Transcript Charters-1 - ResearchSpace

Acquiring Ergativity:
Cognitive steps towards
syntactic organization
Helen Charters,
Dept Applied Language Studies and Linguistics ,
University of Auckland.
[email protected]
Structure of Talk


1. Syntactic Organization
–
–
–
Syntactic Pivots: SAO
Accusativity: S/A Pivot
Ergativity: S/O Pivot
–
–
deceptive case
syntactic structures
–
Manning (1996)
–
–
Cook, 1991:
Mosel and Hovdhaugen, 1992
–
–
Feature Unification
Encoding GFs
–
Linking roles to GFs
–
Completeness and coherence
–
–
–
Structural simplicity
Topic Hypothesis
Direct Alignment Hypothesis
–
–
–
Direct mapping: from role to discourse function
Mediated mapping: from role to GF (in f-structure)
Licensed mapping: roles and rules
2. Tests for Subjecthood

3. Semantic vs syntactic Subjects

4. Evidence of Ergativity in (TL) Samoan



5. Processing the role-function interface (TL)


Configurational vs non-configurational languages
Lexical mapping theory Bresnan (1982, 2001)
6. GFs and Stages in SLA (Pienemann (2005)
7. Acquiring Ergativity: processes and words
–
–


C-structure rules
Grammaticalized predicates


'Free' word order
Constructive Case-markers

GF linking: functional and Anaphoric Control
Constructive mapping:
Variable mapping
1. Theory and Linguistic
development




Samoan is an ergative language spoken in 1,000s of
Auckland homes
Little is known about developmental milestones in
Samoan
Processability Theory links linguistic development to
processing demands of syntactic structures
Contributors to processing include
– agreement
– assignment of case and Grammatical Functions (GFs)
– marked mapping of semantic roles to GFs


Bresnan's Lexical Mapping Theory (LMT) suggests that
Ergative Systems are 'marked' systems.
PT not previously applied to any ergative language
Lexical Mapping Theory

Thematic hierarchy:
agent > beneficiary > experiencer> instrument > patient/theme > locative

GF Hierarchy:
SUBJ > OBJ / OBL > OBJ
[-o -r]>[+o -r] [-o +r] > [+o +r]


Highest role mapped to highest GF
Other roles mapped by reference to features
– Patients [-r]
– All other roles are [-o]


'Secondary patient-like roles' [+o]
No verb can have two arguments with identical features
Default system is Accusative
– Agent ...instrument => SUBJ // Patient => OBJ
Research Qs
How does Ergativity impact on Acquisition
order?
 What are the processing demands of
Ergative structures?

– Skin-deep Ergativity
– Ergatives as Fossilized Passives
– Alternative mapping algorithm
2. Ergativity in Samoan

Identification of Samoan Subject
No syntactic Subject - Mosel & Hovdhaugen, 1992
S/A (Nominative) pivot despite case-marking Cook, 1991
S/O (Absolutive) syntactic pivot– Dukes, 1998

Tests for Subjecthood
– Keenan (1975)
– Manning (1994)
Samoan Verb classes
Ergative Verb
Na
fufule (e
le tama) le ta’avale
PAST wash (ERG the boy)
The boy washed the car
the carAbsol
Non-Ergative Verb
'Ua
alu
le tama
(‘i Samoa)
PERF go
the boyAbsol (DIR Samoa)
The boy has gone (to Samoa)
- Cook, 1991:78
Labile Case alternations
Labile Verb
Sa
'ai
e
le teine le i'a
past eat ERG the girl the fishAbsol
The girl ate the fish
Sa
'ai
le teine
past eat
the girlAbsol
The girl ate / was eaten
Sa
'ai
le teine
i
past eat
the girlAbsol Dir
The girl ate from the fish
le i'a
the fish
Mosel & Hovdhaugen 1992:108
Tests for Subjecthood
- Keenan (1976)
A Subject is:
 indispensable
 omitted in imperatives
 causer in applicatives
 target of raising
 relativised first
A Subject can:
 control equi-NP &
deletion in conjuncts
 launch a Floating Q
 be cliticised
 trigger Agreement
Cook's application

Agreement (Ergative)
‘Ua ō
tamaiti ‘i Samoa
Past go.PL children DIR Samoa
The children went to Samoa
‘Ua
nunuti
e
le tama fuāmoa
Past crush.PL
the boy
The boy crushed the eggs
egg.PL
Two Relativisation strategies

Gapping (Ergative)
le teine sā moe ___ i lo’u fale
the girl [PROG sleep GAPabs LOC 1S.GEN house]
‘The girl [__ sleeping in my house].’
– Chung & Seiter 1980:632
le teine sā fasi ____ e le tama
the girl [PST hit GAPABS ERG the boy]
‘the girl [the boy hit__ ]’
– Chung 1978:235

Resumptive pro-forms
le tagata sa (ia) ‘aveina la‘u ta‘avale
the person[ PST 3S drive 1S.GEN car]
‘the person [he drove my car]’
- Chung & Seiter 1980:633
le fale‘oloa [sā ‘ou maua ai Ioane]
the house PST 1S live PRN John
‘the store [I found John in it]’
- Chung 1978:236
Indispensability (Ergative)
Na
fufule le ta’avale
PAST wash the carAbsol
[Someone] washed the car
'Ua
alu
‘i
Samoa
PERF go
DIR Samoa
[He] has gone (to Samoa)
Sa
'ai
le teine
past eat
the girlAbsol
The girl ate / was eaten
Cook's Results in Manning's
framework
Semantic
Syntactic
Accusative Pattern
 control in equi
 Imperative
 ?Raising
 Causer in Applicative
Accusative Pattern
 Cliticisation
Ergative Pattern
 binding reflexive
 ?Agreement
Ergative Pattern
 obligatoriness
 co-referent deletion
 relativisation
 launching a Floating Q
 Agreement
3. L1 Study

200+ utterances from published sources
– Elinor Ochs (1982 a,b,c; 1986), Ochs and
Duranti (1996), Ochs and Schieffelin (1982,
1986); Kernan (1969), Schieffelin and Perry
(1986); Platt (1986); Podmore (2004)

11 children, 1;7 to 5;0 years
– Most from traditional villages on Upolu.
Analysis


Utterances parsed and assigned to a structural
class.
Composite Longitudinal Observations from two
girls between ages of 2,3 and 3,6
–
–

Pesio sampled at 2;3 2;4, 2;9 2;10
Naomi sampled at 2;11, 3;0, 3;1, 3;6
Implicational hierarchy based on data from 11
children
Pesio
2;4 Aspect-V
*ua
2; 3 1-2 word
pa
PRT burst pee?
pi
ai Alesaga
Look. Alesana
2;10 Tense, Agentive Poss'r
sa fai makou mea'ai
La ia oke
LOC. 3PS hibiscus
There it hibiscus
Uma ai a'u
Finish eat me/my
Algone me
Tense make 1PL.excl. food
We made our food
Masae le (ofu)vae (o) Fineaso
Ripped art pants (of) Fineaso
Fineaso ripped his pants
Naomi
2.11 Agentive Poss'r
3;0 Case
Uma ai a'u
Ai e oe
Eat Erg. You
You ate it.
Finish eat me/my
my eating is finished
Uma mago au
finish mango me
my mango is finished
I finished my mango
Moe 'oe
Sleep you
You go to sleep
4. Processing Ergativity

Direct arguments are separate from and higher
than obliques in a-structure (Manning, 1996)
<DIRECT || OBLIQUE >

Modified hierarchy:
Direct: experiencer/goal > instrument > patient/theme
Oblique: agent/ stimulus >beneficiary > locative

In syntactically ergative languages, agentive
arguments are specified as obliques in astructure
< paient || agent >
< experiencer || locative >
Ergative and non-Ergative verbs
-o
+o

-r
SUBJ
OBJ
ergative Vs:
+r
OBL
OBJ
sasa 'hit'
< patient | agent>
togi 'throw' < theme | agent>
[-r]
– [-r] patient maps to SUBJ [-r,-o]
– [-o] agent maps to OBL [+r,-o]

[-O]
Non-ergative V: ata 'laugh' <experiencer | (stimulus) >
[-o]
[-o]
– [-o] experiencer maps to SUBJ [-r,-o]
– [-o] stimulus maps to OBL
[+r,-o]


Omission of stimulus leaves ranking, GF and case assignment unaffected.
This is no more 'marked' overall than a Subj/OBJ system
Application of split hierarchy
Ergative Verb
fufule < patient | agent>
[-r]
[-O]
Na
fufule
(e
-r
+r
-o SUBJ OBL
+o OBJ OBJ
le tama)
le ta’avale
PAST wash
(ERG the boy)
The boy washed the car
the carAbsol
Non-Ergative Verb
alu < theme >
[-r]
'Ua
alu
le tama
PERF go
the boyAbsol
The boy has gone (to Samoa)
-r
+r
-o SUBJ OBL
+o OBJ OBJ
(‘i Samoa)
(DIR Samoa)
- Cook, 1991:78
Labile Verbs
-r
+r
-o SUBJ OBL
+o OBJ OBJ
'ai 'eat'<(patient)| (agent)
Sa
[-r]
'ai e le teine
past eat ERG the girl
The girl ate the fish
>
[-O]
le i'a
the fishAbsol
'ai 'eat'<|(agent)>
Sa
'ai
[-O]
le teine
i
past eat the girlAbsol Dir
The girl ate from the fish
le i'a
the fish
-r
+r
-o SUBJ OBL
+o OBJ OBJ
5. Conclusions
Agency is expressed through lexical (possessive) case
before syntactic (Ergative) case
 Ergative case may be initially semantic
 Specification of agent as Oblique is typologically marked,
but...
 Morphological marking provides direct evidence of
marked ranking
 The split hierarchy is systemic not lexically specified
 Application of LMT is NOT exceptional
 Acquisitional tasks involve

– acquisition of split hierarchy
– Assignment of Subj GF to unmarked argument.
Limitations

The data is opportunistic
–
–
–
–
–

No controlled elicitation techniques were employed
Linguistic context not controlled
The child's identity not always known
data was not phonetically transcribed
orthography not standardized
The results of this survey are necessarily
tentative / indicative only
Future research


Adult L2 learners at University of Auckland
Bi-lingual children in Auckland
– 4- year olds; 5 year olds
– Younger age group
– English dominant vs Samoan dominant ?




Controlled elicitation targetting key structures
Assessment of phonological development and syntactic
development
Ethnography of language socialisation in Auckland
environment
Psycho-linguistic techniques for exploring relationships
between phonology, morphology and syntax
References
Bresnan, 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.175190.
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 Publications
Mosel, 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), 77-104
Ochs, 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: Benjamins
Pienemann, M. 2005. Cross-linguistic aspects of processability theory. Amsterdam: Benjamins
Platt, 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 Order
Speaker
AGE
Simple S
I1 K Kal An1 Sip Tof P1 I2 P2 Na1 Ma Na2 Ni1 Na3 Ni2 Mas An2
2.1 1.8 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.9 2.11
3.0 -3.3
3.6 - 3.8 4
S V/ loc
(V) VOA
VP loc/ Adv
V/loc S
ASPP
ASP (ua) V
?
VO (A =poss'r)
VO (= N Adj)
Complex DP
N Dem (lea)
Art-Poss N
IP
Tense V …
Case
E-Ergative VO e A
Modified S
Emph Part
Because S
Adv Asp V …
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X