This article investigates the acquisition of English synthetic compounding by native Spanish and native Chinese speakers. Data are presented which con tradict the claim by Gordon (1985), Clahsen (1991) and Clahsen et al. (1992) that morphological level-ordering is universally, innately available to lan guage learners to guide their acquisition of compounding constraints. Empirical arguments are given which show that compounding, at least, can not be universally subject to the particular inflectional constraints - namely, a restriction on plurals in compounds - imposed by the level-ordering mod els cited in the above acquisition studies. I also present additional experi mental results which demonstrate that L2 learners of English freely violate this restriction, and that such violations reflect particular L1 influence.
I suggest an alternative approach to analysing the role of Universal Grammar in the acquisition of compounding which better accounts for both the L1 and L2 English data, by considering 1) the interaction of syntactic principles with lexical derivation; 2) the parametric differences between the L1 and L2; and 3) the language-specific nature of morphological affixation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, S.R.1985a: Typological distinctions in word formation. In Shopen, T., editor, Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. III. New York: Cambridge University Press, 3-56.
2.
— 1985b: Inflectional morphology. In Shopen, T., editor, Language typology and syntactic description . Vol. III. New York: Cambridge University Press, 150-201.
3.
— 1992: A-morphous morphology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4.
Aronoff, M.1976: Word formation in generative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
— 1994: Morphology by itself. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
6.
Azar, B.S.1989: Understanding and using English grammar (2nd edn). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Regents.
7.
Baker, M.1985: The Mirror Principle and morphosyntactic explanation. Linguistic Inquiry16, 373-416.
8.
— 1988a: Incorporation: a theory of grammatical function changing . Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
— 1988b: Morphological and syntactic objects: a review of DiSciullo and Williams' On the definition of word, Yearbook of Morphology1, 259-84.
10.
Barbaud, P.1989: Compounding in Romance: X-bar theory revisited Unpublished . MS University of Quebec at Montreal .
11.
Beard, R.1987: Morpheme order in a lexeme/morpheme-based morphology. Lingua72,1-44.
12.
— 1988: On the separation of derivation from morphology toward a lexeme/morpheme-based morphology. Quaderni di SemanticaIX, 3-59.
13.
— 1991: Lexeme-morpheme base morphology. Unpublished MS, Bucknell University.
14.
— 1993: Simultaneous dual derivation in word formation. Language69, 716-41.
15.
Belletti, A.1992: Agreement and case in past participle clauses in Italian . Syntax and Semantics26, 21-44.
16.
Borer, H.1988: On the parallelism between compounds and constructs. Yearbook of Morphology1, 45-66.
17.
Botha, R.P.1984: Morphological mechanisms: lexicalist analyses of synthetic compounding. New York: Pergamon Press.
18.
Brown, R.1973: A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
19.
Chomsky, N.1970: Remarks on nominalization. In Jacobs, R.A. and Rosenbaum, P.S., editors, Readings in English transformational grammar. Waltham, MA: Ginn.
20.
— 1991: Some notes of economy of derivation and representation . In Freidin, R., editor, Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
21.
— 1993: A minimalist program for linguistic theory. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J. , editors, The view from Building 20: essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22.
Chomsky, N. and Halle, M.1968: The sound pattern of English. New York : Harper & Row.
23.
Cinque, G.1993: A null theory of phrase and compound stress. Linguistic Inquiry24, 239-97.
24.
Clahsen, H.1990: The comparative study of first and second language development . Studies in Second Language Acquisition12, 135-53.
25.
— 1991: German plurals in adult second language development: evidence for a dual-mechanism model of inflection. Paper presented at the 12th Second Language Research Forum, Los Angeles, CA, March. Arbeiten des SFB 282 (Theorie des Lexikons) 4, 48-66.
26.
Clahsen, H., Rothweiler, M., Woest, A. and Marcus, G.F.1992: Regular and irregular inflection in the acquisition of German noun plurals. Cognition45, 225-55.
27.
Clark, E.V. and Barron, B.J.S.1988: A thrower-button or a button-thrower ? Children's judgment of grammatical and ungrammatical compound nouns. Linguistics26, 3-19.
28.
Clark, E. and Clark, H.1979: When nouns surface as verbs. Language55, 767-811.
29.
Clark, E.V., Hecht, B.F. and Mulford, R.C.1986: Coining complex compounds in English: affixes and word order in acquisition. Linguistics24, 7-29.
30.
Di Sciullo, A.M.1992a: Deverbal compounds and the external argument. In Roca, I.M., editor, Thematic structure: its role in grammar. Dordrecht: Foris, 65-78.
31.
— 1992b: On the properties of Romance and Germanic deverbal compounds . Unpublished MS, University of Quebec at Montreal.
32.
— 1992c: Interfaces in a modular grammar. Paper presented at GLOW1992.
33.
Emonds, J.E.1985: A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.
— 1988: English suffixation is constrained only by selectional restrictions. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory6, 527-39.
36.
Gawlitzek-Maiwald, I.1994: How do children cope with variation in the input? The case of German plurals and compounding. In Tracy, R. and Latley, E., editors, How tolerant is Universal Grammar? Essays on language learnability and language variation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
37.
Gordon, P.1985: Level-ordering in lexical development. Cognition21, 73-93.
38.
— 1989: Levels of affixation in the acquisition of English morphology . Journal of Memory and Language28, 519-30.
39.
Grimshaw, J.1990: Argument structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
40.
Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J.1991: On the syntax of argument structure. Lexicon Project Working Papers 34. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Linguistics and Philosophy.
41.
— 1993: On argument structure and the lexical expression of syntactic relations. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J., editors, The view from Building 20: essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
42.
Halle, M. and Marantz, A.1993: Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In Hale, K. and Keyser, S.J., editors, The view from Building 20: essays in honor of Sylvain Bromberger. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
Halle, M. and Mohanan, K.P.1985: Segmental phonology of modern English. Linguistic Inquiry16, 57-116.
44.
Halle, M. and Vergnaud, J.-R.1987: An essay on stress. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
45.
Hannahs, S.J.1991: Prosodic structure and French morphophonology. PhD dissertation , University of Delaware.
46.
Hannahs, S.J. and Stotko, E.1993: Morphological acquisition and phonological theory. Paper presented at the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA) Conference, University of Durham.
47.
Harris, J.W.1987: The accentual patterns of verb paradigms in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory5, 61-90.
48.
1989: The Stress Erasure Convention and cliticization in Spanish . Linguistic Inquiry20, 339-64.
49.
Hoekstra, T. and Jordens, P.1994: From adjunct to head. In Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B.D., editors, Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 119-49.
50.
Jespersen, O.1942: A modern English grammar on historical principles. Part VI: morphology. Copenhagen: Ejnar Munksgaard.
51.
Keyser, S.J. and Roeper, T.1992: Re: the abstract clitic hypothesis. Linguistic Inquiry22, 89-125.
52.
Kiparsky, P.1982: From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In van der Hulst, H. and Smith, H., editors, The structure of phonological representations. Part 1. Dordrecht: Foris.
53.
— 1985: Some consequences of lexical phonology. In Ewen, C. and Anderson, J. , editors, Phonology Yearbook 2, 85-138.
54.
Koopman, H.1984: The syntax of verbs. Dordrecht: Foris.
55.
Kornfilt, J.1991: A case for emerging functional categories. Syntax and Semantics25, 11-35.
56.
Kuczaj, S.A.1976: -ing, -s, and -ed: a study of the acquisition of certain verb inflections. PhD dissertation, University of Minnesota .
57.
Lang, M.F.1991: Spanish word formation: productive derivational morphology in the modern lexis. New York: Routledge.
58.
Lardiere, D.1994: The acquisition of word-formation rules for English synthetic compounding. PhD dissertation, Boston University.
59.
Lardiere, D. and Schwartz, B.D.1994: Agreement in L2 acquisition and the criterion of 'correct' overt manifestation. Paper presented at Generative Studies of the Acquisition of Case and Agreement, University of Essex, March.
60.
Li, C.N. and Thompson, S.A.1981: Mandarin Chinese: a functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
61.
Lieber, R.1992: Deconstructing morphology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
62.
MacWhinney, B. and Snow, C.1985: The Child Language Data Exchange System. Journal of Child Language12, 271-96.
— 1986: The theory of lexical phonology. Dordrecht : Reidel.
65.
Morin, Y.-C.1985: On the two French subjectless verbs voici and voilà. Language61, 777-820.
66.
Pinker, S. and Prince, A.1988: On language and connectionism: analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition28, 73-193.
67.
Pollock, J.-Y.1989: Verb movement, UG and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry20, 365-424.
68.
Raposo, E.1987: Case theory and Infi-to-Comp: the inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry18, 85-109.
69.
Reuland, E.1983: Governing -ing. Linguistic Inquiry14, 101-36.
70.
Rizzi, L.1986: Null objects in Italian and the theory of pro. Linguistic Inquiry17, 501-57.
71.
Roberge, Y.1986: The syntactic recoverability of null arguments. PhD dissertation , University of British Columbia, Vancouver.
72.
Roeper, T.1988: Compound syntax and head movement. Yearbook of Morphology1,187-228.
73.
— 1992: From the initial state to V-2: acquisition principles in action. In Meisel, J., editor, The acquisition of verb placement: functional categories and V2 phenomena in language development. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 333-70.
Schwartz, B.D. and Sprouse, R.A.1994: Word order and nominative case in non-native language acquisition: a longitudinal study of (L1 Turkish) German interlanguage. In Hoekstra, T. and Schwartz, B.D., editors, Language acquisition studies in generative grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 317-68.
76.
Selkirk, E.1982: The syntax of words. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.
77.
Shibatani, M. and Kageyama, T.1988: Word formation in a modular theory of grammar: a case of post-syntactic compounds in Japanese. Language64, 451-84.
Sportiche, D.1987: Structural invariance and symmetry in syntax. PhD dissertation , MIT.
80.
Sproat, R.1985: On deriving the lexicon. PhD dissertation, MIT.
81.
Sproat, R. and Shih, C.1992: Mandarin morphology is not stratum-ordered. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the LSA, Philadelphia PA, January.
82.
Vogel, I.1991: Level-ordering in Italian lexical phonology? In Bertinetto, P.M., Kenstowicz, M. and Loporaro, M., editors, Certamen phonologieum II. Torino: Sellier & Rosenberg.
83.
Wegener, H.1994: Variation in the acquisition of German plural morphology by second language learners. In Tracy, R. , and Latley, E., editors, How tolerant is Universal Grammar? Essays on language learnability and language variation. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
84.
Wiese, R.1988: Silbische und lexicalische Phonologie. Studien zum Chinesischen und Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer .
85.
Williams, E.1982: Another argument that passive is transformational. Linguistic Inquiry13,160-63.
