- Email: [email protected]
A note on “continuity” of universal grammar: Reply to Cairns, McDaniel and Hsu
195
Cognition, 48 (1993) 195-197 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.
Discussion A note on “continuity” of universal grammar: Reply to Cairns, McDaniel and Hsu Janet Cohen Sherman* Massachusetts General Hospital, Neuropsychology Vincent-Burnham 725, Boston, MA 02114, USA
Laboratory,
Department
of
Neurology,
Barbara Lust Cornell Modern
University, Department of Human Development and Family Studies and Department Languages and Linguistics, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
of
Our paper “Children are in control” (1993) had one major purpose. On the basis of a comprehensive set of experimental data (108 3-g-year-old subjects) (based on Sherman, 1983), we sought to articulate and defend our theory of first language acquisition, which included “continuity of universal grammar (UG)” in the area of “control”, and introduced a new modular research paradigm for this area. We contrasted our theory with the “strong discontinuity” or “strategybased” theory of Hsu, Cairns, and Fiengo (1985), and argued that this alternative theory, and the data it was based on, were flawed. In their discussion of our paper, Cairns, McDaniel, and Hsu (1993, this issue) state that they themselves have abandoned the Hsu et al. conclusions in their more recent research, and now hold a position which they view as “consistent with” a continuity theory. Although it was not our purpose to critique all other proposals which have been made with regard to control, our statement on page 11 of our paper represents our interpretation of this more recent proposal. We will briefly clarify our position here.’ *Corresponding
author.
‘Our remarks on page 11 refer to McDaniel and Cairns (1990). The more recent paper (McDaniel, Cairns & Hsu, 1991), which appeared during the review period of our paper, does not change the essence of the proposal in the earlier paper, as far as we can see.
196
J.C. Sherman,
B. Lust
I Cognition
48 (1993) 195-197
(1) Theoretically, by our hypothesis of “strong continuity” of UG, we mean that “all” of the essential principles and parameters of UG are present and active in the initial state and continuously thereafter (cf. Lust, to appear, and in preparation). Thus, no “grammar stages” exist which reflect UG. Since we consider phrase structure (presumably the X-bar module) to be an essential component of UG, we do not consider the more recent proposal of McDaniel and Cairns (M&C) (1990) and McDaniel, Cairns, and Hsu (M,C&H) (1991) to be compatible with a strong continuity hypothesis. If we understand this proposal, it continues to characterize children as progressing through a series of “grammar types” before reaching the “grammar type” of “adult control”, and the initial “stage” reflects the absence of a critical aspect of phrase structure, namely, embedding. Children with “grammar type I” are characterized as having access only to coordinate structures, not subordinate ones; thus, a deficited phrase structure bleeds the grammar of control. The deficit in children’s phrase structure is claimed to be due to a limitation of the “processor” and “lexical or semantic learning” (M&C, 1990; M,C&H, 1991). In our view, there is as yet no independent theory which would either predict or account for these proposed processing and/or lexical limitations; nor any reason to link these to subordinate structures alone. Thus, while M&C (1990) and M,C&H (1991) propose that “coordination is the default representation in the absence of lexical and semantic knowledge” (1991, p. 316), we propose that the foundations of X-bar theory of phrase structure, given by UG, are the default (cf. Whitman, Lee & Lust, 1991). (2) Empirically, the “coordination only” hypothesis was explicitly tested and rejected in the experiments reported in our paper. The results provided no evidence that children, even as young as age 3 years, conflate subordinate and coordinate structures in any way. The full knowledge of “control” which our results supported is not consistent with false structural analyses. The “coordinate structure only” hypothesis has also been widely contested elsewhere on other grounds as a model of early child grammar (cf. Lust, to appear). In particular, recent research has revealed the complexity of children’s grammatical knowledge even in coordinate structures (Foley, Nuiiez de1 Prado, Barbier, & Lust, 1993). Finally, in both papers (1990, 1991) M,C&H claim that children at “grammar type I” demonstrate “a grammar in which PRO in complements and/or adverbials receives arbitrary reference” (1991, p. 314). In Sherman and Lust (1993) we present data which disconfirm this claim for complements. Elsewhere, we have reported extensive experimental evidence that when such “arbitrary” interpretations do occur in adverbials in child language, they appear to correspond to a structural representation which does not involve “PRO” but a finite adjunct with a pronoun subject (cf. Lust, Solan, Flynn, Cross, & Schuetz, 1986). They therefore do not merit an independent “grammar type”. Thus, on both theoretical and empirical grounds, we cannot consider McDaniel
J.C.
and Cairns
(1990)
with a “strong
Sherman,
B. Lust I Cognition 48 (1993) 195-197
197
(and subsequent
continuity
publications of this proposal) to be consistent for first language acquisition. hypothesis”
References Cairns,
H.S., McDaniel, D., & Hsu, J.R. (1993). A reply to “Children are in control” (Sherman & Lust, 1993). Cognition, 48, 193-194. Hsu, J.R., Cairns, H., & Fiengo, R.W. (1985). The development of grammars underlying children’s interpretation of complex sentences. Cognition, 20, 25-48. Foley, C., Nuiiez de1 Prado, Z., Barbier, I., & Lust, B. (1993). An LF representation of pronouns in VP ellipsis: an argument for UG in the initial state. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Lust, B. (to appear). Functional projection of CP and phrase structure parameterization: an argument for the strong continuity hypothesis. In B. Lust, M. Suner & J. Whitman (Eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition. Vol. 1: Heads, projection and learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lust, B. (in preparation). Universal grammar as a model of the initial state: the strong continuity hypothesis. In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook on first language acquisition. New York: Academic Press. Lust, B., Solan, L., Flynn, S., Cross, C., & Schuetz, E. (1986). A comparison of null and pronoun anaphora in first language acquisition. In B. Lust (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. I: Defining the constraints (pp. 245-277). Dordrecht: Reidel. McDaniel, D., & Cairns, H.S. (1990). The processing and acquisition of control structures by young children. In L. Frazier & J. De Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 313-326). Dordrecht: Kluwer. McDaniel, D., Cairns, H.S., & Hsu, J.R. (1991). Control principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 297-335. Sherman, J. (1983). The acquisition of control in complement sentences: The role of structural and lexical factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Sherman, J.C., & Lust, B. (1993). Children are in control. Cognition, 46, 1-51. Whitman, J., Lee, K.O., & Lust, B. (1991). Continuity of the principles of Universal Grammar in first language acquisition: The issue of functional categories. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Amherst. Linguistics Society Annual Meeting, 22 (pp. 383-397). U mversity of Massachusetts:
Cognition, 48 (1993) 195-197 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved.
Discussion A note on “continuity” of universal grammar: Reply to Cairns, McDaniel and Hsu Janet Cohen Sherman* Massachusetts General Hospital, Neuropsychology Vincent-Burnham 725, Boston, MA 02114, USA
Laboratory,
Department
of
Neurology,
Barbara Lust Cornell Modern
University, Department of Human Development and Family Studies and Department Languages and Linguistics, Ithaca, NY 14853, USA
of
Our paper “Children are in control” (1993) had one major purpose. On the basis of a comprehensive set of experimental data (108 3-g-year-old subjects) (based on Sherman, 1983), we sought to articulate and defend our theory of first language acquisition, which included “continuity of universal grammar (UG)” in the area of “control”, and introduced a new modular research paradigm for this area. We contrasted our theory with the “strong discontinuity” or “strategybased” theory of Hsu, Cairns, and Fiengo (1985), and argued that this alternative theory, and the data it was based on, were flawed. In their discussion of our paper, Cairns, McDaniel, and Hsu (1993, this issue) state that they themselves have abandoned the Hsu et al. conclusions in their more recent research, and now hold a position which they view as “consistent with” a continuity theory. Although it was not our purpose to critique all other proposals which have been made with regard to control, our statement on page 11 of our paper represents our interpretation of this more recent proposal. We will briefly clarify our position here.’ *Corresponding
author.
‘Our remarks on page 11 refer to McDaniel and Cairns (1990). The more recent paper (McDaniel, Cairns & Hsu, 1991), which appeared during the review period of our paper, does not change the essence of the proposal in the earlier paper, as far as we can see.
196
J.C. Sherman,
B. Lust
I Cognition
48 (1993) 195-197
(1) Theoretically, by our hypothesis of “strong continuity” of UG, we mean that “all” of the essential principles and parameters of UG are present and active in the initial state and continuously thereafter (cf. Lust, to appear, and in preparation). Thus, no “grammar stages” exist which reflect UG. Since we consider phrase structure (presumably the X-bar module) to be an essential component of UG, we do not consider the more recent proposal of McDaniel and Cairns (M&C) (1990) and McDaniel, Cairns, and Hsu (M,C&H) (1991) to be compatible with a strong continuity hypothesis. If we understand this proposal, it continues to characterize children as progressing through a series of “grammar types” before reaching the “grammar type” of “adult control”, and the initial “stage” reflects the absence of a critical aspect of phrase structure, namely, embedding. Children with “grammar type I” are characterized as having access only to coordinate structures, not subordinate ones; thus, a deficited phrase structure bleeds the grammar of control. The deficit in children’s phrase structure is claimed to be due to a limitation of the “processor” and “lexical or semantic learning” (M&C, 1990; M,C&H, 1991). In our view, there is as yet no independent theory which would either predict or account for these proposed processing and/or lexical limitations; nor any reason to link these to subordinate structures alone. Thus, while M&C (1990) and M,C&H (1991) propose that “coordination is the default representation in the absence of lexical and semantic knowledge” (1991, p. 316), we propose that the foundations of X-bar theory of phrase structure, given by UG, are the default (cf. Whitman, Lee & Lust, 1991). (2) Empirically, the “coordination only” hypothesis was explicitly tested and rejected in the experiments reported in our paper. The results provided no evidence that children, even as young as age 3 years, conflate subordinate and coordinate structures in any way. The full knowledge of “control” which our results supported is not consistent with false structural analyses. The “coordinate structure only” hypothesis has also been widely contested elsewhere on other grounds as a model of early child grammar (cf. Lust, to appear). In particular, recent research has revealed the complexity of children’s grammatical knowledge even in coordinate structures (Foley, Nuiiez de1 Prado, Barbier, & Lust, 1993). Finally, in both papers (1990, 1991) M,C&H claim that children at “grammar type I” demonstrate “a grammar in which PRO in complements and/or adverbials receives arbitrary reference” (1991, p. 314). In Sherman and Lust (1993) we present data which disconfirm this claim for complements. Elsewhere, we have reported extensive experimental evidence that when such “arbitrary” interpretations do occur in adverbials in child language, they appear to correspond to a structural representation which does not involve “PRO” but a finite adjunct with a pronoun subject (cf. Lust, Solan, Flynn, Cross, & Schuetz, 1986). They therefore do not merit an independent “grammar type”. Thus, on both theoretical and empirical grounds, we cannot consider McDaniel
J.C.
and Cairns
(1990)
with a “strong
Sherman,
B. Lust I Cognition 48 (1993) 195-197
197
(and subsequent
continuity
publications of this proposal) to be consistent for first language acquisition. hypothesis”
References Cairns,
H.S., McDaniel, D., & Hsu, J.R. (1993). A reply to “Children are in control” (Sherman & Lust, 1993). Cognition, 48, 193-194. Hsu, J.R., Cairns, H., & Fiengo, R.W. (1985). The development of grammars underlying children’s interpretation of complex sentences. Cognition, 20, 25-48. Foley, C., Nuiiez de1 Prado, Z., Barbier, I., & Lust, B. (1993). An LF representation of pronouns in VP ellipsis: an argument for UG in the initial state. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Lust, B. (to appear). Functional projection of CP and phrase structure parameterization: an argument for the strong continuity hypothesis. In B. Lust, M. Suner & J. Whitman (Eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition. Vol. 1: Heads, projection and learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lust, B. (in preparation). Universal grammar as a model of the initial state: the strong continuity hypothesis. In T. Bhatia & W. Ritchie (Eds.), Handbook on first language acquisition. New York: Academic Press. Lust, B., Solan, L., Flynn, S., Cross, C., & Schuetz, E. (1986). A comparison of null and pronoun anaphora in first language acquisition. In B. Lust (Ed.), Studies in the acquisition of anaphora. Vol. I: Defining the constraints (pp. 245-277). Dordrecht: Reidel. McDaniel, D., & Cairns, H.S. (1990). The processing and acquisition of control structures by young children. In L. Frazier & J. De Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 313-326). Dordrecht: Kluwer. McDaniel, D., Cairns, H.S., & Hsu, J.R. (1991). Control principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition, 1, 297-335. Sherman, J. (1983). The acquisition of control in complement sentences: The role of structural and lexical factors. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. Sherman, J.C., & Lust, B. (1993). Children are in control. Cognition, 46, 1-51. Whitman, J., Lee, K.O., & Lust, B. (1991). Continuity of the principles of Universal Grammar in first language acquisition: The issue of functional categories. In Proceedings of the North Eastern Amherst. Linguistics Society Annual Meeting, 22 (pp. 383-397). U mversity of Massachusetts: