Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:08:23.290Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nominal Analysis of Children's Interpretations of Adjunct Pro Clauses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2026

Helen Goodluck
Helen Goodluck*
Affiliation:
University of Ottawa
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The hypothesis that children's errors in interpreting adjunct PRO clauses are due to their use of a nominal structure was tested in two act-out experiments. Four- to six-year-old English-speaking children permitted a by phrase inside an adjunct clause containing an intransitive verb to be interpreted as agentive, and they gave such an interpretation for a construction for which a nominal analysis is not permitted in the adult grammar (when PRO clauses). This behavior can be accounted for if children have knowledge of general principles governing the interpretation of nominal and PRO constructions, and use a nominal analysis in interpreting adjunct clauses. In the second experiment, children distinguish between constructions that are unambiguously nominal and those that are ambiguous between a nominal and PRO structure, permitting agentive readings of by more frequently in the former case. This argues that adjunct PRO may be acquired by some children at a point during the preschool years. Overall the results fit a view of acquisition in which the language learner actively analyzes the input data, using knowledge of general grammatical principles, and is not narrowly bound by his or her current knowledge of the lexicon of the language.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 77 , Issue 3 , September 2001, pp. 494 - 509
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 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

Broihier, Kevin, and Wexler, Ken. 1995. Children's acquisition of control in temporal adjuncts. Papers on language acquisition and processing, ed. by Schütze, Carson, Ganger, Jennifer and Broihier, Kevin, 193–220. MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26.Google Scholar
Cardinaletti, Anna. 1997. Agreement and expletive constructions. Linguistic Inquiry 28. 521–33.Google Scholar
Carlson, Greg N. 1990. Intuitions, category and structure: Comments on McDaniel and Cairns. Language processing and language acquisition, ed. by Frazier, Lyn and Villiers, Jill de, 327–33. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cairns, Helen Smith, McDaniel, Dana, Hsu, Jennifer Ryan; and Rapp, Michelle. 1994. A longitudinal study of principles of control and pronominal reference in child English. Language 70. 260–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Declerk, Renaat. 1997. When-clauses and temporal structure. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dubinsky, Stanley, and Williams, Kemp. 1995. Recategorization of prepositions as complementizers: The case of temporal prepositions in English. Linguistic Inquiry 26. 125–37.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1985. A unified theory of syntactic categories. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Danny, and Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1998. Children's passive: A view from the by-phrase. Linguistic Inquiry 29. 311–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, Helen. 1981. Children's grammar of complement subject interpretation. Language acquisition and linguistic theory, ed. by Tavakolian, Susan, 139–66. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen. 1987. Children's interpretation of pronouns and null NPs. In Barbara Lust (ed) Studies in the acquisition of anaphora (vol 2), ed. by Lust, Barbara, 247–69. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, Helen. 1995. Trois hypothèses à propos des erreurs de contrôle des phrases adjointes chez les enfants. Recherches linquistiques de Vincennes 24. 157–75.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen. 1998. Children's interpretation of adjunct PRO: New evidence. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. 293–302.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen, and Behne, Dawn. 1992. Development in control and extraction. Theoretical issues in language acquisitions, ed. by Weissenborn, Jürgen, Goodluck, Helen and Roeper, Thomas, 151–71. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Goodluck, Helen, and Tavakolian, Susan. 1982. Competence and processing in children's grammar of relative clauses. Cognition 11. 1–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hsu, Jennifer Ryan, Cairns, Helen Smith; and Fiengo, Robert. 1985. The development of grammars underlying children's interpretation of complex sentences. Cognition 20. 25–48.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaeggli, Oswaldo. 1986. Passive. Linguistic Inquiry 17. 587–622.Google Scholar
Larson, Richard. 1987. ‘Missing prepositions’ and the analysis of English free relative clauses. Linguistic Inquiry 18. 239–66.Google Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Solan, Lawrence, Flynn, Suzanne, Cross, Catherine; and Schuetz, Elaine. 1986. A comparison of null and pronominal anaphora in first-language acquisition. Studies in the acquisition of anaphora (vol. 1), ed. by Lust, Barbara, 245–77. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 1995. The Childes project: Tools for analyzing talk. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, Cairns, Helen Smith; and Hsu, Jennifer Ryan. 1990/91. Control principles in the grammar of young children. Language Acquisition 1. 297–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicol, Janet, and Swinney, David. 1989. The role of structure in coreference assignment during sentence comprehension. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 18. 5–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reinhart, Tanya. 1976. The syntactic domain of anaphora. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts MIT dissertation.Google Scholar
Sellar, Melanie. 1999. The acquisition of temporal connectives from a Reichenbachian perspective. Ottawa: University of Ottawa, MA thesis.Google Scholar
Wexler, Ken. 1992. Some issues in the growth of control. Control and grammar, ed. by Larson, Richard, Iatridou, Sabine, Lahiri, Utpal and Higgenbotham, James, 253–95. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar