Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:23:42.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse and the acquisition of eat*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Matthew Rispoli
Matthew Rispoli*
Affiliation:
Northern Arizona University
*
Department of English, Northern Arizona University, PO Box 6032, Flagstaff, AZ 86011–6032, USA. E-mail: U5863aa@ms.ucc.okstate.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

English has several classes of transitive verbs which can optionally appear without an undergoer. Despite their similar syntactic sub-categorization, there are at least three different semantic subclasses that allow undergoer omission. Information sources based on surface structure, for example, syntactic bootstrapping, cannot inform the child of the semantic representation of these verbs. The focus of this paper is the acquisition of a single English verb, eat. The transcripts of 40 children, who were audiotaped monthly from 1;0 to 3;0, showed that eat was the first member of this verb class to be acquired. Some 1276 eat sentences were analysed for the presence of overt undergoer arguments across levels of cumulative verb lexicon (CVL) size, and two discourse conditions: (1) UNDERGOER ACCESSIBLE and (2) OPEN (to undergoer omission). Results indicate that undergoer omission became associated with discourse conditions when CVL size rose above 75 types, at MLU approximately 2·4 and age approximately 2;3. This suggests that two-year-old children are sensitive to a relationship between undergoer omission and discourse context.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , October 1992 , pp. 581 - 595
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This research was supported by a grant (HD 03144) from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the Bureau of Child Research and the Department of Human Development of the University of Kansas. The author would like to thank Pamela Hadley, Charles Fillmore, Betty Hart, Robert Van Valin and an anonymous reviewer for comments and criticism. The author also thanks Maxine Prueitt of the Juniper Gardens Language Project for help in processing the data.

References

REFERENCES

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1976). Givenness, contrastivcness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In Li, C. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. (1979). Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1986). Pragmatically controlled zero anaphora. Berkeley Linguistics Society 12, 95–107.Google Scholar
Foley, W. & Van Valin, R. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1, 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1987). The interpretation of inherent objects in English. Australian Journal of Linguistics 7, 223–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1989). The longitudinal study of interactive systems. Education and Treatment of Children 12, 347–58.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1987). Sentence focus, information structure, and the thetic-categorical distinction. Berkeley Linguistics Society 13, 366–82.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rispoli, M. (1991). The acquisition of verb subcategorization in a functionalist framework. First Language 11, 41–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1986). Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–57.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. (1990). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66, 221–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. (in press). A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In Van Valin, R. (ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1967). Linguistics in philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar