Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

More documents

Recommendations

Info

clusters is reported to be preferred over epenthesis into C+liquid clusters, both when C is asibilant and a stop. The frequencies in (2b) and (2c) instead drop for C+glide clusters.(2) a. ST: 0.78%TL DL TR DR TW: 2.96%Legend: ST = /sp sk st/; SN = /sm sn sn/; FR = /Tr fr/;FL = /fl sl/; SW = /sw/; TR = /kr tr pr/; DR = /gr dr brbr/; TL = /kl kl pl/; DL = /gl bl/; TW = /tw kw/.b. ST: 0.78%SN: 1.56%FR: 3.24%FL: 3.78%SW: 2.34%c. TR: 1.5%DR: 2.79%TL: 3.24%DL: 5.94%TW: 2.7%Finally, the relative splittability of stop+sonorant clusters in (2c) depends not only on the sonorant(l, r, glide) but also on voicing of the stop. Although this asymmetry has not been investigatedin adult phonology, it is plausibly consistent with Fleischhacker’s perceptual approach,since voiceless stops devoice a following sonorant, so epenthesis would yield an additionalvoicing difference on the liquid. 2.1 Further evidence for the role of the hierarchy (1) in thechild INANP database comes from the conditional probabilities in (3). To illustrate, here ishow the entry 40% has been computed for row cluster type s+stop (ST) and column clustertype stop+liquid (TR, TL, DR, DL) in (3a). For each s+stop cluster x and each stop+liquidcluster y, we have computed the ratio between the number of children who perform epenthesisin both x and y divided by the number of children who perform epenthesis in x. This ratiothus represents the empirical conditional probability that a child performing epenthesis intocluster x also performs epenthesis into cluster y: the closest the ratio is to 1, the strongest is theconditioning effect. By averaging over all s+stop and stop+liquid clusters, we get 0.4, i.e. 40%.(3) a. ST TR TLDR DRST 46 40TR TLDR DR11 25b. ST SN SL FRST 46 59 70 38SN 30 33 56 34SL 20 28 36 32FR 12 12 26 18c. TR TL DR DL TWTR 31 21 30 29 17TL 15 41 21 43 17DR 20 24 24 31 20DL 10 24 15 39 9TW 23 29 28 28 36Thus, (3) quantifies the strength with which epenthesis in the row cluster type conditionsepenthesis in the column cluster type. Crucially, the entry above the diagonal is always largerthan the corresponding entry below the diagonal, matching the order in (1). For instance, thedifference 40% vs 11% in (3a) shows that epenthesis into ST clusters conditions epenthesis intostop+liquid clusters, not vice versa. Again, stop+glide clusters in (3c) behave exceptionally.§3 - Implications. The findings reported in §2 have two theoretical implications. 3.1 Fleishhackerand Zuraw develop an account of the epenthesis hierarchy (1) based on perceptualsimilarity. They provide experimental evidence that speakers judge the pair /CC/ → [CVC]most dissimilar when CC is an s+stop cluster and least dissimilar when it is a stop+sonorantcluster, with a whole range in between. They propose that adult phonology encodes this perceptualsimilarity through Steriade’s (2001) P-Map, whereby DEP[V]/S T is ranked higher thanDEP[V]/T R. Under this interpretation, our findings provide evidence that child phonologyhas access to P-Map motivated rankings among faithfulness constraints. 3.2 Children that acquires+stop clusters before other cluster types (Barlow 2001, Fikkert 1994) pose a long standingproblem: s+stop clusters are marked and are thus expected to be acquired later. Approachesthat posit a special status for the initial /s/ are unable to account for children that acquire s+stopclusters before other sC clusters. Our findings pave the way for a new approach. As recalledin §1, epenthesis into s+stop clusters is heavily dispreferred in adult phonology. Also deletionhas been reported to be dispreferred in the case of s+stop clusters (Fleischhacker 2005). Ourfindings in §2 show that (at least some of) these dis-preferences for certain repair strategiesfor certain cluster types carry over to child phonology. This suggests the following approachto the precocious acquisition of s+stop clusters in certain developmental paths: they are acquiredearly despite their marked status because they are “harder to simplify”, i.e. epenthesisand deletion incur a higher cost (say, a violation of a higher ranked faithfulness constraint).
The acquisition of reflexives and anticausatives by young heritage bilingual German-Turkish and German-Russian childrenArtemis Alexiadou & Katerina Zombolou(Universität Stuttgart)There is much discussion in the literature about whether cross-linguistic transfer due totypological/structural similarities and/or differences occurs in bilingual acquisition (for anoverview see, Serratrice et al. 2012). However, it is not always clear-cut how to measuretypological/structural similarity as opposed to distinctness. While certainly membership to thesame language family plays a role, often languages show typological similarities even if theyare not members of the same language group. Thus one additional value that could be used tomeasure similarity is that of the containment of identical structures.A case in point is German versus Turkish/Russian as far as the syntax of theirrespective reflexives and anticausatives is concerned. On the one hand, the two groups oflanguages are typologically/structurally similar because (a) they morphologically markreflexives and anticausatives (the anaphor sich in German, the suffixes -(i)n/l and –sja (and –s’) in Turkish and Russian respectively), (b) reflexives and anticausatives are syncretic and,(c) they show two types of anticausatives, those which are not marked (anticausatives I) andthose which are by the aforementioned markers (anticausatives II). On the other hand,German differs from both Turkish and Russian in that (a) German forms reflexives andanticausatives II by a SE-anaphor, i.e. sich carries an independent theta-role and case whereasthe Turkish and Russian reflexive suffixes do not; this results to a different syntactic structure:German unlike Turkish/Russian reflexives and anticausatives II are syntactically transitivestructures. (b) Although reflexives and anticausatives are morphologically marked in all threelanguages, they are not always equally distributed, in the sense that there are verbal itemswhich are morphologically marked for reflexives (e.g. sich waschen 'wash oneself') andanticausatives (e.g. verbrennen 'burn') in German and Turkish/Russian whereas others aremarked in German but not in Turkish/Russian (e.g. sich rasieren 'shave oneself' & zerbrechen'break'), and vice versa.We investigated the acquisition of reflexives and anticausatives by bilingual German-Turkish and German-Russian children and raised the question whether thesetypological/structural similarities but also differences between the two languages influencethe bilingual acquisition, as compared to L1-German acquisition. More specifically, we testedsequential bilingual typically developing German-Turkish (n=6) and German-Russian (n=6)children, aged 3;1-4;7 (av. 4;0) and 3;10-4;9 (av. 4;0) respectively, with regard to theacquisition of reflexives (n=8), anticausatives I (n=8) and anticausatives II (n=5) in an elicitedproduction experiment. All tested children grow up with Turkish and Russian at homerespectively. Both parents are native speakers of Turkish and Russian and communicate withand address the children in Turkish and Russian respectively. The children came to contactwith German mainly when they went to the kindergarten (main time of exposure to German:2;3-3;3 (av. 2;8) for the German-Turkish children, and 2;0-4;1 (av. 2;6) for the German-Russian children. The same experiment we run with thirteen monolingual typicallydeveloping German speaking children aged 3;0-4;3 (av. 3;6).The results showed that (a) 92% of the German-Russian and 94% of the German-Turkish children omitted the reflexive anaphor sich with the reflexive verbs (1a) or theyavoided to use the reflexive anaphor sich by producing an external object when this waspossible (1b). (b) 100% of the German-Russian and 97% of the German-Turkish childrenomitted the reflexive anaphor sich with anticausatives II (1c), or they produced synonymverbs which do not require the reflexive anaphor sich (1d). (c) None of the bilingual childrenproduced pleonastically the anaphor sich with anticausatives I, i.e. structures as in (1e) did not
Page 1 and 2: GLOW Newsletter #70, Spring 2013Edi
Page 3 and 4: INTRODUCTIONWelcome to the 70 th GL
Page 5: Welcome to GLOW 36, Lund!The 36th G
Page 8 and 9: REIMBURSEMENT AND WAIVERSThe regist
Page 10 and 11: STATISTICS BY COUNTRYCountry Author
Page 12 and 13: 15:45-16:00 Coffee break16:00-17:00
Page 14 and 15: 14:00-15:00 Adam Albright (MIT) and
Page 16 and 17: 17:00-17:30 Anna Maria Di Sciullo (
Page 18 and 19: 16.10-16.50 Peter Svenonius (Univer
Page 20 and 21: GLOW 36 WORKSHOP PROGRAM IV:Acquisi
Page 22 and 23: The impossible chaos: When the mind
Page 24 and 25: 17. Friederici, A. D., Trends Cogn.
Page 26 and 27: Second, tests replicated from Bruen
Page 30 and 31: occur (cf. figure 1). Similar perfo
Page 32 and 33: argument that raises to pre-verbal
Page 34 and 35: Timothy Bazalgette University of
Page 36 and 37: . I hurt not this knee now (Emma 2;
Page 38 and 39: Rajesh Bhatt & Stefan Keine(Univers
Page 40 and 41: SIZE MATTERS: ON DIACHRONIC STABILI
Page 42 and 43: ON THE ‘MAFIOSO EFFECT’ IN GRAM
Page 44 and 45: The absence of coreferential subjec
Page 46 and 47: PROSPECTS FOR A COMPARATIVE BIOLING
Page 48 and 49: A multi-step algorithm for serial o
Page 50 and 51: Velar/coronal asymmetry in phonemic
Page 52 and 53: On the bilingual acquisition of Ita
Page 54 and 55: Hierarchy and Recursion in the Brai
Page 56 and 57: Colorful spleeny ideas speak furiou
Page 58 and 59: A neoparametric approach to variati
Page 60 and 61: Lexical items merged in functional
Page 62 and 63: Setting the elements of syntactic v
Page 64 and 65: Language Faculty, Complexity Reduct
Page 66 and 67: Don’t scope your universal quanti
Page 68 and 69: Restricting language change through
Page 70 and 71: 4. Conclusion This micro-comparativ
Page 72 and 73: 2. Central Algonquian feature hiera
Page 74 and 75: availability of the SR reading in (
Page 76 and 77: Repairing Final-Over-Final Constrai
Page 78 and 79:
a PF interface phenomenon as propos
Page 80 and 81:
(b) Once the learner has determined
Page 82 and 83:
cognitive recursion (including Merg
Page 84 and 85:
can be null, or lexically realized,
Page 86 and 87:
feature on C and applies after Agre
Page 88 and 89:
Nobu Goto (Mie University)Deletion
Page 90 and 91:
Structural Asymmetries - The View f
Page 92 and 93:
FROM INFANT POINTING TO THE PHASE:
Page 94 and 95:
Some Maladaptive Traits of Natural
Page 96 and 97:
Constraints on Concept FormationDan
Page 98 and 99:
More on strategies of relativizatio
Page 100 and 101:
ReferencesBayer, J. 1984. COMP in B
Page 102 and 103:
Improper movement and improper agre
Page 104 and 105:
Importantly, while there are plausi
Page 106 and 107:
This hypothesis makes two predictio
Page 108 and 109:
(3) a. Það finnst alltaf þremur
Page 110 and 111:
(2) Watashi-wa hudan hougaku -wa /*
Page 112 and 113:
However when the VP (or IP) is elid
Page 114 and 115:
More specifically, this work reflec
Page 116 and 117:
modality, or ii) see phonology as m
Page 118 and 119:
(I) FWHA The wh-word shenme ‘what
Page 120 and 121:
1The historical reality of biolingu
Page 122 and 123:
Rita Manzini, FirenzeVariation and
Page 124 and 125:
Non-counterfactual past subjunctive
Page 126 and 127:
THE GRAMMAR OF THE ESSENTIAL INDEXI
Page 128 and 129:
Motivating head movement: The case
Page 130 and 131:
Limits on Noun-suppletionBeata Mosk
Page 132 and 133:
Unbounded Successive-Cyclic Rightwa
Page 134 and 135:
Same, different, other, and the his
Page 136 and 137:
Selectivity in L3 transfer: effects
Page 138 and 139:
Anaphoric dependencies in real time
Page 140 and 141:
Constraining Local Dislocation dial
Page 142 and 143:
A Dual-Source Analysis of GappingDa
Page 144 and 145:
[9] S. Repp. ¬ (A& B). Gapping, ne
Page 146 and 147:
of Paths into P path and P place is
Page 148 and 149:
Deriving the Functional HierarchyGi
Page 150 and 151:
Reflexivity without reflexivesEric
Page 152 and 153:
Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of b
Page 154 and 155:
on v, one associated with uϕ and t
Page 156 and 157:
Merge when applied to the SM interf
Page 158 and 159:
1 SachsThe Semantics of Hindi Multi
Page 160 and 161:
Covert without overt: QR for moveme
Page 162 and 163:
Morpho-syntactic transfer in L3 acq
Page 164 and 165:
one where goals receive a theta-rel
Page 166 and 167:
51525354555657585960616263646566676
Page 168 and 169:
follow Harris in assuming a ranked
Page 170 and 171:
changing instances of nodes 7 and 8
Page 172 and 173:
Sam Steddy, steddy@mit.eduMore irre
Page 174 and 175:
Fleshing out this model further, I
Page 176 and 177:
(5) Raman i [ CP taan {i,∗j}Raman
Page 178 and 179:
properties with Appl (introduces an
Page 180 and 181:
econstruct to position A then we ca
Page 182 and 183:
(5) Kutik=i ez guret-a.dog=OBL.M 1S
Page 184 and 185:
sults summarized in (2) suggest tha
Page 186 and 187:
Building on Bhatt’s (2005) analys
Page 188 and 189:
Underlying (derived from ON) /pp, t
Page 190 and 191:
out, as shown in (3) (that the DP i
Page 192 and 193:
Word order and definiteness in the
Page 194 and 195:
Visser’s Generalization and the c
Page 196 and 197:
the key factors. The combination of
Page 198 and 199:
Parasitic Gaps Licensed by Elided S
Page 200 and 201:
Stages of grammaticalization of the
show all

Practical Information - Generative Linguistics in the Old World

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?