Cover not available

In:Multifaceted Multilingualism
Edited by Kleanthes K. Grohmann
[Studies in Bilingualism 66] 2024
► pp. 22–46

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 2
To acquire a recursive grammar, children start with a recursive procedure (MERGE)

 | Macquarie University
 | Zhejiang University
 | Leibniz-Zentrum für allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS)
 | Zhejiang University
 | Macquarie University
Published online: 4 April 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sibil.66.02gib
Abstract
Recursion is a central topic in language acquisition because it helps to inform an explanatorily adequate theory of the human language faculty. Some researchers (e.g., Roeper, 2011) have proposed that it is possible for children’s early grammars to include a transitory acquisition stage that is based on conjunction rather than the truly recursive operation of merge which characterizes mature grammars. A truth-value judgement task with an elicitation component was designed to elicit recursive genitive structures in both Mandarin and English. Our results indicate that child participants in both Mandarin and English understood recursive genitive structures and a substantial majority could also produce the target recursive genitive structures. These results provide compelling evidence that recursion emerges early in child language acquisition and that there is no need to propose a transitory stage that lacks a recursive procedure.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The minimalist program
  • 3.Previous research
  • 4.Experiments
    • 4.1Experiment with English-speaking children
    • 4.2An example story
    • 4.3Results
    • 4.4Experiment with Mandarin-speaking children
    • 4.5Example story
    • 4.6Results
  • 5.Corpus studies
  • 6.General discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Adger, D. (2003). Core syntax: A minimalist approach. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. (2016). Why only us: Language and evolution. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boeckx, C. (2009). The nature of Merge: Consequences for language, mind, and biology. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini, J. Uriagereka, & P. Salaburu (Eds.), Of minds and language: A dialogue with Noam Chomsky in the Basque country (pp. 44–57). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolhuis, J. J., & Everaert, M. (2013). Birdsong, speech, and language: Exploring the evolution of mind and brain. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition on child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 11–53). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2001). Beyond explanatory adequacy: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2014). Aspects of the theory of syntax. The MIT Press. (Original work published 1965).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Corballis, M. C. (2011). The recursive mind: The origins of human language, thought, and civilization. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(4), 597–612. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Pietroski, P. (2001). Nature, nurture and Universal Grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24(2), 139–186. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (2000). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crain, S., Giblin, I., & Thornton, R. (2021). The deep forces that shape language and the poverty of the stimulus. In N. Allott, T. Lohndal, & G. Rey (Eds.), A Companion to Chomsky (pp. 462–475). John Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Culicover, P. (1976). Syntax. Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
den Dikken, M., & Dékány, É. (2018). A restriction on recursion. Syntax, 21, 37–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Everett, D. L. (2005). Cultural constraints on grammar and cognition in Pirahã: Another look at the design features of human language. Current Anthropology, 46(4), 621–646. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Language: The cultural tool. Pantheon Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T., & Hauser, M. D. (2004). Computational constraints on syntactic processing in a non-human primate. Science, 303, 377–380. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitch, W. T., Hauser, M. D., & Chomsky, N. (2005). The evolution of the language faculty: Clarifications and implications. Cognition, 97, 179–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freeze, R. (1992). Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68, 553–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gentile, S. (2003). On the acquisition of left-branching recursive possessives. Amherst: University of Massachusetts honors thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giblin, I., Zhou, P., Bill, C., Shi, J., & Crain, S. (2019). The spontaneous eMERGEence of recursion in child language. Proceedings of BUCLD, 43, 270–285.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gu, C. (2008). Structural ambiguity and AP?PP recursion in language acquisition. Ms., University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hamburger, H., & Crain, S. (1984). Acquisition of cognitive compiling. Cognition, 17(2), 85–136. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauser, M. D., Chomsky, N., & Fitch, W. T. (2002). The faculty of language: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? Science, 298(5598), 1569–1579. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoekstra, T. (1984). Transitivity: Grammatical relations in Government-Binding theory. Foris.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoeksema, J. (2010). Feature percolation in the Dutch possessive. In C. J. Zwart and M. de Vries (Eds.), Structure Preserved: Studies in syntax for Jan Koster (pp. 167-174). John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hollebrandse, B. (2018). Indirect recursion: The importance of second-order embedding and its implications for cross-linguistic research. In L. Amaral, M. Maia, A. Nevins, & T. Roeper (Eds.), Recursion across domains, 35–47. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hollebrandse, B., & Roeper, T. (2014). Empirical results and formal approaches to recursion in acquisition. In T. Roeper & M. Speas (Eds.), Recursion: Complexity in cognition, studies in theoretical psycholinguistics (pp. 179–219). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hornstein, N., Rosen, S., & Uriagereka, J. (1994). Integrals. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 2, 70–90.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huang, C.-T. J., Li, Y. Audrey, & Li, Y. (2009). The syntax of Chinese. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2010). Your theory of language evolution depends on your theory of language. In R. K. Larson, V. Déprez, & H. Yamakido (Eds.), The evolution of human language: Biolinguistic perspectives (pp. 63–72). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lasnik, H., & Lidz, J. (2017). The argument from the poverty of the stimulus. In I. Roberts (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Universal Grammar (pp. 221–248). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lenneberg, E. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lieven, E. (2009). Developing constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 20(1), 191–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Limbach, M., & Adone, D. (2010). Language acquisition of recursive possessives in English. Proceedings of BUCLD, 34, 281–290.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project. Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marcus, G. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46(1), 53–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nevins, A., Pesetsky, D., & Rodrigues, C. (2009). Evidence and argumentation: A reply to Everett (2009). Language, 85(3), 671–681. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., Castilla-Earls, A., Bejar, S., & Massam, D. (2012). Elmo’s sister’s ball: The problem of acquiring nominal recursion. Language Acquisition, 19(4), 301–311. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perfors, A., Tenenbaum, J. B., & Regier T. (2011). The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition, 118, 306–338. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). The faculty of language: What’s special about it. Cognition, 95, 201–236. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richards, N. (2006). A distinctness condition on linearization. Ms., Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
(2010). Uttering trees. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (2007). The prism of grammar: How child language illuminates humanism. The MIT Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2010). Recursion: What is innate, why it needs a trigger, where it belongs in cross-linguistic work, and how it fits into the mind. Proceedings of Anpoll’s 1st International Psycholinguistics Congress, Rio de Janeiro (pp. 42–64).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). The acquisition of recursion: How formalism articulates the child’s path. Biolinguistics, 5(1–2), 57–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roeper, T., & Snyder, W. (2005). Language learnability and the forms of recursion. In A.-M. DiScullo (Ed.), UG and external systems: Language, brain and computation (pp. 155–169). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1972). Doubl-ing. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 61–86.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sauerland, U. (2018). False reports in Pirahã. In L. Amaral, M. Maia, A. Nevins, & T. Roeper (Eds.), Recursion across domains (pp. 21–34). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. C. (1988). The representation of syntactic categories. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Basque Language, Second Basque World Congress (pp. 104–116). Central Publications Service of the Basque Government.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1998). Categorial feature magnetism: The endocentricity and distribution of projections. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics, 2, 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wolfe, T. (2016). The kingdom of speech. Random House.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Yang, C., Crain, S., Berwick, R. C., Chomsky, N., & Bolhuis, J. J. (2017). The growth of language: Universal Grammar, experience, and principles of computation. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 81, 103–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue