Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

3 results

  • More negative findings for positive prepositions*
  • G. G. Abkarian
  • Journal: Journal of Child Language / Volume 10 / Issue 2 / June 1983
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 26 September 2008, pp. 415-429
  • Print publication: June 1983
  • View abstract

    Three- and four-year-old children were tested on their comprehension of the locative prepositions in front of, in back of, ahead of, and behind. Results demonstrated that those prepositions characterized as positive by H. Clark (1973) were, contrary to theoretical predictions, comprehended more poorly than their ostensibly negative counterparts. Discussion of the possible reasons for these findings is included.

  • Dialectic use of causative verbs: You can't ‘take’ it with you
  • G. G. Abkarian
  • Journal: Applied Psycholinguistics / Volume 4 / Issue 1 / March 1983
  • Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 November 2008, pp. 47-67
  • Print publication: March 1983
  • View abstract

    Forty-eight adult subjects from the northeastern United States were evaluated for their productive use of the causative verbs bring and take. Results revealed that approximately one-fourth of the subjects employed the terms contrastively and consistent with standard use whereas one-third employed a bring over-extension strategy seeming to impute a ‘carry’ meaning to the term. The remaining subjects, although evidencing some take use. did not routinely employ standard, deictically based source or goal distinctions. The validity of the findings was tested in two additional experiments. The nature of these alternative productive strategies and their implications are discussed.