Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T21:31:16.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Subject and agent in emerging grammars: evidence for a change in children's biases*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Edward H. Matthei
Edward H. Matthei*
Affiliation:
University of California, Irvine
*
Cognitive Science Department, School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents the results of two experiments which appear to show that children's linguistic generalizational biases change from a semantically based system to a syntactic-structural system. The experiments use the constituent repetition paradigm of Read & Schreiber (1982). Subjects were trained to repeat the subject noun phrase in orally presented sentences. Preschoolers, but not second-graders, displayed a tendency to repeat the agentive noun phrase (contained in the by-phrase) in semantically irreversible passive sentences. It is argued that the results provide more evidence for a semantic-relational bias in children's early grammars, and that the results also provide support for the notion that children's generalizational biases shift from a semantic relational basis to a syntactic-structural basis some time between the preschool and early grammar school years.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 1987 , pp. 295 - 308
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1987

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

*

I wish to thank the teachers, parents and children at the Verano Preschool and the Turtle Rock Preschool for their cooperation in these studies. Thanks also to J. Billingsley, S. Brown and S. Stelling for their help in running the subjects. Special thanks also go to Bill Batchelder for a number of useful discussions about the statistical analyses. I also wish to thank the anonymous reviewer whose comments helped to clarify a number of points in the paper. I, of course, assume full responsibility for errors and infelicities contained herein.

References

Atkinson, M. (1982) Explorations in the study of child language development. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1982) Functionalist approaches to grammar. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A. & Smith, S. (1982) Functional constraints on sentence processing: a cross-linguistic study. Cognition 11. 245–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bever, T. G. (1970) The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Borer, H. & Wexler, K. (1984) The maturation of syntax. Paper presented at the Conference on Parameter-setting, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1973) Structural relationships in children's utterances: syntactic or semantic? In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. & Hardy, J. A. (1982) On what case categories there are, why they are, and how they develop: an amalgam of a priori considerations, speculation, and evidence from children. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973) A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cochran, W. G. (1950) The comparison of percentages in matched samples. Biometrika 37. 256–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fillmore, C. J. (1968) The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. (1981) Maturational determinants of language growth. Cognition 10. 103–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gleitman, L. R. & Wanner, E. (1982) Language acquisition: the state of the state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Hakes, D. T. (1980) The development of metalinguistic abilities in children. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. F. (1965) The psychological reality of phrase-structure rules. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 4. 469–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kean, M-L. (In press) Brain structures and linguistic capacity. In Newmeyer, F. (ed.), Linguistics: the Cambridge survey. Vol. 2. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Lagendoen, D. T. (1970) Essentials of English grammar. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. & Chalkey, M. A. (1980) The internal language of children's syntax: the ontogenesis and representation of syntactic categories. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's language. Vol. 2. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P., Kuczaj, S. A., Fox, D. E. C. & Chalkey, M. A. (1979) Some empirical studies in the acquisition of transformational relations: passives, negatives, and the past tense. In Collins, W. A. (ed.), Children's language and communication. (Minnesota Symposia in Child Psychology 12.) Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984) Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Putman, S. (1983) A partial replication of Read, Schreiber & Walia (1979). Unpublished undergraduate research paper, University of California, Irvine.Google Scholar
Read, C. & Schreiber, P. (1982) Why short subjects are harder to find than long ones. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Read, C., Schreiber, P. & Walia, J. (1979) Why short subjects are harder to find than long ones. Technical Report 527, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Individualized Schooling, University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1981) Semantic assimilation in the development of relational categories. In Deutsch, W. (ed.), The child's construction of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1982) Steps to language: toward a theory of native language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. & Bever, T. G. (1982) Children use canonical sentence schemas: a crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12. 220–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, S. (1982) U-shaped behavioral growth. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sudhalter, V. & Braine, M. D. S. (1985) How does comprehension of passives develop? A comparison of actional and experiential verbs. Journal of Child Language 12. 455–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed