Knowledge of the OV parameter setting at 19 months: Evidence from Hindi–Urdu

(1)

Article

Reference

Knowledge of the OV parameter setting at 19 months: Evidence from Hindi–Urdu

GAVARRÓ, Anna, et al.

Abstract

Although there is extensive evidence for early parameter setting in the syntactic productions of young children, much less is known about parameter setting before production starts.

Franck et al. (2011) showed, for the first time, sensitivity to the VO/OV parameter at 19 months of age in children exposed to French, a VO language. Their experiment resorted to the combination of the preferential looking paradigm with pseudo-verbs and the weird word order paradigm. Here we report a closely resembling experiment with an OV language, Hindi–Urdu. We tested 20 children aged 19 months and the results show that children can parse the SOV sequences (and consequently show a looking preference for a transitive action) that generated random behaviour in the French experiment, while non-target sequences grant only random gazing behaviour.

GAVARRÓ, Anna, et al . Knowledge of the OV parameter setting at 19 months: Evidence from Hindi–Urdu. Lingua , 2015, vol. 154, p. 27-34

DOI : 10.1016/j.lingua.2014.11.001

Available at:

http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:80987

Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.

1 / 1

(2)

Knowledge of the OV parameter setting at 19 months:

Evidence from Hindi--Urdu

Anna Gavarro´

^a,

* , Maya Leela

^a

, Luigi Rizzi

^b,c

, Julie Franck

^d

aDepartamentdeFilologiaCatalana,CentredeLingüísticaTeòrica,UniversitatAutònomadeBarcelona,08193Bellaterra,Spain

bCentroInterdipartimentalediStudiCognitivisulLinguaggio,UniversitàdiSiena,IIIpiano,ComplessoS.Niccolò, ViaRoma,56,53100Siena,Italy

cDépartementdeLinguistique,UniversitédeGenève,RuedeCandolle2,1211Genève4,Switzerland

dLaboratoiredePsycholinguistique,UniversitédeGenève,FAPSE,BoulevardduPontd’Arve40,1205Genève,Switzerland Received16November2013;receivedinrevisedform8November2014;accepted13November2014

Availableonline24December2014

Abstract

Althoughthereisextensiveevidenceforearlyparametersettinginthesyntacticproductionsofyoungchildren,muchlessisknown aboutparametersettingbeforeproductionstarts.Francketal.(2011)showed,forthefirsttime,sensitivitytotheVO/OVparameterat 19monthsofageinchildrenexposedtoFrench,aVOlanguage.Theirexperimentresortedtothecombinationofthepreferentiallooking paradigmwithpseudo-verbsandtheweirdwordorderparadigm.HerewereportacloselyresemblingexperimentwithanOVlanguage, Hindi--Urdu.Wetested20childrenaged19monthsandtheresultsshowthatchildrencanparsetheSOVsequences(andconsequently showalookingpreferenceforatransitiveaction)thatgeneratedrandombehaviourintheFrenchexperiment,whilenon-targetsequences grantonlyrandomgazingbehaviour.

Keywords: Acquisition;Wordorder;Preferentiallookingparadigm;VO/OV;Earlydevelopment;Parametersetting

1. Introduction

Hirsh-Pasekand Golinkoff (1996)initiated theresearch onsensitivitytoword orderin infantsby resortingtothe preferentiallookingparadigm.Theyshowedthat17-montholdchildrencomprehendactivesentencessuchasBigBirdis washingCookieMonstereventhoughtheyarereversible,i.e.childrenarecapableofidentifyingAgentandThemeonthe solebasisofwordorder.Gertneretal.(2006)achievedthesameresultwith21-montholdchildrenfortransitivesentences withapseudo-verb,e.g.Thegirlisgorpingtheboy,whenshownanactiondepictingagirlasAgentandaboyasTheme andthereverseaction.Nevertheless,inandofthemselvestheseresultsdonotdemonstratethatchildrenareawarethat inalanguagelikeEnglishobjectsfollowtheverb.Toaddressthisissue,Francketal.(2011)designedanexperiment testingawarenessoftheVO/OVcontrastbychildrenexposedtoaVOlanguage:French.Theycombinedthepreferential looking paradigm with the use of pseudo-verbs to preclude the possibility that children were able to understand sentencesbysimplyhavingmemorizedsimilarverbaltemplatesassuggestedbyDittmaretal.(2008)intheircritique of Gertneret al.(2006).Theyalsoresortedto the weirdwordorderparadigm (Akhtar,1999),in whichchildrenare www.elsevier.com/locate/lingua Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

Lingua154(2015)27--34

*Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+34935868076.

E-mailaddresses:[email protected](A.Gavarro´),[email protected](M.Leela),[email protected](L.Rizzi), [email protected](J.Franck).

(3)

confrontedwithgrammaticalandungrammaticalsequences:nineteen19-montholdchildrennativelyexposedtoFrench heardsentencessuchas(1a),awell-formedSVOsentenceofFrench,and(1b),SOV,ill-formed.

(1) a. Lelionpounelecheval.

thelionpseudo-verbthehorse b. Lavacheleliondase.

thecowthelionpseudo-verb

Twosynchronizedvideoswereshowntothechildren;inoneofthescreens,acausativeactionwasportrayed(acharacter performing anactionon the other character), in the other screen the sameactionwas performed reflexively (each characterperformeditonhimself).Byhypothesis,childrenabletoparse(1a)asatransitiveSVOsentencewouldlookat thecausativeactionlongerthanatthenon-causative.Inlinewiththisprediction,theresultsindicatethatchildrenprefer thecausativeactionoverthenon-causativeone.Crucially,thispreferencewasonlyfoundwhenhearingthegrammatical transitivesentence(1a),while nopreferencewasfoundwhenhearingthe ungrammaticalsentence(1b).Hence, the preferenceobservedwhenhearing a transitive sentencecannot beattributed toa general preferencefor causative actions.Sotheconclusionoftheseeye-trackingmeasuresisthatchildrenof19monthsexposedtoFrenchhavesetthe parameterthatdeterminestheVO/OValternationaccordingtotheadultsetting.Francketal.(2011)goontoshowthat alternativehypothesesonearlydevelopmentareinconsistentwiththefindings;inparticular,childrencannotbesolely guidedbyaprinciplemappingthefirstargumenttotheAgentandthesecondtotheTheme(Lidzetal.,2001),asthat wouldpredictthesamegazingbehaviourwithSVOandSOV.Noraretheresultsexpectedunderthecontentionthat infantslackgeneralknowledgeofsyntax(Dittmaretal.,2008),astheirperformanceisconsistentwiththeadultgrammar intheabsenceofpreviouslexicalknowledgeoftheverbs.

OurgoalistorunanexperimentresemblingascloselyaspossiblethatinFrenchinalanguagewithanotherparametric choice,anOVlanguage.Wehypothesizethat,asinFrench,childrenat19monthswillhavesettheparameteraccording tothetargetgrammarandthuswillshowapreferenceforthecausativerepresentationwhenhearinganSOVsentence.

Thepaperproceedsasfollows.Insection2 weprovidethenecessarybackgroundonthe languageinvestigated, Hindi--Urdu.Insection3wedetailtheexperimentaldesign.Insection4wepresenttheresultsandinsection5wediscuss thembyreferencetothebackgroundoutlined.

2. Background

Asillustratedin(2),thebasicwordorderofHindi--UrduisSOV(infactthelanguageisquiteconsistentlyhead-final,with postpositionsoutnumberingprepositionsandTfollowingVP,albeitsomeCsareinitial,seeBayer,1999),andargument DPsbearcase(neinraam-neforErgative,koinraavan-koforAccusative).

(2) raam-ne raavan-ko dekhaa. SOV Ram-ERG Ravan-ACC see.PFV

‘RamsawRavan.’

However,whentheobjectisafiniteembeddedclause,itfollowstheverbsystematically,asin(3)(exampletakenfrom Manetta,2012)(seeDavison,1999).

(3) a. siita-ne kahaa thaa [ki mohanaayaa thaa]. SVTCP Sita-ERGsay-PFVAUX.PSTthatMohancome.PFVAUX.PST

‘SitasaidthatMohanhadcome.’

b. *siita-ne[kimohanaayaathaa]kahaathaa. SCPVT

TheDPobjectin(2)mayalsoappear postverbally,andthenisinterpreted asoldinformation(4a).Otherwordorder alternationsof(2)arepossible,asshownin(4b--d).

(4) a. raam-nedekhaaraavan-ko. SVO b. raavan-kodekhaaraam-ne. OVS c. dekhaaraavan-koraam-ne. VOS d. dekhaaraam-neraavan-ko. VSO

Fordiscussionofthesedeparturesfromthebasicwordorderduetotopicalisationandfocus,seeMahajan(1990,1997), Kidwai(2000),andManetta(2012).

A.Gavarro´ etal./Lingua154(2015)27--34 28

(4)

InordertoestablishthedistributionofthebasicwordorderDPDPVinspokenHindi--Urdu,acorpusstudywascarried out.WeconsideredthetranscriptionsofspokenlanguagetakenfromdialoguesrecordedintheNavBharatTimes.Atotal of5200sentencesweretranscribedandanalyzed.Allmaindeclarativeandinterrogativeclauseswereincludedinthe recount;vocativesandadjunctswereexcluded.TheresultsarereportedinTable1.

These results indicate that adult spontaneous production in Hindi--Urdu displays a large array of word orders, consistentwiththeliterature,buttheverbappearspredominantlyinfinalposition(73.6%ofthetotal).Sentenceswithan overtobjectrepresent85%ofthetotal.Ofthese,thesentencesinwhichthereisdirectevidencefortheOVorder(SOV, IOOV,OV,SOVIO,OVIO,OVS)represent72%(61.5%ofthetotalnumberofsentences),whilethosewiththeVO sequence(SVO,SVO_CP,VO,VOS,VO_CP,IOVO,IOSVO_CP)constituteonly13.8%(11.8%ofthetotalnumberof sentences).Thus,morethan70%ofthesentencescontaininganobjectdisplayOVorder.So,inspiteoftheoccurrenceof scramblingandgeneralizedpro-dropinHindi--Urdu(seePrasadandStrube,2000,andNeelemanandSzendröi,2008 forthegeneralcase),thechildseemstohaveconsistentinputtoestablishtheOVparameter.¹InotherOVlanguages, e.g.Malayalam,theinputislessconsistentlyverb-final,duetofurtheroptionsofscrambling.

3. Materialsandmethods 3.1. Participants

Theparticipantsinourexperimentweretwentychildrenof19months(agerange:1;7,2--1;7,7,meanage:1;7,4).They wererecruitedinthemetropolitanareaofBarcelona.TheirfamilieswereUrdu-speakingandthechildrenhadhadminimal exposuretoCatalanandSpanish,andnoneofthemwereattendingakindergarten.Noneofthechildrenhadafamilyhistory

Table1

Rawcountsandpercentages(inbrackets)ofdifferentwordorders in adult spontaneous speech of, Hindi--Urdu. Abbreviations:

S=subject;V=verb;O=object;O_CP=sententialobject;IO=in- directobject;Adv=adverbial.

Wordorder Counts(Percentages)

SOV 2264(43.5)

OV 566(10.9)

SV 449(8.6)

OSV 313(6)

SVO 286(5.5)

OVS 180(3.5)

SVO_CP 124(2.4)

VO 120(2.3)

SOVIO 108(2.1)

AdvV 102(2)

OSVIO 89(1.7)

NV:NoVerb 79(1.5)

OIOSV 74(1.4)

V 74(1.4)

OVIO 67(1.3)

VS 53(1.2)

OIOV 52(1)

VOS 50(1)

VSO 50(1)

OSIOV 40(0.8)

VSO_CP 17(0.3)

VO_CP 15(0.3)

IOOV 12(0.2)

IOSVOCP 9(0.2)

IOVO 7(0.1)

1ThereisnoopencorpusofchildreninteractingwithadultsforHindi--Urdu(Narasimhan,2005referstoone,compiledbyherselfand collaborators,butthishasnotbeenmadeavailabletothecommunity),andthereforewecouldnotanalyzechild-directedspeech.Apreliminary analysiswasconductedonasmallsampleofchild-directedspeechextractedfromtheweb,andthepresenceofthedifferentwordordersdidnot differsubstantiallyfromthatreportedinthetext(verb-finalsentencesrepresented68%ofthetotal,OVwasattestedin55%ofthem).

(5)

oflanguagedelay,languageimpairmentorcognitiveimpairment.Nochildren’sperformancewasexcludedfromthefinal analysis.

3.2. Materials

ThematerialsusedwerethosedesignedbyFrancketal.(2011)fortheirexperimentonFrench.Theyinvolvevideos depictingcausativeandnon-causativeactions²andtwotypesoflinguisticinput:inthecaseofHindi--Urdu,wellformed transitiveDPDPVsentencesandhighlydispreferredVDPDPsentences(i.e.degradedwiththeassociatedintonation).The choiceoftheVSOorderdeservessomeexplanation.Thisorderwaschosen(insteadofSVOasintheFrenchexperiment) becauseofitsinfrequencyinadultspontaneousproduction:SVOwasfoundinourrecountsin5.5%ofthesentences,VSOin only1%.GiventhearrayofpossiblewordordersinHindi--Urdu,muchlargerthanthatofFrench,itseemedthatchoosinga veryinfrequentwordorderwasnecessarytoreplicatethecontrastintheoriginalexperimentbetweenFrenchSVOandSOV --SOVisneverwellformedinFrenchwithafullDPobject.VSOcriticallymaintainstheSOorderand,inthatrespect,even thoughitdiffersfromtheSVOconditioninFrench,isformallysimilartoitinthatthe twoconditions(grammaticaland ungrammatical)keeptheorderofthetwoargumentsconstant:theonlyvariationistheorderofOwithrespecttoV.³Thishas the consequence that we did not replicate the original SVO/SOV word orders, although comparison between the performanceofFrenchandHindi--UrduchildrenisstilldirectforSOV,ungrammaticalinthefirst,grammaticalinthesecond.⁴ ThecharactersinthevideoincludedasubsetofthoseintheFrenchvideo(adog,adonkey,ahorse,alion,asheep andacow),tomakethevideoculturallyappropriate.Thesentenceswerepre-recordedbyanUrdunativespeakerfemale fromPeshwar,Pakistan.

AlistofcommonlyoccurringverbsinHindi--Urduwascompiledandtwopseudo-verbswereformedcombiningthe mostcommonsyllables:thebisyllabicverbchonna(thirdperson:choona)andthetrisyllabicverbkhalaanaa(thirdperson:

khalaayaa).Agroupof20adultHindinativespeakerswereaskedtojudgeifeachverbsoundedfamiliarandwhetherthey knewitsmeaning;allspeakerssaidtheverbssoundedfamiliar,butcouldnotattachanymeaningtothem.Thepseudo- verbsusedthereforefollowedthephonologicalpatternofHindi--Urduverbs.Themeaningsassignedtothepseudo-verbs correspondtoactionsnon-lexicalisedinHindi--Urdu:choonato‘putsomeone’sheadunderanet’andkhalaayaato‘puta crownonsomeone’shead’.Ananonymousreviewerdrewourattentiontothefactthatalong--aisoneoftheHindi--Urdu morphologicalcausativemorphemesthatrendersaverbalstemintoacausativeverb;ourverbkhalaayaacouldhave beenderivedinthatway,inwhichcasethepseudo-verbwouldbeinherentlycausative(andthereforecouldhavehelpedthe childselectacausativeactionbyvirtueofitsmorphophonologicalshape).Thepseudo-verbkhalaayaacouldindeedbe interpretedasaso-calleddirectcausative(BhattandEmbick,2003),butsocouldchoona,whichalsopresentsalongvowel andexemplifiesanothermeansofderivingacausativeverb.Sothetwopseudo-verbsusedintheexperimentbiaschildrenin thesameway,iftheydo.Moreimportantly,thechoicethechildisfacedwithinourexperimentisanagentiveactionperformed onanothercharacterandareflexiveaction,andthereareverbsinHindi--Urduwiththesameshapeaskhalaayaa(i.e.witha causativemorpheme)which allowfor areflexive interpretationand cantake a reflexivepronoun:nahaayaa ‘bathed’, bulaayaa‘called’,andsoon.Therevieweralsoobservesthat--namaybeaninfinitivalmorpheme,andthereforeasentence withtheverbchoonabeanomalousforlackofafiniteverb;but,again,wefindfiniteverbsinHindi--Urdumuchalikeour pseudo-verb:chiina‘snatched’,maana ‘accepted’,ginaa‘counted’,taana‘flung’.Wecontendthat, inbothcases, the pseudo-verbsinourexperimentallowforareflexiveandnon-reflexiveinterpretation,whichcorrespondtothetwoactionsin thevideos,andthereforedonotdrivethechildtoaparticularinterpretationbytheirmorphophonologicalprofile.

Thefollowingsentencescorrespondtothegrammaticalcondition(5)andtheungrammaticalcondition(6).⁵ (5) a. kuthe-ne gadhe-ko khalaayaa.

dog-ERGdonkey-ACCV-PFV

2Wehavekeptthedenomination‘causative’forconsistencywithFrancketal.(2011)althoughitmaybethesourceofsomeconfusion, especiallywhendiscussingHindi--Urdu,wherecausativityismorphologicallymarked(seeSaksena,1982).Whatwedesignatewithcausativeis anagentiveactionperformedtransitively,non-reflexively.

3Theclause-initialpositionoftheverbmightbederivedbyanadditionalinstanceofverbmovement,justasFrenchSOVwouldinvolveobject raising,butinbothcaseswhatwasaimedatwasasequencethatwouldbeexcludedinthetargetgrammar,asVSOwithitsassociatedintonation ishere.

4Inaddition,aspointedouttousbyM.Baker,ourchoiceofdistractorpreservesoneofthepropertiesoftheFrenchdistractor,namelytheSO(V) sequenceinFrenchmighthavebeenmistakenlytakentobeacoordinatestructureintheFrenchexperiment,justlikethe(V)SOsequenceinthe Hindi/Urduexperiment.

5InHindi--Urdu,aspectualandtemporalinformationisoftenexpressedthroughfreemorphemes(asillustratedin(3);seeButtandRizvi,2010);

thepasttense,however,isanaffix(asin(2)above)and,inordertoavoidfurtherdifferenceswithFrench,itwaschosenforourexperiment.

(6)

b. sher-ne ghode-ko khalaayaa.

lion-ERGhorse-ACCV-PFV c. gaay-ne bakri-ko khalaayaa.

cow-ERGsheep-ACCV-PFV (6) a. choonagaay-ne sher-ko.

V-PFV cow-ERGlion-ACC b. choonagadhe-ne kuthe-ko.

V-PFVdonkey-ERGdog-ACC c. choonabakri-ne ghode-ko.

V-PFVsheep-ERGhorse-ACC

Foreachsentence,thechildsawtwovideosonthescreen,onevideoshowingacausativeactionenactedbytwoofthe puppets(e.g.for(5a)adogputtingacrownonadonkey’shead).Thesecondvideoillustratedthesameactionperformed reflexively bythe twocharactersinvolved(e.g. in(5a)adog anda donkeyputtingona crown).Thepositionofthe causativeandthenon-causative,reflexiveactionwerecounterbalancedastotheirpositiontotheleftortherightofthe screen.Theitemsin(5)--(6)werepresentedinpseudo-randomorder.Therewasnoexposuretotransitivesentenceswith existingverbsinthetraining,sothatnolearningcouldtakeplacewhiletheexperimentwascarriedout(asthiswasa potentialproblemwithGertneretal.’s2006experiment,accordingtoDittmaretal.,2008).

Asalreadypointedout,thewordorderin(6)isgrammatical(withtheverbinafocusposition),butthenitbearsaspecific intonation.Hindiiscategorizedasanedge-prominencelanguage,inwhichonlyboundarytonescanchangetoconvey pragmaticfocus(Patiletal.,2008,Féry,2010).InanSOVdeclarativesentencetheintonationalcontouristhatin(7a).In VSOsentences(andsentenceswithfocusingeneral)thefocusedconstituentretainsthefallingcontour,butthepost-focal elementsarelowered.Sotheintonationcontourisasdescribedin(7b).

(7) a. [[L*H] [L*H] [H*L]]

b. [[H*L] [L*H] [L*H]]

In our experimentwe usedan unfocuseddeclarative intonation contour (7a)for the verbinitial sentence, highly dispreferredinHindi--Urdu.

3.3. Procedure

TheexperimenttookplaceinthelaboftheDepartamentdePsicologiaBàsicaoftheUniversitatdeBarcelona.The machineusedwasaTobiiT120.Thechildsatonhis/hermother’slap,ataround65cmfromthe17-inchscreen.The procedurematchedthatusedbyFrancketal.(2011).First,infanteyecalibrationtookplace,andthenthetrainingsession started.Thechildwasfamiliarizedwiththepuppets;thepuppetswerepresentedonceandtherecordedspeakernamed theanimal(e.g.Look!ahorse!).Next,thechildwasintroducedtothesimultaneousvideos,whichshoweddifferent animalsonthescreensandtheaudioaskedthechildtofindoneofthem(Look!doyouseethelion?whereisthelion?).

Finally,thechildwasintroducedtotheactionsdesignatedbythepseudo-verbs,bothincausativeandnon-causative form,althoughthepseudo-verbswerenotgivenatthispointandtheaudioonlyaskedWhatishappening?

Afterthetrainingsessionandashorttransitioncartoonaccompaniedbyasong,theexperimentalsessionstarted.It involvedthesixpairsofexperimentalvideoscorrespondingtothesentencesin(5)--(6).Eachpairlasted20sandthe actionswereplayedloopwiseonthescreenforthewholespan.Thevideostartedbydrawingthechildren’sattention (Look!Whatishappeninghere?),thenthesentenceassociatedwiththevideowasplayedthreetimes,after6s,after10s andafter16s.Eachpairofvideosincludedfour4-secondwindows(presentationofthebaselinesentenceLook!Whatis this?at2--6s,firstpresentationofthetargetsentenceat6--10s,secondpresentationofthetargetsentenceat10--14s, thirdpresentationofthetargetsentenceat16--20s).Transitionsbetweentheexperimentalpairsconsistedinablank screen followed by the cartoon. For some children, sometime was given between the experimental items, as the experimenterwantedtomakesurethattheydidnotwaverawayfromthecalibratedposition,andthattheykepttheir attentiontothescreen.Thewholesessionlastedaround15min.

4. Results

Analyseswereconductedonthe four4-second windows,definedonthebasisofthe timingofthelinguistic input:

Baseline (2--6s), first presentation of the sentence (6--10s), second presentation of the sentence (10--14s), third presentationofthesentence(16--20s).Meanlookingtimesforthetwovideosinthetwoexperimentalconditionsarereported inTable2.

(7)

PairwisecomparisonsusingStudentt-testswereconductedonmeanlookingtimes.Infantslookedsignificantlylonger tothecausativevideothantothenon-causativevideoonlyinthegrammaticalcondition,duringthefirstpresentationofthe sentence(t(19)= 2.549,p=.020),the secondpresentationofthesentence(t(19)= 4.009,p=.001),andthethird presentationofthesentence(t(19)= 2.396,p=.027).Nosignificantdifferencewasfoundinthebaselinewindowofthe grammaticalcondition,norinanyofthewindowsoftheungrammaticalcondition.

Theproportionoflookingtimetothecausativevideo(calculatedovertotallookingtimestothecausativeandnon- causativevideos)inthefourcriticalwindowsisreportedinFig.1.

AnalyseswereconductedontheseproportionsusingtheWilcoxonsigned-ranktest.Theanalysisagainstchancelevel (definedas50%)showedabovechanceperformanceinthegrammaticalconditionduringthesecondpresentationofthe sentence window(Median proportion=72.21; Z= 2.987, p=.003) as well as during the thirdpresentation of the sentencewindow(Medianproportion=60.93;Z= 2.128,p=.033).Noneoftheotherwindowsshowedabovechance performance.Thecomparativeanalysisofproportions tothecausative videointhe grammaticaland ungrammatical sentencesshowedsignificantly higherproportions in the grammaticalcondition thanin the ungrammatical condition duringthe second presentation of the sentence (Medians: 72.21 and 52.53 respectively; Z= 1.979,p=.048). No significantdifferencewasfoundinthebaselinewindowandduringthefirstandthirdpresentationsofthesentence.

5. Discussion

TheresultsofourexperimentindicatethatHindi--Urduchildrenareawareat19monthsofagethatthelanguagethey areexposedtoisanOVlanguage,andcanusethatknowledgetocomprehendsentences.Crucially,thatknowledge appears to rely on an abstract representation of the directionality parameter, since it was found in sentences involvingpseudo-verbs.Thatis,performancecannotbeexplainedbyitem-basedlexicalknowledgeaswasarguedto bethecaseforchildrenuntil3--4yearsofage,instudiesusingtheweirdwordorderparadigminsentenceproduction (e.g.Abbot-Smithetal.,2001;Matthewsetal.,2007;butseeFranckandLassotta(2012)foracriticalreviewofthese studies).Ontheotherhand,childrenfailtoassignaconsistentinterpretationtoVSOinthesameexperimentalsetting;the

40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Sentence3 Sentence2

Sentence1 Baseline

Proportion of looking time to the causative action

Ungrammatical Grammatical

Fig.1. Proportionoflookingtimetothecausativeactioninthefourcriticalwindows.

Table2

Meanlookingtimes(inms,standarddeviationsinparentheses)towardsthe causativeandnoncausativevideos inthe grammaticaland ungrammaticalconditionsacrossthefourtimewindows.Significantdifferencesbetweenthecausativeandnoncausativevideosareinbold.

Grammatical Ungrammatical

Causative Non-causative Causative Non-causative

Baseline(2--6s) 2250(787) 1754(744) 1951(590) 1791(598)

Sentence1(6--10s) 2372^*(1018) 1536^*(766) 1514(564) 2072(1083)

Sentence2(10--14s) 2560^*(1034) 1152^*(772) 1785(823) 1728(985)

Sentence3(16--20s) 2021^*(1140) 1139^*(768) 1665(884) 1814(1086)

*p<.05.

(8)

sourceofthedifferenceinperformanceliesintheungrammaticalityofVSO(althoughscarcelyfoundinthespontaneous productioncorpus,1%,VSOisgrammaticalbutonlywithanintonationalcontournotusedintheexperiment).

OurresultsarecomplementarytothepreviousonesbyFrancketal.inwhich,withanidenticalexperimentaldesign,the French childrenof 19 monthsfailed to understandthe ungrammatical SOV order.As remarked by an anonymous reviewer,there isonedifference betweenFrench andHindi--Urdu thatcannotbediscarded, namelythe overtCase markingofHindi--Urduarguments,absentinFrench.TestingnominalswithoutovertCasemarkingisnotanoptionin Hindi--Urdu, sincetheonlyargumentsthatmay appearwithoutovertCase markingareinanimateobjectsandsome Nominatives.⁶Nevertheless, children’sconsistent preferenceforthe causative actionwhenhearing SOV sentences cannotbeattributedtothesolepresenceofovertcasemarkerssincecasemarkersfailedtodrivetheirperformanceinthe highlydispreferredVSOcondition.IfperformancewasdrivenbyCasemarking,wewouldexpectHindi--Urduchildrento performequallyintheVSOandtheSOVconditions,contrarytofact.Onecanneverthelessnotexcludethepossibilitythat bothcasemarkersandwordorderplayedaroleinchildren’sunderstandingofSOVsentences.Dittmaretal.(2008) arguedthatwhereas2-year-oldGermanchildrenunderstoodsentencescontainingbothwordorderandcasemarkers,it’s onlybytheageof5thattheyunderstoodsentencesonthebasisofwordorderalone(Dittmaretal.,2008).

ComparisonbetweentheprecisetimingoftheeffectsinHindi--UrduandFrenchisnotreallypossiblegiventhatwedid not adoptexactlythe samewindowsfor analyses(partlyduetothelength oftheexperimentalitemsinHindi--Urdu):

whereasinFrenchthe20-secondtotallagwassplitin5windows,hereweanalyzed4windowscorrespondingtowhenthe sentenceswerepresented(baselineand3presentations).Nevertheless,somedifferencesseemtoemerge,inparticular, the effect (inboththe proportionand chanceanalyses) seemsto ariseearlierin Hindi--Urdu(inthe 6--10swindow comparedtothe8--12swindowinFrench)andtopersistuntilthelast16--20swindow(whereasitdisappearedinthelast windowinFrench).Moreover,althoughthecurvesforFrenchandHindi--Urduaresimilar(forexample,thegazingtimesat thecausativevideodecreaseinthelastpresentationofthesentenceforbothlanguages,presumablyduetotirednessat thesamestimulus),thecontrastbetweenthegrammaticalandungrammaticalconditionsshowsanearlierandlonger effect inthe Hindi--Urduresults.These differencesmaypotentiallybeaccountedbythepresenceofadditionalcase markersinHindi--Urdu,absentinFrench.Furtherresearchisnecessarytobetterunderstandtheroleofcasemarkingin youngchildren’ssentencecomprehension.

Inviewofthe resultsofFrancketal.our resultsforHindi--Urduwouldbeexpected ifweassumea directionality parameter that could beset as either head initial (French) or head-final (Hindi--Urdu). If we follow Kayne’s(1994) antisymmetry,bothFrenchandHindi--UrduareunderlyinglySVOandthecontrastVO/OVfollowsfromobjectraisingin Hindi--Urdu.Theimplicationoftheresultswouldthenbethattheparameterresultinginobjectraisingiscorrectlysetby19 months.TherewouldhavebeenthepossibilitythatthisadditionalmovementhaddelayedtheHindi--Urduchildrenwith respect to the French, but this isnot the case. The result, as it stands, does not provide evidencefor or against antisymmetry,andexperimentalworkbearingonthisremainsforfutureresearch.Stillwehaveprovidedevidence,toour knowledgeforthefirsttime,thattheparameterresponsiblefortheVO/OValternationhasbeensetcorrectlyby19months inanOVlanguage.Thisrunscontrarytotheclaimthatabstract,thoughlanguage-specificknowledgeofsyntaxisnot reacheduntilages3and4(asstatedintheconstructivistapproachtolanguagedevelopment),andprovidesempirical supporttothehypothesisofveryearlyparametersetting(Rizzi,2005;Wexler,1998).

Acknowledgements

Wewouldliketo thankour youngsubjectsand theirfamilies,as wellasMiquelSerra andthe techniciansinthe DepartamentdePsicologiaBàsicaatUniversitatdeBarcelonaformakingtheirlabavailabletous.Manythanksarealso duetoAndrésPosadaforhistechnicalsupport,toAkiraOmakiforusefuldiscussionsandtothreeanonymousreviewers fortheirthoroughcommentstoearlierversionsofthispaper.A.Gavarro´ andM.Leelawishtoacknowledgeprojects FFI2011-29440-C03-03and2009SGR1079,andJ.Franckacknowledgesgrantnumber100014_126924oftheFonds NationaldelaRechercheSuisse.

References

Abbot-Smith,K.,Lieven,E.,Tomasello,M.,2001.Whatpre-schoolchildrendoanddonotdowithungrammaticalwordorders.Cogn.Dev.16, 679--692.

Akhtar,N.,1999.Acquiringbasicwordorder:evidencefordata-drivenlearningofsyntacticstructure.J.ChildLang.26,339--356.

Bayer,J.,1999.Finalcomplementizersinhybridlanguages.J.Linguist.35,233--271.

6Itisworthpointingoutthatinnon-pastsentencessubjectsareNominativeandobjectscanalsobeNominative;inthatcircumstanceitis possibletoneutralizetheeffectofCasemarkingalthoughwordorderfreezingoccursandthefirstargumentisusuallyinterpretedasthesubject.

(9)

Bhatt,R.,Embick,D.,2003.CausativederivationsinHindi.Ms.UniversityofTexasandUniversityofPennsylvania.

Butt,M.,Rizvi,J.,2010.TenseandaspectinUrdu.In:Cabredo-Hofherr,P.,Laca,B.(Eds.),LayersofAspect.CSLIPublications,Stanford.

Davison,A.,1999.Ergativity:functionalandformalissues.In:Darnell,M.,Moravcsik,E.,Newmeyer,F.,Noonan,M.,Wheatley,K.(Eds.), FunctionalismandFormalisminLinguistics,Volume1:GeneralPapers.JohnBenjamins,Amsterdam.

Dittmar,M.,Abbot-Smith,K.,Lieven,E.,Tomasello,M.,2008.YoungGermanchildren’searlysyntacticcompetence:apreferentiallookingstudy.

Dev.Sci.11(4),575--582.

Féry,C.,2010.Indianlanguagesasintonational‘phraselanguages’.In:Hasnain,I.,Chaudhury,S.(Eds.),FestschrifttoHonourRamakant Agnihotri.AakarPublisher,Delhi.

Franck,J.,Lassotta,R.,2012.Revisitingevidenceforlexicalizedwordorderinyoungchildren.Lingua122(1),92--106.

Franck,J.,Millotte,S.,Posada,A.,Rizzi,L.,2011.Abstractknowledgeofwordorderby19months:aneye-trackingstudy.Appl.Psycholinguist.

34(2),323--336.

Gertner,Y.,Fisher,C.,Eisengart,J.,2006.Learningwordsandrules:abstractknowledgeofwordorderinearlysentencecomprehension.

Psychol.Sci.17,684--691.

Hirsh-Pasek,K.R.,Golinkoff,R.M.,1996.TheOriginsofGrammar.TheMITPress,Cambridge,MA.

Kayne,R.,1994.TheAntisymmetryofSyntax.TheMITPress,Cambridge,MA.

Kidwai,A.,2000.XP-adjunctioninUniversalGrammar:ScramblingandBindinginHindi--Urdu.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork.

Lidz,J.,Gleitman,H.,Gleitman,L.,2001.Kidzinthehood:syntacticbootstrappingandthementallexicon.IRCSTechnicalReportSeries.

UniversityofPennsylvania.

Mahajan,A.,1990.TheA/A-barDistinctionandMovementTheory.Doctoraldissertation.MassachusettsInstituteofTechnology,Cambridge,MA.

Mahajan,A.,1997.Righwardscrambling.In:Beerman,D.,LeBlanc,D.,vanRiemsdijk,H.(Eds.),RightwardMovement.JohnBenjamins, Amsterdam, pp.185--213.

Manetta,E.,2012.Reconsideringrightwardscrambling:postverbalconstituentsinHindi--Urdu.Linguist.Inq.43(1),43--74.

Matthews,D.,Lieven,E.,Theakston,A.,Tomasello,M.,2007.Frenchchildren’suseandcorrectionofweirdwordorders:aconstructivistaccount.

J.ChildLang.32,381--409.

Narasimhan,B.,2005.Splittingthenotionof‘agent’:case-markinginearlychildHindi.J.ChildLang.32(4),787--803.

Neeleman,A.,Szendröi,K.,2008.Casemorphologyandradicalpro-drop.In:Biberauer,T.(Ed.),TheLimitsofSyntacticVariation.John Benjamins,Amsterdam/Philadelphia, pp.331--348.

Patil,U.,Kentner,G.,Gollrad,A.,Kügler,F.,Féry,C.,Vasishth,S.,2008.Focus,wordorderandintonationinHindi.J.SouthAsianLinguist.1, 55--72.

Prasad,R.,Strube,M.,2000.DiscoursesalienceandpronounresolutioninHindi.PennWork.Pap.Linguist.6(3),189--208.

Rizzi,L.,2005.Grammatically-basedtarget-inconsistenciesinchildlanguage.In:ProceedingsoftheInauguralConferenceofGALANA,UConn/

MITWorkingPapersinLinguistics,Cambridge,MA.

Saksena,A.,1982.TopicsintheAnalysisofCausativeswithanAccountofHindiParadigms.UniversityofCaliforniaPress,Berkeley/Los Angeles.

Wexler,K.,1998.Veryearlyparametersettingandtheuniquecheckingconstraint:anewexplanationfortheoptionalinfinitivestage.Lingua106, 23--79.