Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:50:28.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sentential negation in early child English1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 December 2012

ROSALIND THORNTON  and
GRACIELA TESAN
ROSALIND THORNTON*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
GRACIELA TESAN*
Affiliation:
Macquarie University, Sydney
*
Authors' addresses: (Thornton) Linguistics Department, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, AustraliaRosalind.Thornton@mq.edu.au
(Tesan) Department of Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, AustraliaGraciela.Tesan@mq.edu.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Starting with the seminal work of Klima & Bellugi (1966) and Bellugi (1967), young English-speaking children have been observed to pass through a stage at which their negative utterances differ from those of adults. Children initially use not or no, whereas adults use negative auxiliary verbs (don't, can't, etc.). To explain the observed mismatches between child and adult language, the present study adopts Zeijlstra's (2004, 2007, 2008a, b) Negative Concord Parameter, which divides languages according to whether they interpret negation directly in the semantics with an adverb, or license it in the syntactic component, in which case the negative marker is a head and the language is a negative concord language. Our proposal is that children first hypothesize that negation is expressed with an adverb, in keeping with the more economical parameter value. Because English is exceptional in having both an adverb and a head form of negation, children must also add a negative head (i.e. n't) to their grammar. This takes considerable time as the positive input that triggers syntactic negation and negative concord is absent in the input for standard English, and children must find alternative evidence. The Negative Concord Parameter accounts for an intricate longitudinal pattern of development in child English, as non-adult structures are eliminated and a new range of structures are licensed by the grammar.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , July 2013 , pp. 367 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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.)

Footnotes

[1]

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Cognition and its Disorders (CE110001021) http://www.ccd.edu.au. We would like to thank Stephen Crain, Teresa Guasti, Terje Lohndal, Hedde Zeijlstra, Journal of Linguistics Editor Caroline Heycock and three anonymous Journal of Linguistics referees for their helpful comments and suggestions.

References

REFERENCES

Bellugi, Ursula. 1967. The acquisition of the system of negation in children's speech. Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Berwick, Robert & Weinberg, Amy. 1984. The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois. 1970. Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. 1994. What does adjacency do? MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 22, 1–32.Google Scholar
Bobaljik, Jonathan D. & Thráinsson, Höskuldur. 1998. Two heads aren't always better than one. Syntax 1, 37–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit. 1984. Parametric syntax. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borer, Hagit & Wexler, Kenneth. 1987. The maturation of syntax. In , Roeper & , Williams (eds.), 123–172.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron-Faulkner, Theo, Lieven, Elena & Theakston, Anna. 2007. What part of no do children not understand? A usage-based account of multiword negation. Journal of Child Language 33, 251–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, Soonja. 1988. The semantic development of negation: A cross-linguistic longitudinal study. Journal of Child Language 15, 517–531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1991. Some notes on economy of derivation and representation. In Freiden, Robert (ed.), Principles and parameters in comparative grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 2000. Minimalist inquiries: The framework. In Martin, Roger, Michaels, David & Uriagereka, Juan (eds.), Step by step: Essays on minimalist syntax in honor of Howard Lasnik, 89–155. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Clark, Eve. 1977. Psychology and language: An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen, Ni, Wei-Jia & Conway, Laura. 1994. Learning, parsing, and modularity. In Clifton, Charles, Frazier, Lyn & Rayner, Keith (eds.), Perspectives on sentence processing, 443–467. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Pietroski, Paul. 2002. Why language acquisition is a snap. The Linguistic Review 19, 185–224.Google Scholar
Demuth, Katherine, Culbertson, Jennifer & Alter, Jennifer. 2006. Word-minimality, epenthesis, and coda licensing in the acquisition of English. Language and Speech 49, 137–174.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Déprez, Viviane & Pierce, Amy. 1993. Negation and functional projections in early grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 24, 25–647.Google Scholar
De Villiers, Jill & Villiers, Peter de. 1985. The acquisition of English. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 1: The data, 27–140. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dimroth, Christine. 2010. The acquisition of negation. In Klein, Wolfgang & Levinson, Stephen (eds.), The expression of cognitive categories, vol. 4: Laurence R. Horn (ed.), The expression of negation, 39–72. Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Drozd, Kenneth. 1995. Child English pre-sentential negation as metalinguistic exclamatory sentence negation. Journal of Child Language 22, 583–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, Janet D. & Sakas, William G.. 2005. The Subset Principle in syntax: Costs of compliance. Journal of Linguistics 41, 513–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2004. Grammaticalization as economy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2008. Negative cycles. Linguistic Typology 12, 195–243.Google Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van (ed.). 2009a. Cyclical change. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2009b. Feature economy in the linguistic cycle. In Crisma, Paola & Longobardi, Giuseppe (eds.), Historical syntax and linguistic theory, 93–109. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. The linguistic cycle: Language change and the language faculty. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilkerson, Jill, Hyams, Nina & Curtiss, Susan. 2004. On the scope of negation: More evidence for early parameter setting. Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA) 10, 175–185.Google Scholar
Green, Lisa. 2002. African American English: A linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Lisa. 2011. Language and the African American child. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa & Rizzi, Luigi. 2002. Agreement and tense as distinct syntactic positions: Evidence from acquisition. In Cinque, Guglielmo (ed.), The structure of DP and IP: The cartography of syntactic structures, vol. 1, 167–194. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Guasti Maria, Teresa, Thornton, Rosalind & Wexler, Kenneth. 1996. Children's negative questions: The case of English. Boston University Conference on Child Language Development (BUCLD) 19, 228–239.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The syntax of negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane & Londahl, Terje. 2010. Negative concord and (multiple) agree: A case study of West Flemish. Linguistic Inquiry 41, 181–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamann, Cornelia. 2000. Negation, infinitives and heads. In Powers, Susan & Hamann, Cornelia (eds.), The acquisition of scrambling and cliticization, 423–477. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, Anthony & Wexler, Kenneth. 1996. The optional-infinitive stage in child language: Evidence from negation. In Clahsen, Harald (ed.), Generative perspectives on language acquisition, 1–42. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Henry, Alison. 1995. Belfast English and Standard English: Dialect variation and parameter setting. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henry, Alison, McLaren, Rose, Wilson, John & Finlay, Cathy. 1997. The acquisition of negative concord in non-standard English. Boston University Conference on Child Language Development (BUCLD) 21, 269–280.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2001. Multiple agree and the defective intervention constraint in Japanese. 1st HUMIT Student Conference in Language Research (HUMIT 2000; MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 40), 67–80.Google Scholar
Hiraiwa, Ken. 2005. Dimensions of symmetry in syntax: Agreement and clausal architecture. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Iatridou, Sabine. 1990. About Agr(P). Linguistic Inquiry 21, 551–577.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2005. The loss of NegV → C in Middle English. Linguistische Berichte 202, 171–206.Google Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2006. On two negative concord dialects in early English. Language Variation and Change 18, 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingham, Richard. 2007. NegP and negated constituent movement in the history of English. Transactions of the Philological Society 105, 365–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyeiri, Yoko. 2005. Aspects of English negation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemenade, Ans van. 2000. Jespersen's Cycle revisited: Formal properties of grammaticalization. In Pintzuk, Susan, Tsoulas, George & Warner, Anthony (eds.), Diachronic syntax: Models and mechanisms, 51–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. & Bellugi, Ursula. 1966. Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Lyons, John & Wales, Roger (eds.), Psycholinguistic papers, 183–208. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Lasnik, Howard. 1981. Restricting the theory of transformations. In Hornstein, Norbert & Lightfoot, David (eds.), Explanation in linguistics, 152–173. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lieven, Elena & Tomasello, Michael. 2008. Children's first language acquisition from a usage-based perspective. In Robinson, Peter & Ellis, Nick C. (eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition, 168–196. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lindstad, Arne. 2006. Analyses of negation: Structure and interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2001. Why no(t). Ms., University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Neelman, Ad & Koot, Hans van de. 2002. The configurational matrix. Linguistic Inquiry 33, 529–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Leary, Carrie. 1994. Children's awareness of polarity sensitivity. Master's thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 1984. Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, Jean-Yves. 1989. Verb movement, universal grammar, and the structure of IP. Linguistic Inquiry 20, 365–424.Google Scholar
Poplack, Shana. 2000. The English history of African American English. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Wilson, Deidre. 1977. Autonomous syntax and the analysis of auxiliaries. Language 53, 741–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1994. Some notes on linguistic theory and language development: The case of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 3, 371–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. In Haegeman, Liliane (ed.), Elements of grammar: A handbook of generative syntax, 281–337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rizzi, Luigi. 2005. On the grammatical basis of language development: A case study. In Cinque, Guglielmo & Kayne, Richard (eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative syntax, 70–109. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roeper, Thomas & Williams, Edwin (eds.). 1987. Parameter setting. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sailor, Craig. 2009. Tagged for deletion: A typological approach to VP ellipsis in tag questions. Master's thesis, UCLA.Google Scholar
Schütze, Carson. 2010. The status of non-agreeing don't and theories of root infinitives. Language Acquisition 17, 235–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schütze, Carson & Wexler, Kenneth. 1996. Subject case licensing and English root infinitives. Boston University Conference on Child Language Development (BUCLD) 20, 670–681.Google Scholar
Stromswold, Karin. 1990. Learnability and the acquisition of auxiliaries. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Tesan, Graciela. 2005. What do children have in their heads? Functional categories and parameter setting in child language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.Google Scholar
Thornton, Rosalind. 2008. Why continuity. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 26, 107–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, Rosalind & Tesan, Graciela. 2007. Categorical acquisition: Parameter setting in Universal Grammar. Biolinguistics 1, 49–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thráinsson, Höskaldur. 1996. On the (non)universality of functional categories. In Abraham, Werner, Epstein, Samuel, Thráinsson, Höskaldur & Zwart, Jan-Weuter (eds.), Minimal ideas: Syntactic studies in the minimalist framework, 253–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2000. Do children have syntactic competence? Cognition 74, 209–253.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Travis, Lisa. 1984. Parameters and the effects of word order variation. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ura, Hiroyuki. 1996. Multiple feature-checking: A theory of grammatical function-splitting. Ph.D. dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Vikner, Sten. 1995. Verb movement and expletive subjects in Germanic languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, C. Gordon. 1981. Learning through interaction: The study of language development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1994. Optional infinitives, head movement, and the economy of derivation in child language. In Lightfoot, David & Hornstein, Norbert (eds.), Verb movement, 288–315. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1998. Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106, 23–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Culicover, Peter W.. 1980. Formal principles of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Manzini, M. Rita. 1987. Parameters and learnability in binding theory. In , Roeper & , Williams (eds.), 41–76.Google Scholar
Wilson, John & Henry, Alison. 1998. Parameter setting within a socially realistic linguistics. Language in Society 27, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wode, Henning. 1977. Four early stages in the development of L1 negation. Journal of Child Language 4, 87–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanuttini, Rafaella. 1991. Syntactic properties of sentential negation. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Zanuttini, Rafaella. 2001. Sentential negation. In Baltin, Mark & Collins, Chris (eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 511–535. Malden, MA: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedzer Hugo. 2004. Sentential negation and negative concord. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedzer Hugo. 2007. Doubling: The semantic driving force behind functional categories. In Cate, Balder ten & Zeevat, Henk (eds.), Logic, language and computation, 260–280. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedzer Hugo. 2008a. On the syntactic flexibility of formal features. In Biberauer, Theresa (ed.), The limits of syntactic variation, 143–174. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedzer Hugo. 2008b. Negative concord is syntactic agreement. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000645 (retrieved 24 May 2012).Google Scholar
Zeijlstra, Hedzer Hugo. 2010. Not in the first place. http://ling.auf.net/lingBuzz/000523 (retrieved 18 October 2010).Google Scholar