Towards a Dual Mechanism Model
of Language Development
Joseph Galasso
California State University, Northridge
Presented at the Child Language Research Forum-2004,
Stanford
Abstract
The study of syntactic development in children, for
all intents and purposes, is reducible to a single minded inquiry into how the
very young child (implicitly) knows to distinguish between lexical stems and functional affixes. Hence, the overriding question burning in the minds
of most developmental linguists is morpho-phonological in nature. For instance,
it would seem that the child must at least know (a priori) the stem before she can then engage in a dual-track
process by which ambient separation of the morpho-phonological distinction
attributive to past tense is carried out, say, between the paradigmatic
representation of the English word play vs. play-ed /ple-d/ (a dual processing which provokes separation of the /play/-stem and
the /d/-affix). Otherwise, it
could be conceivable for the young child that the pair play-played
would represent altogether two different lexical stems, and, stored as such,
reflect two distinct though relatively similar semantic notions (a single
processing): perhaps not unlike what we do find regarding derived words where
an otherwise 'two-morpheme' analysis of [teach]-{er} is
processed (tagged, stored and retrieved) as a 'single-morpheme' stem [teacher], similar to how the word [brother]
is stored.[1]
A
two-point conclusion is reached in this paper: (i) that children have instant
access to and make tacit use of innate syntactic knowledge, allowing them
instinctively to know to separate stem from affix-leading to a Gradual
Development Hypothesis which shows
developmental asymmetry between the acquisition of lexical vs. functional
categories (Radford 1990)-and (ii) that such prima facie knowledge naturally arises from The Dual Mechanism
Model, a processing model that offers
the best of both worlds in that it can account for both how the child comes to
'know' lexical stems in the first place, and subsequently, how such stems come
to be distinguished and project morpho-phonological material leading to stem
vs. affix separation.
Finally,
an interesting and potentially far reaching implication is advanced stating
that there resides not only a dual routing system in the brain for the split
processing of stem+affix material,
but that the proposed dual model can be extended in such a way as to cast an
entirely new dual-typology of language in the sense that (i) 'modular-complex' weak-stem/synthetic languages with a low, medium to high
gradient range of stem modularity (English, Spanish to Hebrew, respectively)
come to use the cerebral rule-based processing area as an additional language
storage capacity, in contrast to (ii) 'modular-simple' strong-stem/analytical, agglutinative languages (Chinese,
Hungarian) which, due to their global modularity, mitigate inflectional
affixation to a much less complex system, thus preserving a more economically
robust single storage capacity based entirely on the frequency-based processing
area of the brain.[2],[3],[4] When
this notion of modular-complexity is raised in conjunction with a previously
established parameter setting dealing with [+/- Bare-Stem] languages, a new and
powerful tool is fashioned allowing us to better describe and explain child
functional category/feature onsets within divergent language groups. It is
therefore argued that many of the cross-linguistic asymmetries found in Early
Child Inflectional Development should be better thought of as reflecting how the
innate Language Faculty provides languages the selection of a single vs. a dual
storage capacity.
Assumptions and Suppositions
We follow Chomsky's (1995) 'The Minimalist Program'
(MP) throughout and assume language has real structural antecedents to the
mind/brain-The I-language is a state of the mind/brain. We then assume there to be real physiological
connections between language, syntactic structure and relevant brain
processing. A 'theory-of-mind' must therefore interest us as we build upon any
language theory. Still, very little is known about how a brain bootstraps
itself and creates a mind, as there is little understanding of the brain/mind
relation. An isolative 'theory-of- brain' and its processing, however, is much
better understood and allows us to be a bit more precise. There is now strong
scientific evidence to suggest that innate architectural principles of the
brain process linguistic information in two fundamentally different ways, thus,
by extension, determining how lexical vs. functional features project into
syntactic structures. We likewise assume that this dual processing, as defined
and expressed (overtly/covertly) in 'syntactic trees' has real linguistic
relevancy and is constrained by certain legibility conditions (at PF/LF interfaces).
We further assume this relevancy captures a natural cut, or a language
divergence, as characterized by a dichotomy between semantic-based language (pertaining to the VP) vs. syntactic-based language
(pertaining to the IP).
Following
the general framework as laid out in Chomsky 1995, along with crucial
assumptions as detailed in 'Distributed Morphology' (DM) (Halle and Marantz
1993) (viz., the notion that functional heads serve as the locus of lexical
insertion, with word formation occurring in the syntax as a result of the
syntactic combination of such heads, and, that due to maturation, functional
heads may go unspecified in the syntax) we assume this cut shows itself in the
lexicon as follows and may have a real brain-language physiological correspondence
to how a higher syntactic position
(IP-dominated) versus a lower syntactic position (VP-dominated) respectively captures the overt vs. covert checking of features:
The
V(erb) P(hrase) contains phono-semantic features. These features are substantive
in some way, and thus interpretable at each relevant interface. Lexical
knowledge associated with the VP is therefore said to be unavoidably trivial
and instinctive to a certain degree, as derived by a set of data-driven 'sound-meaning' relations appropriated to the PF/LF
interface. Features of the VP are labeled +Interp(retable) and, as a rule, do
not require the movement of its head into a higher functional projection. (DM
labels such features as l-morphemes (lexical): they are idiomatic and correspond
to concrete categories of Verb/Noun/Adjective).
The
I(nflectional) P(hrase) contains features that are not substantive in some way
and are therefore -Interp at either phonological or semantic interface.
Functional knowledge associated with the IP is therefore said to be
non-trivial, as derived by a set of rule-based relations which must then be 'checked-off' at the
PF/LF interface. Whenever the typology of a language forces -Interp features to
be checked in the overt syntax, this forces the features to project in the
morphology of the language. Whenever such features can go unchecked in the
overt syntax, the choice between overt vs. covert expression in the language
depends on that language's specific morphological parameterizations. (See ¤35
Typology). These formal features represent for the most part what drives
language variation. The reasoning for their existence in language remains
somewhat of a curiosity (it may be that such non-substantive features
ultimately drive the unique 'displacement property' of human language-in the
very general sense that functional checking motivates movement up the syntactic
tree) (DM labels such features as f-morphemes (functional): they are
non-idiomatic and rely on vocabulary selection).
Suppose
that the VP is exclusively pinned to the sensori-motor component of the brain,
the more primitive part of the brain that controls cognitive motor-skill,
memory and lower-level associative learning. In this sense, the VP presides as
the lexical category (par excellence)
alongside semantic-based [+Interpretable] features. Lexical categories exist prior to any computational numeration.
Suppose,
in addition, that the IP is rather pinned to areas of the brain which house
more abstract levels of thought (perhaps exclusively relating to the
left/frontal lobe region of the brain). Functional categories are the result of the combination of a lexical item
and a functional/inflectional feature (a numeration).
Suppose
further that classic processing distinctions between Derivational vs. Inflectional morphologies may be fuller understood in light of this dichotomy, i.e.,
that derivations ultimately trace their origins back to interpretable features
internal to the lexicon (l-morpheme), and, conversely, that Inflections are
nothing more than 'morpho-phonetic fillers' (expletive in nature), the remnants
of some computational operation of a broader syntactic scope (f-morpheme). It
is this latter observation inflection that will interest us in this paper. More than any other single
linguistic property, it is the nature and projection of inflection that gives a
language its typology-languages differ in inflectional systems. It is suggested
in this paper that the brain may house two separate language storage capacities
(perhaps in some way paralleling PF vs. LF representational systems) which
involve a parameter-setting, reflecting to some degree how a language selects
to show these fillers: a language may opt for fillers as affixes, disjoint from the lexical stem, or opt to incorporate
the fillers somehow as part of the stem. (In generic ways, the former entails
the operation Move, while the
latter entails the operation Merge.
In more concrete ways, the former operation Move may force an entire lexical item to overtly raise with
an affix, as seen in so called pied-piping, since a formal affix unattached to its stem would crash at PF).
Expanding on this argument, a dual-typology of Semantic transparency vs. Grammaticization-based languages is suggested, termed herein as a
'Modular-simple' vs. 'Modular-complex' parameter. The parameter reduces to the
selection of how a given language stores and projects such vacuous filler
material. Nothing hinges on this last supposition: the dichotomy could be
upheld irrespective of whether or not such a dual storage capacity is
ultimately correct. Future developmental research will surely look toward MEG,
fMRI and PET scans to ultimately replace models of syntactic tree diagramming.
Only through better brain-to-language modeling will we eventually transform
language theories into biological certainties.
Introduction
It is now well documented that English children pass
through a (gradual) developmental stage in which they comprehensively fail to
project functional categories and features. At the same time, it is equally
well documented that children of other language groups, relative in age to
their English counterparts, may not proceed in a similar (gradual) fashion in
omitting the same formal categories and/or features. Thus, it would seem any
attempt to tether formal functional deletion to a more general cognitive
deficit, as based on a biologically-driven maturational theory of language
development, would run into several difficulties.
It
is argued in this paper that a unifying heuristic procedure which incorporates
a two-prong analysis of (i) Feature Complexity and (ii) Inflectional
Paradigm Complexity indeed maintains, as the working null hypothesis, a
biologically based maturational account and may help determine the
eventualities of a language's development, as attested in child language
acquisition. The heuristics come to detail a 'Converging Theories Hypothesis'
of sorts which attempts to describe language acquisition along the lines as
being both 'Discontinuous' in nature to that of the adult target language
(regarding top-down paradigmatic/structure analogy, thus saving some elements
of a maturational account), and at the same time 'Continuous' (regarding
type-token frequency learning which is described as a bottom-up cognitive
universal).
The
'Dual Mechanism Model' is then advanced as being best positioned to account for
the attested child language asymmetries found amongst the diverging language
groups discussed. Therefore, it is to be maintained that only insofar as the
Dual Mechanism Model is operative can we then postulate for a maturational
theory of language development.
[0] This
paper constitutes the first segment of 'Twin Working Papers'[5] and is more-or-less a personal exercise in formulating my own ideas on a Research Statement, the purpose of which is exploratory in nature and
mainly designed as a general means of roughly expressing my own thoughts and
understanding in the area of developmental language research. Due to the
'Working' nature of the notes herein, it will appear at times that ideas are
disjoint and surface at will. Having said this, it is my intention that the
framework evolve. The notes come to be centered on a driving notion termed
'Converging Theories', a hypothesis that firmly attempts to pair the divergent cross-linguistic
language data-attested in the differing language groups which show rich vs.
impoverished inflectional morphology-to that of a current unifying hypothesis
termed the 'Dual Mechanism Model' (Marcus et al. 1994, Pinker 1999, Clahsen 1999).
[1] It
is now well documented that English children pass through a (gradual)
developmental stage in which they completely omit functional [categories] and
{features}such as [CP, IP, DP] and {T(ense), AGR(eement) CA(se)}. Following the
developments of research models over two decades, as advanced in Felix (1984),
Borer & Wexler (1987), Guilfoyle & Noonan (1988), Radford (1990),
Wexler (1994), Hyams (1996), and
Radford & Galasso (1998), there is today strong, surmounting
evidence to support some kind of Discontinuity (or, for a lack of a better term, some
'non-adult-like' conceptual linguistic formation) between the English speaking
child and adult, at least with regards to the aforementioned projections of
functional categories and/or their features. (See ¤21 for some data).
[2] After
the attested 'No Functional Categories' stage, children then seem to pass
through a slightly more developed (albeit non-target) stage in which they
confuse much of the functional grammar they have acquired. For example, it is
not uncommon for English speaking children to go through an early stage of
development in which they over-regularize a Gender feature, whereby the pronoun
He is used for both males and
females alike (CHILDES, Brown files: 13). In addition to a gender pronoun
feature non-specificity, a child might confuse the 1/2nd person feature
spell-outs of the pronoun I for You and You
for I, or may simply generalize
the 3rd person possessor features for possessive {'s} (Tom's) onto the first and second person possessor (my's,
your's) (Chiat 1982).
[3] In
addition to some of the feature confusion or non-specificity as mentioned
above, the most salient fact about child language is the systematic 'omission'
of functional material-a 'No Functional Category' stage-both in the forms of
the functional categories themselves, as well as with the associative
parameters that maintain such feature specificity (Spec-Head relations in higher-order functional
phrases).
[4] Notwithstanding
such apparent data which seemingly call for Discontinuity between child and adult grammar, a split has emerged
nevertheless amongst those developmental linguists (i) who espouse for an
initial stage of child syntax which begins in complete absence
of functional material (a Non-Functional/Inflectional stage as suggested in
Radford 1990/Radford & Galasso 1998) contra those (ii) who espouse for an initial stage which
begins with partial absence of
functional material (an O(ptional) I(nfinitive) stage as suggested by Wexler
1994).
[5] Proponents
calling for such Continuity tend
to cite not only English as one potential confirmation source (leading to the
aforementioned rift between Radford vs. Wexler), but cite the early emergence
of functional categories in other language groups, thus complicating Radford's
general claim for an initial No-Functional stage-1. New criteria can be
established in order to make the debates more precise. Questions into whether
or not a language's inflectional system is sufficiently rich to spawn very
early MLU onsets of affix morphology enter into the equation. This then
naturally leads to question regarding whether or not the early presence of
syntactic movement is linked to the checking of functional material (Chomsky
1995). One might ask whether the given language manifests a kind of deviant
inflectional usage (as attested by abnormal Aphasia/Specific Language Impairment
studies)-many such errors in certain language types essentially amount to
errors with wrong inflectional usage of 'commission' as opposed to any complete
inflectional 'omission' (in defiance of the discontinuity theory as mentioned
above). (We'll consider these each in turn in ¤11 below). Hence, the two
differing hypotheses, Discontinuity vs. Continuity, could be said to converge
roughly at the cross-roads of morphological typology: namely, it has been
suggested that when a language has a relatively rich inflection [+INFL], that
language will seemingly exhibit the early projection of functional
categories/features (as attested by child language studies of the relevant
language). However, when a language does not have a sufficiently rich
inflection [-INFL], that language will exhibit a somewhat delayed projection of
functional categories/features (a delay that has been cited as providing
general evidence for maturational based hypotheses). It is in this general
sense that language morphological typology is said to drive (top-down) the
nature of early child syntactic projection (in contrast to, say, a biologically
determined maturational process). Put another way, (i) it is first a priori knowledge of morpho-phonology that triggers the
appropriation of syntax, (ii) the syntax, in turn, then seeks out both the choice
of words and the nature of the
paradigm.[6]
[6] Hence,
following the 'Dual Mechanism Model' (DMM), children 'know' that Inflected
forms are not lexical since such
forms are conceptualized and generated in a separate processing modular. The
DMM maintains that a clean separation takes place between the lexical stem and the affix-a stem is 'meaning based' and thus housed in the temporal-lobe region
of the brain (Wernicke's area), while the affix is 'abstract' and thus housed
in the frontal-lobe region (Broca's area). The lexicon lists only lexical items
(stems) while functional items (affixes) are added at a second stage in the
numeration. (See ¤44 for diagram). The DMM credits the Brain/Mind with having
two fundamentally different cognitive modes of language processing-this dual
mechanism has recently been reported as reflecting inherent qualitative
distinctions found between (i) regular verb inflectional morphology (where
rule-based stem+affixes form a
large contingency) and (ii) irregular verb constructions (where full lexical
forms seem to be stored as associative chunks). The Language Faculty thus provides us with two ways of symbolic
representation.
[7] The
overall approach here is therefore 'top down' since there is no sense in the
word 'Knowing' unless there is first 'Access'. (Though it is generally accepted
in Feature Theory (Chomsky 1995)
that syntax is driven 'bottom-up' by features which peculate up from the lexeme
and enter into a phrase configuration-presumably a spec-head configuration
under a movement analogy termed Merge-the
proposed model here differs only to the extend that we believe the initial
'Access' to such features is 'top-down'). This has the flavor of saying that
the debate over continuity may be misplaced and badly spelled-out, and that the
crucial debate rather hinges on how the maturing, neurodevelopment of the brain
processes (or doesn't process) the 'accessed' paradigmatic/inflectional
material generated by the two diverging language groups. Having said this, I
follow Meisel (1994) and suggest that it is the full-fledge realization of the
INFL-paradigm that should be the real measure of competency, rather than any
language specific piece-meal affixation process by which morpho-particles affix
to stems, since the latter could always be explained away as misanalysis on the
child's part in ways that do not directly speak to a well formulized inflectional
paradigm (e.g., formulaic and/or lexical incorporation, lexical redundancy
rules, un-analyzable chunks,
etc.).[7]
[8] Early
Inflection: Pro-Continuity. Contrary to what some might like in assuming
child-to-adult discontinuity-viz., that all languages start out with deficient
functional categories, say, owing to a general cognitive development of
functional categories-a good amount of data found in the literature calling for
a least some aspect of early functional competence include language groups such
as French (Pierce: 1989, 1992) and German (Clahsen: 1990, 1994).[8] Hence, those clinging to continuity can always claim
that at least one functional category is present from the very earliest MLU of
child speech (hence, quieting any clarion call for a strong discontinuity
hypothesis). For instance, Pierce shows that from the early age of 1;9-2;3
(Nathalie files) +Fin(ite) V(erbs) (hosting T/AGR) show movement via their
raising out of VP above NegP and into a functional IP, whereas -Fin(ite) Verbs
remain VP in-situ. (NegP is traditionally viewed as being an intermediate
phrase situated between the lower VP and the higher IP). Such findings
illustrate syntactic sensitivity on the part of the child by the fact that the
features in the lexeme drive syntactic movement for purposes of checking. (The
checking of formal -Interpretable features such as CA and AGR must ensue under
concord between a functional Spec-Head configuration).
[9] French: IP (Pierce 1992) +/-Finite
Syntax (Pierce 1989)
(i) I NegP [+Finite] [-Finite]
|
| Neg VP pas verb 11 77
| | verb
pas 185 2
V N
(a)
veuxi pas ti lolo => Functional
projection
[1Sg Pres] want not water
(b) Pas manger => Lexical projection
Not
eat [Inf]
[10] German: FP (=Functional Phrase) (Clahsen et al. 1994: p.
9)
(ii)
Spec F'
[+F] VP
Neg VP
Spec
V'
[+V]
[+Fin]
V2 utterances [-Fin]
V-final utterances
(a)
Kann
er nich (2;9) (c) hase auch auytofahrn (2;4)
(can
he not) (hare also car drive)
(b) ich hab
hier reintecken tasche (2;6) (d) mone auch lump ausziehen
(1;11)
(I
have here put in bag) (Simone also rag take
off)
Clahsen
sites very early MLU German child sentences in which 90% of all Finite Verbs
show raising across negation into a higher host, verb-second position (here,
labeled FP (=Functional Phrase). Non-finite verbs in V2 position are
practically non-existent (op. cit: 13).
[11] SLI:
Pro-Continuity. In addition to the question of the
early (vs. late) projection of inflectional, a second line of inquiry has begun
to look at Specific Language Impairment (SLI) as a means of teasing out just
how the morpho-syntax within divergent language groups is processed. For
example, one factor that arises out of morphological typology is the
classification of a matrix parameter that holds between [+/-INFL(ectional)] to
[+/-Bare Stem]. For instance, languages which have a rich inflection [+INFL]
tend to also have a [-Bare Verb Stem] parameter setting (Hyams 1987) and vice
versa. Languages such as Italian,
Spanish, among others (with perhaps the most sever case being Hebrew) are
non-stem-based languages in the sense that the projection of a bare stem
doesn't constitute a word. (In the case of Hebrew, the radical root of a word
can only be realized and projected in conjunction with the root's
morpho-phonological paradigm). Whereas it is grammatical to project the bare
verb stem speak in English (as in
the infinitive usage I can 'speak' French), it is ungrammatical to do so in Italian or Spanish *parl-,
*habl-. What turns out to be
interesting along these line of inquiry is that with respect to both child
language development and SLI, [+INFL]=>[-Bare Stem] languages tend to show
immediate and systematic functional category/feature projection on the one hand
and only SLI inflectional error usage on the other. (See Grodzinsky (1990) for
a detailed look into Aphasic/SLI studies). For example, Italian SLI subjects never
omit inflections as that would violate word-structure properties. Italian SLI
rather typical involves inflectional errors having to do with misplaced Gender,
Number and Agreement-e.g.,
(i) *Quest-o macchin-a
This
{masc} car {fem}
(This
car)
This
contrasts with both normally developing children as well as SLI children of the
matrix correlate [-INFL]=>[+Bare Stem] (i.e., English) who show a stage in
which functional categories/features are entirely missing. What this seems to
suggest is that before such language specific data can outright challenge the
general notion of discontinuity in child language acquisition, a more detailed
analysis of the language's morpho-syntactic processing must be obtained.
[12] Since
French does constitute as a [-INFL]=>[+Bare Stem] language, how do we square
this with the above observation made by Pierce that there is very early
functional projection? One would expect that since French constitutes a weakly
inflected though synthetically strong language, discontinuity theorists would
assume an initial stage in which inflection is not yet procured. (For further
arguments along this line of assumption, see ¤35 Inflections and Typology).
[13] Well,
as it turns out, there is some evidence to suggest that the picture is somewhat
mixed and that Pierce's French children (perhaps more so than Clahsen's German
Children) do have a stage (albeit short lived) during which they completely
omit functional categories-'a clarion call for discontinuity'. For instance, as
Radford notes (1995) and as pointed out by Atkinson (1995 p. 53)
...'if
we read [Pierce's] work carefully, we uncover the observation that in the very
first recording of Nathalie at age 1;9;3,..., Nathalie uses only nonfinite verb
forms, not finite verbs.'
Atkinson
notes: Radford goes on to cite Pierce's own observation of a very early
stage at which inflected forms are absent. Though it is unclear what Pierce
precisely means by 'uninflected forms', we can at least assume that she has
identified a stage in early French which shows no systematic finite/nonfinite
distinction.
[14] Similar
conclusions could be reached for German and Dutch (Wijnen, Bol 1993, p. 247,
quoted in Atkinson). (Italics
belong to Wijnen & Bol):
'...there
are indications that during the first phase of grammatical development, Dutch
(and German) children only use nonfinite verbs...'. This implies that the 'Optional Infinitive' stage may
in fact not be the very first stage of syntactic speech and that a prior stage
exists which shows No Inflection-a Non-Inflectional stage.
[15] When we turn to Spanish, however, we see a somewhat
more complex picture emerge. In light of the fact that Spanish is a [-Bare
stem] language (and thus must assign some affix material to its stem), other
syntactic considerations must be applied in determining whether or not there is
true functional awareness. For instance, Grinstead (2000) argues that there
exists a stage-one in early child Spanish that exclusively manifests null
subjects and that a correlation holds between this exclusive 'null-subject
stage' and the specific absence of particular affix agreement inflection having
to do with Tense and Number. In brief, Grinstead concludes that it is the
simultaneous onset of tense and number in the inflection paradigm that
ultimately triggers a particular aspect of UG pertaining to the CAse of overt
subjects. The particular onsets of such inflection are complicated and
potentially undermined by the possibility that simply because a young Spanish
child shows affix material (infinitive endings -ir, -ar, -er,) the child may simply be realizing these as parts of
the stem due to the [-Bare stem] parameter (i.e., they are rote-learned
chunks). If indeed this is the case, other factors must be considered in
concluding that functional categories have emerged. A similar conclusion could
be reached regarding early Italian verb+affix constructions. For instance, the
underlying structure of initial inflections (e.g., mett-o, mett-i, mett-e 'put-1sg/2sg/3sg'
(Guasti 1993/1994) may, in fact, be (semi)-rote-learned since there is no
syntactic possibility of a bare stem production. In addition to the bare-stem
factor, it may be that when such inflectional sequences are strong, with high
frequency attached to their production, the clusters may take on stem-like
qualities. (In this sense, weak clusters provide better material for
paradigmatic formation). The fact that subject-verb agreements are consistent
may rather speak to broader morpho-phonetic notions having to do with a kind of
grammaticalized lexical incorporation to the extent that verbs ending with -o
derive first person, etc.) It is
equally important to note that Wexler's OI-stage doesn't manifest in pro-drop
languages such as Italian or Spanish. One might ask why this is. It appears
that the lack of OIs in pro-drop languages can be traced to properties of the
AGR and INFL paradigm systems in the language. For instance, AGR in such pro-drop
languages doesn't have the array of -Interp(retable) features that otherwise
drive DP-subject projection and movement (via the overt checking of the -Interp
subject D-feature, presumably CAse). In this sense, it is understood that AGR
in pro-drop languages rather shows more of the semantic-based +Interp F-features (paralleling to a certain degree what one might expect of
VP/Thematic relations, under the postulation that Interpretable features are
semantic in scope and not part of the formal syntactic numeration). Hence, null
subjects of the Italian, Spanish variety are inextricably linked to the rich
morphologically agreement system. It is therefore not too unreasonable to
assume that aspects of AGR / INFL in pro-drop languages may sustain a certain
amount of subject incorporation (on a scale with subject-verb
grammaticalization). Such inherent inflections could be considered as having
semi-formulaic tendencies, or rather could be viewed as taking on
characteristics of incorporation,
similar to how the derived two-morpheme word teach-er was said to be processed as an inherent chunk. English
children never delete the derivational affix {-er} even when many such true inflectional affixes are
being dropped all around them. English children omit the infinitive 'to'
inflection early-on in stage-1 of their production precisely because it
constitutes a 'true affix', unincorporated marker (as opposed to other early
affix markers such as participle forms {en} and {ing} which seem to
behave as non-affixes).[9] Such participle forms maintain 'strong-stem-like'
properties and thus may share some manner of incorporation. What is interesting
about early Italian data is the fact that AGR inflectional errors are almost
non-existent (a hallmark of rote-learned/lexical productions) despite the fact
that other affix deletions do manifest at the same stage in question. For
instance, what one typically finds at the early stages of Italian syntactic
development are (inter alia)
errors regarding Number on Noun stems (a possible syntactic bare stem
production). What this might suggest is that when the early child data are
examined carefully, distinctions regarding the type of inflection can be made,
leading to discussion of whether or not a production should be considered as a
true stem+affix inflectional production. Italian here may constitute a
periphery case, but when taken in conjunction with more agglutinative type
languages, the findings support the general idea that inflections for [-bare
stem] languages may to varying degrees be incorporating the affix into the
stem. If an inflectional affix is routed and incorporated into the stem, than
processing access of the affix has the same status as access of the stem-with a
kind of lexical incorporation that mimics pie-piping strategies. It would seem
that non-clitic, true rule formations of inflectional morphology would not
trigger such strategies. In brief, developmental studies show that when one has
to use inflection on every form [-Bare-stem parameter], children at early
syntactic stages of development seem to project only one inflected form for
each word and only produce that inflected form (as the default). This default
is presumed to be based on frequency. For instance, it has been reported that
children may (i) mark the most salient affix, say number on nouns, (ii) but
then still confuse how to properly project number on each noun type for e.g.,
gender and case. It is suggested herein that the former affix process (i)
should be thought of as a kind of lexical incorporation, showing no true rule
process, with the latter paradigm process (ii) being viewed as constituting a
true rule-driven process.
[16] Retuning
to general questions of theory
Returning
then to general questions of theory, Chomsky (1999) suggests that there is good
reason to posit a set of universal features along with principles that make up
the Language Faculty. The problem facing the child may be how to build-up
(bottom-up) such universal features into a lexicon (see fn. 8). If indeed a
bottom-up assumption underpinning the processes of lexical construction is correct
(i.e., that the knowledge of morpho-phonology precedes and triggers syntax,
much in the spirit of Distributional Morphology, or the Lexical Learning
Hypothesis), then there is no reason to suppose that the assembling of features
does not follow an incremental process, potentially governed by specific
maturation of cognitive complexity. In other words, some features might be
acquired before others based on their internal conceptual complexity. For
instance, we might hypothesize that the internal complexity of the features [PER(son)]
might be more complex than the feature [DEF(initeness)] since DEF may contain
some amount of cognitive relevance at LF). (This range of complexity can have
large consequences for overt checking. For example, under Guasti and Rizzi's
(2001) model of spell-out, it is assumed that differences between overt vs.
covert checking directly corresponds to where in the position of the syntactic
tree a phrase projects. Those lower positions which are dominated by the VP may
include only +Interpretable features, and so may survive without forcing overt
movement to a higher projection. Higher positions dominated by IP conversely
force such overt movement for the required checking of functional
-Interpretable features.)[10] Hence, the agreement of PER as well as the agreement
of structural CA might burden an otherwise primitive computational capacity for
a young child at our stage-1 of language development. However, this can't be the whole story since some language
groups manifest very early functional categories/features in child development.
It seems the cognitive complexity of features must work in tandem with the
broader implications of morpho-syntactic typology subsumed under the matrix
[+/-INFL]=>[+/-Bare Verb stem]. More concretely, it goes without saying that
not many linguists would wish to posit features as containing different
saliency values from one language to another. Formal features are part and
parcel of a universal language faculty, a C(omputation) built-up on the H(uman)
L(anguage) cognitive template (sometimes labeled as CHL).
Hence, all properties of feature complexity must be in the first instance
universal. It is then in the second instance, where formal features overlap
onto [+/-INFL] language typology, that we can ultimately determine whether or
not the given language will exhibit early functional projections in child
language.
[17] As
a follow up to ¤¤15 and 16 above, one of the many things that remain a puzzle
to my mind is the following question: Why is it that early child English allows
for [-FIN] bare verb stems to occur in Wh-Questions (What he eat?)? This
structure has only been reported for Child English and, I am aware, has never
been attested in other cross-linguistic child studies. It begs the question:
What makes the English bare stem so special in this respect, how does it differ to other language infinitives (e.g., root
infinitives), and how does it function in the syntax? Of course, one way to
react to such anomalies is to simply reconsider it as a [+FIN] bare verb stem,
with only the phonological affix missing.[11] If this is at all possible, then it begs a larger
question: Can functional material be stored and represented in two
fundamentally different ways? It would seem language typology demands it. Surely,
the PF-overt vs. LF-covert movement analogy captures actually this. So, we may
go on to assume that such an 'affix-less' verb nevertheless projects
inflectional material (T/AGR), at least in light of the fact that there is
nominative subject case agreement (He).
One means to create a dialogue about the difference is to set up a heuristic procedure. The idea being if
we can somehow capture the properties behind English bare stems, we might be
better able to understand the overall syntax of (Child) English and throw some
light onto how English morphology fundamentally differs to other language
groups, at least in this one small respect.
[18] The
two-point heuristic procedure takes the following shape (inquiring into
continuity between the child and adult grammars):
Question
#1: Complexity of Features:
Q:
Is there Continuity of Features?
If yes, see question #2. (We take this to mean that T/AGR
features project from the very earliest MLU).
If no, then a Discontinuity model is appropriated.*
*
(Since English is a [+Bare Stem] Language, it can simply exhibit bare
verbs stripped of its formal features. Nothing hinges on the fact that that it
exists within a Wh-question (an otherwise functional projection).
What then must be looked at is the pending nature of the Wh-Question (noting
the absence of an Auxiliary) not the bare verb, as Wh-operators equally can be
expressed at PF without exhibiting the complete range of formal features
attributive to CP. I understand the assessment fails to deal with optional
projections).
[19] Typically,
the notion of +/-Interp(retable) features comes into play in helping to account
for the asymmetric chronological onsets of the relevant features and functional
projections. It is suggested that [+Interp] features provide semantic material
at LF interface while [-Interp] features must be functionally checked and
erased at LF (Chomsky 1995). In line with the arguments in this paper, it could
also be suggested that the two types of features likewise get processed and stored
in two different regions of the brain-whereby [+Interp] takes on 'strong-stem'
properties and [-Interp] takes on 'weak-stem' properties (See ¤24 below
regarding +/-Interp features in child language acquisition.)
[20] Question
#2: Complexity of Paradigm:
Q:
Is there Continuity of the Inflectional Paradigm?
If yes, morpho-syntactic typology must be considered, triggering the
Dual Mechanism Model as a possible means of accounting for the
continuity. (We take it here that some amount of feature projection
may in all actuality be governed by phonological constraints
on the language, such as cliticization, lexical incorporation,
etc.)
If no, Then a discontinuity model is appropriated.
In
sum, we take it that Discontinuity is the Null Hypothesis, and that any
evidence to the contrary must be reconsidered in relation to that language's
morpho-syntactic typology. The exact role of the typology here will be made
clear below.
[21] Some
Data
Evidence
for a Discontinuity model is striking ('negative' to Question #1 ¤18). For
instance, Radford and Galasso (1998), Galasso (1999, 2003b) Radford (1999,
2000) provide English data showing that children enter into a 'No Agreement' /
'No Inflection' initial stage-one of acquisition during which they completely
omit functional categories and [-Interp] complex features.
[22] Stage-1:
'No AGReement-No INFLection' (Radford & Galasso 1998)
Possessives:
That Mommy car. Me dolly. No
baby bike. Him name.
Have
me shoe. *Iwant me
bottle. It me.
Question: Where
Daddy car? This you pen? What him doing?
Declarative: Baby have bottle. Car
go. Me wet. Me playing. Him dead
*(Iwant examples
are analyzed as formulaic chunking,
since no other supportive material providing for a functional analysis of
nominative case is found in the relevant stage).
[23] Stage-2:
'OPtional AGRement -INFLection'*
Possessives:
That's Mommy's car. My dolly.
Baby's bike. His name.
Question: Where's
Daddy's car? This is your pen? What (is) he doing?
Declarative: Baby has bottle. Car
goes. I'm wet. I'm playing. He's dead.
*(The OI stage (as suggested by Wexler 1994) would
simultaneously incorporate both data sets as described in his initial Optional
Infinitive stage-1). Radford & Galasso make a clear demarcation between the
two stages, with the complete absence of any optional functional projections
for their stage-1. For complete data/analyses, see Galasso 2003c).
[24] Overall,
children in this initial stage-one of syntactic development are forced into
projecting very limited structure. For instance, (and this is by no means an
exhaustive list):
(i)
Possessive projections, which rely on an AGReement relation with a nominal
INFL, must default to an objective case (e.g. my to me);
(ii)
Verb projections are limited to VPs without INFLection (hence auxiliary-less
question and declarative bare verb stems) (e.g. What him doing?,
Car go.);
(iii)
Subjects, which rely on an AGReement with a verbal INFL, must default
to having an objective case (e.g., Me wet). Consider the syntactic structures
below pairing the two data sets, with stage-one showing no inflectional
phrase (IP) agreement.
[25] Structure:
Stage-One / -AGR Structure:
Stage-Two /+AGR
(i) Possessive: *
[IP Mummy [I {-agr}-ø] car] [IP
Mummy [I {+agr}'s] car]
[IP Me [I {-agr}] dolly] [IP
My [I {+agr}] dolly]
(ii)
Case: [IP Him [I {-agr}] dead] [IP
He [I {+agr}'s] dead]
[IP Me
[I {-agr}] wet] [IP
I [I {+agr} 'm] wet]
(iii)
Verb: [IP Baby [I {-agr} have]]... [IP
Baby [I {+agr}has]]...
[IP Car [I {-agr}go -ø]] [IP
Car [I {+agr} go-es]]
*(Though Radford and Galasso do label their stage-one
structures as IP {-agr} in the 1998 paper, this is mostly notational: see in-note
in ¤26 below).
[26] Similar
findings are born out and widely attested in the literature and are consistent
with the general notion that language acquisition involves some sort of incremental
feature-building (Radford 2000)-viz.,
the notion that if language does proceed in an incremental way, then it should
be of little surprise that the more robust and primitive aspects of a language
should come on-line before more abstract aspects of language-specifically,
default {-agr} feature projections attributed to the VP (by default) come
on-line before {+agr} projections attributed to the IP. (In-note: Though Radford and Galasso do label their stage-one
structures as IP {-agr} in the 1998 paper, this is mostly notational: they are
clear in stating that this in no way should undermine the fact that we are
indeed dealing with a lexical stage-one, with IP remaining Non-specified {¯}
(and for all intents and purposes, not projecting). Galasso (2003) describes
such early stage-one structures as reduced to simple lexical VPs and NPs). This
gives us the flavor of saying that a maturational scheduling is behind the chronological ordering of features (much
in the spirit of the Brown studies (1973) which sought to show a time-line of
affix morpheme development-moving from potentially viable semantic-based
participle forms {en}, {ing} through to true rule-based inflectional forms 3PSg
{s}, Possessive {s}, Past Tense {ed}. Where the opinions of the cited authors
¤¤1,3 tend to diverge, however, is in how to appropriately and accurately
describe such apparent lack of child linguistic knowledge. Given this
divergence, arguments spring up as to whether or not there is really any claim
for discontinuity at all (as based on the research paradigm on offer (Chomsky
1995, 1999)). One might think that the very fact that the child doesn't
produce/generate target 'adult-like' grammar at the initial stage of syntax
should be enough in of itself to say that discontinuity is an accurate
depiction of child language development.
[27] Well,
some of us take maturation more seriously than others. For the sake of
concreteness, let's spell this out. The 'strong maturational' theorist believes
that there is indisputable evidence for some kind of a biologically determined
stage during which functional categories, along with their class of functional
words, parameter settings and formal [-Interp] features, are all together
absent in the child's grammar. In these terms, 'strong maturation' equates to
'discontinuity'. The 'weak maturational' theorist might be more prone to skirt
such biological issues and stake their arguments around interpretations of the
theory. For instance, one way around the strong maturational/discontinuity
account would be to say that all formal categories/features are available to
the child from the very beginning.[12] The apparent discontinuity is then reduced to the
mere phonological spell-out of yet un-set parameter settings of categories
and/or un-specification of features.
[28] Hence,
there are two schools-of-thought of how such omissions of structure should be
explained:
(i)
Full Competence =>
(weak maturation-continuity)
(ii)
Gradual Competence =>
(strong maturation-discontinuity)
Full
Competency in this respect would include any developmental model which credits
the very young child with at least knowing the functional projection
notwithstanding the fact that the features of the projections can go
unspecified or be phonologically null (cf. Wexler's initial OI-stage 1994).
Gradual
Competency in this respect would include any developmental model which holds
off crediting the very young child with knowing any functional projection that
doesn't at least make itself phonological present in the form of functional
categorical words (Case/Pronouns, Auxiliaries) (cf. Radford & Galasso's
initial No-INFL stage 1998).
[29] Full
competence hypotheses state that all functional categories/features are present
in the child's linguistic system (this equates to a child-to-adult continuity).
The child's otherwise non-target grammar is thus the result of un-specification
of features that are nonetheless present in the child's phrase structure. In
other words, the child's otherwise lexical non-functional stage-1 of
grammatical development is thought of as maintaining the full-fledge IP>VP
phrase structure for typical declarative sentences, non-specification of
features notwithstanding, hence, the early German and French data cited above.
In English however, the child may not spell-out the Phonological Form of
articulation (at PF) of such features-for instance, the dual
AGR(eement)/T(ense) feature (which triggers the inflectional affix {-s} for
3person/singular/present) on the main finite verb goes un-specified and
therefore doesn't project. In this sense, a non-inflected bare verb-stem
surfaces as the default: e.g., (The) baby sleep. What this assumption basically claims is that a child
may in fact be producing functional (affix) material all the while despite the
fact that such material is phonologically silent (following assumptions laid
out in Halle and Marantz 1993). Recall, such a treatment was suggested
regarding Bare verb stems which show subject nominative case in embedded
Wh-Questions ¤17. This very real possibility that functional
categories/features can be present though phonologically silent changes the
entire landscape of how maturational theories of language acquisition can be
put to the test. The very idea that +affix material can be present in a grammar without actually being spelled-out in the phonology requires developmental linguists to
revisit their discontinuity theories to the extend that newer models need to be
devised in order to establish whether or not a child at the earliest MLU stage
of development has functional grammar.
[30] A
new condition for a non-functional stage-1
The
argument for potential underspecification of features can be naturally expanded
to suggest that there are indeed two ways in which the brain can symbolically
represent morpho-syntactic material (The DMM)-either via an overt PF
channeling, or via a covert LF channeling. This will be later discussed in the
following sections on typology. In any event, what I am on about here is that
the two approaches (continuity vs. discontinuity) can converge to express a
larger idea: namely, children may have an alternative option of symbolically
representing functional material, but that this option is only relevant to the
+/-specification of affix material in general. In other words, we have now
conditioned any strong maturational account and relegated it to a stage that
describes the complete absence of functional material, but only insofar as it
is typically expressed in whole words (such as the Pronouns (case) AUXiliaries
(movement), etc.), and not affix and/or clitic constructs . Given a child now
has a parameter option of projection affix material in two ways, any attempt to
define a non-functional stage solely based on the absence of affix material
without looking into other paradigms has become considerable weakened. (If
anything, the option speaks to a pre-parameterization stage, which, by the way, would also support a strong
maturational hypothesis). Having leveled this new condition for our
non-functional stage-one, it must be said that Radford & Galasso's Lexical
stage-1 remains upheld, albeit now not by the fact that affix inflections are
absent (as their absence at PF/performance may not provide evidence for the
absence at LF/competence), but rather the no-functional stage remains upheld
rather due to the lack of other functional material such as CAse and AUX. as
attested in the data. Consider the two analyses of the verb's inflectional
material below (with ¤31 showing a common analysis).
[31] Full
Competence Phrase: Features spell-out for target grammar
Imax
He...sleep-s.
Vmax
sleepi [+Agr {-s}] | [Agr] features present and specified
[+T] |
ti
=> sleep-s
[32] Full
Competence Phrase: Features are present but un-specified:
(Bare
verb stem by default)
Imax *
He... sleep-ø.
Vmax
sleepi [-Agr {ø}] | [Agr] features present but not specified.
[-T] |
ti
=>
sleep-ø
[33] Gradual
Competence Phrase: Features not present
(Bare
verb stem by default)
Vmax *
Him... sleep.
|
|
sleep
=> sleep-ø [Agr]
feature not present.
*
(The trees above show AGR working in
tandem with T. It is in this sense that the new condition as expressed in [¤30]
holds regarding affixes (in this case, the Agr/T-affix). It is rather the
relation of AGR/CAse that now becomes central in identifying a no-functional
stage. Recall our data in ¤21: there are no attested data of productive
Nominative Case. It is assumed under SchŸtze & Wexler's (1996) model that
the T/AGR work together, though see Galasso 1999 (p. 94-5) for a different
treatment showing the affix {-s} exclusively to mark Tense, whereas the full
agreement paradigm throughout goes unmarked [-ø] due to the nature of an
invisible agreement assigning mechanism in English)
[34] Regarding
the Gradual Development Hypothesis, the main idea behind the child's deficient
grammar is based on the complete absence of formal [Agr] / [-Interp] features
and the subsequent lack of functional categories IP/(CP). [Agr] / [-Interp]
features are those formal features such as CAse, PERson, Tense and other
AGReement relations which are considered to contribute no substantive semantic
material toward the overall computational system (the locus of Logical Form).
[35] Conclusion:
Inflections and Typology
'Modular-complex'(English, Italian) vs. 'Modular-simple'(Chinese, Hungarian)
Let's turn to our closing remarking on typology.
Languages differ in whether or not they are analytic, agglutinative, or synthetic. A
finer-grained treatment of this classic typology, however, shows that while the
first two types maintain a rather modular-simple representation of functional,
inflectional material, the latter may show a modular-complex representation. In
this sense, inflection is tied to typology. In this final section, we make
explicit what we mean by this modular parameter.
[36] In
addition to the classic typology stated above, past typological studies have
shown (e.g., Hawkins, 1986; Comrie, 1987) that the three language types
actually can collapse under a dual-typology based on semantic vs.
syntactic/grammatical structure of the language. More concretely, a scalar
model showing a continuum from syntactic to semantic structure can be devised
to help define the way a given language works as a communicative system. The
continuum demonstrates the competing elements a language faces-namely, how does
a language balance the needs to communicate effectively (semantic-based) with the needs to communicate efficiently
(syntactic/grammatical-based).
Modular-Simple Modular-complex
¯ INFL Chinese Hungarian Hebrew English Italian
Latin -/+ INFL
{----------------|---------------
--|------------------|----------------}
effective/semantic syntactic/efficient
[+
Lexical Incorporation] [-
Lexical incorporation]
The
former deals with semantic properties of a language since it involves the
content of speech (per se), while
the latter involves crucial issues of syntax, since it is syntax that allows
the language system to evolve from complex to simple, a move in
keeping with all biological systems: (the need to economize).
[37] The
Proposal
We believe this dual-typology of language, as based
upon transparency of semantics vs. syntax (termed modular-simple vs. modular-complex), more-or-less reflects the
two fundamental ways in which the human brain is constrained in the
structuring, storing and projecting of linguistic material (The Dual Mechanism
Model). Similar characteristics of this proposal have been advanced in the
literature (regarding verb movement type) which suggests that overt subject
languages (such as English, French) use 'adjoined-affix' morphology as opposed
to 'head/stem-affix' morphology as seen in covert subject languages (such as
Spanish, Italian).
We
take it that semantic transparent (modular-simple) language types, which seek
to preserve the optimal level of meaning in language, ultimately employ more of
the temporal-lobe regions of the brain in constructing their grammars.
Modular-simply language types thus organize grammatical relations as defined by
thematic/semantic roles. This leads such languages toward two extreme ends of
the continuum-either they show pervasive inflectional marking (based on a
strict one-to-one-morpho-syntactic mapping onto semantic roles), or they go
without inflection all together. The semantic continuum thus looks like the
following:
[38] The
Semantic Continuum (modular-simple):
(i)
Extreme Markers. This language system is designed around extremely high
levels of lexically embedded morpho-syntactic markers, dealing with a wide
range of semantic/grammatical relations-e.g., topic, case, temporal, locative,
variable word order, etc.--agglutinative languages follow this course of design...
....or,
(ii)
No Markers. This
language system is designed around an almost complete absence of such markers-analytic languages like Mandarin Chinese. Both language types
can be similarly characterized by their high levels of lexical incorporation of
such markers-'a temporal-lobe design'.
Conversely,
we take it that syntactic and thus grammaticization-based languages seek to
preserve efficiency in ways that collapse semantic roles in a variety of way
(prone to complexity). (This 'complex-to-simple' continuum can be seen in
diachronic language change, respectively, from Latin to French, from Sanskrit
to Hindi, from Old English to Modern English, etc.). The syntactic continuum
looks like the following:
[39] The
Syntactic Continuum (Modular-complex)
(i)
Rich Inflection. This
language system is designed around a stronger paradigm of inflections, though
such inflections are minimized and semantically deflated since they no longer
have real antecedents to semantic roles-inflectional languages like Spanish, Italian...
Éor,
(ii)
Impoverished Inflection. This language system is design around a weaker
paradigm of inflections-inflectional languages
like English, French.
[40] Modular-Complex. It
may be that English children initially assume their target language to be
simple, or at least paradigm consistent (the default assumption). Accordingly,
children in their initial stages of syntactic development, may wrongly assume
(and thus misanalyze) that many of the 'slight' imperfections in their language
are in fact perfections. In other words, children may be perfect language
learners in the sense that they are perfectionist who seek perfection in the
imperfect input they receive (Radford
2000). This brings up one aspect of complexity, the competing nature of syntax
over semantics. The fact that language acquisition involves the incremental
construction of features from simple to complex (from +Interpretable/semantic
to -Interpretable/syntactic), does suggests that such mapping is correlated to
(maturational) brain development. The incremental nature of syntactic
development begins with the VP/Thematic structure (reported to belonging to the
more primitive, temporal-lobe region of the brain), and advances outward to the
formal phrase projections of IP/CP (belonging to the frontal-lobe).
[41] Consider
the fact that, initially, young English children wrongly analyze irregular
verbs as (non-past) bare verb stems. Hence, such over-regularizations as wented,
boughted, thoughted should not be
considered as double past markings. The fact that the early treatment of
irregulars doesn't encode for tense suggest that the child first stores the
irregular verb as a non-modular strong-stem. (Hence, inflectional
over-regularization in Early Child English (Marcus et al. 1992) may be the
result of a child wrongly assuming a 'modular-simple' setting over a 'complex'
setting.) Young English children generate a number of such
syntactic/inflectional errors early on in their development, all of which point
to this mis-guided parameter setting: e.g., double tense markers as in Aux
constructions I didn't saw/had/played the toy, suggesting that the Aux lacks a tense marker, Case,
Agreement and Tense deletions as in Him do it may be due to weak relevant paradigms, etc. Also reported above, children may optional
project either way and thus mix the two settings, as when they start out
speaking bare verb stems in otherwise functional projections (What he eat?).
These examples, when taken as a
whole, demonstrate, two main points: (i) the learning burden imposed by such
imperfect irregular formations, and (ii) that the processing of paradigmatic
functional material may be stored and projected in alternative ways (depending
on the cognitive maturational schedule of language development). This duality
is what is ultimately responsible for a two-stage Lexical vs. Functional
development of grammar. More specifically, the claim here suggests that when
proper functional material projects in the way of an inflectional affix, it
does so by way of a storage capacity that treats stems and affixes in an
entirely different manner, as the two elements, stem+affix, are stored in
entirely different parts of the brain. When the child's brain is not yet
prepared to handle such (frontal-lobe) activity, the linguistic formation may
fall back on the rather default handling of material indicative of more
semantically-based structuring (temporal-lobe). The proposal is that proper
affixes are stored in the frontal-lobe regions of the brain, unconnected to the
stem, which is itself stored in the temporal, motor-strip regions of the brain.
Modula-complex languages, however, must also adhere to an additional parameter
which determines whether or not the language is richly inflected (and thus [-Bare-stem],
or weakly inflected (and thus +Bare-stem). It is in fact this wide range of
detachment of stem and inflectional affix that procures the computational
processes as handled by the frontal lobe, otherwise, as with the other two
typologies, a single processing mechanism correlating to the temporal-lobe
suffices. When these two parameters are taken into account, a picture emerges
as to how the development of child functional grammar should manifest:
[42] (i)
Modular-complex / -INFL. These
languages (English, French) should demonstrate a initial stage-one of syntactic
development where functional inflections go un-projected, as attested in English/French
child language.
(ii)
Modular-complex / +INFL. These
languages (e.g., Spanish, Italian) should demonstrate an initial stage-one of
syntactic development where functional inflections project--at least partially
and at times presumably incorrect.
(iii)
Modular-simple / +INFL. These languages are the agglutinative types
with highly regular inflections (Hungarian, Turkish, Russian, Japanese). The inflections are not only highly
regular but also correlate to a one-to-one correspondence in meaning (one morpheme,
one meaning). Consider the Turkish word odalarimdan ('from my rooms') where lar -im -dan are morphemes expressing one distinct category. Such
corresponding could be similarly viewed as Derivational morphology in a certain
respect since each added morpheme can change the stem meaning. Young children
speaking these languages do not typically pass through a non-inflectional
stage, since the inflections are housed and encoded within the stem. In other
words, young children speaking Russian or Hungarian don't seem to follow the
traditional benchmarks or morphological development as compared to their synthetic
language counterparts. (A good illustration is the case of Japanese
post-positions and locative markers which tend to heavily rely on the
substantive/semantic properties related to the stem. Such markers cannot go
deleted in early Japanese syntax, unlike other non-substantive Japanese INFL
markers which do (nominative/accusative Case -wa, -ga, -o.)
(iv)
Modular-simple / -INFL. These languages are the pure analytical languages such
as Mandarin Chinese which tend to 'unpack' the little inflectional morphology
they have and established otherwise potential morphological markers as part and
parcel of the stem-e.g., the English paradigm of First Person, Subject, Plural
which is 'morphologically packed' in the pronoun we (and subsumes all markers) would be expressed in
Mandarin as three word boundaries: #[=one person] + #[=many of].
[43] Brain-to-language
processing and a maturational story for modular complex languages.
Regarding the brain, I feel that it eventually won't
take much to whip up a 'brain to language-processing' mapping analogy that
rivals the best of syntactic theories (pertaining to brain processing and
phrase structure). Insofar as we will eventually be able to tease apart other
non-linguistic processes that go on in the brain when language is generated, I
am confident a whole new approach to syntactic theory is soon to be on the
drawing board. I show optimism here because of the great strides that have been
made in neuroimaging techniques. At the moment, brain scans such as ERPs, fMRI, PETs don't exclusively show
language generation, but is rather mired in myriad non-linguistic factors-side-effects
that, if not teased apart from the actual language stimuli, would also go into
the equation confusing the target language stimuli and observed brain area
activity. What we would like is a potential scan that represents the steps of
pure language (without blurring outside noise such as motor-skill processing
for phonology, decision making, criteria tasks such as word-to-semantic
mappings, other engaged thinking, even day-dreaming). The request is for a
filtered 'language-task' ERP. It's a tall order to fill. Recently new such
scans have emerged, such as the MEG (Magnetoencephalography). The MEG works
like the ERP scan in that neural events create the signal, an electrical
current which flows down the dendrites of specific neurons that are active in
the brain during the language task. This means that a strict one-to-one mapping
may be available in representing the actual steps as language unfolds. Thus
far, early studies show that verb processing indeed takes a dual-track
approach:
(i)
The first quarter second: The Temporal-lobe (TL) parts of the
brain are active with the search of lexical stems and irregular verbs. (As
pointed out in the DMM, word stems and irregular verbs are stored and retrieved
in associative memory). We extend this 'low-level' processing to incorporate
the Verb Phrase (VP) as well since both lexical words and VPs would
involve thematic/semantic relations Hence, with this stage frozen as a
'snap-shot', we can theorize that children at the VP stage-one of syntactic
development would only show TL activity with regards to MEG scans. (Wakefield
and Wilcox (1995 p. 644), in support of Radford's (1990) maturational theory, believe
that the TL and the LFT are initially unconnected in the first stages of
language acquisition (Radford's VP stage-one). When set in correlation to the
DMM, we view this stage absence of overt agreement/inflection and other
functional material to be motivated by such brain computation deficits. As
stated above, the specific deficits here would be due to a lack of early
neurological myelination involved in linking the two areas of the brain. Since
the FTL is not yet on-line in stage-one of language development, all generated
language is seen as projecting from prosaic VP structures at TL).
By extension, we suggest that the acquisition of
functional projections is triggered by the LFT being turned 'on' (analogous to
a parameter setting) thus triggering the acquisition of functional morphology.
In this sense, a two-prong conclusion can be reached stating: while (i) we
firmly believe that knowledge of morpho-phonology precedes and triggers syntax,
(ii) such knowledge comes to the child via the computational maturation of that
part of the brain that provides access to that specific knowledge in the first
place.
By
extension, we suggest children know that inflected forms are not lexical since
inflected forms are conceptualized and generated in a separate mode of
processing, disassociated from lexical stems. Such an analysis would go along
way in supporting the independent work carried out by Elman and Newport's
'Less-is-more Hypothesis' by providing a mechanism by which an account for the
'starting small' can be made. Hence, we assume children start out without rules
and paradigms.[13] Only later are they said to construct their paradigms incrementally, one feature at a time,
given the onset of LFT activity. It may be however that such inflectional
languages which start out 'small' may otherwise use mechanisms available in
other non-INFL languages (though still provided by UG) to mark notions of
T/AGR. (See Hyams (1996) for a semantic treatments of otherwise null INFL
markers.).
(ii)
A tenth of a second later: The left/frontal-lobe (LFL) then
becomes active with the pursuit of the regular verb functional affix (as
pointed out by the DMM, affixes are rule-based). We extend this 'high-level'
processing to incorporate the Inflectional Phrase (IP) as well since both affix
formations and IPs involve abstract/rule-based relations. Hence, we would
theorize that SLI subjects who show commission of functional errors (as
discussed in ¤11 and in contrast to children in the 'no-functional' stage who
show 'omission' of errors) would show LFL activity with regards to the MEG
scans. Though word processing seems to be the order of the day, phrase
processing is following right behind and gaining interest. As mentioned, if we
can extend the lexical stem+affix split, as understood in the DMM, to that of
the qualitative nature of different phrase types (IP vs. VP), then an even more
robust theory of the DMM can be realized.
[44] Syntactic
tree mapping inflectional neuroimaging
Syntactic
Tree: Neuroimaging:
Sentence
subj X(P) =>
Numeration of V @ LFL
INFL V(P) =>
V prior to numeration @ TL
V
INFL
= [¯] when weak-covert movement of
the verb stem into X.
INFL
= [affix] when strong-overt movement of the verb stem into X.
X
= storage capacity #2-rule-based
V
= storage capacity #1-associative
[45] Weak/Covert
movement: Modern English (single storage)
Sentence (examples
taken from Uriagereka 2000 p. 128).
subj X => [-affix]
You
INFL VP
[¯]
V N
see her
[46] Strong/Overt
movement: Middle English
Sentence
subj
X
thou
INFL VP
[-is]
V N
se-is hir
[47] Merge
V to INFL/X:
X
Verb +
INFL VP
seis
t
(Merge: Verb-stem {se} 'pied-piping' to INFL since the affix {-is} cannot stand alone at PF).
[48] A Case of Strong Inflection:
South-Western English INFL Paradigm
It
seems that some varieties of English opt for a 'rule-based' storage capacity
via a parameter setting. In stark contrast to Standard English, consider the
rich inflectional paradigm for a variety of English spoken in South-Western
England (Cheshire 1989, discussed in Radford 1997 p. 79).
Strong
Tense/Agr features Sentence
I
loves, You loves, He/She loves
We
loves, You loves, They loves
subj X => [+affix]
I/You/He/We/They
INFL VP
[-s]
V
love-s
[49] Merge
V to INFL/X:
X
Verb +
INFL VP
loves
t
[50] There
may be a maturational story behind all of this. How is it that some language
types split-off the family tree and began taking on higher doses of abstract
inflection? Perhaps 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' here in the sense that languages are (i) born from a
Saussurean 'form-to-meaning' iconic system, (ii) then evolve into complex, less economical paradigmatic
systems, (iii) only later to return to reduced paradigmatic systems. (The
latter two stages are witnessed here to the extent that a shift has occurred
from Middle English being strongly-inflected to Modern English being
weakly-inflected). If so, then some languages may be simply lagging behind
others on this evolutionary revolving door of 'simple-to-complex' inflectional
typology. Of course, no one wants to claim that the brains of speakers of
'modular-complex' languages have somehow advanced over the others. The
differences should rather be
thought of as a sort of compensatory flow-sheet in that the brain is equipped
to handle info in two fundamentally different ways-no one way is better than
the other, there are different pay-offs (differing advantages to disadvantage).
For example, no one wishes to claim that Chinese speakers have very little
formal abstraction ability because their language demonstrates very little in
the way of inflection. Rather, what should be said is that the language system
itself has come to a nice equilibrium of sorts between the amount of
abstraction that ought to be carried out (efficiency), which may be otherwise provided by the context in
any account, and the amount of lexical storage required for communication
without otherwise burdening the storage capacity (effectiveness). It is not clear, but Chinese may in fact require
higher-levels of associative memory due to its internal structure. (All this is
speculation at best; however, we can refer back to the footnote (6) on
Newport's hunch that associative storage capacity ultimately is responsible for
the second capacity of abstraction). Noting such differences between, say,
Spanish (with high amounts of inflection) and Chinese (with low to zero amounts
of inflection), it needs to be understood that both languages have
representations of functional categories (i.e., both have basically the same
inflectional systems)-it is just that Spanish uses words and morphemes to
represent these categories (=LFT storage), while Chinese does not. Instead,
Chinese determines the presence of functional items such as Comp, Tense,
Agreement via lexical context (=TL storage). Ultimately, it may be that the
proposed parameterization leading to the typology amounts to little more than
the following...
'[T]here
is evidence that [the] languages have basically the same inflectional systems,
differing only in the way formal elements are accessed by the part of the
computational procedure that provides instructions to articulatory perceptual
organs. The mental computation seems otherwise identical, yielding indirect
effects of inflectional structure that are observable, even if the inflections
themselves are not heard in speech. That may well be the basis of language
variation, in large measure' (Chomsky 2000. p.120)
References
Alegre, M. & Gordon, P. (1999) Frequency effects
and the representational status of regular inflections. Journal of Memory
and Language 40. 41-61.
Anderson, S. (1992) A-morphous morphology. CUP.
Atkinson, M. (1995) Now, hand on a minute: some
reflections on emerging orthodoxies. Essex Research Papers in Linguistics 7. 29-70.
Bloom, L; Lifter, K; Hafitz, J. (1980) Semantics of verbs and the development of
verb inflection in child language. Language 56. 386-412.
Borer, H. & Wexler, K. (1987) The maturation of
syntax. In T. Roeper & E. Williams (Eds) Parameter Setting. 123-172. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Brown, R. (1973) A First Language: Three early
stages. Harvard University Press.
Chiat, S. (1982) If I were you and you were me. Journal
of Child Language 9. 359-379.
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and
Binding Foris, Dordrecht.
(1995)
The Minimalist Program. MIT Press.
(1999)
Derivation by Phase. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. no. 18.
(2000)
New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge University Press.
Clahsen, H. (1990) Constraints on parameter setting: A
grammatical analysis of some stages in German child language. Language
Acquisition 1. 361-391.
(1999)
Lexical entries and rules of language: A multi-disciplinary study of German inflection'.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22,
991-1060.
Clahsen, H; Eisenbeiss, S; Penke, M. (1994)
Underspecification and Lexical Learning in Early Child Grammars. Essex
Research Reports in Linguistics 4.
1-34.
Clahsen, H.
Sonnenstuhl, I; and Blevins, J. (2001) Derivational Morphology in the
German mental Lexicon: A Dual Mechanism Account. MS. University of Essex.
Clahsen, H; Hadler, M; Weyerts, H. (2003) Frequency Effects in Children's and
Adult's Production of Inflected Words.
MS. University of Essex.
Comrie, B. (1981) Language universals and
linguistic typology. Chicago:
University of Chicago.
(1987)
The unity of syntactic contrasts in English and Russian. MS. Paper presented at
the University of Southern California.
Elman, J. (1993) Learning and development in neural
networks: the importance of starting small. Cognition 48, 71-99.
Felix, S. (1984) Maturational aspects of Universal
Grammar. In Interlanguage (eds A. Davis, C. Criper and A.P.R. Howatt, 133-161.
Edinburgh University Press
Galasso, J. (1999) The Acquisition of Functional
Categories: A Case Study. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Essex.
(2003b)
'Towards a Converging Theories Model of Child Language Acquisition: Continuing
Discontinuity' (paper no. 2. ms., California State University, Northridge).
(2003c)
The Acquisition of Functional Categories. IULC Publications Indiana University.
(2004)
'The Acquisition of Inflection and the Dual Mechanism Model'. Proceedings of
the Child Language Research Forum-2004,
Stanford.
Grinstead, J. (2000) Case, Inflection and subject
licensing in child Catalan and Spanish. Journal of Child Language 27:1 pp. 119-155.
Grodzinsky, Y. (1985) Language deficits and
linguistic theory. Ph. D. Diss.
Brandeis University.
(1990)
Theoretical Perspectives on Language Deficits. MIT Press.
Guasti, M.T. (1993/1994) Verb syntax in Italian child
grammar: Finite and nonfinite verbs. Language Acquisition 3. 1-40.
Guasti, M. T. & Rizzi, L. (2002) Agreement and
tense as distinct syntactic positions; Evidence from acquisition. In G. Cinque
(Ed) Functional structure in DP and IP. Oxford University Press.
Guilfoyle & Noonan (1988) Functional Categories
and Language Acquisition. MS. McGill University, Boston University Conference
on Language Acquisition.
Hagoort, P; Brown, C; Groothusen, J. (1993) The
syntactic positive shift (SPS) as an ERP-measure of syntactic processing. Language
and Cognitive Processes 8: 439-83.
Halle, M. and Marantz, A. (1993) Distributed
Morphology and the Pieces of Inflection. In K. L. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.), The
view from building 20: essays in linguistics in honor of Sylvain Bromberger, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press 111-167.
Hawkins, J. (1986) A comparative typology of
English and German. London: Croom
Helm.
Hyams, N.
(1987) The core/periphery distinction in language acquisition. Paper
presented
at
the ESCOL IV, Ohio State University.
(1996)
The underspecification of functional categories in early grammar. In Clahsen, H. (Ed) Generative
Perspectives on Language Acquisition.
John Benjamins.
Marchman, V. & Bates, E. (1994) Continuity in
lexical and morphological development: A test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal
of Child Language 21. 339-366.
Marcus, G; Pinker, S; Ullman, M; Hollander, M; Rosen,
J; Xu, F. (1992) Overregularization in Language Acquisition. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development. 57 (serial No. 228), 1-165.
Marcus, G. (2001) The Algebraic Mind. MIT Press.
Meisel, J. (1994) Getting FAT: Finiteness, Agreement
and Tense in Early Grammars. Bilingual First Language Acquisition: French
and German Grammatical Development (ed)
J. Meisel pp. 89-129. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.
Neville, H; Nicol, J; Barss, A; Forster, K; and
Garret, M. (1991) Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence
from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 3: 151-65.
Newport, E. (1990) Maturational constraints on
language learning. Cognitive Science,
14. 11-28.
Pierce, A. (1989) On the Emergence of Syntax: a
cross linguistic study. Ph.D. Diss.
MIT Press.
(1992)
Language Acquisition and Syntactic Theory: a comparative analysis of French
and English child grammars. Kluwer:
Dordrecht.
Pierce, A. & DŽprez, V. (1994) Cross-linguistic
evidence for functional projections in early child grammar. In Hoekstra, T
& Schwarts, B. (Eds) Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar.
Pine, J;
Lieven, E; Rowland, C. (1998) Comparing different models of development
of the English verb category. Linguistics 36. 807-830.
Pinker, S. (1999) Words and Rules. Basic Books.
Posner, M., & Raichle, M. (1994/1999) Images of Mind. Scientific American Library.
Radford, A. (1990) Syntactic Theory and the
Acquisition of English Syntax.
Blackwell Publishers.
(1995)
Phrase structures and functional categories. In P. Fletcher & B. MacWhinney
(Eds) The Handbook of Child Language.
pp. 483-507. Blackwell.
(1997)
Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English. Cambridge University Press.
(2000)
Children in search of perfection: Towards a Minimalist Model of Acquisition. Essex
Research Reports in Linguistics. 34.
Radford, A. Galasso, J. (1998) Children's Possessive
Structures: A Case Study. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics 19. pp. 37-45.
Raichle, M. (1994) Images of the mind: Studies with
modern imagining techniques. Annual Review of Psychology 45. 333-356.
Robinson, B. & Mervis, C. (1998) Disentangling
early language development: Modeling lexical and grammatical acquisition using
an extension of case-study methodology. Developmental Psychology 34. 363-375.
Rodriguez-Fornells, A., MŸnte, T., Clahsen, H. (2002)
Morphological Priming in Spanish Verb Forms: An ERP Repetition Priming Study. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience 14:3,
pp.443-454.
Santelmann, L. & Jusczyk, P. (1998) Sensitivity to
discontinuous dependencies in language learners: Evidence for limitations in
processing space. Cognition 69.
105-134.
SchŸtze, C. and Wexler, K. (1996) Subject case
licensing and English root infinitives. In A. Sringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E.
Hughes, and A. Zukowski (Eds) Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston
University Conference on Language Development. 670-681. Somerville, Mass. Cascadilla
Tomasello, M (2000) Do young children have adult
syntactic competence? Cognition
74. 209-253.
Ullman, M; Corkin, S; Pinker, S; Coppola, M; Growdon,
J. & Locascio, J. (1997) Which neural structures subserve language?
Evidence from inflectional morphology. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 9. 289-299.
Uriagereka, J. (2000) Ryme and Reason: An
Introduction to Minimal Syntax. MIT
Press.
Wakefield, J. and Wilcox, M.J. (1994) Brain Maturation
and Language Acquisition: Theoretical Model and Preliminary Investigation. (Eds
D. Maclaughlin and McEwen, S.) Proceedings of the BUCLD 19, 643-654. Vol. 2. Cascadilla Press
Wexler, K. (1994) Optional infinitives, head movement
and the economy of derivations in child grammar. Verb Movement. D. Lightfoot & N. Hornstein (Eds). 305-350. CUP.
Wijnen, F. & Bol, G. (1993) The escape from the
optional infinitive stage. In Papers in Experimental Linguistics; University
of Groningen. pp. 239-48.
[1] See Clahsen et al. (2001). Ullman et al. (1997) suggest apparent
processing distinctions reflect a Language/Neural Dissociation between Declarative (memory) and
Procedural (rule) systems.
[2] Elements of this dual typology could be similarly
interpreted along more traditional lines of typology-namely, 'Semantic
Transparent' vs. 'Grammaticization'-type languages (Hawkins 1986, Comrie
1987). Some attempts have been
made to tease apart the two language types by using PET, and fMRI brain scans.
Regarding some of these pioneering studies, there are early signs suggesting
that the two language types may emphasize different parts of the brain for
storage and retrieval tasks (typically equating to the Left-Frontal-Lobe (LFL)
as the rule-based processing area vs. the Temporal-Lobe (TL) for
frequency-based storage). Much
more study needs to be done here however. But certainly, the idea that brain
scan representations may come to model and map linguistic structure, akin to
contemporary syntactic tree-diagramming, is an intriguing possibility. See Rodriguez-Fornells et
al. 2002, Ullman et al. 1997, Posner & Raichle 1994, for brain imagining
studies. See Neville et al. 1991, Hagoort
et al. 1993 for research showing distinctive electro-physiological responses to
syntactic vs. semantic violations. See Wakefield and Wilcox (1994) for a
theoretical model of brain maturation and language acquisition. See Pinker
(1999 pp. 264-268), Alegre & Gordon (1999), Clahsen et al. (2003) for
general discussion.
[3] Pinker (1999: 130) suggests that the proposed
dual-track along with the single-track processing mode may be connected by an
'inhibitory link' by which the activation of a stored whole-word gradually
slows down and ultimately turns off the rule. Strong-stem language types, which
manifest very high whole-word frequency effects, might then be said to turn off
the rule-based storage capacity.
English irregular verbs and participle forms {-en} and {-ing} which turn off the rule-based
storage could be thought of as maintaining 'strong-stem-like' properties.
Posner et al. (p. 125-6) have discovered that PET language processing effects
differ when the subject performs repetitive practice of a language task (see
also fn 11). They claim practice turns off rule-based frontal-lobe processing
and triggers areas in the Insular Cortex (temporal-lobe) region of the brain.
Based on such findings, they suggest the brain has 'two pathways' for
performing language generation tasks: (i) one used for automatic responses that
were learned previously, and (ii) one used for unlearned, but rule-based
responses.
[4] There is some thinking along these lines to
suggest that the nature of the shift (or turning off) between the two
processing storage capacities could be correlated to a critical mass of vocabulary
storage. For instance, Marchman & Bates (1994) argue that children only
begin to perform 'weak-stem' regular verb inflections once a critical mass of
vocabulary has been reached showing a (weak-stem) regular to (strong-stem)
irregular proportion of 55% to 45%. Likewise, Robinson & Mervis (1998) find
similar correlates with onset of inflection to retardation of lexical growth.
To my mind, there could be two opposing accounts of this: (i) that the eventual
acquisition of a paradigm places a burden on the lexical memory apparatus thus
triggering an additional storage capacity in the frontal lobe region of brain
(a paradigm-to-memory relation), or conversely, (ii) that it is in fact a high
memory capacity in the first place the forces the additional rule-based storage
capacity (a memory-to-paradigm relation). (See Newport's 'Less-is-More
Hypothesis' for comments along this line of reasoning, along with subsequent
work done by Jeff Elman on connectionism). In the latter view, high memory
spawns rule-based paradigmatic function. Having said this, we must be clear here and state that we are in no way
suggesting that 'strong-stem' language types suffer from a memory deficit which
allows the language to maintain a single storage capacity. The idea is rather
that inflectional modularity can be handled in two ways, depending on the
nature of how the stem+affix enters into a processing and storage
configuration.
[5] See
also Paper no. 2 of 'A Research Statement: Towards a Converging Theories Model
of Child Language Acquisition: Continuing Discontinuity' (Galasso 2003b).
[6] Another
way to analyze this within the Principles and Parameters Theory (Chomsky 1981,
and later extended in the Minimalist
Program, Chomsky 1995) would be to say that this 'knowledge of morpho-phonology'
is akin to the kind of innate knowledge attributed to the invariant principles
of UG, while the 'triggering of syntax' is more akin to variant parameter
setting. In fact, both top-down and bottom up strategies eventually have to be
involved: top-down for language typology which drives awareness in constructing
an inflectional paradigm, bottom-up for constructing actual features in lexical
items.
[7] A good example of which could be 'clitic
affixation' in the case of can't/shouldn't/needn't/etc. where the negative {n't} clitic
attaches to the stem and then proceeds to be processed as part of the stem. The
following examples only show licit movement of the neg clitic {n't} particle
across IP and into CP, and never the negation stem {not}-[Shouldn't] you
finish your exam? *Should you [n't] finish your exams, *Should not you finish
your exams? Such
words that are derived at by clitic formation have been argued as being
processed as morpho-phonological chunks. Also, derivational morphology which
has some similarity to lexical semantics, likewise has been reported has
maintaining 'stem-like' properties (see Anderson 1992: 184-5, Clahsen et al.
2001: 9).
[8] Both languages appear to be described as weakly
inflected [-INFL] like English which help define their 'non-pro-drop' status.
Both French and German however, unlike English, are subject to overt syntactic
finite verb movement at PF (V2 in German, and Verb IP-insertion in French).
[9] For example, Bloom et al. (1980) note that early English production of [V+ing]
was relegated to 'activity' verbs and was not initially generated on the full
class of verbs. This suggests that early on at stage-1 children may process
such inflections as a kind of lexical/semantic marker (data from Brown: 1973).
In other studies, Santelmann & Jusczyk (1998) show that very young children
can track dependency of the [V+ing] only up to limited syllabic separation
(i.e., there is an Adjacency condition to such early [V+ing] constructs which
point to semi-formulaic tendency). Such [V+ing] or [V+en] constructs may be
based on high frequency or have a high repetitive nature. In addition, as
uncovered by frequency effects obtained in lexical decision tasks, high
frequency may even affect otherwise rule-based constructions: Clahsen et al. (2003
p. 30) report that high frequency [verb+ed] constructs such as the verb walked
may actually
incorporate as a non-decomposed chunk and be stored/processed as a lexical
subentry to the base form walk in the same way in which the irregular verb drank forms a subentry to drink. By contrast, the low frequency stalked
showed no such
subentry of stalk. Hence, high frequency of inflection may spawn memory versions.
[10] For discussion and data analysis of the early appearance of a 'default' DP
containing a singular [+Interp] feature [+Def] in early child English grammar,
see Galasso 2003c p.98). In brief, the discussion consists of the idea that
lower syntactic positions dominated by VP may house +Interp features only and
thus are not obliged to force movement of the head into a checking domain of a
higher functional phrase (such as IP/AGRP). In this sense, Galasso (1999/2003c)
treats the early emergence of DPs, which evidence no other signs of functional
material, as a lower VP-dominated DP-projection with the sole semantic feature
spell-out of [+Def] maintaining accusative/objective case by default. Examples
of VP-dominated by VP would show DPs manifesting +Interp features only: e.g Him
kick [VP/DP the
ball] = [VP
[/DP The ball] [V go]].
[11] Guasti and Rizzi (2002) suggest
that indeed such bare stems are finite forms missing the {-s}, as indicated by
the child sentence He don't hear me' (Sarah 3;5) which shows both NOM Case Agreement and
potential Tense (only the Person feature is missing). However, if this is the
case, it may ultimately throw the whole notion of phono-morphology into doubt,
since in this view, it becomes impossible to tell whether or not a stem+affix
actually correlates to any real morphological feature representation in the
child's grammar: If a [-FIN] stem shows Finiteness, what then prevents the
potential and unwanted reading of a [+FIN] stem+affix showing no such
finiteness? However, it also must
be said that Meisel suggests just this when he posits that in Child German, it
is the third person that activates the verbal paradigm and not the first and
second person features.
[12] There is an interpretation that
all functional categories and features are determined by UG and thus are
universal: under this view, it is only their settings and specifications that
must then be determined by the language input. The 'strong maturational'
interpretation would view functional categories and features to be more
tethered to maturational factors pertaining to the child's brain development
(akin to a biological basis of language development).
[13] There is always a tempting
aspect of the 'Converging Theories Model' to collapse and converge the
'bottom-up' cognitive Constructivist version of a stage-1 as based on
high-frequency learning, slot-frame sequencing, lexical incorporation (cf.
Tomasello 2000, Pine, Lieven and Rowland 1998) with that of the 'top-down'
syntactic Generative version of the same stage-1 data (cf. Radford 1990, Radford and
Galasso (1998), since both models descriptively overlap and call for an
identical stage-1 void of any functional morphology. It may be possible that
the DMM could converge the two positions in interesting ways as based on
maturational brain development. For instance, and irrespective of whether or
not the DMM is viable, children may simply be relying on the high frequency of
lexical stems (in contrast to the consistent frequency of affixes) to determine
the categorical distinction of lexical vs. function morphology. (A potential
DMM 'Convergence' in this sense might mean that both Generativists' and
Constructivists' hypotheses are basically correct for the initial stages of
language acquisition, since both view the child's language deficit in
maturational terms).