Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-grxwn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T03:49:25.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The linguistic marking of agentivity and control in child language*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Nancy Budwig
Nancy Budwig*
Affiliation:
Clark University
*
Department of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study examines the relationship between linguistic forms and the functions they serve in children's early talk about agentivity and control. The spontaneous linguistic productions of six children ranging between 1;8 and 2;8 served as the data base. Preliminary analyses of who the children referred to and what forms were used in subject position suggest that the children could be divided into two groups. Three children primarily referred to Self and relied on multiple Self reference forms in subject position, while the other children referred to both Self and Other and primarily used the Self reference form, I. A functional analysis was carried out to examine whether the seemingly interchangeable use of Self reference forms could be related to semantic and pragmatic patterns. The findings indicate that at a time before they regularly refer to others, the children systematically employed different Self reference forms to mark distinct perspectives on agency.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 263 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

*

Many people have contributed to the formulation of this research. I would especially like to thank Michael Bamberg, Susan Ervin-Tripp, Julie Gerhardt, John Gumperz, Dan Slobin and Robert Van Valin for helpful comments.

References

REFERENCES

Bloom, L., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 40. No. 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, M. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 41. No. 164.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budwig, N. (1986). Agentivity and control in early child language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Budwig, N. (1987). The construction of Self and Joint action categories in early child grammar. Paper presented at the Fourth International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Lund, Sweden.Google Scholar
Carter, A. (1978). The development of systematic vocalizations prior to words: a case study. In Waterson, N. & Snow, C. (eds), The development of communication. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chiat, S. (1986). Personal pronouns. In Fletcher, P. and Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
DeLancey, S. (1984). Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8. 181–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutsch, W. & Budwig, N. (1983). Form and function in the development of possessives. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 22. 36–42.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. & Gordon, D. (1986). The development of requests. In Schiefelbusch, R. (ed.), Communicative competence: assessment and intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gee, J. (n.d.) The language of accountability: children's expression of different reasons for their actions through the use of the catenative system. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Gee, J. & Savasir, I. (1985). On the use of will and gonna: Towards a description of activity-types for child language. Discourse Processes 8. 143–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhardt, J. & Savasir, I. (1986). The use of the simple present in the speech of two three-year olds: normativity not subjectivity. Language in Society 15. 501–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (1979). On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, T. (1984). Syntax: a functional-typological approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, D. & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1984). The structure of children's requests. In Schiefelbusch, R. & Pickar, J. (eds), The acquisition of communication competence. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Gvozdev, A. (1949). Formirovanie u rebenka grammatičeskogo stroja russkogo jazyka. Moskow: Izd-vo Akademii Pedagogičeskix Nauk RSFSR.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1975). Learning how to mean: explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Holisky, M. (1987). The case of the intransitive subject in Tsovatush (Batsbi). Lingua 71. 103–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56. 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huttenlocher, J., Smiley, P. & Charney, R. (1983). Emergence of action categories in the child: evidence from verb meaning. Psychological Review 90. 72–93.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. (1977). Linguistic gestalts. In W. Beach, S. Fox & S. Philosoph (eds), Papers from the thirteenth regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Loveland, K. (1984). Learning about points of view: Spatial perspective and the acquisition of ‘I/you’. Journal of Child Language 11. 535–56.Google Scholar
Painter, C. (1984). Into the mother tongue: a case study in early language development. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1926). The language and thought of the child. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Saksena, A. (1980). The affected agent. Language 56. 812–26.Google Scholar
Schieffelin, B. (1985). Acquisition of Kaluli. In Slobin, D. I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Hillside NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Shepherd, S. (1980). Creoles and language acquisition; parallels in the expression of modality. Paper presented at the third Biennial conference, Society for Caribbean Linguistics, Aruba.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1981). The origins of grammatical encoding of events. In Deutsch, W. (ed.), The child's construction of language. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1985 a). Crosslinguistic evidence for the Language Making Capacity. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1985 b). Developmental paths between form and meaning: crosslinguistic and diachronic perspectives. Keynote address, Tenth Annual Boston University Conference on Child Language.Google Scholar
Wolf, D. (1982). Understanding others: a longitudinal case study of the concept of independent agency. In Forman, G. (ed.), Action and thought: from sensorimotor schemes to symbolic operations. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar