22/09/2015 Research Ques9on Is English ‘underlyingly’ a nega9ve concord (NC) language, or true to adult Standard English, is it a double nega9on language? Can preschool children offer any insight into this ques9on? Child English: Double Nega9on or Nega9ve Concord? Rosalind Thornton Macquarie University The Idea The idea is to present preschool children and adults with sentences that are ambiguous between a DN and NC interpreta9on and to see which interpreta9on they prefer We’ll do this using the dynamic version of the Truth Value Judgment task (Crain & Thornton 1998) Present the TVJT in detail…. A Basic Description of Acquisition
In 1962, Roger Brown (Harvard University) initiated a
longitudinal study of the language development of three
children, Adam, Eve, and Sarah.
The project was the first to analyze children’s language with
the tools of generative grammar.
Chomsky had mixed feelings about the project. He once
suggested to Pinker that it was ‘the biggest waste of time in
the history of science’, because it seemed to be a fishing
expedition rather than a program of experiments designed to
test linguistic hypotheses
Paraphrased from Pinker (1998)
Historical Note
•  The intellectual environment in the late 1970s and early 1980’s,
and why the Truth Value Judgment task was needed to
investigate constraints on meaning
•  How the TVJT has been extended to investigate children’s
linguistic knowledge - beyond constraints
•  What we have learned about language acquisition using the TVJT
and its offspring
The Role of Experience
At the 9me, however, science was almost completely ignorant about the facts of language development, and a basic descrip9on of how the process unfolds was precisely what was needed, according to Pinker. •  Frequency of gramma9cal morphemes in parental speech does not predict the order of acquisi9on of the morphemes, showing that gramma9cal development need not be driven by the sta9s9cal regulari9es of parental speech. •  Children do not get evidence from their parents about which sentences are ungramma9cal in their language (nega9ve evidence). Specifically, parents do not express approval and disapproval at different rates in response to their children’s gramma9cal and ungramma9cal sentences; nor do they understand their children’s gramma9cal sentences be`er than their ungramma9cal sentences. Paraphrased from Pinker (1998)
1 22/09/2015 Biolinguistics and Continuity
No Negative Evidence
Roger Brown and his student Camille Hanlon originally did
these analyses
[i.e., parental responses to children’s productions of
different kinds]
to disprove Skinner’s contention that grammatical
sentences are operants that increase in frequency when
positively reinforced.
•  Roger Brown summed up his view of language
development in a sentence: ‘All of this, of course, gives a
very ‘biological’ impression, almost as if semantic cells of
a finite set of types were dividing and combining and then
redividing and recombining in ways common to the
species.’
Paraphrased from Pinker (1998)
Later, these data were used to speak directly to a key issue
in the logical problem of language acquisition: whether
children can count on negative evidence to refute any overly
general hypothesis they hold.
If not, the children must rely on some endogenous
mechanism to prevent or scale back over-generation.
Paraphrased from Pinker (1998)
•  Roger Brown (1973) has suggested that we might look at
every grammar or stage that a child goes through on the
way to learning a language as an example of a possible
human language.
Matthei (1981, p. 114)
But …
The first application of the task
There appears to be evidence that the constraints the experiment was
designed to test are learned; so it appears that we must look for some
other limits on the language-acquisition device.
Matthei (1981, p. 110)
Earlier work by Lust (1977) and Tavakolian (1977) indicates that children
at first have a restriction that simply bans all backward anaphora.
Solan (1981, p. 62)
At most, the evidence indicated that children have a strong preference
for extra-sentential reference over backwards anaphora.
What was needed was an experimental method that tests for the
availability of interpretations licensed by UG, but which also tests for
children’s knowledge of constraints on meaning. (cf. Crain and McKee
1985, p. 102-103)
Back to NC and DN What was needed was an experimental method that tests for the
availability of interpretations licensed by UG, and which also tests
for children’s knowledge of linguistic constraints on meaning.
=
The first study demonstrated that, by 3-years-old, children access
the backwards anaphora interpretation of sentences:
When he was in the barn, the fox stole the chickens.
= the fox
he
But children reject the backwards anaphora interpretation if the
sentence is governed by Principle C of the Binding Theory.
*He was in the barn when the fox stole the chickens. *he
= the fox
Mo9va9on: Zeijlstra (2004) Typological study of languages yields the following generaliza9on: If a language has a nega9ve marker that is a head, it will be a nega9ve concord language (N.B. One way implica9on. Not the case that an NC language always has a nega9ve marker that is a head) 2 22/09/2015 Excep9on The excep9on to the generaliza9on is Standard English. Assuming that the n’t morpheme that appears in nega9ve auxiliary verbs (e.g. isn’t, can’t, don’t etc.) is a head, the predic9on is that Standard English should be a NC language But Standard English is usually classified as a DN language Double Nega9on DN is felicitous in nega9ve concord varie9es of English in appropriate contexts Supported by prosody – prominent stress on one of the nega9ve markers I didn’t say nóthing – I just said it very somly (DN) === I did say something Cf. I ain’t say nothing – I just sat there (NC) === I didn’t say anything ( Dialects of English Nega9ve concord is produc9ve in dialects of English African American English (Green 2002, 2012) Appalachian English (Wolfram & Chris9an 1986) Belfast English (Henry et al. 1997) Bristol English (Wells 1981) …. Standard English Just DN, at least in our produc9on But we all understand NC without any difficulty Why? Exposure to media, songs etc? Or, because English is underlyingly an NC language? Blanche`e (2013) Standard English Blanche`e concludes that Standard English is underlyingly NC If there are 2 nega9ve markers in a sentence, then, unless the appropriate context and prosody is provided for a DN interpreta9on, speakers will default to an NC interpreta9on This is her proposal, but she acknowledges it has not been tested experimentally… If English is in fact an NC language, but NC doesn’t surface in Standard English.. then English would not be an excep9on to Zeijlstra’s typological generaliza9on 3 22/09/2015 So.. Once children acquiring Standard English figure out English has a head form of nega9on, in principle, they have a grammar that generates NC Our study: Notley, Thornton, Mosca9 & Crain Interpreta9on of Ambiguous sentences Ambiguity arises when senten9al nega9on is combined with an n-­‐word (i.e., set of words nobody, nothing, nowhere etc.) Prosody We used unbiased prosody – no heavy stress on the n-­‐word The girl who skipped didn’t buy nothing Preschool children are not good at using prosody to disambiguate sentences anyway.. so no problem cf. Mary gave John a BANANA vs. Mary gave JOHN a banana Adults? According to Blanche`e, should default to NC Previous Literature Li`le informa9on available, even about when children acquiring NC dialects start to use NC Comprehension studies by Coles-­‐White (2014) and Green (2012) with African-­‐American children Not much else… Target Sentences Our sentences were designed to be felicitous on both a DN and NC interpreta9on The girl who skipped didn’t buy nothing Interpreta9ons: a. The girl who skipped bought something (DN) b. The girl who skipped bought nothing (NC) Hypotheses Experimental Hypothesis: If Standard English is underlyingly NC, preschool children may favor such readings because they have had less linguis9c experience with DN and haven’t been exposed to prescrip9ve pressures at school to eliminate NC Null Hypothesis: If Standard English is a true DN language, children should favor DN readings – maybe even more than adults (who have been exposed to NC data) 4 22/09/2015 Processing Difficulty? A poten9al confound could be that children find DN interpreta9ons difficult to process (Jou 1988) -­‐ each nega9ve marker has seman9c force -­‐ This could mean they default to NC interpreta9ons -­‐ seman9c force of one nega9ve marker -­‐ Then we would be favouring our experimental hypothesis è Type 1 error Experiment Need a methodology that makes both meanings of the target sentences available and felicitous in the context Dynamic version of the Truth Value Judgment Task (Crain & Thornton 1998) Dynamic TVJ Task Advantages: Cleaner results than picture TVJ tasks Fewer children need to be tested Children enjoy the stories Disadvantages: Labor-­‐intensive (2 experimenters) Longer tes9ng 9me (individual stories) Control Control items ensured that children could process 2 nega9ve markers in a sentence Control items put one nega9ve marker inside the rela9ve clause The girl who didn’t skip bought nothing Cf. The girl who skipped didn’t buy nothing Dynamic TVJ Task Scenarios are acted out with toys and props by one experimenter Second experimenter plays the role of a puppet who watches the story along with the child At the end of the story, the puppet tries to say what happened (= test sentence) The puppet has been established as not always paying a`en9on, so the child knows that the puppet may need help Child helps puppet by telling him if his descrip9on was right or wrong (that is ‘true’ or ‘false’) Ambiguity in TVJ Task How do we use this task to test interpreta9ons of poten9ally ambiguous sentences? Both interpreta9ons (DN and NC) have to be ‘folded’ into the story so that they are available How do we dis9nguish the 2 interpreta9ons? One is made true and the other is made false in the story… 5 22/09/2015 Ambiguity in TVJ Task Test Sentence: The girl who skipped didn’t buy nothing DN True: It’s true that the girl who skipped bought something NC False: It’s false that the girl who skipped didn’t buy anything We can flip which interpreta9on is true and which is false Experiment 6 experimental stories 3 of the stories were true on a DN interpreta9on 3 of the stories were true on an NC interpreta9on To maximize efficiency, each story was followed by 3 sentences to be judged i)
target sentence ii)
control sentence iii) filler (1 nega9on: The boy bought nothing) Cond 1: DN True ‘Skipping Story’ Two sisters are playing at home; 1 sister is prac9sing her skipping tricks and invites the other sister to join her Second girl doesn’t want to skip; she wants to go out and buy flowers for their mum’s birthday She leaves, but bumps into a friend, so stops for a drink at a café Mean9me, a boy goes to the flower shop and buys a bouquet of flowers, leaving only 1 bouquet lem for sale The girl who was skipping remembers she needs to buy a present so she stops skipping, and goes to the flower shop, and buys last bouquet The girl who didn’t skip and went to the café suddenly remembers the shops will close soon She rushes to the flower shop but the bouquets are all sold, so she buys nothing Assump9on For ambiguous sentences, adults/children accept the true reading if they can, in accordance with the Principle of Charity Principle of Charity states that speakers believe their interlocutors to be speaking the truth unless they have reason to think otherwise Condi9on 1: Double Nega9on True Puppet: The girl who skipped didn’t buy nothing Story Requirement: Plausible Dissent In order for it to be plausible to deny a test sentence, the asser9on must be a possible outcome at some point in the story Skipping Story: The girl who skipped didn’t buy nothing False on NC reading that she didn’t buy anything Therefore: At some point, it should have been possible that the girl who skipped wouldn’t buy anything. This was a possible outcome, because the girl was so busy with her skipping tricks, it didn’t seem as if she would go shopping 6 22/09/2015 Condi9on 2: Nega9ve Concord True DN True ‘Skipping Story’ Presenta9on of Target Sentence To ensure that presenta9on of the test sentence was felicitous, it was preceded by a ques9on Experimenter: In that story, did the girl who skipped buy nothing? Puppet:
The girl who skipped didn’t buy nothing Puppet: The mouse who dressed up didn’t cook nothing Story Requirement: Plausible Dissent Dressing-­‐Up Story: The mouse who dressed up didn’t cook nothing False on DN reading that the mouse who dressed up cooked something Therefore: At some point, it should have been possible that the mouse who dressed up would cook something. This was a possible outcome, because the mouse finished dressing up and decided to make fruit salad. Actual outcome: Couldn’t make the fruit salad because there was no fruit NC True ‘Dress-­‐Up Story’ Presenta9on of Target Sentence The test sentence was preceded by a ques9on to facilitate both readings Experimenter: In that story, did the mouse who dressed up cook nothing? Puppet:
The mouse who dressed up didn’t cook nothing. NC: It’s true that the mouse who dressed up cooked nothing DN: It’s false that the mouse who dressed up cooked something Cond 2: NC True ‘Dressing-­‐Up’ Two mice and a cat are a`ending animal preschool The teacher gives them the choice of dressing-­‐up or cooking before morning tea One mouse decides to dress up; the other mouse and the cat decide to do some cooking There are some toy cakes and pizzas to play with, and 1 cooking bowl The cat takes a cake and a bowl; the mouse decides to cook pizza, but there’s no tray to cook it on This mouse asks the teacher what to do; the teacher finds a dish for him, so he can cook the pizza The mouse that was playing dress-­‐up has finished, and decides to do some cooking. She wants to make fruit salad, but there’s no fruit, so she gives up and decides just to wait for morning tea Summary of Predic9ons Condi9on 1 Condi9on 2 DN true
NC true DN grammar
✓ ✗ NC grammar ✗ ✓
DN/NC grammar ✓
✓ 7 22/09/2015 Children: 24 children, ranging from 3;6 to 5;8 years Monolingual speakers of Australian Standard English 4 of these children failed more than 4 controls/
fillers, or couldn’t do the task and were excluded 20 remaining children ranged in age from 3;7 to 5;7, mean age 4;9 Adults: 15 undergraduate monolingual speakers of English Child Individual Subject Data Condi9on 1 Condi9on 2 No. of DN true NC true Children (N=20) DN grammar
✓ ✗
3 NC grammar ✗ ✓
15
Both DN/NC ✓
✓
0 Mixed
2 Child and Adult Acceptance Rates across Condi9ons 90 80 80 75 70 60 Acceptance Rate (%) Par9cipants 50 Adults (N=15) 40 Children (N=20) 27 30 20 16 10 0 Condi9on 1 (DN True) Condi9on 2 (NC True) Adult Individual Subject Data Condi9on 1 Condi9on 2 No. of DN true NC true Adults (N=15) DN grammar
✓ ✗
13 NC grammar ✗ ✓
2
Both DN/NC ✓
✓
Mixed
Children were classified as having a DN grammar or NC grammar if 5/6 of their responses were consistent Summary Star9ng Point: Zeijlstra’s Generaliza9on: If a language has a nega9ve head, then it will be an NC language Can child language tell us anything about the status of nega9ve concord in Standard English? The fact that 15 of the 20 children interpreted our target sentences with an NC interpreta9on suggests that the English grammar permits NC Conclusion We’ve reached the counter-­‐intui9ve conclusion that pre-­‐school age children seem to have an NC grammar, at least when interpre9ng ambiguous sentences This means they have to get rid of the interpreta9ons and add DN ones to become adult like We don’t know what propor9on of children actually produce NC, given that NPIs are always available as an alterna9ve 8