CAS LX 500 A1 Language Acquisition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Passives CAS LX 500 A1 Language Acquisition Week 9a. BUCLD 33 Messenger English-speaking children's comprehension of the passive appears Crawford semantically constrained: 4-5-year-olds comprehend agent-patient The Maturation Hypothesis (MH) predicts cross-linguistic delay in the actional passives better than experiencer-theme non-actional passives acquisition of verbal passives (Borer and Wexler 1987). Demuth (1989) (Maratsos et al, 1985). These results might reflect children's difficulty argues against MH, finding early passive use in Sesotho. This paper interpreting non-actional event pictures, or they might have genuine adds experimental results to the debate. 11 Sesotho-speaking children difficulties interpreting such sentences. We present two experiments (5;0-6;0) and 10 adults took a Sesotho version of the two-choice investigating this: Experiment 1 tested children's comprehension of picture-selection task. Four actional verbs were tested. ANOVAs agent-patient, experiencer-theme and theme-experiencer verb active crossing voice (actives/long passives) with age show a main effect and passives in a sentence-picture-matching task. We found a (ME) of voice, ME of age, and interaction of voice and age. Comparing significant effect of structure (p<.001) and verb-type (p<.001): actives to short passives, there is a ME of voice, but no interaction Children understood actives better than passives and actional and between age and voice. ANOVAs crossing length and age reveal long theme-experiencer passives better than experiencer-theme passives. passives were disproportionately difficult. These data suggest Sesotho Experiment 2 tested the same factors using structural priming (Bock, children comprehend short actional passives, but not long actional 1986). We found a reliable effect of structure (p<.01) but not verb-type passives. I argue the poor performance on long actional passives is due (F<2): Children were more likely to produce a passive description to their being unambiguously verbal, while adult-like performance on after hearing a passive prime than an active, irrespective of the prime- short passives is due to differing agreement morphology. verb. Our priming results suggest task effects may confound the semantic effects in sentence-picture-matching experiments. Pragmatics: de Villiers In relevance implicatures the central meaning in an exchange of Implicatures utterances is left unsaid and the observer has to fill it in from what s/ he knows about the topic under discussion and from reading the speakers' communicative intentions (Sperber & Wilson, 1986). So children with autism who have a delay in their theory of mind understanding may also have difficulty in understanding relevance implicatures despite the absence of a misleading literal meaning. In a study of the comprehension of relevance implicatures in 38 typically- developing children and 10 children diagnosed with "high functioning" autism there was strong developmental growth in the children's ability to report on the intended meaning of the speakers' responses. The children with autism lagged significantly behind the typically- developing children, though their vocabulary scores and non-verbal IQs were in the normal range. The best predictor of the autistic children's understanding of relevance implicatures was their theory of mind performance. !"#$%&%'%()*(+*,-.-/0)"-*123.%"0'$4-&*0)5*6(5$.04%'7% % )*+%,-.-/0)"-*%23.%"0'$4-8%% Verbuk %",%-.%/01%2'3%45"65%"%(06$%07%58$%(06$9:";$<%% %%%=,%>.%?@%935%'7%"%;'"5%"71%=6'3#85%2'3%'7$,A%% On the Gricean "language-based" account, conversational %;,%>B4%C$:$D"7;$%0E9:0;"536$.%@%101%7'5%45"65%"%(06$,%%%% implicatures are computed by engaging in linguistic reasoning, and % )F+%,-.-/0)"-*123.%"0'$4-8%%%%% are viewed as part of the language module. On Kasher's (1991) G"5%5':1%/'#H%?/'#H%7'I%05B4%2'36%5367%5'%1'%4'E$5807#,%@5B4%;80::2%8$6$,%J5"65%"%(06$%07%58$%% Rationality account, conversational implicatures are produced by the (06$9:";$H%9:$"4$,%@B::%#'%8"D$%4'E$5807#%5'%$"5%07%58$%K05;8$7,A%% non-linguistic competence, and are viewed as derived by rationality- based reasoning, also instrumental in deriving non-linguistic inferences. English-speaking children (5;1-8;1) were tested on computing Relevance implicatures and parallel in nature non- linguistic inferences. Because children engage in linguistic reasoning in computing Relevance implicatures but not non-linguistic %% % inferences, the Language-based account predicted the latter to be less )L8$%$M9$60E$75$6%48'I4%58$%;80:1%58$%90;536$H%58$7%6$E'D$4%05+,%%% %-(5$6%"%I80:$H%G"5%6$5367$1%5'%58$%:0D07#%6''E,%/'#%4"01H%?@%935%'7%"%;'"5%"71%=6'3#85%2'3%'7$,A%% challenging. On the Rationality-based account, computing both types %N$5B4%562%5'%(0#36$%'35%I8"5%8"99$7$1,%/'%2'3%5807K%/'#%45"65$1%"%(06$<%O'I%;"7%2'3%5$::<% of inferences requires performing rationality-based non-linguistic % reasoning; children were not predicted to perform better on )P+%9():.%);$%&'%"*1)+-4-)"-8%% G"5%5':1%/'#H%?/'#H%7'I%05B4%2'36%5367%5'%1'%4'E$5807#,%@5B4%;80::2%8$6$,%J5"65%"%(06$%07%58$%% computing non-linguistic inferences. Children performed significantly (06$9:";$H%9:$"4$,%@B::%#'%8"D$%4'E$5807#%5'%$"5%07%58$%K05;8$7,A%% better on computing!"#$%&%'%()*(+*,-.-/0)"-*123.%"0'$4-&*0)5*6(5$.04%' non-linguistic inferences, as the Language-based7% % )*+%account,-.-/0)"-*%23.%"0'$4-8 predicted. %%Reasoning about language, specifically, about the %",%-.%/01%2'3%45"65%"%(06$%07%58$%(06$9:";$<%%role of seemingly irrelevant utterances %%%=,%>.%?@%935%'7%"%;'"5%"71%=6'3#85%2'3%'7$,A%% in discourse, constitutes the %;,%>B4%C$:$D"7;$%0E9:0;"536$.%@%101%7'5%45"65%"%(0main acquisition challenge presented6$,%%%% by the Relevance implicatures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esign%N$5B4%562%5'%(0#36$%'35%I8"5%8"99$7$1,%/'%2'3%5807K%/'#%45"65$1%"%(06$<%O'I%;"7%2'3%5$::<% %N$5B4%562%5'%(0#36$%'35%I8"5%8"99$7$1,%/'%2'3%5807K%/'#%45"65$1%"%(06$<%O'I%;"7%2'3%5$::<% % % J$:$;5$1%C$($6$7;$4% )P+%9():.%);$%&'%"*1)+-4-)"-8%% ThreeQ60;$H%!,%)*RPR+% conditions:!"#$%&'(%)("*&(+,-(./(+.0$' verbal RelevanceH%O"6D"61%S70D$64052%!6$44H%G"E=601#$H%T"44,%% implicatures; G"5%5':1%/'#H%?/'#H%7'I%05B4%2'36%5367%5'%1'%4'E$5807#,%@5B4%;80::2%8$6$,%J5"65%"%(06$%07%58$%% U"48$6H%-,%)*RRP+%10,23,"%4'5(60%"%4,7(6.)4&8"'9%N'71'7.%C'35:$1#$,%% (06$9:";$H%9:$"4$,%@B::%#'%8"D$%4'E$5807#%5'%$"5%07%58$%K05;8$7,A%% U"48$6H%-,%)*RR*+%?!6"#E"50;4%"71%58$%T'13:"6052%'( parallel non-verbal%T071,A%@7%J,%/"D04%$14,H% inferences; 10,23,"%4'H%VM('61% S70D$64052%!6$44H%WXFYWP&,%% scalar implicatures. * Group one: !"#$%&%'(%&% Picture stories: 1 success, 2 failures. %% % %)L8$%$M9$60E$75$6%48'I4%58$%;80:1%58$%90;536$H%58$7%6$E'D$4%05+,%%% Stories: 2 successes, 1 failure. %-(5$6%"%I80:$H%G"5%6$5367$1%5'%58$%:0D07#%6''E,%N$5B4%4$$%I8"5%8"99$7$1,%%% 3 scalar implicature items. Group two: Picture stories: 2 successes, 1 failure. Stories: 1 success, 2 failures. 3 scalar implicature items. % %N$5B4%562%5'%(0#36$%'35%I8"5%8"99$7$1,%/'%2'3%5807K%/'#%45"65$1%"%(06$<%O'I%;"7%2'3%5$::<% 10 % J$:$;5$1%C$($6$7;$4% Q60;$H%!,%)*RPR+%!"#$%&'(%)("*&(+,-(./(+.0$'H%O"6D"61%S70D$64052%!6$44H%G"E=601#$H%T"44,%% U"48$6H%-,%)*RRP+%10,23,"%4'5(60%"%4,7(6.)4&8"'9%N'71'7.%C'35:$1#$,%% U"48$6H%-,%)*RR*+%?!6"#E"50;4%"71%58$%T'13:"6052%'(%T071,A%@7%J,%/"D04%$14,H%10,23,"%4'H%VM('61% S70D$64052%!6$44H%WXFYWP&,%% * !"#$%&%'(%&% Subjects Scenarios 28 children aged 5;1-8;1 were tested. 10 5-year-olds, 7 6-year-olds, 9 7-year-olds and 2 8-year-olds. This is Cat and this is Dog. Cat and Dog are friends and live in the same house. One weekend, they decided to do a bunch of chores around the house. They decided that Cat would do half the chores, and Dog would do the other half of the chores. Cat and Dog had to do some cleaning, cooking, fix some furniture, and do some other stuff. 11 12 (1) Picture Story. THE PARROT. After a while, Dog asked Cat to come back to the kitchen. Cat told Dog, “Dog, you start doing things, and I’ll go next. Feed Let’s see what happened.