Abstract
Two recent proposals link the use of nonagreeing don't to the Root Infinitive (RI) Stage. Guasti & Rizzi (2002) argue for a misset parameter involving how agreement is spelled out. Schütze (2010) proposes that Infl is underspecified in child language and that do surfaces to support the contracted clitic/affix n't. Both proposals obtain partial support from the Sarah corpus (Brown 1973), yet neither proposal drew on Sarah's parents’ use of nonstandard, nonagreeing don't as a possible explanation for Sarah's production. In this article I argue that much of the nonagreeing don't produced by Sarah is not part of the RI Stage. Once Sarah's data are removed from the analysis, the remaining data support Schütze's proposal.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
