4>Morphology & syntax

Question 1

Summary of generative-nativist approach to morphology & syntax (5)

Answer 1

• poverty of stimulus
• no negative evidence
• innate grammatical knowledge based on abstract rules & categories
• children “only” need to link rules to abstract catgories
• once link is made, syntactic rules should be applied to all item within a category

Question 2

Summary of usage-based approach to morphology & syntax> (4)

Answer 2

• both words & syntactic structures carry meaning and can be learned
• linguistic constructions lie on a continuum of size and abstraction
• children derive abstract rules & categories from the input by applying domain-general mechanisms, (i.e. intention reading, analogy & pattern finding)
• children start with small & item-based schemas that gradually develop into more complex & abstract schema

Question 3

2 sub points of ‘poverty of stimulus argument’>

Answer 3

1>syntactic rules to learn/discover cannot be seen in input we receive
(i.e. yes/no qn formation> hypothesised ‘rule’ doesnt apply to all> so must be innate)
2> children learn grammar even though their input is often ungrammatical
(i.e. false starts/unfinished sentences> so must be innate)

Question 4

G-N & idea of no negative evidence>

Answer 4

• overcreativity: children going beyond input & producing errors (“he goed”)
• children recover from these, so grammatical knowledge must be innate

Question 5

G-N what is the innate knowledge?> (2/2)

Answer 5

> structure dependency (principle)
- knowledge that syntactic rules are based on abstract categories & abstract sturctures
(i.e. CP/DP etc)

> word order (parameters)
- as differing across langs but in fairly systematic way

Question 6

what are the feature of ‘principles and parameters’ in G-N >

Answer 6

• both are based on ABSTRACT syntactic categories
• both are innate
• abstract categories & syntactic sturctures are innate (but links between parameters & categories have to be learnt)

Question 7

semantic bootstrapping=

Answer 7

theory that children can acquire syntax of a lang by learning & recognising SEMANTIC elements & building upon that

Question 8

usage based view on grammar>

Answer 8

as a continuum between words & syntactic structures, both carrying meaning & can be learned from input
(development from: small>big & concrete>abstract)

Question 9

U-B & early development of syntax>

Answer 9

early in development children learn syntactic rules based on ONLY ‘semi-abstract’ patterns that are based on SPECIFIC lexical items
(i.e. “he saw___” <but perhaps not “she/they/i saw ___”)

Question 10

U-B later in development of syntax>

Answer 10

• gradual development where children discover & form abstract syntactic categories & rules based on what they hear in the input & their pattern finding skills

Question 11

U-B pattern finding & generalisation> e.g.> (dog)

Answer 11

• 1>see overlap & variation “the dog chased the cat” “the dog chased the mouse”> “the dog chased the”
• 2> see further overlap & variation of prior “the dog bit the cat” > “the dog ACTION PATIENT”
  3> see further O&V of prior “he hit me”> “AGENT ACTION PATIENT”
  4> see further O&V of prior “she saw him”> SUBJ VERB OBJ

Question 12

early production syntax: B&F telegraphic speech> (3)

Answer 12

• found lack of grammar in early 2 word utterances, but word order regularities “big balloon”
• some systematicity: possessor followed by possed “daddy coffee”; adj followed by N “big shell”
• overall lack of morphological items & function words

Question 13

early production syntax> pivot grammar>

Answer 13

claim that children do have function words such as “off” and “on” which they form ‘semi-abstract schemas’ with
(“sock off, shoe off”> __off; “all gone, all dressed”> all___)

Question 14

Early production syntax: verb islands>

Answer 14

• claims we have patterns that are formed around SPECIFIC verbs & each has own schema; not generalised to all verbs
  (e.g. “__is pushing__” A/P; “__ is rolling” just A)

Question 15

mean letter of utterance (MLU)=

Answer 15

statistic that measure morphemes (free+bound) by counting no of morphemes & dividing by no of utterances

Question 16

G-N explanation of productivity data>

Answer 16

once a rule is learned (a parameter set) it is applied to ALL lexical items belonging to a specific category (e.g. all verbs)

(“he pushed me”> interpreted as having acquired abstract rule SVO)

Question 17

U-B explanation of productivity data>

Answer 17

rules start on an ITEM-specific level and GRADUALLY become more abstract

(e.g. “he pushed me” “__pushed__”> indicates that “push” can be used in transitive setence & with different SUBJ but not ALL types of intran too)

Question 18

Testing productive knowledge of morphological rules: WUG test >

Answer 18

• show 1 WUG labelled
• then showed 2 & state there are two of them, there are two __
• see if ans= “wugs” or not
• finding: difference between preschool & older kids in producing, thus not instant development

Question 19

problem with WUG test>

Answer 19

-different items tested gave different result
- i.e. for “glasses”, almost all kids got right because was a familiar obj
- indicates rule as “item-specific”

Question 20

Evidence for productivity: familiar vs novel verbs study>

Answer 20

• 1st a video of lion feeding dog; asked “where is lion feeding dog”
• 2nd a video of frog performing action on monkey; introduce new V “tamming”; ask “where is the lion tamming the monkey”
• ans can only be distinguishing by knowledge of word order in eng (AGENT at beinning)
• children around 24 months performed better with familiar Vs (indicates productivity developes from semi-abstract>fully abstract)

Question 21

Early comprehension syntax> G-N bunny task>

Answer 21

• bunny & duck on screen; 1 part when bunny does something to duck & 1 part where duck does something to bunny
• asked “where is bunny ‘gorping’ the duck”
  -tested ‘prefential looking’
• found early abstraction at 21 months

Question 22

Early comprehension syntax> U-B bunny task>

Answer 22

• followed up on G-N study
• tested preferential looking
• trained kids in 2 ways: either heard (1) “the bunny is pushing the duck” or (2) “the lion is pushing the horse”; then both followed up with “where is the bunny gorping the duck?”
• if trained with familiar> were able to do task; if trained with different>werent able to do task

Question 23

What is outcome of U-B bunny task>

Answer 23

• evidence for children being trained to see/find patterns
• rules are not fully abstract but based on what seen & heard before (“the bunny is VERBing the duck”)

Question 24

Features of senteneces with Overgeneralisation errors>

Answer 24

• cannot be imitated
• evidence that children derived & applied a linguistic rule
• appear around age 3;0

Question 25

what is the shape of development of overgeneralisation errors>

Answer 25

- u-shaped - 1st correct based on imitation ("went") - 2nd incorrect as become overcreative ("goed") - 3rd recovered from being overcreative ("went")

Question 26

Alternative factors for how can recover from being over-creative> (3)

Answer 26

- semantic class - entrenchment - pre-emption

Question 27

Alternative factors for how can recover from being over-creative> 1.semantic class

Answer 27

semantic class=if know what V means can guess syntax: (e.g."*she giggled me"> ungrammatical as "giggle" is not a causative V)

Question 28

Alternative factors for how can recover from being over-creative> 2> entrenchment>

Answer 28

- entrenchment= frequent constructions, less likely to extend to novel constructions (e.g. "she giggled me"> ungrammatical as child only hears giggle in instransitives)

Question 29

Alternative factors for how can recover from being over-creative: 3.pre emption

Answer 29

- pre-emption= if hear V in construction that serves the same communicative function as a possible overgeneralisation, may infer the overgeneralisation is not conventional (e.g. "she giggled me"> ungrammatical due to mother using "she made me giggle" this BLOCKS "she giggled me")