Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T23:08:08.648Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why not semantic relations?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Judith Duchan and
Nancy J. Lund
Judith Duchan
Affiliation:
State University of New York at Buffalo
Nancy J. Lund
Affiliation:
State University College at Buffalo
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study challenges the semantic relations categories widely used for explaining children's early utterances. Ten 3-year-olds were asked two sets of questions involving the verb + with construction. Their responses were categorized according to existing semantic relations categories such as instrumental and locative. Problems with this approach emerged which were solved by developing a more simple dichotomous category system. The children responded by naming an item which is characteristically present for the duration of the given verb and not beyond its duration (chew with food). Thus the chosen item's presence was BOUNDED by the duration of the activity. When several items fitted the bounded criterion, the one most necessary for carrying out the activity was selected, and when no items fitted the bounded criterion, a non-bounded or continuously present item was reluctantly chosen.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , June 1979, pp. 243 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1979

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

Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: the acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1973). Early syntactic development: a cross linguistic study with special reference to Finnish. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1976). Children's first word combinations. MonogrSocResChDevel 164.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. (1970). Meaning and the structure of language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. (1963). The case for case. In Bach, E. & Harms, R. T. (eds), Universals in linguistic theory. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Greenfield, P. & Smith, J. (1976). The structure of communication in early language development. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Howe, C. (1976). The meanings of two-word utterances in the speech of young children. JChLang 3. 29–47.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1971). Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Meyers, W. E. (1974). Handbook of contemporary English. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. (1971). Production of utterances and language acquisition. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1970). Universals of grammatical development in children. In d'Arcais, G. B. Flores & Levelt, W. J. (eds), Advances in psycholinguistics. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar