Variable input: What sarah reveals about nonagreeing don't and theories of Root Infinitives

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Two recent proposals link the use of nonagreeing don't to the Root Infinitive (RI) Stage. Guasti & Rizzi (2002) argue for a misset parameter involving how agreement is spelled out. Schütze (2010) proposes that Infl is underspecified in child language and that do surfaces to support the contracted clitic/affix n't. Both proposals obtain partial support from the Sarah corpus (Brown 1973), yet neither proposal drew on Sarah's parents' use of nonstandard, nonagreeing don't as a possible explanation for Sarah's production. In this article I argue that much of the nonagreeing don't produced by Sarah is not part of the RI Stage. Once Sarah's data are removed from the analysis, the remaining data support Schütze's proposal.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)305-324
Number of pages20
JournalLanguage Acquisition
Volume20
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 16 2013

Fingerprint

parents
language
Root Infinitives
Brown Corpus
Affix
Child Language
Clitics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Education
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

@article{9c7387a793df4696af6f93133e06f7b2,
title = "Variable input: What sarah reveals about nonagreeing don't and theories of Root Infinitives",
abstract = "Two recent proposals link the use of nonagreeing don't to the Root Infinitive (RI) Stage. Guasti & Rizzi (2002) argue for a misset parameter involving how agreement is spelled out. Sch{\"u}tze (2010) proposes that Infl is underspecified in child language and that do surfaces to support the contracted clitic/affix n't. Both proposals obtain partial support from the Sarah corpus (Brown 1973), yet neither proposal drew on Sarah's parents' use of nonstandard, nonagreeing don't as a possible explanation for Sarah's production. In this article I argue that much of the nonagreeing don't produced by Sarah is not part of the RI Stage. Once Sarah's data are removed from the analysis, the remaining data support Sch{\"u}tze's proposal.",
author = "Miller, {Karen Lynn}",
year = "2013",
month = "12",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1080/10489223.2013.828061",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "305--324",
journal = "Language Acquisition",
issn = "1048-9223",
publisher = "Psychology Press Ltd",
number = "4",

}

Variable input : What sarah reveals about nonagreeing don't and theories of Root Infinitives. / Miller, Karen Lynn.

In: Language Acquisition, Vol. 20, No. 4, 16.12.2013, p. 305-324.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variable input

T2 - What sarah reveals about nonagreeing don't and theories of Root Infinitives

AU - Miller, Karen Lynn

PY - 2013/12/16

Y1 - 2013/12/16

N2 - Two recent proposals link the use of nonagreeing don't to the Root Infinitive (RI) Stage. Guasti & Rizzi (2002) argue for a misset parameter involving how agreement is spelled out. Schütze (2010) proposes that Infl is underspecified in child language and that do surfaces to support the contracted clitic/affix n't. Both proposals obtain partial support from the Sarah corpus (Brown 1973), yet neither proposal drew on Sarah's parents' use of nonstandard, nonagreeing don't as a possible explanation for Sarah's production. In this article I argue that much of the nonagreeing don't produced by Sarah is not part of the RI Stage. Once Sarah's data are removed from the analysis, the remaining data support Schütze's proposal.

AB - Two recent proposals link the use of nonagreeing don't to the Root Infinitive (RI) Stage. Guasti & Rizzi (2002) argue for a misset parameter involving how agreement is spelled out. Schütze (2010) proposes that Infl is underspecified in child language and that do surfaces to support the contracted clitic/affix n't. Both proposals obtain partial support from the Sarah corpus (Brown 1973), yet neither proposal drew on Sarah's parents' use of nonstandard, nonagreeing don't as a possible explanation for Sarah's production. In this article I argue that much of the nonagreeing don't produced by Sarah is not part of the RI Stage. Once Sarah's data are removed from the analysis, the remaining data support Schütze's proposal.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84890110895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84890110895&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/10489223.2013.828061

DO - 10.1080/10489223.2013.828061

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84890110895

VL - 20

SP - 305

EP - 324

JO - Language Acquisition

JF - Language Acquisition

SN - 1048-9223

IS - 4

ER -