GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GRS LX 700 Syntax Language Acquisition n Recall the basic structure and of adult sentences. n IP (a.k.a. TP, INFLP, …) is the position of modals Linguistic Theory and auxiliaries, also assumed to be home of Week 2. The emergence of syntax tense and agreement. n CP is where wh-words move and where I moves in subject-aux-inversion Splitting the INFL Splitting the INFL n Syntax since 1986 has n Distinct syntactic been more or less functions assigned to driven by the distinct functional heads. principle “every n T: tense/modality n AgrO: object agreement, separable functional accusative case element belongs in its n AgrS: subject agreement, own phrase.” nominative case n Neg: negation n Various syntactic tests support these moves n Origins: Pollock (1989) as well (cf. CAS LX (split INFL into Agr and T), 523). Chomsky (1993) (split INFL into AgrS, T, AgrO). Functional heads Functional heads n The DP, CP, and VP n VP was split into two parts, vP where the agent all suffered a similar starts, and VP where the fate. patient starts. V and v combine by head movement. n DP was split into DP n Origins: Larson (1988) and NumP proposed a similar structure for double-object verbs, Hale & Keyser (1993) proposed something like n Origin: Ritter 1991 and this structure, which was related work adopted by Chomsky (1993). 1 Functional heads Functional structure n CP was split into n Often, the “fine structure” n The heart of “syntax” several “discourse- of the functional heads is really in the related” functional does not matter, so functional heads, on people will still refer to heads as well (topic, “IP” (with the this view. Verbs and focus, force, and understanding that under nouns give us the “finiteness”). a microscope it is lexical content, but probably AgrSP, TP, functional heads (TP, AgrOP, or even more n Origins: Rizzi (1997) AgrSP, etc.) give us complex), “CP”, “DP”, the syntactic structure. etc. How do kids get there? Testing for functional structure n Given the n Kids learn it (patterns of input). n Trying to answer this n It’s not very easy. It’s structure of adult n Chickens and eggs, and creoles, and so hard to ask forth. question involves sentences, the trying to determine judgments of kids, question we’re what evidence we and they often do concerned about n Option 1: Kids start out assuming unhelpful things like the entire adult structure, learning have for these here will be in repeat (or garble) large part: how do just the details (Does the verb move? functional structures How is tense pronounced?) things they just heard kids (consistently) in child syntax. (probably telling us arrive at this n Option 2: Kids start out assuming nothing about what structure (when their grammar they become some subpart of the adult structure, complexity increasing with actually is). adults)? (predetermined?) development. Testing for functional structure Helpful clues kids give us n We do know n This isn’t foolproof. If a child n Null subjects n Root infinitives fails to pronounce the past what various n Kids seem to drop the n Kids seem to use functional tense suffix on a verb that was subject off of their nonfinite forms of clearly intended to be in the sentences a lot. More main (root) clause projections are past, does this mean there’s than adults would. supposed to be verbs where adults no TP? Does it mean they There’s a certain wouldn’t. Again, crosslinguistic responsible for, simply made a speech error there’s a certain and so we can (as adults sometimes do)? systematicity to it as well, from which we crosslinguistic look for evidence Does it mean they haven’t systematicity to it that figured out how to pronounce might take hints about of their effects in kids’ functional can provide clues as to the past tense affix yet? child language. structure. what’s going on. 2 Radford (1990, 1995) adult syntax ≠ child syntax n A proposal about Early Child English. n Adults: CP—IP—VP n Kids’ syntax differs from adults’ syntax: n Kids: VP n kids use only lexical (not functional) elements n structural sisters in kids’ trees always have a q- relation between them. n Evidence for absence of IP: VP n No modals (repeating, kids drop them) “Small Clause NP q V’ Hypothesis” n No auxiliaries (Mommy doing dinner) man n No productive use of tense & agreement (Baby V q NP ride truck, Mommy go, Daddy sleep) chase car Absence of CP Absence of DP n No CP system: n No DP system: n no complementizers (that, for, if) n no non-q elements n no expletives (raining, outside cold) n no preposed auxiliary (car go?) n no of before noun complements of nouns (cup tea) n no wh-movement (imitating where does it go? n Few determiners (Hayley draw boat, want duck, yields go?; spontaneous: mouse doing?) reading book) n kids bad at comprehending wh-object n No possessive ’s, which may be a D. questions (out of canonical order). (—What are n No pronouns, which are probably D. you doing? —No.) Small children’s small clauses To T or not to T n The Small Clause Hypothesis is not prima facie n Focusing specifically on tense (and subject crazy. Child English does seem to look agreement), the fact that kids sometimes use something like what it would predict. tense and sometimes do not does not indicate n On the other hand, when looking across that they know or represent T in their syntactic languages, we find that the SCH doesn’t fare structure. very well. n In languages where tense/agreement is more n The question is: When tense is there, does it act visible, we find kids using infinitives, but only like tense would for an adult? Do kids sometimes, other times using finite verbs. The differentiate between tensed and infinitive verbs, case that kids do not represent tense weakens or are these just memorized Vs at this point? (but is not yet out of the running!). 3 Full Competence Hypothesis Adult German n Poeppel & Wexler (1993). Data: Andreas (2;1, n Phrase structure consists of CP, IP, VP. from CHILDES). n German is SOV, V2 n The morphosyntactic properties associated with finiteness and attributable to the availability of n The finite verb (or auxiliary or modal) is the functional categories (notably head movement) second constituent in main clauses, following are in place. some constituent (subject, object, or n The best model of the child data is the standard adverbial). analysis of adult German (functional projections n In embedded clauses, the finite verb is final. and all). The one exception: n V2 comes about by moving the finite verb to n Grammatical Infinitive Hypothesis: (head-initial) C. n Matrix sentences with (clause-final) infinitives are a legitimate structure in child German grammar. German clause structure German clause structure CP CP DP C¢ n This “second position” is DP C¢ n Things other than generally thought to be C, subjects can appear in C+I IP where something else C+I IP “first position”. hat Hans kaufte (like the subject, or any den n When the tense appears I¢ DP I¢ — other XP) needs to appear Ball on an auxiliary, the verb in SpecCP. VP — Hans VP stays in place. n This only happens with V¢ finite verbs. Nonfinite V¢ verbs remain at the end DP — of the sentence (after the — V object). gekaufte den Ball In brief… Results n Kids can choose a finite or a nonfinite verb. n There is a strong contingency. n A finite (matrix) verb shows up in 2nd position n Conclude: the finiteness distinction is made n A nonfinite verb appears clause-finally correctly at the earliest observable stage. ich mach das nich I do that not +finite -finite V2, not final 197 6 du das haben V final, not V2 11 37 you that have 4 Do kids learn “this is a second Verb positioning = position verb” for certain verbs? functional categories n In adult German, V2 comes n (Are some verbs used as auxiliaries?) from V Æ I Æ C. n If we can see non-subjects n Andreas used 33 finite verbs and 37 nonfinite to the left of finite verbs, we verbs, 8 of which were in both categories— know we have at least one FP n —and those 8 were finite in V2 position and functional projection (above Object F¢ nonfinite in final position. the subject, in whose Spec the first position non- F+V VP Subject n Remaining verbs show no clear semantic core subject goes). V¢ that one might attribute the distribution to. — — When V is 2nd, what’s first? CP n Usually subject, not a big surprise. n The Full Competence Hypothesis says not only that functional categories exist, but that the child n But 19 objects before finite V2 has access to the same functional categories that (of 197 cases, 180 with overt subjects) the adult does. n And 31 adverbs before finite V2 n In particular, CP should be there too. n Predicts what we’ve seen: n finite verbs are in second position only n Conclude: Kids basically seem to be acting (modulo topic drop leaving them in first position) like adults; their V2 is the same V2 that n nonfinite verbs are in final position only adults use. n subjects, objects, adverbs may all precede a finite verb in second position. P&W’s predictions met—how P&W’s predictions met—how did the other guys fare? did the other guys fare? n Radford and related approaches (No functional n “No C hypothesis” (kids don’t use overt categories for the young)? complementizers) n Well, we see V2 with finite verbs n finite verb is second n Of course, kids don’t really use embedded n non-subjects can be first clauses either (a chicken-egg problem?) n and you can’t do this except to move V out of VP n Purported cases of embedded clauses without a and something else to its left… complementizer aren’t numerous or convincing.