Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:23:27.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference in the production of Italian subject and object wh-questions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2011

MARIA TERESA GUASTI ,
CHIARA BRANCHINI  and
FABRIZIO AROSIO
MARIA TERESA GUASTI*
Affiliation:
University of Milano–Bicocca
CHIARA BRANCHINI
Affiliation:
University of Milano–Bicocca
FABRIZIO AROSIO
Affiliation:
University of Milano–Bicocca
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Maria Teresa Guasti, Dipartimento di Psicologia, University of Milano–Bicocca, Piazza dell'Ateneo Nuovo 1, Milano2012 6, Italy. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate the production of subject and object who- and which-questions in the Italian of 4- to 5-year-olds and report a subject/object asymmetry observed in other studies. We argue that this asymmetry stems from interference of the object copy in the AGREE relation between AgrS and the subject in the Spec of the verb phrase. We show that different avoidance strategies are attempted by the child to get around this interference, all boiling down to a double checking of agreement: AGREE and Spec-Head. Then, we evaluate our approach from a cross-linguistic perspective and offer an account of the differences observed across early languages. Because our account seems to call both for a grammatical and a processing explanation, we end with a critical discussion of this dichotomy.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , January 2012 , pp. 185 - 223
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

References

REFERENCES

Acuna-Farina, J. C. (2009). The linguistics and psycholinguistics of agreement: A tutorial overview. Lingua, 119, 389–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antinucci, F., & Cinque, G. (1977). Sull'ordine delle parole in Italiano: L'emarginazione. Studi di Grammatica Italiana, 6, 121–146.Google Scholar
Aoun, J., Benmamoun, B. E., & Sportiche, D. (1994). Agreement, word order and conjunction in some varieties of Arabic. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 195–220.Google Scholar
Arosio, F., Guasti, M. T., & Stucchi, N. (2011). Disambiguating information and memory resources in children's processing of Italian relative clauses. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 40, 137–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Avrutin, S. (2000). Comprehension of Wh-questions by children and Broca's aphasics. In Grodzinsky, Y., Shapiro, L. P., & Swinney, D. A. (Eds.), Language and the brain: Representation and processing. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Badecker, W., & Kuminiak, F. (2007). Morphology, agreement and working memory retrieval in sentence production: Evidence from gender and case in Slovak. Journal of Memory and Language, 56, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, M., Johnson, K., & Roberts, I. (1989). Passive arguments raised. Linguistic Inquiry, 20, 219–251.Google Scholar
Belletti, A. (2006). Extended doubling and the VP periphery. Probus, 17, 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belletti, A. (2008). Notes on passive object relatives. Unpublished manuscript, University of Siena.Google Scholar
Borer, H., & Wexler, K. (1992). Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical principles. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 10, 147–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. (1997). Agreement and control in expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry, 28, 521–533.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, A. (2007). Subjects and wh-questions. Some new generalizations. In Cabrera, M. J., Camacho, J., Déprez, V., Flores Ferran, N., & Sanchez, L. (Eds.), Romance linguistics 2006: Selected papers from the 36th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages (pp. 57–78). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecchetto, C. (2000). Doubling structures and reconstruction. Probus, 12, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspect of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2000). Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, R., Michaels, D., & Uriagereka, J. (Eds.), Step by step: Essays in minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnick. Cambridge, MA: MIT 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.Google Scholar
Cole, P., Hermon, G., & Yanti, . (2008). Voice in Malay/Indonesian. Lingua, 118, 1500–1553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, C. (2005). A smuggling approach to the passive in English. Syntax, 8, 81–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vincenzi, M. (1991). Syntactic parsing strategies in Italian: The minimal chain principle. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Vincenzi, M. (1996). Test di comprensione delle domande wh- (Test for the comprehension of wh-questions). Rome: Pubblicazione del CNR.Google Scholar
De Vincenzi, M., Arduino, L., Cicarelli, L., & Job, R. (1999). Parsing strategies in children comprehension of interrogative sentences. Paper presented at ECCS '99—European Conference on Cognitive Science, Siena.Google Scholar
Dickey, M. W., Choy, J. W., & Thompson, C. (2007). Real-time comprehension of Wh-movement in aphasia: Evidence from eye-tracking while listening. Brain and Language, 100, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, P. (2008). Models of accuracy in repeated-measures designs. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 447–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1970). Discourse agreement: How children answer questions. In Hayes, J. R. (Ed.), Cognition and development of language (pp. 76–106). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fiebach, C. J., Schlesewsky, M., & Friederici, A. D. (2002). Separating syntactic memory costs and syntactic integration costs during parsing: The processing of German WH-questions. Journal of Memory and Language, 47, 250–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franck, J., Lassi, G., Frauenfelder, U. H., & Rizzi, L. (2006). Agreement and movement: A syntactic analysis of attraction. Cognition, 101, 173–216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frazier, L., & Flores d'Arcais, G. B. (1989). Filler driven parsing: A study of gap filling in Dutch. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, N., Belletti, A., & Rizzi, L. (2009). Relativized relatives. Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 199, 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garraffa, M., & Grillo, N. (2008). Canonicity effects as grammatical phenomena. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 177–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehrke, B., & Grillo, N. (2008). How to become passive. In Grohmann, K. K. (Ed.), Explorations of phase theory: Features, arguments, and interpretation at the interfaces. Interface explorations. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grillo, N. (2008). Generalized minimality: Syntactic underspecification in Broca's aphasia (Doctoral dissertation, University of Utrecht). Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (1996a). The acquisition of Italian interrogatives. In Clahsen, H. (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (1996b). On the controversial status of Romance interrogatives. Probus, 8, 161–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition. The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. T., & Rizzi, L. (2002). Agreement and tense as distinctive syntactic projections: Evidence from acquisition. In Cinque, G. (Ed.), The cartography of syntactic structures. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkins, J. A. (2004). Efficency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickok, G., & Avrutin, S. (1995). Representation, referentiality and processing and agrammatic comprehension: Two case studies. Brain and Language, 50, 10–26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirsch, C., & Hartman, J. (2006). Some (wh-) questions concerning passive interactions. In Belletti, A., Bennati, E., Chesi, C., E. Domenico, Di, & Ferrari, I. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press.Google Scholar
Hyams, N., Ntelitheos, D., & Manorohanta, M. (2006). The acquisition of the Malagasy Voicing System: Implications for the adult grammar. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 24, 1049–1092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaeggli, O. (1986). Passive. Linguistic Inquiry, 17, 587–622.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. (1989). Romance clitics, verb movement and PRO. Linguistic Inquiry, 22, 647–686.Google Scholar
Keenan, E., & Comrie, B. (1977). Noun phrase accessability and universal grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 8, 63–99.Google Scholar
Koopman, H., & Sportiche, D. (1991). The position of subjects. In Lingua, 85, 211–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, K. Y., & Zeger, S. L. (1986). Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika, 73, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neuhaus, E., & Penke, M. (2008). Production and comprehension of wh-questions in German Broca's aphasia. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 150–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Grady, W. (2005). How children learn language. London: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penolazzi, B., De Vincenzi, M., Angrilli, A., & Job, R. (2005). Processing of temporary syntactic ambiguity in Italian “Who” questions: A study with event-related potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 377, 91–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philip, W., Coopmans, P., van Atteveldt, W., & van der Meer, M. (2001). Subject–object asymmetry in child comprehension of WH-questions. In Do, A., Dominguez, L., & Johansen, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 587–598). Sommerville, MA: Cascadilla.Google Scholar
Raposo, E. (1987). Case theory and Infl-to Comp: The inflected infinitive in European Portuguese. Linguistic Inquiry, 18, 85–109.Google Scholar
Salis, C., & Edwards, S. (2008). Comprehension of wh-questions and declarative sentences in agrammatic aphasia: The set partition hypothesis. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 21, 375–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santelmann, L. (1998). The acquisition of verb movement and spec-head relationships in child Swedish. In Adger, D., Pintzuk, S., Plunkett, B., & Tsoulas, G. (Eds.), Specifiers: Minimalist approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schlesewsky, M., Fanselow, G., Kliegl, R., & Krems, J. (2000). The subject preference in the processing of locally ambiguous Wh-questions in German. In Hemforth, B. & Konieczny, L. (Eds.), German sentence processing (pp. 65–93). Boston: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuetze, C. T. (1997). INFL in child and adult language: Agreement, case and licensing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Stavrakaki, S. (2006). Developmental perspectives on Specific Language Impairment: Evidence from the production of wh-questions by Greek SLI children over time. Advances in Speech Language Pathology, 8, 384–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, L. A. (1986). Parsing WH-constructions: Evidence for on-line gap location. Language & Cognitive Processes, 1, 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stromswold, K. (1995). The acquisition of subject and object WH-questions. Language Acquisition, 4, 5–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyack, D., & Ingram, D. (1977). Children production and comprehension of wh-questions. Journal of Child Language, 4, 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Der Lely, H. K. J., & Battell, J. (2003). WH-movement in children with grammatical SLI: A test of the RDDR hypothesis. Language, 79, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilhelm, A., & Hanna, K. (1992). On the acquisition of WH-questions. Calgary Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 89–98.Google Scholar
Yoshinaga, N. (1996). WH questions: A comparative study of their form and acquisition in English and Japanese. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii at Manoa.Google Scholar