1. Week 4. Null subjects (and some more root infinitives) GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

2. Null subjects (in English) Until after around 2 years old, kids will often omit subjects: Until after around 2 years old, kids will often omit subjects: Drop bean. Drop bean. Fix Mommy shoe. Fix Mommy shoe. Helping Mommy. Helping Mommy. Want go get it. Want go get it. Why? Why?

3. Null subjects Lots of languages allow you to drop the subject. Lots of languages allow you to drop the subject. Italian, Spanish: the verb generally carries enough inflection to identify the person, number of the subject. Italian, Spanish: the verb generally carries enough inflection to identify the person, number of the subject. Chinese: where the subject is obvious from context it can be left out. Chinese: where the subject is obvious from context it can be left out. Not in English though: Let’s talk about Bill. *Left. *Bought groceries. *Dropped eggs. Not in English though: Let’s talk about Bill. *Left. *Bought groceries. *Dropped eggs. On the view that kids know language, but are just trying to figure out the specific details (principles and parameters), one possibility is that they always start out speaking Italian (or Chinese) until they get evidence to the contrary. Null subjects are grammatical for kids

4. Null subjects Kids do tend to speak in short sentences. There seem to in fact be identifiable stages in terms of the length of the kids’ sentences (one- word stage, two-word stage, multi-word stage…), often measured in terms of MLU (mean length of utterance) which roughly corresponds to linguistic development. Kids do tend to speak in short sentences. There seem to in fact be identifiable stages in terms of the length of the kids’ sentences (one- word stage, two-word stage, multi-word stage…), often measured in terms of MLU (mean length of utterance) which roughly corresponds to linguistic development. Perhaps the kid’s just trying to say a three- word sentence in a two-word window, so something has to go. That is, some kind of processing limitation.

5. Subject vs. object drop AESSubject576143 Object8715

6. Null subjects Subjects (in a non-null subject language like English) are way more likely to be dropped than objects. There’s something special about subjects. Subjects (in a non-null subject language like English) are way more likely to be dropped than objects. There’s something special about subjects. Makes a processing account more difficult to justify. Makes a processing account more difficult to justify. Bloom (1990) made some well-known proposals about how the null subject phenomenon could be seen as a processing issue, and tried to explain why subjects are the most susceptible to being dropped. See also Hyams & Wexler (1993) for a reply.

7. Null subjects vs. time Null subjects seem to be pretty robustly confined to a certain portion of linguistic development. There’s a pretty sharp dropoff at around 2.5 or 3. Null subjects seem to be pretty robustly confined to a certain portion of linguistic development. There’s a pretty sharp dropoff at around 2.5 or 3. Hamann’s Danish kids illustrate this well. Hamann’s Danish kids illustrate this well.

8. Why can’t English kids really be speaking Italian? In Italian, subjects can be dropped (but need not be), in English, they can’t be dropped at all. In Italian, subjects can be dropped (but need not be), in English, they can’t be dropped at all. So since having subjects is consistent with Italian, what’s going to signal to the kid that they’ve got the wrong kind of language? So since having subjects is consistent with Italian, what’s going to signal to the kid that they’ve got the wrong kind of language? A “subset” problem. A “subset” problem. Possible solution? Expletive it and there. Possible solution? Expletive it and there. In Italian, null subjects are allowed wherever a subject pronoun would be, including embedded finite clauses (“I know that [he] has left”) and finite root questions (“What has [he] bought?”). In Kid English, null subjects never show up in these environments. It doesn’t seem so much like Italian.

9. Ok, maybe these kids are speaking Chinese… In adult Chinese, subjects can also be omitted. In adult Chinese, subjects can also be omitted. In Italian, Spanish, the allowability of null subjects was taken to be tied to the verbal agreement. Something about the rich agreement licenses null subjects. In Italian, Spanish, the allowability of null subjects was taken to be tied to the verbal agreement. Something about the rich agreement licenses null subjects. In Chinese, there is no agreement morphology, so that isn’t what’s allowing null subjects. Proposal: What allows argument omission in Chinese is a form of topic drop. They are allowed roughly when they are “old information”, recoverable.

10. Speaking Chinese? Suppose that these are parameters. Suppose that these are parameters. ±Pro-drop for the Italian/English difference. ±Pro-drop for the Italian/English difference. ±Topic-drop for the Chinese/English difference. ±Topic-drop for the Chinese/English difference. Kid English isn’t +Pro- drop. Kid English isn’t +Pro- drop. In +Topic-drop languages, subjects aren’t particularly privileged. Subjects are often old information, but when objects are old information, they too can be dropped.

11. Not speaking Chinese We’ve already seen that Kid English overwhelmingly drops subjects, not objects. We’ve already seen that Kid English overwhelmingly drops subjects, not objects. 33% subjects, 4% objects (Wang et al 1992) 33% subjects, 4% objects (Wang et al 1992) Kid English looks like English with some extra null subjects. Kid English looks like English with some extra null subjects. But Kid Chinese drops even more subjects and lots more objects. 47% subjects, 23% objects. Kid Chinese looks like Chinese with maybe some extra null subjects.

12. Parameters are quick And recall that Italian allows null subjects in embedded clauses, wh-questions, etc. And recall that Italian allows null subjects in embedded clauses, wh-questions, etc. Kid Dutch and French have practically no null subjects in wh- questions. Kid Dutch and French have practically no null subjects in wh- questions. Kid Italian has something like 56% null subjects in wh- questions. Kid Italian has something like 56% null subjects in wh- questions. If Chinese/Dutch is distinguished by [±topic-drop] and Italian/English is distinguished by [±pro-drop], the kids already know what they’re trying to speak by the time we’re testing them.

13. Processing accounts…? Kids have severely limited processing power, and so they leave off subjects to ease the load. (Bloom 1990) Kids have severely limited processing power, and so they leave off subjects to ease the load. (Bloom 1990) In favor: In favor: Length limitations even in imitations Length limitations even in imitations Kids omit things other than subjects Kids omit things other than subjects Some kids don’t eliminate subjects, only reduce their frequency. Some kids don’t eliminate subjects, only reduce their frequency.

14. Processing accounts… Contra? Hyams points out: Contra? Hyams points out: Build house…Cathy build house Build house…Cathy build house Go nursery…Lucy go nursery Go nursery…Lucy go nursery Kathryn want build another house. Kathryn want build another house. Bloom: So, no absolute limit on length, only a tendency to reduce length. Bloom: So, no absolute limit on length, only a tendency to reduce length.

15. Bloom (1990) Bloom (1970) found: Bloom (1970) found: negated sentences tend to lack subjects more frequently then non-negated sentences. negated sentences tend to lack subjects more frequently then non-negated sentences. Bloom (1990): Bloom (1990): Hypothesis: sentences without subjects will have longer VPs than sentences with subjects. Hypothesis: sentences without subjects will have longer VPs than sentences with subjects. Looked at past tense verbs and cognitive states (need) to avoid any confusion with imperatives. Looked at past tense verbs and cognitive states (need) to avoid any confusion with imperatives.

16. Bloom (1990) VP length (words from verb to the end) counted for sentences with and without subjects. VP length (words from verb to the end) counted for sentences with and without subjects. Results: Mean length of VP in sentences with subjects were (statistically) significantly shorter than those without. Results: Mean length of VP in sentences with subjects were (statistically) significantly shorter than those without. E.g., Adam 2.333 with, 2.604 without. E.g., Adam 2.333 with, 2.604 without.

17. Bloom (1990) In fact, “long subjects” (lexical subjects), “short subjects” (pronouns), and null subjects correlated with an increase in VP length as well. In fact, “long subjects” (lexical subjects), “short subjects” (pronouns), and null subjects correlated with an increase in VP length as well.

18. Bloom (1990) And why are subjects dropped more frequently than objects? And why are subjects dropped more frequently than objects? Two possibilities? Two possibilities? Subjects tend to be given (old) information (low “informativeness”, more expendable) Subjects tend to be given (old) information (low “informativeness”, more expendable) Maybe processing “saves the heaviest load for last” Maybe processing “saves the heaviest load for last”

19. Hyams & Wexler (1993) Bloom’s (1990) approach (processing) can’t be right either. Bloom’s (1990) approach (processing) can’t be right either. The difference between subjects and objects is big, and only rate of subject drop changes. The difference between subjects and objects is big, and only rate of subject drop changes. Adam & Eve both drop around 40-50% of their subjects in an early stage, and in a later stage are down to 15-30%—meanwhile their rate of object drop stays around 5-10%. Adam & Eve both drop around 40-50% of their subjects in an early stage, and in a later stage are down to 15-30%—meanwhile their rate of object drop stays around 5-10%.

20. Hyams & Wexler (1993) “Informativeness”? “Informativeness”? All else being equal, the ratio of missing subjects to specific subjects should be equal to the ratio of missing objects to specific objects. All else being equal, the ratio of missing subjects to specific subjects should be equal to the ratio of missing objects to specific objects. Turns out that kids drop specific subjects about twice as often (Adam 52%) as they drop specific objects (Adam 21%). Turns out that kids drop specific subjects about twice as often (Adam 52%) as they drop specific objects (Adam 21%).

21. Hyams & Wexler (1993) Considering Italian adults, we find exactly the same correlation Bloom reported for English kids: VP seems to be longer where there is null subject, shorter with a pronoun, and shorter still with a lexical subject. Considering Italian adults, we find exactly the same correlation Bloom reported for English kids: VP seems to be longer where there is null subject, shorter with a pronoun, and shorter still with a lexical subject.

22. Hyams & Wexler (1993) Regardless of why the correlation holds, if it is a processing deficiency in kids, what is it for the Italian adults? Regardless of why the correlation holds, if it is a processing deficiency in kids, what is it for the Italian adults? Seems like kids act like they’re speaking a language where the null subject is a grammatical option. Note: might be slightly different from a “null subject language” though. Point: dropping subjects is grammatical for these kids, not an error. Seems like kids act like they’re speaking a language where the null subject is a grammatical option. Note: might be slightly different from a “null subject language” though. Point: dropping subjects is grammatical for these kids, not an error.

23. Hyams & Wexler (1993) “Output omission” model predicts ratio of overt lexical subjects to overt pronouns should increase over time. “Output omission” model predicts ratio of overt lexical subjects to overt pronouns should increase over time. Pronouns are easier, they’ll survive. Lexical subjects are harder, they’ll be dropped. Initial advantage to visible pronouns. Pronouns are easier, they’ll survive. Lexical subjects are harder, they’ll be dropped. Initial advantage to visible pronouns. Grammatical omission model predicts ratio of overt lexical subjects to overt pronouns should decrease over time. Grammatical omission model predicts ratio of overt lexical subjects to overt pronouns should decrease over time. If null subjects are a form of pronoun for kids, they will “dilute the pool”, putting visible pronouns at an initial disadvantage. If null subjects are a form of pronoun for kids, they will “dilute the pool”, putting visible pronouns at an initial disadvantage.

24. Hyams & Wexler (1993) We find: Ratio of overt lexical subjects to overt pronouns decreases over time… Adam goes from about 3:1 in favor of lexical subjects (during subject drop stage) to 1:2 (after subject drop stage). Adam goes from about 3:1 in favor of lexical subjects (during subject drop stage) to 1:2 (after subject drop stage). When he’s dropping subjects, they are coming out of the “pronoun” pile—the number of lexical subjects is staying about the same across development. When he’s dropping subjects, they are coming out of the “pronoun” pile—the number of lexical subjects is staying about the same across development.

25. Hyams & Wexler (1993) Ok, so maybe pronouns are more difficult than lexical nouns? (Doesn’t fit well with the length of VP result, but maybe…?) Ok, so maybe pronouns are more difficult than lexical nouns? (Doesn’t fit well with the length of VP result, but maybe…?) Problem is: kids show a steady level of object pronouns throughout this time period—and output omission model doesn’t have anything to say about subject vs. object. Problem is: kids show a steady level of object pronouns throughout this time period—and output omission model doesn’t have anything to say about subject vs. object.

26. Hyams & Wexler (1993) Basic conclusion: Basic conclusion: Null subjects don’t seem to arise in child language solely due to processing difficulty. Null subjects don’t seem to arise in child language solely due to processing difficulty. Rather, they seem to be allowed in the child grammar. Rather, they seem to be allowed in the child grammar. This allows a distinction between subject (high rate of omission) and object (low rate of omission) This allows a distinction between subject (high rate of omission) and object (low rate of omission) Explains the tradeoff between null subjects and pronouns (and the VP length/subject correlation) if the principles governing availability of subject drop are similar to those at work in Italian. Explains the tradeoff between null subjects and pronouns (and the VP length/subject correlation) if the principles governing availability of subject drop are similar to those at work in Italian.

27. So what allows null subjects? Here’s where we start to tie in to other properties of that age. Here’s where we start to tie in to other properties of that age. Notice that in English (a non-null subject language) you can have a grammatical null subject in one context: Notice that in English (a non-null subject language) you can have a grammatical null subject in one context: I want [Ø to have a fire drill] I want [Ø to have a fire drill] [Ø to have a fire drill] would make my day. [Ø to have a fire drill] would make my day.

28. So what allows null subjects? Subjects of infinitives can be null. Subjects of infinitives can be null. Kids at the age where subjects are often missing often use infinitive verb forms. Kids at the age where subjects are often missing often use infinitive verb forms. Perhaps that’s the key: Since kids can use infinitives where adults can’t (main clause main verb), this allows them to use null subjects in those sentences as a side effect. Perhaps that’s the key: Since kids can use infinitives where adults can’t (main clause main verb), this allows them to use null subjects in those sentences as a side effect.

29. Proportion of null subjects in finite and non-finite clauses

30. Null subjects… Null subject parameter(s) is/are not initially mis- set (kids don’t all start off speaking Italian or Chinese—contra Hyams 1986, 1992); rather, child null subjects are (at least in part) due to the availability of non-finite verbs (the OI stage). Null subject parameter(s) is/are not initially mis- set (kids don’t all start off speaking Italian or Chinese—contra Hyams 1986, 1992); rather, child null subjects are (at least in part) due to the availability of non-finite verbs (the OI stage). Most null subjects are licensed by being the subject of a nonfinite verb (i.e. PRO) Most null subjects are licensed by being the subject of a nonfinite verb (i.e. PRO) But there are still some null subjects with finite verbs… We’ll return to this. But there are still some null subjects with finite verbs… We’ll return to this.

31. Null subjects and C Crisma (1992): French kids typically (1/114 =1% vs. 407/1002=41%) do not produce null subjects with a wh- phrase. Crisma (1992): French kids typically (1/114 =1% vs. 407/1002=41%) do not produce null subjects with a wh- phrase. Valian (1991): English kids typically (9/552=2%) do not produce null subjects with a wh-phrase. Valian (1991): English kids typically (9/552=2%) do not produce null subjects with a wh-phrase. Poeppel & Wexler (1993): German kids typically exclude null subjects from post-V2 position. Poeppel & Wexler (1993): German kids typically exclude null subjects from post-V2 position.

32. Null subjects and C It looks like: If the kid shows evidence of CP (wh-words, V2), then the kid also does not drop the subject. It looks like: If the kid shows evidence of CP (wh-words, V2), then the kid also does not drop the subject. Rizzi’s idea: Rizzi’s idea: A discourse-licensed null subject is available only in the highest specifier in the tree (topic-drop). A discourse-licensed null subject is available only in the highest specifier in the tree (topic-drop). Axiom: CP=root Axiom: CP=root Kids don’t “get” the axiom until between 2-3 years old. Kids don’t “get” the axiom until between 2-3 years old.

33. Truncated trees 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.

34. Truncation 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.

35. Truncation 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.

36. Truncation 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.

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

38. Truncation and NegP 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 of child language could lead to a theoretical result of this sort about the adult languages, if we assume a truncation analysis of child language. Hard to say conclusively from the existing French data because there are not many negative root infinitives—but further study of child language could lead to a theoretical result of this sort about the adult languages, if we assume a truncation analysis of child language.

39. S O Vfin = AgrSP? 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. P&W had to basically consider these “noise”. P&W had to basically consider these “noise”.

40. Truncation and null subjects As for null subjects: As for null subjects: If the tree is just a VP, the subject can be omitted in its base position—it’s still in the specifier of the root. If the tree is just a VP, the subject can be omitted in its base position—it’s still in the specifier of the root. If the tree is just a TP, the subject can be omitted from the normal subject position— note that this would be a finite verb with a null subject. If the tree is just a TP, the subject can be omitted from the normal subject position— note that this would be a finite verb with a null subject. If the tree is a CP and SpecCP is filled (like in a wh-question) we expect no null subjects. If the tree is a CP and SpecCP is filled (like in a wh-question) we expect no null subjects.

41. Null subject languages vs. root infinitives Italian seems to show no (or very very few) root infinitives. If this is maturation of “Root=CP” how could languages vary? Italian seems to show no (or very very few) root infinitives. If this is maturation of “Root=CP” how could languages vary? Rizzi suggests: Rizzi suggests: In English, V doesn’t move In English, V doesn’t move In French, tensed verbs move to AgrS (I), untensed verbs may move to AgrS In French, tensed verbs move to AgrS (I), untensed verbs may move to AgrS In Italian, all verbs move to AgrS In Italian, all verbs move to AgrS

42. Null subject languages vs. root infinitives The idea is that a verb in Italian needs to get to AgrS—it has a feature/property (parametric) that marks it as needing to get to AgrS in a grammatical sentence. Hence, the kid needs AgrS. The idea is that a verb in Italian needs to get to AgrS—it has a feature/property (parametric) that marks it as needing to get to AgrS in a grammatical sentence. Hence, the kid needs AgrS. English verbs have no such need, so the English kids have to rely on Root=CP to tell them to keep going. English verbs have no such need, so the English kids have to rely on Root=CP to tell them to keep going.

43. Null subject languages vs. root infinitives Rizzi and Wexler capture NS/OI similarly: Rizzi and Wexler capture NS/OI similarly: Wexler: AgrS does not “need” a subject in its specifier in Italian, so there is no competition between AgrS and T, and thus no need for root infinitives. AgrS and T are always both there. Wexler: AgrS does not “need” a subject in its specifier in Italian, so there is no competition between AgrS and T, and thus no need for root infinitives. AgrS and T are always both there. Rizzi: AgrS can never be omitted in Italian, because the verb needs AgrS to be there. Having AgrS implies T. AgrS and T are always both there. Rizzi: AgrS can never be omitted in Italian, because the verb needs AgrS to be there. Having AgrS implies T. AgrS and T are always both there.

44. Back to null subjects vs. ±Fin Bromberg & Wexler (1995) promote the idea that null subjects with finite verbs arise from a kind of “topic drop” (available to adults in special contexts). Bromberg & Wexler (1995) promote the idea that null subjects with finite verbs arise from a kind of “topic drop” (available to adults in special contexts). Proposal (Bromberg & Wexler) Topic-drop applies to Very Strong Topics Kids sometimes take (in reality) non-VS topics to be VS topics (a pragmatic error) Proposal (Bromberg & Wexler) Topic-drop applies to Very Strong Topics Kids sometimes take (in reality) non-VS topics to be VS topics (a pragmatic error)

45. Prediction about NS RI’s have two ways of licensing NSs: RI’s have two ways of licensing NSs: PRO (regular licensing of null subject) PRO (regular licensing of null subject) Topic drop Topic drop Finite verbs have one way to license a NS: Finite verbs have one way to license a NS: Topic drop Topic drop So: We expect more null subjects with root infinitives (which we in fact see). So: We expect more null subjects with root infinitives (which we in fact see). Cf. Rizzi: Subject in highest specifier can always be dropped, and RI’s also allow PRO. Same story, basically. Cf. Rizzi: Subject in highest specifier can always be dropped, and RI’s also allow PRO. Same story, basically.

46. Bromberg, Wexler, wh- questions, and null subjects If topic drop is something which drops a topic in SpecCP… If topic drop is something which drops a topic in SpecCP… …and if wh-words also move to SpecCP… …and if wh-words also move to SpecCP… …we would not expect null subjects with non-subject (e.g., where) wh-questions where the verb is finite (so PRO is not licensed). …we would not expect null subjects with non-subject (e.g., where) wh-questions where the verb is finite (so PRO is not licensed). Cf. Rizzi: Same prediction; if you have a CP, a subject in SpecTP won’t be in the highest specifier, so it can’t be dropped. One difference: Rizzi predicts no nonfinite wh-questions at all, hence no null subjects at all. Cf. Rizzi: Same prediction; if you have a CP, a subject in SpecTP won’t be in the highest specifier, so it can’t be dropped. One difference: Rizzi predicts no nonfinite wh-questions at all, hence no null subjects at all.

47. Bromberg, Wexler, wh- questions, and null subjects Finiteness of null/pronominal subjects, Adam’s wh- questions (Bromberg & Wexler 1995) FiniteNonfinite Null2118 Pronoun117131

48. *Truncation Rizzi’s “truncation” theory predicts: Rizzi’s “truncation” theory predicts: No wh-questions with root infinitives No wh-questions with root infinitives wh-question  CP, but wh-question  CP, but CP  IP, and CP  IP, and IP  finite verb IP  finite verb And of course we wouldn’t expect null subjects in wh-questions if null subjects are allowed (only) in the specifier of the root. And of course we wouldn’t expect null subjects in wh-questions if null subjects are allowed (only) in the specifier of the root.

49. *Truncation? Guasti points out that although Bromberg & Wexler did find null subjects in wh- questions in English, English is weird in this respect. Guasti points out that although Bromberg & Wexler did find null subjects in wh- questions in English, English is weird in this respect. Arguably, null subjects are precluded from wh-questions in most other languages. Arguably, null subjects are precluded from wh-questions in most other languages.

50. V2 and wh-null subjects… German and Dutch have extremely few root infinitives when there is anything in SpecCP. German and Dutch have extremely few root infinitives when there is anything in SpecCP. This does go with Rizzi’s prediction… This does go with Rizzi’s prediction… But they are V2 languages—finite verbs are what you find in C, and when SpecCP is filled, there must be something in C. Hence, Wexler’s prediction seems to be: But they are V2 languages—finite verbs are what you find in C, and when SpecCP is filled, there must be something in C. Hence, Wexler’s prediction seems to be: V2 language  no wh-question root infinitives V2 language  no wh-question root infinitives And this seems closer to accurate, given English. And this seems closer to accurate, given English.

51. V2 and wh-null subjects… And yet, Crisma’s (1992) findings and Hamann & Plunkett’s (1998) findings suggest that French (not V2) also shows almost no null subjects in wh-questions. And yet, Crisma’s (1992) findings and Hamann & Plunkett’s (1998) findings suggest that French (not V2) also shows almost no null subjects in wh-questions. So what’s different about English? So what’s different about English? French, Dutch, German basically never have null subjects in wh-questions. French, Dutch, German basically never have null subjects in wh-questions. English allows them readily. English allows them readily.

52. Adult null subjects (“diary drop”) Both Rizzi and Bromberg & Wexler appeal to properties of adult language to justify the child null subjects. Both Rizzi and Bromberg & Wexler appeal to properties of adult language to justify the child null subjects. B&W suggest that topic drop is available in English, but only for Very Strong topics, and what kids are doing wrong is identifying far too many things as VS topics. B&W suggest that topic drop is available in English, but only for Very Strong topics, and what kids are doing wrong is identifying far too many things as VS topics. Rizzi suggests that the ability to drop a subject in the highest specifier is available in certain registers (“diary drop”) (where presumably Root=CP is disregarded, or at least relaxed to allow Root=IP). Rizzi suggests that the ability to drop a subject in the highest specifier is available in certain registers (“diary drop”) (where presumably Root=CP is disregarded, or at least relaxed to allow Root=IP). Saw John today. Looked tired. Saw John today. Looked tired.

53. Hamann & Plunkett (1998) Finite null subjects. Hamann discussed this question: If null subjects are licensed by RIs, what should we say about the null subjects with finite verbs? W had previously said “topic drop”, but H showed that Danish kids’ use of null subjects with finite verbs correlated highly with the use of RIs in general. Finite null subjects. Hamann discussed this question: If null subjects are licensed by RIs, what should we say about the null subjects with finite verbs? W had previously said “topic drop”, but H showed that Danish kids’ use of null subjects with finite verbs correlated highly with the use of RIs in general. That’s a problem because “topic drop” according to B&W is due to kids mistaking what can be a VS topic, and should be independent of Tense/Agr. For truncation, though, the same basic mechanism is at work creating both finite null subjects and RIs. That’s a problem because “topic drop” according to B&W is due to kids mistaking what can be a VS topic, and should be independent of Tense/Agr. For truncation, though, the same basic mechanism is at work creating both finite null subjects and RIs.

54. 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.

55. Wexler (2000) Are there really lots of null subjects with finite verbs in Danish? Are there really lots of null subjects with finite verbs in Danish? Idea: køb-er looks like present tense finite, but it could be missing T (hence legitimately license NS). Idea: køb-er looks like present tense finite, but it could be missing T (hence legitimately license NS). [+Agr, +Tns] køb-er (present) (adult) [+Agr, +Tns] køb-er (present) (adult) [-Agr, +Tns] køb-e (infinitive) no NS allowed [-Agr, +Tns] køb-e (infinitive) no NS allowed [-Agr, -Tns] køb-e (infinitive) NS allowed [-Agr, -Tns] køb-e (infinitive) NS allowed [+Agr, -Tns] køb-er (“present”) NS allowed. [+Agr, -Tns] køb-er (“present”) NS allowed. Predicts: No NS’s with past tense verbs like køb-de (since unambiguously +Tns, which is the thing that prevents NS). True? Predicts: No NS’s with past tense verbs like køb-de (since unambiguously +Tns, which is the thing that prevents NS). True?

56. Hamann (2002) vs. Wexler Well, not really vanishingly small… Well, not really vanishingly small… Jens (20-34 mos.s) 14/42 (33%) NS past. Jens (20-34 mos.s) 14/42 (33%) NS past. Anne (18-30 mos.) 13/33 (39%) NS past. Anne (18-30 mos.) 13/33 (39%) NS past. Hamann herself prefers a truncation story to account for these; finite NS corresponds to truncating at TP. Hamann herself prefers a truncation story to account for these; finite NS corresponds to truncating at TP. Yet, don’t forget about Swahili, and the apparently visible effects of ATOM. Yet, don’t forget about Swahili, and the apparently visible effects of ATOM.

57. Interpretation and functional categories A basic premise of Hoekstra & Hyams (1998) is that tense is a means of connecting between the structural meaning and the discourse. Tense anchors a sentence in the discourse. A basic premise of Hoekstra & Hyams (1998) is that tense is a means of connecting between the structural meaning and the discourse. Tense anchors a sentence in the discourse. They propose that the relation between discourse (CP) and T must be signaled (to ground an utterance), and is signaled by different things in different languages. They propose that the relation between discourse (CP) and T must be signaled (to ground an utterance), and is signaled by different things in different languages. Dutch: number morphology  only these have RIs? Dutch: number morphology  only these have RIs? Japanese: tense morphology Japanese: tense morphology Italian, Spanish, Catalan: person morphology Italian, Spanish, Catalan: person morphology

58. Underspecification of number? H&H propose in light of this that what’s wrong with kids has to do with number specifically. OI languages are those where number is crucial in the finite inflection. H&H propose in light of this that what’s wrong with kids has to do with number specifically. OI languages are those where number is crucial in the finite inflection. H&H picked up on something about when these RIs seem to be used. It seemed that there are certain verbs that showed up in the nonfinite form, but others that didn’t. H&H picked up on something about when these RIs seem to be used. It seemed that there are certain verbs that showed up in the nonfinite form, but others that didn’t.

59. Eventivity Constraint In particular, it seems that RIs show up only with verbs referring to events —not with verbs referring to states, not with auxiliary verbs. Finite verbs seem to have no such restriction. Original research on Dutch on French, also Russian. In particular, it seems that RIs show up only with verbs referring to events —not with verbs referring to states, not with auxiliary verbs. Finite verbs seem to have no such restriction. Original research on Dutch on French, also Russian. Eventivity Constraint RIs are restricted to event-denoting predicates. Eventivity Constraint RIs are restricted to event-denoting predicates.

60. Modal Reference Effect The other thing is that RIs often have a “modal” meaning (can, will, must, want to..) (pretty dramatic in Dutch, German, French). The other thing is that RIs often have a “modal” meaning (can, will, must, want to..) (pretty dramatic in Dutch, German, French). Poeppel & Wexler (1993) did give a German example from Andreas that showed an RI with seemingly no modal meaning (Thorsten Ball haben); if H&H are right, this was “noise”. Poeppel & Wexler (1993) did give a German example from Andreas that showed an RI with seemingly no modal meaning (Thorsten Ball haben); if H&H are right, this was “noise”. Modal Reference Effect With overwhelming frequency, RIs have modal interpretations. Modal Reference Effect With overwhelming frequency, RIs have modal interpretations.

61. English = weird English doesn’t seem to conform to the pattern. Ud Deen (1997) found: English doesn’t seem to conform to the pattern. Ud Deen (1997) found: plenty of bare stative verbs (*EC) plenty of bare stative verbs (*EC) Man have it Man have it Ann need Mommy napkin Ann need Mommy napkin Papa want apple Papa want apple plenty of non-modal bare verbs (*MRE) plenty of non-modal bare verbs (*MRE) Dutch: 86% of RIs have modal meaning. Cf. 3%of finite forms. Dutch: 86% of RIs have modal meaning. Cf. 3%of finite forms. English: 13% of bare forms have modal meaning Cf, 12% of finite forms.. English: 13% of bare forms have modal meaning Cf, 12% of finite forms..

62. H&H’s hypothesis Number is an inflectional property both of the nominal and the verbal system. Number is an inflectional property both of the nominal and the verbal system. though it arises in the nominal system. though it arises in the nominal system. Missing determiners and RIs are both a symptom of “underspecified” Number. Missing determiners and RIs are both a symptom of “underspecified” Number. Spec-head agreement communicates number (under)specification to the verb. Spec-head agreement communicates number (under)specification to the verb.

63. H&H (1998) BUCLD Looked at Niek (CHILDES, Dutch). Looked at Niek (CHILDES, Dutch). They found that with “finite DPs”, the verb was pretty much always finite too. They found that with “finite DPs”, the verb was pretty much always finite too. They found that with “nonfinite DPs”, the verb was somewhat more likely to be nonfinite than with a finite DP, but still overwhelmingly favored finite DPs. They found that with “nonfinite DPs”, the verb was somewhat more likely to be nonfinite than with a finite DP, but still overwhelmingly favored finite DPs. Only null subjects didn’t overwhelmingly favor finite V. (NS 45% nonfinite). Only null subjects didn’t overwhelmingly favor finite V. (NS 45% nonfinite).

64. H&H (1998) BUCLD All things being equal, we might have expected a 1:1 correlation between finite DP subjects and finite V, if it were a matter of Spec-head agreement. We don’t have that. We have a one-directional relation. All things being equal, we might have expected a 1:1 correlation between finite DP subjects and finite V, if it were a matter of Spec-head agreement. We don’t have that. We have a one-directional relation. If DP is finite, V is finite. If DP is finite, V is finite. If V is nonfinite, DP is nonfinite. If V is nonfinite, DP is nonfinite.

65. H&H (1998) BUCLD In a sense, one setting “cares” about its partner in the Spec-Head relationship, and the other setting doesn’t. In a sense, one setting “cares” about its partner in the Spec-Head relationship, and the other setting doesn’t. Finite V seems not to care whether the subject is finite or not. Finite V seems not to care whether the subject is finite or not. Nonfinite V does seem to care, and requires a nonfinite subject. Nonfinite V does seem to care, and requires a nonfinite subject. More specifically, there is a “default”, and the “default” does not need to be licensed (and non- defaults do). More specifically, there is a “default”, and the “default” does not need to be licensed (and non- defaults do). This goes along with an assumption that either the syntax doesn’t make person distinctions if the morphology doesn’t, or that this part of “checking” is really about morphology. This goes along with an assumption that either the syntax doesn’t make person distinctions if the morphology doesn’t, or that this part of “checking” is really about morphology.

66. H&H (1998) BUCLD In Dutch, 3sg is default. In Dutch, 3sg is default. 1sg verb licensed only by a 1sg subject. 1sg verb licensed only by a 1sg subject. 3sg verb licensed by any old subject. 3sg verb licensed by any old subject. In English, 3sg is not the default. It’s the one marked form. In English, 3sg is not the default. It’s the one marked form. 3sg verb licensed only by a 3sg subject. 3sg verb licensed only by a 3sg subject. bare verb licensed by any old subject. bare verb licensed by any old subject.

67. Thus The doggie bark. The doggie bark. He bark He bark Doggie sit here. Doggie sit here. *Doggie barks. *Doggie barks. *Het hondje hier zitten. *Het hondje hier zitten. *He hier zitten. *He hier zitten. Hondje hier zitten. Hondje hier zitten. Hondje zit hier. Hondje zit hier.

68. cf. Schütze & Wexler “…the English bare form is ambiguous between an infinitive … and a finite form…” (H&H98:101) “…the English bare form is ambiguous between an infinitive … and a finite form…” (H&H98:101) Although stated in different terminology, and addressing a slightly different arena of facts, the basic concept is the same as that in S&W96. Although stated in different terminology, and addressing a slightly different arena of facts, the basic concept is the same as that in S&W96. [+T+A] -> finite (-s) [+T+A] -> finite (-s) [+T-A], [-T+A], [-T-A] -> “nonfinite” (stem) [+T-A], [-T+A], [-T-A] -> “nonfinite” (stem) but +A ones will have +A properties (e.g. NOM), even if just a stem form. Same for +T. but +A ones will have +A properties (e.g. NOM), even if just a stem form. Same for +T.

69. English bare form ≠ infinitive S&W and H&H agree that the English bare form isn’t strictly speaking (necessarily) the true infinitive. S&W and H&H agree that the English bare form isn’t strictly speaking (necessarily) the true infinitive.

70. H&H and interpretation Claim: RIs are interpreted as [-realized], the contribution of the infinitival morpheme itself. Claim: RIs are interpreted as [-realized], the contribution of the infinitival morpheme itself. Languages with an infinitival morpheme and actual RIs should show 100% modal ([-realized]) interpretation with RIs. Languages with an infinitival morpheme and actual RIs should show 100% modal ([-realized]) interpretation with RIs. English, with a Ø infinitival morpheme, obscures the correlation; in practice, we expect only some (the actually infinitive) bare forms to be modal. English, with a Ø infinitival morpheme, obscures the correlation; in practice, we expect only some (the actually infinitive) bare forms to be modal.

71. epistemic vs. deontic John must leave. John must leave. Deontic: About the way the world isn’t now but needs to be. Deontic: About the way the world isn’t now but needs to be. John must know French. John must know French. Epistemic: About our beliefs about the world. Epistemic: About our beliefs about the world. Seems to be a correlation between “eventivity” and modality type, in the adult language. Seems to be a correlation between “eventivity” and modality type, in the adult language.

72. Modality and kids In other circles of research, people have proposed that kids basically “don’t have” epistemic uses of modality (John must be a genius) before about 3 years old—for whatever reason. In other circles of research, people have proposed that kids basically “don’t have” epistemic uses of modality (John must be a genius) before about 3 years old—for whatever reason. If that’s true, there’s only deontic modality (John must go to class). If that’s true, there’s only deontic modality (John must go to class). If deontic modality only goes with eventive predicates, we’re done. Kids RIs are modal, necessarily deontic, hence necessarily with eventive verbs. If deontic modality only goes with eventive predicates, we’re done. Kids RIs are modal, necessarily deontic, hence necessarily with eventive verbs.

73. English must be different English bare forms are not (necessarily) infinitives, not necessarily modal, hence not necessarily deontic, eventive. English bare forms are not (necessarily) infinitives, not necessarily modal, hence not necessarily deontic, eventive. Hence, the EC and MRE appear not to hold of English, but for reasons we can now understand. Hence, the EC and MRE appear not to hold of English, but for reasons we can now understand.

74. A pause to regroup English bare form is unmarked, only -s is unambiguously +T+A. English bare form is unmarked, only -s is unambiguously +T+A. Do is a reflex of +T (and/or +A), and as expected, almost never in negative sentences was there a post-negation inflected verb (she doesn’t go vs. *she not goes). Do is a reflex of +T (and/or +A), and as expected, almost never in negative sentences was there a post-negation inflected verb (she doesn’t go vs. *she not goes). The actual infinitive morpheme in English is Ø, so we can’t differentiate bare forms between infinitives and other bare forms. The actual infinitive morpheme in English is Ø, so we can’t differentiate bare forms between infinitives and other bare forms. The infinitive morpheme seems to carry modal meaning—in languages where you can see it you can tell. Effectively RI only with eventives. The infinitive morpheme seems to carry modal meaning—in languages where you can see it you can tell. Effectively RI only with eventives.

75. A pause to regroup H&H propose that the languages which show OIs are those which rely (only) on number in their inflectional system. Those that don’t (Japanese [tense only], Italian [person]) seem to be immune. Hence, person is the special, possibly omitted thing for kids. H&H propose that the languages which show OIs are those which rely (only) on number in their inflectional system. Those that don’t (Japanese [tense only], Italian [person]) seem to be immune. Hence, person is the special, possibly omitted thing for kids. This isn’t really distinctly at odds with ATOM. Wexler suggests that the problem is with double- movement of the subject, but movement of the subject might itself be driven by person features in recent versions of the syntactic thy. This isn’t really distinctly at odds with ATOM. Wexler suggests that the problem is with double- movement of the subject, but movement of the subject might itself be driven by person features in recent versions of the syntactic thy.

76. A pause to regroup H&H observed a correlation between specified (“finite”) subjects and verbal form. H&H observed a correlation between specified (“finite”) subjects and verbal form. Specifically,”finite” subjects seem to “cause” finite verbs. Not obvious why this would be under ATOM directly, but it might be something like what H&H suggest—there is feature sharing between the subject and the AgrP. It might be interesting to see if “finite” subjects necessarily always show the reflex of AgrP and not necessarily of TP. Specifically,”finite” subjects seem to “cause” finite verbs. Not obvious why this would be under ATOM directly, but it might be something like what H&H suggest—there is feature sharing between the subject and the AgrP. It might be interesting to see if “finite” subjects necessarily always show the reflex of AgrP and not necessarily of TP.

77. 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.

78. 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”

79. 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.

80. 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.

81. 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.

82. 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.

83. 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.

84. 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)

85. 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

86. 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.

87. 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?

88. 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

89. 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.

90. 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.

91. 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.

92. 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.).

93. 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.

94. 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.

95. 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.

96. Proportion of non-present and non-3sg verbs

97. Proportion of non-finite root forms

98. 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

99. 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

100. 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

101. Predicted vs. observed— tense

102. Predicted vs. observed—agr’t

103. Predicted vs. observed— NRFs

104.                       