Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-28T05:44:48.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental evidence for agent–patient categories in child language*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Carl J. Angiolillo  and
Susan Goldin-Meadow
Carl J. Angiolillo
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Susan Goldin-Meadow
Affiliation:
University of Chicago
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Evidence provided by contrastive word order for agent and patient semantic categories in young children's spontaneous speech is confounded. Agents (effectors of the action) tend to be animate; patients (entities acted upon) tend to be inanimate. In an experiment designed to circumvent this confounding and to test young children's linguistic sensitivity to the role an entity plays in the action, nine children (2; 4·0–2; 11·5) described actions involving animate and inanimate entities playing both agent and patient roles. Four linguistic measures were observed. On every measure agents were treated differently from patients. For the most part, these agent–patient differences persisted when animate and inanimate entities were examined separately. These results provide evidence for the child's intention to talk about the role an entity plays, independent of its animateness, and also suggest that the child uses role-defined linguistic categories like AGENT and PATIENT to communicate these relational intentions.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , October 1982 , pp. 627 - 643
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1982

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

[*]

This work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant no. BNS 77-05990 to Goldin-Meadow. We thank Merryl Maleska and William Meadow for their help in reading this manuscript and the children, parents and staff of the Chiaravalle Montessori School in Evanston, Illinois, for their co-operation in the study. First author's address: Learning Disabilities Clinic, Children's Hospital Medical Center, 300 Longwood Avenue, Boston, Mass. 02115.

References

REFERENCES

Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1974). Talking, understanding, and thinking. In Schiefelbusch, R. & Lloyd, L. (eds), Language perspectives: acquisition, retardation, and intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lightbown, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. MonogrSocResChDevel 40.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Miller, P. & Hood, L. (1975). Variation and reduction as aspects of competence in language development. In Pick, A. (ed.), The 1974 Minnesota symposium on child psychology. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1973 a). Early syntactic development: a cross-linguistic study with special reference to Finnish. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1973 b). Structural relationships in children's utterances: syntactic or semantic? In Moore, T. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1976). Semantic factors in the acquisition of rules for word use and sentence construction. In. Morehead, D. & Morehead, A. (eds), Directions in normal and deficient child language. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1978). Words and sentences: uniformity, individual variation, and shifts over time in patterns of acquisition. In Minifie, F. & Lloyd, L. (eds), Communicative and cognitive abilities – early behavioral assessment. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Braine, M. & Wells, R. (1978). Case-like categories in children: the actor and some related categories. CogPsychol 10. 100–22.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1970). The first sentences of child and chimpanzee. In Psycholinguistics. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R., Cazden, C. & Bellugi, U. (1969). The child's grammar from I to III. In Hill, J. (ed.), The 1967 Minnesota symposium on child psychology. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
Chapman, R. & Miller, J. (1975). Word order in early two and three word utterances: does production precede comprehension? JSHR 18. 355–71.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. & de Villiers, P. (1973). Development of the use of word order incomprehension. JPsycholingRes 2. 331–41.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. & de Villiers, P. (1974). Competence and performance in child language: are children really competent to judge? JChLang 1. 11–22.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (1979). Structure in a manual communication system developed without a conventional language model: language without a helping hand. In Whitaker, H. & Whitaker, H. (eds), Studies in Neurolinguistics, Vol. 4. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. & Smith, J. (1976). The structure of communication in early language development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. & Zukow, P. (1978). Why do children say what they say when they say it?: an experimental approach to the psychogenesis of presupposition. In Nelson, K. (ed.), Children's language. New York: Gardner Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Howe, C. (1976). The meaning of two-word utterances in the speech of young children. JChLang 3. 29–47.Google Scholar
Howe, C. (1977). Review of Greenfield & Smith (1976). JChLang 4. 479–83.Google Scholar
Lange, S. & Larsson, K. (1973). Syntactical development of a Swedish girl Embla, between 20 and 42 months of age, I: Age 20–25 months, Report No. 1, Project Child Language, Syntax. Institutionen for nordiska sprak, Stockholms Universitet.Google Scholar
Limber, J. (1976). Unravelling competence, performance and pragmatics in the speech of young children. JChLang 3. 309–18.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1966). The creation of language by children. In Lyons, J. & Wales, R. (eds), Psycholinguistic papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenberg, R. (1979). Two stages in the acquisition of SVO word order. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development,San Francisco.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. (1971). Production of utterances and language acquisition. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. (1977). The role of cognitive development and linguistic input in language acquisition. JChLang 4. 153–69.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1970). Universals of grammatical development in children. In d'Arcais, G. Flores & Levelt, W. (eds), Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.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
Wall, C. (1974). Predication: a study of its development. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Weisenberger, J. (1976). A choice of words: two-year-old speech from a situational point of view. JChLang 3. 275–81.Google Scholar