In this week’s reading, we observed Clark and Hechts’ study
of children and acquiring language coining devices such as the use of –er. I
found the findings from the study quite interesting, especially the stages with
which children come to correctly use –er to produce agent and instrument nouns.
Specifically, I am reminded of developmental psychology and the many stages of
growth through which children go. In young children, for example, the problem
of overgeneralization is especially pervasive.
In overgeneralization, children often take concepts just
like –er, and use them too much. In
one study, children, after enough exposure to the –ed suffix, used –ed to try
and make everything past tense. For example, a child would correctly say words
like “created” and “talked,” but said “eated” and “runned” instead of “ate” and
“ran.” It is cases like these that I find really interesting: what really goes
on in a child’s head when they realize that they can’t just tack suffixes onto words
to change the tense?
Clark and Hecht note an important point – children don’t
necessarily differentiate between other linguistic concepts outside of the
current generalization. As with the typewriter example, where a child said that
her mother was the typewriter and the typewriter was the “typewrite,” the major
confusion in the child’s mind might not be inherent to the coinage strategy as
much as another core misunderstanding. In this case, it is the failure to know
that –er can be used for instruments as well as agents.
Understanding how to
trace these errors and their roots, I believe, can be very telling for both
psychologists and linguists alike. Perhaps if we were to fully map out the possible
fallacies that children encounter as they acquire language, we can develop a
better understanding of how humans learn language in general. Further, I wonder
if we can use these finding to create better ways to teach English (among other
languages) to non-native speakers.
Awesome post! I think it would be really hard to map out the possible fallacies that children encounter as they acquire language just because I feel like there are so many words in the English language that are somewhat random in a sense. Like the word fireman is someone who fights fire but a person who fights an enemy is not considered an enemyman, so what lead us to creating the word fireman or even soldier? That would be super interesting to look into.
ReplyDelete