This paper reports the results of an elicited production task of Long Distance (LD) wh-questions conducted with typically developing French- and Dutch-speaking children aged four and six, and adult control groups for each language. It is shown that besides input-convergent wh-questions, in both languages children use nontarget strategies to express scope. While in both French and Dutch children produce Partial Movement and wh-copying questions, only French children use Partial Movement without an overt scope-marker in the left periphery of the matrix clause. We argue that our results are consistent with the Derivational Complexity hypothesis put forward by Jakubowicz (2004, 2005). Moreover our results confirm that parametric choices regarding the position of both the wh-word and the verb in the sentence are already set at the ages considered here.
Bayer, J. (1996), Directionality and logical form: On the scope of focusing particles and wh-in-situ. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
2.
Belletti, A. (2006). Clefts and wh in-situ: Some notes. Presentation Lisbon COST-Meeting, Workshop on wh.
3.
Berwick, R., & Weinberg, A. (1984). Grammars and models of language use. The grammatical basis of linguistic performance. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
4.
Bloom, P. (1990). Subjectless sentences in child language. Linguistic Inquiry, 21, 491-504.
5.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
Brown, R., & Hanlon, C. (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: Wiley.
7.
Bruening, B. (2006). Differences between wh-Scope-Marking and wh-Copy Constructions in Passamaquoddy. Linguistic Inquiry, 37, 25-49.
8.
Cheng, L. (1997). On the typology of wh-questions. New York and London: Garland Publishing, Inc. Cheng, L., & Rooryck, J. (2000). Licensing wh-in-situ . Syntax, 3(1), 1-19.
9.
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Den Haag : Mouton.
10.
Chomsky, N. (1995). Bare phrase structure. In G. Webelhuth (Ed.), Government and binding theory and the minimalist program (pp.385-439).Oxford, Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
11.
Chomsky, N. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale, a life in language (pp. 1 -52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
12.
Chomsky, N. (2005a). Three factors in language design. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 1-22. Chomsky, N. (2005b). On phases. Ms., MIT. Cambridge , Mass.
13.
Crain, S., & Thornton, R. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar, A guide to experiments on the acquisition of syntax and semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
14.
Dayal, V. (1994). Scope marking as indirect wh-dependency. Natural language semantics, 2,137-170.
15.
Dayal, V. (2000). Scope marking: Cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In U. Lutz, G. Müller & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp.195-230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
16.
De Villiers, J., Roeper, T., & Vainikka, A. (1990). The acquisition of long-distance rules. In L. Frazier & J. deVilliers (Eds.), Language processing and language acquisition (pp.257-297). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
17.
Evers, A. (1981). Two functional principles to "Move V." In W. Abraham (Ed.), Groninger Arbeiten zurGermanistischen Linguistiek (GAGL), 19, 96-110. Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
18.
Dos Anjos, C., (2004). L'acquisition des questions à longue distance chez des enfants normaux et chez des enfants atteints de Dysphasie de Développement. Quel rôle la théorie de l'esprit joue-t-elle?. Mémoire de maîtrise. Université Paris 5, Boulogne-Billancourt .
19.
Fanselow, G. (2006). Partial movement. In M. Everaert & H. van Riemsdijk (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to syntax, Vol.III (pp. 437 - 492). Malden/Oxford/ Carlton: Blackwell Publishing.
20.
Fanselow, G., & Cavar, D. (2001). Remarks on the economy of pronunciation. In G. Mueller & W. Sternefeld (Eds.), Competition in syntax (pp. 107-150). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
21.
Fanselow, G., & Mahajan, A. (2000). Towards a minimalist theory of wh-expletives, wh-copying and successive cyclicity. In U. Lutz, G. Müller, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Wh-scope marking (pp. 195-230). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22.
Felser, C. (2004). Wh-copying, phases and successive cyclicity. Lingua, 114, 543-574.
23.
Gueron, J., & Hoekstra, T. (1988). T-chains and the constituent structure of auxiliaries . In A. Cardinaletti, G. Giusti, & G. Cinque (Eds.), Constituent structure (pp.35-100). Dordrecht : Foris.
24.
Gutierrez, J. (2006). Acquiring long distance wh-questions in L1 Spanish: A longitudinal investigation. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in romance languages (pp.251-287). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
25.
Hamann, C. (2006). Speculations about early syntax: The production of wh-questions by normally developing French children and French children with SLI. Catalan Journal of Linguistics, 5, 143-189.
26.
Hulk., A., & Zuckerman, S. (2000). The interaction between input and economy: Acquiring optionality in French wh-Questions. In S. C. Howell et al. (Eds.), BUCLD 24 Proceedings (pp.438-449). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
27.
Jakubowicz, C. (2002). Functional categories in (Ab)Normal language acquisition . In I. Lasser (Ed.), The process of language acquisition. Berlin: Peter Lang Verlag.
28.
Jakubowicz, C. (2003). Hypothèses psycholinguistiques sur la nature du déficit dysphasique. In Y. Brun & Ch.L. Gérard (Eds.), Les dysphasies . Paris: Masson.
29.
Jakubowicz, C. (2004). Is movement costly? The grammar and the processor in language acquisition. Presentation, JEL (Journée d'Etudes Linguistiques), Nantes.
30.
Jakubowicz, C. (2005). The language faculty: (Ab)Normal development and interface constraints. Presentation, GALA2005, Siena.
31.
Jakubowicz, C. (2007). Grammaire Universelle et Trouble Spécifique du Langage. In J. Bricmont & J. Franck (Eds.), Noam Chomsky (pp.164-175). Paris: Les Editions de l'Herne.
32.
Jakubowicz, C. (to appear). Measuring derivational complexity: New evidence from typically-developing and SLI learners of L1 French. In C. Jakubowicz & P. Schulz (Eds.), Specific Language Impairment (SLI) across languages: Properties, and possible loci. Special issue for Lingua.
33.
Jakubowicz, C., & Nash, L. (2001). Functional categories and syntactic operations in (Ab) Normal language acquisition. In Brain and Language , 77, 321-333.
34.
Kampen, J. van (1997). First steps in wh-movement. PhD, Universiteit Utrecht.
35.
Kampen, J. van, & Evers, A. (1995). How greedy is the child? Long distance movement in small steps. In M. Verrips & F. Wijnen (Eds.), ASCLD 3 Papers from the Dutch-German colloquium on Language Acquisition 1994 (pp.91-108). Amsterdam : Instituut voor Algemene Taalwetenschap.
36.
Kato, M. (2003). The interpretation and derivation of wh-in-situ constructions in Brazilian Portuguese. Presentation, UNICAMP .
37.
Lancien, S. (2003). Où crois-tu que j'ai caché le playmobil ? L'acquisition des questions à longue distance chez des enfants normaux et chez des enfants atteints de Dysphasie de Développement. Mémoire de maîtrise, LPE Université Paris 5, Boulogne-Billancourt.
38.
Lutz, U., Mueller, G., & von Stechow, A. (2000). Wh-scope marking. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
39.
Mac Whinney, B. (1991). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
40.
Marantz, A. (2005). Generative linguistics within the cognitive neuroscience of language. The Linguistice Review, 22, 429-445.
41.
Mathieu, E. (2004). The mapping of form and interpretation: The case of optional wh-movement in French. Lingua, 114, 1090 -1132.
42.
McDaniel, D. (1989). Partial and multiple wh-movement. Natural language and linguistic theory, 7, 565-604.
43.
McDaniel, D., Chiu, B., & Maxfield, T. (1995). Parameters for wh-movement types: Evidence from child English. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 13, 709-753.
44.
Newmeyer, F. (2003). "Interpretable" features and feature-driven A-bar movement. In C. Beyssade, O. Bonami, P. Cabredo-Hofherr , & F. Corblin (Eds.), Empirical issues in syntax and semantics. Paris : Presses Universitaires de Paris Sorbonne.
45.
Obenauer, H.-G. (1994). Aspects de la Syntaxe A-Barre, Effets d'Intervention et Mouvements des Quantifieurs. Thèse d'Etat, Université Paris8.
46.
Oiry, M. (2002). Acquisition des Questions à Longue Distance. Mémoire de maîtrise, Université de Nantes.
47.
Oiry, M., & Demirdache, H. (2006). Evidence from L1 acquisition for the syntax of wh - scope marking in French. In V. Torrens & L. Escobar (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax in romance languages (pp.289-315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
48.
Pesetsky, D., & Torrego, E. (2001). T-to-C movement: Causes and consequences. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 355 -426). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49.
Pierce, A. (1992). Language acquisition and syntactic theory: A comparative analysis of French and English child grammar. Dordrecht : Kluwer.
50.
Platzack, C. (1998). A visibility condition for the C-domain. Working papers in Scandinavian syntax, 61, 53-100. Lund : Department of Scandinavian Languages.
51.
Reinhart, T. (1998). Wh-In-Situ in the framework of the Minimalist Program. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 29-56.
52.
Riemsdijk, H. van (1982). Correspondence effects and the empty category principle. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature , 12. Tilburg : Tilburg University.
53.
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
54.
Rizzi, L. (2000). Remarks on early null subjects. In M. A. Friedemann & L. Rizzi (Eds.), The acquisition of syntax (pp.269-292). London: Longman.
55.
Rizzi, L. (2007). L'acquisition de la langue et de la faculté de langage. In J. Bricmont & J. Franck (Eds.), Noam Chomsky (pp. 147-157). Paris: Editions de l'Herne.
56.
Schippers, A. (2006a). Variation in the CP domain: Long-distance dependencies in the Dutch dialects. Unpublished ms., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
57.
Schippers, A. (2006b). Wie wat or waar. Unpublished ms., Rijksuniversiteit Groningen.
58.
Soares, C. (2003). The C-domain and the acquisition of European Portuguese: The case of wh-questions. Probus, 15(1), 147-176.
59.
Soares, C. (2006). La syntaxe de la périphérie gauche en portugais européen et son acquisition. Thèse de doctorat, Université Paris8.
60.
Strik, N. (2002). L'Acquisition de Questions Wh Objet et Sujet chez les Enfants Francophones Agés de 4 et de 5 ans, Mémoire de Maîtrise, Universiteit van Amsterdam and LPE, Université Paris 5, Boulogne-Billancourt.
61.
Strik, N. (2003). Où tu as caché ton sac? Qu'est-ce que tu penses que je lis? Acquisition des Questions Wh chez les Enfants Francophones de 3 à 6 Ans, Mémoire de DEA, Université Paris 8 and LPE, Université Paris 5, Boulogne-Billancourt .
62.
Strik, N. (2006). L'acquisition des phrases interrogatives chez les enfants francophones. Psychologie Française, 52, 27-39.
63.
Strik, N. (in progress). Syntaxe et acquisition des phrases interrogatives en français et en néer landais: une étude contrastive, PhD, Université Paris8.
64.
Stromswold, K. (1995). The acquisition of subject and object wh-questions . Language Acquisition, 4, 5-48.
65.
Thornton, R. (1990). Adventures in long distance moving: The acquisition of complex wh-questions. PhD, University of Connecticut .
66.
Zuckerman, S. (2001). The acquisition of "optional" movement. GroningenUniversity LibraryGroningen.
