Väljamõeldud morfoloogiareegli omandamine 8-aastastel lastel
Abstract
Artiklis vaadeldakse väljamõeldud grammatikareegli omandamist katsesituatsioonis. Tegemist on esimese eestikeelse uuringuga, mis vaatleb seda, kuidas toimub morfoloogilise reegli omandamise protsess üldiselt. Uuringus on kasutatud Sara Fermani ja Avi Karni (2010, 2014) katse lühendatud ja eesti keele jaoks mugandatud varianti, kus katsealused peavad hindama keelelise stiimuli õigsust. Katse eesmärk oli jälgida, kuidas muutub kaheksa katsealuse lapse ja võrdlusgrupi ehk nelja täiskasvanu õigete vastuste hulk ja vastamiskiirus 11 katsesessiooni jooksul. Vaatluse all oli ka see, millest sõltub reegli omandamine: kas tüve astmevahelduslikkusest või subjekti elususest/elutusest. Tulemused näitavad, et kaheksast lapsest omandas reegli kuus, nende laste tulemused saavutasid maksimumilähedase õigete vastuste hulga kolmandaks sessiooniks. Võrreldes lapsi ja täiskasvanuid, võib öelda, et omandamine toimus üldjoontes sarnaselt. Astmevahelduslike ja astmevahelduseta verbide ning elusate ja elutute subjektide puhul ei olnud erinevused korrektsete vastuste hulgas ja vastamise kiiruses statistiliselt olulised.
***
Acquisition of an artificial morphological rule by 8-year old Estonian children
The aim of the current article is to present the first results of an experiment conducted with 8 Estonian children and 4 young adults as a control group for testing the acquisition of an artificial morphological rule (AMR). Each participant was individually trained in 10 consecutive daily training sessions (1–4 days apart) and re-tested for retention after an interval of one month.
The experiment was based on the experiment conducted by Sara Ferman and Avi Karni (2010, 2014) but was shortened and adopted for Estonian language. The AMR was designed to be analogous to the morphophonological rules of Estonian grammar and participants were supposed to add different verbal suffixes depending on the animacy of the subject. Training occurred through exposure to and use of the AMR in the performance of a judgment task wherein the participants were instructed to make a forced-choice (correct – incorrect) response. Both the number of correct answers and reaction time were measured. There was no explicit instruction on the nature of the AMR at any time during the training.
As a result of the experiment, 6 of the 8 children acquired the rule by the third session, their performance reaching to the level of approximately 85% of correct answers, while 2 children did not acquire the rule (the answers of one child were random from the first until the last session, the second child just decided that one of the suffixes was correct in every sentence). The increase in the number of correct answers and decrease of reaction time demonstrated a similar pattern in children’s and young adults’ results. The adults’ performance was 10% superior to that of the children. The results show that children did not give more correct answers to verbs occurring with animate subjects, nor did they perform better with verbs having different morphophonological structure (grade alternation of the verb stem).
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Bates, Elizabeth; Devescovi, Antonella; Wulfeck, Beverly 2001. Psycholinguistics: A cross-language perspective. – Annual Review of Psychology, 52 (1), 369–396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.369
Dąbrowska, Ewa 2012. Different speakers, different grammars: Individual differences in native language attainment. – Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 2 (3), 219–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.2.3.01dab
Dąbrowska, Ewa; Szczerbiński, Marcin 2006. Polish children's productivity with case marking: the role of regularity, type frequency, and phonological coherence. – Journal of Child Language, 33 (3), 559–597. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000906007471
DeKeyser, Robert M. 1997. Beyond explicit rule learning: automatizing second language morphosyntax. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19 (2), 195–222. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263197002040
Dressler, Wolfgang Uwe 2005. Morphological typology and first language acquisition: Some mutual challenges. – G. Booij, E. Guevara, A. Ralli, S. Sgroi, S. Scalise (Eds.), Morphology and Linguistic Typology. Bologna: Università degli studi di Bologna, 7–20.
Dressler, Wolfgang Uwe; Kilani-Schoch, M.; Klampfer, S. 2003. How does a child detect morphology? Evidence from production. – R. Harald Baayen, Robert Schreuder (Eds.), Morphological Structure in Language Processing. Trends in Linguistics. Studies and Monographs, 151. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 391–425. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110910186.391
Ellis, Nick C.; Schmidt, Richard 1998. Rules or associations in the acquisition of morphology? The frequency by regularity interaction in human and PDP learning of morphosyntax. – Language and Cognitive Processes, 13 (2–3), 307–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/016909698386546
Ellis, Rod 2005. Measuring implicit and explicit knowledge of a second language: A psychometric study. – Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27 (2), 141–172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263105050096
Elman, Jeffery L.; Bates, Elizabeth; Johnson, Mark; Karmiloff-Smith, Anette; Parisi, Domenico; Plunkett, Kim 1996. Rethinking Innateness: A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ferman, Sara; Olshtain, Elite; Schechtman, Edna; Karni, Avi 2009. The acquisition of a linguistic skill by adults: Procedural and declarative memory interact in the learning of an artificial morphological rule. – Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22 (4), 384–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jneuroling.2008.12.002
Ferman, Sara; Karni, Avi 2010. No childhood advantage in the acquisition of skill in using an artificial language rule. – PloS ONE, 5 (10), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0013648
Ferman, Sara; Karni, Avi 2014. Explicit versus implicit instruction: Which is preferable for learning an artificial morphological rule in children? – Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 66 (1–2), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.1159/000363135
Ferman, Sara 2017. Learning conditions matter. – Presentation at the meeting of COST Action IS1406: Enhancing Children’s Oral Language Skills across Europe and Beyond: A Collaboration Focusing on Interventions for Children with Difficulties Learning Their First Language in Uttrecht in 8th and 9th of November 2017.
Granena, Gisela; Long, Michael H. 2013. Age of onset, length of residence, language aptitude, and ultimate L2 attainment in three linguistic domains. – Second Language Research, 29 (3), 311–343. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0267658312461497
Hauser, D. Marc; Chomsky, Noam; Fitch, W. Tecumseh 2002. The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? – Science, 298 (5598), 1569–1579. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5598.1569
Johnson Jacqueline S.; Newport, Elissa L. 1989. Critical period effects in second language learning: The influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. – Cognitive Psychology, 21 (1), 60–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(89)90003-0
Lenneberg, Eric H. 1967. Biological Foundations in Language. New York: John Wiley and Sons. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.1967.11707799
McManus, Kevin; Marsden, Emma 2019. Using explicit instruction about L1 to reduce crosslinguistic effects in L2 grammar learning: Evidence from oral production in L2 French. – The Modern Language Journal, 103 (2), 459–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12567
Muñoz, Carmen (Ed.) 2006. Age and the Rate of Foreign Language Learning. Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853598937
Pfenninger, Simone E.; Singleton, David 2017. Beyond Age Effects in Instructional L2 Learning: Revisiting the Age Factor. Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781783097630
Raven, John; Raven, Jean C.; Court, John H. 2000. Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 3: The standard progressive matrices. Oxford: Oxford Psychologists Press.
Saffran, Jenny R. 2002. Constraints on statistical language learning. – Journal of Memory and Language, 47 (1), 172–196. https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.2001.2839
Saffran, Jenny R.; Pollak, Seth D.; Seibel, Rebecca L.; Shkolnik, Anna 2007. Dog is a dog is a dog: Infant rule learning is not specific to language. – Cognition, 105 (3), 669–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.11.004
Sanz, Cristina; Morgan-Short, Kara. 2004. Positive evidence vs. explicit rule presentation and explicit negative feedback: A computer-assisted study. Language Learning, 54 (1), 35–78.
Singleton, David; Ryan, Lisa 2004. Language Acquisition: The Age Factor. Second Language Acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853597596
Wonnacott, Elizabeth. 2011. Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. – Journal of Memory and Language, 65 (1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2011.03.001
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5128/ERYa16.02
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Reili Argus, Eveli Makko
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1736-2563 (print)
ISSN 2228-0677 (online)
DOI 10.5128/ERYa.1736-2563