How Do Children Interpret Novel Control Verbs?
Ana Lúcia Santos, Alice Jesus, and Silvana Abalada
In this paper,*we discuss children’s initial preferences concerning the
interpretation of control verbs.
It is generally assumed that once the child is able to interpret obligatory
control, subject control with want-type verbs is not problematic. In contrast, the
interpretation of obligatory control with ditransitive verbs raises different issues.
In general, it is assumed that subject control with promise-type verbs is difficult
for preschool children, a fact resulting from a preference for a ‘closer’ controller
and favouring object control readings with ditransitive verbs. As we will see,
this preference for a closer controller can be derived from either the analysis of
control as movement (Hornstein, 1999) or from alternative accounts, such as an
analysis of subject control in ditransitives as an effect of smuggling (Belletti &
Rizzi, 2013).
The present paper aims at defying this view, by testing how children
interpret the subject of an infinitive under a novel ditransitive verb. Since the
experiment is run in European Portuguese, a language with inflected infinitives,
we will address the possible effect of an inflected infinitive in the interpretation
of (object) control contexts. Possible effects were expected in the type of
interpretation and in reaction times. It is shown that even though children prefer
object control readings in these contexts, they give more subject control
readings than adults, which is contrary to the expectation. No effect of the
inflected infinitive was found in the interpretation of these particular contexts.
1. Acquisition of control structures
C. Chomsky (1969) studied the interpretation of control by children
between 5 and 10 years. A relevant finding of this study is that children
overgeneralize object control readings to complements of promise, i.e. they
present similar readings for the complements of promise and tell (1a and 1b
illustrate the type of sentences tested by C. Chomsky, using an act-out task).
*
Ana Lúcia Santos, Faculdade de Letras, Centro de Linguística, Universidade de
Lisboa, als@letras.ulisboa.pt; Alice Jesus, Centro de Linguística, Universidade de
Lisboa; Silvana Abalada, Centro de Linguística, Universidade de Lisboa. We would like
to thank Maria do Carmo Lourenço-Gomes (U. Minho), who helped to build the
experiment. This work was funded by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, under the
Strategic Project UID/LIN/00214/2013.
© 2019 Ana Lúcia Santos, Alice Jesus, and Silvana Abalada. Proceedings of the 43rd
Boston University Conference on Language Development, ed. Megan M. Brown and
Brady Dailey, 585-598. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.
586
(1) a. Bozo tells Donald to hop up and down. Make him hop.
(object control: Donald hops!)
b. Bozo promises Donald to do a somersault. Make him do it.
(subject control: Bozo does a somersault!)
This type of results, which C. Chomsky (1969) explains as a result of the
Minimal Distance Principle (Rosenbaum, 1967), is equally explained by the
Minimal Link Condition, as Hornstein (1999) argues. Hornstein uses these
acquisition facts as an argument for the analysis of Control as a case of Amovement. To this extent, a difficulty with subject control in structures such as
(1b) may be seen as the effect of intervention in A-movement structures: when
moving [Bozo] in (1b) from the embedded subject position to the matrix subject
position, it would cross the object, which would act, at least in children’s
grammars, as an intervener (see Hornstein & Polinsky, 2010; Boeckx, Hornstein
& Nunes, 2010, for discussion; but cf. Mateu, 2016).
An alternative explanation for the difficulty with subject control with
promise-type verbs is found in Belletti & Rizzi (2013). This explanation is
equally based on the concept of intervention, following from the notion of
Relativized Minimality (Rizzi, 1990). However, according to this analysis, in
the case of subject control crossing an intervener (as in control with promise),
the difficulties should not be explained in terms of featural intervention, as it is
the case with object relatives and other A-bar movement structures (Friedmann,
Belletti & Rizzi, 2009). Instead, the difficulties deriving subject control with
promise-type verbs would be a result of problems with the operation allowing to
avoid intervention in the derivation of these structures, i.e. a smuggling
operation – to a certain extent, in parallel with what has been suggested for
passives (see Snyder & Hyams, 2015). Object control, in contrast, would not
involve smuggling (we refer to Belletti & Rizzi, 2013, for details).
In general, all these accounts of control predict that preschool children give
target readings to object control structures. Object control is what is expected in
ditransitives given the Minimal Link Condition (A-movement approach to
Control); object control does not involve smuggling in the analysis put forward
by Belletti & Rizzi (2013).
However, preceding work on the acquisition of European Portuguese
(Agostinho, 2014; Agostinho, Santos & Duarte, 2018) has shown that even
though a preference for object control is found in preschool children, as
described by the previous literature, object control is also subject to
development, with 3 year-olds giving around 30% subject control answers to
object control items.
In this paper, we will further investigate this issue, by looking at how
children interpret novel verbs (pseudowords), something that has not previously
been done.
587
2. Object Control and inflected infinitives in European Portuguese
The sentence in (2) is a case of object control in Portuguese. As shown in
(2b), the only interpretation available for the subject of the embedded infinitive
is an interpretation in which it is controlled by the object.
(2) a. A mãe
obrigou as crianças a
comer
the mother forced the children PREP eat.INF
‘Mummy made the children eat.’
b. [A mãe]k obrigou [as crianças]i [a __i/*k/*m comer].
There is, however, a fact concerning object control structures in European
Portuguese that should be taken into account when object control is discussed:
inflected infinitives also occur in these structures. Even though inflected
infinitives are generally not obligatory control structures, in this context they
display obligatory control (but cf. Martins & Nunes, 2017). This is illustrated in
(3) and (4). The inflected infinitive in (3) is a typical inflected infinitive, which
corresponds to a no-control context. As we can see in (3a), it licenses a
nominative subject; in (3b) we see that when null, the subject of this inflected
infinitive is not controlled. In contrast, the inflected infinitive under an object
control verb (in 4) presents an object control reading – see the parallel between
(4) and (2).
(3) a. A mãe
lamentou {as crianças / elas} mentirem.
the mother regretted the children they lie.INF.3PL
b. [A mãe]i lamentou __ k/*i mentirem.
(4) a. A mãe obrigou as crianças a
comerem.
the mother forced the children PREP eat.INF.3PL
‘Mummy made the children eat.’
b. [A mãe]k obrigou [as crianças]i [a __i/*k/*m comerem].
The fact that the inflected infinitive in (4) creates an obligatory control
context makes it an exceptional context among inflected infinitive contexts and
some researchers discuss whether the inflected infinitive in control structures
signals a particular reading, namely a partial control reading. In this paper, we
only focus on object control structures, leaving other contexts aside. Modesto
(2010), working on Brazilian Portuguese, suggests that inflected infinitives
under object control verbs may justify a particular case of obligatory control:
partial control. Modesto’s example is quoted in (5).
588
(5) O Pedro1 convenceu/instruiu/instigou/induziu a Dani2 a
the Pedro convinced/instructed/enticed/induced the Dani PREP
amanhã.
PRO1+2/2+ /*1/*3 viajarem
PRO
travel.INF.3PL tomorrow
‘Pedro convinced/instructed/enticed/induced Dani that they should travel
tomorrow.’
As shown in (5), the plural in the inflected infinitive induces a reading in
which the embedded subject is understood as correferent with the (singular)
object controller and some other entity, either the matrix subject or any other
salient entity in discourse. Notice that the first case corresponds to what Landau
(2013) defines as split control and the second case what he defines as partial
control, in a stricter sense. Both cases are obligatory control, since the object
controller must always be included in the reference. For European Portuguese,
only Sheehan (2018) discussed the effects on interpretation of inflected
infinitives under object control verbs. The results obtained are not clear: with a
partial control reading, more acceptance of inflected than uninflected infinitive
was found; but with an exhaustive control reading, inflected infinitives were
also accepted, at the same level as uninflected infinitives.
Overall, this clearly shows that the effects of inflected infinitives in object
control contexts are still not completely known. However, it is clear that
inflected infinitives under object control verbs have controlled subjects, a fact
contrasting with what is known to happen with other inflected infinitive clauses,
which are not control contexts. To this extent, inflected infinitives in this context
may create the type of variability in the input which might justify a difficulty in
the acquisition process: taking together this type of context and the typical no-control contexts where inflected infinitives are found, the input to acquire the
interpretation of inflected infinitives is ambiguous.
There are indeed data suggesting that the morphology and the interpretation
of inflected infinitives does not develop at the same pace. Santos, Rothman,
Pires & Duarte (2013) report the spontaneous production of inflected infinitives
in purpose clauses around 2;0; Santos, Gonçalves & Hyams (2016), using a
sentence completion task, have found production of inflected infinitives under
causatives and perception verbs, as well as under object control verbs. However,
Pires, Rothman & Santos (2011), who used a grammaticality judgment task to
test knowledge of the morphology and the distribution of inflected infinitives
and a picture-choice task to test the interpretation of inflected infinitives, show a
mismatch in the development of the two types of knowledge: at 6 years, children
already show knowledge of the morphology and distribution of inflected
infinitives, but only at 9 years they restrict the interpretation of inflected
infinitives to the adult interpretation.
589
3. The Study
3.1. Research Questions
Given the state of the art described in the previous section, we are left with
different questions concerning both the acquisition of control with ditransitives
in general and the particular acquisition of object control with inflected and
uninflected infinitives in Portuguese.
As for the acquisition of control in general, both an analysis of control as
movement and a smuggling approach to subject control in ditransitives predict
an initial / default preference for object control (see section 1). In order to test
such default preference, we should test novel verbs.
We would equally like to know more about the effect of inflected infinitives
in the interpretation and acquisition of object control structures. If children (and
adults) give distinct interpretations to inflected and uninflected infinitives under
object control verbs, this might play a role in the particular difficulty associated
to the acquisition of object control in Portuguese.
Therefore, we aim at answering the following research questions:
1) How do children interpret the subject of an infinitive under a novel
ditransitive verb?
2) Given that European Portuguese displays inflected infinitives in object
control, does inflection on the infinitive affect the interpretation in this
context?
Concerning the question in 1), we expect to find a preference for object
control (in contrast with subject control) in the earliest ages tested. If subject
control is also an option for the interpretation of structures with novel verbs, this
reading is expected to occur more often in the case of older children or adults,
given the fact that previous literature associates subject control readings in
ditransitives to operations more complex to children (moving across an
intervener or smuggling).
Concerning the question in 2), different possible outcomes were considered.
If children take the subject of the inflected infinitive under an object control
verb as a canonical inflected infinitive, which creates a non-control context,
children will deviate from the expected (object) control readings. If inflected
infinitives under object control verbs indeed justify partial or split control
readings, and if children are sensitive to this, both the matrix subject and the
matrix object may be taken as the antecedents of the subject of an inflected
infinitive in object control structures. Finally, we anticipated that inflected
infinitives may take longer to be processed if they are associated to a wider set
of possible readings (exhaustive and / or partial control).
3.2. Method and Participants
To evaluate the different predictions enumerated in the preceding section,
we present the results of two experiments measuring reaction times in a picture-
590
choice task, one involving pseudowords (verbs) and the other object control
verbs in similar frames. In the two experiments, we manipulated inflection in the
infinitive. Every subject answered to both experiments, with at least 5 days
interval between the two.
Even though the pseudoword experiment (Experiment 1) was always
applied before the experiment with existing verbs (Experiment 2), we present
here first the experiment with control verbs (ajudar ‘help’, ensinar ‘teach’ and
obrigar ‘force’). Figure 1 is an example (reduced to black and white) of the set
of four pictures presented with one of the test items.
Figure 1. Example of a set of pictures used to test object control
Each experiment tests 24 items (12 inflected and 12 uninflected infinitives
under object control verbs) and 48 distractors, divided in two different lists and
randomized within each list. Each subject answered only to one of the lists. The
pictures in Figure 1 correspond to what was used to test sentences such as (6)
and (7). For the set of pictures in Figure 1, sentence (6) would occur in one list
and sentence (7) in the other list. Each participant sees only one of the lists. In
these experiments, both the matrix subject and the object were always plural to
avoid forcing a particular interpretation of the inflected infinitive. The study of
other possible combinations of number features is left for further research.
(6) As vacas obrigaram as zebras a
cozinhar.
the cows forced
the zebras PREP cook.INF
‘The cows forced the zebras to cook.’
(7) As vacas obrigaram as zebras a
cozinharem.
the cows forced
the zebras PREP cook.INF.3PL
‘The cows forced the zebras to cook.’
591
Considering the sentences in (6) and (7), the choice of the picture in the
down left corner corresponds to an object control reading. The picture in the
upper right corner would correspond to a subject control reading. The picture in
the upper left corner corresponds to a split reading (both the matrix subject and
the object act as antecedents), which could also obtain if the inflected infinitive
favours a partial reading (the interpretation of the embedded subject corresponds
to the controller and some other entity, see discussion concerning example 5
above). The picture in the down right corner is a distractor.
The examples in (6) and (7) illustrate the type of sentences tested in
Experiment 2. The object control verbs tested were ajudar ‘help’, ensinar
‘teach’ and obrigar ‘force’.
This experiment was preceded by Experiment 1, which presented the
children similar sentences with pseudowords (in italics) replacing the matrix
verb (examples in (8) and (9)).
(8) As vacas paritaram as zebras a
cozinhar.
the cows Pseudoword the zebras PREP cook.INF
‘The cows Pseudoword the zebras to cook.’
(9) As vacas paritaram as zebras a
cozinharem.
the cows Pseudoword the zebras PREP cook.INF.3PL
‘The cows Pseudoword the zebras to cook.’
The experiments were preceded by a naming task, centered on the
recognition of the different characters (animals) occurring in the pictures.
The experiment was presented in E-prime. The recorded sentences occurred
with a blank picture presenting a fixation point at the centre. After 4000 ms (all
the sentences were aligned to end at this point), the children were presented a
screen with four pictures (see Figure 1) and pressed a button corresponding to
the colour of the frame of the picture they wanted to choose (red, green, blue or
yellow). The distribution of reading-colour pairings was balanced across the
experiment. Two dependent variables were considered: picture choice and
reaction time (RT).
The participants in this study were 30 4-year-old children (mean 4;6.6), 30
5-year-old children (mean 5;8.3) and 30 adults with no background in
Linguistics.
4. Results
In this section, we present the results obtained in the two tasks. We start by
presenting the results of the picture choice in each experiment (sections 4.1. and
4.2.) and in section 4.3 we present the RT results in the two experiments. For the
statistical analysis, we applied a Generalized Linear Mixed Model (GLMM),
performed in SPSS 22.
592
4.1. Experiment 1: Pseudowords (verbs)
We start by presenting the results of Experiment 1, the experiment testing
the interpretation of sentences with pseudowords with a distribution of
ditransitive control verbs. Figure 2 presents the percentages of each type of
reading (corresponding to the choice of particular pictures), namely, subject
control and object control readings, split / partial control reading (the reading
referred to in the Figure as “all”, i.e. a case in which both matrix subject and
object were taken as antecedents of the embedded subject) and the choice of the
distractor picture (“other” in the Figure).
Figure 2. Results in Experiment 1 (picture choice)
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
UNINFL
INFL
UNINFL
4 years
n.a.
subject control
INFL
UNINFL
5 years
object control
INFL
adults
all
other
The observation of the graph shows that object control is indeed the
preferred answer for all the groups tested. However, and to some extent
surprisingly, the adult group is the group who more often gives an object control
reading. In contrast, choice of a subject control reading oscillates between 20%
and 30% in the child groups, contrasting with adults, who chose this reading
only in 10% of the cases. The observation of the graph also suggests that
inflection in the infinitive does not result in different answers.
Since we were interested in how inflected infinitives affected the
probability to choose an object control answer across groups and conditions, we
built a GLMM model for object control answers (vs. other answers). Fixed
factors entered into the model were Group (4 years / 5 years / adults), Condition
(inflected vs. uninflected infinitives) and a Condition by Group interaction.
593
Subject was entered as a random factor. The model shows no effect of Condition
and no effect of the Condition by Group interaction; in contrast, it shows a main
effect of Group (age) (p=.015). Pairwise Sidak-corrected analyses included in
the model show significant differences between the adult control group and each
of the two child groups (adults vs. 4 years, t(1074)=2.373, p=.035; adults vs. 5
years, t(1074)=2.764, p=.017), but no significant differences between the two
child groups.
4.2. Experiment 2: Verbs
The results obtained in Experiment 2 are represented in Figure 3
(percentage of each type of reading, see also the description of Figure 2). We
recall that in this case three different object control verbs were tested (obrigar
‘force’, ajudar ‘help’, ensinar ‘teach’).
Figure 3. Results in Experiment 2 (picture choice)
100,0%
90,0%
80,0%
70,0%
60,0%
50,0%
40,0%
30,0%
20,0%
10,0%
0,0%
UNINFL
INFL
UNINFL
4 years
n.a.
subject control
INFL
UNINFL
5 years
object control
INFL
adults
all
other
Also in this case, the observation of the graph shows that overall object
control readings are chosen more often than subject control readings; but it also
shows that, as in the case of Experiment 1, subject control is also a choice for
the child groups, in contrast with the residual status of this option in the case of
the adult group. As for the differences between the results obtained in the two
conditions manipulating inflection on the infinitive, the results seem less clear:
no relevant differences in the case of 4 year-olds and adults; some apparent
differences in the case of the 5-year-old group.
594
As in the case of Experiment 1, we analysed the data using a GLMM model
for object control answers (vs. other answers). Fixed factors entered into the
model were Group (4 years / 5 years / adults), Condition (inflected vs.
uninflected infinitives), Verb, a Condition by Group interaction and a Verb by
Group interaction. Subject was entered as a random factor. The model shows no
significant effects of Condition or Condition by Group. However, it shows
significant effects of Group (p=.009), Verb (p<.001), and Verb by Group
(p<.001).
The effect of the verb itself points to the relevance of the verb semantics in
the choice of an interpretation. Globally, obrigar ‘force’ justifies more object
control answers than the two other verbs tested (ajudar ‘help’ and ensinar
‘teach’). When we consider the choice of object control answers by each group
in the case of items with each of the three verbs, no significant differences
between the groups were found for ajudar ‘help’ and ensinar ‘teach’ (the verbs
justifying lower choice of object control), but a significant difference was found
between adults and 4 year-olds in the interpretation of obrigar ‘force’ (pairwise
Sidak corrected comparison, adults vs. 4 years, t(1068)=5.179, p<.001); as well
as between adults and 5 year-olds (t(1068)=2.674, p=.013). Adults more often
give object control readings to obrigar ‘force’ than children.
At least in the case of adults, we interpret this difference between the verbs
as a result of pragmatic inferences that are allowed in the interpretation of
ajudar ‘help’ and ensinar ‘teach’ but less likely in the interpretation of obrigar
‘force’. These pragmatic inferences would allow deviating from object control
readings. Basically, the interpretation of ajudar ‘help’ or ensinar ‘teach’ would
allow the inference that the one who helps or teaches (the matrix subject) also
performs the action corresponding to the embedded clause (when one helps
someone doing something, one may do it too) and, therefore, less object control
readings would be given to items with these verbs than to items testing obrigar
‘force’. All groups indeed give less object control answers to ajudar ‘help’ or
ensinar ‘teach’ than to obrigar ‘force’. However, in the case of obrigar ‘force’,
adults clearly chose the object control reading (close to 100%), but children,
especially 4 year-olds, and to some extent 5-year-olds, still deviate from the
choice of object control (thus justifying the significant difference between
groups in the interpretation of obrigar ‘force’). Given that 4-year-olds (and to
some extent 5 year-olds) also deviate from the object control reading in the case
of obrigar ‘force’, we suggest that they do not deviate from the object control
reading in general because of pragmatic inferences, but for some other factors to
be determined and which also justified less object control readings in the child
groups in Experiment 1, with pseudowords (verbs), and when no semantic
factors in the interpretation of the verb were at stake. We will get back to this in
the next section, when exploring Reaction Time measurements.
As a final remark, we highlight that no effect of inflection on the infinitive
(Condition) was found in the results of this experiment.
595
4.3. Reaction Times (experiments 1 and 2)
In this section, we very briefly present the results obtained in the analysis of
RT in the two experiments. When we included this measurement in the
experiment, we were aiming at assessing the effects of inflection on the
infinitive in the interpretation of the sentences: higher RTs were expected if
inflected infinitives were associated to a wider set of readings, i.e. the inflected
infinitive induced the subject to consider a partial control reading. Even though
the data on picture choice did not show an effect of inflection, we still need to
know if inflected infinitives take longer to be processed.
We first present the results of Experiment 1, in Figure 4, representing RT
(in ms.) by Group and Condition. In general, older groups show lower RT,
something expected but not relevant for the discussion carried out in the paper.
Figure 4. Reaction Time by Group and Condition (Experiment 1)
14000
12000
10000
UNINFL
8000
INFL
6000
4000
2000
4 years
5 years
adults
In this case, we analysed the data by using a GLMM with a logarithm link
function to deal with the violation of the assumption of normality of the
residuals. Subject was entered as a random factor and Group, Condition and a
Condition by Group interaction were entered as fixed factors in the model. The
model showed a significant effect of Group (p<.001), as expected. It showed no
significant effect of Condition, but a significant effect of the Condition by
Group interaction (p=.025). As represented in the Figure 4, only for the 4 yearold group we find a significant difference between conditions, with inflected
infinitives justifying higher RTs (p<.001), a result which goes in the expected
direction.
A similar analysis was tried for RT in Experiment 2, but this time Verb and
a Verb by Group interaction were entered into the model, along with Group,
Condition and Condition by Group. Again we found a main effect of group
(p<.001), with younger children presenting higher RT, and no effect of
Condition. However, a Condition by Group effect was found (p=.046), as well
596
as significant effects of Verb (p<.001) and Group by Verb (p<.001). Given the
relevance of the latter effect, also in light of the results on picture choice, we
represent in Figure 5 RT by Group and Verb.
Figure 5. Reaction Time by Group and Verb (Experiment 2)
14000
12000
10000
obrigar 'force'
8000
ensinar 'teach'
6000
ajudar 'help'
4000
2000
4 years
5 years
adult
As we can see, in the case of adults and 5-year-olds, lower RTs are found
with the verb obrigar ‘force’. This result is in agreement with the idea that the
two other verbs considered (ajudar ‘help’ and ensinar ‘teach’) are associated to
higher ambiguity (therefore, higher RT), due to the pragmatic inferences that
they allow. The difference between verbs is not seen in the case of the 4 yearold group.
In the case of the Condition by Group interaction, the (Sidak corrected)
pairwise comparisons included in the model show only in the case of 4-yearolds a significant difference between RT in inflected and uninflected infinitive
items (uninflected vs. inflected t(1068)=2.439, p=.015), but in this case a lower
RT is found with inflected than with uninflected infinitives, contrary to what
was found in Experiment 1.
5. Discussion and conclusion
In this final section, we discuss to what extent the results obtained in the
experiments allow answering the initial research questions.
First, we aimed at determining whether there is indeed a default and initial
preference for object control, observable when subjects face a new verb. We did
confirm a preference for object control, since all groups give more object control
answers than subject control or partial / split control answers. Nevertheless, the
results do not allow the conclusion that such preference is due to a difficulty
with alternative analyses, namely a difficulty with subject control to be
specifically found in children. The children in these experiments deviate from
object control significantly more often than adults, and when they deviate from
the expected object control reading, the child groups often give subject control
answers. These results thus argue against the view that children avoid subject
597
control and prefer object control. To this extent, these results do not seem to be
in agreement with the view that subject control would result in an intervention
configuration that creates difficulties to children or the view that subject control
involves an operation difficult to children, namely smuggling.
Of course, given the results obtained, we need to explain why subject
control is an option especially for children. Even though we cannot develop the
issue here, Boland, Tanenhaus & Garnsey (1990) suggested that subject control
could have a processing advantage, since in that case the same entity is the
‘doer’ in the event denoted by the matrix verb and in the embedded event. An
alternative explanation is suggesting a parallel between the interpretation of
controlled and non-controlled null subjects: children would extend to control
structures the tendency to interpret a null embedded subject as correferent with
the matrix subject (see Carminati, 2002). Of course this would mean a delay in
the acquisition of control, since this would imply the possibility of interpreting a
controlled subject as non-controlled. In that case, it is possible that this effect is
associated to null subject languages and specifically to the fact that Portuguese
has non-controlled infinitives (canonical inflected infinitives). In that case, the
results we obtained may not sufficiently tell us about control. The issue is left to
further research.
Concerning the effects of the inflected / uninflected infinitive contrast in
object control structures, no significant effects were found in the choice of an
interpretation and the effects found in RT were contradictory and difficult to
interpret, therefore inconclusive.
References
Agostinho, Celina (2014). The acquisition of control in European Portuguese
complement clauses. MA dissertation. Lisbon: University of Lisbon.
Agostinho, Celina, Santos, Ana Lúcia & Duarte, Inês (2018). The acquisition of control
in European Portuguese. In Ana Lúcia Santos & Anabela Gonçalves (Eds.),
Complement clauses in Portuguese: Syntax and acquisition, (263-293).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi (2013). Ways of avoiding intervention: Some thoughts
on the development of object relatives, passive, and control. Rich Languages From
Poor Inputs, 2, 1–11.
Boeckx, Cedric, Hornstein, Norbert & Nunes, Jairo (2010). Control as movement. Vol.
126. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Boland, Julie E., Tanenhaus, Michael K. & Garnsey, Susan M. (1990). Evidence for the
immediate use of verb control information in sentence processing. Journal of
Memory and Language, 29, 413–432.
Carminati, Maria Nella (2002). The processing of Italian subject pronouns. PhD
dissertation. University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
Chomsky, Carol (1969). The acquisition of syntax in children from 5 to 10. 1972 edition.
Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Friedmann, Naama, Belletti, Adriana & Rizzi, Luigi (2009). Relativized relatives: Types
of intervention in the acquisition of A-bar dependencies. Lingua, 119, 67–88.
Hornstein, Norbert (1999). Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry, 30(1), 69–96.
598
Hornstein, Norbert & Polinsky, Maria (2010). Control as movement: Across languages
and constructions. In Norbert Hornstein & Maria Polinsky (Eds.), Movement
theory of control. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Landau, Idan (2013). Control in generative grammar: A research companion.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mateu, Victoria (2016). Intervention effects in the acquisition of raising and control:
Evidence from English and Spanish. PhD Dissertation. UCLA.
Martins, Ana Maria & Nunes, Jairo (2017). Deletion of reflexive clitics with the verb
custar in European Portuguese: An MTC account. Journal of Portuguese
Linguistics, 16(2), 1-25.
Modesto, Marcello (2010). What Brazilian Portuguese says about control: Remarks on
Boeckx & Hornstein. Syntax, 13(1), 78-96.
Pires, Acrisio, Rothman, Jason & Santos, Ana Lúcia (2011). L1 acquisition of interface
properties across Portuguese dialects: Modular and interdisciplinary interfaces as
sources of explanation. Lingua, 121(4), 605-622.
Rizzi, Luigi (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Rosenbaum, Peter S. (1967). The grammar of English predicate complementation. 3rd
printing, March 1972. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press
Santos, Ana Lúcia, Gonçalves, Anabela & Hyams, Nina (2016). Aspects of the
acquisition of object control and ECM-type verbs in European
Portuguese. Language Acquisition, 23(3), 199-233.
Santos, Ana Lúcia, Rothman, Jason, Pires, Acrisio, Duarte, Inês (2013). Early or late
acquisition of inflected infinitives in European Portuguese? Evidence from
spontaneous production data. In Misha Becker, John Grinstead & Jason Rothman
(Eds.), Generative Linguistics and Acquisition: Studies in honor of Nina M. Hyams,
(65-88). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Sheehan, Michelle (2018). Inflected infinitival complements in European Portuguese. In
Ana Lúcia Santos & Anabela Gonçalves (Eds.), Complement clauses in
Portuguese: Syntax and acquisition. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Snyder, William & Hyams, Nina (2015). Minimality effects in children’s passives. In
Elisa Di Domenico, Cornelia Hamann & Simona Matteini (Eds.), Structures,
Strategies and Beyond. Studies in honour of Adriana Belletti (343-368).
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Proceedings of the 43rd annual
Boston University Conference
on Language Development
edited by Megan M. Brown
and Brady Dailey
Cascadilla Press
Somerville, MA
2019
Copyright information
Proceedings of the 43rd annual Boston University Conference on Language Development
© 2019 Cascadilla Press. All rights reserved
Copyright notices are located at the bottom of the first page of each paper.
Reprints for course packs can be authorized by Cascadilla Press.
ISSN 1080-692X
ISBN 978-1-57473-096-8 (2 volume set, paperback)
Ordering information
To order a copy of the proceedings or to place a standing order, contact:
Cascadilla Press, P.O. Box 440355, Somerville, MA 02144, USA
phone: 1-617-776-2370, sales@cascadilla.com, www.cascadilla.com