Discussion Questions: 27 March

1. If children (learning English) so freely coin verbs from nouns, are these nouny verbs (actions requiring a particular object) particularly easy (or early) to learn? What would good examples of such verbs be? (stir/ slamdunk/ tabling -- as in a motion).
2. How is faire + noun to make a verb conceptually, cognitively different from 0 + noun to make a verb? (Is French so different after all?)
3. Merriman (1996) studied mutual exclusivity for actions/verbs. He found that children are less likely to map a novel word (transitive verb) onto a novel action if that action involved a familiar as opposed to a novel object. Intransitive verbs referring to what he calls self-centered actions (without an object or patient) get around this problem naturally. So, is it generally easier to learn intransitive verbs? Are intransitive verbs predominant in children's early vocabularies?
4. When children first learn the -y affix for forming adjectives, they begin to over-produce with it, creating redundant forms such as "crispy" and "bluey". Apparently this over-production doesn't occur with the affix un- to create forms such as "unloosen" or "unbutton down". Why not?
5. Clark says that "Transparency predicts that children will rely on known elements in constructing new words". Could this prediction ever fail?
6. Do you think it's easier to coin new nouns or verbs? Why?
7. Why should so many of the verbs derived from nouns (at least in English) be based on instruments?
8. Clark's definition of transparency is subjective, and even seems to be circular. Is it possible to find a more mathematical description of transparency based on statistical regularities in adult conversations? How about simplicity and productivity?