Semantics

Theories

 * Approaches based on semantic components fail overall as only part of the lexicon is compositional. Semantic feature hypothesis has a mixed record about predictions and although assumes a cognitive basis for universal semantic features, it pays no attention to social aspects of language use. It lacks account of how interaction might affect meaning acquisition but also any role for negotiations about what the right words are or how meanings are negotiated. No account of pragmatic factors in language use and acquisitions. (Clark, Eve 2003:141)
 * Assigning meaning: acquisition of a single component, like CAUSE (Table 6.1, Bowerman 1974, 1982a, b, Figueria 1984) (Clark, Eve 2003:141)

Semantic roles

 * In selecting elements within events to talk about, children develop the ability to talk about different semantic roles or functions in a consistent order Clark, Eve 2009:73/130 (Part 2)
 * Agents of Actions (Greenfield & Smith, 1976)
 * 0 1;1.3 (hearing someone come in or father coming in and starting up steps) – dada -> agent of actions
 * 0 Actions or states associated with agents and with objects (Greenfield & Smith, 1976)
 * 00 1;1.16 (responding to “do you want to get up?” by reaching up and saying,) – up
 * 00 1;2.21 – 1;3.18 (whenever he sits or steps down) – down
 * 0 Objects affected (Greenfield & Smith, 1976)
 * 00 1;4.19 (asking for a fan (/bar/) to be turned on or off) – bar
 * 00 ? (having just thrown a ball) – ball
 * 0 Only after this did the kids talk about objects associated with places, recipients, 0  and possessive, and about modifications of events as when they requested an event or action to be repeated (Greenfield & Smith, 1976)
 * 00 “Again!” ? Would /love an example of this
 * 0 As they started to use single word utterances – consistent kinds of roles within events
 * 00 Things they talked about most were generally animate objects (people, animals) or else small, inanimate objects (after things that they themselves were manipulating). Also about the actions in question and the states that resulted.
 * 00 Suggests that actors their activities, and the objects affected by the activities of various kinds stand out over places and properties of objects (for example)
 * 000 *places of objects or two separate list items?
 * 000 *does attach to activies or objects? Also, the activities of actions or the activities or the child in question? (Re “their activities”))
 * 00 In turn, suggests that some kinds of things may be more salient to very young children (Prudden et al 2006)
 * 000 Kids seem to talk more about things that move (that are animate) and that are moveable or manipulateable, both properties that attract the attention of infants
 * 0000 *scientific proof that Jaegers are not part of Fei Yen’s semantic knowledge of “Ranger”, thus proof she would associate her playmates more closely with the title than the robot, if she could even /see the robot)