Abstract
This paper examines very early child grammars from the minimalist perspective. It discusses the well-known erroneous strings very young children produce such as Root Infinitives in English and their Japanese counterparts, preverbal object sentences in English, and sentences without Case markers in Japanese. The main question to be addressed is whether those sentences children produce are labeled, and if so, how the labeling takes place. Assuming that ϕ-feature agreement and suffixal Case markers play crucial roles for labeling in English and Japanese respectively (Chomsky 2013; Saito 2016), I consider two possibilities. One is that children are equipped with those almost from the outset although they are not phonetically realized. This means that even the erroneous strings children produced are properly labeled. The other is that those strings are not labeled in the adult way and that children at the relevant stage are still in the process of figuring out how the {XP, YP} structure is labeled in their respective languages. I argue that the latter is a viable possibility, given the parameterization in the labeling mechanism, and receives support from the child data as well. This conclusion implies that a main part of the acquisition of syntax is for a child to discover how her/his target language labels the {XP, YP} structure.
Funding statement: This work was supported by NINJAL, JSPS Kakenhi Grant (Number 17K02752) and Pache Research Subsidy I-A (2018, 2019) of Nanzan University.
Acknowledgements
I would like to sincerely thank Mamoru Saito, Željko Bošković, Koji Sugisaki, Daiko Takahashi, Tomoko Kawamura, and the project members of Generative Perspectives on the Syntax and Acquisition in Japanese, a collaborative research project at the National Institute for Japanese Language and Linguistics. Special thanks go to two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable suggestions and comments for this paper.
References
Bloom, Lois. 1970. Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Bošković, Željko. 2007. On the locality and motivation of move and agree: An even more minimal theory. Linguistic Inquiry 38. 589–644.10.1162/ling.2007.38.4.589Search in Google Scholar
Bowerman, Melissa. 1973. Structural relationships in children’s utterances: Semantic or syntactic? In Timothy E. Moore (ed.), Cognitive development and the acquisition of language, 197–213. New York: Academic Press.10.1016/B978-0-12-505850-6.50015-3Search in Google Scholar
Braine, Martin. 1963. The ontogeny of English phrase structure: The first phase. Language 39. 1–14.10.2307/410757Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stage. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674732469Search in Google Scholar
Brown, Roger, Courtney Cazden & Ursula Bellugi-Klima. 1968. The child’s grammar from I to III. In John P. Hill (ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology: Volume 2, 28–73. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1994. Bare phrase structure. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics 5. Cambridge, Mass: MIT.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2008. On phases. In Robert Freidin, Carlos P. Otero & Maria Luisa Zubizarreta (eds.), Foundational issues in linguistic theory, 133–167. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2013. Problems of projection. Lingua 130. 33–49.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.12.003Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2015. Problems of projection: Extensions. In Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (eds.), Structures, strategies, and beyond, 1–16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.223.01choSearch in Google Scholar
Deen, Kamil. 2002. The omission of inflection prefixes in the acquisition of Nairobi Swahili. UCLA dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Galasso, Joseph. 1999. The acquisition of functional categories: A case study. Colchester, UK: University of Essex dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Galasso, Joseph. 2001. Verbs and nouns: INFL and the emergence of DP. Northridge: California State University, Northridge ms.Search in Google Scholar
Gruber, Jeffrey S. 1967. Topicalization in child language. Foundations of Language 3. 37–65.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Tony & Kenneth Wexler. 1996. The optional-infinitive stage in child English. In Harald Clahsen (ed.), Generative perspectives in language acquisition, 1–42. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lald.14.05harSearch in Google Scholar
Hoekstra, Teun & Nina Hyams. 1998. Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua 106. 91–112.10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00030-8Search in Google Scholar
Kato, Sachiko, Yumi Sato, Yukiko Takeda, Ritsuko Miyoshi, Yumi Sakai & Masatoshi Koizumi. 2003. Root infinitives: Nihongo karano kensho [Root infinitives: From the perspectives of Japanese]. Tohoku University Linguistics Journal 12. 113–127.Search in Google Scholar
Kim, Meesook & Colin Phillips. 1998. Complex verb construction in child Korean: Overt markers of covert functional structure. Boston University Conference on Language Development 22, 430–441.Search in Google Scholar
Koizumi, Masatoshi. 1999. Object shift in early child English. Proceedings of the Nanzan GLOW. 231–237.Search in Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Search in Google Scholar
Miller, Wick & Susan Ervin. 1964. The development of grammar in child language. In Ursula Bellugi & Roger Brown (eds.), The acquisition of language, monographs of the society for research in child development, 29. 9–34. Wiley.10.2307/1165752Search in Google Scholar
Miyahara, Kazuko & Hidekazu Miyahara. 1973. First phrase of the grammatical development in a Japanese child. In Proceedings of the 37th Annual Convention of the Japanese Psychological Association, 349–350. Tokyo.Search in Google Scholar
Murasugi, Keiko. 2015. Root infinitive analogues in child Japanese. In Mineharu Nakayama (ed.), Handbook of Japanese psycholinguistics, 117–147. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9781614511212-011Search in Google Scholar
Murasugi, Keiko & Chisato Fuji. 2008. Root infinitives: The parallel routes the Japanese- and Korean- speaking children step in. Paper presented at Japanese/Korean Linguistic Conference 18, City University of New York, 13 November. (Paper appeared in Japanese/Korean Linguistics 19, Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 2011, 527–541.).Search in Google Scholar
Murasugi, Keiko & Chisato Fuji. 2009. Root infinitives in Japanese and the late acquisition of head-movement. Boston University Conference on Language Development 33 Supplement. http://www.bu.edu/bucld/proceedings/supplement/vol33/.Search in Google Scholar
Murasugi, Keiko, Chisato Fuji & Tomoko Hashimoto. 2007. What’s acquired later in an agglutinative language. Paper presented at Asian GLOW VI, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 27 December.Search in Google Scholar
Murasugi, Keiko, Tomomi Nakatani & Chisato Fuji. 2009. The roots of root infinitive analogues: The surrogate verb forms common in adult and child grammars. Poster presented at the 34th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (BUCLD), Boston University, 7 November. (Paper appeared in the Boston University Conference on Language Development 34 Proceedings Online Supplement, 2010.)Search in Google Scholar
Noji, Junya. 1973–1977. Youji no Gengoseikatu no Jittai I-IV [A longitudinal study of Japanese language acquisition]. Tokyo: Bunka Hyoron Shuppan.Search in Google Scholar
Okubo, Ai. 1967. Yooji Gengo no Hattatsu [The development of children’s language]. Tokyo: Tokyodoo.Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1995. Syntax at age two: Cross-linguistic differences. In Papers on language processing and acquisition, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26. 325–382.10.1080/10489221003621167Search in Google Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 1996. Root infinitives are finite. Proceedings of the 20th annual Boston university conference on language development (BUCLD 20), 588–599.Search in Google Scholar
Pierce, Amy. 1992. Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English child grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-011-2574-1Search in Google Scholar
Poeppel, David & Kenneth Wexler. 1993. The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language 69. 1–33.10.2307/416414Search in Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1990. A syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1996. Towards a structure building model of acquisition. In Harald Clahsen (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition, 43–90. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/lald.14.06radSearch in Google Scholar
Rispoli, Matthew. 1994. Pronoun case overextensions and paradigm building. Journal of Child Language 21. 157–172.10.1017/S0305000900008709Search in Google Scholar
Rispoli, Matthew. 1999. Case and agreement in language development. Journal of Child Language 26. 357–372.10.1017/S0305000999003761Search in Google Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1993/1994. Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 3. 371–393.10.1207/s15327817la0304_2Search in Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 1983. Case and government in Japanese. Proceedings of the second west-coast conference on formal linguistics (WCCFL2), 247–259. Stanford Linguistic Association.Search in Google Scholar
Saito, Mamoru. 2016. (A) case for labeling: Labeling in languages without ϕ-feature agreement. The Linguistic Review 33(1). 129–176.10.1515/tlr-2015-0017Search in Google Scholar
Sano, Tetsuya. 1995. Roots in language acquisition: A comparative study of Japanese and European languages. University of California, Los Angeles dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson T. & Kenneth Wexler. 1996. Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. In Andy Strngfellow, Dalia Cahana-Amitay, Elizabeth Hughes & Andrea Zukowski (eds.), Boston university conference on language development Vol. 20, 670–681. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Search in Google Scholar
Takahashi, Daiko. This Issue. Derivational argument ellipsis.Search in Google Scholar
Weissenborn, Jürgen. 1990. Null subjects in early grammars: Implications for parameter setting theories. In Jürgen Weissenborn, Helen Goodluck & Thomas Roeper (eds.), Theoretical issues in language acquisition, 269–299. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1994. Finiteness and head movement in early child grammars. In David Lightfoot & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Verb movement, 305–350. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511627705.016Search in Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1996. The development of inflection in a biologically based theory of language acquisition. In David Lightfoot & Norbert Hornstein (eds.), Toward a genetics of language, 305–350. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1998. Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106. 23–79.10.1016/S0024-3841(98)00029-1Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
