Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:16:17.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Against the transformationalist account: a simpler analysis of auxiliary overmarkings*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Michael Maratsos  and
Stanley A. Kuczaj II
Michael Maratsos
Affiliation:
University of Minnesota
Stanley A. Kuczaj II
Affiliation:
Southern Methodist University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , June 1978 , pp. 337 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1978

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.)

Footnotes

[*]

Work on this paper was partly supported by grant HD 09112-02 to the first author and NIH grant 5 TO1 MH 06668 to the second author. Some of the data cited in the paper comes from analyses of longitudinal data collected by Professor Roger Brown and his associates. The authors gratefully acknowledge their appreciation for his permission in this matter. First author's address: Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.

References

REFERENCES

Bellugi, U. (1967). The acquisition of negation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[Brown, R. & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition. In Hayes, J. R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fay, D. (1978). Reply to Kuczaj (1976). 5. 143–9.Google Scholar
Hurford, J. (1975). A child and the English question formation rule. JChLang 2. 299–301.Google Scholar
Klima, E. S. (1964). Negation in English. In Fodor, J. A. & Katz, J. J. (eds), The structure of language. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Klima, E. S. & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Lyons, J. & Wales, R. J. (eds), Psycholinguistic papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Kuczaj, S. A. II (1976). Arguments against Hurford's ‘Aux copying rule’. JChLang 3. 423–7.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. (1969). Sentences children use. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T.Google Scholar
Prideaux, G. D. (1976). A functional analysis of English question acquisition: a response to Hurford. JChLang 3. 417–22.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. I. (1973). Cognitive prerequisites for the development of grammar. In Ferguson, C. A. & Slobin, D. I. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar