Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-qr5l4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-03T21:20:41.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Selective learning in the acquisition of Kannada ditransitives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Joshua Viau  and
Jeffrey Lidz
Joshua Viau*
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Jeffrey Lidz*
Affiliation:
University of Maryland
*
Department of Cognitive Science Johns Hopkins University 237 Krieger Hall 3400 North Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21218, [viau@cogsci.jhu.edu]
Department of Linguistics University of Maryland 1401 Marie Mount Hall College Park, MD 20742, [jlidz@umd.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article we offer up a particular linguistic phenomenon, quantifier-variable binding in Kannada ditransitives, as a proving ground upon which competing claims about learnability can be evaluated with respect to the relative abstractness of children's grammatical knowledge. We first identify one aspect of syntactic representation that exhibits a range of syntactic, morphological, and semantic consequences both within and across languages, namely the hierarchical structure of ditransitive verb phrases (Barss & Lasnik 1986, Larson 1988, Harley 2002). Next we show that while the semantic consequences of this structure are parallel in English, Kannada, and Spanish, the word order and morphological reflexes of this structure diverge. Thus, although it is clear that the same structures are exhibited crosslinguistically, the evidence available to learners that would allow them to identify these structures is variable. We then turn to an examination of children learning Kannada, demonstrating that they have command of the relation between morphological form and semantic interpretation in ditransitives with respect to quantifier-variable binding. Finally, we offer a proposal on how a selective learning mechanism might succeed in identifying the appropriate structures in this domain despite the variability in surface expression.

Keywords

quantificationbindingacquisitionsyntax

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 87 , Issue 4 , December 2011 , pp. 679 - 714
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 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

Anagnostopoulou, Elena. 2003. The syntax of ditransitives: Evidence from clitics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Aoun, Joseph, and Li, Yen-hui Audrey. 1989. Scope and constituency. Linguistic Inquiry 20. 141–72.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 533–81.Google Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1996. The polysynthesis parameter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 1997. Thematic roles and syntactic structure. Elements of grammar, ed. by Haegeman, Liliane, 73–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark. 2005. On gerunds and the theory of categories. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, ms.Google Scholar
Barss, Andrew, and Lasnik, Howard. 1986. A note on anaphora and double objects. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 347–54.Google Scholar
Beck, Sigrid, and Johnson, Kyle. 2004. Double objects again. Linguistic Inquiry 35. 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bleam, Tonia. 1999. Leista Spanish and the syntax of clitic doubling. Newark: University of Delaware dissertation.Google Scholar
Bleam, Tonia. 2001. Properties of the double object construction in Spanish. A Romance perspective on language knowledge and use, ed. by Núñez-Cedeño, Rafael, López, Luis, and Cameron, Richard, 233–52. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Cueni, Anna, Nikitina, Tatiana; and Baayen, R. Harald. 2007. Predicting the dative alternation. Cognitive foundations of interpretation, ed. by Bouma, Gerlof, Krämer, Irene, and Zwarts, Joost, 69–94. Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Science.Google Scholar
Brooks, Patricia J., and Tomasello, Michael. 1999. How children constrain their argument structure constructions. Language 75. 720–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan. 1998. The emergent lexicon. Chicago Linguistic Society 34. 421–35.Google Scholar
Chien, Yu-Chin, and Wexler, Kenneth. 1990. Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1.3.225–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1959. Review of Verbal behavior, by Skinner, B. F.. Language 35. 26–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1980. Rules and representations. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam, and Halle, Morris. 1968. The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Clark, Robin. 1992. The selection of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition 2. 83–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conwell, Erin, and Demuth, Katherine. 2007. Early syntactic productivity: Evidence from dative shift. Cognition 103. 163–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crain, Stephen. 1991. Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14. 597–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen, and McKee, Cecile. 1985. The acquisition of the structural restrictions on anaphora. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 15. 94–110.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen, and Thornton, Rosalind. 1998. Investigations into universal grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cuervo, Maria Cristina. 2003. Datives at large. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Culicover, Peter, and Jackendoff, Ray. 2005. Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demonte, Violeta. 1995. Dative alternation in Spanish. Probus 7. 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel. 1995. Particles. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diaconescu, Constanta Rodica, and Rivero, María Luisa. 2005. An applicative analysis of double object constructions in Romanian. Proceedings of the 2005 annual conference of the Canadian Linguistics Association. Online: http://westernlinguistics.ca/Publications/CLA-ACL/Diaconescu_Rivero.pdf.Google Scholar
Dresher, B. Elan, and Kaye, Jonathan D.. 1990. A computational learning model for metrical phonology. Cognition 34. 137–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elman, Jeffrey L., Bates, Elizabeth A., Johnson, Mark H., Karmiloff-Smith, Annette, Parisi, Domenico; and Plunkett, Kim. 1996. Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandes, Keith J., Marcus, Gary F., Di Nubila, Jennifer A.; and Vouloumanos, Athena. 2006. From semantics to syntax and back again: Argument structure in the third year of life. Cognition 100.B10–B20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, Cynthia L. 2002. Structural limits on verb mapping: The role of abstract structure in 2.5-year-olds' interpretations of novel verbs. Developmental Science 5. 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. 1966. How to learn to talk: Some simple ways. The genesis of language, ed. by Smith, Frank and Miller, George A., 105–22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean. 1998. Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27. 339–74.Google Scholar
Gertner, Yael, Fisher, Cynthia L.; and Eisengart, Julie. 2006. Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science 17. 684–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gibson, Edward, and Wexler, Kenneth. 1994. Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 407–54.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 1995. Constructions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhiser, Devin M.; and Sethuraman, Nitya. 2004. Learning argument structure generalizations. Cognitive Linguistics 14. 289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E., Casenhiser, Devin M.; and Sethuraman, Nitya. 2005. The role of prediction in construction learning. Journal of Child Language 32. 407–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Green, Georgia M. 1974. Semantics and syntactic regularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Harley, Heidi. 2002. Possession and the double object construction. Yearbook of Linguistic Variation 2. 29–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Catherine L., and Bates, Elizabeth A.. 2002. Clausal backgrounding and pronominal reference: A functionalist approach to c-command. Language and Cognitive Processes 17. 237–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2005. Argument marking in ditransitive alignment types. Linguistic Discovery 3.1.1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heim, Irene, and Kratzer, Angelika. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Huang, Zhongqiang, and Harper, Mary. 2009. Self-training PCFG grammars with latent annotations across languages. Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, vol. 2, 832–41.Google Scholar
Jelinek, Eloise. 2000. Datives and argument hierarchies. MIT Working Papers on Endangered and Less Familiar Languages (Papers in honor of Ken Hale) 1. 51–70.Google Scholar
Jung, Yeun-Jin, and Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2004. Decomposing ditransitive verbs. Proceedings of SICGG, 101–20.Google Scholar
Kazanina, Nina, and Phillips, Colin. 2001. Coreference in child Russian: Distinguishing syntactic and discourse constraints. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 25. 413–24.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard K. 1988. On the double object construction. Linguistic Inquiry 19. 335–91.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2003. The syntax of ditransitive verbs of transfer. Paper presented at the Conference on Language and Space, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey. 2007. The abstract nature of syntactic representations: Consequences for a theory of learning. Blackwell handbook of language development, ed. by Hoff, Erika and Shatz, Marilyn, 277–303. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey, Gleitman, Henry; and Gleitman, Lila. 2003. Understanding how input matters: Verb learning and the footprint of universal grammar. Cognition 87. 151–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, Jeffrey, McMahon, Erin, Syrett, Kristen, Viau, Joshua, Anggoro, Florencia, Peterson-Hicks, Jessica, Sneed, Elisa, Bunger, Ann, Flevaris, Taki, Graham, Anne, Grohne, Kristy, Lee, Yongeun; and Strid, John Evar. 2004. Quantifier raising in 4-year-olds. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 28. 340–49.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey, and Musolino, Julien. 2002. Children's command of quantification. Cognition 84. 113–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lidz, Jeffrey, and Williams, Alexander. 2005. C-locality and the interaction of reflexives and ditransitives. North East Linguistic Society (NELS) 34. 389–404.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1982. The language lottery: Toward a biology of grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1991. How to set parameters: Arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, David. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mahajan, A. K. 1990. The A/A-bar distinction and movement theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Masullo, Pascual. 1992. Incorporation and case theory in Spanish: A crosslinguistic perspective. Seattle: University of Washington dissertation.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru, and Tsujioka, Takae. 2004. Argument structure and ditransitive verbs in Japanese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 13. 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, John, and Polinsky, Maria. 2003. Explanation in linguistics. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Musolino, Julien, and Lidz, Jeffrey. 2006. Why children aren't universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44.4.817–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespor, Marina, and Vogel, Irene. 1986. Prosodic phonology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Noveck, Ira A. 2001. When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition 78. 165–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oehrle, Richard T. 1976. The grammatical status of the English dative alternation. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Ormazabal, Javier, and Romero, Juan. 1999. On the syntactic nature of the me-lui and the person-case constraint. Anuario del Seminario Julio de Urquijo 32.2.415–33.Google Scholar
Papafragou, Anna, and Musolino, Julien. 2003. Scalar implicatures: Experiments at the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognition 86. 253–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perlmutter, David M., and Moore, John. 2002. Language-internal explanation: The distribution of Russian impersonals. Language 78. 619–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1979. Formal models of language learning. Cognition 7. 217–83.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
Rappaport Hovav, Malka, and Levin, Beth. 2008. The English dative alternation: The case for verb sensitivity. Journal of Linguistics 44. 129–67.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Coreference and bound anaphora: A restatement of the anaphora questions. Linguistics and Philosophy 6. 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1982. Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sakas, William G., and Fodor, Janet Dean. 2001. The structural triggers learner. Language acquisition and learnability, ed. by Bertolo, Stefano, 172–233. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savage, Ceri, Lieven, Elena, Theakston, Anna; and Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Testing the abstractness of children's linguistic representations: Lexical and structural priming of syntactic constructions in young children. Developmental Science 6. 557–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Selkirk, Elisabeth O. 1984. Phonology and syntax: The relation between sound and structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Shimpi, Priya M., Gámez, Perla B., Huttenlocher, Janellen; and Vasilyeva, Marina. 2007. Syntactic priming in 3- and 4-year-old children: Evidence for abstract representations of transitive and dative forms. Developmental Psychology 43.6.1334–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snyder, William. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sridhar, S. N. 1990. Kannada. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2006. The argument structure of verbal alternations in Tamil. West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL) 25. 390–98.Google Scholar
Suñer, Margarita. 1988. The role of agreement in clitic-doubled constructions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6. 391–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tamura, Shin-Ichi, Katsura, Natsuko, Kaneko, Yoshiaki; and Koizumi, Masatoshi. 2007. Word-order preferences in Japanese children's ditransitives: The effect of verb meanings. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston.Google Scholar
Thothathiri, Malathi, and Snedeker, Jesse. 2008. Syntactic priming during language comprehension in three- and four-year-old children. Journal of Memory and Language 58. 188–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tirumalesh, K. V. 2000. The landscape of language: Issues in Kannada linguistics. New Delhi: Allied.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1992. First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1998. One child's early talk about possession. The linguistics of giving, ed. by Newman, John, 349–74. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2000. Do young children have adult syntactic competence? Cognition 74. 209–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael, and Akhtar, Nameera. 2003. What paradox? A response to Naigles (2002). Cognition 88. 317–23.Google ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, Michael, and Brooks, Patricia J.. 1998. Young children's earliest transitive and intransitive constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 9.4.379–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uriagereka, Juan. 1988. On government. Storrs: University of Connecticut dissertation.Google Scholar
van Hoek, Karen. 1997. Anaphora and conceptual structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Viau, Joshua. 2006. Give = CAUSE + HAVE / GO: Evidence for early semantic decomposition of dative verbs in English child corpora. Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) 30. 665–76.Google Scholar
Viau, Joshua. 2007. Possession and spatial motion in the acquisition of ditransitives. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University dissertation.Google Scholar
Viau, Joshua, and Landau, Barbara. 2011. The language of possession and space: Differential encoding of recipients and locations in transfer events. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, ms.Google Scholar
Yuan, Sylvia, Fisher, Cynthia L., Gertner, Yael; and Snedeker, Jesse. 2007. Participants are more than physical bodies: 21-month-olds assign relational meaning to novel transitive verbs. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston.Google Scholar