A cognitive approach to semantic approximations in monolingual English-speaking children
-
Lorena Pérez-Hernández
und
Karine Duvignau
Abstract
This paper represents a foray into the largely unexplored territory of the cognition of semantic approximations in first language acquisition. Current advances on cognitive modelling are applied to a corpus of 500 semantic approximations produced by 20 children between 1;06 and 5;00 years old. The results reveal that a large number of those semantic approximations are the output of a set of cognitive operations including those of comparison and correlation (i.e. metaphorical projections), domain expansion and reduction (i.e. metonymic mappings), and mitigation and strengthening (i.e. scalar operations). Far for being an impediment to communication, most semantic approximations in our data are found to help children capitalize on their incomplete lexical pool, maximizing its communicative potential. The set of cognitive strategies involved is available from an early age, underlying the use of language throughout our lifespan, and adapting its functions to diverse communicative needs in different stages of our lives.
6 Acknowledgments
The investigation supporting the findings reported in this paper has been financed by FEDER/Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities, State Research Agency, project no. FFI2017-82730-P.
References
Agustín Llach, M. 2005. “A critical review of the terminology and taxonomies used in the literature on lexical errors”. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies 3. 11–24.Suche in Google Scholar
Agustín Llach, M. 2011. Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing. London: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847694188Suche in Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. 2013. “How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations?: a grammaticality judgement study”. Cognitive Science 37(3). 508–543.10.1111/cogs.12018Suche in Google Scholar
Ambridge B., J.M Pine, C. Rowland, F. Chang and A. Bidgood. 2013. “The retreat from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: word learning, morphology, and verb argument structure”. WIREs Cognitive Science 4. 47–62.10.1002/wcs.1207Suche in Google Scholar
Bates, E. and G. Carnevale. 1993. “New directions in research on language development”. Developmental Review 13. 436–470.10.1006/drev.1993.1020Suche in Google Scholar
Billow, R.M. 1975. “A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension”. Developmental Psychology 11. 415–423.10.1037/h0076668Suche in Google Scholar
Billow, R.M. 1981. “Observing spontaneous metaphors in children”. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 31. 430–445.10.1016/0022-0965(81)90028-XSuche in Google Scholar
Boyd, J.K. and A. Goldberg. 2011. “Learning what not to say: the role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production”. Language 85. 55–83.10.1353/lan.2011.0012Suche in Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. 1978. “Systematizing semantic knowledge: Changes over time in the child’s organization of word meaning”. Child Development 49(4). 977–987.10.2307/1128737Suche in Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. 1982. “Starting to talk worse: Clues to language acquisition from children’s late speech errors”. In: Strauss, S. (ed.), U shaped behavioural growth New York: Academic Press. 101-14510.1016/B978-0-12-673020-3.50012-4Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, E.V. 1993. The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554377Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, E.V. 2016. First Language Acquisition (3rd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316534175Suche in Google Scholar
Clark, E.V. and J. Bernicot. 2008. “Repetition as ratification: how parents and children place information in common ground”. Journal of Child Language 35. 349–371.10.1017/S0305000907008537Suche in Google Scholar
Chouinard, M.M. and E.V. Clark. 2003. “Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence”. Journal of Child Language 30. 637–669.10.1017/S0305000903005701Suche in Google Scholar
Coulson, S. and C. Van Petten. 2002. “Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event related study”. Memory & Cognition 30. 958–968.10.3758/BF03195780Suche in Google Scholar
Dirven, R. 2003. “Metaphor and metonymy: Different mental strategies in conceptualization”. In: Dirven, R. and R. Porings (eds.). Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 75–113.10.1515/9783110219197Suche in Google Scholar
Dromi, E. 1987. Early lexical development Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Duvignau, K. 2002. La métaphore, berceau et enfant de la langue: la métaphore verbale comme approximation sémantique par analogie dans les textes scientifiques et les productions enfantines (2-4 ans). Unpublished Doctoral dissertation (Linguistics). Université Toulouse.Suche in Google Scholar
Duvignau, K. 2003. “Métaphore verbale et approximation”. Revue D’Intelligence Artificielle 5-6. 869–881.10.3166/ria.17.869-881Suche in Google Scholar
Duvignau, K., L. Fossard, B. Gaume, M.A. Pimenta and J. Elie. 2007. “Semantic approximations and flexibility in the dynamic construction and ‘deconstruction’ of meaning”. Linguagem em (Dis)curso 7(3). 371–387.Suche in Google Scholar
Fenson, L., P.S. Dale, J.S. Reznick, E. Bates, D.J. Thal and S.J. Pethick. 1994. Variability in early communicative developmentMonographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59(242).10.2307/1166093Suche in Google Scholar
Ganger, J. and M.R. Brendt. 2004. “Reexamining the vocabulary spurt”. Developmental Psychology 40(4). 621–632.10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.621Suche in Google Scholar
Gairns, R. and S. Redman. 1986. Working with words. A Guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Gaskell, G. and A.W. Ellis. 2009. “Word learning and lexical development across the lifespan”. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society 36. 3607–3615.10.1098/rstb.2009.0213Suche in Google Scholar
Geeraerts, D. and Y. Peirsman. 2011. “Zones, facets, and prototype-based metonymy”. In: Benczes, R., A. Barcelona and F. Ruiz de Mendoza (eds.), Defining metonymy in Cognitive Linguistics: Towards a consensus view. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 89– 102.10.1075/hcp.28.05geeSuche in Google Scholar
Gerskoff-Stowe, L. and L.B. Smith. 1997. “A curvilinear trend in naming errors as a function of early vocabulary growth”. Cognitive Psychology 34. 37–71.10.1006/cogp.1997.0664Suche in Google Scholar
Gershkoff-Stowe L., B. Connell and L. Smith. 2006. “Priming overgeneralizations in two- and four-year-old children”. Journal of Child Language 33. 461–486.10.1017/S0305000906007562Suche in Google Scholar
Ghassabian A., L. Rescorla, J. Henrichs, VW. Jaddoe, F.C. Verhulst and H. Tiemeier. 2014. “Early lexical development and risk of verbal and nonverbal cognitive delay at school age”. Acta Paediatrica 103(1). 70–80.10.1111/apa.12449Suche in Google Scholar
Goldberg, A.E. 2011. “Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical pre-emption”. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 131–154.10.1515/cogl.2011.006Suche in Google Scholar
Grady, J. 1999. “A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance”. In: Steen, G. and R. Gibbs (eds.), Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 79–100.10.1075/cilt.175.06graSuche in Google Scholar
Hauser, M.D., N. Chomsky and W.T. Fitch. 2002. “The faculty of language: what is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?”. Science 298. 1569–1579.10.1017/CBO9780511817755.002Suche in Google Scholar
Imai, M., E. Haryu and H. Okada. 2005. “Mapping novel nouns and verbs onto dynamic action events: Are verb meanings easier to learn than noun meanings for Japanese children?”. Child Development 76. 340–355.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00849_a.xSuche in Google Scholar
Imai, M., L. Li Haryu, E. Okada, H. Hirsh-Pasek, K. Golinkoff and J. Shigematsu. 2008. “Novel noun and verb learning in Chinese-, English-, and Japanese-speaking children”. Child Development 79. 979–1000.10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01171.xSuche in Google Scholar
Hoek D., D. Ingram and D. Gibson. 1986. “Some possible causes of children’s early word overextensions”. Journal of Child Language 13(3). 477–94.10.1017/S0305000900006838Suche in Google Scholar
Jaeger, J.J. 2005. Kids’ slips: What young children’s slips of the tongue reveal about language development. London, Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.10.4324/9781410611550Suche in Google Scholar
Jiménez Catalán, R. 1992. Errores en la producción escrita del inglés y posibles factores condicionantes. Madrid: Universidad Complutense.Suche in Google Scholar
Katis, D. and S. Selimis. 2009. “The development of metaphoric motion: Evidence from Greek children’s narratives”. Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 31(1). 205-216.10.3765/bls.v31i1.899Suche in Google Scholar
Klepousniotou, E. and S.R. Baum. 2007. “Clarifying further the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: Effects of aging and left-hemisphere damage on the processing of homonymy and polysemy”. Brain and Language 103. 148–9.10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.089Suche in Google Scholar
Kyratzis, A. and G. Jiansheng. 2001. “Pre-school girls’ and boys’ verbal strategies in the United States and China”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(1). 45–74.10.1207/S15327973RLSI3401_3Suche in Google Scholar
Laganaro, M. 1997. “Production et compréhension des métaphores chez l’enfant”. Archives de Psychologie 253. 141–165.Suche in Google Scholar
Ladegaard, H.J. 2004. “Politeness in young children’s speech: context, peer group influence and pragmatic competence”. Journal of Pragmatics 36. 2003–2022.10.1016/j.pragma.2003.11.008Suche in Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Suche in Google Scholar
Langacker, R. 1993. “Reference-point constructions” Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1– 38.10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1Suche in Google Scholar
Naylor, L. and J. Herwegen. 2012. “The production of figurative language in typically developing children and Williams Syndrome”. Research in Developmental Disabilities 33(2). 711–716.10.1016/j.ridd.2011.11.013Suche in Google Scholar
Nooteboom, S.G. 1980. “Speaking and unspeaking: detection and correction of phonological and lexical errors in spontaneous speech”. In: Fromkin, V. (ed.), Errors in linguistic performance. London: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Norbury, C.F. 2005. “The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence from children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder”. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 23. 383–99.10.1348/026151005X26732Suche in Google Scholar
Pauwels, P. 1999. “Putting metonymy in its place”. In: Panther, K. and G. Radden (eds.), Metonymy in language and thought. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.4.15pauSuche in Google Scholar
Pérez-Hernández, L. and K. Duvignau. 2016. “Metaphor, metonymy, and their interaction in the production of semantic approximations by monolingual children: A corpus study”. First Language 36(4). 383–406.10.1177/0142723716648845Suche in Google Scholar
Piaget, J. 1962. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.Suche in Google Scholar
Ping, L., I. Farkasb and B. MacWhinney. 2004. “Early lexical development in a self-organizing neural network”. Neural Networks 17. 1345–1362.10.1016/j.neunet.2004.07.004Suche in Google Scholar
Pinker, S. and R. Jackendoff. 2005. “The faculty of language: what’s special about it?”. Cognition 95. 201–236.10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004Suche in Google Scholar
Pollio, M.R. and H.R. Pollio. 1974. “The development of figurative language in children”. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 3(3). 185–201.10.1007/BF01069237Suche in Google Scholar
Ramscar, M. and D. Yarlett. 2007. “Linguistic self-correction in the absence of feedback: a new approach to the logical problem of language acquisition”. Cognitive Science 31. 927–960.10.1080/03640210701703576Suche in Google Scholar
Rosch, E., C.B. Mervis, W.D. Gray, D.M. Johnson and P. Boyes-Braem. 1976. “Basic objects in natural categories”. Cognitive Psychology 8. 382–439.10.1037/e666602011-017Suche in Google Scholar
Rundblad, G. and D. Annaz. 2010. “Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge”. British Journal of Developmental Psychology 28(3). 547–563.10.1348/026151009X454373Suche in Google Scholar
Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and A. Galera Masegosa. 2014. Cognitive modeling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.45Suche in Google Scholar
Singleton, D. 1999. Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524636Suche in Google Scholar
Strapp, C.M. and A. Federico. 2000. “Imitations and repetitions: what do children say following recasts?” First Language 3. 273–290.10.1177/014272370002006003Suche in Google Scholar
Swan, D.W. 2012. “How to build a lexicon: a case study of lexical errors and innovations”. First Language 20. 187–204.10.1177/014272370002005904Suche in Google Scholar
Taylor, J. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. London: Clarendom Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Verhallen, M. and R. Schoonen. 1993. “Lexical knowledge of monolingual and bilingual children”. Applied Linguistics 4. 344–363.10.1093/applin/14.4.344Suche in Google Scholar
Winner, E. 1979. “New names for old things: The emergence of metaphoric language”. Journal of Child Language 6. 469–491.10.1017/S030500090000249XSuche in Google Scholar
Winner, E. and H. Gardner. 1979. “Investigations on the imaginative realm”. New Directions for Child Development 6. 7–12.10.1002/cd.23219790602Suche in Google Scholar
Zimmerman, R. 1986. “Semantics and lexical error analysis”. Englisch-Amerikanische Studien 2. 294–305.Suche in Google Scholar
Zimmerman, R. 1987. “Form-oriented and content-oriented lexical errors in L2 learners”. IRAL 25(1). 55–67.Suche in Google Scholar
Appendix 1
Sample list of examples in the corpus classified per category of semantic approximation.
1. Metaphor-based semantic approximations
1a. Semantic approximations based on comparison operations (166 occurrences)
| No. | Age | Context | Occurrence | Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [13] | 4;5 | /a fire alarm going off/ | it’s screaming loud | INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE ANIMATE ENTITIES |
| [56] | 3;10 | /a toy bear being mended/ | it’s not wounded, the toy bear is not wounded now | INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE ANIMATE ENTITIES |
| [58] | 2;2 | /a man peeling a tangerine/ | the tangerine is naked | NON-HUMAN ENTITIES ARE HUMAN ENTITIES |
| [134] | 1;10 | /a man snoring/ | he is roaring | HUMAN ENTITIES ARE NON-HUMAN ENTITIES |
| [137] | 2;7 | /a dog barking/ | the dog is shouting at you mum | NON-HUMAN ENTITIES ARE HUMAN ENTITIES |
1b. Semantic approximations based on correlation operations (1 occurrence, see example (5) in the text of the paper)
2. Metonymy-based semantic approximations
2a. Semantic approximations based on domain-reduction operations (191)
| No. | Age | Context | Occurrence | Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [5] | 1;10 | /squashing a piece of fruit/ | he breaks the pear […] with his foot, mummy, breaks the pear | GENERIC (to break) FOR SPECIFIC (to squash) |
| [49] | 3;03 | /smoke coming out of a factory chimney/ | it’s smoking. Bad chimney is smoking | CAUSE (to smoke) FOR EFFECT (smoke coming out) + Metaphor INANIMATE ENTITIES ARE ANIMATE ENTITIES |
| [69] | 4;10 | /tearing up a sheet of paper/ | he’s breaking the paper | GENERIC (to break) FOR SPECIFIC (to tear up) |
| [124] | 1;10 | /a plane taking off/ | it’s going up | GENERIC (to go up) FOR SPECIFIC (to take off) |
| [147] | 3;05 | /a snowman melting/ | the snowman is hot, too hot. Mum, it needs ice | CAUSE (to heat) FOR EFFECT (to melt) |
2b. Semantic approximations based on domain-extension operations (56)
| No. | Age | Context | Occurrence | Mapping |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [11] | 3;03 | /peeling a tangerine/ | the tangerine is naked | EFFECT (to be naked) FOR CAUSE (to peel) + Metaphor NON-HUMAN ENTITIES ARE HUMAN ENTITIES |
| [36] | 3;10 | /taking apart a puzzle/ | the boy has broken the puzzle | EFFECT (to be apparently broken into pieces) FOR CAUSE (to take apart) |
| [87] | 2;2 | /a TV being switched off/ | the TV has gone | EFFECT (to disappear) FOR CAUSE (to switch off) |
| [114] | 1;10 | /a toy bear being mended/ | he’s operated. He is ok now | SPECIFIC (to have an operation) FOR GENERIC (to be mended) + Metaphor NONHUMAN ENTITIES ARE HUMAN ENTITIES |
| [149] | 2;9 | /flowers growing/ | they are getting very tall!! | SPECIFIC (to get tall) FOR GENERIC (to grow) |
3. Scalar semantic approximations
3a. Semantic approximations based on mitigation operations (7)
| No. | Age | Context | Occurrence |
|---|---|---|---|
| [3] | 4;05 | /a cake being reduced to crumbs/ | it’s a bit damaged |
| [16] | 2;06 | /bursting a balloon/ | the balloon has gone |
| [52] | 2;2 | /tearing up a sheet of paper / | he’s split the paper… a little bit |
| [121] | 3;10 | /a man snoring/ | he is a bit noisy, mum. Dad too. Makes noise |
| [133] | 2;7 | /squashing a piece of fruit/ | she’s pushing on the pear. It’s going to break |
3b. Semantic approximations based on strengthening operations (65)
| No. | Age | Context | Occurrence |
|---|---|---|---|
| [2] | 4;05 | /a fire alarm going off/ | it’s screaming loud |
| [63] | 1;10 | /a toy bear being mended/ | toy bear is dying |
| [51] | 3;10 | /a man peeling a tangerine/ | the tangerine is naked |
| [144] | 2;2 | /a man snoring/ | he is roaring |
| [155] | 4;05 | /a dog barking/ | the dog is screaming. He is angry |
© 2020 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The linguistic construction of sentiment expressions in student opinionated content: A corpus-based study
- Syntax meets discourse: Locative and deictic (directional) inversion in English
- A cognitive approach to semantic approximations in monolingual English-speaking children
- Shifting genres: Rendering bad language in the Polish voice-over of the Canadian drama American Heist
- Verb valency in interlanguage: An extension to valency theory and new perspective on L2 learning
- Introducing corpus-based translation studies
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- The linguistic construction of sentiment expressions in student opinionated content: A corpus-based study
- Syntax meets discourse: Locative and deictic (directional) inversion in English
- A cognitive approach to semantic approximations in monolingual English-speaking children
- Shifting genres: Rendering bad language in the Polish voice-over of the Canadian drama American Heist
- Verb valency in interlanguage: An extension to valency theory and new perspective on L2 learning
- Introducing corpus-based translation studies
