Advertisement

The Theory of Parameters and Syntactic Development

  • Nina Hyams
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 4)

Abstract

Within recent theories of Generative Grammar, UG has taken the form of a parameterized system. The parameters of UG express the limited range of variation which is permitted with respect to a set of core principles. For example, the X-Bar schemata given in (1) specifies that the categorial rules must conform to an ‘endocentric requirement’; that is, each phrase must contain a lexical head of its own feature specification. However, languages may vary as to the linear position of the head with respect to its complements (represented by ...) (Stowell, 1981).

Keywords

Grammatical Development Null Subject Main Verb Italian Modal Tensed Sentence 
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. Aoun, J. and D. Sportiche: 1983, ‘On the formal theory of government’, The Linguistic Review 2, 211–236.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C. L.: 1979, ‘Syntactic theory and the projection problem’, Linguistic Inquiry 10, 533–582.Google Scholar
  3. Bellugi, U.: 1967, The Acquisition of Negation, unpublished Harvard University doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  4. Berwick, R.: 1982, Locality Principles and the Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge, MIT doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  5. Bloom, L.: 1970, Language Development: Form and Function in Emerging Grammars, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, L., P. Lightbown, and L. Hood: 1975, Structure and Variation in Child Language, Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 40, No. 2.Google Scholar
  7. Borer, H.: 1981, Parametric Variation in Clitic Constructions, MIT doctoral dissertation [revised version published as Parametric Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht, 1984].Google Scholar
  8. Borer, H. and K. Wexler: 1984, ‘The maturation of syntax’ (this volume).Google Scholar
  9. Bowerman, M.: 1973, Early Syntactic Development, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  10. Braine, M.: 1973, ‘Three suggestions regarding grammatical analyses of children’s language’, in C. Ferguson and D. Slobin (eds.), Studies in Child Language Development, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Brown, R.: 1973, A First Language: The Early Stages, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, R., C. Cazden, and U. Bellugi: 1973, ‘The child’s grammar from I to III’, in C. Ferguson and D. Slobin (eds.), Studies in Child Language Development, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Brown, R. and C. Fraser: 1964, ‘The acquisition of syntax’, in U. Bellugi and R. Brown (eds.), The Acquisition of Language, Monographs for the Society of Research in Child Development, 29.Google Scholar
  14. Burzio, L.: 1981, Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, MIT doctoral disseration [to be published by D. Reidel, Dordrecht].Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N.: 1980, ‘On binding’, Linguistic Inquiry 11, 1–46.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. Chomsky, N.: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, Linguistic Inquiry Monograph, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  18. Emonds, J.: 1976, A Transformational Approach to English Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Gleitman, L.: 1981, ‘Maturational determinants of language growth’, Cognition 10, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gruber, J.: 1967, Topicalization in child language’, Foundations of Language 3, 37–65.Google Scholar
  21. Hyams, N.: 1983, The Acquisition of Parameterized Grammars, CUNY doctoral dissertation. [published as Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1986].Google Scholar
  22. Hyams, N.: 1984, ‘Semantically-based child grammars: Some empirical inadequacies’, Proceedings of the Stanford Child Language Conference.Google Scholar
  23. Jacubowitz, C: 1984, ‘On markedness and binding principles’, in the Proceedings of NELS 14.Google Scholar
  24. Jaeggli, O.: 1982, Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. Klein, S.: 1982, Syntactic Theory and the Developing Grammar: Reestablishing the Relationship between Linguistic Theory and Data from Language Acquisition, unpublished UCLA doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar
  26. Levy, Y.: 1983, ‘It’s frogs all the way down’, Cognition 15, 75–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Maratsos, M.: 1982, ‘The child’s construction of grammatical categories’, in E. Wanner and L. Gleitman (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  28. McNeill, D.: 1966, ‘Developmental psycholinguistics’, in F. Smith and G. Miller (eds.), The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  29. Menyuk, P.: 1969, Sentences Children Use, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. Newport, E., L. Gleitman, and H. Gleitman: 1977, ‘Mother, please, I’d rather do it myself; Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style’, in C. Snow and C. Ferguson (eds.), Talking to Children; Language Input and Acquisition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  31. Pinker, S.: 1984, Language Learnability and Language Learning, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  32. Rizzi, L.: 1976, ‘La montée du sujet, le si impersonnel et une régie de restructuration dans la syntaxe italienne’, in Recherches Linguistiques 4, Paris-Vincennes.Google Scholar
  33. Rizzi, L.: 1982, Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  34. Roeper, T.: 1978, ‘Linguistic universais and the acquisition of gerunds’, in H. Goodluck and L. Solan (eds.), Papers in the Structure and Development of Child Language, University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, vol. 4.Google Scholar
  35. Safir, K.: 1982, Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect, MIT doctoral dissertation [published by Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1985].Google Scholar
  36. Safir, K. and D. Pesetsky: 1981, ‘Inflection, inversion and subject clitics’, in V. Burke and J. Pustejovsky (eds.), Proceeding of NELS 11.Google Scholar
  37. Schlesinger, I. M.: 1971, ‘Production of utterances and language acquisition’, in D. I. Slobin (ed.), The Ontogenesis of Grammar, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  38. Slobin, D.: 1982, ‘Universal and particular in the acquisition of language’, in E. Wanner and L. Gleitman (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  39. Stowell, T.: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, MIT doctoral dissertation [to be published by MIT Press].Google Scholar
  40. Taraldsen, T.: 1980, ‘On the NIC, vacuous application and the that-t filter’ [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistics Club].Google Scholar
  41. Wexler, K. and R. Manzini: 1984, ‘Parameters and learnability in binding theory’ [this volume].Google Scholar
  42. White, L.: 1980, Grammatical Theory and Language Acquisition, McGill University doctoral dissertation [Distributed by Indiana University Linguistic Club].Google Scholar
  43. White, L.: 1983, ‘The pro-drop parameter and L2 acquisition’, McGill University manuscript.Google Scholar
  44. Zagona, K.: 1982, Government and Proper Government of Verbal Projections, University of Washington/Seattle doctoral dissertation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina Hyams

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations