Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:07:27.726Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Syntax and semantics in the acquisition of locative verbs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Jess Gropen ,
Steven Pinker ,
Michelle Hollander  and
Richard Goldberg
Jess Gropen*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
Steven Pinker
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Michelle Hollander
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Richard Goldberg
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children between the ages of three and seven occasionally make errors with locative verbs like pour and fill, such as * I filled water into the glass and * I poured the glass with water (Bowerman, 1982). To account for this pattern of errors, and for how they are eventually unlearned, we propose that children use a universal linking rule called OBJECT AFFECTEDNESS: the direct object corresponds to the argument that is specified as ‘affected’ in some particular way in the semantic representation of a verb. However, children must learn which verbs specify which of their arguments as being affected; specifically, whether it is the argument whose referent is undergoing a change of location, such as the content argument of pour, or the argument whose referent is undergoing a change of state, such as the container argument of fill. This predicts that syntactic errors should be associated with specific kinds of misinterpretations of verb meaning. Two experiments were performed on the ability of children and adults to understand and produce locative verbs. The results confirm that children tend to make syntactic errors with sentences containing fill and empty, encoding the content argument as direct object (e.g. fill the water). As predicted, children also misinterpreted the meanings of fill and empty as requiring not only that the container be brought into a full or empty state, but also that the content move in some specific manner (by pouring, or by dumping). Furthermore, children who misinterpreted the verbs' meanings were more likely to make syntactic errors with them. These findings support the hypothesis that verb meaning and syntax are linked in precise ways in the lexicons of language learners.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , February 1991 , pp. 115 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

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 thank Kay Bock, Susan Carey, Eve Clark, Ken Wexler and Carol Tenny for their helpful comments. We are also grateful to the directors, parents and especially children of the following centres: Bowen After School Care Program, Inc., Cambridge Nursery School, Central School, Children's Village, Inc., Creative Development Center, KLH Center, Needham Children's Community Center, Newton Community Service Center, Plowshares Child Care Program, Recreation Place, Rosary Academy Learning Center, Temple Beth Shalom, and the Zervas Program. The research reported here is part of the first author's doctoral dissertation. Experiment I was presented at the Twelfth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. This research was supported by NIH grant HD 18381 to the second author, and by a grant from the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to the MIT Center for Cognitive Science.

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, S. R. (1971). On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 6. 197–219.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 533–81.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1987). Commentary: mechanisms of language acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar: a theoretical symposium. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: WileyGoogle Scholar
Burzio, L. (1986). Italian syntax: a government-binding approach. Dordrecht: ReidelCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., Thornton, R. & Murasugi, K. (1987). Capturing the evasive passive. Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. (1985). Information packaging in the clause. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 1: Clause structure New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Francis, W. N. & Kučera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston: Houghton MifflinGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1975). Evidence for the psychological reality of semantic components: the verbs of possession. In Norman, D. A. & Rumelhart, D. E. (eds), Explorations in cognition. San Francisco: FreemanGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1978). On relational meaning: the acquisition of verb meaning. Child Development 49. 988–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: linguistic relativity vs. natural partitioning. In Kuczaj, S. A. II (ed.), Language development. Vol. 2: Language, thought, and culture. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Green, G. M. (1974). Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University PressGoogle Scholar
Gropen, J. (1989). Learning locative verbs: how universal linking rules constrain productivity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, M.I.T.Google Scholar
Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R. & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65. 203–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. S. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Keil, F. C. (1986). The acquisition of natural kind and artifact terms. In Demopoulos, W. & Marras, A. (eds), Language learning and concept acquisition. Norwood, NJ: AblexGoogle Scholar
Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Levin, B. (1985). Lexical semantics in review: an introduction. In Levin, B. (ed.), Lexical semantics in review. Lexicon Project Working Papers No. 1. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. (1985). The Child Language Data Exchange System. Journal of Child Language 12. 271–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moravcsik, E. A. (1978). On the case marking of objects. In Greenberg, J. H. et al. (eds), Universals of human language. Vol. 3: Word structure. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. (1978). Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4. 157–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. & Prince, A. (1988). On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition 28. 73–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rappaport, M. & Levin, B. (1985). A case study in lexical analysis: the locative alternation. Unpublished manuscript, M.I.T. Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Rappaport, M. & Levin, B. (1986). What to do with theta-roles. Lexicon Project Working Papers, No. 11. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Center for Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Norman, L. (1976). The grammar of ‘content’ and ‘container’. Journal of Linguistics 12. 279–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1972). Semantic structures in English and Atsugewi. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley, CA.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. (1985). Lexicalization patterns: semantic structure in lexical forms. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 3: Grammatical categories and the lexicon. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. Philosophical Review 66. 143–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar