Advertisement

From the Initial State to V2: Acquisition Principles in Action

  • Thomas Roeper
Part of the Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics book series (SITP, volume 16)

Abstract

Strong support now exists for this claim: all the properties of the two-and three word stage of acquisition are direct projections from Universal Grammar.2

Keywords

Functional Category Relative Clause Language Acquisition Syntactic Category Subordinate 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. Akmajian, A. and F. Heny: 1973, An Introduction to Transformational Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, C.L.: 1981, ‘Learnabi1ity and the English auxiliary system’, in C.L. Baker and J. McCarthy (eds.), The Logical Problem of Language Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom: 1988, ’synatctic distinctions’, ms., MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Borer, H.: 1991. ‘The causative-inchoative alternation: A case study in parallel morphology’, to appear in The Linguistic Review.Google Scholar
  5. Boyd, J.: 1992, ‘Extraction and referentiality’, dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  6. Cinque, G.: 1991, Types of A-bar Dependencies, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, N.: 1970, ‘Remarks on Norninalizations’, in R. Jacobs and P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in Transformational Grammar, Ginn, Waltham.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, N.: 1986a, Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Chomsky, N.: 1986b, Barriers, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. Clahsen, H.: 1991, ‘Constraints on parameter-setting. A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language’, Language Acquisition 1, 361–391.Google Scholar
  12. Clahsen, H., S. Eisenbeiss, and A. Vainikka: (to appear), ‘The seeds of structure’, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.Google Scholar
  13. Crain, S. and M. Nakayama: 1984, ’structure dependence and grammar formation’, ms., University of Connecticutt, Storrs.Google Scholar
  14. Culicover, P.: 1991, ‘Topicalization and focus’, ms., Ohio State University, Columbus.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, H.: 1987, ‘The acquisition of the English auxiliary system and its relation to linguistic theory’, dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver.Google Scholar
  16. Deprez, V. and A. Pierce: 1990, ‘A cross-linguistic study of negation in early syntactic development’, ms., Rutgers, to appear in Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
  17. Drozd, K.: 1992, Dissertation on negation and Categorial Grammar, University of Arizona, Tucson.Google Scholar
  18. Everaert, M.: 1991, ‘The lexical representation of idioms and the morphology-syntax interface’, ms., University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
  19. Felix, S.: 1992, ‘Language acquisition as a maturational process’, in J. Weissenborn, H. Goodluck, and T. Roeper (eds.),Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  20. Fletcher, P.: 1979, ‘The development of the verbphrase’, in P. Fletcher and M. Garman (eds.), Language Acquisition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  21. Frampton, J.: 1990, ‘Parasitic gaps and the theory of wh-chains’, Linguistic Inquiry 21, 49–78.Google Scholar
  22. Frazier, L. and J. de Villiers: 1990, Language Processing and Language Acquisition, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  23. Frijn, J. and G. de Haan: 1991, ‘The development of movement and inflection in Dutch’, ms.. Utrecht.Google Scholar
  24. Gleitman, L. and B. Landau: 1988, Language and Experience, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  25. Gruber, J.: 1967, ‘Topicalization in child language’, in A. Bar-Adon and W.F. Leopold (eds.), Child Language, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  26. de Haan, G.: 1987, ‘A theory-bound approach to the acquisition of verb placement in Dutch’, in G. de Haan and W. Zonneveld (eds.), Formal Parameters of Generative Grammar, III Yearbook 1987, ICG Piniing, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  27. Haider, H.: 1986, ‘V2 in German’, in H. Haider and M. Prinzhorn (eds.), Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  28. Hoekstra, T.: 1991, Paper presented at Boston University Conference.Google Scholar
  29. Hoekstra, T. and P. Jordens: 1991, ‘Adjunction to the head’, paper presented at GLOW Leiden, Holland.Google Scholar
  30. Hyams, N.: 1986, Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  31. Hyams, N.: 1991, ‘The genesis of functional categories’, ms.Google Scholar
  32. Iatridou, S.: 1990, ‘About AGR(P)’ Linguistic Inquiry 21,551–577.Google Scholar
  33. Jaeggli, O. and N. Hyams: 1986, ‘Morphological uniforrnity and the setting of the Null Subject Parameter’, Northeast Linguistic Society 18.Google Scholar
  34. Johnson, K.: 1990, ‘The syntax of inflectional paradigms’, ms.. University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
  35. Jordens, P.: 1990, ‘The acquisition of verb placement in Dutch and German’, Linguistics 28.Google Scholar
  36. Jordens, P.: 1991, Data collection on negation, ms., Max-Planck-Institut, Nijmegen, Holland.Google Scholar
  37. Kean, M.-L.: 1976, ‘The theory of markedness in Generative Grammar’, dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  38. Klima, E. and U. Bellugi: 1973, ’syntactic regularities in the speech of children’, in A. Bar-Adon and W.F. Leopold (eds.), Child Language, Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Kratzer, A.: 1988,’ stage and individual level predicates’, NSF report, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  40. Kulikowski, S.: 1980, ‘A descriptive method for child language disability’, dissertation, School of Education, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  41. Lasnik, H. and M. Saito: 1992, Move-Alpha, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  42. Lebeaux, D.: 1988, ‘Language acquisition and the form of the grarnmar’, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachussetts at Amberst.Google Scholar
  43. Lebeaux, D.: 1990, ‘The grarnmatical nature of the acquisition process: adjoin-α and the formation of relative clauses’, in L. Frazier and J. de Villiers (eds.), Language Processing and Language Acquisition, Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  44. Maxfield, T. and B. Plunkett (1991) Proceedings of the University of Massachusetts Conference on the Acquisition of Wh-movement, (available from University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics Students Association, Linguistics Dept).Google Scholar
  45. Lebeaux, D.: 1991, Paper on Kernal Sentences, GLOW, Leiden, Holland.Google Scholar
  46. Lightfoot, D.: 1989, ‘The child’s trigger experience: Degree-O Learnability’, Brain and Behavioral Research 12, 321–334Google Scholar
  47. Menyuk, P.: 1969, Sentences Children Use, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  48. Meisel, J.M.: 1990, ‘INFL-ection: Subjects and subject-verb agreement’, J.M. Meisel (ed.), Two First Languages: Early Language Development in Bilingual Children, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  49. Meisel, J.M.: 1991, ‘Verbal functional categories in early grammatical development. Evidence from simultaneous acquisition of two languages’, ms., University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  50. Meisel, J.M. and N. Müller: 1990, ‘On the position of finiteness in early child grammar. Evidence from simultaneous acquisition of two first languages: French and German’, ms., University ofHamburg.Google Scholar
  51. Miller, M.: 1979, Teh Logic of Language Development in Early Childhood, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  52. Muysken, P. and H. van Riemsdijk: 1987, Features and Projections, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  53. Müller, N.: 1992, ‘Komplexe Sätze: Der Erwerb von COMP und von Wortstellungsmustern bei bilingualen Kindern’, dissertation, University of Hamburg.Google Scholar
  54. Müller, G. and W. Sternefeld: ‘Improper movement’, ms., Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
  55. Park, T.-Z.: 1971, ‘Word-order in German language development’, Word 27.Google Scholar
  56. Penner, Z.: 1989, ‘The acquisition of the syntax of Bernese Swiss German: The role of functional elements in restructuring early grammar’, ms., University of Bern.Google Scholar
  57. Penner, Z.: 1991, ‘Licensing wh and the acquisition of interrogatives in Bernese Swiss German and related languages’, paper presented at GLOW workshop, Leiden, Holland.Google Scholar
  58. Penner, Z.: 1991, ‘Asking questions without CP’s: Parameters, operations, and syntactic bootstrapping in the aAcquisition of wh-questions in Bernese Swiss German, Standard German, and English’, paper presented at GLOW 1991.Google Scholar
  59. Philips, W. and M. Takahashi: 1991. ‘Quantifier spreading in the acquisition of every’, in T. Maxfield and B. Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of the University of Massachusetts Conference on the Acquisition of Wh-movement.Google Scholar
  60. Pierce, A.: 1989, ‘On the emergence of syntax: A cross-linguistic study’, dissertation, MIT, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  61. Pinker, S.: 1984, Language Learnability and Language Development, Harvard University Press, Harvard.Google Scholar
  62. Platzack, C. and A. Holmberg: 1989, ‘The role of AGR and finiteness’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43, 51–76.Google Scholar
  63. Pollock, J.-Y.: 1989, ‘Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP’, Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
  64. Randall, J.: 1984, Morphological Structure and Language Acquisition, Garland Press, New York.Google Scholar
  65. Rizzi, L.: 1990, Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  66. Rizzi, L.: 1991, ‘The wh-criterion’, ms., University of Geneva.Google Scholar
  67. Reis, M.: 1985, ’satzeinleitende Strukturen im Deutschen: Über COMP, Haupt-und Nebensätze, W-Bewegung und Doppelkopfanalyse’, in W. Abraham (ed.), Erklärende Syntax des Deutschen, Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  68. Roeper, T.: 1972, ‘Approaches to a theory of language acquisition’, dissertation, Harvard, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  69. Roeper, T.: 1973, ‘Theoretical implications of word order, topicalization, and inflections in German language acquisition’, in D. Siobin and C. Ferguson (eds.), Studies in Child Language Development, Holt.Google Scholar
  70. Roeper, T.: 1978, ‘Universal Grammar and the acquisition of gerunds’, in H. Goodluck and L. Solan (eds.), Papers in the Structure and Development of Child Language, Graduate Linguistics Students Association, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  71. Roeper, T.: 1981, ‘On the acquisition of gerunds’, in E. Wanner and L. Gleitman (eds.), Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Roeper, T.: 1988, ‘Wh-movement and spec acquisition’, paper presented at Boston University Conference.Google Scholar
  73. Roeper, T.: 1990, ‘How the least effort concept applies to head-movement, copying, and cyclic wh-movement’, to appear in J. Koster and E. Reuland (eds.), Proceedings of the 375th Anniversary of Groningen University, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  74. Roeper, T., S. Akiyama, M. Rooth, and L. Mallis: 1985, ‘On the problem of empty categories in language acquisition’, ms., University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
  75. Roeper, T. and J. Weissenborn: 1990, ‘How to make parameters work’, in L. Frazier and J. de Villiers (eds.), Language Processing and Language Acquisition, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  76. Schaeffer, J.: 1990, ‘The syntax of the subjectin child language’, MA thesis, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  77. Schwartz, B. and S. Vikner: 1989, ‘All verb second clauses are CPs’, Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 43, 27–49.Google Scholar
  78. Speas, M.: 1991, ‘Functional heads and inflectional morphemes’, The Linguistic Review, 1–27.Google Scholar
  79. Tavakolian, S.: 1978, ‘The conjoined clause analysis of relatives and other subjects’, in H. Goodluck and L. Solan (eds.), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers 4,37–85.Google Scholar
  80. Tracy, R.: 1991, Sprachliche Strukturentwicklung, Narr, Tübingen.Google Scholar
  81. Tracy, R., A. Fritzenschaft, I. Gawlitzek-Maiwald and S. Winkler: 1990, ‘Wege zur komplexen Syntax’, Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft 9, 52–134.Google Scholar
  82. Vainikka, A.: 1990, ‘The status of grammatical default systems: comments on Lebeaux’, in L. Frazier and J. de Villiers (eds.), Language Processing and Language Acquisition, Kluwer, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  83. Vainikka, A.: 1991, Paper presented at Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies on Agreement.Google Scholar
  84. Verrips, M. and J. Weissenborn: 1990, ‘Finite verbs in the acquisition of German, Dutch, and French’, ms., Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  85. Vikner, S.: 1990, ‘Verb-movement and the licensing of NP positions in the Germanic languages’, Ph.D. dissertation, Geneva.Google Scholar
  86. de Villiers, J.: 1991, ‘Why questions’, in T. Maxfield and B. Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of the University of the Massachusetts Conference on the Acquisition of Wh-movement.Google Scholar
  87. de Villiers, J. and T. Roeper: 1991, ‘Introduction’, in T. Maxfield and B. Plunkett (eds.), Proceedings of the University of Massachusetts Conference on the Acquisition of Wh movement.Google Scholar
  88. Wagner, H.: 1985, ‘How much do children say in a day’, Journal of Child Language.Google Scholar
  89. Weissenborn, J.: 1988, ‘Null subjects in early grammars: Implications for parameter setting theories’, ms., Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  90. Weissenborn, J.: 1990, ‘Functional categories and verb movement in early German’, Linguistische Berichte: Spracherwerb und Grammatik, 190–224.Google Scholar
  91. Weissenborn, J.: 1991. ‘Functional categories and verb movement: The acquisition of German syntax reconsidered’, in M. Rothweiler (ed.) Spracherwerb und Grammatik, Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  92. Weissenborn, J., H. Goodluck, and T. Roeper: 1992, Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition, Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  93. Weissenborn, J. and M. Verrips: 1989, ‘Negation as a window to the structure of early child language’, ms., Max-Planck-Institut für Psycholinguistik, Nijmegen.Google Scholar
  94. Weverink, M.: 1989, ‘The subject in relation to inflection in child language’, MA thesis, Utrecht.Google Scholar
  95. Wexler, K. and Y. Chien: 1990, ‘Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics’, Language Acquisition, 225–295.Google Scholar
  96. Wexler, K. and P. Culicover: 1980, Formal Principles of Language Acquisition, MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  97. Zanuttini, R. and L. Haegeman: 1991, Paper on negation, presented at Netherlands Institute of Advanced Studies.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Roeper

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations