Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T14:06:50.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The comprehension of semantic relations by two-year-olds: an exploratory study*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Roberta Corrigan  and
Cyndie Odya-Weis
Roberta Corrigan
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Cyndie Odya-Weis
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A token-placement technique was used to investigate the influence of actor and patient animacy in determining which sentences 48 2-year-olds viewed as prototypical. After training on one of three sentence types that varied in the animacy/inanimacy of actors and patients, all children were tested for generalization on pictures with different animacy/inanimacy patterns. While most children placed actor tokens on generalization sentences correctly, regardless of animacy, half responded randomly in patient token placement. Type of training only affected children who, overall, were random responders. The results suggest that the actor category is usually acquired first for prototypical sentences with animate actors and inanimate patients.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 47 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

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

Bates, E. & MacWhinney, B. (1982). Functionalism and grammatical categories. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bates, E., McNew, S., MacWhinney, B., Devescovi, A. & Smith, S. (1982). Functional constraints on sentence processing: a cross-linguistic study. Cognition 11. 245–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, E., MacWhinney, B., Caselli, C., Devescovi, A., Natale, F. & Venza, V. (1984). A cross-linguistic study of the development of sentence interpretation strategies. ChDev 55. 341–54.Google ScholarPubMed
Bowerman, M. (1978). Semantic and syntactic development. A review of what, when, and how in language acquisition. In Schiefelbusch, R. (ed.), Bases of language intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. & Wells, J. (1978). Case-like categories in children: the actor and some related categories. CogPsychol 10. 100–22.Google Scholar
Bridges, A. (in press). Preschool children's comprehension of agency. JChLangGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. (1978). Comprehension strategies in children. In Kavanaugh, J. & Strange, W. (eds), Speech and language in the laboratory school and clinic. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. & Kohn, L. (1977). Comprehension strategies in two and three year olds: animate agents or probable events? PRCLD 13. 22–9.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. & Miller, J. (1975). Word order in early two and three word utterances: does production precede comprehension? JSHR 18. 355–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrigan, R. (1978). Language development as related to stage 6 object permanence development. JChLang 5. 173–89.Google Scholar
Corrigan, R. (1982 a). The control of animate and inanimate components in pretend play and language. ChDev 53. 343–53.Google Scholar
Corrigan, R. (1982 b). Methodological issues in language acquisition research with very young children. DevRev 2. 162–88.Google Scholar
De Villiers, J. (1980). The process of rule learning in child speech: a new look. In Nelson, K. (ed.), Children's language. Vol. 2. New York: Gardner Press.Google Scholar
Dewart, M. H. (1979). Children's hypotheses about the animacy of actor and object nouns. BJPsychol 70. 525–30.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1968). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fritz, J. & Suci, G. (1977). Semantic comprehension of the action–role relationship in early linguistic infants. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, New Orleans.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., Seligman, M. & Gelman, R. (1976). Language in the two year old. Cognition 4. 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R. (1975). Semantic development in infants: the concept of agent and recipient. MPQ 21. 181–93.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. (1981). The case for semantic relations: evidence from verbal and nonverbal domains. JChLang 8. 413–37.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. & Kerr, L. (1978). Infants' perceptions of semantically defined action role changes in filmed events. MPQ 24. 53–61.Google Scholar
Hardy, J. & Braine, H. (1981). Categories that bridge between meaning and syntax in four year olds. In Deutsch, W. (ed.), The child's construction of language. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Howe, C. (1976). The meanings of two-word utterances in the speech of young children. JChLang 3. 20–48.Google Scholar
Howe, C. (1981). Interpretive analysis and role semantics: a ten-year mésalliance? JChLang 8. 439–56.Google Scholar
Lempert, H. (in press). Preschool children's sentence comprehension: strategies with respect to animacy. JChLang 12. 79–83.Google Scholar
Lempert, H. & Kinsbourne, M. (1980). Preschool children's sentence comprehension: strategies with respect to word order. JChLang 7. 371–80.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Bates, E. & Kliegl, R. (in press). Cue validity and sentence interpretation in English, German and Italian. JVLVB 23. 127–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monogr.Soc.Res.Ch.Devel. 138, No. 149.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. & Mervis, C. (1975). Family resemblances: studies in the internal structure of categories. CogPsychol 7. 573–605.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. (1982). Steps to language: toward a theory of native language acquisition. Hillsdale, N. J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1981). The origin of grammatical encoding of events. In Deutsch, W. (ed.), The child's construction of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. & Bever, T. (1982). Children use canonical sentence schemas: a cross-linguistic study of word order and inflections. Cognition 12. 229–65.Google Scholar