This paper argues that the universal categories N/V are not applied to content words before the grammatical markings for reference D(eterminers) and predication I(nflection) have been acquired (van Kampen, 1997, contra Pinker, 1984). Child grammar starts as proto-grammar with language-specific operators and category-neutral content words Xo. The first content words are used as proper names with topic-intention and as brand names with characterizing-intention. The language-specificity of early operators may be illustrated by the use of wh-pronouns (what/where?) in English versus the use of illocution particles (nou/denn?) in Dutch/German child language.
Subsequently, deictic operators for topic are regularized as Do and deictic operators for comment as Io. These functional categories are the bootstraps for category assignment <+V> and <+N>, as a subdivision of the lexicon. The generalized conclusion is that language-specific systems are not acquired due to a common UG entrance. They rather are highly frequent language-specific bootstraps that coax the child into an adult system that eventually fits UG principles.
The operators in proto-grammar are situation-related, whereas the functional categories Io/D o are highly sensitive to syntactic context. This explains why, in a bilingual situation, a language switch in the context-free operators will be relatively easy. A language switch in functional categories, by contrast, will have a reflex on the syntactic context and be less easy.
Baker, M.C. (1988). Incorporation. A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
Bellugi, U. (1967). The acquisition of the system of negation in children's speech. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.
3.
Blom, E. (2003). From root infinitive to finite sentence. Ph.D. dissertationUtrecht University
4.
Blom, E., & Krikhaar, E. (2002). Where to use a nonfinite clause? An experiment on the use of verb forms in early Dutch and English child language. In J. Costa & J. M. Freitas (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA 2001 . Palmela, Portugal
5.
Braine, M.D.S. (1963). The ontogeny of English phrase structure: The first phase. Language, 39,1-13.
6.
Braine, M.D.S. (1976). Children's first word combinations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development41 (Serial no. 164).
7.
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.
8.
Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA/London: MIT Press.
9.
Comrie, B. (1981/1987). Language universal and linguistic typology (3rd edition). Oxford / Cambridge: Blackwell.
10.
Drozd, K.F. (1995). Child English presentential negation as metalinguistic exclamatory sentence negation. Journal of Child Language, 22, 583-610.
11.
Emonds, J. (1985). A unified theory of syntactic categories, Dordrecht: Foris.
12.
Evers, A., & van Kampen, J. (2001). E-language, I-language and the order of parameter setting. UiL OTS Working Papers 00105-S-S, Utrecht University. <http://www.let.uu.nl/ ~Jacqueline.vanKampen/personal/downloadables.htm>
13.
Grimshaw, J. (1991). Extended projection. (ms.). Linguistics and Cognitive Science Program and Center for Complex Systems, Brandeis University.
14.
Hoekstra, T., & Jordens, P. (1994). From adjunct to head. In T. Hoekstra & B. D. Schwartz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp. 119-149). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
15.
Hoekstra, T., & Hyams, N. (1995). The syntax and pragmatics of early clause structure . (ms.). LeidenUniversity and UCLA .
16.
Hoekstra, T., & Hyams, N. (1998). Aspects of root infinitives. Lingua, 106, 81-112.
17.
Hulk,A. ( 2003). Merging scope-particles. Word order variation and the acquisition of aussi and ook in a bilingual context. In C. Dimroth & M. Starren (Eds.), Information structure and the dynamics of language acquisition (pp. 211-234), Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
18.
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters . Dordrecht: Reidel.
19.
Jordens, P. (2002). Finiteness in early child Dutch. Linguistics, 40(4), 687-765.
20.
Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of grammar. Ph.D. dissertationUniversity of Massachusetts.
21.
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Lyons, J. (1979). Deixis and anaphora. In T. Myers (Ed.), The development of conversation and discourse (pp. 88-103). Edinburgh: University Press.
23.
Macwhinney, B. (1991). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk . HillsdaleNew York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
24.
Marantz, A. (1997). No escape from syntax: Don't try morphological analysis in the privacy of your own lexicon. In A. Dimitriadis & L. Siegel (Eds.), University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 4.2 (pp.201-225). Proceedings of the 21 st Annual Penn Linguistics Colloquium.
25.
Penner, Z., Tracy, R., & Weissenborn, J. (2000). Triggering object scrambling . In S. M. Powers & C. Hamann (Eds.), The acquisition of scrambling and cliticization (pp. 127-164). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers,.
26.
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development . Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
27.
Poeppel, D., & Wexler, K. (1993). The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German. Language, 69(1), 1-33.
28.
Powers, S. (1996). MAPping phrase markers. In Ch. Koster & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Proceedings of GALA (pp. 303 -313). Groningen Assembly on Language Acquisition.
29.
Powers, S., & Lebeaux, D. (1998). More data on DP acquisition. In N. D. Dittmar & Z. Penner (Eds.), Issues in the theory of language acquisition (pp. 37-77). Bern: Peter Lang.
30.
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax: The nature of early child grammars of English. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
31.
Radford, A. (1996). Towards a structure-building model of acquisition . In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp. 43-89). Amsterdam : John Benjamins,
32.
Rizzi, L. (1994). Early null subjects and root null subjects. In T. Hoekstra & B. Schwarz (Eds.), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar (pp.151-176) Amsterdam/Philadelphia , John Benjamins.
33.
Rizzi, L. (2002). On the grammatical basis of language development: A case study. (Ms.). University of Siena.
34.
Roeper, T. (1992). From the initial state to V2: Acquisition principles in action. In J. Meisel (Ed.), The acquisition of verb placement (pp.333-370). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
35.
Santelmann, L.M. (1995). The acquisition of verb second grammar in child Swedish: Continuity of universal grammar in wh-questions, topicalization and verb raising. Ph.D. Dissertation, Cornell University.
36.
Stassen, L. (1997). Intransitive Predication. Oxford studies in typology and linguistic theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
Tracy, R. (1994). Raising questions: Formal and functional aspects of the acquisition of wh-questions in German. In R. Tracy & E. Lattey (Eds.), How tolerant is universal grammar: Essays on language learnability and language variation (pp. 1-34). Tübingen: Niemeyer .
38.
Tracy, R. (1995). Child languages in contact: Bilingual language acquisition (English/German) in early childhood. Habilitationsschrift, University of Tübingen.
39.
Tracy, R. (2002). Growing (clausal) roots: all children start out (and may remain) multilingual. Linguistics, 40(4), 653-686.
40.
Van Kampen, J. (1987). De ontwikkeling van ontkenningen in de kindertaal (The development of negation in child language). (Ms.). Utrecht University.
41.
Van Kampen, J. (1997). First steps in wh-movement. Ph.D. dissertationUtrecht University.
42.
Van Kampen, J. (2001a). Review of Becker "The development of the copula in child English" In GLOT International 7 - 5, URL <http://www.linguistlistplus.com>.
43.
Van Kampen, J. (2001b). Bootstraps at two for lexicon and discourse. In Proceedings of ELA (Early Lexicon Acquisition), Lyon, December 5-8, <http://www.let.uu.nl/~jacqueline.vankampen/personal/downloadables.htm> ;.
44.
fVan Kampen, J. (in press). The acquisition of the standard EPP in Dutch and French . In J. Costa & M. C. Figueired Silva (Eds.), Studies on agreement . Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
45.
Van Kampen, J. (2004). Learnability order in the French pronominal system . In R. Bok-Bennema & B. Hollebrandse (Eds.), Selected papers from Going Romance 2002 (pp. 163 -183). Amsterdam studies in the theory and history of linguistic science. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
46.
Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23-79.
47.
Williams, E. (1994). Thematic structure in syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass.
48.
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/1975). Philosophische Untersuchungen (3rd edition). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
