Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:31:16.914Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning to in complement constructions*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Lois Bloom ,
Jo Tackeff  and
Margaret Lahey
Lois Bloom
Affiliation:
Teachers College, Columbia University
Jo Tackeff
Affiliation:
Teachers College, Columbia University
Margaret Lahey
Affiliation:
Hunter College of the City University of New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The acquisition of to in infinitive complement structure was examined in the spontaneous speech data from four children, who were observed longitudinally from two to three years of age. The children learned to as a complementizer connective in the context of a small group of verbs and other matrix forms that take a verb phrase complement. They did not learn to in the context of the complement verbs to mark the infinitive. Secondly, the children learned to with the meaning ‘direction towards’ and not as a meaningless syntactic marker. These results contribute to understanding the relation between the acquisition of complex syntax and the verb system in child language, and to evaluating traditional and contemporary linguistic theories of infinitive complement structure in English.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 391 - 406
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

[*]

The research reported here was supported by research grants from the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. We thank, in particular, Vera Baviskar, Joanne Bitetti Capatides, Barbara Gartner, Patsy Lightbown and Matthew Rispoli for their critical reading of an earlier version of this manuscript; Lois Hood for her participation in the early stages of the research; Barbara Gartner, Vera Baviskar, Lisa Rodke, Takashi Yamomoto and Carol Mangano for assistance in processing portions of the data; and Karin Lifter for helpful advice. We are grateful to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, for the context and assistance provided for the final preparation of the manuscript, and to the Spencer Foundation for their financial support. Address for correspondence: Lois Bloom, Box 5, Teachers College, Columbia University, 525 West 120th St, New York, NY 10027.

References

REFERENCES

Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1981). The importance of language for language development: linguistic determinism in the 1980s. In Winitz, H.(ed), Native and non-native language acquisition. New York: New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Gartner, B., Hafitz, J. & Rispoli, M. (in preparation). The acquisition of complement structures in child language.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lahey, M., Hood, L., Lifter, K. & Fiess, K. (1980). Complex sentences: acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. JChLang 7. 235–61.Google ScholarPubMed
Bloom, L., Lifter, K. & Hafitz, J. (1980). Semantics of verbs and the development of verb inflection in child language. Lg 56. 386–412.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. No. 160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L., Merkin, W. & Wootten, J. (1982). Wh-questions: linguistic factors that contribute to the sequence of acquisition. ChDev 53. 1084–92.Google Scholar
Braine, M. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. No. 164.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1970). On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement types. FL 6. 297–321.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. (1978). Arealistic transformational grammar. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J. & Miller, G. (eds), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gentner, D. (1978). On relational meaning: the acquisition of verb meaning. ChDev 49. 988–98.Google Scholar
Jespersen, O. (1964). Essentials of English grammar. Montgomery, Alabama: University of Alabama Press.Google Scholar
Koster, J. & May, R. (1982). On the constituency of infinitives. Lg 58. 116–43.Google Scholar
Lahey, M. & Feier, C. (1982). The semantics of verbs in language development and language dissolution. JSpHearRes 25. 81–95.Google Scholar
Limber, J. (1973). The genesis of complex sentences. In Moore, T. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. & Chalkley, M. (1980). The internal language of children's syntax: the ontogenesis and representation of syntactic categories. In Nelson, K. (ed), Children's language, Vol. 2. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, P. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, H., de Villiers, J. G. & Hakuta, K. (1982). The development of sentence coordination. In Kuczaj, S. A. (ed.), Language development: problems, theories and controversies. Vol. 1: Syntax and Semantics. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar