• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: 'What experimental data can tell us?'
【2h】

Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: 'What experimental data can tell us?'

机译：比较儿童非主题wh-问题中反演错误的不同说明：“哪些实验数据可以告诉我们？”

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

This study investigated different accounts of children's acquisition of non-subject wh-questions. Questions using each of 4 wh-words (what, who, how and why), and 3 auxiliaries (BE, DO and CAN) in 3sg and 3pl form were elicited from 28 children aged 3;6-4; 6. Rates of non-inversion error (Who she is hitting?) were found not to differ by wh-word, auxiliary or number alone, but by lexical auxiliary subtype and by wh-word + lexical auxiliary combination. This finding counts against simple rule-based accounts of question acquisition that include no role for the lexical subtype of the auxiliary, and suggests that children may initially acquire wh-word + lexical auxiliary combinations from the input. For DO questions, auxiliary-doubling errors (What does she does like?) were also observed, although previous research has found that such errors are virtually non-existent for positive questions. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed. © 2006 Cambridge University Press.
机译：这项研究调查了有关儿童获得非主题性疑问句的不同说法。从28名3; 6-4岁的儿童中，使用4个重音词（什么，是谁，如何以及为什么）和3个辅助词（BE，DO和CAN）以3sg和3pl的形式提出问题。 6.发现同相错误的发生率（谁在打谁？）并没有因wh词，辅助词或数字而有所不同，而是因词汇辅助子类型和whi词+词汇辅助组合而不同。这一发现与简单的基于规则的问题获取有关，该问题不包括辅助词的词汇子类型的作用，并表明孩子最初可能会从输入中获取wh-word +词性辅助词组合。对于DO问题，还观察到辅助加倍错误（她喜欢做什么？），尽管以前的研究发现，对于肯定的问题，这种错误实际上是不存在的。讨论了这种差异的可能原因。 ©2006剑桥大学出版社。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号