I need to know that undergeralization in the first language aquisition appears in all childern?

Question

I need to proove that undergeneraliztion in the first language aquistion does not occure in all childern

Answer 1

"When children learn new words, they often show overgeneralization (e.g., calling all animals "doggie") or undergeneralization (e.g., using the word "dog" for their own pet but not realizing that other canines also are "dogs")."

"Language: A Code for Communicating", Paul P. Wang and Marleen Ann Baron, Excerpted from "Children with Disabilities", (pp. 275-292), Fourth Edition, edited by Mark L. Batshaw, M.D. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing, 1997, quoted in Other Disabilities and Apraxia : http://www.apraxia-kids.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=chKMI0PIIsE&b=788457&ct=464127

"Over time, words develop a separation between a “confirmed core” (1984; 1989) and a peripheral area of potential generalization. As long as the child sticks closely to attested instances of the category inside the confirmed core, she will tend to undergeneralize the word “car”. Anglin (1977) and Dromi (1987) have argued that the frequency of such undergeneralizations is typically underestimated, because undergeneralizations never lead to errors. If one does a careful analysis of the range of uses of new words, it appears that undergeneralization is closer to the rule than the exception."

"MODELS OF THE EMERGENCE OF LANGUAGE", Brian MacWhinney, Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, p.5 : http://psyling.psy.cmu.edu/papers/emergentism/annual.pdf

Answer 2

No specifications were made of the size of the Tower of Babel. It's possible it would dwarf these modern towers (?). It also revealed something of the thoughts of God in describing the decision process. Basically, that event happened because God just kind felt like it. So maybe the tower wasn't impressive at all, but God's mood that day was to just create a little fun through chaos, kind of like the little kid that owns an ant farm and sees the ants making some progress and then suddenly decides to violently shake the their "world" apart. This is one of my fun hypotheses of a possible God: the Aquarium hypothesis. See, God wasn't as old back in the days of the Babel story or maybe God has just decided to see what we expect to gain from all these towers lately, but eventually God may decide to pick up the Aquarium and shake the heck out of it. Or maybe God has simply matured or died. Meanwhile, new languages form every day, but not as dramatically as described in the Bible, which I think tends to exaggerate greatly. Given that most dissenting evidence has probably been burned or dissenters killed, it hardly seems credible being its only witness to these events and in bearing striking resemblance (someone wasn't thorough enough?) to myths of the ancient Babylonians themselves. Apologies! I digress! New languages form every day as spies, gangs, thieves, inmates, in-groups, out-groups, and various sundry people not intentionally creating a cant (trade or spy language) build up new vocabularies to either popularize an idea or be able to communicate secretly with one another. Yes, many of these new vocabulary words get discarded, but many others stick. Dialects also drift towards being different languages, but they also are now impacted by telecommunications and globalism, which also helps to stabilize language as standard trade languages are needed. Of course, we don't even need an old tall tale to explain how other languages came to exist as we now understand how they form naturally, but who am I to say what someone believes is myth! No, by all means some people should hold onto these ideas so we can see a demonstration of how it was possible for people to believe in dragons and faeries, let alone Norse gods that only maintained their immortality through eating golden apples. It's rather fascinating to have such people visit. Amazing they think such things are real! Wow. The 21st century and someone still thinks *what?* Astounding!

Answer 3

undergeralization appears but undergeneraliztion does not occure in all childern in the first language aquistion and aquisition.

Answer 4

I don't understand your question. I studied child acquisition of language many years ago at university and currently teach foreign languages. Please give some more details about what you need,