A Study on the Interaction between Discourse Grammar and Sentence Grammar in Language Acquisit

越来越多的文献报告结果表明，普遍语法（UG）的属性是通过基因预先编程的假设。几乎从生命一开始就限制了语言习得的过程。从这些报告来看，至少有一个现象仍然让研究人员感到困惑。这就是所谓的结合现象。例如，在我自己 1981 年的论文中（Otsu 1981），我报告说，虽然年轻的英语儿童在理解（1）这样包含反身的句子时没有困难，但同一组孩子在理解（2）这样包含代词的句子时确实有困难。（1）约翰拍拍自己。（2）约翰拍拍他。更具体地说。孩子们倾向于将（2）视为与(1).假设代词和反身词的分布是由UG的一部分的绑定理论控制的，这可能会带来一个问题。也就是说，如果孩子们配备了UG，为什么他们会违反支配代词分布的约束？假设下面总结为A的莱因哈特理论走在正确的轨道上，我们将得到以下习得性预测B和C：A.之前的报道称幼儿不能够解释像(2)这样的句子，这是因为他们的知识中缺乏语用规则。B.那些不能够解释像这样的句子的孩子(2) 也无法对涉及 VP 省略号的句子进行严格的同一性解读，例如约翰吻了他的老师，比尔也这样做了，因为严格的同一性解读也涉及到所讨论的语用规则。C. 那些能够像成年人一样解释像 (2) 这样的句子的孩子能够获得严格和草率的阅读。

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.