Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T11:39:00.063Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Default Mechanism for Interrogative Binding

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Helen Goodluck ,
Kofi K. Saah  and
Danijela Stojanović
Helen Goodluck
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Kofi K. Saah
Affiliation:
University of Ghana
Danijela Stojanović
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The difference between the two mechanisms for wh-question binding (i.e., sucessive cyclic movement and pronominal binding) is characterized, inter alia, by the presence of island constraints (subjacency effects) in movement but not pronominal constructions. Using experimental data from child and adult speakers of Akan (pronominal binding) and Serbo-Croatian (movement and pronominal binding), it is argued that: 1) Previous experiments on English-speaking children’s knowledge of the block on extraction from within adjuncts do not positively support early use of a movement grammar in English; 2) Apparent sensitivity to movement constraints may arise as a consequence of processing preferences; 3) The evidence to date is nonetheless compatible with movement as the default hypothesis for wh-binding; 4) The parsing preference for non-island locations for a wh-word may have utility for the learner, helping to correct overly permissive grammars.

Résumé

Résumé

La différence entre les deux mécanismes pour lier un mot-wh, soit le déplacement cyclique et le liage pronominal, est essentiellement caractérisée par le fait que seul le déplacement cyclique est sujet aux contraintes d’îles (effets de sous-jacence). Sur la base des données d’expériences faites avec les locuteurs enfantins et adultes de l’akan (liage pronominal) et du serbo-croate (déplacement cyclique et liage pronominal), il est argumenté que: 1) Les résultats antérieurs sur l’extraction hors d’adjoints en anglais (langue qui utilise seulement le déplacement) n’ appuient pas d’une manière sûre l’hypothèse de l’acquisition précoce du déplacement; 2) La sensibilité apparente aux contraintes sur le déplacement peut être la conséquence du mécanisme de décodage; 3) Les données sont néanmoins compatibles avec le choix du déplacement comme cas non-marqué pour le liage-wh; 4) La tendance dans le décodage à associer le mot-wh à une position externe à une île peut être utile à l’apprenant, le rendant capable de corriger des grammaires trop permissives.

Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 377 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1995

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.)

References

Aoun, Joseph. 1986. Generalized Binding: The Syntax and Logical Form of Whinterrogatives. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert. 1985. The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Caplan, David. 1972. Clause Boundaries and Recognition Latencies for Words in Sentences. Perception and Psychophysics 12:73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra. 1994. Wh-Agreement and “Referentiality” in Chamoro. Linguistic Inquiry 25:1–44.Google Scholar
Cromer, Richard. 1987. Language Growth with Experience without Feedback. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 16:223–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Villiers, Jill, Roeper, Thomas and Vainikka, Anne. 1990. The Acquisition of Long-Distance Movement Rules. In Language Acquisition and Language Processing, ed. Frazier, Lyn and de Villiers, Jill, 257–297. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
de Villiers, Jill, and Roeper, Thomas. 1991. Introduction. In Papers in the Acquisition of Wh, ed. Maxfield, Thomas and Plunkett, Bernadette, 1–18. Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen, Foley, Michele, and Sedivy, Julie. 1992. Adjunct Islands and Acquisition. In Island Constraints: Theory, Acquisition and Processing, ed. Goodluck, Helen and Rochemont, Michael, 181–194. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, Helen, and Finney, Malcolm. 1993. When are Chains Constructed?, In Proceedings of the 23rd North Eastern Linguistics Society Meeting, ed. Schafer, Amy, 129–142. Graduate Linguistic Student Association, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen, Finney, Malcolm, and Sedivy, Julie. 1992. Completeness and Filler Gap Dependency Parsing. In The OTS Yearbook, ed. Coopmans, Peter, Schouten, Bert and Zonneveld, Wim, 19–32. Utrecht: University of Utrecht Institute for Research in Language and Speech.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen, Sedivy, Julie, and Foley, Michele. 1989. Wh-Questions and Extraction from Temporal Adjuncts: A Case for Movement. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 28:123–130.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen, and Stojanović, Danijela. 1995. The Structure and Acquisition of Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Ms., University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Kudra (= Stojanović), Danijela. 1994. The Acquisition of Long-Distance Binding in Serbo-Croatian. Master’s thesis, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Kudra (=Stojanović), Danijela, Goodluck, Helen, and Progovac, Ljiljana. 1994. The Acquisition of Long-Distance Binding in Serbo-Croatian. Paper presented at the 68th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America. Boston, Mass.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita, and Wexler, Kenneth. 1987. Parameters, Binding Theory and Learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18:423–444.Google Scholar
McKee, Cecile. 1991. A Comparison of Pronouns and Anaphors in Italian and English Acquisition. Language Acquisition 1:21–55.Google Scholar
Otsu, Yukio. 1981. Toward a Theory of Syntactic Development. Doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Progovac, Ljiljana. 1992. Locality and Subjunctive-Like Complements in Serbo-Croatian. Ms., Wayne State University.Google Scholar
Saah, Kofi. 1994. Studies in Syntax, Acquisition and Processing of Akan. Doctoral dissertation, University of Ottawa.Google Scholar
Saah, Kofi, and Goodluck, Helen. 1995. Island Effects in Parsing and Grammar: Evidence from Akan. The Linguistic Review 12:381–409.Google Scholar
Stojanović, Danijela, and Goodluck, Helen. 1995. The Development of Relative Clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Proceedings of the 19th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. MacLaughlin, Dawn and McEwen, Susan, 317–320. Sommerville, Mass.: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Neil. 1981. Consistency, Markedness and Language Change: On the Notion ‘Consistent Language’. Journal of Linguistics 17:39–54.Google Scholar
Wilson, Robert, and Peters, Ann M.. 1988. What are Your Cookin’ on a Hot?: Movement Constraints in the Speech of a Three-Year-Old Blind Child. Language 64:249–273.Google Scholar