A usage-based approach to grammatical development Holger Diessel University of Jena

Language learning Connectionism (Rumelhart & McClelland 1986; Elman et al. 1996; Lewis and Elman 2001). Corpus studies of the ambient language (Redington et al. 1998; Mintz et al. 2002; Monaghan et al. 2005). Experimental studies with infants (Saffran et al. 1996; Saffran 2002; Newport and Aslin 2004).

Construction grammar Form Meaning Form Meaning Form Meaning Form Meaning Form Meaning

One-word utterances / holophrases Daddy.[Adam 1;4] Mommy.[Adam 1;4] Doggy.[Adam 1;5] Milk.[Adam 1;5] Allgone.[Adam 1;6]

Take this key off. Take this paper off. Take that off. Take this dress off. Take that belt off me. Take it off. More corn. More cookies. More mail. More popsicle. More jump. More Peter water. Block get-it. Phone get-it. Mama get-it. Bottle get-it. Towel get-it. Books get-it. Lexically-specific constructions

Emergence of schematic constructions Get doggyGet milkGet himGet Billy Get __ VERB __

Hypotheses Relative clauses form a network of related constructions that children acquire in a piecemeal, bottom-up fashion. The development originates from relative constructions that are only little different from simple sentences. The development can be seen as an example of ‘abductive constructivist learning’.

Study 1 (Diessel 2004) Age rangeFiniteNonfinite Adam Sarah Nina Peter Naomi 2;3-4;10 2;3-5;1 1;11-3;4 1;9-3;2 1;8-3; ;9-5;

Head of the relative clause (1) The man who we saw was reading a book. SUBJ (2) He noticed the man who was reading a book. OBJ (3) He saw to the man who was reading a book. OBL (4) The man who was reading a book. NP (5) That’s the man who was reading a book. PN

Head of relative clause (total)

Head of relative clause (earliest)

Head of relative clause (development) PN OBJ NP OBL PN OBJ NP OBL SUBJ

Input frequency PN-relatives are among the most frequent relative clauses in the ambient language, but they are not as frequent in the ambient language as in the children’s data.

Semantic complexity (1)Here’s the tiger that’s gonna scare him. > The tiger is gonna scare him. (2)This is the sugar that goes in there. > The sugar goes in there. (3)It’s something that you eat. > You eat something.

Semantic complexity (1)You left this toy I’m playing with. > You left this toy. + I’m playing with the toy.

Information structure The information structure of PN-relative constructions is similar to the information structure of simple sentences, i.e. they do not include presupposed information.

Pragmatic function PN-relatives are pragmaticlly very useful in parent- child speech: They occur in constructions that focus the hearer’s attention on elements in the surrounding situation.

Conclusion PN-relatives are the earliest relative clauses that children learn because: (1) they suit the communicative needs of young children (2) they are semantically similar to simple sentences.

Syntactic amalgams (1)That’s doggy turn around.[Nina 1;11] (2)That’s a turtle swim.[Nina 2;2] (3)Here’s a mouse go sleep.[Nina 2;3] (4)That’s the roof go on that home.[Nina 2;4] (5)That’s the rabbit fall off.[Nina 2;4]

Relativizsed syntactic role (1) The man who met the woman. subj (2) The man who the woman met. obj (3) The man who the woman talked to. obl (4) The man who the girl gave the book to.io (5) The man whose dog bit the woman. gen

Relativized syntactic role (total)

Relativized syntactic role (development) obj subj obl

Diessel & Tomasello (2005) Das ist der Mann, der mich gestern gesehen hat. Das ist der Mann, den ich gestern gesehen habe. Das ist der Mann, dem ich das Buch gegeben habe. Das ist der Mann, mit dem ich gesprochen habe. Das ist der Mann, dessen Hund mich gebissen hat. subj do io obl gen This is the girl who saw Peter on the bus this morning. This is the girl who the boy teased at school yesterday. This is the girl who Peter borrowed a football from. This is the girl who Peter played with in the garden. This is teh girl whose horse Peter heard on the farm. subj do io obl gen

Results subj vs. do p =. 001 do vs. io p =.173 Do vs. oblp =.169 subj vs. do p =. 001 do vs. io p =.061 io vs. oblp =.001 EnglishGerman

Subj-relatives Do-, io-, and obl-relatives were often converted to subj- relatives. English ITEM: This is the girl who the boy teased at school. CHILD: This is the girl that teased … the boy … at school. German ITEM: Da ist der Mann, den das Mädchen im Stall gesehen hat. CHILD: Da ist der Mann, der das Mädchen im Stall gesehen hat.

Subj-relatives However, children were not consistent in their performance. In addition, they often repaired their conversion errors before they reached the end of the sentence: (1) This is the girl who bor/ Peter borrowed a football from. (2) Da ist der Junge, der/ dem Paul … die Mütze weggenommen hat.

Hypothesis The conversion errors are due to the fact that subj- relatives are more easily activated than other types of relative clauses.

Frequency and ease of activation The more frequently a grammatical construction occurs, the more deeply entrenched it is in mental grammar, and the easier it is to activate in language use.

Input frequency (Diessel 2004)

Subj-relatives and simple sentences AGENT VERB PATIENT.Simple clause PRO is AGENT rel VERB PATIENT.subj PRO is PATIENT rel AGENT VERB.do / io / obl Children’s good performance on subject relatives can be explained in terms of the similarity between subject relatives and simple sentences.

Word order in English relative clauses NP [V …]subj NP [NP V …]do NP [NP V …]io NP [NP V …]obl NP [[GEN N] V …]gen

Relative pronouns in German relative clauses Der Mann, der …subj Der Mann, den …do Der Mann, dem …io Der Mann, mit/von dem …obl Der Mann, dessen Ngen

Gen- and io-relatives Both gen- and io-relatives are basically absent from the ambient language. Io-relatives caused fewer errors than gen-relatives because they are similar to do-relatives.

Summary Important is the similarity between constructions: Subj-relatives caused few problems because they are similar to simple sentences. English do-, io-, and obl-relatives caused basically the same amount of problems because they have the same word order. Io-relatives caused relatively few problems because they are similar to direct do-relatives. Gen-relatives and German obl-relatives caused great problems because they are dissimilar to other relative clauses.

Why does similarity matter? Relative clauses are constructions (i.e. form-function pairings) that are related to each other in a network like lexical expressions. Children acquire this network in a piecemeal, bottom-up fashion by relating new relative clause constructions to constructions they already know.

A network of relative constructions Simple Sentences That is N [subj-relative] …-relatives … [gen-relative]

References Diessel, Holger The Acquisition of Complex Sentences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Diessel, Holger & Tomasello, Michael. (2005). A new look at the acquisition of relative clauses. Language.