Advertisement

Merge as a Basic Mechanism of Language: Evidence from Language Acquisition

  • Susan M. Powers
Part of the Neuropsychology and Cognition book series (NPCO, volume 20)

Abstract

One of the most basic skills of a proficient language user is the ability to combine smaller units (e.g., words) into larger units (e.g., phrases). Therefore, a mechanism that combines such “syntactic” objects is a good candidate for a basic component of the human computational system. Chomsky (1995) defines a mechanism called Merge that concatenates two and only two syntactic objects (e.g., morphemes, words) in each application. This paper presents evidence from children’s earliest productions that Merge operates on three levels in child grammar. First, Merge operates on the word-level, fusing two words into single lexical items. Merge also operates on the sub-word level providing a straightforward account of the so-called “mixed” productions of bilingual children. In addition, Merge combines words into phrases. The fact that this mechanism only concatenates two units in any single application yields an elegant account of the observed initial period in language development in which only two-word combinations are attested (Bowerman, 1990; Brown, 1973). Language acquisition data thus reveal a simple concatenation operation like Merge to be one of the most basic mechanisms of language production.

Keywords

Language Acquisition Lexical Item John Benjamin Bilingual Child Child Language 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bloom, L., Lightbown, P., & Hood, L. (1975). Structure and variation in child language. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 160, 40–42. Google Scholar
  3. Bowerman, M. (1973). Early syntactic development: A crosslinguistic study with special reference to Finnish. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bowerman, M. (1990). Mapping thematic roles onto syntactic functions: Are children helped by innate linking rules? Linguistics, 28, 6, 1253–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bradley, D. C., Garrett, M., & Zurif, E. B. (1980). Syntactic deficits in Broca’s Aphasia. In D. Caplan (Ed.), Biological Studies of Mental Processes (pp. 269–287). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Braine, M. (1963). The ontogeny of English phrase structure: The first phase. Language, 39, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Braine, M. (1976). Children’s first word combinations. With commentary by Melissa Bowerman. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 41, 1–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Epstein, S. D., Thráinsson, H., & Zwart, C. J-W. (1996). Introduction. In W. Abraham, S. Epstein, H. Thráinsson, & C. J-W Zwart (Eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework (pp. 1–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  12. Guilfoyle, E., & Noonan, M. (1992). Functional categories and language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 37, 2, 241–272.Google Scholar
  13. Hamburger, H. (1980). A deletion ahead of its time. Cognition, 8, 389–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hoekstra, T., & Jordens, P. (1994). From adjunct to head. In T. Hoekstra, & B. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 119–149). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  15. Keyser, S. J., & Roeper, T. (1992). Re: The abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 89–125.Google Scholar
  16. Köppe, R. (1996). Language differentiation in bilingual children: The development of grammatical and pragmatic competence. Linguistics, 34, 927–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, W., & Ervin, S. W. (1964). The development of grammar in child language. In U. Bellugi, & R. Brown (Eds.), The acquisition of language (pp. 9–34). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Peters, A. (2001). From prosody to grammar in English: The differentiation of catenatives, modals, and auxiliaries from a single protomorpheme, In J. Weissenborn, & B. Höhle (Eds.), Approaches to bootstrapping: Phonological, lexical, syntactic and neurophysiological aspects of early language acquisition. Language acquisition and language disorders (pp. 23) Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  20. Powers, S..M. (1998a). Children’s innovative instrument nominals. In E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the guage research forum (pp. 201–210). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Powers, S. M. (1998b). Binarity and singularity in child grammar. In B. Hollebrandse (Ed.), New perspectives on language acquisition. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 22, (pp. 1–14). University of Massachusetts: GLSA.Google Scholar
  22. Powers, S. M. (1996). The growth of the phrase marker: Evidence from subjects. Doctoral Dissertation, Linguistics Department, University of Maryland College Park.Google Scholar
  23. Powers, S. M. (2001). Children’s semi-lexical heads. In N. Corver, & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), Semi-lexical categories: The function of content words and the content of function words. Studies in generative grammar 59 (pp. 97–126). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Powers, S. M., & Musolino, J. (1997). Precursor relative clauses in the acquisition of English. In A. Sorace, C. Heycock, & R. Shillcock (Eds.), Proceedings of the GALA ’97 conference on language acquisition (pp. 126–131). Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  25. Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: The nature of early child grammars of English. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Roeper, T. (1996). Merger theory and formal features in acquisition. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp. 415–450). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  27. Roeper, T. (1997). Children’s minimalist representations: Merge and formal features. Paper presented at New Perspectives on Language Acquisition: Minimalism and Pragmatics, Linguistics Department, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  28. Stern, C., & Stern, W. (1928). Die Kindersprache. Leipzig: Barth.Google Scholar
  29. Tracy, R. (1998). Zwei Sprachen und ein Kopf: Was für noise it makes. Paper presented at the Linguistics Department, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan M. Powers

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations