The present study looks into the largely unexplored territory of the cognitive underpinnings of semantic approximations in child language. The analysis of a corpus of 233 semantic approximations produced by 101 monolingual French-speaking children from 1;8 to 4;2 years of age leads to a classification of a significant number of them as instances of a set of principle-governed cognitive operations, including metaphor and metonymy-based cognitive operations, and conceptual complexes, such as metaphtonymies and double metonymies. The results shed light on cognitive operation preferences and their level of conceptual complexity at this stage of language development. Additionally, it points to the need to expand the inventory of functions traditionally assigned to these cognitive operations.
Agustín LlachM. P. (2005). A critical review of the terminology and taxonomies used in the literature on lexical errors. Miscelánea: A Journal of English and American Studies, 31, 11–24.
2.
Agustín LlachM. P. (2011). Lexical errors and accuracy in foreign language writing. London, England: Multilingual Matters.
3.
AmbridgeB. (2013). How do children restrict their linguistic generalizations?: A grammaticality judgement study. Cognitive Science, 37, 508–543.
4.
AmbridgeB.PineJ. M.RowlandC. F.ChangF.BidgoodA. (2013). The retreat from overgeneralization in child language acquisition: Word learning, morphology, and verb argument structure. WIREs Cognitive Science, 4, 47–62.
5.
BarcelonaA. (2005). The multilevel operation of metonymy in grammar and discourse, with particular attention to metonymic chains. In RuizF.J.MendozadePeñaS. (Eds.), Cognitive linguistics: Internal dynamics and interdisciplinary interaction (pp. 313–352). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
6.
BatesE.CarnevaleG. (1993). New directions in research on language development. Developmental Review, 13, 436–470.
7.
BillowR. (1981). Observing spontaneous metaphors in children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 430–445.
8.
BillowR. M. (1975). A cognitive developmental study of metaphor comprehension. Developmental Psychology, 11, 415–423.
9.
BowermanM. (1978). Systematizing semantic knowledge: Changes over time in the child’s organization of word meaning. Child Development, 41, 977–987.
10.
BowermanM. (1982). Reorganizational processes in lexical and syntactic development. In WannerE.GleitmanL. R. (Eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art (pp. 319–346). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
BoydJ. K.GoldbergA. E. (2011). Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language, 85, 55–83.
12.
Brdar-SzabóR.BrdarM. (2011). What do metonymic chains reveal about the nature of metonymy? In BenczesR.BarcelonaA.Ruiz de MendozaF.J. (Eds.), Defining metonymy in cognitive linguistics: Towards a consensus view (pp. 217–248). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
13.
ChouinardM. M.ClarkE. V. (2003). Adult reformulations of child errors as negative evidence. Journal of Child Language, 30, 637–669.
14.
ClarkE. V. (1995). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
ClarkE. V.BernicotJ. (2008). Repetition as ratification: How parents and children place information in common ground. Journal of Child Language, 35, 349–371.
16.
CoulsonS.Van PettenC. (2002). Conceptual integration and metaphor: An event related study. Memory & Cognition, 30, 958–968.
17.
DenrocheC. (2014). Metonymy and language: A new theory of linguistic processing. New York: Routledge.
18.
DromiE. (1987). Early lexical development. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
DuvignauK. (2002). La métaphore, berceau et enfant de la langue: la métaphore verbale comme approximation sémantique par analogie dans les textes scientifiques et les productions enfantines (2–4 ans) [Metaphor, birthplace and childhood of language: verbal metaphor as semantic approximation through analogy in scientific texts and childhood verbal productions (2–4 years)]. (Unpublished Doctoral dissertation—Linguistics). Université Toulouse, France.
20.
DuvignauK. (2003). Métaphore verbale et approximation [Verbal metaphor and approximation]. Revue d’Intelligence Artificielle, 5–6, 869–881.
21.
DuvignauK.FossardM.GaumeB.PimentaM. A.ElieJ. (2007). Semantic approximations and flexibility in the dynamic construction and ‘deconstruction’ of meaning. Linguagem em (Dis)curso, 7, 371–387.
22.
FensonL.ReznickD.BatesP.S.ThalD. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, Serial no. 242.
23.
Galera-MasegosaA. (2010a). A cognitive approach to simile-based idiomatic expressions. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 43, 3–48.
24.
Galera-MasegosaA. (2010b). Metaphoric complexes: A Spanish-English contrastive analysis of metaphor and metonymy in interaction. Revista Española de Lingüística Aplicada, 23, 175–194.
25.
GangerJ.BrentM. R. (2004). Reexamining the vocabulary spurt. Developmental Psychology, 40, 621–632.
26.
GaskellM. G.EllisA. W. (2009). Word learning and lexical development across the lifespan. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 36, 3607–3615.
27.
GeeraertsD. (2002). The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in composite expressions. In DirvenR.PöringsR. (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 435–465). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
28.
Gerskoff-StoweL.ConnellB.SmithL. (2006). Priming overgeneralizations in two- and four-year-old children. Journal of Child Language, 33, 46–486.
29.
Gerskoff-StoweL.SmithL. B. (1997). A curvilinear trend in naming errors as a function of early vocabulary growth. Cognitive Psychology, 34, 37–71.
30.
GhassabianA.RescorlaL.HenrichsJ.JaddoeV. W.VerhulstF. C.TiemeierH. W. (2014). Early lexical development and risk of verbal and nonverbal cognitive delay at school age. Acta Paediatrica, 103, 70–80.
31.
GoldbergA. E. (2011). Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics, 22, 131–154.
32.
GoosensL. (1990). Metaphtonymy: The interaction of metaphor and metonymy in expressions for linguistic action. Cognitive Linguistics, 1, 323–340.
33.
GradyJ. (1999). A typology of motivation for conceptual metaphor: correlation vs. resemblance. In GibbsR.SteenG. J. (Eds.), Metaphor in cognitive linguistics: Selected papers from the 5th International Cognitive Linguistics Conference (pp. 79–100). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
34.
HauserM. D.ChomskyN.FitchW. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve?Science, 298, 1569–1579.
35.
HoekD.IngramD.GibsonD. (1986). Some possible causes of children’s early word overextensions. Journal of Child Language, 13, 477–494.
36.
ImaiM.HaryuE.OkadaH. (2005). Mapping novel nouns and verbs onto dynamic action events: Are verb meanings easier to learn than noun meanings for Japanese children?Child Development, 76, 340–355.
37.
ImaiM.LiL.HaryuE.OkadaH.Hirsh-PasekK.GolinkoffR.ShigematsuJ. (2008). Novel noun and verb learning in Chinese-, English-, and Japanese-speaking children. Child Development, 79, 979–1000.
38.
IozziL.BarbieriM. S. (2009). Preschoolers’ use of analogies in referential communication. First Language, 29, 192–207.
39.
JaegerJ. J. (2005). Kids’ slips: What young children’s slips of the tongue reveal about language development. London, England: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
Jiménez CatalánR. (1992). Errores en la producción escrita del inglés y posibles factores condicionantes [Errors in written English production: possible constraints and factors]. Madrid, Spain: Universidad Complutense.
41.
JohnsonM. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
42.
KatisD.SelimisS. (2009). The development of metaphoric motion: Evidence from Greek children’s narratives. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting-Berkeley Linguistics Society, 31, 205–216.
43.
KlepousniotouE.BaumS. R. (2007). Clarifying further the ambiguity advantage effect in word recognition: Effects of aging and left-hemisphere damage on the processing of homonymy and polysemy. Brain and Language, 103, 148–149.
44.
KrzeszowskiTomasz P. (1997). Angels and devils in hell: Elements of axiology in semantics. Warszawa, Poland: Wydawnictwo Energeia.
45.
LaganaroM. (1997). Production et compréhension des métaphores chez l’enfant [Production and understanding of children’s use of metaphors]. Archives de Psychologie, 253, 141–165.
46.
LakoffG. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
47.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
48.
LakoffG.JohnsonM. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh. New York, NY: Basic Books.
49.
LakoffG.TurnerM. (1989). More than cool reason: A field guide to poetic metaphor. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
50.
LittlemoreJ. (2015). Metonymy: Hidden shortcuts in language, thought and communication. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
51.
LittlemoreJ.LowG. (2006). Metaphoric competence and communicative language ability. Applied Linguistics, 27, 268–294.
52.
LongobardiE.Rossi-ArnaudC.SpataroP.PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2015). Children’s acquisition of nouns and verbs in Italian: Contrasting the roles of frequency and positional salience in maternal language. Journal of Child Language, 42, 95–121.
53.
NaylorL.HerwegenJ. V. (2012). The production of figurative language in typically developing children and Williams syndrome. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 33, 711–716.
54.
NerlichB.ClarkeD. D.ToddZ. (1999). ‘Mummy, I like being a sandwich’: Metonymy in language acquisition. In PantherK-U.RaddenG. (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 361–384). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
55.
NooteboomS. G. (1980). Speaking and unspeaking: Detection and correction of phonological and lexical errors in spontaneous speech. In FromkinV. (Ed.), Errors in linguistic performance (pp. 87–95). London, England: Academic Press.
56.
NorburyC. F. (2005). The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence from children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23, 383–399.
57.
PauwelsP. (1999). Putting metonymy in its place. In PantherK.RaddenG. (Eds.), Metonymy in language and thought (pp. 255–274). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
58.
Pérez-HernándezL. (2013). Illocutionary constructions: (Multiple source)-in-target metonymies, illocutionary ICMs, and specification links. Language and Communication, 33(2), 128–149.
59.
PiagetJ. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
60.
PinkerS.JackendoffR. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it?Cognition, 95, 201–236.
61.
PollioM. R.PollioH. R. (1974). The development of figurative language in children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 3, 185–201.
62.
RamscarM.YarlettD. (2007). Linguistic self-correction in the absence of feedback: A new approach to the logical problem of language acquisition. Cognitive Science, 31, 927–960.
Ruiz de MendozaF. J. (2000). The role of mappings and domains in understanding metonymy. In BarcelonaA. (Ed.), Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads (pp. 109–132). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
65.
Ruiz de MendozaF. J.DíezO. (2002). Patterns of conceptual interaction. In DirvenR.PöringsR. (Eds.), Metaphor and metonymy in comparison and contrast (pp. 489–532). Berlin, Germany: Mouton de Gruyter.
66.
Ruiz de MendozaF. J.Galera-MasegosaA. (2011). Going beyond metaphtonymy: Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation. Language Value, 3, 1–29.
67.
Ruiz de MendozaF. J.Galera-MasegosaA. (2012). Metaphoric and metonymic complexes in phrasal verb interpretation: Metaphoric chains. In EizagaB. (Ed.), Studies in linguistics and cognition (pp. 157–185). Bern, Switzerland: Peter Lang Verlag.
68.
Ruiz de MendozaF. J.Galera-MasegosaA. (2014). Cognitive modeling. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
69.
Ruiz de MendozaF. J.Pérez-HernándezL. (2001). Metonymy and the grammar: Motivation, constraints, and interaction. Language and Communication, 21, 321–357.
70.
RundbladG.AnnazD. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 547–563.
71.
SingletonD. (1999). Exploring the second language mental lexicon. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
72.
SteenG.DorstA. T. G.HerrmanJ. B.KaalA. A.KrennmayrT. (2010). Metaphor in usage. Cognitive Linguistics, 21, 765–796.
73.
StrappC. M.FedericoA. (2000). Imitations and repetitions: What do children say following recasts?First Language, 3, 273–290.
74.
SwanD. W. (2012). How to build a lexicon: A case study of lexical errors and innovations. First Language, 20, 187–204.
75.
VerhallenM.SchoonenR. (1993). Lexical knowledge of monolingual and bilingual children. Applied Linguistics, 4, 344–363.
76.
WinnerE. (1979). New names for old things: The emergence of metaphoric language. Journal of Child Language, 6, 469–491.
