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

有越来越多的文献报道结果表明，普遍语法(UG)的性质是基因预编程的假设。几乎从生命的一开始就限制语言习得的进程。鉴于这些报道，至少有一个现象仍然是研究人员的谜团。这就是所谓的束缚现象。例如，在我1981年的论文(Otsu 1981)中，我报告说，尽管说英语的儿童在理解(1)这样的含有反身代词的句子方面没有困难，但同一组儿童在理解像(2)这样包含代词的句子方面确实有困难。(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)相同的意思。假设代词和反身动词的分布受到普遍语法的约束理论的支配，这可能会带来问题。也就是说，如果孩子有普遍语法，为什么他们会违反支配代词分布的约束？假设下面概括为A的莱因哈特理论是正确的，我们将有以下习得预测B和C：A。以前的报告认为幼儿不能解释像(2)这样的句子是因为他们的知识缺乏语用规则。B.那些不能解释像(2)这样的句子的孩子也不能像约翰亲吻他的老师那样，对涉及VP省略的句子进行严格的同一性阅读，比尔也是如此，因为严格的同一性阅读也涉及到所讨论的语用规则。C.那些像成年人一样能够理解(2)式句子的孩子，既能严格阅读，也能草率阅读。

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.