scholarly journals Language Change and Language Acquisition

Nordlyd ◽  
10.7557/12.21 ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorbjörg Hróarsdóttir
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Change ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Previous Generation ◽  
Two Generations ◽  
New Interpretation ◽  
Context Specific ◽  
Diachronic Changes

The aim of this paper is to present diachronic changes in terms of the conditions of first language acquisition. Grammars, seen as mental organs, may change between two generations. A change is initiated when (a population of) learners converge on a grammatical system which differs in at least one parameter value from the system internalized by the speakers of the previous generation. Learnability issues then connect to both language acquisition and language change, and understanding language changes depends on understanding how children acquire their native language. Acquisition is a process in which Universal Grammar (UG) interacts with a context-specific set of Primary Linguistic Data (PLD: the linguistic input to the child-learner) and uses these PLD as the source for triggers or cues that map the innate (preexperience) knowledge to a mature grammar. If a certain phenomenon has survived through many generations, it must have been reflected clearly in the PLD. Then, if we note that it has changed, something in the language performance of the previous generation must have changed, and thereby paved the way for a new interpretation. Innovation leading to linguistic variation in the PLD and gradual changes in PLD play a central role in the explanation here: the immediate cause of a grammar change must lie in some alternation in the PLD. We will look at how the language spoken in a certain community (E-language) may gradually become different from the language that originally served as the triggering experience. These changes in the E-language also mean changes in the input available to the child-learners of the next generation and a motivation for a different parameter setting has arisen.

FUNDAMENTAL AND GRADIENT DIFFERENCES IN LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT

2009 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 259-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Herschensohn
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Processing ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Cognitive Strategies ◽  
Foreign Language Learning ◽  
Language Faculty ◽  
Generative Theory ◽  
The Difference

This article reexamines Bley-Vroman’s original (1990) and evolved (this issue) fundamental difference hypothesis that argues that differences in path and endstate of first language acquisition and adult foreign language learning result from differences in the acquisition procedure (i.e., language faculty and cognitive strategies, respectively). The evolved assessment of the theoretical and empirical developments of the past 20 years is taken into account with respect to Universal Grammar and parameters in generative theory and with respect to cognition and acquisition in data processing. This article supports the spirit of Bley-Vroman’s proposals in light of the discussion of three topics: pathway of acquisition, endstate age of acquisition effects, and language processing by monolinguals and bilinguals. I argue that the difference between child and adult language acquisition is, above all, quantitative not qualitative, a gradient continuum rather than a precipitous break.

Neurobiological Differentiation of Primary and Secondary Language Acquisition

1988 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 303-337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Developing Brain ◽  
Epigenetic Factors ◽  
Cortical Organization ◽  
Interhemispheric Competition ◽  
Sensory Enhancement

This paper examines language as a multimodal sensory enhancement system, integrating recent neuroanatomical and neurophysiological findings on the ontogenesis of neuronal structures with the generative concept of Universal Grammar (UG) for determination of fundamental differences between primary (PLA) and secondary (SLA) language acquisition. Substantial attention is given to general neurobiological principles such as experience expectant/dependent synaptogenesis, formational/organizational versus associational/reactive plasticity, characteristics of modular cortical organization, and general epigenetic qualities (e.g., intra- and interhemispheric competition, selective neuronal preservation, etc.) of the developing brain. Special emphasis is placed on neurobiological specializations relative to language (e.g., interhemispheric differences in dendritic arborization in Broca's area). The assumed innateness of UG is critically examined, with the neurobiological evidence indicating (a) the first language (L1) does not equal the second language (L2) neurobiologically, and (b) epigenetic factors contributing to PLA are often underestimated. The relevance of these conclusions for SLA is also briefly discussed.

scholarly journals Unbalanced bilingual acquisition as a mechanism of grammatical change

2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-161 ◽  
Author(s):  
STEPHEN MATTHEWS ◽  
VIRGINIA YIP
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Change ◽  
First Language ◽  
Community Level ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Grammatical Change ◽  
The Individual

Bilingual first language acquisition (BFLA) has been considered a possible mechanism of contact-induced change in several recent studies (Siegel, 2008, p. 117; Satterfield, 2005, p. 2075; Thomason, 2001, p. 148; Yip & Matthews, 2007, p.15). There is as yet little consensus on the question, with divergent views regarding both BFLA at the individual level and the implications for language change at the community level.

scholarly journals Formal Syntax, Diachronic Minimalism, and Etymology: The History of French, Chez

2001 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Longobardi
Keyword(s):  
Language Change ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Diachronic Syntax ◽  
External Pressures ◽  
History Of ◽  
Parameter Resetting ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Diachronic Changes

Current theories place very mild constraints on possible diachronic changes, something at odds with the trivial observation that actual, “language change” represents a tiny fraction of the variation made a priori available by Universal Grammar. Much recent work in diachronic syntax has actually been guided by the aim of describing changes (e.g., parameter resetting), rather than by concerns of genuine explanation. Here I suggest a radically different viewpoint (the Inertial, Theory of diachronic syntax), namely, that syntactic change not provably due to interference should not occur at all as a primitive-that is, unless forced by changes in the phonology, the semantics, or the lexicon, perhaps ultimately by interface or grammar-external pressures, in line with the minimalist enterprise in synchronic linguistics. I concentrate on a single case, the etymology of Modern French chez, showing howthe proposed approach attains a high degree of explanatory adequacy.

scholarly journals First language acquisition of French grammar (from 10 months to 4 years old) Introduction

2012 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
MARTINE SEKALI
Keyword(s):  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Psychological Development ◽  
First Language Acquisition ◽  
Grammatical Development ◽  
Parental Input ◽  
Linguistic Input ◽  
French Grammar ◽  
Innate Ability

How do French children acquire the grammatical system of their native language so easily? Many hypotheses have been put forward and experimentally tested to solve this mystery. Generative theories argue that grammar is a universal and innate ability ready to be instantiated after birth. Within this framework, grammatical development is seen as a process whereby universal grammar gradually settles into the language-specific structures of the linguistic input that children receive in the first years of life. In the last decades however, many researchers of child language development have suggested other explanations. Current functional-cognitive research (cf. Langacker, 1988, 2000; Bybee, 1995, 2002; Elman et al., 1996; Tomasello, 2003; Diessel, 2004), proposes a usage-based approach to first language acquisition, where grammar is shaped by usage, and linguistic constructions are taken from parental input and gradually generalised by the child. Usage-based theories thus consider grammatical development as a dynamic process which emerges and evolves, in parallel with cognitive and psychological development, through the use of symbolic patterns which consolidate into grammatical constructions.

Universal Grammar and critical periods: A most amusing paradox

1996 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-735
Author(s):  
Philip Lieberman
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Critical Periods ◽  
Sensitive Periods ◽  
Neural Bases

AbstractEpstein et al. take as given that, (1) a hypothetical Universal Grammar (UG) exists that allows children effortlessly to acquire their first language; they then argue (2) that critical or sensitive periods do not block the UG from second language acquisition. Therefore, why can't we all effortlessly “acquire” Tibetan in six months or so? Data concerning the neural bases of language are also noted.

Some thoughts on the contrastive analysis of features in second language acquisition

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 173-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donna Lardiere
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
First Language ◽  
Contrastive Analysis ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Mapping Parameter ◽  
Lexical Items

In this article I discuss the selection and assembly of formal features in second language acquisition. Assembling the particular lexical items of a second language (L2) requires that the learner reconfigure features from the way these are represented in the first language (L1) into new formal configurations on possibly quite different types of lexical items in the L2. I illustrate the nature of the problem by comparing the assembly and expression of features involved in plural-marking in English, Mandarin Chinese and Korean, and situate this comparison with respect to specific claims of the Nominal Mapping Parameter and within a discussion of parameter (re)setting more generally. I conclude with a few even more general thoughts on the role of Universal Grammar (UG) in (second) language acquisition.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document