ABSTRACT
One way of analysing this data was proposed by Ursula Bellugi (1967). In Stage I the child is employing a fairly simple rule. Use no or not (usually no) and attach it to either the beginning or the end of the sentence. At this stage his affirmative sentences are also very short and telegraphic-auxiliary verbs are absent as is the main verb to be. In Stage II, we notice that most of the time no/not goes inside the sentence. We notice the continuing absence of the main verb to be as in c., but we also see that sentences a., d. and e. are quite adult-like. We have not seemingly attached to the auxiliary and do added where required in sentences d. and e. But compare these to sentences b. and f. which encode similar ideas but simply insert no inside the sentence. Before, I said ‘seemingly attached’ because auxiliaries like can, will and do never appear on their own in the child’s affirmative sentences at this stage. At first children think of can’t, don’t, won’t simply as alternative forms of not rather than as a combination of can/do/ will+not. So, at this stage we find sentences like b. and d. and e. and f. co-existing.
