Advertisement

Hidden Meanings: The Role of Covert Conceptual Structures in Children’s Development of Language

  • Melissa Bowerman

Abstract

Language has long been esteemed as the crowning achievement of the human symbolic capacity. In consequence, the processes by which children learn to talk intrigue not only scholars who are interested primarily in language itself but also those concerned with more general questions about how children come to engage in symbolic activities.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Lexical Item Communicative Intention Child Language Speech Error 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bates, E., Camaioni, L. and Volterra, V., 1975, The acquisition of performatives prior to speech, Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 21: 205–226.Google Scholar
  2. Binnick, R. I., 1971, Studies in the derivation of predicative structures, Papers in Linguistics, 3, nrs. 2 and 3.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, L., 1970, “Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars”, Cambridge, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowerman, M., 1973, “Early syntactic development: A cross-linguistic study, with special reference to Finnish”, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bowerman, M., 1976, Semantic factors in the acquisition of rules for word use and sentence construction. In: D. M. Morehead & A. E. Morehead (Eds.), “Normal and Deficient Child Language”, Baltimore, University Park Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bowerman, M., 1977, The acquisition of rules governing “possible lexical items”: Evidence from spontaneous speech errors. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, Stanford University, Dept. of Linguistics, 13: 148–156.Google Scholar
  7. Bowerman, M., 1978, Systematizing semantic knowledge: Changes over time in the child’s organization of word meaning. Child Development, 49: 977–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bowerman, M., 1980, The structure and origin of semantic categories in the language-learning child. In: M. L. Foster & S. H. Brandes (Eds.), “Symbol as sense: New approaches to the analysis of meaning”, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bowerman, M., 1981, The child’s expression of meaning: Expanding relationships among lexicon, syntax, and morphology. In: H. Winitz (Ed.), “Native language and foreign language acquisition”, New York, The New York Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  10. Bowerman, M., 1982a, Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs. Quaderni di Semantica, 3: 5–66.Google Scholar
  11. Bowerman, M., 1982b, Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In: L. Gleitman and E. Wanner (Eds.), “Language acquisition: The state of the art”, Cambridge, England, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bowerman, M., 1982c, Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisition from children’s late speech errors. In; S. Strauss (Ed.), “U-shaped behavioral growth”, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Braine, M. D. S., 1976, Children’s first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 41 (1), serial nr. 164.Google Scholar
  14. Brown, R., 1973, “A first language: The early stages”, Cambridge, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clark, E. V., 1973, What’s in a word? On the child’s acquisition of semantics in his first language. In: T. E. Moore (Ed.), “Cognitive development and the acquisition of language”, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clark, E. V., 1976, Universal categories: On the semantics of classifiers and children’s early word meanings. In: A. Juilland (Ed.), “Linguistic studies presented to Joseph Greenberg”, Saratoga, Calif., Anma Libri.Google Scholar
  17. Clark, H. H. and Clark, E. V., 1977, “Psychology and language”, New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
  18. Fillmore, C., 1968, The case for case. In: E. Bach & R. T. Harms (Eds.), “Universals in linguistic theory”, New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  19. Fillmore, C., 1971, Some problems for case grammar. In: R. J. O’Brien (Ed.), “Georgetown University Round Table on languages and linguistics, 1971”, Washington D.C., Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Fromkin, V., 1971, The non-anomalous nature of anomalous utterances. Language, 47: 27–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Golinkoff, R. M., 1981, The case for semantic relations: Evidence from the verbal and nonverbal domains. Journal of Child Language, 8: 413–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackendoff, R., 1978, Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure. In: M. Halle, J. Bresnan & G. A. Miller (Eds.), “Linguistic theory and psychological reality”, Cambridge, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M., 1980, “Metaphors we live by”, Chicago, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Laver, J. D. M., 1973, The detection and correction of slips of the tongue. In: V. A. Fromkin (Ed.), “Speech errors as linguistic evidence”, The Hague, Mouton.Google Scholar
  25. Talmy, L., 1976, Semantic causative types. In: M. Shibatani (Ed.), “Syntax and semantics, Vol. 6: The grammar of causative constructions”, New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Whorf, B. L., 1956, “Language, thought, and reality”, (Ed. by J. B. Carroll), Cambridge, MIT Press; New York, John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  27. Zwicky, A. M., 1968, Naturalness arguments in syntax. Papers of the Chicago Linguistic Society, 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melissa Bowerman
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of KansasUSA
  2. 2.Max-Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics NijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations