Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T18:49:42.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The syntax of questions in child English[*]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Andrew Radford
Andrew Radford
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to provide a contemporary Government-and-Binding (GB) reinterpretation and evaluation of Klima & Bellugi's classic 1966 work on the acquisition of interrogatives. I argue that the central insight of K&B's paper can be captured by positing that wh- questions in Child English involve a wh-pronoun positioned in the head complementizer (C) position within the Complementizer Phrase (CP) (so blocking auxiliary inversion if this involves positioning an inverted auxiliary in C) and that in the transition to Adult English, children come to learn that wh-questions involve a wh-phrase superficially positioned in the specifier position within CP. I argue that the wh-in-C analysis poses both developmental problems (in that it fails to account for child structures involving a preposed wh-phrase with an uninverted auxiliary) and potential theoretical problems (in that long movement of a wh-head may violate locality principles). I then consider two alternative accounts of wh-questions which posit that wh-movement involves movement of a wh-phrase from the very earliest stages of development. The first of these is an adjunction account, on which wh-phrases are analysed as clausal adjuncts in Child English (adjoined to the Verb Phrase (VP) in the earliest stages and to the Inflection Phrase (IP) in later stages). I note, however, that this provides no principled account of the absence of auxiliary inversion in child wh-questions, and poses continuity problems (especially within a framework such as that of Cinque (1990) in which it is assumed that wh-phrases never adjoin to VP or IP). Finally, I consider an alternative account on which initial wh-phrases are analysed as occupying the specifier position within CP at all stages of development. I note that the problem posed by this analysis is accounting for the absence of auxiliary inversion in early wh-questions, and offer an account which posits that children overgeneralize specifier-head agreement from IP to CP.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , February 1994 , pp. 211 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Abney, S. P. (1987). The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Unpublished PhD dissertation, MIT, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Akmajian, A. & Heny, F. W. (1975). An introduction to the principles of transformational syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Aldridge, M. (1989). The acquisition of INFL. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Bresnan, J. W. (1970). On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6, 297–321.Google Scholar
Brown, R. (1968). The development of wh questions in child speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 7, 279–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1990). Types of A-bar dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davis, H. (1987). The acquisition of the English auxiliary system and its relation to linguistic theory, Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Boulder, Colorado.Google Scholar
Den Besten, H. (1983). On the interaction of root transformations and lexical deletive rules. In Abrahams, W. (ed.), On the formal syntax of the Westgermania. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. (1991). Why questions? In Maxfield, T. L. & Plunkett, B. (eds), Papers in the acquisition of WH. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Emonds, J. E. (1970). Root and structure-preserving transformations. Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Gleitman, L. & Wanner, E. (1982). Language acquisition: the state of the state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art, Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Gruber, J. (1967). Topicalisation in child language. Foundations of Language 3, 37–65.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, E. & Noonan, M. (1988). Functional categories and language acquisition. Paper presented to Boston University conference on language acquisition.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J. & Postal, P. M. (1964). An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kayne, R. S. (1982). Predicates and arguments, verbs and nouns. GLOW Newsletter 8, 24.Google Scholar
Klima, E. S. & Bellugi, U. (1966). Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Lyons, J. & Wales, R. (eds), Psycholinguistic papers. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. & Labov, T. (1978). Learning the syntax of questions. In Campbell, R. N. & Smith, P. T. (eds), Recent advances in the psychology of language. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Miller, W. & Ervin-Tripp, S. (1973). The development of grammar in child language. In Ferguson, C. & Slobin, D. (eds), Studies of child language development. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Plunkett, B. (1991). Inversion and early wh questions. In Maxfield, T. L. & Plunkett, B. (eds), Papers in the acquisition of WH. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar
Plunkett, B. (1992). Continuity and the landing site for wh movement. Research Papers in Linguistics 4. 53–77. Bangor: University College of North Wales.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1986). Small children's small clauses. Research Papers in Linguistics 1, 1–38, Bangor: University College of North Wales (revised & extended version published in Transactions of the Philological Society 86, 1–46, 1988).Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1987). The acquisition of the complementizer system. Research Papers in Linguistics 2, 55–76, Bangor: University College of North Wales.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational syntax. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1990). Syntactic theory and the acquisition of English syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1991). The nature and acquisition of grammar. Unpublished paper, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativised minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, I. (1992). Restructuring and clitic climbing in Old French. Seminar, Department of Language & Linguistics, University of Essex.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (1992). From the initial state to V2: acquisition principles in action. In Meisel, J. M. (ed.), The acquisition of verb placement. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. & de Villiers, J. (1991). Ordered decisions in the acquisition of wh-questions. In Weissenborn, J., Goodluck, H. & Roeper, T. (eds), Theoretical issues in language acquisition. London: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Rudin, C. (1988). On multiple questions and multiple wh fronting. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 6, 445–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sadock, J. M. (1984). West Greenlandic. In Chisholm, W. S. (ed.), Interrogativity Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Taraldsen, K. T. (1986). On verb second and the functional content of syntactic categories. In Haider, H. & Prinzhorn, M. (eds), Verb second phenomena in Germanic languages. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. (1992). Case in the development of English syntax. Unpublished paper, University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Weissenborn, J., Roeper, T. & de Villiers, J. (1991). The acquisition of wh-movement in German and French. In Maxfield, T. L. & Plunkett, B. (eds), Papers in the acquisition of WH. Amherst: GLSA Publications.Google Scholar