1 / 61

Language Acquisition

Language Acquisition. 3. . Elena Lieven, MPI-EVA, Leipzig School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester. Outline for Session 3. MAIN TOPICS Errors and the ATOM Errors in syntactic questions Learning more complex constructions Constituency, embedding and island constraints.

sailor
Download Presentation

Language Acquisition

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. Language Acquisition 3. Elena Lieven, MPI-EVA, Leipzig School of Psychological Sciences, University of Manchester LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  2. Outline for Session 3 MAIN TOPICS Errors and the ATOM Errors in syntactic questions Learning more complex constructions Constituency, embedding and island constraints ENDNOTE Complex syntax and input Metalinguistic awareness LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  3. Errors in the use of non-nominative subjects LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  4. The Agreement/Tense Omission Model (ATOM) [Schütze & Wexler, 1998] • Predicted to occur: • +AGR/+TNS +NOM I’m going He goes • +AGR/-TNS +NOM I going He go • -AGR/+TNS -NOM Me going Him go Her gone Her went • Predicted not to occur (or to occur at levels compatible with noise): • +AGR/+TNS -NOM Me am going Him goes LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  5. Errors that shouldn’t happen! Anne: Manchester Him doesn’t And her has Probably her’s a baby A big girl now, her is I think her was crying for me Becky: Manchester Where does him go? Her is gonna make a dinner Him’s eating you, crocodile Abe: Kuczaj Sometimes her barks nice, sometime her don’ts Her has a tummy ache LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  6. Testing the ATOM [Pine et al., 2006] Expected and observed rates of agreement with non-nominative subjects Nina: 3psg he/she him/herRate Agreeing: Actual 213 10 4.5 Expected (160.8) (62.2) (27.9) Non-agreeing Actual 185 144 Expected (237.2) (91.8) LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  7. Nina’s 3psg by gender rates Expected rate of non-nominative subjects with agreeing verbs = (3.3) Actual Rate = 1.4 Expected rate of non-nominative subjects with agreeing verbs = (90.4) Actual Rate = 53.8 LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  8. Errors in syntactic questions LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  9. Errors in questions • Omission Where he go • Double marking Where does he does go? • Non-inversion Where he does go? • Agreement errors Where does you go? • Case errors Where does her go? LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  10. [Ambridge, Rowland, Theakston, Tomasello (in press)] Adult: Ask her why the dogis sleeping. Child: Why isthe dog sleeping? Adult: Ask her where the pigcan swim. Child: Wherecanthe 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) LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  11. Accounting for patterns of error • The error rate is low because children are learning constructions with slots • High frequency frames should be protected from error • Errors will occur when there isn’t a frame LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  12. Data: • Adam : 2;3 – 4;10 (Brown 1973) • All wh-questions requiring inversion • Patterns of wh + auxiliary (e.g. where does, what has) • Results: • Almost all wh-word + auxiliary combinations are produced either inverted or non-inverted - only 3 out of 49 showed ‘optional inversion’ • The combinations that the child inverts are more frequent in the input than those that he fails to invert [Rowland & Pine, 2000] LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  13. Errors based on frames? Non-inversion M. You don’t throw things C. Whyyou don’t throw things? Omission Why you like cakes? →Why+ X You like cakes Double marking Why don’tyou don’t like cakes? → Why don’t+X You don’t like cakes Agreement errors Where doesyou go?→Where doesXgo?You

  14. Error rates in syntactic questions [Rowland, in submission] LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  15. Summary • Errors should not be summed across forms • Errors can be analysed in terms of patterns in the input • Errors, correctly analysed, present important challenges to all theoretical positions that have to answered in terms of the theory LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  16. Relating partially incompatible constructions LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  17. Gaps with precedents at 3;0 Brian 3;0 • What you doing GAP? 0 • What you doing GAP there? ADD there • What I owe GAP you? 0 • What say GAP? 0 • What say my computer GAP? ADD NP • Where that come from GAP? Where did that come from? (M) • Where’s it gone GAP ? 0 • Where’s it gone GAP now ADD now Annie 3;0 • Where can he park GAP? Where can N park? • What did you hurt GAP? 0 • And what did she do GAP? And what did NP do? (M) LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  18. Gaps without precedents Brian 3;0 • What your found GAP?* You found X • What I love GAP then?* I love X • Where you been to GAP?* I been to X • What I bought it in GAP? I bought it in X Annie 3;0 • What can we do GAP with that? We can do X with that • And what that done GAP?* That done X LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  19. Wh construction:Object of verb/preposition is utterance initial Whato aux V? Verb frame: Object comes after the verb Ns V No Profile determinance (Langacker) Since a question is intended, the Wh construction is schematic for the composite utterance Note that children make mistakes over this: What I found it? What he done it? LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  20. Learning more abstract constructions LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  21. Building up constructions from prior constructions Schematisation and analogy Constituency, embedding and island constraints LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  22. Building new constructions from old parts LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  23. Diessel & Tomasello LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  24. 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 LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  25. % 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 LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  26. 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. LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  27. 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” LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  28. Brandt, Diessel, & Tomasello (in progress) on German One German child, dense corpus, over 900 relative clauses, age 2 - 5. V2 “Relative Clauses” “Grosser Wal, der hat Zahnschmerzen” „Muscheln, die kann man essen“ MOTHER (20% = V2): „Ich habe einen Bauernhofkaese, der kommt von Frankreicher Bauernhof .“ “Real” Relative Clauses “Wo ist ein Wal, der Zahnschmerzen hat” LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  29. 3 years old matches adult LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  30. Initial Complex Constructions • Early S-comps and relative clauses have restricted range of forms => esp. in matrix clause • No general rules for Wh-Questions (tough movement, binding) => some items easier than others, even when all the words are well established LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  31. The construction conspiracy hypothesis[Abbot Smith & Behrens, submitted] • Using German dense corpus [Leo] • Development of sein- and werden-passive constructions LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  32. Related constructions for the SEIN- and WERDEN-passives LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  33. Leo versus mother(werden-versussein-passive) LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  34. Leo’s sein-passive and related constructions (3rd ps. sg. only) LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  35. Leo’s werden-passives and related constructions(3rd ps. sg. only) LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  36. Schematisation and analogy LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  37. Schematisation: overlap in lexical material, constituents and meaning Analogy: no shared material, overlap in constituents and meaning • car pulling boat • truck pulling car Gentner et al. LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  38. Analogy • Already have a number of schemas • Already know a lot about variations in NPs • Create a construction with no lexical material that analogises across the schemas LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  39. “The boy’s chopping the tree” He’s chopping it” “The dog’s eating the toy” He’s eating it” ANALOGY cline NP’s VERBing NP • role of type frequency in VERB and NPs • role of varied nouns and single pronoun in NPs • role of verb semantics (Goldberg & Casenheiser) LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  40. Constraining argument overgeneralisations LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  41. 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?“ LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  42. Mummy, he’s giggling me  He’s making me giggle Laugh – learned early entrenched no errors Chortle – learned late abstraction achieved no errors Giggle - not entrenched errors LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  43. 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 preemption and verb subclasses in addition to entrenchment LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  44. Brooks et al, 1999 What determines overgeneralisations? More EntrenchedLess Entrenched Hit Strike Take Remove Come Arrive Disappear Vanish Fixed Transitivity Verbs Method Children (3-8 yrs.) see transitive event and then are asked “mismatching” question - “What happened with PATIENT?” - “What did AGENT do?” Results More entrenched verbs overgeneralised less often

  45. Grammaticality judgements relate to entrenchment • 5-year-olds, 8-year-olds and adults heard sentences modelling argument structure errors with high and low frequency verbs • She disappeared the rabbit • She vanished the rabbit • He came her to school • He arrived her at school • Children asked to indicate whether sentences sounded okay or silly • Adults asked to rate sentences on a scale Theakston, 2004 LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  46. Adults’ judgments of ungrammatical sentences 0 = ungrammatical, 7 = grammatical LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  47. Constituency, embedding and island constraints LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  48. Johnnie should clean histeeth GAP!!!! ? clean Children can’t learn grammar from what they hear Johnnie should clean his teeth INVERSION GAPS What should Johnnie LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  49. Mary is __ who smoking iscrazy? Moving constituents not words happy? Mary is happy RULE?: change the order of the first noun and the first verb The boy The boy who is is smoking is crazy The boy who is smoking The boy who is smoking is is crazy __crazy? RULE?: change the order of the SUBJECT and the MAIN VERB LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

  50. Constituency Of course constituency cannot be learned from linear strings But this is a ‘straw person’ argument and a very naïve view of input: If learning form X, the relevant input consists of form X • Children build up knowledge of constituents over time and use this to parse more complex sentences • The input can give indirect evidence LOT 3: 16-20 jan06

More Related