1. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam1 Markedness in Acquisition Is there evidence for innate markedness- based bias in language processing? Look to see whether young infants are sensitive to markedness before they’ve had sufficient relevant experience Before 6 months, infants have not shown sensitivity to language-particular phonotactics

2. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam2 Experimental Exploration of the Initial State Collaborators: Peter Jusczyk Theresa Allocco Language Acquisition, 2002 Karen ArnoldElliott Moreton in progress Grammar at 4.5 months?

3. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam3 The Initial State OT-general: M ARKEDNESS ≫ F AITHFULNESS  Learnability demands (Richness of the Base) (Alan Prince, p.c., ’93; Smolensky ’96a)  Child production: restricted to the unmarked  Child comprehension: not so restricted (Smolensky ’96b)

4. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam4 Testing the Initial State Linking hypothesis: More harmonic phonological stimuli ⇒ Longer listening time More harmonic: –  M ≻ * M, when equal on F –  F ≻ * F, when equal on M –When must choose one or the other, more harmonic to satisfy M: M ≫ F M = Nasal Place Assimilation (NPA)

5. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam5 X / Y / XY paradigm (P. Jusczyk) un...b ...umb  Experimental Paradigm p =.006 um...b ...umb  um...b ...iŋgu iŋ…..gu...iŋgu vs. iŋ…..gu…umb … ∃ F AITH Headturn Preference Procedure (Kemler Nelson et al. ‘95; Jusczyk ‘97) Highly general paradigm: Main result ℜ * F NP

6. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam6 4.5 Months (NPA) Higher HarmonyLower Harmony um…ber… umber um…ber… iŋgu p =.006 (11/16)

7. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam7 Higher HarmonyLower Harmony um…ber…u mb erun…ber…u nb er p =.044 (11/16) 4.5 Months (NPA)

8. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam8 4.5 Months (NPA)  Markedness * Faithfulness * Markedness  Faithfulness u n …ber…u mb eru n …ber…u nb er ???

9. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam9 5 Experiments

10. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam10 X / Y / XY paradigm (P. Jusczyk) un...b ...umb  un...b ...umb  X…Y…XY  Experimental Paradigm p =.006 um...b ...umb  um...b ...iŋgu iŋ…..gu...iŋgu vs. iŋ…..gu…umb … ∃ F AITH Headturn Preference Procedure (Kemler Nelson et al. ‘95; Jusczyk ‘97) Highly general paradigm: Main result ℜ * F NP

11. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam11 Confirmation + disconfirmation bias –Most preferred: Evidence that both confirms their favored hypothesis re: M vs. F ranking, and disconfirms their disfavored hypothesis –Attend longest to most informative stimuli  Linking Hypothesis Experimental results challenging to explain Suppose stimuli A and B differ w.r.t. φ. Child: M ARK [φ] ≫ F AITH [φ] (‘M ≫ F’). Then: If A is consistent with M ≫ F and B is consistent with F ≫ M then ‘prefer’ (attend longer to) A: ‘A > B’

12. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam12 Experimental results challenging to explain Suppose stimuli A and B differ w.r.t. φ. Child: M ARK [φ] ≫ F AITH [φ] (‘M ≫ F’). Then: If A is consistent with M ≫ F and B is consistent with F ≫ M then ‘prefer’ (attend longer to) A: ‘A > B’ M ARK [φ] = Nasal Place Agreement φ = Place  Linking Hypothesis

13. May 7, 2003University of Amsterdam13 M ≫ F? yes (+) no A  Experimental Results If A is consistent with M ≫ F and B is consistent with F ≫ M then ‘prefer’ (attend longer to) A: ‘A > B’ m+b  mb n+b  nb n+b  mb F ≫ M? yes (  ) no B > > > p <.05 ∃ M ARK p <.001 nb  mb; M ≫ F p <.05 n  m detectable n+b  nd   p >.40 / n+b /: nd ≺ UG mb p >.30 *UG  unreliability