Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:52:19.577Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aspects of a theory of language acquisition*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Anne Erreich ,
Virginia Valian  and
Judith Winzemer
Anne Erreich
Affiliation:
CUNY Graduate Center
Virginia Valian
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Judith Winzemer
Affiliation:
CUNY Graduate Center
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper presents a hypothesis-testing theory of syntax acquisition. The first section presents our model. We claim that: (1) children learn a transformational grammar, including a set of phrase structure and transformational rules; (2) linguistic universals and Occam's razor constrain the initial hypothesis space available to the device; (3) hypotheses tested by the device consist of candidate phrase structure and transformational rules; (4) linguistic evidence confirms or disconfirms hypotheses. Specific examples of incorrect phrase structure and transformational hypotheses are presented.

The second section briefly surveys other approaches to language acquisition – both syntactic and non-syntactic – and compares them to our model. In the third section, we address several methodological issues: (1) the relevance of linguistic theory to the model; (2) how the model is tested; (3) the domain of the theory.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 7 , Issue 1 , February 1980 , pp. 157 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

The order of the authors' names is random. We thank Jacqueline Sachs for providing N's data, and J. J. Katz and R. May for comments. Address for correspondence to AE, JW: Developmental Psychology, CUNY Graduate Center, 3 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036; to VV: Dept. of Psychology, Schermerhorn Hall, Columbia U., New York, 10027.

References

REFERENCES

Akmajian, A. & Heny, F. (1975). Introduction to the printiples of transformational syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Baker, C. (1978). Introduction to generative-transformational syntax. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bellugi, U. (1971). Simplification in children's language. In Huxley, R. & Ingram, E. (eds), Language acquisition: models and methods. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bever, T. (1970). The cognitive basis for linguistic structures. In Hayes, J. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Braine, M. (1963). The ontogeny of English phrase structure: the first phase. Lg 39. 1–14.Google Scholar
Braine, M. (1976). Children's first word combinations. MonogrSocResChDevel, 41. (1).Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University PressCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., Cazden, C. & Bellugi, U. (1969). The child's grammar from I to III. In Hill, J. P. (ed.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology, Vol. II. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1973). Conditions on transformations. In Anderson, S. & Kiparsky, P. (eds), A Festschrift for Morris Halle. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1975). Reflections on language. New York: PantheonGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability. London: Edward ArnoldGoogle Scholar
Culicover, P. (1976). Syntax. New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
Derwing, B. (1973). Transformational grammar as a theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Derwing, B. (1977). Is the child really a ‘little linguist’? In MacNamara, J. (ed.), Language learning and thought. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Fay, D. (1975). Simplification in children's speech and the formulation of movement rules. Texas Linguistic Forum 2. 97–102.Google Scholar
Fay, D. (1978). Transformations as mental operations: a reply to Kuczaj. JChLang 5. 143–50.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1966). How to learn to talk: some simple ways. In Smith, F. & Miller, G. (eds), The genesis of language. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Foss, D. & Fay, D. (1975) Linguistic theory and performance models. In Wirth, J. & Cohen, D. (eds), Testing linguistic hypotheses. New York: Hemisphere Press.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H. & Roeper, T. (1978). The acquisition of perception verb complements. In Goodluck, H. & Solan, L. (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 4.Google Scholar
Goodson, B. O. & Greenfleld, P. (1975). The search for structural principles in children's manipulative play: a parallel with linguistic development. ChDev 46. 734–46.Google ScholarPubMed
Hurford, J. (1975). A child and the English question formation rule. JChLang 2. 299–301.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1966). The philosophy of language. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
Katz, J. J. (1971). The underlying reality of language and its philosophical import. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Klima, E. & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Lyons, J. & Wales, R. (eds), Psycholinguistics papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. (1976). Arguments against Hurford's ‘aux copying rule’. JChLang 3. 423–7.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. (1975) What became of LAD? Peter de Redder Press Publications in Cognition I. Lisse, Netherlands: Peter de Redder Press.Google Scholar
Lust, B. (1977). Conjunction reduction in child language. JChLang 4. 257–87.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. (1978). New models in linguistics and language acquisition. In Halle, M., Bresnan, J. & Miller, G. A. (eds), Linguistic theory and psychological reality. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Maratsos, M. (in the Press). How to get from words to sentences. In Aaronson, D. & Rieber, R. (eds), Perspectives in psycholinguistics, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mayer, J. Winzemer, Erreich, A. & Valian, V. (1978). Transformations, basic operations and language acquisition. Cognition 6. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1970). The acquisition of language. New York: Harper & RowGoogle Scholar
McNeill, D. (1975). Semiotic extension. In Solso, R. L. (ed.), Information processing and cognition: the Loyola symposium. Hillsdale N.J.: Eribaum.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. (1969). Sentences children use. Cambridge Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Newport, E., Gleitman, H. & Gleitman, L. (1977). Mother, please, I'd rather do it myself: Some effects and non-effects of maternal speech style. In Snow, C. & Ferguson, C. (eds), Talking to children: language input and acquisition. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1968). Underlying and superficial linguistic structure. In Oldfield, R. C. & Marshall, J. C. (eds), Language. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Prideaux, G. (1976). A functional analysis of English question acquisition: a response to Hurford. JChLang 3. 417–22.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (1978). Linguistic universals and the acquisition of gerunds. In Goodluck, H. & Solan, L. (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1971). Production and comprehension of utterances. Hillsdale, N.J.: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, H. (1971). Sensorimotor action patterns as a condition for the acquisition of syntax. In Huxley, R. & Ingram, E. (eds), Language acquisition: models and methods. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sinclair, H. (1973). Language acquisition and cognitive development. In Moore, T. E. (ed), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Snow, C. (1972). Mothers' speech to children learning language. ChDev 43. 549–65.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1978). The acquisition of tough movement. In Goodluck, H. & Solan, L. (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Tavakolian, S. (1978). The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses and other structures. In Goodluck, N. & Solan, L. (eds), University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1977). Talk, talk, talk: a selective critical review of theories of speech production. In Freedle, R. O. (ed.), Discourse production and comprehension. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1979). The wherefores and therefores of the competence-performance distinction. In Cooper, W. E. & Walker, E. C. T. (eds), Sentence processing: psycholinguistic studies presented to Merrill Garrett. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Valian, V., Erreich, A., Winzemer, J. (1979). From where do speech errors come from? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1978). A principle theory for language acquisition. Paper presented at the Workshop in Language Acquisition: The State of the Art, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., Culicover, P. W. & Hamburger, H. (1975). Learning-theoretic foundations of linguistic universals. Theoretical Linguistics 2.Google Scholar