The development of questions

transcript

Questions

Whassis?

Whatchadoing?

Yes-no questions

Stage 1. Can-I-V-PARTICLE?

Can I get down? 1;11

Can I get up? 1;11

Can I lie down? 1;11

Yes-no questions

Stage 2. What’s NP Ving?

What’s Mommy holding? 2;0

What’s Georgie saying? 2;1

What’s Andy making? 2;1

Yes-no questions

Stage 3. Could-(I)-V-NP?

Could do this? 2:0

Could I throw that? 2:0

Could I have this? 2:0

Yes-no questions

Stage 4. Can-PRO-V-NP?

Can you draw eyes? 2;1

Please can we do this? 2:1

Can you show me? 2;1

WH-questions

Stage 1. What’s NP doing?

What’s donkey doing? 2;0

What’s toy doing? 2;0

What’s Nomi doing? 2;0

WH-questions

Stage 2. What’s NP Ving?

What’s Mommy holding? 2;0

What’s Georgie saying? 2;1

What’s Andy making? 2;1

WH-questions

Stage 3. What is NP Ving?

What is the boy making? 2;10

What is Andy doing? 2;11

What is Mommy pushing? 2;11

Causatives

(1) Jump me down. [= make/let me jump down] (2) You sad me. [= sadden, make sad](3) Kendall fall that toy. [= drop](4) Who deaded my kitty cat? [= kill](5) I’m talking my birdie. [= make talk](6) I’m gonna disappear the duck. [= make it disappear](7) Did she bleed it? [=make bleed](8) You ached me. [= make ache]

Causatives

Transitive sentencesPeter hit the cow. AG V PASally pushed John. AG V PA

Intransitive sentencesSally is working AG VThe ball is rolling PA V

Causatives

Peter opened the door.The door opened.

Peter broke the cup.The cup broke.

Causatives

(1) That flower cuts. [= can be cut] 2;8(2) Bert knocked down. [= get knocked down] 3;0

Subject deletion

Run away. 1;11

Drink milk. 1;11

Touch duck. 2;0

Wanna apple. 2;0

Subject deletion

• Parameter setting

• Processing limitations

Parameter setting

EnglishHe talked to Mary*Has talked to Mary.

Italian Ha visto Piero. ‘(S/he) has seen Peter.’

[+ pro drop] [- pro drop]

Pro drop parameter

Processing theories

Processing bottleneck:

Children omit the subject to make the utterance shorter and easier

to process.

If so, the subject should not be the only element that is regularly omitted in early child language.

Processing theories

Subject omitted 71%Object omitted 91%

[Valian 1991]

Put __ in there. 1;11

Take __ away. 1;11

Push __ in there. 2;0

Kimmy do __. 2;1

Put __ on. 2;1

Processing theories

• The information-structure hypothesis: Children tend to

omit given or presupposed information

• The metrical hypothesis: Children tend to omit the

subject because because the subject is often

unstressed.

The information-structure hypothesis

Meredith: Band-aid.

Experimenter: Where’s your band-aid?

Meredith: Band-aid.

Experimenter: Do you have a band-aid?

Meredith: Band-aid.

Experimenter: Did you fall down and hurt yourself.

The information-structure hypothesis

Meredith: Band-aid.

Mother: Who gave you the band-aid.

Meredith: Nurse.

Mother: Where did she put it?

Meredith: Arm.

The metrical hypothesis

He kissed herHe kissed JaneHe kissed the lambPeter kissed JanePeter kissed the lambThe bearkissed herThe bearkissed JaneThe bearkissed the lamb

(2;0 year-olds) [Gerken 1991]

The metrical hypothesis

Subject deletion 19%

Object deletion 3%

Deletion of pronominal subjects 32%

Deletion of non-pronominal subjects 12%

The development of passive sentences

(1) Peter threw the ball.

(2) The ball was thrown by Peter.

Linking in passive sentences

Peter hit John.

(3) I got hit by a car.

Patient was hit by Agent.

Passive

• comprehension

• production

Passive

Group 1 The boy sees the girl. The pig pushes the cow. The car hits the truck.

Group 2 The man feeds the horse. The boy carries the chair. The girl kicks the ball.

Group 3 The boy is seen by the man. The cow is pushed by the pig. The truck is hit by the car.

Group 4 The horse is fed by the man. The chair is carried by the boy. The ball is kicked by the girl.

Passive

Group 1 [active-reversible] The boy sees the girl. The pig pushes the cow. The car hits the truck.

Group 2 [active-irreversible] The man feeds the horse. The boy carries the chair. The girl kicks the ball.

Group 3 [passive-reversible] The boy is seen by the man. The cow is pushed by the pig. The truck is hit by the car.

Group 4 [passive-irreversible] The horse is fed by the man. The chair is carried by the boy. The ball is kicked by the girl.

Passive

Subject:1. nursury children2. kindergarten children3. first grade children4. third grade children

Passive

Does the girl kick the ball?

Passive

Does the girl kick the ball?

Does the pig push the goat?

Passive

Nursury Kinderg. Grade 1 Grade 2

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Passive

• Active sentence cause few problems than passive

sentences.

• Irreversible passive sentence cause few problems

than reversible sentences.

Hypothesis:

Children interpret passive sentences as active

sentences if that is semantically plausible.

Passive

NP V NP

Agent Action Patient

Canonical sentence schema (Bever 1970)

Passive

Door shut. [Peter 1;11]Get hurt. [Nina 2;0]That’s fixed. [Nina 2;3]Car broken. [Adam 2;4]It’s all finished. [Nina 2;4]I wanna get dressed. [Nina 2;4]I got scared. [Nina 2;5]Is it locked? [Adam 2;8]It’s frozen. [Peter 2;9]It’s fold up. [Adam 2;9]

Passive

• Agent is not expressed

• Sentences describe states

• Participial forms are lexicalized

The frozen milkThe broken car? The attacked city? The given key

Lexical passives

Passive

Hypotheses

• That's what they hear in the input.

• States are easier than activities.

Why are children’s early passive sentences lexical passives?

The development of questions

Documents