Advertisement

The Maturation of Syntax

  • Hagit Borer
  • Kenneth Wexler
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 4)

Abstract

In recent years there has been a good deal of effort devoted to the problem of the development of linguistic representations. An active group of investigators is attempting to simultaneously figure out how linguistic representations can be attained given the limited data available to the child (the problem of learnability) and to understand why the course of development takes the actual form that it does. Needless to say, these problems interact. While concentration on both problems expands the goal of study, thereby making the ultimate solution more difficult to attain, the double concentration also has the effect of bringing a greater body of evidence to bear on the fundamental problem of the growth of language, thereby aiding in attempted solutions.

Keywords

Linguistic Theory Continuity Hypothesis External Argument Adjectival Passive Ergative Verb 
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.: 1979, ‘A short note on cliticization’, ms. MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Berraan, R.: 1981a, ‘Regularity vs. anomaly: The acquisition of Hebrew inflectional morphology’, Journal of Child Language 8, 256–82.Google Scholar
  3. Berman, R.: 1981b, ‘Language development and language knowledge: Evidence from the acquisition of Hebrew morphology’, Journal of Child Language 8, 609–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berman, R.: 1982, ‘verb-pattern alternation: The interface of syntax, morphology and semantics in Hebrew child language’, Journal of Child Language 9, 169–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berman, R. and I. Sagi: 1981, ‘On word-formation and word-innovation in early age’, Balshanut Ivrit Xofshit, 1981:18 (in Hebrew).Google Scholar
  6. Berwick, R.: 1982, Locality Principles and the Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT Dept. of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science.Google Scholar
  7. Berwick, R. and A. Weinberg: 1984, The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance: Language Use and Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Borer, H.: 1983, ‘The projection principle and rules of morphology’, in Proceedings from the 14th meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  9. Borer, H.: 1984, Parametric Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Borer, H.: 1986, ‘I-subjects’, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 375–416.Google Scholar
  11. Borer, H. and Y. Grodzinsky: 1986, ‘Lexical cliticization vs. syntactic cliticization: The case of Hebrew dative clitics’, in H. Borer (ed.), Syntax and Semantics 19, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Borer, H. and K. Wexler: 1984, ‘The maturation of syntax’, paper presented at the Amherst Symposium on Language Acquisition, May 1984.Google Scholar
  13. Bowerman, M.: 1982, ‘Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs’, Semantica 3, 1–73.Google Scholar
  14. Burzio, L.: 1981, Intransitive Verbs and Italian Auxiliaries, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. To be published by D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  15. Chomsky, N.: 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  16. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  17. de Villiers, J., M. Phinney, and A. Avery: 1982, ‘Understanding passives with nonaction verbs’, paper presented at the 7th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston.Google Scholar
  18. Gleitman, L.: 1981, ‘Maturational determinants of language growth’, Cognition 10, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gleitman, L. and E. Wanner: 1982, ‘Introduction’, in E. Wanner and L. Gleitman (eds.), Language Acquisition, the State of the Art, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Halle, M.: 1973, ‘Prolegomena to word formation’, Linguistic Inquiry 4.Google Scholar
  21. Hyams, N.: 1983, The Acquisition of Parameterized Grammars, Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York, New York. To be published by D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  22. Horgan, D. M.: 1975, Language Development: A Cross-Methodological Study, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  23. Jaeggli, O.: 1981, ‘A modular approach to Romance agentive causatives’, ms., USC.Google Scholar
  24. Jaeggli, O.: 1982, Topics in Romance Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. MacNamara, J.: 1972, ‘Cognitive basis for language learning in infants’, Psychological Review 79, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marantz, A.: 1984, On the Nature of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  27. Maratsos, M. P.: 1983, ‘some current issues in the study of the acquisition of grammar’, in J. Flavell and E. Markman (eds.), Child Psychology.Google Scholar
  28. Maratsos, M. P., D. E. C. Fox, J. Becher, and M. A. Chalkley: 1983, ‘Semantic restrictions on children’s early passive’, ms. University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  29. Marcus, M.: 1979, A Theory of Syntactic Recognition for Natural Language, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  30. Marr, D.: 1982, Vision, W. H. Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  31. Otsu, Y.: 1981, Universal Grammar and Syntactic Development in Children: Toward a Theory of Syntactic Development, Ph.D. Dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  32. Perlmutter, D.: 1978, ‘Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis’, in Proceedings from the 4th Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistic Society, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  33. Pinker, S.: 1979, ‘Formal models of language learning’, Cognition 1, 217–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pinker, S.: 1983, ‘Productivity and conservativism in language acquisition’, paper presented in the Symposium on Leaning, University of Western Ontario, London.Google Scholar
  35. Pinker, S.: 1984, Language Learnability and Language Learning, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  36. Rizzi, L.: 1982, Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  37. Roeper, T.: 1983, ‘Implicit arguments and the projection principle’, ms.. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  38. Safir, K.: 1982, Syntactic Chains and the Definiteness Effect, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT. To be published by Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  39. Siegel, D.: 1970, ‘Non-sources for un-passives’, in J. Kimball (ed.). Syntax and Semantics II, Seminar Press, New York.Google Scholar
  40. Stowell, T.: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, To be published by MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  41. Wasow, T.: 1977, ‘Transformations and the lexicon, in P. Culicover, A. Akmajian and T. Wasow (eds.), Formal Syntax, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Wexler, K.: 1982, ‘A principle theory for language acquisition’, in E. Wanner and L. Gleitman (eds.), Language Acquisition, the State of the Art, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Wexler, K. and Y. C. Chien: 1985, ‘The development of lexical anaphors and pronouns’, Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, No. 24.Google Scholar
  44. Wexler, K. and P. Culicover: 1980, Formal Principles of Language Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  45. Williams, E.: 1980, ‘Predication’, in Linguistic Inquiry 11(1).Google Scholar
  46. Williams, E.: 1981, ‘Argument structure and morphology’, The Linguistic Review 1(1).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hagit Borer
  • Kenneth Wexler

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations