Acquiring Acquiring Ergativity: Ergativity: Cognitive steps Cognitive steps towards syntactic towards syntactic organization organization Helen Charters, Helen Charters, Dept Applied Language Studies and Dept Applied Language Studies and Linguistics , University of Auckland. Linguistics , University of Auckland. [email protected][email protected]
27
Embed
Acquiring Ergativity: Cognitive steps towards syntactic organization Helen Charters, Dept Applied Language Studies and Linguistics, University of Auckland.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
7. Acquiring Ergativity: processes and words7. Acquiring Ergativity: processes and words
–Direct mapping: from role to discourse functionDirect mapping: from role to discourse function–Mediated mapping: from role to GF (in f-structure)Mediated mapping: from role to GF (in f-structure)–Licensed mapping: roles and rulesLicensed mapping: roles and rules
–Constructive mapping: Constructive mapping: 'Free' word order'Free' word order Constructive Case-markersConstructive Case-markers
–Variable mappingVariable mapping GF linking: functional and Anaphoric ControlGF linking: functional and Anaphoric Control
–MarkedMarked mapping: An ergative lexicon? mapping: An ergative lexicon? A-structure and the divided hierarchyA-structure and the divided hierarchy
88 conclusions conclusions
1. Theory and Linguistic 1. Theory and Linguistic developmentdevelopment
Samoan is an ergative language Samoan is an ergative language spoken in 1,000s spoken in 1,000s of Auckland homesof Auckland homes
Little is known about developmental milestones in Little is known about developmental milestones in Samoan Samoan
Processability Theory links linguistic development Processability Theory links linguistic development to processing demands of syntactic structuresto processing demands of syntactic structures
Contributors to processing include Contributors to processing include – agreementagreement– assignment of case and Grammatical Functions (GFs) assignment of case and Grammatical Functions (GFs) – marked mapping of semantic roles to GFsmarked mapping of semantic roles to GFs
Bresnan's Lexical Mapping Theory (LMT) suggests Bresnan's Lexical Mapping Theory (LMT) suggests that Ergative Systems are 'marked' systems. that Ergative Systems are 'marked' systems.
PT not previously applied to any ergative PT not previously applied to any ergative languagelanguage
Highest role mapped to highest GFHighest role mapped to highest GF Other roles mapped by reference to featuresOther roles mapped by reference to features
– Patients [-r] Patients [-r] 'Secondary patient-like roles' [+o]'Secondary patient-like roles' [+o]– All other roles are [-o]All other roles are [-o]
No verb can have two arguments with identical No verb can have two arguments with identical featuresfeatures
Default system is Accusative Default system is Accusative – Agent ...instrument => SUBJ // Patient => OBJAgent ...instrument => SUBJ // Patient => OBJ
Research QsResearch Qs
How does Ergativity impact on How does Ergativity impact on Acquisition order?Acquisition order?
What are the processing demands of What are the processing demands of Ergative structures?Ergative structures?– Skin-deep ErgativitySkin-deep Ergativity– Ergatives as Fossilized PassivesErgatives as Fossilized Passives– Alternative mapping algorithmAlternative mapping algorithm
2. Ergativity in Samoan2. Ergativity in Samoan
Identification of Samoan SubjectIdentification of Samoan SubjectNo syntactic Subject - No syntactic Subject - Mosel & Hovdhaugen, Mosel & Hovdhaugen,
Tests for SubjecthoodTests for Subjecthood– Keenan (1975)Keenan (1975)– Manning (1994)Manning (1994)
Samoan Verb classesSamoan Verb classes
Ergative VerbErgative VerbNaNa fufulefufule ((e e le tama)le tama) le ta’avalele ta’avalePAST wash PAST wash ((ERG the boy)ERG the boy) the carthe carAbsolAbsol
The boyThe boy washed washed the carthe car
Non-Ergative VerbNon-Ergative Verb'Ua'Ua alu alu le tamale tama (‘i (‘i Samoa)Samoa)PERF go PERF go the boythe boyAbsolAbsol (DIR Samoa)(DIR Samoa)The boyThe boy has gone (to Samoa) has gone (to Samoa)
- Cook, 1991:78Cook, 1991:78
Labile Case alternationsLabile Case alternations
Labile VerbLabile VerbSa Sa 'ai 'ai e e le teinele teine le i'ale i'a
past eat past eat ERG the girlERG the girl the fishthe fishAbsolAbsol
The girl ate the fishThe girl ate the fish
Sa Sa 'ai 'ai le teinele teine
past eat past eat the girlthe girlAbsolAbsol
The girl ate / was eatenThe girl ate / was eaten
Sa Sa 'ai 'ai le teine le teine i i le i'ale i'a
past eat past eat the girlthe girlAbsolAbsol Dir Dir the fishthe fishThe girl ate from the fishThe girl ate from the fish
Ergative PatternErgative Pattern obligatorinessobligatoriness co-referent deletionco-referent deletion relativisationrelativisation launching a Floating Qlaunching a Floating Q Agreement Agreement
3. L1 Study3. L1 Study
200+ utterances from published 200+ utterances from published sources sources – Elinor Ochs (1982 a,b,c; 1986), Ochs and Elinor Ochs (1982 a,b,c; 1986), Ochs and
Duranti (1996), Ochs and Schieffelin Duranti (1996), Ochs and Schieffelin (1982, 1986); Kernan (1969), Schieffelin (1982, 1986); Kernan (1969), Schieffelin and Perry (1986); Platt (1986); Podmore and Perry (1986); Platt (1986); Podmore (2004)(2004)
11 children, 1;7 to 5;0 years11 children, 1;7 to 5;0 years– Most from traditional villages on Upolu. Most from traditional villages on Upolu.
AnalysisAnalysis
Utterances parsed and assigned to a Utterances parsed and assigned to a structural class. structural class.
Composite Longitudinal Observations Composite Longitudinal Observations from two girls between ages of 2,3 and from two girls between ages of 2,3 and 3,63,6
– Pesio sampled at 2;3 2;4, 2;9 2;10 Pesio sampled at 2;3 2;4, 2;9 2;10 – Naomi sampled at 2;11, 3;0, 3;1, 3;6 Naomi sampled at 2;11, 3;0, 3;1, 3;6
Implicational hierarchy based on data Implicational hierarchy based on data from 11 childrenfrom 11 children
Na Na fufule fufule ((e e le tama)le tama) le ta’avalele ta’avalePAST wash PAST wash ((ERG the boy)ERG the boy) the carthe carAbsolAbsol
The boyThe boy washed washed the carthe car
Non-Ergative VerbNon-Ergative Verb alu < alu < themetheme >>
[-r][-r]'Ua'Ua alu alu le tamale tama (‘i (‘i Samoa)Samoa)PERF go PERF go the boythe boyAbsolAbsol(DIR Samoa)(DIR Samoa)The boyThe boy has gone (to Samoa) has gone (to Samoa)
Sa Sa 'ai 'ai le i'ale i'apast eat past eat the fishthe fishAbsolAbsol
ate the fishate the fish
'ai 'ai 'eat'<|(agent)>'eat'<|(agent)> [-O][-O]
Sa Sa 'ai 'ai le teine le teine i i le i'ale i'apast eat past eat the girlthe girlAbsolAbsol Dir Dir the fishthe fishThe girl ate from the fishThe girl ate from the fish
-r-r
+r+r
-o-o SUBJSUBJOBLOBL
+o+o OBJOBJOBJOBJ
-r-r+r+r
-o-o SUBJSUBJOBLOBL
+o+o OBJOBJOBJOBJ
(agent)(agent)
e e le teinele teineERG the girlERG the girl
The girlThe girl
5. Conclusions5. Conclusions Agency is expressed through lexical (possessive) Agency is expressed through lexical (possessive)
case before syntactic (Ergative) casecase before syntactic (Ergative) case Ergative case may be initially semanticErgative case may be initially semantic Specification of agent as Oblique is typologically Specification of agent as Oblique is typologically
marked, but...marked, but... Morphological marking provides direct evidence of Morphological marking provides direct evidence of
marked rankingmarked ranking The split hierarchy is systemic not lexically The split hierarchy is systemic not lexically
specifiedspecified Application of LMT is NOT exceptionalApplication of LMT is NOT exceptional Acquisitional tasks involveAcquisitional tasks involve
– acquisition of split hierarchy acquisition of split hierarchy – Assignment of Subj GF to unmarked argument. Assignment of Subj GF to unmarked argument.
LimitationsLimitations
The data is opportunistic The data is opportunistic – No controlled elicitation techniques were No controlled elicitation techniques were
employedemployed– Linguistic context not controlledLinguistic context not controlled– The child's identity not always knownThe child's identity not always known– data was not phonetically transcribeddata was not phonetically transcribed– orthography not standardizedorthography not standardized
The results of this survey are necessarily The results of this survey are necessarily tentative / indicative onlytentative / indicative only
Future researchFuture research Adult L2 learners at University of AucklandAdult L2 learners at University of Auckland Bi-lingual children in AucklandBi-lingual children in Auckland
– 4- year olds; 5 year olds4- year olds; 5 year olds– Younger age groupYounger age group– English dominant vs Samoan dominant ?English dominant vs Samoan dominant ?
Controlled elicitation targetting key structuresControlled elicitation targetting key structures Assessment of phonological development and Assessment of phonological development and
syntactic developmentsyntactic development Ethnography of language socialisation in Auckland Ethnography of language socialisation in Auckland
environmentenvironment Psycho-linguistic techniques for exploring Psycho-linguistic techniques for exploring
relationships between phonology, morphology and relationships between phonology, morphology and syntaxsyntax
ReferencesReferencesBresnan, Joan. 2001. Lexical Functional Syntax. Chung, S. 1978. Case Marking and Grammatical Relations in Polynesian. Austin: University of Texas Press.Cook, Kenneth W. 1991. The search for Subject in Samoan. In Robert Blust (ed) Currents in Pacific Linguistics: Pacific Linguistics,
Series C, no 117. Cancerra: ANU Duranti, A. & Ochs, E. 1996 "Use and acquisition of genitive constructions in Samoan" in Social interaction, social context and
language: Essays in honor of Susan Ervin-Tripp, ed. by D.Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & Guo Jiansheng. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp.175-190.
Keenan, E.L. 1976. Towards a Universal Definition of “Subject”. In: Li, C. (ed.), Subject and Topic. New York: Academic Press. 305–32.
Kernan, K. T. 1969. The Acquisition of Language by Samoan Children. Working Paper of the Language Behavior Research Laboratory, No. 21. California Univ., Berkeley. Language and Behavior Research Lab.[CIQ11410].
Manning, Christopher D. 1996. Ergativity: Argument structure and Grammatical Relations . Stanford: CSLI PublicationsMosel, Ulrike & Hovdhaugen, Even. 1992. Samoan Reference Grammar. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press. Ochs, E. 1982a. Ergativity and Word Order in Samoan Child Language. Language, 58(3), 646-671.Ochs, E. 1982b. Talking to Children in Western Samoa. Language in Society, 11(1), 77-104Ochs, E. 1988. Culture and language development : language acquisition and language socialization in a Samoan village.
Cambridge ; New York: Cambridge University Press. Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. B. 1982. Language Acquisition and Socialization: Three Developmental Stories and Their Implications.
Sociolinguistic Working Paper Number 105 (Research/Technical): Southwest Educational Development Lab., Austin, TX.[BBB00950].
Pienemann, M. 1998. Language Processing and Second Language Development: Processability Theory. Amsterdam: BenjaminsPienemann, M. 2005. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: BenjaminsPlatt, M. L. 1980. The Acquisition of Deictic Contrasts by Samoan-Speaking Children. Stanford Child Language Research Forum.Platt, M. 1980b. The Acquisition of 'Come' and 'Bring' by Samoan Children. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development,
19, 60-69.Platt, M. 1980c. The Acquisition of "Come," "Give" and "Bring" by Samoan Children. Papers and Reports on Child Language
Development, Number 19 (Research/Technical No. NSF-53-482-2480): Stanford Univ., CA. Dept. of Linguistics.[BBB34247].Platt, M. L. 1982. Social and Semantic Dimensions of Deictic Verbs and Particles in Samoan Child Language. Unpublished PhD,
University of Southern California.Platt, M. 1983. Deictic Particles in Samoan Child Language. 35-38 ISSN 0110-6376.Podmore, V. S. L. a. i. M. L. 2001. Transition to school from Pacific early childhood centres. SET: Research Information for Teachers,
3 7-10 ISSN 0110-6376.Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. 1986. Language Socialization across Cultures. vii+274pp, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Composite Emergence Composite Emergence Order Order
Speaker I1 K Kal An1 Sip Tof P1 I2 P2 Na1 Ma Na2 Ni1 Na3Ni2 Mas An2
AGE 2.1 1.8 2.12.6 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.9 2.11 3.0 -3.3 3.6 - 3.84Simple SSimple S
S V/ loc S V/ loc XX XX XX (V) VOA(V) VOA XXVP loc/ AdvVP loc/ Adv XX XXV/loc SV/loc S XX XX XXASPPASPPASP (ua) V ASP (ua) V ?? XX XXVO (A =poss'r)VO (A =poss'r) XX XX XX XXVO (= N Adj)VO (= N Adj) XX XX XXComplex DPComplex DPN Dem (lea)N Dem (lea) XX XXArt-Poss NArt-Poss N XX XX XX XXIPIPTense V …Tense V … XX XX XXCaseCaseE-Ergative VO e A E-Ergative VO e A XX XX XXModified Modified SSEmph PartEmph Part XXBecause SBecause S XXAdv Asp V …Adv Asp V … XX