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

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

Syntax Recall the basic structure of adult sentences. Recall the basic structure of adult sentences. IP (a.k.a. TP, INFLP, …) is the position of modals and auxiliaries, also assumed to be home of tense and agreement. IP (a.k.a. TP, INFLP, …) is the position of modals and auxiliaries, also assumed to be home of tense and agreement. CP is where wh-words move and where I moves in subject-aux-inversion CP is where wh-words move and where I moves in subject-aux-inversion

Splitting the INFL Syntax since 1986 has been more or less driven by the principle “every separable functional element belongs in its own phrase.” Syntax since 1986 has been more or less driven by the principle “every separable functional element belongs in its own phrase.” Various syntactic tests support these moves as well (cf. CAS LX 523). Various syntactic tests support these moves as well (cf. CAS LX 523).

Splitting the INFL Distinct syntactic functions assigned to distinct functional heads. Distinct syntactic functions assigned to distinct functional heads. T: tense/modality T: tense/modality AgrO: object agreement, accusative case AgrO: object agreement, accusative case AgrS: subject agreement, nominative case AgrS: subject agreement, nominative case Neg: negation Neg: negation Origins: Pollock (1989) (split INFL into Agr and T), Chomsky (1993) (split INFL into AgrS, T, AgrO). Origins: Pollock (1989) (split INFL into Agr and T), Chomsky (1993) (split INFL into AgrS, T, AgrO).

Functional heads The DP, CP, and VP all suffered a similar fate. The DP, CP, and VP all suffered a similar fate. DP was split into DP and NumP DP was split into DP and NumP Origin: Ritter 1991 and related work Origin: Ritter 1991 and related work

Functional heads VP was split into two parts, vP where the agent starts, and VP where the patient starts. V and v combine by head movement. VP was split into two parts, vP where the agent starts, and VP where the patient starts. V and v combine by head movement. Origins: Larson (1988) proposed a similar structure for double-object verbs, Hale & Keyser (1993) proposed something like this structure, which was adopted by Chomsky (1993). Origins: Larson (1988) proposed a similar structure for double-object verbs, Hale & Keyser (1993) proposed something like this structure, which was adopted by Chomsky (1993).

Functional heads CP was split into several “discourse- related” functional heads as well (topic, focus, force, and “finiteness”). CP was split into several “discourse- related” functional heads as well (topic, focus, force, and “finiteness”). Origins: Rizzi (1997) Origins: Rizzi (1997)

Functional structure Often, the “fine structure” of the functional heads does not matter, so people will still refer to “IP” (with the understanding that under a microscope it is probably AgrSP, TP, AgrOP, or even more complex), “CP”, “DP”, etc. Often, the “fine structure” of the functional heads does not matter, so people will still refer to “IP” (with the understanding that under a microscope it is probably AgrSP, TP, AgrOP, or even more complex), “CP”, “DP”, etc. The heart of “syntax” is really in the functional heads, on this view. Verbs and nouns give us the lexical content, but functional heads (TP, AgrSP, etc.) give us the syntactic structure.

How do kids get there? Given the structure of adult sentences, the question we’re concerned about here will be in large part: how do kids (consistently) arrive at this structure (when they become adults)? Given the structure of adult sentences, the question we’re concerned about here will be in large part: how do kids (consistently) arrive at this structure (when they become adults)? Kids learn it (patterns of input). Chickens and eggs, and creoles, and so forth. Option 1: Kids start out assuming the entire adult structure, learning just the details (Does the verb move? How is tense pronounced?) Option 2: Kids start out assuming some subpart of the adult structure, complexity increasing with (predetermined?) development.

Testing for functional structure Trying to answer this question involves trying to determine what evidence we have for these functional structures in child syntax. Trying to answer this question involves trying to determine what evidence we have for these functional structures in child syntax. It’s not very easy. It’s hard to ask judgments of kids, and they often do unhelpful things like repeat (or garble) things they just heard (probably telling us nothing about what their grammar actually is).

Testing for functional structure We do know what various functional projections are supposed to be responsible for, and so we can look for evidence of their effects in child language. We do know what various functional projections are supposed to be responsible for, and so we can look for evidence of their effects in child language. Morphology (case, tense, agreement) Morphology (case, tense, agreement) Word order Word order The conclusions we draw are not always self-evident. Missing past tense suffix means…? No TP? A speech error? Lack of knowledge/failure of retrieval in the morphological paradigm? It takes careful consideration of predictions and exploration of various phenomena to build a case…

Helpful clues kids give us Null subjects Null subjects Next week Next week Kids seem to drop the subject off of their sentences a lot. More than adults would. There’s a certain crosslinguistic systematicity to it as well, from which we might take hints about kids’ functional structure. Kids seem to drop the subject off of their sentences a lot. More than adults would. There’s a certain crosslinguistic systematicity to it as well, from which we might take hints about kids’ functional structure. Root infinitives This week Kids seem to use nonfinite forms of main (root) clause verbs where adults wouldn’t. Again, there’s a certain crosslinguistic systematicity to it that can provide clues as to what’s going on.

Small Clause Hypothesis Radford (1990, 1995), Early Child English Radford (1990, 1995), Early Child English Kids’ syntax differs from adults’ syntax: Kids’ syntax differs from adults’ syntax: kids use only lexical (not functional) elements kids use only lexical (not functional) elements structural sisters in kids’ trees always have a  - relation between them. structural sisters in kids’ trees always have a  - relation between them. VP “Small Clause NP  V’Hypothesis” man V  NP chasecar

Small Clause Hypothesis Adults:CP—IP—VP Adults:CP—IP—VP Kids:VP adult syntax ≠ child syntax Kids:VP adult syntax ≠ child syntax Absence of evidence for IP: Absence of evidence for IP: No modals (repeating, kids drop them) No modals (repeating, kids drop them) No auxiliaries (Mommy doing dinner) No auxiliaries (Mommy doing dinner) No productive use of tense & agreement (Baby ride truck, Mommy go, Daddy sleep) No productive use of tense & agreement (Baby ride truck, Mommy go, Daddy sleep) Absence of evidence for CP: Absence of evidence for CP: no complementizers (that, for, if) no complementizers (that, for, if) no preposed auxiliary (car go?) no preposed auxiliary (car go?) no wh-movement (imitating where does it go? yields go?; spontaneous: mouse doing?) no wh-movement (imitating where does it go? yields go?; spontaneous: mouse doing?) kids bad at comprehending wh-object questions (out of canonical order). (—What are you doing? —No.) kids bad at comprehending wh-object questions (out of canonical order). (—What are you doing? —No.)

Small Clause Hypothesis Adults:CP—IP—VP Adults:CP—IP—VP Kids:VP adult syntax ≠ child syntax Kids:VP adult syntax ≠ child syntax Absence of evidence for DP: Absence of evidence for DP: no non-  elements no non-  elements no expletives (raining, outside cold) no expletives (raining, outside cold) no of before noun complements of nouns (cup tea) no of before noun complements of nouns (cup tea) Few determiners (Hayley draw boat, want duck, reading book) Few determiners (Hayley draw boat, want duck, reading book) No possessive ’s, which may be a D. No possessive ’s, which may be a D. No pronouns, which are probably D. No pronouns, which are probably D. See also Vainikka (1993/4) for a similar proposal. See also Vainikka (1993/4) for a similar proposal.

Small children’s small clauses The Small Clause Hypothesis is not prima facie crazy. Child English does seem to look something like what it would predict. The Small Clause Hypothesis is not prima facie crazy. Child English does seem to look something like what it would predict. Critiques: Critiques: Radford’s evidence is largely anecdotal, pointing to existence of examples without documenting how representative they are. Radford’s evidence is largely anecdotal, pointing to existence of examples without documenting how representative they are. The proposal entails that nothing that relies on functional structure is available, yet studies we turn to next indicate that kids seem to know the difference between finite and nonfinite verbs and treat them as appropriate for the adult syntax. The proposal entails that nothing that relies on functional structure is available, yet studies we turn to next indicate that kids seem to know the difference between finite and nonfinite verbs and treat them as appropriate for the adult syntax. A possible avenue of explanation in terms of competing grammars may be able to rescue the SCH from this criticism, more on this later. A possible avenue of explanation in terms of competing grammars may be able to rescue the SCH from this criticism, more on this later.

Do kids get I/T? Radford points out that the overt realization of I (T) is often missing (morphology, modals, auxiliaries). Radford points out that the overt realization of I (T) is often missing (morphology, modals, auxiliaries). But is it random? Are kids just arbitrarily using tense morphology when they do? But is it random? Are kids just arbitrarily using tense morphology when they do? When tense is there, does it act like tense would for an adult? When tense is there, does it act like tense would for an adult? Do kids differentiate between tensed and infinitive verbs, or are these just memorized Vs at this point? Do kids differentiate between tensed and infinitive verbs, or are these just memorized Vs at this point? If kids differentiate between tensed and infinitive verbs, there must be some grammatical representation of tense. If kids differentiate between tensed and infinitive verbs, there must be some grammatical representation of tense.

Adult German Poeppel & Wexler (1993). Data: Andreas (2;1, from CHILDES). Poeppel & Wexler (1993). Data: Andreas (2;1, from CHILDES). Adult German is SOV, V2 Adult German is SOV, V2 The finite verb (or auxiliary or modal) is the second constituent in main clauses, following some constituent (subject, object, or adverbial). The finite verb (or auxiliary or modal) is the second constituent in main clauses, following some constituent (subject, object, 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 (head-initial) C. V2 comes about by moving the finite verb to (head-initial) C.

German clause structure This “second position” is generally thought to be C, where something else (like the subject, or any other XP) needs to appear in SpecCP. This “second position” is generally thought to be C, where something else (like the subject, or any other XP) needs to appear in SpecCP. This only happens with finite verbs. Nonfinite verbs remain at the end of the sentence (after the object). This only happens with finite verbs. Nonfinite verbs remain at the end of the sentence (after the object). — I IP DP V VP kaufteHans C+I C CP — — den Ball

German clause structure Things other than subjects can appear in “first position”. Things other than subjects can appear in “first position”. When the tense appears on an auxiliary, the verb stays in place. When the tense appears on an auxiliary, the verb stays in place. hat I IP DP V VP gekaufte den Ball C+I C CP — Hans V

What to look for in Child German Poeppel & Wexler found that Andreas will sometimes use a finite verb, sometimes a nonfinite verb. Poeppel & Wexler found that Andreas will sometimes use a finite verb, sometimes a nonfinite verb. In adult German: finite verbs move to 2nd position, nonfinite verbs are clause-final. In adult German: finite verbs move to 2nd position, nonfinite verbs are clause-final. Does this also happen in kid German? Does this also happen in kid German? Look for a correlation between finiteness and verb position: Look for a correlation between finiteness and verb position: ich mach das nichdu das haben I do that notyou that have

Results There is a strong contingency. There is a strong contingency. Conclude: the finiteness distinction is made correctly (at the earliest observable stage). Conclude: the finiteness distinction is made correctly (at the earliest observable stage). Conclude: children do represent tense. Conclude: children do represent tense. Andreas: 33 finite, 37 nonfinite verbs. 8 in both: finite, V2; nonfinite final. Remaining verbs show no clear semantic core that one might attribute the distribution to. Andreas: 33 finite, 37 nonfinite verbs. 8 in both: finite, V2; nonfinite final. Remaining verbs show no clear semantic core that one might attribute the distribution to. +finite-finite V2, not final1976 V final, not V21137

Verb positioning = functional categories In adult German, V2 comes from V  I  C. In adult German, V2 comes from V  I  C. If we can see non-subjects to the left of finite verbs, we know we have at least one functional projection (above the subject, in whose Spec the first position non- subject goes). If we can see non-subjects to the left of finite verbs, we know we have at least one functional projection (above the subject, in whose Spec the first position non- subject goes). F FP Subject V VP Object F+V ——

Is it really V2 (not SVO)? V2 (German) is different from SVO in that the preverbal constituent need not be the subject. V2 (German) is different from SVO in that the preverbal constituent need not be the subject. Is Andreas really using adult-like V2 (not SVO)? Is Andreas really using adult-like V2 (not SVO)? Look at what’s preverbal: Look at what’s preverbal: Usually subject, not a big surprise. Usually subject, not a big surprise. But 19 objects before finite V2 (of 197 cases, 180 with overt subjects) But 19 objects before finite V2 (of 197 cases, 180 with overt subjects) And 31 adverbs before finite V2 And 31 adverbs before finite V2 Conclude: Kids basically seem to be acting like adults; their V2 is the same V2 that adults use. Conclude: Kids basically seem to be acting like adults; their V2 is the same V2 that adults use.

Full Competence Hypothesis (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) The morphosyntactic properties associated with finiteness and attributable to the availability of functional categories (notably head movement) are in place. The morphosyntactic properties associated with finiteness and attributable to the availability of functional categories (notably head movement) are in place. The best model of the child data is the standard analysis of adult German (functional projections and all). The one exception: The best model of the child data is the standard analysis of adult German (functional projections and all). The one exception: Grammatical Infinitive Hypothesis: Grammatical Infinitive Hypothesis: Matrix sentences with (clause-final) infinitives are a legitimate structure in child German grammar. Matrix sentences with (clause-final) infinitives are a legitimate structure in child German grammar.

CP The Full Competence Hypothesis says not only that functional categories exist, but that the child has access to the same functional categories that the adult does. The Full Competence Hypothesis says not only that functional categories exist, but that the child has access to the same 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 only (modulo topic drop leaving them in first position) finite verbs are in second position only (modulo topic drop leaving them in first position) nonfinite verbs are in final position only nonfinite verbs are in final position only subjects, objects, adverbs may all precede a finite verb in second position. subjects, objects, adverbs may all precede a finite verb in second position.

Comparing FCH to SCH SCH (Radford, et al.) pointed to lack of morphological evidence for CP. SCH (Radford, et al.) pointed to lack of morphological evidence for CP. But they also tend not to use embedded clauses. Which causes which? But they also tend not to use embedded clauses. Which causes which? But P&W showed syntactic evidence for a functional category (V2 with finite verbs) to which V moves. Adults use CP for this. But P&W showed syntactic evidence for a functional category (V2 with finite verbs) to which V moves. Adults use CP for this. finite verb is second finite verb is second non-subjects can be first non-subjects can be first “Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.” “Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.” Andreas uses agreement correctly when he uses it—adults use IP for that. Andreas uses agreement correctly when he uses it—adults use IP for that.

Is it really CP and IP? Or just FP? Can we get away with only one functional category? Can we get away with only one functional category? The word order seems to be generable this way so long as F is to the left of VP. The word order seems to be generable this way so long as F is to the left of VP. subject can stay in SpecVP subject can stay in SpecVP V moves to F V moves to F non-subject could move to SpecFP. non-subject could move to SpecFP. …though people tend to believe that IP in German is head-final (that is, German is head- final except for CP). How do kids learn to put I on the right once they develop CP? …though people tend to believe that IP in German is head-final (that is, German is head- final except for CP). How do kids learn to put I on the right once they develop CP?

Is it really CP and IP? Empirical argument for CP & IP: Empirical argument for CP & IP: negation and adverbs mark the left edge of VP. negation and adverbs mark the left edge of VP. A subject in SpecVP (i.e. when a non-subject is topicalized) should occur to the right of such elements (if there’s just an FP). A subject in SpecVP (i.e. when a non-subject is topicalized) should occur to the right of such elements (if there’s just an FP). So, look for non-subject-initial sentences with negations or an(other) adverb. So, look for non-subject-initial sentences with negations or an(other) adverb. There were 8 that matched the criteria. There were 8 that matched the criteria. All eight have the subject to the left of the adverb/negation: All eight have the subject to the left of the adverb/negation: [ CP Object C+I+V [ IP Subject [ VP neg/adv t Subj t V ] t I ]] [ CP Object C+I+V [ IP Subject [ VP neg/adv t Subj t V ] t I ]]

Kid structures Hypothesis: Kids have full knowledge of the principles and processes and constraints of grammar. Their representations can be basically adult-like. Hypothesis: Kids have full knowledge of the principles and processes and constraints of grammar. Their representations can be basically adult-like. But kids seem to optionally allow infinitives as matrix verbs (which they grow out of). But kids seem to optionally allow infinitives as matrix verbs (which they grow out of). (And when they use an infinitive, it acts like an infinitive.) (And when they use an infinitive, it acts like an infinitive.) What’s happening when kids use an infinitive? What’s happening when kids use an infinitive?

Harris & Wexler (1996) Child English bare stems as “OIs”? Child English bare stems as “OIs”? In the present, only morphology is 3sg -s. In the present, only morphology is 3sg -s. 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 languages. Does English do this too? Or is it different? OIs are clearer in better inflected languages. Does English do this too? Or is it different? Hypotheses: Hypotheses: Kids don’t “get” inflection yet; go and goes are basically homonyms. Kids don’t “get” inflection yet; go and goes are basically homonyms. These are OIs, the -s is correlated with something systematic about the child syntax. These are OIs, the -s is correlated with something systematic about the child syntax.

Harris & Wexler (1996) Hypothesis: RIs occur when T is missing from the structure (the rest being intact). Hypothesis: RIs occur when T is missing from the structure (the rest being intact). Experiment: Explore something that should be a consequence of having T in the structure: do support. Experiment: Explore something that should be a consequence of having T in the structure: do support. Rationale: Rationale: Main verbs do not move in English. Main verbs do not move in English. Without a modal or auxiliary, T is stranded: The verb -ed not move. Without a modal or auxiliary, T is stranded: The verb -ed not move. Do is inserted to save T. Do is inserted to save T. Predicts: No T, no do insertion. Predicts: No T, no do insertion.

Harris & Wexler (1996) Empirically, we expect: Empirically, we expect: She go She go She goes She goes She not go (no T, no do) She not go (no T, no do) She doesn’t go (adult, T and do) She doesn’t go (adult, T and do) but never but never She not goes (evidence of T, yet no do). She not goes (evidence of T, yet no do). Note: All should be options if kids don’t “get” inflection. Note: All should be options if kids don’t “get” inflection.

Harris & Wexler (1996) Looked at 10 kids from 1;6 to 4;1 Looked at 10 kids from 1;6 to 4;1 Adam, Eve, Sara (Brown), Nina (Suppes), Abe (Kuczaj), Naomi (Sachs), Shem (Clark), April (Higginson), Nathaniel (Snow). Adam, Eve, Sara (Brown), Nina (Suppes), Abe (Kuczaj), Naomi (Sachs), Shem (Clark), April (Higginson), Nathaniel (Snow). Counted sentences… Counted sentences… with no or not before the verb with no or not before the verb without a modal auxiliary without a modal auxiliary with unambiguous 3sg subjects with unambiguous 3sg subjects with either -s or -ed as inflected. with either -s or -ed as inflected.

Harris & Wexler (1996) Affirmative: Affirmative: 43% inflected 43% inflected Negative: Negative: < 10% inflected < 10% inflected It not works Mom It not works Mom no N. has a microphone no N. has a microphone no goes in there no goes in there but the horse not stand ups but the horse not stand ups no goes here! no goes here! affneg -inflec78247 +inflec5945

Harris & Wexler (1996) Small numbers, but in the right direction. Small numbers, but in the right direction. Generalization: Considering cases with no auxiliary, kids inflect about half the time normally, but almost never (up to performance errors) inflect in the negative. Generalization: Considering cases with no auxiliary, kids inflect about half the time normally, but almost never (up to performance errors) inflect in the negative. If presence vs. absence of T is basically independent of whether the sentence is negative, we expect to find do in negatives about as often as we see inflection in affirmatives. If presence vs. absence of T is basically independent of whether the sentence is negative, we expect to find do in negatives about as often as we see inflection in affirmatives. Also, basically true: 37% vs. 34% in the pre-2;6 group, 73% vs. 61% in the post-2;6 group. Also, basically true: 37% vs. 34% in the pre-2;6 group, 73% vs. 61% in the post-2;6 group.

Harris & Wexler (1996) When kids inflect for tense, do they inflect for the tense they mean? When kids inflect for tense, do they inflect for the tense they mean? (Note: a nontrivial margin of error…) (Note: a nontrivial margin of error…) Inflected verbs overwhelmingly in the right context. Inflected verbs overwhelmingly in the right context. presentpastfuture bare stem 77112839 -s418145 -ed101680

Harris & Wexler (1996) Last, an elicitation experiment contrasting affirmative, never (no T dependence for adults), and not. Last, an elicitation experiment contrasting affirmative, never (no T dependence for adults), and not. Does the cow always go in the barn, or does she never go? Does the cow always go in the barn, or does she never go? Does the cow go in the barn or does she not go in the barn? Does the cow go in the barn or does she not go in the barn? Do you think he always goes or do you think he never goes? Do you think he always goes or do you think he never goes? Do you think that he goes, or don’t you think that he goes? Do you think that he goes, or don’t you think that he goes? Processing load? Extra load of not alleviated by leaving off the -s? If that’s the case, we’d expect never and not to behave the same way—in fact, never might be harder, just because it’s longer (and trigger more -s drops). Processing load? Extra load of not alleviated by leaving off the -s? If that’s the case, we’d expect never and not to behave the same way—in fact, never might be harder, just because it’s longer (and trigger more -s drops).

Harris & Wexler (1996) Affirmatives inflected often, not inflected rarely, never sort of inbetween. Affirmatives inflected often, not inflected rarely, never sort of inbetween. Looking at the results in terms of whether the question was inflected: Looking at the results in terms of whether the question was inflected: Kids overall tended to use inflection when there was inflection in the question. Kids overall tended to use inflection when there was inflection in the question. When the stimulus contained an -s: When the stimulus contained an -s: affirmative: 15 vs. 7 (68% had an -s) affirmative: 15 vs. 7 (68% had an -s) never: 14 vs. 16 (48%) never: 14 vs. 16 (48%) not: 4 vs. 12 (25%)—quite a bit lower. not: 4 vs. 12 (25%)—quite a bit lower.

An alternative to missing T Much of what we’ve seen so far could also be explained if kids sometimes use a null modal element: Much of what we’ve seen so far could also be explained if kids sometimes use a null modal element: Idea:I want to eat pizza. I will eat pizza. Idea:I want to eat pizza. I will eat pizza. RI?I want to eat pizza. I will eat pizza. RI?I want to eat pizza. I will eat pizza. First question: why modals? First question: why modals? Second, they don’t (always) seem to mean what they should if there is a null modal. 20/37 seem to be clearly non-modal (according to P&W93). Second, they don’t (always) seem to mean what they should if there is a null modal. 20/37 seem to be clearly non-modal (according to P&W93). Thorsten Ball haben (T already has the ball) Thorsten Ball haben (T already has the ball)

Modal drop Can we test this another way? What are the properties of adult modals? Can we test this another way? What are the properties of adult modals? Adult modals are in position 2, regardless of what is in position 1. If kids are dropping modals, we should expect a certain proportion of the dropped modals to appear with a non-subject in position 1. Adult modals are in position 2, regardless of what is in position 1. If kids are dropping modals, we should expect a certain proportion of the dropped modals to appear with a non-subject in position 1. But none occur—nonfinite verbs also seem to come with initial subjects. But none occur—nonfinite verbs also seem to come with initial subjects. Why? Well, if V2 is a) movement of V to T to C, and b) “topicalization” of something to SpecCP; and, if this is triggered by V reaching C: There’s no need to move anything to SpecCP if V remains unmoved. The subject remains first. Why? Well, if V2 is a) movement of V to T to C, and b) “topicalization” of something to SpecCP; and, if this is triggered by V reaching C: There’s no need to move anything to SpecCP if V remains unmoved. The subject remains first.

Modal drop Just to be sure (since the numbers are small), P&W check to make sure they would have expected non-subjects in position 1 with nonfinite verbs if the modal drop hypothesis were true. Just to be sure (since the numbers are small), P&W check to make sure they would have expected non-subjects in position 1 with nonfinite verbs if the modal drop hypothesis were true. 17% of the verbs are infinitives 17% of the verbs are infinitives 20% of the (finite) time we had non-subject topicalization 20% of the (finite) time we had non-subject topicalization So 3% of the time (20% of 17%) we would expect non-subject topicalization in nonfinite contexts. So 3% of the time (20% of 17%) we would expect non-subject topicalization in nonfinite contexts. Of 251 sentences, we would have expected 8. Of 251 sentences, we would have expected 8. We saw none. We saw none.

Subject case errors Various people have observed that kids learning English sometimes will use accusative subjects. Various people have observed that kids learning English sometimes will use accusative subjects. It turns out that there’s a kind of a correlation with the finiteness of the verb as well. Finite verbs go with nominative case, while nonfinite verbs seem to go with either nominative or accusative case. It turns out that there’s a kind of a correlation with the finiteness of the verb as well. Finite verbs go with nominative case, while nonfinite verbs seem to go with either nominative or accusative case.

Finiteness vs. case errors Schütze & Wexler (1996) Nina 1;11-2;6 Loeb & Leonard (1991) 7 representative kids 2;11-3;4 subjectFiniteNonfiniteFiniteNonfinite he+she25513943675 him+her14120428 % non-Nom5%46%0.9%27%

EPP and missing INFL If there were just an IP, responsible for both NOM and tense, then they should go together (cf. “IP grammar” vs. “VP grammar”) If there were just an IP, responsible for both NOM and tense, then they should go together (cf. “IP grammar” vs. “VP grammar”) Yet, there are many cases of root infinitives with NOM subjects. Yet, there are many cases of root infinitives with NOM subjects. And, even ACC subjects seem to raise out of the VP over negation (me not go). And, even ACC subjects seem to raise out of the VP over negation (me not go). We can understand this once we consider IP to be split into TP and AgrP; tense and case are separated, but even one will still pull the subject up out of VP. We can understand this once we consider IP to be split into TP and AgrP; tense and case are separated, but even one will still pull the subject up out of VP.

What to make of the case errors? Case is assumed to be the jurisdiction of AgrSP and AgrOP. Case is assumed to be the jurisdiction of AgrSP and AgrOP. So, nominative case can serve as an unambiguous signal that there is an AgrSP. So, nominative case can serve as an unambiguous signal that there is an AgrSP. Accusative case, conversely, may signal a missing AgrSP. Accusative case, conversely, may signal a missing AgrSP. Why are non-AgrSP subjects accusatives? Probably a default case in English: Who’s driving? Me. Me too. It’s me. Other languages seem not to show this “accusative subject” error but also seem to have a nominative default (making an error undetectable).

“ATOM” Schütze & Wexler propose a model of this in which the case errors are a result of being able to either omit AgrSP or Tense. Schütze & Wexler propose a model of this in which the case errors are a result of being able to either omit AgrSP or Tense. For a subject to be in nominative case, AgrSP must be there (TP’s presence is irrelevant). For a subject to be in nominative case, AgrSP must be there (TP’s presence is irrelevant). For a finite verb, both TP and AgrSP must be there. English inflection (3sg present –s) relies on both. If one or the other is missing, we’ll see an infinitive (i.e. bare stem). Thus, predicted: finite (AgrSP+TP) verbs show Nom (AgrSP), but only half of the nonfinite verbs (not both AgrSP and TP) show Nom (AgrSP). We should not see finite+Acc.

Agr/T Omission Model (ATOM) Adult clause structure: AgrP NOM i Agr AgrTP t i T TVP Adult clause structure: AgrP NOM i Agr AgrTP t i T TVP

ATOM Kiddie clause, missing TP (—TNS): AgrP NOM i Agr Agr VP Kiddie clause, missing TP (—TNS): AgrP NOM i Agr Agr VP

ATOM Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (—AGR): TP ACC  default i T TVP Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (—AGR): TP ACC  default i T TVP

Pronunciation of English T+AgrS(+V) is pronounced like: T+AgrS(+V) is pronounced like: /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present] /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present] /ed/ if we have the feature [past] /ed/ if we have the feature [past] Ø otherwise Ø otherwise Layers of “default”, most specific first, followed by next most specific (“Distributed Morphology”, Halle & Marantz 1993). Notice: 3sg present –s requires both TP and AgrSP, but past –ed requires only TP (AgrSP might be missing, so we might expect some accusative subjects of past tense verbs).

One prediction of ATOM +AGR+TNS: NOM with inflected verb (-s) +AGR+TNS: NOM with inflected verb (-s) +AGR–TNS: NOM with bare verb +AGR–TNS: NOM with bare verb –AGR+TNS: default (ACC) with bare verb –AGR+TNS: default (ACC) with bare verb –AGR–TNS: GEN with bare verb (the GEN case was not discussed by Wexler 1998, but see Schütze & Wexler 1996) –AGR–TNS: GEN with bare verb (the GEN case was not discussed by Wexler 1998, but see Schütze & Wexler 1996) Nothing predicts Acc with inflected verb. Nothing predicts Acc with inflected verb.

Finite goes with nominative subjects. Schütze & Wexler (1996) Nina 1;11-2;6 Loeb & Leonard (1991) 7 representative kids 2;11-3;4 subjectFiniteNonfiniteFiniteNonfinite he+she25513943675 him+her1420428 % non-Nom5%46%0.9%27%

ATOM and morphology [+3sg +pres] = -s [+3sg +pres] = -s [+past] = -ed [+past] = -ed — = Ø — = Ø [+masc +3sg +nom] play+[3sg+pres] [+masc +3sg +nom] play+[3sg+pres] he plays. he plays. [+2sg +nom] play+[2sg +past] [+2sg +nom] play+[2sg +past] you play. you play. But is this knowledge built-in? Hint: no. But is this knowledge built-in? Hint: no. [+masc, +3sg, +nom] = he [+masc, +3sg, +gen] = his [+masc, +3sg] = him [+fem, +3sg, +nom] = she [+fem, +3sg] = her [+1sg, +nom] = I [+1sg, +gen] = my [+1sg] = me [+2, +gen] = your [+2] = you

ATOM and morphology What if the child produces a lot of utterances like What if the child produces a lot of utterances like her sleeping her sleeping her play her play and even and even her sleeps her sleeps her goes to school her goes to school but never uses the word she? but never uses the word she? ATOM predicts that agreement and nominative case should correlate. So does this child’s use of her goes to school mean ATOM is wrong?

Schütze (2001, inter alia) No. No. Her goes to school is not necessarily a counterexample to ATOM (although it is a candidate). Her goes to school is not necessarily a counterexample to ATOM (although it is a candidate). Morphology must be learned and is crosslinguistically variable. Morphology must be learned and is crosslinguistically variable. She is known to emerge rather late compared to other pronouns. She is known to emerge rather late compared to other pronouns. If the kid thinks her is the nominative feminine 3sg pronoun, her goes to school is perfectly consistent with ATOM. Hence, we should really only count her+agr correlations from kids who have demonstrated that they know she.

ATOM and morphology Morphology (under “Distributed Morphology”) is a system of defaults. Morphology (under “Distributed Morphology”) is a system of defaults. The most specified form possible is used. The most specified form possible is used. Adult English specifies her as a feminine 3sg pronoun, and she as a nominative feminine 3sg pronoun. Adult English specifies her as a feminine 3sg pronoun, and she as a nominative feminine 3sg pronoun. If the kid doesn’t know she, the result will be that all feminine 3sg pronouns will come out as her. That’s just how you pronounce nominative 3sg feminine, if you’re the kid. If the kid doesn’t know she, the result will be that all feminine 3sg pronouns will come out as her. That’s just how you pronounce nominative 3sg feminine, if you’re the kid. Just like adult you. Just like adult you. [+masc, +3sg, +nom] = he [+masc, +3sg, +gen] = his [+masc, +3sg] = him [+fem, +3sg, +nom] = she [+fem, +3sg] = her [+1sg, +nom] = I [+1sg, +gen] = my [+1sg] = me [+2, +gen] = your [+2] = you

Rispoli (2002, inter alia) Rispoli has a proposal about her-errors. Rispoli has a proposal about her-errors. Pronoun morphology is organized into “tables” (paradigms) basically, where each form has a certain weight. Pronoun morphology is organized into “tables” (paradigms) basically, where each form has a certain weight. When a kid is trying to pronounce a pronoun, s/he attempts to find the entry in the table and pronounce it. When a kid is trying to pronounce a pronoun, s/he attempts to find the entry in the table and pronounce it. The kid’s success in finding the form is affected by “gravity”. “Heavier” forms are more likely to be picked when accessing the table, even if it’s not quite the right form. If it’s close and it’s heavy, it’ll win out a lot of the time. Her by virtue of being both acc and gen is extra- heavy, and pulls the kid in fairly often.

Her plays ATOM and Rispoli make different predictions with respect to her plays. ATOM and Rispoli make different predictions with respect to her plays. ATOM says it should never happen (up to simple performance error) ATOM says it should never happen (up to simple performance error) Rispoli says case errors are independent of agreement, her plays is perfectly possible, even expected. Rispoli says case errors are independent of agreement, her plays is perfectly possible, even expected. Rispoli’s critique of Schütze’s studies: Excluding kids who happen not to produce she in the transcript under evaluation is not good enough. The assumption is that this learning is monotonic, so if the kid ever used she (productively) in the past, the her errors should not be excluded.

Monotonicity Schütze assumes that use of she is a matter of knowledge of she. Once the kid knows it, and given that the adult version of the kid will know it, it’s there, for good. Schütze assumes that use of she is a matter of knowledge of she. Once the kid knows it, and given that the adult version of the kid will know it, it’s there, for good. Rispoli claims that the “weight” of she can fluctuate, so that it could be “known” but mis- retrieved later if her becomes too heavy. Rispoli claims that the “weight” of she can fluctuate, so that it could be “known” but mis- retrieved later if her becomes too heavy. Rispoli (2002) set out to show that there is a certain amount of “yo- yo’ing” in the production of she. We’ll focus on Nina, for whom we can get the data.

Nina she vs. her Rispoli’s counts show Nina using she from basically the outset of her use of pronouns, and also shows a decrease of use of she at 2;5. Rispoli’s counts show Nina using she from basically the outset of her use of pronouns, and also shows a decrease of use of she at 2;5. sheher 2;2 13- 15 2 4% 43 96% 2;3 16- 19 1 8% 12 92% 2;4 20- 23 1 14% 6 86% 2;5 24- 31 7 9% 73 91%

Nina’s early shes 2;2 2;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;3 2;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;4 2;4 *MOT: he's up there ? *MOT: he's up there ? *CHI: no # she's not up there. *CHI: no # she's not up there. *CHI: he's up there. *CHI: he's up there. These are the times when Nina used she (twice at 2;2, once at 2;3, once at 2;4). Rispoli found 7 at 2;5, we’ll deal with them later.

What if we include early files in evaluating ATOM? 2;2 2;2 *CHI: helping her have a yellow blanket. *CHI: helping her have a yellow blanket. *MOT: she has a yellow blanket ? *MOT: she has a yellow 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 time Nina said her’s ok are the only candidate counterexamples at 2;2. At 2;2, 45 her+bare verb. (R got 43, possibly including her’s ok) At 2;3, no candidate counterexamples, 14 her+bare verbs. (R got 12) At 2;4 none, 7 her+bare. (R got 6)

Including early files…? *MOT: what happened when I shampooed Miriam yesterday ? *MOT: what happened when I shampooed Miriam yesterday ? *CHI: her was cried. *CHI: her was cried. *MOT: oh # there's the dolly's bottle. *MOT: oh # there's the dolly's 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: I found about 76 her+bare/past verbs. I found 3 potential counterexamples.

Bottom line? It doesn’t seem like anything was particularly affected, even if Nina’s early files were fully included. It doesn’t seem like anything was particularly affected, even if Nina’s early files were fully included. The number of possible counterexamples seems well within the “performance error” range. The number of possible counterexamples seems well within the “performance error” range. The point about variation in usage of she is valid, worth being aware of the assumptions and being sure we’re testing the right things. Rispoli made the point that if we’d accidentally missed a she in the early files, we might have excluded counterexamples there. Yet, even including everything, the asymmetry is strong.

Two hypotheses about learning (Wexler 1998) VEPS (very early parameter setting) Basic parameters are set correctly at the earliest observable stages, that is, at least from the time that the child enters the two- word stage around 18 months of age. VEPS (very early parameter setting) Basic parameters are set correctly at the earliest observable stages, that is, at least from the time that the child enters the two- word stage around 18 months of age. VEKI (very early knowledge of inflection) At the earliest observable stage (two-word stage), the child knows the grammatical and phonological properties of many important inflectional elements of their language. VEKI (very early knowledge of inflection) At the earliest observable stage (two-word stage), the child knows the grammatical and phonological properties of many important inflectional elements of their language.

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

Very Early Parameter Setting 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) V  I [yes/no] (French vs. English) V  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, at least by the 2-word stage, they have the parameters set (maybe earlier) So, at least by the 2-word stage, they have the parameters set (maybe earlier)

VEKI? Generally, when kids use inflection, they use it correctly. Mismatches are vanishingly rare. Generally, when kids use inflection, they use it correctly. Mismatches are 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 what the field had been assuming (which was: kids are slow at, bad at, learning inflection). Again, this is kind of contrary to what the field had been assuming (which was: kids are slow at, bad at, learning inflection).

Ok, but… So: Kids have the full functional structure available to them, and they set the parameters right away and know the inflection. So: Kids have the full functional structure available to them, and they set the parameters right away and know the inflection. What then do we make of the fact that kids make non-adult utterances in the face of evidence that they aren’t learning the parameters? What then do we make of the fact that kids make non-adult utterances in the face of evidence that they aren’t learning the parameters? KW: Certain (very specific, it turns out) properties of the grammar mature. KW: Certain (very specific, it turns out) properties of the grammar mature.

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

NS/OI But some languages appear not to undergo the “optional infinitive” stage. How can this be consistent with a maturational view? But some languages appear not to undergo the “optional infinitive” stage. How can this be consistent with a maturational view? OI languages: Germanic languages studied to date (Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish), Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, Czech OI languages: Germanic languages studied to date (Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish), Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, Czech Non-OI languages: Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Tamil, Polish Non-OI languages: Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Tamil, Polish

NS/OI What differentiates the OI and non-OI languages? What differentiates the OI and non-OI languages? Agreement? Italian (non-OI) has rich agreement, but so does Icelandic (OI). Agreement? Italian (non-OI) has rich agreement, but so does Icelandic (OI). Null subjects! Null subjects! Null Subject/OI Generalization: Children in a language go through an OI stage iff the language is not an INFL-licensed null subject language. Null Subject/OI Generalization: Children in a language go through an OI stage iff the language is not an INFL-licensed null subject language.

NS/OI and Hebrew (Rhee & Wexler 1995) Hebrew is a NS language but only in 1st and 2nd person, non-present tense. Everywhere else (3rd past, future, present) subjects are obligatory. Hebrew is a NS language but only in 1st and 2nd person, non-present tense. Everywhere else (3rd past, future, present) subjects are obligatory. Hebrew-learning 2-year-olds showed optional infinitives except in 1/2-past, and allowed null subjects elsewhere, with infinitives. Hebrew-learning 2-year-olds showed optional infinitives except in 1/2-past, and allowed null subjects elsewhere, with infinitives.

NS/OI and Hebrew (Rhee & Wexler 1995) % of RIs all OI kids1/2 past/fut (NS)else (non-NS) null subjects0.6% (1/171)25% (85/337) overt subjects1.4% (1/72)0.6% (3/530) kids up to 1;111/2 past/fut (NS)else (non-NS) null subjects0 (of 21)32% (36/112) overt subjects0 (of 6)0 (of 28)

Where we are There is evidence that children around the age of 2: There is evidence that children around the age of 2: Allow nonfinite verbs in main clauses—in non-NS languages. Allow nonfinite verbs in main clauses—in non-NS languages. Differentiate between the syntax of finite and nonfinite verb forms. Differentiate between the syntax of finite and nonfinite verb forms. Show evidence from word order of functional structure above the VP. Show evidence from word order of functional structure above the VP. Subject case and do-support suggest that TP/AgrP can be missing from the child representations. Subject case and do-support suggest that TP/AgrP can be missing from the child representations.

Proposals concerning TP/AgrP Wexler (1998): Unique Checking Constraint. Wexler (1998): Unique Checking Constraint. For adults, subjects need to check a feature both on T and on Agr. For kids, only one is possible (so either T or Agr must be left out, or UCC must be violated). For adults, subjects need to check a feature both on T and on Agr. For kids, only one is possible (so either T or Agr must be left out, or UCC must be violated). Predicts: NS/OI. Other reflexes, perhaps object shift in Korean. Predicts: NS/OI. Other reflexes, perhaps object shift in Korean. Rizzi (1993/4): Truncation. Rizzi (1993/4): Truncation. Adults know that CP=root. Kids don’t, so they will sometimes stop early. Adults know that CP=root. Kids don’t, so they will sometimes stop early. Predicts: If TP is missing, so is CP. Predicts: If TP is missing, so is CP. Legendre et al. (2000): Like UCC, within OT. Legendre et al. (2000): Like UCC, within OT.

Implementing the UCC The basic idea: In adult clauses, the subject needs to move both to SpecTP and (then) to SpecAgrP. The basic idea: In adult clauses, the subject needs to move both to SpecTP and (then) to SpecAgrP. This needs to happen because T “needs” something in its specifier (≈EPP) and so does Agr. This needs to happen because T “needs” something in its specifier (≈EPP) and so does Agr. The subject DP can “solve the problem” for both T and for Agr—for an adult. The subject DP can “solve the problem” for both T and for Agr—for an adult.

Implementing ATOM Implementation: For adults: Implementation: 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, has a D feature. The subject, happily, has a D feature. The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of T’s need for a D feature (the subject “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature loses its need for a D feature, but the subject still has its D feature (the subject is still a DP). The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of T’s need for a D feature (the subject “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature loses its need for a D feature, but the subject still has its D feature (the subject is still a DP). The subject moves on, to take care of Agr. The subject moves on, to take care of Agr.

Implementing ATOM Implementation: For kids: Implementation: For kids: Everything is the same except that the subject can only solve one problem before quitting. It “loses” its D feature after helping out either T or Agr. Everything is the same except that the subject can only solve one problem before quitting. It “loses” its D feature after helping out either T or Agr. Kids are constrained by the Unique Checking Constraint that says subjects (or their D features) can only “check” another feature once. Kids are constrained by the Unique Checking Constraint that says subjects (or their D features) can only “check” another feature once. So the kids are in a bind. So the kids are in a bind.

Implementing ATOM Kids in a pickle: The only options open to the kids are: Kids in a pickle: The only options open to the kids are: Leave out TP (keep AgrP, the subject can solve Agr’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, nom case. Leave out TP (keep AgrP, the subject can solve Agr’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, nom case. Leave out AgrP (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, default case. Leave out AgrP (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, default case. Violate the UCC (let the subject do both things anyway). Result: finite verb, nom case. Violate the UCC (let the subject do both things anyway). Result: finite verb, nom case. No matter which way you slice it, the kids have to do something “wrong”. At that point, they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.) No matter which way you slice it, the kids have to do something “wrong”. At that point, they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.)

Minimalist terminology Features come in two relevant kinds: interpretable and uninterpretable. Features come in two relevant kinds: interpretable and uninterpretable. Either kind of feature can be involved in a “checking”—only interpretable features survive. Either kind of feature can be involved in a “checking”—only interpretable features survive. The game is to have no uninterpretable features left at the end. The game is to have no uninterpretable features left at the end. “T needs a D” means “T has an uninterpretable [D] feature” and the subject (with its normally interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the two features “check”, the interpretable one survives. UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects? “T needs a D” means “T has an uninterpretable [D] feature” and the subject (with its normally interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the two features “check”, the interpretable one survives. UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects?

Are kids really UG- constrained? So, aren’t TP and AgrSP required by UG? Doesn’t this mean kids don’t have UG- compliant trees? So, aren’t TP and AgrSP required by UG? Doesn’t this mean kids don’t have UG- compliant trees? Actually, perhaps no. UG requires that all features be checked, but it isn’t clear that there is a UG principle that requires a TP and an AgrP in every clause. Actually, perhaps no. UG requires that all features be checked, but it isn’t clear that there is a UG principle that requires a TP and an AgrP in every clause.

Are kids really UG- constrained? Perhaps what requires TP and AgrP are principles of (pragmatic) interpretation… Perhaps what requires TP and AgrP are principles of (pragmatic) interpretation… You need TP so that your sentence is “anchored” in the discourse. You need TP so that your sentence is “anchored” in the discourse. You need AgrSP … why? Well, perhaps something parallel…? Wexler doesn’t really say… You need AgrSP … why? Well, perhaps something parallel…? Wexler doesn’t really say… Regardless, kids can check all the uninterpretable features even without TP or AgrSP; hence, they can still be considered to be UG-constrained. Regardless, kids can check all the uninterpretable features even without TP or AgrSP; hence, they can still be considered to be UG-constrained.

NS/OI via UCC An old idea about NS languages is that they arise in languages where Infl is “rich” enough to identify the subject. An old idea about NS languages is that they arise in languages where Infl is “rich” enough to identify the subject. Maybe in NS languages, AgrS does not need a D (it may in some sense be nouny enough to say that it is, or already has, D). Maybe in NS languages, AgrS does not need a D (it may in some sense be nouny enough to say that it is, or already has, D). If AgrS does not need a D, the subject is free to check off T’s D-feature and be done. If AgrS does not need a D, the subject is free to check off T’s D-feature and be done.

Is there any way to see the effects of UCC even in NS languages? Italian: Mary has laughed. Italian: Mary has laughed. Suppose that auxiliaries (like have) also have a D-feature to be checked as the subject (in the adult language) passes through. Suppose that auxiliaries (like have) also have a D-feature to be checked as the subject (in the adult language) passes through. Not crazy: (All) the students (all) have (all) left. Not crazy: (All) the students (all) have (all) left. UCC-constrained kids will have to drop something (the auxiliary or T), even in Italian. UCC-constrained kids will have to drop something (the auxiliary or T), even in Italian. Lyons (1997) reports that a “substantial proportion of auxiliaries are omitted in OI-age Italian.” Lyons (1997) reports that a “substantial proportion of auxiliaries are omitted in OI-age Italian.” Ok, maybe. Consistent, anyway. Ok, maybe. Consistent, anyway.

One open question… The UCC says you can only use a D-feature on a DP to check against a functional category once. The UCC says you can only use a D-feature on a DP to check against a functional category once. This explains why sometimes TP is omitted (keeping AgrSP) and sometimes AgrSP is omitted (keeping TP). This explains why sometimes TP is omitted (keeping AgrSP) and sometimes AgrSP is omitted (keeping TP). but if GEN infin. comes from omitting both TP and AgrSP, what could ever cause that (particularly given Minimize Violations)? but if GEN infin. comes from omitting both TP and AgrSP, what could ever cause that (particularly given Minimize Violations)?

One adult result If the UCC/ATOM approach is right, this is one of the only places where we might actually have evidence that both TP and AgrSP (exist and) require the subject to move through their specifiers. Generally, it’s hard to tell in the adult syntax whether it’s just one or the other. If the UCC/ATOM approach is right, this is one of the only places where we might actually have evidence that both TP and AgrSP (exist and) require the subject to move through their specifiers. Generally, it’s hard to tell in the adult syntax whether it’s just one or the other.

Korean negation? The UCC is about checking D, and that happens not only for subjects but for objects. The UCC is about checking D, and that happens not only for subjects but for objects. In English objects don’t have to double- check, but are there effects in other languages? In English objects don’t have to double- check, but are there effects in other languages? Hagstrom (2000) looks at errors with negation made by children learning Korean at about the same age that, in other languages, kids are producing root infinitives. Hagstrom (2000) looks at errors with negation made by children learning Korean at about the same age that, in other languages, kids are producing root infinitives. Fairly technical and minimalist, but if you survive Wexler 1998, you’re most of the way there. Fairly technical and minimalist, but if you survive Wexler 1998, you’re most of the way there.

Korean negation? Short Form Negation in Korean: Chelswu-ka pap-ul an-mek-ess-ta. Chelswu-nom rice-acc neg-eat-past-decl ‘Chelswu didn’t eat rice.’ Short Form Negation in Korean: Chelswu-ka pap-ul an-mek-ess-ta. Chelswu-nom rice-acc neg-eat-past-decl ‘Chelswu didn’t eat rice.’ Common OI-age kid error: na an pap mek-e I neg rice eat-decl ‘I don’t eat rice.’ Common OI-age kid error: na an pap mek-e I neg rice eat-decl ‘I don’t eat rice.’

Negation errors in child Korean Generalization about child errors with SFN: VP-internal material is privileged in its ability to occur between an and the verb in child errors. Generalization about child errors with SFN: VP-internal material is privileged in its ability to occur between an and the verb in child errors. Subjects (except subjects of unaccusatives) never appear between an and the verb Subjects (except subjects of unaccusatives) never appear between an and the verb Objects often do Objects often do Adverbs often do Adverbs often do

Negation errors in child Korean Can this error be made to follow from the UCC (you can’t check a D-feature twice)? Can this error be made to follow from the UCC (you can’t check a D-feature twice)? Kid errors seem to involve a structure like: neg […VP material… ] verb suggesting that adult negation has a movement that kids are failing to do: […VP material…] i neg t i verb Kid errors seem to involve a structure like: neg […VP material… ] verb suggesting that adult negation has a movement that kids are failing to do: […VP material…] i neg t i verb

One movement down… For the UCC to apply, there need to be two movements. Do adults move the object twice? For the UCC to apply, there need to be two movements. Do adults move the object twice? Adults also seem to perform a second movement of the object; the adverb cal ‘well’ must immediately precede the verb (unlike other adverbs)—but presumably the object originally (at D-structure) falls between cal and the verb. Hence: object i … cal … t i verb Adults also seem to perform a second movement of the object; the adverb cal ‘well’ must immediately precede the verb (unlike other adverbs)—but presumably the object originally (at D-structure) falls between cal and the verb. Hence: object i … cal … t i verb

That’s two movements So, the object (and some of the VP- internal material) seems to have to move twice in negative sentences, once to get around cal (in any kind of sentence), and again to get around an (neg). So, the object (and some of the VP- internal material) seems to have to move twice in negative sentences, once to get around cal (in any kind of sentence), and again to get around an (neg). That’s what we need to get off the ground if we want to attribute this error to the UCC. That’s what we need to get off the ground if we want to attribute this error to the UCC.

The proposal In Korean, the object moves to SpecAgrOP (step one) and checks a D-feature: AgrOP DP i AgrO AgrO [D] VP calVP Vt i In Korean, the object moves to SpecAgrOP (step one) and checks a D-feature: AgrOP DP i AgrO AgrO [D] VP calVP Vt i

The proposal Then, AgrOP moves to an AgrNegP above negation, to check a D-feature: AgrNegP AgrOP i AgrNeg AgrNeg [D] NegP anNeg Neg…t i … Then, AgrOP moves to an AgrNegP above negation, to check a D-feature: AgrNegP AgrOP i AgrNeg AgrNeg [D] NegP anNeg Neg…t i …

The proposal The kid can only do one of those movements if it obeys the UCC, since each one requires the same D-feature (contributed by the object). The kid can only do one of those movements if it obeys the UCC, since each one requires the same D-feature (contributed by the object). So, the kid must either So, the kid must either ignore the UCC, or ignore the UCC, or omit AgrOP, or omit AgrOP, or omit AgrNegP omit AgrNegP

Predictions 1: Omit AgrNegP (retaining AgrOP): 1: Omit AgrNegP (retaining AgrOP): Object moves (over cal) to SpecAgrOP. AgrOP (with cal and object) remains below NegP. Object moves (over cal) to SpecAgrOP. AgrOP (with cal and object) remains below NegP. an object cal verb (*, non-adult-like) an object cal verb (*, non-adult-like) 2: Omit AgrOP (retaining AgrNegP) 2: Omit AgrOP (retaining AgrNegP) Object (nearest thing with a D-feature) moves directly to SpecAgrNegP, over an and cal. Object (nearest thing with a D-feature) moves directly to SpecAgrNegP, over an and cal. object an cal verb (*, but needs cal to be present) object an cal verb (*, but needs cal to be present) 3: Violate UCC (keep AgrOP & AgrNegP) 3: Violate UCC (keep AgrOP & AgrNegP) object cal an verb (adult-like) object cal an verb (adult-like) 4: Omit both AgrOP & AgrNegP? 4: Omit both AgrOP & AgrNegP? an cal object verb (*, without cal looks like 1) an cal object verb (*, without cal looks like 1)

Met? Sadly, the experiments haven’t been done and the examples haven’t been reported in the literature. Sadly, the experiments haven’t been done and the examples haven’t been reported in the literature. We need errors with transitive verbs involving short-form negation and the adverb cal… We need errors with transitive verbs involving short-form negation and the adverb cal… Possibly fairly easy elicitation experiment that can be done… Possibly fairly easy elicitation experiment that can be done…

Predictions for unaccusatives Unaccusative “subjects” start out in object position, and must presumably move through many more projections (AgrOP, AgrNegP, TP, AgrSP) Unaccusative “subjects” start out in object position, and must presumably move through many more projections (AgrOP, AgrNegP, TP, AgrSP) UCC kid can still just do one. UCC kid can still just do one. Only one (of five) will yield a non-adult order: keep AgrOP and you get: an subject cal verb. Only one (of five) will yield a non-adult order: keep AgrOP and you get: an subject cal verb. Turns out: kids make only about 10% (detectible) errors with unaccusatives (vs. about 30% with transitives). A successful prediction? Turns out: kids make only about 10% (detectible) errors with unaccusatives (vs. about 30% with transitives). A successful prediction?

So… The UCC seems to be pretty successful in explaining why either TP or AgrSP are often omitted for kids in languages like French, German. The UCC seems to be pretty successful in explaining why either TP or AgrSP are often omitted for kids in languages like French, German. The connection to the NS/OI generalization is reasonable to explain why we don’t seem to see OIs in Italian. The connection to the NS/OI generalization is reasonable to explain why we don’t seem to see OIs in Italian. The more general prediction that the UCC makes about double-movements to check D- features may well be borne out by the facts of Korean negation. The more general prediction that the UCC makes about double-movements to check D- features may well be borne out by the facts of Korean negation.

Rizzi and truncated trees Rizzi (1993/4): Kids lack the CP=root axiom. Rizzi (1993/4): Kids lack the CP=root axiom. The result (of not having CP=root) is that kids are allowed to have truncated structures—trees that look like adult trees with the tops chopped off. The result (of not having CP=root) is that kids are allowed to have truncated structures—trees that look like adult trees with the tops chopped off. Importantly: The kids don’t just leave stuff out— they just stop the tree “early.” So, if the kid leaves out a functional projection, s/he leaves out all higher XPs as well. Importantly: The kids don’t just leave stuff out— they just stop the tree “early.” So, if the kid leaves out a functional projection, s/he leaves out all higher XPs as well.

Truncation: < TP < CP If kid selects anything lower than TP as the root, the result is a root infinitive— which can be as big as any kind of XP below TP in the structure. If kid selects anything lower than TP as the root, the result is a root infinitive— which can be as big as any kind of XP below TP in the structure. Note in particular, though, it can’t be a CP. Note in particular, though, it can’t be a CP. So: we expect that evidence of CP will correlate with finite verbs. So: we expect that evidence of CP will correlate with finite verbs.

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

Truncation: TP <> NegP? There is some dispute in the syntax literature as to whether the position of NegP (the projection responsible for the negative morpheme) is higher or lower than TP in the tree. There is some dispute in the syntax literature as to whether the position of NegP (the projection responsible for the negative morpheme) is higher or lower than TP in the tree. If NegP is higher than TP, we would expect not to find negative root infinitives. If NegP is higher than TP, we would expect not to find negative root infinitives. But we do find negative RIs—(Pierce 1989): in the acquisition of French, negation follows finite verbs and precedes nonfinite verbs (that is—French kids know the movement properties of finiteness, and thus they have the concept of finiteness). But we do find negative RIs—(Pierce 1989): in the acquisition of French, negation follows finite verbs and precedes nonfinite verbs (that is—French kids know the movement properties of finiteness, and thus they have the concept of finiteness). So, is TP higher than NegP? So, is TP higher than NegP? Hard to say conclusively from the existing French data because there are not many negative root infinitives—but further study could lead to a theoretical result of this sort about the adult languages. Hard to say conclusively from the existing French data because there are not many negative root infinitives—but further study could lead to a theoretical result of this sort about the adult languages.

S O V fin ? Usually (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) German kids put finite verbs in second position, and leave nonfinite verbs at the end. Usually (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) German kids put finite verbs in second position, and leave nonfinite verbs at the end. Occasionally one finds a finite verb at the end. Occasionally one finds a finite verb at the end. Rizzi suggests we could look at this as an instance of a kid choosing AgrSP as root, where CP is necessary to trigger V2. Rizzi suggests we could look at this as an instance of a kid choosing AgrSP as root, where CP is necessary to trigger V2.

*Truncation?: Where train go? Truncation predicts: If TP is missing, then CP should be missing. Truncation predicts: If TP is missing, then CP should be missing. But Bromberg & Wexler (1995) observe that bare verbs do appear in wh-questions in child English. Wh- questions implicate CP, bare verbs implicate something missing (TP or AgrP). So, truncation can’t be right. But Bromberg & Wexler (1995) observe that bare verbs do appear in wh-questions in child English. Wh- questions implicate CP, bare verbs implicate something missing (TP or AgrP). So, truncation can’t be right. Guasti notes that although the logic here works, English is weird in this respect: pretty much all other languages do accord with the prediction. Guasti notes that although the logic here works, English is weird in this respect: pretty much all other languages do accord with the prediction.

Theories of missing structure No functional projections. (Radford) Kids don’t have any functional projections (TP, CP, and so forth). This comes later. No TP, no tense distinction. No functional projections. (Radford) Kids don’t have any functional projections (TP, CP, and so forth). This comes later. No TP, no tense distinction. Structure building. (Vainikka, Guilfoyle & Noonan) Kids start with no functional projections and gradually increase their functional structure. Structure building. (Vainikka, Guilfoyle & Noonan) Kids start with no functional projections and gradually increase their functional structure.

Theories of missing structure “ATOM” (Full competence). (Wexler, …) Kids have access to all of the functional structure and have a very specific problem with tense and agreement that sometimes causes them to leave one out. “ATOM” (Full competence). (Wexler, …) Kids have access to all of the functional structure and have a very specific problem with tense and agreement that sometimes causes them to leave one out. Truncation. (Rizzi) Like structure building but without the time course—kids have access to all of the functional structure but they don’t realize that sentences need to be CP’s, so they sometimes stop early. Truncation. (Rizzi) Like structure building but without the time course—kids have access to all of the functional structure but they don’t realize that sentences need to be CP’s, so they sometimes stop early.

Legendre et al. (2000) Wexler: During OI stage, kids sometimes omit T, and sometimes omit Agr. Based on a choice of which to violate, the requirement to have T, to have Agr, to have only one. Wexler: During OI stage, kids sometimes omit T, and sometimes omit Agr. Based on a choice of which to violate, the requirement 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 French), it appears that the choice of what to omit is systematic; we propose a system to account for (predict) the proportion of the time kids omit T, Agr, both, neither, in progressive stages of development. Legendre et al.: Looking at development (of French), it appears that the choice of what to omit is systematic; we propose a system to account for (predict) the proportion of the time kids omit T, Agr, both, neither, in progressive stages of development.

Optimality Theory Legendre et al. (2000) is set in the Optimality Theory framework (often seen in phonology, less often seen applied to syntax). Legendre et al. (2000) is set in the Optimality Theory framework (often seen in phonology, less often seen applied to syntax). “Grammar is a system of ranked and violable constraints” “Grammar is a system of ranked and violable constraints”

Optimality Theory In our analysis, one constraint is Parse-T, which says that tense must be realized in a clause. A structure without tense (where TP has been omitted, say) will violate this constraint. In our analysis, one constraint is Parse-T, which says that tense must be realized in a clause. A structure without tense (where TP has been omitted, say) will violate this constraint. Another constraint is *F (“Don’t have a functional category”). A structure with TP will violate this constraint. Another constraint is *F (“Don’t have a functional category”). A structure with TP will violate this constraint.

Optimality Theory Parse-T and *F are in conflict—it is impossible to satisfy both at the same time. Parse-T and *F are in conflict—it is impossible to satisfy both at the same time. When constraints conflict, the choice made (on a language-particular basis) of which constraint is considered to be “more important” (more highly ranked) determines which constraint is satisfied and which must be violated. When constraints conflict, the choice made (on a language-particular basis) of which constraint is considered to be “more important” (more highly ranked) determines which constraint is satisfied and which must be violated.

Optimality Theory So if *F >> Parse-T, TP will be omitted. So if *F >> Parse-T, TP will be omitted. and if Parse-T >> *F, TP will be included. and if Parse-T >> *F, TP will be included.

Optimality Theory Grammar involves constraints on the representations (e.g., SS, LF, PF, or perhaps a combined representation). Grammar involves constraints on the representations (e.g., SS, LF, PF, or perhaps a combined representation). The constraints exist in all languages. The constraints exist in all languages. Where languages differ is in how important each constraint is with respect to each other constraint. Where languages differ is in how important each constraint is with respect to each other constraint.

Optimality Theory: big picture Universal Grammar is the constraints that languages must obey. Universal Grammar is the constraints that languages must obey. Languages differ only in how those constraints are ranked relative to one another. (So, “parameter” = “ranking”) Languages differ only in how those constraints are ranked relative to one another. (So, “parameter” = “ranking”) The kid’s job is to re-rank constraints until they match the order which generated the input that s/he hears. The kid’s job is to re-rank constraints until they match the order which generated the input that s/he hears.

Legendre et al. (2000) Proposes a system to predict the proportions of the time kids choose the different options among: Proposes a system to predict the proportions of the time kids choose the different options among: Omit TP Omit TP Omit AgrSP Omit AgrSP Omit both TP and AgrSP Omit both TP and AgrSP Include both TP and AgrSP (violating UCC) Include both TP and AgrSP (violating UCC)

French v. English English: T+Agr is pronounced like English: T+Agr is pronounced like /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present] /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present] /ed/ if we have the feature [past] /ed/ if we have the feature [past] /Ø/ otherwise /Ø/ otherwise French: T+Agr is pronounced like: French: T+Agr is pronounced like: danserNRF danserNRF a dansé(3sg) past a dansé(3sg) past je danse1sg (present) je danse1sg (present) j’ai dansé1sg past j’ai dansé1sg past

The idea Kids are subject to conflicting constraints: Kids are subject to conflicting constraints: Parse-TInclude a projection for tense Parse-TInclude a projection for tense Parse-AgrInclude a project for agreement Parse-AgrInclude a project for agreement *FDon’t complicate your tree with functional projections *FDon’t complicate your tree with functional projections *F 2 Don’t complicate your tree so much as to have two functional projections. *F 2 Don’t complicate your tree so much as to have two functional projections.

The idea Sometimes Parse-T beats out *F, and then there’s a TP. Or Parse-Agr beats out *F, and then there’s an AgrP. Or both Parse-T and Parse-Agr beat out *F 2, and so there’s both a TP and an AgrP. Sometimes Parse-T beats out *F, and then there’s a TP. Or Parse-Agr beats out *F, and then there’s an AgrP. Or both Parse-T and Parse-Agr beat out *F 2, and so there’s both a TP and an AgrP. But what does sometimes mean? But what does sometimes mean?

Floating constraints The innovation in Legendre et al. (2000) that gets us off the ground is the idea that as kids re-rank constraints, the position of the constraint in the hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such that two positions can overlap. *F Parse-T The innovation in Legendre et al. (2000) that gets us off the ground is the idea that as kids re-rank constraints, the position of the constraint in the hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such that two positions can overlap. *F Parse-T

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

Floating constraints *F Parse-T (Under certain assumptions) this predicts that we would see TP in the structure 50% of the time, and see structures without TP the other 50% of the time. (Under certain assumptions) this predicts that we would see TP in the structure 50% of the time, and see structures without TP the other 50% of the time.

French kid data Looked at 3 French kids from CHILDES Looked at 3 French kids from CHILDES Broke development into stages based on a modified MLU-type measure based on how long most of their utterances were (2 words, more than 2 words) and how many of the utterances contain verbs. Broke development into stages based on a modified MLU-type measure based on how long most of their utterances were (2 words, more than 2 words) and how many of the utterances contain verbs. Looked at tense and agreement in each of the three stages represented in the data. Looked at tense and agreement in each of the three stages represented in the data.

French kid data Kids start out using 3sg agreement and present tense for practically everything (correct or not). Kids start out using 3sg agreement and present tense for practically 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 tense? pronounce it as present. Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.). (No agreement? Pronounce it as 3sg. No tense? pronounce it as present. Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.).

French kid data This means if a kid uses 3sg or present tense, we can’t tell if they are really using 3sg (they might be) or if they are not using agreement at all and just pronouncing the default. This means if a kid uses 3sg or present tense, we can’t tell if they are really using 3sg (they might be) or if they are not using agreement at all and just pronouncing the default. So, we looked at non-present tense forms and non-3sg forms only to avoid the question of the defaults. So, we looked at non-present tense forms and non-3sg forms only to avoid the question of the defaults.

French kids data We found that tense and agreement develop differently—specifically, in the first stage we looked at, kids were using tense fine, but then in the next stage, they got worse as the agreement improved. We found that tense and agreement develop differently—specifically, in the first stage we looked at, kids were using tense fine, but then in the next stage, they got worse as the agreement improved. Middle stage: looks like competition between T and Agr for a single node. Middle stage: looks like competition between T and Agr for a single node.

A 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 adult’s utterances, we need to know how often adults use non- 3sg and non-present, and then see how close the kids are to matching that level. In order to see how close kids’ utterances were to adult’s utterances, we need to know how often adults use non- 3sg and non-present, and then see how close the kids are to matching that level. So, adults use non-present tense around 31% of the time—so when a kid uses 31% non-present tense, we take that to be “100% success” So, adults use non-present tense around 31% of the time—so when a kid uses 31% non-present tense, we take that to be “100% success” In the last stage we looked at, kids were basically right at the “100% success” level for both tense and agreement. In the last stage we looked at, kids were basically right at the “100% success” level for both tense and agreement.

Proportion of non-present and non-3sg verbs

Proportion of non-finite root forms

A model to predict the percentages Stage 3b (first stage) Stage 3b (first stage) no agreement no agreement about 1/3 NRFs, 2/3 tensed forms *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA about 1/3 NRFs, 2/3 tensed forms *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA

A model to predict the percentages Stage 4b (second stage) Stage 4b (second stage) non-3sg agreement and non-present tense each about 15% (=about 40% agreeing, 50% tensed) non-3sg agreement and non-present tense each about 15% (=about 40% agreeing, 50% tensed) about 20% NRFs *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA about 20% NRFs *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA

A model to predict the percentages Stage 4c (third stage) Stage 4c (third stage) everything appears to have tense and agreement (adult-like levels) *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA everything appears to have tense and agreement (adult-like levels) *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA

Predicted vs. observed— tense

Predicted vs. observed—agr’t

Predicted vs. observed— NRFs

                      

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Week 2. The emergence of syntax GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Week 2. The emergence of syntax GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback