week 3. structure-building approaches to syntax acquisition grs lx 700 language acquisition and...

Week 3. Structure-building Week 3. Structure-building approaches to syntax approaches to syntax

acquisitionacquisition

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Several classes of Several classes of theoriestheories

No functional projections. No functional projections. (Radford) (Radford) Kids don’t have any functional Kids don’t have any functional projections (TP, CP, and so forth). This projections (TP, CP, and so forth). This comes later. No TP, no tense comes later. No TP, no tense distinction.distinction.

Structure building.Structure building. (Vainikka, (Vainikka, Guilfoyle & Noonan) Guilfoyle & Noonan) Kids start with no Kids start with no functional projections and gradually functional projections and gradually increase their functional structure.increase their functional structure.


Truncation. Truncation. (Rizzi) (Rizzi) Like structure building Like structure building but without the time course—kids have but without the time course—kids have access to all of the functional structure access to all of the functional structure but they don’t realize that sentences need but they don’t realize that sentences need to be CP’s, so they sometimes stop early.to be CP’s, so they sometimes stop early.

Full competence. Full competence. (Wexler)(Wexler) Kids have Kids have access to all of the functional structure access to all of the functional structure and have a very specific problem with and have a very specific problem with tense and agreement that sometimes tense and agreement that sometimes causes them to leave one out.causes them to leave one out.

Radford (1995)Radford (1995) A proposal about A proposal about Early Child EnglishEarly Child English.. Kids’ syntax differs from adults’ syntax:Kids’ syntax differs from adults’ syntax:

kids use only lexical (not functional) elementskids use only lexical (not functional) elements structural sisters in kids’ trees always have a structural sisters in kids’ trees always have a

-relation between them.-relation between them.

VPVP

NPNP V’V’manman

VV NPNPchasechase carcar

adult syntax ≠ child adult syntax ≠ child syntaxsyntax

Adults:Adults: CP—IP—VPCP—IP—VP Kids:Kids: VPVP

Evidence for absence of IP:Evidence for absence of IP: No modals (repeating, kids drop them)No modals (repeating, kids drop them) No auxiliaries (No auxiliaries (Mummy doing dinnerMummy doing dinner)) No productive use of tense & No productive use of tense &

agreement (agreement (Baby ride truckBaby ride truck, , Mommy Mommy gogo, , Daddy sleepDaddy sleep))

Absence of CPAbsence of CP

No CP system:No CP system: no complementizers (no complementizers (thatthat, , forfor, , ifif)) no preposed auxiliary (no preposed auxiliary (car go?car go?)) no no whwh-movement (imitating -movement (imitating where does where does

it go?it go? yields yields go?go?; spontaneous: ; spontaneous: mouse mouse doing?doing?))

kids bad at kids bad at comprehendingcomprehending whwh-object -object questions (out of canonical order). (questions (out of canonical order). (——What are you doing? —No.What are you doing? —No.))

Absence of DPAbsence of DP

No DP system:No DP system: no non-no non- elements elements

no expletives (no expletives (rainingraining, , outside coldoutside cold)) no no ofof before noun complements of nouns ( before noun complements of nouns (cup teacup tea))

kids tend not to use determiners (kids tend not to use determiners (Hayley Hayley draw boatdraw boat, , want duckwant duck, , reading bookreading book))

kids don’t use possessive kids don’t use possessive ’s’s, which may be a , which may be a D.D.

kids don’t use pronouns, which are probably kids don’t use pronouns, which are probably Ds.Ds.

The transition to IPThe transition to IP Slightly older kids alternate between Slightly older kids alternate between

Nom subjects and Acc subjects, between Nom subjects and Acc subjects, between finite verbs and nonfinite verbs.finite verbs and nonfinite verbs. Looks likeLooks like: kids are “code-switching” : kids are “code-switching”

between a VP grammar and an IP grammar.between a VP grammar and an IP grammar.

If this is the case, we expect Nom subjects If this is the case, we expect Nom subjects to occur in the IP grammar (with the finite to occur in the IP grammar (with the finite verbs) and Acc subjects to occur in the VP verbs) and Acc subjects to occur in the VP grammar (with the nonfinite verbs).grammar (with the nonfinite verbs).

The transition to IPThe transition to IP

Radford says Radford says looklook, , they don’tthey don’t (based (based on his “own (substantial) corpus”:on his “own (substantial) corpus”: ““numerous” nonfinite clauses with numerous” nonfinite clauses with

nominative subjects: nominative subjects: I singingI singing, , I done itI done it.. ““frequent” finite clauses with accusative frequent” finite clauses with accusative

subjects: subjects: Me can make a henMe can make a hen, , Me didn’t Me didn’t paint thatpaint that..

Even alternations in the same (finite) Even alternations in the same (finite) utterances: utterances: I need this oneI need this one, , Me doesMe does..


Radford concludes that once kids Radford concludes that once kids realize that there is an IP, then realize that there is an IP, then allall utterances after that have the IP utterances after that have the IP structure.structure. So there is a difference between So there is a difference between

inflectionless forms before the “IP stage” inflectionless forms before the “IP stage” and after…and after…

Initially, it was just a bare VPInitially, it was just a bare VP Later , it’s an IP which is mysteriously missing Later , it’s an IP which is mysteriously missing

inflection sometimes and also sometimes inflection sometimes and also sometimes mysterious misassigning Case to its specifier.mysterious misassigning Case to its specifier.


Schütze & Wexler (1996) dispute this Schütze & Wexler (1996) dispute this idea, challenging the idea, challenging the representativeness of Radford’s representativeness of Radford’s evidence.evidence.

Radford claimed finiteness Radford claimed finiteness (agreement) and case errors don’t go (agreement) and case errors don’t go together and gave individual together and gave individual instances where they mis-match.instances where they mis-match.

But if you look at the But if you look at the percentagespercentages……

Finite pretty much Finite pretty much always goes with a always goes with a nominative subject.nominative subject.

Loeb & Leonard (1991)

7 representative kids2;11-3;4

subject Finite Nonfinite

he+she 436 75

him+her 4 28

% non-Nom 0.9% 27%

Finite pretty much Finite pretty much always goes with a always goes with a nominative subject.nominative subject.

Schütze & Wexler (1996)

Nina1;11-2;6

subject Finite Nonfinite

he+she 255 139

him+her 14 120

% non-Nom 5% 46%

Code switching?Code switching? So, Schütze & Wexler (and Loeb & So, Schütze & Wexler (and Loeb &

Leonard) showed that the variation is not Leonard) showed that the variation is not random (as if kids didn’t know how to use random (as if kids didn’t know how to use Case yet). When a verb is finite, they Case yet). When a verb is finite, they overwhelmingly use the correct subject overwhelmingly use the correct subject Case. Just about all of the non-nominative Case. Just about all of the non-nominative subjects occur with nonfinite verbs.subjects occur with nonfinite verbs.

So it still So it still couldcould be two separate grammars be two separate grammars (a VP/lexical grammar or an IP/functional (a VP/lexical grammar or an IP/functional grammar that the kid picks between).grammar that the kid picks between).

The transition to CPThe transition to CP

It has been observed that even after kids It has been observed that even after kids can invert yes-no questions…can invert yes-no questions… Did you want that one?Did you want that one?

……they fail to invert in they fail to invert in whwh-questions-questions What he can ride in?What he can ride in?

Radford suggests: C comes in two flavors, Radford suggests: C comes in two flavors, ““verbalverbal” and “” and “nonverbalnonverbal”—root clauses ”—root clauses are are verbalverbal, embedded clauses are , embedded clauses are nonverbalnonverbal, and , and I will not move to C if C I will not move to C if C is nonverbalis nonverbal..


Radford suggests:Radford suggests: C comes in two flavors, C comes in two flavors, ““verbalverbal” and “” and “nonverbalnonverbal”—root clauses are ”—root clauses are verbalverbal, embedded clauses are , embedded clauses are nonverbalnonverbal, , and and I will not move to C if C is I will not move to C if C is nonverbalnonverbal..

Adult embedded C is nonverbal (in English):Adult embedded C is nonverbal (in English): I don’t know what I should do.I don’t know what I should do. *I don’t know what should I do.*I don’t know what should I do.

Adult matrix C is verbal:Adult matrix C is verbal: What should I do?What should I do?


Kids have C which isn’t specified Kids have C which isn’t specified either for either for verbalverbal or for or for nonverbalnonverbal..

The rule about moving I to C doesn’t The rule about moving I to C doesn’t mention mention unspecifiedunspecified C, so I can move C, so I can move to unspecified C.to unspecified C.

But, if a But, if a whwh-word moves into SpecCP, -word moves into SpecCP, then Spec-head agreement with the then Spec-head agreement with the nonverbal nonverbal whwh-word gives C a -word gives C a nonverbalnonverbal feature, prohibiting I to C feature, prohibiting I to C movement.movement.

The transition to CPThe transition to CP You get the feeling that the explanation is at You get the feeling that the explanation is at

least as complicated as the data being least as complicated as the data being described?described?

Is the fact that there is no embedded Is the fact that there is no embedded inversion in English enough to believe in a inversion in English enough to believe in a “sometimes nominal C”?“sometimes nominal C”?

And: And: Aren’t kids having trouble with subject Aren’t kids having trouble with subject agreement between I and SpecIP (“the agreement between I and SpecIP (“the specifier-head mis-licensing” Radford posits) specifier-head mis-licensing” Radford posits) at the same time that we have to believe that at the same time that we have to believe that they are perfectly able to effect agreement they are perfectly able to effect agreement between C and SpecCP…?between C and SpecCP…?

Radford, in sumRadford, in sum Kids start with Kids start with lexicallexical structures, only later structures, only later

moving on to moving on to functionalfunctional structures. 2 steps. structures. 2 steps. This change at least possibly comes about This change at least possibly comes about

via via maturationmaturation (the lexical structures come (the lexical structures come “on line” at 20 months, the functional “on line” at 20 months, the functional structures come “on line” at 24 months).structures come “on line” at 24 months).

Lack of IP, CP, DP used to explain missing Lack of IP, CP, DP used to explain missing modals, complementizers, determiners, modals, complementizers, determiners, pronouns—but it isn’t clear that the things pronouns—but it isn’t clear that the things CP (CP (whwh-questions, …) or IP (subject case, …) -questions, …) or IP (subject case, …) are are responsible responsible for are really missing.for are really missing.

Guilfoyle & NoonanGuilfoyle & Noonan A similar story, although better spelled A similar story, although better spelled

out. Kids start out with just lexically-out. Kids start out with just lexically-based trees, no functional categories.based trees, no functional categories.

D (D (thethe and and ’s’s); kids don’t have them…); kids don’t have them… Except they do… there are a a few instances Except they do… there are a a few instances

like like Where go the car?Where go the car? which G&N dismiss which G&N dismiss based on a pretty archaic view of determiners based on a pretty archaic view of determiners and Japanese.and Japanese.

Case (“KPs”); no empirical evidence.Case (“KPs”); no empirical evidence. And again, a pretty outdated story about Case. And again, a pretty outdated story about Case.

Only used so that VP-internal subjects need Only used so that VP-internal subjects need not violate the Case Filter.not violate the Case Filter.

Guilfoyle & NoonanGuilfoyle & Noonan IP; predicts no V-movement, no tense and IP; predicts no V-movement, no tense and

agreement marking…agreement marking…

Null subjects; assumed that when kids Null subjects; assumed that when kids have just a VP, they can (must?) leave the have just a VP, they can (must?) leave the subject in SpecVP. A subject in SpecVP subject in SpecVP. A subject in SpecVP can be dropped—a can be dropped—a propro-drop language is a -drop language is a language where the subject (which can language where the subject (which can then be then be propro) can be left in SpecVP, they ) can be left in SpecVP, they claim. Not a widely adopted view of claim. Not a widely adopted view of propro--drop.drop.

Guilfoyle & NoonanGuilfoyle & Noonan Stage 1: Stage 1: German (SOV-V2)German (SOV-V2) kids produce kids produce

lots of V-final sentences. If V2 is V lots of V-final sentences. If V2 is V I I C, C, not surprising; there is no IP or CP. not surprising; there is no IP or CP. English: English: some some whwh-questions and negatives-questions and negatives—these are assumed to be adverb-like, —these are assumed to be adverb-like, adjoined to VP (adjoined to VP (non-adult!non-adult!).).

Stage 2: Stage 2: German: German: kids start producing kids start producing modals, they are in second position. Makes modals, they are in second position. Makes sense. sense. English: English: Yes-no questions show SAI, Yes-no questions show SAI, analyzed as putting abstract YNQ operator analyzed as putting abstract YNQ operator in SpecIP and leaving subject down in in SpecIP and leaving subject down in SpecVP. SpecVP. WhWh-movement now adjunction to -movement now adjunction to IP.IP.

Stage 3: Stage 3: Adult-like.Adult-like.

Vainikka (1993/4)Vainikka (1993/4) Primarily using evidence from Case in English Primarily using evidence from Case in English

pronouns, also argues for a “structure-pronouns, also argues for a “structure-building” view.building” view.

I get BozoI get Bozo… … me get Johnme get John (Adam 2;3). Case (Adam 2;3). Case marking isn’t inherently specified on the verb.marking isn’t inherently specified on the verb.

Radford accounts for things like Radford accounts for things like me love boatme love boat by assuming basically that “Case doesn’t work yet.” Vainikka shows that it is more systematic.

Vainikka (1993/4)Vainikka (1993/4)

The VP stage. There is a stage when The VP stage. There is a stage when kids have just a VP.kids have just a VP.

Nina: early files, my was the usual Nina: early files, my was the usual subject (almost no I, or me). No other subject (almost no I, or me). No other things normally associated with IP things normally associated with IP (modals, auxiliaries, tense/agreement).(modals, auxiliaries, tense/agreement). Data from other kids (Adam, Eve, Sarah) Data from other kids (Adam, Eve, Sarah)

less straightforward for VP stage… often less straightforward for VP stage… often nominative subjects for them.nominative subjects for them.


The IP stage. After the VP stage, The IP stage. After the VP stage, there start to be evidence of IP-there start to be evidence of IP-related things but still no CP.related things but still no CP.

Nina: sudden increase in nominative Nina: sudden increase in nominative subjects.subjects.


Nina's first person subjects in Files 1-12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

File number

Number of occurrences

Imyme


Weirdly, even when Nina had Weirdly, even when Nina had nominative subjects, when she asked nominative subjects, when she asked whwh-questions, she seemed to use -questions, she seemed to use oblique subjects.oblique subjects. Know what my making?Know what my making? Look what my got.Look what my got.

Proposal: Proposal: There’s just an IP still—There’s just an IP still—whwh--word is going into SpecIP. But when word is going into SpecIP. But when SpecIP is filled, the subject can’r raise SpecIP is filled, the subject can’r raise there, can’t appear in the nominative.there, can’t appear in the nominative.


CP stage: wh-words and nominative CP stage: wh-words and nominative co-occur, inversion in questions.co-occur, inversion in questions. How did he get out?How did he get out? What do the horses eat?What do the horses eat? Why can’t we open this piano?Why can’t we open this piano?

Subjects vs. finitenessSubjects vs. finiteness Turns out, null subjects seem to correlate Turns out, null subjects seem to correlate

with with nonfinite nonfinite verbs (Hyams’ BUCLD talk verbs (Hyams’ BUCLD talk summarizes results of this sort):summarizes results of this sort):

Finite Nonfinite

language overt null n overt null n

French 74% 26% 705 7% 93% 164

German 80% 20% 3636 11% 89% 2477

English 51% 49% 204 6% 94% 113

Subjects vs. finiteness.Subjects vs. finiteness.

So it So it doesdoes seem like the kids know seem like the kids know the difference between finite and the difference between finite and nonfinite—and they (tend to) drop nonfinite—and they (tend to) drop subjects with nonfinite verbs and subjects with nonfinite verbs and preserve subjects with finite verbs.preserve subjects with finite verbs.

Rizzi (1993/4)Rizzi (1993/4)

This “around 2 year old” stage is This “around 2 year old” stage is characterized by a couple of characterized by a couple of symptoms:symptoms: nonfinite verbs in matrix clauses nonfinite verbs in matrix clauses in in

certain languagescertain languages (specifically, non-null (specifically, non-null subject languages)subject languages)

dropped subjectsdropped subjects How might we explain this co-How might we explain this co-

occurrence?occurrence?

Null subjects and CNull subjects and C

Crisma (1992): French kids typically (1/114 Crisma (1992): French kids typically (1/114 =1% vs. 407/1002=41%) do not produce null =1% vs. 407/1002=41%) do not produce null subjects with a subjects with a whwh-phrase.-phrase.

Valian (1991): English kids typically Valian (1991): English kids typically (9/552=2%) do not produce null subjects with (9/552=2%) do not produce null subjects with a a whwh-phrase.-phrase.

Poeppel & Wexler (1993): German kids Poeppel & Wexler (1993): German kids typically exclude null subjects from post-V2 typically exclude null subjects from post-V2 position.position.

Null subjects and CNull subjects and C

It looks like: If the kid shows evidence of It looks like: If the kid shows evidence of CP (CP (whwh-words, V2), then the kid also does -words, V2), then the kid also does not drop the subject.not drop the subject.

Rizzi’s idea:Rizzi’s idea: A discourse-licensed null subject is available A discourse-licensed null subject is available

only in the highest specifier in the tree (topic-only in the highest specifier in the tree (topic-drop).drop).

Axiom: Axiom: CP=rootCP=root Kids don’t “get” the axiom until between 2-3 Kids don’t “get” the axiom until between 2-3

years old.years old.

Truncated treesTruncated trees

The result (of not having The result (of not having CP=rootCP=root) is ) is that kids are allowed to have that kids are allowed to have truncated truncated structuresstructures—trees that look like adult —trees that look like adult trees with the tops chopped off.trees with the tops chopped off.

ImportantlyImportantly: The kids don’t just leave : The kids don’t just leave stuff out—they just stop the tree stuff out—they just stop the tree “early.” So, if the kid leaves out a “early.” So, if the kid leaves out a functional projection, s/he leaves out functional projection, s/he leaves out all all higherhigher XPs as well. XPs as well.

TruncationTruncation

If kid selects anything lower than TP If kid selects anything lower than TP as the root, the result is a as the root, the result is a root root infinitiveinfinitive—which can be as big as any —which can be as big as any kind of XP below TP in the structure.kind of XP below TP in the structure.

Note in particular, though, it Note in particular, though, it can’tcan’t be be a CP.a CP.

So: we expect that evidence of CP So: we expect that evidence of CP will correlate with finite verbs.will correlate with finite verbs.


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


There is some dispute in the syntax There is some dispute in the syntax literature as to whether the position literature as to whether the position of NegP (the projection responsible of NegP (the projection responsible for the negative morpheme) is for the negative morpheme) is higher or lower than TP in the tree.higher or lower than TP in the tree.

If NegP is higher than TP, we would If NegP is higher than TP, we would expect not to find negative root expect not to find negative root infinitives.infinitives.

Truncation and NegPTruncation and NegP

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

Truncation and NegPTruncation and NegP

So, is TP higher than NegP?So, is TP higher than NegP? Hard to say conclusively from the Hard to say conclusively from the

existing French data because there existing French data because there are are not manynot many negative root negative root infinitives—but further study infinitives—but further study couldcould lead to a theoretical result of this lead to a theoretical result of this sort about the adult languages.sort about the adult languages.

S O Vfin?S O Vfin?

Usually (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) Usually (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) German kids put finite verbs in German kids put finite verbs in second position, and leave second position, and leave nonfinite verbs at the end.nonfinite verbs at the end.

OccasionallyOccasionally one finds a one finds a finitefinite verb verb at the end.at the end.

Rizzi suggests we could look at Rizzi suggests we could look at this as an instance of a kid this as an instance of a kid choosing AgrSP as root, where CP choosing AgrSP as root, where CP is necessary to trigger V2.is necessary to trigger V2.

Truncation and null Truncation and null subjectssubjects

As for null subjects:As for null subjects: If the tree is just a VP, the subject If the tree is just a VP, the subject

can be omitted in its base position—can be omitted in its base position—it’s still in the specifier of the root.it’s still in the specifier of the root.

If the tree is just a TP, the subject If the tree is just a TP, the subject can be omitted from the normal can be omitted from the normal subject position—note that this would subject position—note that this would be a be a finitefinite verb with a null subject. verb with a null subject.

If the tree is a CP and SpecCP is If the tree is a CP and SpecCP is filled (like in a wh-question) we filled (like in a wh-question) we expect no null subjects.expect no null subjects.

Null subject languages Null subject languages vs. root infinitivesvs. root infinitives

Italian seems to show no (or very Italian seems to show no (or very very few) root infinitives. If this is very few) root infinitives. If this is maturation of “maturation of “Root=CPRoot=CP” how could ” how could languages vary?languages vary?

Rizzi suggests:Rizzi suggests: In In EnglishEnglish, V doesn’t move, V doesn’t move In In FrenchFrench, tensed verbs move to AgrS , tensed verbs move to AgrS

(I), untensed verbs (I), untensed verbs maymay move to AgrS move to AgrS In In ItalianItalian, , allall verbs move to AgrS verbs move to AgrS

Null subject languages Null subject languages vs. root infinitivesvs. root infinitives

The idea (set in a “minimalist” The idea (set in a “minimalist” framework) is that a verb framework) is that a verb needsneeds to to get to AgrS—it has a get to AgrS—it has a feature/property (parametric) that feature/property (parametric) that marks it as needing to get to AgrS in marks it as needing to get to AgrS in a grammatical sentence. Hence, the a grammatical sentence. Hence, the kid needs AgrS.kid needs AgrS.

Very nice, very nice…Very nice, very nice… But… But… one question: kids produce a lot of one question: kids produce a lot of

nominative subjects with nonfinite verbs. nominative subjects with nonfinite verbs. How does that happen? (Shouldn’t NOM How does that happen? (Shouldn’t NOM entail AgrSP, which should in turn entail TP?)entail AgrSP, which should in turn entail TP?)

Nonfinite onlyNonfinite only NinaNina PeterPeter SarahSarah

I/he/sheI/he/she 184184 2929 2424

Me/my/him/herMe/my/him/her 133133 88 1414

% non-NOM% non-NOM 42%42% 22%22% 37%37%

(from Schütze & Wexler 1996)


No functional projections.No functional projections.(Radford)(Radford)

Structure building.Structure building.(Vainikka, Guilfoyle & Noonan)(Vainikka, Guilfoyle & Noonan)

Truncation.Truncation.(Rizzi)(Rizzi)

Full competence .Full competence .(Wexler)(Wexler)


Truncation. Truncation. (Rizzi) (Rizzi) Like structure building Like structure building but without the time course—kids have but without the time course—kids have access to all of the functional structure access to all of the functional structure but they don’t realize that sentences need but they don’t realize that sentences need to be CP’s, so they sometimes stop early.to be CP’s, so they sometimes stop early.

““ATOM” (Full competence). ATOM” (Full competence). (Wexler, …)(Wexler, …) Kids have access to all of the functional Kids have access to all of the functional structure and have a very specific structure and have a very specific problem with tense and agreement that problem with tense and agreement that sometimes causes them to leave one out.sometimes causes them to leave one out.

Full Competence Full Competence HypothesisHypothesis

The morphosyntactic properties The morphosyntactic properties associated with finiteness and associated with finiteness and attributable to the availability of attributable to the availability of functional categories (notably head functional categories (notably head movement) are in place.movement) are in place.

The best model of the data is the The best model of the data is the standard analysis of adult German standard analysis of adult German (functional projections and all)(functional projections and all)

The one exception:The one exception:

Grammatical Infinitive Hypothesis:Grammatical Infinitive Hypothesis: Matrix sentences with (clause-final) Matrix sentences with (clause-final)

infinitives are a legitimate structure in infinitives are a legitimate structure in child German grammar.child German grammar.

Adult GermanAdult German

Phrase structure consists of CP, IP, VP.Phrase structure consists of CP, IP, VP. German is SOV, V2German is SOV, V2

The finite verb (or auxiliary or modal) is the The finite verb (or auxiliary or modal) is the second constituent in main clauses, second constituent in main clauses, following some constituent (subject, object, following some constituent (subject, object, or adverbial).or adverbial).

In embedded clauses, the finite verb is final.In embedded clauses, the finite verb is final. V2 comes about by moving the finite verb to V2 comes about by moving the finite verb to

(head-initial) C.(head-initial) C.

The acquisition dataThe acquisition data

Andreas (2;1, from CHILDES)Andreas (2;1, from CHILDES) Unique spontaneous utterancesUnique spontaneous utterances

omitting repetitionsomitting repetitions omitting prompted responsesomitting prompted responses omitting second and later occurrences omitting second and later occurrences

of the identical utterance (not of the identical utterance (not necessarily adjacent).necessarily adjacent).

omitting imperatives, questionsomitting imperatives, questions omitting one-word responsesomitting one-word responses

In brief…In brief…

Kids can choose a finite or a nonfinite verb.Kids can choose a finite or a nonfinite verb. A finite (matrix) verb shows up in 2nd positionA finite (matrix) verb shows up in 2nd position A nonfinite verb appears clause-finallyA nonfinite verb appears clause-finally

ich mach das nichich mach das nich

I do that notI do that not

du das habendu das haben

you that haveyou that have

Classification detailsClassification details

Non-finite:Non-finite: verb ends in verb ends in -en -en (infinitival marker).(infinitival marker).

Finite:Finite: verb does not end in verb does not end in --enen..

V2 (excludes ambiguous cases where V2 (excludes ambiguous cases where V2 is also a final V); V[-fin] (excludes V2 is also a final V); V[-fin] (excludes cases where V is also second).cases where V is also second).

ResultsResults

There is a strong contingency.There is a strong contingency. ConcludeConclude: : the finiteness distinction is the finiteness distinction is

made correctly at the earliest observable made correctly at the earliest observable stage.stage.

+finite -finite

V2, not final 197 6

V final, not V2 11 37

AgreementAgreement

Do kids know agreement? (is it Do kids know agreement? (is it random?)random?) 1 and 3 sg co-occur with correct agreement1 and 3 sg co-occur with correct agreement 2sg (2sg (youyou) subjects are rare (in statements); ) subjects are rare (in statements);

agreement is phonologically impoverished, agreement is phonologically impoverished, but not unambiguously wrongbut not unambiguously wrong

7 of 11 plural subjects showed an error7 of 11 plural subjects showed an error(typical: (typical: all animals lies thereall animals lies there).).

So, yes. (no.)So, yes. (no.)

Conditional Conditional probabilities…probabilities…

Clahsen (1986) looked at:Clahsen (1986) looked at:When the subject is 3sg, how likely is a When the subject is 3sg, how likely is a kid to produce (3sg) -kid to produce (3sg) -tt ? (he found: ? (he found: ~25%)~25%)

But given that sometimes kids use root But given that sometimes kids use root infinitives, a better question to ask is:infinitives, a better question to ask is:When the kid produces (3sg) -When the kid produces (3sg) -tt, how , how often is it right (i.e. with a 3sg subject)? often is it right (i.e. with a 3sg subject)? ~100%.~100%.

Do kids learn “this is a Do kids learn “this is a second position verb” for second position verb” for

certain verbs?certain verbs? (Are some verbs used as auxiliaries?)(Are some verbs used as auxiliaries?)

Andreas used 33 finite verbs and 37 Andreas used 33 finite verbs and 37 nonfinite verbs, 8 of which were in both nonfinite verbs, 8 of which were in both categories—categories—

——and those 8 were finite in V2 position and and those 8 were finite in V2 position and nonfinite in final position.nonfinite in final position.

Remaining verbs show no clear semantic Remaining verbs show no clear semantic core that one might attribute the core that one might attribute the distribution to.distribution to.

Verb positioning =Verb positioning =functional categoriesfunctional categories

In adult German, V2 comes about In adult German, V2 comes about because V because V II CC. .

If we can see non-subjects to the left If we can see non-subjects to the left of finite verbs, we know we have of finite verbs, we know we have at at least oneleast one functional projection functional projection (above the subject, in whose Spec (above the subject, in whose Spec the first position non-subject goes).the first position non-subject goes).

When V is 2nd, what’s When V is 2nd, what’s first?first?

Usually subject, not a big surprise.Usually subject, not a big surprise. But 19 objects before finite V2But 19 objects before finite V2

(of 197 cases, 180 with overt subjects)(of 197 cases, 180 with overt subjects) And 31 adverbs before finite V2And 31 adverbs before finite V2

ConcludeConclude: Kids basically seem to be : Kids basically seem to be acting like adults; their V2 is the same acting like adults; their V2 is the same V2 that adults use.V2 that adults use.

Some alternatives…Some alternatives…

Root infinitives due to “modal drop”?Root infinitives due to “modal drop”? Idea:Idea:I want to eat pizza.I want to eat pizza. RI?RI? I I wantwant to eat pizza. to eat pizza.

First question: First question: whywhy modals?modals? Second, they don’t (always) seem to Second, they don’t (always) seem to

mean mean what they should if there is a null what they should if there is a null modal. 20/37 seem to be clearly non-modal. 20/37 seem to be clearly non-modal.modal. Thorsten Ball habenThorsten Ball haben (T already has the ball)(T already has the ball)

Modal dropModal drop

Adult modals are in position 2, Adult modals are in position 2, regardless of what is in position 1.regardless of what is in position 1.

If kids are dropping modals, we If kids are dropping modals, we should expect a certain proportion should expect a certain proportion of the dropped modals to appear of the dropped modals to appear with a non-subject in position 1. with a non-subject in position 1.

But But nonenone occur—nonfinite verbs occur—nonfinite verbs also seem to come with initial also seem to come with initial subjectssubjects..

Modal dropModal drop

On the other hand, if nonfinite final On the other hand, if nonfinite final V indicates failure to raise to I and V indicates failure to raise to I and C, we don’t expect CP to be available C, we don’t expect CP to be available for “topicalization” (the assumption for “topicalization” (the assumption is that V2 involves both movement of is that V2 involves both movement of V to C and movement of something V to C and movement of something else to SpecCP; but no need to move else to SpecCP; but no need to move something to SpecCP unless V is in something to SpecCP unless V is in C).C).

Modal dropModal drop Just to be sure (since the numbers are Just to be sure (since the numbers are

small), P&W check to make sure they would small), P&W check to make sure they would have have expectedexpected non-subjects in position 1 non-subjects in position 1 with nonfinite verbs if the modal drop with nonfinite verbs if the modal drop hypothesis were true.hypothesis were true. 17% of the verbs are infinitives17% of the verbs are infinitives 20% of the (finite) time we had non-subject 20% of the (finite) time we had non-subject

topicalizationtopicalization So 3% of the time (20% of 17%) we would expect So 3% of the time (20% of 17%) we would expect

non-subject topicalization in nonfinite contexts.non-subject topicalization in nonfinite contexts. Of 251 sentences, we would have expected 8.Of 251 sentences, we would have expected 8. We saw We saw nonenone..

CPCP The Full Competence Hypothesis says not The Full Competence Hypothesis says not

only that functional categories exist, but only that functional categories exist, but that the child has access to the same that the child has access to the same functional categories that the adult does.functional categories that the adult does.

In particular, CP should be there too.In particular, CP should be there too. Predicts what we’ve seen:Predicts what we’ve seen:

finite verbs are in second position onlyfinite verbs are in second position only(modulo topic drop leaving them in first (modulo topic drop leaving them in first position)position)

nonfinite verbs are in final position onlynonfinite verbs are in final position only subjects, objects, adverbs may all precede a subjects, objects, adverbs may all precede a

finite verb in second position.finite verb in second position.

P&W’s predictions met—P&W’s predictions met—how did the other guys how did the other guys

fare?fare? Radford and related approaches:Radford and related approaches:No functional categories for the young.No functional categories for the young.

Well, we Well, we seesee V2 with finite verbs V2 with finite verbs finite verb is secondfinite verb is second non-subjects can be firstnon-subjects can be first

and you can’t and you can’t dodo this except to move V out this except to move V out of VP and something else to its left…of VP and something else to its left…

You need at least You need at least oneone functional category. functional category. Andreas uses agreement correctly when Andreas uses agreement correctly when

he uses it—adults use IP for that.he uses it—adults use IP for that.


fare?fare? ““No C hypothesis” (kids don’t use overt No C hypothesis” (kids don’t use overt

complementizers)complementizers)

Of course, kids don’t really use embedded Of course, kids don’t really use embedded clauses either (a chicken-egg problem?)clauses either (a chicken-egg problem?) Purported cases of embedded clauses without a Purported cases of embedded clauses without a

complementizer aren’t numerous or convincing. complementizer aren’t numerous or convincing.

Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.


fare?fare? Can we get away with Can we get away with oneone functional functional category?category?

The word order seems to be generable this The word order seems to be generable this way so long as F is to the way so long as F is to the leftleft of VP. of VP. subject can stay in SpecVPsubject can stay in SpecVP V moves to FV moves to F non-subject could move to SpecFP.non-subject could move to SpecFP.

……though people tend to believe that IP in though people tend to believe that IP in German is head-German is head-finalfinal (that is, German is (that is, German is head-final except for CP). How do kids learn head-final except for CP). How do kids learn to put I on the right once they develop CP?to put I on the right once they develop CP?


fare?fare? Can we get away with Can we get away with oneone functional functional category?category?

Empirical argument:Empirical argument: negationnegation and and adverbsadverbs are standardly supposed are standardly supposed

to mark the left edge of VP.to mark the left edge of VP. A subject in SpecVP (i.e. when a non-subject is A subject in SpecVP (i.e. when a non-subject is

topicalized) should occur to the topicalized) should occur to the right right of such of such elements.elements.

19 Object-initial sentences 31 adverb-initial 19 Object-initial sentences 31 adverb-initial sentences, 8 have an(other) adverb or sentences, 8 have an(other) adverb or negation, and negation, and all eight all eight have the subject to have the subject to the left of the adverb/negation.the left of the adverb/negation.

The Full Competence The Full Competence HypothesisHypothesis

The ideaThe idea: Kids have : Kids have full knowledgefull knowledge of the principles and processes and of the principles and processes and constraints of grammar. Their constraints of grammar. Their representations are basically adult-representations are basically adult-like.like.

What’s different is that kids What’s different is that kids optionally allow infinitives as matrix optionally allow infinitives as matrix verbs (which kids grow out of).verbs (which kids grow out of).

Some upcoming stuff…Some upcoming stuff…

Papers to read (and suggested Papers to read (and suggested order):order): Schütze & Wexler 1996 (background Schütze & Wexler 1996 (background

study)study) Wexler 1998 (survey of state of the art)Wexler 1998 (survey of state of the art) Legendre et al. 2000 (optimality theory)Legendre et al. 2000 (optimality theory)

Concerning Wexler Concerning Wexler (1998)(1998)

(Partial) clause structure:(Partial) clause structure:

AgrPAgrP

NOMNOMii AgrAgr

AgrAgr TPTP

ttii T T

TT VPVP


The basic idea: The basic idea: In adult clauses, the In adult clauses, the subject needs to move subject needs to move bothboth to SpecTP to SpecTP and (then)and (then) to SpecAgrP. to SpecAgrP.

This needs to happen because T This needs to happen because T “needs” something in its specifier “needs” something in its specifier (≈EPP) and so does Agr.(≈EPP) and so does Agr.

The subject DP can “solve the The subject DP can “solve the problem” for both T and for Agr—problem” for both T and for Agr—for for an adultan adult..


The basic idea: The basic idea: In adult clauses, the In adult clauses, the subject needs to move subject needs to move bothboth to to SpecTP SpecTP and (then)and (then) to SpecAgrP. to SpecAgrP.

For kids,For kids, the subject can only “solve the subject can only “solve the problem” for one of them. Either the problem” for one of them. Either T or Agr is necessarily going to be T or Agr is necessarily going to be left out in the cold.left out in the cold.


Implementation:Implementation: For adults: For adults: T needs a D feature.T needs a D feature. Agr needs a D feature.Agr needs a D feature. The subject, happily, The subject, happily, hashas a D feature. a D feature. The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of

T’s need for a D feature (the subject T’s need for a D feature (the subject “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature loses its need for a D feature, but the loses its need for a D feature, but the subject still has its D feature (the subject is subject still has its D feature (the subject is still a DP).still a DP).

The subject moves on, to take care of Agr.The subject moves on, to take care of Agr.


Implementation:Implementation: For kids: For kids: Everything is the same except that the Everything is the same except that the

subject can only solve subject can only solve one one problem problem before quitting. It “loses” its D feature before quitting. It “loses” its D feature after helping out either T or Agr.after helping out either T or Agr.

Kids are constrained by the Kids are constrained by the Unique Unique Checking Constraint Checking Constraint that says subjects that says subjects (or their D features) can only “check” (or their D features) can only “check” another feature once.another feature once.

So the kids are in a bind.So the kids are in a bind.


Kids in a pickle:Kids in a pickle: The only options open to the The only options open to the kids are:kids are: Leave out TP Leave out TP (keep AgrP, the subject can solve (keep AgrP, the subject can solve

Agr’s problem alone). Agr’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, nom Result: nonfinite verb, nom case.case.

Leave out AgrP Leave out AgrP (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s problem alone). problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, default case.Result: nonfinite verb, default case.

Violate the UCC Violate the UCC (let the subject do both things (let the subject do both things anyway). anyway). Result: finite verb, nom case.Result: finite verb, nom case.

No matter which way you slice it, the kids No matter which way you slice it, the kids have to do something “wrong”. At that point, have to do something “wrong”. At that point, they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.)they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.)

Technical bitsTechnical bits Features come in two relevant kinds: Features come in two relevant kinds:

interpretable interpretable and and uninterpretableuninterpretable.. Either kind of feature can be involved in a Either kind of feature can be involved in a

“checking”—only interpretable features survive.“checking”—only interpretable features survive. The game is to have no uninterpretable features The game is to have no uninterpretable features

left at the end.left at the end. ““T needs a DT needs a D” means “” means “T has an uninterpretable T has an uninterpretable

[D] feature[D] feature” and the subject (with its normally ” and the subject (with its normally interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the two features “check”, the interpretable one two features “check”, the interpretable one survives. survives. UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects?UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects?

Distributed MorphologyDistributed Morphology

A hypothesis about how we A hypothesis about how we pronounce words.pronounce words.

Idea: Syntax does what it does. Then Idea: Syntax does what it does. Then Morphology gets a chance to look at Morphology gets a chance to look at the tree. Before Morphology, there’s the tree. Before Morphology, there’s no phonology there—Morphology no phonology there—Morphology gets to decide what phonology fits.gets to decide what phonology fits.


If Morphology sees V+T (the verb If Morphology sees V+T (the verb having combined with tense in some having combined with tense in some way, say Affix Hopping, or Vway, say Affix Hopping, or VI), it I), it needs to pronounce it.needs to pronounce it.

Languages have rules about these Languages have rules about these things that tell us…things that tell us…


In English, we have the following In English, we have the following rules for pronouncing this rules for pronouncing this tense/agreement affix:tense/agreement affix:

(V+)T is pronounced like:(V+)T is pronounced like:/s/ if we have features [3, sg, /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present]present]/ed/ if we have the feature [past]/ed/ if we have the feature [past]Ø otherwiseØ otherwise


(V+)T is pronounced like:(V+)T is pronounced like:/s/ if we have features [3sg, present]/s/ if we have features [3sg, present]/ed/ if we have the feature [past]/ed/ if we have the feature [past]Ø otherwiseØ otherwise

[3sg] is a feature we’d expect to find on [3sg] is a feature we’d expect to find on Agr; [present] is a feature we’d expect to Agr; [present] is a feature we’d expect to find on T.find on T.

Hence: only if both Hence: only if both TT and and AgrAgr are in the structure can we ever see -s. (And only if T is in the structure can we ever see -ed). Otherwise, stem (nonfinite) form.

On to Legendre et al. On to Legendre et al. (2000)(2000)

Wexler: During OI stage, kids Wexler: During OI stage, kids sometimes omit T, and sometimes omit sometimes omit T, and sometimes omit Agr.Agr.

Legendre et al.: Looking at development Legendre et al.: Looking at development (of French), it appears that the choice of (of French), it appears that the choice of whatwhat to omit is systematic; we propose to omit is systematic; we propose a system to account for (predict) the a system to account for (predict) the proportion of the time kids omit T, Agr, proportion of the time kids omit T, Agr, both, neither, in progressive stages of both, neither, in progressive stages of development.development.

Optimality TheoryOptimality Theory

Legendre et al. (2000) is set in the Legendre et al. (2000) is set in the Optimality TheoryOptimality Theory framework (often framework (often seen in phonology, less often seen seen in phonology, less often seen applied to syntax).applied to syntax).

““Grammar is a system of ranked and Grammar is a system of ranked and violable constraints”violable constraints”


Grammar involves Grammar involves constraintsconstraints on the on the representations (e.g., SS, LF, PF, or representations (e.g., SS, LF, PF, or perhaps a combined representation).perhaps a combined representation).

The constraints exist in The constraints exist in all all languageslanguages..

Where languages differ is in how Where languages differ is in how important each constraint is with important each constraint is with respect to each other constraint.respect to each other constraint.


In our analysis, one constraint is In our analysis, one constraint is Parse-T, which says that tense must Parse-T, which says that tense must be realized in a clause. A structure be realized in a clause. A structure without tense (where TP has been without tense (where TP has been omitted, say) will violate this omitted, say) will violate this constraint.constraint.

Another constraint is *F (“Don’t have Another constraint is *F (“Don’t have a functional category”). A structure a functional category”). A structure withwith TP will violate this constraint. TP will violate this constraint.


Parse-T and *F are in Parse-T and *F are in conflictconflict—it is —it is impossible to satisfy both at the impossible to satisfy both at the same time.same time.

When constraints conflict, the choice When constraints conflict, the choice made (on a language-particular made (on a language-particular basis) of which constraint is basis) of which constraint is considered to be “more important” considered to be “more important” ((more highly rankedmore highly ranked) determines ) determines which constraint is satisfied and which constraint is satisfied and which must be violated.which must be violated.


So if *F >> Parse-T, TP will be So if *F >> Parse-T, TP will be omitted.omitted.

and if Parse-T >> *F, TP will be and if Parse-T >> *F, TP will be included.included.

Optimality Theory—big Optimality Theory—big picturepicture

Universal Grammar Universal Grammar isis the constraints the constraints that languages must obey.that languages must obey.

Languages differ only in how those Languages differ only in how those constraints are ranked relative to one constraints are ranked relative to one another. (So, “parameter” = “ranking”)another. (So, “parameter” = “ranking”)

The kid’s job is to re-rank constraints The kid’s job is to re-rank constraints until they match the order which until they match the order which generated the input that s/he hears.generated the input that s/he hears.

Floating constraintsFloating constraints

The innovation in Legendre et al. The innovation in Legendre et al. (2000) that gets us off the ground is the (2000) that gets us off the ground is the idea that as kids re-rank constraints, idea that as kids re-rank constraints, the the positionposition of the constraint in the of the constraint in the hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such that two positions can that two positions can overlapoverlap..

*F*F

Parse-TParse-T


*F*F

Parse-TParse-T

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


*F*F

Parse-TParse-T

(Under certain assumptions) this (Under certain assumptions) this predicts that we would see TP in predicts that we would see TP in the structure 50% of the time, and the structure 50% of the time, and see structures without TP the see structures without TP the other 50% of the time.other 50% of the time.

French kid dataFrench kid data

Looked at 3 French kids from CHILDESLooked at 3 French kids from CHILDES Broke development into stages based Broke development into stages based

on a modified MLU-type measure based on a modified MLU-type measure based on how long most of their utterances on how long most of their utterances were (2 words, more than 2 words) and were (2 words, more than 2 words) and how many of the utterances contain how many of the utterances contain verbs.verbs.

Looked at tense and agreement in each Looked at tense and agreement in each of the three stages represented in the of the three stages represented in the data.data.


Kids start out using 3sg agreement Kids start out using 3sg agreement and present tense for practically and present tense for practically everything (correct or not).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 agreement? Pronounce it as 3sg.

No tense? pronounce it as present. No tense? pronounce it as present. Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.).Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.).


This means if a kid uses 3sg or This means if a kid uses 3sg or present tense, we can’t tell if they present tense, we can’t tell if they are are reallyreally using 3sg (they using 3sg (they mightmight be) be) or if they are not using agreement at or if they are not using agreement at all and just pronouncing the default.all and just pronouncing the default.

So, we looked at non-present tense So, we looked at non-present tense forms and non-3sg forms only to forms and non-3sg forms only to avoid the question of the defaults.avoid the question of the defaults.

French kids dataFrench kids data

We found that tense and agreement We found that tense and agreement develop differently—specifically, in develop differently—specifically, in the first stage we looked at, kids the first stage we looked at, kids were using tense fine, but then in were using tense fine, but then in the next stage, they got the next stage, they got worseworse as the as the agreement improved.agreement improved.

Middle stage: looks likeMiddle stage: looks likecompetitioncompetition between T between Tand Agr for a single node.and Agr for a single node.

week 3. structure-building approaches to syntax acquisition grs lx 700 language acquisition and...

Documents

kids syntax

functional structure

functional elements

cpipvp kids

kids bad

wexler kids

radford kids dont

functional projections