Cover not available
Part of
Ditransitives in Germanic Languages: Synchronic and diachronic aspects
Edited by Eva Zehentner, Melanie Röthlisberger and Timothy Colleman
[Studies in Germanic Linguistics 7] 2023
► pp. 404–411

Acquiring feature-based ordering preferences in English ditransitives

The system of features affecting adults’ dative construction choices in English is well established in recent research. Less is known about how children might acquire this system. The two experiments in this chapter add data to this question. They map out the effects of length, animacy, and grammatical number on these choices in first language acquisition. The first experiment combines an act-out task with eye-tracking and finds that children as young as four years of age expect the animate-before-inanimate order. The second experiment asks the same participants to reproduce ditransitive sentences and finds that participants reproduce sentences more easily if these conform to their ordering preferences. These results suggest that the harmonic alignment evident in dative ordering preferences is an epiphenomenon of cognitive ease.

Keywords: dative alternation, first language acquisition, psycholinguistics, English
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background
    • 2.1Length
    • 2.2Animacy
    • 2.3Number
  • 3.Act-out experiment
    • 3.1Participants
    • 3.2Materials
    • 3.3Procedure
    • 3.4Results
    • 3.5Discussion
  • 4.Elicitation experiment
    • 4.1Participants
    • 4.2Materials
    • 4.3Procedure
    • 4.4Results
    • 4.5Discussion
  • 5.General discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 8 August 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sigl.7.12bur
References
Ambridge, Ben, Julian Pine, Caroline Rowland, Daniel Freudenthal, and Franklin Chang
2014 “Avoiding Dative Overgeneralisation Errors: Semantics, Statistics or Both?” Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 29 (2): 218–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Jennifer, Anthony Losongco, Thomas Wasow, and Ryan Ginstrom
2000 “Heaviness vs. Newness: The Effects of Structural Complexity and Discourse Status on Constituent Ordering.” Language 76 (1): 28–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Au, Terry Kit-fong, and Laura Romo
1999 “Mechanical Causality in Children’s ‘Folkbiology’.” In Folkbiology, ed. by Douglas Medin, and Scott Atran, 355–401. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barner, David, Toni Lui, and Jennifer Zapf
2012 “Is two a Plural Marker in Early Child Language?” Developmental Psychology 48 (1): 10–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Becker, Misha
2007 “Animacy, Expletives, and the Learning of the Raising-Control Distinction.” In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition North America, ed. by Alyona Belikova, Luisa Meroni, and Mari Umeda, 12–20. Somerville: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.Google Scholar
2009 “The Role of NP Animacy and Expletives in Verb Learning.” Language Acquisition 16: 283–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Behaghel, Otto
1928 Deutsche Syntax, Band 3: Die Satzgebilde [German Syntax, Volume 3: The Sentence Structures]. Heidelberg: Carl Winters.Google Scholar
Bernaisch, Tobias, Stefan Gries, and Joybrato Mukherjee
2014 “The Dative Alternation in South Asian English(es).” English World-Wide 35 (1): 7–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan
(eds) 1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Bock, J. Kathryn
1986 “Syntactic Persistence in Language Production.” Cognitive Psychology 18: 355–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Anna Cueni, Tatiana Nikitina, and R. Harald Baayen
2007 “Predicting the Dative Alternation.” In Cognitive Foundations of Interpretation, ed. by Gerlof Bouma, Irene Krämer, and Joost Zwarts, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Marilyn Ford
2010 “Predicting Syntax.” Language 86 (1): 168–213. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Jennifer Hay
2008 “Gradient Grammar: An Effect of Animacy on the Syntax of Give in New Zealand and American English.” Lingua 118 (2): 245–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bürkle, Daniel
2011 “Weight Effects in the Acquisition of English: Evidence from First and Second Language Acquisition.” Master’s Thesis, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
2015 “The Acquisition of Sentence Alternations: How Children Understand and Use the English Dative Alternation.” Doctoral Dissertation, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Campbell, Aimee, and Michael Tomasello
2001 “The acquisition of English dative constructions.” Applied Psycholinguistics 22: 253–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Eve, and Tatiana Nikitina
2009 “One Vs. More than One: Antecedents to Plural Marking in Early Language Acquisition.” Linguistics 47 (1): 103–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cooper, William, and John Ross
1975 “World Order.” In Papers from the Parasession on Functionalism, ed. by Robin Grossman, L. James San, and Timothy Vance, 63–111. Chicago: CLS.Google Scholar
Davidson, Lisa
2006 “Comparing Tongue Shapes from Ultrasound Imaging Using Smoothing Spline Analysis of Variance.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 120 (1): 407–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dehé, Nicole
2001 “Transitive Particle Verbs in English: The Neutral Order.” In Structural Aspects of Semantically Complex Verbs, ed. by Nicole Dehé, and Anja Wanner, 165–189. Frankfurt: Lang.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, ’Malillo Machobane, Francina Moloi, and Christopher Odato
2005 “Learning Animacy Hierarchy Effects in Sesotho Double Object Applicatives.” Language 81 (2): 421–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dewart, M. Hazel
1979 “The Role of Animate and Inanimate Nouns in Determining Sentence Voice.” British Journal of Psychology 70: 135–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Boor, Carl
2001 A Practical Guide to Splines. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
de Cuypere, Ludovic, and Saartje Verbeke
2013 “Dative Alternation in Indian English.” World Englishes 32 (2): 169–184. DOI logo Google Scholar
de Marneffe, Marie-Catherine, Scott Grimm, Inbal Arnon, Susannah Kirby, and Joan Bresnan
2012 “A Statistical Model of the Grammatical Choices in Child Production of Dative Sentences.” Language and Cognitive Processes 27 (1): 25–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
de Wind, Maarten
1999 “Deriving Heavy NP-Shift in French.” In Formal Perspectives of Romance Linguistics, ed. by J.-Marc Authier, Barbara Bullock, and Lisa Reed, 89–105. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul
1993 Against Method. 3rd ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Gelman, Susan, and Melissa Koenig
2001 “The Role of Animacy in Children’s Understanding of ‘Move’.” Journal of Child Language 28: 683–701. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentner, Dedre, and Lera Boroditsky
2001 “Individuation, Relativity, and Early Word Learning.” In Language Acquisition and Conceptual Development, ed. by Melissa Bowerman, and Stephen Levinson, 215–256. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward, Leon Bergen, and Steven T. Piantadosi
2013 “Rational Integration of Noisy Evidence and Prior Semantic Expectations in Sentence Interpretation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110 (20): 8051–8056. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan, and Anatol Stefanowitsch
2004 “Extending Collostructional Analysis.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9 (1): 97–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Steven Pinker, Michelle Hollander, Richard Goldberg, and Ronald Wilson
1989 “The Learnability and Acquisition of the Dative Alternation in English.” Language 65 (2): 203–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gu, Chong
2013 Smoothing Spline ANOVA Models. 2nd ed. New York: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harley, Heidi
2002 “Possession and the double object construction.” Linguistic Variation Yearbook 2: 29–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
2007 “Ditransitive Alignment Splits and Inverse Alignment.” Functions of Language 14 (1): 79–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, John
1994 A Performance Theory of Order and Constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ibbotson, Paul, and Michael Tomasello
2009 “Prototype Constructions in Early Language Acquisition.” Language and Cognition 1 (1): 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jäschke, Katja, and Ingo Plag
2016 “The Dative Alternation in German-English Interlanguage.” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 38 (3): 485–521. DOI logo Google Scholar
Kendall, Tyler, Joan Bresnan, and Gerard van Herk
2011 “The Dative Alternation in African American English.” Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 7 (2): 229–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laka, Itziar, and Kepa Erdocia
2012 “Linearization Preferences given ‘Free Word Order’: Subject Preferences given Ergativity.” In Of Grammar, Words, and Verses, ed. by Esther Torrego, 115–142. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laurendeau, Monique, and Adrien Pinard
1962 Causal Thinking in the Child. New York: International Universities Press.Google Scholar
Leddon, Erin, Sandra Waxman, and Douglas Medin
2009 “Unmasking ‘Alive’: Children’s Appreciation of a Concept Linking All Living Things.” Journal of Cognition and Development 9 (4): 461–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Legerstee, Maria
2001 “Domain Specificity and the Epistemic Triangle: The Development of the Concept of Animacy in Infancy.” In Emerging Cognitive Abilities in Early Infancy, ed. by Francisco Lacerda, Claes von Hofsten, and Mikael Heimann, 193–212. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lempert, Henrietta
1989 “Animacy Constraints on Preschool Children’s Acquisition of Syntax.” Child Development 60: 237–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohse, Barbara, John Hawkins, and Thomas Wasow
2004 “Domain Minimization in English Verb-Particle Constructions.” Language 80: 238–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie
2010 “Ditransitive Constructions: A Typological Overview.” In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions, ed. by Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie, 1–64. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mcdonald, Janet, J. Kathryn Bock, and Michael Kelly
1993 “Word and World Order.” Cognitive Psychology 25 (2): 188–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard
1976 “The Grammatical Status of the English Dative Alternation.” Doctoral Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Okita, Sandra, and Daniel Schwartz
2006 “Young Children’s Understanding of Animacy and Entertainment Robots.” International Journal of Humanoid Robotics 3: 393–412. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Jonathan
2007 “Psychopy – Psychophysics Software in Python.” Journal of Neuroscience Methods 162: 8–13. URL [URL]. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “Generating Stimuli for Neuroscience Using Psychopy.” Frontiers in Neuroinformatics 2 (10).Google Scholar
Rakison, David, and Diane Poulin-Dubois
2001 “Developmental Origin of the Animate-Inanimate Distinction.” Psychological Bulletin 127 (2): 209–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Beth Levin
2008 “The English Dative Alternation: The Case for Verb Sensitivity.” Journal of Linguistics 44: 129–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rowland, Catherine, and Claire Noble
2011 “The Role of Syntactic Structure in Children’s Sentence Comprehension: Evidence From the Dative.” Language Learning and Development 7: 55–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sandberg, Chaleece, Swathi Kiran, Edward Gibson, and Evelina Fedorenko
2012 “The Effect of Plausibility in Sentence Processing.” In Proceedings of the 42nd Clinical Aphasiology Conference [online].Google Scholar
Santesteban, Mikel, Martin Pickering, and Holly Branigan
2013 “The Effects of Word Order on Subject-Verb and Object-Verb Agreement.” Journal of Memory and Language 68: 160–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Richard
1980 “Presuppositions and Children’s Metalinguistic Judgments.” Child Development 51 (2): 364–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shirakawa, Mineko
2013 “Experimental Study of Morphological Case Marking Knowledge in Japanese-English Bilingual Children in Christchurch New Zealand.” Master’s Thesis, University of Canterbury.Google Scholar
Snider, Neal
2011 “Investigating Syntactic Persistence in Corpora.” In Language from a Cognitive Perspective, ed. by Emily Bender, and Jennifer Arnold, 247–268. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Stephens, Nola
2010 “Given-before-New: The Effects of Discourse on Argument Structure in Early Child Language.” Doctoral Dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Thal, Donna, and Melanie Flores
2001 “Development of Sentence Interpretation Strategies by Typically Developing and Late-Talking Toddlers.” Journal of Child Language 28: 173–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne
2009 “Variable Selection in Logistic Regression: The British English Dative Alternation.” In Proceedings of the 14th Student Session at the 21st European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, 85–95.Google Scholar
Theijssen, Daphne, Hans van Halteren, Karin Fikkers, Frederike Groothoff, Lian van Hoof, Eva van de Sande, Jorieke Tiems, Véronique Verhagen, and Patrick van der Zande
2009 “A Regression Model for the English Benefactive Alternation: An Efficient, Practical, Actually Usable Approach.” LOT Occasional Series 14: 115–130.Google Scholar
van den Bosch, Antal, and Joan Bresnan
2013 “Modeling Dative Alternations of Individual Children.” Manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Wasow, Thomas
1997 “Remarks on Grammatical Weight.” Language Variation and Change 9 (1): 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002 Postverbal Behavior. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
Wolk, Christoph, Joan Bresnan, Anette Rosenbach, and Benedikt Szmrecsanyi
2013 “Dative and Genitive Variability in Late Modern English: Exploring Cross-Constructional Variation and Change.” Diachronica 30 (3): 382–419. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zapf, Jennifer, and Linda Smith
2009 “Knowing More than One Can Say: The Early Regular Plural.” Journal of Child Language 36: 1145–1155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zec, Draga, and Sharon Inkelas
1990 “Prosodically Constrained Syntax.” In The Phonology-Syntax Connection, ed. by Sharon Inkelas, and Draga Zec, 365–378. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar