1. Matthew Saxton January 29 th 2008 Testing Assumptions about the Input: Empirical Evidence on Negative Evidence.

1

Matthew Saxton

January 29th 2008

Testing Assumptions about the Input:Empirical Evidence on Negative Evidence

3

Errors in language acquisition

defining feature of a language learnerall (typical) children retreat from errorbut how?

4

Negative evidence

evidence that a given structure is ungrammatical

parental correction of child errors

5

‘No negative evidence’ problem

longstanding assumption:parents do not correct their children’s errors‘no negative evidence’

6

““A basic premise of almost all work on A basic premise of almost all work on language acquisition in a generative language acquisition in a generative framework is that learning must progress framework is that learning must progress without the aid of overt correction ― that is, without the aid of overt correction ― that is, the learner will not receive "negative the learner will not receive "negative evidence," in the form of adult feedback telling evidence," in the form of adult feedback telling the child that his or her utterances do not the child that his or her utterances do not conform with those of the adult grammar.”conform with those of the adult grammar.”

Weissenborn, Goodluck & Roeper (1992, p.9)Weissenborn, Goodluck & Roeper (1992, p.9)

7

Does it matter?

‘no negative evidence’ assumption“ ..... one of the most important discoveries

in the history of psychology” (Pinker, 1988, p.104)

8

Empirical support for APS

parental Approval and Disapproval:

Eve: Mama isn’t boy, he a girl.

Mother: Yes, that’s right.(Brown & Hanlon, 1970)

9

There is not “even a shred of evidence that approval and disapproval are contingent on syntactic correctness.”

Brown & Hanlon (1970, p.201)

10

signal of Disapprovalinformantmeaningful look or pauseexplicit grammar lessondifferential respondingclarification requestsdirect contrast between child and adult forms

Forms of correction

11

Beyond disapproval

“repeats of ill-formed utterances usually contained corrections and so could be instructive.”

Brown & Hanlon (1970, p.197)

12

Direct Contrast hypothesis

Child: He was the baddest one.

Adult: Yeah, he sounds like the worst.

juxtaposition of erroneous and correct forms:unique discourse contextchild may perceive adult form as being in

contrast with their own

13

Immune to correction?

“Anyone who has attempted to correct a two-year-old’s grammar will know that it can’t be done”

Jackendoff (1993, p.22)

14

Child: Nobody don’t like me.

Mother: No, say “nobody likes me”.

Child: Nobody don’t like me.

[ repeated 8 times ]

Mother: No, now listen carefully.

Say “NOBODY LIKES ME”.

Child: Oh, nobody don’t likes me.

McNeill (1966, p.69)

15

Diary study

Matthew with Alex (aged 4 years)aim: deliberately correct child’s errors and

gauge effect

16

A:A: That .... that ... that says you can’t go there.That .... that ... that says you can’t go there.M:M: Hmm.Hmm.A:A: That says you can’t go there.That says you can’t go there.M:M: Why can’t you go there?Why can’t you go there?A:A: Cos that’s the part Cos that’s the part whowho you / l / .... you / l / .... whowho you see ....you see ....M:M: It’s the ....It’s the ....A:A: .... over..... over.M:M: It’s the part It’s the part wherewhere you what? you what?A:A: WhereWhere you look over. you look over.

17

A:A: I’m I’m easy to eat you up.easy to eat you up.M:M: You canYou can eat me up easily? eat me up easily?A:A: Yeah.Yeah.M:M: What?What?A:A: I can eat you up.... [ I can eat you up.... [ bangbang ] ]M:M: I bet you can’t.I bet you can’t.A:A: I bet you I .... I, I, I can.I bet you I .... I, I, I can.

I bet you can’t I bet you can’t eat me up easily.eat me up easily.

18

M:M: What you doing?What you doing?A:A: I’m I’m rolling about.rolling about.M:M: You’re You’re spinning round,spinning round, are you? are you?A:A: I’m rolling ....I’m rolling ....

I’m I’m spinning aroundspinning around .... ........ on your chair..... on your chair.

M:M: Hmm.Hmm.

19

M:M: You have to shut the doors / w / in winter.You have to shut the doors / w / in winter.A:A: Yeah, but I don’t want to.Yeah, but I don’t want to.

It’s too It’s too boredbored if I shut the door every day. if I shut the door every day.M:M: It’s not It’s not boringboring..A:A: It is.It is.M:M: What do you mean?What do you mean?A:A: What?What?M:M: Why do you say that?Why do you say that?A:A: Because it’s .... because it’s .... too....Because it’s .... because it’s .... too....

It’s too It’s too boringboring..

20

A: I drawed a lovely picture for you,didn’t I?

M: You drew a picture?

Where?

A: I drew lots of lovely pictures.

21

A: I don’t like Marmite.

M: Mm, yummy. ‘Course you like Marmite. You always have Marmite.

A: But I don’t ... but I ^ gone off it now.

M: You have not gone off it.

A: I have. I have gone off it. I have.

M: Well, you’re a terror.

22

Effects of direct contrasts% switch from error to correct:Farrar (1992): 12 - 45Morgan et al. (1995): 23 – 58Saxton (2000): 8Strapp & Federico (2000): 11

23

An experimental approach

compare effects of positive versus negative input

control over input information via novel verbs

irregular past tense forms

24

Positive input

any linguistic form modelled by an adult

25

Novel verbs

longstanding paradigm (Berko, 1958)

aim: isolate the effects of input

26

27

Supplying negative evidence

Adult: What happened?

Child: He pelled his leg.

Adult: Oh yes, he pold his leg.

28

Supplying positive input

Adult: Look, he pold his leg.

29

Negative > positive

% production of correct form:negative: 43positive: 081% of children produced at least one

correct form following negative evidence

30

31

Empirical support I

experimental and observational(Farrar, 1992; Saxton, 1997)

mother, father, siblings (Strapp, 1999)

working class (Post, 1992)

immediate and longer-term effects(Saxton, 2000; Saxton et al., 2005)

32

Empirical support II

beyond L1 English: French; Japanese; Korean (Chouinard & Clark, 2002; Izumi, 2002; O’Grady & Lee, 2006)

L2 acquisition (Mackey et al., 2003)

33

Theoretical status

universalityinevitabilitynecessity

34

Mother eased out

“in many communities of the world, parents do not indulge their children in Motherese”

Pinker (1994, p.40)

“motherese is not a universal part of L1 acquisition”

Ayoun (2003, p.51)

35

“Now just how crazy is dat? White folks uh hear dey kids say sump’n, dey say it back to ‘em, dey aks ‘em ‘gain ‘n’ ‘gain ‘bout things, like they ‘posed to be born knowin’. You think I kin tell Teegie all he gotta know? Ain’t no use me tellin’ him: learn dis, learn dat. What’s dis? What’s dat? He just gotta learn, gotta know”

(Heath, 1983, p.84).

Trackton

36

Haggan (2002)

the way people say they talk to children

versusthe way people actually talk to children

37

Myth of non-universality

selective focus on anthropological data absent features of CDS ≠ absence of CDS in toto

critical features that are present have been ignored

38

“understanding of language is made easier by the habit that mothers and nurses have of repeating the same phrases with slight alterations” Jespersen (1922, p.142)

“random affection for repetitiousness makes an excellent atmosphere in which the child acquires speech” Mead (1930, p.35)

Universality

39

Universal negative evidence

Arabic, Danish, French, Hebrew, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Manus, K’iche Mayan, Samoan

and English:every single child and every single structure

examined so far (> 20 studies)

40

Inevitability

recasts (including negative evidence):an artefact of conversation between a

linguistic sophisticate and a cognitively naive learner

adults naturally follow the child’s lead

41

Necessity

facilitative, yesnecessary?onus on nativists to find even one deprived

child

42

APS revisited

no empirical support for ‘no negative evidence’ assumption

of little value in specifying principles of Universal Grammar