L2 Generativist theory of grammar aquisition
- Created by: BKW
- Created on: 10-01-20 11:50
View mindmap
- L2 - BASIC SYNTAX - Generativist theory of grammar aquisition
- Innate universal grammar includes:
- Lexical categories
- Knowledge of how lexical categories combine into phrases
- and how phrases combine into sentences
- Movement rules used for forming passives/ Question ect
- Movement rules for inflection
- Parameter Settings
- Children are born with universal grammer but must LEARN ORDER of the elements in a phrase
- Universal grammar states VP=V+NP but in different lnguages it can be a different order
- Turkish = VP= NP then V / English = VP= V then NP
- SO UG has a head-direction parameter - verb is 'head' of verb prase
- Head-first - English VS Head-final - Turkish
- Mental switch so a child knows set by the child based on inputs
- Universal grammar states VP=V+NP but in different lnguages it can be a different order
- Other parameters include tense marking and subject omission
- Children learn lang quick and don't make many errors - English speaking children virtually never put verb after object NP but often don't supply subject
- Setting parameters simultaneously? as well as the head direction pm children must also set 2 other
- Specifier-head pm : S+V / V+S
- V2 pm : some languages eg german have a rule that the 2nd part of a sentence must always be a verb - so S-V/V-S its a yes/no pm
- the only way this would not be confusing is if you already knew you had set another pm correctly
- Gibson&Wexler - mathematically proved a system guess when faced with ambiguity would never arrive at correct setting when there are 3 or more pms
- Unless some pms are not allowed to be set until a certain maturational point
- This leaves child with no grammar to understand utterances
- Unless some pms are not allowed to be set until a certain maturational point
- Bootstrapping problem - to set the HDpm child has to recognise what the Verb and NP is but words don't come with lables
- Christophe et al - children use phonological prominence to set this pm - did this by using high amplitude sucking paradigm
- No actual evidence they use this to set the pm - no systematic reviews
- Christophe et al - children use phonological prominence to set this pm - did this by using high amplitude sucking paradigm
- Children are born with universal grammer but must LEARN ORDER of the elements in a phrase
- Semantic bootstrapping theory Pinker 1984
- To counter the BS problem - child uses semantics to work out SVO word order
- Agent = subject, Patient = Object & Action = verb
- child first uses these semantics to learn SVO word order using AAP but can then generalise to more complex sentences where AAP does not apply
- Some utterances violate linking rules - what if action word is a noun not verb
- Pinker responds to this saying child 'Filters out' non basic sentences
- Some languages violate linking rules completely eg Dyirbal - OVS word order
- Problems with whole approach
- Children learn rules apllying to variables not to individual words so if a child can say kick-s they must be able to +s onto any verb to make it 3gs present tense
- But we know children struggle to do this with some verbs but not others - CONSTRUCTIVIST
- Early knowledge of word order may be in form of lexically-specific schemas
- But we know children struggle to do this with some verbs but not others - CONSTRUCTIVIST
- Children learn rules apllying to variables not to individual words so if a child can say kick-s they must be able to +s onto any verb to make it 3gs present tense
- Innate universal grammar includes:
Comments
No comments have yet been made