Turkish children use morphosyntactic bootstrapping in interpreting verb meaning

Journal of Child Language

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 291-323

  Göksun, Tilbe ^a,b   Küntay, Aylin C ^b   Naigles, Letitia R ^c  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b KOÇ UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHILD; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT; LINGUISTICS; MALE; SEMANTICS; TURKEY (REPUBLIC); VERBAL BEHAVIOR;

CHILD; CHILD LANGUAGE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; SEMANTICS; TURKEY; VERBAL BEHAVIOR; VOCABULARY;

EID: 42549165538     PISSN: 03050009     EISSN: 14697602     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0305000907008471     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Aksu-Koç, A. & Slobin, D. (1985). The acquisition of Turkish. In D. I. Slobin (ed.), The cross linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1, 839-80. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
2. Aksu-Koç, A. & Ketrez, F.N. (2003). Early syntactic combinations: Emergence of argument structures in Turkish. Paper presented at SRCD 2003 Biennial Meeting, Florida. 24-27 April 2003.
3. Allen, S. E. M. (2007). Interacting pragmatic influences on children's argument realization. In M. Bowerman & P. Brown (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Allen, S. E. M. & Schroder, H. (2003). Preferred argument structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In J. W. Du Bois, L. E. Kumpf & W. J. Ashby (eds), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 301-38. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
5. Batman-Ratyosyan, N. & Stromswold, K. (2002). Morphosyntax is easy, discourse pragmatics is hard. In B Skarabela, S. Fish & A. H. Do (eds), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 2, 793-804. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
6. Behrend, D. A., Harris, L. L. & Cartwright, K. B. (1995). Morphological cues to verb meaning: verb inflections and the initial mapping of verb meaning. Journal of Child Language 22, 89-106.
7. Bowerman, M. & Brown, P. (2007). Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8. Braine, M. D. S., Brody, R. E., Fisch, S. M. & Weisberger, M.J. (1990). Can children use a verb without exposure to its argument structure? Journal of Child Language 17, 313-42.
9. Brown., P. (2007). Verb specificity and argument realization in Tzeltal child language. In. M. Bowerman & P. Brown (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure : implications for learnability, 167-89. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Berlin: Mouton, de Gruyter.
11. Clancy, P. M. (1985). The acquisition of Japanese. In D. I. Slobin (ed.), The cross linguistic study of language acquisition, Vol. 1, 839-80. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Clancy, P.M. (2003). The lexicon in interaction: Developmental origins of preferred argument structure in Korean. In J. W. Du Bois, L. E. Kumpf & W.J. Ashby (eds), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 81-108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
13. Clark, E. (1996). Early verbs, event types, and inflections. In C. Johnson & J. Gilbert (eds), Children's language, Vol. 9, 61-73. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Dede, M. (1986). Definiteness and referentiality in Turkish verbal sentences. In D. I. Slobin & K. Zimmer (eds), Studies in Turkish linguistics, 147-63. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
16. Ekmekçi, Ö. (1979). Acquisition of Turkish: A longitudinal study on early language development of a Turkish child. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.
17. Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1-25.
18. Erguvanh-Taylan, E. (1984). The function of word order in Turkish grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
19. Fisher, C. (1996). Structural limits on verb mapping: the role of analogy in children's interpretations of sentences. Cognitive Psychology 31, 41-81.
20. Fisher, C., Hall, G. D., Rakowitz, S. & Gleitman, L. (1994). When it is better to receive than to give: Syntactic and conceptual constraints on vocabulary growth. In L. Gleitman & B. Landau (eds), The acquisition of the lexicon, 333-75. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21. Gillette, J., Gleitman, H., Gleitman, L. & Lederer, A. (1999). Human simulation of vocabulary learning. Cognition 73, 135-76.
22. Gleitman, L. R. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1, 3-55.
23. Goldberg, A. E. (1999) The emergence of the semantics of argument structure constructions. In B. MacWhinney (ed.), The emergence of language, 197-211. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
24. Goldberg, A. E. (2004). But do we need Universal Grammar? Comment on Lidz et al. (2003). Cognition 94, 77-84.
25. Goldberg, A. E. (2006). Constructions at work : the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Imai, M., Haryu, E., Okada, H., Kajikawa, S. & Saalbach, H. (2007) Case-marking and argument-number dilemma in children learning an argument dropping language. Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.
27. Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Ketrez, N. F. (1999). Early verbs and the acquisition of Turkish argument structure. Unpublished masters thesis, Boǧaziçi University, Istanbul.
29. Ketrez, N. F. (2004). Children's accusative case and indefinite objects. Dilbilim Arastirmalari 2004, 63-74.
30. Ketrez, N. F. (2005). Children's scope of indefinite objects. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
31. Kornfilt, J. (1997). Turkish. London and New York: Routledge.
32. Küntay, A. & Slobin, D. I. (1996). Listening to a Turkish mother: some puzzles for acquisition. In D. I. Slobin., J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis & J. Guo (eds), Social interaction, social context, and language, 265-86. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
33. Lahiri, A. & Marslen-Wilson, W. (1991). The mental representation of lexical form: a phonological approach to the recognition lexicon. Cognition 38, 245-94.
34. Landau, B. & Gleitman, L. R. (1985). Language and experience : evidence from the blind child. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Lee, J. & Naigles, L. R. (2005). Input to verb learning in Mandarin Chinese: a role for syntactic bootstrapping. Developmental Psychology 41, 529-40.
36. Lee, J. & Naigles, L. R. (in press). Syntactic bootstrapping in Mandarin Chinese from preschoolers to adults : evidence from comprehension. Cognition.
37. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations : a preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
38. Lidz, J. (2006). The grammar of accusative case in Kannada. Language 82, 1-23.
39. Lidz, J., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. (2003). Understanding how input matters: verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition 87, 151-78.
40. Lidz, J. & Gleitman, L. (2004). Argument structure and the child's contribution to language learning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, 157-61.
41. Lidz, J. & Musolino, J. (2006). On the quantificational status of indefiniteness: the view from child language. Language Acquisition 13, 73-102.
42. Matsuo, A., Sinya, Y., Kita, S. & Naigles, L. R. (2007). Japanese two-year-olds use morphosyntax to learn verb meanings. Manuscript in preparation.
43. Naigles, L. R. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17, 357-74.
44. Naigles, L. R., Fowler, A. & Helm, A. (1992). Developmental shifts in the construction of verb meanings. Cognitive Development 7, 403-28.
45. Naigles, L. R., Gleitman, L. R. & Gleitman, H. (1993). Children acquire verb meaning components from syntactic evidence. In E. Dromi. (ed.), Language and cognition: a developmental perspective, 104-40. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
46. Naigles, L. R., Küntay, A. C., Göksun, T. & Lee, J. N. (2006). Language-specific properties influence children's acquisition of argument structure. In D. Bamman, T. Magnitskaia & C. Zaller (eds), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 388-98. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
47. Naigles, L. R. & Lehrer, N. (2002). Language-general and language-specific influences on children's acquisition of argument structure : a comparison of French and English. Journal of Child Language 29, 545-66.
48. Naigles, L. R. & Swensen, L. D. (2007). Syntactic supports for word learning. In E. Hoff and M. Shatz (eds), The handbook of language development. Oxford: Blackwell.
49. Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N. & Murty, L. (2005). Argument realization in Hindi caregiver-child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37, 461-95.
50. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Rispoli, M. (1995). Missing arguments and the acquisition of predicate meanings. In M. Tomasello & W. E. Merriman (eds), Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs, 331-52. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
52. Sanford, A. & Sturt, P. (2002). Depth of processing in language comprehension: not noticing the evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6, 382-6.
53. Shirai, Y. & Anderson, R. (1995). The acquisition of tense-aspect morphology: a prototype account. Language 71, 743-62.
54. Slobin, D. I. & Bever, T. G. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: a cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12, 229-65.
55. Snedeker, J. & Gleitman, L. (2004). Why it is hard to label our concepts. In G. Hall & S. Waxman (eds), Weaving a lexicon. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
56. Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics, Vol. 1: concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
57. Wilkins, D. P. (2007). Same argument structure, different meanings: Learning 'put' and 'look' in Arrernte. In M. Bowerman and P. Brown (eds), Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: implications for learnability, 141-66. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.