Maigi Vija

Cross-linguistic patterns in the acquisition of quantifiers.

Significance Although much research has been devoted to the acquisition of number words, relatively little is known about the acquisition of other expressions of quantity. We propose that the order of acquisition of quantifiers is related to features inherent to the meaning of each term. Four specific dimensions of the meaning and use of quantifiers are found to capture robust similarities in the order of acquisition of quantifiers in similar ways across 31 languages, representing 11 language types. Learners of most languages are faced with the task of acquiring words to talk about number and quantity. Much is known about the order of acquisition of number words as well as the cognitive and perceptual systems and cultural practices that shape it. Substantially less is known about the acquisition of quantifiers. Here, we consider the extent to which systems and practices that support number word acquisition can be applied to quantifier acquisition and conclude that the two domains are largely distinct in this respect. Consequently, we hypothesize that the acquisition of quantifiers is constrained by a set of factors related to each quantifier’s specific meaning. We investigate competence with the expressions for “all,” “none,” “some,” “some…not,” and “most” in 31 languages, representing 11 language types, by testing 768 5-y-old children and 536 adults. We found a cross-linguistically similar order of acquisition of quantifiers, explicable in terms of four factors relating to their meaning and use. In addition, exploratory analyses reveal that language- and learner-specific factors, such as negative concord and gender, are significant predictors of variation.

Pronouns in Estonian Child Language

Pronouns in Estonian Child Language Pronouns are words that fall on the boundaries of vocabulary and grammar. They possess several distinctive characteristics that are important for language acquisition. First, since the referent of a pronoun only becomes apparent in context, the interpretation of pronouns requires a specific kind of information. In order to understand to whom I, you or this refer, we need to know the whole communicative situation. This fact should still not complicate language acquisition too much, because the childs language development starts with ‘here and now’. Yet, the acquisition of a pragmatico-grammatical complex of pronouns is bound to take time due to the variety of pronoun functions involved. On the one hand, the referents of pronouns (especially those of speech act pronouns mina ‘I’ and sina ‘you:2SG’) change constantly, making an exact repetition of what an adult said, in most cases, impossible for the child. On the other hand, the areas of use of certain pronouns (e.g., those expressing definiteness) require the mastery of narrative principles. There are also studies that show that the acquisition of pronouns after the critical age is especially difficult or even impossible (see the discussion of Genies case in Lust 2006: 95). This article gives an analysis of the acquisition of Estonian personal and demonstrative pronouns. In Estonian, similarly to many other languages, a group of frequently used pronouns functions as a device for minimal reference and for determining noun phrases for referential needs of ongoing discourse. The group consists of different types of pronouns: personal (mina, sina, tema, meie, teie, nemad), demonstrative (see), possessive (oma), and quantificational (üks, mingi). In addition, there are also some adverbs used for deictic reference, for example those of spatial reference (siin ‘here’, seal ‘there’, etc.). Some of these pro-words are typically used in deictic contexts and refer to entities present in the physical context (1 and 2sg personal pronouns and demonstratives); others refer primarily anaphorically (3rd person pronoun and demonstratives), and typically have an antecedent in the ongoing discourse. The same pronouns (except personal) can function as determiners very much like articles in Indo-European languages. Thus, we can see a group of core prowords that are frequent and have different functions. An overview of these devices of pronominal reference is given in Pajusalu (in press).

Acquisition of the Impersonal Voice by an Estonian Child

This article describes the form and function of the first impersonal voice constructions by Andreas, an Estonian boy, from the age of 1;7.24 to 3;1.13. The data for the analysis were drawn from the single most extensive sample within the Estonian subcorpus of the CHILDES database. The aim of this study is to gain an insight into the process of acquisition of the impersonal voice in Estonian by following the development of impersonal forms in Andreas’s everyday conversations. It describes the relations between impersonal forms in his and his caregivers’ language and identifies typical contexts in which impersonal forms occur. The study is novel in that it targets the Estonian impersonal voice, which has not been investigated in this specific context before. Most studies on the acquisition of voice constructions focus on languages other than Estonian and have in general concentrated on passive voice constructions. Similarly to the passive, the Estonian impersonal is a subject-oriented construction. It is different from the passive in that it does not reduce the valency of the verb but merely constrains argument realization. One of the most detailed studies of the acquisition of Estonian morphology is the doctoral thesis of Reili Argus (2008), which, however, concentrates mainly on the categories of case, tense, and aspect. The comprehension of Estonian voice constructions by 4to 6-year-old children has been studied to a certain extent by Vija et al. (2009) as well as by Kunnari et al. (2010). However, no detailed longitudinal studies focusing on Estonian voice constructions have as yet appeared. We first provide a brief description of voice constructions in Estonian and discuss certain issues that have emerged from previous studies on the acquisition of voice constructions in general. We then offer an analysis of Andreas’s data. The analysis