Probing a typological gap: cognitive evidence for a nominative bias? - PowerPoint Presentation

thesoysi . @thesoysi

342 views
Uploaded On 2020-08-28

Probing a typological gap: cognitive evidence for a nominative bias? - PPT Presentation

Michelle Sheehan John Williams amp Albertyna Paciorek Dept of Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Outline Basic alignments and a greementcase mismatches The nature of universals ID: 809889

nom erg agreement case erg nom case agreement ergative nominative language opa ipa exploded field girls experiment banker accounts

Link:

Copy

Embed:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.docslides.com/embed/809889" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Download Presentation from below link

Download The PPT/PDF document "Probing a typological gap: cognitive evi..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Probing a typological gap: cognitive evidence for a nominative bias?

Michelle

Sheehan, John Williams, &

Albertyna

Paciorek

Dept

. of Theoretical and Applied

Linguistics

Slide2

Outline

Basic alignments and

greement/case mismatchesThe nature of universalsArtificial language experimentsOur experimentThe resultsDiscussion

Slide3

Case alignment

O= object, S = intransitive subject, A = transitive subject

Nominative (NOM)

: English (Germanic) (1) a.

She

is eating b. He is kissing her Ergative (ERG): Yup’ik (Eskimo-Aleut) – Bobaljik (1993: 3)(2) a. Qusngiq ner’ -uq. reindeer.ABS eat-INTR.3s ‘The reindeer is eating.’ b. Angute-m qusngiq ner-aa. man-ERG reindeer.ABS eat-TR.3s/3s ‘The man is eating (the) reindeer.’

S A O A O

Ergative Nominative

Slide4

Nominative case + nominative agreement

– Italian

(3) a. Noi torneremo dopo.

we.NOM

return.FUT.1PL later ‘We will come back later.’ b. Noi lo faremo we.NOM it.ACC do.FUT.1PL ‘We will do it.’ Case and agreement pattern together in many Indo-European languages. S A O4

Slide5

Ergative case + ergative agreement

This is true also in many languages with ergative case.

In Hindi, the verb agrees with

absolutive arguments in perfective aspects.Ergative case + ergative agreeement- Hindi (perfective)(4) a. ciRyaa

-ii

bird.F.SG.ABS fly-Perf.F.SG ‘The bird flew.’ b. raam-ne kele khariid-e haiN Ram-ERG bananas.MPL.ABS buy-PRF.MPL be.PRS. 3PL ‘Ram has bought the bananas.’ S A O

Slide6

Ergative case + nominative agreement

But in some languages, case and agreement alignment do not match.

Ergative case + nominative agreement – Nepali (perfective aspect)

(5) a. ma ṭhag-

-ẽ

1sg.abs cheat-pass-pst1sg ‘I was cheated.’ b. maile patrikā kin-ẽ 1sg.erg newspaper.abs buy-pst.1sg ‘I bought the newspaper in this store.’ [Nepali, adapted from Bickel & Yādava (2000: 348)]6

Slide7

Unattested: nominative case + ergative agreement

Unattested

: nominative case

alignment and ergative agreement, as in the following invented version of Spanish:(6) a. Nosotros llegamos

tarde

we.NOM arrived.1PL late b. Nosotros los quieren we.NOM them.ACC want.3PL7

Slide8

A potential universal

A O A OErgative Accusative8

If a language displays ergative agreement then it either has ergative case or no case (

Anderson 1977,

Moravcsik

1978, Corbett 2006, Woolford 2006).

Nominative

caseErgative

case

Nominative agreement

NOM-NOM

e.g.

Italian,

German, Hindi (perfective)

ERG-NOM

Chukchi,

Nias

Walmatjari

Nepali (imperfective)

Ergative

agreement

NOM-ERG

(unattested)

ERG-ERG

Basque,

Archi

, Hindi (imperfective)

Slide9

The nature of universals

Many people have observed this universal and various formal analyses have been given of it (see

Woolford

2006, Bobaljik 2008, Sheehan 2013, Baker in press).Evidence of a default ‘nominative bias’ in agreement’?But how can we be sure it is not just an historical accident (see Newmeyer 2005)?The numbers of languages with case/agreement mismatch are quite small, so it could just be an effect of sampling.Is there a difference in learnability? One way to test this: artificial language experiments (especially implicit learning experiments)

Slide10

Semi-artificial language experiments

English lexis plus novel grammatical morphemes and word orders. Incidental and (in some cases implicit) learning of:

Article-noun agreement rules, e.g. “I could hear the sound of

ul monkey in the tree”, “I could hear the clattering of ro plates in the kitchen” (Williams, 2005; Leung & Williams, 2011, 2012)German word order patterns, e.g. “Since his parents groceries needed, purchased David everything necessary” (Rebuschat & Williams, 2011)Japanese word order patterns, e.g. “John-ga Mary-

book-o gave”, “Book-o John-

ga Mary-ni gave” (Williams & Kuribara, 2008)10

Slide11

Our Experiment: Phase 1

Nominative

caseErgative

case

Nominative agreement

NOM-NOMe.g. Italian, German, Hindi (perfective)ERG-NOMChukchi, Nias, Walmatjari, Nepali (imperfective)Ergative agreementNOM-ERG(unattested)ERG-ERGBasque, Archi, Hindi (imperfective)Participants are adult native speakers of English

Slide12

Our experiment: The ERG-ERG language

Ergative case, Ergative agreement (ERG-ERG)

-youths pa-swing broke-opa-bombs ne-field exploded-i

-o = singular, -

= plural12

Slide13

Our experiment: The ERG-ERG language

Ergative case

, Ergative agreement

(ERG-ERG)ku-youths pa-swing broke-opa-

bombs

ne-

field exploded-i-o = singular, -i = plural13

Slide14

Our experiment: The ERG-ERG language

Ergative case,

Ergative agreement

(ERG/ERG)ku-youths pa-swing broke-opa-

bombs

ne-field exploded-i-o = singular, -i = plural14

Slide15

Our experiment: The NOM-ERG language

Nominative case

, Ergative agreement

(NOM-ERG)ku-youths pa-swing broke-oku

-bombs

ne-

field exploded-i-o = singular, -i = plural15

Slide16

Our experiment: The ERG-ERG language

Nominative case,

Ergative agreement

(NOM-ERG)ku-youths pa-swing broke-oku-bombs

ne-

field

exploded-i-o = singular, -i = plural16

Slide17

Example items

ERG-ERG

NOM-ERG

ku-banker pa-accounts activated-i

-pilots pa-plane flew-o

pa-seeds ku-peasant scattered-ipa-elephant ku-tourists admired-oku-banker pa-accounts activated-iku-pilots pa-plane flew-opa-seeds ku-peasant scattered-ipa-elephant ku-tourists admired-opa-girls ne-playground laughed-ipa-bomb ne-fields exploded-one-field pa-crops grew-ine-streets pa-boy played-oku-girls ne-playground laughed-iku-bomb ne-fields exploded-one-field ku-crops grew-ine-streets ku-boy played-o17

Slide18

Example items

ERG-ERG

NOM-ERG

ku-banker pa-accounts activated-i

-pilots pa-plane flew-o

Slide19

Instructions

this experiment you will see sentences that follow the grammar of a foreign language, call it "Language X".

To make it easier, English words will be used throughout, but they will have the grammatical markers and word order of Language X.All verbs in Language X end in either -o to mark 'singular', or -i to mark 'plural'.e.g. kick-o has the singular markerand kick-i has the plural marker

Slide20

Experiment 1.Procedure: Short-term memory task

Slide21

The youths broke the swing

Slide22

ku-youths

Slide23

pa-swing

Slide24

broke-o

Slide25

-youths

ne pa

Slide26

-swing

ne pa

Slide27

broke-

-o -

Slide28

ku-youths pa-swing broke-o

Slide29

The girl danced at the parties

Slide30

ne-party

Slide31

pa-girls

Slide32

danced-i

Slide33

-party

ne pa

Slide34

-girls

ne pa

Slide35

danced-

-o -

Slide36

ne-party pa-girls danced-i

Slide37

Dependent variable: verb inflection recall

ERG-ERG

NOM-ERG

ku-banker pa-accounts

activated-

ku-pilots pa-plane flew-opa-seeds ku-peasant scattered-ipa-elephant ku-tourists admired-oku-banker pa-accounts activated-iku-pilots pa-plane flew-opa-seeds ku-peasant scattered-ipa-elephant ku-tourists admired-opa-girls ne-playground laughed-ipa-bomb ne-fields exploded-one-field pa-crops grew-ine-streets pa-boy played-oku-girls ne-playground

laughed-iku

-bomb ne-fields exploded-one-field ku-crops grew-

ine-streets ku-boy played-o

3744 items per language

Slide38

Dependent variable: verb inflection recall

ERG-ERG

NOM-ERG

ku-banker pa-accounts

activated-

laughed-iku

-bomb ne-fields exploded-one-field ku-crops grew-

ine-streets ku-boy played-o

Students from MML and English facultiesAwareness of verb agreement pattern assessed in post-experiment questionnaire

28/53 UNAWARE participants (53%)24/36 UNAWARE participants (67%)

Slide39

Experiment 1 results

Main effect of language, F(1,50) = 6.68, p < 0.05

Main effect of Language, F < 1.0, not sig.

Slide40

ku-banker pa-accounts

activated-

pa/ku-girls ne-playground laughed-i

Unaware only

Slide41

Experiment 2

Procedure: Short-term and medium-term memory task with rule search

Instruction: As you do the memory task, try to work out how the language works

Blocks 1 – 4: Short-term recall task (as in Experiment 1)Blocks 5 – 8: Medium term recall, i.e.

Sentence 1 presentation

Sentence 2 presentation

Sentence 1 case marker and inflection recallSentence 2 case marker and inflection recall41

Slide42

Experiment 2

Participants:

ERG-ERG language, n = 15

NOM-ERG language, n = 16Drawn from MML and English faculties (no linguists)

Slide43

Experiment 2 results

Main effect of Language over B2 – B4, F(1,29) = 5.59, p < 0.05

Immediate recall

elayed recall

Slide44

Slide45

Post-test procedure

Slide46

The mechanic repaired the engines

Slide47

-mechanic

ne pa

Slide48

-engines

ne pa

Slide49

repaired-

-o -

Slide50

Post-test results

Slide51

Correlation between recall errors and post-test accuracy

< 0.05

Slide52

Discussion

Four potential hypotheses to explain participant

behaviour

:L1 transferGeneral nominative biasPreference for case/agreement matchUG ban on NOM-ERGA cognitive explanation for (3):

consistency of association between verb agreement and case marking

How can we choose between (3) and (4)? 52

Slide53

Example items

ERG-ERG

NOM-ERG

ku-banker

pa-accounts

activated-

iku-pilots pa-plane flew-opa-seeds ku-peasant scattered-ipa-elephant ku-tourists admired-oku-banker pa-accounts activated-iku-pilots pa-plane flew-opa-seeds ku-peasant scattered-ipa-elephant ku-tourists admired-opa-girls ne-playground laughed-ipa-bomb ne-fields exploded-one-field pa-crops grew-i

ne-streets pa-boy played-o

ku-girls ne-playground laughed-i

ku-bomb ne-fields exploded-one-field ku-crops grew-

ine-streets ku-boy played-o53

Slide54

Example items

ERG-ERG

NOM-ERG

ku-banker

pa-accounts

activated-

ne-streets pa-boy played-o

ku-girls ne-playground laughed-i

ku-bomb ne-fields exploded-one-field

ku-crops grew-ine-streets ku-boy played-o

Slide55

Discussion

Four potential hypotheses to explain participant

behaviour

:L1 transferGeneral nominative biasPreference for case/agreement matchUG ban on NOM-ERGA cognitive explanation for (3):

consistency of association between verb agreement and case marking

How can we choose between (3) and (4)? 55

Slide56

Further experimentParticipants: Basque-Spanish bilinguals

Controls for L1 bias

Test all four combinations on same speakers

NOM caseERG case

NOM agreement

NOM-NOM

ERG-NOMERG agreement*NOM-ERGERG-ERG56

Slide57

Predictions

L1 transfer

General nominative bias

Preference for case/agreement matchUG ban on NOM-ERGPrediction if (3) is explanation: NOM-NOM and ERG-ERG better than ERG-NOM and NOM-ERG. No difference between ERG-NOM and NOM-ERG.Prediction if (4) also holds: difference in learnability of ERG-NOM and NOM-ERG.

Slide58

Thank you for listening!

Thanks to the Cambridge

Humanities Research Grants Scheme for funding

Slide59

References

Anderson

Stephen. 1977. On the mechanisms by which languages become ergative. In Mechanisms of Syntactic Change, ed., C. Li, 317-363. Texas: University of Texas Press.Baker, Mark C. In press. Case: Its Principles and its Parameters. Cambridge: CUP. Bickel, Balthasar and Yādava

Yogendra

. 2000. A fresh look at grammatical relations in Indo-Aryan. Lingua 110 (5): 343-373.Bobaljik, Johnathon. 1993. On ergativity and ergative unergatives. In Papers on Case and Agreement II, ed. Collin Phillips, 45-88. Cambridge, Mass.: MITWPL. Bobaljik, Johnathon. 2008. Where's Phi? Agreement as a Post-Syntactic Operation. In Phi-Theory: Phi Features Across Interfaces and Modules eds., D. Harbour, D. Adger, and S. Béjar, 295-328. Oxford: Oxford University Press.59

Slide60

References (cont.)

Corbett

Greville G. 2006. Agreement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Moravcsik, Edith A. 1978. On the distribution of ergative accusative patterns. Lingua 45: 233-279.Newmeyer, Frederick. 2005. Against a parameter-setting approach to typological variation. Linguistic Variation Yearbook 4:181 - 234.

Sheehan

, Michelle. 2013. Towards a parameter hierarchy for alignment. To appear in the

Proceedings of WCCFL 31. Cascadilla Press. Available at: http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/001787Woolford, Ellen. 2006. Case-Agreement Mismatches. In Agreement Systems, ed. Cedric Boeckx, 299-316. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.60