To get or to be? Use and acquisition of get- versus be- passives: evidence from children and adults

Meints, Kerstin (2003) To get or to be? Use and acquisition of get- versus be- passives: evidence from children and adults. Current Issues in Linguistic Theory: Motivation in Language: Studies in honor of Günter Radden, 243 . pp. 123-150. ISSN 0304-0763

Documents
To get or to be? Use and acquisition of get- versus be- passives: evidence from children and adults
[img]
[Download]
[img]
Preview
PDF
Meints.pdf - Whole Document

291kB

Full text URL: http://www.benjamins.com/cgi-bin/t_bookview.cgi?bo...

Abstract

The use and acquisition of the get-passive has so far yielded a variety of accounts and suggestions. This paper presents new experimental evidence concerning the use and the acquisition of the get-passive by children, as well as adult judgments of get- and be-passives. Within a prototype approach to the passive, experiments investigated when 2–4-year-old British children produce get- as opposed to be-passives. The role of direct affectedness of the patient on
get-passive production was investigated further in a follow-up experiment. In addition to the child data, ratings of get- and be-passives were obtained from British English adult speakers to investigate the acceptability of these passives and their relationship to developmental data. The
first experiment showed that the chosen prototype approach clearly predicts children’s acquisition of be-passives with get-passives being more peripheral members of the category
‘passive’ than be-passives. The second study shows that even if the child herself is the affected patient in the play action, get-passives are only rarely produced. In contrast to American children, direct affectedness did not induce British children to produce a significant amount of getpassives. Last, adult ratings confirm that British English speakers rate be-passives consistently as better examples of passive sentences than get-passives. The evidence suggests that getpassives are more peripheral for British than for American children and adults. Implications for the possible role of parental input and the validity of existing accounts of the get-passive are discussed.

Item Type:Article
Additional Information:The use and acquisition of the get-passive has so far yielded a variety of accounts and suggestions. This paper presents new experimental evidence concerning the use and the acquisition of the get-passive by children, as well as adult judgments of get- and be-passives. Within a prototype approach to the passive, experiments investigated when 2–4-year-old British children produce get- as opposed to be-passives. The role of direct affectedness of the patient on get-passive production was investigated further in a follow-up experiment. In addition to the child data, ratings of get- and be-passives were obtained from British English adult speakers to investigate the acceptability of these passives and their relationship to developmental data. The first experiment showed that the chosen prototype approach clearly predicts children’s acquisition of be-passives with get-passives being more peripheral members of the category ‘passive’ than be-passives. The second study shows that even if the child herself is the affected patient in the play action, get-passives are only rarely produced. In contrast to American children, direct affectedness did not induce British children to produce a significant amount of getpassives. Last, adult ratings confirm that British English speakers rate be-passives consistently as better examples of passive sentences than get-passives. The evidence suggests that getpassives are more peripheral for British than for American children and adults. Implications for the possible role of parental input and the validity of existing accounts of the get-passive are discussed.
Keywords:Psychology of language, Language and Linguistics, child development
Subjects:C Biological Sciences > C800 Psychology
C Biological Sciences > C850 Cognitive Psychology
C Biological Sciences > C820 Developmental Psychology
Divisions:College of Social Science > School of Psychology
ID Code:2865
Deposited By: Alison Wilson
Deposited On:15 Jul 2010 21:43
Last Modified:13 Mar 2013 08:41

Repository Staff Only: item control page