Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Minimalism and bilingualism: How and why bilingualism could benefit children with SLI*

  • THOMAS ROEPER (a1)

Abstract

We begin with the hypothesis that all people are “bilingual” because every language contains ingredients from several grammars, just as English exhibits both an Anglo-Saxon and a Latinate vocabulary system. We argue that the dominant grammar is defined by productivity and recursion in particular. Although current evidence is sparse, in principle, for a child who shows Specific Language Impairment (SLI) in a bilingual environment, richer modules in one grammar may help trigger more obscure modules in another language. Thus, if one language has a rich case system, it may help a child see an impoverished case system in another grammar. Examples from prepositional systems, wh-movement, recursive possessives and others are discussed. In general, a second language can be beneficial to the SLI child in the acquisition of both languages. Minimalism offers a level of abstraction where these cross-language connections can most naturally be stated.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Address for Correspondence Thomas Roeper, Linguistics Department, South College, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003 roeper@linguist.umass.edu

Footnotes

Hide All
*

I would like to thank the participants of the Bilingualism and SLI conference in Jerusalem, and Sharon Armon-Lotem in particular, and the anonymous reviewers for various helpful comments.

Footnotes

References

Hide All
Abdul-Karim, L. (2000). Complex wh-questions and Universal Grammar: New evidence from the acquisition of negative barriers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
Abdul-Karim, L., Ramos, E., Roeper, T., & Seymour, H. (2001). Language disorders as a window on Universal Grammar: An abstract theory of Agreement for IP, DP and V-PP. Brain and Language, 77 (3), 378–397.
Armon-Lotem, S., Gordischevsky, G., & Walters, J. (2009). The use of prepositions by bilingual SLI children: The relative contribution of representation and processing. In Costa, João, Castro, Ana & Lobo, Maria (eds.), Language acquisition and development, pp. 113. Newcastle on Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Armstrong, T. (2001) Unpublished research report, University of Massachusetts.
Bentzen, K., Garbacz, P., Heycock, C., & Hrafnbjargarson, G. H. (2009). On variation in Faroese verb placement. Nordlyd, Tromsø Working Papers in Linguistics, 36 (2).
Borschev, V., Paducheva, E., Partee, B. H., Testelets, Y., & Yanovich, I. (2008). Russian genitives, non-referentiality, and the property-type hypothesis. In Antonenko, A. et al. (eds.), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics: The Stony Brook Meeting 2007 (FASL 16). Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publishers.
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (2005). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 122.
Chomsky, N., Fitch, W. T., & Hauser, M. D. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298, 15691579.
Chomsky, N., & Halle, (1968). The sound pattern of English. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clahsen, H. (1988). Normale und gestörte Kindersprache, Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Emonds, J. (1976). A transformational approach to English syntax: Root, structure-preserving, and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.
Frank, R. (2006). Phase theory and Tree Adjoining Grammar. Lingua 116, 145202.
Friedmand, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119, 6788.
Gopnik, M. (1990). Feature-blindness: A case study. Language Acquisition, 1–2, 139164.
Green, L., & Roeper, T. (2008). Nodes and features: How the Multiple Grammar perspective predicts stable and unstable dialects. In Pica, Pierre & Craenenburg, Jeoreon (eds.), Node labels and features: Stable and unstable dialects and variation in acquisition, pp. 126. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Hirawa, K. (2005). Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.
Hollebrandse, B., & Roeper, T. (1997). The concept of DO-insertion and the theory of INLF in acquisition. In Koster, C. & Wijnen, F. (eds.), Proceedings of GALA, pp. 261273. Groningen: Centre for Language and Cognition.
Hornstein, N. (2009). Logic as grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
van Hout, A., Kamiya, M., & Roeper, T. (to appear) Connecting English and Japanese nominalizations: Covert movement, reconstruction and Edge phenomena. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory.
Hyams, N., Johnson, K., & Schaeffer, J. (1993). The acquisition of the verb particle construction. Paper presented at the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA II), University of Durham, UK, September.
Keyser, S. J., & Roeper, T. (1992). Re: The Abstract Clitic Hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry, 23, 89125.
Kremers, J. (2000). Genitives: A recursive linearization approach. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nijmegen.
Kroch, A., & Taylor, A. (1997). Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, A. & Vincent, N. (eds.), Parameters of morphosyntactic change, pp. 297335. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Leonard, J., Leonard, L., Sabbadini, L., & Volterra, V. (1988). Some influences on the grammar of English- and Italian-speaking children with specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 3957.
Lightfoot, D. (1989) The child's trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability (target article). Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 12 (2), 321334.
Limbach, M., & Adone, D. (2010). Language acquisition of recursive possessives in English. In Franrich, K., Iserman, K. & Keil, L. (eds.), Proceedings of BUCLD, pp. 281290. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The Childes Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, 3rd edn. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McDaniel, D. (1990). Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 7 (4), 565604.
Paradis, J. (2010). The interface between bilingual development and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 31, 227252.
Pearson, B. (2008). Raising a bilingual child. New York: Random House.
Perez, A. M., Pirvulescu, I., & Roberge, Y. (2008). Null objects in child language: Syntax and the lexicon. Lingua, 118 (3), 370398.
Perez, A. M., & Roeper, T. (2011). Simplicity and complexity in child language and its explanation. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 3 (43), 263281.
Rice, M., & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 12391257.
Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, L.. (ed.), Elements of grammar. A handbook in generative syntax, pp. 281337. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Roeper, T. (1972). Approaches to language acquisition with data. German children. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard University.
Roeper, T. (1981). The role of universals in the acquisition of gerunds. In Gleitman, L. & Wanner, E. (eds.), Language acquisition: The state of the art, 267287. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Roeper, T., & Weissenborn, J. (1990) How to make parameters work. In Frazier, L. & de Villiers, J. (eds.), Language processing and language acquisition, 147163. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Roeper, T. (1999). Universal Bilingualism. Language and Cognition, 2 (3), 169–186.
Roeper, T., Ramos, E., Seymour, H., & Abdul-Karim, L. (2001) Language disorders as a window on a universal grammar: An abstract theory of agreement for IP, DP, and V-PP. Brain and Language, 77 (3), 378397.
Roeper, T. (2003) Multiple Grammars, feature-attraction, pied-piping, and the question: Is AGR inside TP? in Müller, N. (ed.), (In)Vulnerable domains in multilingualism, pp. 335360. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Roeper, T., & Snyder, W. (2004). Learnability and recursion across categories. In Brugos, A., Micciulla, L. & Smith, C. (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development, 543552. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Roeper, T. (2007a). The maximization of falsifiability: How to acquire the logic of implicatures from the illogic experience. In Yukio Otsu (ed.), Proceedings of the Eighth Tokyo Conference on Psycholinguistics (), pp. 1–11. Tokyo.
Roeper, T. (2007b). The prism of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roeper, T. (2009). The minimalist microscope: How and where interface principles guide acquisition. In Chandlee, J. et al. (eds.), BUCLD 33: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 2448. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Roeper, T. (2010). Recursion: What is innate, why it needs a trigger, where it belongs in cross-linguistic work and how it fits into the mind. In França, A. & Maia, M. (eds.), Proceedings of the First Psycholinguistics Congress of Rio de Janeiro, pp. 4265. Rio de Janeiro: CNPQ.
Roeper, T. (2011). The acquisition of recursion: How formalism articulates the child's path. Biolingiustics, 5 (1–2), 5786.
Schulz, P. (2010). Who answered what to whom? On children's understanding of exhaustive questions. Paper presented at the final conference of COST Action A33, London.
Slobin, D. I. (ed.). (1985). The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition: The data, vol. 1, 324. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Snyder, W. (2001). On the nature of syntactic variation: Evidence from complex predicates and complex word-formation. Language, 77, 324342.
Snyder, W. (2007). Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, W., & Roeper, T. (2004). Learnability and recursion across categories. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla & C. Smith (eds.), Proceedings of the 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development, pp. 543–552. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Spinner, P., & Grinstead, J. (2006). Subjects, topicalizations and Wh- questions in child German and southern Romance. In Toribio, Jacqueline A. & Sagarra, N. (eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium, pp. 241251. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Tsimpli, I. M., & Mastropavlou, M. (2007). Feature interpretability in L2 acquisition and SLI: Greek clitics and determiners. In Goodluck, H., Liceras, J. & Zobl, H. (eds.), The role of formal features in second language acquisition, pp. 143183. New York: Erlbaum.
de Villiers, J., & Roeper, T. (2011). The acquisition path of wh-movement. In Roeper, T. & de Villiers, J. (eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition, pp. 187246. Berlin: Springer.
Westergaard, M. (2009). Word order in Old and Middle English: The role of information structure and first language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Williams, E. (1981). X-bar theory and acquisition. In Tavakolian, S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, 119. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Yip, V., & Matthews, S. (2007). The bilingual child: Early development and language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Minimalism and bilingualism: How and why bilingualism could benefit children with SLI*

  • THOMAS ROEPER (a1)

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.