Exploring influential factors of shape classifier comprehension and production in Mandarin-speaking children

Abstract

Mandarin classifiers are a complex system, but little is known about how Mandarin-speaking children manage to learn the system. Based on the extant literature, we explored potential factors influencing the comprehension and production of Mandarin shape classifiers, including classifier-based semantic categorization and errors pertaining to the semantic strategies, input frequency of classifier-noun combinations, and vocabulary knowledge. In total, 138 typically developing monolingual Mandarin-speaking children between ages 4;1 and 6;5 completed an object categorization task, shape classifier comprehension and production tasks, and a vocabulary test. The results showed that classifier-based categorization did not significantly relate to classifier knowledge, but children’s comprehension errors were mostly selecting an object that is perceptually similar to the target object. Estimated input frequency of classifier-noun combinations was significantly related to classifier comprehension, and there was differential accuracy for different classifier-noun combinations, which may indicate item-by-item learning of individual classifier-noun pairings. Mandarin-speaking children may take a combined approach by sorting semantic features for different classifiers and learning individual classifier-noun combinations. The interplay of the two approaches can be very complex and should be further investigated in future studies. Vocabulary knowledge was significantly related to classifier comprehension and production, indicating common traits between classifier learning and noun learning.

The acquisition of the semantics of Japanese numeral classifiers: The methodological value of nonsense

“…In summary, the most common non-target responses made by children are omissions of classifiers (NC; counting items with bare numerals), followed by substitutions with general classifiers (GC) and, then, use of incorrect classifiers (WC). This finding is in contrast with other studies finding omissions of classifiers to be rare even among younger Japanese and Chinese children (Hao et al, 2021;Uchida & Imai, 1999). Such discrepancies may be affected by the inclusion of nonce items in this study.…”

“…To begin with, there are very few studies that examine comprehension and production of classifiers in child development. The most recent study (Hao et al, 2021) found a significant gap between comprehension and production accuracy of classifiers in Mandarin-speaking children, corroborating the findings of previous studies (Chien et al, 2003;Uchida & Imai, 1999) that comprehension precedes production in classifier acquisition. Among those studies that examine comprehension of classifiers, children seem to reach ceiling (over 90% accuracy) on various types of sortal classifiers by age six, with significant improvements between four to five years of age (Japanese: Uchida & Imai, 1996, 1999Sumiya & Colunga, 2006;Yamamoto & Keil, 2000, Chinese: Chien at al., 2003Li et al, 2010;Hao et al, 2021).…”

“…The most recent study (Hao et al, 2021) found a significant gap between comprehension and production accuracy of classifiers in Mandarin-speaking children, corroborating the findings of previous studies (Chien et al, 2003;Uchida & Imai, 1999) that comprehension precedes production in classifier acquisition. Among those studies that examine comprehension of classifiers, children seem to reach ceiling (over 90% accuracy) on various types of sortal classifiers by age six, with significant improvements between four to five years of age (Japanese: Uchida & Imai, 1996, 1999Sumiya & Colunga, 2006;Yamamoto & Keil, 2000, Chinese: Chien at al., 2003Li et al, 2010;Hao et al, 2021). On the other hand, those that test the production of classifiers show strikingly low accuracy for six-year-old Chinese and Japanese children (Hao et al, 2021;Matsumoto, 1987;Uchida & Imai, 1999) and a study with Malay children (Salehuddin & Winskel, 2009) shows that even children as old as nine could only produce the correct classifier around 50 percent of the time.…”

“…Among those studies that examine comprehension of classifiers, children seem to reach ceiling (over 90% accuracy) on various types of sortal classifiers by age six, with significant improvements between four to five years of age (Japanese: Uchida & Imai, 1996, 1999Sumiya & Colunga, 2006;Yamamoto & Keil, 2000, Chinese: Chien at al., 2003Li et al, 2010;Hao et al, 2021). On the other hand, those that test the production of classifiers show strikingly low accuracy for six-year-old Chinese and Japanese children (Hao et al, 2021;Matsumoto, 1987;Uchida & Imai, 1999) and a study with Malay children (Salehuddin & Winskel, 2009) shows that even children as old as nine could only produce the correct classifier around 50 percent of the time. Of course, it cannot be assumed that all Asian numeral classifier systems should evidence the same acquisition patterns, not least because specific languages are more and less transparent relative to one another (e.g., as highlighted above, Chinese is less transparent than Japanese in that only the former permits a single classifier to collocate with both animate and inanimate nouns).…”

“…Most previous studies (as cited above), however, use real items that are available in the child's input to test their use and knowledge of classifiers. Although some attempts have been made to uncover the relationship between semantic categorization skills and classifier knowledge by running correlational analyses (Hao et al, 2021;Sera et al, 2013), it is difficult to tease apart the grammatical vs. semantic knowledge of classifiers via a paradigm that tests only known items. An exception is a study by Li et al (2010) which tested Mandarin children's comprehension of numeral classifiers by using both familiar and novel items.…”