Verb specificity and argument realization in tzeltal child language

Crosslinguistic Perspectives on Argument Structure: Implications for Learnability

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 167-189

  Brown, Penelope ^a  

^a MAX PLANCK INSTITUTE FOR PSYCHOLINGUISTICS   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920668355     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203826218     Document Type: Chapter

References (44)

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. Bickel, B. (2002). Referential density in discourse and syntactic typology. Language, 79, 708–736.
4. Bowerman, M. (2005). Why can’t you “open” a nut or “break” a cooked noodle? Learning covert object categories in action word meanings. In C. Gershkoff-Stowe & D. Rakison (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time(pp. 209–243). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Brown, P. (1998a). Early Tzeltal verbs: Argument structure and argument representation. In E. V. Clark (Ed.),Proceedings of the 29th Stanford Child Language Research Forum(pp. 129–140). Stanford, CA: Center for the Studyof Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.
6. Brown, P. (1998b). Children’s first verbs in Tzeltal: Evidence for an early verb category. Linguistics, 36, 713–753.
7. Brown, P. (1998c). Conversational structure and language acquisition: The role of repetition in Tzeltal adult and child speech. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 8, 197–221.
8. Brown, P. (2001). Learning to talk about motion UP and DOWN in Tzeltal: Is there a language-specific bias for verb learning? In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development(pp. 512–543). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Brown, P. (2004). Learning to express three-participant events in Tzeltal. Poster presented at the 32nd Stanford Child Language Research Forum (CLRF), April.
10. Brown, P. (2007). Culture-specific influences on semantic development: Acquiring the Tzeltal “benefactive” construction. In B. Pfeiler (Ed.), Learning indigenous languages: Child language acquisition in Mesoamerica and among the Basques(pp. 119–154). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
11. Choi, S. (1997). Language-specific input and early semantic development: Evidence from children learning Korean. In D. I. Slobin (Ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition(Vol. 5, pp. 41–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Choi, S. (1998). Verbs in early lexical and syntactic development in Korean. Linguistics, 36, 755–780.
13. 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.
14. Clancy, P. M. (1996). Referential strategies and the co-construction of argument structure in Korean acquisition. In B. Fox (Ed.), Studies in Anaphora(pp. 33–68). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
15. Clancy, P. M. (2003). The lexicon in interaction: Developmental origins of Preferred Argument Structure in 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.
16. Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. De León, L. (1999a). Verb roots and caregiver speech in early Tzotzil acquisition. In L. Mi-chaelis & B. Fox (Eds.), Cognition, discourse, and function(pp. 99–119). Stanford University: Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI) Publications.
18. De León, L. (1999b). Verbs in Tzotzil early syntax. International Journal of Bilingualism, 3, 219–240.
19. De León, L. (2001). Why Tzotzil (Mayan) children prefer verbs: The role of linguistic and cultural factors. In M. Almgren, A. Barreña, M.-J. Ezeizabarrena, I. Idiazabal, & B. MacWhinney (Eds.), Research on language acquisition: Proceedings of the 8th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language(pp. 947–969). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
20. Du Bois, J. W. (1987). The discourse basis of ergativity. Language, 63, 805–855.
21. Du Bois, J. W. (2000). Discourse and grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language(Vol. 2, pp. 47–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Du Bois, J. W., Kumpf, L. E., & Ashby, W. J. (Eds.). (2003). Preferred Argument Structure: Grammar as architecture for function. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
23. Gaskins, S. (2005). Cultural perspectives on infant-caregiver interaction. In N. Enfield & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Roots of human sociality(pp. 279–298). Oxford: Berg.
24. Gentner, D. (1982). Why nouns are learned before verbs: Linguistic relativity versus natural partitioning. In S. A. Kuczaj (Ed.), Language development, Vol. 2: Language, thought, and culture(pp. 301–334). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Gentner, D., & Boroditsky, L. (2001). Individuation, relativity, and early word learning. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development(pp. 215–256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26. Goldberg, A. E. (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Goldberg, A. E. (2005). Argument realization: The role of constructions, lexical semantics and discourse factors. In J.-O. Östman & M.Fried (Eds.), Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions(pp. 17–43). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
28. Goldberg, A. E., Casenhiser, D. M., & Sethuraman, N. (2004). Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics, 15, 289–316.
29. Hollebrandse, B., & van Hout, A. (1994). Light verb learning in Dutch. In M. Verrips & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Papers from the Dutch-German Colloquium on Language Acquisition (pp. 65–89). Amsterdam Series in Child Language Development 3.Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
30. Hollebrandse, B., & van Hout, A. (1998). Learning light verbs: Aspectual bootstrapping. In N. Dittmar & Z. Penner (Eds.), Issues in the theory of language acquisition: Essays in honor of Jiirgen Weissenborn(pp. 113–134). Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag.
31. Kuntay, A., & Slobin, D. I. (1997). 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: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp(pp. 265–286). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. Lucy, J. A. (1992). Grammatical categories and cognition: A case study of the linguistic relativity hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33. Narasimhan, B., Budwig, N., & Murty, L. (2005). Argument realization in Hindi caregiver-child discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 37, 461–495.
34. Ninio, A. (1996). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Child Language, Istanbul, Turkey, July.
35. Ninio, A. (1999). Pathbreaking verbs in syntactic development and the question of prototypical transitivity. Journal of Child Language, 26, 619–653.
36. Pfeiler, B. (2003a). Noun and verb acquisition in Yucatec Maya. In M. D. Voeikova & W. U. Dressler (Eds.), Pre- and protomorphology: Early phases of morphological development in nouns and verbs (pp. 75–82). Munich: Lincom Studies in Theoretical Linguistics.
37. Pfeiler, B. (2003b). Early acquisition of the verbal complex in Yucatec Maya. In D. Bittner, W. U. Dressler, & M. Kilani-Schoch (Eds.), Development of verb inflection in first language acquisition: A cross-linguistic perspective(pp. 379–399). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
38. Rispoli, M. (1992). Discourse and the acquisition of eat. Journal of Child Language, 19, 581–595.
39. Rispoli, M. (1995). Missing arguments and the acquisition of predicate meaning. In M. Tomasello &W.Merriman (Eds.), Beyond names for things 331–354. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40. Slobin, D. I. (2001). Form–function relations: How do children find out what they are? In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development(pp. 406–449). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41. Smith, L. B. (2001). How domain-general processes may create domain-specific biases. In M. Bowerman & S. C. Levinson (Eds.), Language acquisition and conceptual development(pp. 101–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42. Tardif, T. (1996). Nouns are not always learned before verbs: Evidence from Mandarin speakers’ early vocabularies. Developmental Psychology, 32, 492–504.
43. Tardif, T. (2006). But are they really verbs? Chinese words for actions. In K. Hirsh-Pasek & R. Golinkoff (Eds.), Action meets word: How children learn verbs(pp. 477–498). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
44. Uziel-Karl, S., & Berman, R. (2000). Where’s ellipsis? Whether and why there are missing arguments in Hebrew child language. Linguistics, 38, 457–482.