Interacting pragmatic influences on children’s argument realization

Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 191-210

  Allen, Shanley E M ^a  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920649052     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203826218     Document Type: Chapter

References (31)

1. Allen, S. E. M. (2000). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument representation in child Inuktitut. Linguistics, 38, 483–521.
2. Allen, S. E. M., & Schröder, 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 (pp. 301–338). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
3. Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. London: Routledge.
4. Baldwin, D. (1991). Infants’contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development, 62, 875–890.
5. Baldwin, D. (1993). Infants’ ability to consult the speaker for clues to word reference. Journal of Child Language, 20, 395–418.
6. Bloom, P.(1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 491–504.
7. Campbell, A. L., Brooks, P., & Tomasello, M. (2000). Factors affecting young children’s use of pronouns as referring expressions. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 1337–1349.
8. Chafe, W. (1987). Cognitive constraints on information flow. In R. Tomlin (Ed.), Coherence and grounding in discourse (pp. 21–51). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
9. Chafe, W. (1994). Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Chafe, W. (1996). Inferring identifiability and accessibility. In T. Fretheim & J. Gundel (Eds.), Reference and referent accessibility (pp. 37–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11. Clancy, P. M. (1980). Referential choice in English and Japanese narrative discourse. In W. L. Chafe (Ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production (pp. 127–202). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
12. Clancy, P. M. (1993). Preferred argument structure in Korean acquisition. In E. V. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Child Language Research Forum (pp. 307–314). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.
13. Clancy, P. M. (1997). Discourse motivations for referential choice in Korean acquisition. In H. Sohn & J. Haig (Eds.), Japanese/Korean linguistics 6 (pp. 639–659). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.
14. Clancy, P. M. (2003). The lexicon in interaction: Developmental origins of Preferred Argument Structurein Korean. In J.W. DuBois, L.E.Kumpf, & W.J.Ashby (Eds.), Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function (pp. 81–108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15. Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805–855.
16. Fretheim, T., & Gundel, J. (Eds.). (1996). Reference and referent accessibility. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17. Givón, T. (Ed.). (1983). Topic continuity in discourse: A quantitative cross-language study. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18. Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition, 1, 3–55.
19. Greenfield, P., & Smith, J. H. (1976). The structure of communication in early language development. New York: Academic Press.
20. Guerriero, S., Cooper, A., Oshima-Takane, Y., & Kuriyama, Y. (2001). A discourse-pragmatic explanation for argument realization and omission in English and Japanese children’s speech. In A. H. J. Do, L. Dominguez, & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 319–330). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
21. Hamann, C., & Plunkett, K. (1998). Subjectless sentences in child Danish. Cognition, 69, 35–72.
22. Hyams, N., & Wexler, K. (1993).On the grammatical basis of null subjectsin child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 421–459.
23. Serratrice, L. (2002). Syntax and pragmatics in the acquisition of Italian subjects. Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, Madison, WI, July.
24. Serratrice, L. (2005). The role of discourse pragmatics in the acquisition of subjects in Italian. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26, 437–462.
25. Skarabela, B. (2006). The role of social cognition in early syntax: The case of joint attention in argument realization in child Inuktitut. PhD dissertation, Boston University, Boston, MA.
26. Skarabela, B., & Allen, S. E. M. (2002a). The role of joint attention in argument realization in child Inuktitut. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A. H. J. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26h Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 620–630). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
27. Skarabela, B., & Allen, S. E. M. (2002b). Correlations between newness, joint attention, and argument realization in child Inuktitut. Paper presented at the 9th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, Madison, WI, July.
28. Tomasello, M. (2001). Perceiving intentions and learning words in the second year of life. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development (pp. 132–158). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Tomasello, M., & Farrar, J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Development, 57, 1454–1463.
30. Tomasello, M., & Kruger, A. (1992). Joint attention on actions: Acquiring verbs in ostensive and non-ostensive contexts. Journal of Child Language, 19, 311–334.
31. Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition, 40, 21–81.