Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-k2jvg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-07T19:31:46.383Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Mommy sock’: the child's understanding of possession as expressed in two-noun phrases*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Roberta Michnick Golinkoff  and
Joan Markessini
Roberta Michnick Golinkoff
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Joan Markessini
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Thirty children with a mean length of utterance ranging from 1·00 to 4 and an age range of 1; 7 to 5; 5 were tested by their own mothers for comprehension of two-noun possessive phrases such as mommy's shoe. Three types of possessive relationships (alienable, intrinsic and reciprocal) in addition to anomalous possessive phrases were used to uncover children's knowledge of the semantics and syntax of English possession. Results indicated, first, that even young children may have detailed notions of which objects are likely to serve as possessors and which as possessions, and second, that word order may not be used to comprehepossessive phrases until considerable linguistic development has occurred.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1980 , pp. 119 - 135
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

A brief report of these data was presented at the American Psychological Association Meetings, Washington D.C., in September 1976. We would like to express our sincere appreciation to Mary Wolfe for her assistance in data analysis and to Adele Abrahamsen, Carol Harding, Marcia Halperin and Frank B. Murray for their helpful comments on this paper. Address for correspondence: R. M. Golinkoff, Department of Educational Studies, College of Education, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19711.

References

REFERENCES

Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monogr.Soc.Res.Ch.Devel. 40.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monogr.Soc.Res.Ch.Devel. 41.Google Scholar
Broen, P. (1972). The verbal environment of the language-learning child. ASHA Monogr. 17.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R. & Miller, J. (1975). Word order in early two- and three-word utterances: does production precede comprehension? JSHR 18. 355–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Villiers, J. & De Villiers, P. (1973). Development of the use of word order in comprehension. JPsycholingRes 2. 331–41.Google ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, C. J. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M. (1975). Semantic development in infants: the concept of agent and recipient. MPQ 21. 181–93.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M. & Kerr, J. L. (1978). Infants' perceptions of semantically-defined action role changes in filmed events. MPQ 24. 53–61.Google Scholar
Howe, C. J. (1976). The meanings of two-word utterances in the speech of young children. JChLang 3. 29–48.Google Scholar
Kernan, K. T. (1970). Semantic relations and the child's acquisition of language. AL 12. 171–87.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1968). Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: C.U.P.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1976). Some attributes of adjectives used by young children. Cognition 4. 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nida, H. (1958). Analysis of meaning and dictionary making. IJAL 24. 279–92.Google Scholar
Petretic, P. A. & Tweney, R. D. (1977). Does comprehension precede production? The development of children's responses to telegraphic sentences of varying grammatical adequacy. JChLang 4. 201–10.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1971). Production of utterances and language acquisition. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Seiter, H. (1973). On the problem of language possessivity. Folia Linguistica 6. 231–50.Google Scholar
Shipley, E., Smith, C. & Gleitman, L. (1969). A study in the acquisition of language: free responses to commands. Lg 45. 322–42.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1966). Grammatical transformations in childhood and adulthood. JVLVB 5. 219–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1970). Universals of grammatical development. In Flores, G. B., D'Arcais, & Levelt, W. J. (eds), Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Strohner, H. & Nelson, K. (1974). The young child's development of sentence comprehension: influences of event probability, nonverbal context, syntactic form, and strategies. ChDev 45. 567–76.Google Scholar
Wetstone, H. & Friedlander, B. (1973). The effects of word order on young children's responses to simple questions and commands. ChDev 44. 734–40.Google Scholar
Wieman, L. (1976). Stress patterns of early child language. JChLang 3. 283–6.Google Scholar