Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:06:26.256Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diachronic change: Early versus late acquisition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2011

FRED WEERMAN
FRED WEERMAN*
Affiliation:
Dutch Linguistics/ACLC, University of Amsterdam, Spuistraat 134, 1012 VB Amsterdam, The Netherlandsweerman@uva.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There is a long linguistic tradition in which language change is explained in terms of first language acquisition. In this tradition, children are considered to be the agents of language change, or at least the agents of changes in the underlying grammar. Since the early 1980s, this has been formulated in the (generative) terminology in terms of parameters set by children: whereas an older generation acquires one particular setting of a parameter (during childhood), a next generation of L1 children may set a parameter differently, based on the input of their parents, and this may lead to a different output. For obvious reasons this argumentation had to be built on theoretical rather than empirical work on language acquisition. There are no children acquiring Old English or Middle Dutch, and, in fact, the field of acquisition research was until recently much less developed and very often not focused on the type of facts that happened to play a role in discussions of language change.

Type
Peer Commentaries
Information
Bilingualism: Language and Cognition , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , April 2011 , pp. 149 - 151
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

References

Blom, E., Polišenská, D., & Weerman, F. (2008). Articles, adjectives and age of onset: The acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender. Second Language Research, 24, 297–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. (2000). Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Haspemath, M. (1999). Why is grammaticalization irreversible? Linguistics, 37–6, 1043–1068.Google Scholar
Keller, R. (1994). Language change: The invisible hand in language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Polišenská, D. (2010). Dutch children's acquisition of verbal and adjectival inflection. Ph.D. dissertation, Universiteit van Amsterdam. [Utrecht: LOT]Google Scholar
Ullman, M. (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: The declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 105–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weerman, F. (2002). Dynamiek in taal en de explosie van de neerlandistiek. Amsterdam: Vossiuspers UvA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar