A long-term project that I’ve been working on has been to find ways to translate the findings of generative (Chomskyan) syntax to theory-external phenomena within human cognition. This was mainly motivated by my cognitive science students here in Claremont, who have always struggled to understand how to relate the models of grammar I taught them with what else they knew about cognition. This is especially so when it came to the Minimalist model: building structure derivationally in a bottom-up fashion clearly matches neither perception nor production of language, so it is hard for them to fathom why our model would work like that. From my perspective, I’ve never had good answers, except to say that it works to capture the properties of adult grammars. So I starting wondering why it worked so well, when it clearly didn’t correlate with language processing in any obvious way. Surely the burden of responsibility is on generative syntacticians to communicate the findings of our field to cognitive scientists more broadly; I figured my students deserved better answers, so I tried to find them.
The hypothesis that I arrived at was that the sequence of structure-building in a Minimalist derivation works so well because those are the same sequences that language is acquired in by a child, and children retain their earlier stages of knowledge, building additional structures on top of their foundational structures. In work together with Madeline Bossi PO ’17, she explored a large range of acquisition literature and was able to teach me that 1) ideas like this had been around generative syntax for a long time, because 2) broadly-speaking, language is acquired in this fashion. We articulated the proposal in this way:
DMS: Developmental Minimalist Syntax (an interpretive principle)
The Minimalist derivation of adult language structures recapitulates the ontogenetic development of those same syntactic structures.
In many ways, this claim is affirmed in the data on child language acquisition: in general, structurally lower material is acquired before structurally higher material.
As was pointed out to us by a NELS reviewer years ago, however, there are a number of complications in which acquisition doesn’t clearly match bottom-up structure building, which is part of why the initial forays into these ideas in the mid-90’s appeared to have failed. To give just one example, children at very early stages of acquisition will be asking wh-questions quite frequently: what doing? where going? etc. This is just one example of many. And while some recent work has attempted to revive this broad instinct, the empirical problems persisted.
This led us to focus particularly on those exceptions, at which point we found some quite striking correlations. Specifically, in those areas where there appears to be a breakdown of bottom-up acquisition of grammar, there are corresponding breakdowns of bottom-up derivation of adult grammatical structures. It is a well known fact that (on Minimalist analyses) there are grammatical constructions where operations take place before they should have based on the canonical sequence of structure building (these are known as look-ahead problems). Likewise, there are many instances where operations take place after they ought to have on the canonical sequence of structure building: these include instances of Late Merger and of delaying Probing, among other things. Broadly speaking, these are counter-cyclic operations, i.e. grammatical properties that appear to operate against the normal cycles of bottom-up structure building in a Minimalist model.
The claim that we advance in Diercks and Bossi 2021 (currently under review) is that this correlation holds quite broadly: look-ahead problems in adult grammars correspond to `early’ acquisition (i.e. acquiring a pattern before the complete requisite grammar is acquired for that pattern), and patterns like Late Merger correspond to children learning a structure after subsequent, higher structures have been acquired. For example, in adult grammars, in long-distance wh-movement wh-phrases move to the embedded CP before the ultimate target of their movement (matrix CP) has been merged into the structure; this correlates to children learning the linear position of wh-words (sentence-initial in English) long before learning about tense and complementizers. Likewise, relative clauses have been proposed to be merged late in a structure, explaining why they lack reconstruction effects as evidenced by binding (Takahashi and Hulsey 2009 summarizes this succinctly). We think it is no accident that relative clauses are one of the last structures that children grammaticalize in fully adult-like ways.
On this approach, many of the Minimalist analytical constructs that make up proposals about `UG’ (operations like Merge, Agree, etc) are are simply devices that children use to arrive at grammatical abstractions in language acquisition. Children acquire a pattern, and then they build additional knowledge on top of the knowledge that they already grammaticalized. This results in hierarchical syntactic knowledge, with structurally lower (and often unpronounced/invisible) representations of syntactic material occurring because those were a child’s first generalizations about that material, which were later revised, resulting in `movement’ of that material elsewhere in a sentence (i.e. a reanalysis of the position of an element, as the child has acquired more grammar). Therefore the lower positions, and even the sequence of operations itself that can model adult knowledge, can be considered ontogenetic fossils: remnants of earlier stages of knowledge that are retained in adult grammatical knowledge.
Our full manuscript (Diercks and Bossi 2021 ) explores these ideas in depth. For those who don’t have days to set aside to fall down this rabbit hole with us, I wrote a too-long-didn’t-read version which summarizes the core ideas: tl;dr Developmental Minimalist Syntax. Both of these are written with an audience of generative syntacticians in mind. Both are currently under revision, based on feedback from reviewers and discussions with acquisitionists.
More recently, I have been working on another paper which is designed to argue for the same conclusion from a different starting point. Instead of taking Minimalist syntax for granted, I argue that something like the structural hierarchies of generative syntax is a necessary component of adult grammatical knowledge based on sequences of language acquisition. The target audience of this paper is the inverse of the aforementioned manuscript: here, we want to make the case to non-generative-syntacticians that Minimalist analytical constructs like Merge and Agree are analytically useful and cognitively informative. In the process, we sketch a DMS-friendly version of Minimalist syntax that abandons traditional notions of UG. We propose that Minimalist analysis of adult grammars is appropriate and productive because it models language-relevant cognition, but those cognitive models need not be domain-specific to language (i.e. the traditional hypothesized UG does not exist, even if the specific Minimalist models of so-called UG do). A draft of that paper should be linked here by mid-September, 2021.
The DMS project has a number of current and former student research assistants and collaborators from the Claremont Colleges: at present, this includes Madeline Bossi PO ’17, Evelyn TeSelle PO ’22, Emily Clarke SC ’22, and Katie Johnson HMC ’23. In Fall 2021 I am co-teaching a research seminar with Galia Bar-Sever in which students will be performing corpus investigations of various smaller predictions of DMS to further evaluate the viability of the model.