CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 214Language Development and DisordersSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationChild and Animal Learning Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category

Open access
PINE, JULIAN M., LIEVEN, ELENA V. M., ROWLAND, CAROLINE F.·1998·Linguistics
DOI 10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.807
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In this study data from the first six months of 12 children s multiword speech were used to test the validity of Valian's (1991) syntactic perfor-mance-limitation account and Tomasello s (1992) verb-island account of early multiword speech with particular reference to the development of the English verb category. The results provide evidence for appropriate use of verb morphology, auxiliary verb structures, pronoun case marking, and SVO word order from quite early in development. However, they also demonstrate a great deal of lexical specificity in the children's use of these systems, evidenced by a lack of overlap in the verbs to which different morphological markers were applied, a lack of overlap in the verbs with which different auxiliary verbs were used, a disproportionate use of the first person singular nominative pronoun I, and a lack of overlap in the lexical items that served as the subjects and direct objects of transitive verbs. These findings raise problems for both a syntactic performance-limitation account and a strong verb-island account of the data and suggest the need to develop a more general lexiealist account of early multiword speech that explains why some words come to function as "islands" of organization in the child's grammar and others do not.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.807

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 40 references

2 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
PINE, J. M., LIEVEN, E. V. M., & ROWLAND, C. F.
Affiliations
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Linguistics
Publisher
Walter de Gruyter GmbH
Published
1998
Volume
36
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 0024-3949 (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-396X
DOI
10.1515/ling.1998.36.4.807
OpenAlex
W2021461858
Cited by
214
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 2
FWCI
25.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Linguistics (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)
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
lexical specificity, auxiliary verbs, SVO word order, verb morphology, first-person singular pronouns, transitive verbs, child language acquisition

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