Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-2n9c9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T22:51:59.580Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Roles of Verb Semantics, Entrenchment, and Morphophonology in the Retreat from Dative Argument-Structure Overgeneralization Errors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Ben Ambridge,
Caroline F. Rowland,
Julian M. Pine and
Franklin Chang
Ben Ambridge*
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Caroline F. Rowland
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Julian M. Pine
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Franklin Chang
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
*
[Bcn.Ambridgc@Livcrpool.ac.uk]
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Children (aged five-to-six and nine-to-ten years) and adults rated the acceptability of well-formed sentences and argument-structure overgeneralization errors involving the prepositional-object and double-object dative constructions (e.g. Marge pulled the box to Homer/Marge pulled Homer the box). In support of the entrenchment hypothesis, a negative correlation was observed between verb frequency and the acceptability of errors, across all age groups. Adults additionally displayed sensitivity to narrow-range semantic constraints on the alternation, rejecting double-object dative uses of novel verbs consistent with prepositional-dative-only classes and vice versa. Adults also provided evidence for the psychological validity of a proposed morphophonological constraint prohibiting Latinate verbs from appearing in the double-object dative. These findings are interpreted in the light of a recent account of argument-structure acquisition, under which children retreat from error by incrementally learning the semantic, phonological, and pragmatic properties associated with particular verbs and particular construction slots.

Keywords

language acquisitionretreat from overgeneralizationno negative evidence problemdative argument structuresemanticsentrenchmentpreemption

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 88 , Issue 1 , March 2012, pp. 45 - 81
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 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

Albright, Adam, and Hayes, Bruce. 2003. Rules vs. analogy in English past tenses: A computational/experimental study. Cognition 90.2.119–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, Ben. 2011. Assessing grammatical knowledge (with special reference to the graded grammaticality judgment paradigm). Research methods in child language: A practical guide, ed. by Hoff, Erika, 113–32. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben. 2012. How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations? A grammaticality judgment study. Liverpool: University of Liverpool, ms.Google ScholarPubMed
Ambridge, Ben, and Lieven, Elena V. M.. 2011. Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M.; and Rowland, Caroline F.. 2011. Children use verb semantics to retreat from overgeneralization errors: A novel verb grammaticality judgment study. Cognitive Linguistics 22.2.303–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M.; and Rowland, Caroline F.. 2012. Semantics versus statistics in the retreat from locative overgeneralization errors. Cognition, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., Rowland, Caroline F., Jones, Rebecca L.; and Clark, Victoria. 2009. A semantics-based approach to the ‘no negative-evidence’ problem. Cognitive Science 33.7.1301–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., Rowland, Caroline F.; and Young, Chris R.. 2008. The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children's and adults' graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition 106.1.87–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, Douglas, Maechler, Martin; and Bolker, Ben. 2011. Ime4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0. 999375–3. Online: http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/index.html.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1988. The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? Explaining language universals, ed. by Hawkins, John A., 73–101. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa, and Croft, William. 2008. The acquisition of the English causative alternation. Crosslinguistic perspectives on argument structure: Implications for learnability, ed. by Bowerman, Melissa and Brown, Penelope, 279–307. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Boyd, Jeremy K., and Goldberg, Adele E.. 2011. Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language 85.1.55–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braine, Martin D. S., and Brooks, Patricia J.. 1995. Verb argument structure and the problem of avoiding an overgeneral grammar. Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs, ed. by Tomasello, Michael and Merriman, William E., 352–76. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007a. Is syntactic knowledge probabilistic? Experiments with the English dative alternation. Roots: Linguistics in search of its evidential base, ed. by Featherston, Sam and Sternefeld, Wolfgang, 75–96. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 2007b. A few lessons from typology. Linguistic Typology 11.1.297–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive foundations of interpretation, ed. by Bourne, Gerlof, Kramer, Irene, and Zwarts, Joost, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, and Nikitina, Tatiana. 2010. The gradience of the dative alternation. Reality exploration and discovery: Pattern interaction in language and life, ed. by Uyechi, Linda and Wee, Lian-Hee, 161–84. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
British National Corpus. 2007. BNC XML edition (3rd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services (distributor), on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Online: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia J., and Tomasello, Michael. 1999. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75.4.720–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, Patricia J., Tomasello, Michael, Dodson, Kelly; and Lewis, Lawrence B.. 1999. Young children's overgeneralizations with fixed transitivity verbs. Child Development 70.6.1325–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, Aimee L., and Tomasello, Michael. 2001. The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics 22.2.253–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chouinard, Michelle M., and Clark, Eve V.. 2003. Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language 30.3.637–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fellbaum, Christiane. 2005. Examining the constraints on the benefactive alternation by using the World Wide Web as a corpus. Evidence in linguistics: Empirical, theoretical, and computational perspectives, ed. by Kepser, Stephan and Reis, Marga, 209–40. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gahl, Susanne, and Yu, Alan C. L.. 2006. Introduction to the special issue on exemplar-based models in linguistics. The Linguistic Review 23. 213–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2002. Surface generalizations: An alternative to alternations. Cognitive Linguistics 13.4.327–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2011. Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22.1.131–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Gropen, Jess, Pinker, Steven, Hollander, Michelle, Goldberg, Richard; and Wilson, Ronald. 1989. The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65.2.203–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hahn, Ulrike, and Oaksford, Mike. 2008. Inference from absence in language and thought. The probabilistic mind: Prospects for Bayesian cognitive science, ed. by Chater, Nick and Oaksford, Mike, 221–43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hothorn, Torsten, Hornik, Kurt; and Zeileis, Achim. 2006. Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 15.3.651–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kempen, Gerard, and Harbusch, Karin. 2003. An artificial opposition between grammatically and frequency: Comment on Bornkessel, Schlesewsky, and Friederici (2002). Cognition 90.2.205–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krifka, Manfred. 2004. Semantic and pragmatic conditions for the dative alternation. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 4. 1–32.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth. 1993. English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Marcus, Gary F. 1993. Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition 4.1.53–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B.; and Wonnacott, Elizabeth. 2010. Variability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language 37.3.607–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pinker, Steven. 1989. Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Lebeaux, David S.; and Frost, Loren Ann. 1987. Productivity and constraints in the acquisition of the passive. Cognition 26.3.195–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team. 2010. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Online: http://www.R-project.org.Google Scholar
Stefanowitsch, Anatol. 2008. Negative evidence and preemption: A constructional approach to ungrammatically. Cognitive Linguistics 19.3.513–31.Google Scholar
Strobl, Carolin, Malley, James; and Tutz, Gerhard. 2009. An introduction to recursive partitioning: Rationale, application and characteristics of classification and regression trees, bagging and random forests. Psychological Methods 14.4.323–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Theakston, Anna L. 2004. The role of entrenchment in children's and adults' performance on grammaticality judgment tasks. Cognitive Development 19.1.15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Theakston, Anna L., Lieven, Elena V. M., Pine, Julian M.; and Rowland, Caroline F.. 2001. The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb-argument structure: An alternative account. Journal of Child Language 28.1.127–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wonnacott, Elizabeth. 2011. Balancing generalization and lexical conservatism: An artificial language study with child learners. Journal of Memory and Language 65. 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wonnacott, Elizabeth, Newport, Elissa L.; and Tanenhaus, Michael K.. 2008. Acquiring and processing verb argument structure: Distributional learning in a miniature language. Cognitive Psychology 56.3.165–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar