Grammaticalization and language acquisition

Diessel, Holger

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0011

Cited by 47 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The remaining similarities can typically be explained with respect to four domain-general classes of constraint which simultaneously act to shape language: perceptuo-motor factors, cognitive limitations on learning and processing, constraints from thought, and pragmatic constraints (e.g., Goldberg, 2006; Diessel, 2007, 2011; Ambridge and Goldberg, 2008; Christiansen and Chater, 2008). …”

Section: Language Diversity and Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, it is much easier to identify common patterns of language change than it is to find cross-linguistic similarities (Bybee, 2010). Usage-based theories argue this is because there is a universal set of cognitive processes underlying cross-linguistic cycles (e.g., grammaticization, pidginization, and creolization) and the fact that all languages have to pass through the bottleneck of what is learnable (Bybee et al, 1994; Diessel, 2007, 2011; Heine and Kuteva, 2007; Christiansen and Chater, 2008). …”

Section: Language Diversity and Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Scope of Usage-Based Theory

Ibbotson¹

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Usage-based approaches typically draw on a relatively small set of cognitive processes, such as categorization, analogy, and chunking to explain language structure and function. The goal of this paper is to first review the extent to which the “cognitive commitment” of usage-based theory has had success in explaining empirical findings across domains, including language acquisition, processing, and typology. We then look at the overall strengths and weaknesses of usage-based theory and highlight where there are significant debates. Finally, we draw special attention to a set of culturally generated structural patterns that seem to lie beyond the explanation of core usage-based cognitive processes. In this context we draw a distinction between cognition permitting language structure vs. cognition entailing language structure. As well as addressing the need for greater clarity on the mechanisms of generalizations and the fundamental units of grammar, we suggest that integrating culturally generated structures within existing cognitive models of use will generate tighter predictions about how language works.

show abstract

Section: Language Diversity and Usementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Language Diversity and Usementioning

confidence: 99%

The Scope of Usage-Based Theory

Ibbotson¹

2013

Front. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Looking at Sarah's (Brown, 1973) utterances, she begins productively using infinitival‐ to and embedded subjects for the second verb in her utterances at 2;10 (9a,b), and embedding attitude verb epistemics ( know and think ) within the same month as her first epistemic modal verb (8c), at 3;01 (9c). These markers of TP‐embedding emerge before age 3 cross‐linguistically (de Villiers & Roeper, 2016), suggesting this grammatical milestone generalizes.…”

Section: Learning To Map the Modal Spacementioning

confidence: 98%

Learning modals: A grammatical perspective

Cournane

2020

Language and Linguist. Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, we address the mapping problem for modal words: how do children learn the form-tomeaning mappings for words like could or have to in their input languages? Learning modal words poses considerable challenges as their meanings are conceptually complex and the way these meanings are mapped to grammatical forms and structures is likewise complex and cross-linguistically variable. Against a backdrop of how cross-linguistic modal systems can vary, we focus on new work highlighting the developmental roles of the following: (a) syntactic categories of modal words, (b) interrelationships between modal 'force' (possibility and necessity) and 'flavour' (root and epistemic), (c) semantic representations for modal forms and (d) children's own emerging modal systems, as a whole, which show that the way they map forms to the 'modal meaning space' (considering both force and flavour dimensions) diverges from how adults do, even if the same forms are present. Modality provides a rich natural laboratory for exploring the interrelationships between our conceptual world of possibilities, how concepts get packaged by the syntax-semantics of grammatical systems, and how child learners surmount these form-meaning mapping challenges. 1 | INTRODUCTION In this study, we focus on the mapping problem (Gleitman, 1990) for modal words: How do children learn the form-to-meaning mappings for modal forms like could or have to in their input languages? MODALITY is a category of language defined by meaning (Kratzer, 1981),

show abstract

“…Yang (2001) concluded from his research on the relationship between grammaticalization and second language pedagogy that, sufficient knowledge of grammaticalization is conducive to the better mastery of preposition collocations and help deepen students' understanding of some errors. The reasons, as revealed by Diessel (2011), lie in the fact that, diachrony and ontogeny involve the same mechanisms of categorization in the process of grammaticalization and language acquisition, resulting in parallel semantic developments.…”

Section: Implications For Second Language Pedagogymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From the 1980s to early 2000s, research on grammaticalization "has established itself as a major area in linguistic studies" (Lindquist & Mair 2004). Diessel (2011) made a comparison between the diachronic evolution of grammatical markers and their development in child language, finding that grammaticalization and first language acquisition involve the same semantic changes quite often. Further investigation revealed the trend of development from "more concrete meanings" to "abstract grammatical meanings".…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Corpus-based Investigation of Diachronic Evolution of Like and Its Variants through Grammaticalization

Meng

2019

ALLS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research is to investigate the diachronic evolution of the word “like” and its variants “likely”, “like to”, “feel like”, and “would like to”, etc. in the process of grammaticalization. Statistics from the search of corpora BNC and COHA show the variants of “like” and their historical trend of grammatication. The results demonstrate the highly active role of “like” in both lexical and grammatical functions in history. Furthermore, the variants and collocations of “like” have been the result of frequent interaction between human beings and languages. The findings have significant implications for second language pedagogy.

show abstract

Grammaticalization and language acquisition

Cited by 47 publications

References 62 publications

The Scope of Usage-Based Theory

The Scope of Usage-Based Theory

Learning modals: A grammatical perspective

A Corpus-based Investigation of Diachronic Evolution of Like and Its Variants through Grammaticalization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About