Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T04:35:24.357Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dialectic use of causative verbs: You can't ‘take’ it with you

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

G. G. Abkarian
G. G. Abkarian*
Affiliation:
Colorado State University
*
G. G. Abkarian, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Communication Disorders, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Forty-eight adult subjects from the northeastern United States were evaluated for their productive use of the causative verbs bring and take. Results revealed that approximately one-fourth of the subjects employed the terms contrastively and consistent with standard use whereas one-third employed a bring over-extension strategy seeming to impute a ‘carry’ meaning to the term. The remaining subjects, although evidencing some take use. did not routinely employ standard, deictically based source or goal distinctions. The validity of the findings was tested in two additional experiments. The nature of these alternative productive strategies and their implications are discussed.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , March 1983, pp. 47 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Binnick, R.Bring and come. Linguistic Inquiry, 1971, 2, 260–265.Google Scholar
Brewer, W. & Harris, R.Memory for deictic elements in sentences. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 321–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E.Normal states and evaluative viewpoints. Language, 1974, 50, 315–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. & Garnica, O.Is he coming or going? On the acquisition of deictic verbs. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1974, 13, 559–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. & Sengul, C.Strategies in the acquisition of deixis. Journal of Child Language, 1978, 5, 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.Lectures on Deixis. University of California, Santa Cruz, 1971. May we come in? Semiotica, 1973, 9, 98–115.Google Scholar
Klatzky, R., Clark, E., & Macken, M.Asymmetries in the acquisition of polar adjectives: Linguistic or conceptual? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1973, 16, 32–46.Google Scholar
Lyons, J.Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.Google Scholar
Macrae, A. Coming to grief and going to the dogs: A second look at some English idioms. Department of Linguistics, University of Edinburgh. Work in progress, 1975, 8, 53–63.Google Scholar
Macrae, A.Movement and location in the acquisition of deictic verbs. Journal of Child Language, 1976, 3, 191–204.Google Scholar
McNemar, Q.Psychological statistics. New York: John Wiley, 1969.Google Scholar
Miller, G. & Johnson-Laird, P.Language and perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piaget, J.The child's conception of movement and speed. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1970.Google Scholar
Richards, M.Come and go reconsidered: Children's use of deictic verbs in contrived situations. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976, 15, 655–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, S.Non-parametric statistics. New York: McGraw Hill, 1956.Google Scholar
Wales, R. Deixis. In Fletcher, P. & Garmen, M. (Eds.), Language acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Washington, D., & Naremore, R.Children's use of spatial prepositions in two- and three-dimensional tasks. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 1978, 21, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed