The acquisition of preposition stranding by second language learners and parametric variation

1985 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 18-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul van Buren ◽  
Michael Sharwood Smith
Keyword(s):  
Second Language ◽  
Second Language Acquisition ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Learning Strategies ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Target System ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Pilot Studies ◽  
Preposition Stranding ◽  
Government Binding

This paper discusses the application of Government Binding Theory to second language acquisition in the context of a project which is looking into the acquisition of preposition stranding in English and Dutch. The bulk of the discussion focuses on the theoretical problems involved. Firstly, the potential value of Government Binding Theory in principle is considered both in terms of the formulation of linguistic questions per se and also in terms of more specifically acquisitional questions having to do with the speed and order of acquisition. Secondly, some results in the pilot studies conducted so far in Utrecht are examined with respect to the theoretical usefulness of the framework adopted. The potential of the framework to generate sophisticated linguistic research questions is found to be undeniable. The acquisitional aspects need to be elaborated and adapted to cope with the special features of second, as opposed to first, language acquisition. This involves an elaboration of scenarios to be investigated: one in which the learner's initial assumption is that the unmarked setting of a given parameter of Universal Grammar holds for the target system, one in which the settings of parameters shared by the target and native systems are assumed to be identical, the second being a 'cross linguistic' scenario. These possibilities are considered in the light of the nature of evidence derived from the input and in the light of a set of possible learning strategies derived from the scenarios. The scenarios, the types of evidence and the strategies are spelled out in terms of the specific problem of preposition stranding in Universal Grammar, in Dutch and in English.

Some Remarks on the Government-Binding Theory and Anaphors

1983 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Milan Bilý
Keyword(s):  
Word Order ◽  
The Self ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
Slavic Languages ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Binding

The Government-Binding theory cannot account for reflexives in Slavic languages. We may guess that the more a language differs from English with its quite rigid word-order, the worse are the predictions made by the theory.One cannot exclude Slavic reflexives as non-anaphors in a non-arbitrary way while keeping the spirit of Chomsky et al. The Slavic reflexives behave “as they ought to” in tensed clauses, too. An attempt to exclude them would also be another step on the self-destructive path that started by excluding the Japanese reflexives in order to cope with the facts clashing with the Government-Binding theory. Many interesting cases of English reflexives would also have to be ignored for the sake of the theory.

Prepositional complementizers in Welsh

1986 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert D. Borsley
Keyword(s):  
Basic Category ◽  
Satisfactory Account ◽  
The Government ◽  
Government Binding ◽  
As If

A number of languages have what can be called prepositional complementizers, items which look like prepositions and have some of the properties of prepositions but appear in positions in which complementizers appear. In this paper I shall be concerned with Welsh prepositional complementizers and, in particular, with their implications for the analysis of subjectless infinitives. I shall consider the possibility of providing an analysis of the Welsh facts within the government-binding (GB) framework of Chomsky (1981, 1982, 1984), in which subjectless infinitives are clauses. I will argue that GB assumptions preclude a satisfactory account of the data. I will also show that certain facts relating to agreement pose further problems for a GB approach. I will then show that the facts are quite straightforward if one assumes that subjectless infinitives are bare VPs, as argued for Welsh in Borsley (1984a), and that VPs and Ss are members of the same basic category, as proposed in Borsley (1983, 1984b). It looks, then, as if we have some interesting evidence here for these assumptions.

Accord, Chaines Impersonnelles Et Variables

1983 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 131-181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean-Yves Pollock
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Morphological Properties ◽  
Binding Theory ◽  
General Constraint ◽  
Nominative Case ◽  
Case Assignment ◽  
Assignment Rule ◽  
French And English ◽  
Government Binding

The present paper has two intimately connected goals; It aims at contributing to Chomsky's "Government Binding Theory" and also at providing a fairly detailed comparative analysis of French and English impersonal constructions. Its contribution comes under the guise of (a) an Agreement Theory (see section 2), (b) a general constraint on impersonal chains (see (72)) and (c) a new nominative Case assignment rule: it is suggested that in French and Italian (but not in English) "ergative verbs" (in Burzio (1981) 'sense) can assign nominative Case to their "object". Furthermore, as has become standard in recent comparative work in the GB framework, the paper attempts to isolate the parameters that are responsible for the minimally distinct properties of the constructions under investigation. It is shown here that they can be traced back to the interplay of a Case parameter, the morphological properties of expletive elements (il vs there) and the properties of Universal Grammar.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document