Michael Tomasello Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig, Germany Where Does...

Preview:

Citation preview

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?

Recommended