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

越来越多的文献报告表明普遍语法的属性是假设遗传预设的。事实上，从生命的一开始就限制了语言习得的过程。鉴于这些报告，至少有一个现象仍然是研究人员的一个谜。这就是所谓的绑定现象。例如，在我1981年的论文（大津，1981）中，我报告说，虽然说英语的小孩子在理解像（1）这样包含反身代词的句子时没有困难，但同一组孩子在理解像（2）这样包含代词的句子时确实有困难。(1)约翰拍了拍自己。(2)约翰拍了拍他。更具体地说。孩子们倾向于把（2）当作和（1）一样的意思。假设代词和反身代词的分布是由作为普遍语法一部分的约束理论支配的，这可能会带来一个问题。也就是说，如果儿童具备普遍语法，为什么他们会违反支配代词分布的约束？假设莱因哈特理论（概括为下面的A）是正确的，我们将有以下的收购预测B和C：A.先前的报道认为，幼儿不能理解句子（2）是由于他们的知识中缺乏语用规则。B.那些不能理解句子（2）的儿童也不能获得涉及VP省略的句子的严格身份阅读，比如John kissed his teacher，Bill也是，因为严格的同一性阅读也涉及到语用规则的问题。C.那些有能力解释像（2）这样的句子的孩子像成年人一样，既能得到严格的读数，也能得到草率的读数。

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.