Cover not available
Part of
Language in Interaction: Studies in honor of Eve V. Clark
Edited by Inbal Arnon, Marisa Casillas, Chigusa Kurumada and Bruno Estigarribia
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 12] 2014
► pp. 231–250

Word order as a structural cue and word reordering as an interactional process in early language acquisition

 | Department of Psychology, Koç University, Istanbul, Educational and Learning Sciences, Utrecht University
 | Department of Psychology, Koç University, Istanbul, Department of Psychology, Harvard University
We present a critical review of the literature on how children exposed to flexible-word-order languages, especially Turkish, acquire word-order variation. We highlight two traditions of psycholinguistic research assuming different theoretical and methodological approaches, namely language-as-product and language-as-action views. While the former studies the underlying mechanisms of using word order as a structural cue in interpreting thematic roles, the latter focuses on how it is used to convey information structure embedded in communication and action. The review reveals that these seemingly independent views complement each other to better account for (i) how children come to interpret argument roles when the word order is not fixed and (ii) how they comprehend/use word-order variation as a pragmatic tool in communication.
Published online: 17 July 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.12.18kun
References (55)
References
Akhtar N., & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology , 33, 952–965. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ateş Şen B., Demir, Ö.D., & Küntay, A.C. (In preparation). Communicative actions and words in referential sets.
Avrutin, S., & Dina B. (2001). The expression of specificity in a language without determiners: Evidence from child Russian. In A.H.-J. Do, L. Domínguez, & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 70–81). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B. (1987). Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.) Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp.157­–194), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Batman-Ratyosyan, N., & Stromswold, K. (1999). What Turkish acquisition tells us about underlying word order and scrambling. Proceedings of the 23rd Annual University of Pennsylvania Linguistics Conference , 6, 37–52.
Batman-Ratyosyan, N., & Stromwold, K. (2002). Morphosyntax is easy, discourse pragmatics is hard. In A.H.-J. Do, L. Domínguez, & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 793–804). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Candan, A., Küntay, A.C., Yeh, Y., Cheung, H., Wagner, L., & Naigles, L.R. (2012). Language and age effects in children’s processing of word order. Cognitive Development , 27, 205–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cannizzaro, C.L. (2012). Early word order and animacy . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Casillas, M. (In press). Turn-taking. In D. Matthews (Ed.), Pragmatic Development in First Language . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children’s understanding of the agent–patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German and English. Cognitive Linguistics , 20, 267–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chapman, R.S., & Miller, J.F. (1975). Word order in early two and three word utterances: Does production precede comprehension? Journal of Speech and Hearing Research , 18, 346–354.Google Scholar
Clark, E.V. (2012). An interview with our new President, Eve Clark / Interviewer: Angel Chan. IASCL Child Language Bulletin , 32.Google Scholar
Clark, E.V., & Bernicot, J. (2008). Repetition as ratification: How parents and children place information in common ground. Journal of Child Language , 35, 349–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H.H. (1992). Arenas of language use . Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. (1996). Using language . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dasinger, L. (1995). The development of discourse competence in Finnish children: The expression of definiteness . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Demir, Ö.E., So, W., Özyürek, A., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (2011). Turkish- and English-speaking children display sensitivity to perceptual context in the referring expressions they produce in speech and gesture. Language and Cognitive Processes , 27, 844–867. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demiral, S.B., Schlesewsky, M., & Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I. (2008). On the universality of language comprehension strategies: Evidence from Turkish. Cognition , 106, 484–500. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dyakonova, M. (2004). Information structure development: Evidence from acquisition of word order in Russian and English. Nordlyd: Tromsø Working Papers , 32, 88–109.Google Scholar
Ekmekçi, F. (1979). The Effects of Simulation / Games on Foreign Language Learning . Unpublished MA thesis. The University of Texas at Austin.Google Scholar
. (1986). Significance of word order in the acquisition of Turkish. In D.I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (Eds.), Studies in Turkish linguistics (pp. 253–264). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Ferreira, F., Anes, M.D., & Horine, M.D. (1996). Exploring the use of prosody during language comprehension using the auditory moving window technique. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 25, 273–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C., & Song, H. (2006). Who’s the subject? Sentence structures as analogs of verb meaning. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff, R.M. (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn the meanings of verbs (pp. 392–428). Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.A. (1983). Modularity of mind . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gertner, Y., Fisher, C., & Eisengart, J. (2006). Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science , 17, 684–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gervain, J., Berent, I., & Werker, J.F. (2012). Binding at birth: The newborn brain detects identity relations and sequential position in speech. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience , 24, 564–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R.M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Cauley, K.M., & Gordon, L. (1987). The eyes have it: Lexical and syntactic comprehension in a new paradigm. Journal of Child Language , 14, 23–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graf, E., & Davies, C. (In press). The development of reference. In D. Matthews (Ed.), Pragmatic Development in First Language . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Gundel, J.K. (1988). Universals of topic-comment structure. In M. Hammond, E.A. Moravcssik, & J.R. Wirth (Eds.), Studies in syntactic typology (pp. 209–239). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1982). Interaction between particles and word order in the comprehension and production of simple sentences in Japanese children. Developmental Psychology , 18, 62–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., Roland, F., & Liang, J. (1996). The marking of new information in children’s narratives: A comparison of English, French, German and Mandarin Chinese. Journal of Child Language , 23, 591–619. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilic, T., & Deen, K.U. (2004). Object raising and cliticization in Serbo-Croatian child language. In the A. van Kampen & S. Baauw (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2003 (pp. 235–243). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Kamide, Y., Scheepers, C., & Altmann, G. (2003). Integration of syntactic and semantic information in predictive processing: Cross-linguistic evidence from German and English. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research , 32, 37–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küntay, A.C. (2002). Development of the expression of indefiniteness: Presenting new referents in Turkish picture-series stories. Discourse Processes , 33, 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Küntay, A., Nakamura, K., & Ateş Şen, B. (2014). Crosslinguistic and crosscultural approaches to pragmatic development. In D. Matthews (Ed.) Pragmatic Development in First Language . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Küntay, A., & Slobin, D.I. (1996). Listening to a Turkish mother: Some puzzles for acquisition. In D. Slobin, A. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo (Eds.) Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp (pp. 265–287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associate.Google Scholar
Küntay, A.C., & Slobin, D.I. (2001). Discourse behavior of lexical categories in Turkish child-directed speech: Nouns vs. verbs. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M. Ezeizabarrena, I. Idiazabal, & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Research on child language acquisition: Proceedings for the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language (pp. 928–946). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
. (2002). Putting interaction back into child language: Examples from Turkish. Psychology of Language and Communication , 6, 5–14.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents . Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mykhaylyk, R. (2009). Developmental patterns in flexible word order acquisition. In J. Crawford, K. Otaki, & M. Takahashi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America (GALANA 2008) (pp. 165–174). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
Naigles, L.R., & Swensen, L.D. (2006). Syntactic supports to word learning. In M. Shatz & E. Hoff (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 212–231). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Otsu, Y. 1994. Early acquisition of scrambling in Japanese. In T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 253–264). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özge, D., Küntay, A.C. & Snedeker, J. (In preparation). Predictive processing of morphosyntax in Turkish-speaking children.
Özge D., Marinis, T., & Zeyrek D. (2013). Object-first orders in Turkish do not pose a challenge during processing. In U. Özge (Ed.), Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Altaic Formal Languages (pp. 269–280). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Sano, T. (2004). Scope relations of QP’s and scrambling in the acquisition of Japanese. In A. van Kampen & S. Baauw (Eds.), The Proceedings of GALA 2003 (pp. 421–431). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Slobin, D.I., & Bever, T.G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: A crosslinguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition , 12, 229–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D.I., & Talay, A. (1986). Development of pragmatic uses of subject pronouns in Turkish child language. In A.A. Aksu-Koç & E. Erguvanlı Taylan (Eds.), Proceedings of the Turkish Linguistics Conference (pp. 207–228). Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press.Google Scholar
Snow, C.E. (1995). Issues in the study of input: Fine-tuning, universality, individual and developmental differences, and necessary causes. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Handbook of child language (pp. 180–193). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Song, H., & Fisher, C. (2007). Discourse prominence effects on 2.5-year-old children’s interpretation of pronouns. Lingua , 117, 1959–1987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannenhaus, M.K., & Trueswell, J.C. (2005). Eye movements as a tool for bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions. In J.C. Trueswell & M.K. Tanenhaus (Eds.), Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions (pp. 3–37). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Trueswell J.C., & Tanenhaus, M.K. (2005). Approaches to studying world-situated language use: Bridging the language-as-product and language-as-action traditions . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ural, A.E., Yüret, D., Ketrez, F.N., Koçbaş, D., & Küntay, A. (2009). Morphological cues vs. number of nominals in learning verb types in Turkish: The syntactic bootstrapping mechanism revisited. Language and Cognitive Processes , 24, 1393–1405. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, S., Fisher, C., & Snedeker, J. (2012). Counting the nouns: Simple structural cues to verb meaning. Child Development , 83, 1382–1399. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yurovsky, D., Smith, L.B., & Yu, C. (2013). Statistical word learning at scale: The baby’s view is better. Developmental Science , 16(6), 959–966. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wittek, A., & Tomasello, M. (2005). Young children’s sensitivity to listener knowledge and perceptual context in choosing referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics , 26, 541–558. DOI logoGoogle Scholar