Choosing a Grammar

Learning paths and ambiguous evidence in the acquisition of syntax

| Ewha Womans University
HardboundAvailable
ISBN 9789027257215 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
e-Book
ISBN 9789027265913 | EUR 99.00 | USD 149.00
 
This book investigates the role that ambiguous evidence can play in the acquisition of syntax. To illustrate this, the book introduces a probabilistic learning model for syntactic parameters that learns a grammar of best fit to the learner’s evidence. The model is then applied to a range of cross-linguistic case studies – in Swiss German, Korean, and English – involving child errors, grammatical variability, and implicit negative evidence. Building on earlier work on language modeling, this book is unique for its focus on ambiguous evidence and its careful attention to the effects of parameters interacting with each other. This allows for a novel and principled account of several acquisition puzzles. With its inter-disciplinary approach, this book will be of broad interest to syntacticians, language acquisitionists, and cognitive scientists of language.
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today, 238]  2017.  ix, 332 pp.
Publishing status: Available
Table of Contents
Preface
ix
Introduction
1–40
The learning model
41–100
The acquisition of verb movement in Swiss German: Modeling child production errors and variability
101–178
Head-finality and verb movement in Korean: Modeling variability and non-variability across learners
179–242
The case of zero-derived causatives in English: Learning from implicit negative evidence
243–286
Learning biases
287–314
Final summary
315–316
References
317–325
Swiss German input types and corresponding compatible grammars
327–328
Additional evidence for a Root-selecting grammar in English?
329–330
Index
331–332
References

References

Abe, Jun
1993Binding Conditions and Scrambling without A/A’ Distinction. PhD dissertation, The University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian M., Rowland, Caroline F., Jones, Rebecca L. & Clark, Victoria
2009A semantics-based approach to the “no negative evidence” problem. Cognitive Science 33(7): 1301–1316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, Merete, Bentzen, Kristine, Rodina, Yulia, & Westergaard, Marit
2011The acquisition of apparent optionality: Word order in subject and object shift constructions in Norwegian. In Variation in the Input: Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, Merete Anderssen, Kristine Bentzen & Marit Westergaard (eds), 241–270. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Martin
2001Learnability and the acquisition of syntax. In Language Acquisition and Learnability, Stefano Bartolo (ed), 15–80. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1962The order of elements in a transformational grammar of German. Language 38(3): 263–269. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mark
2001The Atoms of Language: The Mind’s Hidden Rules of Grammar. New York NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert. C.
1986Learning from positive-only examples: The Subset Principle and three case studies. In Machine Learning: An Artificial Intelligence Approach, Vol. 2, Ryszard. S. Michalski, Jaime. C. Carbonell & Tom. M. Mitchell (eds), 625–645. San Mateo CA: Morgan Kaufmann.Google Scholar
Biberauer, Theresa, Holmberg, Anders & Roberts, Ian
2014A syntactic universal and its consequences. Linguistic Inquiry 45(2): 169–225. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanco, Mercedes Tubino
2010Contrasting Causatives: A Minimalist Approach. PhD dissertation, The University of Arizona.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan David
2000The Rich Agreement Hypothesis in Review. Ms, McGill University.Google Scholar
2001The implication of rich agreement: Why morphology doesn’t drive syntax. In Proceedings of the 20th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (WCCFL 20), Karin Megerdoomian & Leora Bar-el (eds), 82–95. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul
1997How we learn variation, optionality, and probability. In Proceedings of the Institute of Phonetic Sciences 21, Rob J. J. H. van Son (ed), 43–58. Amsterdam: The University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Borer, Hagit
2005Structuring Sense, Vols. I & II. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa
1988The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In Explaining Language Universals, J.A. Hawkins (ed), 73–101. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Boyd, Jeremy K. & Goldberg, Adele E.
2011Learning what not to say: The role of statistical preemption and categorization in a-adjective production. Language 82(1): 55–83. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Braine, Martin D. S.
1971On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In The Ontogenesis of Grammar: A theoretical Symposium, Daniel Slobin (ed), 153–186. New York NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan, Asudeh, Ash, Toivonen, Ida & Wechsler, Stephen
2016Lexical-Functional Syntax. Malden MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cho, Sook Whan
1981The Acquisition of Word Order in Korean. MA thesis, The University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-Mee Yu & Hong, Ki-Sun
1988Evidence for the VP constituent from child Korean. In Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 27. Stanford CA: Department of Linguistics, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Cho, Sae-Youn
1993Auxiliary verb constructions in Korean. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 23(2): 1–24.Google Scholar
Cho, Young-Mee Yu & Sells, Peter
1995A lexical account of inflectional suffixes in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 4(2): 119–174. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Choe, Hyon Sook
1987Successive-cyclic rightward movement in Korean. In Harvard Studies in Korean Linguistics, 2: Proceedings of the 1987 Harvard Workshop on Korean Linguistics, Susumu Kuno et al. (eds), 40–56. Seoul: Hanshin.Google Scholar
Choi, Young-Sik
1999Negation, its scope and NPI licensing in Korean. In ESCOL ’99, Rebecca Daly & Anastasia Riehl (eds), 25–36. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam
1956Three models for the description of language. IRE Transactions on Information Theory 2(3): 113–124. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1957Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
1980Rules and Representations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
1981Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York, NY: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chung, Daeho
2005What does bare –ko coordination say about post-verbal morphology in Korean? Lingua 115(4): 549–568. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo
1999Adverbs and Functional Heads: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2006Restructuring and Functional Heads: The Cartography of Syntactic Structures, Vol. 4 Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald
1982Spracherwerb in der Kindheit: Eine Untersuchung zur Entwicklung der Syntax bei Kleinkindern. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Clahsen, Harald & Smolka, Klaus-Dirk
1986Psycholinguistic evidence and the V-Second in German. In Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds), 137–167. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Robin
1989On the relationship between the input data and parameter setting. In Proceedings of the Northeast Linguistic Society (NELS) 19, Juli Carter & Rose-Mari Déchaine (eds), 48–62. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
1992The selection of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition 2(2): 85–149. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Robin & Roberts, Ian
1993A computational model of language learnability and language change. Linguistic Inquiry 24(2): 299–345.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Thornton, Rosalind
1998Investigations into Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments in the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davies, Mark
2008–2015The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 Million Words, 1990-present. http://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/
den Besten, Hans
1977On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive verbs. Ms, MIT and Universiteit van Amsterdam. Appeared in den Besten (1989).Google Scholar
1989Studies in West Germanic Syntax. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
den Dikken, Marcel
2006A reappraisal of vP being phasal. Ms, CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Déprez, Viviane & Pierce, Amy
1993Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 24(1): 25–67.Google Scholar
Diesing, Molly
1992Indefinites. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Do, Young Ah
2013Biased Learning of Phonological Alternations. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Dowty, David R.
1979Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dryer, Matthew S.
1991SVO languages and the OV/VO typology. Journal of Linguistics 27(2): 443–482. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Embick, David & Noyer, Ralf
2001Movement operations after syntax. Linguistic Inquiry 32(4): 555–595. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ernst, Thomas
2002The Syntax of Adjuncts. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Fodor, Janet Dean
1998Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 29(1): 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Jerry
1970Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry 1(4): 429–438.Google Scholar
Folli, Raffaella & Harley, Heidi
2005“Flavors of v: Consuming results in Italian and English. In Aspectual Inquiries, Roumyana Slabakova & Paula Kempchinsky (eds), 95–120. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Foraker, Stephani, Regier, Terry, Khetarpal, Naveen, Perfors, Amy & Tenenbaum, Joshua
2009Indirect evidence and the poverty of the stimulus: The case of anaphoric one . Cognitive Science 33(2): 287–300. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Robert & Kapur, Shyam
1996On the use of triggers in parameter setting. Linguistic Inquiry 27(4): 623–660.Google Scholar
Frigyik, Bela A., Kapila, Amol & Gupta, Maya R.
2010Introduction to the Dirichlet distribution and related processes [UWEE Technical Report: Number UWEETR-2010–0006]. Seattle WA: Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Fukuda, Shin & Choi, Soonja
2009The acquisition of transitivity in Japanese and Korean children. In Japanese and Korean Linguistics 17, Shoichi Iwasaki, Hajime Hoji, Patricia Clancy & Sung-Och Sohn (eds), 613–624. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Gawlitzek-Maiwald, Ira, Tracy, Rosemarie & Fritzenschaft, Agnes
1992Language acquisition and competing linguistic representations: The child as arbiter. In The Acquisition of Verb Placement: Functional Categories and V2 Phenomena in Language Acquisition, Jürgen M. Meisel (ed), 139–179. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, Edward & Wexler, Ken
1994Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 25(3): 407–454.Google Scholar
Gold, E. Mark
1967Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10(5): 447–474. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Adele E.
2011Corpus evidence of the viability of statistical preemption. Cognitive Linguistics 22(1): 131–153. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, Noah, Mansinghka, Vikash, Roy, Daiel, Bonawitz, Keith & Tenenbaum, Joshua
2008Church: A language for generative models. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence (UAI-08), David McAllester & Petri Myllymaki (eds), 220–229. Corvallis OR: AUAI Press.Google Scholar
de Haan, Germen & Weerman, Fred
1986Finiteness and verb fronting in Frisian. In Verb Second Phenomena in Germanic Languages, Hubert Haider & Martin Prinzhorn (eds), 77–110. Dordrecht: Foris. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hagstrom, Paul
1995Negation, Focus, and do-Support in Korean. Ms, MIT.Google Scholar
2002Implications of child errors for the syntax of negation in Korean. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11(3): 211–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Haider, Hubert
2010The Syntax of German. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Ken & Keyser, Samuel Jay
2002Prolegomenon to a Theory of Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, Lidz, Jeffrey & Musolino, Julien
2007V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope”. Linguistic Inquiry 38(1): 1–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, Storoshenko, Dennis Ryan & Sakurai, Yasuko
2008An experimental investigation into the placement of the verb in the clause structure of Japanese. In Proceedings of the 2007 International Conference on Linguistics in Korea (ICLK-2007). Seoul: The Linguistic Society of Korea.Google Scholar
Han, Chung-hye, Lidz, Jeffrey & Storoshenko, Dennis Ryan
2014Variation in negation and quantifier scope judgments in Korean. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Vol. 2, Carissa Abrego-Collier, Arum Kang, Martina Martinović & Chieu Nguyen (eds), 65–76. Chicago IL: The Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Heim, Irene & Kratzer, Angelika
1998Semantics in Generative Grammar. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Hyams, Nina
1998Aspects of root infintives. Lingua 106(1–4): 81–112. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders
2015Verb second. In Syntax – Theory and Analysis: An International Handbook of Syntactic Research, Tibor Kiss & Artemis Alexiadou (eds), 342–382. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hsu, Anne S. & Griffiths, Thomas L.
2009Differential use of implicit negative evidence in generative and discriminative language learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 22, Yoshua Bengio, Dale Schuurmans, John D. Lafferty, Christopher K. I. Williams & Aron Culotta (eds), 754–762.Google Scholar
Hyams, Nina
1986Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Mark, Griffiths, Thomas L. & Goldwater, Sharon
2007Bayesian inference for PCFGs via Markov Chain Monte Carlo. In Human Language Technologies 2007: The Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Proceedings of the Main Conference, Candace Sidner, Tanja Schultz, Matthew Stone & ChengXiang Zhai (eds), 139–146. Stroudsburg PA: The Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Joo, Yanghee
1989A Cross-linguistic Approach to Quantification in Syntax. PhD dissertation, The University of Wisconsin, Madison.Google Scholar
Josefsson, Gunlög
1996[2013] The acquisition of object shift in Swedish child language. In Child Language, Vol. 9, Carolyn E. Johnson & John H. V. Gilbert (eds), 153–165. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, Richard
1994The Antisymmetry of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kemp, Charles, Perfors, Amy & Tenenbaum, Joshua
2007Learning overhypotheses with hierarchical Bayesian models. Developmental Science 10(3): 307–321. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Young-Joo
1997The acquisition of Korean. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vol. 4, Dan Isaac Slobin (ed), 335–443. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2000Subject/Object drop in the acquisition of Korean: A cross-linguistic comparison. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9(4): 325–351. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Klima, Edward & Bellugi, Ursula
1966Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Psycholinguistic Papers, John Lyons & Roger Wales (eds), 183–208. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi
2000String vacuous overt verb-raising. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9(3): 227–285. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koopman, Hilda
2005Korean (and Japanese) morphology from a syntactic perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 36(4): 601–633. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Koster, Jan
1975Dutch as an SOV language. Linguistic Analysis 1: 111–136.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika
1996Severing the external argument from the verb. In Phrase Structure and the Lexicon, Johann Rooryck & Zaring, Laurie (eds), 109–137. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kratzer, Kai, Berryman, Joshua T., Taudt, Aaron, Zeman, Johannes & Arnold, Alex
2014The Flexible Rare Event Sampling Harness System (FRESHS). Computer Physics Communications 185(7): 1875–1885. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, Anthony
1989Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3): 199–244. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuroda, Shige-Yuki
1970Japanese Syntax and Semantics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Laplace, Pierre-Simon
1825Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, translated by Andrew I. Dale (1995) from the fifth French edition. New York NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Lee, Jae Hong
1993Postverbal adverbs and verb movement in Korean. In Japanese/Korean Linguistics 2, Patricia Marie Clancy & Hajime Hoji (eds), 429–446. Stanford CA: SLA/CSLI.Google Scholar
Lee, Jungmee
2008The temporal interpretation of the Korean –ko construction: Aktionsart and Discourse Context. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 12, Atle Grønn (ed), 367–383. Oslo.Google Scholar
Lee, Jungmee & Tonhauser, Judith
2010Temporal interpretation without tense: Korean and Japanese coordination constructions. Journal of Semantics 27(3): 307–341. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne
2003Some interface properties of the phase. Linguistic Inquiry 34(3): 506–515. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Legate, Julie Anne & Yang, Charles
2007Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition 14(3): 315–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Levin, Beth & Rappaport Hovav, Malka
1995Unaccusativity. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lightfoot David
1989The child’s trigger experience: Degree-0 learnability. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12(2): 321–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, David
1991How to Set Parameters: Arguments from Language Change. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
1997Shifting triggers and diachronic reanalysis. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 253–272. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian
2000The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk, 3rd edn. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Magri, Giorgio
2013HG has no computational advantages over OT: Toward a new toolkit for computational OT. Linguistic Inquiry 44(4): 569–609. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marantz, Alec
1988Clitics, morphological merger, and the mapping to phonological structure. In Theoretical Morphology: Approaches in Modern Linguistics, Michael Hammond & Michael Noonan (eds), 253–270. San Diego CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1997No escape from syntax: Don’t attempt morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4(2): 201–225.Google Scholar
Meinunger, André
2007About object es in the German vorfeld . Linguistic Inquiry 38(3): 553–563. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Anne E.
1985The acquisition of German. In The Crosslinguistic Study of Language Acquisition, Vo1. 1: The Data, Dan Isaac Slobin (ed), 141–254. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, Shigeru
2001The EPP, scrambling, and wh-in-situ. In Ken Hale: A Life in Language, Michael Kenstowicz (ed), 293–338. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Natascha
1993Komplexe Sätze: Der Erwerb von Comp und von Wortstellungsmustern bei Bilingualen Kindern (Französisch/Deutsch). Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Netter, Klaus
1992On non-head non-movement. In KONVENS 92, Günter Görz (ed), 218–227. Berlin: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Otani, Kazuyo & Whitman, John
1991V-raising and VP-ellipsis. Linguistics Inquiry 22(2): 345–358.Google Scholar
Park, Myung-Kan
1994A Morpho-Syntactic Study of Korean Verbal Inflection. PhD dissertation, The University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Parsons, Terence
1990Events in the Semantics of English: A Study in Subatomic Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Payne, John, Pullum, Geoffrey K., Scholz, Barabara C. & Berlage, Eva
2013Anaphoric one and its implications. Language 89(4): 794–829. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, Lisa
2007Necessary Bias in Natural Language Learning. PhD dissertation, The University of Maryland.Google Scholar
Pearl, Lisa & Goldwater, Sharon
2016Statistical learning, inductive bias, and Bayesian inference in language acquisition. In The Oxford Handbook of Developmental Linguistics, Jeffrey Lidz, William Snyder & Joe Pater (eds), 664–695. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Pearl, Lisa & Lidz, Jeffrey
2009When domain-general learning fails and when it succeeds: Identifying the contribution of domain specificity. Language Learning and Development 5(4): 235–265. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pearl, Lisa & Mis, Benjamin
2011How far can indirect evidence take us? Anaphoric one revisited. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2011), Laura Carlson, Christoph Hoelscher & Thomas F. Shipley (eds), 879–884. Austin TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
2016The role of indirect positive evidence in syntactic acquisition. Language 92(1): 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Penner, Zvi
1990On the acquisition of verb placement and Verb Projection Raising in Bernese Swiss German. In Spracherwerv und Grammatik: Linguistische Untersuchungen zum Erwerb von Syntax und Morphologie, Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 3, Monika Rothweiler (ed), 166–189. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1996From Empty to Doubly-Filled Complementizers: A Case Study in the Acquisition of Subordination in Bernese Swiss German [Arbeitspapier Nr. 77]. Konstanz: Fachgruppe Sprachwissenschaft der Universität Konstanz.Google Scholar
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua & Regier, Terry
2006Poverty of the stimulus? A rational approach. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci 2006), Ron Sun & Naomi Miyake (eds), 663–668. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B. & Gibson, Edward & Regier, Terry
2010aHow recursive is language? A Bayesian exploration. In Recursion and Human Language, Harry van der Hulst (ed), 159–175. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B. & Wonnacott, Elizabeth
2010bVariability, negative evidence, and the acquisition of verb argument constructions. Journal of Child Language 37(3): 607–642. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B. & Regier, Terry
2011The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition 118(3): 306–338. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David
1978Impersonal passives and the Unaccusative Hypothesis. In Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistics Society 4, 157–189. Berkeley CA: The University of California.Google Scholar
Pierce, Amy
1992Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory: A Comparative Analysis of French and English Child Grammars. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Steven
2013[1989] Learnability and Cognition. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pintzuk, Susan
2002Verb-object order in Old English: Variation as grammatical competition. In Syntactic Effects of Morphological Change, David Lightfoot (ed), 276–300. Oxford: OUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Platzack, Christer
1986Comp, Infl, and Germanic word order. In Topics in Scandinavian Syntax, Lars Hellan & Kristi Koch (eds), 185–234. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves
1989Verb movement, Universal Grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20(3): 365–424.Google Scholar
Pylkkänen, Liina
2008Introducing Arguments. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ramchand, Gillian Catriona
2008Verb Meaning and the Lexicon: A First-Phase Syntax. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Regier, Terry & Gahl, Susanne
2004Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence. Cognition 93(2): 147–155. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi
1993/1994Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of Root Infinitives. Language Acquisition 3(4): 371–393. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997The fine structure of the left periphery. In Elements of Grammar, Liliane Haegeman (ed), 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Ian
1997Directionality and word order change in the history of English. In Parameters of Morphosyntactic Change, Ans van Kemenade & Nigel Vincent (eds), 397–426. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Rosengren, Inger
2002EPP: A syntactic device in the service of semantics. Studia Linguistica 56(2): 145–190. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ross, John Robert
1967Constraints on Variables in Syntax. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Rothweiler, Monika
1993Der Erwerb von Nebensätzen in Deutschen: Eine Pilotstudie. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Safir, Ken
1987Comments on Wexler and Manzini. In Parameter Setting, Thomas Roeper & Edwin Williams (eds), 77–90. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sag, Ivan A., Wasow, Thomas & Bender, Emily M.
2003Syntactic Theory: A Formal Introduction. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Sakas, William Gregory
2003A word-order database for testing computational models of language acquisition. In Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL ’03), Vol. 1, Erhard W. Hinrichs & Dan Roth (eds), 415–422. Stroudsburg PA: Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Sakas, William Gregory & Dean Fodor, Janet
2001The structural triggers learner. In Language Acquisition and Learnability, Stefano Bartolo (ed), 172–233. Cambridge: CUP. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Disambiguating syntactic triggers. Language Acquisition 19(2): 83–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schönenberger, Manuela
2001Embedded V-to-C in Child Grammar: The Acquisition of Verb Placement in Swiss German. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Three acquisition puzzles and the relation between input and output. In First Language Acquisition of Morphology and Syntax [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 45], Pedro Guijarro-Fuentes, María Pilar Larrañaga & John Clibbens (eds), 87–118. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, Bonnie & Vikner, Sten
1996The verb always leaves IP in V2 clauses. In Parameters and Functional Heads: Essays in Comparative Syntax, Adriana Belletti & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 11–62. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Schweikert, Walter
2005The Order of Prepositional Phrases in the Structure of the Clause [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 83]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sells, Peter
1995Korean and Japanese morphology from a lexical perspective. Linguistic Inquiry 26(2): 277–325.Google Scholar
2001Structure, Alignment, and Optimality in Swedish. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Snyder, William
2007Child Language: The Parametric Approach. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Stowell, Timothy
1981Origins of Phrase Structure. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stromswold, Karin
1990Learnability and the Acquisition of Auxiliaries. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Takano, Yuji
2002Surprising constituents. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 11(3): 243–301. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tenny, Carol L.
2000Core events and adverbial modification. In Events as Grammatical Objects, Carol L. Tenny & James Pustejovsky (eds), 285–334. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa deMena
1984Parameters and Effects of Word Order Variation. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vecchiato, Antonella
2011Events in the Grammar of Direct and Indirect Causation. PhD dissertation, The University of Southern California.Google Scholar
Waldmann, Christian
2011Moving in small steps towards Verb Second: A case study. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34(3): 331–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014The acquisition of Neg-V and V-Neg order in embedded clauses in Swedish: A microparametric approach. Language Acquisition 21(1): 45–71. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, Marit R.
2006Triggering V2: The amount of input needed for parameter setting in a Split-CP model. In Language Acquisition and Development: Proceedings of GALA 2005, Adriana Belletti, Elisa Bennati, Cristiano Chesi, Elisa DiDomenico & Ida Ferrari (eds), 564–577. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Westergaard, Marit
2009Usage-based vs. rule-based learning: The acquisition of word order in wh-questions in English and Norwegian. Journal of Child Language 36(5): 1023–1051. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth
1998Very early parameter setting and the Unique Checking Constraint: A new explanation of the Optional Infinitive stage. Lingua 106: 23–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2011Grammatical computation in the Optional Infinitive stage. In Handbook of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition, Jill de Villiers & Thomas Roeper (eds), 53–118. Dordrecht: Springer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Manzini, M. Rita
1987Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory. In Parameter Setting, Thomas Roeper & Edwin Williams (eds), 41–76. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Colin
2006Learning phonology with substantive bias: An experimental and computational study of velar palatalization. Cognitive Science 30(5): 945–982. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wurmbrand, Susi
2005Verb clusters, Verb Raising and Restructuring. In The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. 5, Martin Everaert & Henk van Riemsdijk (eds), 227–341. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Yang, Charles
2002Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Yoon, James Hye Suk
1994Korean verbal inflection and Checking Theory. In The Morphology-Syntax Connection [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22], Heidi Harley & Colin Phillips (eds), 251–270. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Zwart, C. Jan-Wouter
1997The Morphosyntax of Verb Movement: A Minimalist Approach to Dutch syntax. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Howitt, Katherine, Soumik Dey & William Gregory Sakas
2020. Gradual syntactic triggering: The gradient parameter hypothesis. Language Acquisition  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 2020. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Subjects
BIC Subject: CFK – Grammar, syntax
BISAC Subject: LAN009060 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  2017002159 | Marc record