Week 2. The emergence of syntax GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Week 2. The emergence of Week 2. The emergence of syntaxsyntax

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

SyntaxSyntax Recall the basic Recall the basic

structure of adult structure of adult sentences.sentences.

IP (a.k.a. TP, INFLP, …) IP (a.k.a. TP, INFLP, …) is the position of modals is the position of modals and auxiliaries, also and auxiliaries, also assumed to be home of assumed to be home of tense and agreement.tense and agreement.

CP is where CP is where whwh-words -words move and where I moves move and where I moves in subject-aux-inversionin subject-aux-inversion

Splitting the INFLSplitting the INFL Syntax since 1986 Syntax since 1986

has been more or has been more or less driven by the less driven by the principle “every principle “every separable separable functional element functional element belongs in its own belongs in its own phrase.”phrase.” Various syntactic Various syntactic

tests support these tests support these moves as well (cf. moves as well (cf. CAS LX 523).CAS LX 523).

Splitting the INFLSplitting the INFL Distinct syntactic Distinct syntactic

functions assigned to functions assigned to distinct distinct functional functional headsheads.. TT: tense/modality: tense/modality AgrOAgrO: object agreement, : object agreement,

accusative caseaccusative case AgrSAgrS: subject agreement, : subject agreement,

nominative casenominative case NegNeg: negation: negation

Origins: Pollock (1989) Origins: Pollock (1989) (split INFL into Agr and (split INFL into Agr and T), Chomsky (1993) (split T), Chomsky (1993) (split INFL into AgrS, T, AgrO).INFL into AgrS, T, AgrO).

Functional headsFunctional heads

The DP, CP, and The DP, CP, and VP all suffered a VP all suffered a similar fate.similar fate.

DP was split into DP was split into DP and NumPDP and NumP

Origin: Ritter 1991 Origin: Ritter 1991 and related workand related work

Functional headsFunctional heads VP was split into two VP was split into two

parts, parts, vvP where the P where the agent agent starts, and VP starts, and VP where the where the patientpatient starts. V and starts. V and vv combine combine by head movement.by head movement. Origins: Larson (1988) Origins: Larson (1988)

proposed a similar proposed a similar structure for double-structure for double-object verbs, Hale & object verbs, Hale & Keyser (1993) proposed Keyser (1993) proposed something like this something like this structure, which was structure, which was adopted by Chomsky adopted by Chomsky (1993).(1993).

Functional headsFunctional heads

CP was split into CP was split into several “discourse-several “discourse-related” functional related” functional heads as well heads as well (topic, focus, force, (topic, focus, force, and “finiteness”).and “finiteness”).

Origins: Rizzi Origins: Rizzi (1997)(1997)

Functional structureFunctional structure Often, the “fine Often, the “fine

structure” of the structure” of the functional heads does functional heads does not matter, so people not matter, so people will still refer to “IP” will still refer to “IP” (with the (with the understanding that understanding that under a microscope it under a microscope it is probably AgrSP, TP, is probably AgrSP, TP, AgrOP, or even more AgrOP, or even more complex), “CP”, “DP”, complex), “CP”, “DP”, etc.etc.

The heart of The heart of “syntax” is really in “syntax” is really in the functional the functional headsheads, on this view. , on this view. Verbs and nouns Verbs and nouns give us the give us the lexical lexical contentcontent, but , but functional heads functional heads (TP, AgrSP, etc.) (TP, AgrSP, etc.) give us the give us the syntactic syntactic structurestructure..

How do kids get there?How do kids get there? Given the Given the

structure of structure of adult sentences, adult sentences, the question the question we’re concerned we’re concerned about here will about here will be in large part: be in large part: how do kids how do kids (consistently) (consistently) arrive at this arrive at this structure (when structure (when they become they become adults)?adults)?

Kids learn itKids learn it (patterns of input). (patterns of input). Chickens and eggs, and creoles, and Chickens and eggs, and creoles, and

so forth.so forth.

Option 1: Kids start out assuming Option 1: Kids start out assuming the entire adult structure, the entire adult structure, learning just the detailslearning just the details (Does (Does the verb move? How is tense the verb move? How is tense pronounced?)pronounced?)

Option 2: Kids start out assuming Option 2: Kids start out assuming some subpart of the adult some subpart of the adult structurestructure, complexity increasing , complexity increasing with (predetermined?) with (predetermined?) development.development.

Testing for functional Testing for functional structurestructure

Trying to answer Trying to answer this question this question involves trying to involves trying to determine what determine what evidence we have evidence we have for these for these functional functional structures in child structures in child syntax.syntax.

It’s not very easy. It’s not very easy. It’s hard to ask It’s hard to ask judgments of kids, judgments of kids, and they often do and they often do unhelpful things unhelpful things like repeat (or like repeat (or garble) things they garble) things they just heard (probably just heard (probably telling us nothing telling us nothing about what their about what their grammar actually grammar actually is).is).

Testing for functional Testing for functional structurestructure

We do know We do know what various what various functional functional projections are projections are supposedsupposed to be to be responsible for, responsible for, and so we can and so we can look for look for evidence of evidence of their effects in their effects in child language.child language.

This isn’t foolproof. If a This isn’t foolproof. If a child fails to pronounce the child fails to pronounce the past tense suffix on a verb past tense suffix on a verb that was clearly intended that was clearly intended to be in the past, does this to be in the past, does this mean there’s no TP? Does mean there’s no TP? Does it mean they simply made a it mean they simply made a speech error (as adults speech error (as adults sometimes do)? Does it sometimes do)? Does it mean they haven’t figured mean they haven’t figured out how to pronounce the out how to pronounce the past tense affix yet?past tense affix yet?

Helpful clues kids give Helpful clues kids give usus

Null subjectsNull subjects Kids seem to drop Kids seem to drop

the subject off of the subject off of their sentences a their sentences a lot. More than lot. More than adults would. adults would. There’s a certain There’s a certain crosslinguistic crosslinguistic systematicity to it systematicity to it as well, from which as well, from which we might take hints we might take hints about kids’ about kids’ functional structure.functional structure.

Root infinitivesRoot infinitives Kids seem to use Kids seem to use

nonfinite forms of nonfinite forms of main (root) clause main (root) clause verbs where adults verbs where adults wouldn’t. Again, wouldn’t. Again, there’s a certain there’s a certain crosslinguistic crosslinguistic systematicity to it systematicity to it that can provide that can provide clues as to what’s clues as to what’s going on.going on.

Radford (1990, 1995)Radford (1990, 1995) A proposal about A proposal about Early Child EnglishEarly Child English.. Kids’ syntax differs from adults’ syntax:Kids’ syntax differs from adults’ syntax:

kids use only lexical (not functional) elementskids use only lexical (not functional) elements structural sisters in kids’ trees always have a structural sisters in kids’ trees always have a --

relation between them.relation between them.

VPVP “Small Clause“Small Clause

NPNP V’V’ Hypothesis”Hypothesis”manman

VV NPNPchasechase carcar

adult syntax ≠ child adult syntax ≠ child syntaxsyntax

Adults:Adults: CP—IP—VPCP—IP—VP Kids:Kids: VPVP

Evidence for absence of IP:Evidence for absence of IP: No modals (repeating, kids drop them)No modals (repeating, kids drop them) No auxiliaries (No auxiliaries (Mommy doing dinnerMommy doing dinner)) No productive use of tense & No productive use of tense &

agreement (agreement (Baby ride truckBaby ride truck, , Mommy Mommy gogo, , Daddy sleepDaddy sleep))

Absence of CPAbsence of CP

No CP system:No CP system: no complementizers (no complementizers (thatthat, , forfor, , ifif)) no preposed auxiliary (no preposed auxiliary (car go?car go?)) no no whwh-movement (imitating -movement (imitating where does where does

it go?it go? yields yields go?go?; spontaneous: ; spontaneous: mouse mouse doing?doing?))

kids bad at comprehending kids bad at comprehending whwh-object -object questions (out of canonical order). (questions (out of canonical order). (——What are you doing? —No.What are you doing? —No.))

Absence of DPAbsence of DP

No DP system:No DP system: no non-no non- elements elements

no expletives (no expletives (rainingraining, , outside coldoutside cold)) no no ofof before noun complements of nouns before noun complements of nouns

((cup teacup tea)) Few determiners (Few determiners (Hayley draw boatHayley draw boat, ,

want duckwant duck, , reading bookreading book)) No possessive No possessive ’s’s, which may be a D., which may be a D. No pronouns, which are probably D.No pronouns, which are probably D.

Small children’s small Small children’s small clausesclauses

The Small Clause Hypothesis is not The Small Clause Hypothesis is not prima prima faciefacie crazy. Child English does seem to look crazy. Child English does seem to look something like what it would predict.something like what it would predict.

On the other hand, when looking across On the other hand, when looking across languages, we find that the SCH doesn’t languages, we find that the SCH doesn’t fare very well.fare very well.

In languages where tense/agreement is In languages where tense/agreement is more visible, we find kids using infinitives, more visible, we find kids using infinitives, but only sometimes, other times using finite but only sometimes, other times using finite verbs. The case that kids do not represent verbs. The case that kids do not represent tense weakens (but is not yet out of the tense weakens (but is not yet out of the running!).running!).

To T or not to TTo T or not to T Focusing specifically on tense (and Focusing specifically on tense (and

subject agreement), the fact that kids subject agreement), the fact that kids sometimes use tense and sometimes do sometimes use tense and sometimes do not does not does notnot indicate that they know or indicate that they know or represent T in their syntactic structure.represent T in their syntactic structure.

The question is: The question is: When tense is there, does When tense is there, does it act like tense would for an adult?it act like tense would for an adult? Do Do kids differentiate between tensed and kids differentiate between tensed and infinitive verbs, or are these just infinitive verbs, or are these just memorized Vs at this point?memorized Vs at this point?

Full Competence Full Competence HypothesisHypothesis

Poeppel & Wexler (1993). Data: Andreas Poeppel & Wexler (1993). Data: Andreas (2;1, from CHILDES).(2;1, from CHILDES).

The morphosyntactic properties associated The morphosyntactic properties associated with finiteness and attributable to the with finiteness and attributable to the availability of functional categories (notably availability of functional categories (notably head movement) are in place.head movement) are in place.

The best model of the child data is the The best model of the child data is the standard analysis of adult German standard analysis of adult German (functional projections and all). The one (functional projections and all). The one exception:exception:

Grammatical Infinitive Hypothesis:Grammatical Infinitive Hypothesis: Matrix sentences with (clause-final) infinitives are Matrix sentences with (clause-final) infinitives are

a legitimate structure in child German grammar.a legitimate structure in child German grammar.

Adult GermanAdult German

Phrase structure consists of CP, IP, VP.Phrase structure consists of CP, IP, VP. German is SOV, V2German is SOV, V2

The finite verb (or auxiliary or modal) is the The finite verb (or auxiliary or modal) is the second constituent in main clauses, second constituent in main clauses, following some constituent (subject, object, following some constituent (subject, object, or adverbial).or adverbial).

In embedded clauses, the finite verb is final.In embedded clauses, the finite verb is final. V2 comes about by moving the finite verb to V2 comes about by moving the finite verb to

(head-initial) C.(head-initial) C.

German clause structureGerman clause structure

This “second position” This “second position” is generally thought to is generally thought to be C, where something be C, where something else (like the subject, else (like the subject, or any other XP) needs or any other XP) needs to appear in SpecCP.to appear in SpecCP.

This only happens with This only happens with finite verbs. Nonfinite finite verbs. Nonfinite verbs remain at the verbs remain at the end of the sentence end of the sentence (after the object).(after the object).

—

I

IP

DP

DP

V

VP

kaufteHansC+I

C

CP

—

—

den Ball

German clause structureGerman clause structure

Things other than Things other than subjects can appear in subjects can appear in “first position”.“first position”.

When the tense When the tense appears on an appears on an auxiliary, the verb auxiliary, the verb stays in place.stays in place.

hatI

IP

DP

DP

V

VP

gekaufte

denBall

C+I

C

CP

—

Hans

V

In brief…In brief…

Kids can choose a finite or a nonfinite verb.Kids can choose a finite or a nonfinite verb. A finite (matrix) verb shows up in 2nd positionA finite (matrix) verb shows up in 2nd position A nonfinite verb appears clause-finallyA nonfinite verb appears clause-finally

ich mach das nichich mach das nich

I do that notI do that not

du das habendu das haben

you that haveyou that have

ResultsResults

There is a strong contingency.There is a strong contingency. ConcludeConclude: : the finiteness distinction is the finiteness distinction is

made correctly at the earliest observable made correctly at the earliest observable stage.stage.

+finite -finite

V2, not final 197 6

V final, not V2 11 37

Do kids learn “this is a Do kids learn “this is a second position verb” for second position verb” for

certain verbs?certain verbs? (Are some verbs used as auxiliaries?)(Are some verbs used as auxiliaries?)

Andreas used 33 finite verbs and 37 Andreas used 33 finite verbs and 37 nonfinite verbs, 8 of which were in both nonfinite verbs, 8 of which were in both categories—categories—

——and those 8 were finite in V2 position and and those 8 were finite in V2 position and nonfinite in final position.nonfinite in final position.

Remaining verbs show no clear semantic Remaining verbs show no clear semantic core that one might attribute the core that one might attribute the distribution to.distribution to.

Verb positioning =Verb positioning =functional categoriesfunctional categories

In adult German, V2 In adult German, V2 comes from V comes from V II CC. .

If we can see non-If we can see non-subjects to the left of subjects to the left of finite verbs, we know finite verbs, we know we have we have at least oneat least one functional projection functional projection (above the subject, in (above the subject, in whose Spec the first whose Spec the first position non-subject position non-subject goes).goes).

F

FP

Subject V

VP

Object

F+V

——

When V is 2nd, what’s When V is 2nd, what’s first?first?

Usually subject, not a big surprise.Usually subject, not a big surprise. But 19 objects before finite V2But 19 objects before finite V2

(of 197 cases, 180 with overt subjects)(of 197 cases, 180 with overt subjects) And 31 adverbs before finite V2And 31 adverbs before finite V2

ConcludeConclude: Kids basically seem to be : Kids basically seem to be acting like adults; their V2 is the same acting like adults; their V2 is the same V2 that adults use.V2 that adults use.

CPCP The Full Competence Hypothesis says not The Full Competence Hypothesis says not

only that functional categories exist, but only that functional categories exist, but that the child has access to the same that the child has access to the same functional categories that the adult does.functional categories that the adult does.

In particular, CP should be there too.In particular, CP should be there too. Predicts what we’ve seen:Predicts what we’ve seen:

finite verbs are in second position onlyfinite verbs are in second position only(modulo topic drop leaving them in first (modulo topic drop leaving them in first position)position)

nonfinite verbs are in final position onlynonfinite verbs are in final position only subjects, objects, adverbs may all precede a subjects, objects, adverbs may all precede a

finite verb in second position.finite verb in second position.

P&W’s predictions met—P&W’s predictions met—how did the other guys how did the other guys

fare?fare? Radford and related approaches (Radford and related approaches (No No functional categories for the youngfunctional categories for the young)?)?

Well, we Well, we seesee V2 with finite verbs V2 with finite verbs finite verb is secondfinite verb is second non-subjects can be firstnon-subjects can be first

and you can’t and you can’t dodo this except to move V out this except to move V out of VP and something else to its left…of VP and something else to its left…

You need at least You need at least oneone functional category. functional category. Andreas uses agreement correctly when Andreas uses agreement correctly when

he uses it—adults use IP for that.he uses it—adults use IP for that.


fare?fare? ““No C hypothesis” (kids don’t use overt No C hypothesis” (kids don’t use overt

complementizers)complementizers)

Of course, kids don’t really use embedded Of course, kids don’t really use embedded clauses either (a chicken-egg problem?)clauses either (a chicken-egg problem?) Purported cases of embedded clauses without a Purported cases of embedded clauses without a

complementizer aren’t numerous or convincing. complementizer aren’t numerous or convincing.

Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.


fare?fare? Can we get away with Can we get away with only oneonly one functional functional category?category?

The word order seems to be generable this The word order seems to be generable this way so long as F is to the way so long as F is to the leftleft of VP. of VP. subject can stay in SpecVPsubject can stay in SpecVP V moves to FV moves to F non-subject could move to SpecFP.non-subject could move to SpecFP.

……though people tend to believe that IP in though people tend to believe that IP in German is head-German is head-finalfinal (that is, German is (that is, German is head-final except for CP). How do kids learn head-final except for CP). How do kids learn to put I on the right once they develop CP?to put I on the right once they develop CP?


fare?fare? Empirical argument:Empirical argument: negationnegation and and adverbsadverbs are standardly supposed are standardly supposed

to mark the left edge of VP.to mark the left edge of VP. A subject in SpecVP (i.e. when a non-subject is A subject in SpecVP (i.e. when a non-subject is

topicalized) should occur to the topicalized) should occur to the right right of such of such elements.elements.

19 Object-initial sentences 31 adverb-initial 19 Object-initial sentences 31 adverb-initial sentences, 8 have an(other) adverb or sentences, 8 have an(other) adverb or negation, and negation, and all eight all eight have the subject to have the subject to the left of the adverb/negation.the left of the adverb/negation. [[CPCP Object C+I+V [ Object C+I+V [IPIP Subject [ Subject [VPVP neg/adv neg/adv ttSubjSubj ttVV] ] ttII

]]]]

The Full Competence The Full Competence HypothesisHypothesis

The ideaThe idea: Kids have : Kids have full knowledgefull knowledge of of the principles and processes and the principles and processes and constraints of grammar. Their constraints of grammar. Their representations are basically adult-representations are basically adult-like.like.

What’s different is that kids What’s different is that kids optionally allow infinitives as matrix optionally allow infinitives as matrix verbs (which kids grow out of).verbs (which kids grow out of).

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. DoDo is inserted to save T. is inserted to save T. Predicts: No T, no Predicts: No T, no dodo insertion. insertion.


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

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


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:Generalization: Considering cases with no 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 negatives about as often as inflection appears in affirmatives.appears 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 2;6 group, 73% vs. 61% in the post-2;6 group.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 adults), and (no T dependence for adults), and notnot.. Does the cow always go in the barn, or Does the cow always go in the barn, or does she never godoes she never go?? Does the cow go in the barn or Does the cow go in the barn or does she not godoes 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 goeshe never goes?? Do you think that he goes, or don’t you think that Do you think that he goes, or don’t you think that he goeshe goes??

Processing load? Extra load of Processing load? Extra load of notnot alleviated by alleviated by leaving off the 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 fact, to behave the same way—in fact, nevernever might be harder, just because it’s longer (and trigger might be harder, just because it’s longer (and trigger more more -s-s 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 When the stimulus contained an --ss::

affirmative: 15 vs. 7 (68% had an affirmative: 15 vs. 7 (68% had an --ss)) 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.

Some alternatives…Some alternatives…

Root infinitives due to “modal drop”?Root infinitives due to “modal drop”? Idea:Idea:I want to eat pizza.I want to eat pizza. RI?RI? I I wantwant to eat pizza. to eat pizza.

First question: First question: whywhy modals?modals? Second, they don’t (always) seem to Second, they don’t (always) seem to

mean mean what they should if there is a null what they should if there is a null modal. 20/37 seem to be clearly non-modal. 20/37 seem to be clearly non-modal.modal. Thorsten Ball habenThorsten Ball haben (T already has the ball)(T already has the ball)

Modal dropModal drop

Adult modals are in position 2, Adult modals are in position 2, regardless of what is in position 1.regardless of what is in position 1.

If kids are dropping modals, we If kids are dropping modals, we should expect a certain proportion should expect a certain proportion of the dropped modals to appear of the dropped modals to appear with a non-subject in position 1. with a non-subject in position 1.

But But nonenone occur—nonfinite verbs occur—nonfinite verbs also seem to come with initial also seem to come with initial subjectssubjects..

Modal dropModal drop

On the other hand, if nonfinite final On the other hand, if nonfinite final V indicates failure to raise to I and V indicates failure to raise to I and C, we don’t expect CP to be available C, we don’t expect CP to be available for “topicalization” (the assumption for “topicalization” (the assumption is that V2 involves both movement of is that V2 involves both movement of V to C and movement of something V to C and movement of something else to SpecCP; but no need to move else to SpecCP; but no need to move something to SpecCP unless V is in something to SpecCP unless V is in C).C).

Modal dropModal drop Just to be sure (since the numbers are Just to be sure (since the numbers are

small), P&W check to make sure they would small), P&W check to make sure they would have have expectedexpected non-subjects in position 1 non-subjects in position 1 with nonfinite verbs if the modal drop with nonfinite verbs if the modal drop hypothesis were true.hypothesis were true. 17% of the verbs are infinitives17% of the verbs are infinitives 20% of the (finite) time we had non-subject 20% of the (finite) time we had non-subject

topicalizationtopicalization So 3% of the time (20% of 17%) we would expect So 3% of the time (20% of 17%) we would expect

non-subject topicalization in nonfinite contexts.non-subject topicalization in nonfinite contexts. Of 251 sentences, we would have expected 8.Of 251 sentences, we would have expected 8. We saw We saw nonenone..

Subject case errorsSubject case errors

Various people have observed that Various people have observed that kids learning English sometimes will kids learning English sometimes will use accusative subjects.use accusative subjects.

It turns out that there’s a sort of a It turns out that there’s a sort of a correlation with the finiteness of the correlation with the finiteness of the verb as well. verb as well. Finite verbs go with Finite verbs go with nominative case, while nonfinite nominative case, while nonfinite verbs seem to go with either verbs seem to go with either nominative or accusative case.nominative or accusative case.

Finiteness vs. case errorsFiniteness vs. case errors

Schütze & Wexler (1996)Nina1;11-2;6

Loeb & Leonard (1991)7 representative kids2;11-3;4

subject Finite Nonfinite Finite Nonfinite

he+she 255 139 436 75

him+her 14 120 4 28

% non-Nom 5% 46% 0.9% 27%

EPP and missing INFLEPP and missing INFL If there were just an IP, responsible for both If there were just an IP, responsible for both

NOM and tense, then they should go together NOM and tense, then they should go together (cf. “IP grammar” vs. “VP grammar”)(cf. “IP grammar” vs. “VP grammar”)

Yet, there are many cases of root infinitives Yet, there are many cases of root infinitives with NOM subjectswith NOM subjects

And, even ACC subjects seem to raise out of And, even ACC subjects seem to raise out of the VP over negationthe VP over negation ( (me not gome not go).).

We can understand this once we consider IP We can understand this once we consider IP to be split into TP and AgrP; tense and case to be split into TP and AgrP; tense and case are separated, but even one will still pull the are separated, but even one will still pull the subject up out of VP. subject up out of VP. (ATOM:+Agr –Tns)(ATOM:+Agr –Tns)

What to make of the case What to make of the case errors?errors?

Case is assumed to be Case is assumed to be the jurisdiction of the jurisdiction of AgrSP and AgrOP.AgrSP and AgrOP.

So, nominative case So, nominative case can serve as an can serve as an unambiguous signal unambiguous signal that there is an that there is an AgrSP.AgrSP.

Accusative case, Accusative case, conversely, may conversely, may signal a missing signal a missing AgrSP.AgrSP.

Why are non-AgrSP Why are non-AgrSP subjects accusatives?subjects accusatives?

Probably a default Probably a default case in English:case in English: Who’s driving? Me. Me Who’s driving? Me. Me

too. It’s me.too. It’s me. Other languages seem Other languages seem

not to show this not to show this “accusative subject” “accusative subject” error but also seem to error but also seem to have a nominative have a nominative default (making an default (making an error undetectable).error undetectable).

““ATOM”ATOM” Schütze & Wexler Schütze & Wexler

propose a propose a mmodel odel of this in which of this in which the case errors the case errors are a result of are a result of being able to being able to either either oomit mit AAgrSP grSP or or TTense.ense.

For a subject to For a subject to be in nominative be in nominative case, AgrSP must case, AgrSP must be therebe there (TP’s (TP’s presence is presence is irrelevant).irrelevant).

For a finite verb, For a finite verb, both both TP TP and AgrSP must be there.and AgrSP must be there. English inflection (3sg English inflection (3sg present –present –ss) relies on both. ) relies on both. If If one or the other is missing, one or the other is missing, we’ll see an infinitivewe’ll see an infinitive (i.e. (i.e. bare stem).bare stem).

Thus, predicted:Thus, predicted: finite finite (AgrSP+TP) verbs show (AgrSP+TP) verbs show Nom (AgrSP), but only half Nom (AgrSP), but only half of the nonfinite verbs (not of the nonfinite verbs (not both AgrSP and TP) show both AgrSP and TP) show Nom (AgrSP). We should Nom (AgrSP). We should notnot see finite+Acc.see finite+Acc.

Agr/T Omission Model Agr/T Omission Model (ATOM)(ATOM)

Adult clause structure:Adult clause structure:

AgrPAgrP

NOMNOMii AgrAgr

AgrAgr TPTP

ttii T T

TT VPVP

ATOMATOM

Kiddie clause, missing TP (—TNS):Kiddie clause, missing TP (—TNS):

AgrPAgrP

NOMNOMii AgrAgr

AgrAgr

VPVP

ATOMATOM

Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (—AGR):Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (—AGR):

TPTP

ACC ACC defaultdefaultii T T

TT VPVP

Pronunciation of EnglishPronunciation of English T+AgrS(+V) is T+AgrS(+V) is

pronounced like:pronounced like:

/s//s/ if we have if we have featuresfeatures[3, sg, present][3, sg, present]

/ed//ed/ if we have the if we have the feature [past]feature [past]

ØØ otherwise otherwise

Layers of “default”, Layers of “default”, most specific first, most specific first, followed by next most followed by next most specific specific (“Distributed (“Distributed Morphology”, Halle & Morphology”, Halle & Marantz 1993)Marantz 1993)..

Notice: Notice: 3sg present 3sg present –s–s requires both TP and requires both TP and AgrSP, but past AgrSP, but past –ed–ed requires only TP requires only TP (AgrSP might be (AgrSP might be missing, so we might missing, so we might expect some expect some accusative subjects of accusative subjects of past tense verbs).past tense verbs).

One prediction of ATOMOne prediction of ATOM +AGR+TNS: NOM with inflected verb (+AGR+TNS: NOM with inflected verb (--

ss)) +AGR–TNS: NOM with bare verb+AGR–TNS: NOM with bare verb ––AGR+TNS: AGR+TNS: defaultdefault (ACC) with bare (ACC) with bare

verbverb ––AGR–TNS: GEN with bare verbAGR–TNS: GEN with bare verb

(the GEN case was not discussed by Wexler (the GEN case was not discussed by Wexler 1998, but see Schütze & Wexler 1996)1998, but see Schütze & Wexler 1996)

Nothing Nothing predicts Acc with inflected verb.predicts Acc with inflected verb.

Finite pretty much Finite pretty much always goes with a always goes with a nominative subject.nominative subject.

Schütze & Wexler (1996)Nina1;11-2;6

Loeb & Leonard (1991)7 representative kids2;11-3;4

subject Finite Nonfinite Finite Nonfinite

he+she 255 139 436 75

him+her 14 20 4 28

% non-Nom 5% 46% 0.9% 27%

ATOM and morphologyATOM and morphology [+3sg +pres] = -s[+3sg +pres] = -s [+past] = -ed[+past] = -ed — — = Ø= Ø

[+masc +3sg +nom][+masc +3sg +nom]play+[3sg+pres]play+[3sg+pres] he plays.he plays.

[+2sg +nom][+2sg +nom]play+[2sg +past]play+[2sg +past] you play.you play.

But is this knowledge But is this knowledge built-in? built-in? HintHint: no.: no.

[+masc, +3sg, +nom] = [+masc, +3sg, +nom] = hehe

[+masc, +3sg, +gen] = [+masc, +3sg, +gen] = hishis

[+masc, +3sg] = him[+masc, +3sg] = him [+fem, +3sg, +nom] = [+fem, +3sg, +nom] =

sheshe [+fem, +3sg] = her[+fem, +3sg] = her [+1sg, +nom] = I[+1sg, +nom] = I [+1sg, +gen] = my[+1sg, +gen] = my [+1sg] = me[+1sg] = me [+2, +gen] = your[+2, +gen] = your [+2] = you[+2] = you

ATOM and morphologyATOM and morphology What if the child What if the child

produces a lot of produces a lot of utterances likeutterances like her sleepingher sleeping her playher play

and evenand even her sleepsher sleeps her goes to schoolher goes to school

but never uses the but never uses the word word sheshe??

ATOM predicts that ATOM predicts that agreement and agreement and nominative case nominative case should correlate.should correlate.

Her goes to school Her goes to school is predicted never is predicted never to occur.to occur.

So does this child’s So does this child’s use of use of her goes to her goes to schoolschool mean ATOM mean ATOM is wrong?is wrong?

Schütze (2001, Schütze (2001, inter aliainter alia)) No.No. Her goes to schoolHer goes to school is is

not not necessarily necessarily a a counterexample to counterexample to ATOM (although it is a ATOM (although it is a candidate).candidate).

Morphology must be Morphology must be learned and is learned and is crosslinguistically crosslinguistically variable.variable.

SheShe is known to is known to emerge rather late emerge rather late compared to other compared to other pronouns.pronouns.

If the kid thinks If the kid thinks herher isis the nominative the nominative feminine 3sg pronoun, feminine 3sg pronoun, her goes to schoolher goes to school is is perfectly consistent perfectly consistent with ATOM.with ATOM.

Hence, we should Hence, we should really only count really only count herher+agr correlations +agr correlations from kids who have from kids who have demonstrated that demonstrated that they know they know she.she.

ATOM and morphologyATOM and morphology Morphology (under Morphology (under

“Distributed Morphology”) “Distributed Morphology”) is a system of defaults.is a system of defaults.

The most specified form The most specified form possible is used.possible is used.

Adult English specifies Adult English specifies herher as a feminine 3sg pronoun, as a feminine 3sg pronoun, and and sheshe as a as a nominative nominative feminine 3sg pronoun.feminine 3sg pronoun.

If the kid doesn’t know If the kid doesn’t know sheshe, , the result will be that all the result will be that all feminine 3sg pronouns will feminine 3sg pronouns will come out as come out as herher. That’s just . That’s just how you pronounce how you pronounce nominative 3sg feminine, if nominative 3sg feminine, if you’re the kid.you’re the kid. Just like adult Just like adult youyou..

[+masc, +3sg, +nom] = [+masc, +3sg, +nom] = hehe

[+masc, +3sg, +gen] = [+masc, +3sg, +gen] = hishis

[+masc, +3sg] = him[+masc, +3sg] = him [+fem, +3sg, +nom] = she[+fem, +3sg, +nom] = she [+fem, +3sg] = her[+fem, +3sg] = her [+1sg, +nom] = I[+1sg, +nom] = I [+1sg, +gen] = my[+1sg, +gen] = my [+1sg] = me[+1sg] = me [+2, +gen] = your[+2, +gen] = your [+2] = you[+2] = you

Rispoli (2002, Rispoli (2002, inter aliainter alia)) Rispoli has his own Rispoli has his own

theory of theory of her-her-errors.errors. Pronoun morphology is Pronoun morphology is

organized into “tables” organized into “tables” (paradigms) basically, (paradigms) basically, where each form has a where each form has a certain weight.certain weight.

When a kid is trying to When a kid is trying to pronounce a pronoun, pronounce a pronoun, s/he attempts to find s/he attempts to find the entry in the table the entry in the table and pronounce it.and pronounce it.

The kid’s success in The kid’s success in finding the form is finding the form is affected by “gravity”. affected by “gravity”. “Heavier” forms are “Heavier” forms are more likely to be picked more likely to be picked when accessing the when accessing the table, even if it’s not table, even if it’s not quite the right form. If quite the right form. If it’s close and it’s heavy, it’s close and it’s heavy, it’ll win out a lot of the it’ll win out a lot of the time.time.

HerHer by virtue of being by virtue of being both acc and gen is both acc and gen is extra-heavy, and pulls extra-heavy, and pulls the kid in fairly often.the kid in fairly often.

Her playsHer plays ATOM and Rispoli ATOM and Rispoli

make different make different predictions with predictions with respect to respect to her playsher plays..

ATOM says it should ATOM says it should never happen (up to never happen (up to simple performance simple performance error)error)

Rispoli says case Rispoli says case errors are independent errors are independent of agreement, of agreement, her her playsplays is perfectly is perfectly possible, even possible, even expected.expected.

Rispoli’s complaints Rispoli’s complaints about Schütze’s studies:about Schütze’s studies:

Excluding kids who Excluding kids who happen not to produce happen not to produce sheshe in the transcript in the transcript under evaluation is not under evaluation is not good enough. The good enough. The assumption is that this assumption is that this learning is monotonic, learning is monotonic, so if the kid so if the kid everever used used sheshe (productively) in the (productively) in the past, the past, the herher errors errors should not be excluded.should not be excluded.

MonotonicityMonotonicity Schütze assumes that Schütze assumes that

use of use of sheshe is a matter of is a matter of knowledgeknowledge of of sheshe. Once . Once the kid knows it, and the kid knows it, and given that the adult given that the adult version of the kid will version of the kid will know it, it’s there, for know it, it’s there, for good.good.

Rispoli claims that the Rispoli claims that the “weight” of “weight” of sheshe can can fluctuate, so that it fluctuate, so that it could be “known” but could be “known” but mis-retrieved later if mis-retrieved later if herher becomes too heavy. becomes too heavy.

Rispoli (2002) set Rispoli (2002) set out to show that out to show that there is a certain there is a certain amount of “yo-amount of “yo-yo’ing” in the yo’ing” in the production of production of sheshe..

We’ll focus on We’ll focus on Nina, for whom we Nina, for whom we can get the data.can get the data.

Nina Nina sheshe vs. vs. herher

Rispoli’s counts Rispoli’s counts show Nina using show Nina using sheshe from basically from basically the outset of her the outset of her use of pronouns, use of pronouns, and also shows a and also shows a decrease of use of decrease of use of sheshe at 2;5. at 2;5.

sheshe herher

2;22;213-13-1515

224%4%

434396%96%

2;32;316-16-1919

118%8%

121292%92%

2;42;420-20-2323

1114%14%

6686%86%

2;52;524-24-3131

779%9%

737391%91%

Checking Rispoli’s Checking Rispoli’s countscounts

2;22;2 *CHI: she have hug a lady .*CHI: she have hug a lady .

*CHI: she have jamas@f on .*CHI: she have jamas@f on . 2;32;3

*MOT: does she like it ?*MOT: does she like it ? *CHI: she drink apple juice .*CHI: she drink apple juice . *CHI: her like apple juice .*CHI: her like apple juice .

2;42;4 *MOT: he's up there ?*MOT: he's up there ? *CHI: no # she's not up *CHI: no # she's not up

there .there . *CHI: he's up there .*CHI: he's up there .

These are the These are the times when Nina times when Nina used used sheshe (twice (twice at 2;2, once at at 2;2, once at 2;3, once at 2;4).2;3, once at 2;4).

Rispoli found 7 Rispoli found 7 at 2;5, we’ll deal at 2;5, we’ll deal with them later.with them later.

CheckingChecking 2;22;2

*CHI: helping her have a *CHI: helping her have a yellow blanket .yellow blanket .

*MOT: she has a yellow *MOT: she has a yellow blanket ?blanket ?

*CHI: yeah [= yes] .*CHI: yeah [= yes] . *CHI: her's ok .*CHI: her's ok . *CHI: her ok .*CHI: her ok . *MOT: she's ok ?*MOT: she's ok ? *CHI: ok .*CHI: ok . *CHI: her's ok .*CHI: her's ok . *CHI: her ok .*CHI: her ok . *CHI: her's ok .*CHI: her's ok . *MOT: she's ok .*MOT: she's ok .

These three and one other These three and one other time Nina said time Nina said her’s ok her’s ok are are the only candidate the only candidate counterexamples at 2;2.counterexamples at 2;2.

At 2;2, 45 At 2;2, 45 herher+bare verb.+bare verb. (R got 43, possibly (R got 43, possibly

including including her’s okher’s ok)) At 2;3, no candidate At 2;3, no candidate

counterexamples, 14 counterexamples, 14 herher+bare verbs.+bare verbs. (R got 12)(R got 12)

At 2;4 none, 7 At 2;4 none, 7 herher+bare.+bare. (R got 6)(R got 6)

CheckingChecking *MOT: what happened when I *MOT: what happened when I

shampooed Miriam yesterday ?shampooed Miriam yesterday ? *CHI: her was cried .*CHI: her was cried .

*MOT: oh # there's the dolly's *MOT: oh # there's the dolly's bottle .bottle .

*CHI: her's not going to drink it .*CHI: her's not going to drink it .

*MOT: I'll start washing it .*MOT: I'll start washing it . *MOT: see how clean it comes ?*MOT: see how clean it comes ? *MOT: you want to use the pot ?*MOT: you want to use the pot ? *CHI: a little bit .*CHI: a little bit . *CHI: her don't .*CHI: her don't . *CHI: her's not dirty .*CHI: her's not dirty . *CHI: not dirty .*CHI: not dirty .

2;5:2;5: I found about I found about

76 76 herher+bare/past +bare/past verbs.verbs.

I found 3 I found 3 potential potential counterexamplcounterexamples.es.

Bottom line?Bottom line? It doesn’t seem like It doesn’t seem like

anything was anything was particularly particularly affected, even if affected, even if Nina’s early files Nina’s early files were fully included.were fully included.

The number of The number of possible possible counterexamples counterexamples seems well within seems well within the “performance the “performance error” range.error” range.

The point about variation in The point about variation in usage of usage of she she is valid, worth is valid, worth being aware of the being aware of the assumptions and being sure assumptions and being sure we’re testing the right we’re testing the right things.things.

Rispoli was trying to make Rispoli was trying to make the point that if we’d the point that if we’d accidentally missed a accidentally missed a sheshe in in the early files, we might the early files, we might have excluded have excluded counterexamples there. Yet, counterexamples there. Yet, even including even including everythingeverything, , the asymmetry is strong.the asymmetry is strong.

Two hypotheses about Two hypotheses about learninglearning

VEPSVEPS ( (very early parameter settingvery early parameter setting))Basic parameters are set correctly at the Basic parameters are set correctly at the earliest observable stagesearliest observable stages, that is, at least , that is, at least from the time that the child enters the two-from the time that the child enters the two-word stage around 18 months of age.word stage around 18 months of age.

VEKIVEKI ( (very early knowledge of inflectionvery early knowledge of inflection))At the earliest observable stage (two-word At the earliest observable stage (two-word stage), stage), the child knows the grammatical the child knows the grammatical and phonological properties of many and phonological properties of many important inflectional elements of their important inflectional elements of their languagelanguage..

Two-word stage?Two-word stage?

The reason both VEPS and VEKI The reason both VEPS and VEKI mention the two-word stage is just mention the two-word stage is just because this is the first stage where because this is the first stage where we have we have evidenceevidence of utterance of utterance composition.composition.

Very Early Parameter Very Early Parameter SettingSetting

As soon as you can see it, kids have:As soon as you can see it, kids have: VO vs. OV order set (Swedish vs. German)VO vs. OV order set (Swedish vs. German) VV>I [yes/no] (French vs. English)>I [yes/no] (French vs. English) V2 [yes/no] (German vs. French/English)V2 [yes/no] (German vs. French/English) Null subject [yes/no] (Italian vs. Fr./E.)Null subject [yes/no] (Italian vs. Fr./E.)

So, So, at least at least by the 2-word stage, they by the 2-word stage, they have the parameters set (maybe earlier)have the parameters set (maybe earlier)

VEKI?VEKI?

Generally, Generally, when kids use inflection, when kids use inflection, they use it correctlythey use it correctly. Mismatches are . Mismatches are vanishingly rare.vanishingly rare. English (Harris & Wexler 1995)English (Harris & Wexler 1995) German (Poeppel & Wexler 1993)German (Poeppel & Wexler 1993)

Again, this is kind of contrary to Again, this is kind of contrary to what the field had been assuming what the field had been assuming (which was: kids are slow at, bad at, (which was: kids are slow at, bad at, learning inflection).learning inflection).

Ok, but…Ok, but… So: So: Kids have the full functional Kids have the full functional

structure available to them, and structure available to them, and they set the parameters right away they set the parameters right away and know the inflection.and know the inflection.

What then do we make of the fact What then do we make of the fact that kids make non-adult utterances that kids make non-adult utterances in the face of evidence that they in the face of evidence that they aren’t aren’t learninglearning the parameters? the parameters?

KW: Certain (very specific, it turns KW: Certain (very specific, it turns out) properties of the grammar out) properties of the grammar maturemature..

Root infinitives vs. timeRoot infinitives vs. time

The timing on root The timing on root infinitives is pretty infinitives is pretty robust, ending robust, ending around 3 years old.around 3 years old.

NS/OINS/OI

But some languages appear not to But some languages appear not to undergo the “optional infinitive” undergo the “optional infinitive” stage. How can this be consistent stage. How can this be consistent with a maturational view?with a maturational view? OI languages:OI languages: Germanic languages Germanic languages

studied to date (Danish, Dutch, English, studied to date (Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish), Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish), Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, CzechCzech

Non-OI languages:Non-OI languages: Italian, Spanish, Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Tamil, PolishCatalan, Tamil, Polish

NS/OINS/OI What differentiates the OI and non-OI What differentiates the OI and non-OI

languages?languages? Agreement? Italian (non-OI) has rich Agreement? Italian (non-OI) has rich

agreement, but so does Icelandic (OI).agreement, but so does Icelandic (OI). Null subjects!Null subjects!

Null Subject/OI Generalization:Null Subject/OI Generalization:Children in a language go through an OI Children in a language go through an OI stage iff the language is stage iff the language is notnot an INFL- an INFL-licensed null subject language.licensed null subject language.

NS/OI and HebrewNS/OI and Hebrew(Rhee & Wexler 1995)(Rhee & Wexler 1995)

Hebrew is a Hebrew is a NS languageNS language but only but only in in 1st and 2nd person, non-present 1st and 2nd person, non-present tensetense. Everywhere else (3rd past, . Everywhere else (3rd past, future, present) subjects are future, present) subjects are obligatory.obligatory.

Hebrew-learning 2-year-olds showed Hebrew-learning 2-year-olds showed optional infinitives optional infinitives except in 1/2-except in 1/2-pastpast, and , and allowedallowed null subjects null subjects elsewhere, with infinitives.elsewhere, with infinitives.

NS/OI and HebrewNS/OI and Hebrew(Rhee & Wexler 1995)(Rhee & Wexler 1995)

% of RIs % of RIs

all OI kids 1/2 past/fut (NS) else (non-NS)

null subjects 0.6% (1/171) 25% (85/337)

overt subjects 1.4% (1/72) 0.6% (3/530)

kids up to 1;11 1/2 past/fut (NS) else (non-NS)

null subjects 0 (of 21) 32% (36/112)

overt subjects 0 (of 6) 0 (of 28)

Implementing ATOMImplementing ATOM

The basic idea: The basic idea: In adult clauses, the In adult clauses, the subject needs to move subject needs to move bothboth to SpecTP to SpecTP and (then)and (then) to SpecAgrP. to SpecAgrP.

This needs to happen because T This needs to happen because T “needs” something in its specifier “needs” something in its specifier (≈EPP) and so does Agr.(≈EPP) and so does Agr.

The subject DP can “solve the The subject DP can “solve the problem” for both T and for Agr—problem” for both T and for Agr—for for an adultan adult..


Implementation:Implementation: For adults: For adults: T needs a D feature.T needs a D feature. Agr needs a D feature.Agr needs a D feature. The subject, happily, The subject, happily, hashas a D feature. a D feature. The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of

T’s need for a D feature (the subject T’s need for a D feature (the subject “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature loses its need for a D feature, but the loses its need for a D feature, but the subject still has its D feature (the subject is subject still has its D feature (the subject is still a DP).still a DP).

The subject moves on, to take care of Agr.The subject moves on, to take care of Agr.


Implementation:Implementation: For kids: For kids: Everything is the same except that Everything is the same except that the the

subject can only solve subject can only solve one one problem problem before quittingbefore quitting. It “loses” its D feature . It “loses” its D feature after helping out either T or Agr.after helping out either T or Agr.

Kids are constrained by the Kids are constrained by the Unique Unique Checking Constraint Checking Constraint that says subjects that says subjects (or their D features) can only “check” (or their D features) can only “check” another feature once.another feature once.

So the kids are in a bind.So the kids are in a bind.

Implementing ATOMImplementing ATOM Kids in a pickle:Kids in a pickle: The only options open to the The only options open to the

kids are:kids are: Leave out TP Leave out TP (keep AgrP, the subject can solve (keep AgrP, the subject can solve

Agr’s problem alone). Agr’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, nom Result: nonfinite verb, nom case.case.

Leave out AgrP Leave out AgrP (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s problem alone). problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, default case.Result: nonfinite verb, default case.

Violate the UCC Violate the UCC (let the subject do both things (let the subject do both things anyway). anyway). Result: finite verb, nom case.Result: finite verb, nom case.

No matter which way you slice it, the kids No matter which way you slice it, the kids have to do something “wrong”. At that point, have to do something “wrong”. At that point, they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.)they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.)

Minimalist terminologyMinimalist terminology Features come in two relevant kinds: Features come in two relevant kinds:

interpretable interpretable and and uninterpretableuninterpretable.. Either kind of feature can be involved in a Either kind of feature can be involved in a

“checking”—only interpretable features survive.“checking”—only interpretable features survive. The game is to have no uninterpretable features The game is to have no uninterpretable features

left at the end.left at the end. ““T needs a DT needs a D” means “” means “T has an uninterpretable T has an uninterpretable

[D] feature[D] feature” and the subject (with its normally ” and the subject (with its normally interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the two features “check”, the interpretable one two features “check”, the interpretable one survives. survives. UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects?UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects?

Wait—how can you say Wait—how can you say kids are UG-constrained kids are UG-constrained

yet drop T/Agr?yet drop T/Agr? So, aren’t TP and AgrSP required by So, aren’t TP and AgrSP required by

UG? Doesn’t this mean kids UG? Doesn’t this mean kids don’tdon’t have UG-compliant trees?have UG-compliant trees?

Actually, perhaps no. UG requires Actually, perhaps no. UG requires that all features be checked, but it that all features be checked, but it isn’t clear that there is a UG principle isn’t clear that there is a UG principle that requires a TP and an AgrP in that requires a TP and an AgrP in every clause.every clause.

Wait—how can you say Wait—how can you say kids are UG-constrained kids are UG-constrained

yet drop T/Agr?yet drop T/Agr? Perhaps what requires TP and AgrP are Perhaps what requires TP and AgrP are principles of (pragmatic) principles of (pragmatic) interpretationinterpretation……

You need TP so that your sentence is You need TP so that your sentence is “anchored” in the “anchored” in the discoursediscourse.. You need AgrSP … You need AgrSP … whywhy? Well, perhaps ? Well, perhaps

something parallel…? Wexler doesn’t really something parallel…? Wexler doesn’t really say…say…

Regardless, kids can check all the Regardless, kids can check all the uninterpretable features even without TP uninterpretable features even without TP or AgrSP; hence, or AgrSP; hence, they can still be they can still be considered to be UG-constrainedconsidered to be UG-constrained..

NS/OI via UCCNS/OI via UCC

An old idea about NS languages is that An old idea about NS languages is that they arise in languages where Infl is they arise in languages where Infl is “rich” enough to “rich” enough to identifyidentify the subject. the subject.

Maybe in NS languages, AgrS does not Maybe in NS languages, AgrS does not needneed a D a D (it may in some sense be nouny (it may in some sense be nouny enough to say that it enough to say that it isis, or already , or already hashas, D)., D).

If AgrS does not need a D, the subject is If AgrS does not need a D, the subject is free to check off T’s D-feature and be free to check off T’s D-feature and be done.done.

Is there any way to see the Is there any way to see the effects of UCC even in effects of UCC even in NSNS

languages?languages? Italian: Italian: Mary has laughedMary has laughed.. Suppose that auxiliaries (like Suppose that auxiliaries (like havehave) also have ) also have

a D-feature to be checked as the subject (in a D-feature to be checked as the subject (in the adult language) passes through.the adult language) passes through. Not crazy:Not crazy: (All) the students (all) have (all) left.(All) the students (all) have (all) left.

UCC-constrained kids will have to drop UCC-constrained kids will have to drop something (the auxiliary or T), even in something (the auxiliary or T), even in Italian.Italian.

Lyons (1997) reports that a “substantial Lyons (1997) reports that a “substantial proportion of auxiliaries are omitted in OI-proportion of auxiliaries are omitted in OI-age Italian.”age Italian.” Ok, Ok, maybemaybe. Consistent, anyway.. Consistent, anyway.

One open question…One open question…

The UCC says you can only use a D-The UCC says you can only use a D-feature on a DP to check against a feature on a DP to check against a functional category functional category onceonce..

This explains why sometimes TP is This explains why sometimes TP is omitted (keeping AgrSP) and sometimes omitted (keeping AgrSP) and sometimes AgrSP is omitted (keeping TP).AgrSP is omitted (keeping TP).

but if but if GEN infin. GEN infin. comes from omitting comes from omitting bothboth TP and AgrSP, what could ever TP and AgrSP, what could ever cause that (particularly given cause that (particularly given Minimize Minimize ViolationsViolations)?)?

Theories of missing Theories of missing structurestructure

No functional projections. No functional projections. (Radford) (Radford) Kids don’t have any functional Kids don’t have any functional projections (TP, CP, and so forth). This projections (TP, CP, and so forth). This comes later. No TP, no tense comes later. No TP, no tense distinction.distinction.

Structure building.Structure building. (Vainikka, (Vainikka, Guilfoyle & Noonan) Guilfoyle & Noonan) Kids start with no Kids start with no functional projections and gradually functional projections and gradually increase their functional structure.increase their functional structure.

Theories of missing Theories of missing structurestructure

““ATOM” (Full competence). ATOM” (Full competence). (Wexler, …)(Wexler, …) Kids have access to all of the functional Kids have access to all of the functional structure and have a very specific structure and have a very specific problem with tense and agreement that problem with tense and agreement that sometimes causes them to leave one out.sometimes causes them to leave one out.

Truncation. Truncation. (Rizzi) (Rizzi) Like structure building Like structure building but without the time course—kids have but without the time course—kids have access to all of the functional structure access to all of the functional structure but they don’t realize that sentences need but they don’t realize that sentences need to be CP’s, so they sometimes stop early.to be CP’s, so they sometimes stop early.

Rizzi and truncated treesRizzi and truncated trees

The result (of not having The result (of not having CP=rootCP=root) is ) is that kids are allowed to have that kids are allowed to have truncated truncated structuresstructures—trees that look like adult —trees that look like adult trees with the tops chopped off.trees with the tops chopped off.

ImportantlyImportantly: The kids don’t just leave : The kids don’t just leave stuff out—they just stop the tree stuff out—they just stop the tree “early.” So, if the kid leaves out a “early.” So, if the kid leaves out a functional projection, s/he leaves out functional projection, s/he leaves out all all higherhigher XPs as well. XPs as well.

TruncationTruncation

If kid selects anything lower than TP If kid selects anything lower than TP as the root, the result is a as the root, the result is a root root infinitiveinfinitive—which can be as big as any —which can be as big as any kind of XP below TP in the structure.kind of XP below TP in the structure.

Note in particular, though, it Note in particular, though, it can’tcan’t be be a CP.a CP.

So: we expect that evidence of CP So: we expect that evidence of CP will correlate with finite verbs.will correlate with finite verbs.


Pierce (1989) looking at French Pierce (1989) looking at French observed that there are almost no observed that there are almost no root infinitives with subject clitics—root infinitives with subject clitics—this is predicted if these clitics are this is predicted if these clitics are instances of subject agreement in instances of subject agreement in AgrS; if there is no TP, there can be AgrS; if there is no TP, there can be no AgrSP.no AgrSP.


There is some dispute in the syntax There is some dispute in the syntax literature as to whether the position literature as to whether the position of NegP (the projection responsible of NegP (the projection responsible for the negative morpheme) is for the negative morpheme) is higher or lower than TP in the tree.higher or lower than TP in the tree.

If NegP is higher than TP, we would If NegP is higher than TP, we would expect not to find negative root expect not to find negative root infinitives.infinitives.

Truncation and NegPTruncation and NegP

But we But we do do find negative Root find negative Root Infinitives—(Pierce 1989): in the Infinitives—(Pierce 1989): in the acquisition of French, negation acquisition of French, negation follows finite verbs and preceds follows finite verbs and preceds nonfinite verbs (that is—French kids nonfinite verbs (that is—French kids know the movement properties of know the movement properties of finiteness, and thus they have the finiteness, and thus they have the concept of finiteness).concept of finiteness).

Truncation and NegPTruncation and NegP

So, is TP higher than NegP?So, is TP higher than NegP? Hard to say conclusively from the Hard to say conclusively from the

existing French data because there existing French data because there are are not manynot many negative root negative root infinitives—but further study infinitives—but further study couldcould lead to a theoretical result of this lead to a theoretical result of this sort about the adult languages.sort about the adult languages.

S O VS O Vfinfin??

Usually (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) German Usually (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) German kids put finite verbs in second position, kids put finite verbs in second position, and leave nonfinite verbs at the end.and leave nonfinite verbs at the end.

OccasionallyOccasionally one finds a one finds a finitefinite verb at the verb at the end.end.

Rizzi suggests we could look at this as an Rizzi suggests we could look at this as an instance of a kid choosing AgrSP as root, instance of a kid choosing AgrSP as root, where CP is necessary to trigger V2.where CP is necessary to trigger V2.

Legendre et al. (2000)Legendre et al. (2000) Wexler: During OI stage, kids sometimes Wexler: During OI stage, kids sometimes

omit T, and sometimes omit Agr. Based on a omit T, and sometimes omit Agr. Based on a choice of which to violate, the requirement choice of which to violate, the requirement to have T, to have Agr, to have only one.to have T, to have Agr, to have only one. (cf. “Kids in a pickle” slide)(cf. “Kids in a pickle” slide)

Legendre et al.: Looking at development (of Legendre et al.: Looking at development (of French), it appears that the choice of French), it appears that the choice of whatwhat to omit is systematic; we propose a system to omit is systematic; we propose a system to account for (predict) the proportion of the to account for (predict) the proportion of the time kids omit T, Agr, both, neither, in time kids omit T, Agr, both, neither, in progressive stages of development.progressive stages of development.

Optimality TheoryOptimality Theory

Legendre et al. (2000) is set in the Legendre et al. (2000) is set in the Optimality TheoryOptimality Theory framework (often framework (often seen in phonology, less often seen seen in phonology, less often seen applied to syntax).applied to syntax).

““Grammar is a system of ranked and Grammar is a system of ranked and violable constraints”violable constraints”


In our analysis, one constraint is In our analysis, one constraint is Parse-T, which says that tense must Parse-T, which says that tense must be realized in a clause. A structure be realized in a clause. A structure without tense (where TP has been without tense (where TP has been omitted, say) will violate this omitted, say) will violate this constraint.constraint.

Another constraint is *F (“Don’t have Another constraint is *F (“Don’t have a functional category”). A structure a functional category”). A structure withwith TP will violate this constraint. TP will violate this constraint.


Parse-T and *F are in Parse-T and *F are in conflictconflict—it is —it is impossible to satisfy both at the impossible to satisfy both at the same time.same time.

When constraints conflict, the choice When constraints conflict, the choice made (on a language-particular made (on a language-particular basis) of which constraint is basis) of which constraint is considered to be “more important” considered to be “more important” ((more highly rankedmore highly ranked) determines ) determines which constraint is satisfied and which constraint is satisfied and which must be violated.which must be violated.


So if *F >> Parse-T, TP will be So if *F >> Parse-T, TP will be omitted.omitted.

and if Parse-T >> *F, TP will be and if Parse-T >> *F, TP will be included.included.


Grammar involves Grammar involves constraintsconstraints on the on the representations (e.g., SS, LF, PF, or representations (e.g., SS, LF, PF, or perhaps a combined representation).perhaps a combined representation).

The constraints exist in The constraints exist in all all languageslanguages..

Where languages differ is in how Where languages differ is in how important each constraint is with important each constraint is with respect to each other constraint.respect to each other constraint.

Optimality Theory: big Optimality Theory: big picturepicture

Universal Grammar Universal Grammar isis the constraints the constraints that languages must obey.that languages must obey.

Languages differ only in how those Languages differ only in how those constraints are ranked relative to one constraints are ranked relative to one another. (So, “parameter” = “ranking”)another. (So, “parameter” = “ranking”)

The kid’s job is to re-rank constraints The kid’s job is to re-rank constraints until they match the order which until they match the order which generated the input that s/he hears.generated the input that s/he hears.

Legendre et al. (2000)Legendre et al. (2000)

Proposes a system to predict the Proposes a system to predict the proportions of the time kids choose proportions of the time kids choose the different options among:the different options among: Omit TPOmit TP Omit AgrSPOmit AgrSP Omit Omit bothboth TP and AgrSP TP and AgrSP Include Include bothboth TP and AgrSP (violating TP and AgrSP (violating

UCC)UCC)

French v. EnglishFrench v. English

English: T+Agr is pronounced likeEnglish: T+Agr is pronounced like //ss/ if we have features [3, sg, present]/ if we have features [3, sg, present] //eded/ if we have the feature [past]/ if we have the feature [past] //ØØ/ otherwise/ otherwise

French: T+Agr is pronounced like:French: T+Agr is pronounced like: danserdanser NRFNRF a danséa dansé (3sg) past(3sg) past je danseje danse 1sg (present)1sg (present) j’ai danséj’ai dansé 1sg past1sg past

The ideaThe idea

Kids are subject to conflicting Kids are subject to conflicting constraints:constraints: Parse-TParse-T Include a projection for tenseInclude a projection for tense Parse-AgrParse-Agr Include a project for agreementInclude a project for agreement *F*F Don’t complicate your tree withDon’t complicate your tree with

functional projectionsfunctional projections *F*F22 Don’t complicate your tree soDon’t complicate your tree so

much as to have much as to have twotwo functional functionalprojections.projections.

The ideaThe idea

Sometimes Parse-T beats out *F, and Sometimes Parse-T beats out *F, and then there’s a TP. Or Parse-Agr then there’s a TP. Or Parse-Agr beats out *F, and then there’s an beats out *F, and then there’s an AgrP. Or both Parse-T and Parse-Agr AgrP. Or both Parse-T and Parse-Agr beat out *Fbeat out *F22, and so there’s both a , and so there’s both a TP and an AgrP.TP and an AgrP.

But what does But what does sometimessometimes mean? mean?

Floating constraintsFloating constraints

The innovation in Legendre et al. The innovation in Legendre et al. (2000) that gets us off the ground is the (2000) that gets us off the ground is the idea that as kids re-rank constraints, idea that as kids re-rank constraints, the the positionposition of the constraint in the of the constraint in the hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such that two positions can that two positions can overlapoverlap..

*F*F

Parse-TParse-T


*F*F

Parse-TParse-T

When the kid evaluates a form in When the kid evaluates a form in the constraint system, the position the constraint system, the position of Parse-T is fixed somewhere in of Parse-T is fixed somewhere in the range—and winds up the range—and winds up sometimes outranking, and sometimes outranking, and sometimes outranked by, *F.sometimes outranked by, *F.


*F*F

Parse-TParse-T

(Under certain assumptions) this (Under certain assumptions) this predicts that we would see TP in predicts that we would see TP in the structure 50% of the time, and the structure 50% of the time, and see structures without TP the see structures without TP the other 50% of the time.other 50% of the time.

French kid dataFrench kid data

Looked at 3 French kids from CHILDESLooked at 3 French kids from CHILDES Broke development into stages based Broke development into stages based

on a modified MLU-type measure based on a modified MLU-type measure based on how long most of their utterances on how long most of their utterances were (2 words, more than 2 words) and were (2 words, more than 2 words) and how many of the utterances contain how many of the utterances contain verbs.verbs.

Looked at tense and agreement in each Looked at tense and agreement in each of the three stages represented in the of the three stages represented in the data.data.


Kids start out using 3sg agreement Kids start out using 3sg agreement and present tense for practically and present tense for practically everything (correct or not).everything (correct or not).

We took this to be a “default”We took this to be a “default” (No agreement? Pronounce it as 3sg. (No agreement? Pronounce it as 3sg.

No tense? pronounce it as present. No tense? pronounce it as present. Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.).Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.).


This means if a kid uses 3sg or This means if a kid uses 3sg or present tense, we can’t tell if they present tense, we can’t tell if they are are reallyreally using 3sg (they using 3sg (they mightmight be) be) or if they are not using agreement at or if they are not using agreement at all and just pronouncing the default.all and just pronouncing the default.

So, we looked at non-present tense So, we looked at non-present tense forms and non-3sg forms only to forms and non-3sg forms only to avoid the question of the defaults.avoid the question of the defaults.

French kids dataFrench kids data

We found that tense and agreement We found that tense and agreement develop differently—specifically, in develop differently—specifically, in the first stage we looked at, kids the first stage we looked at, kids were using tense fine, but then in were using tense fine, but then in the next stage, they got the next stage, they got worseworse as the as the agreement improved.agreement improved.

Middle stage: looks likeMiddle stage: looks likecompetitioncompetition between T between Tand Agr for a single node.and Agr for a single node.

A detail about countingA detail about counting We counted non-3sg and non-present verbs.We counted non-3sg and non-present verbs. In order to see how close kids’ utterances were to In order to see how close kids’ utterances were to

adult’s utterances, we need to know how often adult’s utterances, we need to know how often adultsadults use non-3sg and non-present, and then see use non-3sg and non-present, and then see how close the kids are to matching that level.how close the kids are to matching that level.

So, adults use non-present tense around 31% of So, adults use non-present tense around 31% of the time—so when a kid uses 31% non-present the time—so when a kid uses 31% non-present tense, we take that to be “100% success”tense, we take that to be “100% success”

In the last stage we looked at, kids were basically In the last stage we looked at, kids were basically right at the “100% success” level for both tense right at the “100% success” level for both tense and agreement.and agreement.

Proportion of non-Proportion of non-present and non-3sg present and non-3sg

verbsverbs

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

3b 4b 4c

non-presentnon-3sgadult non-presadult non-3sg

Proportion of non-finite Proportion of non-finite root formsroot forms

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

3b 4b 4c

NRFs

A model to predict the A model to predict the percentagespercentages

Stage 3b (first stage)Stage 3b (first stage) no agreementno agreement about 1/3 NRFs, 2/3 tensed formsabout 1/3 NRFs, 2/3 tensed forms

*F*F22 *F*FParseTParseT

ParseAParseA


Stage 4b (second stage)Stage 4b (second stage) non-3sg agreement and non-present non-3sg agreement and non-present

tense each about 15% (=about 40% tense each about 15% (=about 40% agreeing, 50% tensed)agreeing, 50% tensed)

about 20% NRFsabout 20% NRFs

*F*F22 *F*FParseTParseTParseAParseA


Stage 4c (third stage)Stage 4c (third stage) everything appears to have tense everything appears to have tense

and agreement (adult-like levels)and agreement (adult-like levels)

*F*F22 *F*FParseTParseTParseAParseA

Predicted vs. observed—Predicted vs. observed—tensetense

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

3b 4b 4c

non-presentpredicted non-pres

Predicted vs. observed—Predicted vs. observed—agr’tagr’t

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

3b 4b 4c

non-3sgpredicted non-3sg

Predicted vs. observed—Predicted vs. observed—NRFsNRFs

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

3b 4b 4c

NRFspredicted NRFs

Documents

Week 2. The emergence of syntax GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory