Cover not available
Article In:
Language, Interaction and Acquisition
Vol. 15:2 (2024) ► pp.189–214

Voluntary motion events in Uyghur child language

 | University of Cambridge
A key question in child language research is the relative impact of language-universal and language-specific factors during acquisition, and a prolific domain in addressing it has been the expression of motion events. This study examines motion events descriptions by 96 children and 24 adult speakers of Uyghur, an under-studied Turkic language. The data were analysed for lexicalisation pattern, semantic density and syntactic packaging. Findings suggest that Uyghur children’s acquisition of motion expressions is shaped by both language-universal (e.g. difficulty with expressing events involving boundary crossing) and language-specific factors (e.g. early sensitivity to adult lexicalisation pattern, use of typologically congruent syntactic packaging strategies). Interestingly, while children reached adult levels for measures of lexicalisation pattern and syntactic packaging, they fell short in terms of semantic density. We propose that these measures may tap into different aspects of linguistic knowledge, which may be on different developmental timelines.
Keywords: motion event expression, uyghur, child language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Motion event expression across languages
  • 3.Motion event expressions in child language
  • 4.Motion event expressions in Uyghur
  • 5.Exploring motion event expressions in Uyghur child language
  • 6.The study
    • 6.1Participants
    • 6.2Materials and procedure
    • 6.3Coding
    • 6.4Analysis
  • 7.Results
    • 7.1Information in the VERB locus
    • 7.2Information in the OTH locus
    • 7.3Semantic density
    • 7.4Syntactic packaging
    • 7.5Summary of results
  • 8.Discussion
  • 9.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations used in this paper are
  • Author queries
  • References
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
References (51)
References
Allen, S., Özyürek, A., Kita, S., Brown, A., Furman, R., & Ishizuka, T. (2007). Language-specific and universal influences in children’s syntactic packaging of Manner and Path: a comparison of English, Japanese, and Turkish. Cognition, 102 (1), 16–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aske, J. (1989). Path predicates in English and Spanish: A closer look. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, University of California, Berkeley.
Boeschoten, H. (2022). Chaghatay. In L. Johanson & É. Á. Csato (Eds.), The Turkic Languages (pp. 160–173). Routledge.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M., & Choi, S. (2003). Space under construction: Language-specific spatial categorization in first language acquisition. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (Eds.), Language in mind: Advances in the study of language and thought (pp. 387–427). The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bunger, A., Trueswell, J., & Papafragou, A. (2012). The relation between event apprehension and utterance formulation in children: evidence from linguistic omissions. Cognition, 122 1, 135–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W., Barðdal, J., Hollmann, W., Sotirova, V., & Taoka, C. (2010). Revising Talmy’s typological classification of complex event constructions. In H. C. Boas (Ed.), Contrastive studies in construction grammar (pp. 201–235). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delage, A., & Frauenfelder, U. (2019). Syntax and Working Memory in typically-developing children. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 10 (2), 141–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Furman-Turanli, R. (2012). Caused motion events in Turkish: Verbal and gestural representation in adults and children. LOT.Google Scholar
Furman, R., Küntay, A. C., & Özyürek, A. (2014). Early language-specificity of children’s event encoding in speech and gesture: evidence from caused motion in Turkish. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 5 1, 620–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerwien, J., & von Stutterheim, C. (2021). Describing motion events. In A. H. Juker & H. Hausendorf (Eds.), Pragmatics of Space (pp.153–179). Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
(2022). Conceptual Blending Across Ontological Domains–References to Time and Space in Motion Events by Tunisian Arabic Speakers of L2 German. Frontiers in Communication. 71:856805. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goschler, J., & Stefanowitsch, A. (Eds.), (2013). Variation and change in the encoding of motion events. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harr, A.-K. (2012). Language-specific factors in first language acquisition: The expression of motion events in French and German. Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harr, A.-K., & Hickmann, M. (2013). How German and French children express voluntary motion. In C. Paradis, J. Hudson & U. Magnusson (Eds.), The Construal of Spatial Meaning: Windows into Conceptual Space (pp. 194–213). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendriks, H., Hickmann, M., & Pastorino-Campos, C. (2021). Running or crossing? Children’s expression of voluntary motion in English, German, and French. Journal of Child Language, 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M. (2007). Static and dynamic location in French: Developmental and cross-linguistic perspectives. In M. Aurnague, M. Hickmann & L. Vieu (Eds.), The Categorisation of Spatial Entities in Language and Cognition (pp. 205–231). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M., Taranne, P., & Bonnet, P. (2009). Motion in first language acquisition: Manner and Path in French and English child language. Journal of Child Language, 4 1, 705–741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hickmann, M., Hendriks, H., & Harr, A. (2018). Caused motion across child languages: a comparison of English, German and French. Journal of Child Language, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, Iraide. (2009). Path salience in motion events. In J. Guo, E. Lieven, N. Budwig, S. Ervin-Tripp, K. Nakamura & Ş. Özčalışkan (Eds.), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: Research in the tradition of Dan Isaac Slobin (pp. 403–414). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (1983). Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ji, Y., Hendriks, H., & Hickmann, M. (2011). Children’s expression of voluntary motion events in English and Chinese. Journal of Foreign Languages, 4 1, 1–20.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. (1995). On Turkic converb clauses. In M. Haspelmath & E. König (Eds.), Converbs in cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 313–348). Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kidd, E., & Garcia, R. (2022). How diverse is child language acquisition research? First Language, 42 (6), 703–735. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lambert, M., von Stutterheim, C., Carroll, M., & Gerwien, J. (2022). Under the surface: A survey of principles of language use in advanced L2 speakers. Language, Interaction and Acquisition, 13 (1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. (1981). The speaker’s linearization problem. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 295 1, 305–315.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, W. (2020). Variable motion event encoding within languages and language types: a usage-based perspective. Language and Cognition, 1–32.Google Scholar
Lewandowski, W., & J. Mateu. (2020). Motion events again: Delimiting constructional patterns. Lingua, 247 1, 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ma, R. (2012). The development of minority education and the practice of bilingual education in Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. In G. H. Beckett & G. A. Postiglione (Eds.), China’s Assimilationist Policy: The impact on indigenous/minority literacy and social harmony (pp. 33–74). Routledge.Google Scholar
Montero-Melis, G. (2021). Consistency in motion event encoding across languages. Frontiers in Psychology, 12 1, 625153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş. (2015). Ways of crossing a spatial boundary in typologically distinct languages. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36 1, 485–508. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş., & Emerson, S. N. (2016). Learning to think, talk, and gesture about motion in language-specific ways: Insights from Turkish. In: B. Haznedar & N. Ketrez (Eds.), Trends in Language Acquisition Research. The Acquisition of Turkish in Childhood (pp. 177–191). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Özçalışkan, Ş., & Slobin, D. (1999). Learning how to search for the frog: Expression of manner of motion in English, Spanish, and Turkish. In A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield & C. Tano (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd annual Boston University conference on language development (pp. 541–552). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Özyürek, A., Kita, A., Allen, S., & Brown, A. (2008). Development of cross-linguistic variation in speech and gesture: Motion events in English and Turkish. Developmental Psychology, 2008, 44 (4), 1040–1054. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pruden, S. M., Roseberry, S., Göksun, T., Hirsh-Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Infant categorization of path relations during dynamic events. Child development, 84 (1), 331–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulverman, R., Song, L., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Pruden, S. M., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2013). Preverbal infants’ attention to manner and path- Foundations for learning relational terms. Child Development, 84 (1), 241–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [URL]
Ragagnin, E. (2016). Uyghur Language. In Sybesma, R., Behr, W., Gu, Y., Handel, Z., Huang, J. & Myers, J. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Chinese Language and Linguistics, Vol. 41, 476–482.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1996). From “thought and language” to “thinking for speaking”. In J. Gumperz & S. Levinson (Eds.), Rethinking linguistic relativity (pp. 70–96). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(2004). The many ways to search for a frog: Linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In S. Strömqvist & L. Verhoven (Eds.), Relating events in narrative: Typological and contextual perspectives (pp. 219–257). Psychology Press.Google Scholar
(2006). What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann & S. Robert (Eds.), Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories (pp. 59–81). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Capturing what remains: A commentary on Kidd and Garcia (2022). First Language, 42 (6), 818–822. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D., & Hoiting, N. (1994). Reference to movement in spoken and signed languages: Typological considerations. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 1 1, 487–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D., Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I., Kopecka, A., & Majid, A. (2014). Manners of human gait: a crosslinguistic event-naming study. Cognitive Linguistics, 25 (4): 701–741. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Typology and process in concept structuring. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tusun, A. (2022). Motion events in Modern Uyghur narrative discourse. In C. Shei & S. Li (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Asian Linguistics (pp.93–109). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2023). Uyghur–Chinese early successive adult bilinguals’ construal of caused motion events. Language and Cognition, 1–26, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tusun, A., & Hendriks, H. (2019). Voluntary motion events in Uyghur: A typological perspective. Lingua, 226 1, 69–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2022). Caused motion expressions in Modern Uyghur: A typological perspective. Linguistics, 60 (5), 1663–1705. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tusun, A., Wang, Y. & Abula, A. (2024). Moving in L2 Chinese from childhood to adulthood: Developmental and crosslinguistic factors in bilingual event construal. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
von Stutterheim, C., Lambert, M., & Gerwien, J. (2021). Limitations of the role of frequency in L2 acquisition. Language and Cognition, 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yakup, A. (2020). Uyghur and Uzbek, the Southeastern Turkic languages. In M. M. Robbeets & A. Savelyev (Eds.), The Oxford guide to the transeuroasian languages (pp. 411–429). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar