The Anaphoric Binding of UG and Language Acquisition

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

I have explained that arguments for UG derive their force by looking at the final, adult grammar, in all its complexity. They stem from tha claim that the input to the language learner underdetermines the end result, that the input is insufficiently precise to account for linguistic competence. Generative grammar focusses on the properties of a formal system, or grammar, and the question of how this system can be acquired; it puts to one side other aspects of language and the role of factors that are not crucial to these formal poroperties. This does not mean that such factors (e.g. discourse and pragmatics) should not form part of an overall theory of language, nor does it mean that an overall theory of language acquisition should ignore them. However, the current trend both in linguistic and in cognitive psychology is to assume that global theories that try to account for everything should in fact be broken down into sub-theories, each with its own domain. The theory of Universal Grammar is one such sub-theory, according for a limited but crucial domain. In line with this thinking, I would focus on only one potential component of a theory of second language acquisition and would omit many issues, not because they are not important but because they do not happen to fall within the scope of Universal Grammar.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 목차
• 1. Introduction = 39
• 2. Argument Structure and Anaphora = 41
• 3. Anaphoric Binding Equations = 42
• 3.1 'Outside-In' Functional Uncertainty : Filler-Gap Dependencies = 42
• 3.2 'Inside-Out' Functional Uncertainty : Anaphoric Dependencies = 45
• 4. Thoughts on Language Acquisition = 46
• 5. Language Learning and Language Acquisition = 49
• 5.1 Syntax = 51
• 5.2 Anaphora = 53
• 5.3 Binding Theory = 54
• 5.4 Reflexive Pronouns = 55
• 5.5 Dexis and Anaphora = 56
• 6. Conclusion = 57
• References = 58