Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T01:02:43.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Learning Animacy Hierarchy Effects in Sesotho Double Object Applicatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Katherine Demuth ,
Malillo Machobane ,
Christopher Odato  and
Francina Moloi
Katherine Demuth*
Affiliation:
Brown University
Malillo Machobane*
Affiliation:
The National University of Lesotho
Christopher Odato*
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
Francina Moloi*
Affiliation:
The National University of Lesotho
*
Demuth, Department of Cognitive and Linguistic Sciences Brown University, Box 1978 Providence, RI 02912 [Katherine_Demuth@brown.edu]
Machobane, Department of African Languages and Literature The National University of Lesotho P. O. Roma 180 Lesotho [emmachobane@nul.ls]
Odato, Department of Linguistics 4080 Frieze Bldg., University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1285 [cvodato@yahoo.com]
Moloi, English Department, The National University of Lesotho, P. O. Roma 180, Lesotho, [fl.moloi@nul.ls]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Researchers have long debated the means by which children learn the argument structure of verbs. Making syntactic generalizations often entails learning the semantics of different verbs, complicating and delaying the acquisition process. This study investigates four- to twelve-year-olds’ and adults’ knowledge of animacy hierarchy restrictions on postverbal word order in Sesotho double object applicatives, constructions where verb semantics is kept constant. Performance on forced-choice elicited production tasks showed that four-year-olds have early knowledge of the animacy hierarchy restrictions, providing evidence of syntactic generalization even on low-frequency constructions. Although there were no verb frequency effects, performance was also better on the highest-frequency animacy constructions. The results suggest that learning restrictions on verb-argument structure is facilitated when verb semantics is not a confound, but that construction frequency also plays a role in mastering the argument structure of verbs.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 81 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 421 - 447
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Linguistic Society of America

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

Alsina, Alex, and Mchombo, Sam. 1990. The syntax of applicatives in Chichewa: Problems for a theta theoretic asymmetry. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 8. 493–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Jennifer, Morgan, James L.; and White, Katherine S.. 2003. A statistical basis for speech sound discrimination. Language and Speech 46. 155–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baker, Carl L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 533–81.Google Scholar
Baker, Carl L., and McCarthy, John J.. 1981. The logical problem of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1988. Theta theory and the syntax of applicatives in Chichewa. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 353–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Miller, Peggy; and Hood, Lois. 1975. Variation and reduction as aspects of competence in language development. Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, vol. 9, ed. by Pick, A., 3–55. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Bock, Kathryn. 1982. Toward a cognitive psychology of syntax: Information processing contributions to sentence formulation. Psychological Review 89. 1–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bock, Kathryn, and Loebell, Helga. 1990. Framing sentences. Cognition 35. 1–39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bock, Kathryn, Loebell, Helga; and Morey, Randal. 1992. From conceptual roles to structural relations: Bridging the syntactic cleft. Psychological Review 99. 150–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boland, Julie, Tannenhaus, Michael K., Garnsey, Susan; and Carlson, Greg. 1995. Verb argument structure in parsing and interpretation: Evidence from wh-questions. Journal of Memory and Language 34. 774–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1974. Learning the structure of causative verbs: A study in the relationship of cognitive, semantic and syntactic development. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 8. 142–78.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1990. Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics 28. 1253–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, Martin D. S., Brody, Ruth E., Fisch, Shalom M., Weisberger, Mara J.; and Blum, Monica. 1990. Can children use a verb without exposure to its argument structure? Journal of Child Language 17. 313–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bresnan, Joan, and Kanerva, Jonni. 1989. Locative inversion in Chichewa: A case study of factorization in grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 1–50.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Moshi, Lioba. 1990. Object asymmetries in comparative Bantu syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 21. 147–85.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Nikitina, Tatiana. 2003. On the gradience of the dative alternation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, ms.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan, and Hopper, Paul (eds.) 2001. Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Franklin, Bock, Kathryn; and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2003. Can thematic roles leave traces of their places? Cognition 90. 29–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clancy, Patricia. 1996. Referential strategies and the co-construction of argument structure in Korean acquisition. Studies in anaphora, ed. by Fox, Barbara, 33–68. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clancy, Patricia. 1997. Discourse motivations for referential choice in Korean acquisition. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, vol. 1, ed. by Sohn, Ho-Min and Haig, John, 639–59. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Cook, Vivianne J. 1976. A note on indirect objects. Journal of Child Language 3. 435–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1989. Maturation and the acquisition of the Sesotho passive. Language 65. 56–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 1998. Argument structure and the acquisition of the Sesotho applicatives. Linguistics 36. 781–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, Katherine. 2001. Prosodic constraints on morphological development. Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition (Language acquisition and language disorders 24), ed. by Weissenborn, Jürgen and Höhle, Barbara, 3–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, and Johnson, Mark. 1989. Interactions between discourse functions and agreement in Setawana. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 11. 22–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, Machobane, Malillo; and Moloi, Francina. 2000. Learning word order constraints under conditions of object ellipsis. Linguistics 38. 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, Machobane, Malillo; and Moloi, Francina. 2003. Rules and construction effects in learning the argument structure of verbs. Journal of Child Language 30. 1–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doke, Clement Martyn, and Mofokeng, S. Machabe. 1985. Textbook of Southern Sotho grammar. Cape Town: Longman.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro, and Byarushengo, Ernest. 1977. On the notion of ‘direct object’. Haya grammatical structures (Southern California occasional papers in linguistics 6), ed. by Byarushengo, Ernest, Duranti, Alessandro, and Hyman, Larry, 45–71. Los Angeles: University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. Universais in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, Emmon and Harms, Richard T., 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Fisher, Cynthia. 2002. The role of abstract syntactic knowledge in language acquisition: A reply to Tomasello 2000. Cognition 82. 259–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garnsey, Susan M., Pearlmutter, Neal J., Myers, Elizabeth; and Lotocky, Melanie A.. 1997. The contributions of verb bias and plausibility to the comprehension of temporarily ambiguous sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 37. 58–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. Subject and topic, ed. by Li, Charles N., 149–88. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functional typological introduction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, John. 1980. Meaning and the mechanism in grammar. Harvard studies in syntax and semantics 3, ed. by Kuno, Susumo, 423–48. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter, and Chafetz, Jill. 1990. Verb-based versus class-based accounts of actionality effects in children’s comprehension of passives. Cognition 36. 227–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle, Goldberg, Richard; and Wilson, Ronald. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65. 203–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harford, Carolyn. 1993. The applicative in Chishona and lexical mapping theory. Theoretical aspects of Bantu grammar, ed. by Mchombo, Sam, 3–111. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Hawkins, John A. 1994. A performance theory of order and constituency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hyams, Nina. 1986. Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Boston: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, Larry, and Duranti, Alessandro. 1982. On the object relation in Bantu. Syntax and semantics 15: Studies in transitivity, ed. by Hopper, Paul and Thompson, Sandra, 217–39. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Idiata, D. Franck. 1998. Quelques aspects de l’acquisition de la langue Isangu par les enfants. Lyon: Université Lumière Lyon 2 dissertation.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kirk, Cecilia, and Demuth, Katherine. 2003. Onset/coda asymmetries in the acquisition of clusters. Proceedings of the 27 th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. by Beachley, Barbara, Brown, Amanda, and Conlin, Francis, 437–48. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, Clara C., Schiller, Niels O.; and Levelt, Willem J.. 2000. The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition 8. 237–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieven, Elena, Pine, Julian; and Baldwin, Gillian. 1997. Lexically-based learning and early grammatical development. Journal of Child Language 24. 187–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lohse, Barbara, Hawkins, John A.; and Wasow, Thomas. 2004. Domain minimization in English verb-particle constructions. Language 80. 238–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Machobane, ‘Malillo. 1989. Some restrictions of transitivizing morphemes in Sesotho. Montreal: McGill University dissertation.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. On the nature of grammatical relations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mazurkewich, Irene, and White, Lydia. 1984. The acquisition of the dative alternations: Unlearning overgeneralizations. Cognition 16. 261–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morolong, ‘Malillo, and Hyman, Larry. 1977. Animacy, objects and clitics in Sesotho. Studies in African Linguistics 8. 199–218.Google Scholar
Moshi, Lioba. 1999. Word order in multiple object constructions in KiVunjo-Chaga. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 19. 7–152.Google Scholar
Naigles, Leticia. 1996. The use of multiple frames in verb learning via syntactic bootstrapping. Cognition 58. 221–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Naigles, Leticia. 2002. Form is easy, meaning is hard: Resolving a paradox in early child language. Cognition 89. 157–99.Google Scholar
Naigles, Leticia, and Hoff-Ginsberg, Erica. 1995. Input to verb learning: Evidence for the plausibility of syntactic bootstrapping. Developmental Psychology 31. 827–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles, and Zehler, Annette. 1981. Acquisition of bi-transitive sentences: Prelinguistic determinants of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 8. 367–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Randall, Janet. 1992. The catapult hypothesis: An approach to unlearning. Theoretical issues in language acquisition, ed. by Weissenborn, Jürgen, Goodluck, Helen, and Roeper, Thomas, 93–138. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Roark, Brian, and Demuth, Katherine. 2000. Prosodic constraints and the learner’s environment: A corpus study. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. by Howell, S. Catherine, Fish, Sarah A., and Keith-Lucas, Thea, 597–608. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas, Lapointe, Steven, Bing, Janet; and Tavakolian, Susan. 1981. A lexical approach to language acquisition. Language acquisition and linguistic theory, ed. by Tavakolian, Susan, 35–58. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 1987. Cognitive implications of referential hierarchy. Functional approaches to language and thought, ed. by Hickmann, Maya, 125–64. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, William, and Stromswold, Karen. 1997. The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 281–317.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy. 1981. Origins of phrase-structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Thorton, Rosiland. 1996. Elicited production. Methods for assessing children’s syntax, ed. by McDaniel, Dana, McKee, Cecile, and Cairns, Helen S., 3–22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2000. Do children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74. 209–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, John C., and Kim, Albert E.. 1998. How to prune a garden path by nipping it in the bud: Fast priming of verb argument structure. Journal of Memory and Language 39. 102–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, John C., Sekerina, Irina, Hill, Nicole M.; and Logrip, Marian L.. 1999. The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73. 89–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ViTEViTCH, Michael S., Luce, Paul A., Charles-Luce, Jan; and Kemmerer, David. 1997. Phonotactics and syllable stress: Implications for the processing of spoken nonsense words. Language and Speech 40. 47–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wasow, Thomas. 2002. Postverbal behavior. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Waryas, Carol, and Stremel, Kathleen. 1974. On the preferred form of the double object construction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 3. 271–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1999. Animacy hierarchy effects on object agreement. New dimensions in African linguistics (Trends in African linguistics 3), ed. by Kotey, Paul, 203–16. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.Google Scholar