,,.,... a. Mark gave a book to Jane. b. Mark gave Jane a book.,.,,.,,.,, (act-out task).,,. a. The cow showed the dog to the horse. b. The cow showed

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download ",,.,... a. Mark gave a book to Jane. b. Mark gave Jane a book.,.,,.,,.,, (act-out task).,,. a. The cow showed the dog to the horse. b. The cow showed"

しまなしどり
5 years ago
Views:

1 A Linguistic Approach to the Study of Language Acquisition William O'GRADY., (the study of language acquisition) (the linguistic approach).,.., (linguistic),. (contemporary linguistics),.,,..,,,.,,,.,,.., (pronoun interpretation) (palatalization)., (cross-linguistic work),.

2 ,,.,... a. Mark gave a book to Jane. b. Mark gave Jane a book.,.,,.,,.,, (act-out task).,,. a. The cow showed the dog to the horse. b. The cow showed the horse the dog. (reversible)..,,. (to-dative), (theme) (undergoer), to (goal) (recipient).

3 The cow showed the dog to the horse., (double-object) (goal) (theme). The cow showed the horse the dog ,.,. The lion showed the giraffe the bear. The lion showed the giraffe to the bear.., V. J. Cook (Cook, 1976)., Cook (120 ),. (Waryas & Stremel, 1974; Osgood & Zehler, 1981; Roeper et al., 1981),

4 White, ,.,.,.,. 2,... to.,. Slobin, 1985,...,.,,.,.,,. donate suggest,. Mary donated the money to the Red Cross. *Mary donated the Red Cross the money. (Pinker, 1989, pp ; Gropen et al., 1989, pp ; Snyder & Stromswold, 1997) O'Grady (1997, p. 209) Snyder & Stromswold (1997) show, give, tell,

5 Harry suggested a new idea to the teacher. *Harry suggested the teacher a new idea., (marked), (unmarked).,... (iconicity) Talmy, 1988; Van Voorst, 1988, p. 27; Pinker, 1989, p. 193; Dik, 1989; Croft, 1991, p. 262; Langacker, 1995, pp ; Ritter & Rosen, 1998.,., give, show, tell,, (agent) (theme), (goal)., Mary John,.. a. Mark gave a book to Jane. b. Mark gave Jane a book..

6 .,,,..,,.,., Cho et al. (1998, to appear). 3. a. Ai-ka tol-ul kay-eykey tenci-ess-ta. child-nom stone-ac dog-dat throw-pst-decl The child threw a stone to the dog. b. Ai-ka kay-eykey tol-ul tenci-ess-ta. child-nom dog-dat stone-ac throw-pst-decl The child threw a stone to the dog..,. Suzuki et al. (1999)

7 a. Kom-ul so-eykey milecwul-lay-yo? bear-ac cow-dat push-fut-sentender Will you push the bear to the cow? b. So-eykey kom-ul milecwul-lay-yo? cow-dat bear-ac push-fut-sentender Will you push the bear to the cow?. ( ) (a repeated measures 3-way ANOVA), (F(2,27) = 11.22, p < 0.001).,, (F(1,27) = 53.09, p < 0.001)., (F(1,27) = 4.40, p < 0.05). 5 5 (p > 0.05).

8 ., (valence).,..,. (language faculty) (acquisition device),.,.,.,.,,.,,.,

9 .., Gass, 1979, 1980, 1982; Wolfe-Quintero, 1992; Eckman et al., 1988; Doughty, 1991; O'Grady, 1999, wh-, Kim, 1995; Yoshinaga, the truck that [ pushed the car] the truck that [the car pushed ],., (gap) (head),. O'Grady, 1999; O'Grady, 1987 Wolfe-Quintero, (linked), (syntactic node) (O'Grady, 1997, p.179; Collins, 1994). 6. (The Structural Distance Hypothesis).,,. 7 (overt) (abstract) (movement) (Chomsky, 1977) (inheritance of an NP feature) (e.g., Gazdar, et al., 1985; O'Grady, 1997) O'Grady (1997) CP, IP, AgrP Collins (1994)

10 a : the truck that [ S pushed the car] = 1 (S) b. : the truck that [ S the car [ VP pushed ]] = 2 (VP S) Tarallo and Myhill (1983), Hawkins (1989), Lee (1998/99). (linear distance).,. (The Linear Distance Hypothesis)., a. 1 the truck that [ pushed the car] = b. : the truck that [the car pushed ] =,,

11 ,,., (hierarchical syntactic representations) (computational operations),,,.,,..,..,,, a. 1 2 [ namca-lul cohaha-nun S ] yeca man-acc like-rc. Prs woman the woman who likes the man : (S) : b. 1 [Namca-ka [ cohaha-nun VP ] S ] yeca man-nom like-rc. Prs woman the woman who the man likes : (VP S) :,. O'Grady, Lee, and Choo (2002),.,.

12 Each page of this booklet contains a series of three pictures. As you go to each page, you will hear a tape-recorded voice describing a person or animal in one of the three pictures. Your job is simply to put a circle around the person or animal described in the sentence. (Do NOT put the circle around the entire box.).,.

13 (23) a. [ namca-lul cohaha-nun] yeca man-acc like-rc. Prs woman the woman who likes the man b. [namca-ka cohaha-nun] yeca man-nom like-rc. Prs woman the woman who the man likes,.. (F(2,51) = 2.00, p > 0.05),.., (F(1,52) = 30.59, p < 0.001)., 8

14 .,.,,.,,,,.,.,,,.,.,..,.,.,.,.,,,.,. Miseon Lee, Moho Choo, Minsun Song, Sookeun Cho

15 Cho, S., W. O'Grady, M. Lee, M. Song & T. Suzuki. (1998). Word order preferences for direct and indirect objects in children learning Korean. B. Park & J. Yoon (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Eleventh International Conference on Korean Linguistics, Seoul: International Circle of Korean Linguistics. Cho, S., O'Grady, W., Lee, M., Song, M., Suzuki, T & N. Yoshinaga. (to appear). Word order preferences for direct and indirect objects in children learning Korean. Journal of Child Language. Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh movement. P. Culicover, T. Wasow & A. Akmajian (Eds.), Formal syntax, San Diego: Academic Press. Collins, C. (1994). Economy of derivation and the Generalized Proper Binding Condition. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, Cook, V.J. (1976). A note on indirect objects. Journal of Child Language 3, Croft, W. (1991). Syntactic categories and grammatical relations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dik, S. (1989). The theory of functional grammar. Part I: The structure of the clause. Dordrecht: Foris. Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 13, Eckman, F., Bell, L., & Nelson, D. (1988). On the generalization of relative clause instruction in the acquisition of English as a second language. Applied Linguistics, 9, Gass, S. (1979). Language transfer and universal grammatical relations. Language Learning, 29, Gass, S. (1980). An investigation of syntactic transfer in adult second language learners. R. Scarcella & S. Krashen (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition, Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Gass, S. (1982). From theory to practice. M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL 81, Washington, DC: TESOL. Gazdar, G., E. Klein, G. Pullum & I. Sag. (1985). Generalized phrase structure grammar. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gropen, J., Pinker, S., Hollander, M., Goldberg, R & R. Wilson. (1989). The learnability and acquisition of the dative alternation in English. Language 65, Hawkins, R. (1989). Do second language learners acquire restrictive relative clauses on the basis of relational or configurational information? The acquisition of French subject, direct object and genitive restrictive clauses by second language learners.

16 Second Language Research, 5, Kim, S. (1995). The acquisition of wh questions in English and Korean. Doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii. Langacker, R. (1995). Raising and transparency. Language 71, Lee, M. (1998/99). The comparative difficulty of subject and dative relative clauses in Korean. Hawaii Working Papers in Linguistics, O'Grady, W. (1987). Principles of grammar and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. O'Grady, W. (1997). Syntactic development. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. O'Gady, W.(1999). Toward a new nativism. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21, O'Grady, W., Miseon, L. & M. Choo. (2002). The acquisition of relative clauses in Korean as a second language. ms. University of Hawaii at Manoa. Osgood, C. & A. Zehler. (1981). Acquisition of bi-transitive sentences: pre-linguistic determinants of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 8, Pinker, S. (1989). Learnability and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Ritter, E. & S. Rosen. (1998). Delimiting events in syntax. W. Geuder & M. Butt (Eds.), The projection of arguments: Lexical and syntactic constraints, Stanford: CSLI. Roeper, T., Lapointe, S., Bing, J. & S. Tavakolian. (1981). A lexical approach to language acquisition. S. Tavakolian (Ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Slobin, D. (1985). Crosslinguistic evidence for the language-making capacity. D. Slobin (Ed.), The cross-linguistic study of language acquisition. Vol. 2: Theoretical issues, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Snyder, W. & K. Stromswold. (1997). The structure and acquisition of English dative constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 8, Suzuki, T., Cho, S., Lee, M., O'Grady, W., Song, M. & N. Yoshinaga. (1999). Word order preferences for direct and indirect objects in children learning Japanese. The 2nd International Conference on Cognitive Science and The 16th Annual Meeting of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society Joint Conference, Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12, Tarallo, F., & Myhill, J. (1983). Interference and natural language processing in second language acquisition. Language Learning, 33, Van Voorst, J. (1988). Event structure. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Waryas, C. & K. Stremel. (1974). On the preferred form of the double object

17 construction. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 3, White, L. (1987). Markedness and second language acquisition: The question of transfer. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 9, Wolfe-Quintero, K. (1992). Learnability and the acquisition of extraction in relative clauses and wh questions. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, Yoshinaga, N. (1996). Wh-questions: A comparative study of their form and acquisition in English and Japanese. Doctoral dissertation. University of Hawaii.

18 William O'Grady A Linguistic Approach to the Study of Language Acquisition. Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, The Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics.,,,,.,.,.,,.,. O'Grady,.,.., Kevin Gregg.

...C...{ ren

...C...{ ren 15 2010. 2 41 1 1 2 Ura 1999 1a 1b 1c 42 2a 2b 2c P P Takezawa 1987 Tada 1992, 1993 Zushi 1995 Ura 1999 Hiraiwa 2001 Tada 1992 Agr AgrOP-Spec Ura 1999 Hiraiwa 2001 TP-Spec Kuno 1973 2 3, 4 3a 3b 3c 3d