How could a child use verb syntax to learn verb semantics?

Abstract

I examine Gleitman's (1990) arguments that children rely on a verb's syntactic subcategorization frames to learn its meaning (e.g., they learn that see means 'perceive visually' because it can appear with a direct object, a clausal complement, or a directional phrase). First, Gleitman argues that the verbs cannot be learned byb observing then situations in which they are used , because many verbs refer to overlapping situations, and because parents do not invariably use a verb when its perceptual correlates are present. I suggest that these arguments speak only against a narrow associationist view in which the child is sensitive to the temporal contiguity of sensory features and spoken verb, If the child can hyppthesize semantic representations corresponding to what parents are likely to be referring to, and can refine such representations across multiple situations, the objections are blunted;, indeed, Gleitman's theory requires such a learning process despite her objections to it. Second, Gleitmans suggests that there is enough information in a verb's subcategorization frames to predict its meaning 'quite closely' . Evaluating this argument requires distinguishing a verb's root plus its semantic content (what She boiled the water shares with The water boiled and does not share with She broke the glass), and a verb frame plus its semantic perspective (what She boiled the water shares with She broke the glass and does not share with The water boiled). I show that learning a verb in a single frame only gives a learner coarse information about its semanic perspective in that frame (e.g., number of arguments, type of arguments); it tells the learner nothing about the verb root's content across frames (e.g., hot bubbling liquid). Moreover, hearing a verb across all its frames also reveals little about the verb root's content. Finally, I show that Gleitman's empirical arguments all involve experiments where children are exposed to a single verb frame, and therefore all involve learning the frame's perpective meaning, not the root's content meaning, which in all the experiments was acquired by observing the accompanying scene. I conclude that attention to a verb's syntactic frame can help narrow down the child's interpretation of the perspective meaning of the verb in that frame, but disagree with the claim that there is some in-principle limitation in learning a verb's content.