Abstract
The study investigates semantic development of sublexically modal verbs of transfer, throw and send, in English-speaking children. For adults, sublexical modality of these verbs can be seen in the fact that the subevent of transfer of the object to the recipient need not take place in the actual world, e.g. Mary sent/threw a book to John does not entail a successful transfer of the book to John. Yet in two experiments (Experiment 1: 3–4 year-olds, N = 59; Experiment 2: 3–6 year olds, N = 120) young English-speaking children often misinterpreted Mary sent a book to John as entailing successful transfer. We show that such non-adultlike interpretations were present despite the children’s conceptual ability to entertain possible worlds. We propose that children may initially construct verb meanings on the basis of actual events, and later adjust them to include a modal component.
Funding source: Royal Society
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Gaetano Fiorin, Norman Freeman, Takuya Goro, Bruce Hood, Jeff Lidz, Fabienne Martin, Colin Phillips, Liina Pylkkänen, Brent Strickland, Kristen Syrett, the audience of BUCLD 2010 for their input at various stages of the project. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for their detailed and constructive suggestions. Finally, we are grateful to Mark Gibson and Alice Mills for their help with data collection and Hayley Gains and Alesi Rowland for editing. Nina Kazanina gratefully acknowledges the Royal Society grant 2558 and the International Laboratory of Social Neurobiology ICN HSE RF Government grant 075-15-2019-1930.
Appendix A.Throw- and send- scenarios and test sentences from the following judgement task from Experiment 1. “IR” refers to the intended recipient, “AR” to the actual recipient.
Throw-story
Narrator: This is a story about three friends called Jane, Tom and Woolly the Sheep. As the weather is so nice today, they’ve all come to the park to run around and play some games. First of all Tom thinks that he’d like to start by playing a ball game.
Tom: (holding a ball) “Are you ready Woolly? The ball’s coming your way!” |
Woolly: “Yes, Tom, I’m ready for the ball!” |
Narrator: Tom chucks the ball into the air and it lands perfectly into Woolly’s hands.
Woolly: “I got it, I got it! Well done, Tom!” |
Narrator: Next, Jane thinks that she’d like to play a game, so she calls across to Woolly too.
Jane: (holding a Frisbee) “Are you ready Woolly? The Frisbee’s coming your way!” |
Woolly: “Yes, Jane, I’m ready for the Frisbee!” |
Narrator: Jane chucks the Frisbee into the air in the direction of Woolly. The Frisbee is flying towards Woolly when suddenly a gust of wind blows it off the path and straight to Tom.
Tom: (holding a Frisbee) “Oh, what a surprise!” |
Simple sentence: | Jane threw the Frisbee to Woolly. | (IR) | OR |
Jane threw the Frisbee to Tom. | (AR) | ||
Want-to question: | Who did Jane want to throw the Frisbee to? |
Send-story.
Narrator: This is a story about three friends: Mr. Elephant, Mrs. Duck and Rusty the Dog. Each of them lives in a house and has a mailbox in front of the house. It is Rusty the Dog’s birthday tomorrow and Mrs. Duck wants to give him a present. |
Mrs. Duck: It’s Rusty the Dog’s birthday tomorrow. I must post him a present. I will post him this nice new collar now. (Puts the collar into the mailbox.) |
Narrator: Their friend, Mr. Elephant also wants to give Rusty the Dog a present.
Mr. Elephant: I know it is Rusty’s birthday tomorrow. I’ll give him these nice chocolates, he’ll like them. I’ll put them in the post now. (Puts the chocolates into the mailbox.) |
Narrator: It’s night time.
A night sky covers the village, and the child can hear all the animals snoring. The narrator says that mailman delivers the mail. When morning comes, the village is revealed again.
Narrator: The next day, all three friends went to check their mailboxes.
Mrs. Duck: (walks to her mailbox) Oh, good! My morning paper has arrived. I’ll read that over breakfast. |
Rusty Dog: (walks to his mailbox) Yay! It’s my birthday! Let’s see what I received in the post. Oh good, I have my morning paper and I have also been sent chocolates from Mr. Elephant! |
Mr. Elephant:(walks to his mailbox) There’s my morning paper. And …what’s this? A new dog collar?! I don’t even wear collars. There must have been a mistake at the post office. |
Simple-sentence: | Mrs Duck sent the collar to Rusty the Dog. | (IR) | OR |
Mrs Duck sent the collar to Mr Elephant. | (AR) | ||
Want-to question: | Who did Mrs Duck want to send the collar to? |
Appendix B.Throw- and send- scenarios and test sentences from the following judgement task from Experiment 2. ‘IR’ refers to the intended recipient, ‘AR’ to the actual recipient.
Throw-story
Narrator: This is a story about three friends called Jane, Tom and Woolly the Sheep. As the weather is so nice today, they’ve all come to the park to run around and play some games. First of all Tom thinks that he’d like to start by playing a ball game.
Tom: (holding a ball) “Are you ready Woolly? The ball’s coming your way!” |
Woolly: “Yes, Tom, I’m ready for the ball!” |
Narrator: Tom chucks the ball into the air and it lands perfectly into Woolly’s hands.
Woolly: “I got it, I got it! Well done, Tom!” |
Narrator: Next Jane thinks that she’d like to play a game, so she calls across to Woolly too.
Jane: (holding a Frisbee) “Are you ready Woolly? The Frisbee’s coming your way!” |
Woolly: “Yes, Jane, I’m ready for the Frisbee!” |
Narrator: So Jane chucks the Frisbee into the air in the direction of Woolly when suddenly.
– oh no! A big gust of wind blows the Frisbee all the way into the trees instead. What a disaster!
Simple sentence: | Jane threw the Frisbee to Woolly. | (IR) | OR |
Jane threw the Frisbee to the trees. | (AR) | ||
Want-to question: | Who did Jane want to throw the Frisbee to? |
Send-story
Narrator: This is a story about three friends: Mr. Elephant, Mrs. Duck and Rusty the Dog. Each of them lives in a house in a village and has a mailbox in front of the house. The village also has a small shop. It is Rusty the Dog’s birthday tomorrow and Mrs. Duck wants to give him a present.
Mrs.Duck: | “I’ve got to get Rusty something that he’ll really like. I know! This lovely new blue collar will be perfect! I’ll take it to the post office, and Rusty the dog will get it in the morning.” (Puts the collar into the mailbox.) |
Narrator: Their friend Mr Elephant also wants to give Rusty the dog a present for his birthday.
Mr. Elephant: | “I know that it’s Rusty’s birthday tomorrow – I’ve got to get him something that he’ll really like. I know! His favourite bar of chocolate! I’ll take it to the post office, and Rusty the dog will get it in the morning.” (Puts the chocolate into the mailbox.) |
Narrator: It’s night time.
A night sky covers the village, and the child can hear all the animals snoring. The narrator says that mailman delivers the mail. When morning comes, the village is revealed again.
Narrator: The sun has risen, the birds are singing, and Rusty the dog has just woken up.
Rusty Dog: | “Hooray – it’s finally my birthday! I’m going to check my post box and see if anything has arrived for me in the post. Oh my goodness, look at that! It’s my favourite bar of chocolate – that must be from Mr. Elephant. How kind of him. |
Narrator: But what’s that outside the village shop? It’s the collar that Mrs. Duck posted for Rusty the Dog! What’s that doing there? How bizarre!
Simple-sentence: | Mrs. Duck sent the collar to Rusty the Dog. | (IR) | OR |
Mrs. Duck sent the collar to the village shop. (AR) | |||
Want-to question: | Who did Mrs. Duck want to send the collar to? |
References
Akhtar, Nameera & Michael Tomasello. 1997. Young children’s productivity with word order and verb morphology. Developmental Psychology 33(6). 952–965. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.952.10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.952Search in Google Scholar
Baldwin, Dare A. & Jodie A. Baird. 2001. Discerning intentions in dynamic human action. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5(4). 171–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01615–6.10.1016/S1364-6613(00)01615-6Search in Google Scholar
Bartsch, Karen & Henry M. Wellman. 1995. Children talk about the mind. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Buresh, Jennifer S. & Amanda L. Woodward. 2007. Infants track action goals within and across agents. Cognition 104(2), 287–314. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.001.10.1016/j.cognition.2006.07.001Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, Aimee L. & Michael Tomasello. 2001. The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied PsychoLinguistics 22. 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0142716401002065.10.1017/S0142716401002065Search in Google Scholar
Demirdache, Hamida & Fabienne Martin. 2015. Agent control on non-culminating events. In Elisa Barrajón López, José Luis Cifuentes Honrubia & Susana Rodríquez Rosique (eds.), Verb classes and aspect, 185–217. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/ivitra.9.09demSearch in Google Scholar
Dodson, Kelly & Michael Tomasello 1998. Acquiring transitive construction in English: The role of animacy and pronouns. Journal of Child Language 25. 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000998003535.10.1017/S0305000998003535Search in Google Scholar
de Villiers, Jill G. 2005. Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In Janet Astington & Jodie Baird (eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195159912.003.0010Search in Google Scholar
Gleitman, Lila. 1990. The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1(1). 3–55. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327817la0101_2.10.1093/oso/9780199828098.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1992. The inherent semantics of argument structure: The case of the English ditransitive construction. Cognitive Linguistics 31. 37–74. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37.10.1515/cogl.1992.3.1.37Search in Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. U. of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2003. Possession and the double object construction. In Pierre Pica & Johan Rooryck (eds.), The yearbook of linguistic variation 2, 29–68. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/livy.2.04harSearch in Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray S. 1990. Semantic structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Kazanina, Nina & Colin Phillips. 2007. A developmental perspective on the imperfective paradox. Cognition 105(1). 65–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.006.10.1016/j.cognition.2006.09.006Search in Google Scholar
Koenig, Jean-Pierre & Anthony R. Davis. 2001. Sublexical modality and the structure of lexical semantic representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 24(1). 71–124. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1005616002948.10.1023/A:1005616002948Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1981. The notional category of modality. In Hans J. Eikmeyer & Hannes Rieser (eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics, 38–74. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 1991. Modality. In Arnim von Stechow & Dieter Wunderlich (eds.), Semantik: Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung, 639–650. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110126969.7.639Search in Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lohmann, Heidemarie & Michael Tomasello. 2003. The role of language development of false belief understanding: A training study. Child Development 74(4). 1130–1144. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00597.10.1111/1467-8624.00597Search in Google Scholar
Markman, Ellen M. 1994. Constraints on word meaning in early language acquisition. Lingua 92. 199–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(94)90342-5.10.1016/0024-3841(94)90342-5Search in Google Scholar
Martin, Fabienne & Florian Schäfer. 2017. Sublexical modality in defeasible causative verbs. In Ana Arregu, María Luisa Rivero Romero & Andrés Salanova (eds.), Modality across syntactic categories. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198718208.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Meltzoff, Andrew N. 1995. Understanding the intentions of others: Re-enactment of intended acts by 18-month-old children. Developmental Psychology 31(5). 838–850. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.838.10.1037/0012-1649.31.5.838Search in Google Scholar
Moll, Henrike & Michael Tomasello. 2006. Level 1 perspective-taking at 24 months of age. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 24 603–613. https://doi.org/10.1348/026151005X55370.10.1348/026151005X55370Search in Google Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Öztürk, Özge & Anna Papafragou. 2015. The acquisition of epistemic modality: From semantic meaning to pragmatic interpretation. Language Learning and Development 11. 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/15475441.2014.905169.10.1080/15475441.2014.905169Search in Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna. 1998. The acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic representation. Mind & Language 13. 370–399. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0017.00082.10.1111/1468-0017.00082Search in Google Scholar
Perner, Josef, Manuel Sprung, Petra Zauner & Hubert Haider. 2003. Want that is understood well before say that, think that, and false belief: A test of de Villier’s linguistic determinism on German-speaking children. Child Development 74. 179–188. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00529.10.1111/1467-8624.t01-1-00529Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka & Beth Levin. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44. 129–116. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226707004975.10.1017/S0022226707004975Search in Google Scholar
Snyder, William & Karin Stromswold. 1997. The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 281–317. https://doi.org/10.2307/4178978.Search in Google Scholar
Sun, Hao & Jean-Pierre Koenig. 2017. There are more than a few argument structure constructions. In Julia Nee, Margaret Cychosz, Dmetri Hayes, Tyler Lau & Emily Remirez (eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 43), vol. 1, 317–335. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society.Search in Google Scholar
Van Valin, Robert & David, Wilkins. 1996. The case for “effector”: Case roles, agents, and agency revisited. In Masayoshi Shibatani & Sandra Thompson (eds.), Grammatical constructions, 289–322. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Viau, Joshua. 2006. Give = CAUSE + HAVE / GO: Evidence for early semantic decomposition of dative verbs in English child corpora. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Cambridge, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar
Viau, Joshua. 2007. Possession and spatial motion in the acquisition of ditransitives. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Vouloumanos, Athena, Kristine H. Onishi & Amanda Pogue. 2012. Twelve-month-old infants recognize that speech can communicate unobservable intentions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109(32). 12933–12937. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1121057109.10.1073/pnas.1121057109Search in Google Scholar
Wason, Peter C. 1961. Responses to affirmative negative binary statements. British Journal of Psychology 52. 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1961.tb00775.x.10.1111/j.2044-8295.1961.tb00775.xSearch in Google Scholar
Wellman, Henry M., David Cross & Julanne Watson. 2001. Meta-analysis of theory of mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development 72. 655–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304.10.1111/1467-8624.00304Search in Google Scholar
Wimmer, Heinz & Josef Perner. 1983. Beliefs about beliefs: Representation and constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children’s understanding of deception. Cognition 13. 103–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5.10.1016/0010-0277(83)90004-5Search in Google Scholar
Yu, Chen & Linda B. Smith. 2007. Rapid word learning under uncertainty via cross-situational statistics. Psychological Science 18(5). 414–420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01915.x.10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01915.xSearch in Google Scholar
Zelazo, Philip D., Douglas Frye & Tanja Rapus. 1996. An age-related dissociation between knowing rules and using them. Cognitive Development 11(1). 37–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0885-2014(96)90027-1.10.1016/S0885-2014(96)90027-1Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
