Papers on Linguistics and Child Language: Ruth Hirsch Weir Memorial Volume [Reprint 2018 ed.] 9783110802283, 9789027978165

Citation preview

Papers on Linguistics and Child Language

JANUA LINGUARUM Studia Memoriae Nicolai van Wijk Dedicata edenda curai

C. H. van Schoonefeld Indiana University

Series Maior 65

Papers on Linguistics and Child Language Ruth Hirsch Weir Memorial Volume edited by

Vladimir Honsa • M. J. Hardman-de-Bautista

Mouton Publishers The Hague • Paris • New York

Vladimir Honsa Professor of Spanish and Linguistics University of Nevada, Las Vegas M. J. Hardman-de-Bautista Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics Center for Latin American Studies University of Florida

ISBN 9027978166 © Copyright 1978 by Mouton Publishers, The Hague. All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form - by photoprint, microfilm, or any other means — nor transmitted nor translated into a machine language without written permission from the publisher. Typesetting: Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin. - Printing: Karl Gerike, Berlin. - Binding: Liideritz & Bauer, Berlin. Printed in Germany

Foreword

In this volume, contributions of several scholars were brought together; — scholars who live at distant geographical locations, teach and research at different universities and scientific institutions, and belong to a variety of disciplines in linguistics and related sciences. They all agreed to share in their appreciation of the late Ruth Hirsch Weir, in the appreciation of her personality, and her professional and scientific efforts. They were her friends, her teachers, her disciples, her colleagues. The scope of their papers lies in her field of interest: applied linguistics and contrastive analysis, language learning, child language, Spanish, French, and Slavic linguistics. Through their estimation of Ruth Hirsch Weir, they make this volume a worthy monument to her memory.

Contents

Foreword In Memory of Ruth Hirsch Weir Ruth Hirsch Weir (1926-1965) Daniel P. Dato Development of Spanish Interrogatives in Children's Second Language Learning Eugene Dorfman Tora Lore in Torelore: A Parastructural Analysis Susan Ervin-Tripp The Onset of Grammar Charles A. Ferguson Fricatives in Child Language Aquisition M. J. Hardman-de-Bautista Linguistic Postulates and Applied Anthropological Linguistics Vladimir Honsa Linguistic Acculturation and the Dialects of Spanish in the Dominican Republic Lawrence B. Kiddle American Indian Borrowings of Spanish cabalb R. S. Meyerstein Functional Extent: Added Dimensions and Intersystemic Recurrence . Zlata P. Meyerstein Generic and Definite Marking in Czech and English Robert L. Politzer Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Associations of First Year French Students Oliver W. Rolfe Morphological Frequency: French and Spanish Verbal Themes

V 1 5

11 39 71 93 117

137 151 169 187

203 211

VIII

Contents

Rodney B. Sangster and Linda R. Waugh The Semantics of Syntax: A Semantic Investigation of Adjective Placement in French

227

C. H. van Schoonefeld Neogrammarian Sound Law and Syntagmatic Structure

245

Dan I. Slobin Suggested Universals in the Ontogenesis of Grammar

249

Albert Valdman On the Observation and Interpretation of Error in Formal Second Language Learning

265

Richard L. Venezky Letter Naming and Learning to Read

283

In Memory of Ruth Hirsch Weir

During a period when many linguistic programs were characterized by the narrowness of the approach, Professor Weir gave her students a truly remarkable background in linguistics. She drew on her wide experience — both personal and professional — to give those of us who had the good fortune of studying under her an understanding of the exquisite complexity of language and of the role each model or theory or approach had in explaining or elucidating some aspect of that enormously complex phenomenon. Professor Weir went to Stanford about the same time that I did, and thus the honor of being her first doctoral student at Stanford befell me. I have often had occasion to appreciate the quality program which she provided for me. Her untimely death deprived me of the opportunity of telling her personally of my appreciation, but I express it here, in her memory, that what she was as a teacher might be a matter of public record for those who knew her and cherish her memory and for those who did not have such an opportunity. From her European background, through study, comprehension, and association with exiles in this country, Professor Weir gave to her students a thorough understanding of both the Danish School of Linguistics (Glossematics) and of the Circle of Prague. It was in the study of the work of Hjelmslev and his followers that the use (and/or nonuse) of meaning in linguistic analysis became clear — an issue badly befuddled in recent years by some unexposed to more than one model in any meaningful way. She developed for us an understanding of the Prague Circle beyond the wellknown contributions of the Circle to phonology: she included also the significant work in semantics with the concepts of language as a whole universe tied with all of culture, as seen by the Prague Circle — again an area apparently ignored until recently. From her work at the University of Michigan she brought to us a clear and precise understanding of the American school of linguistics, from Bloomfield through the ramifications of the post-Bloomfieldian era, as we

2

In Memory of Ruth Hirsch Weir

explored, for example, through the work of field linguists such as Pike and Nida, through the work of the Yale group, through developments led by Hockett, to mention only a few. As she saw language in its complexity, she also appreciated, and taught, the contributions of anthropological linguists (unsegregated in those days) such as Sapir, and Whorf. The result was a truly panoramic view of American linguistics without the disparagements I later found to be the norm in more narrow programs. Professor Weir kept actively abreast of the work in her field and expected her students to do likewise; thus we learned of transformational grammar (just off the press at the time) as a matter of course, along with other theoretical currents. She taught that theory as she did all others — critically and integratively, actively leading us to see and appreciate the valuable points without throwing everything else out. As all science builds on the work of predecessors, Professor Weir led us to know about and appreciate the work of the philologists who had gone before, and thus to learn, in no uncertain terms, diachronic linguistics. This, at a time when, apparently, many programs in linguistics were moving toward the purely synchronic, again gave our program a strong broad base. I have often been grateful for the wide ranging and thorough theoretical foundations which I was able to acquire under the direction of Professor Weir. But her work did not stop at theory: she was actively engaged at all times in the practical applications of linguistics, which, for her at that time, was the teaching of foreign languages in the U.S. classrooms, from elementary schools through the universities. She taught in the School of Education at Stanford University, and took some of us with her — in my case to act as teaching assistant in the supervision of student language teachers. We were shaken free of the prejudice which many of us held (and which is still widely held) that somehow theoretical excellence was incompatible with practical application, and above all in the School of Education. This lesson has served me well; I have been able to apply the principles I learned under her direction to situations far removed from U.S. classrooms. At no time have I felt that teaching teachers or preparing materials applying linguistics meant a compromise of intellectual or theoretical excellence — quite the contrary: to apply such excellence is indeed the test of such, to build a good applied program takes twice as much acumen in every sense than does the construction of fancy theories never asked to pass the test of facing the language they would purport to describe. During this same period Professor Weir began her family, built a home, and maintained a steady output of scientific publications. For those of us who had been taught that such a combination of activities was an impossibility, her very lifestyle was for us an inspiration and art affirmation that such was indeed possible. As we watched her collect the data for her now

In Memory of Ruth Hirsch Weir

3

classic study in language acquisition, Language in the Crib, we could not help but be aware of how truly her profession was just that — an integral way of life incorporating the totality of her knowledge of language and the myriad ways it shaped and was shaped by human beings. It is impossible to recapture the spirit of her teaching and of her counseling, of the easy way in which she assumed the capabilities of the student — capabilities the student would discover in himself only because of her confidence. The quality of her open mind and of her precise penetrating analysis that cut through the fog of any theory to its essentials have to have been experienced. Those of us who studied with her are deeply indebted to her. Perhaps the greatest gratitude would be to show it in our work. I would like to hope that, if she were here today to see my work, she could feel that her efforts had been worthwhile. Her life was short; perhaps unduly so. She accomplished more in that short lifetime than many in lifetimes far longer. She will not be soon forgotten. M. J. Hardman-de-Bautista, Ph. D. Professor of Anthropology and Linguistics University of Florida

Ruth Hirsch Weir 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 6 5

Biography Ruth Hirsch Weir met a tragic death at her own home, one month after she celebrated her 39th birthday. During the thirteen brief years of her career, she left an outstanding impression through her teaching activities and excellent accomplishments in the field of her research. Unfortunately, the promise of her abilities and of her scientific capacity remained without its full realization. Professor Weir's prevailing interest concentrated on the primary apparition of language in its ontogenesis. Language acquisition has two main aspects: the learning of the first language by a child, and the mastering of a second language, which is usually accomplished in school situations. Since Professor Weir was a linguist and her profession was teaching, it was natural enough that from the beginning of her career she should aim her efforts in the direction of the application of linguistic science to the methods of teaching languages on all levels, from the university to the primary school. Later, she also focused on the acquisition of the first language, and her major publication, now in its second printing, Language in the Crib, lies in that field. From her early years, Ruth Hirsch's preparation was directed toward the goals that she later achieved. She was born in Czechoslovakia on October 8, 1926. There, before the Second World War, she went to both Czech and German elementary schools, and attended secondary school, the Gymnasium. When the Czech Charles University of Prague was reopened after the war, she enrolled in the field of linguistic studies for a year. In that time, she passed the State Board Examination in the Principles of Education and was qualified as a teacher of English in secondary schools in Czechoslovakia. She emigrated to the United States in 1947. Her studies there were brilliant and the time in which they were completed was very short, a fact

6

Ruth Hirsch Weir 1 9 2 6 - 1 9 6 5

which is a witness to her outstanding intellectual abilities. She obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree at West Virginia University in 1948. Her major subject was French and her minor was German. As a graduate student she attended the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. There she earned two Master's degrees in two successive years: in 1949 in Spanish literature with a minor in French literature, and in 1950 in linguistics. Only one year later she received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Romance linguistics. As her dissertation, she presented A Study of Some Aspects of a Judeo-Spanish Dialect as Spoken by a New York Sephardic Family. During all of her studies, her means of support were different scholarships awarded by the American Council of Learned Societies, the University of Michigan Graduate School, the University of Michigan Research Club, and the Hillel Foundation. At Michigan, she also supervised the activities and professional discussions of the German Language House, a residence for graduate students who were secondary school teachers of German. In her last year of studies, she was granted a teaching fellowship. Ruth Hirsch's first full-time teaching position, in 1951—52, was in Washington, D. C., at the School of Languages and Linguistics of the Foreign Service Institute of the United States Department of State. She was an Instructor of Spanish, French, and Russian and supervised the native instructors. She spent from 1952 to 1956 as an Instructor and Assistant Professor at Georgetown University's Institute of Languages and Linguistics. There she supervised the teaching of beginning and intermediate courses in French, German, Spanish, and Czech, and, on the graduate level, taught Phonetics and Phonemics, Romance Structure, and the Methodology of Language Teaching for elementary and secondary school teachers. While she was employed in Washington, she organized the Sixth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Teaching at Georgetown University (April 1955) and edited its proceedings. At that time, as throughout her whole career, she also was active in different professional associations and presented papers at their meetings. Her publications from that time deal with various aspects of the techniques and aids in language teaching. On July 2, 1954, she married Robert H. Weinstein, a Washington lawyer, by whom she had three children: Anthony, David, and Michael. When the family moved to California in 1956, their last name was changed to Weir. For that reason, Ruth's publications are found under three different names. In September 1956, Ruth Hirsch Weir began teaching at Stanford University, where she had a joint appointment as Assistant Professor of Education and Spanish, which was later changed to Assistant Professor of Education and Linguistics. In 1963, she was promoted to Associate Professor of Linguistics. While she was teaching, languages were combined at Stanford in the Department of Modern European Languages. Professor Weir super-

Ruth Hirsch Weir 1926-1965

7

vised the teaching of the graduate assistants and directed their training in a linguistically oriented method and in the use of the language laboratory. She also taught graduate courses in applied linguistics and, in the School of Education, courses in language teaching methodology. She was instrumental in the developing of a new graduate Program in Linguistics at Stanford University. Appointed chairman of a committee to inquire into the total preparation of teachers of languages, she began her work in the direction of improving foreign language teaching in the secondary school systems in that area of California, and was a consultant and organizer of teacher workshops for various public school districts. She firmly believed that with the implementation of the modern linguistic approach, and with new techniques and electronic aids, it would become possible to elevate language teaching from a presentation as a mere skill to a more ample conception of language as an instrument and carrier of a whole culture. Her pioneering work in this field won her national recognition. At Stanford, Professor Weir exerted leadership in theoretical and applied linguistics. In addition to her multiple activities there, she became the point of contact between the University and other scholars throughout the United States. One such intellectual communion resulted from her studies under Charles C. Fries at the University of Michigan, and from her close association with Roman Jakobson of the Prague School of Linguistics, Professor at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Other outside relations were represented by her many interdisciplinary, linguistically oriented research projects under contracts or grants in which she was the principal investigator in cooperation with a number of scholars from different parts of the country. The projects ranged from the subject of grapheme-phoneme correspondences and the teaching of reading, to mathematical models and computer data-processing technology applied to second-language acquisition. In her last project, she returned to language acquisition in infants, the subject of the significant contribution which she had made in her book Language in the Crib. It was like this, in the midst of activities and services for the University and the community, thrust into new projects and future goals, that Ruth Hirsch Weir died, suddenly and prematurely, on November 13, 1965.

Bibliography Ph. D. Dissertation A Study of Some Aspects of a Judeo-Spanish Dialect as Spoken by a New York Sephardic Family, Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms, 1951). (Doctoral committee: Lawrence B. Kiddle, Chairman; Charles C. Fries, Edward B. Ham, Kenneth L. Pike, Ernst Pulgram.)

8

Ruth Hirsch Weir 1926-1965

Books and Monographs Audio-Visual Aids in Language Teaching (= Georgetown University Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics 5.) (Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1954). Editor, Report on the Sixth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Teaching (Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1955). First-Year Czech for Colleges, Textbook, copyrighted and used by the Institute of Languages and Linguistics of Georgetown University (Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University, 1956). Language in the Crib (= Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 14) (The Hague: Mouton, 1962; 2nd printing, 1970). Articles "Mechanical Aids in Language Teaching", Report on the Fourth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Teaching (Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1953), 5 8 - 6 3 . "Directions in Linguistics", The Quarterly Journal of Speech 39 (1953), 2 2 5 - 2 3 1 . Co-author Claude M. Wise. "Phonetics, Phonemics, and Pronunciation: Application", Ernst Pulgram (ed.), Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching (= Georgetown University Series on Languages and Linguistics 6) (Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press, 1954), 2 8 - 38. "The Preparation of Phonology Tapes in Language Teaching", Language Learning 5 (1955), 135-137. "The Phoneme in Language Teaching", Language Learning 8 (1958), 1 5 - 2 0 . "New Directions for Teaching Foreign Languages in High School", California Journal of Secondary Education 34 (1959), 5 8 - 6 0 . "A Suggested New Direction in Primary School Language Teaching", Albert H. Marckwardt (ed.), Studies in Languages and Linguistics in Honor of Charles C. Fries (Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1964), 343-352. "Latency Phenomena in Prolonged Learning of Visual Representation of Russian Sounds", International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 2 (Heidelberg, 1964), 205 - 2 1 7 . Co-authors Edward Crothers and Patrick Suppes. "Some Questions on the Child's Learning of Phonology", Frank Smith and George A. Miller, The Genesis of Language: A Psycholinguistic Approach (Proceedings of a conference on "Language Development in Children", Old Point Comfort, Virginia, April 1965, sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health) (Cambridge, Mass.: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1966), 153-168. ("General Discussion: Weir Presentation", p. 169-172.) "Some Thoughts on Spelling", William M. Austin (ed.), Papers in Linguistics in Honor of Leon Dostert (= Janua Linguarum, Series Maior, 25) (TTie Hague: Mouton, 1967), 169-177. Reviews In Word, Books Abroad, Studies in Linguistics, and other journals.

Projects Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondences. Principal investigator. Two contracts from the Office of Education, Washington, D. C.: 0E-4-10-213 and 0E-4-10-206.

Ruth Hirsch Weir 1926-1965 Application of Quantitative Analysis and Computer Data Processing Technology to Problems of Second Language Acquisition. Principal co-investigator with Professor Patrick Suppes. Contract from the Office of Education: 0E-3-14-020. Rules to Aid in the Teaching of Reading. Principal investigator. Contract from the Office of Education: 0E-4-10-206. A Study of Selected Spelling-to-Sound Correspondences. Principal investigator. Contract from the Office of Education: 0E-5-10-325. Infant Babbling and Language Acquisition. Principal investigator. Grant from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: HD-01580-1.

Miscellaneous Professional Activities Attended the Northeast Conference on Modern Language Teaching in New York, March 1955, as a member of the Committee on Teaching Aids. Arranged and conducted the Sixth Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Teaching at Georgetown University in Washington, D. C., April 1955. Directing seminars at Stanford University for secondary school teachers in foreign languages. Teaching at a National Defense Education Act Summer Institute for teachers of foreign languages. Language Examiner for French, German, and Spanish in the School of Education at Stanford University. Member, Committee on Linguistics, Stanford University. Chairman, Library Committee for Linguistics, Stanford University. Secretary-Treasurer, Stanford University Research Club. Consultant on foreign language teaching and conducting teacher seminars for California school districts, among others, for the Palo Alto Unified School District, the Stockton Unified School District, and the Sequioa Union District. Delivered a paper on the theory of language teaching at the Northwest Conference on Language Teaching in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Chairman of the Foreign Language section of the conference "New Directions for the American High School". Delivered a paper on "A Proposed Approach to High School Foreign Language Teaching" at the meeting of the National Association of College Teachers of Education, in Chicago, March 1958. Invited to speak to the Santa Clara County Foreign Language Teachers Association. Invited to speak to the American Association of Curriculum Coordinators. Invited to speak to various Parent-Teacher Association groups. Associate editor for linguistics, for Modern Language Abstracts, a journal published at Fullerton State College, Fullerton, California, for foreign language teaching. Preparing teaching materials and teacher's manual for beginning French in grades seven and ten, Spanish in grade seven, and Russian in grade ten. Conducting experiments in audiolingual teaching, during three years, at the Palo Alto and Stockton Unified School Districts. Lecturer, Peace Corps Training Center, Hilo, Hawaii. Consultant, University of Hawaii, Honolulu. Evaluator for the Modern Language Association of America, under a United States Office of Education contract, at the National Defense Education Act Institute, Boulder, Colorado.

9

10

Ruth Hiisch Weir 1926-1965

Member, National Panel of 18 consultants to the Materials Development Center of the Modern Language Association of America, in New York. Speaker, Conference on Perceptual and Linguistic Aspects of Reading, Carnegie Corporation, October 31 - November 2, 1963. Delivered a paper on "Spelling-to-Sound Correspondences" at the Symposium on the Psycholinguistic Nature of the Reading Process, held at Wayne State University in Detroit, Michigan. Delivered a paper on the "Formulation of Grapheme-Phoneme Correspondence Rules to Aid in the Teaching of Reading" at the Project Literacy meeting in Chicago.

Professional Societies of which R. H. Weir was a member and where she delivered papers or held offices American Association of Teachers of Spanish and Portugese Foreign Language Association of Northern California Linguistic Circle of New York Linguistic Society of America Modern Language Association of America Spanish Honorary Society Sigma Delta Pi Washington Linguistic Club

Vladimir Honsa, Ph. D. Professor of Spanish and Linguistics University of Nevada, Las Vegas

DANIEL P. DATO

Development of Spanish Interrogatives in Children's Second Language Learning Promising results in the search for universals in recent studies on nativelanguage acquisition (Braine 1963; Bellugi 1965; McNeill 1966; Brown 1968; Slobin 1966) have led us to consider the existence of similar phenomena in the learning of a second language. It has often been stated that second-language learning is what you make it and therefore does not yield fruitful results in the search for scientific explanation of human behavior. Judging by the literature, there is no doubt some element of truth in this statement for many of the accounts of second-language learning are of individual children who may or may not have been exceptional in their learning ability. While much of the work done in this field stands out for its meticulous detail, the findings are of limited value in helping us to explain this area of human behavior. In some cases the authors of such works depend on the observations of linguistically untrained parents, which render the results highly questionable. Most serious, perhaps, of all weaknesses is the failure to account for the many variables in individual case studies which are generally carried out under different circumstances. It is with an awareness, then, of this crucial requirement of specifying the learning conditions that we attempt to describe children's acquisition of a second language. Even if we take into account such factors as interference and carry-over from the native language, second-language learning can be fruitfully studied under certain conditions. Some of these conditions will be described now; others will be implied for further research. Our discussion here will concentrate on two main objectives: (1) the description of second-language learning within the framework of a transformational-generative model of grammar; and (2) a discussion of the following major hypotheses: (a) that there will be no significant difference in the incidence of certain base and transformation rules reflected in samples of speech generated by each child at different time intervals and (b) that there will be no significant variation in the incidence of these base and transformation rules from individual to individual.

12

Daniel P. Dato

Method1 The first portion of our research consisted of a yearlong pilot study in which the son of the principal investigator served as the subject. The child was four years, one month (4;1) when the family arrived in the foreign environment, and was recorded twenty times for about thirty to forty minutes each session over a period of nine months. Although this was not the age designated for our group study during the following year, our pilot study (Dato 1966) served as an important methodological testing ground for the next phase of our research. Our group study, which started during our second year, consisted of six six-year-olds, two boys and four girls between the ages of 5;6 and 6;6, arriving in Madrid at approximately the same time with no previous knowledge of Spanish. Unfortunately two of the children left Madrid early in the year, reducing our sample to four six-year-olds. All subjects, according to parents' reports, were of average intelligence and were free of any speech defects. The parents of the children were of a similar socioeconomic and educational backgrounds, and wanted their children to be exposed maximally to the Spanish language and culture during their year's stay in Madrid. Only two of the subjects attended Spanish schools; the others were exposed to a bilingual program in which approximately 30 percent of their school time was spent hearing and speaking Spanish. In all cases except one — a child attending a Spanish school — the children were productive because of their regular exposure to Spanish. Through the regular use of questionnaires accompanying each recording session, it was estimated that each child spent approximately 20—25 hours per week speaking Spanish, and as much as 30—35 additional hours listening to the language with varying degrees of interest and comprehension. Speech was recorded while each S (subject) conversed with a native monolingual speaker of Spanish in the following stimulus situations: (1) with a research assistant trained to elicit conversation by means of drawings, storytelling, and especially structured questions; (2) with peers, ages four to eight, in supervised play situations inside the home. We learned from our first year's experience that unsupervised play inside or outside the home was not productive for recording speech. Over a ten-month period, 20 to 24 recordings were made, averaging about one every two weeks for approximately 30 minutes each to give us a total of some ten hours for each child. In order to encourage the child to speak spontaneously, a Vega transmitting microphone was placed around the child's body, allowing him to move around unencumbered by wires. His utterances were picked up by a Vega radio receiver placed in another room and recorded onto a tape recorder.

Spanish Interrogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

13

Whenever possible, transcriptions were made of the recordings with the help of the assistant who interviewed the subject. This helped considerably in the understanding of the utterances produced by the subject and by all other participants in the recording session. In addition, another research assistant or the principal investigator was also present to take notes on anything pertinent to the recordings. Since phonemic development was not the primary aim of this study, transcriptions were made in conventional orthography. The major criteria for dividing utterances were generally a prolonged pause, the termination of an intonation pattern, or a shift of speakers. Of the total output, only those utterances which were inaudible, distorted by noise, or completely nonsensical were left unclassified. Thus approaching this task in a manner similar to that of much recent native-language research, we have studied the process by which several monolingual, American English speaking children of different ages randomly learned Spanish while living in a natural environment. If we entertain the thesis that second-language learning is in certain ways similar to the acquisition of the first language, we can then observe the development of secondlanguage learning taking place in a fashion that is not only systematic but also higjhly accelerated. We may draw an analogy with the technique of time-lapse photography employed by the botanist who, when wanting to obtain an overall picture of the process by which a plant develops, will photograph his plant periodically from the time of germination of the seed to the time of full bloom and then view all the photographs in quick succession as though they comprised a motion picture sequence. In similar fashion, if we were to place together several detailed linguistic analyses made on highly motivated children who are rapidly learning to communicate with their Spanish speaking playmates, we could then obtain a telescopic view of the process by which children become successful bilinguals. As Werner Leopold (1961:358) states: Bilingualism is such a wide-spread phenomenon in the world of language that it deserves to be studied exactly by linguists. In children's language learning it can be observed in a nascent state, with the detail of a slow-motion picture and the speed of a fast motion picture. To obtain a telescopic overview of the process by which a child becomes functionally competent as a bilingual, see Dato (1970) in which sample recordings were taken from our pilot subject during his first year in Madrid. In these speech samples you may observe how the subject progressed from a point of no competence whatever in Spanish to where he could discuss

14

Daniel P. Dato

adequately even the most serious topics using highly complex linguistic structures.

Second-Language Learning and Linguistic Competence In order to determine the order of the learning of structures by several children over an appreciable span of time, it is necessary to analyze thousands of utterances. This would be an insuperable task unless we could abstract in some meaningful way from all the speech samples an underlying system of rules operating within the learners that accounts for the sentences they generate. In other words, we are faced with the task of describing their competence as differentiated from their performance. This need to describe an abstract level of language and language learning is effectively fulfilled by some form of generative grammar, one that is equipped to describe what a speaker is capable of saying and not simply what he actually says. Rather than attempt a global description of the whole Spanish language, it is appropriate that we concentrate on certain aspects of language. Thus we shall select, here, a specific grammatical subsystem of Spanish as it emerged during the learning process. By describing in some detail the structures relating to this particular subsystem as they are being generated, we should be able to obtain some insight into the chronological order of the learning of grammatical rules. A study of the developing interrogative subsystem contributes significantly to a description of language acquisition. While certain types of utterances produced by the child are closely influenced by those of his interlocutors' questions, on the other hand, they are often spontaneous in nature and thus are not direct responses to the utterances-of the person with whom the child is conversing. Interrogatives produced by the child are therefore more representative of his creative linguistic competence. It has been argued that the analysis of a child's performance, which is only a partial reflection of his productive competence, is not sufficient to determine his grammar (Chomsky 1964). What is necessary is an evaluation of what the child understands as well. Bellugi (1965) states, "the study of comprehension has the major advantage that the input is known — it being the sentence comprehended. In production, on the other hand, the input is usually completely obscure. The natural technique employed here, of looking at a child's answers to the interlocutor's questions, is therefore extremely welcome." Questions asked by interlocutors often reveal the child's ability to comprehend by the appropriateness of his answer. Thus we may determine more accurately the extent of his competence by evaluating his comprehension as well as his production. Furthermore, since the Spanish interrogative system involves both yes — no type questions, (SN

Spanish Interrogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

15

for si — no), and those with a variety of particle words (KD), we can observe more directly the gradual emergence of each of these portions of the entire system in stages which we have established on the basis of chronological order of occurrence as well as on the basis of linguistic complexity. As a basis for indicating development of Spanish questions in children, we shall use as criteria three major aspects of the interrogative subsystem: (1) syntactic complexity of the base structure, (2) the various types of questions used including the SN intonation question and the KD question particles, and (3) the types of transformations involved in generating questions. In addition to describing data showing actual production, we shall comment on the children's receptive competence as observed in their appropriate answers to questions raised by the interlocutors.

Interrogatives in Spanish The Spanish interrogative system includes two major types; (1) a rising intonation contour 233\ which is answerable by si 'yes' or no 'no' as in: ¡Es tu padre? 'Is he your father?'; ¿Vienes? 'Are you coming?'; ¿Verdad! 'Isn't that so?'; and (2) question particles such as those in the following questions: ¿Qué quieres hacer? 'What do you want to do?'; ¿Dónde está MigueH 'Where's Michael?'; ¿Cuántos soldados tienen1. 'How many soldiers do they have?'; ¿Cuándo llegaste a Madrid? 'When did you arrive in Madrid?'; ¡Cuál juguete prefieres? 'Which toy do you prefer?'; ¿Quién es esta muchacha1 'Who is this girl?'; ¿Cómo va al colegio? 'How does he go to school?'. Also considered in this phase of our investigation are: (1) particle questions preceded by prepositions such as: ¡Por qué no vienes? ¿Para qué es ese dinero? ¿Con quién ha venido? ¡fie dónde es éll

'Why aren't you coming?' 'What is that money for?' 'Who did he come with?' 'Where is he from?'

(2) indirect questions like: Quiero saber qué está haciendo.

'I want to know what he is doing.'

(3) questions with inherent interrogative words like: Me pregunto si lloverá.

'I wonder if it will rain.'

and (4) either/or questions like: ¿Tienes cuatro años o cinco años?

'Are you four years old or five years old?'

16

Daniel P. Dato

With the assumption that Q (Question) is an optional constituent appearing as the Pre element in the base structure, we may interpret the generative formation of Spanish questions in the following manner. The tree below illustrates the various possibilities for generating surface structures from an underlying deep structure:

(Imp) (Q) (Neg)

(!)

(?)

Fig. 1

(no)

NP / \ Art

N

el

nino

(Près)comer

una manzana

KD Selection Rules posited for a description of adult Spanish

Choosing to generate an affirmative sentence would give the surface structure: El niño come una manzana.

'The boy is eating an apple.'

which may be formulated: S ^ NP VP A negative utterance, El niño no come una manzana. 'The boy is not eating an apple', may be written as: S ->• Neg NP VP An imperative utterance such as \Come una manzanal 'Eat an apple!' may be generated from the same underlying structure, which would be represented by the following formula: S

Imp NP VP

If the speaker elects to generate a question of the SN type, he chooses the optional Q constituent, triggering the appropriate morphological transformations which ultimately produce the required question intonation. This interrogative surface structure ¿£7 niño come una manzanal 'The boy is eating an apple?', may be generated from a deep structure which we write as follows: S ^ Q NP VP

Spanish Interrogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

17

The Neg constituent may be combined with either of the Pre elements to generate a negative imperative or a negative interrogative: \No comas una manzanal I El nifio no come una manzanal

'Don't eat an apple!' 'Isn't the boy eating an apple?'

The selection of Q from the base to generate a question of the SN variety may trigger one of a number of optional inversion transformations: Q - l SN Inversion — Option 1 Q NPi V NP2 ¿El nino come una manzanal 1 2 3 4

Q V NP2 NP, ¿Come una manzana el niño? 1 3 4 2

Q-2 SN Inversion - Option 2 Q NP, V NP2 ¿El niño come una manzanal 1 2 3 4

Q V NP! NP 2 ¿Come el niño una manzanal 1 3 2 4

These same rules can operate on sentences where the verb is a copula: Q-l

Q NP, Cop ¿El niño es mi 1 2 3 Q-2 Q NP, Cop ¿El niño es mi 1 2 3

NPj amigol 4

QCop NP2 NP, ¿Es mi amigo el niñol 13 4 2

NP2 amigol 4

Q Cop NP, NP2 ¿Es el niño mi amigol 13 2 4

Q-l

Q NP Cop Adj ¿El muchacho es guapo1 1 2 3 4 Q-2 Q NP Cop Adj ¿El muchacho es guapo1 1 2 3 Q-l Q NP ¿El niño 1 2 Q-2 Q NP ¿El niño 1 2

QCop Adj NP ¿Es guapo el muchachol 13 4 2 QCop NP Adj ¿Es el muchacho guapol 13 2 4

Cop Adv está aquí? 3 4

Q Cop Adv NP ¿Está aquí el niñol 13 4 2

Cop Adv está aquí1 3 4

Q Cop NP Adv ¿Está el niño aquíl 13 2 4

18

Daniel P. Dato

Such inversions always involve optional transformations, whether the sentence is declarative or interrogative. Starting with two base strings, one of which reflects the selection of the optional Q constituent, we may find the same sentence elements appearing in various orders: José viene ahora. José ahora viene. Ahora José viene. Ahora viene José. Viene José ahora. Viena ahora José.

iJosè viene ahora? ¿José ahora viene? ¿Ahora José viene? ¿Ahora viene José? ¿ Viene José ahora? ¿ Viene ahora Josél

Since we find the same types of inversions in both declarative and interrogative utterances, we may hypothesize that these transformations are not necessarily triggered by the selection of Q. If the speaker elects to generate a KD question such as iQué come el niño? 'What is the boy eating?', we have two transformation rules: the KD Attraction and the KD Inversion Rules. The KD Attraction Rule attaches to the particular element in the sentence selected for interrogation, the Q constituent which may then be represented as KD. Q - 3 KD Attraction Rule Q NP, V NP 2 IEl niño come una manzanal 1 2 3 4

=> Q NP, V NP2KD ¿El niño come KD? 1 2 3 4

The KD Inversion Rule then moves the question particle and any attached elements to the beginning of the sentence, and at the same time moves the verb to a position following the KD: Q - 4 KD Inversion Rule Q NPj V KD ¿El niño come KD? 1 2 3 4

=> QKD V NP, ¿KD come el niño"1. 1 4 3 2

The procedure followed in Q - 3 - the KD Attraction Rule - and Q - 4 the KD Inversion Rule — may be applied to the generating of all particletype questions. The replacement of KD by the appropriate question particle is carried out as a separate operation which we shall refer to as a Selection Rule. Because this type of rule involves a lexical selection, we shall distinguish it from other types of transformation rules and label it as follows: S - l KD Selection Rule QKD V NP, ¿KD come el niño"1. 1 2 3 4

=> Qqué V NP! ¿Qué come el niño! 1 2 3 4

Spanish Interrogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

19

Selection of the appropriate KD particle from the lexicon is accomplished by means of the seven KD Selection Rules shown in Figure 1. Fig. 1

KD Selection Rules posited for a description of adult Spanish 2

S-l QKD V NP, KD come el niñof 1 2

3

S-2 QKD V NP, NP 2 ¿KD come el niño una manzana! 1 2 3 4 5 S-3 QKD N2 V NP, Adv ¿KD manzanas come el niño aquí? 1 2 3 4 5 6

Q qué V NP, ¿Qué come el niñot 1 2 Q dónde V NP, NP 2 ¿Dónde come el niño una manzanal 1 2 3 4 5 Qcuántas N2 V NP, Adv ¿Cuántas manzanas come el niño aquit

S-4 QKD V NP 2 Adv ¿KD come una manzana aquP3 4 5 1 2

Qquién V NP 2 Adv ¿Quién come una manzana aquíl 3 4 5 1 2

S-5 QKD N2 V NPi Adv ¿KD manzana come el niño aquí"! 1 2 3 4 5 6

Qcuál N2 V NP, Adv ¿Cuál manzana come el niño aquí? 1 2 3 4 5 6

S-6 QKD V NP, NP 2 ¿KD come el niño una manzana? 1 2 3 4 5 S-7 QKD V NP! NP 2 ¿KD come el niño una manzana? 1 2 3 4 5

Q cómo V NP, NP 2 ; Cómo come el niño una manzanal

Qcuándo V NP, NP 2 ¿Cuándo come el niño una manzanal 1 2 3 4 5

Development of Spanish Interrogatives in Children Most of the earliest questions produced by our subjects may be characterized by the use of an interrogative intonation pattern applied to various types of utterances which might otherwise have declarative intonation patterns. Since this kind of question does not involve inversions or other devices found in adult speech, it may be interpreted as the simplest kind of rule, whereby the Q constituent is added to any type of declarative utterance which we shall call at this time a nucleus (Nuc). Examples of questions produced at this early stage are: Stage 1 iQuieres esta? lEs aqui ¿Es este arboP.

'Do y o u w a n t this?' 'Is it here?' 'Is this a tree?' or 'Is this the tree?'

20

Daniel P. Dato

¿en inglési lmas caballosl ¿masi taza, ¿noi ¿¿sto? ¿aviónl ¿quél ¿Qué es estol ¿Qué dicel (for dices)

'in English?' 'more horses?' 'more?' '(It is) a cup, isn't it?' 'this one?' 'airplane?' 'what?' or 'What did you say?' 'What is this?' 'What are you saying?'

A rule to describe these questions may be formalized as follows: S =» Q Nuc where Nuc may represent any structure generated by the base rules: singleword utterance, pivot-like construction, or even a complete sentence. This stage may be characterized by the limited development of the syntactic component and the use of a rudimentary, nontransformational device to formulate questions. The syntactic limitations refer to pivotal constructions of the kind described in the earliest stages of native-language studies. In Spanish this type of structure generally consists of two undifferentiated classes determined by their position in the construction: más caballo mucho caballo esta indio esta agua una niño dos niña uno aquí yo 'sopa' (for mi jabón) esta en casa

'more horse' 'many horse' 'this Indian' 'this water' 'a or one boy' 'two girl' 'one here' 'my soap' 'this at home'

Many of these utterances may be formalized: S =» (P) O

4

where P is the pivot class containing mainly modifiers followed by O, an open class consisting for the most part of nouns and adverbs. Pivot words are few in number and have a high frequency, while the open class is noted for its many members that may or may not be high in frequency. Differentiation of the pivot class is observed later when we find the following three-word utterances: la grande casa esta dos caballo

'the big house' 'that two horse'

Spanish Intertogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

21

which are grammatical according to the child's grammar even though they may not be acceptable as standard adult Spanish. On the other hand we would not be likely to find utterances like: grande la casa dos esta caballo

'big the house' 'two this horse'

because the child's grammar would not permit him to generate these strings. In this way the child differentiates esta from dos and la from grande on the basis of their distribution. Thus we have the beginnings of grammatical classes:

una la el

esta esa

dos uno

mas mucho

caballo Bruno casa

Later we find further differentiation between definite and indefinite articles. Immediately after saying una la mano 'one the hand', as though he were correcting himself, the subject follows with una mano 'a hand', and later in the same recording la mano 'the hand', indicating an awareness of the mutually exclusive distribution of the articles. Thus we have:

Def

Indef

la

una

Inasmuch as pivotal structures in this stage occur along with constructions consisting of a verb followed by a noun or adjective we shall use the term nucleus to account for all types of structures. We may formalize:

(P) (NP)

0 VP

where Nuc may be either a pivotal construction or a sentence containing a copula, es, or a verb, mira, espera. The SN type questions cited above do not provide us with evidence that the S's at this point are using this interrogative device as a transformation. Such evidence would come in the form of subject inversion, as: ¿Es tu

22

Daniel P. Dato

amigo Juan? or ¿Lo sabes tú?. We must conclude, therefore, that in this type of question the marker for interrogation, the rising intonation, 2331, is concatenated as a phrase structure device. Thus: S =» SN Nuc During this early stage we also encounter the question word qué used first with the copula as in: ¿iQué esto? ¿Qué est

'What (is) this?' 'What is it?'

We have evidence that the child can generate this type of particle question using a transformational rule suggested by the relationship between qué and a particular NP that has been internalized and questioned. In sentences like: ¿Qué es eso?

'What is that?'

The speaker of standard Spanish would also produce utterances like: Es un árbol.

'It's a tree.'

in which a particular NP (i. e. predicate nominative) is replaced in the interrogative sentence by the question particle qué. We may interpret the utterance ¿Qué es estol as being generated by the following transformations: Q-3 KD Attraction Rule Q N P , V NP2 => ¿Esto es algol 1 2 3 4

Q NP t V N P k d ¿Esto es KD? 1 2 3 4

Q - 4 KD Inversion Rule Q N P , V KD =• ¿Esto es KD? 1 2 3 4

Q KD V NP, ¿KD es esto? 1 2 3 4

S - l Selection Rule QKDVNP, ¿KD es estol 1 2 3 4

Qqué V NP, iQué es estol 1 2 3 4

=>

Thus, even at this early stage, our subjects demonstrate the competence to apply both the KD Attraction Rule and the KD Inversion Rule, as well as the Selection Rule for the question particle qué. In the utterance, ¿Qué esl, we may interpret the NP esto as having been deleted by an optional transformation.

Spanish Inteirogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

23

It is questionable whether an utterance with the particle qué that results from actual transformations should be attributed to Stage 1. Even though qué questions occur in the same recording along with SN questions, they are few in number and are found in only one subject. All other subjects indicate a productive control of qué only after the use of SN questions has been well established. An earlier and more frequent sampling of speech at the outset of second-language learning may be necessary to determine whether interrogation begins with SN questions alone, with particle questions such as those involving qué, or with both types occurring at the same time. Our data strongly suggests that SN questions appear first. This type of interrogative utterance using a rising intonation pattern is found in the earliest stages of many native-language studies. In this stage there is evidence that some of the subjects have attained receptive control of questions containing the particles, dónde, cuánto, and qué in free alternation with quién. This is seen in appropriate answers given by the children to interlocutors' questions. The following exchanges provide evidence for the children's receptive competence: Interviewer (I); Subject (S) I: ¿Quién es estel ¿Qué es? S: Bruno.

'Who is this' What is it?' 'Bruno.'

I: ¿ Qué haces? S: puerta (making a drawing of a door)

'What are you doing?' '(a) door'

I: ¿Qué es estol S: Una torre

'What is this?' 'A tower'

I: ¿Dónde está tu hermana? S: con Fina

'Where is your sisters?' 'With Fina'

I: ¿Cuántas niñas hay en la clase? S: seis

'How many girls are there in class?' 'six'

I: Y estos, S: indio

'And, what are these?' '(They are) indian(s)'

Lqué

soni

I: ¿Cuántos has metido? ¿Cuántos? S: Uno, dos, tres, ..., doce

'How many did you put in? 'How many?' 'One, two, three, ..., twelve'

Thus in Stage 1 we may summarize the rules among our four six-year-olds as follows:

24

Daniel P. Dato

BASE RULES Opal

Niki

Stan (Q) Nucleus

NUC-

NP

|(Det) N I N (Adj)

VP

SN

TRANSFORMATION RULES In the speech samples of Opal: Q - 3 KD Attraction Rule Q NP, V NP 2 => NP, V N P K I Q - 4 KD Inversion Rule Q NP, V KD = » Q K D V NP, S - l Selection Rule Q KD V NP, => Q qué V NP,

SN

Carl

Spanish Inteirogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

25

Stage 2 lEs en inglés? ¿Quieres ésta! ¿Es este árboP. ¿Esta es una palacio? ¿No quieres uno más? ¿jVo quieres nieve? ¿Qué es 'nieve 1 ¿Esto qué es? ¿Qué es? ¿Qué es eso? ¿£?wé hacen? ¿Qué hay aquí? ¿Dónde está la mesa? ¿Dónde estás libro? ¿Dónde está aquí? ¿Cuántos es? ¿Cuánto es esto?

'Is it in English?' 'Do you want this one?' 'Is this (a) tree?' 'Is this a palace?' 'Don't you want another one?' 'Don't you want snow?' 'What is "nieve"?' 'What is this?' 'What is it?' 'What is that?' 'What are they doing?' 'What is there here?' 'Where is the table?' 'Where is (the book)?' 'Where is it?' 'How many are there?' 'How much is this?'

Since Stage 1 we can point out the development of the noun phrase and the verb phrase as well as the simultaneous establishment of a relationship between those two constituents in the base structure. S

NP VP

In the VP, we find both copula and transitive verbs. All subjects have es and Stan has both es and esta. This element may be followed by a predicate in the form of a noun phrase or adjective or by an adverb. The element following the verb differs among subjects in degree of complexity. While Opal's data show only a NP, Niki and Stan have NP as well as sentence embedding. Carl has NP and adverb in this position: Pred Cop VP -»• Aux

Adv V

(NP)

(S')

(Adv)

In the Pred constituent, the optional prepositional phrase shows a higher development for Niki and Stan over both Opal and Carl who form their predicate at this point with simply a noun phrase or an adjective. NP (Prep Phr)

Pred Adj

26

Daniel P. Dato

In the development of the NP, Carl shows only (Det) N, while all three other subjects have a determiner plus noun alternating with a pronoun. (Det) N NP Pro Questions in Stage 2 include the well established use of the interrogative intonation pattern, 233t, and the particle qué. Dónde and cuánto appear in some utterances but their use is highly restricted so as to attribute them to a later stage. The interrogative intonation pattern, SN, may now be considered transformationally generated in all subjects in the same sense that adults generate it. There is ample evidence to show the relationship between the question ¿Es aquí? 'Is it here?' and the statement Es aquí 'It's here.' Similarly, there is now a relationship between the particle in ¿Qué quieres? 'What do you want?' with a specific NP as in Quiero chocolate 'I want chocolate,' Particle questions attributed to this stage consist of the question words qué, dónde, and cuánto(s). The formation of these interrogatives may be stated in terms of transformation rules Q-3 KD Attraction Rule, Q - 4 KD Inversion Rule, and Selection Rules, S - l , S-2, and S-3. It must be pointed out that question particle, qué, is distinguished from the relator pronoun, que. 'What do you like best?' ¿Qué te gusta másl 'Is it what you like best?' ¿.Es lo que te gusta másl Quiero saber lo que te gusta más. 'I want to know what you like best.' Receptive Competence is demonstrated by the awareness of the relationship between the particle and the specific segment of the sentence being questioned. I: ¿Dónde está papál S: en Madrid

'Where is Daddy?' 'in Madrid'

I: ¿Cuántas ruedasl ¿Cuatro? S: Si, cuatro.

'How many wheels? Four?' 'Yes, four.'

I: ¿Qué comel S (14—6) huevos

'What does he eat?' 'eggs'

I: ¿Qué es estol S (1—2) un niño I: ¿Dónde estánl S (5—1) está aquí

'What is this?' 'a little boy' 'Where are they?' 'He is (they are) here.'

Spanish Interrogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

Summarizing the grammar for Stage 2, we have the following: S

(Q) NP VP Pred Cop Adv

VP

Aux

Pred NP h

V (NP) (S') (Adv) NP Adj (Det) N Pro

Aux-»- T Transformation rules include Q-3, Q-4, and Selection Rules S - l , S-2, and S - 3 . Stage 3 ¿Tú quieres caramelos ahora? ¿Tus cosas está a Madrid? ¿Tú quieres un castillo moro0. ¿Esto es España? ¿Dónde está la Madre Vega? ¿Dónde están los ojos? ¿Dónde está el amarillo? ¿Dónde está este hueso? ¿Dónde está papel y lápiz? ¿Dónde está mi cartera? ¿Qué es 'pusiste'? ¿Qué haces en la escuela? un bicho. ¿Qué es esto? ¿Qué hace este mono? ¿Qué pasa? Dinero, dinero. ¿Qué pasa con dinero? la ¡abrigos,5 gorros y bufandas, ¿cuántos quiere? ¿Cuántos niños en la escuela? ¿Cuántos años tiene ella? ¿Kíu padre cómo se llama? ¿Cómo se llama este ratón?

'You want the candies?' 'And your things are in Madrid?' 'You want a Moorish castle?' 'Is this Spain?' 'Where is Mother Vega?' 'Where are the eyes?' 'Where's the yellow one?' 'Where is this bone?' 'Where is paper and pencil?' 'Where is my schoolbag?' 'What is "pusiste"?' 'What do you do in school?' 'A bug. What is this?' 'What is this monkey doing?' 'What's happening?' 'Money, money. What happens with money?' 'raincoats, hats, scarves. How many do you want?' 'How many children are there in the school?' 'How old is she?' 'And what's your father's name?' 'What is this mouse called?'

27

28

Daniel P. Dato

Only three of the subjects reach the degree of development which we call stage 3. Carl was unusually unproductive and attained a linguistic development equivalent approximately to stage 2. The present stage is notable mainly for the beginnings of sentence embedding and for the use of a larger number of question particles. (Det) N NP

(S') Pro

In the predicate component we find an optional prepositional phrase in all three subjects: NP Pred

(Prep Phr) Adj

However, the noun phrase for Opal remains the same as in stage 2, while Niki and Stan show the beginnings of sentence embeddings in this component: (Det) N (S')

NP Pro

We also find expansion in the auxiliary to include està plus the progressive form of the verb as well as ha plus the past participle: Me están esperando Pero ella está pegando con las otras niñas. Yo está cosiendo y luego ...

'They're waiting for me.' 'But she's hitting the other girls.' 'I'm sewing and then ...'

A further expansion of the auxiliary now includes the past participles: Esa me lo han dado lo Reyes. Antes yo he ido a Valencia. Yo nunca he comido paella. Aux

'The (three) Kings gave me that.' 'I went to Valencia before.' 'I've never eaten paella.'

(está- + -ndo) (ha- + -do)

Once again, Opal shows this development. To account for the particle we have Selection còrno, we have selection rule S-6. In this stage, receptive competence of the subjects is demonstrated by the appropriate answers they give to the following questions:

Spanish Interrogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

29

Interlocutor: ¿Quién hay dentro del coche? 'Who is in the car?' 'Daddy.' S: Papá 'Who is waiting for her at I: ¿Quién la espera en el school?' colegio? 'Sister Vega.' S: Madre Vega. I: ¿Cómo va peinada la niñal S: trenzas y sombrero.

'How's the little girl's hair fixed?' '(With) braids and hat.'

I: iCómo son los que tiene usted? S: pequeñitos y grandes.

'How are the ones you have?'

I: ¿Cuándo la puedo traerl S: mañana

'When may I bring her?' 'Tomorrow.'

I: ¿ Cuándo te han dado la medalla? S: ahora.

'When did they give you the medal?' 'Just now.'

I: ¿Cuál te gusta más de los dos? S: ésta.

'Which of these two do you like more?' 'This one.'

'Big and small.'

BASE RULES S

VP-»

Pred NP-> Aux -h

(Q) NP VP I Pred j (Cop Aux j I Adv I ( V (NP) (S)

(Adv)

NP Adj (Det) N (S') 1 Pro j (está-ndo) T( ha- + -do

TRANSFORMATION RULES Q-3, Q-4, and Selection Rules S - l , S-2, S-3, and S-6.

30

Daniel P. Dato

Stage 4 ¿ Jugando con muñeca? ¿No le sabes? ¿Me has dado estel ¿Quiere melocotón1 ¿Pero tiene en esta tienda chupes? ¿Tú quieres unal ¿No ves! ¿Tú sabe qué es! ¿ Tú puede andar asíl ¿Qué es 'andando"! ¿Qué yo ha dicho? ¿Qué tú tienes aqufí ¿Qué es eso blanco? ¿de qué colorí ¿Qué está haciendo ella1 ¿ Y qué está estudiando? ¿Aqué jugamos ahora? ¿Qué quiere decir esot ¿ Y qué más quiere? Mamá, ¿dónde está mi reloj de 'vamos a la cama"1. 6 ¿Dónde están? ¿Cuántas personas hay en tu casal ¿Cuántos quieres? ¿Cuánto me falta1 ¿Quién andar en este? ¿Quién es quién? ¿Quién sabe más? La mamá, la papá, los niños, o las niñas? ¿Quién lo ha hecho? ¿Cómo se llama esto colorí ¿ Cómo se dicel ¿Cómo es eso, asi! ¿Cómo ¿Qué es 'capilla'? ¿Cómo suena la guitarra? ¿Cuál está más bonito? ¿Cuál es el primero aquí?

'playing with a doll?' 'Don't you know it?' 'You gave me this?' 'Do you want peach?' 'But do they have lollipops in this store?' 'Do you want one (of them)? 'Don't you see?' 'Do you know what it is?' 'Can you walk like this?' 'What is "andando"?' 'What did I say?' 'What do you have here?' 'What is that white one?' 'What color?' 'What is she doing?' 'And what is she studying?' 'What are we playing now?' 'What does that mean?' 'And what else does he want?' 'Mother, where is my"vamos-a-lacama" watch?' 'Where are they?' 'How many people are there in your house?' 'How many do you want?' 'How much do I need?' 'Who to go (goes) in this?' 'Who's who?' 'Who know the most? Mama, Papa, the little boys, or the little girls?' 'Who made it?' 'What is this color called?' 'How do you say it?' 'How is that? Like this?' 'How's that? What is "capilla"?' 'What does the guitar sound like?' 'Which one is prettier?' 'Which is the first one here?'

Spanish Interrogatives in Children's Second Language Learning

31

Like Carl who was limited in development in the learning of Spanish interrogatives to the level of Stage 2, Stan, too, appears to be limited in development to Stage 3. In the fourth stage, therefore, we shall be discussing just Opal and Niki. The optional prepositional phrase in the previous stage has now developed into a full embedded sentence by Stage 4. This development, which extends to all three constituents — copula, verb phrase, and noun phrase — is found only in Opal. [PredV Cop

Is'

J

VP

Aux

NP

W(NP)(S') (Det) N (S')

Although none of the other subjects matched this development, Niki's output does show some sentence embedding. The auxiliary component which was expanded in Stage 3 to include both the progressive form and the past participle now shows wider use of these forms: La niña está rezando. Están echando agua. ¿Qué está haciendo ella? Yo ha pintado esto. Mamá lo ha comprado.

'The little girl is praying.' 'They're throwing water.' 'What is she doing?' 'I painted this.' 'Mama bought it.'

Among the questions in this stage there is a more extensive control of the use of the familiar particles, qué, cuánto, and dónde, which occur not only in more complex sentences but appear also with preceding prepositions: ¿de qué color? ¿A qué jugamos ahora? ¿A dónde vamos a leer?

'What color?' 'What are we playing now?' 'Where are we going to read?'

This type of question may be generated as a result of the following abbreviated transformation rule: QPrepKD N ¿ de KD colorí 1 2 3 4

=> QPrep