Michael Tomasello
Max Planck Institutefor Evolutionary Anthropology
Leipzig, Germany
Where Does Grammar Come From?[in ontogeny]
Phylogeny (species)
History (cultural group)
Ontogeny (individual)
UG ACCOUNT
• Learning of periphery
• Innate UG core: linking
U-B ACCOUNT
• All is learned (cognitively!)
• Dual Inheritance:(i) constructions(ii) general cognitive &
learning processes
DualProcess
Single Process;Not Connectionism
Once a child is able to parse an utterance such as 'Close the door !', he will be able to infer from the fact that the verb 'close' in English precedes its complement 'the door', that all verbs in English precede their complements (Radford, 1990, p.61)
Andrew Radford on UG Approach
Culture: Utterances
Biology: Cognitive & Learning Skills[Intention-reading & Pattern-finding]
Patterns of Language Use: = CONSTRUCTIONS
Language-specific categories and constructions, with universals based on universal processes ofcognition and communication
>>
“Grammar”
location
object/theme
Joint Attentional Frame and Semantic Roles
t
I
A x 3 WOW!
Moll et al. (2008) Infancy.
Common Ground: Referent
Kids Choose “Shared” One
• But NOT when they experience it with another adult (3x) - not own interest
• But NOT when then onlook as adult gets excited (3x) by herself - not adult interest
It’s the one “we” shared in a special way!
Common Ground: Referent
QuickTime™ and aYUV420 codec decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Moll et al. (2006) Cognition & Development.
One we haven’t shared!
Summary
• Semantics: events + roles
• Pragmatics: given + new
• Syntax: distribution + analogy
• Form: imitative (vocal) learning
Fragments20%
Questions32%
Imperatives9%
SV(X)18%
Complex6%
Copulas15%
5/20%
9/38%
20/67%
6/53%
8/77%
4/38%
Mother’s Item-Based Speech to ChildrenCameron-Faulkner, Lieven, & Tomasello (2004) Cognitive Science
• 51% from 52 frames• 45% start w/ one of 17 words
Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, & Tomasello (2004)
What’s .18 Where’s .05What’re .09 Where’re .02What do .05 Where shall .01What did .04What has .03 Who’s .08What about .03 Who did .01What shall .02What can .02 Which one .02What does .02What hppnd .01 Why don’t .01What were .01What kind of .01 How many .01
31 frames =>80% of Wh Qs
13 frames =>65% of Wh Qs
__falldown
__kick
give__ __!
__ running
Broken
Verb Islands at 2 Years of Age
Throw__
not agentbut “kicker”
Tomasello (1992) First Verbs
English children’s understanding of transitive word order is verb-specific until
age 2.5 - 3.0
1. Spontaneous Speech (+diary)
2. Production Experiments (nonce verbs)
3. Weird Word Order Studies(nonce verbs)
4. Comprehension Experiments (nonce verbs)
5. Priming Studies (English verbs)
Gerntner & Fisher (2006) Preferential Looking?Dittmar et al. (2008)
Tomasello (2000; 2003)
Brooks & TomaselloDevelopmental Psychology (1999)
Adult Model Always Passive:
It’s being tammed by the horsie. It‘s being tammed.
Active Biasing Question:
What‘s the horsie doing (to it)?[encouraging: He‘s tamming it]
Results
12 out of 48 three-year-old children (25%) produced a transitive SVO utterance
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2,0 2,6 3,0 3,6 4,0 4,6 5,0 8,0
.German
. Japanese
. Hebrew
. Hebrew
. Japanese [Matsui et al.]
[Wittek]
% c
hild
ren
“Wug” type Studies of Syntax (Tomasello, Cognition, 2000)
Cues in Construction Learning Vary:
Frequency: Cue Availability
Consistency: Cue Reliability
Complexity: Cue Cost
And sometimes cues compete!
Cue Strength
Dittmar, Lieven, & Tomasello (in press) Child Development
Point to Picture Comprehension
Competition Model w/ Novel Verbs
Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger.
Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege.
Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger.
German Transitives
Word Order vs. Caseanimacy & agreement controlled
German children’s correct interpretation of transitive sentences with novel verbs.
7 3 %
8 8 %
9 8 %
4 9 %
9 4 %
1 0 0 %
4 4 %
3 6 %
6 9 %
0 %
2 0 %
4 0 %
6 0 %
8 0 %
1 0 0 %
2 ; 7 - y e a r - o l d s ( N = 1 6 ) 5 - y e a r - o l d s ( N = 1 6 ) 7 - y e a r - o l d s ( N = 1 6 )
% correct pointing
P r o t o t y p e W o r d o r d e r o n l y C o n f l i c t
*
*
* *
* *
* * * *
Dittmar et al. (in press)
Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger.
Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege.
Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger.
3 1 %
3 5 %
7 1 %
4 6 %
6 3 %
3 3 %
0 %
2 %
2 1 %
0 . 0
0 . 1
0 . 2
0 . 3
0 . 4
0 . 5
0 . 6
0 . 7
0 . 8
0 . 9
1 . 0
2 ; 7 - y e a r - o l d s 5 - y e a r - o l d s 7 - y e a r - o l d s
mean proportion of trials
w o r d o r d e r c a s e m a r k i n g n o c h o i c e
Conflict Condition
Den Hund wieft der Tiger.
Dittmar et al. (in press)
S O - C a s e
1 1 %
S O + C a s e
6 8 %
O S + C a s e
2 1 %
German Child-Directed Transitive Sentences
Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger.
Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger.Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege.
*
* Only 1% had no personal pronoun or animacy cue.
Dittmar et al. (in press)
68%11%
21%
7 9 %
8 7 %
6 8 %
8 6 %8 6 %
1 0 0 %
0 %
2 0 %
4 0 %
6 0 %
8 0 %
1 0 0 %
c u e a v a i l a b i l i t y c u e r e l i a b i l i t y c u e v a l i d i t y
w o r d o r d e r c a s e m a r k i n g
for der = 21%
Why case so slow when higher cue strength than word order?
Polish: Dabrowska & Tomasello (in press) J. Child Language
Elicited Production
Novel Verb Modeled w/
NP-nom VERB NP-masc instr.
Elicited: same verb w/ feminine noun as object
Polish: case marking on nouns - diff for diff gendersQuestion: do they know all instrumentals “same”?
Case Feminine Masculine Neuter
Nominative -a (-Ø, -i) -Ø (-a, -o) -o, -e, -
Genitive -i/-y -a, -u (-i/-y) -a
Dative - e, -i/-y -owi (-u, - e, -i/-y) -u
Accusative - (-Ø) -Ø, -a (- , -o) = NOM
Instrumental - -em (- ) -em
Locative - e, -i/-y - e, -u (-i/-y) - e, -u
Vocative -o, -u, -i/-y, (-Ø) - e, -u, (-o) -o, -e, -
Dabrowska et al. (in press)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
2.5 yrolds
3.5 yrolds
fem > mascmasc > fem
1. S-COMPLEMENTSDiessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2001)
Subjects: Adam, Eve, Sarah, Naomi, Peter, Nina - 1 to 5 yearsComplex Ss: 2807 tokens
Examples from Sarah: Examples from Nina:I think he’s gone See that monkey cryingI think it’s in here See Becca sleepingI think my daddy took it See that goI think I saw one See my hands are washedit’s a crazy bone, I think See he bites meI think dis is de bowl See him lie down
% Subjects in Complex Ss
1-P 2-P 3-P Lex ImpGuess 100 -- -- -- --Bet 100 -- -- -- --Mean 52 48 -- -- --Know 36 55 05 04 --Think 85 13 02 -- --Wish 97 -- -- 03 --Hope 88 12 -- -- --
See 07 01 01 -- 91Look -- -- -- -- 100Watch -- -- 11 -- 89Remember 6 6 -- -- 88
- Virtually no complementizers
- Virtually no non-present tenses
- Virtually no modals or negations
Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2001)
2. RELATIVE CLAUSESDiessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2000)
- Subjects: 4 CHILDES children from 1;9 to 5;1
- Total of 324 relative clauses
Here’s the toy that goes around.
That’s the sugar that fell out.
There’s the ball I bought
This’s the bird that sings.
That’s the one that goes moo.
Here’s the boy that ran into the water.
Earliest All
NP ONLY:
“The girl that came with us” .05 .19
PRESENTATIONALS
“This is the car that turns around” .75 .47
OBLIQUES
“I’m going to the zoo that has snakes” 0 .06
OBJECT
“She has a bathtub that goes with it” .20* .26
SUBJECT
“The one that not finished is up there” 0 .01
* 50% of these = “Look at all the chairs Peter’s got”
Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2000)
Ambridge, Rowland, Theakston, Tomasello (submitted)
Adult: Ask her why the dog is sleeping.Child: Why is the dog sleeping?
Adult: Ask her where the pig can swim.Child: Where can the pig swim?
4 year olds
MAIN RESULT: different number errors for:• different wh- words• different auxiliaries• ‘same’ auxiliary w/ diff number (e.g., do & does)
3. Wh- Questions
“Jill is easy to see”
4. Tough Movement
[Fabian-Kraus & Ammon (1980]
find 100catch 93save 69draw 53watch 33hear 25
% correct in comprehension4/5 year olds
• Mommy, can you stay this open?• I come closer so it won‘t fall.• Don‘t giggle me.• She came it over there.• I want to stay this rubber band on.• Eva won‘t stay things where I want them to be.• You cried her.• Will you climb me up there?
• „Kannst Du mich hochklettern?“
1. Transitivity Overgeneralizations
Constraint
• ENTRENCHMENT– Repeated use makes other uses sound unconventional
• PRE-EMPTION– Alternative forms block the extension of a verb to a
construction
• ANALOGIES– Semantic subclasses of verbs
Evidence at 2.5 years:Brooks & Tomasello (1999) Child Development
Evidence for these both at 4.5 years:Brooks & Tomasello (1999) Language
Three constraining factors working over developmental time.
2 3 4 5 6
Entrenchment
PreemptionVerb
Subclasses
Growing abstractness ofthe transitive construction
GiggleChortleLaugh
Many overgeneralizations b/c not entrenched
No overgeneralizationsb/c Verb Islands
Low overgeneralzations b/cpreemtion and verb subclassesin addition to entrenchment
Overall Summary
Early linguistic representations are mostly concrete
w/ item-based abstractions only > no UG core.
Abstractions are created gradually, piecemeal,based on specifiable characteristics of the input -
constraints also > general cognitive processes.
Children produce utterances by combining in functionally appropriate ways known pieces of language of different
kinds > U-B syntax.
Final Query
• All theories must employ something like this account to explain the acquisition of particular language-specific constructions
• The question is whether, in addition, we need a second set of acquisition processes to link these constructions to an innate UG?
¿Why?
Top Related