Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:25:33.833Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative clauses are barriers to wh-movement for young children

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Jill De Villiers  and
Thomas Roeper
Jill De Villiers*
Affiliation:
Smith College
Thomas Roeper
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts, Amherst
*
[*] Psychology Department, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two studies are described which investigate preschool children's sensitivity to relative clauses as barriers to the movement of wh-questions. The children were presented with short stories followed by questions in which the wh-word had two possible sites of interpretation, the ungrammatical option being inside a relative clause. A cross-sectional study with 23 children aged 3;1 to 6;1, and a longitudinal study over the course of one year with 12 children aged 3;1 to 4;1 at the start, found young children refused to extract wh-questions from the ungrammatical site inside a relative clause. This confirms other findings that children's early grammars are sensitive to universal constraints on movement. In addition, the children differentiated between wh-complements and relative clauses in their tendency to mistakenly answer the medial wh-complementizer but not the wh-relative pronoun. Explanations for the latter are framed in terms of children's initial assumptions about the attachment of complements.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 22 , Issue 2 , June 1995 , pp. 389 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Chomsky, M. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, M. (1992). A minimalist program for linguistic theory. MIT Occasional Papers in Linguistics No. 1.Google Scholar
Cinque, G. (1991). A-bar dependencies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cook, V. (1988). Chomsky's universal grammar. New York: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Crain, S. (1991). Language acquisition in the absence of experience. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14, 597–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crain, S., McKee, C. & Emiliani, M. (1990). Visiting relatives in Italy. In Frazier, L. & de Villiers, J. G. (eds), Language processing and acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. (1991). Why questions? In T. Maxfield & B. Plunkett (eds) The acquisition of wh. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G., Roeper, T. & Vainikka, A. (1990). The acquisition of long distance rules. In Frazier, L. & de Villiers, J. G. (eds), Language processing and acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Hamburger, H. & Crain, S. (1982). Relative acquisition. In Kuczaj, S., (ed.) Language development, Vol. II. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1988). Language acquisition and the form of the grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1990). The grammatical nature of the acquisition sequence: adjoin-a and the formation of relative clauses. In Frazier, L. & de Villiers, J. G. (eds), Language processing and acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Lightfoot, D. (1982). The language lottery. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books, MIT Press.Google Scholar
Maxfield, T. & Plunkett, B. (1991). (eds) The acquisition of wh. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics special edition.Google Scholar
McDaniel, D. (1989). Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7, 565–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otsu, Y. (1981). Universal grammar and syntactic development of young children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Phinney, M. (1981). Syntactic constraints and the acquisition of embedded sentences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. & de Villiers, J. G. (1994). Lexical links in the wh-chain. In Lust, B., Hermon, G. & Kornfilt, J. (eds), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: crosslinguistic perspectives. Vol. 2. Binding, dependencies and learnability. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ross, J. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Sheldon, A. (1974). The role of parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13, 272–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solan, L. & Roeper, T. (1978). Children's use of syntactic structure in interpreting relative clauses. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Szabolsci, A. & Zwarts, F. (1992). Unbounded dependencies and the algebraic semantics. Lecture notes of the Third European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information, Saarbrucken, 08 1991.Google Scholar
Tavakolian, S. (1981). The conjoined clause analysis of relative clauses. In Tavakolian, S. (ed.), Language acquisition and linguistic theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. (1991). Adventures in long distance moving: the acquisition of complex wh-questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Vainikka, A. (1989). Defaults in the acquisition of case. Paper presented at the Boston University Conference on Language Development.Google Scholar