Advertisement

Comments on Borer and Wexler

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

Abstract

Borer and Wexler present two types of arguments in favor of their ‘maturational account’ of language acquisition. One type is conceptual; claiming that, contrary to popular belief, there is no reason not to adopt a maturational theory. In addition, they claim that this framework is more compatible with the research goals and principles of linguistic theory. In addition, the account is also supposed to avoid the pitfall of unjustified reliance on evidence from the linguistic environment. The second set of arguments is designed to show that the maturational theory is more empirically justified in that it can use a uniform set of principles to handle certain cases better than non-maturational accounts.

Keywords

External Argument Transitive Verb Implicit Argument Adjectival Passive Null Subject 
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. Berwick, R. and A. Weinberg: 1984, The Grammatical Basis of Linguistic Performance, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Borer, H.: 1984, ‘The projection principle and rules of morphology’, NELS 14, University of Massachusetts publication.Google Scholar
  3. Bowerman, M.: 1981, ‘Evaluating competing linguistic models with language acquisition data: Implications of developmental errors with causative verbs’, Semantica 3, 1–73.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N.: 1975, Reflections on Language, Pantheon.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  6. Goldin-Meadow. S.: 1949, ‘Language without a helping hand’, in H. Whitaker and H. A. Whitaker (eds.), Studies in Neuro linguistics, vol. 4, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Horgan, M.: 1975, Language Development: Across Methodological Study, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  8. Hyams, N.: 1983, The Acquisition of Parameterized Grammars, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
  9. Koopman, Hilda: 1984, The Syntax of Verbs, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  10. Koster, J.: 1978, Locality Principles in Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Maratsos, M.: 1978, ‘New models in linguistics and language acquisition’, in M. Halle, J. Bresnan, and G. Miller (eds.) Linguistic Theory and Psychological Reality, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Maratsos, M. and R, Abramovitch: 1975, ‘How children understand full, truncated, and anomalous passives’, in Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 14, 145–157.Google Scholar
  13. Manzini, Maria-Rita: 1983, Restructuring and Reanalysis, unpublished MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  14. Otsu, Yukio: 1981, Universal Grammar and Syntactic Development in Children, unpublished MIT Ph.D. dissertation.Google Scholar
  15. Pinker, S.: 1982, ‘A theory of the acquisition of lexical-interpretive grammars’, in J. Bresnan (ed), The Mental Representation of Grammatical Relations, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Roeper, T.: 1983, unpublished University of Massachusetts ms.Google Scholar
  17. Travis, L.: 1984, Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation, unpublished MIT diss.Google Scholar
  18. Wexler, K. and P. Culicover: 1980, Formal Principles of Language Acquisition, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  19. Williams, E.: 1982, ‘Another Argument that Passive is Transformational’, Linguistic Inquiry 13(1), 160–163.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy Weinberg

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations