The Acquisition of English and Arabic Existential Constructions By Emad Mohammed Al-Kulaib Submitted to the Department of Linguistics and the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Kansas in Partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ___________________ (Chair) ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ (Committee Members) Date Defended: 4/30/2010 The Dissertation Committee for Emad Mohammed Al-Kulaib certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Acquisition of English and Arabic Existential Constructions Committee: ___________________ (Chair) ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ ______________________ Date Approved: 06 / 23 / 2010 II Abstract This study is an investigation of the acquisition of existential constructions (ECs) in English and in Spoken Arabic. It is the first of its kind in that it examines the acquisition of the pieces and the features that form ECs; namely, existential there , the copula, definiteness, and agreement for English and existential fii , definiteness, word order, and negation for Spoken Arabic. The children learning English and Arabic had difficulties producing adult-like ECs. However, the difficulties that the children learning Arabic had with ECs are different from the difficulties that the children learning English had with English ECs. An analysis the files of Eve (Brown, 1973), Nina (Suppes, 1973) and Peter (Bloom 1970), taken from the CHILDES database (MacWhinney & Snow, 1985) showed that English existentials are not acquired at the same time as deictic constructions (DCs); existential contexts appear later than deictic ones and are much less productive. The children had difficulties acquiring be in both constructions. The data shows that acquisition of be in existential constructions follows a different pattern of development than deictic be and auxiliary–be. Although the rate of provision and omission of be in both ECs and DCs is about the same, the use of be in existentials is not as frequent as be in deictic or as in auxiliary-be constructions. The earliest token of an English EC appeared at the age 1;10 although missing be . The earliest emergence of an EC with be appeared at 2;0. In contrast, the earliest emergence of a DC missing be appeared at 1;7 and with be appeared at 1;9. The components that form both existential and deictic constructions appear early but they are used deictically before they are used to express the existence of objects. The production data shows that the three children supplied subject-verb agreement correctly most of the time. III An analysis of data taken from five acquisition studies on Spoken Arabic showed that Arabic ECs are not productive. The earliest emergence of an Arabic EC appeared at the age 2;1. The difficulties that children learning Arabic had arise from (i) failure in reanalyzing fii as an existential verb separate from the verbal negation marker ma -(š), (ii) the definiteness constraints and (iii) word order constraints that are also observed in Construct States (CSs) and verbal predicates. Existential fii is first used as a routine with the verbal negation marker ma-(s ̌). No affirmative ECs (AECs) could be found in the data. No errors in the use of negation with ECs could be found. The children learning both languages treated the negation markers differently. The children learning English produced both NECs and AECs. In contrast, the children learning Arabic only produced NECs. Children learning English appear to observe definiteness constraints in their initial productions of ECs while children acquiring Arabic violate this constraint. However, there is the possibility that the English distinction between ECs and DCs obscures the difficulty that children have with this constraint in English. IV Acknowledgements All thanks be to Allah for His favors and bounties. All praise be to Him that this work has finally, successfully come to completion! I would like to thank my sponsor Al-Imam Muhammad Ibn Saud Islamic University whose boundless financial support helped me bring this work to the light! Special thanks go out to my father who taught me discipline and to my mother who taught me unconditional love. Thank you both for your patience, prayers and immense spiritual support! I would also like to thank my wife for standing by my side all the way through. Thank you very much! I would like to express my deep appreciation to my teacher and advisor, Prof. Clifton Pye. I have to thank him for introducing me to the study of first language acquisition, for teaching me how to analyze data and how to think critically. Working with him has greatly enriched my knowledge of Linguistics. Thank you very much for your valuable discussions and questions! I would also like to thank my committee members: Profs, Robert Rankin, Donald Watkins, Naima Boussofara and Robert Fiorentino. Thank you all for your comments, questions and insights. I am grateful to Dr. Khawla Aljenaie who shared with me some of her data that helped me paint a clearer picture of what child Arabic existential constructions look like. I would like to express my deep thanks to my fellow linguists in the Department: Turki Bin-Turki, Atef Alsarayreh, Mohammed Almalahmeh, Mujdey Abudalbuh, Saad Al-Dwayan, and Pedro Mateo for the many valuable discussions that we had and for providing me with a most needed sense of brotherhood. Thanks also go out to my friends V Yahya Al-Ayyaafi and Fahmi Ahmed for standing by my side at times of need. Thank you all. I extend my warmest thanks to the late Abdulrahman Al-Homoud who was the first to invite me in his house when I first set foot in Lawrence, KS. May Allah shower him with His mercy! Many thanks go out to my brothers Nawaf and Talal and to my friends back home: Dr. Naji Al-Arfaj, Ibrahim Al-Harbi, Abdulrahman Alkulaib and the late Sultan Al-Assaf for their encouragement from a distance! Last, but not least, I would like to thank whoever helped me in one way or another, whoever made a difference in my life, and whoever made my stay in Lawrence, KS enjoyable. VI List of Abbreviations 1sg First Person Singular 3msg Third Person Masculine Singular 3pl Third Person Plural Abs Absolutive Case Acc Accusative Case Cl Clitic CSs Construct States Dat Dative Case DC Deictic Construction DE Definiteness Effects Def Definite Dem Demonstrative Dir Direction EC Existential Construction Erg Ergative Case EX Existential Expl Expletive FP Focus Phrase Fsg Feminine Singular Gen Genitive Case Indef Indefinite Loc Locative Mpl Masculine Plural Msg Masculine Singular Nom Nominative Case PA Palestinian Arabic Poss Possessive PP Preposition Phrase Pred Predicate Pro1sg First person singular Pronominal PrP Predication Phrase Pst Past RPA Rural Palestinian Arabic SC Small Clause VII List of Tables Table Page Chapter Two: Table 1: Summary of ways of introducing ECs across different languages. 39 Chapter Four: Table 1a: The distribution of ma-š and mis ̌ across different tenses and 53 aspects (Eid, 1993). Table 1b: The distribution of ma-š and mis ̌ across different tenses and 53 aspects (Eid, 1993). Table 2: The distribution of ma-š and mis ̌; across different grammatical 54 categories (Eid, 1993). Table 3: Summary of the different analyses of existential fii across the 67 dialects. Table 4: ECs components in English and Arabic. 96 Chapter Five: Table 1: First occurrences of deictic, expletive and anaphoric there for 9 98 children (Schafer & Roeper, 2000). Table 2: Age of appearance for referential it and expletive it . (Kirby & 99 Becker, 2007). Table 3: Grammatical and Ungrammatical DPs. (Abu–Akel & Bailey, 2000) 101 Table 4: Average Rate of Overt be in Children's Locative Predicative 102 (Becker. 2000). Table 5: Background on the data under investigation. 105 Table 6: Average production of be in child existential and deictic 116 constructions. Table 7: Average Rate of Overt be in Children's Locative Predicative 117 (Becker. 2000). Table 8a: Nina’s existential obligatory contexts with be . 118 Table 8b: Peter’s existential obligatory contexts with be . 118 Table 8c: Eve’s existential obligatory contexts with be . 118 Table 9: Children's Average Rate of Overt be in Existential in both studies. 118 Table 10a: Nina’s deictic obligatory contexts with be . (shade boxes mark 120 the beginning of stable production over 50%). Table 10b: Peter’s deictic obligatory contexts with be. 120 Table 10c: Eve’s deictic obligatory contexts with be . 120 Table 11: Children's Average Rate of Overt be in DCs in both studies 121 Table 12: Rate of finiteness on main verbs for Adam. (Phillips, 2000) 122 Table 13: Finiteness on main verbs for Nina, Peter and Naomi (Becker 122 2000). Table 14: Contracted vs. uncontracted forms of be across three children in 124 both ECs and DCs. VIII Table 15a: First emergence of be in deictic and existential constructions for 126 Nina. Table 15b: First emergence of be in deictic and existential constructions for 126 Peter. Table 15c: First emergence of be in deictic and existential constructions for 126 Eve. Table 16: Subject verb agreement errors in DCs and ECs. 129 Table 17: Production of and omission of be in existential and deictic 135 constructions. Table 18a: Production of auxiliary-be for Eve. 136 Table 18b: Production of auxiliary-be for Peter. 136 Table18c: Production of auxiliary-be for Nina. 136 Table 19: Subject type with missing be versus overt be in Auxiliary-be 142 constructions. Chapter Six: Table 1: Iqbal’s Ages and MLU’s in Four Sessions (Smadi, 1979) 159 Table 2: Summary on the sources of data for the second acquisition study. 162 Table 3: Igbal’s production of NPs in session 10 (Age 2;0) (Smadi, 1979) 170 Table 4: Igbal’s production of NPs in session 20 (Age 2;5) (Smadi, 1979) 173 Table 5: Igbal’s production of ʔil in session 20 (Age 2;5) divided between 174 definite and Indefinite contexts.