Adjunct Control and the Poverty of the Stimulus: Availability Vs

Adjunct control and the poverty of the stimulus: availability vs. evidence

Juliana Gerard

LAGB 10 September 2019 . julianagerard.com/lagb.pdf [email protected] Queen Mary University of London . julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 2

Acquisition

• What? • When?

Adjunct control

(1) John1 called Mary before PRO1 running to the shop

• Non-adultlike as late as 6-7

• How? • Evidence in the input?

Goodluck (1981), Hsu et al (1985), McDaniel et al (1991), Cairns et al (1994), Broihier & julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf Wexler (1995), Goodluck (1998, 2001), Adler (2006), Gerard et al (2017, 2018) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 3

Why?

• how? • adjunct control

julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 4

How?

Complex structure  behavior  grammar  prediction: behavior 2 

grammar  grammar

julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 5

Adjunct control

(1) John1 called Mary2 before PRO1/*2 running to the shop

julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 6

Adjunct control

(1) John1 called Mary2 before PRO1/*2 running to the shop

julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 7

Adjunct control

before after (1) John1 called Mary2 beforewhile PRO1/*2 running to the shop without …

julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 8

Adjunct control

(1) John1 called Mary2 before PRO1/*2 running to the shop

Available interpretation(s): Adults: Subject control 4-6 yo: Subject control Object control Sentence internal behavior Free reference

Adjunct control

Adult grammar - Attachment height - Closest c-commanding NP

called

running to julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf the storeshop introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 10

Adjunct control

Adult grammar - Attachment height - Closest c-commanding NP

→ broader implications for dependencies

julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 11

Case study: how? Adult grammar Attachment height Closest c-commanding NP H1. From the input a. Inferred from direct observation (direct input) b. Generalization from a similar structure (generalize)  domain specific or domain general

julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 12

Case study: how? Adult grammar Attachment height Closest c-commanding NP H1. From the input a. Inferred from direct observation (direct input) b. Generalization from a similar structure (generalize)  domain specific or domain general H2. Not from the input (UG)  poverty of the stimulus

• Implications for • Input • Other dependencies julianagerard.com/dgfs.pdf introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 13

H1. Evidence in the input

a. Direct evidence: • attachment height • closest c-commanding NP

b. Generalization • Complement control (2) a. John wanted PRO to run to the store b. John told Mary PRO to run to the store

• Finite adjuncts he (3) John called Mary before she ran to the store Bill introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 14

a. Direct evidence

(4) John1 called Mary2 before PRO1/*2 running to the shop

? ? input  input Available interpretation(s): grammar grammar Adults: Subject control 4-6 yo: Subject control grammar: Object control attachment height Sentence internal Free reference grammar: closest c-commanding NP

Goodluck & Behne (1992), Goodluck (1998) Goodluck (1981), Hsu et al (1985), McDaniel et al (1991), Cairns et al (1994), Adler (2006) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 15

Attachment height

• Non-adultlike grammar: Variable attachment • Object control

Goodluck (1981), Hsu et al (1985), McDaniel et al (1991), Cairns et al (1994), Adler (2006) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 16

Evidence: binding across clauses

(5) John called her1 before PRO meeting Mary1 at the shop

If evidence, assumes: • binding principles already learned (or don’t need to be learned)

Sutton (2015) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 17

Evidence: binding across clauses

(5) John called her1 before PRO meeting Mary1 at the shop

If evidence, assumes: • binding principles already learned (or don’t need to be learned) • processing resources to maintain both clauses in memory

Sutton (2015) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 18

Evidence: binding across clauses

(5) John called her1 before PRO meeting Mary1 at the shop

If evidence, assumes: • binding principles already learned (or don’t need to be learned) • processing resources to maintain both clauses in memory • frequent enough in the input → children’s perception (intake vs input)

Lidz & Gagliardi (2015), Omaki & Lidz (2015), Sutton (2015) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 19

Evidence: binding across clauses  Domain specificity

(5) John called her1 before PRO meeting Mary1 at the shop

Lidz & Gagliardi (2015), Omaki & Lidz (2015), Sutton (2015) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 20

a. Direct evidence

(4) John1 called Mary2 before PRO1/*2 running to the store

? ?  input  input Available interpretation(s): grammar grammar Adults: Subject control 4-6 yo: Subject control grammar: Object control attachment height Sentence internal Free reference grammar: closest c-commanding NP

Goodluck & Behne (1992), Goodluck (1998) Goodluck (1981), Hsu et al (1985), McDaniel et al (1991), Cairns et al (1994), Adler (2006) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 21

Evidence for adultlike PRO?

• Not direct • Single instance likely consistent with many possibilities (1) John called Mary before PRO running to the shop

→ subject, sentence-internal, agent, discourse

1. Adjunct control: subject 2. Closest c-commanding NP introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 22

Evidence for adultlike PRO?

• Not direct • Single instance likely consistent with many possibilities (1) John called Mary before PRO running to the store

→ subject, sentence-internal, agent, discourse

1. Adjunct control: subject 2. Closest c-commanding NP introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 23

Evidence that PRO = subject?

• Previous studies: non-adultlike (4-6 year olds) • Subject control • Object control • Sentence internal • Free reference adult grammar

x x

Goodluck (1981), Hsu et al (1985), McDaniel et al (1991), Cairns et al (1994), Broihier & Wexler (1995), Goodluck (1998, 2001), Adler (2006), Gerard et al (2017, 2018) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 24

Evidence that PRO = subject?

• Previous studies: non-adultlike (4-6 year olds) • Subject control • Object control non-adult grammar • Sentence internal • Free reference adult grammar

 evidence for non-adult grammar x x x

H1. Evidence in the input

Adult grammar Attachment height Closest c-commanding NP a. Inferred from direct observation b. Generalization from a similar structure introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 26

b. Similar structures

Adult grammar Attachment height Closest c-commanding NP • Complement control (6) a. subject: John wanted PRO to run to the shop b. object: John told Mary PRO to run to the shop

• Finite adjuncts he (7) John called Mary before she ran to the shop Bill introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 27

Complement control

(6) a. subject: John wanted __ to run to the shop b. object: John told Mary __ to run to the shop (8) John called Mary before PRO running to the shop

→ Form (null) → Closest c-commanding NP

• Adultlike behavior observed before adjunct control → infer antecedent from complement control, then generalize?

Goodluck (1981), Hsu et al (1985), McDaniel et al (1991), Goodluck & Behne (1992), Cairns et al (1994) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 28

Complement control

→ infer antecedent from complement control, then generalize?

issues • non-adultlike behavior for complement control → evidence for non-adult grammar

• assumptions • inference for complement control only • complement control → adjunct control • antecedent, but not e.g. verb form introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 29

Finite adjuncts

he (7) John called Mary before she ran to the shop Bill

• Attachment height? • Same learning problem as adjunct control • Finite → non-finite

• Linguistic input? • Non-finite vs finite adjuncts introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 30

Linguistic input main clause subject other internal external referent 150

100

50 per million utterances million per 0

finite non-finite CHILDES - Macwhinney (2000) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 31

Linguistic input Antecedent main clause subject John called Mary after __? ran to the shop other internal external referent 150 e.g. Mommy fixed it before she left

100

50 per million utterances million per 0

finite non-finite introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 32

Linguistic input Antecedent main clause subject John called Mary after __? ran to the shop other internal before while external referent 150

John called Mary after __ running to the shop 100 before while without 50 instead of

for per million utterances million per 0

finite non-finite introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 33

Linguistic input Antecedent ran main clause subject John called Mary after __? to the shop running other internal external referent 150

100

50 per million utterances million per 0

finite non-finite introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 34

Generalization?

Antecedents • frequent  frequent introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 35

Generalization?

Antecedents • frequent  frequent • infrequent  frequent? introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 36

Generalization?

Antecedents • frequent  frequent • infrequent  frequent? Issues: • Finite: free reference introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 37

Generalization?

Antecedents • frequent  frequent • infrequent  frequent? Issues: • Finite: free reference • Non-finite: non-answer ? introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 38

b. Generalization summary Adult grammar Attachment height Closest c-commanding NP • Problematic • Complement control: antecedent • Finite adjuncts: attachment height • Finite adjuncts: antecedent • Non-finite adjuncts: non-answer introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 39

H2. Universal Grammar Adult grammar • Universal principles Attachment height Closest c-commanding NP • Poverty of the stimulus • Structure present, but evidence not available

• Implications for • input • acquisition

Chomsky (1965) introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 40

Input

• Abstract principles → cross-linguistic variation • finiteness • complementizer • after, before, while,… : finite and non-finite • without, despite, … : non-finite only → English introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 41

Input

• Abstract principles → cross-linguistic variation • finiteness • complementizer

• Evidence • overt morphemes • frequency introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 42

Acquisition

• Role: mapping overt → abstract • vs. learning abstract

? input ?  grammar input grammar

grammar: attachment height

grammar: closest c-commanding NP introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 43

Prediction: exceptions

• e.g. ‘for’ (9) a. Active: John1 called Mary2 after PRO1/*2 going to the shop b. Passive: John1 was called by Mary2 after PRO1/*2 going to the shop

(10) a. Active: John1 thanked Mary2 for PRO*1/2 going to the shop b. Passive: John1 was thanked by Mary2 for PRO1/*2 going to the shop

→ salient in the input? introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 44

Prediction: exceptions

(10) a. John1 thanked Mary2 for PRO1/*2 going to the shop b. John1 was thanked by Mary2 for PRO1/*2 going to the shop • e.g. ‘for’

→ 70% “thank you for ___ ing” frame main clause subject 100 other internal external referent

0 per million utterances million per

non-finite introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 45

Implications

• How is adjunct control acquired? • Indirectly • Not inferred from input

• Implications • Other dependencies, constraints • Non-adultlike stages introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 46

Other dependencies

NP [PRO ] c-command

X [ Y ] discourse?

evidence c-command introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 47

Other dependencies

NP [PRO ] c-command

X [ Y ] cdiscourse?-command

evidence c-command

• Variation? • Long-distance • Logophors • Aspect introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 48

Non-adult stages

• Poverty of the stimulus • no evidence  not acquired from the input

• Logic for non-adult grammar

input   grammar input grammar • no evidence  not acquired from the input introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 49

Conclusion

• Availability vs evidence

• Implications for other dependencies introduction input: direct input: generalize UG implications 50

Thanks!

• Organisers of LAGB

• Ulster University Research Institute for Modern Languages and Linguistics • University of Maryland Project on Children’s Language Learning • Jeffrey Lidz • NSF DDRI grant BCS-1551662

contact: [email protected]