Week 4. Optional infinitives, Week 4. Optional infinitives, Unique Checking Constraint, Unique Checking Constraint,

ATOM, … ATOM, …

GRS LX 700GRS LX 700Language Language

Acquisition andAcquisition andLinguistic TheoryLinguistic Theory

Two hypotheses about Two hypotheses about learninglearning

LLEELLEE ( (late learning early emergencelate learning early emergence))—A “commonsense” view——A “commonsense” view—

Things which Things which emergeemerge emerge early. emerge early.Things which are Things which are learned learned appear later.appear later.

Implies that parameters should be set Implies that parameters should be set late too (since at least the settings are late too (since at least the settings are learned)learned)

Two hypotheses about Two hypotheses about learninglearning

VEPSVEPS ( (very early parameter settingvery early parameter setting))Basic parameters are set correctly at the Basic parameters are set correctly at the earliest observable stagesearliest observable stages, that is, at least , that is, at least from the time that the child enters the two-from the time that the child enters the two-word stage around 18 months of age.word stage around 18 months of age.

VEKIVEKI ( (very early knowledge of inflectionvery early knowledge of inflection))At the earliest observable stage (two-word At the earliest observable stage (two-word stage), stage), the child knows the grammatical the child knows the grammatical and phonological properties of many and phonological properties of many important inflectional elements of their important inflectional elements of their languagelanguage..

Two-word stage?Two-word stage?

The reason both VEPS and VEKI The reason both VEPS and VEKI mention the two-word stage is just mention the two-word stage is just because this is the first stage where because this is the first stage where we have we have evidenceevidence of utterance of utterance composition.composition.

Optional Infinitive stageOptional Infinitive stage

Root infinitives are possible Root infinitives are possible grammatical sentences;grammatical sentences;

These infinitives co-exist with finite These infinitives co-exist with finite forms;forms;

The children know the relevant The children know the relevant grammatical principles (and how grammatical principles (and how they distinguish finite from they distinguish finite from nonfinite).nonfinite).

Optional Infinitive StageOptional Infinitive Stage

German: V2/SOV; kids put finite German: V2/SOV; kids put finite verbs in second position, leave verbs in second position, leave nonfinite verbs in clause-final nonfinite verbs in clause-final positionposition

French: V-->I; kids move finite verbs French: V-->I; kids move finite verbs to I, leave nonfinite verbs in VP.to I, leave nonfinite verbs in VP.

Very Early Parameter Very Early Parameter SettingSetting

As soon as you can see it, kids have:As soon as you can see it, kids have: VO vs. OV order set (Swedish vs. German)VO vs. OV order set (Swedish vs. German) V-->I [yes/no] (French vs. English)V-->I [yes/no] (French vs. English) V2 [yes/no] (German vs. French/English)V2 [yes/no] (German vs. French/English) Null subject [yes/no] (Italian vs. Fr./E.)Null subject [yes/no] (Italian vs. Fr./E.)

So, So, at least at least by the 2-word stage, they by the 2-word stage, they have the parameters set (maybe earlier)have the parameters set (maybe earlier)

VEPS and the theory of VEPS and the theory of learninglearning

If parameters are set by the time If parameters are set by the time kids are using multi-word utterance, kids are using multi-word utterance, no negative evidence no negative evidence couldcould have have played a role.played a role.

Null subjects…Null subjects… Null subject parameter is Null subject parameter is notnot initially mis- initially mis-

setset (kids don’t all start off speaking Italian (kids don’t all start off speaking Italian—contra Hyams 1986); rather, child null —contra Hyams 1986); rather, child null subjects are (at least in part) due to the subjects are (at least in part) due to the availability of non-finite verbs (the OI availability of non-finite verbs (the OI stage).stage).

Most null subjects are licensed by being Most null subjects are licensed by being the subject of a nonfinite verb (i.e. PRO)the subject of a nonfinite verb (i.e. PRO)

But there are still But there are still somesome null subjects with null subjects with finite verbs…finite verbs…

Topic dropTopic drop

Where kids drop the subject of a finite Where kids drop the subject of a finite verb, perhaps this is “Topic-drop”verb, perhaps this is “Topic-drop”

ProposalProposal::Topic-drop applies to Very Strong Topic-drop applies to Very Strong TopicsTopics

Kids sometimes take (in reality) non-VS Kids sometimes take (in reality) non-VS topics to topics to bebe VS topics VS topics ((a a pragmatic pragmatic error)error)

Prediction about NSPrediction about NS

OI’s have OI’s have twotwo ways of licensing NSs: ways of licensing NSs: PRO (regular licensing of null subject)PRO (regular licensing of null subject) Topic dropTopic drop

Finite verbs have Finite verbs have oneone way to license way to license a NS:a NS: Topic dropTopic drop

So:So: We expect more null subjects We expect more null subjects with root infinitives (which we in with root infinitives (which we in fact see)fact see)

Bromberg, Wexler, Bromberg, Wexler, whwh--questions, and null questions, and null

subjectssubjects If If topic droptopic drop is something which is something which

drops a topic in SpecCP…drops a topic in SpecCP… ……and if and if whwh-words -words alsoalso move to move to

SpecCP…SpecCP… ……we would not expect null subjects we would not expect null subjects

with non-subject (e.g., with non-subject (e.g., wherewhere) ) whwh--questions where the verb is questions where the verb is finitefinite (so (so PRO is not licensed)PRO is not licensed)

Bromberg, Wexler, Bromberg, Wexler, whwh--questions, and null questions, and null

subjectssubjects And, that’s what they found:And, that’s what they found:

Finiteness of null/pronominal subjects, Adam’s Finiteness of null/pronominal subjects, Adam’s whwh-questions-questions (Bromberg & Wexler 1995) (Bromberg & Wexler 1995)

Finite Nonfinite

Null 2 118

Pronoun 117 131

*Truncation*Truncation

Rizzi’s “truncation” theory predicts:Rizzi’s “truncation” theory predicts: No No whwh-questions with root infinitives-questions with root infinitives

whwh-question -question CP, but CP, but CP CP IP, and IP, and IP IP finite verb finite verb

And of course we wouldn’t expect null And of course we wouldn’t expect null subjects in subjects in whwh-questions if null -questions if null subjects are allowed (only) in the subjects are allowed (only) in the specifier of the root.specifier of the root.

V2 and V2 and whwh-null -null subjects…subjects…

German and Dutch have German and Dutch have extremely fewextremely few root root infinitives when there is anything in SpecCP.infinitives when there is anything in SpecCP. This This does does go with Rizzi’s prediction…go with Rizzi’s prediction…

But they are V2 languages—finite verbs are But they are V2 languages—finite verbs are what you find in C, and when SpecCP is filled, what you find in C, and when SpecCP is filled, there must be something in C. Hence, there must be something in C. Hence, Wexler’s prediction seems to be:Wexler’s prediction seems to be:

V2 language V2 language no no whwh-question root infinitives-question root infinitives And this seems closer to accurate, given English.And this seems closer to accurate, given English.

*LLEE*LLEE

So: So: despite expectations of early despite expectations of early practitioners of P&P: VEPS means practitioners of P&P: VEPS means *LLEE.*LLEE.

What then do we make of the fact What then do we make of the fact that kids make non-adult utterances that kids make non-adult utterances in the face of evidence that they in the face of evidence that they aren’t aren’t learninglearning the parameters? the parameters?

KW: Certain (very specific, it turns KW: Certain (very specific, it turns out) properties of the grammar out) properties of the grammar maturemature..

VEKI?VEKI?

Generally, Generally, when kids use inflection, when kids use inflection, they use it correctlythey use it correctly. Mismatches are . Mismatches are vanishingly rare.vanishingly rare. English (Harris & Wexler 1995)English (Harris & Wexler 1995) German (Poeppel & Wexler 1993)German (Poeppel & Wexler 1993)

Again, this is kind of contrary to Again, this is kind of contrary to what the field had been assuming what the field had been assuming (which was: kids are slow at, bad at, (which was: kids are slow at, bad at, learning inflection).learning inflection).

ATOMATOM

Adult clause structure:Adult clause structure:

AgrPAgrP

NOMNOMii AgrAgr

AgrAgr TPTP

ttii T T

TT VPVP

ATOMATOM

Kiddie clause, missing TP (—TNS):Kiddie clause, missing TP (—TNS):

AgrPAgrP

NOMNOMii AgrAgr

AgrAgr

VPVP

ATOMATOM

Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (—AGR):Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (—AGR):

TPTP

ACC ACC defaultdefaultii T T

TT VPVP

Why either missing TP or Why either missing TP or AgrP gives us a root AgrP gives us a root

infinitive (DM)infinitive (DM) In English, we have the following In English, we have the following

rules for pronouncing this rules for pronouncing this tense/agreement affix:tense/agreement affix:

(V+)T is pronounced like:(V+)T is pronounced like://ss/ if we have features [3, sg, / if we have features [3, sg, present]present]//eded/ if we have the feature [past]/ if we have the feature [past]//ØØ/ otherwise/ otherwise

One prediction of ATOMOne prediction of ATOM

+AGR+TNS: NOM with inflected verb (+AGR+TNS: NOM with inflected verb (-s-s)) +AGR–TNS: NOM with bare verb+AGR–TNS: NOM with bare verb ––AGR+TNS: AGR+TNS: defaultdefault (ACC) with bare verb (ACC) with bare verb ––AGR–TNS: GEN with bare verbAGR–TNS: GEN with bare verb

(not discussed but see Schütze & Wexler 1996)(not discussed but see Schütze & Wexler 1996)

Nothing Nothing predicts Acc with inflected verb.predicts Acc with inflected verb.

Finite pretty much Finite pretty much always goes with a always goes with a nominative subject.nominative subject.

Schütze & Wexler (1996)Nina1;11-2;6

Loeb & Leonard (1991)7 representative kids2;11-3;4

subject Finite Nonfinite Finite Nonfinite

he+she 255 139 436 75

him+her 14 20 4 28

% non-Nom 5% 46% 0.9% 27%

NS/OINS/OI

Some languages appear not to Some languages appear not to undergo the “optional infinitive” undergo the “optional infinitive” stage. How can this be consistent stage. How can this be consistent with a maturational view?with a maturational view? OI languages:OI languages: Germanic languages Germanic languages

studied to date (Danish, Dutch, English, studied to date (Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish), Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish), Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, CzechCzech

Non-OI languages:Non-OI languages: Italian, Spanish, Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Tamil, PolishCatalan, Tamil, Polish

NS/OINS/OI What differentiates the OI and non-OI What differentiates the OI and non-OI

languages?languages? Agreement? Italian (non-OI) has rich Agreement? Italian (non-OI) has rich

agreement, but so does Icelandic (OI).agreement, but so does Icelandic (OI). Null subjects!Null subjects!

Null Subject/OI Generalization:Null Subject/OI Generalization:Children in a language go through an OI Children in a language go through an OI stage iff the language is stage iff the language is notnot an INFL- an INFL-licensed null subject language.licensed null subject language.

NS/OI and HebrewNS/OI and Hebrew(Rhee & Wexler 1995)(Rhee & Wexler 1995)

Hebrew is a NS language but only in Hebrew is a NS language but only in 1st and 2nd person, non-present 1st and 2nd person, non-present tense. Everywhere else (3rd past, tense. Everywhere else (3rd past, future, present) subjects are future, present) subjects are obligatory.obligatory.

Hebrew-learning 2-year-olds showed Hebrew-learning 2-year-olds showed optional infinitives optional infinitives except in 1/2-except in 1/2-pastpast, and , and allowedallowed null subjects null subjects elsewhere, with infinitives.elsewhere, with infinitives.

NS/OI and HebrewNS/OI and Hebrew(Rhee & Wexler 1995)(Rhee & Wexler 1995)

all OI kids 1/2 past/fut (NS) else (non-NS)

null subjects 0.6% (1/171) 25% (85/337)

overt subjects 1.4% (1/72) 0.6% (3/530)

kids up to 1;11 1/2 past/fut (NS) else (non-NS)

null subjects 0 (of 21) 32% (36/112)

overt subjects 0 (of 6) 0 (of 28)

Implementing ATOMImplementing ATOM

The basic idea: The basic idea: In adult clauses, the In adult clauses, the subject needs to move subject needs to move bothboth to SpecTP to SpecTP and (then)and (then) to SpecAgrP. to SpecAgrP.

This needs to happen because T This needs to happen because T “needs” something in its specifier “needs” something in its specifier (≈EPP) and so does Agr.(≈EPP) and so does Agr.

The subject DP can “solve the The subject DP can “solve the problem” for both T and for Agr—problem” for both T and for Agr—for for an adultan adult..

Implementing ATOMImplementing ATOM

Implementation:Implementation: For adults: For adults: T needs a D feature.T needs a D feature. Agr needs a D feature.Agr needs a D feature. The subject, happily, The subject, happily, hashas a D feature. a D feature. The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of

T’s need for a D feature (the subject T’s need for a D feature (the subject “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature loses its need for a D feature, but the loses its need for a D feature, but the subject still has its D feature (the subject is subject still has its D feature (the subject is still a DP).still a DP).

The subject moves on, to take care of Agr.The subject moves on, to take care of Agr.

Implementing ATOMImplementing ATOM

Implementation:Implementation: For kids: For kids: Everything is the same except that Everything is the same except that the the

subject can only solve subject can only solve one one problem problem before quittingbefore quitting. It “loses” its D feature . It “loses” its D feature after helping out either T or Agr.after helping out either T or Agr.

Kids are constrained by the Kids are constrained by the Unique Unique Checking Constraint Checking Constraint that says subjects that says subjects (or their D features) can only “check” (or their D features) can only “check” another feature once.another feature once.

So the kids are in a bind.So the kids are in a bind.

Implementing ATOMImplementing ATOM Kids in a pickle:Kids in a pickle: The only options open to the The only options open to the

kids are:kids are: Leave out TP Leave out TP (keep AgrP, the subject can solve (keep AgrP, the subject can solve

Agr’s problem alone). Agr’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, nom Result: nonfinite verb, nom case.case.

Leave out AgrP Leave out AgrP (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s problem alone). problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, default case.Result: nonfinite verb, default case.

Violate the UCC Violate the UCC (let the subject do both things (let the subject do both things anyway). anyway). Result: finite verb, nom case.Result: finite verb, nom case.

No matter which way you slice it, the kids No matter which way you slice it, the kids have to do something “wrong”. At that point, have to do something “wrong”. At that point, they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.)they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.)

Minimalist terminologyMinimalist terminology Features come in two relevant kinds: Features come in two relevant kinds:

interpretable interpretable and and uninterpretableuninterpretable.. Either kind of feature can be involved in a Either kind of feature can be involved in a

“checking”—only interpretable features survive.“checking”—only interpretable features survive. The game is to have no uninterpretable features The game is to have no uninterpretable features

left at the end.left at the end. ““T needs a DT needs a D” means “” means “T has an uninterpretable T has an uninterpretable

[D] feature[D] feature” and the subject (with its normally ” and the subject (with its normally interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the two features “check”, the interpretable one two features “check”, the interpretable one survives. survives. UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects?UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects?

Wait—how can you say Wait—how can you say kids are UG-constrained kids are UG-constrained

yet drop T/Agr?yet drop T/Agr? So, aren’t TP and AgrSP required by So, aren’t TP and AgrSP required by

UG? Doesn’t this mean kids UG? Doesn’t this mean kids don’tdon’t have UG-compliant trees?have UG-compliant trees?

Actually, perhaps no. UG requires Actually, perhaps no. UG requires that all features be checked, but it that all features be checked, but it isn’t clear that there is a UG principle isn’t clear that there is a UG principle that requires a TP and an AgrP in that requires a TP and an AgrP in every clause.every clause.

Wait—how can you say Wait—how can you say kids are UG-constrained kids are UG-constrained

yet drop T/Agr?yet drop T/Agr? Perhaps what requires TP and AgrP are Perhaps what requires TP and AgrP are principles of (pragmatic) principles of (pragmatic) interpretationinterpretation……

You need TP so that your sentence is You need TP so that your sentence is “anchored” in the “anchored” in the discoursediscourse.. You need AgrSP … You need AgrSP … whywhy? Well, perhaps ? Well, perhaps

something parallel…? Wexler doesn’t really something parallel…? Wexler doesn’t really say…say…

Regardless, kids can check all the Regardless, kids can check all the uninterpretable features even without TP uninterpretable features even without TP or AgrSP; hence, or AgrSP; hence, they can still be they can still be considered to be UG-constrainedconsidered to be UG-constrained..

NS/OI via UCCNS/OI via UCC

An old idea about NS languages is that An old idea about NS languages is that they arise in languages where Infl is they arise in languages where Infl is “rich” enough to “rich” enough to identifyidentify the subject. the subject.

Maybe in NS languages, AgrS does not Maybe in NS languages, AgrS does not needneed a D a D (it may in some sense be nouny (it may in some sense be nouny enough to say that it enough to say that it isis, or already , or already hashas, D)., D).

If AgrS does not need a D, the subject is If AgrS does not need a D, the subject is free to check off T’s D-feature and be free to check off T’s D-feature and be done.done.

EPP and missing INFLEPP and missing INFL If there were just an IP, responsible for both If there were just an IP, responsible for both

NOM and tense, then they should go together NOM and tense, then they should go together (cf. “IP grammar” vs. “VP grammar”)(cf. “IP grammar” vs. “VP grammar”)

Yet, there are many cases of root infinitives Yet, there are many cases of root infinitives with NOM subjectswith NOM subjects

And, even ACC subjects seem to raise out of And, even ACC subjects seem to raise out of the VP over negationthe VP over negation ( (me not gome not go).).

We can understand this once we consider IP We can understand this once we consider IP to be split into TP and AgrP; tense and case to be split into TP and AgrP; tense and case are separated, but even one will still pull the are separated, but even one will still pull the subject up out of VP. subject up out of VP. (ATOM:+Agr –Tns)(ATOM:+Agr –Tns)

Is there any way to see the Is there any way to see the effects of UCC even in effects of UCC even in NSNS

languages?languages? Italian: Italian: Mary has laughedMary has laughed.. Suppose that auxiliaries (like Suppose that auxiliaries (like havehave) also have ) also have

a D-feature to be checked as the subject (in a D-feature to be checked as the subject (in the adult language) passes through.the adult language) passes through. Not crazy:Not crazy: (All) the students (all) have (all) left.(All) the students (all) have (all) left.

UCC-constrained kids will have to drop UCC-constrained kids will have to drop something (the auxiliary or T), even in something (the auxiliary or T), even in Italian.Italian.

Lyons (1997) reports that a “substantial Lyons (1997) reports that a “substantial proportion of auxiliaries are omitted in OI-proportion of auxiliaries are omitted in OI-age Italian.”age Italian.” Ok, Ok, maybemaybe. Consistent, anyway.. Consistent, anyway.

Korean negation?Korean negation?

The UCC is about checking D, and that The UCC is about checking D, and that happens not only for subjects but for objects.happens not only for subjects but for objects.

In English objects don’t have to double-check, In English objects don’t have to double-check, but are there effects in other languages?but are there effects in other languages?

Hagstrom (2000) looks at errors with negation Hagstrom (2000) looks at errors with negation made by children learning Korean at about the made by children learning Korean at about the same age that, in other languages, kids are same age that, in other languages, kids are producing root infinitives.producing root infinitives. Fairly technical and minimalist, but if you survive Fairly technical and minimalist, but if you survive

Wexler 1998, you’re most of the way there.Wexler 1998, you’re most of the way there.

Korean negation?Korean negation? Short Form Negation in Korean:Short Form Negation in Korean:

Chelswu-ka Chelswu-ka pappap-ul -ul anan-mek-ess-ta.-mek-ess-ta.Chelswu-nom Chelswu-nom ricerice-acc -acc negneg-eat-past-decl-eat-past-decl‘Chelswu didn’t eat rice.’‘Chelswu didn’t eat rice.’

Common OI-age kid error:Common OI-age kid error:

na na anan pappap mek-e mek-eI I negneg ricerice eat-decl eat-decl‘I don’t eat rice.’‘I don’t eat rice.’

Negation errors in child Negation errors in child KoreanKorean

Generalization about child errors with SFN:Generalization about child errors with SFN:VP-internal material is privileged in its VP-internal material is privileged in its ability to occur between ability to occur between anan and the verb in and the verb in child errorschild errors..

Subjects (Subjects (except subjects of unaccusativesexcept subjects of unaccusatives) ) never appear between never appear between anan and the verb and the verb

Objects often doObjects often do Adverbs often doAdverbs often do

Negation errors in child Negation errors in child KoreanKorean

Can this error be made to follow from the Can this error be made to follow from the UCC (you can’t check a D-feature twice)?UCC (you can’t check a D-feature twice)?

Kid errors seem to involve a structure like:Kid errors seem to involve a structure like:

negneg […VP material… ] […VP material… ] verbverb

suggesting that adult negation has a suggesting that adult negation has a movement that kids are failing to do:movement that kids are failing to do:

[…VP material…][…VP material…]ii neg tneg tii verbverb

One movement down…One movement down…

For the UCC to apply, there need to be two For the UCC to apply, there need to be two movements. Do adults move the object movements. Do adults move the object twice?twice?

Adults also seem to perform a Adults also seem to perform a secondsecond movement of the object; the adverb movement of the object; the adverb calcal ‘well’ ‘well’ must immediately precede the verb (unlike must immediately precede the verb (unlike other adverbs)—but presumably the object other adverbs)—but presumably the object originallyoriginally (at D-structure) falls between (at D-structure) falls between calcal and the verb. Hence:and the verb. Hence:

objectobjectii … … calcal … … ttii verbverb

That’s two movementsThat’s two movements

So, the object (and some of the VP-So, the object (and some of the VP-internal material) seems to have to internal material) seems to have to move move twice twice in negative sentences, in negative sentences, once to get around once to get around calcal (in any kind (in any kind of sentence), and again to get of sentence), and again to get around around anan (neg). (neg).

That’s what we need to get off the That’s what we need to get off the ground if we want to attribute this ground if we want to attribute this error to the UCC.error to the UCC.

The proposalThe proposal

In Korean, the object moves to SpecAgrOP In Korean, the object moves to SpecAgrOP (step one) and checks a D-feature:(step one) and checks a D-feature:

AgrOPAgrOP

DPDPii AgrOAgrO

AgrOAgrO[D][D] VPVP

calcal VP VP

VV ttii

The proposalThe proposal

Then, AgrOP moves to an AgrNegP Then, AgrOP moves to an AgrNegP above negation, to check a D-above negation, to check a D-feature:feature:

AgrNegPAgrNegP

AgrOPAgrOPii AgrNegAgrNeg

AgrNegAgrNeg[D][D] NegPNegP

anan NegNeg

NegNeg ……ttii……

The proposalThe proposal

The kid can only do The kid can only do oneone of those of those movements if it obeys the UCC, movements if it obeys the UCC, since each one requires the same D-since each one requires the same D-feature (contributed by the object).feature (contributed by the object).

So, the kid must eitherSo, the kid must either ignore the UCC, orignore the UCC, or omit AgrOP, oromit AgrOP, or omit AgrNegPomit AgrNegP

PredictionsPredictions 1: Omit AgrNegP (retaining AgrOP):1: Omit AgrNegP (retaining AgrOP):

Object moves (over Object moves (over calcal) to SpecAgrOP. AgrOP (with ) to SpecAgrOP. AgrOP (with calcal and object) remains below NegP.and object) remains below NegP.

an object cal verb an object cal verb (*, non-adult-like)(*, non-adult-like) 2: Omit AgrOP (retaining AgrNegP)2: Omit AgrOP (retaining AgrNegP)

Object (nearest thing with a D-feature) moves directly to Object (nearest thing with a D-feature) moves directly to SpecAgrNegP, over SpecAgrNegP, over anan and and calcal..

object an cal verb object an cal verb (*, but needs (*, but needs calcal to be present) to be present) 3: Violate UCC (keep AgrOP & AgrNegP)3: Violate UCC (keep AgrOP & AgrNegP)

object cal an verbobject cal an verb (adult-like) (adult-like) 4: Omit both AgrOP & AgrNegP?4: Omit both AgrOP & AgrNegP?

an cal object verb an cal object verb (*, without (*, without cal cal looks like 1)looks like 1)

Met?Met?

Sadly, the experiments haven’t been Sadly, the experiments haven’t been done and the examples haven’t been done and the examples haven’t been reported in the literature.reported in the literature. We need We need errorserrors with with transitivetransitive verbs verbs

involving involving short-form negationshort-form negation and the and the adverb adverb calcal…… Possibly fairly easy elicitation experiment Possibly fairly easy elicitation experiment

that can be done…that can be done…

Predictions for Predictions for unaccusativesunaccusatives

Unaccusative “subjects” start out in object Unaccusative “subjects” start out in object position, and must presumably move through position, and must presumably move through many more projections (AgrOP, AgrNegP, TP, many more projections (AgrOP, AgrNegP, TP, AgrSP)AgrSP)

UCC kid can still just do UCC kid can still just do oneone.. Only one (of five) will yield a non-adult order: Only one (of five) will yield a non-adult order:

keep AgrOP and you get: keep AgrOP and you get: an subject cal verban subject cal verb.. Turns out: kids make only about 10% Turns out: kids make only about 10%

(detectible) errors with unaccusatives (vs. (detectible) errors with unaccusatives (vs. about 30% with transitives). A successful about 30% with transitives). A successful prediction?prediction?

So…So… The UCC seems to be pretty successful in The UCC seems to be pretty successful in

explaining why either TP or AgrSP are explaining why either TP or AgrSP are often omitted for kids in languages like often omitted for kids in languages like French, German.French, German.

The connection to the NS/OI The connection to the NS/OI generalization is reasonable to explain generalization is reasonable to explain why we don’t seem to see OIs in Italian.why we don’t seem to see OIs in Italian.

The more general prediction that the UCC The more general prediction that the UCC makes about double-movements to check makes about double-movements to check D-features may well be borne out by the D-features may well be borne out by the facts of Korean negation. facts of Korean negation.

One open question…One open question…

The UCC says you can only use a D-The UCC says you can only use a D-feature on a DP to check against a feature on a DP to check against a functional category functional category onceonce..

This explains why sometimes TP is This explains why sometimes TP is omitted (keeping AgrSP) and sometimes omitted (keeping AgrSP) and sometimes AgrSP is omitted (keeping TP).AgrSP is omitted (keeping TP).

but if but if GEN infin. GEN infin. comes from omitting comes from omitting bothboth TP and AgrSP, what could ever TP and AgrSP, what could ever cause that (particularly given cause that (particularly given Minimize Minimize ViolationsViolations)?)?

Legendre et al. (2000)Legendre et al. (2000)

Proposes a system to predict the Proposes a system to predict the proportions of the time kids choose proportions of the time kids choose the different options among:the different options among: Omit TPOmit TP Omit AgrSPOmit AgrSP Omit Omit bothboth TP and AgrSP TP and AgrSP Include Include bothboth TP and AgrSP (violating TP and AgrSP (violating

UCC)UCC)

The ideaThe idea

Kids are subject to conflicting Kids are subject to conflicting constraints:constraints: Parse-TParse-T Include a projection for tenseInclude a projection for tense Parse-AgrParse-Agr Include a project for agreementInclude a project for agreement *F*F Don’t complicate your tree withDon’t complicate your tree with

functional projectionsfunctional projections *F*F22 Don’t complicate your tree soDon’t complicate your tree so

much as to have much as to have twotwo functional functionalprojections.projections.

The ideaThe idea

Sometimes Parse-T beats out *F, and Sometimes Parse-T beats out *F, and then there’s a TP. Or Parse-Agr then there’s a TP. Or Parse-Agr beats out *F, and then there’s an beats out *F, and then there’s an AgrP. Or both Parse-T and Parse-Agr AgrP. Or both Parse-T and Parse-Agr beat out *Fbeat out *F22, and so there’s both a , and so there’s both a TP and an AgrP.TP and an AgrP.

But what does But what does sometimessometimes mean? mean?

Floating constraintsFloating constraints

The innovation in Legendre et al. The innovation in Legendre et al. (2000) that gets us off the ground is the (2000) that gets us off the ground is the idea that as kids re-rank constraints, idea that as kids re-rank constraints, the the positionposition of the constraint in the of the constraint in the hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such that two positions can that two positions can overlapoverlap..

*F*F

Parse-TParse-T

Floating constraintsFloating constraints

*F*F

Parse-TParse-T

When the kid evaluates a form in When the kid evaluates a form in the constraint system, the position the constraint system, the position of Parse-T is fixed somewhere in of Parse-T is fixed somewhere in the range—and winds up the range—and winds up sometimes outranking, and sometimes outranking, and sometimes outranked by, *F.sometimes outranked by, *F.

Floating constraintsFloating constraints

*F*F

Parse-TParse-T

(Under certain assumptions) this (Under certain assumptions) this predicts that we would see TP in predicts that we would see TP in the structure 50% of the time, and the structure 50% of the time, and see structures without TP the see structures without TP the other 50% of the time.other 50% of the time.

French kid dataFrench kid data

Looked at 3 French kids from CHILDESLooked at 3 French kids from CHILDES Broke development into stages based Broke development into stages based

on a modified MLU-type measure based on a modified MLU-type measure based on how long most of their utterances on how long most of their utterances were (2 words, more than 2 words) and were (2 words, more than 2 words) and how many of the utterances contain how many of the utterances contain verbs.verbs.

Looked at tense and agreement in each Looked at tense and agreement in each of the three stages represented in the of the three stages represented in the data.data.

French kid dataFrench kid data

Kids start out using 3sg agreement Kids start out using 3sg agreement and present tense for practically and present tense for practically everything (correct or not).everything (correct or not).

We took this to be a “default”We took this to be a “default” (No agreement? Pronounce it as 3sg. (No agreement? Pronounce it as 3sg.

No tense? pronounce it as present. No tense? pronounce it as present. Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.).Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.).

French kid dataFrench kid data

This means if a kid uses 3sg or This means if a kid uses 3sg or present tense, we can’t tell if they present tense, we can’t tell if they are are reallyreally using 3sg (they using 3sg (they mightmight be) be) or if they are not using agreement at or if they are not using agreement at all and just pronouncing the default.all and just pronouncing the default.

So, we looked at non-present tense So, we looked at non-present tense forms and non-3sg forms only to forms and non-3sg forms only to avoid the question of the defaults.avoid the question of the defaults.

French kids dataFrench kids data

We found that tense and agreement We found that tense and agreement develop differently—specifically, in develop differently—specifically, in the first stage we looked at, kids the first stage we looked at, kids were using tense fine, but then in were using tense fine, but then in the next stage, they got the next stage, they got worseworse as the as the agreement improved.agreement improved.

Middle stage: looks likeMiddle stage: looks likecompetitioncompetition between T between Tand Agr for a single node.and Agr for a single node.

A detail about countingA detail about counting We counted non-3sg and non-present verbs.We counted non-3sg and non-present verbs. In order to see how close kids’ utterances were In order to see how close kids’ utterances were

to adult’s utterances, we need to know how to adult’s utterances, we need to know how often often adultsadults use non-3sg and non-present, and use non-3sg and non-present, and then see how close the kids are to matching then see how close the kids are to matching that level.that level.

So, adults use non-present tense around 31% of So, adults use non-present tense around 31% of the time—so when a kid uses 31% non-present the time—so when a kid uses 31% non-present tense, we take that to be “100% success”tense, we take that to be “100% success”

In the last stage we looked at, kids were In the last stage we looked at, kids were basically right at the “100% success” level for basically right at the “100% success” level for both tense and agreement.both tense and agreement.

Proportion of non-Proportion of non-present and non-3sg present and non-3sg

verbsverbs

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

3b 4b 4c

non-presentnon-3sgadult non-presadult non-3sg

Proportion of non-finite Proportion of non-finite root formsroot forms

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

3b 4b 4c

NRFs

A model to predict the A model to predict the percentagespercentages

Stage 3b (first stage)Stage 3b (first stage) no agreementno agreement about 1/3 NRFs, 2/3 tensed formsabout 1/3 NRFs, 2/3 tensed forms

*F*F22 *F*FParseTParseT

ParseAParseA

A model to predict the A model to predict the percentagespercentages

Stage 4b (second stage)Stage 4b (second stage) non-3sg agreement and non-present non-3sg agreement and non-present

tense each about 15% (=about 40% tense each about 15% (=about 40% agreeing, 50% tensed)agreeing, 50% tensed)

about 20% NRFsabout 20% NRFs

*F*F22 *F*FParseTParseTParseAParseA

A model to predict the A model to predict the percentagespercentages

Stage 4c (third stage)Stage 4c (third stage) everything appears to have tense everything appears to have tense

and agreement (adult-like levels)and agreement (adult-like levels)

*F*F22 *F*FParseTParseTParseAParseA

Predicted vs. observed—Predicted vs. observed—tensetense

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

3b 4b 4c

non-presentpredicted non-pres

Predicted vs. observed—Predicted vs. observed—agr’tagr’t

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

3b 4b 4c

non-3sgpredicted non-3sg

Predicted vs. observed—Predicted vs. observed—NRFsNRFs

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

3b 4b 4c

NRFspredicted NRFs

Various things Various things (homework)(homework)

Is the OT model just proposed a Is the OT model just proposed a structure-building or full structure-building or full competence model?competence model?

How does the OT model fit in the How does the OT model fit in the overall big picture with the ATOM overall big picture with the ATOM model?model?

Various things Various things (homework)(homework)

For French, we assumed that NRFs For French, we assumed that NRFs appear when appear when both both TP TP and and AgrP are AgrP are missing. Yet, Schütze & Wexler 1996 missing. Yet, Schütze & Wexler 1996 claimed the root infinitives appeared claimed the root infinitives appeared with with eithereither TP TP oror AgrP were missing. AgrP were missing.

Which one is it?Which one is it?

French v. EnglishFrench v. English

English: T+Agr is pronounced likeEnglish: T+Agr is pronounced like //ss/ if we have features [3, sg, present]/ if we have features [3, sg, present] //eded/ if we have the feature [past]/ if we have the feature [past] //ØØ/ otherwise/ otherwise

French: T+Agr is pronounced like:French: T+Agr is pronounced like: danserdanser NRFNRF a danséa dansé (3sg) past(3sg) past je danseje danse 1sg (present)1sg (present) j’ai danséj’ai dansé 1sg past1sg past

Preparatory comments Preparatory comments for next week’s readingsfor next week’s readings

Borer & Wexler (1987): They are out Borer & Wexler (1987): They are out to challenge the idea that kids to challenge the idea that kids start start offoff with the entire grammatical with the entire grammatical system, in favor of a system, in favor of a maturationalmaturational view of syntactic development.view of syntactic development.

Their famous proposal is that Their famous proposal is that children cannot initially construct children cannot initially construct “A-chains”, and they use evidence “A-chains”, and they use evidence primarily from passives.primarily from passives.

PassivesPassives John kicked the ballJohn kicked the ball (active) (active) The ball was kicked (by John)The ball was kicked (by John) (passive) (passive)

Standard analysis: Standard analysis: the ballthe ball starts off as starts off as complement of V in both; in the passive, complement of V in both; in the passive, the agent is suppressed and the verb is the agent is suppressed and the verb is deprived of its ability to assign Case. Thus, deprived of its ability to assign Case. Thus, the ballthe ball moves into SpecIP to get Case. moves into SpecIP to get Case.

The ballThe ballii was kicked t was kicked tii..

PassivesPassives

The chain between The chain between the ballthe ball and and tt created by moving created by moving the ballthe ball into into SpecIP is an A-chain (a chain whose SpecIP is an A-chain (a chain whose top is in a position where you can top is in a position where you can only find arguments).only find arguments).

IntransitivesIntransitives There are two kinds of intransitive verbs:There are two kinds of intransitive verbs:

UnergativeUnergative UnaccusativeUnaccusative (or sometimes “ergative”)(or sometimes “ergative”)

The unergative verbs have an external The unergative verbs have an external argument— just like a transitive verb.argument— just like a transitive verb.

The unaccusative/ergative verbs have only The unaccusative/ergative verbs have only an internal argument, which moves to an internal argument, which moves to subject position—just like in a passive.subject position—just like in a passive.

Unaccusatives ≈ passivesUnaccusatives ≈ passives

An unaccusative is structurally like a An unaccusative is structurally like a passive:passive: The trainThe trainii arrived arrived ttii..

An unergative is not.An unergative is not. The baby giggled.The baby giggled.

So we expect kids to have the same So we expect kids to have the same troubles with unaccusatives and troubles with unaccusatives and passives.passives.

Verbal and adjectival Verbal and adjectival passivespassives

In English at least, it seems like there are In English at least, it seems like there are two kinds of words with passive two kinds of words with passive morphology:morphology:

VerbalVerbal:: The suspect was seen.The suspect was seen. AdjectivalAdjectival:: His hair seems combed.His hair seems combed.

Borer & Wexler adopt an analysis under Borer & Wexler adopt an analysis under which adjectival passives do which adjectival passives do notnot involve involve syntactic movement (lexicon vs. syntax).syntactic movement (lexicon vs. syntax).

Verbal and adjectival Verbal and adjectival passivespassives

Generally, non-action verbs make poor adjectival Generally, non-action verbs make poor adjectival passives (while action verbs are fine):passives (while action verbs are fine):

*The suspect seems seen. The seen suspect (fled). *The suspect seems seen. The seen suspect (fled). Seen though the movie was, John went to see it Seen though the movie was, John went to see it again.again.

The cloth seems torn. The torn cloth (is useless). The cloth seems torn. The torn cloth (is useless). Torn though the cloth was, John used it anyway.Torn though the cloth was, John used it anyway.

Conclusion: It should be possible for kids to say Conclusion: It should be possible for kids to say passive-like things as long as they’re adjectival passive-like things as long as they’re adjectival passives.passives.

Babyonyshev et al. Babyonyshev et al. (1998)(1998)

Babyonyshev et al. (1998) extend the Babyonyshev et al. (1998) extend the discussion begun in Borer & Wexler discussion begun in Borer & Wexler (1987), also arguing for maturation (1987), also arguing for maturation of A-chains.of A-chains.

They consider two possible reasons They consider two possible reasons why A-chains in passives would not why A-chains in passives would not be allowed:be allowed: Kids can’t build A-chains.Kids can’t build A-chains. Kids can’t “dethematize” the external Kids can’t “dethematize” the external

argument.argument.

UTAHUTAH

The The Uniformity of Theta Uniformity of Theta Assignment HypothesisAssignment Hypothesis (UTAH) (UTAH) essentially says that essentially says that the syntactic the syntactic position in the structure to which any position in the structure to which any given given -role is assigned does not vary -role is assigned does not vary within or across languageswithin or across languages..

So, the patient So, the patient -role is -role is alwaysalways assigned to the complement of V assigned to the complement of V position, for example.position, for example.

Pesetsky and movementPesetsky and movement

Languages can differ in whether Languages can differ in whether they perform overt movement they perform overt movement (before SS) or covert movement (before SS) or covert movement (after SS, headed to LF).(after SS, headed to LF). Usual example: Usual example: WhWh-movement -movement

(Bulgarian: all (Bulgarian: all whwh-movements overt; -movements overt; English: one overt English: one overt whwh-movement, the -movement, the rest covert; Japanese: all rest covert; Japanese: all whwh--movements covert).movements covert).

Pesetsky and movementPesetsky and movement If we assume that If we assume that allall languages move all of their languages move all of their

whwh-words to (Spec)CP by LF (only some -words to (Spec)CP by LF (only some languages save some/all of these movements languages save some/all of these movements until after SS), then at LF there is always a chain until after SS), then at LF there is always a chain like:like:

WhWh-word-wordii … …ttii . .

One way to think of “covert movement” is as One way to think of “covert movement” is as “pronouncing the bottom of the chain” (in a “pronouncing the bottom of the chain” (in a model in which you both interpret and model in which you both interpret and pronounce pronounce LF).LF).

Pesetsky and movementPesetsky and movement

This idea of “pronouncing the This idea of “pronouncing the bottom of a movement chain” comes bottom of a movement chain” comes up in part of the discussion in up in part of the discussion in Babyonyshev et al. concerning Babyonyshev et al. concerning pronunciation in A-chains (like those pronunciation in A-chains (like those in unaccusatives and passives) as in unaccusatives and passives) as well as A-bar chains (like well as A-bar chains (like whwh--movement chains).movement chains).

Babyonyshev et al. Babyonyshev et al. (1998)(1998)

Babyonyshev et al. conduct an Babyonyshev et al. conduct an experiment with Russian kids to experiment with Russian kids to determine whether kids who cannot determine whether kids who cannot represent adult unaccusatives (due to represent adult unaccusatives (due to the inability to represent A-chains) the inability to represent A-chains) instead parse them as unergatives.instead parse them as unergatives.

““S-homophone”: A different syntactic S-homophone”: A different syntactic structure (e.g. an unergative) which structure (e.g. an unergative) which sounds like another (e.g. an sounds like another (e.g. an unaccusative).unaccusative).

Russian genitive of Russian genitive of negationnegation

There is a fairly elaborate discussion There is a fairly elaborate discussion of the “genitive of negation” of the “genitive of negation” construction in Russian. Basically, construction in Russian. Basically, a a non-specific noun phrase in the same non-specific noun phrase in the same clause as negation will be clause as negation will be pronounced with genitive (instead of pronounced with genitive (instead of accusative) caseaccusative) case. Some verbs (e.g., . Some verbs (e.g., existential existential bebe) in fact ) in fact requirerequire genitive.genitive.

Russian genitive of Russian genitive of negationnegation

There is evidence that the genitive There is evidence that the genitive argument of an unaccusative argument of an unaccusative remains inside the VP at SS.remains inside the VP at SS.

In English, this argument would In English, this argument would raise to subject position (SpecIP).raise to subject position (SpecIP).

In Russian, it turns out that there is In Russian, it turns out that there is evidence that the genitive argument evidence that the genitive argument raises raises covertlycovertly (between SS and LF) (between SS and LF) to subject position.to subject position.

Evidence for covert Evidence for covert movement of the genitive movement of the genitive

argumentargument Negative constituents (e.g., Negative constituents (e.g., any kind of boyany kind of boy) need ) need to co-occur with negation in the same clause.to co-occur with negation in the same clause.

Where negative constituents participate in A-Where negative constituents participate in A-chains we can see (e.g., raising), the chains we can see (e.g., raising), the toptop of the A- of the A-chain has to be in the same clause as negation.chain has to be in the same clause as negation.

Genitive negative constituents with raising verbs Genitive negative constituents with raising verbs appear in the lower clause at SS but require appear in the lower clause at SS but require negation in the higher clause.negation in the higher clause.

ConclusionConclusion: Genitive arguments move too, : Genitive arguments move too, creating an A-chain, and the negation creating an A-chain, and the negation requirement is verified at LF.requirement is verified at LF.

Babyonyshev et al. Babyonyshev et al. (1998)(1998)

Testing the idea from Borer & Wexler Testing the idea from Borer & Wexler (1987) that unaccusatives are analyzed as (1987) that unaccusatives are analyzed as if they are unergatives by kids in the pre-if they are unergatives by kids in the pre-A-chain stage of life.A-chain stage of life.

Turns out that Russian provides a nice Turns out that Russian provides a nice test of unaccusativity/unergativity with test of unaccusativity/unergativity with the “genitive of negation” so we can the “genitive of negation” so we can directlydirectly check to see how kids are check to see how kids are analyzing their intransitives.analyzing their intransitives.