Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:00:23.020Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphosyntactic development in Italian and its relevance to parameter-setting models: comments on the paper by Pizzuto & Caselli*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Nina Hyams
Nina Hyams*
Affiliation:
University of California at Los Angeles
*
University of California at Los Angeles, Linguistics Department, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Pizzuto & Caselli (1992) claim that data from the morphosyntactic development of Italian-speaking children are inconsistent with nativist, parameter-setting models of language development. In the present Note it is argued that much of the data which Pizzuto & Caselli adduce is irrelevant to the specific hypotheses they are evaluating and that those data which are relevant fully support parameter-setting and linguistictheoretic models, contrary to their claims.

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 19 , Issue 3 , October 1992 , pp. 695 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

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

*

Acknowledgements: a version of this paper was read at the Workshop on Crosslinguistic and Cross-population Contributions to the Theory of Acquisition, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, June 1991. I would like to thank the participants of that workshop, in particular, Vicki Fromkin, Yosi Grodzinsky, Teun Hoekstra and Yonata Levy. I would also like to thank the editor of the Journal of Child Language for giving me this opportunity to reply.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bellugi, U. (1967). The acquisition of negation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 491–504.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1973). Early syntactic development. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chien, Y. -C. & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of conditions on binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1, 225–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frijn, J. & de Haan, G. (1991). The development of verb movement and inflection in Dutch. Unpublished manuscript, University of Groningen.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, J. & Rosen, S. (1990). Knowledge and obedience: the developmental status of the binding theory. Linguistic Inquiry 21, 187–222.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. (1990). Theoretical perspectives on language disorders. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grodzinsky, Y. & Reinhart, T. (forthcoming). The innateness of binding: a reply to Grimshaw and Rosen. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1984). Semantically-based child grammars: some empirical inadequacies. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 23, 58–65.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986 a). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986 b). Core and peripheral grammar and the acquisition of inflection. Paper presented at the nth Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.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. (1988). A principles and parameters approach to the study of child language. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 27, 153–61.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1992). Discreteness and variation in child language: implications for principle and parameter models of language development. In Y. Levy (ed.), Proceedings of the workshop on cross-linguistic and cross-population contributions to theories of language acquisition.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. & Wexler, K. (forthcoming). On the grammatical basis of null subjects in child language. Linguistic Inquiry.Google Scholar
Jacubowicz, C. (1984). Markedness and binding principles. Proceedings of the Northeastern Linguistics Society 14, 154–82.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. & Maxfield, T. (1991). Principle B and contrastive stress. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern Maine.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1981). Procedures for analyzing free-speech samples: syntax and semantics. In Miller, J. (ed.), Assessing language production in children. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (1987). Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, I. M. (1971). Production of utterances and language acquisition. In Slobin, D. (ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Valian, V. (1992). Syntactic subjects in the early speech of American and Italian children. Cognition 40, 21–81.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. & Manzini, M.-R. (1987). Parameters and learning in binding theory. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds), Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar