Cover not available

In:Current Perspectives on Child Language Acquisition: How children use their environment to learn
Edited by Caroline F. Rowland, Anna L. Theakston, Ben Ambridge and Katherine E. Twomey
[Trends in Language Acquisition Research 27] 2020
► pp. 131–154

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

Where form meets meaning in the acquisition of grammatical constructions

 | University of Manchester
Published online: 17 September 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.27.06the
Abstract
This chapter focuses on the question of how children learn form–meaning mappings in the development of multiword utterances (i.e. the meaning associated with a specific sentence produced in a specific context). Following a theoretical overview, we examine the relationship between the input children hear and their early sentence productions through the lens of children’s grammatical errors. The goal is to determine the sources of input to which the learner is sensitive in the development of form–meaning mappings, and how these mappings may be refined over the course of development. We then consider how the semantic components of multiword utterances and the pragmatic (information-structural) contexts in which they occur impact on children’s early usage and interpretation of grammatical constructions to understand the cues children use to assign meaning. The chapter ends with a summary of outstanding questions and future directions.
Article outline
  • Preface
  • Introduction
  • Overarching theory
    • What are grammatical constructions?
    • How do children learn constructions?
  • Grammatical errors as a window onto children’s form–meaning mappings
    • ‘Borrowing’ within a network of constructions leads to error
      • Third person verb marking and auxiliary omission errors
      • Pronoun case errors
      • Summary
    • The nature of the ‘slots’ within grammatical constructions
      • Infinitival-to omission errors
      • Methodological advances
    • Creative solutions to communicative problems
      • Structure combining in wh-questions
      • Fine-tuning the meaning of negation
      • The complexities of self-reference
      • Summary
  • Semantic and pragmatic (information-structural) properties of sentence representations
    • Simple constructions
    • Complex constructions
  • Conclusions
  • References
References (67)
References
Abbot-Smith, K., & Behrens, H. (2006). How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science, 30(3), 995–1026. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Adani, F., van der Lely, H. K. J., Forgiarini, M., & Guasti, M. T. (2010). Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua, 120(9), 2418–2466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Adani, F., Forgiarini, M., Guasti, M., & van der Lely, H. (2014). Number dissimilarities facilitate the comprehension of relative clause in children affected by (Grammatical) Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Child Language, 41(4), 811–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. (2018). Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition (25 July, 2018). Available at SSRN: <[URL]> (27 January, 2020).
Ambridge, B., Kidd, E., Rowland, C., & Theakston, A. (2015). The ubiquity of frequency effects in first language. Journal of Child Language, 42(2), 239–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Noble, C., & Lieven, E. (2014). The semantics of the transitive causative construction: Evidence from a forced-choice pointing study with adults and children. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(2), 293–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Freudenthal, D., & Chang, F. (2014). Avoiding dative overgeneralisation errors: Semantics, statistics or both? Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(2), 218–243. 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., 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, 33, 519–557. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Arnold, J. (2008). Reference production: Production-internal and addressee-oriented processes. Language and Cognitive Processes, 23, 495–527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blything, L., Davies, R., & Cain, K. (2015). Young children’s comprehension of temporal relations in complex sentences: The influence of memory on performance. Child Development, 86(6), 1922–1934. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyle, W., Lindell, A. K., & Kidd, E. (2013). Investigating the role of verbal working memory in young children’s sentence comprehension. Language Learning, 63(2), 211–242. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brandt, S., Kidd, E., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The discourse bases of relativization: An investigation of young German and English-speaking children’s comprehension of relative clauses. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(3), 539–570. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Buckle, L., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2017). The effects of animacy and syntax on priming: A developmental study. Frontiers in Psychology: Language Sciences, 20 December 2017. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(in prep). Animacy effects in the acquisition of the transitive construction.
Budwig, N. (1989). The linguistic marking of agentivity and control in child language. Journal of Child Language, 16, 263–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, T., Lieven, E., & Theakston, A. (2007). What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation. Journal of Child Language, 34, 251–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carpenter, M., Akhtar, N., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Fourteen- to 18-month-old infants differentially imitate intentional and accidental actions. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 315–330. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, E., & Lieven, E. (2005). Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 16, 437–474. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Ruiter, L., Lieven, E., Brandt, S., & Theakston, A. (2020). Interactions between givenness and clause order in children’s processing of complex sentences. Cognition, 198. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Ruiter, L., Lemen, H., Brandt, S., Theakston, A. & Lieven, E. (submitted). Structural and interactional aspects of adverbial sentences in English mother–child interactions: An analysis of two dense corpora.
De Ruiter, L., & Theakston, A. L. (2017). First language acquisition. In B. Dancygier (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. 59–72). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
De Ruiter, L., Theakston, A., Brandt, S., & Lieven, E. (2018). Iconicity affects children’s comprehension of complex sentences: The role of semantics, clause order, input and individual differences. Cognition, 171, 202–224. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
DuBois, J. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805–855. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finneran, D., & Leonard, L. (2010). The role of linguistic input in third person singular –s use in the speech of young children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 1065–1074. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J., & Gobet, F. (2007). Understanding the developmental dynamics of subject omission: The role of processing limitations in learning. Journal of Child Language, 34, 83–110. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freudenthal, D., Pine, J. M., Jones, G., & Gobet, F. (2015). Simulating the cross-linguistic pattern of Optional Infinitive errors in children’s declaratives and Wh- questions. Cognition, 143, 61–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graf, E., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Subject and object omission in children’s early transitive constructions: A discourse-pragmatic approach. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(3), 701–727. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graf, E., Theakston, A., Freudenthal, D., & Lieven, E. V. (2019). The subject-object symmetry revisited: Experimental and computational approaches to the role of information structure in children’s argument omission. IEEE Transactions on Cognitive and Developmental Systems. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haendler, Y., Kliegl, R., & Adani, F. (2015). Discourse accessibility constraints in children’s processing of object relative clauses. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 860. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language, 56, 251–299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Junge, B., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Given/New-New/Given? Children’s sensitivity to the ordering of information in complex sentences. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(3), 589–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kidd, E., Brandt, S., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes, 22(6), 860–897. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., Lieven, E. V., & Theakston, A. (2016). Can infinitival to omissions and provisions be primed? An experimental investigation into the role of constructional competition in infinitival to omission errors. Cognitive Science, 41(5), 1242–1273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. (2009). Can input explain children’s me-for-I errors? Journal of Child Language, 36, 1091–1114. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., & Theakston, A. (2011). Are infinitival-to omission errors primed by prior discourse? The case of WANT constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 22(4), 629–657. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirjavainen, M., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children’s omission of infinitival-to. First Language, 29(3), 315–341.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In J. Lyons & R. J. Wales (Eds.), Psycholinguistic papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leonard, L., Fey, M., Deevy, P., & Bredin-Oja, S. (2015). Input sources of third person singular –s inconsistency in children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Child Language, 42, 786–820. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, E. V., Pine, J. M., & Baldwin, G. (1997). Positional learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language, 24, 187–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macdonald, R., Brandt, S., Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Serratrice, L. (submitted). The role of animacy in children’s interpretation of relative clauses in English: Evidence from sentence-picture matching and eye movements.
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
Matthews, D., Biney, H., & Abbot-Smith, K. (2018). Individual differences in children’s pragmatic ability: A review of associations with formal language, social cognition, and executive functions. Language Learning and Development, 14(3), 186–223. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McCauley, S., Bannard, C., Theakston, A., Davis, M. Cameron-Faulkner, T., & Ambridge, B. (2019). Multiword units predict non-inversion errors in children’s wh-questions: “What corpus data can tell us?” In A. K. Goel, C. M. Seifert, & C. Freksa (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Montreal, QB: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKnight, S. (2016). An investigation of the use of case marked pronouns in English speaking children (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Manchester, UK. <[URL]> (27 January, 2020).
McKnight, S., Lieven, E. V., & Theakston, A. (n. d.) “My do it!”. Why do children make my-for-I errors? (Unpublished manuscript).
Noble, C., Iqbal, F. Lieven, E. V., & Theakston, A. (2016). Converging and competing cues in the acquisition of syntactic structures: The conjoined agent intransitive. Journal of Child Language, 43(4), 811–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poulin-Dubois, D., Lepage, A., & Ferland, D. (1996). Infants’ concept of animacy. Cognitive Development, 11(1), 19–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pozzan, L., & Valian, V. (2017). Asking questions in child English: Evidence for early abstract representations, Language Acquisition, 24(3), 209–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F. (2007). Explaining errors in children’s questions. Cognition, 104, 106–134. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, C. F., & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject–auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘What children do know?’. Journal of Child Language, 27, 157–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santelmann, L., Berk, S., Austin, J., Somashekar, S., & Lust, B. (2002). Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: Dissociating movement and inflection. Journal of Child Language, 29, 813–842. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theakston, A. L. (2012). “The spotty cow tickled the pig with a curly tail”: How do sentence position and referential complexity affect children’s and adults’ choice of referring expression? Applied Psycholinguistics, 33(4), 691–724. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theakston, A., & Cameron-Faulkner, T. (2011). What factors affect children’s production of double marking errors in questions? Paper presented at the XII International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Montreal, July 2011.
Theakston, A., Ibbotson, P., Freudenthal, D., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2015). Productivity of noun slots in verb frames. Cognitive Science, 39(6), 1369–1395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theakston, A., & Kirjavainen, M. (2008). Pronoun case errors: The role of the input. Paper presented at the XI International Congress for the Study of Child Language, Edinburgh, July 2008.
Theakston, A., & Lieven, E. V. (2008). The influence of discourse context on children’s provision of auxiliary BE. Journal of Child Language, 35, 129–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Multi-unit sequences in first language acquisition. Topics in Cognitive Science, 9, 588–603. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theakston, A., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2003). The role of the input in the acquisition of third singular verbs in English. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 863–877. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Theakston, A., Maslen, R., Lieven, E. V., & Tomasello, M. (2012). The acquisition of the transitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics, 23(1), 91–128. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1986). Syntactic categories in the speech of young children. Developmental Psychology, 22, 562–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vasishth, S., Brüssow, S., Lewis, R. L., & Drenhaus, H. (2008). Processing polarity: How the ungrammatical intrudes on the grammatical. Cognitive Science, 32, 685–712. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wills, D. D. (1977). Participant deixis in English and baby talk. In C. E. Snow & C. A. Ferguson (Eds.), Talking to children: Language input and acquisition (pp. 271–298). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wisman Weil, L., & Leonard, L. (2017). Case assignment in English-speaking children: A paired priming paradigm. Journal of Child Language, 44, 943–967. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue