Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T12:03:18.130Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Form and function in early clause-combining

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2015

LYLE LUSTIGMAN  and
RUTH A. BERMAN
LYLE LUSTIGMAN*
Affiliation:
Stanford University, USA
RUTH A. BERMAN
Affiliation:
Tel Aviv University, Israel
*
[*]Address for correspondence: Lyle Lustigman, Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-2150, USA. E-mail: lustig@stanford.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study characterizes developmental trends in early Hebrew clause-combining (CC) by analyzing the interplay between linguistic form and communicative function in different interactional settings. Analysis applied to all utterances produced by three children aged 2;0–3;0 who combined two or more clauses, either self-initiated or on the basis of adult input. Ten types of CC were analyzed for marking by connectives (e.g. the Hebrew equivalents of ‘and’, ‘that’, ‘so’). Four shared consecutive developmental phases emerged: non-marking; partial marking by ‘and’ and ‘that’; use of ‘but’ and ‘because’, favored significantly in interlocutor-supported contexts; marking of adverbial relations and more varied use of še- ‘that’. These CC processes are interpreted as reflecting general properties of language development, in the form of gradually increasing specification of form–function relations under the impact of interlocutor–child interactive support combined with Hebrew-particular typological factors.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 157 - 185
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Aksu-Koç, A. & von Stutterheim, C. (1994). Temporal relations in narrative: simultaneity. In Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I., Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study, 393–456. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ardery, G. 1979. The development of coordination in child language. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 18, 745–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ariel, M. (1978). That's a problem in Hebrew. Unpublished Master's thesis, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Armon-Lotem, S. (2004). The acquisition of subordination: from preconjunctionals to later use. In Ravid, D. D. & Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, H. (eds), Perspectives on language and language development: essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman, 191–202. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Arnon, I. (2011). Relative clause acquisition in Hebrew and the learning of constructions. In Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: processing, typology, and function, 81–106. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Azar, M. (1977). Surface and depth in syntax. Haifa: Haifa University Press [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1978). Modern Hebrew structure. Tel Aviv: Universities Publishing.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1986). A step-by-step model of language learning. In Levin, I. (Ed.), Stage and structure: re-opening the debate, 191–241. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1990). Acquiring an (S)VO language: subjectless sentences in children's Hebrew. Linguistics 28, 1135–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1993). Developmental perspectives on transitivity: a confluence of cues. In Levy, Y. (ed.), Other children, other languages: issues in the theory of acquisition, 189–241. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1996). Form and function in developing narrative abilities: the case of ‘and’. In Slobin, D. I., Gerhardt, J., Kyratzis, A. & Guo, J. (eds), Social interaction, context, and language: essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, 243–68. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (1998). Typological perspectives on connectivity. In Dittmar, N. & Penner, Z. (eds), Issues in the theory of language acquisition, 203–24. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (2004). Between emergence and mastery: the long developmental route of language acquisition. In Berman, R. A. (ed.), Language development across childhood and adolescence, 9–34. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. (2009). Beyond the sentence: language development in narrative contexts. In Bavin, E. (ed.), Handbook of child language, 354–75. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. (2011). Revisiting impersonal constructions in Hebrew: corpus-based perspectives. In Malchov, A. & Sierwieska, A. (eds), The typology of impersonal constructions, 323–55. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Lustigman, L. (2014). Emergent clause-combining in adult–child interactional contexts, In Arnon, I., Casillas, M., Kurumada, C. & Estigarribia, B. (eds), Language in interaction: studies in honor of Eve V. Clark, 281–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Neeman, Y. (1994). Acquisition of forms: Hebrew. In Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I., Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study, 285–328. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Nir, B. (2009). Clause-packaging in narratives: a crosslinguistic developmental study. In Guo, J., Lieven, E., Ervin-Tripp, S., Budwig, N., Özçalişkan, S. & Nakamura, K. (eds), Crosslinguistic approaches to the psychology of language: research in the tradition of Dan I. Slobin, 149–62. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Nir, B. (2014). Clause-combining in Hebrew from early childhood across adolescence: a usage-based approach. Final research report submitted to Israel Science Foundation, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in narrative: a crosslinguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Berman, R. A. & Verhoeven, L. (Eds.) (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives on the development of text production abilities in speech and writing. Written Languages and Literacy 5(1/2), 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, B. (2010). Capturing particulars and universals in clause linkage: a multivariate analysis. In Bril, I. (ed.), Clause-hierarchy and clause-linking: the syntax and pragmatics interface, 51–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, J. (1966). Essentials of syntax. Jerusalem: Israel Institute for Writing Education [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1991). Language development from two to three. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Tackeff, J. & Lahey, M. (1984). Learning ‘to’ in complement constructions. Journal of Child Language 11, 391–406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bowerman, M. (1979). The acquisition of complex sentences. In Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (eds), Language acquisition, 283–305. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. L. (1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time: the flow of language in speech and writing. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (2009). First language acquisition, 3rd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diessel, H. (2004). The acquisition of complex sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dor, D. (2005). Towards a semantic account of that-deletion in English. Linguistics 43, 345–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dromi, E. & Berman, R. A. (1986). Language-general and language-specific in developing syntax. Journal of Child Language 14, 371–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evers-Vermul, J. (2005). The development of Dutch connectives: change and acquisition as windows on form–function relations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Foley, W. A. & Van Valin, R. D. (1984). Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. C. M., Sebastián, E. & Soto, P. (1999). The early acquisition of Spanish verbal morphology: across-the-board or piecemeal knowledge? International Journal of Bilingualism 3, 133–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. (2009). The genesis of syntactic complexity. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haiman, J. & Thompson, S. A. (eds) (1988). Clause combining in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1989). Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, S. (2005). Grammaticalization and English complex prepositions: a corpus-based study. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jisa, H. (1987). Sentence connectors in French children's monologue performance. Journal of Pragmatics 11, 607–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1979). A functional approach to child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1983). Language development as a problem-solving process. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 22, 1–22.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1986). Stage/structure versus phase/process in modeling linguistic and cognitive development. In Levin, I. (ed.), Stage and structure: reopening the debate, 164–90. New York: Ablex.Google Scholar
Limber, J. (1973). The genesis of complex sentences. In Moore, T. (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 169–86. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lust, B., Foley, C. & Dye, C. (2009). The first language acquisition of complex sentences. In Bavin, E. (ed.), Handbook of child language, 463–505. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lust, B. & Y-Chien, C. (1984). The structure of coordination in first language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese: evidence for a universal. Cognition 17, 49–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lustigman, L. (2013a). Developing structural specification: productivity in early Hebrew verb usage. First Language 33, 47–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lustigman, L. (2013b). Linguistic interfaces in early acquisition: lexical classes and grammatical systems in Hebrew child language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk, 3rd ed, Vol.1: the format and programs. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mann, W. C. & Thompson, S. A. (1986). Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9, 57–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, B. (2008). Clause packages as constructions in developing narrative discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tel Aviv University.Google Scholar
Nir, B. & Berman, R. A. (2010a). Complex syntax as a window on contrastive rhetoric. Journal of Pragmatics 42, 744–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nir, B. & Berman, R. A. (2010b). Parts of speech as constructions: the case of Hebrew ‘adverbs’. Constructions and Frames 2, 242–74 [Special issue in honor of C. J. Fillmore].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C. & McCabe, A. (1987). The connective ‘and’: Do older children use it less as they learn other connectives? Journal of Child Language 14, 375–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pizzuto, E. & Caselli, M. C. (1994). The acquisition of Italian verb morphology in a cross-linguistic perspective. In Levy, Y. (ed.), Other children, other languages: issues in the theory of language acquisition, 137–87. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ravid, D. (2012). Spelling morphology: the psycholinguistics of Hebrew spelling. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ravid, D. & Saban, R. (2008). Syntactic and meta-syntactic skills in the school years: a developmental study in Hebrew. In Stavans, A. & Kupferber, I. (eds), Language education in Israel: papers in honor of Elite Olshtain, 75–110. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Google Scholar
Saint-Dizier, P. (ed.) (2006). Syntax and semantics of prepositions. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekali, M. (2012). The emergence of complex sentences in a French child's language from 0;10 to 4;01: causal adverbial clauses and the concertina effect. Journal of French Language Studies 22, 115–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development, 175–220. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art, 128–70. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (2004). The many ways to search for a frog: linguistic typology and the expression of motion events. In Strömqvist, S. & Verhoeven, L. (eds), Relating events in narrative: Vol. 2: typological and contextual perspectives, 219–57. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Strömqvist, S., Johansson, V., Kriz, S., Ragnarsdóttir, H. & Ravid, D. (2002). Toward a cross-linguistic comparison of lexical quanta in speech and writing. Written Language and Literacy 5, 45–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, H., de Villiers, J. & Hakuta, K. (1982). The development of sentence coordination. In Kuczaj, S. (ed.), Language development. Vol. 1: syntax and semantics, 201–44. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van Veen, R. (2011). The acquisition of causal connectives: the role of parental input and cognitive complexity. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
van Veen, R., Evers-Vermuel, J., Sanders, T. & van den Bergh, H. (2014). ‘Why? Because I'm talking to you!’ Parental input and cognitive complexity as determinants of children's connective acquisition. In Gruber, H. & Redeker, G. (eds), The pragmatics of discourse coherence: theories and applications, 209–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vasilyeva, M., Waterfall, H. & Huttenlocher, J. (2008). Emergence of syntax: commonalities and differences across children. Developmental Science 11, 84–97.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Veneziano, E. & Sinclair, H. (2000). The changing status of ‘filler syllables’ on the way to grammatical morphemes. Journal of Child Language 27, 461–500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed