Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:31:16.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Love is hard to understand: the relationship between transitivity and caused events in the acquisition of emotion verbs*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2014

JOSHUA K. HARTSHORNE ,
AMANDA POGUE  and
JESSE SNEDEKER
JOSHUA K. HARTSHORNE*
Affiliation:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University
AMANDA POGUE
Affiliation:
University of Waterloo
JESSE SNEDEKER
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Address for correspondence: e-mail: jkhartshorne@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Famously, dog bites man is trivia whereas man bites dog is news. This illustrates not just a fact about the world but about language: to know who did what to whom, we must correctly identify the mapping between semantic role and syntactic position. These mappings are typically predictable, and previous work demonstrates that young children are sensitive to these patterns and so could use them in acquisition. However, there is only limited and mixed evidence that children do use this information to guide acquisition outside of the laboratory. We find that children understand emotion verbs which follow the canonical CAUSE–VERB–PATIENT pattern (Mary frightened/delighted John) earlier than those which do not (Mary feared/liked John), despite the latter's higher frequency, suggesting children's generalization of the mapping between causativity and transitivity is broad and active in acquisition.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 42 , Issue 3 , May 2015 , pp. 467 - 504
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

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 authors wish to thank Timothy O'Donnell for assistance with the corpus analysis, as well as Alfonso Caramazza, Susan Carey, Steve Pinker, Mahesh Srinivasan, Nathan Winkler-Rhoades, Melissa Kline, Hugh Rabagliati, members of the Language and Cognition workshop, and three anonymous reviewers for comments and discussion. This material is based on work supported by a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship and a Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award to JKH and a grant from the National Science Foundation to Jesse Snedeker (0623845).

References

REFERENCES

Akhtar, N. & Tomasello, M. (1997). Young children's productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33, 952–965.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alishahi, A. & Stevenson, S. (2010). A computational model of learning semantic roles from child-directed language. Language and Cognitive Processes 25, 50–93.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. & Lieven, E. V. M. (2011). Child language acquisition: contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M. & Rowland, C. F. (2012). Semantics versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors. Cognition 123, 260–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F. & Chang, F. (2012). The roles of verb semantics, entrenchment and morphophonology in the retreat from dative argument structure overgeneralization errors. Language 88, 45–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., Pine, J. M., Rowland, C. F., Chang, F. & Bidgood, A. (2013). The retreat from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: word learning, morphology, and verb argument structure. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cogntive Science 4, 47–62.Google Scholar
Andrews, A. D. (1985). The major functions of the noun phrase. In Shopen, T. (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description 1: clause structure, 62–154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arunachalam, S., Escovar, E., Hansen, M. A. & Waxman, S. R. (2012). Out of sight, but not out of mind: 21-month-olds use syntactic information to learn verbs even in the absence of a corresponding event. Language & Cognitive Processes 28, 417–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arunachalam, S. & Waxman, S. R. (2010). Meaning from syntax: evidence from 2-year-olds. Cognition 114, 422–446.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (1988). Psych-verbs and theta-theory. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6, 291–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellinger, D. & Gleason, J. (1982). Sex differences in parental directives to young children. Journal of Sex Roles 8, 1123–1139.Google Scholar
Bernstein, N. (1984). Patterns of vowel modification in motherese. Journal of Child Language 11, 557–578.Google Scholar
Bliss, L. (1988). The development of modals. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 9, 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: the use of single-word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Hood, L. & Lightbown, P. (1974). Imitation in language development: if, when and why. Cognitive Psychology 6, 380–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 40.Google Scholar
Bohannon, J. N. & Marquis, A. L. (1977). Children's control of adult speech. Child Development 48, 1002–1008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics 28, 1253–1289.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S., Brooks, P. J., Cowan, N., Samuels, M. C. & Tamis-LeMonda, C. (1993). The development of categories at the semantics/syntax interface. Cognitive Development 8, 465–494.Google Scholar
Brent, M. R. & Siskind, J. M. (2001). The role of exposure to isolated words in early vocabulary development. Cognition 81, 31–44.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. S. & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113, 234–272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Guasti, M. T., Gualmini, A. & Meroni, L. (2001). The acquisition of disjunction: evidence for a grammatical view of scalar implicatures. In Do, A. H.-J. et al. (eds.), BUCLD 25 Proceedings, 157–168. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: a guide to experiments in the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Croft, W. (1990). Possible verbs and the structure of events. In Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.), Meanings and prototypes: studies in linguistic categorization, 48–73. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
de Marneffe, M.-C., McCartney, B. & Manning, C. D. (2006). Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. Paper presented at the 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation.Google Scholar
DeLancy, S. (1984). Notes on agentivity and causation. Studies in Language 8, 181–213.Google Scholar
Demetras, M. (1989a). Changes in parents’ conversational responses: a function of grammatical development. Paper presented at ASHA, St Louis, MO.Google Scholar
Demetras, M. (1989b). Working parents conversational responses to their two-year-old sons. Working paper, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Demetras, M., Post, K. & Snow, C. (1986). Feedback to first-language learners. Journal of Child Language 13, 275–292.Google Scholar
Demuth, K., Culbertson, J. & Alter, J. (2006). Word-minimality, epenthesis, and coda licensing in the acquisition of English. Language & Speech 49, 137–174.Google Scholar
Dickinson, D. K. & Tabors, P. O. (Eds.) (2001). Beginning literacy with language: young children learning at home and school. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
DiDesidero, L. (1999). Psych verbs: acquisition, lexical semantics, and event structure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
Dittmar, M., Abbot-Smith, K., Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2011). Children aged 2;1 use transitive syntax to make a semantic-role interpretation in a pointing task. Journal of Child Language 38, 1109–1123.Google Scholar
Dowty, D. R. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67, 547–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, M. S. (2005). The order of subject, object and verb. In Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M. S., Gil, D. & Comrie, B. (eds), The world atlas of language structures, 330–333. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J., Pethick, S. & Teilly, J. S. (1993). User's guide and technical manual for the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. San Diego, CA: Singular Press.Google Scholar
Fernandes, K. J., Marcus, G. F., Di Nubila, J. A. D. & Vouloumanos, A. (2006). From semantics to syntax and back again: argument structure in the third year of life. Cognition 100, B10–B20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, C. (1996). Structual limits on verb mapping: the role of analogy in children's interpretation of sentences. Cognitive Psychology 31, 41–81.Google Scholar
Fisher, C. (2002). Structural limits on verb mapping: the role of abstract structure in 2·5-year-olds’ interpretations of novel verbs. Developmental Science 5, 55–64.Google Scholar
Fisher, C., Gertner, Y., Scott, R. M. & Yuan, S. (2010). Syntactic bootstrapping. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1, 143–149.Google ScholarPubMed
Fisher, C. & Song, H. (2006). Who's the subject? Sentence structures as analogs of verb meaning. In Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. M. (eds), Action meets word: how children learn the meaning of verbs, 392–425. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D. & Grodzinsky, Y. (1998). Children's passive: a view from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry 28, 311–332.Google Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S. T., Brink, K., Bergen, L., Lim, E. & Saxe, R. (2013). A noisy-channel account of cross-linguistic word order variation. Psychological Science 24, 1079–1088.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1, 3–55.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Cauley, K. M. & Gordon, L. (1987). The eyes have it: lexical and syntactic comprehension in a new paradigm. Journal of Child Language 14, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, P. & Chafetz, J. (1990). Verb-based versus class-based accounts of actionality effects in children's comprehension of passives. Cognition 36, 227–254.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of language, 73–113. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, E. (2000). Tense and N-features in modern Irish. In Carnie, A. & Guilfoyle, E. (eds), The syntax of verb initial languages, 61–74. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haggerty, L. (1929). What a two-and-one-half-year-old child said in one day. Journal of Genetic Psychology 38, 75–100.Google Scholar
Hall, W. S., Nagy, W. E. & Linn, R. (1984). Spoken words: effects of situation and social group on oral word usage and frequency. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hall, W. S., Nagy, W. E. & Nottenburg, G. (1981). Situational variation in the use of internal state words. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Hartshorne, J. K., O'Donnell, T. J., Sudo, Y., Uruwashi, M. & Snedeker, J. (2010). Linking meaning to language: linguistic universals and variation. In Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, online: <http://cognitivesciencesociety.org/conference2010/schedule.html.Google Scholar
Higginson, R. P. (1985). Fixing-assimilation in language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Washington State University.Google Scholar
Hirsch, C. & Wexler, K. (2006). Children's passives and their resulting interpretation. In Deen, K., Nomura, J., Schulz, B. & Schwartz, B. (eds), Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition-North America, 125–136. University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & Thompson, S. A. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56, 251–295.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, P., Theakston, A. L., Lieven, E. V. M. & Tomasello, M. (2012). Semantics of the transitive construction: prototype effects and developmental comparisons. Cognitive Science 36, 1268–1288.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jackendoff, R. (1990). Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kako, E. (2006). Thematic role properties of subjects and objects. Cognition 101, 1–42.Google Scholar
Kipper, K., Korhonen, A., Ryant, N. & Palmer, M. (2008). A large-scale classification of English verbs. Language Resources and Evaluation Journal 42(1), 21–40.Google Scholar
Klein, D. & Manning, C. D. (2003). Accurate unlexicalized parsing. Proceedings of the 41st Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 423–430. Online: <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1075096.1075150>..>Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. (1977). The acquisition of regular and irregular past tense forms. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, 589–600.Google Scholar
Levin, B. (1999). Objecthood: an event structure perspective. CLS 35, Part 1: Papers from the Main Session, 223–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Levin, B. & Rappaport Hovav, M. (2005). Argument realization (Research Surveys in Linguistics Series). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, J., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. (2003). Understanding how input matters: verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition 87, 151–178.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (1977). Starting points. Language 53, 152–168.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk, 3rd ed.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. P. (1982). On the acquisition of grammatical relations. Linguistische Berichte: Linguistik als Kognitive Wissenschaft 80/82, 32–69.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M., Fox, D. E. C., Becker, J. A. & Chalkley, M. A. (1985). Semantic restrictions on children's passives. Cognition 19, 167–191.Google Scholar
Menn, L. & Feldman, A. (2001). Commentary on ‘Filler syllables: what is their status in emerging grammar?’ by Ann Peters. Journal of Child Language 28, 269–271.Google Scholar
Messenger, K., Branigan, H. P., McLean, J. F. & Sorace, A. (2012). Is young children's syntax semantically constrained? Evidence from syntactic priming. Journal of Memory and Language 66, 568–687.Google Scholar
Morisset, C. E., Barnard, K. E., Greenberg, M. T., Booth, C. L. & Spieker, S. J. (1990). Environmental influences on early language development: the context of social risk. Development and Psychopathology 2, 127–149.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. G. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17, 357–374.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. R. (1996). The use of multiple frames in verb learning via syntactic bootstrapping. Cognition 58, 221–251.Google Scholar
Naigles, L. G. & Kako, E. T. (1993). First contact in verb acquisition: defining a role for syntax. Child Development 64, 1665–1687.Google Scholar
Nichols, J. (1975). Verbal semantics and sentence construction. BLS 1, 343–353. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Ninio, A., Snow, C., Pan, B. & Rollins, P. (1994). Classifying communicative acts in children's interactions. Journal of Communications Disorders 27, 157–188.Google Scholar
Noble, C. H., Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. J. (2011). Comprehension of argument structure and semantic roles: evidence from English-learning children and the forced-choice pointing paradigm. Cognitive Science 35, 963–982.Google Scholar
Paczynski, M. & Kuperberg, G. (2011). Electrophysiological evidence for use of the animacy hierarchy, but not thematic role assignment, during verb-argument processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 26, 1402–1456.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A., Li, P., Choi, Y. & Han, C.-H. (2007). Evidentiality in language and cognition. Cognition 103, 253–299.Google Scholar
Pesetsky, D. (1995). Zero syntax: experiencers and cascades. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Piñango, M. M. (2000). Canonicity in Broca's sentence comprehension: the case of psychological verbs. In Grodzinsky, Y., Shapiro, L. & Swinney, D. (eds), Language and the brain: representations and processing, 327–350. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D. & Frost, L. (1987). Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition 26, 195–267.Google Scholar
Post, K. (1992). The language learning environment of laterborns in a rural Florida community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Post, K. (1994). Negative evidence. In Sokolov, J. & Snow, C. (eds), Handbook of research in language development using CHILDES. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Qualtrics Research Suite (2013). [Computer software]. Provo, UT: Qualtrics.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. (1983). Talking about the there and then: the emergence of displaced reference in parent-child discourse. In Nelson, K. E. (ed.), Children's Language, 1–28. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Scott, R. M. & Fisher, C. (2009). 2-year-olds use distributional cues to interpret transitivity-alternating verbs. Language and Cognitive Processes 24, 777–803.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1966). Grammatical transformations and sentence comprehension in childhood and adulthood. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 5, 219–227.Google Scholar
Soderstrom, M., Blossom, M., Foygel, R. & Morgan, J. L. (2008). Acoustical cues and grammatical units in speech of two preverbal infants. Journal of Child Language 35, 869–902.Google Scholar
Stine, E. L. & Bohannon, J. N. (1983). Imitations, interactions, and language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 10, 589–603.Google Scholar
Suppes, P. (1974). The semantics of children's language. American Psychologist 29, 103–114.Google Scholar
Tardif, T. (1996). Nouns are not always learned before verbs: evidence from Mandarin speakers' early vocabularies. Developmental Psychology 32, 492–504.Google Scholar
Thompson, C. K. & Lee, M. (2009). Emotion verb production and comprehension in agrammatic Broca's aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22(4), 354–369.Google Scholar
Tinker, E., Beckwith, R. & Dougherty, R. (1989). Markedness and the acquisition of emotion verbs. Paper presented at the Eastern States Conference on Linguistics.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: a case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
Tsunoda, T. (1985). Remarks on transitivity. Journal of Linguistics 21, 385–396.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1991). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40, 21–81.Google Scholar
Van Houten, L. (1986). Role of maternal input in the acquisition process: the communicative strategies of adolescent and older mothers with their language learning children. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Warren-Leubecker, A. (1982). Sex differences in speech to children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Warren-Leubecker, A. & Bohannon, J. N. (1984). Intonation patterns in child-directed speech: mother-father speech. Child Development 55, 1379–1385.Google Scholar
Weist, R. M., Pawlak, A. & Hoffman, K. (2009). Finiteness systems and lexical aspect in child Polish and English. Linguistics 47, 1321–1350.Google Scholar
Weist, R. M. & Zevenbergen, A. (2008). Autobiographical memory and past time reference. Language Learning and Development 4, 291–308.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D. & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief. Child Development 72, 655–684.Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Hollander, M. & Schult, C. A. (1996). Young children's understanding of thought bubbles and of thoughts. Child Development 67, 768–788.Google Scholar
Wheeler, M., Unbegaun, B., Falla, P. & Thompson, D. (2000). The Oxford Russian dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolff, P., Jeon, G.-H., Klettke, B. & Yu, L. (2010). Force creation and possible causers across languages. In Malt, B. & Wolff, P. (eds), Words and the mind: how words capture human experience, 183–223. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Yuan, S. & Fisher, C. (2009). ‘Really? She blicked the baby’: two-year olds learn combinatorial facts about verbs by listening. Psychological Science 20, 619–626.Google Scholar
Yuan, S., Fisher, C. & Snedeker, J. (2012). Counting the nouns: simple structural cues to verb meaning. Child Development 83, 1382–1399.Google Scholar