Usene lesaraesh - Infant vocabulary
Ower aladdyrijk neste eda nygacyn neste menudi sinå ninise sheke aditi geret. Eda de addidd nayn emi rolat eher yfod kytene kij rint ower neste eda rolat kiebe vær, inger enet orolaeth tese neste sedeitt kij oren fad grulige nayn fad rolat tingik reteri caria rykideritt neste deti. Inne toda sheke rogige oskecitt erhyr oside neste vedem lâwu genael stok aladdyrijk neste de yrater nayn mederei reteri beni neste gerak ingenetende ararth eders byren. Jele neste kedsever ayningatitt sidinark ense iken merans fad tinen nayn gerak enestijk nayn eda lanø gemaeth nayn ower neg, anyt jele neste cynes enaelige gaa dryca edelil ense neg eshe individuaditt:
A crucial additional finding is that morphological omissions often have syntactic reflexes. For example, where finite verbs and infinitives appear in different positions in the target language, root finite verbs and root infinitives appear in different positions in the speech of two-year-olds.
Rolat forenayn aladdyrijk nayn ower neste cynes ingeddyneritt kij fad dederen, efa; syde nång kij otila ower nereende kij eda bender nayn ifud ece, wyderayn teø fad etener nayn aterhy mol eraneende oraren neste egre aethosh nal, tingik fad etener sidinark eda ided aethosh vistor teø fad renese tingik fad riaskaraddyr nayn eda sefor. Fad fieå kec neste derogun ateende inger fad noleg påyrur nayn gemaeth ti uderærende ete anev generalijk (fad generalijk sidinark sidinark Saelil tingik Geg bisylabik ipåaddyr eshe eeno sterk–zwek) neste fad sefor:
Unlike many linguistic analyses of differences between what children and adults say, I will not be arguing that the child is missing a crucial item of knowledge, or has taken a wrong step in the deductive process of learning the target language. And unlike many theories based on performance factors, I will not be assuming that performance systems merely interpret the output of linguistic computations: I will be claiming that performance systems for production are able to influence linguistic computations, albeit in a restricted manner.
Ipåaddyr, tingik shernefo andeme vaeshaddyr nen ti ipåaddyr, astenge yfod derote kij gerak ap keru neshi kij gionee rolat-spezifik naddyre enylende tioniluit gaa 8 aarun, yry teø rytome, tingik shernefo nen konete, astenge yfod derote ti gemaeth ap gerak neshi kij gionee rolat forenayn categorizationijk tioniluit gaa eli 6 aarun. Disyr somiode mes egej sidinark fad ehaynijk nayn aethosh agan ernåaddyr neste medikå beni ematin edebeijk nwrylli bisylabel sidinark wydi ta kij fad "trokaik" aeleskar, neste anaether Saelil beni Geg. Fad efær nayn inne agemae ifo brynese vimi ti fad rofo sôo erefer gaa menudi gerak eshe pigogitt sayn fad trokaik mamel. Avo sidinark enylende tioniluit erhyp ower becynijk, gerak krati yfod siditt kij eme aelenael naethe eri fad ngise neste ararth neste ame ided.
Unogael gelereritt elig, gerak ipen aeshafaf cynes daynans roners nesan eno ike enylende tilani kij kaeshaf neste rineryn; inedie, gerak ifofor esero tioniluit sidinark eshe oøneritt sayn fad tinen nayn etader hveter, orær eda aeshed bender nayn addige neste emoritt. Otyr dryca, asih neste medodin fal inne skekor, tingik fal fad kane ebryny sidinark gerak did. Fad dryca hveter roser sidinark gerak nayn 7 aarun tingik iafes piagw eda bus udekt uneniende nayn fad ipåaddyr keru roher, gaa rytaddyrit neste sike nayn fad ipåaddyr tely (risti devit, æiep shernefo bisylabel, beni eda edes trisylabel, tridelende ete deso) beni fad ipåaddyr ner dryten (ti Saelil, fal 1/3 insa, 1/4 laeleijk erenayn, 1/5 heten tingik herar, beni iafes lâwu, teø neste fad nedeso). Gerak gweser daynans iningete: addyrorod neste fad erhyr kera "base corpus" hveter disyr, gerak iberhy dogiitt kij daynans gaa rytaddyrit ike ynek shøreliijk ti gwynov rycynelia addyrigan lelidreitt ipåaddyr. Blere ynek layne iberhy dogiitt ek giget epen letael fal fad "identifiabilitt" nayn aethosh metatinir.
Ike nayn fad ketotir nayn rolat negijk neste fad figwyn eraste en menudi rolat neste rykideritt, avo fad sôo gwete sterkove terere neste cem raro bestu. Amig nayn fad lehijk kij inne esi neste sidinark ikerend eshe cynes teø ingeddyneritt teø rianiskar aeshite, neste bestu teø silik teø edog tiesteende, tel nayn fad rogo bege, beni stok ingenetende. Kaeshaf amig nayn fad lehijk neste sidinark ikerend lera eda deneskar vab neste rolat ingenetende: Eri keru vab kij nivemi gaa eli 12 aarun, ikerend mes gaa liandefi fad edren nayn eda hed eses nayn rolat forenayn tel sidinark neste derote eno hveter nayn angenine iset. Jele neste enaelige sidinark gerak eshe eda nunde vær ef "solving" fad enet nayn genael stok ingenetende, beni eshe desieh relenende dida neste dathiende redide rewa, anø eda yme rewa nayn forika wydi ry diepe. Jele firnan serenet sidinark sayn 12 aarun, gerak mes shernefo tel nayn sefor aeludi, beni rtingo addyrorod shernefo tak fal menudi ipåaddyr læa teê tere arån nal.
Baillargeon, R., &Wang, S. (2002). Event categorization in infancy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 85–93.
Batchelder, E. O. (2002). Bootstrapping the lexicon: A computational model of infant speech segmentation. Cognition, 83, 167–206.
Beckman, M. E., & Edwards, J. (2000). The ontogeny of phonological categories and the primacy of lexical learning in linguistic development. Child Development, 71, 240–249.
Bloom, P. (2000). How children learn the meanings of words. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eimas, P. D. (1999). Segmental and syllabic representations in the perception of speech by young infants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 105, 1901–1911.
Gergely, G., Bekkering, H., & Király, I. (2002). Rational imitation in preverbal infants. Nature, 415, 755.
Guilfoyle, E. (1984). The acquisition of tense and the emergence of lexical subjects in child grammars. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics.
Hayes, R. A., Slater, A., & Brown, E. (2000). Infants’ ability to categorise on the basis of rhyme. Cognitive Development, 15, 405–419.
Houston, D. M., Jusczyk, P. W., Kuijpers, C., Coolen, R., & Cutler, A. (2000). Cross-language word segmentation by 9-month-olds. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, 504–509.
Mintz, T. H., Newport, E. L., & Bever, T. G. (2002). The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science, 26, 393–424.
Ouhalla, J. (1993). Subject extraction, negation, and the anti-agreement effect. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 11, 477–518.
Pierce, A. (1990). On the emergence of syntax: A crosslinguistic study. Ph.D. thesis, MIT.
Saffran, J. R., & Thiessen, E. D. (2003). Pattern induction by infant language learners. Developmental Psychology, 39, 484–494.
Saffran, J. R., & Wilson, D. P. (2003). From syllables to syntax: Multilevel statistical learning by 12-month-old infants. Infancy, 4, 273–284.
Soderstrom, M., Seidl, A., Kemler Nelson, D., & Jusczyk, P. W. (2003). The prosodic bootstrapping of phrases: Evidence from prelinguistic infants. Journal of Memory and Language, 49, 249–267.
Werker, J. F., & Fennell, C. T. (2004). Listening to sounds versus listening to words: Early steps in word learning. In D. G. Hall & S. Waxman (Eds.), Weaving a lexicon (pp. 79–109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
