Subject Case Errors, Root Infinitives, and ATOM

Subject case errors people have observed that kids • Various learning English sometimes will use Language Acquisition accusative subjects. turns out that there’s a kind of a • Itcorrelation with the finiteness of the verb Subject case errors, root infinitives, and “A/TOM” as well. Finite verbs go with nominative case, while nonfinite verbs seem to go with either nominative or accusative case. Finiteness vs. case errors Schütze & Wexler (1996) Nina 1;11-2;6 Loeb & Leonard (1991) 7 representative kids 2;11-3;4 subject Finite Nonfinite Finite Nonfinite he+she 255 139 436 75 him+her 14 120 4 28 % non-Nom 5% 46% 0.9% 27% INFL • • Syntax • Recall the basic structure of adult sentences. • IP (a.k.a. TP, INFLP, …) is the position of modals and auxiliaries, also assumed to be home of tense and agreement. • CP is where wh-words move and where I moves in subject-aux-inversion If there were just an IP, responsible for both NOM and tense, then they should go together (cf. “IP grammar” vs. “VP grammar”) • Yet, there are many cases of root infinitives with NOM subjects. • And, even ACC subjects seem to raise out of the VP over negation (me not go). We can understand this once we consider IP to be split into TP and AgrP; tense and case are separated, but even one will still pull the subject up out of VP. Splitting the INFL • Syntax since 1986 has been more or less driven by the principle “every separable functional element belongs in its own phrase.” • Various syntactic tests support these moves as well (cf. CAS LX 523). What to make of the case errors? Splitting the INFL • Distinct syntactic functions assigned to distinct functional heads. • • T: tense/modality • AgrS: subject agreement, nominative case • Neg: negation • Origins: Pollock (1989) (split INFL into Agr and T), Chomsky (1993) (split INFL into AgrS, T, AgrO). AgrO: object agreement, accusative case • Case is assumed to be the jurisdiction of AgrSP and AgrOP. • So, nominative case can serve as an unambiguous signal that there is an AgrSP. • “ATOM” • • Schütze & Wexler propose a model of this in which the case errors are a result of being able to either omit AgrSP or Tense. For a subject to be in nominative case, AgrSP must be there (TP’s presence is irrelevant). ! ! For a 3sg present verb, both TP and AgrSP must be there. English inflection (3sg present –s) relies on both. If one or the other is missing, we’ll see an infinitive (i.e. bare stem). Accusative case, conversely, may signal a missing AgrOP. • Thus, predicted: ! Finite (AgrSP+TP) verbs show Nom (AgrSP). ! Only half of the nonfinite verbs (not both AgrSP and TP) show Nom (AgrSP). ! We should not see finite+Acc. Kiddie clause, missing TP (—TNS): Why are non-AgrSP subjects accusatives? ! Probably a default case in English: ! Who’s driving? Me. Me too. It’s me. Agr/T Omission Model (ATOM) Adult clause structure: ! ! ! AgrP ! ! ! ! NOMi! ! Agr! ! ! ! ! ! Agr! ! ! TP ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ti! ! ! ! T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! T! ! ! ! VP ATOM • ! ATOM • Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (—AGR): ! ! ! ! AgrP ! ! ! ! ! ! ! NOMi !! Agr! ! ! ! ! ! Agr! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! TP ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! VP ! ! ! ! ACC "!defaulti ! T ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! T! ! ! ! VP Pronunciation of English • T+AgrS(+V) is pronounced like: • /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present] • /ed/ if we have the feature [past] • Ø otherwise • • [+3sg +pres] = -s [+past] = -ed —=Ø [+masc +3sg +nom] play+[3sg+pres] • he plays. [+2sg +nom] play+[2sg +past] • you play. But is this knowledge builtin? Hint: no. [+masc, +3sg, +nom] = he ! [+masc, +3sg, +gen] = his ! [+masc, +3sg] = him ! [+fem, +3sg, +nom] = she ! [+fem, +3sg] = her ! [+1sg, +nom] = I ! [+1sg, +gen] = my ! [+1sg] = me ! [+2, +gen] = your ! [+2] = you ! Schütze (2001, inter alia) • • ! No. Her goes to school is not necessarily a counterexample to ATOM (although it is a candidate). • Morphology must be learned and is crosslinguistically variable. • She is known to emerge rather late compared to other pronouns. • +AGR+TNS: NOM with inflected verb (-s) • +AGR–TNS: NOM with bare verb • –AGR+TNS: default (ACC) with bare verb GEN with bare verb • –AGR–TNS: (the GEN case was not discussed by Wexler Layers of “default”, most specific first, followed by next most specific (“Distributed Morphology”, Halle & Marantz 1993). ! Notice: 3sg present –s requires both TP and AgrSP, but past –ed requires only TP (AgrSP might be missing, so we might expect some accusative subjects of past tense verbs). ! ATOM and morphology • • • • One prediction of ATOM ! If the kid thinks her is the nominative feminine 3sg pronoun, her goes to school is perfectly consistent with ATOM. Hence, we should really only count her+agr correlations from kids who have demonstrated that they know she. 1998, but see Schütze & Wexler 1996) • Nothing predicts Acc with inflected verb. • • • ATOM and morphology What if the child produces a lot of utterances like • • predicts that agreement and nominative case should correlate. her sleeping her play and even • • ! ATOM ! So does this child’s use of her goes to school mean ATOM is wrong? her sleeps her goes to school but never uses the word she? ATOM and morphology • • • • Morphology (under “Distributed Morphology”) is a system of defaults. [+masc, +3sg, +nom] = he [+masc, +3sg, +gen] = his ! [+masc, +3sg] = him The most specified form possible is used. ! [+fem, +3sg, +nom] = she Adult English specifies her as a feminine 3sg pronoun, and she as ! [+fem, +3sg] = her a nominative feminine 3sg ! [+1sg, +nom] = I pronoun. ! [+1sg, +gen] = my If the kid doesn’t know she, the ! [+1sg] = me result will be that all feminine 3sg pronouns will come out as ! [+2, +gen] = your her. That’s just how you pronounce nominative 3sg ! [+2] = you feminine, if you’re the kid. • Just like adult you. ! ! • • • Rispoli (1994, 2002, inter alia) Her plays The kid’s success in finding the form is affected by “gravity”. “Heavier” forms are more likely to be picked Pronoun morphology is when accessing the table, organized into even if it’s not quite the right “tables” (paradigms) form. If it’s close and it’s basically, where each form heavy, it’ll win out a lot of the has a certain weight. time. ! Her by virtue of being both When a kid is trying to acc and gen is extra-heavy, pronounce a pronoun, s/he and pulls the kid in fairly attempts to find the entry often. in the table and pronounce it. Paradigm Building Approach to case errors like her-errors. ! • • • Rispoli’s critique of Schütze’s studies: ! Excluding kids who happen not to produce she in the ATOM says it should never transcript under evaluation is not good enough. The happen (up to simple assumption is that this performance error) learning is monotonic, so if PBA says case errors are the kid ever used she independent of (productively) in the past, the agreement, her plays is her errors should not be perfectly possible, even excluded. expected. ATOM and PBA make different predictions with respect to her plays. Monotonicity • • Schütze assumes that use of she is a matter of knowledge of she. Once the kid knows it, and given that the adult version of the kid will know it, it’s there, for good. ! Rispoli Rispoli claims that the “weight” of she can fluctuate, so that it could be “known” but misretrieved later if her becomes too heavy. ! We’ll • • • 2;2 • • *CHI: she have hug a lady . *CHI: she have jamas@f on . 2;3 • • • *CHI: her like apple juice . 2;4 • • • *MOT: he's up there ? *CHI: no # she's not up there . *CHI: he's up there . • focus on Nina, for whom we can get the data. ! These are the times when Nina used she (twice at 2;2, once at 2;3, once at 2;4). *MOT: does she like it ? *CHI: she drink apple juice . Nina she vs. her (2002) set out to show that there is a certain amount of “yoyo’ing” in the production of she. Nina’s early shes ! Rispoli found 7 at 2;5, we’ll deal with them later. ! • 2;2 Rispoli’s counts show Nina using she from basically the outset of her use of pronouns, and also shows a decrease of use of she at 2;5. she her 2;2 13-15 2 4% 43 96% 2;3 16-19 1 8% 12 92% 2;4 20-23 1 14% 6 86% 2;5 24-31 7 9% 73 91% including early files in evaluating ATOM? • *CHI: helping her have a yellow blanket . • • • • • • • • • • *MOT: she has a yellow blanket ? ! These three and one other time Nina said her’s ok are the only candidate counterexamples at 2;2. ! At 2;2, 45 her+bare verb. *CHI: yeah [= yes] . *CHI: her's ok . ! *CHI: her ok . *MOT: she's ok ? ! *CHI: ok . (R got 43, possibly including her’s ok) At 2;3, no candidate counterexamples, 14 her+bare verbs. ! (R got 12) *CHI: her's ok . *CHI: her ok . ! At 2;4 none, 7 her+bare. ! *CHI: her's ok . *MOT: she's ok . (R got 6) Including early files…? • *MOT: what happened when I shampooed Miriam yesterday ? • *CHI: her was cried . • • *MOT: oh # there's the dolly's bottle . • • • • • *MOT: I'll start washing it . Bottom line? ! 2;5: !I found about 76 her +bare/past verbs. ! I found 3 potential counterexamples. • It doesn’t seem like anything was particularly affected, even if Nina’s early files were fully included. • The number of possible counterexamples seems well within the “performance error” range. *CHI: her's not going to drink it . *MOT: see how clean it comes ? *MOT: you want to use the pot ? *CHI: a little bit . The point about variation in usage of she is valid, worth being aware of the assumptions and being sure we’re testing the right things. ! Rispoli made the point that if we’d accidentally missed a she in the early files, we might have excluded counterexamples there. Yet, even including everything, the asymmetry is strong. *CHI: her don't . Modal drop • ! Can we test this another way? What are the properties of adult modals? • Adult modals are in position 2, regardless of what is in position 1. If kids are dropping modals, we should expect a certain proportion of the dropped modals to appear with a non-subject in position 1. Modal drop • Just to be sure (since the numbers are small), P&W check to make sure they would have expected nonsubjects in position 1 with nonfinite verbs if the modal drop hypothesis were true. • But none occur—nonfinite verbs also seem to come with initial subjects. • • • • Why? Well, if V2 is a) movement of V to T to C, and b) “topicalization” of something to SpecCP; and, if this is triggered by V reaching C: There’s no need to move anything to SpecCP if V remains unmoved. The subject remains first. • • Two hypotheses about learning (Wexler 1998) • VEPS (very early parameter setting) Basic parameters are set correctly at the earliest observable stages, that is, at least from the time that the child enters the two-word stage around 18 months of age. • VEKI (very early knowledge of inflection) At the earliest observable stage (two-word stage), the child knows the grammatical and phonological properties of many important inflectional elements of their language. 17% of the verbs are infinitives Of 251 sentences, we would have expected 8. 20% of the (finite) time we had non-subject topicalization So 3% of the time (20% of 17%) we would expect nonsubject topicalization in nonfinite contexts. We saw none. Very Early Parameter Setting • As soon as you can see it, kids have: • VO vs. OV order set (Swedish vs. German) • V#I [yes/no] (French vs. English) • V2 [yes/no] (German vs. French/English) • Null subject [yes/no] (Italian vs. Fr./E.) • So, at least by the 2-word stage, they have the parameters set (maybe earlier) VEKI? • Generally, when kids use inflection, they use it correctly. Mismatches are vanishingly rare. • English (Harris & Wexler 1995) • German (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) this is kind of contrary to what the • Again, field had been assuming (which was: kids are slow at, bad at, learning inflection). Root infinitives vs. time • The timing on root infinitives is pretty robust, ending around 3 years old. Ok, but… Kids have the full functional structure • So: available to them, and they set the parameters right away and know the inflection. then do we make of the fact that kids • What make non-adult utterances in the face of evidence that they aren’t learning the parameters? • KW: Certain (very specific, it turns out) properties of the grammar mature. One adult result • If the UCC/ATOM approach is right, this is one of the only places where we might actually have evidence that both TP and AgrSP (exist and) require the subject to move through their specifiers. Generally, it’s hard to tell in the adult syntax whether it’s just one or the other.