears to provide a possible framework in which to understand the patterns of auxiliary use found in the children's speech. The implications of these findings for models of children's early language acquisition are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.1.247

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

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Clear effects of input frequency on correct use in inflectional morphology are found in both naturalistic and experimental studies.

    “When this prediction is tested, clear effects of input frequency are found, in both naturalistic (e.g. Theakston, Lieven, Pine & Rowland, 2005; Theakston & Lieven, 2005, 2008; Theakston & Rowland, 2009) and experimental studies (e.g. Leonard, Caselli & Devescovi, 2002; Dabrowska & Szczerbinski, 2006; Räsänen, Ambridge & Pine, 2014).”

    From The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition (2015) · cites this paper as Theakston, Lieven, Pine & Rowland, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M., Pine, J. M., & Rowland, C. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • 3. The University of Nottingham.
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
Corresponding author
  • Theakston, Anna L.
  • Lieven, Elena V. M.
  • Rowland, Caroline F.
Venue
cogl
Published
2005-02-24
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
247-277
ISSN
  • 0936-5907 (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-3641
OpenAlex
W1984953573
Cited by
116
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
7.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Cognitive Linguistics (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council
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 › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
be, have, early language acquisition, child language acquisition, vocabulary knowledge, constructivist learning model

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