Draft–17.2.21

1

The layered syntactic structure of the complementizer system: functional heads and multiple movements in the early left-periphery. A corpus study on Italian

Vincenzo Moscati

Luigi Rizzi

1.IntroductionLookingatchildren'sspontaneousproductions,aquickalbeitgradualdevelopmentcanbeeasilyobservedinthemorpho-syntacticcomplexityoftheirearlysentences.Betweenthesecondandthethirdyear,movingfromtheveryfirstconstructionsinthetwo-wordstage,childrensteadilyadvancethroughmorearticulatedsequencesthatstep-by-stepconvergeontheadultgrammar.Characterizingthisprocesshasbeenamajorgoalofresearchinlanguageacquisition,agoalwhichnecessarilycallsforaconstantinteractionbetweendevelopmentalpsychologyandlinguistictheory.Thisexchangehasprovedtobeusefulinmanyways,includingthecharacterizationoftheearlyinflectionalsystem.Atellingexamplecomesfrommuchwork,begunduringthe90's,ontherelationbetweenverbalmorphologyandword-order.Languageafterlanguage,itwasfoundthatfromearlyonthereisatightlinkbetweenthepositionoftheverbanditsinflection.Justtomentionsomeobservations,itwasfoundthatFrench-speakingchildrensystematicallyvarytheverb'splacementdependingonfiniteness,sotomatchtheadultdistribution:Pierce(1992)showedthat,whereasfiniteformsprecedethenegationmarkerpas,non-finiteformsfollowit.Similarly,astrongcorrelationbetweenmorphologyandclausalpositionwasalsofoundintheproductionsofyoungGerman-speakingchildren,withtheV2positionselectivelyusedforfiniteverbsonly(Verrips&Weissenborn1992,Poeppel&Wexler1993).Theselinesofresearchwereinspiredbydevelopmentsinlinguistictheorywhich,shortlybefore,hadofferedanaturalexplanationofsuchcorrelations.FromtheseminalworkofPollock(1989),morphosyntacticfeatureshavebeenassociatedwithindependentsyntacticprojections,strictlyordered.Therefore,thesyntacticfeaturesencodedintheverbalmorphologycanbecheckedthroughhead-movementoftheverb.Thiscapturestheobservedlinkbetweenword-orderandinflection,bothinadultandearlygrammars.Lateron,Pollock'sapproachwasdevelopedandsystematizedinalineofresearchwhicheventuallyledtoCinque’s(1999)comprehensivecartographicanalysisofthestructureoftheIP.Inparallel,arichlystructuredhierarchicalconfigurationhasalsobeenproposedtocapturethehigherportionoftheclause.AstheInflectionalsystemcanbeseenasamulti-layeredzoneoforderedprojections,alsotheComplementizersystemcanbe"split"intoanarticulatedsetofprojections,eachwithitsownwell-definedproperties.ThegainhasbeenthencomparablewiththeSplit-IPproposal,withadvancesontheword-orderpropertiesoftheelementsofthecomplementizersystem,andonthestudyoftheinterfaceswithsoundandmeaningofvariousleft-peripheralconstructions.

Draft–17.2.21

2

AccordingtotheSplit-CPproposalinitiallypresentedinRizzi(1997),thecomplementizercanbeviewedasasyntacticspacedelimitedbyForceandFiniteness(Fin),includingvariouspositionsdedicatedtoexpressingparticularscope-discourseproperties:thescopeofoperatorsofdifferentkinds(interrogative,relative,exclamative,etc.),discourse-relatedarticulationssuchastopic–commentandfocus–presupposition,thepositionoccupiedbyhighlightedadverbials,etc...Alltheseprojectionsmustrespectsomeorderingconstraints,attestedcross-linguistically,thatcanbecapturedbycartographicrepresentations.AlayeredCP-SystemoffersamorearticulatedstructureincomparisonwithtraditionalrepresentationsinvolvingasingleC-position.MuchastheadoptionofanarticulatedstructureoftheIP-systemledtomanyfundamentalobservationsonthepropertiesofearlyclauses,alsothearticulatedstructureofthecomplementizerhasthepotentialtorevealimportantcharacteristicsofchildren'sfirstutterances.Inthispaper,ourmajorgoalistodocumentthedevelopmentoftheCP-systeminItalian.Anaturalstartingpointinthisdirectionistoconsidertheappearanceofthevariouscomplementizerparticlesinchildren'sfirstproductions.Sincetheyinstantiatetheheadsofdifferentleft-peripheralprojections,theiroccurrenceprovidesanimportantlandmarkthatcouldinformusabouttheinitialskeletonoftheCPinyoungchildren.ThestructuralpositionsoftheItaliancomplementizerparticlesintheadultlanguagecanbeillustratedbylookingattheirorderinrelationtotopics,startingfromthefinitecomplementizerche(“that”).ThiselementcanbeusedtointroducebothrelativeclausesandcomplementclausesanditarguablysitsinForceP,thehighestpositionwithintheCPfield,asconfirmedbythefactthatitcanonlyprecede(2a)butcannotbeprecededbyatopic(2b):

(2)a.Hosaputoche[TOPquelprogramma]l'haivistoche>topichave.1sgknownthatthatprogramit-have.2sgseen"Iknowthatyousawthatprogram"b.*Hosaputo[TOPquelprogramma]chel'haivisto *topic>cheAlowerstructuralpositionisinsteadoccupiedbytheparticlese(“if”).Itisusedtointroduceconditionalclausesandindirectyes/nointerrogatives.Consideringtheselatter,itsitsinanintermediatepositionwithintheCP-Systemanditcanbeeitherpreceded(3b)orfollowed(3a)byatopicalizedconstituent:(3) a.Midomandose[TOPquelprogramma]tul'abbiavisto se>topic I-wonderwhetherthatprogramyouit-haveseen "Iwonderwhetheryousawthatprogram" b.Midomando[TOPquelprogramma]setul'abbiavisto topic>seI-wonderthatprogramwhetheryouit-haveseen "Iwonderwhetheryousawthatprogram"Finally,thelastparticleworthconsideringisthenon-finitecomplementizerdi(homophonoustoprepositiondi“of”).,whichmarksthelowedgeoftheCP-Systemin

Draft–17.2.21

3

controlconstructions.Inthisposition,FinP,itcanonlybeprecededbytopics,asshownbythecontrastingrammaticalitybetween(4a)and(4b):(4)a.Penso[TOPquelprogramma]divederlo topic>dithink.1sgthatprogramtosee-it"IthinkI'mgoingtoseethatprogram"b.*Pensodi[TOPquelprogramma]vederlo *di>topicthink.1sgtothatprogramsee-itOnthebasisoftheseandotherconsiderations(seeRizzi&Bocci2017foranoverview),thethreeparticlescanbeconsideredastheheadsofthreedistinctprojections,asintherepresentationbelow:

(5)Force>Top>Int>Top>Q/Foc>Fin>IPchesediRepresentation(5)alsoincludesthelandingsiteofwh-movement,designatedbyQ/Foc.ThisnotationcapturesthefactthatinItalianmainclauseswh-movementandleft-peripheralfocusmovementcompeteforthesameposition(seeBocci,Rizzi,Saito2018fordiscussion).1Currently,lessisknownabouttheemergenceoftheseparticlesinearlyItalianandacorpusanalysiscouldhelpusdeterminingiftheyallappearwithinthesametemporalwindoworif,instead,thereisadifferenttimelinecharacterizingeachone.ThepotentialofadoptingalayeredCP-structurewasalreadyappreciatedinacorpusstudyreportedinMastropavlou&Tsimpli(2011),wheretherefinedrepresentationoftheGreekCPproposedinRoussou(2000)wascombinedwithatypologyoftraits(TsimpliandStavrakaki,1999)distinguishingbetweeninterpretableanduninterpretablefeaturesinthesenseofChomsky(1995).Mastropavlou&TsimpliwereprimarilyinterestedintheemergenceofcomplementationinchildrenwithDevelopmentalLanguageDisorder.However,datafromacontrolgroupofTypicallyDeveloping(TD)childrenwasalsodiscussed.SpontaneousproductionfortheTDcontrolscoveredasingletime-windowaboveage3,spanningoverashort2-monthsinterval.Bylookingatthisbriefinterval,Mastropavlou&Tsimplishowedthat,byandlarge,TDchildrenwerealreadyabletousethecompletearrayofcomplementizersfoundintheadultlanguage.Thisledtotheconclusionthat3-year-oldscancorrectlyuseandalternatethevariousCPparticles,inaccordancewiththeirappropriategrammaticalfunction.Inviewofthisresultandinordertodocumentthegradualappearanceofthecomplementizerparticleswhileitmightstillbeinprogress,webelieveitwillbeinstructivetocloselyfocusonanearlierperiod.Ourcorpusanalysiswillthereforebebasedonalongitudinalcorpuswithregularsamplestakenbetweenage1;5and3;5.

1ThemapdiffersfromthemapinRizzi&Bocci(2017)inthatitdoesnotspecifytheverylow(post-focal)topicposition,amarkedpositionwhichItalianpermits,butwhichwillnotplayaroleinouranalysissinceitistypicallyobservedfollowingcorrectively-focusedfrontedconstituents,unattestedinearlyspontaneousspeech.OuranalysisalsodoesnotincludethepositionModinthelowerpartoftheleft-periphery,dedicatedtoattractinghighlightedadverbials.

Draft–17.2.21

4

Inthistime-window,soonafterage2,children'sfirstformsofadult-likeembeddingaredocumented,perhapsprecededbyashortpreparatorystageinwhichsequencesofclausesresembleamatrix/embeddedrelationwithoutanovertcomplementizers(eg."doyousee"[that]"heisplaying").This"preconjunctionalstage"(Penner&Mueller,1992)hasbeenoccasionallyreportedacrosslanguages(Hebrew,Armon-Lotem1997;Italian,CiprianiBottariChilosiPfanner1998;Greek,Mastropavlu&Tsimpli2011).However,thestatusoftheseconstructionsremainselusiveandtheyarealsorapidlyfollowedbytheappearanceofovertcomplementizers.Westartfromhere,focusingonthefirstemergenceofthefull-fledgedformsofembedding,introducedbyovertparticles.Movingonthisfirmerground,weusedasystematicsemi-automatedsearchtoisolateallsubordinateclausesinthespontaneousspeechof11Italian-speakingchildren,sotoestablishthetiminginwhichthedifferenttypesofembeddingappear.LookingatEnglish,Bloometal.(1980)andBowerman(1979)haveobservedthatcomplementclausesseemtoprecedeadverbialandrelativeclauses.However,theinverseorderhasbeenreportedinSwissGermanbyPenner(1995)andinHebrewbyArmon-Lotem(2005).Ithastobenoticed,however,thatifanadvantageforrelativeclausesexists,itdoesnotlastlong.Armon-Lotem,forexample,reportedthefirstoccurrenceofrelativesintheLiorcorpusat2;1followedbycomplementclausesonlyamonthlaterat2;2.Ingeneral,whentheageoffirst-occurrenceofthedifferenttypesofsubordinationisconsidered,previousstudiesreportamixedpattern,withverybrieftime-differencesthatgoinonedirectionortheother.AsforItalian,therearenoavailabledatasupportingadifferentcourseofacquisitionforthetwotypesofembedding.Interestingly,bothrelativesandcomplementclausesareintroducedbythefinitecomplementizerche.Thus,documentingtheuseofthisparticlecouldaddsomeadditionalevidenceinfavour–oragainst–theideathatthetwoconstructionsdevelopatadifferentpace.Wealsoextendthecorpusanalysisinaseconddirection,lookingatsentenceswithleft-dislocatedconstituentsthatoccupythespecifierofTopandtheQ/FocprojectionsintheadultCP-System,representedin(5).Toillustrate,considerthepositionofthedirectobject"thedocumentary"inthefollowingsentences.In(6),asimpledeclarativesentence,theobjectoccupiesitscanonicalpost-verbalposition:(6)Iragazziguardanoildocumentario SVOtheboyswatch.3plthedocumentary"theboyswatchthedocumentary"Fromitsbaseposition,thedirectobjectcouldbemovedtotheQ/Focprojection,asinwh-questions(7)orinconstructionsexpressingcorrectivefocus(8):(7)Cosaguardanoiragazzi? OQVSWhatwatch.3pltheboys"Whatdotheboyswatch?"(8)ILDOCUMENTARIOguardanoiragazzi(nonilfilm) OFocVSthedocumentarywatch.3pltheboys(notthemovie)"theboyswatchthedocumentary"(notthemovie)

Draft–17.2.21

5

AfurtherpossibilityistodislocatethedirectobjecttoaTopicposition,inthiscasealsoaccompanyingitwithaco-referringclitic(9)(9)Ildocumentariologuardanoiragazzi OTopclVSthedocumentaryitwatch.3pltheboys"theboyswatchthedocumentary"Sincethedifferentmovementtypesillustratedin(7-8)and(9)triggerdifferentsyntacticpositions,multiplemovementstotheleft-peripheryarealsopossible.Forexample,sentences(10)and(11)areperfectlygrammaticalinItalian:inboth,asubjectdislocatedinatopicpositionprecedesthedirectobjectinQ/FocP,regardlessofwhetherthislatterisawh-pronounora(correctively)focusedDP:(10)iragazzi,cosaguardano? STopOQVtheboyswhatwatch.3pl"whatdotheboyswatch?"(11)iragazziILDOCUMENTARIOguardano(nonilfilm) STopOFOCVtheboysthedocumentarywatch.3pl(notthemovie)"theboyswatchthedocumentary"(notthemovie)Fromthepointofviewoflanguageacquisition,sentenceslike(10)or(11)wouldbeveryinformativeonthestructureoftheearlyCP.Infact,ifattested,theywouldconstitutethemostdirectevidenceinfavouroftheemergenceofalayeredCP.Noexampleofthekindof(10)and(11)haseverbeenreportedforItalian,buttheimportanceoftheseconstructionswasalreadynoticedinSoares(2006)inhercorpusstudyonEuropeanPortuguese.Lookingatthespontaneousproductionofthreechildren,shefoundtheoccurrenceofsomesentencessimilarto(10),inwhichaleft-dislocatedtopicprecededthewh-constituent.Althoughthemajorityoftheseexampleswerefoundinthespeechofchildrenalreadyintheirfourthyear,afewwerealsofoundinyoungerchildrenbetween1;10and2;2.Todate,however,theexamplesreportedinSoaresarestillanisolatedcaseand,tothebestofourknowledge,otherexamplesofmultipleA'-movementsintheearlyleft-peripheryhavenotbeenreportedelsewhereinotherRomancevarieties.Forwhatconcernsconstructionsofthekindof(11)withapre-focaltopic,tothebestofourknowledge,theyareunattestedinearlyspontaneousproduction.ThesestructureshavebeenexperimentallyinvestigatedonlyinolderchildrenbyMoscatietal.(2016)andonlywithrespecttopossiblyambiguousstringswithtwosentence-initialnominalconstituents.Theinvestigationofconstructionslike(11)couldbehardlycarriedoutbylookingatthenaturalspontaneousproduction,sincetheuseoftheleft-peripheralfocuspositionishighlyrestrictedinStandardItaliananditisonlyusedinveryspecialcontexts,toexpresscorrectiveandmirativefocus(Bianchi,Bocci&Cruschina,2016).Inlightofthisconsideration,wedonotexpecttheconstructionsin(11)tobeattestedinanaturalproductioncorpusofyoungchildren.Wethereforewillfocusonexamplessimilarto(10),withawh-precededbyaleft-dislocatedtopic.Theyaremorelikelytooccurinspontaneousproduction,alsoconsideringthattheyhavebeenalreadyobservedinEuropeanPortuguese.WewillthentrytostrengthenandpossiblyextendtoItaliantheinitialobservationmadebySoares.

Draft–17.2.21

6

Thisissueofmovementintotheleft-peripheryalsointertwineswithotherconsiderationsaboutcorecasesofwh-movement.FollowingRizzi(1996,1997),Wh-movementinmatrixclausesneedstosatisfyanadditionalrequirementthatforcesalocalSpec-headrelationbetweenthewh-elementandtheinflectedverb,arequirementcalled“theWh-Criterion”inthereferencequoted(andtheQ-Criterioninlaterwork).Inthatapproach,thewh-elementcarryingtheQfeaturemustenterintoaSpec-headrelationwithaverbalheadsharingthesamefeature.ThisenforcesItoCmovementinquestions.Thisrequirementhastheconsequencethatanovertsubjectcannotintervenebetweenthewh-elementandtheinflectedverb,asshownby(12):itmustbepost-verbalasin(13)ortopicalized,asinthepreviousexamplein(10)(12)*Cosairagazzivedono? OQSVwhattheboyswatch(13)Cosavedonoiragazzi? OQVSwhatwatchtheboys"Whatdotheboyswatch?"Lookingatacquisition,thequestionarisesofwhetherchildrenadheretotheQ-Criterionfromearlyon,excludingthepresenceofaninterveningconstituentingeneral,andthesubjectinparticular,betweenthewh-andthefiniteverb/auxiliary.Inthisrespect,afurtherimportantrefinementhastobemade,sincenotallWh-elementsendupinthepositionrequiringItoCmovement.Otherelements,likePerché(Why)inmatrixclauses,arebasegeneratedinSpec/IntP,aheadwhichpresumablyisinherentlyendowedwiththefeature+Q,hencethesatisfactionoftheQ-Criteriondoesnotrequiremovementoftheinflectedverb,sothatthesubject(orothermaterial)canoccurinbetween(seeRizzi2001andmuchsubsequentworkforanalysisofthispattern,andThornton2008forevidencethatsomechildrenacquiringEnglishgothroughan“Italian”stage,inthisrespect,notrequiringinversionwithwhyquestions).Thegrammaticalityofboth(14)and(15)withandwithoutapreverbalsubjectillustratesthispoint:(14)Perchèiragazzipartonocosìpresto? whySVwhytheboysleavesoearly"Whydotheboysleavesoearly?"(15)Perchèpartonocosìprestoiragazzi? whyVSwhyleavesoearlytheboys"Whydotheboysleavesoearly?"

Anasymmetrybetween(12-13)and(14-15)hasbeenalreadydocumentedinGuasti(2000)byanalysingthetranscriptionof5Italian-speakingchildren.Wewillextendheretheobservationtoalargercorpus,including6otherchildren(Camilla,Rosa,Francesco,Elisa,GregorioandMarco)andlookforpotentialviolationstotheQ-Criterion.Theabsenceoftheungrammaticalconstructionin(13),togetherwiththealternationin(14-15)wouldbetellingabouttheearlyleft-periphery:ifchildrenatage2alreadyhypothesizeditsarticulatedstructurewithdistinctpositionsforIntPand

Draft–17.2.21

7

Q/FocP(wewillcontinuetousethislabeltorefertothelandingsiteofregularwh-movement),wepredictthattheywillrequireinversion,butinaselectivemanner:inversionwillbeonlyfoundforwh-constituentsthatsitsinQ/Foc,butnotwithwhyquestions.2.ACorpusstudyIntheprevioussections,weintroducedaseriesofissueswhoseinvestigationcouldshedsomelightnotonlyonthearticulationoftheCP-SysteminyoungspeakersofItalian,butalsomoreingeneralonthedevelopmentofthehigherfunctionalspineoftheclauses.Webelievethatsomeofthesequestionscanbeaddressedthroughasystematicanalysisofspontaneousproductions,onthebasisofthecorpusresourcescurrentlyavailable. Aswepointedoutintheintroduction,afirstdescriptionoftheearlyCPmustincludeparticlesthatareusedtoconveyoneofitsprimaryfunctions:clausalembedding.Summingupthepreviousdiscussion,acorpusanalysiscouldhelpusansweringthetwofollowingquestions:(16) a.Whenarevariouscomplementizerparticlesattestedinearlyproduction?In

particular,isthereanydevelopmentalsequenceintheappearanceofche,seanddiinItalian?

b.Ifthesamecomplementizerformcanintroducedifferenttypesof

subordination(e.g.relativesandcomplementclauses),isthereanystableorderingintheirsequenceofappearance?

Turninginsteadtostructuresthatwouldrequiremovementofconstituentsintoleft-peripheralpositions,theycouldaddevidenceinfavourofalayeredCP-system.Inparticular,wewilllookatwhethertheearlyCPprovidesasyntacticspacewithmorethanoneposition.Ifthisisthecase,weexpectnotonlythatmultipledislocationsarepossible,butalsothatI-to-Cverbmovementwillobeythespecificsyntacticrequirementsenforcedbydifferentfunctionalprojections.Thiscanbesummedupintwoadditionalresearchquestions:(17) a.Aresentenceswithmultiplemovements(e.g.topic+Wh-movement),allowed

bythecomplexCP-spaceofadultItalian,alsoattestedinearlyproductions? b.DoesWh-movementcomplywiththesamerequirementsactiveintheadult

grammar,resultingintheasymmetryininversionbetweenwhyandotherwh-elements?

Thesequestionswillbeframedwithinthefunctionalhierarchyin(5)thatdescribestheleft-peripheryofthetargetgrammar2.Clearly,answeringthequestionsin(16)and(17)wouldhaveimplicationsforexistingtheoriesofclausaldevelopment.Discussingthemisoutsidethepurposeofthispaper,whichisessentiallydescriptive.Wewillonly

2Inadultspeakerstherepresentationin(5)isrevealedbysequencesofcontrastsingrammaticality,carefullyassembled.Althoughjudgmentsaresharp,asintheexampleswereportedin(2-4),sentencesofthiskindareinfrequentalsoinadultproduction.Therefore,adirectcomparisonbetweentheadultstructureuncoveredbytargetgrammaticalityjudgmentsandtheinitialstructurehypothesizedbychildrenwouldnecessarilyrequireacontrolledexperimentalsetup.

Draft–17.2.21

8

limitthediscussion,attheveryendofthepaper,toaveryrecentproposalpresentedinFriedmann,Belletti&Rizzi(2020)whosemaininnovationwithrespecttotheprecursorsisthecrucialuseofthecartographicrepresentationin(5).Inordertoanswertothequestionsin(16)and(17),weconductedanewcorpusstudylookingatthetranscriptionsofthespontaneousproductionsof11Italian-speakingchildrenavailableonCHILDES(MacWhinney2000)foratotalof128files.Overall,ourcorpuscoversatimespanthatstretchesfrom1;4(Francesco)to3;4(Camilla).Dependingonthenumberoffilesandtheageofthechild,theabsolutesizevariesconsiderablyfromonecorpustotheother.AgeneralsummaryofthepropertiesoftheindividualcorporaisprovidedinTable1.Thesummaryincludesthesource,thenameofthechild,theageofthechildinthefirstandinthelastfile,thetotalnumberoffilesandthesizeofeachcorpuscalculatedintermsofchildutterances.

Table1.Generalsummaryofthecorpora.Corpus Child’sname Begin End #offiles Size(*CHI)Antelmi Camilla 2;2,06 3;4,09 7 1892Calambrone Diana 1;8,05 2;6,13 9 2196Calambrone Guglielmo 2;2,1 2;11,14 9 2209Calambrone Martina 1;7,18 2;7,15 16 4216Calambrone Raffaello 1;7,7 2;11,20 17 3750Calambrone Rosa 1;7,13 3;3,23 21 7409Calambrone Viola 1;11,16 2;10,3 10 2667Roma Francesco 1;4,03 1;8,17 10 1138Tonelli Elisa 1;10,04 2;1,23 8 1090Tonelli Gregorio 1;7,17 2;0,29 8 1121Tonelli Marco 1;5,04 2;5,24 19 6787

Thecorpusanalysiswasperformedalternatingautomaticandmanualsearchesinordertoaddresstheempiricalquestionspresentedin(16)and(17).Ourdepartingpointwillbetolookforthespontaneousproductionofthethreedifferentparticlesche,diandse.Inthenextsection,wewillconsiderthemseparately,alsolookingatthedifferenttypesofembeddingintroducedbyche.Resultsrelativeoftheageoffirstoccurrenceofeachparticlewillthenbejoinedtogetherinsection2.4,sotoprovideacomparativeoverviewonthedevelopmentalcourseofthethreeparticles.Insection3,wewillthenturntotheanalysisofmovementconstructions,lookingforexamplesofmultiplemovementsintheleft-peripheryandalsoforpotentialviolationstotheQ-Criterion.2.1.ComplementizerparticlesinspontaneousproductionsWewillfirstconsiderchildren'sproductionoftheparticlesche,diandsethatconstitutethebackboneoftheCP-system.Ourfirststepwastoisolatechildren’suseofeachoftheseparticlesthroughanautomatedsearchusingthekwalfunctiononCLAN.Then,wemanuallywentthroughtheresultsandisolatedalltheoccurrencesinwhichche,di,secouldbeunambiguouslyclassifiedasacomplementizerparticle.Thisallowedustoexcludeotherirrelevantforms,forexamplethehomophonousprepositiondiandthe3rdpersonreflexivepronounse.Finally,wefurtheranalysedtheresultsinordertoconsiderthetypeofembeddingintroducedbythedifferentparticles.Wewillpresent

Draft–17.2.21

9

theresultsbyconsideringeachparticleinturn,beginningwiththefinitecomplementizerche.2.1.1.FirstusesoftheparticlecheTheparticlecheinItalianisaversatilefunctionalheadperformingdifferentrolesandoccurringindifferentpositionsinthemapoftheleft-periphery(Rizzi2013).Itscorefunctionmaybeidentifiedintheexpressionofdeclarativeforceinembeddeddeclarativeclauses,butitalsomarkstheCP-systemofsubjectandobjectrelatives,andofotherkindsofmainandembeddedclauses.Giventheversatilityoftheparticle,wethinkitmakessensetostudytheacquisitionofitscoreuseinthecontextoftheotherearlyuses.Ourautomaticsearchrevealed508occurrencesofcheinchildren’sspeech.Ofthose,106occurrenceswereclassifiedasnot-clear.Forwhatconcernstheremaining402occurrences,wereporttheiroveralldistributionovertime.Inordertocapturethegenerallongitudinaltrend,wefirstdividedthetime-windowcoveredbythe128filesinourcorpusin1-monthintervals.Then,foreachinterval,wecountedthetotalnumberofcheproducedbyeachchild,excludingunclearcases.Thisprocedurewillbethesamealsofortheotherparticlesanalysedlater.ResultsaresummarizedinTable2,inwhichgreycellsindicatethemonthsforwhichatleastonefileisavailable.Greycellsprovideaquickvisualindicationabouttheperiodcoveredbythetranscriptionsforeachchild:forexample,Francesco'srecordingsstartveryearly:thefirstgreycellisat16months.Histranscriptionsalsoendbeforetheothers,withthelastgreycellincorrespondenceof20months.Whenmultiplerecordingsaretakenwithinthesamemonth,wecollapsedthefilestogetherandreportthemwithinasinglecell.Table2.Longitudinalproductionofcheinchildren.Darkercellindicatedmonthsinwhichthereisatleastonefile.Whiteemptycellsindicatedmonthslackinganydatapoint.Non-Clearcasesareexcluded.Ageinmonths

ChildrenTotal

Camilla Diana Elisa Franc. Greg. Gugl. Marco Mart. Raff. Rosa Viola16 0 017 0 0 018 0 0 019 0 0 0 0 0 1 120 0 0 0 0 0 021 1 2 1 0 0 422 2 9 0 1 0 0 0 1323 0 19 1 0 1 1 0 2224 8 2 5 0 0 0 1525 3 30 4 2 0 0 0 3926 5 4 12 1 2227 3 6 0 928 9 0 2 0 30 1 4229 12 1 2 0 1 6 2230 13 29 2 1 4531 5 2 0 0 0 732 4 1 5

Draft–17.2.21

10

33 7 8 3 1 1934 1 2 3 635 15 20 8 29 7236 3 337 11 2 1338 39 10 1040 34 34

tot 94 54 62 0 3 50 13 15 18 82 11 402Lookingattheproductionoftheparticleche,Table2showsthatallchildren,withthesoleexceptionofFrancesco,useit.TheabsenceofcheinFrancesco’stranscriptionismostlikelyduetothefactthathisrecordingsendmuchearlierthantheothers.Forwhatconcernstheremainingchildren,thetableshowsthatintheinitialperiod,theonebetween16-20months,theoccurrencesofchearescarce,withonlyasingleoccurrenceover16files,foundinRosa'stranscriptions.Frommonths21to26,instead,mostchildrenstartproducingtheparticleandbymonth28itisattestedinthespeechofallchildren,withtheexclusionofFrancescoforthereasonsalreadydiscussed.Itisalsoworthnoticingthatmostofthetranscriptionsendatmonth35,withthesoleexceptionofRosaandCamilla.Therefore,datainthetimeinterval36-40monthsbecamemorescattered,asshownbythepaucityofthegreycells.TofurtherfacilitatethevisualinspectionontheindividualproductionoftheparticlechewegraphicallysummarizedinFigure1thelongitudinaltrendforeachchild,excludingFrancesco.Fromthefigure,itemergesquiteclearlythatataroundtheonsetofthesecondyearmostchildrenstartusingthisparticle.Fluctuationsintheabsolutenumberofparticlesproduced,mostevidentinthetwopeaksobservableinRosa'stranscriptions,maydependonthesizeofthesinglerecordingsessionsandonthegranularityofthesampling,thatmayvaryfromchildtochildandfromonemonthtotheother.

Draft–17.2.21

11

Figure1.Numberofparticles“che”montlyattestedinspontaneousproductionforeachchildinthecorpus.TheX-axisreportstheageinmonths,greyareasrepresenttheperiodcoveredbyindividualtranscriptions.

05101520253035

15 20 25 30 35 40

Camilla

05101520253035

15 20 25 30 35 40

Diana

05101520253035

15 20 25 30 35 40

Elisa

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

15 20 25 30 35 40

Gregorio

05101520253035

15 20 25 30 35 40

Guglielmo

05101520253035

15 20 25 30 35 40

Marco

05101520253035

15 20 25 30 35 40

Martina

05101520253035

15 20 25 30 35 40

Raffaello

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

15 20 25 30 35 40

Rosa

05101520253035

15 20 25 30 35 40

Viola

Draft–17.2.21

12

Thefactthatataroundtheirsecondyearchildrenstarttousetheparticlechebecomealsoevidentifwetrytonormalizethecountinfunctionofthetotalsizeofthetranscriptionsavailableforeachmonth,andaggregatedataofallchildrentogether.Theaggregatelongitudinalratioche/numberofwordsisplottedinFigure2.Althoughfluctuationsduetotheavailablesamplesarestillthere,evidentinthe"gap"atmonth38,theplotalsoindicatesthatchebecomesincreasinglyfrequentbetweenmonth21and26,wherethecorpusreachesitsmaximaldensity.

Figure2.Ratiooftheparticlecheoverthetotalnumberofwordsutteredpermonth.Summarizingtheresultsofthispreliminaryoverview,itseemsthatbythemiddleoftheirsecondyearItalianchildrenhavealreadybeguntoproducethecomplementizerche,aprerequisitefortheemergenceofadult-likeformsofembedding.Sincethisparticlemayservetoanumberofsyntacticfunctions,notallrelatedtosubordination,amorefine-grainedanalysisisneeded.Wethenwentthrougheachsingleinstanceanddetermineditssyntacticfunction,sotocomparetheincidenceofeachgrammaticalstructureandtheageoftheirfirstappearance.2.1.2.ClausalembeddingintroducedbythefinitecomplementizercheAsasecondstep,wemanuallyanalysedandclassifiedeachinstanceofche.Excludingthe106unclearcases,alltheremaining402werelabelledaccordingto8categories.Wewillbrieflyillustratethemin(18)below,usingsomerealexamplesfoundinourcorpus.(18) a.ObjectrelativeVoglioilgiocochehacompratoilpapà (Camilla2;09) wantthetoythathasboughtthedaddy "Iwantthetoythatdaddybought"

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

0,8

1

1,2

1,4

1,6

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

(Che/#ofwords)*100

Draft–17.2.21

13

b.Subjectrelative Ibimbichesonobagnati (Elisa1;11) thekidsthatarewet "Thekidsthatarewet" c.Complementclause losaichetihocompratounregalo (Elisa2;1)itknowthatto.youhaveboughtapresent "YouknowthatIboughtyouapresent" d.Causal/consecutiveclause Melomettiinboccachealtrimentibisognatagliarelapancia(Elisa2;1.20) to.meitputinmouththatotherwiseneedcutthebelly "Youputitinmymouth,otherwiseweneedtocutthebelly" e.Cleft E'ilfilochetira (Guglielmo2;7) isthethreadthatpulls "Itisthethreadthatpulls" f.Polarexclamative Sìchelosai (Camilla2;6)yesthatitknow "Yes,youknowit!" g.Exclamative Chebella! (Diana2;0)thatnice"Sonice!" h.Wh-InterrogativeChesono? (Guglielmo2;7) whatare "Whatarethey?" Considerfirsttheexamplesin18(a-d).Intheseconstructionsthecheparticleclearlyintroducesasubordinateclause:subjectorobjectrelatives(18a-b),acomplementclause(18c)oranadjunctintheformofacausal/consecutiveclause(18d).Thecategoriesin18(e-h)havebeeninsteadusedtoclassifyotherusesofchethatcannotbeimmediatelyreducedtoclausalembedding.Sentence(18e)istheonlycleftfoundinourcorpus,sothat,whetherornotweconsidercleftsasillustratingaspecialcaseofsubordination,thissingleexamplewillnothaveanimpactonthegeneralresult.(18f)and(18g)illustratetwodifferentcasesofexclamatives,wheretheparticlechecanbeeitherprecededbyapolarelement(si'yes'orno)asin(18f)orbeinsentence-initialpositionasin(18g).ThetwocasesobviouslydifferinthatcheclearlyisaC-particlein(18f),whereasitisaDP-internalwh-specifieroftheexclamativephrasein(18g).Althoughabi-clausalanalysisisplausibleforsomeoftheconstructionsin(18e-f)(cleft:Belletti2015;polarexclamatives,Poletto&Zanuttini1993),theyshouldbekeptseparatefromtheveryclearcasesofmatrix/embeddedsubordinationgivenin

Draft–17.2.21

14

(18a-d).Finally,wealsoisolatedsentencesinwhichcheisequivalenttochecosaexclamatives,cheisaDP-internalspecifier,notaheadoftheclausalspine.ThevarioususesofcheattestedforeachchildarereportedinTable3.Lookingattheaggregateddata,afirstobservationthatcanbemadeisthatallchildreninourcorpususechetointroducesubordinateclauses,withthesoleexceptionsofFrancescoandGregorio,whosetranscriptionsendtooearly,andViola.Ofthesesubordinateclauses,in12.9%ofcasescheisusedwithembeddedcomplementclauses.Subjectandobjectrelativescoverinsteadrespectively21.0%and5.0%,withanadditional10.9%ofcausal/consecutiveadjunctclauses.Table3.Numberofoccurrencesofcheforeachsyntacticcategoryperchildandtheiraggregatedproportionontotal.Child SR OR Compl. Causal Cleft PolarExcl. Excl. wh-int TotCamilla 29 8 17 11 0 11 5 13 94Diana 7 4 5 7 0 7 13 11 54Elisa 10 2 15 18 0 6 10 1 63Francesco 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Gregorio 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3Guglielmo 14 1 11 1 1 0 5 17 50Marco 5 1 1 0 0 0 2 4 13Martina 2 0 0 5 0 1 5 2 15Raffaello 11 2 1 0 0 0 1 3 18Rosa 7 2 2 2 0 0 2 67 82Viola 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 3 11Total 85 20 52 44 1 25 54 121 402%onTotal 21.0 5.0 12.9 10.9 0.2 6.2 13.4 30.1

Thisdistributionconfirmsthatinabouthalfofthecases,childrenusetheparticlechetointroduceafinitesubordinateclause.Therefore,intheirthirdyearoflife,Italianchildrenalreadymakeuseofclausalembedding,correctlyintroducingthembymeansofthefinitecomplementizerche.Wearenowinthepositiontoaddressoneofourinitialquestions:isthereanyimportantdifferenceinthetimeofappearanceofrelativeclauses(18a-b)withrespecttocomplementclauses(18c-d)?Inordertoanswerit,wefurtherexaminedthetranscriptionslookingforthefirstoccurrenceofeachtypeofembedding.ResultsarereportedinTable4,withtheageoffirstappearanceindicatedinmonths.

Draft–17.2.21

15

Table4.Firstoccurrenceofcheindicatedinmonths,forthevarioussentencetypes.Child Type of Subordination Pattern

SR OR complement causal Diana 22 29 29 25

A. Rel > Complement Guglielmo 31 26 34 35 Marco 24 24 25 - Rosa 36 33 39 39 Camilla 29 28 28 -

B. Rel = Complement Raffaello 32 33 32 - Martina 27 - - 27 Elisa 23 25 22 - C. Complement > Rel Francesco - - - -

n.a. Gregorio - - - - Viola - - - - Bylookingatthefirstoccurrencesofthedifferenttypesofsubordinateclauses,Table4revealsthatchildrendonotconformtoasinglehomogeneouspattern.Fourchildren,namelyDiana,Guglielmo,Marco,Rosa,producedtheirfirstrelativeclausebeforeacomplement/causalclause.Intwoofthem,GuglielmoandRosa,anobjectrelativewasthefirsttypeofembedding.Theoppositepattern,withacomplementclausefoundbeforethefirstrelative,wasattestedinthetranscriptionsofonechild,Elisa.Intheotherthreechildren,Camilla,RaffaelloandMartina,thetwotypesofembeddingappearedatthesametime.Theremainingchildrendidnotproduceanysubordinateclauseintheavailabletime-window,thereforetheydonotprovideanydatapoint.Inconclusion,thereseemstobenouniformityacrosschildrenintheorderoffirstappearanceandonlyaslightadvantageofrelativesovercomplementclausescanbeobservedinasubsetofthetranscriptions.Thetwotypesofembeddingseemtoblossomnearlytogether,suggestingthattheycouldbothappearassoonasthetopmostfunctionalprojection,inthiscaseForceP,becomesavailable.Theweakadvantageofrelativescouldbeduetotheirmorefreedistribution,sincetheirCPneedsnottoencodegrammaticaltraitsspecifiedbytheembeddingmatrixverb,assuggestedinPenner(1995).2.2.theparticlediWenowturntothecomplementizerdithatoccupiesthelowestprojectionwithintheCP-system.ThisparticleisatthenexusbetweentheCP-andtheIP-systemanditintroducesanon-finitecontrolclause.Inordertoisolateit,weadoptedthesameprocedureusedwithche:first,werananautomaticsearchusingthekwalcommandinCLANandthenwemanuallywentthroughtheoccurrencestoexcludethehomophonousprepositiondi.Oursearchrevealedthattheuseofdiismuchmorelimitedthanche,afactthatisnotsurprisinggiventhatitsdistributionissignificantlymorerestricted,asitintroducesonlycertainnon-finitecontrolclauses.19instanceswerefoundover128files,andtheywereallconfinedtothetranscriptionsof5children:Camilla,Diana,Elisa,GuglielmoandMarco.Wereportafewexamplesbelow:(19) a.Diceasorellinadisaltaresull'elefante (Camilla2;9) saytolittle-sistertojumpon-theelephant "Hesaystothelittlesistertojumpontheelephant"

Draft–17.2.21

16

b.T'hodettodinodigiocare (Diana2;6) to-youhavesaidtonotoplay "Isaidyounottoplay" c.Quandohofinitodimangiare (Elisa2;1) whenhavefinishtoeat "WhenIfinisheating" d.Diceilpapàdimettereperterra (Marco2;1) saythedaddytolayonground "Daddysaystolayitontheground"Again,todocumentthelongitudinaltrend,wedividedthetemporalcontinuuminto1-monthintervalsandreporttheoccurrencesforeachchildinTable5below.Ageinmonths

Childrentot.

Camilla Diana Elisa Franc. Gregorio Gugl. Marco Martina Raff. Rosa Viola16 0 0 17 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 5 26 0 0 0 0 0 27 0 0 0 0 28 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 2 0 0 2 31 1 0 0 0 0 1 32 0 0 0 33 3 0 0 0 3 34 0 0 0 0 35 2 0 0 0 2 36 0 0 37 2 0 2 38 0 39 0 0 40 2 2

tot 10 2 4 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 19 Table5.Longitudinalproductionofthenon-finitecomplementizerdiinchildren.Darkercellindicatedmonthsinwhichthereisatleastonefile.Whiteemptycellsindicatedmonthslackinganydatapoint.Non-Clearcasesareexcluded.

Draft–17.2.21

17

Theresultsofthissearchshowthattheoccurrencesofdiarerarerifcomparedwiththeearlyoccurrencesofche.Atthesametime,theyalsoshowthatsomechildrenalreadyusenon-finitecontrolclausesintroducedbydiaround,orshortlyafter,theirsecondbirthdayasweobservedfortheusefinitesubordination.2.3.TheparticleseThethirdcomplementizerweconsideredistheparticleseusedtointroduceindirectyes/noquestionsandconditionalclauses.Aswiththeotherparticlescheanddi,werananautomatedsearchinCLANandthenwelookedovertheresultstomanuallyexcludeoccurrencesofpronominalse.Intotal,oursearchproduced40instancesofseusedasacomplementizer.15othercaseswereexcluded,sincetheywereunclear.Again,thelongitudinalprospectofindividualproductionsisrenderedinTable6.Table6.Longitudinalproductionofthecomplementizerseinchildren.Darkercellindicatedmonthsinwhichthereisatleastonefile.Whiteemptycellsindicatedmonthslackinganydatapoint.Non-Clearcasesareexcluded.Ageinmonths

Childrentotal

Camilla Diana Elisa Franc. Greg. Gugl. Marco Mart. Raff. Rosa Viola16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 1 124 25 1 1 2 426 1 127 28 2 229 30 0 7 731 3 332 33 0 34 1 1 235 2 1 9 1 1336 37 2 238 39 1 140 4 4

tot 9 7 2 0 0 5 1 0 9 5 2 40Thetableaboveshowsthatthemajorityofchildrenstartusingtheparticlesewithinthetime-windowcoveredbythetranscriptions.TheusualexceptionswereFrancescoandGregoriobecauseoftheirshorterandearlierrecordings,andMartina.Theearliest

Draft–17.2.21

18

occurrenceofseisfoundinElisa'stranscriptions,at23months.Notably,intheshorttime-windowbetween22and23months,Elisaalreadypresentsthewholearrayofcomplementizer'sparticle,allappearingtogetheraroundthesametime.Intheotherchildren,thisparticleappearsbeforethethirdyear:infact,before35months,theyallhaveproducedatleastoneinstanceofse.Wereportbelowafewexamples,showingtheearlyuseofseintroducingdifferenttypesofsubordinateclauses,namelyembeddedinterrogativesandconditionals. (20) a.EmbeddedInterrogative Vediamosec'è (Camilla3;4) lookifthereis "Let'slookifthereis" b.EmbeddedConditionals Setelomettiinbocca,affoghi (Guglielmo2;10) ifto.youitputinmouthchoke "Ifyouputitinyoumouth,you'llchoke" c.NegativeConditionals‘seno’ Perchèsenononvanno. (Raffaello2;11) becauseifnonotgo "Otherwisetheywon'tgo"Wefound4embeddedinterrogatives(20a),19conditionals(20b)and17conditionalexpressionsintheformof"seno"(20c).Atthispoint,havingdeterminedtheonsetofeachparticle,wecanjointogethertheresultssotodrawafirstsketchofthedevelopmentoftheCP-Systemthroughtheappearanceoftheheadsoffunctionalprojectionsthatpermitclausalembedding.2.4.Ageneraloverview:comparingthefirstusesofthecomplementizerparticles.Puttingpreviousresultstogether,wecantrytoaddressnowourfirstquestion,concerningthetimingwhentheparticlesche,seanddi,thatmarkthefundamentalskeletonoftheCP,areattestedinchildren'sspontaneousspeech.Asapreliminaryobservation,oursearchrevealedthatbetweenage2and3allCP-particlesarealreadyattestedinmanyofthetranscriptions:fivechildrenusethewholearrayoftheItaliancomplementizerstointroduceclausalembedding.Moreover,inallchildren,theirproductionsconformtotheadultgrammar.Nomisuseofche,seordiwasobserved.Turningnowtothedevelopmentofeachparticleandtheirfirstdocumentedoccurrences,themorelimiteddistributionoftheparticlesseanddiintheadultgrammarhastobeconsidered.Thesetwoparticlesalsooccurlessoftenthanthecomplementizercheinchildren'sproductions.Therefore,beinglessfrequent,theyarealsomorelikelytoslipthroughthemeshofasparsesampling.Conversely,thefirstoccurrencesofchehaveahigherprobabilitytobecaptured.Onthebasisofmerelyfrequency-basedconsiderationsalone,wecouldthenexpectthatchewillemergeearlierinthecorpusanalysis,sinceacomparisonbetweenthefirstattestationofthe

Draft–17.2.21

19

threecomplementizersisstronglybiasedinfavourofche.Thepatternthatwefound,comparingandjoiningtogethertheresultspresentedinsections3.1,3.2.and3.3isnotentirelyconsistentwiththisexpectation.Wevisuallyillustrateitbyreportinginfigure5theageoffirstuseofeachparticle.Inthecaseofche,weonlyreportoccurrencesinwhichitwasusedtointroduceasubordinatestructure.Figure5showsthatonlyinthecasesofDiana,MartinaandRaffaellotheparticlecheclearlyprecedestheothertwoanditisattestedatleastafullmonthearlier:inDiana,thisparticleprecededtheothertwoofafewmonths;inMartina,itistheonlyoneattested;inRaffaelloitappearswellbeforese,whilediisstillabsent.Thistrend,however,isnotpredominantacrossthetranscriptionsinourcorpus.Figure5showsthatinthemajorityofchildrentheparticlecheeitherappearsatalmostthesametimeofoneorboththeothertwoparticles(Elisa,Marco,Guglielmo,Rosa)orevenlaterasinthecaseofCamillaandViola(itisstillabsentinthislatterchild).Thus,despitethehigheroverallfrequencyofche,itsadvantageintermsofitsfirstoccurrenceisratherweakandinfourchildren,Elisa,Marco,CamillaandGuglielmo,thethreeparticlesappearataroundthesametime.InthecaseofElisa,theyallappearbeforethesecondyearandallwithinaone-monthinterval,between22and23months.InElisa'sgrammar,theCP-Systemthusstabilizesveryearly.Withinthemarginsofindividualvariations,thesamealsohappensinMarco,CamillaandGuglielmo,wherewestillobservetheappearanceofthethreeparticlesinashorttime-interval.RaffaelloandRosadonotshowanyattestedoccurrenceofdi,buthavecheandseappearinginrapidsequence.

Figure5.Firstuseofche,seanddiinthetranscriptionsofthe9childrenwithdataavailablealsoafter24months.y-axisrepresentstheageinmonths.Thegeneralconsiderationthatourdatasuggestisthatthetemporaladvantageofcheovertheothertwoparticlesisnotgeneralized.ThisisconsistentwiththeconclusionarrivedatinFriedmannetal.(2020)ontheacquisitionofmodernHebrew,where

15

20

25

30

35

40

Elisa Diana Marco Camilla Martina Guglielmo Raffaello Rosa Viola

Age of first use of the tree complementizer particles

che se di

Draft–17.2.21

20

differenttypesofclausalembeddingareattestedatonce.Speculatingonthisobservation,itisthenpossiblethatallformsofclausalembeddingcouldberelatedtotheemergenceofasingleproperty.Inparticular,theavailabilityofthetopmostclausalprojection,ForceP,couldprovidethesparktothesurgeofembeddedclausesofdifferentkinds.AssumingthattheselectionoffiniteembeddedclausesiscategoriallyuniformandthatallverbsselectingafinitecomplementselectaForcePundersisterhood(Chomsky1965),allkindsoffiniteembeddingwouldthusneedtoestablishalinkwiththetopmostprojectionForceP,wheretheappropriategrammaticaltraitisencodedsotosatisfytherequirementsofthematrixembeddingverb.Theconsequenceofthisisthatalsoothertypesofembeddedclauses,astheconditionalclausesintroducedbyse,areonlypossibleifForcePisalreadyavailableintheearlyclausalstructure.Thus,wecanconsidertheappearanceofcheasasignalthatForcePcanbeprojected.Fromthismomenton,otherdifferenttypesofembeddedclauseswouldemergenceconcomitantly,orshortlyafter.Wethusexpectthatchecouldeitherslightlyprecedeseanddi(withfrequencybeingaconfoundingfactor),orthatthethreeparticlesbecomesimultaneouslyaccessibleupontheavailabilityofForceP.Wewillgobacktothisattheendofthegeneraldiscussion,whenwewilldiscussthehypothesisthattheclausalstructureundergoesastepwisematurationalgrowth3.Propertiesofmovementintheextendedleft-peripheryBesidethefunctionalprojectionsthatareheadedbyanovertparticle,theextendedCPofItalianalsofeaturesaseriesofsyntacticpositionsthatcanhostA'-movement.LookingintotheseconstructionscouldalsoprovideimportantindicationsontheearlystructureoftheCP-system.Inwhatfollows,wewillexamineindetailsomepropertiesoftheWh-questionsattestedinourcorpus.Thefirstpropertywewillconsiderischildren'scompliancewithobligatoryinversion,triggeredbyWh-elementsmovedintheQ/FocPposition.Asdiscussedearlier,thisoperationisneededinordertosatisfytheQ-Criterion,requiringalocalspec-headconfigurationbetweenthewh-andtheverbalhead.Onthecontrary,why-questionswherethewh-elementisbasegeneratedinIntP,donotrequireinversion(Rizzi2001).TheimportantconsequenceisthatinversionisactivatedornotdependingonthesyntacticpositionoftheWh-constituent.Therefore,ifchildrendistinguishbetweenpositionsrequiringinversion(Q/Foc)vspositionswhichdonot(IntP),weshouldfindadifferenceintherateofinversionbetweenwhy-questionsopposedtootherwh-questions.AsecondpropertythatcouldberevealingaboutthestratificationoftheearlyCP-systemisthepossibilityformultiplemovementstotheleft-periphery.ThestructureoftheItalianCPallowsforthesimultaneousoccurrenceofWh-andtopicmovement,duetotheavailabilityofTopicprojectionsaboveQ/FocP.Infact,sentenceswhereatopicprecedesawh-pronounareperfectlyacceptableintheadultgrammarofItalianandhavealsobeenreportedinthespontaneousproductionsofthethreeEuropeanPortuguesechildrenstudiedbySoares(eg.Ogato,ondeestá"thecat,whereisit?"ChildMarta,p.290.Soares2006).Inordertolookforinversionandmultiplemovements,wearenowprimarilyinterestedinsentencescontaininganinterrogativepronoun.Therefore,wefirstisolatedallthewh-sentencesinourcorpus.Todothis,werananautomatedsearch

Draft–17.2.21

21

lookingforWh-pronounsinItalian(cosa, chi, dove, quale, come, quando, quant-o,-e, -a, -i, perché)and955wh-elementswereisolatedwithinthetranscriptionsof10children3.Fromthose,124occurrenceswereunclearandexcluded.Then,alltheremaining831occurrencesweremanuallyexaminedandclassifiedsoastodistinguishbetweenfragments,matrixandembeddedquestions.Thislatterclassincludesbothi)fullbi-clausalconstructionswithasubordinateclauseembeddedunderanovertmatrixandalsoii)subordinateclausesutteredinisolation,withoutthematrix.Afurtherclasswasalsoincludedtoaccountfortheoccurrenceofwh'sintheirnon-interrogative,exclamativeuse.Weused6categoriesintotal,illustratingthemasusualbyreportingsomerealexamplesfromourcorpus.(21) a.MatrixInterrogativeChil'hafatto? (Elisa1;10) whoithasdone "Whodidit?" b.MatrixExclamative Mammamiacomebrucia! (Diana2;0) mothermyhowburns "OhmyGod,sohot!" c.Embedded Guardachic'è?(Diana2;5) lookwhothereis"Lookwho'shere?" d.Embeddedexclamative Mammaguardacomesonogrande! (Guglielmo2;10) momlookhowambig "Mom,lookhowbigIam!" e.Fragment Perché? (Marco2;1) "Why?" f.Other #ifigliolinihannolacoronacomequesti(Guglielmo2;10)thelittle-sonshavethecrownlikethese "Thelittlesonshaveacrown,likethese"Clearly,thematrixwh'sin(21a)arethemostinterestingconstructiontodeterminethesubject-verbinversionrate.Lookingatourcorpus,thesearchconfirmedthatmatrix

3WeexcludedthefilesfromCamilla.ThereasonisthatwerealizedthatinCamilla’stranscriptionsaccentedcharactersarenotcorrectlyencoded.Thus,forexample,the3rdpersonformoftheverb“tobe”èissubstitutedbythesymbol#,whichisusedintheCHATformattoindicatepauses.ThiswillbeproblematiconcewelookatthepositionoftheWh-elementinrelationtothefiniteverbortheauxiliary.

Draft–17.2.21

22

wh'sinterrogativesareveryfrequentatthisage,withthehighestnumerosityamongtheothercategoriesreportedinTable74.MatrixInterr.

MatrixExcl. Embedded EmbeddedExcl.

Fragment Other Total

378 11 184 3 237 18 831Table7.Totalnumberofwh-sentencesclassifiedforthecategoriesin(21).Inordertobeabletodeterminetherateofsubject-verbinversion,wealsoneededtodistinguishbetweenthedifferenttypesofwh-elements.Thus,wewentthroughall378matrixwh-questions,classifyingthemaccordingtothewhpronoun.Wealsokeptoccurrencesofcheandchiseparate,dependingontheirgrammaticalfunction.ResultsarereportedinTable8below.Child chi

whocosawhat

comehow

dovewhere

perchèwhy

quant-howmuch

quandowhen

tot

subj obj other obj. subj.

Diana 6 0 0 4 0 6 10 0 2 0 28Elisa 4 0 2 5 1 9 9 4 1 1 36Francesco

Gregorio

Guglielmo 13 9 1 5 15 40

83Marco 27 1 9 3 3 20 2

65

Martina 3 2

2

7Raffaello 7 2 3 19 2 2 5 2 3 45Rosa 86 1 4 7 5 7 1

111

Viola 3

3Tot. 149 3 6 52 14 30 66 51 3 4 378

Table8.Matrixwh-questions.Summaryforthedifferentwh-pronouns.Atthispoint,withthisgeneralpictureathand,wecanmoveonandconsiderinversionandmultiplemovementsinturn.3.1.InversionandtheQ-Criterion.Wewilllookfirstatchildren'ssensitivitytothedifferentpositionsoftheinterrogativepronoun,asitcouldbedeterminedbylookingattheinversionbetweenthesubjectandtheverb.Aswesaid,adistinctivegrammaticalpropertyofthewh-elementsinQ/Focisthattheyrequireanovertspec-headrelationbetweentheWh-andfiniteverb/auxiliary.Onthecontrary,whyquestionsbehavedifferentlysincetheydonot

4Matrixwh-appeargenerallyearlierthanfullbi-clausalsentences.Exampleslike(21c)areattestedonlyaftermatrixwh's.Forinstance,thefirstfullformofembeddedinterrogativeisfoundinElisa'scorpusat1;11,whenmatrixwh'swerealreadyattested:

i.Adessovediamocosafa(Elisa1;11)"nowlet'sseewhathedoes"

AsinthecaseoflowerCPheads,embeddedwh'swouldalsorequirealinktoForceP,sotosatisfyC-selection.

Draft–17.2.21

23

triggerinversion.Infact,otherconstituents-includingthesubject-,arefreetooccurbetweenwhyandtheverb.Inordertoanalysetherateofsubject-verbinversioninquestions,wefurtheranalysedoursetof378matrixwh-questions.Wefilteredoutsubjectwh-questionsand,fortheremainingones,weisolatedsentencesthatpresentedanovertsubject.Asaresult,weobtained69wh-interrogativesinwhichthesubjectcouldpotentiallyintervenebetweentheWh-andtheverb,inviolationoftheQ-Criterion.Then,foreachinterrogativepronoun,wecountedtheoccurrencesinwhichthesubjectactuallyintervenedbetweenthewh-andthefiniteverb/auxiliary.TheresultsareillustratedinTable9below.

ChildChiObj"who"

ChiOther"who"

Come"how"

CosaObj"what"

Dove"where"

Quanto"howmuch"

Perchè"why"

DIANA 0/3 0/1 0/4 ELISA 0/3 0/3 0/8 0/1 1/2Francesco Gregorio Guglielmo 0/2 0/3 0/6 6/9Marco 0/1 0/1 0/1 0/6 Martina 0/2 Raffaello 0/2 0/1 0/1 0/2 Rosa 0/1 0/1 0/2 0/3 Viola

Total0/30%

0/10%

0/110%

0/130%

0/290%

0/10%

7/1163.6%

Table9.Numberofmatrixwh-questionswithanovertsubjectoccurringbetweentheinterrogativepronounandtheverb.Table9showsthatinmatrixwh-questionsthesubjectneverprecedestheverb,withtheexceptionofsentenceswithperchè/why.Infact,wefoundonly7sentencesinwhichthesubjectbreaksintheWh-/Verbcluster.5Importantly,theyareallwhyquestionsandtheyconstitutenoviolationoftheQ-Criterion.Alltheexamples,mostlyfoundinGuglielmo'stranscriptions,arereportedbelow:(22)Why-Questions

a.Perchéquellenonsimettonol'ombrellointesta? (Elisa1;11) whythosenotthemselvesputtheumbrellaonhead"Whydon'ttheyputtheumbrellaontheirhead?

5Wefoundonlyasingleexampleinwhichanargumentalwh-doesnotimmediatelyprecedesthelexicalverb:(i)mettechimamma? (Rosa2;7)putwhomum"whodoesputit,mom?"Butthisseemstobeasubjectquestion,withthewh-subjectappearinginsituinthepostverbalsubjectposition,anon-targetconfigurationinItalian.Inanyevent,beingitasubjectquestion,thisexampleisnotrelevantfordeterminingtherespectoftheQ-criterioninchildgrammar.

Draft–17.2.21

24

b.Perchéquestisonograndi? (Guglielmo2;3) whythesearebig"Whyaretheybig?"c.PerchéManueleègrande? (Guglielmo2;7) whyManueleisgrown-up"WhyisManuelgrown-up?"d.Perchéloro'uncel'hannomedaglietta? (Guglielmo2;10)whytheynotclithavemedal"Whydon'ttheyhavethemedal?"e.Perchéluinoncel'ha? (Guglielmo2;10)whyhenotclithas"Whydoesn'thehaveit?"f.Perchéluistadormendovia? (Guglielmo2;10) whyheissleepingaway"Whyishesleepingaway?"g.Perchéquestononcivedegliocchi? (Guglielmo2;10)whythisnotclseetheeyes"Whydoesn'thesee(with)theeyes?"

Theanalysisofthesubject/verbinversionratethusshowsveryclearlythatyoungchildrenalreadydifferentiatebetweenthepropertiesofdistinctwh-elements.WetakethisselectivecompliancetotheQ-Criterionasafirstindicationthat2-year-oldsarealreadysensitivetothesyntacticrequirementsassociatedwiththefunctionalprojectionsintheCP-system.3.2.Multiplemovementstotheleft-periphery:pre-focaltopicsAfterisolatingmatrixwh-questionsinchildren'sspontaneousspeech,weperformedafurtheranalysis,lookingforsentencesinwhichwh-movementcouldhaveco-occurredwithtopicalizationintheleft-periphery.Ifattested,thesesentenceswouldindicatethatboththeQ/FocpositionandaTopicpositionareactivatedtogether.ThusprovidingevidenceinfavourofanearlyCP-Systemalreadypopulatedbyaclusterofdifferentprojections.Apatternveryrobustlyattestedcross-linguisticallyisthepossibilityofacomplexleft-peripheryconsistingofatopicfollowedbyawh-element.Thiscaninvolvebotharegularwh-elementoccurringinSpecFoc/Q,andanelementlikewhy,occurringintheSpecofthehigherpositionInt.ThispatternisalsopossibleinadultItalian,asillustratedbysentences(24)and(25).Considerfirst(24),inwhichthesubjectoccupiesahightopicposition.ThistopicpositionisaboveQ/Foc,asthestructuralrepresentationin(24')shows.(24)Iragazzicosaguardano?theboyswhatwatch"Whataretheboyswatching?"

Draft–17.2.21

25

(24')[TopPiragazzi[Q/FocPcosaguardano[IP...[VP]]]]theboyswhatwatchSimilarly,in(25)thesubjectisalsoinahightopicpositionabovewhy.ThislatterelementishostedinIntP(25'):(25)Iragazziperchèpartono?theboyswhyleave"Whyaretheboysleaving?"(25')[TopPIragazzi[IntPperchè[IPpartono[VP]]]]theboyswhyleaveAsimilarinstanceofacomplexCP,widelyattestedinadultItalian,isoneinwhichthewh-elementisprecededbyavocativephrase,occupyinganotherdedicatedleft-peripheralposition(seeMoro2003onvocativephrases):(26)Gianni,dovesei?Gianni,whereare“Gianni,whereareyou?’Thecomplexsentences(24),(25)and(26)areperfectlynaturalinItalianand,veryinterestingly,wefoundthatsentencesofthesamekindareclearlyattestedinchildren'sproductions.Wefound20examplesinwhichtheWh-isprecededbyaTopicoraVocativephrasehostingthesubject.Thus,ifweexcludesentencesinwhichthewh-elementisthesubject,forwhichnohighertopicisattested,theincidenceofthese20examplesovertheremaining215wh-interrogativesisanon-negligible9.3%.Wereportsomeexamplesin(26)below:(26) a.Muccacomestai? (Diana,2;1)Voc>whcowhoware"Cow,howareyou?" b.Questodovesimette? (Rosa2;10)Top>whthiswhereclgoes"This,wheredoesitgo?" c.Tudoveseistatoquesteduesettimane?(Martina2;3)Top>whyouwherearebeenthesetwoweeks "You,wherehaveyoubeeninthesetwoweeks?" d.LuiBabboNatale,cosafa? (Raffaello2;11)Top>whheSantaClauswhatdoes"HeSantaClauswhatdoeshedo?" e.Pinocchiodovevai? (Rosa2,11)Voc>wh Pinocchiowherego "Pinocchio,wheredoyougo?"

Draft–17.2.21

26

ThisshowsthatnoncanonicalsentencespresentingthepatternSTopWhQVorVocWhVareattestedalreadyinveryyoungItalianchildren,providingevidenceinsupportofanalreadylayeredleft-periphery.TheverypresenceofthesecomplexconstructionsshednewlightontheearlyavailabilityofTopicprojection(s)inchildren'sclausestructure.SincethistypeofsentencesarestillpoorlydocumentedinearlyItalian(forFrench,seedeCat2007),itwouldbeofgreatinteresttoestablish,throughfuturestudiesemployingamoreextensivemanualsearch,whatisthedistributionofoverttopicsintheearlyspeechofItalianchildren.4.1.GeneraldiscussionByanalyzingthetranscriptionsofagroupofItalianchildren,weaimedatdocumentingthedevelopmentoftheirearlyCP-systemfollowingtwopathways.Thefirstconsistedintrackingdowntheearlyoccurrencesofthecomplementizerparticlesfoundintheirspeechandtheemergenceofembeddedclauses.Ourcorpusanalysisshowedthatthecomplementizercheisrobustlyattestedearlyinthethirdyearoflifeandthatalsodi(markingcontrolinfinitives)andse(markingembeddedquestions)areavailableatthesamestage,orimmediatelyafter.Theindividualvariationonhowearlyembeddedstructuresappearisremarkable,butfromoursearchitemergedthatItalianchildrenstartusingsententialembeddingsoonaftertheirsecondbirthday,withmanyofthemalreadyemployingthewholeinventoryofcomplementizerparticles.Wealsolookedattheageoffirstappearanceofthedifferenttypesoffiniteembeddedclausesintroducedbythecomplementizercheinordertoassesswhetherrelativeclausesarethefirsttypeofembeddingavailabletothechild,asobservedinotherlanguagesbyPenner(1995)andArmon-Lotem(2005).ThisadvantagewasaccountedforcapitalizingontheabsenceofC-selectiononrelativeclauses.Childrencouldthenbeabletogeneraterelativesbeforecomplementclausessincetheformerdonotrequirealexicalaccesstothegrammaticaltraitsoftheembeddingverb.Goingbacktotheresultsofouranalysis,theconclusionthatrelativeclausesprecedeothertypesofclausalcomplementisonlyweaklysupportedinItalian,andthispatternwasobservedinonlyhalfofourchildren.Theoppositedirectionwasinsteadfoundinonechild,Elisa,whileinotherthreechildrenthetwodifferenttypesofembeddingappearatthesametime.Besidetheanalysisofcomplementation,wealsoextendedourresearchinanotherdirection,lookingatthepropertiesofearlywh-questions.Wh-interrogativesalsoactivatetheCP-systemandareinformativeonchildren'ssensitivitytothedifferentsyntacticrequirementsthatareactiveonspecificfunctionalprojections.Oursearchshowedthat,fromveryearlyon,childrenselectivelyperformI-to-Cmovementofthefiniteverbbutonlyifthewh-elementismovedinQ/FocP.Onthecontrary,inversionisnotrequiredwithwhy/perchéquestions,muchasinadultgrammars.OurdataareinlinewithsimilarresultsreportedinGuasti(2000).Moreover,theearlysensitivitytothespecificpropertiesdistinguishingperchéfromotherwh-elementsinItalianalsoconcurswithThornton’s(2008)importantobservationthatEnglish-speakingchildrenbehavesimilarly,eventhoughthisdistinctionisnotgrammaticalizedinadultEnglish.Ouranalysisdidnotonlyshowanoveralladult-likebehaviorwiththepropertiesofthesingleovertfunctionalheadsintheCP-System,butitalsoprovidedevidencefora

Draft–17.2.21

27

layeredstructureinwhichdifferentpositionscanbesimultaneouslyrealizedintheadulthierarchicalorder.Inviewofthemanydiscourse-pragmaticconstraintsthatshouldbesatisfied,therelevantconstructionscanbehardtofindandtoelicitinyoungchildren.However,wh-questionstargetingthefocuspositioninmainclausesarecommonenoughtolookfortheco-occurrenceoffocusandtopicmovement.Bylookingatwh-sentences,wefoundthatchildrenwerealsoabletoprojectalayeredCPbyrealizingbothaTopic(ortheakinVocativeposition)andaQ/FocorIntPpositiontogether.ThesecomplexsentencesdidnotonlyindicatearefinedsyntacticcompetencesupportingalayeredCP-System,buttheyalsowitnessaclearsensitivitytotheinterfacebetweensyntaxanddiscoursepragmatics,asusesoftopicswereinvariablyappropriatetotheparticulardiscourseconditions.Undoubtedly,theresultspresentedhereonlyprovideafirstsketchoftheearlyCP-Systemandmoreneedstobefoundbycombiningtargetedexperimentalinvestigationswithadditionalcorpusstudies.Inthisrespect,thecollectionofsupplementaryresourceswithahigherdensityofdiaryrecordingscouldhelptobetterdefinethedevelopmentalpatternofless-frequentconstructions,overcomingsomeofthelimitationsofthepresentstudyandallowingtotestspecificresearchhypothesesalsothroughtheuseofinferentialstatistics.InconcludingthepaperwewishtotentativelyconsiderhowourresultscouldrelatewitharecentdevelopmentalhypothesisthatspecificallytargetsthegrammaticalgrowthoftheCP-System.AccordingtotheproposalpresentedinFriedmann,Belletti&Rizzi(2020)thatwewillbrieflydiscussnext,theinitialclause-structureavailabletothechildcouldbeareducedversionoftheadultstructure.Thisideaisconceptuallyinlinewithprevioussuggestionsthattheacquisitionofsyntaxproceedsincrementallystartingfromthelowestportionofthetree(eg.theVPnodeonly,Labeaux1988,Platzack1990,Radford1990;asingleXPaboveVP,Clahsenetal.1993/94).Itisalsocompatiblewiththeproposalthat,onceavailable,higherlayerscanbe"truncated"(Rizzi1993/94)leadingtooptionalityintherealizationofthetopmostportionoftheclause.4.2.AstepwisematurationoftheCP-SystemInaveryrecentproposal,Friedmann,Belletti&Rizzi2020putforththe“GrowingTrees”proposalbywhichtheleft-peripherygrowsinthechild’smindfollowingstepsthatareconsistentwiththearticulatedmappostulatedincartographicresearch.Whileourresearchontheearlyleft-peripheryinItalianwasnotconceivedonthebasisofthiskindofdevelopmentalhypothesis,wethinkitisinterestingtobrieflyinvestigatethecompatibilityofourfindingswithit.

LookingatbothspontaneousproductionsandattheresultsofarepetitionexperimentwithHebrew-speakingchildren,Friedmann,Belletti&Rizzi2020advancedtheproposalthatthearticulatedstructureoftheCPdoesnotemergeatonce,butthatitinsteaddevelopsintothreesuccessivestages:thefirstshowsmasteryofthebasicclausalstructure(theIP)withnomanifestationoftheleft-periphery:thesecondstageshowsknowledgeofthelowerportionoftheleft-periphery,including,amongotherpositions,thelandingsiteofwh-movement,andthethirdstagemanifestsmasteryofthehigherpartoftheleft-periphery,includingtheForcenode,thetargetofselectionfromhigherselectors,whichmakesdifferentkindsofembeddingspossible.Inthis

Draft–17.2.21

28

sense,thesyntactictree"grows"fromatotalabsence,toapartialspecification,andthentoacompletespecificationoftheCPsystem.

Thismodelwassupportedbythefactthat,afterthefirststageinwhichnoperipheralconstructionwasmanifested,atthesecondstageofdevelopment,childrenacquiringHebrewcouldaskwh-questionsbyproductivelyfrontinginterrogativepronounslikewho,what,where,etc.,buttheywerenotableyettoproduceembeddedclauses(declarativesorrelatives),norwhy-questions,nortopicalizedstructures.CapitalizingonthecartographicmapoftheCP-system,Friedmann,Belletti&Rizzi(2020)observedthatthestructuresappearinginthefollowing(third)stagehavethepropertyincommonthattheyneedtoactivateprojectionsinthehighestlayeroftheleft-periphery,ForceP(forrelatives,Forceisrequiredtohoststherelativeoperator;forembeddeddeclaratives,Forceisrequiredinordertosatisfyselectionalpropertiesfromhigherselectors),IntP(forwhyquestions)andTopP,respectively.

Inthismodel,atthesecondstage,childrenwouldonlyhaveapartialrepresentationoftheleft-periphery,projecteduptoQ/FocP.ItisonlyinalaterthirdstagethattheCP-systemgrowssotoincludehigherpositions,andthefulladultstructure.

IfthesamereasoningisappliedtoItalian,wewouldalsoexpectadivisionoftheCP-systemintozonesthatwouldbecomeavailablesequentially:afterafirststagewithnomanifestationoftheCPsystem,wewouldexpectasecondstagewiththelowestportionoftheCP,uptoQ/FocP,andthen,successively,athirdstage,withtheupperpartoftheCPincludingIntPandForceP.Thesecondandthirdstages,andthefunctionalprojectionsavailableinthem,canberepresentedasinthetable10below(rememberthatstageIcorrespondstoadevelopmentalstageinwhichtheleft-peripheryistotallyabsentandthelowerIPlayercanbestillintheprocessofgrowth,asinpreviousproposalsmentionedearlier):ForceP IntP TopP Q/FocP ModP FinPChe Perché cosa

StageIII StageIITable10.StagesIIandIIIinthedevelopmentoftheleft-periphery,accordingtotheGrowingTreesproposalAccordingtothismodel,constituentquestionstargetingtheQ/FocPlayershouldbeavailablebeforewhy-questions,whichwouldonlybemanifestedatstageIII.Inthislaterstage,why-questionsandclausalembeddingrequiringtheprojectionofForcePwouldappeartogether.Theparticleche,anovertmanifestationofForceP,wouldthenappeartogetherwithwhy,followingwh-questions.Otherlowercomplementizerheads,asseanddi,arealsopredictedtobeavailableonlyatStageIIIsincetheyalsorequirealinkwithForcePinordertosatisfytheC-selectionpropertiesoftheembeddingverb.Infigure5,weshowedthatinmanychildrenthethreeparticlesindeedappeararoundthesametime.InordertocheckiftheoveralldevelopmentalpatternpresentedinTable10issupportedbythespontaneousproductionofourItalian-speakingchildren,wejoinedtogetherdifferentdatapointsrelativetothethreeconstructionsthatarerelevantforevaluatingthegrowing-treeshypothesis:

Draft–17.2.21

29

(26)a.thefirstoccurrenceofembeddingintroducedbyche(associatedwithForceP)b.thefirstoccurrenceofwhy-questions(associatedwithIntP)c.thefirstoccurrenceofwh-questions(associatedwithQ/FocP)Withrespecttotheconstructionsin(26),thepredictionisthatsentencesin(26a-b)shouldneverbeattestedbefore(26c),sincetheirdevelopmentiscontingentupontheavailabilityofthelowerportionofthethree.Toevaluatethis,weconfronttheageoffirstoccurrenceofeachoftheconstructionsin(26).Theresultsareplottedinfigure6.Foreachchild,weindicatedthemonthinwhichthespecificconstructionwasattestedforthefirsttime.

Figure6.Ageoffirstoccurrenceof:a)finiteembeddingintroducedbyche;b)whyquestions;c).wh-questions.Dataarereportedforeachchild,withtheexclusionofFrancescoandGregorio,whosetranscriptionsendtooearlyandCamilla(seefootnote3)Figure6showsthatwh-questionsaretheearliesttobeattestedinrelationtotheothertypesofsentencesin(26a-c)andthispatternisconsistentacrossallchildren.Alsonoticethat,ifonlyasubsetoftheconstructionsin(26)isproduced,thisinvariablyincludeswh-questions,expectedattheearlieststageinwhichtheCPstructureismanifested(stageII).Ingeneral,constructionsthatbelongtothesuccessivestageinvolvingthegrowthoftheupperpartoftheCP(stageIII)areabsent(asinRosa,Diana,Viola)ordelayedifcomparedwiththeemergenceofwh-questions(asinMarco,Martina,Raffaello,Guglielmo).OnlyinthecaseofElisa,theyallappearatthesametime.Thischildshowedanalreadyfully-fledgedCPbeforetheendofthesecondyear–rememberthatshealsoproduced

15

20

25

30

35

40

Marco Rosa Diana Elisa Martina Raffaello Guglielmo Viola

Age of first use of elements in ForceP, IntP and Q/FocP

che why wh

Draft–17.2.21

30

alltheCPparticles–thusnodevelopmentaleffectisvisibleinthiscase:ElisaalreadymadeittoStageIIIbeforehersecondbirthday.Thisshouldcomeasnosurprise,giventheimportantindividualvariationinthespeedofdevelopment:whereasthetransitionfromonestagetothenextmayoccuratverydifferentagesinindividualchildren,whattheGrowingTreesapproachexpectsisthatthesequenceofstageswillnotbeviolatedinthedevelopmentalpathofaparticularchild,andthisisindeedwhatweobserveinthedata.ConclusionCartographicresearchshowedthattheCPsystemshouldbesplitintoasequenceoffunctionalelements(Rizzi1997),muchastheIPsystem(Cinque1999).Thesefindingsraisequestionsforlanguageacquisition:howandwhenarethesecomplexconfigurationsacquiredbythelearner?InthispaperwestartedaddressingthesequestionsforthedevelopmentoftheCP-systeminItalian.TheCP-systemclearlyispartofthechild’sgrammarfromthebeginningofthethirdyearoflife,orevenearlier.Moreover,therearedirectmanifestationsthatthechildhasaccesstothefinedetailsoftheCPstructure.Ontheonehand,thechildissensitivetothepositionofoccurrenceofthewh-elementinthefinestructureoftheCP,differentiatingthecaseofthelandingsiteofordinarywh-movement,Foc/Q(forelementslikewho,what,where,etc.),andthecaseofwhy,base-generatedinthehigherpositionInt.Intheadultgrammar,ordinarywh-elementsrequireinversion,whereaswhydoesnot,apropertyderivedfromthecriterialapproachintheanalysiswehaveadopted.Suchadifferentbehaviorofordinarywh-elementsandwhyisalreadyreflectedintheearlyproductionswehaveexamined.Ontheotherhand,thecorpusstudyprovidedclearevidencethatyoungchildrenarealreadyabletoproducecomplexCPsystemswiththeco-occurrenceofdistinctelementsintheCPspace:thiswasshownbyproductionsinvolvingatopicoravocativefollowedbythewh-element.InthefinalpartofthepaperwealsodiscussedtheimplicationsofourresultsfortheGrowingTreesapproach(Friedmann,Belletti&Rizzi2020).ThisapproachassumesthattheCPsystemdevelopsinthreesuccessivesteps:thefirstinwhichtheCP-systemisabsent;thesecond,whichinvolvesthelowerzoneoftheleft-periphery,withthelandingsiteforwh-movement;andthethird,involvingtheupperleft-peripheralzone,hencespecifyingthepositionofoccurrenceofwhy(inInt)andtheForcepositionexpressedbyche(andalsootherpositionsthatwehavenotdiscussedhere).Weobserved,inlinewiththeGrowingTreesapproach,thatordinarywh-movementissystematicallyattestedearlierthanwhyquestionsandembeddeddeclarativesintroducedbyche.Weverymuchhopethatourpreliminaryresultswilltriggermorecorpus-basedandexperimentalresearchtomakeadvancesontheacquisitionofthecomplexstructuralconfigurationsuncoveredincartographicresearch.

Draft–17.2.21

31

ReferencesArmon-Lotem,S.,2005.Theacquisitionofsubordination:frompreconjunctionalsto

lateruse.In:Ravid,D.D.,Bat-ZeevShyldkrot,H.(Eds.),PerspectivesonLanguageandLanguageDevelopment:EssaysinHonorofRuthA.Berman.Kluwer,Dordrecht,pp.191–202.

Belletti, A. 2015. ‘The Focus map of clefts: Extraposition and Predication’. In U. Shlonsky

(ed.) Beyond Functional Sequence. The Cartography of Syntactic Structures 10. Oxford Studies in Comparative Syntax. Oxford University Press. 42–59.

Bianchi,V.,G.Bocci,S.Cruschina.2016.Focusfronting,unexpectedness,andevaluative

implicatures.SemanticsandPragmatics9(3).Bloom,L.,Lifter,K.,Hafitz,J.,1980.Semanticsofverbsandthedevelopmentofverb

inflectioninchildlanguage.Language56,386–412.Bocci,G.,Rizzi,L.,&Saito,M.(2018).OntheIncompatibilityofWhandFocus.GENGO

KENKYU,154,29-51.Bowerman,M.(1979).Theacquisitionofcomplexsentences.InP.Fletcher&M.

Garman(eds.),LanguageAcquisition(pp.285–306).London:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Chomsky,N.,1995.TheMinimalistProgram.MITPress,Cambridge,MA.Cinque,G.1999.Adverbsandfunctionalheads:Across-linguisticperspective.Oxford:

OxfordUniversityPress. CiprianiP.,P.Bottari,A.M.ChilosiandL.Pfanner(1998).Alongitudinalperspectiveon

thestudyofspecifclanguageimpairment:thelongtermfollow-upofanItalianchild.Internationaljournaloflanguage&communicationdisorders.Vol33(3).245-280.

Clahsen,H.,M.Penke&T.Parodi.(1993/1994).FunctionalcategoriesinearlychildGerman.

LanguageAcquisition3.395–429.deCat,Cécile(2007).Frenchdislocation:Interpretation,syntax,acquisition.Oxford

StudiesinTheoreticalLinguistics17.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Friedmann,N,A.Belletti,L.Rizzi(2020)GrowingTrees.TheAcquisitionoftheLeft-

periphery.lingbuzz/005369.Guasti,M.T.2000.AnexcursionintointerrogativesinearlyEnglishandItalian.InM.-A.

FriedemannandL.Rizzi,eds.,Theacquisitionofsyntax.Harlow,England:Longman.

Lebeaux,David.1988.LanguageAcquisitionandtheFormoftheGrammar.Amherst:University

ofMassachusettsdissertation.

Draft–17.2.21

32

MastropavlouM.,TsimpliI.M.2011.ComplementizersandsubordinationintypicallanguageacquisitionandSLI.Lingua,Volume121,Issue3,2011,

MacWhinney,B.(2000).TheCHILDESproject:Toolsforanalyzingtalk.Thirdedition.

Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates.Moro,A.(2003).Notesonvocativecase.Acasestudyinclausestructure.

InJ.Quer&J.Schroten(Eds.),Romancelanguagesandlinguistictheory(pp.247–261).Amsterdam:JohnBenjamins.

MoscatiV.,C.Manetti,A.Belletti&L.Rizzi(2016).Children’ssensitivitytoprosodyand

discourse-pragmaticconditions:thecaseofcorrectivefocusinItalian.BUCLD40,Onlineproceedingssupplement.EditedbyJenniferScottandDebWaughtal.Boston.www.bu.edu/bucld/bucld-40-online-proceedings-supplement.

Penner,Z.(1995).Continuityconstraintsonparadigmformationintheacquisitionof

thecomplementizersystem.AcasestudyinBerneseSwissGerman.Unpublishedmanuscript,UniversityofBern,Swisserland

Penner,Z.&N.Mueller.(1992).Ontheearlystagesintheacquisitionoffinitesubordinateclauses.Thesyntaxoftheso-calledpreconjunctionalsubordinateclausesinGerman,SwissGermanandFrench.GenevaGenerativePapers,1(2),163–181.

Pierce,A.1992.Languageacquisitionandsyntactictheory:Acomparativeanalysisof

FrenchandEnglishchildgrammar.Dordrecht:Kluwer.Platzack,Christer.1990.Agrammarwithoutfunctionalcategories:Asyntacticstudyofearly

Swedishchildlanguage.WorkingPapersinScandinavianSyntax45.13-34.Poeppel,D.,andK.Wexler.1993.Thefullcompetencehypothesisofclausestructurein

earlyGerman.Language69,365-424.Poletto,C.andR.Zanuttini(2013)"Emphasisasreduplication:Evidencefromsiche/no

chesentences",Lingua128:124-141.Pollock,J.-Y.1989.Verbmovement,UniversalGrammar,andthestructureofIP.

LinguisticInquiry20,365-424.Radford,A.1990.SyntactictheoryandtheacquisitionofEnglishsyntax:Thenatureofearlychild

grammarsofEnglish.Blackwell:Oxford.Rizzi,Luigi.1993/94.Someremarksonlinguistictheoryandlanguagedevelopment.Language

Acquisition3(4).371–393.doi:10.1207/s15327817la0304_2Rizzi, Luigi. 1996. Residual verb second and the wh-criterion. In Parameters and functional

heads: Essays in comparative syntax, ed. Adriana Belletti and Luigi Rizzi, 62–90. Oxford University Press

Rizzi,L.1997.Thefinestructureoftheleft-periphery.InL.Haegeman,ed.,Elementsof

grammar.Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Draft–17.2.21

33

Rizzi,L.2001.Ontheposition“Int(errogative)”intheleft-peripheryoftheclause.InG.

Cinque&G.Salvi(Eds.),CurrentstudiesinItaliansyntax(pp.287-296).Oxford:Elsevier.

Rizzi,L.(2013).NotesonCartographyandFurtherExplanation.PROBUS,25(1),197-

226.Rizzi,L.,&Bocci,G.2017.Left-peripheryoftheClause:PrimarilyIllustratedforItalian.

InTheWileyBlackwellCompaniontoSyntax,SecondEdition.1-30Roussou,A.,2000.Ontheleft-periphery:Modalparticlesandcomplementizers.Journal

ofGreekLinguistics1,65–94.ThorntonR.2008.Why continuity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory. 26:107–

146. Tsimpli,I.M.,Stavrakaki,S.,1999.Theeffectsofamorpho-syntacticdeficitinthe

determinersystem:thecaseofaGreekSLIchild.Lingua108,31–85.Verrips,M.,andJ.Weissenborn.1992.RoutestoverbplacementinearlyGermanand

French:Theindependenceoffnitenessandagreement.InJ.Meisel,ed.,Theacquisitionofverbplacement.Dordrecht:Kluwer.