1. Week 4. Optional infinitives, Unique Checking Constraint, ATOM, … GRS LX 700 Language Acquisition and Linguistic Theory

2. Two hypotheses about learning LLEE (late learning early emergence) —A “commonsense” view— Things which emerge emerge early. Things which are learned appear later. Implies that parameters should be set late too (since at least the settings are learned) LLEE (late learning early emergence) —A “commonsense” view— Things which emerge emerge early. Things which are learned appear later. Implies that parameters should be set late too (since at least the settings are learned)

3. Two hypotheses about learning 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. 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. 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.

4. Two-word stage? The reason both VEPS and VEKI mention the two-word stage is just because this is the first stage where we have evidence of utterance composition. The reason both VEPS and VEKI mention the two-word stage is just because this is the first stage where we have evidence of utterance composition.

5. Optional Infinitive stage Root infinitives are possible grammatical sentences; Root infinitives are possible grammatical sentences; These infinitives co-exist with finite forms; These infinitives co-exist with finite forms; The children know the relevant grammatical principles (and how they distinguish finite from nonfinite). The children know the relevant grammatical principles (and how they distinguish finite from nonfinite).

6. Optional Infinitive Stage German: V2/SOV; kids put finite verbs in second position, leave nonfinite verbs in clause-final position German: V2/SOV; kids put finite verbs in second position, leave nonfinite verbs in clause-final position French: V-->I; kids move finite verbs to I, leave nonfinite verbs in VP. French: V-->I; kids move finite verbs to I, leave nonfinite verbs in VP.

7. Very Early Parameter Setting As soon as you can see it, kids have: As soon as you can see it, kids have: VO vs. OV order set (Swedish vs. German) VO vs. OV order set (Swedish vs. German) V-->I [yes/no] (French vs. English) V-->I [yes/no] (French vs. English) V2 [yes/no] (German vs. French/English) V2 [yes/no] (German vs. French/English) Null subject [yes/no] (Italian vs. Fr./E.) Null subject [yes/no] (Italian vs. Fr./E.) So, at least by the 2-word stage, they have the parameters set (maybe earlier) So, at least by the 2-word stage, they have the parameters set (maybe earlier)

8. VEPS and the theory of learning If parameters are set by the time kids are using multi-word utterance, no negative evidence could have played a role. If parameters are set by the time kids are using multi-word utterance, no negative evidence could have played a role.

9. Null subjects… Null subject parameter is not initially mis-set (kids don’t all start off speaking Italian—contra Hyams 1986); rather, child null subjects are (at least in part) due to the availability of non-finite verbs (the OI stage). Null subject parameter is not initially mis-set (kids don’t all start off speaking Italian—contra Hyams 1986); rather, child null subjects are (at least in part) due to the availability of non-finite verbs (the OI stage). Most null subjects are licensed by being the subject of a nonfinite verb (i.e. PRO) Most null subjects are licensed by being the subject of a nonfinite verb (i.e. PRO) But there are still some null subjects with finite verbs… But there are still some null subjects with finite verbs…

10. Topic drop Where kids drop the subject of a finite verb, perhaps this is “Topic-drop” Where kids drop the subject of a finite verb, perhaps this is “Topic-drop” Proposal: Topic-drop applies to Very Strong Topics Kids sometimes take (in reality) non-VS topics to be VS topics (a pragmatic error) Proposal: Topic-drop applies to Very Strong Topics Kids sometimes take (in reality) non-VS topics to be VS topics (a pragmatic error)

11. Prediction about NS OI’s have two ways of licensing NSs: OI’s have two ways of licensing NSs: PRO (regular licensing of null subject) PRO (regular licensing of null subject) Topic drop Topic drop Finite verbs have one way to license a NS: Finite verbs have one way to license a NS: Topic drop Topic drop So: We expect more null subjects with root infinitives (which we in fact see) So: We expect more null subjects with root infinitives (which we in fact see)

12. Bromberg, Wexler, wh- questions, and null subjects If topic drop is something which drops a topic in SpecCP… If topic drop is something which drops a topic in SpecCP… …and if wh-words also move to SpecCP… …and if wh-words also move to SpecCP… …we would not expect null subjects with non-subject (e.g., where) wh-questions where the verb is finite (so PRO is not licensed) …we would not expect null subjects with non-subject (e.g., where) wh-questions where the verb is finite (so PRO is not licensed)

13. Bromberg, Wexler, wh- questions, and null subjects And, that’s what they found: And, that’s what they found: Finiteness of null/pronominal subjects, Adam’s wh-questions (Bromberg & Wexler 1995) FiniteNonfinite Null2118 Pronoun117131

14. *Truncation Rizzi’s “truncation” theory predicts: Rizzi’s “truncation” theory predicts: No wh-questions with root infinitives No wh-questions with root infinitives wh-question  CP, but wh-question  CP, but CP  IP, and CP  IP, and IP  finite verb IP  finite verb And of course we wouldn’t expect null subjects in wh-questions if null subjects are allowed (only) in the specifier of the root. And of course we wouldn’t expect null subjects in wh-questions if null subjects are allowed (only) in the specifier of the root.

15. V2 and wh-null subjects… German and Dutch have extremely few root infinitives when there is anything in SpecCP. German and Dutch have extremely few root infinitives when there is anything in SpecCP. This does go with Rizzi’s prediction… This does go with Rizzi’s prediction… But they are V2 languages—finite verbs are what you find in C, and when SpecCP is filled, there must be something in C. Hence, Wexler’s prediction seems to be: But they are V2 languages—finite verbs are what you find in C, and when SpecCP is filled, there must be something in C. Hence, Wexler’s prediction seems to be: V2 language  no wh-question root infinitives V2 language  no wh-question root infinitives And this seems closer to accurate, given English. And this seems closer to accurate, given English.

16. *LLEE So: despite expectations of early practitioners of P&P: VEPS means *LLEE. So: despite expectations of early practitioners of P&P: VEPS means *LLEE. What then do we make of the fact that kids make non-adult utterances in the face of evidence that they aren’t learning the parameters? What then do we make of the fact that kids 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. KW: Certain (very specific, it turns out) properties of the grammar mature.

17. VEKI? Generally, when kids use inflection, they use it correctly. Mismatches are vanishingly rare. Generally, when kids use inflection, they use it correctly. Mismatches are vanishingly rare. English (Harris & Wexler 1995) English (Harris & Wexler 1995) German (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) German (Poeppel & Wexler 1993) Again, this is kind of contrary to what the field had been assuming (which was: kids are slow at, bad at, learning inflection). Again, this is kind of contrary to what the field had been assuming (which was: kids are slow at, bad at, learning inflection).

18. ATOM Adult clause structure: AgrP NOM i Agr AgrTP t i T TVP Adult clause structure: AgrP NOM i Agr AgrTP t i T TVP

19. ATOM Kiddie clause, missing TP (—TNS): AgrP NOM i Agr Agr VP Kiddie clause, missing TP (—TNS): AgrP NOM i Agr Agr VP

20. ATOM Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (—AGR): TP ACC  default i T TVP Kiddie clause, missing AgrP (—AGR): TP ACC  default i T TVP

21. Why either missing TP or AgrP gives us a root infinitive (DM) In English, we have the following rules for pronouncing this tense/agreement affix: In English, we have the following rules for pronouncing this tense/agreement affix: (V+)T is pronounced like: /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present] /ed/ if we have the feature [past] /Ø/ otherwise (V+)T is pronounced like: /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present] /ed/ if we have the feature [past] /Ø/ otherwise

22. One prediction of ATOM +AGR+TNS: NOM with inflected verb (-s) +AGR+TNS: NOM with inflected verb (-s) +AGR–TNS: NOM with bare verb +AGR–TNS: NOM with bare verb –AGR+TNS: default (ACC) with bare verb –AGR+TNS: default (ACC) with bare verb –AGR–TNS: GEN with bare verb (not discussed but see Schütze & Wexler 1996) –AGR–TNS: GEN with bare verb (not discussed but see Schütze & Wexler 1996) Nothing predicts Acc with inflected verb. Nothing predicts Acc with inflected verb.

23. Finite pretty much always goes with a nominative subject. Schütze & Wexler (1996) Nina 1;11-2;6 Loeb & Leonard (1991) 7 representative kids 2;11-3;4 subjectFiniteNonfiniteFiniteNonfinite he+she25513943675 him+her1420428 % non-Nom5%46%0.9%27%

24. NS/OI Some languages appear not to undergo the “optional infinitive” stage. How can this be consistent with a maturational view? Some languages appear not to undergo the “optional infinitive” stage. How can this be consistent with a maturational view? OI languages: Germanic languages studied to date (Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish), Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, Czech OI languages: Germanic languages studied to date (Danish, Dutch, English, Faroese, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish), Irish, Russian, Brazilian Portuguese, Czech Non-OI languages: Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Tamil, Polish Non-OI languages: Italian, Spanish, Catalan, Tamil, Polish

25. NS/OI What differentiates the OI and non-OI languages? What differentiates the OI and non-OI languages? Agreement? Italian (non-OI) has rich agreement, but so does Icelandic (OI). Agreement? Italian (non-OI) has rich agreement, but so does Icelandic (OI). Null subjects! Null subjects! Null Subject/OI Generalization: Children in a language go through an OI stage iff the language is not an INFL-licensed null subject language. Null Subject/OI Generalization: Children in a language go through an OI stage iff the language is not an INFL-licensed null subject language.

26. NS/OI and Hebrew (Rhee & Wexler 1995) Hebrew is a NS language but only in 1st and 2nd person, non-present tense. Everywhere else (3rd past, future, present) subjects are obligatory. Hebrew is a NS language but only in 1st and 2nd person, non-present tense. Everywhere else (3rd past, future, present) subjects are obligatory. Hebrew-learning 2-year-olds showed optional infinitives except in 1/2-past, and allowed null subjects elsewhere, with infinitives. Hebrew-learning 2-year-olds showed optional infinitives except in 1/2-past, and allowed null subjects elsewhere, with infinitives.

27. NS/OI and Hebrew (Rhee & Wexler 1995) all OI kids1/2 past/fut (NS)else (non-NS) null subjects0.6% (1/171)25% (85/337) overt subjects1.4% (1/72)0.6% (3/530) kids up to 1;111/2 past/fut (NS)else (non-NS) null subjects0 (of 21)32% (36/112) overt subjects0 (of 6)0 (of 28)

28. Implementing ATOM The basic idea: In adult clauses, the subject needs to move both to SpecTP and (then) to SpecAgrP. The basic idea: In adult clauses, the subject needs to move both to SpecTP and (then) to SpecAgrP. This needs to happen because T “needs” something in its specifier (≈EPP) and so does Agr. This needs to happen because T “needs” something in its specifier (≈EPP) and so does Agr. The subject DP can “solve the problem” for both T and for Agr—for an adult. The subject DP can “solve the problem” for both T and for Agr—for an adult.

29. Implementing ATOM Implementation: For adults: Implementation: For adults: T needs a D feature. T needs a D feature. Agr needs a D feature. Agr needs a D feature. The subject, happily, has a D feature. The subject, happily, has a D feature. The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of T’s need for a D feature (the subject “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature loses its need for a D feature, but the subject still has its D feature (the subject is still a DP). The subject moves to SpecTP, takes care of T’s need for a D feature (the subject “checks” the D feature on T). The T feature loses its need for a D feature, but the subject still has its D feature (the subject is still a DP). The subject moves on, to take care of Agr. The subject moves on, to take care of Agr.

30. Implementing ATOM Implementation: For kids: Implementation: For kids: Everything is the same except that the subject can only solve one problem before quitting. It “loses” its D feature after helping out either T or Agr. Everything is the same except that the subject can only solve one problem before quitting. It “loses” its D feature after helping out either T or Agr. Kids are constrained by the Unique Checking Constraint that says subjects (or their D features) can only “check” another feature once. Kids are constrained by the Unique Checking Constraint that says subjects (or their D features) can only “check” another feature once. So the kids are in a bind. So the kids are in a bind.

31. Implementing ATOM Kids in a pickle: The only options open to the kids are: Kids in a pickle: The only options open to the kids are: Leave out TP (keep AgrP, the subject can solve Agr’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, nom case. Leave out TP (keep AgrP, the subject can solve Agr’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, nom case. Leave out AgrP (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, default case. Leave out AgrP (keep TP, the subject can solve T’s problem alone). Result: nonfinite verb, default case. Violate the UCC (let the subject do both things anyway). Result: finite verb, nom case. Violate the UCC (let the subject do both things anyway). Result: finite verb, nom case. No matter which way you slice it, the kids have to do something “wrong”. At that point, they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.) No matter which way you slice it, the kids have to do something “wrong”. At that point, they choose randomly (but cf. Legendre et al.)

32. Minimalist terminology Features come in two relevant kinds: interpretable and uninterpretable. Features come in two relevant kinds: interpretable and uninterpretable. Either kind of feature can be involved in a “checking”—only interpretable features survive. Either kind of feature can be involved in a “checking”—only interpretable features survive. The game is to have no uninterpretable features left at the end. The game is to have no uninterpretable features left at the end. “T needs a D” means “T has an uninterpretable [D] feature” and the subject (with its normally interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the two features “check”, the interpretable one survives. UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects? “T needs a D” means “T has an uninterpretable [D] feature” and the subject (with its normally interpretable [D] feature) comes along and the two features “check”, the interpretable one survives. UCC=D uninterpretable on subjects?

33. Wait—how can you say kids are UG-constrained yet drop T/Agr? So, aren’t TP and AgrSP required by UG? Doesn’t this mean kids don’t have UG- compliant trees? So, aren’t TP and AgrSP required by UG? Doesn’t this mean kids don’t have UG- compliant trees? Actually, perhaps no. UG requires that all features be checked, but it isn’t clear that there is a UG principle that requires a TP and an AgrP in every clause. Actually, perhaps no. UG requires that all features be checked, but it isn’t clear that there is a UG principle that requires a TP and an AgrP in every clause.

34. Wait—how can you say kids are UG-constrained yet drop T/Agr? Perhaps what requires TP and AgrP are principles of (pragmatic) interpretation… Perhaps what requires TP and AgrP are principles of (pragmatic) interpretation… You need TP so that your sentence is “anchored” in the discourse. You need TP so that your sentence is “anchored” in the discourse. You need AgrSP … why? Well, perhaps something parallel…? Wexler doesn’t really say… You need AgrSP … why? Well, perhaps something parallel…? Wexler doesn’t really say… Regardless, kids can check all the uninterpretable features even without TP or AgrSP; hence, they can still be considered to be UG-constrained. Regardless, kids can check all the uninterpretable features even without TP or AgrSP; hence, they can still be considered to be UG-constrained.

35. NS/OI via UCC An old idea about NS languages is that they arise in languages where Infl is “rich” enough to identify the subject. An old idea about NS languages is that they arise in languages where Infl is “rich” enough to identify the subject. Maybe in NS languages, AgrS does not need a D (it may in some sense be nouny enough to say that it is, or already has, D). Maybe in NS languages, AgrS does not need a D (it may in some sense be nouny enough to say that it is, or already has, D). If AgrS does not need a D, the subject is free to check off T’s D-feature and be done. If AgrS does not need a D, the subject is free to check off T’s D-feature and be done.

36. EPP and missing INFL If there were just an IP, responsible for both NOM and tense, then they should go together (cf. “IP grammar” vs. “VP grammar”) 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 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). 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. (ATOM:+Agr –Tns) 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. (ATOM:+Agr –Tns)

37. Is there any way to see the effects of UCC even in NS languages? Italian: Mary has laughed. Italian: Mary has laughed. Suppose that auxiliaries (like have) also have a D-feature to be checked as the subject (in the adult language) passes through. Suppose that auxiliaries (like have) also have a D-feature to be checked as the subject (in the adult language) passes through. Not crazy: (All) the students (all) have (all) left. Not crazy: (All) the students (all) have (all) left. UCC-constrained kids will have to drop something (the auxiliary or T), even in Italian. UCC-constrained kids will have to drop something (the auxiliary or T), even in Italian. Lyons (1997) reports that a “substantial proportion of auxiliaries are omitted in OI-age Italian.” Lyons (1997) reports that a “substantial proportion of auxiliaries are omitted in OI-age Italian.” Ok, maybe. Consistent, anyway. Ok, maybe. Consistent, anyway.

38. Korean negation? The UCC is about checking D, and that happens not only for subjects but for objects. The UCC is about checking D, and that happens not only for subjects but for objects. In English objects don’t have to double- check, but are there effects in other languages? In English objects don’t have to double- check, but are there effects in other languages? Hagstrom (2000) looks at errors with negation made by children learning Korean at about the same age that, in other languages, kids are producing root infinitives. Hagstrom (2000) looks at errors with negation made by children learning Korean at about the same age that, in other languages, kids are producing root infinitives. Fairly technical and minimalist, but if you survive Wexler 1998, you’re most of the way there. Fairly technical and minimalist, but if you survive Wexler 1998, you’re most of the way there.

39. Korean negation? Short Form Negation in Korean: Chelswu-ka pap-ul an-mek-ess-ta. Chelswu-nom rice-acc neg-eat-past-decl ‘Chelswu didn’t eat rice.’ Short Form Negation in Korean: Chelswu-ka pap-ul an-mek-ess-ta. Chelswu-nom rice-acc neg-eat-past-decl ‘Chelswu didn’t eat rice.’ Common OI-age kid error: na an pap mek-e I neg rice eat-decl ‘I don’t eat rice.’ Common OI-age kid error: na an pap mek-e I neg rice eat-decl ‘I don’t eat rice.’

40. Negation errors in child Korean Generalization about child errors with SFN: VP-internal material is privileged in its ability to occur between an and the verb in child errors. Generalization about child errors with SFN: VP-internal material is privileged in its ability to occur between an and the verb in child errors. Subjects (except subjects of unaccusatives) never appear between an and the verb Subjects (except subjects of unaccusatives) never appear between an and the verb Objects often do Objects often do Adverbs often do Adverbs often do

41. Negation errors in child Korean Can this error be made to follow from the UCC (you can’t check a D-feature twice)? Can this error be made to follow from the UCC (you can’t check a D-feature twice)? Kid errors seem to involve a structure like: neg […VP material… ] verb suggesting that adult negation has a movement that kids are failing to do: […VP material…] i neg t i verb Kid errors seem to involve a structure like: neg […VP material… ] verb suggesting that adult negation has a movement that kids are failing to do: […VP material…] i neg t i verb

42. One movement down… For the UCC to apply, there need to be two movements. Do adults move the object twice? For the UCC to apply, there need to be two movements. Do adults move the object twice? Adults also seem to perform a second movement of the object; the adverb cal ‘well’ must immediately precede the verb (unlike other adverbs)—but presumably the object originally (at D-structure) falls between cal and the verb. Hence: object i … cal … t i verb Adults also seem to perform a second movement of the object; the adverb cal ‘well’ must immediately precede the verb (unlike other adverbs)—but presumably the object originally (at D-structure) falls between cal and the verb. Hence: object i … cal … t i verb

43. That’s two movements So, the object (and some of the VP- internal material) seems to have to move twice in negative sentences, once to get around cal (in any kind of sentence), and again to get around an (neg). So, the object (and some of the VP- internal material) seems to have to move twice in negative sentences, once to get around cal (in any kind of sentence), and again to get around an (neg). That’s what we need to get off the ground if we want to attribute this error to the UCC. That’s what we need to get off the ground if we want to attribute this error to the UCC.

44. The proposal In Korean, the object moves to SpecAgrOP (step one) and checks a D-feature: AgrOP DP i AgrO AgrO [D] VP calVP Vt i In Korean, the object moves to SpecAgrOP (step one) and checks a D-feature: AgrOP DP i AgrO AgrO [D] VP calVP Vt i

45. The proposal Then, AgrOP moves to an AgrNegP above negation, to check a D-feature: AgrNegP AgrOP i AgrNeg AgrNeg [D] NegP anNeg Neg…t i … Then, AgrOP moves to an AgrNegP above negation, to check a D-feature: AgrNegP AgrOP i AgrNeg AgrNeg [D] NegP anNeg Neg…t i …

46. The proposal The kid can only do one of those movements if it obeys the UCC, since each one requires the same D-feature (contributed by the object). The kid can only do one of those movements if it obeys the UCC, since each one requires the same D-feature (contributed by the object). So, the kid must either So, the kid must either ignore the UCC, or ignore the UCC, or omit AgrOP, or omit AgrOP, or omit AgrNegP omit AgrNegP

47. Predictions 1: Omit AgrNegP (retaining AgrOP): 1: Omit AgrNegP (retaining AgrOP): Object moves (over cal) to SpecAgrOP. AgrOP (with cal and object) remains below NegP. Object moves (over cal) to SpecAgrOP. AgrOP (with cal and object) remains below NegP. an object cal verb (*, non-adult-like) an object cal verb (*, non-adult-like) 2: Omit AgrOP (retaining AgrNegP) 2: Omit AgrOP (retaining AgrNegP) Object (nearest thing with a D-feature) moves directly to SpecAgrNegP, over an and cal. Object (nearest thing with a D-feature) moves directly to SpecAgrNegP, over an and cal. object an cal verb (*, but needs cal to be present) object an cal verb (*, but needs cal to be present) 3: Violate UCC (keep AgrOP & AgrNegP) 3: Violate UCC (keep AgrOP & AgrNegP) object cal an verb (adult-like) object cal an verb (adult-like) 4: Omit both AgrOP & AgrNegP? 4: Omit both AgrOP & AgrNegP? an cal object verb (*, without cal looks like 1) an cal object verb (*, without cal looks like 1)

48. Met? Sadly, the experiments haven’t been done and the examples haven’t been reported in the literature. Sadly, the experiments haven’t been done and the examples haven’t been reported in the literature. We need errors with transitive verbs involving short-form negation and the adverb cal… We need errors with transitive verbs involving short-form negation and the adverb cal… Possibly fairly easy elicitation experiment that can be done… Possibly fairly easy elicitation experiment that can be done…

49. Predictions for unaccusatives Unaccusative “subjects” start out in object position, and must presumably move through many more projections (AgrOP, AgrNegP, TP, AgrSP) Unaccusative “subjects” start out in object position, and must presumably move through many more projections (AgrOP, AgrNegP, TP, AgrSP) UCC kid can still just do one. UCC kid can still just do one. Only one (of five) will yield a non-adult order: keep AgrOP and you get: an subject cal verb. Only one (of five) will yield a non-adult order: keep AgrOP and you get: an subject cal verb. Turns out: kids make only about 10% (detectible) errors with unaccusatives (vs. about 30% with transitives). A successful prediction? Turns out: kids make only about 10% (detectible) errors with unaccusatives (vs. about 30% with transitives). A successful prediction?

50. So… The UCC seems to be pretty successful in explaining why either TP or AgrSP are often omitted for kids in languages like French, German. The UCC seems to be pretty successful in explaining why either TP or AgrSP are often omitted for kids in languages like French, German. The connection to the NS/OI generalization is reasonable to explain why we don’t seem to see OIs in Italian. The connection to the NS/OI generalization is reasonable to explain why we don’t seem to see OIs in Italian. The more general prediction that the UCC makes about double-movements to check D- features may well be borne out by the facts of Korean negation. The more general prediction that the UCC makes about double-movements to check D- features may well be borne out by the facts of Korean negation.

51. One open question… The UCC says you can only use a D-feature on a DP to check against a functional category once. The UCC says you can only use a D-feature on a DP to check against a functional category once. This explains why sometimes TP is omitted (keeping AgrSP) and sometimes AgrSP is omitted (keeping TP). This explains why sometimes TP is omitted (keeping AgrSP) and sometimes AgrSP is omitted (keeping TP). but if GEN infin. comes from omitting both TP and AgrSP, what could ever cause that (particularly given Minimize Violations)? but if GEN infin. comes from omitting both TP and AgrSP, what could ever cause that (particularly given Minimize Violations)?

52. Legendre et al. (2000) Proposes a system to predict the proportions of the time kids choose the different options among: Proposes a system to predict the proportions of the time kids choose the different options among: Omit TP Omit TP Omit AgrSP Omit AgrSP Omit both TP and AgrSP Omit both TP and AgrSP Include both TP and AgrSP (violating UCC) Include both TP and AgrSP (violating UCC)

53. The idea Kids are subject to conflicting constraints: Kids are subject to conflicting constraints: Parse-TInclude a projection for tense Parse-TInclude a projection for tense Parse-AgrInclude a project for agreement Parse-AgrInclude a project for agreement *FDon’t complicate your tree with functional projections *FDon’t complicate your tree with functional projections *F 2 Don’t complicate your tree so much as to have two functional projections. *F 2 Don’t complicate your tree so much as to have two functional projections.

54. The idea Sometimes Parse-T beats out *F, and then there’s a TP. Or Parse-Agr beats out *F, and then there’s an AgrP. Or both Parse-T and Parse-Agr beat out *F 2, and so there’s both a TP and an AgrP. Sometimes Parse-T beats out *F, and then there’s a TP. Or Parse-Agr beats out *F, and then there’s an AgrP. Or both Parse-T and Parse-Agr beat out *F 2, and so there’s both a TP and an AgrP. But what does sometimes mean? But what does sometimes mean?

55. Floating constraints The innovation in Legendre et al. (2000) that gets us off the ground is the idea that as kids re-rank constraints, the position of the constraint in the hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such that two positions can overlap. *F Parse-T The innovation in Legendre et al. (2000) that gets us off the ground is the idea that as kids re-rank constraints, the position of the constraint in the hierarchy can get somewhat fuzzy, such that two positions can overlap. *F Parse-T

56. Floating constraints *F Parse-T When the kid evaluates a form in the constraint system, the position of Parse- T is fixed somewhere in the range—and winds up sometimes outranking, and sometimes outranked by, *F. When the kid evaluates a form in the constraint system, the position of Parse- T is fixed somewhere in the range—and winds up sometimes outranking, and sometimes outranked by, *F.

57. Floating constraints *F Parse-T (Under certain assumptions) this predicts that we would see TP in the structure 50% of the time, and see structures without TP the other 50% of the time. (Under certain assumptions) this predicts that we would see TP in the structure 50% of the time, and see structures without TP the other 50% of the time.

58. French kid data Looked at 3 French kids from CHILDES Looked at 3 French kids from CHILDES Broke development into stages based on a modified MLU-type measure based on how long most of their utterances were (2 words, more than 2 words) and how many of the utterances contain verbs. Broke development into stages based on a modified MLU-type measure based on how long most of their utterances were (2 words, more than 2 words) and how many of the utterances contain verbs. Looked at tense and agreement in each of the three stages represented in the data. Looked at tense and agreement in each of the three stages represented in the data.

59. French kid data Kids start out using 3sg agreement and present tense for practically everything (correct or not). Kids start out using 3sg agreement and present tense for practically everything (correct or not). We took this to be a “default” We took this to be a “default” (No agreement? Pronounce it as 3sg. No tense? pronounce it as present. Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.). (No agreement? Pronounce it as 3sg. No tense? pronounce it as present. Neither? Pronounce it as an infinitive.).

60. French kid data This means if a kid uses 3sg or present tense, we can’t tell if they are really using 3sg (they might be) or if they are not using agreement at all and just pronouncing the default. This means if a kid uses 3sg or present tense, we can’t tell if they are really using 3sg (they might be) or if they are not using agreement at all and just pronouncing the default. So, we looked at non-present tense forms and non-3sg forms only to avoid the question of the defaults. So, we looked at non-present tense forms and non-3sg forms only to avoid the question of the defaults.

61. French kids data We found that tense and agreement develop differently—specifically, in the first stage we looked at, kids were using tense fine, but then in the next stage, they got worse as the agreement improved. We found that tense and agreement develop differently—specifically, in the first stage we looked at, kids were using tense fine, but then in the next stage, they got worse as the agreement improved. Middle stage: looks like competition between T and Agr for a single node. Middle stage: looks like competition between T and Agr for a single node.

62. A detail about counting We counted non-3sg and non-present verbs. We counted non-3sg and non-present verbs. In order to see how close kids’ utterances were to adult’s utterances, we need to know how often adults use non-3sg and non-present, and then see how close the kids are to matching that level. In order to see how close kids’ utterances were to adult’s utterances, we need to know how often adults use non-3sg and non-present, and then see how close the kids are to matching that level. So, adults use non-present tense around 31% of the time—so when a kid uses 31% non-present tense, we take that to be “100% success” So, adults use non-present tense around 31% of the time—so when a kid uses 31% non-present tense, we take that to be “100% success” In the last stage we looked at, kids were basically right at the “100% success” level for both tense and agreement. In the last stage we looked at, kids were basically right at the “100% success” level for both tense and agreement.

63. Proportion of non-present and non-3sg verbs

64. Proportion of non-finite root forms

65. A model to predict the percentages Stage 3b (first stage) Stage 3b (first stage) no agreement no agreement about 1/3 NRFs, 2/3 tensed forms *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA about 1/3 NRFs, 2/3 tensed forms *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA

66. A model to predict the percentages Stage 4b (second stage) Stage 4b (second stage) non-3sg agreement and non-present tense each about 15% (=about 40% agreeing, 50% tensed) non-3sg agreement and non-present tense each about 15% (=about 40% agreeing, 50% tensed) about 20% NRFs *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA about 20% NRFs *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA

67. A model to predict the percentages Stage 4c (third stage) Stage 4c (third stage) everything appears to have tense and agreement (adult-like levels) *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA everything appears to have tense and agreement (adult-like levels) *F 2 *F ParseT ParseA

68. Predicted vs. observed— tense

69. Predicted vs. observed—agr’t

70. Predicted vs. observed— NRFs

71. Various things (homework) Is the OT model just proposed a structure- building or full competence model? Is the OT model just proposed a structure- building or full competence model? How does the OT model fit in the overall big picture with the ATOM model? How does the OT model fit in the overall big picture with the ATOM model?

72. Various things (homework) For French, we assumed that NRFs appear when both TP and AgrP are missing. Yet, Schütze & Wexler 1996 claimed the root infinitives appeared with either TP or AgrP were missing. For French, we assumed that NRFs appear when both TP and AgrP are missing. Yet, Schütze & Wexler 1996 claimed the root infinitives appeared with either TP or AgrP were missing. Which one is it? Which one is it?

73. French v. English English: T+Agr is pronounced like English: T+Agr is pronounced like /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present] /s/ if we have features [3, sg, present] /ed/ if we have the feature [past] /ed/ if we have the feature [past] /Ø/ otherwise /Ø/ otherwise French: T+Agr is pronounced like: French: T+Agr is pronounced like: danserNRF danserNRF a dansé(3sg) past a dansé(3sg) past je danse1sg (present) je danse1sg (present) j’ai dansé1sg past j’ai dansé1sg past

74.                       

75. Preparatory comments for next week’s readings Borer & Wexler (1987): They are out to challenge the idea that kids start off with the entire grammatical system, in favor of a maturational view of syntactic development. Borer & Wexler (1987): They are out to challenge the idea that kids start off with the entire grammatical system, in favor of a maturational view of syntactic development. Their famous proposal is that children cannot initially construct “A-chains”, and they use evidence primarily from passives. Their famous proposal is that children cannot initially construct “A-chains”, and they use evidence primarily from passives.

76. Passives John kicked the ball (active) John kicked the ball (active) The ball was kicked (by John) (passive) The ball was kicked (by John) (passive) Standard analysis: the ball starts off as complement of V in both; in the passive, the agent is suppressed and the verb is deprived of its ability to assign Case. Thus, the ball moves into SpecIP to get Case. Standard analysis: the ball starts off as complement of V in both; in the passive, the agent is suppressed and the verb is deprived of its ability to assign Case. Thus, the ball moves into SpecIP to get Case. The ball i was kicked t i. The ball i was kicked t i.

77. Passives The chain between the ball and t created by moving the ball into SpecIP is an A- chain (a chain whose top is in a position where you can only find arguments). The chain between the ball and t created by moving the ball into SpecIP is an A- chain (a chain whose top is in a position where you can only find arguments).

78. Intransitives There are two kinds of intransitive verbs: There are two kinds of intransitive verbs: Unergative Unergative Unaccusative(or sometimes “ergative”) Unaccusative(or sometimes “ergative”) The unergative verbs have an external argument— just like a transitive verb. The unergative verbs have an external argument— just like a transitive verb. The unaccusative/ergative verbs have only an internal argument, which moves to subject position—just like in a passive. The unaccusative/ergative verbs have only an internal argument, which moves to subject position—just like in a passive.

79. Unaccusatives ≈ passives An unaccusative is structurally like a passive: An unaccusative is structurally like a passive: The train i arrived t i. The train i arrived t i. An unergative is not. An unergative is not. The baby giggled. The baby giggled. So we expect kids to have the same troubles with unaccusatives and passives. So we expect kids to have the same troubles with unaccusatives and passives.

80. Verbal and adjectival passives In English at least, it seems like there are two kinds of words with passive morphology: In English at least, it seems like there are two kinds of words with passive morphology: Verbal: The suspect was seen. Verbal: The suspect was seen. Adjectival: His hair seems combed. Adjectival: His hair seems combed. Borer & Wexler adopt an analysis under which adjectival passives do not involve syntactic movement (lexicon vs. syntax). Borer & Wexler adopt an analysis under which adjectival passives do not involve syntactic movement (lexicon vs. syntax).

81. Verbal and adjectival passives Generally, non-action verbs make poor adjectival passives (while action verbs are fine): Generally, non-action verbs make poor adjectival passives (while action verbs are fine): *The suspect seems seen. The seen suspect (fled). Seen though the movie was, John went to see it again. *The suspect seems seen. The seen suspect (fled). Seen though the movie was, John went to see it again. The cloth seems torn. The torn cloth (is useless). Torn though the cloth was, John used it anyway. The cloth seems torn. The torn cloth (is useless). Torn though the cloth was, John used it anyway. Conclusion: It should be possible for kids to say passive- like things as long as they’re adjectival passives. Conclusion: It should be possible for kids to say passive- like things as long as they’re adjectival passives.

82. Babyonyshev et al. (1998) Babyonyshev et al. (1998) extend the discussion begun in Borer & Wexler (1987), also arguing for maturation of A- chains. Babyonyshev et al. (1998) extend the discussion begun in Borer & Wexler (1987), also arguing for maturation of A- chains. They consider two possible reasons why A-chains in passives would not be allowed: They consider two possible reasons why A-chains in passives would not be allowed: Kids can’t build A-chains. Kids can’t build A-chains. Kids can’t “dethematize” the external argument. Kids can’t “dethematize” the external argument.

83. UTAH The Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) essentially says that the syntactic position in the structure to which any given  -role is assigned does not vary within or across languages. The Uniformity of Theta Assignment Hypothesis (UTAH) essentially says that the syntactic position in the structure to which any given  -role is assigned does not vary within or across languages. So, the patient  -role is always assigned to the complement of V position, for example. So, the patient  -role is always assigned to the complement of V position, for example.

84. Pesetsky and movement Languages can differ in whether they perform overt movement (before SS) or covert movement (after SS, headed to LF). Languages can differ in whether they perform overt movement (before SS) or covert movement (after SS, headed to LF). Usual example: Wh-movement (Bulgarian: all wh-movements overt; English: one overt wh- movement, the rest covert; Japanese: all wh- movements covert). Usual example: Wh-movement (Bulgarian: all wh-movements overt; English: one overt wh- movement, the rest covert; Japanese: all wh- movements covert).

85. Pesetsky and movement If we assume that all languages move all of their wh- words to (Spec)CP by LF (only some languages save some/all of these movements until after SS), then at LF there is always a chain like: If we assume that all languages move all of their wh- words to (Spec)CP by LF (only some languages save some/all of these movements until after SS), then at LF there is always a chain like: Wh-word i …t i. Wh-word i …t i. One way to think of “covert movement” is as “pronouncing the bottom of the chain” (in a model in which you both interpret and pronounce LF). One way to think of “covert movement” is as “pronouncing the bottom of the chain” (in a model in which you both interpret and pronounce LF).

86. Pesetsky and movement This idea of “pronouncing the bottom of a movement chain” comes up in part of the discussion in Babyonyshev et al. concerning pronunciation in A-chains (like those in unaccusatives and passives) as well as A-bar chains (like wh-movement chains). This idea of “pronouncing the bottom of a movement chain” comes up in part of the discussion in Babyonyshev et al. concerning pronunciation in A-chains (like those in unaccusatives and passives) as well as A-bar chains (like wh-movement chains).

87. Babyonyshev et al. (1998) Babyonyshev et al. conduct an experiment with Russian kids to determine whether kids who cannot represent adult unaccusatives (due to the inability to represent A-chains) instead parse them as unergatives. Babyonyshev et al. conduct an experiment with Russian kids to determine whether kids who cannot represent adult unaccusatives (due to the inability to represent A-chains) instead parse them as unergatives. “S-homophone”: A different syntactic structure (e.g. an unergative) which sounds like another (e.g. an unaccusative). “S-homophone”: A different syntactic structure (e.g. an unergative) which sounds like another (e.g. an unaccusative).

88. Russian genitive of negation There is a fairly elaborate discussion of the “genitive of negation” construction in Russian. Basically, a non-specific noun phrase in the same clause as negation will be pronounced with genitive (instead of accusative) case. Some verbs (e.g., existential be) in fact require genitive. There is a fairly elaborate discussion of the “genitive of negation” construction in Russian. Basically, a non-specific noun phrase in the same clause as negation will be pronounced with genitive (instead of accusative) case. Some verbs (e.g., existential be) in fact require genitive.

89. Russian genitive of negation There is evidence that the genitive argument of an unaccusative remains inside the VP at SS. There is evidence that the genitive argument of an unaccusative remains inside the VP at SS. In English, this argument would raise to subject position (SpecIP). In English, this argument would raise to subject position (SpecIP). In Russian, it turns out that there is evidence that the genitive argument raises covertly (between SS and LF) to subject position. In Russian, it turns out that there is evidence that the genitive argument raises covertly (between SS and LF) to subject position.

90. Evidence for covert movement of the genitive argument Negative constituents (e.g., any kind of boy) need to co- occur with negation in the same clause. Negative constituents (e.g., any kind of boy) need to co- occur with negation in the same clause. Where negative constituents participate in A-chains we can see (e.g., raising), the top of the A-chain has to be in the same clause as negation. Where negative constituents participate in A-chains we can see (e.g., raising), the top of the A-chain has to be in the same clause as negation. Genitive negative constituents with raising verbs appear in the lower clause at SS but require negation in the higher clause. Genitive negative constituents with raising verbs appear in the lower clause at SS but require negation in the higher clause. Conclusion: Genitive arguments move too, creating an A-chain, and the negation requirement is verified at LF. Conclusion: Genitive arguments move too, creating an A-chain, and the negation requirement is verified at LF.

91. Babyonyshev et al. (1998) Testing the idea from Borer & Wexler (1987) that unaccusatives are analyzed as if they are unergatives by kids in the pre-A-chain stage of life. Testing the idea from Borer & Wexler (1987) that unaccusatives are analyzed as if they are unergatives by kids in the pre-A-chain stage of life. Turns out that Russian provides a nice test of unaccusativity/unergativity with the “genitive of negation” so we can directly check to see how kids are analyzing their intransitives. Turns out that Russian provides a nice test of unaccusativity/unergativity with the “genitive of negation” so we can directly check to see how kids are analyzing their intransitives.

92.                       