Article published in:
Three Factors and Beyond: Socio-syntax and language acquisition
Edited by Kleanthes K. Grohmann
[Linguistic Variation 14:1] 2014
► pp. 26–45

Linguistic variation and micro-cues in first language acquisition

| University of Tromsø
Children are often exposed to considerable variation in the input. Nevertheless, there is very little overgeneralization in child language data and children are typically found to make errors of omission, not errors of commission, a fact which is often referred to as conservative learning. In this paper, these findings are accounted for by a model of micro-cues, a generative approach to language acquisition arguing that children are sensitive to fine syntactic distinctions from early on. The micro-cues are small pieces of abstract syntactic structure resulting from parsing the input. This means that UG provides children with principles, features, and the ability to parse, but not the micro-cues themselves, which are considered to be part of the knowledge of a specific language. The model also considers children’s errors to generally be due to economy and the language acquisition process to be development in small steps, from specific to more general knowledge. Keywords: Conservative learning; economy; English; grammar competition; Norwegian; (over- and under)generalization; parameter; rule “size”; word order
Published online: 25 November 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/lv.14.1.02wes
References

References

Allen, S.E.M. & Heike Schröder
2003 Preferred argument structure in early Inuktitut spontaneous speech data. In J.W. Du Bois, L.E. Kumpf & W.J. Ashby (eds.), Preferred argument structure: Grammar as architecture for function, 301–338. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M.
2006 The acquisition of compositional definiteness in Norwegian. Ph. D. dissertation, University of Tromsø.
Anderssen, M., K. Bentzen, Y. Rodina & M. Westergaard
2010 The acquisition of apparent optionality: Word order in subject and object shift constructions in Norwegian. In M. Anderssen, K. Bentzen & M. Westergaard (eds.), Variation in the input: Studies in the acquisition of word order. [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics 39], 241–270. Dordrecht: Springer Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M. & K. Bentzen
2012 Norwegian object shift as IP-internal topicalization. Nordlyd 39(1). 1–23. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M., K. Bentzen & Y. Rodina
2012 Topicality and complexity in the acquisition of Norwegian object shift. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 19(1). 39–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M., Y. Rodina, R. Mykhaylyk & P. Fikkert
2014 The acquisition of the dative alternation in Norwegian. Language Acquisition: A Journal of Developmental Linguistics 21(1). 72–102. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Anderssen, M. & M. Westergaard
2010 Frequency and economy in the acquisition of variable word order. Lingua 120(11). 2569–2588. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Tospråklighet og ordstilling i norske possessivkonstruksjoner. [Bilingualism and word order in Norwegian possessive constructions]. Norsk Lingvistisk Tidsskrift 30. 170–197.Google Scholar
Ambridge, B. & E. Lieven
2011 Child language acquisition: Contrasting theoretical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bentzen, K., M. Anderssen & C. Waldmann
2013 Object Shift in Mainland Scandinavian: A corpus study of Danish, Norwegian and Swedish. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 36(2). 115–151. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biberauer, T. & I. Roberts
2012 Towards a parameter hierarchy for auxiliaries: Diachronic considerations. Cambridge occasional papers in linguistics 6. 267–294.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N.
1981 Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
1986 Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
2005 Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry 36. 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J.
1991 Why questions? In T.L. Maxfield & B. Plunkett (eds.), Papers in the acquisition of wh: Proceedings of the Umass Roundtable, May 1990. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers.Google Scholar
Filiaci, F., A. Sorace & M. Carreiras
2014 Anaphoric biases of null and overt subjects in Italian and Spanish: A cross-linguistic comparison. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience 825–843. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J.D.
1998 Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 29(1). 1–36. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, E. van
2004 Grammaticalization as economy. [Linguistik Aktuell 71]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, P. & K. Wexler
1994 Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry 25. 355–407.Google Scholar
Gordishevsky, G. & S. Avrutin
2004 Optional omissions in an optionally null subject language. In J. van Kampen & S. Baauw (eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2003, Vol. 1 [LOT Occasional Series 3], 187–198. University of Utrecht.
Hyams, N.
1986 Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D.
1999 The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2006 How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lødrup, H.
2011 Norwegian possessive pronouns: Phrases, words or suffixes? In M. Butt & T.H. King (eds.), Proceedings of the LFG11 conference, 383–403. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mykhaylyk, R.
2011 Middle object scrambling. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 19(2). 231–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Factors contributing to child scrambling: Evidence from Ukrainian. Journal of Child Language 39(03). 553–579. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mykhaylyk, R., Y. Rodina & M. Anderssen
2013 Ditransitive constructions in Russian and Ukrainian: Effect of givenness on word order. Lingua 137. 271–289. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, I.
2007 Diachronic syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T.
1999 Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3). 169–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W.
2007 Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, W. & D. Lillo-Martin
2011 Principles and parameters theory and language acquisition. In P. Hogan (ed.), The Cambridge encyclopedia of the language sciences, 670–673. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, R.
2008 Why continuity? Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 26. 107–146. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M.
2003 Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
2006 Acquiring linguistic constructions. In D. Kuhn & R. Siegler (eds.), Handbook of child psychology, 255–298. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Valian, V.
1990 Null subjects: A problem for parameter-setting models of language acquisition. Cognition 35(2). 105–122. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1991 Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40. 21–81. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Vangsnes, Ø. A.
2005 Microparameters for Norwegian wh-grammars. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5. 187–226. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Waldmann, C.
2008 Input och output: Ordföljd i svenska barns huvudsatser och bisatser [Input and output: Word order in Swedish children’s main and embedded clauses]. Ph. D. dissertation, Lundastudier A 65, University of Lund.
2011 Moving in small steps towards verb second: A case study. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 34(3). 331–359. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M.
2004 The interaction of input and UG in the acquisition of verb movement in a dialect of Norwegian. Nordlyd: Tromsø working papers in language acquisition 32(1). 110–134.Google Scholar
2008a Verb movement and subject placement in the acquisition of word order: Pragmatics or structural economy? In P. Guijarro-Fuentes, P. Larranaga & J. Clibbens (eds.), First language acquisition of morphology and syntax: Perspectives across languages and learners. [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 45], 61–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008b Acquisition and change: On the robustness of the triggering experience for word order cues. Lingua 118(12). 1841–1863. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009a The Acquisition of word order: Micro-cues, information structure and economy. [Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 145], Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009b Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(1). 49–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009c Usage-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
2011 Subject positions and information structure: The effect of frequency on acquisition and change. Studia Linguistica 3. 299–332. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 The acquisition of linguistic variation: Parameters vs. micro-cues. In T. Lohndal (ed.), In search of universal grammar: From Old Norse to Zoque, 275–298. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2014 Complexity and conflicting grammars in language acquisition. Second Language Research 30(1). 85–89. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. Word order and finiteness in acquisition: A study of English and Norwegian wh-questions. In K.M. Eide (ed.) Finiteness matters. On finiteness-related phenomena in natural language Amsterdam John Benjamins
Westergaard, M. & K. Bentzen
2007 The (Non-)effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses. In I. Gülzow & N. Gagarina (eds.), Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept. [Studies on Language Acquisition], 271–306. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010 Word order and finiteness in the acquisition of English and Norwegian wh-questions. In K. Franich, K.M. Iserman & L.L. Keil (eds.), Proceedings of the 34th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Vol. 2, 457–467. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M., Ø. A. Vangsnes & T. Lohndal
2012 Norwegian som: The complementizer that climbed to the matrix left periphery and caused verb second violations. In V. Bianchi & C. Chesi (eds.), Enjoy linguistics! Papers offered to Luigi Rizzi on the occasion of his 60th birthday, 329–343. Siena: CISCL Press.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. & M. Anderssen
Forthcoming. Word order variation in Norwegian possessive constructions: Bilingual acquisition and attrition. In J.B. Johannessen & J. Salmons (eds.) Germanic heritage languages in North America: Acquisition, attrition and change Studies in Language Variation Amsterdam John Benjamins Crossref
Wexler, K.
1999 Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. In A. Sorace, C. Heycock & R. Shillock (eds.), Language acquisition: Knowledge representation and processing, special issue of Lingua, 23–79. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Yang, C.
2002 Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2010 Universal Grammar, statistics or both? In C. Yang (ed.), Language acquisition: Critical concepts in linguistics II, 128–140. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by other publications

Anderssen, Merete, Kristine Bentzen, Guro Busterud, Anne Dahl, Björn Lundquist & Marit Westergaard
2018. The acquisition of word order in L2 Norwegian: The case of subject and object shift. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 41:3 ► pp. 247 ff. Crossref logo
ANDERSSEN, MERETE, BJÖRN LUNDQUIST & MARIT WESTERGAARD
2018. Cross-linguistic similarities and differences in bilingual acquisition and attrition: Possessives and double definiteness in Norwegian heritage language. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 21:4 ► pp. 748 ff. Crossref logo
Anderssen, Merete & Marit Westergaard
2020.  In Lost in Transmission [Studies in Bilingualism, 59], ► pp. 100 ff. Crossref logo
Fábregas, Antonio, Merete Anderssen & Marit Westergaard
2019. A comparison of Norwegian and Spanish L1 acquisition of possessive constructions. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 115 ff. Crossref logo
Ionin, Tania
2020. Property-by-property acquisition of a second language: What transfers, under what conditions, and how does recovery from transfer proceed?. Second Language Research ► pp. 026765832093452 ff. Crossref logo
Kush, Dave & Anne Dahl
2020. L2 transfer of L1 island-insensitivity: The case of Norwegian. Second Language Research ► pp. 026765832095670 ff. Crossref logo
Lundquist, Björn & Anne Dahl
2019. Introduction from our guest editors. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 22:2 ► pp. 109 ff. Crossref logo
OGAWA, Yoshiki
2018. Diachronic Syntactic Change and Language Acquisition: A View from Nominative/Genitive Conversion in Japanese. Interdisciplinary Information Sciences 24:2 ► pp. 91 ff. Crossref logo
Putnam, Michael
2017. Feature reassembly as constraint satisfaction. The Linguistic Review 34:3 Crossref logo
Putnam, Michael T.
2020.  In New Trends in Language Acquisition Within the Generative Perspective [Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics, 49], ► pp. 3 ff. Crossref logo
Rothman, Jason, Fatih Bayram, Tanja Kupisch, Terje Lohndal & Marit Westergaard
2018.  In The Handbook of Advanced Proficiency in Second Language Acquisition, ► pp. 72 ff. Crossref logo
Schwartz, Bonnie D. & Rex A. Sprouse
2020. The Full Transfer/Full Access model and L3 cognitive states. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism Crossref logo
Westergaard, Marit
2015.  Complexity in child and adult language acquisition . Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism 5:4 ► pp. 541 ff. Crossref logo
Westergaard, Marit
2019. Microvariation in multilingual situations: The importance of property-by-property acquisition. Second Language Research ► pp. 026765831988411 ff. Crossref logo
Westergaard, Marit
2019. Overgeneralization and change: The role of acquisition in diachrony. Theoretical Linguistics 45:3-4 ► pp. 225 ff. Crossref logo
Westergaard, Marit
2020.  In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, ► pp. 357 ff. Crossref logo
Westergaard, Marit
2020. Attrition via acquisition: The importance of development in small steps: A Commentary on ‘A model for L1 grammatical attrition’. Second Language Research 36:2 ► pp. 219 ff. Crossref logo
Westergaard, Marit, Natalia Mitrofanova, Roksolana Mykhaylyk & Yulia Rodina
2017. Crosslinguistic influence in the acquisition of a third language: The Linguistic Proximity Model. International Journal of Bilingualism 21:6 ► pp. 666 ff. Crossref logo
Westergaard, Marit, Øystein A. Vangsnes & Terje Lohndal
2017. Variation and change in Norwegian wh-questions. Linguistic Variation 17:1 ► pp. 8 ff. Crossref logo
Wrembel, Magdalena
2020. Multilingual acquisition property by property: A view from a wider perspective. Second Language Research ► pp. 026765832093516 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 january 2021. 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.