Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Author(s): Letitia R. Naigles, Erika Hoff, Donna Vear, Michael Tomasello, Silke Brandt, Sandra R.
Waxman, Jane B. Childers and W. Andrew Collins
Source: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 74, No. 2,
Flexibility in Early Verb Use: Evidence from a Multiple-N Diary Study (2009), pp. i-v, vii, 1-144
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25580860
Accessed: 10-06-2015 02:47 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
WITH COMMENTARY BY
Michael Tomasello,
Silke Brandt,
Sandra
R. Waxman,
W. Andrew Collins
Series Editor
MONOGRAPHS
OF THESOCIETY
FORRESEARCH
INCHILD
DEVELOPMENT
Serial No. 293, Vol. 74, No. 2, 2009
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(^PjWILEY
W
J PL/l%Jv
ELL
Boston,Massachusetts
Oxford,UnitedKingdom
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EDITOR
W. ANDREW COLLINS
University
ofMinnesota
MANAGING EDITOR
DETRA
DAVIS
Society for Research
in Child Development
EDITORIALASSISTANT
ANTONELLA
CAIAZZA
Society for Research
in Child Development
Board of Advisory
Editors
Brian K. Barber
University
Michael
University
Glenn
University
Kathleen
University
of Tennessee
P.Maratsos
ofMinnesota
I. Roisman
of Illinois
Thomas
ofMinnesota
State University
Thomas Weisner
University
of California,
Los Angeles
PhilipDavid Zelazo
University
of Toronto
EDITORIALCONSULTANTS
Emma
Jane Childers
K. Adam
Northwestern
University
Trinity University
Mark Appelbaum
University
of California,
San Diego
Gregory Cook
University
of Wisconsin-Whitewater
University
of Wisconsin-Whitewater
RichardAslin
of Rochester
University
Marian
Bakermans-Kranenburg
Leiden University
John Bates
Indiana
University
Nazli Baydar
Koc University
Theodore
University
Beauchaine
of Washington
Susan
Utrecht
Branje
University
Celia Brownell
University
of Pittsburgh
Melissa M. Burch
Hampshire
College
Susan Campbell
University
Stephanie
University
of Pittsburgh
Carlson
ofMinnesota
Joan Cook
Susan
Crockenberg
of Vermont
University
Pamela
University
Davis-Kean
ofMichigan
Eccles
Jacquelynne
University
ofMichigan
James Elicker
Purdue
University
Michelle M. Englund
University
ofMinnesota
Kurt Fischer
Harvard
Doran
University
French
Illinois Wesleyan
Sarah
University
Friedman
CNA Corporation
Douglas Frye
University
of Pennsylvania
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Andrew Fuligni
University
of California,
Los Angeles
Darcia
of Calgary
Nelson
City University
of New
University
Megan
ofMinnesota
University
Susan
University
Robert Pianta
University
University
Mark
Lene Jensen
Ariel Kalil
University
of Chicago
Melissa Koenig
University
ofMinnesota
University
Karl Rosengren
of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
JudithG. Smetana
Atlantic
University
Eva Lefkowitz
Pennsylvania
Katherine
University
State University
Magnuson
Madison
of Wisconsin,
Ann Masten
University
ofMinnesota
KevinMiller
University
Ginger
Pennsylvania
ofMichigan
Moore
State University
of Rochester
University
Kathy Stansbury
Morehouse
Steve
Brett Laursen
Florida
of Virginia
Roosa
State University
Arizona
of Texas, Austin
Clark University
Santa Barbara
of California,
Aletha Huston
University
of Rochester
YukariOkamoto
Hespos
Vanderbilt
Davis
O'Connor
University
Paul Harris
Harvard
of California,
Thomas
Gunnar
University
York
LisaOakes
ElenaGrigorenko
Yale University
Dame
Katherine
Susan Graham
University
Narvaez
of Notre
University
University
College
Thoma
of Alabama
Michael Tomasello
Max
Planck
Institute
Deborah Vandell
University
of California,
Irvine
RichardWeinberg
University
Hirokazu
New
ofMinnesota
Yoshikawa
York University
Qing Zhou
Arizona
State University
David Moshman
University
of Nebraska
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
vii
I. INTRODUCTION
II.PRESENTING
THEDIARY
METHOD
22
A GENERALDESCRIPTION
OF EARLY
III.
VERBGROWTHAND USE
32
IV.PRAGMATIC
AND SEMANTICFLEXIBILITY
INEARLY
VERBUSE
40
VERBUSE
AND GRAMMATICAL
FLEXIBILITY
INEARLY
V PRODUCTIVITY
49
68
VII.GENERALDISCUSSION
91
REFERENCES 105
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 112
COMMENTARY
FLEXIBILITY
INTHESEMANTICS
AND SYNTAX
OF CHILDREN'SEARLY
VERBUSE
Michael Tomasello and Silke Brandt
113
LEARNINGFROM INFANTS'FIRST
VERBS
Sandra
R. Waxman
VERBLEARNERS:
EARLY
CREATIVE
OR NOT?
Jane B. Childers
127
133
CONTRIBUTORS 140
STATEMENT
OF EDITORIAL
POLICY 142
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ABSTRACT
are hallmarks
of human
and productivity
language use.
Flexibility
use
to serve a
to
have
the
the
words
know
speakers
Competent
capacity
they
to
new
to
of
refer
communicative
and
varied
functions,
variety
exemplars of
to which words refer, and in new and varied combinations
the categories
with other words. When
and how children achieve
this flexibility?and
when
they
are
truly
productive
language
users?are
central
issues
among
accounts
semantic,
and
syntactic
properties
of
early
verb
use.
The data revealed that within this early, initial period of verb use, chil
dren use their verbs both to command and describe,
they use their verbs in
reference
to a
variety
of
appropriate
actions
enacted
by
variety
of actors
and
with
vii
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
I. INTRODUCTION
competence.
linguistic
One
to new
is that children
possibility
and
referents
produce
novel
very
who
early
in
extend
the
words
course
of
in a range
of
syntactic
constructions.
These
two
positions
define
space
in their very
generalize beyond their experience
that children's
first uses of newly
productions
yields the prediction
a range of meanings
verbs should be flexible,
and
acquired
conveying
a
structures.
in
of
The
view that children are initially
appearing
variety
earliest
1
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
conservative
that children's first uses
language learners yields the prediction
of newly acquired verbs should be very repetitious
in terms of the events
to
structures
refer
and
the
in
because
they
they participate
they are used
to
contexts
structures
in
in
similar
those
which
and/or
only
they were first
encountered.
Verbs
development
noun
than
the
Thus,
acquisition.
and
rapid-generalizer
conservative
2006; Sandofer
Golinkoff,
use
tence
structure
Thus,
alizer
ment
the
is also
studying
and
8c Smith,
of
development
as
Second,
the development
grammar,
of verb
sen
because
accounts,
by many
conservative-learner
as well
2000).
lexical
with
to
respect
grammatical
develop
development.
first 10 uses of
Eight mothers
kept detailed records of their children's
first verb
their first verbs over a period ranging from 3 to 13months. Those
uses were coded for the pragmatic,
semantic, and grammatical
flexibility
accounts of the child as language
learner
and competing
they evidenced,
were
evaluated
against
those
In
data.
the
remainder
of
this
introductory
to this study
chapter, we present the theoretical and empirical background
the extendability
of
in some detail, first considering
work that addresses
verb meaning,
the flexibility of verb
second considering work that addresses
the theoretical and empirical background
grammar, and third, considering
relations among verb vocabulary growth,
that yields predictions
regarding
and flexibility of verb grammar.
flexibility of verb meaning,
MEANING
LEARNING
VERB
Theories of Early Word Meanings
a new word used in a single utterance and a
first encounters
or
must
somehow figure out both what the word
she
single situation, and he
to
in that situation and what it can refer to in other situations. Current
refers
of how the child makes
accounts of word learning differ in their descriptions
The
child
that word-to-referent
not
to a
just
One
linguistic
single
mapping
referent
and
but
view
in how,
to an
entire
and
when,
the
child
maps
words
category.
2
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTRODUCTION
Children
for
understand,
that
example,
words
and
refer,
this
understand
words (Golinkoff,
ing guides them to seek a referent for newly encountered
Mervis, Frawley, 8c Parillo, 1995; McShane,
Hirsh-Pasek,
1980). They also
that words refer to kinds of things or events, which allows them
understand
to extend words to new instances of the same kind (Golinkoff et al., 1995;
& Hoff,
Naigles
They
to
competence
syntactic
use
the
word-learning,
the correspondences
of
terpretation
8c Forbes,
2006; Poulin-duBois
the
newly
Children
especially
between
encountered
2006).
For
task.
verb-learning,
to guide
and meaning
syntax
verbs.
also bring
example,
in
a novel
hearing
refer
may
associate
a new
to what
word
with
the
context
entire
of
its use
(e.g.,
to the refrigerator
door;
"open" applies only
A
child
who
understands
that
refer
words
Dromi,
1982; Mervis,
1987).
only
but not that they refer to kinds will construe meanings
very narrowly. On
some
accounts,
children,
at
one's mother
some
early
does
point,
tend
to
words
map
onto
what
that
word-learning
principles
emerge
earlier
for
nouns
than
for
Learning
children
experiments
to more
nouns
one
than
older
exemplar,
than
even
18 months
after
only
routinely
one
extend
presentation
& Maguire,
2004; Markman,
1989).
(Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Hennon,
children might
restrict
If verb use also shows initial underextension,
newly
to
verbs
acquired
refer
to a
actor,
addressee,
single
action
type,
or
affected
sitting
but
no
one
else's,
or
eat
only
in reference
to
eating
pizza.
verbs
via
video
were
unsuccessful
in
understanding
the
extension
of
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTRODUCTION
appear
were
who
Twenty-one-month-olds
two
taught
tran
novel
to Be Addressed
of Verb Meanings
agents
outcomes.
questions
is an
The
earlier
achievement
than
literature
about
leaves
existing
the
extendability
1. How
in the
early
of
process
unanswered,
verbs
as
of
learning
current
The
study
to new
extendability
they
manners
however,
enter
children's
in
verbs
and
several
basic
lexicons:
how
and/or
general
to
designed
track
children's
others?
tients, affected
(e.g.,
eating
cereal
If children
objects,
and
earlier developmental
use
or different
eating
a carrot;
their
verbs
with
a door
achieve
different
and
pa
actions
opening
is not closely
jar) itwould indicate that the basis of their meanings
tied to perceptual
et
al., 1995; Goodman,
similarity (Golinkoff
8c Brown, 1998; Maguire et al., 2006).
McDonough,
It is important to acknowledge,
we will not be investigating when
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
actors,
affected
and
contexts,
objects,
we
Because
actions.
do
not
have
access
we will be unable to
to all the verbs uses the children have experienced,
goes beyond the
specify the extent to which their demonstrated
extendability
in relation to
input given. However,
by noting when flexible use emerges
their age and number of uses of a given verb, we will be able to address
early verb use ismore
children's
whether
in the
verbs
among
spect
3. What
data
restricted
seem
studies
few
comprehension,
The
children.
verbs
children
Differences
all
of
are
and
comprehension
factors
with
as candidate
Across
idiosyncratic.
among
extension?
size
vocabulary
differences
among
more
of verb
scope
verb
and
age
suggest
to individual
verbs
of
re
among
the
experimental
understood
reliably
in more detail by
by all children at a given age. As discussed
a
and
Hoff
such
(2006),
Naigles
cross-study inconsistency is symp
tomatic of a deeper issue with respect to early verb acquisition: the
order
in which
children
acquire
verbs
particular
seems
quite
id
this
verbs children
verb
uses
also
development
children.
many
problem
by
avoids
that
a wide
casting
learn. Analyses
assuming
can be found
net
of individual
that
by
to capture
children's
whatever
developing
course
is a single
data
averaged
studying
there
of verb
across
LEARNING
VERB
GRAMMAR
Theories of Early Verb Grammar
verbs first appear in children's speech, they frequently appear in
these
utterances. The nature of the representations
that underlie
multiword
a
with
of
conflict
words
is
first combinations
other
of verbs
among
point
accounts of verb development
and is also a central issue with respect to the
broader question of how children achieve grammar. The view that has been
reflects the
in linguistics for decades
is that word combination
standard
When
of
operation
productive
grammar
that
operates
over
abstract
categories,
or meaning
which
1975, 1981,
(Chomsky,
independent
their verbs because
combine
1995; Crain 8c Lillo-Martin,
1999). Children
of items in the category
they know something about the syntactic properties
in
VERB
subjects, that some verbs
English
require
(e.g., that all verbs
that
many verbs appear with the
require objects while others prohibit them,
to
the verbs in
and
indicate
they recognize
activity)
ongoing
"-ing" suffix
to that category.
their lexicons as belonging
are
of function
6
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTRODUCTION
grammar,
accounts
concerning
these theories
combinations
the
still disagree
they may
although
exact
or
nature
level
of
with
formal
the
abstraction.
generative
Thus,
argue
that
young
children
know
more
about
verb
syntax
than
just
the
combinatorial
of individual verbs. First, 21-28-month-old
chil
possibilities
dren who have been taught a novel verb in one syntactic frame show they
can distinguish
that verb from another when both are presented
in a new
et
a
frame
children
know
al.,
Second,
2005).
syntactic
great deal
(Naigles
about sentence frames, independent
of any verb they contain, which also
as properties
of specific verbs.
suggests that frames are not just represented
For example,
children
understand
the
1-year-old
subject-verb-object
sentences when given noun-verb
(SVO) word order of simple English
noun
(NVN) sequences with novel verbs (Gertner, Fisher, 8c Eisengart,
2006). That is, they infer the first noun of an NVN
sequence
(e.g., "The
is the agent of a novel action presented
duck gorps the bunny")
in a video
clip.
Moreover,
2-year-olds
map
novel
verbs
in NVN
sentences
onto
caus
to them
verbs are presented
1996;
1990).
Naigles,
Naigles,
novel
Further
evidence
that
(Fisher,
1996; Hirsh-Pasek,
represent
2-year-olds
with
meanings
not just with lexical items comes from studies in which children
act out sentences
in which frame meaning
and verb meaning
a sentence
given
as
such
*the
zebra
goes
the
lion,
infer
2-year-olds
&
Golinkoff,
frames
and
are asked
conflict.
to
So,
a causative
to the lion,
from the NVN frame and have the zebra do something
meaning
but given a sentence such as *the zebra brings), children infer a noncausative
of bring) and have the zebra do
meaning
(despite the causative meaning
without
affected
8c Gleitman,
any
something
object (Naigles, Gleitman,
et
al.
also
found
that
and
2128-month-olds
1993). Finally, Naigles
(2005)
could recognize novel verbs in unattested
frames; that is, verbs taught in the
in an intransitive
transitive frame were reliably recognized when presented
(see also Fernandes, Marcus, Di Nubila, & Vouloumanos,
2006).
These
of abstract-level
findings, taken together, support the existence
transitive and intransitive frames in the linguistic knowledge
bases of 1- and
learners.
do
indicate
the range of
not, however,
2-year-old
English
They
or
are
how
how
that
much
toddlers
(i.e.,
flexibility
early)
capable of, nor do
us
muster
of
will
in their own
tell
about
the
level
that
children
they
flexibility
frame
And
is
yet production matters, because production
flexibility
of adult language use in all theories (Chomsky, 1975; H. Clark,
turn to data from
Pinker,
1994; Tomasello,
2000). We therefore
productions.
the hallmark
1996;
children's
of
production
verbs
sentences.
and
contrast
In
the
evidence
from
comprehension
studies
that
young
break"
Fewer
and
than
"Daddy
one
third
break"
of her
but not
verbs
were
"Break
used
than
two
stick."
construction
in her
the child was uneven
the span of her 2nd year. Likewise,
of
lexical
lexical
and
markers;
subjects
subjects
morphological
production
were produced
for some verbs (take, get) but not for others (put),
consistently
types over
and
some
verbs
received
tense
markers,
others
aspect
markers,
but
very
few
INTRODUCTION
Armon-Lotem
learn
2003, for similar findings from Hebrew
for
limited
Theakston,
Lieven, Pine, and
arguing
productivity,
uses of go, that
when
children's
(2004) discovered,
analyzing
different forms were used in nonoverlapping
contexts, suggesting different
forms were associated with different meanings
(i.e., The train goes choo-choo
use of one meaning
and Mommy went to work) rather than productive
went
to
and
likes
work/outside
(i.e., Mommy
Johnny
going to the park). The flex
was
that
observed
individual
verbs
seemed
and/or children)
(with
ibility
to imitations of varied uses in the maternal
attributable
input (Theakston
et al., 2001), or emerged piecemeal
to
via one-word
additions or deletions
a
a
want
to
want
from
"I
"I
W"
book")
(e.g.,
previously
produced
phrases
ers). Also
Rowland
8c Tomasello,
Behrens,
(Lieven, 2006; Lieven,
2003). Finally,
Speares,
the children's verb use at Stage
McClure, Pine, and Lieven (2006) compared
I (MLU<2.0)
and Stage II (MLU between 2.0 and 2.5), finding that "old"
structures than
verbs (those used at both stages) appeared
inmore complex
"new" verbs (those first observed at Stage II). Thus,
it appears from these
data
that
children's
ability
to use
verbs
in more
structures
complex
is related
to the length of time they have known the verbs and hence children's
ability
to use a verb in a given frame is not predictable
from their use of other verbs
in that frame, as might be expected
if all verbs are treated as full members
of
the
same
abstract
category
studies
tributed
able
to use
Lieven,
several
the novel
8cTomasello,
sessions
verbs
rather
than
in unattested
massed
frames
in a
single
(Ambridge,
session,
were
Theakston,
2006).
9
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
In
on
research
sum,
children's
early
use
verb
productive
(i.e.,
before
2.5
draw
conclusions
about
those
words,
and
morphemes,
con
syntactic
structions that did not appear in the sample because these could have been
used by the child while not being recorded
1996; Naigles,
2002;
(Demuth,
8c Stahl, 2004). Many of the speech samples
Stromswold,
1996; Tomasello
were
also
in context
restricted
(i.e.,
same
the
recording
at each
setting
visit,
breakfast
wanting
(food,
things
toys)
and
words
as,
perhaps,
system continues
production
utterances
her
not
would
would
vocabulary
to develop
be
necessarily
seen,
the
reported,
verbs
used
for
suggestions
action
recur, with
and
grows
the
working
at
least,
vary
on
memory/
is also
child
settings. As Naigles
by mothers,
of
"). Over
her
. . .
("let's
at
recorded
and Hoff
(2006)
accord
dramatically
ing to setting; it is unlikely that children's verb use would be any different. And
given that mothers do not even always use every word and frame flexibly in
et al., 2003), when they,
their sampled speech (Lieven et al., 2003; Theakston
to
unarguably, have full command of productive grammar, it is unwarranted
attribute children's lack of flexibility to a less-than-full command of the same.
Because
the
"conservative-child"
assumes
argument
that when
children's
systematically
toddlers
according
to discourse
and
the referents
processing
constraints
(e.g.,
10
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTRODUCTION
labeled,
man, 8cGleitman,
1983, 1990; Levin, 1993). As described
1991; Jackendoff,
inmore detail by Naigles
to use a novel verb in
children's
reluctance
(2002),
an unattested
frame could be traced to their uncertainty
the
about whether
verb's
was
meaning
even
Thus,
when
for
suitable
the
children's
verb
uses
than
rather
frame,
show
truly
not
their
knowing
used
less
flex
grammatical
ings.
this
account,
it is the
limited
of
understanding
verb
meaning
that
limited
syntactic
A Mechanism
Thus
dren
have
knowledge
causes
that
initial
conservative
abstract
grammar
considering
that
allows
use.
toAbstract Grammar
the evidence
newly
verb
regarding
acquired
verbs
when
to be
chil
rec
as instances
of how
children
move
from
to
state
that
an
having
abstract
grammar.
"light"
serve
as
the
child's
entry
into
abstract
forms
grammatical
and
their meanings
(Chenu 8c Jisa, 2006; E. Clark, 1987, 1996, 2003; Goldberg,
et al., 2004; Goodman
8c Sethuraman,
1999; Goldberg
2006; Ninio,
1999;
but see Campbell 8cTomasello,
This
2001).
proposal that light verbs provide
system comes in several forms, three of which we
entry into the grammatical
summarize
here.
of Goldberg
and her colleagues
(2004) focuses on the
proposal
or
to
of
the
be
frames
constructions
meanings
acquired and relies on both
and
semantic
attributes
of
light verbs. Essentially, Gold
frequency
general
of
children's
the high-frequency
verb go
that
berg hypothesizes
hearings
or
to
the
the
followed by a prepositional
around
store,
go
phrase
locative?go
frame or verb+locative
and
the
table, go outside?(+PP
[VL] construction)
verb put in the + NP PP frame (or V+object+L
[VOL] con
high-frequency
on
to as
the
the
bowl
there?enables
them
bowl
the
table,
put
struction)?put
The
verbs
do
their
work
during
comprehension.
They
are
con
frame
or
construction
forms,
themselves,
are
acquired.
12
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTRODUCTION
because
used
the
form-meaning
a PP or L because
with
is so
relation
go
Go
transparent.
encodes
transparently
to be
is
learned
motion,
so
any
ac
are
not
recoverable
always
from
the
context.
For
eat
example,
usually
only involves eatable things, whereas put can involve a wide range of things
in forward horizontal
put, and run usually only involves animates engaged
motion,
whereas
motion
in any
can
go
direction.
involve
Thus,
to be as clear as possible
appear
with
overt
either
arguments
(Grice,
or
animates
to
in response
the
inanimates
engaged
communicative
pressure
than
run
and
eat.
Furthermore,
in
likely to
semantically
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
on spontaneous
learning Hebrew,
speech samples from children
English,
and French, that many children first used a given frame with only one verb;
moreover,
(Chenu 8c
they took from 43 days (Ninio, 1999) to several months
to
a
with
verb.
Ninio
that
frame
second
However,
(1999)
Jisa, 2006)
produce
et al. (2004) have also found
and Theakston
were not always light verbs. Ninio
(1999)
finding with the light-verbs-as-pathbreakers
what
notion but broadening
"pathbreaking"
verb for a given frame. In particular, want,
is included as a canonical/general
frames,
does not encode "highly transitive" senses
verbs
that these pathbreaking
this divergent
has reconciled
the
by maintaining
hypothesis
counts as a light or "canonical"
a frequent first verb in SVO
it
transitive verb even though
such as change of state or po
8c Thompson,
8c Hopper,
sition (i.e., Hopper
1980; Thompson
2001).
et al. (2004) also point out, though, that because semantic gen
Theakston
are confounded,
it is not clear which factor
erality and input frequency
to children's
forms.
of grammatical
contributes more heavily
acquisition
no
in
numbers
and
verbs
their
between
found
difference
heavy
They
light
of different
frames, percent of utterances with subjects, nor percent of ut
terances with objects, once input frequency was partialled out. Apart from
the light-verbs
the mixed nature of the evidence, a problem with evaluating
is that all of the relevant data thus far have been
hypothesis
as-pathbreakers
drawn from samples of spontaneous
speech of limited duration and limited
are
tenuous for the sampling reasons dis
such
contextual
range;
findings
cussed
earlier.
Moreover,
almost
all of
the
research
thus
far has
investigated
for
example,
the meaning
are more
of
eat could
be
inferred
from
observing
eaters.
on
Thus,
light verbs
than heavy verbs.
Human Simulation
in which adults are
This
14
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTRODUCTION
to Be Addressed
Questions
users
of
verb
their
children
become
is central
to
and how
when
Understanding
ductive
of Verb Grammar
lexicons
pro
grammatically
and
when
understanding
users. The
of
foregoing
language
verb
about
literature reveals the following
early
questions
and thus about the flexibility of children's early verb use, that
productivity,
form a focus of the present study:
how
children
adult-like
become
review
the existing
1. How
in
early
course
the
at
ductivity?or
novel
verbs
sitive
versus
verb
1- and
that
demonstrated
of
does
learning
least flexibility?emerge?
intransitive
frames
novel
et
(Gertner
understand
in tran
verbs
al.,
have
studies
can
children
2-year-old
pro
grammatical
Prior
2006;
Naigles,
1998). Still, the existing studies of children of that age have not
in their spontaneous
found good evidence of such productivity
et
et
A big gap in the
Theakston
al.,
1998;
al.,
2003).
(Pine
speech
which
literature,
from
the
fact
that
the
current
no
studies
in spontaneous
ductivity
was
study
have
tracked
in a way
speech
to
designed
several
that
fill,
results
children's
includes
all
pro
uses
of
spontaneous
is the
speech
production
(Bowerman,
have
heard
an
uous
evidence
by
testing
such
that
children
errors?utterances
1973)?because
utterance.
experimenter-created
such
the child
Comprehension
utterances
understand
children
with
of
can
studies
they
utterances
as
"don't
likely to ever
is not
elicit
unambig
never
heard
have
using
nonsense
the bunny"
words, such as "the duck is gorping
1990). Because
(Naigles,
our study relies on children's
of
verbs in their
spontaneous
productions
conventional
uses,
without
comprehensive
analysis
of
their
input,
we
will
not be able to make claims about this level of productivity. However, many
researchers have looked at spontaneous
speech for evidence of productivity
use
as
of
pro
by taking flexibility
indicating, albeit indirectly, underlying
1989;
Shirai,
1998; Tomasello,
1992). If a child can use a
ductivity (Ingram,
frames or a single frame with multiple
verbs, this
single verb in multiple
a
at
work.
Without
the
child's
system
suggests
productive
knowing
input, it
uses are all input-based
is always possible
that these multiple
rather than
the child demonstrates
the
anew, but the greater the flexibility
generated
less plausible
that account becomes. Using a metric
that the production
of
three to five verbs in a given frame displays some amount of productivity,
15
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
various
with
frames
Shirai,
and
three-verbs-per-frame
measures
five-verbs-per-frame
of
productivity
as less unambiguous
but still valuable indicators of the children's ability to
use their frames flexibly and independently
of specific verbs.
In this study we also introduce several additional measures,
which we
of
We
index
the
the
argue
system.
investigate chil
productivity
underlying
we
term gram
dren's ability to use their verbs with multiple
which
frames,
(1992) claimed that Travis's "inability"
in her grammar;
limitations
illustrated
to which our child subjects did use their
the appropriate
the first 10 instances?with
verbs?within
grammatical
to which these
We
and
also
arguments
morphemes.
investigate the degree
latter two types of flexibility are related to each other: Does it automatically
follow that a child who uses eat with both Ss and Os might also use the SVor
matical
to use
VO
verbs?
they
by which
of "pathbreaking"
that
seem
view
that
to
verbs
when
which
they
whether
over,
and
whether
the
earliest
tions
they
show
our
onset
driven,
first
grammatical
grammatical
will
be
which
uses
of
though,
a frame
first
children's
flexibility
of data
we
uses
than
function
not
occur
of
their
for
this
among
with
was
address
all
children,
in
the
driven
all
ques
current
rather
the
whether
verbs
are
and
are
verb
to
degree
More
function
productivity,
addressed
collection
will
differences
in the
speech
and
complexity.
serve
show
unanswered,
be
should
specifically,
ev
is, verbs
with
flexibility
serve
this
grammatical
same
verbs
light
to
verbs
study.
than frame
there
that
in children's
appear
verbs,
still
whether
first
the
Because
dren's
that
suggests
is the
found
speech;
a
The
frame.
given
into
abstract
gram
entry
to
the way
productivity
serve
as the child's
verbs
some
what
have
in children's
verbs
lead
frames
matical
studies
it? Several
achieve
but
light
verbs
demonstrate
light
first uses
of heavy
verbs.
chil
rather
more
theoretical
16
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTRODUCTION
the grammar
is formal, abstract, and autonomous
1995, 1998;
(Chomsky,
Borer 8cWexler,
1987). Therefore,
acquisition of a verb lexicon, develop
ment
of semantically
flexible uses of those verbs, and development
of
uses
flexible
of
verbs
those
should
all
be
aside
unrelated,
grammatically
from
the
obvious
command
necessity
be able
would
that
to
children
produce
more
have
who
at
words
their
sentences.
longer
theories predict
there will be relations
Other
lexical size,
among
are
semantic flexibility, and grammatical
There
many arguments
flexibility.
that language development
is the product
of domain-general
learning
et al., 1996;
8c Synder,
mechanisms
1988; Elman,
(Bates, Bretherton,
Saffran 8c Thiessen,
of de
2007), and these predict that all the measures
number of verbs acquired and the semantic and gram
velopment?the
matical flexibility with which
be at least loosely
they are used?should
comes
related. A stronger prediction
relatedness
of
from the view that
to this view lexical devel
grammar
emerges from the lexicon. According
opment
must
precede
grammatical
because
development,
a certain
thresh
some
zational
These
accounts,
grammar
processes
views yield
continues
to
develop
lexicon
by a growing
the prediction
that grammatical
caused
as
a result
of
reorgani
8c Thai,
2006).
(Conboy
should be pos
flexibility
of verbs. The syntactic bootstrap
of
verb
use
because
grammar
is
the
source
of meaning-relevant
is paced by the
and that grammatical development
grammatical development
on
studies
that
used
theWords
is
based
lexical
largely
preceding
development
form of the MacArthur-Bates
Communicative
and Sentences
Development
Inventory (CDI; Fenson et al, 1994). The CDI includes a checklist of over 600
words plus a section in which pairs of phrases (one closer to the adult form
than the other; e.g., two shoe vs. two shoes) are listed; the parent checks off the
phrase that is closer to the child's current level of speech. These studies have
more words
reported a curvilinear relation in which children who produce
are also reported to produce more complex grammatical forms, with smaller
in vo
associated with early increments
complexity
changes in grammatical
in
with
associated
size
and
grammatical
complexity
larger changes
cabulary
later,
in
increments
equal-sized
vocabulary.
a relation
Thus,
between
size
vocabulary
MLU
and
not
does
neces
de
lexical development
and grammatical
sarily reflect a relation between
it
the
reflect
Rather
greater
may
possibilities
expressive
velopment.
afforded by a larger vocabulary.
Two problems particularly apply to the many studies that have used the
CDI.
the measures
Because
same
report
parental
of
instrument,
vocabulary
they
and
may
grammar
share
the
are
same
taken
from
the
bias.
parental
curvilinear
of the observed
interpretation
critically, the ordering
on the
measures
and grammar
the vocabulary
relation between
depends
Most
assumption
grammar
that
were
the measurement
equally
sensitive
of vocabulary
measures
of
and
change
the measurement
of
across
of
the
range
and Marchman
(2007) have argued that this
development
function an
nonlinear
false. They performed
is demonstrably
assumption
CDI
section of the
mapped
alyses which revealed that, while the vocabulary
are uni
lexicon (i.e., increases in vocabulary
linearly onto the underlying
section
the grammar
in underlying
lexicon),
formly related to increases
are
in
such that early changes
grammar
underrep
nonuniformly,
mapped
resented in the CDI, relative to later ones. The curvilinear relation observed
studies. Dixon
and grammatical
between
lexical development
is, they argue,
development
an artifact of the differences
of lexical and gram
the measures
between
in their sensitivity to early growth.
matical development
18
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTRODUCTION
to
are
the observed
(linear) correlations
or direction
source
of
The
they
causality.
that vocabulary
supports the induction of grammar
knowledge
possibility
and the alternate possibility
that grammatical
supports the in
knowledge
are different
duction of word meaning
mechanisms
that
language learning
size and gram
would both be reflected in a correlation between vocabulary
Finally,
matical
not
that
reveal
neither
Also,
usage.
neous
extent
the
still do
real,
the
the
use have
word
CDI
assessed what
that they use them?nor
use?only
or
argument
structure
bination
and some
sentence
nor
the
children
have
about
that
sponta
the words
children's
words
appear
they
use of
in com
to the degree
that vocab
Thus,
achievement
of grammatical
about vocabulary
is
knowledge
may
knowledge
it is not clear just what
understandings,
and what about grammatical
doing the supporting
ulary
of
analyses
know
they assessed
frames?only
are present.
the
support
inflections
previous
understanding
is being
supported.
Previous
the semantic flexibility
studies have not examined
of chil
dren's verb use, and thus have not captured possible differences
among
children and among verbs in what children know about the meanings
of the
verbs they use. A revised version of the grammar-from-lexicon
hypothesis
suggest that children who know more about the words that they use
might
to knowing more words,
(i.e., are more flexible with them), as opposed
or
to
sooner. Some support for
be
able
achieve
grammar
might
productivity
this revised version comes from an experimental
study that assessed tod
dlers' extendability
of verbs' grammatical
form as well as their extendability
of the verbs across situations (Naigles et al., 2005). As described
earlier, the
21-month-olds
in
erent
which
were
pairings,
on
presented
Moreover,
the
this
study
thus
video,
children
were
had been
were
shown
taught
demonstrating
also
shown
to be
able
to
recognize
in a playroom
one
to
recognize
form
verb-ref
setting, when
of
the
they
extendability.
verb-referent
pairings that had been taught in the transitive frame but tested in the in
transitive frame (e.g., children were taught you're gorping the ball and tested
on the ball is gorping).
it was the children who could distinguish
Strikingly,
in the transitive who were
(i.e., had learned) the verb-referent
pairings
more
them to the intransitive. These
likely to be able to extend
findings
there is some threshold
of semantic
before
suggest
required
learning
could
be
demonstrated.
grammatical
flexibility
to investigate
The current
these issues in more
study was designed
detail, asking whether children who use verbs more flexibly in terms of their
semantics also use them more flexibly
in terms of their grammar. We will
also examine
as a characteristic
the relations among types of flexibility
of
verbs. That is, we ask whether verbs that are used more
terms
in
of
flexibly
their semantics also more
likely to be used more flexibly in terms of their
grammar.
19
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEPRESENT
STUDY
The foregoing
review of the theoretical
and empirical
children's acquisition of verbs makes
it clear that a central and
is when in the course of verb development
children
question
verbs beyond
the functions,
and morphosyntactic
referents,
literature on
unanswered
extend their
structures
in
which
cause
is as yet unanswered
be
they have heard them used. The question
the research methodologies
that have been brought
to bear are lim
ited in several ways. Sampling
naturalistic
interactions
parent/child
(e.g.,
is likely to miss situation
collecting 3 hours of data per week for 4 months)
specific language use. Children use verbs in particular contexts that may not
be recorded,
such as washing in the bathtub, splashing in the pool, sleeping at
and
night,
riding in the shopping cart at the grocery store (Naigles 8c Hoff,
8c Hoff-Ginsberg,
2006; Naigles
1998). Sampling also does not capture the
full range of uses to which children put the verbs they use, thus rendering
about
questions
the
of
scope
and
meanings
of
forms
verb
use
unanswerable.
of many
conducted
children?in
than
that
of
verb uses
dren's
Ingram,
issues
verbs
some
address
these
are
the
used
as
that does
1981; Shirai,
discussed
make
variety of different
use
to a
addition
we
If, however,
input.
yet
all
that
of
those
verbs
children's
that
in
only
unanswered
not
of
record
assumption
include
1998)?provided
single
way,
questions
are
verb
used
in a
and extended
then
we
with
a record
can
begin
of chil
to
above.
1976; March
1992). In the
chapters that
20
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INTRODUCTION
we present
the method,
the description
of early verb development
that these data suggest, and we address the questions we have outlined with
nature of children's
semantic, and grammatical
respect to the pragmatic,
we
first verb uses. In a concluding
consider
what
the data imply
chapter
with respect to the nature of children's early linguistic understandings.
follow
21
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
II.PRESENTINGTHEDIARYMETHOD
PARTICIPANTS
The data in the present
study come from diary records kept by eight
uses of 34 common verbs. A
mothers
of their children's first 10 spontaneous
to
total of 18 mothers
but 9 mothers withdrew
initially agreed
participate,
from the study before having collected enough data for analysis (i.e., at least
10 uses each of 10 different verbs). For five of these mothers,
their reason
was that their child (always a boy) was not
for withdrawing
talking at all, and
to bring the child to clinical services for evaluation
and
they planned
treatment.
The
mothers
other
who
withdrew
the
gave
reason
their
that
year
the
diary
from
after
However,
One
accurately.
her
and
child
the
data
from
additional
mother
seven
collected
verbs
were
data
for
over
the diary
completed
collected,
she
lapsed
in her
diary keeping for 6 months. Given this lapse, we could not be certain that
the data from the last 24 verbs really reflected
the child's first 10 uses of
these
verbs,
and
this
child's
data
were
not
analyzed
further.
At the onset of the study, the children (5 girls and 3 boys) ranged in age
from 15 to 19months;
all were European American. Detailed questioning
of
established
the mothers
that none of the children had yet produced
any
verbs in the 20
verbs; this was supported by the absence of any spontaneous
min
the experimenter's
first visit. The
speech sample collected
during
children's
word
this
types during
spontaneously
produced
speech sample
were tabulated; on average,
the children produced
25.12 different words
=
(SD
11.47). At the first visit, the mothers were asked to fill a questionnaire
the child's siblings, the parents' education and occupation,
and
television and reading habits. Three of the children had older
=
= 3
(M 5 years, SD
years); one also had a younger
siblings
sibling
one
All
months
of
but
of the parents
(3
(mothers and fathers) had
age).
= 3.33
=
attended
1.97;
years, SD
college for at least a year (M [mothers]
= 4.0
=
were
M
SD
Their
[fathers]
2.28).
years,
occupations
generally
an
middle
class (the fathers
included an accountant,
several engineers,
concerning
the child's
22
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEDIARY
METHOD
PRESENTING
insurance
executive,
and
landscaper,
the mothers
manager;
computer
All of the
been accountants,
had previously
teachers, and bookkeepers).
The eight children
children were cared for at home by their mothers.
watched an average of 9.83 hr of television per week (SD = 7.54) and were
to the
read to for an average of 11.08hr per week (SD = 7.67), according
maternal
report.
MATERIALS
Each mother was provided with a bound diary with 34 individual pages.
the first
On each page was listed a different verb with 10 rows for recording
10 instances of that verb's use. The 34 verbs were chosen from prior data
et al., 1976;
sets of the children's
verb use (Goldin-Meadow
spontaneous
8c Kruger,
8c Bates,
Marchman
1992; Tomasello
1994; Tomasello,
1992);
these are all words that would be used as verbs in the adult language. They
included 8 light verbs, which have more general meanings
(H. Clark, 1996;
narrower
which
had
Nine
and
26
verbs,
1999),
heavy
meanings.
Goldberg,
of the 34 were obligatorily
transitive, 9 were obligatorily
intransitive, and 16
were
alternating
intransitive
verbs
(i.e.,
frames). They
they
can
in
appear
both
transitive
in Table
and
1. In the blank
TABLE 1
List
of
34 Common
Verbs
Transitive
Light
verbs
Intransitive
Alternating
come
bring
give
go
look
put
take
want
Heavy
verbs
hold
clap
bite
like
need
see
cry cut
fall
drop
run eat
sit
JumP
kiss
walk
wave
lay
move
open
pull
push
roll
stop
throw
wash
23
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE2
Diary
of Connecticut/Florida
University
Atlantic
Record
University
First Verbs
Child's
Page
ten uses
of first
of:
Study
Birthdate_ PULL
Name_Heather_
For commands,
who or what
is
command
addressed
of
Record
Date
Was
utterance
a command
complete
utterance
or
the
doing
verb action?
description?
1st
10/2
Pull
Command
Mommy
2nd
10/3
Pull
Command
I pulling
Uncle,
pull
Description
Command
Mommy
Heather
3rd
12/5
4th
12/8
5th
12/8
6th
12/8
Pulling
Auntie,
pull
7th
12/8
Auntie,
pull
8th
1/3
9th
1/13
10th
diary,
1/13
space
Mommy,
me
pull
I pull that
I pull
was
this
to?
For descriptions,
who or what
is
or what
Who
the
receiving
verb action?
Sled
Command
Uncle
Sled
Command
Aunt
Sled
Command
Aunt
Sled
Command
Mommy
Cart
Description
Heather
Blanket
Description
Heather
Blanket
to
record
the
Other
comments
Chair
Wagon
Car with
Uncle
provided
is
complete
handle
utterance,
the
date,
or
function
and addressee
of the
(i.e., command
pragmatic
description),
as well as the actor and the affected object (when relevant) of the
utterance,
verb's action. A sample diary page is reproduced
in Table 2.
PROCEDURE
Parents with children between
15 and 19 months of age were found by
of the local newspaper.
searching back issues of the birth announcements
the study were sent, followed by phone calls requesting
Letters describing
volunteers willing to keep detailed diaries of their child's verb development.
Extensive questioning
confirmed
that the child had not produced
any verbs
at that point and that the parent would be in primary contact with the child
at this point because
their child
20 families were excluded
(approximately
had already begun
verbs). All the volunteer
parents were
producing
mothers. The researcher
then visited the family to train the mother on diary
a
to
collect
20-min spontaneous
keeping and
speech sample.
24
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEDIARY
METHOD
PRESENTING
detail,
that
it was
of
crucial
importance
note
of
every
utterance
that
in
that
of
examples
uses
verb
in one-word
and
multiword
and
utterances,
then
that the study was about verb uses only. The researcher
emphasized
of possible
each column of the diary page, giving examples
discussed
utterances
in the diary. Specifically,
the
and how they were to be entered
were instructed on (a) what constituted
"When
commands
mothers
(e.g.,
to get you or someone
to do?or
else
child
is trying
your
stop
and descriptions
(e.g., "When your child is telling
doing?something")
an addressee
or
an
about
event,
relation"),
(b) what constituted
you
object,
actor
is
directed
is
the verb
the
command
to"),
("Who
("Whom
doing
or
what
is
the
of
the
verb
and
affected
action"),
patient
object ("Who
were
were
not
and
labeled
the
when
these
child, (c) recording
action")
by
the
as
utterance
as
exactly
inflections
including
possible,
such
as
"-ing,"
"-ed," and "-s" if heard, and (d) the use of the right-most column involving
notes (mothers were encouraged
to add notes at all times, but
contextual
when
especially
Then,
the
they
researcher
were
not
emphasized
sure
how
about
or
pragmatic
important
it was
semantic
for
roles).
the mother
to
note
people's
speech.
The
researcher
suggested
that
the
mother
put
the diary in an easily accessible place in the house and carry the diary
she and the child went out. The researcher
asked and
along whenever
noted which words the child was currently producing
(in case some verbs
had emerged
since the phone
researcher
then
call; none had). The
described her own role, which would be to phone the family every 2 weeks
until
to play with
After the training session, the researcher asked the mother
so that the child's current
child for about 20 min
level of speech
could be recorded. The researcher
toys for them to
production
brought
own
could
also
with
and
read
their own books
their
with;
toys
they
play
play
her
self-consciousness
concerns
about
privacy.
to each family
After this initial visit, biweekly phone calls were made
until the child began producing
the target verbs. Then,
the family was called
the parents of the diary procedure
weekly, reminding
(especially, to record
and
the
every utterance)
parents might have had in
answering any questions
out
to discuss
the
Mothers
used
conversations
these
diary.
filling
typically
new utterances
and the records
the children's
the
thereof, describing
in detail and receiving confirmation
and/or instruction concern
were
how
recorded.
Mothers
little difficulty with the
ing
they
reported
some
level of detail required by the records; those who did acknowledge
were
ones
soon
to
the
who
leave
the
Table
3
asked
study.
difficulty
displays
each child's age at the onset of the study, duration of the study, and the total
to the 10-instance criterion out of the 34.
number of target verbs produced
were recorded were included in
for
all
instances
which
10
those
verbs
Only
utterances
of
any
the
and
coding
analyses.
MEASURES
of the age at which each verb was
diary records provided measures
and the number of days elapsed from the 1st to the 10th instance of
The
used
TABLE3
and
Age
Age at
Onset
Child
of Verbs
Number
Length
of
Study
by Each
Produced
#
of Verbs
Child
Rate
Produced
(Out of a Possible
34)
1;8Carl
11 months
24
Carrie
1;7
7 months
30 4.42/month
Elaine
1;8
5 months
Heather
1;7
7 months
314.42/month
31
Stacey
19
3.8/month
Mae
13 months
1;5
Ned
3 months
14
4.67/month
1;6
Sam
11 months
31
2.82/month
1.5
SD
12 months
8.625
months
3.62
of Target
Growth
2.18/month
1;7
1;4
Mean
1;6
Verb
2.38/month
20
1.67/month
24.5
7.07
3.21/month
1.15
26
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
METHOD
THEDIARY
PRESENTING
use. In addition,
the following measures were taken from the diary records
or coded based on the information
the mothers
recorded:
Pragmatic Content
Each verb use was coded as a command or description
(these accounted
the addressee was
and for each command,
for over 98% of all utterances),
1 of Table 2, Heather
in Instance
noted. To illustrate,
says "Pull" as a
to pull a chair; in Instance 3 she says "I pulling" as
to her mother
command
a description
is the
of her own actions with the toy car. The addressee
utterance
to
Instance
in
this
the
child's
is
is
the
whom
directed;
1,
person
4 it is her uncle.
and in Instance
mother,
Semantic Role
The
person
involved
the
verb.
or what
and
as
served
the
actor,
who
verbs,
alternating
agent,
or what
or
experiencer
as
served
of
patient
or theme was also recorded. For example, when a child said "jumping" and
the child in the actor cell, then the child was coded as
her mother
recorded
the actor of the action. With regard to affected objects, an utterance of "Pull"
with "chair" recorded in the affected object cell would be coded with "chair"
as the affected object, whereas an utterance of "pull me" would be coded with
of actor and affected
"Heather" as the affected object. These
assignments
were
object
expressed
to which
multiple
actors
made
or not
regardless
because
the
of
whether
the
of
purpose
the
roles
semantic
coding
was
to capture
were
the
overtly
extent
actors and on
children extend these verbs to actions by multiple
were
on
to determine
mothers
instructed
how
The
carefully
objects.
and
affected
objects
when
these
were
not
overtly
expressed.
Action Referent
Each
instance
of
each
verb's
use
was
coded
as
the
same
or different
from
to. This
previous uses of the verb in terms of the physical action referred
uses
was
on
for
of
of
the
made
34
based
the
28
actor,
verbs,
target
judgment
affected object, and other notes recorded by the mother. Action referent
change was not coded for four internal event verbs (like, look, need, see, want),
and itwas not coded for the verb bring because the specific action referred to
by uses of this verb was difficult to discern from the diaries. In our first pass
of coding the action content of the remaining
verbs, utterance pairs of the
same verb were hypothesized
to refer to different actions if (a) the actors
were of different species (e.g., dog
running vs. child running) or kinds (e.g.,
child coming vs. TV show coming), (b) the affected objects were of different
27
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
kinds
(e.g.,
vs.
rocks
eating
an
eating
sizes
apple),
(e.g.,
a chair
washing
vs.
Grammatical
The
frame
grammatical
mothers'
records
coded
components
location
of
words,
For example,
the utterance
an
cracker";
"I"
subject
"down."
preposition
marker
"-ing"
gical
there"
includes
the
and
were
not
verb-containing
and
utterance
The
the
locative
"my
clapping"
marker
"no,"
Vocatives
frame
grammatical
and
phrases,
full
"I drop my
a
it encompasses
"no
negative
form
"there."
as a
counted
object
the
The
markers,
(SVO) frames.
utterance
me)
utterance.
preposition/prepositional
push
complete
overt
coded from
markers,
negative
includes
of each
children's
included
subject-verb?object
cracker"
the
includes
and
the
the
morpholo
utterance
in
(e.g., Mommy
"Go
Mommy,
component.
Flexibility
In order
spontaneous
in
instances
Changes
to calculate
speech
terms
are defined
flexibility
was
of
its
coded
pragmatics,
below
as
the
semantics,
and examples
or
instance
of a verb
from
changed
and
grammatical
are provided
in Table
in
previous
frame.
4.
Pragmatic Flexibility
types of change were counted as instances of pragmatic
flexibility:
in
function and changes in addressee. A function change was coded
changes
or
to using descriptions,
when a child first switched from using commands
Two
28
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEDIARY
PRESENTING
METHOD
TABLE4
Flexibility
Type
Coding
Instance
Baseline
of Flexibility
Instance
Changed
Pragmatic
Pull
Function
(Command)
=
(Ad Mommy).
Pull
Addressee
pulling
(Description)
=
Uncle,
uncle)
pull (Ad
Semantic
Actor
(A)
Affected object (AO)
=
Eating (A daddy)
=
Daddy eating (AO pizza)
=
Eating (A dog)
=
Jill eating (AO bagel)
Pull
Pull
(AO
chair)
(AO
wagon)
Action
(A
Open
Come
object
Situation
Go
child)
= car
door) Open
(AO
ActorGoing
Affected
(A
car)
=
(AO
Come
(downstairs)
jar)
(out of the house)
Grammatical
versa,
first made
My
cup
my
drop
pulling
Doggie
eating
I pull that
Pull me
object
for
Pull
Morphology
Lexical
subject
vice
me
Pull
My fall
Myfall down
I biteNobite
Preposition
Negation
Lexical
Pull
SVO
Drop
Go Go there
verb.
given
a change
An
addressee
in addressee
with
Daddy
eating
was
change
a given
coded
a child
when
verb.
Semantic Flexibility
Three
types
of
semantic
change
were
coded.
An
actor
change
was
coded
when a child first made a change in actor during the 10 instances of a given
the change from the dog to the father as actor in Table 4
verb. For example,
instantiated this child's first actor change with eat. An affected object change
was noted for the instance with each verb when a child used a different
affected object from the first instance. For example,
the change from the
as
to
4
the
in
affected
Table
instantiated
this child's first
pizza
bagel
object
affected object change with eat. An action change was coded when a child
first referred to an action physically different from his or her initial action
referent
earlier.
Grammatical Flexibility
Nine types of changes were coded as instances
all consisted of the addition or subtraction of words
of grammatical
or morphemes
changes;
to/from a
29
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
attested
frame. Table 4 shows the nine forms followed
by
previously
The
first
six forms (subject, object, SVO, locative, preposition,
examples.
formed the category of syntactic flexibility. Morpho
collectively
negation)
included
any instance in which the child made a change in
logical flexibility
Past tense uses were vanishingly
verb morphology.
rare; therefore, we did
tense
not have to distinguish
forms
from regularized
past
irregular past
tense forms (e.g., "fell" vs. "failed"). In addition to the foregoing measures
in which
the target verbs were used,
of syntactic frames
of flexibility
measures
of the flexibility of verb use with respect to the lexical items filling
the subject and object roles were coded. Lexical subject and lexical object
in the
the child made a change
included any instance in which
changes
a
or
For
term
in
the
lexical
used
change
example,
object position.
subject
from saying "I pull" to "Baby pull" was coded as a change in lexical subject
a change in
use. In contrast, a change from "pull" to "I pull" constituted
syntax.
address
the
core
questions
of
extendability:
to what
extent
were
the
children able to use their verbs with a variety of actors and affected objects,
to different actions? Children who use each of
and to refer (appropriately)
to only one
their verbs with only a single actor or affected object, referring
instantiation of that verb, may not have acquired a principle of extendability
of grammatical
The measures
that applies to verb meanings.
flexibility were
core questions of productivity: To what extent were
to
the
address
designed
sentence
able to use their verbs in different
the children
(appropriate)
Children who use each of their
and/or with different morphology?
in only a single frame may not yet have abstract frames that are
or that operate independently
of their verbs. The semantic and
represented
were
measures
used to address the question of
also
flexibility
grammatical
to an adult/abstract
use light verbs as pathbreakers
children
whether
or grammatical
semantic
with
used
verbs
Are
greater
grammar:
light
were also the relevant
measures
latter
These
verbs?
than
heavy
flexibility
ones for the analyses concerning
how semantic and grammatical
flexibility
of verb use might be related during language development.
The coding was first performed
by the third author and then checked in
were resolved by discussion.
its entirety by the first author. Disagreements
For each verb for a given child, the following were calculated for each
in
the change
(a) which of the first 10 uses manifested
type of flexibility:
frames
verbs
30
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEDIARY
PRESENTING
METHOD
usage, (b) how many days elapsed between first use and first different use,
and (c) how many different uses for each category occurred within the 10
in how children use their first verbs can arise both
instances. Variability
from differences
among children and from differences
among verbs. In
order to investigate both sources of variability, all analyses were conducted:
for each
(1) treating children as the random factor and calculating measures
child by averaging across the verbs they produced
and (2) treating verbs as
the
random
factor
and
calculating
measures
for
each
verb
averaging
and
across
statistical
31
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
III.A GENERALDESCRIPTION
VERBGROWTH
OF EARLY
AND USE
3),
mean
and
to reach
days
10
instances.
once
instances
10
time
were
on
(e.g.,
produced
use
average,
on the
of
a verb
over
same
began;
2 months).
for at
day
other
children
For
least
one
four
verb;
Sam)
(e.g.,
all
children,
for
the
10
other
four children,
the shortest number of days to reach 10 instances ranged
1
from 2 to 18 days (Ned = 2, Carrie = 5, Stacey = 7, Sam = 18). Figure
presents
the
cumulative
children's
target
verb
vocabulary
over
the
course
of
in
target
verb
vocabulary.
The
correlation
between
the
age
at
VERBGROWTHAND USE
A GENERALDESCRIPTION
OF EARLY
TABLE5
Verb
Overall
Number
Child
Verbs
Carrie
30
of
Elaine
19
31
20
Stacey
Mean
24.63
Age of Onset
Across Verbs
of Days
10 Instances
Number
Reach
to
759.17 3.17
564
744.9320.03
602
674.8924.95
584
49.55
632.97
577 31
Mae
744.93
35.60
511 14
Ned
532.85
22.64
546 31
Sam
600.10
67.48
491
534.94 58.39
559.75
653.1035.23
41.15
6.48
SD
Mean
Mean
Heather
by Child
Development,
92.76 21.73
38.47); open was on average the earliest produced whereas give was on
On average, verbs
the latest of these 34 verbs to be produced.
average
reached the 10-instance mark 37.39 days after their first use (SD = 16.71);
wave took the most,
clap took the fewest days to reach 10 instances and
on
wave
are
the
and
least
the
data
reliable,
being used by only
although
clap
two children. Two verbs were produced
all
8
children
(want, wash); on
by
=
5.79
children
(SD
1.59).
average, each verb was produced
by
the verb within the
Across verbs, the number of children who produced
with
the
window of this study correlated
average
age at which
negatively
(SD
35
-|-1
r-S
/J
& 25J**T
\
/ fi
y~r*I
IS
r-//
\ - 7
/
5/
\Z /* //
||
5J
0
r^ I I
J
*
i
'
'
*
;J
Carl//
* / Ned
F^H
Carrie
/
-^Heather
/
Elaine
?Mae
//
I /'
rJ
|
I"^-Stacey
Ii i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i I
Age
Figure
in days
1.?Cumulative
verb
vocabulary
by age.
33
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE6
Overall
Number
Verb
of
Verb
Mean
Age of Onset
Across Children
Children
Bite
Rank
Order
7 592.71
44.29
10
26.38
17
34.00
16
57.20
47.14 5
Fall 5 614.20
55.60 8
5741.60
34
40.60
Go 7 589.86
Hold 6663.67
Jump7643.14
Kiss 6661.33
26.00 2
23
23.00
15
61.00
19
50.50
Lay 4 599.25
Like 6 710.83
27.00
33
33.00
7 626.29
12
17.57
Move 3 696.00
30
35.67
Need 6638.33
14
27.67
Open 7 587.57
Pull 5671.20
17.29 1
25
77.60
Push
14.83
6 608.17
48.40
22
6 680.50
30.67
28
26
38.29
6 612.17
29.57
Sit 7616.57
11
13.83
Stop 5 700.00
Take 5661.80
Throw
5 663.00
Run 7672.71
See
to
27
65.86
Cut 7 645.57
Roll
of Days
10 Instances
Drop 5 645.20
Eat 7 604.71
Put
Number
Reach
24
11.50
Cry 7680.57
Look
Mean
32
47.33
Clap 2 668.50
Come 8 616.50
Give
of
Acquisition
3 704.67
Bring
by Verb
Development,
31
25.60
38.80
20
614.20
35.60
Walk7637.43
13
23.71
Want 8651.13
18
43.75
Wash 8 662.13
21
29.88
Wave 2 687.00
29
72.00
cry, cut,
eat, go,
hold,
jump,
kiss,
like,
look,
need,
open,
push,
run,
roll,
sit, see,
of 33.24 days
than six of the
34
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A GENERALDESCRIPTION
OF EARLY
VERBGROWTHAND USE
children
reached
(bring, clap, drop, fall, give, lay, move, pull, put, stop, take, throw, wave)
10 instances of use in an average of 44.07 days (SD = 18.52), a
reliable difference,
Cohen's
one-tailed,
?(32) =1.91,
p<.05,
statistically
In
0.67.
those
sum,
verbs
that
were
the most
widely
acquired
were
also
measures
of
the
timing
of
emergence
and
the
rate
of
early
use
was
not
the heavy-light
distinction among verbs or to
systematically
the transitive, intransitive, and alternating distinction
among verbs.
at least one grammatical
All children produced
subject with at least one
=
were
of
the
verb
tokens
verb, but only 32% (SD
22%)
produced with overt
related
subjects.
Overt
direct
to either
objects
were
more
common,
with
produced
an
av
=
at least two
25%). Each child produced
erage of 46% of the tokens (SD
=
tokens of subject-verb-object
with
24%
frames,
(SVO)
(SD
19%) of tran
sitive or alternating
verb tokens in SVO frames. Similar findings were ob
tained when calculations were performed
by verb: 35% of verb tokens were
=
overt
with
20%), 45% of transitive or alternating
produced
subjects (SD
=
verb tokens were produced
with overt objects
(SD
30%), and 24% of
were
verb
tokens
in SVO
frames
transitive/alternating
produced
=
then, the children more
(SD
21%). On average,
frequently
produced
verbs with direct objects than with subjects, t(7) = 1.85, p = .052, one-tailed,
d = 0.59, and transitive and alternating
verbs appeared with direct objects
more
than they appeared with subjects, t(24) = 2.36, p = .013
frequently
d = 0.39. Six of the eight children,
and 18 of the 25 relevant
one-tailed,
verbs, followed this pattern. As expected, uses of verb inflections and prep
ositions were much
less frequent, with inflections included with 6% of chil
=
= 7% and
dren's
verb tokens
calculated
9%; when
(SD
by verb, M
=
SD
included with
11% of their verb tokens
11%) and prepositions
=
=
=
5%; when calculated by verb, M
24%, SD
(SD
25%).
As did the age of onset and rate of production measures
for these verbs,
the measures
dren
of
grammatical
use
revealed
wide
variation
among
the
chil
and
.09.
emergence
and
rate
of
production
measures,
these
measures
of
grammat
between
these two categories of
ical frame use revealed several differences
more
in SVO frames
verb. Light verbs appeared
frequently
significantly
less likely to appear
than did heavy verbs, and light verbs were significantly
both verb subclasses included verbs with
in verb-only utterances. However,
few verb-only uses (fewer than 30% of tokens [light verbs in boldface]: bring,
clap, cry,fall, give, hold, lay, like, need, put, take, want, wave), many verb-only
uses (>60% of tokens: bite, go, move, pull, push, see, stop, throw, walk), and
intermediate
verb-only uses (between 30% and 59% of tokens: come, cut, eat,
in the analyses both by chil
kiss,
look,
pull, roll, run, sit, wash). Trends
jump,
dren and by verbs suggest that "-ing" appeared more frequently with heavy
than with light verbs.
Table 8 displays for the transitive, intransitive, and alternating verbs the
"-ing," and SVO
percent of tokens used with subjects, objects, prepositions,
frames. Children used transitive verbs with both objects and SVO frames more
the by-verbs analysis revealed
than alternating verbs. Moreover,
frequendy
both
the
for
of
verb
effects
type
percent of tokens with subjects and
significant
36
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A GENERALDESCRIPTION
OF EARLY
VERBGROWTHAND USE
TABLE7
of
Properties
Grammatical
Light
Item
Grammatical
I. By children
with
Tokens
Heavy
Verb
Use
Heavy
SD
Means
(Proportions)
and
Light
Means
df*
-0.36
SD
Cohen's
subjects
.33
.22
.34
.21
ns
.75
.23
.38
.24
5.31
.001
1.57
with
objects
SVO
.42
.30
.19
.16
2.88
.02
0.96
"-ing"
.03
.05
.08
.11
ns
.09
.10
.07
.07
1.09
ns
.25
.21
.40
.21
5.14
.001
subjects
.37
.24
.34
.19
0.37
32
ns
.73
.17
.38
.28
2.64
23
.01
.43
.23
.23
.26
1.52
23
ns
.04
.08
.08
.12
32
ns
.12
.19
.10
.21
.24
.24
.42
.26
Tokens
with
Tokens
Tokens
with
Tokens
with
Tokens
verb-only
//. By verbs
with
Tokens
Tokens
with
Tokens
with
objects
SVO
Tokens
with
"-ing"
Tokens
with
Tokens
verb-only
Note.?The
df decrease for the % tokens with objects and with SVO
because only the transitive and alternating verbs are included.
-1.46
-1.86
0.17
1.76
0.71
1.32
32
ns
32
.087
0.70
by items
(subject-verb-object)
the percent
produced
utterances.
ports
to use
began
18 months
some
verbs
in their
spontaneous
speech
at an
average
the following
3-11 months,
(560 days). Within
an average of 25 of the
common
34
verbs
targeted
The
nature
of
generalizations
these
children's
about
early
first
verb
uses
of
development.
their
age
of
the children
in at least 10
first
Contrary
verbs
sup
to
the
and
morphology
use
were
rare.
37
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
for
Negligible
Tokens
P
with
all
types
verb
2.03
22
4.94
.14
.13
.001
.25
.51
SVO
Tokens
with
Note.?The
the
df decrease
intransitive
for
the % tokens
with
Properties
Grammatical
Intransitive,
Transitive,
and
Alternating
Use
Verb
of
TABLE8
versus
objects
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
transitive
post hoc
and with
comparison
SVO
yielded
by
(subject-verb-object)
a
significant
2.31
0.23
.13
.23
.10
.19
.18
.09
P
Tokens
with
ns
Tokens
with
"-ing"
.03
.01
.16
.15
.05
2.31
5.99
.08
.006**
2.31
.17
4.50
.26
Tokens
.01**
.20
.36
.18
subjects
with
.49
Tokens
Grammatical
with
Item
Tokens
objects
(Proportions)
2.21
2.24
.06
Tokens
.14
.11
.01
"-ing"
with
.01
.10
ns
Tokens
with
SVO
.35
.28
.12
.11
3.70
7.007
1.08
objects
Tokens
with
subjects
.40
.24
.30
.22
.27
.21
.78
2.21
ns.27
.64
.31
with
SD
Means
.27
.72
.21
.20
SD Means
items
subjects,
%
with
tokens
/(22)
difference,
transitive
hoc
yields
%
d
with
**For
post
alternating
significant
versus
comparison
3.13,
1.32.
tokens
For
jf?
.004,
a"-ing,"
=
SD Fit
.20
df*
because
t(\7)
= ? 2.83,
the
difference,
5.13
p Cohen's
22 5.33
.001
Means
p2.43,
*(23)
comparison,
d=
.02,
.98.
I.
By
children
only
By
//.
verbs
CO
00
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
.001
A GENERALDESCRIPTION
OF EARLY
VERBGROWTHAND USE
pattern of combinatorial
class. Light verbs were produced
This
SVO
and
frames,
heavy
verbs
produced
somewhat
and more
with
more
by verb sub
in
frequently
"-ing"
forms.
Finally, transitive
more
frequently
description
meanings
of
that
the communicative
they
functions
these
verbs
served
and
the
expressed.
39
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
IV.PRAGMATIC
AND SEMANTICFLEXIBILITY
INEARLY
VERBUSE
The
that
evidence
verb
use
in maternal
to children
speech
is
frequently
tied
to particular
settings (Naigles 8c Hoff, 2006) suggests that a conservative
would be similarly restrictive
learner
in verb production.
Such a
language
conservative
in
only
child
a ball
throw
or
reference
for
might,
example,
"eat"
in reference
only
to themselves
eating
use
to
but
"throw"
eating
not
only
cookies
their
as
but
parents.
a command
not
pizza,
If children's
to
or
early
To
test
these
predictions,
we
describe
the
pragmatic,
semantic,
and
action flexibility
that the children demonstrated
in their first 10 uses of
course
the target verbs they produced
the
of this study, and we
during
measures
the
of
for
and
compare
flexibility
light
heavy verbs, and for tran
sitive,
intransitive,
and
alternating
verbs.
40
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INEARLY
PRAGAAATIC
AND SEMANTICFLEXIBILITY
VERBUSE
PRAGMATIC
FLEXIBILITY
and Descriptions
Commands
The
pragmatic
of
categories
and
"command"
"description"
together
utterances
in the diary records;
for 98.6 % of the verb-containing
in commands
in descriptions.
and 53.2% were
45.4% of verb uses were
are in line with other findings
These proportions
for this age group (e.g.,
2008). All of the children used at least
Vasilyeva, Waterfall, & Huttenlocher,
account
one
verb
sorts
in both
of
utterances.
On
the
average,
children
produced
communicative
functions;
however,
all
were
children
able
to use
at
least
35tl
30- f%
i^i n
.o
Sam
Stacey
Mae
Carl
Carrie
inB?thc&Di
c/2 0 Commands
Heather
Elaine
Ned
Children
Figure
2.?Communicative
functions
of early
verb
uses.
41
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Seven verbs
(fall and drop were used only in descriptions).
and
(bite, bring, kiss, pull, push, take, and walk) were used both as commands
stop was used only in com
descriptions
by 80% of the children or more,
mands by 80% of the children, and like was used only in descriptions
by 80%
seem to follow from the meanings
and typ
of the children. These findings
in ref
ical usages of these verbs: Fall and drop were used most commonly
erence to the actions of inanimate objects, which are not likely to respond
as like is a verb of internal volition,
it is not
well to commands; moreover,
not
to
tell adults to like
be the subject of commands
(children do
likely
were
tied to specific functions the restricted use
things). Thus, where verbs
seems explicable
in terms of the verb's meaning
rather reflecting context
on the part of the child. The majority of verbs were
bound representation
and descriptions
used as both commands
by the majority of children, and
the second function ap
when verbs were used to serve both functions,
use of that verb (M = 4.32,
on
of
the
fourth
instance
average
by
peared
16.91 days (SD = 11.83).
SD = 0.89) and within
Some differences
light and heavy verbs in terms of
emerged between
these pragmatic properties. The children were more likely to use light verbs
than heavy verbs, Ms = 0.39 (0.30) and 0.14 (0.12), re
only as commands
=
=
=
1.09, and less likely to use light
.05, Cohen's d
spectively, ?(7) 3.01, p
=
0.08 (0.13), M (heavy) = 0.30 (0.17),
verbs only as descriptions, M (light)
=
=
= 1.92. Similarly, light verbs tended to be
.05, Cohen's d
3.00, p
t(7)
used
more
than
frequently
heavy
verbs
only
as commands,
Ms
0.33
(0.27)
=
=
and 0.16 (0.25), respectively,
.10, Cohen's d
0.67, and less
/(32)
1.66,p
= 0.32
=
as
M
M
0.10
(0.09),
(heavy)
descriptions,
(light)
only
frequently
=
=
= 0.79.
.10, Cohen's d
1.92, p
(0.31), t(32)
Flexibility (ForCommand
Addressee
When
more
using
than
one
Utterances Only)
to command,
verbs
addressee;
however,
all children
there
again,
was
considerable
variability
Within
the
first
10
instances
of
a verb's
use,
the
number
of
ad
the verbs
one child;
with only
addressee
42
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PRAGMATIC
AND SEAAANTIC
FLEXIBILITY
INEARLY
VERBUSE
:?
100tT^)
90-
80"
11
Sam
llllllli
.
Sam
iiuiiii
Figure
Mae
Stacey
Carl
Carrie Heather
Elaine
Ned
Elaine
Ned
Children
9J(b)
8"
dressee
fl|
Mae
Stacey
Carrie Heather
Children
Percent
of verbs
in early verb use.
3.?(a)
flexibility
Carl
used
with
addressee
flexibility
and
(b) onset
of ad
=
flexibility by 41% of the children (SD 26%). Verbs in commands were used
with a different addressee from the first instance within, on average, 14.47 days
of the first use (SD = 19.96 days) and by the fifth instance of the use of that verb
=
the measures
of addressee
(M 4.36, SD= 1.25). When
flexibility are com
none
for
the
and
of
the
subclasses,
pared
light
heavy
analyses by child yielded
one
differences.
The
verb
difference: Light verbs
significant
analyses by
yielded
were used with significandy more addressees than heavy verbs, M (light) = 2.04
= 0.98.
= 1.58
=
=
.05, Cohen's d
(.55), M (heavy)
(.44), *(30) 2.36, p
In
do
not
sum,
when
seem
to
verbs
uniformly
first
enter
restrict
children's
these
verbs
productive
to a
single
lexicons,
utterance
children
function,
nor
to a single addressee. They use about half of their verbs in both com
mands and descriptions,
and they direct their commands, with about half of
their verbs, to multiple
addressees. One limitation of change of addressee as
a measure
of children's flexibility of verb use is that, over the course of a day,
43
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
because
fewer
different
are
addressees
available.
FLEXIBILITY
SEMANTIC
Action Flexibility
4a and 4b show
Figures
to more
reference
in action
change
more
one
than
referent
child
On
the percent
the mean
and
occurred.
|
fev?i
Q
for each
action
average,
children
(SD
in
of verbs used
at which
instance
the
reference
made
first
to
100-A
(a)
90 - K)
80
70-
I , 60-
mm
^ Sam
Stacey
Mae
Carl
Carrie
Heather
Elaine
Ned
Heather
Elaine
Ned
flexibility
and
Children
io -ri I
9- 0>)
iliililk
Figure
flexibility
Sam
Percent
4.?(a)
in early verb use.
Stacey
Mae
Carl
Carrie
Children
of verbs
used
with
action
(b) onset
of action
44
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND SEMANTICFLEXIBILITY
PRAGAAATIC
INEARLY
VERBUSE
showing
action
children's
flexibility,
first
new
action
use
occurred
av
on
=
=
15.54 days
0.85) and within
erage before the fifth instance (M 4.6, SD
=
first
after
instance.
the
The
of
number
actions
verb
within
(SD
13.50)
per
the first 10 instances ranged from one to four; six of the eight children
to at least three different
referred
actions with at least one verb. Across
=
an
of
of
the
children
33%
verbs,
(SD
20%) referred to more than
average
one action within the first 10 instances of
a verb. Come was used to
producing
refer to more than one action by six of the children; put and open were used
to refer to more than one action by five of the children. The first
change in
=
on average
action reference
occurred
the
fifth
instance
(M 5.1,
by
SD = 1.99) and on average within 27.14 days of the first use (SD = 35.77).
Actor Flexibility
5a and 5b show for each
Figures
reference
change
to more
in actor occurred.
Sam
actor
child
Stacey
Mae
the percent
the mean
and
All children
iluiiii
10
fl*> I
used
Carl
in
of verbs used
at which
instance
the
first
Carrie Heather
Elaine
Ned
Ned
in
Children
<a>
te
8 -
Uilllll
Sam
ibility
one
than
Figure
5.?(a)
in early verb
Percent
use.
Stacey
Mae
Carl
Children
of verbs
used
with
actor
flexibility
and
(b) onset
of actor
flex
45
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
to more
reference
one
actor.
On
average,
children
made
reference
to more
than one actor with 73% of their verbs (SD = 13%). For those verbs showing
on average before
actor flexibility,
the first new actor use occurred
the
fourth instance (M = 3.9, SD = 0.77) and within
15.79 days (SD = 12.06)
after the first instance. The number of actors per verb within the first 10
instances ranged from 1 to 5 (M = 2.68, SD = 1.0). Across verbs, an average
=
of 76% of the children
than one actor within
20%) referred to more
(SD
a verb; eight of the verbs were used with
the first 10 instances of producing
actors by all the children. The first change
in actor reference
different
occurred on average before the fourth instance (M = 3.85, SD = 1.01) and
on average within
16.91 days of the first use (SD = 13.91).
percent of children's verb uses that referred to themselves as actors
from
11% (Stacey) to 70% (Carl). On average, 51% (SD = 18.1%) of
ranged
children's first 10 uses of these early verbs concerned
themselves as actors.
as
uses
actors ranged from
to
of
the
that
referred
self
verbs,
percent
Among
in
0% for the verbs cry, look, move, open, and pull (the latter four primarily
was
to
want.
for
used
exclu
the
verbs
and
100%
like,
commands)
Cry
clap,
to infant siblings or fictional characters. Mean percent of
sively in reference
self as actor uses calculated across verbs was 50.8% (SD = 30%).
The
AffectedObject Flexibility
used
6a
Figures
in reference
and
6b
to more
show
the
than
of
percent
one
affected
object
verbs
alternating
at
instance
the mean
and
transitive
and
which
the children
46
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INEARLY
PRAGMATIC
AND SEMANTICFLEXIBILITY
VERBUSE
iooji(a)
m m
Sam Stacey
Mae
Carl
Carrie
Heather
Elaine
Ned
Carrie
Heather
Elaine
Ned
Children
lllillll
10
iTcw
9
Qt
^ ^
llllilU
Sam Stacey
Figure
Percent
of verbs
6.?(a)
affected
in early verb
object flexibility
Mae
Carl
Children
used
use.
with
affected
object
flexibility
and
(b) onset
of
=
=
=
.0005, Cohen's d
1.39, and a significant
?(7) 6.02, p
object flexibility,
actor was produced
in when
difference
the first different
compared with
=
=
when
the first different
affected object was produced,
.01,
2(7) 3.42, p
=
d
0.73. Comparison
of the number of days to actor and affected object
=
d = 0.40.
t(7)
change showed a trend in the same direction,
1.599,/?<.10,
are
verbs
the t tests
included),
By verbs (only the transitive and alternating
t
revealed significant differences
for the mean
instance of change measure,
=
=
=
2.16, p
.04, d
0.62, and the number of days to first change mea
(22)
=
=
=
of children
sure, 2(22)
2.78, p
.01, d
0.37, but not for the percent
of freedom differ in these
2(24) <1, ns. (The degrees
showing flexibility,
analyses because two verbs displayed no affected object flexibility.)
We next compared
the different verb subclasses in terms of actor and
a significantly higher percent
affected object flexibility. Children produced
47
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(1983),
their own
someone
very
actions
else's
first
uses
verb
or relations;
actions
as
were
own.
their
not
were
children
just as likely
more
Interestingly,
to
in reference
consistently
to talk about
was
flexibility
ob
that this is be
served with affected objects than with actors; we conjecture
cause there is a greater range of possible affected objects in a child's home
items) than of possible actors (e.g., animates).
(e.g., toys, food, household
more varied affected objects than heavy
were
verbs
with
Light
produced
verbs, which is consistent with the notion that light verbs apply to a wider
than heavy verbs (usually,
range of items (one can bring just about anything)
one eats only food, kisses only animates, and rolls only round things; see also
8c Sethuraman,
Goodman
8c Gleitman,
2006; Snedeker
2004; Valian et al.,
and
these
of
the
functions
semantics of early
Overall,
then,
2006).
analyses
use
verb
are
not
nicative
suggest
to
that
when
tied
particular
to refer
functions,
and relations
they denote
verbs
uses
to a
enter
but
are
variety
with multiple
children's
available
of
actions,
agents
to
productive
serve
and
lexicons
multiple
to refer
to
and affected
they
commu
the
actions
objects.
48
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
IN
AND GRAMMATICALFLEXIBILITY
V. PRODUCTIVITY
EARLY
VERBUSE
verbs. We
also calculated
three-verbs-per-frame
(3-V)
and
in that frame,
five-verbs-per-frame
(5-V)
levels
of
were
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
nouns
in object
and different
(lexical subject flexibility)
subject position
in the
with
which
each
verb
(lexical
object flexibility)
position
appeared
10 uses. A frame was coded as different from previously appearing
recorded
frames if there was an addition or subtraction of a subject, object, locative,
term. Morphological
differences
included the
and/or negation
preposition,
or
addition
subtraction
of
or
tense/aspect
person
on
marker
the
verb.
Lexical
measures
object
depend
on
noun
in actual
changes
use.
INFIRST
VERBUSES
GRAMMATICAL
PRODUCTIVITY
Table 9 displays the mean
across children. The children
in each frame
of verb types produced
SV and VO frames with > 60% of
produced
percent
all the target verbs they used, and the SVO frame with just under half (40%)
these are not frames used with just 1 or 2
of the verbs they used. Thus,
the V+P and V-ing frames with <20% of
verbs. In contrast, they produced
in chapter III, these frames were
the target verbs they used; as described
used less frequently
overall. The children varied in the degree of gram
and Carrie were consistently
matical productivity
they displayed. Heather
the
most
productive
children
across
the
frames;
who
child
was
least
TABLE9
Productivity
of Verb
Use
Measures
Frame
SV
Mean % of V types (SD)
Highest
% of V
types
% of V
types
61 (28)
93.5
VO
62 (29)
100
SVO
VP
41 (26)
18 (15)
Ned (2)
15 (14)
3571.4
35
V-ing
40 0
29.4
Carl (5)
Sam (1)
Carl,
Carl
Elaine
Mean
age of 3-V
21.83(7)
22.28(8)
23.64(6)
22.45(3)
21.11(4)
(n)
productivity
Mean
age of 5-V
22.6(7)
23.1(7)
22.13(4)
23.43(5)
21.35(2)
productivity
(n)
50
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
PRODUCTIVITY
AND GRAMMATICAL
FLEXIBILITY
INEARLY
VERBUSE
TABLE 10
of
Number
At
Ned
Stacey
Frames
24 Months
Name
3-V level
Carl
Carrie
Elaine
Heather
Productive
0
5
55
14 2
5
55
Mae 0 0 4
10
Sam3 3 4
5
45
(Out
of
Five)
At
5-V
level
30 Months
3-V
level
5-V
level
11
5
2
5
4
10
3
4
51
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
restricted
verbs,
lexical
items.
FLEXIBILITY
GRAMAAATICAL
INFIRST
VERBUSES
All eight children used more than one syntactic frame within the first 10
uses of at least one of their verbs. Figures 7a and 7b display for each child
the mean
instance, across verbs, of the first new frame and the percent of
verbs used with more than one frame. On average, the children used 65.6%
of their verbs (SD = 18%) in at least two different frames within their first 10
= 1
uses; their mean number of different frames per verb was 2.14 (range
this early period did not seem to be one characterized
5). Thus,
by frozen
100T71-1
- (a)
&??
90
-7AI
H ^m
^1 ^1 ^H ^H ^1 ^1 ^H ^H
^1 ^1 ^1 ^1 ^1 ^1 ^1 ^1
$3
Sam
Carl
Mae
Stacey
Carrie Heather
Elaine
Ned
Children
10-,-,
(b)
\j i
lllllii.
Sam
Figure
flexibility
Percent
7.?(a)
in early verb use.
Stacey
of verbs
i
Mae
Carl
Carrie
i
i
i
Ned
Heather Elaine
Children
used
with
syntactic
flexibility
and
(b) onset
of syntactic
52
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND GRAMMATICAL
FLEXIBILITY
INEARLY
VERBUSE
PRODUCTIVITY
form use. For those verbs that showed flexibility, the first new use occurred
on average just after the fourth instance (M = 4.17, SD = 1.47) and within
15.37 days (SD = 12.58) from the first instance. Verbs varied in the percent
of children who used them in different
frames, from 100% (fall, give, take,
wave) to 0% (stop). On average, verbs were used with different frames by 66%
of the children (SD = 23%); the mean number of different frames per verb
was 2.20 (SD = 0.55). For those children who produced
different
frames,
on average before
use occurred
the first different
the fourth
instance
=
17.77 days (SD = 16.96) from the first in
(M 3.81, SD= 1.34), within
stance. Most of these instances of syntactic flexibility
involved the addition
or subtraction of subjects, objects, prepositions,
and locatives. Only 12% of
frame changes
included the use of negation
(range 0-36%). On average,
included negation.
1.8% of utterances
was included in our mea
The addition or subtraction of a preposition
sure of syntactic flexibility; however,
this measure
captured only whether
the preposition
slot was filled. It did not capture whether
the children used
more
than one preposition
with a given verb and/or a given preposition
with more
than one verb. Examination
of the particular prepositions
used
showed that of the six children who used prepositions
with their verbs, five
showed flexibility
in their use of prepositions.
That is, Ned used only one
one
with
verb
but
Mae,
Heather,
Carrie, Stacey, and
(down)
(lay),
preposition
Sam each used at least one verb with multiple
and/or used the
prepositions
same preposition
with multiple
verbs. For example, Mae used put and pull
each with two prepositions
and used in and over each with two different
and down,
verbs, and Heather used put and throw each with two prepositions
to, and away each with two different verbs. Sam was by far the most flexible
use: He used lay, give, pull, push, and put each with at least
in his preposition
two different prepositions
and down and in each with at least two different
verbs.
Consistent
with descriptions
of early combinatorial
speech in English
learners as telegraphic,
these young speakers produced
very little inflec
was
tional morphology,
and, not surprisingly, morphological
flexibility
much
than frame flexibility both across children
less pervasive
(appearing
in approximately
and across verbs (appearing
6% of children's utterances)
in approximately
7% of verb uses). Figures 8a and 8b show the percent of
verbs with which the children used more than one morphological
structure
none of their
and the instance of the first change; two children produced
verbs inmore than one morphological
form. On average, the children used
different morphology
with 15.69% of their verbs (SD = 14.5%). For those
use occurred
on average
verbs that showed flexibility,
the first different
=
before
the fifth instance
26.98 days
(M 4.55, SD= 1.91) and within
=
(SD
21.45) after the first instance. Verbs were used with different mor
=
structures by an average of 18% of the children
(SD
22%); the
phological
53
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100-n
90
80
3 ?
||
2|
70
60
so
40
il
1
?
oil
Sam
II
i"
Stacey
Mae
i-iM
Carl
i*
Carrie Heather
i-M?t
Ned
Elaine
Children
10-rj
1
Q
ll.
Figure
8.?(a)
morphological
Sam
Stacey
Mae
Carl
ll
Came
Heather
Elaine
Children
Percent
of verbs used
in early verb use.
with
morphological
flexibility
Ned
and
(b) onset
of
flexibility
one
overt
morphological
marker.
(ex
subject flexibility was the norm, with seven of the children
more
one
one
at
than
lexical
with
least
of
Ned)
cepting only
using
subject
their verbs. Figures 9a and 9b show for the children
the percent of verbs
with which they used more than one lexical subject and the instance of the
first new lexical subject. On average,
the children used more
than one
different
lexical subject with 30.65% of their verbs (SD ? 27.15). For those
verbs that showed flexibility, the first new use appeared on average before
the sixth instance (M = 5.2, SD = 1.06) and within 20.29 days (SD = 17.79)
Lexical
54
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND GRAMMATICAL
FLEXIBILITY
PRODUCTIVITY
INEARLY
VERBUSE
100-n-1
tS: c
<?
m B
Sam
Stacey
B
Mae
Carl
Carrie Heather
B_
Elaine
Ned
Children
10-rl
fl
fl
?~
3 -B
Sam
Stacey
Mae
fl
Carl
Carrie Heather
Elaine
Ned
Children
Figure
lexical
subject
9.?(a)
Percent
of verbs used
in early verb use.
with
lexical
subject
flexibility
and
(b) onset
of
flexibility
after the first lexical subject use. Verbs also varied in the percent of children
lexical subjects over the first 10 instances, from 100%
different
producing
(wave) to 0 (throw, stop, push, move, lay). On average, verbs were used with
=
lexical subjects by 35% of the children
(SD
26%). For those chil
multiple
new use on average
dren showing this flexibility,
their
first
they produced
=
=
the fifth instance
before
12.74 days
(M 4.77, SD
2.21) and within
=
16.17) after their first lexical subject use.
(SD
All 8 children used more than one lexical object with at least one tran
10a and 10b show for the children
sitive or alternating
verb. Figures
the
percent of verbs with which they used more than one lexical object and the
instance of the first new use. On average,
the children used at least two
lexical objects with 43.38% of their verbs (SD = 26.56%). For those verbs
that showed flexibility, the first different use occurred on average before the
fifth instance (M = 4.13, SD = 1.22) and 20.64 days (SD = 16.22) after the
first lexical object use. Among
the transitive and alternating
verbs (the only
55
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
"3 3
ioo -n-1
?t 901
Sam
Stacy
Mae
Carl
Carrie
Heather
Elaine
Ned
Children
*
10T1-1
8
ll
*>o
00
M
II
H
M
H
?
I
H
I
H
Sam
Stacy
I
H
I
H
Mae
I
^
H
fll
H
I
I
m
I
H
I
H
IH
I
H
IH
IH
Carl
Carrie Heather
Elaine
Ned
Children
Figure
lexical
object
10.?(a)
flexibility
Percent
in early
of verbs used
verb use.
with
lexical
object
flexibility
and
(b) onset
of
in the
variation
verb categories
that take objects) there was considerable
over
10
the
first
lexical
of
different
children
percent
objects
producing
to
tran
On
from
0%
100%
instances, ranging
average,
(stop, move).
(bring)
lexical objects in the
verbs appeared with multiple
sitive and alternating
=
(SD
28%). For those children showing this
speech of 46% of the children
on average before the fifth instance
new use occurred
the
first
flexibility,
=
=
=
SD
and
19.06
16.09) after the first lexical
(Af 4.74,
2.06)
days (SD
object
use.
56
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
11
TABLE
Grammatical
Use
Flexibility
of
for
Light
Versus
Heavy
Verbs
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
30.5021.34
Light
Heavy
Mean
instance
morphology
change5.133.66
5.73
2.43
Only
3children
contributed
^
t
df*
26.58
16.68
30.66
25.17
20.18
13.04
change
days
3.66
to
frame
change
^7Mean
3.82
0.71
instance
3.54
1.39
0.57
frame
change
ns
5.43
Number
of
days
to
frame
change
15.93
11.58
14.58
13.08
0.6
7ns
g
Only
Only
5.10
0.9
instance
32
1.13
1.23
3.53
1.04
Mean
4.08
frame
change
F=
ns
Cohen's
3 5 children
children
Only
children
contrib
15.31
21.35
NJ Note.?*df
different
with
Number
of of days days
Number
70.37
0.74
different
3.38
1.24
0.22
.01
0.36
with
Vs
Proportion
lexical
objects
O
different
subjects
lexical
Proportion
different
with
Vs
frames
0.72
0.14
0.69
0.21
0.76
7ns
morphology
By
I.children
Mean
instance
lexical
object
change
2.98
0.85
4.8
1.47
-9.19
6.001
1.52
>
contrib
contr
>//.
verbs
By
Ch
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
- ?
Intransitive
Transitive
Alternating
Flexibility
Transitive,
of
Use
Intransitive,
for
and
Alternating
Verbs
TABLE
12ooGrammatical
df*
p
Mean
SD
Fit
Grammatical
item
Mean
d
Cohen's
frame
instance
3.38
Mean
5.62
2.0
0.85
2.17
3.2
0.46
2,21
change
ns
different
0.78
Proportion
0.75
frames
0.23
0.30
0.60
0.14
Vs
1.35
2,21
with
ns
frame
instance
3.81
1.18
4.26
3.14
2,31
Mean
1.2
3.46
1.01
.04
change
days
frame
14.75
17.2
16.31
0.97
Number
16.14
14.65
2,21
12.84
of
to
change
ns
lexical
2.35
instance
Mean
2.0
5.62
0.87
4.99
5.26
1.01
2,14
subject
change
ns
2.87
3.67
instance
5.65
5.25
Mean
5.0
2.5
2,11
0.05
morphology
change
ns
26.15
36.83
30.42
24.68
Number
19.06
of
days
13.28
to
change
morphological
2,11
0.6
ns14.26
frames
different
0.76
0.77
Proportion
Cs
0.21
0.22
2.02
0.19
0.60
2,33
with
ns
17.17
18.95
Number
13.24
of
25.17
days
lexical
13.75
subject
0.66
to
2,14
change
ns
Note.?*df
different
0.09
0.19
Proportion
with
Vs
0.22
0.26
0.21
0.99
2,21
morphology
nsdifferent
0.29
0.36
0.38
0.28
Vs
Proportion
with
0.29
lexical
0.23
2,21
subjects
ns
lexical
different
0.27
0.32
0.56
Proportion
0.30
2.22
Vs
objects
with
7.06
0.88
5.63
0.8
Mean
lexical
instance
object
3.29
1.87
-2.96
61.63
change
.025
vary
days
14.75
Number
frame
21.13
13.93
19.92
17.37
16.63
0.38
2,31
of
to
change
ns
Mean
instance
morphology
change
4.3
2.99
4.15
1.62
4.62
0.07
2.81
2,18
ns
25.95
22.19
22.15
31.91
22.49
0.11
Number
of
days
19.4
2,18
to
morphological
change
ns
Number
of
days
to
lexical
subject
change
15.28
18.70
15.43
20.66
5.82
7.75
0.71
2,26
ns
lexical
instance
2.61
4.97
Mean
1.94
4.52
2.29
subject
4.8
0.09
change
2,26
ns
because
not all children,
different
0.24
Cs
0.52
0.19
Proportion
with
lexical
0.33
subjects
0.29
0.23
2,33
4.33
.02
different
0.15
4.77
Cs
Proportion
0.14
0.33
0.13
0.10
0.29
.01
2,33
with
morphology
Number
days
lexical
15.77
33.70
12.62
36.12
6-1.62
0.66
object
of
to
.12
change
lexical
different
2.86
Cs
Proportion
0.26
0.30
0.24
0.61
22
with
objects
.01
1.23
lexical
instance
3.41
Mean
1.94
5.83
1.31
18
-3.18
object
.005
change
1.43
verbs,
all
nor
22.55
9.69
14.81
Number
of
18
days
lexical
19.68
object
-1.07
to
change
ns
experienced
%
Cs
with
different
Imorphology:
versus
A:
-2.7,
*(23)
=
.012,
=
pd
=
1.11.
%
different
lexical
Cs
p
with
A:
If(23)
subjects:
2.66,
d
versus
=
.013,
1.10.
Mean
instance
Tframe
change:
versus
A:
=
t(22)
2.67,
.013,
=
pd
=
1.04.
other
All
comparisons
ns.
By
I.
children
//.
verbs
By
C/i
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FLEXIBILITY
INEARLY
VERBUSE
AND GRAMMATICAL
PRODUCTIVITY
were heavy verbs, and the change in lexical objects was seen at a significantly
earlier instance for light than for heavy verbs.
of children's use of transitive, intransitive, and alternating
Comparison
lexical objects with
verbs revealed that children tended to produce different
a higher percent of transitive verbs than alternating
verbs (p = .06); they
earlier in
lexical objects at a significantly
also produced
those different
stance for transitive verbs than for alternating
verbs. Analyses
by verb
a greater number
Intransitive
verbs
of
ap
significant findings:
yielded
con
lexical subjects and in multiple morphological
peared with multiple
in more
than did alternating
verbs. Moreover,
children's
speech
transitive verbs appeared with lexical object changes for more children than
lexical
did alternating verbs; transitive verbs also appeared with a different
a
at
in
earlier
instance.
transitive
verbs
appeared
object
significantly
Finally,
new syntactic frames at a significantly earlier instance than did alternating
texts
verbs. Overall,
then, both transitive and intransitive verbs were associated
than were alternating
with more grammatical
verbs, and consis
flexibility
tent with the arguments
each type of verb takes, intransitive verb use was
more characterized
in the subject slot whereas
transitive verb
by flexibility
use was more characterized
in
the
slot.
by flexibility
object
some types of grammatical
To ask whether
flexibility were displayed
more
sum,
the
above
analyses
converge
on
the
conclusion
that
the
eight
59
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and
subjects
as well,
objects,
is, across
That
frames.
the
than
less frequently
although
first
instances
of
verb
in different
more
children
use,
fre
rich languages
(e.g., Turkish).
morphologically
The light and heavy verb subclasses did not differ with regard to overall
light verbs were produced with more and
grammatical
flexibility; however,
with
earlier lexical object changes whereas
heavy verbs were produced
more and earlier lexical subject changes. Thus, counter to all versions of a
verb" hypothesis
8c Jisa, 2006; Ninio,
1999),
(e.g., Chenu
"pathbreaking
use and
in
verb
there was no consistent
light
advantage
early grammatical
the light and heavy verbs,
between
flexibility. More detailed comparisons
in
individual
the
variation
children, will be discussed
among
addressing
verb
also
did
VI.
subclasses
The
transitive/intransitive/alternating
chapter
not differ with regard to overall grammatical
transitive
flexibility; however,
in
their
of
verbs exceeded
verbs
alternating
achieving
speed
syntactic flex
amount
of
lexical
and
in
both
and
object flexibility.
achieving
speed
ibility
Intransitive
verbs
exceeded
in amount
verbs
alternating
of morphological
and
as to whether
unrevealing
(i.e.,
grammatical
from
removed
utterances?especially
tion?were
with
versus
verbs)
alternating
the
direct
context
objects
of
conversa
the
were
(i.e.,
processing
for
omitted
tran
for
nature of direct
It seems likely that the obligatory
sitive verbs) reasons.
to a greater use of objects with those
led
for
transitive
verbs,
then,
objects
in more flexibility. The
verbs than with alternating
verbs, and so resulted
subclasses of verbs reflect
children's different patterns of use with different
the
target
grammar.
alternating
verbs.
(i.e.,
possible
According
lacking
explanations
in children's
flexibility
morphological
minimal
Two
objects)
to
uses
processing
argument
also
exist
of intransitive
demand
structures
for
greater
with
compared
account,
of
the
the
intransitive
more
verbs
60
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FLEXIBILITY
AND GRAMMATICAL
INEARLY
PRODUCTIVITY
VERBUSE
resources
to selecting
to devote more of their cognitive
to a se
inflections
for
these
verbs.
and
subjects
morphological
According
mantic account, the fact that the intransitive verbs in our data set tended to
verbs explains
the difference;
the
be activity rather than accomplishment
"
former verbs have already been shown to be used more and earlier with
1980; Vendler,
1972; Wagner,
2002). Further
ing" (Bloom, Lifter, 8cHafitz,
to distinguish
between
these explanations.
research is needed
children
allows
FINDINGS
COMPARISON
WITH PREVIOUS
Tomasello(1992)
(1992, 2000)
findings may seem at odds with Tomasello's
his daughter Travis's first verbs and with the Verb Island
of
diary report
on the basis of those data. However,
these and Toma
Hypothesis
proposed
are
sello's (1992) productivity
consistent:
Both Travis
findings
actually quite
and several of the children in the present study produced
the SV, VO, and
SVO frames with multiple
verbs before the age of 24 months
(see Table 8.4
were
in Tomasello,
were used
in
9
verbs
used
the
SV
33
verbs
1992;
frame,
in the VO frame, and 41 verbs were used in the SVO frame). Tomasello
(1992) states, "Travis did indeed begin using word order as a productive
The
above
syntactic device during the 18-24 month period" (p. 247). The findings that
motivated
the Verb Island Hypothesis
did not have to do with the use of
frames with different verbs but with two other findings
(see also Tomasello,
no
Travis
verbs
with
2000, p. 213): First,
produced
overlapping
privileges of
occurrence
same
time
the
and
almost
half of her
second,
during
period,
one third
verbs were produced
in just one construction
and
than
fewer
type
were produced
in two or more. Thus,
in her
individual verbs behaved
speech
as
"islands"
all different
construction.
of
grammar
and because
The
verb
because
their
privileges
records
collected
for
of occurrence
to being
the
used
present
were
in only one
study
do
not
study
participants
accurately
differ.
characterize
the
participants
in each
study,
and
the
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
one extreme
of this variability. An
that Travis represented
is that the different
other possibility
findings reflect the different ways in
which flexibility was coded in the two studies. We consider each of these
in the following analyses. First, we reanalyze the data from our
possibilities
to Tomasello's method
child participants
and compare the results
according
with those obtained
Travis.
this exercise
led us to our
from
Performing
second analysis, which involves a more detailed coding of argument use by
children
verb
and
subclass.
One
basis
for Tomasello's
characterization
of Travis's
grammar
as
con
islands comes
be
on the grounds
that children
to have
over
assumed
control
at this point
word
order.
in development
Thus,
"draw
dog"
structure
in grammatical
different
would not be considered
(verb+noun)
the same analysis to the present data,
from "I draw" (noun+verb).
Applying
we coded all 10 instances of our children's verb uses for whether
they ap
or holophrastically,
utterances
in
frames
argument
treating
single
peared
with arguments
in either the subject or object position as equivalent.
The results are shown in Table 13, together with data from Travis. We
of Tomasello
recoded Travis's data from the Appendix
(1992), using only
instances of the 34 target verbs of the present
study. The data are not
because Tomasello
did not consistently
report all to
perfectly comparable
use.
This inconsistency,
kens of single verb
though, could only have the
result
vanced
of
Travis
making
appear
rather
more,
in the present
than
less,
study. Higher
grammatically
percents
indicate
TABLE 13
Percent
of Verbs
Used
With
One
Argument
or
in
Holophrases
Child
%
79
Carl
Carrie
37
Elaine
84
52
Heather
53
Mae
Ned
86
Sam
90
Stacey
Travis
50
50
62
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ad
that
FLEXIBILITY
VERBUSE
INEARLY
PRODUCTIVITY
AND GRAMMATICAL
The findings
verbs are "island like" or unproductive.
again reveal
to
Tomasello's
the
substantial variability: Applying
coding
subjects in the
a
in
which
the
four
of
present
present participants
study yields
picture
less flexibility
than Travis, using over 75% of their verbs in
demonstrate
frames or in single-word
three children
look
utterances;
single argument
or
to
of
their
verbs
in
about
half
similar
Travis, using
very
single-argument
one
more
us
child
looks
flexible
than
Travis,
single-word utterances;
only
or
utterances.
ing only 37% of her verbs in single-argument
single-word
of verb use.
Thus, Travis does not appear to be an outlier on this dimension
to
seven
in
of
Tomasello's
the
children
the present
criteria,
According
eight
to
et al.,
in
the
be
McClure
also
"verb
island"
also
appear
stage (see
study
more
2006).
treating
Beyond
ical structure,
we
would
there
argue
all
aspect
to
erroneously,
as
utterances
single-argument
is another
the
of Tomasello's
same
grammat
that leads,
procedure
that
conclusion
the
are
children
not
pro
ductive
account
not
over,
come
with
objects
of
many
the
or
verbs
go
as
is
More
arguments
inappropriate.
as transitive,
as draw,
are
such
regarded
"missing"
Tomasello
in
The
vious.
revealing
is to compare
therefore,
analysis,
the
children's
to
argument use for each verb subclass (transitive, intransitive, alternating)
see if the children are using their arguments
for
the
different
differently
subclasses.
14 presents,
Table
ances
by
verb
class,
the
of
percent
or
such
arguments
source/goal
word
garding
order),
and
verb
as
plus
"look
two
ball"
or more
(including
and
utter
verb-containing
subject, object,
and
store,"
"go
arguments.
It
disre
is apparent
and
as
frequent
seemingly
the
verbs;
alternating
one-argument
anomalous
moreover,
frame
for
the
the
two-argument
transitive
verbs.
intransitive
is as
frame
(Note
that
the
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 14
Percent
of Verb
Uses
Produced
in Different
Frame
Child/Subclass
1 Argument3
Holophrase
Frames,
by Verb
Subclass
Type
2 Arguments3
3 Arguments3
Otherb
Carl
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
0 40 70
64.3
82.31
0
27.14
5.38
4.62
0
na
na
0
8.6
0
10
64.44
10
30.83
49.2
4.44
na
na
0
11.11
0
0
42.85
0
na
na
0
0
0
Carrie
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
0
14.44
21.67
85.5
Elaine
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
45
20 35
57.14
51
41 8
Heather
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
3.75
24.44
25.38
48.75
43.75
0
47.77
50
22.31
1.25
na
na
2.5
32.2
10
Mae
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
35.56
24.44
11.25
12.5
30.77 29.23
11.11
na
na
5.56
6.25
0
10
0
na
na
0
0
12.85
42.2
41.1
6.67
10
50
4.3
31.43
na
14.3
na
11.3
0
na
na
0
10
16.67
12.22
70
32.3
Ned
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
65
305
97
30
77.14
Sam
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
0 9.3
79.3
Stacey
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
2 6632
47.1
35
042.9
11.67
36.67
Travis
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
10
64 22
33
25 na
na
14
78 3
na
2.1
2.26
10.31
6.35
43
Mean
Transitive
Intransitive
Alternating
16.89
53.05
50.51
39.4139.19
3.35
33.85
29.04
13.33
64
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FLEXIBILITY
INEARLY
AND GRAMMATICAL
VERBUSE
PRODUCTIVITY
their prepositions,
of uses of look and sit that were missing
e.g., "Grandma
look doggie" and "Dolly sit chair.")
The critical question for the Verb Island Hypothesis
these
is whether
in the number of arguments
data indicate systematic differences
appearing
with subcategories
of verbs that would be predicted on the basis of the adult
grammar. If children's grammars are lexically based, then children have no
of verbs. If, however,
category VERB and, by implication, no subcategories
children's very early verb uses show differences
related to verb subclass, this
of underlying
verb subclasses in children's
implies the existence
linguistic
our
from
data set, we do not know if these go
representations.
(Admittedly,
the input given.) This hypothesis was tested in a 3 (verb type) x 3
beyond
ANOVA, which yielded a sig
(number of arguments)
repeated measures
nificant interaction, F(4,28) = 7.46, p = .0005. Pairwise contrasts using the
Bonferroni
correction
(p< .005) revealed that within the intransitive verbs,
utterances
holophrastic
ment
were
were
utterances, Fs(\,7)>
used holophrastically
more
frequent
than
either
one-
ds>0.73.
or
two-argu
Transitive
than either
verbs
or
intransitive
2003,
TheManchester
and McClure
et al., 2006,
Corpus
toddlers'
concerning
grammatical
yield underestimates
may
productivity
of
productivity.
Lieven et al. (2003; see also Lieven, 2006) make a further claim that is
also relevant to the present analyses of the diary records. Lieven and col
are not
combinations
leagues have claimed that children's early verb+noun
a
indications of grammatical
because
number
of
these, in
flexibility
large
involved substitution of only one word at a time. For example,
or "Bring cooky" and then "Bring
saying "Doggie go" and then "Kitty go,"
as
not
to
count
Lieven et al. because a change of only
juice" does
flexibility
one word could simply indicate flexibility at the lexical rather than gram
matical
levels. In contrast, in the coding scheme used in the present study,
both of the above examples would have been counted as changes (in lexical
subject or object) and thus counted as indicators of flexibility. We have two
their corpus,
to Lieven
counters
et al.'s interpretation
is practical: Children
counterargument
utterance production
that is limited
two to three words at a time (Bloom,
verb stays the same, only one other word could change over the course of
a time would be the only way
sequential utterances. Changes of one word at
these children could show syntactic flexibility, because of output constraints
not
and
because
one
from
vary
of
that young
finding
matical
than
of
absence
abstract
to
an
the
another
in the number
is a
next
Put
grammar.
are limited
children
utterance
rather
limitations
the
discovery
independent
that can
of
consequence
logical
their
regarding
the
way,
of words
length
gram
knowledge.
she
However,
dropped
"Take
users:
followed
"Drop,"
"I
"I
drop,"
span of time;
23 months
Heather
said
such
Carl
was
were
demonstrations
one
of
our
slower
not
learners,
showing
a
a bite,"
yet
he
"I
syntactic
of
property
also
word
multiple
comprise
"take
"I
and
something,"
drop
these
Furthermore,
verb
said
the same
at
Moreover,
changes.
and
also
it" over
take
bite,"
flexibility.
the
only
said "I no
"star"
walk"
like" followed
66
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
by
FLEXIBILITY
PRODUCTIVITY
AND GRAMMATICAL
INEARLY
VERBUSE
(on the same day) "I like cheese." Both of these couplets involved changes of
more than one word, and thus would count for grammatical
flexibility even
on
et
Lieven
al.'s
We
ations/contexts.
set
data
would
we
above,
argued
grammatical
our
because
corpus
As
criteria.
more
demonstrated
flexibility
includes
argue,
believe
speech
in addition,
a wider
from
the
that
our
that
children
in the Manchester
than those
of
range
situ
scheme
coding
ap
biases the
corpus (and that used by Tomasello)
plied to the Manchester
et al.
That
little grammatical
Lieven
results toward finding
is,
productivity.
claim to have discovered
that children are not productive
in
and Tomasello
is not, however,
of
their use of verbs. This discovery
their
independent
to credit the child with little grammatical
coding decisions. Having decided
on an utterance-by-utterance
basis, it is not surprising that they
knowledge
then find
demonstrate
little grammatical
in
knowledge
their speech
CONCLUSIONS
In sum, the data presented
in this chapter support our contention
that
we
the
learners?at
have
in
studied
such
least,
English
eight
in their verb use from its very
detail?demonstrate
grammatical
flexibility
onset. Overwhelmingly,
the first 10 instances of these 34 common
verbs
American
frames. Moreover,
these first 10 uses show sensitivity to
appear in multiple
verb subclass, in that transitive verbs appear less frequently as holophrases
and tend to appear more frequently
than intransitive verbs in frames with
two
use
arguments.
in which
is an
young
"island"
each
These
unto
verb
data
of
descriptions
appearing
do
not
itself.
The
learners
data
children's
in its own
suggest
language
contradict
data
with
environments.
syntactic
verb
These
as restricted,
are more
are acquiring
an
account
of
grammars
consistent
early
limited
the grammatical
of
acquisition
in which
with
verb
range
an
each
account
patterns
67
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VI. DIFFERENCES
INEARLY
VERBGROWTHAND USEAS A
FUNCTION
OF DEVELOPMENTAL
AND VERB
PERIOD,CHILD,
In
V,
chapter
we
presented
analyses
that
some
revealed
grammatical
chapter,
we
children,
among
interrelations
provide
examine
and
among
further
differences
among
the
verbs
measured
among
in more
properties
of
periods
detail,
of
and
we
children's
of verb development
development,
examine
verb
we have
the
use
to
consid
ered.
DOES FLEXIBILITY
OF VERBUSEVARYBYPERIOD
OF VERBDEVELOPMENT?
to the conservative-child
in chapter I,
described
hypothesis
According
are
at
later
is
the
combinatorial
first
pos
grammar
lexically specific; only
in a grammar with an abstract category of
sibilities of verbs represented
VERB
1999, 2007; Tomasello,
2004; Ninio,
2000). The
(MacWhinney,
are
most
used
with
frames
and most
that
verbs
present findings,
multiple
verbs within the first 10 instances of verb use, are
frames used with multiple
It is still possible, however,
that there is a
inconsistent with this position.
such
in the abstractness of children's grammars
progression
developmental
than verbs that
that verbs that are learned first are used with less flexibility
are learned later. To address this proposal, we go back to the data to test the
verb use, suffi
that there is an early stage of nonproductive
hypothesis
68
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INEARLY
DIFFERENCES
VERBGROWTH
TABLE 15a
Age
Children's
for
(Months)
Each
Developmental
Period
Child
Carl
Period
1
20-21
Heather
Sam
Mae
16-17
19-20
Elaine
19-20
20-21
Carrie
Stacey
18-19
16-17
2 ends
23.5
22.5
19.5
22.5
23.5
21.5
19.5
3 ends
25.5
24.5
21.5
24.5
25.5
23.5
21.5
4 ends
27.5
26.5
23.5
26.5
5 end
29.5
28.5
25.5
28.5
6 ends
31.5
30.5
7 ends
33.5
32.5
Ned
17-18
20.5
TABLE 15b
Children's
MLU
for
Each
Developmental
Period
Child
Period
Carl
Sam
Mae
111
1
1.05
1.93
2.18
2.68
1.65
1.17
1.71
3.95
2.71
2.06
2.7
4.37
3.08
3.67
2.3
3.8
3.31
2.2
4.04
3.45
Ned
1.98
5.08
2.52
Stacey
2.58
1.15
= mean
Carrie
1.48
Note.?MLU
31
Elaine
2.32
2
4
1.2
Heather
5.72
length of utterances.
seven periods
(Carl, Mae) participated
(see Table
15a), others
through
five
others (Elaine, Carrie,
(Sam, Heather)
participated
through
periods,
three periods,
and one (Ned) participated
Stacey) participated
through
two
It
to
is
through
periods.
important
point out that because we have
records only for each child's first 10 uses of each verb, the later periods
include data only from later-learned
verbs and not from additional uses of
69
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
? 70%
- IP
ll
iim mi
iiu
Period
Period
1(7)
2(9)
Period
Figure
early-learned
11.?The
verbs.
Period
^m ' Multiword
?& ^
iH
in
Period
Period
Period
Period
3(10) 4(14)
5(20)
6(22)
7(24)
of Development
development
Thus,
^|
the
asm?'e
frame
crucial
flexibility
question
in newly
concerns
learned
whether
verbs:
Carl.
the
first
10 instances of later-learned
verbs consistently display more flexibility
than
the first 10 instances of early-learned
verbs. Tables 15a and 15b present the
for each
children's ages and mean length of utterances
(MLUs), respectively,
in which they participated.
of the periods
The MLUs are estimates, calcu
utterances
in the diaries.
lated using only the verb-containing
recorded
Figures 11 through 18 present each child's timeline individually; Figure
in a single figure. The figures are ordered begin
19 presents all children
for the greatest number of pe
ning with those children who participated
for the fewest
riods, Carl and Mae, and ending with Ned, who participated
11, Carl began with seven verbs in his first
periods. As shown in Figure
period and added new verbs slowly during his next two periods. All of his
verbs in these first three periods were in single-word utterances
and hence
not used grammatically
(gray bars). During his fourth period, he
flexibly
utterances
began to use verbs in multiword
(striped bars); however, both
were
one
verbs
frame (subject-verb
[SV]). It was during his
only used in
fifth period, when he was between 27.5 and 29.5 months of age, that he used
two verbs both in multiword
utterances
and in different
frames within the
first 10 instances (black bars). The frames included SV, verb-object
(VO),
and SVO. Thus, Carl began to show grammatical
flexibility during Period 5.
Mae, shown in Figure 12, displayed a similar although not identical pattern.
Mae began using two verbs in Period
1, then added eight more verbs in
Period 2 but only eight more verbs in Period 3. Unlike Carl, throughout
70
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VERBGROWTH
DIFFERENCESINEARLY
1 80%|
1 %-i
? 60%-p
50%~
*
I I
I 40%"
^II i I
I
i^ 30%1
I
I
20%1I 1
, ill
0% I
| 111 I
Period
Period
1(2)
2(10)
Period
Figure
12.?The
10
instances.
I
I
^
1
P
I, K^
._,
Multiword
I l I
I^H I^1 I^|
I
l
II "^ i y/ft IH
| | |
| I
I22? H
I I
P
I^,
I,
utterances
in
frames
multiple
0Multiword
u~swith
I
lH
I
asin?le
trame
rsingie-word
utterances
'-'
I
III
I^,
I,
Period
Period
Period
Period
3(12) 4(20)
5(27)
6(30)
7(31)
Period
of Development
of syntactic
development
she used
However,
some verbs
as was
the
in newly
flexibility
inmultiword
case
for
Carl,
learned
utterances
each
verb
verbs: Mae.
within
her
in
appeared
utterances
or multiword
utterances
using
only
one
frame);
later
verbs
were
in flexible frames.
produced
not all of the children followed this pattern. Heather
However,
(Figure
in their
14) and Carrie
flexibility
(Figure 15) demonstrated
grammatical
verb use starting at Period 1. Both girls produced many verbs even during
in the study (n = 16 and 13, respectively),
their first 6 weeks of participation
utterances
half of these verbs in multiword
and they used approximately
and
in different
frames
within
the first
10 instances
during
Period
1.
71
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
100% -i
vm
vm
, 90%A |
-%1
? 70%-i
n
fc
| I
ill
j?gv
IB
j%
60%
HI
~
?>50%
II
HI
II
II r?3
Bl
|l|
H 40%
111
|
Wk
*o
H HI
Ml
30%"
S 20%1
?
Period
Period
Period
1(3)
2(9)
3(20)
4(29)
2 70%1 1111
I I
c*
,:]|
gg
g
60%-
-p
3 50%
p
?
!?
I
1":
Figure
5(31)
of syntactic
%Z
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Period
Period
Period
Period
Period
2(22)
3(29)
4(31)
14.?The
development
in newly
flexibility
of Development
01Single-word
utterances
Period
with
frame
Period
1(16)
Multiword
utterances
a
single
utterances in
multiple frames
of Development
development
Multiword
H
H
r
77/ ,
Zvy Wfk
Period
13.?The
._.
P;%> I^fl
II
II
Period
H^1
I
ll
III
Figure
learned
verbs:
Sam.
I ,_,Multiword
utterances in
multipleframes
P 0 Multiword
r;:?r
???
\
5(31)
(Total Target Verbs)
of syntactic
flexibility
in newly
learned
verbs:
Heather.
Heather
and Carrie used the SV, VO, SVO, VP, and V-ing frames all during
Period
flexible use continued
1, and grammatically
through each child's
next two periods. Neither
Carrie nor Heather
of
any evidence
provides
restricted verb use in terms of grammar, even for their very first verbs. They
72
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VERBGROWTH
DIFFERENCESINEARLY
100%-.
90%-III
^1
^ 80%
o
70% _
^H
^fl
^H
^fl
^H
^1
^1
^1
^1 ^1
^1
^|
utterances
with
B^ 40%- S I I a singleframe
^^|
30%
Period
1(13)
Figure
15.?The
of syntactic
I|
gg
I
-
'd
20%
10% IIII
II-1
pIH
i-1
Period
three
ered
development
point
Carrie.
%60% I multipleframes
[I P
H
Multiword
utterances
with
I ? 1 single frame
I 40%a
30%"
1
I I I?Si?gle-word
utterances
II
///.
rcfl
i-1-1
Period
3(19)
of Development
the ending
conservative-first
i-1
2(15)
Period
also reached
Hi
Period
1(3)
16.?The
III
verbs:
Multiword
utterances in
M
%6
H|
III
? fly
gz
Figure
learned
.-,-
S 50%
o% I
in newly
flexibility
^|
utterances
3(28)
of Development
development
90%I|
m%]
80%| 70% l|l
?
^| |
Period
2(23)
Period
ra Single.word
-p
20%
Period
I-;
utterances
frames
multiple
0 Multiword
~ ^|
^|
^|
-I ^| ^|
II
^0%
50%
fc
?
Multiword
of syntactic
flexibility
in newly
quickly
learned
verbs:
Elaine.
children.
100%-. _
g 80%- p
jj&f
||
Y/z\?PM 20%
B
Hn <u
rvv>j
io%-1
0%4-B?,-,_
Period
17.?The
i-1
i-1-1
3(20)
of Development
development
Multiword
Period
2(19)
Period
utterances in
H H multiple frames
with
5340%- utterances
III
a
frame
HH
single
t ^|
^H
30%n Single-word
III |
utterances
^1
"
_,-1
Period
1(9)
Figure
g2 60%-
Is
50%-
I Multiword
I^
1I 70%00
^|
^|
of syntactic
in newly
flexibility
learned
verbs:
Stacey.
100%-i
o 90%"
I I
80%"
1=-:-1
I|
c/,
111
H
Is 60%"
||
1
2 70%
H
frames
multiple
- 50%
III
Multiword
utterances in
0
Multiword
utterances
with
40%- IH
I
?HI
|
0% I
*io%-1
,-,-
Period
20%-
a single frame
U I D Single-word
utterances
I w
-1-,-,
Period
2(14)
1(10)
Period
Figure
YM
1_'-'
30%"
18.?The
of Development
development
of syntactic
flexibility
in newly
learned
verbs:
Ned.
DIFFERENCESINEARLY
VERBGROWTH
100
90-
-i-^--??-II
o
80| 70J
a 60"
c 50-
/
/ A
17
^ ^ ^. /
'
>r
jf i
Sam
Carrie
--*-Heather
~ /1
II I
y40
""*"""Elaine
|
/ / / /^f/l -"H"~~Mae
/
W
\ /
V
/
0 -I?It?i
16-
Carl
//
/' ^Ned
//
*-r*
^ 30 ///
20?
>.
J*
/ \ /
--*?Stacey
18-
i-r?i??
20-
22-
i X24-
19
21
23
25
'?i-1-1-1-1
2628-
30-
32
27
31
33
29
Age
Figure
19.?Change
in multiword
use by age.
Thus,
verb
use.
in the
children's
analysis of individual
developmental
changes
with
used
verbs
reveals
which
grammatical
flexibility
they
newly acquired
that the majority of the children, although not all children,
showed gram
even the
matical flexibility
close to the very onset of verb use. Moreover,
child who was slowest to achieve grammatical
Carl,
flexibility,
displayed
"slow" learner,
such flexibility
before the age of 2.5 years; Sam, another
before 24 months
of age.
grammatical
flexibility
actually demonstrated
and
Carrie
demonstrated
Heather,
Ned,
grammatical
flexibility be
Stacy,
This
75
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
fore 20 months
of age. Both these developmental
patterns and the ages of
are
at odds with those re
the first grammatical
demonstration
flexibility
other
who
claimed
that
there is little gram
have
researchers,
ported by
are
to
matical
children
close
until
2.5
years of age and that
flexibility
children's
verb
2000,
if not exclusively,
is predominantly,
et al., 2006; Tomasello,
2004; McClure
frames
TOGRAMMATICAL
FLEXIBILITY?
VERBSPATHBREAKERS
ARE LIGHT
Previous
comparisons
of
the
grammatical
environments
surrounding
III and V)
first verb uses (in chapters
light and heavy verbs in children's
more
with
direct
revealed that light verbs appeared
significantly
frequently
in
and
verbs
and
frames
than
verbs
that
SVO
light
appeared
objects
heavy
earlier and more frequently with different direct objects than
significantly
evidence for the claim
did heavy verbs. These
findings might be considered
of abstract
that light verbs function as facilitators of children's acquisition
sentence
E.
&
frames
Clark, 1987; Gold
(Chenu
Jisa, 2006;
phrase-level
8c
2005b;
1999, 2005a,
Casenhiser,
2006; Ninio,
1999; Goldberg
berg,
the
the
Rice
8c
because
verbs,
Pinker, 1989;
Bode, 1993)
among
target
light
verbs
in
this
study,
did
seem?overall?to
show
more
and
earlier
direct
DIFFERENCES
INEARLY
VERBGROWTH
TABLE 16
CARL's
Verb
Light/Heavy
for
Comparison
Frame
Flexibility
Age
(Days)
Preceding
Light
Verb(s)
Verb
1st
Following
Use
Verb(s)
Push658
GO680
715
Kiss
Sit 808
COME
of Frames
Number
10th Used in 10
Use
Instances
680
680
715
1 (V)
1 (V) Go
1 (V) Kiss
(Frame)
Examples
Push
Me
sit, No
808
2(SV,
800
Cry
814
800
814
2 (V,SV)
1 (V)
Cut
paper,
Mama
cut
Cut,
Give
Cut
paper,
Mama
cut
me,
Sissy
noV)
827
827
Cut 827
827
GIVE828
828
861
1 (SVO)
Cut 827
827
838
840
Cut
Hold
861
LOOK
861
1 (SVO)
Like 911
911
928
932
2 (SVO,
2 (SVO,
861
Hold
WANT
932
932
me
give
I hold (flash)light
cut
paper, Mama
Look punch bag
Cut
Cut,
Look,
I hold (flash)light
SV-neg
O)
I don't
3 (SVO, VO,
Me
V)
like,
want
Me
SV+S)
to do
Wash
sit
I like cheese
it, Me
want
it
wash
table, Wash
floor, Wash
=
=
=
=
Verb; S
subject; SV
subject-verb; VO
verb-object;
talized verbs are highlighted
relative to "regular" verbs.
Note.?V
SVO = subject-verb-object.
Capi
before this light verb's first use and (b) the heavy verb that appeared just
after this light verb's first use. We also looked across the range of earliest
verbs used by each child to see which verb(s) first appeared with which
frames.
Given
that
our
data
set
was
verb
centered
rather
than
frame
centered,
though, we are unable to address the related question of whether
the very first uses of a frame appeared with light verbs. The findings are
in Tables
16-23, described below in detail for Carl and summa
presented
rized for the rest of the children.
Carl produced
six light verbs. Each was preceded
in development
by a
more
none
verb
was
Table
and
of
the
verbs
(see
16),
heavy,
specific
light
more flexible in its use than the
verb.
Moreover,
just-preceding
heavy
light
verbs were not consistently
the first ones to be produced
in new construc
at 800 days, was Carl's 13th verb but the
tions. For example,
cry, produced
first verb used with a subject. Cut was the first one used with an object, and
hold was the first one used in the SVO frame. Carl's light verbs were the first
to be used in the verb 4-locative (VL) (inchoative motion)
and VOL (caused
motion)
frames/constructions;
however,
his "first-in-frame"
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 17
CARRIE'S
Verb
Light/Heavy
for
Comparison
Frame
Flexibility
Age
(Days)
Number
Preceding
Verb(s)
Light
Verb
Following
1st
10th Used
Use
Use
Push
564
574
Wash
565
583
Verb(s)
of Frames
in 10
Instances
(Frame)
568
582
569
644
Cry 590
593
601
2 (SV, SV-ing)
2 (V, SV-ing)
GO
Walk
Examples
Push, Arty push, Push mommy
I wash, Wash my hands
Wash,
Go, Go bye-bye, Daddy go work
Walk, Mom walk, Doggie
walking
COME
Run
Open
WANT
Kiss
Hold
LOOK
Pull
BRING
Wave
TAKE
Wave
Roll
GIVE
594
603
585
600
593
626
595
616
604
622
608
625
622
660
628
660
PUT 644
670
See
Need
603
652
679
Need 652
679
659
683
672
691
2 (SV, SV-ing)
3 (V, SV, VO)
1 (SVO)
3 (no V, SV, VO)
3 (SVO, neg, -ing)
2 (V, V locative)
3 (SVO, neg, -ing)
SVing)
I bring my baby
Dad wave, I wave
679
659
681
1 (SVO)
3 (Neg VO,
672
691
NegSVO)
3 (SV, SVIO,
687
709
My waving
My roll my hands, Wagon
rolling down, all rolling
690
708
3 (VOP, SVOIO,
Give mom
No
SVO,
SVing)
VO)
take it, No my
take my nap,
hug, I give my
to A, Give that back
after
Note.?
at A,
My waving
My need my binka
Need 652
produced
Give
kiss
it
holding
Look, Look my shoe
No pull my shirt, Daddy
pulling it
cookie
No verbs were
open
My see doggie
put shoes
Mommy
My need my binka
My need my binka
1 (SVO)
1 (SVO)
1 (SVO)
1 (SVO)
1 (SVO)
3 (SV, SVIO,
SVO = subject-verb-object.
Capi
the ones predicted: Look was his first verb to be used in the VL frame
(lookpunch bag) instead of the predicted go, and give was his first verb used in
frame (give me) instead of the predicted/^.
the V(0)L
Admittedly,
given the
of
of go and his 1st production
time elapsed between Carl's 10th production
not
78
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
INEARLY
VERBGROWTH
DIFFERENCES
TABLE 18
ELAINE'S
Verb
Light/Heavy
for
Comparison
Frame
Flexibility
Age
(Days)
Preceding
Light
Verb
Verb(s)
1st
Following
Use
Verb(s)
WANT
LOOK
Open
Sit
10th
Use
of Frames
Number
Used
in 10
Instances
(Frame)
See
658
672
Wash
Open
I sit
2 (V, SV)
I see
See,
716
1 (V)
Roll
696
716
696
741
Come,
I wash
Roll 695
COME
Examples
I want veggies
Go, I go
Look
Come
hands,
roll, My come
Wash hands
SVO = subject-verb-object.
Capi
look, it is probably not the case that his VL production with look was his very
first in that frame; however, this caveat does not hold for his 1st production
of a verb in the VOL frame. That is, when Carl produced give me he had not
even one instance of put, bring, or take-, therefore, it is very likely
yet produced
that give me was one of his first, if not his very first, use of the VOL frame.
Carrie, Ned, and Heather each showed a similar pattern to Carl's, in that
(a) none of their light verbs was used more flexibly than concurrently
pro
duced heavy verbs and (b) only some frames were used first with light verbs,
whereas others were used first with heavy verbs (Tables 17, 19, and 21). For
Mae, Sam, and Stacey, some proportion
(one quarter to two thirds) of their
light verbs were used more flexibly than their concurrently
produced heavy
verbs; however, they were no more likely to produce specific frames first with
the predicted
light verbs (e.g., VL with go or VOL with put) (Tables 20, 22,
and 23). Note that the first 10 uses of make were (voluntarily) recorded by
Mae's
and
Stacey's
mothers;
make
has
been
proposed
as
pathbreaker
verb
for the VO frame, yet itwas neither the earliest nor the most flexible verb in
this frame for either child. In fact, only Elaine followed the predicted pattern,
such that both her first uses of grammatical forms and her first flexible uses of
such forms appeared with light verbs (Table 18). These data, then, corrob
orate those of Theakston
et al. (2004), who found no consistent advantage
in
grammatical flexibility for light verbs at this early point in development.
Table 24 presents a summary for seven commonly
frames,
appearing
whether
they were first used by the children with light or with heavy verbs.
for the light verbs here either, as
Clearly, there is no consistent advantage
were
as frequently
at
verbs
the
least
for the S, O, -ing,
heavy
pathbreakers
79
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE 19
HEATHER'S
Verb
Light/Heavy
Comparison
for
Frame
Flexibility
Age
(Days)
Number
Preceding
Verb(s)
Light
Verb
Following
10th
Used
of Frames
in 10
Use
Use
Instances
584
629
Cut
585
590
2 (VO, SVO)
1 (V)
Go
585
590
590
593
634
595
629
1 (V P)
1 (V P)
2 (SV-ing, V locative)
4 (V, SV, SVO, SVedO)
Sit down
585
589
708
593
701
Push
588
600
SVP, VOP)
2 (V, VO)
Drop
595
629
Wash 593
652
595
624
611
615
618
631
633
653
634
652
Verb(s)
Cut
GO
Sit
Sit
COME
Drop
Kiss
PUT
WANT
Like
Need
LOOK
Eat
Throw
1st
669
(Frame)
Examples
this, I cut this
Sit down
I coming, Come
Drop, I dropped
here
it, I drop
I kiss it,Mommy
kiss, Kiss that
Put here, Put top on, I put on
701
5 (SVO, SV, V P,
SVP SVOP)
Me need
eat this
GIVE
687
708
5 (VO, VIO,
VPP, SVPP SVOPP)
TAKE
701
701
Wave
702
827
2 (VO, SVO)
3 (V bye, V PP VL)
A gave coin to me
Take a bite, Daddy take this
Wave bye, We need to wave
Stop
710
710
1 (V-I-gerund)
to D, I waved M
Stop eating
the flowers
SVO = subject-verb-object.
Capi
VERBGROWTH
DIFFERENCES
INEARLY
TABLE20
MAE's
Verb
Light/Heavy
for
Comparison
Frame
Flexibility
Age
(Days)
of Frames
Number
Preceding
Verb(s)
Light
Verb
Following
Verb(s)
Push
COME
Throw
1st
Use
10th Used
in 10
Use
Instances
1 (V) Push
1 (Von)
577
589
616
625
624
630
1 (V)
1 (V)
(Frame)
Examples
Come
on
Throw
654
669
GO 661
684
673
756
1 (V)
2 (V, SV)
Run 731
750
2 (V, VP)
Cut 740
819
757
757
742
776
765
898
5(VO, VOP,
SVOP SVO)
727
733
Open,
Open
Me want
Eat
Fall
LOOK
Cry
Pull
Eat
Push
fall
Fall, Mommy
Run, Run away
Cut, Me cut, Cut it
Look me
Cry, Jill cry, Don't cry
Pull feet, This one pull
off, Me pull it over,
Me pull
Open
WANT
it
Mommy
this
open,
769
838
3 (SVO, VOS-bar,
765
898
773
777
791
834
2 (SVO, SV)
1 (SVO)
789
820
Me need
795
863
Drop 802
818
2 (SVO, VO)
812
856
Pull
Hold
BRING
Need
TAKE
PUT
Like
833
910
Like 833
910
840
928
GIVE
VO)
cheese, Want
Panda watch me, I want that
Pull feet, This one pull off,
Me pull it over, Me pull it
that, No need
that plate
Take that off, Me take
my pie out, I take it
SVPP)
like pears
like pears
ring to Jill,
give Jill a toy
I made, Me made tower
Me wash it, wash my hands
Me give my
Me
MAKE
Wash
851
880
855
868
Note.?
SVO = subject-verb-object.
Capi
is contrary
to
two
crucial
parts
of
the
light-verbs-as-pathbreakers
81
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE21
NED's
Verb
Light/Heavy
for
Comparison
Frame
Flexibility
Age
(Days)
of Frames
Number
Preceding
Light
Verb
Verb(s)
1st
Following
10th
in 10
Used
Use
Use
Instances
Roll
519
549
COME
526
549
2(V, Ving)
2 (V, V P)
526
580
549
Lay
Like
556
611
Verb(s)
Bite
593
580
Examples
Roll, Rolling
Come, Come
1 (V)
Bite
2 (V, V P)
2 (V, VO)
568
WANT
578
Need
(Frame)
1 (VO)
2 (VO, SVO)
615
a cookie,
a pen
Need
needs
Note.?V
highlighted
=
=
Verb; S
subject; VO
verb-object;
relative to "regular" verbs.
SVO = subject-verb-object.
on
lay back
Pop
verbs are
Capitalized
verb's trans
targets the pathbreaking
hypothesis. One part of the hypothesis
to
to
is
enable
children
conceive
of or to
which
parency of meaning,
proposed
8c Sethuraman,
That
abstract the frames (Goldberg, 1999; Goodman
is,
2006).
children learn how go encodes inchoative motion, or put encodes caused mo
tion,
or make
involves
caused
action,
and
then
deduce
the
from
verb's
meaning
involves
representative
a more
abstract
of
the
sense
inchoative
motion
with
of motion,
construction
someone's
VL,
gaze
because
being
di
to
toward a ground rather than an object or person actually moving
Mae's
and
Sam's
&
ward a ground
1985;
Gleitman,
Levin,
1993).
(Landau
innovative use of the VL frame first with look seems inexplicable in terms of an
argument based on semantically transparent underpinnings.
rected
verbs is
variability with the SVO frame pathbreaking
If se
for
the
light-verbs-as-pathbreakers
hypothesis:
similarly problematic
of
children's
ab
is
the
action
of
transitive
mantic
transparency
instigator
as Hopper
and
straction of the SVO frame, then want hardly qualifies;
(1980) and others have discussed at length, verbs such as make or
Thompson
The
push,
which
children's
capture
caused
changes
of
state
or
position,
are
better
candidates.
DIFFERENCES
INEARLY
VERBGROWTH
TABLE22
SAM's
Light/Heavy
Verb
for
Comparison
Frame
Flexibility
Age
(Days)
Number
Preceding
Verb(s)
Light
Verb
1st
Following
10th
Used
of Frames
in 10
Use
Use
495
566
1 (V)
GO 531
567
2(SV, V)
1 (V)
Verb(s)
Open
Cut
Cut
LOOK
Eat
Eat
COME
Hold
Drop
WANT
540
583
540
583
553
592
569
660
Instances
(Frame)
Open
Go, I go
Cut
1 (V) Cut
1 (VPP)
1 (V)
1 (V)
Examples
Look
at me
Eat
569
660
576
602
571
607
602
783
632
722
3 (SVO, VO,
Eat
1 (V)
1 (V)
Come
Hold
SVS-bar)
M drop, Drop
Drop in tub
I want
I want
Roll
644
711
602
783
634
663
644
711
Need 646
674
664
739
Drop
TAKE
Roll
BRING
Lay
PUT
Run
cup, Want
to go
2(V, VO)
4 (V, SV, VO, VPP)
1 (V)
2 (V, VO)
2 (VO, SV)
Take
4 (VO, VOP,
Bring
diaper,
that, Bring my
plate over, No bring,
673
705
679
739
694
732
697
750
2 (V P, VOP)
5 (V, Ving, SVPP,
SV, VPP)
Note.?
V = Verb; S = subject; SV = subject-verb; VO = verb-object;
talized verbs are highlighted
relative to "regular" verbs.
cup,
negV, Ving
Like
diaper,
Bringing
Like those, M like,
Don't like you
Teddy
lay, Lay down,
Lay down with me
Put away, Put that back
I run in water
Running,
SVO = subject-verb-object.
Capi
TABLE23
STACEY's
Verb
Light/Heavy
Age
for
Comparison
Light
Verb
Verb(s)
1st
Following
Use
Verb(s)
10th
Use
of Frames
in 10
Used
Instances
(Frame)
529
1 (V) Sit
491
498
495
624
2(WhSV,
V)
5 (V, Ving,
503
533
VingO)
1 (V)
512
611
2(VO,
516
611
503
533
2 (Ving, SVing)
1 (V)
COME
518
600
TAKE
520
595
Sit 491
GO
Eat
Open
Run
Open
Hold
LOOK
Jump
Nanny go? Go
Eat pizza, I'm eating, I eat it
Where
Open
I want juice, Want
some more
SVO)
Running,
Open
Come
3 (V, V P, SV P)
2 (VO, VOP)
2 (VO, SVO)
540
593
572
621
559
584
2 (V, V PP)
4 (Ving, SVing,
581
SVed, V)
2 (SVing, VO)
555
Wash
Examples
SVO,
SVing,
WANT
Flexibility
(Days)
Number
Preceding
Frame
PUT
572
598
MAKE
598
675
1 (VOP)
3 (SVO,
(5th)
VO,
Hold
Look,
Look
Take
in mirror
Kitty jumping,
Kitty jumped
Mommy's
washing,
Wash my hands
Put it on, Put phone
Daddy make it,
making messes
-ing)
Girl running
back
SVO = subject-verb-object.
Capi
The
second
part of the
light-verbs-as-pathbreakers
hypothesis,
between
the hypothesis
resolution
of the inconsistency
potential
frames is highly
and the data, is that children's abstraction of grammatical
on
with
which
the
particular
light verbs appear
frequency
dependent
and
in
variety
abstraction
or
put
encodes
in
frames
of
the
caused
that go is frequently
followed by object
frequently
names
and
locatives.
Then,
That
is,
an
alternative
motion,
observe
object
input.
make
followed
names,
over
involves
caused
action,
by locatives,
and put is frequently
hearings
motion,
they
next
(or want) is
followed by
make
numerous
of
process
inchoative
of
these
verbs
with a wide variety of locatives and object names in the relevant positions
in the input, the children
abstract
the VL
(or VPP), VO, and VOL
not rely on the meaning
does
latter
This
frames.
(or VOPP)
procedure
but does rely on the frequent
the abstraction
of the verb to enable
(with varied lexical items) of a single verb in a given frame
appearance
84
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIFFERENCES
INEARLY
VERBGROWTH
TABLE24
First
of Grammatical
Uses
Forms
by Verb
for
Subclass
Each
Child
Child
Grammatical
Form
SVCarrie,
Elaine*
Heather,
VO
Heather*,
Sam*,
Carrie
VP
Sam,
VL Carl
Mae
VOL Carl
Mae
Sam,
Verb
Stacey
Elaine*
SVO Carrie*,
"-ing"
a Light
Heather*,
Elaine*,
Mae*
Carl,
Carrie,
Mae,
Ned
Carl,
Carrie,
Mae,
Ned,
Sam,
Stacey
Ned
Carl,
Verb
Heavy
Stacey*
Heather
Carrie,
(come)
Stacey, Ned
(look), Carrie
(come)
(go), Heather
(look), Sam (look), Stacey
(go)
(give), Carrie
(give), Heather
(put)
(take), Sam
(bring), Stacey
Heather,
Mae,
Ned
(lay)
(take)
Note.?*Child's
first use was with the verb want.
V = Verb; S = subject; SV = subject-verb; VO = verb?object;
SVO = subject-verb-object.
1999;
2006;
This frequency-based
does indeed account for the predom
procedure
inance of want as the children's pathbreaker
for the SVO frame; however,
it encounters
in accounting
difficulties
for the occurrences
of look or
come
as Mae's,
and
Heather's,
Sam's
pathbreakers
for
the VL
frame,
because
words,
the
semantic
transparency-based
version
of
the
light
verbs-as-pathbreakers
the VOL construction,
and SVO frames. The frequency-based
count for the children's first uses of the SVO frame, but it has difficulties
for their first uses of the VL and VOL frames. Our data, then, do
accounting
not support the
as a process
pathbreaking-verbs
hypothesis
by which chil
dren
learn
to abstract
sentence
frames.
85
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HOWAREDIFFERENT
MEASURES
OF VERBDEVELOPMENT
AND USERELATED?
to generativist
that underlies
theories, the abstract grammar
is
the
that
children's
autonomous,
language productivity
yielding
prediction
use
to the
of
flexible
verb
should
be
unrelated
development
grammatical
use
or
a
to
of
flexible
verb
the
of
verb
development
growth
semantically
lexicon (e.g., Chomsky,
includ
1981). Other theories of verb development,
results from domain-general
ing theories that grammatical
development
According
theories
processes,
learning
that
grammar
from
emerges
the
lexicon,
and
that
environments.
flexibility
syntactic
of
number
t tests
pairwise
performed
using
between
four
number
instances,
of
days,
affected
actor,
addressee,
indices
of flexibility
of
percent
(percent
and
verbs)
object,
and
of children,
the
Bonferroni
none
portantly,
viding
earlier
A
of
the
no evidence
than
better
time-related
reached
comparisons
pro
significance,
in one domain
that flexibility
emerges
in another.
way
to address
these
proposals,
we
feel,
is to examine
intercor
theoretical
interest,
and,
where
possible,
we
created
composite
scales.
OF CHILDREN'S
VERB
AMONGMEASURES
INTERCORRELATIONS
AND USE
DEVELOPMENT
measures
were
Composite
use
to
verbs and
dren started
86
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIFFERENCES
INEARLY
VERBGROWTH
TABLE25
Intercorrelations
Among
of Children's
Measures
for
all
use
composite
4. Number
composite
flexibility
of verbs at 21 months
5. Number
of frames
6. Number
of productive
frames
*p<.05
5.
.042
.527+
Use
-.456
.749**
.624*
.537+
?
? ?
at 21 months
(one-tailed),
4.
-
3. Grammatical
Note.?+^?<.10
and
3.
2.
-.670*
?
begins
flexibility
Development
(n
= 8
Analyses)
1.
1. Age verb
2. Semantic
Verb
6.
-.189
.110
.586+
.222
.796**
.119
.839**
.183
?
at 24 months
(one-tailed),
**p<.01
(one-tailed).
VP,
productive
frame
V-ing)
in the
child's
utterances.
Last,
criterion.
For
each
correlation,
we
expected
we
counted
employing
that
the
of
number
the 5-verbs-per
if the measures
were
related they would be positively related, except that age would yield a neg
ative correlation
because a younger
of verb use is a
age at the beginning
of
indicator
verb
all
tests were
therefore,
positive
development;
significance
one-tailed. The correlation matrix
is presented
in Table 25.
The correlations
of children's verb use in Table 25
among measures
that children who began verb use at a younger
age showed more
in their first verb uses, and they also tended to have
semantic flexibility
at 21 months
larger verb vocabularies
compared with children who began
verb use at an older age. The semantic flexibility with which children used
their first verbs was also significantly related to the grammatical
flexibility of
their verb use, to the size of their verb vocabularies
at 21 months,
and
to
the
of
number
at
frames
had
months.
24
(marginally)
productive
they
reveal
87
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
TABLE26
intercorrelations
among
verbs'
of use
properties
of Verbs
in early
1.
1. Age
onset
of
child
speech
2.
4.
3.
.122
-.277+
children
3. Percent
using
children
4. Percent
using
children
5. Grammatical
Note.?+p<A0
using
flexibility
(one-tailed),
to refer
with
with
different
different
of use
*p<.05
to different
actions
actors
affected
.100
5.
-.036
2. Percent
(number
in Analysis)
.373+
.336*
(34)
.294+
(28) (19)
(28)
.349*
.020
?
(25)
(34)
.307+
objects
(25)
?
composite
(one-tailed).
at 21 months
verb vocabularies
showed a marginally
with
correlation
overall
grammatical
significant positive
flexibility of their
first verb uses and a significant positive
correlation
with the number
of
at
frames
had
months.
The
24
they
grammatical
flexibility of
productive
children's verb use also was positively related to children's number of pro
that flexibility of use is, in fact, a
ductive frames at 24 months,
suggesting
The
good
size of children's
index
of
grammatical
productivity.
AND USE
OF VERBS'DEVELOPMENT
AMONGMEASURES
INTERCORRELATIONS
of verbs, as they are
To analyze the intercorrelations
among properties
of grammatical flexibility
first used in children's speech, a composite measure
was created by averaging
four measures:
the percent of children using the
one
more
more
inflec
with
than one morphological
than
verb with
frame,
one
more
more
one
lexical
and
with
than
lexical subject,
than
tion, with
=
indices of semantic flexibility did
.79). The multiple
object (Cronbach's a
not form an internally consistent scale?as Table 26 shows, the three indices
of semantic flexibility were not significantly related to each other. Thus, the
were entered
the per
into analysis individually:
three measures
following
cent of children using the verb to refer to more than one action, the percent
than one actor, and the percent of
of children using the verb with more
children using the verb with more than one affected object. The final mea
sure of how verbs appear in children's speech was the average age at which
the
the verb first appeared. As was the case for the by child correlations,
predictions
were
that positive
indicators would
be positively
related,
and all
88
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
DIFFERENCESINEARLY
VERBGROWTH
children
correlations
verbs were
with grammatical
with
age
of
onset
flexibility
indicate
that,
on
average,
early
used with
grammatical
appearing
flexibility by fewer children
than later-appearing
verbs. Such correlations might appear to be consistent
with hypotheses
that grammar
later, and thus perhaps as a con
emerges
Bates
of
lexical
8cGoodman,
1999). However,
sequence,
development
(e.g.,
these correlations were only significant in the by-verb analysis; across chil
to their
dren, the age at which children began to use verbs was unrelated
the analyses
of individual
grammatical
flexibility.
composite
Similarly,
of
earlier
in
described
this chapter,
growth patterns by period
development,
indicated that some of the children used their very first verbs with gram
matical flexibility. This appears to be a case in which averaged data (in this
case average properties
of verbs rather than of individuals) present a pic
ture that is true for some individuals but not for others (see Molenaar,
2008,
for discussion).
CONCLUSIONS
In this chapter, we looked at the grammatical
flexibility of early verb use
in more detail, asking whether
the overall grammatical
flexibility we ob
served might obscure a limited, very early period of less flexible verb use
and whether
the lack of average differences
between
light and heavy verbs
obscure a pathbreaker
role played by some light verbs for some
might
children. We found that a small number of children did manifest
conser
vative before
ment
or a particular
out that
kind of verb. These
findings also pointed
not
of
do
reflect
all
average developmental
necessarily
descriptions
paths
individual developmental
paths.
We also asked whether different aspects of early verb use were related.
Direct comparisons
of the degree and onset of grammatical,
semantic, and
indication
of
differences
these
little
between
pragmatic
flexibility
yielded
domains;
the
however,
were
correlations
more
informative.
Across
children,
grammatical
flexibility and semantic flexibility of verb use were related to
each other; similarly, verbs showing actor flexibility with more children also
children. These
showed grammatical
flexibility with more
findings are
lexical
about the interrelation
between
consistent with many hypotheses
reflect
the
of a
The
correlations
effect
and grammatical
may
development:
cor
common
common underlying
of
and
the
effects
and/or
ability
input,
effects of syntactic under
relations may also indicate mutually
supportive
standings
on
and
semantics
versa.
vice
The
that
hypothesis
grammar
a particular
threshold
size received only
emerges
a
the
correlation
between
weak
very
significant
support?in
marginally
and their overall
number of the target verbs children used at 21 months
we found that those verbs
flexibility of verb usage. Although
grammatical
were
at younger
with
used
that appeared
ages
flexibility by
grammatical
once
fewer
do not
the lexicon
on
children,
average,
interpret
who
children
flexible
were
than
this as reflecting
because
those
reaches
who
verb
began
began
those
use
than children
to
use
verbs
verbs
earlier
were
later
less
later. We
showed
we
ages,
of verb
period
not
who began
earlier
at
acquired
a pregrammatical
use
grammatically
greater
semantic
90
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
VII.GENERALDISCUSSION
8cMerriman,
Tomasello
1995). There have not, however, been studies of
in the very earliest stage of verb production
several children
that would
a
more
use
can
a study
of
verb
than
provide
generalizable
early
description
of a single child. This absence of detailed documentation
of the beginning
of
verb use was a significant gap in the data on verb development
because
there
are
disputes
the
regarding
nature
of
early
language
representation
served
the
function
of
a command
or
who
description,
or
was
what
the verb action, and who or what was the object of the verb
performing
action. These diary records were coded to provide measures
of the prag
uses. Our
and
of
children's
first
verb
matic, semantic,
grammatical flexibility
discussion
of these data and of their theoretical
is
implications
organized
around the following questions:
1. To
what
flexible
2. To
what
flexible
extent
are
in pragmatics
extent
are
children's
early
verb
uses
conservative
versus
verb
uses
conservative
versus
and semantics?
children's
early
in grammar?
91
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
4. To what extent
are
5. What
the
theoretical
of meaning
of
implications
flexibility
the
characteristic
of only
of children's
pragmatic,
ARECHILDREN'S
EARLY
TOWHAT EXTENT
VERBUSESCONSERVATIVE
VERSUS
FLEXIBLE
INPRAGMATICS
AND SEMANTICS?
Pragmatic Flexibility
data of this study suggest that children's early verb use is prag
at least some of their first
flexible. All of the children produced
matically
verbs in both commands
and descriptions,
and the majority
of the verbs
were used as both commands and descriptions,
same
the
child
(and these
by
two functions captured >98% of the childrens recorded utterances). Thus,
to be completely
context bound in
neither any child nor any verb appeared
The
use
and,
ation
in mental
inference,
by
verbs
among
terances,
not
variation
by
such
no
commands;
can
verb
some
that
be
There
representation.
were
verbs
were
verbs
used
used
in
only
in
descriptive
commands.
the
verbs'
verbs
Furthermore,
addressees,
that
suggesting
the
as
used
children
were
commands
had
ut
The
inherent
vari
however,
in
only
to differences
attributed
was,
function
verbs for
children
instances
with
used
of
representations
multiple
verb mean
we
actors. Although
ing that were sufficiently abstract to apply to multiple
did not explicitly assess the situations in which children used their verbs, the
fact that the verbs with the highest number of addressees were the ones with
more general meanings
(i.e., the light verbs come, go, look, put) suggests that
the children were applying the verbs across situations. This flexibility of use
across
situations,
combined
with
the
verbs'
use
to
multiple
addressees,
an account
ar
children's
in television
shows,
included
and
parents,
siblings,
other
relatives,
characters
pets.
92
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GENERALDISCUSSION
Semantic Flexibility
from the be
data from this study also reveal semantic flexibility
use of a verb
as
is
defined
the
where
verb
semantic
use,
flexibility
ginning of
actors
and on
different
to refer to multiple
enacted
actions
by
appropriate
child's
10
of
the
first
instances
within
the
affected
different
produc
objects
in
tion of that verb. (The actors and objects need not have been expressed
or
use
her
that
his
indicates
child's
the point is that the
the utterance;
that
of the verb is not restricted to something
of the meaning
representation
a
to
a single actor does or something
that is done
single object.) Six of the
one
to
of their verbs in reference
in this study used at least
eight children
one
more
more than one action, and
third of the verbs produced
than
(38%)
were used to refer to multiple
actions. A total of seven verbs (come, cut, go,
to multiple
in reference
actions by at
open, put, take, wash) were produced
The
Children
and
may
like were
reflect
access
little
used
to others'
primarily
to use
occasions
restricted
wants,
needs,
in self-reference.
particular
and
Other
verbs
so want,
likes,
restricted
(e.g.,
roll
need,
actor uses
is used
only
there is a ball and thus ball is the only actor to appear with
(Naigles 8cHoff, 2006).
than actor flexibility:
Affected
object flexibility was even greater
when
at
some
children
used
affected
refer
to
an
action
least
on
more
verbs
in reference
than
one
to actions
and alternating
affected
object.
with
more
than
roll)
All
one
were
to
more
affected objects per verb in children's first 10 instances of use than there
were actors per verb; the time elapsed between first verb use with a different
affected object was less than the time between first verb use and first use
with a new actor, and all children showed a higher degree of affected object
than actor flexibility. Thus, most of the time, children did not
flexibility
relations to a single patient or theme;
restrict their talk about two-argument
to up to eight different patients or
in
used
their
verbs
relation
instead, they
in the early verb-learning
themes within 10 uses. These are the first findings
in produc
such a high level of semantic flexibility
literature to document
tion. They are consistent with the evidence of early flexibility from studies of
or novel
verb comprehension
unconventional
affected
using
objects
&
It
is
that
the
between
Hoff, 2006).
asymmetry
(e.g., Naigles
possible
93
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
a verb
to extend
reluctant
to a new
actor
to a new
than
or
patient
we
inanimate objects, and these include all kinds of food, toys, household
items,
and so on. The set of possible affected objects is just bigger than the set of
actors.
possible
actor flexibility
and affected object flexibility
patterned
Importantly,
measure
were
in the composite
of semantic
combined
together?they
in the analyses of the intercorrelations
among verb use measures;
flexibility
was
both
and
their
zero-order
correlation
positive
significant,
=
=
=
that children who demonstrated
.831, jb .011. The
S)
r(n
finding
more
more
also demonstrated
and
and earlier affected object flexibility
earlier actor flexibility
resources
other.
the
Moreover,
suggests
to one
allocated
area
in fewer
resulted
children
were
who
early
in which
resources
verb
cognitive
for
available
learners
the
were
overall
that semantic
semantic flexibility,
the ones showing more
indicating
a
a
at
not
of
later
is
verb
stage.
property
developmental
learning
flexibility
actor
in
first
verb
children's
of
The
present
finding
flexibility
also
uses
is
at
preferred
odds
with
Huttenlocher
to use
verbs
in reference
et
al.'s
to themselves;
(1983)
that
report
the
however,
toddlers
discrepancy
et al.
inmethods
in terms of the difference
used. Huttenlocher
a
thus
in
and
mother-child
interaction
only
single setting,
dyadic
is explicable
sampled
two
possible
actors
were
available.
The
diary
method,
in contrast,
was
able
in which other
the day and across different
settings
instances
of actor flex
that
available.
The
fact
be
many
participants may
are
or
not
our
set
who
in
involved
data
pets,
usually included
siblings
ibility
to
credence
this
in recording
adds
further
sessions,
methodological
expla
actor flexibility with at least one
nation. In fact, each child demonstrated
the present
the action of his/her pet. Furthermore,
verb by describing
are
actor
of
with
the
of
consistent
comprehen
findings
flexibility
findings
sion studies, which show that toddlers can extend familiar and newly taught
et al.,
verbs to new actors and/or agents (Naigles 8c Hoff, 2006; Naigles
to tap uses
2005;
across
8c Forbes,
Poulin-Dubois
However,
the
children's
2006).
of
extension
new
verbs
to new
actors
was
not
verbs
to their
actions
when
these
are
performed
by
new
actors
94
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
may
GENERALDISCUSSION
an initial reluctance
children have (within the 10 minutes
a
to
extend
novel
verb's action to a new actor. And
usually provided)
et
contrast
between
al.'s (2005) findings
that children
the
Naigles
perhaps
and other researchers'
that
do extend verb meanings
findings
they do not
as
that
the
verbs
with
different
actors,
suggests
Naigles et al. did
presenting
indeed
during
reflect
training,
make
children
helps
their
own
In
extensions.
the
real
world, most children would experience most common verbs with multiple
actors well before
it seems that if such
the onset of speech; therefore,
actor
is
the
crucial
factor
for
then most children
experience
extendability
to new actions
would have had this experience
and be able to generalize
one
were
actor.
in the present
So
with
the
why
presented
1-year-olds
only
more
in
than
in com
flexible
others
have
demonstrated
study
production
are
A
is that 1-year-olds
prehension?
likely possibility
simply less efficient
learners, such that (in the absence of experiencing
actors) they
multiple
need more time with the teaching stimulus (more than the 18 or so seconds
in experimental
time after
usually provided
settings), or possibly more
to
consolidate
the representation
before extending
the verb to an
teaching,
action
performed
by
a novel
actor.
Context-bound
use,
then,
may
be more
in
as
general,
underextended
context
bound.
usage
may
While
be more
instances
of
characteristic
are
underextension
of nouns,
whose
acquisition begins earlier in English, than of verbs. Our data show that early
verb use is not typically context bound.
TOWHAT EXTENT
ARECHILDREN'S
EARLY
VERBUSESCONSERVATIVE
VERSUS
FLEXIBLE
INGRAMMAR?
The data from this study show clearly that within their first 10 instances
a verb in spontaneous
of producing
speech, children demonstrate
flexibility
in the syntactic environments
in which
those verbs appear. The children
used multiple
frames with two thirds of their verbs, and these first verbs
were used in different frames, on average,
by two thirds of the children. On
children's
first
in
average,
change
syntactic frame took place within half a
95
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
month
of the first verb use; thus, there was no extended
period of frozen
form use. On average, only 12% of such frame changes included the use of
in
1.8% of utterances
(range 0-36% across children; on average,
negation
most
of
frame
observed
the
cluded negation markers);
therefore,
flexibility
structure of the verb. Mor
in the argument
involved children's flexibility
reflecting just the children's uses of verbal suffixes,
flexibility,
phological
at a much
lower rate. Some children did not use any inflections
occurred
with
"-ing")
their verbs
and
examples
past
tense
or
forms
third-person
that were
singular
use
used were
were
rare.
close to a
addition or subtraction of such a morpheme?took
Changes?the
to be observed after the first use.
month
in verb use was the extent to which verbs
of flexibility
Another measure
were used with different
slot or in the subject
lexical items in the preposition
or object positions.
in filling all these
Children
demonstrated
flexibility
In
the children
lexical
items.
with
slots
particular,
multiple
grammatical
in which a verb was used with at least two
showed lexical subject flexibility,
one third of their verbs; just over one
different subjects, with approximately
with
used
verbs
the
third of
children
subjects. Lexical object flex
multiple
was
half of the children and by
for
under
verbs
demonstrated
just
ibility
by
was seen in
half
of
their
verbs.
children for just under
flexibility
Preposition
at
these
all.
five of the six children who produced
Tellingly,
prepositions
measures
of
cohered with the other
indicators of lexical flexibility
gram
matical
flexibility
our
in forming
composite
grammatical
flexibility
score.
in syntactic flexibility
individual differences
analyses
Finally,
course
of syntactic flexibil
the
developmental
(Figures 10-18) investigated
to
fewer than
in
the
conservative-child
child.
each
hypothesis,
Contrary
ity
initial conservative
half of our children (n = 3) demonstrated
verb-only use
4-5 months).
for
verbs
after
followed by later syntactic flexibility
(i.e.,
using
use of verbs with arguments
demonstrated
five
children
More
tellingly,
for two of these children,
from the start of verb acquisition;
syntactic flex
was evident within the first 6 weeks of verb use.
verbs
with
ibility
multiple
in the use of one verb appeared during
For the others, syntactic flexibility
the first period and more verbs came to be used with flexibility during the
almost always before the age of 2 years.
8 weeks?and
subsequent
of grammatical
In addition to these measures
flexibility, we also applied
measures
that have been
of productivity
to the present data corpus-based
We
found that
literature
in
the
Shirai,
1989;
1998).
(Ingram,
employed
a frame must be used with five
more
criterion?that
the
stringent
using
of productive
number
verbs to be considered
different
productive?the
frames children had at 24 months was positively correlated with the overall
is
measure
of their verb use. This correlation
of grammatical
flexibility
is an indicator of productivity.
that flexibility
consistent with the argument
3-Verb or 5-Verb
of the children who achieved
We found
that many
of
96
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GENERALDISCUSSION
The measures
of productivity
are
measures
indirect
only
study
With
across
a
of different
variety
frames
others
and
measures,
assessing
some
children's
assessing
frame
children's
use
across
verb
verbs,
TOWHAT EXTENT
ISEARLY
FLEXIBILITY
PARTICULARLY
CHARACTERISTIC
OF ONLY
SOME (i.e., LIGHT,
OR PATHBREAKING)
VERBS?
The
verbs;
heavy
verbs,
they were
and
there
actors
with
was
a trend
in the
different
same
affected
a
for
direction
than
objects
use
greater
of
of
three
monly
in
verbs
as
used
included more
not
be
come,
particular,
commands
in
as commands.
used
In
contrast,
com
to be
likely
the
subclass
heavy
to internal
the more
Furthermore,
seem
look, which
as well.
input
verbs referring
and
go,
verbs
general
could
in the
light
eaten
be
and
animates
only
can
eat.
And
because
heavy
refer
verbs
affected
al., 2006).
of
common
objects
made
If such objects
ground,
then,
more
explicit
than
of base
others
with
rates,
(see
also
et
Matthews
different
NPs
should
GENERALDISCUSSION
pragmatic
ping onto
requirements
the semantics
ARETHEFLEXIBILITY
OF MEANINGANDOF FORMRELATED?
TOWHAT EXTENT
Semantic flexibility and grammatical flexibility of verb use were related,
of verbs. The children who
both as properties
of children and as properties
in their first verb uses (indexed by a
semantic flexibility
showed more
also showed more grammatical
composite of multiple measures)
flexibility
a
the target verbs in this study,
indexed
(also
score). Among
composite
by
those that were used with grammatical flexibility by more children were also
actors by more children. Thus,
these findings
used with multiple
extend
accounts
theoretical
of the relations between
early verb syntax and verb
semantics in a couple of ways. The findings
suggest that it is not just know
a
certain number of verbs (Marchman 8c Bates, 1994) but also having
ing
that underlie
the understandings
semantic flexibility of verb use that sup
ports the acquisition of verb grammar
(Naigles et al., 2005). The findings
also suggest that the relationship
between
semantic flexibility and syntactic
is reciprocal. In particular, the finding that semantic flexibility and
flexibility
of verbs, in addition to being
syntactic flexibility were related as properties
related as properties
of children,
supports the syntactic bootstrapping
hy
pothesis:
elaborate
grammatical
flexibility
as well.
representations
The
semantic and grammatical
of verb use did, however,
flexibility
differ in their relations to the age at which the child began to use verbs and
to when the verb appeared
in the children's
speech. Children who began
verb
use
at a younger
age
showed,
on
average,
greater
semantic
flexibility
in
their verb use. Children may become early verb learners, then, if they have
the ability to extract verb referents
from their observed
early acquired
contexts.
In
contrast,
these
earlier
verb
learners
did
not
show
greater?or
of chil
showed no relation to the proportion
verbs, but age of appearance
dren who used a verb with semantic flexibility. Thus,
the data present a
use
use
to
in
which
children who begin
verbs earlier
their first verbs
picture
with a similar degree of grammatical
flexibility as children who begin later,
but verbs that are used earlier than other verbs are used with grammatical
flexibility by fewer children. Less grammatical
flexibility, then, is a property
of
earlier-learned
verbs
but
not
of
children.
earlier-verb-learning
It
is im
no
children,
evidence
that
there
exist
or
verbs,
early-learned
early-starting
THEORETICAL
IMPLICATIONS
OF THE
AND
OBSERVED
PRAGMATIC,
SEMANTIC,
FLEXIBILITY
OF CHILDREN'S
FIRST
GRAAAAAATICAL
VERBUSES
The data from this diary study indicate that 1-year-old children use
in multiple
their newly acquired verbs flexibly,
situations, with multiple
actions, actors, affected objects, and paths or locations. These
findings are at
are ini
in which children's verb meanings
odds with models of acquisition
et
et
The
Golinkoff
conservative
1995;
al.,
al.,
2006).
Maguire
(e.g.,
tially
present data show that 1 -year-old children also use their verbs in different
sentence
frames,
with
different
subjects,
objects,
and
and
prepositions,
These
findings
are
more
consistent
with
the
generativist
view
of
8c Fisher, 2002)
child language acquisition
1981; Gleitman
(e.g., Chomsky,
that children are conservative
than with the positions
language users and
do not have abstract syntax (e.g., Goldberg,
that 2-year-olds
1999; Lieven,
2006; Tomasello,
2000).
verb use was
in the present data, fully flexible and productive
However,
not evident in all children from the moment
verb use began. On average,
the percent of verbs that children used flexibly varied from 16% (mor
to 30% (lexical subjects) to 38% (actions) to 46% (lexical objects) to
phology)
to 66% (syntax) to 73% (actors) to 90% (affected objects).
50% (addressees)
on the
some verbs in the same way (i.e., conservatively)
Every child produced
measures
10
their
first
for
all
of
lexical, and/or grammatical
pragmatic,
instances.
Even
when
verb
uses
were
flexible
across
the
first
10
instances,
they
were rarely flexible by the second instance. Thus, children were swift to show
all kinds of
some kinds of flexibility and productivity but did not demonstrate
some
children
and
Moreover,
ap
instantaneously.
productivity
flexibility
more flexible and productive
than others.
peared to be swifter and/or
100
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GENERALDISCUSSION
There
are
two
and
possible,
not
sources
exclusive,
mutually
of
this
semantic-,
pragmatic-,
influences
personality-based
should
not
apply,
of most
that most toddlers demonstrate
significant generalization
et
et al.,
items
Gertner
introduced
lexical
al., 2006; Naigles
(e.g.,
newly
Future
8c
Poulin-Dubois
2005;
Forbes, 2006).
comprehension
investigations
could further solidify these findings by extending
the semantic and gram
matical properties
studied
(e.g., to novel affected objects, and to [in the
relevant languages] PPs and case markers).
indicate
in which
the present data, though,
is a model
not
is
from
Some
the
grammatical
knowledge
fully present
beginning.
are
use
achieved
in
before
verb
any
grammatical
understandings
produc
un
in the flexibility
tion resulting
that is observed,
but some grammatical
after
The
clear
frame
differences
derstandings
develop
begins.
production
in these data suggest that the correct description
and individual differences
as verb learners will contain
of children
elements
of both the rapid
measure
in
and
conservative-child
different
for differ
accounts,
generalizer
ent children, different verbs, and different frames (see Maratsos,
2007, for a
in a different domain). When all the supportive factors are
similar argument
in place (e.g., the verbs have been used flexibly
in the input, the child is
new
situation
the
is
and
feeling talkative,
interesting but not too new and
more
and
the
frame
is
children are more
interesting,
possibly
transparent),
to
be
flexible
and
likely
swiftly
productive?and
possibly even show gen
Also
consistent
to novel
eralization
with
instances,
such
although
latter
are
demonstrations
un
in spontaneous
the supportive
factors
likely to be manifest
speech. When
are not in place, children may be more
to
some
be
and
conservative,
likely
more
some
factors
be
available
for
verbs
than
for
others.
may
supportive
in their speech processing
Differences
abilities may also
among children
in the onset or rate of flexibility, productivity,
lead to variation
and gen
consonant with other recent findings
that early perceptual
fac
eralization,
tors predict later language measures
8c
Perfors,
Marchman,
2006;
(Fernald,
8c Pruitt,
Padden, Nelson,
8c
Dow,
2006).
Jusczyk,
Kuhl, Conboy,
Jusczyk,
Thus,
categories
one
position
are learned
consistent
from
with
our
2005; Newman,
data
is that
Bernstein
abstract
of learning
Ratner,
grammatical
begins
early,
101
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
common
the grammatical
flexibility and semantic flexibil
and
25
26, chapter VI) suggest there may be some
(Tables
common experiences
that support both
and/or
learning processes
semantic
and grammatical
between
intercorrelations
ity of verb use
ticular,
suggest
that
syntactic
development.
properties
The
of
verbs
correlations
reveal
their
by verb,
in par
semantic
pos
does
not
involve
affected
objects
effectively
limits
its grammatical
uses
LIMITATIONS
This study is, of course, limited by the fact that we have investigated
of only a small number
the development
(34) of verbs and have tracked
for only their first 10 uses. In particular, our exclusion of
their development
102
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
GENERALDISCUSSION
matical
ever,
our
verbs
were
chosen
because
data
previous
indicated
that
these
34 were
the manner
prescribed
are
in
included
the
study.
Moreover,
if our
doc
umented
child variations reflected only maternal
variation
in keeping
the
or
then
children
should
in
how
slow
differ,
diary,
consistently,
speedy
they
were
to
That
is,
reach
if some
10
instances,
mothers
or
were
in how
flexible
consistently
they
more
were
on
conscientious
all measures.
or
more
attuned to their child's speech, then some children should show precocity
on all measures
whereas
other children
should be consistently
slow. In
all 10 instances of at least
contrast, though, all of our children produced
some verbs in a very short
period of time and all also took a very long time to
reach 10 instances of other verbs (chapter III).
Finally, it is possible that, because they were listening for their children's
use of these verbs, the mothers
might have been more
likely to use those
verbs, themselves. More frequent use by mothers,
though, would only have
led to earlier use by the children, not to more or less flexible or productive
use. That is, there is no reason to expect that more
frequent use by mothers
would have also meant more diverse use by mothers?in
fact, we would
that
the
of
folk
theories
held
argue
language "training"
by most middle
class mothers
would
lead them to less diverse uses (i.e., repetitions
of the
103
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
keeping
study.
CONCLUSIONS
The overall picture of the functions, meanings,
and grammar of verbs
one of flexible use. Children
is
when they first appear in children's
speech
use their verbs in utterances
that serve multiple
communicative
functions,
actors and affected objects, and in multiple
with multiple
syntactic frames.
in the literature of early verb use as
This picture contrasts with descriptions
for these differing
restricted and context bound. Part of the explanation
use may be in the unique nature of the database
of
verb
descriptions
early
the completeness
of sam
for the present analyses. Our database provided
our database included several
pling that is characteristic of diary studies, but
individual children can have
children. Thus, our data reveal that whereas
restricted uses of individual verbs, restricted use is not a stage of language
through which all children pass. Like children's overexten
development
sions (e.g., calling strange men Daddy; Rescorla,
1980) and over regular
Rosen, & Xu,
Hollander,
(e.g., goed) (Marcus, Pinker, Ullman,
verb use
restricted
and
of
context-bound
instances
1992),
grammatically
are
more
than
salient
be
may
they
frequent.
izations
The
present
findings
argue
that
children
are
not
as
conservative
lan
that?and
track
how?children's
very
first
uses
changed.
104
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REFERENCES
with word
children's
M. (1997). Young
N., & Tomasello,
productivity
Psychology, 33, 952-965.
morphology.
Developmental
M. (2000). The
of words
and word
social nature
Akhtar, N., & Tomasello,
& L. Bloom
K. Hirsh-Pasek,
Golinkoff,
(Eds.), Becoming a word learner: A
Press.
New York: Oxford
University
(pp. 115-135).
acquisition
structure
in
H.
Preferred
S. E. M., & Schroder,
Allen,
(2003).
argument
E.
L.
In
W.
&
data.
DuBois,
W.J.
Ashby
spontaneous
J.
Kumpf,
speech
Akhtar,
argument
structure: Grammar
(pp. 301-338).
order
and verb
In R.
learning.
debate on lexical
early
Inuktitut
(Eds.), Preferred
Amsterdam:
John
Benjamins.
M. (2006). The distributed
A. L., Lieven,
E. V. M., 8c Tomasello,
B., Theakston,
Ambridge,
of an abstract
construction.
effect for children's
Cognitive
syntactic
acquisition
learning
21, 174-193.
Development,
R. A. (2003). The
of grammar:
Armon-Lotem,
S., 8c Berman,
emergence
Early verbs and
30, 845-877.
of Child Language,
beyond. Journal
for clues to word
reference.
D. A. (1993).
the speaker
Infant's
ability to consult
20, 395-418.
of Child Language,
Journal
and maternal
Barrett, M., Harris, M., 8c Chasin, J. (1991). Early lexical development
speech:
uses of words.
initial and subsequent
A comparison
of children's
Journal
of Child Lan
Baldwin,
18, 21-40.
I., 8c Snyder, L. (1988). From first words togrammar: Individual differences
E., Bretherton,
Press.
and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge
University
In B.
of grammar
from the lexicon.
the emergence
Bates,
E., 8c Goodman,
J. (1999). On
New Jersey: Erlbaum.
(Ed.), The emergence of language
(pp. 29-80).
MacWhinney
guage,
Bates,
Mouton.
One word at a time: The use of single word utterances. The Hague:
UK: Cambridge
Uni
(1993). Language
development from two to three. Cambridge,
versity Press.
of verbs and the development
of verb
L., Lifter, K., 8c Hafitz,
Bloom,
J. (1980). Semantics
in child language.
inflection
386-412.
56,
Language,
K. (1987). The maturation
of syntax. In T. Roeper
8c E. Williams
Borer, H., 8cWexler,
(Eds.),
Parameter
Reidel.
Dordrecht:
123-187).
setting (pp.
Bloom,
L.
Bloom,
L.
(1973).
M.
Structural
Bowerman,
(1973).
relationships
In T. E. Moore
semantic?
(Ed.), Cognitive
in children's
and
utterances:
Syntactic
or
the acquisition
development
of language
Press.
New York: Academic
197-214).
in the acquisition
of early verbs: Evidence
from diary data
S. (1995). Differences
In M. Tomasello
8cW. Merriman
from sisters.
(Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young
children's acquisition of verbs (pp. 81-111).
Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
(pp.
Braunwald,
to lexicon:
grammar
Unsupervised
243-262.
19,
Linguistics,
Computational
M. (2001). The
of dative
A., 8c Tomasello,
acquisition
Campbell,
253-267.
22,
cholinguistics,
Brent,
Caselli,
M.
R.
(1993).
From
learning
of
constructions.
lexical
syntax.
Applied
Psy
M. C, Casadio,
of the transition
from first words
P., 8c Bates, E. (1999). A comparison
to grammar
in English
and Italian. Journal
Child
69-111.
26,
Language,
of
105
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
a phrasal
A. E. (2005). Fast mapping
between
form and mean
D., & Goldberg,
Science, 8, 500-508.
ing. Developmental
in early
constructions
and semantic
F., & Jisa, H. (2006). Caused motion
Chenu,
generality
In E. Clark & B. Kelly
of French.
in acquisition
(Eds.), Constructions
(pp. 233
acquisition
Casenhiser,
N.
(1975).
N.
(1981).
In K. Hirsch
than verbs?
learn verbs
(pp. 311-335).
on
Books.
Reflections
language. New York:Pantheon
Lectures on government
and binding. Holland:
Foris Publications.
on
A constraint
The
of contrast:
principle
language
acquisition.
(Ed.), Mechanisms
of language
acquisition
(pp. 1-33). Hillsdale,
Chomsky,
E. V. (1987).
Clark,
B. MacWhinney
In
NJ:
Erlbaum.
E. V.
Clark,
The
(1993).
E. V.
Clark,
(2003).
in acquisition.
lexicon
First
language
Cambridge,
acquisition.
UK:
Cambridge,
Press.
University
Cambridge
UK:
University
Cambridge
Press.
Press.
UK: Cambridge
(1996). Using language. Cambridge,
University
A
statistics
H. H. (1973). The
of
fallacy:
language
language-as-fixed-effect
critique
and Verbal Behavior,
research. Journal
12, 335-359.
of Verbal Learning
psychological
the lexicon and grammer:
Cross-sectional
B. T, & Thai, D. J. (2006). Ties between
Conboy,
H.
Clark,
Clark,
toddlers.
studies of bilingual
longitudinal
D. (1999). An introduction
S., 8c Lillo-Martin,
UK: Blackwell
Publishers.
Oxford,
and
Crain,
in
Child development,
77, 712-735.
to
and
theory
language acquisition.
linguistic
K. (1996). Collecting
spontaneous
production
S. Cairns
(Eds.), Methods for assessing children's
Press.
MIT
Demuth,
H.
data.
In D. McDaniel,
syntax
(pp.
3-22).
C. McKee
Cambridge,
8c
MA:
in
V. A. (2007). Grammar
and the lexicon: Developmental
ordering
J., & Marchman,
Child
190-212.
78,
Development,
language
acquisition.
Press.
UK: Cambridge
E. (1987). Early lexical development. Cambridge,
Dromi,
University
K.
M. H., Karmiloff-Smith,
E. A., Johson,
A., Parisi, D., & Plunkett,
Elman,
J. L., Bates,
on
MA:
innateness: A connectionist perspective
(1996). Rethinking
Cambridge,
development.
Dixon,
MIT
Press.
in early
S. (1994). Variability
Fenson,
L., Dale, P., Reznick,
J., Bates, E., Thai, D., & Pethick,
in Child Development,
communicative
of the Society for Research
Monographs
development.
59(5, Serial No. 242).
Fernald,
A., Perfors,
processing
chology, 42,
K. J., Marcus,
Fernandes,
to syntax and back
G. E, Di Nubila,
again: Argument
A.
year
B10-B20.
Fisher,
C.
(1996).
Structural
limits
of sentences.
on
verb mapping:
The
Cognitive Psychology,
interpretations
L. (1991). On
H., 8c Gleitman,
C, Gleitman,
zation frames. Cognitive Psychology,
23, 331-392.
L. R. (2002).
8c Gleitman,
Fisher, C,
Language
acquisition.
R. (Vol. Ed.), Steven's handbook of experimental
8c Gallistel,
Fisher,
role
31, 41-81.
the semantic
in children's
of analogy
content
In H.
of
subcategori
Pashler
(Series Ed.)
Vol. 3. Learning,
8c Sons.
and emotion (3rd ed., pp. 445-496).
Hoboken,
motivation,
NJ: John Wiley
in young
D.
8c
Poulin-Dubois,
N.,
Forbes,
(1997).
change
Representational
J.
verb meaning.
of familiar
children's
24,
of Child Language,
Journal
understanding
psychology:
389-406.
106
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REFERENCES
Gentner,
M.
L. (2002).
D., 8c Boroditsky,
Individuation,
Bowerman
& S. Levinson
(Eds.), Language
UK: Cambridge
215-256).
Cambridge,
L. (2007). Acquiring
structure.
Gerken,
linguistic
handbook of language development
(pp. 173-190).
In E. Hoff
Oxford,
words
Learning
A.
8c M.
UK:
Shatz
Publishing.
and rules: Abstract
knowledge
A. (1999). The
Goldberg,
In B. MacWhinney
Blackwell
(Eds.),
Blackwell
of the semantics
of argument
emergence
(Ed.), The emergence
of language
(pp.
1, 3-55.
Acquisition,
Envi
by children:
In L. R. Gleitman
(2nd ed., pp.
structure
197-211).
8c
1-24).
constructions.
Mahwah,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
D. (2006). Learning
A., 8c Casenhiser,
argument
Goldberg,
Clark & B. Kelly
in acquisition
(Eds.), Constructions
(pp.
Publications.
structure
constructions.
185-204).
Stanford,
In E.
CA: CSLI
D. M., 8c Sethuraman,
A. E., Casenhiser,
N. (2004). Learning
structure
argument
15, 289-316.
generalizations.
Cognitive Linguistics,
S. (2003). The resilience of language: What gesture creation in deaf children can tell
Goldin-Meadow,
us about how all children learn
Press.
language. New York: Psychology
Goldberg,
M. E., 8c Gelman,
R. (1976). Language
in the two-year-old.
S., Seligman,
4, 189-202.
Cognition,
L. (1987). The eyes have it: Lexical
and
R., Hirsh-Pasek,
Golinkoff,
K., Cauley, K., 8c Gordon,
in a new paradigm.
14, 23-45.
syntactic
comprehension
Journal
of Child Language,
R. M., Hirsh-Pasek,
C. B., Frawley, W,
8c Parillo, M. (1995). Lexical
Golinkoff,
K., Mervis,
can be extended
to
In
of
verbs.
the
M.
Tomasello
& W. Merriman
principles
acquisition
Goldin-Meadow,
(Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs (pp. 185-222).
Erlbaum Associates.
NJ: Lawrence
R. L. (2002). Variability
structure.
and detection
of invariant
Gomez,
Psychological
431-436.
Hillsdale,
Science,
13,
context
role of semantic
and
L., 8c Brown, N. B. (1998). The
J. C, McDonough,
in the acquisition
of novel nouns.
Child Development,
69, 1330-1344.
memory
8c Sethuraman,
N. (2006).
Interactions
in the development
of constructions
Goodman,
J. C,
In E. Clark & B. Kelly
and the acquisition
of word meanings.
in
(Eds.), Constructions
Goodman,
Grice,
Stanford:
acquisition
(pp. 263-281).
H. P. (Ed.) (1989). Further
notes
CSLI Publications.
on
Studies in the way of words
logic and conversation.
MA:
Harvard
Press.
from Syntax and
41-57).
(pp.
Cambridge,
University
(Reprinted
semantics: Vol. 9. Pragmatics,
1978, New York: Academic
pp. 113-128,
by P. Cole, Ed.,
Press).
S. (1988). Linguistic
M., Barrett,
M., Jones,
D., & Brooks,
input and
15, 77-94.
meaning.
Journal
of Child Language,
R. (Eds.),
K. & Golinkoff,
children
Hirsh-Pasek,
(2006). Action meets word: How
Oxford
UK: Oxford
Press.
University
Harris,
early
R. M., Hennon,
E. A., & Maguire,
K., Golinkoff,
Hirsh-Pasek,
(2004). Hybrid
M.J.
at the frontier
of developmental
The emergentist
coalition model
psychology:
as a case in point.
a lexicon
In G. Hall & S. Waxman
(Eds.), Weaving
learning
204).
Cambridge,
MA: MIT
word
learn verbs.
theories
of word
(pp.
173
Press.
107
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
R.
(1990).
Semantic
Jackendoff,
Oxford
R.
(2004).
Foundations
Cambridge,
Brain,
of language:
MA: MIT
Press.
evolution.
grammar,
meaning,
New
York:
Press.
University
D., Thai,
Jackson-Maldonado,
lexical
Early
structures.
V. (1993).
D., Marchman,
V, Bates, E., 8c Guitierrez-Clellen,
in Spanish-speaking
infants and toddlers. Journal
of Child
development
20, 523-549.
Language,
M.
the role
E., Lieven,
E., 8c Tomasello,
Kidd,
(2006). Examining
children's
and processing
of sentential
complements.
acquisition
of
lexical
frequency
Cognitive
in
Development,
21, 93-107.
and
P., Conboy,
D., Nelson,
T, & Pruitt, J. (2005). Early speech perception
B., Padden,
for
the
"critical
later language
Language
Learning
Implications
period".
development:
and Development,
1, 237-264.
and experience: Evidence from the blind child.
L. R. (1985). Language
B., 8c Gleitman,
Landau,
MA: Harvard
Press.
University
Cambridge,
Kuhl,
The
B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary
investigation. Chicago:
of Chicago
Press.
University
utterances.
In E. Clark 8c B. Kelly
E. (2006). Producing
multiword
Lieven,
(Eds.), Construc
CA: CSLI Publications.
tions in acquisition
Stanford,
(pp. 83-110).
A
M. (2003). Early syntactic
H., Speares,
E., Behrens,
Lieven,
creativity:
J., 8c Tomasello,
Child
333-367.
30,
Journal
of
Language,
usage-based
approach.
Levin,
B.
MacWhinney,
(2004).
A multiple
solution
process
883-914.
Child
31,
Language,
of
Journal
acquisition.
M. J., Hirsh-Pasek,
Maguire,
verb
learning:
Putting
Action meets word: How
to the
logical
problem
of
language
R. M.
of word
& Golinkoff,
(2006). A unified
theory
R. Golinkoff
context.
In K. Hirsh-Pasek
in
8c
(Eds.),
acquisition
New York: Oxford
children learn verbs (pp. 364-391).
University
K.,
Press.
S., Dromi,
Maital,
development
tions. Journal
Maratsos,
M.
(2007).
E.,
Sagi, A.,
8c Bornstein,
M.
inventory:
Language
specific
27, 43-67.
of Child Language,
Commentary.
Monographs
H.
(2000).
properties
The
and
Hebrew
cross-linguistic
communicative
generaliza
in Child Development,
72,121-126.
A
in lexical and morphological
V, 8c Bates, E. (1994). Continuity
Marchman,
development:
test of the critical mass hypothesis.
21, 339-366.
of Child Language,
Journal
nature
V A., Martinez-Sussman,
C, & Dale, P. S. (2004). The
Marchman,
language-specific
learners. Developmental
from bilingual
Evidence
of grammatical
language
development:
Science,
7, 212.
108
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REFERENCES
F. (1992).
T. J., 8c Xu,
G. E, Pinker,
M., Rosen,
M., Hollander,
S., Ullman,
in Child
in language
of the society for Research
acquisition. Monographs
Overregularization
57(4, Serial No. 228).
Development,
in children: Problems of induction. Cambridge,
E. (1989). Categorization
and naming
Markman,
MA: MIT Press.
Marcus,
M. (2005). The
in
role of frequency
A., 8c Tomasello,
order. Cognitive Development,
20, 121-136.
M. (2006). The
effect of perceptual
A., 8c Tomasello,
use of
on young
children's
Ap
referring
expressions.
E., Theakston,
Matthews,
D., Lieven,
of English word
the acquisition
E., Theakston,
Matthews,
D., Lieven,
and prior discourse
availability
27, 403-422.
plied Psycholinguistics,
E. V. M. (2006).
of chil
the abstractness
K., Pine, J. M., 8c Lieven,
McClure,
Investigating
structure. Journal
of argument
dren's early knowledge
33, 693-720.
of Child Language,
Press.
to talk. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge
McShane,
University
J. (1980). Learning
In U.
and early lexical development.
object
categories
in
and intellectual factors
Ecological
conceptual development:
Press.
New York: Cambridge
University
(pp. 201-233).
categorization
as a cue for
in child directed
T
frames
Mintz,
(2003).
categories
grammatical
Frequent
90, 91-117.
speech. Cognition,
of
theorems:
P. C. M. (2008). On the implications
of the classical ergodic
Molenaar,
Analysis
C. B. (1987). Child-basic
Mervis,
Neisser
(Ed.), Concepts and
variation.
has to focus on intra-individual
processes
Developmental
developmental
60-69.
50,
chobiology,
use syntax to learn verb meanings.Journal
L. (1990). Children
of Child Language,
Naigles,
357-374.
L.
Naigles,
verb learners,
too? In E. Clark
one-year-olds
English-speaking
research
the
annual
child
28th
Stanford,
199-212).
forum
(pp.
language
of
and Information.
for the Study of Language
(1997).
Proceedings
The Center
Are
in the use
L. (1998). Developmental
Naigles,
changes
L. Lipsitt, & H. Hayne
Rovee-Collier,
London:
Ablex.
298-318).
(pp.
opmental perspective
L., 8c Hoff-Ginsberg,
Naigles,
of syntactic bootstrapping.
L., & Hoff-Ginsberg,
Naigles,
Effects
of
Language,
L. R.
Naigles,
language.
L. R.
Naigles,
input frequency
25, 95-120.
(2002).
Form
86,
Cognition,
(2003). Paradox
of
structure
(Eds.), Advances
17,
(Ed.),
CA:
In C.
learning.
research (Vol. 12, pp.
in verb
in infancy
verbs
recognize
Psy
in novel
situations
and
com
acquire word meaning
and cognition: A devel
(Ed.), Language
Norwood,
104-140).
NJ: Ablex.
E. (1995).
for the plausibility
Input to verb learning: Evidence
Developmental
Psychology, 31, 827-837.
are some verbs
E. (1998). Why
learned before
other verbs?
and
structure
on
is easy, meaning
157-199.
Children
children's
is hard:
early
Resolving
verb
a
use. Journal
of Child
in early
paradox
child
to Tomasello
lost? No, paradox
found! Reply
8cAkhtar
(2003).
88, 325-329.
Cognition,
L. R., 8c Hoff,
E. (2006). Verbs at the very beginning:
between
Parallels
compre
Naigles,
In K. Hirsh-Pasek
and input.
& R. Golinkoff
hension
(Eds.), Action meets word: How
children
L. R.,
Naigles,
M.
Shatz
learn verbs
In E. Hoff
York:
&
Black
well.
K. (1973). Structure
and
Nelson,
in Child Development,
Research
strategy
38(1-2,
to talk. Monographs
in learning
No.
149).
Serial
109
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Newman,
R.,
Infants'
later
Bernstein
early
to
ability
language
N.,
Ratner,
Jusczyk,
A. M., Jusczyk,
conversational
P. W.,
the
segment
A retrospective
development:
analysis.
8c Dow,
speech
K. A.
(2006).
signal
Developmental
predicts
42,
Psychology,
643-655.
A.
in syntactic development
and the question
Child
26, 619-653.
of
Language,
typical transitivity. Journal
in syntactic development.
the role of semantic
Ninio, A. (2005a). Testing
similarity
Child Language,
32, 35-61.
Ninio,
(1999).
verbs
Pathbreaking
of proto
Journal
A. (2005b). Accelerated
semantic
Indirect
similarity:
learning without
objects.
nitive Linguistics,
16, 531-556.
A. (2007). Language
and the learning curve: A new theory of syntactic development.
Ninio,
York: Oxford
Press.
University
Ninio,
of
Cog
New
Ogura,
Pine,
S. (1989). Learnability
Pinker,
MA: MIT Press.
Pinker, S. (1994).
410.
How
could
and
The acquisition
cognition:
syntax
of argument
to learn verb
structure.
semantics?
Cambridge,
Lingua,
92,377
model
and action: A two-tiered
D., 8c Forbes, J. N. (2006). Word,
intentions,
In K. Hirsh-Pasek
8c R. Golinkoff
word
(Eds.), Action meets word: How
learning.
Press.
New York: Oxford
children learn verbs (pp. 262-285).
University
L. A.
in early
Rescorla,
(1980). Overextension
development.
Journal
of Child
language
Poulin-Dubois,
of action
7, 321-335.
Language,
in
twin study of intelligence
Reznick,
J. (1997). A longitudinal
J. S., Corley, R., & Robinson,
in Child Development,
the second
62(1, Serial
year. Monographs
of the Society for Research
No. 249).
in the verb lexicons of children with specific
L., 8c Bode, J. (1993). GAPS
language
First Language,
13, 113-131.
impairment.
Mod
C. B. (1998). Disentangling
B. E, 8c Mervis,
Robinson,
early language
development:
an extension
of case-study
using
methodology.
acquisition
eling lexical and grammatical
Rice,
M.
(Eds.),
Blackwell
handbook
of
language
of MLU:
learning
development
Semantic
and morphological
capacities.
68-86).
(pp.
In E. Hoff
& M.
Oxford,
UK:
Blackwell
Publishing.
C. M., 8c Smith,
Sandhofer,
different
frequencies,
Shirai,
(1998).
disposition?
L. B.
kinds
The
emergence
First Language,
no
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REFERENCES
J. (1995).
persons.
and
Conceptual
development
In M. Tomasello
8cW. Merriman
for
early words
(Eds.), Beyond names for
Erlbaum.
NJ: Lawrence
the child's
lexical
Smith,
L.
Smith,
Children's
(1999).
ized
noun
learning: How
In B. MacWhinney
mechanisms.
learning
80). Hillsdale,
Smith, L. (2000).
development.
make
processes
learning
(Ed.), The emergence of language
general
special
(pp. 29
NJ: Erlbaum.
crane.
how to learn words: An associative
In R. Golinkoff,
Learning
8c L. Bloom
(Eds.), Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition
York: Oxford
Press.
University
Hirsh-Pasek,
New
51-80).
K.
(pp.
L. R. (2004). Why
it is hard to label our concepts.
In G. Hall 8c S.
Snedeker,
J., 8c Gleitman,
a lexicon
Waxman
MA: MIT
Press.
(Eds.), Weaving
(pp. 257-293).
Cambridge,
Press.
(2007). Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford, UK: Oxford University
Snyder, W
K.
In D. McDaniel,
children's
Stromswold,
(1996).
spontaneous
Analyzing
speech.
8c H. S. Cairns
(Eds.), Methods
MA: MIT Press.
Cambridge,
Theakston,
A., Lieven,
E., Pine, J., 8c Rowland,
itations in the acquisition
of verb argument
Child Language,
28, 127-152.
C. McKee,
A.
Theakston,
generality,
61-99.
L.,
children's
assessing
syntax
(pp.
23-54).
C. (2001). The
role of performance
lim
structure: An alternative
account.
Journal
of
E. V. M.,
C. F. (2004).
Semantic
Pine, J. M., & Rowland,
and the acquisition
of syntax. Journal
31,
of Child Language,
Lieven,
input
for
frequency
A. L., Lieven,
M. (2003). The
Theakston,
E., 8cTomasello,
of third person
in English.
verbs
singular
Journal
Research, 46, 863-877.
Language,
S. A., 8c Hopper,
Thompson,
P.J.
Evidence
from conversation.
structure,
and argument
clause
(2001). Transitivity,
In J. Bybee 8c R Hopper
in the acquisition
and Hearing
structure:
M.,
8cAkhtar,
N.
(2003). What
paradox?
to Naigles
A response
(2002).
Cognition,
88,317-323.
on actions:
verbs in ostensive
Tomasello,
M., & Kruger, A. (1992). Joint attention
Acquiring
and non-ostensive
contexts.
Child
19, 311-333.
of
Journal
Language,
W. (1995). Beyond names for
Tomasello,
M., & Merriman,
things: Young children's acquisition of
verbs. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
M., 8c Stahl, D. (2004). Sampling
31,
enough? Journal
of Child Language,
Valian, V. (1990). Null
subjects: A problem
35, 105-122.
quisition.
Cognition,
Tomasello,
Valian,
V, Prasada,
S., 8c Scarpa, J.
children's
imitation
of sentences.
M., Waterfall,
H.,
Vasilyeva,
across
and differences
Z. (1972).
Vendler,
Press.
Wagner,
L.
Language,
(2002).
Res
spontaneous
How
speech:
much
is
for
parameter-setting
models
of
ac
language
on young
Effects
object predictability:
Child
247-269.
33,
Journal
of
Language,
8c Huttenlocher,
of syntax: Commonalities
J. (2008). Emergence
children.
Science, 11, 84-97.
Developmental
cogitans: An
Aspectual
28, 661-682.
children's
101-121.
(2006).
Direct
influences
on
early
tense
Ithaca,
NY: Cornell
comprehension.
Journal
University
of Child
Ill
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
comments
on
previous
versions
of
the
manuscript.
We
are
to Danielle
also
preparation.
112
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
EARLY
FLEXIBILITY
AND SYNTAX
OF CHILDREN'S
VERBUSE
INTHESEMANTICS
Tomasello and Silke Brandf
Michael
done
on
children's
early
word
on children's
on
focuses
learning
acquisition
and
nouns,
why
is so welcome.
of verbs
OF VERBS
INPRAISE
Linguistic
almost
communication
some
event,
or
action,
concerns
always
or informatives
of
affairs,
and
events,
or
imperatives
or
actions,
to attend
directives
to
enjoin
from
utterances,
there
is almost
the
always
point
some
of view
of
underlying
the
communicative
event
or
action
as a
intention
at
issue.
When
to attend to it or
the infant exclaims "Airplane!" she is exhorting her mother
to notice its presence,
and when the infant requests
'Juice!" she is rousing
into action to satisfy her desire. One could argue that the ap
her mother
is something
along the lines of "Look at
propriate gloss of such utterances
the airplane!"
(or "The airplane is therel") and "Get me some juice!" The
action or state of affairs intended, and its corresponding
verb, is implicit; the
utterance
is what has been called a holophrase.
The one potential
is naming objects. But naming objects is
exception
a
kind
of
actually
metalinguistic
speech act. It is not using language but
rather
"mentioning"
it, mostly
teaching
it.Western,
middle-class
parents
do
this with some regularity with their children, and their children
learn the
names and then show off by using them in return. But in many other
or demonstrative
cultures the pedagogical
naming of objects is a very rare
act
of
in the acquisition of language.
and
little
role
type
speech
plays very
113
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND SILKE
MICHAELTOMASELLO
BRANDT
interaction
discourse?on
their
so
own,
to
on
speak?based
un
their
From
are
as
referents,
are
of
point
more
nouns
sponding
Even
semantic
much
also
complex
children's
or
causative
not
(e.g.,
their
are
nouns
vs.
for
for other
concrete
corre
kinds
in whether
have),
they
of
objects).
that children
give
used
mostly
verbs
corresponding
and
their
objects
than
nouns
early
and
conceptually
aside
(setting
events
view,
pro
they
results
designate
manner
movements
specific
of
on what
depending
different
vs.
events
tongue,
from
the
vs.
events
completed
cut,
to a
that may
of actions
aspects
vs.
lawn
the
is cut,
different
very
to mention
involving
finger)?not
be designated
grammatically
vs.
events
impending
events
past
actions
all of
the
(ongoing
vs.
future
rience
discrete
Further
one or more
as
events,
to
referred
by
typically designated
participants,
event
not in any way "given" by the phenomenal
can be used so as to highlight different participants
use,
e.g.,
John
broke
the vase,
at all.
verbs,
in this direction
two
with
participants
indicated,
vase
broke,
with only one indicated). And so, in a sense, events incorporate objects but
not the reverse. And this is the final way in which verbs are especially
in the study of child language acquisition. As
important and interesting
from all theoretical backgrounds
stressed by researchers
(e.g., Pinker, 1989;
the participants
Tomasello,
1992), verbs have as part of their very meaning
if there is
famous
Blake's
involved
observation,
(paraphrasing William
a
must
of verbs
the
be
there
dancer). This makes
acquisition
dancing
a
already
verbs
that
step
involves
form
the
on
the
way
the kind
backbone
to
grammatical
of verb-argument
of mature
sentence
competence,
as
the
(event-participant)
learning
of
structures
structure.
114
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
is so
It is thus for all of these reasons that the current monograph
in the field. Verbs are arguably the most complex and important
and they have been sorely
type of word in early language development,
in
8c
8c
the
Hirsh-Pasek
Golinkoff,
2006; Tomasello
(see
papers
neglected
some
notable
for
Merriman,
1995,
exceptions).
welcome
METHOD
INPRAISE
OF THEDIARY
in other areas of developmental
Researchers
sometimes
psychology
over
use
of
of
the
in
the
diaries
parent
puzzle
study
language acquisition.
But there are very good reasons for the use of this method,
and the current
monograph
child pairs.
involves
the innovative
extension
of using multiple
parent
ple is inherently limited, potentially biased in all the ways that small samples
may be biased in all scientific inquiry, and it very likely misses completely
most
And so, for example,
it has been quan
low-frequency
phenomena.
a
demonstrated
that
with
small
the age at which
titatively
sample estimating
or
the child acquires low-frequency
structure
items
is highly un
linguistic
reliable (Rowland 8c Fletcher, 2006; Tomasello
8c Stahl, 2004).
Diaries
have their own limitations
of course. Most obviously,
they
one
involve
external validity?and
par
prototypically
only
child?limiting
ents are not trained scientific observers. But with the collection of
multiple
diaries
study?the
of
comparable
first
problem
children?again,
is to some
an
degree
innovation
overcome.
of
And,
the
in
current
terms
of
115
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MICHAELTOMASELLO
AND SILKE
BRANDT
the child does not do something, which can never be concluded with
small- or even medium-sized
samples. In the study of language acquisition,
to which
this is often important since one of the key issues is the degree
children use their early language flexibly and productively,
and to deter
mine
that we must know not only what they have done but also what they
is con
might have done but did not. And indeed, the current monograph
and productivity,
and so the
cerned precisely with the issues of flexibility
when
diary method
is especially
appropriate.
FLEXIBILITY
INEARLY
VERBUSE
data of the current monograph
provide us with by far the most
in
of how English-speaking
the
literature
picture
complete,
quantitative
the limitations of the diary
children learn and use their early verbs. Within
focused parents on a subset
method
(including the fact that the researchers
we
now
at our disposal a vast and
have
of 34 preselected
target verbs),1
The
array
important
of
new
facts.
each
targeted
verb,
that
is,
10 utterances
containing
10 actual
the
instances of use
verb
in question.
Across all of the verbs used by all of the children, the average time it took for
the 10 instances to be produced
Prag
by the child was a bit over 1month.
as commands or
either
of
their
verbs
used
about
half
the
children
matically,
as descriptions
only; the other half were used in both functions. Foreshad
an
issue that will come up later with regard to syntax, we do not know
owing
in which of these instances children heard their parents using the verb in
and so we do not know if children are simply
both pragmatic
functions,
use
or
the
adult
doing something more creative in using these
following
there are no ex
with
verbs. And because
functions
particular
pragmatic
we
in
this
the literature addressing
simply do not know.
question,
periments
current
found that
the
From the point of view of semantics,
monograph
the children used their newly acquired verbs relatively flexibly from rel
was not a foregone conclusion. Although
research has
atively early. This fact
shown that children use their object labels in fairly flexible ways from early
on (Harris, Barrett, Jones, & Brookes,
1988), a number of different nat
of young children using
have provided
uralistic observations
examples
more
context
in
bound
verbs and other types of words
ways for some time
never
But
been clear whether
it
has
1988; Tomasello,
1992).
(e.g., Gopnik,
or
are
reflect some
whether
those
they might
examples
unrepresentative
more systematic difference with object labels.
116
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
had
type"
been
more
defined
new
These
loosely.
uses
on
occurred,
average,
after about four uses of the verb in question. And children quite often used
their verbs for different actors and patients of these actions as well (whether
these were
for something
around
three
lexically realized or not). Thus,
to
events
actors
of
their
children
referred
different
verbs,
quarters
involving
on
different
events
actors
question.
or
Although
other diary
to novel
patients
are
about
different
involving
and/or
usage
and
occasions,
being
studies
referents
we
same
the
patients
occurred
after
cannot
be sure
more
creative
in
around
In both
Bowerman,
uses
three
if the children
their
semantic
were
proportion
of the actions.
to refer
used
to
cases,
the new
of
verb
the
are following
in all
extensions
cases of creative
in
adult
cases,
extensions
1982).
use much
that children
quantitatively.
In
any
case,
the
general
conclusion
would
seem
to be
that
children use both their early nouns and their early verbs
English-speaking
in reasonably flexible ways to refer to all kinds of objects and events in the
world.
contentious
issue in the monograph
is children's
flexibility
and productivity
in using their early verbs syntactically. We deal first with
the issue of flexibility, which,
in the current context, means children using
their verbs in syntactically diverse contexts.
In the following section, we will
117
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MICHAELTOMASELLO
AND SILKEBRANDT
out
Several authors,
have proposed
that children do
including ourselves,
not have innate and abstract grammatical
that
categories
apply equally
across all words as part of their beginning
basic
linguistic competence?the
Chomskian
proposal.
revolves
around
petence
Instead,
specific
of
much
or
verbs
their
other
early
items
grammatical
as
such
com
pronouns
& Baldwin,
1997; Tomasello,
1992, 2000, 2003). Thus,
with
constructions?some
of which have
begin
lexically specific
been
called verb
island constructions
because
revolve
around
they
verbs?with
In
abstractions.
this
local,
only
lexically
specific
theory,
if the young child says "Doggie kiss me," the item-based construction
in
to such
volved might be something
like kisser KISS kissee, without reference
less subjects and objects.
things as agents and patients, much
verb-general
With this item-based construction,
the child could learn a new object label
use it as either "kisser" or "kissee"
and immediately
without
productively,
on
an
others
do
based
of
all
the
items
involved.
this,
hearing
understanding
Pine,
(Lieven,
children
But
what
she
could
not
do
is to
learn
a new
verb,
say
hug,
and
immediately
make
island.
and
island
graph
studies
not
addresses,
are
very
and, as noted
generally
criteria
half full, depending
flexible.
very
These
are
the
data
by the authors,
comparable,
once
one
that
the
current
mono
the
same
coding
outcome
is the story of a glass either half empty or
on one's perspective.
Here
is a quick summary of the
118
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
used
children's
were
verbs
of
55%
months,
sentence
one
than
sentence
the
children's
Across
more
with
the
16% of
entire
their
or
present
the
of diary collection,
one
than
point
of
view.
children
used
as one
used
intransitive
verbs
word
the perspective
the eight
one
children
morphological
object.
used
only
form
(e.g.,
over
course
the
or with
utterances
word
of
the
lexically ex
one
only
with
five
four
children
The
authors
the
children
three
the
claims of lexical
ground general
pretty flexible.
But the alternative
the
course
of
the
(53%
lexically expressed
one
to five
current
at 24 months
frames,
not
have
child
such
single
had one
of age,
frame
such
that
or not
depends
and
on one's
as
monograph?taking
specificity
they
frame,
frames.
over
used
sentence
did
or more,
verbs
had
children
the subject
utterances).
of
of
used
that
used with
as one
used
one considers
Whether
collection,
and
subject,
expressed).
the
three
expressed
diary
than
From
that
verbs
(56% were
argument
lexically
tense).
past
transitive
pressed
were
24
one
than
of
period
with more
verbs
Of
the
At
frame.
in more
used
of
44%
sentence
were
verbs
Of
20 months,
one
than
15% were
only
frame.
Across
their
in more
used
At
frame.
of the eight
back
in early grammars?think
it is
there
perspective,
so
few
sentence
although
frames
children
used
across
multiple
verbs?
it does
not
From
this
look even
119
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MICHAELTOMASELLO
AND SILKE
BRANDT
remotely
neutral,
lexically
syntactic
derive
and
categories,
abstract,
rules.
this disagreement
about flexibility
is really the issue of
In
the
verb
island
children
may be as flexible as
productivity.
hypothesis,
use
in
like
their
of
verbs
in
you
particular
syntactic frames and morpho
as
logical paradigms?so
long
they have heard all of these uses in the lan
around
With
them.
each verb, they learn various ways of talking from
guage
the discourse
interactions
is, for each verb
they have with adults?that
is cut
(1992) diary, a paradigm
separately. And so, in Tomasello's
example
Underlying
versus
draw.
frame,
whereas
similar
was
Cut
draw
used
(learned
was
semantics)
by
used
Tomasello's
at about
in many
child
same
the
different
one
in
basic
only
time
and
having
ones.
The
general
sentence
somewhat
explana
to many
tion is that, for whatever
reason, the child either heard or attended
different syntactic uses of draw, but not so for cut. Thus, flexibility of use for a
particular verb is purely a function of the language the child has heard and
to with that verb, along with her motivation
attended
for speaking about
these kinds of events.
And so flexibility with particular verbs does not signal lexically general
across all verbs, unless one has evidence
that the flexibility
is
productivity
a
to
due
child's creative generalization
and not simply to a reproduction
of
adult flexibility with each particular verb individually. Children will become
across verbs
in all kinds of ways at some point?including
productive
and
constructions?it
is just
that
initially
they
are
not.
This
is
important
of
constructing
general
from
activating
ever
cognitive
mature
innate
more
syntactic
general
processes
language
and
categories
syntactic
(e.g.,
categories
statistical
rules,
but
and
rules
learning,
rather
on
analogy)
the
one
of
basis
of
and
input
users.
INEARLY
PRODUCTIVITY
VERBUSE
in the
is thus the key theoretical
issue. Indeed,
Syntactic productivity
on
was
we
the
entire
focus
first draft of this monograph
reviewed)
(which
reason
from
theoretical
for
this
derives
The
Chomsky's
mainly
productivity.
children go be
If from the beginning
poverty of the stimulus argument.
ways, this
yond the language they have heard in creative and productive
and
schemas
have
abstract
that
(or
suggests
categories
they
preexisting
that the
is the argument
their early language. This
rules) that generate
authors tried to make in the first draft. But the reviewers simply noted that
without any data about what language the children had heard, one can talk
about flexibility but not about productivity. One cannot say that children are
120
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
going beyond what they have heard if one does not know what they have
is indeed the issue these authors wish to
heard. That syntactic productivity
near
in
the end of the monograph:
is
evident
their
quote
push
These
are more
findings
guage acquisition
the positions
olds do not
sello, 2000).
that
have
consistent
(e.g., Chomsky,
children
abstract
are
syntax
with
the
view
generativist
of
child
lan
conservative
(e.g.,
Goldberg,
language
1998;
users
Lieven,
and
that
2-year
2006;
Toma
(p. 107)2
as well as in
in the original verb island formulation,
But, to reiterate,
are
other item-based
children
approaches,
syntactically productive?but
only in limited
Thus, as alluded
teaches a child
diately stick it
terms
predicate
within
their item-based
constructions.
ways constrained
to above, from as early as they are combining words, if one
a novel noun in an experiment
(e.g., the wug), they imme
into the syntactic slot of many of their existing verbs and
straightaway,
saying such productive
things as "Wug gone"
never
and "Find wug"?even
before heard wug com
though they have
bined with any other word (Tomasello, Akhtar, 8c Rekau,
1997). Early in
most sentence frames are structured by verbs (like gone and
development
slots freely and pro
find), each of which fills new words into its argument
children are productive with their language in some ways
ductively. Hence,
from near the beginning
of multiword
speech.
It is just that transfer of structure across verb island constructions
does
not happen as the result of the pregiven
and abstract categories of formal
as a result of both what the child hears and her
linguistics but develops
across initially very low-scope schemas. This is
generalizations
developing
illustrated by another analysis performed
in Tomasello's
(1992) diary study.
The
the child learned one of her verbs in a full
logic was this. Suppose
for example, saying many things of the form x FINDy.
transitive construction,
If this construction was fully abstract and verb general, one would expect to
see her using other verbs in the same frame pretty soon after, that is,
given the
so.
to
not
one
But
do
that
is
what
the
data
If
showed.
looked at
opportunity
the development
of the sentence frames used with a particular verb across
time, the child added grammatical
complexity only gradually and incremen
never happened
for
each
verb
It
almost
that a verb that was at
tally
separately.
one point used in a simple sentence frame all of a sudden was used in a more
complex one, for example, based on some kind of transfer from another verb
that had recently been used in this more
frame. The summary
complex
statement was as follows: By far the best predictor of this child's use of a
given
verb on a given day was not her use of other verbs on that same day, but
rather her use of that same verb on immediately preceding days. Hence,
the
evidence here was that the overall developmental
initial
pattern suggested
for each verb.
syntactic independence
121
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MICHAELTOMASELLO
AND SILKEBRANDT
on individual children
in the
comparable
analysis was performed
study. The analyses of the individual children (displayed in Figures
In terms of the number of sentence
11-19) basically showed the following.
frames used with each verb (flexibility), across time two children showed U
two children
showed a several
(Heather, Elaine);
shaped development
month
followed by a relatively rapid increase in
period with no flexibility
the
four children showed relatively quick
and
other
Sam);
(Carl,
flexibility
on.
This
kind
of
analysis does not look for any kind of
flexibility
early
No
current
across
transfer
sentence
frames.
recent
In another
study,
on
based
samples
of children's
(2006) claims to find
speech (not on a thorough diary), Ninio
lies the rub. Even in this case one cannot claim
such transfer. But herein
if one does not know what language
anything about transfer or productivity
the children have heard, or how their other cognitive abilities are devel
it could be that once a child's parents hear her using tran
oping. Hence,
sentences
sitive
more
sentences
with
one
often,
or more
verb,
this
saliently,
them
encourages
with
other
verbs.
to
use
Or
transitive
perhaps
the
the indi
this time, making
is expanding
child's working memory
during
of more complex verb island constructions
vidual acquisition
possible for
the first time.
di
The fundamental
point is that one cannot investigate productivity
have
the language the child has heard. Researchers
rectly without knowing
it of special importance when children overgeneralize
therefore considered
and
say
tion
that
things
this
like
sentence
"She
giggled
must
be
me"
generated
1982)?on
(Bowerman,
by
productive
the
schema,
assump
as the
never
122
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
8cTomasello,
across
ing
verb
the
in the
constructions
of
existence
2003).
island
abstract,
of
absence
relevant
input?suggest
in all cases
schemas?but
verb-general
the
to us
clear,
at
that
least,
the
data
experimental
children across
and production,
in young
syntactic productivity
in both comprehension
ologies,
miliar verbs. One can always criticize
valid, but in this case there are many
show
several
a consistent
of
lack
different
method
both novel and fa
using
as not being ecologically
experiments
different methodologies
involved.
The main point is that there is no evidence
in the current monograph
for syntactic productivity
in 1- and 2-year-old
children?in
the sense of
across
generalizing
to
verbs
create
verb-general
construc
syntactic
across
verbs,
remain
on
and
conservative
the
extensive
with
their
syntactic
early
one reason
syntax
is that
literature
experimental
generalizations
constructions
in which
some
for
organization
underlying
abstract and rule-based,
to highly
constrained
of productivity
across
such
in young
things
chil
as verb
island constructions
children must make complex analogies between com
structures
plex
(e.g., aligning agents with agents and patients with patients
in utterances with different
transitive verbs). The age at which they seem to
do this most readily in nonlinguistic
domains
corresponds
fairly well with
the age at which they seem to be doing itwith their language (see Gentner
8c
123
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND SILKEBRANDT
MICHAELTOMASELLO
Markman,
1997). And it is perhaps worth noting as well that psycholin
research
has shown that even adults' representations
of argument
guistic
structures are still fairly closely tied to specific lexical items (e.g., Trueswell
8cTanenhaus,
1994).
CONCLUSION
current monograph
is extremely
valuable and advances
the field
in
the
level
of
detail
and
thor
ways.
By exploiting
multiple
significantly
across
of
method?and
then
it
the
multiple
oughness
diary
employing
The
children?the
were
authors
to
able
collect
data
on
children's
early
acqui
assessments
sition of verbs that enabled all kinds of quantitative
simply not
now know new and important facts
in
We
other
kinds
of
studies.
possible
that
about children's
semantic flexibility with verbs in early development
that are
will help us to better formulate
theories of lexical development
inclusive of all word types. And we now know new and important facts about
children's syntactic flexibility with verbs that will help us to formulate better
come to generate
structure
and grammatically
theories of how children
we
in
critical
And
have
been
their early multiword
although
productions.
this commentary
about the claims of certain
in the current data set?we
actually believe
as
experiments?nevertheless,
flexibility
children's
dren
the
authors
out
point
in
several
places,
of
and so the investigation
is a precondition
for productivity,
a
is very important first step in figuring out how chil
flexibility
construct
ultimately
their
abstract
syntactic
constructions.
NOTES
of
for the exclusion
of verbs to focus on is well justified,
selection
except
early verbs, make, do, and have.
important
on p. 109 we get the somewhat
with
consistent
"One position
2. Although
contradictory:
are learned from the input, but the process
of
our data is that abstract grammatical
categories
or before
at
of
the
relevant
all
before
production
early,
speech production
learning
begins
frame or construction."
linguistic
1. The
three
authors'
fairly
References
Akhtar,
N.,
8cTomasello,
morphology.
M.
Bowerman,
late speech
146). New
M.
(1997).
children's
productivity
Developmental
Psychology, 33, 952-965.
to language
to talk worse: Clues
(1982). Starting
errors.
In S. Strauss 8c R. Stavy (Eds.), U-shaped
York: Academic
Young
with word
order
and word
acquisition
behavioral
from
children's
growth
(pp.
Press.
124
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
101?
COMMENTARY
M. (2009). Children's
of the agent-patient
A., Lieven,
E., & Tomasello,
understanding
Canton
between
in the transitive
construction:
relations
comparisons
Cross-linguistic
and English.
ese, German
20, 267-300.
Cognitive Linguistics,
com
M. (2008a). German
children's
K., Lieven,
E., 8c Tomasello,
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith,
Chan,
of word
prehension
1152-1167.
79(4),
order
K.,
M., Abbot-Smith,
Dittmar,
dren's
early syntactic
23, 48-66.
E.
Dromi,
Fenson,
case marking
and
Lieven,
competence:
in causative
L., Dale,
early
M.
E., 8c Tomasello,
A preferential
looking
sentences.
(2008b).
Child Development,
chil
German
Young
Science,
study. Developmental
UK: Cambridge
Press.
University
in
S. (1994). Variability
D., & Pethick,
in Child Devel
of the Society of Research
opment, 59(5).
versus natural
nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic
D. (1982). Why
Gentner,
relativity
In S. A. Kuczaj
Vol. 2. Language,
(Ed.), Language
thought and
development:
partitioning.
Erlbaum.
culture (pp. 301-334).
Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence
A. B. (1997). Structure
in analogy
and similarity. Amer
Gentner,
D., & Markman,
mapping
ican Psychologist,
52, 45-56.
words and rules: Abstract
8c Eisengart,
Gertner,
Y, Fisher, C,
J. (2006). Learning
knowledge
in early sentence
of word order
Science, 17(8), 684-691.
Psychological
comprehension.
A. (1988). Three
Social words,
words
and
types of early word:
Gopnik,
cognitive-relational
names
to cognitive
First Language,
and their relation
8, 49-70.
development.
S. (1988). Linguistic
M., Barrett, M., Jones,
D., 8c Brookes,
input and early word
15, 77-94.
meaning.
of Child Language,
Journal
R. M. (Eds.). (2006). Action meets word: How children learn verbs.
K., 8c Golinkoff,
Hirsh-Pasek,
New York: Oxford
Press.
University
Harris,
usage-based
Lieven,
E., Pine,
Ninio,
M.
H., Speares,
(2003). Early syntactic
J., 8c Tomasello,
creativity: A
333-367.
30(2),
of Child Language,
approach.
Journal
and early grammatical
G. (1997). Lexically
based
J., 8c Baldwin,
learning
187-219.
24(1),
of Child Language,
Journal
and the learning curve: A new theory of syntactic development. Oxford,
Language
E., Behrens,
Lieven,
development.
A. (2006).
UK: Oxford
University
S. (1989). Learnability
Pinker,
MA: MIT Press.
Press.
and cognition:
The acquisition
of argument
structure.
Cambridge,
on estimates
C. E, 8c Fletcher,
S. L. (2006). The
effect of sampling
of lexical
and error rates. Journal
33(4), 859-877.
of Child Language,
specificity
M. (2003). Testing
the abstractness
of
A., 8c Tomasello,
E., Theakston,
Savage, C, Lieven,
con
children's
Lexical
and structural
of syntactic
linguistic
representations:
priming
Rowland,
structions
Tomasello,
M.
Cambridge
M.
Tomasello,
Merriman
in young
(1992).
University
(1995).
Cambridge,
York:
contexts
In M. Tomasello
for early verb learning.
& W.
names for
children's
verbs
acquisition
of
Beyond
things: Young
(pp. 115?
Erlbaum.
NJ: Lawrence
Pragmatic
(2000).
Do
young
M. (2001). Perceiving
Tomasello,
M. Bowerman
8c S. Levinson
132-158).
M.
Tomasello,
New
(Eds.),
146). Hillsdale,
M.
Tomasello,
209-253.
children.
First
children
intentions
have
adult
and
syntactic
learning
words
competence?
in the second
(Eds.), Language
UK: Cambridge
Cambridge,
a
(2003). Constructing
language. A usage-based
MA: Harvard
Press.
University
Cognition,
74(3),
year of life. In
development
theory of language
(pp.
acquisition.
125
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
MICHAELTOAAASELLO
AND SILKEBRANDT
L. (1997). Differential
in
K., 8c Rekau,
productivity
and verbs. Journal
24, 373-387.
of Child Language,
W.
Tomasello,
M., 8c Merriman,
(Eds.).
(1995). Beyond names for things: Young children's ac
Erlbaum.
quisition of verbs. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence
children's
is
Tomasello,
M., 8c Stahl, D. (2004). Sampling
spontaneous
speech: How much
101-121.
31(1),
enough?/oMrna/
of Child Language,
Tomasello,
young
M., Akhtar,
N., Dodson,
use of nouns
children's
a lexicalist
M. K. (1994). Toward
8c Tanenhaus,
framework
of constraint
In C. Clifton
8c K. Rayner
resolution.
(Eds.),
Jr., L. Frazier,
syntactic
ambiguity
on sentence
Erlbaum.
Hillsdale,
Perspectives
processing
NJ: Lawrence
(pp. 155-179).
Trues well,
based
J. O,
126
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
FIRST
FROMINFANTS'
VERBS
LEARNING
Sandra
R.Waxman
the centuries, people have been fascinated with infants' first words.
of parents of young children,
is not a special characteristic
fascination
or psycholinguistics.
Instead, this fascination
developmental
psychologists,
Across
This
is
widespread,
discussions
and
of
topics
infants'
as
far
first
ranging
can
words
as
innate
serve
as
entry
knowledge,
to heated
points
the nature
of in
of national character.
telligence, and the development
we can trace
to the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus,
Thanks
an
to the time of Psammetichus,
the fascination with infants' first words
to
BO
in
the
who
According
reigned
seventh-century
Egyptian pharoah
were
to
the
belief
that
the
the
held
Psammetichus
Egyptians
legend,
firmly
most
in the world, but this was disputed
ancient people
hotly by the
were
To
in
the
settle this
that
fact
who
they
originals.
argued
Phrygians,
to
their
claim
the
(and
rightful place), Psamme
dispute
Egyptian people
a passionate
interest in infants' first words, a passion that
tichus developed
the origin of human
stemmed from a desire to discover
language and that
on language development
in
led him to conduct the first known experiment
to bring two newborn
children. Apparently,
he somehow managed
infants
to a shepherd,
living alone among his flock of sheep. The protocol for this
was simple and clear: itwas the shepherd's
responsibility
proto-experiment
to feed and care for the infants, to make sure that they heard absolutely no
human
language, and to wait patiently and listen carefully for the infants'
was equally clear: he reasoned
first words. The hypothesis
that in the ab
sence of any linguistic input, the first word uttered
these
infants would
by
reveal which language was the origin of all human languages. As it turned
that the first word uttered by the children was
out, the shepherd reported
and excitedly with their arms out
"becos," a word they uttered repeatedly
stretched. When Psammetichus
learned that "becos" was the Phrygian word
for bread, he accepted for the first time that Phrygian,
and not Egyptian,
was the original language of humankind.
127
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SANDRA R.WAXMAN
In
but
the
stems
21st
from
century,
a different
our
interest
source.
in
We
infants'
are
first
no
longer
words
remains
strong,
with
consumed
dis
RICHLY
DESCRIPTIVE
fills an important niche. In essence,
it represents
the
This monograph
It provides an impor
first of what we might call a "focused diary design."
tant counterpoint
to more
that the
traditional diary studies, illustrating
diary
of
one
any
child,
we need
erything
this
monograph
in middleraised
no
matter
how
were
to
drawn
from
cannot
comprehensive,
a rather
homogenous
families
by majority
upper-middle-class
tell
ev
us
in
included
(e.g.,
population
culture,
stay-at
even within
this population
and although
home mothers)
they represent
a
to language acquisition
of
the midrange
continuum
approaches
along
too much or too little were excluded),
their di
(e.g., those who produced
a
of
distinct
aries nonetheless
range
vary considerably,
revealing
approaches
to early verb learning. Importantly,
then, this richly descriptive monograph
serves
as
resource
to which
we
can
turn
to
later
to
pursue
a host
of
questions.
DIARY
DATA
GUIDEDBYAND APPLIED
TOTHEORY
is its strong commitment
Another outstanding
feature of this monograph
to theory. The data were guided by, and then applied to, theory. In addition,
and
the monograph
offers insight into the tight coupling between method
on
on
one
the
other.
and
and
the
hand,
interpretation
theory
coding
128
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
TENDENCIES
AND INDIVIDUAL
DIFFERENCES
CENTRAL
developmental
analyses of these eight diaries not only uncover
within
individual
the group as a whole, but also identify potential
patterns
the importance of bearing inmind that not all
differences. This underscores
in the same way. An
children go about the process of language production
means
of
and
offers
evidence
of the central ten
group patterns
analysis
to discern different
the surface, it is often possible
dencies, but beneath
to these individual
individual styles (Bloom, 1973; Nelson,
1973). Attending
differences
is instructive, and in the case of this monograph,
it permits the
It
authors to describe different developmental
also
underscores
that
paths.
a
children
of
task
the
with
may approach
although
language acquisition
set of linguistic competences,
universal
these alone do not determine
the
The
Vasilyeva,
Cymmerman,
& Levine,
2002; Wax
THE
OF "ABSTRACTNESS"
MATTERS
AND "FLEXIBILITY"
to focus on the first 10 uses was motivated
by the goal of
the
breadth
of
children's
first
of
verb use and
identifying
representations
verb meaning.
This is a key question, because
there is currently consider
over the breadth or abstractness
able controversy
of infants' early verb
an
and
For
if
infant
the verb
meanings
applications.
example,
produces
The
wave
decision
in the
context
of
flag-waving
event,
what
can
we
say
about
her
rep
2006).
In addition
129
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SANDRA R.WAXMAN
important
at
same
the
it raises
time,
several
thorny
of
questions
its
own. Chief
here,
but
at
this
and
point,
based
on
the
current
data,
we
cannot
rule
strong
are merely
that in using verbs flexibly,
children
hypothesis:
to
the
which
have
been
(i.e., the various
exposed
mirroring
input
they
frames in which they have heard these very verbs in the ambient language).
the input lan
After all, if children have indeed been actively processing
a
more
first verbs,
their
for
than
then
the
time
guage
year,
by
they produce
As a
in
of
these
verbs
different
frames.
would
have
each
heard
many
they
even
uses.
to
in
first
To
them
be
10
flexible
their
result, we might
expect
alternative
resolve
itwill be important
errors.
children's
infants'
What this suggests is that although carefully cataloguing
is an important step, itmay not take us far enough. The first
to resolve some of the finely
may prove to be too blunt an instrument
Still, this first step certainly
questions of early language acquisition.
uses
far
enough
to
see where
we
should
step
first 10
10 uses
honed
takes us
next.
ENDEAVORS
OPENINGTHEDOORTONEW RESEARCH
opens the door to several creative lines of ad
Certainly, this monograph
the importance of analyzing the
it highlights
ditional research. For example,
even
to
before
children,
young
they
produce their first verbs, and pro
input
vides guideposts for the kinds of input analyses that are most likely to bear fruit.
It also sets the stage for a careful analysis of how the view we obtain from diary
in general relates to the view that we obtain
studies and language production
from
more
standard
experimental
work
based
on
language
comprehension.
130
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
the monograph
makes
clear the importance
of a more
uses
10
the
first
these
of
comprehensive
analysis,
looking beyond
early
verbs. How can we best characterize
the trajectory of these verbs?
produced
Do children exhibit a steep increase, or explosion,
in flexibility or abstract
a
characterized
reliance on the early
ness, or is development
by deepening
to
frames?
it
will
be
pursue focused diary studies
acquired
Finally,
important
of infants acquiring
other
than
languages
English, focusing especially on
in
that
differ
ways.
languages
theory-relevant
In addition,
The
strongest
for
signature
a "classic-in-the
is not
making"
whether
the
Clearly
they
are. We
of representing
capable
fashion.
Apparently
can
also
language
can.
they
move
beyond
we
Instead,
whether
asking
in an abstract
and grammar
now
can
move
they
are
or flexible
to
forward
pin
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Preparation
of the commentary
was
by NIH
supported
HD030410.
References
L. (1973).
Bloom,
Mouton.
Fisher,
C.
(1996).
interpretations
Fisher, C. (2002).
utterances
Hague:
on verb
The
role of analogy
in children's
mapping:
Cognitive Psychology, 31, 41-81.
limits on verb mapping:
The
role of abstract
structure
in 2.5
of novel verbs.
Science, 5, 56-65.
Developmental
limits
of sentences.
Structural
year-olds'
interpretations
L. R., 8c Fisher, C. (2005). Universal
Gleitman,
to Chomsky
(Ed.), The Cambridge Companion
Press.
University
aspects
(pp.
of word
123-142).
learning.
Cambridge,
In J.
McGilvray
UK:
Cambridge
L. (1990). The
sources of verb
structural
meanings.
Language Acquisition: A Journal
1(1), 3-5 5.
of Developmental
Linguistics,
L. R., Cassidy,
K., Papafragou,
Gleitman,
A., Nappa,
R., 8c Trueswell,
(2005). Hard
J. T
words. Journal
and Development,
1, 23-64.
of Language
Learning
K. 8c Golinkoff,
R. (Eds.). (2006). Action meets word: How children learn verbs. New
Hirsh-Pasek,
York: Oxford
Press.
University
Gleitman,
Huttenlocher,
J., Vasilyeva,
child syntax. Cognitive
M.,
E., 8c Levine,
Cymmerman,
45, 337-374.
S. (2002).
Language
input
and
Psychology,
131
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SANDRA R.WAXAAAN
'hood:
Syntactic
(Eds.), Weaving
and
bootstrapping
a lexicon
(pp. 603
MA: MIT
Press.
636). Cambridge,
L. (2004). Argument
structure
and the child's contribution
J., 8c Gleitman,
Trends in Cognitive Science, 8, 157-161.
learning.
M.
E., Behrens,
H., Speares,
Lieven,
(2003). Early syntactic
J., & Tomasello,
30, 333-367.
approach.
of Child Language,
usage-based
Journal
Lidz,
to
language
creativity:
a
L. R. (2002).
Form
is easy, meaning
is hard: Resolving
in early child
paradox
86, 157-199.
Cognition,
language.
L. R., Hoff,
in early verb use: Evidence
from
E., 8c Vear, D. (2009).
Naigles,
Flexibility
a
in Child Development,
multiple-Af
study. Monographs
of the Society for Research
diary
Serial No. 293).
74(1-111,
to talk. Monographs
K. (1973).
in learning
Structure
and strategy
Nelson,
of the Society for
Research
in Child Development,
Serial No.
38(1-2,
149).
Naigles,
Tomasello,
M.
(2000).
Do
young
children
have
adult
syntactic
competence?
Cognition,
74,
209-253.
In D. Kuhn
S. R., 8c Lidz, J. L. (2006). Early word
Waxman,
learning.
Handbook
child
6th
2,
ed.,
Hoboken,
(Vol.
299-335).
pp.
of
psychology
8c R. Siegler
NJ: Wiley.
132
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
(Eds.),
COMMENTARY
OR NOT?
EARLY
CREATIVE
VERBLEARNERS:
Jane B.Childers
describes a longitudinal
study of eight children's first
an analysis of the variety of words used in conjunction
and the patterns
with 34 targeted verbs, the variety of utterances produced,
uses
in
10
the first
of these verbs. These data are
of developmental
change
a
most
important because
diary studies have included very few children at
on
not
time and have
focused
the beginnings
of verb learning. Thus,
these
of an early stage of verb learning that
results advance our understanding
This monograph
verb uses including
has received
The main
the
verb
young
kinds
learner
one. Verb
servative
debate
or
the
other
of studies
there
However,
as
a creative
tend
researchers
and,
of
conducted
are
dangers
user
course,
and
to
these
to view
concerns
or
language
the nature
as
a more
differing
the ways
both
of
world
in which
views
data
or
overestimating
are
of
con
side of this
influence
the
interpreted.
underestimating
If we assume more
children's
spontaneous
knowledge.
creativity by the
child than we should, we may begin down a path of experimentation
that
will ultimately be less fruitful than it would be, while ifwe ignore creativity
that is present, we will miss revealing a capacity of the human mind that is
the debate is likely
profound. How to resolve this issue is unclear; however,
to rage
for
some
time.
learning
children's
comprehension
and/or
production
after
24 months
Lieven,
Pine, 8c Rowland,
(e.g., Fisher, 2002; Theakston,
a
of
the
better
initial
2004). Thus,
stages of verb learning is
understanding
to produce
It is difficult to get children younger
needed.
than 24 months
133
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JANEB. CHILDERS
verb utterances
reliable
record)
parent
scarce.
been
speech
On
the
other
can
a researcher
is that
hand,
control
great
how
of
advantage
many
experimental
a child
has
exposures
studies
to a
given
been
heard,
factors were
to
exposure
of laboratory
abilities
children's productive
is that they probably underestimate
the child has to produce
the new verb at the right time in an
studies
because
sentence
type.
ARETHESE
CHILDREN'S
PRODUCTIONS?
HOW CREATIVE
Flexibility in Verb Uses
An
important
in verb
question
dividual
verb's
children
in
the
particular
early
meaning
situational
in
learning
concerns
A
development.
bound
contexts
the scope of an in
view
prevailing
to
failing
is
a new
extending
that
verbs only
verb
even
what
cause
it is still unclear
in the semantic domain, which is important. However,
be
is like for these early verb representations
the scope of meaning
the
analyses
likely affected
rest
on
by a myriad
children's
of factors
productions
(e.g., objects
of
the new
verbs,
which
available, motivation).
134
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
are
In
COMMENTARY
addition, even though new objects and agents were produced with the verbs
(and these were the most common ways in which children were semantically
it is possible
that children were still using the verb in particular
flexible),
contexts
situational
(and, thus, were
bound), while mixing
situationally
which particular
entities
in that context were named. That
is, it is still
somewhat unclear from these data how widely these new verbs were used
across
situational
or how
contexts,
"portable"
these
verbs
were.
In my
view,
fully
the
Obviously,
point
in
scope
of
children
development.
children's
early
verb
representations.
are
productive
verb
creating
new
verbs
135
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JANEB. CHILDERS
errors
an adult English
that did not fit anything
say. In
speaker would
to
number
and
in
which
the
studies
addition,
exposure
types of
laboratory
sentences
that are sen
in which a novel verb is heard, with methodologies
it possible to control the input and address
sitive to toddler abilities, make
that we currently have very little of
Given
the question
of productivity.
a
either type of data (diary or laboratory) for this stage of verb acquisition,
it
of
demonstrates
the
kinds
is
that
of
the
contribution
present study
major
in the early stages of verb learning, even
children can produce
flexibility
links to specific utterances
created by
have
direct
this
flexibility may
though
an
adult.
Flexibility in Utterances
is not
though flexibility
examined
that these researchers
Even
evaluated
for
them
dren
were
most
of
the
as well.
flexibility
verbs
producing
data
reported
in more
here
than
concern
one-
that
show
analyses
one
it is important
and
produced
of
utterance.
type
and
two-word
these
chil
However,
and
utterances,
demonstrate
same
as
tensions
reflected
in
this
current
work.
For
ex
to
are too few words in the utterances
ample, Braine pointed out that there
or
not.
does
the child has a grammatical
be sure of whether
Thus,
category
some of the differences
the present
between
(1992)
study and Tomasello
utter
a rich (L. Bloom-like)
of
reflect the tension between
interpretation
ances
as
seen
here
and
a more
conservative
analysis
of utterances
as used
by
in
and Tomasello.
(And, although we usually prize conservatism
own
as
has
its
conservative
limitations.)
science,
noted, being overly
to command
and to de
In addition,
children were using utterances
Braine
scribe,
but,
at
the
same
time,
there
are
many
more
communicative
functions
as
This could be viewed as pragmatic
that could be expressed.
flexibility
as
a
set
or
of
be
restricted
it
viewed
could
and
argue,
colleagues
Naigles
functions. These are just the type of utterances parents are
communicative
of
and descriptions
likely to use frequently with young children: commands
to use these forms could be evi
events. Thus,
the tendency for children
dence of a link between parent and child speech in this study.
136
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
Are
Individual Differences
Important?
is that it provides
Another major contribution made by this monograph
as
a sense of individual variation in verb learning in this sample. However,
not
is
of
the
and
this
note,
range
colleagues
fully representative
Naigles
or even of the range of parents who initially
actual range of variation,
to participate
in this labor-intensive
agreed
study. Instead, a surprising
of families initially agreed but found
verbs. In addition,
several families
producing
number
drop
sented
out
their
because
here
children
a
represents
were
of
midrange
too
verbal.
children
Thus,
who
were
the
neither
repre
range
too
verbal
nor not verbal enough at the time of the study, and the interpretation
of the
in mind. Per
results should be made with these participant
characteristics
in this study is even more
in development
haps the variability
surprising
then, given the fact that children at each end of variation were not included.
The
verb
refer
Thus,
lexicon.
to concrete
researchers
An
nouns
advantage
objects
can
have
can be ordered
examine
the
over
verbs
is that
hierarchically
acquisition
of nouns
the
nouns
that
within
a category.
at different
levels
of
seem
to
dition,
verbs
share
sets of syntactic
group
into
frames,
clusters
instead
of
meaning,
of being
or
clusters
hierarchically
of verbs
that
structured
137
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
JANEB. CHILDERS
across
range
syntactic
frames
that
verbs
particular
allow.
CONCLUSION
The
dren,
study reported
focuses
across
semantic
on
early
and
here
verb
is important
uses,
syntactic
and
contexts.
it includes
because
reveals
information
Future
studies
several
about
are
chil
uses
those
needed
to
clarify
be
and the relationship
the scope of children's early verb representations
tween parental
this
and
children's
However,
study
productions.
input
to the field by revealing more about an
makes an important contribution
this study
Thus,
early stage of verb learning that is poorly understood.
event
an
and
of
infants'
link
studies
between
processing
important
provides
a link that is important for un
studies of verb learning after 24 months,
the entirety of verb development.
derstanding
References
M. (2004).
E. V. M., & Tomasello,
K., Lieven,
Abbot-Smith,
The role of frequency,
construction:
duce the transitive
Science, 7, 48-55.
Developmental
syntactic distribution.
Training
semantic
2-6-year-olds
similarity
and
to pro
shared
Akhtar,
M.
Bowerman,
L. Gleitman
In
in lexical and syntactic development.
(1982). Reorganizational
processes
art (pp. 320-346).
& E. Wanner
(Eds.), Language
acquisition: The state of the
Press.
UK: Cambridge
University
Cambridge,
In D. I.
of grammars.
of the internalization
Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models
Press.
New
York:
Academic
The
Slobin
153-186).
(Ed.),
(pp.
ontogenesis of grammar
new
two
events helps
extend
to multiple
Childers,
1/2-year-olds
J. B. (in press). Attention
verbs.
First Language.
and
8c Paik, J. H.
(2009). Koreanto learn novel predicate
information
Childers,
J. B.,
situational
English-speaking
terms. Journal
children
use
of Child Language,
cross
36,
201-224.
M. (2002). Two-year-olds
learn novel nouns,
verbs, and con
Childers,
J. B., 8c Tomasello,
or
actions from massed
ventional
Psychology, 38, 967
Developmental
spaced exposures.
978.
in 2.5
structure
The
role of abstract
limits on verb mapping:
Fisher, C. (2002). Structural
year-olds'
interpretations
of novel
verbs. Developmental
Science,
5, 55-64.
138
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTARY
Forbes,
J. N.,
D. (1997). Representational
in young
children's
change
verb meaning.
24, 389-406.
Journal
of Child Language,
A theoretical
framework
for analogy. Cognitive Sci
Structure-mapping:
8c Poulin-Dubois,
of familiar
understanding
D. (1983).
Gentner,
ence, 7, 155-170.
D. (1989). The mechanisms
(Eds.), Similarity and analogical
sity Press.
Gentner,
of analogical
reasoning
P., 8c Charney,
Huttenlocher,
J., Smiley,
child: Evidence
from verb meanings.
M. J., Hirsh-Pasek,
K., Golinkoff,
Maguire,
facilitate
relation:
Fewer
examples
R.
(pp.
learning.
199-241).
In S. Vosniadou
New
York:
8c A. Ortony
Univer
Cambridge
of action
in the
Emergence
categories
72-93.
Review,
90,
Psychological
on the
A. C. (2008). Focusing
R. M., 8c Brandone,
De
initial verb learning
and extension.
children's
(1983).
development.
Cambridge,
Perspectives
UK:
on
139
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONTRIBUTORS
R. Naigles
of Pennsylvania)
is Professor of
(Ph.D. 1988, University
at
Her
the
of
Connecticut.
research
the
Psychology
University
investigates
in children with autism and compares
of language acquisition
processes
across languages and cultures.
language development
Letitia
Erika Hoff
of Michigan)
is Professor of Psychology
(Ph.D. 1981, University
at Florida Atlantic University. Her research investigates
the role of input in
to
the
of
and
relation
memory
early language development
phonological
in
lexical
and
children.
early
monolingual
bilingual
development
Donna Vear (M.A. 2002, University
of Connecticut)
at NRI Community
Rhode
Services, Woonsocket,
Michael
is the Director
Tomasello
Department
tionary Anthropology
in Germany. His major
Psychology
social
social
cognition,
and
comparative,
cultural
learning,
is a children's
Island.
and
Institute
for Evolu
and Comparative
are in processes
of
from
aspects
perspectives?especially
clinician
developmental,
to
related
lan
theoretical
focus is on processes
of
involves mainly human chil
research
current
apes.
at the Max
researcher
at
in the Department
of Psychology
is a professor
on
between
the relation
Northwestern
University. Her research is focused
across development
and across
and conceptual
development
language
on
and
of biological
and
the acquisition
reasoning
knowledge
languages,
Sandra
R. Waxman
140
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CONTRIBUTORS
across
the
the
of Texas-Austin)
is an Associate
(Ph.D., 1998, University
Jane B. Childers
at Trinity University,
Professor of Psychology
San Antonio. The main focus
of her research
is to examine
children's early verb learning, both in lab
studies
oratory
research
son
and
examines
processes,
may
contexts
in naturalistic
how domain-general
contribute
to
the
across
cultures.
mechanisms,
acquisition
of
Her
including
current
compari
verbs.
141
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
STATEMENT
OF EDITORIAL
POLICY
The Monographs
series aims to publish major reports of developmental
new findings and uses these to foster a
research that generate authoritative
or integration of findings on some
fresh perspective
conceptually
significant
issue.
Submissions
from
research
programmatic
are welcomed;
projects
these
or group-authored
may
reports of findings from a
or
a
from
sequence of experiments
single large-scale investigation
centering
on a particular question. Multiauthored
sets of independent
studies that
center on the same underlying
a critical
question may also be appropriate;
consist
of individually
in
requirement
issues and
such
and
substantial,
well-integrated.
research
multidisciplinary
including
contexts
advance
instances
evidence
are
of
from
particular
knowledge
on
is that
the
various
from
arising
Manuscripts
on significant
reporting
cultural,
racial,
interest.
Because
the
topics
aim
but
also
be unique,
or
and those
questions
ethnic,
of
common
address
interdisciplinary
developmental
diverse
specialized
authors
the
or
national,
series
to
is not
enhance
other
only
cross
to
or subfields,
fertilization
the links between
the specific
among disciplines
issues under study and larger questions relating to developmental
processes
should emerge clearly for both general readers and specialists on the topic. In
short, irrespective of how itmay be framed, work that contributes
significant
data or extends developmental
thinking will be considered.
to be members
Potential authors are not required
of the Society for
or affiliated with the academic discipline of
in Child Development
Research
to submit a manuscript
for consideration
psychology
by the Monographs.
of the work in extending
significance
developmental
theory and in
new
information
is
crucial
the
consideration.
contributing
empirical
a minimum
should
of 80 manuscript
Submissions
contain
pages
The
of
is
tables
and
150-175
references).
upper
pages
(including
boundary
more flexible, but authors should try to keep within this limit. If color artwork
is submitted, and the authors believe color art is necessary to the presentation
of their work, the submissions letter should indicate that one or more authors
or their institutions are prepared
to pay the substantial costs associated with
The
142
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Please
to the SRCD
submit manuscripts
electronically
at
and Review
Site (MONOSubmit)
contact the Monographs
office with any
Submissions
Please
www.srcd.org/monosubmit.
at
questions
The
letter,
monographs@srcd.org.
warrant
manuscript.
coauthors,
reviews
author
corresponding
that
all
coauthors
are
in agreement
must,
with
in the submission
the
content
of
the
The corresponding
author also is responsible
for informing all
in a timely manner, of manuscript
editorial
submission,
decisions,
received,
and
any
revisions
recommended.
Before
publication,
the
Note
to NIH Grantees
to NIH mandate,
will post the
Society through Wiley-Blackwell
version
of
to
Contributions
authored
NIH
accepted
by
grantholders
PubMed Central upon acceptance.
This accepted
version will be made
see
after publication.
For further information,
publicly available 12 months
Pursuant
www.wiley.com/go/nihmandate.
143
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRENT
in Early Verb
Flexibility
Marital
Conflict
and Children's
293,
Behavior:
Externalizing
Diary
Multiple-Af
and Donna
Erika Hoff,
From
Evidence
Use:
R.
Study?Letitia
Naigles,
2009)
Between
Interactions
and
Parasympathetic
of Early
Effects
and Relationship
Social-Emotional
St. Petersburg-USA
Orphanage Children?The
on
Experience
the Development
Orphanage
of Young
Team
Research
(SERIALNO. 291,2008)
Mother-Adolescent
Understanding
Conflict
Discussions:
and Across-Time
Concurrent
Prediction
From Youths' Dispositions and Parenting?Nancy Eisenberg, Claire Hofer, Tracy L. Spinrad,
Elizabeth T Gershoff Carlos Valiente, Sandra Losoya, Qing Zhou, Amanda Cumberland,
(SERIAL NO. 290, 2008)
Jeffrey Liew, Mark Reiser, and Elizabeth Maxon
and Gary Lupyan
The
in Infancy:
Concepts
Object
Developing
and Environmental
Genetic
An Associative
(SERIAL NO.
Learning
H.
Perspective?David
Rdkison
289, 2008)
of Learning
Origins
Abilities
in the Early
and Disabilities
S. Dale,
Philip
School
of Two
Preservation
Children's
Kagan,
Adolescence?Jerome
A Mechanism
Questions:
Into
Infant Temperaments
Vali Kahn,
Snidman,
Nancy
for Cognitive
287,
2007)
M.
Development?Michelle
Chouinard
in Quantitative
Practices
R. Burchinal,
Foundations
for
Methods
for Self-Awareness:
Developmentalists?Kathleen
(SERIAL NO.
Exploration
285,
Autism?R.
Through
Parental
Time,
A History
of the First 25 Years of the Black
T.
1973-1997?Diana
Slaughter-Defoe,
(SERIAL NO.
Harrison-Hale
(SERIAL NO.
282,
283,
Control,
K.
Psychological
Support,
and Method?Brian
Culture,
Peter
284,
2006)
in
Caucus
of the Society for Research
Aline M.
O.
Garrett,
Algea
2006)
Across
Control:
Relevance
Assessing
E. Stolz,
A. Olsen
and
Joseph
and Behavioral
Heidi
Barber,
2005)
Accounts
and Moral
Narrative
and Hurting
Others:
Children's
A. Brehl,
and
Conflicts?Cecilia
Interpersonal
Beverly
Wainryb,
of Their
Judgments
Sonia Matwin
Hurt
Being
Own
Margaret
Hobson,
(SERIAL NO.
McCartney,
2006)
(SERIALNO. 281,2005)
Childhood
Sexual
Assault
Victims:
After Testifying
Outcomes
Long-Term
in Criminal
Court?
Jodi A. Quas, Gail S. Goodman, Simona Ghetti, Kristen W. Alexander, Robin Edelstein,
Allison D. Redlkh, Ingrid M. Cordon, and David P. H.Jones
(SERIAL NO. 280, 2005)
The
of Social
Emergence
Malinda
Carpenter
of Physical
Trajectories
in Three
Cognition
(SERIAL NO.
Young
279,
and
2005)
From Toddlerhood
Aggression
Tomasello
Chimpanzees?Michael
to Middle
Childhood:
Predictors,
on Conceptual
Knowledge
Heron
A Case
Development:
in Madagascar?i&ta
277,
Body
Knowledge?
Virginia
Conversations
About
Ulrich Muller,
of Executive
Douglas
and
Susan
and Michelle
Slaughter
Mother-Child
The
of Folkbiological
and
Solomon,
2004)
of Human
Gender:
Understanding
the Acquisition
in Early
Childhood?
of Essentialist
(SERIAL NO.
Philip
David
(SERIAL NO.
276, 2004)
Beliefs?
275, 2004)
Zelazo,
274,
2003)
This content downloaded from 181.118.153.129 on Wed, 10 Jun 2015 02:47:42 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions