Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Publications
  3. Journals
  4. Content listing

Refine listing

Refine listing

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2102725 results in Journals

Page 212 of 105137

  • Conditionals are Topics

  • John Haiman
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 54 / Issue 3 / September 1978
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2026, pp. 564-589

  • Conditional clauses and topics are marked identically in a number of unrelated languages. This is a surprising fact, since they are not usually considered to be related categories. Nevertheless, if formal similarity reflects similarity in meaning, they must indeed be related. A review of analyses of conditionals (in the philosophical literature) and of topics (primarily in linguistics) reveals that, in fact, their definitions are very similar. Moreover, it is possible to motivate revisions to these definitions by which they become virtually identical. This paper thus justifies the method of basing semantic analysis of a construction on a cross-linguistic examination of its superficial form.

  • The Learnability and Acquisition of the Dative Alternation in English

  • Jess Gropen, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg, Ronald Wilson
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 65 / Issue 2 / June 1989
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 March 2026, pp. 203-257

  • The dative alternation poses a learnability paradox: when children hear give money to him and give him money, they could formulate a rule deriving the double object from the prepositional form, but the rule would allow overgeneralization from donate money to him to donate him money. Children are not corrected for speaking ungrammatically, so how do they avoid overgeneralizing? The ‘conservatism’ hypothesis proposes that children do not generalize at all; the ‘criteria’ hypothesis holds that children learn to constrain their rule to apply to monosyllabic verbs denoting possession changes. In a questionnaire study, adults rated double-object forms with novel verbs as sounding better if they met these criteria. In an analysis of speech transcripts, children were found to produce ungrammatical double-object sentences (though not very frequently). In two experiments children were taught novel motion verbs; they extended them to double-object structures, and did so more often for monosyllabic than for polysyllabic verbs and more often to denote a possession transfer than motion to a location. However, children also had a bias to use each verb in the construction they heard it in. Thus children are not invariably conservative but show conservative tendencies, and their generalizations are influenced by morphophonological and semantic criteria. We propose that speakers acquire a dative rule that operates on two levels: a broad-range rule defines the possibility of a verb meaning ‘cause to move’ to be changed into one meaning ‘cause to have’, and narrow-range rules license such extensions to be made for subclasses of semantically and morphologically similar verbs.

Page 212 of 105137