The acquisition of the english causative alternation

Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 279-307

  Bowerman, Melissa ^a   Croft, William ^b  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84860758722     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203826218     Document Type: Chapter

References (56)

1. Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry, 10, 533–581.
2. Barlow, M., & Kemmer, S. (2001). Usage-based models of language.Stanford, CA: Center for Research in Language Development (CSLI) Publications.
3. Bohannon, J. N., & Stanowicz, L. (1988). The issue of negative evidence: Adult responses to children’s language errors. Developmental Psychology, 24, 684–689.
4. Bowerman, M. (1974). Learning the structure of causative verbs: A study in the relationship of cognitive, semantic, and syntactic development. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 8, 142–178.
5. Bowerman,M.(1978). Systematizing semantic knowledge: Changes over timeinthe child’s organization of word meaning. Child Development, 49, 977–987.
6. Bowerman, M. (1982a). Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di Semantica, 3, 5–66.
7. Bowerman, M. (1982b). Reorganizational processesinlexical and syntactic development. In E. Wanner & L. R. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art(pp. 319–346). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Bowerman, M. (1988). The “no negative evidence” problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In J. A. Hawkins (Ed.), Explaining language uni-versals(pp. 73–101). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
9. Bowerman, M. (1996). Argument structure and learnability: Is a solution in sight? In J. Johnson, M. J. Juge, & J. L. Moxley (Eds.), Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society(pp. 454–468). Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California.
10. Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar(pp. 153–186). New York: Academic Press.
11. 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, 313–342.
12. Braine, M. D. S., & Brooks, P. J. (1995). Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. In M. Tomasello & W. E. Merriman (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Children’s acquisition of verbs(pp. 353–376). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
13. Brooks, P. J., & Tomasello, M. (1999). How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language, 75, 720–738.
14. Brooks, P. J., Tomasello, M., Dodson, K., & Lewis, L. B. (1999). Young children’s overgen-eralizations with fixed transitivity verbs: The entrenchment hypothesis. Child Development, 70, 1325–1337.
15. Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language(pp. 11–53). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
16. Bybee, J. (1985). Morphology: A study of the relation between meaning and form. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Bybee, J., & Hopper, P. J. (2001). Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. Clark, E. V. (1987). The principle of contrast: A constraint on language acquisition. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition(pp. 1–33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
19. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Demetras, M. J., Post, K. N., & Snow, C. E. (1986). Feedback to first language learners: The role of repetitions and clarification questions.Journal of Child Language, 13, 275–292.
22. Gergely, G., & Bever, T. G. (1986). Related intuitions and the mental representation of causative verbs in adults and children. Cognition, 23, 211–277.
23. Goldberg, A. E. (1993). Another look at some learnability paradoxes. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Child Language Research Forum(pp. 60–75). Stanford, CA: Center for Research in Language Development (CSLI) Publications.
24. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25. Goldberg, A. E. (2003). Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science, 7, 219–224.
26. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316.
27. Green, G. M. (1974). Semantic and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
28. Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., & Goldberg, R. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41, 153–195.
29. Hale, K., & Keyser, S. J. (1987). A view from the middle. Lexicon Project Working Papers 10. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
30. Hirsh-Pasek, K., Treiman, R., & Schneiderman, M. (1984). Brown and Hanlon revisited: Mothers’ sensitivity to ungrammatical forms. Journal of Child Language, 11, 81–88.
31. Ingham, R. (1992). Review of Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure, by S. Pinker. Journal of Child Language, 19, 205–211.
32. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
33. Laughren, M., Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. (1986). What’s behind theta-roles: What syntax tells us about lexical representation. Unpublished manuscript, Center for Cognitive Science, MIT.
34. Levin, B. (1985). Lexical semantics in review: Anintroduction. In B. Levin (Ed.), Lexical semantics in review (pp. 1–62). Lexicon Project Working Papers 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Cognitive Science.
35. Levin, B. (1993). English verb class alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36. Levin, B., & Rappaport, M. (1986). The formation of adjectival passives. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 623–661.
37. Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax–lexical semantics interface. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38. McCawley, J. (1978). Logic and the lexicon. In D. Farkas, W. Jacobson, & K. Todrys (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon(pp. 261–277). Chicago Linguistic Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
39. MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition(pp. 249–308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Maratsos, M., Gudeman, R., Gerard-Ngo, P., & DeHart, G. (1987). A study in novel word learning: The productivity of the causative. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition(pp. 89–113). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Marcus, G. F. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46, 53–85.
42. Mazurkewich, I., & White, L. (1984). The acquisition of the dative alternation: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition, 16, 261–283.
43. Morgan, J. L., & Travis, L. L. (1989). Limits on negative information in language input. Journal of Child Language, 16, 531–552.
44. Oehrle, R. T.(1976). The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
45. Ping, L., & MacWhinney, B. (1996). Cryptotype, overgeneralization, and competition: A connectionist model of the learning of English reversative prefixes. Connection Science, 8, 1–28.
46. Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
48. Pye, C., & Loeb, D. (1995). Experimenting with the causative alternation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas.
49. Randall, J. (1990). Catapults and pendulums: The mechanics of language acquisition. Linguistics, 28, 1381–1406.
50. Regier, T. (1996). The human semantic potential: Spatial language and constrained connectionism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
51. Regier, T., & Gahl, S. (2004). Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence. Cognition, 93, 147–155.
52. Schütze, H. (1994). Aconnectionist model ofverb subcategorization. In A. Ram&K.Eiselt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society(pp. 74–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
53. Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
54. Tomasello, M. (1998, 2002).The new psychology of language, Vols.1and 2.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
55. Tomasello, M. (2000). Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition, 74, 209–253.
56. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructinga language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.