According to Levy and Schaeffer (2003), though, "It is a truism of research in developmental psycholinguistics that children's behavior looks quite different in different languages. Of course, it is expected that different developing languages will exhibit properties that are different simply because the languages themselves differ. But the errors look different too" (36). These authors emphasize that this general problem in the field has been the source of concern for some time now and the issue of why children make different types of errors in different languages remains unclear as well. For instance, Levy and Schaeffer ask, "Why should children subject to universal principles make a different kind of error, even when the error is not simply the missetting of a parameter?" (36). In fact, Bates and her colleagues (2001) assert that psycholinguistic universals do exist and play an important role in language acquisition, depending on the individual setting:
Languages such as English, Italian, and Chinese draw on the same mental/neural machinery. They do not 'live' in different parts of the brain, and children do not differ in the mechanisms required to learn each one. However, languages can differ (sometimes quite dramatically) in the way this mental/neural substrate is taxed or configured, making differential use of the same basic mechanisms for perceptual processing, encoding and retrieval, working memory, and planning. It is of course well-known that languages can vary qualitatively, in the presence/absence of specific linguistic features (e.g. Chinese has lexical tone, Russian has nominal case markers, English has neither). In addition, languages can vary quantitatively, in the challenge posed by equivalent structures (lexical, phonological, grammatical) for learning and/or real-time use. (Bates et al. 369)
These authors cite as an example the fact that passives are rare in English but extremely common in Sesotho; likewise, relative clause constructions are more common in Italian than in English (Bates et al. 369). Therefore, to the degree that frequency and recency facilitate structural access is the degree to which these differences should result in earlier acquisition and/or a processing advantage (Bates et al. 369).
In recent years, both of the foregoing psycholinguistic fields have enjoyed significant additions to the collection of theoretical ideas guiding research. For example, in text processing, Mckoon and Ratcliff (1998) point out that new consideration has been given to "fast, passive, parallel retrieval processes that can make multiple complexities of meaning available to comprehension processes quickly and at low cost. In sentence processing, the new idea is that the frequency with which a particular syntactic structure occurs in natural language may be a powerful determinant of how easy it is to process" (26).
Finally, based on his analysis of how psycholinguistics...
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now