1. 1 Children’s sensitivity to listener’s knowledge Evidence from the use of morphosyntactic forms for referent introductions Margot Rozendaal & Anne Baker - University of Amsterdam SALC, November 30, 2007, Lund-Sweden

2. 2 *GER:He, he, maar vertel e(en)s even van die bibliotheek. ‘Well, tell me about the library’ *CHI:Eh zijn allemaal boekjes. ‘Uh, are all kinds of books’ *GER:Ja. ‘Yeah’ *CHI:En vv [/] van Flipper. ‘And about Flipper’ *GER:Ja. ‘Yeah’ *CHI: [/] toen ging de jongens slapen. ‘and then the boys went to sleep’ Dutch, Abel 3;3

3. Introduction3 Reference A speaker uses a linguistic expression to refer to / identify an entity. Combining morphosyntax and pragmatics Pragmatics is linked to cognition  listener’s perspective / Theory of Mind (ToM) ToM influences choice of morphosyntactic forms for referent introductions

4. Introduction4 ToM in referent introductions Influence of perspective of the listener: Mutual knowledge (MK) / no mutual knowledge (NMK)  MK: Shared knowledge / world knowledge/ inference / uniqueness Within MK….Physical presence (exophoric) / absence (endophoric)  EXP: here-and-now/ joint attention / directing attention / deixis Relation to morphosyntactic forms, focus on:  indefinite vs definite determiners  pronoun vs noun vs proper name Clark & Marshall (1981)

5. Introduction5 Correct forms for introductions NMKMK Indefinite determiner < indefinite + definite/demonstrative determiner END EXP Noun/proper names<Noun/proper name + Pronoun NMK: I have drawn a cat at school. MK-END:The teacher said it looks a bit like a tiger!! MK-EXP:A: What’s that? B: It’s another cat I drew at school!

6. Introduction6 Incorrect forms for introductions NMK: *Definite/demonstrative det. (see example 1st slide) END : *Pronoun *CHI:Où *elle est? ‘Where is she?’ *INV:Qui ça. Qu'est ce que tu cherches? ‘What. What are you looking for?’ *INV:Qu'est ce que tu cherches Grégoire ? What are you looking for Grégoire? French, Grégoire 2;0

7. Introduction7 Referent introduction: acquisition (1) Children faced with the following tasks: 1.Acquisition of morphosyntactic forms… –Determiners: before or around 2;0 –Pronouns: demonstratives before 2;0, other forms follow around 2;0 or little later. 2.Acquisition of ToM… –New / given to other: 12-18 months –Visible or not visible to other: 18 months –Full ToM: from 4-years or later Tomasello & Harberl (2003); Brooks & Tomasello (2002); Ruffman & Perner (2005)

8. Introduction8 Referent introduction: acquisition (2) 3.Combining morphosyntax with ToM.. –MK/NMK: Late acquisition of appropriate use of indefinites in NMK in narratives from pictures (over 6;0). But… better performance in spontaneous speech. –EXP/END: incorrect use of pronouns in END by two year olds But… better performance by three year-olds… Kail & Hickmann 1992; Roelofs, 1998; Matthews et al, 2006

9. Research Questions9 Questions 1.Do young children acquiring Dutch, English or French show sensitivity to ToM (perspective of the listener) reflected in their use of indefinite determiners, definite determiners and pronouns? 2.What is the influence of the language the children hear around them on the acquisition of ToM in linguistic reference? 3.Do these young children show the same levels of sensitivity to ToM in determiner use as compared to pronoun use?

10. Research Questions10 Influence of input in acquisition Input-driven model of language acquisition Speed of development is influenced by cue strength: -Frequency of form-function association -Reliability / consistency of form-function association Bates & MacWhinney, 1989; Tomasello, 2003

11. Method11 Data Spontaneous speech: Dutch (n=3) English (n=3), French (n=4) MLU within normal range Analysis from 2;0-3;3 every three months, age points combined to 2;0-2;6 and 2;9-3;3 here Input addressed to child analyzed at 2;3 and 3;3 Interrater-reliability pragmatic coding: 81%

12. Method12 Analysis Introductions of persons and objects to discourse coded for: Morphosyntactic form MK/NMK  MK determined on basis of: -General / world knowledge (the sun) -Shared knowledge (the teacher at school) -Inclusiveness (the wheels of a car) -Physically present in context Physical presence /absence  Physical presence determined on basis of: -Extra-linguistic descriptions in transcript -Reaction of interlocutor

13. Results13 Occurrence of NMK-introductions Input: less than 1% of all references Child data: around 3% of all references Children hardly receive any evidence on how to use determiners for NMK in introducing referents. NMK: indefinite correct & definite/ demonstrative incorrect MK : indefinite/ definite/demonstrative correct

14. Results14 MK / NMK: English English input: infrequent, no cue English children: growing sensitivity for NMK in use of (indefinite) determiners Adult level: at 3;3 still errors in using definite for NMK N=1

15. Results15 Correct: indefinite for NMK *INV:You have a hole in your sock? *CHI:Yeah. *CHI:I fell down and make the hole. *INV:Oh. *CHI:And there was a stick there and broke it really hard and it make the hole. English, Peter 3;3

16. Results16 MK / NMK: French French children: sensitivity to MK/NMK developing as in English N=1

17. Results17 MK / NMK: Dutch Dutch children: slower development of determiner use in general no sensitivity yet for MK/NMK in use of determiners at 2;9-3;3 N=2 n.s.!

18. Results18 Summary MK/NMK Dutch children: –no difference in determiner use over MK/NMK at 2;9-3;3 –Sensitivity not yet apparent English and French children: –Sensitivity developing at 2;9-3;3 –But…French children produce more determiners in general and therefore make more mistakes

19. Results19 Occurrence of EXP/END Input: 3% of all references Child data: 6% of all references Children do not receive many evidence on how to use introduce referents outside the here-and-now to discourse EXP: noun / proper name / pronouns correct END: noun / proper name correct & pronoun incorrect

20. Results20 EXP / END: English Input: infrequent (3%), but form-function association consistent (no pronoun) Children: from 2;0-2;6 distinction between exp vs. end in use of forms. Adult level: restriction on use of pronouns in intro outside here-and-now from 2;0-2;6

21. Results21 EXP/END: French and Dutch No difference in acquisition of category pronouns as a whole between languages. Results for use in EXP/END are similar to the English results: –Hardly any pronouns for endophoric introductions in input. –From 2;0-2;6, the children are at adult level hardly use pronouns in endophoric introductions in both languages.

22. Discussion22 Discussion (1) Children’s sensitivity to ToM (listener’s perspective) in referent introductions: Indefinite vs. definite determiner (MK/NMK) –Infrequent in input (no cue) –Developing until after 3;3 Pronouns vs. nouns vs. proper names (EXP/END) –Infrequent in input, but consistent –Appears to be present by 2;0

23. Discussion23 Relationship to cues in input: MK/NMK: Infrequent, no evidence  acquired late EXP/END: Infrequent but consistent  appears to be acquired earlier…..  It may be the case that children use pronouns in deictic situations only:  Evidence: child uses pronoun only when she can see the referent herself  For example: use of pronouns in the data if there is (apparently) no joint attention Discussion (2)

24. Discussion24 Incorrect: pronoun-no joint attention *CHI:Ah, valt. ‘Oh, falling’ *CHI:Dit. ‘This’ *GER:Wat valt? ‘What’s falling?’ *GER:Oh, die kleine. ‘Oh, the little one’ Cp. Results Matthews et al 2006, Küntay & Özyürek 2006 Dutch, Abel, 2;6

25. Discussion25 Conclusions Sensitivity to ToM ( listener’s perspective) in language use needs some time to develop even in spontaneous speech. This sensitivity is acquired on a form-by form basis: –There are different paths for determiners and pronouns –In the use of pronouns, deixis seems to be the basis for differential use. Earlier acquisition of the form might lead to earlier sensitivity (Dutch cp, to English and French): –But.. also phase in which earlier acquisition of determiners leads to more errors Input is clearly important in the acquisition of sensitivity for MK/NMK and EXP/END cue frequency and cue consistency

26. 26 More information Contact: m.i.rozendaal@uva.nl http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/m.i.rozendaal/

27. 27 Literature (1) Brooks, R. & Meltzoff, A.N. (2002). The importance of eyes: How infants interpret adult looking behavior. Developmental Psychology 38, 958-66. Küntay, A.C. & Özyürek, A. (2006). Learning to use demonstratives in conversation: what do language specific strategies from Turkish reveal? Journal of Child Language 33, 303-320. Kail, M. & Hickmann, M. (1992). French children’s ability to introduce referents in narratives as a function of mutual knowledge. First Language 12, 73-94. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, N.J.,Lawrence Erlbaum.

28. 28 Literature (2) MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for Analyzing Talk. Hillsdale, N.J.,Lawrence Erlbaum. Matthews, D., Lieven, E., Theakston, A. & Tomasello, M. (2006). The effect of perceptual availability and prior discourse on young children's use of referring expressions. Applied Psycholinguistics 27, 403-22 Roelofs, M. (1998). Hoe bedoel je? De verwerving van pragmatische vaardigheden. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Amsterdam. Utrecht: LOT. Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, M.A.: Harvard University Press. Tomasello, M. & Haberl, K. (2003). Understanding attention: 12- and 18-month-olds know what is new for other persons. Developmental-Psychology. 39, 906-12.

29. 29 EXP / END: French

30. 30 EXP / END: Dutch