Natural Language & Linguistic Theory

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 709–753 | Cite as

Parameters for Wh-movement types: Evidence from child English

  • Dana Mcdaniel
  • Bonnie Chiu
  • Thomas L. Maxfield
Article

Abstract

In this paper we report on a longitudinal study investigating Wh-constructions in children ranging initially from 2;11 to 5;7. We found that, in addition to accepting English-type Wh-movement, some children, for a period of time, also acceptpartial Wh-movement, Wh-copying, andmultiple Wh-movement, constructions that exist in languages like German and Romani, in which a Wh-phrase occurs in a [-Wh] SpecCP. Importantly, none of the children who accept these construction types manifest the That-Trace Effect. To account for this correlation, we propose an analysis whereby grammars allowing the Wh-constructions do not have the [pred] feature of Rizzi (1990) that distinguishes the specifier of relative clauses from other SpecCPs. We suggest that children are born with their parameter set in this way and later, if they are learning a language like English, switch to a grammar that includes the [pred] feature.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abney, Steven: 1985, ‘Functor Theory and Licensing: Toward the Elimination of the Base Component’, manuscript, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  2. Armbuster, Thomas: 1981, ‘How to Influence Responses to “Is Kathy Easy to See?”’,Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 10, 27–39.Google Scholar
  3. Berwick, Robert C.: 1985,The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, Roger and Camille Hanlon: 1970, ‘Derivational Complexity and the Order of Acquisition of Child Speech’, in J. R. Hayes (ed.),Cognition and the Development of Language, Wiley, New York, pp. 11–53.Google Scholar
  5. Byrne, Brian: 1981, ‘Deficient Syntactic Control in Poor Readers: Is a Weak Phonetic Memory Coder Responsible?’,Applied Psycholinguistics 2, 201–212.Google Scholar
  6. Cairns, Helen S., Dana McDaniel, Jennifer R. Hsu and Michele Rapp: 1994, ‘A Longitudinal Study of Principles of Control and Pronomial Reference in Child English’,Language 70, 260–288.Google Scholar
  7. Cambon, Jacqueline and Hermine Sinclair: 1974, ‘Relations between Syntax and Semantics: Are They “Easy to See?”’,British Journal of Psychology 65, 133–140.Google Scholar
  8. Chomsky, Carol: 1969,The Acquisition of Syntax in Children from 5 to 10, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  9. Chomsky, Noam: 1993, ‘A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory’, in K. Hale and S.J. Keyser (eds.),The View from Building 20: Essays in Linguistics in Honor of Sylvain Bromberger, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, pp. 1–52.Google Scholar
  10. Cowart, Wayne: 1993, ‘Introspective Data’, unpublished manuscript, University of Southern Maine.Google Scholar
  11. Crain, Stephen and Cecile McKee: 1988, ‘Easy Acquisition’, paper presented at the Workshop on Language Processing and Language Acquisition, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
  12. Cromer, Richard: 1970, ‘Children are Nice to Understand: Surface Structure Clues for the Recovery of Deep Structure’,British Journal of Psychology 61, 397–408.Google Scholar
  13. Dayal, Veneeta Srivastav: to appear, ‘Scope Marking as Indirect Wh Dependency’,Natural Language Semantics.Google Scholar
  14. de Villiers, Jill, Thomas Roeper and Anne Vainikka: 1990, ‘The Acquisition of Long-distance Rules’, in L. Frazier and J. de Villiers (eds.),Language Processing and Language Acquisition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 257–297.Google Scholar
  15. Fukui, Naoki and Margaret Speas: 1986, ‘Specifiers and Projection’,MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 8, Department of Linguistics and Philosophy, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, pp. 128–172.Google Scholar
  16. Georgopoulos, Carol: 1984, ‘Resumptive Pronouns, Syntactic Binding, and Levels of Representation in Belauan’,Proceedings of NELS XIV, pp. 81–97.Google Scholar
  17. Haider, Hubert: 1983, ‘Connectedness Effects in German’,Groninger Arbeit zur Germanistischen Linguistik 23, 26–64.Google Scholar
  18. Higginbotham, James and Robert May: 1981, ‘Questions, Quantifiers and Crossing’,The Linguistic Review 1, 41–80.Google Scholar
  19. Huang, James: 1982,Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  20. Lasnik, Howard and Mamoru Saito: 1992,Move Alpha: Conditions on Its Application and Output, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  21. Longobardi, Guiseppe: 1990, ‘N-movement in Syntax and LF’, paper presented at the GLOW Colloquium, Cambridge, England.Google Scholar
  22. Matthews, Robert J. and William Demopoulos (eds.): 1989,Learnability and Linguistic Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  23. McDaniel, Dana: 1986,Conditions on Wh-chains, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  24. McDaniel, Dana: 1989, ‘Partial and Multiple Wh-movement’,NLLT 7, 565–604.Google Scholar
  25. McDaniel, Dana and Helen S. Cairns: 1990, ‘The Child as Informant: Eliciting Intuitions from Young Children’,Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 19, 331–344.Google Scholar
  26. McDaniel, Dana, Helen S. Cairns and Jennifer R. Hsu: 1990, ‘Binding Principles in the Grammars of Young Children’,Language Acquisition 1, 121–138.Google Scholar
  27. ——: 1991, ‘Control Principles in the Grammars of Young Children’,Language Acquisition 1, 297–335.Google Scholar
  28. McDaniel, Dana and Thomas L. Maxfield: 1992, ‘Principle B and Contrastive Stress’,Language Acquisition 2, 337–358.Google Scholar
  29. McKee, Cecile, Dana McDaniel and Jesse Snedeker: in preparation, ‘Relative Clauses Produced by English-Speaking Children’.Google Scholar
  30. Pesetsky, David: 1982, ‘Complementizer-trace Phenomena and the Nominative Island Condition’,Linguistic Review 1, 297–343.Google Scholar
  31. Petronio, Karen: 1993,Clause Structure in ASL, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  32. Pinker, Steven: 1984,Language Learnability and Language Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  33. Rizzi, Luigi: 1982,Issues in Italian Syntax, Foris, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  34. Rizzi, Luigi: 1990,Relativized Minimality, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  35. Roeper, Thomas and Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux: 1992, ‘Copying and Binding in the Acquisition of Wh-Movement’, paper presented at the 17th Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  36. Roeper, Thomas and Jill de Villiers: 1991, ‘The Emergence of Bound Variable Structures’, in T.L. Maxfield and B. Plunkett (eds.),Papers in the Acquisition of WH: Proceedings of the UMASS Roundtable, GLSA, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, pp. 225–265.Google Scholar
  37. Roeper, Thomas and Edwin Williams (eds.): 1987,Parameter Setting, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  38. Rudin, Catherine: 1988, ‘On Multiple Questions and Multiple WH Fronting’,NLLT 6, 445–501.Google Scholar
  39. Schlisselberg, Gloria: 1988,Development of Selected Conservation Skills and the Ability to Judge Sentence Well-formedness in Young Children, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, City University of New York.Google Scholar
  40. Sobin, Nicholas: 1987, ‘The Variable Status of COMP-trace Phenomena’,NLLT 5, 33–60.Google Scholar
  41. Srivastav, Veneeta: 1991,WH Dependencies in Hindi and the Theory of Grammar, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, New York.Google Scholar
  42. Thornton, Rosalind: 1990a, ‘A Principle-based Explanation of Some Exceptional Wh-questions’, paper presented at the 15th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar
  43. Thornton, Rosalind: 1990b,Adventures in Long-distance Moving: The Acquisition of Complex Wh-questions, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  44. Wahba, Wafaa: 1992, ‘On LF Movement in Arabic’, in C.-T. J. Huang and R. May (eds.),Logical Structure and Linguistic Structure, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp. 253–276.Google Scholar
  45. Wexler, Kenneth and M. Rita Manzini: 1987, ‘Parameters and Learnability in Binding Theory’, in T. Roeper and E. Williams (eds.),Parameter Setting, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dana Mcdaniel
    • 1
  • Bonnie Chiu
    • 2
  • Thomas L. Maxfield
    • 3
  1. 1.Language Sciences LaboratoryUniversity of Southern MainePortland
  2. 2.Department of EnglishNational Taiwan Normal UniversityTaipeiTaiwan, Republic of China
  3. 3.Departments of Linguistics and PsychologyUniversity of Massachusetts, AmherstAmherst

Personalised recommendations