Getting It Right: Acquisition of Whose-Questions in Child English

In this article, we investigated children's acquisition of short- and long-distance whose-questions to see whether children know that, in English, the entire whose-phrase must pied-pipe to the specifier of complementizer phrase. Languages vary parametrically on this point, with some languages (e.g., Chamorro, Tzotzil, Hungarian) allowing both pied-piped possessive determiner phrases (DPs) and subextraction of wh-Possessors, and others (e.g., the Germanic languages) requiring pied-piping of the entire whose-DP. In the Minimalist theory (Chomsky (1995)), the computational system is constrained by economy principles that require only a [+wh] feature (or corresponding wh-word) be checked in its scope position; pied-piping of the residue is enforced at the Phonetic Form (PF) interface. In an elicited production experiment with 12 English-speaking children, we found that some children produced split whose-questions such as "Who do you think 's flower fell off?" or "Who do you think 's sunglasses Pocahontas tried on?" We argue that such questions are not the product of a (late) misset parameter but stem from the principles of "natural economy" that constrain the language acquisition device. In child grammar, principles of economy override the PF conditions requiring pied-piping of the entire whose-DP.

[1]  Peter Svenonius.  SELECTION, ADJUNCTION, AND CONCORD IN THE DP , 1993 .

[2]  Richard S. Kayne.  TOWARD A MODULAR THEORY OF AUXILIARY SELECTION , 1993 .

[3]  Jon Ortiz de Urbina,et al.  Feature Percolation and Clausal Pied-Piping , 1993 .

[4]  Judith Aissen,et al.  Pied-piping, abstract agreement, and functional projections in Tzotzil , 1996 .

[5]  R. Brown,et al.  A First Language , 1973 .

[6]  Stephen Crain,et al.  Successful cyclic movement , 1994 .

[7]  Knut Tarald Taraldsen,et al.  D-projections and N-projections in Norwegian , 1990 .

[8]  Noam Chomsky,et al.  Conditions on transformations , 1971 .

[9]  B. D. Schwartz,et al.  Language Acquisition Studies in Generative Grammar , 1994 .

[10]  Anna Szabolcsi.  THE POSSESSOR THAT RAN AWAY FROM HOME , 1983 .

[11]  J. Higginbotham,et al.  Opacity in NP , 1981 .

[12]  Gert Webelhuth,et al.  Principles and Parameters of Syntactic Saturation , 1992 .

[13]  M. Rita Manzini,et al.  Parameters and Learnability in Binding Theory , 1987 .

[14]  Danièle Godard,et al.  Extraction out of NP in French , 1992 .

[15]  Arnold M. Zwicky,et al.  Suppressing the Zs , 1987, Journal of Linguistics.

[16]  Robert C. Berwick,et al.  The acquisition of syntactic knowledge , 1985 .

[17]  Andrew Radford,et al.  Heads in grammatical theory: Head-hunting: on the trail of the nominal Janus , 1993 .

[18]  Andrew Radford,et al.  句法学:最简方案导论 = Syntax : a minimalist introduction , 1997 .

[19]  渡邊 明.  Wh-in-situ, subjacency, and chain formation , 1992 .

[20]  Elena Gavruseva,et al.  On the syntax of possessor extraction , 2000 .

[21]  Sandra Chung,et al.  Functional heads and proper government in Chamorro , 1991 .

[22]  Andrew Radford,et al.  Syntactic Theory and the Acquisition of English Syntax: The Nature of Early Child Grammars of English , 1990 .

[23]  Rosalind Thornton,et al.  Referentiality and Wh-Movement in Child English: Juvenile D-Linkuency , 1995 .

[24]  Hans-Georg Obenauer.  ON THE IDENTIFICATION OF EMPTY CATEGORIES , 1985 .

[25]  Cheng-Teh James Huang,et al.  Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar , 1998 .

[26]  Halldor Armann Sigurðsson,et al.  THE STRUCTURE OF THE ICELANDIC NP , 1993 .

[27]  L. Moritz.  Pied-piping and specifier-head agreement , 1994 .

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

[29]  S. Crain.  Investigations In Universal Grammar , 1998 .

[30]  Steven Abney,et al.  The English Noun Phrase in its Sentential Aspect , 1972 .

[31]  Norbert Corver,et al.  The syntax of left branch extractions , 1990 .