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
Dual
Process
U-B ACCOUNT
• All is learned (cognitively!)
• Dual Inheritance:
(i) constructions
(ii) general cognitive &
learning processes
Single Process;
Not Connectionism
Andrew Radford on UG Approach
Once a child is able to parse an utterance such as 'Close the door !', he
will be able to infer from the fact thatthe verb 'close' in English
precedes its complement 'the door', that all verbs in English precede
their complements (Radford, 1990, p.61)
Culture: Utterances
>
Patterns of Language Use:
= CONSTRUCTIONS
Language-specific categories and
constructions, with universals
based on universal processes of
cognition and communication
Biology: Cognitive & Learning Skills
[Intention-reading & Pattern-finding]
“Grammar”
Joint Attentional Frame and Semantic Roles
location
object/theme
Common Ground: Referent
Moll et al. (2008) Infancy.
I
A
x3
WOW!
t
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!
Common Ground: Referent
Moll et al. (2006) Cognition & Development.
QuickTime™ and a
YUV420 codec decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
One we haven’t shared!
Summary
• Semantics: events + roles
• Pragmatics: given + new
• Syntax:
distribution + analogy
• Form:
imitative (vocal) learning
Mother’s Item-Based Speech to Children
Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, & Tomasello (2004) Cognitive Science
Copulas
15%
Complex
6%
SV(X)
18%
Fragments
20%
8/
77%
5/
20%
4/38%
9/
38%
20/
67%
6/
53%
Imperatives
9%
Questions
32%
• 51% from 52 frames
• 45% start w/ one
of 17 words
Cameron-Faulkner, Lieven, & Tomasello (2004)
What’s
What’re
What do
What did
What has
What about
What shall
What can
What does
What hppnd
What were
What kind of
.18
.09
.05
.04
.03
.03
.02
.02
.02
.01
.01
.01
Where’s
Where’re
Where shall
.05
.02
.01
Who’s
Who did
.08
.01
Which one
.02
Why don’t
.01
How many
.01
31 frames =>
80% of Wh Qs
13 frames =>
65% of Wh Qs
Verb Islands at 2 Years of Age
Throw__
__ running
__kick
not agent
but “kicker”
give__ __!
__falldown
Broken
Tomasello (1992) First Verbs
English children’s understanding of
transitive word order is verb-specific until
age 2.5 - 3.0
1.
Spontaneous Speech (+diary)
2.
Production Experiments (nonce verbs)
3.
Weird Word Order Studies(nonce verbs)
4.
Comprehension Experiments (nonce verbs)
5.
Priming Studies (English verbs)
Gerntner & Fisher (2006) Preferential Looking?
Dittmar et al. (2008)
Tomasello (2000; 2003)
Brooks & Tomasello
Developmental 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
“Wug” type Studies of Syntax
(Tomasello, Cognition, 2000)
% children
90
80
.
70
Japanese
[Matsui et al.]
60
.
50
40
German
30
[Wittek]
20
.
Hebrew
. Hebrew
. Japanese
10
0
2,0
2,6
3,0
3,6
4,0
4,6
5,0
8,0
Cues in Construction Learning Vary:
Frequency: Cue Availability
Consistency: Cue Reliability
Complexity: Cue Cost
And sometimes cues compete!
Cue Strength
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.
Dittmar et al. (in press)
German children’s correct interpretation
of transitive sentences with novel verbs.
**
100%
**
**
% correct pointing
80%
**
98% 100%
94%
88%
*
*
73%
69%
60%
40%
49%
44%
36%
20%
0%
2;7-year-olds (N = 16)
Prototype
5-year-olds (N = 16)
Word order only
7-year-olds (N = 16)
Conflict
Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger.
Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege.
Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger.
Dittmar et al. (in press)
mean proportion of trials
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
71%
63%
0.6
0.5
46%
0.4
0.3
0.2
35%
33%
31%
21%
0.1
2%
0%
0.0
2;7-year-olds
word order
5-year-olds
7-year-olds
case marking
Conflict Condition
Den Hund wieft der Tiger.
no choice
Dittmar et al. (in press)
German Child-Directed Transitive Sentences
Conflict: Den Hund wieft der Tiger.
*
21%
OS+Case
21%
SO-Case
11%
Word order: Die Katze wieft die Ziege.
SO+Case
68%
Prototype: Der Hund wieft den Tiger.
11%
* Only 1% had no personal pronoun or animacy cue.
68%
Why case so slow when higher cue strength than word order?
100%
100%
80%
87%
86%
86%
79%
68%
60%
40%
20%
0%
cue availability
cue reliability
word order
for der = 21%
cue validity
case marking
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
Dabrowska et al. (in press)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
fem > masc
masc > fem
2.5 yr
olds
3.5 yr
olds
1. S-COMPLEMENTS
Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2001)
Subjects:
Complex Ss:
Adam, Eve, Sarah, Naomi, Peter, Nina - 1 to 5 years
2807 tokens
Examples from Sarah:
I think he’s gone
I think it’s in here
I think my daddy took it
I think I saw one
it’s a crazy bone, I think
I think dis is de bowl
Examples from Nina:
See that monkey crying
See Becca sleeping
See that go
See my hands are washed
See he bites me
See him lie down
Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2001)
% Subjects in Complex Ss
Guess
Bet
Mean
Know
Think
Wish
Hope
1-P
100
100
52
36
85
97
88
2-P
--48
55
13
-12
3-P
---05
02
---
Lex
---04
-03
--
Imp
--------
See
Look
Watch
Remember
07
--6
01
--6
01
-11
--
-----
91
100
89
88
- Virtually no complementizers
- Virtually no non-present tenses
- Virtually no modals or negations
2. RELATIVE CLAUSES
Diessel & 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.
Diessel & Tomasello, Cognitive Linguistics (2000)
NP ONLY:
“The girl that came with us”
Earliest
All
.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”
3. Wh- Questions
Ambridge, Rowland, Theakston, Tomasello (submitted)
Adult: Ask her why the dog is sleeping.
Child: Why is the dog sleeping?
4 year olds
Adult: Ask her where the pig can swim.
Child: Where can the pig swim?
MAIN RESULT: different number errors for:
• different wh- words
• different auxiliaries
• ‘same’ auxiliary w/ diff number (e.g., do & does)
4. Tough Movement
[Fabian-Kraus & Ammon (1980]
“Jill is easy to see”
4/5 year olds
% correct in comprehension
find
catch
save
draw
watch
hear
100
93
69
53
33
25
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?“
Constraint
• ENTRENCHMENT
– Repeated use makes other uses sound unconventional
Evidence at 2.5 years:
Brooks & Tomasello (1999) Child Development
• PRE-EMPTION
– Alternative forms block the extension of a verb to a construction
• ANALOGIES
Evidence for these both at 4.5 years:
Brooks & Tomasello (1999) Language
– Semantic subclasses of verbs
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
2
3
4
5
Low overgeneralzations b/c
preemtion and verb subclasses
in addition to entrenchment
6
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.
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?