· U NIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI V ERONA ·
DIPARTIMENTO DI ANGLISTICA, GERMANISTICA E SLAVISTICA
DOTTORATO DI RICERCA IN LINGUISTICA
CICLO XXII
D YSLEXIA
AND THE
PASSIVE
A CQUISITION OF S YNTAX
AND C ONTROL
s.s.d. L – LIN /01
Coordinatore: Prof.ssa
C AMILLA B ETTONI
Firma:
Tutor:
Prof.
D ENIS D ELFITTO
Firma:
Dottorando: Dott.
Firma:
D ANILO R EGGIANI
Typeset with LATEX
Acknowledgments
This dissertation is the product of the mind of its author. The author is to be held
responsible for its content. However, the development of such a research project benefited from the help of many people. These people should thus be thanked for their
help.
A number of people should be thanked for several different reasons. It would be neat
and elegant to associate each person with its own credit. Yet, the author is too lazy to
match every person with its own acknowledgments.
A special thank goes to following series of persons for friendship, support and/or
being guinea pigs for the author in his desperate search for acceptability judgments
and test subjects. Some of the following people helped preparing and administering
the experiments. Some of the following people should also be thanked for patiently
listening to the crazy thoughts of the author and for their precious advices.
Denis Delfitto, Luca Ducceschi, Gaetano Fiorin, Francesca Forza, Mamma,
Karin Martin, Francesca Mattioli, Chiara Melloni, Paola Paradisi, Maria
Perbellini, Michal Starke, Jacopo Torregrossa, Maria Vender, Bianca Basciano, Doug Campbell.
Another special thank goes to the children who took part in the experiment and
their parents. A special thank goes also to the institutions who helped finding subjects
for the experiments:
• Thanks to the “Dipartimento di Neuropsichiatria Infantile” ULLS 20,
Verona, its director, dr. Maria Rosaria Cellino, and the speech therapist
Eleonora Pizzocaro.
• Thanks to the “U.O. di Neuropsichiatria Infantile” in Rovereto, its director, dr. Fabio Bazzoli, and the speech therapist Emilia Avesani.
• Thanks to the “Istituto Comprensivo” in Casalgrande (RE) and its director, dr. Fiorella Magnani. Thanks to the teachers (particularly to
4
Angela, Laura, Maria, Stefania, Valentina) of the “Scuola dell’Infanzia
Statale - Polo 0/6” in Casalgrande (RE). Thanks to the teachers of the
“Scuola Primaria” in Casalgrande (RE).
Contents
Acknowledgments
3
1 On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
9
1.1
Developmental dyslexia: a definition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
9
1.2
Dyslexia and language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.1
Dyslexia and phonology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.2.2
Dyslexia and syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.2.1
Tough constructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1.2.2.2
Relative clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.2.2.3
Binding and coreference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.2.2.4
Sensitivity to morphosyntactic agreement . . . . . . . . 22
1.2.2.5
The production of sentences in children at genetic risk
of dyslexia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.3
The underlying causes of developmental dyslexia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.3.1
A visual deficit is not the cause of developmental dyslexia . . . . 25
1.3.2
Language deficits are not caused by a lack of reading experience
1.3.3
1.4
1.3.2.1
Phonological deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.3.2.2
Syntactic deficits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Dyslexia and language acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.3.3.1
Structura lag vs Processing deficit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.3.3.2
Working memory, language acquisition and dyslexia . . 29
Summary of the chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2 The acquisition of passives
2.1
2.2
25
33
Passive and its grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.1.1
Verbal passive as A-movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.1.2
Verbal passive as smuggling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The acquisition of passives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6
CONTENTS
2.2.1
The Maturation Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
2.2.1.1
The Maturation Hypothesis revisited: the Universal Phase
Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
2.2.1.2
2.2.2
The By–phrase Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.2.2.1
2.3
Problems with the Maturation Hypothesis . . . . . . . . 45
Problems with the By–phrase Hypothesis . . . . . . . . 49
2.2.3
Passives in dyslexia
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.2.4
The experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.2.4.1
Data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2.2.4.2
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Summary of the chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3 The syntax and semantics of control
3.1
3.2
Control theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.1.1
Obligatory Control and Non-Obligatory Control . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.1.2
Complement control and adjunct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.1.2.1
Subject and object control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
3.1.2.2
Adjunct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.1.2.3
Variable control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
3.1.3
Split control and partial control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3.1.4
Cross-linguistic oddities of control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.1.4.1
Control in non–infinitive clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3.1.4.2
Backward control and copy control . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
On the existence of PRO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
3.2.1
3.2.2
3.3
Movement Theory of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.2.1.1
Some problems related to the MTC . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
3.2.1.2
Further issues related to the MTC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.1.3
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
PRO and the Calculus of Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.2.2.1
The origins of PRO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.2.2.2
The calculus of control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
3.2.2.3
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Summary of the chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4 The acquisition of control
4.1
61
115
The acquisition of control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
CONTENTS
4.1.1
4.2
Complement control and adjunct control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.1.1.1
The Adjunct Misattachment Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . 116
4.1.1.2
The Nominalization Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.1.1.3
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
4.1.2
The acquisition of promise–like verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
4.1.3
The acquisition of control in dyslexic children . . . . . . . . . . . 124
The experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.2.1
Setting and participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
4.2.2
Results and data analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.2.3
4.3
7
4.2.2.1
Subject control sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.2.2.2
Object control sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.2.2.3
Adjunct control sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.2.2.4
Ambiguous control sentences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.2.3.1
Dyslexia and the acquisition of control . . . . . . . . . . 135
4.2.3.2
The acquisition of complement control . . . . . . . . . . 136
4.2.3.3
Acquisition of control from ec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.2.3.4
The acquisition of variable control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
Summary of the chapter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
5 Conclusions
141
A First experiment
143
B Second experiment
149
References
159
Sommario
172
8
CONTENTS
Chapter 1
On dyslexia and the acquisition of
language
1.1 Developmental dyslexia: a definition
Developmental dyslexia1 has been classically defined as the deficit in the acquisition
of an age-appropriate level of reading and writing ability despite normal intelligence
and schooling and despite the absence of physical or emotional problems (Snowling
2000, Guardiola 2001).
This definition of dyslexia is of course deviant: a dyslexic subject can in fact have
emotional or physical problems that are unrelated to dyslexia and that prevent him
from reaching an age-appropriate level of reading and writing ability. Such a deviant
definition has the purpose of isolating and individuating dyslexia as a feature in a
minimal pair. This means that there are two classes of children which are supposed
to have the same proficiency in the task of learning how to read and write, having
normal intelligence, lacking physical or emotional problems and having received adequate education. These two classes of children are, by the way, discriminated by a
significant difference in the acquisition of reading skills: the class that shows a delay
in the acquisition of reading skill is the class of dyslexic subjects.
The first cases of acquired dyslexia (caused by a brain injury) were reported in the
1870s (Guardiola 2001); in 1895, inspired by an article on “word blindness” by James
Hinshelwood, W. Pringle Morgan reported the first case of developmental dyslexia,
precisely a case “of an intelligent fourteen years-old boy who could not learn how
1
Henceforth we will often refer to developmental dyslexia with the simple term dyslexia.
10
1.2. Dyslexia and language
to read”(Guardiola 2001). Since the first cases, it has become increasingly clear that
“the reading problems of people with dyslexia form part of a heritable neurobiological
syndrome”(Fisher and DeFries 2002).
Developmental dyslexia is a genetic neurological disorder that affects a percentage
of the population that may range from 5% to 15% (Francks et al. 2002, Vellutino et al.
2004). On the neurobiological side, anatomical studies conducted post–mortem and
structural studies conducted in–vivo2 have underlined some particular features of the
dyslexic brain. For example Schultz et al. (1994) show that dyslexic subjects are significantly affected by a small reduction in the size of the left temporal lobes.
The genetic basis of dyslexia has been demonstrated in several studies. We know that
monozygotic twins share a diagnosis of dyslexia more frequently (68% vs. 39%) than
dizygotic twins (DeFries and Alarcon 1996) and that 36% of adults diagnosed with
dyslexia reported that at least one of their children had manifested reading problems
(Finucci et al. 1985). It has been estimated that a child, having one dyslexic parent, has
approximately a 50% risk of acquiring dyslexia (Vellutino et al. 2004). Children with
at least one dyslexic parent are considered at genetic risk of dyslexia. Scarborough
(1990, 1991) conducted pioneering studies on children at genetic risk of dyslexia and
reported that 65% of the children in her sample were diagnosed for dyslexia before
they were 8 years old.
Several independent studies of families with many individuals with dyslexia discovered the linkage between reading disabilities and several regions on chromosomes 1,
2, 3, 6, 15 and 18 (Démonet et al. 2004).
1.2 Dyslexia and language
Several studies have pointed out that dyslexia is not simply a neurological disorder
that affects reading. The difficulties that dyslexic subjects find in reading are indeed
the core deficit of dyslexia, but they are also just the tip of the iceberg. Dyslexic subjects
often exhibit difficulties in spelling and writing and have problems not only with written language but with language in general. It has been reported that dyslexic children
exhibit difficulties in tasks involving speech production and comprehension. Dyslexic
2
Post–mortem brain studies are considered less reliable than the in–vivo studies conducted via magnetic resonance imaging. Post–mortem studies lack control subjects and the historical data on subjects
is retrospected, “often derived form a period where the diagnosis of specific reading problems was not
advanced” (Vellutino et al. 2004).
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
11
children’s linguistic difficulties range from phonology to morphology and syntax.
1.2.1 Dyslexia and phonology
Dyslexia is strictly associated with several difficulties in processing phonological representations. Phonological processing consists in the perception, the storage and the reproduction of phonological forms. A test that is used to test phonological processing
(and, in particular, short term memory, which is the cognitive component responsible
for the storage of phonological forms) is non–word repetition task: the subject is required
to repeat a word that is phonologically plausible in his/her language, but not present
in the lexicon. Another possible task tapping phonological processing skills is the non–
word comparison task (Szenkovits and Ramus 2005): the subject listens to two sequences
of non–words and has to decide whether the two sequences are identical or different.
Processing a non–word means roughly listening and acquiring it (input), memorizing
it in the short term memory and spelling it out (output). The output is not a problem,
because the non–word is phonologically plausible (a child able to utter carnival and
thorn is also able to utter carn or thornival).3 Processing a non–word means also relying only on the processing capacity and not on the information stored in the mental
lexicon. The longer the non–word, the harder the task: more memory resources are
needed in order to store and spell out longer words.
A non–word repetition deficit appears to be present in dyslexic children (Kamhi et al.
1988, Rispens 2004, De Bree 2007), in children at genetic risk of dylsexia (De Bree 2007)
3
Some scholars (Tallal 1980) have hypothesized that an auditory deficit could be the cause of phonological and reading deficits in dyslexia: the claim is that dyslexics’ problems with phonological tasks are
an epiphenomenon of a perceptual deficit, a general (i.e. non language specific) difficulty in perceiving
signals that follow one another rapidly and that are very brief. Tallal showed that there was a correlation between auditory perceptual tasks (discriminating and ordering couples of tones) and reading
impairment. She then implied that the auditory deficit causes failing in phonological tasks and ultimately in the acquisition of reading skills.
Mody et al. (1997) tested the ability to discriminate and order syllables and non–speech sounds in second grade good and poor readers. They showed that poor readers were significantly worse than their
peers in tasks concerning syllables like /ba/ and /da/. By the way, such a difference between poor and
good readers vanished in tasks concerning readily identifiable syllable contrasts (like /ba/ – /sa/) and
non–speech sounds. Such vanishing of differences is of course not predicted by the hypothesis in (Tallal
1980). In the literature 0 to 50% of the dyslexic population is found to be affected by auditory problems
(Ramus et al. 2003). Auditory performance has a significant impact on phonological skills. Dyslexic
with an auditory deficit have an aggravated phonological deficit, but they are indeed a subclass of the
dyslexic population. It seems that “the pattern of good and poor auditory performance is more or less
random, and this pattern varies considerably across subjects” (Ramus et al. 2003). There could be a
relation between dyslexia and auditory performance, but it doesn’t seem that dyslexia and its related
phonological problems are caused by a non–language specific perceptual auditory deficit.
12
1.2. Dyslexia and language
and also in dyslexic adults (Ramus et al. 2003).
Dyslexia is also associated with difficulties in tasks tapping phonological awareness. Phonological awareness is the ability to analyze spoken words and parse them into
phonemes. Phonological awareness is tested through tasks like the phoneme blending
task, the phoneme deletion task and the rhyme detection task. The phoneme blending task
requires that the subject construct and utters a word starting from single phonemes’
representations (“which word is /s/ /i/ /t/”). The phoneme deletion task requires
that the subject repeat a given word skipping one of its phonemes (“repeat sit without
the /s/”). The rhyme detection task tests the ability to recognize rhymes, which is
estimated to be normally acquired around age four.
Several studies have shown that dyslexic children fail in tasks that test phonological awareness (Shankweiler et al. 1979, Snowling 2000, Rispens 2004, Vellutino et al.
2004). At–risk children are also reported to fail tasks tapping phonological awareness
(De Bree 2007).
1.2.2 Dyslexia and syntax
The first studies testing the ability to parse spoken sentences in dyslexic subjects were
written in the 1980s. These studies crucially proved that the relation between reading
disability and language was deeper and more well–founded than previously thought.
In the next paragraph we will review the most significant findings that cover the field
of the acquisition of syntax in dyslexic subjects4 .
1.2.2.1 Tough constructions
Byrne (1981) tested the parsing of the so-called tough constructions in English good
and poor readers. English tough constructions are indeed a good issue to test syntactic
parsing problems ruling out every possible interference of the phonological component: in fact, English tough constructions surface as very similar phonological structures even when they are characterized by very different underlying syntactic structures.
4
During the review of the literature we will face different terminologies. The subjects of the experiments in the literature are generally referred to as poor readers or reading disabled. Reading disabled can in
fact be considered as a synonym for dyslexic. The term poor reader is also considered to be a synonym for
dyslexic: a poor reader is in fact a subject that matches the definition of dyslexia given in 1.1, showing a
relevant delay in the acquisition of reading (at least 18 months) despite normal intelligence.
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
(1)
13
a. The bird is happy to bite.
b. The bird is tasty to bite.
c. The bird is bad to bite.
As we can see from (1), the meaning of the sentence changes with the adjective in
the copular construction: the DP (the bird) can be the subject (1a) or the object (1b)
of the lower verb (bite); the DP can even be both the subject or the object (1c) of the
lower verb. This means that the higher DP can be interpreted as the subject or the
object of the lower VP, depending on the adjective that is associated with the VP. We
can say then that an adjective like happy (1a) can yield only a subject interpretation (Stype), that an adjective like tasty (1b) can yield only an object interpretation (O-type)
and that an adjective like bad (1c) can yield both a subject interpretation or an object
interpretation (A-type).
Byrne tested the interpretation of tough constructions in 24 poor readers and 20
good readers aged between 7 and 8 years old through an Act Out Test. Twelve sentences, 4 sentences for each type of tough construction, like those in (1), were used.
Almost every subject was perfectly able to understand S-type construction: 21 out of
24 poor readers were able to give the correct interpretation to all four S-type sentences;
18 out of 20 good readers were able to give the correct interpretation to all four S-type
sentences. Those readers who were not able to interpret correctly all the four S-type
sentences were excluded from the rest of the experiment.
Byrne observed that good readers and poor readers scored significantly different in the
interpretation of the O-type sentences and A-type sentences. Out of 21 poor readers
and 20 good readers that was left from the S-type task, only one good reader (against
4 poor readers) gave a wrong interpretation to all four O-type sentences; 9 good readers (against 3 poor readers) gave a correct interpretation to all four O-type sentences.
Similar results were obtained from the A-type task.
Byrne concluded that poor readers’ parsing capabilities were impaired despite any
possible phonological deficit. When the processing burden became heavier (i.e. with
the O-type sentences), poor readers showed difficulties that were not shared by the
good readers. In fact, as Byrne reported, “since mastery of the complexities attendant
upon O– and A-type adjectives shows a developmental trend, poor readers can be
seen as operating at a less mature linguistic level”.
14
1.2. Dyslexia and language
1.2.2.2 Relative clauses
Relative clauses are one of the most studied topics in language acquisition. Several
studies in the 1970s showed that children have difficulties in comprehending relative
clauses. Sheldon (1974) tested different types of relative clauses: subject–modifying
subject relative clauses (SS relatives), object–modifying subject relative clauses (OS relatives), subject–modifying object relative clauses (SO relatives) and object–modifying
object relative clauses (OO relatives).
(2)
a. SS [The dog that t jumps over the pig] bumps into the lion.
b. OS The dog stands on [the horse that the giraffe jumps over t].
c. SO [The lion that the horse bumps into t] jumps over the giraffe.
d. OO The pig bumps into [the horse that t jumps over the giraffe].
Sheldon (1974) found that children had problems mainly comprehending OS and SO
relatives. Children frequently interpreted OS relatives as subject–modifying clauses
and SO relatives as object–modifying clauses. The deficits in the interpretation of relative clauses by children have been addressed by two types of theories (Guasti 2002).
The first type explains children’s deficit as the effect of a deficient competence: children’s grammar is unable to parse the relative clause as a recursive construction; the
relative clause is thus parsed as a flat structure.
The second type explains children’s deficit as a processing deficit or as a pragmatics
based difficulty. The processing deficit theories maintain that some relative clauses
are too difficult for the children: children are thus forced to employ default strategies
in order to parse them. The pragmatic theories explain children’s deficit as the inability to cope with the infelicity of the pragmatic conditions in which relative clauses
have been probed. This means that children are able to understand correctly relative
clauses when these are used in a felicitous context: for example, the sentence in (2b)
is felicitous only if there are two horses and if the relative clause is necessary in order to distinguish which is the horse the dog is standing on5 .The pragmatic theories
5
Relative clauses serve different pragmatic functions. According to pragmatic functions, English relative clauses can be divided into two types: restrictive and non–restrictive relative clauses. Restrictive
relative clauses are used felicitously “in situations in which there is a group of objects corresponding to
the head noun phrase of the relative clause” (Smith et al. 1989). Restrictive relative clauses (3a) have the
aim of distinguishing similar elements. Non–restrictive relative clauses (3) function only as a comment
upon the noun phrases they modify.
(3)
a. The boy was holding the teddy bear that had a bow around his neck.
b. The boy was holding the teddy bear, which had a bow around his neck.
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
15
have demonstrated that relative clauses that meet felicity conditions are much easier
for children (Hamburger and Crain 1982).
Psycholinguistic literature has also demonstrated that object relative clauses require a processing cost that is higher compared to the processing cost of subject relatives. Several studies have tested the comprehension and the processing of these
structures in adults providing cross linguistic evidence. These findings are generally
thought to be caused by the different distance between the relative operator and the
gap (the trace): the process of gap filling gets easier as the space (i.e. the amount of intervening syntactic items) between the operator and the gap is reduced (Gibson 1998).
Subject relative clauses like (4a), which are characterized by less elements intervening
between the filler and the gap, are then easier than object relative clauses like (4b), in
which more elements intervene between the filler and the gap.
(4)
a. SR The boy [who
kissed Mary].
b. OR The boy [(whom) Mary kissed
].
Stein et al. (1984) tested the four types of relative in (2) and the comprehension of
these sentences in reading disabled American children. Twenty reading–disabled children were tested: 10 reading–disabled second grade children and 10 reading–disabled
fourth grade children. The results obtained from the two groups were compared to
the results obtained from two groups made of an equal number of age matched control subjects. Twelve sentences per type were presented to each child: the child was
then asked to act out the meaning of each sentence.
Results showed that all children made more errors interpreting object relatives (SO
and OO types). Reading impaired children always made more errors than the age
matched controls. Stein et al. (1984) claimed that these results indicate that the linguistic development of the reading–disabled children “is not as advance as that of their
non–reading–disabled peers”.
Mann et al. (1984) tested the same types of relative clause in (2) in two tasks: an
Act Out Task and a Sentence Repetition Task. The subjects were 35 third grade native
speakers of American English: 18 of them were good readers and the remaining 17
were poor readers. The poor readers scored worse than the good readers in all the
four types of relative clause in the Act Out Task and in the Sentence Repetition Task:
Hamburger and Crain (1982) argued in fact that the previous literature on relative clauses acquisition
had tested restrictive relative clauses in non felicitous contexts. For example, testing a sentence like (3a)
in a context that contains a boy and only a teddy bear means testing that sentence in a non felicitous
context: testing a restrictive relative clause in a context with no need for restriction.
16
1.2. Dyslexia and language
results in sentence repetition and sentence comprehension were found to be in moderate correlation. In the end the “particulars of sentence structure turned out to have
little effect on the number of errors made in repetition”. This result shows that poor
readers do not seem to have acquired a deviant grammar which could impair the comprehension of some particular structures (namely OS, SO and OO relatives).
The poor readers appeared to have less means of retaining the words of sentences in
working memory: according to Mann et al., these results showed that phonetic memory limitation is an important factor behind the comprehension differences of good
and poor readers: poor phonetic representations could be insufficient to support full
recovery of syntactic structure, causing errors in parsing relative clauses.
Smith et al. (1989) tested the acquisition of the same relative clauses already tested
by Mann et al. (1984): those relative clauses were all set in felicitous contexts, as in
(Hamburger and Crain 1982). The only difference between the two experiments was
the context of utterance of the tested sentences. This was in fact a way to test the
importance of the felicity of the context in an experiment testing the interpretation
of relative clauses in poor and good readers. The performance of all the subjects (18
second grade poor reader and 18 age matched good readers) was significantly better
than the performance obtained by Mann et al. (1984)6 . Good readers in (Smith et al.
1989) scored significantly better than good readers in (Mann et al. 1984) with every
type of relative clause. Poor readers in (Smith et al. 1989) were even more significantly
better than poor readers in (Mann et al. 1984). This result shows how the experiment
designed by Mann et al. (1984) was spoilt by the infelicitous contexts of utterance. It is
thus impossible to rely on the data presented by Mann et al.
Bar-Shalom et al. (1993) tested relative clauses in felicitous contexts. Fifteen second
grade poor readers and an equal number of age matched controls were enrolled in two
tasks: an Act Out Task and an Elicited Production Task. In the Act Out Task, poor readers made significantly more errors than good readers with object relative clauses. In
the production task, poor readers seemed not impaired in comparison with the good
readers: poor readers and good readers produced almost the same number of relative
clauses per each type (with a clear preference for subject relatives). By the way, some
poor readers did not produce any SO relative clause: as a result, fewer poor readers
6
Good and poor readers were selected using different reading tests by Mann et al. (1984) and Smith
et al. (1989). Anyway, notice that Smith et al. selected younger subjects (second grade vs. third grade): if
there were no felicity effect, we would even predict a much worse performance by the subjects selected
by Smith et al.. We observe the opposite: younger subjects with felicitous sentences score better than
older subjects with infelicitous sentences.
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
17
produced relatives in the SO context than good readers.
Bar-Shalom et al. take these results to show that poor readers’ grammar is not deviant
from an age matched grammar: both good readers and poor readers were in fact able
to produce every type of relative clause without significant difference. The difficulties
faced by poor readers with object relative clauses should be then caused by a processing issues. It could be hypothesized that object relative clauses require too many
working memory resources (see section 1.3.3.2) and cause the failure of the process of
interpretation of the sentence. In order to process the sentence, children have to retain
the sentence in their short-term memory and then they have to parse it: parsing object
relative clauses often makes the processing burden too heavy for poor readers.
1.2.2.3 Binding and coreference
1.2.2.3.1 The acquisition of binding principles
Waltzman and Cairns (2000) tested
the interpretation of pronominal expressions in good and poor readers. According
to Chomsky (1981), three grammatical principles are necessary to interpret correctly
pronominal references.
(5) Binding theory
a. An anaphor is bound in its governing category.
b. A pronominal is free in its governing category.
c. An R–expression is free.
Principle A (5a) requires that anaphors7 refer to a c-commanding antecedent (a noun
phrase) in the same clause: the interpretation of an anaphor is bound to a c-commanding antecedent. Reference to a higher antecedent in a different clause is impossible. In
(6) himself can’t refer to the wolf, which appears to be in a higher clause, but only to the
lamb.
(6) The wolfi sees that the lambj is feeding himself∗i/j .
Principle B (5b) requires that pronouns do not refer to a c-commanding antecedent (a
noun phrase) in the same clause: the interpretation of a pronoun must not be bound
to a c-commanding antecedent and therefore the pronoun must refer to a different
antecedent, provided by the context. Reference to a higher antecedent in a different
clause is possible because such a higher antecedent is out of the “governing category”.
7
English reflexive pronouns and possessive adjective and pronouns behave like anaphors.
18
1.2. Dyslexia and language
In (7) him can’t refer to the lamb, which appears to be a higher NP in the same clause of
the pronoun.
(7)
a. The lambj notices him∗j .
b. The wolf i sees that the lamb j notices himi/∗j .
Principle C (5c) requires that pronouns and anaphors do not refer to a c-commanded
referential expression (a noun phrase that is nor a pronoun neither an anaphor) in the
same clause. In (8) he can’t refer to the lamb which appears to be a c-commanded NP
in a the same clause.
(8) He∗j eats the lambj .
The literature has shown that principle A and principle C are mastered by normally
developing children by the age of 5. Principle B is still a problem for children aged
between 5 and 6. Chien and Wexler (1990) tested the acquisition of principle B in children of that age: children violated principle B, allowing an anaphoric interpretation of
the pronoun, about 50% of the time, when the antecedent was an NP (9a), and 16% of
the time, when the antecedent was a quantified NP (9b).
(9)
a. Mama Bear touches her.
b. Every bear touches him.
Waltzman and Cairns tested 63 third grade children (mean age was 8.75): 41 of
them were good readers, 22 of them were poor readers. A total of 28 sentences, were
administered to children in a Picture Selection Task: every child had to match the
correct picture to the sentence uttered by the experimenter. Poor readers made significantly more errors than good in the tasks regarding principle B.
Waltzman and Cairns do not talk about the cognitive cause of this principle B impairment, considering the absence of a clear and unique answer on the cognitive causes of
of principle B delay in normally developing children.
1.2.2.3.2 Binding vs. Coreference Fiorin (2010) tests the interpretation of sentences
that are ambiguous between variable binding and coreference in dyslexic children
aged between 9 and 10.
Pronouns like his can be interpreted as pronouns (10a) referring to any entity in the
context (coreference) or as variables (10b) bound by a syntactic antecedent.
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
19
(10) John painted his bike.
a. John is an x such that x painted John’s bike
b. John is an x such that x painted x’s bike
This subtle difference between (10a) and (10b) comes out in sentences with VP ellipsis.
Sentence (11a) exhibits a sloppy reading under VP ellipsis and sentence (11b) exhibits
a strict reading under VP ellipsis.
(11) John paints his car and Bill does too
a. John paints John’s car and Bill paints Bill’s car
John paints x’s car and Bill paints x’s car
b. John paints John’s car and Bill paints John’s car
The VP ellipsis is roughly the deletion of a verb phrase that takes place if and only if a
verb phrase of the same meaning and structure is already present in the surrounding
discourse. The sloppy reading is available only if there is a variable in the VP that
undergoes ellipsis. A variable in two different positions can be bound to two different
antecedents.
Fiorin (2010) reports that, according to Reuland (2001), variable binding is an operation
that takes place in syntax8 and that requires that the binder (John) and the bindee (his)
are in c-command relation. On the contrary, coreference takes place at the level of
discourse. Any pronoun can refer to an entity in the context and it doesn’t need to
be c-commanded by its antecedent. Sentences like (12) are ambiguous between two
readings, (12a) and (12b).
(12) Every friend of Francesco painted his bike
a. For every x, if x is a friend of Francesco, then x painted x’s bike.
b. For every x, if x is a friend of Francesco, then x painted Francesco’s bike.
In reading (12a) his is a variable c-commanded and then bound by the quantified nominal every friend. In reading (12b) his is a pronoun that refers to the only individual in
the context (the quantified NP is a function, not an individual), which is Francesco.
Notice that Francesco doesn’t c-command his and thus it’s unable to bind his.
Fiorin (2010) tested the comprehension and interpretation of sentences like (12) by
Italian and Dutch dyslexic children aged between 9 and 10 in a Truth Value Judgement
8
Reuland (2001) draws the distinction between the level of Narrow Syntax, at which agreement takes
place, and the level of Logical Syntax, at which variable binding takes place.
20
1.2. Dyslexia and language
Task. A short story was told to each subject and a character (the Clumsy Inspector)
described the story with a sentence like (12). The subjects had to tell if the Clumsy
Inspector was right or wrong. The sentence was true or false depending on the interpretation (12a vs 12b) given by the subject. In 50% of the sentences the bound variable
interpretation was false and the coreference interpretation was true. In the other 50%
of the sentences the bound variable interpretation was true and the coreference interpretation was false.
Dyslexic children had no preference neither for the variable bound reading nor for the
coreference reading. The same result was obtained by the age matched controls. By
the way, dyslexic children were characterized by the significant tendency to stick to
the same interpretation (bound variable or coreference) throughout the experiment.
This tendency was not seen in age matched controls.
1.2.2.3.3 Reference–set computation
Fiorin (2010) argues that the results of the ex-
periment conducted by Waltzman and Cairns (2000) and Fiorin (2010), reported here
in 1.2.2.3.1 and 1.2.2.3.2, can be explained resorting to an influential theory by Reinhart
(Grodzinsky and Reinhart 1993, Reinhart 2006). Reinhart (2006) argues that reference–
set computation is a type of cognitive computation that requires significant processing
resources. A reference–set computation is basically comparing two or more alternative derivations in order to determine whether a given step in the current derivation
is permitted (Reinhart 2006).
Recall that a pronoun can be a bound variable or a coreferent. Binding takes place
in syntax and is constrained by Principle B (5b). No principle, amongst the binding
principles (5), constrains coreference, which takes place at the discourse level. Binding
principles alone are then unable to account for the unacceptability of (13).
(13) * The lambj notices himj .
a. * The lamb is an x such that x notices x.
b.
The lambj is an x such that x notices the lambj .
Principle B blocks the syntactic binding making the bound variable reading (13a) unacceptable; Principle B, however, is unable to block the coreference reading (13b).
Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993) propose Rule I to block (13b) and thus account for
the unacceptability of (13).
(14) Rule I
α and β cannot be covalued in a derivation D, if
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
21
a. α is in a configuration to A–bind β, and
b. α cannot A–bind β in D, and
c. the covaluation interpretation is indistinguishable from what would be obtained if α A–binds β.
(Reinhart 2006, p. 185)
According to Rule I, a pronoun β cannot refer to an NP α if binding is blocked Condition B (14b) and the result of coreference would not be distinguishable from the result
of binding (14c), as in the case of (13a) and (13a). Rule I states basically that there can’t
be coreference (13b) when local binding (13a) would lead to the same semantic result.
Rule I involves a reference–set computation, i.e. the comparison of two different
grammatical derivations: the variable bound reading (13a) and the coreference reading (13b). Applying Rule I to a sentence like (13) means in fact comparing the two
readings.
Rule I can explain the data found by Chien and Wexler (1990). Recall that Chien and
Wexler found that 5–year–old children gave the wrong interpretation to 50% of sentences like (13) and (9a) but only to 16% similar sentences containing a quantified NP,
like (9b). Children do not have the processing resources needed by reference–set computation involved in Rule I and thus they tend to assign a coreference like (13b), which
is unacceptable to an adult. The pronoun can’t corefer to the quantified NP (which is
not an individual but a function). Sentences like (9b) are then easier for children because variable binding is excluded by Principle B (that children seem to master) and
coreference is simply not available. According to Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993),
children aged between 5 and 6 master the binding principles but do not have the processing resources to compute Rule I.
Fiorin (2010) notices that the hypothesis formulated by Grodzinsky and Reinhart
is also able to explain the result obtained by Waltzman and Cairns (2000). A lack of
processing resources in dyslexic children can be held responsible for the significantly
low results obtained in comprehension tasks involving sentences like (13).
Fiorin (2010) hypothesizes than that resolving a structural ambiguity like the one in
(12) requires comparing “a set of alternative grammatical representations in order to
decide which representation is to be preferred”. Comparing a set of alternative grammatical representations requires significant processing resources, like Rule I. Dyslexic
children, lacking processing resources, avoid comparing alternative grammatical representations and prefer to stick to the same interpretation.
22
1.2. Dyslexia and language
1.2.2.4 Sensitivity to morphosyntactic agreement
1.2.2.4.1 Subject-verb agreement in Dutch
Rispens (2004) tested the sensitivity to
syntactic violations in Dutch dyslexic children. A Grammaticality Judgement Task
tested the ability to distinguish between a correct subject-verb agreement and an agrammatical subject-verb agreement. Twenty–six dyslexic children with a mean age of 8
years and 9 months were tested and their results were compared to the results obtained by two control groups: a group of 26 age matched control and a group of 9 of
reading level matched control (with a mean age of 7 years).
Three types of agrammatical sentences (and their grammatical counterpart) were the
experimental items.
(15)
a. *De leuke clown maak een grapje.
*The funny clown make [1st person singular] a joke.
b. *De leuke clown maaken een grapje.
*The funny clown make [plural] a joke.
c. *De leuke clowns maakt een grapje
*The funny clown make [3rd person singular] a joke
The dyslexic children scored significantly worse than age matched controls in judging
all the three types (15a, 15b and 15c). The dyslexic children were also outperformed
by reading level matched controls: this constitutes a proof that less exposure to reading and the low reading ability are not a cause of the syntactic problems of dyslexic
children.
Dyslexic children seem to frequently fail the Grammaticality Judgement Task on subject-verb agreement but in elicitation tasks they are reported to correctly produce
subject-verb agreement. Rispens hypothesizes that the inherent processing difficulty
of the Grammaticality Judgement Task (subject-verb dependencies must be parsed,
memorized and then judged) may in fact account for this difference between production and judgment.
The same test was ran on 20 children at genetic risk of dyslexia and it gave almost the
same result: at–risk children made significantly more mistakes than their peers.
Rispens then tested the same sentences on 20 dyslexic adults and on an equal number of age matched controls. Adult dyslexics are able to judge correctly the agrammaticality of sentences like those in (15), but the response of their brains may be different
from the response obtained by non–dyslexic adults. The subjects were thus exposed
to agrammatical sentences like those in (15) and their Event Related brain Potentials
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
23
(ERP) responses were measured. Brain responses of dyslexic subjects differed subtly
from those obtained by control subjects, even though the ability to judge sentences on
their grammaticality was the same. Rispens tentatively explains these results by saying that in dyslexic subjects “the first stage of parsing, mediated by a highly automatic
process, is unaffected, but that brain activity involved in more strategic and controlled
linguistic cognitive processes [...] is affected more by linguistic complexity and tends
to be delayed in developmental dyslexia” (Rispens 2004, p. 144).
1.2.2.4.2 Auxiliary selection in Dutch
Wilsenach (2006) tested the sensitivity to
(the violation of) the auxiliary selection in Dutch at–risk subjects. In Dutch, as in English, the past participle, in a finite form, can occur only with an auxiliary verb like
hebben (have) or zijn (be) whereas the modal verb couples with an infinitive verb. This
rough description of the facts matches with the examples below.
(16)
a.
De hond heeft geblaft.
The dog has barked.
b. * De hond kan geblaft.
* The dog can barkedpart .
c. * De hond
* The dog
(17)
a.
geblaft.
barkedpart .
De hond kan blaffen.
The dog can barkinf .
b. * De hond heeft blaffen.
* The dog has barkinf .
c. * De hond
blaffen.
* The dog
barkinf .
Dutch children aged around 5 were tested: 57 dyslexic children and 24 age matched
peers. The task consisted in noticing the grammatical difference between two sentences: one sentence, like (16a) or (17a), was correct and one sentence could be, let’s
say, a wrong copy, like (16b), (16c), (17b) and (17c), or a correct (identical) copy of (16a)
or (17a). The children had to listen to 24 couples of sentences, 3 per 8 different pairs: a
correct sentence and an identical copy; a correct sentence and a sentence with a wrong
auxiliary (17b) or modal (16b); a correct sentence and an incomplete verb form (16c,
17c). At–risk children were as good as their peers (giving 95–100% of correct answers)
24
1.3. The underlying causes of developmental dyslexia
in distinguishing sentences like (16a) from sentences like (16b). They were also good
as their peers in distinguishing sentences like (17a) from sentences like (17b) and (17c).
However, dyslexic children were significantly worse than their peers in distinguishing
sentences like (16a) from sentences like (16c). A subset of the at–risk children in fact
failed to judge sentences containing a bare participle (16c) as different from sentences
containing heeft and the past participle (16a).
Wilsenach (2006) tested then the different reactions to verbal forms like those in (16)
and (17) in infants aged around 19 months. At–risk children seem to be significantly
less sensitive than their peers to the difference between ungrammatical dependencies and grammatical dependencies in sentences like those in (16) and (17). Normally
developing children respond in a significantly different way when exposed to grammatical sentences like (16a) and (17a) and to ungrammatical sentences like (16b) and
(17b): normally developing children seem to prefer listening to the grammatical sentences rather than listening to the ungrammatical sentences. At–risk children didn’t
show such preference, showing less sensitivity to the violation of grammatical dependencies.
1.2.2.5 The production of sentences in children at genetic risk of dyslexia
Scarborough (1990, 1991) studied the language development of at–risk children and
reported that at–risk children who later became dyslexic produced shorter and less
complex sentences (syntactically and semantically) when they talked to their mother.
Scarborough claimed that syntactic skills at the age of 30–40 months are a very strong
predictor of reading disabilities, even stronger than phonological skills.
The difference between dyslexic and normal subjects disappeared at 60 months of age.
This phenomenon could be explained in two ways. First, dyslexics somehow became
able to produce sentences as complex as those produced by their peers: if it’s true
that dyslexics have other problems with syntax, these should be then tested in more
fine–grained experiments. Second, dyslexics and their peers could have reached a
temporary plateau in the development of syntactic skills: their differences could then
re–emerge at a later age.
1.3 The underlying causes of developmental dyslexia
Reading is a complex process which involves physiological and cognitive components.
That is why it is still difficult to localize dyslexia. We can roughly say that the reader
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
25
starts sensing, acquiring and processing visual stimuli that are sent, at some stage, to
a neuronal system that must decode the symbolic image into a phonological structure.
We can say then that reading is made of two main processes: a visual coding process
and a linguistic coding process (Vellutino et al. 2004). The deficiency in (at least) one of
these processes would explain the deficient acquisition of reading ability that affects
dyslexic subjects.
1.3.1 A visual deficit is not the cause of developmental dyslexia
Since nineteenth century many theories implicated that dyslexia would be caused by
deficiencies in the visual system. According to these theories dyslexic children would
be unable to visualize and distinguish properly the letters of the alphabet and this
visual impairment would be the cause of their difficulties in reading (Vellutino et al.
2004). Visual deficit theories started heavily losing empirical support in the 1970s.
Some studies (Vellutino et al. 2004) compared normal and poor readers and their ability to distinguish and memorize visually similar letters (such as ’b’ and ’d’) and words:
the trick consisted in using letters and words of an alphabet that was not familiar to
the children (such as Hebrew or Greek alphabet). Normal and poor readers showed
no significant difference in tasks evaluating visual recognition and visual recall of letters of such unfamiliar alphabets.
The findings in the field of language acquisition (phonology and syntax) show in fact
that dyslexia is a language-based deficit: a visual theory of dyslexia is unable to explain the data presented here in 1.2. The phonological data strongly suggest that the
problems faced by dyslexic children in learning to read are strongly related to a phonological impairment: all scholars nowadays assume that a phonological deficit is the
most proximal cause of reading disability (Szenkovits et al. 2009).
1.3.2 Language deficits are not caused by a lack of reading experience
In the next paragraphs we will show how the correlation between the reading deficit
and the language deficits works. We will see that reading deficit is not the cause of
language deficits: this implies that the only logical possibility (given the correlation
between language deficits and reading failure) is that linguistic impairments are a
cause of reading failure or an epiphenomenon of reading failure, caused by a deeper
problem.
26
1.3. The underlying causes of developmental dyslexia
1.3.2.1 Phonological deficits
Impairments in the phonological component (in phonological awareness and phonological processing) are a cause and not a consequence of poor reading. We can find
four types of evidence to this claim. The first one is that phonological awareness (i.e.
the ability to analyze words into phonemes and to build a word starting from simple sounds) is necessary to learn correctly how to read or, to be more precise, how to
relate graphemes and phonemes. Reading would be impossible without phonological awareness: phonological awareness is a basic mechanism for acquiring reading
skills. This relationship between phonological awareness and reading skills has been
stressed in two studies concerning training and remediation for poor readers. Lundberg et al. (1988) showed that preschool training in phonological awareness can have
a facilitating effect on subsequent reading and spelling acquisition; Vellutino et al.
(1996) noticed that tasks tapping phonological skills differentiate tutored children that
are difficult to remediate and tutored children that are readily remediated.
These studies on the relationship between phonological awareness (and phonological
processing) and the acquisition of reading skills clearly show that the main cause of
poor reading skills in dyslexic children is the inability to process and elaborate phonological representations.
The second evidence comes from experimental data (Bryant 1995). Studies showed
that dyslexic children perform even worse than reading level matched controls in tests
tapping phonological awareness. Children with the same reading ability show different phonological awareness: children that manifest a delay in the acquisition of reading (dyslexic children) have less phonological awareness than children with an adequate reading ability (reading level matched younger children). If reading skills were
the cause of phonological impairment in dyslexic subjects, then we would expect that
to the same reading skills correspond almost the same level of phonological impairment. But this is not true: this shows that phonological deficits are not a consequence
of poor reading.
The third evidence comes from studies on children that haven’t received reading
education yet: in these subjects reading exposure and reading skills, which are not
present at all, can not be the cause of any phonological deficit. Studies on children at
genetic risk of dyslexia (De Bree 2007) show that problems with phonological representations appear in dyslexics before the reading age. At-risk children appear to score
worse than age matched controls in several tasks tapping phonological awareness and
phonological processing, like Non–word Repetition Task and Rhyme Detection Task.
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
27
The fourth evidence comes from cross-linguistic study. It has been demonstrated
that dyslexia is biologically the same disorder across languages and that phonology is
impaired in all dyslexic subjects despite the type of ortographic system they are learning (Paulesu et al. 2001). Italian dyslexics, which are learning quite a shallow ortographic system (in which most graphemes are uniquely mapped to single phonemes),
score better in reading tasks than French and English dyslexics, which use a less shallow ortographic system (in which mapping between phonemes and grapheme is often highly ambiguous). Paulesu et al. (2001) tested Italian, French and English adult
dyslexics. In tasks tapping phonological skills Italian dyslexics scored worse than their
peers: the same difference was observed between English and French dyslexic and
their respective control subjects. The PET scan for the six groups of subjects (Italian,
French and English; dyslexic and controls) performing the phonological tests showed
the same differences crosslinguistically: fewer areas in the left hemisphere were activated in the dyslexic brains compared to their peers.
1.3.2.2 Syntactic deficits
The relationship between reading disability and syntactic deficits found in dyslexic
children is indeed less well defined than the relationship between reading disability
and phonological deficits. Syntax doesn’t seem to be as important as phonology for the
process of learning reading skills. However, there are at least two kinds of evidence
that show that lack of reading experience is not the cause of syntactic deficits.
The main evidence comes from studies on at risk children that still haven’t received
reading education. Many studies, like (Scarborough 1990, 1991), (Rispens 2004) and
(Wilsenach 2006), have shown that at risk children score worse than age matched controls in tasks tapping processing and production of syntactic structures.
Many studies have reported difficulties with syntax encountered by dyslexic children speaking different languages (mainly English and Dutch). The existence of syntactic deficits cross-linguistically in dyslexic children that are learning different graphical systems would constitute an evidence that those syntactic deficits are not caused
by lack of reading experience. The only study that tested the same syntactic task in
two different language is, to our knowledge, (Fiorin 2010), whose results are reported
here in section 1.2.2.3.2. By the way, not a single study, to our knowledge, tested the
acquisition of syntactic structures like Paulesu et al. (2001) tested phonological skills:
i.e. not a single study tested the same syntactic structures with the same syntactic tasks
on populations of children speaking different languages and using radically different
28
1.3. The underlying causes of developmental dyslexia
alphabetic systems.
1.3.3 Dyslexia and language acquisition
1.3.3.1 Structura lag vs Processing deficit
The grammar of the first language is believed to be acquired mainly in the first ten
years of life by normally developing children. Different linguistic structures are acquired in different periods, as we saw in section 1.2.2. Acquiring a linguistic structure
means becoming able to produce and comprehend that structure. What kind of problem is behind a failure in the acquisition of a syntactic structure? Two different kinds
of theories give an answer to this question. An acquisitional delay can be explained
by a structural lag hypothesis or by a processing deficit hypothesis. A structural lag
hypothesis focuses on the grammatical competence of the child: a given structure is
not acquired because the child’s grammar is incomplete.
A structural lag hypothesis generally implies that the delayed structure is neither comprehended nor produced correctly by the child.
A processing deficit hypothesis, on the contrary, maintains that a given structure can’t
be correctly comprehended and/or produced because the child lacks processing resources.
A processing deficit hypothesis focuses on the performance and assumes that the later
a structure is acquired, the more cumbersome is the computation required by that
available structure.9 A processing deficit then predicts that varying the available processing resources and/or the difficulty of the task should cause a variation in the performance of the child.
The literature on the acquisition of syntactic constructions by dyslexic subjects
points out a fundamental fact: dyslexic children face difficulties in syntactic computations that appear to be particularly cumbersome. Bar-Shalom et al. (1993) showed
that dyslexic children posses the grammatical competence required to handle relative
clauses and that their problems reside on processing and comprehending rather than
on producing. Wilsenach (2006) showed that argument structure complexity affects
the ability of Dutch children at risk for dyslexia to produce closed class items like auxiliaries and determiners. The task of producing closed class items is more difficult
with sentences that are more complex and thus longer, hence harder to process and to
9
Assuming, of course, that processing resources grow as the child gets older.
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
29
remember. This means that children know the closed class items that can be used but
are unable to use them in some experimental contexts. Fiorin (2010), following Reinhart (2006), showed how a lack of processing resources can account for the failures in
tasks tapping binding and coreference.
From a processing deficit perspective, dyslexic children’s performance appears to be
delayed because of a lack of processing resources. Preschool children face problems
that are similar to those encountered by older dyslexic children (aged between 8 and
10). Preschool children face difficulties with O-type tough constructions (Chomsky
1969), object relative clauses (Corrêa 1995) and sentences involving principle B (Chien
and Wexler 1990), the same problems that were found in older dyslexic children by
Byrne (1981), Bar-Shalom et al. (1993) and Waltzman and Cairns (2000), and reported
here throughout section 1.2.2. Assuming that processing resources grow as the child
gets older, these researches imply that dyslexic children’s linguistic deficits can be explained as a lack of processing resources.
1.3.3.2 Working memory, language acquisition and dyslexia
Following a hint by Just and Carpenter (1992), the failure in tasks requiring significant processing resources can be explained as a lack of working memory capacity.
The term working memory refers to “the capacity to store information while engaging in other cognitively demanding activity” (Gathercole et al. 2006): in other words,
working memory is the capacity to store information for a short period and perform
computations on that information.
1.3.3.2.1 Working memory. According to Baddeley’s model (Baddeley and Hitch
1974, Baddeley 2000), working memory is not a unitary buffer but it is divided in
two separate modules (or slave systems), the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial
sketchpad. The phonological loop is specialized in verbally coded information: it is
the module of working memory that deals with language and linguistic material. The
visuo-spatial sketchpad, on the contrary, is involved in the “short-term processing and
maintenance of material which has a strong visual or spatial component” (Gathercole
and Baddeley 1993, p. 4).
Working memory is tested through tasks that require the short term storage of information and the performance of some sort of operation on that first input (Pickering
and Gathercole 2001). For example, the verbal working memory (i.e. the phonological
30
1.3. The underlying causes of developmental dyslexia
loop) capacity can be tested with the sentence recall task, the counting recall task and
the listening recall task. In the sentence recall task, the subject is asked to recall a sequence of spoken digits in the reverse order. In the counting recall task, the subject is
asked to count the number of dots in an array and then to recall the tallies of dots in
the arrays in the sequence in which they were presented. In the listening recall task,
the subject is asked to listen to a series of short sentences, to state every time if each
sentence is true or false; eventually the subject is asked to recall the final word of each
sentence in the sequence.
The relationship between verbal working memory capacity and the acquisition of language has been explored by some studies. Gathercole and Baddeley (1990) showed
that children with poor working memory measures were slow (compared to peers
with higher working memory capacity) in learning new lexical items. Measures of
working memory are strong predictors of the evolution of the vocabulary in children:
the stronger the working memory capacity, the richer the vocabulary will be.
1.3.3.2.2 Working memory and dyslexia
1.3.3.2.2.1 Working memory, dyslexia and phonology.
A verbal working mem-
ory deficit can explain all the phonological problems shared by dyslexic children.
There’s clear evidence on the correlation between working memory deficiency, phonological awareness and learning to read.
Jorm (1983) observed that poor readers perform badly on verbal working memory
tasks and argued that their memory deficits are located in the “phonological component” of working memory. Jeffries and Everatt (2004) found that dyslexic subjects
scored significantly lower then their peers in tasks tapping verbal working memory
(whereas visual working memory, i.e. the visuo-spatial sketchpad, was unimpaired).
Gathercole et al. (2006) reported correlations between measures of verbal working
memory, phonological awareness and measures of the acquisition of reading skills in
children with reading disabilities. Many other studies reported the link between working memory and reading skills (Alloway and Gathercole 2005, Swanson and Howell
2001).
1.3.3.2.2.2 Working memory, dyslexia and syntax.
From the point of view of
the acquisition of language, the development of working memory capacity, gradually
increasing from childhood to adolescence (Gathercole et al. 2004), could be considered
CHAPTER 1. On dyslexia and the acquisition of language
31
to be responsible for some development in children’s syntactic skills. For example,
the growth of working memory capacity could explain the full acquisition of principle
B as explained by Grodzinsky and Reinhart (1993). The growth of working memory
could also explain, for example, the full acquisition of relative clauses and of tough
constructions. The acquisitional delay found in dyslexic children could then be explained as a delay in the development of working memory resources.
1.3.3.2.3 How many working memory capacities?
The relationship that verbal work-
ing memory entertains with the acquisition of syntax is not as clear as the relationship
with the development of phonological skills. The relationship between the so-called
phonological loop and syntactic processing is still debated.
Just and Carpenter assume that working memory capacity could “account for systematic differences in performance without postulating differences in the underlying
architecture” (Just and Carpenter 1992, p. 143). Just and Carpenter hypothesize that
the language comprehension is entirely (phonology, morpho–syntax, semantics, pragmatics) fed mainly by only one verbal working memory capacity: a proof in favor of
this hypothesis is “the finding that comprehension deteriorated [. . . ] when the demand on capacity was increased by a diversity of factors” (Just and Carpenter 1992, p.
144). Following Caplan and Waters (1999), we call Just and Carpenter’s theory a single
resource theory.
On the contrary, Caplan and Waters (1999) support a separate language interpretation
resource theory. They maintain that verbal working memory tasks like those designed
by Pickering and Gathercole (2001) are unable to predict success or failure in syntactic
processing. The tasks designed by Pickering and Gathercole are accused of assessing
only some kind of phonological working memory that is not used in syntactic processing. Caplan and Waters hypothesize that language comprehension is not fed by
more than one capacity: the verbal working memory capacity should then be divided
into different subsystems that feed different processing tasks. Caplan and Waters find
a proof of their theory in patients that, because of working memory disorders, fail in
tasks like those designed by Pickering and Gathercole (2001) but not in sentence comprehension tasks.
We are not going to debate on these two theories of the verbal working memory capacity. They are both able to explain the phonological and syntactic deficits that affect
dsylexic children. The single resource hypothesis, by the way, predicts that all dyslexics, failing Pickering and Gathercole’s verbal working memory tests, are equally im-
32
1.4. Summary of the chapter
paired in their syntactic and phonological skills. The separate resource theory does
not claim this prediction without necessarily denying it. For example, Waltzman and
Cairns (2000) find a correlation between the scores obtained in comprehension tasks
involving principle B and measures of phonological working memory, i.e. measures
obtained from tasks of verbal working memory conceived by Pickering and Gathercole (2001). The separate resource theory could explain such a correlation (i.e. between
measures of syntactic processing and measures of phonological working memory) by
assuming that dyslexic children suffer from a deficit involving more than one submodule of working memory, i.e. from a deficit of at least phonologic and syntactic working
memory.
1.4 Summary of the chapter
In this chapter we introduced dyslexia and its relations to phonological and syntactic
deficits. We particularly higlighted the relationship between dyslexia and syntax. We
noticed how dyslexic subjects find the processing of some cumbersome syntactic structures particularly hard and tricky. We finally observed how a structural lag hypothesis
is unable to explain the syntactic deficits manifested by dyslexic children.
Chapter 2
The acquisition of passives
Passive has always been a weird puzzle in linguistic theory, a puzzle that had elegant
solution(s) only from the mid eighties. By “elegant solution” we mean a theory that is
not language-particular or construction-specific but an analysis that uses general principles from interactive modules of grammar (Jaeggli 1986). Phenomena of grammar
must be explained by few general principles and parameters.
Passive constructions are mainly characterized by some evident features:
(18)
a. Every passive verb selects the same thematic roles selected by the corrispondent active verb.
b. The internal thematic role (the object) is projected as the subject.
c. The external thematic role is projected as an indirect complement and is
optionally assigned.
These first two properties (18a and 18b) are the main properties of passive constructions: these properties are commonly explained in the traditional formula “the surface
subject of a passive sentence corresponds to the logical object of the verb”. The third
property (18c) explains the possibility of transmitting the external thematic role to a
by–phrase. In an elegant analysis these properties must be the result of few simple
syntactic processes triggered by the passive morphology: these simple processes lead
to what we call the passive construction.
2.1 Passive and its grammar
Verbal passive constructions have been described as the result of A-movement (Jaeggli
1986, Baker et al. 1989) or, more recently, as the result of phrasal movement (Collins
34
2.1. Passive and its grammar
2005, Gehrke and Grillo in press).
2.1.1 Verbal passive as A-movement
The main feature of passive construction is the realization of the internal theta role as
the subject of the clause. The internal theta role is assigned to the internal argument of
the verb and then moves to the subject position to receive the case: this movement is
possible because the passive verb doesn’t assign theta role in Spec[VP] and accusative
case to the internal argument of VP. The internal argument is then capable of moving
through VP without violating the Theta Criterion10 (Chomsky 1981, 1995): the internal
argument moves to SpecVP and then to Spec[TP] to receive nominative case.
Hence the properties of passive (18a and 18b) are rewritten as:
(19)
a. The external thematic role is not assigned in Spec[vP].
b. The head vP does not assign accusative case.
Baker et al. (1989) noticed that the absence of the external argument cannot explain
some facts. A short passive11 can control an adjunct clause (20a) (Manzini 1983) and
short passives can be modified by an agent–oriented adverb (20b) (Jackendoff 1972). Inside a short passive it is also possible to bind without an overt antecent (20c) (Baker
et al. 1989).
(20)
a. The ship was wrecked in order to collect the insurance.
b. The ship was wrecked willingly.
c. Such privileges should be kept to oneself/*himself.
d. Theyi were killed ti
i.
Theyi were kill-edj ti (by someone/something)
ii. * Theyi were kill-edi ti (by themselves)
Baker et al. (1989) inferred that in short passive construction a covert arbitrary (see
(20c): only a generic reflexive can be bound) external argument is present. The hypothesis that followed this inference was that the external argument was present in
the passive morphology.
10
Theta Criterion states that there is a one to one match between DPs and thematic roles: every
argument can have only one theta role and every theta role can be assigned only to one argument.
Theta Criterion blocks movement between two theta positions.
11
We call short passive the passive verb that is not followed by a by–phrase. We call long passive the
passive that is followed by a by–phrase.
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
35
(21) The passive morpheme (–en) is an argument.
This hypothesis also explains the impossibility for a short passive like (20d) to be interpreted as (20d-ii): the coreference between the subject and the external argument of
the passive would yield a strong crossover effect.
(22)
a. The passive suffix –en absorbs accusative Case.
b. The passive suffix –en absorbs the external thematic role.
Hence, according to Baker et al. (1989), the properties of passive (19), must be rephrased
as (22).
The second feature of passive constructions is found in the by–phrase. The by–
phrase that follows the passive verb licenses the external thematic role of the passivized predicate; this point has been noted since the first studies in generative grammar. This means that the by that constitutes passive’s by–phrase, does not assign its
own theta role but only the external theta role of the passive verb (the one which is
assigned to –en according to Baker et al.).
(23)
a. The book was written by John.
b. Fear was sensed by John.
c. That professor is feared by all students.
d. A copy of Guns, Germs, and Steel has now been received by each member of
the incoming class.
(Collins 2005)
(24)
a. Ted was bitten by the love bug.
b. I was told that by a little bird.
(Postal 2004)
The examples in (23) show that the by–phrase can be assigned different thematic roles.
The examples in (24) show that even idiomatic subjects can appear in by–phrases. Passive’s by–phrase is thus able to assign every thematic role that we may find as the
external argument of every transitive verb: for this reason we say that the by–phrase
is “thematically unlimited” (Fox and Grodzinsky 1998).
This means that there must be some kind of mechanism that transfers the external
theta role, that is absorbed by the passive suffix -en, to the by–phrase: we call that
mechanism theta transmission (Fox and Grodzinsky 1998).
From the theoretical point of view, the theta transmission is a strong assumption since
it’s a structure–dependent operation: theta transmission is assumed to take place only
36
2.1. Passive and its grammar
in passives and is thus supposed to be triggered only by passive. There are no syntactic
structures that are independently assumed to be derived via theta transmission.
(25) The book was written by John.
IP
I’
DPi
The book
I
VP
PP
VP
V
write
DPi
by John
–en
2.1.2 Verbal passive as smuggling
Collins (2005) proposes a novel approach to passive constructions. The main idea
of his approach is that the external argument is syntactically present in Spec[vP] in
long and short verbal passive. The internal argument cannot move to subject position
across the external argument without violating the Minimal Link Condition (Chomsky
1995).
(26) Minimal Link Condition (MLC)
K attracts α only if there is no β, β closer to K than α, such that K attracts β.
According to MLC, a movement cannot target an available candidate α if there is closer
available candidate β: no DP can move (and get nominative case) to Spec[IP] if there is
a closer available DP that can satisfy the EPP feature of the head IP. Hence the internal
argument must be “smuggled” inside a phrase and made then closer to Spec[IP] than
the external argument. In the smuggling construction, the participle is represented by
a head Part. The head Part moves to the specifier of a head Voice which is higher than
light v.
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
37
(27) The book was written.
IP
I’
DPi
The book
I
VoiceP
Voice’
PartPj
written
V
vP
Voice
VP
DPi
Ø
DP
ec
v’
v
PartPj
The phrase marker in (27) represents a smuggling short passive sentence. The dashed
arrow represents the phrasal movement moving PartP to Spec[VoiceP]. Then the DP
The book moves to Spec[IP] satisfying EPP and getting nominative case. The category
ec is an empty category responsible for the generic reading of the short passive (recall (20c) for an example). Collins assumes that, in full passives, by is the head Voice,
which is otherwise silent in short passives. The head Voice assigns case to the external
argument.
Gehrke and Grillo (in press) revise Collins’ approach setting the phrasal movement into a complex verbal structure in which every head V represents a sub-event
of a more complex event. According to Dowty (1979), predicates can be decomposed
into particular atomic predicates CAUSE ,
DO
and BECOME. Gehrke and Grillo translate
this decomposition into syntactic terms: the atomic predicates are realized as different syntactic heads that compose together a complex predicate structure. Gehrke and
Grillo concentrate on the structure of telic events: telic events are characterized as culminating in the
BECOME
predicate. The
BECOME
predicate in telic events represents
the transition into a consequent state which marks the end (telos) of the event. Being
the end of the event, the BECOME predicate is the lowest sub-predicate of the complex
verbal structure.
38
2.1. Passive and its grammar
(28) John kills Bill.
[John does something] CAUSE [ BECOME ¬[Bill is alive]]
(Dowty 1979, p. 91)
The
BECOME
predicate is represented as the lowest head V in the complex syntactic
predicate. The lowest VP (instead of Collins’ PartP) is responsible for the smuggling
of the internal argument to the subject position. From this perspective, the verbal
passive is seen as some kind of topicalization that singles out the
BECOME
predicate
(i.e. the consequent state) moving it to Spec[VoiceP].
Gehrke and Grillo state that Collins’ approach is “simply epiphenomenal” to theirs.
According to Collins, the mechanism of passivization is motivated by the necessity to
bring the internal argument closer to the subject position than the external argument.
Gehrke and Grillo’s approach, on the contrary, puts the event structure at the core of
passivization.
(29) Bill was killed.
IP
I’
DPi
Bill
I
VoiceP
Voice’
VP2
DPi
V
Voice
BECOME
Ø
VP1
V1 ’
DP
¬[alive]
ec
V1
VP2
CAUSE
Notice that Gehrke and Grillo’s approach maintains that the position of the internal DP
is in Spec[VP2 ]. The presence of DP12 in Spec[VP2 ] (it would be Spec[PartP] in Collins’
12
The internal DP may be equally considered as base generated in Spec[VP2 ] or moved to Spec[VP2 ]
from the domain of V2 . The presence of the internal DP in Spec[VP2 ] is fully compatible with Gehrke
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
39
terms) can explain some phenomena that would remain otherwise unexplained. It’s
the case of expletive passive constructions.
(30)
a.
There was a Swabian killed.
b. * There was killed a Swabian.
Passive expletive constructions are generated exactly as active expletive constructions.
The subject DP agrees with the head I without raising to Spec[IP]. The EPP feature of
the head I is checked by an expletive like there. The presence of the DP a Swabian in
the domain of V2 would predict as acceptable the syntax of sentence (30b). The correct
syntactical order is predicted instead by the position of the internal DP a Swabian in
Spec[VP2 ].
The presence of the internal DP in Spec[VP2 ] also explain the syntactic order of the
floating quantifiers in passive sentences.
(31)
a.
The boys were both given a good talking to.
b. * The boys were given both a good talking to.
In the case of floating quantifiers in passive, the DP and the quantifier find themselves
in Spec[VP2 ]. Only the DP moves to Spec[IP] and the quantifier remains stranded in
pre-verbal (pre–V1 ) position.
In Gehrke and Grillo’s framework, only an event structure that contains a BECOME
(i.e. with some kind of resultative semantics) sub-event can be passivized. This requirement blocks the formation of passive in stative predicates.
(32)
a.
This book costs ten dollars.
* Ten dollars is cost (by this book).
b.
This car weighed two tons.
* Two tons was weighed (by this car).
(Postal 2004)
Gehrke and Grillo’s theory correctly predicts that transitive verbs like those in (32),
which are not associated with an event structure containing a transition into a state,
cannot passivize.
A problem for Gehrke and Grillo’s approach is that some stative verbs can form
passives.
and Grillo (in press)’s approach and also with Collins’ approach.
40
2.2. The acquisition of passives
(33)
a. This house is owned/surrounded by the army.
b. The answer is known by the pupils.
c. That noise was heard by many people.
These predicates are not considered to involve BECOME, since they consist only of one
sub-event, a state. For example, psych–verbs like know allow passivization. Gehrke
and Grillo propose that know–verbs can be interpreted as hosting a consequence state
in order to allow passivization and that “this reading is derived by means of some
kind of type shift from states to achievements”.
A consequent problem for Gehrke and Grillo’s hypothesis is to explain why some
stative verbs, like know and hear, can passivize whereas other stative verbs, like weigh,
can’t.
2.2 The acquisition of passives
Until the eighties it was assumed that children were completely unable to handle
passives at least until the age of five or six. Data collected by Maratsos et al. (1985)
challenged this assumption and showed that 4–year–old children are not completely
unable to handle passive: they are only partially unable to handle passive. 4–year–
old children in fact fail in comprehension tasks involving non-actional passives but,
on the other hand, they understand and produce correctly actional passive sentences.
Following Hirsch and Hartman (2006), we call Maratsos effect this discrepancy between
the acquisition of actional passives and the acquisition of non-actional passives.
The difference between actional and non-actional verbs is mainly a thematic one: actional verbs (like hit, build, eat) select as their external argument a thematic role that
represents the cause of an action (agent, instrument...); non-actional verbs (like see,
hear, love) select as their external argument a thematic role that doesn’t represents the
cause of an action (experiencer, goal...).
Studies on the acquisition of passive in languages, like Hebrew and German, that
clearly distinguish between adjectival and verbal passive (i.e. languages in which adjectival passive and verbal passive are not homophones) show that adjectival passives
are mastered long before verbal passives (Berman and Sagi 1981, Mills 1985).
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
41
2.2.1 The Maturation Hypothesis
According to Jaeggli’s analysis of passive constructions (Jaeggli 1986), passive is made
by three morpho-syntactic operations:
(34)
a. The external theta role (and case) absorption
b. The A-movement to Spec[TP]
c. The theta transmission in long passives
One or more of these operations is not working in those subjects who are unable to
deal with passive sentences correctly. 4–year–old children are able to produce and
understand correctly short passive sentences (Maratsos et al. 1985): this proves that
the external theta role absorption (34a) is available to those children. At least one of
the other two operations involved in the grammar of passive construction must be
impaired. The A-Chain Deficit Hypothesis ( ACDH ) claims that the operation impaired
in 4–year–old children is the A-movement (34b).
(35) A–Chain Deficit Hypothesis ( ACDH )
Pre–mature children do not represent A–chains as grammatical.
(Borer and Wexler 1987)
A-movement is simply not available in youngest children’s grammar: children’s grammar goes through a maturation and develops A-movement only between the age of 5
and 6. That is why the ACDH is also called a Maturation Hypothesis (Borer and Wexler
1987).13
The impairment of A-movement implies that children are unable to process sentences
that contain A-movements: sentences that contain an A-movement are processed as
similar sentences that do not contain A-movement. This means that children process
every verbal passive as its “syntactic homophone” (s-homophone), a structure that is
13
It is sometimes difficult to correctly understand the distinction between the Maturation Hypoyhesis and the ACDH. The seminal article by Borer and Wexler (1987) hypothesized that every child is
born with an incomplete grammar: only after six years the child develops the possibility to produce
and understand A-movements. The child’s grammar needs maturation in order to master all syntactic
structures. A major difference between a mature and an pre-mature grammar is the presence/absence
of the mechanism of A-movement.
The Maturation Hypothesis is the assumption that grammar needs a maturation, i.e. that every child
is born with a grammar that lacks some mechanisms and that these mechanisms will be acquired by
every child in some years.
The A-Chain Deficit Hypothesis ACDH is the hypothesis that A-movement is present in a mature grammar and absent in an pre–mature grammar. Hence, the ACDH is a hypothesis derived from the Maturation Hypothesis.
42
2.2. The acquisition of passives
identical (at PF) to verbal passive but doesn’t require A-movement: the s-homophone
of the verbal passive (in English) is the adjectival passive. This means that every passive pronounced by a 4–year–old children is an adjectival passive; every passive sentence heard by a 4–year–old children is processed as an adjectival passive sentence.
Adjectival passives are built directly from the lexicon, throughout a morphological operation, not in syntax14 (Wasow 1977, Levin and Rappaport 1986, Horvath and Siloni
2005): this means that the internal argument of the verb is externalized and that there
is no need to move the verbal complement to Spec[TP].
The Maturation Hypothesis is able to explain the data found by Maratsos et al. (1985)
and other authors in spite of the particular features of adjectival passives. The Maturation Hypothesis accounts for these two fenomena related to the comprehension and
production of passive in children younger than 5–6 years old.
(36) The problems with non-actional passives found by Maratsos et al. (1985).
(37) The earlier and therefore easier acquisition of adjectival passives in languages
like Hebrew and German (Berman and Sagi 1981, Mills 1985).
The problems with non-actional passives (36) are explained by a particular property
of adjectival passives. In English non-actional verbs rarely make good adjectives: this
means that there is a semantic restriction on the formation of the adjectival passives.
(38)
a. * The seen doll.
b. * The liked doll.
(39)
a.
The combed doll.
b.
The torn doll.
This semantic restriction is theoretically encoded as the absence of a formal property
SR:
the absence of the
SR
property in non-actional verbs blocks the formation of the
adjectival past participles. The absence of such property doesn’t block, of course, the
formation of verbal passives. This property is a universal or it is a parameter probably
learned quite early by the children.
To summarize, ACDH claims the following points.
(40)
a. A structura lag (lack of A–chain) makes children unable to comprehend
and produce passives.
b. Children resort (if they can) to adjectival passives when processing or producing a passive sentence.
14
For a different perspective on adjectival passives, see (Emonds 2006).
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
43
c. The Maratsos Effect in English is due to the fact that English non-actional
verbs are unavailable for children’s resort strategy.
2.2.1.1 The Maturation Hypothesis revisited: the Universal Phase Requirement
Wexler (2004) deals with some flaws of the
ACDH.
Wexler observes that children’s
acquisitional problems do not reside in constructions involving A-movement.
A first problem for
VPISH
ACDH
lies in the VP Internal Subject Hypothesis (VPISH). The
(Koopman and Sportiche 1991) states that the subject argument of the verb is
base generated in Spec[VP] and then moves to Spec[TP] to receive case. VP then constitutes a thematic interface, a thematic kernel.
VPISH
is today broadly accepted in
linguistic theory.
VPISH
is a problem for Maturation Hypothesis because every clause that contains a
vP selected by a TP has an A–chain. It is also known that children are not delayed in
correctly placing the subject outside the vP (Stromswold 1996).
Borer and Wexler (1992), in order to save
Spec[vP] to Spec[TP] out of the
ACDH.
ACDH,
tried to keep the A-movement from
Borer and Wexler assumed that only “non–
trivial” A-movement is problematic for non–matured children. A non–trivial movement is a movement that links two potential theta positions: it’s exactly the case of
the DP movement in passives that crosses VP, landing on Spec[VP] and then moving
again to Spec[TP]. Fox and Grodzinsky (1998) call this modified version of the
a Relaxed Maturational Hypothesis.
ACDH
15
Babyonyshev et al. (2001) proposed to assume a different acquisitional principle and
to switch from ACDH to EARH.
(41) External Argument Requirement Hypothesis ( EARH )
Pre–mature children take structures with defective v as ungrammatical.
(Babyonyshev et al. 2001)
A defective v is a light verb that doesn’t select an external argument. A defective v
characterizes passives and unaccusatives, that do not assign a thematic role in Spec[vP].
Another problem, for
ACDH
and
EARH,
comes from raising constructions. Data
from Hirsch et al. (2006) show that children have problems interpreting raising con15
A little problem for the relaxation of Maturation Hypothesis comes from the opacity of the notion
of “potential thematic position”. The potential thematic position needs to be defined in order to understand clearly what a non–trivial A-movement is. According to Fox and Grodzinsky (1998), a non–trivial
movement is simply an A–chain with a tail which is not in a specifier position.
44
2.2. The acquisition of passives
structions (42a) but not interpreting their unraised counterparts (42b).
(42)
a. John seems to Mary to be wearing a hat.
b. It seems to Mary that John is wearing a hat.
The movement of John to Spec[TP] (to satisfy EPP) in (42a) is a movement between
two specifiers and between two positions that are not “potential thematic positions”.
Hence, the relaxed ACDH would predict no difficulties for any children dealing with a
sentence like (42a).
On the other hand, according to EARH, both (42a) and (42b) should be difficult for the
children: the verb seems doesn’t assign any external thematic role.
In order to overcome these problems, Wexler (2004) proposes the Universal Phase
Hypothesis. The Universal Phase Hypothesis assumes that pre–mature grammars do
not have a complete understanding of the phasal nature of vP.
According to Chomsky (2000), only a non–definite vP (a v*P, as Chomsky marks it) is a
(strong) phase.16 The syntactic operations are constrained by the Phase Impenetrability
Condition.
(43) Phase Impenetrability Constraint (PIC)
The domain of H is not accessible to operations outside HP; only H and its edge
(i.e. its specifiers and adjuncts) are accessible to such operations.
The
PIC
blocks movement from the domain of the head H to a position outside the
phase H. The vPs in unaccusative verbs and passive verbs, according to Chomsky
(2000), are not strong phases (v*Ps), they are just weak vPs. Operations outside passive
or unaccusative vPs have access to the domain of the head v.
According to Universal Phase Hypothesis (Wexler 2004), pre–mature children treat
every v as a (strong) phase and thus block operations from outside vP from accessing
the domain of the head v.
(44) Universal Phase Requirement (UPR)
Pre–mature children take every v as a (strong) phase.
UPR predicts, for pre–mature children, problems with passives and unaccusative verbs.
It also predicts problems with raising structures like (42a) but not with their unraised
16
According to Chomsky (2000), phases can be weak or strong. Only strong phases undergo the
Phase Impenetrability Conditions. Sometimes, in the literature, strong phases are simply referred to as
phases. This is the reason for the parentheses around strong.
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
45
counterparts, like (42b), which are not characterized by an operation that crosses the
phase boundary of vP.
The introduction of UPR does not change the perspective on passive in the Maturation Hypothesis. In summary the Maturation Hypothesis is the same
(45)
a. A structural lag (UPR) makes children unable to comprehend and produce
passives.
b. Children resort (if they can) to adjectival passives when processing or producing a passive sentence.
c. The Maratsos Effect in English is due to the fact that English non-actional
verbs are unavailable for children’s resort strategy.
2.2.1.2 Problems with the Maturation Hypothesis
2.2.1.2.1 Unaccusative verbs. Unaccusative verbs, according to Burzio (1986), contain non–trivial A–chains. This means that, according to the Maturation Hypothesis,
children should not be able to produce sentences with unaccusative verbs and subjects
in the pre-verbal position. Data from the
CHILDES
database (Guasti 2002, p. 257) tes-
tify that children are able to produce such sentences since 18–24 months.
Borer and Wexler (1992), in order to explain, within the Maturation Hypothesis, the
early acquisition of unaccusative verbs and the delay in the acquisition of passives,
suppose that children process unaccusative verbs as unergatives. Babyonyshev et al.
(2001) report an experiment on Russian children that tested their acquisition of unaccusative verbs from the point of view of Russian genitive of negation. Genitive of
negation is a genitive case that appears only on base generated objects governed by a
negated verb; genitive of negation is acquired quite early and is available to most of
the children (between 3 and 7 years old) tested. The result of the experiment shows
that Russian children disallow genitive case (and prefer nominative case) on the sole
argument of a negated unaccusative verb: this implies that children process unaccusative verbs as unergatives.
Guasti (2002) notices that the theory by Babyonyshev et al. has some serious drawbacks. First, assuming that children, lacking A–chains in their grammar, interpret
unaccusatives as unergative involves significant predictions for those languages in
which unaccusatives and unergatives select a different auxiliary. If the Italian children
lacked A–chains in their grammar, they would interpret unaccusative verbs as unergative verbs and they would pick the wrong auxiliary when using unaccusative verbs.
This is not the case, according to data from the CHILDES database and data reported in
46
2.2. The acquisition of passives
the analysis of auxiliary selection in reflexive constructions (Snyder et al. 1995).
2.2.1.2.2 Other data from Sesotho and English.
Data from Demuth (1989) show
that 3–year–old children speakers of Sesotho (also known as Sotho, a Bantu language
spoken primarily in South Africa and Lesotho) are able to produce passives. This
would not be a great novelty itself: the important point is that the grammar of Sesotho
doesn’t have adjectival passives. This evidence counterbalances those found by Mills
(1985) and Berman and Sagi (1981) about German and Hebrew. The supporters of the
Maturation Hypothesis assume that passives are processed early (way before the age
of six) if they can be interpreted as adjectival passives: if this is impossible verbal passive comprehension tasks are doomed to be failed.
From the point of view of the Maturation Hypothesis, the data about the acquisition
of Sesotho are conflicting with the evidence on German and Hebrew. It must be also
noted that the data on the acquisition from Sesotho conflict also with the findings of
Terzi and Wexler (2002) about the acquisition of Greek. In Greek adjectival passives
and verbal passives are not s–homophones: hence it is possible to test the acquisition
of Greek verbal passive as distinguished from the acquisition of Greek adjectival passive. Terzi and Wexler show that Greek children are as good as English children (which
are supposed to be interpreting verbal passives as adjectival passives) in the acquisition of adjectival passive. Greek children also show very poor performances (below
chance rates) with verbal passives. These performances by Greek children meet the
predictions made by Maturation Hypoyhesis.
Pinker et al. (1987) argue against the results found by Horgan (1978). According
to Horgan, children acquiring English produce adjectival passives: this claim comes
from the observation that children produce stative passives rather than eventive passives17 . Pinker et al. (1987) claim that Horgan made a mistake in the interpretation of
her data: the point that children tend to produce adjectival passives (“after-the-fact ob17
Notice that adjectival passive yield a stative interpretation (as the effect of the morphological operation that turns the verb into the adjectival past participle) whereas verbal passive yield an eventive
interpretation.
(46) La porta è aperta.
(47)
a. La porta è aperta in un batter d’occhio da una folata di vento.
The door is opened in a blink by a gust of wind.
b. La porta è aperta per almeno un’ora ogni giorno.
The door is open for at least one hour every day.
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
47
servation[s] on the state of things”) can only demonstrate that children prefer stative
passives to accomplish the task of describing a picture. Data from Pinker et al. (1987)
show that children are able to use passives to describe events.
2.2.2 The By–phrase Hypothesis
The Maturation Hypothesis was challenged by Fox and Grodzinsky (1998). Fox and
Grodzinsky (1998) claim that 4–year–old children’s problems with passive are not
caused by a pre–mature grammar, lacking A-movement: children’s problems are caused
by some kind of processing deficit regarding theta transmission (34c).
Fox and Grodzinsky present some arguments against the Maturation Hypothesis.
The first argument is that children perform successfully in constructions involving A–
chains: this argument is carried out with those data that have already been explained
in 2.2.1.2.
The second argument shows that children have problems with by–phrases. Fox and
Grodzinsky (1998) report an experiment performed on thirteen English children aged
between three and a half and five and a half. This experiment consisted in a Truth
Value Judgement Task involving actional and non–actional short and long passives
(be-passives, to be precise). The thirteen children were divided among three groups.
The first group, consisting of two children aged between four and five, showed an
adult-like behaviour giving 100% correct answers to all kinds of passive sentences. The
second group, consisting of eight children, scored 100% correct answers in short passives and actional long passives. The second group had problems with non-actional
long passives: they gave only 40.6% correct answers scoring chance performance. The
third group, consisting of three children aged between four and five, showed quite a
strange result: they scored less than 45% correct answers either to long non-actional
passives and to short non-actional passives.
The second group provides the main proof to Fox and Grodzinsky’s theory: children
are unable to use passives’ by–phrases. More specifically, children are unable to perform the theta transmission to the by–phrase: this means that the by–phrase can’t express exactly the external argument of the verb. Children must use by–phrases without
theta transmission: we call these by–phrases “free floating by–phrases” 18 . A free floatIf we have a look at the passive in (46) we can see that it can be interpreted as verbal (eventive) in (47a)
and as adjectival in (47b).
18
The name “free floating by–phrase” comes from Babyonyshev et al. (2001): the authors speak of the
48
2.2. The acquisition of passives
ing by–phrase is the same by–phrase that follows nominals: this kind of by–phrase
can only select agents (50a), instruments (50b) or creators/possessors (50c) (Fox and
Grodzinsky call all these types “affectors”) but not experiencers (51b) or goals/targets
(51a) (“nonaffectors”) 19 .
(50)
a. The imprisonment of refugees by the government.
b. The destruction of the city by lightning.
c. A painting by John.
(51)
a. The receipt of the package (*by John)
b. The fear of Harry (*by John)
Children process every long passive sentence they hear as containing a free floating
by–phrase instead of passive’s by–phrase. This is the source of their problems. This explains why children (at least the second group examined by Fox and Grodzinsky) have
problems only with long non-actional passives. In a sentence like (52a) the children
would assign the role of patient to John and the role of agent (through the free floating
by–phrase) to Peter: the comprehension of the sentence would follow correctly. In a
sentence like (52b) the children would assign the role of theme to John and an affector
theta role (through the free floating by–phrase) to Peter: an affector theta role is inconsistent with the thematic structure of the non-actional predicate, making semantic
interpretation impossible. At this point the children should apply a cognitive strategy and assign thematic roles at random: from this follows the chance performance
obtained with non-actional long passive by the second group 20 .
(52)
a. John is hit by Peter
b. John is heard by Peter.
nominal by–phrase as assigning a “free floating affector”.
19
Get-passives don’t assign external theta role through theta transmission: they seem to employ a free
floating by–phrase. This is shown in (48) by adjunct control and in (49) agent-oriented adverbs.
(48)
a. * The ship got sunk PRO to collect insurance money.
b. The ship got sunk for John PRO to collect insurance money.
(49)
a. * The book got torn on purpose.
b. The book was torn on purpose.
20
Notice that Fox and Grodzkinsky’s findings could be explained in two different ways. Theta transmission could be considered as an element which is not present in child’s grammar and which becomes
available later on; otherwise theta transmission could be considered as available to child’s grammar but
not usable because of a lack of processing resources.
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
49
Notice that Fox and Grodzinsky tested only semantically reversible passives. Semantically reversible passive sentences (54) are sentences that would be plausible even if
the verb arguments were reversed. We could in fact imagine that children would not
score at chance with a long non-actional non-reversible passive like (53): the cognitive
strategy would easily prevent them from assigning a thematic role to an implausible
assignee. It is demonstrated that reversible passive construction is difficult for developing children to interpret correctly: the non-reversible passive is much easier because
nonlinguistic information enables the child to identify correctly the roles of the argument of the sentence (Sinclair et al. 1971).
(53)
a.
The noise is heard by John.
b. ? John is heard by the noise.
(54)
a.
John is heard by Peter
b.
Peter is heard by John.
To summarize, the By–phrase Hypothesis claims that:
(55)
a. A processing deficit makes children unable to use the operation of theta
transmission when processing or producing a passive construction.
b. Children resort (if they can) to a nominal by–phrase when processing or
producing a passive sentence.
c. The Maratsos effect in English is due to the fact that English non-actional
by–phrases are unavailable for children’s resort strategy.
d. The Maratsos effect is limited to long passives.
2.2.2.1 Problems with the By–phrase Hypothesis
2.2.2.1.1 The integration of the By–phrase Hypothesis into the Maturation Hypothesis.
Babyonyshev et al. (2001) discuss the data found by Fox and Grodzinsky (1998):
they come to the paradoxical conclusion that those data, after all, support the Maturation Hypothesis. Babyonyshev et al. (2001) observe that, even if adjectival past participles do not license by–phrase, it is possible for a free floating by–phrase to follow
an adjectival passive.
Following this hypothesis we can see that long verbal passives are s-homophonous to
adjectival passives with a free floating by–phrase. The child would then have problems
only with a non-actional long passive: the free floating by–phrase could not assign a
thematic role consistent with a verb like see, leading to the problems described by Fox
50
2.2. The acquisition of passives
and Grodzinsky (1998).
Babyonyshev et al. (2001) observe then that Fox and Grodzinsky’s data could be explained either by the maturational account or by the By–phrase Hypothesis. The By–
phrase Hypothesis, by the way, is not able to explain the data about Russian unaccusatives found by Babyonyshev et al. (2001) (and, we say, also the data found by
Berman and Sagi (1981) and Mills (1985) on the acquisition of passives in languages
like German and Hebrew (37), in which there is no s–homophony between adjectival
and verbal passives)21 .
2.2.2.1.2 Children don’t know by.
A main problem for the By–phrase Hypothesis
comes from those languages, like Italian and Spanish, in which the nominal by–phrase
is not s–homophonous to the verbal by–phrase. This implies that Spanish and Italian children are unable to resort to the nominal by–phrase as assumed by Fox and
Grodzinsky (1998).
A similar problem is found by Hirsch and Wexler (2006). Hirsch and Wexler notice
that if children know the nominal by–phrase, as Fox and Grodzinsky assume, then
it is plausible to assume that children would use in some utterances a nominal by–
phrase. By the way, Hirsch and Wexler searched the
CHILDES
database and did not
find even a single English utterance containing a nominal by–phrase. In the
CHILDES
database, while there “are plenty of example of other cases of semantically contentful by (e.g. locative-by and temporal by), there are no examples of agent-by in either
child–produces or child–directed speech” (Hirsch and Wexler 2006).
Hirsch and Wexler (2006) then ran an experiment aimed at testing the knowledge of
nominal by in 30 children aged between 3 and 6, the years during which the full comprehension of passive is not achieved. Hirsch and Wexler ran a Truth Value Judgement
Task involving sentences like (57a) and (57b).
(57)
a. The story about Minnie had mountains in it.
21
The possibility for by–phrases to follow adjectival passive was in fact already noted by Wasow
(1977).
(56)
a. This island is uninhabited by humans.
b. John remained feared.
c. The child was unwanted by his parents
The grammaticality (Pinker et al. 1987) of sentences like (56a) shows that adjectival passives can take
by–phrases and that the original hypothesis by Borer and Wexler (1987) was flawed. By the way, the
grammaticality of sentences like (56b) and (56c) highlights a flaw also in the hypothesis outlined by
Babyonyshev et al. (2001): an adjectival passive can be followed by a by–phrase assigning a theta role.
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
51
b. The story by Minnie had mountains in it.
The children gave more than 90% correct answers in tasks involving about–sentences
like (57a) and less than 30% correct answers in tasks involving by–sentences like (57b).
According to Fox and Grodzinsky (1998), children should know the meaning of nominal by and should be able to interpret sentences containing it. According to the experiment by Hirsch and Wexler children do not seem to know the meaning of nominal
by.
In summary, children do not seem to be able to resort to the nominal by–phrase
when processing (or producing) passives. In order to save the By–phrase Hypothesis it would be necessary to assume that children have the necessary resources to
process the mechanism of theta transmission, with the exception of the non-actional
theta–transmission. This would mean assuming that non-actional theta transmission
is more expensive in terms of processing resources, compared to the other kinds of
theta transmission. This (strong) assumption, by the way, is ruled out by Greek data,
as we will see in paragraph 2.2.2.1.3.
2.2.2.1.3 The problem with Greek data.
Some data produced by Terzi and Driva
(2007) challenge the hypothesis that the by–phrase is the source of children’s difficulties with passive. An experiment run on Greek children (40 children aged between
three and a half and six and a half, divided into four groups) tested their comprehension of passive sentences. Recall that in Greek, as in Hebrew and German, adjectival
passive and verbal passive are not s-homophones. The data confirm the Maratsos Effect, given that Greek children had in general more problems understanding non-actional passives than understanding actional ones. The important finding, by the way,
regards by–phrases; all the children showed no difference between processing long
passives and short passives: the by–phrase seemed to have no effect on the processing
difficulty of passive sentences.
The data by Terzi and Driva are in fact able to rule out the By–phrase Hypothesis.
These data show that there is no By–phrase Effect and that, as an obvious consequence,
Maratsos Effect and By–phrase Effect are not related.
2.2.3 Passives in dyslexia
The acquisition of passive sentences by English poor readers is the subject of an article
by Stein et al. (1984). The study tests the processing of passive sentences in reading
dysabled subjects and control subjects aged between 7 and 9.
52
2.2. The acquisition of passives
Ten poor readers aged between 7 and 8 and ten poor readers aged between 8 and 9
were tested in a comprehension task (an Act Out Task precisely) involving passive
and active sentences. Poor readers’ results were of course compared with the results
obtained from an equal number of age matched control subjects. The task involved
three types of sentences (active sentences, reversible passives and non-reversible sentences) and twelve sentences per construction type were used.
The experiment showed no difference in the comprehension of passive sentences between dyslexic children and their peers. Dyslexic children scored just a little worse
(i.e. not significantly worse) than their peers.
The paper by Stein et al. (1984), by the way, tested only long actional passives
(according to the excerpts from the experiment given in the appendix) which are not
difficult to understand and produce even for a three–year–old child (Crain et al. 1987).
We could say in fact that the paper by Stein et al. (1984) avoids the problems found by
children in acquiring passive constructions and higlithted by more recent research.
2.2.4 The experiment
We ran an experiment aimed at testing the acquisition of passive voice. The subjects
of the experiments were 9–year–old Italian children affected by dyslexia, 9–year–old
control Italian children without dyslexia and 5–year–old Italian children (presumably)
without dyslexia. The experiment tests two opposite features of passive sentences and
their relation to the acquisition of passive voice.
(58) Reversible VS non-reversible passives.
(59) Actional VS non-actional passives.
The two oppositions, (58) and (59), were tested with a Truth Value Judgement Task
consisting of 8 items. The experiment involved two experimenters and a test subject:
the first experimenter showed a picture to the child and told a very short story explaining what was happening in the picture. The second experimenter, manipulating
a puppet, uttered a sentence (an item or a filler): the sentence was supposed to describe
what was represented in the picture and introduced by the short story. If the sentence
was wrong (reversed) and was unable to illustrate correctly the content of the picture,
the child had to punish the puppet giving him/her a false coin (a pretended felt coin);
if the sentence was correct, the child had to reward the puppet giving him/her a pretended gold coin. Children who decided to punish the puppet were asked the reason
for their judgement.
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
53
Four types of sentences (two sentences per type) were administered in the experiment: non-reversible passive sentences with actional verb (60a), non-reversible passive sentences with non-actional verb (60b), reversible passive sentences with actional
verb (60c), reversible passive sentences with non-actional verb (60d).
(60)
a. Winnie Pooh è mangiato dal miele.
Winnie Pooh is eaten by honey.
b. Paperino è sentito dalla sveglia.
Donald Duck is heard by the alarm clock.
c. La fidanzata è baciata da Paperino.
The girlfriend is kissed by Donald Duck.
d. Winnie Pooh è visto dalle api.
Winnie Pooh is seen by the bees.
All the items were false, i.e. all the items didn’t match the picture. The sentences
required the children to reject the sentences given by the puppet as false sentences:
accepting the sentences as true meant accepting the relation between passive morphology and canonical argument structure. Non-reversible sentences thus turned out
to be simply absurd.
Every item involved two entities, the external argument of a verb and the internal argument of the verb. A short story told by the first experimenter made clear which was
the external argument of the verb and which was the external argument. Accepting as
true a passive sentence in which the thematic roles are switched would mean ignoring,
for some reason, the basic rule of passive sentences (18b), repeated here as (61). Notice
that this rule holds either for adjectival and for verbal passives.
(61) The internal thematic role (the object) is projected as the subject.
5 warm–up sentences and 8 fillers were used in the experiment in order to show the
children that some sentences could be ok and some other could be wrong. The fillers
and the warm–up sentences that didn’t match the pictures (i.e. that were false) often presented a switch between the external and the internal argument. Hence fillers
and warm–up sentences gave the children a hint about the type of errors that he/she
would find. Fillers had also the goal of distracting the child from the aim of the experiment. Fillers were also ways of testing child’s ability to interpret active predicates
correctly.
54
2.2. The acquisition of passives
Table 2.1: Subjects involved in the experiment
Group
Young controls
Dyslexic children
Age matched controls
Adults
Abbr.
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
Number of subjects
12
20
22
9
Female subjects
7
11
11
7
Mean age (yy;mm)
5; 8
9; 7
9; 7
35; 8
Four groups were tested: dyslexics ( DYS ), age matched controls ( AMC ), young controls ( YCC ) and adult controls ( ADC ). We decided to exclude from the results those
subject who had made more than two errors judging the fillers. This decision was
taken in order to exclude from the experiment those subjects who were not paying
enough attention to the experiment. Only three young controls out of fifteen made
more than three errors in judging the fillers: their data have been excluded from the
present analysis.
Table 2.2: Percentages of wrong answers
Group
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
Reversible
Non-actional
RN
54%
38%
11%
0%
Reversible
Actional
RA
38%
5%
0%
0%
Non-reversible
Non-actional
NN
63%
23%
2%
0%
Non-reversible
Actional
NA
38%
10
0
0%
Fillers
11%
2.50
1%
1%
2.2.4.1 Data analysis
The data22 have been submitted to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Shapiro–
Wilk test for normality of distribution. The tests showed that the data are characterized in most groups by an abnormal distribution.23 For this reason we decided to carry
on with the data analysis using non–parametric tests.
The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to asses the relevance of the data across the four
groups. The Kruskal–Wallis test showed that the scores in the tasks related to the four
22
See appendix A for materials, results and statistical analyses related to this experiment.
23
The results of the tests for normality of distribution can be found in table A.4, appendix A.
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
55
Figure 2.1: Percentages of wrong answers
sentence types vary significantly across the four groups. For reversible non-actional
(RN) passives H(3) = 21.58, p < .01. For reversible actional (RA) passives H(3) = 19.99, p
< .01. For non-reversible non-actional (NN) passives H(3) = 28.50, p < .01. For non-reversible actional (NA) passives H(3) = 17.81, p < .01.
Mann–Whitney tests were used to follow up this finding. A Bonferroni correction was
applied and so all effects are reported at a .0083 level of significance. The .0083 level
of significance is obtained applying the most conservative Bonferroni correction to the
standard level of significance .05: the standard level of significance .05 was divided by
the number of all possible comparisons (6) between the groups (Field 2005, p. 550).
The performance of dyslexics differs from the performance of the age matched controls in the task involving reversible non-actional (RN) passives (U = 128, r = –.42), but
not in the other tasks: not with reversible actional (RA) passives (U = 198, r = –.23);
not with non-reversible non-actional (NN) passives (U = 152, r = –.39); not with nonreversible actional (NA) passives (U = 176, r = –.34).
The performance of age matched controls (AMC) does not differ significantly from
the performance of the adults (ADC). Not with reversible non-actional (RN) passives
(U = 81, r = –.24); not with reversible actional (RA) passives (U = 99, r = 0); not with
non-reversible non-actional (NN) passives (U = 94.5, r = –.12); not with non-reversible
actional (NA) passives (U = 99, r = 0).
56
2.2. The acquisition of passives
The performance of 5–year–old controls (YCC) differs significantly from the performance of the adults (ADC), but only in the task of comprehending non-actional passives: reversible non-actional (RN) passives (U = 9, r = 0.77) and non-reversible nonactional (NN) passives (U = 9, r = 0.77). The performance of YCC and ADC does not
seem to differ signifcantly in tasks involving actional passives: reversible actional (RA)
passives (U = 27, r = 0.53) and non-reversible actional (NA) passives (U = 27, r = 0.53).
2.2.4.2 Discussion
2.2.4.2.1 5–year–old children ( YCC ).
The data provided by the
YCC
group roughly
match those found by Terzi and Driva (2007). Terzi and Driva tested Greek children
and argued, following Terzi and Wexler (2002), that in a language like Greek verbal
passives are more difficult than in a language like English. The cause of this difference
is supposed to be caused by the lack of s–homophony between adjectival passives and
verbal passives in Greek: in Greek the adjectival passive cannot be an s–homophone
to the verbal passive and then children cannot resort to the “adjectival passive strategy” (i.e. children cannot resort to the adjectival passive in order to interpret the unavailable verbal passive). In Italian, by the way, it seems to be theoretically possible
to resort to the adjectival passive strategy. If the adjectival passive strategy is available, we expect to find data like those provided by Pinker et al. (1987) and Fox and
Grodzinsky (1998), according to which children aged between 5 and 6 are able to interpret reversible actional passive giving a hundred percent correct answers. In other
words, if an adjectival passive strategy is possible, we expect the performance of the
YCC
group not to differ from the performance of the
ADC
group. We have seen, by
the way, that, according to the Mann–Whitney test, the performance of the YCC group
cannot be significantly distinguished from the performance of the ADC group.
Statistical analysis thus tells us that the
YCC
group is affected only by the Marat-
sos Effect. The interesting result is that 5–year–old children suffer from the Maratsos
Effect even when interpreting non-reversible passives. The 5–year–old children gave
the same percentage of wrong answers in the tasks involving reversible and non-reversible non-actional passives. The 5–year–old children were the only group that obtained the same scores in reversible and non-reversible passives. This fact can be explained in two ways. It could be that 5–year–old children, contrary to what is claimed
by Sinclair et al. (1971), may be less able to resort to encyclopedic knowledge when
processing puzzling structures. It could also be, more plausibly, that children who
failed the non-reversible comprehension tasks were “operating under the assumption
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
57
that the sort of cartoon inanimate objects used in the experiment can be agents/experiencers” (Hirsch and Wexler 2007); some sort of suspension of disbelief could thus
explain the absence of difference between the results of the non-reversible and the
reversible comprehension tasks.
2.2.4.2.2 Dyslexic children ( DYS ).
The analysis of the data provided by the
DYS
group shows that dyslexic children suffer from the Maratsos Effect at an age (between
9 and 10 years) at which they should have an adult–like comprehension of passive
sentences, as shown by the results obtained from their peers ( AMC ). This result refutes
the hypothesis, provided by Stein et al. (1984) that dyslexic subjects do not suffer any
delay in the acquisition of passives.
The results obtained by dyslexic children could in principle be explained as a delay
in the acquisition of grammar, following the path of the Maturation Hypothesis. The
Maturation Hypothesis assumes that the child, processing non-actional passives and
being thus unable to resort to the adjectival passive strategy, is unable to understand
which argument receives which thematic role. The child is then forced to take a guess
without any clue: from this hypothesis it is expected that a sample of children taking a
test tapping the comprehension of non-actional (reversible) passive sentences should
exhibit a chance performance. The performance of the dyslexic children is not exactly
a neat chance performance even though, according to the χ2 test (χ2 = 2.5, df = 1, p <
.05), it cannot be said that there is a significant divergence between the performance of
the DYS group with RN sentences (37.5% wrong answers) and the chance performance
(50%).24
The only problem with the Maturation Hypothesis is that it doesn’t explain why
dyslexic children should not have mature phasal constraints (or, if you prefer the old
ACDH ,
mature A–chains). The whole idea of maturation is that children are not born
with a full UG. It is impossible to acquire structures that are not in the UG and a child
with a non–mature grammar cannot acquire all the structures that are acquired by the
adult. The idea of maturation is an answer to the Triggering Problem (Borer and Wexler
1987). The Triggering Problem is the problem of the delayed acquisition of certain linguistic structures: why should data trigger learning at one stage of development when
24
It is also possible to assume that only part of the dyslexic sample is affected by problems in the
interpretation of non-actional passives. In fact, out of 20 dyslexic children, 6 subjects did not make
any error. It could be assumed that, for some reasons, these subjects are not affected by the delay that
characterizes the other subjects. If we take out those six children from the sample, we are left with a
sample of subjects that score 53.6% wrong answers.
58
2.2. The acquisition of passives
the same data failed to trigger learning at earlier stages?
It could be alternatively assumed, as we already saw, that a lack of processing resources causes the delay. It could be assumed that the delayed structure is not an ungrammatical structure but that it is simply a structure that can’t be (fully) computed.
A processing deficit would explain the data reported here in section 1.2.2 along with
the data found in the experiment reported in section 2.2.4.
2.2.4.2.3 A processing deficit hypothesis for the acquisition of passive.
Two draw-
backs of Maturation Hypothesis can be outlined. The first has already been reported
in the previous paragraph. It’s about the inability to explain the data on the acquisition of passive by dyslexic children: the Maturation Hypothesis doesn’t explain why
dyslexic children should not have mature A–chains.
The second drawback come mainly from the data found by Terzi and Driva (2007)
on the acquisition of passive in Greek. Recall that Greek doesn’t allow the adjectival passive strategy. The Maturation Hypothesis assumes that the Maratsos Effect is
caused by the failure of the adjectival passive strategy: the adjectival passive strategy doesn’t work with non-actional passives; the children is hence unable to find a
proper structure for the passive sentence. The problem with the data by Terzi and
Driva (2007) is the emergence of a discrepancy between the comprehension of verbal
non-actional passives and verbal actional passives, which is a discrepancy, a disentangling, between the Maratsos Effect and the
ACDH / UPR .
All four groups tested by
Terzi and Driva scored higher in the comprehension of actional verbal passives than
in the comprehension of non-actional verbal passives. The mean percentage of correct
responses across all four groups (the age range across the four groups goes from 3; 6
to 6; 6 years old) is 72% for verbal actional passive and 45% for verbal non-actional
passives. Considering the absence of a adjectival passive strategy in Greek, we would
expect roughly the same percentage of correct answers.
Unfortunately, Terzi and Driva did not publish (to my knowledge) any statistic result. Anyway, the discrepancy between the scores leaves really few doubts. The data
reported in section 2.2.4, though not being statistically relevant,25 at least hint at a dis25
The post hoc Mann–Whitney (with Bonferroni correction) test reports no difference between the
group and the adults in the task of comprehending reversible actional passives. The Mann–
Whitney test, being probably quite conservative, does not find any significant difference among the
four groups in that task. Notice, by the way, that an effect across the four group is found by the
Kruskal–Wallis test (H(3) = 19.99, p < .01). Furthermore, the Mann–Whitney test shows that the distinction between the scores obtained by the YCC group and the DYS group, though not being significant
YCC
CHAPTER 2. The acquisition of passives
crepancy between the Maratsos Effect and the
UPR .
Recall that the
59
YCC
group scored
37.50% wrong answers in the RA sentences and a 54.17% in the RN sentences. In the
DYS
group the errors in the RA sentences almost fade while errors in the RN sentences
are still significantly present. The point is that when the (though small) problems
with actional passives disappear, the problems with the non-actional passive are still
present.
Hirsch and Hartman (2006) argue that a processing deficit cannot explain the delay in the acquisition of passive. A processing deficit hypothesis must assume that
children are able to handle passives and psychological verbs but not together: the
combination of the two ingredients burdens child’s processing capabilities too much.
According to Hirsch and Hartman, the processing deficit hypothesis must assume that
the Maratsos Effect “is due to a processing interaction of non–canonical word order
and use of a psychological verb.” Hirsch and Hartman investigated a prediction that
follows from the last statement and tested the comprehension of object–extracted wh–
questions containing actional and non-actional verbs. 42 children were tested, ranging
in age from 3;1 to 5;8. No significant difference was found between the comprehension
of actional wh– questions and non-actional wh– questions.
Hirsch and Hartman take these results as a proof against a processing deficit hypothesis of the passive delay. By the way, this hypothesis rests on very strong assumptions.
The first strong assumption is that passive is like (and is processed like) any other kind
of “non–canonical word order”. The second very strong assumption is that adding the
processing cost of a psychological verb to a non–canonical word order should cause an
effect like the Maratsos Effect: the rate of the correct answers should fall dramatically.
None of these assumptions is necessarily true for a processing deficit hypothesis.
It could be hypothesized, contrary to what Hirsch and Hartman think and as Gehrke
and Grillo (in press) do, that actional passives and non-actional passives differ structurally, i.e. that actional passives and non-actional passives are created by different
operations. Recall that Gehrke and Grillo hypothesize that passive is generated by a
phrasal movement of a sub-predicate VP that corresponds to a BECOME sub-predicate.
In order to make passives a
BECOME
sub-predicate is necessary. Those psych–verbs
like know or hear, which, being stative, lack a
BECOME
sub-predicate, can passivize
only if they undergo some kind of type shift “from states to achievements”. Gehrke
and Grillo (2009) assume that stative predicates need to be coerced into achievements
because of the Bonferroni correction (p = .009), is characterized by an effect size (r = –.46) which is not
so low.
60
2.3. Summary of the chapter
in order be able to passivize: this operation of coercion implies the revision of the semantic and syntactic properties of the predicate and is thus supposed to be very costly
in terms of processing resources. Such processing complexity could in principle explain the problems encountered by 9–year–old dyslexics and by younger children in
tasks involving the comprehension of non-actional passives.
2.3 Summary of the chapter
In this chapter we first introduced the syntax of passive. Two main theories address
the syntax of passive, assuming A-movement or phrasal movement as the basic mechanism of passivization. We then introduced acquisitional theories of passive focusing
on the so called Maratsos Effect and on the distinction between structural lag hypotheses and processing deficit hypotheses. We then presented some experimental data and
showed how the performance of dyslexic children is significantly different from the
performance of their peers. We then observed that the experimental data add evidence
in favour of a processing deficit hypothesis on the acquisition of passive.
Chapter 3
The syntax and semantics of control
3.1 Control theory
Control theory was born decades ago (Rosenbaum 1965b) to explain some interface
phenomena between syntax and semantics. Everybody knows that English infinitive
clauses do not host an overt subject but are interpreted as having a subject. Control
theory tried to generate a mechanism able to explain how infinitives are assigned a
subject that is not phonologically present. As many linguistic theories, control theory
was spoilt by being mainly English–oriented: its main topics, at the beginning, were
English infinitives and their interpretation. Two main interpretations of the infinitive
clauses and their subject gap were recognized, an antecedent–referring interpretation
(62a) and a generic interpretation (62b).
(62)
a. The fox told the crow [
b. [
to sing].
Singing for the fox] can be dangeorus.
So we can say that roughly control theory has the aim of explaining how the infinitves
are interpreted. We should say, more accurately, that control theory aims at accounting for the interpretation of antecedent–referring non–pronounced arguments that can
yield a generic reading in some contexts. Control theory should then explain the licensing of such a non–pronounced argument and its interpretation.
3.1.1 Obligatory Control and Non-Obligatory Control
In this section we will see how control phenomena can be divided into two main categories (Williams 1980), starting from few basic features isolated and described by
62
3.1. Control theory
Landau (1999). In the next sections we will review more facts and features that characterize control phenomena.
Recall that, as we saw from (62), the control predicates can be interpreted in two
possible different ways: they could receive an antecedent–referring interpretation or
they can receive a generic interpretation. The antecedent–referring interpretation can
be split in two different categories: a local antecedent interpretation and a non–local
(long distance, henceforth LD) antecedent interpretation. The local antecedent26 is
necessarily placed in the higher clause that selects the infinitive clause as an argument
(63a). The LD antecedent can be higher (63b) or lower (63c) than the infinite, but it
can never be an argument of the verb that selects the infinitive clause as a complement
(Manzini 1983, Landau 1999). The subject of the infinite can also be inferred by the
context (63d) (Bresnan 1982).
(63)
a. The old mani said that the foxj told the crow [
b. The crowi doesn’t know that [
c. [
i
i
∗i/j
to sing].
singing hisi song] can be dangerous.
Singing a song with a piece of cheese in hisi mouth] convinced every
reader that the crowi must be very stupid.
d. The foxj knows what she wants. [
j
Challenging the crow] was a smart
move.
It is clear that LD control and generic control are characterized by a common property:
they do not need a local antecedent. The definition of local antecedent for control has
been disputed (Landau 1999, 2001). For now it is fine to assume that a local antecedent
is a c-commanding argument of the verb that selects the infinitive (controlled) clause
(Williams 1980). Locality and interpretation are thus matching into two types of control predicates: obligatory control (OC) and non obligatory control (NOC). OC is local
and is not able to license arbitrary control or LD control. Sentences like (63a) show
also that OC contexts tend to block the emergence of NOC.
OC is also characterized by the impossibility of strict reading, while NOC allows
such a reading (Williams 1980). OC (64) allows only sloppy reading (64a-i) under VP–
ellipsis, while NOC (65) allows both sloppy reading (65a-i) and strict reading (65a-ii)
under VP–ellipsis.
26
When we talk about the controller we may refer to the antecedent that corefers with the subject of the
infinitive (the controlling argument or the controlling DP) or even to the verb that selects the infinitive.
When we talk about the controllee we may refer to the subject of the infinitive clause (the controlled
argument) or to the infinite verb (the controlled verb).
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
(64)
a. The hare wants [
i.
63
to run faster], and the tortoise does too.
The hare wants the hare to run faster and also
the tortoise wants the tortoise to run faster.
ii. * The hare wants the hare to run faster and also
the tortoise wants the hare to run faster.
(65)
a. The dove thinks that [
helping her friend] was a good idea, and the ant
does too.
i.
The dove thinks that [ (the dove) helping her friend] was a good idea
and the ant thinks that [ (the dove) helping her friend] was a good idea.
ii.
The dove thinks that [ (the dove) helping her friend] was a good idea
and the antj thinks that [ (the ant) helping her friend] was a good idea.
Finally, OC allows only the DE SE reading, while NOC allows both DE RE and DE
SE reading. For a better understanding of the difference between
DE SE
and
DE RE
reading in controlled sentences we resort to a short story. Think about the crow from
the fable The Fox and the Crow. Imagine that, falling from a tree, he lost his memory
and he doesn’t remember being a character of any fable. Imagine now an old man
telling him the fable The Fox and the Crow. Imagine then the old man meeting the fox
and telling her that he has just told the famous fable to the crow. The fox asks: “And
the crow? Did he recognize himself in the story? What did he tell you?”. And the old
man answers:
(66) The crowi said that hei is a stupid animal.
From this answer the fox is unable to understand if the crow did recognize himself in
the story because the sentence is ambiguous between a DE SE reading and a DE RE
reading. In a DE SE reading the crow has the property of being a stupid animal and
being fully aware of that. In a DE RE reading the crow has the property of being a
stupid animal while not being aware of that.
If the old man had used a NOC complement like (67a), the fox would still have been
unable to infer the self–awareness of the crow. NOC is in fact ambiguous between a
DE SE reading and a DE RE reading.
(67)
a. The crowi said that [
i
singing that song] was very stupid.
b. The crowi remembered [
i
being stupid]
If the old man had used an OC complement like (67b) then he would have told the fox
that the crow had recognized himself in the story, being aware of his own stupidity.
64
3.1. Control theory
Table 3.1: OC and NOC
OC
is subject to locality constraints
doesn’t allow LD control
doesn’t allow arbitrary control
doesn’t allow strict reading
doesn’t allow DE RE reading
NOC
is not subject to locality constraints
allows LD control
allows arbitrary control
allows strict reading
allows DE RE reading
3.1.2 Complement control and adjunct control
3.1.2.1 Subject and object control
A great part of control theory focused on complement control and adjunct control.
Complement control involves a matrix clause and a complement clause selected by
the matrix verb. Controlled complement clauses are generally obligatorily controlled
clauses. Verbs that select controlled complement clauses determine in some way the
interpretation of the infinitive: some verbs usually called subject control verbs (68a)
yield a subject interpretation (the subject of the controlled verb corefers with the external argument of the matrix verb); some verbs usually called object control verbs (68c)
yield an object interpretation (the subject of the controlled verb corefers with the internal argument of the matrix verb).
27
Notice that subject control verbs can be divided
in almost two types. The first type of subject control verb has no internal arguments,
excluding the complement clause. The second type of subject control verb hosts an
internal argument beside the complement clause: only (apparently) few subject control verbs host an interal DP in their VP domain (68b), yielding subject control across
object (SCaO).
Adjunct control involves a matrix clause and an adverbial clause that modifies the
meaning of the verb. With most adverbial clauses we have a subject control (68d).
(68)
a. Johni wanted to
i
win the race.
b. Johni promised Maryj to
c. Johni ordered Maryj to
d. Johni kissed Maryj before
27
i
j
win the race.
go away.
i
going away.
Object control verbs include also those verbs, like the Italian ordinare (to order), that select a dative
argument and a complement clause: the dative argument is the controller.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
65
3.1.2.2 Adjunct control
Williams (1992) observes that adjunct control is not in fact a uniform phenomenon.
According to Adler (2006), only some type of adjuncts, like those headed by before,
after, while, without, seem to behave as OC complements: the controlled argument is
always interpreted as the subject of the matrix clause. This type of control, always
addressed quite confidently by control theories, shows strong locality allowing only
one possible antecedent and rejecting every other interpretation.
Other types of adjuncts (which can be referred to as non obligatorily controlled adjuncts)
seem more problematic. Williams (1992) takes gerunds into account and states that
these adjuncts exhibit logophoric control: the controlled argument is controlled by the
argument whose psychological state is reported by the matrix clause.
(69)
a.
i
Having just arrived in town, the main hotel seemed to Billi to be the
best place to stay.
b. *
i
Having just arrived in town, the main hotel collapsed on Bill.
c.
i/∗j Believing
in ghosts, Johni dismissed Billj ’s fears.
The sentence in (69b) is wrong because, unlike (69a), the controlled argument lacks a
logophoric antecedent. In the sentence (69c) Bill’s psychological state is mentioned,
but the matrix clause is not a report of Bill’s psychological state.
Adler (2006) argues that logophoricity is not the key to explain non obligatory adjunct
control in gerunds28 . Williams (1992) offers (70a) as a proof of the logophoric interpretation of the controlled argument: the absence of a possible logophoric antecedent for
the controlled argument yields agrammaticality.
(70)
a. * The box was wrapped beautifully [
thinking it was for Mary].
b.
using satin ribbon].
The box was wrapped beautifully [
Adler (2006), by the way, argues that a logophoric antecedent is absent also in (70b).
We don’t know what causes the acceptability difference between (70a) and (70b), the
point, argues Adler (2006, p. 87), is that “the non–logophoric nature of the main clause
is not what causes the ungrammaticality”.
Adler (2006) argues that gerundive control phenomena can be explained looking at
the topic properties of the controlling NP. The controlled argument in the gerundive
clause refers to the topic argument of the matrix clause. Adler considers the properties
reported in (71) to be the prototypical properties of NP topics.
28
Henceforth simply adjunct NOC
66
3.1. Control theory
(71) The prototypical topic NP is:
a. human or animate
b. previously mentioned or established in discourse
c. syntactically represented as subject
The possible antecedent that has most prototypical topic properties is the controller.
This is in fact a good solution to account for many cases of gerund NOC controller.
By the way the problem is not so easily solved. As a first problem, Adler notes that
a typical OC adjunct like the one headed by before can in fact have an adjunct NOC
interpretation when the matrix clause is passive.
(72)
a.
Before
b. * Before
i
leaving for New York, the office was locked up by the manageri .
i
leaving for New York, Mary was criticized by Johni .
In (72b) John can’t be the controller argument because it’s less topic (satisfying only
condition (71a)) than Mary (that satisfies condition (71a) and (71c)). Adler also notices
that, in cases like those in (72), adjunct NOC control by the null external argument of
the passive is possible, yielding the same result found in (72): the controller is the topic
of the matrix clause.
(73)
a.
The trash was dumped (by Johni ) without
b. * John was dumped (by Maryi ) without
i
i
checking the bag for holes.
giving explanations.29
29
In (73a) the external argument John can be the controller. Both John and the trash are mentioned
before the controlled adjunct, satisfying the condition (71b). John, however, satisfies also the condition
(71a), whereas the trash satisfies only the condition (71c). Why is then the trash unable to control into the
adjunct? Assuming Adler’s theory, i.e. that the controlled argument in the NOC adjunct clause refers
to the topic argument of the matrix clause, we can think of two possible explanations.
The first explanation assumes that (73) is true.
(73) The property (71a) is more important than the property (71c)
If (73) is true, then John in (73a) is more topic than the trash. John, in fact, is characterized by the properties
(71a) whereas the trash is characterized by the property (71c).
The second explanation does not assume (73). Theoretically, both the trash and John can control into
the NOC adjunct. However, the trash cannot control into the adjunct clause because it is an implausible
subject for the verb checking. This second explanation seems to be the most plausible, especially when
we look at Italian minimal pairs like (74).
(74)
a.
Questa automobilei è stata comprata da Giannij poco prima i/∗j di smettere del tutto di
funzionare.
This car was bought by Gianni right before it completely stopped working.
b. Questa automobilei è stata comprata da Giannij poco prima ?i/j di morire.
This car was bought by Gianni right before he died.
In (74) a switch in the semantics of the verb of the adjunct clause triggers different interpretations.
Gianni can’t be the controller in (74a) since a car is a more plausible subject for the verb funzionare than
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
67
It is still unclear, by the way, what should distinguish (73a) from (70a), repeated here
as (75a) and (75b): why is it impossible for the null argument to control in (75b)?
(75)
a.
The trash was dumped (by Johni ) without
b. * The box was wrapped beautifully [
i
checking the bag for holes.
thinking it was for Mary].
We also notice that Adler’s theory can’t explain the interpretation of adverbial clauses
expressing cause. In (76) John has the property of being human (71a) and the property
of being the subject (71c) whereas Mary has only the property of being human (71a).
So, according to (71), John must be the topic of the matrix clause. Being the topic of the
matrix clause, in the case of adjunct NOC, John should be the controller. The sentence
(76) then constitutes a problem.
(76) Johni kissed Maryj for
∗i/j
being so kind to her/him.
(77) Giannii ha contestato il fratelloj per
John questioned (his) brother for
i/j
i/j
essersi sentito male.
feeling sick.
The sentence (76) is a problem for Adler’s theory of adjunct NOC, of course, if we
assume that the sentence (76) contains in fact a case of adjunct NOC. Otherwise we
could think that the case of control in (76) is a case of adjunct OC, just attached lower
than an OC complement like before and controlled by the object. However, sentence
(77) seem to suggest that things are a bit more complicated.
3.1.2.3 Variable control
Subject and object control verbs have been presented above almost as closed classes, as
if the property of object–controlling an argument in a complement clause was incompatible with the property of subject–controlling an argument in a complement clause.
This is not true, as we can se from the couple of sentences in (78).
(78)
a. Johni promised Maryj
i/∗j
to leave early.
b. Johni promised Maryj
∗i/j
to be able to leave early.
In the minimal pair (78) the control switches from one subtype to another subtype with
the same matrix verb. This phenomenon, widely reported in different languages, is
called control switch or variable control.30 The first analyses of this phenomenon looked
a man. For the same reason, questa automobile can’t be the controller in (74b) because it’s implausible for
a car to die (unless you metaphorically think of a car a living being).
30
Stiebels (2007) calls control switch the phenomenon expressed in the example (78). With variable
control she refers to switch and partial control (see section 3.1.3).
68
3.1. Control theory
for a cause in the selectional properties of the matrix verb (Lasnik and Fiengo 1974).
The basic idea that comes out of this hypothesis is that promise is a subject control verb
when selecting an actional complement and an object control verb when selecting a nonactional complement.
Some cases of variable control differ from the pattern shown in (78). With promise as
the matrix verb, as shown in (78), the switch in the infinitival clause yields the type
switch between subject control and object control. On the contrary, in (79) the switch
in the infinitival clause yields the type switch between subject control and ambiguous
control. We say that a sentence exhibits ambiguous control when any argument of the
matrix verb can be the controller, but not both.
(79)
a. Pieroi dice a Mariaj di
i/j
correre tutte le mattine.
Piero says to Maria that he runs / she should run every morning.
b. Pieroi dice a Mariaj di
i/∗j
dover correre tutte le mattine.
Piero says to Maria that he must run every morning.
The example in (79) shows how, with the Italian verb dire, the switch happens between
ambiguous control (79a) and subject control (79b).
Variable control phenomena can thus be divided into two subtypes: variable control
involving ambiguous control (79) and variable control not involving ambiguous control (78).
For the time being, we leave the problem. Just notice that generally the theories
of control (Chomsky 1981, Landau 1999, Hornstein 2001), while trying to account for
the distribution and the interpretation of control phenomena, always struggled (without making it) to account for control switch phenomena. Theories never managed to
enrich their analyses with an elegant solution for these phenomena.
3.1.3 Split control and partial control
Sometimes an obligatorily controlled verb has not simply one antecedent. As we have
seen, subject or object control verbs select different OC complement clauses and yield
different types of control, determining a different antecedent for the controlled argument. Subject and object control are not the only subtypes of OC.
The control by two different split antecedents is of course possible in NOC, as we
can see from (80a), but it’s also possible in OC, in the complement position of some
verbs (80b).
(80)
a. Johni told Maryj that [
i+j
living together] would be fun.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
b. Johni persuaded Maryj [to
i+j
69
live together].
c. Giannii ha proposto a Mariaj [di
vivere assieme].
i+j
Gianni proposed to Maria [to live together].
We will call the example in (80b) a case of split control, as the Italian example in (80c).
Notice that these are really instances of OC: they block the possibility of non–local
antecedents (81a) and they do not allow strict reading under ellipsis (81b, 81c). Split
control also allows only a DE SE reading. Look at sentence (81d). Imagine that Gianni and Maria are standing in front of a big picture of Gianni himself. Gianni, in
particular, is unable to recognize the man in the picture as himself and says that Maria
should have a drink with the man in the picture in order to start a relationship: a
witness would describe that situation with (81d) (that can yield a DE SE or a DE RE
interpretation), but not with (81e) (that can only yield a DE SE interpretation).
(81)
a.
Pierok ha detto che Giannii ha proposto a Mariaj [di
i+j/∗i+k/∗k+j/∗arb
vivere assieme].
Pierok said that Giannii proposed to Mariaj [to
i+j/∗i+k/∗k+j/∗arb
live to-
gether].
b.
Giannii ha proposto a Mariaj [di
i+j
Giannii proposed to Mariaj [to
posed to Mariaj [to
c.
k+j
live together] )
Giannii proposed to Mariak [to
d.
i+k
live together] and also Pierok (pro-
i+j
Giannii ha proposto a Mariaj [di
[to
vivere assieme] e anche Piero.
i+j
i+j
vivere assieme] e anche a Piero.
live together] and (Giannii proposed
live together] ) also to Pierok .
Giannii ha proposto a Mariaj che [
i+j
bere una birra assieme sancisca
l’inizio del loro rapporto].
Gianni proposed to Mary that [
i+j
drinking a beer together may set the
beginning of their relationship].
e.
Giannii ha proposto a Mariaj [di
i+j
bere una birra assieme per iniziare
a conoscersi].
Gianni proposed to Mary [to
i+j
drink a beer together in order to make
acquaintance of each other].
Split control has been rarely discussed in the literature on control. As a result of this,
we don’t know much about it: we don’t really know how it is licensed or if it can be di-
70
3.1. Control theory
vided into subtypes, etc. We know much more about a somehow similar phenomenon
called partial control (Landau 1999, 2004).
(82)
a.
The guys thought that Johni wanted
b. * The guys thought that John managed
c.
The board met at six.
d.
John’s friends met at six.
i+
to meet at six.
i
to meet at six.
e. * John met at six.
The verb meet is a collective predicate, a verb that requires a plural subject (82d) or
at least a semantically plural31 subject like board (82c). Every DP that is not at least
semantically plural can’t be the subject of a collective predicate (82e). What happens
then in (82a) and (82b)? A verb like want allows the controlled argument to be semantically plural, even if the controlling antecedent is purely singular. A case like (82a) is
“perfectly natural when the speaker has some salient group in mind” (Landau 2004,
p. 833), like the guys in the case of (82a).
A verb like manage, on the contrary, doesn’t allow the controlled argument to be semantically plural, given a purely singular antecedent. Landau (1999) recognizes two
major properties of partial control.
(83)
a. Partial control is an instance of OC
b. Only some matrix verbs allow partial control in their complement clauses
Partial control,32 as split control, shares the properties in table 3.1 with the OC complements. Partial control verbs like want and prefer do not allow arbitrary control (86a) or
LD antecedents (86b)33 . Partial control is also unable to yield a strict reading in (86c)
31
Landau (2004) calls mereology the feature that characterizes semantically plural nouns like board:
board is [+Mer] whereas John is [–Mer].
32
There is in fact some terminological confusion around partial control and split control. According
to Landau (1999, p. 69), partial control can be a property or a subclass of control phenomena. Landau
calls “partial control” the property of allowing an argument controlled by a singular antecedent to be
semantically plural (82a) and also the subclass of OC that is characterized by the properties in table 3.1
and by partial control (the property): so partial control (the property) characterizes partial control (the
class). The problem is, as we see in (84), that partial control (the property) characterizes also NOC and,
as we know, NOC is not OC and, hence, is not partial control (the class).
(84) Mary was planning the next date together with Ann. Meeting at 6 would be good for John.
In this thesis, with the term partial control we will mainly refer to the property rather than to the subype
of OC. The abbreviation PC, however, will refer uniquely to the subtype of OC.
33
Partial control seems to be possible when the speaker has “some salient group in mind” (Landau
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
71
and a DE RE reading in (86d). Recall the situation that introduced (81d) and (81e). If
(86d) is true, then Gianni decided that he himself would meet at six: Gianni is not saying that Maria should meet the guy in the picture at six without understanding that
he and the guy are the same person.
(86)
a. Johni wanted [
i/∗arb
to be quiet].
b. Mary knew that John wanted [
to perjure himself/*herself].
c. The board was scheduling the meetings. John preferred [
to meet at six],
but Peter didn’t.
d. Maria was ready for a date. Gianni decided [
to meet at six].
The second important property of partial control is that only some verbs in the matrix
clause allow partial control of the complement clause. The whole class of complement
controlling verbs (i.e. roughly the verbs that select an infinitive clause as a complement
in English) can be divided, according to Landau (1999), in two distinct categories:
partial control (PC) verbs (matrix verbs able to yield partial control) and exhaustive
control (EC) verbs (matrix verbs unable to yield partial control).
(87) Exhaustive Control verbs
a. * John told Mary that hei forgot
b. * The chairi dared
∗i+
∗i+
to meet at six.
to convene during the strike.
c. * John told Mary that hei had
∗i+
to separate before it was too late.
(88) Partial Control verbs
a.
John told Mary that hei preferred
b.
The chairi decided
c.
John told Mary that hei intended
i+
i+
to meet at six.
to convene during the strike.
i+
to separate before it was too late.
Partial control verbs and exhaustive control verbs belong to different semantic classes
(Landau 1999).
2004, p. 833). We wonder if this property of partial control could be considered as allowing control from
a LD antecedent or a discourse antecedent.
(85)
to meet at one p.m.
a. Maryj won’t be in town before noon. Johni decided
i+j
b. Maryj wrote in her diary that Johni had decided
to meet at one p.m.
i+j
72
3.1. Control theory
(89) Exhaustive Control verbs
a. Implicative: manage, avoid, forget, refrain
b. Aspectual: begin, start, continue, finish34
c. Modal: have, may, should, need, must
(90) Partial Control verbs
a. Factive: like, dislike, regret, hate
b. Propositional: believe, think, suppose, claim
c. Desiderative: want, prefer, arrange, decide
d. Interrogative: wonder, ask, inquire, know
This relationship between certain semantic classes of control verbs and the subtype of
control yielded is captured (Landau 1999) by the generalization (91).
(91) PC complements are tensed; EC complements are untensed
A tensed complement creates a tense domain different from the domain of the matrix
clause: tensed complements (92a) are thus able to create a mismatch with the tense
of the matrix clause; untensed complement can’t create such a mismatch, yielding the
agrammaticality in (92b).
(92)
a.
Yesterday, John decided to solve the problem tomorrow.
b. * Yesterday, John managed to solve the problem tomorrow.
PC complements thus tolerate a tense mismatch. EC complements are unable to tolerate such a mismatch.
(93)
a.
TENSED COMPLEMENT
(PC)
i. tense mismatch is tolerated
ii. partial control is possible
b.
UNTENSED COMPLEMENT
(EC)
i. tense mismatch is NOT tolerated
ii. partial control is IMpossible
Partial control and split control are somehow similar: they prove that the number
of the controlled argument may not be inherited from the number of a single controlling argument in OC and they are both phenomena triggered by some requirements of
34
Some aspectual verbs do not seem to be really control verbs. In fact they allow those properties that
are typical of raising verb. See footnote 41 for more details.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
73
plurality in the controlled clause. However, it is also true that partial control and split
control are deeply different phenomena. Landau (1999, p. 68) observes that split control seems to be an idiosyncratic property of some particular verbs (as propose and ask
in English)35 whereas partial control is predicted by the semantics of controlling verbs.
In split control we have two antecedents that control only one controlled argument,
whereas in partial control we have a singular antecedent and a controlled argument
with a different semantic number36 .
According to Landau (1999), split control looks like a weird exception, whereas partial
control is not. The phenomenon of partial control allows in fact, as we saw, to split the
category of OC into two distinct categories: EC and PC.
3.1.4 Cross-linguistic oddities of control
Cross-linguistic data, especially in the last decade, have enriched the phenomenology
of control, introducing new problems for control theories37 that were mainly based on
English phenomena.
3.1.4.1 Control in non–infinitive clauses
Balkan languages38 do not have infinites or gerunds but they have control: they use
subjunctives in control predicates. In old theories of control (Chomsky 1981, Manzini
1983), controlled arguments were licensed in the subject position of infinitives and
35
Notice that the same verbs in Italian (proporre and chiedere) yield split control as well.
36
Intuitively it seems that partial control is a less free version of split control. Notice that both phenomena are linked to the requirements imposed by the verb in the controlled clause. Partial control and
split control are in fact “visible” only when the verb of the complement clause requires a (at least semantically) plural subject. According to Landau (1999), “collective predicates” (like meet) and “predicates
with together” establish a clear contrast between EC and PC. These predicates always entail, in a control
structure, that the subject is the controller plus someone else. In the case of split control, this someone
else can’t be a LD antecedent or a discourse antecedent. In the case of partial control, the someone else
can be an LD antecedent or a discourse antecedent. The difference between the interpretations of split
control and partial control resembles very much the distinction between OC and NOC. Of course distinction between OC and NOC is much more complicated: it involves also the possibility of arbitrary
interpretation, strict reading and DE RE reading. Notice by the way that it’s very difficult to test those
features for the “someone else” in partial and split control.
37
In this section we will review only the main issues introduced in control theory by cross-linguistic
surveys. Not all cross-linguistic data have in fact been reviewed and introduced into the debate on
control theory. For more cross-linguistic data see (Stiebels 2007).
38
But also Nahuatl and Mandarin (Stiebels 2007).
74
3.1. Control theory
gerunds. Landau (1999, 2004) modified the original theory proposing a cross-linguistic generalization that accounts for the distribution of control phenomena across languages (at least, Balkan Languages and Hebrew).
Landau observes that tense and agreement seem to be related to the presence of control
especially in languages like English and in Balkan Languages. In English, for example,
controlled clauses are characterized by sentences that do not display agreement with
the subject and that can have anaphoric or dependent tense. In Balkan languages, the
same behaviour characterizes subjunctive complement clause which display agreement with the subject and are characterized by anaphoric tense. Landau calls these
subjunctives C–subjunctives. On the other hand, subjunctives with dependent tense
can have a DP or pro as their subject and hence they do not seem to exhibit control.
These subjunctive are called F–subjunctive. Greek examples of C–subjunctive and F–
subjunctive are (94) and (94).
(94) I Mariai prospathise
i/∗j
na divasi.
(Terzi 1997)
(95) O Yanisi elpizi
i/j
na figi.
(Varlokosta 1993)
Recall that the distinction between anaphoric tense and dependent tense is relevant
for categorizing control in English between exhaustive control (EC) and partial control (PC), according to (91). This generalization holds also for Balkan languages like
Greek.
We can thus say that, according to Landau (2004), the type of agreement between the
verb and the subject (overt or covert) and the type of tense (independent, dependent
or anaphoric) are crosslinguistically reponsible for the distribution of PC and EC complements and for the distribution of controlled arguments. A tentative generalization
at this point would be (96).
(96) Complements characterized by anaphoric tense or covert subject-verb agreement are controlled complements.
However, Hebrew represents an exception to the generalization in (96). Hebrew subjunctives with dependent tense can be, according to Landau (2004), both controlled
predicates or not. The subject of a Hebrew subjunctive with dependent tense can be
an R–expression, pro (but only first person or second person pro), an overt pronoun or
a controlled argument.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
(97)
75
a. xole ha–amnezyai še- hui yizke be medalya.
The amnesiaci expected that hei would win a medal.
b. xole ha–amnezyai še-
i
yizke be medalya.
The amnesiaci expected that hei would win a medal.
Landau (2004)
The Hebrew example (97) shows how the same environment, a subjunctive clause with
dependent tense, can host a pronoun (97a) or a controlled argument (97b). Landau
claims that the subject of the complement clause in (97b) is an OC argument and not pro
since Hebrew does not have third person pro. Landau shows also that the supposedly
OC Hebrew subjunctive complements share, in fact, the properties in table 3.1. For
example, the complement in (97b), does not allow a DE RE reading. According to
(97b), the amnesiac is aware that he himself is going to win a medal. According to
(97a), which allows both DE SE and DE RE reading, the amnesiac knows that he is
going to win a medal but it’s possible that he is not fully aware of his own identity.
How does Landau ultimately explain the distribution of control phenomena crosslinguistically in English, Balkan languages and Hebrew? We will see it only in section
3.2.2.2.2. It is now sufficient to notice the existence of different environment that
license control crosslinguistically and that these environments are characterized by
non–independent tense and/or defective subject-verb agreement.
3.1.4.2 Backward control and copy control
Backward control is a case in which the controlled argument c-commands its antecedent. Backward control then seems clearly to turn upside down the c-command
requirements for control exposed in 3.1.1. The backward control constructions, though
not being very familair to English speakers, is neither marginal nor rare crosslinguistically. Cases of backward control have been identified in different languages: Polinsky and Potsdam (2006) report Brazilian Portuguese, Korean, Japanese, Malagasy and
Caucasian Languages like Adyghe, Bezhta, Kabardian, Tsakhur and Tsez.
Few languages exhibit the phenomenon of copy control: the controlled argument is a
full copy (as in Zapotec spoken in San Lucas Quiavinì) of the controlling argument or
simply a resumptive pronoun (as in Assamese).39
39
Beside backward control and copy control, also backward raising and copy raising have been identified.
76
(98)
3.2. On the existence of PRO
a. Chelswu-ka Yenghii -lul [
Chelswu-NOM Yenghii -ACC [
b. Chelswu-ka
Chelswu-NOM
hakkyo-lul ttena-tolok] seltukhayssta
i school-ACC quit-COMP] persuaded
i
[Yenghii -ka
hakkyo-lul ttena-tolok] seltukhayssta
i [Yenghii -NOM school-ACC quit-COMP] persuaded
i
Chelswu persuaded Yenghi to quit school.
(Polinsky and Potsdam 2006)
(99) r-cààa’z Gye’eihlly [g-auh (Gye’eihlly) bxaady]
HAB-want Mike
[IRR-eat Mike
grasshopper]
Mike wants to eat grasshopper.
(Polinsky and Potsdam 2006)
The example in (98) shows that Korean allows both forward control (98a) and backward control (98b) with the same matrix verb. Other languages, like Tsez for example,
do not show this alternation. The example (99) shows copy control in Zapotec: in this
language it is possible to alternate between forward control and copy control.
3.2 On the existence of PRO
In the last years the debate about the syntax of control has grown around this very
basic problem. How to account for the distribution and the interpretation of control
structures? Is the subject of controlled verb a syntactic category? If the subject of the
controlled verb is syntactically categorized, how many categories do we need to account for the different interpretations? Different answers to these questions gave rise
to different theories of control.
Some linguists thought that it is useless to syntactically categorize the subject of control verbs: the control verb has no syntactical subject but only a semantic subject, assigned after syntax, at the semantic level (Chierchia 1984).
Chomsky (1981) thought that one syntactic category (PRO) could represent the controlled argument and its properties. Locality constraints distinguish between types of
control (OC vs NOC), different types of control yield different interpretations. One
category can be licensed easily in all kind of infinitive clauses and can be adequate,
via some assumptions, for the different interpretations.
Hornstein (1999, 2001) thought that one new category (PRO) is too much to explain
control phenomena, it’s redundant. PRO requires a theoretical module to be interpreted and the interpretations of PRO are already available in Universal Grammar: a
trace t can account for a local interpretation in OC and pro can account for non–local in-
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
77
terpretation in NOC. A problem for this solution is of course the need for a theoretical
mechanism that explains the distribution of t and pro.
3.2.1 Movement Theory of Control
The movement theory of control (MTC) proposes that OC is simply movement and,
hence, that the subject of obligatorily controlled complement clauses is a trace. The
subject of non–obligatorily controlled clauses, instead, is an empty pronoun like pro.
Hornstein (1999, 2001) started formulating his movement theory of control by noticing
that traces of A-movement and PRO in obligatory control share the same basic properties we examined in section 3.1.1. A–traces found in raising predicates in fact do not
allow arbitrary reading, LD antecedents, strict reading and DE RE reading.
(100)
a. Johni wanted [ ti/∗arb to be quiet].
b. Mary saw that John wanted [ ti to perjure himself/*herself].
c. Johni wanted [ ti to be happy], but Peter didn’t.
i.
John wanted himself to be happy, but Peter didn’t want himself to be
happy
ii. *John wanted himself to be happy, but Peter didn’t want John to be
happy
(101)
a. Johni seemed [ ti/∗arb to be quiet].
b. Mary saw that John seemed [ ti to perjure himself/*herself].
c. Johni seemed [ ti to be happy], but Peter didn’t.
i.
It seemed that John was happy, but it didn’t seem that Peter was
happy.
ii. *It seemed that John was happy, but it didn’t seem that John was happy.
If control is reduced to movement, then also the distinction between raising and control is reduced. The origin of the distinction between raising and control goes back
minimal pairs like (102) – (103), introduced by Rosenbaum (1965b).
(102)
a. John seems to have examined Bill.
b. Bill seems to have been examined by John.
(103)
a. John tried to examine Bill.
b. Bill tried to be examined by John.
78
3.2. On the existence of PRO
The sentences in (102) are synonimous but the sentences in (103) are not synonimous.
Both in (102a) and (102b), John is the agent that performs the examination. This is true
also for (103a) and (103b); the difference between the two sentences in (103) rests in
the agentive thematic role assigned by the matrix verb: in (103a) John is the agent of
the verb tried, whereas in (103b) it’s Bill.
These facts seem to suggest that, beside thematic properties, between raising and control there is no syntactic difference. In the case of control, one element (the element that
is moved in MTC) seems to take two thematic roles, one assigned by the matrix verb,
one assigned by the controlled verb: in (103a) John is the one who tries and examines,
in (103b) Bill is the one who tries and gets examined. This is of course a clear violation
of Theta Criterion (Chomsky 1981),40 that basically states that every DP can have one
and only one thematic role.41 But Hornstein treats thematic roles in a different way:
40
See footnote 10.
41
There are three major distinctions between raising and control. Only raising predicates are characterized by these properties:
(104)
a. they preserve sinonimity when the complement verb is passivized (105).
b. they can have expletives as subjects (106, 107).
c. they can break idiom chunks (108).
The first property is exemplified by (102), repeated here as (105).
(105)
a. John seems to have examined Bill.
b. Bill seems to have been examined by John.
The second property comes from the lack of thematic restrictions imposed by the expletive verbs on
their subjects.
(106)
a.
There seem to be a lot of people here.
b. *There wanted to be a lot of people here.
This is evident also in constructions that host weather verbs.
(107)
a.
It seem to be raining.
b. *It hoped to be raining.
The third property can be tested with those few idiom chunks that include subject and verb together.
(108)
a.
The shit seems to have hit the fan.
b. *The shit wanted to hit the fan.
Aspectual verbs like begin share some properties with both raising verbs and control verbs (Perlmutter
1970).
(109)
(110)
a.
It began to rain.
b.
The shit began to hit the fan.
i.
John tried to begin to eat his sandwich.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
79
theta roles are grammatical features and are able to trigger movement42 .
From this point of view, subject control structures are reduced to raising–to–subject
contructions and object control structures are reduced to raising–to–object constructions43 . Reducing control to movement also entails that control is subject to a principle
like the Minimal Link Condition (MLC).
(111) Minimal Link Condition (MLC)
K attracts α only if there is no β, β closer to K than α, such that K attracts β.
(Chomsky 1995)
Such a principle, once applied to control, entails an old generalization called Principle
of Minimal Distance (PMD), roughly stating that, in case of control into complement
clause, the argument of the matrix verb that is syntactically nearest to the controlled
argument is the controller (Rosenbaum 1965a) 44 .
ii. * John tried to tend to eat sushi.
(Becker 2006, p. 443)
Aspectual verbs like begin can have a non–thematic subject, behaving like raising verbs (109). They can
also be embedded in a controlling matrix clause in English (110). This property is not shared by raising
verbs (110b-ii), but only by control verbs.
42
See (Hornstein 2001) for more details
43
Raising–to–object constructions are also called Exceptional Case Marking (ECM) constructions.
Some linguists argued that these constructions in fact are not characterized by movement. See Runner (2006).
44
Notice that reducing control to raising constructions offers a possibility to solve a curious control
phenomenon in English. Verbs like believe or want can be subject control verb or raising–to–object verbs.
How could we explain this shift between two different constructions? The problem seems to be easily
disposable in MTC, considering that the two different constructions are reduced to one. Some lexical
constructions should then be postulated in order to account for the switch between control (which is
almost the same as raising–to–subject in MTC) and raising–to–object. As Brody (1999) notes, not all subject control verbs have a correspondent raising–to–object twin and not all raising–to-object contructions
have a subject control counterpart.
(112)
a.
John attempted to leave.
b. * John attempted Peter to leave.
(113)
a. * John believed to have left.
b. John believed Peter to have left.
(114)
a.
John wanted to leave.
b.
John wanted Peter to leave.
These kinds of verbs assign the same number (one) of thematic roles; the thematic difference between
raising and control, in MTC, involves only the thematic roles assigned to DPs. The controlling DP has
one thematic role more than the raising DP.
80
3.2. On the existence of PRO
To account for cases of OC in adjunct control, Hornstein (2001, 2003) argues that MDP
can be extended to control into adjuncts headed by after, before, while, etc. (i.e. to
control into OC adjuncts). In those adjuncts the controlled argument is c-commanded
and controlled by the subject of the matrix verb. The problem with this generalization
is that objects seem to be able to bind and thus c-command into adjuncts (115b).
(115)
a. Johni will drink no winej [before PROi/∗j eating some food]
b. John will drink no winej [before itj is ready for drinking]
A theory of OC adjunct control based on direct A-movement across object would violate MLC. To solve this problem, Hornstein (2001, 2003) proposes that OC adjuncts
contain a trace in subject position and that this trace is part of a sideward movement
chain. Sideward movement moves a constituent from one subtree to another and allows consequently the extraction of an argument out of an adjunct. Sideward movement extracts the highest (i.e. cloest to the edge) argument of an adjunct and copies
it into an argument position into the matrix clause. Hornstein (2001) argues that sideward movement is involved also in parasitic gaps.
(116)
a. Johni read a book before ti eating a pineapple.
b. Which booki did you read ti before Fred reviewed ti ?
c. Which booki did Johni return ti without tj reading ti ?
Sideward movement allows John (which is, being the subject, the leftmost/highest
argument) in (116a) to move out of the adjunct in the subject position of the matrix
clause. In (116b) the same sideward movement allows the object of the adjunct clause
to move from the adjunct clause subtree to the matrix clause subtree, in the position
of the object. The object which book of the adjunct first moves to the specifier of an
Attempt
Believe
Want
Subject Control
Assigns 1 case
Yes
No
Yes
Raising–to–Object
Assigns 2 cases
No
Yes
Yes
It could be simply assumed that verbs like want, that are able to switch between control and raising
constructions, can be inserted in numeration with two different case patterns, almost like unaccusative
verbs in Burzio’s Generalization. For example, in (114a), according to MTC, John is based generated as
the subject of the complement clause and moves to the subject position of the matrix verb in order to
check EPP and the theta features; as a consequence, John receives the only case licensed by the control
version of the verb want. In (114b) Peter moves from the complement clause to the object position of the
matrix clause and receives the accusative case. Peter is then unable to move to another theta position
(see footnote 47 to see why) and John is merged as the subject of the matrix verb.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
81
operator head (perhaps C) inside the adjunct; in this position, which book is the highest/leftmost (thus closer to the matrix clause)45 argument and thus can be sideward
moved to the position of the object position into the matrix clause.46 From the object
position in the matrix clause the argument is then moved to Spec[CP] via A’-movement.47 In (116c) which book moves to the specifier of the operator in the adjunct clause,
becoming the highest/leftmost argument in the adjunct. The thematic feature then attracts which book in the object position into the matrix clause. The thematic feature in
Spec[vP] then attracts the leftmost argument of the adjunct, which is now the subject
45
Locality holds, of course, also for sideward movement.
46
Notice that according to Hornstein (2001) sideward movements in parasitic gaps are not the most
economic solution. Hornstein (2001) argues in fact that the operation merge is cheaper than the operation
move that, following Chomsky (1995), is made up by copy plus merge. Let’s follow the derivation of a
sentence like (116b) in order to clarify Hornstein’s hypothesis.
(117)
a.
[hit Peter] [before which guyi [Fred sacked ti ]]?
b.
[[Which guyi ti did ti hit Peter] [before ti [Fred sacked ti ]]]?
c. * Which guy did hit Peter before Fred sacked?
In (117a), after the movement of which guy in the leftmost position inside the adjunct clause, the derivation follows the cheapest step by inserting an element directly from numeration into the object position.
This derivational path leads then to (117b): without any possible NP in numeration, the derivation
moves which guy into subject position (attracted by theta features and EPP) and then to Spec[CP]. This
derivation, by the way, is not grammatical. In parasitic gaps an element of the chain tailed by the gap
(the rightmost/lower trace) can’t c-command the gap from a theta position, as we see from (117c) and
(118).
(118) * Which book t was read by Bill before Frank reviewed t.
We will now leave apart any explanation for the parasitic gap effects (which is not our current issue).
Notice instead that a wrong derivation like (117b), that leads to the ungrammatical (117c), is able to force
syntax to avoid the principle of economy (i.e. “prefer external merge”). The syntax is thus able to look
ahead in the computation and choose the less cheap derivation in order to avoid a deviant outcome.
47
Theta criterion was a good instrument for preventing movement from object to subject in the same
(and not only the same) clause (without blocking movement in raising constructions). By the way, as
we saw, theta criterion was strongly modified by Hornstein (2001) in MTC: it is possible to assign more
than one thematic role to the same DP. What then prevents the movement between the object and the
(internal) subject position? A partial answer comes from the economy principle evoked by Hornstein
(2001) and based on Chomsky’s work (Chomsky 1995): in the derivation, merge from numeration (aka
external merge) is preferred to copy (if a possible argument is available, of course, in numeration). This
means that no argument gets copied from internal theta position (complement of VP) to external theta
position (Spec[vP]) if there is a possible argument in numeration: in this case the argument is merged
in theta position. But what if there are no more arguments in numeration? The only possibility is
the assumption that A-movement is impossible for an argument that has already received case or that
assigning two cases to the same DP crashes the derivation.
82
3.2. On the existence of PRO
John (which then moves to Spec[TP]). Finally which book is moved to Spec[CP].48
Hornstein claims that the best feature of MTC is the elimination of the control module. The control module is basically that theoretical mechanism that, given the distribution of PRO, provides the interpretation of PRO in different environments (OC vs
NOC). The control module was in fact assumed by early theories of control (Chomsky
1981, Manzini 1983): “very little is known about this module. Its powers are generally
invoked when there is no principled or insightful alternative at hand” (Boeckx and
Hornstein 2004). MTC provides a principled account of the old theory of the double
nature of PRO, pronominal and anaphoric, by adopting t instead of PRO in OC and
pro instead of PRO in NOC. However, PRO was in fact a good way of accounting for
the distribution of control phenomena, allowing the same infinitival complement in
English to receive a different interpretation in a different environment (see table 3.2).
How is it possible to license control phenomena and avoid wrong interpretations in
Table 3.2: PRO theory vs MTC
PRO theory
MTC
Licensing Interpretation
PRO
control module
?
t / pro
MTC? How is it possible, in other words, to let A-movement stick to OC environments
and let pro stick to NOC environments?
(120)
a.
Johni hopes[ti to be still alive].
b.
[pro singing] can be dangerous.
c. *[t singing] can be dangerous.
d. *[Mary singing] can be dangerous.
e. *John hopes [pro to be still alive].
f. *John hopes [Peter to be still alive].
Deviant results like (120c), (120d) and (120f) pose no problems: they cannot be generated under MTC. In (120c) the trace has simply no chain and then a structure like
48
Notice that the sideward movement account for OC into adjunct clauses works also with passive
matrix clauses.
(119)
a. Johni was killed ti just after ti stepping out of the door.
The internal thematic role of the passive predicate attracts the subject of the adjunct clause with sideward movement. The argument then moves to Spec[TP] to check EPP and receives case.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
83
(120c) cannot be formally licensed. In (120d) and (120f) the derivation crashes because
Mary and Peter, according to Hornstein, cannot receive case. The problem is (120e):
this structure is not grammatical in English but it can be generated by MTC.
Hornstein (2006) and Boeckx and Hornstein (2007) hypothesize that an answer to this
problem can be found by looking at a universal property of the parser. The basic idea
is that (120e) is not ungrammatical but simply not parsable. It is a solution that the
parser does not take into consideration. We do not find sentences like (120e) in English because they are somehow invisible to the parser.49
The parser parses the sentence from left to right and projects the structure rapidly and
deterministically. This means, according to Hornstein (2006) and Boeckx and Hornstein (2007), that the parser obeys two basic principles when facing empty categories.
Hornstein (2006) states these two basic principles.
(121)
a. Parsers are transparent with respect to grammars. So, if grammars encode
a condition, the parsers respect it.
b. Parsers move from left to right and project strcture rapidly and deterministically on the basis of local information.
(Hornstein 2006, p. 42)
Hornstein (2006) assumes that grammars prefer movement to pronominalization and
that, by (121a), the parser will prefer the insertion of a trace to the insertion of a pro.
Then, by (121b), Hornstein assumes that the parser must be sensitive to earlier information. The two basic principles can be rephrased as:
49
The hypothesis that some unavailable/unacceptable derivations are ungrammatical and some others are unparsable extends the traditional concept of unacceptability. Before Hornstein (2006) it was
believed that a derivation could be ungrammatical or unparsable. An ungrammatical derivation is
blocked by grammaical principles. An unparsable derivation, like a garden path sentence or multiple
center ebbedded relatives, is simply too heavy for processing resources. Hornstein (2006) introduced
the idea that the parser is simply blind to some derivations.
People rejects sentences like (120e) because of parsing blindness. But why (120e) is also never produced.
How to explain this? It should be assumed that derivations are filtered by some output principle before
being sent to PF.
The idea is an interesting and imaginative stipulation but it’s indeed a stipulation. It assumes that the
universe of unacceptable derivations is split between ungrammatical derivations and derivations that
are not considered by the parser. It assumes also that an output filter blocks the production of sentences
that are not considered by the parser.
84
3.2. On the existence of PRO
(122) When a syntactic gap must be filled . . .
a. . . . prefer the insertion of a trace instead of the insertion of an empty pronoun
b. . . . prefer the insertion of an element that, at that point of the parsing operations, has a proper left antecedent.
(123) The insertion (of a trace or an empty pronoun) must not violate grammar.
The parser, facing an empty category, is puzzled between two solutions: inserting a
pro or inserting a trace. The parser is guided by the principles in (122) and cannot absolutely violate the condition (123). The parser chooses the solution that violates fewer
principles in (122). If both the solutions violate the same number of principles, then
they are both possible for the parser.
The principles in (122) do not forbid a derivation like (120c). Without (123), the derivation in (120c) would be possible: (120c) (i.e. the insertion of a trace) would violate only
(122b) and (120b) (i.e. the insertion of pro) would violate both (122a) and (122a). So, as
far as principle (123) allows only one solution, (122) is irrelevant.
The principle (122a) forbids (120e) that, being a grammatical derivation (because according to MTC pro can be spelled out as a subject of a non-finite clause), is not blocked
by (123). The principle (122a) blocks the insertion of pro in (120e), making such a sentence unavailable for the grammar and the parser.
The principle (122b) comes into play when we consider a sentence like:
(124) Johni believes that [tj /proi washing herselfj /himselfi ] would delight Maryj .
According to Hornstein, in (124) the controlled argument is a trace (as a result of sideward movement), and thus an instance of OC, if the antecedent is Mary; the controlled
argument is pro instead, if the antecedent is John, an instance of NOC. Inserting a trace
in the controlled argument position violates principle (122b), but not principle (122a).
Inserting a pro in the controlled argument position violates principle (122a), but not
(122b). The two solutions are thus equally possible because they violate the same
number of principles.
In a sentence like (125), on the contrary, neither a trace nor an empty pronoun can have
a proper left antecedent: any insertion would violate the principle (122b).
(125)
i/∗j
Having to wash behind the ears made Maryi angry at Billj .
Only the insertion of a trace, by the way, would satisfy the principle (122a). Hence
only a trace can be in the subject position of the infinitive clause in (125).
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
85
Boeckx and Hornstein (2006b) note that the MTC provides theoretical parsimony
and straightforward solutions for some problems. MTC is theoretically parsimonious
and light, it doesn’t need a theoretical deus ex machina like the control module and it
doesn’t assume the existence of a category like PRO. The control theory is reduced to
movement and insertion of null pronouns. From this point of view, they argue, MTC
is really a minimalist theory of control, strictly obeying Occam’s razor.
MTC also offers the possibility of making sense of the phenomenon of backward control. The phenomenology of control across languages, which comprehends forward,
backward and copy control (Polinsky and Potsdam 2006), suggests that the syntactic
positions involved in control participate in a copy–deletion relationship rather than an
asymmetric binding relationship. Boeckx and Hornstein (2006b) note that the cases of
backward control can be accounted for as cases of pronounciation of a lower copy and
deletion of the higher copy.50 Similarly, cases of copy control can be seen as cases of
copy without deletion. MTC also captures the transmission of phi features in Italian
and Portuguese control structures. Rodrigues (2007) shows how OC and NOC differ
in the insertion of phi–feature in syntax. Rodrigues considers what she calls epicenic
nouns in Romance languages: epicenic nous are feminine nouns, whose gender is thus
marked, that do not necessarily denote feminine entities. The Italian word vittima (victim) is feminine and can refer to a female victim or a male victim.
(126)
a. La vittima
fu aggredita/*aggredito dai fascisti
The victim-FEM was attacked-F/-M
by fascists
The victim was attacked by fascists
b. La vittima sembra essere ferita/*ferito
The victim seems be
wounded-F/*-M
The victim seems to be wounded
c. La vittima ha cercato di essere trasferita/*trasferito in un’altra città
The victim has tried to be
transferred-F/*-M to another city
The victim tried to get transferred to another city.
d. La vittima ha detto che essere trasferita/traferito alla stazione di
to-the station of
moved-F/-M
The victim has said that be
polizia non era una buona idea.
police not was a good idea
The victim said that being moved to the police station was not a good idea.
50
According to some recent literature (Nunes 2004), the case of pronunciation of a lower copy seems
to be not unique to control.
86
3.2. On the existence of PRO
e. La vittimai ha detto che proi era stat-a/*-o aggredit-a/*-o in strada.
The victimi has said that proi was been
attacked-F/-M in street
The victim said that he/she had been attacked on the street.
The DP la vittima agrees with the past participle in raising and OC constructions. In
case of NOC and pro-drop, the past participle doesn’t agree with the DP la vittima,
even if la vittima is the logical subject of the lowest verb. This fact is captured by the
assumption that pro is the subject in NOC controlled clauses. pro has its own independent φ–features whereas the trace carries the φ–features of its antecedent.51
3.2.1.1 Some problems related to the MTC
In this section we will explore and analyze the main problems faced by MTC.52 In the
next section (3.2.1.2), we will see some novel problems for MTC.
3.2.1.1.1 Null Object.
A main problem for MTC is the implicit control/binding
asymmetry reported by Rizzi (1986). It is known that, in languages like Italian, object control verbs can have an object or a dative argument which is not phonologically
realized and which yields a generic interpretation of the controlled argument. Rizzi
argues that the implicit argument of such verbs, being (at least) able to control, must
51
Few Italian informants disagree with the acceptability judgments reported in (126e). They reject
the possibility of having both feminine and masculine verb agreement in sentences like (126e). Their
judgments thus match (127) rather than (126e).
(127) La vittimai ha detto che proi era stat-a/*-o aggredit-a/*-o in strada.
attacked-F/*-M in street
The victimi has said that proi was been
The victim said that *he/she had been attacked on the street.
These judgements do not cast doubts on the point stressed by Rodrigues (2007), i.e. that the subject of
NOC clauses is pro. These judgements bring into question the status of the subejct of finite complement
clauses in pro–drop languages. Why can’t the subject in (127) agree with an external masculine referent?
Is it really pro the subject of finite compelement clauses like that in (127)?
This problem becomes even more awkward when we look at the acceptability judgements provided by
Rodrigues. Some of her informants reject the epicenic agreement, i.e. they reect the gender agreement
between vittima and pro.
(128) La vittimai ha detto che proi era stat*-a/-o aggredit*-a/-o in strada.
The victimi has said that proi was been
attacked*-F/-M in street
The victim said that *he/she had been attacked on the street.
The acceptability judgments presented in (128), (127) and (126e) hint at a possible dialectal variation
in Italian: some people reject the epicenic (internal) agreement (128), others reject the non–epicenic
(external) (127), others accept both.
52
For a comprehensive list, see (Landau 2007)
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
87
be realized as a syntactic empty category ec.
(129) Gianni ordina ec di lavorare sodo.
Gianni orders ec to work hard.
The implicit object is able to control and bind in Italian, whereas in English this is
impossible. In English implicit internal arguments are generally unable to bind and/or control. Rizzi (1986) proposes that some internal thematic roles can be implicitly
saturated in syntax (with a syntactically active category ec) or in the lexicon (without
the possibility of a syntactically active category).
Few English verbs are, by the way, able to control from ec (130) but still unable to bind
(131b), as noted by Landau (2007).
(130) John shouted/said to arrest Bill.
(131) We all heard the amazing story about [Bill and Kevin]i .
a.
John said to themi at each otheri ’s parties to take off their clothes.
b. * John said eci at each otheri ’s parties to take off their clothes.
(Landau 2007, p. 296)
Boeckx and Hornstein (2004) observe that ec can be theoretically described as pro. The
basic problem of this account is that pro is a pronoun and is thus able to bind: we
wouldn’t then expect (131b) to be ungrammatical. Boeckx and Hornstein then propose an assumption: anaphors can’t be lexicalized if the antecedent is not. In other
words, there can’t be binding from a non–phonologically realized DP, with the exception of the “Italian–style pro” (Boeckx and Hornstein 2004), which is able to bind,
being “lexically realized as the inflection of the verb”.
The assumption introduced by Boeckx and Hornstein of course would not hold in
Italian cases of binding from null object ec. Landau (2007) notices that in NOC, the
controlled argument, even in the case of arbitrary control, can bind an anaphor (132).
Remember that, in MTC, the controlled argument in NOC is realized as pro.
(132) Praising oneself/myself wouldn’t be polite.
Notice that Rizzi (1986) observes that Italian subject pro and null object ec have radically different properties. Null object/dative ec is marked as [+human], [+generic]
and [+plural]; pro hasn’t got such restrictions and can be [–human], [–generic] and
[–plural]. These data suggest that pro and null object/dative ec53 may be considered
53
Henceforth we will call simply ec the empty category that syntactically represents null object and
null dative.
88
3.2. On the existence of PRO
different categories.
MTC
would then employ ec to describe null objects and null da-
tives.
We must note that ec doesn’t seem to pose threats to the theory of distribution of trace
and pro inside MTC. Recall the principles in (122), repeated here as (133).
(133) When a syntactic gap must be filled . . .
a. . . . prefer the insertion of a trace instead of the insertion of an empty pronoun
b. . . . prefer the insertion of an element that, at that point of the parsing operations, has a proper left antecedent.
(134) The insertion (of a trace or an empty pronoun) must not violate grammar.
The insertion of a trace in the place of ec is impossible because it would violate (134).54
Considering (133), ec should be considered an empty pronoun and it would have the
same theoretically possible distribution of pro. According to the MTC, ec would be
merged in the subject position of the complement clause and then move to the object
position in the matrix clause. Adopting such a solution, it would be necessary to assume that ec can’t be spelled out as a subject, but only as an internal argument of the
verb, receiving accusative or dative case 55 .
54
The insertion of an A–trace in the object position of a sentence like (129) is impossible for grammatical reasons.
(135)
a. * Johni said ti ti to follow the leader.
b. * Johni kills ti .
The sentence (135a) is impossible for the same reason why (135b) is impossible. Assigning two cases to
the same DP is grammatically impossible, as already seen in footnote 47.
55
As Rizzi (1986) observes, dative ec and object ec have different licensing contexts in Italian. They are
both syntactically active either with present (generic) tense or with non–generic (specific) tense; with
specific tense, object ec is unable to control (136e) and dative ec is unable to bind (136h). Dative ec can
also be pragmatically bound being thus interpreted as having a specific person (137).
(136)
a.
Lo psichiatra costringe eci a migliorare se stessii .
OBJ
The psychiatrist forces eci to make oneselfi better.
b.
Lo psichiatra ordina eci di migliorare se stessii .
c.
La psicoterapia riconcilia eci con se stessii .
DAT
The psychiatrist orders eci to make oneselfi better.
OBJ
Psychotherapy reconciles eci with oneself.
d. ? La psicoterapia restituisce eci se stessii .
Psychotherapy gives eci back to oneself.
DAT
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
3.2.1.1.2 Subject control across object.
89
Assuming MTC, cases of subject control
across object (SCaO), for example with the verb promise, would turn out to be violations of MLC (111). The violation of MLC is also, of course, a violation of PMD. Hornstein (2003) considers the SCaO class a “marked exception” to the MLC. A marked
exception is something that it’s not easily acquired by children. The literature on the
acquisition of control has in fact reported, since (Chomsky 1969), a strong delay in the
acquisition of subject control: 6–year–old children are able to master object control but
are still unable to comprehend subject control sentences (they interpret subject control
verbs as object control verbs in more than half of the cases). Hornstein proposes two
different theories to explain the markedness of the SCaO verbs.
The first hypothesis is that children would need significant evidence in order to understand that MLC can in fact be violated by a restricted group of verb constructions.
The second hypothesis is that the SCaO verbs take in fact an indirect object with a
preposition that becomes null during the derivation. Analogous constructions are
raising verbs like seem and strike. In these apparent violations of MLC the apparent
internal argument is in a position that can bind but cannot control (138b). Sentences
in (138) show how the internal argument of promise and the experiencer of a raising
verb like seem share the ability to bind (138a, 138b) and thus the possibility to violate
principle C (138c, 138d).
(138)
a.
John seemed to every girli to like heri .
b.
John promised every girli her candy.
e. * Il 5 dicembre Gianni costrinse eci a migliorare se stessii .
On december 5
f.
th
On december 5
DAT
Gianni was commanding eci to make oneselfi better.
Il 5 dicembre la psicoterapia riconciliò ec con se stessii .
th
OBJ
Gianni was forcing eci to make oneselfi better.
Il 5 dicembre Gianni ordinò eci di migliorare se stessii .
On december 5
g.
th
OBJ
psychotherapy reconciled eci with oneselfi .
h. * Nell’aprile del 1968 la psicoterapia restituiva ec se stessii .
DAT
In April 1968 psychotherapy gave eci oneselfi back.
(137)
a.
Lo psichiatra costringe ec a sdraiarsi/*ci sul lettino.
OBJ
The psychiatrist forces ec to lie down on the bed.
b.
Lo psichiatra ordina ec di sdraiarsi/ci sul lettino.
DAT
The psychiatrist orders ecarb/us to lie down on the bed.
c.
Il 5 maggio 1968 il capitano ordinò ec di abbandonare la nave.
On may 5
th
1968 the captain ordered ec to abandon the ship.
DAT
90
3.2. On the existence of PRO
c. * John seemed to themi to like the meni .
d. * John promised themi to like the meni .
English is “somewhat exceptional” in allowing movement across the indirect object in
raising constructions. This indirect object occupies a position to which it’s impossible
to move: according to the MTC, we can in fact assume that control is impossible from
position α iff it’s impossible to move a DP to α. By the way it’s also true that it’s
possible to bind from position α to position β only if position α c-commands position
β. The verb promise is even more exceptional because of the supposed null preposition
that, according to Horstein, licenses the internal DP and that should be erased during
the derivation. Hornstein assumes that the null preposition is what makes the verb
promise so hard to acquire: “the prepositional complement structure of promise would
be opaque to the child and its late acquisition would be expected” (Hornstein 2003, p.
35).56
3.2.1.1.3 Partial and split control.
Assuming that control is copy and deletion of
a DP implies that the controlling argument is semantically and sintactically identical
to the controlled argument: the controlling argument must be an exact copy of the
controlled argument. In the case of partial and split control, the controlled argument
is not a perfect copy of the controller.
In the case of split control, the controlled argument has more than one antecedent:
split control has not received a theoretical explanation yet and represents an unsolved
problem for every theory of control.
In the case of partial control, the controlled argument may differ in semantic number
from the controller.
(139)
a.
Johni wanted ti to meet at 6
b. * Johni decided ti to meet at 6
c. * Johni saw Mary after ti meeting at 6
Hornstein, assuming that the movement account can be combined to other mechanisms, proposes to solve the problem with a meaning postulate “licensed by certain
matrix verbs when taking control complements” (Hornstein 2003, p. 42).
56
In chapter 4 we will see that children struggle to acquire Italian verbs which exhibit subject control
across dative. Since dative in Italian is introduced by an overt preposition (a) it is possible to reject
Hornstein’s claim. It is not the “opacity” (i.e. the absence of a full preposition that licenses the internal
DP) that makes a verb like promise particularly difficult.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
91
(140) If “DP Vs [TP to VP]” then “DP Vs [TP DP and some contextually specified
others to VP]”
Adopting a meaning postulate like (140) in order to account for the semantics of PC
is not very elegant, as noticed by Hornstein himself (Hornstein 2003, p. 42). The
meaning postulate (140) is in fact able to account for the absence of partial control in
adjuncts (139c) and in complement clauses selected by matrix verbs like decide (139b).
The meaning postulate in (140) is a ploy to include PC into MTC at the cost of the
assumption that movement can be integrated with meaning postulates. However the
meaning postulate (140) does not formulate any hypothesis for the distribution of PC,
i.e. it doesn’t try to explain why PC occurs and which is the cause of PC.
3.2.1.1.4 Case and control.
Landau (2003) argues that the change of case in Ice-
landic between the controlling argument and the controlled argument (the case is
marked on a secondary predicate or on a floating quantifier) constitutes a problem
for MTC. Sentences characterized by this pattern are (141c), (141d) and (141e). In these
sentences a quirky case (a dative) marks part of the chain whereas the other part of the
chain receives structural case.
(141)
a. Jòn
vonast til ad̄ koma *einan/einn
John-NOM hopes to to come alone-*ACC/NOM
Jon hopes to come alone
NOM . . . [NOM . . . ]
b. Jòn
bad̄ Bjarna
ad̄ koma einan/??einn
John-NOM asked Bjarni-ACC to come alone-ACC/??NOM
Jon asked Bjarni to come alone
ACC . . . [ACC . . . ]
c. Jòn
vonast til ad̄ leid̄ast ekki einum/*einan/*einn
John-NOM hopes to to be-bored not alone-DAT/*ACC/*NOM
Jon hopes not to be bored alone
NOM . . . [QRK . . . ]
d. Jòn
bad̄ Bjarna
ad̄ leid̄ast ekki einum/*einan/*einn
John-NOM asked Bjarni-ACC to be-bored not alone-DAT/*ACC/*NOM
Jon asked Bjarni not to be bored alone
ACC . . . [QRK . . . ]
e. Bjarna
leiddist
ad̄ hlaupa *einum/einn
Bjarni-DAT was-bored to run
alone-*DAT/NOM
Bjarni was bored to be running alone
QRK . . . [NOM . . . ]
(Boeckx and Hornstein 2006a)
Landau (2003) argues that only one case may be assigned to a chain (Boeckx and Hornstein call this chain uniformity argument). Two DPs with different case should belong to
92
3.2. On the existence of PRO
two different chains.
Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a) argue that Icelandic quirky cases in complement clauses
are not problematic for MTC. Quirky case is in a kind of inherent case that is tightly
related to a thematic role. In Icelandic, quirky case marks the subject of some particular predicates. During the derivation the quirky case is inherently assigned to the
controlled DP. Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a) simply assume that quirky case can be
overwritten by a structural case: the quirky DP moves from the complement clause
to the matrix clause and then it receives a structural case; the controlling argument
surfaces in the matrix clause as a nominative or accusative DP. This assumption is able
to account for cases like (141c) and (141d), characterized by a structural case in the
matrix clause and a quirky case in the complement clause.
Cases like (141a) and (141b) are common examples of case transmission. The head that
assigns case to the moved element assigns case to the entire chain via multiple Agree:
in the absence of a quirky case, the highest case in the A–chain is transmitted to all
the copies. In (141e) the matrix verb assigns quirky case to the moved DP: Boeckx and
Hornstein (2006a) argue that quirky case, being an inherent case, cannot be assigned
from long-distance. The secondary predicate, being unable to receive case from agreement with a c–commanding head, is then assigned a default nominative case.
Bobaljik and Landau (2009) report some examples of A-movement in Icelandic that
are problematic for the hypothesis presented by Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a). Quirky
case preservation is persistent in A-movement but is impossible in control.
(142)
ECM constructions
a. Ég tel
strákana
(hafa verid̄) kitlad̄a
I believe the-boys-PL-ACC to-have been tickled-ACC
I believe the boys to have been tickled
b. Ég tel
strákunum
(hafa verid̄) bjargad̄
I believe the-boys-PL-DAT to-have been rescued-DFLT
I believe the boys to have been rescued
(Bobaljik and Landau 2009, p. 115)
(143)
passivized ECM constructions
a. Strákarnir
eru taldir
(hafa verid̄) kitlad̄ir
The-boys-PL-NOM are believed-PL to-have been tickled-NOM
The boys are believed to have been tickled
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
93
b. Strákunum
er talid̄
(hafa verid̄) bjargad̄
The-boys-PL-DAT are believed-DFLT to-have been rescued-DFLT
The boys are believed to have been rescued
(Bobaljik and Landau 2009, p. 115)
Examples (142) and (143) show that A–moved quirky case remains quirky and is not
overwritten by a structural case. This clearly rules out the overwriting hypothesis by
Boeckx and Hornstein, ie. the hypothesis that the subject of a quirky case assigning
verb changes its case after undergoing A-movement.57
Bobaljik and Landau then observe that if, according to the MTC, control is (almost)
reduced to raising, it is impossible to explain the difference between (144a) and (144b).
(144)
a.
Ég
tel
Maríu
hafa
verid̄ tekna/*tekin
af
I-NOM believed Maria-ACC to-have been taken-F-SG-ACC/*NOM by
lögreglunni
the-police
I believed Maria to have been taken by the police
b.
Ég
bad̄ Maríu
ad̄ vera *tekna/tekin
af
I-NOM asked Maria-ACC to be taken-F-SG-*ACC/NOM by
lögreglunni
the-police
I asked Maria to be taken by the police
(Thrainsson 1979, p. 362–363)
The hypothesis by Boeckx and Hornstein is unable to explain why there is a nominative in the lower clause in (144b), where an accusative is expected. According to
Bobaljik and Landau (2009), there is no case transmission between the complement
clause and the matrix clause. Each clause hosts an independent case assignment. That
is how the controlled argument in (144b) receives nominative case.
3.2.1.2 Further issues related to the MTC
3.2.1.2.1 Binding and reconstruction.
There is evidence that the controlled argu-
ment is able to bind. Anaphors in a controlled clause can be locally bound by the
57
Bobaljik and Landau (2009) notice that it could also be supposed that quirky case-marked DPs bear
an optional structural case feature: quirky case could optionally receive the quirky case or the structural
case of the chain to which they belong. This hypothesis simply does not work. It would account for
(142) and (143) and for cases like (141c), (141d) and (141e). By the way this hypothesis would also allow,
and thus fail to block, agrammatical cases like quirky case preservation in control and case overwriting
in A-movement.
94
3.2. On the existence of PRO
controlled argument.
(145)
a.
Johni promised Maryj to kill himselfi
b. * Johni promised Maryj to kill herselfj .
(146)
a.
Giannii confessa a Mariaj di odiare se stessoi
Giannii confesses to Mariaj that he hates himselfi
b. * Giannii confessa a Mariaj di odiare se stessaj .
Giannii confesses to Mariaj that he hates herselfj
(147)
a.
Ieri i professorii hanno ordinato ecj
j
di citare se stessi∗i/j
in ogni pubblicazione.
Yesterday the professorsi commanded ecj
j
to quote oneselfj
in every publication.
b. * Ieri mattina la psicoterapiai ha restituito ecj a se stessij .
Sentences like those in (145) clearly show that the anaphors in the complement CPs
are unable to refer to NPs that are outside the CP. Anaphors can locally refer only to
the NPs inside the controlled CP. This is showed also by the similar Italian58 example
(146).
Another example of the binding capabilities of the controlled argument can be found
in (147). The example (147) shows the case of Italian null dative ec (see footnote 55).
According to Rizzi (1986), Italian null dative ec, under specific tense, is able to control
(147a) but unable to bind (147b). Since the dative argument ec of the verb cannot bind,
the anaphor binding in (147a) can only be entertained by the controlled argument
(which has the null dative ec as a controlling antecedent) to the anaphor.
If we assume, as MTC does, that the controlled argument is a trace, the only way to
account for the binding relation between the controlled argument and a local anaphor
is to assume a reconstruction effect that prevents A-movement from destroying the
configuration required by principle A. The reconstruction effect is typical of A’-movement and allows copies generated by movement to be syntactically able to bind and to
entertain scope relations. We now focus on binding phenomena with examples (148),
(149) and (150).
58
Notice that Italian reflexive pronoun se stesso (and its female counterpart se stessa) cannot receive
any kind of logophoric or non–local interpretation.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
(148)
a.
95
Which of each otheri ’s friends did theyi remind t that he saw Bill?
b. * Which of each otheri ’s friends did he remind t that theyi saw Bill?
(Sportiche 2006, p. 46)
(149)
a.
Which of hisi collaborators does no politiciani ignore t?
b. * Which of hisi collaborators t ignores no politician?
(Sportiche 2006, p. 43)
(150)
a.
John feared Mary’s examination of himi .
b.
Whose examination of himi did Johni fear t?
c. * Hei feared Mary’s examination of Johni .
d. * Whose examination of Johni did hei fear t?
Only in (148a) is it possible to reconstruct the c-commanding condition that allows
the reciprocal to be bound by its proper antecedent. In (148b), on the contrary, the
position of the copy does not c-command the reciprocal. In (149a) the reconstruction
effect allows a copy of his to be c-commanded, yielding a grammatical sentence. This
is impossible however in (149b). In (150d) John and he cannot corefer because the copy
of whose examination of John violates principle C.
The existence of a reconstruction effect for A-movement is generally accepted among
scholars (Sportiche 2006, Park and Park 2002) with some noticeable exceptions like
Chomsky (1993) and Lasnik (1999). We will avoid the discussion on the existence of
a reconstruction effect in A-movement for the sake of brevity. Suffice it to say that a
reconstruction effect is supposed to be responsible for the minimal pair in (151).
(151)
a.
Pictures of each other struck them as t rather fuzzy.
b. * Pictures of each other struck her as t rather fuzzy.
(Sportiche 2006, p. 54)
In (151a) the reconstruction effect allows a copy of the reciprocal to be in the licensing
domain of the appropriate antecedent them.
Assuming MTC, we have then to assume also the existence of reconstruction effect in order to account for the binding phenomena reported in (145), (146) and (147).
The first assumption (MTC) leads necessarily to the second assumption (reconstruction from A-movement exists). The second assumption incurs however in a problem:
control and reconstruction do not seem to get along with each other. Johnson (1985),
in fact, reports the minimal pair in (152). These sentences mark another difference
between raising and control.
96
3.2. On the existence of PRO
(152)
a.
Replicants of themselvesi seemed to the boysi t to be ugly.
b. * Replicants of themselvesi promised the boysi
PRO
to become ugly.
The acceptability of (152a) is supposed to be caused by a reconstruction effect that
prevents A-movement from destroying the configuration required by principle A. Assuming the existence of PRO (or any other element which is not a trace) in the subject
position of the infinitival clause implies assuming that the anaphor themselves never
finds itself in the configuration required by principle A. This assumption hence explains the unacceptability of (152b).
A similar minimal couple is (153), reported by Langendoen and Battistella (1982) and
cited by Belletti and Rizzi (1988).59
(153)
a.
Friends of each otheri seemed t to amuse t the meni .
b. * Friends of each otheri wanted PROj to amuse tj the meni .
The sentences in (152) and (153), according to MTC, are described as instances of movement in raising and control, as in (154) and (155).
(154)
a.
Replicants of themselvesi seemed to the boysi t to be ugly.
b. * Replicants of themselvesi promised the boysi t to become ugly.
(155)
a.
Friends of each otheri seemed t to amuse t the meni .
b. * Friends of each otheri wanted t to amuse t the meni.
The reconstruction in
MTC
is thus necessary to account for cases like (145), (146) and
(147) but is unable to deal with minimal couples like (152) and (153).
MTC
hence hits a
paradox.60
59
In (153) the lowest trace in each sentence marks the position of the subject of the verb amuse in
Deep Structure, according to the theory of Belletti and Rizzi (1988), which is lower than the position of
the object in Deep Structure.
60
Hornstein (2001, p. 52) faces a minimal couple very similar to the one in (152).
(156)
a. A/some politiciani is likely ti to address every rally.
b. A/some politiciani tried PROi to address every rally.
(Burzio 1986, p. 201)
Burzio (1986) argues that (156a) is characterized by a scope ambiguity: both a/some politician and every
rally can take wide scope. In (156b) only a/some politician can take wide scope.
In order to account for this discrepancy, Hornstein argues that it could be assumed that only the copies
that have already checked the most thematic roles will be retained at LF. In raising predicates all the
copies of the raising DP have checked one and only one thematic role. In control predicates, however,
the controlling DP, according to MTC checks the first thematic role in the complement clause and the
second thematic role in the matrix clause: this means that the higher copies of the controlling DP have
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
3.2.1.2.2 Licensing pro.
97
Recall the two principles that regulate the distribution of
pro and t in MTC (122), repeated here as (157).
(157) When a syntactic gap must be filled . . .
a. . . . prefer the insertion of a trace instead of the insertion of an empty pronoun
b. . . . prefer the insertion of an element that, at that point of the parsing operations, has a proper left antecedent.
(158) The insertion (of a trace or an empty pronoun) must not violate grammar.
These principles are not correct because they seem to exclude from the spectrum of
possible grammars some syntactic representations that are in fact perfectly grammatical in some langauges. Consider pro–drop languages and take (159) as an example.
(159) Il cane che morde è pericolosissimo.
a. Il canei che ti morde ec è pericolosissimo.
The dog that bites is very dangerous.
b. Il canei che pro morde ti è pericolosissimo.
The dog that pro bites is very dangerous.
(160) Gianni dice che il cane che morde è pericolosissimo.
a. Gianni dice che il canei che ti morde ec è pericolosissimo.
Gianni says that the dog that bites is very dangerous.
b. Giannij dice che il canei che proj morde ti è pericolosissimo.
Giannij says that the dog that hej bites is very dangerous.
In the case of (159) the parser must insert an empty category as a subject of the relative
clause. According to the principle (157a) the insertion of a trace is preferred, satisfying
both (157a) and (157b). The insertion of a pronoun, on the other hand, would of course
violate (157a) and would also violate (157b).61 The presence of an empty pronoun in
checked two thematic roles whereas the lower copies have checked only one thematic role. This implies
that the lower copies, for example those that are located in the controlled complement clause, cannot
undergo reconstruction.
Such a solution would explain the minimal couples (152) and (153) but it would fail in the task of
accounting for (145), (146) and (147).
61
An empty pronoun in the subject position of an object relative clause coreferring with the DP linked
to the A’ trace is a case of strong crossover. Hence an empty pronoun cannot occupy the subject position
of a relative clause.
98
3.2. On the existence of PRO
that position should thus be impossible. The problem is that, as we see in (159), the
presence of an empty pronoun is possible in Italian. A similar problem is found in
(160), that differs from (159) because of the presence of a proper antecedent (Gianni)
for the empty pronoun.62 The insertion of an empty pronoun in (160) violates (157a)
whereas the insertion of a trace satisfies both (157a) and (157b). Hence the insertion of
an empty pronoun is blocked.
To account for (159) and (160), (157) and (158) must be modified. This goal can be
hypothetically achieved in two ways. The first way consists in mildly modifying the
two principles in (157) and making them able to account also for the distribution of
A’–traces. The second way consists in assuming that (157) and (158) simply account
for the distribution of A–traces and empty pronouns, leaving A’–traces apart.
The first path cannot be followed. In (159) and (160), both pro and the trace can be
found in the subject position of the relative clause. However, in (160) pro would have a
proper left antecedent that is not present in (159): according to (121b) and thus (157b),
the presence of a proper (and overt) antecedent is a factor that determines the parser’s
preference. Suppose that, we modify the first parsing principle (157a) or that we add a
principle to (157) in order to equally allow the insertion of an empty pronoun or a trace
in the object position of the relative clause in (159). In that case, according to (121b)
and thus to (157b), the parser would favour the insertion of pro in the same position in
(160), prohibiting the insertion of a trace.
The second way should then be followed, assuming that (159) and (160) hold only for
the distribution of A–traces and empty pronouns. Assuming that (159) and (160) do
not hold for the distribution of A’–trace, however, would make the MTC less elegant.
The intention of Boeckx and Hornstein (2007) was to regulate the distribution of traces
and empty pronouns starting from general principles. The big picture would consist in
showing that the distribution of traces and empty pronouns is derived from universal
(161) * Il canei che proi morde ti è pericolosissimo.
The dogi that proi bites ti is very dangerous.
The insertion of pro coreferring with il cane in (161) is blocked by principle (158).
62
The problem exemplified in (159) does not exist in a language like Latin, which marks relative
pronouns with case. In some Dutch dialects, that mark complementizers with φ features (van Koppen
2005), the same problem can be avoided.
These language–related issues about Hornstein’s approach to the distribution of null pronouns in MTC
are caused by the resort to the notions of parser and parsing to explain the grammatical possibility of
some patterns: the grammar deals basically with features and related operations, the parser deals with
the realization of features at PF. Notice that the resort to the parser looks like imposing restrictions on
syntactic representations at spell out or, more precisely, an output filter.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
99
principles. But universal principles that cannot work for a part of the universe (i.e.
A’–traces) are not very universal.
A second issue with the distribution of empty categories comes from a sentence
like (162). This sentence contains a gap that can be filled with a trace or with an empty
pronoun.
(162) It helped John to buy us a new computer.
a. It helped John pro to buy us a new computer.
b. It helped Johni ti to buy us a new computer.
(162a) is necessarily a case of control into an extraposed clause. According to Landau
(2001), extraposed clauses are moved to an adjunct of VP and an expletive it checks
the EPP feature in Spec[TP] of the matrix clause.
(163)
VP
help
(164)
VP
VP
Johni
V′
help
CP
VP
CP
CP
V′
help Johni
pro/ti to buy us a
new computer
ti to buy us a
new computer
Both syntactic representations63 are possible in English and both structures can indeed
be processed: the OC right branched structure (163) and the extraposed structure (164).
The phrase marker in (164) is reminiscent of a sentence like (124), repeated here as
(166). According to (157), both an empty pronoun or a trace can appear in the subject position of the infinitive clause in (166). The same categories can appear in that
63
Notice that the trees in (163) and (164) mark the complement clauses as CPs. They should have
been marked as TPs, as Chomsky (1995) does, considering that, according to the MTC, they are basically
predicates in a raising structure. They are marked CP simply in order to mark the complement clause
in the same way across the different theories, hence in order to avoid confusion. There are anyway
theoretical reasons to consider the complement clause in MTC’s control structures a CP: Polinsky and
Potsdam (2006), observing cross-linguistic evidence, suggest that in controlled clauses the controlled
argument moves from the embedded Spec[VP] to Spec[CP] and then raises to the matrix clause.
100
3.2. On the existence of PRO
position even if the sentence is extraposed (Landau 2001).64
(166) Johni believes that [tj /proi washing herselfj /himselfi ] would delight Maryj .
(167)
a. Mary knew that t/pro to buy himself/herself a computer helped John.
b. Mary knew that it helped John t/pro to buy himself/herself a computer.
The possibility of inserting an empty pronoun in (167b) is blocked, according to (157),
because the insertion of a trace with a proper left antecedent is preferred. The principles in (157) must hence be modified to account for cases of extraposition like (162a)
and (167b).
3.2.1.3 Summary
In section 3.2.1 the Movement Theory of Control was described. MTC has some clear
advantages: MTC can account for the interpretation of control sentences and for the
phenomenon of backward control without resorting to strong assumptions. According
to Boeckx and Hornstein (2006b), MTC is less stipulative and more “minimalist” than
the old theory of PRO. MTC does not need a very strong assumption like the control
module and resorts to independent categories like t and pro, that were certainly not
created exclusively to account for control phenomena.
We saw, however, that MTC does not come free of stipulations. MTC must assume
that null objects and null datives can enter the numeration in the subject position and
must be spelled out in object/dative canonical position. MTC assumes that verbs like
promise are somehow an exception to MLC and host an internal position to which Amovement is impossible. Brody (1999) notices that assuming that pro can be the subject
of an infinitive clause in English (which is not a pro–drop language) is in fact a strong
assumption. Finally, Hornstein (2003) assumes that movement can be combined with
meaning postulates in order to explain PC.
MTC seems also to be unable to solve some hard and serious problems. In particular,
MTC seems to be unable to deal with the phenomena of quirky case transmission
64
Landau (2001) reports that LD control is possible in extraposition, with the exception of psych–
predicates.
(165)
a. Mary knew that to perjure himself/herself was painful to John.
b. Mary knew that it was painful to John to perjure himself/*herself.
c. Mary knew that to perjure himself/herself was harmful to John.
d. Mary knew that it was harmful to John to perjure himself/herself.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
in Icelandic.
MTC
101
also faces serious problems in accounting for binding phenomena
inside controlled clauses. Last but not least, MTC still lacks an operative mechanism
capable of accounting for the correct distribution of traces and empty pronouns.
3.2.2 PRO and the Calculus of Control
3.2.2.1 The origins of PRO
The category PRO, as we already saw, was assumed by Chomsky (1981) in order to
account for the distribution and the interpretation of the subject of the infinitives. The
subject of infinitives receives an interpretation from a local antecedent (like anaphors)
or from an arbitrary/non–local contextual referent (like pronouns). Two binary features could then completely describe the whole range of NPs in syntax.
(168)
–anaphor
–pronominal → R–expressions (John, the cake)
–anaphor
+pronominal → pronouns (he)
+anaphor
–pronominal → reflexives (herself ) and reciprocals (each other)
+anaphor
+pronominal → PRO
The problem with PRO was its ambiguous nature, considering that, according to Chomsky (1981),
(169)
a. An anaphor must be bound in its governing category.
b. A pronoun must be bound in its governing category.
If PRO is simultaneously a pronoun and an anaphor, then it must be bound and free
in its governing category. To avoid this contradiction, Chomsky (1981) assumes that
PRO, i.e. the subject of non-finite verbs, is not governed.
65
This series of assumptions
was called the PRO theorem.
The PRO theorem did (and still does) not seem to be free from heavy assumptions.
The first thing that can be noticed is that PRO is never simultaneously interpreted as a
pronoun (free) and as an anaphor (bound). The double nature of PRO (that correspond
65
According to Chomsky (1981), a governing category for Y must be a minimal category containig Y
and capable of governing Y. In addition, the governing category must be a SUBJECT c-commanding Y.
For example, the head Agr is a SUBJECT c–commanding the subject of a sentence. Martin (2001) notice
that, in order to assume that PRO is ungoverned, it is necessary to assume that Agr is not a SUBJECT
or that non-finite clauses simply lack Agr altogether.
102
3.2. On the existence of PRO
to the possibility to interpret PRO in OC and NOC) has to be found in at least two
different instances of PRO. It could be assumed, as Hornstein (2001) notices, that those
two different interpretations of PRO are in fact two different categories with (roughly)
the same distribution. Theorizing control with two different categories would be free
from the assumption of the ungoverned position. In fact nothing prohibits pronouns
and anaphors from appearing in the same positions.
(170)
a. The men saw their mothers.
b. The men saw each other’s mothers.
(Hornstein 2001, p. 30)
Another problem for PRO theorem is that PRO has a thematic role but no case. This
violates the Case Filter formulated in Chomsky (1981) and rephrased as (171) .
(171) A chain is visible for θ–marking if it contains Case position.
(Chomsky and Lasnik 1993, p. 119)
Anyway, as soon as the concept of government was disposed of in favour of a
minimalist system (Chomsky 1993), the PRO theorem had little theoretical reason to
exist and a new theory of control had to be forged. Chomsky and Lasnik (1993) assume
that the distribution of PRO depends on case theory, solving also the problem of the
violation of the Case Filter in (171). PRO (and only PRO) is marked by null case; on the
other hand, null case cannot be assigned to any other NP. The “null case theory” blocks
cases exemplified in (172); it also blocks cases like (173b) by prohibiting PRO from
getting the accusative case. Last but not least, this theory prevent non-finite clauses
from having subjects that are simply not PRO (anaphors, pronouns, R–expressions).
(172)
a. * Sarah saw PRO
b. * Sarah saw pictures of PRO
(173)
a.
Naomi tried PRO to solve the problem.
b. * Naomi belives PRO to solve the problem.
(174)
a. * Naomi asked Peter Joe to solve the problem.
b.
Naomi asked Peter PRO to solve the problem.
The null case theory has some problems.66 If non-finite T checks null case and A-movement from case positions is blocked, then null case theory seems to predict that no DP
66
Martin (2001) observes that minimalist syntax is able to explain complex phenomena like case and
agreement without resorting to the old notion of government. The only reason for still relying on a
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
103
can be inserted as a subject of a non-finite clause and that no DP can consequently raise
from the non-finite clause to the matrix clause; it becomes also possible the licensing
of PRO as the subject of raising infinitives. Null case theory thus predicts (175a) to be
acceptable and (175b) to be unacceptable.
(175)
a. * It seems to Naomi PRO to have solved the problem.
b.
Naomi believes her to have solved the problem.
Another problem of null case theory is noticed by Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a). The
assignment of null case to PRO in Icelandic, as exemplified in (141a), repeated here as
(176), would represent a violation of minimality.
(176) Jòn
vonast til ad̄ koma *einan/einn
John-NOM hopes to to come alone-NOM
Jon hopes to come alone
(177) . . . controller NP[str.case] . . . [ PRO[nullcase] . . . SP[str.case] . . . ]
Cases of case transmission across control like (176), supposing that PRO has null case,
would be quite difficult to explain. In any case, the transmission of case from the
secondary predicate to the controller would constitute a violation of MLC.
3.2.2.2 The calculus of control
As we saw in section 3.2.1, the control module accounts for the interpretation of PRO.
Landau (1999, 2004) explores the syntax and semantics of control and proposes a theory of control enriched by generalizations and cross-linguistic theoretical issues. We
could summarize Landau’s theory (Landau 1999) in few points.
(178)
a. Agree is the mechanism of OC
b. NOC PRO is logophoric
c. PRO has structural case
d. OC can be achieved through two different ways of agreement
notion like government in a minimalist syntax could have been the theory of control. Null case theory
is the attempt to finally get rid of the last government–based explanation. Martin (2001) notices that
having a working minimalist theory of control represents the ultimate proof against the resort to the
notion of government.
104
3.2. On the existence of PRO
3.2.2.2.1 Agree and control.
In Landau’s theory of control (Landau 1999, 2004) the
interpretation of control is achieved via agreement (Chomsky 2000, 2001) between the
controlling DP, PRO and some functional head.67 Three features are involved in the
series of agreement relations that constitute the mechanism of control: [±Agr], [±T]
and [±R].
As we anticipated in section 3.1.4.1, these features are the key to understand the distinction between EC and PC. These features are also necessary to understand the distribution of PRO and controlled predicates crosslinguistically. The feature [±Agr] marks
the presence of overt φ agreement on the head I: English infinites and gerunds are characterized by the feature [–Agr] whereas Balkanic subjunctives (that are able to license
control) are characterized by the feature [+Agr]. The feature [±T], on the heads C and
I, distinguishes tensed [+T] and untensed [–T] complements: tensed complements allow tense mismatch but disallow partial control; untensed complements allow partial
control but disallow tense mismatch.
The feature [±R], as assumed by Reinhart and Reuland (1993), distinguishes DPs that
are referential expressions [+R] (and thus can be used to directly select an entity in the
discourse) and elements like anaphors and logophors that are referentially defective
[–R] and need to have a linguistic antecedent in the sentence. PRO, being marked [–
R], needs a sentential antecedent in order to be interpreted in OC contexts. Landau
assumes that PRO “freely picks φ-features before entering the derivation. In the case
of PRO those features are anaphoric, but valued (like the φ-features of himself )” (Landau 1999, p. 17). The feature [±R] on PRO, also, enters the derivation as valued.
Recall now Landau’s generalization on PC and EC, reported in section 3.1.3. The generalization (91) is repeated here as (179).
(179) PC complements are tensed; EC complements are untensed
(180)
a.
TENSED COMPLEMENT
(PC)
i. tense mismatch is tolerated
ii. partial control is possible
b.
UNTENSED COMPLEMENT
(EC)
i. tense mismatch is NOT tolerated
ii. partial control is IMpossible
67
The idea of exploring the possibility of (anaphoric) agreement as the basic mechanism for control
comes from Borer (1989).
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
105
(181) The PC generalization
Syntactic number, person and gender on PRO in tensed infinitival complements are inherited from the controller, but semantic number is not.
(Landau 1999, p. 75)
Landau assumes that PC control and EC control are characterized also by different
syntactic mechanisms that yield the possibility of semantic number mismatch between
controller and controllee (PC) or the impossibility of such a semantic number mismatch (EC).
Let’s start by observing the mechanism that triggers EC.
(182) Exhaustive control
[CP . . . F DP . . . [CP C[−T ] [IP PRO[−R] [I ′ I[−T,−Agr,−R] [[V P ] t[P RO] . . . ]]]]]
The rightmost operation is an operation of agreement between the head I and PRO,
which enters the derivation, as we already said, with valued φ-features. The φ-features in I are valued and PRO moves to Spec[IP] in order to check EPP. The second
operation is the feature [–T] agreement (via head F) between the heads I and C. The
third operation checks the φ-features of DP on F. The last agreement operation is between F and PRO. F is a functional head: in case of subject control it’s I, in case of
object control is light v. By this agreement operation PRO inherits the φ-features of
the controlling DP. At the end of these operations the controlling DP and PRO share
the same φ-features and PRO is interpreted as a copy of the controlling DP (that has
previously agreed with F).
Adler (2006) notices that Landau’s theory relies on two important assumptions.
(183)
a. Some probes (namely F) can enter into two Agree relations.
b. The operation Agree is sometimes able to cross a phase boundary.
The assumption (183a) can be derived from another assumption: that uninterpretable
features in F are still visible to syntactic operations despite being checked off by a first
Agree operation. Thanks to this assumption the head F is able to agree with DP (the
controller) and then with PRO.
The assumption (183b) is derived from the assumption that interpretable features remain accessible to probes. The phase impenetrability condition68 then constrains only
68
A syntactic head H is a (strong) phase iff it’s characterized by the property (184).
106
3.2. On the existence of PRO
uninterpretable features. Landau (1999) claims that this is an innocuous modification
of the phase theory. This assumption allows F to agree with PRO, which is inside CP.
In order to account for the PC generalization (181), Landau (1999) has to make two
more basic assumptions.
(185)
a. PRO enters the derivation with valued φ-features, but without semantic
number, i.e. with the feature [Mer] unvalued.
b. I–to–C head movement applies in tensed (PC) complements but not in untensed (EC) complements.
The assumption (185a) is necessary to account for the generalizations (179) and (181).
PRO behaves ambiguously, depending on the tense of the complement clause and ultimately on the semantics of the matrix verb. PRO’s semantic number can be matched
to the one of the controlling DP but there can also be a mismatch between the two
semantic numbers.
The assumption (185b) is needed to block the agreement between the controlling DP
and PRO. This assumption thus allows for the second way of agreement (178d).
(186) Partial control
[CP . . . F DP . . . [CP C[+T ] [IP PRO[−R] [I ′ t[I] [[V P ] t[P RO] . . . ]]]]]
The head movement from I to C is the main difference between EC and PC. In the
rightmost movement PRO has valued the features in I. The head I then moves to C
and the head C inherits the valued features of I. The head F then agrees with DP (the
controller) and then with C. F agrees with C and not with PRO: C has inherited PRO’s
φ–features from I and then has the features that are necessary to agree with F. According to Minimal Link Condition ( MLC ), F must agree with the nearest goal: C is in the
head of its phase and PRO, being in the domain of C, is more distant from the probe F
than C. Hence F agrees with C.
During the derivation, the head I agreed first with PRO and then, after the head movement to C, it agreed with F. As a consequence, “by transitivity of agreement, PRO gets
(184) Phase Impenetrability Constraint
The domain of H is not accessible to operations outside HP; only H and its edge are accessible
to such operations.
(Chomsky 2001)
The edge of a phase headed by H consists of the specifier or the adjuncts of H. According to Chomsky
(2000), C and light v are (strong) phases.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
107
to match the controller in all φ–features” (Landau 1999, p. 82). The only feature that
PRO does not inherit is semantic number [Mer], because [Mer], being unvalued, was
not originally involved in the first agreement between I and PRO: PRO entered the
derivation with an unvalued feature [Mer], according to the assumption (185a).
The mismatch in semantic number between the controlling DP and PRO is then possible: PRO, having no value for feature [Mer], can be the subject of a collective predicate
without committing feature clash. On the contrary, PRO that has inherited from F the
feature [-Mer] (or a simple singular DP marked with the feature [–Mer]) cannot be the
subject of a collective predicate.
The double route of agreement and the relation between tense and licensing of partial
control is roughly summarized in (187).
(187)
a.
TENSED COMPLEMENT
(PC)
i. tense mismatch is tolerated
ii. I–to–C movement blocks direct agreement between F and PRO
the unvalued feature [φ Mer] remains unvalued
iii. partial control is possible
b.
UNTENSED COMPLEMENT
(EC)
i. tense mismatch is NOT tolerated
ii. direct agreement between F and PRO
the unvalued feature [φ Mer] is valued by F
iii. partial control is IMpossible
3.2.2.2.2 The distribution of control phenomena. Landau (2004), as anticipated in
section 3.1.4.1, deals with the distribution of the category PRO crosslinguistically. PRO
is licensed in clauses, headed by a C head, that are characterized by abstract agreement
and/or anaphoric tense (the one which characterizes untensed complements).
Landau (2004) stipulates that the presence of PRO is regulated by an R–assignment
Rule. The R–assignment Rule is a “honest stipulation” (Landau 2004) that allows or
blocks the presence of the feature [±R] (and hence the capability of agreeing with PRO)
on the heads C and I of every clause. The aim of the R–assignment Rule is to relate
the licensing of PRO to the features (the type of agreement and tense) of the controlled
clauses.
108
3.2. On the existence of PRO
(188) R–assignment Rule
a. Each head (C, I) bears the feature [+R] iff it’s marked [+Agr, +T].
b. Each head (C, I) bears the feature [-R] iff it’s marked [–Agr, +T], [+Agr, –T]
or [–Agr, –T].
A direct consequence of the R–assignment Rule is that if a head lacks [±Agr] or [±T]
then no feature [±R] is assigned.69
The features [Agr] and [T] are specified on the head I. The head I bears the feature
[+Agr] if there is overt subject-verb agreement and the feature [–Agr] if there is abstract
(i.e. covert) subject-verb agreement. Speaking of the head C, Landau assumes that it
bears the same type of [T] features that is present on the head I, unless the clause is
characterized by independent tense: in that case the head C has no feature [T].
(189) Specifying [T] on embedded I/C
Anaphoric tense
→
[–T] on I and C
Dependent tense
→
[+T] on I and C
Independent tense
→
[+T] on I and Ø on C
He further stipulates that the feature [Agr] on C is usually not present on C, since
“agreement is rarely espressed on C” (Landau 2004, p. 871). If [Agr] is present on C,
then it must be [+Agr]. [–Agr] is unavailable on C.70
Recall that data from English, Balkan languages and Hebrew (presented in section
3.1.4) provide us three case studies. The first case study, which has already been examined in section 3.2.2.2.1, is the case of control into infinitive complements that can
be found in English or Italian. English infinitives do not license a DP/pro (i.e. an
R–expression or a pronoun) in subject position.
(190) EC-infinitive
* [CP . . . F DP . . . [CP C[−T ] [IP [I ′ I[−T,−Agr,∗−R]] [[V P ] DP/pro[+R] . . . ]]]]]
69
The R–assignment rule is the core of the mechanism that licenses control phenomena and is what
Landau also calls the calculus of control.
70
Landau also stipulates that if C is marked with [+Agr] then it must be necessarily marked with [+T].
The reasons for this stipulation are not clear. Notice, in fact, that this stipulation predicts that untensed
[–T] complement clauses are incompatible with the presence of agreement on C: anaphoric tense causes
C to be marked with [–T], agreement [+Agr] on C causes C to be marked with [+T]; since a head cannot
be marked [+T] and [–T] at the same time, the coexistence of anaphoric tense and agreement on C must
be regarded as a paradox.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
109
The first operation in (190) is the movement of the DP/pro to Spec[IP]: EPP must
be checked and also the features [–Agr, –R]. The features [–R], however, cannot be
checked. A PRO, which is marked [–R], could have checked it but a pronoun or an
R-expression was inserted into the lower VP. The DP/pro is characterized by the feature [+R], which cannot check the feature [–R] on T. There is no element that could
check the feature [–R] on T and the derivation crashes. The problem observed in (190)
is shared by all types of infinitive clauses in English and Italian, either PC infinitive
clauses or EC infinitive clauses.
The second case study is the case of control into subjunctive clauses that can be found
in Balkan languages. Balkan C–subjunctives license PRO and not R–expressions or
pronouns. They are untensed (C and I are marked [–T]) and are characterized by overt
subject-verb agreement (I is marked [+Agr], C is marked Ø). R–assignment Rule assigns the feature [–R] to the head I.
(191) C-subjunctive
a. * [CP . . . F DP . . . [CP C[−T ] [IP [I ′ I[−T,+Agr,∗−R] [[V P ] DP/pro[+R] . . . ]]]]]
b.
[CP . . . F DP . . . [CP C[−T ] [IP PRO[−R] [I ′ I[−T,+Agr,−R] [[V P ] t[P RO] . . . ]]]]]
The examples in (191) show that Balkan C-subjunctives work almost as English infinitives. The insertion of a DP/pro causes the feature [–R] on I to remain unvalued.
The third case study is the control in Hebrew subjunctives. Recall that the main feature of Hebrew subjunctive clauses, as noticed by Landau, is the possibility to license
either PRO or a R–expression or a pronoun. The Hebrew subjunctives are tensed and
thus bear the feature [+T] on the heads C and I. The R–assignment Rule assigns the
feature [+R] to the head I. Landau assumes that covert agreement is present on the
head C. Thanks to this assumption the R–assignment Rule assigns the feature [+R] to
the head C.
(192) Hebrew subjunctive
a. [CP . . . F DP . . . [CP C[+T,+Agr,+R] [IP [I ′ I[+T,+Agr,+R] [[V P ] DP/pro[+R] . . . ]]]]]
b. [CP . . . F DP . . . [CP C[+T,+Agr,+R] [IP PRO[−R] [I ′ I[+T,+Agr,+R] [[V P ] t[P RO] . . . ]]]]]
110
3.2. On the existence of PRO
In (192a) the first operation is the movement of the DP/pro to Spec[IP]. This operation
checks the features [+Agr, +R] on the head IP. The agreement between the heads I and
C follows.71 The agreement operations in (192a) are not particularly interesting since
they are basically the standard agreement operations that are found in common finite
complement clauses in English.
In (192b) things are a bit different. PRO checks EPP and the feature [+Agr] on the
head I. However, PRO, bearing the feature [–R], is unable to check the feature [+R].
The feature [+R] on the head I is then checked by the agreement operation between I
and C.72 Eventually, PRO agrees with the head F in the matrix clause, receiving an OC
interpretation.73
Landau’s theory is able to account, as we have seen, for very different licensing
environments.74 The cross-linguistic difference between English, Balkan languages
and Hebrew is reduced to the features that mark their heads I and C.75 Saying that
English lacks C-subjunctives equates saying that English lacks complement clauses
characterized by the features [-T, +Agr] on the head I and the features [-T] on the head
C. The theoretical deus ex machina of Landau’s theory is clearly the feature [Agr] on
the head C. It’s the presence of the feature [+Agr] in the case of Hebrew subjunctives
(192) that allows the assignment of the feature [+R] to the head C and, eventually, the
licensing of DP/pro as a subject of the complement clause. The presence of a feature
[+Agr] on a head C can be almost arbitrarily stipulated since “any kind of agreement
on C, visible or not, is represented by [+Agr]” (Landau 2004, p. 840). It’s impossible to
prove the absence of an invisible agreement and hence it’s impossible to argue on the
presence or the absence of the feature [+Agr] on C. For this reason it is clear that the
71
It is not clear which features are checked in (192a), in the agreement operations between I and C.
Since, as we see in (192b), the feature [+R] is valued in C, it could be that the probe of the agreement are
the features [+Agr] or [+T] or both.
72
This is possible, of course, assuming that the feature [+R] is already valued on the head C.
73
Landau (2004) notices that the case of obligatory control in Hebrew subjunctive can be accounted
for in a slightly different way: there is an alternative derivation to (192b). For the sake of brevity we
will not discuss it.
74
Landau’s theory is also able to block the merge of PRO as subject of an English ECM infinitive.
According to the R–assignment Rule, a C head should head the finite clause in order to license an item
marked [–R] as PRO. Raising infinitives are bare TPs (Chomsky 1995) and, lacking a C head, are unable
to license a subject PRO.
75
See (Landau 2004) for more cross-linguistic data that match his theory.
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
111
nature of the feature [Agr] on the head C is the stipulative part of Landau’s theory.76
3.2.2.2.3 The distribution of OC and NOC. Let’s now turn to the distribution of
OC and NOC. Landau (1999) assumes that when the controlled clause cannot be reached
by the operation Agree from a controlling sentence, i.e. when there is no T or light v
head that can enter in an Agree relation with PRO, we have NOC. Following Bresnan
(1982) and contrary to Hornstein (1999), Landau assumes that NOC, in the case of LD
control, is a logophor.77 Logophors “are licensed by discourse factors such as focus,
perspective and center of consciousness or communication” (Landau 1999, p. 138).
Landau follows Reinhart and Reuland (1993): all those reflexives that are licensed by
principle A are anaphors, the other reflexives are logophors. The presence/absence
of syntactic relation (principle A) licenses a different semantic interpretation of a reflexive (anaphoricity/logophoricity). The same principle applies in Landau: the presence/absence of the operation Agree on PRO license a different intepretation of PRO
itself, OC or NOC.
Logophors are subject to more strict constraints compared to pronouns. A logophor
can only refer to “antecedents that are sources or targets of mental/communicative
reports” (Landau 1999, p. 139). Landau reports some minimal couples to show that,
contrary to Hornstein (1999), NOC PRO is a logophor and not an anaphor.
(193)
a.
John said to Mary that there was a picture of herself with a Mafia figure in
the newspaper.
b. * John said about Mary that there was a picture of herself with a Mafia
figure in the newspaper.
(Kuno 1975)
(194)
a.
John said to Maryi that it would be easy PROi to prepare herself for the
exam.
b. * John said about Maryi that it would be easy PROi to prepare herself for
the exam.
(Adler 2006)
76
Landau (2004, p. 857), for example, stipulates that the presence of the feature [+Agr] on the head C
distinguishes obviative subjunctives (which lack the feature) from Hebrew subjunctives.
77
Landau (1999) assumes that the arbitrary interpretation in NOC is achieved via binding from a null
operator (presumably in C) adopting a solution already proposed by Lebeaux (1984).
112
3.2. On the existence of PRO
Considering that in (193a) and (193b) the reflexive herself and the related DP Mary are
not in the same minimal CP, it is clear that their relationship cannot be syntactic, i.e.
that herself is not licensed by principle A. So herself is a logophor. A logophor can
only refer to an antecedent that is source or target of mental/communicative reports.
That’s why (193b) is unacceptable. In (193b) herself can’t be an anaphor (principle A
doesn’t hold) and not even a logophor, because there is no possible antecedent for a
feminine logophoric. The assumption of a logophoric nature of NOC PRO can explain
the unacceptability of (194b); the assumption that NOC PRO is a pronoun, on the
contrary, would predict the acceptability of (194b).78
3.2.2.2.4 PRO and case.
Landau (2006) refutes the assumption that PRO has null
case. The main reason to refute null case on PRO is that many languages (Latin, Icelandic, Russian, German, Greek, Korean, Romanian . . . ) show case concord inside
controlled CPs. Recall Icelandic examples reported in paragraph 3.2.1.1.4.79
(195) Ég
bad̄ Maríu
ad̄ vera *tekna/tekin
af lögreglunni
I-NOM asked Maria-ACC to be taken-F-SG-*ACC/NOM by the-police
I asked Maria to be taken by the police
(Thrainsson 1979, p. 362–363)
PRO can agree with other elements of its clause in φ–features and case. There is no
reason to suppose the existence of null case on PRO as there would be no reason to
suppose null φ–features on PRO.
The idea that PRO is assigned structural case also provides a solution for the problem raised by Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a) and reported here in setcion 3.2.2.1.
(196) Jòn
vonast til ad̄ koma *einan/einn
John-NOM hopes to to come alone-NOM
Jon hopes to come alone
(197) . . . controller NP[str.case] . . . [ PRO[nullcase] . . . SP[str.case] . . . ]
78
Landau (1999) assumes that all instances of adjunct control are in fact cases of NOC. If all cases
of adjunct control are NOC and all cases of NOC are logophoric, then all cases of adjunct control are
logophoric. In fewer words, Landau (1999) adopts Williams (1992)’s theory. As we have already seen
in section 3.1.2.2, Adler (2006) shows how Williams’s theory is flawed.
79
Bobaljik and Landau (2009) showed that, in some cases like (195), the case on PRO cannot definitely
be considered a quirky case or a case inherited from the controller. What then could be the cause of the
case concord, beside structural case assigned to PRO?
CHAPTER 3. The syntax and semantics of control
113
A null case PRO would violate Minimal Link Constraint ( MLC ), assuming for example
in (196) a case transmission between the controller and the secondary predicate inside
the infinitival clause.
3.2.2.2.5 Some problems for Landau’s theory.
Landau’s theory still has two prob-
lems to solve. The first problem is backward control (see paragraph 3.1.4.2). In backward control the controlled argument, in OC, is not c-commanded by the controller:
the controlled argument is located in the matrix clause.
(198)
a. Chelswu-ka Yenghii -lul [
Chelswu-NOM Yenghii -ACC [
hakkyo-lul ttena-tolok] seltukhayssta
i school-ACC quit-COMP] persuaded
i
b. Chelswu-ka PROi [Yenghii -ka
hakkyo-lul ttena-tolok]
Chelswu-NOM PROi [Yenghii -NOM school-ACC quit-COMP]
seltukhayssta
persuaded
Chelswu persuaded Yenghi to quit school.
(Polinsky and Potsdam 2006)
The examples (98a) and (98b), repeated here as (198a) and (198b), clearly exemplify the
problem: the same verb and the same tense allow both forward and backward control.
In Landau’s theory, OC is carried out through the operation Agree: the operation
Agree requires that PRO is c-commanded by a functional head in the matrix clause. In
backward control the mechanism that allows the interpretation of PRO is completely
scrambled.
Backward control also inverts the position of the controller and the controllee, strongly
violating the R–assignment rule: the R–assignment rule assumes that certain features
regulate the distribution of PRO and other DPs. Switching the positions of the controller and the controllee scrambles the predictions of the R–assignment rule.
A second problem (but it’s more a gap rather than a real problem) for Landau’s
theory resides in the licensing of subject and object control. The licensing of subject or
object control is regulated by Landau (1999) with a strong assumption: the functional
head F that agrees with PRO can be I or light v; control is the double agreement of the
controller and the controllee with this head F. But how is a head in the whole sentence
solely allowed to agree with PRO and give it an interpretation? How is the agreeing
head F chosen? By which mechanism?
114
3.3. Summary of the chapter
3.2.2.3 Summary
In this section the theory of PRO has been explained since its beginnin • • gs (Chomsky 1981) to its last results (Landau 2004). The history of the theory of control started
with the PRO theorem in the Government and Binding approach. Minimalism in the
nineties brought null case theory and its problems (section 3.2.2.1). The new millennium brought Landau’s theory (section 3.2.2.2), that represents the evolution of the
old theories.
It has been shown how problems that affected the null case have been solved under
Landau’s theory of control. The R–assignment rule regulates the distribution of PRO
and blocks PRO from being the subject of raising infinitives (section 3.2.2.2.2). The
assumption that PRO can be assigned case as every other DP (section 3.2.2.2.4) solves
the problem of MLC violation raised by Boeckx and Hornstein (2006a).
Anyway the journey is not over and Landau’s theory still has to face problems. The
theory of PRO is unable to account for cases of backward control and it hasn’t developed an elegant mechanism to account for the subject/object control distinction.
3.3 Summary of the chapter
In this chapter we explored some properties of control, some of its typologies and some
of its cross-linguistic variation. Along with the relevant linguistic phenomena, some
theories have been presented: theories that tried to explain the semantics of control
into adjuncts, the licensing of control phenomena cross-linguistically, the correlation
between tense and partial control.
In section 3.2, we presented two major theories of control that, of course, face the
main problem of the nature of the controlled argument. These theories tried to find an
elegant explanation for the distribution and the interpretation of control phenomena.
However, as we saw, these theories still struggle to comprehend the whole range of
control phenomena: for example, they still haven’t addressed the problem of licensing
and interpreting OC and NOC adjunct control and they still haven’t addressed the
problem of variable control.
Chapter 4
The acquisition of control
4.1 The acquisition of control
The literature on the acquisition of control has addressed equally the topic of complement control and the topic of adjunct control. According to the literature, the
first structures that are learned by the children are the complement control sentences
(subject and object control), followed by obligatory adjunct control and ultimately by
some SCaO (subject control across object) verbs like promised, as notably discovered by
Chomsky (1969).80 McDaniel et al. (1991) observe in a longitudinal study that children
stop giving the wrong interpretation to object control sentences before the age of 5;0.
McDaniel et al. tested an unknown number of object control sentences in 14 children
with an Act Out Task and a Grammaticality Judgement Task. The correct answers to
all the object control sentences are taken by McDaniel et al. as a proof of a fully acquired knowledge of object control. These findings are confirmed by Hsu et al. (1985)
who, using the same tasks employed by McDaniel et al., did not find a child older than
4;6 that was unable to interpret correctly object control sentences.
According to the data provided by Hsu et al. (1985), adjunct control is acquired before
7 and a half years of age. According to Hsu et al. (1989), some 5–year–old children
appear to have acquired adjunct control.
Finally, according to Chomsky (1969), the use of promise may develop as as late as age
80
Another type of control that is learned quite late by children is the so called wh– control. Chomsky
(1969) found that children give the wrong interpretation to sentences as (199).
(199) Johni asks Peterj what PROi/∗j to do.
We will not address this topic in the present dissertation.
116
4.1. The acquisition of control
9.
4.1.1 Complement control and adjunct control
The data show that there is a time lag between the acquisition of complement control
(with the exception of SCaO) and the acquisition of adjunct control. This acquisitional
lag has been the main topic for the literature on the acquisition of control between the
eighties and the nineties.
4.1.1.1 The Adjunct Misattachment Hypothesis
A first hypothesis is the Adjunct Misattachment Hypothesis (AMH), proposed by Hsu
et al. (1985), Hsu et al. (1989), McDaniel et al. (1991), and Cairns et al. (1994). The hypothesis focuses on the c-command constraint on control: if c-command is not present,
neither is control. According to the AMH, children possess the complete control module and, of course, a full knowledge of the category
PRO.
Children also know c-com-
mand. What lacks in those children that still have to acquire control is the correct
phrase structure: those children attach English non-finite clauses as coordinate structures or attach non-finite clauses in the wrong place.
The
AMH
hypothesizes that children’s grammar evolves through four stages before
reaching the adult–like stage.
(200)
a. Free interpretation of PRO
Children take PRO as referring to any sentential or even contextual antecedent. This happens with complement control and adjunct control clauses.
b. Free interpretation of PRO only in adjunct clauses
Children have acquired complement control (except, of course, SCaO) but
they still allow free interpretation of PRO in adjunct control.
c. Object control interpretation of PRO in adjunct clauses
Children take PRO in adjunct clause as referring to the object of the matrix
clause rather than the subject of the matrix clause.
d. Mixed subject and object control interpretation of PRO in adjunct clauses
Children are learning the correct interpretation of adjunct control but they
still make some mistakes and give an object control interpretation to adjunct clauses.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
117
In the first developing grammar (200a) clauses are “disconnected” and interpreted as
coordinated. The coordination of clauses makes the c–command relation between the
controller and the controllee unavailable: PRO is thus interpreted as NOC and can thus
have many possible antecedents. In the second stage (200b), only adverbial clauses are
interpreted as disconnected from the phrase structure. The arbitrary interpretation of
PRO extends thus only to adjunct clauses. Children start attaching adjunct clauses
only at the third stage (200c); they are still making mistakes, though: they have the
tendency, through the last two stages (200c) and (200d), to attach adjunct clauses to
the lowest part of the matrix clause. A low attachment of the adjunct clause involves
allowing only the object of the matrix clause as the controller: the matrix object is in
fact the nearest, hence minimal, antecedent for the controllee.
Some points of the
AMH
are indeed problematic. The main problem involves the
basic assumption of the hypothesis. Hsu et al. (1989) claim that the
AMH
follows the
Continuity Hypothesis (Pinker 1984): according to the Continuity Hypothesis, “the
null hypothesis in developmental psychology is that the cognitive mechanisms of children and adults are identical; hence it is a hypothesis that should not be rejected until
the data leave us no other choice” (Pinker 1984, p. 7). This implies that children and
adults share the basic properties of UG (the same innate principles) and that only a
small part of the grammar is learnt by children thanks to positive evidence. Adler
(2006) notices that the
AMH
considers PRO and the control module to be part of the
innate principles shared by infants and adults, but not phrase structure. Assuming
that incomplete grammars lack the possibility to embed subordinate clauses in matrix
clauses implies assuming that the mechanism of recursive embedding is somehow
incomplete in infants. Recursive embedding is a foundational property of human language (Moro 2008) and it thus doesn’t seems to be something that is learned over
time.81 McDaniel et al. suggest that, considering that subordination and embedding
(being part of the UG) should be available to the child, the first stage (200a) could be
characterized by the lack of the resources required for processing subordination. The
difference in processing requirement between coordinate and subordinate clauses is
81
The innate nature of phrase structure has always been a main point for the argument of the povery
of stimulus.The argument of the poverty of stimulus states essentially that part of the knowledge of
language is undetermined by learning experience and is thus innate. Yang (2002) argues that the knowledge of structure dependence in syntax “is available to children in the absence of experience”. Hence
it is clear that structure dependency in syntax is innate: “the child’s mind . . . contains the instruction:
Construct a structure–dependent rule, ignoring all structure–independent rules. The principle of structure dependence is not learned, but forms part of the conditions for language learning” (Chomsky 1975,
p. 33).
118
4.1. The acquisition of control
taken to be originated by the semantic difference: “it is expected that the processor initially produces only coordinate representations and therefore that coordination is the
default in the absence of lexical and semantic knowledge. The grammar will then not
generate subordinate structures if lexical and semantic preconditions for such structures are not yet met. [. . . ] As lexical and semantic knowledge are acquired, the representations change from coordinate to subordinate” (McDaniel et al. 1991, p. 316). The
lag between the acquisition of complement subordination and adjunct subordination
seems to follow: “it seems quite plausible that the relation between a subordinating
conjunction and an adverbial clause is more subtle than that between a verb and its
complement” (McDaniel et al. 1991, p. 317). The idea that a delay in the acquisition of
subordination causes the delay in the acquisition of control seems to be untenable. According to the AMH the complement clause attachment is acquired between 4;0 and 5;0
years of age. According to the literature on the acquisition of subordination (ArmonLotem 2005), English children produce the first subordinate clauses between the age
of 2 and the age of 3. Subordination does not seem to be the trigger of the acquisition
of control since it clearly precedes by far the acquisition of control.
4.1.1.2 The Nominalization Hypothesis
Wexler (1992) and Broihier and Wexler (1995) propose the so called Nominalization
Hypothesis. This hypothesis assumes two developmental stages for the acquisition of
control, instead of the four hypothesized by the AMH. At a first stage, children allow a
free interpretation of PRO in complement and adjunct clauses. At a second stage, children have learnt complement control but they still make mistakes interpreting adjunct
control clauses. The main difference from the AMH is the absence of an object control
interpretation stage (200c): the second (200b) and the fourth (200d) stages of the AMH
are merged into one second stage.
(201)
a. Stage 1
Children do not know that the empty subject in complements and adjuncts
must be controlled.
b. Stage 2
Children have acquired the knowledge that the empty subject is controlled
in complement clauses. They interpret PRO as adults do when it occurs in
non-finite complement clauses. However they still allow free interpretation
of PRO in non-finite adjunct clauses.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
119
The object control stage, according to Wexler, should be rejected and the supposed
cases of object control into adjuncts should be simply considered to be cases of free
control. In fact the supposed cases of no object control include cases like those in
(202). In (202) the controller is in adjunct position and unable to c-command even a
misattached adjunct clause.
(202)
a. The lion stands near the elephant before climbing up the steps.
b. Grover gives a sponge to Bert before falling into the water.
The object control stage seems to be more like an occasional preference for the last NP
as a controller of the adjunct clause. In fact children in the object control stage (200c) do
not appear to differ much in age from the children in the next stage (200d). Hsu et al.
(1985) report that the mean age of the group in stage (200c) and the mean age of the
group in stage (200d) are separated by 5 months; Hsu et al. (1989) report a difference
of 3 months. Broihier and Wexler (1995) show with a Truth Value Judgement Task
that children who preferred the object interpretation in an Act Out Task accepted also
the subject control interpretation. Those children were even able to accept an external
referent as the controller of PRO in adjunct clauses.
The main idea of the Nominalization Hypothesis, compared to the
AMH,
is that
it’s not the structural projection that evolves in children acquiring the language, but
mainly the control module.
Wexler (1992) proposes the hypothesis that PRO has to mature and hence that children at the first stage (200a) of learning do not have PRO in their grammars. Children
lacking PRO, as suggested by Carlson (1990), interpret the infinitive clause as a nominalized infinitive. Not knowing what PRO is, the children, facing a sentence like
(203a), resort to an interpretation like (203b). A nominalized infinitive is interpreted
as having a free subject in the context.
(203)
a. The students enjoyed PRO singing the songs.
b. The students enjoyed the singing of the songs.
After the first stage, according to Wexler, children learn PRO (even though it is not
clear how they learn it). After the first stage children are thus able to interpret correctly
complement control sentences, but not adjunct control sentences. In order to explain
the delay in the acquisition of adjunct control, Wexler (1992) assume that children lack
empty operators (until 6 years of age). Adjunct clauses headed by before or after are
supposed to contain an empty operator that fixes the temporal relation between the
120
4.1. The acquisition of control
matrix clause and the embedded adjunct.82
(205) Big bird scratched Ernie before going to the park.
a. Big bird scratched Ernie [ before [CP Op PRO going to the park ] ]
b. Big bird scratched Ernie [ before [N P going to the park ] ]
Unable to see and to interpret the temporal operator, the child is forced to represent a
sentence like (205) without a temporal operator and as a nominalized infinitive (205b).
The nominalization of control clauses yields an arbitrary interpretation of PRO allowing PRO to refer to any NP in the context.
The nominalization hypothesis is particularly flawed concerning this second stage.
The claim that children are uniformly unable to represent empty operators is untenable. Adler (2006) reports that several studies argue that children are able to represent
an manipulate empty operators in relative clauses (Guasti and Shlonsky 1995, Labelle
1996, McKee et al. 1998) and in purpose clauses (Vainikka and Roeper 1995). On the
other hand, according to Wexler’s hypothesis, children should interpret correctly adjunct control clauses that do not contain an empty operator. According to Adler (2006),
adjunct clauses headed by while do not contain an empty operator; anyway, as Adler
shows in her experiment, adjunct clauses headed by while receive an arbitrary interpretation by children aged between 3 and 6.
Summarizing, it seems that the presence or absence of an empty operator does not
correlate with the ability to understand control in adjunct clauses.
4.1.1.3 Summary
The literature on the acquisition of adjunct control points out few basic facts. It is clear
that there are two consequent stages in the acquisition of adjunct control, as identified
by Wexler (1992). What is not clear is the cause of the delay of the acquisition of
adjunct control. The cause of the delay seems to be related to some features of the
82
According to Larson (1987), temporal adjuncts like that in (204) are ambiguous between two readings, (204a) and (204b).
(204) John kissed Mary before he said that he had to leave.
a. John kissed Mary before the time x; he said at time x [ that he had to leave ].
John kissed Mary before [ Opi he said [ that he had to leave] ti ].
b. John kissed Mary before the time x; he said [ that he had to leave at time x ].
John kissed Mary before [ Opi he said [ that he had to leave ti ] ].
The empty time operator accounts for the ambiguity between the two readings.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
121
adjunct clause, considering that some adjunct clauses are delayed (those headed by
before, after and while) whereas some other adjunct clauses do not seem to be delayed
(those headed by without), according to Adler (2006).
4.1.2 The acquisition of promise–like verbs
The verbs like promise have always been considered in the studies on the acquisition of
control as “marked” constructions. Chomsky (1969) proposes that children interpret
“the implicit subject of the complement verb [as] the NP most closely preceding it” and
hence fail in the task of interpreting correctly the sentences characterized by SCaO, like
(206a). Maratsos (1974) shows that children (aged four or five) that are able to interpret
passive sentences are also able to interpret control sentences with a passivized matrix
clause, like (206b).
(206)
a. John promised Mary to leave
b. John was told by Mary to leave
In other words, Chomsky incorrectly predicts that children would fail in the interpretation of (206b).
Pinker (1984) hypothesizes that the acquisition of promise requires the acquisition
of a new rule which is hard to learn and requires significant evidence. Pinker assumes
that children interpret every control structure with some kind of Principle of Minimal
Distance like (207), which applies before passivization.83
(207)
Add to the lexical entry of the complement–taking predicate the equation PRO = OBJ 2 if there is a second object present in the matrix clause;
if not, add the equation
PRO
=
OBJ
if there is an object present; if not,
add the equation PRO = SUBJ. Append “?” to the equation.84
(Pinker 1984, p. 241)
According to the rule (207), the child takes the lowest (presumably overt) argument of
the matrix clause to be the controller. Children equipped only with (207) cannot learn
83
Pinker uses the LFG framework and points out that “the passive, in replacing OBJ argument by SUBJ
in lexical form, also executes this replacement in the control equation associated with the form.”
84
The rule (207), in its original formulation, adopts theoretical devices from LFG Bresnan (1982). The
version reported here is slightly modified in order to appear more familiar to the theory of Chomsky
(1981).
122
4.1. The acquisition of control
the marked exceptions of the theory of control. In order to completely acquire control,
children need rule (208).
(208)
Examine the coreference information pertaining to the matrix and complement arguments in the contextually induced f–structure. If the complement subject is co-indexed with an argument of the matrix verb
other than that mandated by the predicate’s current control equation,
and if that equation bears the “?” feature, replace the equation with
a new one that is consistent with the coreference information in the f–
structure. If the contradicted equation does not bear the “?” feature, retain it and add a second equation that is consistent with the coreference
information. If the existing equation is consistent with the coreference
information, remove its “?” feature if it bears one.
(Pinker 1984, p. 241)
The rule (208) simply allows the children to verify the result of the rule (207) by comparing it with the “coreference information”, i.e. with positive evidence from the context of utterance.
Pinker’s hypothesis is then compatible with Wexler’s one (Wexler 1992) and complement control can be supposed to be acquired in two stages. A first stage characterized
by the lack of PRO and consequently by the lack of control. A second stage characterized by an interpretive strategy like (207). The passage from child grammar to adult
grammar is triggered by the acquisition of a rule like (208).
Cohen Sherman and Lust (1993) tested the acquisition of control in English children between 3 and 8 years of age. Cohen Sherman and Lust tested the production of
control sentences by an Elicited Imitation Task and the comprehension of control by
an Act Out Task. Object control verbs (tell, remind) and subject control verbs (promise)
were tested.
The first point carried by Cohen Sherman and Lust is that children have a good knowledge of the syntactic properties of control. In fact children seem to know quite well
the distribution of PRO. In the Elicited Imitation Task, the most frequent error (22%
of the sample of answers) that children made was the change of complement type
from infinite to finite and vice versa. When switching between a finite and an infinite
complement children switched correctly between a covert subject (PRO) and an overt
pronoun. Children, in response to the stimulus sentences (209a) and (210a), (almost)
never responded with sentences like (209c) or (210c). Most of the switchig between
complement types in elicited imitation involved switching from infinite (209a) to fi-
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
123
nite (209b). A smaller part of the switching involved switching from finite (210a) to
infinite (210b).
(209)
a.
John tells Tom to ride the bycicle
b.
Jimmy tells Tom that he rides the bycicle
c. * Jimmy tells Tom that
(210)
rides the bycicle
a.
John tells Tom that he rides the bycicle
b.
Jimmy tells Tom to ride the bycicle
c. * Jimmy tells Tom to
/he rides the bycicle
These results suggest that children know the relation between infinite tense, PRO and
control. Children seem to know, from the youngest age tested, the distribution of PRO
and its relation to complement clauses and tense.
Cohen Sherman and Lust propose the so called Lexical–Syntactic Integration Hypothesis
(Guasti 2002): the acquisition of control is not achieved through different grammars
or different interpretive strategies. The acquisition of control lies in the integration of
lexical and syntactic information. The processes of acquisition of these two components are independent of each other. The fundamental syntactic principles of control
(the distribution of PRO, the coreference between OC PRO and one of the arguments
of the matrix clause) appear to be continually available during the course of development, whereas certain aspects of the child’s knowledge (the interpretation of PRO) are
acquired later. The proof for this hypothesis comes from the experimental evidence
produced by Cohen Sherman and Lust: the subjects showed a strong preference for
the object control interpretation of the verb promise even though knowing clearly the
meaning of promise and preferring the subject interpretation of promise when this verb
took a finite complement, like that in (211b). To summarize, children tend to prefer the
object interpretation in sentences like (211a) and subject interpretation in sentences
like (211b), in which the interpretation is not constrained by the nature of the pronoun
and can freely refer to a contextual element.
(211)
a. Jimi promises Tomj PROi/∗j to make a snowman.
b. Jimi promises Tomj that hei/j will make a snowman.
In order to acquire control, the child must integrate the lexical and syntactic information; this knowledge integration may take time, precisely in those cases where there
is a mismatch between syntactic and lexical principles. The acquisition of verbs like
124
4.1. The acquisition of control
promise is made particularly difficult by the necessity to override the apparent minimality effect that arises from the intervention of the object or dative. The child that still
hasn’t integrated lexical and syntactic principles is puzzled by a sentence like (211a)
and has to weigh up lexical and syntactic information wondering which is the correct
antcedent for PRO.
4.1.3 The acquisition of control in dyslexic children
Only two studies, to our knowledge, tested the acquisition of control in dyslexic children.
Waltzman and Cairns (2000) tested 63 third grade children (mean age was 8.75): 41
of them were good readers, 22 of them were poor readers. Eight sentences were tested:
four sentences characterized by complement control and four sentences characterized
by adjunct control. The sentences were administered to children in a Picture Selection
Task. Poor readers made approximately the same number of errors made by the good
readers either with complement control (98.5% of correct answers) and adjunct control
(82.25%). Waltzman and Cairns conclude that poor readers, compared to their peers,
do not appear to be impaired in comprehending control sentences.
Kean (1984) studied the performance of six dyslexic adults that were attending college (the mean age is not reported). The experiment consisted in the interpretation and
the acceptability of various construction, including complement control sentences (object control and subject control across object) and tag questions. The group of dyslexics
was compared with six (presumably age matched) college students.85
The relevant sentence types (though it is not reported how many sentences in fact have
been tested) are reported in (212) and (213).
(212)
a. John asked Mary to do the dishes, and he did them.
b. John promised Mary to do the dishes, and she did them.
(213)
a. Mary kissed John, didn’t he?
b. Mary asked Sally if she had gone to the movies with John, didn’t they?
Kean reports that 5 dyslexic subjects out of 6 gave the wrong answer to the items in
(212). Only one control subject from the second group gave the wrong answer to the
85
The test was administered to three other groups: six adults not attending college, six children
betwwen 10 and 11 years old, six adults who suffered from neural disorders of various kind. We do not
report the results obtained by these groups since they are somewhat redundant.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
125
items in (212). No subject in these two groups, with the exception of only one dyslexic
subject, gave a wrong answer to the items in (213).
Kean hypothesizes that dyslexic subjects have some problems with the interpretation
of control structures: she argues that the failure in tasks like those in (212) can be
caused by problems with interpretation of control or problems with the interpretation of pronominal reference. The correct answers given by dyslexic subjects on tasks
involving tag questions (213) should exclude that the problems involve pronominal
reference. Kean hence assumes that dyslexic adults have problems with the interpretation of control structures.
The experiment required the subjects to give acceptability judgments about the submitted sentences and to match the acceptability judgments with truth value judgments. The truth value judgments were assessed using probe questions. For example,
a probe question for (212a) could have been something like “Who did the dishes?”.
Reviewing the results of the experiment, Kean considered a correct answer a correct
acceptability judgement paired with a correct truth value judgement. It was thus not
difficult to score a wrong answer: giving a wrong answer to one of the judgement
tasks was enough to score a wrong answer. And it was not difficult even to give a
wrong acceptability judgement to items in (212), considering that (212a) and (212b)
are not really ungrammatical but simply weird. The unaccurate design of the experiment (i.e. the likelihood of scoring a wrong answer) and the small number of subjects
tested (considering also that the number of the items is unknown) make the results
somewhat unreliable.
4.2 The experiment
We ran an experiment on the acquisition of control structures. The aim of the experiment was to assess the acquisition of control by Italian dyslexic children and also by
normally developing Italian children. Different control structures have been tested,
some of which have never been tested before in an acquisitional study. The types of
control sentence tested are summarized in table 4.1.
In (214) the types of sentences used as items are exemplified.
(214)
a. Maria promette a Piero di picchiare l’asino.
CC + S
Maria promises Piero to beat the donkey.
b. Il panda promette di mangiare la torta.
The panda promises to eat the cake.
CC – S
126
4.2. The experiment
c. Il panda ordina a Maria di saltare l’asino.
CC + O
The panda orders Maria to jump over the donkey.
d. Maria comanda di correre tutte le mattine.
CC – O
Maria gives the order to run every morning.
e. Il panda vede Piero prima di mangiare la torta.
AD + S
The panda sees Piero before eating the cake.
f. Il panda dice a Maria di correre tutte le mattine.
AM + SO
The panda says to Maria that he runs / she should run every morning
g. Maria chiede al panda di poter picchiare l’asino.
NA + S
Maria asks the Panda if she can beat the donkey.
We chose control verbs with a dative complement because this type of control verb is
much more common in Italian than control verbs with an object complement. Every
matrix verb in the experiment takes a dative complement.
The ambiguous variable control verbs are verbs that can be interpreted either as
Table 4.1: An inventory of experimental items
Type
Subject control across (overt) dative
Subject control across (covert) dative
Object control with (overt) dative
Object control with (covert) dative
Obligatory adjunct control
Ambiguous variable control
Non–ambiguous variable control
N.
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
Abbr.
CC + S
CC – S
CC + O
CC – O
AD + S
AM + SO
NA + S
Verbs (or complementizers)
promettere (promise), raccontare (tell)
promettere (promise), raccontare (tell)
ordinare (order), comandare (command)
ordinare (order), comandare (command)
prima (before)
dire (say), chiedere (ask)
dire (say), chiedere (ask)
subject or object control verbs in some contexts and only as subject control verbs in
other contexts. The verb dire “say” is ambiguous between a subject control reading and
an object control reading if the complement clause contains an actional predicate in
present tense. The verb dire can have only a subject control reading if the complement
clause contains a non-actional predicate or if the complement clause is characterized
by past tense. We assume that a non-actional predicate is a predicate that contains a
non-actional verb or a modal verb. Notice that the meaning of the verb switches as the
control type switches: dire in the object control reading means “to give (somebody) an
order”; dire in the subject control meaning means “to say, to utter words in order to
convey informations”.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
(215)
a. Pieroi dice a Gigij
i/j
127
di comprare fagioli.
Pieroi tells Gigij that hei buys beans.
Pieroi tells Gigij that hej should buy beans.
b. Pieroi dice a Gigij
i/∗j
di essere alto.
Pieroi tells Gigij that hei is tall.
c. Pieroi dice a Gigij
i/∗j
di poter comprare fagioli.
Pieroi tells Gigij that hei can buy beans.
d. Pieroi dice a Gigij
i/∗j
di aver comprato fagioli.
Pieroi tells Gigij that hei has bought beans.
The verb chiedere “ask” is characterized by the same ambiguity that characterizes dire,
but the meaning and the licensing contexts are different. The verb chiedere is ambiguous between a subject control reading and an object control reading if the complement
clause contains an actional predicate in present tense. The same verb can only have a
subject control reading if the predicate in the complement clause contains the modal
potere (can). A non-actional verb or a past tense in the complement clause are not
grammatical.
(216)
a.
Pieroi chiede a Gigij
i/j
di comprare fagioli.
Pieroi asks Gigij if hei can buy beans.
Pieroi asks Gigij if hej can buy beans.
b. * Pieroi chiede a Gigij
di essere alto.
Pieroi asks Gigij if he can be tall.
c.
Pieroi chiede a Gigij
i/∗j
di poter comprare fagioli.
Pieroi asks Gigij if hei can buy beans.
d. * Pieroi chiede a Gigij
di aver comprato fagioli.
Pieroi asks Gigij if he was able to buy beans.
4.2.1 Setting and participants
The experiment consisted of a Picture Selection Task. Every subject was shown three
pictures and the experimenter uttered a sentence: the subject then had to choose the
picture that matched the sentence. The pictures always involved the same four characters: Maria, Piero, the panda and the donkey.
128
4.2. The experiment
Two types of picture were used: the pictures used for the complement control items
were different from those used for the adjunct control items.
In the case of the complement control items, every picture featured a character that
was saying something to another character: an example can be seen in figure 4.1.
Every set of three pictures contained a picture that corresponded to the subject control reading, a picture that corresponded to the object control reading and a control
picture, which corresponded neither to a subject control reading nor to an object control reading.86
In the case of the adjunct control items, every picture was made by a sequence of
events: an example can be seen in figure 4.2. Every set of three pictures contained a
picture that corresponded to the subject control reading, a picture that corresponded
to the object control reading and a control picture, which corresponded neither to a
subject control reading nor to an object control reading. This is exemplified in figure
4.2, which is the set of pictures that corresponds to sentence (214e).
Five warm–up sentences were inserted in the experiment in order to introduce
the task to the subjects. The warm–up sentences featured the same verbs and the
same characters of the items without featuring any control structure. The warm–up
sentences featured finite clauses with only overt R–expressions as NPs.
Four groups of subjects took part in the experiment, as we can see from table 4.2:
dyslexics ( DYS ), age matched controls ( DYS ), young controls ( YCC ) and adult controls
( ADC ).
4.2.2 Results and data analysis
In table 4.2 a summary of the subjects and the groups involved in the experiment can
be found. In table 4.3 the results are shown.87 The percentages of correct answers
are enlisted for every sentence type, with the exception of the ambiguous control sentences. We decided, in the case of ambiguous control sentences, to report the percentages of subject control readings given by the subjects. Notice that both subject control
interpretation and object control interpretation were correct answers (subject reading
or control reading) in the cases of ambiguous control.
86
The control picture could portray a completely wrong event. It could also portray a reading that
was not a subject control reading or an object control reading, but something like a NOC reading: this
possibility is exemplified by the set in the figure 4.1, which is coupled with the sentence (214a).
87
See appendix B for materials, results and statistical analyses related to this experiment.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
Figure 4.1: Example of a set of pictures for a complement clause item.
Figure 4.2: Example of a set of pictures for an adjunct control item.
129
130
4.2. The experiment
The data are characterized in most groups by an abnormal distribution. The data
Table 4.2: Subjects involved in the experiment
Group
Young controls
Dyslexic children
Age matched controls
Adults
Abbr.
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
Number of subjects
15
16
22
8
Female subjects
8
11
11
7
Mean age (yy;mm)
5; 7
9; 5
9; 7
36; 6
have been submitted to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test and the Shapiro–Wilk test for
normality of distribution.88 Mann–Whitney tests were used in the data analysis. A
Bonferroni correction was applied and so all effects are reported at a .0083 level of significance. The .0083 level of significance is obtained applying the most conservative
Bonferroni correction to the standard level of significance .05: the standard level of
significance .05 was divided by the number of all possible comparisons (6) (Field 2005,
550).
Table 4.3: Percentages of correct answers
Type
CC+S
CC–S
CC+O
CC–O
AD+S
AM+SO89
NA+S
YCC
35%
77%
65%
45%
53%
18%
17%
DYS
53%
94%
81%
64%
80%
10%
44%
AMC
59%
95%
98%
41%
98%
6%
40%
ADC
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
21%
94%
The first relevant result for this experiment is that there is no significant difference
between the scores obtained by the dyslexic children and their peers. The results of the
Mann–Whitney test are reported in table 4.4. Considering these results, it is pointless,
from now on, to consider the two groups,
AMC
and DYS, as two separate groups. The
groups could in fact be merged into one group of 9–year–old children (9 YO). The
table 4.5 reports the correct answers (and the subject control interpretations, the case
88
The results of the tests for normality of distribution can be found in tables B.6 and B.7, appendix B.
89
For ambiguous control sentences, the percentages of subject control answers are reported.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
131
of ambiguous control) for the three groups: the 5–year–old children ( YCC ), the 9–year–
old children (9 YO ) and the adults ( ADC ).
The results show that 9–year–old children still haven’t properly acquired control
Table 4.4: results for the Mann–Whitney test between DYS and AMC
Type
CC + S
CC – S
CC + O
CC – O
AD + S
AM + SO
NA + S
U
152
173
123
116
113
147
169
r
-0.11
-0.02
-0.32
-0.27
-0.37
-0.16
-0.03
p < 0.0083 ?
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
structures. Some structures seem to have been acquired, some others do not seem to
be mastered at all. We will continue with the data analysis taking into consideration
only a part of the data at a time.
Table 4.5: Percentages of correct answers
Type
CC + S
CC – S
CC + O
CC – O
AD + S
AM + SO90
NA + S
YCC
35%
77%
65%
45%
53%
18%
17%
9 YO
57%
95%
91%
51%
90%
8%
41%
ADC
94%
100%
100%
100%
100%
21%
94%
4.2.2.1 Subject control sentences
The post–hoc Mann–Whitney test (with a Bonferroni correction) for significance found
that in
CC + S
sentences (i.e. sentences with subject control across object, with the ob-
ject overtly present) the scores obtained by 5–year–old children ( YCC ) and 9–year–old
children (9 YO ) were significantly lower than the scores obtained by adults ( ADC ).
The 9–year–old (9 YO ) group scored significantly lower than the adults in
90
CC + S
For ambiguous control sentences, the percentages of subject control answers are reported.
(U =
132
4.2. The experiment
Table 4.6: Percentages of correct answers
Type
CC+S
promettere
raccontare
CC-S
promettere
raccontare
YCC
35%
47%
23%
77%
83%
70%
9YO
57%
79%
34%
95%
99%
91%
ADC
94%
100%
88%
100%
100%
100%
37.5, r = –.51). Notice, however, that there was a strong amount of variation in the
answers of the 9 YO group: the group performed better with the items involving the
matrix verb promettere (promise) than with the items involving raccontare (tell). In fact
the Mann–Whitney test (with a Bonferroni correction) reveals that the scores obtained
by the 9 YO group with the verb promettere do not differ significantly from the adult
scores (U = 104, r = –.27). On the contrary, the scores obtained by the 9 YO group with
the verb raccontare do differ significantly from the adult scores (U = 47, r = –.48).
In the task of comprehending CC – S, the 9–year–old (9 YO ) group did not score significantly lower than the adults (U = 124, r = –.19). The difference between promettere
and raccontare detected with
CC + S
items disappears: the scores obtained by the 9 YO
group with the verb promettere do not differ significantly from the adult scores (U =
148, r = –.07), as the results obtained with the verb raccontare (U = 124, r = –.19).
The 5–year–old (5 YO ) group also scored significantly lower than the adults in CC + S
(U = 5, r = –.76). The 5–year–old (5 YO ) group scored a significant difference both with
promettere (U = 16, r = –.65) and raccontare (U = 17, r = –.64).
The Mann–Whitney test also found a significant difference between the YCC group
and the
ADC
group in the performance with the
CC – S
sentences (U = 20, r = –.60).
Curiously, the Mann–Whitney test performed on the separate scores (i.e. performed on
the scores with the verb promettere and raccontare separately) didn’t find any significant
difference between the performance of the YCC group and the ADC group (promettere:
U = 40, r = –.39; raccontare: U = 32, r = –.47).
Very few children, when selecting the picture out of the three proposed, chose the
control picture. No adults chose the control picture. In the
group chose the control picture, as 3 % of the
CC – S
DYS
CC + S
task, 7% of the
group and 1% of the
AMC .
YCC
In the
task, 8% of the YCC group chose the control picture, as 2 % of the DYS group and
1% of the
AMC .
In the
CC + S
task the control pictures showed an external referent in
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
133
the place of PRO, i.e. they showed a character α talking to a character β about an action
made by a character γ, as in figure 4.1. In the CC – S task, the control picture showed an
action that had nothing to do with that mentioned in the complement clause.
4.2.2.2 Object control sentences
In the task of comprehending CC + O verbs, the 9 YO group and the ADC group did not
score differently (U = 120, r = –.21). The Mann-Whitney test did not find any significant
difference even in the separate scores (ordinare: U = 136, r = –.14; comandare: U = 124, r
= –.19).
Table 4.7: Percentages of correct answers
Type
CC + O
comandare
ordinare
CC – O
comandare
ordinare
The picture changes with
lower than the
ADC
CC – O
YCC
65%
60%
70%
45%
40%
50%
9 YO
91%
88%
93%
51%
49%
53%
ADC
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
verbs since the 9 YO group scored significantly
(U = 36, r = –.51). The difference between the groups is still sig-
nificant even in the separate scores (ordinare: U = 64, r = –.41; comandare: U = 44, r =
–.49).
The YCC children scored significantly lower than the adults in the CC + O sentences
(U = 12, r = –.69). This significance can be confirmed, however, only for the sentences
with the matrix verb comandare (U = 20, r = –.61) and not for those with the matrix verb
ordinare (U = 28, r = –.52).
The
YCC
children scored significantly lower than the adults also in the
CC – O
sen-
tences (U = 8, r = –.74). This significance can be confirmed either for the sentences with
the matrix verb comandare (U = 12, r = –.70) and for those with the matrix verb ordinare
(U = 20, r = –.60).
Very few children, when selcting the picture out of the three proposed, chose the
control picture. No adults and no children from the
AMC
group chose the control
picture. In the CC + O task, 7% of the YCC group chose the control picture, as 5 % of the
DYS
group. In the CC – O task, only 2% of the YCC group chose the control picture.
In the
CC + O
task the control picture showed an external referent in the place of
PRO,
134
4.2. The experiment
as in figure 4.1. In the
CC – O
task, the control picture’s ballon showed an action that
had nothing to do with that mentioned in the complement clause.
4.2.2.3 Adjunct control sentences
The 9 YO group and the ADC group did not score differently in the comprehension task
involving AD + S sentences (U = 116, r = –.22). The 9 YO group scored significantly lower
Table 4.8: Percentages of correct answers
Type
YCC
AD
53%
9 YO
90%
ADC
98%
than the ADC group (U = 12, r = –.69).
Some children, when selecting the picture out of the three proposed, chose the
control picture. No adults and no children from the
picture. Only 8% of the
DYS
AMC
group chose the control
group chose the control picture. For the
YCC
group, a
significant 20% chose the control picture, which had an external referent in the place
of
PRO,
as in figure 4.2. This is the only significant selection of control pictures in the
entire experiment.
Consider the performance of the YCC group. In other tasks the control answers can be
considered as occasional errors caused by lack of attention payed to the task. Notice, in
fact, that the total percentage of control answers was always lower than 13% and that
in 9 children the percentage of control answers was 5% or lower. Only in 2 children
the percentage of control answers was higher than 20%. For every sentence type, a
mean of 4.1 children gave at least one control answer. In the case of AD + S sentences, 9
children gave at least one control answer.
This result confirms the results obtained by Broihier and Wexler (1995): children who
have not yet completed the acquisition of control structures allow an external referent
for PRO in adjunct clauses.
4.2.2.4 Ambiguous control sentences
In the task of comprehending ambiguous control sentences ( AM + SO ) and their switching ( NA + S ), the
YCC
group and the 9 YO group showed a similar pattern. They both
scored significantly lower than adults interpreting NA + S sentences but they scored as
adults in the task of interpreting AM + SO sentences.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
135
Table 4.9: Percentages of correct answers
YCC
AM + SO
chiedere
dire
NA + S
chiedere
dire
18%
22%
13%
17%
10%
23%
9 YO
8%
12%
4%
41%
55%
28%
ADC
21%
17%
25%
94%
100%
88%
The 9 YO children showed no significant difference from the adults in the
AM + SO
sentences (U = 79, r = –.36). This significance is confirmed either for the sentences with
the matrix verb chiedere (U = 118, r = –.18) and for those with the matrix verb dire (U =
90, r = –.40).
The 9 YO children scored significantly lower than the adults in the NA + S sentences
(U = 17, r = –.59). This significance is confirmed both for the sentences with the matrix
verb chiedere (U = 60, r = –.43) and for those with the matrix verb dire (U = 36, r = –.54).
Even the
YCC
children, as already anticipated, showed no significant difference
from the adult group in the
AM + SO
sentences (U = 51, r = –.13). This significance is
confirmed either for the sentences with the matrix verb chiedere (U = 60, r = 0) and for
those with the matrix verb dire (U = 47, r = –.21).
The YCC children then scored significantly lower than the adults in the
NA + S
sen-
tences (U = 0, r = –.84). This significance is confirmed either for the sentences with the
matrix verb chiedere (U = 0, r = –.89) and for those with the matrix verb dire (U = 7, r =
–.76).
Very few children, when selecting the picture out of the three proposed, chose the
control picture. No adults chose the control picture. In the
YCC
group chose the control picture, as 1 % of the
NA + S
task, only 12% of the
YCC
DYS
AM + SO
task, 13% of the
group and the
AMC .
In the
group chose the control picture. In these tasks the
control picture showed an external referent in the place of PRO, as in figure 4.1.
4.2.3 Discussion
4.2.3.1 Dyslexia and the acquisition of control
The data clearly point out (see table 4.4) that dyslexic subjects do not present any delay
in the acquisition of control. They share with their peers the same successful acquisi-
136
4.2. The experiment
tion of some control structures (object control structures and adjunct control structures,
for instance) and the same problems (SCaO, for instance). This result confirms clearly
the results found by Waltzman and Cairns (2000) and apparently disconfirms the results found by Kean (1984).91 The hypothesis that dyslexics are somewhat impaired
in their performance in the comprehension of control, tentatively advanced by Kean
(1984), appears clearly untenable.
We have seen in section (1.2.2) that the syntactic problems shared by dyslexics involve the comprehension of those structures that appear particularly cumbersome,
requiring a significant amount of processing resources. We have also seen from data
presented in section 4.2.2, that the results obtained by dyslexics in tasks tapping the
comprehension of control structures match the results obtained by their peers. These
data suggest that the acquisition of control is not disturbed by the lack of processing resources but rather, a suggested by Pinker (1984) and Cohen Sherman and Lust
(1993), by the lack of lexical knowledge and its integration with syntactic information.
4.2.3.2 The acquisition of complement control
The hypotheses formulated by Pinker (1984) and Cohen Sherman and Lust (1993),
though quite similar, differ for a fundamental feature. Pinker’s hypothesis predicts
that children, facing a new and previously unheard control verb, use the rule (207)
and resort to a “minimal distance” interpretation; e.g. children would interpret any
unheard control verb with two nominal arguments as an object control verb. Cohen Sherman and Lust’s hypothesis predicts that children, facing a new and previously unheard control verb, have to take a guess on the nature on the verb. The verb
is completely new and the children do not have any lexical or semantic knowledge
about it: children will be puzzled about the nature of the verb and will highly rely on
a “minimal distance” interpretation. Not all the children, however, will give an object
interpretation to a unheard control verb with two nominal arguments.
In other words, Pinker predicts that children, once they have learnt the basic syntactic properties of control structures (the distribution of PRO, the coreference between
OC PRO and one of the arguments of the matrix clause), will correctly interpret object
91
The data by Kean are disconfirmed unless, of course, we do not assume a regression of dyslexic
adults from a normal ability to interpret control structures to the abnormality described by Kean. Notice
that, according to Kean, dyslexic adults should have problems even with object control verbs like tell
(and notice also that tell is interpreted correctly, according to the data provided by Cohen Sherman
and Lust (1993), even by 5–year–old children). The idea of a developmental regression of some adult
syntactic abilities to a kindergarten level is an hypothesis that simply cannot be taken into consideration.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
137
control verbs without any flaw. Cohen Sherman and Lust predict, instead, that children, once they have learnt the syntactic properties of control structure, will still make
some mistakes with some object control verbs, though preferring strongly the object
control reading. The preference for the “minimal distance” interpretation will favour
the object control interpretation. The absence of knowledge of the lexical properties of
the verb will equally favour object control reading and subject control reading.
The children involved in the experiment described in secction 4.2.1 knew control:
they were able to recognize an OC environment and to assign the controllee an OC
interpretation. The external referent for complement clause’s PRO was chosen only in
10% of the answers given by the
YCC
group and only in 1.1% percent of the answers
given by the 9 YO group.
Though knowing the basic syntactic properties of control structures, the children of
the
YCC
group were not flawless in the task of comprehending object control clauses
( CC + O ). The performance of the
YCC
group, in the
CC + O
task, with the verb coman-
dare (command) was significantly worse than the adult’s performance.92 These results
speak against the hypothesis by Pinker and support the hypothesis by Cohen Sherman
and Lust.
The experiment described in section 4.2.1 shows that different matrix verbs yield
different results in comprehension tasks involving children (YCC and 9 YO). The results
in the
CC + S
task are a good example: sentences with the verb promettere (promise)
were much easier to interpret correctly than sentences with the verb raccontare (tell).
The difference between the acquisition of the two verbs can be attributed tentatively
to a difference of exposure: the verb raccontare is probably not frequently followed
by non-finite complements in adults’ speech directed to children. The hypothesis is
that children know the syntactic properties of PRO but they have not learnt the lexical
properties of the verb raccontare because of lack of exposure. Children have a preference for the object control reading and few clues about the type of control triggered by
the verb raccontare, even though they know the meaning of the verb.93
92
These results are very similar to the results obtained by Cohen Sherman and Lust (1993) from the
youngest groups tested (ranging from 3 to 4 years of age). The group scored 59% correct answers in the
comprehension of object control structures introduced by verbs tell and remind.
93
The Italian CHILDES database provides a measurement of the frequency of control verbs in the
interactions between children and adults. The frequencies provided by the CHILDES database can be
considered a good index of children’s exposure to control phenomena. The CHILDES now contains
102.153 lines of text. The verb raccontare occurs 313 times, but none of these occurrences selects an
infinitive complements. On the other hand, the verb promettere occurs only 5 times, but 3 out of these
5 occurrences are instances of OC. This simple survey constitutes evidence that Italian children are
138
4.2. The experiment
4.2.3.3 Acquisition of control from ec
All the children (YCC and 9 YO) seem to have problems with object control verbs, once
these lack an internal overt argument. According to Rizzi (1986), verbs like comandare
(command) and ordinare (order) host an empty pronoun ec as internal argument when
they do not host an overt argument. The empty dative pronoun ec can control (217a)
and can bind in clauses characterized by present tense. The empty pronoun can receive
a generic interpretation or a non–generic pragmatically bound interpretation (217b).
(217)
a. Lo psichiatra ordina eci di migliorare se stessii .
The psychiatrist orders eci to make oneselfi better.
b. Lo psichiatra ordina ec di sdraiarsi/ci sul lettino.
The psychiatrist orders ecarb/us to lie down on the bed.
Goodluck et al. (2001) argue that the poor results in tasks involving control from ec are
an evidence that “for children [. . . ] external reference does not come easily.” With “external reference” Goodluck et al. probably mean any interpretation which is neither
subject not object control. The assumption that external reference is hard for children
can be attacked by two arguments. First, recall that children can assign an external referent to PRO in adjunct clauses, according to Broihier and Wexler (1995) and to the data
on the acquisition of adjunct control provided by the experimental results reported in
section 4.2.2.3. Second, the assumption of Goodluck et al. predicts that children have
problems with NOC and its arbitrary or contextual interpretations. Anyway, there is
no evidence of such problems in the literature.
Contrary to Goodluck et al., it could be hypothesized that not all children know the
syntactic nature of ec. Rizzi (1986), argues that the null object/dative ec can be merged
with the verb before syntax, at the level of the lexicon: if ec is not inserted in syntax,
then it is not syntactically active, i.e. it doesn’t perform neither binding nor control.
In languages like English, the null object/dative ec is generally lexicalized and it does
not bind or control. It could be hypothesized that for some reasons children have the
tendency to process ec as not syntactically active.
The child that processes ec as syntactically inactive will have problems interpreting
an object control sentence with ec as a controller. It will be like interpreting an object
control sentence without object: the children will have to choose between violating
the syntactic properties of the complement control allowing an external referent for
scarcely exposed to complement control phenomena involving the verb raccontare as a matrix verb.
CHAPTER 4. The acquisition of control
139
PRO or violating the lexical properties of the verb allowing a subject control interpretation. In other words, if the null object/dative ec is considered sintactically inactive,
the “minimal distance” strategy favours the subject control interpretation. This can
explain also the strong difference between the results obtained in the
CC + S
task and
in the CC – S task (see section 4.2.2.1): both “minimal distance” and the lexical properties of the verb favour a subject control interpretation, yielding a high percentage of
correct answers.
4.2.3.4 The acquisition of variable control
The data reported in section 4.2.2.4 show that when the controller is ambiguous all
groups perform in the same way, showing a clear preference for the object control
reading. When the subject control reading is blocked by the non-actionality of the
complement clause, the results become more similar to those obtained in the
task. Only the children from the
subject control readings in the
YCC
AM + SO
CC + S
group gave (almost) the same percentage of
task and in the
NA + S
task. This result can be
explained assuming that the YCC group had little knowledge of the lexical properties
of the verbs dire and chiedere, i.e. of their variable nature.
4.3 Summary of the chapter
In this chapter we introduced the main acquisitional theories of control. We split the
subject of the acquisition of control into two main topics: the acquisition of adjunct
control and the acquisition of SCaO (subject control across object). After reporting
the results of our experiment, we focused on the second topic. We noticed how the
performance of dyslexic children matches the performance of the age matched control children, confirming the experimental results reported by Waltzman and Cairns
(2000). We observed how, contrary to Pinker (1984), the object control reading cannot
be considered as an unmarked solution which is available to all the children acquiring
control. We finally hypothesized that the acquisition of control from null object/dative
ec is delayed even in 9–year–old children.
140
4.3. Summary of the chapter
Chapter 5
Conclusions
Child and adult languages differ. The matter of this difference is the main subject of
every acquisitional theory of language. If we assume, roughly, that both children and
adults produce and comprehend language by means of their grammar G, then there
are only two possible logical explanations for their different linguistic behaviour.
(218)
a. Children and adults differ in linguistic performance.
b. Children and adults differ in grammatical competence.
(Yang 2002, p. 10)
Adopting exclusively the first explanation (218a) implies assuming that adult grammar and child grammar are in fact identical. Adopting exclusively the second explanation (218b) involves ignoring that the grammar G “operates under constraints of
memory, time, and organization of perceptual strategies that are not matters of grammar” (Chomsky 2006, p. 104) or assuming that these constraints are irrelevant to the
language faculty.
Yang argues that if and when both approaches, (218a) and (218b), “are descriptively
adequate, there are reasons to prefer competence–based epxlanations” (Yang 2002, p.
10). The reasons for this preference are mainly two. The first reason is that “competence is one of the few components in linguistic performance of which our theoretical
understanding has some depth”. The second reason is that child language differs from
adult language “in very specific ways, which don’t seem to follow from any general
kind of deficit in children’s performance”. Yang argues thus that a structural lag hypothesis (218b) is preferable to a processing deficit hypothesis (218b), unless there are
more empirical reasons in favour of the latter.
In chapter 1 we explain what a processing deficit hypothesis is. According to a
processing deficit hypothesis, the children is competent and knows the grammar, but
142
he/she is unable to process some constructions because of processing limitations. The
processing burden, gathered through different cognitive tasks (processing phonological content, resolving syntactic dependencies, . . . ), is too heavy and causes the failure
of the processing operations. In chapter 1 it is shown, in a survey of the literature, how
dyslexic children suffer from processing limitations, especially in tasks involving the
parsing of complex syntactic structures. Many studies have reported that the results
obtained by dyslexic children often match the results obtained by younger children.
In chapter 2 it is shown how 9-year-old dyslexics and 5-year-old children suffer
from the so called Maratsos Effect: they both fail in tasks involving the comprehension of non-actional passives. We further argue that a processing deficit hypothesis,
contrary to a structural lag hypothesis, is able to explain the presence of the Maratsos
Effect both in normally developing children and in dyslexics. A structural lag hypothesis would have to explain why and how dyslexic children suffer from Maratsos Effect.
The experimental results reported in chapter 2 also invite us to abandon the old theory of passive (Jaeggli 1986) in favour of new theories that can offer insights on the
semantic aspects of passives and passivization.
In chapter 4, we observe how dyslexic and their peers have both partially acquired
control. The performances of the two groups are indistinguishable: they both make
exactly the same mistakes. These results also show how dyslexic children generally
perform as their peers in tasks involving syntactic parsing. Only few syntactic constructions seem to cause problems to dyslexic children and these constructions are
characterized by being particularly cumbersome for processing resources. Chapter 4
argues, following Cohen Sherman and Lust (1993), that the acquisition of complement
control is carried on through the integration of syntactic cues and lexical information
(provided by positive evidence) rather than through the progressive abandoning of
default cognitive strategies.
In chapter 3, we provide a survey of the main theories of control. It is not a novelty
that there is no comprehensive theory of control phenomena: theories focused on the
licensing and interpretation of the simplest complement control phenomena, leaving
aside adjunct control, variable control and split control. The chapter shows how every
theory is forced to make (sometimes strong) stipulations in order to account for control
phenomena. The fact that it seems impossible to explain control phenomena, apparently, without resorting to strong stipulations suggests that control is really a “module”, an ensemble of syntactic–semantic phenomena that cannot be fully reduced to
independently existing syntactic operations.
Appendix A
First experiment
Table A.1: Materials
Types
Warm–up
Warm–up
Warm–up
Warm–up
Warm–up
Filler
Filler
Filler
Filler
Filler
Filler
Filler
RNb
RN
RAc
RA
NNd
NN
NAe
NA
Correct answer
F
T
T
F
T
T
T
F
F
T
T
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
Ordera
1
2
3
4
5
7
9
11
12
14
17
19
8
20
15
18
10
16
6
13
Sentences
Winnie Pooh mangia una pizza.
Winnie Pooh is eating pizza.
Winnie Pooh scava la terra.
Winnie Pooh digs the ground.
Winnie Pooh ha lanciato la trottola.
Winnie Pooh spinned the top.
Il tamburo suona Winnie Pooh.
The drum is playing Winnie Pooh.
Winnie Pooh guarda i barattoli.
Winnie Pooh is looing at the jars.
Il maialino ha abbracciato Winnie Pooh. The piggie hugged Winnie Pooh.
Winnie Pooh trasporta la torta.
Winnie Pooh carries the cake.
Il cocomero mangia Winnie Pooh.
The watermelon is eating Winni Pooh.
L’automobile guida Paperino.
The car is driving Paperino.
Paperino ha preso i pacchi.
Donald Duck took the packs.
La mela ha colpito Paperino.
The apple hit Donald Duck.
Paperino ha bagnato l’elefante.
Donald Duck washed the elephant.
Winnie Pooh è visto dalle api.
Winnie Pooh is seen by the bees.
Il lupo è sentito da Cappuccetto Rosso.
The wolf is heard by Little Red Riding Hood.
La fidanzata è picchiata da Paperino.
The girlfriend is hit by Donald Duck.
La fidanzata è baciata da Paperino.
The girlfriend is kissed by Donald Duck.
Winnie Pooh è visto dalla foglia.
Winnie Pooh is seen by the leaf.
Paperino è sentito dalla sveglia.
Donald Duck is heard by the alarm clock.
Winnie Pooh è mangiato dal miele.
Winnie Pooh is eaten by honey.
Paperino è calciato dalla palla.
Donald Duck is kicked by the ball.
a
The numbers in the “order” column indicate the order in which the sentences were presented to the subjects.
Reversible Non-actional.
c Reversible Actional.
d Non-reversible Non-actional.
e Non-reversible Actional.
b
Table A.2: Subjects involved in the experiment
Group
Young controls
Dyslexic children
Age matched controls
Adults
Abbr.
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
Number of subjects
12
20
22
9
Female subjects
7
11
11
7
Mean age (yy;mm)
5; 8
9; 7
9; 7
35; 8
144
Table A.3: Results (percentages of wrong answers)
RNa
RAb
NNc
NAd
Fillers
Results
54%
38%
63%
38%
11%
YCC
Median
50%
25%
50%
25%
50%
SD
33%
43%
38%
43%
45%
Results
38%
5%
23%
10%
3%
DYS
Median
50%
0%
0%
0%
0%
SD
36%
15%
34%
21%
31%
Results
11%
0%
2%
0%
1%
AMC
Median
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
SD
26%
0%
11%
0%
15%
Results
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
a
Reversible Non-actional.
Reversible Actional.
c Non-reversible Non-actional.
d Non-reversible Actional.
b
Table A.4: Normality tests
Group
RNb
RAc
NNd
NAe
Fillers
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic
df
Sig.
p < .5f
.300
.252
.485
–a
.307
.527
–
–
.257
.394
.539
–
.307
.487
–
–
.262
.527
.530
.519
12
20
22
–
12
20
–
–
12
20
22
–
12
20
–
–
12
20
22
9
.004
.002
.000
–
.003
.000
–
–
.028
.000
.000
–
.003
.000
–
–
.022
.000
.000
.000
*
*
*
–
*
*
–
–
*
*
*
–
*
*
–
–
*
*
*
*
Statistic
.809
.795
.496
–
.764
.351
–
–
.807
.675
.221
–
.764
.495
–
–
.781
.351
.332
.390
Shapiro-Wilk
df
Sig.
12
20
22
–
12
20
–
–
12
20
22
–
12
20
–
–
12
20
22
9
.012
.001
.000
–
.004
.000
–
–
.011
.000
.000
–
.004
.000
–
–
.006
.000
.000
.000
p < .5f
*
*
*
–
*
*
–
–
*
*
*
–
*
*
–
–
*
*
*
*
a In some cases all the members of a group achieved the exact same score. In these
cases the results of the normality tests have been omitted.
b Reversible Non-actional.
c Reversible Actional.
d Non-reversible Non-actional.
e Non-reversible Actional.
f A score below the critical value of significance indicates an abnormal distribution.
ADC
Median
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
SD
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
APPENDIX A
145
Table A.5: Mann–Whitney test for significance
Mann-Whitney U
RNb
RAc
NNd
NAe
Fillers
125.00
198.00
152.00
176.00
216.00
DYS – AMC
Wilcoxon W
Z
381.00
451.00
405.00
429.00
469.00
-2.70
-1.50
-2.51
-2.18
-.20
Sig.
p < .0083a
r (effect size)
.007
.133
.012
.029
.843
*
-.42
-.23
-.39
-.34
-.03
a The critical value for significance p is reduced from .05 to .0083 after the application of
a Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction has been used in a very conservative
form (Field 2005, p. 550): the critical value of significance .05 has been divided by the
number of possible binary combinations of the four groups (6).
b Reversible Non-actional.
c Reversible Actional.
d Non-reversible Non-actional.
e Non-reversible Actional.
Table A.6: Mann–Whitney test for significance
Mann-Whitney U
RNb
RAc
NNd
NAe
Fillers
a
89.00
69.00
54.50
78.00
65.00
YCC – DYS
Wilcoxon W
Z
299.00
279.00
264.50
282.00
275.00
-1.32
-2.62
-2.75
-2.01
-2.72
Sig.
.188
.009
.006
.045
.007
p < .0083a
r (effect size)
*
-.23
-.46
-.49
-.36
-.48
*
The critical value for significance p is reduced from .05 to .0083 after the application of
a Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction has been used in a very conservative
form (Field 2005, p. 550): the critical value of significance .05 has been divided by the
number of possible binary combinations of the four groups (6).
b Reversible Non-actional.
c Reversible Actional.
d Non-reversible Non-actional.
e Non-reversible Actional.
146
Table A.7: Mann–Whitney test for significance
Mann-Whitney U
RNb
RAc
NNd
NAe
Fillers
9.00
27.00
9.00
27.00
26.50
YCC – ADC
Wilcoxon W
Z
54.00
72.00
54.00
72.00
71.50
-3.54
-2.42
-3.50
-2.42
-2.26
Sig.
p < .0083a
r (effect size)
.000
.016
.000
.016
.024
*
-.77
-.53
-.77
-.53
-.49
*
a The critical value for significance p is reduced from .05 to .0083 after the application of
a Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction has been used in a very conservative
form (Field 2005, p. 550): the critical value of significance .05 has been divided by the
number of possible binary combinations of the four groups (6).
b Reversible Non-actional.
c Reversible Actional.
d Non-reversible Non-actional.
e Non-reversible Actional.
Table A.8: Mann–Whitney test for significance
Mann-Whitney U
RNb
RAc
NNd
NAe
Fillers
36.00
81.00
58.50
72.00
90.00
DYS – ADC
Wilcoxon W
Z
81.00
126.00
103.50
117.00
135.00
-2.90
-.97
-1.99
-1.42
-.00
Sig.
p < .0083a
r (effect size)
.004
.334
.047
.156
1.000
*
-.54
-.18
-.37
-.26
0
a The critical value for significance p is reduced from .05 to .0083 after the application of
a Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction has been used in a very conservative
form (Field 2005, p. 550): the critical value of significance .05 has been divided by the
number of possible binary combinations of the four groups (6).
b Reversible Non-actional.
c Reversible Actional.
d Non-reversible Non-actional.
e Non-reversible Actional.
APPENDIX A
147
Table A.9: Mann–Whitney test for significance
Mann-Whitney U
RNb
RAc
NNd
NAe
Fillers
a
81.00
99.00
94.50
99.00
97.00
AMC – ADC
Wilcoxon W
Z
126.00
144.00
139.50
144.00
350.00
-1.35
0
-.64
0
-.17
Sig.
.178
1.000
.522
1.000
.865
p < .0083a
r (effect size)
-.24
0
-.11
0
-.03
The critical value for significance p is reduced from .05 to .0083 after the application of
a Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction has been used in a very conservative
form (Field 2005, p. 550): the critical value of significance .05 has been divided by the
number of possible binary combinations of the four groups (6).
b Reversible Non-actional.
c Reversible Actional.
d Non-reversible Non-actional.
e Non-reversible Actional.
148
Appendix B
Second experiment
Table B.1: An inventory of experimental items
Type
Subject control across (overt) dative
Subject control across (covert) dative
Object control with (overt) dative
Object control with (covert) dative
Obligatory adjunct control
Ambiguous variable control
Non–ambiguous variable control
N.
4
4
4
4
4
6
4
Abbr.
CC + S
CC – S
CC + O
CC – O
AD + S
AM + SO
NA + S
Verbs (or complementizers)
promettere (promise), raccontare (tell)
promettere (promise), raccontare (tell)
ordinare (order), comandare (command)
ordinare (order), comandare (command)
prima (before)
dire (say), chiedere (ask)
dire (say), chiedere (ask)
Table B.2: Subjects involved in the experiment
Group
Young controls
Dyslexic children
Age matched controls
Adults
Abbr.
YCC
DYS
AMC
ADC
Number of subjects
15
16
22
8
Female subjects
8
11
11
7
Mean age (yy;mm)
5; 7
9; 5
9; 7
36; 6
150
Table B.3: Materials
Types
Training (CC)
Verbs (or complementizers)
Training (AD)
CC+S
promettere (promise)
raccontare (tell)
CC—S
promettere (promise)
raccontare (tell)
CC+O
comandare (command)
ordinare (order)
CC—O
comandare (command)
ordinare (order)
AD+S
prima (before)
AM+SO
chiedere (ask)
dire (say)
NA+S
chiedere (ask)
dire (say)
a
Ordera
1
2
19
14
13
5
22
9
28
25
34
32
35
4
7
3
6
10
12
8
11
15
16
17
18
21
24
27
20
23
26
31
33
29
30
Piero dice al panda che Maria corre.
Piero chiede a Maria se il panda mangia la torta
Il panda dice a Maria che Piero salta l’asino ogni mattina
Prima il panda mangia a torta, poi maria vede l’asino
Dopo che Piero ha picchiato l’asino, Maria è scappata
Maria promette a Piero di picchiare l’asino
Il panda promette a Maria di saltare l’asino
Piero racconta a Maria di correre tutte le mattine
Piero racconta a Maria di mangiare la torta
Maria promette di correre tutte le mattine
Il panda promette di mangiare la torta
Piero racconta di picchiare l’asino
Piero racconta di saltare l’asino
Maria comanda a Piero di picchiare l’asino
Piero comanda a Maria di mangiare la torta
Piero ordina a Maria di correre tutte le mattine
Il panda ordina a Maria di saltare l’asino
Maria comanda di correre tutte le mattine
Il panda comanda di mangiare la torta
Piero ordina di picchiare l’asino
Il panda ordina di saltare l’asino
Maria vede il panda prima di saltare l’asino
Piero picchia il panda prima di saltare l’asino
Il panda vede Piero prima di mangiare la torta
Piero vede il panda prima di saltare l’asino
Piero chiede al panda di andare a lavarsi
Il panda chiede a Piero di mangiare la torta
Piero chiede al panda di correre tutte le mattine
Maria dice a Piero di picchiare l’asino tutte le sere
Il panda dice a Maria di correre tutte le mattine
Maria dice al panda di andare a lavarsi
Piero chiede al panda di poter andare a lavarsi
Maria chiede al panda di poter picchiare l’asino
Piero dice a Maria di vedere l’asino
Il panda dice a Maria di dover andare a lavarsi
The numbers in the “order” column indicate the order in which the sentences were presented to the subjects.
Sentences
Piero says to the panda that Maria is running/runs.
Piero asks Maria if the panda is eating/eats the cake.
The panda says to Maria that Piero jumps over the donkey every morning
First the panda eats the cake, then Maria sees the donkey.
After Piero beat the donkey, Maria ran away.
Maria promises Piero to beat the donkey.
The panda promises Mary to jump over the donkey.
Piero tells Maria that he runs every morning.
Piero tells Maria that he eats the cake.
Maria promises that she runs every morning.
The panda promises to eat the cake.
Piero tells that he beats the donkey.
Piero tells that he jumps over the donkey.
Maria commands Piero to beat the donkey,
Piero commands Maria to eat the cake.
Piero orders Maria to run every morning.
The panda orders Maria to jump over the donkey.
Maria commands to run every morning.
The panda commands to eat the cake.
Piero gives the order to beat the donkey.
The panda gives the order to beat the donkey.
Maria sees the panda before jumping over the donkey.
Piero beats the panda before jumping over the donkey.
The panda sees Piero before eating the cake.
Piero sees the panda before jumping over the donkey.
Piero asks the panda if he can wash himself.
The panda asks Piero if he can eat the cake.
Piero asks the panda if he can run every morning.
Maria says to Piero that she beats / he should beat the donkey every evening.
The panda says to Maria that he runs / she should run every morning.
Maria says to the panda that she washes herself / he should wash himself.
Piero asks the panda if he can wash himself.
Maria asks the panda if she can beat the donkey.
Piero says to Mary that he sees the donkey.
The panda says to Maria that he must wash himself.
APPENDIX B
151
Table B.4: Results – part one
Results
YCC
15
5; 7
Median
SD
35%
58%
7%
47%
50%
3%
23%
67%
10%
77%
15%
8%
83%
10%
7%
70%
20%
10%
28%
65%
7%
27%
60%
13%
30%
70%
0%
53%
45%
2%
60%
40%
0%
47%
50%
3%
53%
27%
20%
18%
69%
13%
22%
71%
7%
13%
67%
20%
17%
72%
12%
10%
80%
10%
23%
63%
13%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
100%
0%
75%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
25%
25%
17%
67%
0%
0%
67%
0%
0%
67%
0%
0%
75%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
100%
0%
26%
26%
15%
40%
42%
13%
37%
41%
28%
22%
23%
15%
24%
21%
18%
37%
37%
21%
25%
26%
11%
32%
34%
23%
32%
32%
0%
34%
34%
6%
39%
39%
0%
44%
42%
13%
28%
20%
19%
21%
33%
20%
33%
35%
14%
25%
38%
30%
20%
30%
25%
26%
35%
30%
21%
32%
28%
Number of subjects
Mean age
CC+S
promettere
raccontare
CC—S
promettere
raccontare
CC+O
comandare
ordinare
CC—O
comandare
ordinare
AD+S
AM+SO
chiedere
dire
NA+S
chiedere
dire
a
S readinga(c)d
O readingb
X readingc
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
Results
DYS
16
9; 5
Median
SD
53%
44%
3%
81%
16%
3%
25%
72%
3%
94%
5%
2%
97%
3%
0%
91%
6%
3%
14%
81%
5%
19%
75%
6%
9%
88%
3%
36%
64%
0%
38%
63%
0%
34%
66%
0%
80%
13%
8%
10%
89%
1%
19%
81%
0%
2%
96%
2%
44%
56%
0%
53%
47%
0%
34%
66%
0%
50%
50%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
25%
75%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
38%
63%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
29%
28%
13%
36%
35%
13%
37%
36%
13%
14%
14%
6%
13%
13%
0%
20%
17%
13%
20%
31%
14%
25%
37%
17%
20%
29%
13%
30%
30%
0%
34%
34%
0%
44%
44%
0%
33%
16%
22%
16%
18%
4%
30%
30%
0%
8%
17%
8%
34%
34%
0%
35%
35%
0%
46%
46%
0%
Results
AMC
22
9; 7
Median
SD
59%
40%
1%
77%
20%
2%
41%
59%
0%
95%
3%
1%
100%
0%
0%
91%
7%
2%
2%
98%
0%
2%
98%
0%
2%
98%
0%
59%
41%
0%
61%
39%
0%
57%
43%
0%
98%
2%
0%
6%
93%
1%
8%
92%
0%
5%
94%
2%
40%
60%
0%
57%
43%
0%
23%
77%
0%
63%
38%
0%
100%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
25%
24%
5%
34%
33%
11%
33%
33%
0%
10%
9%
5%
0%
0%
0%
20%
18%
11%
7%
7%
0%
11%
11%
0%
11%
11%
0%
40%
40%
0%
41%
41%
0%
44%
44%
0%
7%
7%
0%
15%
16%
4%
23%
23%
0%
12%
13%
7%
24%
24%
0%
37%
37%
0%
39%
39%
0%
The label “S reading” refers to the percentage of subject control interpretations given to the items.
The label “O reading” refers to the percentage of object control interpretations given to the items.
c The label “X reading” refers to the percentage of neither–subject–nor–object interpretations given to the items.
d The (c) marks the correct answer to the task.
b
152
Table B.5: Results – part two
Results
YCC
15
5; 7
Median
SD
35%
58%
7%
47%
50%
3%
23%
67%
10%
77%
15%
8%
83%
10%
7%
70%
20%
10%
28%
65%
7%
27%
60%
13%
30%
70%
0%
53%
45%
2%
60%
40%
0%
47%
50%
3%
53%
27%
20%
18%
69%
13%
22%
71%
7%
13%
67%
20%
17%
72%
12%
10%
80%
10%
23%
63%
13%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
100%
0%
75%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
25%
75%
0%
0%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
25%
25%
17%
67%
0%
0%
67%
0%
0%
67%
0%
0%
75%
0%
0%
50%
0%
0%
100%
0%
26%
26%
15%
40%
42%
13%
37%
41%
28%
22%
23%
15%
24%
21%
18%
37%
37%
21%
25%
26%
11%
32%
34%
23%
32%
32%
0%
34%
34%
6%
39%
39%
0%
44%
42%
13%
28%
20%
19%
21%
33%
20%
33%
35%
14%
25%
38%
30%
20%
30%
25%
26%
35%
30%
21%
32%
28%
Number of subjects
Mean age
CC+S
promettere
raccontare
CC—S
promettere
raccontare
CC+O
comandare
ordinare
CC—O
comandare
ordinare
AD+S
AM+SO
chiedere
dire
NA+S
chiedere
dire
a
S readinga(c)d
O readingb
X readingc
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading (c)
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
S reading (c)
O reading
X reading
Results
9YO
38
9; 6
Median
SD
57%
41%
2%
79%
18%
3%
34%
64%
1%
95%
4%
1%
99%
1%
0%
91%
7%
3%
7%
91%
2%
9%
88%
3%
5%
93%
1%
49%
51%
0%
51%
49%
0%
47%
53%
0%
90%
7%
3%
8%
91%
1%
12%
88%
0%
4%
95%
2%
41%
59%
0%
55%
45%
0%
28%
72%
0%
50%
50%
0%
100%
0%
0%
50%
50%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
50%
50%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
0%
100%
0%
50%
50%
0%
26%
26%
9%
34%
34%
11%
35%
35%
8%
12%
11%
6%
8%
8%
0%
20%
17%
11%
15%
22%
9%
20%
27%
11%
16%
21%
8%
38%
38%
0%
39%
39%
0%
45%
45%
0%
24%
13%
14%
15%
17%
4%
26%
26%
0%
10%
15%
8%
28%
28%
0%
36%
36%
0%
42%
42%
0%
Results
ADC
8
36; 6
Median
SD
94%
6%
0%
100%
0%
0%
88%
13%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0%
21%
79%
0%
17%
83%
0%
25%
75%
0%
94%
6%
0%
100%
0%
0%
88%
13%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
100%
0%
0%
17%
83%
0%
17%
83%
0%
17%
83%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
100%
0%
0%
18%
18%
0%
0%
0%
0%
35%
35%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
17%
17%
0%
18%
18%
0%
35%
35%
0%
12%
12%
0%
23%
23%
0%
0%
0%
0%
The label “S reading” refers to the percentage of subject control interpretations given to the items.
The label “O reading” refers to the percentage of object control interpretations given to the items.
c The label “X reading” refers to the percentage of neither–subject–nor–object interpretations given to the items.
d The (c) marks the correct answer to the task.
b
APPENDIX B
153
Table B.6: Normality tests – part one
Group
CC+S (S reading)
promettere (S reading)
raccontare (S reading)
CC-S (S reading)
promettere (S reading)
raccontare (S reading)
CC+O (O reading)
comandare (O reading)
ordinare (O reading)
a
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic
df
Sig.
P < .5
.248
15
.013
*
.269
16
.003
*
.237
22
.002
*
.218
38
.000
*
.513
8
.000
*
.212
15
.068
.449
16
.000
*
.387
22
.000
*
.415
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.402
15
.000
*
.378
16
.000
*
.290
22
.000
*
.283
38
.000
*
.513
8
.000
*
.270
15
.004
*
.480
16
.000
*
.496
22
.000
*
.487
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.419
15
.000
*
.536
16
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.538
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.326
15
.000
*
.492
16
.000
*
.496
22
.000
*
.496
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.248
15
.014
*
.353
16
.000
*
.530
22
.000
*
.451
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.283
15
.002
*
.378
16
.000
*
.539
22
.000
*
.485
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.295
15
.001
*
.480
16
.000
*
.539
22
.000
*
.519
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
Statistic
.867
.885
.901
.898
.418
.817
.577
.684
.639
–
.663
.697
.793
.775
.418
.839
.507
.474
.495
–
.603
.273
–
.152
–
.755
.484
.474
.473
–
.876
.679
.332
.488
–
.801
.697
.221
.493
–
.761
.507
.221
.361
–
Shapiro-Wilk
df
Sig.
15
.031
16
.047
22
.031
38
.002
8
.000
15
.006
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
–
–
15
.000
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
8
.000
15
.012
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
–
–
15
.000
16
.000
–
–
38
.000
–
–
15
.001
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
–
–
15
.041
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
–
–
15
.004
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
–
–
15
.001
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
–
–
P < .5
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
–
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
–
*
*
–
*
–
*
*
*
*
–
*
*
*
*
–
*
*
*
*
–
*
*
*
*
–
In some cases all the members of a group achieved the exact same score. In these cases the results of
the normality tests have been omitted.
154
Table B.7: Normality tests – part two
Group
CC-O (O reading)
comandare (O reading)
ordinare (O reading)
AD+S (S reading)
AM+SO (S reading)
chiedere (S reading)
dire (S reading)
NA+S (S reading)
chiedere (S reading)
dire (S reading)
a
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
YCC
DYS
AMC
9YO
ADC
Kolmogorov-Smirnov
Statistic
df
Sig.
P < .5
.225
15
.040
*
.204
16
.075
.253
22
.001
*
.173
38
.006
*
–a
–
–
–
.249
15
.013
*
.268
16
.003
*
.284
22
.000
*
.207
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.215
15
.061
.347
16
.000
*
.289
22
.000
*
.275
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.280
15
.002
*
.319
16
.000
*
.530
22
.000
*
.425
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.264
15
.006
*
.368
16
.000
*
.429
22
.000
*
.407
38
.000
*
.220
8
.200
.353
15
.000
*
.361
16
.000
*
.494
22
.000
*
.444
38
.000
*
.325
8
.013
*
.440
15
.000
*
.536
16
.000
*
.515
22
.000
*
.527
38
.000
*
.280
8
.065
.326
15
.000
*
.212
16
.053
.211
22
.012
*
.195
38
.001
*
.455
8
.000
*
.485
15
.000
*
.281
16
.001
*
.231
22
.003
*
.254
38
.000
*
–
–
–
–
.350
15
.000
*
.273
16
.002
*
.413
22
.000
*
.356
38
.000
*
.455
8
.000
*
Statistic
.883
.906
.809
.862
–
.806
.796
.778
.806
–
.805
.718
.757
.751
–
.812
.633
.332
.463
–
.817
.707
.459
.586
.917
.728
.688
.386
.533
.665
.596
.273
.412
.355
.745
.749
.908
.888
.913
.566
.499
.748
.806
.786
–
.643
.788
.642
.718
.566
Shapiro-Wilk
df
Sig.
15
.054
16
.100
22
.001
38
.000
–
–
15
.004
16
.002
22
.000
38
.000
–
–
15
.004
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
–
–
15
.005
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
–
–
15
.006
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
8
.408
15
.001
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
8
.001
15
.000
16
.000
22
.000
38
.000
8
.007
15
.001
16
.108
22
.017
38
.006
8
.000
15
.000
16
.001
22
.001
38
.000
–
–
15
.000
16
.002
22
.000
38
.000
8
.000
P < .5
*
*
–
*
*
*
*
–
*
*
*
*
–
*
*
*
*
–
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
–
*
*
*
*
*
In some cases all the members of a group achieved the exact same score. In these cases the results of
the normality tests have been omitted.
APPENDIX B
155
Table B.8: Mann–Whitney test for significance
Mann-Whitney U
CC+S (S reading)b
promettere (S reading)
raccontare (S reading)
CC-S (S reading)
promettere (S reading)
raccontare (S reading)
CC+O (O reading)c
comandare (O reading)
ordinare (O reading)
CC-O (O reading)
comandare (O reading)
ordinare (O reading)
AD+S (S reading)
AM+S (S reading)
chiedere (S reading)
dire (S reading)
NA+S (S reading)
chiedere (S reading)
dire (S reading)
a
152.00
160.00
128.00
173.00
165.00
175.00
123.00
117.00
150.50
116.00
117.00
128.00
113.00
147.00
134.50
163.00
169.00
169.50
139.50
DYS – AMC
Wilcoxon W
288.00
413.00
264.00
309.00
301.00
311.00
259.00
253.00
286.50
369.00
370.00
381.00
249.00
400.00
387.50
299.00
422.00
305.50
392.50
Z
Sig.
-.75
-.58
-1.55
-.13
-1.17
-.04
-2.20
-2.59
-1.42
-1.82
-1.86
-1.52
-2.51
-1.08
-1.65
-.72
-.21
-.20
-1.22
.492
.651
.162
.942
.759
.988
.122
.084
.455
.078
.084
.162
.064
.404
.223
.715
.849
.849
.284
p < .0083a
r (effect size)
-0.11
-0.09
-0.23
-0.02
-0.17
-0.01
-0.32
-0.38
-0.21
-0.27
-0.27
-0.22
-0.37
-0.16
-0.24
-0.11
-0.03
-0.03
-0.18
The critical value for significance p is reduced from .05 to .0083 after the application of a Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction has been used in a very conservative form (Field 2005, p. 550): the
critical value of significance .05 has been divided by the number of possible binary combinations of the
four groups (6).
b The label “S reading” refers to the percentage of subject control interpretations given to the items.
c The label “O reading” refers to the percentage of object control interpretations given to the items.
156
Table B.9: Mann–Whitney test for significance
CC+S (S reading)b
promettere (S reading)
raccontare (S reading)
CC-S (S reading)
promettere (S reading)
raccontare (S reading)
CC+O (O reading)c
comandare (O reading)
ordinare (O reading)
CC-O (O reading)
comandare (O reading)
ordinare (O reading)
AD+S (S reading)
AM+S (S reading)
chiedere (S reading)
dire (S reading)
NA+S (S reading)
chiedere (S reading)
dire (S reading)
Mann-Whitney U
9YO – ADC
Wilcoxon W
Z
Sig.
p < .0083a
r (effect size)
37.50
104.00
47.00
124.00
148.00
124.00
120.00
124.00
136.00
36.00
44.00
64.00
116.00
79.00
118.00
90.00
17.00
60.00
36.00
778.50
845.00
788.00
865.00
889.00
865.00
861.00
865.00
877.00
777.00
785.00
805.00
857.00
820.00
859.00
831.00
758.00
801.00
777.00
-3.45
-1.81
-3.24
-1.30
-.46
-1.30
-1.41
-1.30
-.95
-3.49
-3.34
-2.81
-1.51
-2.46
-1.25
-2.73
-4.01
-2.90
-3.64
.000
.126
.001
.325
1.000
.325
.317
.325
.586
.000
.001
.006
.196
.011
.196
.012
.000
.004
.000
*
-0.51
-0.27
-0.48
-0.19
-0.07
-0.19
-0.21
-0.19
-0.14
-0.51
-0.49
-0.41
-0.22
-0.36
-0.18
-0.40
-0.59
-0.43
-0.54
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
a The critical value for significance p is reduced from .05 to .0083 after the application of a Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction has been used in a very conservative form (Field 2005, p. 550): the critical value of significance .05 has been divided by the number of possible binary combinations of the four
groups (6).
b The label “S reading” refers to the percentage of subject control interpretations given to the items.
c The label “O reading” refers to the percentage of object control interpretations given to the items.
APPENDIX B
157
Table B.10: Mann–Whitney test for significance
Mann-Whitney U
CC+S (S reading)b
promettere (S reading)
raccontare (S reading)
CC-S (S reading)
promettere (S reading)
raccontare (S reading)
CC+O (O reading)c
comandare (O reading)
ordinare (O reading)
CC-O (O reading)
comandare (O reading)
ordinare (O reading)
AD+S (S reading)
AM+S (S reading)
chiedere (S reading)
dire (S reading)
NA+S (S reading)
chiedere (S reading)
dire (S reading)
5.00
16.00
17.00
20.00
40.00
32.00
12.00
20.00
28.00
8.00
12.00
20.00
12.00
51.00
60.00
47.00
.00
.00
7.00
YCC – ADC
Wilcoxon W
125.00
136.00
137.00
140.00
160.00
152.00
132.00
140.00
148.00
128.00
132.00
140.00
132.00
171.00
96.00
167.00
120.00
120.00
127.00
Z
Sig.
p < .0083a
r (effect size)
-3.67
-3.11
-3.05
-2.90
-1.81
-2.24
-3.32
-2.93
-2.48
-3.55
-3.35
-2.89
-3.33
-.61
.00
-.99
-4.01
-4.29
-3.64
.000
.002
.002
.005
.122
.051
.001
.004
.019
.000
.001
.004
.001
.571
1.000
.302
.000
.000
.000
*
*
*
*
-0.76
-0.65
-0.64
-0.60
-0.38
-0.47
-0.69
-0.61
-0.52
-0.74
-0.70
-0.60
-0.69
-0.13
0.00
-0.21
-0.84
-0.89
-0.76
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
a The critical value for significance p is reduced from .05 to .0083 after the application of a Bonferroni correction. The Bonferroni correction has been used in a very conservative form (Field 2005, p. 550): the critical value of significance .05 has been divided by the number of possible binary combinations of the four
groups (6).
b The label “S reading” refers to the percentage of subject control interpretations given to the items.
c The label “O reading” refers to the percentage of object control interpretations given to the items.
158
Bibliography
Adler, A. N.: 2006, Syntax and Discourse in the Acquisition of Adjunct Control, PhD thesis,
M.I.T.
Alloway, T. P. and Gathercole, S. E.: 2005, The role of sentence recall in reading and language skills of children with learning difficulties, Learning and Individual differences
15, 271–282.
Armon-Lotem, S.: 2005, The acquisition of subordination: from preconjunctionals to
later use, in D. D. Ravid and H. B.-Z. Shyldkrot (eds), Perspectives on language and
language development: essays in honor of Ruth A. Berman, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Babyonyshev, M., Ganger, J., Pesetsky, D. and Wexler, K.: 2001, The maturation of
grammatical principles: Evidence from Russian unaccusatives, Linguistic Inquiry
32(1), 1–44.
Baddeley, A.: 2000, The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory?,
Trends in Cognitive Science 4, 417–423.
Baddeley, A. and Hitch, G.: 1974, Working Memory, in G. J. Bower (ed.), The psychology
of learning and motivation, Vol. 8, Academic Press, New York, pp. 47–90.
Baker, M., Johnson, K. and Roberts, I.: 1989, Passive Arguments Raised, Linguistic
inquiry 20(2), 219–251.
Bar-Shalom, E. G., Crain, S. and Shankweiler, D.: 1993, A comparison of comprehension and production abilities of good and poor readers, Applied Psychoinguistics
14, 197–227.
Becker, M.: 2006, There Began to Be a Learnability Puzzle, Linguistic Inquiry 37, 441–
456.
Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L.: 1988, Psych Verbs and θ–Theory, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 6, 291–352.
160
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Berman, R. and Sagi, I.: 1981, On word formation and word innovation in early age,
Balshanut Ivrit Xofshit 18.
Bobaljik, J. D. and Landau, I.: 2009, Icelandic Control Is Not A-Movement: The Case
from Case, Linguistic Inquiry 40, 113–132.
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N.: 2004, Movement under Control, Linguistic Inquiry
35, 431–452.
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N.: 2006a, Control in Icelandic and Theories of Control,
Linguistic Inquiry 37, 591–606.
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N.: 2006b, The Virtues of Control as Movement, Syntax
9, 118–130.
Boeckx, C. and Hornstein, N.: 2007, On (Non–)Obligatory Control, in Davies and Dubinsky (2007).
Borer, H.: 1989, Anaphoric AGR, in O. Jaeggli and K. J. Safir (eds), The Null Subject
Parameter, Kluwer, pp. 69–109.
Borer, H. and Wexler, K.: 1987, The maturation of syntax, in T. Roeper and E. Williams
(eds), Parameter setting, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 123–172.
Borer, H. and Wexler, K.: 1992, Bi-unique relations and the maturation of grammatical
principles, Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 10(2), 147–189.
Bresnan, J.: 1982, Control and Complementation, Linguistic Inquiry 13, 343–434.
Brody, M.: 1999, Relating Syntactic Elements. Remarks on Norbert Hornstein’s “Movement and Chains”, Syntax 2, 210–226.
Broihier, K. and Wexler, K.: 1995, Children’s acquisition of control in temporal adjuncts, MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26, 193–220.
Bryant, P.:
1995, Phonological and grammatical skills in learning to read, in
B. de Gelder and J. Moraes (eds), Speech and reading: A comparative approach, Erbaum
Taylor and Francis, pp. 249–256.
Burzio, L.: 1986, Italian Syntax, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Byrne, B.: 1981, Deficient syntactic control in poor readers: Is a weak phonetic memory
code responsible?, Applied Psycholinguistics 2(20), 201–212.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
161
Cairns, H., McDaniel, D., Hsu, J. and Rapp, M.: 1994, A longitudinal study of principles of control and pronominal reference in child English, Language(Baltimore)
70(2), 260–288.
Caplan, D. and Waters, G.: 1999, Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension, Behavioral and Brain Sciences 22(01), 77–94.
Carlson, G. N.: 1990, Intuitions, category and structures: comments on McDaniel and
Cairns, in L. Frazier and J. deVilliers (eds), Language processing and language acquisition, Kluwer Academic Press, pp. 327–333.
Chien, Y. and Wexler, K.: 1990, Children’s Knowledge of Locality Conditions in Binding as Evidence for the Modularity of Syntax and Pragmatics, Language Acquisition
1(3), 225–295.
Chierchia, G.: 1984, Topics in the Syntax and Semantics of Infinitives and Gerunds, PhD
thesis, University of Massachussets at Amherst.
Chomsky, C.: 1969, The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10, MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.: 1975, Reflections on language, Pantheon.
Chomsky, N.: 1981, Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N.: 1993, A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory, in Chomsky (1995),
pp. 167 – 218.
Chomsky, N.: 1995, The Minimalist Program, MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.: 2000, Minimalist inquiries: the framework, in R. Martin, D. Michaels
and J. Uriagereka (eds), Step by Step: Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard
Lasnik, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Chomsky, N.: 2001, Derivation by phase, in M. J. Kenstowicz (ed.), Ken Hale: A Life in
Language, The MIT Press.
Chomsky, N.: 2006, Language and mind, 3rd edn, Cambridge University Press.
Chomsky, N. and Lasnik, H.: 1993, The Theory of Principles and Parameters, in Chomsky (1995), pp. 13 – 127.
162
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cohen Sherman, J. and Lust, B.: 1993, Children are in control, Cognition 46, 1–51.
Collins, C.: 2005, A smuggling approach to the passive in English, Syntax 8(2), 81–120.
Corrêa, L.: 1995, An alternative assessment of children’s comprehension of relative
clauses, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 24(3), 183–203.
Crain, S., Thornton, R. and Murasugi, K.: 1987, Capturing the evasive passive, 12th
Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston.
Davies, W. D. and Dubinsky, S. (eds): 2007, New Horizons in the Analysis of Control and
Raising, Springer.
De Bree, E.: 2007, Dyslexia and Phonology: A Study of the Phonological Abilities of Dutch
Children At-risk of Dyslexia, PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.
DeFries, J. C. and Alarcon, M.: 1996, Genetics of specific reading disability, Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews 2(1), 39 – 47.
Démonet, J.-F., Taylor, M. J. and Chaix, Y.: 2004, Developmental dyslexia, Lancet
363, 1451 – 1460.
Demuth, K.: 1989, Maturation and the acquisition of Sesotho passive, Language 65, 56–
80.
Dowty, D.: 1979, Word Meaning and Montague Grammar, Reidel, Dordrecht.
Emonds, J.: 2006, Adjectival Passives, in M. Everaert, H. V. Riemsdijk, R. Goedemans
and B. Hollebrandse (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, Blackwell.
Field, A.: 2005, Discovering statistics using SPSS, 2nd edn, SAGE Publications, London.
Finucci, J., Gottfredson, L. and Childs, B.: 1985, A follow-up study of dyslexic boys,
Annals of Dyslexia 35(1), 117–136.
Fiorin, G.: 2010, Meaning and Dyslexia. A Study on Pronouns, Aspect and Quantification,
PhD thesis, University of Verona and University of Utrecht.
Fisher, S. and DeFries, J.: 2002, Developmental dyslexia: Genetic dissection of a complex cognitive trait, Nature Reviews 3, 767 – 7781.
Fox, D. and Grodzinsky, Y.: 1998, Children’s Passive: A View from the By-Phrase,
Linguistic Inquiry 30, 311–332.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
163
Francks, C., MacPhie, L. and Monaco, A. P.: 2002, The genetic basis of dyslexia:, Lancet
Neurology 1, 483 – 490.
Gathercole, S. E., Alloway, T. P., Willis, C. and Adams, A.-M.: 2006, Working memory in children with reading disabilities, Journal of Experimental Child Psuchology
93(3), 265–281.
Gathercole, S. E. and Baddeley, A.: 1990, Phonological Memory Deficits in Lanaguage
Disordered Children: Is There a Causal Connection?, Journal of Memory and Language
29, 336–360.
Gathercole, S. E. and Baddeley, A.: 1993, Working Memory and Language, Lawrence
Earlbaum Associates, Hove.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B. and Wearing, H.: 2004, The Structure of
Working Memory From 4 to 15 Years of Age, Developmental Psychology 40, 177–190.
Gehrke, B. and Grillo, N.: 2009, Event structure and the acquisition of passives, Seventh
GLOW
in Asia, Hyderabad.
Gehrke, B. and Grillo, N.: in press, How to become passive, in K. Grohmann (ed.),
Exploration of Phase Theory: features, arguments, and interpretation at the Interfaces, De
Gruyter, Berlin.
Gibson, E.: 1998, Linguistic complexity: Locality of syntactic dependencies, Cognition
68(1), 1–76.
Goodluck, H., Terzi, A. and Chocano Diaz, G.: 2001, The acquisition of control crosslinguistically: structural and lexical factors in learning to license PRO, Journal of Child
Language 28(Cambridge University Press), 153–172.
Grodzinsky, Y. and Reinhart, T.: 1993, The innateness of binding and coreference, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 69–101.
Guardiola, J.: 2001, The evolution of research on dyslexia, Anuario de Psicología
32(1), 330.
Guasti, M. and Shlonsky, U.: 1995, The acquisition of French relative clauses reconsidered, Language Acquisition 4(4), 257–276.
Guasti, M. T.: 2002, Language Acquisition. The Growth of Grammar, MIT Press.
164
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hamburger, H. and Crain, S.: 1982, Relative acquisition, Language development: Syntax
and semantics pp. 245–274.
Hirsch, C. and Hartman, J.: 2006, Some (wh-) questions concerning passive interactions, in A. Belletti, E. Bennati, C. Chesi, E. D. Domenico and I. Ferrari (eds), Proceedings of the Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition, Cambridge,
UK.
Hirsch, C., Orfitelli, R. and Wexler, K.: 2006, When seem Means think: The Role of
the Experiencer–Phrase in Children’s Comprehension of Raising, in A. Belikova,
L. Meroni and M. Umeda (eds), Proceedings of the Conference on Generative Approaches
to Language Acquisition North America, Vol. 2, Cascadilla Press, Somerville, MA.
Hirsch, C. and Wexler, K.: 2006, By the way, children don’t know by, in D. Bamman,
T. Magnitskaia and C. Zaller (eds), BUCLD 30: Proceedings of the 30th annual Boston
University Conference on Language Development, Somerville, MA, pp. 249–261.
Hirsch, C. and Wexler, K.: 2007, The Late Development of Raising: What Children
Seem to Think About Seem, in Davies and Dubinsky (2007).
Horgan, D.: 1978, The development ofthe full passive, Journal of Child Language 5, 63–
80.
Hornstein, N.: 1999, Movement and Control, Linguistic Inquiry 30(1), 69–96.
Hornstein, N.: 2001, Move! A Minimalist Theory of Construal, Blackwell, Malden, USA;
Oxford, UK.
Hornstein, N.: 2003, On control, in R. Hendrick (ed.), Minimalist Syntax, Blackwell,
Malden, USA; Oxford, UK, pp. 6–81.
Hornstein, N.: 2006, A Short Note on Obligatory Control. University of Maryland
Working Papers in Linguistics.
Horvath, J. and Siloni, T.: 2005, Adjectival Passives: Active Lexicon, Ms, Tel–Aviv
University.
Hsu, J. R., Cairns, H. S., Eisenberg, S. and Schlisselberg, G.: 1989, Control and coreference in early child language, Journal of Child Language 16, 599–622.
Hsu, J. R., Cairns, H. S. and Fiengo, R. W.: 1985, The development of grammars underlying children’s interpretation of complex sentences, Cognition 20, 25–48.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
165
Jackendoff, R.: 1972, Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusets.
Jaeggli, O.: 1986, Passive, Linguistic inquiry 17(4), 587–622.
Jeffries, S. A. and Everatt, J. E.: 2004, Working Memory: Its role in Dyslexia and other
Specific Learning Disabilities, Dyslexia 10, 196–214.
Johnson, K.: 1985, Subjects and θ–theory. Manuscript, MIT.
Jorm, A.: 1983, Sepecific reading retardation and working memory: A review., British
Journal of Psychology 74, 311–342.
Just, M. A. and Carpenter, P. A.: 1992, A Capacity Theory of Comprehension: Individual Differences in Working Memory, Psychological Review 99, 122–149.
Kamhi, A., Catts, H., Mauer, D., Apel, K. and Gentry, B.: 1988, Phonological and spatial
processing abilities in language-and reading-impaired children, Journal of Speech and
Hearing Disorders 53(3), 316–327.
Kean, M.-L.: 1984, The Question of Linguistic Anomaly in Developmental Dyslexia,
Annals of Dyslexia 34, 134–151.
Koopman, H. and Sportiche, D.: 1991, The position of subjects, Lingua 85, 211–258.
Kuno, S.: 1975, Super Equi-NP Deletion is a Pseudo–Transformation, NELS 5, pp. 29–
44.
Labelle, M.: 1996, The acquisition of relative clauses: Movement or no movement,
Language Acquisition 5, 65–82.
Landau, I.: 1999, Elements of Control, PhD thesis, M.I.T.
Landau, I.: 2001, Control and Extraposition: the case of Super-Equi, Natural Language
& Linguistic Theory 19(1), 109–152.
Landau, I.: 2003, Movement out of control, Linguistic Inquiry 34, 471–498.
Landau, I.: 2004, The Scale of Finiteness and the Calculus of Control, Natural Language
and Linguistic Theory 22, 811 – 877.
Landau, I.: 2006, Severing the Distribution of PRO from Case, Syntax 9, 153–170.
166
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Landau, I.: 2007, Movement Resistant Aspects of Control, in Davies and Dubinsky
(2007).
Langendoen, T. and Battistella, E.: 1982, The Interpretation of Predicate Reflexive and
Reciprocal Expressions in English, NELS Proceedings.
Larson, R. K.: 1987, ‘Missing Prepositions’ and the Analysis of English Free Relative
Clauses, Linguistic Inquiry 18, 239–266.
Larson, R. K., Iatridou, S., Lahiri, U. and Higginbotham, J. (eds): 1992, Control and
grammar, Kluwer Academic Pub.
Lasnik, H.: 1999, Chains of Arguments, in S. D. Epstein and N. Hornstein (eds), Working Minimalism, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Lasnik, H. and Fiengo, R. W.: 1974, Complement object deletion, Linguistic Inquiry
5(4), 535–571.
Lebeaux, D.: 1984, Anaphoric Binding and the Definition of PRO, NELS 14, pp. 253–
274.
Levin, B. and Rappaport, M.: 1986, The Formation of Adjectival Passives, Linguistic
Inquiry 17(4), 623–661.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J. and Petersen, O.: 1988, Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children, Reading Research Quarterly
23(3), 263–284.
Mann, V. A., Shankweiler, D. and Smith, S. T.: 1984, The association between comprehension of spoken sentences and early reading ability: the role of phonetic representation, Journal of Child Language 11, 627–643.
Manzini, M. R.: 1983, On Control and Control Theory, Linguistic Inquiry 14, 421–446.
Maratsos, M. P.: 1974, How preschool children understand missing complement subjects, Child development 45(3), 700–706.
Maratsos, M. P., Fox, D., Becker, J. and Chalkley, M. A.: 1985, Semantic restrictions on
children’s passives, Cognition 19, 167–191.
Martin, R.: 2001, Null Case and the Distribution of PRO, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 141–166.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
167
McDaniel, D., Cairns, H. S. and Hsu, J. R.: 1991, Control Principles the Grammars of
Young Children, Language Acquisition 1(4), 297–335.
McKee, C., McDaniel, D. and Snedecker, J.: 1998, Relatives children say, Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research 27, 573–596.
Mills, A.: 1985, The acquisition of German, in D. Slobin (ed.), The crosslinguistic study
of language acquisition, Lawrence Earlbaum, pp. 141–254.
Mody, M., Studdert-Kennedy, M. and Brady, S.: 1997, Speech perception deficits in
poor readers: auditory processing or phonological coding?, Journal of experimental
child psychology 64(2), 199–231.
Moro, A.: 2008, The boundaries of Babel, MIT Press.
Nunes, J.: 2004, Linearization of Chains and Sideward Movement, MIT Press.
Park, J.-U. and Park, M.-K.: 2002, Scop Reconstruction in A–movement and Negation,
Manuscript.
Paulesu, E., Démonet, J., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick, N., Cappa,
S., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C. and Frith, U.: 2001, Dyslexia: cultural diversity
and biological unity, Science 291(5511), 2165–2167.
Perlmutter, D. M.: 1970, The two verbs begin, in R. A. Jacobs and P. S. Rosenbaum (eds),
Readings in English transformational grammar, Ginn, pp. 107–119.
Pickering, S. J. and Gathercole, S. E.: 2001, Working Memory Test Battery for Children,
Psychological Corporation.
Pinker, S.: 1984, Language learnability and language development, Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Pinker, S., Lebeaux, D. S. and Frost, L. A.: 1987, Productivity and constraints in the
acquisition of the passive, Cognition 26, 195–267.
Polinsky, M. and Potsdam, E.: 2006, Expanding the Scope of Control and Raising,
Syntax 9, 171–192.
Postal, P. M.: 2004, Junk Syntax 2: “There Remain a Few As Yet Unexplained Exceptions”, Skeptical linguistic essays, Oxford University Press, chapter 8.
168
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ramus, F., Rosen, S., Dakin, S., Day, B., Castellote, J., White, S. and Frith, U.: 2003,
Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic
adults, Brain 126(4), 841.
Reinhart, T.: 2006, Interface strategies, MIT Press.
Reinhart, T. and Reuland, E.: 1993, Reflexivity, Linguistic Inquiry 24, 657–720.
Reuland, E.: 2001, Primitives of Binding, Linguistic Inquiry 32, 439–492.
Rispens, J. E.: 2004, Syntactic and Phonological Processing in Developmental Dyslexia, PhD
thesis, University of Groningen.
Rizzi, L.: 1986, Null Objects in Italian and the Theory of pro, Linguistic Inquiry 17, 501–
557.
Rodrigues, C.: 2007, Agreement and Flotation in Part and Inverse Partial Control Configurations, in Davies and Dubinsky (2007).
Rosenbaum, P. S.: 1965a, A Principle Governing Deletion in English Sentential Complementation, Technical report, International Business Machine Corporation.
Rosenbaum, P. S.: 1965b, The grammar of English predicate complement constructions., PhD
thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Runner, J. T.: 2006, The Accusative Plus Infinitve Construction in English, in M. Everaert, H. V. Riemsdijk, R. Goedemans and B. Hollebrandse (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, 2nd edn, Blackwell.
Scarborough, H. S.: 1990, Very early language deficits in dyslexic children, Child Development 61, 1728–1743.
Scarborough, H. S.: 1991, Early syntactic development of dyslexic children, Annals of
Dyslexia 41, 207–220.
Schultz, R. T., Cho, N. K., Staib, L. H., Kier, L. E., Fletche, J., Shaywitz, S. E.,
Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Gore, J. C., Duncan, J. S. and Shaywitz, B. A.: 1994,
Brain morphology in normal and dyslexic children; the influence of sex and age,
Annals of Neurology 35, 732–742.
Shankweiler, D., Liberman, I., Mark, L., Fowler, C. and Fischer, F.: 1979, The speech
code and learning to read, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and
Memory 5(6), 531–545.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
169
Sheldon, A.: 1974, The Role of Parallel Function in the Acquisition of Relative Clauses
in English., Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13(3), 272–281.
Sinclair, A., Sinclair, H. and de Marcellus, O.: 1971, Young children’s comprehension
and production of passive sentences, Archives de Psychologie 41, 161–164.
Smith, S. T., Macaruso, P., Shankweiler, D. and Crain, S.: 1989, Syntactic comprehension in young poor readers, Applied psycholinguistics 10, 429–454.
Snowling, M. J.: 2000, Dyslexia, Blackwell Publishers.
Snyder, W., Hyams, N. and Crisma, P.: 1995, Romance auxiliary selection with reflexive clitics: Evidence for early knowledge of unaccusativity, in E. Clark (ed.), Proceedings of the 26th annual child language research forum, pp. 127–136.
Sportiche, D.: 2006, Reconstruction, Binding and Scope, in M. Everaert, H. V. Riemsdijk, R. Goedemans and B. Hollebrandse (eds), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax,
2nd edn, Blackwell.
Stein, C. L., Cairns, H. S. and Zurif, E. B.: 1984, Sentence comprehension limitations
related to syntactic deficits in reading-disabled children, Applied Psycholinguistics
5, 305–322.
Stiebels, B.: 2007, Towards a typology of complement control, ZAS Papers in Linguistics
47, 1–80.
Stromswold, K.: 1996, Does the VP–internal subject stage really exist. Paper presented
at the 21st Annual Boston University Conference on Languaage Development.
Swanson, H. L. and Howell, M.: 2001, Working memory, short–term memory, and
speech rate as predictors of children’s reading prerformance at different ages., Journal of Educational Psychology 93, 720–734.
Szenkovits, G., Darma, Q., Darcy, I. and Ramus, F.: 2009, Exploring dyslexics’ phonological deficit II: phonological grammar. submitted for publication.
Szenkovits, G. and Ramus, F.: 2005, Exploring dyslexics’ phonological deficit I: Lexical
vs sub-lexical and input vs output processes, Dyslexia 11(4).
Tallal, P.: 1980, Auditory temporal perception, phonics and reading disabilities in children, Brain and Language 9, 182–198.
170
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Terzi, A.: 1997, PRO in Finite Clauses, The Linguistic Review 14, 335–360.
Terzi, A. and Driva, E.: 2007, Children’s passives and the theory of grammar, International Meeting on Biolinguistics: Language Evolution and Variation, Venezia.
Terzi, A. and Wexler, K.: 2002, A-Chains and S-Homophones in Children’s Grammar:
Evidence from Greek Passives, Proceedings of NELS, Vol. 32, pp. 519–537.
Thrainsson, H.: 1979, On Complementation in Icelandic, Garland Press, New York.
Vainikka, A. and Roeper, T.: 1995, Abstract operators in early acquisition, The Linguistic
Review 12, 275–310.
van Koppen, J. M.: 2005, One Probe – Two Goals: Aspects of agreement in Dutch dialects,
PhD thesis, University of Leiden.
Varlokosta, S.: 1993, Control in Modern Greek. University of Maryland Working Papers in Linguistics.
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J. and Scanlon, D. M.: 2004, Specific
reading disability (dyslexia): what have we learned in the past four decades?, Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45, 2–40.
Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R. and Denckla, M.:
1996, Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability, Journal of Educational
Psychology 88(4), 601–638.
Waltzman, D. and Cairns, H.: 2000, Grammatical knowledge of third grade good and
poor readers, Applied Psycholinguistics 21(02), 263–284.
Wasow, T.: 1977, Transformations and the Lexicon, in P. W. Culicover, A. Akmajian
and T. Wasow (eds), Formal syntax, Academic Press, New York, pp. 327–360.
Wexler, K.: 1992, Some issues in the growth of control, in Larson et al. (1992).
Wexler, K.: 2004, Theory of Phasal Development: Perfection in Child Grammar, MIT
Working Papers in Linguistics 48, 159–209.
Williams, E.: 1980, Predication, Linguistic Inquiry pp. 203–238.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
171
Williams, E.: 1992, Adjunct control, in Larson et al. (1992), pp. 297–322.
Wilsenach, C.: 2006, Syntactic Processing in Developmental Dyslexia and in Specific Language Impairment, PhD thesis, University of Utrecht.
Yang, C. D.: 2002, Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language, Oxford University Press.
Sommario
Questa tesi si occupa del ruolo di alcune strutture sintattiche nell’acquisizione del linguaggio. Si dimostra come l’acquisizione del passivo subisce un netto ritardo nei bambini dislessici. La presenza nei dislessici, ampiamente dimostrata dalla letteratura, di
un deficit di processing, spinge a rivedere le teorie acquisizionali del passivo che imputavano tale ritardo acquisizionale a un deficit di competence. I risultati sperimentali
invitano inoltre a rivedere nettamente la tradizionale teoria sintattica del passivo (Jaeggli 1986) in favore di teorie più recenti e più attente ai processi semantici coinvolti nella
passivizzazione.
Lo studio dell’acquisizione delle strutture a controllo mostra come la performance dei
dislessici non si discosti minimamente da quella dei soggetti di controllo. Questo risultato conferma l’eccezionalità dei risultati ottenuti nello studio dell’acquisizione del
passivo. In questa tesi si cerca inoltre di evidenziare come, in accordo con Cohen Sherman and Lust (1993), l’acquisizione delle strutture a controllo non segua da un graduale abbandono di una strategia cognitiva di default quanto da una graduale integrazione di syntactic cues e evidenza positiva.
La tesi si occupa inoltre della teoria sintattica del controllo: ne introduce le problematiche e ne discute i risultati, ponendo particolare attenzione alle lacune e alle stipulazioni
adottate nella formulazione dei diversi approcci teorici.

Esame + tracce 23-05-2014

Una vita di formidabili passioni: Sepùlveda tra

FASHION | gennaio 2014

Lingua Inglese

WeDRAW: USING MULTISENSORY SERIOUS GAMES TO

Children in different life Contexts: experienCes, Citizenship and

Liceo Scientifico Statale“LEONARDO DA VINCI”

Top 5 Global Video 9.6

08/11/2014 Giulianova News

Agenzia Servizi Editoriali