Radford A
University of Essex.
J Child Lang. 1994 Feb;21(1):211-36. doi: 10.1017/s0305000900008722.
The purpose of this article is to provide a contemporary Government-and-Binding (GB) reinterpretation and evaluation of Klima & Bellugi's classic 1966 work on the acquisition of interrogatives. I argue that the central insight of K&B's paper can be captured by positing that wh-questions in Child English involve a wh-pronoun positioned in the head complementizer (C) position within the Complementizer Phrase (CP) (so blocking auxiliary inversion if this involves positioning an inverted auxiliary in C) and that in the transition to Adult English, children come to learn that wh-questions involve a wh-phrase superficially positioned in the specifier position within CP. I argue that the wh-in-C analysis poses both developmental problems (in that it fails to account for child structures involving a preposed wh-phrase with an uninverted auxiliary) and potential theoretical problems (in that long movement of a wh-head may violate locality principles). I then consider two alternative accounts of wh-questions which posit that wh-movement involves movement of a wh-phrase from the very earliest stages of development. The first of these is an adjunction account, on which wh-phrases are analysed as clausal adjuncts in Child English (adjoined to the Verb Phrase (VP) in the earliest stages and to the Inflection Phrase (IP) in later stages). I note, however, that this provides no principled account of the absence of auxiliary inversion in child wh-questions, and poses continuity problems (especially within a framework such as that of Cinque (1990) in which it is assumed that wh-phrases never adjoin to VP or IP). Finally, I consider an alternative account on which initial wh-phrases are analysed as occupying the specifier position within CP at all stages of development. I note that the problem posed by this analysis is accounting for the absence of auxiliary inversion in early wh-questions, and offer an account which posits that children overgeneralize specifier-head agreement from IP to CP.
本文旨在对克利马(Klima)和贝鲁吉(Bellugi)1966年关于疑问句习得的经典著作进行当代政府约束理论(GB)的重新阐释与评估。我认为,克利马和贝鲁吉论文的核心观点可以通过假定儿童英语中的特殊疑问句涉及一个位于补语短语(CP)的中心补语化成分(C)位置的疑问代词来体现(这样如果助动词倒装涉及将倒装的助动词置于C位置,就会阻止其倒装),并且在向成人英语过渡的过程中,儿童逐渐认识到特殊疑问句涉及一个表面上位于CP指示语位置的疑问短语。我认为,疑问代词在C位置的分析既存在发展性问题(因为它无法解释涉及前置疑问短语且助动词未倒装的儿童结构),也存在潜在的理论问题(因为疑问代词的长距离移动可能违反局部性原则)。然后,我考虑了关于特殊疑问句的两种替代解释,它们假定疑问移动从发展的最初阶段就涉及疑问短语的移动。第一种是附加解释,根据这种解释,疑问短语在儿童英语中被分析为从句附加语(在最初阶段附加到动词短语(VP),在后期附加到屈折短语(IP))。然而,我指出,这无法对儿童特殊疑问句中助动词不倒装的现象提供原则性解释,并且存在连续性问题(特别是在像辛克莱(Cinque,1990)那样假定疑问短语从不附加到VP或IP的框架内)。最后,我考虑了另一种解释,根据这种解释,初始疑问短语在发展的所有阶段都被分析为占据CP的指示语位置。我指出,这种分析带来的问题是解释早期特殊疑问句中助动词不倒装的现象,并提出一种解释,假定儿童将指示语 - 中心语一致从IP过度概括到CP。