Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:38:56.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Verbs and attention to relational roles in English and Tamil*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 January 2012

NITYA SETHURAMAN  and
LINDA B. SMITH
NITYA SETHURAMAN*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan-Dearborn
LINDA B. SMITH*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
Address for correspondence: Nitya Sethuraman, Department of Behavioral Sciences, University of Michigan-Dearborn, 4901 Evergreen Rd, 4012 CB, Dearborn, MI 48128, USA. tel: (313) − 593-5139 (office); e-mail: [email protected].
Address for correspondence: Linda B. Smith, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E. 10th Street, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA. tel: (812) − 855-8256 (lab); fax: (812) − 855-4691; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English-learning children have been shown to reliably use cues from argument structure in learning verbs. However, languages pair overtly expressed arguments with verbs to varying extents, raising the question of whether children learning all languages expect the same, universal mapping between arguments and relational roles. Three experiments examined this question by asking how strongly early-learned verbs by themselves, without their corresponding explicitly expressed arguments, point to ‘conceptual arguments’ – the relational roles in a scene. Children aged two to four years and adult speakers of two languages that differ structurally in terms of whether the arguments of a verb are explicitly expressed more (English) or less (Tamil) frequently were compared in their mapping of verbs, presented without any overtly expressed arguments, to a range of scenes. The results suggest different developmental trajectories for language learners, as well as different patterns of adult interpretation, and offer new ways of thinking about the nature of verbs cross-linguistically.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , March 2013 , pp. 358 - 390
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

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

[*]

This research is supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institute of Health grant T32 HD07475 and NIMH grant R01 MH 60200 to Linda B. Smith. We thank the members of the IU Cognitive Development Lab for helpful comments and assistance with preparations for data collection in India. Additionally, we thank J. and Brinda Sethuraman for their continued encouragement for this project; Dr Indira Sridharan and Mrs Prabha Venugopal at Sree Vignesh Creche and Pre School, Sri K. S. and Smt Bhanu Srinivasan, Smt Rukmini and Smt Sujata Krishnan for their assistance with data collection in India; Natsuki Atagi, Monica Ferro, Nicole Gealy and Sarah Hampel for their assistance with data collection in the USA; Alfredo Pereira and Dana Schuller Smith for their generous contribution of time and excellent acting talents for the experiment stimuli; Aarre Laakso for assistance with various aspects of this project; the reviewers and editors for their invaluable feedback; and most importantly, all the parents, children and adults who kindly participated in our studies. This article is dedicated to Adithya and Ravi.

References

REFERENCES

Allen, S. E. M. (2007). Interacting pragmatic influences on children's argument realization. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability, 191–210. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 157–94. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (eds)2008. Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, P. (2007). Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability, 167–90. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1985). Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources.Google Scholar
Clancy, P. M. (2004). The discourse basis of constructions: Some evidence from Korean. In Clark, E. (ed.), Proceedings of the 32nd Stanford Child Language Research Forum, 20–29. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
DuBois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language 63, 805–855.Google Scholar
Dunn, L. M. & Dunn, L. M. (2007). The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Fourth Edition. Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assessments.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., Pethick, S. & Reilly, J. S. (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User's guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. R. (1991). On the semantic content of subcategorization frames. Cognitive Psychology 23, 331–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gentner, D. (1978). On relational meaning: The acquisition of verb meaning. Child Development 49, 988–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. (1994). The structural sources of verb meanings. In Bloom, P. (ed.), Language acquisition: Core readings, 174–221. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A. & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words. Language Learning and Development 1, 23–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Göksun, T., Küntay, A. & Naigles, L. R. (2008). Turkish children use morphosyntactic bootstrapping in interpreting verb meaning. Journal of Child Language 35, 291–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. & Sethuraman, N. (2005). The role of prediction in construction learning. Journal of Child Language 32, 407–426.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Küntay, A. & Slobin, D. I. (2002). Putting interaction back into child language: Examples from Turkish. Psychology of Language and Communication 6, 5–14.Google Scholar
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience: Evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. N. & Naigles, L. R. (2005). The input to verb learning in Mandarin Chinese: A role for syntactic bootstrapping. Developmental Psychology 41, 529–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, J. N. & Naigles, L. R. (2008). Mandarin learners use syntactic bootstrapping in verb acquisition. Cognition 106, 1028–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, J., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. R. (2003). Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition 87, 151–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn, vol. 2: The database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17, 357–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naigles, L. R., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. R. (1993). Children acquire word meaning components from syntactic evidence. In Dromi, E. (ed.), Language and cognition: A developmental perspective, 104–140. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children's early verb use. Journal of Child Language 25, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naigles, L. R., Küntay, A. C., Göksun, T. & Lee, J. N. (2006). Language-specific properties influence children's acquisition of argument structure. In Bamman, D., Magnitskaia, T. & Zaller, C. (eds), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 388–98. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N. & Murty, L. (2005). Argument realization in Hindi caregiver–child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 461–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narasimhan, R. (1981). Modeling language behavior. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pederson, E. (2008). Event realization in Tamil. In Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability, 331–55. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological considerations in cross-cultural research. Child Development 78, 1255–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press/Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1994). How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics? In Gleitman, L. R. & Landau, B. (eds), The acquisition of the lexicon, 377–410. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M. (1995). Missing arguments and the acquisition of predicate meanings. In Tomasello, M. & Merriman, W. E. (eds), Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs, 331–52. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Schiffman, H. F. (1999). A reference grammar of spoken Tamil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sethuraman, N. (In Preparation). Language development in Tamil. Manuscript.Google Scholar
Sethuraman, N., Goldberg, A. E. & Goodman, J. C. (1997). Using the semantics associated with syntactic frames for interpretation without context. In Clark, E. (ed.), Proceedings of the 29th Child Language Research Forum, 283–93. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Sethuraman, N. & Smith, L. B. (2010). Cross-linguistic differences in talking about scenes. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 2978–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skarabela, B. (2007). Signs of early social cognition in children's syntax: The case of joint attention in argument realization in child Inuktitut. Lingua 117, 1837–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skarabela, B. & Allen, S. E. M. (2002). The role of joint attention in argument realization in child Inuktitut. In Skarabela, B., Fish, S. A. & Do, A. H.-J. (eds), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 620–30. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1985). Cross-linguistic evidence for the language making capacity. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 2: Theoretical issues, 1157–249. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Snedeker, J. & Gleitman, L. (2004). Why it is hard to label our concepts. In Hall, D. G. & Waxman, S. R. (eds), Weaving a lexicon, 257–94. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkins, D. P. (2008). Same argument structure, different meanings: Learning ‘put’ and ‘look’ in Arrernte. In Bowerman, M. and Brown, P. (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability, 141–66. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Winer, B. J. (1971) Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Yoshida, H. & Smith, L. B. (2003) Shifting ontological boundaries: How Japanese- and English- speaking children generalize names for animals and artifacts. Developmental Science 6, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar