Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tpknm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-05T05:39:27.609Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of the simple present in the speech of two three-year-olds: Normativity not subjectivity*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 December 2008

Julie (Gee) Gerhardt  and
Iskender Savasir
Julie (Gee) Gerhardt
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychology and Linguistics, State University of New York, Buffalo
Iskender Savasir
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In our research, we wish to illuminate different types of discursive intentions which are structured into discourse via the verb inflections and auxiliaries, together with their entailed social effects. In the present report, we examine the use of the simple present by two three-year-olds, and argue that analyses in terms of tense or aspect are not adequate to account for its use. One needs to recognize the way in which the form implicitly refers to norms and thereby entails a type of impersonal motivation – especially as it is just this feature of the use of this form that structures the ongoing activity into a nondialogic, normative activity. (Simple present, normativity, subjectivity, activity-types, nondialogic discourse, the constitutive role of language, American English)

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 1986 , pp. 501 - 535
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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

References

REFERENCES

Andersen, E. S. (1977). Learning to speak with style: Study of the social linguistic skills of children. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Andersen, E. S. (1984). The acquisition of sociolinguistic knowledge: Some evidence from children's verbal role-play. Western Journal of Speech Communication 48:125–44.Google Scholar
Andersen, E. S. (in press). The acquisition of register variation in Anglo-American children. In Schieffelin, B. & Ochs, E. (eds.), Language socialization across cultures. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Antinucci, F. & Miller, R. (1976). How children talk about what happened. Journal of Child Language 3:169–189.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., Lifter, K., & Hafitz, J. (1980). Semantics of verbs and the development of the verb inflections in child language. Language 56:386–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronckart, J. P. & Sinclair, H. (1973). Time, tense and aspect. Cognition 12:1–30.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Bruner, J. (1983). Child's talk. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
Budwig, N. (1984). The grammatical marking of transitivity in early child language. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Calver, E. (1946). The uses of the present tense in English. Language 22:317–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Comrie, B. (1981). Language universals and linguistic typology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1980). Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Deutsch, W., & Budwig, N. (1983). Form and function in the development of the possessives. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development. No. 22. Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University. 36–42.Google Scholar
Donnellan, K. (1966). Reference and definite descriptions. Philosophical Review 75:281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dreyfus, B. (1977). Unpublished notes on Heidegger's Being and time. Berkeley, Calif.Google Scholar
Eisenberg, A. R., & Garvey, C. (1981). Children's use of verbal strategies in resolving conflicts. Discourse Processes 4:148–70.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1977). From conversation to syntax. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development. No. 13. Dept. of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Feldman, C. F. (1974). Pragmatic features of natural languages. In Papers from the Tenth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics, 1934–1951. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleischmann, S. (1982). The future in thought and language: Diachronic evidence from Romance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1972). Archeology of knowledge. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1978). History of sexuality. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
French, L., & Nelson, K. (1982). Taking away the supportive context: Preschoolers talk about the “then and there.” In M. Cole & W. Hall (eds.), Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition 4:1–6.Google Scholar
Gee, J. (née Gerhardt) (1985). An interpretive approach to the study of modality: What child language can tell the linguist. Studies in Language 9(2):197–229.Google Scholar
Gee, J. (née Gerhardt), & Savasir, I. (1985). On the use of WILL and GONNA: Towards a description of activity-types for child language. Discourse Processes 8:143–75.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, J. (1983). Tout se tient: Towards an analysis of activity-types to explicate the interrelation between modality and future reference in child discourse. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Gerhardt, J. (1986). Beyond semantics and the sentence: A discourse analysis of the verb inflectional system in the speech of a two-year-old. (Under review).Google Scholar
Givon, T. (1984). Syntax: A functional-typological approach. Vol. 1. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, J., & Woisetschlaeger, E. (1982). The logic of the English progressive. Linguistic Inquiry 13(1):79–89.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. (1951). Methods in structural linguistics. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Hatcher, A. G. (1951). The use of the progressive form in English: A new approach. Language 27:254–80.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1979a). Aspect and foregrounding in discourse. In Syntax and Semantics 12.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. (1979b). Some observations on the typology of focus and aspect in narrative language. Studies in Language 3(1):37–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J., & Thompson, S. (1980). Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2)251–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, D. (1974). Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1971). Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb. In Jakobson, R., Selected writings II: Word and language. The Hague: Mouton. 130–147.Google Scholar
Joos, M. (1964). The English verb: Form and meanings. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1983). Keynote Address. Stanford Child Language Research Forum.Google Scholar
Kristeva, J. (1984). Revolution in poetic language. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). The metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Lawler, J. (1972). Generic to a fault. In Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago, Ill.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (1971). Meaning and the English verb. Burnt Mill, Harlow Essex: Longman.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Jarvella, R. J. & Klein, W., Speech, place and action. London: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Mink, L. (1972). Interpretation and narrative understanding. The Journal of Philosophy 69(2)735–37.Google Scholar
Nelson, K., & Gruendel, J. (1979). At morning it's lunchtime: A scripts view of children's dialogues. Discourse Processes 2:73–94.Google Scholar
Nelson, K., & Gruendel, J. (1981). Generalized event representations: Basic building blocks of cognitive development. In Lamb, M. & Brown, A. (eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1979). Modality and the English modals. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Perkins, M. R. (1983). Modal expressions in English. London: Frances Pinter.Google Scholar
Pike, K. (1964). Towards a theory of the structure of human behavior. In Hymes, D. (ed.), Language, culture and society. New York: Harper & Row. 54–62.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1971). The model of the text: Meaningful action considered as text. Social Research 38(3):529–62.Google Scholar
Ricoeur, P. (1976). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press.Google Scholar
Savasir, I., & Gee, J. (1982). Functional equivalents of the middle voice in child language. In Papers from the Berkeley Linguistics Society.Google Scholar
Savasir, I., & Gee, J. (in preparation). Reasons as causes for action: Austin's ifs and cans reconsidered.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1974). Relational concepts underlying language. In Schiefelbusch, R. L. & Lloyd, L. L. (eds.), Language perspectives - acquisition, retardation and intervention. Baltimore: University Park.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and meaning. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1983). Intentionality: An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1981). The origins of grammatical encoding of events. In Deutsch, W. (ed.) The child's construction of language. London: Academic.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (1971). Interpretation and the sciences of man. Review of Metaphysics 25(1):3–51.Google Scholar
Von Wright, G. (1963). Norm and action: A logical inquiry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Weist, R., Wysocka, H., Witkowska-Stadnik, K., Buczowska, E., & Konieczna, E. (1984). The defective tense hypothesis: On the emergence of tense and aspect in child Polish. Journal of Child Language 11:347–74.Google Scholar
Wertsch, J. V. (1980). The significance of dialogue in Vygotsky's account of social, egocentric and inner speech. Contemporary Educational Psychology 5:150–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought and reality. In Carroll, J. (ed.), Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zubin, D. (1980). Meaning vs. government. In W. Diver (ed.), Columbia University Working Papers in Linguistics. 20–33.Google Scholar