Auxiliary Placement Revisited

Abstract

The authors examine syntactic accounts proposed to explain the acquisition of auxiliary inversion in Yes/No and WH questions; they argue that no purely syntactic explanation is adequate and that differences in input and variation in presuppositional function across question types contribute to the development of auxiliary placement. The experiment described below re- examines inversion claims for English questions in the light of imitation and production data from young children. The results of this study are not supportive of any current account of the syntax of English questions. It is suggested that if inversion is to be understood, confounding factors must be examined separately, then controlled in more refined acquisition studies.