Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:59:51.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Usage-based vs. rule-based learning: the acquisition of word order in wh-questions in English and Norwegian

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2009

MARIT WESTERGAARD
MARIT WESTERGAARD*
Affiliation:
University of Tromsø/CASTL
*
[*]Address for correspondence: University of Tromsø/CASTL, 9037 Tromsø, Norway. e-mail: marit.westergaard@hum.uit.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses different approaches to language acquisition in relation to children's acquisition of word order in wh-questions in English and Norwegian. While generative models assert that children set major word order parameters and thus acquire a rule of subject–auxiliary inversion or generalized verb second (V2) at an early stage, some constructivist work argues that English-speaking children are simply reproducing frequent wh-word+auxiliary combinations in the input. The paper questions both approaches, re-evaluates some previous work, and provides some further data, concluding that the acquisition of wh-questions must be the result of a rule-based process. Based on variation in adult grammars, a cue-based model to language acquisition is presented, according to which children are sensitive to minor cues in the input, called micro-cues. V2 is not considered to be one major parameter, but several smaller-scale cues, which are responsible for children's lack of syntactic (over-)generalization in the acquisition process.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 5 , November 2009 , pp. 1023 - 1051
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ambridge, B., Rowland, C. F., Theakston, A. L. & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: ‘What experimental data can tell us?’ Journal of Child Language 33, 519–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anderssen, M. (2006). The acquisition of compositional definiteness in Norwegian. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tromsø.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. M. (2004). Indian English: syntax. In Kortmann, B., Burridge, K., Mesthrie, R., Schneider, E. W. & Upton, C. (eds) Handbook of varieties of English 2: Morphology and syntax, 1016–30. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H., Penke, M. & Parodi, T. (1993/94). Functional categories in early child German. Language Acquisition 3, 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
DeVilliers, J. (1991). Why questions? In Maxfield, T. L. & Plunkett, B. (eds) Papers in the acquisition of wh: Proceedings of the Umass Roundtable, May 1990. Amherst, MA: University of Massachsetts Occasional Papers.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. & Tomasello, M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A usage-based approach to the development of grammatical constructions. Cognitive Linguistics 12, 97–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, A. (1995). Belfast English and Standard English. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingram, D. & Tyack, D. (1979). Inversion of subject NP and Aux in children's questions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 8(4), 333–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordens, P. (1990). The acquisition of verb placement in Dutch and German. Linguistics 28, 1407–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroch, A. & Taylor, A. (1997). Verb movement in Old and Middle English: Dialect variation and language contact. In van Kemenade, A. & Vincent, N. (eds) Parameters of morphosyntactic change, 297–325. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. & Maratsos, M. (1983). Initial verbs of yes–no questions: A different kind of general grammatical category. Developmental Psychology 19(3), 440–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Malden, MA and Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (2006). How new languages emerge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. & Westergaard, M. (2007). Language acquisition and language change: Inter-relationships. Language and Linguistics Compass 1(5), 396–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk. 3rd ed. Vol. 2: The database. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Poeppel, D. & Wexler, K. (1993). The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in Early German. Language 69, 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poletto, C. & Pollock, J.-Y. (2004). On wh-clitics and wh-doubling in French and some North Eastern Italian dialects. Probus 16, 241–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, A. (1992). The acquisition of the morphosyntax of finite verbs in English. In Meisel, J. M. (ed.) The acquisition of verb placement: Functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition, 23–62. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Belletti, A. & Rizzi, L. (eds) Parameters and functional heads, 63–90. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position ‘Int(errogative)’ in the left periphery of the clause. In Cinque, G. & Salvi, G. (eds) Current studies in Italian syntax, 287–96. Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. (1999). Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3), 169–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roeper, T. (2007). What frequency can do and what it can't. In Gülzow, I. & Gagarina, N. (eds) Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept, 23–48 [Studies on Language Acquisition]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject–auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘What children do know?’ Journal of Child Language 27, 157–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. M. (2003). The development of inversion in wh-questions: A reply to Van Valin. Journal of Child Language 30, 197–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rowland, C. F., Pine, J. M., Lieven, E. M. V. & Theakston, A. L. (2003). Determinants of acquisition order in wh-questions: Re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal of Child Language 30, 609–635.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Santelmann, L. (1995). The acquisition of verb second grammar in child Swedish: Continuity of Universal Grammar in WH-questions, topicalizations and verb raising. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
Santelmann, L., Berk, S., Austin, J., Somashekar, S. & Lust, B. (2002). Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no-questions: Dissociating movement and inflection. Journal of Child Language 29, 813–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schönenberger, M. (2001). Embedded V-to-C in child grammar: The acquisition of verb placement in Swiss German. Studies in Theoretical Psycholinguistics. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, W. (2007). Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M. (2006). Acquiring linguistic constructions. In Kuhn, D. & Siegler, R. (eds) Handbook of child psychology, 255–98. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Vangsnes, Ø. A. (2005). Microparameters for Norwegian wh-grammars. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 5, 187–226. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Valin, R. D. (2002). The development of subject–auxiliary inversion in English wh-questions: An alternative analysis. Journal of Child Language 29, 161–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vikner, S. (1995). Verb movement and expletive subjects in the Germanic languages. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. R. (2003). Word order in wh-questions in a North Norwegian dialect: Some evidence from an acquisition study. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 26(1), 81–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2008 a). Verb movement and subject placement in the acquisition of word order: Pragmatics or structural economy? In Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Larranaga, P. & Clibbens, J. (eds) First language acquisition of morphology and syntax: Perspectives across languages and learners, 61–86 [Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 45]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2008 b). Acquisition and change: On the robustness of the triggering experience for word order cues. Lingua 118(12), 1841–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. (2009). Microvariation as diachrony: A view from acquisition. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 12(1).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westergaard, M. & Bentzen, K. (2007). The (Non-)effect of input frequency on the acquisition of word order in Norwegian embedded clauses. In Gülzow, I. & Gagarina, N. (eds) Frequency effects in language acquisition: Defining the limits of frequency as an explanatory concept, 271–306 [Studies on Language Acquisition]. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar