Linguistic Theory and Language Acquisition Facts: Reformulation, Maturation or Invariance of Binding Principles

  • Celia Jakubowicz
Chapter

Abstract

Since the emergence of the Generative Standard Theory framework (cf. Chomsky 1965, 1981, 1986), language acquisition has been idealized as an instantaneous process resulting from the interaction of a small number of innately determined linguistic principles and the linguistic experience available to the child. According to this model, the new born baby is equiped with a set of computational mechanisms for manipulating structural representations that are ready to be used. Once the genetic device gets down to work, only certain adjustments, determined by the linguistic environment, are needed for the child to master the grammar of the language to which he is exposed. Under this approach, we expect children’s linguistic behavior to precociously conform to the Principles of Universal Grammar (henceforth UG) or at least, we expect the transition from the initial to the steady state of language acquisition to be rapid and error free. However, such a prediction is apparently at odds with certain facts which indicate that many aspects of the acquisition of language knowledge are sequentially ordered.

Keywords

Language Acquisition Linguistic Theory Subject Position Object Position Test 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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Borer, Hagit and Kenneth Wexler: 1987, ‘The Maturation of Syntax’, in T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.), Parameter Setting, Reidel, Dordrecht, 123–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borer, Hagit and Kenneth Wexler: 1988, ‘The Maturation of Grammatical Principles’, paper presented at the GLOW Colloquium, Budapest.Google Scholar
  3. Chien, Yu-Chin and Kenneth Wexler: 1987, ‘Children’s Acquisition of the Locality Conditions for Reflexives and Pronouns’, Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 26, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  4. Chien, Yu-Chin and Kenneth Wexler: 1988, ‘Children’s Acquisition of Binding Principles’, paper presented at the Thirteen Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, Noam: 1965, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  6. Chomsky, Noam: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  7. Chomsky, Noam: 1986, Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origins and Use, Series Convergence, Praeger, New York.Google Scholar
  8. Clahsen, Harald: 1988, ‘Learnability Theory and Problem of Development in Language Acquisition’, manuscript, Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft Universität, Düsseldorf.Google Scholar
  9. Crain, Stephen and Janet Fodor: 1987, ‘Competence and Performance in Child Language’, paper presented at the Tel Aviv Fifth Annual Workshop in Human Development and Education.Google Scholar
  10. Crain, Stephen, N. Thornton and K. Murasagi: 1987, ‘Capturing the Evasive Passive’, paper presented at the 12th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  11. Demuth, Katharine: 1989, ‘Maturation and the Acquisition of the Seshoto Passive’, Language 65 (1), 56–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deutsch, Werner, Charlotte Koster and Jan Koster: 1986, ‘What Can We Learn from Children’s Errors in Understanding Anaphora?’, Linguistics 24, 203–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felix, Sascha: 1984, ‘Maturational Aspects of Universal Grammar’, in A. Davis, C. Criper and A. Howat (eds.), Interlanguage, Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
  14. Felix, Sascha: 1988, ‘Universal Grammar in Language Acquisition’, manuscript, University of Passau.Google Scholar
  15. Greenberg, Joseph: 1966, Universals of Language, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  16. Grimshaw, Jane and Sarah Rosen: 1990, ‘Knowledge and Obedience: The Developmental Status of the Binding Theory’, Linguistic Inquiry 2 (2), 187–223.Google Scholar
  17. Jakubowicz, Celia: 1984, ‘On Markedness and Binding Principles’, Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society, 14, pp. 154–182.Google Scholar
  18. Jakubowicz, Celia: 1987, ‘Contraintes syntaxiques et acquisition du langage’, Annales de la Fondation Fyssen 3, 69–83.Google Scholar
  19. Jakubowicz, Celia: 1989a, ‘Maturation or Invariance of Universal Grammar Principles in Language Acquisition’, in A. Giorgi and B. Dotson Smith (eds.), Romance Languages and Linguistics, Probus 1–3, 283–340.Google Scholar
  20. Jakubowicz, Celia: 1989b, ‘Invariance of Universal Grammar Principles in the Acquisition of Reflexives, Anaphors, Passive, Promis and Raising Constructions in French’, paper presented at the Fourteen Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  21. Jakubowicz, Celia and L. Olsen: 1988, ‘Reflexive Anaphores and Pronouns in Danish: Syntax and Acquisition’, paper presented at the Thirteen Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  22. Kaufman, Diana: 1988, Grammatical and Cognitive Interactions in the Study of Children’s Knowledge of Binding Theory and Reference Relations, Ph.d. dissertation, The Temple University.Google Scholar
  23. Kayne, Richard: 1988, ‘Romance SE/S1’, paper presented at the GLOW Colloquium, Budapest.Google Scholar
  24. Lust, Barbara (ed.): 1986, Studies in the Acquisition of Anaphora: Defining the Constraints, Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  25. McDaniel, Dana, H. Smith Cairns and J. Ryan Hsu: 1987, ‘Binding Principles and Control in Children’s Grammars’, manuscript, CUNY and The William Paterson College of New Jersey.Google Scholar
  26. Montalbetti, Mario and Kenneth Wexler: 1985, ‘Binding Is Linking’, Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 4, pp. 228–245.Google Scholar
  27. Otsu, Yukio: 1981, Universal Grammar and Syntactic Development in Children: Toward a Theory of Syntactic Development, Ph.d. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Padilla-Rivera, Jose: 1985, On the Definition of Binding Domains in the First Language Acquisition of Anaphora in Spanish, Ph.d. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  29. Pinker, Steven: 1984, Language Learnability and Language Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  30. Pinker, Steven, David S. Lebeaux and L. Frost: 1987, ‘Productivity and Constraints in the Acquisition of the Passive’, Cognition 26, 195–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reinhart, Tanya: 1983, ‘Coreference and Bound Anaphora: A Restatement of the Anaphora Questions’, Linguistics and Philosophy 6, 47–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Slobin, Dan: 1985, ‘Crosslinguistic Evidence for the Language-making Capacity’, in D. Slobin (ed.), The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 2, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New York.Google Scholar
  33. Solan, Larry: 1987, ‘Parameter Setting and the Development of Pronouns and Reflexives’, in T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.), Parameter Setting, Reidel, Dordrecht, 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wexler, Kenneth and Yu-Chin Chien: 1985, ‘The Development of Lexical Anaphors and Pronouns’, in Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, Stanford University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Celia Jakubowicz

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations