Cover not available
Part of
Non-canonical Control in a Cross-linguistic Perspective
Edited by Anne Mucha, Jutta M. Hartmann and Beata Trawiński
[Linguistik Aktuell/Linguistics Today 270] 2021
► pp. 223–258

Adjunct control and the poverty of the stimulus

Availability vs. evidence

| Ulster University
Subject control in non-finite adjuncts is observed across languages (as in ‘John called Mary after drawing a picture’). Research on the acquisition of adjunct control has generally focused on the relevant grammatical components and when they are acquired. This paper considers these components in the context of the linguistic input to ask how control in adjuncts is acquired. Although adjunct control is available in the input, the instances themselves do not provide evidence for abstract syntactic relations. Implications are considered for linguistic dependencies and the evidence in the input.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.What is evidence?
    • 2.1Considerations for the input
      • 2.1.1The input: Timeframe
      • 2.1.2The input: Sources of evidence
      • 2.1.3The input: Signal to noise
    • 2.2Considerations for grammatical competence
  • 3.Availability
  • 4.Evidence
    • 4.1Direct observation
      • 4.1.1Attachment height
        • 4.1.1.1Lexical learning (Cairns et al. 1994)
        • 4.1.1.2Adjunct misanalysis (Adler 2006)
        • 4.1.1.3Binding across clauses
      • 4.1.2C-command by the controller
    • 4.2Generalization from similar structures
      • 4.2.1Complement control
      • 4.2.2Finite adjuncts
  • 5.Universal grammar
    • 5.1Role of the input
      • 5.1.1Finiteness
      • 5.1.2Complementizers
    • 5.2Competence and acquisition
    • 5.3Predictions for the input
  • 6.Discussion
    • 6.1Other types of control
    • 6.2Other dependencies
    • 6.3Role of the argument of the poverty of the stimulus
    • 6.4Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 17 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/la.270.08ger
References (116)
References
Adania, Flavia & Stegenwaller-Schütz, Maja & Niesel, Talea. 2017. The peaceful co-existence of input frequency and structural intervention effects on the comprehension of complex sentences in German-speaking children. Frontiers in Psychology 8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adani, Flavia, van der Lely, Heather K., Forgiarini, Matteo & Guasti, Maria Teresa. 2010. Grammatical feature dissimilarities make relative clauses easier: A comprehension study with Italian children. Lingua 120(9): 2148–2166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Adler, Allison Nicole. 2006. Syntax and Discourse in the Acquisition of Adjunct Control. PhD dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ambridge, Ben. 2019. Against stored abstractions: A radical exemplar model of language acquisition. First Language 40(5–6): 509–559. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ambridge, Ben, Pine, Julian Mark, Rowland, Caroline F. & Young, Chris R. 2008. The effect of verb semantic class and verb frequency (entrenchment) on children’s and adults’ graded judgements of argument-structure overgeneralization errors. Cognition 106(1): 87–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Arunachalam, Sudha, Escovar, Emily, Hansen, Melissa & Waxman, Sandra R. 2011. Verb learning from syntax alone at 21 months. In Proceedings of the 35th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Nick Danis, Kate Mesh & Hyunsuk Sung (eds), 21–24. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Baker, Carol L. 1979. Syntactic theory and the projection problem. Linguistic Inquiry 10(4): 533–581.Google Scholar
Banbury, Simon P., Macken, William J., Tremblay, Sébastien & Jones, Dylan M. 2001. Auditory distraction and short-term memory: Phenomena and practical implications. Human Factors 43(1): 12–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Belletti, Adriana. 2017. Internal grammar and children’s grammatical creativity against poor inputs. Frontiers in Psychology 8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berwick, Robert C. 1985. The Acquisition of Syntactic Knowledge. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boyle, Robyn & Coltheart, Veronika. 1996. Effects of irrelevant sounds on phonological coding in reading comprehension and short-term memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology 49(2): 398–416. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broihier, Kevin & Wexler, Kenneth. 1995. Children’s acquisition of control in temporal adjuncts. In Papers on Language Processing and Acquisition [MIT Working Papers in Linguistics 26], Carson Schütze, Jennifer Ganger & Kevin Broihier (eds), 193–220. Cambridge MA: MIT.Google Scholar
Cairns, Helen S., McDaniel, Dana, Hsu, Jennifer R. & Rapp, Michele. 1994. A longitudinal study of principles of control and pronominal reference in child English. Language 70(2): 260–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chien, Yu-Chin & Wexler, Kenneth. 1990. Children’s knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition 1(3): 225–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 1981. Lectures on Government and Binding: The Pisa Lectures [Studies in Generative Grammar 9]. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Conroy, Anastasia, Takahashi, Eri, Lidz, Jeffrey & Phillips, Colin. 2009. Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry 40(3): 446–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Courage, Mary & Cowan, Nelson. 2008. The Development of Memory in Infancy and Childhood. Hove: Psychology Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cowan, Nelson. 2001. The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 24(1): 87–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crain, Stephen & McKee, Cecile. 1985. The acquisition of structural restrictions on anaphora. In Proceedings of NELS 15, Stephen Berman, Jae-Woong Choe & Joyce McDonough (eds), 94–110. Amherst MA: GLSA.Google Scholar
Crain, Stephen & Thornton, Rosalind. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar: A Guide to Experiments on the Acquisition of Syntax and Semantics. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Feigenson, Lisa. 2007. Continuity of format and computation in short-term memory development. In Short-and Long-Term Memory in Infancy: Taking the First Steps towards Memory, Lisa M. Oakes & Patricia J. Bauer (eds), 51–74. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Fisher, Cynthia, Gertner, Yael, Scott, Rose M. & Yuan, Sylvia. 2010. Syntactic bootstrapping. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 1(2): 143–149. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, Janet D. 1989. Learning the periphery. In Learnability and Linguistic Theory, Robert J. Matthews & William Demopoulos (eds), 129–154. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. How to obey the Subset Principle: Binding and locality. In Syntactic Theory and First Language Acquisition, Vol. 2: Binding, Dependencies and Learnability, Barbara Lust, Gabriella Hermon & Jaklin Kornfilt (eds), 429–451. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Frank, Robert. 1998. Structural complexity and the time course of grammatical development. Cognition 66(3): 249–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friedmann, Naama, Belletti, Adriana, & Rizzi, Luigi. 2009. Relativized relatives: Types of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua 119(1): 67–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gagliardi, Annie, Mease, Tara M. & Lidz, Jeffrey. 2016. Discontinuous development in the acquisition of filler-gap dependencies: Evidence from 15- and 20-month-olds. Language Acquisition 23(3): 234–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerard, Juliana. 2016. The Acquisition of Adjunct Control: Grammar and Processing. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerard, Juliana, Lidz, Jeffrey, Zuckerman, Shalom & Pinto, Manuela. 2017. Similarity-based interference and the acquisition of adjunct control. Frontiers in Psychology 8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. The acquisition of adjunct control is colored by the task. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gertner, Yael, Fisher, Cynthia & Eisengart, Julie. 2006. Learning words and rules: Abstract knowledge of word order in early sentence comprehension. Psychological Science 17(8): 684–691. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gold, E. Mark. 1967. Language identification in the limit. Information and Control 10(5): 447–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, Helen. 1981. Children’s grammar of complement-subject interpretation. In Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, Susan Tavakolian (ed.), 139–166. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. 2001. The nominal analysis of children’s interpretations of adjunct pro clauses. Language 77(3): 494–509. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goodluck, Helen & Behne, Dawn. 1992. Development in control and extraction. In Theoretical Issues in Language Acquisition, Jürgen Weissenborn, Helen Goodluck & Thomas Roeper (eds), 151–171. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., Hendrick, Randall & Johnson, Marcus. 2001. Memory interference during language processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 27(6): 1411–1423.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., Hendrick, Randall, & Johnson, Marcus. 2004. Effects of noun phrase type on sentence complexity. Journal of Memory and Language 51(1): 97–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., Hendrick, Randall, Johnson, Marcus, & Lee, Yoonhyoung. 2006. Similarity-based interference during language comprehension: Evidence from eye tracking during reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32(6): 1304–1321. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Peter C., & Lowder, Matthew W. 2012. Complex sentence processing: A review of Theoretical Perspectives on the Comprehension of Relative Clauses: Review of Complex Sentence Processing. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(7): 403–415. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Jeffrey. 2018a. Adjunct Control: Syntax and Processing. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
. 2018b. Non-subject control of temporal adjuncts. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 54. Chicago IL: CLS.Google Scholar
Gries, Stefan T. 2008. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 403–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora: Further explorations. In Corpus-linguistic Applications, Stefan T. Gries, Stefanie Wulff & Mark Davies (eds), 197–212. Leiden: Brill Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grimshaw, Jane & Pinker, Steven. 1989. Positive and negative evidence in language acquistion. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12(2): 341–342. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grodzinsky, Yosef. 1989. The language learner: A trigger-happy kid? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12(2): 342–343. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guasti, Maria Teresa. 2017. Language Acquisition: The Growth of Grammar. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane. 2000. Adult null subjects in non pro-drop languages. In The Acquisition of Syntax: Studies in Comparative Developmental Linguistics, Marc-Ariel Friedemann & Luigi Rizzi (eds), 129–169. New York NY: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Hamburger, Henry & Crain, Stephen. 1982. Relative acquisition. Language Development 1: 245–274.Google Scholar
Harrigan, Kaitlyn, Hacquard, Valentine & Lidz, Jeffrey. 2019. Hope for syntactic bootstrapping. Language 95(4): 642–682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinz, Jeffrey & Riggle, Jason. 2011. Learnability. In The Blackwell Companion to Phonology, 5 Volume Set, Vol. 1, Chapter 2, Marc van Oostendorp, Colin J. Ewen, Elizabeth V. Hume & Keren Rice (eds), 54–78. Malden MA: Wiley & Sons. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holmberg, Anders, Nayudu, Aarti & Sheehan, Michelle. 2009. Three partial null-subject languages: A comparison of Brazilian Portuguese, Finnish and Marathi*. Studia Linguistica 63(1): 59–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hsu, Jennifer R., Cairns, Helen S. & Fiengo, Robert. W. 1985. The development of grammars underlying children’s interpretation of complex sentences. Cognition 20(1): 25–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. James. 1984. On the distribution and reference of empty pronouns. Linguistic Inquiry 15(4): 531–574.Google Scholar
Huang, Yi T., Zheng, Xiaobei, Meng, Xiangzhi & Snedeker, Jesse. 2013. Children’s assignment of grammatical roles in the online processing of Mandarin passive sentences. Journal of Memory and Language 69(4): 589–606. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janke, Vikki. 2018. Discourse effects on older children’s interpretations of complement control and temporal adjunct control. Language Acquisition 25(4): 366–391. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janke, Vikki & Bailey, Laura R. 2017. Effects of discourse on control. Journal of Linguistics 53(3): 533–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janke, Vikki & Perovic, Alexandra. 2017. Contrasting complement control, temporal adjunct control and controlled verbal gerund subjects in ASD: The role of contextual cues in reference assignment. Frontiers in Psychology 8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kempe, Vera & MacWhinney, Brian. 1999. Processing of morphological and semantic cues in Russian and German. Language and Cognitive Processes 14(2): 129–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kush, Dave & Dillon, Brian. 2020. Principle B Constrains the Processing of Cataphora: Evidence for Syntactic and Discourse Predictions Open Science Framework. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kwon, Nayoung & Sturt, Patrick. 2014. The use of control information in dependency formation: An eye-tracking study. Journal of Memory and Language 73: 59–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Landau, Idan. 2021. A Selectional Theory of Adjunct Control. MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. A Two-tiered Theory of Control. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Adjunct control depends on Voice. In A Pesky Set: Papers for David Pesetsky, Claire Halpert, Hadas Kotek & Coppe van Urk (eds), 93–102. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lidz, Jeffrey & Gagliardi, Annie. 2015. How nature meets nurture: Universal grammar and statistical learning. Annu. Rev. Linguist 1(1): 333–353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lukyanenko, Cynthia, Conroy, Aanastasia, & Lidz, Jeffrey. 2014. Is she patting Katie? Constraints on pronominal reference in 30-month-olds. Language Learning and Development 10(4): 328–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lust, Barbara, Eisele, Julie, & Mazuka, Reiko. 1992. The Binding Theory module: Evidence from first language acquisition for Principle C. Language 68(2): 333–358. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian. 2000. The CHILDES Project: The Database, Vol. 2. New York NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Manzini, M. Rita & Wexler, Kenneth. 1987. Parameters, Binding Theory, and learnability. Linguistic Inquiry 18(3): 413–444.Google Scholar
Mateu, Victoria E. 2016. Intervention Effects in the Acquisition of Raising and Control: Evidence from English and Spanish. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
McDaniel, Dana, Cairns, Helen S. & Hsu, Jennifer R. 1991. Control principles in the grammars of young children. Language Acquisition 1(4): 297–335. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKee, Cecile. 1992. A comparison of pronouns and anaphors in Italian and English acquisition. Language Acquisition 2(1): 21–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mintz, Toben H., Newport, Elissa L. & Bever, Thomas G. 2002. The distributional structure of grammatical categories in speech to young children. Cognitive Science 26(4): 393–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Naigles, Letitia. 1990. Children use syntax to learn verb meanings. Journal of Child Language 17(2): 357–374. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nairne, James S. 1988. A framework for interpreting recency effects in immediate serial recall. Memory & Cognition 16(4): 343–352. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1990. A feature model of immediate memory. Memory & Cognition 18(3): 251–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newport, Elissa L. 2016. Statistical language learning: Computational, maturational, and linguistic constraints. Language and Cognition 8(3): 447–461. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nguyen, Emma & Pearl, Lisa. 2018. Do you really mean it? Linking lexical semantic profiles and the age of acquisition for the english passive. In The Proceedings of the 35th West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics, Wm. G. Bennett, Lindsay Hracs & Dennis Ryan Storoshenko (eds), 288–295. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
. 2019. Using developmental modeling to specify learning and representation of the passive in English children. In Proceedings of the Boston University Conference on Language Development 43, Megan M. Brown & Brady Dailey (eds), 469–482. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Nunes, Jairo. 2014. Adjunct Control and edge features. In Minimalism and Beyond: Radicalizing the Interfaces [Language Faculty and Beyond 11], Peter Kosta, Steven L. Franks, Teodora Radeva-Bork & Lilia Schürcks (eds), 79–108. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Omaki, Akira & Lidz, Jeffrey. 2015. Linking parser development to acquisition of syntactic knowledge. Language Acquisition 22(2): 158–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orfitelli, Robyn M. 2012. Argument Intervention in the Acquisition of A-movement. PhD dissertation, UCLA.Google Scholar
Parker, Daniel, Lago, Sol & Phillips, Colin. 2015. Interference in the processing of adjunct control. Frontiers in Psychology 6. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pearl, Lisa. 2019. Poverty of the stimulus without tears. University of California, Irvine. (Preprint).Google Scholar
Pearl, Lisa & Sprouse, Jon. 2013a. Computational models of acquisition for islands. In Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 109–131. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013b. Syntactic islands and learning biases: Combining experimental syntax and computational modeling to investigate the language acquisition problem. Language Acquisition 20(1): 23–68. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perfors, Amy, Tenenbaum, Joshua B. & Regier, Terry. 2011. The learnability of abstract syntactic principles. Cognition 118(3): 306–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perkins, Laurel, Feldman, Naomi & Lidz, Jeffrey. 2017. Learning an input filter for argument structure acquisition. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Cognitive Modeling and Computational Linguistics (CMCL 2017), Ted Gibson, Tal Linzen, Asad Sayeed, Martin van Schijndel & William Schuler (eds), 11–19. Valencia: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Colin. 2013. On the nature of island constraints, II: Language learning and innateness. In Experimental Syntax and Island Effects, Jon Sprouse & Norbert Hornstein (eds), 132–158. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, Susan. 1979. Formal models of language learning. Cognition 7(3): 217–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Language Learnability and Language Development, with new commentary by the author, Vol. 7. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 2013. Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2020. Waiting for Universal Grammar. In Current Controversies in Philosophy of Cognitive Science, Adam J. Lerner, Simon Cullen & Sarah-Jane Leslie (eds), 29–43. New York NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. & Scholz, Barbara C. 2002. Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. The Linguistic Review 18(1–2): 9–50. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Regier, Terry & Gahl, Susanne. 2004. Learning the unlearnable: The role of missing evidence. Cognition 93(2): 147–155. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roland, Douglas, Dick, Frederic & Elman, Jeffrey L. 2007. Frequency of basic English grammatical structures: A corpus analysis. Journal of Memory and Language 57(3): 348–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scholz, Barbara C. & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2006. Irrational nativist exuberance. In Contemporary Debates in Cognitive Science, Robert Stainton (ed), 59–80. New York NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Sundaresan, Sandhya. 2014. Making sense of silence: Finiteness and the (OC) pro vs. pro distinction: Commentary on Kissock (2013). Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 32(1): 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sutton, Megan. 2015. Competence and Performance in the Development of Principle C. PhD dissertation, University of Maryland. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sutton, Megan, Fetters, M., & Lidz, Jeffrey. 2012. Parsing for Principle C at 30 months. In Proceedings of the 36th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development 13, Alia K. Biller, Esther Y. Chung & Amelia E. Kimball (eds), 581–593. Somerville MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Tavakolian, Susan. 1981. The conjoined-clause analysis of relative clauses. Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory, Susan Tavakolian (ed), 167–187. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, Joshua B. 1999. Bayesian modeling of human concept learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 11, Michael J. Kearns, Sara A. Solla, & David A. Cohn (eds), 59–68. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, Joshua B., & Griffiths, Thomas L. 2001. Generalization, similarity, and Bayesian inference. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(4): 629–640. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2009. Constructing a Language. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Van Dyke, Julie A., & Johns, Clinton L. 2012. Memory interference as a determinant of language comprehension: Interference in comprehension. Language and Linguistics Compass 6(4): 193–211. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wang, Felix H. & Trueswell, John C. 2019. Spotting Dalmatians: Children’s ability to discover subordinate-level word meanings cross-situationally. Cognitive Psychology 114(101226). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, Teresa & Gibson, Edward. 2002. The influence of referential processing on sentence complexity. Cognition 85 (1): 79–112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. Effects of NP type in reading cleft sentences in English. Language and Cognitive Processes 20(6): 751–767. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth. 1990. On unparsable input in language acquisition. In Language Processing and Language Acquisition, Lyn Frazier & Jill De Villiers (eds), 105–117. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1992. Some issues in the growth of control. In Control and grammar, Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Uptal Lahiri, & James Higginbotham (eds), 253–295. New York NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Arbitrary control instead of obligatory control in temporal adjuncts in Child Grammar: An ATTRACT analysis. In Linguistic Variation: Structure and Interpretation, Ludovico Franco & Paolo Lorusso (eds), 691–716. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Chien, Yu-Chin. 1985. The development of lexical anaphors and pronouns. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development 24: 138–149.Google Scholar
Wexler, Kenneth & Manzini, M. Rita. 1987. Parameters and learnability in Binding Theory. In Parameter Setting, Thomas Roeper & Edwin Williams (eds), 41–76. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Edwin. 1992. Adjunct Control. In Control and Grammar, Richard Larson, Sabine Iatridou, Uptal Lahiri, & James Higginbotham (eds) 297–322. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wu, Guobin. 1992. Discourse anaphora in Chinese: A rhetorical predicate account. In York Papers in Linguistics 16, Steve J. Harlow & Anthony R. Warner (eds), 185–202.Google Scholar
Xu, Fei & Tenenbaum, Joshua B. 2007. Word learning as Bayesian inference. Psychological Review 114(2): 245–272. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Gerard, Juliana
2022. The extragrammaticality of the acquisition of adjunct control. Language Acquisition 29:2 ► pp. 107 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 september 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.