Eduard has an interesting challenge.
>>> [log in to unmask] 09/03/06 7:46 AM >>>
Please, be so kind and provide the bibliographical information which
includes research that shows evidence that children "know
(unconsciously) what a noun [ or other part of speech] is." I haven't
found yet such evidence in all the language literature I have read.
***
If children did not know what nouns are unconsciously we might expect
all kinds of "errors" around nouns. For example, we might have the
articles in very strange position, we might have the plural "s" attached
to words that can't be pluralized, we might expect comparative and
superlative morphology attached to nouns, we might expect scrambled word
order in apparently noun phrases.
I don't know of ANY research that shows children's confusion with
respect to nouns or any category. Perhaps, Eduard could share us the
evidence that kids don't know what nouns are.
Pinker, in The Language Instinct, notes that there is no child data with
the following kinds of errors for yes-no questions. (See the Chapter
Baby Born Talking, p. 276 in my edition for this discussion)
He is smiling -- Does he be smiling?
She could go. Does she could go?
If you teach ESL, you have heard such examples in the questions of ESL
students. Why is it kids learning English understand how "do" works for
questions and adult L2 learners can have very different principles? If
language principles are not innate, we should expect some kids to have
"wild" grammars with respect to this property of the English auxiliary
system.
Of course, there is PUBLISHED evidence that meets Eduard's challenge.
One example is summarized in Pinker (Chapter 5, pages 129 +). (I have
not read the actual paper). It is work by Peter Gordon with compound
nouns. Notice the following property with compound nouns. In the
compound, irregular plurals are possible; regular plurals aren't.
1a) purple people eater
b) purple baby eater
c) *purple babies eater
2 a) cookie monster
b) *cookies monster (What kind of monster would only eat ONE
cookie?)
3) a) rat catcher
b) *rats catcher
Actually, if I had a lot of rats in my house (in other words, it was
rat-infested, but not *rats-infested) I would want all of the rats
caught, not just one.
Gordon tested this contraint on compound structures on three and five
year old kids with questions like the following:
Experimenter: Here is a monster who eats mud. What do you call him?
Kid: A mud-eater.
Experimenter: Here is a monster who eats mice. What do you call him?
Kid: A mice-eater.
And, the crucial question is the following:
Experimenter: Here is a monster who eats rats. What do you call him?
According to Pinker, Gordon found that his 3 and 5 year old kids all
responded: A rat-eater.
Think about the kind of knowledge a kid needs to have to recognize that
even though irregular plurals can be used in such compounds but regular
plurals can't. And, remember the immediate INPUT.
What do you call a monster that eats RATS? The input in this question
would favor *"rats-eater."
I have no idea what the story is if kids don't know what a noun is and
the different properties of IRREGULAR and REGULAR nouns.
Perhaps, Eduard will let us know.
Bob Yates, Central Missouri State University
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
|
