In:Three Streams of Generative Language Acquisition Research: Selected papers from the 7th Meeting of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition – North America, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Edited by Tania Ionin and Matthew Rispoli
[Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 63] 2019
► pp. 85–105
Parsing, pragmatics, and representation
Children’s comprehension of two-clause questions
Published online: 15 April 2019
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.63.05vil
https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.63.05vil
How do young children comprehend wh-questions from two-clause sentences? Is it via parsing heuristics like first resort, or different grammars, or the question-under-discussion? Fifty preschool children and twenty-three adults gave answers to nine adjunct wh-questions from sentences with false complements. The effects of verb and wh-question were tested on the type of answer children give: short distance, long distance, and reality answers, which link the wh only to the embedded verb. Neither children nor adults preferred to fill the first gap, but adults and children differed in the likelihood of a reality answer. This answer type was linked to children’s language skill assessed by another index. The disparities in various theoretical positions and research findings are then discussed. Differences in the form of the sentences used across the laboratories point to a new explanation for the disparity between the different results.
Keywords: Wh-questions, long-distance-movement, parsing, first-resort, comprehension
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Acquisition of Long Distance (LD) Wh-movement
- 1.2Weak islands
- 1.2.1Negation
- 1.2.2Adverbs
- 1.3Parsing
- 1.3.1Parsing results
- 1.4New study: False complements with adjunct questions
- 2.Design
- 2.1Nine scenarios
- 2.2Example
- 3.Method
- 3.1Participants
- 3.2Procedure
- 4.Results
- 5.Discussion
- 5.1Experiment goals
- 5.2Parsing, pragmatics and grammars
- 5.3A second difference across studies
Acknowledgements References
References (41)
Abdulkarim, L. (2001). Complex wh-questions and universal grammars: New evidence from the acquisition of negative barriers (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Massachusetts, Amherst.
Bishop, D., Nation, K., & Patterson, K. (2014). When words fail us: Insights into language processing from developmental and acquired disorders. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 369, 20120403.
Dayal, V. (2000). Scope marking: Cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In U. Lutz, G. Muller, & A. Von Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 37) (pp.157–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Villiers, J. G. (2001). Continuity and modularity in language acquisition and research. In L. Santelmann, M. Verrips, & F. Wijnen (Eds.), Annual Review of Language Acquisition (Vol. 3, pp.1–64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
(2010). On building up a sufficient representation for belief: Tense, Point of View and Wh-movement. In J. Costa, A. Castro, M. Lobo, & F. Pratas (Eds.),
Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of Gala 2009 (pp.121–134). Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.
(2015). Parsing and grammar: On filling in the gaps. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(4), 459–464.
de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (2009). Complements enable representation of the contents of false belief: evolution of a theory of Theory of Mind. In S. Foster-Cohen (Ed.), Language acquisition (pp.169–195). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
de Villiers, J. G., Kotfila, J. & Roeper, T. (submitted). When is recursion easier for children? In Proceedings of GALA 17. Dordrecht: Springer.
de Villiers, J. G., & Pyers, J. E. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief-understanding. Cognitive Development, 17(1), 1037–1060.
de Villiers, J. G., Roeper, T., Harrington, E., & Gadilauskas, E. (2012). Tense and truth in children’s question answering. In A. Biller, E. Chung, & A. Kimball (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp.152–163). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
de Villiers, J. G., & Roeper, T. (1995a). Barriers, binding and acquisition of the DP/NP distinction. Language Acquisition, 4, 73–104.
(1995b). Relative clauses are barriers to wh-Movement for young children. Journal of Child Language, 22, 389–404.
de Villiers, J. G., Roeper, T., Bland-Stewart, L., & Pearson, B. Z. (2008). Answering hard questions: Wh-movement across dialects and disorder. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 67–103.
de Villiers, J. G., Roeper, T., & Vainikka. A. (1990). The acquisition of long-distance rules. In L. Frazier & J. G. de Villiers (Eds.), Language Processing and Language Acquisition (pp.257–297). Dordrecht: Springer.
Diessel, H., & Tomasello. M. (2001). The acquisition of finite complement clauses in English: A corpus-based analysis. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 97–141.
Fanselow, G., (2005). Partial wh-movement. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol. 3. Oxford: OUP.
Golinkoff., R., de Villiers, J. G., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Iglesias, A., & Wilson, M. (2017). QUILS: Quick Interactive Language Screener. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Goodluck, H., Foley, M., & Sedivy, J. (1992). Adjunct islands and acquisition. In H. Goodluck & M. Rochemont (Eds.), Island constraints (pp.181–194). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Harrigan, K., Hacquard, V., & Lidz, J. (2016). Syntactic bootstrapping in the acquisition of attitude verbs: Think, want and hope. In K. Kim, P. Umbal, T. Block, Q. Chan, T. Cheng, K. Finney, M. Katz, S. Nickel-Thompson, & L. Shorten (Eds.), Proceedings of WCCFL 33 (pp.196–206). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
Lewis, S., Lidz, J., & Hacquard, V. (2012). The semantics and pragmatics of belief reports in preschoolers. In A. Chereches (Ed.), Proceedings of SALT 22 (pp. 247
–
267). Linguistic Society of America. <
[URL]
McDaniel, D. (1989). Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7(4), 565–604.
McDaniel, D. Chiu, B., & Maxfield, T. (1995). Parameters for wh-movement types: Evidence from child language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 709–753.
Miyagawa, S. (2005). EPP and semantically vacuous scrambling. In J. Sabel & M. Saito (Eds.), The free word order phenomenon: Its syntactic sources and diversity (pp.181–220). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Oiry, M., & Demirdache, H. (2006). Evidence from L1 acquisition for the syntax of wh-scope marking in French. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in Romance languages (Language Acquisition and Language Disorders 41) (pp.289–315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Omaki, A. (2010). Commitment and flexibility in the developing parser (Unpublished PhD dissertation). University of Maryland.
Omaki, A., Davidson White, I., Goro, T., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2014). No fear of commitment: Children’s incremental interpretation in English and Japanese wh-questions. Language Learning and Development, 10(3), 206–233.
Philip, W., & de Villiers, J. G. (1992). Monotonicity and the acquisition of weak islands. In E. Clark (Ed.), Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual child language research forum (pp.99–111). Stanford, CA: CSLI.
Phillips, C., & Ehrenhofer, L. (2015). The role of language processing in language acquisition. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 5(4), 409–453.
(1997). The fine structure of the left periphery. In L. Haegeman (Ed.), Elements of grammar (pp.281–337). Dordrecht: Springer.
Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. G. (1994). Lexical links in the Wh-chain. In B. C. Lust, G. Hermon, & J. Kornfilt (Eds.), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross linguistic perspectives, Vol. II: Binding, dependencies and learnability (pp.357–390). Hillsdale, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
(2011). The acquisition path for wh-questions. In J. G. de Villiers, & T. Roeper (Eds.), Handbook of generative approaches to language acquisition (pp.189–246). Dordrecht: Springer.
Schulz, B. (2004). A Minimalist account of partial wh-movement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii.
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. G. (2005). DELV-NR (Diagnostic evaluation of language variation) norm-referenced test. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Lutken, C. Jane & Geraldine Legendre
Liter, Adam, Elaine Grolla & Jeffrey Lidz
de Villiers, Jill, Jessica Kotfila & Tom Roeper
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
