Cover not available
Part of
Semantics in Language Acquisition
Edited by Kristen Syrett and Sudha Arunachalam
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 24] 2018
► pp. 153–176

Chapter 7
Not all subjects are agents

Transitivity and meaning in early language comprehension

 | University of California Merced
 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Children use syntax to guide sentence comprehension and verb learning. We explored the nature of the meanings children infer from syntactic evidence by examining the types of event-roles they can link with the subjects and objects of transitive verbs. In two experiments, 23-month-olds heard a novel verb in a transitive sentence while viewing pairs of events in which one participant acted on another without producing a clear effect (Experiment 1) or one participant moved relative to another without contacting it (Experiment 2). In both cases, children looked longer at the event in which the subject referent played a more prominent role. These findings suggest that children map a highly abstract conceptual-semantic asymmetry onto the syntactic difference between subjects and objects.
Keywords: syntactic bootstrapping, verb learning, language acquisition, thematic roles, transitivity, word order
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Abstract vs. concrete representations of language experience
    • 1.2The semantics of subjects and objects
      • 1.2.1Proto-agents and proto-patients
      • 1.2.2Beyond transitives: The asymmetry of syntax
      • 1.2.3The semantic prominence of subjects: Prior evidence from adults and children
    • 1.3The present research
  • 2.Experiment 1
    • 2.1Method
      • 2.1.1Participants
      • 2.1.2Apparatus
      • 2.1.3Materials and procedure
      • 2.1.4Coding
    • 2.2Results and discussion
  • 3.Experiment 2
    • 3.1Method
      • 3.1.1Participants
      • 3.1.2Apparatus
      • 3.1.3Materials and procedure
      • 3.1.4Coding
    • 3.2Results and discussion
  • 4.General discussion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.24.07sco
References (51)
References
Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. V. M., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Graded representations in the acquisition of English and German transitive constructions. Cognitive Development, 23, 48–66.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. (2015). A constructivist account of child language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (pp. 478–510). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Arunachalam, S. (2013). Two-year-olds can begin to acquire verb meanings in social impoverished contexts. Cognition, 129, 569–573.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arunachalam, S., Escovar, E., Hansen, M. A., & Waxman, S. (2013). Out of sight, but not out of mind: 21-month-olds use syntactic information to learn verbs even in the absence of a corresponding event. Language and Cognitive Processes, 28, 417–425.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arunachalam, S. & Waxman, S. R. (2010). Meaning from syntax: Evidence from 2-year-olds. Cognition, 114, 442–446.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baillargeon, R., Scott, R. M., & Bian, L. (2016). Psychological reasoning in infancy. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 159–186.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bransford, J. D., & Johnson, M. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chestnut, E. K., & Markman, E. M. (2016). Are horses like zebras, or vice versa? Children’s sensitivity to the asymmetries of directional comparisons. Child Development, 87, 568–582.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dale, P. S., & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development norms for young children. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 28, 125–127.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2008). Young German children’s early syntactic competence: A preferential looking study. Developmental Science, 11, 575–582.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67, 547–619.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L., Pethick, S., Renda, C., Cox, J. L., Dale, P. S., & Reznick, J. S. (2000). Short-form versions of the MacArthur communicative development inventories. Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 95–115.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, K. J., Marcus, G. F., Di Nubila, J. A., & Vouloumanos, A. (2006). From semantics to syntax and back again: Argument structure in the third year of life. Cognition, 100, B10–B20.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C. (2002). Structural limits on verb mapping: The role of abstract structure in 2.5-year-olds’ interpretations of novel verbs. Developmental Science, 5, 56–65.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C., Gertner, Y., Scott, R. M., Yuan, S. (2010). Syntactic bootstrapping. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1, 143–149.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Hall, D. G., Rakowitz, S., & Gleitman, L. R. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. Lingua, 92, 333–375.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, C. & Song, H. (2006). Who’s the subject? Sentence structure and verb meaning. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs (pp. 392–426). Oxford: Oxford University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gertner, Y., & Fisher, C. (2012). Predicted errors in children’s early sentence comprehension. Cognition, 125, 85–94.DOI logoGoogle 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
Gleitman, L. R., Cassidy, K., Nappa, R., Papafragou, A., & Trueswell, J. C. (2005). Hard words. Language Learning and Development, 1, 23–64.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L. R., Gleitman, H., Miller, C., & Ostrin, R. (1996). Similar, and similar concepts. Cognition, 58, 321–376.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, J. (1990). Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, J. K., O’Donnell, T. J., Sudo, Y., Uruwashi, M., Lee, M., & Snedeker, J. (2016). Psych verbs, the linking problem, and the acquisition of language. Cognition, 157, 268–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartshorne, J. K., Pogue, A., & Snedeker, J. (2015). Love is hard to understand: The relationship between transitivity and caused events in the acquisition of emotion verbs. Journal of Child Language, 42, 467–504.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hohenstein, J. M., Naigles, L. R., & Eisenberg, A. R. (2004). Keeping verb acquisition in motion: A comparison of English and Spanish. In D. G. Hall & S. R. Waxman (Eds.), Weaving a lexicon (pp. 569–602). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–295.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jin, K. S. (2015). The role of syntactic and discourse information in verb learning (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
Kako, E. (2006). Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cognition, 101, 1–42.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kline, M., Snedeker, J., & Schulz, L. (2017). Linking language and events: Spatiotemporal cues drive children’s expectations about the meanings of novel transitive verbs. Language Learning and Development, 13, 1–23.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, B., & Gleitman, L. R. (2015). Height matters. In I. Toivonen, P. Csúri, & E. van der Zee (Eds.), Structures in the mind: Essays on language, music, and cognition in honor of Ray Jackendoff (pp. 187–210). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levin, B., & Rappaport-Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (2003). Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of Universal Grammar. Cognition, 87, 151–178.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meaning. Journal of Child Language, 17, 357–374.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. R. (1996). The use of multiple frames in verb learning via syntactic bootstrapping. Cognition, 58, 221–251.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L., Fowler, A., & Helm, A. (1992). Developmental changes in the construction of verb meanings. Cognitive Development, 7, 403–427.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L., Gleitman, H., & Gleitman, L. (1993). Children acquire word meaning components from syntactic evidence. In E. Dromi (Ed.), Language and cognition: A developmental perspective (pp. 104–140). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R., & Kako, E. T. (1993). First contact in verb acquisition: Defining a role for syntax. Child Development, 64, 1665–1687.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, L. R., & Terrazas, P. (1998). Motion-verb generalizations in English and Spanish: Influences of language and syntax. Psychological Science, 9, 363–369.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nappa, R. L., January, D., Gleitman, L. R., & Trueswell, J. (2004). Paying attention to attention: Perceptual priming effects on word order. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual CUNY Sentence Processing Conference, New York.
Osgood, C. E., & Bock, J. K. (1977). Salience and sentencing: Some production principles. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Sentence production: Developments in research and theory (pp. 89–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Massey, C., & Gleitman, L. (2006). When English proposes what Greek presupposes: The cross-linguistic encoding of motion events. Cognition, 98, B75–B87.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Scott, R. M. & Fisher, C. (2009). Two-year-olds use distributional cues to interpret transitivity-alternating verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 777–803.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (1983). How language structures space. In H. L. Pick & L. P. Acredolo (Eds.), Spatial orientation: Theory, research, and application (pp. 225–282). New York, NY: Plenum Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1985). Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical forms. In T. Shopen (Ed.), Language typology and syntactic description (pp. 57–149). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T. (1985). Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics, 21, 385–396.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wagner, L. (2010). Inferring meaning from syntactic structures in acquisition: The case of transitivity and telicity. Language and Cognitive Processes, 25, 1354–1379.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yuan, S., & Fisher, C. (2009). “Really? She blicked the baby?”: Two-year-olds learn combinatorial facts about verbs by listening. Psychological Science, 20, 619–626.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
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Donnelly, Seamus & Evan Kidd
2021. On the Structure and Source of Individual Differences in Toddlers' Comprehension of Transitive Sentences. Frontiers in Psychology 12 DOI logo
Fisher, Cynthia, Kyong‐sun Jin & Rose M. Scott
2020. The Developmental Origins of Syntactic Bootstrapping. Topics in Cognitive Science 12:1 ► pp. 48 ff. DOI logo
Horvath, Sabrina, Leslie Rescorla & Sudha Arunachalam
2018. Semantic features of early verb vocabularies. In Semantics in Language Acquisition [Trends in Language Acquisition Research, 24], ► pp. 67 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.