Cover not available

In:Semantics in Language Acquisition
Edited by Kristen Syrett and Sudha Arunachalam
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 24] 2018
► pp. 177–196

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 8
Analogical structure mapping and the formation of abstract constructions

A novel construction learning study

 | University of Liverpool | ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)
 | University of Sydney
 | University of Manchester | ESRC International Centre for Language and Communicative Development (LuCiD)
Published online: 2 August 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.24.08amb
Abstract
This chapter reports an experimental study in which children aged 4;9–6;1 were taught two novel constructions with meanings of enabling/helping and preventing/stopping with OSV and VOS word order. The aim was to test Tomasello’s (2003) proposal that children form abstract constructions by performing analogical structure mapping across lexically-specific slot-and-frame patterns (e.g., He’s [X]ing it) and/or particular sentences that instantiate them. All surface cues were minimized, such that successful learning of the construction required children to align the relational structure (i.e., helper-action-helpee or preventer-action-preventee, as appropriate) of the training sentences. A forced-choice pointing test revealed that children did not successfully learn either the constructions’ global meanings or argument linking patterns (though a control group of adults succeeded at the latter task).
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Participants
    • 2.2Materials and procedure
      • 2.2.1Training
      • 2.2.2Test
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Manipulation check
  • 4.Discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (59)
References
Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language, 26, 339–356.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E. V. M. (2015). A Constructivist account of child language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), Handbook of language emergence (pp. 478–510). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Rowland, C. F. (2009). Predicting children’s errors with negative questions: Testing a schema-combination account. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 225–266.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of non-inversion errors in children’s non-subject wh-questions: ‘What experimental data can tell us?’ Journal of Child Language, 30, 519–557.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnon, I., & Clark, E. V. (2011). When ‘on your feet’ is better than ‘feet’: Children’s word production is facilitated in familiar sentence-frames. Language Learning and Development, 7, 107–129.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnon, I., & Snider, N. (2010). More than words: Frequency effects for multi-word phrases. Journal of Memory and Language, 62, 67–82.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arunachalam, S., & Waxman, S. R. (2010). Meaning from syntax: Evidence from 2-year-olds. Cognition, 114, 442–446.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity on children’s repetition of four-word combinations. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bavin, E. L., & Growcott, C. (2000). Infants of 24–30 months understand verb frames. In M. Perkins & S. Howard (Eds.), New directions in language development and disorders (pp. 169–177). Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boeckx, C., & Leivada, E. (2013). Entangled parametric hierarchies: Problems for an overspecified Universal Grammar. PloS one, 8, e72357.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Young children fail to fully generalize a novel argument structure construction when exposed to the same input as older learners. Journal of Child language, 39, 457–481.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyd, J. K., Gottschalk, E. A., & Goldberg, A. E. (2009). Linking rule acquisition in novel phrasal constructions. Language Learning, 59, 64–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brooks, P. J., Braine, M. D. S., Catalano, L., Brody, R. E., & Sudhalter V. (1993) Acquisition of gender-like noun subclasses in an artificial language: The Contribution of phonological markers to learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 32, 76–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Casenhiser, D., & Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Fast mapping between a phrasal form and meaning. Developmental Science, 8, 500–508.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children’s understanding of the agent-patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics, 20, 267–300.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S., & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review, 113, 234–272.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Childers, J. B., & Tomasello, M. (2001). The role of pronouns in young children’s acquisition of the English transitive construction. Developmental Psychology, 37, 739–748.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Christie, S., & Gentner, D. (2010). Where hypotheses come from: Learning new relations by structural alignment. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 356–373.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, R. (1976). Report on methods of longitudinal data-collection. Journal of Child Language, 3, 457–459.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dodson, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Acquiring the transitive construction in English: The role of animacy and pronouns. Journal of Child Language, 25, 555–574.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Doumas, L. A., Hummel, J. E., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2008). A theory of the discovery and predication of relational concepts. Psychological Review, 115, 1–43.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dunbar, K. (2001). The analogical paradox: Why analogy is so easy in naturalistic settings yet so difficult in the psychological laboratory. In D. Gentner, K. Holyoak, & B. N. Kokinov (Eds.), The analogical mind: Perspectives from cognitive science (pp. 313–334). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Loewenstein, J. (2002). Relational language and relational thought. In E. Amsel & J. P. Byrnes (Eds.), Language, literacy, and cognitive development: The development and consequences of symbolic communication (pp. 87–120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1995). Similarity is like analogy: Structural alignment in comparison. In C. Cacciari (Ed.), Similarity in language, thought and perception (pp. 111–147). Brussels: Brepols.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52, 45–56.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentner, D., & Medina, J. (1998). Similarity and the development of rules. Cognition, 65, 263–297.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gertner, Y., & Fisher, C. (2012). Predicted errors in children’s early sentence comprehension. Cognition, 124, 85–94.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gertner, Y., Fisher, C., & Eisengart, J. (2006). Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science, 17, 684–691.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D., & White, T. R. (2007). Constructions as categories of language. New Ideas in Psychology, 25, 70–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. B., Bainbridge, R. & Murphy, G (2016). Learning role-governed and thematic categories. Acta Psychologica, 164, 112–126.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. B., Tomlinson, M. T., Echols, C. H., & Love, B. C. (2011). Structural priming as structure‐Mapping: Children use analogies from previous utterances to guide sentence production. Cognitive Science, 35, 156–170.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldwater, M. B., & Echols, C. H. (in preparation). The progressive alignment of grammatical constructions: evidence from structural priming.
Goldwater, M. B., Friedman, S. E., Gentner, D. G., Forbus, K. F., Taylor, J. L M. (2011). An analogical learning model of the development of thematic roles & structural priming. Poster presented at the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.
Kidd, E., Bavin, E. L., & Rhodes, B. (2001). Two-year-olds’ knowledge of verbs and argument structures. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M. J. Ezeizabarrena, I. Idiazabal, & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Research on child language acquisition: Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language (pp. 1368–1382). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kotovsky, L., & Gentner, D. (1996). Comparison and categorization in the development of relational similarity. Child Development, 67, 2797–2822.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuehne, S., Forbus, K., Gentner, D., & Quinn, B. (2000, August). SEQL: Category learning as progressive abstraction using structure mapping. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (Vol. 4, pp. 286–291).
MacWhinney, B. (2014). Item-based patterns in early syntactic development. In T. Herbst, H. Schmid, & S. Faulhaber (Eds.), Constructions, collocations, patterns (pp. 33–70). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthews, D., & Bannard, C. (2010). Children’s production of unfamiliar word sequences is predicted by positional variability and latent classes in a large sample of child‐directed speech. Cognitive Science, 34, 465–488.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language, 17, 357–374.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Naigles, L. G., & Kako, E. T. (1993). First contact in verb acquisition: Defining a role for syntax first contact in verb acquisition. Child Development, 64, 1665–1687.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noble, C., Iqbal, F., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2016). Converging and competing cues in the acquisition of syntactic structures: The conjoined agent intransitive. Journal of Child Language, 43, 811–842.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Noble, C. H., Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2011). Comprehension of argument structure and semantic roles: Evidence from English-learning children and the forced-choice pointing paradigm. Cognitive Science, 35, 963–982.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Onnis, L., Waterfall, H. R., & Edelman, S. (2008). Learn locally, act globally: Learning language from variation set cues. Cognition, 109, 423–430.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pine, J. M., & Lieven, E. V. M. (1993). Reanalyzing rote-learned phrases–Individual-differences in the transition to multi-word speech. Journal of Child Language, 20, 551–571.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pozzan, L., Gleitman, L. R., & Trueswell, J. C. (2016) Semantic ambiguity and syntactic bootstrapping: The case of conjoined-subject intransitive sentences. Language Learning and Development, 12, 14–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing R. Vienna, Austria: Foundation for Statistical Computing. < [URL]>
Reas, C., & Fry, B. (2007). Processing: A programming handbook for visual designers and artists. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richland, L. E., Morrison, R. G., & Holyoak, K. J. (2006). Children’s development of analogical reasoning: Insights from scene analogy problems. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 94(3), 249–273.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition, 104(1), 106–134.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sakas, W. G., & Fodor, J. D. (2012). Disambiguating syntactic triggers. Language Acquisition, 19(2), 83–143.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Savage, C., Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2003). Testing the abstractness of children’s linguistic representations: lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science, 6(5), 557–567.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. P., French, R., & Vezneva, M. (2010). The development of analogy making in children: Cognitive load and executive functions. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 106, 1–19.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thibaut, J. P., & Witt, A. (2015). Young children’s learning of relational categories: Multiple comparisons and their cognitive constraints. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 643.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2003). Constructing a language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Twomey, K. E., Chang, F., & Ambridge, B. (2014). Do as I say, not as I do: A lexical distributional account of English locative verb class acquisition. Cognitive Psychology, 73, 41–71.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wonnacott, E., Boyd, J. K., Thomson, J., & Goldberg, A. E. (2012). Input effects on the acquisition of a novel phrasal construction in 5 year olds. Journal of Memory and Language, 66, 458–478.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yuan, S., & Fisher, C. (2009). “Really? She blicked the baby?”: Two-year-olds learn combinatorial facts about verbs by listening. Psychological Science, 20, 619–626.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue