Abstract
This chapter considers the valid representation of directionality in the architecture of the Language Faculty by recognizing that Universal Grammar (UG) is at one and the same time both (i) a theory representing the fundamental principles and parameters that underlie all possible natural languages; and (ii) a theory of what is biologically programmed in the Language Faculty, making language acquisition empirically possible. Thus it would explain at one and the same time how both head final and head initial languages come to exist (each accounting for roughly half of the world’s languages) and how they come to be acquired (each in roughly equivalent times with roughly equivalent ease). In both ways – cross-linguistic variation and cross-linguistic language acquisition – a Language Faculty, i.e., one critically informed by UG, must be expected to integrate with language processing, i.e., to integrate with language realized in real time. The question is how. In fact, current linguistic theory of UG has brought this issue front and center. In this paper, we will attempt to explicate this issue, articulating two currently distinct and disparate views of UG and suggest that these two differ precisely in their view of how the integration of UG with language in real time is effected. Recognizing this difference and resolving it is fundamental to developing a theory of UG as a veridical component of the Language Faculty. Presumably this difference also has implications for the development of language processing models that hopes to account for the equivalent efficiency of the Human Language Parser for both right headed and left headed languages. We suggest that in conjunction with further theoretical study, more precise predictions and further typological study, both language processing studies such as those in this volume as well as language acquisition studies can and should be brought to bear on this leading issue.
1We thank James Gair, Michael Wagner, Suzanne Flynn, Claire Foley and Jerry Packard for discussion of the issues raised in this paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For purposes of simplification we will use the terms, “right” and “left” here, although these spatial terms to some degree beg the issues we will raise.
- 2.
Although any model of language processing must operate on the left to right process of speech (whether oral or visual as in sign language) in real time, we know that knowledge regarding language need not. The productivity of anticipatory speech errors suggests this.
- 3.
Another antisymmetry proposal is possible, e.g., Haider (2000). For Haider and Kayne, opposite orders, OV or VO respectively, are proposed to be unmarked. We will concentrate here on the Kayne version of antisymmetry, because of the precision with which it specifies its integration with real time.
- 4.
The definition of “head” (e.g., functional or lexical) is critical to this theory. We leave aside this issue here and pursue it elsewhere (Lust, in prep.) Also, the issue of the “branching direction” of the language is frequently confounded with the issue of “head direction”; we leave this correlation aside here also.
- 5.
Because directionality is necessarily binary and order is arbitrary in fundamental grammatical competence for natural language, in fact on this view there may be no need to specify a parameter to refer to directionality at all within UG itself. In other words, a parameter may become a second order phenomenon in this case, describing the results of UG->Specific Language Grammar->Language mapping, not its cause.
- 6.
We present only the general idea here, leaving aside details. The asymmetric proposal refers to the order of subconstituents of a phrase. Both the early parameter setting proposal and the asymmetric proposal involve a form of phrase structure grammar (X-bar theory) including an assumption that all phrases are headed; although for Kayne the properties of X-bar theory are not themselves a primitive component of UG but derive from the asymmetry proposal (1994, 3). (See Chomsky, 1995, pp. 334–340 for integration of the asymmetric proposal with Minimalist assumptions of “bare phrase structure”.)
- 7.
In this notation, the Verb (V) in Subject Verb Object (SVO) or Subject Object Verb (SOV) sentences is considered to be a head (H) taking the object (O) as complement (C) of the Verb Phrase. In both cases the sentence subject is treated as a “specifier” (S). Thus the SVO notation is frequently annotated as ‘S-H-C’ and the SOV notation as “S-C-H”.
- 8.
Other orders, e.g., S-C-H etc., are ruled out by a postulate that spec and complement must always be on opposite sides of the head.
- 9.
More specifically, asymmetric c-command is mediated by dominance relations but the “asymmetric c-command relation is significantly similar to the dominance relation…both are locally linear”(Kayne, 1994, p. 36) (i.e., in the sense that the dominance relation “becomes linear if one restricts oneself to the local environment of a given node”)(4).
- 10.
Here A consists in all sets of ordered pairs, <Xj, Yj> of non terminals “such that for eachj, Xj asymmetrically c-commands Yj”, T is a set of terminals, d is a dominance mapping from nonterminals to terminals (5) and d(X) is the set of terminals that X dominates. (Kayne, 1994).
- 11.
More precisely, we recognize that UG is “of course not a grammar but a system of conditions on the range of possible grammars for possible human languages”(Chomsky, 1980, p. 189). Thus we are inquiring about the nature of the representation of the linguistic “system of conditions” provided by the language faculty.
- 12.
In Dryer’s more recent typological studies (pc and Haspelmath et al., 2005), which extend the database, more languages have been added to the cell wherein RELN order occurs with VO order. These include three Chinese languages (Mandarin, Hakka and Cantonese), Bai (Tibeto-Burman) and Amis (a Sinicized Austronesian language of Taiwan). (Dryer, pc., and Haspelmath et al., 2005) Dryer’s database distinguishes genera and language (Dryer, 1989).
- 13.
The details of approach would differ here, e.g., only leftward movement is allowed in the asymmetric proposal.
- 14.
Elsewhere we offer systematic comparative experimental study of the acquisition of several head initial and head final languages including the critical Chinese; we assess both relative markedness of directionality and potentially universal forms of structure dependence across these. (Lust, in prep.)
- 15.
- 16.
Note that to the degree that adult language processing may refer only to specific language grammar, the importance of the study of the child’s language processing is accentuated; i.e., at early periods before the specific language grammar is fully represented, one may hypothesize that UG may be more directly reflected.
Note too that in order to more directly evaluate directionality factors relevant to UG in adult language processing, systematic comparisons across head final and head initial languages are necessary.
References
Bader, M. (this volume). On being both head-initial and head-final. In H. Yamashita, Y. Hirose & J. Packard (Eds.), Processing and producing head-final structures. Dordrecht: Springer.
Baker, M. (2008). The macroparameter in a microparametric world. In T. Biberauer (Ed.), The limits of syntactic variation (pp. 351–373) Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Baker, M. (2001). The atoms of language. New York: Basic Books.
Barbier, I. (1995a). Configuration and movement: Studies of the first language acquisition of dutch word-order. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Barbier, I. (1995b). The acquisition of embedded clauses with finite verbs in nonfinal position in Dutch. In E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Child Language Research Forum, 26, 147–158.
Barbier, I. (1996). The head-direction of Dutch VPs: Evidence from L1 acquisition. In C. Koster & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Proceedings from the groningen assembly on language acquisition. Groningen: Center for Language and Cognition.
Barbier, I. (2000). An experimental study of scrambling and object shift in the acquisition of Dutch. In C. Hamann & S. Powers (Eds.), The Acquisition of Scrambling and Cliticization. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Bauer, B. L. M. (1995) The emergence and Development of SVO Patterning in Latin and French: Diachronic and psycholinguistic perspectives. New York: Oxford.
Bayer, J. (1996). Final Complementizers in Hybrid Languages. Paper presented at the Conference on Final Heads. Katholieke Universiteit Brabant, Tilburg, November 24–25, 1995.
Biberauer, T., Holmberg, A., & Roberts, I. (2008). Structure and linearization in disharmonic word orders. In C. Chang & H. Haynie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th west coast conference on formal linguistics (pp. 96–104). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
Bichakjian, B. H. (1987). The Evolution of Word Order: A paedomorphic explanation. In A Giacalone Ramat, O. Carruba and G. Bernini (Eds.), Papers from the 7 th international conference on historical linguistics (pp. 87–107). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Bichakjian, B. H. (1988a). Evolution in language. Ann Arbor, MI: Koroma.
Bichakjian, B. H. (1988b). J’ai tombé pour Je suis tombé: L’aboutissement d’une longue évolution. In R. Landheer (Ed.), Aspects de linguistique francaise (pp. 31–48). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. (2002). Grammar overrides frequency: evidence from the online processing of flexible word order. Cognition, 85, B21–B30.
Boser, K. (1997). The acquisition of word order knowledge in early child German: Interactions between synax and pragmatics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Boser, K., Lust, B., Santelmann, L., & Whitman, J. (1991). The theoretical significance of auxiliaries in early child German. 16th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA.
Boser, K., Lust, B., Santelmann, L., & Whitman, J. (1992). The syntax of CP and V-2 in early German child grammar: The strong continuity hypothesis. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Association, University of Massachusetts: Amherst, 22, 51–66.
Boser, K., Santelmann, L., Barbier, I., & Lust, B. (1995). Grammatical mapping from UG to language specific grammars: Variation in the acquisition of German, Dutch and Swedish. In D. MacLaughlin & S. McEwen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 1, 130–142.
Carden, G. (1986). Blocked forward coreference. In B. Lust (Ed.), Studies in Acquisition of Anaphora (pp. 319–357). Dordrecht: Reidel.
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon.
Chomsky, N. (1980). Rules and representations. New York: Columbia University Press.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht and Holland: Foris.
Chomsky, N. (1988). Language and problems of knowledge (pp. 67–74). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, N. (1993). Language and thought. Wakefield, RI and London: Moyer Bell.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cinque, G. (1996). The antisymmetric programme: Theoretical and typological implications. Journal of Linguistics, 32, 447–464.
Cinque, G. (2005). Deriving Greenberg’s universal 20 and its exceptions. Linguistic Inquiry, 36(3), 315–332.
Crain, S., & McKee, C. (1985). Acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In S. Berman, J.-W. Choe & J. McDounough (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society (NELS) (pp. 94–110). Montreal, QC: McGill University.
Croft, W. (1990). Typology and universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dryer, M. (to appear). The branching direction theory of word order correlations revisited. In S. Scalise, E. Magni & A. Bisetto (Eds.), Universals of Language Today. Berlin: Springer. http://linguistics.buffalo.edu/people/faculty/dryer/dryer/DryerBDTrevisited.pdf
Dryer, M. (1989). Large linguistic areas and language sampling. Studies in Language, 13, 257–292.
Dryer, M. (1991). SVO languages and the OV:VO typology. Journal of Linguistics, 27, 443–482.
Dryer, M. (1992). The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language, 68(1), 81–138.
Dryer, M. (1998). Aspects of word order in the languages of Europe. In A. Siewierska (Ed.), Constituent Order in the Languages of Europe (pp. 283–319). European Science Foundation Language Typology series. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eisele, J., & Lust, B. (1996). Knowledge about pronouns: A developmental study using a truth value judgment task. Child Development, 67, 3086–3100.
Flynn, S. (1989). Spanish, Japanese and Chinese speakers’ acquisition of English relative clauses: New evidence for the head-direction parameter. In K. Hyltenstam & L. Obler (Eds.), Bilingualism across the lifespan (pp. 116–131). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Flynn, S., & Lust, B. (2002). A minimalist approach to L2 solves a dilemma of UG. In V. Cook (Ed.), Portraits of the L2 User (pp. 93–120). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
Fodor, J. D. (1998). Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 1–36.
Frazier, L., & Rayner, K. (1988). Parameterizing the language processing system: Left- versus Right-branching within and across languages. Explaining language universals (pp. 247–279). New York: Basil Blackwell.
Friederici, A. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6, 78–84.
Friederici, A., Bahlmann, J., Heim, S., Schubotz, R., & Anwander, A. (2006). The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity. PNAS, 103, 2458–2463.
Friederici, A., & Gorrell, P. (1998). Structural prominence and agrammatic theta-role assignment: A reconsideration of linear strategies. Brain and Language, 65, 253–275.
Fukui, N. (1995). The principles and parameters approach: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese. In M. Shibatani & T. Byron (Eds.), Approaches to language typology (pp. 327–372). New York: Oxford University Press.
Fukui, N., & Saito, M. (1997). Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 439–474.
Fukui, N., & Takano, Y. (1998). Symmetry in syntax: Merge and demerge. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 7, 27–86.
Fukui, N., & Takano, Y. (2006). Theoretical comparative syntax: Studies on macroparameters (pp. 132–178). New York: Routledge.
Gair, J. (1983). Ambiguity is no relative matter, or how do you treat your doubtful relatives. In F. Agard & G. Kelley, (Eds.), Essays in honor of Charles F. Hockett (pp. 128–146). Amsterdam: Brill.
Gair, J., Lust, B., Bhatia, T., Sharma, V., & Khare, J. (1998). A parameter-setting paradox: Children’s acquisition of Hindi anaphora in “Jab” clauses. In J. Gair (Ed.), Studies in South Asian linguistics (pp. 286–304). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gair, J., Lust, B., Sumangala, L., & Rodrigo, M. (1998). Acquisition of null subjects and control in some Sinhala adverbial clauses. In J. Gair (Ed.), Studies in South Asian linguistics (pp. 271–285). New York: Oxford University Press.
Gertner, Y., Fisher, C., & Eisengart, J. (2006). Learning words and rules. Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science, 17(8), 684–691.
Gerken, L., Remez, R., & Landau, B. (1990). Function morphemes in young children’s speech perception and production. Developmental Psychology, 26, 204–216.
Gervain, J., Nespor, M., Mazuka, R., Horie, R., & Mehler, J. (2008). Bootstrapping word order in prelexical infants: a Japanese-Italian cross-linguistic study. Cognitive Psychology, 57, 56–74.
Greenberg, J. (1963). Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 58–90). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Guasti, M., & Chierchia, G. (1999/2000). Backward versus forward anaphora: reconstruction in child grammar. Language Acquisition, 8(2), 129–170.
Haider, H. (2000). OV is more basic than VO. In P. Svenonius (Ed.), The derivation of VO and OV (pp. 45–67). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haspelmath, M. (2002). On understanding word order asymmetries (comments on John A. Hawkins, ‘Symmetries and asymmetries, their grammar, typology and parsing’). Theoretical Linguistics, 28(2), 159–170.
Haspelmath, M., Dryer, M., Gil, D., & Comrie, B. (2005). World atlas of language structures. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Also: http://wals.info]
Hawkins, J. (1983). Word order universals. New York: Academic Press.
Hawkins, J. (1985). Complementary methods in universal grammar: A reply to Coopmans. LG, 61, 569–587.
Hawkins, J. (Ed.). (1988). Explaining language universals. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Kemler-Nelson, D., Jusczyk, P., Wright-Cassidy, K., Druss, B., & Kennedy, L. (1987). Clauses are perceptual units for young children. Cognition, 26, 269–286.
Huang, C.-T. (1982). Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
Inoue, A. (1991). A comparative study of Parsing in English and Japanese. Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut Storrs.
Inoue, A., & Fodor, J. D. (1995). Information-paced parsing of Japanese. In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing (pp. 9–63). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jayaseelan, K. A. (in press). Remnant movement and word order. Syntax.
Johnson, E., & Seidl, A. (2008). Clause segmentation by 6-month old infants: A Crosslinguistic perspective. Infancy, 13, 440–455.
Kayne, R. (2000). On the left edge in UG. A reply to a reply to McClosky. Syntax, 3, 44–51.
Kayne, R. (1994). The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kayne, R. (2003). Antisymmetry and Japanese. English Linguistics, 20, 1–40.
Kazanina, N., & Phillips, C. (2001). Coreference in child Russian: Distinguishing syntactic and discourse constraints. In A. H.-J. Do, L. Dominguez & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th annual Boston University Conference for Language Development (pp. 413–424). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Kedar, Y., Casasola, M., & Lust, B. (2006). Getting there faster: 18- and 24-month old infants’ use of function words to determine reference. Child Development, 77(2), 325–338.
Lashley, K. (1948/1951/1960). The problem of serial order in behavior. In F. Beach, D. Hebb, C. Morgan & H. Nissen (Eds.), The Neurosychology of Lashley. Selected Papers of K.S. Lashley (pp. 507–529). New York: McGraw Hill. Reprinted in B. Lust & C. Foley (Eds.), First Language Acquisition: The Essential Readings (pp.316–334). New York: Blackwell Publishing.
Lidz, J. (2007). The abstract nature of syntactic representations: Consequences for a theory of learning. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 277–303). New York: Blackwell.
Lust, B. (in prep.). Universal grammar and the initial state. Cross-linguistic studies of directionality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lust, B. (1981). Constraint on anaphora in early child language: A prediction for a universal. In S. Tavakolian (Ed.), Linguistic theory and first language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Lust, B. (1983). On the notion “Principal Branching Direction:” A parameter of universal grammar. In Y. Otsu, H. VanRiemsdijk, K. Inoue & K. Kawasaki (Eds.), Studies in generative grammar and language acquisition (pp. 137–151). Tokyo: Monbusho.
Lust, B. (Ed.). (1986). Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. I. Defining the constraints. Dordrecht: Reidel Press.
Lust, B. (Ed.). (1987). Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. 2. Applying the constraints. Dordrecht: Reidel Press.
Lust, B. (1994). Functional projection of CP and phrase structure parameterization: an argument for the strong continuity hypothesis. In B. Lust, J. Whitman & M. Suñer, (Eds.), Cross Linguistic Perspectives: Vol. I. Heads, Projections, and Learnability (pp. 85–118). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lust, B. (2006). Child language. Acquisition and growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lust, B., Bhatia, T., Gair, J., Sharma, V., & Khare, J. (1995). Children’s acquisition of Hindi anaphora: A parameter-setting paradox. In V. Ghambir (Ed.), Teaching and acquisition of South Asian languages (pp. 172–189). Philadelphia, PA: Penn Press.
Lust, B., Chien, Y.-C., Chiang, C.-P., & Eisele, J. (1996). Chinese pronominals in universal grammar: A study of linear precedence and command in Chinese and English children’s first language acquisition. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 5, 1–47.
Lust, B., & Clifford, T. (1986). The 3-D study: Effects of depth, distance and directionality on children’s acquisition of anaphora. In B. Lust (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora: Vol. I. Defining the constraints (pp. 203–244). New York: Reidel Press.
Lust, B., deAbrew, K., & Sharma, V. (1982). A cross-linguistic study of the acquisition of complex syntax in Hindi and Sinhalese: An argument for a universal. The 44th South Asian Languages Roundtable. Syracuse University. Syracuse, NY.
Lust, B., Eisele, J., & Mazuka, R. (1992). The binding theory module: evidence from first language acquisition for principle C. Language 68(2), 333–358.
Lust, B., & Lee, K.-O. (1989). On the acquisition of Korean pronominal anaphora: The roles of configuration and linearity. Presented at the International Circle of Korean Linguistics, University of Toronto. July 1988. In E. Baek (Ed.), Papers from the 6th International Conference on Korean Linguistics (pp. 479–493). Toronto, ON: University of Toronto.
Lust, B., Loveland, K., & Kornet, R. (1980). The development of anaphora in first language: Syntactic and pragmatic constraints. Linguistic Analysis, 6(2), 217–249.
Lust, B., & Mangione, L. (1983). The principle branching direction parameter constraint in first language acquisition of anaphora. In P. Sells & C. Jones (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society (pp. 145–160). Amherst: University of Mass.
Lust, B., Mangione, L., & Chien, Y.-C. (1984a). The determination of empty categories in first language acquisition of Chinese. In W. Harbert (Ed.), Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics (Vol. 6, pp. 151–165). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Lust, B., Mangione, L., & Chien, Y.-C. (1984b). First language acquisition of Mandarin Chinese: Constraints on free and bound null anaphora. In S. Hattori & K. Inoue (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Linguistics (pp. 1127–1130). Tokyo: Japan.
Lust, B., Solan, L., Flynn, S., Cross, C., & Schuetz, E. (1986). A comparison of null and pronoun anaphora in first language acquisition. In B. Lust (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora: Vol. I. Defining the constraints (pp. 245–278). New York: Reidel Press.
Lust, B., Suñer, M., & Whitman, J. (Eds.). (1994). Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: cross-linguistic perspectives. Vol. I. heads. Projections and learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
Lust, B., & Wakayama, T. K. (1981). Word order in Japanese first language acquisition. In P. Dale & D. Ingram (Eds.), Child language: An international perspective (pp. 73–90). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press Publishers.
Lust, B., Wakayama, T., Hiraide, H., Snyder, W., & Bergmann, M. (1983). Comparative studies on the first language acquisition of Japanese and English – language universal and language-specific constraints. In S. Hattori & K. Inoue (Eds.), Proceedings of the 13th International Congress of Linguists (pp. 1131–1135). Tokyo: Japan.
Mazuka, R. (1990). Japanese and English children’s processing of complex sentences: An experimental comparison. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Mazuka, R. (1996). Can a grammatical parameter be set before the first word? Prosodic contributions to early setting of a grammatical parameter. In J. L. Morgan & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax: Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition (pp. 313–330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mazuka, R. (1998). The development of language processing strategies: A cross-linguistic study between Japanese and English. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mazuka, R., & Itoh, K. (1995). Can Japanese speakers be led down the garden path? In R. Mazuka & N. Nagai (Eds.), Japanese sentence processing (pp. 295–331). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mazuka, R., & Lust, B. (1987). Why is Japanese not difficult to process?: A proposal to integrate parameter-setting in UG and parsing. In J. Blevins & J. Carter (Eds.), Proceedings for NELS 18 (pp. 333–356). Amherst: University of Massachusetts.
Mazuka, R., & Lust, B. (1990). On parameter setting and parsing: Predictions for cross-linguistic differences in adult and child processing. In L. Frazier & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language acquisition (pp. 147–162). Amsterdam: Kluwer.
Mazuka, R., & Nagai, N. (Eds.). (1995). Japanese sentence processing. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McManus, C. (2002). Right hand, left hand. The origin of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms and cultures. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP.
Nespor, M., Guastic, M. T., & Christophe, A. (1996). Selecting word order: The rhythmic activation principle. In U. Kleinhenz (Ed.), Interfaces in phonology: studia grammatica (Vol. 41, pp. 1–26). Berlin, Germany: Academie Verlag GmbH.
O’Grady, W., Suzuki-Wei, Y., & Cho, S. W. (1986). Directionality preferences in the interpretation of anaphora: Data from Korean and Japanese. Journal of Child Language, 13(2), 409–420.
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London and Carberra: Croom Helm.
Reinhart, T. (1986). Center and periphery in the grammar of anaphora. In B. Lust (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora (pp. 123–150). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Saito, M., & Fukui, N. (1998). Order in phrase structure and movement. Linguistic Inquiry, 29(3), 439–474.
Smith, N. (1999). Chomsky. Ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Somashekar, S. (1995). Indian children’s acquisition of pronominals in Hindi ‘jab’ clauses: Experimental study of comprehension. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Somashekar, S., Lust, B., Gair, J., Bhatia, T., Sharma, V., & Khare, J. (1997) Principles of pronominal interpretation in Hindi ‘jab’ clauses. Experimental test of children’s comprehension. In S. Somashekar, K. Yamakoshi, M. Blume & C. Foley (Eds.), Papers on language acquisition: Cornell university working papers in linguistics (pp. 65–87). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Tomlin, R. (1986). Basic word order. Functional principles. London and Carberra: Croom Helm Linguistics Series.
Travis, L. (1989). Parameters of phrase structure. In A. S. Kroch & M. Baltin (Eds.), Alternative conceptions of phrase structure (pp. 263–279). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Travis, L. (1991). Parameters of phrase structure and verb-second phenomena. In R. Freidin (Ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative syntax (pp. 339–364). MA: MIT Press.
Valian, V. (1993). Parser failure and grammar change. Cognition, 46, 195–202.
Vigliocco, G., & Nicol, J. (1998). Separating hierarchical relations and word order in language production: is proximity concord syntactic or linear? Cognition, 68, B13–B29.
Wagner, M. (2005). Asymmetries in prosodic domain formation. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 49, 329–367. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000429
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lust, B. (2010). Directionality in the Architecture of the Language Faculty: Integrating with Real Time. In: Yamashita, H., Hirose, Y., Packard, J. (eds) Processing and Producing Head-final Structures. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, vol 38. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9213-7_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9213-7_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9212-0
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9213-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)