THE IMPERFECTIVE PARADOX IN ACQUISITION

WCCFL-22, UC San Diego

March 21-23, 2003

KAZANINAPHILLIPSU of Maryland, College Park

NINACOLIN

Imperfective Paradox

(1) a. Mary built a house.b. Mary was building a house.

Why can we use (1b) in a situation where no house gets built? Is build a house about building walls?

(2) Mary was driving from DC to Boston.

Is drive to Boston about getting to NYC?How is it that Mary’s driving to NYC gets the label ‘drive to

Boston’

The Imperfective

Two approaches to the IMP:

Perspective-modifier approach: IMP is a perspective-modifying operator – takes an *insider* perspective on events

Event-modifier approach: IMP is an event-modifying operator – IMP refers to incomplete events => need to solve the Imperfective Paradox (Dowty, Parsons, Landman)

Aspect – dyadic predicate that establishes a relation between Event time and Assertion time

IMP/PROG orders the Assertion Time within the Event Time => IMP/PROG is blind to the completion of the event

--------[-----------[-----------]--------------]-----------> Event-T Assertion-T

The lack of completion entailment of IMP/PROG comes from a certain perspective on the event

BUT: event-type problem remains unsolved

Perspective-modifier Approach to IMP: Demirdache&Uribe-Etxebarria (2000)

build a house

Event-modifier Approaches to IMP

The Imperfective can refer to an incomplete event => need to establish how much of an incomplete event is sufficiently much to belong to a given event type

• “present activities are the whole story”

• list all incomplete versions of the event under the same event type

Parsons (1990)Parsons (1990) Landman (1992)Landman (1992)

• relate an incomplete event in the actual world to a complete version of the same event in a certain possible world

DC

NY

BostonDC

NY IMP/PROG

Actual world w Possible world w’

DC DC DC NYPhilBalt

drive from DC to Boston

Sufficient to solve the classic problem associated with an IMP/PROG category that lacks completion entailments across the board

We will argue that this approach also needs to draw upon insights from the perspective-modifier approach to cover the range of possible systems in adult and child language

Event-modifier Approaches to IMP

The Imperfective - Acquisition

Perspective-modifier approach – IMP takes an *insider* perspective on events Challenge for children: what is the correct perspective on

the event (e.g. correct ordering of Event-T & Assertion-T)

Event-modifier approach – IMP refers to incomplete events => need to solve the Imperfective Paradox Challenge for children: what makes an incomplete event an

adequate referent for the IMP – i.e. solution to the event-type problem

Russian Aspect

Infinitives are obligatorily marked for aspect

IMP PERF

stroit’ postroit’ - to buildsobirat’ 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

Previous Research on Acquisition of Aspect

Spontaneous Speech: Russian children produce both aspectual forms

appropriately from a very young age (< 2 years)(Brun et al., 1999; Gvozdev, 1961; Bar-Shalom&Snyder 2000)

Accept Present IMP with present ongoing events (Dutch – van der Feest & van Hout (2002), English – Wagner (2001))

Picture-matching task (Vinnitskaya&Wexler, 2001)

Mal’chik chitalI knigu.The boy was reading the book.

How about incomplete events?

Ongoing Completed

Mal’chik prochitalP knigu.The boy read the book.

Creation & Change-of-state Expts: Design

Creation predicates: sobrala/sobirala gnomika ‘assemble a smurf’ postroil/stroil domik ‘build a house’ sostavil/sostavlyal kartinku ‘ do a puzzle’ vylepil/lepil medvedya ‘mould a bear’

Change-of-state predicates: perevorachivalI/perevernulP kartinku ‘turn over a picture’ napolnyalI/napolnilP stakanchik ‘fill a glass’ razvorachivalI/razvernulP podarok ‘unwrap a gift’ zakrashivalI/zakrasilP cvetok ‘color in a flower’

4 stories per child Within-subject design 72 Russian monolingual children, aged 3-5, tested in

Moscow preschools (Creation expt : N=28, Change-of-state expt N=44)

In each story, an event occurs at 3 landmarks:

a flower-bed, a castle & a tree (Wagner 2001)

At each landmark an event occurs either

(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

Creation & Change-of-state Expts: Design

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.

INCOMPLETE

COMPLETE

The scene at the end of the story.

ALL CHILDREN

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?

ADULTLIKE children

Gde obez’yanka sobirala gnomika? assemble-IMPWhere was the monkey assembling the smurf?

NON-ADULTLIKE children

Non-adultlike group, N=16 88% (53/60)

Adultlike group, N=10 93% (37/40)

Creation Expt: Results

PERF

IMP

Creation&Change-of-state Expts: Results

Creation Experiment

Group#

subjects%

correctMean age

Adultlike 1093%

(37/40)5,0

Non-adultlike

1612%

(7/60)4,3

Other 2

Change-of-state Experiment

Group#

subjects% trials

Mean age

Adultlike 1790%

(53/59)5,1

Non-adultlike

2012%

(9/72)4,2

Other 7

similar results in the Creation & Change-of-state expts failure not due to the special status of the object of Creation

verbs

Adultlike Group criterion: the subject gave an adultlike response to PERF and IMP in at least all but one trials Non-adultlike Group criterion: the subject gave an adultlike response to PERF, but is non-adultlike on IMP with incomplete events in at least all but one trials

Creation&Change-of-state Expts: Controls

Cannot retain both locations in memory?

NO. All children correctly answered the control question with 2 locations Q: Where was the monkey bitten by the bug?

All children: At the flower-bed & at the castle

Children reject the IMP with incomplete events in the Creation&Change-of-state experiments because they…

Creation&Change-of-state Expts: Controls

Cannot retain both locations in memory?

NO. All children correctly answered the control question with 2 locations Q: Where was the monkey bitten by the bug?

All children: At the flower-bed & at the castle

Complete event is a better representative of the relevant event-type than an incomplete event?

NO. Children continued rejecting IMP with an incomplete event even when the agent only performs a given event incompletely (Agent’s Intentions expt)

Children reject the IMP with incomplete events in the Creation&Change-of-state experiments because they…

Agent Intentions Experiment

Present Ongoing

Russian Imperfective: children

do the puzzlenow

Conative – Past Incomplete

do the puzzlenow

Event-modifier Approach: Parsons (1990)

“Present activities are the whole story” – only what is in the real world matters

Problem: if only what is in the real world matters => should be no difference whether a partial event stops at a past time or at now

An incomplete event in the actual world w is related to a

complete version of the same event in a certain possible

world w’ (i.e. on the continuation branch for the event in

the real world)

DC

NY

BostonDC

NY

IMP/PROG

Actual world wCertain possible

world w’ = CON(e,w)

Event-modifier Approach: Landman (1992)

IMP(A) – the imperfective form of the predicate A with a denotation – is true

for a given event e iff

(i) E, such that e E, E (E – complete event/event type)

(ii) E CON (e, w)

CON (e, w) = w

The actual world is enough to find E

CON (e, w) ≠ w

Need to appeal to possible worlds to find E

e - non-counterfactual e - counterfactual

No failure point associated with e or its continuation in the actual world

Event-modifier Approach: Landman (1992)

do the puzzlenow

e or its continuation in the actual world has a failure point

do the puzzlenow

CON (e, w) = w

The actual world is enough to find E

CON (e, w) ≠ w

Need to appeal to possible worlds to find E

e - non-counterfactual e - counterfactual

Event-modifier Approach: Landman (1992)

do the puzzlenow

e or its continuation in the actual world has a failure point

do the puzzlenow

Complete Event Hypothesis: if in the case of IMP children fail to properly appeal to non-actual worlds => they fail to license IMP with counterfactual events

No failure point associated with e or its continuation in the actual world

BOY

GIRL

water flowers

clean the table

Present Ongoing

Russian Imperfective: Children

Ongoing-success

do the puzzlenow

Conative – Past Incomplete

do the puzzlenow

now

?

clean the table

Ongoing-success Expt: Design

BOY

GIRL

bikewater the flowers

evaluation of Matrix event

Russian Adults

YES

NO

(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.

Ongoing-success Expt: Design

Truth Value Judgment Task (Crain&Thornton 1998) 25 children (age 3 – 6) , including 13 children from the

Nonadultlike group in the Creation and/or Change-of-state expts

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 such that IMP sentence is truePERF sentence is false

Ongoing-success Expt: Results

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

IMP PERF

% A

ccep

tan

ce

Results from 13 subjects from the Non-adultlike group in the Creation or Change-of-state expt

Ongoing-success Expt: Conclusions

clean the table

BOY

GIRL

bikewater the flowers

evaluation of Matrix event RussianChildren

(i) While the boy was watering flowers, the girl was cleaning the table. YES

(ii) While the boy was watering flowers, the girl cleaned the table. NO

Children know that the IMP can refer to subparts of full events Children rejected the PERF sentence => they assessed the matrix

verb at the evaluation interval => children know that IMP is true of subparts of the whole event

Children distinguish the semantics of the IMP from that of the PERF accepted the IMP sentence

saw off the branch

BOY

GIRL

water flowers

clean the table

Present Ongoing

Russian Imperfective: Children

Ongoing-failure

Ongoing-success

build a smurfnow

Conative

build a smurfnow

now

daughter

father

pick up flowersnow

?

Ongoing-failure Expt

daughter

father

playpick up flowers

evaluation of Matrix event

Adult Response

YES

NO

(i) Poka dochka sobirala cvety, papa otpilivalI vetku. While the daughter was picking up flowers, the father was sawing off

the branch.(ii) Poka dochka sobirala cvety, papa otpililP vetku. While the daughter was picking up flowers, the father sawed off the branch.

saw off the branch

Ongoing-failure Expt: Design

Truth Value Judgment Task (Crain&Thornton 1998) 21 children (age 3-6), including 10 children from the

Nonadultlike group in the Creation and/or Change-of-state expts

4 stories Poka brat katalsya na rolikah, sestra zastegivalaI/zastegnulaP stol.

While the brother was rollerblading, the sister was zipping up/zipped up the bag.

Poka dochka sobirala cvety, papa otpilivalI/otpililP vetku.While the daughter was picking up flowers, the father was sawing off/sawed off the branch.

Poka Telepuzik gulyal s oslikom, mal’chik stiralI/sterP zvezdu.While Teletubby was walking the donkey, the boy was erasing/erased the star.

Poka Zaychik sobiral solnyshko, Vinni-Puh vyprymlyalI/vypryamilP provolochku.While Rabbit was assembling the sun, Winnie-the-Pooh was straightening/straightened the wire.

Each story such that IMP sentence is truePERF sentence is false

Ongoing-failure Expt: Results

Results from 10 subjects from the Non-adultlike group in the Creation or Change-of-state expt

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

IMP PERF

% A

cc

ep

tan

ce

Ongoing-failure Expt: Conclusions

Children know that the IMP can refer to subparts of events that do not reach completion in the actual world (i.e. children accept the IMP with counterfactual events)

Thus, predictions of the Complete Event hypothesis do not hold

saw off the branch

BOY

GIRL

water flowers

clean the table

Present Ongoing

Russian Imperfective: Children

Ongoing-failure

Ongoing-success

build a smurfnow

Conative

build a smurfnow

now

daughter

father

pick up flowersnow

Cross-linguistic Data

Child Russian Past IMP lacks completion entailments when there is a frame-of-

reference Past IMP has completion entailments when there is no explicit frame of

reference

Same properties: adult Dutch simple past

Simple sentences entail completion:

Jana bouwde een huis.Jana build-simple past a house.

Completion entailment is absent when an explicit frame-of-reference is provided:

Terwijl Hans de bloemen aan het water geven was, bouwde Jana een huis.

While Hans was watering the flowers, Jana build-simple past a house.

saw off the branch

BOY

GIRL

water flowers

clean the table

Ongoing-failure

Ongoing-success

Conative

do the puzzlenow

now

pick up flowersnow

Rus children,Dutch adultsRus adults

daughter

farther

Main Questions:

Russian developmental pattern: Russian Imperfective looks like a simple homogeneous

system, but Russian-speaking children pass through a superficially more ‘complex’ representation of the semantics of the IMP

Existence of both Russian Imperfective-type and Dutch simple past–type categories: Why does a category in some cases lack completion

entailments across the board (Russian Imperfective), and in others is more restrictive (Dutch simple past)?

Semantics of the IMP

Original: IMP(A) – the imperfective form of the predicate A with a denotation - is true in a given event e iff

(i) E, such that e E, E (ii) E CON (e, W) (Landman 1992)

Modified: IMP(A) – the imperfective form of the predicate A with a denotation - is true in a given event e iff

(i) E, such that e E, E (ii) E V

where the world under consideration V is a world that coincides with the actual world W up to and including the chosen reference frame

do the puzzle

do the puzzle

W W

V V

No chance for IMP if there is a failure point within the relevant reference frame

saw off the branch

BOY

GIRL

water flowers

clean the table

Ongoing-failure

Ongoing-success

Conative

do the puzzlenow

now

pick up flowersnow

Rus childrenDutch adultsRus adults

daughter

father

saw off the branch

BOY

GIRL

water flowers

clean the table

Ongoing-failure

Ongoing-success

Conative

do the puzzlenow

now

pick up flowersnow

Rus childrenDutch adultsRus adults

daughter

father

Assumption: Russian IMP takes an existential closure over frames of reference

Russian IMP vs. Dutch Simple Past

Russian ImperfectiveRussian Imperfective is an IMP operator takes an existential closure over frames of reference =>

always allows an *insider* perspective on the event

Dutch simple pastDutch simple past is an IMP operator the frame-of-reference is anaphoric to some frame

established by the context

Conclusions

Younger Russian children appear to fail when tested on the completion entailments of the IMP (Creation & Change-of-state expts)

However, they display adultlike knowledge of completion entailments when an explicit frame-of-reference is provided (Ongoing-success & Ongoing-failure expts)

Russian children have a system like Dutch adults: Russian children don’t lack knowledge about the IMP operator, they lack knowledge of how this is constrained by frames-of-reference in Russian

Learnability: Dutch is more restrictive than Russian; Russian children can reach the adult state based on positive evidence

Acknowledgements

Sergey Avrutin Stephen Crain Paul Pietroski

Rozz Thornton Angeliek van Hout

Moscow Child Center ULYBKA Kindergarten #1633, Moscow Kindergarten #36 RYABINKA (Moscow region)

NSF grant BCS #0196004, HFSP grant #RGY0134 Thanks to Matcheld van Rijsingen and Frank Groen for

their Dutch judgments!

Copies of slides: www.ling.umd.edu/ninaka www.ling.umd.edu/colin

Ongoing-failure

Within-failure

saw off the branch

pick up flowersnow

daughter

father

saw off the branch

pick up flowersnow

daughter

father