Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:50:26.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntactic generalization with novel intransitive verbs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2013

MELISSA KLINE  and
KATHERINE DEMUTH
MELISSA KLINE
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA
KATHERINE DEMUTH
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To understand how children develop adult argument structure, we must understand the nature of syntactic and semantic representations during development. The present studies compare the performance of children aged 2;6 on the two intransitive alternations in English: patient (Daddy is cooking the food/The food is cooking) and agent (Daddy is cooking). Children displayed abstract knowledge of both alternations, producing appropriate syntactic generalizations with novel verbs. These generalizations were adult-like in both flexibility and constraint. Rather than limiting their generalizations to lexicalized frames, children produced sentences with a variety of nouns and pronouns. They also avoided semantic overgeneralizations, producing intransitive sentences that respected the event restrictions and animacy cues. Some generated semantically appropriate agent intransitives when discourse pressure favored patient intransitives, indicating a stronger command of the first alternation. This was in line with frequency distributions in child-directed speech. These findings suggest that children have early access to representations that permit flexible argument structure generalization.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , May 2014 , pp. 543 - 574
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

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

[*]

Address for correspondence: Melissa Kline, Massachusetts Institute of Technology – Brain and Cognitive Sciences, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139, United States. e-mail: [email protected]

References

REFERENCES

Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2004). Training 2;6-year-olds to produce the transitive construction: the role of frequency, semantic similarity and shared syntactic distribution. Developmental Science 7(1), 48–55.Google Scholar
Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2008). Graded representations in the acquisition of English and German transitive constructions. Cognitive Development 23(1), 48–66.Google Scholar
Akhtar, N. & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33(6), 952–65.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F. & Young, C. R. (2008). The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children's and adults' graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition 106(1), 87–129.Google Scholar
Arunachalam, S. & Waxman, S. R. (2010). Meaning from syntax: evidence from 2-year-olds. Cognition 114(3), 442–46.Google Scholar
Broman Olsen, M. & Resnik, P. (1997). Implicit object constructions and the (in)transitivity continuum. In Singer, K., Eggert, R. & Anderson, G. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society, 327–36. Chicago, IL: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J. & Tomasello, M. (1999). Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology 35(1), 29–44.Google Scholar
Bunger, A. & Lidz, J. L. (2004). Syntactic bootstrapping and the internal structure of causative events. In Brugos, A., Micciulla, L. & Smith, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 74–85. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bunger, A. & Lidz, J. L. (2008). Thematic relations as a cue to verb class: 2-year-olds distinguish unaccusatives from unergatives. In Tauberer, J., Eilam, A. & MacKenzie, L. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium, 43–56. Philadelphia, PA: Penn Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Childers, J. B. & Tomasello, M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children's acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology 37(6), 739–48.Google Scholar
Conwell, E. & Demuth, K. (2007). Early syntactic productivity: evidence from dative shift. Cognition 103, 163–79.Google Scholar
Conwell, E. & Morgan, J. (2007). Resolving grammatical category ambiguity in acquisition. In Caunt-Nulton, H., Kulatilake, S. & Woo, I. (eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 117–28s. Boston, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Demuth, K. (1989). Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language 65(1), 56–80.Google Scholar
Demuth, K., Culbertson, J. & Alter, J. (2006). Word-minimality, epenthesis, and coda licensing in the acquisition of English. Language & Speech 49, 137–74.Google Scholar
Demuth, K., Moloi, F. & Machobane, M. (2010). 3-Year-olds' comprehension, production, and generalization of Sesotho passives. Cognition 115(2), 238–51.Google Scholar
Dodson, K. & Tomasello, M. (1998). Acquiring the transitive construction in English: the role of animacy and pronouns. Journal of Child Language 25(3), 605–22.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Pethick, S., Renda, C., Cox, J. L., Dale, P. S. & Reznick, J. S. (2000). Short form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 95–115.Google Scholar
Fisher, C. (2002). Structural limits on verb mapping: the role of abstract structure in 2·5-year-olds' interpretations of novel verbs. Developmental Science 5(1), 55–64.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Gertner, Y., Scott, R. M. & Yuan, S. (2010). Syntactic bootstrapping. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1, 143–49.Google ScholarPubMed
Folli, R. & Harley, H. (2008). Teleology and animacy in external arguments. Lingua 118(2), 190–202.Google Scholar
Gordon, P. & Chafetz, J. (1990). Verb-based versus class-based accounts of actionality effects in children's comprehension of passives. Cognition 36(3), 227–54.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M. & Shimpi, P. (2004). Syntactic priming in young children. Journal of Memory and Language 50, 182–95.Google Scholar
Johansson, S. & Brittain, J. (2012). The lexical semantics of Northern East Cree verbs of emission: a unified analysis of -piyi. Paper presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America.Google Scholar
Kline, M. & Demuth, K. (2010). Factors facilitating implicit learning: the case of the Sesotho passive. Language Acquisition 17(4), 220–34.Google Scholar
Kline, M., Snedeker, J. & Schulz, L. (2011). Children's comprehension and production of transitive sentences is sensitive to the causal structure of events. In Carlson, L., Hölscher, C. & Shipley, T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 2538–43. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization (Research Surveys in Linguistics). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Behrens, H., Speares, J. & Tomasello, M. (2003). Early syntactic creativity: a usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30(2), 333–67.Google Scholar
Lieven, E., Pine, J. & Rowland, C. F. (1998). Comparing different models of the development of the English verb category. Linguistics 36, 4–40.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: tools for analyzing talk, 3rd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Medina, T. N. (2007). Learning which verbs allow object omission: verb semantic selectivity and the implicit object construction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17(2), 357–74.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. (1996). The use of multiple frames in verb learning via syntactic bootstrapping. Cognition 58, 221–51.Google Scholar
Naigles, L., Hoff, E. & Vear, D. (2009). Flexibility in early verb use: evidence from a multiple-N diary study. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 74(2), 1–112.Google Scholar
Olguin, R. & Tomasello, M. (1993). Twenty-five-month-old children do not have a grammatical category of verb. Cognitive Development 8(3), 245–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. In Jaeger, J. (ed.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 157–89. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Resnik, P. (1996). Selectional constraints: an information-theoretic model and its computational realization. Cognition 61, 127–59.Google Scholar
Scott, R. M. & Fisher, C. (2006). Automatic classification of transitivity alternations in child-directed speech. In Sun, R. & Miyake, N. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 2129–34. Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
Scott, R. M. & Fisher, C. (2009). Two-year-olds use distributional cues to interpret transitivity-alternating verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 24(6), 777–803.Google Scholar
Snedeker, J. & Thothathiri, M. (2008). What lurks beneath: syntactic priming during language comprehension in preschoolers (and adults). In Sekerina, I, Fernández, E. & Clahsen, H. (eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics: on-line methods in children's language processing, 251–315. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: a case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–53.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2005). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Brooks, P. J. (1998). Young children's earliest transitive and intransitive constructions (syntactic development). Cognitive Linguistics 9(4), 379–95.Google Scholar
Yuan, S. & Fisher, C. (2009). ‘Really? She blicked the baby?’: two-year-olds learn combinatorial facts about verbs by listening. Psychological Science 20, 619–26.Google Scholar