The Truth Value Judgment Task Examples from Kazanina & Phillips (2001, Russian) Goro & Akiba (2004, Japanese)

Pronoun Interpretation A pronoun may precede its antecedent… While hei was reading the book, Johni ate an apple. But not always… *Hei ate the apple while Johni was reading the book. “Binding Condition C” A pronoun may not c-command its antecedent (put differently, the antecedent can’t occur in the scope of the pronoun)

A Constraint on Interpretation Comp NP VP S while John NP VP V NP he ate the apple was reading the book While he was reading the book, John ate the apple

A Constraint on Interpretation NP VP he S’ VP Comp S V NP while ate the apple NP VP John was reading the book He ate the apple while John was reading the book

Principle C in Other Languages a. While he was reading the book, Pooh ate an apple b. *He ate an apple while Pooh was reading the book French Italian Russian Greek, Amharic, Gujrati, Hebrew, Spanish, etc.?

Principle C in Other Languages Mohawk Native American language, Quebec & upstate New York Free Word Order Sak ra-núhwe’-s ako-[a]tyá’tawi Sak MsS-like-hab FsP-dress ‘Sak likes her dress.’ Ra-núhwe’-s Sak ako-[a]tyá’tawi Sak ako-[a]tyá’tawi ra-núhwe’-s Ra-núhwe’-s ako-[a]tyá’tawi Sak Ako-[a]tyá’tawi ra-núhwe’-s Sak Ako-[a]tyá’tawi Sak ra-núhwe’-s

Principle C in Other Languages Mohawk Native American language, Quebec & upstate New York Omission of arguments Ra-núhwe’-s MsS-like-hab ‘He likes it.’

Principle C in Other Languages Mohawk Native American language, Quebec & upstate New York Discontinuous constituents Ne kíke wa-hi-yéna-‘ ne kwéskwes ne this fact-1sS/MsO-catch-punc ne pig ‘I caught this pig.’

Principle C in Other Languages Mohawk Native American language, Quebec & upstate New York Discontinuous constituents Ne kíke wa-hi-yéna-‘ ne kwéskwes ne this fact-1sS/MsO-catch-punc ne pig ‘I caught this pig.’

Principle C in Other Languages Mohawk Native American language, Quebec & upstate New York Condition C Effects Wa-ho-nakuni-‘ tsi Sak wa-hi-hrewaht-e’ fact-NsS/MsO-anger-punc that Sak fact-1sS/MsO-punish-punc ‘That I punished Saki made himi mad.’ (coreference possible) Wa-shako-hrori-‘ tsi Sak wa-hi-hrewaht-e’ fact-MsS/FsO-tell-punc that Sak fact-1sS/MsO-punish-punc ‘Hei told her that I punished Saki.’ (coreference impossible)

Language Acquisition a. While he was reading the book, Pooh ate an apple b. *He ate an apple while Pooh was reading the book How could a child ever learn that Principle C applies? In a language like Mohawk, its effects are quite obscure Why does Principle C apply in every language?

Language Acquisition a. While he was reading the book, Pooh ate an apple b. *He ate an apple while Pooh was reading the book Universal Principles may not need to be learned - they may be part of the child’s innate knowledge of language This would explain why the principle is universal It would also set aside the language acquisition problem …but it also predicts that young children should know constraints like Principle C

Language Acquisition a. While John was reading the book, he ate an apple b. While he was reading the book, John ate an apple c. John ate an apple while he was reading the book d. *He ate an apple while John was reading the book

Language Acquisition Young children never say sentences like this, and probably almost never hear them Question is: what meanings do children allow? Strategy: set up a situation in which the relevant meaning is present -- can a child associate that meaning with the relevant sentence? Truth Value Judgment Task

Truth Value Judgment Task “I know what happened in this story…”

Truth Value Judgment Task Principle C in children: English - Crain & McKee (1985) Russian - Kazanina & Phillips (2001), etc.

“Hello, Eeyore! I see that you’re reading a book.”

“What a fine-looking apple.”

“No, Pooh. You can’t eat the apple - that’s my apple.”

“Ok, I’ll have to eat a banana instead.”

“Ok, Pooh. I’ve finished reading. Now you can read the book.”

“Great. Now that Pooh is reading the book, I can eat this delicious apple.”

“I shouldn’t be such a greedy donkey - I should let Pooh eat the apple

“I suppose I have to eat a banana instead.”

“Here you are, Pooh. You can have the apple.”

“Oh, I’m such a lucky bear “Oh, I’m such a lucky bear! I can read the book, and I can eat the apple, at the same time.”

Apple is eaten up.

While Pooh was reading the book, he ate the apple. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... While Pooh was reading the book, he ate the apple.

While he was reading the book, Pooh ate the apple. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... While he was reading the book, Pooh ate the apple.

Pooh ate the apple while he was reading the book. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... Pooh ate the apple while he was reading the book.

He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

How 3-4 Year Olds Perform yes! yes! yes! no! a. While Pooh was reading the book, he ate an apple b. While he was reading the book, Pooh ate an apple c. Pooh ate an apple while he was reading the book d. *He ate an apple while Pooh was reading the book yes! yes! no!

How 3-4 Year Olds Perform yes! yes! yes! no! a. While Pooh was reading the book, he ate an apple b. While he was reading the book, Pooh ate an apple c. Pooh ate an apple while he was reading the book d. *He ate an apple while Pooh was reading the book yes! yes! no!

How 3-4 Year Olds Perform yes! yes! yes! no! a. While Pooh was reading the book, he ate an apple b. While he was reading the book, Pooh ate an apple c. Pooh ate an apple while he was reading the book d. *He ate an apple while Pooh was reading the book yes! yes! no! Works for English, Italian, Russian etc.

How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

How the Task Works Child is not being judged child understands that (s)he is helping the experimenter to test a puppet (e.g. Kermit) child does not feel that (s)he is being tested, and so feels under less pressure child’s response is very simple yes/no

How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

How the Task Works Identical story for all test sentences only difference is in the final sentence that Kermit utters if children respond differently to the different test sentences, this can’t be due to any differences in the stories

How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. OK, that was a story about Eeyore and Winnie-the-Pooh. First Eeyore was reading the book and then Winnie-the-Pooh was reading the book. I know one thing that happened... He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

How the Task Works Child is not being judged Identical story for all test sentences Avoids child’s ‘yes’ bias - child shows knowledge by answering “no” Story favors the ungrammatical meaning Story is set up to make “no” answer felicitous

Making “no” answers possible He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. Plausible Denial He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. Plausible Denial He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book.

Plausible Denial He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. TRUE - but ungrammatical

Plausible Denial He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. TRUE - but ungrammatical

Plausible Denial He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. TRUE - but ungrammatical Eeyore

Plausible Denial He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. TRUE - but ungrammatical Grammatical - but FALSE Eeyore

Plausible Denial He ate the apple while Pooh was reading the book. TRUE - but ungrammatical Grammatical - but FALSE clearly FALSE, since it almost happened, but then didn’t Eeyore

“Great. Now that Pooh is reading the book, I can eat this delicious apple.”

“I shouldn’t be such a greedy donkey - I should let Pooh eat the apple

“I suppose I have to eat a banana instead.”

English vs. Japanese (1) John speaks Icelandic or Swahili. (but I’m not sure which language he can actually speak…) John-wa Icelandic ka Swahili-wo hanas-u. John-TOP or -ACC speak-pres.  The interpretations of disjunctions are more or less same in both languages.

English vs. Japanese (2) John doesn’t speak Icelandic or Swahili.  John doesn’t speak Icelandic AND he doesn’t speak Swahili. John-wa Icelandic ka Swahili-wo hanasa-na-i John-TOP or -ACC speak-neg-pres. John doesn’t speak Icelandic OR (I know it is either one of those languages that John cannot speak, but I’m not sure which one…)

‘Neither’ interpretation in Japanese John-wa Icelandic mo Swahili mo hanas-u. John-TOP also also speak-pres. “John speaks both Icelandic and Swahili” John-wa Icelandic mo Swahili mo hanase-na-i John-TOP also also speak-neg-pres.  John speaks neither Icelandic nor Swahili.

Disjunction and parameter Let’s say that UG provides the universal disjunction operator OR, associated with a parameter={+PPI, -PPI} OR(+PPI)  disjunctions in Japanese / Hungarian / Russian / Italian… OR(-PPI)  disjunctions in English / German / Korean… (cf. Szabolcsi 2002)

Acquisition research question Can Japanese children accept the wide-scope reading of ka in (4)? John-wa Icelandic ka Swahili-wo hanasa-na-i John-TOP or -ACC speak-neg-pres.  Can they accept (4) in the situation where John cannot speak Icelandic but he can speak Swahili? If they have the –PPI setting, they should say “No”

Experimental conditions and the felicity of test sentences John-wa Icelandic ka Swahili-wo hanasa-na-i John-TOP or -ACC speak-neg-pres. Situation: John cannot speak Icelandic but he can speak Swahili Experimental context should make the sentence perfectly felicitous under AB (adult) interpretation; otherwise, children’s negative responses may not be counted as evidence for children’s conjunctive interpretation of ka.

Felicity conditions for AB The speaker knows that something with affirmative expectation turned out to be false. otherwise, he wouldn’t use negation. The speaker knows that it is either A or B (but not both) that is false. otherwise, he would say AB. The speaker doesn’t know which one is false. otherwise, he would simply say A, or B.

The experiment Two sub-sessions (1) the “eating-game” 12 animals try to eat 3 kinds of food. Depending of how good they did, they get a particular kind of medal as a prize. (2) Truth Value Judgment Kermit guesses how good each animal did on the basis of the medal the animal has.

Subjects Japanese monolingual children in Sumire kindergarden, Totsuka, Yokohama. N=30, Age: 3;7-6;3, Mean: 5;3

Experimenter: Look at this Experimenter: Look at this! There are animals going to play an “eating-game”!!

Experimenter: Here’s a piece of cake, a green pepper, and a carrot Experimenter: Here’s a piece of cake, a green pepper, and a carrot. All animals love cakes, but they don’t like vegetables. So here’s the rule: if one eats not only the cake but also the vegetables, he’ll get a better prize.

Experimenter: For example, if one eats the cake, and the pepper, and also the carrot…then he’ll get a shining gold medal!

Experimenter: If one eats the cake, and either one of the vegetables, but not both…then he’ll get a blue medal.

Experimenter: If one eats only the cake, but none of the vegetables, then he’ll get a cross…

Experimenter: Now, here comes a pig. He will play the game.

Experimenter: The pig first picked up the cake Experimenter: The pig first picked up the cake. Yes, he loves cakes and of course he ate it!

Experimenter: Then he picked up the pepper Experimenter: Then he picked up the pepper. He doesn’t like peppers…but he managed to eat it up!

Experimenter: Then he picked up the carrot…Oh no, he couldn’t eat the carrot!

Experimenter: So, the pig ate the cake, and he ate the pepper, but he didn’t eat the carrot. Which prize will he get?

Experimenter: Yes, a blue medal!

Experimenter: Now here comes another animal… (the “eating-game” goes on until all the 12 animals finish their trials. Every animal eats the cake. 4 of them eat both vegetables, other 4 eat either one of them, and other 4 eat neither)

(After the “game” phase finishes, we move back to the first one, the pig) Kermit: Ok, now I’m gonna guess how good those animals did with this game. Kermit: Umm, the pig…I don’t remember what he ate…oh, but, he has a blue medal!

Kermit: Now I know what happened Kermit: Now I know what happened. The pig ate the cake, but, he didn’t eat the pepper ka the carrot! (the test sentence)

Experimenter: Was Kermit correct? (And the truth-value judgments go on…)

Felicity of the test sentence Kermit knows that something with affirmative expectation turned out to be false, because it is not a gold medal that the pig has. Kermit knows that it is either A or B (but not both) that is false, because it is not a cross that the pig has. Kermit doesn’t know which one is false, because he cannot see which food is left. Adult group (Age 29-32, N=10) accepted the sentence 100% of the time (20/20).

Result (1): the wide-scope reading of “A ka B” “he didn’t eat the carrot ka the pepper” for an animal with a blue medal The sentence is true under adult Japanese interpretation, but false under the narrow-scope, conjunctive interpretation of ka. The acceptance rate is 25% (15/60) 4 kids were adultlike: 4;11, 5;5, 5;10, 6;2. If we exclude them from the count, then the acceptance rate is 13.46% (7/52)

Further support: narrow-scope ka “he didn’t eat the carrot ka the pepper” for an animal with a cross The sentence is true under the narrow-scope, conjunctive interpretation of ka. The acceptance rate is 78.33% (47/60) The result makes a lot of sense given that children accepted the wide-scope ka 25% of the time.

Result (2): children’s performance on “A mo B mo” “he didn’t eat the carrot mo the pepper mo” He didn’t eat the carrot or the pepper for an animal with a cross (true under adult interpretation)  95% acceptance (57/60) for an animal with a blue medal (false under adult interpretation)  95% rejection (57/60) Children did very well with A mo B mo.

The ideal control item: nanika nani - ka  “something” what nani - mo  “anything” John-wa nanika tabe-nakat-ta John-TOP something eat-neg-past There is something that John didn’t eat John-wa nanimo tabe-nakat-ta John-TOP anything eat-neg-past John didn’t eat anything

The control experiment Subjects: N=30, Age: 3;7-6;3, Mean: 5;4 A ka B is replaced with nanika; A mo B mo is replaced with nanimo Food: 3 different vegetables, and 4 animals don’t eat anythingget a cross All the other details are the same with the previous experiment.

Result (1): the wide-scope reading of nanika “he didn’t eat nanika” for an animal with a blue medal The sentence is true under adult Japanese interpretation, but false under the narrow-scope interpretation of nanika. The acceptance rate is 88.33% (53/60) They can access the wide-scope interpretation!

Result (2): children’s performance with nanimo “he didn’t eat nanimo” He didn’t eat anything for an animal with a cross (true under adult interpretation)  100% acceptance (60/60) for an animal with a blue medal (false under adult interpretation)  85% rejection (51/60) Children did fairly good with nanimo.