Universitatea Babe-Bolyai Cluj-Napoca Facultatea de Litere

Functional Relations in the Acquisition of Verbal Categories A Syntactic and Semantic Interpretation

PhD Project

Coordonator: Prof.univ.dr. tefan Oltean

Doctorand: tefania-Lucia Tru

Septembrie 2012

The theme of the project

This paper will address theoretical aspects regarding language acquisition, by adopting a formal model meant to interpret and describe by what means language acquisition is made possible. The approach envisioned for this paper is from abstract to concrete, starting with the conceptualization of the theory of language acquisition, which inevitably implies a degree of abstraction, as in the case of all scientific theories, and the gathering of theoretical linguistic arguments meant to be verified on empirical data. My goal at this incipient stage is to present my proposals regarding the research findings in language acquisition and the formation of specific functional categories, so as to deepen the research field and apply the outcomes to natural and/or instructional contexts available, contexts that foster linguistic discourse development. The existence of a great body of linguistic evidence offers needed support when it comes to grasping and describing linguistic phenomena, and works as a gateway towards new tendencies in understanding how languages work. When addressing the formation of specific functional categories, based on a theoretical model, language acquisition should be integrated with the wider scientific problem of understanding how children acquire language (Brown 2006: 558). I intend to offer at first a broad, general perspective on language acquisition in order to then narrow my presentation down to aspects pertaining to functional theories and their impact on the very nature of language acquisition. When opting for a specific grammar I intend to present it in the frame of a dynamic relationship between syntax and formal semantics, and moreover to employ the joint description onto the empirical data that will serve as corpus linguistics. In describing a linguistic phenomenon we must have in mind both semantic and syntactic information, respectively valences they carry. Such an approach sheds more light to the combinatorial potential of the constituents in an expression. The theoretical model will have to align to the core purpose of generative grammar as comprised in the key questions addressed by Chomsky when it comes to describing languages. The goal will be to focus on the description of grammar and of the language acquisition processes as well as of the innate processes and faculties that generate language. A possible direction in this research might be towards neurolinguistics approach if the collected empirical data offers such premises.

Arguments in support of the theoretical approach

a. Generative grammar Generative grammar has its core in the function theory based on recursion. Therefore the term grammar became a formal apparatus for analyzing natural languages, Noam Chomsky revolutionized the linguistic research map in the 50s - abstract principles that govern its structure and use, principles that are universal by biological necessity and not mere historical accident, that derive from the mental characteristics of the species (Chomsky, 1975: 3). The principle and parameter framework presented in the Government and Binding theory (GB), the Innateness Hypothesis according to which we are endowed with a language faculty, a biological device that makes the acquisition of any language possible, even if facing a precarious input (poverty of stimulus), the presence of I-language and E-language in the formal theoretical model, lead to Universal Grammar, and to the existence of the initial state in language acquisition which is universal.
b. Innateness and the poverty of stimulus Platos problem - nature vs. nurture

Noam Chomsky argues that children are biologically programmed for language, language development being compared with the development of other biological functions. The mind of a child is endowed with an innate ability that fosters the discovery of language rules on the basis of natural language samples. The innate ability functions as a Universal Grammar (UG), and the principles of grammar, which are universal, are innate, therefore the child is capable of language processing according to the empirical linguistic data available to him (Chomsky 1965). Because of this already existing predisposition, children have to seek the modalities, the ways in which the language to be acquired makes use of these principles. The focus for innatists is on the competence of the native speakers. There are several opinions regarding the impact of this perspective on second language acquisition. Some linguists accept that the UG framework is a great perspective for second language acquisition (White 2003), others, accept it only for first language acquisition, considering it insufficient for learners of a second language, especially if learners start after they pass the critical period (Schachter 1990). According to some researchers a second language cannot be acquired solely based on the input learners are exposed to, therefore the UG knowledge has to be available for acquiring both first

and second language. However, some argue that even if UG is available for second language learners, its nature suffers an alteration due to the very acquisition of the first language. In conclusion, there is need for intervention with explicit presentation of grammatical aspects in the second language in order to avoid the adoption of inappropriate first language structures into the second language. The ability of learning a language depends on a genetically determined, innate property of the mind, the language faculty. Even if the linguistic evidence does not suffice the needs, a child is capable of depicting the rule and uttering new expressions. With finite means human beings are capable of uttering an infinite number of sentences. Grammatical structures are the result of rules and constraints that generate the linguistic process. c. The Critical Period Hypothesis In analyzing language acquisition from a UG perspective one has in mind how the competence influences the performance, inevitably in comparison with first language acquisition. My research intends to find a combination of the investigation and observation of methods that would involve judgments on meaning and grammaticality. The goal will be to gain insight into what is known about the language. Linked to the innate perspective is the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) which states that individuals are endowed with biological systems specially designed for language acquisition, systems that function best before puberty. Language proficiency is reached in children by the age of five, according to some researchers, and follows the same patterns in language acquisition. Consequently whether we refer to the acquisition of L1 or L2, the same stages are observed in the process.
d. Principles and parameters in Generative Grammar (Chomsky 1981)

Languages contain a computational system and a lexicon (Chomsky 1995). Language is defined as an infinite use of finite means. In order to emit judgments on grammaticality we must base our research on formal theoretical models. The setting of principles and parameters in natural languages, as promoted by Chomsky, has innate specificity, and surfaces in contact with the linguistic input. In this framework, principles are universal, they apply to all languages, while parameters are materializations of languages, conferring specificity to those particular languages. In this paper I will observe the parametrization of the functional categories at the structural level and implicitly at the expression level, since functional categories, as mentioned before are the locus of parametrization and of the syntactic organization of the clause, they

play a central role in theories of both L1 and L2 acquisition (Brown 2006: 667). In analyzing child and adult utterances we observe that the differences occur due to the properties of the functional categories, in this particular case we address inflections (I) and determiners (D). Among the syntacticians that observed these properties we can mention Radford, and the examples below, (1) and (2) come to support the theoretical approach to the matter.
(1) dog barking (Bethan, 21 months) (Radford, 1990: 84) (2) Wayne in garden (Daniel, 23 months) (Radford,1990: 84) (3) spus la mine (Tudor, 25 months) (4) Eu fcut balon mare (Tudor, 25 months)

In the above sentences we notice that finite verbs or auxiliaries are missing as well as determiners (the dog), (in the garden), (un balon). In terms of setting parameters, we notice that in Romanian at this stage the dative forms and the clitics, if we are to employ a term from the traditional grammar, are not formed yet (mie). The explanation given by Radford (1) and (2) to this phenomenon is that at this particular developmental stage these functional categories are not available to the subjects, and furthermore, even if they become available, such categories have to undergo a maturation process in order to become full. Research developed in the field of L1 and L2 acquisition, especially when it comes to the setting of parameters in relation to the specificity of the two languages acquired and the linguistic differences encountered in the process. Meisel conducted research in this direction (1990,1994) as well. What is interesting to see is that in both languages the subjects undergo the same stages in the maturation process of the functional categories.

e. Functional categories and functional relations

This framework marks the distinction between lexical and functional categories. The former includes nouns, verbs, adjectives and prepositions while the latter operates with complementizers, tense/agreement and determiners. Such functional categories have the role of explaining and defining specific linguistic phenomena, I make reference here to definiteness and finiteness and the way such grammatical information converges with the linguistic input and output. In this paper I intend to observe the manifestations of the verb category (chiefly the

subjunctive) as a lexical and functional category in Romanian and English. The inflection, as a non-interpretable feature, will be employed to maintain the dynamics as a locus of finiteness in the clause the same way the determiner functional category in the nominal is encoding information about definiteness and is being instantiated by articles, demonstratives and other determiners (Brown 2006: 666). The functional categories will make the connection with computational linguistics, and aspects pertaining to such linguistic structures. The approach will verify how these features project in order to converge all the way to the maximal projection, as functional categories are triggers for syntactic movement, depending on their feature strength (Brown 2006: 666). Syntactic features can be weak or strong and can function distinctly in different languages, as for my research, it will focus mainly on the way they function in English, respectively in Romanian, in order to demonstrate on what basis feature value is assigned to specific linguistic situations. The semantic features play a very important role in syntactic theories, for thematic relations are intrinsic to the theoretical grammars. The role of semantic features has been recognized in theories like Government and Binding (Chomsky, 1981), Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan, 1982) and Relational Grammar (Perlmutter and Postal, 1970). In order for syntactic, grammatical theories to be validated, respectively ascertained, such thematic relations must be restricted serving this way the syntactic purposes. Both GB and RG are preoccupied with the inner mechanisms of the language faculty which generate linguistic data. However, syntactic functional relations follow different considerations in such grammatical theories. For instance, relational grammar (RG) believes semantic features are indispensable when constructing a grammatical theory and syntax is multistratal, consisting of several levels. With government and binding (GB) such relations become derivational outcomes of basic concepts and configurations, GB opting for a structural interpretation. As known, the subject is the NP dominated by S, (Chomsky, 1965) and in a more recent view SPEC(ifier) of IP (=INFL=S) (Chomsky, 1986, in Brown 2006: 686). The role of the semantic relations contributes to the description of languages in terms of universal grammatical relations. The syntactic-semantic interplay is further developed via the Minimalist Program, a linguistic approach that reorganized and redid the theoretical models of GB, but still staying true to the generativist core values. This new approach reduces the levels of syntactic representations, as well as the empty categories (PROs, pros, DP-traces), introduces among others the vp-shells when describing syntactic typologies, and, at the operational level, opts for complex operations eg. Merge! For agreement and computing features it operates with

semantic and functional feature checking. According to the Minimalist Program the semantic information, or the theta-role, as previously mentioned, is being assigned to the arguments by the predicates, in order to get to the mapping of the theta-grid and of the argument structure. I chose this particular linguistic approach and interpretation because I believe that language acquisition at an early developmental stage offers substantial empiric data to support an inductive approach to linguistic description. The instruments offered by generativism, and more recently by the minimalist approach to the linguistic theory, represent a substantiated framework to place verbal category formation and function in the broader spectrum of UG grammar. Not enough research has been done on how these linguistic phenomena and processes function in Romanian, especially in the case of verbs as functional categories and as means of expressing predication, and in the case of transformational and structural processes involving analytical verb forms. In conclusion, a research paper oriented towards these aspects would contribute to the research developments initiated so far in this domain. Methods and Strategies Observational Schemes, Diaries, Questionnaires This method is very efficient when used in natural acquisition contexts and structurebased instructional environments. The qualitative and the quantitative research must be balanced by action research that takes place in instructional environments. The use of observational schemes, diaries and questionnaires does not have only a descriptive value, it is also meant to analyze problems like input analysis, opportunities offered to native and/or bilingual learners, as well as ways in which they can take advantage of these opportunities. Interviews This method focuses on the empirical evidence that supports the process of language acquisition as described in the formal model, and on how specific constraints function in such situations. In analyzing and describing language processes the data source will comprise actual communication bits of expression, used in specific contexts.

Content

1. Introduction 2. Aims
3. Approaches to Language Acquisition and Processing

4. Principles of Universal Grammar

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4.

Parameters and Parameter-setting in Generative Grammar Formal Theoretical Models Structure - Government and Binding to the Minimalist program Structural Relations and Functional Categories

4.4.1. Lexical and Grammatical Features 4.4.2. Functional Categories and Parameter Setting 4.4.3. Syntactic Features

4.4.4. Argument structure and theta-roles

4.4.5. Non-Interpretable Agreement Inflection Phi Features 4.4.6. Semantic Features - Lexical Categories 4.4.6.1.

Theta Roles/Features

4.4.7. Syntactic and Semantic Relations 4.4.8. Syntactic Structures 4.4.9. Lexical vs. Functional Projection 4.4.10. Distinctive Features in Child Language Acquisition 4.5. Children Sentence Structure and Category Formation 4.6. Levels of Structure 4.7. Grammatical Functions in VP The Subjunctive in Romanian and English 4.7.1. Verb Patterns and Functions 4.7.2. The Verb and Its Complements 4.7.2. Syntactic Operations 4.7.3. Auxiliaries in VPs 4.7.3. Agreement and Feature Checking (EPP, Final1Law)

4.8. Corpus Analysis 5. Review 6. Conclusions

References Brown, K. (ed). 2006. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Second edition. Volume 4. Elsevier Ltd. White, L. 2003. Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bloom, P. (ed) 1996. Language acquisition: Core readings. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1996. Brown, P. R. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Butler, Y. and H., Kenji. 2004. Bilingualism and second language acquisition. In Bhatia and Ritchie (Eds.) The handbook of bilingualism. Malden, MA: Blackwell: 114-144.

Chomsky, N. 1959. A review of B. F. Skinners verbal behavior. In Language, 35, No. 1, 2658. Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, N. 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam & George A. Miller 1958. Finite-state languages. Information and Control 1, 91112. Chomsky, Noam & George A. Miller 1963. Introduction to the formal analysis of natural 825 languages. In: R.D. Luce, R. Bush & E. Galanter (eds.). Handbook of Psychology, vol. 2. New York: Wiley, 269321. Mathematical

Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger. Chomsky, N. 1980. Language and Learning: The Debate between Jean Piaget and Noam Chomsky (edited by Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini), Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Chomsky, N. 1968. Language and Mind, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Chomsky, N. 1988. Language and problems of knowledge: the Managua lectures. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. Chomsky, N. 1975. The Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory, New York: Plenum Press. Chomsky, N. 2002. On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam 1959. On certain formal properties of grammars. Information and Control 2, 137167. Chomsky, N. 1975. Reflections on language. New York: Pantheon Chomsky, N. 1970. Remarks on nominalization In Jacobs R&Rosenbaum P (eds.) Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn. 184221. Chomsky, N. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton. Chomsky, N. 1995. The Minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Foley, W. A. and R.D. Jr. Van Valin. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Guasti, M. T. 2003. Language acquisition: the growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Haegeman, L. and J. Guron. 1999. English grammar. Oxford: Blackwell. Haegeman, Liliane 1991. Introduction to Government and Binding Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Hauser, M., N. Chomsky, and W. T. Fitch. 2002. The Language Faculty: What is it, who has it, and how did it evolve? in Science, 298, 1569-1579 Hornstein, N., J. Nunes, and K. K. Grohmann. 2006. Understanding Minimalism, Cambridge University Press Hornstein, N. 2008. A Theory of Syntax. Minimal Operations and Universal Grammar, Cambridge University Press Jackendoff, R. 2002. Foundations of Language. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.

Jackendoff, R. S. 1972. Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Jackendoff, R. S. 1987. The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. LIn 18, 369 411. Jackendoff, R. 1977. X-Bar Syntax. The MIT Press,Cambridge, MA. Kripke, Saul A. 1972. Naming and necessity. In: D. Davidson & G. Harman (eds.). Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, 253355. Meisel, J. M. 1990. Two first languages: early grammatical development in bilingual children. Dordrecht: Foris. Meisel, J. M. 1994. Bilingual first language acquisition: French and German grammatical development. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Ouhalla, J. 1991. Functional categories and parametric variation. London: Routledge. Perlmutter, D. M. 1982. Syntactic representation, syntactic levels, and the notion of subject. In Jacobson P & Pullum G K (eds.) The nature of syntactic representation. Dordrecht: Reidel. Pinker, S. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: William Morrow. Pinker, S. 2007. The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature. New York: Penguin Group Radford, A.1990. Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: the nature of early child grammars of English. Oxford: Blackwell. Radford, A. 2004. Minimalist Syntax. Exploring the structure of English, Cambridge University Press Schachter, J. 1990. On the issue of completeness in second language acquisition. Second Language Research 6/1:93-124 Smith, N. V. 1999. Chomsky: ideas and ideals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tomassello, M. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.