Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-k7rjm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-18T00:15:32.483Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language acquisition recapitulates language evolution?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

Teresa Satterfield
Teresa Satterfield
Affiliation:
Department of Romance Languages and Center for Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1275. tsatter@umich.eduhttp://www.umich.edu/~tsatter
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Christiansen & Chater (C&C) focus solely on general-purpose cognitive processes in their elegant conceptualization of language evolution. However, numerous developmental facts attested in L1 acquisition confound C&C's subsequent claim that the logical problem of language acquisition now plausibly recapitulates that of language evolution. I argue that language acquisition should be viewed instead as a multi-layered construction involving the interplay of general and domain-specific learning mechanisms.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 31 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 532 - 533
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Crain, S. & Thorton, R. (1998) Investigations in Universal Grammar. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I. & Tracy, R. (2005) The multilingual potential in emerging grammars. International Journal of Bilingualism 9(2):277–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, C. & Newport, E. (1999) Creolization: Could adults really have done it all? In: Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development, vol. 23, No. 1, ed. Greenhill, A., Littlefield, A. & Tano, C., pp. 265–76. Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986) Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. (2002) Foundations of language: Brain, meaning, grammar, evolution. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (1998) Dissociating syntax from morphology in a divergent L2 end-state grammar. Second Language Research 14:359–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lardiere, D. (2000) Mapping features to forms in second language acquisition. In: Second language acquisition and linguistic theory, ed. Archibald, J., pp. 102–29. Blackwell.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (1999) Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3):69–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saleemi, A. (2002) Syntax learnability: The problem that won't go away. In: The Yearbook of South Asian Languages and Linguistics, ed. Singh, R., pp. 157–76. Mouton De Gruyter [Annual issue].Google Scholar
Satterfield, T. (1999a) The shell game: Why children never lose. Syntax 2(1):28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satterfield, T. (1999b) Bilingual selection of syntactic knowledge: Extending the principles and parameters approach. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Satterfield, T. & Saleemi, A. (2003) Mind the gap: Epistemology and the development of natural language. Unpublished manuscript. Linguistic Society of America Summer Institute.Google Scholar
Sorace, A. (2003) Near-nativeness. In: The handbook of second language acquisition, ed. Doughty, C. & Long, M., pp. 130–51. Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, C. D. (1999) A selectionist theory of language development. In: Proceedings of the 37th Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ed. Dale, R. & Church, K.. pp. 429–35. Association for Computational Linguistics.Google Scholar
Yang, C. D. (2002) Knowledge and learning in natural language. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar