Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-frp75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T22:42:50.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the early learning of formal grammatical systems: evidence from studies of the acquisition of gender and countability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Yonata Levy
Yonata Levy*
Affiliation:
The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
*
Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel91905.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , February 1988 , pp. 179 - 187
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bem, S. (1981). Gender schema theory: a cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review 88. 354–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41. No. 146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohme, K. & Levelt, W. (1979). Children's use and awareness of natural and syntactic gender in possessive pronouns. Paper presented at the International Reading Research Seminar on Linguistic Awareness and Learning to Read, Victoria, Canada.Google Scholar
Feldman, H., Goldin-Meadow, S. & Gleitman, L. (1978). Beyond Herodotus: The creation of language by linguistically deprived deaf children. In Lock, A. (ed.), Action, symbol, and gestures: the emergence of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. (1985). ‘He has too much hard questions’: the acquisition of the linguistic mass-count distinction in much and many. Journal of Child Language 12. 395–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learnt before verbs: linguistic relativity vs. natural partitioning. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development: language, culture and cognition. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. (1981). Maturational determinants of language growth. Cognition 10. 105–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Gordon, P. (1985). Evaluating the semantic category hypothesis: the case of the count-mass distinction. Cognition 20. 209–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grimshaw, J. (1981). Form and function and the language acquisition device. In Baker, C. L. & McCarthy, J. J. (eds), The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Levy, Y. (1980). Gender in children's language – a study in first language acquisition. Unpublished dissertation. The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel.Google Scholar
Levy, Y. (1983). It's frogs all the way down. Cognition 15. 76–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacNamara, J. (1982). Names for things: a study of child language. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. (1981). Problems in categorial evolution: can formal categories arise from semantic ones? In Deutsch, W. (ed.), The child's construction of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. (in press). Notes on the development of form classes. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M. & Braine, M. D. S. (eds), Processes and strategies in language acquisition. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mills, A. E. (1985). The acquisition of German. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mills, A. E. (1986). Acquisition of the natural-gender rule in English and German. Linguistics 24. 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulford, R. (1983). Semantic and formal factors in the comprehension of Icelandic pronoun gender. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 22. 83–91.Google Scholar
Mulford, R. (1985). Comprehension of Icelandic pronoun gender: semantic versus formal factors. Journal of Child Language 12. 443–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newport, E. L. (1982). Task specificity in language learning? Evidence from speech perception and American sign language. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1982). Steps to language. Hillsdale N.J: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Serbin, L. A. & Sprafkin, C. (1986). The salience of gender and the process of sex typing in three- to seven-year-old children. Child Development 57. 1188–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1986). The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1. The Data. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar