Browns reasoning went that(in English at least) learning when rules were not meant to apply was much harder as the social cues weren't as overt and the mere presence reinforcement was invalid, so this last step was the most overt, intentional learning based.
That reminds me of a famous conversational sequence about the complete uselessness of overt language correction in young children:
Child: Want other one spoon, Daddy.
Father: You mean, you want the other spoon.
Child: Yes, I want other one spoon, please Daddy.
Father: Can you say "the other spoon."
Child: Other... one... spoon.
Father: Say "other."
Child: Other.
Father: "Spoon."
Child: Spoon.
Father: "Other spoon."
Child: Other... spoon. Now give me other one spoon?
(from "When do people learn languages?", although it's been cited in many, many other places)
Also, a long line of research has found that parents tend to correct their children's utterances based on their truth value and not so much based on their grammar.
Just to put it into perspective, I've heard both "goed" and "playses" from multiple children, including my own.
Yep. It's a completely normal stage of language development.
This isn't proof that children acquire language by some sort of data mining process.
When children start coming up with overregularizations like "goed" instead of "went" or "playses" in place of "plays," that kind of attempt at applying regular morphological rules to irregular items, is when you might say they are acquiring language via data mining. I.e., they hear a form used often enough that it becomes part of their knowledge about words, to the extent that that form is unconsciously applied even to make words they have certainly never heard in adult speech before.
(Disclaimer:
1. I will graduate this May with a B.A. in linguistics.
2. First language acquisition is not wholly understood as of yet, but suffice it to say that it's more complicated and there are many more factors involved than the article makes it seem.
3. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what they mean by "data mining.")
But you can't access the actual research without subscribing to the site (which costs $$). Maybe someone has access and will share? Here you go. I hope that works.
Slashdot Mirror
That reminds me of a famous conversational sequence about the complete uselessness of overt language correction in young children:
Child: Want other one spoon, Daddy.
Father: You mean, you want the other spoon.
Child: Yes, I want other one spoon, please Daddy.
Father: Can you say "the other spoon."
Child: Other
Father: Say "other."
Child: Other.
Father: "Spoon."
Child: Spoon.
Father: "Other spoon."
Child: Other
(from "When do people learn languages?", although it's been cited in many, many other places)
Also, a long line of research has found that parents tend to correct their children's utterances based on their truth value and not so much based on their grammar.
Yep. It's a completely normal stage of language development.
This isn't proof that children acquire language by some sort of data mining process.
When children start coming up with overregularizations like "goed" instead of "went" or "playses" in place of "plays," that kind of attempt at applying regular morphological rules to irregular items, is when you might say they are acquiring language via data mining. I.e., they hear a form used often enough that it becomes part of their knowledge about words, to the extent that that form is unconsciously applied even to make words they have certainly never heard in adult speech before.
(Disclaimer:
1. I will graduate this May with a B.A. in linguistics.
2. First language acquisition is not wholly understood as of yet, but suffice it to say that it's more complicated and there are many more factors involved than the article makes it seem.
3. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding what they mean by "data mining.")
Here you go. I hope that works.
There wasn't a body in the Carrie Culberson case.