Since Labov and Labov 1978 it is known that English-speaking children do not apply Subject Auxiliary Inversion uniformly across question types. In particular, inversion in why-questions still occurs at the low rate of 15% between 4;0 and 4;6. Recently Thornton (2004) suggested that non-inversion in why-questions is due to the fact that why occupies a position different and higher than other wh-words. In this view leaving why-questions uninverted is an option available in UG as in Italian (Rizzi 1999). Rowland and Pine 2000 investigating 6 types of wh-questions corroborate the findings of Labov and Labov (1978). In contrast to Thornton, they explain the non-occurrence of inversion in why-questions in a constructivist framework by the low frequency of input.
In Germanic languages different from English, question formation does not only involve SAI but requires subject verb inversion for all verb types, whereas English requires do-support for main verbs. This property is due to verb-movement, namely V2. In these languages main verbs can raise to a position in the left periphery where the Wh-feature can be checked. In particular, a generative approach would predict for Germanic languages like German or Danish that children who have acquired the V2 property do not have difficulties with inversion in all questions types. A usage-based approach, however, would predict an input-dependent acquisition of inversion for every single question type since it is claimed that children do not use general operations or categories such as wh-elements.
This study investigates the spontaneous production of questions in two German children with an age range of 3;1-3;7 and one Danish child with an age range of 1;00-6;1. The analysis shows that these children place finite verbs in the V2 position in declaratives and consistently produce adult-like Wh-questions already at age 3. In the 124 questions produced by the German children no uninverted question occurred, whereas the Danish child showed an inversion-rate of 94.6%. Contrary to expectation, the non-inverted questions concerned what and where, which frequently occur in the input. Moreover, all why-questions were inverted in spite of low frequency of input.
The study thus reveals the expected cross-linguistic difference in the acquisition of questions as predicted by the interplay of verb-movement and wh-features in a generative approach, whereas the account offered by Rowland and Pine can at best explain English data.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background
3. The delayed acquisition of why-questions
4. Predictions
4.1. The semantic account
4.2. The usage-based account
4.3. The Continuity Hypothesis
4.4. The Maturation Hypothesis
5. Method
5.1. Danish
5.2. German
5.3. Classification of Danish and German
6. Results
6.1. Danish
6.2. German
7. Evaluation
7.1. The semantic account
7.2. The usage-based account
7.3. The Continuity Hypothesis
7.4. The Maturation Hypothesis
8. Discussion
8.1. The CP-modifier Hypothesis
8.2. The Extended Continuity Hypothesis
8.3. Parameter settings reducing processing load
8.4. The Initial Hypothesis of Syntax
8.5. Referential questions and the wh-criterion
8.6. The Variational Model of Language Acquisition
8.7. Maturation and Very early Setting of the V2 Parameter
8.8. Triggering inverted why-questions
9. Three possible solutions for uninverted why-questions in Early English
9.1. An approach based on the Continuity Hypothesis
8.2. An account based on the Variational Model
9.3. An approach based on the Maturation Hypothesis
9.4. Comparison and Discussion of the three approaches
10. Conclusion
11. References
Research Objectives and Thematic Focus
The primary objective of this thesis is to investigate the delayed acquisition of "why"-questions in English-speaking children compared to children learning V2 languages, by conducting a cross-linguistic analysis of Danish and German data. It seeks to determine whether the delay is universal or language-specific and evaluates whether current theories like the Continuity Hypothesis or the Maturation Hypothesis can account for these empirical findings.
- Cross-linguistic comparison of wh-question acquisition in English, Danish, and German.
- Evaluation of the role of the V2 parameter in the acquisition of Subject-Auxiliary-Inversion (SAI).
- Critical review of the Semantic, Usage-based, Continuity, and Maturation Hypotheses regarding wh-question development.
- Analysis of empirical data from longitudinal child corpora (CHILDES database).
- Investigation into whether "why" occupies a distinct syntactic status in early child grammar.
Excerpt from the Book
1. Introduction
It is a well-documented phenomenon that English-speaking children experience greater problems with the acquisition of wh-questions than do children acquiring, for instance, Italian or V2 languages (Guasti 1996, 2000). Among other deviations from adult language like questions lacking an auxiliary (Guasti and Rizzi 1996) or negative questions with non-adult negations (Guasti, Thornton, and Wexler 1995), the optionality of Subject-Auxiliary-Inversion (SAI) is one of the peculiarities of Early English. While such an optionality has not been observed with learners of other languages, English-speaking children generally apply SAI on only around 90 per cent of their wh-questions containing an auxiliary until roughly their fourth birthday. However, with the beginning of their fourth year of life, English-speaking children, in general, master SAI. Having accomplished the acquisition of SAI, learners of English produce a nearly perfect amount of adult-like questions.
Yet it has been observed (Brown 1968, Ravem 1974, Labov and Labov 1978, de Villiers 1991, Rowland and Pine 2000, Berk 2003, Thornton 2004) that learners of English produce adult-like questions except those with why. For this wh-constituent, a high percentage of questions are left uninverted until about the child's sixth birthday. SAI thus seems to be an option for why-questions in Early English while it is obligatory with all other wh-elements.
This delay in the acquisition of SAI for why-questions has recently been used as evidence both in favour of the theory of Universal Grammar (UG) (Crain and Pietroski 2002) as well as against it (Rowland and Pine 2000). Opponents of UG, on the one hand, argue that the differences in the development of English interrogative elements demonstrate children's lack of adult syntactic knowledge and hence such rules as SAI. Questions have to be learned on a word-by-word basis and the delay of why-questions simply shows that children have less input of this type of questions compared with more frequently heard questions containing, for instance, the wh-elements what or where.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: Introduces the phenomenon of delayed Subject-Auxiliary-Inversion (SAI) in English "why"-questions and outlines the research context.
2. Theoretical Background: Explains the parametric variations in wh-question formation and the structural representation of English wh-questions.
3. The delayed acquisition of why-questions: Reviews existing literature confirming that "why"-questions exhibit a distinct developmental delay in English-speaking children.
4. Predictions: Formulates the expectations of the Semantic, Usage-based, Continuity, and Maturation Hypotheses regarding the acquisition of wh-questions.
5. Method: Details the extraction and selection criteria for data from Danish and German child corpora.
6. Results: Presents the findings from the Danish and German corpora, showing an absence of non-inverted "why"-questions.
7. Evaluation: Assesses the previously formulated theoretical predictions against the empirical results obtained from the child data.
8. Discussion: Explores theoretical models including the CP-modifier Hypothesis, Variational Model, and Truncation Approach to explain the findings.
9. Three possible solutions for uninverted why-questions in Early English: Synthesizes the findings to propose three accounts based on Continuity, the Variational Model, and Maturation.
10. Conclusion: Summarizes that the empirical data reject semantic and connectionist accounts in favor of approaches that recognize the role of the V2 parameter.
Keywords
wh-questions, why-questions, Subject-Auxiliary-Inversion, SAI, V2 parameter, language acquisition, Continuity Hypothesis, Maturation Hypothesis, child grammar, Universal Grammar, Danish, German, syntax, wh-criterion, parametric variation
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this research?
The research examines why children learning English show a significant delay in using Subject-Auxiliary-Inversion (SAI) specifically in "why"-questions, while children learning V2 languages like German and Danish do not display this delay.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The paper covers the syntactic structure of wh-questions, the developmental trajectory of "why"-questions in various languages, and the validity of competing linguistic theories like the Continuity and Maturation Hypotheses.
What is the central research question?
The primary question is whether the delay in acquiring inverted "why"-questions is a language-specific feature of English or a result of universal constraints, and how this relates to the grammatical parameters of different languages.
Which scientific methods are applied?
The author performs a cross-linguistic empirical study by analyzing spontaneous speech corpora from the CHILDES database, specifically looking at Danish and German children's production of wh-questions.
What does the main body of the work address?
It provides an in-depth analysis of existing theoretical frameworks (Semantic, Usage-based, Continuity, Maturation), presents new empirical data from non-English V2 languages, and discusses these results in the context of advanced syntactic theories like the CP-modifier Hypothesis.
Which keywords best characterize the work?
Key terms include wh-questions, Subject-Auxiliary-Inversion (SAI), the V2 parameter, language acquisition, child grammar, and the Continuity/Maturation Hypotheses.
How does the V2 parameter influence the acquisition process in this study?
The study suggests that because the V2 parameter requires the verb to be in a fixed second position, it effectively prevents children from leaving "why"-questions uninverted, thereby causing learners of Danish and German to produce adult-like questions earlier than English learners.
Why is the comparison between English and V2 languages crucial?
It allows the author to isolate whether the "why"-question delay is caused by the semantic difficulty of "causality" (which would be universal) or by structural factors related to specific grammar parameters (which would vary by language).
- Quote paper
- Michael Treichler (Author), 2006, A cross-linguistic comparison of the acquisition of why-questions by young children, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/63997
