Structure building model of child language: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:51, 16 May 2017

Revision as of 15:21, 21 May 2017

Line 1:

{{Underlinked|date=May 2017}}

[[Andrew Radford (linguist)]] in his seminal 1990 monograph ''Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax''<ref>{{cite book|author= Radford, Andrew|year=1990|title=Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax|publisher=Blackwell|isbn=0-631-16358-1}}</ref> summarizes the state of a Maturation hypothesis for child language acquisition.<ref>{{cite book|author= Galasso, Joseph|year=2017|title=Synopsis of the Structure-building model of Andrew Radford (1990): And other maturational hypotheses leading to child development theories of the time.|publisher=MS California State University}}</ref> Working within the ''Principles and Parameters'' framework (Chomsky 1981, 1988b) as his point of departure, and drawing from previous work done by Borer and Wexler (1987) on the apparent ''absence of A-chains in early grammar'', a Structure-building model was proposed which focused (inter alia) on the lack of syntactic movement-operations found in the early multi-word stage of child English syntax, viz., the lack of inflectional morphology. This leadled to an analysis which saw children as gradually building up more and more complex structure, with lexical-categories (like noun, and verb), the so-called ''Lexical/thematic stage-1'' being acquired before functional-categories (like determiner and complementiser), the so-called ''Functional/syntactic stage-2''.

Since theory-internal considerations define functional categories as the only type of phrasal projections which could serve as potential landing-sites for move-based elements displaced from lower down within the base-generated syntactic structure (e.g., ''A-movement'' such as Passives [''The apple was eaten by [John (ate the apple)'']], or Raising [''Some work does seem to remain''] – [''(There) does seem to remain (some work)'']), then, as a consequence, any structure-building model which calls for an exclusive lexical stage-1 prior to a functional stage-2 means, by definition, that early child speech simply lacks the ability to generate and host elements derived via movement operation. Particularly, the theoretical Specifier position of a functional head is seen as projecting for the sole purpose of hosting moved elements. Hence, according to a structure-building model, early child utterances at the early multi-word lexical stage-1 simply lack movement. In addition to the lack of A-movement talked about by Borer and Wexler, a second absence of movement presented in Radford’s monograph is considered, referred to as ''f-movement'', since it involves movement of a base-generated item into a higher f(unctional) position—namely, a head or specifier position within a functional category (DP, TP, CP) (e.g., Auxiliary inversion from T to C [Does [he (does) like it]])? This glass-ceiling of move-based morphosyntax suggests that all early multi-word utterances (usually associated with children aged 18-23months18–23months, +/- 20%) involve flat structure-building elements (N, V) not motivate by movement (what Radford terms ''Bricolage''). These prosaic bricolage structures are considered lexical/thematic in nature, with any observed early morphology being relegated to lexicalization (such as derivational morphologies, or formulaic chunking) whereby the fixed morpheme involved is said to be incorporated, unsegmented and undecomposed within the lexical stem. When true inflectional morphology emerges, it follows a gradual growth trajectory with the simple lexical noun and verb inflections emerging first: e.g., plural [N + [{s} ]], gerund [V + [{ing}]], [V + [{en}], with the latter onset of more formal inflections associated with functional phrases DP (e.g., possessive {‘s}, Case on pronouns (He vs him), and TP (e.g., Agreement {s}, and Tense {ed}). For example, regarding the AGReement/INFLection of possessive as well as verbal morphology, the mere lack of recursive [ [ ] {s}] could be singularly interpreted to be due to the lack of full movement operations. Thus, a young child at the early lexical stage-1 goes from merge operations of [(-‘s) [Tom book]], He [(-s) [drink]] to [[Tom] ’s] and [[drink] s] respectively (Radford & Galasso 1998). In this way, AGR is seen as the quintessential trigger to recursion/Movement. (See Miyagawa 2010 for current discussion of AGR as a trigger for all move-based syntactic operations). The central tenants of the structure-building model is that such a disparity between the two categories (lexical vs functional) is what constitutes the main characteristics of any maturation-based theory of child language acquisition. In recent research dealing with the ''brain-to-language corollary'' (brain imaging devices such as fMRI, ERPs), some have argued that the schedule for these morphosyntax onsets is pegged to the neurological maturation of the front-left-hemisphere which houses Broca’s area—that area of the brain seemingly responsible for movement-based operations found in language (Grodzinsky 1990).

==References==

{{Reflist}}

*Borer, H. & K. Wexler (1987). The maturation of Syntax. In Roeper & Williams (Eds) Parameter Setting. pp. 123-172&nbsp;123–172. Reidel Publications.

*Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Mouton de Gruyter

*___(1988a). Language and Problems of Knowledge. The Managua Lectures. MIT Press.

Line 13 ⟶ 15:

*Miyagawa, S. (2010). Why Agree? Why Move? MIT Press.

*Radford, A. & J. Galasso (1998). Children's possessive structures: A case study. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, vol. 19. University of Essex.

[[Category:Language acquisition]]