Abstract
abstractThis paper discusses the traceback method, which has been the basis of some influential papers on first language acquisition. The method sets out to demonstrate that many or even all utterances in a test corpus (usually the last two sessions of recording) can be accounted for with the help of recurrent fixed strings (likeWhat’s that?) or frame-and-slot patterns (like [What’sX?]) that can also be identified in the remaining dataset (i.e., the previous sessions of recording). This is taken as evidence that language learning is much more item-based than previously assumed. In the present paper we sketch the development of the method over the last two decades, and discuss its relation to usage-based theory, as well as the cognitive plausibility of its components, and we highlight both its potential and its limitations.
Highlights
[*] We are grateful to two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on a previous draft of this paper
The method aims at showing that even novel utterances can be accounted for by frame-and-slot patterns that already occur in previous utterances, which lends support to the theoretical assumption that language acquisition and language use are strongly item-based
Our main argument will be that the connection between the traceback method and usage-based theory is twofold: on the one hand, the traceback method is used in aconfirmatory way to test key assumptions of usage-based approaches to language acquisition
Summary
NIKOLAS KOCH LMU Munich and ANTJE ENDESFELDER QUICK University of Leipzig (Received 15 March 2020 – Revised 11 December 2020 – Accepted 11 January 2021 – First published online 9 March 2021). Many traceback studies use two different processes to do justice to the varying degrees of complexity of frame-and-slot patterns: “In a SUPERIMPOSE operation, the component unit placed in the slot overlaps with some lexical material of the schema, while in a SUBSTITUTE operation it just fills the slot” If utterances like I want a toy and I want a banana can be found in the main corpus, it is assumed that children substitute one unit for another, and the frame-and-slot pattern [I want a THING] can be posited. Types of slots (from Vogt & Lieven, 2010)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
