Eventhood and Comprehension of Aspect in Child Russian Nina Kazanina & Colin Phillips Department of Linguistics University of Maryland

Eventhood and Comprehension of Aspect in Child Russian

Nina Kazanina & Colin PhillipsDepartment of Linguistics

University of Maryland

(1) a. Mary built a house.b. Mary was building a house.


How come we can say (1b) when no house gets built?



(2) a. Mary drove from DC to Philadelphia.b. Mary was driving from DC to Philadelphia.

How come we say (2b) even if Mary never gets to Philadelphia?

Imperfective Paradox(1) a. Mary built a house.

b. Mary was building a house.




Imperfective Paradox

Challenge: to define IMP so that it relates an incomplete event to a complete version of the same event without giving rise to an entailment that the event actually reached completion





Dowty-Parsons Approach

Semantics of PROG (Dowty 1979)

[PROG ] is true at I and w iff there is an interval I’ such that I’ I [and I is not a final subinterval of I’] and there is an inertia world w’ for which is true at I’ and w’, and w is exactly w’ at all times preceding and [including] I.




Example:

Mary was crossing the street.




BUT:

When Mary was crossing the street, a truck hit her.




BUT:

When Mary was crossing the street, a truck hit her.

Solution: Landman’s continuation branches

• “Present activities are the whole story”

Parsons (1989)

• “Present activities are the whole story”• Allows both complete & incomplete events in the

denotation of the verb: "a verb such as 'cross' is true of all crossings independently of whether they culminate."

Parsons (1989)

• “Present activities are the whole story”• Allows both complete & incomplete events in the

denotation of the verb: "a verb such as 'cross' is true of all crossings independently of whether they culminate."

• An eventuality may – culminate

Cul(e,t) - e is an event that culminates at time t

– hold for a whileHold(e,t) - e is an event which is in progress (in its developmental portion) at t

Parsons (1989)

Parsons (1989)

(3) a. Mary built the house.b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e, Mary) & Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Cul(e,t)]]

(4) a. Mary was building the house. b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &

Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Hold(e,t)]]

Parsons (1989)




Problem w/Creation verbs: (4a) does not entail the existence of the house (Imp Paradox), but (4b) does

Solution: Incomplete Objects in the denotation of NP

|house| = {competed houses, incomplete houses}

• Semantics of Imperfective is hard to formalize

Research Questions:


• How are the aspectual distinctions acquired?

Research Questions:



• Can young children (aged 3-5) deal with the IMP

Paradox cases?

• What acquisition research can offer to semantic

theory

Research Questions:



• Can young children (aged 3-5) deal with the IMP

Paradox cases?

• What acquisition research can offer to semantic

theory

Russian Aspectual Morphology

IMP PERF

• Infinitives are obligatorily marked for aspect

stroit’ postroit’ - to build

sobirat’ sobrat’ - to assemble

IMP PERF

• Infinitives are obligatorily marked for aspect

stroit’ postroit’ - to build

sobirat’ sobrat’ - to assemble

• Both Past IMP and Past PERF are synthetic forms

stroil postroilbuild-imp-past build-perf-past

sobiral sobralassemble-imp-past assemble-perf-past

Russian Aspectual Morphology

Perfective vs. Imperfective

• Perfective– only used to refer to holistic/completed events



• Imperfective– can refer to completed or incomplete events– used to describe ongoing events (past, present or

future)



• Imperfective– can refer to completed or incomplete events– used to describe ongoing events (past, present or

future)

Imperfective lacks completion entailments

Previous Research

Previous findings suggest early mastery of aspect

Previous Research

Previous findings suggest early mastery of aspect

• Spontaneous Speech:

Children produce both aspectual forms from a very

young age (< 2 years) (Brun et al., 1999; Gvozdev,

1961; Bar-Shalom&Snyder 2000)

Previous Research• Picture-matching task (Vinnitskaya&Wexler, 2001)

Mal’chik chitalI knigu. Mal’chik prochitalP knigu. read-past-imp read-past-perf

The boy was reading the book. The boy read the book.

3-4 year olds appear to use IMP vs. PERF to correctly distinguish ongoing from completed events

Evidence of Difficulties

• Comprehension studies in other languages

Many errors found once [±past] and [±completed] are independently controlled in English (Wagner 1998), Dutch (van Hout 2001)

Experiment 1

• Do Russian children appropriately use aspectual morphology to distinguish completed from incomplete events?

• 11 Russian monolingual children, aged 3-5, tested in Moscow preschools

• 4 stories per child, 44 trials total

• Tested verbs were Creation verbs

• Within-subject design

Experiment 1

Experiment Design

• In each story, an event occurs at 3 landmarks:a flower-bed, a castle and a tree

• In each story, an event occurs

(i) completely(ii) incompletely randomized order(iii) not at all

• Children were asked where an event happened, using PERF and IMP verbs; encouraged to give more than one location as answer

• Monkey assemble a smurf obez’yanka sobrala/sobirala gnomika

• Lion build a house l’venok postroil/stroil domik

• Tiger make a puzzle tigrenok sostavil/sostavlyal kartinku

• Puppy mould a bear sh’enok vylepil/lepil medvedya

Creation Expt: Scenarios

• Monkey assemble a smurf obez’yanka sobrala/sobirala gnomika

• Lion build a house l’venok postroil/stroil domik

• Tiger make a puzzle tigrenok sostavil/sostavlyal kartinku

• Puppy mould a bear sh’enok vylepil/lepil medvedya

Creation Expt: Scenarios

A road with 3 landmarks: a flower-bed, a castle and a tree. There are parts of a smurf at each location.

A monkey starts her journey down the road.

The monkey arrives at the flower-bed.These are nice flowers. Oh, look there are the pieces of a smurf down here. Let me try to revive this guy.

OK, the body goes on top of the legs, what’s next...

A bug bites the monkey. Ouch, that hurts!!! I don’t want to stay here any longer. I’m going to leave all of it like this and continue down the road.

The monkey reaches the castle.Oh, look, what a beautiful castle! And there are pieces of a smurf next to it. Let me try this one too!

OK, the body goes on top of the legs, what’s next...

A bug bites the monkey. Oh no, a bug bit me again! Why am I so unlucky today?No, this time, I’m going to finish this thing anyway!

The monkey assembles the smurf completely and continues along the road.

The monkey reaches the tree.What a great tree, it’s so nice to sit here. And there are some smurf pieces here again. But I guess I have to go home now.

The scene at the end of the story.

INCOMPLETE


INCOMPLETE

COMPLETE


INCOMPLETE

COMPLETE


Gde obez’yanka sobrala gnomika?assemble-PERF

Where did the monkey assemble the smurf?

ADULTS

100%



ADULTS

ADULTS vs. CHILDREN

100%

100%



Gde obez’yanka sobirala gnomika? assemble-IMPWhere was the monkey assembling the smurf?


100%

100%

ADULTS


100%

ADULTS vs. Group 2 CHILDREN (n=6)

100%

100%

100%

100%

ADULTS vs. Group 2 CHILDREN (n=6)

100%

<10%


Summary of Results

Adults Group 2 children (n=6)

Perfective

Imperf.

Summary of Results


Perfective

Imperf.

Summary of Results


Perfective

Imperf.

Summary of Results


Perfective

Imperf.

Summary of Results


Perfective

Imperf.

22/24 trials

Summary of Results


Perfective

Imperf.

22/24 trials

Group 2 children tended to be younger, but included older children, including two 5-year olds

Interruptions• Interruptions occur twice per story; allows

independent test of ability to give 2 locations as answer:



Gde obez’yanku ukusil zhuk?Where was the monkey stung by a bug?



Gde obez’yanku ukusil zhuk?Where was the monkey stung by a bug?

100% of adults and children answered with 2 locations

What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?

(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene



(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)




(C) The completion of the event is needed






(A) Presence of the Object is needed?

• Creation verbs raise a separate problem: no object in the scene unless the event is completed

• Change-of-state verbs (e.g. color in a flower) do not have this problem - the object (a flower) is present throughout the event independent of its completion



• Change-of-state verbs (e.g. color in a flower) do not have this problem - the object (a flower) is present throughout the event independent of its completion

• Will the error from the Creation experiment persist with Change-of-state verbs: if children again reject IMP with incomplete events, then the problem is not (solely) due to the absence of the object in the scene



Change-of-state Expt: Design

• Same task as in the Creation expt

• 33 children age 2;7 - 5;10• 4 stories per child

• Run in Moscow & Moscow region in Jan’02 & Aug’02

Change-of-state Expt: Design

• Tigrenok perevorachivalI/perevernulP kartinku Tiger turn over a picture

• Zaychik napolnyalI/napolnilP stakanchik Rabbit fill a glass

• Sh’enok razvorachivalI/razvernulP podarok Puppy unwrap a gift

• Kotenok zakrashivalI/zakrasilP cvetokKitty color in a flower

Change-of-state Expt: Scenarios

• Tigrenok perevorachivalI/perevernulP kartinku Tiger turn over a picture

• Zaychik napolnyalI/napolnilP stakanchik Rabbit fill a glass

• Sh’enok razvorachivalI/razvernulP podarok Puppy unwrap a gift

• Kotenok zakrashivalI/zakrasilP cvetokKitty color in a flower

Change-of-state Expt: Scenarios

QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor

are needed to see this picture.





INCOMPLETE



INCOMPLETE



INCOMPLETECOMPLETE



INCOMPLETECOMPLETE

Will children accept IMP

here?

• Rejection of IMP in the INCOMPLETE situation (wrong NO-answers)

Flowers Castle TreeMAIN inc compINTERPTx x

Exp: gde Z perevorachivalI kartinku? Where was Rabbit turning over the picture?LM: vot zdes’ (ukazyvaet na derevo) Here (points to the tree)Exp: a gde-nibud’ esh’e Z perevorachivalI kartinku?Was he turning over the picture anywhere else?LM: net #No……..Exp: a gde Z perevernulP kartinku? Where did Rabbit turn over the picture?LM: vot zdes’ (ukazyvaet na derevo) Here (points to the tree)Exp: a gde-nibud’ esh’e Z perevernulP kartinku? Did he turn over the picture anywhere else?LM: net No…….Gosha: Okolo cvetochkov Z perevorachivalI kartinku At the flowers, R was turning over the pictureLM: net #NoGosha: a pochemu? Why?LM: potomu chto on ne pevernul kak nado Because he didn’t turn it properly

(LM)

Change-of-state Expt: Example 1

• Wrong halfway-answers

Flowers Castle TreeMAIN comp inc INTERPT x x

G: U zamka, K perevernulaP kartinku At the castle, Cat turned over the pictureMV: napolovinu. 4 Halfway. 4……….G: U cvetov, K perevernulaP kartinku At the flowers, Cat turned over the pictureMV: pravil’no. Opyat’ 5+ Correct. 5+ again

G: U zamka, K perevorachivalaI kartinku At the castle, Cat was turning over the pictureMV: napolovinu. Opyat’ 4. # Halfway. 4 again.

(MV)

Change-of-state Expt: Example 2

123 trials total

Change-of-state Expt Results

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Adult-likeIMP&PERF

Reject IMP for INC Accept PERF forINC

Failed

123 trials total


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Adult-likeIMP&PERF


Failed

Almost perfect of

PERF trials

123 trials total


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Adult-likeIMP&PERF


Failed

Almost perfect of

PERF trials

IMP error repeats

123 trials total


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Adult-likeIMP&PERF


Failed

Almost perfect of

PERF trials

IMP error repeats

• The error of rejection of IMP with incomplete events is found in both the Creation and Change-of-state verbs

Creation Expt: Exp: Was Monkey building the smurf?Child: #No

Change-of-state Expt: Exp: Was Rabbit turning over a picture?

Child: #No


• The error of rejection of IMP with incomplete events is found in both the Creation and Change-of-state verbs

Creation Expt: Exp: Was Monkey building the smurf?Child: #No

Change-of-state Expt: Exp: Was Rabbit turning over a picture?

Child: #No

• Children’s problem with IMP is more than just a requirement for the presence of the object of the event in the scene





NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt


Implication for Parsons (1989)





Children





=> children have problems with Hold

Children





=> children have problems with Hold

But: then children should fail on (7), but they don’t

(7) a. Mary is building the house. b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &

Object(e, the house) & (t)[t=now & Hold(e,t)]]

Children

?






Flowers Castle Tree

MAIN inc compINTERPT x x

Gosha: Okolo cvetochkov, obez'yanka sobiralaI gnomika!At the flowers, the monkey was assembling a

smurfGT: #net, ne prav

#no, wrongGosha: pochemu?

why?GT: potomu chto okolo cvetochkov kamen' nastupila i ona

zabolela nozhka… because at the flowers (she) stepped on a stone and her foot hurt

(Creation expt, GT)

Children’s Explanations: Type 1

Appeal to the Interrupting Event

Flowers Castle Tree

MAIN inc comp INTERPT x x

Gosha: Okolo cvetochkov, obez'yanka zakrashivalaI cvetochekAt the flowers, the monkey was coloring in the

flowerLM: #net

#no

Gosha: pochemu?why?

LM: potomu chto zdes’ beloe because here it is white

(Change-of-state expt, LM)

Children’s Explanations: Type 2

Appeal to the Incomplete Result-state

• Both explanations are wrong with the imperfective:Q: Was the monkey building a smurf?Adult: #No, because it started snowing.

Q: Was the monkey coloring in a flower?Adult: #No, it is still white here.



• However, the explanations make perfect sense if the statements were perfective:

Q: Did the monkey build a smurf?Adult: No, because it started snowing.

Q: Did the monkey color in a flower?Adult: No, it is still white here.



• However, the explanations make perfect sense if the statements were perfective:

Q: Did the monkey build a smurf?Adult: No, because it started snowing.

Q: Did the monkey color in a flower?Adult: No, it is still white here.

Children: semantics IMP = semantics PERF ?

Previous Research• Picture-matching task (Vinnitskaya&Wexler, 2001)

Mal’chik chitalI knigu. Mal’chik prochitalP knigu. read-past-imp read-past-perf

The boy was reading the book. The boy read the book.

3-4 year olds appear to use IMP vs. PERF to correctly distinguish ongoing from completed events

• In Creation & Change-of-state experiments we tested IMP vs PERF distinction in one particular context - an incomplete situation (and children failed on it)



• Another context:– When the clock struck twelve, Max readP the letter.

– When the clock struck twelve, Max was readingI the letter.



• Another context:– When the clock struck twelve, Max readP the letter.

– When the clock struck twelve, Max was readingI the letter.

• Maybe children will distinguish semantics of IMP from that of PERF in some contexts?


Ongoing Events

BOY

GIRL clean the table

water the flowers

Ongoing Events

BOY


water the flowers

BOY


bikewater the flowers

Ongoing Events

BOY

GIRL


clean the table

Ongoing Events

(i) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.

BOY

GIRL


clean the table

Ongoing Events


(ii) #Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. #While the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.

BOY

GIRL


clean the table

Ongoing Events


(ii) #Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. #While the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.

BOY

GIRL


clean the table

assessment of Main event

Ongoing Events

• Truth Value Judgement Task (Crain&Thornton 2000)

• 12 children age 3 - 5;10; 4 stories each

– Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI/vyterlaP stol.While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning/cleaned the table.

– Poka Zaychik kachalsya na kachelyah, Shenok zamatyvalI/zamotalP verevku.While Rabbit was on the swingset, Doggy was rolling/rolled up the rope.

– Poka mama myla posudu, papa razdevalI/razdelP rebenka.While Mommy was doing dishes, Daddy was undressing/undressed the baby.

– Poka Zaychik igral v konstruktor, Begemotik chitalI/prochitalP knigu.While Rabbit was playing Lego, Hippo was reading/read the book.

• Each story was such that IMP sentence is correct

PERF sentence is wrong

Ongoing Experiment: Design

Adult Response

Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. YESWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.

Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. NOWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.

BOY

GIRL


clean the table


Adult Response



• IMP & PERF are tested in an identical situation

BOY

GIRL


clean the table


Adult Response




• Difference in adults’ judgments must be solely caused by the difference in the

semantics of IMP & PERF

BOY

GIRL


clean the table


Adult Response




• Difference in adults’ judgments must be solely caused by the difference in the

semantics of IMP & PERF

• If children behave like adults => they know some semantic difference between IMP

& PERF

BOY

GIRL


clean the table


Ongoing Experiment Results

39 trials total: 20 trials - PERF, 19 trials - IMP


80%

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PERF IMP

Children

Adults


39 trials total: 20 trials - PERF, 19 trials - IMP


80%

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

PERF IMP

Children

Adults

Gosha: Poka Serezha polival cvety, Olya vytiralaI stol

While Serezha was watering flowers, Olya was cleaning the table

LM: Da

Yes

………...

Gosha: Poka Serezha polival cvetochki, Olya vyterlaP stol

While Serezha was watering flowers, Olya cleaned the table

LM: Net

No

Gosha: pochemu?

why?

LM: potomu chto ona i vot eto ostavila I ustala do etogo konca

because she left this edge

(LM)

*Double* trials

Gosha: Poka Serezha polival cvety, Olya vytiralaI stol

While Serezha was watering flowers, Olya was cleaning the table

LM: Da

Yes

………...

Gosha: Poka Serezha polival cvetochki, Olya vyterlaP stol

While Serezha was watering flowers, Olya cleaned the table

LM: Net

No

Gosha: pochemu?

why?

LM: potomu chto ona i vot eto ostavila I ustala do etogo konca

because she left this edge

(LM)

In 28/31 *double* trials children accepted IMP and rejected PERF

=> they definitely know some difference between IMP & PERF

*Double* trials





NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in ongoing situations (which eventually complete)








• Children incorrectly reject IMP in incomplete situations (Creation & Change-of-state expts)

Okolo dereva Obez’yanka perevorachivalaI kartinku.

At the tree Monkey was turning over a picture.

Summary: IMP in early Russian

turn over the picture

• Children correctly accept IMP in ongoing situations where the action is eventually completed

Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol

While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.

Summary: IMP in early Russian

BOYGIRL

bikingwatering the flowers

cleaning the table



BOYGIRL


cleaning the table

BOYGIRL


cleaning the table

BOYGIRL


cleaning the table



BOYGIRL


cleaning the table

BOYGIRL


cleaning the table




BOYGIRL


BOYGIRL



cleaning the table

cleaning the table



BOYGIRL


BOYGIRL



cleaning the table

cleaning the table



BOYGIRL


cleaning the table

BOYGIRL


cleaning the table



BOYGIRL


cleaning the table

BOYGIRL


cleaning the table

Children accepted IMP



BOYGIRL


cleaning the table

BOYGIRL


cleaning the table




Will children also accept IMP here ???

BOYGIRL


Will children also accept

IMP here ???

NO YES

cleaning the table


BOYGIRL



IMP here ???

NO YES

cleaning the table



Russian children on IMP

BOY

GIRL


cleaning the table

if NO



BOY

GIRL


cleaning the table

if NO



BOY

GIRL


cleaning the table

Support for (C): children require an eventual completion of the event

BOYGIRL



IMP here ???

(C): completion of the event is needed

Support for a semantic theory of IMP that relates an event described by the IMP to the corresponding complete event

e.g. Landman (1991)

NO YES

cleaning the table


BOYGIRL



IMP here ???



e.g. Landman (1991)

NO YES

cleaning the table




BOY

GIRL


cleaning the table

if YES



BOY

GIRL


cleaning the table

• incomplete reading is NOT available

# Het meisje maakte een puzzel (bij het huis). The girl was doing a puzzle (at the tree).

Adult Dutch/German (van der Feest & van Hout 2002)

do the puzzle



• ongoing reading IS available

Toen het meisje bij de boom was, maakte ze een puzzel.When the girl was near the tree, she was doing a puzzle.


do the puzzle

…..be at the flowersdo a puzzle



• ongoing reading IS available

Toen het meisje bij de boom was, maakte ze een puzzel.When the girl was near the tree, she was doing a puzzle.


do the puzzle

…..be at the flowersdo a puzzle

Frame-of-reference sensitive mechanisms at play

BOYGIRL



IMP here ???



e.g. Landman (1986)

NO YES

cleaning the table


Russian children ~ Dutch adults

A case for the Continuity Hypothesis

Summary

• In the Creation expt, young Russian-speaking

children incorrectly rejected IMP with incomplete

events - i.e. failed on the Imperfective Paradox cases


























Maybe. To be tested


Follow-up studies will manipulate:

• Need for counterfactual reasoning

BOY

GIRL


cleaning the table


• Availability of specific past time reference for

evaluating IMP


• Availability of specific past time reference for

evaluating IMP

• Russian IMP is not an inflectional category morpho-syntactically

It would be interesting to test a language where IMP has approx. the same properties as in Russian, but is an inflectional category of aspect (e.g. French or Spanish)

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

• Sergey Avrutin• Rozz Thornton• Moscow Child Center ULYBKA• Kindergarten #1633• Kindergarten #36 RYABINKA (Moscow region)• NSF grant BCS #0196004

Copies of slides: www.ling.umd.edu/ninaka www.ling.umd.edu/colin

(A) Understanding Agent’s Intentions

• Children’s failure could be due to difficulty in relating incomplete event to agent’s unrealized intentions

• Would be an instance of well-known failures onTheory of Mind (i.e., false belief) tasks

• Compatible with success on ongoing events

(A) Unrealized Agent’s Intentions

• The agent clearly states his intention (e.g. to build a house)

• The child is asked a what-question, e.g.What was the tiger building?

Agent’s Intentions Experiment (Pilot)w/Laura Wagner

• The error in the Creation experiment is confirmed in a different task

• Children remember the Agent’s Intention

• BUT: children might not be able to correctly apply their knowledge of the Agent’s intention to license the Imperfective

Agent’s Intentions Expt: conclusions






Maybe. To be tested


(A) Children are not aware of the Agent’s

Intentions

(B) Children require the presence of the object in the scene

(C) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)

(D) The completion of the event is needed

NO: Children understand Agent’s Intentions



Maybe. To be tested


Documents

Eventhood and Comprehension of Aspect in Child Russian Nina Kazanina & Colin Phillips Department of Linguistics University of Maryland