Cover not available
Article published In:
Epistemological issue with keynote article “The illusion of language acquisition” by William O’Grady
[Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 3:3] 2013
► pp. 253–285
epistemological-paper

The illusion of language acquisition

| University of Hawai’i at Manoa
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The Amelioration Hypothesis
  • 3.Word order in first language acquisition
    • 3.1Learning to process word order
    • 3.2How the processor can subsume the duties of the grammar
    • 3.3Summary
  • 4.Scope in first language acquisition
    • 4.1The UG account
    • 4.2The processing account
      • 4.2.1 English
      • 4.2.2 Korean
    • 4.3Summary
  • 5.Scope in second language acquisition
    • 5.1The UG account
    • 5.2The processing account
      • 5.2.1 English as a second language
      • 5.2.2 Korean as a second language
    • 5.3Summary
  • 6.Scope in bilingual acquisition
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 16 September 2013
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lab.3.3.01ogr
References
Akhtar, N
(1999) Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language 261, 339–356. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, B., & Lieven, E
(2011) Child language acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, E., & MacWhinney, B
(1987) Competition, variation, and language learning. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 157–193). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
(1988) What is functionalism? Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 271, 137–152.Google Scholar
Bybee, J., & McClelland, J.
2005 Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on general principles of human cognition. The Linguistic Review 221, 381–410. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cai, Z., Patrick, S., & Pickering, M
(2012) The effect of non-adopted analyses on sentence processing. Language and Cognitive Processes 271, 1286–1311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplan, D., & Waters, G
(1999) Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 221, 77–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carey, S
(1978) The child as word learner. In J. Bresnan, G. Miller, & M. Halled (Eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality (pp. 264–293). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M
(2009) Children’s understanding of the agent–patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics 201, 267–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G., & Bock, K
(2006) Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 1131, 234–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chater, N., & Manning, C
(2006) Probabilistic models of language processing and acquisition. Trends in Cognitive Science 101, 335–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H
(2008) Behavioral methods for investigating morphological and syntactic processing in children. In I. Sekerina, E. Fernández, & H. Clahsen (Eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children’s language processing (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crain, S. & Khlentzos, D
(2008) Is logic innate? Biolinguistics 21, 24–56.Google Scholar
Darwin, C.
(1874/1922) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. 2nd ed. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
Dryer, M
(1992) The Greenbergian word order correlations. Language 681, 81–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernald, A, Thorpe, K., & Marchman, V
(2010) Blue car, red car: Developing efficiency in online interpretation of adjective-noun phrases. Cognitive Psychology 601, 190–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferreira, F
(2003) The misinterpretation of noncanonical sentences. Cognitive Psychology 471, 164–203. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fitz, H, Chang, F., & Christiansen, M
(2011) A connectionist account of the acquisition and processing of relative clauses. In E. Kidd (Ed.), Trends in language acquisition (pp. 39–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.D
(1978) Parsing strategies and constraints on transformations. Linguistic Inquiry 91, 427–473.Google Scholar
Fodor, J., & Ferreira, F
(1998) Reanalysis in sentence processing. Dordrecht: Kluer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Franck, J., Millotte, S., & Lassotta, R
(2011) Early word order representations: Novel arguments against old contradictions. Language Acquisition 181, 121–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J.D
(1978) The sausage machine: A new two-stage parsing model. Cognition 61, 291–325. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
(2006) Constructions at work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Greenberg, J
(1963) Some universals of grammar with particular reference to the order of meaningful elements. In J. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of language (pp. 73–113). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grodner, D., & Gibson, E
(2005) Consequences of the serial nature of linguistic input for sentential complexity. Cognitive Science 291, 261–290. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hahn, H.-R
(2000) UG availability of Korean EFL learners: A longitudinal study of different age groups. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of English, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Han, C.-H., Lidz, J., & Musolino, J
(2007) V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry 381, 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, J
(2004) Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herschensohn, J
(2009) Fundamental and gradient differences in language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 311, 259–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H
(2010) Ultimate attainment in L2 inflection: Performance similarities between nonnative and native speakers. Lingua 1201, 901–931. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaeger, T.F., & Tily, H
(2011) On language ‘utility’: Processing complexity and communicative efficiency. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 21, 323–335.Google Scholar
Juffs, A., & Harrington, M
(1995) Parsing effects in L2 sentence processing: Subject and object asymmetries in wh-extraction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 171, 483–516. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jurafsky, D
(2003) Probabilistic modeling in psycholinguistics: Linguistic comprehension and production. In R. Bod, J. Hayy, & S. Jannedy (Eds.), Probabilistic linguistics (pp. 39–95). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Just, M., & Carpenter, P
(1992) A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 991, 122–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempson, R., Meyer-Viol, W., & Gabbay, D
(2001) Dynamic syntax: The flow of language understanding. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kidd, E
(2012) Implicit statistical learning is directly associated with the acquisition of syntax. Developmental Psychology 481, 171–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, H.-J
(2007) Acquisition of scope interaction of universal quantifiers and negation in Korean-English bilingual children. Available from [URL] Google Scholar
Kimball, J
(1973) Seven principles of surface structure parsing in natural language. Cognition 21, 15–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kiss, K
(2002) The syntax of Hungarian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwak, H.-Y
(2010) Scope interpretation in first and second language acquisition: Numeral quantifiers and negation. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Lee, M., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, S., & O’Grady, W
(2011) In H. Sohn, H. Cook, W. O’Grady, L. Serafim, & S. Cheon (Eds.), Processing, pragmatics, and scope in Korean and English. To appear in the Proceedings of the 19th Japanese-Korean Linguistics Conference (pp. 297–311). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Lee, S
(2009) Interpreting scope ambiguity in first and second language processing: Universal quantifiers and negation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Lewis, R, Vasishth, S., & Van Dyke, J
(2006) Computational principles of working memory in sentence comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Science 101, 447–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lidz, J., & Musolino, J
(2002) Children’s command of quantification. Cognition 841, 113–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M
(2008) Children’s first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In P. Robinson, & N. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 168–196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
McElree, B., Foraker, S., & Dyer, L
(2003) Memory structures that subserve sentence comprehension. Journal of Memory and Language 481, 67–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B
(1987) The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of language acquisition (pp. 249–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Matthews D, Lieven, E., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M
(2005) The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development, 201, 121–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Menn, L
(2000) Let’s face a simple question: Why is canonical form simple? Brain and Language 711, 157–159. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montrul, S
(2008) Incomplete acquisition in bilingualism: Re-examining the age factor. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolino, J., Crain, S., & Thornton, R
(2000) Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics 381, 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Musolino, J., & Lidz, J
(2006) Why children aren’t universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 441, 817–852. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W
(2005) Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahah, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2008) The emergentist program. Lingua, 1181, 447–464. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2010) An emergentist approach to syntax. In H. Narrog, & B. Heine (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 257–283). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2011) Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. In E. Kidd (Ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Processing, typology and function (pp. 13–38). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, M., & Lee, O.-S
(2011) An emergentist perspective on partial language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 331, 323–345. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Grady, W., Lee, M., & Kwak, H.-Y
(2009) Emergentism and second language acquisition. In W. Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), The new handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 69–88). Bingley, UK: Emerald Press.Google Scholar
Paradis, M
(2004) A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Park, M.-S
(1997) A study on the English verb pattern acquisition process of Korean students. M.A. thesis, Department of English Education, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Pienemann, M
(2005) An introduction to processability theory. In M. Pienemann (Ed.), Crosslinguistic aspects of processability theory (pp. 1–60). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roberts, L., & Felser, C
(2011) Plausibility and recovery from garden paths in second language sentence processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 321, 299–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sagarra, N., & Herschensohn, J
(2010) The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua 1201, 2022–2039. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, R.K
(2003) Emergence in creativity and development. In R. Sawyer, V. John-Steiner, S. Moran, R. Sternberg, D. Feldman, H. Gardner, J. Nakamura, & M. Csikszentmihalyi, Creativity and development (pp. 12–59). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M., & MacDonald, M
(1999) A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 231, 569–588. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Song, H.-J., & Fisher, C
(2007) Discourse prominence effects on 2.5-year-old children’s interpretation of pronouns. Lingua 1171, 1959–1987. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steedman, M
(2000) The syntactic process. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sturt, P
(2007) Semantic re-interpretation and garden path recovery. Cognition 1051, 477–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sturt, P., Pickering, M., Scheepers, C., & Crocker, M
(2001) The preservation of structure in language comprehension: Is reanalysis the last resort? Journal of Memory and Language 451, 283–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M
(2003) Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, S., & Newport, E
(2007) Statistical learning of syntax: The role of transitional probability. Language Learning and Development 31, 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Townsend, D., & Bever, T
(2001) Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trueswell, J., Sekerina, I., Hill, N., & Logrip, M
(1999) The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 731, 89–134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Truscott, J., & Sharwood-Smith, M
(2004) Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 71, 1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werker, J., Lloyd, V., Pegg, J., & Polka, L
(1996) Putting the baby in the bootstraps: Toward a more complete understanding of the role of the input in infant speech processing. In J. Morgan, & K. Demuth (Eds.), Signal to syntax (pp. 427–447). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
White, L
(2003) Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambrige University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, C
(2004) Universal Grammar, statistics or both? Trends in Cognitive Science 81, 451–456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 34 other publications

Blanchette, Frances, Erin Flannery, Carrie Jackson & Paul Reed
2024. Adaptation at the Syntax–Semantics Interface: Evidence From a Vernacular Structure. Language and Speech 67:1 ► pp. 140 ff. DOI logo
Chater, Nick & Morten H Christiansen
2018. Language acquisition as skill learning. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 21 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Chater, Nick & Morten H. Christiansen
2016. Squeezing through the Now-or-Never bottleneck: Reconnecting language processing, acquisition, change, and structure. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39 DOI logo
Chater, Nick, Stewart M. McCauley & Morten H. Christiansen
2016. Language as skill: Intertwining comprehension and production. Journal of Memory and Language 89 ► pp. 244 ff. DOI logo
Christiansen, Morten H. & Nick Chater
2016. The Now-or-Never bottleneck: A fundamental constraint on language. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39 DOI logo
Eghbaria-Ghanamah, Hazar, Rafat Ghanamah, Yasmin Shalhoub-Awwad & Avi Karni
2021. Recitation as a structured intervention to enhance the long-term verbatim retention and gist recall of complex texts in kindergarteners. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 203 ► pp. 105054 ff. DOI logo
Jo, Kyuhee, Kitaek Kim & Hyunwoo Kim
2021. Children's interpretation of negation and quantifier scope in L3 English. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 24:3 ► pp. 427 ff. DOI logo
Kempson, Ruth, Ronnie Cann, Eleni Gregoromichelaki & Stergios Chatzikyriakidis
2016. Language as Mechanisms for Interaction. Theoretical Linguistics 42:3-4 DOI logo
Lau, Elaine
2016. The role of resumptive pronouns in Cantonese relative clause acquisition. First Language 36:4 ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
McManus, Kevin
2021. Examining the effectiveness of language-switching practice for reducing cross-language competition in L2 grammatical processing. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 24:1 ► pp. 167 ff. DOI logo
McManus, Kevin & Emma Marsden
2018. ONLINE AND OFFLINE EFFECTS OF L1 PRACTICE IN L2 GRAMMAR LEARNING. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40:2 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
MCMANUS, KEVIN & EMMA MARSDEN
2019. Using Explicit Instruction About L1 to Reduce Crosslinguistic Effects in L2 Grammar Learning: Evidence From Oral Production in L2 French . The Modern Language Journal 103:2 ► pp. 459 ff. DOI logo
MCMANUS, KEVIN & EMMA MARSDEN
2019. Signatures of automaticity during practice: Explicit instruction about L1 processing routines can improve L2 grammatical processing. Applied Psycholinguistics 40:1 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
O'GRADY, WILLIAM
2015. Frequency effects and processing. Journal of Child Language 42:2 ► pp. 294 ff. DOI logo
O'Grady, William
2015. Anaphora and the Case for Emergentism. In The Handbook of Language Emergence, ► pp. 100 ff. DOI logo
O'Grady, William
2015. Processing Determinism. Language Learning 65:1 ► pp. 6 ff. DOI logo
O'Grady, William
2015. Language Development: Emergentist Theories. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, ► pp. 313 ff. DOI logo
O'Grady, William
2016. Processing cost and its consequences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 39 DOI logo
O'Grady, William & Myong Hee Choi
2015. Second Language Acquisition. In The Handbook of Korean Linguistics, ► pp. 355 ff. DOI logo
O’Grady, William
2022. Chapter 8. A calculus for L1 transfer. In Second Language Acquisition Theory [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 14], ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
O’Grady, William & Chae-Eun Kim
2021. The Emergence of Heritage Language. In The Cambridge Handbook of Heritage Languages and Linguistics, ► pp. 399 ff. DOI logo
Rothman, Jason, Jorge González Alonso & Eloi Puig-Mayenco
2019. Third Language Acquisition and Linguistic Transfer, DOI logo
Shin, Gyu-Ho
2017. Developmental aspects of English argument structure constructions for Korean-speaking second language learners: Usage-based constructional approaches to language development. Ampersand 4 ► pp. 10 ff. DOI logo
Sperlich, Darcy
2020. A Theoretical Synthesis. In Reflexive Pronouns: A Theoretical and Experimental Synthesis [Language, Cognition, and Mind, 8], ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Sperlich, Darcy
2020. A Final Synthesis. In Reflexive Pronouns: A Theoretical and Experimental Synthesis [Language, Cognition, and Mind, 8], ► pp. 173 ff. DOI logo
Sperlich, Darcy
2020. An Experimental Synthesis. In Reflexive Pronouns: A Theoretical and Experimental Synthesis [Language, Cognition, and Mind, 8], ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
TREFFERS-DALLER, JEANINE, MICHAEL DALLER, REYHAN FURMAN & JASON ROTHMAN
2016. Ultimate attainment in the use of collocations among heritage speakers of Turkish in Germany and Turkish–German returnees. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 19:3 ► pp. 504 ff. DOI logo
UNSWORTH, SHARON
2016. Early child L2 acquisition: Age or input effects? Neither, or both?. Journal of Child Language 43:3 ► pp. 608 ff. DOI logo
Vainio, Seppo, Anneli Pajunen & Jukka Hyönä
2016. Processing modifier–head agreement in L1 and L2 Finnish: An eye-tracking study. Second Language Research 32:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
곽혜영
2017. A Study of Korean Speakers’ Interpretive Patterns for Korean Sentences Containing the Universal Quantifier motun and Long-Form Negation with the Particle –nun. The Journal of Korean Studies null:60 ► pp. 171 ff. DOI logo
김소영 & 곽혜영
2018. Study on Korean EFL learners’ interpretive preferences in the comprehension of English sentences containing numeral quantifiers and negation in a neutral context.. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 18:4 ► pp. 535 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Research Approaches to Heritage Languages. In The Cambridge Handbook of Heritage Languages and Linguistics, ► pp. 373 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2021. Chapter 6. Processing modern standard Arabic transitive sentences. In Input Processing and Processing Instruction [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 11], ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2022. Bilingualism, Language Development and Processing across the Lifespan [Bilingual Processing and Acquisition, 15], 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.