Graded representations in the acquisition of English and German transitive constructions

Abstract English and German children aged 2 years 4 months and 4 years heard both novel and familiar verbs in sentences whose form was grammatical, but which mismatched the event they were watching (e.g., ‘ The frog is pushing the lion ’, when the lion was actually the ‘agent’ or ‘doer’ of the pushing). These verbs were then elicited in new sentences. All children mostly corrected the familiar verb (i.e., they used the agent as the grammatical subject), but there were cross-linguistic differences among the two-year-olds concerning the novel verb. When English 2-year-olds used the novel verb they mostly corrected. However, their most frequent response was to avoid using the novel verb altogether. German 2-year-olds corrected the novel verb significantly more often than their English counterparts, demonstrating more robust verb-general representations of agent- and patient-marking. These findings provide support for a ‘graded representations’ view of development, which proposes that grammatical representations may be simultaneously abstract but ‘weak’.

[1]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  A Construction Based Analysis of Child Directed Speech. , 2003 .

[2]  Gisela Szagun,et al.  Learning by ear: on the acquisition of case and gender marking by German-speaking children with normal hearing and with cochlear implants. , 2004, Journal of child language.

[3]  J. Huttenlocher,et al.  Syntactic priming in young children , 2004 .

[4]  Steven Pinker,et al.  Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive , 1987, Cognition.

[5]  M. Bowerman Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: are children helped by innate linking rules? , 1990 .

[6]  Michael Tomasello,et al.  A construction based analysis of child directed speech , 2003, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  Robbie Case,et al.  Intellectual development : birth to adulthood , 1985 .

[8]  R. Gelman Cognitive Development 1 , 2002 .

[9]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Rethinking infant knowledge: toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. , 1997, Psychological review.

[10]  Hannelore Grimm,et al.  Sprachentwicklungstest für drei- bis fünfjährige Kinder (SETK 3-5) , 2002 .

[11]  MICHAEL TOMASELLO,et al.  Young children's earliest transitive and intransitive constructions , 1998 .

[12]  K Plunkett,et al.  Infant vocabulary development assessed with a British communicative development inventory , 2000, Journal of Child Language.

[13]  N. Budwig,et al.  Argument realization in Hindi caregiver¿child discourse , 2005 .

[14]  Kirsten Abbot-Smith,et al.  Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition , 2006 .

[15]  Letitia R. Naigles,et al.  Form is easy, meaning is hard: resolving a paradox in early child language , 2002, Cognition.

[16]  Kirsten Abbot-Smith,et al.  German children's comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. , 2008, Child development.

[17]  Cynthia Fisher,et al.  The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: a reply to Tomasello (2000) , 2002, Cognition.

[18]  Y. Munakata Graded representations in behavioral dissociations , 2001, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[19]  Katrin Lindner,et al.  The development of sentence-interpretation strategies in monolingual German-learning children with and without specific language impairment , 2003 .

[20]  M. Tomasello First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development , 1994 .

[21]  R. Siegler,et al.  The rebirth of children's learning. , 2000, Child development.

[22]  Holly Branigan,et al.  Syntactic Priming , 2007, Lang. Linguistics Compass.

[23]  David R. Shanks Representation of categories and concepts in memory. , 1997 .

[24]  B. MacWhinney,et al.  Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German, and Italian , 1984 .

[25]  M. Conway Cognitive models of memory , 1997 .

[26]  E. Clark On the pragmatics of contrast , 1990, Journal of Child Language.

[27]  Anna L. Theakston,et al.  The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order , 2005 .

[28]  M. Tomasello,et al.  What preschool children do and do not do with ungrammatical word orders , 2001 .

[29]  Gary F. Marcus,et al.  From semantics to syntax and back again: Argument structure in the third year of life , 2006, Cognition.

[30]  Devin M. Casenhiser,et al.  Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. , 2005, Developmental science.

[31]  A. Devescovi,et al.  The development of sentence comprehension in Italian: a reaction time study , 1999 .

[32]  A. Goldberg Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language , 2006 .

[33]  G. Dell,et al.  Becoming syntactic. , 2006, Psychological review.

[34]  C. Fisher,et al.  Learning Words and Rules , 2006, Psychological science.

[35]  Brian MacWhinney,et al.  THE ACQUISITION OF CASE MARKING BY ADULT LEARNERS OF RUSSIAN AND GERMAN , 1998, Studies in Second Language Acquisition.

[36]  A. Marantz On the acquisition of grammatical relations , 1982 .

[37]  N. Akhtar,et al.  Acquiring basic word order: evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure , 1999, Journal of Child Language.