Argument structure: Relationships between theory and acquisition

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

This chapter brings together perspectives from theoretical linguistics and from language acquisition research to ask how these mutually inform each other with respect to the question of how argument structure knowledge is represented in the mind. Three theories of argument structure representation are considered: Lexical Projectionism, Compositional Non–projectionism, and Construction Grammar, and their relationships to our understanding of child language development are explored. Though several apparent points of contact between these literatures are considered, I conclude that, largely, the acquisition data do not clearly support any one of the argument structure architectures. Nevertheless, I point out some promising directions for future experimental research with children.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationCognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing
PublisherSpringer International Publishing
Pages259-280
Number of pages22
ISBN (Electronic)9783319101125
ISBN (Print)9783319101118
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015

Fingerprint

Child Language
Language Development
Linguistics
Child Development
Research
Language
data acquisition
language acquisition
grammar
contact
linguistics
language
Argument Structure
Direction compound
literature
Construction Grammar
Theoretical Linguistics
Theory of Argument
Experimental Research
Language Acquisition

Keywords

  • Argument structure
  • Child language
  • Construction grammar
  • Language acquisition
  • Language development
  • Lexical projectionism
  • Neo-constructionist
  • Non-projectionism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Arts and Humanities(all)
  • Social Sciences(all)

Cite this

Arunachalam, S. (2015). Argument structure: Relationships between theory and acquisition. In Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing (pp. 259-280). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_12

Argument structure : Relationships between theory and acquisition. / Arunachalam, Sudha.

Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing. Springer International Publishing, 2015. p. 259-280.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Arunachalam, S 2015, Argument structure: Relationships between theory and acquisition. in Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing. Springer International Publishing, pp. 259-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_12
Arunachalam S. Argument structure: Relationships between theory and acquisition. In Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing. Springer International Publishing. 2015. p. 259-280 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_12
Arunachalam, Sudha. / Argument structure : Relationships between theory and acquisition. Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing. Springer International Publishing, 2015. pp. 259-280
@inbook{1c32663645c54fcd9e7dc4f3d0f1e423,
title = "Argument structure: Relationships between theory and acquisition",
abstract = "This chapter brings together perspectives from theoretical linguistics and from language acquisition research to ask how these mutually inform each other with respect to the question of how argument structure knowledge is represented in the mind. Three theories of argument structure representation are considered: Lexical Projectionism, Compositional Non–projectionism, and Construction Grammar, and their relationships to our understanding of child language development are explored. Though several apparent points of contact between these literatures are considered, I conclude that, largely, the acquisition data do not clearly support any one of the argument structure architectures. Nevertheless, I point out some promising directions for future experimental research with children.",
keywords = "Argument structure, Child language, Construction grammar, Language acquisition, Language development, Lexical projectionism, Neo-constructionist, Non-projectionism",
author = "Sudha Arunachalam",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_12",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9783319101118",
pages = "259--280",
booktitle = "Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing",
publisher = "Springer International Publishing",

}

TY - CHAP

T1 - Argument structure

T2 - Relationships between theory and acquisition

AU - Arunachalam, Sudha

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - This chapter brings together perspectives from theoretical linguistics and from language acquisition research to ask how these mutually inform each other with respect to the question of how argument structure knowledge is represented in the mind. Three theories of argument structure representation are considered: Lexical Projectionism, Compositional Non–projectionism, and Construction Grammar, and their relationships to our understanding of child language development are explored. Though several apparent points of contact between these literatures are considered, I conclude that, largely, the acquisition data do not clearly support any one of the argument structure architectures. Nevertheless, I point out some promising directions for future experimental research with children.

AB - This chapter brings together perspectives from theoretical linguistics and from language acquisition research to ask how these mutually inform each other with respect to the question of how argument structure knowledge is represented in the mind. Three theories of argument structure representation are considered: Lexical Projectionism, Compositional Non–projectionism, and Construction Grammar, and their relationships to our understanding of child language development are explored. Though several apparent points of contact between these literatures are considered, I conclude that, largely, the acquisition data do not clearly support any one of the argument structure architectures. Nevertheless, I point out some promising directions for future experimental research with children.

KW - Argument structure

KW - Child language

KW - Construction grammar

KW - Language acquisition

KW - Language development

KW - Lexical projectionism

KW - Neo-constructionist

KW - Non-projectionism

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84945156743&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84945156743&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_12

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-10112-5_12

M3 - Chapter

AN - SCOPUS:84945156743

SN - 9783319101118

SP - 259

EP - 280

BT - Cognitive Science Perspectives on Verb Representation and Processing

PB - Springer International Publishing

ER -