The grammatical acquisition of wh-questions in early - Nottingham

330 Pages·2010·12.97 MB·English

The grammatical acquisition ofwh-questions in early
English multi-word speech
Caroline Rowland
"The weakest argument of all is the notion that if we cannot think
of a way to teach something, it must not be learned or learnable"
Ervin-Tripp (1971)
Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy, October 2000
CONTENTS
SECTION 1: REVIEW Page
~o.
Chapter 1: Theories of grammatical development 2
Chapter 2: A review ofwh-question acquisition literature 31
SECTION 2: METHOD AND ANALYSES Page No.
Chapter 3. Method 52
Chapter 4. Describing the data 66
Chapter 5. Radford's small clause hypothesis 117
Chapter 6. Valian's performance limitations theory 152
Chapter 7. Lexical constructivism 184
SECTION 3: FINAL DISCUSSION Page No.
Chapter 8 Discussion 229
REFERENCES 249
268
APPENDICES
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page No.
Table 3.1 MLU and age of the 12 children at the start 54
and end of the study
Table 3.2 Number of tapes, age and MLU range for each 61
child divided according to Brown's stages of
development (Brown, 1973)
Table 4.1 Mean number ofwh-types in each wb-context 79
Table 4.2 Mean number of utterances produced in each 81
wh-context (by datapoint)
Table 4.3 Mean number of different wh-words used in 83
each wh-context
Table 4.4 Summary of progression ofwh-word 85
acquisition
Table 4.5 Order of acquisition of auxiliaries by 88
datapoint
Table 4.6 Mean number ofwh-questions of each 92
question type - correct use and errors
Table 4.7 Number ofwh-question words that occurred 96
with inverted and uninverted auxiliaries
Number Title Page
~o.
Table 4.8 Total number of auxiliaries that occur 97
inverted and/or uninverted during the
uninversion period
Table 4.9 Total number.ofwh-contexts produced by 100
each child
Table 4.10 Order of acquisition ofwh-words in object wh- 101
questions by datapoint
Table 4.11 Order of acquisition ofwh-words in single wh- 102
word contexts by datapoint
Table 4.12 Order of acquisition of wh-words in su bject 103
wh-questions by datapoint
Table 4.13 Order of acquisition ofwh-words in embedded 104
wh-phrases by datapoint
Table 4.14 Order of acquisition of auxiliary lexemes 106
Table 4.15 Order of acquisition of correct wh-questions 108
and errors
Table 5.1 Types ofwh-questions and their lexical and 134
functional explanations
Table 5.2 Total number of correct wh-questions and 142
different types of errors at stages 1 (lexical
stage), 2 and 3 (functional stages)
Number Title Page :\0.
Table 6.1 First transcript used for the auxiliary omission 170
analysis
Table 6.2 Percentage presence in obligatory context of 171
copula be, auxiliary have and auxiliary be
Table 6.3 Percentage presence in obligatory contexts of 173
copula is/are, auxiliary havelhas and auxiliary
is/are
Table 6.4 Number ofwh-words that occur with inverted 176
and uninverted auxiliaries and percent
proportion of the total number of times each
'wh-word occurred with either form
Table 6.S Total number of wh-word+lexical auxiliary 177
combinations (what, where, how, why, which)
that occur inverted and/or uninverted
Table 7.1 Number of productive combinations produced 205
by each child and number and % of the total
number ofwh-question types that these
combinations account for
Table 7.2 Number ofwh-question types produced with 206
what's and where's and percent of the total
number ofwh-question types accounted for by
what's and where's
Number Title Page No.
Table 7.3 Table 7.3. The number of combinations, the 208
number of productive combinations and the
percentage of total wh-question data
accounted for by the productive combinations
- mothers and children
Table 7.4 Number of what's and where's and percentage 211
of the total number ofwh-question types
accounted for by what's and where's for
mother and child data
Table 7.5 Mean input frequency of the 'learnt' and 'not 215
learnt' combinations
Table 7.6 Total number wh-word+auxiliary 217
combinations that occur inverted and/or
uninverted and their frequency in the input
sample
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title Page No.
Figure 2.1 Surface structure template for the object wh 39
question what should I bring?
Figure 4.1 Percentage ofwh-questions with inverted, 95
uninverted and missing auxiliaries as a
proportion of the total number ofwh-questions
produced
Figure 5.1 Percentage ofwh-questions that fit into original 144
lexical and functional categories at stages 1, 2
and 3.
Figure 5.2 Percentage ofwh-questions that fit into 145
modified lexical and functional categories at
stages 1, 2 and 3
Figure 6.1 Deep structure template for the sentence she is 157
a girl
Figure 6.2 Deep structure template for the sentence she be 157
. .
swlmnung
Figure 6.3 Deep structure template for the sentence she 157
. .
sWimming
LIST OF APPENDICIES
Number Title Page No.
Appendix A MLU of each child by transcript 268
Appendix B Screening Procedure Forms 270
Appendix C Progress Monitoring Forms 293
Appendix D Wh-context analysis - data for individual 301
children
Appendix E Wh-word order of acquisition analysis using 305
rd
3 use criterion - data for individual children
Appendix F Object wh-questions with auxiliaries produced 308
by children at datapoint 1
Appendix G Un inversion errors produced by the 12 309
children
Appendix H Order of acquisition of auxiliary lexemes using 310
rd
3 use criterion
Appendix I Number of correct wh-questions and errors 311
produced at each stage of development
314
Appendix J Number ofwh-questions that occur with
present and omitted copula be, is and are,
auxiliary have (category), has and have
(Iexeme) and auxilia~' be, is and are
Number Title Page 1\ o.
Appendix K Name and number of productive wh 315
word+auxiliary combinations and percentage
of the total number ofwh-questions they
account for
Appendix L Frequency in the mother ofwb 3I~
word+auxiliary combinations (with be and
have only) that were learnt and not learnt b)7
the children
Acknowledgements
There are many people to whom is owed a great debt of gratitude. My
husband, parents and mother-in-law for supporting me as well as providing
valuable advice on first drafts. Lauren and Amy, whose language
development throughout the past six years has provided constant delight and a
few nasty surprises. Friends and colleagues at both Nottingham and Derby
Universities who provided help and advice, tea and sympathy. Elena Lieven,
my undergraduate supervisor and now collaborator who first stimulated my
interest in language development and Anna Theakston. my invaluable 'other
half in Manchester. The twelve mothers and children who allowed us into
their homes to share part of their lives for a year. And [mally, Julian Pine for
the hours and hours he has spent correcting, arguing, listening and
encouragmg.
The data collection, transcription and morphological coding presented in this
work was conducted while the author 'was employed as a Research Associate
on ESRC Grant Number R000236393.