GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Week 5.Week 5.Maturation and A-chainsMaturation and A-chains

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Continuity or Continuity or Maturation?Maturation?

Pretty well accepted that there is Pretty well accepted that there is somethingsomething “built-in” concerning “built-in” concerning the acquisition of language (UG).the acquisition of language (UG).

A limiting version of this is the A limiting version of this is the Continuity HypothesisContinuity Hypothesis (Pinker (Pinker 1984) (or 1984) (or RigidityRigidity) which says ) which says that what’s built in is there from that what’s built in is there from the beginning and doesn’t change.the beginning and doesn’t change.

The situationThe situation

Quite a bit of evidence shows that Quite a bit of evidence shows that kids know a lot about the principles kids know a lot about the principles of UG from as early as they can be of UG from as early as they can be tested.tested.

Yet, languages Yet, languages dodo differ from one differ from one another—kids end up speaking another—kids end up speaking different languages depending on different languages depending on the language in the environment, so the language in the environment, so they do they do learnlearn somethingsomething..


So there are in principle two So there are in principle two dimensions of development:dimensions of development: learning language-particular propertieslearning language-particular properties development of the grammar itselfdevelopment of the grammar itself

Grammar development is what has Grammar development is what has been argued (poverty of the stimulus) been argued (poverty of the stimulus) notnot to be learnable by experience. to be learnable by experience. Thus, it must be in some way Thus, it must be in some way genetically provided.genetically provided.


Being genetically specified does Being genetically specified does notnot mean “present from the outset”mean “present from the outset” however. Ample evidence from other however. Ample evidence from other biological systems of this.biological systems of this.

Pretty much the only conclusion Pretty much the only conclusion available to deal with time delay of available to deal with time delay of innately specified aspects of grammar innately specified aspects of grammar is that parts of the grammar is that parts of the grammar maturesmatures..

What if we don’t like What if we don’t like maturation as an maturation as an

explanation?explanation? Two options:Two options:

Grammar doesn’t mature in a biological Grammar doesn’t mature in a biological sense; sense; it is it is learnedlearned. But we don’t . But we don’t believe that, because we have good believe that, because we have good reasons to think that it’s just not reasons to think that it’s just not possible.possible.

Grammar doesn’t mature in a biological Grammar doesn’t mature in a biological sense; sense; it is it is there from the outsetthere from the outset in in its totalityits totality. (“Continuity”, “Rigidity”). (“Continuity”, “Rigidity”)

Neither option seems very good.Neither option seems very good.

RigidityRigidity is hard to justify is hard to justify

Kids don’t seem to have identical linguistic Kids don’t seem to have identical linguistic properties as adults. How can we explain properties as adults. How can we explain this without some difference in the system?this without some difference in the system?

Why do kids take so long to reach adult-like Why do kids take so long to reach adult-like competence?competence? If the data is available, why If the data is available, why don’t kids use it immediately? If the learning don’t kids use it immediately? If the learning mechanism changes, how does mechanism changes, how does itit change? change?

How far back does Rigidity go? How far back does Rigidity go? One would One would suspect that “fertilization of the egg” is suspect that “fertilization of the egg” is tootoo far…far…

The way things seem to The way things seem to bebe

We have evidence that We have evidence that kids kids dodo know know quite a bit of what we posit to be in quite a bit of what we posit to be in UGUG and very early, often as early as and very early, often as early as we can test it.we can test it.

We have evidence that We have evidence that in certain in certain areas kids’ grammars differ from areas kids’ grammars differ from adultsadults. We also have in some of these . We also have in some of these cases evidence that the differences cases evidence that the differences seem to go away around the same seem to go away around the same age across kids (& across languages).age across kids (& across languages).

It becomes interesting to It becomes interesting to know…know…

What are the principles that kids know as What are the principles that kids know as early as we can test?early as we can test?

What are the principles that are delayed, What are the principles that are delayed, and until when are they delayed?and until when are they delayed?

Wexler (1997) suggests the terminology Wexler (1997) suggests the terminology Continuous DevelopmentContinuous Development for this for this model (vs. model (vs. RigidityRigidity). (so, *tadpole ). (so, *tadpole frog) frog)

Is maturation a cop-out?Is maturation a cop-out?

If a kid doesn’t behave according to If a kid doesn’t behave according to Principle X of UG, we say that kid’s Principle X of UG, we say that kid’s grammar needs to mature until it gets grammar needs to mature until it gets Principle X. Can’t we just say that about Principle X. Can’t we just say that about anything? anything? Can we ever show that “it just Can we ever show that “it just matures” is false?matures” is false?

Actually, yes—if it matures, if it is on a Actually, yes—if it matures, if it is on a biological schedule, then biological schedule, then it can’t really it can’t really differ from language to languagediffer from language to language (at least to (at least to any greater extent than, say, malnutrition any greater extent than, say, malnutrition can delay puberty).can delay puberty).

HowHow different is a kid’s different is a kid’s grammar?grammar?

In principle, it In principle, it couldcould be quite be quite different. different. Tadpoles Tadpoles dodo become frogs become frogs in the real, biological worldin the real, biological world..

But it But it seemsseems like what kids have is like what kids have is pretty close to what adults have, pretty close to what adults have, based on empirical studies—leading based on empirical studies—leading to the hypothesis that there is a to the hypothesis that there is a close connection between kids close connection between kids grammars and adult grammars…grammars and adult grammars…

UG-constrained UG-constrained maturationmaturation

Borer & Wexler (1992) introduced the Borer & Wexler (1992) introduced the hypothesis as hypothesis as UG-Constrained UG-Constrained MaturationMaturation, which says that , which says that all child all child grammatical representations are grammatical representations are representations that are available in representations that are available in UGUG..

In other words, a kid’s syntactic tree is In other words, a kid’s syntactic tree is one that could exist in some adult one that could exist in some adult language without violating principles of language without violating principles of UG.UG.


This hypothesis only allows for This hypothesis only allows for certain kinds of “kid deficits”—certain kinds of “kid deficits”—a kid a kid grammar can rule out a structuregrammar can rule out a structure, , which an adult (speaking which an adult (speaking somesome adult adult language) would consider language) would consider grammatical, but grammatical, but it cannot it cannot allowallow a a structure that structure that nono adult language adult language would make grammaticalwould make grammatical..


For example, the A-chain deficit:For example, the A-chain deficit:

(Certain kinds of) A-chains are (Certain kinds of) A-chains are unavailable to kids with a “Proto-unavailable to kids with a “Proto-UG”.UG”.

This This rules outrules out adult-acceptable adult-acceptable structures, forcing kids to use some structures, forcing kids to use some different adult-acceptable structure.different adult-acceptable structure.

Optional infinitivesOptional infinitives

Young, Young, youngyoung kids show evidence of kids show evidence of knowing how to inflect, move verbs, knowing how to inflect, move verbs, etc. They know the parameter etc. They know the parameter settings for their language, even. settings for their language, even. Kids know a Kids know a lotlot..

ButBut—kid allows nonfinite forms in —kid allows nonfinite forms in contexts that adult requires finite contexts that adult requires finite forms in.forms in.

How does this fit in to UGCM?How does this fit in to UGCM?

Optional infinitivesOptional infinitives Take the Wexler (1998) view that kids Take the Wexler (1998) view that kids

don’t know that D is don’t know that D is interpretableinterpretable. This . This can be seen as another kind of can be seen as another kind of “coordination” issue—coordinating the “coordination” issue—coordinating the syntactic system and the interpretation syntactic system and the interpretation system.system.

As long as the As long as the syntactic syntactic system doesn’t system doesn’t require T or Agr, this fits in with UGCM.require T or Agr, this fits in with UGCM.

That is, we take “Have T” and “Have Agr” That is, we take “Have T” and “Have Agr” as being principles as being principles outsideoutside the syntax— the syntax—maybe tied to discourse.maybe tied to discourse.

And now on to A-chains…And now on to A-chains…

Early on, it seems like kids can Early on, it seems like kids can produce adjectival passives (in fact produce adjectival passives (in fact somewhat overgeneralizing) but not somewhat overgeneralizing) but not verbal passives.verbal passives.

Kids do better on passives involving Kids do better on passives involving actional verbs in English, which are actional verbs in English, which are also those which are ambiguous also those which are ambiguous between verbal and adjective passives. between verbal and adjective passives.

Why?Why?

PassivesPassives John kicked the ballJohn kicked the ball (active) (active) The ball was kicked (by John)The ball was kicked (by John) (passive) (passive)

Standard analysis: Standard analysis: the ballthe ball starts off as starts off as complement of V in both; in the passive, complement of V in both; in the passive, the agent is suppressed and the verb is the agent is suppressed and the verb is deprived of its ability to assign Case. Thus, deprived of its ability to assign Case. Thus, the ballthe ball moves into SpecIP to get Case. moves into SpecIP to get Case.

The ballThe ballii was kicked t was kicked tii..

PassivesPassives

The chain between The chain between the ballthe ball and and tt created by moving created by moving the ballthe ball into into SpecIP is an SpecIP is an A-chainA-chain (a chain whose (a chain whose top is in a position where you can top is in a position where you can only find arguments).only find arguments).

IntransitivesIntransitives There are two kinds of intransitive verbs:There are two kinds of intransitive verbs:

UnergativeUnergative (subject-type argument)(subject-type argument) UnaccusativeUnaccusative (object-type argument)(object-type argument)

The The unergativeunergative verbs have an verbs have an external external argument— argument— just like a transitive verbjust like a transitive verb..

The The unaccusative unaccusative verbs have only an verbs have only an internal internal argument, which moves to argument, which moves to subject position—subject position—just like in a passivejust like in a passive..

Unaccusatives ≈ passivesUnaccusatives ≈ passives

An unaccusative is structurally like a An unaccusative is structurally like a passive:passive: The trainThe trainii arrived arrived ttii..

An unergative is not.An unergative is not. The baby giggled.The baby giggled.

So we expect kids to have the same So we expect kids to have the same troubles with unaccusatives and troubles with unaccusatives and passives.passives.

Verbal and adjectival Verbal and adjectival passivespassives

In English at least, it seems like there are In English at least, it seems like there are two kinds of words with passive two kinds of words with passive morphology:morphology:

VerbalVerbal:: The suspect was seen.The suspect was seen. AdjectivalAdjectival:: His hair seems combed.His hair seems combed.

Borer & Wexler: adjectival passives do Borer & Wexler: adjectival passives do notnot involve syntactic movement (lexicon vs. involve syntactic movement (lexicon vs. syntax). No trace, no A-chain.syntax). No trace, no A-chain.

Verbal and adjectival Verbal and adjectival passivespassives

Generally, non-action verbs make poor adjectival Generally, non-action verbs make poor adjectival passives (while action verbs are fine):passives (while action verbs are fine):

*The suspect seems seen. The seen suspect (fled). *The suspect seems seen. The seen suspect (fled). Seen though the movie was, John went to see it Seen though the movie was, John went to see it again.again.

The cloth seems torn. The torn cloth (is useless). The cloth seems torn. The torn cloth (is useless). Torn though the cloth was, John used it anyway.Torn though the cloth was, John used it anyway.

Conclusion: It should be possible for kids to say Conclusion: It should be possible for kids to say passive-like things as long as they’re adjectival passive-like things as long as they’re adjectival passives.passives.

Hebrew passivesHebrew passives

HebrewHebrew seems to show the same seems to show the same property as property as EnglishEnglish——adjectival adjectival passives come in much earlier than passives come in much earlier than verbal passivesverbal passives..

In Hebrew, adjectival passives are In Hebrew, adjectival passives are homophonous with the (verbal) passive homophonous with the (verbal) passive participle in the present tense. So, the participle in the present tense. So, the early adjectival passives cannot be due early adjectival passives cannot be due to being morphologically less complexto being morphologically less complex..

Verbal vs. adjectival Verbal vs. adjectival passivespassives

The crucial difference (on B&W’s The crucial difference (on B&W’s analysis) between verbal and analysis) between verbal and adjectival passives has to do with adjectival passives has to do with wherewhere the modification of the the modification of the argument structure happens.argument structure happens.

adjectival passive: adjectival passive: in the lexiconin the lexicon((turns it into a real adjectiveturns it into a real adjective))

verbal passive: verbal passive: in the syntaxin the syntax

Verbal vs. adjectival Verbal vs. adjectival passivespassives

The bottom line isThe bottom line is

verbal passives move their verbal passives move their argument into the usual external argument into the usual external argument positionargument position

adjectival passives just adjectival passives just startstart their their argument in the usual external argument in the usual external argument positionargument position

Note on A-chainsNote on A-chains

Although everybody pronounces the Although everybody pronounces the B&W87 hypothesis like B&W87 hypothesis like “Kids have “Kids have trouble with A-chains”trouble with A-chains” this is almost this is almost certainly not strictly accurate. What certainly not strictly accurate. What kids have trouble with is the kids have trouble with is the non-non-canonical canonical -role assignment-role assignment involved involved in passives and unaccusatives. They in passives and unaccusatives. They do do notnot have trouble moving the have trouble moving the subject from SpecVP to SpecIP.subject from SpecVP to SpecIP.

Hebrew passivesHebrew passives

B&W87 spend some time arguing that B&W87 spend some time arguing that verbal passives are still verbs in Hebrewverbal passives are still verbs in Hebrew, , then observe that there are two options then observe that there are two options for passive sentences—for passive sentences—the argument can the argument can either remain in object positioneither remain in object position (since (since movement for Case is not movement for Case is not requiredrequired in in Hebrew—Case is available to an Hebrew—Case is available to an in situin situ postverbal NP), postverbal NP), oror it can move to it can move to preverbal subject positionpreverbal subject position (like in (like in English).English).

Kid passivesKid passives Presumably Presumably the preverbal option in passives the preverbal option in passives

is like English adult passives—requires an A-is like English adult passives—requires an A-chain, has a non-canonical chain, has a non-canonical -role in SpecIP-role in SpecIP..

PredictsPredicts:: Hebrew kids will produce Hebrew kids will produce passives, passives, butbut they will produce only the they will produce only the postverbal kind. Right?postverbal kind. Right?

Well, no, butWell, no, but…… Hebrew kids don’t know Hebrew kids don’t know how to assign Case to a VP-internal how to assign Case to a VP-internal argument yetargument yet..

Poor kidsPoor kids——they can’t come up with they can’t come up with anyany kind of legitimate verbal passive. And so they kind of legitimate verbal passive. And so they don’t produce any.don’t produce any.

To review that To review that argument…argument…

The reason it was important to go into such The reason it was important to go into such detail about the Case assignment etc. in detail about the Case assignment etc. in Hebrew:Hebrew:

In (adult) English, verbal passives In (adult) English, verbal passives necessarilynecessarily involve an A-chaininvolve an A-chain/non-canonical /non-canonical -role -role assignment to SpecIP. Kids can’t do that, assignment to SpecIP. Kids can’t do that, hence verbal passives are slow.hence verbal passives are slow.

In (adult) Hebrew, verbal passives In (adult) Hebrew, verbal passives don’t don’t necessarilynecessarily involve an A-chain involve an A-chain—adults can —adults can leave the argument inside VP. Yet kids leave the argument inside VP. Yet kids stillstill produce no verbal passives. So, we needed to produce no verbal passives. So, we needed to explore why.explore why.

CausativesCausatives

In English, the morphological reflex of In English, the morphological reflex of “causativization” (adding a causative “causativization” (adding a causative argument) happens to be Ø, but what it does argument) happens to be Ø, but what it does is add an external argument to the verb.is add an external argument to the verb. Mom’s favorite vase brokeMom’s favorite vase broke Timmy broke Mom’s favorite vaseTimmy broke Mom’s favorite vase

You can’t play with You can’t play with -roles once you get into -roles once you get into the syntax (Projection Principle), so the syntax (Projection Principle), so causativization must happen pre-syntax, in causativization must happen pre-syntax, in the lexicon.the lexicon.

CausativesCausatives English causativization takes the English causativization takes the

“simplest” (most “unmarked”) form; “simplest” (most “unmarked”) form; it it can add an external argument if there can add an external argument if there wasn’t already an external argumentwasn’t already an external argument. . So, it works nicely for unaccusatives So, it works nicely for unaccusatives ((Mom’s favorite vase brokeMom’s favorite vase broke, , Peter broke Peter broke Mom’s favorite vaseMom’s favorite vase) and poorly for ) and poorly for unergatives (unergatives (The doll giggledThe doll giggled, , *Peter *Peter giggled the dollgiggled the doll) and transitives () and transitives (Peter Peter kicked the ballkicked the ball, , *I kicked Peter the ball*I kicked Peter the ball ‘I made Peter kick the ball’‘I made Peter kick the ball’).).

CausativesCausatives

The kids’ lack of A-chains basically The kids’ lack of A-chains basically means that arguments (which get means that arguments (which get -roles) -roles) have to have to staystay where their where their -role is -role is assigned.assigned.

Yet kids hear things like Yet kids hear things like the doll movedthe doll moved, , the vase brokethe vase broke, , the door openedthe door opened in in English.English.

But the only possible structure the kids But the only possible structure the kids can assign is an unergative structure. A can assign is an unergative structure. A ““S-homophoneS-homophone”. (syntactic homophone)”. (syntactic homophone)

CausativesCausatives So kids hear So kids hear the door openedthe door opened and must and must

analyze analyze openopen as unergative. as unergative. But the kids also hear But the kids also hear Daddy opened the Daddy opened the

doordoor, a causativization., a causativization. The kids must conclude that the causative in The kids must conclude that the causative in

English English cancan “internalize” a previously “internalize” a previously external argument.external argument.

Since Since kids treat unaccusatives and kids treat unaccusatives and unergatives the same way at this pointunergatives the same way at this point, we , we aren’t surprised to find that kids apply aren’t surprised to find that kids apply causativization to unergatives too (causativization to unergatives too (Daddy Daddy giggled the dollgiggled the doll). ).

Hebrew causativesHebrew causatives In the adult language, Hebrew causativization In the adult language, Hebrew causativization

((KaTaL KaTaL hiKTiL hiKTiL) allows this kind of ) allows this kind of “internalization” of an external argument.“internalization” of an external argument.

Kids are forced to assume (in both Hebrew and Kids are forced to assume (in both Hebrew and English) that causativization can internalize an English) that causativization can internalize an external argument.external argument.

In English, that’s the wrong assumptionIn English, that’s the wrong assumption for the for the adult language—kids have to re-evaluate things adult language—kids have to re-evaluate things once A-chains become availableonce A-chains become available

In Hebrew, that’s the In Hebrew, that’s the rightright assumption assumption for the for the adult language—no re-evaluation is necessary.adult language—no re-evaluation is necessary.

Ok, so where are we?Ok, so where are we? The proposal is that kids can’t form A-chains The proposal is that kids can’t form A-chains

(that is, an argument getting a (that is, an argument getting a -role can’t move -role can’t move around) until they hit a maturational point.around) until they hit a maturational point.

We looked at what this means for passives (We looked at what this means for passives (in in English:English: kids will use adjectival passives, they kids will use adjectival passives, they will treat unaccusatives as unergatives, and will treat unaccusatives as unergatives, and hence overgeneralize causative formation; hence overgeneralize causative formation; in in Hebrew:Hebrew: kids will use adjectival passives kids will use adjectival passives [because of a separate deficit in postverbal Case [because of a separate deficit in postverbal Case assignment], kids will (*over)generalize assignment], kids will (*over)generalize causative formation)causative formation)

Predictions met.Predictions met.

Extending the storyExtending the storyBorer & Wexler (1992)Borer & Wexler (1992)

Italian (adult)Italian (adult): Past participle agrees with: a) : Past participle agrees with: a) unaccusative argument, b) direct object clitic.unaccusative argument, b) direct object clitic.

LuisLuisaa è uscit è uscitaa ‘L has gone out’‘L has gone out’Giovanni lGiovanni laa ha apert ha apertaa ‘G it has opened’‘G it has opened’

The participle The participle does not agree does not agree with a normal with a normal transitive object or with an unergative subject.transitive object or with an unergative subject.

LuisLuisaa ha apert ha apertoo la porta. la porta. ‘L has opened the ‘L has opened the door.’door.’LuisLuisaa ha dormit ha dormitoo.. ‘L has slept’‘L has slept’

Borer & Wexler (1992)Borer & Wexler (1992)

Italian Italian kidskids (Antinucci and Miller (Antinucci and Miller 1976): Use 1976): Use passato prossimopassato prossimo pretty pretty much from the beginning—but the much from the beginning—but the participle agrees with the object—participle agrees with the object—whether it is pronominal or not. Kids whether it is pronominal or not. Kids are very consistent about this. (ends are very consistent about this. (ends between 2;0 and 2;6)between 2;0 and 2;6)

Obligatory agreement Obligatory agreement stagestage

Did the kids overgeneralize Did the kids overgeneralize agreement?agreement?

But they hear plenty of non-agreeing But they hear plenty of non-agreeing forms. Why didn’t they overgeneralize forms. Why didn’t they overgeneralize nonnon-agreement? Plus, kids don’t even -agreement? Plus, kids don’t even produceproduce pronominalized objects at pronominalized objects at this stage—weird that they would this stage—weird that they would base the generalization on the base the generalization on the behavior of sentences with them.behavior of sentences with them.

What are the kids doing?What are the kids doing?First—what are the adults First—what are the adults

doing?doing? Adult agreement seems to be arising Adult agreement seems to be arising where the argument has to pass over where the argument has to pass over the participle.the participle.

Suppose it will (must) pass through Suppose it will (must) pass through SpecParticipleP on its way past, SpecParticipleP on its way past, which induces agreement (cf. which induces agreement (cf. AgrOP).AgrOP). (All) the students (all) have (all)(All) the students (all) have (all)

opened their textbooks.opened their textbooks.

Now, what are the kids Now, what are the kids doing?doing?

Suppose kids know that agreement Suppose kids know that agreement arises in a Spec-head configuration—arises in a Spec-head configuration—so the presence of participle so the presence of participle agreement everywhere means that agreement everywhere means that they’ve assumed that the direct object they’ve assumed that the direct object alwaysalways sits in SpecParticipleP at some sits in SpecParticipleP at some point. (Though this is point. (Though this is notnot what adults what adults do—only things which do—only things which move pastmove past SpecParticipleP land in it for adults).SpecParticipleP land in it for adults).

Now, what are the kids Now, what are the kids doing?doing?

So, do kids So, do kids alwaysalways move the object into move the object into SpecParticipleP? Well, that would be SpecParticipleP? Well, that would be an A-chain, wouldn’t it? an A-chain, wouldn’t it? (Maybe…)(Maybe…)

B&W92 propose that kids have B&W92 propose that kids have analyzed analyzed passato prossimopassato prossimo sentences sentences as having an AP complement to the as having an AP complement to the auxiliary, with the object in a auxiliary, with the object in a rightward Spec, causing agreement on rightward Spec, causing agreement on the head (adjectival passive).the head (adjectival passive).

Now, what are kids Now, what are kids doing?doing?

Adults:Adults:

VV PartPPartPhaihai

PartPart

PartPartNPNP

Kids:

V AdjPhai

Adj NP

Adj

(re: rightward SPEC,cf. postverbal subjects)

……why are the kids doing why are the kids doing that?that?

There should be ample evidence for There should be ample evidence for the adult construction (so it isn’t the adult construction (so it isn’t likely to be a “default setting” for a likely to be a “default setting” for a parameter, since kids seem to parameter, since kids seem to waitwait to use the ample available evidence to use the ample available evidence to reset it to the correct setting).to reset it to the correct setting).

So, it is probably some principle So, it is probably some principle which forbids the adult structure for which forbids the adult structure for the kid, forcing the alternative the kid, forcing the alternative analysis.analysis.

Unique External Unique External Argument Proto-Argument Proto-

PrinciplePrinciple UEAPP: (pretty much the same as UEAPP: (pretty much the same as

EARH)EARH) Every predicate is associated with a Every predicate is associated with a

unique external argument.unique external argument. Every external argument is associated Every external argument is associated

with a unique predicate.with a unique predicate.

UEAPP constrains the grammars of UEAPP constrains the grammars of kids, but not of adults.kids, but not of adults.

UEAPPUEAPP

Kids consider the participle Kids consider the participle constructions to have two predicates constructions to have two predicates (the auxiliary (the auxiliary avereavere and the participle and the participle itself).itself).

The sentence subject is the external The sentence subject is the external argument for argument for avereavere..

The remaining argument must be the The remaining argument must be the external argument for the participle.external argument for the participle.

UEAPP, UEAPP, passato passato prossimoprossimo, and , and unergativesunergatives

Gianni ha telefonoGianni ha telefono.. That looks like one argument for two That looks like one argument for two

predicates (predicates (avereavere and and telefonotelefono).). What’s a kid to do?What’s a kid to do? Turns out: What a kid does is Turns out: What a kid does is not use not use

such sentencessuch sentences. Basically . Basically nono examples of this kind (unergatives in examples of this kind (unergatives in passato prossimopassato prossimo) at this stage.) at this stage.

What kind of thing is What kind of thing is UEAPP?UEAPP?

The general proposal B&W92 make The general proposal B&W92 make is that kids start out with rigid “bi-is that kids start out with rigid “bi-unique relations” (unique relations” (predicate predicate unique subjectunique subject) that get relaxed ) that get relaxed through maturation.through maturation.

““Relaxation” in this case would be in Relaxation” in this case would be in the form of narrowing the definition the form of narrowing the definition of “predicate.” E.g., perhaps the of “predicate.” E.g., perhaps the UEAPP is the precursor to the EPP? UEAPP is the precursor to the EPP? (“Predicate” = Infl)(“Predicate” = Infl)

Babyonyshev et al. Babyonyshev et al. (1998)(1998)

Babyonyshev et al. (1998) extend the Babyonyshev et al. (1998) extend the discussion begun in Borer & Wexler discussion begun in Borer & Wexler (1987), also arguing for maturation (1987), also arguing for maturation of A-chains.of A-chains.

They consider two possible reasons They consider two possible reasons why A-chains in passives would not why A-chains in passives would not be allowed:be allowed: Kids can’t build A-chains (ACDH)Kids can’t build A-chains (ACDH) Kids can’t “dethematize” the external Kids can’t “dethematize” the external

argument (EARH)argument (EARH)

UTAHUTAH

The The Uniformity of Theta Uniformity of Theta Assignment HypothesisAssignment Hypothesis (UTAH) (UTAH) essentially says that essentially says that the syntactic the syntactic position in the structure to which any position in the structure to which any given given -role is assigned does not vary -role is assigned does not vary within or across languageswithin or across languages..

So, the patient So, the patient -role is -role is alwaysalways assigned to the complement of V assigned to the complement of V position, for example.position, for example.

Pesetsky and movementPesetsky and movement

Languages can differ in whether Languages can differ in whether they perform overt movement they perform overt movement (before SS) or covert movement (before SS) or covert movement (after SS, headed to LF).(after SS, headed to LF). Usual example: Usual example: WhWh-movement -movement

(Bulgarian: all (Bulgarian: all whwh-movements overt; -movements overt; English: one overt English: one overt whwh-movement, the -movement, the rest covert; Japanese: all rest covert; Japanese: all whwh--movements covert).movements covert).

Pesetsky and movementPesetsky and movement If we assume that If we assume that allall languages move all of their languages move all of their

whwh-words to (Spec)CP by LF (only some -words to (Spec)CP by LF (only some languages save some/all of these movements languages save some/all of these movements until after SS), then at LF there is always a chain until after SS), then at LF there is always a chain like:like:

WhWh-word-wordii … …ttii . .

One way to think of “covert movement” is as One way to think of “covert movement” is as “pronouncing the bottom of the chain” (in a “pronouncing the bottom of the chain” (in a model in which you both interpret and model in which you both interpret and pronounce pronounce LF).LF).

Pesetsky and movementPesetsky and movement

This idea of “pronouncing the This idea of “pronouncing the bottom of a movement chain” comes bottom of a movement chain” comes up in part of the discussion in up in part of the discussion in Babyonyshev et al. concerning Babyonyshev et al. concerning pronunciation in A-chains (like those pronunciation in A-chains (like those in unaccusatives and passives) as in unaccusatives and passives) as well as A-bar chains (like well as A-bar chains (like whwh--movement chains).movement chains).


Babyonyshev et al. conduct an Babyonyshev et al. conduct an experiment with Russian kids to experiment with Russian kids to determine whether kids who cannot determine whether kids who cannot represent adult unaccusatives (due to represent adult unaccusatives (due to the inability to represent A-chains) the inability to represent A-chains) instead parse them as unergatives.instead parse them as unergatives.

““S-homophone”: A different syntactic S-homophone”: A different syntactic structure (e.g. an unergative) which structure (e.g. an unergative) which sounds like another (e.g. an sounds like another (e.g. an unaccusative).unaccusative).

Russian genitive of Russian genitive of negationnegation

There is a fairly elaborate discussion There is a fairly elaborate discussion of the “genitive of negation” of the “genitive of negation” construction in Russian. Basically, construction in Russian. Basically, a a non-specific noun phrase in the same non-specific noun phrase in the same clause as negation will be clause as negation will be pronounced with genitive (instead of pronounced with genitive (instead of accusative) caseaccusative) case. Some verbs (e.g., . Some verbs (e.g., existential existential bebe) in fact ) in fact requirerequire genitive.genitive.


There is evidence that the genitive There is evidence that the genitive argument of an unaccusative argument of an unaccusative remains inside the VP at SS.remains inside the VP at SS.

In English, this argument would In English, this argument would raise to subject position (SpecIP).raise to subject position (SpecIP).

In Russian, it turns out that there is In Russian, it turns out that there is evidence that the genitive argument evidence that the genitive argument raises raises covertlycovertly (between SS and LF) (between SS and LF) to subject position.to subject position.

Evidence for covert Evidence for covert movement of the genitive movement of the genitive

argumentargument Negative constituents (e.g., Negative constituents (e.g., any kind of boyany kind of boy) need ) need to co-occur with negation in the same clause.to co-occur with negation in the same clause.

Where negative constituents participate in A-Where negative constituents participate in A-chains we can see (e.g., raising), the chains we can see (e.g., raising), the toptop of the A- of the A-chain has to be in the same clause as negation.chain has to be in the same clause as negation.

Genitive negative constituents with raising verbs Genitive negative constituents with raising verbs appear in the lower clause at SS but require appear in the lower clause at SS but require negation in the higher clause.negation in the higher clause.

ConclusionConclusion: Genitive arguments move too, : Genitive arguments move too, creating an A-chain, and the negation creating an A-chain, and the negation requirement is verified at LF.requirement is verified at LF.


Testing the idea from Borer & Wexler Testing the idea from Borer & Wexler (1987) that unaccusatives are analyzed as (1987) that unaccusatives are analyzed as if they are unergatives by kids in the pre-if they are unergatives by kids in the pre-A-chain stage of life.A-chain stage of life.

Turns out that Russian provides a nice Turns out that Russian provides a nice test of unaccusativity/unergativity with test of unaccusativity/unergativity with the “genitive of negation” so we can the “genitive of negation” so we can directlydirectly check to see how kids are check to see how kids are analyzing their intransitives.analyzing their intransitives.


In sentences with negation, an object In sentences with negation, an object (within the scope of negation) can be (within the scope of negation) can be realized with (normal) realized with (normal) accusativeaccusative Case Case (if the object is definite/specific) (if the object is definite/specific) oror with with genitivegenitive Case (if the object is Case (if the object is indefinite/non-specific).indefinite/non-specific).

So: So: ability to be marked with genitive ability to be marked with genitive a property of VP-internal indefinite a property of VP-internal indefinite objects.objects.


Arguments of Arguments of unaccusativesunaccusatives and and passivespassives (pronounced in their (pronounced in their postverbal, VP-internal base postverbal, VP-internal base position) can be marked with GoN.position) can be marked with GoN.

A small class of verbs A small class of verbs requiresrequires its its arguments to be marked with GoN arguments to be marked with GoN (regardless of definiteness); includes (regardless of definiteness); includes existential existential bebe..


Base-generated objects (arguments of Base-generated objects (arguments of passives and unaccusatives) move passives and unaccusatives) move “covertly” to subject position (after SS“covertly” to subject position (after SS—like a silent version of what happens —like a silent version of what happens in English, where the object moves to in English, where the object moves to SpecIP “overtly” before SS).SpecIP “overtly” before SS).

We believe this based on the following We believe this based on the following facts about licensing of negative facts about licensing of negative phrases.phrases.

Covert movement of Covert movement of genitive argumentgenitive argument

Point 1:Point 1: When clausal negation When clausal negation co-occurs in the same clause with co-occurs in the same clause with negative phrases, all is well.negative phrases, all is well. [ [ anyany .. neg ], [ … neg … .. neg ], [ … neg … anyany]]

Point 2:Point 2: Negation in a lower Negation in a lower clause can’t license a negative clause can’t license a negative phrase in the upper clause.phrase in the upper clause. * [ * [ anyany … [ … neg … ]] … [ … neg … ]]


Point 3:Point 3: A raised negative phrase A raised negative phrase subject has to raise subject has to raise toto a clause with a clause with negation—not negation—not fromfrom a clause with a clause with negation.negation. [ [ anyanyii … neg … [ … neg … [ ttii … ] ] … ] ]

* [ * [ anyanyii …[ …[ ttii … ] ] … ] ]


Point 4:Point 4: A raising verb embedding a A raising verb embedding a clause with an unaccusative and an clause with an unaccusative and an genitive negative phrase needs to have genitive negative phrase needs to have negation negation above itabove it and and notnot down with it. down with it. [ … neg … [ … [ … neg … [ … anyany-gen … ]]-gen … ]] * [ … [ … neg … * [ … [ … neg … anyany-gen … ]]-gen … ]]

GoN acts as if it moved into the upper GoN acts as if it moved into the upper clause, we just can’t see it (it’s covert).clause, we just can’t see it (it’s covert).

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

In GoN constructions, the In GoN constructions, the unaccusative argument is unaccusative argument is pronounced in its base-position—pronounced in its base-position—there can be no re-analysis as an there can be no re-analysis as an unergative. Moreover, GoN is unergative. Moreover, GoN is prohibited with unergatives.prohibited with unergatives.

This is pretty much impossible to This is pretty much impossible to solve—the kid’s stuck, and we solve—the kid’s stuck, and we expect them just not to use GoN.expect them just not to use GoN.

Testing the GoNTesting the GoN

GoN is allowed with GoN is allowed with transitivestransitives and these and these do not involve problematic A-chains.do not involve problematic A-chains.

First order of business is to see if kids know First order of business is to see if kids know how to use GoN in the unproblematic how to use GoN in the unproblematic cases.cases.

Tested 30 kids in Moscow between 3;0 and Tested 30 kids in Moscow between 3;0 and 6;6.6;6.

First result:First result: Kids use genitive about Kids use genitive about 75%75% of the time where it should be used, around of the time where it should be used, around 4%4% of the time where it shouldn’t. Smart of the time where it shouldn’t. Smart kids.kids.


Second result:Second result: Unaccusatives (both Unaccusatives (both those that require GoN for everything those that require GoN for everything and those which require it only for and those which require it only for indefinite objects) are much more rarely indefinite objects) are much more rarely marked with genitive (overall) than in marked with genitive (overall) than in transitives. Kids have trouble with transitives. Kids have trouble with unaccusatives.unaccusatives.

But this is over But this is over all kidsall kids (huge age range) (huge age range)……


Second result, split by age:Second result, split by age: Verbs that Verbs that require GoN showed significant difference require GoN showed significant difference by age: younger kids (4;0) used GoN 30% of by age: younger kids (4;0) used GoN 30% of the time, older kids (5;4) used it 60% of the the time, older kids (5;4) used it 60% of the time.time.

This is still fairly course—it turns out that if This is still fairly course—it turns out that if we look at the individual subjects, we will we look at the individual subjects, we will find find all and only all and only the patterns the hypothesis the patterns the hypothesis predicts with respect to where kids accept predicts with respect to where kids accept GoN.GoN.

Subject by subject use of Subject by subject use of GoNGoN

Kids divided by their case response forKids divided by their case response for transitive non-specifictransitive non-specific (adult: gen) (adult: gen) transitive specifictransitive specific (adult: acc) (adult: acc) unaccusativeunaccusative (adult: gen) (adult: gen) bleached unaccusativebleached unaccusative (adult: gen) (adult: gen)

They fell into classes.They fell into classes. Kids who Kids who don’t know how to use GoNdon’t know how to use GoN at all. at all. Kids who Kids who use GoN like adultsuse GoN like adults (post-A-chain (post-A-chain

kids)kids) Kids use Kids use GoN right for transitives, not for GoN right for transitives, not for

unaccusativesunaccusatives.. *Kids use *Kids use GoN right for unaccusatives not for GoN right for unaccusatives not for

transitivestransitives..

Two possible Two possible interpretationsinterpretations

ACDH:ACDH: A-Chain Deficit Hypothesis A-Chain Deficit Hypothesis(no A-chains)(no A-chains)

EARH:EARH: External Argument External Argument Requirement Hypothesis (external Requirement Hypothesis (external arguments required)arguments required)

Passives and unaccusatives both fail Passives and unaccusatives both fail both. Transitives and unergatives both both. Transitives and unergatives both pass both.pass both.

Maybe maybe maybeMaybe maybe maybesupport for EARH.support for EARH.

Snyder, Hyams, and Crisma (1994) Snyder, Hyams, and Crisma (1994) found that French kids get auxiliary found that French kids get auxiliary selection right from a young age—in selection right from a young age—in particular with reflexive clitics.particular with reflexive clitics.

The structure of this is supposed to be The structure of this is supposed to be a lot like an unaccusative (which is in a lot like an unaccusative (which is in fact taken to be the reason for selecting fact taken to be the reason for selecting bebe as the auxiliary in both cases): The as the auxiliary in both cases): The reflexive clitic gets reflexive clitic gets subject’ssubject’s -role, the -role, the object moves to subject position.object moves to subject position. Le Le chienchienjj s sii’est [ t’est [ tii mordu t mordu tjj ] ]

EARH…EARH…

If this analysis is right, then we have “object-If this analysis is right, then we have “object-to-subject” movement just like in passives to-subject” movement just like in passives and unaccusatives, yet kids can do this at a and unaccusatives, yet kids can do this at a young age. What gives?young age. What gives?

One difference between the reflexive cases One difference between the reflexive cases and unaccusative/passive cases is that the and unaccusative/passive cases is that the reflexives still have their external reflexives still have their external -role -role intact.intact.

Hence:Hence: maybe the “pre-A-chain” kids are maybe the “pre-A-chain” kids are really “obligatory external argument” kids really “obligatory external argument” kids (EARH).(EARH).

Fox, GrodzinskyFox, Grodzinsky Testing kids on actional/nonactional, Testing kids on actional/nonactional,

long/short long/short bebe//get get passives:passives: Actional passives pose no problem for Actional passives pose no problem for

comprehension (long or short).comprehension (long or short). Get Get passives (long) seem to pose no problem.passives (long) seem to pose no problem. Nonactional short passives are pretty well Nonactional short passives are pretty well

comprehended.comprehended. Nonactional long passives are at chance.Nonactional long passives are at chance.

?? Rarity in the input/inappropriate discourse Rarity in the input/inappropriate discourse

situations. Or problems getting a situations. Or problems getting a -role to the -role to the by-phrase.by-phrase.

-transmission-transmission In verbal be passives, the In verbal be passives, the -role seems to be -role seems to be

“transmitted” to “transmitted” to byby:: Aladdin is pushed by Jasmine (agent).Aladdin is pushed by Jasmine (agent). Captain Hook is feared by Michael (experience)Captain Hook is feared by Michael (experience) A cake is offered to Ariel by Pinocchio (source)A cake is offered to Ariel by Pinocchio (source) The ship was sunk [PRO to collect the insurance].The ship was sunk [PRO to collect the insurance].

But not with But not with getget-passives (-passives (byby works alone). works alone). The ship got sunk [PRO to collect the insurance].The ship got sunk [PRO to collect the insurance].

F&G suggest problem with F&G suggest problem with -transmission due -transmission due to processing (only option left is direct to processing (only option left is direct assignment from assignment from byby); for nonactional verbs, ); for nonactional verbs, get get passive).passive).

Minimalism and Minimalism and maturation?maturation?

Despite appearances from certain Despite appearances from certain angles, the “minimalist program” is angles, the “minimalist program” is reallyreally based on a particular way of based on a particular way of looking at how the language faculty looking at how the language faculty fits into the rest of the mind.fits into the rest of the mind.

MinimalismMinimalism

One of the basic ideas of MP is that One of the basic ideas of MP is that language is a system which needs to language is a system which needs to mediate between a system for mediate between a system for articulationarticulation and a system for and a system for interpretationinterpretation..

ArticulationArticulationInterpret’ionInterpret’ion“PF”“PF” CCHLHL “LF”“LF”

MinimalismMinimalism

Further, each system imposes Further, each system imposes certain requirements on the certain requirements on the “interfaces”. The “interfaces”. The articulatory articulatory interface requiresinterface requires, for example, , for example, having things in a having things in a linear orderlinear order; the ; the interpretation interface requiresinterpretation interface requires having all and only having all and only interpretableinterpretable aspects of the structure represented.aspects of the structure represented.

MinimalismMinimalism The driving hypothesis of the Minimalist The driving hypothesis of the Minimalist

Program is that that’s all there is to Program is that that’s all there is to grammar—that grammar—that CCHLHL is an optimal solution to is an optimal solution to the requirements imposed by the interfaces the requirements imposed by the interfaces to articulation and interpretation.to articulation and interpretation.

Properties of the interfaces are the ultimate Properties of the interfaces are the ultimate motivation for the properties of the motivation for the properties of the grammar.grammar.

To what extent is the maturation that we’ve To what extent is the maturation that we’ve been talking about a kind of “maturation at been talking about a kind of “maturation at the interface”?the interface”?

GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Documents

Transcript of GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory