THE ROMANCE TURN: WORKSHOP ON THE ACQUISITION OF ROMANCE. SEPT. 16-18 2004, MADRID
A subject/object asymmetry in the acquisition of DPs
in Catalan and English
Ana T. Pérez-Leroux, University of Toronto, at.perez.leroux@utoronto.ca
Thomas Roeper, University of Massachusetts, roeper@linguist.umass.edu
Anna Gavarró, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, anna.gavarro@uab.es
0. Introduction
Some crosslinguistic difference in the semantic mapping of nominals:
Definite/Bare noun contrasts are general in English but exhibit a subject
asymmetry in Catalan (and other Romance Languages).
(1)
Subjects
Objects
English
Tigers live in India (Gen)
The tigers live in India (Spec)
I want shoes. (Gen)
I want the shoes. (Spec)
Catalan/Spanish
*Tigres viuen a Àfrica
Els tigres viuen a Àfrica
(Gen/Spec)
Busco sabates. (Gen)
Busco les sabates. (Spec)
General questions: How do children acquire the semantic distribution of
different nominal projections? How do they treat parametric variation in
nominal reference? Are some configurations/languages easier than others?
Goal: to compare the relative rates of development for how children acquire
the contrast between definite and bare nouns (BNs) in Catalan and English.
Parametric advantage hypothesis: Chierchia’s (1998) Nominal Mapping
Parameter (NMP) predicts that typologically simple languages (where
nominal projections are uniformly mapped into a semantic type) should be
acquired earlier than mixed languages, where nominals map both as entities
<e> and predicates <e,t>.
Syntactic competition hypothesis: Semantic mapping is decided, not as
global parameters, but locally, in terms of competition of forms for the same
syntactic environment. Definite objects in Catalan, where BNs can occur,
have the same semantics as definite subjects English (Gavarró et al 2003,
GALA). Development should be comparable rates in contexts where the
bare/definite alternation shows the same semantics across languages.
1. Nominal mappings across languages
1.1 Parametrized approaches to nominal reference
Competing views on nominal reference:
I. The syntax-semantics map is universally fixed and, as a consequence,
D must always be projected for argumenthood (Longobardi 1996)
II. Languages vary at the syntax-semantics interface (Chierchia 1998)
Canonical view of the operation of the syntax-semantics interface:
1. Syntactic categories are mapped onto semantic types (determining
denotation)
a. DP <e> referential nominals, or Generalized Quantifiers [arg]
b. NP NP <e,t> [pred]
2. LFs are compositionally interpreted using a small set of universal rules
3. Local type mismatches are resolved through a highly constrained set of
universally available type shifting operations.
Chierchia 1998
Nouns have a double nature: a) they play the part of restrictors to quantifiers,
and thus look like predicates; or b) as names of individuals or names of
kinds. In this respect, they are argumental. C. proposes crosslinguistic
variation on to what is the basic mapping, a) or b).
Nominal Mapping Parameter: nominal projections can be directly mapped
as semantic arguments (±arg) (capable of referring to entities directly) or as
semantic predicates (±pred) (requiring a det/quantifier to be capable of
referring)
Predicted order of acquisition based on subset principle & NMP
(2)
Chinese pattern>Romance pattern > Germanic pattern
(Chierchia 1998: 400)
Justification: Children start by treating every N as mass, then learning the
existence of count/mass distinction and articles, but restrict the distribution
of bare nouns, finally learn that bare arguments are freely allowed, although
lexically conditioned.
Language typology according to NMP
I. NP [+arg, -pred]
languages
(like Chinese)
i. Generalized bare
arguments
ii. the extension of all
nouns is mass
iii. No Pl
iv. Generalized classifier
system
II. NP [+arg, +pred]
languages
(Germanic)
i. Mass nouns will occur as
bare arguments; (singular)
count nouns won’t.
ii. have mass/count
distinction:
+arg  mass
+pred pred
iii. have number distinction
iv. Free use of ‘’ is
allowed by the category–
type mapping.
But it is defined (it yields
kinds) only for plurals; as a
consequence plurals will be
able to occur as arguments.
III. NP [-arg, +pred]
languages
i. No bare nouns in
argument position
ii. Have mass/count
distinction
iii. have number
iv. may or may not have
null determiner []. But 
may only appear in
positions that license empty
elements (i.e, proximity to a
lexical head (DO and
objects of preposition)
Type shifting: A variety of operations or functional elements are able to
shift semantic type ( iota , intentional up , DKP, , etc.). T-s operates
freely as long as there is not a D whose semantic function is identical to it.
1.2 Semantic competition of elements in the functional domain
The existence & interpretation of bare nouns in a language depends on
the existing lexical options in the language. (Chierchia 1998, Dayal 2002)
(3)
a. Dogs are common.
b. Gold is rare.
c. *Dog is common.
d. #The dogs are common.
I. Why are singular mass allowed in English? direct map as <e>
Mass/count distinction is lexical: change vs. coins have the same denotation
but behave differently.
II. Why are bare plurals possible?
Count nouns are type <e,t>. It can be shifted up to a kind interpretation by
the free type-shifting operator up ().
III. When can these typeshifting devices apply? Only in a restricted
manner. ‘Language-particular choices win over universal tendencies
(‘elsewhere condition’), and ‘don’t do covertly what you can do overtly’ (if
the language has alternative means of expressing something).
Blocking principle: type shifting as last resort: block a
type-shifter if the language contains a Determiner with
the same value as the type-shifter
IV. Why are singulars count nouns ungrammatical?
The typeshifter up () applied to a singular count noun will not yield a
proper kind (dog), because the dog-kind includes the set of dogs, not an
atom from that set. Kinds are functions from world into pluralities, which
are the sum of [typical] instances of the kind (p.349).
V. Why are definite plurals not generic in English (given they exists
elsewhere)? Basic map of the definite is iota. But English allows the use of
the typeshifter , which could provide it with kind reference. Not applicable
here because the bare argument bleeds its use in generic meanings.
VI. Why does Romance disallows bare nouns in subject position?
Romance nouns are <e,t>, NPs can only be arguments if D is projected. R
Languages that have bare noun do so exceptionally (in positions that license
empty categories such as DO and object of P). BNs are excluded from
subject position
(4)
a.
b.
*Dinosaures es van extingir.
dinausaurs refl past-pl extinct
*Tigres són mamífers.
tigers are mammals
A bare noun patate will have the following analysis, with  is a null D head,
which has the same semantic contribution as the typeshifter ().
(5)
[DP  [NP patate ]
VII. Why does Romance allow definite plurals to have generic readings?
To make up for its absence of bare nouns in argument position.
(6)
a.
b.
Los dinosaures es van extingir. (def. counterparts to (4)
Els tigres són mamífers.
The nominalizer  is an intentionalized version of : “It follows that in
appropriate (intensional) contents we will be able to obtain with  (i.e. = the
definite determiner) what we can get in English with  (i.e. BNs). The
relevant contexts are two: generic sentences and sentences with kind-level
predicates.” (Chierchia 1996, 392)
VIII. Why there is no blocking effect between Romance definite and ?

and the definite do not have identical meanings, just meanings capable of
overlapping in one domain. Hence, use of  as meaning for null D is
unaffected by the definite.
1.3 Syntactically local competition
Problems with the NMP approach:
•blocking approach applies to def plural as kinds but not to def sing kinds
•The distribution of kind readings for nominal classes in one domain
(objects in Romance) matches exactly that of the other language type
(objects and subjects in English) but the explanatory mechanisms are
radically different.
(7)
a.
b.
Busco sabates.
look-for-1s shoes
‘I look for shoes (generic).’
Busco les sabates.
look-for-1s the shoes
‘I look for the shoes (specific).’
•Furthermore, the lexical restrictions (count/mass) are identical, but again
have different sources.
(8) a.
*Busco sabata.
look-for-1s shoe
b.
Busco farina.
look-for-1s flour
Under NMP
 Bare objects (7a) and (8b) are possible by virtue of the null D
 Mass/count contrasts (8a-b) parallels (3b-c). Mass is possible in
English by lexical reasons, but in Catalan thanks to a type-shifting
null determiner.
 Subject/object asymmetry in Romance receives two explanations, one
syntactic (ECP regulated distribution of ), and one semantic
(definites, which are mapped as  are allowed to intentionalize
(become kind-referring), in appropriate semantic contexts (ILPs & as
subjects of generic sentences).
Our proposal: This mapping contrast (BN generic, Defspecific) works
across languages that illustrate different parametric options, such as Catalan
and English. The semantic behavior of the structural contrast is the same in
those positions where the contrast exists (i.e., where BNs/definites contrast).
•Blocking principle regulates the alternation locally (at the syntactic level)
rather than macro-parametrically (at the language level)
2. The development of nominal mapping
2.1 Evidence for crosslinguistic variation in the emergence of D: data from
corpus studies
• definite articles cease to be omitted earlier in French and Italian than in
English and Swedish (Chierchia, Guasti & Gualmini 1999), and earlier in
Catalan than in Dutch (Guasti, de Lange & Gavarró 2004). While
phonological factors may play a role in boosting article production in
Romance, despite phonological differences Romance articles are produced
as in the target earlier than in Germanic (Lleo & Demuth 199?)
•Marinis 2002: early & extensive use of determiners in child Greek
•Kupisch 2003: evidence of different acquisition rates in bilingual children.
Overall differences is consistent with NMP, showing an advantage in
emergence of D in Romance, but, given that these results come from overall
use, they are not direct evidence about the nature of the semantic mappings.
Experimental testing is needed to substantiate if the semantic mapping is
indeed as in the target when syntactic production is adult-like.
2.2 Evidence of knowledge of semantic mapping of nominals
•Sensitivity to bare/DP contrasts:
Burns and Soja (1997): Children are sensitive to the idiomatic features of
the bare noun construction:
(9)
a. She is at church. (Institutional reading)
b. She is at a church (Location reading)
4 year olds demonstrated substantial discrimination, selecting determiners
20% for institutional scenario versus 75% for location scenario.
Pérez-Leroux & Roeper (1999): Young children knew the locality
properties of bare nominal idioms in contrast with DPs:
(10) a. Everyone went his/Ø home? (bound 75-100% in BN, ~25% in poss)
b. Everybody hoped the Lion King would go home/to his home, and
he did. (Non-local interpretation ~10% in BN, ~40% in poss)
2.3 Overextension of definites
•Knowledge of the definite/indefinite distinction: Young children attend to
preceding linguistic context and to supply the correct determiner in a second
mention of an NP (Maratsos 1976, Karmiloff-Smith 1979, Schafer and
deVilliers 1999)
(11) a.
b.
Bill bought a cat and a dog, (specific)
but the children only liked the dog
Bill wanted a cat and a dog, (non-specific)
but he couldn't find a dog he really liked
•But also overuse of the definite in contexts that do not meet the uniqueness
requirement. (Maratsos 1976; Karmiloff-Smith 1979; Schaeffer
&Matthewson 2000, Matthewson, Bryant and Roeper 2000; Schafer &
deVilliers 1999)
(12) The boy plays baseball with a bat, and a ball. (on target)
3 ducks and a dog crossed the bridge. A duck fell down.
substantial differences. (Schafer and deVilliers 1999)
•Overgeneralization of definites to inalienable contrast
(13) She just touched the/her nose. [30% inalienable] (Ramos 1999)
(14) De drie jongetjes raakten de neus aan.
The three boys touched the nose. [Only 30% rejection inalienable]
(Baauw 2000)
(15) Suzy put the leg/her on the table
[25% inalienable in 4 year olds]
(Pérez-Leroux, Munn & Schmitt 2003)
2.4 Overextension of definites in generic contexts
Gelman & Raman (2003): Picture of a short-necked giraffe:
(16) Now, I am going to ask you a question about the giraffes/giraffes.
Do Giraffes/the giraffes have long necks?
[Gen response: 10% error to definites, 63-80% correct to BNs]
Reliable discrimination for bare/definite NPs. However, an overall bias
against generic, as the experiment had a) high proportion of ‘other’
responses (20-25%), and b) included artifactual kinds (cars) and c) incidental
as opposed to characterizing properties (such as color).
Pérez-Leroux, Munn & Schmitt (2003, in preparation):
Figure 1: Stories testing generic interpretation in definite/BNs as subjects
Zippy the zebra and Suzy
the zebra are spotted. The
giraffe wonders why they
look different. Now let
me ask you some
questions…
Prompt: Do the/Ø
zebras have spots?
Table 1. Generic responses to definite plurals subjects (Pérez-Leroux et al 2003)
English (BNs vs. definites)
Spanish (Ambiguous Romance definites vs.
demonstratives)
• discriminate BNs and definites
•Strong generic response to definites
•high rates of correct response to BNs
•Good development with demonstratives.
•high rates of def. generic errors
Table 2.The effect of tense on generic readings (Pérez-Leroux et al 2003)
English
•No effect of tense in English children.
•Less generic error to definites than in Exp.
1, due to modification in stories (names for
atypical characters were eliminated) and
prompt (after Gelman & Raman 2003)
Spanish
• past tense restricted the availability of
generic interpretation, but some errors
persist.
Summary: some evidence of generic errors with plural definites, but results
that vary with subtle methodological manipulations. Def. generic error in
English does not seem to be developmentally resolved. Evidence compatible
w/NMP.
2.5 Overall conclusions about mappings
•different rates of emergence of D that correspond roughly to the typology in
the NMP
•Evidence that the mapping of English definite as the iota operator not
complete
•evidence that the English/Dutch generalize their definites to inalienable
construal (as in Romance)
•evidence that English may have a generic error with plural definite
3. Study Methods and Participants
•Goals: to compare development of definites in objects, where t
•Subjects were read 4 short stories. Two characters, one who needed
something specific (e.g., little girl looking for her cinderella’s glass slippers)
and another with a general need (barefoot girl who needs shoes).
Figure 2: Sample story & questions testing definite/BN objects
…there is a little girl who wants to dress up as Cinderella and needs special shoes for that
(point to little girl, princess-like). Her older sister (point to taller, barefoot girl) helped her
look for them in the trunk, and finds them.
•Definite and BN objects were counterbalanced over target questions.
(15) a. Qui necessita les sabates?
Who needs the shoes?
b. Qui necessita sabates?
Who needs shoes?
Specific answer: little Cinderella
Generic answer: older sister
•Inclusive answer to generic: both girls
Catalan adult speakers are equally divided between a) those whoallow
generic answer only (1/3) b) those who consistently allow inclusive answers
(1/3), and those who allow inclusive answer sporadically (1/3).
Informal judgments, Carlson (pc), suggest the same is true for English
We treat patterns as convergent if they include specific answer to BNs but
definites were not given a generic answer.
4. Results
4.1 Catalan Results
Participants groups:
I-Younger: (N=11, 2;7–3;9, M=3;4); II-Middle: (N=11. 3;11-4;9, M=4;4);
III-Older: (N=12, 4;10–5;10, M=5;3); IV-Adults: (N=10).
Figure 3: Proportion of generic answers per determiner in Catalan.
*age
F 3,40=3.252, p=.0316
Interaction Bar Plot for Determiner
Effect: Category for Determiner * Age groups
Row exclusion: gavarro.txt (imported)
1.2
Cell Mean
1
I
.8
**determiner
F 1,40=55.572, p<.0001
II
.6
III
IV-adults
.4
**determiner x age
F 3,40= 13.712, p<.0001
.2
0
Def inite
Bare
Cell
4.2 Preliminary English Results
Participant groups:
I-Younger: (N=10, 2;9–3;11, M=3;4); II-Middle (N=9, 4;0-4;11, M=4;6);
III- Older children (N=3, 5;4–5;11, M=5;8)
Figure 4: Proportion of generic responses per determiner in English
n.s. age
F 2,19= 1.172, p=.03312
n.s. determiner
F 2,19=.981, p=.3343
n.s. determiner x age
F 1,19=1.176, p=.5653
4.3 Individual performance
De
f
BN
1
0
1
.5
1
1
.5
.5
.5
0
.5
1
0
0
B.
Target
Conver
gent
A. Not targetconvergent
Table 3. Catalan-speaking children (N=34). Figures on the left represent the proportion
of generic answers to definite and bare nouns. Figures on the right represent number of
children per age group falling into the various patterns. Light area: target convergent
patterns. Shaded area: patterns that are not target convergent.
0
.5
0
1
Total number
group
Characterization
A1. Definite
generic error
A2. Definite
generic error
A3. Same responses
to both
A4. Same responses
to both
A5. Some definite
generic error
A6. Some definite
generic error
B1. All specific
responses
B2. Near target
B3. Target
of participants per
Grou
p I
3’s
Group
II
4 ‘s
Grou
p
III
5’s
Adul
ts
1
0
0
0
4
1
0
0
2
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
4
1
0
0
3
1
0
0
1
3
3
4
5
0
0
10
11
11
12
10
• The 3 year old group has 1 child in the near target pattern, three children
giving only specific responses. The 4 year olds have 4/11 children in the
near target/target pattern.
•Older children have only convergent patterns, answering gen w/ BNs only.
• all specific answers is an indeterminate patter. Possibly:result of nodiscrimination, or of children who are sensitive to the BN, but choosing the
specific response as part of an inclusive interpretation of the generic.
De
f
BN
1
0
1
.5
1
.5
1
.5
.5
0
.5
1
0
0
B.Con
vergen
t
A. Not targetconvergent
Table 3. Individual response patterns for the English children. Light area: target
convergent patterns. Shaded area: patterns that are not target convergent.
0
.5
0
1
Total number
per group
Characterization
A1. Definite
generic error
A2. Definite
generic error
A3. Same responses
to both
A4. Same responses
to both
A5. Some definite
generic error
A6. Some definite
generic error
B1. All specific
responses
B2. Near target
B3. Target
of participants
Group
I
3’s
Group
II
4 ‘s
Group
III
5’s
1
1
1
1
1
3
5
3
3
3
2
10
9
5
•overall, the same developmental patterns than in Catalan, where children in
the non-convergent patterns are few, and are not present in the older group.
•However, the data shows no children on target, suggesting Englishspeaking children are delayed in comparison to Catalan-speaking children.
4.4 Across-Language Comparison
Figure 4:Across language comparisons per age groups
Interaction Bar Plot for prop correct
Effect: Category for prop correct * Language
Split By: agegroups
Cell: I
Row exclusion: barenounComp
1
Cell Mean
.8
.6
Catalan
English
.4
3 year olds
•Small advantage in the
performance of English children
(can be attributed to small age
difference in the two groups)
•Near significant effect of
language (p=.0547)
.2
0
Barecorr
Def corr
Cell
4 year olds
Interaction Bar Plot for prop correct
Effect: Category for prop correct * Language
Split By: agegroups
Cell: II
Row exclusion: barenounComp
1
Cell Mean
.8
.6
Catalan
•English children lag in BN
Non-significant effect of
Language (p=.2755)
•No difference with definites.
English
.4
.2
0
Barecorr
Def corr
Cell
Interaction Bar Plot for prop correct
Effect: Category for prop correct * Language
Split By: agegroups
Cell: III
Row exclusion: barenounComp
1
Cell Mean
.8
.6
Catalan
English
.4
.2
0
Barecorr
Def corr
Cell
5 year olds
•English children lag in BN
•Significant effect of language
(p=.0350) and language x
determiner interaction
(p=.0350).
•No difference with definites.
•Sample size of English 5 yearold group (N=3) not robust
enough to yield a valid
comparison.
The data shows no evidence for Romance advantage in the contrast
5.
Discussion
•Our results: No particular Romance advantage w/ object contrasts
•children’s acquisition of variation in semantic mapping is subordinate to
syntactic structure (objects/subjects)
•asymmetry may be part of UG: generic interpretation of definite singular is
not available for objects either
(16) Everyone hates the lion
The lion is hated by everyone
• Catalan-speaking children are not tempted to overgeneralize the generic
interpretation of definites from subject to object position
•English children, although having shown evidence of definite
overgeneralization in subject position, do not show such evidence in object
position.
•Parametric system is to a certain extent misleading. Data (descriptive and
experimental) supports the view of nested parametric values within
languages (Roeper 1999). Decision about D system are not made across the
board
•Results support a view of syntactically local blocking effects as an entry
into the parametrized variation in nominal mappings.
Selected References
Baauw, Sergio. 2000. Grammatical features and the acquisition of reference. Univ. of
Utrecht, Ph.D. Dissertation.
Chierchia, G., T. Guasti & A. Gualmini (1999) ‘Nouns and articles in child grammar and
the syntax/semantics map’. Paper presented at GALA, Potsdam.
Chierchia, Gennaro. 1998. Reference to kinds across languages. Natural Language
Semantics 6:339-405.
Dayal, Veneeta. 2002. Number marking and (in)definiteness in kind terms. Ms.,
University of Rutgers.
Guasti, Maria Teresa & Anna Gavarró. 2003. Catalan as a test for hypothesis concerning
article omission. BUCLD 27(pp.288-298). Somerville, Cascadilla Press.
Guasti, T., J. de Lange & A. Gavarró (2004) ‘Article omission: across child languages
and across special registers’, in van Kampen, J., & S. Baauw (eds.) Proceedings of
GALA 2003, LOT Occasional Series, vol. 1.
Hollander, Michelle A; Gelman, Susan A; Star, Jon. 2002. Children's interpretation of
generic noun phrases. Developmental Psychology 38 (6), 883–894.
Marinis, Theo 2002, in press. Minimal inquiries and the acquisition of the definite article
in Modern Greek. Proceedings of the 34th Colloquium in Linguistics. Peter Lang Verlag
Matthewson, Lisa, Tim Bryant and Tom Roeper. 2001. “A Salish Stage in the
Acquisition of English Determiners: Unfamiliar “Definites”. Proceedings of SULA: The
Semantics of Under-Represented Languages in the Americas. University of
Massachusetts Occasional Papers in Linguistics 25.
Pérez-Leroux, A. T., and T. Roeper.1999. Scope and the structure of bare nominals:
evidence from child language. Linguistics 37, 927-960.
Pérez-Leroux, A.T., C. Schmitt and A. Munn. (2003). The development of inalienable
possession in English and Spanish. in Going Romance 2002, ed. by R. Bok-Beenema, A.
Van Hout and B. Hollebrandse. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.
Pérez-Leroux, A.T., C. Schmitt and A. Munn. (2003). ‘Of spotted zebras and vegetarian
tigers: The acquisition of determiners and the syntax/semantics interface”.