Anne Erreich’s research while affiliated with The Graduate Center, CUNY and other places

This study attempts to determine whether subject–auxiliary inversion occurs in yes–no questions before wh-questions and whether non-inversion errors (when daddy will come home?) are a characteristic feature of the acquisition of wh-questions. The data consist of the yes–no and wh-questions of 18 children, aged 2;5 to 3;0 with an mlu range of 2.66–4.26. Findings do not support previous claims that inversion is acquired in yes–no questions before wh-questions. Rather, a significant number of children were found to use an optional inversion rule in both question types. This fact appears to account for the finding that non-inversion errors are a characteristic feature of the acquisition of wh-questions.

This paper presents a hypothesis-testing theory of syntax acquisition. The first section presents our model. We claim that: (1) children learn a transformational grammar, including a set of phrase structure and transformational rules; (2) linguistic universals and Occam's razor constrain the initial hypothesis space available to the device; (3) hypotheses tested by the device consist of candidate phrase structure and transformational rules; (4) linguistic evidence confirms or disconfirms hypotheses. Specific examples of incorrect phrase structure and transformational hypotheses are presented. The second section briefly surveys other approaches to language acquisition – both syntactic and non-syntactic – and compares them to our model. In the third section, we address several methodological issues: (1) the relevance of linguistic theory to the model; (2) how the model is tested; (3) the domain of the theory.

4 locative categories were investigated to determine whether their examples were organized according to the prototype/nonprototype distinction. A ranking task was presented to 30 adult subjects to see whether they would judge those instances which had been designated as prototypes by the experimenter to be the best exemplars of each category. An elicited-drawing task was administered to see whether there was a preference for drawing adult-designated prototypical instances. A matching task was presented to determine whether fewer errors would occur in response to adult-designated prototypical instances. The latter 2 tasks were presented to 4-year-olds, 6-year-olds, and adults, with 17 subjects in each group. The results provide strong evidence of prototype/nonprototype organization in 3 of the locative categories and weak evidence in the fourth. Tentative conclusions regarding the development of such organization are drawn.

Errors in child speech show that some children initially formulate tense-hopping and subject-auxiliary inversion as copying without deletion. Other errors suggest that some children may formulate other movement rules as deletion without copying. A claim about the nature of the language acquisition device is made on the basis of our analysis of these errors: the language acquisition device formulates hypotheses about transformations in terms of basic operations. The basic-operations hypothesis predicts that for any transformation which is composed of more than one basic operation, there exists a class of errors in child speech correctly analyzed as failure to apply one (or more) of the operations specified in the adult formulation of the rule.RésuméLes erreurs rencontrées dans le discours des enfants montrent que certains enfants formulent d'aboard la transformation affixe et l'inversion sujet-auxiliaire comme copie sans effacement. D'autres erreurs suggèrent que certains enfants peuvent formuler d'autres règles de mouvement comme l'effacement sans copie. En se fondant sur l'analyse de ces erreurs on fait une proposition sur le mécanisme de l'acquisition du langage: ce mécanisme d'acquisition du langage formule les hypothèses sur les transformations en terme d'opérations fondamentales. Cette hypothése d'opérations fondamentales prédit que pour chaque transformation composée de plus d'une opération fondamentale, il existe une classe d'erreur dans le langage de l'enfant. Cette classe d'erreur peut s'analyser comme unéchecàappliqueràune (ou plus) des opérations spécifiées par la formulation adulte de la régle.