Language Acquisition and Cross-Language Variation Colin Phillips Cognitive Neuroscience of Language...
-
Upload
roland-mclaughlin -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
0
Transcript of Language Acquisition and Cross-Language Variation Colin Phillips Cognitive Neuroscience of Language...
Language Acquisition and Cross-Language Variation
Colin PhillipsCognitive Neuroscience of Language Laboratory
Department of LinguisticsUniversity of Maryland
Overview of Talks
1. The Unification Problem
2. Building Syntactic Relations
3. Abstraction: Sounds to Symbols
4. Linguistics and Learning
In-situ
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Region
Reading Time
DeclC
QP
どの生徒に…
Outline
• Background
• Constraints on pronoun interpretation
• Argument structure
• Aspectual interpretation
• Verbal morphosyntax
• Conclusions
The Big Idea (not mine)
• Many properties of language seem hard-to-observe, hence hard-to-learn
• Typology may inform learning…i. Universals need not be learnedii. Parametric clusters: hard-to-observe properties can be linked to easy-to-observe properties
• Goal is to use typology to drive a deductive learning theory which requires simple choices
• “…we no longer consider UG as providing a format for rule systems and an evaluation metric. Rather, UG consists of various subsystems of principles […] Many of these principles are associated with parameters that must be fixed by experience. The parameters must have the property that they can be fixed by quite simple evidence, because this is what is available to the child.”
(Chomsky, 1986: 146)
• This is a new twist on Jakobson’s proposal in Kindersprache, Aphasie, und allgemeine Lautgesetze (1941) that language development should track cross-linguistic patterns of markedness
(Tomasello, 2000, Cognition)
Predictions
• Universal constraints respected early• Minimally different non-universal constraints
appear at a later age• Areas of parametric consistency also early (if
linked to an easy-to-learn property)• No violation of universals• Language-specific knowledge (relatively) delayed
Notice that…
• Relation between theories of adult language and
– Development - widely accepted
– Real-time Computation - widely rejected
Outline
• Background
• Constraints on pronoun interpretation
• Argument structure
• Aspectual interpretation
• Verbal morphosyntax
• Conclusions
Children Distinguish Universal and Language Particular Constraints on Coreference
Nina KazaninaColin Phillips
A Constraint on Interpretation
• When can a pronoun and a name refer to the same person?
i.e. when can they corefer
A Constraint on Interpretation
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
A Constraint on Interpretation
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
A Constraint on Interpretation
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
A Constraint on Interpretation
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
A Constraint on Interpretation
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
Japanese
[Pooh-ga hon-o yonde-iru aida] (kare-wa) ringo-o tabeta.
[(Kare-ga) hon-o yonde-iru aida] Pooh-wa ringo-o tabeta.
Pooh-wa [(kare-ga) hon-o yonde-iru aida] ringo-o tabeta.
*Kare-wa [Pooh-ga hon-o yonde-iru aida] ringo-o tabeta
A Constraint on Interpretation
S
NP VP
V NP
he
ate the apple
S’
S
whileS
NP VP
Comp
John
was reading the book
While John was reading the book, he ate the apple
A Constraint on Interpretation
S
NP VP
V NP
John
ate the apple
S’
S
whileS
NP VP
Comp
he
was reading the book
While he was reading the book, John ate the apple
A Constraint on InterpretationS
NP VP
V NP
John
ate the apple
S’VP
whileS
NP VP
Comp
he
was reading the bookJohn ate the apple while he was reading the book
A Constraint on InterpretationS
NP VP
V NP
he
ate the apple
S’VP
whileS
NP VP
Comp
John
was reading the bookHe ate the apple while John was reading the book
Principle C (informal)
• A name cannot be c-commanded by a pronoun that co-refers with it
Principle C in Other Languages
a. While he was reading the book, John ate an appleb. *He ate an apple while John was reading the book
• French, Italian, German, Greek, Amharic, Hindi, Hebrew, Spanish, etc.
• Mohawk
Principle C in Other Languages
MohawkNative American language, Quebec & upstate New York
• Free Word OrderSak ra-núhwe’-s ako-[a]tyá’tawiSak MsS-like-hab FsP-dress‘Sak likes her dress.’
• Ra-núhwe’-s Sak ako-[a]tyá’tawi• Sak ako-[a]tyá’tawi ra-núhwe’-s• Ra-núhwe’-s ako-[a]tyá’tawi Sak • Ako-[a]tyá’tawi ra-núhwe’-s Sak• Ako-[a]tyá’tawi Sak ra-núhwe’-s
Principle C in Other Languages
MohawkNative American language, Quebec & upstate New York
• Omission of arguments
Ra-núhwe’-sMsS-like-hab‘He likes it.’
Principle C in Other Languages
MohawkNative American language, Quebec & upstate New York
• Discontinuous constituents
Ne kíke wa-hi-yéna-‘ ne kwéskwesne this fact-1sS/MsO-catch-punc ne pig‘I caught this pig.’
Principle C in Other Languages
MohawkNative American language, Quebec & upstate New York
Condition C Effects
• Wa-ho-nakuni-‘ tsi Sak wa-hi-hrewaht-e’fact-NsS/MsO-anger-punc that Sak fact-1sS/MsO-punish-punc‘That I punished Saki made himi mad.’ (coreference possible)
• Wa-shako-hrori-‘ tsi Sak wa-hi-hrewaht-e’fact-MsS/FsO-tell-punc that Sak fact-1sS/MsO-punish-punc‘Hei told her that I punished Saki.’ (coreference impossible)
Language Acquisition
a. While he was reading the book, John ate an appleb. *He ate an apple while John was reading the book
• How could a child ever learn that Principle C applies?
• Particularly in a language like Mohawk, where its effects are rather obscure
• Why does Principle C apply in every language?
Language Acquisition
a. While he was reading the book, John ate an appleb. *He ate an apple while John was reading the book
• Universal Principles may not need to be learned - they may be part of the child’s innate knowledge of language
• This would explain why the principle is universal
• It would also set aside the language acquisition problem
• Predicts that young children should know constraints like Principle C
Language Acquisition
a. While he was in the box, the smurf ate a hamburger
d. *He ate a hamburger while the smurf was in the box
(Crain & McKee, 1985)
English
(1) While Poohi was reading a book, hei ate the apple.
(2) Poohi ate the apple while hei was reading a book.
(3) * Hei ate the apple while Poohi was reading the book. Pr. C sentence
(4) While hei was reading a book, Poohi ate the apple. while-
sentence
English
(1) While Poohi was reading a book, hei ate the apple.
(2) Poohi ate the apple while hei was reading a book.
(3) * Hei ate the apple while Poohi was reading the book. Pr. C sentence
(4) While hei was reading a book, Poohi ate the apple. while-sentence
Russian
(1R) Poka Poohi chital knigu, oni s'el yabloko. while Pooh was reading the book he ate the apple
(2R) Poohi s'el yabloko, poka oni chital knigu. Pooh ate the apple while he was reading the book
(3R) * Oni s'el yabloko, poka Poohi chital knigu. Pr. C sentence he ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book
(4R) * Poka oni chital knigu, Poohi s'el yabloko. poka-sentence
while he was reading the book Pooh ate the apple
Russian
• Backwards Anaphora is allowed in adult Russian: (5) Rasskaz, kotoryy onai prochitala, rasstroil devochkui.
The story which shei read upset the girli.
• No c-command between the pronoun and r-expression in poka-sentences
The poka-constraint is independent of Principle C
• The poka-constraint is a discourse-level constraint; applies to sequences of (agent-) subjects in Russian
• Language-specific, but minimally different from Principle C
English Russian
While Poohi was reading a book, hei ate the apple. Poohi ate the apple while hei was reading a book.
Hei ate the apple while Poohi was reading the book. * *Pr. C sent Pr. C
sent
While hei was reading a book, Poohi ate the apple. * while-sent poka-
sent
– English-speaking children know Principle C at 3;0
– English-speaking children allow Backwards Anaphora in while-sentences
(Crain & McKee 1985)
Methods and Design
• 50 Russian speaking monolingual children aged 2;8 - 4;11
• Truth Value Judgment Task
• 2x2 between-subject design
• 4 experimental stories per child
• Filler story after each tested story
• Child hears stories in which the coreference interpretation is TRUE
• Child then judges the truth of a sentence which is TRUE under the coreference interpretation
• If the child says that the sentence is FALSE, the relevant interpretation must be blocked by a linguistic constraint.
Truth Value Judgment Task
Truth Value Judgment Task
“I know what happened in this story…”
“Hello, Eeyore! I see that you’re reading a book.”
“What a fine-looking apple.”
“No, Pooh. You can’t eat the apple - that’s my apple.”
“Ok, I’ll have to eat a banana instead.”
“Ok, Pooh. I’ve finished reading. Now you can read the book.”
“Great. Now that Pooh is reading the book, I can eat this delicious apple.”
“I shouldn’t be such a greedy donkey - I should let Pooh eat the apple.”
“I suppose I have to eat a banana instead.”
“Here you are, Pooh. You can have the apple.”
“Oh, I’m such a lucky bear! I can read the book, and I can eat the apple, at the same time.”
Apple is eaten up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
3-4 Year Old English Speakers
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!
yes!
yes!
no!
How the Task Works
• Child is not being judged
• Identical story for all test sentences
• Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias
• Story favors the ungrammatical meaning
• Plausible denial
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
5-6 Year Old Russian Speakers
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!
yes!
no!
3 Year Old Russian Speakers
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!
yes!
yes!
no!
83
42
1018
0102030405060708090
100
% Rejection
Pr. C poka Control1
Control2
Russian, n=50
Overall Results
Russian Judgments: Breakdown by Age
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
< 3 years 3-5 years > 5 years Adults
Principle C
Poka/whilesentence
3-Year Olds
English: Crain &McKee, ave. age 3;1Russian: this study, ave. age 3;2
Rejection in Russian vs. English kids
Rus: N=39, mean age = 4;2 Eng: N=62, mean age = 4;2 (Crain&McKee 1985)
86%
48%
27%
88%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Principle C Poka/while sentCondition
Russian children
English children
Interim Conclusion
• 3-year old Russian children clearly distinguish two constraints on backwards anaphora which have very similar surface properties
• At age 3, English-speaking and Russian-speaking children show almost identical judgments - they respect the universal constraint
• Important further questions:(i) Why do Russian and English differ?(ii) How do Russian children become adult-like?
Outline
• Background
• Constraints on pronoun interpretation
• Argument structure
• Aspectual interpretation
• Verbal morphosyntax
• Conclusions
Cross-language Variation in Syntax-Semantics Linking Rules
Meesook KimColin PhillipsBeth Rabbin
Barbara Landau
Learning Verb Syntax
• “Locative Verbs”
• Verbs which refer to an action in which a substance moves to a particular location
• pour, spill, stuff, pile, fill, load, cover, decorate, spray, bandage, soak, sprinkle, spread, etc.
• Similar verbs and similar constructions found in very many languages
Learning Verb Syntax
• “Locative Verbs”
• Sally poured the water into the glass.Sally poured the glass with water.
• Sally filled the water into the glass.Sally filled the glass with water.
• Sally loaded the boxes into the truck.Sally loaded the truck with boxes.
Japanese
John-ga gurasu-ni mizu-o sosoi-da figure-frame
John-ga mizu-de gurasu-o sosoi-da ground-frame
John-ga ki-ni raito-o kazatta figure frame
John-ga raito-de ki-o kazatta ground frame
John-ga kabe-ni penki-o nutta figure-frame
John-ga penki-de kabe-o nutta. ground Frame
‘Overgeneralization’
• Well-known errors with locative verbs (Bowerman 1982)
I didn't fill water up to drink it; I filled it up for the flowers to drink it.Can I fill some salt in the bear? [= a bear-shaped salt shaker]I'm going to cover a screen over me.
(see also experimental data in Gropen et al. 1991a, b)
• Why do children make these errors?
Terminology
Sally poured the water into the glass
Terminology
Sally poured the water into the glass
moving objectFIGURE
Terminology
Sally poured the water into the glass
moving objectFIGURE
locationGROUND
Terminology
Sally poured the water into the glass
Sally filled the glass with the water
moving objectFIGURE
locationGROUND
Terminology
Sally poured the water into the glass
Sally filled the glass with the water
moving objectFIGURE
locationGROUND
locationGROUND
moving objectFIGURE
Terminology
Sally poured the water into the glass
Sally filled the glass with the water
moving objectFIGURE
locationGROUND
locationGROUND
moving objectFIGURE
Figure Frame
Ground Frame
Classes of Verbs
• Verbs with syntax like pour– dribble, drip, spill, shake, spin, spew, slop, etc.
• Verbs with syntax like fill– cover, decorate, bandage, blanket, soak,
drench, adorn, etc.
• Verbs with syntax like load– stuff, cram, jam, spray, sow, heap, spread, rub,
dab, plaster, etc.
Classes of Verbs
• Verbs with syntax like pour– dribble, drip, spill, shake, spin, spew, slop, etc.
• Verbs with syntax like fill– cover, decorate, bandage, blanket, soak,
drench, adorn, etc.
• Verbs with syntax like load– stuff, cram, jam, spray, sow, heap, spread, rub,
dab, plaster, etc.
manner-of-motion
Classes of Verbs
• Verbs with syntax like pour– dribble, drip, spill, shake, spin, spew, slop, etc.
• Verbs with syntax like fill– cover, decorate, bandage, blanket, soak,
drench, adorn, etc.
• Verbs with syntax like load– stuff, cram, jam, spray, sow, heap, spread, rub,
dab, plaster, etc.
manner-of-motion
change-of-state
Classes of Verbs
• Verbs with syntax like pour– dribble, drip, spill, shake, spin, spew, slop, etc.
• Verbs with syntax like fill– cover, decorate, bandage, blanket, soak,
drench, adorn, etc.
• Verbs with syntax like load– stuff, cram, jam, spray, sow, heap, spread, rub,
dab, plaster, etc.
manner-of-motion
change-of-state
manner-of-motion & change-of-state
Learning Syntax from Semantics
Manner-of-motion
VP
V NP PPfigure ground
VP
V NP PPfigureground
Change-of-state
FigureFrame
GroundFrame
Linking RulesSEMANTICS SYNTAX
Learning
• Linking Rules can be used to ‘bootstrap’ verb syntax or verb meanings, provided that Syntax-Semantics Linking Rules are– consistent across languages (i.e. verbs with
same meaning should have same syntax across all languages)
– innate (i.e. children know the connections from the outset)
• Assumption: linking generalizations are universal
• Shared by opposing accounts of learning verb syntax & semantics
But Languages Vary
• English*John decorated the flowers in the room. John decorated the room with flowers.
But Languages Vary
• English*John decorated the flowers in the room. John decorated the room with flowers.
Change-of-state--> Ground Frame
But Languages Vary
• English*John decorated the flowers in the room. John decorated the room with flowers.
• KoreanYumi-ka ccoch-ul pang-ey cangsikha-yess-ta Nom flowers-Acc room-Loc decorate-Past-Dec‘John decorated the flowers in the room.’Yumi-ka pang-ul ccoch-ulo cangsikha-yess-ta Nom room-Acc flowers-with decorate-Past-Dec‘John decorated the room with flowers.’
Change-of-state--> Ground Frame
But Languages Vary
• English*John decorated the flowers in the room. John decorated the room with flowers.
• KoreanYumi-ka ccoch-ul pang-ey cangsikha-yess-ta Nom flowers-Acc room-Loc decorate-Past-Dec‘John decorated the flowers in the room.’Yumi-ka pang-ul ccoch-ulo cangsikha-yess-ta Nom room-Acc flowers-with decorate-Past-Dec‘John decorated the room with flowers.’
Change-of-state--> Ground Frame
But Languages Vary
• English*John decorated the flowers in the room. John decorated the room with flowers.
• KoreanYumi-ka ccoch-ul pang-ey cangsikha-yess-ta Nom flowers-Acc room-Loc decorate-Past-Dec‘John decorated the flowers in the room.’Yumi-ka pang-ul ccoch-ulo cangsikha-yess-ta Nom room-Acc flowers-with decorate-Past-Dec‘John decorated the room with flowers.’
Change-of-state--> Ground Frame
Korean is more liberal than English
• English John piled the books on the shelf. John piled the shelf with books.
But Languages Vary
• English John piled the books on the shelf. John piled the shelf with books.
• Korean Yumi-ka chaek-lul chaeksang-ey ssa-ass-ta. Nom book-Acc table-Loc pile-Past-Dec ‘Yumi piled books on the table.’
But Languages Vary
• English John piled the books on the shelf. John piled the shelf with books.
• Korean Yumi-ka chaek-lul chaeksang-ey ssa-ass-ta. Nom book-Acc table-Loc pile-Past-Dec ‘Yumi piled books on the table.’*Yumi-ka chaeksang-lul chaek-elo ssa-ass-ta.
Nom table-Acc books-with pile-Past-Dec ‘Yumi piled the table with books.’
But Languages Vary
• English John piled the books on the shelf. John piled the shelf with books.
• Korean Yumi-ka chaek-lul chaeksang-ey ssa-ass-ta. Nom book-Acc table-Loc pile-Past-Dec ‘Yumi piled books on the table.’*Yumi-ka chaeksang-lul chaek-elo ssa-ass-ta.
Nom table-Acc books-with pile-Past-Dec ‘Yumi piled the table with books.’
But Languages Vary
Korean is more restrictive than English
A Problem for Learners?
• If syntax-semantics Linking Rules are not uniform across languages, then how can they help learners?
• If each language had different Linking Rules, would this be any use to a child?
Cross-Language Survey
• Survey I
English TurkishKorean LugandaFrench HindiJapanese HebrewChinese Malay Thai Arabic
• Survey II
ItalianYorubaPolishEweJapanese RussianFrench EnglishBrazilian Portuguese Spanish (Argentinian) Spanish (Castilian)
Cross-Language Survey
• Survey I
English TurkishKorean LugandaFrench HindiJapanese HebrewChinese Malay Thai Arabic
• Survey II
ItalianYorubaPolishEweJapanese RussianFrench EnglishBrazilian Portuguese Spanish (Argentinian) Spanish (Castilian)Less detailed
classification used(~15 verbs)
Cross-Language Survey
• Survey I
English TurkishKorean LugandaFrench HindiJapanese HebrewChinese Malay Thai Arabic
• Survey II
ItalianYorubaPolishEweJapanese RussianFrench EnglishBrazilian Portuguese Spanish (Argentinian) Spanish (Castilian)More detailed
classification used(~30 verbs)
Consistent Properties...
A Universal
• EnglishJohn poured the water into the glass.*John poured the glass with water.
• SpanishJuan vertí agua en el vaso.John poured water into the glass*Juan vertí el vaso con agua.John poured the glass with water
A Universal
• EnglishJohn poured the water into the glass.*John poured the glass with water.
• HebrewDanny shafax mayim letox ha-kos.John poured water into the glass‘John poured water into the glass.’*Danny shafax et ha-kos be-mayin.John poured Acc the glass with water‘*John poured the glass with water.’
A Universal
• EnglishJohn poured the water into the glass.*John poured the glass with water.
• JapaneseTaro-ga mizu-o baketu-ni sosoi-da. Nom water-Acc bucket-Loc pour-Past‘Taro poured water into a bucket.’*Taro-ga baketu-o mizu-de sosoi-da. Nom bucket-Acc water-with pour-Past‘*Taro poured a bucket with water.’
A Universal
Manner-of-motion
VP
V NP PPfigure ground
FigureFrame
SEMANTICS SYNTAX
Consistent Variation...
A Two-way Split
English
*He decorated lights on the tree
He decorated the tree with lights
French
Spanish
Malay
Arabic
Hebrew
Korean
He decorated lights on the tree
He decorated the tree with lights
Chinese
Japanese
Thai
Turkish
Hindi
Luganda
‘Serial Verbs’ (Verb Compounds)
• JapaneseJohn-ga Bill-o osi-taosi-ta. Nom Acc push-topple-Past‘John pushed Bill down.’
• Igbo (W. Africa)Adha si-ri anu ri-eAda cook-asp meat eat-asp‘Ada cooked the meat and ate it.’ (Igbo)
Easy to observe!
A Parameter
English
*He decorated lights on the tree
He decorated the tree with lights
French
Spanish
Malay
Arabic
Hebrew
Korean
He decorated lights on the tree
He decorated the tree with lights
Chinese
Japanese
Thai
Turkish
Hindi
Luganda
A Parameter
English
*He decorated lights on the tree
He decorated the tree with lights
French
Spanish
Malay
Arabic
Hebrew
Korean
He decorated lights on the tree
He decorated the tree with lights
Chinese
Japanese
Thai
Turkish
Hindi
Luganda Allow Serial Verbs
A Parameter
English
*He decorated lights on the tree
He decorated the tree with lights
French
Spanish
Malay
Arabic
Hebrew
Korean
He decorated lights on the tree
He decorated the tree with lights
Chinese
Japanese
Thai
Turkish
Hindi
Luganda Allow Serial Verbs
Don’t Allow Serial Verbs
A ParameterVP
V NP PPfigure ground
VP
V NP PPfigureground
Change-of-state
FigureFrame
GroundFrame
SEMANTICS SYNTAX
A ParameterVP
V NP PPfigure ground
VP
V NP PPfigureground
Change-of-state
FigureFrame
GroundFrame
SEMANTICS SYNTAX
SerialVerbs?
Quantitatively...
• Sample of ~2000 judgments in 20 languages• A small number of principles & parameters allows
us to predict ~90% of judgments• In some classes accuracy is much higher: basic
Figure class, Ground class, etc.• In some classes accuracy is somewhat lower at
present: Ground Alternator, ‘Pure’ Alternator
‘Overgeneralization’
• Well-known errors with locative verbs (Bowerman 1982)
I didn't fill water up to drink it; I filled it up for the flowers to drink it.Can I fill some salt in the bear? [= a bear-shaped salt shaker]I'm going to cover a screen over me.
(see also experimental data in Gropen et al. 1991a, b)
• Why do children make these errors?
Elicited Production Study
• Adult and child (age 3-4) speakers of English & Korean (10 in each group)
• Describing 30 videotaped scenes - 14 verbs(video clips preceded by a contrasting scene, to encourage production of full V NP PP structure)
• Are same errors found as in spontaneous speech?• If so, do we find evidence for mis-set parameter?
Elicited Production Study
• 300 locative structures elicited from each group• Adult speech is fully grammatical
Restricted Errors
• Errors with fill were extremely common; few otherwise
0102030405060708090
100
Fill (bypouring)
Fill (byloading)
Cover Decorate
% figure frames
Ground Verbs (children)
20
78
0102030405060708090
100
% Figure Frames
English Korean
• On other change-of-state verbs, English & Korean children showed very different production
• Both groups know native language syntax for these verbs
Successes & Failures
• No evidence that errors due to mis-set parameter• Korean 2-year olds use serial verb constructions in
spontaneous speech (Kim & Phillips, 1998); could support early knowledge of change-of-state verbs
• Prevalence of Fill errors remains puzzling
Interim Conclusions• Knowing the meaning of a verb does not predict
the verb’s syntax, BUT…
• Knowing the meaning of a verb, together with further syntactic knowledge about the language, does predict the verb’s syntax rather well
• Typological research contribute to explanation of (i) how linking rules are available in principle, and (ii) how children succeed in practice
• Many questions remain unanswered...
Outline
• Background
• Constraints on pronoun interpretation
• Argument structure
• Aspectual interpretation
• Verbal morphosyntax
• Conclusions
Developing Understanding of Events and Aspect
Nina KazaninaColin Phillips
Completion Entailments
Simple Past
John-ga ie-o tate-ta
Past Progressive
John-ga ie-o tate-tei-ta
Frame of Reference + past/progressive
Mary-ga NY-ni ryokoo-si-teiru aida, John-ga ie-o tateteita / tateta
Imperfective Paradox
(1) a. Mary built a house.b. Mary was building a house.
Imperfective Paradox
(1) a. Mary built a house.b. Mary was building a house.
How come we can say (1b) when no house gets built? Is build a house about building walls?
Imperfective Paradox
(1) a. Mary built a house.b. Mary was building a house.
How come we can say (1b) when no house gets built? Is build a house about building walls?
(2) a. Mary drove from DC to Boston.b. Mary was driving from DC to Boston.
Is drive to Boston about getting to NYC?
What does the IMP/PROG denote?
a. Mary was drawing an arc.
a. Mary was drawing an arc. b. Mary was drawing a circle.
a. Mary was drawing an arc. b. Mary was drawing a circle.
c. Mary was drawing a face. d. Mary was drawing a bike.
• “Present activities are the whole story”• Allows both complete & incomplete events in the
denotation of the verb: "a verb such as 'cross' is true of all crossings independently of whether they culminate."
• An eventuality may – culminate
Cul(e,t) - e is an event that culminates at time t
– hold for a whileHold(e,t) - e is an event which is in progress (in its developmental portion) at t
Parsons (1989)
• An incomplete event in the actual world w is related to a
complete version of the same event in a certain possible world
w’ (Dowty 1979, Landman 1991, Portner 1998 among others)
Dowty (1979): [PROG ] is true at I and w iff there is an interval I’ such
that I’ I [and I is not a final subinterval of I’] and there is an inertia world
w’ for which is true at I’ and w’, and w is exactly w’ at all times preceding
and [including] I
DC
NY
BostonDC
NY
IMP/PROG
Actual world w Possible world w’
Dowty-Landman Approach
Research Question:
• Do children know how to deal with the
IMP Paradox?
Russian: Perfective vs. Imperfective
• Rus Perfective Eng simple past– refers to completed events
postroil dom ‘built a house’ sobral kartinku ‘do a puzzle’
• Rus Imperfective Eng past progressive– can refer to completed or incomplete events– used to describe ongoing events (past, present or
future)
stroil dom ‘was building a house’ sobiral kartinku ‘was doing a puzzle’
Previous Research
Previous findings suggest early mastery of aspect
• Spontaneous Speech:
Children produce both aspectual forms from a very
young age (< 2 years) (Brun et al., 1999; Gvozdev,
1961; Bar-Shalom&Snyder 2000)
Previous Research• Picture-matching task (Vinnitskaya&Wexler, 2001)
Mal’chik chitalI knigu. Mal’chik prochitalP knigu.The boy was reading the book. The boy read the book.
3-4 year olds appear to use IMP vs. PERF to correctly distinguish ongoing from completed events
Our Experiments
• Do Russian children appropriately make use of aspectual morphology to distinguish completed from incomplete events?
• Tested verbs were Creation verbs(enable a clear-cut difference between complete and incomplete events)
• 4 stories per child, 44 trials total
• Within-subject design
• 11 Russian monolingual children, aged 3-5, tested in Moscow preschools
Creation Experiment
Creation Expt: Design
• In each story, an event occurs at 3 landmarks:a flower-bed, a castle and a tree
• In each story, an event occurs
(i) completely(ii) incompletely randomized order(iii) not at all
• Children were asked where an event happened, using PERF and IMP verbs; encouraged to give more than one location as answer
• Monkey assemble a smurf obez’yanka sobrala/sobirala gnomika
• Lion build a house l’venok postroil/stroil domik
• Tiger make a puzzle tigrenok sostavil/sostavlyal kartinku
• Puppy mould a bear sh’enok vylepil/lepil medvedya
Creation Expt: Scenarios
• Monkey assemble a smurf obez’yanka sobrala/sobirala gnomika
• Lion build a house l’venok postroil/stroil domik
• Tiger make a puzzle tigrenok sostavil/sostavlyal kartinku
• Puppy mould a bear sh’enok vylepil/lepil medvedya
Creation Expt: Scenarios
A road with 3 landmarks: a flower-bed, a castle and a tree. There are parts of a smurf at each location.
A monkey starts her journey down the road.
The monkey arrives at the flower-bed.These are nice flowers. Oh, look there are the pieces of a smurf down here. Let me try to revive this guy.
OK, the body goes on top of the legs, what’s next...
A bug bites the monkey. Ouch, that hurts!!! I don’t want to stay here any longer. I’m going to leave all of it like this and continue down the road.
The monkey reaches the castle.Oh, look, what a beautiful castle! And there are pieces of a smurf next to it. Let me try this one too!
OK, the body goes on top of the legs, what’s next...
A bug bites the monkey. Oh no, a bug bit me again! Why am I so unlucky today?No, this time, I’m going to finish this thing anyway!
The monkey assembles the smurf completely and continues along the road.
The monkey reaches the tree.What a great tree, it’s so nice to sit here. And there are some smurf pieces here again. But I guess I have to go home now.
The scene at the end of the story.
INCOMPLETE
The scene at the end of the story.
INCOMPLETE
COMPLETE
The scene at the end of the story.
INCOMPLETE
COMPLETE
The scene at the end of the story.
Gde obez’yanka sobrala gnomika?assemble-PERF
Where did the monkey assemble the smurf?
100%
ALL CHILDREN
Gde obez’yanka sobrala gnomika?assemble-PERF
Where did the monkey assemble the smurf?
Gde obez’yanka sobirala gnomika? assemble-IMPWhere was the monkey assembling the smurf?
Gde obez’yanka sobirala gnomika? assemble-IMPWhere was the monkey assembling the smurf?
100%
100%
ADULTLIKE children vs.
Gde obez’yanka sobirala gnomika? assemble-IMPWhere was the monkey assembling the smurf?
100%
100%
ADULTLIKE group vs. NON-ADULTLIKE group
100%
8%
Adultlike group Non-adultlike group(N=5) (N=6)
PERF
IMP
Creation Expt: Results from Children
Adultlike group Non-adultlike group(N=5) (N=6)
PERF
IMP
Creation Expt: Results from Children
20/20 acceptances
Adultlike group Non-adultlike group(N=5) (N=6)
PERF
IMP
Creation Expt: Results from Children
22/24 rejections
20/20 acceptances
Interruptions• Interruptions occur twice per story; allows
independent test of ability to give 2 locations as answer:
Interruptions• Interruptions occur twice per story; allows
independent test of ability to give 2 locations as answer:
Gde obez’yanku ukusil zhuk?Where was the monkey stung by a bug?
Interruptions• Interruptions occur twice per story; allows
independent test of ability to give 2 locations as answer:
Gde obez’yanku ukusil zhuk?Where was the monkey stung by a bug?
All children answered with 2 locations
build a smurf
Past incomplete
now
sobiralaI gnomikawas building a smurf
Where we are...
build a smurf
Present ongoing Past incomplete
now
build a smurf
now
sobiraetI gnomikais building a smurf
sobiralaI gnomikawas building a smurf
Where we are...
build a smurf
Present ongoing Past incomplete
now
build a smurf
now
Completion Hypothesis: children require possibility of completion in the actual world
sobiraetI gnomikais building a smurf
sobiralaI gnomikawas building a smurf
Where we are...
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
Completion Hypothesis: children require possibility of completion in the actual world
(A) Presence of the Object is needed?
• Creation verbs raise a separate problem:no object in the scene unless the event is completed
(e.g., Parsons notion of Incomplete Objects)
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
Completion Hypothesis: children require possibility of completion in the actual world
• Change-of-state verbs (e.g. color in a flower) do not have this problem - the object (a flower) is present throughout the event independent of its completion
(A) Presence of the Object is needed?
• Creation verbs raise a separate problem:no object in the scene unless the event is completed
(e.g., Parsons notion of Incomplete Objects)
• Change-of-state verbs (e.g. color in a flower) do not have this problem - the object (a flower) is present throughout the event independent of its completion
• Will the error from the Creation experiment persist with Change-of-state verbs? If children again reject IMP with incomplete events, then the problem is not (solely) due to the absence of the object in the scene
(A) Presence of the Object is needed?
• Creation verbs raise a separate problem:no object in the scene unless the event is completed
(e.g., Parsons notion of Incomplete Objects)
• Same task as in the Creation expt
• 34 children age 2;7 - 6;0• 4 stories per child
• Run in Moscow & Moscow region in Jan’02 & Aug’02
Change-of-state Expt: Design
• Tigrenok perevorachivalI/perevernulP kartinku Tiger turn over a picture
• Zaychik napolnyalI/napolnilP stakanchik Rabbit fill a glass
• Sh’enok razvorachivalI/razvernulP podarok Puppy unwrap a gift
• Kotenok zakrashivalI/zakrasilP cvetokKitty color in a flower
Change-of-state Expt: Scenarios
INCOMPLETECOMPLETE
Change-of-state Expt: Results from Children
Adultlike group
(N=13, mean age = 5;2)
PERF
IMP
88% acceptance (38/43 trials)
Change-of-state Expt: Results from Children
Adultlike group Non-adultlike group (N=13, mean age = 5;2) (N=16, mean age = 4;2)
PERF
IMP
86% rejection(49/57)
88% acceptance
(38/43 trials)
• PERF - 92% correct
• IMP - 52% correct
Mean age
Adultlike group N=13 5;2(accept IMP for INC in 88% trials)
Non-adultlike group N=16 4;2(accept IMP for INC in 14% trials)
(remaining 5 children - hard to classify due to inconsistent responses)
Change-of-state Expt: Summary of Results
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(error due to Creation verbs)
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(error due to Creation verbs)
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
color in a flower
now
Where we are...
Past incomplete / conative
zakrashivalaI cvetokwas coloring in a flower
color in a flower
Present ongoing
now
color in a flower
now
zakrashivaetI cvetokis coloring in a flower
Where we are...
Non-counterfactual Counterfactual
Past incomplete / conative
zakrashivalaI cvetokwas coloring in a flower
color in a flower
Present ongoing
now
color in a flower
now
zakrashivaetI cvetokis coloring in a flower
Where we are...
Non-counterfactual Counterfactual
Past incomplete / conative
zakrashivalaI cvetokwas coloring in a flower
The event is counterfactual iff - not completed by now or - cannot be completed in the future
color in a flower
Present ongoing
now
color in a flower
now
Complete Event Hypothesis: children fail to license IMP with counterfactual events
zakrashivaetI cvetokis coloring in a flower
Where we are...
Non-counterfactual Counterfactual
Past incomplete / conative
The event is counterfactual iff - not completed by now or - cannot be completed in the future
zakrashivalaI cvetokwas coloring in a flower
Parsons (1989)
(3) a. Mary was coloring in the flower. b. (e)[Coloring(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the flower) & (t)[ t<now & Hold(e,t)]]
(4) a. Mary is coloring in the flower. b. (e)[Coloring(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the flower) & (t)[ t=now & Hold(e,t)]]
Children accept the imperfective with present ongoing events,but reject it with past ongoing events =>
unexpected for Parsons’ theory
Parsons (1989)
(3) a. Mary was coloring in the flower. b. (e)[Coloring(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the flower) & (t)[ t<now & Hold(e,t)]]
(4) a. Mary is coloring in the flower. b. (e)[Coloring(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the flower) & (t)[ t=now & Hold(e,t)]]
Children accept the imperfective with present ongoing events,but reject it with past ongoing events =>
unexpected for Parsons’ theory
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(error due to Creation verbs)
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
Complete Event Hypothesis: children fail to license IMP with counterfactual events
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(error due to Creation verbs)
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
Complete Event Hypothesis: children fail to license IMP with counterfactual events
• Children fail to make distinction between the semantics of IMP
and PERF in one particular situation - with conative (past
permanently incomplete) events (as in the Creation & Change-of-
state experiments)
• Maybe they will distinguish semantics of IMP from that of PERF
in some other situation
Children: semantics IMP = semantics PERF ?
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing-success Experiment
(i) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing-success Experiment
Adult Response
YES
(i) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
(ii) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing-success Experiment
Adult Response
YES
NO
(i) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
(ii) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
evaluation of Matrix event
Ongoing-success Experiment
Adult Response
YES
NO
(i) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
(ii) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.
If children behave like adults =>
they know some semantic difference between IMP & PERF
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
evaluation of Matrix event
Ongoing-success Experiment
Adult Response
YES
NO
• Truth Value Judgment Task (Crain&Thornton 1998)
• 12 children age 3 - 5;10; 4 stories each
• Each story was such that
IMP sentence is correct
PERF sentence is wrong
• 39 trials total: 19 trials – IMP20 trials - PERF
Ongoing-success Expt: Design
Ongoing Experiment Results
39 trials total: 20 trials - PERF, 19 trials - IMP
Ongoing Experiment Results
80%
0%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PERF IMP
Children
Adults
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(error due to Creation verbs)
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in the ongoing-success situation
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
Complete Event Hypothesis: children fail to license IMP with counterfactual events
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(error due to Creation verbs)
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in the ongoing-success situation
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
Complete Event Hypothesis: children fail to license IMP with counterfactual events
Landman (1992): IMP(A) – the imperfective form of the predicate A with a denotation - is true in a given event e iff
(i) E, such that e E, E (E – complete event/event type)
(ii) E CON (e, w)
Landman (1992): IMP(A) – the imperfective form of the predicate A with a denotation - is true in a given event e iff
(i) E, such that e E, E (E – complete event/event type)
(ii) E CON (e, w)
CON (e, w) = w
The actual world is enough to find E
CON (e, w) ≠ w
Need to appeal to possible worlds to find E
e - non-counterfactual e - counterfactual
CON (e, w) = w
The actual world is enough to find E
CON (e, w) ≠ w
Need to appeal to possible worlds to find E
Complete Event Hypothesis: children fail to license IMP with counterfactual events...
Landman (1992): IMP(A) – the imperfective form of the predicate A with a denotation - is true in a given event e iff
(i) E, such that e E, E (E – complete event/event type)
(ii) E CON (e, w)
e - non-counterfactual e - counterfactual
CON (e, w) = w
The actual world is enough to find E
CON (e, w) ≠ w
Need to appeal to possible worlds to find E
Landman (1992): IMP(A) – the imperfective form of the predicate A with a denotation - is true in a given event e iff
(i) E, such that e E, E (E – complete event/event type)
(ii) E CON (e, w)
e - non-counterfactual e - counterfactual
Complete Event Hypothesis: children fail to license IMP with counterfactual events...
because they fail to properly deal with non-actual worlds
• Children incorrectly reject IMP in conative situations (Creation & Change-of-state expts)Okolo dereva Obez’yanka perevorachivalaI kartinku.
At the tree Monkey was turning over a picture.
Complete Event Hypothesis
turn over the picture
Fail if counterfactual e(no E can be found in the actual world)
now
e
• Children correctly accept IMP in the ongoing-success situation
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Complete Event Hypothesis
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
e
Succeed if non-counterfactual e
(E can be found in the actual world)
E
now
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Follow-up:
Ongoing-failure
Ongoing-success
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Follow-up:
e
Ongoing-failure
Ongoing-success
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Follow-up:
Ongoing-failure
Ongoing-success
e
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
NON-counterfactualChildren accepted IMP
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Counterfactual accept/reject IMP???
Follow-up:
Ongoing-failure
Ongoing-success
do the puzzle
clean the table
BOY
GIRL
water flowers now
BOY
GIRL
water flowers
clean the table
now
Ongoing-failure
Ongoing-success
Conative
Russian children
do the puzzle
clean the table
BOY
GIRL
water flowers now
BOY
GIRL
water flowers
clean the table
now
Ongoing-failure
Ongoing-success
Conative
Russian children
Complete EventHypothesis
do the puzzle
clean the table
BOY
GIRL
water flowers now
BOY
GIRL
water flowers
clean the table
now
Ongoing-failure
Ongoing-success
Conative
Russian children
• conative reading is NOT available
# Het meisje maakte een puzzel (bij het huis). The girl was doing a puzzle (at the tree).
Adult Dutch
do the puzzle
clean the table
BOY
GIRL
water flowers now
BOY
GIRL
water flowers
clean the table
now
• ongoing reading IS available
Terwijl Hans de bloemen aan het water geven was, maakte Maria de tafel schoon.
While the boy was watering the flowers, the girl did/was doing the puzzle.
do the puzzle
clean the table
BOY
GIRL
water flowers now
BOY
GIRL
water flowers
clean the table
now
Ongoing-failure
Ongoing-success
Conative
Rus adultsDutch
simple past =Rus children
• What may have looked at first like a typological anomaly, may turn out to reflect a form of ‘parametric learning’, moving from the ‘Dutch’ state to the adult Russian state
Outline
• Background
• Constraints on pronoun interpretation
• Argument structure
• Aspectual interpretation
• Verbal morphosyntax
• Conclusions
Verbal Morphosyntax
Cross-Language Contrasts at Age 2
• ‘Root Infinitives’ in spontaneous speech of 2-year olds in many languages; alternate with finite forms
doggie wants snack doggie want snackHans ißt Brot Hans Brot essen
• Striking regularities in distribution of Root Infinitives across languages (update of Phillips, 1995)
Cross-Language Contrasts at Age 2
• Root Infinitives absent from children’s wh-questions and topicalizations in German, Dutch, Swedish, etc.
• These are languages where the adult language disallows embedded infinitival wh-clauses
Cross-Language Contrasts at Age 2
• Root Infinitives very rare in sentences with overt subjects in some languages
• These are languages where the adult language disallows ECM (e.g., I want John to leave); e.g. Dutch, German, Russian
• In languages which allow ECM, children produce overt subjects with RI’s; e.g. English, Danish, Icelandic
• Although the cause of RI’s remains unclear, the distribution of RI’s across languages closely tracks the language-specific syntax of infinitival clauses
• Why does language-specific knowledge appear so rapidly in this case?
• Surface syntax is easy-to-observe
Cross-Language Contrasts at Age 2
Outline
• Background
• Constraints on pronoun interpretation
• Argument structure
• Aspectual interpretation
• Verbal morphosyntax
• Conclusions
Conclusions
• Cross-language typology can help to predict developmental trajectories … imperfectly
• Must be combined with an independent understanding of what a child is equipped to easily observe in language input
• ‘Deep typology’ is not a replacement for ‘observational learning’; it enhances observational learning by making observations more powerful
• In this light, developmental trajectories could be projected rather more accurately
??
Unification Problem
Overview of Talks
1. The Unification Problem
2. Building Syntactic Relations
3. Abstraction: Sounds to Symbols
4. Linguistics and Learning
In-situ
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Region
Reading Time
DeclC
QP
どの生徒に…
Prospects
• The Unification Problem is becoming a problem, not a mystery
• We can generate detailed hypotheses about real-time linguistic computation … and test them
• We can probe different levels of representation of the same external events
• We can draw close connections between theories of the adult state and theories of development
with help from ...University of Maryland
Shani AbadaSachiko Aoshima
Daniel Garcia-PedrosaAna Gouvea
Nina KazaninaMoti LiebermanLeticia PablosDavid PoeppelBeth RabbinSilke Urban
Carol WhitneyMasaya Yoshida
University of Delaware
Evniki EdgarBowen HuiBaris KabakTom Pellathy
Dave SchneiderKaia Wong
Alec Marantz, MITElron Yellin, MIT
National Science FoundationJames S. McDonnell Foundation
Human Frontiers Science ProgramJapan Science & Technology Program
Kanazawa Institute of Technology
http://www.ling.umd.edu/colin
Experimental Results: Breakdown by Condition
Yes/No
Principle CN=12
Poka-sentN=12
FA 1N=10
FA 2N=10
0/4 7 1 0 0
1/3 2 3 0 0
2/2 3 1 1 2
3/1 0 5 2 3
4/0 0 2 7 5
FA1: While Poohi was reading a book, hei ate the apple.FA2: Poohi ate the apple while hei was reading a book.Pr_C: * Hei ate the apple while Poohi was reading the book. Poka-sent: *While hei was reading a book, Poohi ate the apple.
How the Task Works
• Child is not being judged
• Identical story for all test sentences
• Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias
• Story favors the ungrammatical meaning
• Plausible denial
Plausible Denial
He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.
Plausible Denial
He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.
Plausible Denial
He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.
TRUE - but ungrammatical
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.
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.
Eeyore
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 FALSEEeyore
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
“Great. Now that Pooh is reading the book, I can eat this delicious apple.”
“I shouldn’t be such a greedy donkey - I should let Pooh eat the apple.”
“I suppose I have to eat a banana instead.”