Speech Innovations In Child Language: A Comparative Analysis Of English And Uzbek
Authors
Files
Abstract
Young children do not only learn the words of their language; they also create new ones. Such speech innovations forms like English to broom ‘to sweep’ or Uzbek yeygich ‘a thing for eating, a spoon’ are absent from adult usage, yet they are built according to productive rules of the language. This article compares lexical and word-formation innovations in the speech of English and Uzbek-speaking preschool children. The study is qualitative and comparative-typological: English examples were drawn from published research on child lexical innovation, and Uzbek examples from observations of preschool children’s everyday speech. The innovations were classified according to the word-formation mechanism used and compared with the conventional adult forms. The results show that children in both languages coin words to fill gaps in their vocabulary and rely on the most transparent and productive patterns available. The preferred mechanisms, however, differ: English-speaking children rely heavily on conversion (zero derivation) and compounding, while Uzbek-speaking children predominantly use transparent derivational suffixes such as -chi, -gich, -la and -xona. The findings are interpreted in terms of Clark’s principles of contrast, conventionality and transparency and in terms of the typological difference between an analytic and an agglutinative language. Pedagogical implications for preschool education and speech therapy are discussed.
References
1. Aksu-Koç, A. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 1, pp. 839–878). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2. Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14(2–3), 150–177.
3. Bodrogligeti, A. J. E. (2003). An academic reference grammar of modern literary Uzbek. Munich: Lincom Europa.
4. Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5. Chukovsky, K. (1963). From two to five (M. Morton, Trans.). Berkeley: University of California Press.
6. Clark, E. V. (1982). The young word maker: A case study of innovation in the child’s lexicon. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 390–425). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 1–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Clark, E. V., & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language, 55(4), 767–811.
10. Kononov, A. N. (1960). Grammatika sovremennogo uzbekskogo literaturnogo yazyka [Grammar of the modern Uzbek literary language]. Moscow–Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR.
11. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Sjöberg, A. F. (1963). Uzbek structural grammar. Bloomington: Indiana University.
13. Slobin, D. I. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition (Vol. 2, pp. 1157–1256). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
