Argument Structure Preferences in Pre-School and School-Age Children*

  • R. Ingham
  • Christina Schelletter
  • Indra Sinka


Study of the acquisition of verb argument structure is an area that has seen considerable growth in recent years, particularly since the appearance of Pinker’s (1989) study of the acquisition of argument structure alternations (see e.g., Brinkman, 1995;Gropen et al., 1989;Gropen et al., 1991;Ingham, 1990,Ingham, 1993/4; Naigles, 1990). In this paper we wish to investigate a relatively less studied aspect of argument structure in children’s language. Although some light has been cast on constraints that underlie argument structure alternations, and the lexical representations involved in argument structure alternations that can be ascribed to children, not much is known about how argument structure typically develops in use between the pre-school and early school years, and whether certain argument structure realisations are more typical of certain stages of development than others. Our intention in this paper is to investigate this issue, focusing on a few of the better studied argument structure types, especially those involving what can loosely be called location events, in which an entity moves or is moved to another location.


Specific Language Impairment Direct Object Argument Structure Semantic Role Sentence Length 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics 28,1253–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Braine, M., R. Brody, S. Fisch, M. Weisberger, & M. Blum (1990). Can children use a verb without exposure to its argument structure? Journal of Child Language 17,313–342.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinkmann, U. (1995). The Iticative alternation: its structure and acquisition. PhD Thesis University of Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  4. Carter, R. (1988). “On linking”. Papers by Richard Carter, edited by B. Levin, & C. Tenny. Lexicon Project working papers No. 25. Centre for Cognitive Science, MIT.Google Scholar
  5. Fletcher, P., & M. Garman (1988). Normal language development and language impairment: syntax and beyond. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 2,2, 97–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fletcher, P., R. Ingham, C. Schelleter, & 1. Sinka (in preparation). Verb alternations in English-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment. Ms. University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  7. Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of word meaning. Language Acquisition 1, 3–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gropen, J., S. Pinker, M. Hollander, R. Goldberg, & R. Wilson (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65, 203–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gropen, J. S. Pinker, M. Hollander, & R. Goldberg (1991). Affectedness and Direct Objects: the role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition 91,153–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ingham, R. (1990). Lexical structure and children’s syntax. in: M. Forrester, L.-A. Smith, & B. Shire (eds.):Proceedings of the 1990 Child Language Seminar, University of Kent at Canterbury, pp. 74–85.Google Scholar
  11. Ingham, R. (1993/4). Input and learnability: Direct-Object Omissibility in English. Language Acquisition 3/2, 95–120.Google Scholar
  12. Ingham, R., P. Fletcher, C. Schelleter, & I. Sinka (in press). Resultative VPs and Specific Language Impairment. To appear in Language Acquisition 8.Google Scholar
  13. Naigles, L. (1990). Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17, 357–374.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marchman, V., & L. Bates (1994). Continuity in lexical and morphological development. Journal of Child Language 21, 339–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  16. Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition: the acquisition of argument structure. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Pye, C. (1994). A crosslinguistic approach to the causative alternation In: Y. Levy (ed.) Other children, other Erlbaum: New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  18. Slobin, D. (1981). The origins of grammatical encoding of events. In W. Deutsch (ed.) The child’s construction of language. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  19. Slobin, D. (1985). A crosslinguistic approach to language acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale.Google Scholar
  20. Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs. CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Van der Lely, H. (1994). Canonical linking rules: forward versus reverse linking in normally developing and specifically languageimpaired children. Cognition 51, 29–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Ingham
    • 1
  • Christina Schelletter
    • 1
  • Indra Sinka
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of ReadingUSA

Personalised recommendations