Title: Week 2. The emergence of syntax
1GRS LX 700Language Acquisition andLinguistic
Theory
- Week 2. The emergence of syntax
2Syntax
- Recall the basic structure of adult sentences.
- IP (a.k.a. TP, INFLP, ) is the position of
modals and auxiliaries, also assumed to be home
of tense and agreement. - CP is where wh-words move and where I moves in
subject-aux-inversion
3Splitting the INFL
- Syntax since 1986 has been more or less driven by
the principle every separable functional element
belongs in its own phrase. - Various syntactic tests support these moves as
well (cf. CAS LX 523).
4Splitting the INFL
- Distinct syntactic functions assigned to distinct
functional heads. - T tense/modality
- AgrO object agreement, accusative case
- AgrS subject agreement, nominative case
- Neg negation
- Origins Pollock (1989) (split INFL into Agr and
T), Chomsky (1993) (split INFL into AgrS, T,
AgrO).
5Functional heads
- The DP, CP, and VP all suffered a similar fate.
- DP was split into DP and NumP
- Origin Ritter 1991 and related work
6Functional heads
- VP was split into two parts, vP where the agent
starts, and VP where the patient starts. V and v
combine by head movement. - Origins Larson (1988) proposed a similar
structure for double-object verbs, Hale Keyser
(1993) proposed something like this structure,
which was adopted by Chomsky (1993).
7Functional heads
- CP was split into several discourse-related
functional heads as well (topic, focus, force,
and finiteness). - Origins Rizzi (1997)
8Functional structure
- Often, the fine structure of the functional
heads does not matter, so people will still refer
to IP (with the understanding that under a
microscope it is probably AgrSP, TP, AgrOP, or
even more complex), CP, DP, etc.
- The heart of syntax is really in the functional
heads, on this view. Verbs and nouns give us the
lexical content, but functional heads (TP, AgrSP,
etc.) give us the syntactic structure.
9How do kids get there?
- Given the structure of adult sentences, the
question were concerned about here will be in
large part how do kids (consistently) arrive at
this structure (when they become adults)?
- Kids learn it (patterns of input).
- Chickens and eggs, and creoles, and so forth.
- Option 1 Kids start out assuming the entire
adult structure, learning just the details (Does
the verb move? How is tense pronounced?) - Option 2 Kids start out assuming some subpart of
the adult structure, complexity increasing with
(predetermined?) development.
10Testing for functional structure
- Trying to answer this question involves trying to
determine what evidence we have for these
functional structures in child syntax.
- Its not very easy. Its hard to ask judgments of
kids, and they often do unhelpful things like
repeat (or garble) things they just heard
(probably telling us nothing about what their
grammar actually is).
11Testing for functional structure
- We do know what various functional projections
are supposed to be responsible for, and so we can
look for evidence of their effects in child
language.
- This isnt foolproof. If a child fails to
pronounce the past tense suffix on a verb that
was clearly intended to be in the past, does this
mean theres no TP? Does it mean they simply made
a speech error (as adults sometimes do)? Does it
mean they havent figured out how to pronounce
the past tense affix yet?
12Helpful clues kids give us
- Root infinitives
- Kids seem to use nonfinite forms of main (root)
clause verbs where adults wouldnt. Again,
theres a certain crosslinguistic systematicity
to it that can provide clues as to whats going
on.
- Null subjects
- Kids seem to drop the subject off of their
sentences a lot. More than adults would. Theres
a certain crosslinguistic systematicity to it as
well, from which we might take hints about kids
functional structure.
13Radford (1990, 1995)
- A proposal about Early Child English.
- Kids syntax differs from adults syntax
- kids use only lexical (not functional) elements
- structural sisters in kids trees always have a
q-relation between them. - VP Small Clause NP q V Hypothesis
man V q NP chase car
14adult syntax ? child syntax
- Adults CPIPVP
- Kids VP
- Evidence for absence of IP
- No modals (repeating, kids drop them)
- No auxiliaries (Mommy doing dinner)
- No productive use of tense agreement (Baby ride
truck, Mommy go, Daddy sleep)
15Absence of CP
- No CP system
- no complementizers (that, for, if)
- no preposed auxiliary (car go?)
- no wh-movement (imitating where does it go?
yields go? spontaneous mouse doing?) - kids bad at comprehending wh-object questions
(out of canonical order). (What are you doing?
No.)
16Absence of DP
- No DP system
- no non-q elements
- no expletives (raining, outside cold)
- no of before noun complements of nouns (cup tea)
- Few determiners (Hayley draw boat, want duck,
reading book) - No possessive s, which may be a D.
- No pronouns, which are probably D.
17Small childrens small clauses
- The Small Clause Hypothesis is not prima facie
crazy. Child English does seem to look something
like what it would predict. - On the other hand, when looking across languages,
we find that the SCH doesnt fare very well. - In languages where tense/agreement is more
visible, we find kids using infinitives, but only
sometimes, other times using finite verbs. The
case that kids do not represent tense weakens
(but is not yet out of the running!).
18To T or not to T
- Focusing specifically on tense (and subject
agreement), the fact that kids sometimes use
tense and sometimes do not does not indicate that
they know or represent T in their syntactic
structure. - The question is When tense is there, does it act
like tense would for an adult? Do kids
differentiate between tensed and infinitive
verbs, or are these just memorized Vs at this
point?
19Full Competence Hypothesis
- Poeppel Wexler (1993). Data Andreas (21, from
CHILDES). - The morphosyntactic properties associated with
finiteness and attributable to the availability
of functional categories (notably head movement)
are in place. - The best model of the child data is the standard
analysis of adult German (functional projections
and all). The one exception - Grammatical Infinitive Hypothesis
- Matrix sentences with (clause-final) infinitives
are a legitimate structure in child German
grammar.
20Adult German
- Phrase structure consists of CP, IP, VP.
- German is SOV, V2
- The finite verb (or auxiliary or modal) is the
second constituent in main clauses, following
some constituent (subject, object, or adverbial). - In embedded clauses, the finite verb is final.
- V2 comes about by moving the finite verb to
(head-initial) C.
21German clause structure
CP
C?
- This second position is generally thought to be
C, where something else (like the subject, or any
other XP) needs to appear in SpecCP. - This only happens with finite verbs. Nonfinite
verbs remain at the end of the sentence (after
the object).
DP
IP
CI
kaufte
Hans
I?
VP
V?
DP
den Ball
22German clause structure
CP
C?
- Things other than subjects can appear in first
position. - When the tense appears on an auxiliary, the verb
stays in place.
DP
IP
CI
hat
denBall
DP
I?
VP
Hans
V?
V
gekaufte
23In brief
- Kids can choose a finite or a nonfinite verb.
- A finite (matrix) verb shows up in 2nd position
- A nonfinite verb appears clause-finally
- ich mach das nich
- I do that not
- du das haben
- you that have
24Results
- There is a strong contingency.
- Conclude the finiteness distinction is made
correctly at the earliest observable stage.
finite -finite
V2, not final 197 6
V final, not V2 11 37
25Do kids learn this is a second position verb
for certain verbs?
- (Are some verbs used as auxiliaries?)
- Andreas used 33 finite verbs and 37 nonfinite
verbs, 8 of which were in both categories - and those 8 were finite in V2 position and
nonfinite in final position. - Remaining verbs show no clear semantic core that
one might attribute the distribution to.
26Verb positioning functional categories
- In adult German, V2 comes from V ? I ? C.
- If we can see non-subjects to the left of finite
verbs, we know we have at least one functional
projection (above the subject, in whose Spec the
first position non-subject goes).
FP
Object
F?
VP
FV
Subject
V?
27When V is 2nd, whats first?
- Usually subject, not a big surprise.
- But 19 objects before finite V2(of 197 cases,
180 with overt subjects) - And 31 adverbs before finite V2
- Conclude Kids basically seem to be acting like
adults their V2 is the same V2 that adults use.
28CP
- The Full Competence Hypothesis says not only that
functional categories exist, but that the child
has access to the same functional categories that
the adult does. - In particular, CP should be there too.
- Predicts what weve seen
- finite verbs are in second position only(modulo
topic drop leaving them in first position) - nonfinite verbs are in final position only
- subjects, objects, adverbs may all precede a
finite verb in second position.
29PWs predictions methow did the other guys fare?
- Radford and related approaches (No functional
categories for the young)? - Well, we see V2 with finite verbs
- finite verb is second
- non-subjects can be first
- and you cant do this except to move V out of VP
and something else to its left - You need at least one functional category.
- Andreas uses agreement correctly when he uses
itadults use IP for that.
30PWs predictions methow did the other guys fare?
- No C hypothesis (kids dont use overt
complementizers) - Of course, kids dont really use embedded clauses
either (a chicken-egg problem?) - Purported cases of embedded clauses without a
complementizer arent numerous or convincing. - Absence of evidence ? evidence of absence.
31PWs predictions methow did the other guys fare?
- Can we get away with only one functional
category? - The word order seems to be generable this way so
long as F is to the left of VP. - subject can stay in SpecVP
- V moves to F
- non-subject could move to SpecFP.
- though people tend to believe that IP in German
is head-final (that is, German is head-final
except for CP). How do kids learn to put I on the
right once they develop CP?
32PWs predictions methow did the other guys fare?
- Empirical argument
- negation and adverbs are standardly supposed to
mark the left edge of VP. - A subject in SpecVP (i.e. when a non-subject is
topicalized) should occur to the right of such
elements. - 19 Object-initial sentences 31 adverb-initial
sentences, 8 have an(other) adverb or negation,
and all eight have the subject to the left of the
adverb/negation. - CP Object CIV IP Subject VP neg/adv tSubj
tV tI
33The Full Competence Hypothesis
- The idea Kids have full knowledge of the
principles and processes and constraints of
grammar. Their representations are basically
adult-like. - Whats different is that kids optionally allow
infinitives as matrix verbs (which kids grow out
of).
34Harris Wexler (1996)
- Child English bare stems as OIs?
- In the present, only morphology is 3sg -s.
- Bare stem isnt unambiguously an infinitive form.
- No word order correlate to finiteness.
- OIs are clearer in better inflected languages.
Does English do this too? Or is it different? - Hypotheses
- Kids dont get inflection yet go and goes are
basically homonyms. - These are OIs, the -s is correlated with
something systematic about the child syntax.
35Harris Wexler (1996)
- Exploring a consequence of having T in the
structure do support. - Rationale
- Main verbs do not move in English.
- Without a modal or auxiliary, T is stranded The
verb -ed not move. - Do is inserted to save T.
- Predicts No T, no do insertion.
36Harris Wexler (1996)
- Empirically, we expect
- She go
- She goes
- She not go (no T no do)
- She doesnt go (adult, T and do)
- but never
- She not goes (evidence of T, yet no do).
- Note All basically options if kids dont get
inflection.
37Harris Wexler (1996)
- Looked at 10 kids from 16 to 41
- Adam, Eve, Sara (Brown), Nina (Suppes), Abe
(Kuczaj), Naomi (Sachs), Shem (Clark), April
(Higginson), Nathaniel (Snow). - Counted sentences
- with no or not before the verb
- without a modal/auxiliary
- with unambiguous 3sg subjects
- with either -s or -ed as inflected.
38Harris Wexler (1996)
- Affirmative
- 43 inflected
- Negative
- lt 10 inflected
- It not works Mom
- no N. has a microphone
- no goes in there
- but the horse not stand ups
- no goes here!
aff neg
-inflec 782 47
inflec 594 5
39Harris Wexler (1996)
- Small numbers, but in the right direction.
- Generalization Considering cases with no
auxiliary, kids inflect about half the time
normally, but almost never (up to performance
errors) inflect in the negative. - If do is an indicator of T in the negative, we
might expect to see that do appears in negatives
about as often as inflection appears in
affirmatives. - Also, basically true 37 vs. 34 in the pre-26
group, 73 vs. 61 in the post-26 group.
40Harris Wexler (1996)
- Also, made an attempt to ascertain how the form
correlated with the intended meaning in terms of
tense. (Note a nontrivial margin of error) - Inflected verbs overwhelmingly in the right
context.
present past future
bare stem 771 128 39
-s 418 14 5
-ed 10 168 0
41Harris Wexler (1996)
- Last, an elicitation experiment contrasting
affirmative, never (no T dependence for adults),
and not. - Does the cow always go in the barn, or does she
never go? - Does the cow go in the barn or does she not go in
the barn? - Do you think he always goes or do you think he
never goes? - Do you think that he goes, or dont you think
that he goes? - Processing load? Extra load of not alleviated by
leaving off the -s? If thats the case, wed
expect never and not to behave the same wayin
fact, never might be harder, just because its
longer (and trigger more -s drops).
42Harris Wexler (1996)
- Affirmatives inflected often, not inflected
rarely, never sort of inbetween. - Looking at the results in terms of whether the
question was inflected - Kids overall tended to use inflection when there
was inflection in the question. - When the stimulus contained an -s
- affirmative 15 vs. 7 (68 had an -s)
- never 14 vs. 16 (48)
- not 4 vs. 12 (25) quite a bit lower.
43Some alternatives
- Root infinitives due to modal drop?
- Idea I want to eat pizza.
- RI? I want to eat pizza.
- First question why modals?
- Second, they dont (always) seem to mean what
they should if there is a null modal. 20/37 seem
to be clearly non-modal. - Thorsten Ball haben (T already has the ball)
44Modal drop
- Adult modals are in position 2, regardless of
what is in position 1. - If kids are dropping modals, we should expect a
certain proportion of the dropped modals to
appear with a non-subject in position 1. - But none occurnonfinite verbs also seem to come
with initial subjects.
45Modal drop
- On the other hand, if nonfinite final V indicates
failure to raise to I and C, we dont expect CP
to be available for topicalization (the
assumption is that V2 involves both movement of V
to C and movement of something else to SpecCP
but no need to move something to SpecCP unless V
is in C).
46Modal drop
- Just to be sure (since the numbers are small),
PW check to make sure they would have expected
non-subjects in position 1 with nonfinite verbs
if the modal drop hypothesis were true. - 17 of the verbs are infinitives
- 20 of the (finite) time we had non-subject
topicalization - So 3 of the time (20 of 17) we would expect
non-subject topicalization in nonfinite contexts. - Of 251 sentences, we would have expected 8.
- We saw none.
47Subject case errors
- Various people have observed that kids learning
English sometimes will use accusative subjects. - It turns out that theres a sort of a correlation
with the finiteness of the verb as well. Finite
verbs go with nominative case, while nonfinite
verbs seem to go with either nominative or
accusative case.
48Finiteness vs. case errors
Schütze Wexler (1996) Nina111-26 Schütze Wexler (1996) Nina111-26 Loeb Leonard (1991) 7 representative kids211-34 Loeb Leonard (1991) 7 representative kids211-34
subject Finite Nonfinite Finite Nonfinite
heshe 255 139 436 75
himher 14 120 4 28
non-Nom 5 46 0.9 27
49EPP and missing INFL
- If there were just an IP, responsible for both
NOM and tense, then they should go together (cf.
IP grammar vs. VP grammar) - Yet, there are many cases of root infinitives
with NOM subjects - And, even ACC subjects seem to raise out of the
VP over negation (me not go). - We can understand this once we consider IP to be
split into TP and AgrP tense and case are
separated, but even one will still pull the
subject up out of VP. (ATOMAgr Tns)
50What to make of the case errors?
- Case is assumed to be the jurisdiction of AgrSP
and AgrOP. - So, nominative case can serve as an unambiguous
signal that there is an AgrSP. - Accusative case, conversely, may signal a missing
AgrSP.
- Why are non-AgrSP subjects accusatives?
- Probably a default case in English
- Whos driving? Me. Me too. Its me.
- Other languages seem not to show this accusative
subject error but also seem to have a nominative
default (making an error undetectable).
51ATOM
- Schütze Wexler propose a model of this in which
the case errors are a result of being able to
either omit AgrSP or Tense. - For a subject to be in nominative case, AgrSP
must be there (TPs presence is irrelevant).
- For a finite verb, both TP and AgrSP must be
there. English inflection (3sg present s) relies
on both. If one or the other is missing, well
see an infinitive (i.e. bare stem). - Thus, predicted finite (AgrSPTP) verbs show Nom
(AgrSP), but only half of the nonfinite verbs
(not both AgrSP and TP) show Nom (AgrSP). We
should not see finiteAcc.
52Agr/T Omission Model (ATOM)
- Adult clause structure AgrP NOMi Agr?
Agr TP ti T ? T VP
53ATOM
- Kiddie clause, missing TP (TNS) AgrP
NOMi Agr? Agr VP
54ATOM
- Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (AGR)
TP ACC ? defaulti T ? T VP
55Pronunciation of English
- TAgrS(V) is pronounced like
- /s/ if we have features3, sg, present
- /ed/ if we have the feature past
- Ø otherwise
- Layers of default, most specific first,
followed by next most specific (Distributed
Morphology, Halle Marantz 1993). - Notice 3sg present s requires both TP and
AgrSP, but past ed requires only TP (AgrSP might
be missing, so we might expect some accusative
subjects of past tense verbs).
56One prediction of ATOM
- AGRTNS NOM with inflected verb (-s)
- AGRTNS NOM with bare verb
- AGRTNS default (ACC) with bare verb
- AGRTNS GEN with bare verb(the GEN case was
not discussed by Wexler 1998, but see Schütze
Wexler 1996) - Nothing predicts Acc with inflected verb.
57Finite pretty much always goes with a nominative
subject.
Schütze Wexler (1996) Nina111-26 Schütze Wexler (1996) Nina111-26 Loeb Leonard (1991) 7 representative kids211-34 Loeb Leonard (1991) 7 representative kids211-34
subject Finite Nonfinite Finite Nonfinite
heshe 255 139 436 75
himher 14 20 4 28
non-Nom 5 46 0.9 27
58ATOM and morphology
- 3sg pres -s
- past -ed
- Ø
- masc 3sg nomplay3sgpres
- he plays.
- 2sg nomplay2sg past
- you play.
- But is this knowledge built-in? Hint no.
- masc, 3sg, nom he
- masc, 3sg, gen his
- masc, 3sg him
- fem, 3sg, nom she
- fem, 3sg her
- 1sg, nom I
- 1sg, gen my
- 1sg me
- 2, gen your
- 2 you
59ATOM and morphology
- What if the child produces a lot of utterances
like - her sleeping
- her play
- and even
- her sleeps
- her goes to school
- but never uses the word she?
- ATOM predicts that agreement and nominative case
should correlate. - Her goes to school is predicted never to occur.
- So does this childs use of her goes to school
mean ATOM is wrong?
60Schütze (2001, inter alia)
- No.
- Her goes to school is not necessarily a
counterexample to ATOM (although it is a
candidate). - Morphology must be learned and is
crosslinguistically variable. - She is known to emerge rather late compared to
other pronouns.
- If the kid thinks her is the nominative feminine
3sg pronoun, her goes to school is perfectly
consistent with ATOM. - Hence, we should really only count heragr
correlations from kids who have demonstrated that
they know she.
61ATOM and morphology
- Morphology (under Distributed Morphology) is a
system of defaults. - The most specified form possible is used.
- Adult English specifies her as a feminine 3sg
pronoun, and she as a nominative feminine 3sg
pronoun. - If the kid doesnt know she, the result will be
that all feminine 3sg pronouns will come out as
her. Thats just how you pronounce nominative 3sg
feminine, if youre the kid. - Just like adult you.
- masc, 3sg, nom he
- masc, 3sg, gen his
- masc, 3sg him
- fem, 3sg, nom she
- fem, 3sg her
- 1sg, nom I
- 1sg, gen my
- 1sg me
- 2, gen your
- 2 you
62Rispoli (2002, inter alia)
- Rispoli has his own theory of her-errors.
- Pronoun morphology is organized into tables
(paradigms) basically, where each form has a
certain weight. - When a kid is trying to pronounce a pronoun, s/he
attempts to find the entry in the table and
pronounce it.
- The kids success in finding the form is affected
by gravity. Heavier forms are more likely to
be picked when accessing the table, even if its
not quite the right form. If its close and its
heavy, itll win out a lot of the time. - Her by virtue of being both acc and gen is
extra-heavy, and pulls the kid in fairly often.
63Her plays
- ATOM and Rispoli make different predictions with
respect to her plays. - ATOM says it should never happen (up to simple
performance error) - Rispoli says case errors are independent of
agreement, her plays is perfectly possible, even
expected.
- Rispolis complaints about Schützes studies
- Excluding kids who happen not to produce she in
the transcript under evaluation is not good
enough. The assumption is that this learning is
monotonic, so if the kid ever used she
(productively) in the past, the her errors should
not be excluded.
64Monotonicity
- Schütze assumes that use of she is a matter of
knowledge of she. Once the kid knows it, and
given that the adult version of the kid will know
it, its there, for good. - Rispoli claims that the weight of she can
fluctuate, so that it could be known but
mis-retrieved later if her becomes too heavy.
- Rispoli (2002) set out to show that there is a
certain amount of yo-yoing in the production
of she. - Well focus on Nina, for whom we can get the data.
65Nina she vs. her
- Rispolis counts show Nina using she from
basically the outset of her use of pronouns, and
also shows a decrease of use of she at 25.
she her
2213-15 24 4396
2316-19 18 1292
2420-23 114 686
2524-31 79 7391
66Checking Rispolis counts
- 22
- CHI she have hug a lady .
- CHI she have jamas_at_f on .
- 23
- MOT does she like it ?
- CHI she drink apple juice .
- CHI her like apple juice .
- 24
- MOT he's up there ?
- CHI no she's not up there .
- CHI he's up there .
- These are the times when Nina used she (twice at
22, once at 23, once at 24). - Rispoli found 7 at 25, well deal with them
later.
67Checking
- 22
- CHI helping her have a yellow blanket .
- MOT she has a yellow blanket ?
- CHI yeah yes .
- CHI her's ok .
- CHI her ok .
- MOT she's ok ?
- CHI ok .
- CHI her's ok .
- CHI her ok .
- CHI her's ok .
- MOT she's ok .
- These three and one other time Nina said hers ok
are the only candidate counterexamples at 22. - At 22, 45 herbare verb.
- (R got 43, possibly including hers ok)
- At 23, no candidate counterexamples, 14 herbare
verbs. - (R got 12)
- At 24 none, 7 herbare.
- (R got 6)
68Checking
- MOT what happened when I shampooed Miriam
yesterday ? - CHI her was cried .
- MOT oh there's the dolly's bottle .
- CHI her's not going to drink it .
- MOT I'll start washing it .
- MOT see how clean it comes ?
- MOT you want to use the pot ?
- CHI a little bit .
- CHI her don't .
- CHI her's not dirty .
- CHI not dirty .
- 25
- I found about 76 herbare/past verbs.
- I found 3 potential counterexamples.
69Bottom line?
- It doesnt seem like anything was particularly
affected, even if Ninas early files were fully
included. - The number of possible counterexamples seems well
within the performance error range.
- The point about variation in usage of she is
valid, worth being aware of the assumptions and
being sure were testing the right things. - Rispoli was trying to make the point that if wed
accidentally missed a she in the early files, we
might have excluded counterexamples there. Yet,
even including everything, the asymmetry is
strong.
70Two hypotheses about learning
- VEPS (very early parameter setting)Basic
parameters are set correctly at the earliest
observable stages, that is, at least from the
time that the child enters the two-word stage
around 18 months of age. - VEKI (very early knowledge of inflection)At the
earliest observable stage (two-word stage), the
child knows the grammatical and phonological
properties of many important inflectional
elements of their language.
71Two-word stage?
- The reason both VEPS and VEKI mention the
two-word stage is just because this is the first
stage where we have evidence of utterance
composition.
72Very Early Parameter Setting
- As soon as you can see it, kids have
- VO vs. OV order set (Swedish vs. German)
- V?gtI yes/no (French vs. English)
- V2 yes/no (German vs. French/English)
- Null subject yes/no (Italian vs. Fr./E.)
- So, at least by the 2-word stage, they have the
parameters set (maybe earlier)
73VEKI?
- Generally, when kids use inflection, they use it
correctly. Mismatches are vanishingly rare. - English (Harris Wexler 1995)
- German (Poeppel Wexler 1993)
- Again, this is kind of contrary to what the field
had been assuming (which was kids are slow at,
bad at, learning inflection).
74Ok, but
- So Kids have the full functional structure
available to them, and they set the parameters
right away and know the inflection. - What then do we make of the fact that kids make
non-adult utterances in the face of evidence that
they arent learning the parameters? - KW Certain (very specific, it turns out)
properties of the grammar mature.
75Root infinitives vs. time
- The timing on root infinitives is pretty robust,
ending around 3 years old.
76NS/OI
- But some languages appear not to undergo the
optional infinitive stage. How can this be
consistent with a maturational view? - OI languages Germanic languages studied to date
(Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic,
Norwegian, Swedish), Irish, Russian, Brazilian
Portuguese, Czech - Non-OI languages Italian, Spanish, Catalan,
Tamil, Polish
77NS/OI
- What differentiates the OI and non-OI languages?
- Agreement? Italian (non-OI) has rich agreement,
but so does Icelandic (OI). - Null subjects!
- Null Subject/OI GeneralizationChildren in a
language go through an OI stage iff the language
is not an INFL-licensed null subject language.
78NS/OI and Hebrew(Rhee Wexler 1995)
- Hebrew is a NS language but only in 1st and 2nd
person, non-present tense. Everywhere else (3rd
past, future, present) subjects are obligatory. - Hebrew-learning 2-year-olds showed optional
infinitives except in 1/2-past, and allowed null
subjects elsewhere, with infinitives.
79NS/OI and Hebrew(Rhee Wexler 1995) of RIs
kids up to 111 1/2 past/fut (NS) else (non-NS)
null subjects 0 (of 21) 32 (36/112)
overt subjects 0 (of 6) 0 (of 28)
all OI kids 1/2 past/fut (NS) else (non-NS)
null subjects 0.6 (1/171) 25 (85/337)
overt subjects 1.4 (1/72) 0.6 (3/530)
80Implementing ATOM
- The basic idea In adult clauses, the subject
needs to move both to SpecTP and (then) to
SpecAgrP. - This needs to happen because T needs something
in its specifier (EPP) and so does Agr. - The subject DP can solve the problem for both T
and for Agrfor an adult.
81Implementing ATOM
- Implementation For adults
- T needs a D feature.
- Agr needs a D feature.
- The subject, happily, has a D feature.
- The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of Ts
need for a D feature (the subject checks the D
feature on T). The T feature loses its need for a
D feature, but the subject still has its D
feature (the subject is still a DP). - The subject moves on, to take care of Agr.
82Implementing ATOM
- Implementation For kids
- Everything is the same except that the subject
can only solve one problem before quitting. It
loses its D feature after helping out either T
or Agr. - Kids are constrained by the Unique Checking
Constraint that says subjects (or their D
features) can only check another feature once. - So the kids are in a bind.
83Implementing ATOM
- Kids in a pickle The only options open to the
kids are - Leave out TP (keep AgrP, the subject can solve
Agrs problem alone). Result nonfinite verb, nom
case. - Leave out AgrP (keep TP, the subject can solve
Ts problem alone). Result nonfinite verb,
default case. - Violate the UCC (let the subject do both things
anyway). Result finite verb, nom case. - No matter which way you slice it, the kids have
to do something wrong. At that point, they
choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.)
84Minimalist terminology
- Features come in two relevant kinds
interpretable and uninterpretable. - Either kind of feature can be involved in a
checkingonly interpretable features survive. - The game is to have no uninterpretable features
left at the end. - T needs a D means T has an uninterpretable D
feature and the subject (with its normally
interpretable D feature) comes along and the
two features check, the interpretable one
survives. UCCD uninterpretable on subjects?
85Waithow can you say kids are UG-constrained yet
drop T/Agr?
- So, arent TP and AgrSP required by UG? Doesnt
this mean kids dont have UG-compliant trees? - Actually, perhaps no. UG requires that all
features be checked, but it isnt clear that
there is a UG principle that requires a TP and an
AgrP in every clause.
86Waithow can you say kids are UG-constrained yet
drop T/Agr?
- Perhaps what requires TP and AgrP are principles
of (pragmatic) interpretation - You need TP so that your sentence is anchored
in the discourse. - You need AgrSP why? Well, perhaps something
parallel? Wexler doesnt really say - Regardless, kids can check all the
uninterpretable features even without TP or
AgrSP hence, they can still be considered to be
UG-constrained.
87NS/OI via UCC
- An old idea about NS languages is that they arise
in languages where Infl is rich enough to
identify the subject. - Maybe in NS languages, AgrS does not need a D (it
may in some sense be nouny enough to say that it
is, or already has, D). - If AgrS does not need a D, the subject is free to
check off Ts D-feature and be done.
88Is there any way to see the effects of UCC even
in NS languages?
- Italian Mary has laughed.
- Suppose that auxiliaries (like have) also have a
D-feature to be checked as the subject (in the
adult language) passes through. - Not crazy (All) the students (all) have (all)
left. - UCC-constrained kids will have to drop something
(the auxiliary or T), even in Italian. - Lyons (1997) reports that a substantial
proportion of auxiliaries are omitted in OI-age
Italian. - Ok, maybe. Consistent, anyway.
89One open question
- The UCC says you can only use a D-feature on a DP
to check against a functional category once. - This explains why sometimes TP is omitted
(keeping AgrSP) and sometimes AgrSP is omitted
(keeping TP). - but if GEN infin. comes from omitting both TP and
AgrSP, what could ever cause that (particularly
given Minimize Violations)?
90Theories of missing structure
- No functional projections. (Radford) Kids dont
have any functional projections (TP, CP, and so
forth). This comes later. No TP, no tense
distinction. - Structure building. (Vainikka, Guilfoyle
Noonan) Kids start with no functional projections
and gradually increase their functional structure.
91Theories of missing structure
- ATOM (Full competence). (Wexler, ) Kids have
access to all of the functional structure and
have a very specific problem with tense and
agreement that sometimes causes them to leave one
out. - Truncation. (Rizzi) Like structure building but
without the time coursekids have access to all
of the functional structure but they dont
realize that sentences need to be CPs, so they
sometimes stop early.
92Rizzi and truncated trees
- The result (of not having CProot) is that kids
are allowed to have truncated structurestrees
that look like adult trees with the tops chopped
off. - Importantly The kids dont just leave stuff
outthey just stop the tree early. So, if the
kid leaves out a functional projection, s/he
leaves out all higher XPs as well.
93Truncation
- If kid selects anything lower than TP as the
root, the result is a root infinitivewhich can
be as big as any kind of XP below TP in the
structure. - Note in particular, though, it cant be a CP.
- So we expect that evidence of CP will correlate
with finite verbs.
94Truncation
- Pierce (1989) looking at French observed that
there are almost no root infinitives with subject
cliticsthis is predicted if these clitics are
instances of subject agreement in AgrS if there
is no TP, there can be no AgrSP.
95Truncation
- There is some dispute in the syntax literature as
to whether the position of NegP (the projection
responsible for the negative morpheme) is higher
or lower than TP in the tree. - If NegP is higher than TP, we would expect not to
find negative root infinitives.
96Truncation and NegP
- But we do find negative Root Infinitives(Pierce
1989) in the acquisition of French, negation
follows finite verbs and preceds nonfinite verbs
(that isFrench kids know the movement properties
of finiteness, and thus they have the concept of
finiteness).
97Truncation and NegP
- So, is TP higher than NegP?
- Hard to say conclusively from the existing French
data because there are not many negative root
infinitivesbut further study could lead to a
theoretical result of this sort about the adult
languages.
98S O Vfin?
- Usually (Poeppel Wexler 1993) German kids put
finite verbs in second position, and leave
nonfinite verbs at the end. - Occasionally one finds a finite verb at the end.
- Rizzi suggests we could look at this as an
instance of a kid choosing AgrSP as root, where
CP is necessary to trigger V2.
99Legendre et al. (2000)
- Wexler During OI stage, kids sometimes omit T,
and sometimes omit Agr. Based on a choice of
which to violate, the requirement to have T, to
have Agr, to have only one. - (cf. Kids in a pickle slide)
- Legendre et al. Looking at development (of
French), it appears that the choice of what to
omit is systematic we propose a system to
account for (predict) the proportion of the time
kids omit T, Agr, both, neither, in progressive
stages of development.
100Optimality Theory
- Legendre et al. (2000) is set in the Optimality
Theory framework (often seen in phonology, less
often seen applied to syntax). - Grammar is a system of ranked and violable
constraints
101Optimality Theory
- In our analysis, one constraint is Parse-T, which
says that tense must be realized in a clause. A
structure without tense (where TP has been
omitted, say) will violate this constraint. - Another constraint is F (Dont have a
functional category). A structure with TP will
violate this constraint.
102Optimality Theory
- Parse-T and F are in conflictit is impossible
to satisfy both at the same time. - When constraints conflict, the choice made (on a
language-particular basis) of which constraint is
considered to be more important (more highly
ranked) determines which constraint is satisfied
and which must be violated.
103Optimality Theory
- So if F gtgt Parse-T, TP will be omitted.
- and if Parse-T gtgt F, TP will be included.
104Optimality Theory
- Grammar involves constraints on the
representations (e.g., SS, LF, PF, or perhaps a
combined representation). - The constraints exist in all languages.
- Where languages differ is in how important each
constraint is with respect to each other
constraint.
105Optimality Theory big picture
- Universal Grammar is the constraints that
languages must obey. - Languages differ only in how those constraints
are ranked relative to one another. (So,
parameter ranking) - The kids job is to re-rank constraints until
they match the order which generated the input
that s/he hears.
106Legendre et al. (2000)
- Proposes a system to predict the proportions of
the time kids choose the different options among - Omit TP
- Omit AgrSP
- Omit both TP and AgrSP
- Include both TP and AgrSP (violating UCC)
107French v. English
- English TAgr is pronounced like
- /s/ if we have features 3, sg, present
- /ed/ if we have the feature past
- /Ø/ otherwise
- French TAgr is pronounced like
- danser NRF
- a dansé (3sg) past
- je danse 1sg (present)
- jai dansé 1sg past
108The idea
- Kids are subject to conflicting constraints
- Parse-T Include a projection for tense
- Parse-Agr Include a project for agreement
- F Dont complicate your tree with functional
projections - F2 Dont complicate your tree so much as to
have two functional projections.
109The idea
- Sometimes Parse-T beats out F, and then theres
a TP. Or Parse-Agr beats out F, and then theres
an AgrP. Or both Parse-T and Parse-Agr beat out
F2, and so theres both a TP and an AgrP. - But what does sometimes mean?
110Floating constraints
- The innovation in Legendre et al. (2000) that
gets us off the ground is the idea that as kids
re-rank constraints, the position of the
constraint in the hierarchy can get somewhat
fuzzy, such that two positions can
overlap. F Parse-T
111Floating constraints
- F Parse-T
- When the kid evaluates a form in the constraint
system, the position of Parse-T is fixed
somewhere in the rangeand winds up sometimes
outranking, and sometimes outranked by, F.
112Floating constraints
- F Parse-T
- (Under certain assumptions) this predicts that we
would see TP in the structure 50 of the time,
and see structures without TP the other 50 of
the time.
113French kid data
- Looked at 3 French kids from CHILDES
- Broke development into stages based on a modified
MLU-type measure based on how long most of their
utterances were (2 words, more than 2 words) and
how many of the utterances contain verbs. - Looked at tense and agreement in each of the
three stages represented in the data.
114French kid data
- Kids start out using 3sg agreement and present
tense for practically everything (correct or
not). - We took this to be a default
- (No agreement? Pronounce it as 3sg. No tense?
pronounce it as present. Neither? Pronounce it as
an infinitive.).
115French kid data
- This means if a kid uses 3sg or present tense, we
cant tell if they are really using 3sg (they
might be) or if they are not using agreement at
all and just pronouncing the default. - So, we looked at non-present tense forms and
non-3sg forms only to avoid the question of the
defaults.
116French kids data
- We found that tense and agreement develop
differentlyspecifically, in the first stage we
looked at, kids were using tense fine, but then
in the next stage, they got worse as the
agreement improved. - Middle stage looks likecompetition between
Tand Agr for a single node.
117A detail about counting
- We counted non-3sg and non-present verbs.
- In order to see how close kids utterances were
to adults utterances, we need to know how often
adults use non-3sg and non-present, and then see
how close the kids are to matching that level. - So, adults use non-present tense around 31 of
the timeso when a kid uses 31 non-present
tense, we take that to be 100 success - In the last stage we looked at, kids were
basically right at the 100 success level for
both tense and agreement.
118Proportion of non-present and non-3sg verbs
119Proportion of non-finite root forms
120A model to predict the percentages
- Stage 3b (first stage)
- no agreement
- about 1/3 NRFs, 2/3 tensed forms F2 FParse
T ParseA
121A model to predict the percentages
- Stage 4b (second stage)
- non-3sg agreement and non-present tense each
about 15 (about 40 agreeing, 50 tensed) - about 20 NRFs F2 FParseT ParseA
122A model to predict the percentages
- Stage 4c (third stage)
- everything appears to have tense and agreement
(adult-like levels) F2 FParseT ParseA
123Predicted vs. observedtense
124Predicted vs. observedagrt
125Predicted vs. observedNRFs
126?