Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T14:32:07.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acquisition of bi-transitive sentences: pre-linguistic determinants of language acquisition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Charles E. Osgood  and
Annette M. Zehler
Charles E. Osgood
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Annette M. Zehler
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The present study concerned the acquisition of double-object, bi-transitive sentences which can be expressed in either BASIC (S-V-DO-to-IO) or TRANSFORM (S-V-IO-DO) constructions. Three-, four-, and five-year-old subjects were tested on comprehension and production of these two alternative forms, investigating the distribution of Basic and Transform sentences in acquisition, and also the effect of prototypicality of the described event on performance. The results showed that the Basic structure was earlier in acquisition, with the Transform appearing later and, at first, only in descriptions of the more prototypical events. Overall, the more prototypical an event, the more competent the children were in comprehension and production and the better able they were to handle the more difficult Transform sentences. Decreased prototypicality resulted in lower performance and greater dependence on the Basic as opposed to the Transform bi-transitives. The findings are discussed within the framework of a general theory of language performance being developed by the first author.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , June 1981 , pp. 367 - 383
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Bever, T. G. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.). Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: a critique of language statistics in psychological research. JVLVB 12. 335–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromer, R. F. (1975). An experimental investigation of a putative linguistic universal: marking and the indirect object. JExpChPsych 20. 73–80.Google Scholar
Fraser, C., Bellugi, U. & Brown, R. (1963). Control of grammar in imitation, comprehension, and production. JVLVB 2. 121–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, R. A. & Rosenbaum, P. S. (1968). English transformational grammar. Waltham: Blaisdell.Google Scholar
Lee, L. (1969). Northwestern syntax screening test. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D., Yukawa, R. & McNeill, N. B. (1971). The acquisition of direct and indirect objects in Japanese. ChDev 42. 237–49.Google Scholar
Osgood, C. E. (1980). Lectures on language performance. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osgood, C. E. & Tanz, C. (1977). Will the real direct object in bitransitive sentences please stand up ? In Juilland, A. (ed.), Linguistic studies offered to Joseph Greenberg. Saratoga: Anma Libri.Google Scholar
Sedlak, P. A. S. (1975). Direct/indirect object word order: a cross-linguistic analysis. Working papers on language universals 18. Language Universals Project, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Waryas, C. L. & Stremel, K. (1974). On the preferred form of the double object construction. JPsycholingRes 3. 271–80.Google Scholar