Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T12:03:31.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language acquisition without an acquisition device

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2011

William O'Grady
William O'Grady*
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii at Manoa, [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most explanatory work on first and second language learning assumes the primacy of the acquisition phenomenon itself, and a good deal of work has been devoted to the search for an ‘acquisition device’ that is specific to humans, and perhaps even to language. I will consider the possibility that this strategy is misguided and that language acquisition is a secondary effect of processing amelioration: attempts by the processor to facilitate its own functioning by developing routines of particular sorts.

Type
Plenary Speeches
Information
Language Teaching , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 116 - 130
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

Akhtar, N. (1999). Acquiring basic word order: Evidence for data-driven learning of syntactic structure. Journal of Child Language 26, 339–356.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Baker, M. (2001). The atoms of language: The mind's hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M., Croft, W., Ellis, N., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning 59: Suppl. 1, 1–26Google Scholar
Berwick, R. (1985). The acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. & McClelland, J. (2005). Alternatives to the combinatorial paradigm of linguistic theory based on domain general principles of human cognition. Linguistic Review 22, 381–410.Google Scholar
Carroll, S. (2001). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Chan, A., Lieven, E., & Tomasello, M. (2009). Children's understanding of the agent–patient relations in the transitive construction: Cross-linguistic comparisons between Cantonese, German, and English. Cognitive Linguistics 20, 267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, F., Dell, G. & Bock, K. (2006). Becoming syntactic. Psychological Review 113, 234–272.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clahsen, H. (2008). Behavioral methods for investigating morphological and syntactic processing in children. In Sekerina, I., Fernández, E. & Clahsen, H. (eds.), Developmental psycholinguistics: On-line methods in children's language processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–28.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Thorpe, K. & Marchman, V. (2010). Blue car, red car: Developing efficiency in online interpretation of adjective-noun phrases. Cognitive Psychology 60, 190–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 11, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (1998). Parsing to learn. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 27, 339–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. D. (2009) Syntax acquisition: An evaluation measure after all? In Palmarini, M. Piatelli, Uriagereka, J. & Salaburu, P. (eds.), Of minds and language: The Basque Country encounter with Noam Chomsky. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 256–277.Google Scholar
Hahn, H. (2000). UG availability of Korean EFL learners: A longitudinal study of different age groups. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of English, Seoul National University, South Korea.Google Scholar
Han, C., Lidz, J. & Musolino, J. (2007). V-raising and grammar competition in Korean: Evidence from negation and quantifier scope. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 1–48.Google Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Herschensohn, J. (2009). Fundamental and gradient differences in language development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 31, 259–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, S. (2009). Interpreting scope ambiguity in first and second language processing: Universal quantifiers and negation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar
Lieberman, P. (2000). Human language and our reptilian brain: The subcortical bases of speech, syntax, and thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lieven, E. & Tomasello, M. (2008). Children's first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective In Robinson, P. & Ellis, N. (eds.) Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics and Second Language Acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 168–196.Google Scholar
Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2005). The role of frequency in the acquisition of English word order. Cognitive Development 20, 121–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musolino, J., Crain, S. & Thornton, R. (2000). Navigating negative quantificational space. Linguistics 38, 1–32.Google Scholar
Musolino, J. & Lidz, J. (2006). Why children aren't universally successful with quantification. Linguistics 44, 817–852.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2005). Syntactic carpentry: An emergentist approach to syntax. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2011). Relative clauses: Processing and acquisition. To appear in Kidd, E. (ed.), The acquisition of relative clauses: Functional and typological perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W., Lee, M. & Kwak, H.-Y. (2009). Emergentism and second language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. (eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition. Bingley, UK: Emerald Press, 69–88.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W., Kwak, H.-Y., Lee, M., & Lee, O.-S. (2011). An emergentist perspective on partial language acquisition. To appear in Studies in Second Language Acquisition.Google Scholar
Paradis, M. (2004). A neurolinguistic theory of bilingualism. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, M.-S. (1997). A study on the English verb pattern acquisition process of Korean students. M.A. thesis, Department of English Education, Seoul National University.Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sachs, J. S. (1967). Recognition memory for syntactic and semantic aspects of connected discourse. Perception and Psychophysics 2, 437–442.Google Scholar
Sagarra, N. & Herschensohn, J. (2010). The role of proficiency and working memory in gender and number processing in L1 and L2 Spanish. Lingua 120: 2022–2039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seidenberg, M. & MacDonald, M. (1999). A probabilistic constraints approach to language acquisition and processing. Cognitive Science 23, 569–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, H. & Fisher, C. (2007). Discourse prominence effects on 2.5-year-old children's interpretation of pronouns. Lingua 117, 1959–1987.Google Scholar
Townsend, D. & Bever, T. (2001). Sentence comprehension: The integration of habits and rules. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Truscott, J. & Sharwood-Smith, M. (2004). Acquisition by processing: A modular perspective on language development. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 7, 1–20.Google Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C. (2006). The infinite gift: How children learn and unlearn the languages of the world. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar