Hostname: page-component-77c78cf97d-7dld4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-24T13:56:15.266Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prototype constructions in early language acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Paul Ibbotson  and
Michael Tomasello
Paul Ibbotson*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig
Michael Tomasello*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester MPI for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig
*
Correspondence addresses: Paul Ibbottson, Max Plank Child Study Centre, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: paul.ibbotson@postgrad.manchester.ac.uk
Correspondence addresses: Michael Tomasello, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Deutscher Platz 6, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. E-mail: tomas@eva.mpg.de.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper we bring together several lines of cross-linguistic research to demonstrate the role of prototypicality in young children's acquisition of the transitive construction. Much research has shown that young children are slow to form abstract constructions because they fail to see the more general applicability of syntactic markers such as word order and case marking. Here we attempt to explain this fact by investigating the nature of the language children do and do not hear, specifically, the reliability and availability of the linguistic cues they are exposed to. We suggest that constructions redundantly marked with multiple cues could have a special status as a nucleus around which the prototype forms—which makes it difficult for them to isolate the functional significance of each cue. The implications of this view for language acquisition are discussed within a usage-based framework.

Keywords

language acquisitioninputconstructionprototypegrammar

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 59 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abbot-Smith, Kirsten, Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michael. 2001. What pre-school children do and do not do with ungrammatical word orders. Cognitive Development 16. 679–692.Google Scholar
Akhtar, Nameera. 1999. Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language 26. 339–356.Google Scholar
Akhtar, Nameera & Tomasello, Michael. 1997. Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33. 952–65.Google Scholar
Andersen, Roger & Shirai, Yasuhiro. 1996. The primacy of aspect in first and second language acquisition: The Pidgin-Creole connection. In Ritchie, William and Bhatia, Tej (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anglin, Jeremy. 1986. Semantic and conceptual knowledge underlying the child's words. In Kuczajll, Stan and Barrett, Martyn (eds.), The development of word meaning, 83–97. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Barrett, Martyn. 1986. Early semantic representations and early word usage. In IIKuczaj, Stan and Barrett, Martyn (eds.), The development of word meaning, 39–67. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth & MacWhinney, Brian. 1987. Competition, variation, and language learning. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition, 157–193. Hillsdale, NJ & London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bates, Elizabeth, Caselli, Cristina, Devescovi, Antonella, MacWhinney, Brian, Natale, Francesco & Venza, Valeria. 1984. A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. Child Development 55. 341–354.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1982. Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In Wanner, Eric and Gleitmam, Lila (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 319–346. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Rodger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, Thea, Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michael. 2003. A construction based analysis of Child Directed Speech. Cognitive Science 27. 843–873.Google Scholar
Chan, Angel, Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Children's understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German and English. Cognitive Linguistics 20(2).Google Scholar
Childers, Jane & Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Children extend both words and nonverbal actions to novel exemplars. Developmental Science 6. 185–190.Google Scholar
Croft, William. 2001. Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa (in press). Questions with long-distance dependencies: A usage-based approach. Cognitive Linguistics.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa & Michael Tomasello. in press. Rapid learning of an abstract language-specific category: Polish children s acquisition of the instrumental construction. Journal of Child Language.Google Scholar
de Villiers, Jill & Villiers, Peter de. 1973. A cross-sectional study of the acquisition of grammatical morphemes in child speech. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 2. 267–278.Google Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Tomasello, Michael. 2005. A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language 81. 882–906.Google Scholar
Dittmar, Miriam, Abbot-Smith, Kirsten, Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michael. 2008. German children's comprehension of word order and case marking in causative sentences. Child Development 79(4). 1152–1167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, Fernanda. 2003. The misinterpretation on non-canonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 47. 164–203.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1989. Grammatical construction theory and the familiar dichotomies. In Dietrich, Rainer and Graumann, Carl F. (eds.), Language processing in social context, 17–38. Amsterdam: North-Holland/Elsevier.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles, Kay, Paul & O'Connor, Mary. 1988. Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64. 501–538.Google Scholar
Franks, John & Bransford, Jeffery. 1971. Abstraction of visual patterns. Journal of Experimental Psychology 90. 65–74.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Markman, Arthur. 1995. Similarity is like analogy: Structural alignment in comparison. In Cacciari, Christina (ed.), Similarity in language, thought and perception. Brussels: BREPOLS.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Markman, Arthur. 1997. Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist 52. 45–56.Google Scholar
Gentner, Dedre & Medina, Jose. 1998. Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition 65. 263–297.Google Scholar
Gertner, Yael, Fisher, Cynthia & Eisengart, Julie. 2006. Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science 17. 684–691.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work; The nature of generalisations in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin, Comrie, Bernard, Dryer, Matthew S. & Gil, David (eds.). 2005. The world atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, Kathy & Golinkof, Roberta. 1996. The origins of grammar. MIT.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2). 215–299.Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul & Thompson, Sandra. 1984. The discourse basis for lexical categories in universal grammar. Language 60. 703–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Elsi & Trueswell, John. 2004. The role of discourse context in the processing of a flexible word-order language. Cognition 94. 113–147.Google Scholar
Kay, Paul & Fillmore, Charles. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalisations. Language 75. 1–33.Google Scholar
Kidd, Evan, Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michael. 2006. The acquisition of complement clause constructions: A sentence repetition study. Cognitive Development 21(2). 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koornneef, Arnout W. & Berkum, Jos J. A. Van. 2006. On the use of verb-based implicit causality in sentence comprehension: Evidence from self-paced reading and eye tracking. Journal of Memory and Language 54(4). 445–465.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1977. Linguistic Gestalts. In Papers from the 13th Regional Meeting, 236–287. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 2000. Why a mind is necessary: Conceptualization, grammar and linguistic semantics. In Albertazzi, Liliana (ed.), Meaning and cognition, 25–38.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Bates, Elizabeth & Kliegel, Rienhold. 1984. Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German and Italian. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 23. 127–150.Google Scholar
Maratsos, Michael, DeHart, Ganie, Gerard-Ngo, Poldi & Gudeman, Roxane. 1987. A study in novel word learning: The productivity of the causative. In MacWhinney, Brian (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Marchman, Virginia & Bates, Elizabeth. 1994. Continuity in lexical and morphological development: a test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language 21. 339–366.Google Scholar
Matthews, Danielle, Lieven, Elena, Theakston, Anna & Tomasello, Michael. 2005. The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development 20. 121–136.Google Scholar
Meints, Kirstin, Harris, Paul & Plunkett, Kim. 1999. When does an ostrich become a bird? The role of typicality in early word comprehension. Developmental Psychology 35(4). 1072–1078.Google Scholar
Mervis, Carolyn & Rosch, Eleanor. 1981. Categorization of natural objects. In Rosenzweig, Mark & Porter, Lyman (eds.), Annual Review of Psychology 32.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura A. & Lambrecht, Knud. 1996. Toward a construction-based model of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72. 215–247Google Scholar
Næss, Åshlid. 2007. Prototypical transitivity. Typological Studies in Language 72. Amsterdam John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Naigles, Letitia. 1990. Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17. 357–374.Google Scholar
Pyykkönen, Pirita, Järvikivi, Juhani & Danielle Matthews. submitted. Three-year-olds' pronoun comprehension is sensitive to verb semantics.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Lebeaux, David & Frost, Loren. 1987. Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition 26. 267.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of verb-argument structure. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, Eleanor. 1983. Prototype classification and logical classification: The two systems. In Scholnick, Ellin (eds.), New trends in conceptual representation: Challenges to Piaget's theory? Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Savage, Ceri, Lieven, Elena, Theakston, Anna & Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Testing the ab-stractness of young children's linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions? Developmental Science 6. 557–567.Google Scholar
Shirai, Yasuhiro & Andersen, Roger. 1995. The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: A prototype account. Language 71(4). 743–762.Google Scholar
Shimpi, Priya M., Gamez, Perla B., Huttenlocher, Janellen, Vasilyeva, Marina. 2007. Syntactic priming in 3- and 4-year-old children: Evidence for abstract representations of transitive and dative forms. Developmental Psychology 43(6). 1334–1346.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 1985. The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan. 1997. Mind, code, and text. In Bybee, Joan, Haiman, John & Thompson, Sandra (eds.), Essays on language function and language type: Dedicated to Talmy Givón, 437–467. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Sokolov, Jefrey. 1988. Cue validity in Hebrew sentence comprehension. Journal of Child Language 15. 129–156.Google Scholar
Talmy, Leonard. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 2002. Cognitive Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1998. The new psychology of language, vol. 1: Cognitive and functional approaches to language structure. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74. 209–253.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2005. Beyond formalities: The case of language acquisition. The Linguistic Review 22. 167–181.Google Scholar
Weber, Andrea, Crocker, Mathew & Grice, Martine. 2006. The role of prosody in the interpretation of structural ambiguities: A study of anticipatory eye movements. Cognition 99. B63–B72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wells, Gordon. 1981. Learning through interaction: The study of language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar