Maratsos M
University of Minnesota, USA.
J Child Lang. 2000 Feb;27(1):183-212. doi: 10.1017/s0305000999004067.
Marcus, Pinker, Ullman, Hollander, Rosen & Xu (1992) claim that when the irregular past form of a verb is known, it is immediately known to be the correct form, such that over-regularizations only occur as speech errors, not as a genuine grammatical alternative; as a result, they argue, over-regularization rates are, when carefully inspected, very low. In the present paper: (1) it is shown that even if over-regularizations are a genuine grammatical alternative, overall rates in samples would still be low for most children; (2) careful analysis shows evidence for substantial over-regularization periods in three longitudinal subjects ages 2;5-5;2 (Abe), 2;3-5;2 (Adam) and 2;3-5;0 (Sarah); (3) Abe's much higher rates follow from general developments in his past tense acquisition, in ways not consonant with Marcus et al.'s formulations.
马库斯、平克、乌尔曼、霍兰德、罗森和徐（1992）声称，当一个动词的不规则过去式被知晓时，人们会立刻知道它是正确形式，因此过度规则化只作为言语错误出现，而非一种真正的语法变体；他们认为，经过仔细考察，过度规则化的发生率非常低。在本论文中：（1）研究表明，即使过度规则化是一种真正的语法变体，大多数儿童样本中的总体发生率仍然会很低；（2）仔细分析显示，在三个纵向研究对象（2岁5个月至5岁2个月的阿贝、2岁3个月至5岁2个月的亚当和2岁3个月至5岁0个月的莎拉）中存在大量过度规则化阶段的证据；（3）阿贝更高的发生率源于他过去时态习得的一般发展情况，其方式与马库斯等人的表述不一致。
