1. Michael Tomasello Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig, Germany Where Does Grammar Come From? [in ontogeny]

2. Phylogeny (species) History (cultural group) Ontogeny (individual)

3. UG ACCOUNT Learning of periphery Innate UG core: linking U-B ACCOUNT All is learned (cognitively!) Dual Inheritance: (i) constructions (ii) general cognitive & learning processes Dual Process Single Process; Not Connectionism

4. Andrew Radford on UG Approach

5. Culture: Utterances Biology: Cognitive & Learning Skills [Intention-reading & Pattern-finding] Patterns of Language Use: = CONSTRUCTIONS Language-specific categories and constructions, with universals based on universal processes of cognition and communication >

6. “Grammar”

7. location object/theme Joint Attentional Frame and Semantic Roles

8. t I A x 3 WOW! Moll et al. (2008) Infancy. Common Ground: Referent

9. Kids Choose “Shared” One But NOT when they experience it with another adult (3x) - not own interest But NOT when then onlook as adult gets excited (3x) by herself - not adult interest It’s the one “we” shared in a special way!

10. Common Ground: Referent Moll et al. (2006) Cognition & Development. One we haven’t shared!

11. Summary Semantics: events + roles Pragmatics: given + new Syntax: distribution + analogy Form: imitative (vocal) learning

12. 5/ 20% 9/ 38% 20/ 67% 6/ 53% 8/ 77% 4/38% Mother’s Item-Based Speech to Children Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, & Tomasello (2004) Cognitive Science 51% from 52 frames 45% start w/ one of 17 words

13. Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, & Tomasello (2004) What’s.18Where’s.05 What’re.09Where’re.02 What do.05Where shall.01 What did.04 What has.03Who’s.08 What about.03Who did.01 What shall.02 What can.02Which one.02 What does.02 What hppnd.01Why don’t.01 What were.01 What kind of.01How many.01 31 frames => 80% of Wh Qs 13 frames => 65% of Wh Qs

14. __falldown__kick give__ __! __ runningBroken Verb Islands at 2 Years of Age Throw__ not agent but “kicker” Tomasello (1992) First Verbs

15. English children’s understanding of transitive word order is verb-specific until age 2.5 - 3.0 1.Spontaneous Speech (+diary) 2.Production Experiments (nonce verbs) 3.Weird Word Order Studies(nonce verbs) 4.Comprehension Experiments (nonce verbs) 5.Priming Studies (English verbs) Gerntner & Fisher (2006) Preferential Looking? Dittmar et al. (2008) Tomasello (2000; 2003)

16. Brooks & Tomasello Developmental Psychology (1999) Adult Model Always Passive: It’s being tammed by the horsie. It‘s being tammed. Active Biasing Question: What‘s the horsie doing (to it)? [encouraging: He‘s tamming it] Results 12 out of 48 three-year-old children (25%) produced a transitive SVO utterance

17. . German. Japanese. Hebrew. Japanese [Matsui et al.] [Wittek] % children “Wug” type Studies of Syntax (Tomasello, Cognition, 2000)

18. Cues in Construction Learning Vary: Frequency : Cue Availability Consistency : Cue Reliability Complexity: Cue Cost And sometimes cues compete! Cue Strength

19. Dittmar, Lieven, & Tomasello (in press) Child Development  Point to Picture Comprehension  Competition Model w/ Novel Verbs Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger. Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege. Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger. German Transitives Word Order vs. Case animacy & agreement controlled

20. German children’s correct interpretation of transitive sentences with novel verbs. Dittmar et al. (in press) Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger. Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege. Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger.

21. Conflict Condition Den Hund wieft der Tiger. Dittmar et al. (in press)

22. German Child-Directed Transitive Sentences Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger. Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger. Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege. * * Only 1% had no personal pronoun or animacy cue. Dittmar et al. (in press) 68% 11% 21%

23. for der = 21% Why case so slow when higher cue strength than word order?

24. Polish: Dabrowska & Tomasello (in press) J. Child Language  Elicited Production  Novel Verb Modeled w/ NP-nom VERB NP-masc instr.  Elicited: same verb w/ feminine noun as object Polish: case marking on nouns - diff for diff genders Question: do they know all instrumentals “same”?

26. Dabrowska et al. (in press)

27. 1. S-COMPLEMENTS Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2001) Subjects:Adam, Eve, Sarah, Naomi, Peter, Nina - 1 to 5 years Complex Ss:2807 tokens Examples from Sarah:Examples from Nina: I think he’s goneSee that monkey crying I think it’s in hereSee Becca sleeping I think my daddy took itSee that go I think I saw oneSee my hands are washed it’s a crazy bone, I thinkSee he bites me I think dis is de bowlSee him lie down

28. % Subjects in Complex Ss 1-P2-P3-PLexImp Guess100-------- Bet100-------- Mean5248------ Know36550504-- Think851302---- Wish97----03-- Hope8812------ See070101--91 Look--------100 Watch----11--89 Remember66----88 - Virtually no complementizers - Virtually no non-present tenses - Virtually no modals or negations Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2001)

29. 2. RELATIVE CLAUSES Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2000) - Subjects: 4 CHILDES children from 1;9 to 5;1 - Total of 324 relative clauses Here’s the toy that goes around. That’s the sugar that fell out. There’s the ball I bought This’s the bird that sings. That’s the one that goes moo. Here’s the boy that ran into the water.

30. EarliestAll NP ONLY: “The girl that came with us”.05.19 PRESENTATIONALS “This is the car that turns around”.75.47 OBLIQUES “I’m going to the zoo that has snakes”0.06 OBJECT “She has a bathtub that goes with it”.20*.26 SUBJECT “The one that not finished is up there”0.01 * 50% of these = “Look at all the chairs Peter’s got” Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2000)

31. Ambridge, Rowland, Theakston, Tomasello (submitted) Adult: Ask her why the dog is sleeping. Child: Why is the dog sleeping? Adult: Ask her where the pig can swim. Child: Where can the pig swim? 4 year olds MAIN RESULT: different number errors for: different wh- words different auxiliaries ‘same’ auxiliary w/ diff number (e.g., do & does) 3. Wh- Questions

32. “Jill is easy to see” 4. Tough Movement [Fabian-Kraus & Ammon (1980] find100 catch 93 save 69 draw 53 watch 33 hear 25 % correct in comprehension 4/5 year olds

33. Mommy, can you stay this open? I come closer so it won‘t fall. Don‘t giggle me. She came it over there. I want to stay this rubber band on. Eva won‘t stay things where I want them to be. You cried her. Will you climb me up there? „Kannst Du mich hochklettern?“ 1. Transitivity Overgeneralizations

34. Constraint ENTRENCHMENT –Repeated use makes other uses sound unconventional PRE-EMPTION –Alternative forms block the extension of a verb to a construction ANALOGIES –Semantic subclasses of verbs Evidence at 2.5 years: Brooks & Tomasello (1999) Child Development Evidence for these both at 4.5 years: Brooks & Tomasello (1999) Language

35. Three constraining factors working over developmental time. Entrenchment Preemption Verb Subclasses Growing abstractness of the transitive construction Giggle Chortle Laugh Many overgeneralizations b/c not entrenched No overgeneralizations b/c Verb Islands Low overgeneralzations b/c preemtion and verb subclasses in addition to entrenchment

36. Overall Summary  Early linguistic representations are mostly concrete w/ item-based abstractions only > no UG core.  Abstractions are created gradually, piecemeal, based on specifiable characteristics of the input - constraints also > general cognitive processes.  Children produce utterances by combining in functionally appropriate ways known pieces of language of different kinds > U-B syntax.

37. Final Query All theories must employ something like this account to explain the acquisition of particular language-specific constructions The question is whether, in addition, we need a second set of acquisition processes to link these constructions to an innate UG? ¿Why?