| Budget Amount *help |
¥2,000,000 (Direct Cost: ¥2,000,000)
Fiscal Year 1997: ¥700,000 (Direct Cost: ¥700,000)
Fiscal Year 1996: ¥1,300,000 (Direct Cost: ¥1,300,000)
|
|---|
| Research Abstract |
There has been a growing body of literature reporting results which indicate that properties of Universal Grammar (UG), that are by assumption genetically preprogramd. constrain the course of language acquisition from virtually the very beginning of life. In view of these reports, there is at least one phenomena that has remained a puzzle for researchers. It is the so-called binding phenomena. For example, in my own dissertation back in 1981 (Otsu 1981), I reported that while young English-speaking children have no difficulty in comprehending sentences like (1) which contains reflexives, the same group of children do have difficulties in comprehending sentences like (2) which contain pronouns.
(1) John patted himself.
(2) John patted him.
More specifically.children tend to take (2) as meanint the same as (1).
Assuming that the distribution of pronouns and reflexives is governed by Binding Theory which is part of UG,this would potentially pose a problem. That is, if children are equipped with UG,why do they violate the constraint that governs the distribution of pronouns?
Assuming the Rinehart theory, summarized as A below, is on the right track, we will have the following acquisitional predictions B and C :
A.The previous reports to the effect that young children are not capable of interpreting sentences like (2) are due to the lack of a pragmatic rule in their knowledge.
B.Those children who are not capable of interpreting sentences like (2) are also not capable of getting the strict identity reading for sentences involving VP-ellipsis like John kissed his teacher, and Bill did too, , because the strict identity reading also involves the pragmatic rule in question.
C.Those children who are capable of interpreting sentences like (2) like adults are capable of getting both strict and sloppy readings.
|
