Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:05:21.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rapid learning of an abstract language-specific category: Polish children's acquisition of the instrumental construction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2008

EWA DĄBROWSKA  and
MICHAEL TOMASELLO
EWA DĄBROWSKA*
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
MICHAEL TOMASELLO
Affiliation:
Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig
*
Address for correspondence: Dr Ewa Dąbrowska, School of English, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, UK. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rapid acquisition of linguistic categories or constructions is sometimes regarded as evidence of innate knowledge. In this paper, we examine Polish children's early understanding of an idiosyncratic, language-specific construction involving the instrumental case – which could not be due to innate knowledge. Thirty Polish-speaking children aged 2 ; 6 and 3 ; 2 participated in a elicited production experiment with novel verbs that were demonstrated as taking nouns in the instrumental case as patients. Children heard the verbs in sentences with either masculine or feminine nouns (which take different endings in the instrumental case), and were tested with new nouns of the same and of the opposite gender. In both age groups, a substantial majority of children succeeded in generalizing from one gendered form of the instrumental case to the other (especially to the masculine), thus indicating that they have some kind of abstract understanding of the instrumental case in this construction. This relatively early abstract knowledge of an idiosyncratic construction casts doubt on the view that early acquisition requires innate linguistic knowledge.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , August 2008 , pp. 533 - 558
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

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

*

We would like to thank Mariola Busławska and Małgorzata Ciołek for their help in collecting the data, and the children from Żłobek nr 1 in Gdańsk for participating in the experiment.

References

REFERENCES

Abbot-Smith, K. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review 23, 275–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bańko, M. (2000). Inny słownik języka polskiego. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Butt, M. (2006). Theories of case. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (1987). The semantics of case. Gdańsk: University of Gdańsk.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (1994). Radial categories in grammar: the Polish instrumental case. Linguistica Silesiana 15, 83–94.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E. (2001). Learning a morphological system without a default: the Polish genitive. Journal of Child Language 28, 545–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dąbrowska, E. & Szczerbiński, M. (2006). Polish children's productivity with case marking: the role of regularity, type frequency and phonological coherence. Journal of Child Language 33, 559–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comprehension of English and German active transitive sentences. Poster presented at the Child Language Seminar, Newcastle.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1987). The core/periphery distinction in language acquisition. Proceedings – Eastern States Conference on Linguistics (ESCOL) 4, 126–46.Google Scholar
Kail, M. & Charvillat, A. (1988). Local and topological processing in sentence comprehension by French and Spanish children. Journal of Child Language 15, 637–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (1990). The rule controversy: a cognitive grammar perspective. Centre for Research in Language Newsletter (University of California, San Diego) 4, 4–15.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). A dynamic usage-based model. In Barlow, M. & Kemmer, S. (eds), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Lindner, K. (2003). The development of sentence-interpretation strategies in monolingual German-learning children with and without specific language impairment. Linguistics 41–2, 213–54.Google Scholar
Przepiórkowski, A. (1999). Case assignment and the complement/adjunct dichotomy: a non-configurational constraint-based approach. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Tübingen, Tübingen.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art, 128–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smoczyńska, M. (1985). The acquisition of Polish. In Dan, Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Volume 1: the data, 595–683. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Stolz, T. (1996). Some instruments are really good companions – some are not. Theoretical Linguistics 23, 113–347.Google Scholar
Tajsner, P. (1990). Case marking in English and Polish: a government and binding study. Unpublished PhD thesis, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Poznań.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of child language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wittek, A. & Tomasello, M. (2005). German-speaking children's productivity with syntactic constructions and case morphology: local cues act locally. First Language 25, 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, E. (2006). Lexical case, inherent case and argument structure. Linguistic Inquiry 37, 111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar