Re: Human language acquisition

On 11/29/03 10:00 PM, "Glen M. Sizemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> 
> GS: Well, I was careless. In modern times, we do, literally, sometimes apply
> rules when we speak our native language. But a child who says "goed" or
> "hitted" is not following a rule literally, and people spoke grammatically
> for thousands of years before anyone knew that the notion of rules could be
> metaphorically applied. Clear it up for you Mike? I didn't think so.

Hi Glen...

Obviously, I have no grasp on the behaviourist (I never know whether or not
to capitalize that) literature concerning language acquisition (I've yet to
read Verbal Behaviour - or Chomsky's review, for that matter -) although I
know that Catania discusses it in his text...

Anyway...what's the behaviourist view on *why* (English-speaking) kids
overregularize and say things like "goed" and "breaked", when those forms
are *never* in their input experience ??  In particular, why do (English-
speaking) kids *always* do this ??

Incidentally, most generative linguists (I can hear your eyes
rolling...*grin*) regard Marcus (1993)[1] as the final nail in the coffin of
the "negative evidence" issue. I'm not quite so sure about it, but there are
some interesting points raised...


Marcus, Gary (1993). "Negative Evidence in Language Acquisition." in
Cognition, 46 (1993), 53-85.


Cheers...

Fred.