Cover not available
Article published In:
Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism
Vol. 3:2 (2013) ► pp.180–212

Universal Minimal Structure

Evidence and theoretical ramifications

| Johns Hopkins University
| Newcastle University

This paper addresses the fundamental question of whether (or how) functional projections are acquired during the development of syntax. However, rather than concentrating on the actual acquisition of functional projections, we consider the starting point of syntactic development: if functional projections develop during acquisition, there must be an early stage that can at least occasionally be attested that does not reveal evidence of functional projections. The relevant data concerns utterances distinct from the target language that appear to involve reduced structure. By briefly reviewing the relevant literature, we conclude that there is suggestive evidence that reduced structure is an option for all language learners. This points to the conclusion that the possibility of positing reduced structure is an option in the language module, regardless of age.

Keywords: Weak Continuity, Organic Grammar, VP, Uniformity Assumption
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1The need for an acquisition mechanism
    • 1.2The problem with maturation
    • 1.3Questions without a CP?
  • 2.Root Defaults in typical L1 acquisition
  • 3.Root Defaults in second language acquisition
  • 3.1 Root Defaults in child second language acquisition
  • 3.2RDs in adult second language acquisition
  • 4.Atypical L1 development and the bare VP stage
  • 4.1Complete lack of input during the critical period: Genie and Kaspar Hauser
  • 4.2Little usable input
  • 4.3Cognitive and linguistic impairment
  • 4.4German SLI
  • 4.5Summary of the atypical L1 studies
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1The universal VP-stage
    • 5.2Preliminary thoughts on the acquisition mechanism
  • 6.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 17 May 2013
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.2.03vai
References
Baker, M
(2008) The syntax of agreement and concord. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boser, K., Lust, B., Santelman, L., & Whitman, J
(1992) The syntax of CP and V-2 in early child German (ECG). The Strong Continuity Hypothesis. In NELS Proceedings 221 (pp. 51–65). University of Massachusetts, Amherst: GLSA.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N
(1995) The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2001) Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
(2008) On phases. In C.P. Otero, R. Freidin, & M.L. Zubizarreta (Eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory (pp. 133–166). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cinque, G
(1999) Adverbs and functional heads. A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2010) The syntax of adjectives. A comparative study. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H
(1988) Kritische Phasen der Grammatikenwicklung. Eine Untersuchung zum Negationserwerb bei Kindern and Erwachsenen. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 71, 3–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1991) Constraints on parameter setting. A grammatical analysis of some acquisition stages in German child language. Language Acquisition, 11, 361–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Meisel, J., & Pienemann, M
(1983) Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Der Spracherwerb ausländischer Arbeiter. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Culicover, P., & Jackendoff, R
(2005) Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Curtiss, S
(1982) Developmental dissociations of language and cognition. In L. Obler & L. Menn (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 L. Dominguez & A. Johansen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 202–213) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S., & Schaeffer, J
(1997) Syntactic development in children with hemispherectomy: The INFL-system. In E. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 103–114). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dimroth, C
(2002) Topics, assertions, and additive words: How L2 learners get from information structure to target-language syntax. Linguistics, 401, 891–923. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dulay, H., & Burt, M
(1973) Should we teach children syntax? Language Learning, 231, 245–258.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Epstein, S.D., Flynn, S., & Martohardjono, G
(1996) Second language acquisition: Theoretical and experimental issues in contemporary research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 191, 677–758. DOI logoGoogle 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, 11, 81–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S., & Mylander, C
(1990) Beyond the input given: The child’s role in the acquisition of language. Language, 661, 323–355. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guilfoyle, E., & Noonan, M
(1992) Functional categories in language acquisition. Canadian Journal of Linguistics, 371, 241–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gülzow, I., & Gagarina, N
(2006) Analytic and synthetic verb constructions in Russian and English child language. In N. Gagarina & I. Gülzow (Eds.), The acquisition of verbs and their grammar. The effect of particular languages (pp. 229–259). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Hamann, C., Penner, Z., & Lindner, K
(1998) German impaired grammar: The clause structure revisited. Language Acquisition, 71, 193–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, R
(2001) Second language syntax: A generative introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haznedar, B
(1997) Child second language acquisition of English: A longitudinal case study of a Turkish-speaking child. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Durham, Durham, UK.
Haznedar, B., & Schwartz, B.D
(1997) Are there optional infinitives in child L2 acquisition? In E. Hughes, M. Hughes, & A. Greenhill (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 257–268) Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hegarty, M
(2005) A feature-based syntax of functional categories: The structure, acquisition and specific impairment of functional systems. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyams, N
(1992) The genesis of clausal structure. In J. Meisel (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition (pp. 371–400). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) Child non-finite clauses and the mood-aspect connection: Evidence from child Greek. In P. Kempchinksy & R. Slabakova (Eds.), Aspectual inquiries (pp. 292–315). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2007) Aspectual effects on interpretation in early grammar. Language Acquisition, 141, 231–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakubowicz, C., & Tuller, L
(2008) Specific language impairment in French. In D. Ayoun (Ed.), Studies in French applied linguistics (pp. 97–134). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kallestinova, E
(2007) Three stages of root infinitive production in early child Russian. First Language, 271, 99–131. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kegl, J
(1994) The Nicaraguan sign language project: An overview. Signpost, 71, 24–46.Google Scholar
Klein, W., & Perdue, C
(1997) The basic variety (or: Couldn’t natural languages be much simpler?). Second Language Research, 131, 301–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ko, H., Ionin, T., & Wexler, K
(2010) The role of presupposionality in the second language acquisition of English articles. Linguistic Inquiry, 411, 213–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krashen, S
(1985) The Input Hypothesis. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lardiere, D
(1998) Dissociating syntax from morphology in divergent end-state grammars. Second Language Research, 141, 359–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Revisiting the comparative fallacy: A reply to Lakshmanan & Selinker (2001). Second Language Research, 191, 129–143.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2009) Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 251, 173–227. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lebeaux, D
(1988) Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Lenneberg, E
(1967) The biological foundations of language. New York: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leonard, L
(2000) Specific language impairment across languages. In D.V.M. Bishop & L.B. Leonard (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 J. Clibbens & B. Pendleton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Child Language Seminar (pp. 93–107). Plymouth, UK: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
Liceras, J., Bel, A., & Perales, S
(2006) Living with optionality: Root infinitives, bare forms and inflected forms in child null subject languages. In N. Sagarra & A.J. Toribio (Eds.), Selected Proceedings of the 9th Hispanic Linguistics Symposium (pp. 203–216). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lindner, K
(2002) Finiteness and children with specific language impairment: An exploratory study. Linguistics, 401, 797–847. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Louden, M.L
(1999) Incomplete L1 acquisition: The morphosyntax of Kaspar Hauser. In A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield, & C. Tano (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 419–430). Somerville: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Lust, B
(2006) Child language. Acquisition and growth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGuckian, M., & Henry, A
(2003) Grammatical morpheme omission in children with hearing impairment acquiring spoken English. In B. Beachley, A. Brown, & F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 519–530). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Meisel, J.M., & Müller, N
(1992) Finiteness and verb placement in early child grammars. In J.M. Meisel (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition (pp. 109–138). Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mills, A
(1985) The acquisition of German. In D.I. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 11 (pp. 141–254). London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Mogford, K
(1993) Oral language acquisition in the prelinguistically deaf. In D. Bishop & K. Mogford (Eds.), Language development in exceptional circumstances (pp. 110–131). Hove: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Myles, F
(2004) From data to theory. Transactions of the Philological Society, 1021, 139–168. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2005) The emergence of morphosyntax in classroom learners of French. In J.-M. Dewaele (Ed.), Focus on French as a foreign language: Multidisciplinary approaches (pp. 88–113). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newport, E
(1990) Maturational constraints on language learning. Cognitive Science, 141, 11–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orfitelli, R., & Hyams, N
(2008) An experimental study of children’s comprehension of null subjects: Implications for grammatical/performance accounts. In H. Chan, H. Jacob, & E. Kapia (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 335–346). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, J., & Crago, M
(2001) The morphosyntax of specific language impairment in French: Evidence for an extended optional default account. Language Acquisition, 91, 269–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paradis, J., Rice, M., Crago, M., & Marquis, J
(2008) The acquisition of tense in English: Distinguishing child L2 from L1 and SLI. Applied Psycholinguistics, 291, 1–34.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Penner, Z., & Roeper, T
(1998) Trigger theory and the acquisition of complement idioms. In N. Dittmar & Z. Penner (Eds.), Essays in language acquisition. Festschrift in honor of Jürgen Weissenborn (pp. 77–112). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Phillips, C
(1995) Syntax at age two: Cross-linguistic differences. In C. Schütze, J. Ganger, & K. Broihier (Eds.), Papers on language processing and acquisition (pp. 225–282). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M
(1981) Der Zweitspracherberb ausländischer Arbeiterkinder. Bonn: Bouvier Verlag Herbert Grundmann.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D., & Wexler, K
(1993) The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language, 691, 1–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Powers, S
(1995) The acquisition of pronouns in Dutch and English: The case for continuity. In D. MacLaughlin & S. McEwen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 439–450). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Prévost, P
(1997) Truncation in second language acquisition. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
(2003) Truncation and missing inflection in initial child L2 German. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 251, 65–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L
(2000a) Missing surface inflection or impairment in second language acquisition. Evidence from tense and agreement. Second Language Research, 161, 103–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000b) Finiteness and variability in SLA: More evidence for missing surface inflection. In A. Greenhill, H. Littlefield, & C. Tano (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 575–586). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Prévost, P., & White, L.
(2000c) Accounting for morphological variation in second language acquisition: Truncation or missing inflection? In M.A. Friedman & L. Rizzi (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax: Studies in comparative developmental linguistics (pp. 202–235). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Radford, A
(1990) Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
(1995) Children: Architects or brickies? In D. MacLaughlin & S. McEwen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19th Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 1–19). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Rice, M., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P
(1995) Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 381, 850–863. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rice, M., & Wexler, K
(1996) A phenotype of specific language impairment: Extended optional infinitives. In M. Rice (Ed.), Toward a genetics of language (pp. 215–237). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L.
(1993/4) Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition, 31, 371–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L
(2005) On the grammatical basis of language development: A case study. In G. Cinque & R. Kayne (Eds.), Handbook of comparative syntax (pp. 70–109). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T
(1996) The role of merger theory and formal features in acquisition. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp. 415–449). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rohrbacher, B., & Vainikka, A
(1994) Verbs and subjects before age 2: The earliest stages in Germanic L1 acquisition. In J. Beckman (Ed.), Proceedings of NELS 25, vol. 21 (pp. 55–69). Amherst, MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Sakus, W.G., & Fodor, J.D
(2001) The structural triggers learner. In S. Bertolo (Ed.), Language acquisition and learnability (pp. 172–233). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, B.D., & Sprouse, R
(1996) L2 cognitive states and the Full Transfer/Full Access model. Second Language Research, 121, 40–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Senghas, A., Kita, S., & Özyürek, A
(2004) Children creating core properties of language: Evidence from an emerging sign language in Nicaragua. Science, 3051, 1779–1782. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thordardottir, E.T., Chapman, R.S., & Wagner, L
(2002) Complex sentence production by adolescents with Down syndrome. Applied Psycholinguistics, 231, 163–183. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A
(1993/4) Case in the development of English syntax. Language Acquisition, 31, 257–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vainikka, A., & Young-Scholten, M
(1994) Direct access to X’-theory: Evidence from Korean and Turkish adults learning German. In T. Hoekstra & B.D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Papers in honor of Kenneth Wexler from the 1991 GLOW Workshops (pp. 265–316). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1996) The early stages in adult L2 syntax: Additional evidence from Romance speakers. Second Language Research, 121, 140–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2002) Restructuring the CP in L2 German. In B. Skarabela, S. Fish, & A.H.-J. Do (Eds.), Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD) (pp. 712–722). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. & Young-Scholten, M
(2011) The acquisition of German. Introducing organic grammar. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Varlokosta, S., Vainikka, A., & Rohrbacher, B
(1998) Functional projections, markedness and ‘root infinitives’ in early child Greek. The Linguistic Review, 151, 187–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Webelhuth, G
(1995) X-bar theory and case theory. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and binding theory and the Minimalist Program (pp. 15–95). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Wexler, K
(1998) Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 1061, 23–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2000) Three problems in the theory of the optional infinitive stage: Stage/individual predicates, eventive verbs and finite null-subjects. Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, 191, 560–573.Google Scholar
(2004) Theory of phrasal development: Perfection in child grammar. In A. Csirmaz, A. Gualmini, & A. Nevins (Eds.), Plato’s problems: Papers on language acquisition (pp. 159–209). Cambridge, MA: MITWPL.Google 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. Language Acquisition, 71, 317–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L
(1989) Universal Grammar and second language acquisition. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yamada-Yamamoto, A
(1993) The acquisition of English syntax by a Japanese-speaking child: With special emphasis on the VO-sequence acquisition. In J. Clibbens & B. Pendleton (Eds.), Proceedings of the Child Language Seminar (pp. 109–120). Plymouth, UK: University of Plymouth.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, R
(2008) Encoding the addressee in syntax: Evidence from English imperative subjects. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 261, 185–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Hsin, Lisa & Geraldine Legendre
2019. Strong Integration in bilingual grammar, formalized. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 9:3 ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 april 2024. 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.