Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-qfg88 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T22:57:00.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Answering hard questions: Wh-movement across dialects and disorder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2008

JILL DE VILLIERS ,
THOMAS ROEPER ,
LINDA BLAND-STEWART  and
BARBARA PEARSON
JILL DE VILLIERS*
Affiliation:
Smith College
THOMAS ROEPER
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts
LINDA BLAND-STEWART
Affiliation:
George Washington University
BARBARA PEARSON
Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Jill de Villiers, Department of Psychology, Smith College, Northampton, MA 01063. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A large-scale study of complex wh-questions with 1,000 subjects aged 4–9 years is reported. The subjects' dialects were Mainstream American English or African American English, and approximately one-third were language impaired. The study examined when children permit long distance wh-movement, and when they respect a variety of syntactic barriers to movement. Thirteen different structures were compared, and the results suggest that typically developing children and disordered children at all the ages studied are capable of long-distance movement and obedience to abstract barriers. In no case was dialect a significant factor in the children's linguistic performance on these tasks.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , January 2008 , pp. 67 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

REFERENCES

Abdulkarim, L. (2001). Complex wh-questions and Universal Grammars: New evidence from the acquisition of negative barriers. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.Google Scholar
Bland, L. M., de Villiers, J. G., Roeper, T., Champion, T., & Seymour, H. N. (1992, November). Wh-movement in children of divergent language backgrounds. Presented at the American Speech–Language–Hearing Association Annual Meeting, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Blank, M. (1976). Mastering the intangible through language. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 263, 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1977). On wh-movement. In Culicover, P. W., Wasow, T., & Akmajian, A. (Eds.), Formal syntax (pp. 71–132). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1982). Some concepts and consequences of the theory of government and binding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Barriers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2004). On phases. Accessed October 1, 2006 from http://dmtr.ru/blog/omniling/Google Scholar
Coles-White, D.J., de Villiers, J. G., & Roeper, T. (2004). The emergence of barriers to wh-movement, negative concord and quantification. In Brugos, A., Micciulla, L., & Smith, C. (Eds.), The proceedings of the 28th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 98–107). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Craig, H. K., Connor, C. A., & Washington, J. A. (2003). Early positive predictors of later reading comprehension for African American students: A preliminary investigation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34, 31–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (1994). The complex syntax skills of poor, urban African American preschoolers at school entry. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 181–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2000). An assessment battery for identifying language impairments in African American children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 366–379.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, H. K., & Washington, J. A. (2002). Oral language expectations for African American preschoolers and kindergartners. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 11, 59–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Craig, H. K., Washington, J. A., & Thompson, C. A. (1998). Performances of young African American children on two comprehension tasks. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 445–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, H. K., Washington, J. A., & Thompson, C. A. (2005). Oral language expectations for African American children in grades 1 through 5. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, 14, 119–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dayal, V. (2000). Scope marking: Cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In Lutz, U., Muller, G., & Von Stechow, A. (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 157–193). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deevy, P., & Leonard, L. (2004). The comprehension of wh-questions in children with Specific Language Impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 802–815.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Villiers, J. G. (1991). Why questions? In Plunkett, B. & Maxfield, T. (Eds.), The acquisition of Wh. Amherst, MA: UMOP.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. (1996). Defining the open and closed program for acquisition: The case of wh-questions. In Rice, M. (Ed.), Towards a genetics of language (pp. 145–184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. (1999). On acquiring the structural representations for false complements. In Hollebrandse, B. (Ed.), New perspectives on language acquisition. Amherst, MA: UMOP.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G. (2005). Can language acquisition give children a point of view? In Astington, J. & Baird, J. (Eds.), Why language matters for theory of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G., de Villiers, P. A., & Roeper, T. (2007). How is partial movement resolved? Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J. G., & Pyers, J. (2002). Complements to cognition: A longitudinal study of the relationship between complex syntax and false-belief understanding. Cognitive Development, 17, 1037–1060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J., & Roeper, T. (1995a). Barriers, binding, and acquisition of the DP–NP distinction. Language Acquisition, 4, 73–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, J. G., & Roeper, T. (1995b). Relative clauses are barriers to wh-movement for young children. Journal of Child Language, 22, 389–404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Villiers, J. G., & Roeper, T. (1996). Questions after stories: On supplying context and removing it as a variable. In McDaniel, D., Cairns, H., & McKee, C. (Eds.), Methods for assessing children's syntax (pp. 163–188). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
de Villiers, J., Roeper, T., & Vainikka, A. (1990). The acquisition of long-distance rules. In Frazier, L. & de Villiers, J. (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp. 257–297). Boston: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Villiers, P. A., Burns, F. A., & Pearson, B. Z. (2003). The role of language in Theory of Mind development in language impaired children: Complementing theories. In Beachley, B., Brown, A., & Conlin, F. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 27th annual Boston University Language Development Conference (pp. 232–242). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Fanselow, G. (2005). Partial wh-movement. In Everaert, M. & van Riemsdijk, H. (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax (Vol. 3). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goodluck, H., Foley, M., & Sedivy, J. (1992). Adjunct islands and acquisition. In Goodluck, H. & Rochemont, M. (Eds.), Island constraints (pp. 181–194). Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, L. (2002). African American English: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D. (1989). Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 7, 565–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDaniel, D., Chiu, B., & Maxfield, T. (1995). Parameters for wh-movement types: Evidence from child language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 709–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mufwene, S. S. (Ed.). (1998). African-American English: Structure, history, and use. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Oiry, M., & Demirdache, H. (2006). Evidence from L1 acquisition for the syntax of wh-scope marking in French. Unpublished manuscript, University of Nantes.Google Scholar
Otsu, Y. (1981). Universal grammar and syntactic development in children: Toward a theory of syntactic development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Radford, A. (1988). Transformational grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1991). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. G. (2006). Partial movement in SLI. Paper presented at the Latsis Colloquium, University of Geneva, January 2006.Google Scholar
Roeper, T. (2004). Diagnosing language variations: Underlying principles for syntactic assessment. Seminars in Speech and Language, 25, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roeper, T., & Seymour, H. N. (1994). The place of linguistic theory in the theory of language acquisition and language impairment. In Levy, Y. (Ed.), Other children, other languages: Issues in the theory of language acquisition (pp. 305–330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. (1967). Constraints on variables in syntax. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Schulz, B. (2004). A Minimalist account of partial wh-movement. Unpublished manuscript, University of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Seymour, H. N., & Pearson, B. Z. (Guest Eds.). (2004). Evaluating language variation: Distinguishing development and dialect from disorder [Special Issue]. Seminars in Speech and Language, 25.Google Scholar
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. G. (2000). Dialect Sensitive Language Test: Pilot edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. G. (2003). Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation—Screening Test (DELV-ST). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. G. (2005). Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation—Norm Referenced (DELV-NR). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Thornton, R. (1991). Adventures in long distance moving: The acquisition of wh-questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Tomblin, J. B., Records, N. L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith, E., & O'Brien, M. (1997). Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 40, 1245–1260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vainikka, A., & Roeper, T. (1995). Abstract operators in early acquisition. Linguistic Review, 12, 275–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Lely, H. K. J. (1998). SLI in children: Movement, economy and deficits in the computational–syntactic system. Language Acquisition, 7, 161–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Lely, H. K. J. (2003). Do heterogeneous SLI deficits need heterogeneous theories? SLI subgroups, G-SLI and the RDDR hypothesis. In Levy, Y. & Schaeffer, J. (Eds.), Toward a definition of specific language impairment (pp. 109–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
van der Lely, H. K. J., & Battell, J. (2003). Wh-movement in children with grammatical SLI: A test of the RDDR hypothesis. Language, 79, 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington, J. A., & Craig, H. K. (1994). Dialectal forms during discourse of urban, African American preschoolers living in poverty. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 37, 816–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washington, J. A., & Craig, H. K. (1998). Socio-economic status and gender influences on children's dialectal variations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 618–626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed