Why continuity

Natural Language and Linguistic Theory

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 107-146

  Thornton, Rosalind ^a  

^a MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Acquisition of syntax; Continuity; Inversion; Left periphery; Parameter setting; Subject aux; Why questions

Indexed keywords

EID: 43149109117     PISSN: 0167806X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11049-007-9031-z     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Ambridge, B., Rowland, C., Theakston, A., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Comparing different accounts of inversion errors in children's non-subject wh-questions: What experimental data can tell us? Journal of Child Language, 33, 519-557.
2. Baker, M. (2001). The atoms of language: The mind's hidden rules of grammar. New York: Basic Books.
3. Baker, M. (2005). Mapping the terrain of language acquisition. Language Learning and Development, 1, 93-129.
4. Berk, S. (2003). Why "why" is different. In B. Beachley, A. Brown & F. Conlin (Eds.), Proceedings of BUCLD 27, (pp. 127-137). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
5. Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language (pp. 1-53). New York: Wiley.
6. Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.
7. Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8. Chomsky, N. (2002). On nature and language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9. Clahsen, H., Kursawe, C., & Penke, M. (1995). Introducing CP: Wh-questions and subordinate clauses in German child language. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 7, 1-28. Essex, England: University of Essex, Department of Linguistics.
10. Collins, C. (1991). Why and how come. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics, 15, 31-45.
11. Conroy, A. (2006). The semantics of how come: A look at how factivity does it all. Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics, 14, 1-24.
12. Conroy, A., & Lidz, J. (2007). Production/comprehension asymmetry in children's why questions. In A. Belikova (Ed.), Proceedings of the second conference on generative approaches to language acquisition North America (GALANA) (pp. 73-83). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Proceedings Project.
13. Crain, S., & Pietroski, P. (2002). Why language acquisition is a snap. The Linguistic Review, 19, 163-183.
14. Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in Universal Grammar: A guide to experiments on syntax and semantics. Cambridge: MIT Press.
15. De Villiers, J. (1991). Why questions? In T. Maxfield, & B. Plunkett (Eds.), UMOP Special edition: Papers in the acquisition of Wh (pp. 155-175). Amherst, MA: GLSA.
16. De Villiers, J., Roeper, T., & Vainikka, A. (1990). The acquisition of long-distance rules. In L. Frazier, & J. de Villiers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 257-298). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
17. Fodor, J. D. (1998). Unambiguous triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 29, 1-36.
18. Fodor, J. D. (2003). Setting syntactic parameters; VI: External evaluation of syntax. In M. Baltin, & C. Collins (Eds.), The Handbook of contemporary syntactic theory (pp. 730-767). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
19. Gibson, E., & Wexler, K. (1994). Triggers. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 407-454.
20. Guasti, M. T. (1996). Acquisition of Italian interrogatives. In H. Clahsen (Ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition (pp. 241-270). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
21. Guasti, M. T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22. Guasti, M. T., & Rizzi, L. (1996). Null aux and the acquisition of residual V2. In A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes & A. Zukowski (Eds.) Proceedings of BUCLD 20 (pp. 284-295). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
23. Guasti, M. T., Thornton, R., & Wexler, K. (1995). Negation in children's questions: The case of English. In D. MacLaughlin & S. McEwen (Eds.) Proceedings of BUCLD 19 (pp. 228-240). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
24. Huang, C.-T. James. (1982) Logical relations in Chinese and the theory of grammar. PhD dissertation, MIT.
25. Hyams, N. (1986). Language acquisition and the theory of parameters. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
26. Ko, H. (2005). Syntax of why-in-situ: Merge into [SpecCP] in the overt syntax. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 23, 867-916.
27. Labov, W., & Labov, T. (1978). Learning the syntax of questions. In R. Campbell & P. Smith (Eds.), Recent advances in the psychology of language III:4b (pp. 1-44). New York: Plenum Press.
28. Lasnik, H. (1989). On certain substitutes for negative data. In R. J. Matthews & W. Demopoulos (Eds) Learnability and linguistic theory (pp. 89-105). Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
29. Lasnik, H., & Crain, S. (1985). On the acquisition of pronominal reference. Lingua, 65, 135-154.
30. Lightfoot, D. (1999). The development of language: Acquisition, change and evolution. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
31. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Third edition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32. McCloskey, J. (2002). Resumption, successive cyclicity and the locality of operations. In S. Epstein & D. Seely (Eds.), Derivation and explanation (pp. 184-226). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
33. McCloskey, J. (2003). Working on Irish. GLOT, 7, 63-72.
34. Marcus, G. (1993). Negative evidence in language acquisition. Cognition, 46, 53-85.
35. Moore, M. (2003). Dude, where's my country? Victoria, Australia: Allen Lane, Penguin Books.
36. Morgan, J., & Travis, L. (1989). Limits on negative information in language input. Journal of Child Language, 16, 531-552.
37. Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
39. Rizzi, L. (1996). Residual verb second and the Wh criterion. In A. Belletti & L. Rizzi (Eds.), Parameters and functional heads (pp. 375-386). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40. Rizzi, L. (1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp. 281-337). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.
41. Rizzi, L. (2001). On the position "Int(errogative)" in the left periphery of the clause. In G. Cinque & G. Salvi (Eds.), Current studies in Italian syntax (pp. 287-296). Oxford: Elsevier.
42. Rizzi, L. (2004). On the study of the language faculty: Results, developments and perspectives. The Linguistic Review, 21, 323-344.
43. Rowland, C., & Pine, J. (2000). Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: 'what do children know?' Journal of Child Language, 27, 157-181.
44. Rowland, C., & Pine, J. (2003). The development of inversion in wh-questions: A reply to Van Valin. Journal of Child Language, 30, 197-212.
45. Santelmann, L. (1998). The acquisition of verb movement and spec-head relationships in child Swedish. In D. Adger, S. Pintzuk, B. Plunket & G. Tsoulas (Eds.), Specifiers: Minimalist approaches. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
46. Sarma, J. (1991). The Acquisition of wh-questions in English. PhD dissertation: University of Connecticut.
47. Snyder, W. (2007). Child language: The parametric approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Stromswold, K. (1990). Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. PhD dissertation, MIT.
49. Thornton, R. (1995). Referentiality and wh-movement in child English: Juvenile D-Linkuency. Language Acquisition, 4, 139-175.
50. Thornton, R. (2004). Why continuity. In A. Brugos, L. Micciulla & C. E. Smith (Eds.), BUCLD 28 (pp. 620-632). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
51. Tsai, W.-T. Dylan. (2005). Left periphery and how-why alternations. Paper presented at the 5th Asian GLOW. Delhi, India.
52. Van Valin, R. D. (2002). The development of subject-auxiliary inversion in English wh-questions: An alternative analysis. Journal of Child Language, 29, 161-175.
53. Wexler, K. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23-79.
54. Yang, C. (2002). Knowledge and learning in natural language. New York: Oxford University Press.