Week 3. More optional Week 3. More optional infinitives, this time with infinitives, this time with

meaningmeaning

GRS LX 865GRS LX 865Topics in Topics in

LinguisticsLinguistics

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996) Child English bare stems as “OIs”?Child English bare stems as “OIs”?

In the present, only morphology is 3sg -In the present, only morphology is 3sg -ss.. Bare stem isn’t unambiguously an infinitive form.Bare stem isn’t unambiguously an infinitive form. No word order correlate to finiteness.No word order correlate to finiteness.

OIs are clearer in better inflected OIs are clearer in better inflected languages. Does English do this too? Or is it languages. Does English do this too? Or is it different?different?

Hypotheses:Hypotheses: Kids don’t “get” inflection yet; Kids don’t “get” inflection yet; gogo and and goesgoes are are

basically homonyms.basically homonyms. These are OIs, the -s is correlated with These are OIs, the -s is correlated with

something systematic about the child syntax.something systematic about the child syntax.

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996)

Exploring a consequence of having T Exploring a consequence of having T in the structure: in the structure: dodo support. support.

Rationale:Rationale: Main verbs do not move in English.Main verbs do not move in English. Without a modal or auxiliary, T is Without a modal or auxiliary, T is

stranded: stranded: The verb -ed not move.The verb -ed not move. Do is inserted to save T.Do is inserted to save T. Predicts: No T, no Predicts: No T, no dodo insertion. insertion.

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996)

Empirically, we expect:Empirically, we expect: She goShe go She goesShe goes She not go (no T no She not go (no T no dodo)) She doesn’t go (adult, T and She doesn’t go (adult, T and dodo))

but neverbut never She not goes (evidence of T, yet no She not goes (evidence of T, yet no dodo).).

Note: All basically options if kids Note: All basically options if kids don’t “get” inflection.don’t “get” inflection.

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996)

Looked at 10 kids from 1;6 to 4;1Looked at 10 kids from 1;6 to 4;1 Adam, Eve, Sara (Brown), Nina Adam, Eve, Sara (Brown), Nina

(Suppes), Abe (Kuczaj), Naomi (Sachs), (Suppes), Abe (Kuczaj), Naomi (Sachs), Shem (Clark), April (Higginson), Shem (Clark), April (Higginson), Nathaniel (Snow).Nathaniel (Snow).

Counted sentences:Counted sentences: with with nono or or notnot before the verb before the verb without a modal/auxiliarywithout a modal/auxiliary with unambiguous 3sg subjectswith unambiguous 3sg subjects with either with either -s-s or or -ed-ed as inflected. as inflected.

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996) Affirmative:Affirmative:

43% inflected43% inflected Negative:Negative:

< 10% inflected< 10% inflected

It not works MomIt not works Mom no N. has a microphoneno N. has a microphone no goes in thereno goes in there but the horse not stand but the horse not stand

upsups no goes here!no goes here!

affaff negneg

-inflec-inflec 782782 4747

+infle+inflecc

594594 55

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996) Small numbers, but in the right direction.Small numbers, but in the right direction. Generalization: Considering cases with no Generalization: Considering cases with no

auxiliary, kids inflect about half the time auxiliary, kids inflect about half the time normally, but almost never (up to normally, but almost never (up to performance errors) inflect in the negative.performance errors) inflect in the negative.

If If dodo is an indicator of T in the negative, we is an indicator of T in the negative, we might expect to see that might expect to see that dodo appears in appears in negatives about as often as inflection appears negatives about as often as inflection appears in affirmatives.in affirmatives.

Also, basically true: 37% vs. 34% in the pre-Also, basically true: 37% vs. 34% in the pre-2;6 group, 73% vs. 61% in the post-2;6 group.2;6 group, 73% vs. 61% in the post-2;6 group.

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996) Also, made an attempt to ascertain how the form Also, made an attempt to ascertain how the form

correlated with the intended meaning in terms of correlated with the intended meaning in terms of tense. (Note: a nontrivial margin of error…)tense. (Note: a nontrivial margin of error…) Inflected verbs overwhelmingly in the right context.Inflected verbs overwhelmingly in the right context.

presentpresent pastpast futurefuture

bare bare stemstem

771771 128128 3939

-s-s 418418 1414 55

-ed-ed 1010 168168 00

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996) Last, an elicitation experiment contrasting Last, an elicitation experiment contrasting

affirmative, affirmative, nevernever (no T dependence for (no T dependence for adults), and adults), and notnot.. Does the cow always go in the barn, or does Does the cow always go in the barn, or does

she never go?she never go? Does the cow go in the barn or does she not go Does the cow go in the barn or does she not go

in the barn?in the barn? Do you think he always goes or do you think Do you think he always goes or do you think

he never goes?he never goes? Do you think that he goes, or don’t you think Do you think that he goes, or don’t you think

that he goes?that he goes?

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996)

Designed to test a processing load type Designed to test a processing load type hypothesis: the extra load of hypothesis: the extra load of notnot might might be alleviated by leaving off the be alleviated by leaving off the -s-s..

If that’s the case, we’d expect If that’s the case, we’d expect nevernever and and notnot to behave the same way—in to behave the same way—in fact, fact, nevernever might be harder, just might be harder, just because it’s longer (and trigger more because it’s longer (and trigger more --ss drops). drops).

Harris & Wexler (1996)Harris & Wexler (1996) Affirmatives inflected often, Affirmatives inflected often, notnot inflected inflected

rarely, rarely, nevernever sort of inbetween. sort of inbetween. Looking at the results in terms of whether Looking at the results in terms of whether

the question was inflected:the question was inflected: Kids overall tended to use inflection when Kids overall tended to use inflection when

there was inflection in the question.there was inflection in the question. When the stimulus contained an -s:When the stimulus contained an -s:

affirmative: 15 vs. 7 (68%)affirmative: 15 vs. 7 (68%) never: 14 vs. 16 (48%)never: 14 vs. 16 (48%) not: 4 vs. 12 (25%)not: 4 vs. 12 (25%) —quite a bit lower.—quite a bit lower.

Hoekstra & Hyams Hoekstra & Hyams (1998)(1998)

Root infinitives are a crosslinguistically Root infinitives are a crosslinguistically attested phenomenon.attested phenomenon.

Fn. Children use both Fn. Children use both don’tdon’t and and doesn’tdoesn’t. H&H suggest . H&H suggest don’tdon’t might be a might be a case where case where do do is supporting is supporting n’tn’t (rather (rather than tense). When inverted (i.e. in than tense). When inverted (i.e. in utterances like utterances like Doesn’t he want to Doesn’t he want to go?go?), the inflection is always correct ), the inflection is always correct according to them.according to them.

Hoekstra & Hyams Hoekstra & Hyams (1998)(1998)

Quick notes contra Radford and the no-Quick notes contra Radford and the no-functional-projections approach:functional-projections approach:

Sure, English uses bare stems. But what Sure, English uses bare stems. But what about the other languages that use actually about the other languages that use actually marked infinitives? That infinitival marker is marked infinitives? That infinitival marker is assumed to live in a functional projection.assumed to live in a functional projection.

Kids use both finite and nonfinite utterances Kids use both finite and nonfinite utterances at the same developmental point, so a at the same developmental point, so a maturational account seems not to work.maturational account seems not to work.

Interpretation and Interpretation and functional categoriesfunctional categories

A basic premise of Hoekstra & Hyams (1998) A basic premise of Hoekstra & Hyams (1998) is that tense is a means of connecting is that tense is a means of connecting between the structural meaning and the between the structural meaning and the discourse. Tense discourse. Tense anchorsanchors a sentence in the a sentence in the discourse.discourse.

They propose that the relation between They propose that the relation between discourse (CP) and T must be signaled (to discourse (CP) and T must be signaled (to ground an utterance), and is signaled by ground an utterance), and is signaled by different things in different languages.different things in different languages. DutchDutch: : number number morphology morphology only these have RIs? only these have RIs? JapaneseJapanese: : tense tense morphologymorphology ItalianItalian, , SpanishSpanish, , CatalanCatalan: : person person morphologymorphology

Underspecification of Underspecification of number?number?

H&H propose in light of this that what’s H&H propose in light of this that what’s wrong with kids has to do with wrong with kids has to do with numbernumber specifically. OI languages are those specifically. OI languages are those where where numbernumber is crucial in the finite is crucial in the finite inflection.inflection.

H&H picked up on something about H&H picked up on something about when these RIs seem to be used. It when these RIs seem to be used. It seemed that there are certain verbs that seemed that there are certain verbs that showed up in the nonfinite form, but showed up in the nonfinite form, but others that didn’t.others that didn’t.

Eventivity ConstraintEventivity Constraint

In particular, it seems that RIs show up In particular, it seems that RIs show up only with verbs referring to only with verbs referring to eventsevents —not —not with verbs referring to with verbs referring to statesstates, not with , not with auxiliary verbs. Finite verbs seem to have auxiliary verbs. Finite verbs seem to have no such restriction. Original research on no such restriction. Original research on Dutch on French, also Russian.Dutch on French, also Russian.

Eventivity ConstraintEventivity ConstraintRIs are restricted to event-denoting RIs are restricted to event-denoting predicates.predicates.

Modal Reference EffectModal Reference Effect

The other thing is that RIs often The other thing is that RIs often have a “modal” meaning (have a “modal” meaning (cancan, , willwill, , mustmust, , want towant to..) (pretty dramatic in ..) (pretty dramatic in Dutch, German, French).Dutch, German, French).

Modal Reference EffectModal Reference EffectWith overwhelming frequency, RIs With overwhelming frequency, RIs have modal interpretations.have modal interpretations.

English = weirdEnglish = weird

English doesn’t seem to conform to English doesn’t seem to conform to the pattern. Ud Deen (1997) found:the pattern. Ud Deen (1997) found: plenty of bare stative verbsplenty of bare stative verbs (*EC)(*EC)

Man have itMan have it Ann need Mommy napkinAnn need Mommy napkin Papa want applePapa want apple

plenty of non-modal bare verbsplenty of non-modal bare verbs (*MRE)(*MRE) DutchDutch: 86% of RIs have modal meaning. Cf. : 86% of RIs have modal meaning. Cf.

3%of finite forms.3%of finite forms. EnglishEnglish: 13% of bare forms have modal : 13% of bare forms have modal

meaning Cf, 12% of finite forms..meaning Cf, 12% of finite forms..

Null Modal HypothesisNull Modal Hypothesis

A possible explanation for this is that A possible explanation for this is that RIs are simply utterances with an RIs are simply utterances with an unpronounced modal. This would for unpronounced modal. This would for the most part make sense.the most part make sense. Mommy (should) not go.Mommy (should) not go. Eve (will) sit on (the) floor.Eve (will) sit on (the) floor.

Explains why the verb is non-finite, Explains why the verb is non-finite, explains why it behaves nonfinite explains why it behaves nonfinite (null modal is doing all the tensed (null modal is doing all the tensed verb stuff, like V2, etc.). A quite verb stuff, like V2, etc.). A quite elegant explanation.elegant explanation.

Problems with NMH Problems with NMH (rats!)(rats!)

RIs and finite utterances have different RIs and finite utterances have different properties, but the NMH obliterates properties, but the NMH obliterates any distinction we can use to capture any distinction we can use to capture that (both are finite under NMH).that (both are finite under NMH). E.g., topicalization in German, Dutch, E.g., topicalization in German, Dutch,

Swedish (all V2), which never occurs with Swedish (all V2), which never occurs with RIs, but often occurs with finite forms.RIs, but often occurs with finite forms.

E.g., E.g., whwh-questions in German, Dutch, -questions in German, Dutch, Swedish, French, which never occur with Swedish, French, which never occur with RIs, but often occur otherwise.RIs, but often occur otherwise.

H&H’s hypothesisH&H’s hypothesis

Number is an inflectional property both Number is an inflectional property both of the nominal and the verbal system.of the nominal and the verbal system. though it though it arisesarises in the nominal system. in the nominal system.

Missing determiners Missing determiners andand RIs are both a RIs are both a symptom of “underspecified” Number.symptom of “underspecified” Number.

Spec-head agreementSpec-head agreementcommunicates numbercommunicates number(under)specification(under)specificationto the verb.to the verb.

H&H (1998) BUCLDH&H (1998) BUCLD

Looked at Niek (CHILDES, Dutch).Looked at Niek (CHILDES, Dutch). They found that with “finite DPs”, the They found that with “finite DPs”, the

verb was pretty much always finite too.verb was pretty much always finite too. They found that with “nonfinite DPs”, They found that with “nonfinite DPs”,

the verb was somewhat more likely to the verb was somewhat more likely to be nonfinite than with a finite DP, but be nonfinite than with a finite DP, but still overwhelmingly favored finite DPs.still overwhelmingly favored finite DPs.

Only null subjects didn’t Only null subjects didn’t overwhelmingly favor finite V. (NS overwhelmingly favor finite V. (NS 45% nonfinite).45% nonfinite).

H&H (1998) BUCLDH&H (1998) BUCLD

All things being equal, we might All things being equal, we might have expected a 1:1 correlation have expected a 1:1 correlation between finite DP subjects and finite between finite DP subjects and finite V, if it were a matter of Spec-head V, if it were a matter of Spec-head agreement. We don’t have that. We agreement. We don’t have that. We have a one-directional relation.have a one-directional relation.

If DP is finite, V is finite.If DP is finite, V is finite. If V is nonfinite, DP is nonfinite.If V is nonfinite, DP is nonfinite.

H&H (1998) BUCLDH&H (1998) BUCLD

In a sense, one setting “cares” about its In a sense, one setting “cares” about its partner in the Spec-Head relationship, partner in the Spec-Head relationship, and the other setting doesn’t.and the other setting doesn’t. Finite V seems not to care whether the subject Finite V seems not to care whether the subject

is finite or not.is finite or not. Nonfinite V Nonfinite V doesdoes seem to care, and requires a seem to care, and requires a

nonfinite subject.nonfinite subject. More specifically, there is a “default”, and More specifically, there is a “default”, and

the “default” does not need to be licensed the “default” does not need to be licensed (whereas non-defaults do).(whereas non-defaults do).

H&H (1998) BUCLDH&H (1998) BUCLD

In Dutch, 3sg is default.In Dutch, 3sg is default. 1sg verb licensed only by a 1sg subject.1sg verb licensed only by a 1sg subject. 3sg verb licensed by any old subject.3sg verb licensed by any old subject.

In English, 3sg is In English, 3sg is notnot the default. It’s the default. It’s the one the one markedmarked form. form. 3sg verb licensed only by a 3sg subject.3sg verb licensed only by a 3sg subject. bare verb licensed by any old subject.bare verb licensed by any old subject.

ThusThus The doggieThe doggie bark. bark. HeHe bark bark Doggie sit here.Doggie sit here. *Doggie *Doggie barksbarks..

**Het hondjeHet hondje hier hier zittenzitten.. **HeHe hier hier zittenzitten.. Hondje hier Hondje hier zittenzitten.. Hondje zit hier.Hondje zit hier.

cf. Schütze & Wexlercf. Schütze & Wexler “…“…the English bare form is ambiguous the English bare form is ambiguous

between an infinitive … and a finite between an infinitive … and a finite form…” (H&H98:101)form…” (H&H98:101)

Although stated in different Although stated in different terminology, and addressing a slightly terminology, and addressing a slightly different arena of facts, the basic different arena of facts, the basic concept is the same as that in S&W96.concept is the same as that in S&W96. [+T+A] -> finite ([+T+A] -> finite (-s-s)) [+T-A], [-T+A], [-T-A] -> “nonfinite” (stem)[+T-A], [-T+A], [-T-A] -> “nonfinite” (stem)

but +A ones will have +A properties (e.g. but +A ones will have +A properties (e.g. NOM), just stem form. Same for +T.NOM), just stem form. Same for +T.

English bare form ≠ English bare form ≠ infinitiveinfinitive

S&W and H&H agree that the S&W and H&H agree that the English bare form isn’t strictly English bare form isn’t strictly speaking (necessarily) the true speaking (necessarily) the true infinitive.infinitive.

H&H and interpretationH&H and interpretation Claim: RIs are interpreted as [-realized], Claim: RIs are interpreted as [-realized],

the contribution of the infinitival the contribution of the infinitival morpheme itself.morpheme itself.

Languages with an infinitival morpheme Languages with an infinitival morpheme and actual RIs should show 100% modal and actual RIs should show 100% modal ([-realized]) interpretation with RIs.([-realized]) interpretation with RIs.

English, with a Ø infinitival morpheme, English, with a Ø infinitival morpheme, obscures the correlation; in practice, we obscures the correlation; in practice, we expect only expect only some some (the actually infinitive) (the actually infinitive) bare forms to be modal.bare forms to be modal.

epistemic vs. deonticepistemic vs. deontic

John must leaveJohn must leave.. Deontic: About the way the world isn’t now Deontic: About the way the world isn’t now

but needs to be.but needs to be.

John must know FrenchJohn must know French.. Epistemic: About the way the world is (now).Epistemic: About the way the world is (now).

Seems to be a correlation between Seems to be a correlation between “eventivity” and modality type, in the adult “eventivity” and modality type, in the adult language.language.

Modality and kidsModality and kids In other circles of research, people In other circles of research, people

have proposed that kids basically have proposed that kids basically “don’t have” epistemic uses of modality “don’t have” epistemic uses of modality ((John must be a geniusJohn must be a genius) before about 3 ) before about 3 years old—for whatever reason.years old—for whatever reason.

If that’s true, there’s only deontic If that’s true, there’s only deontic modality (modality (John must go to classJohn must go to class).).

If deontic modality only goes with If deontic modality only goes with eventive predicates, we’re done. Kids eventive predicates, we’re done. Kids RIs are modal, necessarily deontic, RIs are modal, necessarily deontic, hence necessarily with eventive verbs.hence necessarily with eventive verbs.

English must be differentEnglish must be different

English bare forms are not English bare forms are not (necessarily) infinitives, not (necessarily) infinitives, not necessarily modal, hence not necessarily modal, hence not necessarily deontic, eventive.necessarily deontic, eventive.

Hence, the EC and MRE seem not to Hence, the EC and MRE seem not to hold of English, but for reasons we hold of English, but for reasons we can now understand.can now understand.

English English bebe Becker (2000) BUCLD studied the interpretive Becker (2000) BUCLD studied the interpretive

patterns with the copula patterns with the copula bebe in English (and in English (and when it is dropped).when it is dropped).

Looked at Nina, Peter, and Naomi, 2;0 to 2;3-Looked at Nina, Peter, and Naomi, 2;0 to 2;3-5.5. existentialexistential: There : There isis a man in the garden. a man in the garden. Always Always

there.there. nominal predicativenominal predicative: John : John isis a student. a student. Just about Just about

always there.always there. adjectival predicativeadjectival predicative: John is tall, John is sick. : John is tall, John is sick.

There about half the time.There about half the time. locative predicativelocative predicative: The book is on the table. : The book is on the table.

Rarely thereRarely there..

Becker (2000)Becker (2000)

Becker observes that this hints at a Becker observes that this hints at a distinction between distinction between inherentinherent and and accidentalaccidental properties of things. (“individual- properties of things. (“individual-level” vs. “stage-level”).level” vs. “stage-level”). John is a boy. John is tall.John is a boy. John is tall. My pen is on the floor. John is sick.My pen is on the floor. John is sick.

Dividing adjectival predicates this way (Dividing adjectival predicates this way (tall tall vs. vs. sicksick), we get about 80% ), we get about 80% bebe with with individual-level and about 40% individual-level and about 40% be be with stage-with stage-level. Cf. around 20% with locatives.level. Cf. around 20% with locatives. Both 20% and 40% are considered low.Both 20% and 40% are considered low.

Becker (2000)Becker (2000) Cf. the stative/eventive distinction?Cf. the stative/eventive distinction? Statives are kind of timeless, like individual-Statives are kind of timeless, like individual-

level predicates.level predicates. Eventives are kind of time-specified, like stage-Eventives are kind of time-specified, like stage-

level predicates.level predicates. They They areare different— different—John is sick John is sick is a stage-level is a stage-level

stative—but they might respond to similar stative—but they might respond to similar distinction.distinction. Existentials (Existentials (there’s a camelthere’s a camel) unexpectedly always ) unexpectedly always

show up with show up with bebe. Becker proposes that part of the . Becker proposes that part of the way expletives like way expletives like therethere work requires work requires bebe to be to be there. (ed: MB’s exx. look like inverted locatives to there. (ed: MB’s exx. look like inverted locatives to me…)me…)

Wexler (2000)Wexler (2000) In terms of ATOM, Wexler suggests that In terms of ATOM, Wexler suggests that bebe is is

special in that if either TP or AgrSP is special in that if either TP or AgrSP is missing, missing, bebe is not spelled out at all. is not spelled out at all. BeBe is the is the most inflected verb form in English, the most most inflected verb form in English, the most sensitive to both T and Agr.sensitive to both T and Agr. am, are, is, was, weream, are, is, was, were

Following a widely known analysis of Molly Following a widely known analysis of Molly Diesing’s, he suggests that subjects of Diesing’s, he suggests that subjects of individual-level predicates start higher individual-level predicates start higher (outside VP, say in SpecTP). Thus, no need to (outside VP, say in SpecTP). Thus, no need to omit either TP or AgrP for individual-level omit either TP or AgrP for individual-level predicates, hence we should always find predicates, hence we should always find bebe..

Wexler (2000)Wexler (2000) With respect to eventivity, Wexler raises With respect to eventivity, Wexler raises

doubts about whether it’s really about doubts about whether it’s really about “eventivity” vs. “stativity” or whether we again “eventivity” vs. “stativity” or whether we again have a “stage-level” vs. “individual-level” have a “stage-level” vs. “individual-level” question.question.

For example, sFor example, seeee//hearhear seem to actually be seem to actually be stative (*stative (*John is seeing/hearing the baseball John is seeing/hearing the baseball gamegame) but stage-level, while ) but stage-level, while lovelove is stative and is stative and individual-level. The first kind occur in the RI, individual-level. The first kind occur in the RI, the second kind don’t. Perhaps it’s really again the second kind don’t. Perhaps it’s really again stage-vs.-individual-level, where subjects start stage-vs.-individual-level, where subjects start higher with individual-level predicates.higher with individual-level predicates.

Wexler (2000)Wexler (2000)

Finite null subjects. Hamann Finite null subjects. Hamann discussed this question: If null discussed this question: If null subjects are licensed by RIs, what subjects are licensed by RIs, what should we say about the null should we say about the null subjects with finite verbs? W had subjects with finite verbs? W had previously said “topic drop”, but H previously said “topic drop”, but H showed that Danish kids’ use of null showed that Danish kids’ use of null subjects with finite verbs correlated subjects with finite verbs correlated highly with the use of RIs in general.highly with the use of RIs in general.

Wexler (2000)Wexler (2000) Are there really lots of null subjects with Are there really lots of null subjects with

finite verbs? Perhaps not—perhaps some of finite verbs? Perhaps not—perhaps some of the “finite verbs” are really the RIs.the “finite verbs” are really the RIs.

Idea: There is no agreement marking per se Idea: There is no agreement marking per se (agreement is always null), but the form of (agreement is always null), but the form of the tense node differs depending on whether the tense node differs depending on whether agreement is there.agreement is there. If there are agreement features around, spell out If there are agreement features around, spell out

“er” (“present”), regardless of the value or “er” (“present”), regardless of the value or presence of tense features.presence of tense features.

Past, “de”, otherwise “e” (default, infinitive)Past, “de”, otherwise “e” (default, infinitive) Point: Point: køb-erkøb-er looks like present tense finite, looks like present tense finite,

but it could be missing T (hence legitimately but it could be missing T (hence legitimately license NS).license NS).

Wexler (2000) vs. DanishWexler (2000) vs. Danish

That is,That is, [+Agr, +Tns] [+Agr, +Tns] køb-erkøb-er (present) (adult) (present) (adult) [-Agr, +Tns] [-Agr, +Tns] køb-ekøb-e (infinitive) no NS (infinitive) no NS

allowedallowed [-Agr, -Tns] [-Agr, -Tns] køb-ekøb-e (infinitive) NS allowed (infinitive) NS allowed [+Agr, -Tns] [+Agr, -Tns] køb-er køb-er (“present”) NS allowed.(“present”) NS allowed.

Predicts: No NS’s with Predicts: No NS’s with past tensepast tense verbs like verbs like køb-dekøb-de (since unambiguously +Tns, which (since unambiguously +Tns, which is the thing that prevents NS). True?is the thing that prevents NS). True?

Hamann (2002) vs. Hamann (2002) vs. WexlerWexler

Well, not really vanishingly small…Well, not really vanishingly small… Jens (20-34 mos.s) 14/42 (33%) NS past.Jens (20-34 mos.s) 14/42 (33%) NS past. Anne (18-30 mos.) 13/33 (39%) NS past.Anne (18-30 mos.) 13/33 (39%) NS past.

Maybe we’ve got 3 functional Maybe we’ve got 3 functional projections?projections?

TP is there. If either of the others are TP is there. If either of the others are missing, no NS, but if both are missing missing, no NS, but if both are missing NS is ok? That would give us a third.NS is ok? That would give us a third.

A pause to regroupA pause to regroup English bare form is unmarked, only -English bare form is unmarked, only -ss is is

unambiguously +T+A. unambiguously +T+A. DoDo is a reflex of +T (and/or +A), and as is a reflex of +T (and/or +A), and as

expected, almost never in negative sentences expected, almost never in negative sentences was there a post-negation inflected verb (was there a post-negation inflected verb (she she doesn’t godoesn’t go vs. * vs. *she not goesshe not goes).).

The actual The actual infinitiveinfinitive morpheme in English is Ø, morpheme in English is Ø, so we can’t differentiate bare forms between so we can’t differentiate bare forms between infinitives and other bare forms.infinitives and other bare forms.

The The infinitiveinfinitive morpheme seems to carry modal morpheme seems to carry modal meaning—in languages where you can see it meaning—in languages where you can see it you can tell. Effectively RI only with eventives.you can tell. Effectively RI only with eventives.

A pause to regroupA pause to regroup H&H propose that the languages which show H&H propose that the languages which show

OIs are those which rely (only) on number in OIs are those which rely (only) on number in their inflectional system. Those that don’t their inflectional system. Those that don’t (Japanese [tense only], Italian [person]) seem (Japanese [tense only], Italian [person]) seem to be immune. Hence, to be immune. Hence, personperson is the special, is the special, possibly omitted thing for kids.possibly omitted thing for kids.

This isn’t really distinctly at odds with This isn’t really distinctly at odds with ATOM. Wexler suggests that the problem is ATOM. Wexler suggests that the problem is with double-movement of the subject, but with double-movement of the subject, but movement of the subject might itself be movement of the subject might itself be driven by person features in recent versions driven by person features in recent versions of the syntactic thy.of the syntactic thy.

A pause to regroupA pause to regroup

H&H observed a correlation between H&H observed a correlation between specifiedspecified (“finite”) subjects and verbal form. (“finite”) subjects and verbal form.

Specifically,”finite” subjects seem to Specifically,”finite” subjects seem to “cause” finite verbs. Not obvious why this “cause” finite verbs. Not obvious why this would be under ATOM directly, but it might would be under ATOM directly, but it might be something like what H&H suggest—be something like what H&H suggest—there is feature sharing between the subject there is feature sharing between the subject and the AgrP. It might be interesting to see and the AgrP. It might be interesting to see if “finite” subjects necessarily always show if “finite” subjects necessarily always show the reflex of AgrP and not necessarily of TP.the reflex of AgrP and not necessarily of TP.

A pause to regroupA pause to regroup The presence of The presence of bebe seems to be correlated seems to be correlated

with something like the stative/eventive with something like the stative/eventive distinction: individual-level vs. stage-level distinction: individual-level vs. stage-level properties.properties.

Jury is probably still out on which is crucial, Jury is probably still out on which is crucial, because there is such overlap.because there is such overlap.

Adult syntactic analyses put individual-level Adult syntactic analyses put individual-level subjects higher, perhaps able to escape the subjects higher, perhaps able to escape the UCC (*double-movement) requirement.UCC (*double-movement) requirement.

BUCLD notesBUCLD notes Friday:Friday:

Hamann on French functional categories in normal vs. Hamann on French functional categories in normal vs. impaired kidsimpaired kids

Kazanina & Philipps on comprehension of aspect by Kazanina & Philipps on comprehension of aspect by Russian kidsRussian kids

Berger-Morales & Salustri on RIs and bilingual Berger-Morales & Salustri on RIs and bilingual acquisition?acquisition?

Serratrice & Sorace on overt and null subjects in Serratrice & Sorace on overt and null subjects in Italian mono- & bi-lingual acq.Italian mono- & bi-lingual acq.

Sunday:Sunday: Sigurjonsdottir on RIs vs. finite verbs in Icelandic.Sigurjonsdottir on RIs vs. finite verbs in Icelandic. Ud Deen: Underspec’d verb sand subject drop in Ud Deen: Underspec’d verb sand subject drop in

SwahiliSwahili Salustri & Hyams: Analogue of RI stage in NS lgs?Salustri & Hyams: Analogue of RI stage in NS lgs?

Comments about nina13Comments about nina13 When I did it…When I did it… I found about 70 relevant utterances (where I found about 70 relevant utterances (where

there is a pronoun subject and the verb is there is a pronoun subject and the verb is unambiguous) to pass on to the “subjects” unambiguous) to pass on to the “subjects” sheet.sheet.

Of those I omitted around 10 as repetitions or Of those I omitted around 10 as repetitions or otherwise uninformative.otherwise uninformative.

Be particularly careful about the lower Be particularly careful about the lower bounds on these larger blocks—nina13 is a bounds on these larger blocks—nina13 is a bigger file than peter07, and so you will bigger file than peter07, and so you will occasionally need to increase some of the occasionally need to increase some of the numbers to get all of the utterances in.numbers to get all of the utterances in.