An Information-Structural Account of Children’s Wh-In

Situ Questions in French Megan Gotowski, UCLA

mgotowski@ucla.edu

Misha Becker, UNC Chapel Hill

mbecker@email.unc.edu

2

IntroductionLanguages differ in whether they license fronted

wh-questions or wh-in situ English: fronted-wh questions required

(1) a. What did John buy?

b. *John bought what?

Mandarin: wh-in situ required(2) a. Lisi mai-le sheme (ne)

Lisi buy-ASP what (Q)

“Lisi bought what?”

b. *Sheme Lisi mai-le (ne)

what Lisi buy-ASP (Q)

* is acceptable only if echo-question

3

IntroductionFrench: both fronted wh- and wh-in situ questions

allowed as information-seeking Qs(3) a. Qu’est-ce que tu as vu?

Q you.2SG have.PRES.2SG seen

“What did you see?”

b. Tu as vu quoi?

SCL.2SG have.PRES.2SG seen what?

“You saw what?”

Previous research has shown that French children produce more in-situ forms than adults; explain the asymmetry by Economy (Hamann 2006, Zuckerman & Hulk 2001)

We present new data supporting this observation but propose an account based on the discourse properties of wh-phrases

4

Outline 1. Present data on production of wh-in situ in child

French and French child-directed speech (CDS) Focus specifically on production of qu’est-ce que vs.

quoi, the most frequent wh-Q type in the input

2. Shortcomings of the Economy account

3. Propose a new analysis based on discourse properties of wh-in situ, following Mathieu’s (2004) analysis of them as “lower-order topics”

4. Finally, show that children overproduce wh-in situ only in languages in which in situ can be information-seeking Q (i.e. not in English)

5

Previous Research: Hamann (2006)Geneva corpus: Augustin, Louis, Marie (1;8-2;9)

Compared production of fronted wh-questions to wh-in situ questions in child French (no adult data)

Children overwhelmingly produced in situ forms (all wh-words/phrases)

Al (1976): colloquial (adult) French: 33% wh-in situ

Fronted Wh Wh-In Situ

Augustin 9.3% 90.7%

Louis 26.7% 73.3%

Marie 23.9% 76.1%

6Previous Research: Z&H (2001)

Elicitation study: children (4;0-5;9) and adults

Compared production of fronted wh-questions to wh-in situ AND compared production by wh-word

Children produced more in situ formsSignificant contrast even when comparing total

production (p<0.05) Children produce more in situ forms with quoi than

adults

Wh-In Situ (Quoi)

Children 18%

Adults 3%

Wh-In Situ (Overall)

Children 3%

Adults 1%

7

Our Data

Palasis corpus (Palasis 2010): last 50 files; 20 children (2;9-3;10) and 1 adult

Corpus/Study Age

Geneva 1;8-2;9

Palasis 2;9-3;10

Z&H (2001) 4;0-5;9

8

Our Data Focus on qu’est-ce que / quoi = the most frequent wh-Q

type in the input

Qu’est-ce que lit. ‘what-is-it-that’ = KESK (Hulk 1996)

We included object-wh questions with a subject & verb

Bare questions were excluded:

(4) Quoi? (‘What?’)

Wh-Word French CDS (Palasis 2010)

qu’est-ce que ‘what’ 626

qui ‘who’ 19

ou ‘where’ 15

quand ‘when’ 0

comment ‘how’ 83

combien ‘how many’ 3

9

Results: Palasis Corpus

Children produce significantly more wh-in situ questions than the adult

Ages Fronted Wh

(KESK)

Wh-In Situ

(quoi)

Children 2;9-3;10 11.8% (13) 88.2% (97)

Adult 83.4% (626)

16.6% (125)

10

ResultsComparing data across all studies, children’s rate

of wh-in situ drops over time, but is higher than adults’ until around age 4

*rate of all wh-in situ questions

Corpus/Study Age In Situ(Quoi)

Geneva 1;8-2;9 80%*

Palasis 2;9-3;10 88.2%

Z&H (2001) 4;0-5;9 18%

Palasis adult 16.6%

Al (1976) adult 33%

11

Weaknesses of Economy

Crisma (1992) studied Philippe (Leveillé corpus)

Philippe initially produced only fronted wh-questions, only later produced in situ (after 2;6)

Hamann (2006) and Z&H (2001) acknowledge this, claim input is responsible

However, Palasis children hear fronted forms 85% of the time, but produce them only 12% of the time

As we show later, rates of wh-in situ in input are not directly related to children’s rates of in situ production

12

Weakenesses of Economy

European Portuguese allows both fronted and in situ wh-questions

Soares (2004): corpus data from 3 children (1;2-4;5)

These children produce fronted wh-questions before in situ questions

cross-linguistically, children do not uniformly prefer wh-in situ at the earliest stages of question production

13

Overt vs. Covert Movement

Both fronted wh-questions and in situ involve movement of wh-operator (cf. Aoun et al. 1981, Huang 1982, Lasnik & Saito 1992)

fronted wh-questions = overt movementwh-in situ = covert movement (LF)

Children are thus not avoiding movement with in situ!

Instead we propose an alternate explanation that relies on discourse properties of fronted and wh-in situ forms

14

Our Account

Mathieu (2004): in situ phrases are a kind of split-DP

In wh-in situ, the wh-operator moves, and is “split” from the nominal/wh-word

An overt split-DP:

(5) a. Combieni as-tu lu ti de livres? [split]

how-many have-you read of books

b. Combien de livresi as-tu lus ti? [non-split]

how-many of books have-you read

“How many books have you read?” [Mathieu 2004, ex 7]

15

Properties of In SituBoth split-DPs and wh-in situ are licensed in

restricted contexts (intervention effects)

Wh-in situ not allowed under negation

(6) a. *Op Il ne voit pas qui? [in situ] he ne sees neg who

b. Op Quii est-ce qu’il ne voit pas ti?

[fronted]

who is-it that-he ne sees neg

“Who does he not see?”

[Mathieu 2004, ex. 4]

16

Properties of In Situ

Wh-in situ not allowed in embedded clauses

(7) a. *Op Il a dit [que qui avait eternué?][in situ]

he has said that who has sneezed

b. Op Quii est-ce qu’il a dit [qui ti avait eternué?]

[fronted] who is-it that-he has said that has sneezed

“Who did he say sneezed?” [Mathieu 2004, ex. 67]

17Likewise, split-DPs are not possible in these contexts:

(8) a. *Combieni n’as-tu pas lu ti de livres? [split-DP]

how-many ne-have-you neg read of books

b. Combien de livresi n’as-tu pas lus ti? [non-split]

how-many of books ne-have-you neg read

“How many books have you not read?”

c. *Op Il ne voit pas qui? [in situ (=6a)]

he ne sees neg who

(“He doesn’t see who?” )

Connection between Split-DPs and in situ is important because... Split-DPs introduce a discourse referent, and they are

considered “new topics” = lower order/backgrounded Fronted wh-questions are Focus phrases (=foregrounded)

18

Our Account

Children are able to distinguish between Topic and Focus (De Cat 2009, 2011) and given vs. new (Hickmann 2003, i.a.)

However, children overattribute referents to the common ground (CG) (cf. Schaeffer & Matthewson 2005)

Fronted wh-phrase = foregrounded, salient (not in CG)

In-situ = backgrounded referent (in CG)

Children may believe referents are sufficiently salient

need not be foregrounded via fronting = more in situ

19

Our Account

Children often think that what is salient to them is also salient to othersThey will often “exploit joint attention” in discourse

(cf. Wexler 1998; de Cat 2009)

French-speaking children may rely on visual saliency to avoid linguistic mechanisms of foregrounding (e.g. overt wh-movement)

We predict that children will produce in situ questions regardless of the discourse context

20

In (9) the adult (KAT) produces a fronted wh-question when introducing the referent; the referent is placed in a salient position.

After the referent has become part of the common ground, she uses an in situ question.

(9) KAT: Qu’est ce-qu’ il fait le renard? [adult]

Q he do.PRES.2SG the fox

“What is the fox doing?”

LSN: Le renard il mange. [child]

the fox he eat.PRES.3SG

“The fox is eating.”

KAT: Oui il mange quoi? [adult]

yes he eat.PRES.3SG what

“Yes, he is eating what?”

21

Children may not be making the same distinction:(10) KAT : Tu lui demandes si i(l) sait ce que c’est. [adult]

you him ask if he knows that that-is

“Ask him if he knows what it is.”

LSN : C’est quoi ça ? [child]

that-is what that

“What is that?” (Lit. That is what that?)

MAS : Euh ça c’est à moi ça. [child]

uh that that-is to me that

“Uh that’s mine, that.”

KAT : Et qu’est-ce que c’est ? [adult]

and Q that-is

“And what is it?”Children produce wh-in situ in contexts where adults

require fronting: children permit a wider CG = more backgrounded referents

22

Comparing French and EnglishWe compared rates of wh-in situ (with quoi/what)

in the input to French and English-speaking children

Rate of echo-Qs in English CDS closely parallels rate of wh-in situ in French CDSLanguage Corpus Input- In Situ

(Adults)

English Brown (Eve 1-20) 16.0%

English Brown (Adam 1-19) 22.0%

Language Corpus Input- In Situ (Adult)

French Palasis 16.6%

23

Comparing French and English

Recall that English permits wh-in situ only in echo questions

Echo Qs are used when speaker is surprised, but also to request repetition/clarification:

(11) MOT: no more celery?MOT: alright.CHI: man have it.MOT: man have what? (Eve 01)

24

Comparing French and EnglishHow often do English-speaking children

produce wh-in situ?

Language Corpus Input- In Situ

(Adults)

Output- In Situ (Eve)

English Brown (Eve 1-20)

16.0% (201/1257)

0.4% (1/247)

Language Corpus Input- In Situ (Adult)

Output (Children)

French Palasis 16.6% 88.2%

Language Corpus Input- In Situ

(Adults)

Output- In Situ

(Adam)

English Brown (Adam 1-19)

22.0% (257/911)

0.2%(1/744)

25

Comparing French and English This suggests that input rates are not obviously

related to children’s own rates of in situ production

Results also indicate that children know whether or not in situ is a grammatical option (Takahashi 1991, Maxfield 1991)

They overproduce in situ ONLY if in situ is a grammatical option in the grammar

How do children know whether wh-in situ can only be echo Q?

26

Echo vs. non-Echo

How do children know if wh-in situ can only be echoic in their language?

Information-seeking Q: what can only be a DP(12) a. *What did you buy a?

b. *What did you see a very house?

c. *What did you?

• Echo question what can be (almost) any category

(13) a. You bought a what? (NP)

b. You saw a very what house? (AP)

c. You what? (VP)

27

Echo vs. non-Echo

In English CDS, ~50% of wh-in situ questions involve what replacing a non-DP (Eve: 39%; Adam: 55%)

(14) a. Eve’s what kind? (AP; eve02)

b. The tap what? (VP; eve08)

c. Because what? (IP; eve13)

d. big what? (N; adam10)

e. All around the what? (NP; eve19)

f. cock-a-doodle fresh what? (unclear; adam09)

28

Summary

French children produce considerably more in situ questions than adults until at least around age 4

This results from children’s overattribution of referents to the common ground

They permit more backgrounded NPs = higher rate of in situ than adults

Input rates of wh-in situ in CDS does not match children’s rates

29

Future Research: Elicitation

Elicit wh-questions controlling for what is in the CG (foregrounded vs. backgrounded referents)

Younger (3;0-4;5) and older children (4;6-5;11)

Present videos of animals doing different actions

Across conditions vary whether a referent is introduced into the discourse (backgrounded) or not.

30

Future Research: Elicitation

Experimenter cannot see the scene with the animals, but the puppet can;

The child is then prompted with either (15) or (16) matching one of two conditions:

(15) Condition #1: Backgrounding

« Il y a des animaux. Je peux entendre un chien! Il fait quelque chose, mais je sais pas quoi. Demande à la poupée ce qu’il fait. »

(Eng.: There are some animals. I can hear a dog! He is doing something, but I don’t know what. Ask the puppet what he’s doing.)

31

Future Research: Elicitation(16) Condition #2: No Backgrounding

«  Il y a des animaux. Ils font quelque chose, mais je sais pas quoi. Demande à la poupée ce qu’ils font. »

(Eng.: There are some animals. They are doing something, but I don’t know what. Ask the puppet what they’re doing.)

Hypotheses: If children assume that any referent is in the CG, they

will produce in situ questions regardless of condition.Older children will produce fewer in situ questions than

younger children in condition (16) =>

They will be more adult-like.

32

Future Research: Prosody

Explore connection between prosody and wh-in situ in French-speaking children (cf. Déprez et al. 2013a,b, Richards 2006)

Specific pitch contour associated with in situ Qs

Record children’s elicited fronted and wh-in situ Qs and submit to phonetic analysis

Compare to adult’s pattern of pitch compression...Do children make the same prosodic distinctions?Do they have the same pitch contour for fronted and in

situ?

33

Thank you!

Special thanks to Daniel Blackey for help coding the English data.

34

Selected References

Crisma, P. 1992. On the acquisition of wh-questions in French. GenGenP 0: 115-122.De Cat, C. 2009. Experimental evidence for preschoolers’ mastery of Topic. Language Acquisition 16: 224-239.De Cat, C. 2011. Information tracking and encoding in early L1: Linguistic competence vs. cognitive limitations. Journal of Child Language 38: 828-860.Hamann, C. 2006. Speculations about early syntax: The production of wh-questions by normally developing French children and French children with SLI. Catalan J. of Linguistics 5:143-189.Mathieu, E. 2004. The mapping of form and interpretation: The case of optional wh- movement in French. Lingua 114: 1090-1132.Soares, C. 2004. Computational complexity and the acquisition of the CP field in

European Portuguese. In S. Blaho, L. Vincente, and M. de Vos (Eds.) Proceedings of Console XII. Wexler, K. 1998. Very early parameter setting and the unique checking constraint: A new explanation of the optional infinitive stage. Lingua 106: 23-79.Zuckerman, S. & A. Hulk. 2001. Acquiring optionality in French wh-questions: An

experimental study. Revue Queb. de Ling. 30:71-97.

35Appendix- Data from Older Children

Montréal corpus (Feider & Saint-Pierre 1987): first 11 files (5;6-6;8) (no adult; we compared these children to adult from Palasis corpus)

Ages Fronted Wh (Qu’est-ce

que)

Wh-In Situ(Quoi)

Children-Palasis Corpus

2;9-3;10

11.8% 88.2%

Children-Montreal Corpus

5;6-6;8 77.8% 22.2%

Adult (Palasis) 83.4% 16.6%

36

English Echo Questions

Takahashi (1991):3 different animals eating 3 different foodshorse eats carrot, giraffe eats leaves, elephant eats

banana statement: “The animals are eating food.” “What are the animals eating?” -> carrot, leaves,

banana “The animals are eating what?” -> food

(superordinate)

Fronted question -> 38% superordinate 95% superordinate