Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-30T20:04:53.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the logic of contrast*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Eve V. Clark
Eve V. Clark*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
*
Department of Linguistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Principle of Contrast, that different words have different meanings, holds for adult language use. But at what age do children assume Contrast ? Do they rely on it from the start, or do they assume that new words may have the same meaning (the Null Hypothesis) until they discover otherwise ? Both the Null Hypothesis and Contrast have certain consequences. The Null Hypothesis places a heavy burden on languagelearners, whereas children could discover Contrast as part of their experience of rational behaviour. Examples that have been claimed to go counter to Contrast fall into two groups. Those in the first do not in fact violate Contrast at all. Those in the second rely on sameness of extension instead of sameness of meaning, and so are indeterminate as counter evidence. Usage consistent with Contrast, on the other hand, is pervasive in children's speech from an early age.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 1988 , pp. 317 - 335
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

Preparation of this paper was supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD 5 Roi HD18908) and in part by the Sloan Foundation. I am grateful to Virginia Gathercole whose paper (Gathercole 1987) inspired the present article in response; I would also like to thank Melissa Bowerman and Herbert H. Clark for much discussion over the years that has played an invaluable role in shaping my arguments.

References

REFERENCES

Ammon, M. S. H. (1980). Development in the linguistic expression of causal relations: Comprehension of features of lexical and periphrastic causatives. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Aronoff, M. (1976). Word-formation in generative grammar. (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 1.) Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Au, T. K. -F. & Markman, E. M. (1988). Acquiring new words via linguistic contrast. Cognitive Development 2. 217–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, C. L. (1979). Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10. 533–81.Google Scholar
Barrett, M. D. (1986). Early semantic representation and early word-usage. In Kuczaj, S. A. & Barrett, M. D. (eds), The development of word meaning. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Bates, E. (1976). Language and context: the acquisition of pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Berlin, B., Breedlove, D. E. & Raven, P. H. (1973). General principles of classification and nomenclature in folk biology. American Anthropologist 75. 214–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972). That's that. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1975). Aspects of language. Second edition. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1976). Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1. 1–14.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1977). Meaning and form. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Booij, G. (1977). Dutch morphology: a study of word formation in generative grammar. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borkin, A. (1973). To be and not to be. In C. Corum T. C. Smith-Stark & A. Weiser (eds), Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Borkin, A. (1984). Problems in form and function. Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1974). Learning the structure of causative verbs: a study in the relationship of cognitive, semantic and syntactic development. Papers & Reports on Child Language Development 8. 142–78.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1983). How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar in the absence of feedback about what is not a sentence? Papers & Reports on Child Language Development 22. 23–35.Google Scholar
Bréal, M. (1897). Essai de sémantique. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
Broselow, E. (1977). Language change and theories of the lexicon. In W. A. Beach S. E. Fox & S. Philosoph (eds), Papers from the Thirteenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Budwig, N. A. (1985). I, me, my, and ‘name’: Children's early systematizations of forms, meanings, and functions in talk about the self. Papers & Reports on Child Language Development 24. 30–7.Google Scholar
Budwig, N. A. (1986). Agentivity and control in early child language. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of California at Berkeley.Google Scholar
Callanan, M. A. (1985). How parents label objects for young children: The role of input in the acquisition of category hierarchies. Child Development 56. 508–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chapman, K. L., Leonard, L. B. & Mervis, C. B. (1986). The effect of feedback on young children's inappropriate word usage. Journal of Child Language 13. 101–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1978). Discovering what words can do. In Farkas, D., Jacobsen, W. M. & Todrys, K. W. (eds), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1981). Lexical innovations: how children learn to create new words. In Deutsch, W. (ed.), The child's construction of language. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1982). Language change during language acquisition. In Lamb, M. E. & Brown, A. L. (eds), Advances in developmental psychology. Vol. 2. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1983 a). Convention and contrast in acquiring the lexicon. In Seiler, Th. B. & Wannenmacher, W. (eds), Cognitive development and the acquisition of word meaning. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1983 b). Meanings and concepts. In Flavell, J. H. & Markman, E. M. (eds), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3. Cognitive development. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (1987). The Principle of Contrast: a constraint on acquisition. In MacWhinney, B. (ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition: the 20th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. (in press). Children's language and lexical development. In Hughes, M. & Grieve, R. (eds), Understanding children: Essays in honour of Margaret Donaldson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. & Clark, H. H. (1979). When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55. 547–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V., Gelman, S. A. & Lane, N. M. (1985). Compound nouns and category structure in young children. Child Development 56. 84–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, E. V. & Hecht, B. F. (1983). Comprehension, production, and language acquisition. Annual Review of Psychology 34. 325–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1985). Language use and language users. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds), The handbook of social psychology. Third edition. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. & Clark, E. V. (1977). Psychology and language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Corbin, D. (1976). Le statut des exceptions dans le lexique. Langue Française 30. 90–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1977). A note on the learning of colour names. Journal of Child Language 4. 305–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
de Saussure, F. (1974). Cours de linguistique générale (Originally published 1919). Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Deutsch, W. & Budwig, N. (1983). Form and function in the development of possessives. Papers & Reports on Child Language Development 22. 36–42.Google Scholar
Dockrell, J. E. (1981). The child's acquisition of unfamiliar words: an experimental study. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Stirling.Google Scholar
Donaldson, M. & Balfour, G. (1968). Less is more: a study of language comprehension in children. British Journal of Psychology 59. 461–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1978). On the organization of semantic information in the lexicon. In Farkas, D., Jacobsen, W. M. & Todrys, K. W. (eds), Papers from the parasession on the lexicon. Chicago IL: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. M. (1979). Birdies like birdseed the bester than buns: a study of relational comparatives and their acquisition. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Kansas.Google Scholar
Gathercole, V. M. (1987). The contrastive hypothesis for the acquisition of word meanings: a reconsideration of the theory. Journal of Child Language 14. 493–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giles, H. (ed.) (1984). The dynamics of speech accommodation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 46.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J. J. & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The first decade and beyond. In McLaughlin, M. L. (ed.), Communication yearbook 10. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Baduini, C. & Lavallee, A. (1985). What's in a word?: the young child's predisposition to use lexical contrast. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Child Language, Boston, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review 66. 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J. S. (1976). Lexical structures in syntax and semantics. (North-Holland Linguistic Series 25.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Haiman, J. (1980). The iconicity of grammar: Isomorphism and motivation. Language 56. 515–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heibeck, T. & Markman, E. M. (1987). Word learning in children: an examination of fast mapping. Child Development 58. 1021–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hoffmann, T. R. (1982). Lexical blocking. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities (Toyama University, Japan) 5. 239–50.Google Scholar
Hoffmann, T. R. (1983). Lexical blocking II. Journal of the Faculty of Humanities (Toyama University, Japan) 6. 119–45.Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1984). Toward a new taxonomy for pragmatic inference: Q-based and R-based implicature. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: linguistic applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Huttenlocher, J. & Smiley, P. (1987). Early word meanings: the case of object names. Cognitive Psychology 19. 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kiparsky, P. (1983). Word-formation and the lexicon. In Ingemann, F. (ed.), Proceedings of the 1982 mid-America linguistics conference. Lawrence KA: University of Kansas, Department of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Lehrer, A. (1974). Semantic fields and lexical structure. (North-Holland Linguistic Series 11.) Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. F. (1939–1949). Speech development of a bilingual child: a linguist's record. Vols 1–4. Evanston, ILL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lewis, M. M. (1951). Infant speech: a study of the beginnings of language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
McCawley, J. D. (1978). Conversational implicature and the lexicon. In Cole, P. (ed), Syntax and semantics. Vol. 9. Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Macnamara, J. (1982). Names for things. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1973). Decrease in children's understanding of the word big. Child Development 4. 747–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, M. P. (1974). When is a high thing a big one? Developmental Psychology 10. 367–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1984). The acquisition and hierarchical organization of categories by children. In Sophian, C. (ed.); Origins of cognitive skills: the 18th annual Carnegie symposium on cognition. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Markman, E. M. & Hutchinson, J. E. (1984). Children's sensitivity to constraints on word meaning: Taxonomic vs. thematic relations. Cognitive Psychology 16. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M. & Seibert, J. (1976). Classes and collections: Internal organization and resulting holistic properties. Cognitive Psychology 8. 561–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M. & Wachtel, G. A. (1988). Children's use of mutual exclusivity to constrain the meanings of words. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Merriman, W. E. (1986). Some reasons for the occurrence and eventual correction of children's naming errors. Child Development 57. 942–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merriman, W. E. (1987). Lexical contrast in toddlers: a reanalysis of the diary evidence. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B. (1987). Child-basic object categories and early lexical development. In Neisser, U. (ed.), Concepts and conceptual development: ecological and intellectual factors in categorization. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B. & Long, L. M. (1987). Words refer to whole objects: young children's interpretation of the referent of a novel word. Paper presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B. & Mervis, C. A. (1982). Leopards are kitty-cats: object labelling by mothers for their 13 month olds. Child Development 53. 267–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, G. A. (1978). Semantic relations among words. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J. & Miller, G. A. (eds), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1951). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Ravn, K. E. & Gelman, S. A. (1984). Rule usage in children's understanding of ‘big’ and ‘little’. Child Development 55. 2141–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riddle, E. (1984). The English possessives as Topic-Focus structures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
Riddle, E. (1985). A historical perspective on the productivity of the suffixes -ness and -ity. In Fisiak, J. (ed.), Historical semantics/Historical word-formation. Amsterdam: Mouton.Google Scholar
Scalise, S. (1984). Generative morphology. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Scalise, S., Ceresa, M., Drigo, M., Goliardo, M. & Zannier, I. (1983). Sulla nozione di Blocking in morfologia derivazionale. Lingua e Stile 18. 243–69.Google Scholar
Stern, G. (1964). Meaning and change of meaning. (Originally published 1931.) Bloominglon IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, M. & Gelman, S. A. (1987). Language hierarchies in Iwo-year-old children. Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon.Google Scholar
Templin, M. C. (1957). Certain language skills in children: Their developmenl and interrelalionships. University of Minnesota Institute of Child Welfare Monograph 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: an introduction to the science of meaning. Oxford: O.U.P.Google Scholar
Waldron, R. A. (1979). Sense and sense development. Second edilion. London: André Deulsch.Google Scholar
Wannemacher, J. T. & Ryan, M. L. (1978). Less is not more: A study of children's comprehension of less in various lask conlexls. Child Development 49. 660–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waxman, S. R. & Gelman, R. (1986). Pre-schoolers' use of superordinate relalions in classification and language. Cognitive Development 1. 139–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zwanenburg, W. (1981). Le principe du blocage dans la morphologie dérivationnelle. In Daalder, S. & Gerritsen, M. (eds), Linguistics in the Netherlands 1981. Amslerdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Zwanenburg, W. (1984). Word formation and meaning. Quaderni di Semantica 5. 130–42.Google Scholar