Publishing Partner: Cambridge University Press CUP Extra Publisher Login

New from Cambridge University Press!


Revitalizing Endangered Languages

Edited by Justyna Olko & Julia Sallabank

Revitalizing Endangered Languages "This guidebook provides ideas and strategies, as well as some background, to help with the effective revitalization of endangered languages. It covers a broad scope of themes including effective planning, benefits, wellbeing, economic aspects, attitudes and ideologies."

New from Wiley!


We Have a New Site!

With the help of your donations we have been making good progress on designing and launching our new website! Check it out at!
***We are still in our beta stages for the new site--if you have any feedback, be sure to let us know at***

Review of  Learning the Meaning of Change-of-State Verbs

Reviewer: Johannes Reese
Book Title: Learning the Meaning of Change-of-State Verbs
Book Author: Angelika Wittek
Publisher: De Gruyter Mouton
Linguistic Field(s): Applied Linguistics
Subject Language(s): German
Issue Number: 14.262

Discuss this Review
Help on Posting

Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 17:19:24 +0100
From: Johannes Reese
Subject: Learning the Meaning of Change-of-State Verbs: A Case Study of
German Child Language

Wittek, Angelika (2002) Learning the Meaning of Change-of-State Verbs:
A Case Study of German Child Language. Mouton de Gruyter, viii+233pp,
hardback ISBN 3-11-017304-2, Studies on Language Acquisition 17.

Johannes Reese, Seminar fuer Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft [General
Linguistics Department], Universitaet Zuerich, Switzerland

The book deals with how children learn the meaning of causative change-
of-state verbs in German. It consists of seven chapters.

The first chapter covers the literature in the field of change-of-state
(Aktionsart) and language acquisition. She bases her thoughts on the
aspect/aktionsart literature derived from Vendler (1967), which has
been extended by Dowty (1979) -though she does not cite the latter, and
used by different other researchers, some of which are cited in her
work. Wittek mentions the lexical decomposition scheme invented by
Dowty. She also drops a few words on the role arguments play in that

More relevant seems the link to Talmy's 1985 work on the typology of
motion verbs. The lexical decomposition approach is used as a tool for
language acquisition theory in order to explain differences in argument
marking and conceptualization deviances among young children like
marking the object with 'throw' earlier than with 'read' or mistaking
the words buy and sell for give and take; the Semantic Feature
Hypothesis is the anchor between language acquisition theory and this
theory of the lexicon. In recent theories of grammatical development
and lexical structure, the causative change-of-state-verbs, the topic
of the book, are considered to be basic, and thus easy to learn.
Language acquisition research, on the other hand, has shown that this
is not the case. At least certain phases of these verbs are often
understood very late. This paradox forms the challenge for Wittek.

Curiously, Wittek presents the structuring of the book and the
acknowledgments at the end of her Chapter One, after having described
the main theoretical background.

The second chapter deals with the language acquisition research. In the
chapter, some non-acquisitional issues are touched as well. E.g., a
distinction is made between manner verbs and result verbs.

In the one-word stage, children tend to content themselves with the
expression of completions of events. In satellite-framed languages,
they use the verbal particles rather than the verbs. They also tend to
use preterite forms with completive verbs and present forms with non-
completive ones. On the other hand, as another research has shown,
children (apparently English-speaking ones, at this point, language
specifics are dropped from attention) have the more difficulties to
understand the end-state component of a change-of-state verb the
younger they are (Manner Bias). Other (newer) research, however, came
to different results, they found no or only a slight Manner Bias.

She poses this scheme as the basis for her main idea: testing if the
Manner Bias is a typological one; she does so by opposing complex
predicates (with both result satellites and manner verbs) to mere
result verbs. If children have more problems with the latter than with
the former, the Manner Bias would turn to be a typological one,
according to her (Transparent Endstate Hypothesis). She uses German as
target language instead of English due to the stronger Romance
influence on English.

In Chapter 3, this first experiment is presented. The chapter begins
with a deeper explanation of what she wants to test. Fully transparent
satellite constructions as opposed to semi-transparent or non-
compositional ones are for her constructions with a manner verb and a
satellite that can by itself serve (with a copula) as the predicate of
the end state. Those constructions should be more reluctant to
negligence of the end state than mere verbs containing an end state, a
kind of a deviation to the satellite frame.

After that, she gives a very detailed description of her experiment
settings, which seem quite sophisticated - as do all of the following
ones. Her results were that it is possible to reproduce to a limited
degree the findings that lead to the Manner Bias Hypothesis, but these
are due rather to "learners' problems in interpreting certain form-
meaning mappings", e.g. a focal saliency bias, than to a general
predisposition to learn manner verbs easier than result verbs.

In Chapter 4, she reconsiders the results of Chapter 3 in more detail;
she presents some of the interviews in order to get a deeper insight
into why the children acted as they did. Apparently, the children
consider the endstates as an entailment of a verb's meaning. It is the
starting point for a brilliant and well-informed discussion of
Aktionsarten. There is a aspectual gap in the system of the children
that makes them treat "perfective" telic verbs as conative. She cites
research from other languages (Japanese, Chinese, Tamil), where result
verbs do not necessarily entail the result to be achieved. That's the
system of the young children, too. They turn out to be a class of verbs
that pragmatically favor the achievement of an endstate, but do not
necessarily entail them, similar to the weak endstate verb languages.
In English and German, there is such a class within manner verbs.

She then discusses several approaches as to the question how children
finally learn the correct entailments of change-of-state verbs in
Germanic languages. Forgetting about some hints from chapter one (as to
different morphological role marking) she states that children don't
distinguish between different roles due to different Aktionsart and
argues that there wouldn't even be any overt cues for them.

Chapter 5 tries to solve this question. It adds another idea to
aspectological theory as well, using modifiers (i.e. adverbs) as a
test. She presents the Adverbial Modification Cue Hypothesis, using the
adverb 'again', which can, in one reading, refer to restitution of a
previous state and shows thus in due case that the end state is
connected to the verb's meaning (indefeasible). German children are
aware of this reading; therefore Wittek argues that they can defer the
relevance of the end state by this adverb. Again, she supposes a
Transparency bias, i.e. that verbs with the result as a satellite would
be used more easily than simple verbs in combination with 'again', at
least in German. That is what corpus studies told her. She then tests
this hypothesis empirically. Her prediction proved to be correct.

In Chapter 6, Wittek examines her hypothesis further. She presents an
experiment testing if children can learn novel verbs by the clue of the
adverb 'again' in restitutive reading. As a result, Wittek managed to
teach children the change-of-state component of novel verbs by the cue
of the adverb 'again'. They learnt the new verbs as change-of-state
verbs more often than in the control groups.

Chapter 7 is summary of the whole book. The settings are presented in
more detail as appendices.

The merit of the book is based on two fundaments. At first, the overt
structure is very comfortable. Every chapter ends with a summary, and
there is an overall summary at the end of the book as Chapter 7. This
makes the book very good to read.

At second, the research presented is very sophisticated. It is based on
another two fundaments: Aktionsart theory and language acquisition
research. In the former, there is the almost one and only critical
remark to be made: she tends not to cite the "inventors" of a tool, but
works who used it: example: there is no hint to Davidson (1967), but
she mentions his event argument. Nevertheless, her reflections don't
cover a wide range of Aktionsart literature (cf. e.g. Sasse 2002), but
the ones she decided for are came out in a research very fruitful to
aspectual and Aktionsart theory. And she uses useful hints from other
languages. Her deep (Aktionsart research based) reflections helped her
detect mistakes in other language acquisition based works.

Summing up, the book is a step forward not only in language acquisition
research, but as well in Aktionsart theory. It is worth reading also
for people without any interest in both German and language
acquisition. One of the key merits for them is her discussion of
pragmatically favored endstate verbs.

I have especially liked the fact (though it is of course only partly or
not at all determined by her will) that some of the experiments failed;
although it forced her to do more experiments, it was a step (or she
made it look like a step) towards finding the points that
aspectologists are interested in.

One final critical remark: end notes are a nuisance.

Davidson, Donald (1967): The Logical Form of Action Sentences. In:
Rescher, N. (ed.): The Logic of Decision and Action. Pittsburgh:
University of Pittsburgh Press. 81-95

Sasse, Hans-Juergen (2002): Recent activity in the theory of aspect:
Accomplishments, achievements, or just non-progressive state?
Linguistic Typology 6.2(2002), 199-271

ABOUT THE REVIEWER Johannes Reese is a research fellow at the Universitaet Zuerich, Switzerland. He is currently writing his dissertation on aspect in Moroccan Arabic. His main interests include above all fields relevant for facilitating language learning, currently especially aspect, genericity, focus, and formal semantics.