The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: BE and HAVE
Open accessAbstract
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
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?
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
Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category
PINE, J. M., LIEVEN, E. V. M., & ROWLAND, C. F. (1998) · Linguistics · doi:10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.807 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language acquisition
AMBRIDGE, B., KIDD, E., ROWLAND, C. F., & THEAKSTON, A. L. (2015) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s030500091400049x · Cited by 589 · see citing works
Self-citationExplaining errors in children’s questions
Rowland, C. F. (2007) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.05.011 · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Self-citation
- 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
- Publisher
- Walter de Gruyter GmbH
- 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
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- 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