Psycholinguistics II Spring 2009

1. Psycholinguistics IISpring 2009

2. Defining the Learning Problem • The output of learning is complex • Examples: that-t, wanna contraction, reconstruction • The output of learning is hard to observe • Crucial input for learning is hard to observe • It’s noisy (on both sides of the ear) • It’s dissimilar from what must be learned • It’s rare • Learning is robust

3. Easy to Observe • English is an SVO language, Japanese is an SOV language • John ate the pizza. • John-ga piza-o tabeta. • English wh-questions involve wh-fronting, Chinese counterparts do not • Who did Sally meet __ ? • Sally met who? [Chinese] • English main verbs follow adverbs, French main verbs precede adverbs • Joe always drinks coffee in the morning. • Jean boit toujours du café avec son petit déjeuner. [ CP’s bad French]

4. Possibly Universal • Principle C • While John was reading the book he ate an apple. • While he was reading the book John ate an apple. • John ate an apple while he was reading the book. • *He ate an apple while John was reading the book. • Sally thinks that she is the best dancer. • *She thinks that Sally is the best dancer.

5. Contingent Facts about Languages • “That-trace effects” • Who do you think that John likes __? • Who do you think John likes __? • *Who do you think that __ likes John? • Who do you think __ likes John? • Applies in English, French, Levantine Arabic, etc. • Does not apply in Spanish, Italian, Beni Hassan Arabic, etc.

6. An Attractive Solution • Innate knowledge – the problem is largely pre-solved for the learner • Principles & Parameters (Chomsky 1981 et seq) • Universals – no need to learn • Cross-language variation reduced to clusters of related properties • For n clusters/parameters, the learner needs to make n choices based on the input

7. Null Subject Parameter • Cluster of related properties vary together (Rizzi, Chomsky) • Null subjects • Lack of expletive subjects (‘It is raining’, ‘It is clear that it’s icy outside’) • Post-verbal subjects • Lack of that-trace effects • Suggestion: since the members of this cluster are not independent properties of language, a learner need only master one of them in order to know the status of all of them.

8. But does it work? • Parameters that work … • Parameter learning mechanisms … • Evidence of parameter-setting in learning …

9. Anders HolmbergDurham, UK Fritz NewmeyerVancouver, Canada Ian RobertsCambridge, UK The Null Subject Parameter(what’s left of it) Theresa BiberauerCambridge, UK

11. Null subjects • Gilligan 1987 (USC PhD): survey of 102 languages Newmeyer: “These results are not very heartening for […] Rizzi’s theory”

12. Roberts & Holmberg 2005

13. Norwegian (some variety or other)

14. Variation in Island Constraints Masaya Yoshida Northwestern U

15. Island Constraints • Complement clause …John thinks [that Mary gave a book to which boy]?Which boy does John think that Mary gave a book to __? • Relative clause …John likes the book [that Mary gave to which boy]?*Which boy does John like the book that Mary gave to __? • Adjunct (conditional) clause …John will cry [if Mary gives a book to which boy]?*Which boy will John cry if Mary gives a book to __?

16. Cross-Language Uniformity Japanese English * Wh-Question Formation Scrambling Scrambling cannot escape relative clauses. (Saito 1985) Wh-movement cannot escape relative clauses. (Ross 1967) *どの男の子に太郎は[[花子があげたRC]本NP]]が好きなの？ Which boy does John like [NP the book [RC that Mary gave to ]] ?   which boy OKWhich boy does John think [CP that Mary gave a book to __ ] OKどの男の子に太郎は[CP花子が本を＿＿あげたと] 思っているの？ Relative Clauses are islands

17. Cross-language Variation Adjunct Clauses are islands in English, but not in Japanese. English Japanese  Dono-gakusee-ni Taroo-wa [Hanako-ga __ present-o which-student-dat T-top H-nom present-acc ageta-ra] nakidasu-no? give-cond cry-Q? “Which student will Taroo cry if Hanako gives a present to” *Which boy will John cry if Mary gives a present to __?

18. Typological variation (Yoshida 2006: summary of previous studies and field work) Can we find any features that uniquely distinguish these languages from others? We cannot attribute adjunct (non)islandhood to just one of these features What is the combination of features that contains sufficient features?

19. Typological variation (Yoshida 2006: summary of previous studies and field work) We cannot attribute adjunct (non)islandhood to just one of these features What is the combination of features that contains sufficient features?

20. Backwards Anaphora • Principle C • While he was reading the book John ate an apple. • *He ate an apple while John was reading the book. • Russian counterparts (Kazanina & Phillips 2001 et seq.) • *While he was reading the book John ate an apple. • *He ate an apple while John was reading the book. • The story that she read upset the girl. • While his mother was reading the book John ate an apple. • Before he read the book John ate an apple.

21. Aspectual Interpretation Simple Clauses Dutch PST – completion entailment Russian IMP – no completion entailment With overt frame of reference Dutch PST – no completion entailment Russian IMP – no completion entailment Kazanina & Phillips, 2007, Cognition

22. Long-distance Reflexives • Chinese ziji (‘self’) • Zhangsan renwei Lisi zhidao Wangwu xihuan zijiZ thinks L knows W. Likes self • Varying discourse conditions on long-distance antecedents (in addition to syntactic conditions) (Cole, Hermon, & Lee (2001) • Discourse conditions on logophors (Sells, 1987) • SOURCE (source of communication) • SELF (one whose mental state the sentence describes) • PIVOT (perspective of the sentence • Singapore Mandarin: PIVOT • Singapore Teochew: PIVOT + SOURCE/SELF

23. Verb Alternations • …

24. So let’s try an alternative • Distributional learning

25. Homework #1 • Read the following: • Noam Chomsky. 1975. Reflections on Language. NY: Praeger. (chapter 1) • Steven Pinker. 1989. Learnability and Cognition. MIT Press. (chapter 1) • Takuya Goro. 2007. Language-specific constraints on scope interpretation in first language acquisition. PhD dissertation, U of Maryland. (selections) • Each of these works describes a learning problem in a different domain of grammar. To what extent do these problems present the same or different challenges for a learner? To what extent might the challenges be addressed by assuming that the child has the benefit of substantial innate knowledge, or a very powerful distributional learning mechanism?

26. Phenomenon #1 • Subject-auxiliary inversion & structure-dependence • Wallace has always liked cheese.Has Wallace always liked cheese?Gromit is afraid of penguins.Is Gromit afraid of penguins? • The dog that is afraid of penguins has always liked cheese.…?

27. Phenomenon #2 • Dative alternation • John gave a book to Mary.John gave Mary a book.John sent a book to Mary.John sent Mary a book.John bought a book for Mary.John bought Mary a book. • *John donated the museum a painting.*John delivered Mary a book.*John purchased Mary a book.

28. Phenomenon #2 • Locative alternation • John poured the water into the glass.*John poured the glass with water.*John filled the water into the glass.John filled the glass with water.John sprayed the water onto the wall.John sprayed the wall with water.

29. Scope Variation • Scope Flexibility:Some animal ate every piece of food. Takuya Goro, UMd 2002-7, Asst. Prof. Ibaraki U., Japan

30. Some animal ate every piece of food. Ambiguous between surface and inverse scope.

31. Scope rigidity in Japanese • Someone criticized every professor >>  /  >>  • Dareka-ga dono kyoujyu mo hihan-sitasomeone-nom every professor criticize-did“Someone criticized every professor” >>  / * >>  • Japanese is a “scopally rigid” language. (e.g., Hoji 1985; Marsden 2004) GORO et al./BUCLD32

32. Experiment – basic logic • Dareka-ga dono tabemono-mo tabetasomeone-nom every food ate“Someone ate every food”Pig1 Pig2 Pig3Cream puff Banana Carrot • The  >>  interpretation (surface scope) is false;no single individual ate every food • The  >>  interpretation (inverse scope) is true;every food was eaten by somebody GORO et al./BUCLD32

33. Experiment – basic logic • Dareka-ga dono tabemono-mo tabetasomeone-nom every food ate“Someone ate every food”Pig1 Pig2 Pig3Cream puff Banana Carrot • Japanese adults should consistently reject the test sentence. • Conservative learners of Japanese should consistently reject the test sentence. GORO et al./BUCLD32

34. Felicity conditions for using indefinites • The “speaker-unknown” context (e.g., Haspelmath 2000) • Someone stole my bike! • The speaker doesn’t know the identity of the individual who stole his bike. GORO et al./BUCLD32

35. The “eating-game” story • 12 groups of animals: each consists of 3 animals of the same kind • Each group was invited to eat three pieces of food • A gold medal was awarded to the teams where each member ate a different food GORO et al./BUCLD32

36. “Team Pigs” GORO et al./BUCLD32

37. “This one ate the banana…” GORO et al./BUCLD32

38. “And this big pig ate the cream puff…” GORO et al./BUCLD32

39. “The small pig ate the carrot…” GORO et al./BUCLD32

40. “They got a gold medal!” GORO et al./BUCLD32

41. The “eating game” phase goes on until all the 12 teams finish their trials. • Among the 12 teams, only 4 teams get a gold medal • After the “game” phase finishes, we move back to the first team, the pigs. • Kermit the Frog guesses how well each team did in the game. GORO et al./BUCLD32

42. Experimenter: Kermit! Do you know what this team did in the game? GORO et al./BUCLD32

43. Kermit: Well, I don’t really remember what they did…but they have a gold medal!, which means, “TEST SENTENCE” GORO et al./BUCLD32

44. Results: % acceptances of the inverse scope GORO et al./BUCLD32

45. Japanese children = English children/adults • Japanese children accepted the inverse scope interpretation just as much as English children/adults did. • The degree of acceptance of the inverse scope is quite similar to the results in other studies (e.g., Kurtzman & MacDonald 1993) GORO et al./BUCLD32

46. Scrambling and Scope Reconstruction GORO et al./BUCLD32

47. Scrambling and scope-reconstruction Dareka-ga dono tabemono mo tabeta Someone-nom every food ate “Someone ate every food”  >>  / * >>  [Dareka-o]i dono doubutsu mo ti tataita someone-ACC every animal hit Lit. “Someone, every animal hit”  >>  / OK >>  GORO et al./BUCLD32

48. Not all QNPs scope-reconstruct [Piza mo pasuta mo]i Taroo-dake-ga ti tabeta both pizza and pasta Taroo-only-NOM ate Lit. “Both pizza and pasta, only Taroo ate” • >> ONLY / *ONLY >>  • A scrambled X mo Y mo “both X and Y” does not scope-reconstruct. GORO et al./BUCLD32

49. Experiment – basic logic • [Aoi hako mo kuroi hako mo]i Pikachu-dake-ga ti aketaboth blue box and black box Pikachu-only-nom openedLit. “Both blue box and black box, only Pikachu opened” • The >>ONLY interpretation (surface scope): “Only Pikachu opened the blue box, andonly Pikachu opened the black box” • The ONLY>> interpretation (inverse scope): “Pikachu was the only one who opened both of the boxes” nobody else opened any of the boxes • nobody else opened both of the boxes GORO et al./BUCLD32

50. Experiment – basic logic • Situation blue box black boxPikachu   Doraemon * *Anpan-man *  • The >>ONLY interpretation (surface scope):  nobody else opened any of the boxes • The ONLY>> interpretation (inverse scope):  nobody else opened both of the boxes GORO et al./BUCLD32