Week 11. Maturation, passives, A-chains and phases

1
GRS LX 700Language Acquisition andLinguistic
Theory

• Week 11.Maturation, passives, A-chains and phases

2
Continuity or Maturation?

• Pretty well accepted that there is something
  built-in concerning the acquisition of language
  (UG).
• A limiting version of this is the Continuity
  Hypothesis (Pinker 1984) (or Rigidity) which says
  that whats built in is there from the beginning
  and doesnt change.

3
The situation

• Quite a bit of evidence shows that kids know a
  lot about the principles of UG from as early as
  they can be tested.
• Yet, languages do differ from one anotherkids
  end up speaking different languages depending on
  the language in the environment, so they do learn
  something.

4
The situation

• So there are in principle two dimensions of
  development
• learning language-particular properties
• development of the grammar itself
• Grammar development is what has been argued
  (poverty of the stimulus) not to be learnable by
  experience. Thus, it must be in some way
  genetically provided.

5
The situation

• Being genetically specified does not mean
  present from the outset however. Ample evidence
  from other biological systems of this.
• Pretty much the only conclusion available to deal
  with time delay of innately specified aspects of
  grammar is that parts of the grammar matures.

6
What if we dont like maturation as an
explanation?

• Two options
• Grammar doesnt mature in a biological sense it
  is learned. But we dont believe that, because we
  have good reasons to think that its just not
  possible.
• Grammar doesnt mature in a biological sense it
  is there from the outset in its totality.
  (Continuity, Rigidity)
• Neither option seems very good.

7
Rigidity is hard to justify

• Kids dont seem to have identical linguistic
  properties as adults. How can we explain this
  without some difference in the system?
• Why do kids take so long to reach adult-like
  competence? If the data is available, why dont
  kids use it immediately? If the learning
  mechanism changes, how does it change?
• How far back does Rigidity go? One would suspect
  that fertilization of the egg is too far

8
The way things seem to be

• We have evidence that kids do know quite a bit of
  what we posit to be in UG and very early, often
  as early as we can test it.
• We have evidence that in certain areas kids
  grammars differ from adults. We also have in some
  of these cases evidence that the differences seem
  to go away around the same age across kids (
  across languages).

9
It becomes interesting to know

• What are the principles that kids know as early
  as we can test?
• What are the principles that are delayed, and
  until when are they delayed?
• Wexler (1997) suggests the terminology Continuous
  Development for this model (vs. Rigidity). (so,
  tadpole ? frog)

10
Is maturation a cop-out?

• If a kid doesnt behave according to Principle X
  of UG, we say that kids grammar needs to mature
  until it gets Principle X. Cant we just say that
  about anything? Can we ever show that it just
  matures is false?
• Actually, yesif it matures, if it is on a
  biological schedule, then it cant really differ
  from language to language (at least to any
  greater extent than, say, malnutrition can delay
  puberty).

11
How different is a kids grammar?

• In principle, it could be quite different.
  Tadpoles do become frogs in the real, biological
  world.
• But it seems like what kids have is pretty close
  to what adults have, based on empirical
  studiesleading to the hypothesis that there is a
  close connection between kids grammars and adult
  grammars

12
UG-constrained maturation

• Borer Wexler (1992) introduced the hypothesis
  as UG-Constrained Maturation, which says that all
  child grammatical representations are
  representations that are available in UG.
• In other words, a kids syntactic tree is one
  that could exist in some adult language without
  violating principles of UG.

13
UG-constrained maturation

• This hypothesis only allows for certain kinds of
  kid deficitsa kid grammar can rule out a
  structure, which an adult (speaking some adult
  language) would consider grammatical, but it
  cannot allow a structure that no adult language
  would make grammatical.

14
Optional infinitives

• Young, young kids show evidence of knowing how to
  inflect, move verbs, etc. They know the parameter
  settings for their language, even. Kids know a
  lot.
• Butkid allows nonfinite forms in contexts that
  adult requires finite forms in.
• How does this fit in to UGCM?

15
Optional infinitives

• Take the Wexler (1998) view that kids dont know
  that D is interpretable. This can be seen as
  another kind of coordination issuecoordinating
  the syntactic system and the interpretation
  system.
• As long as the syntactic system doesnt require T
  or Agr, this fits in with UGCM.
• That is, we take Have T and Have Agr as being
  principles outside the syntaxmaybe tied to
  discourse.

16
Passives

• John kicked the ball (active)
• The ball was kicked (by John) (passive)
• Standard analysis the ball starts off as
  complement of V in both in the passive, the
  agent is suppressed and the verb is deprived of
  its ability to assign Case. Thus, the ball moves
  into SpecIP to get Case.
• The balli was kicked ti.

17
Passives

• The balli was kicked ti.
• The chain between the ball and t created by
  moving the ball into SpecIP is an A-chain (a
  chain whose top is in a position where you can
  only find arguments). Like subject position
  (SpecTP or SpecAgrSP).

18
Kids vs. passives

• It was observed early on (Horgan 1978, Maratsos
  et al. 1985) that kids have trouble with
  passives.
• But there are a couple of asymmetries
• Kids are better at actional passives than
  nonactional passives
• Jasmine was combed (by Wendy)
• Peter Pan was feared (by Captain Hook)
• Kids are better at short passives (without the
  by-phrase) earlier than long passives.

19
Why are kids better at actional passives?

• In English at least, it seems like there are two
  kinds of words with passive morphology
• Verbal The suspect was seen.
• Adjectival His hair seems combed.

20
Verbal and adjectival passives

• Generally, non-action verbs make poor adjectival
  passives (while action verbs are fine)
• The suspect seems seen. The seen suspect (fled).
  Seen though the movie was, John went to see it
  again.
• The cloth seems torn. The torn cloth (is
  useless). Torn though the cloth was, John used it
  anyway.
• So Action verbs can form adjectival passives.
• Conclusion It should be possible for kids to
  say/understand passive-like action verbs, but not
  passive-like non-action verbs.

21
Verbal vs. adjectival passives

• Borer Wexler (1987) the early passives that we
  see kids produce/comprehend are adjectival
  passives.
• The crucial difference (on BWs analysis)
  between verbal and adjectival passives has to do
  with where the modification of the argument
  structure happens.
• adjectival passive in the lexicon(turns it into
  a real adjective)
• verbal passive in the syntax
• So, kids cant do the syntactic passive. Why?

22
Verbal vs. adjectival passives

• The bottom line is
• verbal passives move their argument into the
  usual external argument position
• adjectival passives just start their argument in
  the usual external argument position
• The movement of the internal argument to the
  external position is the problem.
• Borer Wexler (1987) propose what we can call
  the A-chain Deficit HypothesisA-chains are
  unavailable to kidswith a Proto-UG.

23
Adjectival passives and verbal passives

• So, the passives that we see young kids produce
  are actually deceptions. They are not really
  verbal passivesand if the ACDH is right, they
  couldnt bebut are adjectival.
• Looking at Hebrew, where adjectival passives and
  verbal passives are distinct, BW observe that
  adjectival passives are (clearly) used early, and
  verbal passive only appear at school age
  (Berman Sagi 1981).
• There is an additional complication in Hebrew
  that we wont get into here, which involves the
  availability of unmoved Themes in verbal
  passives. BW87 argued that kids were also
  lacking the case assignment mechanism that allows
  this we might alternatively think of it as being
  like the Russian Genative of Negation discussed
  later, involving an (optional) hidden movement.

24
Predictions

• A-chain Deficit HypothesisA-chains are
  unavailable to kidswith a Proto-UG.
• So, suppose that this is true. What are the
  predictions?
• Of course, (real, verbal) passives will be
  impossible.
• But also anything else with an A-chain.
• Ouch. Well, since the VPISH, pretty much every
  sentence has an A-chain, so that cant be right.
  It has to be something special about raising the
  Theme. One suggestion (BW92) is non-canoncial
  ?-role assignment, though thats not great
  either, since we need to add some kind of theory
  of what canonical ?-role assignment is.

25
Other things with A-chains

• The VPISH has given us a hint that perhaps
  A-chain is not exactly the right concept, but
  lets focus on the kind of object-to-subject
  movement that we see in passives.
• Other obvious candidate Unaccusatives.
• This opens up a bigger can of worms. Do kids have
  problems with unaccusatives? What is the nature
  of the problems?

26
Unaccusatives

• There are two kinds of intransitive verbs
• Unergative (subject-type argument)
• Unaccusative (object-type argument)
• The unergative verbs have an external argument
  just like a transitive verb.
• The unaccusative verbs have only an internal
  argument, which moves to subject positionjust
  like in a passive.

27
Unaccusatives passives

• An unaccusative is structurally like a passive
• The traini arrived ti.
• An unergative is not.
• The baby giggled.
• So we expect kids to have the same troubles with
  unaccusatives and passives.
• In particular, we expect kids to have no way to
  represent an unaccusative.
• But we know kids use and understand verbs that
  are, for adults, unaccusative. So what is the
  implication?

28
S-homophony

• Borer Wexler suggest that whats happening when
  a kid comprehends/uses an unaccusative verb is
  that the verb is misanalyzed as an unergative.
• It has to be, the kidby hypothesiscant
  represent an unaccusative structure.
• The boat sank.
• The boati sank ti.
• The doll giggled.
• The reason this happens is that the surface form
  doesnt distinguish between unergatives and
  unaccusatives. They are S(yntactic)-homophones.

29
S-homophony

• That is the (immature) kid cant tell the
  difference between an unergative and an
  unaccusative.
• Is there evidence of that?
• Maybe, theres some. But theres also some
  evidence against it.
• Is this even conceptually a good idea?
• Probably not. Why is an unaccusative
  unaccusative? Because the argument is a Theme.
  UTAH says Themes are in object position. So when
  a kid uses sink or fall do they think the
  argument is an Agent? Or do they violate UTAH?
  And once their grammar matures, how do they
  recover?

30
BW Pro-conflation Causatives

• Causativization adds a causative argument (in
  English, it happens to be Ø)
• Moms favorite vase broke.
• Timmy broke Moms favorite vase.
• In English (not in all languages, e.g., Hebrew),
  this can only happen if there wasnt already an
  external argument. Works for unaccusatives, but
  not for unergatives or transitives
• The doll giggled.
• Peter giggled the doll.
• Peter kicked the ball.
• I kicked Peter the ball (I made Peter kick the
  ball.)

31
Causatives

• If kids cant represent unaccusatives (that is,
  if all intransitives are for them unergative),
  then they cant make that distinction.
• Kids hear
• The door opened. Daddy opened the door.
• The kids cannot reach the (adult-)correct
  conclusion that causativization only works for
  unaccusatives. It must be possible for any
  intransitive.
• And indeed, kids over-apply causativization to
  unergatives too
• Daddy giggled the doll.

32
Anti-conflation Kim (1997)

• Kim (1997) observed that in Korean, kids make a
  negation misplacement error only with respect
  to objects and unaccusative subjects, never to
  unergative or transitive subjects
• na an pap mek-e (adult na pap(-ul) an mek-e)I
  neg rice eatI do not eat rice.
• an ippal ssek-e (adult ippal(-i) an ssek-e)neg
  teeth rotI wont have a cavity.

33
Anti-conflation Guasti (2002)

• Guasti also notes (in the textbook, without any
  citation of any other study) that Italian kids
  generally get the auxiliary selection rightmuch
  earlier than the purported maturation.
• Gianni è, ha andato. (adults)Gianni is,
  has leftGianni left.
• Diana between 20 and 27 produced 22 relevant
  sentences and 19 of them correctly had be.
• Guasti concludes that this is bad for the
  maturational accountbut its really only bad
  for the ACDH version of it. Something else could
  still be maturing.

34
Pro-conflation Babyonyshev et al. (1998)

• Testing the idea from Borer Wexler (1987) that
  unaccusatives are analyzed as if they are
  unergatives by kids in the pre-passive stage of
  life.
• Turns out that Russian provides a nice test of
  unaccusativity/unergativity with the genitive of
  negation so we can directly check to see how
  kids are analyzing their intransitives.

35
Russian genitive of negation

• In negative sentences, an object in the scope of
  negation can be accusative (if the object is
  definite/specific) or genitive (if the object is
  indefinite/non-specific).
• So ability to be marked with genitive a property
  of VP-internal indefinite objects.
• Ja ne poluchil pisma.I not received
  letter-acc.plI didnt receive the/some
  letters.
• Ja ne poluchil (nikakix) pisem.I not received
  (neg-kind-gen.pl) letter-gen.plI didnt receive
  any letters.
• Ja poluchil pisma/pisem.I received
  letter-acc.pl/letter-gen.plI received the/some
  letters.

36
Russian genitive of negation

• Arguments of unaccusatives and passives
  (pronounced in their postverbal, VP-internal base
  position) can be marked with GoN.
• A small class of verbs requires its arguments to
  be marked with GoN (regardless of definiteness)
  includes existential be.

37
Russian genitive of negation

• Base-generated objects (arguments of passives and
  unaccusatives) still have a hidden A-chain,
  however. There is some relation between these
  objects and the subject position that is (like?)
  an A-chain.
• (They move covertlyits as if they move to
  subject position, except that you pronounce the
  trace instead.)
• We believe this based on the following facts
  about licensing of negative phrases.

38
Covert movement of genitive argument

• Point 1 When clausal negation co-occurs in the
  same clause with negative phrases, all is well.
• any .. neg , neg any
• Point 2 Negation in a lower clause cant license
  a negative phrase in the upper clause.
• any neg

39
Covert movement of genitive argument

• Point 3 A raised negative phrase subject has to
  raise to a clause with negationnot from a clause
  with negation.
• anyi neg ti
• anyi ti

40
Covert movement of genitive argument

• Point 4 A raising verb embedding a clause with
  an unaccusative and an genitive negative phrase
  needs to have negation above it and not down with
  it.
• neg any-gen
• neg any-gen
• GoN acts as if it moved into the upper clause, we
  just cant see it (its covert).

41
Now, what do we expectpre-A-chain kids to do?

• In GoN constructions, the unaccusative argument
  is pronounced in its base-position
• There can be no re-analysis as an unergative.
• No S-homophones.
• Moreover, GoN is prohibited with unergatives.
• This is pretty much impossible to solvethe kids
  stuck, and we expect them just not to use GoN.

42
Testing the GoN

• GoN is allowed with transitives and these do not
  involve problematic A-chains.
• First order of business is to see if kids know
  how to use GoN in the unproblematic cases.
• Tested 30 kids in Moscow between 30 and 66.
• First result Kids use genitive about 75 of the
  time where it should be used, around 4 of the
  time where it shouldnt. Smart kids.

43
Testing the GoN

• Second result, split by age Verbs that require
  GoN showed significant difference by age younger
  kids (40) used GoN 30 of the time, older kids
  (54) used it 60 of the time.
• This is still fairly courseit turns out that if
  we look at the individual subjects, we will find
  all and only the patterns the hypothesis predicts
  with respect to where kids accept GoN.
• At least this is what Babyonyshev et al.
  assertits actually not really clear that this
  is the case (Hale 2001).

44
Subject by subject use of GoN

• Kids divided by their case response for
• transitive non-specific (adult gen)
• transitive specific (adult acc)
• unaccusative (adult gen)
• bleached unaccusative (adult gen)
• They fell into classes.
• Kids who dont know how to use GoN at all.
• Kids who use GoN like adults (post-A-chain kids)
• Kids use GoN right for transitives, not for
  unaccusatives.
• Kids use GoN right for unaccusatives not for
  transitives.

45
Kids who use GoN right for transitives, not for
unaccusatives

• 7 really act as predicted
• Nom for both bleached and non-bleached
  unaccusatives. (Adults would have gen here and
  nom for unergatives, as these kids have)
• 3 get non-bleached unaccusatives (only) right
• Gen for non-bleached, nom for bleached.
• Explanation maybe these kids are in transition,
  or maybe UTAH vs. ACDH are fighting, or maybe
  its just performance errors.
• 8 get bleached unaccusatives (only) right
• Nom for non-bleached, gen for bleached.
• Explanation be is in this class, overwhelming
  frequency, learned by rote? So, we ignore
  bleached.

46
GoN as a diagnostic

• So, its not really clear what we have here. We
  have something like a tendency toward a problem
  with unaccusatives, for a certain set of kids.
  The results were not as clear-cut as one might
  have hoped for, however.
• Perhaps this is a problem with GoN as a true
  diagnostic of unaccusativity, particularly with
  respect to the bleached verbs.
• Perhaps this is a problem with the premise
  itself maybe pre-passive kids dont have the
  same problem with unaccusatives as with passives.
• In any event, the case for unaccusatives is less
  clear.

47
Two possible interpretations

• The ACDH says that the object-to-subject movement
  required in a passive is problematic, and there
  is at least some evidence that points to problems
  with unaccusatives too. But that movement is not
  the only thing they have in common.
• ACDH A-Chain Deficit Hypothesis(no A-chains)
• EARH External Argument Requirement Hypothesis
  (external arguments required)
• Passives and unaccusatives both fail both.
  Transitives and unergatives both pass both.

48
Possible support for EARH over ACDH

• Snyder, Hyams, and Crisma (1994) found that
  French kids get auxiliary selection right from a
  young agein particular with reflexive clitics.
• Although the unaccusative/unergative distinction
  seems to play a role in the selection of the
  auxiliary, its not a 1-to-1 correlation
  (particularly in French, it might be closer in
  Italian, though). Only some unaccusatives take
  be, and a kid still needs to figure out which.
• Reflexives OTOH are much more reliable. There are
  good arguments for supposing that their structure
  involves object-to-subject movement
• Le chienj siest ti mordu tj the
  dog bit itself.

49
EARH

• If this analysis is right, then we have
  object-to-subject movement just like in
  passives and unaccusatives, yet kids can do this
  at a young age. What gives?
• There is an A-chain just like in unaccusatives
  and passives. So the problem would seem not to be
  about A-chains.
• The reflexive and unaccusative/passive differ in
  that the reflexives still have their external
  ?-role intact.
• Hence maybe the pre-A-chain kids are really
  obligatory external argument kids (EARH).

50
What else does EARH predict?

• So, if EARH is right, it predicts kids will do
  poorly on anything without an external argument.
  So far, we have
• Fine transitives, unergatives
• Not fine unaccusatives, passives
• What else lacks an external argument? Well,
  raising verbs and weather verbs
• Johnnyi seems ti to be riding a horsie .
• It seems that Johnny is riding a horsie .
• It rained.
• So how do kids do on those?

51
It rained

• Kirby Becker (submitted) looked at occurrences
  of expletive it (among other things).
• Kids use the referential pronoun it first.
• Kids leave out expletive it for a while.
• Then, kids use expletive it.
• But thats not even the important thing. Kids use
  the weather verbs (way too early), and they have
  no external argument.
• Adam by 26, Eve by 112, Nina by 22, Peter by
  26.

52
EARH seems to us to have trouble

• Wexler (2004) reports that kids have trouble with
  raising verbs
• Berti seems to Ernie ti to be wearing a hat.
• As predictedthey should have trouble with seems
  generally (by EARH), or with the raising itself
  (by ACDH). Except kids do great on
• It seems to Ernie that Bert is wearing a hat.
• So, its not seems that they have trouble with.
  Were back to (something like) the ACDH again,
  its the movement that matters.
• Except that we still at some point have to
  confront the Romance reflexives/auxiliaries fact.

53
ACDH seems to have trouble

• Except Becker (forthcoming, LI) found that kids
  do fabulously with
• The hayi seems ti to be on the ground.
• The dogi seemed ti to be purple.
• So, it looks like the experiencer is causing
  problems, but only in raising structures (not it
  structures)
• Berti seems to Ernie ti to be wearing a hat.

54
Wexler (2004)

• Wexler (2004) proposed a new version of the ACDH
  relying on the concept of phases in minimalist
  syntax.
• The basic idea of a phase is that a tree is built
  up from bottom to top in chunks and once a
  chunk has been built, you cant see into it any
  further than the edge
• CP vP specifier v VP
• Consequence unless an embedded DP can get into
  SpecvP, it will be frozen inside the vP.
• Proposal Some vs for adults are defective (not
  phases), including unaccusatives and passives.
  For kids, no vs are defective.

55
Wexler (2004)

• Universal Phase RequirementFor the immature
  child, v always defines a phase.
• Effect of this is that movement of objects into
  subject position is impossible. The object
  doesnt go into SpecvP and for kids, thats
  obligatory.
• One prediction this makes is that if there is
  some other reason for kids to get the object into
  SpecvP, then unaccusatives should be possible.
• One such reason would be if the object were a
  wh-word. The idea is that the wh-word first moves
  to SpecvP and then moves on.
• So, lets check

56
Hirsch Wexler (2004)

• Hirsch Wexler looked into this, and discovered
  that indeed
• Bert seems to Ernie to be wearing a hat.
• Who seems to Ernie to be wearing a hat?
• (I thinkI must confess, I dont actually have
  this paper, this is based on secondhand
  information and guesswork, but its probably what
  they found.)
• But this is beautiful and awesome (cf. Kens talk
  at BUCLD 2004), what a weird thing to be true,
  but yet predicted.

57
Hyams Snyder (2005)

• Great, but neither the ACDH nor the UPR predicts
  the thing with the reflexive clitics in Romance.
  Kids should fail (because the object moves out),
  but they dont. This was why EARH beat ACDH in
  the first place.
• Interesting, quite different idea, based on a
  different analysis of the passive. Smuggling
  (Collins 2005).
• Basic idea You cant move A-move a DP over
  another one, the solution is to first move
  something containing the DP over the other one,
  then move the DP out. Maybe Ill draw it on the
  board.
• I think this is the same concept as what
  Sauerland (1994?) called Surfing
• Bottom line Children have trouble A-moving a DP
  past another argument.

58
Hyams Snyder (2005)

• Romance reflexives
• Suppose that v is the REFL morpheme, nothing in
  SpecvP. Nothing to get in the way.
• Passives
• PRO or Agent of by-phrase is in SpecvP. Smuggling
  required.
• Unaccusatives
• ? Well, but are we sure kids have trouble with
  unaccusatives?
• Raising past experiencers
• Experiencer gets in the way. Smuggling required.
• Raising without experiencers, raising with
  wh-words over experiencers
• No smuggling required.

59
Beauty awe Lg. acq. as high science

• Notice what a nice progression weve had here,
  even if we havent necessarily come to a
  definitive conclusion.
• Passives were hard? Why? The movement. What else
  has the movement?
• Unaccusatives? Maybe also hard. But Romance
  reflexives arent. So, maybe its the external
  argument. What else lacks an external argument?
• Raising verbs? Hard, but only when theres the
  movement. So, its the movement still, but its
  not A-chains exactly, its the ability to get out
  of a phase. When might you independently be able
  to get out of a phase?
• Wh-words in raising contexts? Possible. But
  raising without experiencers seems to be
  possible. Why?
• Kids cant smuggle? But we need to re-evaluate
  unaccusatives.

60
But are passives actually impossible?

• Theres some dispute about this, it turns out
• Its only getting the ?-role to the by-phrase
  Fox Grodzinsky (1998)
• No, its not kids think by is about Hirsch
  Wexler (2005)
• The tests were pragmatically ill-conceived
  OBrien, Grolla, Lillo-Martin (2005)
• There are languages with early passives. It
  depends on the properties of the childs input.
• Inuktitut Crago Allen (1996)
• Sesotho Demuth (1989?)
• Leads to a separate thread of argumentation
  Those things that look like passives in these
  languages arent really, cf. adjectival passives.
  See, e.g., footnote in Babyonyshev et al. (1998),
  Crawford (2003?)

61
Fox, Grodzinsky

• Testing kids on actional/nonactional, long/short
  be/get passives
• Actional passives pose no problem for
  comprehension (long or short).
• This is surprisingexplanation, kids use by for
  Affector, which turns out to be right, but its
  not due to transmitting the ?-role.
• Get passives (long) seem to pose no problem.
• Nonactional short passives are pretty well
  comprehended.
• Nonactional long passives are at chance.
• Kids cant transmit the ?-role to the by-phrase.

62
q-transmission

• In verbal be passives, the q-role seems to be
  transmitted to by
• Aladdin is pushed by Jasmine (agent).
• Captain Hook is feared by Michael (experiencer)
• A cake is offered to Ariel by Pinocchio (source)
• The ship was sunk PRO to collect the insurance.
• But not with get-passives (by works alone).
• The ship got sunk PRO to collect the insurance.
• FG suggest problem with q-transmission due to
  processing (only option left is direct
  assignment from by) for nonactional verbs, get
  passive).

63
Hirsch Wexler (2005)

• Tested kids on by phrases vs. about phrases, as
  in
• The story about Elmo had cars in it.
• The story by Elmo had cars in it.
• Kids treated by phrases like about phrases. They
  did great on the about ones (91) and lousy on
  the by ones (28).
• Conclusion The FG story about Affectors doesnt
  seem to be right.

64
OBrien et al. (2005)

• Experiments showing that passive wasnt good were
  pragmatically flawed. Fix the flaw, fix the
  performance.
• Bill was kicked by Pete. (actional, fine)
• Bill was seen by Pete. (non-actional, problems)
• Except that lots of people can see, even if only
  one person is kicking. Plus, this is kind of
  weird if there isnt a character to contrast with
  Pete.
• Tried setting up the scenario better so that the
  question of whether Bill was seen by Pete was at
  issueand 4-year olds got it 82 of the time.

65
Demuth (1989), Allen Crago (1996)

• Passives seem early in Sesotho Inuktitut. The
  claim is that theyre frequent in the input,
  theyre verbal (they involve an A-chain), and
  theyre in use by age 3.
• This is a problem for the Maturation hypothesis
  as an explanation for the delay in passives. Age
  of maturation cant vary by language.
• Two possible counters to this 1) Those werent
  really A-chain-containing passives (Crawford
  2004) 2) It wasnt ACDH after all, and Sesotho
  differs in the relevant respect from English. For
  example smuggling not required? (For another day
  perhaps)

66
?

• ? ?
• ?
• ? ?
• ? ?
• ?
• ?