Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:19:41.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Knowledge of binding in normal and SLI children†

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Steven L. Franks  and
Phil J. Connell
Steven L. Franks*
Affiliation:
Indiana University
Phil J. Connell
Affiliation:
Indiana University
*
[*] Address for correspondence: Department of Linguistics, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The properties of reflexives vary across adult languages with respect to (i) the domain in which a reflexive may be bound and (ii) the syntactic positions an appropriate antecedent may occupy. These two issues have been approached in GB theory in various ways, each with specific implications for acquisition. In this paper we examine these implications by testing normal and Specific Language Impaired (SLI) children for evidence of the binding domain and orientation properties of their grammars. The investigation reveals that, contrary to most previous claims, normal children acquiring English pass through a long-distance binding stage. SLI children, however, do not display this pattern, tending instead to behave like very young normal children in requiring the nearest available NP to be the antecedent. We argue that this constitutes an early binding stage not previously identified. Finally, we interpret our findings in terms of a conception of acquisition dubbed the ‘competing grammars’ model, according to which competing incompatible grammars may coexist in the mind of the learner.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 431 - 464
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

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.)

Footnotes

†

This paper was accepted for publication in 1993 but did not go to press because of a most unfortunate administrative error. We apologise to the authors for this delay. ED.

References

REFERENCES

Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. & Wexler, K. (1987). The maturation of syntax. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds), Parametersetting. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Chien, Y-C, & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1, 225–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986 a). Knowledge of language: its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986 b). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1992). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G. & Sung, M. (1990). Principles and parameters of long-distance reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 1–22.Google Scholar
Connell, P. (1987). An effect of modeling and imitation teaching on children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 30, 105–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Connell, P. & Stone, C. A. (1992). Morpheme learning of children with specific language impairment under controlled instructional conditions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 35, 844–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crain, S. (1989). Why production precedes comprehension. Paper presented at the 14th Boston University Conference on Child Language Development. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. & Rosen, S. (1990). Knowledge and obedience: the developmental status of Binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 187–222.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1987). The theory of parameters and syntactic development. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds), Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. & Sigurjónsdóttir, S. (1990 a). A crosslinguistic comparison of the development of referentially dependent elements. Paper presented at the isth Boston University Conference on Child Language Development, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. & Sigurjónsdóttir, S. (1990 b). The development of ‘long-distance anaphors’: a cross-linguistic comparison with special reference to Icelandic. Language Acquisition 1, 57–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapur, S., Lust, B., Harbert, W. & Martohardjono, G. (1993). Universal grammar and learnability theory: the case of binding domains and the ‘subset principle’. In Reuland, E. & Abraham, W. (eds), Knowledge and language: issues in representation and acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Katada, F. (1991). The LF representation of anaphors. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 287–313.Google Scholar
Kroch, A. (1989). Function and grammar in the history of English periphrastic do. In Fasold, R. & Shiffrin, D. (eds), Language change and variation. Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1982). The nature of specific language impairment in children. In Rosenberg, S. (ed). Handbook of applied psycholinguistics: major thrusts of research and theory. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1983). A distributional difference between reciprocals and reflexives. Linguistic Inquiry 14, 723–30.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1989). The child's trigger experience: Degree-o learnability. Brain and Behavioral Sciences 12, 321–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1991). How to set parameters: arguments from language change. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Matthei, E. (1981). Children's interpretation of sentences containing reciprocals. In Tavakolian, S. (ed), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Cairns, H. (1990). The child as an informant: eliciting linguistic intuitions from young children. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19, 331–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. & Hsu, R. (1990 a). Binding principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition 1, 121–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. & Hsu, R. (1990 b). Control principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition 1, 297–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pica, P. (1987). On the nature of the reflexivization cycle. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1990). Language acquisition. In Osherson, D. & Lasnik, H. (eds), An invitation to cognitive science: language (vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: The MIT press.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. (1992). Relativized SUBJECT, long-distance reflexives, and accessibility. Linguistic Inquiry 23, 671–80.Google Scholar
Progovac, L. & Franks, S. (1992). Relativized SUBJECTs for reflexives. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistic Society. University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Read, C. & Hare, V. (1979). Children's interpretation of reflexive pronouns in English. In Eckman, F. & Hastings, A. (eds), Studies in first and second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Roseberry, C. & Connell, P. (1991). Use of an invented language rule in the differentiation of normal and specific-language impaired Spanish-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 34, 596–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sigurjónsdóttir, S. & Hyams, N. (1991). The acquisition of binding in Icelandic. Paper presented at the 16th Boston University Conference on Child Language Development. Boston, MA.Google Scholar
Sigurjónsdóttir, S. & Hyams, N. (1992) Reflexivization and logophoricity: evidence from the acquisition of Icelandic. Language Acquisition 2, 359–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, K. (1992). Some issues in the growth of control. In Larson, R. et al. (eds), Control and grammar. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Chien, Y-C. (1987). Children's acquisition of the locality condition for reflexives and pronouns. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 24, 30–39.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Manzini, M. (1987). Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds), Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
White, L. (1981). The responsibility of grammatical theory to acquisition data. In Hornstein, N. & Lightfoot, D. (eds), Explanation in linguistics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Yang, D-W. (1984). The extended binding theory of anaphors. Theoretical Linguistic Research 1, 195–218.Google Scholar