Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-wxvwp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T11:05:07.364Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Testing the Language Bioprogram Hypothesis: A Review of Children's Acquisition of Articles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Gary A. Cziko
Gary A. Cziko*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One component of D. Bickerton's Language Bioprogram Hypothesis is here empirically tested by reviewing studies of children's comprehension and production of articles. Seven studies reporting relevant data in English and French were reviewed. Two of them provide clear empirical support for the hypothesis that children are universally sensitive to the specific/non-specific distinction of referential meaning. Moreover, findings of all reviewed studies were generally consistent with a four-stage hypothesis of the acquisition of English and French articles, characterized by (a) the use of the indefinite and/or definite article(s) for specific referents, and zero article for both non-specific referents and naming; (b) the use of the indefinite article for non-specific referents, and the definite article for specific referents whether or not they are presupposed; (c) an increase in the correct use of the indefinite article for specific, non-presupposed referents, with a concomitant decrease in the correct use of the definite article for specific, presupposed referents; and (d) the correct use of the definite and indefinite articles.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 1986, pp. 878 - 898
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bates, Elizabeth. 1984. Bioprograms and the innateness hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 188–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1981. Roots of language. Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma.Google Scholar
Bickerton, Derek. 1984. The Language Bioprogram Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Lois. 1984. A bioprogram for language: Not whether but how? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 190–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresson, F. 1974. Remarks on genetic psycholinguistics: The acquisition of the article system in French. Problèmes actuels en psycholinguistique, 67–72. Paris: Centre Nationale de la Recherche Scientifique.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emslie, Hazel C.; and Stevenson, Rosemary J. 1981. Pre-school children's use of the articles in definite and indefinite referring expressions. Journal of Child Language 8. 313–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garton, Alison F. 1983. An approach to the study of determiners in early language development. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 12. 513–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karmiloff-Smith, Annette. 1979. A functional approach to child language: A study of determiners and reference. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Marantz, Alec. 1984. Creolization: Special evidence for innateness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 199–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maratsos, Michael. 1976. The use of definite and indefinite reference in young children. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Maratsos, Michael. 1984. How degenerate is the input to creoles and where do its biases come from? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 200–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNeill, David A. 1966. Developmental psycholinguistics: The genesis of language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Posner, Rebecca. 1984. Creolization or linguistic change? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 204–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Peter A. 1984. Problems with similarities across creoles and the development of creoles. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 205–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samarin, William J. 1984. Socioprogrammed linguistics. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 206–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Geoffrey. 1984. Do creoles prove what ‘ordinary’ languages don't? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 207–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seuren, Pieter A. M. 1984. The bioprogram hypothesis: Facts and fancy. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 208–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1982. La construcción de la gramática por el niño. Paper presented at 2nd Simposio de Logopedia, Madrid.Google Scholar
Slobin, Dan I. 1984. Child language and the bioprogram. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 209–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warden, David A. 1976. The influence of context on children's use of identifying expressions and references. British Journal of Psychology 67. 101–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolford, Ellen. 1984. Why creoles won't reveal the properties of universal grammar. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 7. 211–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar