GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory Week 1. Introduction

Language is really complicated 1) 2) 3) 4) Frasier threw out Martin’s chair. Frasier threw Martin’s chair out. Daphne walked out the door. *Daphne walked the door out. 5) 6) 7) 8) What did Roz say Niles bought? What did Roz say that Niles bought? Who did Roz say bought an espresso doppio? *Who did Roz say that bought an espresso doppio?

Language is really complicated 9) His mother thinks Bill is a genius. 10) He thinks Bill is a genius, too. 11) Mary saw her. 12) Mary saw her duck. 13) I asked Mary to buy rum. 14) What did you ask Mary to buy ? 15) I saw the book about snakes on the table. 16) *What did you see the book about on the table?

Yet people know this stuff… Adult native speakers uniformly and overwhelmingly agree. n To know English is to have knowledge of (how to determine) which sentences are possible and which are impossible in English. n How one comes to have this knowledge is going to be our primary focus. n

Consider learning this 1) Frasier threw out Martin’s chair. 2) Frasier threw Martin’s chair out. Prepositions can go on either side of the object?

Consider learning this 1) Frasier threw out Martin’s chair. 2) Frasier threw Martin’s chair out. Prepositions can go on either side of the object? Bzzt! 3) Daphne walked out the door. 1) *Daphne walked the door out.

Consider learning this 5) What did Roz think Niles bought? 6) What did Roz think that Niles bought? Ok, that is optional?

Consider learning this 5) What did Roz think Niles bought? 6) What did Roz think that Niles bought? Ok, that is optional? Bzzt! 7) Who did Roz say bought an espresso doppio? 8) *Who did Roz say that bought an espresso doppio?

Consider learning this 9) His mother thinks Bill is a genius. He/his can be Bill even if he precedes Bill? 9) I asked Mary to buy rum. 10) What did you ask Mary to buy ? To make a question, move the wh-word to the front, invert auxiliary. Right? • I saw the book about snakes on the table.

Consider learning this 9) His mother thinks Bill is a genius. He/his can be Bill even if he precedes Bill? Bzzt! • He thinks John is a genius, too. I asked Mary to buy rum. What did you ask Mary to buy ? To make a question, move the wh-word to the front, invert auxiliary. Right? Bzzt! • I saw the book about snakes on the table. • *What did you see the book about on the table? • •

Grammar n People eventually end up with a system with which they can produce (and rate) sentences: a grammar. n Even if a native speaker of English has never heard either of these sentences before, s/he knows which one is possible in English and which one isn’t: 15) Eight very adept sea lions played trombones. 16) Eight sea lions very adept trombones played.

How do people know this? n n n Every native speaker of English knows these things. Nobody who speaks English as a first language was explicitly taught (growing up) “You can’t question a subject in a complement embedded with that” or “You can’t use a proper name if it’s c -commanded by something coindexed with it. ” Trying to use any simple kind of general learning principle based on (analogy to) the sentences you get seems almost sure to lead you astray.

That’s the setup n n Language involves a complex grammar. Adults end up with knowledge of this grammar, quite uniformly. Children seem to go through advancing stages of language sophistication; they are learning, the end result being the adult language system. Next question: What is the nature of the children’s learning?

Linguists, great and small n As linguists trying to figure out the grammatical system of a language, we… n n n Look at which sentences are grammatical Look at which sentences are ungrammatical Compare them to describe generalizations about what the crucial factors are differentiating the grammatical from the ungrammatical. Check the predictions of the hypothesized generalization by looking at more complex sentences. Are kids just little linguists?

Kids are not just little linguists. n n n *What did you see the book about on the table? *Who did Mary say that bought coffee? Eight very adept sea lions played trombones. Linguists’ theories: built by considering both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences (often of a fairly complex type). Kids: Don’t hear ungrammatical sentences, nor even all of the grammatical sentences (often of a simpler type).

So how do they do it? n n n One hypothesis holds suggests that parents actually help kids along (though not consciously). It’s well known that people seem to instinctively talk to little kids in kind of a weird way; exaggerated intonation, simpler words, more repetition. “Baby talk” or as it is sometimes known, “Motherese”. Many have entertained the idea that this simpler, more carefully articulated, speech might guide kids along the path of language acquisition.

Some properties of “Motherese” n n n Slower speech, longer pauses Higher pitch, greater pitch range Exaggerated intonation and stress More varied loudness Fewer disfluencies More restricted vocabulary More rephrasings More repetitions Shorter, less complex utterances More imperatives and questions Fewer complex (multiclause) sentences

Does “Motherese” drive acquisition? n n n Initially tempting, perhaps, but no. If “Motherese” were crucial for acquisition, it must be available to all language acquirers, universally. Several documented cultures don’t even speak to the kids until they reach linguistic sophistication. (Of course, they’re exposed to language in the environment, but not directed at them in “Motherese”)

Does “Motherese” drive acquisition? n If you give a 4 -month old the choice of whether to listen to “Motherese” or to normal adult-directed speech, the kid will choose to listen to “Motherese”… n …so it is quite likely that “Motherese” forms a significant part of the PLD for the kid, but it can’t be necessary for successful language acquisition.

Simpler isn’t really better n n n Linguists look to complex sentences to differentiate between predictions of different hypotheses about how the grammar works. Generally, prior to considering complex sentences, the data underdetermines the grammar; there are (at least) two systems compatible with the data observed so far. If linguists need to look to complex sentences to figure out the intricacies of the rules (which all adult native speakers seem to end up with), kids should need this information too.

Positive and negative evidence Kids need to know the grammatical system by the time they are adults. n Kids hear grammatical sentences (positive evidence) n Kids are not told which sentences are ungrammatical (no negative evidence) n Let’s consider no negative evidence further… n

Negative evidence n Negative evidence (information that a given sentence is ungrammatical) could come in various conceivable forms. “The sentence Bill a cookie ate is not a sentence in English, Timmy. No sentence with SOV word order is. ” n Upon hearing Bill a cookie ate, an adult might n n Offer negative reinforcement n Not understand n Look pained n Rephrase the ungrammatical sentence grammatically

Kids resist instruction… Mc. Neill (1966) n n n Nobody don’t like me. No, say ‘nobody likes me. ’ Nobody don’t like me. [repeats eight times] n n No, now listen carefully; say ‘nobody likes me. ’ Oh! Nobody don’t likes me.

Kids resist instruction… Braine (1971) n n n Want other one spoon, daddy. You mean, you want the other spoon. Yes, I want other one spoon, please Daddy. Can you say ‘the other spoon’? Other…one…spoon Say ‘other’ Other ‘Spoon’ Spoon ‘Other spoon’ Other…spoon. Now give me other one spoon?

Kids resist instruction… Cazden (1972) (observation attributed to Jean Berko Gleason) n n n n My teacher holded the baby rabbits and we patted them. Did you say your teacher held the baby rabbits? Yes. What did you say she did? She holded the baby rabbits and we patted them. Did you say she held them tightly? No, she holded them loosely.

Negative evidence via feedback? n Do kids get “implicit” negative evidence? n Do adults understand grammatical sentences and not understand ungrammatical ones? n Do adults respond positively to grammatical sentences and negatively to ungrammatical ones?

Approval or comprehension? Brown & Hanlon (1970): n n Adults understood 42% of the grammatical sentences. Adults understood 47% of the ungrammatical ones. Adults expressed approval after 45% of the grammatical sentences. n Adults expressed approval after 45% of the ungrammatical sentences. This doesn’t bode well for comprehension or approval as a source of negative evidence for kids. n

Kids’ experience differs n Parents respond differently Eve & Sarah’s parents ask clarification questions after ill-formed wh-questions. n Adam’s parents ask clarification after wellformed wh-questions…and after past tense errors. n n How can kids figure out what correlates with grammaticality in their situation?

Kids’ experience differs n Piedmont Carolinas: Heath (1983): Trackton adults do not see babies or young children as suitable partners for regular conversation…[U]nless they wish to issue a warning, give a command, provide a recommendation, or engage the child in a teasing exchange, adults rarely address speech specifically to young children.

Feedback disappears n Adam and Sarah showed almost no reply contingencies after age 4… n But they still made errors after age 4 n And they still stopped making those errors as adults (learning didn’t cease).

Three possible types of feedback n Complete: consistent response, indicates unambiguously “grammatical” or “ungrammatical. ” n Partial: if there is a response, it indicates “grammatical” or “ungrammatical” n Noisy: response given to both grammatical and ungrammatical sentences, but with different/detectible frequency.

Statistics (from Marcus 1993) Suppose response R occurs 20% of the time for ungrammatical sentences, 12% of the time for grammatical sentences. Kid gets response R to utterance U, there’s a 63% chance (20/32) that U is ungrammatical. Guess: ungrammatical, but 38% chance of being wrong. Kid doesn’t get response R, 52% chance (88/168) it’s grammatical. Guess: grammatical, but 48% chance of being wrong.

Statistics (from Marcus 1993) Suppose response R occurs 20% of the time for ungrammatical sentences, 12% of the time for grammatical sentences. Suppose kid got response R to U, and is 63% confident that U is ungrammatical—ok, but nowhere near good enough to build a grammar. This is a serious task, a kid’s going to want to be sure. Suppose kid is aiming for 99% confidence (adults make at most 1% speech errors of the relevant kind—pretend this reflects 99% confidence).

Lacking confidence n Based on R (20%-12% differential), they’d have to repeat U 446 times (and compile feedback results) to reach a 99% confidence level. n Based on various studies on noisy feedback, a realistic range might be from 85 times (for a 35% -14% differential) to 679 times (for a 11. 3%-6. 3% differential). n This sounds rather unlike what actually happens.

In a way, it’s moot anyway… n One of the striking things about child language is how few errors they actually make. n For negative feedback to work, the kids have to make the errors (so that it can get the negative response). n But they don’t make enough relevant kinds of errors to determine the complex grammar.

Yes-no questions 17) The man is here. 18) Is the man here? Hypothesis 1: Move the first is (or modal, auxiliary) to the front. Hypothesis 2: Move the first is after the subject noun phrase to the front. 19) The man who is here is eating dinner.

Yes-no questions 19) The man who is here is eating dinner. 20) *Is the man who here is eating dinner? (*H 1) 21) Is the man who is here eating dinner? (√H 2) No kid’s ever said (20) to mean (21), which would have been necessary to distinguish hypotheses 1 and 2… Why not? It seems that kids don’t even entertain Hypothesis 1. And that’s fine, because it seems like Hypothesis 1 is a kind of rule not found in any adult language.

Abstract principles n Principle C: Nothing coreferential can c-command a proper name. *Hei believes Johni’s teacher. Hisi teacher believes Johni. n n Study of adult grammar reveals that c-command is the appropriate abstract notion, defined on syntactic structures. But how do kids learn about c -command? You can’t hear c-command. What’s more, study of adult grammar reveals that Principle C holds in every language!

So, we’ve got… n n n Kids don’t make as many mistakes as would be needed for hypothesis testing. Kids seem to receive no relevant negative evidence while learning language anyway. Kids learn fast. Kids become adults with all the grammatical knowledge pertaining thereto (uniform, highly complex) Kids come to know abstract principles (like Principle C) without access to evidence determining them. In many cases, these principles are observed in all human languages. “Poverty of the stimulus”

Having language = being human n A linguistic capacity is part of being human. n Like having two arms, ten fingers, a vision system, humans have a language faculty. Specification of having arms instead of wings, etc. , is somehow encoded genetically. Structure of the language faculty is predetermined, like the structure of the vision system is. The language faculty (tightly) constrains what kinds of languages a child can learn. =“Universal Grammar” (UG). n n

Universal Grammar n n UG tightly constrains the learning process. Study of syntax, phonology, etc. , is generally trying to uncover properties of Language, to specify what kind of languages a child can learn, to see what kinds of restrictions UG places on language. But kids don’t just enter the world speaking like adults—there’s development. And, adults don’t all end up speaking the same language—there is learning.

Game Plan n The goal of the first part of the course is to discover what we can about UG, about this language acquisition device, through looking at first language development. n What do kids know and when? How could they come to know these things? What have been some of the major discoveries concerning development of syntax?

Coming up—L 1 A Formal learnability Principles and parameters How to set a parameter Triggers, subset principle Syntax at age 2 Root clause nonfinite verbs Null subjects Case errors Theories of development Weak and strong continuity Experimental evidence Optional Infinitives/ATOM Binding theory How early is Principle B? Passives How early are passives? Maturation Do some innate grammatical principles mature? Wh-questions Properties of development, implications for syntactic theory

Coming up—L 2 A L 1 A ≠ L 2 A? How so? Knowledge of language Course of development Parameter settings? Critical period hypothesis Windows of opportunity “Access” and “Transfer” What are the effects of the L 1 on the L 2’ers knowledge? What role does UG play in L 2 A? Experimental results Course of development Sensitivity to universal constraints Effects of instruction Other factors Major models Vainikka & Young-Scholten, Krashen, White, Flynn, Schwartz & Sprouse, …

Learnability n The Principles & Parameters model is designed to address the learnability problem children face: Languages are very complex. n Languages differ (something has to be learned). n Children get insufficient and variable evidence to deduce the uniform rules of grammar they end up with. n Children have adult-like grammars relatively quickly. n

Principles and Parameters n The proposed solution to the apparent paradox is to suppose that to a large extent all human languages are the same. The grammatical systems obey the same principles in all human languages. English UG Japanese

Principles and Parameters n Languages differ, but only in highly limited ways. n n n In the order between the verb and the object. In whether the verb raises to tense … English UG Japanese

Principles and Parameters n This reduces the task for the child immensely—all that the kid needs to do is to determine from the input which setting each of the parameters needs to have for the language in his/her environment. English UG Japanese

The standard picture n The way this is usually drawn schematically is like this. The Primary Linguistic Data (PLD) serves as input to a Language Acquisition Device (LAD), which makes use of this information to produce a grammar of the language being learned. PLD LAD grammar

The standard picture n This isolates the innately specified language faculty into a single component in the picture. The LAD contains (a specification for) all of the principles and the parameters, and has a procedure for going from PLD to parameter settings. PLD LAD grammar

Modeling human language capacity n n We may be able to avoid confusion later, though, if we differentiate the innately provided system into its conceptual components. This is my rendition of a way to think about UG, parameters, and LAD UG PLD Binding Theory Subjacency

Modeling human language capacity n n UG provides the parameters and contains the grammatical system (including the principles, like Subjacency, Binding Theory, etc. ) that makes use of them. LAD sets the parameters based on the PLD. Responsible for getting language to kids. LAD UG PLD Binding Theory Subjacency

Modeling human language capacity n The idea behind this diagram is that UG is something like the shape of language knowledge. n n Knowledge of language can only take a certain, innately pre-specified “shape”. A system with this “shape” has certain properties, among them Binding Theory, Subjacency, … the Principles. LAD UG PLD Binding Theory Subjacency

Modeling human language capacity n The Parameters are different ways in which stored knowledge can conform to the “shape” of UG. n The LAD is a system which analyzes the PLD and sets the parameters. LAD UG PLD Binding Theory Subjacency

Principles and Parameters n So two languages which differ with respect to one parameter setting might be represented kind of like this. n This is of course a cartoon view of things, but perhaps it might be useful later. Language A Language B

Principles and Parameters n n n So what are the Principles and Parameters? Good question! —and that’s what theoretical linguistics is all about. Since 1981, many principles and parameters have been proposed. As our understanding of language grows, new evidence comes to light, and previous proposals are discarded in favor of better motivated ones. It’s hard to keep a current tally of “the principles we know of” because of the active nature of the field.

Principles and Parameters n Some of the (proposed) Parameters that have received a fair amount of press are: n n n Bounding nodes for Subjacency Binding domain for anaphors and pronouns Verb-object order Overt verb movement (V moves to tense) Allowability of null subject (pro) in tensed clauses We’ll look at each of them in due course…

Verb-object order The parameter for verb-object order (more generally, the “head parameter” setting out the order between X -theoretic head and complement) comes out as: n n Japanese: Head-final (X follows complement) English: Head-initial (X precedes complement). Figuring out which type the target language is is often fairly straightforward. Kids can hear evidence for this quite easily. (Not trivial, though— consider German SOV-V 2)

Principle A 22) Sam believes [that Harry overestimates himself] 23) Sam-wa [Harry-ga zibun-o tunet-ta to] it-ta] Sam-top Harry-nom self-acc pinch-past-that say-past ‘Sam said that Harry pinched him(self). ’

Principle A n Principle A. A reflexive pronoun must have a higher antecedent in its binding domain. n Parameter: Binding Domain Option (a): domain = smallest clause containing the reflexive pronoun n Option (b): domain = utterance containing the reflexive pronoun n

But how can you set this parameter? n Every sentence a kid learning English hears is consistent with both values of the parameter! n If a kid learning English decided to opt for the “utterance” version of the domain parameter, nothing would ever tell the kid s/he had made a mistake. n S/he would end up with non-English intuitions.

But how can you set this parameter? n A kid learning Japanese can tell right away that their domain is the sentence, since they’ll hear sentences where zibun refers to an antecedent outside the clause.

But how can you set this parameter? n The set of sentences allowed in English is a subset of the set of sentences allowed in Japanese. If you started assuming the English value, you could learn the Japanese value, but not vice-versa. Sentences allowed in Japanese (domain = utterance) Sentences allowed in English (domain = clause)

Subset principle/defaults n Leads to: The acquisition device selects the most restrictive parametric value consistent with experience. (Subset principle) n That is, for the Principle A domain parameter, you (a LAD) start assuming you’re learning English and switch to Japanese only if presented with evidence.

What it takes to set a parameter J E n Binding domain parameter Option (a): Binding domain is clause. n Option (b): Binding domain is utterance. n n English = option a, Japanese = option b.

What it takes to set a parameter n Binding domain parameter Kids should start under the assumption that the parameter has the English setting. n If they hear only English sentences, they will stick with that setting. n If they hear Japanese sentences, they will have evidence to move to the Japanese setting. J n E

What it takes to set a parameter Very sensible. Now, let’s consider another parameter of variation across languages. n I E Null subject parameter Option (a): Null subjects are permitted. n Option (b): Null subjects are not permitted. n n Italian = option a, English = option b.

What it takes to set a parameter n n The Subset principle says that kids should start with the English setting and learn Italian if the evidence appears. But even English kids are wellknown to drop subjects early on in acquisition. As if had the Italian setting for this parameter. I E

Moreover… n English kids hear looks good and seems ok and stop that right now. Why don’t they end up speaking Italian? If they mis-set the parameter, how could they ever recover? n Italian kids hear subjectless sentences—why don’t they interpret them as imperatives or fragments (so as not to have to change the parameter from the default)?

Triggers n It seems like actual occurrence of null subjects isn’t a very good clue as to whether a subject is a null subject language or not. n Are there better clues? If a strapping young LAD were trying to set the null subject parameter, what should it look for?

Triggers n Turns out: Only true subject-drop languages allow null subjects in tensed embedded clauses. 24) *John knows that [— must go]. (English) 25) Juan sabe que [— debe ir]. (Spanish) ‘Juan knows that [he] must go. ’ n Perhaps the LAD “knows” this and looks for exactly this evidence. Null subjects in embedded tensed clauses would be a trigger for the (positive setting of the) null subject parameter.

Triggers n n A potential problem with the proposed subject -drop trigger is that it requires complex sentences—you need to look at an embedded sentence to check for the trigger. Such sentences might be too complicated for kids to process. n Degree-1 learnability: Triggers need look no lower than 1 level of embedding. n Degree-0 learnability: Triggers need look only at main clauses.

Triggers n n Many who work on learnability have adopted the hypothesis that triggers need to be degree-0 learnable. Subjacency. *[wh [a … [b … t … ] ] where a and b are bounding nodes. IP and TP are often used interchangeably Bounding node parameter for IP: n n Option (a): IP is a bounding node (English). Option (b): IP is not a bounding node (French, Italian).

Triggers n Thus, a kid learning French couldn’t choose option (b) by hearing this… 28) Violà un liste de gens… ‘there is a list of people…’ [à qui on n’a pas encore trouvé [quoi envoyer t t ]] to whom one has not yet found [what to send]] n …since that’s a degree-2 trigger. But…

Triggers 29) Combien as- [IP tu vu [NP t de personnes]]? How-many have you seen of people ‘How many people did you see? ’ n If IP were a bounding node, this should be ungrammatical in French, so this can serve as (degree-0) evidence for option (b).

Triggers n Principles are part of UG n Parameters are defined by UG n Triggers for parameter settings are defined as part of the LAD.

Navigating grammar spaces n Regardless of the technical details, the idea is that in the space of possible grammars, there is a restricted set that correspond to possible human grammars. n Kids must in some sense navigate that space until they reach the grammar that they’re hearing in the input data.

Learnability So how do they do it? n Where do they start? n What kind of evidence do they need? n How much evidence do they need? n n Research on learnability in language acquisition has concentrated on these issues.

Are we there yet? n n n There a lot of grammars to choose from, even if UG limits them to some finite number. Kids have to try out many different grammars to see how well they fit what they’re hearing. We don’t want to require that kids remember everything they’ve ever heard, and sit there and test their current grammar against the whole corpus of utterances—that’ a lot to remember.

Are we there yet? n We also want the kid, when they get to the right grammar, to stay there. n Error-driven learning Most theories of learnability rely on a kind of error-detection. n The kid hears something, it’s not generable by their grammar, so they have to switch their hypothesis, to move to a new grammar. n

Plasticity n n n Yet, particularly as the navigation progresses, we want them to be zeroing in on the right grammar. Finding an error doesn’t mean that you (as a kid) should jump to some random other grammar in the space. Generally, you want to move to a nearby grammar that improves your ability to generate the utterance you heard—move in baby steps.

Triggers Gibson & Wexler (1994) looked at learning word order in terms of three parameters (head, spec, V 2). n Their triggering learning algorithm says if you hear something you can’t produce, try switching one parameter and see if it helps. If so, that’s your new grammar. Otherwise, stick with the old grammar and hope you’ll get a better example. n

Local maxima n n A problem they encountered is that there are certain places in the grammar space where you end up more than one switch away from a grammar that will produce what you hear. This is locally as good as it gets—nothing next to it in the grammar space is better—yet if you consider the whole grammar space, there is a better fit somewhere else, you just can’t get there with baby steps.

Local maxima n This is a point where any move you make is worse, so a conservative algorithm will never get you to the best place. Something a working learning algorithm needs to avoid. (And kids, after all, make it).

Backing up a few steps n Of course, there’s a long way to go between being plunked down in the world and evaluating whether you’re hearing null subjects in embedded tensed clauses (or, conversely and degree-0 learnably, expletives like in it’s raining). What are the words? n Which ones are verbs? n

l√kt∂ætˆts∂sˆtgosain! ændmˆnivæn! si∂brˆdΩ?

Learning language is hard. n Kids have to find the words. And the referents. n Extraction: identify grammatical units. Segmentation: analyze identified units into component parts. n n We will disregard these important points in order to proceed analyzing the development of syntax.

Do kids have syntactic categories? n Once they’ve got the words, have the kids categorized them correctly? n Do kids categorize the linguistic world in terms of the same kinds of categories adults do? (e. g. , noun, verb, …) n Evidence is hard to come by.

So, do kids have syntactic categories? n n n There’s not really any clear way to know at the earliest (one word) stages. One view is that the null hypothesis (which we adopt, lacking evidence to the contrary) should be that kids do have adult-like syntactic categories. Continuity. Kids end up being adults with adult syntactic categories; if they initially categorize words differently, we need to explain how they change their categorization to the adult type.

MLU n Kids’ linguistic development is often measured in terms of Mean Length of Utterance (MLU). Can be measured in various ways (words, morphemes) n Gives an idea of kids’ normal utterance length n Seems to correlate reasonably well with other qualitative changes in kid productions n

2 -year olds Around 2 years old n Around MLU 1. 75 n Around 400 words in the vocabulary n 1 -3 word utterances n Word order generally right n Grammatical words (the, is) generally missing n

2 1/2 year olds n n n About 2 1/2 to 3 years About MLU 2. 25 About 900 words in the vocabulary Some grammatical devices (past tense -ed, verbal -ing). Over-regularization errors (He goed in the house), indicating they’ve grasped the rule of past tense formation. Single clause sentences

3 and 4 year olds n About 3 to 3 1/2 years, MLU about 2. 75, about 1200 words, beginning to use syntactic transformations (Is Daddy mad? Where is he going? ) n About 3 1/2 to 4 years, MLU about 3. 5, about 1500 words, multi-clause sentences, still some over-regularization

4 and 5 year olds n 4 -5 years, MLU around 4, about 1900 words, using more conjunctions and temporal terms (before, after), gain some metalinguistic awareness. n After 5, MLU stays about the same (no longer predictive), sentences get more complex, vocabulary increases (more slowly), over-regularization decreases…

Do kids at the one-word stage have/know syntactic structure? Early attempt to answer the question. n Based on comprehension—kids clearly understand more than they can produce. n de Villiers & de Villiers (1973), kids around MLU (mean length of utterance) 1 to 1. 5 asked to act out the truck pushes the car, and got it right only about a third of the time. n

Do kids at the one-word stage have/know syntactic structure? n Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff (1991), preferential looking task. Less burdensome task. Significant preference for correct screen (word order & role). Hey, Cookie Monster is tickling Bird.

How do we describe multiword utterances? n Syntactically, in the same terms as the adult grammar? (continuity) n Or discontinuously? (For some reason, people seem to think this is simpler…) Thematic (agent+action, action+theme, …) n Pivot (P 1 + O, O + P 2, O + O, O) n “Limited scope formulas” (here+X, want+X) n

Syntactic approach n Continuity: VP n V sit VP PP P on NP chair V sit PP P NP chair

Why 2 words? n Maybe they omit words they don’t know? n Well, but they do omit words they know. n. A kid who’s used hurt before, documented as saying baby cheek to mean ‘baby hurt cheek. ’ n Pinker (1984): Processing bottleneck A 2 -word utterance “filter” n Kids “grow out” of this constraint. n Still, kind of mysterious. What’s easier? n

Evidence for structure Recall also the Hirsh-Pasek & Golinkoff (1991), preferential looking task. n Structure plays a crucial role in figuring out which screen to look at. n Hey, she’s kissing the keys.

The second green ball n Challenge to assumption that kids have structure? Matthei (1982) 3; 9 -6; 3 ‘get the second green ball. ’ n When faced with this: n Do they pick the second and green ball or the second green ball? Kids did terribly—about half the time wrong.

…beware of the task n n n However, why chance? Why not always “second and green”? This tends to suggest kids didn’t really “get” the task. In fact, they made the same mistake with this array and “pick the second ball”. So the problem is probably with ordinal numbers and manipulating subsets…

…beware of the task Additionally, the kids could see the array the whole time, so kids may well have decided on which object to pick by the time they heard “pick the second…” n Hamburger & Crain (1984) re-did the experiment, hiding the array until the request was complete—kids’ error rate dropped to 14%. n

Intermediate moral n It’s not easy to run a successful experiment—you have to be sure that what you’re testing for isn’t being obscured by other cognitive limitations. n Act out The truck pushes the car. n Pick the second green ball.

One-substitution n Anecdotal evidence: n n Hamburger & Crain (1984): ‘Point to the first green ball. Ok. Now, point to the second one. ’ n n nice [yellow pen], nice one (1; 11) Note: “Failure” wouldn’t tell us anything here, since one could also legitimately mean ball—but if kids take one to mean green ball, that’s evidence that kids do have the syntactic sophistication to replace N with one. Nevertheless, 42 / 50 kids interpreted it as green ball.

Some properties of kidspeak n Kids’ language differs from adult language in somewhat predictable ways. These can serve as clues to kids’ grammatical knowledge. Up to around 3 or so… Case errors for nouns n Some word order errors n Omitted subjects n Verbs not (always) fully inflected n

Word order errors? n Languages vary with respect to word order n n n SVO VSO SOV+V 2 English, French, Mandarin, … Tagalog, Irish, … Japanese, Korean, Turkish, … German, … Clahsen (1986) reports that German kids don’t manage to put the verb in second position until the finite/nonfinite distinction is “mastered. ” But at that point the change was immediate: Sentence-syntactic properties are stored separately from word’s category properties.

Word order errors? n n Surprisingly few— 95% correct in English, DPinternal order (*black the dog) may be at 100%. Yet there a number of things like: Doggy sew. It appears that in these cases, it is theme+V without an expressed agent. When agent is expressed, themes are in their place. Sounds like an unaccusative or a passive— perhaps they are treating the verb in these cases as unaccusatives? An attractive idea—but for the fact that young kids are bad at passives and unaccusatives.

Word order errors n Occasionally, postverbal subjects occur—but these seem to occur with likely unaccusatives with postverbal subjects on occasion: going it, come car, fall pants. (cf. adult Mandarin , or Italian, which would allow that). n Alternative approach to Doggy sew might be topicalization: Doggy, you sew—if kids actually can’t do passives and unaccusatives, then this might be the only explanation (short of pure performance error).

The Bennish optative n Anecdote about Ben, from Sadock (1982) n n Intransitives (subject follows verb) n n SVO normally, but in optative (wish) constructions, he uses a weird word order. Fall down Daddy. ‘Daddy should fall down’ Eat Benny now. ‘Let Benny eat now. ’ Sit down Maggie, Mommy. ‘Maggie should sit down, Mommy. ’ Transitives (subject marked with for) n n Pick up Benny for Daddy. ‘Daddy should pick Ben up. ’ Read a story for Mommy. ‘Mommy should read a story. ’

The Bennish optative n n He’s marking transitive subjects with for, but leaving intransitive subjects and objects unmarked. In the optative, Ben treats transitive subjects differently, and objects and intransitive subjects the same way. This pattern is reflected in a type of adult language as well. Ergative languages mark subjects of transitives differently from both objects and intransitive subjects. Accusative languages (like English) mark objects differently (I left, I bought cheese, Bill saw me).

The Bennish optative Perhaps Ben’s language is ergative in the optative mood. (An option for adult languages, though clearly not in his parents’ language) n Further evidence: n Ergative case marker is often homophonous with marker for possessive (cf. Inuktitut -up used for both), and Ben uses for (his ERG marker) in possessive constructions as well. n That’s a nose for Maggie ‘That’s Maggie’s nose. ’ n

The Bennish optative n Further evidence: n n Ergative languages are almost invariably split often along semantic lines. Sadock takes the optative restriction to be of this type (cf. Georgian, nominativeaccusative most of the time, except in the subjunctive and aorist, where it is ergative-absolutive) Ben’s not really making word order errors, exactly—he just thinks he’s speaking Georgian. His errors come from among the options.

Pre-subject negation n Kids will say things like: No I see truck n Not Fraser read it n No lamb have a chair either. n Anaphoric no? ‘No, I see the truck. ’ n Often distinguishable from context, and they are not all anaphoric. n

Pre-subject negation n Déprez & Pierce 1993 looked at these, and proposed that not Fraser read it comes from a failure to raise the subject out of Spec. VP to Spec. IP. That is, here, Fraser is still in its VP-internal subject position. n Some believe this, some don’t, but it’s a well-known analysis.

Case errors n English pronouns exhibit Case n n Kids seem to make errors until at least 2. n n Nom: I, he, she, they Acc: me, him, her, them Gen: my, his, her, their me got bean her do that me eye In general, it is often overgeneralization of Acc.

Overuse of accusative n Default case: Acc in adult English (Schütze 1997) n n n Me too. What, me cheat? ! Never! Me, I like pizza. It’s me. —Who did this? —Me. So, “overuse of accusative” may well be just using a default form for nouns which don’t have case.

Default Case Russian (Babyonyshev 1993): Default case appears to be Nom. n Russian kids make basically no errors in subject case. n …but they overuse Nom in other positions (e. g. , Nom instead of Acc on an object). n

Default Case n German (Schütze 1995): Default case also appears to be Nom: n n n Was? Ich dich betrügen? Nie! ‘What? I cheat on you? Never!’ Der, den habe ich gesehen. ‘He, him I saw. ’ Object case errors are more common than subject case errors, and usually involve overgeneralization of Nom.

Determiners n Kids will also often leave out determiners. Hayley draw boat. n Turn page. n Reading book. n Want duck. n Wayne in garden n Daddy want golf ball. n

Subject drop n Even in languages which don’t allow null subjects, kids will often leave subjects out. No turn. n Ate meat. n Touch milk. n n Dropping the subject is quite common— dropping other things (e. g. , object) is quite rare.

Subject vs. object drop A E S Subject 57 61 43 Object 7 8 15

Root infinitives n Another, fairly recently -noticed aspect of kid speech is that they will use infinitive verbs sometimes when adults would use finite verbs. In lots of languages. n French: n n n German: n n n Pas manger la poupée not eat[inf] the doll Michel dormir Michel sleep[inf] Zahne putzen teeth brush[inf] Thorstn das haben Thorsten that have[inf]. Dutch: n Ik ook lezen I also read[inf. ]

Root infinitives n English kids do this too, it turns out, but this wasn’t noticed for a long time. It only write on the pad (Eve 2; 0) n He bite me (Sarah 2; 9) n Horse go (Adam 2; 3) n It looks like what’s happening is kids are leaving off the -s. n Taking the crosslinguistic facts into account, we now think those are nonfinite forms (i. e. to write, to bite, to go). n

Root infinitives n However, children learning some languages seem to show very few root infinitives or none at all. n n Italian, for example. Often these languages with very few root infinitives Allow null subjects n Have fairly complex agreement morphology n

Pulling it all together Kids sometimes use nonfinite verbs. n Kids sometimes leave out the subject. n Kids sometimes use the wrong Case on the subject (looks like a default Case). n Kids sometimes get the word order wrong (specifically, with respect to negation and for V 2). n Kids generally leave out determiners. n

Kid grammars n A major research industry arose trying to explain how these properties of child speech come about (and how they relate to each other) in terms of the grammatical and/or performance abilities of children.

References n n n Braine, M. D. S. (1971). On two types of models of the internalization of grammars. In D. Slobin (ed. ), The ontogenesis of grammar: A theoretical symposium. New York: Academic Press. Brown, R. and C. Hanlon (1970). Derivational complexity and order of acquisition in child speech. In J. R. Hayes (ed. ), Cognition and the development of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Heath, S. B. (1982). Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In G. Spindler (ed. ), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge University Press. Peters, A. (1983). The units of language acquisition. Cambridge University Press.