Basque Word Orders, Psycholinguistic and Neurolinguistic Research Author: Kepa Erdozia Advisor: Itziar Laka

Quote (Chomsky 1986: 3-4) The study of generative grammar represented a significant shift of focus in the approach to problems of language. Put in the simplest terms, to be elaborated below, the shift of focus was from behavior or the products of behavior to states of the mind/brain that enter into behavior. If one chooses to focus attention on this latter topic, the central concern becomes knowledge of language: its nature, origins, and use. The answer to the first question is given by a particular generative grammar, a theory concerned with the state of the mind/brain of the person who knows a particular language. The answer to the second is given by a specification of UG along with an account of the ways in which its principles interact with experience to yield a particular language; UG is a theory of the “initial state” of the language faculty, prior to any linguistic experience. The answer to the third question would be a theory of how the knowledge of language attained enters into the expressions of thought and the understanding of presented specimens of language, and derivatively, into communication and other special uses of language. The three basic questions that arise, then, are these: (1) (i) What constitutes knowledge of language? (ii) How is knowledge of language acquired? (iii) How is knowledge of language put to use?

TALK PLANNING What constitutes knowledge of language? How is knowledge of language acquired? How is knowledge of language put to use? Linguistic research about word order in Basque How the children acquire word order in Basque How humans use their knowledge of language to generate and process word orders in Basque

Free Word Order a.PP-S-IO-O-V

Free Word Order a.PP S IOOV [Afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] [Elenari] [gerriko berria] [oparitu dio]

Free Word Order a.PP S IOOV [Afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] [Elenari] [gerriko berria] [oparitu dio] [After dinner-PP] [Mikel-S] [Elena-IO] [the new belt-O] [given has-V] ‘After dinner, Mikel has given the new belt to Elena’

5 constituent sentence; P 5 = 120 sentences. Nearly, all constituent permutation are grammatical in Basque d. IOVOPPS [Elenari] [oparitu dio] [gerriko berria] [afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] e.... c. SO PP VIO [Mikelek] [gerriko berria] [afaldu ondoren] [oparitu dio] [Elenari] b.O PPIO S V [Gerriko berria] [afaldu ondoren] [Elenari] [Mikelek] [oparitu dio] a.PP S IOOV [Afaldu ondoren] [Mikelek] [Elenari] [gerriko berria] [oparitu dio] [After dinner-PP] [Mikel-S] [Elena-IO] [the new belt-O] [given has-V] ‘After dinner, Mikel has given the new belt to Elena’ Free Word Order

Previous Research on Word Order in Basque Generative Grammar SOV (De Rijk 1969, Eguzkitza 1986, Ortiz de Urbina 1989, Laka 1990, Artiagoitia 1995, Fernandez 1998, A. Elordieta 2001, Arregi 2001 among others …)

Previous Research on Word Order in Basque Generative Grammar SOV (De Rijk 1969, Eguzkitza 1986, Ortiz de Urbina 1989, Laka 1990, Artiagoitia 1995, Fernandez 1998, A. Elordieta 2001, Arregi 2001 among others …) SVO (Ormazabal et al 1994, G. Elordieta 1997, Haddican 2004) Informational and Statistical approaches Experimental Psycholinguistics: language acquistion Osa 1990, Hidalgo 1994, Aldezabal et al 2003 Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982

De Rijk 1969 Statistical analysis: SOV TalesPlayNarrativeTotal SOV66%44%61%57% SVO23%37%31%30% OVS5%9%5%6% OSV2.5%7%1.5%4% VSO3%2%1.5%2.5% VOS0.5%1%0%0.5% Analyzed sentences Addapted from De Rijk 1969: 16

De Rijk 1969 Following Greenberg: SOV Statistical analysis: SOV Relative clauses: SOV TalesPlayNarrativeTotal SOV66%44%61%57% SVO23%37%31%30% OVS5%9%5%6% OSV2.5%7%1.5%4% VSO3%2%1.5%2.5% VOS0.5%1%0%0.5% Analyzed sentences Addapted from De Rijk 1969: 16 PostpositionsV>Aux NP YY Verb

Ortiz de Urbina 1989 Subject/Object asymetries In the hierarchical configuration of Basque subjects are hierarchically higher than objects INFL INFL’’ INFL’Otsoak VP’’ ardia V’ jan du Otsoak ardia jan du

Ortiz de Urbina 1989 Otsoak ardia jan du Ardia otsoak jan du INFL INFL’’ INFL’Otsoak VP’’ ardia V’ jan du

Ortiz de Urbina 1989 Otsoak ardia jan du Ardia otsoak jan du INFL’ VP’’INFL V’ tktk titi tjtj INFL’’ CP otsoak i ardia j C’ C jan du k CP INFL INFL’’ INFL’Otsoak VP’’ ardia V’ jan du

A. Elordieta 2001 Otsoak ardia jan du CP T C TP AuxP Aux DP sub v vPvP vPvP AspP VP Asp DP obj V OSV: Ardia otsoak jan du SOV Diplaced the subject to focus position and the verb to CP position; and displaced the object to the topic position [ Top Obj j [ Foc Subj i [ CP jan du] V-aux [ TP t i t j t V-aux ]]]

Antisymmetry (Kayne 1994, 2004) Kayne: syntactic structure is universally and without exceptions of the form S[pecifier]-H[ead]-C[omplement]. The complement of a head invariably follows that head. The associated specifier invariably precedes both head and complement (2004: 3) XP HeadSpecifierComplement Kayne: The question is whether Japanese [Basque] objects ever surface within VP, in complement position of V. Antisymmetry says no, given OV order (2004: 5) All languages are based generated as SVO

Ormazabal, Uriagereka and Uribe-Etxebarria 1994 Mary-gasono hon-o yonda Mary-Sbook that-Oread-V Japanese Mirenekliburu hori irakurri du Mary-Sbook that-Oread-V Basque Declaratives Mary-wanani-o yondaka? Mary-Swhat-Oread-VQ-marker Japanese Zerirakurri duMirenek? Whatread-V Mary-S Basque Interrogatives

Ormazabal, Uriagereka and Uribe-Etxebarria 1994 In Basque interrogative sentences, the WH-word raises the CP leaving behind the IP CP C IP t IP C’ In declarative sentences, IP moves to the specifier position of CP in the both languages Neuter SOV order two possibilities CP C WH IP C’ a) Before the movement of IP to CP, move the verb to C b) Extract the arguments from the IP which is in CP

G. Elordieta 1997 CP VP T DPV’ C ModP NegP Mod TP Neg DP V a) In functional projections above the VP How derived SOV order: b) Agreement features are present in the verb from the start of the numeration and languages choose whether to spell-out or not morphologically Otsoak jan du ardia SVO

Haddican 2004 CaseP VP Case’ Zorrak i ordaindu t i Declarative sentences: V>Aux Negative sentences: Neg>Aux>V Polarity Phrase (PolP) From VO to OV PolP TP AuxT’ Mod(evid)P Mod(evid)’ Pol’ omen !VP Zorrak ordaindu Ttmtm But, his system allowed focus construction which are ungrammatical *JONEK Miren ikusi du

Word Order and Comunicative Abilities (Osa 1990) The canonical word order in Basque is Subjet-Object-Verb a) Less presupositions are elicited by SOV b) Prosodically flat c) It replies to a What happened? question d) All the sentence could be new information Functionalist point of view Informational structures of Focus provide word order variability

Word Order and Statistics (Hidalgo 1994) Source: Hidalgo 1994 XVII th Century Statistically analyzed following De Rijk’s sentence selection criterion

Word Order and Statistics (Hidalgo 1994) Source: Hidalgo 1994 Statistically analyzed following De Rijk’s sentence selection criterion XIX th Century

Word Order and Statistics (Hidalgo 1994) Source: Hidalgo 1994 Popular oral tales collections Statistically analyzed following De Rijk’s sentence selection criterion

Word Order and Statistics (Hidalgo 1994) Source: Hidalgo 1994 Statistically analyzed following De Rijk’s sentence selection criterion Oral testimony from 1994 The Hidalgo’s statistical research continues but he changed the sentence selection criterion and then the sentences are not the same sentences that we followed in our research.

Word Order and Statistics (Aldezabal et al. 2003) The corpus of the Euskaldunon Egunkaria (from January 1999 to May 2000) 14,557 declarative sentences where 512 sentences had spelled out the subject, the object and the verb Source: Aldezabal et al. 2003

Psycholinguistics: Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982 Participants: 7 Groups of different age people Aim: to analyze the Acquisition of different structures in Basque, and the processing strategies of these structures Group 2: 4-5 years Group 3: 5-6 years Group 4: 6-7 years Group 5: 7-8 years Group 6: years Group 7: adults Group 1: 3-4 years Task: To represent the listened sentence with some toys

Psycholinguistics: Bronckart & Idiazabal 1982 Zakurrak neska bota du Neska zakurrak bota du Zakurrak bota du neska Neska bota du zakurrak 4-5 y.o.5-6 y.o.6-7 y.o.7-8 y.o y.o.adults3-4 y.o Subject first sentences were comprehended well Object first sentences were comprehended worse untill the age of 8 It seems that younger children understood the first constituent as subject and the second as object

INTERNAL SUMMARY 1 GENERATIVE GRAMMAR Most linguists: Basic word orderCanonical word order SOV Antisymmetrists: SVOSOV FUNCTIONALISTS: SOV STATISTIC RESEARCH: De Rijk Hidalgo Aldezabal et al PSYCHOLINGUISTICS (ACQUISTION): SOV SOV/SVO SVO Previous Research on Word Order in Basque Most frequent word order Earliest acquired word order

Quote: “Just as the theory of grammar has as its goals an account of Universal Grammar and parameters of language variation, the theory of sentence processing has as its goal the characterization of the universal parser, the human sentence processing mechanism” Sekerina 2003: 302 Psycolinguistics Tecnique in Syntax

Reaction times Participants perform the experiment at their own pace. To move from one element to the next element, participants had to press the space bar of the computer keyboard, one press for each element. Thus, participants decided the time they needed in order to process each element of the sentence, and therefore they decide the time they needed to comprehend the whole sentence. SELF PACED READING MOVING WINDOW Psycholinguistic Experiments in Basque: Method The comprehension task allowed us to be sure that participants had understood the sentences they read. The task consisted in a yes-or-no question after each sentence. The answer of half of questions of each word order was “yes” and the other half was “no”. COMPREHENSION TASK

***** *****

Emakumeak ***** ***** ***** (The woman)

***** gizona ***** ***** (the man)

***** ****** ikusi ***** (seen)

***** ****** ***** du (has)

Egia al da emakume batek gizon bat ikusi duela? (Is it true that a woman has seen a man?)

Experiment 1: SOV-OSV Goal: to determine whether OSV sentences have a higher processing cost than SOV sentences: (a) longer reading times (b) comprehension problems 23 participants (13 w and 10 m) Age-range was 18 to 36 (mean 25; SD ± 5). Participants Materials 32 sentences in SOV and 32 sentences in OSV. 2 lists: 16 SOV and 16 OSV sentences per condition. 32 fillers (the same for two lists). Experimental conditions and fillers contained 4 words

emakume-ak gizon-a ikus-i du woman-the/Subj. man-the/Obj. seen has ‘the woman has seen the man’ gizon-a emakume-ak ikus-i du man-the/Obj. woman-the/Subj. seen has ‘the woman has seen the man’ Subject Object Verb Aux Subject Object Verb Aux Experiment 1: Material

Filler sentences consisted in one argument sentences Manu futbolari bikaina da. ‘Manu is an excellent soccer player’. Experiment 1: Material

Experiment 1: Recording Recording The EXPE6 (Pallier et al. 1997) recorded the reaction times and the answers of the participants: (i) time to read each word of the sentence (ii) the time to perform the comprehension task (read and answer) (iii) whether the answer to the question is correct or not. Expectations The derived OSV word order sentences (i) would require longer reading time (ii) would require longer reading time in the comprehension task (iii) would induce more errors in the comprehension task.

Experiment 1: Results * p<0.005 Mean Reading Times of Sentences: Global Score SOV order is processed faster than OSV order

p<0.002 Reaction Times in the Comprehension Task Questions about OSV word order elicited longer reading time Experiment 1: Results

OSV order elicited more errors than SOV order Errors in the Comprehension Task p<0.001

Experiment 1: Results Mean reading times Word by Word Unmarked form processed faster than marked OSV requires a reanalysis of syntactic structure at subject position p<0.05 p<0.01 p<0.05 interaction between first two DPs of the sentences F = 12.9; p < 0.002

Experiment 2: Ambiguous Chains Goal: to determine how the ambiguous chains were processing and how the syntactic disambiguation happened. (a) whether ambiguous chains were processed as canonical SOV sentences (b) syntactic disambiguation elicited a syntactic reanalysis of the sentences

MORPHOLOGICAL AMBIGUITY OBJECT PLURAL SUBJECT SINGULAR EMAKUME-AK ‘WOMAN-X’ Emakume-ak gizon-ak ikusi ditu woman-X man-X see has ‘The woman has seen the men’ o ‘The man has seen the women’

Experiment 2: Method METHOD Participants 23 subjects (3 man and 20 woman; mean age 20.4, SD = 2.5). Materials Three conditions (48 sentences per condition): Three lists: one version of each item was assigned to one of the two lists List 1: 16 SOV / 16 OSV / 16 AMB + 48 fillers ( = 96 sentences) List 2: 16 SOV / 16 OSV / 16 AMB + 48 fillers ( = 96 sentences) List 3: 16 SOV / 16 OSV / 16 AMB + 48 fillers ( = 96 sentences) 48 filler sentences, the same for every list. SOV condition OSV condition AMB condition As in the previous experiment The new condition

Emakume-ek gizon-ak ikus-i dituzte women the Subj. men the Obj. seen have ‘the women have seen the men’ Emakume-ak gizon-ak ikus-i ditu woman-X man-X seen has ‘the woman has seen the men’ or ‘the man has seen the women’ Gizon-ak emakume-ek ikus-i dituzte man-X women-the Subj. seen have ‘the women have seen the men’ Subject Object Verb+aux Subject Object Verb+aux Ambiguous Chain Experiment 2: Material

Experiment 2: Results n.s. p<0.001 Ambiguous chain is processed as SOV sentence Mean Reading Times of Sentences: Global Score

Experiment 2: Results The objects are processed faster than subjects At subject second position, the reanalysis of the structure SOV vs OSV, word by word p<0.05 p<0.001 interaction between first two DPs of the sentences F=17,137; p<0.001)

Experiment 2: Results No evidences of syntactic reanalysis. No interaction Ambiguous chains are processed as SOV order sentences SOV is the simplest processing solution. SOV vs AMB, word by word p<0.01 p<0.05 n.s.

Experiment 3: Verb-Medial Sentences Goal: To determine how the verb-medial sentences were processing. These sentences are considered derived by linguists Participants 24 participants (2 men, 22 women; mean age 20, DS ± 3.21) Materials Five conditions (100 sentences per condition): SUBJECTsg-VERB-OBJECTsg OBJECTsg-VERB-SUBJECTsg SUBJECTpl-VERB-OBJECTpl OBJECTpl-VERB-SUBJECTpl AMBIGUOUS-VERB-AMBIGUOUS 100 filler sentences, the same for every list.

a. Gizonak ikusidu emakumea [Sak-V-Oa] Man-S seehaswoman-O ‘The man has seen the woman’ b. Emakumea ikusi du gizonak [Oa-V-Sak] Woman-O see has man-S ‘The man has seen the woman’ c. Gizonak ikusi dituemakumeak [Amb-V-Amb] Man-Xsee has woman-X ‘The man has seen the women’ or ‘The woman has seen the men’ d. Gizonek ikusi dituzte emakumeak [Sek-V-Oak] Men-Ssee havewomen-O ‘The men have seen the women’ e. Emakumeak ikusi dituzte gizonek [Oak-V-Sek] women-O seehave men-S ‘The men have seen the women’ Experiment 3: Material

Experiment 3: Results The sentences in singular were processed faster than the sentences in plural and the ambiguous chains (p<0.001). There were no differences between SVO and OVS sentences; thus we considered the two structures derived. Mean Reading Times of Sentences: Global Score n.s. p<0.001

Experiment 3: Results Reaction Times in the Comprehension Task Differences between the singular sentences and the remainning conditions p<0.001 p<0.007 p<0.01 No differences between the plural conditions

Experiment 3: Results Errors in the Comprehension Task Ambiguous condition elicited most errors in the comprehension task (p<0.001 comparing to any condition) Sak-V-Oa condition elicited fewest errors in the comprehension task

Experiment 3: Results Mean reading times Word by Word n.s. p<.025 The object was read faster than the subject But, there was not any other difference, suggesting that verb-medial sentences are derived

Experiment 3: Results Mean reading times Word by Word There was no difference, suggesting that verb-medial sentences are derived

Experiment 3: Results Mean reading times Word by Word P<0.008 Interaction between verb-auxiliary and sentence type. (F=5,924 p<.02) The fact that the sentences’ first argument is considered the subject of the sentences could explain the differences between the SVO and the OVS without postulating that one of them (SVO/OVS) is more basic than the other

BEHAVIORAL RESULTS a) SOV word order is processed faster and easier than OSV. b) Object is read faster than the subject c) OSV sentences require a syntactic reanalysis at subject position d) Ambiguous chains were processed as canonical SOV. e) No difference was found in verb-medial SVO and OVS word orders. BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS SUGGEST THAT THE CANONICAL WORD ORDER IS SOV IN BASQUE.

NEUROLINGUISTICS Language is processed by means of biological mechanisms Knowledge of Language: Nature Acquisition Use Neurolinguistics “Linguists seek a characterization of the nature of linguistic knowledge; psycholinguists are after modeling the algorithms that implement this knowledge when language users speak and understand; and neurolinguists are interested in neural mechanisms that realize these algorithms, and their cerebral localization. ” (Grodzinsky 2003)

ERP Components Related to Language Early Left Anterior Negativity Left Anterior Negativity N400 P600

ERP Components Related to Language Early Left Anterior Negativity Das Baby wurde gefüttert The baby was fed * Das Baby wurde im gefüttert The baby was in the fed Phrase Structure Violations Left Anterior Negativity N400 P600 Hahne & Friederici 1999

ERP Components Related to Language Early Left Anterior Negativity Left Anterior Negativity N400 P600 S- O O- S Matzke et al 2002 Agreement and Case Violations Object relatives vs Subject relatives Object questions vs Subject questions Word Order variation in German relatives: SOV vs OSV

ERP Components Related to Language Early Left Anterior Negativity Left Anterior Negativity N400 P600 Kutas & Van Petten 1988 Semantic Component

ERP Components Related to Language Early Left Anterior Negativity Left Anterior Negativity N400 P600 Matzke et al 2002 Syntactic Violations Syntactic Reanalysis

To seek the different brain responses to different word orders Experiment 4: ERP evidences Goal: 4 conditions Materials Canonical SOV condition Non Canonical OSV condition Unambiguous Temporally Ambiguous Canonical SOV condition Non Canonical OSV condition

Subject Verb aux Object Subject Verb aux Object ‘the wolf has eaten the sheep’ otso-ak wolf-the/Subj Ardi-a Sheep-the/Obj jan eaten du has ‘the wolves have eaten the sheep(pl)’ Otso-ek Wolves/the/Subj ardi-ak sheep-the/Obj jan eaten dituzte have Experiment 4: Non Ambiguous

SOV temporally ambiguous OSV temporally ambiguous ‘the wolf has eaten the sheep(pl)’ Otso-ak Wolf-X ardi-ak sheep-X ‘the wolf has eaten the sheep(pl)’ otso-ak wolf-X Ardi-ak Sheep-X jan eaten ditu has jan eaten ditu has Experiment 4: Ambiguous

1 question after each block of 8 sentences was presented. Design Experiment 4: Method 240 sentences per condition were created (Total = 960 sentences) 4 lists: material were divided in 4 lists in order to avoid sentence repetition across conditions (like in behavioral expes) 30 blocks: Each lists contained 30 blocks of 8 sentences (2 per condition). Sentences into blocks and blocks were mixed randomly every experimental session Experimental sentences were automatically presented word by word in the middle of the screen (words 300 ms; intervals 200 ms) At the end of each sentence participants were asked to blink, and a green dash informed that a new sentence was going to start

* ardiakGorbeiamendikolarretanotsoakjanditu

Free Blink

*

Experiment 4: Participants METHOD Participants 24 neurologically healthy and right handed native speakers of Basque, mean age 26 (SD ± 4.7) years; 8 males and 18 females

Experiment 4: Analysis Parasagital Temporal Midline Anovas were established in three regions: Factors were: Sentence type (four conditions) Hemisphere of electrodes Anterior/Posterior positions

Experiment 4: Results Behavioral Results The behavioral data showed that participants performed well in the experiment. In the comprehension task they performed correctly in 91% of trials (SD = ± 7.8)

Experiment 4: Results OTSOEK ardiak jan dituzte ARDIA otsoak jan du SOV OSV COMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES Left Anterior Negativity

Experiment 4: Results COMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES Otsoek ARDIAK jan dituzte Ardia OTSOAK jan du SOVSOV OSVOSV Left Anterior Negativity

Experiment 4: Results COMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES P600 Otsoek ardiak JAN dituzte Ardia otsoak JAN du SOV OSV

Experiment 4: Results COMPARING AMBIGUOUS CHAINS ARDIAK otsoak jan ditu OTSOAK ardiak jan ditu Nothing SENTENCE FIRST POSITION AMB-SOV AMB-OSV SENTENCE SECOND POSITION AMB-SOV AMB-OSV Ardiak OTSOAK jan ditu Otsoak ARDIAK jan ditu

Experiment 4: Results COMPARING AMBIGUOUS CHAINS Frontal Negativity Otsoak ardiak JAN DITU Ardiak otsoak JAN DITU AMB-SOV AMB-OSV

Experiment 4: Results COMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES AND AMBIGUOUS CHAINS OTSOAK ardiak jan ditu[AMB] OTSOEK ardiak jan dituzte[SOV] Temporal: ST x H, F(1,23) = 4.51 p(HF) < 0.05 ; ST x H x AP, F(2,46) = 8.88 p(HF) < Experiment 2 p<0.01 p<0.05 n.s. SOV vs AMB

Experiment 4: Results COMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES AND AMBIGUOUS CHAINS ARDIAK otsoak jan ditu[AMB] ARDIA otsoak jan du[OSV] Left Anterior Negativity -a vs –ek and –ak = LAN

Experiment 4: Results COMPARING UNAMBIGUOUS SENTENCES AND AMBIGUOUS CHAINS SOV vs AMB-SOV SOV vs AMB-OSV Posterior positivity (P600) Frontal Negativity The differences observed in the comparison of the canonical non-ambiguous condition and both ambiguous conditions leads us to conclude that ambiguous chains are processed as canonical SOV sentences except when there is a disambiguating element which generates a revision of the syntactic structure Verb Position

ERP RESULTS SUMMARY a) LAN component in object first position. b) LAN-like component in subject second position. c) P600 component in verb position of OSV condition. d) Nothing in ambiguously marked constituent positions. e) Frontal Negativity in verb and auxiliary position due to world knowledge disambiguated and syntactic reanalysis required condition ERP EXPERIMENT SUGGESTS THAT THE CANONICAL WORD ORDER IS SOV IN BASQUE. UNAMBIGUOUS CONDITIONS TEMPORALY AMBIGUOUS CONDITIONS

CONCLUSIONS PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON WORD ORDER IN BASQUE BEHAVIORAL EXPERIMENTS ERP EXPERIMENT Most linguists: SOV Antisymmetrists: SVOSOV Basic word orderCanonical word order Acquisition SOV/SVO Earliest acquired word order Experiment 1: In derived OSV a syntactic reanalysis process Experiment 2: Ambiguous chains are processed like SOV sentences Experiment 3: Verb-medial sentences didn’t show differences indicating that they could be derived in Basque Ergatives and absolutives are processed differently, LAN Verb position of derived OSV required a syntactic reanalysis, P600 Temporally ambiguous chains disambiguated by means of world knowledge and posterior syntactic reanalysis elicited a Frontal Negativity

Eskerrik asko