1. How we know what they know

2. Where are we … Coming attraction: experiments, results, etc. But: these need to be placed in perspective, to see what is needed to understand child language learning We want to understand what inferences children must make in order to arrive at mature language state – Evidence from cross-language typology – Evidence from observations/guesses about learner’s experience – Evidence from stages of child development – do children ‘overgenerate’ or ‘undergenerate’

3. Asking children about grammar Stephen Crain, Macquarie U, Sydney You can’t ask a child: “What interpretations do you accept for …?” “Some animal ate every piece of food” OR “He thinks that John is the winner” Clever strategies can be used Simple/indirect dependent measures carry risks

4. Crain & Thornton, 1998

5. Truth Value Judgment Task “I know what happened in this story…”

6. Principle C a. While John was reading the book, he ate an apple b. While he was reading the book, John ate an apple c. John ate an apple while he was reading the book d. *He ate an apple while John was reading the book

7. Truth Value Judgment Task Principle C in children: English - Crain & McKee (1985) Russian - Kazanina & Phillips (2001), etc.

8. “Hello, Eeyore! I see that you’re reading a book.”

9. “What a fine-looking apple.”

10. “No, Pooh. You can’t eat the apple - that’s my apple.”

11. “Ok, I’ll have to eat a banana instead.”

12. “Ok, Pooh. I’ve finished reading. Now you can read the book.”

13. “Great. Now that Pooh is reading the book, I can eat this delicious apple.”

14. “I shouldn’t be such a greedy donkey - I should let Pooh eat the apple.”

15. “I suppose I have to eat a banana instead.”

16. “Here you are, Pooh. You can have the apple.”

17. “Oh, I’m such a lucky bear! I can read the book, and I can eat the apple, at the same time.”

18. Apple is eaten up.

19. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... While Pooh was reading the book, he ate the apple.

20. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... While he was reading the book, Pooh ate the apple.

21. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... Pooh ate the apple while he was reading the book.

22. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

23. How 3-4 Year Olds Perform a. While Pooh was reading the book, he ate an apple b. While he was reading the book, Pooh ate an apple c. Pooh ate an apple while he was reading the book d. *He ate an apple while Pooh was reading the book yes! no! Works for English, Italian, Russian etc.

25. How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

26. How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

27. How the Task Works Child is not being judged – child understands that (s)he is helping the experimenter to test a puppet (e.g. Kermit) – child does not feel that (s)he is being tested, and so feels under less pressure – child’s response is very simple yes/no – the simplicity of the dependent measure is both a strength and a danger

28. How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

29. How the Task Works Identical story for all test sentences – only difference is in the final sentence that Kermit utters – if children respond differently to the different test sentences, this can’t be due to any differences in the stories

30. How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

31. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

32. How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

33. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

34. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

35. How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

36. Making “no” answers possible He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

37. Plausible Denial He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. TRUE - but ungrammatical He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. Grammatical - but FALSE clearly FALSE, since it almost happened, but then didn’t Eeyore

38. “Great. Now that Pooh is reading the book, I can eat this delicious apple.”

39. “I shouldn’t be such a greedy donkey - I should let Pooh eat the apple.”

40. “I suppose I have to eat a banana instead.”

41. Takuya Goro, UMd 2002-7, Asst. Prof. Ibaraki U., Japan Tests of interpretations that involve uncertainty I.Japanese disjunction II.Scope flexibility (we saw this already)

42. English vs. Japanese (1) (1)John speaks Icelandic or Swahili. (but I’m not sure which language he can actually speak…) (2)John-wa Icelandic ka Swahili-wo hanas-u. John-TOP or -ACC speak-pres. (but I’m not sure which language he can actually speak…)  The interpretations of disjunctions are more or less same in both languages.

43. English vs. Japanese (2) (3)John doesn’t speak Icelandic or Swahili.  John doesn’t speak Icelandic AND he doesn’t speak Swahili. (4)John-wa Icelandic ka Swahili-wo hanasa-na-i John-TOP or -ACC speak-neg-pres.  John doesn’t speak Icelandic OR he doesn’t speak Swahili. (I know it is either one of those languages that John cannot speak, but I’m not sure which one…)

44. ‘Neither’ interpretation in Japanese (5)John-wa Icelandic mo Swahili mo hanas-u. John-TOP also also speak-pres. “John speaks both Icelandic and Swahili” (6)John-wa Icelandic mo Swahili mo hanase-na-i John-TOP also also speak-neg-pres.  John speaks neither Icelandic nor Swahili.

45. Disjunction and parameter Let’s say that UG provides the universal disjunction operator OR, associated with a parameter={+PPI, -PPI} OR(+PPI)  disjunctions in Japanese / Hungarian / Russian / Italian… OR(-PPI)  disjunctions in English / German / Korean… (cf. Szabolcsi 2002)

46. Question about children Can Japanese children accept the wide-scope reading of ka in (4)? (4)John-wa Icelandic ka Swahili-wo hanasa-na-i John-TOP or -ACC speak-neg-pres.  Can they accept (4) in the situation where John cannot speak Icelandic but he can speak Swahili? If they have the –PPI setting, they should say “No”

47. Experimental conditions and the felicity of test sentences (4)John-wa Icelandic ka Swahili-wo hanasa-na-i John-TOP or -ACC speak-neg-pres. Situation: John cannot speak Icelandic but he can speak Swahili Experimental context should make the sentence perfectly felicitous under  A  B (adult) interpretation; otherwise, children’s negative responses may not be counted as evidence for children’s conjunctive interpretation of ka.

48. Felicity conditions for  A  B The speaker knows that something with affirmative expectation turned out to be false.  otherwise, he wouldn’t use negation. The speaker knows that it is either A or B (but not both) that is false.  otherwise, he would say  A  B. The speaker doesn’t know which one is false.  otherwise, he would simply say  A, or  B.

49. Creating Uncertainty Two sub-sessions (1) The “eating-game” 12 animals try to eat 3 kinds of food. Depending of how good they did, they get a particular kind of medal as a prize. (2)Truth Value Judgment Kermit guesses how good each animal did on the basis of the medal the animal has.

50. Participants Japanese monolingual children in Sumire kindergarden, Totsuka, Yokohama. N=30, Age: 3;7-6;3, Mean: 5;3

51. Experimenter: Look at this! There are animals going to play an “eating- game”!!

52. Experimenter: Here’s a piece of cake, a green pepper, and a carrot. All animals love cakes, but they don’t like vegetables. So here’s the rule: if one eats not only the cake but also the vegetables, he’ll get a better prize.

53. Experimenter: For example, if one eats the cake, and the pepper, and also the carrot…then he’ll get a shining gold medal!

54. Experimenter: If one eats the cake, and either one of the vegetables, but not both…then he’ll get a blue medal.

55. Experimenter: If one eats only the cake, but none of the vegetables, then he’ll get a cross…

56. Experimenter: Now, here comes a pig. He will play the game.

57. Experimenter: The pig first picked up the cake. Yes, he loves cakes and of course he ate it!

58. Experimenter: Then he picked up the pepper. He doesn’t like peppers…but he managed to eat it up!

59. Experimenter: Then he picked up the carrot…Oh no, he couldn’t eat the carrot!

60. Experimenter: So, the pig ate the cake, and he ate the pepper, but he didn’t eat the carrot. Which prize will he get?

61. Experimenter: Yes, a blue medal!

62. Experimenter: Now here comes another animal… (the “eating-game” goes on until all the 12 animals finish their trials. Every animal eats the cake. 4 of them eat both vegetables, other 4 eat either one of them, and other 4 eat neither)

63. (After the “game” phase, we move back to the first animal, the pig) Kermit: Ok, now I’m going to guess how well those animals did with this game. Umm, the pig … I don’t remember what he ate … oh, but, he has a blue medal!

64. Kermit: Now I know what happened. The pig ate the cake, but, he didn’t eat the pepper ka the carrot! (the test sentence)

65. Experimenter: Was Kermit correct? (And the truth-value judgments go on…)

66. Felicity of the test sentence Kermit knows that something with affirmative expectation turned out to be false, because it is not a gold medal that the pig has. Kermit knows that it is either A or B (but not both) that is false, because it is not a cross that the pig has. Kermit doesn’t know which one is false, because he cannot see which food is left. Adult group (Age 29-32, N=10) accepted the sentence 100% of the time (20/20).

67. Result (1): the wide-scope reading of “A ka B” “he didn’t eat the carrot ka the pepper” for an animal with a blue medal The sentence is true under adult Japanese interpretation, but false under the narrow-scope, conjunctive interpretation of ka. The acceptance rate is 25% (15/60) 4 kids were adultlike: 4;11, 5;5, 5;10, 6;2. If we exclude them from the count, then the acceptance rate is 13.46% (7/52)

68. Further support: narrow-scope ka “he didn’t eat the carrot ka the pepper” for an animal with a cross The sentence is true under the narrow-scope, conjunctive interpretation of ka. The acceptance rate is 78.33% (47/60) The result makes a lot of sense given that children accepted the wide- scope ka 25% of the time.

69. Result (2): children’s performance on “A mo B mo” “he didn’t eat the carrot mo the pepper mo”  He didn’t eat the carrot or the pepper for an animal with a cross (true under adult interpretation)  95% acceptance (57/60) for an animal with a blue medal (false under adult interpretation)  95% rejection (57/60) Children did very well with A mo B mo.

70. The ideal control item: nanika nani - ka  “something” what nani - mo  “anything” John-wa nanika tabe-nakat-ta John-TOP something eat-neg-past  There is something that John didn’t eat John-wa nanimo tabe-nakat-ta John-TOP anything eat-neg-past  John didn’t eat anything

71. The control experiment Subjects: N=30, Age: 3;7-6;3, Mean: 5;4 A ka B is replaced with nanika; A mo B mo is replaced with nanimo Food: 3 different vegetables, and 4 animals don’t eat anything  get a cross All the other details are the same with the previous experiment.

72. Result (1): the wide-scope reading of nanika “he didn’t eat nanika” for an animal with a blue medal The sentence is true under adult Japanese interpretation, but false under the narrow-scope interpretation of nanika. The acceptance rate is 88.33% (53/60) They can access the wide-scope interpretation!

73. Result (2): children’s performance with nanimo “he didn’t eat nanimo”  He didn’t eat anything for an animal with a cross (true under adult interpretation)  100% acceptance (60/60) for an animal with a blue medal (false under adult interpretation)  85% rejection (51/60) Children did fairly good with nanimo.

74. Why all the fuss about pronouns? Children (age < 6) appear to allow non-adultlike interpretations for: – Big Bird washed him. At least 30 papers on the ‘Delay of Principle B Effect’ (DPBE), and still counting …

75. Mama Bear i touched her i. Forwards Anaphora: Principle B (Chien & Wexler 1990) From sample of 30 studies… Jakubowicz 198430% Kaufman 198816% Lombardi & Sarma 198955% Grimshaw & Rosen 199038% Chien & Wexler 199050% McKee 199282% McDaniel & Maxfield 199238% Avrutin & Wexler 1994 (Rus.)52% Hestvik & Philip 1996 (Norw.)10% Matsuoka 199770% Savarese 199931% Thornton & Wexler 199958% Varlokosta 2001 (Greek)13% Kiguchi & Thornton 200427% etc. From sample of 30 studies… Jakubowicz 198430% Kaufman 198816% Lombardi & Sarma 198955% Grimshaw & Rosen 199038% Chien & Wexler 199050% McKee 199282% McDaniel & Maxfield 199238% Avrutin & Wexler 1994 (Rus.)52% Hestvik & Philip 1996 (Norw.)10% Matsuoka 199770% Savarese 199931% Thornton & Wexler 199958% Varlokosta 2001 (Greek)13% Kiguchi & Thornton 200427% etc.

76. Mama Bear i touched her i. Forwards Anaphora: Principle B Every bear i touched her i. (Chien & Wexler, 1990) Failure Success

77. Noam Chomsky Tanya Reinhart

78. The scope of binding constraints Bill loves his mother-in-law. Bill loves his mother-in-law, and Tom does too. Every linguist loves his mother-in-law, and every philosopher does too. The people who work for him love Bill. The people who work for him love every department chair. The people who work for Bill love him, and the people who work for Tom do too.

79. The scope of binding constraints Reinhart (1983 et seq.): binding constraints apply to bound variable interpretations only I know what Mary, Sue, and Bill have in common. Mary likes him, Sue likes him, and Bill likes him too. Every student washed him. John washed him.

80. Mama Bear i touched her i. Forwards Anaphora: Principle B Every bear i touched her i. (Chien & Wexler, 1990) Failure Success

81. Thornton & Wexler 1999 58% 8%

82. Paul Elbourne, Queen Margaret, U. London Elbourne 2005, Linguistic Inquiry

83. Grumpy painted him. Every dwarf painted him. G. painted himself G. painted somebody else Every d. painted himself Every d. painted somebody else Availability Are the referents sufficiently prominent? Disputability Are the propositions under consideration?

84. The Painting Story

85. These are dwarves Happy DopeyGrumpy

86. These are smurfs Papa Smurf Tennis SmurfHiking Smurf

87. Snow White is having a party! And she’s having a painting contest. I’m going to be the judge!

88. I have my blue paint I have my green paint I have my black paint

89. I have my red paint

90. What can I do? I don’t have any paint Maybe others will share!

91. Happy - can you paint me? Well … if I have some extra paint

92. Thanks! I do have some extra… There you go!

93. But I think I need more paint!

94. Dopey! Can you paint me? Let me get painted first…

95. Thanks! OK, there you go …

96. I’m so grumpy. I don’t even want to go to the party… Do you think I should get painted?

97. OK … OK … I’ll do it.

98. By the way … I really want to impress Snow White

99. Grumpy! Can you paint me? I used up all my paint. I don’t have any more. Sorry!

100. What can I do!

101. I have some paint.

102. I can paint you! Thanks!

103. Now we are all painted!

104. Wow, this was a story about painting. Hiking Smurf didn’t have any paint, and Grumpy almost didn’t go to the party. I think Grumpy painted him. Anaphoric interpretation: true Deictic interpretation: false

105. Wow, this was a story about painting. Hiking Smurf didn’t have any paint, and all the dwarves looked great. I think every dwarf painted him. Anaphoric interpretation: true Deictic interpretation: false

106. AnaphoricDeictic

107. I think Grumpy painted him. 14% ‘yes’ I think every dwarf painted him. 11% ‘yes’ Anaphoric interpretation: true Deictic interpretation: false I think Grumpy painted his body. 73% ‘yes’ I think every dwarf painted his body. 80% ‘yes’

108. 56% 16%

112. McKee 1992 A sample story from this study involves a princess and a cabbage patch baby. The princess falls into a tub and gets wet. The cabbage patch baby says ‘You’re wet’ and then leaves, after which the princess dries herself. After the story children were asked to judge the target sentence The princess dried her. Although there is a possible deictic interpretation of the pronoun in this sentence that makes the sentence false, the story does little to make that interpretation accessible. The only washing event that is ever considered in the story is the princess washing herself. 82% illicit interpretations But Italian children did great – 15% acceptance

113. Other coreference constraints Principle A – *John thinks Mary washed himself. – Children do quite well (cf. Zukowski & McKeown 2008, inter alia), though expt record isn’t as clean as is sometimes reported Principle C – *He thinks the Troll is the best jumper. – *He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. – While he ate the apple Pooh read the book. – Fairly clear set of findings, i.e., it’s surprising when people report failure – Some early studies by Barbara Lust & colleagues suggested children were more restrictive, disallowing backwards anaphora in general … but picture later clarified

114. Adult Interpretation of Backwards Anaphora Kazanina, Lau, Lieberman, Yoshida, & Phillips (2007, J. Mem. Lang.) Ellen Lau Maryland Nina Kazanina U. of Bristol, UK

115. Immediate Constraint Application While she was taking classes full-time, Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she was taking classes full-time, Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she … Jessica … Russell … Self-Paced Reading, Gender Mismatch Paradigm (Kazanina et al., 2007)

116. Immediate Constraint Application While she was taking classes full-time, Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she was taking classes full-time, Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills. She was taking classes full-time while Jessica was working two jobs to pay the bills. She was taking classes full-time while Russell was working two jobs to pay the bills. While she … She … Jessica … Russell … while Jessica … while Russell … Self-Paced Reading, Gender Mismatch Paradigm (Kazanina et al., 2007)

117. Results GME at the 2 nd NP in non-PrC pair while Jessica Russell (Kazanina et al., 2007)

118. Results GME at the 2 nd NP in non-PrC pair NO GME at the 2 nd NP in PrC pair Condition C – immediate while Jessica Russell (Kazanina et al., 2007)

119. Interim Conclusion Gender mismatch effect reflects search for antecedent for a pronoun – No constraint conditions: gender mismatch implies expectation for antecedent in main clause subject position – Principle C conditions: absence of gender mismatch implies no expectation for antecedent – Therefore: Principle C applies immediately Possible confound… – While she was in New York …Main subject predictable – She was in New York …Embedded subject unpredictable – Contrast between conditions may reflect predictability, and not Principle C

120. Separating predictability from binding constraints…

121. No constraint It seemed worrisome to his family … Principle C It seemed worrisome to him … I. Extra clause equally predicted at pronoun

122. No constraint It seemed worrisome to his family that John/Ruth … Principle C It seemed worrisome to him that John/Ruth … I. Extra clause equally predicted at pronoun

123. No constraint It seemed worrisome to his family that John/Ruth was gaining so much weight, but Ruth thought it was just a result of aging. Principle C It seemed worrisome to him that John/Ruth was gaining so much weight, but Matt didn't have the nerve to comment on it. I. Extra clause equally predicted at pronoun

124. No constraint It seemed worrisome to his family that John/Ruth was gaining so much weight, but Ruth thought it was just a result of aging. Principle C It seemed worrisome to him that John/Ruth was gaining so much weight, but Matt didn't have the nerve to comment on it.

125. No constraint His/Her managers chatted … Principle C He/She chatted … II. Extra clause equally unpredictable at pronoun

126. No constraint His/Her managers chatted amiably with some fans while the talented, young quarterback … Principle C He/She chatted amiably with some fans while the talented, young quarterback … II. Extra clause equally unpredictable at pronoun

127. No constraint His/Her managers chatted amiably with some fans while the talented, young quarterback signed autographs for the kids, but Carol wished the children's charity event would end soon so she could go home. Principle C He/She chatted amiably with some fans while the talented, young quarterback signed autographs for the kids, but Steve wished the children's charity event would end soon so he could go home. II. Extra clause equally unpredictable at pronoun

128. No constraint His/Her managers chatted amiably with some fans while the talented, young quarterback signed autographs for the kids, but Carol wished the children's charity event would end soon so she could go home. Principle C He/She chatted amiably with some fans while the talented, young quarterback signed autographs for the kids, but Steve wished the children's charity event would end soon so he could go home. F1(1,55) = 18.4, p <.001 F2(1,23) = 14.0, p <.01 All Fs < 1, n.s.