Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Why continuity

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper examines over 900 why-questions gathered in a longitudinal study of an English-speaking child from 2 to 6 years of age. The child went through a protracted stage in which many why-questions lacked subject-aux inversion, in contrast to other wh-questions. While this asymmetry has been observed in the previous literature, several new observations also emerged. First, the child permitted focus phrases, topic phrases and subordinate clauses to intervene between why and the subject NP in matrix why-questions with no I to C movement. Second, subject-aux inversion was consistently manifested in long-distance questions with tensed embedded clauses, and in utterances with why that were not information-seeking questions. Based on the pattern of data, it is proposed that some children initially permit why to merge high in the left periphery, in SpecIntP, following a proposal for Italian by Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax (pp. 287-296). Oxford: Elsevier. The paper considers whether the child data are best explained (i) by a why-parameter that distinguishes languages permitting merge of why from those languages limited to movement (cf. Ko, H. (2005). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [SpecCP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 867-916.), or (ii) as evidence of a universal principle. In the final analysis, the parameter account is preferred, because it explains the individual variation and the sharp transition to the adult grammar that is observed in some children.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ambridge, B., Rowland, C., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children’s non-subject wh-questions: What experimental data can tell us? Journal of Child Language, 33, 519-557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2001). The atoms of language: The mind’s hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, M. (2005). Mapping the terrain of language acquisition. Language Learning and Development, 1, 93-129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, S. (2003). Why “why” is different. In B. Beachley, A. Brown & F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of BUCLD 27, (pp. 127-137). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 1-53). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clahsen, H., Kursawe, C., & Penke, M. (1995). Introducing CP: Wh-questions and subordinate clauses in German child language. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 7, 1-28. Essex, England: University of Essex, Department of Linguistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, C. (1991). Why and how come. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 31-45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, A. (2006). The semantics of how come: A look at how factivity does it all. Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 1-24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conroy, A., & Lidz, J. (2007). Production/comprehension asymmetry in children’s why questions. In A. Belikova (Ed.), Proceedings of the second conference on generative approaches to language acquisition North America (GALANA) (pp. 73-83). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., & Pietroski, P. (2002). Why language acquisition is a snap. The Linguistic Review, 19, 163-183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments on syntax and semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Villiers, J. (1991). Why questions? In T. Maxfield, & B. Plunkett (Eds.), UMOP Special edition: Papers in the acquisition of Wh (pp. 155-175). Amherst, MA: GLSA.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Villiers, J., Roeper, T., & Vainikka, A. (1990). The acquisition of long-distance rules. In L. Frazier, & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 257-298). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (1998). Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 1-36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, J. D. (2003). Setting syntactic parameters; VI: External evaluation of syntax. In M. Baltin, & C. Collins (Eds.), The Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 730-767). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, E., & Wexler, K. (1994). Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 407-454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guasti, M. T. (1996). Acquisition of Italian interrogatives. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp. 241-270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guasti, M. T., & Rizzi, L. (1996). Null aux and the acquisition of residual V2. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes & A. Zukowski (Eds.) Proceedings of BUCLD 20 (pp. 284-295). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guasti, M. T., Thornton, R., & Wexler, K. (1995). Negation in children’s questions: The case of English. In D. MacLaughlin & S. McEwen (Eds.) Proceedings of BUCLD 19 (pp. 228-240). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, C.-T. James. (1982) Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, H. (2005). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [SpecCP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 867-916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labov, W., & Labov, T. (1978). Learning the syntax of questions. In R. Campbell & P. Smith (Eds.), Recent advances in the psychology of language III:4b (pp. 1-44). New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H. (1989). On certain substitutes for negative data. In R. J. Matthews & W. Demopoulos (Eds) Learnability and linguistic theory (pp. 89-105). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasnik, H., & Crain, S. (1985). On the acquisition of pronominal reference. Lingua, 65, 135-154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, J. (2002). Resumption, successive cyclicity and the locality of operations. In S. Epstein & D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation (pp. 184-226). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • McCloskey, J. (2003). Working on Irish. GLOT, 7, 63-72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46, 53-85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, M. (2003). Dude, where’s my country? Victoria, Australia: Allen Lane, Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, J., & Travis, L. (1989). Limits on negative information in language input. Journal of Child Language, 16, 531-552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the Wh criterion. In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and functional heads (pp. 375-386). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281-337). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position “Int(errogative)” in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax (pp. 287-296). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rizzi, L. (2004). On the study of the language faculty: Results, developments and perspectives. The Linguistic Review, 21, 323-344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, C., & Pine, J. (2000). Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: ‘what do children know?’ Journal of Child Language, 27, 157-181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, C., & Pine, J. (2003). The development of inversion in wh-questions: A reply to Van Valin. Journal of Child Language, 30, 197-212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santelmann, L. (1998). The acquisition of verb movement and spec-head relationships in child Swedish. In D. Adger, S. Pintzuk, B. Plunket & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Specifiers: Minimalist approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarma, J. (1991). The Acquisition of wh-questions in English. PhD dissertation: University of Connecticut.

  • Snyder, W. (2007). Child language: The parametric approach. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stromswold, K. (1990). Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. PhD dissertation, MIT.

  • Thornton, R. (1995). Referentiality and wh-movement in child English: Juvenile D-Linkuency. Language Acquisition, 4, 139-175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thornton, R. (2004). Why continuity. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla & C. E. Smith (Eds.), BUCLD 28 (pp. 620-632). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (2005). Left periphery and how-why alternations. Paper presented at the 5th Asian GLOW. Delhi, India.

  • Van Valin, R. D. (2002). The development of subject-auxiliary inversion in English wh-questions: An alternative analysis. Journal of Child Language, 29, 161-175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23-79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Linguistics Department/MACCS, Macquarie University, North Ryde, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia

    Rosalind Thornton

Authors
  1. Rosalind Thornton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosalind Thornton.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Thornton, R. Why continuity. Nat Language Linguistic Theory 26, 107–146 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9031-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11049-007-9031-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation