Abstract
Acquisition is an intuitive place to look for explanation in language change. Each child must learn their individual grammar(s) via the indirect process of analyzing the output of others’ grammars, and the process necessarily involves social transmission over several years. On the basis of child language learning behaviors, I ask whether it is reasonable to expect the incrementation (advancement) of new variants to be kicked off by and sustained by the acquisition process. I discuss literature on how children respond to input variation, and a series of new studies experimentally testing incrementation, and argue that at least for some phenomena, young children overgeneralize innovative variants beyond their input. I sketch a model of incrementation based on initial overgeneralization, and offer further thoughts on next steps. Much collaborative work remains to precisely link analogous dynamic phenomena in learning and change.
References
Andersen, H. 1973. Abductive and deductive change. Language 49. 765–793.10.2307/412063Search in Google Scholar
Berko, J. 1958. The child’s learning of English morphology. Word 14(2–3). 150–177.10.1080/00437956.1958.11659661Search in Google Scholar
Boberg, C. 2011. Reshaping the vowel system: An index of phonetic innovation in Canadian English. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 17(2). 4.Search in Google Scholar
Booth, A. E. & S. R. Waxman. 2002. Word learning is ‘smart’: Evidence that conceptual information affects preschoolers’ extension of novel words. Cognition 84(1). B11–B22.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00015-XSearch in Google Scholar
Brennan, V. 1993. Root and epistemic modal auxiliary verbs. University of Massachusetts PhD.Search in Google Scholar
Cedergren, H. 1988. The spread of language change: Verifying inferences of linguistic diffusion. In P. H. Lowenberg (ed.), Language spread and language policy: Issues, implications, and case studies, 45–60. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Chambers, J. 2003. Sociolinguistic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Chevrot, J.-P., A. Nardy & S. Barbu. 2011. Developmental dynamics of SES-related differences in children’s production of obligatory and variable phonological alternations. Language Sciences 33(1). 180–191.10.1016/j.langsci.2010.08.007Search in Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1986. Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Search in Google Scholar
Cinque, G. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads: A cross-linguistic perspective. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780195115260.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Clark, E. V. 1993. The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9780511554377Search in Google Scholar
Condoravdi, C. 2002. Temporal interpretation of modals. The Construction of Meaning, 59–88.Search in Google Scholar
Cournane, A. 2014. In search of L1 evidence for diachronic reanalysis: Mapping modal verbs. Language Acquisition 21(1). 103–117.10.1080/10489223.2013.855218Search in Google Scholar
Cournane, A. 2015. Modal development: input-divergent L1 acquisition in the direction of diachronic reanalysis. University of Toronto (Canada) PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Cournane, A. 2017. In defense of the child innovator. In E. Mathieu & R. Truswell (eds.), Micro-change and Macro-change in Diachronic Syntax, 10–23. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780198747840.003.0002Search in Google Scholar
Cournane, A. & L. Mackenzie. in prep. SocialEyes: Testing age-stratification in child perception.Search in Google Scholar
Cournane, A. & A. T. Pérez-Leroux. under revision. Leaving obligations behind: epistemic incrementation in preschool English.Search in Google Scholar
Crisma, P. & G. Longobardi. 2009. Change, relatedness and inertia in historical syntax. In P. Crisma & G. Longobardi (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory, 1–13. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560547.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Díaz-Campos, M. 2005. The emergence of adult-like command of sociolinguistic variables: a study of consonant weakening in Spanish-speaking children. Selected proceedings of the 6th conference on the acquisition of Spanish and Portuguese as first and second Languages, 56–65.Search in Google Scholar
Diessel, H. 2011. Grammaticalization and language acquisition. In H. Narrog & B. Heine (eds.), Handbook of grammaticalization, 130–141. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199586783.013.0011Search in Google Scholar
Dudley, R. E. 2017. The role of input in discovering presuppositions triggers: Figuring out what everybody already knew. College Park: University of Maryland PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, O. 2003. The development of the modals in English: Radical versus gradual changes. In D. Hart (ed.), English Modality in Context, 17–32. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. 1990. The structural sources of verb meanings. Language Acquisition 1(1). 3–55.10.1093/oso/9780199828098.003.0009Search in Google Scholar
Guy, G. R. & S. Boyd. 1990. The development of a morphological class. Language Variation and Change 2(1). 1–18.10.1017/S0954394500000235Search in Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. 2006. Aspects of modality. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Hacquard, V. 2013. The grammatical category of modality. Proceedings of the 19th Amsterdam Colloquium, 19–26.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, M. 1998. Diachronic syntax. Syntax 1(1). 1–18.10.1111/1467-9612.00001Search in Google Scholar
Hall, E. & R. Maddeaux. 2018. /u/-fronting and /æ/-raising in Toronto Families. Talk Presented at New Ways of Analyzing Variation (NWAV) 47. New York University.Search in Google Scholar
Halle, M. 1964. Phonology in generative grammar. In J. Fodor & J. Katz (eds.), The structure of language, 334–352. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Hendriks, P. & C. Koster. 2010. Production/comprehension asymmetries in language acquisition. Lingua 120(8). 1887–1897.10.1016/j.lingua.2010.02.002Search in Google Scholar
Heycock, C. & J. Wallenberg. 2013. How variational acquisition drives syntactic change. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 16(2–3). 127–157.10.1007/s10828-013-9056-0Search in Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. 1950. Age-grading and linguistic continuity. Language 26(4). 449–457.10.2307/410396Search in Google Scholar
Holmes-Elliott, S. 2016. Ladies first? Adolescent peaks in a male-led change. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 22(2). 81–90.Search in Google Scholar
Holmes-Elliott, S. 2018. Future Leaders: real time incrementation of sound change between childhood and adolescence. Talk presented at the Department of Linguistics and English Language, University of Manchester. December 11, 2019.Search in Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. & E. C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/CBO9781139165525Search in Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L. & E. L. Newport. 2005. Regularizing unpredictable variation: The roles of adult and child learners in language formation and change. Language Learning and Development 1(2). 151–195.10.1080/15475441.2005.9684215Search in Google Scholar
Hudson Kam, C. L. & E. L. Newport. 2009. Getting it right by getting it wrong: When learners change languages. Cognitive Psychology 59(1). 30–66.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.01.001Search in Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. 1996. Children, adolescents, and language change. Language Variation and Change 8(2). 177–202.10.1017/S0954394500001137Search in Google Scholar
Kerswill, P. & A. Williams. 2000. Creating a new town koine: Children and language change in Milton Keynes. Language in Society 29(1). 65–115.10.1017/S0047404500001020Search in Google Scholar
Klecha, P. 2016. Modality and embedded temporal operators. Semantics and Pragmatics 9. 9–1.10.3765/sp.9.9Search in Google Scholar
Koops, C., E. Gentry & A. Pantos. 2008. The effect of perceived speaker age on the perception of PIN and PEN vowels in Houston, Texas. University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 14(2). 93–101.Search in Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. 1981. The notional category of modality. In: H.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts, 38–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Search in Google Scholar
Kroch, A. S. 1989. Reflexes of grammar in patterns of language change. Language Variation and Change 1(3). 199–244.10.1017/S0954394500000168Search in Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1970. The logic of nonstandard English. In F. Williams (ed.), Language and poverty, 153–189. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1016/B978-0-12-754850-0.50014-3Search in Google Scholar
Labov, W. 1989. The child as linguistic historian. Language Variation and Change 1(1). 85–97.10.1017/S0954394500000120Search in Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2001. Principles of linguistic change, Volume 2: Social factors. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.10.1002/9781444327496Search in Google Scholar
Labov, W. 2007. Transmission and diffusion. Language 83(2). 344–387.10.1353/lan.2007.0082Search in Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1979. Principles of diachronic syntax. Cambridge: CUP.Search in Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. 1999. The development of language: Acquisition, change, and evolution. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & C. Snow. 1985. The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language 12(2). 271–295.10.1017/S0305000900006449Search in Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., S. Pinker, M. Ullman, M. Hollander, T. J. Rosen, F. Xu & H. Clahsen. 1992. Overregularization in language acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 57. i–178.10.2307/1166115Search in Google Scholar
Marcus, G. F., S. Vijayan, S. B. Rao & P. M. Vishton. 1999. Rule learning by seven-month-old infants. Science 283(5398). 77–80.10.1126/science.283.5398.77Search in Google Scholar
Meillet, A. 1912. L’évolution des formes grammaticales. In A. Meillet (ed.), Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale, 130–158. Paris: Champion.Search in Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. 1998. The acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic representation. Mind & Language 13(3). 370–399.10.1111/1468-0017.00082Search in Google Scholar
Pearson, B. Z., S. Fernández & D. K. Oller. 1995. Cross-language synonyms in the lexicons of bilingual infants: One language or two? Journal of Child Language 22(2). 345–368.10.1017/S030500090000982XSearch in Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., A. Munn, C. Schmitt & M. DeIrish. 2004. Learning definite determiners: Genericity and definiteness in English and Spanish. BUCLD 28 Proceedings Supplement.Search in Google Scholar
Pinker, S. 1984. Language learnability and language learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, I. & A. Roussou. 1999. A formal approach to “grammaticalization.”. Linguistics 37(6). 1011–1041.10.1515/ling.37.6.1011Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, I. G. 1985. Agreement parameters and the development of English modal auxiliaries. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 3. 21–58.10.4324/9781315310572-1Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, J. & W. Labov. 1995. Learning to talk Philadelphian: Acquisition of short a by preschool children. Language Variation and Change 7(1). 101–112.10.1017/S0954394500000910Search in Google Scholar
Roberts, J. L. 1994. Acquisition of variable rules: (-t, d) deletion and (ing) production in preschool children. University of Pennsylvania PhD thesis.Search in Google Scholar
Robinson, M. 2019. Child L1 Acquisition of Comparatives and Superlatives: Evidence for *ABA? New York University Ms.Search in Google Scholar
Roeper, T. 1999. Universal bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2(3). 169–186.10.1017/S1366728999000310Search in Google Scholar
Saffran, J. R., R. N. Aslin & E. L. Newport. 1996. Statistical learning by 8-month-old infants. Science 274(5294). 1926–1928.10.1126/science.274.5294.1926Search in Google Scholar
Schuler, K. D., C. Yang & E. L. Newport. 2016. Testing the Tolerance Principle: Children form productive rules when it is more computationally efficient to do so. CogSci.10.31234/osf.io/utgdsSearch in Google Scholar
Senghas, A. & M. Coppola. 2001. Children creating language: How Nicaraguan sign language acquired a spatial grammar. Psychological Science 12(4). 323–328.10.1111/1467-9280.00359Search in Google Scholar
Singleton, J. L. & E. L. Newport. 2004. When learners surpass their models: The acquisition of American Sign Language from inconsistent input. Cognitive Psychology 49(4). 370–407.10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.05.001Search in Google Scholar
Smith, J., M. Durham & L. Fortune. 2007. “Mam, my trousers is fa’in doon!”: Community, caregiver, and child in the acquisition of variation in a Scottish dialect. Language Variation and Change 19(1). 63–99.10.1017/S0954394507070044Search in Google Scholar
Smith, J., M. Durham & H. Richards. 2013. The social and linguistic in the acquisition of sociolinguistic norms: Caregivers, children, and variation. Linguistics 51(2). 285–324.10.1515/ling-2013-0012Search in Google Scholar
Snyder, W. 2007. Child language: The parametric approach. Oxford: OUP.10.1093/oso/9780199296699.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. 2011. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation, vol. 40. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Search in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. & A. D’Arcy. 2007. The modals of obligation/necessity in Canadian perspective. English World-Wide 28(1). 47–87.10.1075/eww.28.1.04tagSearch in Google Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. & A. D’Arcy. 2009. Peaks beyond phonology: Adolescence, incrementation, and language change. Language 85(1). 58–108.10.1353/lan.0.0084Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 65(1). 31–55.10.2307/414841Search in Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 2011. Modality from a historical perspective. Language and Linguistics Compass 5(6). 381–396.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2011.00280.xSearch in Google Scholar
van Dooren, A., A. Dieuleveut, A. Cournane & V. Hacquard. 2017. Learning what must and can must and can mean. Proceedings of the 21st Amsterdam Colloquium.Search in Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.71Search in Google Scholar
van Gelderen, E. (ed). 2009. Cyclical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/la.146Search in Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2012. Against inertia. Lingua 122(8). 891–901.10.1016/j.lingua.2012.03.001Search in Google Scholar
Walkden, G. 2017. The actuation problem. In A. Ledgeway & I. Roberts (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of historical syntax. Cambridge: CUP.10.1017/9781107279070.020Search in Google Scholar
Wallenberg, J. C. 2013. A unified theory of stable variation, syntactic optionality, and syntactic change. Talk delivered at the 15th Diachronic Generative Syntax (DiGS) Conference, University of Ottawa.Search in Google Scholar
Weinreich, U., W. Labov & M. Herzog. 1968. Empirical foundations for a theory of language change. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Werker, J. F. & K. Byers-Heinlein. 2008. Bilingualism in infancy: First steps in perception and comprehension. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12(4). 144–151.10.1016/j.tics.2008.01.008Search in Google Scholar
Xu, F. & S. Pinker. 1995. Weird past tense forms. Journal of Child Language 22(3). 531–556.10.1017/S0305000900009946Search in Google Scholar
Yang, C. D. 2000. Internal and external forces in language change. Language Variation and Change 12(03). 231–250.10.1017/S0954394500123014Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- A developmental view on incrementation in language change
- Computational historical linguistics
- Complexity as L2-difficulty: Implications for syntactic change
- Comments
- Children always go beyond the input: The Maximise Minimal Means perspective
- Overgeneralization and change: The role of acquisition in diachrony
- On computational historical linguistics in the 21st century
- Beyond edit distances: Comparing linguistic reconstruction systems
- Some thoughts on the complexity of syntactic complexity
- Are uninterpretable features vulnerable?
- Uninterpretable features in learning and alternative grammars?
- Replies
- Grammatical representations versus productive patterns in change theories
- Model evaluation in computational historical linguistics
- Interpreting (un)interpretability
- Edit Doron (1951–2019)
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- A developmental view on incrementation in language change
- Computational historical linguistics
- Complexity as L2-difficulty: Implications for syntactic change
- Comments
- Children always go beyond the input: The Maximise Minimal Means perspective
- Overgeneralization and change: The role of acquisition in diachrony
- On computational historical linguistics in the 21st century
- Beyond edit distances: Comparing linguistic reconstruction systems
- Some thoughts on the complexity of syntactic complexity
- Are uninterpretable features vulnerable?
- Uninterpretable features in learning and alternative grammars?
- Replies
- Grammatical representations versus productive patterns in change theories
- Model evaluation in computational historical linguistics
- Interpreting (un)interpretability
- Edit Doron (1951–2019)