Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:29:29.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Can children use a verb without exposure to its argument structure?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Martin D. S. Braine ,
Ruth E. Brody ,
Shalom M. Fisch ,
Mara J. Weisberger  and
Monica Blum
Martin D. S. Braine*
Affiliation:
New York University
Ruth E. Brody
Affiliation:
New York University
Shalom M. Fisch
Affiliation:
New York University
Mara J. Weisberger
Affiliation:
New York University
Monica Blum
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University
*
Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington Place, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10003, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We hypothesize that canonical sentence schemas (e.g. Agent—verb-Patient) can sometimes assign argument structure to verbs. In particular, they provide a default argument structure early in learning when a verb's lexical entry may record the nature of the action but lack a specific argument structure. To test the theory and its application to causative verb errors (e.g. stay it there), novel action verbs were modelled, some as causative, some as intransitive, and some unmarked for transitivity. Spontaneous usage was recorded, along with responses to agent-questions (‘What is the [Agent] doing?’) and patient-questions (‘What is the [Patient] doing?’). Comparable data were obtained for familiar English verbs, some of fixed and some of optional transitivity. Subjects were willing to use all novel verbs both transitively and intransitively, although adults respected assigned transitivity more than children. All subjects largely respected the transitivity of familiar verbs. The discourse pressure of the agent- and patient-questions greatly affected observed transitivity. No evidence was found for the intransitive-to-causative derivational process postulated by Bowerman. We propose that the kind of causativity error observed by Bowerman is due to assignment of argument structure from canonical sentence schemas, especially under pressure of a need to make a sentence with a particular argument (Agent or Patient) as subject. The theory has the advantage of explaining errors without postulating the acquisition of erroneous lexical entries that have to be unlearned, and it can be extended to other kinds of errors in the choice and placement of arguments.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 1990 , pp. 313 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

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

*

The work was supported by a grant (HD 20807) from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. We are grateful to Melissa Bowerman for a comment on an earlier version of the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Bar-Adon, A. (1957). Lesonam hameduberet selyeladim beyisrael [Children's Hebrew in Israel]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hebrew University, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1988). Modeling the acquisition of linguistic structure. In Levy, Y., Schlesinger, I. M. & Braine, M. D. S. (eds), Categories and processes in language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1980). Child language as evidence for grammatical description. Preschoolers' construal of transitivity in the Hebrew verb system. Linguistics 18. 677–701.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1982). Verb-pattern alternation: the interface of morphology, syntax, and semantics in Hebrew child language. Journal of Child Language 9. 169–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berman, R. A. (1985). Acquisition of Hebrew. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 1. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1974). Learning the structure of causative verbs: a study in the relationship of cognitive, semantic and syntactic development. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 8. 142–78.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982 a). Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di Semantica 3. 5–65.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1982 b). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Hochberg, J. (1986). Children's judgements of transitivity errors. Journal of Child Language 13. 317–34.Google Scholar
Lord, C. (1979). ‘Don't you fall me down’: children's generalizations regarding cause and transitivity. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 17. 81–9.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1979). How to get from words to sentences. In Aaronson, D. and Reiber, R. (eds), Psycholinguistic research: implications and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1983). Some current issues in the study of the acquisition of grammar. In Mussen, P. (ed.), Carmichael's manual of child psychology. Fourth edition. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P., Gudeman, R., Gerard-Ngo, P. & DeHart, G. (1987). A study in novel word learning: the productivity of the causative. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar