Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T22:44:41.496Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The transition from optional to required subjects*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

William O'Grady ,
Ann M. Peters  and
Deborah Masterson
William O'Grady*
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Ann M. Peters
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii
Deborah Masterson
Affiliation:
University of Hawaii
*
Department of Linguistics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We propose (contra Hyams, 1986) that the optional subject phenomenon in early child language arises because children have not yet acquired the morphological elements (primarily modals and tense) necessary to distinguish Subject-Taking (ST) verbs (e.g. finite verbs) from their non-Subject-Taking (NST) counterparts (e.g. infinitives). Unaware of this distinction, children are able only to observe that verbs sometimes occur with subjects and sometimes without. We show that our proposal makes a number of developmental predictions which we then test with the help of longitudinal data from three children. We conclude that: (i) There is no systematic morphological distinction between ST and NST verbs during the optional subject stage (OSS). (2) The emergence of the distinction between ST and NST verbs is gradual rather than sudden. (3) There is variation from child to child in terms of which morphologically-defined subclass of verbs is first recognized as subject-taking. (4) There is no link between the emergence of modals or contracted copulas and the end of the OSS.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 16 , Issue 3 , October 1989 , pp. 513 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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

*

We would like to express our appreciation to Kate Parker for her contribution to the data analysis. We would also like to thank Robert Bley-Vroman, Michael Long, and Joyce Hildebrand for their helpful comments and discussion. The transcripts for Adam and Eve were made available through the Child Language Data Exchange System (CHILDES) – see MacWhinney & Snow (1985). The transcription of the audiotaped portion of Seth's data was supported in part by NSF grant BNS-8418272.

References

REFERENCES

Bley-Vroman, R., Deuchar, M., Gundel, J., Masterson, D., Pierce, A. & van Hoek, K. (1987). Unpublished manuscript from pro-drop group, Summer Institute, Linguistic Society of America, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Bloom, L. (1970). Language development: form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Brown, R., (1973). A first language: the early stages. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, , (1977). Essays on form and interpretation. New York: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Chomsky, , (1982). Some concepts and consequences of a theory of government and binding. Cambridge MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Nakayama, M. (1987). Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63. 522–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleitman, L. R. & Wanner, E. (1982). Language acquisition: the state of the state of the art. In Wanner, E. & Gleitman, L. R. (eds), Language acquisition: the state of the art. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Guilfoyle, E. (1985). The acquisition of tense and the emergence of lexical subjects in child grammars of English. McGill Working Papers in Linguistics 2. 20–30.Google Scholar
Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Boston: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebeaux, D. (1987). Comments on Hyams. In Roeper, T. & Williams, E. (eds), Parameter setting. Boston: Reidel.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. & Snow, C. (1985). The child language data exchange system. Journal of Child Language 12. 271–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O'Grady, W. (1987). Principles of grammar and learning. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
O'Grady, W. (1988). The optional subject stage. Unpublished paper. University of Calgary.Google Scholar
Peters, A. M. (1987). The role of imitation in the developing syntax of a blind child. Text 7. 289–311.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Small children's small clauses. Transactions of the Philological Society 86. 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1982). Issues in Italian syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, S. (1985). The syntactic forms of predication. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Schmerling, S. (1973). Subjectless sentences and the notion of surface structure. Proceedings of the Chicago Linguistic Society 9. 577–86.Google Scholar
Wilson, B. & Peters, A. M. (1988). What are you cookin’ on a hot?: a three-year-old blind child's ‘violation’ of universal constraints on constituent movement. Language 64. 249–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar