270 likes | 415 Views
Potential objections. _______________________________________________________. 1. Complexity. ‘The Smurf didn’t catch two birds’. _______________________________________________________. WRONG !. She did catch two birds !. ‘The Smurf didn’t catch two birds’.
E N D
Potential objections _______________________________________________________ 1. Complexity
‘The Smurf didn’t catch two birds’ _______________________________________________________ WRONG ! She did catch two birds !
‘The Smurf didn’t catch two birds’ _______________________________________________________ RIGHT ! She only caught one bird!
Potential objections _______________________________________________________ 1. Complexity 2. Focus
‘The Smurf didn’t catch two birds’ _______________________________________________________ WRONG ! She did catch two birds !
‘The Smurf didn’t catch two birds’ _______________________________________________________ RIGHT ! She only caught one bird!
Potential objections _______________________________________________________ 1. Complexity 2. Focus 3. Reverse linear order
Reverse linear order _______________________________________________________ English:S neg V O Neg > Object Kannada:S O V Neg Neg > Object
Competing accounts _______________________________________________________ 1. C-command 2. Complexity 3. Focus 4. Reverse linear order
Two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug eraDu moSaLe tigiNe tinn-al-illa Two dinosaur bug eat-inf-neg ‘Two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug.’ Eliminating the competition Put QP in subject position
Stories Two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug not > 2 = False not > 2 = True 2 > not = True 2 > not = False
C-command? _______________________________________________________ Subject > Neg English IP SUBJECT I’ VP I Neg • VERB OBJECT
C-command? _______________________________________________________ Subject > Neg Kannada IP SUBJECT I’ I VP Neg • OBJECT VERB
Competing Accounts Predictions: two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug Analysis English Kannada c-command complexity focus reverse linear order S > neg S > neg
Complexity? Two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug not > 2 = True 2 > not = True more complex = hard less complex = easy
Competing Accounts Predictions: two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug Analysis English Kannada c-command complexity focus reverse linear order indefinites S >neg S > neg neg > S neg > S
Focus? Two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug not > 2 = True 2 > not = True # of eaters ≠ 2: wrong! # of eaters ≠ 2: right!
Competing Accounts Predictions: two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug Analysis English Kannada c-command complexity focus reverse linear order S >neg S > neg neg > S neg > S neg > S neg > S
Reverse linear order? _______________________________________________________ English:Sneg V O Subject > Neg Kannada:S O V Neg Neg > Subject
Competing Accounts Predictions: two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug Analysis English Kannada c-command complexity focus reverse linear order S >neg S > neg neg > S neg > S neg > S neg > S neg > S S > neg
Competing Accounts eraDu moSaLe tigiNe tinn-al-illa Two dinosaur bug eat-inf-neg ‘Two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug.’ 2 X 2 between subject: Language: Kannada(n= 24) / English (n=24) Condition: S > neg / neg > S
Competing Accounts Predictions: two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug Analysis English Kannada c-command complexity focus reverse linear order indefinites S > neg S > neg neg > S neg > S neg > S neg > S neg > S S > neg neg > S neg > S
Competing Accounts Results: two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug Analysis English Kannada c-command complexity focus reverse linear order indefinites S >neg S > neg neg > S neg > S neg > S neg > S neg > S S > neg neg > S neg > S
Competing Accounts Results: two dinosaurs didn’t eat a bug Analysis English Kannada c-command complexity focus reverse linear order indefinites S > neg S > neg neg > S neg > S neg > S neg > S neg > S S > neg neg > S neg > S
Conclusions _______________________________________________________ Isomorphism effect is due to hierarchical syntactic structure Children use the syntactic relation of c-command to compute scope interpretations Continuous model of linguistic representations is only viable explanation of children’s interpretations in this domain