Cover not available
Part of
Diverse Scenarios of Syntactic Complexity
Edited by Albert Álvarez González, Zarina Estrada-Fernández and Claudine Chamoreau
[Typological Studies in Language 126] 2019
► pp. 53–83

Constructional grounding in emerging complexity

Early comp-que constructions in Spanish acquisition

| Universidad Nacional Autónoma de | Instituto de Investigaciones Filológicas
A constructional grounding view to emerging complexity is based on the assumption that components of complex constructions may be used as free clauses before they are integrated into a complex frame. In child language development, constructional grounding has already been tested with positive results for some simple frames: passives and existential constructions. This chapter extends this view to complex sentence formation in early acquisition of Spanish. The analysis focuses on data pointing to a possible grounding relation between main clauses with lexical uses of future complement-taking verbs, and free, insubordinated clause constructions marked by comp-que. Children have access to and may learn these independent frames from parental models. Evidence of constructional grounding is presented: Chronological, distributional and functional results point to a grounding relation between free uses of these components and complex sentences that integrate them. The paper adds to synchronic and diachronic analysis of emerging complexity, and brings developmental evidence on how children integrate earlier and independently learned clausal construction frames.
Keywords: complex constructions, constructional grounding, insubordination, free comp-que constructions, complement-taking verbs
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Antecedents
    • 2.1Constructional grounding in acquisition
    • 2.2Spanish antecedents
  • 3.Method
    • 3.1Data selection
    • 3.2Data presentation
  • 4.Analysis
    • 4.1Overview of early complex sentences: ctv + comp-que constructions
    • 4.2On verbs that will take comp-que constructions: Developing a construction inventory
    • 4.3Looking at free comp-que constructions
    • 4.4Development of ctv frames and comp-que constructions
    • 4.5Bridging the gap. Dialogical support and on-line integration
  • 5.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgement
  • Abbreviations
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 July 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.126.03nie
References (84)
References
Abbot-Smith, Kirsten & Behrens, Heike. 2006. How known constructions influence the acquisition of other constructions: The German passive and future constructions. Cognitive Science 30(6): 995–1026. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aguirre, Carmen. 2000 [1994]. La adquisición de las categorías gramaticales del español. PhD dissertation, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben & Lieven, Elena. 2011. Child Language Acquisition. Contrasting Theoretical Approaches. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bannard, Colin, Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Modeling children’s early grammatical knowledge. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(41): 17284–17289. : DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barreña, Andoni. 1994. Sobre la adquisición de la categoría funcional comp por niños vascos. In La adquisición del vasco y del castellano en niños bilingües, Jurgen Meisel (ed.), 231–284. Frankfurt: Vervuert-Iberoamericana. <[URL])>Google Scholar
. 1999. La adquisición de estructuras subordinadas por un niño bilingüe vasco-español, Lingüística para el siglo XXI. III Congreso organizado por el Departamento de Lengua Española, 277–286. Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Lahey, Margaret, Hood, Lois, Lifter, Karin & Fiess, Kathleen. 1991[1980]. Complex sentences: Acquisition of syntactic connectives and the semantic relations they encode. In Language Development from Two to Three, Lois Bloom, 261–289. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Bod, Rens. 2009. From exemplar to grammar: A probabilistic analogy-based model of language learning. Cognitive Science 33(5): 752–793. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brandt, Silke, Verhagen, Arie, Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michel. 2011. German children’s productivity with simple transitive and complement-clause constructions: Testing the effects of frequency and diversity. Cognitive Linguistics 22(2): 325–357. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Braunwald, Susan R. 1997. The development of because and so: Connecting language, thought, and social understanding. In Processing Interclausal Relationships: Studies in the Production and Comprehension of Text, Jean Costermans & Michel Fayol (eds), 121–137. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Hopper, Paul J. 2001. Introduction to frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. In Frequency and the Emergence of Linguistic Structure [Typological Studies in Language 45], Joan Bybee & Paul M. Hopper (eds), 1–24. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coseriu, Eugenio. 1976. Das Romanische Verbal system. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter W. 1999. Syntactic Nuts. Hard Cases, Syntactic Theory, and Language Acquisition. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Eva & Lieven, Elena. 2005. Towards a lexically specific grammar of children’s question constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 16(3): 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Demonte, Violeta & Fernández-Soriano, Olga. 2009. Force and finiteness in the Spanish complementizer system. Probus 21: 23–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 2004. The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger & Tomasello, Michael. 2000a. The development of relative constructions in early child speech. Cognitive Linguistics 11: 131–152.Google Scholar
. 2000b. Why complement clauses do not include a that-complementizer in early child language. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, Jeff Good & Alan C. L. Yu (eds), 86–97. Berkeley CA: BLS.Google Scholar
. 2001. The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2): 97–141. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2014. Towards dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics 25(3): 359–410Google Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey L. 1990. Finding structure in time. Cognitive Science 14(2): 179–211. doi: DOI logo.Google Scholar
Elman. Jeffrey L. 1993. Learning and development in neural networks: The importance of starting small. Cognition 48(1): 71–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elman, Jeffrey, Bates, Elizabeth, Johnson, Mark H., Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domenico & Plunkett, Kim. 1996. Rethinking Innateness. A Connectionist Perspective on Development. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nicholas J. & Sidnell, Jack. 2014. Language presupposes an enchronic infrastructure for social interaction. In The Social Origins of Language: Studies in the Evolution of Language, Daniel Dor, Chris Knight & Jerome Lewis (eds), 99–104. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, Nicholas. 2007. Insubordination and its uses. In Finiteness: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations, Irina Nikolaeva (ed.), 366–431. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline. 2005. The Development of Dutch Connectives: Change and Acquisition as Windows on Form-Function Relations. Utrecht: Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline & Sanders, Ted. 2011. Discovering domains. On the acquisition of causal connectives. Journal of Pragmatics 43(6): 1645–1662. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ezeizabarrena Segurola, María José. 1997. Infinitivos verbales en el lenguaje de niños bilingües. In Views on the Acquisition and Use of a Second Language: Eurosla’7 Proceedings, Lourdes Díaz & Carmen Pérez (eds), 177–190. Barcelona: Universidad Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
. 2002. Root infinitives in two pro-drop languages. In Acquisition of Spanish Morphosyntax, Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux & Juana M. Liceras (eds), 35–65. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles J. 1988. The mechanisms of “construction grammar”. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 14: 35–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, Stefan L., Bod, Rens & Christiansen, Morten H. 2012. How hierarchical is language use? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, rspb20121741. <[URL]> (24 August, 2013). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freudenthal, Daniel, Pine, Julian & Gobet, Fernand. 2010. Explaining quantitative variation in the rate of optional infinitive errors across languages: A comparison of MOSAIC and the Variational Learning Model. Journal of Child Language 37(3): 643–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker & Diessel, Holger. 2012. The typology of clause linkage: Status quo, challenges, prospects. In Clause Linkage in Cross-linguistic Perspective: Data-driven Approaches to Cross-clausal Syntax, Volker Gast & Holger Diessel (eds), 1–36. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gili Gaya, Samuel. 1983. Curso superior de sintaxis española. Barcelona, España: Bibliograf.Google Scholar
Givón, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
2009. The ontogeny of complex verb phrases. In Syntactic Complexity. Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-cognition, Evolution [Typological Studies in Language 85], T. Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds), 311–387. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure . Chicago IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalizations in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Gras, Pedro. 2011. Gramática de construcciones en interacción: Propuesta de un modelo y aplicación al análisis de estructuras independientes con marcas de subordinación en español. PhD dissertation, Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
. 2013. Entre la gramática y el discurso: Valores conectivos de que inicial átono en español. In Autour de que/El entorno de que, Daniel Jacob & Katja Ploog (eds), 89–112. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar. A Reconstruction. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Israel, Michael, Johnson, Christopher & Brooks, Patricia J. 2000. From states to events. The acquisition of English passive participles. Cognitive Linguistics 11(1–2): 103–129.Google Scholar
Johnson, Christopher. 1999. Constructional Grounding: The Role of Interpretational Overlap in Lexical and Constructional Acquisition. PhD dissertation, University of California, Berkeley CA.Google Scholar
. 2001. Constructional grounding: On the relation between deictic and existential there-constructions in acquisition. In Conceptual and Discourse Factors in Linguistic Structure, Alan J. Cienki, Barbara J. Luka & Michael B. Smith (eds), 123–136. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Kidd, Evan, Brandt, Silke, Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michael. 2007. Object relatives made easy: A cross-linguistic comparison of the constraints influencing young children’s processing of relative clauses. Language and Cognitive Processes 22: 860–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Köymen, Bahar & Kyratzis, Amy. 2014. Dialogic syntax and complement constructions in toddlers’ peer interactions. Cognitive Linguistics 25: 497–521. doi: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kyratzis, Amy, Guo, Jiansheng & Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 1990. Pragmatic conventions influencing children’s use of causal constructions in natural discourse. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 16: 205–214. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 2000. A dynamic usage-based model. In Usage-based Models of Language, Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 1–63. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Lehmann, Christian. 1988. Towards a typology of clause linkage. In Clause Combining in Grammar and Discourse [Typological Studies in Language 18], John Haiman & Sandra A. Thompson (eds), 181–225. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2006. On the human ‘interactional engine’. In Roots of Human Sociality. Culture, Cognition and Human Interaction, Nicholas J. Enfield & Stephen C. Levinson (eds), 29–69. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena. 2006. Producing multiword utterances. In Constructions in Acquisition, Eve V. Clark & Barbara Kelly (eds), 83–110. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
. 2008. Learning the English auxiliary: A usage-based approach. In Trends in Corpus Research: Finding Structure in Data [Trends in Language Acquisition Research 6], Heike Behrens (ed.), 61–98. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena, Behrens, Heike, Speares, Jennifer & Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Early syntactic creativity: A usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language 30: 333–370. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, Elena, Salomo, Dorothé & Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Two-year-old children's production of multiword utterances: A usage-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics 20(3): 481–507. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luna-Traill, Elizabeth. 1980. Sintaxis de los verboides en el habla culta de la ciudad de México. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Mithun, Marianne. 2008. The extensión of dependency beyond the sentence. Language 84(1): 69–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montolío, Estrella. 1999. ¡Si nunca he dicho que estuviera enamorada de él! Sobre construcciones independientes introducidas por si con valor replicativo. Oralia 2: 37–70.Google Scholar
Moreno de Alba, José G. 1978. Valores de las formas verbales en el español de México. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. 1990. Maturation constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science 14: 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ninio, Anat. 2001. Pragmatic keywords and first combining verbs. First Language 21(3): 433–460. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Schieffelin, Bambi B. & Platt, Martha L. 1979. Propositions across utterances and speakers. In Developmental Pragmatics, Elinor Ochs & Bambi B. Schieffelin (eds), 251–268. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Thompson, Sandra A. (eds). 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador. 2003. Que inicial átono como marca de modalidad. Estudios de Lingüística 17: 531–545.Google Scholar
Porroche Ballesteros, Margarita. 2000. Algunos aspectos del uso de que en el español conversacional (que como introductor de oraciones ‘independientes’). Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 3. <[URL]> (15 August 2013).Google Scholar
Rodríguez Ramalle, Teresa María. 2008. Estudio sintáctico y discursivo de algunas estructuras enunciativas y citativas del español. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada 21: 269–288.Google Scholar
Rojas-Nieto, Cecilia. 1992. La pregunta en la construcción del diálogo: Funciones constructivas de las preguntas a los niños pequeños. Revista de Lingüística Aplicada 15-16: 182–198.Google Scholar
. 2003. Early acquisition of verb inflexion in Spanish. A usage-based account. Psychology of Language and Communication 7(2): 33–56.Google Scholar
. 2007. La base de datos ETAL: Etapas tempranas en la adquisición del lenguaje. Origen, descripción y metas de un proyecto. Jornadas Filológicas 2005. 575–599. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Rojas-Nieto Cecilia. 2009a. Starting small effects in the acquisition of early relative constructions in Spanish. In The Genesis of Syntactic Complexity. Diachrony, Acquisition, Neuro-cognition, Evolution [Typological Studies in Language 85], T. Givón & Masayoshi Shibatani (eds), 277–310. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rojas-Nieto, Cecilia. 2009b. Before grammar. Cut and paste in early complex sentences. In Hispanic Child Languages. Typical and Impaired Development [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 50], John Grinstead (ed.), 143–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sansiñena, María Sol. 2015. The Multiple Functional Load of que. An Interactional Approach to Insubordinate Complement Clauses in Spanish. PhD dissertation, Catholic University Leuven.Google Scholar
Sansiñena, María Sol, De Smet, Hendrick & Cornillie, Bert. 2015. Between subordinate and insubordinate. Paths toward complementizer-initial main clauses. Journal of Pragmatics 7: 3–19. < DOI logo>Google Scholar
Serrat, Elisabet & Aparici, Melina. 2001. Morphological errors in early language acquisition: Evidence from Catalan and Spanish. In Research on Child Language Acquisition, Margareta Almgrem, Andoni Barreña, Ma. José Ezeizabarrena, Itziar Idiazábal & Brian MacWhinney (eds), 1260–1277. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Sheridan, Guillermo. 2007. Quijote furioso. Paralelos y Meridianos, 11–33. México: Pértiga.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1985. Why study language crosslinguistically? In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 1: The Data, Dan I. Slobin (ed.), 3–24. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First Verbs: A Case Study of Early Grammatical Development. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2000. The item based nature of children's early syntactic development. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4: 156–163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Constructing a Language. A Usage-based Child Language Acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Acquiring linguistic constructions. In Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 2: Cognition, Perception and Language, William Damon, Richard M. Learner, Deanna Kuhn, Robert Siegler (eds), 255–298. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Origins of Human Communication. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Van Veen, Rosie, Evers-Vermeul, Jacqueline, Sanders, Ted & Van Den Bergh, Huub. 2009. Parental input and connective acquisition: Growth curve analysis. First Language 29: 266–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. The influence of input on connective acquisition: A growth curve analysis of English because and German weil . Journal of Child Language 40: 1003–1031. DOI: DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varela Cortés, Vianey. 2006. Interacción y diálogo en la adquisición de las construcciones introducidas por pero . MA dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
. 2011. El nicho discursivo de las construcciones con pero en la adquisición temprana del español. In Interacción y uso lingüístico en el desarrollo de la lengua materna, Cecilia Rojas-Nieto & Donna Jackson-Maldonado (eds), 173–208. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Álvarez González, Albert
2019. From discourse to syntax. In Diverse Scenarios of Syntactic Complexity [Typological Studies in Language, 126], ► pp. 217 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 june 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.