Notes for 11/3/14
Exam Review:
Question 1 –
What evidence to suggest language ability is innate and that children’s 1st language acquisition is distinct
from adults:
Does anybody drill you in native languages? You do not get explicit instruction in your first language.
Upon interacting with children, what is difference between interacting with language acquirers / ages 26 and adults? Usually when talking to children, adults use caretaker speech – formerly known as
Motherese, but changed since fathers do it too – which is characteristics of slow, simplified speech with
repetition.
In order to facilitate language learning, can parents do anything? Of course, the parent has to get
through careful attention, get the child attentive to you. Attention is primarily based on semantics
rather than syntax. But much is acquired without attention. Syntax, in fact, is what gets acquired. So
what do you do? Children acquire language in certain phases. And children cannot skip steps. For
instance, passive voice is acquired later in the acquisition process, around 9-10 years.
Children have no basis for comparison, unlike adults learning a second language, who have some
linguistic knowledge for a language to navigate.
An aside relative to language acquisition:
There is a lot of debate in terms of whether the innate processes are language specific. Linguists
following Chomsky believe there are mental inherent constructs for language. There is some
evidence, though not biological. There nearest thing to any genetic marker was discovered as massive
language deficits represented by one missing gene. But in a sense evidence is really sparse. Others
argue that language is a construct framed by cognitive resources humans have. But are cognitive
language resources human specific? The debates: is inheritable language capacity language specific? If
so, then human specificity makes it easy to explain or justify. But if not, then are we similar to other
species. (This does not include arbitrarily connecting symbols to meaning, as some higher order
primates show these abilities.)
Humans are said to have language only 200,000 years. But the human species has been around for 1 2 million years. Metaphorically, language has been around for last 3-6 minutes of the hours that
humans have been around, so it is a recent capacity. There are evolutionary advantages  any
species with language had more ability to plan, disperse and regroup, to plant/hunt/fight and thus
secure survival of that group. As much as language may hint to how or which groups may have
dominated over others, we do not know how language originally developed/was first utilized. (The
chicken or the egg debate.) The one thing humans have that is not reproduced in other species is
syntax, because meaning can be orthographically reproduced via sounds, symbols, etc. It all comes
down to the fact that syntax is a human unique construction that other species are not able to
replicate.
Tense is not a property of words, but a property of clauses. Yes you can mark a verb with tense, but it
is the order of the words that reveal meaning.
Question 2 –
John listened to vs. John heard the bells? It’s the same as difference between seen and look out. One
is done with intentionality and one just happens. How can you prove something grammatically? You
can’t say “Don’t hear the bells!” but you can say “Don’t listen to the bells.” You can tell someone not to
look at but not see.
What are the differences in thematic roles connected to fear and frighten? It’s the same as the
difference between experiencer and versus stimulus. Experience must be some sentient entity, not a
flatworm, in order to ‘experience’ the effects of some stimuli, whereas the reverse is not
true/necessary.
Question 3 –
What is the different between predicate and NP? Primary difference is that predicate is a semantic
notion. It’s tells you a certain amount of information related to action into which any number of part of
speech can be slotted into. (In other words, you can put all sorts of categories within the predicate.)
A student is tall  a member of the subset of those students who are tall
A student is an acrobat  a member of the subset of those who are acrobats
So tall and acrobat are the same in this sentence in a semantic way; both offer characteristics of which
this student possess. This student is at the intersection of students who are classified as tall and those
who are acrobats. The truth of this sentence is predicated on the fact that the student fills these
characteristics.
What problem does this sentence raise about conjunction/coordination  Larson presents the rule that
category x can be conjoined with another category x. But there is a lot of evidence about the possibility
of coordination of unlike categories.
Question 4 –
(1) PPP PP -- this is recursive because the right side of the rules expands into something that is
reflected in the other side of the rule.
(2) These are a series of phrase structure rules, but are not inherently recursive like the rules above.
NP  PossP N
Poss P  NP Poss
Question 5 –
a. Without the labeling: Precedence and Dominance are the only other labels represented in these
nodes.
b. 1 – S
2- NP
3 – NP or N’
4- NP
5 – PP
6–N
7- P
8- NP
9- N
c. Dominance; each node dominates itself! This is necessary in order to determine the highest
node. If every node preceded itself, no node would exhaustively dominates everything in the
tree. But if every node dominates itself, then highest node can be determined.
d. Precedence – 2 precedes 3 and everything it 3 dominates; thus, 2 precedes 4 also. And 4
precedes 8.
e. No! Because 7 dominates 7 and 7 precedes 8.
Question 6 –
a.
b.
c.
d.
D c-commands everything!
Q and H mutually c-command each – yes! Because of the first branching node is G.
*Which nodes asymmetrically c-command J? B, D, C, A
Which nodes would be excluded w/o anti-dominance: D, B, A
Question 7 –
Difference between 2 and 4, “a lot” is not an NPI but “any” is. The difference between 2 and 1, they both
contain NPIs, but in 1) c-commands whole VP, and in 2) the NPI in subject position does not c-command
the trigger.
Question 8 –
For 1, ambiguous because either John is clutching the picture or Margaret is clutching the picture of
John.
If John is the antecedent  “clutching a picture…” occurs outside the VP
If Marg is the antecedent  “clutching a picture…” inside the VP;
Sentence 2 is not ambiguous because: the only possibly tree for is inside the VP for sentence 2.
(Margaret has to c-command herself, thus it must be inside the VP; But John can in subject position can
c-comm the reflexive noun from ANYWHERE).