Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T09:03:12.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

All acquisition begins with the projection of a bare verb phrase

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2010

Anne Vainikka  and
Martha Young-Scholten
Anne Vainikka
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University
Martha Young-Scholten
Affiliation:
Newcastle University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

One of the main conclusions that we (Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 1994) make in regard to the second language (L2) German development of uninstructed Korean and Turkish adults was the resemblance of their morphosyntactic development to that of the German children under study at the time by Harald Clahsen and colleagues (see, e.g., Clahsen, Eisenbeiss, & Vainikka, 1994; Clahsen & Penke, 1992). Data from these L2 learners also indicated initial transfer of the headedness of their native language verb phrases (VPs), a claim then strengthened by research on L2 learners whose first language (L1) headedness differed from German, namely, Italian and Spanish (Vainikka & Young-Scholten, 1996). L2 learners' initial grammars were argued to consist of just a “bare” VP, based on comprehensive lack of inflectional morphology and complex syntax, and similar to children acquiring L1 German, these L2 learners' nonfinite verb forms were typically in final position, either early on (for head-final Korean and Turkish speakers) or a bit later, once headedness shifted to the German value from head-initial (for Italian and Spanish speakers). Similar to child L1 learners, the L2 morphosyntactic data pointed to subsequent projection of a head-initial underspecified functional projection and, with sufficient input, projection of higher functional projections. Apart from some details, the claim was that for children and adults learning German, acquisition is defined by the emergence of syntactic projections and the morphology associated with them.

Type
Commentaries
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , April 2010 , pp. 332 - 339
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

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

References

REFERENCES

Bhatt, R., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (2002). Structural minimality, CP and the initial state in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 18, 348–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Eisenbeiss, S., & Vainikka, A. (1994). The seeds of structure: A syntactic analysis of the acquisition of case marking. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H., & Penke, M. (1992). The acquisition of agreement morphology and its syntactic consequences: New evidence on German child language from the Simone Corpus. In Meisel, J. (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition (pp. 181–223). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability: A procedure for assessment and remediation. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtiss, S. (1982). Developmental dissociations of language and cognition. In Obler, L. & Menn, L. (Eds.), Exceptional language and linguistics (pp. 285–312). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S., & de Bode, S. (2001). Language after hemispherectomy: If neither side nor age matters, what does? In Domingaez, L. & Johansen, A. (Eds.), BUCLD 25: Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 202–213). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S., & Schaeffer, J. (1997). Syntactic development in children with hemispherectomy: The INFL System. In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), BUCLD 21: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 140–176). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fromkin, V., Krashen, S., Curtiss, S., Rigler, D., & Rigler, M. (1974). The development of language in Genie: A case of language acquisition beyond the “critical period.” Brain and Language, 1, 81–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, C., Penner, Z., & Lindner, K. (1998). German impaired grammar: The clause structure revisited. Language Acquisition, 7, 193–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B. D. (1997). Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In Hughes, E., Hughes, M., & Greenhill, A. (Eds.), BUCLD 21: Proceedings of the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 257–268). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1992). The genesis of clausal structure. In Meisel, J. (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition (pp. 371–400). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998). Dissociating syntax from morphology in divergent end-state grammars. Second Language Research, 14, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L. (1998). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. (2000). Specific language impairment across languages. In Bishop, D. V. M. & Leonard, L. B. (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in children (pp. 155–129). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Letts, C. (1993). Do explanatory theories of language acquisition have any practical value? In Clibbens, J. & Pendleton, B. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Child Language Seminar (pp. 93–107). Plymouth: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
Linder, K. (2002). Finiteness and children with specific language impairment: An exploratory study. Linguistics, 40, 797–847.Google Scholar
McGuckian, M., & Henry, A. (2003). Grammatical morpheme omission in children with hearing impairment acquiring spoken English. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), BUCLD 27: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 519–530). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Mobaraki, M. (2007). The acquisition of English by two Farsi-speaking children. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Durham University.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rice, M. (2004). Growth models of developmental language disorders. In Rice, M. L. & Warren, S. (Eds.), Developmental language disorders: From phenotypes to etiologies. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 850–863.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rizzi, L. (1993/1994). Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 3, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. (1996). The role of merger theory and formal features in acquisition. In Clahsen, H. (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Schwartz, B. D., & Sprouse, R. (1996). L2 cognitive states and the full transfer/full access model. Second Language Research, 12, 40–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarone, E., Bigelow, M., & Hansen, K. (2007). The impact of alphabetic print literacy level on oral second language acquisition. In Faux, N. (Ed.), Low-educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the Second Annual LESLLA Conference (pp. 99–122). Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, Literacy Institute.Google Scholar
Thordardottir, E. T., Chapman, R. S., & Wagner, L. (2002). Complex sentence production by adolescents with Down syndrome. Applied Psycholinguistics, 23, 163–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1994). Direct access to X′-theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1996). The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 12, 140–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (1998). Tree growth and morphosyntactic triggers in adult SLA. In Beck, M. L. (Ed.), The L2 acquisition of morphology. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2007a). Minimalism vs. organic syntax. In Karimi, S., Samiian, V., & Wilkins, W. (Eds.), Clausal and phrasal architecture: Syntactic derivation and interpretation. Papers in honour of Joseph Emonds. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2007b). The role of literacy in the development of L2 morpho-syntax from an organic grammar perspective. In Faux, N. (Ed.), Low educated second language and literacy acquisition. Proceedings of the Second Annual LESLLA Conference. Richmond, VA: Virginia Commonwealth University, Literacy Institute.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2010a). The universal bare VP and its theoretical ramifications. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M. (2010b). Organic grammar and the acquisition of German. Manuscript submitted for publication.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K., Schütze, C. T., & Rice, M. (1998). Subject case in children with SLI and unaffected controls: Evidence for the Agr/Tns omission model. Langauge Acquisition, 7, 317–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar