Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: dissociating movement and inflection

This paper examines two- to five-year-old children's knowledge of inversion in English yes/no questions through a new experimental study. It challenges the view that the syntax for inversion develops slowly in child English and tests the hypothesis that grammatical competence for inversion is present from the earliest testable ages of the child's sentence production. The experimental design is based on the premise that a valid test of this hypothesis must dissociate from inversion various language-specific aspects of English grammar, including its inflectional system. An elicited imitation method was used to test parallel, lexically-matched declarative and question structures across several different verb types in a design which dissociated subject-auxiliary inversion from the English-specific realization of the inflectional/auxiliary system. Using this design, the results showed no significant difference in amount or type of children's errors between declarative (non-inverted) and question (inverted) sentences with modals or auxiliary be, but a significant difference for sentences with main verbs (requiring reconstruction of inflection through do-support) and copula be. The results from sentences with auxiliary be and those with modals indicate that knowledge of inversion is present throughout our very young sample and does not develop during this time. We argue that these results indicate that the grammar of inversion is present from the youngest ages tested. Our results also provide evidence of development relevant to the English-specific inflectional system. We conclude with a new developmental hypothesis: development in question formation occurs in integrating language-specific knowledge related to inflection with the principles of Universal Grammar which allow grammatical inversion.

[1]  U. Bellugi,et al.  Syntactic regularities in the speech of children , 1966 .

[2]  Dan I. Slobin,et al.  ELICITED IMITATION AS A RESEARCH TOOL IN DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLINGUISTICS. , 1967 .

[3]  Roger S. Brown,et al.  The development of Wh questions in child speech , 1968 .

[4]  M. Maratsos,et al.  What Children Can Say Before They Will. , 1975 .

[5]  James R. Hurford,et al.  A child and the English question formation rule , 1975, Journal of Child Language.

[6]  Gary D. Prideaux,et al.  A functional analysis of English question acquisition: a response to Hurford , 1976, Journal of Child Language.

[7]  Stan A. Kuczaj,et al.  Arguments against Hurford's ‘Aux Copying Rule’ , 1976, Journal of Child Language.

[8]  Barbara Lust,et al.  Conjunction reduction in child language , 1977, Journal of Child Language.

[9]  William Labov,et al.  Learning the Syntax of Questions , 1978 .

[10]  Robin N. Campbell,et al.  Recent Advances in the Psychology of Language , 1978 .

[11]  S. Kuczaj,et al.  Against the transformationalist account: a simpler analysis of auxiliary overmarkings , 1978, Journal of Child Language.

[12]  D Ingram,et al.  Inversion of subject NP and aux in children's questions , 1979, Journal of psycholinguistic research.

[13]  B Lust,et al.  Development of coordination in the natural speech of young children , 1980, Journal of Child Language.

[14]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Lectures on Government and Binding , 1981 .

[15]  A Erreich,et al.  Learning how to ask: patterns of inversion in yes–no and wh-questions , 1984, Journal of Child Language.

[16]  Louis T. Milic,et al.  Interrogativity : a colloquium on the grammar, typology, and pragmatics of questions in seven diverse languages, Cleveland, Ohio, October 5th, 1981-May 3rd, 1982 , 1984 .

[17]  T Klee Role of inversion in children's question development. , 1985, Journal of speech and hearing research.

[18]  K. Stromswold Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries , 1990 .

[19]  Jürgen Weissenborn,et al.  Routes to Verb Placement in Early German and French: The Independence of Finiteness and Agreement , 1992 .

[20]  Virginia Valian,et al.  Categories of First Syntax: Be, Be+ing, and Nothingness , 1992 .

[21]  Barbara Lust,et al.  Children are in control , 1993, Cognition.

[22]  Anne Vainikka,et al.  Case in the Development of English Syntax , 1993 .

[23]  D. Poeppel,et al.  The full competence hypothesis of clause structure in early German , 1993 .

[25]  A. Radford,et al.  The syntax of questions in child English , 1994, Journal of Child Language.

[26]  B. Lust,et al.  Syntactic theory and first language acquisition : cross-linguistic perspectives , 1997 .

[27]  Jürgen M. Meisel,et al.  The Acquisition of verb placement : functional categories and V2 phenomena in language acquisition , 1996 .

[28]  Katharina I. Boser The acquisition of word order knowledge in early child German : interactions between syntax and pragmatics , 1997 .

[29]  J. Zwart The Minimalist Program , 1998, Journal of Linguistics.

[30]  Non-finite root clauses in Swedish child language , 1999 .

[31]  Barbara Lust Universal grammar: The strong continuity hypothesis in first language acquisition. , 1999 .