Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:58:38.412Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can a microwave heat up coffee? How English- and Japanese-speaking children choose subjects in lexical causative sentences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 July 2015

JUNKO KANERO ,
KATHY HIRSH-PASEK  and
ROBERTA MICHNICK GOLINKOFF
JUNKO KANERO*
Affiliation:
Temple University
KATHY HIRSH-PASEK
Affiliation:
Temple University
ROBERTA MICHNICK GOLINKOFF
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
*
Address for correspondence: Junko Kanero, Department of Psychology, Temple University, 1701 North 13th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19122. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Languages differ greatly in how they express causal events. In languages like Japanese, the subjects of causative sentences, or causers, are generally animate and intentional, whereas in other languages like English, causers range widely from animate beings to inanimate objects (e.g. Wolff, Jeon & Li, 2009). This paper explores when children learn to represent cause in their native tongue and how this learning occurs over the course of development. English- and Japanese-speaking preschoolers watched animations that were caused by (i) humans acting intentionally, (ii) humans acting accidentally, (iii) objects that generate energy (e.g. a machine), and (iv) objects that do not generate energy (e.g. a tool). Children were then asked to choose a good description of the event between two options. At age three, English- and Japanese-speaking children performed the task in similar ways, attending only to the intention of causal agents; however, at age four, speakers of the two languages diverged. English speakers were more likely to accept energy-generating objects such as machines as the subject of a lexical causative sentence than Japanese speakers.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 43 , Issue 5 , September 2016 , pp. 993 - 1019
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Alexiadou, A. & Schäfer, F. (2006). Instrument subjects are agents or causers. In Baumer, D., Montero, D. & Scanlon, M. (eds), Proceedings of the 25th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 40–8. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (1989) Object sharing and projection in serial verb construction. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 513–53.Google Scholar
Becker, M. (2014). The acquisition of syntactic structure: animacy and thematic alignment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 291–352.Google Scholar
Bencini, G. M. L. & Valian, V. (2008). Abstract sentence representation in 3-year-olds: evidence from comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language 59, 97–113.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. (1986). Meaning, sound and syntax: lexical priming in sentence production. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 12, 575–86.Google Scholar
Bock, J. K. & Loebell, H. (1990). Framing sentences. Cognition 35, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, J. K., Loebell, H. & Morey, R. (1992). From conceptual roles to structural relations: bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review 99(1), 150–71.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. & Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: language specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In Gentner, D. & Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds), Language in mind: advances in the study of language and cognition, 387–428. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. & Levinson, S. C. (eds) (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Choi, S. (2006). Influence of language-specific input on spatial cognition: categories of containment. First Language 26, 207–32.Google Scholar
Choi, S. & Bowerman, M. (1991). Learning to express motion events in English and Korean: the influence of language-specific lexicalization patterns. Cognition 41, 83–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In Kenstovicz, M. (ed.), Ken Hale: a life in language, 1–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2003). First language acquisition. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: syntax and morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1998). The structure of events and the structure of language. In Tomasello, M. (ed.), The new psychology of language: cognitive and functional approaches to language structure, 67–92. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2003). Typology and universals, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Ö. & Fraurud, K. (1996). Animacy in grammar and discourse. In Fretheim, T. & Gundel, J. K. (eds), Reference and referent accessibility, 47–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1983). Agentivity and causation: data from Newari. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 54–63. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1984). Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8(2), 181–213.Google Scholar
Dixon, R. (1979). Ergativity. Language 55, 59–138.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67(3), 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fausey, C. M. & Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18(1), 150–7.Google Scholar
Fausey, C. M., Long, B. L., Inamori, A. & Boroditsky, L. (2010). Constructing agency: the role of language. Frontiers in Psychology 1, 162.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory, 1–88. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
George, N. R. (2014). The force of language: how children acquire the semantic categories of force dynamic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: a functional-typological introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. M. (2010). Trading spaces: carving up events for learning language. Perspectives on Psychological Science 5(1), 33–42.Google Scholar
Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Imai, M., Konishi, H. & Okada, H. (2011). Who is crossing where? Infants’ discrimination of figures and grounds in events. Cognition 121, 176–95.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Harding, C. G., Carlson-Luden, V. & Sexton, M. E. (1984). The infant's perception of causal events: the distinction between animate and inanimate objects. In Lipsitt, L. P. (ed.), Advances in infancy research, Vol. 3, 145–51. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Gottfried, G. M. & Gelman, S. A. (2005). Developing domain-specific causal-explanatory frameworks: the role of insides and immanence. Cognitive Development 20(1), 137–58.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hespos, S. J. & Spelke, E. S. (2004). Conceptual precursors to language. Nature 430(6998), 453–6.Google Scholar
Hespos, S. J. & Spelke, E. S. (2007). Precursors to spatial language: the case of containment. In Aurnague, M., Hickman, M. & Vieu, L. (eds), The categorization of spatial entities in language and cognition, 233–45. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Horgan, D. (1978). The development of the full passive. Journal of Child Language 5, 65–80.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. (1970). Some remarks on case-grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 1(4), 501–11.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kallulli, D. (2006). Unaccusatives with dative causers and experiencers: a unified account. In Hole, D., Meinunger, A. & Abraham, W. (eds), Datives and other cases, 271–301. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kanero, J., Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. M. (2014). What makes things happen? Cross-linguistic investigation of how children describe causal events. Poster presented at the 19th International Conference on Infant Studies, Berlin, Germany.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1997). Remarks on denominal verbs. In Alsina, A., Bresnan, J. & Sells, P. (eds), Complex predicates, 473–99. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Klettke, B. & Wolff, P. (2003). Differences in how English and German speakers talk and reason about CAUSE. In Alterman, R. & Kirsh, D. (eds), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 675–680). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1996). Severing the external argument from its verb. In Rooryck, J. & Zaring, L. (eds), Phrase structure and the lexicon (pp. 109–137). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: a usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30, 333–70.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Pine, J. & Baldwin, G. (1997). Lexically-based learning and the development of grammar in early multi-word speech. Journal of Child Language 24(1), 187–219.Google Scholar
Maguire, M. J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Imai, M., Haryu, E., Vanegas, S., … & Sanchez-Davis, B. (2010). A developmental shift from similar to language-specific strategies in verb acquisition: a comparison of English, Spanish, and Japanese. Cognition 114(3), 299–319.Google Scholar
Mandler, J. M. (2004). The foundations of mind: origins of conceptual thought. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McDonough, L., Choi, S. & Mandler, J. M. (2003). Understanding spatial relations: flexible infants, lexical adults. Cognitive Psychology 46, 229–59.Google Scholar
Meltzoff, A. N. (1995). Understanding the intentions of others: re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology 32(5), 838–50.Google Scholar
Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F. & Sorace, A. (2012). Is young children's passive syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language 66(4), 568–87.Google Scholar
Muentener, P. & Lakusta, L. (2011). The intention-to-CAUSE bias: evidence from children's causal language. Cognition 119(3), 341–55.Google Scholar
Okabe, R. (2002). Was the pig dropped? The acquisition of implicit arguments in Japanese. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1986). Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pardeshi, P. & Yoshinari, Y. (2012). An investigation into the interaction between intentionality and the use of transitive/intransitive expression: a contrastive study of Japanese and Marathi. Journal of Japanese Linguistics 28, 77–88.Google Scholar
Pine, J. & Lieven, E. V. M. (1997). Slot and frame patterns in the development of the determiner category. Applied Psycholinguistics 18, 123–38.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T. (2002). The theta system: an overview. Theoretical Linguistics 28, 229–90.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1989). Instruments as agents: on the nature of semantic relations. Journal of Linguistics 25, 189–210.Google Scholar
Shimpi, P. M., Gamez, P., Huttenlocher, J. & Vasilyeva, M. (2007). Syntactic priming in 3- and 4-year-old children: evidence for abstract representations of transitive and dative forms. Developmental Psychology 43, 1334–46.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Hierarchy of features and ergativity. In Dixon, R. M. W. (ed.), Grammatical categories in Australian languages (pp. 112–71). Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Song, G. & Wolff, P. (2005). Linking perceptual properties to the linguistic expression of causation. In Achard, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds), Language, culture, and mind, 237–50. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
de Swart, P., Lamers, M. & Lestrade, S. (2008). Animacy, argument structure, and argument encoding. Lingua 118, 131–40.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Volume I: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T. (1991). Sekai-no gengo-to nihongo [World languages and Japanese]. Tokyo: Kuroshio Shuppan.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66, 221–60.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. & Wilkins, D P. (1996). The case for ‘effector’: case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Shibatani, M. & Thompson, S. A. (eds), Grammatical constructions: their form and meaning, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Werker, J. F. & Tees, R. C. (1984). Cross-language speech perception: evidence for perceptual reorganization during the first year of life. Infant Behavior and Development 7, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P. (2003). Direct causation in the linguistic coding and individuation of causal events. Cognition 88, 1–48.Google Scholar
Wolff, P., Jeon, G., Klettke, B. & Li, Y. (2010). Force creation and possible causers across languages. In Malt, B. & Wolff, P. (eds), Words and the mind: how words capture human experience, 93–110. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, P., Jeon, G. & Li, Y. (2009). Causal agents in English, Korean and Chinese: the role of internal and external causation. Language and Cognition, 1(2) 165–194.Google Scholar
Wolff, P., Jeon, G. & Yeh, K. (2006). Causal agents and the individuation of events in English, Chinese, and Korean. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference on Cognitive Science (pp. 213–214). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Wolff, P. & Ventura, T. (2009). When Russians learn English: how the semantics of causation may change. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12(2), 153–76.Google Scholar
Yamamoto, M. (1999). Animacy and reference: a cognitive approach to corpus linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar