Gabriella Fekete Dynamique D u Langage (UMR 5596 CNRS & Université Lyon 2)

1. Information structure and choice of perspective in Hungarian narrative discourse: a developmental study Gabriella Fekete Dynamique Du Langage (UMR 5596CNRS & Université Lyon 2) gabriella.fekete@univ-lyon2.fr Syntax of the World’s Languages lll, Free University of Berlin, September 25-28, 2008

2. Narrative production • Organization of events by linguistic expressions • Multi-propositional structure • Coherence • Guide of attention flow in the story

3. Mastery of many linguistic tools BUT Difficulties in the construction of a narration

4. Several linguistic options for the organization of the information flow (Jisa et al. 2002) ↓ Constructions in competition for the same function

5. Berman & Slobin (1994) Dimensions of event construal: • selection of topic ; • selection of loci of control and effect ; • selection of event view ; • selection of degree of agency.

6. Distribution of information: • Choice of elements • Attributionof salience • Selection offoreground or background

7. Foundations of a basis of reference order of access important ↓ • “Privilege” of the initial element(Gernsbacher & Hargreaves 1992, Croft 1994) • Initial focus of attention(Langacker 1998) • “Starting point”(MacWhinney 1977)

8. Problem with the terminology „starting point” Languages with fixed word order (English, French): First element = subject/agent = topic = starting point ↓ Equivalents

9. Languages with flexible word order (Hebrew, Spanish, Turkish, Hungarian): First element = subject/agent/ direct objet / indirect object In Hungarian: • Not obligatory topic → clauses beginning with the verb • Pro drop+object marking in the verb →clauses containinga verbal form S/A, starting point, topic = not equivalents ↓ Use of the term « perspective »

10. Several devices for the manipulation of perspective (Berman & Slobin 1994): Transitivity (1) a.The boy was frightened because an owl came out. b. The boy was afraid of the owl. c. The owl frightened the boy.

11. Reference form (2) The boy hung on to the antlers of a deer. The deer/he/which/this one ran away.

12. Voice (3) a. The bees chased the dog. b. The dog was chased (by the bees). c. (fr.) Le chiens’enfuit.= The dog ran away.

13. Topicalization, Word order (4) a. As for the frog, the boy saw it. b. (hu) Abékátnézteafiú. = ‘The frog(acc.) saw the boy.’

14. How do Hungarian children and adults organize the components of information? Which participant do they prefer to take as the perspective?

15. Methodology Subjects • 5 age groups: 3, 5, 7/8, and 11/12 years of age, and adults • 15 subjects in each group • Monolingual Hungarian speakers from middle class backgrounds

16. Task A series of pictures withno text ↓ Elicitation of the narrative

17. 4 episodes treated here

18. Table 1. Number of subjects, number of clauses encoding the 4 targeted events, mean and range of clauses coded per subject.

19. Characteristics of the Hungarian Language • Agglutinative language of the Finno-Ugrian language family • Pro-drop • Case-marked grammatical relation forevery argument (17 cases) • No gender

20. Object marker in transitive verb forms (2 types of conjugation). (5) a fiú meg-ijeszt-ett egy bagly-ot def boy prev-to frighten-past.3S indef owl-ACC the boy frightened an owl a-ki le-lök-t-e a fá-ról rel-animate prev-to push-past-3SOdef tree-delative which pushed [him] out of the tree

21. No passive construction • Lexicalized verbal formfor the middle voice • Left-dislocation →another register

22. SVO (subject-verb-object) canonical word order - Very flexible - Pragmatically determined (topic-focus-comment) 3 syntactic 3 pragmatic positions = functions • Sentence-initial position → topic • Immediately preverbal position → focus • Postverbal position → background information (comment)

23. Topic= definite and/or animateNP • Focus= the most information-bearing element Identification : - the strongest accent of the sentence - pre-verb moved after the verb • Post-verbalposition = backgrounded / defocused NP

24. Restrictive hierarchyof the position ofthe argument in perspective

25. Argument in perspective Initial (topic)

26. (6) a. viszont egy ideges vakondmeg-csíp-t-e but indef nervous moleprev-to bite-past-3SO az orr-á-t def nose-poss-ACC but a nervous mole has bitten his nose (19;06.d) b. itt meg a kutyá-tel-kerget-ik here and def dog-ACC prev-to chase-present-3PO a legy-ek def fly-pl and here thedog, the flies are chasing it (5;08.f)

27. Argument in perspective Initial (topic) Grammatical (subject/agent)

28. (7) • mert meg-harap-t-aa orr-á-t because prev-to bite-past-3SO def nose-poss-ACC because [it] bit his nose (5;07.b) b. és itt le-dob-ja and here prev-to throw-present-3SO and [it] throws him here (3;07.c)

29. Argument in perspective Initial (topic) Grammatical (subject/agent) Grammatical (object)

30. (8) ugyanis kerget-ika méh-ek ideed to chase-present-3PO def bee-pl. indeed, the bees are chasing [it]. (21;07.n)

31. Argument in perspective Initial (topic) Grammatical (subject/agent) Grammatical (object) Post-verbal

32. (9) ott le-dob-t-a a szarvas over thereprev-to throw-past-3SO def deer a kis-fiú-t def little-boy-ACC over there, the deer has thrown the little boy (8;01.a)

33. Argument in perspective Initial (topic) Grammatical (subject/agent) Grammatical (object) Post-verbal Pre-verbal (focus)

34. (10) mert az odú-ból egy bagoly jött elő because def hole-elatif indef owlto come.past.3S prev because it was an owl that came out o the hole (11;08.f)

35. Results Graph1. Mean (%) of the distribution of intransitive versus transitive clauses in the 4 episodes • Intransitive constructions decrease (F(4,65)=2.323,p=.0658) • Transitive options increase (F(4,65)=2.045,p=.0984) • Intransitive clauses with obliquesincrease(F(4,65)=.588,p=.6726)

36. Only clauses with at least two participants (transitive clauses, intransitive clauses with oblique(s)) One device alternating perspective in Hungarian ↓ Variations in word order

37. Graph 2. Mean (%) of the distribution of positions of the actor/agent perspective in the clauses with two participants in the 4 episodes • 3-year-olds: grammatical forms (F(4,65)=.768,p=.5496) • 5 and 7/8-year-olds : initial position(F(4,65)=3.022,p=.0238) • 7/8-year-olds: post-verbalposition(F(4,65)=2.075,p=.0942) • 11/12-year-oldsand adults: alternanceof initial and grammatical positions

38. Graph 3. Mean (%) of the distribution of the position, the characters and the linguistic means used for the actor/agent perspective in the clauses with two participants in the 4 episodes. • Secondarycharacters= actor/agent (F(4,65)=5.172,p=.0011) • 3-year-olds: grammatical options(F(4,65)=.522,p=.7199) • 5 and 7/8-year-olds: lexical noun phrases (F(4,65)=3.126,p=.0205) • 11/12-year-olds and adults: alternanceof grammaticaland lexical devices • 11/12-year-olds: pronominals in remarkable proportion(F(4,65)=5.409,p=.0008)

39. Graph 4. Mean (%) of the distribution of positions of the oblique/patient perspective in the clauses with two participants in the 4 episodes • 3-year-olds: grammaticalforms (F(4,65)=3.187,p=.0188) • 5 and 7/8-year-olds: initial position(F(4,65)=1.222,p=.3103) • 11/12 ans and adults: initial position

40. Graph 5. Mean (%) of the distribution of the position, the characters and the linguistic means used for the oblique/patient perspective in the clauses with two participants in the 4 episodes. • Primarycharacters= oblique/patient (F(4,65)=1.322,p=.2713) • 3-year-olds: grammatical options (F(4,65)=3.187,p=.0188) • 5 and 7/8-year-olds: lexical noun phrases (F(4,65)=.685,p=.6050) • 11/12-year-olds and adults:lexical noun phrases • Adults : pronominalsinsignificative proportion(F(4,65)=1.700,p=.1607)

41. Discussion • Clauses with two participants: increase with age • 3 and 5-year-olds: intransitive clauses • 7/8 and 11/12-year-olds: intransitive and transitive clauses • Adults: transitive clauses

42. Secondary characters =actor/agent • Primary characters =oblique/patient ↓ Secondary characters =do the action Primary characters = affectedbythe action • Oblique/patient perspective →increases with age ! 3-year-olds = appearance of word order which take the oblique/patient in perspective

43. 3-year-olds = grammatical forms for the perspective • 5 and 7/8-year-olds = lexical noun phrases whatever the perspective • 11/12-year-olds and adults = alternation of the 2 linguistics tools for the actor/agent,lexical noun phrases for the oblique/patient

44. Pronominal oblique/patientat the beginning of sentences in 11/12-year-olds and adults = surprising ↓ In Hungarian, personal pronouns used with a tonic function ↓ Synthesis of parallel actions of the two protagonists, thus contrasted

45. Different linguistic tools depending on the age groups → no mastery of the conventional rules of referential coherence until the age of 11/12 years ↓ • Resort to different strategies : - thematic subject strategy (pronominal forms to refer to the main character irrespective of the function), - nominal strategy (full nominal even for maintaining characters) ) - and anaphoric strategy ( pronominals for maintaining reference but nominals for switching). (Karmiloff-Smith 1981, Wigglesworth 1997).

46. Position of the arguments in perspective → link to the strategies mentionned above 3-year-olds = actor/agent or oblique/patient integrated in the verbal form 5 and 7/8-year-olds = actor/agent or oblique/patient in initial position

47. Post-verbal position attested inthe 7-8 year olds ↓ Actor/agenttaken in background ↓ Strong topicalization is compensated

48. 11/12-year-olds and adults = initial and grammatical positions for the actor/agent and initial position for the oblique/patient

49. Conclusion • 3-year-olds = attempt to alternate perspectives but exclusively with verbal forms integrating the affected character • 5-year-olds = mastery alreadyunsteadyof the use of the different ways to encode the actions • 7/8-year-olds = “true” variation of the canonical word order for pragmatic reasons • From 7/8-year-olds = initial position favoured for the argument in perspective or its integration in the verbal form  →choice depends on the discursive function of the argument.

50. Linguistic means selected to package the information properly encoded to discursive functions→difficult to control before 11/12-year-olds. ↓ • The establishment of the referential coherence not perfectly mastered by the children ↓ • Use of different strategies (Karmiloff-Smith1981, Wiglesworth, 1997, Fekete 2008) - toddlers =pronominal forms (thematic strategy) - oldest children =nominals (nominal strategy) - adults = coordinationof these two strategies (anaphoric strategy)