Week 12. Acquirers and questions GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

Week 12.Week 12.Acquirers and questionsAcquirers and questions

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic Linguistic

TheoryTheory

English English whwh-questions-questions

What will John bake?What will John bake?

Two components to forming a Two components to forming a (main clause) (main clause) whwh-question (in -question (in English):English): Move a Move a whwh-word to SpecCP.-word to SpecCP. Move T to C (Subject-Aux InversionMove T to C (Subject-Aux Inversion—SAI)—SAI)

Question formationQuestion formation

Declarative: Declarative: John will buy coffee.John will buy coffee.

WhWh-inversion: -inversion: What What willwill JohnJohn buy?buy? WhWh-fronting: -fronting: WhatWhat will John buy?will John buy? Yes/No-inversion: Yes/No-inversion: WillWill JohnJohn buy buy coffee?coffee?

Greenberg (1963):Greenberg (1963): WhWh-inversion implies -inversion implies WhWh-fronting.-fronting. Yes/No-inversion implies Yes/No-inversion implies WhWh-inversion.-inversion.

WhWh-inversion-inversionWhWh--frontingfronting

English, German:English, German: Both. Both. WhatWhat willwill JohnJohn buy? buy?

Japanese Korean:Japanese Korean: neither.neither. John will buy what?John will buy what?

Finnish:Finnish: WhWh-fronting only.-fronting only. WhatWhat John will buy? John will buy?

UnattestedUnattested:: WhWh-inversion -inversion only.only. *Will John buy what?*Will John buy what?

Y/N-inversionY/N-inversionWhWh--inversioninversion

English:English: BothBoth WillWill JohnJohn buy coffee? What buy coffee? What willwill JohnJohn buy? buy?

Japanese:Japanese: NeitherNeither John will buy coffee? John will buy what?John will buy coffee? John will buy what?

Lithuanian:Lithuanian: WhWh-inversion only.-inversion only. John will buy coffee? What John will buy coffee? What willwill JohnJohn buy? buy?

UnattestedUnattested:: Y/N-inversion only.Y/N-inversion only. WillWill JohnJohn buy coffee? What John will buy? buy coffee? What John will buy?

Universals and Universals and parametersparameters

Even if it’s not completely clear what Even if it’s not completely clear what accounts for the implicational accounts for the implicational universals, inversion and universals, inversion and whwh-fronting -fronting do seem to be independent.do seem to be independent.

A kid needs to learn what his/her A kid needs to learn what his/her language does in each domain.language does in each domain. Wh-inversion implies Wh-fronting: Perhaps Wh-inversion implies Wh-fronting: Perhaps the only reason you’d move T to C is to get the only reason you’d move T to C is to get a [wh] feature originally on T into a a [wh] feature originally on T into a position where it can be checked by a position where it can be checked by a whwh--word in SpecCP (Wh-criterion, see Guasti).word in SpecCP (Wh-criterion, see Guasti).

Y/N-inversion implies Wh-inversion: ?Y/N-inversion implies Wh-inversion: ?

Kids get these Kids get these parameters down earlyparameters down early

Guasti (2000): Adam, Eve, and Sarah pretty Guasti (2000): Adam, Eve, and Sarah pretty much never left much never left whwh-words in situ, and when -words in situ, and when they did it was generally in a they did it was generally in a (grammatical) echo question.(grammatical) echo question.

Same with inversion, there seem to be very Same with inversion, there seem to be very few (on the order of 1%) errors of non-few (on the order of 1%) errors of non-inversion in German, Italian, Swedish.inversion in German, Italian, Swedish.

Yet Bellugi (1971)—very famously—seemed to Yet Bellugi (1971)—very famously—seemed to find something different in English… find something different in English… Stages:Stages: SAI in yes-no questions, not in SAI in yes-no questions, not in whwh-questions-questions

Notice this runs counter to Greenberg’s univeral.Notice this runs counter to Greenberg’s univeral. SAI in positive questions, not in negative SAI in positive questions, not in negative questions.questions.

Kuczaj & Maratsos Kuczaj & Maratsos (1983)(1983)

Kids seem Kids seem to learn to learn auxiliariauxiliaries one by es one by one; they one; they appear at appear at different different times.times.

Form Abe Ben

Uninv Inv Uninv Inv

can 2;5 2;11 2;6 2;10

is (cop)

2;7 3;1 2;4 2;8

are (cop)

2;9 3;0 2;7 2;10

is (aux)

3;0 3;0 2;7 3;1

are (aux)

3;0 3;1 2;10 3;0

will 3;0 3;1 2;10 2;10


Each Each auxiliary auxiliary seems be seems be first used first used outside of outside of inversion inversion contexts, contexts, only later only later in in inversionsinversions

Form Abe Ben

Uninv Inv Uninv Inv

can 2;5 2;11 2;6 2;10

is (cop)

2;7 3;1 2;4 2;8

are (cop)

2;9 3;0 2;7 2;10

is (aux)

3;0 3;0 2;7 3;1

are (aux)

3;0 3;1 2;10 3;0

will 3;0 3;1 2;10 2;10


Only Only correctlycorrectly inverted inverted verbs verbs (auxiliari(auxiliaries) appear es) appear in child in child speech (no speech (no inversion inversion of main of main verbs)verbs)

Form Abe Ben

Uninv Inv Uninv Inv

can 2;5 2;11 2;6 2;10

is (cop)

2;7 3;1 2;4 2;8

are (cop)

2;9 3;0 2;7 2;10

is (aux)

3;0 3;0 2;7 3;1

are (aux)

3;0 3;1 2;10 3;0

will 3;0 3;1 2;10 2;10

A famous non-result: A famous non-result: SAI in YNQs before SAI SAI in YNQs before SAI

in whQsin whQs Adam: At a certain Adam: At a certain point, inversion point, inversion appears in yes-no appears in yes-no questions—but questions—but inversion with inversion with whwh--questions is still questions is still infrequent. Soon infrequent. Soon afterwards, afterwards, inversion is inversion is frequent for both frequent for both types of questions.types of questions.

YNQs WhQs

Inv Uninv Inv Uninv

3;0

0 1 0 3

3;5

198 7 9 22

3;8

33 5

A famous non-result: A famous non-result: SAI in YNQs before SAI SAI in YNQs before SAI

in whQsin whQs Problem is, seems to be true of Problem is, seems to be true of Adam’s files, but not true Adam’s files, but not true generally…generally…

Several later studies with better Several later studies with better sampling show no identifiable sampling show no identifiable stage where yes-no questions stage where yes-no questions invert while invert while whwh-questions don’t—in -questions don’t—in fact, even the frequency doesn’t fact, even the frequency doesn’t go in one direction for all kids.go in one direction for all kids.

Stromswold (1990, table Stromswold (1990, table 5.5)5.5)

% of inversion WHQ % of inversion WHQ vs.YNQvs.YNQ

Child WH YN Child WH YN

Adam 88.3 96.6 Nathan 60.1 46.2

Allison 85.7 100 Nina 98.5 93.9

April 91.7 94.1 Peter 92.1 98.5

Eve 95.5 87.2 Ross 99.3 97

Mark 97.9 97.6 Sarah 92.9 91.9

Naomi 96.2 94.2 Shem 95.6 79

MEAN 93 93.7

Conclusion really seems Conclusion really seems to beto be

Kids will sometimes fail to Kids will sometimes fail to invert.invert.

Kids will sometimes fail to Kids will sometimes fail to invert more in one construction invert more in one construction (e.g., (e.g., whwh-questions) than in -questions) than in another (e.g., yes/no-another (e.g., yes/no-questions), but which one gets questions), but which one gets the advantage seems to vary by the advantage seems to vary by kid.kid.

SAI errors: doublingSAI errors: doubling

A A double-auxiliary double-auxiliary error, both error, both an inverted and an un-inverted an inverted and an un-inverted auxiliary:auxiliary: Why Why diddid you you diddid scare me? scare me? How How cancan he he cancan look? look?

A “A “double-tensingdouble-tensing” error (where ” error (where an auxiliary moves to I but the an auxiliary moves to I but the verb surfaces with tense).verb surfaces with tense). What What diddid you you boughtbought?? What What did did you you diddid??

Doubling errorsDoubling errors

Are the kids pronouncing a “loud Are the kids pronouncing a “loud trace” of (head-)movement?trace” of (head-)movement? (Are (Are they moving the auxiliary but they moving the auxiliary but failing to leave the trace failing to leave the trace unpronounced?) That would be unpronounced?) That would be interesting.interesting.

Are they just forgetting what they Are they just forgetting what they are trying to say midway through are trying to say midway through and “blending” two structures? and “blending” two structures? (one with and one without (one with and one without movement)movement)

Nakayama (1987)Nakayama (1987)

The longer the subject is, the more The longer the subject is, the more likely a kid is to make a doubling likely a kid is to make a doubling error; the length of the VP makes no error; the length of the VP makes no difference.difference. Is [the boy who is watching Mickey] is Is [the boy who is watching Mickey] is happy?happy?

Looks like blending, rather than the Looks like blending, rather than the (more interesting) “loud trace” idea… (more interesting) “loud trace” idea… Common error type:Common error type: Is [the boy who is watching M], is he happy?Is [the boy who is watching M], is he happy?

Inversion in negationInversion in negation

Guasti, Thornton & Wexler (BUCLD Guasti, Thornton & Wexler (BUCLD 1995) looked at doubling in 1995) looked at doubling in negative questions.negative questions.

Previous results (Bellugi 1967, Previous results (Bellugi 1967, 1971, Stromswold 1990) indicated 1971, Stromswold 1990) indicated that kids tend to invert less often that kids tend to invert less often in negative questions.in negative questions. First: True?First: True? Second: Why?Second: Why?

GTW (1995)GTW (1995)

Elicited negative questions…Elicited negative questions… I heard the snail doesn’t like some I heard the snail doesn’t like some things to eat. Ask him what.things to eat. Ask him what.

There was one place Gummi Bear There was one place Gummi Bear couldn’t eat the raisin. Ask the snail couldn’t eat the raisin. Ask the snail where.where.

One of these guys doesn’t like cheese. One of these guys doesn’t like cheese. Ask the snail who.Ask the snail who.

I heard that the snail doesn’t like I heard that the snail doesn’t like potato chips. Could you potato chips. Could you ask ask him if he him if he doesn’t?doesn’t?

GTW (1995)GTW (1995)

Kids got positive questions rightKids got positive questions right for the most part.for the most part. 88% of kids’ wh-questions had 88% of kids’ wh-questions had inversioninversion

96% of kids’ yes-no questions had 96% of kids’ yes-no questions had inversioninversion

Except youngest kid (3;8), who had Except youngest kid (3;8), who had inversion only 42% of the time.inversion only 42% of the time.

Kids got negative declaratives Kids got negative declaratives right right without exception, with without exception, with dodo--support and clitic support and clitic n’tn’t..

GTW (1995)GTW (1995)

Kids got lots of negative Kids got lots of negative whwh-questions -questions wrongwrong..

Aux-doublingAux-doubling What kind of bread do you don’t like? (3;10)What kind of bread do you don’t like? (3;10)

Neg & Aux doublingNeg & Aux doubling Why can’t she can’t go underneath? (4;0)Why can’t she can’t go underneath? (4;0)

No I to C raising (inversion)No I to C raising (inversion) Where he couldn’t eat the raisins? (4;0)Where he couldn’t eat the raisins? (4;0)

Not Not structurestructure Why can you not eat chocolate? (4;1)Why can you not eat chocolate? (4;1)

GTW (1995)GTW (1995) But kids got negative But kids got negative subjectsubject whwh-questions -questions right.right. which one doesn’t like his hair messed up? which one doesn’t like his hair messed up? (4;0)(4;0)

……as well as as well as how-come how-come questions.questions. How come the dentist can’t brush all the How come the dentist can’t brush all the teeth? (4;2)teeth? (4;2)

Re: Re: Not Not structurestructure Why can you not eat chocolate? (4;1)Why can you not eat chocolate? (4;1) Kids only do this with object and adjunct Kids only do this with object and adjunct whwh--questionsquestions—if kids just sometimes prefer —if kids just sometimes prefer notnot instead of instead of n’tn’t, we would expect them to use it , we would expect them to use it just as often with subject just as often with subject whwh-questions.-questions.

GTW (1995)GTW (1995) So, in sum:So, in sum:

Kids get positive questions rightKids get positive questions right Kids get negative declaratives rightKids get negative declaratives right Kids get negative subject questions Kids get negative subject questions right.right.

Kids get negative Kids get negative how-come how-come questions questions right.right.

Kids make errors in negative Kids make errors in negative whwh--questions where questions where inversioninversion is is requiredrequired. Where inversion isn’t . Where inversion isn’t required (or where the sentence isn’t required (or where the sentence isn’t negative), they’re fine.negative), they’re fine.

GTW (1995)GTW (1995) The kids’ errors all seem to have the The kids’ errors all seem to have the character of character of keeping negation inside the keeping negation inside the IPIP.. What did he didn’t wanna bring to school? What did he didn’t wanna bring to school? (4;1)(4;1)

What she doesn’t want for her witch’s brew? What she doesn’t want for her witch’s brew? (3;8)(3;8)

Why can you not eat chocolate? (4;1)Why can you not eat chocolate? (4;1) Why can’t she can’t go underneath? (4;3)Why can’t she can’t go underneath? (4;3)

GTW propose that this is a legitimate GTW propose that this is a legitimate option; citing Paduan (Italian dialect) option; citing Paduan (Italian dialect) as a language doesn’t allow neg->C.as a language doesn’t allow neg->C.

GTW (1995)GTW (1995) Re: subject and Re: subject and how come how come questions…questions… In a subject question, we don’t In a subject question, we don’t knowknow that the subject that the subject whwh-word got out of -word got out of IP—maybe kids left it in IP… heck, IP—maybe kids left it in IP… heck, maybe even maybe even adultsadults do. do. Who left?Who left? *Who did leave?*Who did leave?

How comeHow come questions don’t require SAI questions don’t require SAI in the adult language{./?}in the adult language{./?} How come John left?How come John left? *How come did John leave?*How come did John leave?

““Auxless questions”Auxless questions” Guasti (2002) discusses questions likeGuasti (2002) discusses questions like

Where Daddy go? (Adam 2;3)Where Daddy go? (Adam 2;3) What I doing? (Eve 2;0)What I doing? (Eve 2;0)

By making some assumptions (inherited By making some assumptions (inherited from Rizzi), Guasti finds these from Rizzi), Guasti finds these problematic. problematic. WhWh-movement requires SAI, -movement requires SAI, so what moved to C?so what moved to C? Specifically, Specifically, whwh-movement depends on SAI, -movement depends on SAI, which happens because [+wh] starts on T and which happens because [+wh] starts on T and must move to C so it can be in a Spec-head must move to C so it can be in a Spec-head relation with the relation with the whwh-word in SpecCP. Also: -word in SpecCP. Also: subject questions need no inversion on this subject questions need no inversion on this story.story.

Auxless questionsAuxless questions Auxless questions are relatively common among Auxless questions are relatively common among whwh-questions in the 2-4 age range.-questions in the 2-4 age range. Guasti/Rizzi’s suggestion: An auxiliary at the head Guasti/Rizzi’s suggestion: An auxiliary at the head of the root can be null (similar to the null subject of the root can be null (similar to the null subject story). For adults, the head of the root is ForceP, story). For adults, the head of the root is ForceP, but for kids it might be lower (FocP, where but for kids it might be lower (FocP, where whwh-words -words go).go).

Kids who might otherwise say Kids who might otherwise say What I doing?What I doing? will will nevertheless not say nevertheless not say Who laughing?Who laughing?. Subject . Subject whwh--questions seem immune from “auxiliary drop.”questions seem immune from “auxiliary drop.” The Guasti/Rizzi explanation is pretty contrived, The Guasti/Rizzi explanation is pretty contrived, actually. The aux need not proceed as high as FocP actually. The aux need not proceed as high as FocP for subject questions, so it ends up not being for subject questions, so it ends up not being highest.highest.

Not really any clear alternative, though…Not really any clear alternative, though…

Early, early Early, early whwh--questionsquestions

There may be an early “formulaic” stage There may be an early “formulaic” stage where kids ask questions by just asking where kids ask questions by just asking ““Wh(’s) NP?Wh(’s) NP?”.”.

O’Grady (1997): O’Grady (1997): “Because of their “Because of their formulaic character, it seems reasonable formulaic character, it seems reasonable to treat these utterances as to treat these utterances as instantiations of a simple template rather instantiations of a simple template rather than the product of whatever mechanism than the product of whatever mechanism forms forms whwh-questions in the adult grammar.”-questions in the adult grammar.”

But But whywhy? We already have lots of reason to ? We already have lots of reason to think young kids know a lot about adult think young kids know a lot about adult grammar by then… What is simpler about a grammar by then… What is simpler about a “simple template”?“simple template”?

WhWh-subjects and -subjects and whwh--objectsobjects

Is there a difference in the Is there a difference in the timing of emergence between timing of emergence between subject subject whwh-questions and object -questions and object whwh-questions? In English, there -questions? In English, there is an apparent difference in is an apparent difference in complexity (“distance” of complexity (“distance” of movement, SAI).movement, SAI).

Early, early, Early, early, earlyearly whwh--questionsquestions

Seidl and Hollich (2003) looked Seidl and Hollich (2003) looked at headturn preferences in at headturn preferences in really young kids.really young kids.

Minimizes demands of taskMinimizes demands of task Use looking preferences to Use looking preferences to “answer” “answer” whwh-questions.-questions. What hit the apple?What hit the apple? What did the apple hit?What did the apple hit? Where is the apple?Where is the apple?

Seidl et al.Seidl et al.

Kids saw a little simplistic Kids saw a little simplistic computer-generated movie where, computer-generated movie where, e.g., a book hit some keys.e.g., a book hit some keys.

Then there were two screens Then there were two screens presented side by side, one with presented side by side, one with a book displayed, one with keys a book displayed, one with keys displayed.displayed. What hit the keys? What hit the keys? (book)(book) What did the book hit? What did the book hit? (keys)(keys) Where is the book? Where is the book? (book)(book)

Seidl et al.Seidl et al. Graph shows Graph shows differences (target differences (target minus non-target).minus non-target).

20-month-olds 20-month-olds seemed quite seemed quite capable of capable of comprehending all comprehending all three kinds.three kinds.

15-month-olds15-month-olds couldn’t do couldn’t do objects; objects; 13-month-13-month-oldsolds couldn’t do couldn’t do any.any.-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

subj obj where

13mo15mo20mo

Processing, structural Processing, structural distancedistance

The distance between the base and The distance between the base and derived positions for an object derived positions for an object whwh--word is greater than the distance word is greater than the distance between the base and derived between the base and derived positions for a subject positions for a subject whwh-word.-word.

WhatWhatii did did [[IPIP John John [[VPVP buy buy ttii ]] ? ]] ?

WhoWhoii [[IPIP ttii [ [VPVP bought coffee ]] ? bought coffee ]] ?

Processing, structural Processing, structural distancedistance

Re: preference for subject Re: preference for subject whwh--questions; perhaps kids are sensitive questions; perhaps kids are sensitive to the number of phrases a moving to the number of phrases a moving whwh--phrase has to escape. This also makes phrase has to escape. This also makes other predictions:other predictions: WhatWhatii will will [[IPIP Sue Sue [[VPVP read read ttii ]]? ]]?

WhatWhatii will will [[IPIP Sue Sue [[VPVP talk talk [[PPPP about about ttii ]]]? ]]]?

WhatWhatii will will [[IPIP Sue Sue [[VPVP readread[[NPNP a book a book [[PPPP about about ttii ]]]]? ]]]]?

Hildebrand (1987)Hildebrand (1987)

Tested (fairly old) kids on a Tested (fairly old) kids on a paradigm of paradigm of whwh-questions of -questions of varying “depth” to see if more varying “depth” to see if more embedded embedded whwh-words are harder.-words are harder.

In a repetition task (4-10 year In a repetition task (4-10 year olds), it was almost uniformly olds), it was almost uniformly true that the more deeply embedded true that the more deeply embedded the the whwh-word was, the more errors -word was, the more errors the kids made trying to repeat it.the kids made trying to repeat it.

But wait…But wait… So kids make more errors extracting from So kids make more errors extracting from more deeply embedded structures. more deeply embedded structures. Is this Is this a fact about the acquisition of a fact about the acquisition of whwh--movement? Or is it just a fact about movement? Or is it just a fact about language language processingprocessing in general? in general?

What do What do adultsadults do? do? My guess: My guess: Even for adults, the more complex Even for adults, the more complex structures are (marginally) harder to structures are (marginally) harder to process. Certainly true for subject vs. process. Certainly true for subject vs. object relative clauses (object relative clauses (the man who _ left the man who _ left vs. vs. the man who I met _the man who I met _).).

Cf. NPAH later.Cf. NPAH later.

Does child Does child whwh-movement -movement obey the adult rules for obey the adult rules for

whwh-movement?-movement? When the kids ask When the kids ask whwh-questions, -questions, what structures are they using? what structures are they using? Are they like the adult Are they like the adult structures? If not, how are structures? If not, how are they different? Are they they different? Are they performing movement? Are there performing movement? Are there traces? Do the movements obey traces? Do the movements obey constraints (e.g., constraints (e.g., whwh-island, -island, ECP, …)?ECP, …)?

Do kids have Do kids have whwh-traces -traces in their in their whwh-questions?-questions?

How do they perform on How do they perform on wannawanna--contraction?contraction? Who do you want to help Who do you want to help tt?? Who do you wanna help Who do you wanna help tt?? Who do you want Who do you want tt to help you ? to help you ? *Who do you wanna / *Who do you wanna / tt help you ? help you ?

Crain & Thornton (1991) studied Crain & Thornton (1991) studied this…this…

Crain & Thornton (1991)Crain & Thornton (1991)

There are three guys in this story: There are three guys in this story: Cookie Monster, a dog, and this Cookie Monster, a dog, and this baby. One of them gets to take a baby. One of them gets to take a walk, one gets to take a nap, and walk, one gets to take a nap, and one gets to eat a cookie. The rat one gets to eat a cookie. The rat gets to choose who does each thing. gets to choose who does each thing. So one gets to take a walk, right? So one gets to take a walk, right? Ask Ratty who he wants.Ask Ratty who he wants.

Kid:Kid: Who do you Who do you want towant to take a take a walk?walk?

Crain & Thornton (1991)Crain & Thornton (1991)

The kids (2;10 to 5;5) all knew the The kids (2;10 to 5;5) all knew the wannawanna contraction rule… contraction rule…

59% 59% of the time kids contracted to of the time kids contracted to wannawanna with object questions (as with object questions (as allowed)allowed)

4% 4% of the time kids contracted to of the time kids contracted to wannawanna with subject questions (out with subject questions (out for adult)for adult)

The ECP and argument-The ECP and argument-adjunct asymmetriesadjunct asymmetries

Moving a Moving a whwh-word out of a -word out of a whwh--island is better or worse island is better or worse depending on whether the depending on whether the whwh-word -word is an argument (subject or is an argument (subject or object) or an adjunct.object) or an adjunct.

**How How did he ask did he ask [[whwh where to fix the where to fix the car car t t ]?]?

What What did he ask did he ask [[whwh how to fix how to fix tt ] ? ] ?

De Villiers, Roeper, De Villiers, Roeper, and Vainikka (1990)and Vainikka (1990)

[Kid takes a shortcut home, rips dress, that [Kid takes a shortcut home, rips dress, that night, kid tells parent about dress]night, kid tells parent about dress] When did she say When did she say tt [she ripped her dress [she ripped her dress tt]?]? ““at night”at night” “that afternoon” “that afternoon”

When did she say When did she say tt [ [whwh how she ripped her dress how she ripped her dress tt tt ]? ]?

““at night” at night” *“that afternoon” *“that afternoon” 3-6 year-olds allow short and long distance 3-6 year-olds allow short and long distance questions for complement clauses, don’t like questions for complement clauses, don’t like long distance adjunct questions out of long distance adjunct questions out of whwh--islands…islands…

De Villiers, Roeper, De Villiers, Roeper, and Vainikka (1990)and Vainikka (1990)

And kids make the argument-adjunct And kids make the argument-adjunct distinction the ECP makes for adults:distinction the ECP makes for adults:

No No whwh-island, arguments/adjuncts both -island, arguments/adjuncts both take long distance interpretation take long distance interpretation about 30-40% the timeabout 30-40% the time

Argument Argument whwh-island, neither argument -island, neither argument nor adjuncts can move out (2-8% LD)nor adjuncts can move out (2-8% LD)

Adjunct Adjunct whwh-islands, arguments can -islands, arguments can move out (30% LD) but not adjuncts move out (30% LD) but not adjuncts (6% LD).(6% LD).

Again, kids have a lot Again, kids have a lot right—but what do they right—but what do they

have wrong?have wrong? When kids make a mistake with a When kids make a mistake with a question like…question like…

When did she say how she ripped her When did she say how she ripped her dress?dress?

……it will often be that they answer it will often be that they answer something like “climbing over the something like “climbing over the fence”—answering the question fence”—answering the question How How did she say t she ripped her did she say t she ripped her dress?dress? instead. instead.

What are kids doing What are kids doing when they answer a when they answer a medial medial whwh-word?-word?

Are they answering the last Are they answering the last whwh--word they saw?word they saw? Kids don’t answer medial Kids don’t answer medial whwh-words -words in yes-no questions.in yes-no questions. Did Mickey tell Minnie what he Did Mickey tell Minnie what he bought?bought?

Kids don’t answer Kids don’t answer whwh-words in -words in relatives.relatives. How did you meet the man who sang?How did you meet the man who sang?

German partial German partial whwh--movement?movement?

Kids have been observed to produce Kids have been observed to produce questions with an initial questions with an initial whwh-word and a -word and a lower copy.lower copy.

What do you think what’s in her hat?What do you think what’s in her hat? ‘‘What do you think is in her hat?What do you think is in her hat?’’

What do you think where the marble is?What do you think where the marble is? ‘‘Where do you think the marble is?’Where do you think the marble is?’

What do you think what Cookie Monster What do you think what Cookie Monster eats?eats? ‘‘What do you think Cookie Monster eats?’What do you think Cookie Monster eats?’

German partial German partial whwh--movement?movement?

WasWas hat er gesagt hat er gesagt [ [ wiewie er das Kuchen machen kann ]? er das Kuchen machen kann ]? WhatWhat has he said has he said howhow he the cake make can he the cake make can ‘‘How did he say he could make the cake?’How did he say he could make the cake?’

Are kids treating the upper Are kids treating the upper whwh-word like -word like a scope marker? (Are they “speaking a scope marker? (Are they “speaking German”?)German”?) Hard to say with confidence, but it’s an Hard to say with confidence, but it’s an interesting possibility. German partial interesting possibility. German partial whwh--movement does have certain restrictions. movement does have certain restrictions. Thornton (1990) and van Kempen (1997) showed Thornton (1990) and van Kempen (1997) showed that kids do this only out of finite clauses, that kids do this only out of finite clauses, and German only allows partial movement out of and German only allows partial movement out of finite clauses too.finite clauses too.

Processing constraints?Processing constraints?

O’Grady (last year’s textbook) suggests O’Grady (last year’s textbook) suggests that another reason why kids might that another reason why kids might answer the intermediate answer the intermediate whwh-word is that -word is that they’ve already forgotten the matrix they’ve already forgotten the matrix clause (citing Phinney 1981, who found clause (citing Phinney 1981, who found that 3-year olds often delete the that 3-year olds often delete the matrix subject and verb when repeating matrix subject and verb when repeating biclausal sentences).biclausal sentences).

Kids don’t answer a medial Kids don’t answer a medial whwh-word in a -word in a yes-no question, though..? yes-no question, though..?

Speaking Irish? French?Speaking Irish? French? Another crosslinguistic analogy we could Another crosslinguistic analogy we could make is to Irish, French, and other make is to Irish, French, and other languages that seem to show a certain languages that seem to show a certain amount of “amount of “whwh-agreement” when a -agreement” when a whwh-word -word passes through SpecCP.passes through SpecCP. Ceapann tú Ceapann tú gogo bhuailfidh an píobare an t- bhuailfidh an píobare an t-amhrán.amhrán.think you think you thatthat play.fut the piper the song play.fut the piper the song‘You think that the piper will play the song.’‘You think that the piper will play the song.’

Caidé Caidé aaLL cheapann tú cheapann tú aaLL bhuailfidh an píobare? bhuailfidh an píobare?what what WHWH think you think you WHWH play.fut the piper play.fut the piper‘What do you think the piper will play?’‘What do you think the piper will play?’

Je crois que Marie est partie.Je crois que Marie est partie. Qui crois-tu qui et partie?Qui crois-tu qui et partie?

Speaking Irish? French?Speaking Irish? French? So, perhaps the kids’ non-adult use of So, perhaps the kids’ non-adult use of intermediate intermediate whwh-words is actually a -words is actually a mis-analysis of English.mis-analysis of English. First, they suppose it is Irish, and the First, they suppose it is Irish, and the intermediate intermediate whwh-words are the -words are the pronunciations of agreeing complementizers.pronunciations of agreeing complementizers.

A medial A medial whwh-word is never a whole -word is never a whole whwh-phrase. A -phrase. A head?head?

Then, they suppose it is French, and limit Then, they suppose it is French, and limit the agreement to subject the agreement to subject whwh-words.-words.

Sometimes production goes from S&O medial Sometimes production goes from S&O medial whwh--questions to just S.questions to just S.

Then, they get to English.Then, they get to English.

Other constraints on Other constraints on whwh-movement from 3-5 -movement from 3-5

year oldsyear olds They reject adjunct extraction from NPThey reject adjunct extraction from NP

*How*Howii did the mother see [his riding did the mother see [his riding ttii]?]? But they allow argument extraction…?But they allow argument extraction…?

WhoWhoii did the mother show [his copying did the mother show [his copying ttii] ?] ? This is de Villiers’ example; seems ambiguous to me This is de Villiers’ example; seems ambiguous to me between extraction and non-extraction readings. between extraction and non-extraction readings. Better might be Better might be What did the mother show his What did the mother show his eating?eating?

They reject adjunct extraction from rel. They reject adjunct extraction from rel. clauseclause *How*Howii did [the woman who knitted did [the woman who knitted ttii] swim?] swim?

And reject extraction from temporal adjunctsAnd reject extraction from temporal adjuncts *Who did the elephant ask [before helping *Who did the elephant ask [before helping ttii ]? ]?

Superiority 3-5Superiority 3-5

Adults:Adults: WhoWhoii ttii slept where? slept where? *Where*Whereii did who sleep did who sleep ttii ? ?

And the kids seem to have that And the kids seem to have that down cold. (Kid: down cold. (Kid: It’s better if It’s better if I startI start.).)

(from deVilliers and Plunkett, (from deVilliers and Plunkett, unpublished as of 1995?)unpublished as of 1995?)

ThatThat-trace?-trace? Who did the pig believe that swam in the Who did the pig believe that swam in the pond?pond? Kids opt for the interpretation where the Kids opt for the interpretation where the questions asks which, of the animals the pig questions asks which, of the animals the pig believes, swam.believes, swam.

Kids don’t go at all for the interpretation Kids don’t go at all for the interpretation which entails a violation of which entails a violation of thatthat-trace (the -trace (the pig believed that who swam)pig believed that who swam)

(Phinney 1981)(Phinney 1981)

This is sort of mysterious, since languages This is sort of mysterious, since languages differ as to whether they respect the differ as to whether they respect the thatthat--trace filter.trace filter.

ThatThat-trace?-trace?

Some conflicting results?Some conflicting results? Thornton (1990), production Thornton (1990), production experiment found that-trace experiment found that-trace violations 18% of the time violations 18% of the time subject subject whwh-questions were used.-questions were used.

McDaniel, Chiu and Maxfield McDaniel, Chiu and Maxfield (1995) found an acceptance rate (1995) found an acceptance rate of 24% for of 24% for thatthat-trace effects.-trace effects.

Grammar vs. PreferencesGrammar vs. Preferences These experiments are really testing These experiments are really testing preferences preferences not not grammaticalitygrammaticality. . If they If they preferprefer the the thatthat-less variant, we won’t -less variant, we won’t see see thatthat-trace violations even if they -trace violations even if they are strictly grammatical for the kid.are strictly grammatical for the kid.

Just because a structure is dispreferred Just because a structure is dispreferred (for whatever reason—frequency, (for whatever reason—frequency, difficulty, etc.) does difficulty, etc.) does notnot mean that it mean that it is is ungrammaticalungrammatical in the child’s grammar. in the child’s grammar.

Preferences are not the best route to Preferences are not the best route to discovering the properties of child discovering the properties of child grammar, though it’s hard to design grammar, though it’s hard to design grammaticality judgment experiments..grammaticality judgment experiments..

Questioning out of Questioning out of quotationsquotations

Adult languages generally can Adult languages generally can notnot question out of a quotation:question out of a quotation: *What*Whatii did the boy say “Can I bring did the boy say “Can I bring ttii” ?” ?

But English, French and German But English, French and German kids (3-6 years) seem to allow it.kids (3-6 years) seem to allow it.

Why?Why?

Correlates to Correlates to questioning out of questioning out of

quotationsquotations Kids may not quite grasp the Kids may not quite grasp the quotation yet.quotation yet.

A significant proportion of kids A significant proportion of kids around the same age range allow co-around the same age range allow co-reference between a pronoun in the reference between a pronoun in the quotation and the subject:quotation and the subject:

““HeHeii can sit here” said Mickey can sit here” said Mickeyii..

Perhaps, it has more to do with the Perhaps, it has more to do with the fact that it requires “getting into fact that it requires “getting into someone else’s head”…someone else’s head”…

False beliefsFalse beliefs Kids before a certain age (usually before Kids before a certain age (usually before 4) seem unable to take another person’s 4) seem unable to take another person’s perspective:perspective:

Little rabbit puts carrot in red basket, Little rabbit puts carrot in red basket, leaves. Mother rabbit comes in, moves leaves. Mother rabbit comes in, moves carrot to blue basket. Little rabbit comes carrot to blue basket. Little rabbit comes back. Where does he look for the carrot?back. Where does he look for the carrot?

Some kids will answer “the blue basket”—Some kids will answer “the blue basket”—unable to see that the little rabbit unable to see that the little rabbit shouldn’t have known.shouldn’t have known.

False beliefs & False beliefs & quotationsquotations

Those Those samesame kids who answered “blue kids who answered “blue basket” were also those who would do basket” were also those who would do this:this:

Mother bought cake, but wanted to Mother bought cake, but wanted to surprise girl. When asked, mother surprise girl. When asked, mother claimed to have bought paper towels.claimed to have bought paper towels.

What did Mother say she bought?What did Mother say she bought?

The “blue basket” kids answer “cake.”The “blue basket” kids answer “cake.”

False beliefs & False beliefs & quotationsquotations

So, perhaps it is understanding So, perhaps it is understanding what a quotation is that is what a quotation is that is allowing kids to extract from allowing kids to extract from them—they treat a quotation as them—they treat a quotation as a regular clausal complement.a regular clausal complement.

Weak islandsWeak islands

In the adult language, there is a In the adult language, there is a certain configuration which seems certain configuration which seems to create an island for movement to create an island for movement of of whwh-adjuncts, which arguably -adjuncts, which arguably has to do with the logical has to do with the logical meaning.meaning. Coming by trainComing by train is a subset of the is a subset of the events events comingcoming..

John said Mary was coming by train John said Mary was coming by train implies implies John said Mary was comingJohn said Mary was coming..

Weak islandsWeak islands In In weak islandsweak islands the implication the implication fails:fails: Negation:Negation:

John didn’t say Mary was coming by John didn’t say Mary was coming by train.train.

John didn’t say Mary was coming.John didn’t say Mary was coming. Factives:Factives:

John forgot Mary was coming by train.John forgot Mary was coming by train. John forgot Mary was coming.John forgot Mary was coming.

With quantificational adverbs:With quantificational adverbs: John often eats grapes with a fork.John often eats grapes with a fork. John often eats grapes.John often eats grapes.


And in those cases, you can’t extract And in those cases, you can’t extract whwh-adjuncts in the adult language. -adjuncts in the adult language.

WhyWhyii did John say ( did John say (ttii) that Mary left () that Mary left (ttii)?)?

WhyWhyii did John forget ( did John forget (ttii) that Mary left (*) that Mary left (*ttii)?)?

WhyWhyii didn’t John say ( didn’t John say (ttii) that Mary left (*) that Mary left (*ttii)?)?

WhyWhyii does John often say ( does John often say (ttii) that Mary left ) that Mary left (*(*ttii)?)?


Four-year-olds have been observed to Four-year-olds have been observed to fail on the implication:fail on the implication: Jim forgot that his aunt was arriving by Jim forgot that his aunt was arriving by train, so he went to the bus station to train, so he went to the bus station to pick her up… Did Jim forget that his aunt pick her up… Did Jim forget that his aunt was coming?was coming?

——Yes!Yes!

Guess: They haven’t gotten the Guess: They haven’t gotten the implication pattern down for these implication pattern down for these non-monotonic-increasing environments.non-monotonic-increasing environments.


Now: Now: If kids haven’t gotten the If kids haven’t gotten the implication patternimplication pattern, and , and if the if the implication pattern is implicated implication pattern is implicated in the islandhoodin the islandhood, , do kids fail to do kids fail to observe weak islands just when they observe weak islands just when they also fail on the implication also fail on the implication pattern?pattern?

Philip and de Villiers (1992) Philip and de Villiers (1992) looked into this…looked into this…

Philip and de Villiers Philip and de Villiers (1992)(1992)

Kids never allow LD association out of Kids never allow LD association out of a a whwh-island (they obeyed the purely -island (they obeyed the purely syntactic constraint).syntactic constraint). *Why*Whyii did the mother ask [what he made did the mother ask [what he made ttii ]? ]?

The other facts were “generally in The other facts were “generally in support”(de Villiers 1995) of the support”(de Villiers 1995) of the conclusion that where kids fail to make conclusion that where kids fail to make the inferences required by non-the inferences required by non-monotone-increasing environments, they monotone-increasing environments, they also fail to treat them as movement also fail to treat them as movement islands.islands.

Multiple questionsMultiple questions

A fair amount of theoretical A fair amount of theoretical work has concerned the treatment work has concerned the treatment of multiple of multiple whwh-questions.-questions. E.g., the E.g., the whwh-typology: English -typology: English (move one) vs. Japanese (move (move one) vs. Japanese (move none) vs. Bulgarian (move all).none) vs. Bulgarian (move all).

What do kids do with them?What do kids do with them? Well, but that’s lunacy—adults Well, but that’s lunacy—adults barely use them, how are we going barely use them, how are we going to find out about kids?to find out about kids?

Grebenyova (2005)Grebenyova (2005) Russian as a multiple-movement Russian as a multiple-movement language:language: chto kuda Smurf polozhil?chto kuda Smurf polozhil?What where S put?What where S put?

Interpretation:Interpretation: PL (Pair-list): Who invited who for dinner?PL (Pair-list): Who invited who for dinner? SP (Single pair): Which diplomat invited SP (Single pair): Which diplomat invited which journalist? Who invited the roommate which journalist? Who invited the roommate of who for dinner?of who for dinner?

Who invited who for dinner?Who invited who for dinner? English, Russian: PL, *SPEnglish, Russian: PL, *SP Serbo-Croatian, Japanese: PL, SP:Serbo-Croatian, Japanese: PL, SP:

Grebenyova (2005)Grebenyova (2005)

Ok, let’s check CHILDES (parental Ok, let’s check CHILDES (parental speech). Varvara (1;7-2;11).speech). Varvara (1;7-2;11). 737 single questions.737 single questions. 1 multiple question.1 multiple question.

kto tebe chto podaril ?kto tebe chto podaril ?WhoWhonomnom you what you whataccacc gave? gave?

Not very much input here.Not very much input here.

Grebenyova (2005)Grebenyova (2005) Attempts to elicit multiple interrogatives.Attempts to elicit multiple interrogatives. Story: 3 characters each hide a different Story: 3 characters each hide a different thing.thing.

Characters and items not in a natural categoryCharacters and items not in a natural category Avoiding: Which x hid which Y? Who hid which X? Avoiding: Which x hid which Y? Who hid which X? Which x hid what?Which x hid what?

Add a character who doesn’t hide anything (and Add a character who doesn’t hide anything (and pointing that out).pointing that out). Avoiding: What did everyone hide?Avoiding: What did everyone hide?

Not mentioning the names of the characters in Not mentioning the names of the characters in the lead-inthe lead-in Avoiding: What did they hide?Avoiding: What did they hide?

First time: single question. Decide to ask a First time: single question. Decide to ask a more difficult question next time.more difficult question next time.

Grebenyova (2005)Grebenyova (2005)

And it worked: Kids (and adult And it worked: Kids (and adult controls) produced multiple wh-controls) produced multiple wh-questions in PL contexts (but not SP questions in PL contexts (but not SP contexts) about a third of the time contexts) about a third of the time in English, about half the time in in English, about half the time in Russian.Russian.

Syntax: English kids did it like Syntax: English kids did it like adults. Russian kids 15% of the time adults. Russian kids 15% of the time did it like English kids/adults:did it like English kids/adults: *Kto sprjatal chto?*Kto sprjatal chto?Who hid whatWho hid what

Grebenyova (2005)Grebenyova (2005) Tried non-subjects and adjuncts to figure Tried non-subjects and adjuncts to figure out more about the syntax:out more about the syntax: Who hid what?Who hid what? Who did Lizard give what?Who did Lizard give what? Who did the dog find where?Who did the dog find where?

Found some Found some whwh-in-situ for kids, both notably -in-situ for kids, both notably both for kids and adults found about two-both for kids and adults found about two-thirds multiple fronting and one-third thirds multiple fronting and one-third partial fronting:partial fronting: Kogo sobaka gde nashia?Kogo sobaka gde nashia?Who dog where foundWho dog where found

Perhaps (for wh-in-situ; but partial Perhaps (for wh-in-situ; but partial fronting?)fronting?) Acquisition of focus?Acquisition of focus? Mixed/confusing input (Mixed/confusing input (whichwhich phrases can stay in phrases can stay in situ)?situ)?

Stepping back a bitStepping back a bit

Let’s take some time to look at a few Let’s take some time to look at a few results coming out of an earlier results coming out of an earlier tradition, not strictly Principles & tradition, not strictly Principles & Parameters (and not covered by White) Parameters (and not covered by White) but still suggesting that to a but still suggesting that to a certain extent L2 learners may know certain extent L2 learners may know something (perhaps unconsciously) something (perhaps unconsciously) about “what Language is like” (which about “what Language is like” (which is a certain way we might is a certain way we might characterize the content of UG).characterize the content of UG).

Typological universalsTypological universals

1960’s and 1970’s saw a lot of 1960’s and 1970’s saw a lot of activity aimed at identifying activity aimed at identifying language universalslanguage universals, properties , properties of Language.of Language.

Class of Class of possible languagespossible languages is is smaller than you might think.smaller than you might think.

If a language has one property If a language has one property (A), it will necessarily have (A), it will necessarily have another (B).another (B). +A+A+B+B, , –A–B–A–B, , –A–A+B+B but neverbut never +A+A–B–B..

(Typological) (Typological) universalsuniversals

All languages have vowels.All languages have vowels.

If a language has VSO as its basic If a language has VSO as its basic word order, then it has word order, then it has preprepositions positions (vs. (vs. postpostpositions).positions).

VSO?VSO?

Adposition Adposition typetype

Yes Yes NoNo

PrePrepositionspositions WelshWelsh EnglisEnglishh

PostPostpositionspositions NoneNone JapaneJapanesese

MarkednessMarkedness

Having Having dualsduals implies having implies having pluralsplurals Having Having plurals plurals says nothing about having says nothing about having dualsduals..

Having duals is Having duals is markedmarked—infrequent, more —infrequent, more complex. Having plurals is (relative to complex. Having plurals is (relative to having duals) having duals) unmarkedunmarked..

Generally markedness is in terms of Generally markedness is in terms of comparable dimensions, but you comparable dimensions, but you couldcould also also say that say that being VSO being VSO is marked relative to is marked relative to having prepositionshaving prepositions..

MarkednessMarkedness

““Markedness” actually has been used Markedness” actually has been used in a couple of different ways, in a couple of different ways, although they share a common core.although they share a common core.

Marked:Marked: More unlikely, in some More unlikely, in some sense.sense.

Unmarked:Unmarked: More likely, in some More likely, in some sense.sense.

You have to “mark” something You have to “mark” something marked; unmarked is what you get if marked; unmarked is what you get if you don’t say anything extra.you don’t say anything extra.

““Unlikeliness”Unlikeliness” Typological / crosslinguistic Typological / crosslinguistic infrequencyinfrequency.. VOS word order is marked.VOS word order is marked.

More complexMore complex constructions. constructions. [ts] is more marked than [t].[ts] is more marked than [t].

The The non-default settingnon-default setting of a of a parameter.parameter. Non-null subjects?Non-null subjects?

Language-specificLanguage-specific//idiosyncraticidiosyncratic features.features. Vs. UG/universal features…?Vs. UG/universal features…?

Berlin & Kay 1969: Berlin & Kay 1969: Color termsColor terms

(On the boundaries of (On the boundaries of psychophysics, linguistics, psychophysics, linguistics, anthropology, and with issues about anthropology, and with issues about its its interpretationinterpretation, but still…), but still…)

Basic color terms Basic color terms across languages.across languages. It turns out that languages differ It turns out that languages differ in how many color terms count as in how many color terms count as basic.basic. ( (blueishblueish, , salmon-coloredsalmon-colored, , crimsoncrimson, , blondblond, … are not basic)., … are not basic).


The segmentation of experience by speech The segmentation of experience by speech symbols is essentially arbitrarysymbols is essentially arbitrary. The . The different sets of words for color in various different sets of words for color in various languages are perhaps the best ready evidence languages are perhaps the best ready evidence for such essential arbitrariness. For for such essential arbitrariness. For example, in a high percentage of African example, in a high percentage of African languages, there are languages, there are only three “color only three “color words,” corresponding to our white, black, words,” corresponding to our white, black, red, which nevertheless divide up the entire red, which nevertheless divide up the entire spectrum.spectrum. In the Tarahumara language of In the Tarahumara language of Mexico, there are Mexico, there are five basic color words, and five basic color words, and here “blue” and “green” are subsumed under a here “blue” and “green” are subsumed under a single termsingle term.. Eugene Nida (1959)Eugene Nida (1959)


ArabicArabic (Lebanon) (Lebanon) BulgarianBulgarian (Bulgaria)(Bulgaria)

CatalanCatalan (Spain) (Spain) CantoneseCantonese (China) (China) MandarinMandarin (China) (China) EnglishEnglish (US) (US) HebrewHebrew (Israel) (Israel) HungarianHungarian (Hungary) (Hungary) IbiboIbibo (Nigeria) (Nigeria) IndonesianIndonesian (Indonesia)(Indonesia)

JapaneseJapanese (Japan) (Japan) KoreanKorean (Korea) (Korea) PomoPomo (California) (California) SpanishSpanish (Mexico) (Mexico) SwahiliSwahili (East Africa) (East Africa) TagalogTagalog (Philippines) (Philippines) ThaiThai (Thailand) (Thailand) TzeltalTzeltal (Southern (Southern Mexico)Mexico)

UrduUrdu (India) (India) VietnameseVietnamese (Vietnam) (Vietnam)

Eleven possible basic Eleven possible basic color termscolor terms

White, black, red, green, yellow, blue, White, black, red, green, yellow, blue, brown, purple, pink, orange, gray.brown, purple, pink, orange, gray.

All languages contain term for white and All languages contain term for white and black.black.

Has Has 33 terms, contains a term for terms, contains a term for redred.. Has Has 44 terms, contains terms, contains green green or or yellowyellow.. Has Has 55 terms, contains terms, contains both both green green andand yellowyellow..

Has Has 66 terms, contains terms, contains blueblue.. Has Has 77 terms, contains terms, contains brownbrown.. Has Has 8 or more 8 or more terms, chosen from terms, chosen from {{purplepurple, , pinkpink, , orangeorange, , graygray}}

Color hierarchyColor hierarchy White, blackWhite, black RedRed Green, yellowGreen, yellow BlueBlue BrownBrown Purple, pink, orange, grayPurple, pink, orange, gray

Even assuming these 11 basic color terms, Even assuming these 11 basic color terms, there should be 2048 possible sets—but there should be 2048 possible sets—but only 22 (1%) are attested.only 22 (1%) are attested.

Color termsColor terms BWBW Jalé (New Guinea) ‘brilliant’ vs. ‘dull’Jalé (New Guinea) ‘brilliant’ vs. ‘dull’ BWBWRR Tiv (Nigeria), Australian aboriginals inTiv (Nigeria), Australian aboriginals in

Seven Rivers District, Queensland.Seven Rivers District, Queensland. BWBWRRGG Ibibo (Nigeria), Hanunóo (Philippines)Ibibo (Nigeria), Hanunóo (Philippines) BWBWRRYY Ibo (Nigeria), Fitzroy River people Ibo (Nigeria), Fitzroy River people

(Queensland)(Queensland) BWBWRRYYGG Tzeltal (Mexico), Daza (eastern Nigeria)Tzeltal (Mexico), Daza (eastern Nigeria) BWBWRRYYGGUU Plains Tamil (South India), Nupe Plains Tamil (South India), Nupe

(Nigeria), Mandarin?(Nigeria), Mandarin? BWBWRRYYGGUUOO Nez Perce (Washington), Malayalam Nez Perce (Washington), Malayalam

(southern India)(southern India)

Color termsColor terms

Interesting questions abound, Interesting questions abound, including including whywhy this order, this order, whywhy these these eleven—and there are potential eleven—and there are potential reasons for it that can be drawn from reasons for it that can be drawn from the perception of color spaces which the perception of color spaces which we will not attempt here.we will not attempt here.

The point is: The point is: This is a fact about This is a fact about Language: Language: If you have a basic color If you have a basic color term for term for blueblue, you also have basic , you also have basic color terms for color terms for blackblack, , whitewhite, , redred, , greengreen, and , and yellowyellow..

Implicational hierarchyImplicational hierarchy

This is a This is a ranking of markednessranking of markedness or an or an implicational hierarchyimplicational hierarchy..

Having Having blueblue is more marked than having (any is more marked than having (any or all of) or all of) yellowyellow, , greengreen, , redred, , whitewhite, and , and blackblack..

Having Having greengreen is more marked than having is more marked than having redred……

Like a set of implicational universals…Like a set of implicational universals… Blue implies yellowBlue implies yellow Brown implies blueBrown implies blue Blue implies greenBlue implies green Pink implies brownPink implies brown Yellow or green imply red Yellow or green imply red Orange implies Orange implies brownbrown

Red implies blackRed implies black Gray implies brownGray implies brown Red implies whiteRed implies white Purple implies brownPurple implies brown

L2A?L2A?

Our overarching theme:Our overarching theme:How much is L2/IL like a L1?How much is L2/IL like a L1?

Do L2/IL languages obey the Do L2/IL languages obey the language universals that hold of language universals that hold of native languages?native languages?

This question is slightly less This question is slightly less theorytheory-laden than the questions we -laden than the questions we were asking about principles and were asking about principles and parameters, although it’s similar…parameters, although it’s similar…

To my knowledge nobody has studied To my knowledge nobody has studied L2 acquisitions of color terms…L2 acquisitions of color terms…

Question formationQuestion formation

Declarative: Declarative: John will buy coffee.John will buy coffee.

WhWh-inversion: -inversion: What What willwill JohnJohn buy?buy? WhWh-fronting: -fronting: WhatWhat will John buy?will John buy? Yes/No-inversion: Yes/No-inversion: WillWill JohnJohn buy buy coffee?coffee?

Greenberg (1963):Greenberg (1963): WhWh-inversion implies -inversion implies WhWh-fronting.-fronting. Yes/No-inversion implies Yes/No-inversion implies WhWh-inversion.-inversion.

Eckman, Moravcsik, Eckman, Moravcsik, Wirth (1989)Wirth (1989)

L1: Korean (4), Japanese (6), L1: Korean (4), Japanese (6), Turkish (4)Turkish (4)

L2: EnglishL2: English

Note L1s chosen because they are Note L1s chosen because they are neither/neither type languages, to neither/neither type languages, to avoid questions of transfer.avoid questions of transfer.

Subjects tried to determine what Subjects tried to determine what was going on in a scene by asking was going on in a scene by asking questions.questions.


Example Y/N Qs:Example Y/N Qs: DidDid sheshe finished two bottle wine? finished two bottle wine? IsIs Lou and PattyLou and Patty known each other? known each other? Sue does drink orange juice?Sue does drink orange juice? Her parents are rich?Her parents are rich? IsIs this storythis story is chronological in is chronological in a order?a order?

DoesDoes JoanJoan has a husband? has a husband? Yesterday Yesterday isis SueSue did drink two did drink two bottles of wine?bottles of wine?


Example Example WhWh-Qs:-Qs: WhyWhy Sue didn’t look solution for Sue didn’t look solution for her problem?her problem?

WhereWhere Sue is living? Sue is living? WhyWhy diddid SueSue stops drinking? stops drinking? WhyWhy isis PattyPatty’s going robbing the ’s going robbing the bank?bank?

WhatWhat they are radicals? they are radicals? WhatWhat Sue and Patty connection? Sue and Patty connection? WhyWhy she was angry? she was angry?

Eckman Eckman et al. et al. (1989)(1989)

whwh-inv-invwhwh--

frontingfronting??

resultsresults

%% WhinvWhinv %% WhfrWhfr

SMSM KK 2525 NONO 100100 YESYES

UAUA TT 5454 NONO 100100 YESYES

TSTS JJ 7070 NONO 100100 YESYES

MKMK KK 8080 NONO 100100 YESYES

RORO JJ 8888 NONO 100100 YESYES

KOKO JJ 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYES

MHMH JJ 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYES

NENE TT 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYES

SISI JJ 9595 YESYES 100100 YESYES

GG TT 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

MAMA TT 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

STST JJ 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

TMTM KK 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

YKYK JJ 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES

Eckman et Eckman et al. al.

(1989)(1989)

YN-inv.YN-inv. whwh-inv.?-inv.?

resultsresults

%% YNinvYNinv %% WHinvWHinv

SMSM KK 88 NONO 2525 NONO

MKMK KK 3838 NONO 8080 NONO

YKYK JJ 5151 NONO 100100 YESYES

TSTS JJ 6767 NONO 7070 NONO

TMTM KK 8383 NONO 100100 YESYES

RORO JJ 8585 NONO 8888 NONO

BGBG TT 8686 NONO 100100 YESYES

MAMA TT 8888 NONO 100100 YESYES

UAUA TT 9191 YESYES 5454 NONO

KOKO JJ 9393 YESYES 9595 YESYES

MHMH JJ 9595 YESYES 9595 YESYES

NENE TT 100100 YESYES 9595 YESYES

SISI JJ 100100 YESYES 9595 YESYES

STST JJ 100100 YESYES 100100 YESYES


Yes/no Yes/no inversioninversion

Wh-inversionWh-inversion

Yes Yes (VS)(VS)

No No (SV)(SV)

Yes (VS)Yes (VS) 55 44

No (SV)No (SV) 11 44

Eckman’s Markedness Eckman’s Markedness Differential HypothesisDifferential Hypothesis

Markedness. Markedness. A phenomenon or structure X in A phenomenon or structure X in some language is some language is relatively more markedrelatively more marked than than some other phenomenon or structure Y if cross-some other phenomenon or structure Y if cross-linguistically the presence of X in a language linguistically the presence of X in a language implies the presence of Y, but the presence of implies the presence of Y, but the presence of Y does not imply the presence of X.Y does not imply the presence of X.

DualsDuals imply plurals. imply plurals. WhWh-inversion-inversion implies implies whwh-fronting.-fronting. BlueBlue implies red. implies red.

(…but what counts as a “phenomenon or (…but what counts as a “phenomenon or structure”?)structure”?)

Markedness Differential Markedness Differential HypothesisHypothesis

MDH: The areas of difficulty that a second language MDH: The areas of difficulty that a second language learner will have can be predicted on the basis of learner will have can be predicted on the basis of a comparison of the NL and TL such that:a comparison of the NL and TL such that: Those areas of the TL that are different from the NL and Those areas of the TL that are different from the NL and are relatively more marked than in the NL will be are relatively more marked than in the NL will be difficult;difficult;

The degree of difficulty associated with those aspects of The degree of difficulty associated with those aspects of the TL that are different and more marked than in the NL the TL that are different and more marked than in the NL corresponds to the relative degree of markedness associated corresponds to the relative degree of markedness associated with those aspects;with those aspects;

Those areas of the TL that are different than the NL but Those areas of the TL that are different than the NL but are not relatively more marked than in the NL will not be are not relatively more marked than in the NL will not be difficult.difficult.

Notice that this is assuming conscious effort Notice that this is assuming conscious effort again. Perhaps it need not, depending on how you again. Perhaps it need not, depending on how you interpret “difficulty” but it seems like Eckman interpret “difficulty” but it seems like Eckman means it this way.means it this way.

Another possible way to look at it is in terms of Another possible way to look at it is in terms of parameter settings and (Subset Principle compliant) parameter settings and (Subset Principle compliant) defaults, coupled with a FT/FA type theory…defaults, coupled with a FT/FA type theory…

MDH example:MDH example:Word-final segmentsWord-final segments

Voiced obstruentsVoiced obstruents most markedmost marked SurgeSurge Voiceless obstruentsVoiceless obstruents CokeCoke Sonorant consonantsSonorant consonants MountainMountain VowelsVowels least markedleast marked CoffeeCoffee

All Ls allow vowels word-finally—some All Ls allow vowels word-finally—some onlyonly allow vowels. Some (e.g., allow vowels. Some (e.g., MandarinMandarin, , JapaneseJapanese) allow only vowels and sonorants. ) allow only vowels and sonorants. Some (e.g., Some (e.g., PolishPolish) allow vowels, ) allow vowels, sonorants, but only sonorants, but only voicelessvoiceless obstruents. obstruents. EnglishEnglish allows all four types.allows all four types.

Eckman (1981)Eckman (1981)

Spanish L1Spanish L1 Mandarin L1Mandarin L1

GlossGloss IL formIL form GlossGloss IL formIL form

BobBob [b p][b p] TagTag [tæg ][tæg ]

BobbyBobby [b bi][b bi] AndAnd [ænd ][ænd ]

RedRed [r[rt]t] WetWet [w t][w t]

WetWet [w t][w t] DeckDeck [d[dk]k]SickSick [s[sIIk]k] LetterLetter [l[lt r]t r]

BleedingBleeding [blid[blidIIn]n]

c

c

e

eee

e

MDH example:MDH example:Word-final segmentsWord-final segments


Idea: Idea: MandarinMandarin has neither voiceless nor voiced has neither voiceless nor voiced obstruents in the L1—using a voiceless obstruents in the L1—using a voiceless obstruent in place of a TL voiced obstruent is obstruent in place of a TL voiced obstruent is still not L1 compliant and is a big markedness still not L1 compliant and is a big markedness jump. Adding a vowel is L1 compliant. jump. Adding a vowel is L1 compliant. SpanishSpanish has voiceless obstruents, to using a voiceless has voiceless obstruents, to using a voiceless obstruent for a TL voiced obstruent is L1 obstruent for a TL voiced obstruent is L1 compliant.compliant.

MDH and ILMDH and IL The MDH presupposes that the IL obeys The MDH presupposes that the IL obeys the implicational universals too.the implicational universals too.

Eckman et al. (1989) suggests that Eckman et al. (1989) suggests that this is at least reasonable.this is at least reasonable.

The MDH suggests that there is a The MDH suggests that there is a natural order of L2A along a natural order of L2A along a markedness scale (stepping to the markedness scale (stepping to the next level of markedness is next level of markedness is easiest).easiest).

Let’s consider what it means that an Let’s consider what it means that an IL obeys implicational universals…IL obeys implicational universals…

MDH and ILMDH and IL

IL obeys implicational universals.IL obeys implicational universals. That is, That is, we know that IL is a languagewe know that IL is a language.. So, we know that languages are such So, we know that languages are such that having word-final voiceless that having word-final voiceless obstruents implies that you also have obstruents implies that you also have word-final sonorant consonants, among word-final sonorant consonants, among other things.other things.

What would happen if we taught Japanese What would happen if we taught Japanese L2 learners of English only—and at the L2 learners of English only—and at the outset—voiced obstruents?outset—voiced obstruents?

Generalizing with Generalizing with markedness scalesmarkedness scales


JapaneseJapanese learner of learner of EnglishEnglish will have an will have an easier time at each step learning voiceless easier time at each step learning voiceless obstruents and then voiced obstruents.obstruents and then voiced obstruents.

But—if taught voiced obstruents immediately, But—if taught voiced obstruents immediately, the fact that the IL obeys implicational the fact that the IL obeys implicational (markedness) universals means that voiceless (markedness) universals means that voiceless obstruents “come for free.”obstruents “come for free.”

NiftyNifty!!

Does it work? Does it help?Does it work? Does it help? Answers seem to be:Answers seem to be:

Yes, it seems to at least sort of work.Yes, it seems to at least sort of work. MaybeMaybe it helps. it helps.

Learning a marked structure is Learning a marked structure is harderharder.. So, if you learn a marked So, if you learn a marked structure, structure, you can automatically you can automatically generalize to the less marked generalize to the less marked structuresstructures, but , but was it faster than was it faster than learning the easier steps in learning the easier steps in succession would have been?succession would have been?

The Noun Phrase The Noun Phrase Accessibility HierarchyAccessibility Hierarchy

Keenan & Comrie (1977) observed a hierarchy among Keenan & Comrie (1977) observed a hierarchy among the kinds of relative clauses that languages allow.the kinds of relative clauses that languages allow.

The astronaut [(that) I met yesterday].The astronaut [(that) I met yesterday]. Head noun:Head noun: astronautastronaut Modifying clause:Modifying clause:

((that/who) I met — yesterday.that/who) I met — yesterday. Compare:Compare: I met I met the astronautthe astronaut yesterday. yesterday. This is an This is an object relativeobject relative because the place where because the place where

the head noun the head noun wouldwould be in the simple sentence be in the simple sentence version is the object.version is the object.


There are several kinds of relative There are several kinds of relative clauses, based on where the head noun clauses, based on where the head noun “comes from” in the modifying clause:“comes from” in the modifying clause:

The astronaut…The astronaut… [I met — yesterday][I met — yesterday] objectobject [who — met me yesterday][who — met me yesterday] subjectsubject [I gave a book to —][I gave a book to —] indirect indirect objectobject

[I was talking about —][I was talking about —] obj. of Pobj. of P [whose house I like —][whose house I like —] Genitive Genitive (possessor)(possessor)

[I am braver than —][I am braver than —] obj. of obj. of comparativecomparative


Turns out:Turns out: Languages differ in what Languages differ in what positions they allow relative positions they allow relative clauses to be formed on.clauses to be formed on.

EnglishEnglish allows allows all the positions all the positions mentioned to be used to make mentioned to be used to make relative clauses.relative clauses.

ArabicArabic allows relative clauses to allows relative clauses to be formed only with be formed only with subjectssubjects..

GreekGreek allows relative clauses to be allows relative clauses to be formed only with formed only with subjects subjects or or objectsobjects..

Resumptive pronounsResumptive pronouns

The guy The guy who they don’t know whether who they don’t know whether hehe wants to come. wants to come.

A student A student who I can’t make any sense who I can’t make any sense out of the papers out of the papers hehe writes. writes.

The actress The actress who Tom wondered whether who Tom wondered whether her her father was rich.father was rich.

In cases where relative clause In cases where relative clause formation is formation is notnot allowed, it can allowed, it can sometimes be salvaged by means of a sometimes be salvaged by means of a pronoun in the position that the head pronoun in the position that the head noun is to be associated with.noun is to be associated with.

NPAH and resumptive NPAH and resumptive pronounspronouns

Generally speaking, it turns out that in languages Generally speaking, it turns out that in languages which which do notdo not allow relative clauses to be formed allow relative clauses to be formed off a certain position, they will off a certain position, they will insteadinstead allow allow relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun in that relative clauses with a resumptive pronoun in that position.position.

Arabic:Arabic: allows only subject relative clauses. But allows only subject relative clauses. But for all other positions allows a resumptive pronoun for all other positions allows a resumptive pronoun construction, analogous to:construction, analogous to: The book The book that John bought that John bought itit.. The tree The tree that John is standing by that John is standing by itit.. The astronaut The astronaut that John gave that John gave him him a present.a present.

NPAHNPAH

The positions off which you can The positions off which you can relativize appears to be an relativize appears to be an implicational hierarchyimplicational hierarchy..

Lang.Lang. SUBSUB DODO IOIO OPOP GENGEN OCOMPOCOMP

ArabicArabic –– ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

GreekGreek –– –– +?+? +?+? ++ ++

JapanesJapanesee

–– –– –– –– +/ +/ ––

PersianPersian –– (+)(+) ++ ++ ++ ++

Noun Phrase Noun Phrase Accessibility HierarchyAccessibility Hierarchy

More generally, there seems to More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of “difficulty” be a hierarchy of “difficulty” (or “(in)accessibility”) in the (or “(in)accessibility”) in the types of relative clauses.types of relative clauses.

A language which allows this…A language which allows this…

Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > OComp> OComp


More generally, there seems to More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of “difficulty” be a hierarchy of “difficulty” (or “(in)accessibility”) in the (or “(in)accessibility”) in the types of relative clauses.types of relative clauses.

A language which allows this…A language which allows this… Will also allow these.Will also allow these.

Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > OComp> OComp


More generally, there seems to be More generally, there seems to be a hierarchy of “difficulty” (or a hierarchy of “difficulty” (or “(in)accessibility”) in the types “(in)accessibility”) in the types of relative clauses.of relative clauses.

A language which allows this…A language which allows this… Will also allow these. But not Will also allow these. But not these…these…

Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > Subj > Obj > IO > OPrep > Poss > OCompOComp

Relation to L2A?Relation to L2A? Suppose that KoL includes where the Suppose that KoL includes where the target language is on the NPAH.target language is on the NPAH.

Do L2’ers learn the Do L2’ers learn the easy/unmarked/simple relative clauses easy/unmarked/simple relative clauses before the others?before the others?

Do L2’ers transfer the position of Do L2’ers transfer the position of their L1 first?their L1 first?

Does a L2’ers interlanguage grammar Does a L2’ers interlanguage grammar obey this typological generalization obey this typological generalization (if they can relativize a particular (if they can relativize a particular point on the NPAH, can they relativize point on the NPAH, can they relativize everything higher too?)?everything higher too?)?

NPAH and L2A?NPAH and L2A? Probably:Probably: The higher something is on the The higher something is on the NPAH, the easier (faster) it is to learn.NPAH, the easier (faster) it is to learn.

So, it might be easier to start by teaching So, it might be easier to start by teaching subject relatives, then object, then subject relatives, then object, then indirect object, etc. At each step, the indirect object, etc. At each step, the difficulty would be low.difficulty would be low.

But, it might be more But, it might be more efficientefficient to teach the to teach the (hard) object of a comparison—because if (hard) object of a comparison—because if L2’ers interlanguage grammar includes L2’ers interlanguage grammar includes whatever the NPAH describes, knowing that whatever the NPAH describes, knowing that OCOMP is possible implies that everything OCOMP is possible implies that everything (higher) on the NPAH is possible too. That (higher) on the NPAH is possible too. That is, they might know it is, they might know it without instructionwithout instruction. . (Same issue as before with the phonology)(Same issue as before with the phonology)

NPAH in L2ANPAH in L2A

Very widely studied Very widely studied implicational universal in L2A—implicational universal in L2A—many people have addressed the many people have addressed the question of whether the IL obeys question of whether the IL obeys the NPAH and whether teaching aa the NPAH and whether teaching aa marked structure can help.marked structure can help.

Eckman et al. (1989) was about Eckman et al. (1989) was about this second question…this second question…

Change from pre- to Change from pre- to post-testpost-test

Eckman, Bell, & Nelson Eckman, Bell, & Nelson (1988)(1988)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Subj Obj O.P.

Subj GroupObj GroupO.P. GroupControls

Transfer, markedness, …Transfer, markedness, …

Do (2002) looked at the NPAH Do (2002) looked at the NPAH going the other way, going the other way, EnglishEnglishKorean.Korean. English: English: Relativizes on all 6 Relativizes on all 6 positions.positions.

Korean:Korean: Relativizes on 5 (not Relativizes on 5 (not OCOMP)OCOMP)

SS SUSU dodo IOIO OPOP GEGE

1313 ++ ++ ++ ++ ++

1414 ++ ++ ++ ++ --

1616 ++ ++ ++ -- --

2929 ++ ++ -- -- --

3131 ++ -- -- -- --

2020 -- -- -- -- --

Transfer, markedness, …Transfer, markedness, …

The original question Do was The original question Do was looking at was: looking at was: Do English Do English speakers transfer their position speakers transfer their position on the NPAH to the IL Korean?on the NPAH to the IL Korean?

But look: But look: If English allows all If English allows all 6 positions, why do some of the 6 positions, why do some of the learners only relativize down to learners only relativize down to DO, some to IO, some to OPREP?DO, some to IO, some to OPREP?

It looks like they started over.It looks like they started over.

Subset principle?Subset principle?

Null subject parameterNull subject parameter Option (a): Null subjects are Option (a): Null subjects are permittedpermitted.. Option (b): Null subjects are Option (b): Null subjects are not not permittedpermitted..

Italian Italian = option a, = option a, English English = option = option b.b.

E

I

A tempting analogy… in some cases, parameters seem to be ranked in terms of how permissive each setting is.

Reminder: Subset Reminder: Subset PrinciplePrinciple

The idea isThe idea is If one has only positive evidence, andIf one has only positive evidence, and If parameters are organized in terms If parameters are organized in terms

of permissiveness,of permissiveness, Then for a parameter setting to be Then for a parameter setting to be

learnable, the starting point needs to learnable, the starting point needs to be the be the subsetsubset setting of the setting of the parameter.parameter.

The Subset principle says that The Subset principle says that learners should start with the learners should start with the English setting of the null subject English setting of the null subject parameter and parameter and move to move to the Italian the Italian setting if evidence appears.setting if evidence appears.

E

I

Reminder: Subset Reminder: Subset PrinciplePrinciple

The The Subset PrincipleSubset Principle is basically that is basically that learners are learners are conservativeconservative—they only —they only assume a grammar sufficient to generate assume a grammar sufficient to generate the sentences they hear, allowing the sentences they hear, allowing positive evidence to serve to move them positive evidence to serve to move them to a different parameter setting.to a different parameter setting.

Applied to L2: Applied to L2: Given a choice, the Given a choice, the L2’er assumes a grammatical option that L2’er assumes a grammatical option that generates a subset of the what the generates a subset of the what the alternative generates.alternative generates.

Does this describe L2A?Does this describe L2A? Is Is thisthis a useful sense of markedness? a useful sense of markedness?

Subset principle and Subset principle and markednessmarkedness

Based on the Subset principle, we’d expect Based on the Subset principle, we’d expect the unmarked values (in a UG where the unmarked values (in a UG where languages are learnable) to be the ones languages are learnable) to be the ones which produce the “smallest” grammars.which produce the “smallest” grammars.

Given that in L1A we don’t seem to see any Given that in L1A we don’t seem to see any “misset” parameters, we have at least “misset” parameters, we have at least indirect evidence that the Subset indirect evidence that the Subset principle is at work. Is there any principle is at work. Is there any evidence for it in L2A? Do these NPAH evidence for it in L2A? Do these NPAH results constitute such evidence?results constitute such evidence?

Subset vs. TransferSubset vs. Transfer The Subset Principle, if it operating, The Subset Principle, if it operating, would say that L2A starts with all of the would say that L2A starts with all of the defaults, the maximally conservative defaults, the maximally conservative grammar.grammar.

Another, Another, mutually exclusivemutually exclusive possibility possibility (parameter by parameter, anyway) is that (parameter by parameter, anyway) is that L2A starts with the L1 setting.L2A starts with the L1 setting. This means that for certain pairs of L1 and L2, This means that for certain pairs of L1 and L2, where the L1 has the marked (superset) value and where the L1 has the marked (superset) value and L2 has the unmarked (subset) value, L2 has the unmarked (subset) value, only negative only negative evidenceevidence could move the L2’er to the right could move the L2’er to the right setting.setting.

Or, some mixture of the two in different Or, some mixture of the two in different areas.areas.

NPAH and processing?NPAH and processing? At least a plausible alternative to the NPAH At least a plausible alternative to the NPAH results following from the Subset Principle is results following from the Subset Principle is just that relative clauses formed on positions just that relative clauses formed on positions lower in the hierarchy are lower in the hierarchy are harder to processharder to process. . Consider:Consider:

The astronaut…The astronaut… who who [[IPIP tt met me yesterday]met me yesterday] SUBSUB who who [[IPIP II [[VPVP met met tt yesterday]] yesterday]] DODO who who [[IPIP II [[VPVP gave a bookgave a book [[PPPP toto tt ]]]]]] IOIO who who [[IPIP I was I was [[VPVP talking talking [[PPPP about about tt ]]]]]] OPREPOPREP whose house whose house [[IPIP II [[VPVP likelike [[DPDP t t ’s house’s house]]]]]] GENGEN who who [[IPIP I am I am [[APAP bravebrave [[degPdegP -er-er [[thanPthanP than than tt ]]]]]]]]OCOMPOCOMP

NPAH and processing?NPAH and processing?

If it’s about processing, then the If it’s about processing, then the reason L2’ers progress through the reason L2’ers progress through the “hierarchy” might be that initially “hierarchy” might be that initially they have limited processing room—they have limited processing room—they’re they’re working too hardworking too hard at the L2 at the L2 to be able to process such deep to be able to process such deep extractions.extractions.

Why are they working so hard?Why are they working so hard? (Well, maybe L2A is like learning (Well, maybe L2A is like learning history?)history?)

NPAH and processing?NPAH and processing? Is the NPAH Is the NPAH itselfitself simply a result of simply a result of processing?processing?

The NPAH is a typological generalization The NPAH is a typological generalization about about languageslanguages not about the not about the course of course of acquisitionacquisition..

Does Arabic have a lower threshhold for Does Arabic have a lower threshhold for processing difficulty than English? processing difficulty than English? Doubtful.Doubtful.

The NPAH may still be real, still be a The NPAH may still be real, still be a markedness hierarchy based in something markedness hierarchy based in something grammatical, but it turns out to be grammatical, but it turns out to be confounded confounded by processing.by processing.

So finding evidence of NPAH position So finding evidence of NPAH position transfertransfer is very difficult. is very difficult.

Subset problems?Subset problems? One problem, though, is that many of One problem, though, is that many of the parameters of variation we think the parameters of variation we think of today don’t seem to be really of today don’t seem to be really inin a subset-superset relation. So there a subset-superset relation. So there has to be something else going on in has to be something else going on in these cases anyway.these cases anyway. VVTT

Yes: √SVAO, *SAVOYes: √SVAO, *SAVO No: *SVAO, √SAVONo: *SVAO, √SAVO

Anaphor typeAnaphor type Monomorphemic: √LD, *Non-subjectMonomorphemic: √LD, *Non-subject Polymorphemic: *LD, √Non-subject Polymorphemic: *LD, √Non-subject

Documents

Week 12. Acquirers and questions GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory