Otsu Festschrift (2008) ed. T. Sano

Minimalist Architecture from an Acquisition Perspective:Behind, Over, and Through Barriers

Tom Roeper

1. Introduction

Acquisition research has been motivated by this question: how and where do linguistic principles appear in acquisition? What path leads to their emergence through the complex domain of performance requirements and real world knowledge? Given the restrictions of performance—like memory—which might prove much too restrictive, or world knowledge which might provide too much freedom of interpretation, where does one start to look for how grammatical knowledge appears? If we step back and take a more abstract view of acquisition results, does the fundamental architecture of minimalism receive support? Modern minimalism has pushed analysis toward the more abstract levels of representation. This only makes the task more challenging. An allied question is this: how far does variation in the acquisition data reflect linguistic principles? Stated differently: should variation in acquisition data be explained in experimental terms, as aspects of performance, or in theoretical terms, as reflections of properties of where UG itself projects variation? We will move to the latter view, but begin with a historical overview which addresses the first question. Our goal is to abstract away from the details of experimental results to see how the broad architecture of grammar appears in the details of acquisition. Our discussion in this brief overview chooses just a few outstanding facts. Careful review of acquisition data should reveal many more. Ultimately repeated return to variation in the existing acquisition data should occur as new theories come to light.

1

1.1. Microscopic analysis and linguistic methodologiesBefore we proceed, let us make a more general comment on where subtlety should be sought. Science has succeeded by microscopic analysis. The same holds for linguistics where subtle predictions are the hallmark of a good theory. However, when several methodologies are brought to bear, then subtlety can occur at quite different levels:

mechanisms of the theoryintricacy of the intuitional and experimental questionsstatistical variation in experimentation

If intuitional data is extremely subtle and diverse across speakers, then it is difficult to see fundamental principles. The consequence is that a broad distinction like ungrammatical (*) versus questionable (?) is invoked. In reality, the “question mark” responses could easily become as intricate and complex as experimental results if , as sometimes happens, we subject survey intuitional data to statistical analysis. However, with respect to mapping out basic grammatical distinctions, it is better to have a simple contrast between grammatical, ungrammatical, and questionable. We will take the same approach to acquisition data: excluded (ungrammatical), allowed (grammatical) and variable (= questionable). We argue that both in acquisition data and often in intuitional data, the question mark status or variable response status reflects the idea that Universal Grammar allows Multiple Grammars in one speaker or across speakers of the same language. Great refinement in the analysis of statistical variation can both highlight and obscure principles.

Where is this discussion leading? A look at modern minimalism allows us to discern two dimensions with four fundamental levels:

Sentence External Operations:Generalized TransformationsInterfaces

Sentence Internal Properties:Universals => Strong barriers (Phases, Late Merge)Variation => Parameters, Uninterpretable Features

2

These divisions are mirrored in acquisition results.

2. Barriers

Barriers have been the axis of most of generative theory in syntax. Their definition has engaged different features of grammatical architecture over time. Only parts of the original theory of barriers have been resurrected in modern minimalism. Blocked movement seems to have sources in different modules. At first it was defined as a stipulative absolute that reflected phrase structure grammar, then as an option with parametric variation (relativized minimality), more recently it has engaged the theory of Generalized Transformations, and finally aspects of quantification suggest that it is sensitive to Interfaces. One would expect in fact that its behavior in acquisition would reflect these distinctions as well.

Acquisition work began with the work of Otsu (1981) and Phinney (1981) at a time when it was unclear whether linguistic principles could be directly approached experimentally. Solan (1983) and Goodluck (1978) demonstrated that coreference was sensitive to the structural constraint of c-command. Now one could ask: can one see constraints on actual operations at work.1 The only theory possible was one in which we sought to treat barriers as absolutes stateable within Phrase Structure Grammar and the notion of Filter, in particular the that-trace filter. Otsu and Phinney both found evidence of the Subjacency constraint and the that-trace filter with 3-4 year old children.

The variation they found in the acquisition data was treated as experimental noise without a direct reflection on linguistic theory. However, Otsu in fact had data which showed significant variation across the structures associated with NP-barriers. Since that time subjacency variation has appeared in many contexts, showing in particular the capacity of lexical items to lift the barrier (as in who did you see a picture b of). Phinney (1981) showed sensitivity among 4yr olds to the that-trace filter, but there was extensive variation. The that-trace filter came to be seen as an option for different dialects, not a fundamental property of human grammar. The variation in acquisition data suggests the same conclusion.

Roeper (1999) and Yang (2002) have argued that:

3

Children maintain Multiple Grammars allowing them to respond on both sides of a parameter.

Children only exclude grammars gradually, which may remain as Defaults. Therefore the child could have had both a grammar that allows and another that excludes that-trace violations. It could associate lexical properties with nouns beyond those like picture which open noun phrases to extraction. In fact, where extraneous factors are excluded, Otsu found very strong evidence (see more evidence for this example from the DELV that Subjacency was in operation (Seymour et al. 2003).

He asked of sentences like:

(1) John fixed the dog with a broken leg with a bandage.What did John fix the dog with__?

and 62/64 children answered “with a bandage” and not “with a broken leg”. It is these strong results which should command our primary attention.

2.1 Absolute BarriersTo put variation in perspective, one should ask: are there domains where linguistic principles indeed appear to be absolute? In fact, so-called Strong Barriers have been repeatedly shown to allow virtually no violations in acquisition. In numerous experiments, beginning with deVilliers et al, it has been shown experimentally that children do not extract over wh-words in cyclic movement:

(2) How did the mother learn what to bake?from TV/*with a spoon

Cyclic movement is stopped completely if a wh-word occupiesthe lower Spec of CP position:

4

(3) How did the mother learn how=t1 CP2 [what to bake t how-t2============= ==//=========

In general 8-9% of answers are from the lower clause. This result holds up with disordered children (rising to 15%) at most (see Seymour et al. 2003 and deVilliers et al (to appear)).2

The same effect can be seen invisibly where an Operator linked to the higher object plays the same role as the barrier. Consider this case:

(4) [He got milk at the store to drink under the tree]where did he buy milk CP[ Op1 to drink trace1]

Less than 3% of hundreds of children of any age ever answer “under the tree”. (Vainnikka and Roeper 1995, Seymour et al. 2003, deVilliers et al 1990 and references therein). These facts create an important benchmark. The experiments are like most others—full of variations—stories and factors which are typically taken to mislead children, exciting pictures, the momentum of the story (he wanted to drink the lemonade under the tree). And yet none of these factors deter the children. We argue therefore that when such factors do deter children, the grammar must allow an open parameter for such a pragmatic factor to work.

Strong barriers occur elsewhere. Goodluck, Sedivy, and Foley (1989) report virtually absolute obedience to barriers:

(5) a. Who did the fox eat before whistling__?icecream/*a tune

b. Who did the elephant ask__ before helping__?upper: the tiger/lower *the horse

4 yr olds obeyed the barrier 93% of the time in both of these constructions. The significance of these results has not been sufficiently appreciated. They not only show the character of these linguistic constraints, but they should serve as a benchmark to measure all other results which exhibit variability with stories and

5

pictures of roughly the same kind. It means that in the realm of acquisition research we have exposed properties which have the character of biological restrictions. People who are 5 feet tall are not occasionally 6 feet tall. If you can only see 50 feet then you will not be able to focus 100 feet if your life depends upon it. True biological restrictions will be unchanged even with disordered children. It stands in stark contrast to other parts of our biology which are built to accommodate flexibility.

Can we articulate why this constraint should be absolute? Two concepts from modern minimalism contribute to making the barriers inviolable. The first is Generalized Transformations which is now called Late Merge (Lebeaux (2000), Chomsky (1995) and Bhatt and Pancheva (2004)):

Late Merge: Clauses are merged after some derivations have occurred. The second concept is Full Transfer under the Phase Impenetrability Constraint (Chomsky 2005, 2006):

Full Transfer: Phases are fully transferred for interpretation and pronunciation at the Phase level.

In Chomsky’s words:there are Transfer operations: one hands the Syntactic Object

(SO) already constructed to the phonological component, which maps it to the Sensori-Motor interface (“Spell-Out”); the other hands SO to the semantic component, which maps it to the Conceptual-Intentional interface. Call these SOs phases. Thus the Strong Minimalist Thesis entails that computation of expressions must be restricted to a single cyclic/compositional process with phases. In the best case, the phases will be the same for both Transfer operations. To my knowledge, there is no compelling evidence to the contrary. Let us assume, then, that the best-case conclusion can be sustained. It is also natural to expect that along with Transfer, all other operations will also

6

apply at the phase level. (2005)

In a word, Full Transfer argues that clauses must be interpreted at the Phase boundary.

Late Merge fits Full Transfer because it entails the old notion of Generalized Transformations which argued that sentences were independently formed before being combined. It is therefore possible to have Late Merge, attaching clauses after various derivations have transpired.

Lebeaux noted that acquisition data seemed to violate binding theory in cases like this:

(6) a. Near John, he put a basket.John = he for childrenJohn =/= he for adults

However at the same time adults allow coreference for:

(6) b. Near the girl that John likes, he put a basket.

and disallowed it for:

(6) c. He put a basket near the girl that John likes.

If the locative is reconstructed in (6b) as it must be then it creates (6c) and coreference should be blocked. So Lebeaux suggested that the relative clause was Merged Late after the locative had been preposed, so that John was never c-commanded by he. And he extended the idea to acquisition and argued that perhaps the child—but not the adult—also merged near John late, therefore allowing coreference in that form but not in (6d) where no movement is involved:

(6) d. He put a basket near John.

7

If all adjunct clauses are automatically merged late, in effect after both clauses have been fully interpreted, then it should be no surprise that the adjunct barrier effects reported by Goodluck et al are an order of magnitude stronger than other results.

Likewise the other Strong barrier results fall into place:

(7) How did she learn t what to bake (*t)?

excludes a long-distance interpretation of how not only because the Edge Spec position is filled, which might be overcome by adding an extra Spec, but because in principle the interpretation of the clause has to be complete. Much more could be said here (see below), but we will move in this overview to where variability arises.

3. Relativized Minimality

In unusually subtle work by Lamya Abdul-karim (2000), a slight effect arises in extractability. She argues that children covertly move wh-expressions in partial movement and copying constructions. For instance,

(8)a. Why didn’t the boy tell Mom why he was dirty?b. Why did the boy not tell the Mom why he was dirty?

Surprisingly, the extraction was blocked significantly more frequently in (8a) but not in (8b), although there was variation in both cases. Under Rizzi’s definition of Relativized Minimality, Negation is a barrier to movement of an adjunct clause, but only if the language has a NEGP as a Functional Category.

In addition, Negation also exists under adjoined adverb nodes in some languages. Some languages do not have a NEGP functional projection, but allow adverbs. Therefore Relativizeded Minimality does not apply to them.

So where do the results of Abdul-karim fit here? They are variable and therefore one may be tempted to attribute the variability to experimental noise. However the core of the variation is between n’t which blocks extraction and not

8

which allows extraction. What coiuld explain that? Ultimately, the variation matches exactly two sides of a paramter: +NegP or –NegP. The contracted form, linked to the verb, depends upon the extistence of a NegP in the tree, under every theory. However, not is open to the adverbial analysis. Since only the NegP functions as a barrier when it is a Functional Category, then we would expect only the contraction to lead to blocking. Furthermore, if the child is pursuing both options—or some children pursue one and some pursue another, then we predict exactly that we would find variation here, following the proposals in Roeper (1999) and Yang (2000).

3.1 Scope-Marking and Parametric VariationNow the next case to consider is what motivates the famous scope-marking cases. Hundreds of children in half a dozen languages allow an initial wh-word to be a scope-marker for a medial wh-word:

(9) How did she say what to bake?

They answer what (the cake) as if how operates as a scope-marker. While was (=what) is the scope-marker in German, Russian allows why, therefore it is natural for a child to assume that any wh-word can have this property.

Scope-marking has been found extensively in production by children, second language learners, and those with disorders. There are a number of analyses that seek to explain it, but they return essentially to a parametric contrast. (See deVilliers et al (1990), Thornton (1990), Crain and Thornton (1998), Oiry and Demirdache (2005), Oiry and Roeper (to appear), Jakubowicz and Strik (to appear). Some languages allow it, while others do not.

The persistence of this form makes it again worthwhile to seek how it connects to the architecture of grammar. The preference for the scope-marking interpretation fits the Transfer theory particularly well if we assume that children impose a Phase at the point where no uninterpretable features are present. Lasnik et al (2005) argues that the Phase boundary changes depending on the presence of an [uninterpretable] feature on the wh- word, which will force it to move further.

9

(10) The specifier of the head of PH (‘phase edge”) belongs to the next higher phase PH2, for the purpose of Transfer only when it involves an unchecked uninterpretable feature (e.g. wh-phrases in intermediate COMP positions (p. 249).

This important addendum in fact understates the UG bias toward Phase Edges which are retained by children into adulthood as ambiguities. Consider cases like (see deVilliers et al (to appear)):

(11) a. What did John guess the number was?b. John guessed what the number was.c. What did John say the number was?d. John said what the number was.

In (11b,d) we have a reading that is roughly “guessed correctly” in addition to “made a guess”. Here what is in a lower clause, therefore inside the first Phase. The same holds true for “say”. DeVilliers et al (to appear) says that the bias children have toward providing a “true” answer in scope-marked and even non-scope-marked utterances reflects this deep bias toward Phase Transfer. One needs to add one property to the scheme:

(12) If not marked as an Indirect Question wh-words at the Phase boundary are interpreted as “true” as an interface default. [Sometimes called “speaker factivity” Guerzoni (2006)]

1 See Roeper (2007) for further discussion of basic operations in acquisition2 The only exception we are aware of is Baauw (2000) who shows violations of Strong Barriers which may, indeed, have experimental explanations—but see his discussion. Roeper and deVillliers (1995) argue that NP is not a barrier and children may initially misanalyze the as not a DP marker. Note for adults the contrast between:

a. How does John like advice from his mother (NP)=> with no holds barred [advice t]

b. How does John like the advice from his mother (DP)=> very much [like t]

10

This is forced if no [uninterpretable] feature remains on [-wh] (otherwise forcing it to move to the matrix) . If children impose this bias on traces (t2) as well, then it explains why they will also give a “true “ answer to opaque questions like:

(13) what did mother say [ t2 she bought t1 ]

And it explains why children and many adults claim (Herberger (1994)) that scope-marked utterances require a true answer in German.

(14) Was hat er gesagt was er gekauft hat [what did he say what he bought]

Interestingly, speakers waver on this point, since the scope-marker has exactly the effect of creating an opaque property. The child must eventually acquire the uninterepretable feature on wh-. But once acquired why does the other grammar not die away? The answer again lies in maintaining a default grammar in which Transfer is preferred.

This situation reflects what Boeckx (2005) considers beautiful core ideas. They, like gravity, are background factors that constantly reappear. It is insufficient to regard them as modifications, or footnotes, or parametric variants, or simply as Defaults. They resemble core principles of physics which appear to be in a distorted form in most real life environments, again like gravity. Their appearance as variable properties in acquisition simply underscores this effect.

Thus acquisition evidence supports a vision of grammar where Minimalist principles, such as Phase theory, receive support not just in black and white terms but in an analysis of where we find variation in experimental responses and where we do not.

4. Interfaces

Quantifiers have been captured within barrier theory as well, although their behavior is quite imperfect. What exactly blocks wide-scope every in sentences like this from African American English:

11

(15) There is a basket that got every egg.

Fox (2000) proposes that there is a constraint:

"Suppose that each step in successive cyclic movement has to be motivated. In the case of wh-movement, each step must be motivated by feature-checking. In the case of QR, each step must be motivated by a shift in semantic interpretation". (Fox 2000)

Therefore if every does not get a special interpretation at the lower Spec-CP, then no movement there or further is possible.Coles et al (2004) contrasted barriers in three environments: questions, negative concord, and quantification, and we will focus on just quantification. Here is the setup:

(16) There is a basket that got every egg. Show me

[Barrier violation= every basket gets an egg]

[A picture of a set of baskets where all the eggs are in one basket and another where each basket has an egg. ]

Although the distinction is very clear to adults, children showed extensive problems up until the age of 8 years —astonishingly late. Quantificational restrictions (as much other data shows) are much later acquired than wh-movement restrictions.

Why? One can ask what the character of Fox’s constraint is. In addition, Coles et al (2004) claim the determination of whether there is a possible additional interpretation requires reference to context. Therefore the entire structure crucially interacts with other modules, in other words, the interpretation requires reference to interfaces at the primary level of interpretation within a Phase.

12

One might add that in general quantification judgments are dimmer for adults too. One of the most outstanding facts about grammar is the difficulty of discerning quantificational ungrammaticality as opposed to syntactic ungrammaticality, particularly where core features of grammar are involved. If Phase Impenetrability is a core feature of grammar, then even these judgments about quantification should be crystal clear and by extension easily available to the child. But they are not.

Here again we argue that architectural properties are relevant. The extreme delay in understanding the interaction between Phases and Scope suggests that it might be because part of the interpretation requires external reference, beyond the syntax module, into the interface mechanisms, before the ingredients of the Phase can be represented. Lexical reference is also in a sense “external”, but it is restricted to selection from a Numeration.

This statement remains too vague and further detailed research is needed. We might for instance be able to narrow down properties of the Phase if we made a comparison with discourse:

(17) There is a basket. It has every egg.

This remains open. Step by step extensions from existing syntactic results but which are interface-sensitive is just what future research should seek.

Our conclusion remains that in general interface computations are an order of magnitude more difficult than those which are essentially module-internal. Acquisition data makes this claim more clearly perhaps than any other kind.3

5. Conclusion

We have argued that acquisition data offers a special kind of support for the architecture of minimalism when three ideas are engaged.

1) The existence of sharp, black and white results in the data suggest a direct reference to principle. We found that Strong barriers, involving adjuncts and wh- in the lower Spec of CP, produced those results.

13

2) Those sharp results suggest that variable results should have their own, non-experimental, explanation. We suggested that the presence of Multiple Grammars allowing the child to take several parametric options simultaneously is the basic explanation.

3) The concept of an Interface, still in an embryonic state, correlates with those properties of grammar that appear very late.

3 It is noteworthy that sophisticated conventional implicatures (Verbuk (to appear)) are acquired late and require interface computations as well.

ReferencesAbdul-karim, Lamya. 2000. Complex Wh-questions and Universal Grammars: New Evidence

from the Acquisition of Negative Barriers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

Boeckx, Cedric. 2005. Linguistic Minimalism: Origins, Concepts, Methods, and Aims. Oxford University Press

Baauw, Sergio. 2000. Grammatical Features and the Acquisition of Reference. Utrecht University Dissertation

Bhatt, Rajesh, and Roumyana Pancheva. 2004. Late Merge of Degree Clauses, Linguistic Inquiry, 35, 1-45

Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press. Chomsky, Noam. 2005. On Phases. Unpublished paper, MIT. pdf available on line at

http://dmtr.ru/blog/omniling/.Chomsky, Noam. 2006. Approaching UG from Below. MIT ms.Coles-White, D'Jaris, Jill de Villiers, and Tom Roeper. 2004. The Emergence of Barriers to

Wh-movement, Negative Concord, and Quantification. BU Proceedings 28Crain, Stephen, and Rosalind Thornton. 1998. Investigations in Universal Grammar.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Dayal, Veneeta. 2000. Scope marking: Cross-linguistic variation in indirect dependency. In Lutz, Uli., Muller, Gereon., Von Stechow, Arnim. (Eds.), Wh-scope Marking. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, NL, pp. 157-193.

de Villiers, Jill.G., Roeper Tom, Vainikka Anne. 1990. The acquisition of long–distance rules. In Frazier, Lyn., de Villiers, Jill. (Eds.), Language Processing and Language Acquisition. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers:

de Villiers, Jill.G., Roeper Tom., Bland-Stewart Linda, Pearson Barbara. to appear. Answering hard questions: wh-movement across dialects and disorder. Journal of Applied Psycholinguistics.

Fanselow, Gisbert. 2005. Partial wh-movement. In Everaert, Martin., van Riemsdijk, Henk. (Eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Syntax, Vol. III. Blackwell, Oxford.

Fox, Danny. 2000. Economy and semantic interpretation. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press. Guerzoni, E. (2006) Weak-Exhaustivity: A Pragmatic Account (USC ms)Goodluck, Helen. 1978. Linguistic Principles in Children’s Grammar of Complement Subject

Interpretation. UMass DissertationGoodluck, Helen, Julie Sedivy, and Michael Foley. 1989. “Wh-questions and Extraction from

Temporal Adjuncts: A Case for Movement”. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development Stanford (1989)

14

This is just the beginning of how the microscopic approach to experimental data may be directly linked to theoretical principles.Endnotes

Hagstrom, Paul. 2003. What questions mean. Glot International 7, 188–201.Herburger, Elena. 1994. A semantic difference between full and partial wh-movement in

German. Paper presented at the Linguistic Society of America Conference, Boston, MA.

Jakubowicz, Celia, and Nelleke. Strik. to appear. Language And Speech “Scope-marking Strategies in the Acquisition of Long Distance Wh-Questions in French and Dutch Language and Speech: On phonological, lexical and syntactic components of language development.”

Lasnik, Howard, Juan Uriagereka, and Cedric Boeckx. 2005. A Course In Minimalist Syntax. Blackwell Publishing

Lebeaux, David. 2000. Language Acquisition and the Form of the Grammar. Amsterdam:John Benjamins

Oiry, Magda, and Tom Roeper. to appear. How Language Acquisition Reveals Minimalist Symmetry in the Wh-system. Phases Conference, Cyprus, 2006 (Submitted to Oxford University Press)

Oiry, Magda, and Demirdache Hamida. 2006. Evidence from L1 acquisition for the syntax of wh-scope marking in French. Unpublished paper, University of Nantes.

Otsu, Yukio. 1981. Universal Grammar and syntactic development in children: toward a theory of syntactic development. Doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

Phinney, Marianne. 1981. Syntactic Constraints and the Acquisition of Embedded Sentential Complements. UMass Dissertation

Roeper, Tom. 1999. Universal Bilingualism. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 2.3,, 187-203.

Roeper, Tom. 2007. The Prism of Grammar: How Child Language Illuminates Humanism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,

Roeper, Tom, and Jill deVilliers. 1995 Barriers, Binding, and Acquisition of the DP-NP Distincti. Language Acquisition Vol. 4,1&2 p.73-105

Seymour, Harry, N., Roeper, Tom, de Villiers, J. G., 2003. Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation: Screening Test (DELV-ST). The Psychological Corporation, San Antonio, TX.

Solan, Lawrence. 1983. The Acquisition of Pronominal Reference. KluwerThornton, Rosalind. 1990. Adventures in long distance moving: The acquisition of wh-

questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut.Verbuk, Anne. to appear. Acquisition of Scalar Implicatures. UMass Dissertation Vainnikka, Anne, and Tom Roeper. 1995. Abstract Operators in Early Acquisition The

Linguistic Review 12: 275-310.Verbuk, Anna. to appear. The Acquisition of Scalar Implicatures. UMass DissertationYang, Charles. 2002. Knowledge and Learning in Natural Language. Oxford University Press.

15