Upload
agatha-blake
View
225
Download
2
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Eventhood and Comprehension of Aspect in Child Russian
Nina Kazanina & Colin PhillipsDepartment of Linguistics
University of Maryland
(1) a. Mary built a house.b. Mary was building a house.
(1) a. Mary built a house.b. Mary was building a house.
How come we can say (1b) when no house gets built?
(1) a. Mary built a house.b. Mary was building a house.
How come we can say (1b) when no house gets built?
(2) a. Mary drove from DC to Philadelphia.b. Mary was driving from DC to Philadelphia.
How come we say (2b) even if Mary never gets to Philadelphia?
Imperfective Paradox(1) a. Mary built a house.
b. Mary was building a house.
How come we can say (1b) when no house gets built?
(2) a. Mary drove from DC to Philadelphia.b. Mary was driving from DC to Philadelphia.
How come we say (2b) even if Mary never gets to Philadelphia?
Imperfective Paradox
Challenge: to define IMP so that it relates an incomplete event to a complete version of the same event without giving rise to an entailment that the event actually reached completion
(1) a. Mary built a house.b. Mary was building a house.
How come we can say (1b) when no house gets built?
(2) a. Mary drove from DC to Philadelphia.b. Mary was driving from DC to Philadelphia.
How come we say (2b) even if Mary never gets to Philadelphia?
Dowty-Parsons Approach
Semantics of PROG (Dowty 1979)
[PROG ] is true at I and w iff there is an interval I’ such that I’ I [and I is not a final subinterval of I’] and there is an inertia world w’ for which is true at I’ and w’, and w is exactly w’ at all times preceding and [including] I.
Dowty-Parsons Approach
Semantics of PROG (Dowty 1979)
[PROG ] is true at I and w iff there is an interval I’ such that I’ I [and I is not a final subinterval of I’] and there is an inertia world w’ for which is true at I’ and w’, and w is exactly w’ at all times preceding and [including] I.
Example:
Mary was crossing the street.
Dowty-Parsons Approach
Semantics of PROG (Dowty 1979)
[PROG ] is true at I and w iff there is an interval I’ such that I’ I [and I is not a final subinterval of I’] and there is an inertia world w’ for which is true at I’ and w’, and w is exactly w’ at all times preceding and [including] I.
BUT:
When Mary was crossing the street, a truck hit her.
Dowty-Parsons Approach
Semantics of PROG (Dowty 1979)
[PROG ] is true at I and w iff there is an interval I’ such that I’ I [and I is not a final subinterval of I’] and there is an inertia world w’ for which is true at I’ and w’, and w is exactly w’ at all times preceding and [including] I.
BUT:
When Mary was crossing the street, a truck hit her.
Solution: Landman’s continuation branches
• “Present activities are the whole story”
Parsons (1989)
• “Present activities are the whole story”• Allows both complete & incomplete events in the
denotation of the verb: "a verb such as 'cross' is true of all crossings independently of whether they culminate."
Parsons (1989)
• “Present activities are the whole story”• Allows both complete & incomplete events in the
denotation of the verb: "a verb such as 'cross' is true of all crossings independently of whether they culminate."
• An eventuality may – culminate
Cul(e,t) - e is an event that culminates at time t
– hold for a whileHold(e,t) - e is an event which is in progress (in its developmental portion) at t
Parsons (1989)
Parsons (1989)
(3) a. Mary built the house.b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e, Mary) & Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Cul(e,t)]]
(4) a. Mary was building the house. b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Hold(e,t)]]
Parsons (1989)
(3) a. Mary built the house.b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e, Mary) & Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Cul(e,t)]]
(4) a. Mary was building the house. b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Hold(e,t)]]
Problem w/Creation verbs: (4a) does not entail the existence of the house (Imp Paradox), but (4b) does
Solution: Incomplete Objects in the denotation of NP
|house| = {competed houses, incomplete houses}
• Semantics of Imperfective is hard to formalize
Research Questions:
• Semantics of Imperfective is hard to formalize
• How are the aspectual distinctions acquired?
Research Questions:
• Semantics of Imperfective is hard to formalize
• How are the aspectual distinctions acquired?
• Can young children (aged 3-5) deal with the IMP
Paradox cases?
• What acquisition research can offer to semantic
theory
Research Questions:
• Semantics of Imperfective is hard to formalize
• How are the aspectual distinctions acquired?
• Can young children (aged 3-5) deal with the IMP
Paradox cases?
• What acquisition research can offer to semantic
theory
Russian Aspectual Morphology
IMP PERF
• Infinitives are obligatorily marked for aspect
stroit’ postroit’ - to build
sobirat’ sobrat’ - to assemble
IMP PERF
• Infinitives are obligatorily marked for aspect
stroit’ postroit’ - to build
sobirat’ sobrat’ - to assemble
• Both Past IMP and Past PERF are synthetic forms
stroil postroilbuild-imp-past build-perf-past
sobiral sobralassemble-imp-past assemble-perf-past
Russian Aspectual Morphology
Perfective vs. Imperfective
• Perfective– only used to refer to holistic/completed events
Perfective vs. Imperfective
• Perfective– only used to refer to holistic/completed events
• Imperfective– can refer to completed or incomplete events– used to describe ongoing events (past, present or
future)
Perfective vs. Imperfective
• Perfective– only used to refer to holistic/completed events
• Imperfective– can refer to completed or incomplete events– used to describe ongoing events (past, present or
future)
Imperfective lacks completion entailments
Previous Research
Previous findings suggest early mastery of aspect
Previous Research
Previous findings suggest early mastery of aspect
• Spontaneous Speech:
Children produce both aspectual forms from a very
young age (< 2 years) (Brun et al., 1999; Gvozdev,
1961; Bar-Shalom&Snyder 2000)
Previous Research• Picture-matching task (Vinnitskaya&Wexler, 2001)
Mal’chik chitalI knigu. Mal’chik prochitalP knigu. read-past-imp read-past-perf
The boy was reading the book. The boy read the book.
3-4 year olds appear to use IMP vs. PERF to correctly distinguish ongoing from completed events
Evidence of Difficulties
• Comprehension studies in other languages
Many errors found once [±past] and [±completed] are independently controlled in English (Wagner 1998), Dutch (van Hout 2001)
Experiment 1
• Do Russian children appropriately use aspectual morphology to distinguish completed from incomplete events?
• 11 Russian monolingual children, aged 3-5, tested in Moscow preschools
• 4 stories per child, 44 trials total
• Tested verbs were Creation verbs
• Within-subject design
Experiment 1
Experiment Design
• In each story, an event occurs at 3 landmarks:a flower-bed, a castle and a tree
• In each story, an event occurs
(i) completely(ii) incompletely randomized order(iii) not at all
• Children were asked where an event happened, using PERF and IMP verbs; encouraged to give more than one location as answer
• Monkey assemble a smurf obez’yanka sobrala/sobirala gnomika
• Lion build a house l’venok postroil/stroil domik
• Tiger make a puzzle tigrenok sostavil/sostavlyal kartinku
• Puppy mould a bear sh’enok vylepil/lepil medvedya
Creation Expt: Scenarios
• Monkey assemble a smurf obez’yanka sobrala/sobirala gnomika
• Lion build a house l’venok postroil/stroil domik
• Tiger make a puzzle tigrenok sostavil/sostavlyal kartinku
• Puppy mould a bear sh’enok vylepil/lepil medvedya
Creation Expt: Scenarios
A road with 3 landmarks: a flower-bed, a castle and a tree. There are parts of a smurf at each location.
A monkey starts her journey down the road.
The monkey arrives at the flower-bed.These are nice flowers. Oh, look there are the pieces of a smurf down here. Let me try to revive this guy.
OK, the body goes on top of the legs, what’s next...
A bug bites the monkey. Ouch, that hurts!!! I don’t want to stay here any longer. I’m going to leave all of it like this and continue down the road.
The monkey reaches the castle.Oh, look, what a beautiful castle! And there are pieces of a smurf next to it. Let me try this one too!
OK, the body goes on top of the legs, what’s next...
A bug bites the monkey. Oh no, a bug bit me again! Why am I so unlucky today?No, this time, I’m going to finish this thing anyway!
The monkey assembles the smurf completely and continues along the road.
The monkey reaches the tree.What a great tree, it’s so nice to sit here. And there are some smurf pieces here again. But I guess I have to go home now.
The scene at the end of the story.
INCOMPLETE
The scene at the end of the story.
INCOMPLETE
COMPLETE
The scene at the end of the story.
INCOMPLETE
COMPLETE
The scene at the end of the story.
Gde obez’yanka sobrala gnomika?assemble-PERF
Where did the monkey assemble the smurf?
ADULTS
100%
Gde obez’yanka sobrala gnomika?assemble-PERF
Where did the monkey assemble the smurf?
ADULTS
ADULTS vs. CHILDREN
100%
100%
Gde obez’yanka sobrala gnomika?assemble-PERF
Where did the monkey assemble the smurf?
Gde obez’yanka sobirala gnomika? assemble-IMPWhere was the monkey assembling the smurf?
Gde obez’yanka sobirala gnomika? assemble-IMPWhere was the monkey assembling the smurf?
100%
100%
ADULTS
Gde obez’yanka sobirala gnomika? assemble-IMPWhere was the monkey assembling the smurf?
100%
ADULTS vs. Group 2 CHILDREN (n=6)
100%
100%
100%
100%
ADULTS vs. Group 2 CHILDREN (n=6)
100%
<10%
Gde obez’yanka sobirala gnomika? assemble-IMPWhere was the monkey assembling the smurf?
Summary of Results
Adults Group 2 children (n=6)
Perfective
Imperf.
Summary of Results
Adults Group 2 children (n=6)
Perfective
Imperf.
Summary of Results
Adults Group 2 children (n=6)
Perfective
Imperf.
Summary of Results
Adults Group 2 children (n=6)
Perfective
Imperf.
Summary of Results
Adults Group 2 children (n=6)
Perfective
Imperf.
22/24 trials
Summary of Results
Adults Group 2 children (n=6)
Perfective
Imperf.
22/24 trials
Group 2 children tended to be younger, but included older children, including two 5-year olds
Interruptions• Interruptions occur twice per story; allows
independent test of ability to give 2 locations as answer:
Interruptions• Interruptions occur twice per story; allows
independent test of ability to give 2 locations as answer:
Gde obez’yanku ukusil zhuk?Where was the monkey stung by a bug?
Interruptions• Interruptions occur twice per story; allows
independent test of ability to give 2 locations as answer:
Gde obez’yanku ukusil zhuk?Where was the monkey stung by a bug?
100% of adults and children answered with 2 locations
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(C) The completion of the event is needed
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(C) The completion of the event is needed
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Presence of the Object is needed?
• Creation verbs raise a separate problem: no object in the scene unless the event is completed
• Change-of-state verbs (e.g. color in a flower) do not have this problem - the object (a flower) is present throughout the event independent of its completion
(A) Presence of the Object is needed?
• Creation verbs raise a separate problem: no object in the scene unless the event is completed
• Change-of-state verbs (e.g. color in a flower) do not have this problem - the object (a flower) is present throughout the event independent of its completion
• Will the error from the Creation experiment persist with Change-of-state verbs: if children again reject IMP with incomplete events, then the problem is not (solely) due to the absence of the object in the scene
(A) Presence of the Object is needed?
• Creation verbs raise a separate problem: no object in the scene unless the event is completed
Change-of-state Expt: Design
• Same task as in the Creation expt
• 33 children age 2;7 - 5;10• 4 stories per child
• Run in Moscow & Moscow region in Jan’02 & Aug’02
Change-of-state Expt: Design
• Tigrenok perevorachivalI/perevernulP kartinku Tiger turn over a picture
• Zaychik napolnyalI/napolnilP stakanchik Rabbit fill a glass
• Sh’enok razvorachivalI/razvernulP podarok Puppy unwrap a gift
• Kotenok zakrashivalI/zakrasilP cvetokKitty color in a flower
Change-of-state Expt: Scenarios
• Tigrenok perevorachivalI/perevernulP kartinku Tiger turn over a picture
• Zaychik napolnyalI/napolnilP stakanchik Rabbit fill a glass
• Sh’enok razvorachivalI/razvernulP podarok Puppy unwrap a gift
• Kotenok zakrashivalI/zakrasilP cvetokKitty color in a flower
Change-of-state Expt: Scenarios
QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
INCOMPLETE
QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
INCOMPLETE
QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
INCOMPLETECOMPLETE
QuickTime™ and aPhoto - JPEG decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
INCOMPLETECOMPLETE
Will children accept IMP
here?
• Rejection of IMP in the INCOMPLETE situation (wrong NO-answers)
Flowers Castle TreeMAIN inc compINTERPTx x
Exp: gde Z perevorachivalI kartinku? Where was Rabbit turning over the picture?LM: vot zdes’ (ukazyvaet na derevo) Here (points to the tree)Exp: a gde-nibud’ esh’e Z perevorachivalI kartinku?Was he turning over the picture anywhere else?LM: net #No……..Exp: a gde Z perevernulP kartinku? Where did Rabbit turn over the picture?LM: vot zdes’ (ukazyvaet na derevo) Here (points to the tree)Exp: a gde-nibud’ esh’e Z perevernulP kartinku? Did he turn over the picture anywhere else?LM: net No…….Gosha: Okolo cvetochkov Z perevorachivalI kartinku At the flowers, R was turning over the pictureLM: net #NoGosha: a pochemu? Why?LM: potomu chto on ne pevernul kak nado Because he didn’t turn it properly
(LM)
Change-of-state Expt: Example 1
• Wrong halfway-answers
Flowers Castle TreeMAIN comp inc INTERPT x x
G: U zamka, K perevernulaP kartinku At the castle, Cat turned over the pictureMV: napolovinu. 4 Halfway. 4……….G: U cvetov, K perevernulaP kartinku At the flowers, Cat turned over the pictureMV: pravil’no. Opyat’ 5+ Correct. 5+ again
G: U zamka, K perevorachivalaI kartinku At the castle, Cat was turning over the pictureMV: napolovinu. Opyat’ 4. # Halfway. 4 again.
(MV)
Change-of-state Expt: Example 2
123 trials total
Change-of-state Expt Results
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Adult-likeIMP&PERF
Reject IMP for INC Accept PERF forINC
Failed
123 trials total
Change-of-state Expt Results
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Adult-likeIMP&PERF
Reject IMP for INC Accept PERF forINC
Failed
Almost perfect of
PERF trials
123 trials total
Change-of-state Expt Results
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Adult-likeIMP&PERF
Reject IMP for INC Accept PERF forINC
Failed
Almost perfect of
PERF trials
IMP error repeats
123 trials total
Change-of-state Expt Results
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Adult-likeIMP&PERF
Reject IMP for INC Accept PERF forINC
Failed
Almost perfect of
PERF trials
IMP error repeats
• The error of rejection of IMP with incomplete events is found in both the Creation and Change-of-state verbs
Creation Expt: Exp: Was Monkey building the smurf?Child: #No
Change-of-state Expt: Exp: Was Rabbit turning over a picture?
Child: #No
(A) Presence of the Object is needed?
• The error of rejection of IMP with incomplete events is found in both the Creation and Change-of-state verbs
Creation Expt: Exp: Was Monkey building the smurf?Child: #No
Change-of-state Expt: Exp: Was Rabbit turning over a picture?
Child: #No
• Children’s problem with IMP is more than just a requirement for the presence of the object of the event in the scene
(A) Presence of the Object is needed?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(C) The completion of the event is needed
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
Implication for Parsons (1989)
Implication for Parsons (1989)
(5) a. Mary built the house.b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e, Mary) & Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Cul(e,t)]]
(6) a. Mary was building the house. b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Hold(e,t)]]
Children
Implication for Parsons (1989)
(5) a. Mary built the house.b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e, Mary) & Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Cul(e,t)]]
(6) a. Mary was building the house. b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Hold(e,t)]]
=> children have problems with Hold
Children
Implication for Parsons (1989)
(5) a. Mary built the house.b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e, Mary) & Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Cul(e,t)]]
(6) a. Mary was building the house. b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the house) & (t)[t<now & Hold(e,t)]]
=> children have problems with Hold
But: then children should fail on (7), but they don’t
(7) a. Mary is building the house. b. (e)[Building(e) & Subject(e,Mary) &
Object(e, the house) & (t)[t=now & Hold(e,t)]]
Children
?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(C) The completion of the event is needed
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
Flowers Castle Tree
MAIN inc compINTERPT x x
Gosha: Okolo cvetochkov, obez'yanka sobiralaI gnomika!At the flowers, the monkey was assembling a
smurfGT: #net, ne prav
#no, wrongGosha: pochemu?
why?GT: potomu chto okolo cvetochkov kamen' nastupila i ona
zabolela nozhka… because at the flowers (she) stepped on a stone and her foot hurt
(Creation expt, GT)
Children’s Explanations: Type 1
Appeal to the Interrupting Event
Flowers Castle Tree
MAIN inc comp INTERPT x x
Gosha: Okolo cvetochkov, obez'yanka zakrashivalaI cvetochekAt the flowers, the monkey was coloring in the
flowerLM: #net
#no
Gosha: pochemu?why?
LM: potomu chto zdes’ beloe because here it is white
(Change-of-state expt, LM)
Children’s Explanations: Type 2
Appeal to the Incomplete Result-state
• Both explanations are wrong with the imperfective:Q: Was the monkey building a smurf?Adult: #No, because it started snowing.
Q: Was the monkey coloring in a flower?Adult: #No, it is still white here.
• Both explanations are wrong with the imperfective:Q: Was the monkey building a smurf?Adult: #No, because it started snowing.
Q: Was the monkey coloring in a flower?Adult: #No, it is still white here.
• However, the explanations make perfect sense if the statements were perfective:
Q: Did the monkey build a smurf?Adult: No, because it started snowing.
Q: Did the monkey color in a flower?Adult: No, it is still white here.
• Both explanations are wrong with the imperfective:Q: Was the monkey building a smurf?Adult: #No, because it started snowing.
Q: Was the monkey coloring in a flower?Adult: #No, it is still white here.
• However, the explanations make perfect sense if the statements were perfective:
Q: Did the monkey build a smurf?Adult: No, because it started snowing.
Q: Did the monkey color in a flower?Adult: No, it is still white here.
Children: semantics IMP = semantics PERF ?
Previous Research• Picture-matching task (Vinnitskaya&Wexler, 2001)
Mal’chik chitalI knigu. Mal’chik prochitalP knigu. read-past-imp read-past-perf
The boy was reading the book. The boy read the book.
3-4 year olds appear to use IMP vs. PERF to correctly distinguish ongoing from completed events
• In Creation & Change-of-state experiments we tested IMP vs PERF distinction in one particular context - an incomplete situation (and children failed on it)
Children: semantics IMP = semantics PERF ?
• In Creation & Change-of-state experiments we tested IMP vs PERF distinction in one particular context - an incomplete situation (and children failed on it)
• Another context:– When the clock struck twelve, Max readP the letter.
– When the clock struck twelve, Max was readingI the letter.
Children: semantics IMP = semantics PERF ?
• In Creation & Change-of-state experiments we tested IMP vs PERF distinction in one particular context - an incomplete situation (and children failed on it)
• Another context:– When the clock struck twelve, Max readP the letter.
– When the clock struck twelve, Max was readingI the letter.
• Maybe children will distinguish semantics of IMP from that of PERF in some contexts?
Children: semantics IMP = semantics PERF ?
Ongoing Events
BOY
GIRL clean the table
water the flowers
Ongoing Events
BOY
GIRL clean the table
water the flowers
BOY
GIRL clean the table
bikewater the flowers
Ongoing Events
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing Events
(i) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing Events
(i) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
(ii) #Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. #While the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing Events
(i) Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
(ii) #Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. #While the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
assessment of Main event
Ongoing Events
• Truth Value Judgement Task (Crain&Thornton 2000)
• 12 children age 3 - 5;10; 4 stories each
– Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI/vyterlaP stol.While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning/cleaned the table.
– Poka Zaychik kachalsya na kachelyah, Shenok zamatyvalI/zamotalP verevku.While Rabbit was on the swingset, Doggy was rolling/rolled up the rope.
– Poka mama myla posudu, papa razdevalI/razdelP rebenka.While Mommy was doing dishes, Daddy was undressing/undressed the baby.
– Poka Zaychik igral v konstruktor, Begemotik chitalI/prochitalP knigu.While Rabbit was playing Lego, Hippo was reading/read the book.
• Each story was such that IMP sentence is correct
PERF sentence is wrong
Ongoing Experiment: Design
Adult Response
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. YESWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. NOWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing Experiment: Design
Adult Response
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. YESWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. NOWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.
• IMP & PERF are tested in an identical situation
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing Experiment: Design
Adult Response
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. YESWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. NOWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.
• IMP & PERF are tested in an identical situation
• Difference in adults’ judgments must be solely caused by the difference in the
semantics of IMP & PERF
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing Experiment: Design
Adult Response
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol. YESWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vyterlaP stol. NOWhile the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table.
• IMP & PERF are tested in an identical situation
• Difference in adults’ judgments must be solely caused by the difference in the
semantics of IMP & PERF
• If children behave like adults => they know some semantic difference between IMP
& PERF
BOY
GIRL
bikewater the flowers
clean the table
Ongoing Experiment: Design
Ongoing Experiment Results
39 trials total: 20 trials - PERF, 19 trials - IMP
Ongoing Experiment Results
80%
0%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PERF IMP
Children
Adults
Ongoing Experiment Results
39 trials total: 20 trials - PERF, 19 trials - IMP
Ongoing Experiment Results
80%
0%0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PERF IMP
Children
Adults
Gosha: Poka Serezha polival cvety, Olya vytiralaI stol
While Serezha was watering flowers, Olya was cleaning the table
LM: Da
Yes
………...
Gosha: Poka Serezha polival cvetochki, Olya vyterlaP stol
While Serezha was watering flowers, Olya cleaned the table
LM: Net
No
Gosha: pochemu?
why?
LM: potomu chto ona i vot eto ostavila I ustala do etogo konca
because she left this edge
(LM)
*Double* trials
Gosha: Poka Serezha polival cvety, Olya vytiralaI stol
While Serezha was watering flowers, Olya was cleaning the table
LM: Da
Yes
………...
Gosha: Poka Serezha polival cvetochki, Olya vyterlaP stol
While Serezha was watering flowers, Olya cleaned the table
LM: Net
No
Gosha: pochemu?
why?
LM: potomu chto ona i vot eto ostavila I ustala do etogo konca
because she left this edge
(LM)
In 28/31 *double* trials children accepted IMP and rejected PERF
=> they definitely know some difference between IMP & PERF
*Double* trials
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(C) The completion of the event is needed
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in ongoing situations (which eventually complete)
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(C) The completion of the event is needed
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in ongoing situations (which eventually complete)
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
• Children incorrectly reject IMP in incomplete situations (Creation & Change-of-state expts)
Okolo dereva Obez’yanka perevorachivalaI kartinku.
At the tree Monkey was turning over a picture.
Summary: IMP in early Russian
turn over the picture
• Children correctly accept IMP in ongoing situations where the action is eventually completed
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Summary: IMP in early Russian
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
assessment of Main event
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
assessment of Main event
cleaning the table
cleaning the table
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
assessment of Main event
cleaning the table
cleaning the table
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Children accepted IMP
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Children accepted IMP
Poka mal’chik polival cvety, devochka vytiralaI stol
While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table.
Will children also accept IMP here ???
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
Will children also accept
IMP here ???
NO YES
cleaning the table
Children accepted IMP
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
Will children also accept
IMP here ???
NO YES
cleaning the table
Children accepted IMP
turn over the picture
Russian children on IMP
BOY
GIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
if NO
turn over the picture
Russian children on IMP
BOY
GIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
if NO
turn over the picture
Russian children on IMP
BOY
GIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Support for (C): children require an eventual completion of the event
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
Will children also accept
IMP here ???
(C): completion of the event is needed
Support for a semantic theory of IMP that relates an event described by the IMP to the corresponding complete event
e.g. Landman (1991)
NO YES
cleaning the table
Children accepted IMP
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
Will children also accept
IMP here ???
(C): completion of the event is needed
Support for a semantic theory of IMP that relates an event described by the IMP to the corresponding complete event
e.g. Landman (1991)
NO YES
cleaning the table
Children accepted IMP
turn over the picture
Russian children on IMP
BOY
GIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
if YES
turn over the picture
Russian children on IMP
BOY
GIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
• incomplete reading is NOT available
# Het meisje maakte een puzzel (bij het huis). The girl was doing a puzzle (at the tree).
Adult Dutch/German (van der Feest & van Hout 2002)
do the puzzle
• incomplete reading is NOT available
# Het meisje maakte een puzzel (bij het huis). The girl was doing a puzzle (at the tree).
• ongoing reading IS available
Toen het meisje bij de boom was, maakte ze een puzzel.When the girl was near the tree, she was doing a puzzle.
Adult Dutch/German (van der Feest & van Hout 2002)
do the puzzle
…..be at the flowersdo a puzzle
• incomplete reading is NOT available
# Het meisje maakte een puzzel (bij het huis). The girl was doing a puzzle (at the tree).
• ongoing reading IS available
Toen het meisje bij de boom was, maakte ze een puzzel.When the girl was near the tree, she was doing a puzzle.
Adult Dutch/German (van der Feest & van Hout 2002)
do the puzzle
…..be at the flowersdo a puzzle
Frame-of-reference sensitive mechanisms at play
BOYGIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
Will children also accept
IMP here ???
(C): completion of the event is needed
Support for a semantic theory of IMP that relates an event described by the IMP to the corresponding complete event
e.g. Landman (1986)
NO YES
cleaning the table
Children accepted IMP
Russian children ~ Dutch adults
A case for the Continuity Hypothesis
Summary
• In the Creation expt, young Russian-speaking
children incorrectly rejected IMP with incomplete
events - i.e. failed on the Imperfective Paradox cases
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in ongoing situations (which eventually complete)
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(C) The completion of the event is needed
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in ongoing situations (which eventually complete)
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(C) The completion of the event is needed
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in ongoing situations (which eventually complete)
Maybe. To be tested
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
Follow-up studies will manipulate:
• Need for counterfactual reasoning
BOY
GIRL
bikingwatering the flowers
cleaning the table
Follow-up studies will manipulate:
• Availability of specific past time reference for
evaluating IMP
Follow-up studies will manipulate:
• Availability of specific past time reference for
evaluating IMP
• Russian IMP is not an inflectional category morpho-syntactically
It would be interesting to test a language where IMP has approx. the same properties as in Russian, but is an inflectional category of aspect (e.g. French or Spanish)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• Sergey Avrutin• Rozz Thornton• Moscow Child Center ULYBKA• Kindergarten #1633• Kindergarten #36 RYABINKA (Moscow region)• NSF grant BCS #0196004
Copies of slides: www.ling.umd.edu/ninaka www.ling.umd.edu/colin
(A) Understanding Agent’s Intentions
• Children’s failure could be due to difficulty in relating incomplete event to agent’s unrealized intentions
• Would be an instance of well-known failures onTheory of Mind (i.e., false belief) tasks
• Compatible with success on ongoing events
(A) Unrealized Agent’s Intentions
• The agent clearly states his intention (e.g. to build a house)
• The child is asked a what-question, e.g.What was the tiger building?
Agent’s Intentions Experiment (Pilot)w/Laura Wagner
• The error in the Creation experiment is confirmed in a different task
• Children remember the Agent’s Intention
• BUT: children might not be able to correctly apply their knowledge of the Agent’s intention to license the Imperfective
Agent’s Intentions Expt: conclusions
(A) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(B) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(C) The completion of the event is needed
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in ongoing situations (which eventually complete)
Maybe. To be tested
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?
(A) Children are not aware of the Agent’s
Intentions
(B) Children require the presence of the object in the scene
(C) Children mistakenly equate the semantics of Imperfective to that of Perfective (IMP = PERF)
(D) The completion of the event is needed
NO: Children understand Agent’s Intentions
NO: same error on IMP in the Change-of-state as in Creation Expt
NO: distinguish IMP from PERF in ongoing situations (which eventually complete)
Maybe. To be tested
What is the cause of children’s error on IMP?