English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Poster

Does event structure influence children's motion event expressions

MPS-Authors

Brown,  Amanda
Language Acquisition Group, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Gesture, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons142

Ozyurek,  Asli
Language and Cognition Group, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Gesture, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

Kita,  Sotaro
Language and Cognition Group, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;
Gesture, MPI for Psycholinguistics, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

BrownBUCLD2004.pdf
(Publisher version), 412KB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Brown, A., Ozyurek, A., Allen, S., Kita, S., Ishizuka, T., & Furman, R. (2004). Does event structure influence children's motion event expressions. Poster presented at 29th Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0013-1E2C-9
Abstract
This study focuses on understanding of event structure, in particular therelationship between Manner and Path. Narratives were elicited from twenty 3-year-olds and twenty adults using 6 animated motion events that were divided into two groups based on Goldberg's (1997) distinction between causal (Manner-inherent; e.g. roll down) and non-causal (Manner-incidental; e.g. spin while going up) relationships between Manner and Path. The data revealed that adults and children are sensitive to differences between inherent and incidental Manner. Adults significantly reduced use of canonical syntactic constructions for Manner-incidental events, employing other constructions. Children, however, while significantly reducing use of canonical syntactic constructionsfor Manner-incidental events, did not exploit alternative constructions. Instead, they omitted Manner from their speech altogether. A follow-up lexical task showed that children had knowledge of all omitted Manners. Given that this strategic omission of Manner is not lexically motivated, the results are discussed in relation to implications for pragmatics and memory load.