1 / 37

Michael Tomasello Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig, Germany

Where Does Grammar Come From? [in ontogeny]. Michael Tomasello Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig, Germany. Phylogeny (species). History (cultural group). Ontogeny (individual). UG ACCOUNT Learning of periphery Innate UG core: linking. U-B ACCOUNT

lala
Download Presentation

Michael Tomasello Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig, Germany

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Where Does Grammar Come From? [in ontogeny] Michael Tomasello Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology Leipzig, Germany

  2. Phylogeny (species) History (cultural group) Ontogeny (individual)

  3. UG ACCOUNT Learning of periphery Innate UG core: linking U-B ACCOUNT All is learned (cognitively!) Dual Inheritance: (i) constructions (ii) general cognitive & learning processes Dual Process Single Process; Not Connectionism

  4. Andrew Radford on UG Approach

  5. Culture: Utterances > Patterns of Language Use: = CONSTRUCTIONS Language-specific categories and constructions, with universals based on universal processes ofcognition and communication Biology: Cognitive & Learning Skills [Intention-reading & Pattern-finding]

  6. “Grammar”

  7. Joint Attentional Frame and Semantic Roles location object/theme

  8. I x 3 WOW! A t Common Ground: Referent Moll et al. (2008) Infancy.

  9. Kids Choose “Shared” One • But NOT when they experience it with another adult (3x) - not own interest • But NOT when then onlook as adult gets excited (3x) by herself - not adult interest It’s the one “we” shared in a special way!

  10. Common Ground: Referent Moll et al. (2006) Cognition & Development. One we haven’t shared!

  11. Summary • Semantics: events + roles • Pragmatics: given + new • Syntax: distribution + analogy • Form: imitative (vocal) learning

  12. Mother’s Item-Based Speech to Children Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, & Tomasello (2004) Cognitive Science 8/ 77% 5/ 20% 4/38% 9/ 38% 20/ 67% 6/ 53% • 51% from 52 frames • 45% start w/ one • of 17 words

  13. Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, & Tomasello (2004) What’s .18 Where’s .05 What’re .09 Where’re .02 What do .05 Where shall .01 What did .04 What has .03 Who’s .08 What about .03 Who did .01 What shall .02 What can .02 Which one .02 What does .02 What hppnd .01 Why don’t .01 What were .01 What kind of .01 How many .01 31 frames => 80% of Wh Qs 13 frames => 65% of Wh Qs

  14. __falldown __kick __ running Broken Throw__ give__ __! Verb Islands at 2 Years of Age not agentbut “kicker” Tomasello (1992) First Verbs

  15. English children’s understanding of transitive word order is verb-specific until age 2.5 - 3.0 • Spontaneous Speech (+diary) • Production Experiments (nonce verbs) • Weird Word Order Studies(nonce verbs) • Comprehension Experiments (nonce verbs) • Priming Studies (English verbs) Gerntner & Fisher (2006) Preferential Looking? Dittmar et al. (2008) Tomasello (2000; 2003)

  16. Brooks & TomaselloDevelopmental Psychology (1999) Adult Model Always Passive: It’s being tammed by the horsie. It‘s being tammed. Active Biasing Question: What‘s the horsie doing (to it)? [encouraging: He‘s tamming it] Results 12 out of 48 three-year-old children (25%) produced a transitive SVO utterance

  17. “Wug” type Studies of Syntax(Tomasello, Cognition, 2000) . Japanese [Matsui et al.] % children . Hebrew . German [Wittek] . Hebrew . Japanese

  18. Cues in Construction Learning Vary: Frequency:Cue Availability Consistency: Cue Reliability Complexity: Cue Cost Cue Strength And sometimes cues compete!

  19. German Transitives Dittmar, Lieven, & Tomasello (in press) Child Development Word Order vs. Case animacy & agreement controlled • Point to Picture Comprehension • Competition Model w/ Novel Verbs Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger. Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege. Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger.

  20. Dittmar et al. (in press) German children’s correct interpretation of transitive sentences with novel verbs. Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger. Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege. Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger.

  21. Dittmar et al. (in press) Conflict Condition Den Hund wieft der Tiger.

  22. Dittmar et al. (in press) German Child-Directed Transitive Sentences Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger. * 21% Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger. Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege. 68% 11% * Only 1% had no personal pronoun or animacy cue.

  23. Why case so slow when higher cue strength than word order? for der = 21%

  24. Polish:Dabrowska & Tomasello (in press) J. Child Language Polish: case marking on nouns - diff for diff genders Question: do they know all instrumentals “same”? • Elicited Production • Novel Verb Modeled w/ NP-nom VERB NP-masc instr. • Elicited: same verb w/ feminine noun as object

  25. Dabrowska et al. (in press)

  26. 1. S-COMPLEMENTSDiessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2001) Subjects: Adam, Eve, Sarah, Naomi, Peter, Nina - 1 to 5 years Complex Ss: 2807 tokens Examples from Sarah: Examples from Nina: I think he’s gone See that monkey crying I think it’s in here See Becca sleeping I think my daddy took it See that go I think I saw one See my hands are washed it’s a crazy bone, I thinkSee he bites me I think dis is de bowl See him lie down

  27. Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2001) % Subjects in Complex Ss 1-P 2-P 3-P Lex Imp Guess 100 -- -- -- -- Bet 100 -- -- -- -- Mean 52 48 -- -- -- Know 36 55 05 04 -- Think 85 13 02 -- -- Wish 97 -- -- 03 -- Hope 88 12 -- -- -- See 07 01 01 -- 91 Look -- -- -- -- 100 Watch -- -- 11 -- 89 Remember 6 6 -- -- 88 - Virtually no complementizers - Virtually no non-present tenses - Virtually no modals or negations

  28. 2. RELATIVE CLAUSESDiessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2000) - Subjects: 4 CHILDES children from 1;9 to 5;1 - Total of 324 relative clauses Here’s the toy that goes around. That’s the sugar that fell out. There’s the ball I bought This’s the bird that sings. That’s the one that goes moo. Here’s the boy that ran into the water.

  29. Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2000) Earliest All NP ONLY: “The girl that came with us” .05 .19 PRESENTATIONALS “This is the car that turns around” .75 .47 OBLIQUES “I’m going to the zoo that has snakes” 0 .06 OBJECT “She has a bathtub that goes with it” .20* .26 SUBJECT “The one that not finished is up there” 0 .01 * 50% of these = “Look at all the chairs Peter’s got”

  30. 3. Wh- Questions Ambridge, Rowland, Theakston, Tomasello (submitted) Adult: Ask her why thedogis sleeping. Child: Why isthe dog sleeping? Adult: Ask her where thepigcan swim. Child: Where canthe pig swim? 4 year olds • MAIN RESULT: different number errors for: • different wh- words • different auxiliaries • ‘same’ auxiliary w/ diff number (e.g., do & does)

  31. 4. Tough Movement [Fabian-Kraus & Ammon (1980] “Jill is easy to see” 4/5 year olds % correct in comprehension find 100 catch 93 save 69 draw 53 watch 33 hear 25

  32. 1. Transitivity Overgeneralizations • Mommy, can you stay this open? • I come closer so it won‘t fall. • Don‘t giggle me. • She came it over there. • I want to stay this rubber band on. • Eva won‘t stay things where I want them to be. • You cried her. • Will you climb me up there? • „Kannst Du mich hochklettern?“

  33. Constraint • ENTRENCHMENT • Repeated use makes other uses sound unconventional • PRE-EMPTION • Alternative forms block the extension of a verb to a construction • ANALOGIES • Semantic subclasses of verbs Evidence at 2.5 years: Brooks & Tomasello (1999) Child Development Evidence for these both at 4.5 years: Brooks & Tomasello (1999) Language

  34. Three constraining factors working over developmental time. Growing abstractness of the transitive construction Many overgeneralizations b/c not entrenched Preemption Verb Subclasses No overgeneralizations b/c Verb Islands Giggle Chortle Laugh Entrenchment Low overgeneralzations b/c preemtion and verb subclasses in addition to entrenchment

  35. Overall Summary Early linguistic representations are mostly concrete w/ item-based abstractions only > no UG core. Abstractions are created gradually, piecemeal, based on specifiable characteristics of the input - constraints also > general cognitive processes. Children produce utterances by combining in functionally appropriate ways known pieces of language of different kinds > U-B syntax.

  36. Final Query • All theories must employ something like this account to explain the acquisition of particular language-specific constructions • The question is whether, in addition, we need a second set of acquisition processes to link these constructions to an innate UG? ¿Why?

More Related