Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
  1. Home
  2. Browse subjects
  3. Language and Linguistics
  4. Content listing

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

101325 results in Language and Linguistics

Page 681 of 5067

  • Archibald A. Hill

  • Robert D. King
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 70 / Issue 1 / March 1994
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 February 2026, pp. 132-140
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • LAN volume 85 issue 2 Cover and Back matter

  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 85 / Issue 2 / June 2009
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 February 2026, pp. b1-b12
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • How Children’s Relatives Solve a Problem for Minimalism

  • Dana McDaniel, Cecile McKee, Judy B. Bernstein
  • Journal:
    Language / Volume 74 / Issue 2 / June 1998
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    19 February 2026, pp. 308-334

  • Current work in syntax reexamines basic properties of movement. Under the minimalist assumptions of Chomsky (1995), movement is prohibited unless forced by grammatical considerations. From a set of comparable derivations, the one involving the least amount of moved material should therefore block other derivations. Within this framework, any cases of optional movement are problematic. We addressed this issue with experiments on stranding and pied-piping in relative clauses in 115 English learners, aged 3;5 to 11;11, and an adult control group. All subjects participated in an elicited production experiment and a grammaticality judgment experiment. Our findings suggest that pied-piping is possible in young children’s grammars only when stranding is ruled out, as predicted by minimalism. We claim the children’s responses represent the ‘natural’ grammar while the adults’ responses reflect a prescriptive artifact. We also found a discrepancy in all subject groups between production and judgments of the genitive pied-piping construction. We account for this finding with Kayne’s (1994) analysis of relative clauses.

Page 681 of 5067