In this reply we briefly address the following issues: the role of input frequencies; the contrast between an emergentist and an innatist position on the development of tense and agreement marking; the importance of comparing the adult language to that of the child when deciding on the level of grammatical abstraction in the child's system; and, finally, how to reconcile preferential looking results with results from studies using other methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abbot-SmithK.LievenE.TomaselloM. (2008). Graded representations in the acquisition of English and German transitive constructions.Cognitive Development, 23 (1), 48–66.
2.
AmbridgeB. (2010). Review of I. Gülzow & N.Gargarina: “Frequency effects in language acquisition: defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept”. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Journal of Child Language, 37 (2), 453–460.
3.
AmbridgeB.RowlandC. F. (2009). Predicting children's errors with negative questions: Testing a schema- combination account.Cognitive Linguistics, 20 (2), 225–266.
4.
BaillargeonR. (1987). Young infants' reasoning about the physical and spatial properties of a hidden object.Cognitive Development, 2, 179–200.
5.
CaseR. (1985). Intellectual Development: Birth to Adulthood.New York: Academic Press.
DabrowskaE.SzczerbińskiM. (2006). Polish children's productivity with case marking: the role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological diversity.Journal of Child Language, 33 (3), 559–597.
8.
FreudenthalD.PineJ. M.GobetF. (2009). Simulating the referential properties of Dutch, German and English Root Infinitives in MOSAIC.Language Learning and Development, 5, 1–29.
9.
GertnerY.FisherC.EisengartJ. (2006). Learning words and rules: abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension.Psychological Science, 11 (8), 684–691.
10.
Hoff-GinsbergE.NaiglesL. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children's early verb use.Journal of Child Language, 25 (1), 95–120.
11.
KirjavainenM.TheakstonA.LievenE. (2009). Can input explain children's me-for-I errors?Journal of Child Language, 36 (5), 1091–1114.
12.
LievenE. (2008). Learning the English auxiliary: A Usage-based Approach. In BehrensH. (Ed.), Corpora in Language Acquisition Research: Finding Structure in Data (Trends in Language Acquisition Research, Vol. 6) (pp. 60–98). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
13.
LievenE. (2010). Input and first language acquisition: Evaluating the role of frequency.Lingua, 120, 2546–2556.
14.
MunakataY.McclellandJ. L.JohnsonM. H.SieglerR. S. (1997). Rethinking infant knowledge: Toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks.Psychological Review, 104 (4), 686–713.
15.
NaiglesL.HoffE.VearD. (2009) Flexibility in Early Verb Use: Evidence from a Multiple-n Diary Study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, vi-139 (Serial no: 293).
16.
NobleC.RowlandC.PineJ. (in press). Comprehension of argument structure and semantic roles: Evidence from infants and the forced-choice pointing paradigm. Developmental Science.
17.
RowlandC. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children's questions.Cognition, 104 (1), 106–134.
18.
SieglerR. S. (2000). The rebirth of children's learning.Child Development, 71 (1), 26–35.
19.
TheakstonA. L.LievenE. V. M.PineJ. M.RowlandC. F. (2001). The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: an alternative account.Journal of Child Language, 28 (1), 127–152.
20.
TheakstonA. L.LievenE. V. M.PineJ. M.RowlandC. F. (2002). Going, going, gone: the acquisition of the verb ‘go’.Journal of Child Language, 29 (4), 783–811.
21.
TheakstonA. L.LievenE. V. M.PineJ. M.RowlandC. F. (2005). The acquisition of auxiliary Syntax: BE and HAVE.Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 247–277.
22.
WerkerJ. F.CohenL. B.LloydV. L.CasasolaM.StagerC. L. (1998). Acquisition of word-object associations by 14-month-old infants.Developmental Psychology, 34 (6), 1289–1309.
