RASCAL Groningen What’s so difficult about a wh-pronoun? Jacqueline van Kampen UiL OTS, Utrecht University is dit nou ???

RASCAL Groningen Jan Koster and his cat What is the issue of this anecdote? 1.Koster to his cat:OUT! (PF) 2.The cats comprehension: “He wants me out” (LF) Anecdote 1.The cat to Koster:MIOU! (PF) 2.Koster’s comprehension:“She wants to get in” (LF) [Jan Koster: “I often have a message for my cat and sometimes my cat has a message for me.” (a metaphoric illusion)]

RASCAL Groningen The issue Comprehension tests as such prove little if not backed up by an analysis of the child’s current grammar  Comprehension is plausibly described in terms of grammatical oppositions if such grammatical oppositions (features) are already present in the system of the comprehender. Comprehension of a sentence or utterance may take place with or without grammatical structure either in his production as an option or in his production implied by the grammatical frame

RASCAL Groningen The data: Questions in child Dutch Why is there a delay in the production of question words?  staat hier nou op?  ga jij dan opschrijven?  moet je met dat doen?  heb jij op het been nou?  zit vogeltje nou op?  lag mijn lepel nou?  heeft dat nou gedaan?  heet die jongen nou?  komt dat dan?  gaat deze nou open? Do they mean anything to you? (as a speaker of Dutch) Wat Waar Hoe Wat Waar Hoe Wie

RASCAL Groningen Questions in child English Why is there a delay in the production of finite verbs? (but not in question words like in child Dutch)  What you doing?  What you done there?  What the dolly have?  Where dolly?  Where Sarah going?  Where you put it?  Where he gonna sit?  How I push it back?  How I get in? are have does is did is do Child English leaves out the finite verb

RASCAL Groningen Adult English/ Dutch parallel for questions  Both languages have a question word in first position  Both languages have a finite verb in second position English:whathashe bought? Dutch:watheefthij gekocht? English:wherecanI buy a sandwich? Dutch:waarkanik een sandwich kopen?

RASCAL Groningen The acquisition paradox Why is the production of the same construction acquired differently in English and Dutch? English child Step 1 is does have  is dat nou?  moet beer nou toe?  heb jij nou (ge)daan?  whatthat?  wherebear go?  whatyou done? wat waar wat Dutch child Step 1 Step 2

RASCAL Groningen Demonstrated by longitudinal graphs My points are: - the difference in acquisition order - the difference in  instantaneous Dutch Sarah Child English: A wh-word > B finite verb English Sarah Child Dutch: B finite verb > A wh-word CHILDES database

RASCAL Groningen Declaratives in Dutch/English  Dutch questions affirm the general pattern Dutch declaratives English declaratives Jangaatmorgen dat boek kopen morgengaatJan dat boek kopen dat boekgaatJan morgen kopen John will buy that book tomorrow,John will buy that book that book,John will buy it tomorrow Dutch questions English questions watgaatJan morgen kopen ? whatwill John buy tomorrow ?  English questions deviate from the general pattern

RASCAL Groningen Two language types The early frames- reveal the language type - control the course of acquisition English: subject – (finite verb) – rest sentence  All Dutch clauses have a finite verb in second position. The finite verb is a “clause-characterizer” (so-called V-second type)  All English declaratives begin with subject. The subject is the “clause-characterizer” (so called SVO type) Dutch: (X anything ) - finite verb – (subject) - rest sentence Two different cognitive structures

RASCAL Groningen The line of solution Child language shows how language is designed to be learned in a stepwise fashion (without innate frames)  Typological properties of grammar serve as bootstraps for the later acquired, more language-specific properties  Typological properties of grammar are the first to be acquired from a simplification of the adult input The language type determines the acquisition procedure

RASCAL Groningen Two different cognitive structures Early typological cognitive distinction V2 versus SV fin O English: subject – (finite verb) – rest of the sentence Dutch: (X anything ) - finite verb – (subject) - rest sentence Mother Dutch Sarah (out of 537 declaratives with finite verb) Mother English Sarah All declaratives are subject-initial. 63% (out of 209) of the yes/no questions were subject-initial: you want a cookie?

RASCAL Groningen Cognitive structure of wh-questions in child Dutch The V2 structure determines comprehension of questions  staathier nou op?  gajij dan opschrijven?  moetje met dat doen?  hebjij op het been nou?  zitvogeltje nou op?  lagmijn lepel nou?  heeftdat nou gedaan?  heetdie jongen nou?  komtdat dan?  gaatdeze nou open? Do they mean anything ? The answer is: YES Wat Waar Wie Hoe The V2 structure is already acquired in declaratives.

RASCAL Groningen The child’s strategy: input reduction The acquisition order is crucial: the child re-discovers a learnability hierarchy imposed by the system  Restrict yourself to single binary combinations of pragmatically interpretable items (denotational or deitic).  Add an element if it supports a pragmatic understanding of the expression in a standard way. Initial ‘proto-grammar’  Leave out all that you do not recognize (especially leave out all grammatical markings).

RASCAL Groningen Elementary types of binary reduction (presentationals left out) Illocution operators soon set a norm in V1/V2 types commentcomment topiccomment operatorcomment English SVOdaddydo wannabear dooropen rabbit on Dutch V2papadoenmoetdoen deurdichtkanniedicht Nijntjeopis/zitop wilbeer commentdenotational characteristic of the situation operatorstandard addition for an illocutive orientation topicstandard addition for an aboutness orientation

RASCAL Groningen Front field: topic/operator Proto-grammar clauses start with an optional front field word-status elements (no clitics or affixes) added to a denotational comment single operator function: illocution type: constant single topic function: aboutness type: name SVO input reinforces [topic + comment] V1/V2 input reinforces [operator + comment] OR optional front field a.comment b.comment topiccommentoperatorcomment

RASCAL Groningen V2 input reduction in early child Dutch The Germanic V2 type originates early as [operator+rest sentence] recombination in proto-grammar Dutch Sarah week 110 till 125 (“acquisition point” V2)

RASCAL Groningen Recursive stacking in Dutch V2 a.comment operator comment topiccomment moetpappadoen kannie deurdicht is/zitNijntjeop b.comment topic comment operatorcomment pappa moetdoen deurkanniedicht Nijntje is/zitop Ternary splits fail to make use of earlier binary products Triple reduction products are easiest recognized as binary stacks operator added to a binary [topic + comment] topic added to a binary [operator + comment]

RASCAL Groningen The difference: Single topic/operator The presence/absence of the illlocution operator creates a selective environment for further acquisition steps Child V2 Dutch illocution operator standard operator blocked Child SV fin O English: topic standard operator possible

RASCAL Groningen Acquisition of in child Dutch The D in the V2 type follows D topic movement, which is more general The Dutch acquisition of Move to Spec.C not until  -marked parts move in front of [ ]c o as topics  de jongen gaat weg (the boy goes away)  dat heeft hij gekocht(that has he bought)  wat heeft hij gekocht?(what has he bought?)  is identified as the (determiner) in front of NPs  staathier nou op?  zitvogeltje nou op?  heeftdat nou gedaan?  gaatdeze nou open? Wat Waar Wie Hoe

RASCAL Groningen Longitudinal graphs The coincidence of A and C: the does not enter the V2 system as an operator, but as a DP in Spec,C Dutch Sarah: Graph A “coincides” with Graph D: use of articles

RASCAL Groningen The notion “parameter” Parameter a grammatical alternative determined by a local frequent context of its own. Parameters (formal features) are selected by the stepwise acquisition procedure  Without input reduction and applied in the blue, a parameter is certainly too abstract and intertwined with others to overcome the poverty of the diffuse stimulus (Dresher 1999) BUT  The child does not apply parameters out of the blue. It applies input reduction and successive reconstruction

RASCAL Groningen The program and the belief 1)Reconstruct the succession of acquisition steps by means of longitudinal graphs 2)Explain the succession of acquisition steps from (i)adult input quantities (ii)the provisional grammar (type – frame) The abstract typological properties need not be innate, they rather need to be first learned Program Conjecture Grammars attend to typological structure in order to remain learnable.

RASCAL Groningen NWO program Modelling early grammar acquisition See for project description: Joint work with two PhD students: Jos de Bruin (ILLC, University of Amsterdam) Rianne Schippers (UiL OTS, Utrecht University) Vragend kind Karel Appel

RASCAL Groningen Recent publications on learnability of grammar None of these properties of grammar need to be innate  Recursive stacking: Van Kampen (2004, 2005, submitted)  Locality: Van Kampen (2005, 2008, to appear)  Dependency rules: Evers & Van Kampen (2001, 2008)  Island constraints: Van Kampen (2008) References Evers, A. & J. van Kampen (2001) ‘E-language, I-language and the order of parameter setting’, Uil OTS Working Papers S-S, Utrecht University. Evers, A. E. & J. van Kampen (2008) Parameter setting and input reduction. In M.T Biberauer (ed.) The Limits of Syntactic Variation. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Kampen, J. van (2005) ‘Language-specific bootstraps for UG categories’ International Journal of Bilingualism 9(2), Kampen, J. van (2008) 'Typological guidance in the acquisition of V2 Dutch‘. In M. Jouitteau (ed.) Special Issue on V1/V2 languages in Lingua. Kampen, J. van (to appear) ‘The learnability of A-bar chains’, to appear in: M. Everaert et al. (eds.) Theoretical Validity and Psychological Reality Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 20 pages. Kampen, J. van (submitted) ‘The non-biological evolution of grammar: Wh-question formation in Germanic’, submitted to Biolinguistics.