Simple vs. complex transitive constructions in the acquisition of English structures

  1. Silvia Sánchez Calderón Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Revista:
Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación

ISSN: 1576-4737

Año de publicación: 2021

Número: 85

Páginas: 127-140

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.5209/CLAC.73544 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Círculo de lingüística aplicada a la comunicación

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

This study examines the acquisition of English simple monotransitive and complex dative alternation (DA) structures (double object constructions (DOC) and to/for-datives) in the longitudinal spontaneous production of monolingual children. In order to address these issues, we analyzed data from twelve English monolingual children and from adults’ child-directed speech, as available in CHILDES (MacWhinney, 2000). The findings revealed that simple monotransitive constructions started being produced earlier and showed a higher incidence when compared to complex DA constructions, which suggests that the degree of syntactic complexity has had an effect on the acquisition of transitives. However, the two complex DA constructions emerged at an approximately similar age, which could be explained by the Case assigning related properties. Furthermore, the chronological progression and the difference regarding the incidence of the three constructions (monotransitives > DOCs > to/for-datives) could be attributed to the amount of exposure to these structures in the adult input.

€ Ver financiación

Información de financiación

This research was funded by the Castile and León Regional Government, ORDEN EDU/1083/2013, 27 December, co-funded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the University of Valladolid; by the Castile and León Regional Government and ERDF (Ref. VA009P17), and by the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities and ERDF (PGC2018-097693-B-IOO).

Financiadores

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Abbot-Smith, K. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Exemplar-learning and schematization in a usage-based account of syntactic acquisition. Linguistic Review, 23(3), 275-290. Doi: 10.1515/TLR.2006.011
  • Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order. Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 26(2), 339-356. Doi: 10.1017/S030500099900375X
  • Akhtar, N. & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology, 33, 952-965. Doi: 10.1037//0012-1649.33.6.952
  • Aoun, J. & Li, Y. (1989). Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry, 20(2), 141-172. Retrieved 10 November, 2019 from https://www.jstor.org/stable/4178623
  • Aranovich, R. (2012). A lexical-functional account of Spanish dative usage. In P. de Swart & M. Lamers (Eds.), Case, word order and prominence (pp. 17-42). Dordrecht: Springer Verlag.
  • Bybee, J. L. & Hopper, P. J. (2001). Frequency and Emergence of Linguistic Structure. Amsterdam, Holland and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2003). A construction-based analysis of child directed speech. Cognitive Science, 27, 843-873.
  • Campbell, A. L. & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 253-267.
  • Chan, A., Meints, K., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2010). Young children’s comprehension of English SVO word order revisited: testing the same children in act-out and intermodal preferential looking tasks. Cognitive Development, 25, 30-45.
  • Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Linguistic inquiry monograph thirteen. Cambridge and London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
  • Cornett, H. E. (2014). Gender differences in syntactic development among English speaking adolescents. Inquiries Journal/Students Pulse [online], 6(3). Retrieved 20 November, 2019 from http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/a?id=875.
  • Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford Linguistics.
  • Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R. & Wilson, R. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language, 65, 203-257. Doi: 10.2307/415332
  • Larson, R. K. (1990). Double objects revisited: Reply to Jackendoff. Linguistic Inquiry, 21(4), 589-632. Retrieved 10 November, 2019 from https://semlab5.sbs.sunysb.edu/~rlarson/larson90rj.pdf
  • Legate, J. A. & Yang, C. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review, 19, 151-162.
  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Third edition. [Dataset] Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. Retrieved 5 September, 2019 from http://childes.talkbank.org.
  • Mathews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2005). The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development, 20, 121-136.
  • Meints, K., Plunkett, K. & Harris, P. L. (2008). Eating apples and houseplants: typicality constraints on thematic roles in early verb learning. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23(3), 434-463.
  • Peccei, J. S. (1999). Child language. London: Routledge.
  • Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D. & Frost, L. (1987). Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition, 26, 195-267.
  • Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: the Nature of Early Child Grammars of English. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Rowland, C. (2014). Understanding Child Language Acquisition. London: Routledge.
  • Sánchez Calderón, S. (2018). The Acquisition of English and Spanish Dative Alternation Structures in the Longitudinal Spontaneous Production of Monolingual and Bilingual Children. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Valladolid, Spain.
  • Sánchez Calderón, S. & Fernández Fuertes, R. (2018). Which came first: the chicken of the egg? ditransitive and passive constructions in the English production of simultaneous bilingual English children. ATLANTIS. A Journal of the Spanish Association for Anglo-American Studies, 40(1), 39-58. Doi: 10.28914/atlantis-2018-40.1.02
  • Slobin, D. I. & Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: a crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition, 12(3), 229-265. Doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(82)90033-6
  • Snyder, W. (2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77, 324-342.
  • Snyder, K. (2003). The Relationship between Form and Function in Ditransitive Constructions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, USA.
  • Snyder, W. & Stromswold, K. (1997). The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 28(2), 281-317.
  • Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a Language: a Usage-based Theory of Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  • Yang, C. (2016). The price of Linguistic Productivity: How Children Learn to Break the Rules of Language. Cambridge and London: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet