Child Language Acquisition: Contrasting Theoretical Approaches

466 Pages·2011·3.28 MB·

by  Ben Ambridge, Elena V. M. Lieven

ChildLanguageAcquisition
ContrastingTheoreticalApproaches
Is children’s language acquisition based on innate linguistic structures or
built from cognitive and communicative skills? This book summarizes the
majortheoreticaldebatesinallofthecoredomainsofchildlanguageacquisi-
tionresearch(phonology,wordlearning,inflectionalmorphology,syntaxand
binding)andincludesacompleteintroductiontothetwomajorcontrasting
theoretical approaches: generativist and constructivist. For each debate, the
predictionsofthecompetingaccountsarecloselyandeven-handedlyevalu-
atedagainsttheempiricaldata.Theresultisanevidence-basedreviewofthe
centralissuesinlanguageacquisitionresearchthatwillconstituteavaluable
resourceforstudents,teachers,course-buildersandresearchersalike.
ben ambridge is Lecturer in Psychology at the University of Liverpool.
He has published numerous articles on child language acquisition with a
particularfocusontheacquisitionofsyntaxandmorphology,andtheretreat
fromovergeneralizationerror.
elena v. m. lievenisProfessorandSeniorResearcherattheMaxPlanck
Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Leipzig, and Director of the Max
PlanckChildStudyCentre,UniversityofManchester.Sheisbestknownfor
herworkonnaturalisticcorpusdata,andisaformereditoroftheJournalof
ChildLanguage.

Child Language Acquisition
Contrasting Theoretical Approaches
BenAmbridge
ElenaV.M.Lieven
cambridgeuniversitypress
Cambridge,NewYork,Melbourne,Madrid,CapeTown,
Singapore,Sa˜oPaulo,Delhi,Tokyo,MexicoCity
CambridgeUniversityPress
TheEdinburghBuilding,CambridgeCB28RU,UK
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyCambridgeUniversityPress,NewYork
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9780521745239
(cid:1)c BenAmbridgeandElenaV.M.Lieven2011
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2011
PrintedintheUnitedKingdomattheUniversityPress,Cambridge
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary
LibraryofCongressCataloguinginPublicationdata
Ambridge,Ben,1977–
Childlanguageacquisition:contrastingtheoreticalapproaches/BenAmbridge,
ElenaV.M.Lieven.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN978-0-521-76804-7(hardback)
1.Children–Language. 2.Languageacquisition. 3.Languagearts(Early
childhood) 4.Verbalabilityinchildren. I.Lieven,ElenaV.M. II.Title.
P118.A47 2011
401′.41–dc22 2010048067
ISBN978-0-521-76804-7Hardback
ISBN978-0-521-74523-9Paperback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceor
accuracyofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredto
inthispublication,anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuch
websitesis,orwillremain,accurateorappropriate.
Contents
Listoffigures pagevii
Listoftables x
Listofboxes xi
Listofsummarytables xii
Preface xiii
Acknowledgements xv
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Themajortheoreticalapproaches 1
1.2 Thedomainsanddebates 4
1.3 Methodologies 6
2 Speechperception,segmentationandproduction 13
2.1 Introduction 13
2.2 Characteristicsofspeech 14
2.3 Developingaphonemicinventory 18
2.4 Segmentingthespeechstreamintowords,phrasesandclauses 31
2.5 Speechproduction 47
2.6 Speechperception,segmentationandproduction:conclusion 57
3 Learningwordmeanings 61
3.1 Introduction 61
3.2 Theconstraintsor‘principles’approach 62
3.3 Thesocial-pragmaticapproach 70
3.4 Theassociativelearningapproach 83
3.5 Syntacticbootstrapping 89
3.6 Conclusion:howdochildrenlearnthemeaningsofwords? 100
4 Theoreticalapproachestogrammaracquisition 103
4.1 Generativistapproaches 103
4.2 Constructivistapproaches 123
4.3 Theoreticalapproachestogrammaracquisition:conclusion 136
5 Inflection 137
5.1 Introductiontoinflection 137
v
vi Contents
5.2 Whydochildrenfailtomarktenseandagreementinobligatory
contexts? 144
5.3 Arechildrenlessproductivewithmorphologythanadults? 157
5.4 Rulesversusanalogiesininflectionalmorphology(withspecial
referencetotheEnglishpast-tensedebate) 169
5.5 Learninginflectionalmorphology:conclusion 187
6 Simplesyntax 191
6.1 Identifying/constructingsyntacticcategories 192
6.2 Acquiringbasicwordorder 209
6.3 Theretreatfromovergeneralizationerror 242
6.4 Simplesyntax:conclusion 265
7 Movementandcomplexsyntax 269
7.1 Non-canonicalwordorders(passivesandquestions) 269
7.2 Multiple-clausesentences 289
7.3 Movementandcomplexsyntax:conclusion 312
8 Binding,quantificationandcontrol 314
8.1 Bindingandcoreference 315
8.2 Quantification 335
8.3 Control 346
8.4 Binding,quantificationandcontrol:conclusion 357
9 Relateddebatesandconclusions 359
9.1 Relateddebates 359
9.2 Conclusionsandfuturedirections 369
Notes 377
References 387
Authorindex 427
Subjectindex 432
Figures
2.1 AsoundspectrogramoftheutteranceTherearereallyalot
ofwordstolearn(redrawnfromPeterW.Jusczyk,The
DiscoveryofSpokenLanguage,figure1.1.(cid:1)C 1997
MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,bypermissionofthe
MITPress) page15
2.2 Schematizedsoundspectrogramsofsyllablesofthevoiced
stopconsonants[b],[d]and[g]beforesevendifferent
Englishvowels(fromJusczyk,1997;reproducedby
permissionoftheMITPress) 16
2.3 Schematicspectrogramsofthesyllables[pi],[ka]and[pu]
(fromJusczyk,1997;reproducedbypermissionoftheMIT
Press) 17
3.1 AnexampletrialfromNaigles(1990)forachildinthe
transitive-audiocondition.Stimulifromamodified
replicationofthisstudyconductedbyNoble,Rowlandand
Pine(inpress;reproducedbypermissionoftheauthors) 92
4.1 Asimplephrase-structuretree 106
4.2 Asimplephrase-structuretreeforthestringtheboy 106
4.3 ANOUNPHRASEcanbeofanylength 106
4.4 AsimpleNPorVPconsistsofasingleNOUNorVERB 107
4.5 Thethree-levelstructureofVP:V′containsthehead(V)
anditscomplement(anNP) 107
4.6 ExpandingV′tohouseanadjunct 108
4.7 Foreverycategory,theheadcombineswithanycomplement
toformasingle-barphrase 109
4.8 Initialstructureofasimpletransitivesentence 109
4.9 TheverbmovesfromVtoItoreceiveinflection 111
4.10 ThesubjectmovestoSpecIPtochecknominativecase
(e.g.he/∗him) 112
4.11 Auxiliaries(e.g.will)aredirectlygeneratedatI(Johnwill
kickSue) 113
4.12 VerbAgreementischeckedatI 113
vii
viii Listoffigures
4.13 IPissplitintoAGRPandTNSP 114
4.14a Structureofacomplementclause 115
4.14b All‘sentences’areCPs 115
4.15 Yes/noquestionsareformedfromdeclarativesbymovement
oftheauxiliary 116
4.16 Illegalmovement‘outside’thephrasestructuretree 116
4.17 CPprovidesalandingsiteforsubject–auxiliaryinversionin
questions 117
4.18 SentenceswithacomplementclausecontaintwonestedCPs 117
4.19 Ataxonomichierarchyofconstructions 130
4.20 Generativistandconstructivistanalysisaresometimes
(apparent)notationalvariants 132
5.1 Actual(left-handpanel)andpredicted(right-handpanel)
ratesofRIerrors(‘non-finites’;e.g.Hego),correctsimple
finites(e.g.Hegoes)andcompoundfinites(e.g.Heisgoing)
fortheEnglishandDutchchildrenstudiedbyFreudenthal
etal.(2007:326;reproducedbypermissionoftheCognitive
ScienceSociety) 154
6.1 Meanproportionofutterancesforwhichchildrenmatched
theexperimenter’sweirdwordorder(SOV/VSO)or–ina
controlcondition–conventionalSVOword-order(from
Akhtar,1999:346;reproducedbypermissionofCambridge
UniversityPress) 224
7.1 FormationofthepassivesentenceTheballwaskickedunder
agenerativistaccount 271
7.2 Unergativeandunaccusativeintransitiveverbs 272
7.3 Generativistanalysisofwh-questions 282
7.4 Wh-movementinsubject(left)andobject(right)relative
clauses 292
8.1 Bc-commandsD,EandF;Dc-commandsB;EandF
c-commandoneanother 315
8.2 PrincipleAgovernsinterpretationofGoldilocks saidthat
i
MamaBear istouchingherself 318
j ∗i/j
8.3 PrincipleA:proportionofcorrectresponses(‘no’)tothe
questions‘IsMamaBeartouchingherself’(left-handpanel)
and‘Iseverybeartouchingherself?’(right-handpanel)
(fromChienandWexler,1990:269;reproducedby
permissionofTaylor&Francis) 319
8.4 PrincipleBgovernsinterpretationofMamaBear is
j
touchingher 320
∗j
8.5 PrincipleB.Proportionofcorrectresponses(‘no’)tothe
questions‘IsMamaBeartouchingher’(left-handpanel)and