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. 404–439

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 (69)
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