Book

Description

Most research on the acquisition and use of grammar relies on adult speech, adult writing, and adult conversation because that data is abundant and easy to collect and assumes the patterns found there also hold for the children whose grammar the theory claims to explain. This book puts that assumption to the test, and the result is not what its own author expected. Twelve chapters build a careful, well-evidenced case, using everyday conversation, novels, news, and political speech, that certain grammatical slots (prepositions, conjunctions, and the verb "to be") follow looser rules than the ones nouns and verbs are held to. It is a coherent, well-supported argument. Then the book does what most studies in this tradition never do: it tests the same claim against genuine recordings of parents talking with their own children. The argument does not simply weaken. It reverses. Rather than smoothing that over, the author states it plainly on the first page and spends the rest of the book working out what survives contact with real child speech, what does not, and what a more accurate theory looks like once the substitute data is set aside. The result reads less like a confirmation and more like a real investigation, including the parts that went wrong. Grounded in twenty-six linked studies, genuine CHILDES recordings, corpus data across several genres and two languages, and a full transparent account of every method and result, this is a book for anyone who wants to know what actually happens when a linguistic theory is finally tested on the population it claims to explain.