THE ACQUISITION OF INVERSION IN WH-QUESTIONS: WHAT EVIDENCE THE CHILD USES?
Item
-
Title
-
THE ACQUISITION OF INVERSION IN WH-QUESTIONS: WHAT EVIDENCE THE CHILD USES?
-
Identifier
-
AAI8112351
-
identifier
-
8112351
-
Creator
-
ERREICH, ANNE.
-
Contributor
-
Virginia Valian
-
Date
-
1981
-
Language
-
English
-
Publisher
-
City University of New York.
-
Subject
-
Psychology, Developmental
-
Abstract
-
This research is presented as a case study in the hypothesis-testing process for syntax acquisition. Early accounts (Bellugi, 1965, 1971; Klima & Bellugi, 1966; Brown, Cazden & Bellugi, 1969) proposed a stage at which children invert subject NP and Aux in yes-no questions but not in wh-questions, producing errors such as when daddy will come home?, where the mailman lives?. A more recent study (Ingram & Tyack, 1979) found no evidence of such a stage.;As to the source of the non-inversion errors, three accounts are presented. One, a performance account based on the derivational theory of complexity, is ruled out because it does not adequately predict the data. The other two accounts assume that the errors result from an incorrectly formulated rule. The surface structure account proposes that the rule is due to misleading data from embedded wh-questions (Maratsos, 1978, in press) which have the same constituent structure as matrix wh-questions. Because the latter are inverted while the former are not, children may be misled into thinking that inversion applies optionally to both constructions. This proposal predicts not only the occurrence of non-inversion errors in matrix wh-questions, but also inversion errors in embedded wh-questions. The transformational account proposes that the status of inversion in yes-no questions must be relevant to the formulation of inversion in wh-questions because that portion of the derivation to which the rule applies is the same in both question types. The fact that inversion is optional in yes-no questions may mislead the child into assuming that it is optional in wh-questions also. The account assumes that children are sensitive to the underlying relationship between yes-no and wh-questions, and thus predicts a match in the form of their rule for the two question types.;The research addresses four questions: (1) What is the frequency of non-inversion errors among children? (2) What is the acquisition pattern for auxiliaries and inversion in yes-no and wh-questions? (3) What linguistic data are misleading for children who make non-inversion errors? (4) What formulation best represents children's inversion rule, an abstract transformational rule or a lexically-specific surface structure frame?;Subjects were 18 children ranging in age from 2;5 - 3;0, with an average MLU of 3.33. The elicitation task was designed to collect yes-no and wh-questions. Elicitation items consisted of embedded yes-no and wh-questions. Items were presented to children during the course of a free-play session. Both spontaneous and elicited speech was taperecorded for transcription and analysis. Elicitation sessions lasted one hour, and children were seen for 1-3 sessions.;Results indicate that contrary to Ingram & Tyack (1979), non-inversion errors constitute a significant phenomenon in the speech of children learning inversion in questions; reasons for the discrepant findings are discussed. As to acquisition patterns for auxiliaries and inversion, the data suggest that children overall treat yes-no and wh-questions in a similar fashion. The most striking example is that 10 out of 18 children used an optional inversion rule in both question types. Although this match in rules supports a transformational account, the account is weakened in that the remaining children do not use matching rules in yes-no and wh-questions. The surface structure account lacks support in that children produce few inversion errors in embedded wh-questions. In general, the findings neither support nor reject a surface structure account and provide somewhat suggestive support for a transformational account.
-
Type
-
dissertation
-
Source
-
PQT Legacy CUNY.xlsx
-
degree
-
Ph.D.
-
Program
-
Psychology
