Home Linguistics & Semiotics A cognitive approach to semantic approximations in monolingual English-speaking children
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

A cognitive approach to semantic approximations in monolingual English-speaking children

  • Lorena Pérez-Hernández EMAIL logo and Karine Duvignau
Published/Copyright: September 18, 2020

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.


Lorena Pérez-Hernández University of La Rioja Dpto. Filologías Modernas c/ San José de Calasanz, s/n Logroño, 26004 Spain

6

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.Search in Google Scholar

Agustín Llach, M. 2011. Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing. London: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847694188Search 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.12018Search 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.1207Search in Google Scholar

Bates, E. and G. Carnevale. 1993. “New directions in research on language development”. Developmental Review 13. 436–470.10.1006/drev.1993.1020Search in Google Scholar

Billow, R.M. 1975. “A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension”. Developmental Psychology 11. 415–423.10.1037/h0076668Search 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-XSearch 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.2011.0012Search in Google Scholar

Bowerman, M. 1978. “Systematizing semantic knowledge: Changes over time in the child’s organization of word meaning”. Child Development 49(4). 977–987.10.2307/1128737Search 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/B978-0-12-673020-3.50012-4Search in Google Scholar

Clark, E.V. 1993. The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511554377Search in Google Scholar

Clark, E.V. 2016. First Language Acquisition (3rd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316534175Search 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/S0305000907008537Search 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/S0305000903005701Search 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/BF03195780Search 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. 75–113.10.1515/9783110219197Search in Google Scholar

Dromi, E. 1987. Early lexical development Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search 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.Search in Google Scholar

Duvignau, K. 2003. “Métaphore verbale et approximation”. Revue D’Intelligence Artificielle 5-6. 869–881.10.3166/ria.17.869-881Search 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.Search 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).10.2307/1166093Search in Google Scholar

Ganger, J. and M.R. Brendt. 2004. “Reexamining the vocabulary spurt”. Developmental Psychology 40(4). 621–632.10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.621Search in Google Scholar

Gairns, R. and S. Redman. 1986. Working with words. A Guide to teaching and learning vocabulary. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search 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.2009.0213Search 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.28.05geeSearch 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.1997.0664Search 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/S0305000906007562Search 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.12449Search in Google Scholar

Goldberg, A.E. 2011. “Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical pre-emption”. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 131–154.10.1515/cogl.2011.006Search 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.175.06graSearch 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/CBO9780511817755.002Search 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.xSearch 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.xSearch 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/S0305000900006838Search 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.10.4324/9781410611550Search in Google Scholar

Jiménez Catalán, R. 1992. Errores en la producción escrita del inglés y posibles factores condicionantes. Madrid: Universidad Complutense.Search 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.v31i1.899Search 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.2007.07.089Search 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_3Search in Google Scholar

Laganaro, M. 1997. “Production et compréhension des métaphores chez l’enfant”. Archives de Psychologie 253. 141–165.Search 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.2003.11.008Search 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/9780226471013.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, G. and M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the flesh. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, R. 1993. “Reference-point constructions” Cognitive Linguistics 4(1). 1– 38.10.1515/cogl.1993.4.1.1Search 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.2011.11.013Search 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.Search 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. 383–99.10.1348/026151005X26732Search 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.4.15pauSearch 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). 383–406.10.1177/0142723716648845Search in Google Scholar

Piaget, J. 1962. Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.Search 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.2004.07.004Search 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.2004.08.004Search 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/BF01069237Search 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. 927–960.10.1080/03640210701703576Search 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/e666602011-017Search 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). 547–563.10.1348/026151009X454373Search in Google Scholar

Ruiz de Mendoza, F.J. and A. Galera Masegosa. 2014. Cognitive modeling. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/hcp.45Search in Google Scholar

Singleton, D. 1999. Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139524636Search in Google Scholar

Strapp, C.M. and A. Federico. 2000. “Imitations and repetitions: what do children say following recasts?” First Language 3. 273–290.10.1177/014272370002006003Search in Google Scholar

Swan, D.W. 2012. “How to build a lexicon: a case study of lexical errors and innovations”. First Language 20. 187–204.10.1177/014272370002005904Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, J. 1995. Linguistic categorization: Prototypes in linguistic theory. London: Clarendom Press.Search in Google Scholar

Verhallen, M. and R. Schoonen. 1993. “Lexical knowledge of monolingual and bilingual children”. Applied Linguistics 4. 344–363.10.1093/applin/14.4.344Search 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/S030500090000249XSearch 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.23219790602Search in Google Scholar

Zimmerman, R. 1986. “Semantics and lexical error analysis”. Englisch-Amerikanische Studien 2. 294–305.Search in Google Scholar

Zimmerman, R. 1987. “Form-oriented and content-oriented lexical errors in L2 learners”. IRAL 25(1). 55–67.Search 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.AgeContextOccurrenceMapping
[13]4;5/a fire alarm going off/it’s screaming loudINANIMATE ENTITIES ARE ANIMATE ENTITIES
[56]3;10/a toy bear being mended/it’s not wounded, the toy bear is not wounded nowINANIMATE ENTITIES ARE ANIMATE ENTITIES
[58]2;2/a man peeling a tangerine/the tangerine is nakedNON-HUMAN ENTITIES ARE HUMAN ENTITIES
[134]1;10/a man snoring/he is roaringHUMAN ENTITIES ARE NON-HUMAN ENTITIES
[137]2;7/a dog barking/the dog is shouting at you mumNON-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.AgeContextOccurrenceMapping
[5]1;10/squashing a piece of fruit/he breaks the pear […] with his foot, mummy, breaks the pearGENERIC (to break) FOR SPECIFIC (to squash)
[49]3;03/smoke coming out of a factory chimney/it’s smoking. Bad chimney is smokingCAUSE (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 paperGENERIC (to break) FOR SPECIFIC (to tear up)
[124]1;10/a plane taking off/it’s going upGENERIC (to go up) FOR SPECIFIC (to take off)
[147]3;05/a snowman melting/the snowman is hot, too hot. Mum, it needs iceCAUSE (to heat) FOR EFFECT (to melt)

2b. Semantic approximations based on domain-extension operations (56)

No.AgeContextOccurrenceMapping
[11]3;03/peeling a tangerine/the tangerine is nakedEFFECT (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 puzzleEFFECT (to be apparently broken into pieces) FOR CAUSE (to take apart)
[87]2;2/a TV being switched off/the TV has goneEFFECT (to disappear) FOR CAUSE (to switch off)
[114]1;10/a toy bear being mended/he’s operated. He is ok nowSPECIFIC (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.AgeContextOccurrence
[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.AgeContextOccurrence
[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
Published Online: 2020-09-18
Published in Print: 2020-06-25

© 2020 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland

Downloaded on 13.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/psicl-2020-0008/pdf
Scroll to top button