Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:57:57.306Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Combining two-term relations: evidence in support of flat structure*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Jane C. Hill
Jane C. Hill
Affiliation:
Smith College, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I will summarize here some evidence in support of the hypothesis that the child's early combinations of two-word relations may be described simply as processes of concatenation and deletion. This implies that the utterances so produced will represent flat constructions as opposed to hierarchical ones.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , October 1984 , pp. 673 - 678
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1984

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

REFERENCES

Arbib, M. A., Conklin, E. J. & Hill, J. C. (in prep.). From schema theory to language.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1973). Early syntactic development: a cross-linguistic study with special reference to Finnish. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Braine, M. D. S. (1963). The ontogeny of English phrase structure: the first phase. Lg 39. 1–13.Google Scholar
Brown, R. A. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. & de Villiers, P. A. (1979). Early language. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, J. C. (1982). A computational model of language acquisition in the two-year-old. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst. Reproduced (February 1983) Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Hill, J. C. (1983). A computational model of language acquisition in the two-year-old. Cognition and Brain Theory 6(3). 287–319.Google Scholar
Hill, J. C. & Arbib, M. A. (1984). Schemas, computation, and language acquisition. Phytogeny and Ontogeny, Cahiers de la Fondation Archives Jean Piaget, 5.Google Scholar
Matthei, E. (1979). The acquisition of prenominal modifier sequences: stalking the second green ball. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. (1969). Sentences children use. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monogr. Soc. Res. Ch. Devel. 38, (1–2), Serial No. 149.Google Scholar
Solan, L. & Roeper, T. (1978). Children's use of syntactic structure in interpreting relative clauses. In Goodluck, H. & Solan, L. (eds), Papers in the structure and development of child language. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 4.Google Scholar
Tavakolian, S. L. (1978). The conjoined clause analysis of relative clauses and other structures. In Goodluck, H. & Solan, L. (eds), Papers in the structure and development of child language. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics, 4.Google Scholar
Tavakolian, S. L. (ed.) (1981). Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Valian, V., Winzemer, J. & Erreich, A. (1981). ‘Little linguist’ model of syntax learning. In Tavakolian, S. L. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar