Towards an explication of

Towards an explication of
the role ofchild language in linguistic change
STEPHEN SAMPLE
Swarthmore College. Swarthmore. Pennsylvania 19081
ssam pIe [email protected]
Thesis. Linguistics 180
Abstract
The acquisition of language is discussed in general. with particular consideration to the acquisition of
morphology in English. Child word creation is described. and the acquisition of various word creation
mechanisms is described. Parallels are drawn between historical changes in English and changes and
processes seen in child language. in an attempt to clarify the oft-assumed connection between child
language and language change.
Introduction
The study of linguistics is in some sense necessarily the study of how children acquire language. Why
may not be immediately obvious: there is no clear connection between. say. metrical stress theory and
language acquisition; however. the linguist and the child are confronted with essemially the same problem:
to idemify and describe a linguistic system from scratch. when that system could in principle be anything
(Wanner & Gleitman 1982b. 4).
The connection between the two statemems of the problem is not always clear. however. In some cases
psychological motivation has been found for the connection, but for many areas of linguistics the
acquisition question has been simply allowed to stand. In the case of diachronic linguistics, it has been
assumed that language change is motivated by children, or at least that the mechanisms by which children
build and remodel their internal lexica and grammars are also used to remodel the collective lexicon and
grammar of the linguistic community. Many plausible arguments have been put forward on the spur of the
moment for this assumption, but the relationship between child language and changes in the adult language
has never been investigated in great detail.
I am more interested in lexical change than in usage change (or perhaps I just imagine a clearer
connection with child language for such changes). so I propose to look at changes in vocabulary and word
Towards an explication ofthe rOle ofchild language in language change
Page 1
usage over time. and draw connections between those changes and processes of acquisition and word
generation by children. To that end. I will be attempting to characterize child coinages morphologically.
so that I can associate specific instances of language change with specific (approximate) developmental
stages. I should note. however. that I am entirely ignoring any possible relations between child phonok~
and historico-phonological change, in part because child phonology has already been investigated quite
thoroughly. and I thus forsee fewer opportunities for new insight, and in part because phonology really
doesn't interest me all that much.
Theory
Overview of language acquisition
The question of how children acquire language is logically prior to the question of how their
acquisition and production processes stimulate language change in the adult community. so we need to
establish at least a primitive understanding of those processes before we can continue. We also need to have
at least a primitive understanding of diachronic linguistics, but we can't discuss everything at once.
Accordingly. I'll start out with the general theory of language acquisition , and work from there toward
an explanation of the detailed processes by which children build and alter their lexicon and grammar.
The acquisition of syntax
With this eventual goal in mind, we can ask: how do children acquire and generate language? They
clearly do so. and with minimal feedback, but the early explanations of how they do so all fell short.
Accordingly, in the venerable scientific tradition of ignoring a problem which you can't solve in favor of a
simpler (and perhaps less interesting) one which you can, developmental psycholinguistics during the
'sixties switched to characterizing child language rather than describing the processes by which a child
attains adult language proficiency (Pinker 1984, 2). Unfortunately, the computational algorithms
proposed proved too powerful and flexible for this more restricted task, and a new problem surfaced: all
the theoretical cognitive processes for inducing a language overgenerated fairly drastically (Pinker 1984.
1-4). However, indeterminacy problems are familiar in science: if we know anything about the object of
interest which the theory does not directly address (in this case, child language"as an intermediate stage of
language acquisition), we may be able to come up with some external constraints which will enable us to
reach a unique solution (there are lots of nifty mathematical techniques for doing this formally, but none
of them are of immediate interest here). If we rerurn to the question oflanguage acquisition rather than
child language, we find just such a constraint. since child language must be an intermediate stage of the
acquisition mechanism that eventually gets us to adult language (Pinker 1984, 5). The problem with this
constraint is that it ignores all the other differences between children and adults: attention span, memory.
cognitive abilities, perceptivity, etc. (Pinker 1984,6). By Occam's razor, the best theory is that which·
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 2
invokes the fewest computational mechanisms, and thus the fewest qualitative developmental changes in
any of these mechanisms (Pinker 1984, 7). This is not to say that acquisition of rules and data cannot feed
the language acquisition mechanisms, but only that the mechanisms themselves are time-invariant. There
are several possible alternatives to this assumption: neural maturation could cause qualitative changes in the
cognitive mechanisms of language, or, more poetically, the child could simultaneously learn abour the
world and build the mind with which the world is comprehended. However, the assumption that the set of
acquisition mechanisms is fixed is more compact and thus preferable in the absence of contradictory data.
One of the solutions to the question of how children acquire language has traditionally been mat they
come preprogrammed with a fully developed Universal Grammar (UG) and only add words and set
parameters of the panicular language they are learning (Carroll 1986, 307). This assumption can lead to
some logical problems. in that it implies that, f.g, holophrastic utterances have the same syntax as adult
sentences (Carroll 1986, 327). This leaves us unable to explain the initially fixed word-order of Slavicspeaking children (Carroll 1986, 333) or the syntacto-semantic organization of early one- and two-word
sentences. In the case of two-word sentences, the assumption that the two words embed all of the syntactic
relations of the adult paraphrase suggests that the child's sentence is in tact more complex than the adult
sentence, since the two-word sentence needs additional rules to keep most of the words out of the
phonology.
However, one could also assume that children do not come preprogrammed with a UG, but that they
are equipped to learn something comparably general and complex. I I will presume a grammar as an
acquisition subject because it obviates the need for the child to acquire different mechanisms for
interpretation, production, and judgment (the mechanisms for these three processes, at least under me
computational models I have seen, each (redundantly) specifY the structure of grammatical sentences),
and, as such, reduces computational overhead. Grammars also have me advantage of allowing a clearer
distinction between those data and operations which must be acquired from the input and those which need
not be (Pinker 1984, 22). At this point, however, a clear distinction should be made between the
restriction proposed earlier that there be few changes in the child's language-processing mechanisms
(although some may become more widely used with time as more resources become available to them:
improvements in the child's accessible corpus and processing resources can feed the acquisition
mechanisms) and having few changes in the child's grammar. Proposing a staric set of acquisition resources
which are used as needed and proposing a static grammar are not equivalent, and indeed I agree with me
former (if only as a necessary simplification for the model) and not with the latter (which seems to be in
disagreement with much of the available data).
But what is this input from which children deduce the rules oflanguage?
Towards an fxplication ofthf role ofchild language in language change
Page 3
Children undoubtedly learn a language at least in pan by hearing sentences in that language from their
parents and peers. but the available evidence suggests that not all sentences. or not all the pans of a
sentence. are used as input. Children seem to be most likely to encode those sentences in which they
understand most of the words. and those pans of sentences which are stressed or near the edges (Pinker
1984. 28). The processing of those segments which are encoded is not necessarily either straightforward
or fully justified. however. "Young children are inclined to draw grand inductive generalizations even over
noisy data.» (Wanner & Gleitman 1982b. 7) This sort of overgeneralization is common. both lexically
(which will be discussed later) and grammatically; as an example. children use both strong and weak past
tense forms at 2 and 3. but by around 4 they only use weak ones (Wanner & Gleitman 1982b, 7).
How do children make judgements about which sentences are ungrammatical? They cannot do so
based on positive evidence because they will not be presented with examples of ungrammatical sentences
by their caretakers; they do not do so based on negative evidence because such evidence is invariably
ignored by children even when present (Pinker 1984. 28). This ignoring of parental correction is advisable
because such corrections are. when available, contingent upon neither ungrammaticality nor syntactic illformedness (Pinker 1984. 29), but on any of several criteria which are distributed widely across the fields
of adult linguistics.2 However. when generalizing from the input corpus. children consistently draw the
right generalizations. or nearly the right ones. from the language corpus before them (Wanner & Gleitman
1982b. 6-7)
If we suppose that the inpur for a child's language-processing mechanisms is a string of words (or, at
early stages. a string of phonemes). then we run into some problems. such as explaining how. even
presuming children to be preprogrammed with a fully developed UG, mappings from the surface (SS) to
the deep structure (DS) are established, given that such mappings are neither constant nor predictable
functions of the SS. The solurion to this problem is to propose that the input includes far more than
simple word strings, that utterance meaning is a part of the raw material for the acquisition (Pinker 1984,
29). This more complex input. of course. requires that children be able to infer meaning of adult
utterances from physical and discourse contexts. That children are able to do so is supported by
characteristics ofMotherese (Carroll 1986. 308. 328-29. 337-38), although adult speech to children is not
uniform in this respect. and thus semantic bootstrapping must still be possible (albeit presumably more
difficult) with little or no adult cooperation.
Semantic bootstrapping refers to the fact that children apparently acquire syntactic relations as
semantic ones (organizing sentences in terms of a-roles rather than GFs) (Carroll 1986. 332, 350). and
then induce the syntax at a later point. That is. rather than interpreting a simple sentence as. e.g. NVN.
children under the age of four will interpret it as Agent Action Patient (Carroll 1986. 350). Questions of
how children map the surface structure of received sentences to the deep structure can thus be put off. and
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 4
statements that children speak deep structure (MacNeill 1966b) can be avoided entirely, along with the
embarrassment that they no doubt cause.
The advantages to having children acquire meanings along with word strings are quite impressive: it
allows us to avoid proposing that that children have adult grammars at birth, when many of their words
and sentences, while consistently (and thus, presumably correctly) formed, are not well-formed by adult
standards; it allows us to explain the acquisition and modification of word meanings, which will be
discussed in more detail later; and it allows us to explain the apparent semantic bootstrapping of the
grammar by young children.
The acquisition of morphemes and lexemes
While the acquisition of grammar is not eighty bound to the acquisition of morphology or lexical
items,3 it presents many of the same problems, and has been investigated in much more detail. If we are
to explain word creation from a developmental standpoint, however. we need to explain both lexical
organization and morphology.
Lexical organization
The theory I am assuming is that lexemes are stored initially as unanalyzed units, and that space
constraints prompt reanalysis (see later discussion) of complex lexemes as a set of morphemes, which are
stored independently, and the initiallexemes subsequently reproduced by morphological rules (Bybee
1985. 114). Irregular forms, of course. retain their independent lexical entries (Bybee 1985, 113). The
organization of the lexicon is being modeled by two parameters. lexical strength and lexical connections
(Bybee 1985, 116). such that lexical strength is proportional to the frequency of access (Bybee 1985. 116),
and lexical connections exist between words with morphological similarity (Bybee 1985. 118). that is.
with both semantic and phonological similarity. There are interactions between the two: lexically strong
words can form more distant connections than weaker words can (Bybee 1985, 118). and large numbers of
connections can strengthen lexical entries (Bybee 1985, 134).
There are useful similarities between the lexical and morphological acquisition theories: lexical
strength models rote learning (Bybee 1985. 119), and can account for, e.g.• why wend and wentwere
separated but spendand spent. or sendand sent. were not (Bybee 1985. 122).
Lexical strength can result in limited productivity. as in the case of the strung schema for past tense in
English. which is attracting members form other paradigms (Bybee 1985, 130). This productivity is
related to type frequency rather than token frequency, however (Bybee 1985, 133), so the lower-strength
words within a paradigm thus contribute most to its productivity (Bybee 1985. 134).
This lexical organization theory is primarily morphological. but it corresponds well with both the
psycholinguistic and acquisition theories. One of the popular models from language acquisition suggests
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 5
that words are acquired and stored as bundles of semantic features (Carroll 1986. chapter 5. passim).
although there certainly questions which this-approach does not address. The basic thrust of the theory
makes sense. however: children cannot be expected to acquire full adult definitions upon a single hearing.
and. indeed. adults frequently differ in their definitions for uncommon terms depending on the context
which they learned them. Children also are frequently observed to use words much more broadly than
adults do. which in itself is not an argument for featural theories. except that such theories are often more
successful in explainingthe ways in which children overextend their words.
The nature of the features on which early word meanings are based is rather uncle-ar. or at least
controversial. Clark has suggested that early words are based upon their perceptual features. and that in the
case of overextensions. the word has simply been based upon too few of the features of the prototype. and
that the salient features for extension are physical. t.g. shape and colour (Carroll 1986. 324). Nelson has
claimed that early words are based upon the functional characteristics of their prototypes (Carroll 1986.
324). at least among children from 1;0 to 1;3. Gentner
[1978]
found that 2;6-5;0 children and adults
responded to objects based upon physical attributes rather than functional ones, while intermediate-aged
children did the reverse (Carroll 1986. 325). As usual. the solution to this controversy is somewhere in the
middle. and multiple attribute categories (e.g. perceptual, functional. and affective similariry. and
contextual association features) all playa role in a child's early understanding of words (Carroll 1986.
325).
Morphological acquisition theory
The question of how and when children acquire morphological structures and operations does not seem
to have been investigated with the level of attention which semantic and syntactic development have
received. The two main theoretical studies (as opposed to studies of children's acquisition of specific
grammatical morphemes) which I have made use of are MacWhinney (1978) and Roeper (1981). Since
both studies attempt a generalal description. they do not go into as much language-specific detail as I
might wish. but they provide a good framework for talking about the acquisition of word creation
strategies in English.
MacWhinney (1978) proposes that acquisition of morphology makes use of only three mechanisms:
rote. combination. and analogy. and characterizes both the correct and erroneous function of those
mechanisms.
Rote is ultimately a nonanalytic process which preserves any and all irregularities in the input
(MacWhinney 1978, 1). Rote is the earliest stage of morphological processing (if indeed it can be called
processing), and usually begins to fade out in English by around the age of 3. Errors in rote morphology
are randomly distributed. because it applies before the child has recognized any patterns in the input
Towards an txplication oftht rolt ofchild languagt in languagt change
Pagt6
corpus. and there are no d priori grounds for supposing' any particular form for a given morpheme (since.
e.g. if the plural morpheme is not known. banana would seem as likely a plural of foot as are fiet or foots).
Combination shows up rather later in the acquisition process: when the input corpus and the child's
suite of computational resources have grown large enough. the child is able to consider how units (words)
are built from smaller units (morphemes)(MacWhinney 1978, 3). This is partly driven by storage
restrictions on the lexicon and partly by the greater efficiency of computations using more general rules.
The extent of the role for combination depends heavily on the theoretical model of the grammar and the
acquisition strategy: generative models focus heavily on combination. and performance-based models
much less so (MacWhinney 1978, 3). It is however somewhat unclear how allomorphs are picked and
identified under combination in MacWhinney's theory. In the working theory of Derwing & Baker (1979)
allomorphs would be coidentified based on phonetic and semantic similarity. It is suggested. however,
that children can coidentify morphemes based on a single point of similarity. which I would expect to
cause problems for a computational model of combination.
Analogy is proposed as the third mechanism of morphology acquisition because errors in acrual child
speech are not randomly distributed: forms based upon regular patterns are seldom produced incorrectly.
but forms based upon irregular patterns often are (MacWhinney 1978. 1-2). The data from studies of
specific languages (OK. I only have hard data on English) suggest further that the reliability of production
is. directly proportional to the productivity of the paradigm (Derwing & Baker 1979. passim). Analogy
is strongly emphasized by linguistic structuralists. without any plausible mechanism by which it should
operate (MacWhinney 1978. 2). It is also proposed as a full-fledged word creation mechanism in the
historical-linguistic literature (Hock 1986. ???). although I have rejected it as a mechanism for other
reasons (see also the word creation section for further discussion).
Brian MacWhinney's model is. of course. niore complicated than a list of three mechanisms. but. since
he is trying to be general. not by much. He presents a list of claims for the acquisition process which. he
maintains. account fully for the acquisition of morphophonology.
1.
The three mechanisms are used in order: combination is only used if rote fails; analogy is only used if both rote
and combination fail (MacWhinney 1978, 6).
2.
In combination and analogy, words or roots are retrieved, and any necessary affixes are added. If the word or
root appears to contain the affix already. the affix is blocked from applying (MacWhinney 1978, 7). There is a
self-checking process on the phonology of the input. the output. and the lexical form which flags utterances for
correction in the case .of misapplication of any morphological rules.
3.
Children don't learn in the short term from overt corrections by adults (MacWhinney 1978. 8)
4.
Frequency of irregular forms is inversely related ro the likelihood of their overregularization (MacWhinney
1978,9), and they are more likely to be overgeneralized when used out of context (MacWhinney 1978,20)
5.
Word acquisition is driven by lexical gaps (MacWhinney 1978, 10).
6.
Early forms match up with input units which are separately packaged by intonation (MacWhinney 1978,10).
Towards an explication ofthe rOle ofchild language in language change
Pagel
7.
The first productive uses and overgeneralizations of a root will use the uninflected (citation) formi if the
citation form is unavailable. the first overgeneralizations will be of the most common allomorph (MacWhinney
1978. 11)
8. AffIxes are first acquired as applying to only a small lexical domain (MacWhinney 1978. 20).
9.
Children avoid acquiring discontinuous morphemes. Such morphemes will be acquired in chunks. and the fir.
chunk acquired will be that with the most predictable allomorphs (MacWhinney 1978.20). German children
first use the auxilliary to express the progressive. English children the -ing suffIx (MacWhinney 1978. 82)
10. The first productive uses and first overgeneralizations of an affix will make use of the most frequent form
(MacWhinney 1978.20).
11. The productivity of a rule is directly related to the number of 'disequilibrated pairs' (conflicts between a
derived form and the corresponding rote form) which led to its generalization. The first rules used will be the
most productive (MacWhinney 1978, 20).
12. Productive rules which only occasionally lead to productive errors will be retained but weakened wich each
successive error (MacWhinney 1978.20).
13. Productive rules that have many exceptions will only be generalized if they are seen
(MacWhinney 1978,20).
to
apply in the input
14. Children who can use affix informacion to judge the class membership of a root will also be able to use
information not directly afflXed (e.g. the form of DET. etc.) (MacWhinney 1978, 20)
1S. When an allomorphic variation cannot be accounted for by a productive rule. children first overgeneralize the
strongest allomorph. and later, the weaker allomorphs (MacWhinney 1978.20). e.g. use of German past tense in
the presesnc, and use of~om for -oy in Russian (MacWhinney 1978. 83)?
16. Morphophonological patters which correspond with natural phonological predispositions will be acquired early
and will seldom lead to errors (MacWhinney 1978. 20).
The one weakness of MacWhinney's theory from my viewpoint is its very generality: because it is
trying to describe the acquisition of morphophonology for any language, it lacks sufficient specific..~ for
any, either in terms of the acquisition of particular morphemes or mechanisms. or in terms of ages of
acquisition. Fortunately, however. others have found most of those details for English, and so I can use
their results.
Thomas Roeper's study of deductive acquisition of morphology proceeds along rather different lines:
he looks at the subcategorization of complex verbs, and considers how it can be induced from positive
evidence only (1981, 129-130). His simplest suggestion, which he quickly dismantles. is that a derived
word has the same subcategorization frame as its parent (Roeper 1981. 131). He later suggests the
following contstraints on the production of morphologically complex verb: they are only produced by
productive morphological processes. and have valence of two or less (Roeper 1981, 135), only optional
subcategorizations are inheirited (Roeper 1981, 139-40), and all subcategorizations are assumed to be
obligatory unless proved otherwise (Roeper 1981. 140). Since Roeper's study is more focused on the
syntax of what morphological operations are allowed and when than on the operations themselves, it is not
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 8
immediately useful for a study of the acquisition of word creation. although it might well prove useful for
a followup in which the environments for word creation were investigated in more detail.
Morphological acquisition experiments
On a more concrete and immediate level. many studies have been done investigating the order of
acquisition for specific grammatical morphemes in English. and attempting co relate that order to various
presumed measures of morphological complexity. The measures of complexity are
The seminal experiment in the acquisition of morphology of English was Jean Berko {later Jean Berko
Gleason)'s experiment with grade school children. wherein they were asked to apply derivational and
inflectional morphemes to nonsense srems (the most famous being wug. one of which is picrured below).
The children's responses not only showed the completeness which the morphemes had been acquired, but
also showed the acquisition of allomorphy rules (e.g. Isl->[z]/[-affricate. +voice]--.1).
Gleason's studies have since been modified and expanded to include more morphemes and additional
bells and whistles. e.g. by Innes (Derwing & Baker 1979. 211-2), and the later studies will be the ones
cited. for compactness.
Derwing & Baker attempted to describe the complexity of morphological operations such as
pluralization and aspectual changes by r~lating it to the proponion of correctly formed tokens using that
operation and the age at which the operation is acquired. Their results for 112 children between 3 and 9
are (Derwing & Baker 1979. 212).
morpheme
correct roken
percentage
progressive
83.3
plural
78.0
past tense
76.6
possessive
75.2
present tensel
3d person sg
71.5
When class conversions were investigated. Derwing & Baker found the following rates of correct
modification of nonsense stems (Derwing & Baker 1979. 215).
construction
Preschool
Early
Middle
Late
Adult
agentive -er
7
63
80
86
96
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 9
N+N compound
47
50
65
79
70
adjectival -y
0
30
55
86
100
intrumental -er
7
35
4S
64
59
adverbial -Iy
0
13
20
79
81
diminutive -y
7
5
10
14
33
They suggest that the late acquisition of instrumental -er may be due in part to competition with nullconversion. which is highly productive in the instrumental. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that
almost all error responses to the instrumental presentations were of the bare stem. Similarly. N+N
compounding, which is very successful in preschool but never becomes any more so. was apparently
suffering among the older respondants from competition with the possessive (N's N) construction. which
they admit was a proper response to their input data. The researchers assume responsibility for the low
success rate of the diminutive. due to procedural errors in the elicitation. (Derwing & Baker 1979. 215-6).
The final test by Derwing and Baker was
to
construct a list of 50 word pairs which they categorized
by semantic and phonological similarity. and ask whether the pair was morphologicaJly related
(specifically. the question was about etymology) and whether the relation had ever occurred to them
before (217-8). Clearly. questions of the development of morphological awareness are important for the
development of reanalyrical processes such as backformation (see the discussion of word creation for a
description) as well as for simpler operations such as agentive -tr affixation.
In the study, adults only gave strong positive responses for word pairs with a semantic similarity of ~
or greater and a phonological similarity of 1.75 or greater on a scale of 0-4 (Derwing & Baker 1979.
218). Children. by contrast. gave strong positive responses when tithtr dimension showed a similarity
greater than 3.5, as well as when both dimensions showed somewhat lower similarities (Derwing & Baker
1979. 221). A few examples ran afoul of specific etymological knowledge (as witnessed by jumps of 1 or
greater in the mean confidence rating between one group and the next. interpreted as the result of specific
instruction about the etymology of the pair (e.g. that holiday comes from holy) (Derwing & Baker 1979.
221).
Further work in the acquisition and complexity of grammatical morphemes was done by de Villiers
& de Villiers (1978). They worked with more (14) morphemes. and attempted to relate their data about
the acquisition order to the morphological complexity of the morphemes.
Order of acquisition of 14 grammatical morphemes (de Villiers 1978, 78)
morpheme
Average rank-ordering
Rank-ordering for the
for the children in Brown children in de Villiers
method 1
Towards an txp/ication oftht ro/t ofchild languagt in language changt
method 2
Pagt 10
present progressive
2
4
on
2.5
2
2
10
2.5
4
1
plural
4
2
3
past irregular
5
)
5
possessive
6
7
11
uncontraaible copula
7
12
10
articles
8
6
8
past regular
9
10.5
7
3rd person regular
10
10.5
12
3rd person irregular
11
8.5
6
uncontractible auxilliary
12
14
14
contractible copula
13
8.5
9
contractible auxilliary
14
13
13
method 1 involved ranking the morphemes according co the lowest MLU sample in which the
morpheme occurred in 90+% of the obligatory contexts (de Villiers 1978, 76), and method 2
involved summing the percentages across all the children and averaging, and ranking the morphemes
by the average accurate-use percentage.
ordering of 13 of the morphemes according to the number of transformations in the
derivation of each morpheme4 (de Villiers 1978. 80)
morpheme
Transformations
complexity
ranking
present progressive
Progressive affix
3
10
Preposition segment
3
on
preposition segment
3
articles
Article
3
past irregular
verbal agreement
3
past regular
verbal agreement. verb suffix
7
plural
noun suffix, article or nominal agreement
7
3rd person irregular
aux agreement, verbal agreement
7
3rd person regular
aux agreement, verbal agreement. verb suffix
10
contraaible copula
copula, aux agreement. aux incorporation
10
uncontraaible copula
copula. aux agreement, aux incorporation
10
contractible auxill iary
progressive affix, progressive segment
Towards an explication of the role ofchild language in language change
12.5
Page 11
uncontractible auxilliary
aux agreement, aux incorporation
12.5
13 morphemes from child speech, ordered according to number of unitary meanings expressed
or presupposed (de Vtlliers 1978. 82)
major meanings
complexity
ranking
temporary duration
4
in
containment
4
on
suppon
4
plural
number
4
past, irregular
earliness
4
possession
4
specific-nonspecific
4
3rd person. irregular or
regular
number. earliness
8.5
copula, contractible or
uncontractible
number. earliness
8.5
temporary duration,
number, earliness
10
morpheme
present progressive
possessive
articles
auxilliary. contractible or
uncontractible
Again, the morphological operations under consideration here are not of direct importance to my
study, but the data on their acquisition should be very helpful in fleshing out a picture of the acquisition ot
English morphology.
Word Creation
The area which most interests me. both in terms of acquisition and of adult production. is rather more
messy than normal derivational and inflectional morphology: word creation is a fairly complicated
process, and is made more so by the fact that noone agrees on the vocabulary with which to talk about it.
This is, of course. highly appropriate.
Nonetheless. historical linguists and developmental psycholinguists have developed completely
discrete methods of discussing word creation. which provides the student attempting to relate the two
approaches with some interesting problems. The major difference seems to consist of a disagreement
about what exactly constitutes a mechanism of word creation: the historical linguists use two distinct
levels of mechanisms: a fundamental or systematic level with mechanisms such as analogy (called fourpan analogy, but essentially no different from ordinary analogy) and leveling (Hock 1988. 167-89), and a
sporadic level with much more specific mechanisms such as blending, contamination. recomposition. folk
etymology, and backformation (Hock 1988. 189-209). By contrast. the psycholinguists and
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 12
morphologists who talk about word creation have emphasized what the historical linguists would call the
sporadic level, in large part because the systematic mechanisms operate on time scales far too gradual for
the changes to be visible on the time scales in which they are interested. The word formation processes
(WFPs) I will be discussing are compounding, blending, clipping, and rebracketing. There are other
mechanisms available, e.g. acronymy and arbitrary coinage, but they are not immediately relevant.
Acronymy produces new words, but has a strong orthographic component, and as such is not active in the
acquisition process, and arbitrary coinage, by virtue of the fact that the innovations have no antecedents, is
not conducive to drawing insightful comparisons between child and adult forms.
Mechanisms
Compounding
Compounding is the earliest-acquired (or perhaps only the earliest-productive) word creation strategy,
which is interesting given the morphological complexity of adult compounds. The fact that words which
are morphologically complex for adults are not so for children (Bowerman 1982, 323), however, suggests
that children's compounds may be the results of linear, concatenative processes rather than morphological
operations.
In adult speech, compounding is by far the freest and most productive morpheme combination
strategy (Bybee 1985, 108). For adults, it is a highly productive mechanism for generating new meanings
within a category (formations similar to space+ boat (Brown 1973 data, adam33.cha) or mail-person
(Clark 1982 data, shem06.cha) are commonly produced by adults as well), but it is also used
derivationally (e.g. for V->N conversion) by children. Derivational compounding appears before the
generally more productive mechanisms of derivational morphology (Clark 1981, 313), and remains
remarkably productive as a derivational strategy until 3;06 or so. The facts that compounding is used for
V->N conversion before derivational morphology, that the second word in agent compounds is strongly
constrained (almost always thing or man (Clark 1981, 316», and that (related to the constraint on the
second word) that the meaning of the compound is simply predictable from the meaning of its
components, suggests to me that compounding is not morphologically complex for small children.
Presumably, then, the simple concatenative approach to compounding is discarded in favour of
morphological processes as the child's morphological competence increases. 5 Similarly, clipping appears
to go through an initial and purely linear phase which will be discussed at greater length later.
If we look at three-year-olds' deverbal nouns, we see that compounding is of comparable productivity
with -er affixation for agent and instrument forms
3-year-olds' agent nominals (Clark 1981, 316)
%
conversion mechanism
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
50
N.
50
N+N
Nl+er.
Clark gives no examples. but lawn" and lawn-man are examples of the correct types
3-~ar-olds'
instrument nominals (Clark 1981. 317)
idiomatic
innovative
%
mechanism
%
mechanism
31
V+er
2S
V+er
33
N+N
3S
N+N
27
{V+N, N+V}
25
V
Again. Clark gives no examples. bue throw", throwing-thing, throw-thing. and throw are of the correct
types (V+er. N+N. V+N, and V, respectively).
Percent representation of WCMs for agent forms by age (Clark 1981. 321)
Age
V +er
compounding suppletive
derivation
example
3;0-3;08
55
21
3
3;09-4;05
90
5
2
4;06-5;02
76
5
10
5;03-6;0
91
2
3
Suppletive examples are, e.g., the use of knift or saw rather than
CUff" or
cut{ting)-thing when
prompted with "a thing that you cut with"
Percent representation ofWCMs for instrument forms by age (Clark 1981, 322)
Age
V +er
compounding suppletive
derivation
example
3;0-3;08
42
6
28
3;09-4;05
71
2
8
4;06-5;02
70
3
10
5;03-6;0
72
10
6
The discussion of the morphological status of compounding is funher complicated by the possibility
that compounding morphology may be acquired before derivational morphology. Donna Jo Napoli (p.c.)
has suggested that since, according to Lexical Phonology, the layer on which compounding takes place is
closer to the semantics than the (typically viewed as 'earlier') derivational layers, it may in fact be
acquired first. This seems quite plausible to me, but I have not investigated the possibility in any great
detail. The suggestion that the morphological layers are acquired from the top down would have very
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 14
intriguing implications for the theory. and should certainly be investigated further. The semantic
appearance of compounds still suggests that compounding goes through an initial concatenative phase. but
if the compounding layer is acquirede derivational layers. compounding may become morphological
much earlier than we would otherwise expect.
Reanalysis
Reanalysis should really be considered a supercategory. in that it includes several normally
distinguished WFPs, such as recomposition. folk erymology, and backformation. All of the
abovementioned processes can be interpreted as the result of inserting brackets into an existing word.
although the details are slightly different in each case. In the case of folk etymology, the reanalysis
matches a phoneme sequence with that of a word, as in som"sau/t -> tumb/fsau/t or [emf/Ie -> [emale. In
that ofbackformation, with that of an affix. as in backformation -> backform+ation. And in that of
recomposition. with JUSt about anything. as in bracket -> bra+ket. It is often convenient to refer to the
three processes separately. 6 bur it appears to me that by claiming them to be distinct mechanisms. rather
than variants of a single mechanism. linguists are mising a valuable generalization.
The folk etymology aspect of reanalysis begins to be attested for children much earlier than either of
the other two. This is unsurprising. given that the inflectional affixation paradigms necessary for
backformation are not acquired until 3-4 years of age, and (obvious) recomposirion requires a level of
morphological sophistication that should not be 'present until fairly late in the acquisition process.
Recomposition is a less-discussed word creation submechanism than either backformation or folk
etymology, so it probably should be described. in case I discuss any examples of it at some later point.
Recomposition is similar to clipping in that it produces new morphemes based upon (possible) syllable
boundaries rather than morpheme boundaries. but it seems to be much more analogical in its application
and idiomatic in terms of created meanings. and is thus like backformation. I t works by dividing a donor
word into multiple (usually 2) morphemes which can then participate in other morphological processes.
Recomposition can produce either free or bound morphemes. and has no clear restrictions except that any
morphs. it produces have to be syllabic. Rather incidentally. recomposition provides pretty strong
evidence for bracket erasure in that it divides lexical words into morphemes. which division is usually
diachronically inaccurate.
The best-known examples of splitting are only of peripheral interest in this paper because they are
known to have been produced by adults. but they are interesting because of the high level of productivity
that they currently exhibit. The most productive example involves alcohol which is actually quite an
interesting word because it has participated in splitting at at least two different points. one leading to
-oho/ and one to -oho/ie. The twO cases of splitting are represented as unconnected for two reasons:
a)
the creation of the morphemes -oho/ and -oho/ic occurred at drastically different times, and
b)
their meanings are almost totally unconnected. X-oho/ meaning 'X such that X has an aldehyde
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 15
group' and X-oholic 'someone addicted to X' (there is also an X-oholic which means containing X-ohol but
it was produced by derivational morphology and not by splitting.)
Reanalysis is generally far more productive among children than it is among adulrs. This is not
initially obvious: very few examples are attested. and certainly not enough to justify rhe claim. Howeve
·given that children initially acquire words as unanalyzed wholes (Bowerman 1982, 321). all
morphologically complex words which were acquired before ... 4;0 are examples of reanalysis, but are not
generally noticed as such because they coincide with the adult forms (indeed. that is how we get the adult
forms) and such forms generally go undetected (Clark 1981, 302). Similarly, inflectional paradigms are
simplified down to a single allomorph, and later expanded (although there may be intermediary
allomorph switching) (Bowerman 1982, 322), and a distributionally contrastive set of rules will be
simplified to a single rule which will be applied to the whole domain of the set, and subsequently the rule
paradigm will be reorganized (Bowerman 1982, 322).
Blending
Blending seems
to
be mostly an adult process, but there are plenty of examples of blending by
children (e.g. jack+a+weasel (Brown 1973 data, adam 19.cha), kersplode (Kuczaj 1977 data, abe 113.cha),
and raisin+branios (MacWhinney ChiLDES data, boys81.cha)). It is generally listed as being a discrete
word creation mechanism, bur it could, if there were theoretical or computational reasons for doing so,
alternately be analyzed in terms of clipping or ~ecomposition followed by morphological compounding
(Bauer 1983, 236). By analogy with the purely linear-concatenative compounding and MLU-prompted
clipping, I would suggest that there is an aspect of blending which is in fact purely phonological, but that
the process is a morphological one. Also, given the strong evidence that judgements about morphology are
based on phonological and semantic similarity (Derwing & Baker 1979, 217-21) I would expect
blending to lead to the formation of new morphemes.
Clipping
Clipping (or hypocoristics) consists of taking a syllable or possible syllable from a word, usually
from the one of the ends. and using it to represent the entire word. It therefore seems
to
violate the
Principle of Contrast, in that there is little or no initial semantic differentiation between the 'parent'
word and the clipped form, at least at first. Words such as diss (originally disrespecty) which persist in both
clipped and unclipped forms may have those forms undergo divergent semantic evolution, possibly driven
by Contrast.
Young children appear to have a specialized form of clipping, which may in fact avoid the violation of
the Principle of Contrast: clipping seems to be a strategy for allowing longer utterances in the face of
MLU restrictions, and as such may not constitute creation of a new lexical form, bur essentially be a
phonemectomy on words thac grow too long. I propose chis for
Towards an fXplication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
twO
reasons: first, is the analogy with chii
Page 16
compounding, which appears to be purely concatenative in its early form; second, there is a distinction
between the syllable retained in child clipping and that retained in 'normal' adult clipping. The syllable
that is kept in child clipping appears to correspond closely with the 'most salient' syllable of the word.
the one on which children focus in acquisition (generally, this is the most metrically or phonologically
prominent syllable, as in ); dipping among adults needn't retain the most salient syllable: examples such
as za for pizza or rents for parents retain the least prominent syllable. and are still perfectly
comprehensible.
Discussion
Several studies have been conducted on the acquisition of morphology, bm all of the language-specific
studies (e.g. Kuczaj 1977, Gleason 1978. Derwing & Baker 1979) have focused on very specific
mechanisms, e.g. the morphemes for past, or plural, or progressive aspect, or agentive -er, or adverbial -/y.
Studies on word creation have looked at compounding in some detail (e.g. Clark 1986, 1988), bur
apparently not at any of my other mechanisms.
I am attempting to redress this o~ission, at least in a programmatic way. Characterizing the
development of the productivity of word creation by children of course requires a large amount of data,
gathered over a fairly significant period, and is therefore entirely unsuited to the time constraints on an
undergraduate thesis. Fonunately, however, there is no requirement that a researcher gather her own data,
and the ChiLDES database has more than enough for any reasonable research programme.
Data analysis
I worked with the data from a number of researchers (see Appendix A for a list, and a table of all the
neologisms I found in the data), using the CLAN program combo to search for neologisms. and the mit
program to get word counts for normalization purposes.
Word and utterance counts from ChiLDES, grouped by age range
age
utterances
turns
words
w/u
0;6 - 1;0
3
3
13
4.33
1;0 - 1;06
976
494
1473
1.51
1;06 - 2;0
13068
6611
21831
1.67
2;0 - 2;06
20916
11115
47233
2.26
2;06 - 3;0
76102
49475
237242
3.12
3;0 - 3;06
63236
39934
242552
3.84
3;06 -4;0
35172
23175
161058
4.58
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 17
4;0 - 4;06
30611
20038
137003
4.48
4;06 - 5;0
26816
15722
121271
4.52
5;0 - 5;06
15907
10993
72754
4.57
5;06 - 6:0
10837
8275
52485
4.84
6;0 - 6;06
4702
3478
22313
4.75
6;06 -7;0
5025
3251
21171
4.21
7:0 -7;06
9042
6188
37303
4.12
7;06 - 8;0
1727
1266
7260
4.20
8;0 - 8;06
522
398
2373
4.55
Since the data were formatted in CHAT, I searched for the patterns '*+ '* (which matches any word
which has been transcribed with the + morpheme boundary) and *@* (matches any neologisms identified
by the transcriber). The resulting data are rather skewed, in that some ages had more data than others. I
therefore used the word counts from mIt to scale the word creation counts. The number of occurrances of
neologisms, soned by age and mechanism, and normalized to the overall word counts in each age range,
are included in the table below. There are cenain to be examples missing. as I have eliminated
neologisms produced by word creation mechanisms studied by other researchers from this table (e.g.
examples of agentive -er affixation and past tense regularization. while present in the corpus (Appendix '
are not included in my tables or statistics.
Neologism counts from ChiLDES. normalized to the number of words
Age range
blending
tokens
%
clipping
compounding nonce creation
tokens
%
tokens
%
tokens
%
1;0 - 1;06
0.002
0.20
0.005
0.01
0.001
0.02
1:6 - 2:0
0.018
1.51
0.018
0.26
2:0 - 2;6
0.159
13.05
2.789
4.95
0.199
0.400
32.78
18.614
33.05
0.409
33.52
21.895
reanalysis
tokens
%
2.82
0.040
1.946
2.402
33.94
0.600
29.32
38.87
3.683
52.05
1.023
49.95
4.620
8.20
0.408
5.76
0.136
6.63
3.583
6.36
0.116
1.63
2.865
5.09
0.205
2.89
0.205
9.99
5;6 - 6;0
1.505
2.67
0.044
0.63
0.044
2.16
6:0 - 6:6
0.264
0.47
2:6 - 3;0
0.200
16.59
3:0 - 3;6
3;6 - 4;0
0.543
45.06
4:0 - 4;6
0.462
38.33
4;6 - 5;0
0.231
18.93
5:0 - 5;6
Towards an ~plication ofth( rol( ofchild languag( in languagf changf
6;6 -7;0
0.054
0.10
7;0 -7;6
0.125
0.22
7;6 - 8;0
0.006
0.01
Since not all researchers use the + morpheme boundary marker or the @ innovation marker in their
transcriptions. and those who use it do not do so with perfect consistency. this list is almost certainly
incomplete. However, there are several clear patterns in the data, and some of them are even genuine. The
most obvious pattern is that compounding is a vastly more productive method of word creation than any
other. This is very likely true, but if so, my data don't indicate it: my inspection of several of the data
files suggests that the use of the + marker in the transcriptions is far more reliable than that of @. I found
very few compounds that were unlabeled, and many more neologisms that were produced by other means.
I am therefore hesitant to accept as real the ratios of the productivities suggested by these data.
Obviously, in an attempt to categorize the productivity and acquisition of word creation mechanisms,
it would be nice to be able to relate the relative productivities as well as the changes in a particular
mechanism's productiviry with age. Since I can't do it by automated search, I could (obviously) do it
manually: read all of the transcriptions on ChiLDES and note down all of the neologisms. If I had opted
to do this, you would be first reading this thesis around the year 2000. Instead, I have conducted a similar
investigation of the data in another, much smaller, set of transcripts (Parkhurst & Gottman 1986). In these.
I have compared the relative but not the absolute productivity of several mechanisms. assuming that my
reading is not biased toward detecting any particular one.
Instances of word creation, sorted by age (Parkhurst& Gottman 1986 data)
age range
mechanism
tokens
lexemes
2;06 - 3;0 clipping
3
3
2;06 - 3;0 compounding
2
2
2;06 - 3;0 compounding (L)
1
2;06 - 3;0 null conversion
1
3;0 - 3;06 compounding (R)
4;0 - 4;06 adjectival -y affixation
4;0 - 4;06 backformation
4;0 - 4;06 compounding
4
4
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 19
4;06 - 5;0 blending
1
4;06 - 5;0 blending
1
4;06 - 5;0 clipping
1
4;06 - 5;0 compounding
10
10
4;06 - 5;0 null conversion
2
2
5;0 - 5;06 adjectival -y affixation
2
2
5;0 - 5;06 clipping
3
3
5;0 - 5;06 compounding
13
13
5;0 - 5;06 nonce creation
1
5;0 - 5;06 agentive -er affIXion
5;0 - 5;06 null conversion
5;0 - 5;06 reanalysis
6;06 - 7;0 clipping
1
1
6;06 - 7;0 compounding (R)
In most of these cases, compounding was the most productive mechanism, but by much less than in the
ChiLDES data. Unfortunately, the overlap between the ChiLDES and Parkhurst & Gottman data was
small enough that I am leery of trying to use the latter to scale the relative productiviry of the
mechanisms in the former in any but the roughest way (although they do seem to support my impression
that I am missing a significant number of non-compounding neologisms in the ChiLDES data.
The identification of word creation mechanisms should be simple: certainly the morphological
processes involved are fairly distinctive, and there should be little or no risk of confusing, e.g., instances of
compounding with blending, or reanalysis with clipping. There certainly are some fuzzy cases, but I feel
fairly confident about most of my classifications.
Conclusions
Possible links between language acquisition and language change
The original impetus for this study was an interest in how an understanding of child word creation and
acquisition, and any morphological or statistical signals it might leave, could be used to identify the
instigators of linguistic change. Historical linguists have argued even more strongly for child motivation
of language change than have the psycholinguists. although the arguments have typically been very general.
Towards an explication ofthe rOle ofchild language in language change
Page 20
The major argument for children's driving language change is based on the fact that the grammars of
adults do not undergo reorganizarion, although they may undergo other, simpler modifications (King
1969, 65). Evidence for this is seen in the inability of adults to acquire additional languages (although
they may learn them) (King 1969,66) and in the existence of hypercorrection (King 1969,69·71).
The argument is that children's grammars are oprimizing: computational constraints and smaller
gramatical base make simplification of the grammar both possible and necessary (King 1969, 65). The
status of this claim is rather unclear, however: certainly, children fed the output of an adult rule that, e.g.,
always replaces one phoneme with another (lhwl -> [w], or, more formally, [.voc, .cons] ->
0
I_
[.voc,
·cons, +backD have no reason to learn the adult underlying form (lhwl) when their input corpus doesn't
contain it (King 1969,81); in situations where two different rule systems will produce the same output,
then, the child would be expected to adopt the simpler form in her grammar. This picture is clearly over·
simple, although it avoids the claim that language acquisition should drive grammars universally to
maximal simplicity. Of course, it only avoids the claim because the optimal form of the grammar is
usually much less clear than in the example above: due to morpho phonological stem alternations in
Modern English (e.g. between goose and gosling, keep and kept, etc.), either the underlying vowels must be
left in their pre.Great.Vowel.Shift state and rules (presumably similar to those involved in the vowel
Shift itself) added to provide for the vowel contrast (King 1969, 83) or each (morphologically related)
form must be listed seperately in the lexicon. The cost of a great many extra lexical entries may well
outweigh the cost of an additional phonological rule, but as either would produce the same output, I
would want to see some data from speech error or lexical access experiments before pronouncing on which
form was used.
On a syntactic level, King argues for reorganization (and thus for child agency) in cases such as the rule
sequence Case marking -> Wh·movement -> Whom·replacement (replaced by Wh·movement -> Case
marking) (King 1969, 142·9)
These examples of restructuring, of course, are not what Melissa Bowerman (1982) means by the term,
as they are all cases where the child could have learned the simple form directly, the more complex form
being present only in the previous generation. Bowerman uses reorganization to refer to internal processes
whereby the child's syntactic or morphological rules are restructured internally. While her version of
grammatical restructuring is much more interesting than King's, it is less useful for determiningachronic
work, since the high time·resolution data on individual children are simply not present historically.
A more interesting problem would be to find specific historical changes which were identifiably
caused by children in a reasonably narrow age range. I have not found any examples that are definitely in
this category, but there are some suggestive possibilities.
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 21
It has been proposed (Shipley 1991) mat the use of thtt in both nominative and objective case among
Quakers (rather than the historically more venerable use of thte only for objective case) originated among
the children in the community. This hypothesis is based on her observations of differences between chile!
and parental use of the Plain Speech (Shipley 1991, 179 and passim) rather than simply on the common
assumption that all language change begins among children. The case she draws seems quite plausible, but
requires some history first. When the Quakers adopted the thoulthttlthylthine paradigm (henceforth
referred to as T for convenience) for use wirh everyone, all of the paradigm was still in use in the general
English-speaking community, as well as the pronouns yt. you. you. your. and yours (collectively referred to
as v). By me late 16th century. yt and you were used interchangeably, and by the early 18th century. yt had
disappeared altogether (Shipley 1991, 179). During the 17th century, T dropped out of common English
usage, in part because of distaste for its usage by Quakers (Shipley 1991, 172). Gradually, thou
disappeared from the Plain Speech over the 18th, 19th. and early 20th centuries (179). Shipley proposed
that this disappearance of thou occurred as a result of the use ofv by Quaker children in heterogenous
communities. If children noticed that where non-Quakers used you, Quakers sometimes used thtt and
sometimes thou (note rhar rhe disappearance of thou significantly posrdares the disappearance of ye). the
distinction might well seem arbitrary. in which case rhe simplest solution would be due to use one of the
Quaker forms exclusively when speaking to other Quakers (Shipley 1991. 179). Thee would be the
obvious choice of the two, because of its similarities to he. she. we. and mt. Shipley proposes that such
changes were stimulated by corrections by parents with a strong commitment to the Plain Speech. but.
given the apparent unwillingness by children to consider parental correction as evidence in language
acquisition. it seems more likely that the change would have occurred in communities with a large Quaker
minority, in which case extrafamilial positive evidence would present the child with both paradigms. and
thee would be marked as the preferred form by the rime rhe child's greater undersranding of social
relationships made her use ofT predominant in speech to other Quakers. I should note here that Shipley's
assertion that the disappearance of thou was due to parental correction is not incompatible with the fact
that children do not immediately respond to parental corrections (e.g, MacWhinney 1978. 8 (rule 3»
because the modification in child useage is not assumed to take place immediately bur rather at some
point in adolescence when rhe child. who presumably has noted thar T is an adult pronominal form. begins
to use it as a social device (if I speak like an adult. I will be treated like one).
The child language data raise some interesting questions about mulrilingualism and
multidialectalism. The word creation data suggests that words are added to the general lexicon via
subgroup (dialect) vocabularies. Since there is a strong opposition to having multiple forms with the same
meaning in a given language (there is a weaker opposition to having multiple meanings with the same
form. but that's not immediately relevant). and opposition to having multiple forms with the same
Towards an explication of the role ofchild language in language change
Page 22
meaning among biligual children before the age of three. even when those forms are in different languages.
Giects are typically assigned an intermediate status between ideolects and languages. it would be
interesting to observe the acceptance rate for created words as a function of age (I have only considered
production)
Given the stronger form of the Principle of Contrast (allow no two forms with the same meaning)
among young children. the borrowing of French animal names as English meat names immediately after
the Norman Conquest appears promising as a possible child-driven change. My scenario would be that the
initial change in meaning in going from boeu/to bee/may have been the result of overextension by an
English child (probably in the household of a noble. or she would never have heard French) in an effort to
avoid conflict between the new term and the existing term she knew it contrasted with.
Proposals for further study
In order to establish a clear hierarchy of morphological complexity. productivity, and acquisition
order for the word creation mechanisms I have been investigating, some specific pieces of data are
necessary: a more accurate search mechanism for clipping, blending, and reanalysis would do admirably.
but a somewhat larger corpus for manual search (such as are available on ChiLDES) would do as well. as
would an elicitation study for words to fill known lexical gaps.
Such a study would need to keep several methodological questions in mind: in eliciting neologisms
from a broad age range. either lexical gaps would need to be found which are not only gaps for both adults
and children. but for which a need would be perceived by both groups. or equal numbers would need to be
found which were illegitimate for each group; since it appears that linguistic elicitation cues have a
significant effect on the form of created words (Clark 1981. 322). a set of prompts needs to be found
which is either nonlinguistic or which has enough variety in the prompts for the effects of the phrasing to
cancel out. I have compiled a partial list of lexical gaps (with most of the obviously age-specific
examples eliminated) to this end. but the list would clearly need to be expanded for such a study
A panial list of lexical gaps for a future elicitation study of child word creation
a small, annoying dog
the sudden irrational desire
[0
do something
completely foolish in a formal situation
the superstitious practice of asserting something
the fear that you will spontaneously and
dire about the future in hopes that this will somehow involuntarily do something stupid and dangerous in
any situation
keep it from taking place
the bunch of keys hiding in the back of a drawer that the amount by which a price in the store is less than a
sensible amount
you don't know what they're for
those sticks for stirring paint
the little dance you do when you really have to pee
and can't
Towards an ~plication o/the role o/child language in language change
Page 23
the cwo liccle lines that come down from your nose
che amount by which the heighc of a wave exceeds
the height to which you have rolled up your panes
the safe place where you put things where you then
any cechnical or "childproof' device which
can't find them
grownups can'c make work buc any child can
the place behind the cushions where all the small
things you lose from your pockets end up
a drawing made by a child for which no adult can
identify the subject
anything which you drag along a fence or wall to
make a noise (esp. a stick)
to go through the motions of an action while
speaking. to remind you of che word for it
the peace that passeth all understanding
nonsexual love becween friends
something which juscifies having a really good cry
a person who pulls a wagon
things which are broken and irreparable vs. things
which are broken and either still usable or fixable
to give someone a present chac they don' t want but
you do
the hideous gifts your relatives give you which you
the drawer, usually in people's kitchens, where
are expected to admire and use when chey are
visiting
random small objeccs like cwisties. paper clips.
botcle lids, string and so on are stored. in no
parcicular order (cf. whatnot)
Someone who hogs the swings
your mocher's best friend
the feel of cold wacer sloshing over the coes of your
rubber boocs
a bully who hurts someone anJ precends he's playing
so he doesn'c gec in crouble
Such funher studies, together with the data I have gathered thus far, should make it possible to
accurately characterize the acquisition of word creation mechanisms in English, and rhus to tighten and
clarify the link between diachronic and developmental psycholinguistics.
1Pinker
assumes thac children are sec up to learn Bresnan & Kaplan's Lexical Functional Grammar, (Pinker 1984, 14, and
see 14-21 for an overview of LFG) but the specific UG acquired is not important for my concerns.
2 It has been argued that the distinction between phonology, syncax, morphology, semandcs, and pragmadcs is nonexistent
for children, whatever its status for adults.
3The acquisition of grammar is quite clearly bound to the acquisition of grammatical morphemes such as tense markers
or agenrive and instrumental
-~r,
but it does not seem to be connected to word creation processes such as clipping or blending in
any way. Hence. not tightly bound.
4de Villiers & de Villiers use Jacobs & Rosenbaum's transformational grammar in their analyses for the sake of
compatibility with Brown (1973).
'I would expect to see, given enough data, a slight dip in the productivity of compounding (and other creation mechanisms
as well) at the point when it becomes morphologically complex rather than concatenative.
Towards an explication of th( rol( ofchild languagf in languagf change
6And, indeed, I will probably do so, my ranting against overspecificity notwithstanding.
Towards an explication oftht rolt ofchild Ianguagt in language changt
Pagt25
Appendix A: Child neologism data
From the ChiLDES database
In this list of child coinages, line numbers have been omitted for space reasons, since a search of a
single file under combo takes at most a few seconds on a Macintosh, and presumably even less on a UN*X
workstation.
Also for space reasons, the name of the principle researcher (actually, the person after whom the
ChiLDES subdirectory was named) has been used in identifying the files and utterances used. Data are to
be attributed as follows:
Researcher
Citation
Bohannon
Bohannon and Marquis 1977, Stine and Bohannon 1983
Brown
Brown 1973
Clark
Clark 1978a, Clark 1978b, Clark 1979, Clark 1982
Evans
no citation
Fletcher
Fletcher & Garman 1988, Johnson 1986
Garvey
Garvey & Hogan 1973
Gathercole
Gathercole 1980
Gleason
Bellinger & Gleason 1982, Masur & Gleason 1980
Ku~j
KUC2j 1976, KUC2j 1977
MacWhinney
no citation
Sachs
Sachs 1983
Snow
no citation
Warren
Warren·Leubecker & Bohannon 1984,
Warren·Leubecker 1982
Wells
Wells 1981, Wells 1986
All data from the ChiLDES database are courtesy of Brian MacWhinney and Catherine Snow
(MacWhinney & Snow 1985, MacWhinney & Snow 1990)
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Wells
ben;am04.cha
Benjamin
1;01.30
mo"ow
romorrow
1
Brown
adam06.cha
Adam
1;05.12
rumble +been
[Nj ??
3
Wells
ben;am02.cha
Benjamin
1;05.21
lone
??
The role ofchild language in linguistic change
Page 26
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Wells
france02.cha
Frances
1:06.1
Pttp+bo
??
L
Wclls
benjam03.cha
Bcn;amin
1:08.27
blips
slippers
3
Wclls
ben;am03.cha
Bcnjamin
1:08.27
morning
a train
10
Sachs
nl1.cha
Naomi
1;10.10
btt/Hating
is eating beef
Sachs
nl1.cha
Naomi
1:10.10
home+home
to go home
Sachs
n33.cha
Naomi
1:11.29
drop+arop
perhaps a medicine-dropper 1
1
??
Sachs
n23.cha
Naomi
1;11.6
drop+drops
the contents of a drop-drop
3
Sachs
n45.cha
Naomi
2:01.7
mg+ling+ling
??
1
Clark
shem02.cha
Shem
2:02.23
bandaid+paper
cither the envelope or the
adhesive backing of a bandaid
1
Clark
shem02.cha
Shem
2:02.23
uuider+cover
(NJ ??
1
Clark
shem02.cha
Shem
2:02.23
/adder+m4n
(N] ??
1
Clark
shem02.cha
Shem
2;02.23
/awn +mower
a person who mows the lawn 2
Clark
shem02.cha
Shem
2;02.23
mow+/awner
a person who mows the lawn
Wells
;ack05.cha
Jack
2;02.25
police car +bike
a police motorcycle
1
Clark'
shem04.cha
Shem
2;03.16
boco+man
(N] ??
2
Clark
shem04.cha
Shem
2;03.16
fire+light
a flashlight
3
Clark
shem04.cha
Shem
2;03.16
jar+cookies
cookies that are kept in a
jar
Brown
adam02.cha
Adam
2:03.18
choo+ch{1() track
a train track '(this suggests
nonce compounding since
train track should be
referenrially opaque)
Brown
adam02.cha
Adam
2;03.18
gree(n)+jea(m)
green (blue) jeans
2
Brown
adam02.cha
Adam
2;03.18
gree(n)+jea(ns} marching
bellr
a marching bear which
wears green+jeans
1
Brown
adam02.cha
Adam
2;03.18
suitcllse water
(N] ??
1
Brown
adam02.cha.
-03.cha. -OS.cha
Adam
2;03.182;04.30
Ttxllco+Star
the star from the Texaco
logo ??
6
Brown
sarah003.cha
Sarah
2:03.19
fish wa(ter)
water that fish swim in ??
1
Clark
shem03.cha
Shem
2;03.2
bunny+rabbit record
a record with a song about a 1
bunny-rabbit ??
Towards an txplication oftht rolt ofchild language in language change
Page 27
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
Wells
beuy05.cha
Betty
2;03.2
cockle+doo baby
[N] ??
Clark
shem03.cha
Shem
2;03.2
play+dough
[0
Clark
shem03.cha
Shem
2;03.2
snowpen+man ?
[Nj ??
Clark
shem03.cha
Shem
2;03.2
space+tkle
[N] ??
Clark
shem06.cha
Shem
2;03.28
mail+pmon
a mail carrier
Clark
shem06.cha
Shem
2;03.28
person +mail
a mail carrier
2
Clark
shem06.cha
Shem
2;03.28
skate+car
a game
2
Brown
adamOI.cha
Adam
2;03.4
hunny+rahhit walk
a walk like that of a bunnyrahhit
Brown
adamOI.cha
Adam
2;03.4
/adder fire truck
a hook-and-Iadder truck
Wells
garyOS.cha
Gary
2;03.4
Pasting+board
a board for pasting things
#
play with play-dough
2
2
I
on
Brown
adamOI.cha
Adam
2;03.4
wu+wu+home
the game this little piggy...
3
Brown
adam01.cha.
-02.cha
Adam
2;03.42;03.18
too+man
a tattooed man??
21
Brown
sarah002.cha
Sarah
2;03.7
teddy +bear
any stuffed (or cute and
I
harmless) animal
(concluded from the use of
teddy-bear bear to mean
teddy-bear)
Brown
sarah007.cha.
-009.cha.
-OIO.cha.
-013.cha.
-019.cha.
-020.cha.
-024.cha.
-030.cha.
-044.cha.
-OSS.cha.
-071.cha.
-092.cha
Sarah
2;04.104;01.18
Chatty+baby
[name of doll]
61
Brown
sarahOlO.cha
Sarah
2;04.19
Poor+Pony
[name of horse]
13
Clark
shem08.cha
Shem
2;04.20
daddy+whul
[N] ??
1
Clark
shem08.cha
Shem
2;04.20
motor +thing
a thing with a motor; a
1
machine
Clark
shem09.cha
Shem
2;04.25
book+one
a book
Clark
shem09.cha
Shem
2;04.25
letter +man
a mail carrier
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
2
Page 28
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Clark
shem09.cha
Shem
2:04.25
pictur~+door
[N] ??
2
Clark
shem09.cha
Shem
2:04.25
pr~smt+on~
a present
,;
Clark
shem09.cha
Shem
2:04.25
thi~f+man
a thief
1
Clark
shcm07.cha
Shem
2:04.4
batur+man
??
1
Wells
gavin05.cha
Gavin
2:04.4
Bib +boss
??
1
Wells
gavin05.cha
Gavin
2:04.4
bib+on~
a bib
2
Wells
gavin05.cha
Gavin
2:04.4
plis+Tnan
[N] ??
1
Wells
gavinOS.cha
Gavin
2;04.4
pliss+on~
[N] ??
1
Clark
shem07.cha
Shem
2:04.4
r~ading+th~+books+the+m
the man reading the books
1
an
Wells
gavin05.cha
Gavin
2:04.4
Sold+i" policmum
a policeman who is a
soldier (an MP ??)
1
Sachs
n58.cha
Naomi
2:04.5
Friar+Tuck
[N] ??
3
Clark
sheml2.cha
Shem
2:05.16
butterfly +shirt
[N] ??
1
Clark
sheml2.cha
Shem
2:05.16
garag~+door
the door to the garage
3
Clark
shem12.cha
Shem
2;05.16
houu+door
the door to a house
3
Clark
shem12.cha
Shem
2:05.16
key+C/ock
[N] ??
1
Snow
nathOlb.cha
Nathan
2;05.18
go~d+zo
??
8
Snow
nathOI b.cha.
-Olc.cha
Nathan
2;05.18
gunky
[Nj ??
7
Snow
nathOlb.cha.
-06.cha. -05.cha.
-16.cha.
Nathan
2;05.18
slupy+suit
pyjamas
13
Clark
shem1 O.cha
Shem
2;05.2
fry+pancakes
fried pancakes
2
Clark
sheml0.cha
Shem
2;05.2
store +man
a storekeeper
Kuczaj
abe007.cha
Abe
2;05.20
zig+zag
zig+zag !
6
Clark
shem13.cha
Shem
2;05.23
bup+thing
a thing that goes beep beep
1
Clark
shem13.cha
Shem
2;05.23
bug+tiance
a dance which bugs do
Kuczaj
abe009.cha
Abe
2;05.23
cock +a +doodle +doo
a rooster ??
Clark
shem13.cha
Shem
2;05.23
dog+party
a party for dogs
2
Clark
sheml3.cha
Shem
2;05.23
e/~phan(t)+trunk
the trunk of an elephant
1
Clark
sheml3.cha
Shem
2;05.23
flod+bowl
a bowl to put food in
1
Clark
sheml3.cha
Shem
2:05.23
rabbit+garden
a garden for rabbits ??
2
Clark
shem13.cha
Shem
2;05.23
smoke +box
a box with smoke coming
oue
Towards an txp/ication oftht raft ofchild language in languagt change
Page 29
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Clark
shem13.cha
Shem
2;05.23
trnnis+playing+bal/
a tennis ball
1
Wells
benjam06.cha
Benjamin
2;05.28
wohhly+woo
??
1
Sachs
n61.cha
Naomi
2:05.3
y~sur+ morning
yesterday morning
2
Clark
shem1 4.cha
Shem
2;05.30
rngin~+one
[N] ??
Clark
shem14.cha
Shem
2:05.30
garage+hose
the hose in the garage
Clark
shem14.cha
Shem
2;05.30
garag~+thing
a thing that belongs in the
garage
Gleason
dinner:
Patricia
2:05.30
pickk fork
a fork for eating pickles
with
1
patricia.cha
1
Sachs
n62.cha
Naomi
2;05.8
Donkry +Benjamin
[name] ??
5
Sachs
n62.cha
Naomi
2;05.8
nappy+tim~
the time for changing
1
diapers
Clark
shemll.cha
Shem
2:05.9
hahy+ftoggie
a tadpole
Clark
shemll.cha
Shem
2;05.9
mommy+ftoggje
a frog who is a mommy
2
Clark
sheml1.cha
Shem
2;05.9
pancak~+book
the book about pancakes
10
Clark
sheml1.cha
Shem
2;05.9
smile Hhirt
??
2
Clark
shemll.cha
Shem
2;05.9
snajl+foot
a snail's foO[
1
Clark
shemll.cha
Shem
2;05.9
stirring+bowl
a bowl for stirring things in
(cf. mixing bowl)
Clark
shemll.cha
Shem
2;05.9
wheel+wattr
a water-wheel
Snow
nath02.cha
Nathan
2:06.0
sing/~+duk"
Wells
darren06.cha
Darren
2;06.1
ban+an
a bandage
Brown
adam08.cha
Adam
2;06.17
road paptr
[N] ??
Brown
adam08.cha
Adam
2;06.17
tape recorder
roll of film
1
Snow
nath08.cha
Nathan
2;06.25
bibble+wibblt
??
2
Snow
nath08.cha,
Nathan
2;06.25 3;04.18
SUCkYHuck
perhaps a pacifier ??
5
1
-25.cha
bus
2
single+decker bus
Clark
sheml6.cha
Shem
2;06.27
drum +thing
a thing you can drum on
Clark
shem16.cha
Shem
2:06.27
drummtr+thing
a thing you can drum on
Clark
sheml6.cha
Shem
2;06.27
drummingHhing
a thing for drumming with
2
Brown
adam07.cha
Adam
2;06.3
Popty~
a walker for Popeye
3
walk"
(cf. baby walker)
Brown
sarahO 16.cha,
-030.cha
Towards an ~xplication ofth~
Sarah
ro/~
2;06.42;09.20
ofchild language in
Tickle+Baby
languag~ chang~
[proper name] ??
2
Page 30
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
Clark
sheml5.cha
Shem
2;06.6
bo(at) +car
either a car that pulls a boat 3
or one thar can float like
one.
Clark
sheml5.cha
Shem
2;06.6
jireungine+car
a car associated with fire
engines (e.g. [he fire chiefs
car)
2
Clark
sheml5.cha
Shem
2;06.6
sign +truck
a truck with a sign on it
1
Clark
sheml7.cha
Shem
2;07.10 . floor +thing
Clark
sheml7.cha
Shem
2;07.10
flooring+thing
[N) ??
Clark
sheml7.cha
Shem
2;07.10
head+board
[N) ??
Clark
sheml7.cha
Shem
2;07.10
mi/l+part
a millstone ??
Clark
sheml7.cha
Shem
2;07.10
outside+book
a book you can take outside
Clark
sheml7.cha
Shem
2;07.10
outside+door
a door to the outside
Clark
sheml7.cha
Shem
2;07.10
town +thing
[N) ??
Brown
sarah021.cha
Sarah
2;07.12
boo +boo hand
??
Brown
sarah021.cha
Sarah
2;07.12
Booby +Bear
[proper name)
1
Kuczaj
abe024.cha
Abe
2;07.15
right oh diliry+oh
perhaps hi-ho-the-derry-o
3
Sachs
n68.cha
Naomi
2;07.16
potty+pan
a bedpan ??
2
Clark
sheml8.cha
Shem
2;07.18
bon thing
a box
Clark
sheml8.cha
Shem
2;07.18
door+home
[N] ??
Clark
sheml8.cha
Shem
2;07.18
exercius+ book
an exercise-book
3
Clark
sheml8.cha
Shem
2;07.18
mark+covrr
the cap of a marker pen ??
2
Clark
sheml8.cha
Shem
2;07.18
part+table
[NJ ??
Clark
sheml8.cha
Shem
2;07.18
water+name
the name of some water
Clark
sheml8.cha
Shem
2;07.18
water+tail
a paimbrush
Clark
shem19.cha
Shem
2;07.26
ball+ehair
??
2
Clark
sheml9.cha
Shem
2;07.26
minky+brd
a house
1
Clark
sheml9.cha
Shem
2;07.26
mommy+deer ?
a deer who is a mommy
2
Clark
shem19.cha
Shem
2;07.26
open+game
a kind of game
Clark
sheml9.cha
Shem
2;07.26
s(h)oe+part ?
??
Brown
sarah020.cha
Sarah
2;07.5
Tony+Pony fingrrs
[N) ??
Sachs
n69.cha
Naomi
2;08.14
al/+gony
characterized by being all
gone
Clark
shem21 b.cha
Shem
2;08.15
boy+onr
a boy
Towards an (Xp/icalion ofthe role ofchild language in language change
#
[N) ??
3
1
2
1
Page 31
word
gloss
#
pancake+one
the one about pancakes
(same referent as pancakebook)
1
2:08.15
xxx +horn
[N] ??
1
Shem
2:08.15 2;11.10
cry+one
someone who cries
3
shem22b.cha
Shem
2;08.20
baby+pig.r
pigs which are babies
1
Clark
shem22a.cha
Shem
2;08.20
baby+song
a song for babies (or about
babies ?)
1
Clark
shem22b.cha
Shem
2;08.20
baseball +pad
??
Clark
shem22a.cha
Shem
2:08.20
grown+up plale
a plate for grownups
Clark
shem22a.cha
Shem
2;08.20
living+room chair
the chair in the living room
Clark
shem22b.cha
Shem
2:08.20
man +nightmare
[N] ??
Clark
shem22b.cha
Shem
2:08.20
tantrum+book
??
Clark
shem22a.cha
Shem
2:08.20
tortilla +momler
a monster who loves
tortillas
(cf. cookie monster)
Wells
martin07.cha
Martin
2;08.24
mo+mo
a pedal car
Clark
shem23.cha
Shem
2;08.29
animal+movie
a movie about animals
1
Clark
shem23.cha
Shem
2;08.29
mommy+ ra bbit
a rabbit who is a mommy
1
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2;08.3
bake+one ?
a baker ??
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2;08.3
duck+one
a duck
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2;08.3
egg+thing
an egg
4
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2;08.3
foucet+wheel
a faucet handle
4
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2;08.3
flot+book
[N] ??
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2;08.3
grown+up spoon
a spoon for grownups
2
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2;08.3
outsitU+thing
a thing for using au (Side
1
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2:08.3
present +book
a book brought as a present
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2;08.3
snake+one
a snake or a thing like a
snake
Clark
shem20.cha
Shem
2;08.3
sun +thing
a parasol ??
Gathercole
Ol.cha
Jeff
2;09
grow ups
grows up
MacWhin ney
ross25.cha
Ross
2;09.0
car +street
a street that cars go on
Wells
benjam07.cha
Benjamin
2;09.1
brum
to sweep ??
3
Wells
benjam07.cha
Benjamin
2:09.1
finzy
tiny
2
researcher
file
speaker
Clark
shem21 a.cha
Shem
·2:08.15
Clark
shem21 a.cha
Shem
Clark
shem21 b.cha.
-32.cha
Clark
age
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
2
1
1
Page 32
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
Clark
shem24.cha
Shem
2i09.1
m~ss+room
[N] ??
Clark
shem26.cha
Shem
2i09.19
s/~dHhing
a sled
~
Clark
shem27b.cha
Shem
2;09.27
clichthing
a ching which clicks
2
Clark
shem27b.cha
Shem
2;09.27
spinning+thinf/
tops
1
Kuczaj
abe043.cha
Abe
2:09.30
potter
??
1
Kuczaj
abe043.cha
Abe
2:09.30
potter+ potter
[occupation] ??
1
Clark
shem28b.cha
Shem
2;10.2
baby Hru
a baby trce
1
Clark
shem28a.cha
Shem
2;10.2
b~d+man
someone who can change
seats into beds
1
Clark
shem28b.cha
Shem
2:10.2
daddy+on~
a daddy
Clark
shem28a.cha
Shem
2:10.2
fir~+chief car
the cae belonging to che fire
chief
Clark
shem28a.cha
Shem
2;10.2
fir~+mgine on~
a fire engine
Clark
shem28a.cha
Shem
2;10.2
fir~+r~scue
a rescue from a fire
Clark
shem28a.cha
Shem
2:10.2
go+light
a green craffic lighc
Clark
shem28a.cha
Shem
2:10.2
scratch Hhing.r
claws
Clark
shem28a.cha
Shem
2:10.2
smoke +mask
a smoke fileration mask
Clark
shem28b.cha
Shem
2:10.2
tru+branch
ehe branch of a tree
",
Kuczaj
abe050.cha
Abe
2:10.22
willy +willy
a ching chac sometimes you
squeeze and someeimes you
don'c
5
Brown
ad~m17.cha
Adam
2il0.30
airplan~
[N] ??
Brown
adaml7.cha
Adam
2:10.30
Buddy+Shaddy
[proper name] ??
2
Kuczaj
abe052.cha.
-115.cha
Abe
2:10.30
corn +butter
[N] ??
4
Brown
adam 17.cha.
-18.cha. -22.cha.
-23.cha. -25.cha.
-26.cha. -28.cha.
-29.cha
Adam
2ilO.303:04.18
ShaJow+Gay
[proper name]
40
Clark
shem31 b.cha
Shem
2; 11.1
ey~s+brow
eyebrows
1
Clark
shem31 a.cha
Shem
2;11.1
jumping+trick
a crick involving jumping
1
Clark
shem31 a.cha
Shem
2:11.1
snow+ball+man
a snowman
3
Clark
shem32b.cha
Shem
2:11.10
(pits)Hap~
??
1
Clark
shem32a.cha
Shem
2;11.10
barbuue +thing
a barbecue grill
Clark
shem32a.cha
Shem
2;11.10
cello
[0
shooter
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild. language in language change
#
play the cello
Page 33
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Clark
shem32b.cha
Shem
2:11.10
mist+har~
Mister
1
Clark
shem32b.cha
Shem
2:11.10
nUT1+tr~ss~s
??
1
Clark
shem32b.cha
Shem
2;11.10
strut+walk
a crosswalk ??
Brown
adaml8.cha
Adam
2;11.13
tig" monkrys
striped monkeys ??
Kuc:za;
abe053.cha
Abe
2;11.2
daddy+doggy+goos~
[N] ??
Kuczaj
abe053.cha
Abe
2;11.2
pint +corn
[N] ??
1
Kuczaj
abe058.cha
Abe
2;11.21
bong
[N] ??
5
Kuc:zaj
abe058.cha
Abe
2:11.21
bong+kick
a game like bong-marble
where you kick instead
2
Kucza;
abe058.cha
Abe
2;11.21
bong+marb/~
a game played with a
marble
5
Kucza;
abe058.cha
Abe
2;11.21
bunny+bing
[N] ??
1
Kuc:zaj
abe059.cha
Abe
2;11.25
lonry
upset
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2:11.28
(garag~)+on~
something that belongs in a
garage
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2;11.28
baby+one
a baby
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2;11.28
browni~+{shut)
a cookie sheet
1
Wells
france08.cha
Frances
2:11.28
bum+bum
??
2
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2;11.28
carrot jce+cr~am
carrot-flavoured ice cream
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2;11.28
dinn"+thin!,1
dinner dishes
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2;11.28
fosun~r+n~t
a net to hang things up with
2
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2;11.28
hiding+on~s
[N] ??
2
Brown
adaml9.cha
Adam
2;11.28
Jack+a+w~asel
probably a Jack-in-the-box.
(a blend from Jack-in-th~box and pop go~s th~
wease/?)
3
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2:11.28
mask+fou+{thing)
a ma."k
1
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2:11.28
moth~r+froggj~
a frog who is a mother
2
Clark
shem33.cha
Shem
2:11.28
muffin +(thing)
a muffin pan
Brown
adam19.cha
Adam
2;11.28
spac~
Brown
adaml9.cha
Adam
2:11.28
spau+chart
a space-chart
Wells
france08.cha
Frances
2:11.28
Up+a+doo
??
Wells
ben;am08.cha
Benjamin
2:11.29
[rinzy bob
[Nj ??
?
scann"
Towards an explication of the role ofchild language in language change
a thing that scans space
1
1
1
2
Page 34
-researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Kucza;
abeo60.cha
Abe
2;11.30
ca"ot+h~ad
a toy with a carrot for a
head
(cf. Mr. Potato H~ad)
3
Kucza;
abe054.cha
Abe
2;11.6
(king+)burg~r+hat
a hat from Burger-King
1
Brown
adam20.cha
Adam
3;0.11
hous~+bird
a bird that lives in or
around houses ??
2
Brown
adam20.cha
Adam
3;0.11
monkey train
a train that carries monkeys
1
??
Clark
shem35.cha
Shem
3;0.13
(b~rry) +thing
a berry
Clark
shem35.cha
Shem
3:0.13
broom
if a verb. [0 sweep. if not.
ignore th is word
3
Clark
shem35.cha
Shem
3;0.13
catch+go
??
2
Clark
shem35.cha
Shem
3;0.13
dumping +place
a place for dumping things
1
Clark
shem35.cha
Shem
3;0.13
j~t+mak~r
[N] ??
1
Clark
shem35.cha
Shem
3;0.13
m~at+cak~
a kind of cake made with
meat
Clark
shem35.cha
Shem
3:0.13
pia+stic
plastic ??
Snow
nathl5.cha
Nathan
3;0.19
Michigro
[A] ??
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
babbing+place
[N] ??
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
bas~bal/+things
baseball equipment
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
chi/drm+bed
a bed where children sleep
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
dishwaur+stujf
dish detergent
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
flmi/y+house
the game house
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
flmi/y+house
a house where a family lives
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
flag+place
[N] ??
1
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
flag+store
a store where you buy flags
1
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
opm c!ran c/osing+thing
a thing which opens and
closes
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
play+dough ones
things made of play-dough
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
schoolHruck
school bus ??
Clark
shem36.cha
Shem
3;0.20
tenniHthingr
tennL~
Fletcher
3:flkir.cha
Kirsty
3;0.23
drming+up
Kuczaj
abe063.cha
Abe
3;0.25
anagandzanrkrs
[N] ??
Brown
adam21.cha
Adam
3;0.25
punch +ball
a ball for punching
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
c/oth~s
equipment
clothes for dressing up in
1
2
1
1
Page 35
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
Brown
adam21.cha
Adam,
3;0.25
ro/lingHteam ?
steamroller ??
Brown
adam21.cha.
-25.cha
Adam
3;0.253;02.21
Do+Bu
[proper name] ??
4
Clark
shem34.cha
Shem
3;0.5
bin/ry+maker
[N] ??
2
Clark
shem34.cha
Shem
3:0.5
cookie +bread
cake ??
1
Clark
shem34.cha
Shem
3;0.5
doaor +things
medical gear
Clark
shern34.cha
Shem
3;0.5
ear +things
things that go in your ear
Clark
shem34.cha
Shem
3;0.5
mouth+thing
a thing that goes in your
mouth
Clark
shem34.cha
Shem
3:0.5
p/anet+one
a book about a planet
1
Clark
shem34.cha
Shem
3:0.5
point+things
either pointed things or
things to point with
1
Clark
shem34.cha
Shem
3;0.5
record+thing
the speaker cable from the
record player ??
1
Kuczaj
abe061.cha
Abe
3:0.7
grumb/e+gud
[N] ??
Kuczaj
abe061.cha
Abe
3;0.7
grumb/e+head
a person who grumbles a lot
Wells
betty08.cha
Betty
3:0.9
Mom+mom
a grandmother
2
Kuczaj
abe065.cha
Abe
3:01.1
tinka+tonka
??
2
Kuczaj
abe068.cha
Abe
3;01.11
moozer
a thing that stays right in
the moon but is not green
2
Kuczaj
abe068.cha
Abe
3:01.11
moozers
they looked like two
moozers two moozers that
they looked like
Clark
shem38.cha
Shem
3;01.13
finger+print
finger-paint
Clark
shem38.cha
Shem
3:01.13
re+eat
eat again ??
Brown
sarah045.cha
Sarah
3:01.17
shika+burds
??
Kuczaj
abe071.cha
Abe
3:01.22
ding/e+turkry
nickname
Brown
adam23.cha
Adam
3:01.26
Harvard+Square bus
the bus going to Harvard
Square ??
Clark
shem39.cha
Shem
3:01.27
choco/au +medicine
a medicine made from
chocolate ??
Clark
shem39.cha
Shem
3:01.27
ugo+box
a box you keep legos in
Clark
shem39.cha
Shem
3:01.27
mun +sisur +...
[N] ??
Clark
shem39.cha
Shem
3:01.27
poking+thing
an unidentified tool
Clark
shem39.cha
Shem
3:01.27
tinker+box
a box you keep tinker-toys
#
1
7
2
5
2
m
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 36
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
bear+monster
a monster that is like a bear
1
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
card+board
[N] ??
...
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
hitting+tree
[N] ??
1
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
marJut+guse
a thing (a goose) that shows
you how [0 get some geese
1
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
pet+doggie
a dog that is someone's pet
2
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
pool+geese
geese that are in a pool
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
pounds
heavy (in pounds)
1
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
simng+place
a place where you sit
2
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
starfish +book
a book about starfish
1
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
toy+geese
either small geese or
pretend ones
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
toy +house
a dollhouse ??
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3;01.5
tree+pants
??
Clark
shem37.cha
Shem
3:01.5
whistling+part
the part (of a song ?) where
you whistle
1
Brown
sarah048.cha
Sarah
3;02.10
roller
[n which can be bicycled
upon]
1
Clark
shem40.cha
Shem
3;02.2
car+gate
the gate cars go through '
MacWhinney
ross35.cha
Ross
3;02.2
car+Santa '
[N1 ??
Clark
shem40.cha
Shem
3;02.2
easter+bunny+rabbit
the easter bunny
Clark
shem40.cha
Shem
3;02.2
flod+lady
a lady who gives you food
??
Clark
shem40.cha
Shem
3:02.2
fri!bu+time
[N1 ??
MacWhinney
ross35.cha
Ross
3;02.2
one+one+money
[N1 ??
Clark
shem40.cha
Shem
3:02.2
people+mouth
a human mouth
Clark
shem40.cha
Shem
3:02.2
stick+things
either sticks or things that
you stick with
MacWhinney
ross36.cha
Ross
3:02.23
bottom top
the lowest top part
MacWhinney
ross36.cha
Ross
3:02.23
up +top
the uppermost top parr
Brown
sarah050.cha,
-052.cha
Sarah
3;02.233;03.7
Loop +loops
[N1 ??
5
Kuczaj
abe080.cha
Abe
3;02.26
!hlom
[N1 ??
2
Snow
nath18.cha
Nathan
3;02.27
konka medicine
[N] ??
Snow
narhl8.cha
Nathan
3;02.27
stumpa
??
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
2
1
1
1
1
Page 37
#
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
Wells
jonath09.cha
Jonathan
3;02.28
nig+nog
??
Wells
jonath09.cha
Jonathan
3:02.28
nig+1UJg biscuit
a biscuit that is either made 1
with nig-nogs[N] or is nignog(A)
Kuczaj
abe081.cha
Abe
3;02.29
firing
burning
Kuczaj
abe081.cha
Abe
3;02.29
fist
to punch
Kuczaj
abe081.cha
Abe
3;02.29
poonk
[V] ??
2
Kuczaj
abe081.cha
Abe
3;02.29
s/ipp(~r)yd
slippery
1
Kuczaj
abe081.cha
Abe
3:02.29
unsttd
happy. as when you don't
5
1
have to go to school
Brown
adam24.cha
Adam
3;02.9
string master
[N] ??
2
Brown
adam24.cha
Adam
3;02.9
strong master ?
[N] ??
4
Garvey
pegron.cha
Ron
3;03
Batbi/~
Batmobile
2
Gathercole
Il.cha
Erin
3;03
fishy+food
fish-food
1
Garvey
kimada.cha
Ada
3;03
no+nam~ mayb~
??
1
Kuczaj
abe082.cha
Abe
3;03.1
catt/~+fish
a fish chat is like cows ??
1
(a play on catfish)
Kucza;
abe082.cha
Abe
3;03.1
corUr+cat
[N] ??
2
Kuczaj
abe082.cha
Abe
3;03.1
dog+fish
possibly a shark, but more
2
likely a play on catfish
Kuczaj
abe082.cha
Abe
3;03.1
monsku~
an animal that likes to slide
on mooSes b
Kucza;
abe082.cha.
Abe
3;03.1
mooS~b
an animal that eats trolls
5
-087.cha
Kucza;
abe082.cha
Abe
3;03.1
padd/~+fish
a fish that paddles ??
(a play on catfish)
1
Kuczaj
abe085.cha
Abe
3:03.11
A/ou
[name of a river]
3
Kuczaj
abe085.cha
Abe
3;03.11
malou
a kind of turtle that live... in
[he river Alou
1
Kuczaj
abe085.cha
Abe
3;03.11
moonchin
[animal] ??
Kuczaj
abe088.cha
Abe
3:03.25
yalla+candy
a kind of candy like
marshmallows that is soft
and comes on sticks
3
Sachs
n83.cha
Naomi
3:03.27
mak~+b~/iro~ fish~s
make-believe fishes
1
Brown
adam26.cha
Adam
3;03.4
a football
4
Brown
adam26.cha
Adam
3;03.4
a thing for measuring with
2
floti~+ ba//i~
m~asur~r
Towards an explication ofthf rolf ofchild languagf in languagf changf
Pagf38
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
Kucza;
abe083.cha
Abe
3:03.4
shoo+fly
a fly
Brown
sarah052.cha
Sarah
3:03.7
pu+pot
either a bedpan or a child's
training toilet ??
Kuczaj
abe084.cha
Abe
3:03.8
crisS+C7'oss cookie
a cookie wich a
crosshatched pattern on top
(perhaps peanut butter ?)
1
Kuczaj
abe084.cha
Abe
3:03.8
fishmay
a person who is where mean
crocodiles bite you and
who tells you how to get
them
3
Gathercole
13.cha
Erin
3:04
bonk
to
Kuczaj
abe090.cha
Abe
3:04.1
ra.ss
a jail ??
Brown
adam28.cha
Adam
3:04.1
cake flrk+knift
[N] ??
Brown
adam28.cha
Adam
3:04.1
larger
a ching that makes things
larger
Brown
adam28.cha
Adam
3:04.1
mIXer
rowash
Brown
adam28.cha
Adam
3;04.1
mixer cakes
[N] ??
Brown
adam28.cha
Adam
3:04.1
nothing monster
either a monster with no
distinguishing
characteristics or one which
is norhing
1
Brown
adam28.cha
Adam
3;04.1
opener
a ching for opening things
wich
1
Brown
sarahO 56.cha
Sarah
3:04.1
pincher
something that pinches
1
Kuczaj
abe090.cha
Abe
3;04.1
rass
[N] ??
1
Brown
adam28.cha
Adam
3:04.1
water hydrant
a fire hydrant
Brown
adam28.cha
Adam
3:04.1
waur+Ua
either fake tea-party tea (ie
water) or tea made from
wacer
5
Snow
nath23.cha
Nathan
3:04.10
dinah
a dinosaur
4
Snow
nath23.cha
Nathan
3;04.10
!IIur
a dinosaur
3
Kuczaj
abe094.cha
Abe
3;04.15
noiu+maker
a thing that makes a lot of
noise
1
Brown
adam29.cha
Adam
3;04.18
bucket roller
??
3
Brown
adam29.cha
Adam
3;04.18
dark +time
a time when it's dark,
1
#
sit suddenly
2
1
probably night
Brown
adam29.cha
Adam
3;04.18
stuloscope
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
[N] ??
Page 39
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Brown
adam29.cha.
-34.cha
Adam
3;04.183;07.7
poppfr
a person who pops
(things ??)
2
Snow
nath27.cha
Nathan
3;04.21
handy +dandy
handy-d.andy
1
Kuczaj
abe097.cha
Abe
3;04.26
god+blm+yous
kleenex
3
Kuczaj
abe097.cha
Abe
3;04.26
tmnis
to hit with a tennis racket
2
Brown
sarah059.cha
Sarah
3;04.26
wat" Slfd
a sled that goes on the water 1
??
Kuczaj
abe091.cha
Abe
3;04.4
hawk+trap
a trap for catching hawks
(cf. mousetrap)
4
Kuczaj
abe091.cha
Abe
3;04.4
micf +traps
mousetraps
2
Kuczaj
abe091.cha
Abe
3;04.4
stink+hfat/
[insult-name]
Brown
adam30.cha
Adam
3;05.0
buckft loader
a thing which loads buckets
??
1
Brown
adam30.cha
Adam
3;05.0
mix" truck
a cement mixer
3
MacWhinney
ross40.cha
Ross
3;05.11
aspirin +chitis
??
1
MacWhinney
ross40.cha
Ross
3;05.11
good+chitis
[N] ??
1
MacWhinney
ross40.cha
Ross
3;05.11
good+chitis
[N] ??
MacWhinney
ross40.cha
Ross
3;05.11
nfw+chitis
[N] ??
MacWhinney
ross40.cha
Ross
3;05.11
right+chitis
[N] ??
1
MacWhinney
ross40.cha
Ross
3;05.11
wrong+chitis
[N] ??
2
MacWhinney
ross41.cha.
Ross
3;05.11 3;07.4
COkf+a+co/a
Coca-cola
2
-43.cha
Brown
sarah062.cha
Sarah
3;05.13
blowfr
something that blows
Brown
adam31.cha
Adam
3;05.15
tick+tock
[N] ??
Brown
adam31.cha
Adam
3;05.15
tick+tock
??
Kuczaj
abel02.cha
Abe
3;05.17
(a)risty+cat
aristocrat ??
3
Brown
sarah063.cha
Sarah
3;05.20
trapper
[N] ??
1
Wells
nevilll0.cha
Nevill
3;05.27
tow+jo
[N] ??
Brown
adam33.cha
Adam
3;05.29
fish catchfr
a thing which catches fish
1
Brown
adam33.cha
Adam
3;05.29
spacf+boat
a boat that goes in space
1
Kucza;
abel00.cha
Abe
3;05.6
not+bladf
either a thing that is not a
blade or the place where a
blade isn'r
Brown
sarah061.cha
Sarah
3;05.7
Baby +Bright
[name of a doll] ??
13rown
sarah061.cha
Sarah
3;05.7
cufffr one
a ching that cuts
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in fIlnguage change
1
Page 40
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Sachs
n89.cha
Naomi
3:05.7
sir+bu shirts
[shin] ??
1
Kucza;
abell1.cha
Abe
3:06.19
stringablob
[N] ??
1
Kucza;
abel13.cha
Abe
3:06.22
k~rsplod~
to explode without huning
anyone
6
Kucza;
abe113.cha
Abe
3:06.22
y~surnight
yesterday night
1
Brown
sarah066.cha
Sarah
3:06.23
roast cutUr
either a thing for cutting
roasts or a cutter that has
been roasted
2
Kucza;
abel07.cha
Abe
3;06.4
n~ws+guy
the newscaster
1
Kucza;
abel19.cha
Abe
3:07.22
Army+Joe
GI Joe
1
MacWhinney
boys61.cha
Mark
3;07.22
bare+footing
bare-footedness or bare feet
2
MacWhinney
boys61.cha
Mark
3;07.22
cUl+off
amputated
1
MacWhinney
boys61.cha
Mark
3:07.22
fut+man
a superhero (probably with
bare feet) and any game
where you play him
7
Kuczaj
abe119.cha
Abe
3;07.22
karate
to hit using karate
3
MacWhinney
boys61.cha
Mark
3:07.22
pig+guard
a pig who is a guard
1
Kuczaj
abel19.cha
Abe
3:07.22
plAntdilly
[teasing name]
4
Brown
sarah070.cha.
-lOS.cha
Sarah
3;07.234;04.18
Crazy+Foam
[N] ??
6
Kuczaj
abel I S.cha
Abe
3;07.4
b~aur
to beat
Brown
adam34.cha
Adam
3;07.7
wiggk+worm
a worm
Brown
adam3S.cha
Adam
3;08.0
axe hammer
a hammer thac is an axe
(a roofing hatchet ??)
1
Brown
adam3S.cha
Adam
3;08.0
cam" puzzle
a puzzle that carries people
1
Brown
adam3S.cha
Adam
3;08.0
chopper
a thing for chopping things
down
1
Brown
adam3S.cha
Adam
3;08.0
cutUr
a thing that cuts
(perhaps a saw? cf.
adam3S.cha. line 1492)
4
Brown
adam3S.cha
Adam
3;08.0
finger
p~ople
[N] ??
Brown
adam3S.cha
Adam
3;08.0
finger
to~
a toe ??
3
Brown
adam35.cha
Adam
3:08.0
mixer man
[N] ??
1
Brown
adam35.cha
Adam
3;08.0
screwer
a person who screws things
1
Brown
adam35.cha
Adam
3:08.0
tiger sontJ
songs tigers sing ??
1
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild languagt in /anguagt change
Pagt41
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Brown
adam36.cha
Adam
3:08.14
throwfr
a person who throws things
1
MacWhinney
ross45.cha
Ross
3:08.18
dog+horu
[animal] ??
1
MacWhinney
boys63.cha
Mark
3:08.18
Light+Light
[name of a mouse]
1
MacWhinney
boys63.cha
Mark
3:08.18
picky+uppy
a piggy-back ride
2
MacWhinney
boys63.cha
Mark
3:08.18
Shump+Shump
[name of a mouse]
2
MacWhinney
boys63.cha
Mark
3:08.18
Vluffy
[name of a wasp)
1
Brown
adam37.cha
Adam
3:08.26
boy fuh
a fish that is like a boy
1
Brown
adam37.cha
Adam
3:08.26
cowboy mak"
a person who makes
cowboys
1
Brown
adam37.cha
Adam
3:08.26
fing" fish
a fish that is like a finger
Brown
adam37.cha
Adam
3:08.26
glovf hand
the hand a glove is worn on
Brown
adam37.cha
Adam
3:08.26
lamb moth"
either the mother of a lamb, 2
or a mother who is a lamb
Brown
adam37.cha
Adam
3:08.26
tOf fing"
a finger ??
(toe finger and finger toe
seem to be used
imerchangeably, so I'm not
sure about the headedness of
this one)
Brown
adam37.cha
Adam
3:08.26
whale fish
either a whale, or a fish that
is like a whale
2
Brown
sarah075.cha
Sarah
3:08.27
train+tray+ching
[N] ??
2
Gathercole
08.cha
Megan
3:09
nap p"(son)
a person who takes naps
Gathercole
08.cha
Sarah
3:09
stick ...
to stick ... out
MacWhinney
boys79.cha
Mark
3:09.13
fon+tim~
the time when you have fun
(at school ??)
MacWhinney
boys79.cha
Mark
3:09.13
work+tjm~
the time when you do work
(at school ??)
Kuczaj
abel34.cha
Abe
3;09.14
/awn +mower
to mow with a lawn-mower
Brown
sarah077 .cha
Sarah
3:09.18
Sugar+Babi~s
[candy] ??
Kuczaj
abel35.cha
Abe
3:09.19
Jmooth~r
a thing that makes things
smooth
Kuczaj
abel36.cha
Abe
3:09.23
humnrycuck
[Nj ??
MacWhinney
boys64.cha
Mark
3:09.26
ov"+float
to over-flow
MacWhinney
boys64.cha
Mark
3:09.26
walkie +talk
to talk on a walkie-talkie
Gathercole
10.cha
Megan
3:10
pop+in+law
a father-in-law
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in kznguage change
1
1
2
Page 42
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
Kuczaj
abel 42.cha
Abe
3;10.14
hanktx
a handkerchief (a blend
from handkerchief and
kleenex)
Kuczaj
abe I 42.cha
Abe
3;10.14
slab+rock
a smooth rock you can
make arrowheads with
4
Kuczaj
abel 43.cha
Abe
3;10.15
cowed
[N] ??
3
Brown
adam39.cha
Adam
3;10.15
scoot"
a thing chac scoots (unclear
whether it is the vehicle)
2
Kuczaj
abel 43.cha
Abe
3;10.15
spearrock
a cock shaped like an
arrowhead
1
Kuczaj
abel43.cha
Abe
3;10.15
sword"
a fencer
2
MacWhinney
boys65.cha
Mack
3;10.20
heal stuff
stuff chac heals people
1
MacWhinney
boys80.cha
Mack
3;10.22
super+duper(ed)
in a manner suggestive of
5
#
possessing super powers
MacWhinney
boys81.cha
Mack
3;10.28
raisin +branios
flakes of raisin-bran
1
Kuczaj
abe139.cha
Abe
3;10.3
teller
the person who tells you
what to do
2
MacWhinney
boys66.cha
Mark
3;10.6
caterki//er
a caterpillar ??
2
MacWhinney
boys66.cha
Mark
3;10.6
gargle+man
perhaps name of another
superhero ??
3
MacWhinney
boys66.cha
Mack
3;10.6
hand+cuffided
to handcuff
1
Kuczaj
abel46.cha
Abe
3;11.0
dinosaur+land
a land where dinosaurs live
2
Kuczaj
abel 46.cha
Abe
3;11.0
gooderest
best
1
MacWhinney
boys67.cha
Mark
3;11.18
Linry+man
[proper name]
MacWhinney
boys67.cha
Mack
3:11.18
Ridey+man
[proper name]
MacWhinney
boys67.cha
Mark
3:11.18
Sleepy+wo/f
[proper name]
2
Brown
adam42.cha
Adam
4;0.14
arch"
[N] ??
1
Brown
sarah088.cha
Sarah
4:0.14
trac"
??
MacWhinney
boys83in.cha
Mack
4;0.24
Creepy +craw/ys
[N] ??
1
Brown
sarah091.cha
Sarah
4;01.11
f/ip+f/op
??
2
Brown
adam43.cha
Adam
4;01.15
mgine"man
an engineer
Brown
adam43.cha
Adam
4;01.15
rubb" band man
a man who is like a rubber
band or who has lots of
rubber bands
1
Brown
sarah092.cha
Sarah
4;01.18
Charmin(g) + Chatty
[N] ??
2
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 43
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Brown
sarah092.cha
Sarah
4:01.18
Chatty +Charming
(possibly analogous to
Prince Charming ?? )
2
Brown
sarah092.cha
S~
4;01.18
topp~r
[N] ??
2
Kuczaj
abe163.cha
Abe
4:01.29
hegainst
caused to run against
1
Kuczaj
abe163.cha,
-166.cha,
-167.cha,
-169.cha,
-I72.cha,
-174.cha,
-191.cha,
Abe
4:01.29 4:08.2
Chop +wood
[name of an action figure]
36
MacWhinney
boys68.cha
Mark
4:01.5
jesuHguy
[N] ??
1
Kuczaj
abe159.cha
Abe
4:01.9
crumpks
soap shavings
1
Gleason
dinner:
david.cha
David
4:02.1
Sam+l+am
the book G"m Eggs and
1
Brown
adam44.cha
Adam
4:02.17
airman drivn-
[N] ??
1
Brown
adam44.cha
Adam
4:02.17
airport drivn-
[N] ??
1
Brown
adam44.cha
Adam
4:02.17
driller
a person who drills
Brown
adam44.cha
Adam
4:02.17
push"
someone who pushes people
Brown
adam44.cha
Adam
4;02.17
water moving ma(hin~
a machine for moving water
Kuczaj
abel67.cha
Abe
4;02.19
Thunder +laying+ wood
[proper name]
3
Kuczaj
abe167.cha
Abe
4:02.19
Thundn-+light
[proper name, apparently
with the same referent as
Thunder-laying-wood]
1
MacWhinney
boys70.cha
Mark
4:02.2
harr~d+thingy
?? (cage ?)
1
Kuczaj
abe168.cha
Abe
4:02.24
refridges
food kept in a refridgerator 1
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Mark
4;02.28
haking+man
a baker
2
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Mark
4;02.28
coo/ry+man
either a chef of a cookiebaker
2
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Mark
4:02.28
Hungry+ Wolf
[proper name]
1
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Mark
4:02.28
Lazy + Wolf
[proper name]
1
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Mark
4:02.28
rough+up
[action]
3
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Mark
4:02.28
runny +man
a man who runs ??
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Mark
4:02.28
saw+man
a man who saws
1
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Mark
4:02.28
swim+man
a man who swims
1
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Mark
4:02.28
teaching+lady
a lady who is a teacher
1
Ham
Towards an txplication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 44
#
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
Gleason
mother:
david.cha
David
4;02.3
Mr
Gathercole
10.cha .
Lily
4;03
Sarahgots
Sarah has
2
Kuczaj
abel69.cha
Abe
4;03.1
spac~+boards
[N] ??
2
Man+~ating fish
[proper name]
(perhaps like surfboards for
space ??)
Kuczaj
abel 69.cha
Abe
4;03.1
sw~~pm~d
swept
1
Kuczaj
abel 69.cha
Abe
4;03.1
upsid~+up
right-side-u p
1
Brown
adam47.cha
Adam
4;03.13
cutUr
someone who cuts
Brown
adam47.cha
Adam
4:03.13
m~chanical
Brown
adam47.cha
Adam
4;03.13
pen
Kuczaj
abe 172.cha
Abe
4;03.15
Kuczaj
abel 72.cha
Abe
Kuczaj
abel 72.cha
Kuczaj
writer
a mechanical writer
1
a pen for writing with ??
1
Thund" +wood
[proper name. apparendy
with the same referent as
Thunder-laying-wood]
2
4;03.15
w~igh~r
a thing you weigh things
with
2
Abe
4;03.15
w~ight~r
a thing you find the weight
of things with
1
abel73.cha
Abe
4;03.21
red
ready
7
Brown
sarah102.cha
Sarah
4;03.26
tru+top
??
Brown
sarah099.cha
Sarah
4:03.7
stoppity+sloppity
??
Brown
adam45.cha
Adam
4:03.9
cowboy driv"
[N] ??
Brown
adam45.cha
Adam
4;03.9
magic+four
??
7
Brown
adam45.cha
Adam
4;03.9
police driver
[N] ??
1
Brown
sarah 103.cha
Sarah
4;04.1
start"
[N] ??
1
Kuczaj
abel76.cha
Abe
4;04.21
~arsight
hearing
1
Brown
sarah 106.cha
Sarah
4;04.25
clap+clap hands
[N] ??
2
Gathercole
15.cha
Lily
4;05
tuny
something small ??
1
Brown
sarah 109.cha
Sarah
4;05.14
Baby+Boo
[name of a doll] ??
4
Kuczaj
abel78.cha
Abe
4;05.14
ft~tcuffi
leg irons
3
Brown
sarah 108.cha
Sarah
4;05.8
doo+bee
[N] ??
3
Brown
sarah 108.cha
Sarah
4;05.8
wall+tainer
??
2
Gathercole
06.cha
Gil
4;06
bunk
??
1
MacWhinney
ross53.cha
Ross
4;06.1
work+job
a job
writ~r
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
4
Page 45
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
Kuczaj
abe184.cha
Abe
4:06.14
blut+jtan shorts
cutoffs ??
Brown
adam49.cha
Adam
4:06.24
bird dinn"
a dinner for a bird
1
Brown
adam49.cha
Adam
4:06.24
chocoUzu blast"
[N] ??
1
Brown
adam49.cha
Adam
4:06.24
cOvn'+bag
[Nl ??
Brown
adam49.cha
Adam
4:06.24
someone who digs
Brown
adam49.cha
Adam
4:06.24
digg"
flying sauctr dinosaur
Brown
adam49.cha
Adam
4:06.24
rac"
[N] ??
Brown
adam49.cha
Adam
4:06.24
tht spillntr
something that spins
Kuczaj
abel 86.cha
Abe
4:06.27
outsidt+out
the opposite of inside-out
Brown
adam50.cha
Adam
4:07.0
can't+ull+boy
a boy who can't tell (the
difference between two
things)
Brown
adam50.cha
Adam
4;07.0
gun shoot"
[N] ??
Brown
adam50.cha
Adam
4:07.0
gun+pm
a pen that is also a gun
(from James Bond ?)
Brown
sarahl16.cha
Sarah
4;07.0
hop +bang
??
3
Brown
adam50.cha
Adam
4;07.0
ull+boy
a boy who tells people
things or who can tell (the
difference between two
things). probably the latter
2
Brown
adam50.cha
Adam
4:07.0
train +go +round
either a merry-go-round or
a trolley roundabout
1
MacWhinney
boys77.cha
Mark
4;07.10
stick
to hit with a stick
MacWhinney
boys77.cha
Mark
4;07.10
und"+arm
the skin under your arm
Brown
sarah 1 17.cha
Sarah
4:07.11
Misur+G
[proper name]
Brown
sarah 121.cha
Sarah
4:08.13
sticktrbird
[bird] ??
Brown
sarah 121.cha
Sarah
4:08.13
tot+bow
[N] ??
1
Kuczaj
abe191.cha
Abe
4:08.2
tyt+out
??
2
Kuczaj
abel 94.cha
Abe
4:08.20
infinity
infinitely many
4
Brown
sarah 122.cha
Sarah
4:08.20
ping+pong
little (and round ?)
1
#
1
a dinosaur in a flying saucer 2
??
1
1
5
(adj. describing a nose)
Brown
sarah 122.cha
Sarah
4:08.20
two+poinud
having two points
Brown
sarah 120.cha
Sarah
4:08.7
basky+back
??
Brown
sarah 120.cha
Sarah
4:08.7
masky+bat
??
1
Brown
sarah 124.cha
Sarah
4:09.12
btlly +bat+posttr
[N) ??
2
Towards an txplication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
2
Page 46
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
Brown
sarah 124.cha
Sarah
4:09.12
daddy
Brown
sarah 124.cha
Sarah
4:09.12
dog moth~r
either the mother of a dog
or a mother who is a dog
:2
Kuczaj
abel98.cha
Abe
4:09.19
policutown +guy
[N] ??
1
Kuczaj
abe 198.cha
Abe
4:09.19
town+guy
a guy from town ??
Wells
ellen21.cha
Ellen
4:09.22
catty
a watering can
Kuczaj
abel99.cha
Abe
4:09.24
thumb/~
???
Gathercole
06.cha
Matthew
4:10
cav~+shap~d
cave-shaped
Gathercole
06.cha
Matthew
4:10
Popry~ th~
multiple instances of
Popeye
Brown
adam55.cha
Adam
4:10.23
grain thrower
something which throws
grain
6
Brown
adam55.cha
Adam
4:10.23
grainer
having more grain
1
Brown
adam55.cha
Adam
4:10.23
hand+buckler ?
either a buckle for your
hand or a small shield
(unlikely)
1
Brown
adam55.cha
Adam
4;10.23
monsUr
a magnet which attracts
6
#
gloss
moth~r
sailor mans
magn~t
a daddy who is a mother
1
monsters
Brown
adam55.cha
Adam
4:10.23
record+phon~
an answering machine ??
Brown
adam55.cha
Adam
4:10.23
wat~rthing
a thing that can go in water
??
Brown
sarah 129.cha
Sarah
4;10.27
FIy{(r/+a)+kiu
a kice chac makes you fly if
you hold its string (from
the song. "Let's go fly a
kice" in Mary Poppins ?)
4
Kuczaj
abe201.cha
Abe
4:10.9
ajter+vitamin
a pill you cake after a
vitamin (which is noc itself
a vitamin)
2
Garvey
glojoy.cha
Glo
5:0
dresHups
clothes for dressing up in
1
Brown
sarah 136.cha
Sarah
5:0.16
squ~akr
someone who squeals
3
Fletcher
5:hnclah.cha
Claire
5:02
tmd ducks
imaginary ducks ??
Brown
adam52.cha
Adam
5:02.12
sliding+stairs
either an escalator or stairs
for sliding down. probably
che former
MacWhinney
boys87.cha
Mark
5;04.14
blob +baby
??
Towards an ~plication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
4
7
Page 47
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
MacWhinney
boys87.cha
Mark
5;04.14
cold+base
[N] ??
1
MacWhinney
boys87.cha
Mark
5;04.14
cove+bau
[N] ??
MacWhinney
boys87.cha
Mark
5;04.14
Easter Ewok
an ewok who delivers easter
baskets
MacWhinney
boys87.cha
Mark
5;04.14
fixer +man
a man who fIxes things
MacWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
banana +brain
[insult name)
MacWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
fiftJ+armed
having fIfty arms
MacWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
fiftJ+forty+five+armed
having fifty+forty+five
arms
MacWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
fifty +four+five
[number] ??
MaeWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
flur+armed
having four arms
MacWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
klum1J+head
[insult]
MacWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
Long+armed+man
[proper name]
MacWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
Long+Arms
nickname
4
MacWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
Underroo's+Man
a superhero who wears
underroos. a friend of feetmans
1
1
1
I
MacWhinney
ross60.cha
Ross
5;04.20
water+gun
a water pistol
MacWhinney
boys84.cha
Mark
5;04.23
carrying+upstairser
the person who carries
something upstairs
MacWhinney
boys84.cha
Mark
5;04.23
ghostm +monsters
ghosts ??
MacWhinney
boys84.cha
Mark
5;04.23
snow +time
the winrer;when it snows
MacWhinney
boys84.cha
Mark
5;04.23
spud+fost
very quickly
MacWhinney
boys84.cha
Mark
5;04.23
un +loou
to tighten
MacWhinney
boys61.cha
Ross
5;06.16
brownish+orange
brown ish +orange
MacWhinney
boys89.cha
Mark
5;06.9
Big+Rope
[proper name]
2
MacWhinney
boys89.cha
Mark
5;06.9
Little +Rope
[proper name]
2
MacWhinney
boys89.cha
Mark
5;06.9
Medium+siu+Rope
[proper name]
2
MacWhinney
boys89.cha
Mark
5;06.9
one +eye
one-eyed
1
MacWhinney
boys89.cha
Mark
5;06.9
su+rye+dog
a seeing-eye dog
2
Gathercole
07.cha
Nicole
5;07
crackier
more cracked ??
Gathercole
07.cha
Nicole
5;07
re+tape recorder
a tape recorder
Gathercole
07.cha
Nicole
5;07
smush
[0
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
squish
Page 48
#
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
MacWhinney
boys90.cha
Mark
5j07.23
Hot+wir~
[N] ??
MacWhinney
boys90.cha
Mark
5j07.23
ow+wir~
[N] ??
1
MacWhinney
boys90.cha
Mark
5j07.23
sup"+bar
a candybar chac gives you
1
super powers
MacWhinney
boys66.cha
Ross
5j08.31
tam"
[N] ??
1
MacWhinney
boys65.cha
Ross
5j09.14
Radio+Star+ Wars
che NPR producrion of Star 2
Wars
MacWhinney
boys81.cha
Ross
5j09.24
iC(+br~ak~r
someching chac breaks ice
1
MacWhinney
boys81.cha
Ross
5j09.24
ict+cracktr
someching thar cracks ice
1
MacWhinney
boys80.cha
Ross
5j09.6
human +was
ex-human-beings
3
MacWhinney
boys82.cha
Ross
5jlO.18
Bad+nos~ Bill
[proper name]
1
MacWhinney
boys82.cha
Ross
5;10.18
room
a person who keeps up a
1
kup~r+upp~r
room
MacWhinney
ross 57.cha
Ross
5;11.24
Boy+oh+brothtrs
??
1
Evans
dyad20.cha
Jack
6:0.26
pizza + fingtr + slic~
??
1
Evans
dyad20.cha
Jack
6:0.26
pizza+mak"
someone who makes pizzas
1
MacWhinney
ross58.cha
Ross
6j01.20
Jump+ovtr+hand
[0
jump over your hand
2
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Ross
6;01.23
pur+ray
??
MacWhinney
boys71.cha
Ross
6;01.23
up+and+away
[N] ??
Warren
sandra.cha
Sandra
6;02.0
honHnut bet
[N] ??
Warren
sandra.cha
Sandra
6:02.0
horntt+nut bu
[NJ ??
1
Gathercole
07.cha
Brian
6j02.15
chippy
chipped or chippable
1
MacWhinney
boys74.cha
Ross
6;03.23
paints+man
a painter
4
MacWhinney
boys91.cha
Mark
6;04.15
top +skin
either rhe skin on che rap of
2
rhe body or the ourer skin
(epidermis)
MacWhinney
boys91.cha
Mark
6;04.15
up +skin
either the skin on rhe top of
the body or the ourer skin
MacWhinney
boys75.cha
Ross
6;04.23
knQck +knock
a joke
MacWhinney
boys75.cha
Ross
6;04.23
pu+room
the lavatory
Flercher
7:bcdav.cha
David
6j11
bunnyhop
to hop like a bunny
Evans
dyadl4.cha
Erin
6; 11.17
split+in +halfcar
a car char splits in half
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
1
1
Page 49
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Evans
dyad04.cha
Jessica
7;01.6
°brown+hair mtln
unknown person
1
Evam
dyad 14.cha
Aimee
7;02.25
sp/it+car
a car that splits into pieces
(and presumably goes back
together afterwards)
2
MacWhinney
boys84.cha
Ross
7;03.18
hous~+/ook
??
1
MacWhinney
boys84.cha
Ross
7;03.18
mis+thing
[N] ??
1
MacWhinney
boys91.cha
Ross
8;05.21
sky +wiS(
??
Bohannon
debbie.cha
Nat
h~l/+copter
a helicopter
Bohannon
noel.cha
Nat
knit+making
knitting
Snow
nath12.cha
Nathan
??
alpha+butl~
[Nj ??
MacWhinney
boys72in.cha
Mark
??
big+Mouth
[proper name]
Bohannon
thad5.cha
Baxter
??
cnr+hra
[Nj ??
Wells
laura06.cha
Sarah
??
ch~w + gum
chewing-gum
2
Wells
darren21.cha
Robert
??
cow+lndian
a native american
(from cowhoy-indian)
1
Wells
darren21.cha
Robert
??
Cowboy+lndian
a native american
Wells
benjarn04.cha
Nicola
??
gran+gran
a grandparent ??
MacWhinney
boys69.cha
Ross
??
Mr Brian +Snowman
[proper name]
Wells
abigai09.cha
Rebecca
??
MrS+Wu+Wu
[proper name]
Wells
darren06.cha
Nicola
??
br +lop
??
MacWhinney
boys72in.cha
Mark
??
Jea+hone
a bone that is found in the
1
sea (chewed on by sea-dogs)
MacWhinney
boys72in.cha
Mark
??
sea+dog
a dog who Iives in the sea
Gleason
dinner.
victor.cha
Victor
??
tichtock
a clock ??
Gleason
dinner.
victor.cha
Victor
??
tick+tock-"
a clock ??
Wells
benjarn02.cha
Nicola
n
umherbrella
an umbrella
14
Wells
abigai07.cha
Louise
??
scally+wag
a scalawag
1
Towards an fXplication oftht rolt ofchild languagt in language change
1
1
1
2
Page 50
researcher
file
speaker
age
word
gloss
BOOannon
angcla.cha
Nat
a
light+color
Iight-coiorcd
BOOannon
angela.cha
Nat
a
zump
??
bAbewa _seand
m()QU
#
more or less interchangeably.
a Nat was 2;8 when he interacted with the undergraduates and 3;0 when he interacted with the graduate students.
Unfortunately, the documentation doesn't identify the status of Angela. Debbie, or Noel.
From hard copy transcriptions
Since the data in the transcriptions from Parkhurst & Gottman 1986 are not on computer (and are
therefore less readily searchable), I am including line numbers for the initial occurrance of each word.
Line numbers of subsequent occurrances have been omitted to save space.
researcher
tape
line speaker
age
word
gloss
#
Parkhurst
19
439
Andreas
2;09
bandit b~an
a bandit who steals beans ??
1
Parkhurst
19
257
Andreas
2;09
m~ss
to make a mess ??
1
Parkhurst
19
220
Mara
2;11
Angi~ Purp/~
[proper name]
2
Parkhurst
19
444
Mara
2;11
DrellJ
Andreas (proper name)
1
Parkhurst
19
174
Mara
2;11
kay
okay
3
Parkhurst
19
236
Mara
2;11
pap"
[N] ??
8
Parkhurst
19
438
Mara
2;11
shar~ ... in
to share equally between
two people
1
Parkhurst
15,1
396
Claire
3;06
bangta knife
a knife that you can shoot
with
1
Parkhurst
0,1
12
Naomi
4,9
jumping board
a board for people to jump
on so they can see you swim
Parkhurst
15,1
303
Meighan
4;0
big girl kittm
a kitten old enough to take
care of itself
Parkhurst
15,1
360
Meighan
4;0
gllJ station lady
the lady at the gas station
Parkhurst
15,1
195
Meighan
4;0
hairdms
??
3
Parkhurst
15,1
305
Meighan
4;0
kittycat balloon
[N] ??
1
Parkhurst
16
161
Meighan
4;0
starvy
thin
3
Parkhurst
4
154
Kimberly
4;0
stop-cold
[N] ??
2
Parkhurst
A
18
Naomi
4;07
cord
to record
2
Towards an ~xplication ofth~ role ofchild language in
languag~
m~an
half
change
1
Pag~
51
Parkhurst
E
36
Naomi
4:09
dtuldy ekntist
either a dentist who is a
daddy or one who works on
daddies
Parkhurst
E
246
Naomi
4:09
day plac~
a place you go in the day
Parkhurst
E
377
Naomi
4:09
diap" blanlut
a cloth diaper used as a
blanket ??
Parkhurst
E
6
Naomi
4:09
grandsist"
kinship term. meaning
unclear
2
Parkhurst
B
926
Naomi
4:09
nuru-doctor
a doctor who is also a nurse
(a nurse practitioner ??)
1
Parkhurst
E
38
Naomi
4:09
wift dmtist
a dentist who is a wife
Parkhurst
575
Naomi
4:09.16
baby sid~
the side babies sit on
Parkhurst
J
J
84
Naomi
4:09.16
blindfold gam~
a game where someone is
blindfolded and given
things to feel
Parkhurst
J
575
Naomi
4:09.16
pmon
Parkhurst
F
246
Naomi
4:10
Parkhurst
A
126
Eric
Parkhurst
F
522
Parkhurst
4
Parkhurst
sid~
1
the side non-babies sit on
1
chalk
to mark with chalk
2
4:10
runny-in-oh plact
[N] ??
1
Naomi
4:11
waUr
[0
121
Angela
5:0
bumpy
bouncy ??
5
H
41
Naomi
S:O
click~r
a thing that clicks
4
Parkhurst
E
161
Eric
5;0
cold chocolat~
chocolate milk
Parkhurst
J
482
Elise ·
5;0
diap" pillow
[N] ??
1
Parkhurst
B
307
Eric
5:0
dynamiu balloons
balloons that explode
1
Parkhurst
D.1
242
Eric
5;0
Eric robot
a robot who is Eric
2
Parkhurst
D.l
166
Eric
5;0
groc", stor~
Parkhurst
DJ 1
154
Eric
5;0
jail groc", stor~
a grocery store in jail
1
Parkhurst
D.l
194
Eric
5;0
Iock~r machin~
a machine that locks things
2
hous~
get something wet
1
[Nj ??
up
Parkhurst
E
245
Eric
5;0
night place
a place you go at night
2
Parkhurst
E
81
Eric
5:0
puff
a down comforter
2
Parkhurst
D.l
222
Eric
5;0
robot moth"
a mother who is a robot
2
Parkhurst
B
748
Eric
5;0
smtmus book
a book with sentences in it
1
??
Parkhurst
Parkhurst
J
J
755
Elise
5;0
sn~aks
282
Elise
5;0
start~d
tennis shoes (from sneakers)
out tomato
Towards an (Xplication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
1
an unripe tomato
Page 52
Parkhurst
8
60
Banu, Julia
5:0,4;10
kangarule
a rule about having
kangaroos
5
Parkhurst
L
505
Greta
5;01
bang
to shoot
1
Parkhurst
L
442
Naomi
5;01
button gun
a gun with buttons on it
1
Parkhurst
F
24
Eric
5;01
marry-place
a place where you get
married
2
Parkhurst
L
406
Naomi
5;01
quipment
equipment
4
Parkhurst
L
458
Naomi
5;01
traption
a contraption
10
733
Naomi
5:02
hankychief
a handkerchief
2
Parkhurst
Parkhurst
H
408
Eric
5;03
grown uppy
grown up [A]
Parkhurst
9
383
Yael
6;10
halts-top
halter-top
Parkhurst
D
160
Eric
??
garbage
to make into garbage ??
1
Parkhurst
22
222
Behnam
??
hole poker
a thing which pokes holes
6
Parkhurst
M
94
Eric
??
farm
alarm
From other bibliographic sources
Random attested coinages (Clark 1982, 390-1):
child word
adult gloss
tell-wind
weathervane
lessoner
teacher
shorthander
someone who writes in shorthand
winder
ice-cream maker
driver
ignition k~y (of a car)
toothachey
having a toothache
windy
blown by the wind
bumpy
making bumping motions or noises
flyable
capable of flight
salter
saltier
sliverest
most slivery
lawning
mowing the lawn
fire-dog
dog found at the site of a fire
apple-juice-chair
chair by the glass of apple juice
Denominal verbs
English Instrumem verbs (Clark 1982, 402):
child
age
word
adult gloss
Towards an explication ofth~ rol~ ofchild languag~ in languag~ chang~
Pag~53
S
2;04
scale
to weigh
S
2;04
button
to
S
2;07
broom
to hit with a broom
S
2;11
broom
to sweep
S
2;11
nipple
to breastfeed
S
3;0
key
[0
S
3:02
gun
to shoot with a gun
S
3;02
needle
to sew or mend (with a needle)
S
3:02
string (up)
to tie (a hat) on with a string
EB
3;10
pliers (out)
co remove with pliers
EP
4;0
hatchet
co chop with a hatchet
CB
4;0
paper
to give a paper cut to
CB
4;04
shoelace
co tie with a shoelace
CB
4;06
seat-belt
to secure with a seat-belt
I-ll.
5:0
axe
to chop with an axe
jW
5;07
stick
to hit with a stick
turn on (with a button)
open a door (with a key)
S is probably Shem from the ChiLDES data.
French Instrument verbs(Clark 1982, 403):
child
age
word
adult English gloss
LA
LA
VA
2;0
deconstruire
to unbuild
2;0
bulldozer
to bulldoze(r)
3:09
boutonner
to button/close, fasten
(said of an envelope)
VA
VA
3;10
CG
4;07
4;1
XI)
YD
)
anixonner
to Nixon
cralver
to chalk/draw with chalk
rater
to rakeN/ use a rake
pincer
to paintbrushN.luse a.paintbrush
meccer
co meterN.lmeasure
German Instrument verbs (Clark 1982, 404):
child
age
word
adult English gloss
RN
1;11
leitern
to ladder/climb by means of a ladder
RN
1: 11
schnuren
co cord/tie a cord
RN
2;1
fomadeln
to wheelN (away)
RN
2;1
peitschen
cowhipN'
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 54
RN
2;02
anbroschen
co brooch/fascen wich a brooch
(in chis case a buckle)
RN
2;02
zangen
co cong/pick up wich congs
RN
2;09
scockeln
to
scickN/hic wich a stick
Sc
3;06
angeschnauzeln
to
snout/nuzzle
HS
3;08
vergilrteln
to girdle/fasten about the waisc with
tics
HS
3;09
metern
to mcterN'
HF
3;09
ma'ichinen
[0
GS
3;11
spliccern
to splinccrN/hurt wich splinters
HS
4;02
besen
to broom
AP
?
messen
to
machineN/sew wich :! sewing
machine
knifeN'
English Locatum verbs (Clark 1982, 406):
child
age
word
adult gloss
DH
2;03
trouser
to put trousers on X
J
2;06
pillow
to chrow a pillow at
EB
3;04
dusc
to become dusty
EB
3;04
Band-Aid
to put a Band-Aid on
CB
3;11
cracker
to put crackers in
JA
4;0
cast
to puc a cast on
CB
4;02
water
to water (done to non-plants)
CB
4;05
bead
to
CB
4;05
rubber-band
to puc a rubber band in
ME
4:11
decoration
co puc decoracions on
SA
5:0
chocolate
to put chocolace in
JW
5:07
shirt
to put a shirc on
puc a bead in
French Locatum verbs (Clark 1982, 406):
child
age
word
adult English gloss
VA
4;05
pantoufler
to slipper X
EG
6:08
enoeuffer
to egg/put egg on
CG
7:0
enconfiturer
to jamN/put jam on
CG
7;0
ensiroter
to syrup
CG
7;03
en carter
to put cartN on/cover with tarcN'
CG
13;0
chocolater
to
give (hoc) chocolate co
Towards an (xp/ication ofth( ro/( ofchild languag( in languag( chang(
Pag( 55
CG
16
briquer
to brick/puc bricks on
German Locatum verbs (Clark 1982. 407):
child
age
word
adult English gloss
RN
2;02
reinspiezen
to in-poinclpuc che point in
HS
3;0
emilchen
to milkN/drink milk
Sc
3;02
handtucheln
to hand-towel
HS
3;06
besuppt
to have soup on.
HS
3;06
einbllittern
to in-leaf/put leaves in.
FS
3;09
vollaschen
to ash well/ cover in ashes
GS
3;11
aufperlen
to string beads
HS
4;07
zubanden
to ribbonltie a ribbon
DL
5;06
anstreifen
to stripe
English Location. goal. agenc verbs (Clark 1982. 408):
child
age
word
adult gloss
CA
4;06
funnd
to force into a funnel
SO
5;0
basket
to put in a basket
CB
5:05
thread
to put on ~ thread
K
7;0
towel
to wrap in a towel
S
3;01
cement
[0
CB
5;06
dogear
to put one's hair in 'dogears'
83
2;08
monster
to behave as a monster to
AK
5;01
ballerine
to dance like a ballerina
(backformation from bal/mna via
rebracketing as bal/mnrn)
HO
5;0
governess
to be the governess of
make cement
German Location. goal. agent verbs (Clark 1982, 409):
child
age
RN
2;07.15
Sc
word
adult English gloss
bewassern
to be watered/in the water
3;11
vererden
to earth/bury
RN
2;10
ausgeplliezeln
to cake (lit. to --->/make into cakes
RF
3;06.15
be7.almen
to tooth/show one's teeth
FS
3;11
musiken
to music
HS
3;11
zuschliefen
to loop
HS
5;01.15
lichten
to light/shine a light
Towards an aplication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 56
GS
4:04
dieben
to
thief
Characteristic activity verbs in English (Clark 1982.410)
child
age
word
adult gloss
fB
2;03
buzzer
to
buzz! make a sound like a buzzer
RG
3:0
bell
to
ring like a bell .
S
3;0
truck
(of a truck) to drive by
S
3;02
flag
to flap (suddenly) in the wind
S
3;02
wind
(of wind) to blow
CB
3;11
snowflake
to snow
CB
4:0
storm
to storm (for me this is recreation of an
existing lexeme)
CB
4:04
wind
(of wind) to blow
S
2:04
hair
to brush hair
S
2;04
soup
to eat soup
J
2;06
rocker
to rock in a rocker
S
2:08.15
rug
to vacuum a rug
S
2;09
lawn
to mow a lawn
fB
3:02
match
to light
D
5:0
tea
to have tea
CB
6;0
IU
to crack a nut
H
6;0
deck
to cut a deck (of cards)
Characteristic activity words in French (Clark 1982. 411)
child
age
word
adult gloss
VA
3;06
miauner
to meow
CG
6:03.17
grelonner
to hail
CG
4:08.15
pipe
to
EG
11;0
argileronner
to clay
CG
13;0
microscoper
to microscope/use a microscope
WD
??
pianer
to piano/play the piano
pipe/smoke a pipe
Characteristic activity verbs in German (Clark 1982. 412)
child
age
word
adult gloss
RN
1;10
miezeln
to cat/meow
RN
1: 10
hummeln
to hum
To
2:03
w:wen
to woof
Towards an lXplication ofthf rolf ofchild languagf in languagf change
Page 57
RN
RN
2:04.15
tunndeln
to tunnel
2:04.15
gefli.igeln
to wing/flap
SS
2:06
glocken
to
RF
RF
2:06.15
raupen
to caterpillar
2:06.15
spiczen
[0
GS
3;02
gemilhlen
[0
mill/grind
Sc
4;0
winden
[0
wind/blow
Sc
5;07
runterwellen
to wave-down
HS
6;06
wimpern
to (eye)lash
RN
RN
1:10
bildern
to picturelturn pages in a picture-book
2;08
nasdn
to nose/wipe a nose
GS
2:09
ewieren
to piano
HS
3:08
kawieren
to piano
belliring
shrew
Towards an txplication ofth~ role ofchild language in language change
Page 58
Bibliography
Aronoff. Mark. A. 1974. Word formation in gen(rariv( grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bauer, Laurie. 1983. Eng/ish Word-formation. Cambridge:Cambridge UP.
Bellinger, David C. and Jean Berko Gleason. 1982. Sex differences in parental directives to young
children. Sex Roks8. 1123-39.
Bennett-Kastor, Tina. 1988. Analyzing children's /anguag(: m(thods and th(ori(s. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Bloom, Lois. 1978. R(adings in /anguag( dev(/opm(nt. New York: Wiley.
Bohannon, John Neil, and A. L. Marquis. 1977. Children's control of adult speech. Child D(V(/opment48.
1002-8
Bowerman, Melissa. 1982. Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner &
Gleitman 1982a.
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first languag(: th( early stages. Cambridge. MA: Harvard UP.
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A study of th( r(/arion bmvun m(aning and form. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
- - - , and Dan Siobin. 1982. Rules and schemas in the development and use of the English past.
Languag( 58. 265-89.
Cannon, Garland. Blends in English word formation. Linguistics 24-4. 1986. pp 725-753.
Carroll. David W. 1986. Psychology of languag(. Pacific Grove: Brooks.
Clark, Eve V. 1978a. Discovering what words can do. In Papers from th( parasession on the lexicon.
Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
- - - . 1978b. Strategies for communicating. Child Droelopment49. 953-9.
- - - . 1979. When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55. 767-811.
- - - . 1981. Lexical innovations: How children learn to create new words. In Deutsch (ed.) 1981.
- - - . 1982. The young word maker: a case study of innovation in the child's lexicon. In Wanner &
Gleitman (eds.) 1982a.
- - - . 1986. Coining complex compounds in English: affixes and word order in acquisition. Linguistics
24-1. pp 7-29.
- - - u alii. 1988. A thrower-button or a button-thrower? Children's judgments of grammatical and
ungrammatical compound nouns. Linguistics 26-1. pp 3-19.
de Villiers. Jill and Peter. 1973. A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in
child speech. Journal of Psycho linguistic Research 2. 267-78. Reprinted in Bloom (ed.) 1978.
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 59
Derwing, Bruce L. and William J. Baker. 1979. Recent research on the acquisition of English morphology.
in Paul Fletcher and Michael Garman (eds.) 1979. Languagt acquisition. 209-24. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP.
Deutsch, Werner. (ed.) 1981. Tht childs construction oflanguagt. London: Academic Press.
Garvey, Catherine, and R Hogan. 1973. Social speech and social interaction: egocentrism revisited. Child
Dnlt/opment44. 562-8.
Gleason. Jean Berko. 1958. The child's learning of English morphology. Word 14. 150-77. reprinted in
Bloom (ed.) 1978.
Hock. Hans Heinrich. 1986. Principks ofhistorical linguistics. Berlin: Mouton.
Hoenigswald, Henry M. 1960. Languagt changt and linguistic reconstruction. Chicago: Universiry of
Chicago Press.
Kastovsky. Dieter. 1986. The problem of productiviry in word formation. Linguistics 24-1. 585-600.
King, Robert D. Historical linguistics and gentrative grammar. Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kuczaj, Stan. 1976. Arguments against Hurford's 'Aux copying rule.' Journal of Child Language 3. 423-7.
- - - , . 1977. The acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Journal of Verbal Learning and
Verbal Behaviour 16. 589-600.
McNeill, David. 1970. The acquisition of language: The study ofdevelopmental psycholinguistics. New York:
Harper
MacWhinney, Brian. 1978. Processing a first language: the acquisition of morphophollology. Monographs
of the Socitty for Research in Child Development 43. no. 174.
MacWhinney, Brian, and Catherine Snow. 1985. The Child Language Data Exchange System. Journal of
Child Language 12. 271-96.
---.1990. The Child Language Data Exchange System: an update. Journal ofChild Languagt 17.
457-72.
Masur, Elise Frank, & Jean Berko Gleason. 1980. Parent-child interaaion and the acquisition of lexical
information during play. Developmental Psychology 16-5. 404-9.
Napoli, Donna Jo. and Judy Anne Kegl (eds.) 1991. Bridges between psychology and linguistics: A
Swarthmore flst5chrift for Lila Gkitman. Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Parkhurst. Jennifer T, and John Mordechai Gottman. 1986. How young children get what they want. in
John M. Gottman and Jeffrey G. Parker. 1986. The conversations offriends: speculations on affictive
development. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. data used by permission of Dr. Parkhurst.
Pinker, Steven. 1984. Language karnability and language droelopment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Roeper. Thomas. 1981. On the deduaive model and the acquisition of productive morphology. In Baker
& McCarthy (eds.) 1981.
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Pagt60
Sachs, Jacqueline S. 1983. Talking about the there and then: the emergence of displaced reference in
parent-child discourse. in Keith Nelson (ed.) 1983. Child Language 4. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Earlbaum.
Shipley, Elizabeth F. 1991. A farewell to 'thee.' in Napoli & Kegl 1991.
Stine, Elizabeth Lon, and John Neil Bohannon. 1983. Imitations, interactions, and language acquisition.
Journal of Child Language 10. 589-603.
Wanner, Eric, and Lila Gleitman (eds.) 1982a.
Cambridge UP.
Languag~
acquisition:
th~
stau of the art. Cambridge:
- - - . 1982b. Language acquisition: the state of the state of the art. in Wanner & Gleitman 1982a.
Warren-Leubecker, Amye. 1982. Sex diffirences in child-dirteted speech. Unpublished masters' thesis,
Georgia Institute of Technology.
- - - , and John Neil Bohannon. 1984. Intonation patterns in child-directed speech: mother-father
differences. Child Development 55. 1379-85.
Wells, Gordon. 1981. Learning through interaction: the study of language tkvelopment. Cambridge:
Cambridge UP
- - - . 1986. The meaning makers: children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann
Extras for CHILDES
Fletcher and Garman (1988)
Gathercole (1980).
Johnson (1986).
And thanks to Mary Evans, Brian MacWhinney. and Catherine Snow for their data
This thesis has been made possible by Brian MacWhinney and Catherine Snow, who set up the
ChiLDES.database from which I have gotten most of my data, by my advisor. Donna Jo Napoli. who
taught me syntax and morphology, by my apartmentmate, Naomi Parkhurst, who discussed the word
creation sections with me, and who put up with my stressing out during the two final weeks of writing, and
by the letter Q, and the number e.
Towards an explication ofthe role ofchild language in language change
Page 61