This commentary on this special issue underscores the importance of experimental design, suggesting that less than optimal methodology can lead to errors on the part of children (and adults) that are sometimes interpreted as stemming from other sources, including processing limitations or problems with an ‘interface.’ Methodological remarks aside, the syntax–discourse interface stands out as problematic and the source of much debate about transfer between languages, yet to be resolved. Many of the articles in this issue make clear, however, that children’s hypotheses about language frequently fail to reflect the input and can be seen as reflecting options made available by Universal Grammar.
BaauwS.de RooE.AvrutinS. (2002). Determiner omission in language acquisition and language impairment: Syntactic and discourse factors. In SkarabelaB.FishS.DoA. H.-J. (Eds.), BUCLD Proceedings 26: Proceedings of the 26th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 24–35). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
2.
BeckerM. (2000). The development of the copula in child English: The lightness of be. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
3.
BittnerD.KuehnastM. (2012). Comprehension of intersentential pronouns in child German and child Bulgarian. First Language.
4.
BowermanM. (1988). The ‘no negative evidence’ problem: How do children avoid constructing an overly general grammar? In HawkinsJ. (Eds.), Explaining language universals (pp. 133–169). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
5.
ChienY.-C.WexlerK. (1990). Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.
6.
ChierchiaG. (1998). Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language Semantics, 6, 339–405.
7.
ChoiY.MazukaR. (2003). Young children’s use of prosody in sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 32, 197–217.
8.
CrainS.PietroskiP. (2001). Nature, nurture and universal grammar. Linguistics and Philosophy, 24, 139–186.
9.
CrainS.ThorntonR. (1998). Investigations in universal grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10.
De CatC. (2009). Experimental evidence for preschoolers’ mastery of ‘topic.’Language Acquisition, 16, 224–239.
11.
De CatC. (2012). Explaining children’s over-use of definites in partitive contexts. First Language.
12.
DemuthK.PatroliaM.SongJ. Y.MasapolloM. (2012). The development of articles in children’s early Spanish: Prosodic interactions between lexical and grammatical form. First Language.
13.
FodorJ. A. (1998). Concept: Where cognitive science went wrong. New York: Oxford University Press.
14.
FodorJ. A. (2000). In critical condition: Polemical essays on cognitive science and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
GiannakidouA. (in press). Positive polarity items and negative polarity items: Variation, licensing, and compositionality. In MaienbornC.von HeusingerK.PortnerP. (Eds.), Semantics: An international handbook of natural language meaning. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
16.
GrodzinskyY.ReinhartT. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69–101.
17.
GropenJ.PinkerS.HollanderM.GoldbergR. (1991). Affectedness and direct objects: The role of lexical semantics in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Cognition, 41, 153–195.
18.
GualminiA.MaciukaiteS.CrainS. (2002). Children’s insensitivity to contrastive stress in sentences with ‘only’. In ArunachalamS.KaiserE.WilliamsA. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 25th Penn Linguistics Colloquium (pp. 87–110). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.
19.
GuastiM. T. (2002). Language acquisition: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
GuastiM. T.GavarroA.de LangeJ.CaprinC. (2008). Article omission across child language. Language Acquisition, 15, 89–119.
21.
HalbertA.CrainS.ShankweilerD.WoodamsE. (1995). Children’s interpretive use of emphatic stress. Poster presented at the 8th Annual CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing, Tucson, AZ.
22.
HyamsN. (2007). Aspectual effects on interpretation in early grammar. Language Acquisition, 14, 231–268.
23.
HyamsN. (2012). Eventivity effects in early grammar: The case of non-finite verbs. First Language.
24.
Karmiloff-SmithA. (1979). A functional approach to child language: A study of determiners and reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
LarrañagaP.Guijarro-FuentesP. (2012). Clitics in L1 bilingual acquisition. First Language.
26.
LegateJ. A.YangC. (2007). Morphosyntactic learning and the development of tense. Language Acquisition, 14, 315–344.
27.
LeveltC. C.SchillerN. O.LeveltW. J. M. (2000). The acquisition of syllable types. Language Acquisition, 8, 237–264.
28.
LevinB. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
LicerasJ.Fernández FuertesR.de la FuenteA. (2012). Overt subjects and copula omission in the Spanish and the English grammar of English–Spanish bilinguals: On the locus and directionality of interlinguistic influence. First Language.
30.
LinJ.-W. (2003). Temporal reference in Mandarin Chinese. Journal of East Asian Linguistics, 12, 259–311.
31.
MaratsosM. (1974). Preschool children’s use of definite and indefinite articles. Child Development, 45, 446–455.
32.
MüllerN.HulkA. (2001). Crosslinguistic influence in bilingual language acquisition: Italian and French as recipient languages. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 4, 1–21.
33.
ParadisJ.NavarroS. (2003). Subject realization and crosslinguistic interference in the bilingual acquisition of Spanish and English: What is the role of the input?Journal of Child Language, 30, 371–393.
34.
PinkerS. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35.
ReinhartT. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. Beckenham and Sydney: Croon Helm.
36.
ReinhartT. (2006). Interface strategies: Optimal and costly computations. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
37.
SchaferR.de VilliersJ. (2000). Imagining articles: What a and the can tell us about the emergence of DP. In HowellS. C.FishS.Keith-LucasT. (Eds.), Proceedings of BUCLD 24 Proceedings of the 24th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development (pp. 609–620). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
38.
SchmitzK.PatutoM.MüllerN. (2012). The null-subject parameter at the interface between syntax and pragmatics: Evidence from bilingual German–Italian, German–French and Italian–French children. First Language.
39.
SekerinaI.TrueswellJ. (2012). Interactive processing of contrastive expressions by Russian children. First Language.
40.
SnedekerJ.TrueswellJ. C. (2001). Unheeded cues: Prosody and syntactic ambiguity in mother–child communication. Paper presented at the 26th Boston University Conference on Language Development, November.
41.
SnedekerJ.YuanS. (2008). Effects of prosodic and lexical constraints on parsing in young children (and adults). Journal of Memory and Language, 58, 574–608.
42.
SongJ.Y.SundaraM.DemuthK. (2009). Phonological constraints on children’s production of English third person singular -s. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 52, 623–642.
43.
SoraceA.SerratriceL.FiliaciF.BaldoM. (2009). Discourse conditions on subject pronoun realization: Testing the linguistic intuitions of older bilingual children. Lingua, 119, 460–477.
44.
StringerD. (2012). The lexical interface in L1 acquisition: What children have to say about radical concept nativism. First Language.
45.
ThorntonR. (1999). VP ellipsis: Infinitives not an option. Paper presented at Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition, 1999, Potsdam, Germany, September.
46.
WexlerK. (1994). Optional infinitives, verb movement and the economy of derivation in child grammar. In LightfootD.HornsteinN. (Eds.), Verb movement (pp. 305–350). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
WexlerK. (1998). Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua, 106, 23–79.
48.
ZdorenkoT.ParadisJ. (2012). When L1 and L2 acquisition meet at the interface. First Language.
49.
ZhouP.CrainS. (2010). Children’s use of phonological information in ambiguity resolution: A view from Mandarin Chinese. Ms., Macquarie University, Sydney.
