4>Morphology & syntax Flashcards
Summary of generative-nativist approach to morphology & syntax (5)
- poverty of stimulus
- no negative evidence
- innate grammatical knowledge based on abstract rules & categories
- children “only” need to link rules to abstract catgories
- once link is made, syntactic rules should be applied to all item within a category
Summary of usage-based approach to morphology & syntax> (4)
- both words & syntactic structures carry meaning and can be learned
- linguistic constructions lie on a continuum of size and abstraction
- children derive abstract rules & categories from the input by applying domain-general mechanisms, (i.e. intention reading, analogy & pattern finding)
- children start with small & item-based schemas that gradually develop into more complex & abstract schema
2 sub points of ‘poverty of stimulus argument’>
1>syntactic rules to learn/discover cannot be seen in input we receive
(i.e. yes/no qn formation> hypothesised ‘rule’ doesnt apply to all> so must be innate)
2> children learn grammar even though their input is often ungrammatical
(i.e. false starts/unfinished sentences> so must be innate)
G-N & idea of no negative evidence>
- overcreativity: children going beyond input & producing errors (“he goed”)
- children recover from these, so grammatical knowledge must be innate
G-N what is the innate knowledge?> (2/2)
> structure dependency (principle)
- knowledge that syntactic rules are based on abstract categories & abstract sturctures
(i.e. CP/DP etc)
> word order (parameters)
- as differing across langs but in fairly systematic way
what are the feature of ‘principles and parameters’ in G-N >
- both are based on ABSTRACT syntactic categories
- both are innate
- abstract categories & syntactic sturctures are innate (but links between parameters & categories have to be learnt)
semantic bootstrapping=
theory that children can acquire syntax of a lang by learning & recognising SEMANTIC elements & building upon that
usage based view on grammar>
as a continuum between words & syntactic structures, both carrying meaning & can be learned from input
(development from: small>big & concrete>abstract)
U-B & early development of syntax>
early in development children learn syntactic rules based on ONLY ‘semi-abstract’ patterns that are based on SPECIFIC lexical items
(i.e. “he saw___” <but perhaps not “she/they/i saw ___”)
U-B later in development of syntax>
- gradual development where children discover & form abstract syntactic categories & rules based on what they hear in the input & their pattern finding skills
U-B pattern finding & generalisation> e.g.> (dog)
- 1>see overlap & variation “the dog chased the cat” “the dog chased the mouse”> “the dog chased the”
- 2> see further overlap & variation of prior “the dog bit the cat” > “the dog ACTION PATIENT”
3> see further O&V of prior “he hit me”> “AGENT ACTION PATIENT”
4> see further O&V of prior “she saw him”> SUBJ VERB OBJ
early production syntax: B&F telegraphic speech> (3)
- found lack of grammar in early 2 word utterances, but word order regularities “big balloon”
- some systematicity: possessor followed by possed “daddy coffee”; adj followed by N “big shell”
- overall lack of morphological items & function words
early production syntax> pivot grammar>
claim that children do have function words such as “off” and “on” which they form ‘semi-abstract schemas’ with
(“sock off, shoe off”> __off; “all gone, all dressed”> all___)
Early production syntax: verb islands>
- claims we have patterns that are formed around SPECIFIC verbs & each has own schema; not generalised to all verbs
(e.g. “__is pushing__” A/P; “__ is rolling” just A)
mean letter of utterance (MLU)=
statistic that measure morphemes (free+bound) by counting no of morphemes & dividing by no of utterances
