David Pesetsky

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

This monograph discusses research, theory, and practice relevant to how children learn to read English. After an initial overview of writing systems, the discussion summarizes research from developmental psychology on childrens language competency when they enter school and on the nature of early reading development. Subsequent sections review theories of learning to read, the characteristics of children who do not learn to read (i.e., who have developmental dyslexia), research from cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience on skilled reading, and connectionist models of learning to read. The implications of the research findings for learning to read and teaching reading are discussed. Next, the primary methods used to teach reading (phonics and whole language) are summarized. The final section reviews laboratory and classroom studies on teaching reading. From these different sources of evidence, two inescapable conclusions emerge: (a) Mastering the alphabetic principle (that written symbols are associated with phonemes) is essential to becoming proficient in the skill of reading, and (b) methods that teach this principle directly are more effective than those that do not (especially for children who are at risk in some way for having difficulty learning to read). Using whole-language activities to supplement phonics instruction does help make reading fun and meaningful for children, but ultimately, phonics instruction is critically important because it helps beginning readers understand the alphabetic principle and learn new words. Thus, elementary-school teachers who make the alphabetic principle explicit are most effective in helping their students become skilled, independent readers.

Cyclic linearization of syntactic structure

Abstract This paper proposes an architecture for the mapping between syntax and phonology – in particular, that aspect of phonology that determines the linear ordering of words. We propose that linearization is restricted in two key ways. (1) the relative ordering of words is fixed at the end of each phase, or ‘‘Spell-out domain’’; and (2) ordering established in an earlier phase may not be revised or contradicted in a later phase. As a consequence, overt extraction out of a phase P may apply only if the result leaves unchanged the precedence relations established in P. We argue first that this architecture (‘‘cyclic linearization’’) gives us a means of understanding the reasons for successive-cyclic movement. We then turn our attention to more specific predictions of the proposal: in particular, the effects of Holmberg’s Generalization on Scandinavian Object Shift; and also the Inverse Holmberg Effects found in Scandinavian ‘‘Quantifier Movement’’ constructions (Rögnvaldsson (1987); Jónsson (1996); Svenonius (2000)) and in Korean scrambling configurations (Ko (2003, 2004)). The cyclic linearization proposal makes predictions that cross-cut the details of particular syntactic configurations. For example, whether an apparent case of verb fronting results from V-to-C movement or from ‘‘remnant movement’’ of a VP whose complements have been removed by other processes, the verb should still be required to precede its complements after fronting if it preceded them before fronting according to an ordering established at an earlier phase. We argue that ‘‘cross-construction’’ consistency of this sort is in fact found.

Some optimality principles of sentence pronunciation

1. the laws that govern the assignment of words to positions in a hierarchical syntactic structure; 2. the laws that govern the assignment of words to more than one position in hierarchical syntactic structure (movement or chain formation); 3. the interface between syntactic structure (including movement) and semantic interpretation; 4. the interface between syntactic structure (including movement) and phonological interpretation.

The Maturation of Grammatical Principles: Evidence from Russian Unaccusatives

This article tests the hypothesis that young children have a maturational difficulty with A-chain formation that makes them unable to represent unaccusative verbs in an adultlike fashion. We report the results of a test of childrens performance on the genitive-of-negation construction in Russian, which, for adults, is an unaccusativity diagnostic, since genitive case is allowed to appear on the underlying direct object argument of unaccusatives as well as on direct objects of standard transitive verbs within the scope of negation. We show that although, Russian children know the properties of the construction, they have notable difficulty using it with unaccusative verbs. Since the input evidence for genitive of negation with unaccusative verbs is quite robust, we interpret our results as support for the hypothesis.

COMPLEMENTIZER - TRACE PHENOMENA AND THE NOMINATIVE ISLAND CONDITION

My main goal in this paper will be to suggest a new explanation for what I shall call the Complementizer-Trace Phenomenon (CTP). This is the well-known constraint which, in many languages, prohibits WH-movement and other extractions from subject position in embedded clauses headed by a complementizer. Thus, (la) violates the constraint, while (Ib), where the offending complementizer has been deleted, is acceptable:

Cyclic Linearization and its interaction with other aspects of grammar: a reply

Abstract Our proposal is concerned with the relation between an aspect of phonology (linearization) and syntax. In the picture that we had in mind, the syntax is autonomous – ‘‘it does what it does’’ – but sometimes the result maps to an unusable phonological representation. In this sense, linearization acts logically as a filter on derivations. We know of no evidence that the syntax can predict which syntactic objects will be usable by the phonology, and we know of no clear evidence that the phonology communicates this information to the syntax. In this sense, our proposal fits squarely into the tradition that Svenonius characterizes as the ‘‘mainstream’’. We thus attempted to identify certain deviant configurations that are not plausibly excluded for syntax-internal reasons, but are filtered out in the linearization process.

Property Delay (Remarks on “Phase Extension” by Marcel den Dikken)

Abstract 1. Truth in unpackaging In his paper, den Dikken argues that several syntactic and semantic phenomena provide evidence for a package of proposals that includes the following four claims: (1) Phase Extension “Syntactic movement of the head H of a phase α up to the head X of the node β dominating α extends the phase up from α to β; α loses its phasehood in the process, and any constituent on the edge of α ends up in the domain of the derived phase β as a result of Phase Extension”. (den Dikkens (3)) (2) Phase Impenetrability Condition as in Chomsky (2000, passim) [PIC] “[I]n phase α with head H, the domain [of H] is not accessible to operations outside α, only H and its edge are accessible to such operations”. (den Dikkens (1)) (3) Adjunction Prohibition “[A]djunction to meaningless categories is disallowed.” (den Dikkens (18)) (4) Inherent Phase “[A]n inherent phase is a predication (subject–predicate structure).” (den Dikkens (2))