Hostname: page-component-5f7774ffb-625c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-02-20T05:08:58.708Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How Children’s Relatives Solve a Problem for Minimalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Dana McDaniel ,
Cecile McKee  and
Judy B. Bernstein
Dana McDaniel*
Affiliation:
University of Southern Maine
Cecile McKee
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
Judy B. Bernstein
Affiliation:
University of Southern Maine
*
Dana McDaniel, Linguistics, University of Southern Maine, Portland, ME 04104 [rxa364@usm.maine.edu]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 74 , Issue 2 , June 1998 , pp. 308 - 334
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Linguistic Society of America

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abney, Steven. 1987. The English noun phrase in its sentential aspect. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Bernstein, Judy B., McDaniel, Dana; and McKee, Cecile. 1998. Resumptive pronoun strategies in English-speaking children. Proceedings of the twenty-second annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 58–68. Somerville, MA: Cas- cadilla Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1977. On wh-movement. Formal syntax, ed. by Culicover, Peter, Wasow, Thomas, and Akmajian, Adrian, 71–132. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cowart, Wayne. 1997. Experimental syntax: Applying objective methods to sentence judgments. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen, McKee, Cecile; and Emiliani, Maria. 1990. Visiting relatives in Italy. In Frazier and de Villiers, 335–56.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1986. Grammatically deviant prestige constructions. Festschrift for Sol Saporta, ed. by Brame, Michael, Contreras, Heles, and Newmeyer, Frederick, 93–129. Seattle: Noit Amrofer.Google Scholar
Ferreiro, Emilia, Othenin-Girard, C., Chipman, Hastings; and Sinclair, Herminia. 1976. How do children handle relative clauses? A study in comparative developmental psycholinguistics. Archives de Psychologie XLV (3).229-66.Google Scholar
Frazier, Lyn, and Villiers, Jill de (eds.) 1990. Language processing and language acquisition. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, Margot. 1984. Markedness and the acquisition of pied-piping and preposition stranding. McGill Working Papers 2. 131–44.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen. 1978. Linguistic principles in children’s grammar of complement subject interpretation. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen, and Stojanovic, Danijela. 1997. The structure and acquisition of relative clauses in Serbo-Croatian. Language Acquisition 5. 285–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stojanovic, Danijela, and Tavakolian, Susan. 1982. Competence and processing in children’s grammar of relative clauses. Cognition 11. 1–27.Google Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa, and Shlonsky, Ur. 1995. The acquisition of French relative clauses reconsidered. Language Acquisition 4. 257–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, Henry. 1980. A deletion ahead of its time. Cognition 8. 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamburger, Henry, and Crain, Stephen. 1982. Relative acquisition. Language development, vol. 1: Syntax and semantics, ed. by Kuczaj, Stan A., 245–74. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Hildebrand, Joyce. 1987. The acquisition of preposition stranding. Canadian Journal of Linguistics 32. 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyams, Nina. 1983. The acquisition of parameterized grammars. New York: City University of New York dissertation.Google Scholar
Ingram, David. 1975. If and when transformations are acquired by children. Monograph Series on Language and Linguistics, Georgetown University 27. 99–127.Google Scholar
Käyne, Richard S. 1981. On certain differences between French and English. Linguistic Inquiry 12. 349–71.Google Scholar
Käyne, Richard S. 1994. The antisymmetry of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Klima, Edward S. 1964. Relatedness between grammatical systems. Language 40. 1–20.Google Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1990. Predication, WH-movement, and the development of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 1. 95–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Labelle, Marie. 1996. The acquisition of relative clauses: Movement or no movement? Language Acquisition 5. 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Legum, S. 1975. Strategies in the acquisition of relative clauses. Southwest Regional Laboratory Technical Note TN 2-75-10.Google Scholar
Leopold, W. F. 1949. Speech development in a bilingual child: A linguist’s record, vol. 4. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Limber, John. 1973. The genesis of complex sentences. Cognitive development and the acquisition of meaning, ed. by Moore, Timothy, 169–85. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Limber, John. 1976. Unraveling competence, performance, and pragmatics in the speech of young children. Journal of Child Language 3. 309–18.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, and Cairns, Helen S. 1996. Eliciting judgments of grammaticality and reference. Methods for assessing children’s syntax, ed. by McDaniel, Dana, McKee, Cecile, and Cairns, Helen S., 233–54. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, Helen S., Chiu, Bonnie; and Maxfield, Thomas L. 1995. Parameters for wh-movement types: Evidence from child language. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 13. 709–53.Google Scholar
Maxfield, Thomas L., and Maxfield, Thomas L. 1992. Principle B and contrastive stress. Language Acquisition 2. 337–58.Google Scholar
McKee, Cecile, McDaniel, Dana; and Snedeker, Jesse. 1998. Relatives children say. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, to appear.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, Georgette. 1996. Pied-piping and stranding in children’s indirect questions. Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine undergraduate senior thesis.Google Scholar
Menyuk, Paula. 1969. Sentences children use. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa. 1993. Empty categories and the acquisition of WH-movement. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Pérez-Leroux, Ana Teresa. 1995. Resumptives in the acquisition of relative clauses. Language Acquisition 4. 105–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radford, Andrew. 1997. Syntactic theory and the structure of English: A minimalist approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sheldon, Amy. 1974. The parallel function in the acquisition of relative clauses in English. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13. 272–81.Google Scholar
Sobin, Nicholas. 1997. Agreement, default rules, and grammatical viruses. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 318–43.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence, and Roeper, Thomas. 1978. Children’s use of syntactic structure in interpreting relative clauses. Papers in the structure and development of child language, ed. by Goodluck, Helen and Solan, Lawrence, 107–26. University of Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistic 4. Amherst, MA: Graduate Linguistic Student Association.Google Scholar
Tavákolian, Susan. 1977. Structural principles in the acquisition of complex sentences. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts dissertation.Google Scholar
Valían, Virginia. 1990. Logical and psychological constraints on the acquisition of syntax. In Frazier and de Villiers, 119–45.Google Scholar
Vergnaud, Jean-Roger. 1974. French relative clauses. Cambridge, MA: MIT dissertation.Google Scholar