CHAPTER ONE

HOW LANGUAGE ACQUISITION REVEALS

MINIMALIST SYMMETRY IN THE WH-SYSTEM

Magda Oiry & Tom Roeper

1. Introduction

Linguistic theory has sought elegance through economy, locality, and a

simple theory of transformation (movement). A natural form of elegance

— a part of what makes a grammar ‘perfect’, in Chomsky’s terms —

should be, we argue, symmetry in the operations that cross structural types.

Recent work by Chomsky (2008) has taken a logical step in the theory

of locality: Full Transfer (see below) should occur at the phase level. The

idea, in brief, is that strict locality should lead — in the ideal form — to

semantic, syntactic, and phonological Transfer of information to a

cognitive/productive component at each phase boundary, such as the

traditional clause, or CP, level. This then achieves an optimal interface

between grammar and other mental systems.

We suggest that the system of feature satisfaction seeks to fulfil the

interface goal of Full Transfer. In brief, Chomsky (2008) introduces the

concept as the logical fulfilment of the concept of a phase: Information is

transferred to phonological, syntactic, and semantic interfaces (as we

discuss below). Therefore it is the concept of Transfer, not the notion of

feature satisfaction itself, that drives the system and has the primary

explanatory power. It provides an explanation for why, as we will show,

wh-scope-marking appears spontaneously in acquisition in single clauses

and why partial movement (PM) — that is, the occurrence of a partially

moved wh-phrase in CP2, licensed by a scope marker in CP1 (as in

German, for example) — appears spontaneously where it is not found in

the target grammar.

This chapter first argues that the child’s acquisition path can go

through UG options found in other languages. Then we introduce how

acquisition theory can adopt modern notions of Phrase Transfer and how

other grammars exhibit PM and empty or covert operators, following a

generalization by Fanselow & Mahajan (2000); we present evidence from

CHAPTER !NE 12

a large corpus that supports the claim that empty operators correlate with

PM in acquisition. Finally we show that acquisition data fills a logical UG

possibility of a phonetically real empty operator in single clauses by

examining how children respond to both who bought what-sentences and

long-distance movement.

1.1. Scope-Marking Expletives

What happens when a grammar fails to fulfil derivational

requirements? Here UG must provide options or the system will fail. A

classic example of such a solution is the projection of semantically

‘empty’ expletives in overt positions, such as there are three boys, where

boys moves invisibly to the subject, causing verb agreement, and where

the expletive satisfies the case requirement. Our focus, scope-marking wh-

expletives in PM-constructions, is seen the same way in a number of

languages (see below): They mark landing sites for invisible movement.

Thus expletives in general have evolved as conceptually marginal,

‘elsewhere’ conditions. However, as is often the case, what at first seems

to be a marginal rescue device may reflect deep properties of grammar.

We claim in this chapter that wh-expletive insertion should appear at

the same point as Transfer occurs following the same logic, maintaining

symmetry among constructions. If true, it follows that scope-marking

expletives should be possible in single-clause constructions as well as

long-distance constructions. In particular, for a child, it can be a

simplifying default delivering an interpretation for a comprehension

challenge when the sentence spoken is not in the child’s production

grammar, which we will now explain.

1.2. The Acquisition Perspective on Linguistic Theory

How does acquisition reflect on fundamental properties of UG? Does it

provide a unique avenue to UG? We argue here, what is implicit

elsewhere, that, if the child cannot accommodate a sentence to his

grammar, then the child will select from UG a ‘default’ to prevent the

sentence from crashing. We argue that ‘default’ operations are reflections

of Initial State Options that a child can use without any guiding input. In

that sense, the term ‘default’ does not capture the important status of such

operations well, and we prefer the term Initial State Options. We predict:

(1) Initial State Options appear ‘spontaneously’ in the acquisition

process.

HOW ACQUISITION REVEALS MINIMALIST SYMMETRY

13

This prediction applies particularly in comprehension contexts where a

child must respond to whatever an adult says whether or not it has an

obvious analysis in the current child grammar. These Initial State Options

should be perfect reflections of principles of economy, which in turn

respond to the demands of interfaces:

(2) Initial State Options are direct indicators of the principles of

interface economy. Initial State Options arise directly (i.e.

‘spontaneously’), without specific input.

A consequence of this perspective is that children will pass through

grammars that may reflect other non-target languages; see e.g. Roeper

(1982, 1999, 2007), Yang (2000), Chomsky (2008). In an ideal system,

such operations do not depend upon prior parametric decisions, but may

require the identification of some lexical items (such as wh-words).

1.3. How Many Grammars Does UG Cover?

It is sometimes asserted that the extent of UG is revealed by the

variation found in natural language. However, upon reflection it is obvious

that UG could easily extend to grammars that do not exist, or once existed.

Whatever biologically defines the set of possible grammars might not

happen to appear in the set of grammars we know or happen to have

studied. Imagine if one continent were not yet discovered, like Australia,

then all of the insights that derive from Warlpiri for UG would not only

not be known, but they would be defined as outside of UG, hence UG

might easily be designed so as to exclude them. Excluding possibilities

that should not be excluded has the effect of unnecessarily clouding — or

making suspect — deeper principles. If predictable options appear in

acquisition, then they can rectify what look like arbitrary restrictions in

UG

Suppose we imagine that studied grammars constitute 1/100th (to be

rather arbitrary) of possible human grammars supplied by biology, then it

is not just possible but probable that children will pass through grammars

that have not been revealed in other grammars, but are within the bounds

of UG. Furthermore, the acquisition process might make that eventuality

more likely — for instance, the absence of some lexical knowledge might

lead to briefly eliciting a grammar that happens not to have appeared

among the existing grammars and which disappears when more lexical

knowledge is obtained. We will argue that precisely this is the case.

CHAPTER !NE 14

2. Transfer and the Place of Long-Distance Movement

Chomsky’s (2008) notion of Transfer is the logical endpoint of a theory of

locality:

(3) [T]here are Transfer operations: one hands the SO already

constructed to the phonological component, which maps it to the

SM interface (“Spell-Out”); the other hands SO to the semantic

component, which maps it to the C-I interface. Call these SOs

phases. Thus SMT entails that computation of expressions must be

restricted to a single cyclic/compositional process with phases. In

the best case, the phases will be the same for both Transfer

operations. To my knowledge, there is no compelling evidence to

the contrary. Let us assume, then, that the best-case conclusion can

be sustained. It is also natural to expect that along with Transfer, all

other operations will also apply at the phase level […].

(p. 9 of the 2005 MIT ms., note omitted)

Why did this definition not emerge long ago? It was the implicit

direction of grammatical theory once the locality of cyclic wh-movement

became clear. However, Full Transfer is exactly what long-distance

movement avoids, a topic which has stood in the centre of research for

several decades. The Transfer Hypothesis reinforces the view that children

avoid long-distance cyclic constructions if there is an option that preserves

locality.1

If children mis-project grammars, what is the engine of change that

shifts them to an adult grammar, particularly if their mis-projection fulfils

locality requirements? A classic view, which we support, is that the

addition of lexical features forces shifts in syntactic analysis. In particular,

deVilliers, deVilliers & Roeper (to appear) argue that the child must learn

exactly which verbs project indirect questions in order to move to the adult

grammar.

2.1. Transfer, Partial Movement, and Feature Attraction

We argue that Transfer arises in instances of adult PM:

1 Chomsky (2008) addresses the absence of articulation in adult English of wh-

words at the CP-phase boundary (clause) with this observation: “We leave open

the question of how, or whether, expression of the features on C relates to the CP-

internal syntax” (p. 10, fn. 26 of the 2005 MIT ms.).

HOW ACQUISITION REVEALS MINIMALIST SYMMETRY

15

(4) Wasi glaubt Hans mit wemi Jakob jetzt ti spricht?

what believes Hans with who Jakob now talk

“With whom does Hans believe that Jakob is now talking?”

The scope marker was “what” in the higher clause is linked to the wh-

phrase mit wem “with who(m)”, in the lower clause. The expression mit

wem occurs at the edge of the phase, where it has moved syntactically and

been transferred to the phonology for pronunciation. The interpretation in

terms of argument structure of the lower verb also occurs at this point.2

The last twenty years have seen a huge array of evidence on behalf of

the claim that children spontaneously produce such sentences, which fits

our claim. DeVilliers, Roeper & Vainikka (1990) found extensive

evidence that children interpreted the medial wh-word as a contentful wh-

expression and treated the initial one as a scope marker for both adjuncts

and arguments:

(5) a. How did he learn what to bake? adjunct-argument

b. When did he learn how to bake? adjunct-adjunct

In both instances, the medial-WH is answered (what, how, etc.) just in case

there is another WH in the higher clause (what, how, etc.). That word then

functions as a wh-expletive scope-marker because it adds no argument

structure content to the interpretation (see also Crain & Thornton 1998,

Weissenborn, deVilliers & Roeper 1995).

Thornton (1990) showed that the effect could be elicited. She found

examples of PM in L1 children elicited production, and analysed on par

with German, along McDaniel’s (1989) lines. According to Thornton,

English children questions involve a scope marker (what) in [Spec,CP1]

(the higher clause) which licenses the real wh-phrase (which animal)

partially moved to [Spec,CP2] (the lower clause).

(6) What do you think which animal says “woof woof”?

(7) What do you think which Smurf really has roller skates?

Other studies of L2 children learners of English showed that PM occurred

with second language learners as well. Gutierrez’ (2005) production data

2 See Rizzi (2006) for the development of the concept of ‘criterial freezing’ which

suggests that children answer medial questions have the wrong criterion for the

scope-discourse interpretation. Our proposal below can be seen as a proposal for

how that error occurs.

!"#$%&'( )&(*+(

,-.(/00123-,3.4(5.067(/8(9:;<=(92..(,026(>?@10A(BCCD=E((9:= What(46(F61(3@/8G which baby(@,4(.,3.8(3@.(?,G.H(((9<=(( What(46(F61(3@/8G(who(0/I.4(/8(3@.(@612.H(((((%@.(,4103(068J;4/23,8?.(?6183.-K,-32(7/00(5.(-.2K.?3/I.0FL(((9:M=(( N@/?@(,8/O,0(46(F61(3@/8G(@,4(.,3.8(3@.(?,G.H((9<M=(( N@6(46(F61(3@/8G(0/I.4(/8(3@.(@612.(H((2.2. Wh-in-situ and Invisible Scope-Markers (( N@,3( @,KK.82( /8( 3@62.( 0,8J1,J.2( 7@/?@( @,I.(wh;/8;2/31H( !@.8J( P('66-F?G( 9BCCC=Q( 5,2.4( 68(R,3@/.1( 9*<<<=Q( K-6I/4.( .S3.82/I.( ,-J1O.832(,84( .I/4.8?.( T6-( 3@.( ?68?.K3( 6T( ,8( /8I/2/50.( 2?6K.( O,-G.-Q( K-.2.83( /8(U-.8?@(,84(63@.-(0,8J1,J.2Q(36(,??6183(T6-(wh;/8;2/31L((((9*C=( V!$(Opi((VW$(X.,8( ,/O.(VY$(ti((quoii]]]( ( ( 9R,3@/.1(*<<<=((( ( ( Z/( ( (X6@8( 0/G.2(((((((( (7@,3(( ( [N@,3(46.2(X6@8(0/G.H\((( %@.F( ,026( 21JJ.23( 3@,3( 3@.( 184.-2K.?/T/.4( O6-K@.O.( /2( 4.T.?3/I.(5.?,12.(/3(/2(,O5/J1612(5.37..8(,(wh;K@-,2.(,84(yes/no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quoi( `1/((((.23( ?,?@a( ( 4,82( 0M2,?H(( ( ( ( ( F61((5.0/.I.( 7@,3( !( (((/2(( @/44.8(( /8( ( 3@.;5,J(( ( ( ( [N@,3(46(F61(5.0/.I.b3@/8G(/2(@/44.8(/8(3@.(5,JH\(

(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((_(&S,OK0.2( 9**,;5=( ,-.( 3,G.8( T-6O(]/-F( 9BCCB=Q( 9**?;4=( T-6O(>3-/G( 9BCC_=E(%76(863.2( 68( 3@.( 4,3,( T-6O(]/-FE( U/-23Q( ,??6-4/8J( 36(]/-F(P(^.O/-4,?@.( 9BCC+=( ,84(]/-F( 9BCC:=Q( 9**,=( /2( ,O5/J1612( 5.37..8( ,( 4/-.?3( ,84( ,8( /84/-.?3( 4.K.84.8?F(,8,0F2/2c( 2..( 3@./-( K,K.-( T6-( O6-.( 4.3,/02E( >.?684Q( d( /8( 9**5=( /84/?,3.2( ,(K@68606J/?,0(K,12.E(

HOW ACQUISITION REVEALS MINIMALIST SYMMETRY

17

b. Tu penses quoi # que # Tinky Winky l’adore? you think what C Tinky Winky CL.loves “What do you believe/think Tinky Winky likes?” c. Tu penses quoi que je lis? you think what C I read “What do you believe/think that I am reading?” d. Tu penses qui qui me lit des histoires ? you think who C° PR read the stories? “Who do you think read me stories?” Moreover, Oiry & Demirdache (2006) find that overt/covert operators co-exist in the grammars of children (from Oiry 2002, 2008), as in (12a), and (12b) showing respectively covert and overt markers:

(12) a. Q Tu penses où elle est cachée, l’assiette? Q you think where she is hidden, the-plate “Where do you think the plate is hidden?” b. Est-ce que tu penses qu’est-ce qui est cache dans le lit? ESK4 you think what is hidden in the bed “What do you think is hidden in the bed?” Note that the absence of an overt scope marker in (12a) is not so surprising, given that, as illustrated in (10), French adult grammar exhibits this kind of scope marker. Abdulkarim & Roeper (2003) also show that the effect of a matrix occurs in English with whether at the comprehension level. Children are asked the question in (13), to which many answered “no”. This can only be an answer to (14): (13) Situation [She did brake the bike, but she said that she did not brake it.] “Did she say whether she braked the bike?” (14) a. whether she said whether she really broke the bike: as if the truth of the lower whether were to be what she said b. what did she say about whether she broke her bike. The other alternatives lead to a “yes” answer to the question in (13). If 4 ESK (est-ce que) is analyzed as a yes/no-scope marker in the French adult grammar — French children mis-analyze it as a potential licenser for the partially moved wh-phrase.

CHAPTER !NE 18

the child answers only the truth of the lower whether, then the answer is

“yes”, if child answers only upper say-whether, it is “yes” she did say

something about whether she broke it Therefore they exhibit PM of

whether to the medial CP, which gets a “yes” answer and covert

movement over the verb “say” whether she told the truth, which is “no”.

Yip & Matthews (2001) report covert movement in spontaneous

speech with bilingual children acquiring Cantonese and English (children

aged 4.01 and 5.03, respectively), as in (15a-b), and Wakabayachi &

Okawara (2003) report it with children in Japanese learning English (15c):

(15) a. You think what nut I am getting now? (picking nut out of a tin)

b. You think where is Sophie? (hiding under table)

c. OP Do you know what is in the bag?

A covert scope marker checks the Wh-features of C0 and marks the

proposition as interrogative with scope over the matrix verb, know (it is

arguable that the scope marker is overt if do itself can be analyzed as a

scope-marker, but this perspective would require a full analysis of do in

child grammar).

The options in child grammar are found in adult grammar cross-

linguistically, such as Ancash Quechua, Bahasa Indonesia, and Kitharaka:

(16) Ancash Quechua (Cole & Hermon 1994)

(Qam) kreinki imata Maria munanqanta José rantinanta?

you think what Marie want José buy

“What do you think Maria wants José to buy?”

(17) Bahasa Indonesia (Saddy 1991)

Bill tahu siapa yang Tom cintai?

Bill knows who FOC Tom loves

“Who does Bill know that Tom loves?”

(18) Kitharaka (Muriungi 2004)

U-ri-thugania ati n-uu John a-ring-ir-e t?

2SG-T-think that FOC-who John SP-beat-T-FV5

“Who do you think that John beat?”

Fanselow & Mahajan (2000) and Fanselow (2006) then develop a far-

5 The abbreviations for morphemes used in (18) are as follows: 2SG = second

person singular, T = tense, FOC = focus, SP = simple past, and FV = final vowel.

HOW ACQUISITION REVEALS MINIMALIST SYMMETRY

19

reaching observation about the connection between wh-in-situ and PM,

following them we suggest that:

(19) Every language with one-clause covert operator has partial

movement in two clauses.

We have found new evidence that children spontaneously show exactly

this pattern from a large experimental source, the DELV test, discussed

below, with an important extension, dictated by the Transfer Hypothesis.

Now we are in a position to ask the question we asked at the outset, in

terms of the full symmetry of the system:

(20) Do single clauses show the fully symmetrical range of options?

If they do, then we predict:

(21) Symmetry Hypothesis

A single clause should allow an overt-scope marker as well as a

covert scope-marker by the logic of this account.

This is predicted for UG but not attested. Therefore we can ask

whether it appears in children’s grammar.

3. Disorders and the Symmetry Hypothesis:

Experimental Evidence

In the development of a new instrument for language assessment

(DELV: Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation - Seymour, Roeper

& de Villiers 2005, copyright TPC, 2000) over 1,000 children were tested

in advance on questions that involved both pair-list readings and

embedded questions,

(22) Pictures and sentences

The father ate an apple and the boy ate a banana.

Who ate what?

and a scene and situation like the following,

(23) Mother watches TV and learns to bake a cake.

How did she learn what to bake? " “a cake” (not “from TV”)

CHAPTER !NE 20

or a scene like this:

(24) A boy asks a man what to buy for his teacher.

“Bologna”, the man answers.

(25) Who did he ask what to buy "

child answers: “Bologna” (not “Man” or “Teacher”)

Medial-WH answers are/PM is found among a group of 297 children,

4-9yrs F (1,504) =29.94, p<.001, eta2=.137; age: F(5,975)=7/69, p<.001,

eta2=.071). In response the pair-list questions an interesting phenomenon

arose. The general results were:

(26) a. 4375 answers from 1400 children in full sample

b. 1125 " non-paired

c. 492 = object or adjunct

= 43,73% of the unexpected answers.

More precisely:

d. 20% of children answer only object

[who ate what " “an apple and banana”]

An age breakdown shows that the answer occurred most frequently

with younger children:

(27) 80% came from children 5 years and under;

203 answers produced by 4-year-olds (41%);

48 answers by 5-year-olds;

80 answers by 6-year-olds (not equal numbers in each group).

This result is compatible with the notion that the children treat the first wh-

word (who) as a scope marker for the second in comprehension.

(28) Hypothesis: first WH = scope marker

who ate what

scope real Q

!===========

This result then fills the missing niche in the symmetry prediction:

!"#$%&'()*)+)",$-./.%0*$1),)1%0)*+$*211.+-2$

$

34$

*5$6789:;<=$>8?@A=A9BC<$ D7<$who-E5;>$A?$A$?65F<$>A;G<;$H$8=?D<A:$5E$A$?65F<$>A;G<;$=<ID;A9$E5;>$<JF<6D<:$?I67$A?$whatK$$ ,5L$L<$ 6A=$ FI;?I<$ D7<$ 6;5??@98=MI8?D86$ FA;A><D<;K$ +7<$ F;<:86D85=$ 8?$D7AD$ D7<$ 5NO<6D@5=9B$ A=?L<;$ L899$ 65;;<9AD<$ L8D7$ P1$ 5=$ A=$ 8=:8Q8:IA9$ NB$8=:8Q8:IA9$NA?8?K$&5=?8:<;$AMA8=$?<=D<=6<?$98G<R$$S3TU$$ #758$:8:$D7<$N5B$A?G$ti$L7ADO$P-"$D5$NIB$tjV$$$ $ S><:8A9$A=?L<;WFA;D8A9$>5Q<><=DR$XY595M=AZU$$$ +7<$;<?I9D$LA?$A$69<A;$65;;<9AD85=$E5;$3[\$5E$D7<$6789:;<=$A>5=M$]^^$L75$MAQ<$P1$;<?F5=?<?R$$S_[U$$ 4]3W]^^$S;5IM79B$3[\U$6789:;<=$$

$ $ $N5D7$><:8A9@#!$A=:$5NO<6D@5=9B$8=$:5IN9<@#!$

$%MA8=$D7<;<$8?$A=$AM<$<EE<6D$L8D7$A$?8M=8E86A=D$65;;<9AD85=R$

$$$$$$$$$S_4U$$ 3`$NB$`@B<A;@59:?$$ $ 4[4$F;5:I6<:$NB$a@B<A;@59:?$$$ $ b_$NB$b@B<A;@59:?$SE<L<;$3@B<A;@59:?$8=Q59Q<:U$$$ +7<$65=69I?85=$8?$D7AD$D7<$65;;<9AD85=$5N?<;Q<:$NB$cA=?<95L$8?$E5I=:$8=$D7<$A6dI8?8D85=$:ADAe$NID$<JD<=:<:$D5$8=69I:<$5Q<;D$?65F<$>A;G<;?$8=$?8=M9<$69AI?<$<=Q8;5=><=D?K$$$

4. Scope Marker Interpretation $$ +7<;<$ 8?$ ?5><$ 65=D;5Q<;?B$ 5Q<;$ D7<$ ?<>A=D86$ 8>FA6D$ 5E$ D7<$ ?65F<$>A;G<;K$!<;NI;M<;$S4TTbU$A=:$0A78;8$S3[[3U$7AQ<$A;MI<:$D7AD$P1$8>F5?<?$EA6D8Q8DB$5=$ D7<$ 95L<;$69AI?<`K$ )=$<EE<6D$L7AD$ 8?$ ?A8:$>I?D$N<$ D;I<$ E5;$ D7<$?F<AG<;e$ L789<$ 8=$ EI99$ 95=M@:8?DA=6<$ >5Q<><=D$ D7<$ 95L<;$ 69AI?<$ 6A=$ N<$EA9?<e$A?$8=$.=M98?7R$$S_3U$$ #7AD$:8:$f57=$?AB$D7AD$7<$N5IM7DV$$$ (=:<;$ D7<$ cI99$ +;A=?E<;$ A665I=D$ D7<$ EA6D8Q8DB$ ;<dI8;<><=D$ L5I9:$ N<$=ADI;A9$ N<6AI?<$ 8D$ ><A=?$ D7AD$ D7<$ ?65F<$ >A;G<;$ <>N<:?$ D7<$ ?<>A=D86$

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$`$ *<<$ "8;B$ S3[[^Ug$ EA9?<$ 5;$ =5=@F;<?IFF5?<:$ ?IN5;:8=AD<$ 7A?$ ?D;5=M$ <EE<6D$ 5=$c;<=67$6789:;<=h?$F;5:I6D85=$5E$95=M@:8?DA=6<$dI<?D85=?K$$

!"#$%&'( )&(**(

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xplanatory Weight: Transfer and Feature Satisfaction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wh>=,?/=/-.(.15.(<7( 04,\/-(9/+567/(5;4//=/-.(157(,++644/:@(),3(1,3/?/4(3/(15?/( .,(57B(

"KT(#!]NXQX%XK)('&^&#_Q(IX)XI#_XQ%(Q`II&%'`(

(

*V(

/S5+.2C( 315.( .1/( 0/5.64/( +,-./-.( ,0( .15.( -,:/( <7( 76+1( .15.( 3/( +5-( 9,.1(/SA25<-( 31C( <.( <7( 04,\/-( 5-:( 31C( 5( +1<2:( 5:?5-+/7( 9/C,-:( <.( 3<.1(5::<.<,-52(B-,32/:;/@(( %1/(+1<2:(=67.(:,(.14//(.1<-;7U((FVaH(( 5@(( ( %1/C(15?/(.,(<:/-.<0C(.1/(+,-./-.(,0(wh>3,4:7(31<+1(:,/7(( ( ( ( -,.(/S+26:/(.1/<4(7.<22(06-+.<,-<-;(57(/SA2/.<?/7(Fwhat(,4(how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b/+567/(<.(<7(5(:<4/+.(P6/7.<,-8(<.(=67.(9/(5-73/4/:@(%1<7(7//=7(.,(9/(<-.6<.<?/2C(-5.6452@((FVcH(( (Z7+,A/(=54B/4(((?/49(Z!$(Z][(d(315.[(( ( ( ( ( ((((( eeeeee((( %1/( <-<.<52( wh>3,4:( +5-( 4/7+6/( .1/( :/4<?5.<,-( 9C( 5AA2<+5.<,-( ,0( 5(:/0562.( 7+,A/( =54B/4( 462/8( 31<+1( :,/7( -,.( :/-C( .1/( <-./4A4/.5.<,-( .15.(,++647(5.(.1/(A,<-.(,0(%45-70/4@(((( ",3(.1/-(3,62:(5(+1<2:(=5B/(.1<7(4/52<\5.<,-(.15.(.1/(<-:<4/+.(P6/7.<,-(-//:(-,.(9/(5-73/4/:W(%1/C(+,62:(15?/(5-(/SA/4</-+/(31/4/(.1/C(1/54(5(7/-./-+/(2<B/(FVMH8((FVMH(( ",3(:<:(71/(2/54-(315.(.,(95B/W((( 5-:(.1/-(1/54(.1/(5-73/4(f04,=(%^g(04,=(5-(5:62.(5-:(7//(.15.(what(<7(-/?/4(5-73/4/:@(( ),38(<0(3/(<=5;<-/(.15.(5(]>0/5.64/(<7(577,+<5./:(3<.1(.1/(=5.4<S(!$8(.1/-(<-('<\\<h7(FJiijH(./4=7(,0(5(k,4+/($1457/8(<.(+544</7(/S5+.2C(.1/(-,.<,-(,0( :<4/+.( P6/7.<,-( FZ][H8( 5-:(=,?/=/-.( 9/C,-:( .1/( 0<47.( A157/( +,62:( 9/(=,.<?5./:(3<.1,6.(5-73/4<-;(.1/(<-:<4/+.(P6/7.<,-@((

CHAPTER !NE 24

(37) [Q] verb [CP [ … what]

If a child now hears (38),

(38) What did he say he bought?

which has no IQ-marker, it moves again to the higher clause with a Q-

marker (for a direct question) where that feature is satisfied.

This account may be essentially correct, but it is seriously complicated

by language diversity and the meaning of wh-words. Bo#kovi$ (2000) has

argued that Slavic languages have [Foc] and/or [Q] associated with wh-

words. This allows multiple wh-fronting because both a Q-feature and a

Foc-feature are available to be satisfied. Schulz (2004) has proposed that if

[Foc] is projected in the lower clause, then it will motivate the existence of

PM in those languages where it occurs. In those languages that have only

[Q], no PM arises. The wh-word stops in the medial position because it

satisfies the Foc-feature.

This is possible, but it leaves this problem: Children who pass through

a [Foc] stage must somehow drop this feature in order to become English

speakers.

It is neither entirely clear how to analyze Focus, nor clear how then a

child would block [Foc]. However processes which involve de-

topicalization, which may involve reanalysis of intonation patterns, could

be involved. The problem is a part of an extending agenda in linguistics.

4.2. A Possible Trigger

Cheng & Rooryck (2000) have argued that wh-in-situ involves

reference to a fixed set or we can use Bo#kovi$’s term, a closed set.7 That

is, in Pesetsky (1987)’s term, when speaker and hearer have a fixed set of

entities in mind which play a role in the discourse (D-linked elements).

Suppose we now argue that the child, when they hear an indirect

question is forced to the realization, by virtue of the open nature of the

higher verb, that no fixed set is involved, as in a sentence like:

(39) a. Ask Mom what to do.

b. Bill wondered where to go.

7 Heizmann (2006) discusses how children learn ‘exhaustivity’ for cleft

constructions which exhibit focus, hence a closed set.

HOW ACQUISITION REVEALS MINIMALIST SYMMETRY

25

Now the pure [IQ] form is realized. This blocks the [Foc]-reading

unless it is reinstated by new structures of the kind found in Slavic

languages, like what, who bought.

We leave this as a principal suggestion for how the acquisition path

can be explained. A full answer would require that we explore how focus

works, which engages multiple wh-expressions, clefted structures, and

intonation.

Does the wh-scope-marking system also fit other types of Initial State

Options? In the larger acquisition scheme we may ultimately find that

scope-marking is a species of concord, as Felser (2004) has argued. It is

well-known that children find negative concord easy to represent and often

impose it on languages, like English, that do not show it.

5. Conclusion

We have argued that PM reflects the most basic form of minimalist

symmetry: Each phase seeks an optimal interface with other systems as

Chomsky has argued.

In rough terms, the fact that the wh-expression moves to the edge of

the phase, is pronounced there, and interpreted at that point is all

compatible with the acquisition data.

(40) Phonology (Spell-Out)

Syntax (local movement to phase edge)

Semantics (answer medial question)

This analysis has been made explicit in Chomsky’s concept of

Transfer. It is the logical endpoint of reasoning about locality: all

interfaces are engaged at every phase edge. Much remains to be explored

about such a strong hypothesis — for instance, the exact nature and force

of indirect questions — but the prominence of PM in child grammar is a

strong piece of evidence that the logic of locality is moving in the right

direction. The fact that subtle support comes from outside the realm of

intuitions and has both naturalistic and experimental support, provides one

of the most important forms of ‘independent’ and converging evidence

that linguistics can provide to future exploration in more biological terms.

To summarize the technical claims, we have argued that both one and

two clause structures exhibit the full pattern of logical possibilities for

overt and covert movement in UG.

!"#$%&'( )&(*+(

,-./( who ate what((0( Invisible: ( ( 123456(758916:((((( ;!$((wh<=$( ((>6?@( AB8CD(( ( CAE(758916:(((((( ;!$.((wh<=$(((>6?@( ;!$*((AB8C(FDD(( ( ( ( ( ( ( Visible: ( ( ( ( ( ( ( .G((wh<17EH6( >6?@( ((F( ;AB8C(FD(( ( ( ( ( ( ( *G((wh<17EH6( >6?@( AB8C((( %B6(3EA(2??6I9C8@56(I87C(CB8C(CB616(1C?97C9?61(8HH68?(23(7EJH?6B6312E3(83K(H?EK97C2E3(23(CB6(87L9212C2E3(EI(8(A2K6(583498461(83K(87?E11(J83M(N.<N*( 63>2?E3J63C1( 1BEA1( CB8C( CB6( 6O21C6376( EI( spontaneous( I68C9?61( EI(4?8JJ8?( P( 6>63( CBE16( IE93K( 23( 3E( 8K95C( 4?8JJ8?( P( 8?6( 2JHE?C83C(1C?83K1(23(95C2J8C65M(@925K234(8(@2E5E42785(JEK65(EI(58349846(8@252CMG(((((Bibliography (#@K95Q8?2JR(NG(*SS.G(Complex Wh-Questions and Universal Grammars:

New Evidence from the Acquisition of Negative BarriersG($BGTG(K211GR(U32>6?12CM(EI(V81187B916CC1R(#JB6?1CG(

#@K95Q8?2JR(NG(W(%G('E6H6?G( *SSXG(Y?EJ(932>6?185( CE( 58349846<1H672I27(4?8JJ8?1:( "EA( KE( 7B25K?63( 87L92?6( 6J@6KK6K( yes/no<L961C2E31( 23(&34521BZ(V1GR(U32>6?12CM(EI(V81187B916CC1R(#JB6?1CG(

[E\QE>2 R( ]G( *SSSG( ^EJ6C2J61( 23( ;^H67R!$DR( 1EJ6C2J61( 23( 12C9G( _3( 'G(V8?C23R(TG(V27B8651(W( `G(U?2846?6Q8( ,6K1G/R Step by Step:(Essays on Minimalist Syntax(in Honor of Howard LasnikG(!8J@?2K46R(V#:(V_%($?611R(aX<bbG((

!B634R(NGNG<^G(W(`G('EE?M7QG(*SSSG(N27631234(wh<23<12C9G(Syntax(XR(.<.cG(!BEJ1QMR( )G( *SSbG( =3( HB8161G( _3( 'G( Y?62K23R( !G$G( =C6?E( W( VGNG(d9@2e8??6C8(,6K1G/R(Foundational Issues in Linguistic Theory: Essays in Honor of Jean-Roger VergnaudG(!8J@?2K46R(V#:(V_%($?611R(.XX<.++G(

!?823R(^G(W('G(%BE?3CE3G(.ccbG( Investigations in Universal Grammar. A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and SemanticsG(!8J@?2K46R(V#:(V_%($?611G((

!E56R($G(W(fG("6?JE3G(.cc-G( _1( CB6?6(NY(JE>6J63CZ(Linguistic Inquiry(*aR(*Xc<*+*G(

T8M85R( gG( *SSSG( ^7EH6( J8?Q234:( !?E11<5234921C27( >8?28C2E3( 23( 23K2?67C(K6H63K637MG( _3( UG( N9CeR( fG( Vh556?( W( #G( >E3( ^C67BEA( ,6K1G/R( iB-Scope MarkingG(#J1C6?K8J:(`EB3([63j8J231R(.ak<.cXG(

K6g25526?1R( `GR( %G( 'E6H6?(W(#G(g8232QQ8G( .ccSG( %B6( 87L9212C2E3( EI( 5E34<

"=i(#!lU_^_%_=)('&g&#N^(V_)_V#N_^%(^mVV&%'m(

(

*k(

K21C83761( ?9561G( _3( NG( Y?8e26?( W( `G( T6( g25526?1( ,6K1G/R( Language Processing and Language AcquisitionG(TE?K?67BC:(n59A6?R(*ak<*ckG(

K6g25526?1R(`GR(%G('E6H6?R(NG([583K<^C6A8?C(W([G($68?1E3G(*SSbG(#31A6?234(B8?K( L961C2E31:( (iB<JE>6J63C( 87?E11( K28567C1( 83K( K21E?K6?G(Applied Psycholinguistics(*cR(+ko.SXG(

K6g25526?1R(`GR($G(K6g25526?1(W(%G('E6H6?G(%E(8HH68?G(Wh<L961C2E31:(VE>234(@6ME3K(CB6(I2?1C(HB816G(LinguaG(

Y83165EAR(fG(*SS+G($8?C285(JE>6J63CG(_3(VG(&>6?86?C(W("G(>83('26J1K2jQ(,6K1G/R( The Blackwell Companion to SyntaxR( >E5G( ___G( =OIE?K:([587QA655R(-Xk<-c*G(

Y83165EAR(fG(W(#G(V8B8j83G( *SSSG(%EA8?K1( 8(J232J8521C( CB6E?M( EI(wh<6OH56C2>61R(wh<7EHM234(83K(19776112>6(7M75272CMG(_3(UG(N9CeR(fG(Vh556?(W(#G(>E3(^C67BEA(,6K1G/R(iB-Scope MarkingG(

Y6516?R( !G( *SS-G( iB<7EHM234R( HB8161R( 83K( 19776112>6( 7M75272CMG( Lingua(..-R(a-X<ak-G(

f9C26??6eR( VG`G( *SSkG( The Acquisition of English LD iB-Questions by Basque/Spanish Bilingual Subjects in a School ContextG( $BGTG( K211GR(U32>6?12CM(EI(CB6([81L96(!E93C?MR(g2CE?28<f81C62eG((

"6?@9?46?R( &G( .cc-G(#( 16J83C27( K2II6?6376( @6CA663( I955( 83K( H8?C285(wh<JE>6J63CG($8H6?(H?6163C6K(8C(CB6(1994 LSA Annual MeetingR([E1CE3G(

"62eJ833R( %G( *SS+G( !B25K?63p1( 87L9212C2E3( EI( 6OB891C2>2CM( 23( 756IC1G(Proceedings of the 31st BUCLD,(!8178K2558($?611:(*cb<XScG(

`8Q9@EA27eR(!G(*SS-G( _1(JE>6J63C( 7E1C5MZ($8H6?(H?6163C6K( 8C(JEL 2004 (Journées d’Etudes Linguistiques)R(U32>6?12CM(EI()83C61G(

nE1C6?R( `G( *SSXG(#55( 583498461( 8?6( C6316( 167E3KG( _3( `G( nE1C6?(W("G( >83('26J1K2jQ(,6K1G/R(Germania et Alia: A Linguistic Webschrift for Hans den BestenG(;BCCH:qqEK9?G56CG?94G35qrQE1C6?qT63[61C63q7E3C63C1GBCJD(

N8B2?2R( UG( *SS*G( =3( CB6( H?EH6?( C?68CJ63C( EI( s6OH56C2>6( whp( 23( "23K2G(Lingua(..*R(aS.<a-SG(

V7T83265R(TG(.cbcG($8?C285(83K(J95C2H56(wh<JE>6J63CG(Natural Language & Linguistic Theory kR(a+a<+S-G(

V8CB269R( &G( .cccG( Y?637B( wh<23( 12C9( 83K( CB6( 23C6?>63C2E3( 6II67CG( UCL Working Papers in Linguistics ..R(--.<-k*G(

V9?29342R($GnG(*SS-G(Wh<JE>6J63C( 23(n2CB8?8Q8(81(IE791(JE>6J63CG(_3(Proceedings of the Workshop on the Syntax, Semantics and Pragmatics of Questions (ESSLLI 16)R(c<.+G(

=2?MR(VG(*SS*G(Acquisition des questions à longue distanceG(V81C6?(CB6121G((U32>6?12CM(EI()83C61R(Y?8376G(

=2?MR(VG(W("G(T6J2?K87B6G( *SS+G(&>2K6376( I?EJ(N.( 87L9212C2E3( IE?( CB6(1M3C8O(EI(wh<17EH6(J8?Q234( 23(Y?637BG( _3( , NG(&17E@8?(W(gG(%E??631(,6K1G/R( The Acquisition of the Syntax of Romance LanguagesG(

!"#$%&'( )&(*b(

#J1C6?K8J:(`EB3([63j8J231R(*bc<X.aG((=2?MR(VG(*SSbG(Acquisition of Long-Distance Questions by French(native

speaker. Direct vs. Indirect strategies and alternative questionsG($BT(T2116?C8C2E3G(U32>6?12CM(EI()83C61R(Y?8376G(

$616C1QMR(TG(.cbkG(Wh( 23( 12C9:(VE>6J63C(83K(9316567C2>6(@23K234G( _3(&G('69583K( W( #G( C6?( V69563( ,6K1G/R( The Representation of (In)definitenessG(!8J@?2K46R(V#:(V_%($?611G(cb<.*cG(

'2ee2R(NG(*SS+G(=3(CB6(IE?J(EI(7B8231:(!?2C6?285(HE12C2E31(83K(&!$(6II67C1G(_3( NGNG<^G( !B634( W( )G( !E?>6?( ,6K1G/R( iB-Movement Moving OnG(!8J@?2K46R(V#:(V_%($?611R(ck<.X-G((

'E6H6?R(%G(.cb*G(%B6(?E56(EI(932>6?1851(23(CB6(87L9212C2E3(EI(46?93K1G(_3(NG(f562CJ83(W(&G(i8336?(,6K1G/R(Language Acquisition: The State of the ArtG(!8J@?2K46:(!8J@?2K46(U32>6?12CM($?611R(*+k<*bkG(

'E6H6?R(%G(.cccG(U32>6?185(@2<523498521JG(Bilingualism(*R(.+c<.b+G('E6H6?R( %G( *SSkG( The Prism of Grammar: How Child Language

Illuminates HumanismG(!8J@?2K46R(V#:(V_%($?611G(^8KKMR( TG( .cc.G( iB<17EH6( J67B8321J1( 23( [8B818( _3KE36128G( MIT

Working Papers in Linguistics .aR(.bX<*.bG(^6MJE9?R("GR(%G('E6H6?(W( `G( K6g25526?1G( *SSaG(Diagnostic Evaluation of

Language VariationG( $1M7BE5E42785( !E?HE?8C2E3( K2>212E3( EI( "8?7E9?C(^83(#3CE32ER(%6O81G(;!EHM?24BC(%$!R(*SSSD(

^7B95eR( [G( *SS-G( #( J232J8521C( 877E93C( EI( H8?C285( wh<JE>6J63CG( _3( NG(!58?2CE( W( %G( V7n8J6M( ,6K1G/R( Proceedings 2004: Selected Papers from the Eighth College-wide Conference for Students in Languages, Linguistics, and LiteratureG("E3E5959R("_:(U32>6?12CM(EI("8A822($?611G(

^C?2QR()G(*SSXG(=t(C9(81(787Bu(CE3(187Z(l9p61C<76(L96(C9(H63161(L96(j6(521Z(#7L9212C2E3(K61(L961C2E31(wh<(7B6e(561(63I83C1(I?837EHBE361(K6(X(v(+(831G(VG#G(CB6121R(U32>6?12CM(EI($8?21(bG((

%BE?3CE3R('G(.ccSG(Adventures in Long-Distance Moving: The Acquisition of Complex iB-QuestionsG($BGTG(K211GR(U32>6?12CM(EI(!E3367C279CR(^CE??1G((

i8Q8@8M87B2R( ^G(W( _G(=Q8A8?8G( *SSXG( `8H83616( 568?36?1p( 6??E?1( E3( 5E34(K21C8376( wh<L961C2E31G( _3( ^G( i8Q8@8M87B2( ,6KG/R( Generative Approaches to the Acquisition of English by Native Speakers of JapaneseG([6?523:(VE9CE3(K6(f?9MC6?R(*.a<*-aG(

i621163@E?3R( `GR( `G( K6g25526?1(W(%G('E6H6?G( .ccaG(Wh<I68C9?61( 23(Y?637B(83K( f6?J83:( !E3367C2E31( @6CA663( 7816R( wh<I68C9?61R( 83K( 932L96(C?2446?1G(Recherches Linguistiques *-R(.*a<.akG(

m834R(!G( *SSSG(Knowledge and Learning in Natural LanguageG(=OIE?K:(=OIE?K(U32>6?12CM($?611G(

m2HR(gG(W(^G(V8CCB6A1G(*SS.G(Intermediate Cantonese: A Grammar and a WorkbookG(NE3KE3:('E9C56K46G(