Language acquisition: theories and processes

Linguistics, Language Acquisition, & Pronoun Errors in Children

The acquisition of language is not a seamless process. All humans encounter errors as part of their linguistic development and practice. Humans around the world and across languages encounter similar behavior patterns as they grow into adults and gain linguistic fluency in their native languages. One such repeating phenomenon in English of note is the act of young children to misuse pronouns, using the word "me" when the correct word is "I." There are several ideas regarding how and why many children go through a stage in their linguistic development where they misuse pronouns. This paper will explore and critique the ideas of experts in several field including linguistics and language acquisition. The paper will propose and provide evidence for several factors that contribute to this speech phenomenon. The paper will show that this particular speech act is a result of the interaction among several factors and that no a singular theory regarding this matter explains it completely.

Rispoli agrees with the position of the paper that this error in speech reveals a greater issue at work in linguistics and language acquisition. He names the issue as he writes:

"Within the last ten years or so, hypotheses have been proposed linking pronoun case errors with the development of FINITENESS. Finiteness is a set of grammatical features that apply to clauses (Radford, 1997). A finite clause differs from a non-finite clause in a number of ways. The main verb in a finite clause can agree with the subject and show tense distinctions. Only the finite clause may be augmented by a modal auxiliary or auxiliary do. (Rispoli, 2005)

Thus for him, the speech act is a symptom of a cognitive and linguistic development. The speech act does not mean anything significant standing alone without context. The speech act within a narrower context of English in young children reveals to Rispoli that problems with pronoun errors demonstrate development in language and thought construction. As the child struggles with speech, this reflects developments in language generally as well as how the child's thoughts form in relation to linguistic capability. Rispoli performs a study where in he asks and answers

"…the question of why some children are disposed to making a large number of pronoun case errors and others are not. The answer proposed is that when pronoun paradigm building outstrips the development of INFL, children become especially vulnerable to erring in the choice of pronominal word form, resulting in pronoun case error." (Rispoli, 2005)

This is a curious phenomenon to Rispoli. His research aims to located definitive predictors of this particular language event. His conclusions affirm the perspective and thesis of this paper.

Rispoli concludes that

"The results of this study underscore the need to view the development of pronoun case from a multivariate perspective. Errors do not arise merely because the child's grammar is immature. Rather, even with the most immature of grammars, the incidence of error can be minimized if the child does not attempt to perform more ambitiously than they have the capacity to perform.." (Rispoli, 2005)

There are many factors that contribute to a child's improper use of pronouns such as "I" and "me." There is no one answer as to why this occurs, but when theories work in collaboration and conjunction linguistics offers a wider perspective of the issue making way for more interdisciplinary interventions and solutions to this common problem.

Kirjavainen et al. further agree with Rispoli and the paper that an approach to this problem is most effective if taken from a variety of perspectives. They state their position and try to account for inconclusive studies in this area:

"Some children produce many errors, others virtually none, although these differences could in part reflect sampling problems. Some children who make errors do so with a range of pronominal forms, others with only one particular pronoun type (Pine et al., 2005). Explanations for the pattern of case errors observed in children's speech have been suggested by researchers from a range of theoretical perspectives." (Kirjavainen et al., 2009)

There are not many studies in this area. The data offered by the existing studies is not definitive. The data is inconclusive and moderately unclear, not so far as the researchers cannot literally read the data, but because the data demonstrates no known pattern, thus meaning cannot be rendered from it. The authors do not propose they have all the answers to this research area, but what they do suggest in an effective method by which linguists and researchers can approach the problem and make some headway in their understanding.

One opinion of the paper as to a reason why this speech act occurs with some many children is that in English (all forms), the native speakers do not speak proper English at all times. Language is acquired primarily through listening and through use during context. If the children are in proximity to people who speak poor English, their English will be poor. This English does not have to be poor to affect the children; the aforementioned situation is simply an extreme example to illustrate the point more clearly. No speaker of any language speaks that language in perfect form at all times; it is not the nature of people to be perfect in any way at all times and it is the nature of language to change; therefore, the nature of perfection in languages changes ceaselessly.

Kirjavainen et al. provide a history of the thought as to why children make "me" and "I" errors. They agree that part of the reason why children make this error is due to the linguistic inputs the children receive. In essence, children repeat what they hear and are more likely to repeat what they hear the most frequently. They ask further, what precise speech acts or inputs are more disposed to create this specific speech errors in so many children? What is it about the language or what is it about the process of language acquisition that contributes to the prevalence of this phenomenon? Their research endeavors to explore this hypothesis in a most intensive manner, more so than they believe existed at the time they conducted their research. The language forms that children hear do not fully explain this particular error. For these authors, like Rispoli, this occurrence is symptomatic of a greater issues at work within the child. Thus, we do not repeat everything we hear. Language acquisition is an adaptive process that changing due to multiple factors, both internal and external.

While their research proved illuminating, their findings aligned with Rispoli and that of the thesis of this paper:

"A wide range of factors including the child's existing knowledge of language, the distributional properties of the input, perceptual salience, the child's understanding of pragmatics and semantics, and the child's communicative goals are thought to contribute to the state of the child's linguistic system at any given point in development. For this reason, children's errors can be seen as deriving from a number of different sources. As far as pronominal case errors are concerned, a single mechanism is unlikely to explain all of the observed errors, and clearly a straightforward input-driven account cannot explain why many children produce GEN-for-NOM (i.e. my-for-I) errors, as these combinations are not found in the input." (Kirjavainen et al., 2009)

They agree that numerous factors combined may result in the pronoun misuse error. They bring several other factors to light that other researchers have yet to mention. They mention the child's existing knowledge of language and understanding of semantics as contributive to this error. The child may be unaware that he/she makes a mistake; on the other hand, the child may be aware of the mistake and intentionally demonstrate it for emotional or psychological reasons. The authors stress again that these errors cannot be explained down to one factor of direct cause and effect.

In another study by Rispoli, he claims that

"Researchers have viewed pronoun case errors from a variety of perspectives, of which the most prominent is syntactic. From the perspective of development syntax, pronoun case overextensions occur before the child has fully acquired case assignment principles (Guilfoyle & Noonan, 1992; Radford, 1990; Schutze & Wexler, 1996; Vainikka, 1994), usually thought to be sometime before the age of approximately 2;6." (Rispoli, 1998)

This statement concurs with the last quotation by Kirjavainen et al. regarding the existing linguistic capability and understanding of the child making the errors. He regards syntax theory as the most prominent explanation of this error though he admits that this question is approach from a variety of perspectives. In this statement, Rispoli also does something none of the other authors have yet to do, which is specify a specific age group where this error occurs most frequently. This small piece of information may end up changing the kinds of research and data analysis regarding this issue. Rispoli also mentions something called "overextensions." The paper understands overextensions to be an attempt to master a skill before one is properly equipped to do so. In other words, overextension is pushing oneself beyond one's bounds. Consider the example of overextending the range of flexibility in a joint or a muscle as an analogy. Language is a muscle; the use of language exercises a muscle -- the brain. Language exercises very specific areas of the brain. Thus, just as in muscle growth in other areas of the body, there will be some trial and error before mastery occurs. This pronoun error may be an example of growing children, in attempts to develop and strengthen their linguistic muscles, overextending their linguistic capability in a specific pattern indigenous to a very specific age group of children.

Rispoli certainly defends the fortitude of the explanation for this occurrence with syntactic theory, but he also refutes the theory exposing gaps in the theories explanations. He argues:

"There are two major problems with the developmental syntactic approach. First, for every hypothesis proposed about the relationship between case and the abstract features of tense and agreement thus far, counter-examples exist...The second major problem facing syntactic explanations of the phenomenon is the variability in patterns of what pronoun case form replaces another. The fact that this variability exists makes it impossible to claim there is a single default form that will be produced in a pronoun case error." (Rispoli, 1998)

Rispoli illuminates the fallibility of the syntactic theory. He says that for every example supplied by the theory, a counterexample exists. There should be some examples that cannot be countered if the theory is strong, at least one, Rispoli claims that there are none. Syntactic theory cannot explain or predict the kinds of errors that occur in any kind of recognizable pattern. The theory cannot predict the frequency of the pronoun error or the form in which the error will take. Though variations exist in this linguistic phenomenon, there are some mistakes that occur more frequently than other as Rispoli writes:

"There is little doubt that me is the stereotypic replacement for I. Because the objective form me appears in many types of syntactically unrestricted structures, its representation as a word is especially strong. We have seen in this paper an indication that the tendency to replace I with me is strengthened with increased correct production of me as an objective form." (Rispoli, 1998)

Though syntactic theory is strong, it is clear by the gaps that Rispoli exposes that approaching this problem from many perspectives at once will prove effective. Where some theories lack, other theories are abundant; therefore, all the bases should be theoretically covered. In this research article, Rispoli defines himself as a strong researcher. He is able to summarize and analyze major theories. He is meticulous and succinct. He finds ways that his theories and those established theories overlap and then goes farther by identifying places that theory lacks support. He does not ridicule the theory for this trait. In fact, he uses this lack as a springboard for further theories, ideas, and studies.

Syntax theory's mission could be paraphrase as follows:

"Every normal speaker of any natural language has acquired an immensely rich and systematic body of unconscious knowledge, which can be investigated by consulting speakers' intuitive judgments. In other words, knowing a language involves mastering an intricate system full of surprising regularities and idiosyncrasies. Languages are phenomena of considerable complexity, which can be studied scientifically. That is, we can formulate general hypotheses about linguistic structure and test them against the facts of particular languages." (Sag et al., 2003)

Thus, to understand syntax and implement syntactic theory, one must be interested in understanding the group or cultural unconscious of a group of people who speak a particular language. Several authors mention the need or utility of approaching this issue from a variety of perspective, but do not often go so far as to name those specific perspectives that best lend themselves to this situation. Psychology and psychoanalysis is implied by the above quotation as being a fruitful perspective from which to consider pronoun errors. When considering the study of consciousness and culture, one should also consider looking at this problem from a sociological or anthropological perspective, too. Sociologists study the development and characteristics of culture; one prominent feature of culture is language. Therefore, a linguistic occurrence as part of the general use of a language could benefit from a sociological perspective. Moreover, another perspective that may be beneficial in this area may be the cultural theory perspective along with media theory. More than ever in the 21st century, media is a fundamental element to most people's lives. Groups transmit and participate in culture by consuming media. Additionally, culture is reflected and taught in media with great use of language. Thus, studying a linguistic error from cultural studies and media theoretical perspectives are useful as well in the journey for an answer to this problem.

Another opinion as to why children go through this stage is because of how cultures perceive children. Consider stereotypical interactions among babies, infants, toddlers, and adults. Adults make silly faces, non-sensical noises, and talk in "baby talk," a variety of English used exclusively with children. If there is a parent that talks baby talk to his/her baby, the baby is bound to pick up some of the forms as the child acquires speech and literacy. Parents have trouble realizing their children grow up and one way they keep them young, at least in their minds, is speaking baby talk. The kids learn this. They see the happy response in the parents when the kids talk back in the same childlike form. The kid learns that talking and talking in a certain way gets attention and elicits a positive response. They continue to speak this way to manipulate emotions whether to appease and receive love from the parent, or to use cuteness to avoid punishment.

Moreover, yet another possible reason kids talk misuse "I" and "me" has to do with media representations of children and media representations for children. For example, the show Sesame Street is broadcast in over 100 countries in numerous languages. The show premiered in America in 1969 as an innovative, progressive, effective, deeply engaging, and entertaining form of education for children. Two primary characters/Muppets relevant to this speech error phenomenon: Cookie Monster and Elmo. Cookie Monster often says things like, "Me want cookie," or "Me eat cookies." Millions of children around the world love Cookie Monster. A behavior pattern indicative of early childhood is ceaseless mimicry. Therefore, if a child watches Sesame Street and loves Cookie Monster, at some point the child will imitate Cookie Monster's speech error, which may likely please the parent because, though incorrect, the phenomenon is cute. The child may simply repeat Cookie Monster's speech patterns out of sheer enjoyment and connection with Cookie Monster. This same phenomenon occurs with the hugely popular character, Elmo.