Advertisement

Introduction: Functional Categories and Verb Placement in Language Development

  • Jürgen M. Meisel
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 16)

Abstract

Research investigating the development of early linguistic knowledge has been stimulated enormously, during the past decade, by recent versions of Generative Grammar. The Principles-and-Parameters framework of the theory of Universal Grammar (UG), as developed by Chomsky (1981) and others, has proved to be particularly useful for studies dealing with grammatical development. It allows for the formulation of more specific hypotheses than were possible in earlier models about what will be constant and what may be expected to vary in the course of language acquisition or of language change in history; see the papers in Roeper and Williams (eds.) (1987) and, more recently, the work by Lightfoot (1991) for examples illustrating this point.

Keywords

Functional Category Language Acquisition Child Language Grammatical Development Small Clause 
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. Bickerton, D.: 1990a, Language and Species, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Bickerton, D.: 1990b,’ syntactic development: The brain just does it’, ms., University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
  3. Borer, H.: 1984, Parametric Syntax. Case Studies in Semitic and Romance Languages, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  4. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding. The Pisa Lectures, Foris, Dordrecht (3rd revised edition 1984).Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N.: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, N.: 1986, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1989, ’some notes on economy of derivation and representation’, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 10, 43–74.Google Scholar
  8. Clahsen, H.: 1990, ‘Constraints on parameter setting. A grammatical analysis of some acqusition stages in German child language’, Language Acquisition 1, 361–391.Google Scholar
  9. Guilfoyle, E. and M. Noonan: 1988, ‘Functional categories and language acquisition’, paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  10. Hyams, N.: 1986, Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  11. Kayne. R.S.: 1985, ‘Principles of particle constructions’, in J. Guéron et al. (eds.), Grammatical Representation, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  12. Koopman, H. and D. Sportiche: 1991. ‘The position of subjects’, Lingua 85,211–258.Google Scholar
  13. Kuroda, S.-Y.: 1988, ‘Whether we agree or not: A comparative syntax of English and Japanese’ Lingvisticae Investigationes 12. 1–47.Google Scholar
  14. Lightfoot, D.: 1991, How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change, The MIT Press (A Bradford Book), Cambridge.Google Scholar
  15. Meisel, J.M.: 1990, ‘INFL-ection: subjects and subject-verb agreement in early child language. Evidence from simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: French and German’, in J.M. Meisel (ed.), Two First Languages. Early Grammatical Developmenl in Bilingual Children, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  16. Müller, N.: 1991, Komplexe Sätze: Der Erwerb von COMP und von Wortstellungsmustern bei bilingualen Kindern (Französisch/ Deutsch), Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  17. Pinker, St.: 1984, Language Learnability and Language Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Platzack, C. and A. Holmberg: 1989, ‘The role of AGR and finiteness in Germanic VO languages’, Scandinavian Working Papers in Linguistics 43,51–76.Google Scholar
  19. Radford, A.: 1986, ’small children’s Small Clauses’, Bangor Research Papers in Linguistics 1, 1–38.Google Scholar
  20. Radford. A.: 1990, Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax, Blackwell, Oxford.Google Scholar
  21. Reis. M.: 1985, ’satzeinleitende Strukturen im Deutschen: Über COMP, Haupt-und Nebensätze, W-Bewegung und die Doppelkopfanalyse’, in W. Abraham (ed.), Erklärende Syntax, Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  22. Rizzi, L.: 1982, Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris Publications, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  23. Rizzi, L. and I. Roberts: 1989, ‘Complex inversion in French’, Probus 1, 1–30.Google Scholar
  24. Roeper, T. and E. Williams (eds.): 1987, Parameter Setting, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. Stowell, T.: 1981, Origins of Phrase Structure, Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  26. White, L.: 1982, Grammatical Theory and Language Acquisition, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jürgen M. Meisel

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations