tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post251884125818237783..comments2023-10-23T11:13:35.712-04:00Comments on Games with Words: Learning the passiveEdwardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04295927435118827266noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-69998797938840154972011-01-17T21:17:24.631-05:002011-01-17T21:17:24.631-05:00Though I agree a clearer example could have been h...Though I agree a clearer example could have been hoped for. I just didn't have any.GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-16448496506180054642011-01-17T21:01:13.998-05:002011-01-17T21:01:13.998-05:00It's hard to find examples where they passiviz...It's hard to find examples where they passivize verbs that don't passivize. In general, kids make very few mistakes in productive language -- you tend to see the errors more when you elicit specific forms.<br /><br />Those examples are only to make the point that kids must be doing *something* productive. Given that they are, how do they learn which productive uses aren't licensed?GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-68787889050049177412011-01-17T20:34:21.644-05:002011-01-17T20:34:21.644-05:00I'm stuck at the examples following "aren...I'm stuck at the examples following "<i>aren't legal passives in the adult language</i>". I don't see how these examples, in which the most obvious errors are incorrect suffixes, illustrate the point about passives.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-90940619334191877182011-01-11T08:41:44.876-05:002011-01-11T08:41:44.876-05:00How long before 'to gorp' makes into the d...How long before 'to gorp' makes into the dictionary. And all the fault of that damned pinker.Epiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-87049155251611318022011-01-10T17:36:24.034-05:002011-01-10T17:36:24.034-05:00Sigh. I spend so much of my day working with novel...Sigh. I spend so much of my day working with novel causatives, etc., that my intuitions about these things are completely shot. But looking at it now, I agree with you that this is not an ideal usage.<br /><br />I'm not sure that it's a causative, though. I think what happened was a dative alternation:<br /><br />John gave the book to Mary.<br />John gave Mary the book.<br /><br />John solved the problems for Mary.<br />*John solved Mary the problems.<br /><br />I believe there are some verbs that take the "for" prepositional phrase, but I can't think of any off-hand, so I used the "to" example above. I think I have a post on the dative alternation scheduled to appear next week.GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-43789575206598946932011-01-10T12:52:53.524-05:002011-01-10T12:52:53.524-05:00Speaking of the semantics/syntax interface, I foun...Speaking of the semantics/syntax interface, I found "That would solve children some problems..." to be an interesting causative use of <i>solve</i>. I googled around a bit and couldn't find many examples, but I'm happy with new formations. Part of the awkwardness, though, is the fact that <i>problems</i> is highly correlated with being the argument of a verb like <i>solve</i>, whereas here it is not. It's like a garden path. there is some temporary ambiguity that takes some resolving.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09558846279006287148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-17709693693077607502011-01-10T11:03:54.579-05:002011-01-10T11:03:54.579-05:00@Unmesh. Thanks, fixed. I should warn you that the...@Unmesh. Thanks, fixed. I should warn you that the papers from the 1980s (as well as the books) are difficult, particularly if you don't know much linguistic theory. <br /><br />A colleague was once complaining to a semanticist about how long it takes to read a semantics paper. The semanticist replied, "Yes, it usually takes me about a week." Pinker's early work has that flavor: it's theoretically rich and very rewarding, but it's not something you skim.GamesWithWordshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15107067137612954306noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7701757403364514168.post-10414759237460877482011-01-10T10:45:39.814-05:002011-01-10T10:45:39.814-05:00I could not find Pinker & Pinker (88) but I di...I could not find Pinker & Pinker (88) but I did find a Pinker & Prince (1988) that seemed to fit the topic. I've read a few of Pinker's books, but none of his papers. This one looks like a good place to start. Thanks.Unmeshhttp://ukurup.com/blognoreply@blogger.com