Language Acquisition PDF

8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
LanguageAcquisition
StevenPinker
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology
ChaptertoappearinL.R.Gleitman,M.Liberman,andD.N.Osherson(Eds.),
AnInvitationtoCognitiveScience,2ndEd.Volume1:Language.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
NONFINALVERSION:PLEASEDONOTEQUOTE.
PreparationofthechapterwassupportedbyNIHgrantHD18381andNSFgrantBNS9109766,andbythe
McDonnellPewCenterforCognitiveNeuroscienceatMIT.
1Introduction
Languageacquisitionisoneofthecentraltopicsincognitivescience.Everytheoryofcognitionhastriedto
explainitprobablynoothertopichasarousedsuchcontroversy.Possessingalanguageisthequintessentially
humantrait:allnormalhumansspeak,nononhumananimaldoes.Languageisthemainvehiclebywhichwe
knowaboutotherpeople'sthoughts,andthetwomustbeintimatelyrelated.Everytimewespeakweare
revealingsomethingaboutlanguage,sothefactsoflanguagestructureareeasytocomebythesedatahintat
asystemofextraordinarycomplexity.Nonetheless,learningafirstlanguageissomethingeverychilddoes
successfully,inamatterofafewyearsandwithouttheneedforformallessons.Withlanguagesoclosetothe
coreofwhatitmeanstobehuman,itisnotsurprisingthatchildren'sacquisitionoflanguagehasreceivedso
muchattention.Anyonewithstrongviewsaboutthehumanmindwouldliketoshowthatchildren'sfirstfew
stepsarestepsintherightdirection.
Languageacquisitionisnotonlyinherentlyinterestingstudyingitisonewaytolookforconcreteanswersto
questionsthatpermeatecognitivescience:
Modularity.Dochildrenlearnlanguageusinga"mentalorgan,"someofwhoseprinciplesoforganizationare
notsharedwithothercognitivesystemssuchasperception,motorcontrol,andreasoning(Chomsky,1975,
1991Fodor,1983)?Orislanguageacquisitionjustanotherproblemtobesolvedbygeneralintelligence,in
thiscase,theproblemofhowtocommunicatewithotherhumansovertheauditorychannel(Putnam,1971
Bates,1989)?
HumanUniqueness.Arelatedquestioniswhetherlanguageisuniquetohumans.Atfirstglancetheanswer
seemsobvious.Otheranimalscommunicationwithafixedrepertoireofsymbols,orwithanaloguevariation
likethemercuryinathermometer.Butnoneappearstohavethecombinatorialrulesystemofhuman
language,inwhichsymbolsarepermutedintoanunlimitedsetofcombinations,eachwithadeterminate
meaning.Ontheotherhand,manyotherclaimsabouthumanuniqueness,suchasthathumansweretheonly
animalstousetoolsortofabricatethem,haveturnedouttobefalse.Someresearchershavethoughtthatapes
havethecapacityforlanguagebutneverprofitedfromahumanlikeculturalmilieuinwhichlanguagewas
taught,andtheyhavethustriedtoteachapeslanguagelikesystems.Whethertheyhavesucceeded,and
whetherhumanchildrenarereally"taught"languagethemselves,arequestionswewillsooncometo.
LanguageandThought.Islanguagesimplygraftedontopofcognitionasawayofstickingcommunicable
labelsontothoughts(Fodor,1975Piaget,1926)?Ordoeslearningalanguagesomehowmeanlearningto
thinkinthatlanguage?Afamoushypothesis,outlinedbyBenjaminWhorf(1956),assertsthatthecategories
andrelationsthatweusetounderstandtheworldcomefromourparticularlanguage,sothatspeakersof
differentlanguagesconceptualizetheworldindifferentways.Languageacquisition,then,wouldbelearning
tothink,notjustlearningtotalk.
Thisisanintriguinghypothesis,butvirtuallyallmoderncognitivescientistsbelieveitisfalse(seePinker,
1994a).Babiescanthinkbeforetheycantalk(ChapterX).Cognitivepsychologyhasshownthatpeople
thinknotjustinwordsbutinimages(seeChapterX)andabstractlogicalpropositions(seethechapterby
Larson).Andlinguisticshasshownthathumanlanguagesaretooambiguousandschematictouseasa
mediumofinternalcomputation:whenpeoplethinkabout"spring,"surelytheyarenotconfusedasto
http://users.ecs.soton.ac.uk/harnad/Papers/Py104/pinker.langacq.html
1/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
whethertheyarethinkingaboutaseasonorsomethingthatgoes"boing"andifonewordcancorrespondto
twothoughts,thoughtscan'tbewords.
Butlanguageacquisitionhasauniquecontributiontomaketothisissue.Asweshallsee,itisvirtually
impossibletoshowhowchildrencouldlearnalanguageunlessyouassumetheyhaveaconsiderableamount
ofnonlinguisticcognitivemachineryinplacebeforetheystart.
LearningandInnateness.Allhumanstalkbutnohousepetsorhouseplantsdo,nomatterhowpampered,so
hereditymustbeinvolvedinlanguage.ButachildgrowingupinJapanspeaksJapanesewhereasthesame
childbroughtupinCaliforniawouldspeakEnglish,sotheenvironmentisalsocrucial.Thusthereisno
questionaboutwhetherheredityorenvironmentisinvolvedinlanguage,orevenwhetheroneortheotheris
"moreimportant."Instead,languageacquisitionmightbeourbesthopeoffindingouthowheredityand
environmentinteract.Weknowthatadultlanguageisintricatelycomplex,andweknowthatchildrenbecome
adults.Thereforesomethinginthechild'smindmustbecapableofattainingthatcomplexity.Anytheorythat
positstoolittleinnatestructure,sothatitshypotheticalchildendsupspeakingsomethinglessthanareal
language,mustbefalse.Thesameistrueforanytheorythatpositstoomuchinnatestructure,sothatthe
hypotheticalchildcanacquireEnglishbutnot,say,BantuorVietnamese.
Andnotonlydoweknowabouttheoutputoflanguageacquisition,weknowafairamountabouttheinputto
it,namely,parent'sspeechtotheirchildren.Soeveniflanguageacquisition,likeallcognitiveprocesses,is
essentiallya"blackbox,"weknowenoughaboutitsinputandoutputtobeabletomakepreciseguesses
aboutitscontents.
Thescientificstudyoflanguageacquisitionbeganaroundthesametimeasthebirthofcognitivescience,in
thelate1950's.Wecanseenowwhythatisnotacoincidence.ThehistoricalcatalystwasNoamChomsky's
reviewofSkinner'sVerbalBehavior(Chomsky,1959).Atthattime,AngloAmericannaturalscience,social
science,andphilosophyhadcometoavirtualconsensusabouttheanswerstothequestionslistedabove.The
mindconsistedofsensorimotorabilitiesplusafewsimplelawsoflearninggoverninggradualchangesinan
organism'sbehavioralrepertoire.Thereforelanguagemustbelearned,itcannotbeamodule,andthinking
mustbeaformofverbalbehavior,sinceverbalbehavioristheprimemanifestationof"thought"thatcanbe
observedexternally.Chomskyarguedthatlanguageacquisitionfalsifiedthesebeliefsinasinglestroke:
childrenlearnlanguagesthataregovernedbyhighlysubtleandabstractprinciples,andtheydosowithout
explicitinstructionoranyotherenvironmentalcluestothenatureofsuchprinciples.Hencelanguage
acquisitiondependsonaninnate,speciesspecificmodulethatisdistinctfromgeneralintelligence.Muchof
thedebateinlanguageacquisitionhasattemptedtotestthisoncerevolutionary,andstillcontroversial,
collectionofideas.Theimplicationsextendtotherestofhumancognition.
2TheBiologyofLanguageAcquisition
Humanlanguageismadepossiblebyspecialadaptationsofthehumanmindandbodythatoccurredinthe
courseofhumanevolution,andwhichareputtousebychildreninacquiringtheirmothertongue.
2.1EvolutionofLanguage
Mostobviously,theshapeofthehumanvocaltractseemstohavebeenmodifiedinevolutionforthe
demandsofspeech.Ourlarynxesarelowinourthroats,andourvocaltractshaveasharprightanglebend
thatcreatestwoindependentlymodifiableresonantcavities(themouthandthepharynxorthroat)that
definesalargetwodimensionalrangeofvowelsounds(seethechapterbyLiberman).Butitcomesata
sacrificeofefficiencyforbreathing,swallowing,andchewing(Lieberman,1984).Beforetheinventionofthe
Heimlichmaneuver,chokingonfoodwasacommoncauseofaccidentaldeathinhumans,causing6,000
deathsayearintheUnitedStates.Theevolutionaryselectiveadvantagesforlanguagemusthavebeenvery
largetooutweighsuchadisadvantage.
ItistemptingtothinkthatiflanguageevolvedbygradualDarwiniannaturalselection,wemustbeableto
findsomeprecursorofitinourclosestrelatives,thechimpanzees.Inseveralfamousandcontroversial
demonstrations,chimpanzeeshavebeentaughtsomehandsignsbasedonAmericanSignLanguage,to
manipulatecoloredswitchesortokens,andtounderstandsomespokencommands(Gardner&Gardner,
2/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
1969Premack&Premack,1983SavageRumbaugh,1991).Whetheronewantstocalltheirabilities
"language"isnotreallyascientificquestion,butamatterofdefinition:howfarwearewillingtostretchthe
meaningoftheword"language".
Thescientificquestioniswhetherthechimps'abilitiesarehomologoustohumanlanguagethatis,whether
thetwosystemsshowthesamebasicorganizationowingtodescentfromasinglesystemintheircommon
ancestor.Forexample,biologistsdon'tdebatewhetherthewinglikestructuresofglidingrodentsmaybe
called"genuinewings"orsomethingelse(aboringquestionofdefinitions).It'sclearthatthesestructuresare
nothomologoustothewingsofbats,becausetheyhaveafundamentallydifferentanatomicalplan,reflecting
adifferentevolutionaryhistory.Bats'wingsaremodificationsofthehandsofthecommonmammalian
ancestorflyingsquirrels'wingsaremodificationsofitsribcage.Thetwostructuresaremerelyanalogous:
similarinfunction.
Thoughartificialchimpsignalingsystemshavesomeanalogiestohumanlanguage(e.g.,usein
communication,combinationsofmorebasicsignals),itseemsunlikelythattheyarehomologous.
Chimpanzeesrequiremassiveregimentedteachingsequencescontrivedbyhumanstoacquirequite
rudimentaryabilities,mostlylimitedtoasmallnumberofsigns,strungtogetherinrepetitive,quasirandom
sequences,usedwiththeintentofrequestingfoodortickling(Terrace,Petitto,Sanders,&Bever,1979
Seidenberg&Petitto,1979,1987Seidenberg,1986Wallman,1992Pinker,1994a).Thiscontrastssharply
withhumanchildren,whopickupthousandsofwordsspontaneously,combinetheminstructuredsequences
whereeverywordhasadeterminaterole,respectthewordorderoftheadultlanguage,andusesentencesfor
avarietyofpurposessuchascommentingoninterestingobjects.
Thislackofhomologydoesnot,bytheway,castdoubtonagradualisticDarwinianaccountoflanguage
evolution.Humansdidnotevolvedirectlyfromchimpanzees.Bothderivedfromcommonancestor,probably
around67millionyearsago.Thisleavesabout300,000generationsinwhichlanguagecouldhaveevolved
graduallyinthelineageleadingtohumans,afteritsplitofffromthelineageleadingtochimpanzees.
Presumablylanguageevolvedinthehumanlineagefortworeasons:ourancestorsdevelopedtechnologyand
knowledgeofthelocalenvironmentintheirlifetimes,andwereinvolvedinextensivereciprocalcooperation.
Thisallowedthemtobenefitbysharinghardwonknowledgewiththeirkinandexchangingitwiththeir
neighbors(Pinker&Bloom,1990).
2.2DissociationsbetweenLanguageandGeneralIntelligence
Humansevolvedbraincircuitry,mostlyinthelefthemispheresurroundingthesylvianfissure,thatappearsto
bedesignedforlanguage,thoughhowexactlytheirinternalwiringgivesrisetorulesoflanguageisunknown
(seetheChapterbyZurif).Thebrainmechanismsunderlyinglanguagearenotjustthoseallowingustobe
smartingeneral.Strokesoftenleaveadultswithcatastrophiclossesinlanguage(seetheChapterbyZurif,
andPinker,1994a),thoughnotnecessarilyimpairedinotheraspectsofintelligence,suchasthosemeasured
onthenonverbalpartsofIQtests.Similarly,thereisaninheritedsetofsyndromescalledSpecificLanguage
Impairment(GopnikandCrago,1993Tallal,Ross,&Curtiss,1989)whichismarkedbydelayedonsetof
language,difficultiesinarticulationinchildhood,andlastingdifficultiesinunderstanding,producing,and
judginggrammaticalsentences.Bydefinition,SpecificallyLanguageImpairedpeopleshowsuchdeficits
despitetheabsenceofcognitiveproblemslikeretardation,sensoryproblemslikehearingloss,orsocial
problemslikeautism.
Moreinterestingly,therearesyndromesshowingtheoppositedissociation,whereintactlanguagecoexists
withsevereretardation.Thesecasesshowthatlanguagedevelopmentdoesnotdependonfullyfunctioning
generalintelligence.OneexamplecomesfromchildrenwithSpinaBifida,amalformationofthevertebrae
thatleavesthespinalcordunprotected,oftenresultinginhydrocephalus,anincreaseinpressureinthe
cerebrospinalfluidfillingtheventricles(largecavities)ofthebrain,distendingthebrainfromwithin.
Hydrocephalicchildrenoccasionallyendupsignificantlyretardedbutcancarryonlong,articulate,andfully
grammaticalconversations,inwhichtheyearnestlyrecountvivideventsthatare,infact,productsoftheir
imaginations(Cromer,1992Curtiss,1989Pinker,1994a).AnotherexampleisWilliamsSyndrome,an
inheritedconditioninvolvingphysicalabnormalities,significantretardation(theaverageIQisabout50),
incompetenceatsimpleeverydaytasks(tyingshoelaces,findingone'sway,addingtwonumbers,and
retrievingitemsfromacupboard),socialwarmthandgregariousness,andfluent,articulatelanguageabilities
(Bellugi,etal.,1990).
3/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
2.3MaturationoftheLanguageSystem
AsthechapterbyNewportandGleitmansuggests,thematurationoflanguagecircuitsduringachild'searly
yearsmaybeadrivingforceunderlyingthecourseoflanguageacquisition(Pinker,1994,Chapter9Bates,
Thal,&Janowsky,1992Locke,1992Huttenlocher,1990).Beforebirth,virtuallyalltheneurons(nerve
cells)areformed,andtheymigrateintotheirproperlocationsinthebrain.Butheadsize,brainweight,and
thicknessofthecerebralcortex(graymatter),wherethesynapses(junctions)subservingmentalcomputation
takeplace,continuetoincreaserapidlyintheyearafterbirth.Longdistanceconnections(whitematter)are
notcompleteuntilninemonths,andtheycontinuetogrowtheirspeedinducingmyelininsulationthroughout
childhood.Synapsescontinuetodevelop,peakinginnumberbetweenninemonthsandtwoyears(depending
onthebrainregion),atwhichpointthechildhas50%moresynapsesthantheadult.Metabolicactivityinthe
brainreachesadultlevelsbyninetotenmonths,andsoonexceedsit,peakingaroundtheageoffour.In
addition,hugenumbersofneuronsdieinutero,andthedyingcontinuesduringthefirsttwoyearsbefore
levelingoffatageseven.Synapseswitherfromtheageoftwothroughtherestofchildhoodandinto
adolescence,whenthebrain'smetabolicratefallsbacktoadultlevels.Perhapslinguisticmilestoneslike
babbling,firstwords,andgrammarrequireminimumlevelsofbrainsize,longdistanceconnections,orextra
synapses,particularlyinthelanguagecentersofthebrain.
Similarly,onecanconjecturethatthesechangesareresponsibleforthedeclineintheabilitytolearna
languageoverthelifespan.Thelanguagelearningcircuitryofthebrainismoreplasticinchildhoodchildren
learnorrecoverlanguagewhenthelefthemisphereofthebrainisdamagedorevensurgicallyremoved
(thoughnotquiteatnormallevels),butcomparabledamageinanadultusuallyleadstopermanentaphasia
(Curtiss,1989Lenneberg,1967).Mostadultsnevermasteraforeignlanguage,especiallythephonology,
givingrisetowhatwecalla"foreignaccent."Theirdevelopmentoftenfossilizesintopermanenterror
patternsthatnoteachingorcorrectioncanundo.Therearegreatindividualdifferences,whichdependon
effort,attitudes,amountofexposure,qualityofteaching,andplaintalent.
Manyexplanationshavebeenadvancedforchildren'ssuperiority:theycanexploitthespecialwaysthattheir
motherstalkthem,theymakeerrorsunselfconsciously,theyaremoremotivatedtocommunicate,theylike
toconform,theyarenotxenophobicorsetintheirways,andtheyhavenofirstlanguagetointerfere.But
someoftheseaccountsareunlikely,basedonwhatwelearnabouthowlanguageacquisitionworkslaterin
thischapter.Forexample,childrencanlearnalanguagewithoutthespecialindulgentspeechfromtheir
motherstheymakefewerrorsandtheygetnofeedbackfortheerrorstheydomake.Anditcan'tbean
acrosstheboarddeclineinlearning.Thereisnoevidence,forexample,thatlearningwords(asopposedto
phonologyorgrammar)declinesinadulthood.
ThechapterbyNewportandGleitmanshowshowsheerageseemstoplayanimportantrole.Successful
acquisitionoflanguagetypicallyhappensby4(asweshallseeinthenextsection),isguaranteedforchildren
uptotheageofsix,issteadilycompromisedfromthenuntilshortlyafterpuberty,andisrarethereafter.
Maturationalchangesinthebrain,suchasthedeclineinmetabolicrateandnumberofneuronsduringthe
earlyschoolageyears,andthebottomingoutofthenumberofsynapsesandmetabolicratearoundpuberty,
areplausiblecauses.Thus,theremaybeaneurologicallydetermined"criticalperiod"forsuccessful
languageacquisition,analogoustothecriticalperiodsdocumentedinvisualdevelopmentinmammalsandin
theacquisitionofsongsbysomebirds.
3TheCourseofLanguageAcquisition
Althoughscholarshavekeptdiariesoftheirchildren'sspeechforoveracentury(CharlesDarwinwasoneof
thefirst),itwasonlyafterportabletaperecordersbecameavailableinthelate1950'sthatchildren's
spontaneousspeechbegantobeanalyzedsystematicallywithindevelopmentalpsychology.Thesenaturalistic
studiesofchildren'sspontaneousspeechhavebecomeevenmoreaccessiblenowthattheycanbeputinto
computerfilesandcanbedisseminatedandanalyzedautomatically(MacWhinney&Snow,1985,1990
MacWhinney,1991).Theyarecomplementedbyexperimentalmethods.Inproductiontasks,childrenutter
sentencestodescribepicturesorscenes,inresponsetoquestions,ortoimitatetargetsentences.In
comprehensiontasks,theylistentosentencesandthenpointtopicturesoractouteventswithtoys.In
judgementtasks,theyindicatewhetherorwhichsentencesprovidedbyanexperimentersound"silly"to
them.
4/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
AsthechapterbyWerkershows,languageacquisitionbeginsveryearlyinthehumanlifespan,andbegins,
logicallyenough,withtheacquisitionofalanguage'ssoundpatterns.Themainlinguisticaccomplishments
duringthefirstyearoflifearecontrolofthespeechmusculatureandsensitivitytothephoneticdistinctions
usedintheparents'language.Interestingly,babiesachievethesefeatsbeforetheyproduceorunderstand
words,sotheirlearningcannotdependoncorrelatingsoundwithmeaning.Thatis,theycannotbelistening
forthedifferenceinsoundbetweenawordtheythinkmeansbitandawordtheythinkmeansbeet,because
theyhavelearnedneitherword.Theymustbesortingthesoundsdirectly,somehowtuningtheirspeech
analysismoduletodeliverthephonemesusedintheirlanguage(Kuhl,etal.,1992).Themodulecanthen
serveasthefrontendofthesystemthatlearnswordsandgrammar.
Shortlybeforetheirfirstbirthday,babiesbegintounderstandwords,andaroundthatbirthday,theystartto
producethem(seeClark,1993Ingram,1989).Wordsareusuallyproducedinisolationthisonewordstage
canlastfromtwomonthstoayear.Children'sfirstwordsaresimilarallovertheplanet.Abouthalfthewords
areforobjects:food(juice,cookie,bodyparts(eye,nose),clothing(diaper,sock),vehicles(car,boat),toys
(doll,block),householditems(bottle,light,animals(dog,kitty),andpeople(dada,baby).Therearewords
foractions,motions,androutines,like(up,off,open,peekaboo,eat,andgo,andmodifiers,likehot,allgone,
more,dirty,andcold.Finally,thereareroutinesusedinsocialinteraction,likeyes,no,want,byebye,andhi
afewofwhich,likelookatthatandwhatisthat,arewordsinthesenseofmemorizedchunks,thoughthey
arenotsinglewordsfortheadult.Childrendifferinhowmuchtheynameobjectsorengageinsocial
interactionusingmemorizedroutines,thoughallchildrendoboth.
Around18months,languagechangesintwoways.Vocabularygrowthincreasesthechildbeginstolearn
wordsatarateofoneeverytwowakinghours,andwillkeeplearningthatrateorfasterthroughadolescence
(Clark,1993Pinker,1994).Andprimitivesyntaxbegins,withtwowordstringslikethefollowing:
Alldry.Allmessy.Allwet.
Isit.Ishut.Nobed.
Nopee.Seebaby.Seepretty.
Morecereal.Morehot.HiCalico.
Otherpocket.Bootoff.Sirenby.
Mailcome.Airplaneallgone.Bybebyecar.
Ourcar.Papaaway.Drypants.
Ourcar.Papaaway.Drypants.Children'stwowordcombinationsarehighlysimilaracrosscultures.
Everywhere,childrenannouncewhenobjectsappear,disappear,andmoveabout,pointouttheirproperties
andowners,commentonpeopledoingthingsandseeingthings,rejectandrequestobjectsandactivities,and
askaboutwho,what,andwhere.Thesesequencesalreadyreflectthelanguagebeingacquired:in95%of
them,thewordsareproperlyordered(Braine,1976Brown,1973Pinker,1984Ingram,1989).
Evenbeforetheyputwordstogether,babiescancomprehendasentenceusingitssyntax.Forexample,inone
experiment,babieswhospokeonlyinsinglewordswereseatedinfrontoftwotelevisionscreens,eachof
whichfeaturedapairofadultsdressedupasCookieMonsterandBigBirdfromSesameStreet.Onescreen
showedCookieMonsterticklingBigBirdtheothershowedBigBirdticklingCookieMonster.Avoiceover
said,"OHLOOK!!!BIGBIRDISTICKLINGCOOKIEMONSTER!!FINDBIGBIRDTICKLING
COOKIEMONSTER!!"(Orviceversa.)Thechildrenmusthaveunderstoodthemeaningoftheorderingof
subject,verb,andobject,becausetheylookedmoreatthescreenthatdepictedthesentenceinthevoiceover
(HirshPasek&Golinkoff,1991).
Children'soutputseemstomeetupwithabottleneckattheoutputend(Brown,1973Bloom,1970Pinker,
1984).Theirtwoandthreewordutteranceslooklikesamplesdrawnfromlongerpotentialsentences
expressingacompleteandmorecomplicatedidea.RogerBrown,oneofthefoundersofthemodernstudyof
languagedevelopment,notedthatalthoughthethreechildrenhestudiedintensivelyneverproduceda
sentenceascomplicatedasMothergaveJohnlunchinthekitchen,theydidproducestringscontainingallof
itscomponents,andinthecorrectorder:(Brown,1973,p.205):
AgentActionRecipientObjectLocation
(MothergaveJohnlunchinthekitchen.)
Mommyfix.
Mommypumpkin.
Babytable.
5/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
Givedoggie.
Putlight.
Putfloor.
Iridehorsie.
Tractorgofloor.
Givedoggiepaper.
Puttruckwindow.
Adamputitbox.
Betweenthelatetwo'sandmidthree's,children'slanguagebloomsintofluentgrammaticalconversationso
rapidlythatitoverwhelmstheresearcherswhostudyit,andnoonehasworkedouttheexactsequence.
Sentencelengthincreasessteadily,andbecausegrammarisacombinatorialsystem,thenumberofsyntactic
typesincreasesexponentially,doublingeverymonth,reachingthethousandsbeforethethirdbirthday
(Ingram,1989,p.235Brown,1973Limber,1973Pinker,1984).Forexample,herearesnapshotsofthe
developmentofoneofBrown'slongitudinalsubjects,Adam,intheyearfollowinghisfirstword
combinationsattheageof2yearsand3months(Pinker,1994a):
23:Playcheckers.Bigdrum.Igothorn.
24:Seemarchingbeargo?Screwpartmachine.
25:Nowputbootson.Wherewrenchgo?Whatthatpaperclipdoing?
26:Writeapieceapaper.Whatthateggdoing?No,Idon'twanttositseat.
27:Wherepieceapapergo?Droppedarubberband.Rintintindon'tfly,Mommy.
28:Letmegetdownwiththebootson.Howtigerbesohealthyand
flylikekite?Joshuathrowlikeapenguin.
29:WhereMommykeepherpocketbook?Showyousomethingfunny.
210:LookatthattrainUrsulabrought.Youdon'thavepaper.Doyouwantlittlebit,Cromer?
211:Dowantsomepieonyourface?Whyyoumixingbabychocolate?Isaidwhynotyou
comingin?Wegoingturnlightonsoyoucan'tsee.
30:Igoingcomeinfourteenminutes.Igoingwearthattowedding.Thosearenotstrongmens.
Youdressmeuplikeababyelephant.
31:Iliketoplaywithsomethingelse.Youknowhowtoputitbacktogether.Igon'makeitlike
arockettoblastoffwith.Youwanttogivemesomecarrotsandsomebeans?Pressthebutton
andcatchit,sir.Whyyouputthepacifierinhismouth?
32:Soitcan'tbecleaned?Ibrokemyracingcar.Doyouknowthelightwentsoff?Whenit's
gotaflattireit'sneedagotothestation.I'mgoingtomailthissothelettercan'tcomeoff.I
wanttohavesomeespresso.CanIputmyheadinthemailboxsothemailmancanknowwhere
Iareandputmeinthemailbox?CanIkeepthescrewdriverjustlikeacarpenterkeepthe
screwdriver?
Normalchildrencandifferbyayearormoreintheirrateoflanguagedevelopment,thoughthestagesthey
passthrougharegenerallythesameregardlessofhowstretchedoutorcompressed.Adam'slanguage
development,forexample,wasrelativelyleisurelymanychildrenspeakincomplexsentencesbeforethey
turntwo.
Duringthegrammarexplosion,children'ssentencesaregettingnotonlylongerbutmorecomplex,withfuller
trees,becausethechildrencanembedoneconstituentinsideanother.Whereasbeforetheymighthavesaid
Givedoggiepaper(athreebranchVerbPhrase)andBigdoggie(atwobranchNounPhrase),theynowsay
Givebigdoggiepaper,withthetwobranchNPembeddedinsidethethreebranchVP.Theearliersentences
resembledtelegrams,missingunstressedfunctionwordslikeof,the,on,anddoes,aswellasinflectionslike
6/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
ed,ing,ands.Bythe3's,childrenareusingthesefunctionwordsmoreoftenthantheyareomittingthem,
manyinmorethan90%ofthesentencesthatrequirethem.Afullrangeofsentencetypesflowerquestions
withwordslikewho,whatandwhere,relativeclauses,comparatives,negations,complements,conjunctions,
andpassives.Theseconstructionsappeartodisplaythemost,perhapsevenall,ofthegrammaticalmachinery
neededtoaccountforadultgrammar.
Thoughmanyoftheyoung3yearold'ssentencesareungrammaticalforonereasonoranother,itisbecause
therearemanythingsthatcangowronginanysinglesentence.Whenresearchersfocusonasingle
grammaticalruleandcounthowoftenachildobeysitandhowoftenheorsheversusfloutsit,theresultsare
veryimpressive:forjustabouteveryrulethathasbeenlookedat,threeyearoldsobeyitamajorityofthe
time(Stromswold,1990Pinker,1984,1989Crain,1992Marcus,etal.,1992).Aswehaveseen,children
rarelyscramblewordordersand,bytheageofthree,cometosupplymostinflectionsandfunctionwordsin
sentencesthatrequirethem.Thoughourearsperkupwhenwehearerrorslikemens,wents,Canyoubroke
those?,Whathecanridein?,That'safurniture,Buttonmetherest,andGoingtoseekitten,theerrorsoccur
inanywherefrom0.1%to8%oftheopportunitiesformakingthemmorethan90%ofthetime,thechildis
ontarget.Thenextchapterfollowsoneofthoseerrorsindetail.
Childrendonotseemtofavoranyparticularkindoflanguage(indeed,itwouldbepuzzlinghowanykindof
languagecouldsurviveifchildrendidnoteasilylearnit!).Theyswiftlyacquirefreewordorder,SOVand
VSOorders,richsystemsofcaseandagreement,stringsofagglutinatedsuffixes,ergativecasemarking,and
whateverelsetheirlanguagethrowsatthem,withnolagrelativetotheirEnglishspeakingcounterparts.
Evengrammaticalgender,whichmanyadultslearningasecondlanguagefindmystifying,presentsno
problem:childrenacquiringlanguagelikeFrench,German,andHebrewacquiregendermarkingquickly,
makefewerrors,andneverusetheassociationwithmalenessandfemalenessasafalsecriterion(Levy,
1983).Itissafetosaythatexceptforconstructionsthatarerare,predominantlyusedinwrittenlanguage,or
mentallytaxingeventoanadult(likeThehorsethattheelephanttickledkissedthepig),allpartsofall
languagesareacquiredbeforethechildturnsfour(Slobin,1985/1992).
4ExplainingLanguageAcquisition
Howdoweexplainchildren'scourseoflanguageacquisitionmostimportantly,theirinevitableandearly
mastery?Severalkindsofmechanismsareatwork.Aswesawinsection(),thebrainchangesafterbirth,and
thesematurationalchangesmaygoverntheonset,rate,andadultdeclineoflanguageacquisitioncapacity.
Generalchangesinthechild'sinformationprocessingabilities(attention,memory,shorttermbuffersfor
acousticinputandarticulatoryoutput)couldleavetheirmarkaswell.Inthenextchapter,Ishowhowa
memoryretrievallimitationchildrenarelessreliableatrecallingthatbrokeisthepasttenseofbreakcan
accountforaconspicuousanduniversalerrorpattern,overregularizationslikebreaked(seealsoMarcus,et
al.,1992).
Manyothersmalleffectshavebeendocumentedwherechangesininformationprocessingabilitiesaffect
languagedevelopment.Forexample,childrenselectivelypickupinformationattheendsofwords(Slobin,
1973),andatthebeginningsandendsofsentences(Newport,etal,1977),presumablybecausethesearethe
partsofstringsthatarebestretainedinshorttermmemory.Similarly,theprogressivelywideningbottleneck
forearlywordcombinationspresumablyreflectsageneralincreaseinmotorplanningcapacity.Conceptual
development(seeChapterX),too,mightaffectlanguagedevelopment:ifachildhasnotyetmastereda
difficultsemanticdistinction,suchasthecomplextemporalrelationsinvolvedinJohnwillhavegone,heor
shemaybeunabletomasterthesyntaxoftheconstructiondedicatedtoexpressingit.
Thecomplexityofagrammaticalformhasademonstrableroleindevelopment:simplerrulesandforms
appearinspeechbeforemorecomplexones,allotherthingsbeingequal.Forexample,thepluralmarkersin
English(e.g.cats),whichrequiresknowingonlywhetherthenumberofreferentsissingularorplural,isused
consistentlybeforethepresenttensemarkers(hewalks),whichrequiresknowingwhetherthesubjectis
singularorpluralandwhetheritisafirst,second,orthirdpersonandwhethertheeventisinthepresent
tense(Brown,1973).Similarly,complexformsaresometimesfirstusedinsimplerapproximations.Russian
containsonecasemarkerformasculinenominative(i.e.,asuffixonamasculinenounindicatingthatitisthe
subjectofthesentence),oneforfemininenominative,oneformasculineaccusative(usedtoindicatethata
nounisadirectobject),andoneforfeminineaccusative.Childrenoftenuseeachmarkerwiththecorrect
7/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
case,neverusinganominativemarkerforaccusativenounsorviceversa,butdon'tproperlyusethe
masculineandfemininevariantswithmasculineandfemininenouns(Slobin,1985).
Buttheseglobaltrendsdonotexplainthemainevent:howchildrensucceed.Languageacquisitionisso
complexthatoneneedsapreciseframeworkforunderstandingwhatitinvolvesindeed,whatlearningin
generalinvolves.
4.1LearnabilityTheory
Whatislanguageacquisition,inprinciple?AbranchoftheoreticalcomputersciencecalledLearnability
Theoryattemptstoanswerthisquestion(Gold,1967Osherson,Stob,&Weinstein,1985Pinker,1979).
Learnabilitytheoryhasdefinedlearningasascenarioinvolvingfourparts(thetheoryembracesallformsof
learning,butIwilluselanguageastheexample):
1.Aclassoflanguages.Oneofthemisthe"target"language,tobeattainedbythelearner,butthe
learnerdoesnot,ofcourse,knowwhichitis.Inthecaseofchildren,theclassoflanguageswould
consistoftheexistingandpossiblehumanlanguagesthetargetlanguageistheonespokenintheir
community.
2.Anenvironment.Thisistheinformationintheworldthatthelearnerhastogoonintryingtoacquire
thelanguage.Inthecaseofchildren,itmightincludethesentencesparentsutter,thecontextinwhich
theyutterthem,feedbacktothechild(verbalornonverbal)inresponsetothechild'sownspeech,and
soon.Parentalutterancescanbearandomsampleofthelanguage,ortheymighthavesomespecial
properties:theymightbeorderedincertainways,sentencesmightberepeatedoronlyutteredonce,
andsoon.
3.Alearningstrategy.Thelearner,usinginformationintheenvironment,triesout"hypotheses"aboutthe
targetlanguage.Thelearningstrategyisthealgorithmthatcreatesthehypothesesanddetermines
whethertheyareconsistentwiththeinputinformationfromtheenvironment.Forchildren,itisthe
"grammarforming"mechanismintheirbrainstheir"languageacquisitiondevice."
4.Asuccesscriterion.Ifwewanttosaythat"learning"occurs,presumablyitisbecausethelearners'
hypothesesarenotrandom,butthatbysometimethehypothesesarerelatedinsomesystematic
waytothetargetlanguage.Learnersmayarriveatahypothesisidenticaltothetargetlanguageafter
somefixedperiodoftimetheymayarriveatanapproximationtoittheymaywaiveramongaset
ofhypothesesoneofwhichiscorrect.
Theoremsinlearnabilitytheoryshowhowassumptionsaboutanyofthethreecomponentsimposeslogical
constraintsonthefourth.Itisnothardtoshowwhylearningalanguage,onlogicalgroundsalone,issohard.
Likeall"inductionproblems"(uncertaingeneralizationsfrominstances),thereareaninfinitenumberof
hypothesesconsistentwithanyfinitesampleofenvironmentalinformation.Learnabilitytheoryshowswhich
inductionproblemsaresolvableandwhicharenot.
Akeyfactoristheroleofnegativeevidence,orinformationaboutwhichstringsofwordsarenotsentences
inthelanguagetobeacquired.Humanchildrenmightgetsuchinformationbybeingcorrectedeverytime
theyspeakungrammatically.Iftheyaren'tandasweshallsee,theyprobablyaren'ttheacquisition
problemisalltheharder.ConsiderFigure1,wherelanguagesaredepictedascirclescorrespondingtosetsof
wordstrings,andallthelogicalpossibilitiesforhowthechild'slanguagecoulddifferfromtheadultlanguage
aredepicted.Therearefourpossibilities.(a)Thechild'shypothesislanguage(H)isdisjointfromthe
languagetobeacquired(the"targetlanguage,"T).Thatwouldcorrespondtothestateofchildlearning
EnglishwhocannotsayasinglewellformedEnglishsentence.Forexample,thechildmightbeableonlyto
saythingslikewebreakedit,andwegoed,neverwebrokeitorwewent.(b)Thechild'shypothesisandthe
targetlanguageintersect.HerethechildwouldbeabletouttersomeEnglishsentences,likehewent.
However,heorshealsousesstringsofwordsthatarenotEnglish,suchaswebreakeditandsomesentences
ofEnglish,suchaswebrokeit,wouldstillbeoutsidetheirabilities.(c)Thechild'shypothesislanguageisa
subsetofthetargetlanguage.ThatwouldmeanthatthechildwouldhavemasteredsomeofEnglish,butnot
allofit,butthateverythingthechildhadmasteredwouldbepartofEnglish.Thechildmightnotbeableto
saywebrokeit,butheorshewouldbeabletosaysomegrammaticalsentences,suchaswewentnoerrors
suchasshebreakeditorwegoedwouldoccur.Thefinallogicalpossibilityis(d),whereThechild's
hypothesislanguageisasupersetofthetargetlanguage.Thatwouldoccur,forexample,ifthechildcould
saywebrokeit,wewent,webreakeditandwegoed.
8/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
Incases(ac),thechildcanrealizethatthehypothesisisincorrectbyhearingsentencesfromparental
"positiveevidence,"(indicatedbythe"+"symbol)thatareinthetargetlanguagebutnotthehypothesized
one:sentencessuchaswebrokeit.Thisisimpossibleincase(d)negativeevidence(suchascorrectionsof
thechild'sungrammaticalsentencesbyhisorherparents)wouldbeneeded.Inotherwords,withoutnegative
evidence,ifachildguessestoolargealanguage,theworldcannevertellhimhe'swrong.
Thishasseveralconsequences.Foronething,themostgenerallearningalgorithmonemightconceiveof
onethatiscapableofhypothesizinganygrammar,oranycomputerprogramcapableofgeneratinga
languageisintrouble.Withoutnegativeevidence(andeveninmanycaseswithit),thereisnogeneral
purpose,allpowerfullearningmachineamachinemustinsomesense"know"somethingaboutthe
constraintsinthedomaininwhichitislearning.
Moreconcretely,ifchildrendon'treceivenegativeevidence(seeSection)wehavealotofexplainingtodo,
becauseoverlylargehypothesesareveryeasyforthechildtomake.Forexample,childrenactuallydogo
throughstagesinwhichtheyusetwoormorepasttenseformsforagivenverb,suchasbrokeandbreaked
thiscaseisdiscussedindetailinmyotherchapterinthisvolume.Theyderivetransitiveverbsfrom
intransitivestoofreely:whereanadultmightsaybothTheicemeltedandImeltedtheice,childrenalsocan
sayThegirlgiggledandDon'tgiggleme!(Bowerman,1982bPinker,1989).Ineachcasetheyarein
situation(d)inFigure1,andunlesstheirparentsslipthemsomesignalineverycasethatletsthemknow
theyarenotspeakingproperly,itispuzzlingthattheyeventuallystop.Thatis,wewouldneedtoexplainhow
theygrowintoadultswhoaremorerestrictiveintheirspeechoranotherwayofputtingisthatit'spuzzling
thattheEnglishlanguagedoesn'tallowdon'tgigglemeandsheeatedgiventhatchildrenaretemptedtogrow
uptalkingthatway.Iftheworldisn'ttellingchildrentostop,somethingintheirbrainsis,andwehavetofind
outwhoorwhatiscausingthechange.
Let'snowexaminelanguageacquisitioninthehumanspeciesbybreakingitdownintothefourelementsthat
giveaprecisedefinitiontolearning:thetargetoflearning,theinput,thedegreeofsuccess,andthelearning
strategy.
5WhatisLearned
TounderstandhowXislearned,youfirsthavetounderstandwhatXis.Linguistictheoryisthusanessential
partofthestudyoflanguageacquisition(seetheChapterbyLasnik).Linguisticresearchtriesdothree
things.First,itmustcharacterizethefactsofEnglish,andalltheotherlanguageswhoseacquisitionweare
interestedinexplaining.Second,sincechildrenarenotpredisposedtolearnEnglishoranyotherlanguage,
linguisticshastoexaminethestructureofotherlanguages.Inparticular,linguistscharacterizewhichaspects
ofgrammarareuniversal,prevalent,rare,andnonexistentacrosslanguages.Contrarytoearlysuspicions,
languagesdonotvaryarbitrarilyandwithoutlimitthereisbynowalargecatalogueoflanguageuniversals,
propertiessharedexactly,orinasmallnumberofvariations,byalllanguages(seeComrie,1981Greenberg,
1978Shopen,1985).Thisobviouslybearsonwhatchildren'slanguageacquisitionmechanismsfindeasyor
hardtolearn.
Andonemustgobeyondamerelistofuniversals.Manyuniversalpropertiesoflanguagearenotspecificto
languagebutaresimplyreflectionsofuniversalsofhumanexperience.Alllanguageshavewordsfor"water"
and"foot"becauseallpeopleneedtorefertowaterandfeetnolanguagehasawordamillionsyllableslong
becausenopersonwouldhavetimetosayit.Butothersmightbespecifictotheinnatedesignoflanguage
itself.Forexample,ifalanguagehasbothderivationalsuffixes(whichcreatenewwordsfromoldones,like
ism)andinflectionalsuffixes(whichmodifyawordtofititsroleinthesentence,likeplurals),thenthe
derivationalsuffixesarealwaysclosertothewordstemthantheinflectionalones.Forexample,inEnglish
onecansayDarwinisms(derivationalismclosertothestemthaninflectionals)butnotDarwinsism.Itis
hardtothinkofareasonhowthislawwouldfitintoanyuniversallawofthoughtormemory:whywould
theconceptoftwoideologiesbasedononeDarwinshouldbethinkable,buttheconceptofoneideology
basedontwoDarwins(say,CharlesandErasmus)notbethinkable(unlessonereasonsinacircleand
declaresthatthemindmustfindismtobemorecognitivelybasicthantheplural,becausethat'stheorderwe
seeinlanguage).Universalslikethis,thatarespecificallylinguistic,shouldbecapturedinatheoryof
UniversalGrammar(UG)(Chomsky,1965,1981,1991).UGspecifiestheallowablementalrepresentations
andoperationsthatalllanguagesareconfinedtouse.Thetheoryofuniversalgrammariscloselytiedtothe
9/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
theoryofthementalmechanismschildrenuseinacquiringlanguagetheirhypothesesaboutlanguagemust
becouchedinstructuressanctionedbyUG.
Toseehowlinguisticresearchcan'tbeignoredinunderstandinglanguageacquisition,considerthesentences
below.Ineachoftheexamples,alearnerwhoheardthe(a)and(b)sentencescouldquitesensiblyextracta
generalrulethat,whenappliedtothe(c)sentence,yieldversion(d).Yettheresultisanoddsentencethatno
onewouldsay:
1.(a)JohnsawMarywithherbestfriend'shusband.
(b)WhodidJohnseeMarywith?
(c)JohnsawMaryandherbestfriend'shusband.
(d)*WhodidJohnseeMaryand?
2.(a)Irvdrovethecarintothegarage.
(b)Irvdrovethecar.
(c)Irvputthecarintothegarage.
(d)*Irvputthecar.
3.(a)Iexpectthefurtofly.
(b)Iexpectthefurwillfly.
(c)Thefurisexpectedtofly.
(d)*Thefurisexpectedwillfly.
4.(a)Thebabyseemstobeasleep.
(b)Thebabyseemsasleep.
(c)Thebabyseemstobesleeping.
(d)*Thebabyseemssleeping.
5.(a)JohnlikedthepicturesofBillthatMarytook.
(b)JohnlikedMary'spicturesofBill.
(c)JohnlikedthepicturesofhimselfthatMarytook.
(d)*JohnlikedMary'spicturesofhimself.
Thesolutiontotheproblemmustbethatchildren'slearningmechanismsultimatelydon'tallowthemtomake
whatwouldotherwisebeatemptinggeneralization.Forexample,in(1),constraintsthatpreventextractionof
asinglephraseoutofacoordinatestructure(phrasesjoinedbyawordlikeandoror)wouldblockwould
whatotherwisebeanaturalgeneralizationfromotherexamplesofextraction,suchas1(ab).Theother
examplespresentsotherpuzzlesthatthetheoryofuniversalgrammar,aspartofatheoryoflanguage
acquisition,mustsolve.Itisbecauseofthesubtletyoftheseexamples,andtheabstractnessoftheprinciples
ofuniversalgrammarthatmustbepositedtoexplainthem,thatChomskyhasclaimedthattheoverall
structureoflanguagemustbeinnate,basedonhispaperandpencilexaminationofthefactsoflanguage
alone.
6Input
Tounderstandhowchildrenlearnlanguage,wehavetoknowwhataspectsoflanguage(fromtheirparentsor
peers)theyhaveaccessto.
6.1PositiveEvidence
Childrenclearlyneedsomekindoflinguisticinputtoacquirealanguage.Therehavebeenoccasionalcases
inhistorywhereabandonedchildrenhavesomehowsurvivedinforests,suchasVictor,theWildBoyof
Aveyron(subjectofafilmbyFrancoisTruffaut).Occasionallyothermodernchildrenhavegrownupwild
10/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
becausedepravedparentshaveraisedthemsilentlyindarkroomsandatticsthechapterbyNewportand
Gleitmandiscusssomeofthosecases.Theoutcomeisalwaysthesame:thechildren,whenfound,aremute.
Whateverinnategrammaticalabilitiesthereare,theyaretooschematictogenerateconcretespeech,words,
andgrammaticalconstructionsontheirown.
Childrendonot,however,needtohearafullfledgedlanguageaslongastheyareinacommunitywithother
children,andhavesomesourceforindividualwords,theywillinventoneontheirown,ofteninasingle
generation.Childrenwhogrewupinplantationsandslavecolonieswereoftenexposedtoacrudepidginthat
servedasthelinguafrancaintheseBabelsoflaborers.Buttheygrewuptospeakgenuinelynewlanguages,
expressive"creoles"withtheirowncomplexgrammars(Bickerton,1984seealsotheChapterbyNewport
andGleitman).Thesignlanguagesofthedeafaroseinsimilarways.Indeed,theyarisespontaneouslyand
quicklywhereverthereisacommunityofdeafchildren(Senghas,1994Kegl,1994).
Childrenmostdefinitelydoneedtohearanexistinglanguagetolearnthatlanguage,ofcourse.Childrenwith
JapanesegenesdonotfindJapaneseanyeasierthanEnglish,orviceversatheylearnwhicheverlanguage
theyareexposedto.Theterm"positiveevidence"referstotheinformationavailabletothechildaboutwhich
stringsofwordsaregrammaticalsentencesofthetargetlanguage.
By"grammatical,"incidentally,linguistsandpsycholinguistsmeanonlythosesentencesthatsoundnaturalin
colloquialspeech,notnecessarilythosethatwouldbedeemed"properEnglish"informalwrittenprose.Thus
splitinfinitives,danglingparticiples,slang,andsoon,are"grammatical"inthissense(andindeed,areas
logical,systematic,expressive,andpreciseas"correct"writtenEnglish,oftenmoresoseePinker,1994a).
Similarly,ellipticalutterances,suchaswhenthequestionWhereareyougoing?isansweredwithTothe
store),countasgrammatical.Ellipsisisnotjustrandomsnippingfromsentences,butisgovernedbyrules
thatarepartofthegrammarofone'slanguageordialect.Forexample,thegrammarofcasualBritishEnglish
allowsyoutoanswerthequestionWillhego?bysayingHemightdo,whereasthegrammarofAmerican
Englishdoesn'tallowit.
Giventhisscientificdefinitionof"grammatical,"dowefindthatparents'speechcountsas"positive
evidence"?Thatis,whenaparentusesasentence,canthechildassumethatitispartofthelanguagetobe
learned,ordoparentsusesomanyungrammaticalsentencesrandomfragments,slipsofthetongue,
hesitations,andfalsestartsthatthechildwouldhavetotakemuchofitwithagrainofsalt?Fortunatelyfor
thechild,thevastmajorityofthespeechtheyhearduringthelanguagelearningyearsisfluent,complete,
andgrammaticallywellformed:99.93%,accordingtooneestimate(Newport,Gleitman,&Gleitman,1977).
Indeed,thisistrueofconversationamongadultsingeneral(Labov,1969).
Thuslanguageacquisitionisordinarilydrivenbyagrammaticalsampleofthetargetlanguage.Notethathis
istrueevenforformsofEnglishthatpeopleunthinkinglycall"ungrammatical,""fractured,"or"bad
English,"suchasruralAmericanEnglish(e.g.,thembookshedon'tweain'ttheydrughimaway)and
urbanblackEnglish(e.g.,ShewalkingHebeworkingseetheChapterbyLabov).Thesearenotcorrupted
versionsofstandardEnglishtoalinguisttheylookjustlikedifferentdialects,asrulegovernedasthe
southernEnglanddialectofEnglishthat,forhistoricalreasons,becamethestandardseveralcenturiesago.
Scientificallyspeaking,thegrammarofworkingclassspeechindeed,everyhumanlanguagesystemthat
hasbeenstudiedisintricatelycomplex,thoughdifferentlanguagesarecomplexindifferentways.
6.2NegativeEvidence
Negativeevidencereferstoinformationaboutwhichstringsofwordsarenotgrammaticalsentencesinthe
language,suchascorrectionsorotherformsoffeedbackfromaparentthattellthechildthatoneofhisorher
utterancesisungrammatical.AsmentionedinSection),it'sveryimportantforustoknowwhetherchildren
getandneednegative,becauseintheabsenceofnegativeevidence,anychildwhohypothesizesarulethat
generatesasupersetofthelanguagewillhavenowayofknowingthatheorsheiswrongGold,1967Pinker,
1979,1989).Ifchildrendon'tget,ordon'tuse,negativeevidence,theymusthavesomemechanismthat
eitheravoidsgeneratingtoolargealanguagethechildwouldbeconservativeorthatcanrecoverfromsuch
overgeneration.
RogerBrownandCamilleHanlon(1970)attemptedtotestB.F.Skinner'sbehavioristclaimthatlanguage
learningdependsonparents'reinforcementofchildren'sgrammaticalbehaviors.Usingtranscriptsof
11/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
naturalisticparentchilddialogue,theydividedchildren'ssentencesintoonesthatweregrammaticallywell
formedandonesthatcontainedgrammaticalerrors.Theythendividedadults'responsestothosesentences
intoonesthatexpressedsomekindofapproval(e.g.,"yes,that'sgood")andthosethatexpressedsomekind
ofdisapproval.Theylookedforacorrelation,butfailedtofindone:parentsdidnotdifferentiallyexpress
approvalordisapprovaltotheirchildrencontingentonwhetherthechild'spriorutterancewaswellformedor
not(approvaldepends,instead,onwhetherthechild'sutterancewastrue).BrownandHanlonalsolookedat
children'swellformedandbadlyformedquestions,andwhetherparentsseemedtoanswerthem
appropriately,asiftheyunderstoodthem,orwithnonsequiturs.Theyfoundparentsdonotunderstandtheir
children'swellformedquestionsbetterthantheirbadlyformedones.
Otherstudies(e.g.HirshPasek,Treiman,andSchneiderman,1984Demetras,Post,andSnow,1986Penner,
1987Bohannon&Stanowicz,1988)havereplicatedthatresult,butwithatwist.Somehavefoundsmall
statisticalcontingenciesbetweenthegrammaticalityofsomechildren'ssentenceandthekindoffollowup
givenbytheirparentsforexample,whethertheparentrepeatsthesentenceverbatim,asksafollowup
question,orchangesthetopic.ButMarcus(1993)hasfoundthatthesepatternsfallfarshortofnegative
evidence(reliableinformationaboutthegrammaticalstatusofanywordstring).Differentparentsreactin
oppositewaystotheirchildren'sungrammaticalsentences,andmanyformsofungrammaticalityarenot
reactedtoatallleavingagivenchildunabletoknowwhattomakeofanyparentalreaction.Evenwhena
parentdoesreactdifferentially,achildwouldhavetorepeataparticularerror,verbatim,hundredsoftimesto
eliminatetheerror,becausetheparent'sreactionisonlystatistical:thefeedbacksignalsgivento
ungrammaticalsignalsarealsogivennearlyasoftentogrammaticalsentences.
Stromswold(1994)hasanevenmoredramaticdemonstrationthatparentalfeedbackcannotbecrucial.She
studiedachildwho,forunknownneurologicalreasons,wascongenitallyunabletotalk.Hewasagood
listener,though,andwhentestedhewasabletounderstandcomplicatedsentencesperfectly,andtojudge
accuratelywhetherasentencewasgrammaticalorungrammatical.Theboy'sabilitiesshowthatchildren
certainlydonotneednegativeevidencetolearngrammaticalrulesproperly,evenintheunlikelyeventthat
theirparentsprovidedit.
Theseresults,thoughofprofoundimportance,shouldnotbetoosurprising.EveryspeakerofEnglishjudges
sentencessuchasIdribbledthefloorwithpaintandTenpoundswasweighedbytheboyandWhodoyou
believetheclaimthatJohnsaw?andJohnaskedMarytolookathimselftobeungrammatical.Butitis
unlikelythateverysuchspeakerhasatsomepointutteredthesesentencesandbenefitedfromnegative
feedback.Thechildmusthavesomementalmechanismsthatruleoutvastnumbersof"reasonable"stringsof
wordswithoutanyoutsideintervention.
6.3Motherese
Parentsandcaretakersinmostpartsoftheworldmodifytheirspeechwhentalkingtoyoungchildren,one
exampleofhowpeopleingeneraluseseveral"registers"indifferentsocialsettings.Speechtochildrenis
slower,shorter,insomeways(butnotall)simpler,higherpitched,moreexaggeratedinintonation,more
fluentandgrammaticallywellformed,andmoredirectedincontenttothepresentsituation,comparedto
speechamongadults(Snow&Ferguson,1977).Manyparentsalsoexpandtheirchildren'sutterancesinto
fullsentences,oroffersequencesofparaphrasesofagivensentence.
Oneshouldnot,though,considerthisspeechregister,sometimescalled"Motherese,"tobeasetof"language
lessons."Thoughmother'sspeechmayseemsimpleatfirstglance,inmanywaysitisnot.Forexample,
speechtochildrenisfullofquestionssometimesamajorityofthesentences.Ifyouthinkquestionsare
simple,justtrytowriteasetofrulesthataccountsforthefollowingsentencesandnonsentences:
1.Hecangosomewhere.
Wherecanhego?
*Wherecanhegosomewhere?
*Wherehecango?
*Wheredidhecango?
2.Hewentsomewhere.
Wheredidhego?
12/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
HewentWHERE?
*Wherewenthe?
*Wheredidhewent?
*Wherehewent?
*HedidgoWHERE?
3.Hewenthome.
Whydidhegohome?
Howcomehewenthome?
*Whyhewenthome?
*Howcomedidhegohome?
Linguistsstruggleoverthesefacts(seetheChaptersbyLasnikandLarson),someofthemostpuzzlinginthe
Englishlanguage.Butthesearetheconstructionsthatinfantsarebombardedwithandthattheymasterin
theirpreschoolyears.
ThechapterbyNewportandGleitmangivesanotherreasonfordoubtingthatMothereseisasetoflanguage
lessons.ChildrenwhosemothersuseMotheresemoreconsistentlydon'tpassthroughthemilestonesof
languagedevelopmentanyfaster(Newport,etal,1977).Furthermore,therearesomecommunitieswith
radicallydifferentideasaboutchildren'sproperplaceinsociety.Insomesocieties,forexample,people
tacitlyassumethatthatchildrenaren'tworthspeakingto,anddon'thaveanythingtosaythatisworth
listeningto.Suchchildrenlearntospeakbyoverhearingstreamsofadulttoadultspeech(Heath,1983).In
somecommunitiesinNewGuinea,mothersconsciouslytrytoteachtheirchildrenlanguage,butnotinthe
stylefamiliartous,oftalkingtothemindulgently.Rather,theywaituntilathirdpartyispresent,andcoach
thechildastotheproper,adultlikesentencestheyshoulduse(seeSchieffelin&Eisenberg,1981).
Nonetheless,thosechildren,likeallchildren,growuptobefluentlanguagespeakers.Itsurelymusthelp
childrenwhentheirparentsspeakslowly,clearly,andsuccinctlytothem,buttheirsuccessatlearningcan'tbe
explainedbyanyspecialgrammarunveilingpropertiesofparentalbabytalk.
6.4Prosody
Parentalspeechisnotastringofprintedwordsonatickertape,norisitinamonotonelikesciencefiction
robots.Normalhumanspeechhasapatternofmelody,timing,andstresscalledprosody.Andmotherese
directedtoyounginfantshasacharacteristic,exaggeratedprosodyofitsown:ariseandfallcontourfor
approving,asetofsharpstaccatoburstsforprohibiting,arisepatternfordirectingattention,andsmooth,low
legatomurmursforcomforting.Fernald(1992)hasshownthatthesepatternsareverywidespreadacross
languagecommunities,andmaybeuniversal.Themelodiesseemtoattractthechild'sattention,markthe
soundsasspeechasopposedtostomachgrowlingsorothernoises,andmightdistinguishstatements,
questions,andimperatives,delineatemajorsentenceboundaries,andhighlightnewwords.Whengivena
choice,babiesprefertolistentospeechwiththesepropertiesthantospeechintendedforadults(Fernald,
1984,1992HirshPasek,Nelson,Jusczyk,Cassidy,Druss,&Kennedy,1987).
Inallspeech,anumberofprosodicpropertiesofthespeechwave,suchaslengthening,intonation,and
pausing,areinfluencedbythesyntacticstructureofthesentence(Cooper&PacciaCooper,1980).Justlisten
tohowyouwouldsaythewordlikeinthesentenceTheboyIlikesleptcomparedtoTheboyIsawlikes
sleds.Inthefirstsentence,thewordlikeisattheboundaryofarelativeclauseandisdrawnout,exaggerated
inintonation,andfollowedbyapauseinthesecond,itisinthemiddleofaverbphraseandispronounced
morequickly,uniformlyinintonation,andisruntogetherwiththefollowingword.Somepsychologists(e.g.,
Gleitman&Wanner,1984Gleitman,1990)havesuggestedthatchildrenusethisinformationinthereverse
direction,andreadthesyntacticstructureofasentencedirectlyoffitsmelodyandtiming.Wewillexamine
thehypothesisinSection.
6.5Context
Childrendonothearsentencesinisolation,butinacontext.Nochildhaslearnedlanguagefromtheradio
indeed,childrenrarelyifeverlearnlanguagefromtelevision.ErvinTripp(1973)studiedhearingchildrenof
deafparentswhoseonlyaccesstoEnglishwasfromradioortelevisionbroadcasts.Thechildrendidnotlearn
13/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
anyspeechfromthatinput.Onereasonisthatwithoutalreadyknowingthelanguage,itwouldbedifficultfor
achildtofigureoutwhatthecharactersintheunresponsivetelevisedworldsaretalkingabout.Ininteracting
withlivehumanspeakers,whotendtotalkaboutthehereandnowinthepresenceofchildren,thechildcan
bemoreofamindreader,guessingwhatthespeakermighthavemeant(Macnamara,1972,1982
Schlesinger,1971).Thatis,beforechildrenhavelearnedsyntax,theyknowthemeaningofmanywords,and
theymightbeabletomakegoodguessesastowhattheirparentsaresayingbasedontheirknowledgeofhow
thereferentsofthesewordstypicallyact(forexample,peopletendtoeatapples,butnotviceversa).Infact,
parentalspeechtoyoungchildrenissoredundantwithitscontextthatapersonwithnoknowledgeofthe
orderinwhichparents'wordsarespoken,onlythewordsthemselves,caninferfromtranscripts,withhigh
accuracy,whatwasbeingsaid(Slobin,1977).
Manymodelsoflanguageacquisitionassumethattheinputtothechildconsistsofasentenceanda
representationofthemeaningofthatsentence,inferredfromcontextandfromthechild'sknowledgeofthe
meaningsofthewords(e.g.Anderson,1977Berwick,1986Pinker,1982,1984Wexler&Culicover,
1980).Ofcourse,thiscan'tliterallybetruechildrendon'theareverywordofeverysentence,andsurely
don't,tobeginwith,perceivetheentiremeaningofasentencefromcontext.Blindchildren,whoseaccessto
thenonlinguisticworldisobviouslyseverelylimited,learnlanguagewithoutmanyproblems(Landau&
Gleitman,1985).Andwhenchildrendosucceedinguessingaparent'smeaning,itcan'tbebysimple
temporalcontiguity.Forexample,Gleitman(1990)pointsoutthatwhenamotherarrivinghomefromwork
opensthedoor,sheislikelytosay,"Whatdidyoudotoday?,"notI'mopeningthedoor.Similarly,sheis
likelytosay"Eatyourpeas"whenherchildis,say,lookingatthedog,andcertainlynotwhenthechildis
alreadyeatingpeas.
Still,theassumptionofcontextderivedsemanticinputisareasonableidealization,ifoneconsidersthe
abilitiesofthewholechild.Thechildmustkeepanupdatedmentalmodelofthecurrentsituation,createdby
mentalfacultiesforperceivingobjectsandeventsandthestatesofmindandcommunicativeintentionsof
otherhumans.Thechildcanusethisknowledge,plusthemeaningsofanyfamiliarwordsinthesentence,to
inferwhattheparentprobablymeant.InSectionwewilldiscusshowchildrenmightfilltheimportantgaps
inwhattheycaninferfromcontext.
7WhatandWhenChildrenLearn
Peopledonotreproducetheirparents'languageexactly.Iftheydid,wewouldallstillbespeakinglike
Chaucer.Butinanygeneration,inmosttimes,thedifferencesbetweenparents'languageandtheonetheir
childrenultimatelyacquireissmall.Andrememberthat,judgingbytheirspontaneousspeech,wecan
concludethatmostchildrenhavemasteredtheirmothertongue(allowingforperformanceerrorsdueto
complexityorrarityofaconstruction)sometimeintheirthrees.Itseemsthatthesuccesscriterionforhuman
languageissomethingclosetofullmastery,andinashortperiodoftime.
Toshowthatyoungchildrenreallyhavegraspedthedesignplanoflanguage,ratherthanmerely
approximatingitwithoutwardlyconvincingroutinesorrulesofthumbwhichwouldhavetobesupplanted
laterinlife,wecan'tjustrelyonwhattheysayweneedtousecleverexperimentaltechniques.Let'slookat
twoexamplesthatillustratehowevenveryyoungchildrenseemtoobeytheinnatecomplexdesignof
UniversalGrammar.
EarlierImentionedthatinalllanguages,iftherearederivationalaffixesthatbuildnewwordsoutofold
ones,likeism,er,andable,andinflectionalaffixesthatmodifyawordaccordingtoitsroleinthesentence,
likes,ed,anding,thenthederivationalaffixappearsinsidetheinflectionalone:Darwinismsispossible,
Darwinsismisnot.Thisandmanyothergrammaticalquirkswerenicelyexplainedinatheoryofword
structureproposedbyPaulKiparsky(1982).
Kiparskyshowedthatwordsarebuiltinlayersor"levels."Tobuildaword,youcanstartwitharoot(like
Darwin).Thenyoucanrulesofacertainkindtoit,called"Level1Rules,"toyieldamorecomplexword.
Forexample,thereisaruleaddingthesuffixian,turningthewordintoDarwinian.Level1Rules,according
tothetheory,canaffectthesoundofthesteminthiscase,thesyllablecarryingthestressshiftsfromDarto
win.Level2rulesapplytoawordafteranyLevel1ruleshavebeenapplied.AnexampleofaLevel2ruleis
theonethataddsthesuffixism,yielding,forexample,Darwinism.Level2rulesgenerallydonotaffectthe
14/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
pronunciationofthewordstheyapplytotheyjustaddmaterialontotheword,leavingthepronunciation
intact.(ThestressinDarwinismisthesameasitwasinDarwin.)Finally,Level3rulesapplytoawordafter
anyLevel2ruleshavebeenapplied.TheregularrulesofinflectionalmorphologyareexamplesofLevel3
rules.Anexampleistherulethataddsanstotheendofanountoformitspluralforexample,Darwinians
orDarwinisms.
Crucially,therulescannotapplyoutoforder.TheinputtoaLevel1rulesmustbeawordroot.Theinputtoa
level2rulemustbeeitherarootortheoutputofLevel1rules.TheinputtoaLevel3rulemustbearoot,the
outputofLevel1rules,ortheoutputofLevel2rules.Thatconstraintyieldspredictionsaboutwhatkindsof
wordsarepossibleandwhichareimpossible.Forexample,theorderingmakesitimpossibletoderive
DarwinianismandDarwinianisms,butnotDarwinsian,Darwinsism,andDarwinismian.
Now,irregularinflection,suchasthepairingofmousewithmice,belongstoLevel1,whereasregular
inflectionalrules,suchastheonethatrelatesrattorats,belongstoLevel3.Compounding,therulethat
wouldproduceDarwinloverandmousetrap,isaLevel2rule,inbetween.Thiscorrectlypredictsthatan
irregularpluralcaneasilyappearinsideacompound,butaregularpluralcannot.Comparethefollowing:
iceinfested(OK)ratsinfested(bad)
menbashing(OK)guysbashing(bad)
teethmarks(OK)clawsmarks(bad)
feetwarmer(OK)handwarmer(bad)
purplepeopleeater(OK)purplebabieseater(bad)
Miceinfestedisapossibleword,becausetheprocessconnectingmousewithmicecomesbeforetherule
combiningthenounwithinfested.However,ratsinfested,eventhoughitiscognitivelyquitesimilartomice
infested,soundsstrangewecansayonlyratinfested(eventhoughbydefinitiononeratdoesnotmakean
infestation).
PeterGordon(1986)hadchildrenbetweentheagesof3and5participateinanelicitedproduction
experimentinwhichhewouldsay,"Hereisapuppetwholikestoeat_____.Whatwouldyoucallhim?"He
providedaresponseforseveralsingularmassnouns,likemud,beforehand,sothatthechildrenwereaware
oftheexistenceofthe"xeater"compoundform.Childrenbehavedjustlikeadults:apuppetwholikestoeat
amousewascalledamouseeater,apuppetwholikestoeataratwascalledarateater,apuppetwholikesto
eatmicewascalledeitheramouseeateroramiceeaterbutapuppetwholikestoeatratswascalleda
rateater,neveraratseater.Interestingly,childrentreatedtheirownoverregularizations,suchasmouses,
exactlyastheytreatedlegitimateregularplurals:theywouldnevercallthepuppetamouseseater,evenif
theyusedmousesintheirownspeech.
Evenmoreinterestingly,Gordonexaminedhowchildrencouldhaveacquiredtheconstraint.Perhaps,he
reasoned,theyhadlearnedthefactthatcompoundscancontaineithersingularsorirregularplurals,never
regularplurals,bypayingkeepingtrackofallthekindsofcompoundsthatdoanddon'toccurintheir
parents'speech.Itturnsoutthattheywouldhavenowayoflearningthatfact.Althoughthereisno
grammaticalreasonwhycompoundswouldnotcontainirregularplurals,thespeechthatmostchildrenhear
doesnotcontainany.Compoundsliketoothbrushaboundcompoundscontainingirregularpluralslike
teethmarks,peopleeater,andmenbashing,thoughgrammaticallypossible,arestatisticallyrare,accordingto
thestandardizedfrequencydatathatGordonexamined,andhefoundnonethatwaslikelytoappearinthe
speechchildrenhear.Thereforechildrenwerewillingtosaymiceeaterandunwillingtosayratseaterwith
nogoodevidencefromtheinputthatthatisthepatternrequiredinEnglish.Gordonsuggeststhatthisshows
thattheconstraintsonlevelorderingmaybeinnate.
Let'snowgofromwordstosentences.Sentenceareorderedstringsofwords.Nochildcouldfailtonotice
wordorderinlearningandunderstandinglanguage.Butmostregularitiesoflanguagegovernhierarchically
organizedstructureswordsgroupedintophrases,phrasesgroupedintoclauses,clausesgroupedinto
sentences(seetheChaptersbyLasnik,byLarson,andbyNewport&Gleitman).Ifthestructuresoflinguistic
theorycorrespondtothehypothesesthatchildrenformulatewhentheyanalyzeparentalspeechandform
rules,childrenshouldcreaterulesdefinedoverhierarchicalstructures,notsimplepropertiesoflinearorder
suchaswhichwordcomesbeforewhichotherwordorhowclosetwowordsareinasentence.Thechapter
byGleitmanandNewportdiscussesonenicedemonstrationofhowadults(whoare,afterall,justgrownup
15/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
children)respectconstituentstructure,notsimplewordorder,whenformingquestions.Hereisanexample
makingasimilarpointthathasbeentriedoutwithchildren.
Languagesoftenhaveembeddedclausesmissingasubject,suchasJohntoldMarytoleave,wherethe
embedded"downstairs"clausetoleavehasnosubject.Thephenomenonofcontrolgovernshowthemissing
subjectisinterpreted.InthissentenceitisMarywhoisunderstoodashavingtheembeddedsubject'srole,
thatis,thepersondoingtheleaving.WesaythatthephraseMary"controls"themissingsubjectpositionof
thelowerclause.Formostverbs,thereisasimpleprincipledefiningcontrol.Iftheupstairsverbhasno
object,thenthesubjectoftheupstairsverbcontrolsthemissingsubjectofthedownstairsverb.Forexample,
inJohntriedtoleave,Johnisinterpretedasthesubjectofbothtryandleave.Iftheupstairsverbhasasubject
andanobject,thenitistheobjectthatcontrolsthemissingsubjectofthedownstairsverb,aswesawinJohn
toldMarytoleave.
In1969,CarolChomskypublishedasetofclassicexperimentsindevelopmentalpsycholinguistics.She
showedthatchildrenapplythisprinciplequiteextensively,evenforthehandfulofverbsthatareexceptions
toit.Inactoutcomprehensionexperimentsonchildrenbetweentheagesof5and10,sheshowedthateven
relativelyoldchildrenwerepronetothiskindofmistake.Whentold"MickeypromisedDonaldtojump
Makehimjump,"thechildrenmadeDonald,theobjectofthefirstverb,dothejumping,inaccordwiththe
generalprinciple.The"rightanswer"inthiscasewouldhavebeenMickey,becausepromiseisanexception
totheprinciple,callingforanunusualkindofcontrolwherethesubjectoftheupstairsverb,nottheobjectof
theupstairsverb,shouldactascontroller.
Butwhat,exactly,istheprinciplethatchildrenareoverapplying?OnepossibilitycanbecalledtheMinimal
DistancePrinciple:thecontrollerofthedownstairsverbisthenounphrasenearesttoitinthelinearstringof
wordsinthesentence.Ifchildrenanalyzesentencesintermsoflinearorder,thisshouldbeanatural
generalization.However,itisn'trightfortheadultlanguage.ConsiderthepassivesentenceMarywastoldby
Johntoleave.ThephraseJohnisclosesttothesubjectpositionforleave,butadultEnglishspeakers
understandthesentenceasmeaningthatMaryistheoneleaving.TheMinimalDistancePrinciplegivesthe
wronganswerhere.Instead,fortheadultlanguage,weneedaprinciplesensitivetogrammaticalstructure,
suchasthe"ccontrol"structuralrelationdiscussedintheChapterbyLasnik[?].Let'sconsiderasimplified
version,whichwecancalltheStructuralPrinciple.Itmightsaythatthecontrollerofamissingsubjectisthe
grammaticalobjectoftheupstairsverbifithasoneotherwiseitisthegrammaticalsubjectoftheupstairs
verb(bothofthemccommandthemissingsubject).Theobjectofaprepositioninthehigherclause,
however,isneverallowedtobeacontroller,basicallybecauseitisembedded"toodeeply"inthesentence's
treestructuretoccommandthemissingsubject.That'swhyMarywastoldbyJohntoleavehasMaryasthe
controller.(Itisalsowhy,incidentally,thesentenceMarywaspromisedbyJohntoleaveisunintelligibleit
wouldrequireaprepositionalphrasetobethecontroller,whichisruledoutbytheStructuralPrinciple.)
ItwouldcertainlybeunderstandableifchildrenweretofollowtheMinimalDistancePrinciple.Notonlyisit
easilystatedintermsofsurfacepropertiesthatchildrencaneasilyperceive,butsentencesthatwould
disconfirmitlikeMarywastoldbyJohntoleaveareextremelyrareinparents'speech.MichaelMaratsos
(1974)didthecrucialexperiment.Hegavechildrensuchsentencesandaskedthemwhowasleaving.Of
course,oneitheraccountchildrenwouldhavetobeabletounderstandthepassiveconstructiontointerpret
thesesentences,andMaratsosgavethemaseparatetestofcomprehensionofsimplepassivesentencesto
selectoutonlythosechildrenwhocoulddoso.Andindeed,hefoundthatthosechildreninterpretedpassive
sentenceswithmissingembeddedsubjectsjustasadultswould.Thatis,inaccordwiththeStructural
PrincipleandinviolationoftheMinimalDistancePrinciple,theyinterpretedMarywastoldbyJohntoleave
ashavingthesubject,Mary,dotheleavingthatis,asthecontroller.Theexperimentshowshowyoung
childrenhavegraspedtheabstractstructuralrelationsinsentences,andhaveacquiredagrammarofthesame
designasthatspokenbytheirparents.
8TheChild'sLanguageLearningAlgorithm
Hereisthemostbasicprobleminunderstandinghowchildrenlearnalanguage:Theinputtolanguage
acquisitionconsistsofsoundsandsituationstheoutputisagrammarspecifying,forthatlanguage,theorder
andarrangementofabstractentitieslikenouns,verbs,subjects,phrasestructures,control,andccommand
(seetheChaptersbyLasnikandLarson,andthedemonstrationsinthischapterandtheonebyGleitmanand
16/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
Newport).Somehowthechildmustdiscovertheseentitiestolearnthelanguage.Weknowthateven
preschoolchildrenhaveanextensiveunconsciousgraspofgrammaticalstructure,totheexperimentson
discussedintheprevioussection,buthowhasthechildmanagedtogofromsoundsandsituationsto
syntacticstructure?
Innateknowledgeofgrammaritselfisnotsufficient.Itdoesnogoodforthechildtohavewrittendowninhis
brain"Thereexistnouns"childrenneedsomewayoffindingtheminparents'speech,sothattheycan
determine,amongotherthings,whetherthenounscomebeforetheverb,asinEnglish,orafter,asinIrish.
Oncethechildfindsnounsandverbs,anyinnateknowledgewouldimmediatelybehelpful,becausethechild
couldthendeduceallkindsofimplicationsabouthowtheycanbeused.Butfindingthemisthecrucialfirst
step,anditisnotaneasyone.
InEnglish,nounscanbeidentifiedasthosethingsthatcomeafterarticles,getsuffixedwithsintheplural,
andsoon.Buttheinfantobviouslydoesn'tknowthatyet.Nounsdon'toccurinanyconstantpositionina
sentenceacrossthelanguagesoftheworld,andtheyaren'tsaidwithanyparticulartoneofvoice.Nordo
nounshaveaconstantmeaningtheyoftenrefertophysicalthings,likedogs,butdon'thaveto,asinThe
daysofourlivesandThewarmthofthesun.Thesameistrueforotherlinguisticentities,suchasverbs,
subjects,objects,auxiliaries,andtense.Sincethechildmustsomehow"lifthimselfupbyhisbootstraps"to
getstartedinformulatingagrammarforthelanguage,thisiscalledthe"bootstrappingproblem"(seePinker,
1982,1984,1987b,1989,1994Morgan,1986Gleitman,1990andthecontributorstoMorganandDemuth,
1995).Severalsolutionscanbeenvisioned.
8.1ExtractingSimpleCorrelations
Onepossibilityisthatthechildsetsupamassivecorrelationmatrix,andtallieswhichwordsappearinwhich
positions,whichwordsappearnexttowhichotherwords,whichwordsgetwhichprefixesandsuffixesin
whichcircumstances,andsoon.Syntacticcategorieswouldariseimplicitlyasthechilddiscoveredthat
certainsetsofpropertiesaremutuallyintercorrelatedinlargesetsofwords.Forexample,manywordstend
tooccurbetweenasubjectandanobject,areinflectedwithswhenthesubjectissingularandinthethird
personandthetenseispresent,andoftenappearafterthewordto.Thissetofwordswouldbegrouped
togetherastheequivalentofthe"verb"category(Maratsos&Chalkley,1981).
Therearetwoproblemswiththisproposal.Themainoneisthatthefeaturesthattheprelinguisticchildis
supposedtobecrossreferencingarenotaudiblymarkedinparentalspeech.Rather,theyareperceptibleonly
tochildwhohasalreadyanalyzedthegrammarofthelanguagejustwhattheproposalistryingtoexplain
inthefirstplace!Howisaprelinguisticchildsupposedtofindthe"subject"ofthesentenceinorderto
correlateitwiththeendingonthewordsheorsheisfocusingon?Asubjectisnotthesamethingasthefirst
wordortwoofthesentence(e.g.,Thebigbadwolfhuffedandpuffed)oreventhefirstphrase(e.g.,Whatdid
thebigbadwolfdo?).Wehaveadilemma.Ifthefeaturesdefiningtherowsandcolumnsofthecorrelation
matrixarethingsthatareperceptibletothechild,like"firstwordinasentence,"thengrammaticalcategories
willneveremerge,becausetheyhavenoconsistentcorrelationwiththesefeatures.Butifthefeaturesarethe
thingsthatdodefinegrammaticalcategories,likeagreementandphrasestructureposition,theproposal
assumesjustwhatitsetsouttoexplain,namelythatthechildhasanalyzedtheinputintoitscorrect
grammaticalstructures.Somehow,thechildmustbreakintothiscircle.Itisageneraldangerthatpopsupin
cognitivepsychologywheneveranyoneproposesamodelthatdependsoncorrelationsamongfeatures:there
isalwaysatemptationtogliblyendowthefeatureswiththecomplex,abstractrepresentationswhose
acquisitiononeistryingtoexplain.
Thesecondproblemisthat,withoutpriorconstraintsonthedesignofthefeaturecorrelator,therearean
astronomicalnumberofpossibleintercorrelationsamonglinguisticpropertiesforthechildtotest.Totake
justtwo,thechildwouldhavetodeterminewhetherasentencecontainingthewordcatinthirdpositionmust
haveapluralwordattheend,andwhethersentencesendinginwordsendingindareinvariablyprecededby
wordsreferringtopluralentities.Mostofthesecorrelationsneveroccurinanynaturallanguage.Itwouldbe
mystery,then,whychildrenarebuiltwithcomplexmachinerydesignedtotestforthemthoughanother
wayofputtingitisthatitwouldbeamysterywhytherearenolanguagesexhibitingcertainkindsof
correlationsgiventhatchildrenarecapableoffindingthem.
17/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
8.2UsingProsody
Asecondwayinwhichthechildcouldbeginsyntaxlearningwouldbetoattendtotheprosodyofsentences,
andtopositphraseboundariesatpointsintheacousticstreammarkedbylengthening,pausing,anddropsin
fundamentalfrequency.Theproposalseemsattractive,becauseprosodicpropertiesareperceptiblein
advanceofknowinganysyntax,soatfirstglanceprosodyseemslikeastraightforwardwayforachildto
breakintothelanguagesystem.
Butoncloserexamination,theproposaldoesnotseemtowork(Pinker,1987,1994bFernaldand
McRoberts,inpressSteedman,inpress).Justasgoldglitters,butallthatglittersisnotgold,syntactic
structureaffectsaspectsofprosody,butaspectsofprosodyareaffectedbymanythingsbesidessyntax.The
effectsofemotionalstateofthespeaker,intentofthespeaker,wordfrequency,contrastivestress,and
syllabicstructureofindividualwords,areallmixedtogether,andthereisnowayforachildtodisentangle
themfromthesoundwavealone.Forexample,inthesentenceThebabyatetheslug,themainpause
coincideswiththemajorsyntacticboundarybetweenthesubjectandthepredicate.Butachildcannotwork
backwardsandassumethatthemainpauseinaninputsentencemarkstheboundarybetweenthesubjectand
thepredicate.InthesimilarsentenceHeatetheslug,themainpauseisatthemoreembeddedboundary
betweentheverbanditsobject.
Worse,themappingbetweensyntaxandprosody,evenwhenitisconsistent,isconsistentindifferentwaysin
differentlanguages.Soayoungchildcannotuseanysuchconsistency,atleastnotattheverybeginningof
languageacquisition,todecipherthesyntaxofthesentence,becauseititselfisoneofthethingsthathasto
belearned.
8.3UsingContextandSemantics
Athirdpossibility(seePinker,1982,1984,1989Macnamara,1982Grimshaw1981Wexler&Culicover,
1980Bloom,inpress)exploitsthefactthatthereisaonewaycontingencybetweensyntaxandsemanticsin
thebasicsentencesofmostoftheworld'slanguages.Thoughnotallnounsarephysicalobjects,allphysical
objectsarenamedbynouns.Similarly,ifaverbhasanargumentplayingthesemanticroleof'agent',then
thatargumentwillbeexpressedasthesubjectofbasicsentencesinlanguageafterlanguage.(Again,this
doesnotworkinreverse:thesubjectisnotnecessarilyanagent.InJohnlikedMarythesubjectisan
"experiencer"inJohnpleasedMaryitisanobjectofexperienceinJohnreceivedapackageitisagoalor
recipientinJohnunderwentanoperationitisapatient.)Similarly,entitiesdirectlyaffectedbyanactionare
expressedasobjects(butnotallobjectsareentitiesaffectedbyanaction)actionsthemselvesareexpressed
asverbs(thoughnotallverbsexpressactions).Evenphrasestructureconfigurationshavesemantic
correlates:argumentsofverbsreliablyappearas"sisters"totheminsidetheverbphraseinphrasestructure
trees(seethechapterbyLasnik).
Ifchildrenassumethatsemanticandsyntacticcategoriesarerelatedinrestrictedwaysintheearlyinput,they
couldusesemanticpropertiesofwordsandphrases(inferredfromcontextseeSection)asevidencethat
theybelongtocertainsyntacticcategories.Forexample,achildcaninferthatawordthatdesignateda
person,placeorthingisanoun,thataworddesignatinganactionisaverb,thatawordexpressingtheagent
argumentofanactionpredicateisthesubjectofitssentence,andsoon.Forexample,uponhearingthe
sentenceThecatchasedtherat,thechildcandeducethatinEnglishthesubjectcomesbeforetheverb,that
theobjectcomesaftertheverb,andsoon.Thiswouldgivethechildthebasisforcreatingthephrase
structuretreesthatallowhimorhertoanalyzetherulesofthelanguage.
Ofcourse,achildcannotliterallycreateagrammarthatcontainsruleslike"Agentwordscomebeforeaction
words."ThiswouldleavethechildnowayofknowinghowtoorderthewordsinsentencessuchasApples
appealtoMaryorJohnreceivedapackage.Butonceaninitialsetofrulesislearned,itemsthataremore
abstractorthatdon'tfollowtheusualpatternsrelatingsyntaxandsemanticcouldbelearnedthroughtheir
distributioninalreadylearnedstructures.Thatis,thechildcouldnowinferthatApplesisthesubjectof
appeal,andthatJohnisthesubjectofreceive,becausetheyareinsubjectposition,afactthechildnow
knowsthankstotheearliercatchasedratsentences.Similarly,thechildcouldinferthatappealisaverbto
beginwithbecauseitisinthe"verb"position.
18/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
9AcquisitioninAction
Whatdoalltheseargumentsmeanforwhatgoesoninachild'smindmomentbymomentasheorsheis
acquiringrulesfromparentalspeech?Let'slookattheprocessasconcretelyaspossible.
9.1BootstrappingtheFirstRules
Firstimagineahypotheticalchildtryingtoextractpatternsfromthefollowingsentences,withoutanyinnate
guidanceastohowhumangrammarworks.
Myroneatslamb.
Myroneatsfish.
Myronlikesfish.
Atfirstglance,onemightthinkthatthechildcouldanalyzetheinputasfollows.Sentencesconsistofthree
words:thefirstmustbeMyron,thesecondeithereatsorlikes,thethirdlamborfish.Withthesemicrorules,
thechildcanalreadygeneralizebeyondtheinput,tothebrandnewsentenceMyronlikeschicken.
Butlet'ssaythenexttwosentencesare
Myroneatsloudly.
Myronmightfish.
Thewordmightgetsaddedtothelistofwordsthatcanappearinsecondposition,andthewordloudlyis
addedtothelistthatcanappearinthirdposition.Butlookatthegeneralizationsthiswouldallow:
Myronmightloudly.
Myronlikesloudly.
Myronmightlamb.
Thisisnotworking.Thechildmustcouchrulesingrammaticalcategorieslikenoun,verb,andauxiliary,not
inactualwords.Thatway,fishasanounandfishasaverbcanbekeptseparate,andthechildwouldnot
adulteratethenounrulewithinstancesofverbsandviceversa.Ifchildrenarewillingtoguessthatwordsfor
objectsarenouns,wordsforactionsareverbs,andsoon,theywouldhavealegupontherulelearning
problem.
Butwordsarenotenoughtheymustbeordered.Imaginethechildtryingtofigureoutwhatkindofwordcan
occurbeforetheverbbother.Itcan'tbedone:
Thatdogbothersme.[dog,anoun]
Whatshewearsbothersme.[wears,averb]
Musicthatistooloudbothersme.[loud,anadjective]
Cheeringtooloudlybothersme.[loudly,anadverb]
Theguyshehangsoutwithbothersme.[with,apreposition]
Theproblemisobvious.Thereisacertainsomethingthatmustcomebeforetheverbbother,butthat
somethingisnotakindofworditisakindofphrase,anounphrase.Anounphrasealwayscontainsahead
noun,butthatnouncanbefollowedbymanyotherphrases.Soitisuselessoftrytolearnalanguageby
analyzingsentenceswordbyword.Thechildmustlookforphrasesandtheexperimentsongrammatical
controldiscussedearliershowsthattheydo.
Whatdoesitmeantolookforphrases?Aphraseisagroupofwords.Mostofthelogicallypossiblegroups
ofwordsinasentenceareuselessforconstructingnewsentences,suchaswearsbothersandcheeringtoo,
butthechild,unabletorelyonparentalfeedback,hasnowayofknowingthis.Soonceagain,children
cannotattackthelanguagelearningtasklikesomelogicianfreeofpreconceptionstheyneedprior
constraints.Wehavealreadyseenwheresuchconstraintscouldcome.First,thechildcouldassumethat
parents'speechrespectsthebasicdesignofhumanphrasestructure:phrasescontainheads(e.g.,anoun
phraseisbuiltaroundaheadnoun)argumentsaregroupedwithheadsinsmallphrases,sometimescalledX
19/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
bars(seethechapterbyLasnik)Xbarsaregroupedwiththeirmodifiersinsidelargephrases(NounPhrase,
VerbPhrase,andsoon)phrasescanhavesubjects.Second,sincethemeaningsofparents'sentencesare
guessableincontext,thechildcouldusethemeaningstohelpsetuptherightphrasestructure.Imaginethata
parentsaysThebigdogateicecream.Ifthechildalreadyknowsthewordsbig,dog,ate,andicecream,he
orshecanguesstheircategoriesandgrowthefirstbranchesofatree:Inturn,nounsandverbsmustbelong
tonounphrasesandverbphrases,sothechildcanpositoneforeachofthesewords.Andifthereisabigdog
around,thechildcanguessthattheandbigmodifydog,andconnectthemproperlyinsidethenounphrase:If
thechildknowsthatthedogjustateicecream,heorshecanalsoguessthaticecreamanddogarearguments
oftheverbeat.Dogisaspecialkindofargument,becauseitisthecausalagentoftheactionandthetopicof
thesentence,andhenceitislikelytobethesubjectofthesentence,andthereforeattachestothe"S."Atree
forthesentencehasbeencompleted:Therulesanddictionaryentriescanbepeeledoffthetree:
S>NPVP
NP>(det)(A)N
VP>VNP
dog:N
icecream:N
ate:Veater=subject,thingeaten=object
the:det
big:A
Thishypotheticalexampleshowshowachild,ifsuitablyequipped,couldlearnthreerulesandfivewords
fromasinglesentenceincontext.
Theuseofpartofspeechcategories,phrasestructure,andmeaningguessedfromcontextarepowerfultools
thatcanhelpthechildinthedauntingtaskoflearninggrammarquicklyandwithoutsystematicparental
feedback(Pinker,1984).Inparticular,therearemanybenefitstousingasmallnumberofcategorieslikeN
andVtoorganizeincomingspeech.Bycallingboththesubjectandobjectphrases"NP,"ratherthan,say
Phrase#1andPhrase#2,thechildautomaticallycanapplyknowledgeaboutnounsinsubjectpositionto
nounsinobjectposition,andviceversa.Forexample,ourmodelchildcanalreadygeneralize,andusedogas
anobject,withouthavingheardanadultdoso,andthechildtacitlyknowsthatadjectivesprecedenounsnot
justinsubjectsbutinobjects,againwithoutdirectevidence.Thechildknowsthatifmorethanonedogis
dogsinsubjectposition,morethanonedogisdogsinobjectposition.
Moregenerally,Englishallowsatleasteightpossiblephrasematesofaheadnouninsideanounphrase,such
asJohn'sdogdogsintheparkbigdogsdogsthatIlike,andsoon.Inturn,thereareabouteightplacesina
sentencewherethewholenounphrasecango,suchasDogbitesmanManbitesdogAdog'slifeGivethe
boyadogTalktothedogandsoon.Therearethreewaystoinflectanoun:dog,dogs,dog's.Andatypical
childbythetimeheorsheisinhighschoolhaslearnedsomethinglike20,000differentnouns(Miller,1991
Pinker,1994a).Ifchildrenhadtolearnallthecombinationsseparately,theywouldneedtolistentoabout
140milliondifferentsentences.Atarateofasentenceeverytenseconds,tenhoursaday,itwouldtakeover
acentury.Butbyunconsciouslylabelingallnounsas"N"andallnounphrasesas"NP,"thechildhasonlyto
hearabouttwentyfivedifferentkindsofnounphraseandlearnthenounsonebyone,andthemillionsof
possiblecombinationsfalloutautomatically.
Indeed,ifchildrenareconstrainedtolookforonlyasmallnumberofphrasetypes,theyautomaticallygain
theabilitytoproduceaninfinitenumberofsentences,oneofthehallmarksofhumanlanguage.Takethe
phrasethetreeinthepark.IfthechildmentallylabelstheparkasanNP,andalsolabelsthetreeinthepark
asanNP,theresultingrulesgenerateanNPinsideaPPinsideanNPaloopthatcanbeiterated
indefinitely,asinthetreeneartheledgebythelakeintheparkinthecityintheeastofthestate....In
contrast,achildwhowasfreetotolabelintheparkasonekindofphrase,andthetreeintheparkanother,
wouldbedeprivedoftheinsightthatthephrasecontainsanexampleofitself.Thechildwouldbelimitedto
reproducingthatphrasestructurealone.
Witharudimentarybutroughlyaccurateanalysisofsentencestructuresetup,theotherpartsoflanguagecan
beacquiredsystematically.Abstractwords,suchasnounsthatdonotrefertoobjectsandpeople,canbe
learnedbypayingattentiontowheretheysitinsideasentence.SincesituationinThesituationjustifies
drasticmeasuresoccursinsideaphraseinNPposition,itmustbeanoun.Ifthelanguageallowsphrasesto
20/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
bescrambledaroundthesentence,likeLatinortheAustralianaboriginallanguageWarlpiri,thechildcan
discoverthisfeatureuponcomingacrossawordthatcannotbeconnectedtoatreeintheexpectedplace
withoutcrossingbranches(inSection,wewillseethatchildrendoseemtoproceedinthisorder).Thechild's
mindcanalsoknowwhattofocusonindecodingcaseandagreementinflections:anoun'sinflectioncanbe
checkedtoseeifitappearswheneverthenounappearsinsubjectposition,inobjectposition,andsoona
verb'sinflectionmightcanbecheckedfortense,aspect,andthenumber,person,andgenderofitssubject
andobject.Thechildneednotbothercheckingwhetherthethirdwordinthesentencereferredtoareddishor
abluishobject,whetherthelastwordwaslongorshort,whetherthesentencewasbeingutteredindoorsor
outdoors,andbillionsofotherfruitlesspossibilitiesthatapurelycorrelationallearnerwouldhavetocheck.
9.2TheOrganizationofGrammarasaGuidetoAcquisition
Agrammarisnotabagofrulesthereareprinciplesthatlinkthevariouspartstogetherintoafunctioning
whole.ThechildcanusesuchprinciplesofUniversalGrammartoallowonebitofknowledgeabout
languagetoaffectanother.Thishelpssolvetheproblemofhowthechildcanavoidgeneralizingtotoolarge
alanguage,whichintheabsenceofnegativeevidencewouldbeincorrigible.Incaseswerechildrendo
overgeneralize,theseprinciplescanhelpthechildrecover:ifthereisaprinciplethatsaysthatAandB
cannotcoexistinalanguage,achildacquiringBcanuseittocatapultAoutofthegrammar.
9.2.1BlockingandInflectionalOverregularization
Thenextchapterpresentsagoodexample.TheBlockingprincipleinmorphologydictatesthatanirregular
formlistedinthementaldictionaryascorrespondingtoaparticularinflectionalcategory(say,pasttense),
blockstheapplicationofthecorrespondinggeneralrule.Forexample,adultsknowtheirregularformbroke,
andthatpreventsthemfromapplyingtheregular"added"ruletobreakandsayingbreaked.Children,who
havenotheardbrokeenoughtimestorememberitreliablyondemand,thusfailtoblocktheruleand
occasionallysaybreaked.Astheyhearbrokeenoughtimestorecallitreliably,Blockingwouldsuppressthe
regularrule,andtheywouldgraduallyrecoverfromtheseovergeneralizationerrors(Marcus,etal.,1992).
9.2.2InteractionsbetweenWordMeaningandSyntax
Hereisanotherexampleinwhichageneralprinciplerulesoutaformintheadultgrammar,butinthechild's
grammar,thecrucialinformationallowingtheprincipletoapplyismissing.Asthechild'sknowledge
increases,therelevanceoftheprincipletotheerrantformmanifestsitself,andtheformcanberuledoutso
astomakethegrammarasawholeconsistentwiththeprinciple.
Everyverbhasan"argumentstructure":aspecificationofwhatkindsofphrasesitcanappearwith(Pinker,
1989).Afamiliarexampleisthedistinctionbetweenatransitiveverblikedevour,whichrequiresadirect
object(youcansayHedevouredthesteakbutnotjustHedevoured)andanintransitiveverblikedine,which
doesnot(youcansayHedinedbutnotHedinedthesteak).Childrensometimesmakeerrorswiththe
argumentstructuresofverbsthatrefertotheactofmovingsomethingtoaspecifiedlocation(Bowerman,
1982bGropen,Pinker,Hollander,andGoldberg,1991a):
Ididn'tfillwateruptodrinkitIfilleditupfortheflowerstodrinkit.
CanIfillsomesaltintothebear?[abearshapedsaltshaker]
I'mgoingtocoverascreenoverme.
Feelyourhandtothat.
Terrisaidifthis[arhinestoneonashirt]wereadiamondthenpeoplewouldbetryingtorobthe
shirt.
Ageneralprincipleofargumentstructureisthattheargumentthatisaffectedinsomewayspecifiedbythe
verbgetsmappedontothesyntacticobject.Thisisanexampleofa"linkingrule,"whichlinkssemantics
withsyntax(andwhichisanexampleofthecontingencyayoungchildwouldhaveemployedtouse
semanticinformationtobootstrapintothesyntax).Forexample,foradults,the"container"argument(where
thewatergoes)isthedirectobjectoffillfilltheglasswithwater,notfillwaterintotheglassbecausethe
mentaldefinitionoftheverbfillsaysthattheglassbecomesfull,butsaysnothingabouthowthathappens
(onecanfillaglassbypouringwaterintoit,bydrippingwaterintoit,bydippingitintoapond,andsoon).
21/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
Incontrast,foraverblikepour,itisthe"content"argument(thewater)thatistheobjectpourwaterinto
theglass,notpourtheglasswithwaterbecausethementaldefinitionoftheverbpoursaysthatthewater
mustmoveinacertainmanner(downward,inastream)butdoesnotspecifywhathappenstothecontainer
(thewatermightfilltheglass,merelywetit,endupbesideit,andsoon).Inbothcases,theentityspecified
as"affected"endsupastheobject,butforfill,itistheobjectwhosestateisaffected(goingfromnotfullto
full),whereasforpour,itistheobjectwhoselocationisaffected(goingfromoneplacetoalowerone).
Now,let'ssaychildrenmistakenlythinkthatfillreferstoamannerofmotion(presumably,somekindof
tippingorpouring),insteadofanendstateoffullness.(Childrencommonlyuseendstateverbsasmanner
verbs:forexample,theythinkthatmixjustmeansstir,regardlessofwhetherthestirredingredientsendup
mixedtogetherGentner,1978).Ifso,thelinkingrulefordirectobjectswouldcausethemtomaketheerror
weobserve:fillxintoy.Howcouldtheyrecover?Whenchildrenobservetheverbfillinenoughcontextsto
realizethatitactuallyencodestheendstateoffullness,notamannerofpouringoranyotherparticular
manner(forexampleeventuallytheymayhearsomeonetalkingaboutfillingaglassbyleavingitona
windowsillduringastorm),theycanchangetheirmentaldictionaryentryforfill.Asaresult,theywould
withdrawitfromeligibilitytotaketheargumentstructurewiththecontentsasdirectobject,onthegrounds
thatitviolatestheconstraintthat"directobject=specificallyaffectedentity."Theprinciplecouldhave
existedallalong,butonlybeendeemedrelevanttotheverbfillwhenmoreinformationaboutitsdefinition
hadbeenaccumulated(Gropen,etal.,1991a,bPinker,1989).
Thereisevidencethattheprocessworksinjustthatway.Gropenetal.(1991a)askedpreschoolchildrento
selectwhichpicturecorrespondedtothesentenceShefilledtheglasswithwater.Mostchildren
indiscriminatelychoseanypictureshowingwaterpouringtheydidnotcarewhethertheglassendedupfull.
Thisshowsthattheydomisconstruethemeaningoffill.Inaseparatetask,thechildrenwereaskedto
describeintheirownwordswhatwashappeninginapictureshowingaglassbeingfilled.Manyofthese
childrenusedincorrectsentenceslikeHe'sfillingwaterintotheglass.Olderchildrentendedtomakefewer
errorsofbothverbmeaningandverbsyntax,andchildrenwhogottheverbmeaningrightwerelesslikelyto
makesyntaxerrorsandviceversa.Inanevenmoredirectdemonstration,Gropen,etal.(1991b)taught
childrennewverbsliketopilk,referringtoactionslikemovingaspongeovertoacloth.Forsomechildren,
themotionhadadistinctivezigzagmanner,buttheclothremainedunchanged.Forothers,themotionwas
nondescript,buttheclothchangedcolorinalitmuslikereactionwhenthespongeendeduponit.Though
noneofthechildrenheardtheverbusedinasentence,whenaskedtodescribetheevent,thefirstgroupsaid
thattheexperimenterwaspilkingthesponge,whereasthesecondgroupsaidthathewaspilkingthecloth.
Thisisjustthekindofinferencethatwouldcauseachildwhofinallyfiguredoutwhatfillmeanstostop
usingitwiththewrongdirectobject.
Interestingly,theconnectionsbetweenverbs'syntaxandsemanticsgobothways.Gleitman(1990)pointsout
thattherearesomeaspectsofaverb'smeaningthataredifficult,ifnotimpossible,forachildtolearnby
observingonlythesituationsinwhichtheverbisused.Forexample,verbpairslikepushandmove,giveand
receive,winandbeat,buyandsell,chaseandflee,anddropandfalloftencanbeusedtodescribethesame
eventonlytheperspectiveassumedbytheverbdiffers.Also,mentalverbslikesee,know,andwant,are
difficulttoinferbymerelyobservingtheircontexts.Gleitmansuggeststhatthecrucialmissinginformation
comesfromthesyntaxofthesentence.Forexample,fallisintransitive(itfell,notJohnfelltheball)drop
canbetransitive(Hedroppedtheball).Thisreflectsthefactthatthemeaningoffallinvolvesthemereactof
plummeting,independentofwhoifanyonecausedit,whereastheextraargumentofdropreferstoanagent
whoiscausingthedescent.Achildcouldfigureoutthemeaningdifferencebetweenthetwobypaying
attentiontothetransitiveandintransitivesyntaxanexampleofusingsyntaxtolearnsemantics,ratherthan
viceversa.(Ofcourse,itcanonlyworkifthechildhasacquiredsomesyntaxtobeginwith.)Similarly,a
verbthatappearswithaclauseasitscomplement(asinIthinkthat...)mustrefertoastateinvolvinga
proposition,andnot,say,ofmotion(thereisnoverblikeHejumpedthathewasintheroom).Thereforea
childhearingaverbappearingwithaclausalcomplementcaninferthatitmightbeamentalverb.
Naigles(1990)conductedanexperimentthatsuggestthatchildrenindeedcanlearnsomeofaverb'smeaning
fromthesyntaxofasentenceitisusedin.Twentyfourmontholdsfirstsawavideoofarabbitpushinga
duckupanddown,whilebothmadelargecircleswithonearm.Onegroupofchildrenheardavoicesaying
"Therabbitisgorpingtheduck"anotherheard"Therabbitandtheduckaregorping."Thenbothgroupssaw
apairofscreens,oneshowingtherabbitpushingtheduckupanddown,neithermakingarmcircles,the
othershowingthetwocharactersmakingarmcircles,neitherpushingdowntheother.Inresponsetothe
22/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
command"Where'sgorpingnow?Findgorping!",thechildrenwhoheardthetransitivesentencelookedat
thescreenshowingtheupanddownaction,andthechildrenwhoheardtheintransitivesentencelookedat
thescreenshowingthemakingcirclesaction.Forageneraldiscussionofhowchildrencoulduseverbsyntax
tolearnverbsemantics,andviceversa,seePinker(1994b).
9.3ParameterSettingandtheSubsetPrinciple
Astrikingdiscoveryofmoderngenerativegrammaristhatnaturallanguagesseemtobebuiltonthesame
basicplan.Manydifferencesamonglanguagesrepresentnotseparatedesignsbutdifferentsettingsofafew
"parameters"thatallowlanguagestovary,ordifferentchoicesofruletypesfromafairlysmallinventoryof
possibilities.Thenotionofa"parameter"isborrowedfrommathematics.Forexample,alloftheequationsof
theform"y=3x+b,"whengraphed,correspondtoafamilyofparallellineswithaslopeof3theparameter
btakesonadifferentvalueforeachline,andcorrespondstohowhighorlowitisonthegraph.Similarly,
languagesmayhaveparameters(seethechapterbyLasnik).
Forexample,alllanguagesinsomesensehavesubjects,butthereisaparametercorrespondingtowhethera
languageallowsthespeakertoomitthesubjectinatensedsentencewithaninflectedverb.This"null
subject"parameter(sometimescalled"PROdrop")issetto"off"inEnglishand"on"inSpanishandItalian
(Chomsky,1981).InEnglish,onecan'tsayGoestothestore,butinSpanish,onecansaytheequivalent.The
reasonthisdifferenceisa"parameter"ratherthananisolatedfactisthatitpredictsavarietyofmoresubtle
linguisticfacts.Forexample,innullsubjectlanguages,onecanalsousesentenceslikeWhodoyouthink
thatleft?andAteJohntheapple,whichareungrammaticalinEnglish.Thisisbecausetherulesofagrammar
interacttightlyifonethingchanges,itwillhaveseriesofcascadingeffectsthroughoutthegrammar.(For
example,Whodoyouthinkthatleft?isungrammaticalinEnglishbecausethesurfacesubjectofleftisan
inaudible"trace"leftbehindwhentheunderlyingsubject,who,wasmovedtothefrontofthesentence.For
reasonsweneednotcoverhere,atracecannotappearafterawordlikethat,soitspresencetaintsthe
sentence.RecallthatinSpanish,onecandeletesubjects.Therefore,onecandeletethetracesubjectofleft,
justlikeanyothersubject(yes,onecan"delete"amentalsymbolevenitwouldhavemadenosoundtobegin
with).Theistracenolongerthere,sotheprinciplethatdisallowsatraceinthatpositionisnolongerviolated,
andthesentencesoundsfineinSpanish.
Onthisview,thechildwouldsetparametersonthebasisofafewexamplesfromtheparentalinput,andthe
fullcomplexityofalanguagewillensuewhenthoseparameterizedrulesinteractwithoneanotherandwith
universalprinciples.Theparametersettingviewcanhelpexplaintheuniversalityandrapidityofthe
acquisitionoflanguage,despitethearcanecomplexityofwhatisandisnotgrammatical(e.g.,the
ungrammaticalityofWhodoyouthinkthatleft?).Whenchildrenlearnonefactaboutalanguage,theycan
deducethatotherfactsarealsotrueofitwithouthavingtolearnthemonebyone.
Thisraisesthequestionofhowthechildsetstheparameters.Onesuggestionisthatparametersettingsare
ordered,withchildrenassumingaparticularsettingasthedefaultcase,movingtoothersettingsastheinput
evidenceforcesthemto(Chomsky,1981).Buthowwouldtheparametersettingsbeordered?Onevery
generalrationalecomesfromthefactthatchildrenhavenosystematicaccesstonegativeevidence.Thusfor
everycaseinwhichparametersettingAgeneratesasubsetofthesentencesgeneratedbysettingB(asin
diagrams(c)and(d)ofFigure1),thechildmustfirsthypothesizeA,thenabandonitforBonlyifasentence
generatedbyBbutnotbyAwasencounteredintheinput(Pinker,1984Berwick,1985Osherson,etal,
1985).Thechildwouldthenhavenoneedfornegativeevidenceheorshewouldneverguesstoolargea
language.(Forsettingsthatgeneratelanguagesthatintersectoraredisjoint,asindiagrams(a)and(b)of
Figure1,eithersettingcanbediscardedifincorrect,becausethechildwilleventuallyencounterasentence
thatonegrammargeneratesbuttheotherdoesnot).
Muchinterestingresearchinlanguageacquisitionhingesonwhetherchildren'sfirstguessfromamongaset
ofnestedpossiblelanguagesreallyisthesmallestsubset.Forexample,somelanguages,likeEnglish,
mandatestrictwordordersothers,suchasRussianorJapanese,listasmallsetofadmissibleordersstill
others,suchastheAustralianaboriginelanguageWarlpiri,allowalmosttotalscramblingofwordorder
withinaclause.Wordorderfreedomthusseemstobeaparameterofvariation,andthesettinggeneratingthe
smallestlanguagewouldobviouslybetheonedictatingfixedwordorder.IfchildrenfollowtheSubset
Principle,theyshouldassume,bydefault,thatlanguageshaveafixedconstituentorder.Theywouldbackoff
fromthatpredictionifandonlyiftheyhearalternativewordorders,whichindicatethatthelanguagedoes
23/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
permitconstituentorderfreedom.Thealternativeisthatthechildcouldassumethatthedefaultcasewas
constituentorderfreedom.
Iffixedorderisindeedthedefault,childrenshouldmakefewwordordererrorsforafixedorderlanguage
likeEnglish,andmightbeconservativeinlearningfreerwordorderlanguages,stickingwithasubsetofthe
sanctionedorders(whethertheyinfactareconservativewoulddependonhowmuchevidenceofmultiple
orderstheyneedbeforeleapingtotheconclusionthatmultipleordersarepermissible,andonhowfrequentin
parentalspeechthevariousordersare).If,ontheotherhand,freeorderisthedefault,childrenacquiring
fixedwordorderlanguagesmightgothroughastageofovergenerating(saying,givedoggiepapergive
paperdoggie,paperdoggiegivedoggiepapergive,andsoon),whilechildrenacquiringfreewordorder
languageswouldimmediatelybeabletousealltheorders.Infact,asIhavementioned,childrenlearning
Englishneverleaptotheconclusionthatitisafreewordorderlanguageandspeakinallorders(Brown,
1973Braine,1976Pinker,1984Bloom,Lightbown,&Hood,1975).Logicallyspeaking,though,that
wouldbeconsistentwithwhattheyheariftheywerewillingtoentertainthepossibilitythattheirparents
werejustconservativespeakersofKorean,RussianorSwedish,whereseveralordersarepossible.But
childrenlearningKorean,Russian,andSwedishdosometimes(thoughnotalways)erronthesideofcaution,
anduseonlyoneoftheordersallowedinthelanguage,pendingfurtherevidence(Brown,1973).Itlookslike
fixedorderisthedefault,justastheSubsetPrinciplewouldpredict.
Wexler&Manzini(1987)presentaparticularlyniceexampleconcerningthedifferencebetween"anaphors"
likeherselfand"pronouns"likeher.Ananaphorhastobehaveitsantecedentlieasmalldistanceaway
(measuredintermsofphrasesize,ofcourse,notnumberofwords)theantecedentissaidtobeinsidethe
anaphor's"governingcategory."ThatiswhythesentenceJohnlikedhimselfisfine,butJohnthoughtthat
Marylikedhimselfisungrammatical:himselfneedsanantecedent(likeJohn)withinthesameclauseas
itself,whichithasinthefirstexamplebutnotthesecond.Differentlanguagespermitdifferentsize
governingcategoriesfortheequivalentsofanaphorslikehimselfinsomelanguages,thetranslationsofboth
sentencesaregrammatical.TheSubsetPrinciplepredictsthatchildrenshouldstartoffassumingthattheir
languagerequiresthetiniestpossiblegoverningcategoryforanaphors,andthentoexpandthepossibilities
outwardastheyhearthetelltalesentences.Interestingly,forpronounslike"her,"theorderingispredictedto
betheopposite.Pronounsmaynothaveanantecedentwithintheirgoverningcategories:Johnlikedhim
(meaningJohnlikedhimself]isungrammatical,becausetheantecedentofhimistooclose,butJohnthought
thatMarylikedhimisfine.Setsoflanguageswithbiggerandbiggergoverningcategoriesforpronouns
allowfewerandfewergrammaticalpossibilities,becausetheydefinelargerrangesinwhichapronoun
prohibitsitsantecedentfromappearinganeffectofcategorysizeonlanguagesizethatisintheopposite
directiontowhathappensforanaphors.WexlerandManzinithuspredictthatforpronouns,childrenshould
startoffassumingthattheirlanguagerequiresthelargestpossiblegoverningcategory,andthentoshrinkthe
possibilitiesinwardastheyhearthetelltalesentences.Theyreviewexperimentsandspontaneousspeech
studiesthatprovidesomesupportforthissubtlepatternofpredictions.
10Conclusion
Thetopicoflanguageacquisitionimplicatethemostprofoundquestionsaboutourunderstandingofthe
humanmind,anditssubjectmatter,thespeechofchildren,isendlesslyfascinating.Buttheattemptto
understanditscientificallyisguaranteedtobringonacertaindegreeoffrustration.Languagesarecomplex
combinationsofelegantprinciplesandhistoricalaccidents.Wecannotdesignnewoneswithindependent
propertieswearestuckwiththeconfoundedonesentrenchedincommunities.Children,too,werenot
designedforthebenefitofpsychologists:theircognitive,social,perceptual,andmotorskillsareall
developingatthesametimeastheirlinguisticsystemsarematuringandtheirknowledgeofaparticular
languageisincreasing,andnoneoftheirbehaviorreflectsoneofthesecomponentsactinginisolation.
Giventheseproblems,itmaybesurprisingthatwehavelearnedanythingaboutlanguageacquisitionatall,
butwehave.Whenwehave,Ibelieve,itisonlybecauseadiversesetofconceptualandmethodologicaltools
hasbeenusedtotraptheelusiveanswerstoourquestions:neurobiology,ethology,linguistictheory,
naturalisticandexperimentalchildpsychology,cognitivepsychology,philosophyofinduction,theoretical
andappliedcomputerscience.Languageacquisition,then,isoneofthebestexamplesoftheindispensability
ofthemultidisciplinaryapproachcalledcognitivescience.
24/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
11FurtherReading
AgeneralintroductiontolanguagecanbefoundinmybookTheLanguageInstinct(Pinker,1994),from
whichseveralportionsofthischapterwereadapted.Thereisachapteronlanguageacquisition,andchapters
onsyntacticstructure,wordstructure,universalsandchange,prescriptivegrammar,neurologyandgenetics,
andothertopics.
ThelogicalproblemoflanguageacquisitionisdiscussedindetailbyWexlerandCulicover(1980),Pinker
(1979,1984,1987,1989),Osherson,Stob,&Weinstein(1985),Berwick(1985),andMorgan(1986).Pinker
(1979)isanontechnicalintroduction.Thestudyoflearnabilitywithintheoreticalcomputersciencehas
recentlytakenoninterestingnewturns,reviewedinKearns&Vazirani(1994),thoughwithlittlediscussion
ofthespecialcaseweareinterestedin,languageacquisition.Brent(1995)containsstateoftheartworkon
computermodelsoflanguageacquisition.
ThemostcomprehensiverecenttextbookonlanguagedevelopmentisIngram(1989).Amongotherrecent
textbooks,Gleason(1993)hasafocusonchildren'sandmothers'behavior,whereasAtkinson(1992),
Goodluck(1991),andCrainandLilloMartin(inpress),havemoreofafocusonlinguistictheory.Bloom
(1993)isanexcellentcollectionofreprintedarticles,organizedaroundtheacquisitionofwordsand
grammar.HoekstraandSchwartz(1994)isacollectionofrecentpapersmorecloselytiedtotheoriesof
generativegrammar.Fletcher&MacWhinney'sTheHandbookofChildLanguage(1995),hasmanyuseful
surveychaptersseealsothesurveysbyPaulBloominGernsbacher'sHandbookofPsycholinguistics(1994)
andbyMichaelMaratsosinMussen'sCarmichael'sManualofChildPsychology(4thedition19835th
editioninpreparationatthetimeofthiswriting).
EarliercollectionsofimportantarticlesincludeKrasnegor,etal.,(1991),MacWhinney(1987),Roeper&
Williams(1987),Wanner&Gleitman(1982),Baker&McCarthy(1981),FletcherandGarman(1979),
Ferguson&Slobin(1973),Hayes(1970),Brown&Bellugi(1964),andLenneberg(1964).Slobin
(1985a/1993)isalargecollectionofmajorreviewsontheacquisitionofparticularlanguages.
Themostambitiousattemptstosynthesizelargeamountsofdataonlanguagedevelopmentintoacohesive
frameworkareBrown(1973),Pinker(1984),andSlobin(1985b).Clark(1993)reviewstheacquisitionof
words.Locke(1993)coverstheearlieststagesofacquisition,withafocusonspeechinputandoutput.
Morgan&Demuth(inpress)containspapersonchildren'sperceptionofinputspeechanditsinteractionwith
theirlanguagedevelopment.
12Problems
1."Negativeevidence"isreliableinformationavailabletoalanguagelearneraboutwhichstringsof
wordsareungrammaticalinthelanguagetobeacquired.Whichofthefollowingwould,andwould
not,countasnegativeevidence.Justifyyouranswers.
a.MotherexpressesdisapprovaleverytimeJuniorspeaksungrammatically.
b.FatheroftenrewardsJuniorwhenhespeaksgrammatically,andoftenpunisheshimwhenhespeaks
ungrammatically.
c.MotherwrinkleshernoseeverytimeJuniorspeaksungrammatically,andneverwrinkleshernose
anyothertime.
d.FatherrepeatsallofJunior'sgrammaticalsentencesverbatim,andconvertsallofhisungrammatical
sentencesintogrammaticalones.
e.Motherblathersincessantly,utteringallthegrammaticalsentencesofEnglishinorderoflengthall
thetwowordsentences,thenallthethreewordsentences,andsoon.
f.FathercorrectsJuniorwheneverheproducesanoverregularizationlikebreaked,butnevercorrects
himwhenheproducesacorrectpasttenseformlikebroke.
25/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
g.WheneverJuniorspeaksungrammatically,Motherrespondsbycorrectingthesentencetothe
grammaticalversion.Whenhespeaksgrammatically,Motherrespondswithafollowupthatmerely
recaststhesentenceindifferentwords.
h.WheneverJuniorspeaksungrammatically,Fatherchangesthesubject.
i.MotherneverrepeatsJunior'sungrammaticalsentencesverbatim,butsometimesrepeatshis
grammaticalsentencesverbatim.
j.Fatherblathersincessantly,producingallpossiblestringsofEnglishwords,furrowinghisbrows
aftereveryungrammaticalstringandpursinghislipsaftereverygrammaticalsentence.
2.Considerthreelanguages.LanguageAisisEnglish,inwhichsentencemustcontainagrammatical
subject:HeatetheappleisgoodAtetheappleisungrammatical.InLanguageB,thesubjectis
optional,buttheverbalwayshasasuffixwhichagreeswiththesubject(whetheritispresentor
absent)inperson,number,andgender.ThusHeate3MStheappleisgood(assumethat"3MS"isa
suffix,likeoorik,thatisusedonlywhenthesubjectis3rdpersonmasculinesingular),asisAte
3MStheapple.(ThoseofyouwhospeakSpanishorItalianwillseethatthishypotheticallanguageis
similartothem.)LanguageChasnoinflectionontheverb,butallowsthesubjecttobeomitted:Heate
theappleandAtetheapplearebothgood.Assumingachildhasnoaccesstonegativeevidence,but
knowsthatthelanguagetobelearnedisoneofthesethree.Doesthechildhavetoentertainthese
hypothesesinanyfixedorder?Ifso,whatisit?Whatlearningstrategywouldguaranteethatthechild
wouldarriveatthecorrectlanguage?Showwhy.
3.Imagineaverbpilkthatmeans"tohavebothofone'selbowsgrabbedbysomeoneelse,"soJohn
pilkedBillmeantthatBillgrabbedJohn'selbows.
a.WhyisthisverbunlikelytooccurinEnglish?
b.Ifchildrenusesemanticcontextandsemanticsyntaxlinkingrulestobootstraptheirwayintoa
language,whatwouldalanguagelesschildinferaboutEnglishuponhearing"Thisispilking"and
seeingBillgrabJohn'selbows?
c.Ifchildrenusesemanticcontextandsemanticssyntaxlinkingrulestobootstraptheirwayintoa
language,whatwouldalanguagelesschildinferaboutEnglishuponhearing"JohnpilkedBill"and
seeingBillgrabJohn'selbows?
d.Ifchildrenusesemanticcontextandsemanticssyntaxlinkingrulestobootstraptheirwayintoa
language,whatwouldachildhavetoexperienceinordertolearnEnglishsyntaxandthecorrectuseof
thewordpilk?
13AnswerstoProblems
1.a.No.PresumablyMotheralsoexpressesdisapprovalforotherreasons,suchasJuniorutteringarude
orfalsebutgrammaticalsentence.IfJuniorweretoassumethatdisapprovedofsentenceswere
ungrammatical,hewouldspuriouslyeliminatemanygrammaticalsentencesfromhislanguage.
b.No,becauseFathermayalsorewardhimwhenhespeaksungrammaticallyandpunishhimwhenhe
speaksgrammatically.
c.Yes,becauseJuniorcandeducethatanynosewrinkleelicitingsentenceisgrammatical.
d.Yes,becauseJuniorcandeducethatanysentencethatisnotrepeatedverbatimisungrammatical.
e.Yes,becauseforanysentencethatJuniorisunsureabout,hecankeeplisteningtomotheruntilshe
beginstouttersentenceslongerthanthatone.If,bythattime,Motherhasutteredhissentence,itis
grammaticalifshehasn't,it'sungrammatical.
26/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
f.No,becausewedon'tknowwhatFatherdoesfortherestofthelanguage.
g.No,becausewhileweknowwhetherthechangeoverinJunior'ssentenceisa"correction"ora
"recasting,"becauseweknowwhat'sungrammatical(hencecorrected)orgrammatical(hencerecast),
Juniorhasnowayofknowingthatfromhispointofview,Motherjustchangeseverythinghesaysinto
differentwords.
h.No,becausepresumablyFatherchangesthesubjectonsomeoccasionswhenJunior'ssentencewas
grammaticalbutFatherwasjustgettingboredwiththetopic.
i.No,becausemanyofhisgrammaticalsentencesmightneverberepeatedverbatim,either.
j.Yes,becausesoonerorlaterFatherwillutterJunior'slastwordstring,andJuniorcanseewhether
Father'sbrowwasfurrowed.
2.English(LanguageA)hastobehypothesizedbeforeLanguageC,andrejectedonlyifasubjectlessand
suffixlesssentenceturnsupintheinput.ThatisbecauseLanguageCisasupersetofEnglishifthe
learnertriesCfirst,nothingintheinputwillevertellhimhe'swrong.LanguageBcanbehypothesized
atanypoint,andconfirmedwheneverthechildhearsasentencewithanagreementinitor
disconfirmedwhenthechildhearsasentencewithoutagreement.
3.a.InEnglish(andalmosteveryotherlanguage),theagentoftheactionisthesubjectofanactive
sentence,andtheentityaffectedbytheactionistheobject.
b.Hewouldinfer,incorrectly,thatpilkmeans"toholdsomeone'selbows."
c.Hewouldinfer,incorrectly,thatEnglishwordorderwasObjectVerb
Subject.Thatwouldcausehimsubsequentlytoapplyuniversalsaboutsubjectstoobjects,andvice
versa.
d.HewouldhavetohaveheardenoughordinaryEnglishverbs(withagentsassubjectsandaffected
entitiesasobjects)tohaveinferredthatthesubjectcomesbeforetheverb,whichinturncomesbefore
theobject.ThenhewouldhavetohearJohnpilkedBillandseeBillgrabJohn'selbows,andusethe
verb'ssyntaxtoinferitsunusualsemantics.
References
Anderson,J.(1977)Inductionofaugmentedtransitionnetworks.CognitiveScience,1,125157.
Bates,E.(1989)Functionalismandthecompetitionmodel.InB.MacWhinneyandE.Bates(Eds.),The
crosslinguisticstudyofsentenceprocessing.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Bates,E.,Thal,D.,&Janowsky,J.S.(1992)Earlylanguagedevelopmentanditsneuralcorrelates.InI.
Rapin&S.Segalowitz(Eds.),HandbookofNeuropsychology.Vol.6,ChildNeurology.Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Bellugi,U.,Bihrle,A.,Jernigan,T.,Trauner,D.,&Doherty,S.(1990)Neuropsychological,neurological,and
neuroanatomicalprofileofWilliamsSyndrome.AmericanJournalofMedicalGeneticsSupplement,6,115
125.
Berwick,R.C.(1985)Theacquisitionofsyntacticknowledge.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Bickerton,D.(1984)Thelanguagebioprogramhypothesis.BehavioralandBrainSciences,7,173221.
Bloom,L.(1970)LanguageDevelopment:FormandFunctioninEmergingGrammars.
Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
27/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
Bloom,L.,Lightbown,P.,&Hood,M.(1975)Structureandvariationinchildlanguage.Monographsofthe
SocietyforResearchinChildDevelopment,vol.40.
Bloom,P.(inpress)Bohannon,J.N.,andStanowicz,L.(1988)Theissueofnegativeevidence:Adult
responsestochildren'slanguageerrors.DevelopmentalPsychology24:684689.
Bowerman,M.(1982).Evaluatingcompetinglinguisticmodelswithlanguageacquisitiondata:Implications
ofdevelopmentalerrorswithcausativeverbs.QuadernidiSemantica3:566.
Bowerman,M.(1982b)Reorganizationalprocessesinlexicalandsyntacticdevelopment.InE.Wanner&L.
Gleitman(eds.),LanguageAcquisition:TheStateoftheArt.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Braine,M.D.S.(1976)Children'sfirstwordcombinations.MonographsoftheSocietyforResearchinChild
Development,41.
Brent,M.(Ed.)(inpress)SpecialissueofCognitiononComputationalModelsofLanguageAcquisition.
Brown,R.&Bellugi,U.(Eds.)(1964)SpecialissueofHarvardEducationalReview.
Brown,R.,&Hanlon,C.(1970).Derivationalcomplexityandorderofacquisitioninchildspeech.InJ.R.
Hayes(Ed.),CognitionandtheDevelopmentofLanguage.NewYork:Wiley.
Brown,R.(1973)AFirstLanguage:theEarlyStages.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversityPress.
Chomsky,C.(1969)AcquisitionofSyntaxinChildrenfrom510.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Chomsky,N.(1959)AReviewofB.F.Skinner's"VerbalBehavior."Language,35,2658.
Chomsky,N,(1975)ReflectionsonLanguage.NewYork:RandomHouse.
Chomsky,N.(1981)LecturesonGovernmentandBinding.Dordrecht,Netherlands:ForisPublications.
Chomsky,N.(1991)Linguisticsandcognitivescience:Problemsandmysteries.InA.Kasher,(Ed.),The
Chomskyanturn.Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.
Clark,E.V.(1993)Thelexiconinacquisition.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Comrie,B.(1981)Languageuniversalsandlinguistictypology.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Cooper,W.E.andPacciaCooper,J.(1980)SyntaxandSpeech.Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity
Press.
Crain,S.(1992)Languageacquisitionintheabsenceofexperience.BehavioralandBrainSciences.
Crain,S.,&LilloMartin,D.(inpress)Languageacquisition.Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.
Cromer,R.F.(1992)Languageandthoughtinnormalandhandicappedchildren.
Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.
Curtiss,S.(1989)Theindependenceandtaskspecificityoflanguage.InA.Bornstein&J.Bruner(Eds.),
Interactioninhumandevelopment.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Demetras,M.J.,Post,K.N,&Snow,C.E.(1986)Feedbacktofirstlanguagelearners:Theroleof
repetitionsandclarificationquestions.JournalofChildLanguage,13,275292.
ErvinTripp,S.(1973)Somestrategiesforthefirsttwoyears.InT.InT.E.Moore.(Ed.),Cognitive
DevelopmentandtheAcquisitionofLanguage.NewYork:AcademicPress.
28/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
Ferguson,C.andSlobin,D.I.,(Eds.)(1973),StudiesofChildLanguageDevelopment.NewYork:Holt,
RinehartandWinston.
Fernald,A.(1984)theperceptualandaffectivesalienceofmothers'speechtoinfants.InL.Feagans,C.
Garvey,&R.Golinkoff(Eds.),Theoriginsandgrowthofcommunication.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Fernald,A.(1992)Humanmaternalvocalizationstoinfantsasbiologicallyrelevantsignals:Anevolutionary
perspective.InBarkow,etal.InJ.H.Barkow,L.Cosmides,&J.Tooby(Eds.),TheAdaptedMind:
EvolutionaryPsychologyandtheGenerationofCulture.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Fernald,A.,&McRoberts,G.(inpress)Prosodicbootstrapping:Acriticalanalysisoftheargumentandthe
evidence.InJ.L.Morgan&K.Demuth,Eds.Signaltosyntax.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Fisher,C.,Hall,G.,Rakowitz,S.,&Gleitman,L.R.(1991)Whenitisbettertoreceivethantogive:
Syntacticandconceptualconstraintsonvocabularygrowth.Unpublishedmanuscript,Departmentof
Psychology,UniversityofIllinois,Urbana.
FletcherandM.Garman,(Eds.)(1979)LanguageAcquisition.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Fletcher,P.andMacWhinney,B.(Eds.)(1995)Thehandbookofchildlanguage.Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.
Fodor,J.A.(1975)TheLanguageofThought.NewYork:T.Y.Crowell.
Fodor,J.A.(1983)Modularityofmind.Cambridge,MA:BradfordBooks/MITPress.
Gardner,R.A.&Gardner,B.T.(1969)Teachingsignlanguagetoachimpanzee.Science,165,664672.
Gentner,D.(1978)Onrelationalmeaning:Theacquisitionofverbmeaning.ChildDevelopment49:988
998.
Gernsbacher,M.A.(Ed.)(1994)Handbookofpsycholinguistics.SanDiego:AcademicPress.
Gleason,J.Berko(Ed.)(1993)Thedevelopmentoflanguage,3rdedition.NewYork:Macmillan.
Gleitman,L.R.andWanner,E.(1984)Richlyspecifiedinputtolanguagelearning.InO.Selfridge,E.L.
Rissland,&M.Arbib(Eds.),Adaptivecontrolofilldefinedsystems.NewYork:Plenum.
Gold,E.(1967)Languageidentificationinthelimit.InformationandControl,10,447474.
Goodluck,H.(1991)LanguageAcquisition:alinguisticintroduction.Cambridge,MA:Blackwell.
Greenberg,J.(Ed.)(1978)Universalsofhumanlanguage.Vol.4:Syntax.Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversity
Press.
Grimshaw,J.(1981)Form,function,andthelanguageacquisitiondevice.InC.L.BakerandJ.McCarthy
(eds.),TheLogicalProblemofLanguageAcquisition.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Gropen,J.Pinker,S.,Hollander,M.,&Goldberg,R.(1991a)Syntaxandsemanticsintheacquisitionof
locativeverbs.JournalofChildLanguage,18,115151.
Gropen,J.,Pinker,S.,Hollander,M.,&Goldberg,R.(1991b)Affectednessanddirectobjects:Theroleof
lexicalsemanticsintheacquisitionofverbargumentstructure.Cognition,41,153195.
Hayes,J.R.(Ed.),CognitionandtheDevelopmentofLanguage.NewYork:Wiley.
Heath,S.B.(1983)Wayswithwords:Language,life,andworkincommunitiesandclassrooms.NewYork:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
HirshPasek,K.,Nelson,D.G.N.,Jusczyk,P.W.,Cassidy,K.W.,Druss,B.,&Kennedy,L.(1987)Clauses
areperceptualunitsforyounginfants.Cognition,26,269286.
29/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
HirshPasek,K.,Treiman,R.,&Schneiderman,M.(1984).BrownandHanlonrevisited:Mothers'sensitivity
toungrammaticalforms.JournalofChildLanguage,11,8188.
HirshPasek,K.,&Golinkoff,R.M.(1991)Languagecomprehension:Anewlookatsomeoldthemes.InN.
Krasnegor,D.M.Rumbaugh,R.L.Schiefelbusch,&M.StuddertKennedy(Eds.)(1991)Biologicaland
behavioraldeterminantsoflanguagedevelopment.HIllsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Hoekstra,T.&Schwartz,B.(Eds.)(1994)Languageacquisitionstudiesingenerativegrammar.Philadelphia:
JohnBenjamins.
Huttenlocher,P.R.(1990)Morphometricstudyofhumancerebralcortexdevelopment.Neuropsychologia,
28,517527.
Ingram.,D.(1989)Firstlanguageacquisition:Method,description,andexplanation.NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Kearns,M.J.,&Vazirani,U.V.(1994).AnIntroductiontoComputationalLearningTheory.Cambridge,
MA:MITPress.
Kegl,J.(1994)TheNicaraguanSignLanguageProject:anoverview.Signpost,7,3239.
Kiparsky,P.(1982)Lexicalphonologyandmorphology.InI.S.Yang(Ed.),Linguisticsinthemorningcalm.
Seoul:Hansin,pp.391.
Krasnegor,N.A.,Rumbaugh,D.M.,Schiefelbusch,R.L.,&StuddertKennedy,M.(eds.)(1991)Biological
andbehavioraldeterminantsoflanguagedevelopment.HIllsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Kuhl,P.,Williams,K.A.,Lacerda,F.,Stevens,K.N.,&Lindblom,B.(1992)Linguisticexperiencealters
phoneticperceptionininfantsbysixmonthsofage.Science,255,606608.
Labov,W.(1969)ThelogicofnonstandardEnglish.GeorgetownMonographsonLanguageandLinguistics,
22,131.
Landau,B.&Gleitman,L.R.(1985)Languageandexperience.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Lenneberg,E.H.(Ed.)(1984)Newdirectionsinthestudyoflanguage.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Lenneberg,E.H.(1967)BiologicalFoundationsofLanguage.NewYork:Wiley.
Levy,Y.(1983)It'sfrogsallthewaydown.Cognition,15,7593.
Lieberman,P.(1984)Thebiologyandevolutionoflanguage.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Limber,J.(1973)Thegenesisofcomplexsentences.InT.E.Moore.,CognitiveDevelopmentandthe
AcquisitionofLanguage.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Locke,J.L.(1992)Structureandstimulationintheontogenyofspokenlanguage.Developmental
Psychobiology,28,430440.
Locke,J.L.(1993)Thechild'spathtospokenlanguage.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
MacWhinney,B.&Snow,C.(1985)TheChildLanguageDataExchangeSystem.JournalofChild
Language,12,271296.
MacWhinney,B.&Snow,C.(1990)TheChildLanguageDataExchangeSystem:Anupdate.Journalof
ChildLanguage,17,457472.
MacWhinney,B.(Ed.)(1987)Mechanismsoflanguageacquisition.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
30/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
MacWhinney,B.(1991)TheCHILDESProject:Computationaltoolsforanalyzingtalk.Hillsdale,NJ:
Erlbaum.
Macnamara,J.(1972)Cognitivebasisoflanguagelearningininfants.PsychologicalReview79,113.
Macnamara,J.(1982)NamesforThings:aStudyofChildLanguage.Cambridge,Mass.:Bradford
Books/MITPress.
Maratsos,M.P.(1974a)Howpreschoolchildrenunderstandmissingcomplementsubjects.Child
Development,45,700706.
Maratsos,M.P.,andChalkley,M.(1981)Theinternallanguageofchildren'ssyntax:theontogenesisand
representationofsyntacticcategories.InK.Nelson,ed.,Children'sLanguagevol.2.NewYork:Gardner
Press.
Marcus,G.F.(1993)Negativeevidenceinlanguageacquisition.Cognition,46],5385.
Marcus,G.F.,Pinker,S.,Ullman,M.,Hollander,M.,Rosen,T.J.,&Xu,F.(1992)Overregularizationin
languageacquisition.MonographsoftheSocietyforResearchinChildDevelopment,57.
Miller,G.A.(1991)Thescienceofwords.NewYork:W.H.Freeman.
Morgan,J.L.(1986)Fromsimpleinputtocomplexgrammar.Cambridge,MA:BradfordBooks/MITPress.
Morgan,J.L.,&Demuth,K.,(Eds.)(inpress).Signaltosyntax.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Mussen,P.ed.,Carmichael'sManualofChildPsychology,4thed.NewYork:Wiley.
Newport,E.,Gleitman,H.&Gleitman,E.(1977)MotherI'dratherdoitmyself:Someeffectsandnon
effectsofmaternalspeechstyle.InC.E.SnowandC.A.Ferguson(eds.),TalkingtoChildren:Language
InputandAcquisition.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Osherson,D.N.,Stob,M.&Weinstein,S.(1985).Systemsthatlearn.Cambridge,MA:BradfordBooks/MIT
Press.
Penner,S.(1987)Parentalresponsestogrammaticalandungrammaticalchildutterances.ChildDevelopment
58:376384.
Piaget,J.(1926)Thelanguageandthoughtofthechild.NewYork:Routledge&KeganPaul.
Pinker,S.(1979)Formalmodelsoflanguagelearning.Cognition,7,217283.
Pinker,S.(1984).Languagelearnabilityandlanguagedevelopment.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversity
Press.(a)
Pinker,S.(1987)Thebootstrappingprobleminlanguageacquisition.InB.MacWhinney(Ed.),Mechanisms
oflanguageacquisition.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Pinker,S.(1989)Learnabilityandcognition:Theacquisitionofargumentstructure.Cambridge,MA:MIT
Press.
Pinker,S.(1994a)Thelanguageinstinct.NewYork:Morrow.
Pinker,S.(1994b)Howcouldachilduseverbsyntaxtolearnverbsemantics?Lingua,92,377410.Tobe
reprintedinL.GleitmanandB.Landau(Eds.),Lexicalacquisition.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Pinker,S.,&Bloom,P.(1990)Naturallanguageandnaturalselection.BehavioralandBrainSciences,13,
707784.
Premack,D.&Premack,A.J.(1983)Themindofanape.NewYork:Norton.
31/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
Putnam,H.(1971)The"innatenesshypothesis"andexplanatorymodelsinlinguistics.InJ.Searle(Ed.),The
philosophyoflanguage.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
T.Roeper&E.Williams(Eds.),Parametersettingandlanguageacquisition(Reidel,1987).
SavageRumbaugh,E.S.(1991)Languagelearninginthebonobo:Howandwhytheylearn.InN.A.
Krasnegor,D.M.Rumbaugh,R.L.Schiefelbusch,R.L.,&M.StuddertKennedy,(Eds.)Biologicaland
behavioraldeterminantsoflanguagedevelopment.HIllsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Schlesinger,I.M.(1971)Productionofutterancesandlanguageacquisition.InD.I.Slobin,ed.,The
OntogenesisofGrammar.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Schieffelin,B.&Eisenberg,A.R.(1981)Culturalvariationinchildren'sconversations.InR.L.
Schiefelbusch&D.D.Bricker(Eds.),Earlylanguage:acquisitionandintervention.Baltimore:University
ParkPress.
Seidenberg,M.S.(1986)Evidencefromgreatapesconcerningthebiologicalbasesoflanguage.InW.
Demopoulos&A.Marras(Eds.),Languagelearningandconceptacquisition.Norwood,NJ:Ablex.
Seidenberg,M.S.&Petitto,L.A.(1979)Signingbehaviorinapes:Acriticalreview.Cognition,7,177215.
Seidenberg,M.S.&Petitto,L.A.(1987)Communication,symboliccommunication,andlanguage:
CommentonSavageRumbaugh,McDonald,Sevcik,Hopkins,andRupert(1986)JournalofExperimental
Psychology:General,116,279287.
Senghas,A.(1994).Nicaragua'slessonsforlanguageacquisition.Signpost,7,3239.
Shopen,T.(Ed.)(1985)Languagetypologyandsyntacticdescription.Vol.II:ComplexConstructions.New
York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Slobin,D.(1973)Cognitiveprerequisitesforthedevelopmentofgrammar.In.C.FergusonandD.I.Slobin
(ed.),StudiesinChildLanguageDevelopment.
NewYork:Holt,RinehartandWinston.
Slobin,D.I.(1977)Languagechangeinchildhoodandinhistory.InJ.Macnamara,ed.,LanguageLearning
andThought.NewYork:AcademicPress.
Slobin,D.I.(Ed.)(1985a/1992)Thecrosslinguisticstudyoflanguageacquisition.Vols.1&2,1985Vol.3,
1992}.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Slobin,D.I.(1985b)Crosslinguisticevidenceforthelanguagemakingcapacity.InD.I.Slobin(Ed.),The
crosslinguisticstudyoflanguageacquisition.Vol.II:Theoreticalissues.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Snow,C.E.,andFerguson,C.A.(1977)TalkingtoChildren:LanguageInputandAcquisition.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Steedman,M.(inpress)Phrasalintonationandtheacquisitionofsyntax.InJ.Morgan&K.Demuth,Eds.
Signaltosyntax.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.
Stromswold,K.(1994)Whatamutechildtellsusaboutlanguage.Unpublishedmanuscript,Rutgers
University.
Tallal,P.,Ross,R.,Curtiss,S..JournalofSpeechandHearingDisorders,[54,167.
Terrace,H.,Petitto,L.A.,Sanders,R.J.&Bever,T.G.(1979)Cananapecreateasentence?Science,206,
891902.
Wanner,E.&GleitmanL.(Eds.),LanguageAcquisition:TheStateoftheArt.NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
32/33
8/20/2016
LanguageAcquisition
Wexler,K.&Culicover,P.(1980)FormalPrinciplesofLanguageAcquisition.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
Wexler,K.&Manzini,R.(1987)Parametersandlearnabilityinbindingtheory.InT.Roeper&E.Williams
(Eds.),Parametersandlinguistictheory.Dordrecht:Reidel.
Whorf,B.(1956)Language,thought,andreality.Cambridge,MA:MITPress.
FigureCaption
Foursituationsthatachildcouldbeinwhilelearningalanguage.Eachcirclerepresentsthesetofsentences
constitutingalanguage."H"standsfor"hypothesizedlanguage""T"standsfor"targetlanguage.""+"
indicatesagrammaticalsentenceinthelanguage""indicatesanungrammaticalsentence.
33/33

Language Acquisition PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Language Acquisition PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

8/20/2016

You might also like