Crossover Between Acquisition Research and Government and Binding Theory: Comments on the Paper by Tom Roeper
- 55 Downloads
As an outsider who tries to keep up with the most salient work in the domain of theoretically oriented acquisition research, I am struck by two general facts. First, compared to, say, fifteen years ago there has been a spectacular improvement in the quality and theoretical relevance of these studies over the past few years. Second, this type of acquisition research appears to remain extremely marginal within the field of developmental psycholinguistics. As for the improvement, there is, I believe, at least one factor which has been instrumental in bringing it about. This is that over the past fifteen years, a number of highly general structural principles have emerged which are more or less agreed upon and which constitute a fertile source for hypotheses that may be testable in acquisition research. As for the persisting marginal status of this type of research, I have no explanations, only regret.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
- Chomsky, N.: 1982, Some Concepts and Consequences of the Theory of Government and Binding, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
- Freidin, R. and H. Lasnik: 1981, ‘Disjoint reference and Wh-trace’, Linguistic Inquiry, 12, 39 - 53.Google Scholar
- Koopman, H.: 1980, ‘Subject-object. asymmetries in Vata’, Publications de l’lLA, Université de Abidjan.Google Scholar
- Kornfilt, J.: 1977, ‘Against the universal relevance of the shadow pronoun hypothesis’, Linguistic Inquiry 8, 412 — 418.Google Scholar
- Postal, P.: 1971, Cross-Over Phenomena, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York.Google Scholar
- Wasow, T.; 1972, Anaphoric Relations in English, unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
- Wasow, J.: 1972, Anaphora in Generative Grammar, E. Story-Scientia, Ghent.Google Scholar