Language-Specific Factors in First Language Acquisition: The Expression of Motion Events in French and German 9781614511748, 9781614512264

Citation preview

Anne-Katharina Harr Language-Specific Factors in First Language Acquisition

Studies on Language Aquisition

Edited by Peter Jordens

Volume 48

Anne-Katharina Harr

Language-Specific Factors in First Language Acquisition The Expression of Motion Events in French and German

ISBN 978-1-61451-226-4 e-ISBN 978-1-61451-174-8 ISSN 1861-4248 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2012 Walter de Gruyter, Inc., Boston/Berlin Typesetting: PTP-Berlin Protago-TEX-Production GmbH, Berlin Printing and binding: Hubert & Co. GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ♾ Printed on acid-free paper Printed in Germany www.degruyter.com

To my Grandmother

Acknowledgments The present study was carried out between 2007 and 2010. I am grateful to the many people who supported my work during these years and I would like to thank them at this time. In the first place, this study could not have been carried out without the children and adults who participated in the experiment. I am very much obliged to the kindergartens and schools in Germany and France for their unreserved cooperation and support. My thanks also go to all the adults in both countries who did not consider themselves too good to describe colourful animated cartoons! I am especially grateful to my two supervisors, Maya Hickmann and Katrin Lindner, who both followed and supervised my work continuously and helped me in completely different ways to deal with the complex matters involved in this study. Many long-lasting discussions and the critical reading of my work motivated me to query my concepts and to take notice of particular, interesting aspects of my data. With respect to the technical support I received, I would like to express my appreciation to two colleagues in particular: Philippe Bonnet (Université de Paris 5), who helped me analyse my results statistically, and Pierre Taranne (Université de Paris 8), who not only designed the animated cartoons, but who also wrote the programs for the coding of my data. Without their expert assistance this study would not have been possible. For all my colleagues, who often also became friends, I was, and am, extremely grateful. Without them, the past few years would have been boring and tiring, but the mutual encouragement and fun we shared made me love my work! To know that friends near and far were thinking of me was enormously supportive, and I appreciated all the practical help, conversations, distractions and prayers. Most importantly, I would like to thank my parents, who continued to encourage me throughout the last years. They were always there when I needed motivation and empathy. Finally, my gratitude is due my wonderful husband, who gently but constantly helped me to set the right priorities in life. Munich, September 2012

Anne-Katharina Harr

Contents Acknowledgments  0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4

 vii

 1 Introduction  Why space?   1 Space across languages   2 A developmental perspective  The organization of the book 

 3  4

Part I: State of the art 1 1.1 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 1.2.5

Language and cognition   9 Convergences of the notions language and cognition   9 Language   9 Cognition   15 The relation between language and thought   20 Language is thought   21 Language and thought do not influence each other   22 Thought influences language   24 Language influences thought   26 Conclusion   28

2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Linguistic determinism and “thinking for speaking”  Linguistic determinism   31 “Thinking for speaking”   36 Implications for language acquisition   39 Are we on the wrong track?   42 Conclusion   44

3

The relation between language and cognition in different language acquisition theories   46 Nativism   46 Basic assumptions of nativism about first language acquisition   47 Criticism and further development of the nativist position   50 Cognitivism   54 Piaget’s theory of cognitive development and his assumptions about first language acquisition   54 Criticism and further developments of Piaget’s theory   58

3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2

 30

x  3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.4

 Contents

Constructivism   62 Construction Grammar and usage-based approaches to first language acquisition   62  67 Criticism of constructivist and usage-based research  Conclusion   70

4 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Selected aspects of spatial cognition in children  The emergence of spatial cognition   73 Spatial relations   75 Motion   78 Causality   80 Summary   82

5 5.1

5.3 5.3.1 5.3.2 5.3.3 5.4 5.5

Verbalizations of motion events   84 A typological approach to the expression of motion events: Talmy’s framework   85 Variability in the expression of motion events and its cognitive implications: Slobin’s assumptions   98 Motion events in child language   105 Semantic components   106 Syntactic complexity   113 Co-verbal gestures.   115 Motion events in German   116 Motion events in French   125

6

General assumptions 

5.2

 73

 132

Part II: Experimental study on the expression of motion events in French and German 7 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5.1

Methodology   137 Participants   137 Material   138 Voluntary Motion   138 Caused Motion   139 Procedure   141 Transcription   142 Coding System   142 General coding principles 

 142

Contents 

7.5.2 7.5.3 8 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

Basic coding lines   143 Synthetic coding lines   150  152 Specific hypotheses  Density and Information Focus  Information Locus   153 Global Architecture   154 Qualitative analyses   154

 152

9 Results: Voluntary Motion   156 9.1 Density   156 9.1.1 Density as a function of target items   158 9.1.2 Density in control items   159 9.2 Information Focus   160 9.2.1 Information Focus in target items   162 9.2.1.1 Up-events   163 9.2.1.2 Down-events   165 9.2.1.3 Across-events   168 9.2.2 Information Focus in control items   170 9.3 Information Locus   175 9.3.1 Information Locus in target items   178 9.3.1.1 Up-events   178 9.3.1.2 Down-events   182 9.3.1.3 Across-events   186 9.3.2 Information Locus in control items   191 9.4 Global Architecture   195 9.4.1 Global Architecture in target items   198 9.4.1.1 Up-events   198 9.4.1.2 Down-events   201 9.4.1.3 Across-events   205 9.4.2 Global Architecture in control items   209 9.5 Qualitative Analyses   213 9.5.1 Verbs   213 9.5.2 Satellites   226 9.5.3 Periphery   231

 xi

xii 

 Contents

10 Results: Caused Motion   236 10.1 Density   236 10.1.1 Density as a function of language and age   239  240 10.1.2 Density as a function of Manner of action  10.1.3 Density as a function of Path   241 10.2 Information Focus   244 10.2.1 Information Focus as a function of language and age   246 10.2.2 Information Focus as a function of Manner of action   254 10.2.3 Information Focus as a function of Manner of the object’s motion   256 10.2.4 Information Focus as a function of Path   258 10.3 Information Locus   265 10.3.1 Information Locus as a function of language and age   270 10.3.2 Information Locus as a function of Path   274 10.4 Global Architecture   280 10.4.1 Global Architecture as a function of language and age   282 10.4.2 Global Architecture as a function of Path   285 10.5 Qualitative Analyses   288 10.5.1 Verbs   288 10.5.2 Satellites   302 10.5.3 Periphery   309 Part III: Discussion 11 11.1 11.2 11.3

Discussion of the results and further research directions   317 The expression of motion events in French and German   317 General developmental versus language-specific determinants in children’s verbalizations of motion events   321 Limitations of the present study and future research directions   327

Appendix  A A.1 A.1.1 A.1.2 A.2 A.2.1 A.2.2

 333

Methodology   335 Material    335 Items: Voluntary motion   335 Items: Caused motion   338 Instruction   342 German   342 French   342

Contents 

B B.1 B.2 B.3 B.4 B.5

Results: Voluntary motion   344 Information Locus   344 Global Architecture   344  345 Verb forms in French  Verb forms in German   349 French constructions with faire + X  

C C.1 C.2

Results: Caused motion   355 French verb types   355 German verb types   357

References   359 Subject index   383 Author index   385

 352

 xiii

0 Introduction 0.1 Why space? The notion of space, which plays an extremely important role in human lives, was studied among others by Kant ([1787] 2009: 31) in the age of Enlightenment. He assumed that spatial cognition is a universal cognitive primitive that forms part of the human endowment and that influences all of our experience. Propioperception, as well as the information that we receive via different modalities such as visual or haptic perception, help us to construct complex spatial representations which enable us to orient ourselves in everyday life. Thus, spatial cognition has often been supposed to be the evolutionarily earliest domain of systematic crossmodal cognition (Levinson [2003] 2006: xvii). Due to its fundamental role, spatial cognition enables us to understand other domains that depend on this fundamental spatial knowledge such as geometry or spatial metaphors in everyday language. Different languages provide speakers with different devices to encode basic innate spatial categories, to highlight and to background specific aspects of these categories depending on their particular intentions. According to another, more recent point of view, the expression of space in language is the result of a construction based on our experience in interaction with the physical world and the linguistic environment. Research in the last 30 years has shown wide variation in spatial systems across languages. This variation concerns the nature of linguistic devices in which spatial information is encoded, as well as the semantic content expressed by these devices. Different languages seem to highlight different types of spatial information or to make use of different reference systems. Thus, these studies suppose that culture and language determine at least partially “the nature and cognitive accessibility of the information that is selected by speakers” (Hickmann and Robert 2006: 1). These assumptions challenge the supposed universal properties of spatial cognition and raise several questions: To what extent does space, as it is encoded in language, reflect perceptual experience or innate universal categories? Does the expression of specific spatial aspects of the physical world depend on the language one speaks? Is space really a universal, innate category common to all humans? And finally, do linguistic properties influence spatial cognition? Obviously, the present study cannot answer all of these questions. However, the comparison of spatial expressions in two different languages will show if all speakers express the same semantic content irrespective of the language spoken. Any content that is common to these languages might then be supposed to reflect universal cat-

2 

 Introduction

egories which either are due to innate knowledge or have been developed from perceptual experience in interaction with cognitive mechanisms.

0.2 Space across languages The languages of the world differ considerably in how they encode spatial information. At first sight, one could assume that they simply express the universal “heritage” of spatial cognition by different linguistic means. Kant and many others after him have assumed that spatial language directly mirrors universal spatial representations. One way to examine in more detail the relation between language and space is a typological perspective that compares what spatial information languages express and in which linguistic devices it is encoded. Results show that there is a more or less universal set of semantic components such as Manner (e.g., to jump, to swim), Path (e.g., to arrive, to leave) or Ground (e.g., to enter into the house, to run across the street) that are expressed in all languages. However, languages provide speakers with a limited number of linguistic means to express these semantic components. Thus, through abstraction and schematization processes and depending on their language, speakers select different components in their verbalizations of spatial information while they ignore others. The same semantic component is therefore typically highlighted in one language, while it is backgrounded in another language. Depending on the lexicalization patterns and conflation types for the expression of spatial information (Talmy 1985, [2000] 2003, [1985] 2008a), semantic density and information focus differ quite considerably across languages. Through the habitual use of such recurrent patterns, speakers’ attention is directed toward specific aspects of reality which are especially salient in their native language. Other semantic components that are more or less implicit often have to be inferred from the context. Talmy (2008a) proposes a general linguistic typology in which he distinguishes between verb- and satellite-framed languages. In satellite-framed languages (e.g., Indo-European languages such as German) Manner is typically expressed in the verb root and Path in satellites and/or prepositions (Talmy 2009: 390). In contrast, in verb-framed languages (e.g., Romance languages such as French) Path is usually encoded in the verb and Manner is left implicit or expressed at the periphery of the sentence. Slobin (1996, 2004a) further developed this approach and claimed that, depending on such language-specific properties, speakers differ in their organization of narrative discourse and therefore develop different rhetorical styles. According to his theory, satellite-framed languages provide speakers with a rich set of Manner-verbs leading them to focus especially on this type of semantic information and to develop a particular semantic granularity

A developmental perspective 

 3

in this domain. Speakers of verb-framed languages, however, concentrate more on Path which is encoded in the main verb and on the setting of a motion event, often not expressing Manner explicitly and leaving it to the hearer/reader to infer it from the context. In his famous paper from 1987, Slobin claims that the habitual use of specific lexicalization patterns has an impact on our conceptualization of the world. Depending on the language, specific aspects of reality are more or less salient in our spatial representations. Thus, research in the typological framework may indirectly reveal something about such different spatial representations. The present research aims to study spatial language from two perspectives. First, in order to support Talmy’s dichotomy between satellite- and verb-framed languages lexicalization patterns of motion events in French and German, two typologically different languages, are compared in detail. Second, we investigate cognitive consequences of the habitual use of such lexicalization patterns as proposed by Slobin (1996, 2004a) by looking in detail at the granularity of different semantic domains in both languages.

0.3 A developmental perspective An ancient epistemological question examines how children learn to think and speak. More precisely, are they born with universal cognitive primitives and specific predispositions for language learning or do they construct cognition and language step by step during ontology? In other words: “Are such concepts essentially independent of language, such that language merely expresses them, or do children come to construct them through language, and under the catalytic effect of verbal interaction with their elders?” (Bowerman and Levinson 2001: 3). In the last thirty years, new testing methods enabled us to study infants during their first year of life. Results showed that from very early on they display various abilities to understand both the physical world around them and abstract concepts. These capacities are considered to encompass either some sort of innate “core knowledge” (Hespos and Spelke 2007; Spelke 2003) or the ability to deduce physical principles from perceptual invariants (Mandler 1992, 1998). According to these studies, the child’s task is to map linguistic notions onto initial, language-independent spatial concepts and consequently, children’s verbalizations of spatial scenes are supposed to be very similar. Comparative work initiated by Slobin (1985b) challenged such assumptions about universal processes. Since each language filters the flow of information differently, children construct their spatial concepts in accordance with the linguistic categories that are provided by their native language. Thus, many studies showed that such language-specific factors partially transform our representations leading to different – language

4 

 Introduction

dependent – spatial conceptualizations. Although from their first utterances on, children’s spatial language reflects the basic patterns of the adult target system, there are general cognitive determinants which influence their language acquisition process. The present study encompasses expressions of voluntary and caused motion events produced not only by French and German speaking adults but also by children. The data comparison aims to find new insights into the impact of languagespecific and general developmental factors during ontogeny. If the results reveal a striking influence of language specific factors from the earliest tested age on, there is every reason to think that the hypothesis of linguistic determinism is at least partially true.

0.4 The organization of the book The book consists of three sections which are subdivided into 12 chapters. The first section (Chapter 1–6) is devoted to the theoretical background of the present study. Since the current study is based on a psycholinguistic framework, Chapter 1 discusses the two fundamental notions of language and cognition that will be recurrent throughout the book. Language and cognition are approached from different theoretical perspectives, with particular attention to their possible relations. Chapter 2 examines the impact of language on thought and reviews several forms of this phenomenon, known as linguistic determinism. In order to better understand the relation between language and cognition in children, Chapter 3 discusses three approaches to first language acquisition, Nativism, Cognitivism and Constructivism. The conclusion of this chapter points out which assumptions are acknowledged from representatives of all three theoretical frameworks. In order to discuss the role of children’s conceptual representations when they verbalize motion events, Chapter 4 provides information about infants’ and children’s capacities in the domain of spatial cognition and shows that from very early on, they are quite competent in this particular cognitive domain. Chapter 5 then focuses on the verbalizations of motion events that are at the heart of this study. Particular attention is placed on Talmy’s theory of cognitive semantics and its proposed dichotomy between satellite- and verb-framed languages. Furthermore, Slobin’s cognitive implications of this theory are explored in detail, and previous studies on children’s verbalizations of motion events are discussed. These considerations are followed by results of earlier studies on the expression of motion events in French and German. At the end of this theoretical section, several general assumptions that will guide the formulation of our specific hypotheses later are highlighted on the basis of the reported literature (Chapter 6).

The organization of the book 

 5

The first Chapter of the second section (Chapter 7) presents the methodology of the current study, including the experimental design, the procedure for data collection and details on the coding system. This chapter is followed by a presentation of the specific hypotheses that guided our data analyses (Chapter 8). The results concerning verbalizations of voluntary and caused motion events are presented in Chapter 9 and 10. Each chapter reports findings based on the typological comparison between French and German with respect to our specific hypotheses about the expression of motion events. The impact of language-specific and general developmental factors is discussed throughout the entire results section. Finally, in the Discussion (Chapter 11) the main findings of the present study are summarized and discussed in a larger context, and directions for further research are sketched.

Part I: State of the art

1 Language and cognition Language and cognition are two essential properties characteristic of the human species. A fundamental question that is vividly debated in the cognitive sciences concerns the extent to which language and cognition are connected, and the significance and the nature of this association. Depending on the theoretical approach, this relation can be uni- or bidirectional or in certain cases the two capacities are even considered to be independent from one another. Before dealing with the relation between language and cognition in detail, and sketching the assumptions of several (psycho-)linguistic theories on this question, it is important to begin by clarifying terminology. Although a great number of sciences, such as philosophy, psychology, neurology and linguistics, use the terms language and cognition, it is not always clear that they use them in the same ways. Hence, we will first review several classical definitions of both notions and then discuss the relation between these two capacities. Throughout the entire initial chapter, there is a focus on particular theoretical approaches that will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

1.1 Convergences of the notions language and cognition Defining language and cognition clearly represents a great challenge. Furthermore at least according to some approaches, defining them separately is somewhat misleading because they are closely interrelated. However, at the outset, these two phenomena will be considered independently in order to avoid unintended blendings.

1.1.1 Language The English word language is derived from the Latin noun lingua which means ‘tongue’. Although spoken language seems to be the most prototypical form of language, written language, sign language or Braille represent other language forms. Many researchers from different fields (anthropology, linguistics, philosophy, psychology etc.) agree that language seems to be the most important property that distinguishes humans from other species (cf. Black 1968: 4; Lyons [1981] 2009: 2; Maratsos 1989: 123; Sapir [1911] 2008b: 111, 1921: 7; Tomasello 2003: 5;

10 

 Language and cognition

von Humboldt 1910: 144).¹ Nevertheless, they do not all share the same concept of the term language.² Of the four different views of language presented here, two focus on the language system, the other two on language use. One of the most famous (linguistic) definitions of language goes back to Ferdinand de Saussure (1916). In his lectures at the beginning of the last century he defined the subject of linguistics and laid the foundations for linguistic structuralism. Saussure distinguishes between la faculté de langage, la langue and la parole. La faculté de langage corresponds to the human capacity to produce speech and involves neurophysiological processes. La langue, however, is a conventional system of signs with “arbitrary associations” of auditory images (significants) with concepts (signifiés) (cf. Figure 1; cf. also Sapir 1921: 10).

Figure 1: The linguistic sign according to Saussure (de Saussure [1916] 1969: 99)

Both parts of the sign are mental. The abstract entity, la langue, is a social product that only exists in the speaker’s mind and survives through a kind of tacit agreement between the members of a certain speech community. As a rule, it is the norm within a speech community or in Saussure’s words: “La langue existe dans la collectivité sous la forme d’une somme d’empreintes déposées dans chaque cerveau, à peu près comme un dictionnaire dont tous les exemplaires, identiques, seraient répartis entre les individus” [The language, as a collective phenomenon, takes the form of a totality of imprints in everyone’s brain, rather like a dictionary of which each individual has an identical copy] (de Saussure [1916] 1969: 38). Note that Saussure considers la langue to be “un principe de classification” (de Saussure 1969: 25) which imposes “precast” categories on our thinking. That is to

1 Although social cognitive skills seem to distinguish 2;5-year-old children and their nearest primate relatives even before literacy and schooling (cf. Herrmann et al. 2007), language is considered to play a decisive role in both human’s cognitive ontogeny and phylogeny. 2 A historical and philosophical overview of language concepts from Plato to the present can be found in Everson (1994). For more detailed papers on the questions of how to define language cf. Black (1968), Bloomfield ([1933] 1961), Langacker (1968), Lyons (2009), and Sapir (1921).

Convergences of the notions language and cognition 

 11

say, our language provides us with words that are associated with specific concepts that force us to think in these given pre-formed categories (cf. Chapter 2.1). In contrast, la parole is defined as follows: “l’excécution [de la langue] est toujours individuelle, et l’individu en est toujours le maître“ [the execution [of la langue] is always individual, and the individual is always the master of it] (de Saussure 1969: 30). Therefore, an individual uses la langue in order to express his thoughts. To do so, he has to activate a mechanism which associates mental concepts with auditory images to express signs. These two steps concern la parole. Saussure claims that language and speech should be studied independently. However, there is an interdependence between the two systems: «  celle-là [la parole] est à la fois l’instrument et le produit de celle-ci [la langue] » [The former [la parole] is at the same time the instrument and the product of the latter [la langue]] (de Saussure 1969: 37). As a result, linguistic change can only occur through la parole. Speakers change specific conventions in their everyday speech and in the course of time, these changes will also penetrate la langue and then become the norm. Noam Chomsky, the principal founder of Universal Grammar, introduced a definition of language which at first glance seems to be quite different from Saussure’s definition, although both focus on the language system. However, both theories exhibit some interesting parallels. In several papers, Chomsky defines language as “a set (finite or infinite) of sentences, each finite in length and constructed out of a finite set of elements” (Chomsky and Lightfoot [1957] 2002: 13; cf. Chomsky [1980] 1989: 220). This definition is quite comprehensive and could be applied to other formalized systems such as mathematics (Cf. Chomsky and Lightfoot 2002: 13). Recently, Chomsky described more specifically what characterizes a “linguistic” language composed of sounds and meanings (Chomsky [2000] 2007a: 9). According to him, this type of language involves three different units (cf. Chomsky 2007a: 10): 1. Features: the properties of sound and meaning 2. Lexical items: the items that are assembled from these properties 3. Complex expressions constructed from these “atomic” units In his early writings Chomsky also introduced the distinction between competence and performance, later replacing it with the dichotomy between Internalized-Language (I-Language) and Externalized-Language (E-Language). This concept of language displays several similarities to Saussure’s concepts of langue

12 

 Language and cognition

and parole. Linguistic competence (just like la langue3) underlies behaviour but “is not realized in any direct or simple way in behaviour” (Chomsky 1972: 4). The second system, called performance is reminiscent of Saussure’s parole and involves a number of other factors. In particular, it operates “under constraints of memory, time, and organization of perceptual strategies that are not matters of grammar” (Chomsky 1972: 117; cf. Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch 2002: 1571). I-Language, very similar to competence, is the mentally represented linguistic knowledge that native speakers possess of their language, it is “some element of the mind” (Chomsky 1986: 22). Thus, a particular grammar is a theory of I-Language (Chomsky 1986: 29). In contrast, E-Language linguistics collects samples of languages and then describes their properties (cf. Cook and Newson [1991] 1998: 36). Since E-Language is understood as a “construct independently of the properties of the mind/brain” (Chomsky 1986: 20), it is rather difficult to equate it with Chomsky’s former concept of performance.4 In almost all of his papers, Chomsky emphasizes that I-Language must be the main object of linguistic research and that the concept of E-Language should be “abandoned” (Chomsky [1991] 1994a: 10). Eugenio Coseriu (1970, 1976) criticized Saussure’s definition dichotomy of langue and parole as too simplistic. He proposed a new model, taking into account speakers’ use of language (Coseriu 1970: 193). According to Coseriu, it is necessary to replace “die eindeutig dualistische Auffassung de Saussures (…) durch eine monistische Auffassung (…), die auf die einzig (…) fassbare Wirklichkeit der Sprache gegründet ist“ [the clearly dualistic view of de Saussure (…) by a monistic view (…) which is based on the only (…) concrete reality of language] (Coseriu 1970: 200). Thus, Coseriu suggests a language model involving four different levels: Typus, System, Norm, and Rede (‘speech’) (cf. Figure 2).5 According to him, it is only by taking into account these four levels that we can account for language structure as we encounter it in the real world.

3 Lyons (2009: 10) emphasizes that Chomsky’s concept of competence corresponds more to the speaker’s knowledge of a given language-system than to the language-system (that is Saussure’s langue) as such. 4 Note that Chomsky (1986: 26) himself explains that E-language consitutes “mere artefacts” and that this “concept appears to play no role in the theory of language”. 5 Coseriu also deals with the classical diasystem and emphasizes that the study of a language system is only possible if we concentrate on one specific variety, clearly defined regarding the diatopic, diastratic and diaphasic levels (Coseriu 1976: 30).

Convergences of the notions language and cognition 

 13

Rede = parole Norm System = langue Typus

Lexicalization Patterns?

Figure 2: Levels of abstraction in linguistic description according to Coseriu – modified version

The language type (Typus) constitutes a superordinate concept that comprises a coherent set of functional categories in a given language (Coseriu 2001: 426). In contrast, the System is the functional system of significant oppositions within a given language, comparable to Saussure’s concept of langue and Chomsky’s I-Language (Coseriu 1976: 32). In other words, the language type (Typus) includes the principles that underlie the rules of the language system (Coseriu 1979: 84). Since the functional categories of the language type are more abstract than those on the level of the language system, a specific language type can subsume several language systems. For instance, the Romance language type comprises French, Spanish, Italian etc. Talmy’s typology presented in Chapter 5, is one possibility how to classify different languages according to well defined specific criteria into different language types. The next more concrete level in Coseriu’s system is called Rede. It constitutes the concrete realizations of linguistic structures, similar to Saussure’s parole and Chomsky’s E-Language. Typus, System, and Rede represent language structure (Coseriu 1976: 33). Coseriu’s idea is to interpose a third level between System and Rede, the so-called Norm. This level refers to the “System der obligatorischen Realisierungen der sozialen und kulturellen Auflagen” [system of obligatory realizations of social and cultural requirements] (Coseriu 1970: 209). Thus, it is a subset of all possible constructions in a given language. According to Coseriu, speakers do not construct utterances according to arbitrary schemas, but rather on the basis of common and frequent models (Coseriu 1970: 207). We will refer back to this idea in Chapter 5 when introducing the term lexicalization pattern coined by Talmy. The interposed level, Norm, takes this fact into consideration. Saussure as well as Chomsky were probably not interested in such a concept because they thought that it does not play a striking role in grammar theory. Given this differentiation of the bipartite systems proposed by Saussure and Chomsky, Coseriu

14 

 Language and cognition

proposes a model that can explain the synchronic linguistic structure in a specific speech community. The fourth view of language that we would like to mention is the cognitive-functional approach, sometimes also described as being “usage-based”. Approaches that are called cognitive-functional suggest replacing the mathematical view of language like the one used in universal grammar with a more psychologically based view (Tomasello 2000, 2003, 2009). Theorists using this framework criticize as too simplistic the classical idea of language as a system of signs that are put together according to grammatical rules. Researchers in this framework, especially connectionists prefer to talk about patterns⁶ and regularities instead of rules. From their point of view, language implies “more cognitively sophisticated learning and abstraction processes” (Tomasello 2000: 247), which involve a number of purely cognitive capacities such as analogy-making or structure-combining (cf. Chapter 3.3). Thus, in their research, cognitive-functional theorists primarily focus on the social-cognitive dimensions of language that they consider most fundamental in human communication. According to such approches the main characteristic of language is its symbolic dimension (cf. also Lyons 1970: 7); grammar is only considered to be a derivative, or more precisely, “a product of a set of historical and ontogenetic processes referred to collectively as grammaticalization” (Tomasello 2003: 5). Thus, linguistic competence in the functional sense means the mastery of all items and constructions in a specific language. Linguistic constructions are considered to be abstracted from schemas perceived in the input. Therefore, this knowledge is much more complex and extensive than the I-Language or “core grammar” of formal approaches. In contrast to Coseriu’s usage-oriented model, functional approaches maintain that linguistic knowledge never reaches a stable form, as Coseriu’s level of Norm suggests. Language patterns always seem to be in a state of flux because unconsciously speakers constantly evaluate and adapt their linguistic knowledge on the basis of the input they receive. Whereas certain approaches take a rather static view of language, focusing on the abstract properties of the language system (cf. de Saussure, Chomsky), its units and the relation among them, other theories take a more dynamic perspective toward language, concentrating on the use of language by speakers (cf. Coseriu and functionalist approaches). To sum up, it can be concluded that

6 Connectionist models go beyond this idea, assuming that linguistic knowledge is represented in the brain in the form of patterns of activation “over a large set of units, any one of which may participate to some degree in representing any particular piece of knowledge” (MacWhinney 1998: 634). For similar considerations, cf. Langacker (2009).

Convergences of the notions language and cognition 

 15

irrespective of theoretical backgrounds verbal language can be understood as a typical human capacity. Language consists of symbols which are used in constructions – for some theorists according to rules. As regards the nature of these rules (often called grammar) and their connection with speech, which is the only observable realization of language, opinions diverge depending on the theoretical framework. Before considering how language might be related to cognition, let us now turn to the term cognition and examine what researchers of different domains subsume under this notion.

1.1.2 Cognition Cognition is the object of investigation of a great number of different sciences, such as anthropology, computer sciences, economics, linguistics, philosophy and psychology (cf. Stillings et al. [1995] 1998: 13; Strube 1996: 303–317). Although all of theses disciplines use the term cognition, the underlying concept is not welldefined and delimited. In contrast to the term language, which is defined rather precisely despite divergent definitions across theoretical approaches, the first problem with the term cognition is that it is typically used in very vague ways that can include an enormous amount of notions or components. Most researchers seem to use cognition with a particular meaning – usually not explicitly specified. Thus, in what follows, the aim is to examine more closely this term by discussing some core concepts such as representation, schema and category which will be important for the present study. The etymology of cognition is the Latin verb cognoscere which is related to the Greek verb γιγνώσκειν ‘to know’, ‘to recognize’, ‘to discern’. Over the last decades the sense of the term cognition has evolved (cf. Strube 1996: 303), particularly with the development of cognitive psychology where some particular concepts were elaborated and still constitute more or less the core of its actual meaning. Generally speaking, cognition represents the contra position to behaviourism and relates “to all aspects of conscious and unconscious mental function” (Evans 2007: 17). More precisely, cognition refers to mental events (mechanisms and processes) and the knowledge involved in tasks ranging from low-level tasks, such as object perception or categorization, to high-level tasks, such as decisionmaking, problem solving or language usage (Evans 2007; Hampson and Morris 1996; Sternberg 1999; Strube 1996). In the 1970s representatives of a number of disciplines (anthropology, computer sciences, economics, linguistics, philosophy, psychology) founded a super-

16 

 Language and cognition

ordinate field of research called cognitive science.7 This science offers the possibility of close interdisciplinary cooperation and exchanges among researchers from different scientific backgrounds and traditions. The basic idea, common to all researchers in cognitive science, is to view human and animal minds, as well as technical systems,8 as complex cognitive systems that receive, store, retrieve, transform, and transmit information (Stillings et al. 1998: 1; cf. also Flavell, Miller, and Miller [1992] 2002: 3). Hence, their main objects of interest are operations involving information, such as computations or information processing which they consider to be some sort of “intelligent behaviour”. Thus, more abstractly, we can define cognition as the “exercise of intelligence” (Osherson 1990: xi) – be it conscious or unconscious. David Marr (1982: 20–26) defined three well-acknowledged rather static levels of analysis for cognitive faculties. Let us examine these levels with respect to language (Osherson 1990: xvii). 1. Hardware implementation: The first level regards the neurological analysis of the structures (i.e. representations) and connections (i.e. algorithms) in the brain underlying linguistic comprehension and production. 2. Representation and algorithm: Cognitive linguists working on the second level are concerned with the storage of linguistic knowledge in the mind and the successive and simultaneous processes required to understand and to produce language. 3. Computational theory: The third level concerns the grammatical structure of language and the issue of how the observable output relates to the representations and processes described at the second level. Marr points out that it is possible to draw conclusions from observations on one level to processes/elements of another level, but that this must be done with extreme caution (Marr 1982: 26) because linguistic expressions are not mapped in a one-to-one way onto representations. Furthermore, all three levels are closely interrelated and the processes involved in language production/comprehension are therefore difficult to assign to one specific level. The main focus of the present investigation will be on Level 3, that is to say, the grammatical structure of empirically collected linguistic data and their relation to particular elements of Level 2.

7 For other definitions of cognitive science, cf. Boden (2006: 10), Osherson (1990: xi), Simon and Kaplan (1991: 1), and Stillings et al. (1998: 1). 8 Included is also research in the field of artificial intelligence, the simulation of neural networks etc. that constitutes an important part of cognitive science (cf. Glass and Holyoak 1986: 2–3).

Convergences of the notions language and cognition 

 17

Starting from speakers’ utterances when describing visual input, an attempt will be made to draw conclusions on their representations of scenes and the processes that lead them to express these mental images through specific grammatical patterns. Two cognitive terms which will be used recurrently in the following chapters are considered in more detail: conceptual knowledge and representation. Given that the two notions are closely linked and depend on each other (cf. Jackendoff 2000: 305), they will be dealt with simultaneously. There seems to be no consensus on how the notions of concept and representation9 are to be understood “beyond the fact that they are something ‘which is necessarily in our heads (in whatever form) to produce behaviour’” (Pederson and Nuyts 1997: 1). E. Clark’s definition can be taken as a basis, according to which the term concept10 designates “a set of properties that are associated with each other in memory and thus form a unit” (E. Clark 1983: 789). Concepts play a crucial role in cognition. Firstly, they are helpful and necessary because they allow economy in memory (Rosch and Lloyd 1978) to put it in other words: “By partitioning the world into classes, concepts allow us to decrease the amount of information that we must perceive, learn, remember and communicate, and reason about” (Smith 1991: 501). Secondly, they reduce the necessity of constant learning because concepts help us to remember past experience on present concerns. Finally, a third major function is that concepts allow inductive inferences, especially about imperceptible properties, providing indications about how to react to objects or situations (cf. Matlin 1983: 183; Sinclair 1975: 224). Since our study will focus on the verbalization of concepts, we must take a closer look at the relation between language and concepts before studying concepts per se more precisely. We assume that in natural languages there are no one-to-one mappings between concepts and words (cf. Bloom 1991: 121; E. Clark 1983: 788; Talmy 2008b: 33).11 Therefore, different concepts can be labelled with the same word and different words can label the same concept. Even the term lexical concept does not seem to correspond exactly to those meanings expressed in language (Margolis and Laurence [1999] 2000: 4). During ontogeny, children begin by learning to map words onto concepts. Little by little, they become aware

9 Bloom says rightly: “In fact, representation is one of our most overused words because we have meant many different things in using the term” (Bloom 1991: 118). 10 The etymology of the term concept goes back to the Latin verb concipere ‘to subsume, to take in’. 11 Howes supports a rather opposing position, for example, when saying: “A single concept is typically expressed by a single word or word phrase, and is experienced in an introspective basis as a unity” (Howes 1990: 178). For a similar point of view, cf. Herrmann (1995: 84).

18 

 Language and cognition

of how to group concepts together under one single word and thus form categories. One meaning of the term category refers to such a group of concepts (Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin 1966: 244; Howes 1990: 179; Smith 1991: 502).12 These facts show that concepts are “at the core of the black-box problem of the human mind” (Pederson and Nuyts 1997: 3) that is to say they cannot be studied directly but only through externally observable manifestations in human behaviour (among them speech or gesture). Thus, language can only provide indirect evidence for concepts (Bloom 1991: 119; E. Clark 1983: 831; Karmiloff-Smith 2005: 325; Lucy 1996b: 153). Furthermore, in a more detailed analysis, we assume that concepts are structured mental representations (Carey 2000a: 460; Herrmann [1994] 1995: 81; Jackendoff 2000: 330; Margolis and Laurence 2000: 8; Smith 1991: 501). First, let us consider in turn the two properties of representations intended here: their structural and mental nature. Concepts have a structure, that is to say their content can be described for instance by listing hierarchically several semantic features which characterize a particular concept. Since Wittgenstein, a great number of philosophical, psychological, and linguistic theories have been developed to systematically describe how people conceptualize and categorize entities (cf. E. Clark 1983: 789; Matlin 1983: 176).13 The most well-known theory is probably Prototype Theory put forth by Rosch (1978). Second, concepts are complex “units of representation” (E. Clark 1983: 789) that subsume a set of different mental representations concerning entities or events (cf. Howes 1990: 178). Shared properties of these representations constitute the concept, in other words: “a concept is a mental grouping of different entities into a single category on the basis of similarity” (Flavell, Miller, and Miller 2002: 108). Let us now consider the notion of representation in detail and more particularly the notion of conceptual representation.14 The etymological origin of the

12 The fact that adults unconsciously assign different concepts (whether they are visual, auditory or of some other nature) to specific categories, is called categorical perception and implies “une distorsion du champ perceptif: certains éléments de ce champ deviennent saillants alors que d’autres sont ignorés” [a distortion of the perceptual field: certain elements of this field become salient whereas others are ignored] (Reboul 2007: 26). 13 For (historical) overviews of conceptual theories cf. Howes (1990: 1–21) and Margolis and Laurence (2000: 3–81). 14 By focusing on conceptual representations we omit sensorimotor and grammatical ones. For an excellent overview of the differences and similarities between procedural and declarative information and the different mental representations that are associated with each, cf. Mandler (1998: 267). For more details on grammatical representations, cf. for instance Lieven et al. (2003: 364) or Lieven and Tomasello (2008: 169).

Convergences of the notions language and cognition 

 19

word representation (the Latin noun repraesentatio ‘depiction’) nevertheless indicates that a representation “is something that stands for something else” (Palmer 1978: 262). For cognitive linguists and psychologists conceptual representations of knowledge of the world are considered to be the fundamental units of knowledge (cf. Evans 2007: 31; Glass and Holyoak [1950] 1986: 5) that are stored in the human brain. Depending on the theoretical background, representations can have different origins and formats.15 It is generally agreed that knowledge is represented in multiple ways and modalities (E. Clark 2003: 19–20; Karmiloff-Smith 1981: 236; Mandler 1998: 268), but that verbal communication requires concepts to be coded in the propositional mode of representation (Levelt 1996: 105; cf. also Mandler 1998: 258; von Stutterheim and Nüse 2003: 852). Generally, representations are considered to emerge from perceptual experience through a process called perceptual meaning analysis16 (Mandler 1988, 1998, 2004) and involving an abstraction process. This idea has its origin in Piaget’s developmental theory17, but has been refined in several approaches, for instance in Karmiloff-Smith’s Representational-Redescription Theory (1990, 1999) or in Mandler’s Theory of Analogical Representations, where image-schemas play a crucial role (Mandler 1988, 1991, 1998, 2004). Mandler argues that perception schemas are too concrete and therefore cannot constitute the types of representations that underlie early linguistic labels.18 “Image-schemas are spatial representations that express primitives or fundamental meanings. Primitive in this sense means foundational, not that image-schemas are atomic, unitary, or without structure. […] Cognitive linguists speak about image-schemas as lying at the core of people’s understanding of events and of the metaphorical extensions of these concepts to more abstract realms” (Mandler 2004: 78). Therefore, image-schemas are considered to be constructed from perceptual information and represent an abstract transitional form between purely sensori-motor schemas and rather abstract categories (Mandler 2004: 118; cf. Bowerman 1996a: 420; Wilson 2002: 634).

15 For detailed overviews see Herrmann (1995: 81), Pederson and Nuyts (1997: 2) or Mandler (1998: 257–264). 16 For a synoptic critical discussion of Mandler’s approach see Carey (2000b). 17 Piaget assumes that “le propre de la représentation est au contraire de dépasser l’immédiat (…) donc d’évoquer ce qui déborde le domaine perceptif et moteur“ [the characteristic of a representation is in contrast to surmount the moment (…) thus, to evoke those things that transcend the perceptual and motor domain] (Piaget 1945: 286). 18 Note, however, that image-schemas are independent of language (Mandler 2004: 257). That is to say, there is no one-to-one mapping between image-schemas and linguistic means.

20 

 Language and cognition

To conclude these considerations of concepts and representations, let us just contrast the two notions as regards their strength and flexibility. That representations are subjective is evident and quite uncontroversial (Margolis and Laurence 2000: 7). However, that they are rather dynamic19 than static (Cleeremans 2006: 407; Cleeremans and Jiménez 2002: 17–18; Herrmann 1995: 82) and graded (Abbot-Smith and Tomasello 2006: 286; Cleeremans 2006: 407; Cleeremans and Jiménez 2002: 18) is a more recent point of view, which was mainly introduced by connectionism (Bates and Elman [1993] 2002). Thus, cognitive psychologists and linguists stress the direct impact of frequency in the strength and solidity of concepts (Bybee 2006a, 2006b). However, conceptual cores exist at the individual level, but as concepts are in some way linked to language, culture therefore plays a crucial role in their formation (E. Clark 1983: 789; Howes 1990: 183). Thus, concepts and perhaps also representations are partly influenced by culture. With this background in mind, we can now turn to a brief discussion concerning the relation between language and thought. This question will then be at the center of Chapter 2, with particular attention to the possible influence of language (and therefore of culture) on thought.

1.2 The relation between language and thought The relation between language and cognition is one of the most complex and regularly debated questions in cognitive science. Although thought is only one aspect of cognition, we will adopt the terminology used by many researchers who mainly discuss Language and Thought instead of Language and Cognition (Fodor 1978; Gentner and Goldin-Meadow 2003; Lucy [1995] 1996c; Rieber 1983; Slobin 1996, 2003; Wygotski [1986] 1992; Whorf [1956] 2007). Four main hypotheses can be distinguished: (1) Language is thought, both are isomorphic; (2) language, and thought do not influence each other; (3) thought influences language, and finally (4) language influences thought. In the following, we will take a closer look at these hypotheses and outline their theoretical framework.20 Although these four hypotheses are treated separately, we are aware

19 For an argument against this point of view and in favour of a stable grammar, cf. Newmeyer (2003). 20 Obviously, the relation between language and thought is closely linked to language acquisition. Given that Chapter 3 is concerned with different theories of language acquisition, only the basic assumptions of these theories will be mentioned here and detailed explanations will appear in Chapter 3.

The relation between language and thought 

 21

that they should probably be viewed as fitting into a continuum. Since the fourth hypothesis plays an important role in the present investigation, Chapter 2 is dedicated entirely to this approach. All four hypotheses admit some connection between language and cognition (Barlow and Kemmer 2000: vii; Chomsky [1975] 1977: 54, 1989: 55, 1994a: 6; Rieber 1983: 33 and 110) and consider language as a cognitive system (Goldberg [2006] 2008a: 4); but they differ with respect to how they view the direction and magnitude of the causal relation that exists between them. The following examination will consider what the overall picture of the relation between language and thought turns out to be.

1.2.1 Language is thought This line of argumentation which is even more radical than that of linguistic relativity goes back to Plato (428–348 BC), who was probably the first to claim that language is thought.21 He assumes that “thought and speech [are] the same, except that what we call thought is speech that occurs without the voice, inside the soul in conversation with itself” (Sophist 263e, Plato [360 BC] 1993: 59). In this view, language and thought are considered to have the same content as well as the same structure and they are therefore indistinguishable. That is to say, thinking consists of well-formed sentences that are composed of lexical entities and grammatical devices following the language-specific rules of a particular language. Thinking is thus considered to be a silent dialogue in our mind exhibiting the same characteristics as a verbalized conversation out loud: “It is doing nothing other than conversing with itself (dialogesthai). The soul asks itself questions, and answers them with affirmations and denials. […] So for my part, I describe believing as speaking, and belief as a spoken account: not spoken to someone else, nor with the voice; but spoken to yourself, silently” (Theaetetus 189e, Plato 369 BC in Chappell 2004: 167). Plato’s idea was taken up in the 18th century by Herder (1744–1803) according to whom we cannot think outside of language and therefore our language expresses the limits of our knowledge (“Die Grenzen meiner Sprache bedeuten die Grenzen meiner Welt” [The limits of my language are the limits of my world]).22 In other words: Only what we can express in our language can be conceived and understood by our mind.

21 For more details of Plato’s view on language and thought, cf. Dörner (2006: 619), and Everson (1994: 10–27). 22 For more details of Herder’s position, cf. Cloeren (1988: 40–52).

22 

 Language and cognition

In the 19th century, Hegel (1770–1831) also postulated the same relationship between language and thought, assuming that we have to express our inwardness in an external system in order to think about it (“Es ist in Namen, dass wir denken” [It is in names that we think] Hegel [1830] 1991: 278). In the 20th century, Black articulates this idea as follows: “Language no longer appears as a tiresome, if necessary, medium of exchange between ideas, but rather as the very stuff of which ‘ideas’ are made” (Black 1968: 10). The assumption that language is thought has primarily been put forth by a number of philosophers who did not verify their hypothesis by empirical evidence. Today this position is considered problematic and is therefore rarely supported and often overlooked in current overviews.

1.2.2 Language and thought do not influence each other In the second hypothesis language and cognition (and therefore thought) do not influence each other. Two positions can be subsumed under this rather general idea. First, different generative approaches assume an innate language structure and innate concepts. According to scholars in the nativist framework, semantic representations are mapped onto conceptual ones (Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch 2002; Valian 2009). Thus, concepts do not change during life. Another idea is that both capacities, language and thought, are rather independent; although each of them, or both, cannot be influenced by language, but by other factors such as culture (cf. Gumperz and Levinson 1996a: 9). However, theorists of both positions admit some more or less strong cognitive constraints (e.g., working memory restrictions) when using language. Let us begin with some considerations about the first position. Chomsky for instance assumes “that knowledge of language (…) is to a large extent independent of intelligence” (Chomsky 1972: 64). According to him, only E-Language that is language use is influenced by cognitive constraints related to memory, perception and time (Chomsky 1972: 117, 1977: 54; Cook and Newson 1998: 120). This view is closely linked to the assumption that language and cognition are encapsulated in different modules in the brain which function relatively independently from each other (Cromer 1974: 199; Rieber 1983: 34), or in Fodors words: “The linguistic system is considered to be an independent module, i.e., component, of the mind with distinct properties based on domain-specific innate structures that determine the options from which learners select” (Fodor 1983 quoted in Eisenbeiß 2009: 286). Nevertheless, Chomsky admits an interaction between I-Language and other cognitive systems like perception or knowledge which altogether “form our whole complex of cognitive structures” (Chomsky quoted in Rieber 1983: 34). He assumes

The relation between language and thought 

 23

there are two “interface levels” between I-Language and cognition, one related to sound and the other to meaning (Chomsky 2007a: 9–10). The first interface level is supposed to be located between the phonetic representation of language and the sensori-motor systems, responsible for encoding and decoding sounds. The second one concerns the semantic representation of language which has to be available to mental systems such as conceptualization or thought. However, the term interface level is not defined. Thus the underlying idea remains vague. According to other theorists in this framework, words are only mapped onto pre-existing concepts and thus semantic representations are equated with conceptual representations (Jackendoff [1983] 1999: 209; Li and Gleitman 2002: 266; Valian 2009: 18). In her more recent work, Spelke (2003: 305) admits however that by combining the preexisting representations delivered by different systems of innate “core knowledge”, human language – a domain-general medium – contributes to the construction of new well-formed systems of knowledge.23 Thus, languages provide means to combine core knowledge of the different innate systems, leading children to construct new concepts. Such new concepts are of greater scope and power than those that are innate (Spelke and Tsivkin 2001: 71; cf. also Rice and Kemper 1984: 119–121). The second position which rejects any influence between language and thought assumes that particular external factors can have an impact on one or both capacities. This approach will be illustrated by two studies that aimed at explaining different (non-)linguistic categorization systems. The study by Li and Gleitman (2002: 289) assumes that culture (above all “the geographical and interpersonal cohesion of a society”) has a striking impact on the innate language of thought (cf. also Pinker 2007: 148).24 Cultural differences or local circumstances are linked to the way people think and with that speak about those situations (cf. also E. Clark and H. Clark 1978: 269; Herrmann 2005: 41; Vandeloise 2003b: 52).25 Whether culture influences thought or thought influences culture remains an open question (Li and Gleitman 2002: 290). Note that any influence of language on thought is radically rejected by Li and Gleitman (2002: 286).26

23 For a detailed critique of this position, cf. Levinson (2003). 24 For an argument against the influence of cultural factors on cognition, cf. Lucy (1996a) and Slobin (2003). 25 In the following chapters this question will not receive further consideration because the two languages to be compared in the present study are relatively close to each other as regards cultural factors. 26 Majid et al. (2004) showed in their study that “explanations invoking an environmental or cultural compound also seem unviable” (Majid et al. 2004: 110). For similar consideration, cf. also Boas (1911: 56).

24 

 Language and cognition

The second study in this respect comes from Dougherty and Keller (1985), who examine the relation between non-linguistic and linguistic classification. They conducted a set of experiments where blacksmiths had to classify their tools and justify their choices. Their results show that everyday technological activity requires special attention to particular features of the objects involved. In contrast to Li and Gleitman (2002), Dougherty and Keller reject the idea of innate preexisting concepts and assume instead that categories are built up by tasks at hand (Dougherty and Keller 1985: 165–170). The authors conclude that “[t]he named class to which an object belongs for purposes of standard reference in general classification schemes has little influence over its occurrences in other constellations of applied knowledge” (Dougherty and Keller 1985: 171). Both studies suggest that there may be factors (cultural circumstances in the first case and everyday technological activity in the latter case) that influence our non-linguistic classification of objects or events, but language does not intervene.

1.2.3 Thought influences language Representatives of the third hypothesis, often called Cognitive Determinism, assume that cognition strongly constrains language.27 This can concern the meanings expressed by children (“thought as the content of language”, Johnston 1985: 963), the formal complexity of linguistic devices (Johnston 1985: 986; Slobin [1971] 1973: 196 and 1985b: 5) or cognitive processing mechanisms (E. Clark and H. Clark 1978: 255–256; Cromer 1974: 239). From a developmental point of view, Piaget’s theory is perhaps the most wellknown and will be presented in more detail in Chapter 3. According to Jean Piaget, it is cognitive abilities that make certain meanings available for expression e.g., locative expressions or conditionals (Piaget 1930, 1964; Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983).28 Although Piaget initially denied that language can provoke changes in thought structures and thus can become a tool of intelligence (Karmiloff-Smith

27 At this point, we will not deal with cognitive prerequisites for the emergence of language such as conceptualization, the understanding of symbols or social cognitive skills like intention reading etc. For more details on this topic, cf. Chapter 4 or Langer’s studies on the evolution of cognitive and linguistic ontogeny, who also show that “In both phylogeny and ontogeny, then, cognition originates and develops prior to and without any language. Conversely, language does not originate prior to and without cognition” (Langer 2001: 36). 28 According to Piaget, for younger children this always implies that the child has acquired these notions on the sensori-motor level, that is to say, by manipulating objects actively (cf. Karmiloff-Smith 1981: 8; Sinclair de Zwart 1969: 332).

The relation between language and thought 

 25

1981: 236), in 1983 he conceded that language plays an important role in conceptualization (Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983: 109).29 Apart from Piaget and his followers, many other researchers also assume that “conceptual notions must be acquired prior to their verbal expression” (Johnston 1985: 963; cf. also Hyams 1986: 163; Macnamara 1972: 11; Rice and Kemper 1984: 34; Slobin 1973: 180; Weist et al. 1997: 115). Consequently, it is widely acknowledged that children “develop certain words because these words are relevant to their specific cognitive concerns” (Gopnik and Choi 1990: 213; cf. Berman 1993: 197; Karmiloff-Smith 1981: 236). Furthermore, Slobin explains that the order in which linguistic devices are acquired not only depends on meaning, but also on formal complexity (Slobin 1973: 176–190; cf. also Bowerman 1996b: 148). According to him, “[c]ognitive development and linguistic development do not run in union” (Slobin 1973: 182), because it is possible that a child has acquired a specific conceptual representation while still lacking the grammatical form to express it. Johnston and Slobin (1979: 543) describe this phenomenon with the “waiting room metaphor”: Each linguistic form has its own waiting room: the entry door is opened with the underlying notion as key; the key to the exit door is the appropriate linguistic form. […] The entry is thus determined by conceptual acquisition of the sort generally referred to as cognitive development. The problems to be solved in the waiting room are both semantic and morphologico-syntactic. […] The solutions take varying amounts of time, depending on linguistic factors.

The third type of (universal) cognitive constraints concerns limitations that refer to information processing. It is obvious that speakers – children as well as adults  – are confronted with cognitive constraints mainly in working memory capacities or in the speed with which they can perform various cognitive operations (Johnston 1985: 986; Oberauer and Hockl 2003: 384). Slobin (1973: 195) distinguishes between constraints in short-term memory, which are concerned with the ongoing use of speech, and those in long-term memory, which are related to the storage of linguistic knowledge. For children, this implies primarily limitations in the complexity and length of their utterances (Cromer 1974: 239; Oberauer and Hockl 2003: 373). Therefore, Johnston assumes that “the structure of language [in early childhood] should prove to be contemporaneously isomorphic to the structure of thought” (Johnston 1985: 987). In adults, however, linguistic processing becomes more and more autonomous. Thus, the same semantic content is normally expressed by the same linguistic patterns in order to minimize the

29 For a critical consideration of the cognitive hypothesis see Johnston (1985) and KarmiloffSmith (1981, 1990).

26 

 Language and cognition

processing load (Myachykov, Posner, and Tomlin 2007: 471). With age, the linkage between language and cognition seems to change and both become a bit more independent from each other. All three kinds of cognitive constraints (meanings expressed, formal complexity of linguistic devices, and cognitive processing mechanisms) are considered to be cognitive universals that have their origin in the human biological endowment (E. Clark and H. Clark 1978; Tomasello 2003; von Stutterheim and Carroll 2007). With regard to language acquisition, the impact of all these factors has often been subsumed under a general heading that might be called the “influence of universal determinants” (Hickmann 2003a, 2003b, 2006, 2007; Hickmann and Hendriks 2008; Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000). In what follows, such factors will be referred to from a developmental point of view under the heading of the influence of general developmental determinants.

1.2.4 Language influences thought The fourth hypothesis, often called linguistic determinism, supposes that language influences cognition. Two positions can be distinguished: On the one hand universal linguistic constraints and on the other language-specific constraints. The latter position is better known as the theory of linguistic relativity and will be the topic of Chapter 2. First, let us consider the influence of universal linguistic constraints on language. Wygotski’s (1992) central claim, semiotic mediation, predicts that human language is a powerful symbolic system with special properties that have drastic consequences for human thought and communication.30 The emergence of language in children thus implies a fundamental cognitive reorganization that simultaneously enables the child to construct abstract concepts and to actively participate in interpersonal interaction. Wygotski and his followers argue that children begin to use speech as an aid in thought. Initially, children use speech in the form of egocentric speech (speech for oneself) to regulate their own actions. Through a “transition from interpsychic to intrapsychic functioning” (Wygotski 1992: 228 and 248; cf. also Lurija 1982), this form of speech becomes interiorized. Inner speech, then, helps us to orient ourselves, to solve problems, to memorize knowledge – in short, to think in pure meanings (cf. E. Clark and H. Clark 1978:

30 Lucy (1996a) further developed Wygotski’s idea, focusing on the impact of “functional (or goal-oriented) configurations of language means in the course of (inter)action” and calls this phenomenon “discursive (or functional) relativity” (Lucy 1996a: 52).

The relation between language and thought 

 27

269; Rice and Kemper 1984: 97). As a result, through the socialization of individual thought by speech, humans develop higher cognitive abilities such as abstraction processes (Dacal 1996: 1038; Lucy and Wertsch 1987: 80; Sapir 1921: 14). Note that inner speech is not only speech minus sound, but rather an autonomous and separate speech function with its own “grammar” (Wygotski 1992: 243–249; cf. also Dacal 1996: 1025). Therefore, it works for instance with semantics not with phonetics and has a predicative syntax characterized by agglutinations. When verbalizing, speakers have to transform thought into inner speech, translate its idiomatic structure into meanings of words and finally express it as syntactic speech intelligible to others. Nevertheless, inner speech, and with it thought, remain verbal, propositional and linguistic in form and function (Rice and Kemper 1984: 100). Before turning to the influence of language-specific factors let us consider the idea that language as an externalized symbolic system – and therefore independent of inner speech – has an impact on cognition in general. Lucy (1996a: 39) calls this phenomenon “semiotic relativity”. Langacker points out that “[t]he use of verbal symbols thus makes thought easier in many cases.31 One might even argue that some kind of thinking would be impossible without the existence of these convenient counters to operate with” (Langacker 1968: 38). This quotation suggests once more that the use of a symbolic system and the possibility of combining symbols according to syntactic rules – whether consisting of words or signs – facilitates thought and enables humans to achieve higher cognitive processes (cf. Reboul 2007: 339). For the view that language-specific determinants have an impact on cognition, Sapir and Whorf can be considered to be the most important representatives of this framework (cf. Chapter 2).32 Following Wilhelm von Humboldt’s idea (cf. von Humboldt 1910: 149–152),33 they claim that the speakers’ world view depends on their language: “users of markedly different grammars are pointed to their

31 For similar considerations see Gentner (2003: 219), Johnston (1985: 984 and 993), Langer (2001: 38), Levinson (2001: 584), Rice and Kemper (1984: 110), and von Humboldt (1985: 65). 32 Lucy and Wertsch (1987: 76) explain that Wygotski’s and Whorf’s approaches are complementary rather than contradictory: “So, in review, although Vygotsky and Whorf both insisted on the need to use a comparative method they used different axes of comparison, one diachronic, the other synchronic. In addition, although both were concerned with language, one was working primarily with a single language – as a representative of the general capacity for speech – while the other was working with a variety of languages”. 33 Cf. Cloeren (1988) for a detailed overview of other German philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries who claim an interdependence of language and thought in contrast to Kant’s critical philosophy.

28 

 Language and cognition

grammars towards different types of observations and different evaluations of externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers, but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world” (Whorf 2007: 221). Although this hypothesis has been frequently criticized (Langacker 1968: 41; Rice and Kemper 1984: 108), some researchers still assume that language affects our non-linguistic cognition (Goldin-Meadow and Zheng 1998; Levinson 1997, 2003; Lucy 1996a; Majid et al. 2004). Today most researchers support a moderate Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis, according to which language has an influence on human cognition, but probably only when speaking and planning thoughts for the purpose of communication (E. Clark 2003; Langacker 1968; Levelt 1996; Papafragou, Hulbert, and Trueswell 2008; Papafragou and Selimis 2010a, 2010b; Slobin 2006; Trueswell and Papafragou 2010; von Stutterheim and Carroll 2007). Slobin (1987) has called this phenomenon “thinking for speaking”. This assumption predicts that there are language-specific differences in how speakers encode information at the message level; consequently, when planning to encode perceived information, they will attend to different perceptual and conceptual features depending on their language (cf. also Levelt 1996: 104; Papafragou, Hulbert, and Trueswell 2008: 180). For language acquisition, this hypothesis implies that “differences in linguistic input may affect which cognitive problems the child chooses to focus on” (Gopnik and Choi 1990: 213; cf. also Gopnik 2001: 58; Rice and Kemper 1984: 30–32; Weist et al. 1997: 113). Consequently, language influences the order in which children of different languages master specific cognitive domains. Chapter 2.3 will discuss these consequences for language acquisition in more detail.

1.2.5 Conclusion We have seen that some relation between language and thought, two different mental capacities, is recognized by almost all modern psychological and linguistic theories. The idea that language is thought (hypothesis 1) nevertheless seems to us problematic. Even researchers who assume the independence of language and thought (hypothesis 2) admit cognitive constraints in the domain of information processing at all ages (especially regarding perception and memory). Most of them therefore now assume that there are influential relations between these two capacities. Regarding the direction of that influence between language and thought, there seems to be a change related to age (cf. Bates, O’Connell, and Shore 1987: 151; Lucy and Wertsch 1987: 84). In the early stages, cognition dominates language, but with increasing age, the relations becomes bidirectional and “branching linkages between language and cognition have developed” (Rice and

The relation between language and thought 

 29

Kemper 1984: 121; cf. also Bloom 1991: 124). Thus, thought determines language in some respects (hypothesis 3), but language also influences thought (hypothesis 4), as will be shown in the following chapter. In summary, consider Figure 3, in which language and thought are conceptualized as two intersecting circles (cf. Byrnes and Gelman 1991: 20).

Language

Thought

Verbal Thought

Figure 3: The relation between language and thought

As shown above, language influences thought, but thought also has some impact on language and these interactions are illustrated by the two arrows. The overlap between language and cognition is verbal thought, as it has been described at different places in the preceding chapter. However, thought can exist nonverbally, and speech probably can exist without representational content (e.g., some cases of rote learning). The assumption that language-specific factors influence thought is the most controversial issue in this context, and it will be the topic of the next chapter.

2 Linguistic determinism and “thinking for speaking” Linguistic determinism assumes that language-specific factors have an influence on thought. In its original form, the hypothesis of linguistic determinism claims that language influences cognition in verbal- and non-verbal situations, leading speakers to develop different “views of the world” (Whorf 2007: 221). Thus, speakers focus their attention on those aspects of reality that are encoded in their language and “[u]ncoded concepts would be unattainable” (Gumperz and Levinson 1996b: 23). Representatives of a more moderate position predict that language influences thought only partially, above all when it is used for communication (“thinking for speaking”). Therefore, depending on the particular linguistic system in which specific concepts are encoded, concepts are more or less accessible and salient. During the last decades, the linguistic relativity hypothesis has again come to the forefront. A growing number of studies has been conducted to provide evidence for both positions (traditional linguistic relativity and “thinking for speaking”). Particular attention has been devoted to two domains which play a crucial role in our lives: Space and time. We will focus primarily on space below, since this domain is at the center of the present study. Space has been studied in multiple ways and in many different cultures. For a long time, researchers believed that spatial cognition could be characterized exclusively in terms of universals.34 Along this line, E. Clark and H. Clark assume that languages “are modelled in part by ideas, processing capacities, and social factors all people have in common” and they call these features “linguistic universals” (E. Clark and H. Clark 1978: 227). According to their view, linguistic universals have their origin in the human capacity to organize and categorize perceptual information which is presumably identical for all people.35 Over the years, however, research has shown that spatial relations are encoded in quite different

34 In his critical review of this assumption Levinson concludes: “Still, this kind of result suggests that a treatment of universal constraints as filters, leaving open indefinite possible cultural variation within outer limits, may in the end not be too weak. There would then be no necessary inconsistency between a rich set of universal constraints and a moderately strong brand of linguistic relativity in at least some domains” (Levinson 1996b: 196, cf. also Levinson 2001). 35 Such linguistic universals can be found, for instance, in the domain of colour, space or time; thus, the past is usually marked with respect to the present (E. Clark and H. Clark 1978: 251 and 248). For assumptions about universals of spatial cognition, cf. Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976: 376).

Linguistic determinism  

 31

ways across cultures and that this fact seems to have some influence on speakers’ (non-verbal) spatial representations. First, the traditional linguistic relativity hypothesis will be discussed, before sketching Slobin’s more moderate position known as “thinking for speaking” (Slobin 1987). In Chapter 2.3, the focus will be on the consequences of these assumptions for language acquisition, and the discussion will include some counterarguments to these relativistic views advanced in models that view conceptual universals as most essential.

2.1 Linguistic determinism Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) was one of the first scientists36 to engage in comparisons of a great number of languages in order to demonstrate both their similarities and their differences. In the course of his research he reflected on the relation between language and thought and finally reasoned that particular languages had a strong impact on speakers’ thinking (von Humboldt 1910: 149). According to him, language is not only a tool for expressing thought, but rather provides speakers with signs for which they have to discover the meaning (von Humboldt 1910: 152). Therefore, languages do not differ merely with regard to sounds and forms, but also provide speakers with a “Weltansicht”: Durch die gegenseitige Abhängigkeit des Gedankens und des Wortes voneinander leuchtet es klar ein, daß die Sprachen nicht eigentlich Mittel sind, die schon erkannte Wahrheit darzustellen, sondern weit mehr, die vorher unerkannte zu entdecken. Ihre Verschiedenheit ist nicht eine von Schällen und Zeichnen, sondern eine Verschiedenheit der Weltansichten selbst. (von Humboldt 1910: 152) [The mutual interdependence of thought and word illuminates clearly the truth that languages are not really means for representing already known truths but are rather instruments for discovering previously unrecognized ones. The differences of the languages is not the difference of sounds and signs, but the difference in worldviews.]

At the beginning of the 20th century, Edward Sapir (1884–1939) took up the idea of linguistic determinism37 although he assumes that culture has an impact on language, especially on vocabulary (Sapir [1912] 2008a: 141–146). His theory of

36 For a detailed overview on historical pioneers of this position, cf. Cloeren (1988). 37 Note that linguistic determinism does not mean that “what cannot be said cannot be thought” (Gumperz and Levinson 1996b: 22); for similar considerations, cf. Herrmann (2005: 37).

32 

 Linguistic determinism and “thinking for speaking”

linguistic determinism became especially famous through the work of his student Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897–1941), who first provided empirical evidence of the impact of language on thought.38 Like von Humboldt and other historical pioneers of this approach, they assume that language “on its inner face [is] the mold of thought” (Sapir 1921: 21). Throughout their writings, Sapir and Whorf point out that speakers organize perceived information according to the available linguistic expressions in their native language (cf. Sapir 1921: 16; Whorf 2007: 213 and more recently Reboul 2007: 338). As a result, speakers of different languages develop different views of the world. In the terminology of cognitive linguistics: Semantic representations are equivalent to conceptual representations (cf. Levinson 1997: 19).39 Whorf calls this reasoning the linguistic relativity principle and he defines it as follows: From this fact proceeds what I have called the ‘linguistic relativity principle’, which means, in informal terms, that users of markedly different grammars are pointed by their grammars towards different types of observations and different evaluations by externally similar acts of observation, and hence are not equivalent as observers, but must arrive at somewhat different views of the world. (Whorf 2007: 221)

In his (1951) paper, Hoijer coined the term Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis for the linguistic relativity principle, sometimes also called linguistic determinism. Let us recapitulate the logic underlying this hypothesis, which follows a three-step argument (cf. Gentner and Goldin-Meadow 2003: 4; Gumperz and Levinson 1996b: 23–24). The first step consists in the observation that languages vary in their semantic partitioning of the world40 or as formulated by Langacker (1968: 39; cf. also Boas 1911: 24; Bowerman 1996a; Lucy 1996c): “no two languages match precisely in the way in which they break up conceptual space and assign the

38 For a detailed analysis of the relationships between Humboldt, Boas, Sapir and Whorf cf. Underhill (2009). 39 Pinker criticizes this way of reasoning when he says: “The problem here is that the semantic distinctions can be so specific to the speaker’s particular language or dialect, and so poorly motivated by independent principles of cognitive organization, that equating linguistic semantic representations with the conceptual categories underlying nonlinguistic thought is tantamount to a very strong and implausible Whorfian claim” (Pinker 1989b: 357). 40 Saussure also assumes that “the content of linguistic expressions depends on the system in which they are embedded, rather than in the first instance of their denotatio” (Gumperz and Levinson 1996a: 4). Therefore, la valeur [the value] of a linguistic sign depends on the other signs available in the semantic domain of a particular language (de Saussure 1969: 159). In short, although Saussure did not mention this point explicitly, his theory seems to suppose that languages differ in the way they partition the world.

Linguistic determinism  

 33

pieces to words as meanings”. This variability across languages concerns the intentions and extensions of lexical and morpho-syntactic categories. As a result, there is no objective, universal categorization system that would be common to all cultures and thus directly reflected in all languages (cf. Boas 1911: 25; Gelman and Coley 1991: 190; Majid et al. 2004: 113; Sapir [1928] 2008c: 221; Vandeloise 2003b: 38). None of these classification patterns is better or more logical than the others (Bowerman 1996a: 395; Lucy 1996a: 50). Secondly, a further assumption is that the structure of our particular language influences the manner in which we perceive and understand the world. This idea of language as an “organ of thought” can already be found in the writing of the German philosophers of Sprachkritik in the 18th century (cf. Cloeren 1988), and it is still present in some of the most recent anthropological and psycholinguistic studies (Bennardo 2009; Papafragou, Hulbert, and Trueswell 2008; von Stutterheim and Carroll 2007). The logical consequence of these two assumptions is therefore that speakers of different languages perceive the world differently,41 resulting in cross-linguistic differences in non-linguistic categorization, perception, memory or thinking in general (Gumperz and Levinson 1996b: 23; Levinson 1997: 34; Lucy and Gaskins 2001: 272; Majid et al. 2004: 110). Lucy (1996a; 1996c; cf. also Lucy and Gaskins 2001) points out that most of the research on linguistic relativity uses a third notion (apart from language and thought), namely reality which is considered to exist independently of both language and thought. Reality should be the “metric or standard for calibrating the content of both linguistic and cognitive categories” (Lucy and Gaskins 2001: 258). When describing reality for the purposes of comparison, special attention should be directed to not privileging the categories of particular languages or cultures: “In short, the description of reality for the purposes of comparison ideally should be neutral with respect to any cultural or linguistic system” (Lucy 1996c: 274). Consequently, according to Lucy, research on linguistic relativity is composed of

41 Vandeloise would probably like to add another prerequisite for linguistic relativity which must precede the first premise: Language precedes thought (Vandeloise 2003b: 20). This condition seems to be justified especially if we consider Sapir’s statement: “If we don’t have symbols, we don’t have meanings” (Sapir 1994: 107; cf. also Sapir 1921: 16). According to the relativistic view, meaning and thought only emerge through language. However, this assumption probably does not concern all sorts of thought, but only “that reflexive kind of thinking which includes reasoning and analysis” (Underhill 2009: 31). Therefore, Vandeloise’s and Sapir’s idea seems to be relatively close to Wygotski’s and Lakoff’s positions mentioned in Chapter 1.2.4. Thus, strictly speaking, we are not concerned with the influence of a particular language on thought, but rather with the influence of language in general which helps humans elaborate higher cognitive processes.

34 

 Linguistic determinism and “thinking for speaking”

three levels to be investigated, each comprising several elements. He illustrates his model in Figure 4. A basic requirement is the comparative study of several languages simultaneously (Languages 1 to 3 and Thought 1 to 3). In my opinion, two points should be modified (dotted and grey arrows). On the one hand, there is a relation between reality and each of the languages studied. In addition, this relation seems to be bidirectional because reality is encoded in language, but language also leads speakers to perceive reality in language-specific ways (dotted arrows). This does not mean that reality does not exist independently from language. On the other hand, language is assumed to influence thought. Thus, there is not only a neutral link between both levels but also a unidirectional relation (grey arrows).

REALITY Explicitly formulated, induced comparatively from linguistic data

LANGUAGE 1

LANGUAGE 2

LANGUAGE 3

Grammatical structuring of categories of reference

Grammatical structuring of categories of reference

Grammatical structuring of categories of reference

THOUGHT 1

THOUGHT 2

THOUGHT 3

Controlled assessment of patterns of individual habitual thought

Controlled assessment of patterns of individual habitual thought

Controlled assessment of patterns of individual habitual thought

Figure 4: Essential components of research on linguistic relativity (Modified version of Lucy 1996c: 276)

In the 1960s and 1970s the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis was revised and many researchers tried to find evidence for radical relativistic predictions in the domain of lexical items (Berlin and Kay 1969; Brown and Lenneberg 1954; Lenneberg and Roberts 1956). This approach took a new turn with the work of linguists such as Talmy (1983, 1985, 2003) and of psycholinguists such as Bowerman and colleagues (Bowerman 1996a, 1996b; Bowerman and Choi 2001; Choi and Bowerman 1991) or Slobin (1987, 1996, 2000, 2003), who focused more on the influence of grammatical structures. These researchers demonstrated once again that languages carve up the world quite differently, although they were much more cautious in drawing conclusions about the relation between speakers’ verbal

Linguistic determinism  

 35

behavior and their nonverbal cognition. It is noteworthy that cognitive science was emerging at the same time and that a major assumption of this framework was that all humans possessed sets of universal cognitive representations – independent of their culture and language (cf. Gumperz and Levinson 1996a: 2, and Chapter  2.3). It is obvious that both approaches, the relativistic and the cognitive one, were based on rather different hypotheses (Gopnik 2001: 45; Vandeloise 2003b: 51). Hence, if we take the findings of relativistic research seriously into account, it is difficult to maintain the assumption that semantic representations reflect universal conceptual representations. Thus, it now appears that not all conceptual structures (in adults) are identical, as most of the cognitive linguists previously assumed (Levinson 2001: 566). Even basic human concepts such as body parts seem to be language-specific (cf. Enfield, Majid, and van Staden 2006). During the last decades much research has shown cross-linguistic differences in humans’ (nonverbal) cognition, as predicted by the linguistic relativity principle (among others: Bowerman 1996a, 1996b, 2004; Lucy 1996a, 1996b, 1996c; Lucy and Gaskin 2003; Majid et al. 2004; Papafragou, Massey, and Gleitman 2001; Papagrafou, Hulbert, and Trueswell 2008; Slobin 1996, 2000). In the following, we will examine the different ways in which language-specific factors can influence human cognition (cf. Majid et al. 2004: 113). It is important to keep in mind that this is exactly the question that differentiates linguistic relativity and thinking for speaking: Representatives of the stronger linguistic relativity view claim that language influences verbal and nonverbal cognition, leading speakers to develop different “views of the world” (cf. Herrmann 2005: 32); followers of the more moderate thinking for speaking view, assume however that language influences cognition only in tasks where language is involved, but not in other domains (see below). Certainly, there is a continuum from verbal to nonverbal cognition and thus also from the strong linguistic relativity hypothesis to the more moderate thinking for speaking hypothesis. The fact that experience with a particular language causes perceptual tuning and attention to specific features seems to be acknowledged in most studies (cf. Gopnik and Choi 1990: 213; Slobin 1996: 83; Talmy 2008b: 27). Consequently, according to that view, children gradually learn to direct their attention mainly to those aspects that are encoded in their mother tongue (cf. already Weisgerber 1929). They lose the spontaneous capacity of a “universal categorization” that can still be observed at 11 months in the domain of space (Choi and McDonough 2007: 153; McDonough, Choi, and Mandler 2003: 249; cf. also Gopnik 2001: 59).42 In their experiments, McDonough and colleagues showed that infants raised in Korean-

42 For an example in the phonological domain, cf. Werker and Tees (1999).

36 

 Linguistic determinism and “thinking for speaking”

and English-speaking environments both distinguished between loose- and tightfitting containment relations irrespective of whether this distinction is encoded in their first language (McDonough, Choi, and Mandler 2003: 249). These effects of language-specific factors on cognition have been shown in a number of experiments studying predominantly categorization and eye-movement (cf. the volumes of Bowerman and Levinson 2001; and Gumperz and Levinson 1996). With time, perceptual tuning and attention focus can lead to deeper changes in cognition, namely to the (re-)construction of (re-)representations of concepts and categories (Bowerman and Choi 2003; Gentner 2003; Gopnik 2001; Karmiloff-Smith 1999; Lucy and Gaskin 2001, 2003). All of the consequences mentioned above concern nonverbal and verbal cognition, claimed by representatives of the linguistic relativity principle to be influenced by language in all kinds of activities.

2.2 “Thinking for speaking” In contrast to representatives of a radical linguistic relativity principle, advocates of a more moderate view assume that all (perceptually non-impaired) speakers perceive the world in a comparable way because of similar “innate maturational properties of the human brain and typical experiential input” (Papafragou, Hulbert, and Trueswell 2008: 156; cf. also von Stutterheim and Carroll 2007: 35). As a result “representations for nonlinguistic purposes may differ very little across cultures and languages” (E. Clark 2003: 22; cf. also Papafragou, Massey, and Gleitman 2001: 570; Talmy 2008b: 37; Trueswell and Papafragou 2010: 64). In their language, however, people only express a fraction of their complete representation leading them to “abstractive representations” (Talmy 2008b: 33; cf. Slobin 1996: 71–72). When we consider for a moment what this implies, it will be recognized that in each language only a part of the complete concept that we have in mind is expressed, and that each language has a peculiar tendency to select this or that aspect of the mental image which is conveyed by the expression of the thought. (Boas 1911: 43)

Language strongly invites speakers to select several aspects of their quite complex (unconscious) representations depending on what grammatical categories are obligatory in their language (Berman 1993: 198; E. Clark 2003: 17; Papafragou, Hulbert, and Trueswell 2008: 180; Slobin 1996: 72; von Stutterheim, Nüse, and Murcia Serra 2002: 103). A major task for human cognition is to filter incoming information and to arrange this information according to language-specific patterns at the macrostructural level of planning (von Stutterheim and Nüse 2003:

“Thinking for speaking” 

 37

877). “By this process, the speaker selects only a subset out of the multiplicity of aspects in her more extensive conceptual complex for explicit representation by the linguistic elements of her utterance” (Talmy 2008b: 33). This way, information processes become automatized and consequently more and more efficient (cf. von Stutterheim and Carroll 2007: 58). It is important to note that within a single language speakers have different options of how to verbalize a specific semantic content. However, only a number of these options are frequent and common, and they are therefore preferred to others that diverge from the norm (cf. Slobin 1996: 75–82). U-shaped learning curves in language acquisition and interindividual variation, which result from the use of atypical patterns are considered to disprove the “Whorfian straightjacket”43 (Slobin 1996: 86): Speakers usually follow the lexicalization patterns typical of their language, but there are exceptions. Thus, the code in which people think when they have the intention to speak seems to be “propositional in nature” (Levelt [1993] 1998: 73) and consists of semantic representations based on the properties of a given language. This conclusion led Slobin (1987/1996)44 to replace the rather abstract terms of language and thought with terms that refer to activities: thinking and speaking. According to him, the effects at speaking time “present the critical interface between language and cognition” (Slobin 2003: 180). He defines his thinking for speaking hypothesis as follows: “the expression of experience in linguistic terms constitutes thinking for speaking – a special form of thought that is mobilized for communication” (Slobin 1996: 76). Therefore, thinking for speaking involves “picking those characteristics that (a) fit some conceptualization of the event, and (b) are readily encodable in the language” (Slobin 1987: 435). Since communication subsumes a number of different behaviours, thinking for speaking has to be understood as a generic term for all activities that involve language, such as for instance speaking, writing or translating (cf. Slobin 2000, 2003). Note that “thinking for understanding” may differ from processes that involve language production. If speakers are listening to understand what someone else is saying, they take into account not only the interlocutors’ utter-

43 Langacker (1968: 40–41) also comes out against the idea that one’s language inevitably determines one’s world view: “there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that this influence is in any significant way a tyrannical or even a powerful one. We are perfectly capable of forming and mentally manipulating concepts for which no word is available. […] There is absolutely no reason to believe that the grammatical structure of our language holds our thoughts in a tyrannical, vise-like grip”. 44 Slobin used the term thinking for speaking for the first time in his 1987 paper; however his (1996) article is much better known.

38 

 Linguistic determinism and “thinking for speaking”

ances but also their knowledge of the context and of the world in general. Thus E. Clark assumes: “that such conceptual representations are nearer to being universal than the representations we draw on for speaking” (E. Clark 2003: 21). Although in his early writings Slobin was very skeptical about whether language-specific factors can influence cognition beyond the speech act (Slobin 1985a, 1985b, 1987), in his recent work he admits that “these sorts of online attention may also have long-term and pervasive effects on mental representation and conceptual processes” (Slobin 2003: 179; cf. also Slobin 2000: 126; Papafragou, Hulbert, and Trueswell 2008: 157). According to Gumperz and Levinson (1996b: 27), it follows conclusively from this hypothesis of thinking for speaking that one also has “to subscribe to a consequent relativity in thinking at the time at which events are experienced”. Even though at present most researchers assume that a human’s “conceptual organization is independent of language-specific encoding preferences” (Papafragou and Selimis 2010b: 249) – in contrast to Gumperz and Levinson (1996b) mentioned above – they admit that language can play a role in event processing, but only in specific contexts. In a recent study, Trueswell and Papafragou (2010) show that when confronted with non-verbal tasks involving a high cognitive load (e.g., recognition of previously presented motion events) speakers tend to linguistically encode the perceived information in order to support memory. “This (implicit) use of the verbal code gives rise to cross-linguistic differences in attention allocation as events are apprehended and committed to memory” (Trueswell and Papafragou 2010: 78). However, this effect was not observed under conditions that do not involve cognitive load (e.g., simple event apprehension) and under conditions that block linguistic encoding (e.g., counting aloud). Therefore, the strategy to solve non-verbal tasks by internally encoding them in the form of linguistic constructions is not assumed to cause a permanent reorganisation of underlying cognitive representations (Papagrafou and Selimis 2010b: 249; cf. also Filipović 2011: 482). Generally speaking, if certain aspects of reality are encoded in a particular language they seem to be more available cognitively.45 Langacker for instance claims that it is easier for speakers to think about things they have words for and

45 In order to investigate language-specific influences on mental imagery and attention, researchers in the thinking for speaking approach, for instance, invite subjects to read narrative texts or to listen to them in a specific language; subjects are then asked to retell the story either in the original language or in another language (Slobin 2003: 172). The ways in which they modify the semantic content of the text provide evidence for the nature of their mental imagery and for the type of information their attention focuses on.

Implications for language acquisition 

 39

that complex concepts which lack a label in a specific language are less accessible (Langacker 1968: 39–41; cf. also Boas 1911: 65; Levinson 2003: 33). This point of view is even supported by representatives of a modular position such as Pinker (2007: 129). However, practically all researchers would agree that irrespective of our language, we are able to construct and mentally manipulate concepts for which no word is available in our mother tongue (Herrmann 2005: 37; Langacker 1968: 40). However, it is not only the fact that certain concepts are encoded in language, but also how and how often they are encoded that have an influence on their salience. Thus, frequency is probably one of the most obvious factors for salience (Slobin 2003: 164). As also claimed by usage-based approaches, the highly frequent use of specific words or structures leads to an entrenchment of these patterns and their associated meanings46 (cf. Abbot-Smith and Tomasello 2006: 279; Bybee 2006a: 621; Goldberg 2008a: 79; Langacker 1983: 76; Tomasello 2007: 834). A second factor to take into account is finiteness. According to Slobin (2004a: 237, 2006: 68), concepts are more salient if they are expressed by a finite rather than a non-finite verb form. If a semantic content is encoded in a finite verb form, it is typically expressed regularly and thus becomes salient. A third factor is the “expression by a single morpheme [emphasis mine] rather than a phrase or clause” (Slobin 2006: 68; cf. also 2003: 161). Slobin points out that concepts that are encoded in a single verb (English: to shuffle) are more accessible than those expressed by a phrase or a clause (French: marcher en traînant les pieds ‘to shuffle’). Beyond that, concepts that are easily encodable are not only easily accessible, but also imply a lower processing load. Cromer already formulated these ideas in 1974 when he said: “Easy codability of a concept by a language make that concept easily available and thus more likely to be used in thinking” (Cromer 1974: 245).

2.3 Implications for language acquisition During the last decades many researchers were interested in the implications of linguistic relativity or thinking for speaking for first language acquisition (cf. the work of Allen, Berman, Bowerman, Choi, Hickmann, and Slobin) and for second language acquisition (cf. studies of Gullberg, Hendriks, Hohenstein, and von Stutterheim). The focus of the discussion below is thus on the consequences of thinking for speaking for childhood.

46 Note that highly frequent words such as the verbs go, take, etc. have rather general meanings (Slobin 2001: 432).

40 

 Linguistic determinism and “thinking for speaking”

Generally speaking, in order to acquire adult-like linguistic knowledge, children have to learn to map linguistic forms onto semantic concepts and furthermore to construct grammatical utterances. Levinson (2001: 568–583) proposes three levels of this activity which correspond to different degrees of linguistic impact on acquisition and which differ with respect to their cognitive requisites: 1. Degree 1: The child maps known phonological entities of a particular language onto semantic conceptual entities which – according to certain theories – are available as universal concepts. Learning words in this manner seems to be the easiest way.47 2. Degree 2: A language-specific word-form is mapped onto an unknown semantic entity that is to say a language-specific word meaning that is constructed on the basis of universal cognitive concepts. This level requires even more cognitive effort, but still does not assume that the construction consists of entirely new, language-specific word meanings (cf. Jackendoff 1999). 3. Degree 3: The child maps language-specific word-forms onto language-specific word-meanings that are not simply combinations of universal cognitive concepts. This idea is mainly asserted by theorists of the thinking for speaking approach, as discussed in more detail below. According to Levinson (2001: 572), although all three levels are involved in language acquisition, Degree 3 seems to play the most important role. During language acquisition, children learn to direct their attention to those aspects that are encoded in their first language and they learn to express their thoughts by means of those lexicalization patterns that are most typical for this particular language (von Stutterheim, Nüse, and Murcia Serra 2002: 104). As a result, they construct language-specific form-function mappings “that otherwise might not have been” (Levinson 2001: 584). Slobin calls this kind of language acquisition typological bootstrapping (Slobin 2001: 441). Although children seem to start with quite a neutral mental image, they quickly discover which aspects of reality are grammatically encoded in their first language and direct their attention toward them (Slobin 1996: 72). As they observe adults speak and behave in different contexts, children deduce languagespecific features and adapt their cognition at least partially, focusing on what is encoded in their first language, so that what is not encoded becomes less available to them (cf. Berman 1993; Bowerman and Choi 2003: 417; Levinson 2001: 582;

47 Slobin (2001: 421) categorically rejects this kind of acquisition process; Bowerman and Choi (2001: 477) deny it at least for the domain of spatial semantics.

Implications for language acquisition 

 41

McDonough, Choi, and Mandler 2003); Gopnik expresses this idea in a more radical way, when saying: “Children do pay attention to the particularities of the adult language, and these particularities do affect the child’s conception of the world” (Gopnik 2001: 62). As regards language production, there are general characteristics in the speech of all children (cf. Hickmann 2003a: 335), for instance, the topics that young children talk about are the same across all languages (Bowerman 1996b: 165; Bowerman and Choi 2003: 390). Another general developmental factor that is considered to be universal is that utterance complexity and semantic density increase with age (Allen et al. 2007: 42; Bowerman and Choi 2001: 491; Hickmann 2006: 301–302). This fact can be explained by the growing efficiency of children’s working memory as already mentioned in Chapter 1.2.3 (cf. also Berman 1993: 199). It has long been assumed that children’s over- and underextensions reveal underlying universal concepts (Bowerman 1978; Bowerman, de León, and Choi 1995; Smiley and Huttenlocher 1995). Children make such errors because the relevant features are not salient enough and/or not yet available (Bowerman and Choi 2001: 497). However, detailed studies on the exact forms used by children provide evidence that they also differ across languages (Bowerman and Choi 2003: 402, 2001: 505). Thus, from their first utterances on, children produce the linguistic patterns that are most typical for their mother tongue, suggesting a process of “’selective attention’ favored by their particular native language” (Slobin 1996: 82). From the youngest age on, children’s utterances are more similar to those of adults speaking the same language than to children of the same age speaking another typologically different language (Bowerman and Choi 2001: 505, 2003: 397). Even children’s first words show language-specific characteristics, indicating that they are not simply mapped onto pre-existing non-linguistic concepts (Bowerman 1996b: 168; Bruner, Goodknow, and Austin 1966: 232; Rice and Kemper 1984: 6; for empirical evidence, cf. Carey 1994). The fact that concepts are actively constructed during language acquisition is very plausible and is nowadays widely acknowledged: “It is easier to build concepts according to our language than to find them in a stored knowledge” (Levinson 2003: 42). Early morphological and syntactic markings show even more strikingly the impact of a particular language than children’s use of specific lexical items (Bowerman 2004: 145). There is a consensus that from very early on, children analyze form and meaning together and are sensitive to the semantic structure of particular concepts that underlie expressions in their language (Bowerman and Choi 2003: 417). However, as pointed out by Levinson, although children’s verbalizations are very similar to those produced by adults, it is possible that pre-school lexical concepts in early childhood are not yet completely language-specific. He therefore assumes

42 

 Linguistic determinism and “thinking for speaking”

that lexical representational concepts go through an adjustment process, characterized by a constant interaction between semantic and cognitive development (cf. Gopnik and Choi 1990: 213), and do not attain their adult form before middle childhood (Levinson 2001: 583). As mentioned above, the question of language influences on non-linguistic cognition remains controversial. Bowerman and colleagues (Bowerman 1996b: 169; Bowerman and Choi 2003: 414) reject a strong impact on children’s cognition independent of language-use (apart from the fact that they lose the sensitivity to particular conceptual aspects). Ozyürek and Özçahşkan (2000: 84), however, argue, on the basis of experiments involving speech and gesture, that children organize space according to their first language.

2.4 Are we on the wrong track? After having presented evidence for the assumption that language influences thought, we now still have to deal with some current research which rejects this position. Levinson’s “Anti-Whorfian Syllogism” is a hypothesis about how languages can differ in their semantic partitioning of the world without affecting conceptual representations. In addition, some studies suggest other explanations for different conceptual systems among speakers of the same language. According to Levinson and colleagues (Gumperz and Levinson 1996b; Levinson 1997, 2003), languages have the same semantic representational system at the atomic level of semantic features. Phylogenetic inheritance and common experience in everyday life contributed to the emergence of these universal atomic concepts (Levinson 1997: 28). Languages only differ in the ways in which they combine such semantic “atoms” into “molecules” (also called “macro-concepts” in later writings) which can be equated with lexical concepts (Levinson 1997: 28). They deduce that universal conceptual representations determine semantic systems, i.e., the universal semantic representational system is identical to the universal (propositional) conceptual system. The logical consequence of their syllogism is that speakers of different languages have identical conceptual representation systems. Gumperz and Levinson (1996b: 25) stress that their assumption is “entirely compatible” with the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis because on an atomic level, semantic representations, and their corresponding conceptual representations, are drawn from an universal language of thought, while on the molecular level there are language-specific combinations of universal atomic primitives, which make up lexical meaning (and meaning associated with morpho-syntactic distinctions) and which may have specific conceptual effects.

Are we on the wrong track? 

 43

The question that now arises is whether speakers think on an atomic level rather than on a molecular one. Evidence from cognitive science suggests that humans nearly always think in chunks (“molecules” in Levinson’s words) because the processing of several semantic features separately would be too costly and inefficient (cf. Levinson 2001: 584, 2003: 36). Since chunks differ across languages, we can assume that speakers’ cognition is influenced by language-specific patterns (“molecules”) as described earlier. Consequently, Gumperz and Levinson’s hypothesis is in the end consistent with linguistic determinism. Spelke’s (2003) theory of innate core knowledge systems (mentioned in Chapter 1.2.4) assumes that humans are endowed with knowledge that is domainand task-specific and encapsulated in different modules (Spelke 2003: 291). These core knowledge systems seem to correspond to Levinson’s atomic representational systems. According to Spelke, human natural languages allow speakers to combine these systems in order to construct new combinations of knowledge (Levinson’s “molecules”). Since concepts that are not part of human core knowledge systems are simply new combinations of pre-existing knowledge, they are not considered to have any influence on thought: “it would seem that language gives us a vehicle for expressing our concepts but doesn’t provide a means to expand our concepts: we don’t learn new concepts by learning a natural language” (Spelke 2003: 306). In conclusion, Levinson and Spelke both assume that semantic representations correspond to universal conceptual representations on an atomic level. As regards the impact of “molecules” on cognition, however, their opinions diverge since only Levinson admits conceptual effects. Developmental research acknowledges that conceptual changes occur during ontogeny, above all in children’s categorization of entities, but they propose a number of factors48 other than language to account for such a development. E. Clark and H. Clark (1978: 264; cf. also Levinson 1996b: 196) assume for instance that subgroups of a society concerned with specific entities because of their profession or hobby develop “a highly varied vocabulary for certain categories and therefore, perceive features that other speakers having the same mother tongue do not distinguish”.

48 The argument that culture strongly influences languages has been mentioned in Chapter 1.2.4 and will not be further discussed here. For an argument in favour of this hypothesis, cf. Li and Gleitman (2002).

44 

 Linguistic determinism and “thinking for speaking”

Note that Boas had already expressed this idea when he said: It seems fairly evident that the selection of such simple terms must to a certain extent depend upon the chief interests of people; and where it is necessary to distinguish a certain phenomenon in many aspects, which in the life of the people play each an entirely independent role, many independent words may develop, while in other cases modifications of a single term may suffice. (Boas 1911: 26)

And recall the study by Dougherty and Keller (1985), mentioned in Chapter 1.2.2, which showed that the categorization of blacksmiths’ tools is influenced by their everyday technological activity which requires attention to specific entities or features.49 Their conclusion is quite similar to that of E. Clark and H. Clark (1978) and Boas (1911), although, according to them, lexical concepts did not seem to have an influence on classification (cf. Dougherty and Keller 1985: 171).

2.5 Conclusion Before concluding this discussion about the extent to which language influences thought, it must be pointed out that there is so far no consensus “about the question how to define the criterion for ‘having an impact on’” (Gentner and GoldinMeadow 2003: 12). Consequently, results that some researchers take as positive evidence for an influence of language on thought are not recognized as such by others. Current theorists in the field of linguistic relativity usually reject the idea that speakers of different languages have different views of the world. The assumptions that speakers cannot construct concepts that are not encoded in their language and that non-verbal cognition is influenced in nearly all domains by language-specific factors, probably cannot be maintained in the face of current psycholinguistic research. Nevertheless, the idea of thinking for speaking seems to be accepted even by theorists who claim innate dispositions for language learning, like Pinker (1989a: 360). From very early on, children learn to direct their attention to those aspects of reality that are made salient by their mother tongue in order to acquire the lexicalization patterns that are typical of their first language and therefore to construct language-specific lexical concepts. Therefore, “in acquiring a native language, the child learns particular ways of thinking for speaking” (Slobin 1996: 76). As a

49 Lucy and Gaskin (2001) showed, however, that language-specific factors do have an influence on the performance of adults as well as children in classification tasks.

Conclusion 

 45

result, their first utterances are more similar to those of adults speaking the same mother tongue than to those of children of the same age speaking another mother tongue with different properties (Bowerman 1996a: 415). As for purely cognitive consequences, it seems that language influences speakers’ perception when experiencing a situation resulting in long-term effects on attention and mental imagery.

3 The relation between language and cognition in different language acquisition theories Having presented a rather general overview of the literature concerning the relationship between language and cognition, three approaches to first language acquisition that will be relevant to our study will now be outlined: Nativism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism. – Nativism assumes that language structures are innate. The child’s task is to uncover these innate structures in order to construct a functional linguistic system. Since language and cognition are considered to be quite independent from each other, children are assumed to possess an adult-like system at a very early age. – Cognitivism claims that language development is highly correlated with cognitive development. Consequently, children can only express those concepts which they have acquired on a cognitive level. – Constructivism proposes that rather general cognitive mechanisms are involved in language acquisition. As a result, language acquisition (e.g., children’s semantics, syntax and morphology) and cognitive development are highly correlated. Various current approaches overlap and hybrid models have emerged (cf. Lindner and Hohenberger 2009). Due to space limitations only a number of these approaches will be mentioned briefly where they seem relevant for this study. 50

3.1 Nativism Chomsky’s theory constitutes the main nativist approach which assumes that language structure is present at birth as a part of our biological inheritance. Since his theory of language in general was already explained in Chapter 1.1.1, we will only discuss his language acquisition model, some of its variants as they have been developed by other nativist researchers,51 and several critical points of these theories, as well as recent further developments within this framework.

50 For a number of current approaches to language learning, cf. a special issue of Linguistics (2009, 47/2) or Szagun ([2006] 2011). 51 For a detailed overview of “Generative approaches to languages learning”, cf. Eisenbeiß (2009).

Nativism 

 47

3.1.1 Basic assumptions of nativism about first language acquisition According to nativists, all children are born with specific predispositions for language acquisition that are assumed to be encoded in the genome (Chomsky 1989: 28, 2007a: 77; Pinker 1994: 322). As we will see later, during the last decades, assumptions about the nature of these predispositions have changed considerably. Chomsky’s most popular language acquisition model is the Principles and Parameter Model. This model assumes that every child possesses a universal grammar52 – consisting of principles and parameters – which will develop during childhood53 into one specific grammar, for instance Swahili (Chomsky quoted in Rieber 1983: 49). Children use linguistic input (primary linguistic data) to find the settings on these parameters that correctly characterize their language.54 In other words, linguistic evidence triggers acquisition and has a shaping effect on this process (Chomsky 1989: 32, [1991] 1994b: 41). Once the child has correctly set all parameters of the so called “Generative Grammar”, s/he has acquired the language (cf. Cook and Newson 1998: 87). Chomsky assumes that only such an innate linguistic endowment can explain satisfactorily the speed and complexity of language acquisition (Chomsky 1959: 57). In the nativist approach, language acquisition is clearly something that “happens” to the child, who need not be very active in this process, except for parameter setting on the basis of the input (Chomsky 1989: 139). Thus, Chomsky compares the human language faculty “with other organs known to biology” (Chomsky 1989: 233; cf. Chomsky 2007a: 4; 2007b: 5) and prefers to talk about growth rather than about learning55 (Chomsky 1989: 134). Chomsky uses the term learning only in a restricted context, namely to account for the learning of irregularities (Chomsky 1989: 238) and, in part, of lexical items (Chomsky [1982] 1992:

52 Apart from principles and parameters, universal grammar includes also universal phonetics and semantics, although Chomsky admits that the latter term is quite an “obscure notion” (Chomsky 1972: 138). 53 Note that nativists assume a critical period during which specific linguistic capacities must develop; afterward children may have great difficulties or might not acquire these linguistic devices at all (Chomsky 2001: 159). 54 The innate system responsible for this process is called the Language Acquisition Device (LAD – cf. Chomsky 2007b: 2). The LAD was the core of Chomsky’s first theory of language acquisition, but he continues using this term in his Principles and Parameters model. 55 With this argument Chomsky distinguishes his approach once more from Skinner’s behaviouristic theory which assumes that children learn language as part of a stimulus-response scheme that they are encouraged to adopt because of reinforcement (Chomsky 1959: 27; cf. also Chomsky 1972: 72).

48 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

8). Thus, learning lexical items is considered to consist mainly of mapping labels that are perceived in the input onto pre-existing concepts in the brain (Chomsky [1987] 2001: 134; Hespos and Spelke 2004: 453; Valian 2009: 18). Nativists defend a modularity hypothesis (Byrnes and Gelman 1991: 7; cf. Valian 2009: 27) according to which the mind is organized “into distinct cognitive faculties with their specific structures and principles” which function independently from each other (Chomsky 1989: 46; cf. also Chomsky 1994b: 51; Pinker 1994: 18 and 410; Valian 2009: 27–29). Visual perception, musical creation or the language faculty are each supposed to be encapsulated in one of these modules (Chomsky 1986: 12–13). Nativists admit some interactions between different modules (Chomsky quoted in Rieber 1983: 34; Chomsky 2001: 161) but even interactions between cognitive structures are considered to be strongly predetermined. Interactions between language and cognition are limited and only concern E-Language (Chomsky 1977: 43). Since a very strict assumption of modularity is problematic, Chomsky admits two interface levels for I-Language, “one related to sound and the other to meaning” (Chomsky 2007a: 9–10; cf. 2007b: 1 and Chapter 1.2.2). When employed to explain language use, modularity cannot be very strictly maintained. In the case of language acquisition in particular, general cognitive abilities – above all short-term memory restrictions – are considered to be responsible for the fact that children’s utterances differ from adults’, for example in length and in complexity (cf. Chomsky 1989: 53; Pinker 1994: 289). Furthermore, Chomsky admits that other factors such as frequency effects may also intervene and influence language development (Chomsky 1984: 9). In the absence of sufficient evidence concerning the brain,56 and in order to provide support for the strong assumption underlying an innate universal grammar, nativists have presented several arguments. The most famous of them appeals to the poverty of the stimulus (cf. Chomsky 1989: 44–53).57 Although, most nativist theorists now agree that the input children receive contains fewer errors than previously assumed and that it contains features that favour language acquisition (prosody, syntax etc.), adult grammar exhibits structures which could

56 Chomsky (1989: 29) declares explicitly, that “still, universal grammar conceived as a study of the biologically necessary properties of human language (if such exist) is strictly a part of science”. Therefore, he does not feel responsible for finding the neural substrate of universal grammar and even admits that the physical existence of the language faculty remains “a mystery, but there can be little doubt that specific neural structures and even gross organization not found in other primates (e.g., lateralization) play a fundamental role” (Chomsky 1977: 40–41). 57 For a detailed discussion of the poverty-of-the-stimulus argument see the considerations of Marcus (1993).

Nativism 

 49

not have been constructed by children on the basis of this input because they rarely receive negative evidence such as explanations or corrections. The reason children do not follow rules and principles they have never heard is that the innate universal grammar provides them with a restricted set of principles that prevents them from introducing impossible ones (Cook and Newson 1998: 90). As mentioned above, Chomsky as well as Pinker attenuated their stronger assumptions about an innate language faculty although they still claim that this faculty is “highly restricted so as to limit admissible hypotheses” (Chomsky 2007b: 13). In a more recent paper, Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch (2002) distinguish two levels of innate predispositions: the faculty of language in the broad sense and the faculty of language in the narrow sense. Faculty of language in the broad sense consists of two organism-internal systems: a sensori-motor system responsible for the encoding and decoding of sounds and a conceptual-intentional system providing dispositions in the domain of conceptual representations. Faculty of language in the narrow sense, however, is reduced to a computational mechanism for recursion, allowing speakers to generate an infinite range of expressions from a finite set of elements. This mechanism is considered to be “the only uniquely human component of the faculty of language” (Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch 2002: 1569). According to Hauser and colleagues, the modular and domainspecific capacity of recursion can also be observed in animals (e.g., in the case of navigation), but it has evolved in humans into a penetrable and domain-general ability also available for language (Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch 2002: 1578–1579). The model includes organism internal (e.g., respiration, digestion, memory) and organism external factors (e.g., social, cultural, physical factors) related to language. Unfortunately, the nature and role of external environmental factors are not defined in detail. This focus on domain-general “principles of efficient computation, which might be expected to be of particular significance for systems such as language” (Chomsky 2007b: 15) has been interpreted as a sign of Chomsky’s shift of emphasis to more domain-general processes. Just like Chomsky, Pinker also moderated his strong nativist view, proposing a “rule-associative-memory theory” (also called dual-mechanism model) for the acquisition of English irregular and regular past tense forms58 (Pinker 1991: 532), including elements from connectionist models (cf. Rumelhart and McClelland [1986] 1999, 1) which help explain the real course of language acquisition (cf. Eisenbeiß 2009: 292–293). By doing so, Pinker implicitly admits that nativism is not sufficient to explain the complex process

58 Note that Chomsky considered these kinds of phenomena as “peripheral” and of no interest for linguists (Chomsky 1994b: 42).

50 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

of language acquisition. A number of researchers developed other approaches within the nativist framework that take into account children’s input and their general cognitive abilities such as statistical learning. Bootstrapping models (cf. Höhle 2009) and Optimality Theory (cf. Fikkert and de Hoop 2009) are only two examples of such hybrid theories.

3.1.2 Criticism and further development of the nativist position Research in the nativist framework mainly focuses on the description of a core language, “a state that would be attained by the language faculty under ideal conditions” (Chomsky 1994b: 42). This idealized point of view (focus on I-Language; analysis of an ideal speaker and hearer etc.), and the conclusions which can be drawn from it (especially about modularity and domain-specificity) represent the main problems to be solved by nativism (cf. Eisenbeiß 2009: 300), which remains too static (Karmiloff-Smith 1990: 258) to explain the real language acquisition process. A number of researchers further developed the nativist theory, taking into account these weak points. In the following, we will concentrate on three aspects of nativism that are closely linked to each other:59 the concept of an innate universal grammar, assumptions about modularity and domain-specificity, and finally facts about the developmental course of children.

The concept of an innate universal grammar Nativists are often confronted with the questions how universal grammar is created, where it is situated, and how it does work. Critics of the universal grammar approach point out that genes influence behaviour only indirectly (Bates et al. [1998] 2004: 595). Therefore, researchers of the nativist approach have to determine which protein structures, formed according to specific genes, are related to our “language faculty” and by means of which specific mechanisms this impact occurs. Thus far, such genes have however not been detected and it is most likely that “there is simply not enough space in the genome to contain a full and complete description of the adult” (Elman et al. [1996] 2001: 350). Such a description would have to include complete linguistic knowledge (Lieberman 1989: 223). Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch’s idea (2002) that recursion may be the

59 For a detailed discussion of weak points of the nativist approach to language acquisition see Tomasello (1995b) and Elman et al. (2001).

Nativism 

 51

only innate faculty which distinguishes humans from other species seems to indicate a reasonable direction. A great number of psycholinguists admit that there are specific genetic predispositions for language learning in the form of neuroanatomic structures,60 specific organs involved in speech production/comprehension, and specific cognitive as well as social competences (e.g., Bates 2005; Tomasello 1995b, 2005, [1993] 2006b). In addition, architectural and temporal constraints related to development also seem to be innate (Bates et al. 2004: 596). All these properties enable humans to interact with their environment and thereby to acquire language (Dodd and Fogel 1991: 617). Thus, the question is not “Nature or Nurture”, but “Nature and Nurture” and it is the researcher’s task to determine how these factors interact (Elman et al. 2001: 357).

Modularity and domain-specificity According to nativists, only modularity61 can explain why language is such an automatic, unconscious, and efficient human capacity (Chomsky 1986, 1989, 1994b, 2001; Flynn 1989; Fodor [1983] 2008; Pinker 1991, 1994; Spelke et al. 1992; Spelke and Tsivkin 2001; Valian 2009). The most common counterargument is that modules are not innate, but rather that they develop during ontogeny (Bates, Bretherton, and Snyder 1991; Elman et al. 2001; Tomasello 1995b; Karmiloff-Smith 1986). Thus, Elman and colleagues (2001: 386) suggest that practice and the resulting automatization of language can also lead to high-level cognitive behaviours: “Any arbitrary skill can achieve ‘automaticity’ if it is practiced often enough, under highly predictable conditions (…) – which means that the skill becomes very fast, efficient, hard to think about, and impervious to interference once it gets underway”. The general point of the discussion here is that although some regions of the brain may be more or less specialized in language, they clearly interact with other systems (cf. Chapter 1.2 and Langer 2001: 32), i.e., they process

60 Bates defends some sort of innate structure in the brain such as variations from region to region in cell density, synaptic density, processing speed (Bates 2005: 249). 61 To defend modularity, nativists often cite as evidence pathological cases such as children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) or with Williams Syndrome. Such cases present particular dissociations that were thought to reflect relative damage in only one module. However, more recent studies have suggested that such dissociations are only apparent and that subtle deficits in seemingly intact domains can be observed upon close inspection. For example, children with SLI seem to show evidence of previously undetected deficits in various domains such as attention, symbolic play, mental imagery, and the detection of rapid sound-sequences (Bates et al. 2004: 594; Elman et al. 2001: 377; Mervis et al. 2004).

52 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

information from other domains and other domains process information about language (Bates 1994: 149; Flynn 1989: 185). Some evidence for this hypothesis comes from pathology where processes of reorganization and therefore plasticity in the brain have been observed in children with early focal brain injury (Bates 2005; Bates and Goodman 1997; Bates et al. 2004). Let us now consider again the notion of modularity in Spelke’s work. In her early writings (1992, 1994, 2001, 2003), Spelke assumed that an infant’s knowledge is domain- and task-specific and develops according to innate modular structures.62 In order to enrich these innate core knowledge structures, young learners have to interact with their environment (cf. Gelman 1997: 311), but essential features of this knowledge do not change (cf. also Carey and Spelke [1994] 1998; Gelman 1990, 2009; Hespos and Spelke 2004). In short: “Initial knowledge may emerge through maturation or be triggered by experience, by learning processes do not appear to shape it” (Spelke 1994: 439). With age, children’s cognitive systems (or modules) begin to interact by means of domain-general mechanisms (Carey and Spelke 1998: 194; Gelman 1990: 79). Spelke even admits that “[c]ognitive development brings radical conceptual changes” (Spelke et al. 1992: 605). In her recent work, she explains that language is the cause of these conceptual changes63 (Spelke and Tsivkin 2001: 71) and accounts for unique aspects of human intelligence (Spelke 2003: 291): First, language provides a domain-general medium in which separate, domain-specific representations can be brought together. Second, a natural language is a combinatorial system, allowing distinct concepts to be juxtaposed and conjoined. […] Through these combinations, language allows the expression of new concepts: concepts whose elements were present in the prelinguistic child’s knowledge systems but whose conjunction was not expressible, because of the isolation of these systems. (Spelke and Tsivkin 2001: 71)

Spelke therefore admits that language has some impact on thought (Hespos and Spelke 2004; Spelke and Tsivkin 2001: 92), which indicates that current nativist approaches minimize assumptions about domain-specific aspects of an innate language faculty. Note that during the last decades several researchers have

62 According to Spelke (1994: 441), infants’ core knowledge is subdivided into four domains (physics, psychology, number, and geometry) and is considered to be “universal across human cultures and historical times”. 63 Note, however, that these changes do not concern entirely new concepts, but rather combinations of representations that have emerged from initial cognitive modules (Spelke 2003: 306).

Nativism 

 53

replaced modularity by networks that construct connections between neurons based on their previous activation patterns (Bates and Elman 2002: 626; Pulvermüller 1997: 26). This approach seems to account well for some of the empirical evidence in the domain of language acquisition.

Children’s developmental course Many critics of the nativist position have focussed on I-Language rather than on E-Language, that is on language use (Akhtar 2004: 459). Developmental researchers from other theoretical backgrounds argue that nativism cannot explain how language acquisition “really” proceeds, for instance the properties of children’s first utterances (Sinclair de Zwart 1969: 331). Among other criticism, they bring to bear a great number of empirical facts, such as important interindividual differences (Bates 1994: 145; Ferguson 1989), the crucial role of input64 (Lieven [1993] 2006: 389), the impact of cognitive constraints, and the importance of social aspects of language learning (cf. Eisenbeiß 2009: 300). As a result, several nativist developmental theorists65 have proposed two major models: the Continuity Hypothesis and the Maturation Hypothesis. The Continuity Hypothesis, primarily advanced by Pinker ([1984] 1996), can be viewed as a learning strategy, whereby language is acquired step by step: “though the universal principles are available to the child from the beginning of language development, the child gradually attains these structures on the basis of the interaction of these principles with the input” (Ritchie and Bhatia 1999: 14). The second nativist language acquisition model, the Maturation Hypothesis, claims that the principles codified in the universal grammar have to mature66 (Borer and Wexler 1987; Felix 1992; Hyams 1986; Lenneberg 1965). Thus, parameters can only be set if the child’s cognitive abilities are mature enough to deal with the complexity of the parameter in question.67

64 Note that more recent studies in the nativist framework already show evidence of children’s statistical learning and therefore admit input effects during language acquisition (Newport 2000). 65 Note that Valian and colleagues (1981, 2009) still support the hypotheses-testing approach that Chomsky (1965) proposed in his first language acquisition model based on the Language Acquisition Device. 66 Some researchers even claim that errors are pre-programmed in universal grammar: “Children make errors, but they appear to do so only within bounds” (Goodluck [1986] 1997: 54; cf. also Eisenbeiß 2009: 276). 67 According to Hyams (1986: 169), maturation can refer to several fields: “either the maturation of the ability to analyze particular data, or the maturation of specific principles of grammar.

54 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

This view slightly contradicts Chomsky’s assumption that all principles are available to the child from birth on. Among others, Elman et al. (2001) argue that the Maturation Hypothesis cannot account for non-linear learning (U-shaped behaviour), nor for large interindividual differences as reported in Bates (2005). Therefore, it has to be assumed that learning and maturational processes interact in such a way that specific aspects of language can only be learned during specific time windows (cf. Elman et al. 2001; Lindner and Hohenberger 2009; Plunkett and Marchman 1991, 1993).

3.2 Cognitivism Cognitivism assumes that language development is determined by cognitive development. The developmental theory of Jean Piaget (1886–1980) provides an account of children’s cognitive development that was also meant to explain language acquisition. However, the extent to which this theory can explain language development has been questioned (cf. Bamberg 1979: 27). We will first present Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, then discuss its implications for language acquisition, and finally point out some criticisms about this theory, as well as sketch further developments in the cognitivist approach (e.g., Embodiment Theory).

3.2.1 Piaget’s theory of cognitive development and his assumptions about first language acquisition Piaget maintains that ontogeny is a discontinuous, but progressive process, characterized by important reorganisations that result from a process of adaptation to the environment (Furth [1969] 1981: 245). Adaptation is the result of two complementary processes. Due to external factors, the child’s organism frequently loses its equilibrium, but assimilation and accommodation processes help him to gain a new balance (Piaget 1976: 21). Therefore, with increasing age, children achieve more stable and complex structures (Piaget 1980b: 33). In this theory, thought (and hence intelligence) is closely linked to children’s actions with objects,68

The maturation of various processing related abilities such as memory or attention, as well as development in the conceptual domain, may also be responsible for delays”. 68 Studies demonstrated that deaf children reach the operational level almost at the same time as normally developing children because they are able to act out sensori-motor schemas.

Cognitivism 

 55

especially those that occur during the sensori-motor period (cf. also Glenberg and Kaschak 2002: 562). Although, the nucleus of intelligence is considered to be innate, intelligence emerges through action (cf. Piaget 1980b: 23): “Knowledge, then, at its origin, neither arises from objects nor from the subject, but from interactions – at first inextricable – between the subject and those objects” (Piaget 1976: 12). According to Piaget, cognitive development proceeds in four relatively stable stages, the order of which is assumed to be invariant and universal (Piaget 1976: 22), although depending on motivation and culture, these stages can be reached at different ages (Piaget and Inhelder 1966: 121). During the first stage, the so-called sensori-motor stage (0–2 years) first action schemas consolidate, are coordinated and can be applied to new situations. At the end of this period, when actions are no longer performed externally, intelligence corresponds to the coordination of highly internalized actions, called operations (cf. Furth 1981: 55–60). At this point, children master schemas of fundamental human concepts in domains such as object permanence, time, space, and causality. Concepts emerging from the sensori-motor period and the mechanisms underlying them are considered to be universal (Sinclair 1976b: 209). During the preoperational stage (2–6 years), the child becomes able to think about the world that surrounds him but she is still egocentric, that is to say she does not take into account more than one factor at a time in a specific situation (Piaget 1923: 53). By using first symbols, the infant can mentally evoke objects and events that are not immediately present. Thus, language acquisition enables children to transform sensori-motor schemas into concepts. During the third concrete-operational stage (6–11 years), the child is able to take into consideration several perspectives or dimensions simultaneously, but only in concrete tasks (Piaget and Inhelder 1966: 102). Once she reaches the fourth formal-operational stage at about 11 years, the child is able to think about all factors involved in any (concrete or abstract) tasks. In the case of language acquisition, Piaget was mainly interested in its initial phase characterized by the emergence of symbols and meanings, and early communicative interactions. He defends the hypothesis that language is only one aspect of cognition (Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983: 33) and that only neurological prerequisites are innate. The main precondition for language acquisition is the development of representations which takes place during the sensori-motor

Such results have been considered to support the important role of actions in the development of intelligence (Sinclair 1976a: 194; cf. Furth 1981: 119–120).

56 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

stage. Through imitation69 and play, the child develops relatively stable connections between representations and concrete objects/events and becomes able to evoke those objects/events even though they are not immediately present (Piaget 1945: 286). Representations are therefore considered to be prior to language (Bloom 1991: 122). The next step consists in mapping symbols (linguistic signs, gestures etc.) onto these representations70 (Sinclair 1976a: 190). According to traditional cognitivist views, children cannot talk about concepts they have not yet acquired at their cognitive level, in other words: “adequate semantic development requires the appropriate conceptual structure” (Byrnes and Gelman 1991: 12). Initially, the child uses one sound/word to designate a series of different representations (overgeneralization) associated with the same action scheme. Thus, Piaget assumes that the first verbal schemas are “[des] schèmes sensorimoteurs en voie de conceptualisation“ [sensori-motor schemas which are in the process of conceptualizations] (Piaget 1945: 234). Specific concepts can only be associated with their corresponding linguistic signs, if the child has constructed the corresponding category (Piaget 1945: 228). In other words, the true symbol does not exist until there is some stable link between concept and linguistic sign. Children’s egocentrism71 in early childhood, as explained above, has often been referred to interpret some characteristics of young children’s verbal behaviour. For example, in conversations young children do not always take their interlocutor into account, assuming that he has the same knowledge as they do, and therefore they do not provide sufficient information for him to understand their utterances. As a result, children arrange events in a subjective order which does not exhibit any obvious coherence, they omit causal connectors, and use (demonstrative and personal) pronouns where reference is not clear (Piaget 1923: 56). All these facts contribute to the lack of coherence and idiosyncrasy of young children’s discourse. As regards the relation between language and cognition, Piaget shares with nativist positions the assumption that the mind is a system composed of different domain-specific modules which develop in a particular manner that is intrinsi-

69 Note that imitation cannot take place without a person interacting with the child and offering actions, sounds and later on words to imitate (Sinclair 1976b: 208). 70 The concept of bootstrapping into morphology and syntax with relatively abstract imageschemas (Mandler 2004: 274 and Chapter 1.1.2) rather than with purely sensori-motor schemas as proposed by Sinclair seems to be more plausible (cf. Bowerman 1996a: 420; Mandler 2004: 119; Wilson 2002: 634). 71 Cf. Wygotski’s view discussed in Chapter 1.2.3 In contrast to Wygotski, who claims that egocentric speech has above all a function of self-regulation, Piaget assumes that children are born egocentric and through adaptation, a purely biological process, become social.

Cognitivism 

 57

cally determined (Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983: 35). Even interactions between such modules are “largely determined” (Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983: 35). According to Piaget (and Chomsky, see above), the language faculty is just one “mental organ” which is part of our species-specific biological endowment (Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983: 49). Piaget gets even closer to the nativist position when he says: “It is quite possible that in my own efforts to separate these factors I’ve tended to slight the environmental factors and it is, in my opinion, even more likely that I’ve tended to underestimate the innate endowment, because of an inadequate and superficial understanding of universal grammar” (Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983: 50). Cognitivists assume that interactional factors play a triggering and environmental factors a shaping role (Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983: 50); that is to say, the input triggers innate predispositions for language learning and thus children simultaneously learn the language spoken in their environment. Since Piaget assumes that language is mapped onto pre-constructed cognitive representations (Piaget 1964: 105), he implicitly rejects the idea that a particular linguistic system could influence cognitive structures (Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983: 109). The most important difference between Nativism and Cognitivism is the active role attributed to the child in the language acquisition process. According to Piaget, it is only the general ability of the cognitive system to reorganize itself and to construct stages of increasing complexity that is innate. As a consequence, he rejects the “concept of preprogramming in any strict sense” (Piaget quoted in Rieber 1983: 110). Piaget summarizes his idea of the relation between language and thought as follows: Entre le langage et la pensée il existe ainsi un cercle génétique tel que l’un des deux termes s’appuie nécessairement sur l’autre en une formation solidaire et en une perpétuelle action réciproque. Mais tous deux dépendent, en fin de compte de l’intélligence elle-ême qui, elle, est antérieure au langage et indépendante de lui. (Piaget 1964: 113) [Thus language and thought are linked in a genetic circle where each necessarily leans on the other in interdepent formation and continous reciprocal action. In the last analysis, both depend on intelligence itself, which antedates language and is independent of it.]

According to cognitivism, language is just one representational system among others (Piaget 1980a: 166; Sinclair 1976a: 199) and thought can therefore develop without verbal language, with the help of some other representational system, such as gestures or action schemas. Nevertheless, language is quite a powerful system because it enables the child to establish contact with others around him (Furth 1981: 118).

58 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

3.2.2 Criticism and further developments of Piaget’s theory Some fundamental points in Piaget’s theory have been criticized by a number of psychologists and linguists and several of his main ideas have been further developed.72 In the following, we will first concentrate on three aspects of this theory that are controversial (the stage model, the relation between language and cognition, and cognitive/linguistic universals), then present Embodiment Theory, which took up some main assumptions of traditional cognitivism and combined them with recent insights in first language acquisition research.

The stage-model A number of studies refute Piaget’s assumption that development follows a linear series of progressive stages and that higher stages are always more complex and more target-like than previous ones. Findings showing interindividual differences and U-shaped learning in various domains (including language acquisition) are incompatible with Piaget’s assumption (cf. Gratch and Schatz 1987: 224; Menyuk 1984: 200). Furthermore, many researchers have pointed out that Piaget does not provide a sufficient account of how transitions from one stage to the next should take place (Mehler 1980: 350; Sugarman 1993: 24). According to them, Piaget only describes external behavioural changes to explain how the child’s cognition develops. Karmiloff-Smith worked out a theory which precisely aims at explaining these transitions during development. Thus, in order to explain differences in performance across domains in a given child, a phenomenon also called décalage horizontal, Karmiloff-Smith (1986) suggests distinguishing between domain-general and domain-specific developmental processes. She proposes a phase/levelmodel according to which “[p]hases refer to general processes across domains. By contrast, levels account for specific changes within a particular domain” (Karmiloff-Smith 1986: 166). Karmiloff-Smith assumes that development does not occur because the organism is in a disequilibrated stage, but rather because the system has reached a stable state and therefore recognized a success criterion. That is to say, if procedures on a particular level become automatized, consolidated, and efficient, the organism is ready to pass into a metaprocedural phase implying representational change (cf. Karmiloff-Smith 1986: 187). Karmiloff-Smith took up these ideas in her RR-model (Representational Redescription) which accounts

72 For some good overviews, cf. Gelman and Baillargeon (1983) and Gratsch and Schatz (1987).

Cognitivism 

 59

for children’s representational development. Representational redescription is “a process by which implicit information in the mind subsequently become explicit knowledge to the mind first within domains and then sometimes across domains” (Karmiloff-Smith 1999: 18). Consequently, children’s internal representations become objects of cognitive manipulation, and they gradually become able to access their knowledge on a conscious level. Karmiloff-Smith claims that representational redescription is also a prerequisite for advanced phases in language acquisition or more precisely for metalinguistic awareness in which the child can consciously reflect on knowledge that was previously implicit (Karmiloff-Smith 1990: 258).73

The relation between language and cognition Sinclair de Zwart attempted to apply Piaget’s theory explicitly to language acquisition. Following Piaget, she rejects the existence of innate linguistic structures (Sinclair 1969, 1976a) and considers language to be a part of the child’s general cognitive ability, not an “autonomous object of knowing” (Sinclair 1969: 335). She assumes some sort of isomorphism between cognitive structures and verbal behaviour. Consequently, it is only after children have combined two non-verbal symbols (e.g., gestures) that they can start to produce two-word-utterances (Sinclair 1975: 232). Several studies provide evidence for Sinclair’s view that cognition is highly correlated with language. Thus, Bloom and colleagues (1985) demonstrate that language development and object knowledge are interrelated by “some sort of synergetic interdependence between them” (Bloom, Lifter, and Broughton 1985: 176). The two not only occur at the same time but furthermore, “qualitative changes in one domain are systematically related to qualitative changes in the other domain across time” (Bloom, Lifter, and Broughton 1985: 177). Tomasello and Farrar (1984) report similar results from a study on the correlation between object permanence and relational words, conducted with infants during the sensori-motor period.

73 Reber characterizes implicit learning as “the acquisition of knowledge that takes place largely independently of conscious attempts to learn and largely in the absence of explicit knowledge about what was acquired” (Reber 1993: 5). If we assume that children acquire language in this way, that is to say implicitly, it follows that linguistic knowledge has to become explicit in order for the child to manipulate it. This seems to be in accordance with KarmiloffSmith’s representational redescription hypothesis.

60 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

Nonetheless, the hypothesis that language development strongly depends on cognition has been severely criticized. Cromer (1974), for instance, attempted to formulate a weaker form of the cognitive hypothesis that simply assumes that cognition is one important factor during child development, but not the only prerequisite for language acquisition. Although at different moments, cognitive abilities make certain meanings available for expressions, he claims: “we must also possess certain specifically linguistic capabilities in order to come to express these meanings in language, and these linguistic capabilities may indeed be lacking in other species or in certain pathological conditions” (Cromer 1974: 246). Karmiloff-Smith also criticizes cognitivists for overestimating the role of cognition and thus underestimating the role of language in child development. Firstly, she argues that the analogy between sensori-motor behaviour and early verbal behaviours does not imply a causal, unidirectional relation between them. As a consequence, she doubts that intelligence during the sensori-motor period “is in any way causal in language development” (Karmiloff-Smith 1981: 11). To explain the onset of language, Karmiloff-Smith proposes to stress the child’s (verbal) interaction with his social environment more than his relation with the physical world (Karmiloff-Smith 1981: 236). According to Karmiloff-Smith, language is much more than only a representational system: “It is also a system for communicating and sharing knowledge, involving complex dialogic constraints between speaker and hearer” (Karmiloff-Smith 1981: 12). Her argumentation clearly indicates the importance of language for cognitive development and the bidirectional relation between these two domains (cf. also Karmiloff-Smith 1986: 170).

Cognitive and linguistic universals An important point for our further argumentation is the fact that Sinclair, just like Piaget, postulates “cognitive universals” (Sinclair 1975: 232) which are assumed to be responsible for linguistic universals (cf. E. Clark and H. Clark 1978). She claims that during early childhood all children, irrespective of their first language, acquire expressions for the same semantic meanings: “[L]inguistic universals exist precisely because of the universal thought structures – and these are universal, not because they are inborn but because they are the necessary outcome of auto-regulatory factors and equilibration processes. […] Cognitive structures should be used to explain language acquisition rather than vice versa“ (Sinclair 1974: 123). Evidence from cross-linguistic research constitutes a main argument against the assumption of such an isomorphism (Bowerman 1989; Slobin 1985a), since it

Cognitivism 

 61

suggests that languages provide speakers with different semantic categorization systems. Consequently, language cannot only be mapped onto pre-constructed cognitive structures that would be identical for all children irrespective of their environment, but rather there must be some sort of mutual adjustment (Gelman and Baillargeon 1983: 214). These observations are in line with results reported by Gopnik and Choi (1990), who claim that children stumble on different cognitive tasks to solve depending on their language. That is to say, children acquire first those cognitive domains that are expressed and frequently used in their mother tongue. Researchers in this domain claim a bidirectional interaction of language, especially semantics, and cognition during childhood (Gopnik and Choi 1990: 213). Along the same line, is MacWhinney’s claim that a language acquisition theory grounded on embodiment can explain language universals in the domains of the lexicon, syntax, and discourse structure (MacWhinney 1999: 250). This view is consistent with Embodiment Theory, a rather recent approach in psycholinguistics, which assumes that children construct early concepts on the basis of sensori-motor schemas and therefore mainly rely on their body image (Pfeifer and Bongard 2007: 364; Smith and Gasser 2005). Before knowledge emerges from our experience, our body is already shaping our mind (Gallagher 2006: 245). These assumptions are quite similar to Piaget’s, although authors such as Pfeifer and Bongard (2007) emphasize more our bodily experience than its interaction with the environment. In current research, the idea that even abstract categories in adulthood are essentially understood on the basis of our body’s experience74 with the physical world is quite popular (cf. Glenberg and Kaschak 2002: 564, 2006: 24; Maouene, Hidaka, and Smith 2008: 1212). Wilson summarizes this idea as follows: “Areas of human cognition previously thought to be highly abstract now appear to be yielding to an embodied cognition approach” (Wilson 2002: 635). The studies of Maouene and colleagues are closely linked to the idea of cognitivists that the acquisition of specific terms is related to children’s bodily experience in this domain. Their results show that, at least in English, first-learned verbs are strongly linked to actions and therefore to parts of the body that perform those actions (Maouene, Hidaka, and Smith 2008: 1204). Since children’s activities with different body parts emerge in a recurrent order in all humans, language development in these domains also seems to proceed quite uniformly.75 Consequently, it

74 Zlatev (2007) proposes the concept of mimetic schema as a mediator between the individual’s bodily experience and collective knowledge about such experience, which are considered to underlie for instance abstract linguistic categories. 75 For a critical review of this idea, cf. Enfield, Majid, and van Staden (2006).

62 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

is assumed that all children learn verbs associated to specific body parts in the following order76: mouth, eye, ear, hand, and leg (Maouene, Hidaka, and Smith 2008: 1206). To conclude, Sinclair’s assumptions that the acquisition of lexical items follows a recurrent, universal order may be correct with regard to specific lexical fields. Nonetheless, further (cross-linguistic) evidence is needed to generalize these assumptions for all languages or cultures and for the entire lexicon.

3.3 Constructivism Constructivism claims that children learn a language on the basis of constructions that they hear in their environment. Prerequisites for language acquisition are different kinds of cognitive abilities (social, general etc.) and positive input (Goldberg 2008a: 15); in other words “humans’ linguistic knowledge is the result of several rather general psychological processes” (Langacker 2000: 57). As pointed out by Goldberg (2008a: 14), “[m]ost construction grammars these days are usage-based”. She then shows how current construction grammars mainly assume that language use plays a crucial role in language learning and processing. Since Usage-based theory has its roots in Construction Grammar, we will first present the main assumptions of Construction Grammar, then outline usagebased hypotheses in the domain of first language acquisition, and finally present some criticisms of both theories.

3.3.1 Construction Grammar and usage-based approaches to first language acquisition Traditional Construction Grammar as it was developed by Fillmore and Kay (1985, 1988, 1999) and later on modified by Langacker (1990) claims that certain constructions, especially idiomatic expressions, have meanings that cannot be predicted on the basis of their sub-parts (words, morphemes etc.) and that might therefore be stored as a whole (Evans 2007: 43). Goldberg extended this approach to any kind of construction and showed that constructions have specific meanings on their own (Goldberg 1995: 1). She defines constructions as follows: “[c]onstructions are stored pairings of form and function, including mor-

76 Note that the stronger a verb labels an action linked to just one part of the body, the more salient it is and thus, the more easily it is acquired (cf. Maouene, Hidaka, and Smith 2008: 1207).

Constructivism 

 63

phemes, words, idioms, partially lexically filled and fully general linguistic patterns. […] Any linguistic pattern is recognized as a construction as long as some aspect of its form or function is not strictly predictable from its component parts or from other constructions recognized to exist” (Goldberg 2003: 219). In addition, constructions are considered to be the fundamental units of grammar.77 In contrast to nativists, who make a sharp distinction between the different linguistic elements (e.g., morphemes, words, sentences), constructivists propose to arrange constructions according to a lexicon-grammar continuum (Croft [2001] 2002: 17; Goldberg 1995: 4). Croft assumes that constructions are a linguistic feature common to all languages, despite the fact that they have language-specific properties (Croft 2002: 59, 2005: 277; Goldberg 1995: 118). Construction Grammar only admits functional universals in the field of semantics, pragmatics or discourse-organization (Croft 2005: 309; Goldberg and Casenhiser 2007: 346; Tomasello 1995b: 150–151). For instance, all languages seem to provide ways of topicalizing specific elements within an utterance (Goldberg and Casenhiser 2007: 346). Several different usage-based approaches to first language acquisition have been developed on the basis of Construction Grammar. In what follows, the main focus is on the framework proposed by Tomasello and his followers. According to them, constructions are considered to be the most fundamental units of language acquisition because they seem to be “the most direct embodiment of a speaker’s communicative intentions” (Tomasello 2003: 325). Language is considered to be learned on the basis of general cognitive abilities, such as statistical generalizations, and through use rather than on the basis of some theoretical linguistic knowledge attributed to the child by nativist approaches (Goldberg 2003: 219, 2008a: 12; Tomasello 2003: 3–11, 2007: 834). Thus, Goldberg suggests replacing “Universal Grammar” with “Prerequisites for Natural Language”, focusing more on children’s abilities in the domains of statistical learning, implicit memory, categorization, and on the role of positive, skewed input (Goldberg 2008b: 523). These processes are rather unconscious and hence, language is considered to be learned implicitly. Tomasello summarizes the two major ideas underlying usage-

77 Note that connectionists talk about chunks rather than about constructions: “Chunking operates to take two or more items that frequently occur together and combine them into a single automatic chunk” (MacWhinney 2005: 91). However, both notions seem to refer to quite similar phenomena.

64 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

based theory as follows: meaning is use78 and structure emerges from use (Tomasello 2009: 69). These assumptions will be elaboreted in what follows. Tomasello stresses the fact that linguistic communication is a form of social interaction. To interact with other individuals, children possess a set of innate social-cognitive abilities which are species-unique: joint attention, intention reading, perspective-taking, and communicative collaboration. The absence of these four capacities in animals seems to be the reason why they are unable to create or learn a natural language (Tomasello 2006b: 459). Children’s verbal behaviour during the first years clearly reflects the influence of social-cognitive abilities on language development.79 In Tomasello’s words: “Children’s acquisition of linguistic symbols thus depends most fundamentally on their ability to participate in the joint attentional activities that create a common communicative ground with their interlocutor and in their ability to read intentions of others in particular communicative contexts” (Tomasello 2006b: 460). In those situations children, from very early on, demonstrate their capacity for communicative collaboration in interactions where they observe how adults use constructions in specific contexts. They infer the communicative function of such constructions by taking into account their interlocutor’s intention (intention reading) and perspective (perspective taking). Step by step they assign functions and meanings to particular constituents of the utterance (Lieven and Tomasello 2008: 169; Tomasello 2009: 73). In order to explain how children arrive at an active and creative language use, usage-based approaches suggest that until about three years of age children are rather conservative (cf. Abbot-Smith and Tomasello 2006; Lieven et al. 2003). First, they acquire concrete item-based constructions that appear frequently in their input. Regardless of their structure, highly frequent constructions become entrenched and interiorized (Bybee 2006a: 621; Langacker 1983: 76, 2000: 3; Tomasello 2007: 834). Thus, according to Tomasello cultural (imitative) learning must be more important in early language acquisition than is currently assumed (Tomasello 2007: 842; cf. also Lieven, Pine, and Baldwin 1997: 189). Note, however, that imitation in the usage-based sense implies that “the learner understands the

78 Wittgenstein (1971: 35) was probably the first who claimed that the meaning of words or expressions can best be extracted by comparing its uses: „Man kann für eine große Klasse von Fällen der Benützung des Wortes ’Bedeutung’ – wenn auch nicht für alle Fälle seiner Benützung – dieses Wort so erklären: Die Bedeutung eines Wortes ist sein Gebrauch in der Sprache“ [For a large class of cases – though not for all – in which we employ the word ‘meaning’ it can be defined thus: the meaning of a word is its use in the language]. 79 Thus, children’s early vocabulary is highly correlated with the amount of time they spend with others in joint attention situations (Tomasello and Farrar 1986).

Constructivism 

 65

purpose or function of the behaviour she is reproducing” (Tomasello 2000: 238). To counter generativist arguments claiming that young infants already possess a highly abstract linguistic knowledge, Lieven and Tomasello maintain that the use of highly entrenched strings can give rise to the impression that the child’s system is more abstract than it really is. The use of these strings makes the child’s language seem relatively error-free, while detailed examination indicates that there are pockets of high error where these entrenched strings are used in place of correct forms. (Lieven and Tomasello 2008: 190)

Initially, as assumed by Construction Grammar, children’s constructions have a meaning (function) as a whole (Lieven and Tomasello 2008: 170). Particular instances of constructions are stored in memory and accessed as a unit (Bybee 2006b: 714). If children had innate syntactic rules, they would be expected to utter much more varied sentences that are less stereotypical (Lieven, Pine, and Baldwin 1997: 210). To explain this rather conservative verbal behaviour on the part of young children, Tomasello (2009) distinguishes three categories of utterance-level constructions in their early multi-unit utterances:80 a) Simple word combinations are “combinations where there is no intrinsic relation between the words“ (Lieven, Pine, and Baldwin 1997: 190); children do not seem to infer any relation between them other than what is generated in the specific communicative situation (e.g., Ball table). b) Pivot schemas81 are utterances that consist of a first element, most often a function word, that occurs very frequently in speech and is combined with an open-class word (Braine 1976). Thus, the child uses such constructions with some variation in one slot (e.g., Where’s X? That’s X.). c) Item-based constructions (cf. also MacWhinney 1975, 2004) are learned as holistic units that have a certain meaning and show syntactic marking (e.g., Draw ___, Draw ___ on, Draw ___ for, ___ draw on ___). These different construction types show that young children are “creative only in highly constrained ways” (Tomasello 2007: 839); they create slots in entrenched, item-based schemas respecting language inherent constraints.82 But even these

80 This hypothesis has also been tested by Diessel ([2007] 2008) who showed that even complex sentences (relative and complement clauses) are acquired in this way. For another study see Lieven, Pine, and Baldwin (1997). 81 In earlier work, Tomasello called this type of construction an utterance schema (Tomasello 2007). For subcategories of pivot schemas, cf. Lieven et al. (2003: 362–363). 82 These constraints can be “indirect negative evidence children receive involving statistical pre-emption of non-occurring patterns” (Goldberg 2008a: 229).

66 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

slight modifications are evidence for an abstraction and schematization process for which domain-general processes are considered to be responsible (Goldberg 2009: 203; Lieven and Tomasello 2008: 170). Children begin by varying only one slot of the construction; later on all slots can be filled with other paradigmatically possible items. How fast this development occurs is influenced by the construction’s type and token frequency in children’s input (cf. Abbot-Smith and Tomasello 2006a: 284; Goldberg 2008a: 49; Lieven and Tomasello 2008: 172–174; Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2000: 210; Tomasello 2007: 843). Note that in traditional nativist approaches language only has a triggering effect and frequency of linguistic structures is not considered to have a striking impact. According to usage-based theorists, high type frequency correlates with increasing productivity and creative use of the construction. Token frequency, in contrast, favours the entrenchment and such constructions are “less likely to be reformed on-line” and therefore “tend to be preserved” (Bybee 2006a: 621; cf. also Bybee 2006b: 715). Nevertheless, other factors such as saliency or pragmatic usefulness also intervene (Lieven 2006: 352; cf. also Naigles and Hoff-Ginsberg 1998). At the beginning, verbs play a crucial role in the acquisition of constructions. Goldberg assumes that from the outset, certain constructions mainly appear with specific verbs, providing children with relatively stable sentence meaning patterns (cf. Goldberg 2006: 41–42).83 Those constructions are acquired with ease and are more reliable than simple verbs (Goldberg 2006: 52). Therefore, Goldberg assumes that children acquire semantic meaning through syntax (syntactic bootstrapping, Goldberg 1995: 19). This procedure provides them with “multiple syntactic frames to be used as an aid in the acquisition of verb meaning” (Goldberg 1995: 21). Taking up this idea, Tomasello formulated the Verb Island hypothesis which holds that initially only frequent verbs are used in very constrained syntactic constructions with open nominal slots (Tomasello 2000: 214). Through language use these constructions become more abstract and finally can be generalized. In contrast to conservative nativist approaches which assume an innate universal grammar, usage-based theorists claim that “more abstract categories of the adult language are EMERGENT in this process [of abstraction] rather than being pregiven” (Lieven et al. 2003: 365; cf. also Behrens 2009a; Tomasello 2000). Lieven and colleagues (Lieven, Pine, and Baldwin 1997: 21; Lieven et al. 2003: 364) describe this development from item-based learning to abstract generalizations

83 The same findings are reported for non-linguistic categorization (Bruner, Goodnow, and Austin 1956; Kruschke 1996; Maddox 1995; Nosofsky 1988). Construction learning is therefore based on general cognitive learning mechanisms also found in other domains.

Constructivism 

 67

as a process with several levels of abstraction and therefore with several types of linguistic representations. The general cognitive ability of pattern finding (Tomasello 2009: 69) seems to be responsible for this abstraction and for the generalization process which extends – depending on the complexity and input frequency of the construction – over several months or even years (Tomasello 2007: 836). It is obvious that the acquisition of constructions also depends on the consistency of the form-meaning mapping in different contexts (cf. Lieven and Tomasello 2008: 179; Naigles and Hoff-Ginsberg 1998: 116; Slobin 1973).84 It remains to be explained why children only make these generalizations in their language and not in others. The Verb Island hypothesis mentioned above accounts for this fact, thereby countering the nativist argument concerning the poverty of the stimulus. In the input of young children, only a restricted set of verbs is used for each construction and the better such verbs are entrenched in children’s minds, the less they are generalized to impossible contexts (cf. Bybee 2006b: 715; Tomasello 2009: 82). This initially skewed input helps them to acquire a limited set of constructions (Lieven, Pine, and Baldwin 1997: 208) and then to gradually generalize these constructions to other verbs which only appear later in their input (Abbot-Smith and Tomasello 2006: 278).85

3.3.2 Criticism of constructivist and usage-based research Since Construction Grammar and usage-based approaches are still relatively young, they have not yet been the object of as much criticism as the two other theories of language acquisition presented above. Furthermore, it is quite challenging to criticize such a vague theory as Constructivism. For instance, the claim that general and social cognitive abilities play some role in language acquisition is quite uncontroversial nowadays and has been repeatedly supported by recent empirical research. In the following section, the discussion will concentrate on

84 Naigles (2002) found that for young children forms are easier to acquire than meanings because the latter vary much more depending on the context. Thus, children focus on constructions (form-meaning mappings) they know entirely and as a consequence produce only a restricted set of forms. 85 In their empirical studies on the relation between input and syntax, Huttenlocher et al. (2002: 370) showed that the proportion of multiclause sentences in parents’ and teachers’ speech seems to be by far the best predictor of such sentences in child speech. However, these correlations only occur during specific periods of time. There is no observable effect before the construction in question has emerged, nor when the structure is fully mastered (Huttenlocher et al. 2002: 368).

68 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

three critical aspects of constructivism: the notion of construction, the role of frequency, and the distinction between grammar and usage.

Construction – a rather vague notion One criticism that is sometimes advanced against this approach is that the term construction is too vague and therefore applicable to almost all kinds of linguistic structures. This point can be illustrated by the following citation in which Lieven provides examples of constructions of different linguistic levels: “constructions exist at all levels of grammar from morphemes (-ing) through partially filled idioms (to jog X’s memory) to fully schematic (e.g., the ditransitive: Subj V Obj1 Obj2), in all cases as relationships between the particular form (phonetic or/ and categorical) of the construction and some function/meaning” (Lieven 2009: 194). Although this approach is at first glance quite powerful, its strength is also a weakness in that it does not sufficiently differentiate multiple mechanisms that contribute to how children may acquire different linguistic units. Since acquiring verbal inflection may not involve the same processes as acquiring syntactic structures, different learning mechanisms seem to be necessary and statistical learning can perhaps not explain all observable acquisition scenarios.

Grammar is grammar and usage is usage Researchers in the constructivist and usage-based framework usually avoid the term grammar to refer to the system underlying speakers’ linguistic “competence with a natural language” (Tomasello 2003: 5). If they use grammar, they often specify their concept by calling it Cognitive Grammar (cf. Langacker 2000: 8; and Chapter 1.1.1). According to theorists in the constructivist framework, Cognitive Grammar is a “structured inventory of conventional linguistic units” (Langacker 2000: 8) which has a bottom-up orientation, that is to say, “‘rules’ can only arise as schematizations of overtly occurring expressions” (Langacker 2000: 3). The mastery of all items and structures within a given language is therefore considered to correspond to the acquisition of the grammar of that specific language. This equation of language use and grammar has been criticized by Newmeyer (2003) who argues for the need to make a sharp distinction between them and questions the usage-based assumption that “grammar is the cognitive organization of experience with language” (Bybee 2006b: 730). According to him,

Constructivism 

 69

although mental grammar is the basis for language use,86 usage and frequency are not represented in the grammar itself (Newmeyer 2003: 682). Therefore, language cannot be learned from probability distributions without a domainspecific representational space concerning syntax (Lidz and Williams 2009: 178 and 186). However, Newmeyer admits frequency effects on language use, but he points out that usage-based theory cannot explain the way in which such effects may exactly influence grammar (Newmeyer 2003: 695). Thus, he assumes that “speakers mentally represent the full grammatical structure, even if they utter only fragments” (Newmeyer 2003: 690). The fact that speakers are able to make reliable judgments about the grammaticality of sentences they have never heard is considered to be positive evidence for the fact that they do have full linguistic knowledge even though they will never utter all possible constructions of a language. Thus, a speaker’s linguistic knowledge seems to encompass more than only language use. Usage-based approaches are considered to underestimate this fact (Newmeyer 2003: 693–698).

Frequency The fact that frequency influences speakers’ language use is widely acknowledged; however, the assumption that it affects grammar through language use has often been criticized. In their study on young children’s errors in pronoun co-referencing, Metthews et al. (2009) showed that neither usage-based nor generativist approaches could account for their results: Contrary to nativist assumptions, children made a number of errors; in contradiction to the usage-based hypothesis the data shows that children “were more accurate in judging sentences that contained low frequency verbs than high frequency verbs” (Metthews et al. 2009: 619). In order to explain children’s behaviour, the authors invoke processing effects, more precisely the kindergarten path effect which predicts that “[c]hildren have often been shown to have trouble revising their initial interpretations of sentences” (Metthews et al. 2009: 619). They assume that such an effect would be stronger with sentences containing highly frequent lexical items as compared to low frequency items. In his review of Goldberg’s work, Croft points out that Construction Grammar and usage-based approaches erroneously associate type frequency with the openness of a schema (Croft 2009: 158). Following Bybee’s finding (1995: 452) that type frequency has an impact on productivity he argues that the default pattern must

86 Newmeyer (2003: 695) outlines that “Grammar supports usage” although, in order to communicate, we also need other abilities such as processing mechanisms.

70 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

“be completely open in how it defines the items to which it [the default patter] may apply” (Bybee 1995: 438). By invoking this criticism, Croft seems to point out that Construction Grammar uses the notion frequency quite inaccurately. Furthermore, he criticizes Goldberg and colleagues for not specifying whether absolute or relative frequency is the significant factor. In order to provide sound reasoning, type and token, as well as absolute and relative frequencies, have to be more precisely distinguished.

3.4 Conclusion The aim of this chapter was to give a short overview of three main theories in first language acquisition: Nativism, Cognitivism, and Constructivism. The different foci of all three approaches depend on their goal, distinguishing above all Nativism from Cognitivism and Constructivism. “At heart, Chomskyan nativism is a philosophical endeavor to discern by means of logic what is uniquely and innately human. Cognitive and Functional approaches are scientific endeavors aimed at understanding how people learn and use natural languages” (Tomasello 1995b: 152–153). Thus, the important differences between these theories can partly be accounted for by their different backgrounds (mathematical versus psychological) and their different goals (explain I-Language versus explain language use). A brief summary of each theory will be followed by an outline of three points common to all of them. Traditional nativists claim innate predispositions for language learning (usually called Universal Grammar) which are encapsulated in a brain module, with the assumption that the input only has a triggering function. Since the input children receive is considered to be poor and insufficient, they would be incapable of learning language without such a specific linguistic endowment (Poverty of the stimulus argument). A current more moderate position restricts innate predispositions to the capacity of recursion that enables humans to produce an indefinite set of sentences on the basis of a restricted set of items (Hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch 2002). Recent studies attach more importance to general cognitive learning mechanisms and therefore reject the idea that the child only has to discover the correct settings or innately available parameters (cf. Eisenbeiß 2009: 298). We can see a sharp contrast here between the nativist assumption that children only play a passive role during language acquisition and their very active role in cognitivist and constructivist theories. Cognitivists assume that cognitive and linguistic development are closely linked and that language only represents one possible type of symbolic system. Sensori-motor schemas which emerge through perception are considered to be

Conclusion 

 71

the prerequisites for language learning. This idea has been further developed by Mandler, who claims that abstract image-schemas are a more plausible transitional form between perception and early linguistic devices, as compared to sensori-motor schemas (see also more details in Chapter 1.1.2). Constructivist and usage-based approaches emphasize that the most important prerequisites for language learning are social-pragmatic competences (e.g., joint attention, intention reading and abstraction processes). According to this approach, children are supposed to learn language by use. Through the input they hear and by relying on pattern-finding mechanisms, they abstract construction types and gradually generalize them in order to construct adult-like linguistic knowledge. The major difference between Constructivism and Cognitivism is that the latter assumes that children construct cognitive structures in interaction with their physical environment; in constructivist and usage-based approaches, however, children construct linguistic structures on the basis of input and in social interaction with their environment. Although at first glance, all three approaches seem to be quite different, they have a number of points in common, three of which will be mentioned here. First, Nativism and Cognitivism as well as Constructivism, all assume innate predispositions for language learning. While Nativism claims rather specific innate predispositions for language learning, Cognitivism and Constructivism consider that more general cognitive mechanisms (such as joint attention or pattern finding) constitute an essential part of children’s biological endowment. On the one hand, these mechanisms enable children to extract invariants from their environment and to build up a complex representational system, as will be shown in the following chapter. On the other hand, they help children interact with their caretakers and acquire a representational system, such as spoken or sign language. The question of the specific versus general nature of children’s innate predispositions for language learning requires further investigation. Second, all the related research admits that input is necessary. Although nativists assume that linguistic input is rather poor (e.g., it does not contain any negative evidence) and therefore can only have a triggering effect on children’s language acquisition process (Poverty of the stimulus argument), it is nonetheless considered as playing a role. Cognitivist research has not dealt much with the role of input, but it can be assumed that children need input in order to construct their linguistic system. In Constructivism, linguistic input plays a striking role because it is considered to be the only “linguistic source” available to children in acquiring language. To conclude, we can say that all three approaches consider input to be necessary, but that its precise role in language acquisition depends on the approach.

72 

 Language and cognition in different language acquisition theories

Finally, representatives of all three theories acknowledge that language is a cognitive system that is influenced by cognition during the language acquisition process (e.g., processing mechanisms). Nativists maximally limit the influence of cognition on language acquisition and focus on constraints in working memory. In Cognitivism, however, it is children’s cognitive development that is considered to be the pacesetter for language acquisition. Constructivism, in contrast, admits relatively many correlations between language and cognition, and focuses on general cognitive learning mechanisms (such as pattern finding), which become gradually more efficient with age. Although all three theories have rather divergent ideas about the relation between language and cognition (cf. Chapter 1.2.3), they all admit a certain influence of cognition on the language acquisition process. The present study focuses on the process whereby children acquire lexicalization patterns and takes cognitive and functional approaches as a theoretical basis in order to explain the data. Since nativist assumptions focus more on I-Language and describe the static language system of an ideal speaker they are less suitable for this research project.

4 Selected aspects of spatial cognition in children Spatial cognition is one of the most fundamental capacities in all species. It enables us to perceive the three-dimensional world in which we live, to find and to remember our way and to reason about it. Nearly all human behaviour “is spatially grounded and spatially organized” (Plumert and Spencer 2007: xiii). Depending on their definition, theorists subsume different abilities under the term spatial cognition, as for instance spatial perception, spatial memory, spatial attention, spatial mental operations (e.g., mental rotation) or the construction of spatial representations (cf. Kritschesvsky 1988: 132; Schumann-Hengsteler 2004:  51). With respect to methodology, there is a distinction between human actions that are carried out in space and what we know about space (Liben 1988: 174). Only the latter is typically considered as spatial cognition. In the following, we will first briefly discuss the emergence of spatial cognition in infancy, and then present some selected aspects of spatial cognition, namely spatial relations, motion, and causality, and sketch how they develop during ontogeny.87 The relation between spatial cognition and spatial language will be examined in Chapter 5 with regard to motion events.

4.1 The emergence of spatial cognition Spatial cognition emerges in the first weeks of ontogeny (Mandler 1992: 283). It results from the interaction of several components: visual, auditory, and tactile perception (Habel and von Stutterheim 2000; Piaget 1964; Piaget and Inhelder 1972), maturation processes (Schumann-Hengsteler 2004), proprioception, locomotion, and interaction with the physical environment (Acredolo 1988; Bremner 1989; H. Clark 1980; Smith, Maouene, and Hidaka 2007). Plumert and Spencer (2007: 382) formulated this idea as follows: “cognition is not something that sits in the head of the organism. Rather, it is an emergent product of a system that includes both the organism and the environment. Thus, development needs to be characterized as changes in organism – environment interactions rather than as changes exclusively in the head of the organism”. Depending on the theoretical framework, researchers evaluate each of the components listed above differently (e.g., perception, maturation processes, interaction with the environment).

87 For a detailed overview, cf. Hickmann (2003b), Newcombe and Hottenlocher (2000), and Schumann-Hengsteler (2004).

74 

 Selected aspects of spatial cognition in children

Nativists assume that spatial concepts are part of infants’ genetic endowment88 in the form of so called “unchanging core-principles” (Carey and Spelke 1998: 194; Spelke et al. 1992: 628; cf. also Leslie 1998 [1994]). Carey proposes three domains of core knowledge, among them “knowledge of objects and some of their mechanical interactions, knowledge of agents and some aspects of intentional causality” (Carey 2002: 50). Over time these core principles are enriched and entrenched by the ontology they determine (Carey and Spelke 1998: 169). However, constructivists such as Piaget assume that spatial concepts are constructed with age on the basis of internalized sensori-motor schemas which emerge as a result of the interaction between the child and his environment (Piaget 1976: 11). Nevertheless, many studies show that “spatial coding is more sophisticated at earlier ages than Piaget believed” (Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2000: 107; cf. also Golinkoff et al. 1984: 146–147). Since these two positions represent two poles of a continuum, we would suggest a third point of view which seems to be intermediate between nativism and constructivism. In our opinion, spatial cognition emerges through the interaction between biological and universal properties of the spatial environment (Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2000: 209). Let us briefly consider two examples of this interaction: Gibson’s ecological approach to perception (Gibson 1986) and Mandler’s notion of image schemas (Mandler 1992, 1996, 1998, 2004). In a world that is constantly changing, infants search for invariant features and recurrent principles which help them draw inferences about the physical world around them (cf. Gibson 1986: 303).89 Gibson therefore rejects the existence of innate knowledge about the world; similar to Baillargeon, Kotovsky, and Needham (2002: 114), he only admits predispositions for statistical learning (cf. also Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2000: 210) and abstraction processes:90 “But if, on the other hand, perception of the environment is not based on a sequence of snapshots but on invariant-extraction from a flux, one does not need to have ideas about the environment in order to perceive it. […] Such is the ecological approach to perception” (Gibson 1986: 304). Gibson does not further define the notion of invariants. According to him, people extract invariants when they move through space and perceive space from various perspectives. The term invariants thus seems to refer to spatial features such as different dimensions of objects or laws

88 For a critical discussion of the nativist approach to spatial cognition, cf. Newcombe and Huttenlocher (2000: 112–113). 89 Slater (1989: 60) calls these phenomena “visual constancies”. 90 These predispositions are quite similar to those suggested for language learning by the usage-based approach, cf. Chapter 3.3.1.

Spatial relations 

 75

of nature (e.g., gravity). Consequently, they are those features children perceive in their environment and which therefore represent the raw material of imageschemas (cf. Chapter 1.2.3 and below). According to Mandler, infants analyze what they perceive (perceptional analysis, Mandler 1992, 1996) and transform this knowledge into image-schemas which constitute a transition between pure perception and mental conceptualizations. Thus, image-schemas are considered to be the first forms of spatial concepts like containment or self-motion (Mandler 1992: 283). As shown in Chapter 3.2, bodily experience is crucial for infants’ and children’s cognitive (and linguistic) development. As a result, it also plays an important role in the construction of spatial cognition (Bremner 1989: 138–140; Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2000: 105–107; Plumert and Spencer 2007: 380). Bodily experience91 not only subsumes the infant’s locomotion and its interactions with objects, but also its simple presence in the three-dimensional world with all of its physical laws. However, space is not only organized around the body but also around other referents (Bryant, Tversky, and Franklin 1992: 97). It further provides us with clues for the understanding of spatial concepts: “The conceptual core of space probably originates (…) with the body concept – with what is at, in, or on our own bodies” (Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976: 394). Nevertheless, experience with the body is no longer considered to be the main determinant in an infant’s development, as has been suggested by Piaget (1945). In addition, general cognitive abilities such as an increase of visual memoryspan and processing speed also develop and therefore lead to a more elaborated spatial cognition in older children and adults (McNamara 2007: 111; SchumannHengsteler 2004: 70–75).

4.2 Spatial relations Although the notion of spatial relations is vague, it usually refers to object localizations involving directional and distance relations. The recognition of objects “which seems to be either present at birth, or develops within the first few months of life” (Cook 1987: 120) precedes the recognition of spatial relations (cf. also Hespos and Baillargeon 2001: 236; Landau and Jackendoff 1993: 217; Piaget and Inhelder 1972: 14). Since a prerequisite for the recognition and categorization of spatial relations is object permanence, we will begin with the development

91 Kant (quoted in Casey 1993: 350) already observed that the most fundamental reference frame is one’s own body.

76 

 Selected aspects of spatial cognition in children

of this capacity and then present some of children’s capacities in the domain of spatial relations in the stricter sense. Object permanence refers to infants’ ability to understand that objects continue to exist even if they are no longer in their field of vision. Piaget assumed that only children who search for hidden objects have acquired object permanence. According to him, this behaviour appears at the end of the sensori-motor period between 12 and 18 months of age (Piaget 1976: 14; Piaget and Inhelder 1972: 14). However, using more recent methodology involving the habituation paradigm, Baillargeon (1985, 1987) has shown that infants reach this cognitive level much earlier (at about 3½ months of age). For the most part, these different results can be explained by the different research methods used. An active search for hidden objects requires – among other things – relatively good memory, the coordination of several actions into means-end sequences and the self-initiated locomotion of the infant through space (Baillargeon 1985: 205, 1987: 663; Munakata et al. 1997: 709–712). All three capacities improve during the first year of life and represent important additional constraints not taken into account by Piaget (SchumannHengsteler 2004: 55). Newborn infants seem to understand and to categorize invariant spatial relations under certain conditions at the age of six weeks (Antell and Caron 1985: 21–22).92 However, the capacity to categorize spatial relations evolves and improves during infancy. Similarity seems to be an important factor in the acquisition of spatial concepts (Choi and McDonough 2007: 154). At the beginning, infants’ recognition of spatial relations depends on familiar objects (Casasola 2005: 190). It is only later that children abstract categorical representations of spatial relations independently from specific objects (Casalosa, Cohen, and Chiarello 2003: 680; Cohen et al. 1998: 196; Hespos and Baillargeon 2001: 236; Quinn 2006: 302–303). In other words: The overall pattern of results is thus consistent with the suggestion that categorical representations are initially quite concrete and specific (e.g. only one object can be spatially related to a second object) and with experience or maturation or both become more abstract and general (e.g. a number of different objects can be spatially related to each other within the same representation). (Quinn 1998: 156)

92 Depending on the material and the tasks, infants’ performance is quite variable. Thus, the ages at which specific concepts are acquired have to be treated with caution. Piaget and Inhelder, for instance, assume that children have to discover spatial relations actively in order to form representations on the basis of their perceptual experiences (Piaget and Inhelder 1972: 52). Therefore, they estimate that certain concepts are acquired quite late because children must first be able to develop specific sensori-motor schemas.

Spatial relations 

 77

Irrespective of the type of spatial relations, abstraction processes that enable children to construct more solid spatial relations emerge at around 6 months (cf. Hickmann 2003b: 142). From birth on, children are sensitive to topological relations (in, on, near etc.) as well as projective and Euclidean ones (above, below, in front of etc.). Several researchers assume that during development infants switch from a reliance on principally topological information to a primary reliance on Euclidean information (Bowerman 2007: 180; Johnston 1985: 966; Mandler 1988: 424; Piaget and Inhelder 1972: 524). This development is considered to account for an increase of the accuracy of spatial cognition with age. Within the category of topological relations there also seems to be a developmental sequence according to which infants first acquire containment, then support, and finally contiguity and under-relations (Bowerman 2007: 181; Casasola, Cohen, and Chiarello 2003: 690; E. Clark 1973: 179; Johnston and Slobin 1979: 540). The acquisition of projective and Euclidean relations occurs nearly in parallel, or it is at best a bit delayed, in comparison to topological ones. Furthermore, the full understanding of each concept also comprises several levels. Let us illustrate this point for containment (cf. Caron, Caron, and Antell 1988: 626; Hespos and Baillargeon 2001: 210–211). Hespos and Baillargeon (2001: 220) assume that infants as young as 2½ months of age already have expectations about containment. According to Caron, Caron, and Antell (1988: 626), children first ascribe this characteristic to cups alone (10 to 12 months) because these are the most familiar kind of containers for them. At around 14 months they seem to recognize “the affordance” of most containers but still lack the main characteristics of the concept. It is only at 17 to 18 months that children fully comprehend the causal basis of the containment function. This example shows clearly how the concept of containment is gradually differentiated with age. Mandler’s Conceptual Redescription (1992: 276) and Karmiloff-Smith’s concept of Representational Redescriptions (1999) seem to provide good accounts of this differentiation. Disregarding the distinction between topological and projective relations, infants first learn landmark representations in which only one point of reference has to be taken into account (e.g., above, below, left, right).93 During their first year of life, children use landmarks to find objects in a specific location and to orient themselves in the world (Schumann-Hengsteler 2004: 60). Thus, contrary to Piaget’s assumption, they do not exclusively rely on an egocentric frame of reference (Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2000: 70). During a second phase, they use frame-

93 For a detailed explanation of the acquisition of landmarks, cf. Newcombe and Huttenlocher (2000: 14–15).

78 

 Selected aspects of spatial cognition in children

work representations (e.g., between) which require attention to at least two points of reference (cf. Quinn 2007: 137). Hence, with age children become able to take into consideration an increasing number of dimensions of spatial relations and, consequently, their spatial representations become gradually more accurate and complex (Baillargeon, Kotovsky, and Needham 2002: 80; Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2000: 206; Plumert and Spencer 2007: 379–280).

4.3 Motion Motion can be defined according to Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976: 79) as “changes of a particular kind, namely changes of spatial relations”. Since motion occurs in the physical world, it requires the coordination of the spatial and temporal domains (Langacker 1983: 75 and 167). Tesnière ([1959] 1966: 308–309) distinguishes between two different types of motion: movement and displacement.94 Movement is considered to be intrinsic and does not depend on a goal to be attained but rather on one’s possibilities to move. Walking, running or swimming are only three examples of movements. In contrast, displacement is extrinsic and implies a change of location. Therefore, it does not focus on the entity involved, but on the space in which it moves. Tesnière illustrates this distinction by two examples: Lorsque je me fais conduire en automobile ou que je m’installe confortablement dans le coin de mon compartiment de chemin de fer, je peux rester complètement immobile pendant tout le temps du parcours. A l’arrivée, j’ai obtenu le déplacement que je voulais sans avoir fait aucun mouvement. Inversement l’écureuil qui marche dans sa cage tournante effectue par là un mouvement qui est même très rapide, mais la cage n’étant pas fixe sur son axe et fuyant au fur et à mesure sous les pieds de l’écureuil, celui-ci n’obtient finalement aucun déplacement et se retrouve en fin de compte toujours au même endroit. (Tesnière 1966: 308) [If someone takes me somewhere by car or if I arrange myself comfortably in a corner of my train compartment, I may remain completely immobile during the whole journey. On arrival, I will have obtained the displacement intended without having done any movement by myself. Conversely, the squirrel that runs in a treadmill cage produces movement that is even very rapid, but as the cage is not fixed on its axis and moves backwards under the paws of the squirrel, it does not obtain any displacement and in the end is still at the same position.]

94 Tschander (1999: 26) calls these two different types of motion internal and external motion respectively.

Motion 

 79

Motion is considered to be “a powerful dimension of visual stimulation for the human infant” (Poulin-Dubois, Lepage, and Ferland 1996: 21; cf. Janzen and Katz 2000: 45). From birth on infants prefer to scan or to fixate moving stimuli rather than stationary ones (Butterworth 1989: 81; Slater 1989: 59) and thus only detect the former at distances (cf. Burnham 1987:167). Information about the two kinds of motions mentioned above is inferred by infants on the basis of their object properties and the physical laws which govern them (Spelke 1990: 51). In their experiments, Spelke and colleagues (Spelke 1994; Spelke and Hespos 2002; Spelke et al. 1992) show that, from two months on, infants understand several basic physical principles such as continuity, solidity, and contact (Carey and Spelke 1998: 172– 175; Leslie 1984; Spelke et al. 1992: 606).95 At around four months, they have also acquired the physical principle of cohesion. Other laws such as gravity or inertia are learned a bit later, between six and eight months of age. Between seven and nine months of age, infants learn that only animate entities can cause their own action and therefore move in the absence of any external force (Mandler 2004: 110; Poulin-Dubois, Lepage, and Ferland 1996: 19; Spelke, Philips, and Woodward 2002: 70).96 Their movements have a function, a purpose, or a goal (Gelman 2002: 80). In contrast, inanimate entities “only move if they are pushed, picked up or otherwise caused to move” (Mandler 1992: 278). At this point, infants are able to differentiate voluntary and caused motion.97 If infants at 12 months of age are presented with motion events in which an inanimate entity moves on its own, they react with surprise (Poulin-Dubois, Lepage, and Ferland 1996: 26). By three years of age, children construct alternative explanations to make sense of that event; they typically infer an invisible agent causing the patient to move (Gelman and Koenig 2001: 684). Our knowledge about motion necessarily provides us with information about the manner and the path of moving objects (cf. Choi and McDonough 2007: 160). Pulvermann et al. (2003, 2008) showed that infants from 14 months on distinguished motion events that differed as for the Manner and the Path of the

95 Experiments designed to test infants’ object permanence also reveal their knowledge of solidity. In experiments with a rotating screen, infants have to take into account that objects can only move through space not occupied by other objects (cf. Baillargeon 1985: 206). 96 The concept of animacy is a fundamental concept not only in the domain of spatial cognition but also in other domains: “Once an entity is identified as animate, one can directly infer that it has mental capacities (e.g. thoughts, feelings, intentions) and biological functions (e.g. eating, growth), and that it is capable of goal-directed action” (Gelman and Koenig 2001: 684). 97 In their studies Janzen and Katz (2000: 63) showed that there is no gradual transition between the perception of voluntary and caused motion; each type of motion is perceived by its own mechanism.

80 

 Selected aspects of spatial cognition in children

Figure. Path is considered to be one of the simplest and earliest image-schemas infants acquire: One of the simplest image-schemas is the notion of a path. PATH represents the trajectory of any object moving through space without regard to the details of the object itself or the particular trajectory it takes. Infants see countless examples of objects moving through space, so there is ample environmental input to support the abstraction of spatial structure that this type of image-schema represents. (Mandler 1992: 277)

At the end of the first year, children have constructed quite abstract image-schemas of motion events which consist of entities that move along paths that have sources and goals (Mandler 2004: 105). Despite all of this knowledge in young infants, their ability to detect and to track motion still undergoes significant developmental changes during infancy and childhood (Rosander et al. 2007; von Hofsten and Rosander 1997).

4.4 Causality The concept of causality has been subject of numerous studies in the fields of physics, philosophy, psychology, and linguistics. Generally speaking, most philosophers (cf. Golinkoff 1984: 128) would agree with Talmy who assumes that “a basic causative situation consists of two events where one event occurs as the result of the other. The former is the resulting event and the latter is the causing event” (Talmy 2003, 1: 337). Following Talmy, many researchers today use the term force dynamics to refer to the interaction of entities with respect to force. This generalization over the traditional linguistic notion of causality makes it possible to subdivide the causative domain into finer primitives which also include ‘letting’, ‘hindering’ or ‘helping’ (Talmy 2003, 1: 410). Within causative situations, Talmy distinguishes between causing and caused/resulting event which take place simultaneously (Talmy 2003, 1: 480–495). The psychologists’ interest in causality results from the fact that adults as well as children make causal attributions which influence their behaviour and their construction of the (physical and social) world (Golinkoff 1984: 128). A prototypical caused motion event involves an animate agent who acts upon an inanimate patient (Corrigan 1988: 295). Simple versions of such causal events

Causality 

 81

are recognized from 6 months on (Cohen et al. 1998: 204).98 At first glance, this fact suggests that infants are “pre-programmed” to perceive causality as if it was innate (Hickmann 2003b: 144). However, it is widely acknowledged that spatialtemporal contiguity between the agent’s action and the patient’s behavior seems to play an important role in the recognition of causal events in young infants (Cohen et al. 1998: 167; Hickmann 2003b: 144; Leslie 1984: 303; Michotte 1963: 91–93; Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976: 86; Piaget 1930: 268). This result suggests that, up to a certain age, infants first only recognize the spatial-temporal properties of the objects involved in the motion event, but not causality per se. Nevertheless, it is possible that the understanding of causality “goes beyond spatiotemporal analysis.” (Carey 2000b: 38; also Saxe and Carey 2006: 144–145), although Mandler (2004: 108) assumes that the former probably derives from the latter. According to Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976: 98), events must fulfil three conditions in order to be perceived as causal: a) The perceived cause must spatially precede the perceived effect in time. b) The perceived cause must be spatially contiguous with perceived effects. c) Both the perceived cause and the perceived effect must be changes or events, not objects. Such a deeper understandi1ng of causality which takes into account all three conditions is not in place before 7 months of age (Cohen et al. 1998: 204; Saxe and Carey 2006: 151). The capacity to recognize and understand caused motion events still improves considerably during infancy and only 10-months-old infants are able to identify complex events abstracting causality from very different objects and situations (Cohen et al. 1998: 175). One difficulty arises for instance if caused motion events involve animate objects where the force transmitted is not external but rather internal (Gibson 1984: 143). These situations require infants to have knowledge about the causal capacities of animate and inanimate objects. These expectations are only in place at the end of the second year of life (Golinkoff et al. 1984: 147). From experience we know that it is extraordinarily difficult to have a full understanding of objective causality in complex situations. The fact that children acquire this knowledge means that their spatial categories have become independent of the existence of perceptually evident boundaries at around 10 years (Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976: 491; Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2000: 212; cf. also Laurendeau and Pinard 1962: 201).

98 According to Leslie (1998) two innate modules, Theory of Body Mechanism (ToBy) and Theory of Mind Mechanism (ToMM), are responsible for the acquisition of causality and agentivity which are supposed to develop from three months on.

82 

 Selected aspects of spatial cognition in children

Miller and Johnson-Laird (1976: 96) assume that the two most commonly caused motion situations are ‘holding’ and ‘transferring’: “The two most common situations in which people perceive that the motion of one object causes the motion of another are when one object carries the second, or when one object collides with the second.” Normally, caused motion implies a contact between agent and patient. If these typical characteristics are not present, infants have difficulties in recognizing causality. For instance, an event in which two inanimate objects move together is not perceived as involving a causal relation (Saxe and Carey 2006: 158) and infants from 10 months on infer the presence of a hidden causal agent (Saxe, Tenenbaum, and Carey 2005: 995). Agents99 and patients are perceived by infants as soon as they have constructed an image-schema of the causal event (Cohen et al. 1998: 191). For very simple objects agents and patients are recognized at 7 months, for more complex ones at 14 months (Cohen et al. 1998: 193). At around 14 months, infants also begin to understand that these roles can be reversed. At the end of the first year, infants assign intentions to agents and thus assume that their actions have goals100 (cf. Saxe, Tenenbaum, and Carey 2005: 995; Wagner and Carey 2005: 74). It is not until 14 months that infants distinguish between different types of causality, such as push- and pull-events (Hickmann 2003b: 145). These two types of causation differ depending on “whether the main portion of the Antagonist is behind (pushing) or ahead (pulling) the main portion of the Agonist along the line of motion” (Talmy 2003, 1: 463). That this distinction is not fully acquired until 6 years, will be shown in Chapter 10.

4.5 Summary Spatial cognition such as knowledge about spatial relations and motion plays a fundamental role in human life and helps (human) beings to orient themselves in the world. Although the first forms of spatial cognition seem to have emerged at two months, these capacities continue to develop throughout childhood. Sustained knowledge of more complex spatial situations/events is only acquired at the end of primary school. The first spatial concepts emerge through the extraction of spatial invariants and the construction of image-schemas on the basis of

99 For a detailed theory of agency, cf. Leslie (1984) and Talmy (2003, 1: 513). 100 According to Carey (2002: 50–51), “[t]he attribution of goals and intentions goes beyond spatio-temporal analysis”. In her opinion, it cannot only be deduced from perceptual analysis as supposed by Mandler but also involves innate mechanisms.

Summary 

 83

this information. For this development bodily experience and the interaction of the organism with its environment seems to play a crucial role. In the domain of spatial relations children first rely on topological relations and only later on projective ones. This change and their growing capacity to take gradually more aspects of space into account is responsible for their increased accuracy. Knowledge about motion is primarily based on their understanding of physical laws. As soon as an image-schema of a motion event is constructed, children are sensitive to its fundamental components: path, manner, source, and goal. Initially, causality seems to be first understood on the basis of spatial-temporal contiguity; later infants recognize true causality. Image-schemas of caused motion events provide infants with knowledge about the agents and patients.

5 Verbalizations of motion events When we want to convey spatial information – whether static or dynamic – we normally proceed in three steps. First we abstract and schematize our representation in order to then package it into linguistic means (Slobin 1996: 75). This schematization consists of systematically selecting those aspects of a referent scene which will be expressed in the following verbalization (Talmy 2003, 1: 177). Thus, language imposes a fixed structure on virtually every spatial scene, inviting speakers to ignore those aspects which are typically not expressed in that specific language (Talmy 2003, 1: 220; 2008a: 181 and 2008b: 33). Second, verbalization requires that we take a certain perspectival view because we “cannot verbalize experience without taking a perspective” (Slobin 2000: 107; cf. Janzen and Katz 2000: 52; Levinson 1997: 21). In this respect, a determining factor in our verbalizations is where the perspective point is located within a scene or speech-event setting (perspectival location according to Talmy 2003, 1: 68). For instance, depending on the speaker’s choice, he might use one or another spatial deictic form such as her (‘hither’) versus hin (‘thither’) in German or come versus go in English. Apart from perspective-taking, speakers also have to select a frame of reference that strongly influences their verbalizations. According to Rock (1992), a frame of reference is “a unit or organization of units that collectively serves to identify a coordinate system with respect to which certain properties of objects, including the phenomenal self, are gauged” (Rock 1992: 404). Levinson (2006: 24–61) distinguishes between three linguistic frames of reference (intrinsic, absolute, and relative), each of which encompasses a whole set of related but distinct semantic systems.101 In principle, all three frames of reference can occur simultaneously in each language, but usually one of them is predominant as compared to the others. The last step in the verbalization process is the linearization of concepts into sequential speech segments (cf. Allen et al. 2007: 17; Habel and von Stutterheim 2000: 3; Herrmann and Schweizer 1998: 222; Janzen and Katz 2000: 52; Newcombe and Hottenlocher 2000: 181). The semantic information which may be represented hierarchically in the mind has to be unfolded in time by means of linguistic units. This transformation into a temporally determined sequence is called the linearization process. In the following, the focus is particularly on processes that are involved in the verbalization of spatial information, when denoted situations involve motion

101 For more information about the different frames of reference, cf. Klein (1990a, 1990b), and Levinson (2006: 24–61).

A typological approach: Talmy’s framework 

 85

events. First Talmy’s theory about lexicalization patterns and Slobin’s more cognitive approach to spatial language is presented, before a consideration of the available results concerning children’s verbalizations of motion events. The final discussion concerns how motion events are expressed in German and French, the two languages that will be at the center of this study.

5.1 A typological approach to the expression of motion events: Talmy’s framework In order to present Talmy’s theory clearly, some important concepts of his approach will be discussed and then the focus will be on lexicalization patterns in relation to motion events, which constitute the theoretical framework of the analysis. 102 When speakers utter sentences or a whole discourse, they evoke in their listeners a “particular kind of experiential complex”, which Talmy calls a cognitive representation (Talmy 2003, 1: 21). According to him, language as a cognitive system is assumed to have two subsystems that have two complementary functions: structure and content. The structure of cognitive representations is determined by the grammatical elements that represent a conceptual skeleton (Talmy 2003, 1: 179). Closed-class forms which are semantically constrained consist of conceptual categories that seem to be selected from a universal inventory (Talmy 2003, 1: 40). The content of cognitive representations is provided by lexical forms. These open-class forms are conceptually unrestricted (Talmy 2003, 1: 40). However, owing to processing constraints, languages have only a limited number of such forms.103 Consequently, the grammatical structure interrelates with the structure of thought and conception (Talmy 2003, 1: 40). The set of concepts that are evoked by a specific verbalization constitute an event frame (Talmy 2003, 1: 259). A characteristic of the human mind is that it perceives and conceives events,

102 Note that almost all the chapters of his two-volume work Toward a Cognitive Semantics (2003) are based on earlier papers. Thus, we only refer to these revised versions gathered in Talmy (2003). A revised version of Chapters 1 and 2 of Volume 2, is published in the 2nd Edition of Shopen’s (2008) Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon. It replaces the famous original version of Lexicalization Patterns. Semantic structure in lexical forms from 1985. 103 General terms often have the function of relating to a large semantic field if there are not enough specific lexical items. Furthermore, Talmy stresses that “[s]uch terms [general terms] accomplish this largely by indicating one aspect of a more complex concept, in accordance with a process of part-for-whole representation and its complement, reconstitution” (Talmy 2003, 1: 244). We will come back later to this kind of lexical element in the domain of verbs.

86 

 Verbalizations of motion events

although reality only presents a continuum of space, time or other qualitative domains (cf. Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976: 79). By carving up this continuum and by setting boundaries around specific portions of time, the mind divides reality into events (Talmy 2003, 2: 215). According to Talmy, a macro-event consists of a main event that has a framing function and that provides the conceptual framework for other subordinate events (Talmy 2003, 2: 219). Such subordinate events, which often seem to be more perceptually palpable and semantically primary, are called Co-events (Talmy 2003, 2: 219–220). Event frames consist of either a single framing event or a framing event and a Co-event. In such frames the listener’s attention can be distributed – intentionally or unintentionally – in different ways. According to Talmy, several factors govern the distribution of attention in a specific referent scene (Talmy 2003, 1: 76–77). For example, speakers can either mention the portion of a scene explicitly and therefore window the listener’s attention on that particular region or they can omit certain aspects and therefore gap these portions (Talmy 2003, 1: 257 and 305).104 This fact suggests that there are fundamental and universal conceptual structuring systems in human cognition (Talmy 2003, 1: 303). Talmy’s main research interest is the study of the systematic relation between meaning and form in language. Of particular interest are lexicalization patterns, that is regular and recurrent associations between a particular meaning component and a particular morpheme (Talmy 2008a: 69). In order to study lexicalization patterns, Talmy proposes isolating elements within the domain of semantics and morphology or syntax, and examining which semantic elements are expressed by which surface elements (Talmy 2008a: 66). Since there is no oneto-one relation between semantic elements and surface elements, a combination of semantic elements can be expressed by a single surface element, and a single semantic element can be expressed by a combination of surface elements. Talmy suggests holding constant a particular surface entity and studying its different semantic meanings (Talmy 2008a: 67). As surface elements he chooses to examine one type of open-class element, verb roots, and one type of closed-class element, satellites, both of which express the same set of semantic categories. The analysis indicates patterns with variable degrees of frequency which can roughly be categorized into three groups: (1) Specific patterns that appear to be

104 This windowing of attention not only occurs in oral language but has also been observed in the gestural system of a deaf child who did not receive any suitable input. For more details concerning this study cf. Talmy (2003, 1: 301–303) and Zheng and Goldin-Meadow (2002).

A typological approach: Talmy’s framework 

 87

more or less frequent across languages represent a typology.105 (2) If there is only a single pattern across all languages, we are confronted with a universal. And (3) if a specific pattern does not occur at all, this pattern seems to be a universal exclusion. Contrary to normal expectations, motion events are defined as situations containing Motion or the continuation of a stationary location. These events consist of an object (the Figure) moving or located with respect to another object (the reference object or Ground). Both notions, Figure and Ground, are borrowed from Gestalt psychology. The path followed or site occupied by the Figure is referred to as Path (cf. Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976: 406).106 The beginning of the Path is called the Source, the end-point the Goal. Talmy assumes that the Path of the Figure frames and structures the whole motion event (Talmy 2005: 327). Talmy also discusses the phenomenon of fictive motion corresponding to conceptualizations of sentences such as: The road goes from London to Cambridge. In such cases, language refers to stationary situations “with forms and constructions whose basic reference is motion” (Talmy 2003, 1: 104). The object that is viewed as the most active or determinative is conceptualized as the Source (active-determinative principle). Fictive motion can thus be defined as “the mapping of motion as a source domain onto stationariness as a target domain” (Talmy 2003, 1: 171). Furthermore, a motion event can be associated with an external Co-event which has a supporting function in relation to the framing-event: “In these supporting functions, the subordinate event can be seen to fill in, elaborate, add to, or motivate the framing event” (Talmy 2003, 2: 220). Most often Co-events of motion events express Manner or Cause.107 According to Talmy, Manner is a conceptually rather simple component and is thus not elaborated in detail in his work. Cause, however, is considered to be rather complex.108 Talmy assumes that linguistic constructions represent causation in a tripartite structure that consists of a static prior state, a discrete state transition, and a static subsequent state. Language seems to chunk the complexity of the entire causal event and transfers it into a rather simple, well structured linguistic pattern (Talmy 2003, 1: 457).

105 Talmy aims at providing a typology that encompasses most (if not all) languages of the world. Obviously such a theory has to be rather complex in order to explain a large range of linguistic evidence. In the discussion below, we will focus on the main patterns and only briefly refer to marginal categories. 106 For a detailed analysis of the Path-component in typology, cf. Imbert (2012). 107 Since Aspect and Valence (in Talmy’s terms) are not the subject of the present study, we will not discuss these two Co-events any further. 108 Talmy proposes nine different types of causative meanings that can be incorporated in the verb root. For more details, cf. Talmy (2008a: 108–109).

88 

 Verbalizations of motion events

In what follows, we will concentrate only on motion events that involve motion, not on those that contain localizations. The discussion is concerned initially with semantic components that are typically expressed in the two main surface forms mentioned above (verb roots and satellites) in verbalizations of motion events. Talmy (2008a: 72) focuses on the most characteristic expressions of Motion, those that are colloquial rather than literary or stilted, frequent rather than occasional in speech, and pervasive in its extension in the lexicon. With respect to the verb, Talmy mainly focuses on the verb root alone, that is to say one single morpheme. It is only by doing so that typologically very different languages can be compared satisfactorily. He proposes three main conflation patterns for motion verbs, which will be presented in detail: Motion+Co-event, Motion+Path, and Motion+Figure.

Motion + Co-event (Talmy 2008a: 72–88) The languages of the world (e.g., Indo-European – excluding Romance languages, Finno-Ugric, Chinese) provide a great number of verbs that conflate translational Motion and Co-events. As mentioned above, usually Co-events express either the Manner¹⁰⁹ or Cause of a motion event. Talmy assumes that the verb conflates within itself two separate concepts (Motion + Co-vent) (Talmy 2008a: 76). As regards the conceptualization of such an event conflation, he assumes that both events are conceived and conceptualized separately (Talmy 2008a: 81). Manner and Cause appear in an event of self-contained motion110 which is abstracted from the complex motion event (Talmy 2008a: 79). In the Manner-relation, the Co-event co-occurs with the main motion event. In the Cause-relation, the Co-event either precedes the main motion event it causes or co-occurs with it. With respect to agency, both verb types (Motion+Manner and Motion+Cause) can be further subdivided into two or three categories: non-agentive, agentive, and self-agentive, as illustrated in (1) to (6).

109 Wälchli (2001: 299) explains that the type of motion event described by such verbs refers to Tesnière’s category of mouvement mentioned in Chapter 4.3. 110 “In self-contained Motion, an object keeps its same basic or ‘average’, location” (Talmy 2008a: 80).

A typological approach: Talmy’s framework 

Motion+Manner (1) Non-agentive:111 (2) Agentive: (3) Self-agentive: Motion+Cause (4) Non-agentive: (5) Agentive: (6) Agentive:

The rock rolled down the hill. I rolled the keg into the storeroom. I ran down the stairs.

 89

(Talmy 2008a: 73) (Talmy 2008a: 73) (Talmy 2008a: 73)

The napkin blew off the table. (Talmy 2008a: 73) I kicked the keg into the storeroom. (Talmy 2008a: 75) I moved the keg into the storeroom by kicking it. (Talmy 2008a: 75)

As illustrated in (6), the syntactic pattern which underlies such a Co-event conflation is most often a subordinate clause (Talmy 2003, 1: 487). Note that Talmy does not mention that sentences such as (2) contain the semantic component Cause. He only points out that the intransitive one and the transitive use of verbs such as roll (cf. examples 1 and 2) have to be considered as distinct lexical items. Consequently, the transitive verb incorporates the meaning of the intransitive but with an additional component: causation. Therefore, Talmy seems to assume that the semantic component Cause depends on the specific use of the verb.

Motion + Path (Talmy 2008a: 88–96) Several languages (e.g., Romance languages, Japanese, Korean) contain a great number of verbs that express Motion along various Paths.112 However, although this pattern does not represent the main pattern in Germanic languages, it occurs in a limited number of such verbs (e.g., enter, exist) which are Latinate borrowings (Talmy 2003, 2: 228).113 In contrast to the first verb type (Motion+Co-event), constructions for agentive and non-agentive verbs are the same for this conflation pattern (cf. examples 7 and 8).

111 Levelt, Schreuder, and Hoenkamp (1976: 134) explicitly point out that motion verbs (Transpositionsverben ‘verbs of transposition’) are either agentive or non-agentive depending on whether they express voluntary or caused motion. 112 Wälchli (2001: 299) points out that the type of motion event described by such verbs refers to Tesnière’s category of displacement mentioned in Chapter 4.3. Furthermore, in a more detailed analysis of Path, Talmy proposes three structurally distinct components: Vector, Conformation and Deixis (cf. Talmy 2008a: 92–95). 113 Berthele points out that “the main difference between the two languages [German and French], in the realm of path verbs, is the lack of EX and IN verbs in German” (Berthele 2004: 117).

90 

 Verbalizations of motion events

(7) Non-agentive:

La botella entró a the bottle entered in ‘The bottle moved into the cave.’

(8) Agentive:

Entré en entered in ‘I entered the house.’

la cueva. 114 the cave

casa. house

If a Co-event is expressed in the same sentence it has the form of an independent constituent.115 As illustrated in (9), such a constituent is usually an adverbial or a gerund.116 (9)

La botella entró a la cueva The bottle entered at/in the cave ‘The bottle floated into the cave.’

flotando. floating (Talmy 2008a: 8)

However, as illustrated in such Spanish examples, these constructions are stylistically awkward and information about Manner and Cause is more typically either omitted or spread over the discourse. Talmy assumes that in a sentence such as (10), the main verb conflates Motion+Path and the independent constituent adds Manner or Cause (Talmy 2008a: 90). (10)

Metí el barril a la bodega put the keg in the storeroom ‘I rolled the keg into the storeroom.’

rodándolo. rolling-it (Talmy 2008a: 90)

Since meter (‘to put’) in (10) clearly encodes Cause, Talmy’s analysis seems problematic. In this sentence, the gerund adds the Manner of the action causing the motion of the object. However, Cause is already encoded in the main verb.

114 If no source of quotation is mentioned, the examples were invented by the author. 115 Talmy also adds sound-symbolic or mimetic forms as other constituents that can express Manner. Normally, such forms occur in addition to a gerund or non-finite form of the verb root, that is to say Manner is distributed across the whole discourse (cf. Talmy 2005: 345). 116 Wälchli (2001: 308) analyses this kind of construction differently: “In contrast to Tesnière and Talmy, I hold that in all construction types ‘run’ is the verb stem (i.e. the main verb). It is true, that come in come running is systematically the finite verb. Lexically, however, run is the main verb and come is a directional auxiliary. In such cases, there are two verbal slots in motion“.

A typological approach: Talmy’s framework 

 91

Motion + Figure (Talmy 2008a: 96–99) The third main pattern for verb roots conflates Motion and Figure. Although English exhibits several examples for such a verb type (non-agentive: to rain; agentive: to spit), this pattern is more typical for other languages such as Atsugewi, a Hokan language of northern California. The Hokan verb stem -staq- means ‘for runny icky material (e.g. mud, manure, rotten tomatoes, guts, chewed gum) to move’ (Talmy 2008a: 97). Apart from the three main patterns presented above, there are also some less frequent types of motion verbs. However, according to Talmy (2008a: 99), none of them forms the core system of any language. The remaining verb types are Motion+Ground (e.g., to emplane, to deplane), Motion+2 semantic components (Motion+Ground+Path: to shelve; Motion+Figure+Path: to powder) and finally Motion+no further semantic component (e.g., to move). In general, within a language only one of the three major conflation patterns is the typical lexicalization pattern while the others only play a minor role. However, it is possible that a language employs one conflation type for one type of motion event and another conflation type for another type of motion event. Talmy calls this a split system of conflation (Talmy 2008a: 103). For Spanish, Slobin and Hoiting (1994) found that in crossing events speakers typically use verbs which conflate Motion+Path; in other types of motion events, for example those which involve the expression of a Source or Goal, speakers tend to use motion verbs with Co-event conflation. The second surface form which Talmy suggests studying is satellites. Since the notion of satellite is quite uncommon in the linguistic literature, it has to be clearly defined: It [a satellite] is the grammatical category of any constituent other than a nominal complement that is in a sister relation to the verb root. It relates to the verb as a dependent to a head. The satellite, which can be either a bound affix or a free word, is thus intended to encompass all of the following grammatical forms, which traditionally have been largely treated independently of each other: English verb particles, German separable and inseparable verb prefixes, Latin or Russian verb prefixes (…). The set of forms that can function as satellites in a language often overlaps partially, but not wholly, with the set of forms in another grammatical category in that language, generally the category of prepositions, verbs or nouns. (Talmy 2008a: 139)

Talmy justifies the recognition of satellites as a grammatical category by the fact that the semantics of a motion event seems to be comprised of those components encoded in verb roots and those expressed in satellites (Talmy 2008a: 139). As

92 

 Verbalizations of motion events

a result, verb root and satellites form the core schema of a motion event. From a syntactic perspective, a verb root together with its satellites forms a constituent in its own right, which Talmy calls a verb complex. It has to be mentioned that Talmy (slightly) changed his definition of satellite-framed languages in 2009 by adding prepositions as a second category (beside satellites), in which Path can be expressed (Talmy 2009: 390). Since prepositions represent a well-defined grammatical class, in what follows, we will concentrate on the rather unusual notion of satellite. In contrast to an inflected verb, a sentence can contain a great number of satellites. The English sentence (11), for instance, has four satellites: back, down, out and from up in there. (11)

Come right back down out from up in there!

(Talmy 2008a: 140)

Satellites which encode Path (e.g., example 11) represent by far the major conflation type (Talmy 2008a: 141–146). Most Indo-European languages (except Romance languages) contain a large number of such satellites. As illustrated in example (11) each satellite frequently expresses a different component of the Path complex (Talmy 2005: 343). Talmy calls such a sequence a satellite complex or a satellite phrase (Talmy 2005: 343). In English, satellites are usually combined with prepositional phrases (PP) (cf. example 12) which can be omitted if their nominal is either a deictic or an anaphoric pronoun that can be inferred by the hearer. Consequently, “Path can be, and often is, represented distributedly over a combination of constituents” (Talmy 2005: 342). (12)

He was sitting in his room and then suddenly ran out (of it). (Talmy 2008a: 144)

The four following conflation patterns rarely occur: Path+Ground (English: She drove home.), Patient (e.g., satellites in the Amerindian language Caddo: wák‧kas na-yawat-yá-ynik-ah, Lit.: cattle PL-water-enter-PAST ‘The cattle went into the water.’), Manner (e.g, satellites in another Amerindian language, Nez Perec: tu‧ke- ‘using a cane’) and finally Cause (e.g., the Atsugewi satellite wi‘from the teeth acting on the Patient’). According to Talmy, “the typologically most diagnostic component (…) is the Path” (Talmy 2008a: 153; cf. also Talmy 2005: 327). Depending on where it is typically encoded, Talmy distinguishes verb-framed languages such as Spanish and satellite-framed languages such as English or Atsugewi (cf. also Talmy 2005: 325). Talmy’s typology also has cognitive consequences. Depending on the surface form in which a semantic component is encoded, the component is more or less

A typological approach: Talmy’s framework 

 93

salient and thus belongs either to the sentence foreground or to the background.117 Talmy suggests three main principles of semantic fore- and backgrounding that also have cognitive consequences (Talmy 2008a: 163). Throughout the discussion of these principles below, the focus will be on the expression of Motion, Path, and Co-events (Manner/Cause) in Romance and Germanic languages. The Principle of backgrounding according to constituent type predicts that a semantic component is backgrounded if it is expressed in the main verb root or in any closed-class element such as a satellite (cf. Talmy 2008b: 29). If a semantic component is encoded elsewhere in a sentence, it is foregrounded. Thus, Manner is backgrounded where it is encoded in the verb root (e.g., to fly) and foregrounded where it is expressed in a prepositional phrase (e.g., by plane). Due to typological differences, speakers of satellite-framed languages can encode more semantic components of a motion event in a backgrounded way. Usually, they express Motion and Manner/Cause in the main verb root and Path in one or more satellites (example 13). In contrast, in verb-framed languages, normally Motion and Path are encoded in the main verb root and, if information about the Co-event is expressed, it typically appears in peripheral forms such as gerunds or subordinate clauses (examples 14 and 15) and thus is foregrounded. (13)

Das Mädchen rennt the girl runs ‘The girl runs out.’

raus. out

(14)

La fille sort the girl exits ‘The girl runs out.’

(15)

La fille qui court the girl who runs ‘The girl who is running exits.’

en courant. by running

sort. exits

According to the Principle of ready expression and backgrounding, speakers are more likely to express a semantic component when it can be encoded in a back-

117 In another context, Talmy distinguishes salience and fore-/backgrounding: Speakers can either use a relative scale in order to give certain elements more salience/prominence or they can use some other reference value and back-/foreground certain aspects rather than others (cf. Talmy 2003, 1: 76). Since Talmy himself does not keep these principles distinct throughout his work, we will not attempt to distinguish them here.

94 

 Verbalizations of motion events

grounded way. In these cases the expression tends to be more colloquial and less awkward than if it has to be foregrounded (cf. examples 13 versus 14). Beyond that, the cognitive cost in sentences with backgrounded information is lower. Finally, the Principle of ready inclusion of extra information under backgrounding can be regarded as a consequence of the preceding one. According to this principle, it is easier for speakers to pack semantic information into a sentence in which it can be expressed in the background. As a consequence, speakers of a satellite-framed language are expected to express information about Co-events (Manner/Cause) more often than speakers of a verb-framed language because the typological pattern of their language helps them do so. Since the cognitive cost is higher when expressing such information in verb-framed languages, children who speak these languages may have some difficulties encoding semantic information about Manner/Cause. An important point to keep in mind is that all languages can express all types of semantic information. However, they differ “in the amount and the types of information that can be expressed in a backgrounded way” (Talmy 2008a: 164). This fact has important consequences for the amount and types of any semantic information that will be expressed at all in a given language. In the last decade, several studies (e.g., Berthele 2004, 2009; Bohnemeyer et al. 2007; Cadiot, Lebas, and Visetti 2006; Croft et al. 2010; Filipović 2007; Haggblade 1994; Naigles et al. 1998; Slobin 2003, 2006; Wälchli 2001) have criticized Talmy’s dichotomy for being too strict and for not accounting for all observed lexicalization patterns. Berthele (2004, 2009) for instance found that a Swiss German variety, Moutathal dialect, is more similar to French, a verb-framed language, than to German, a satellite-framed language. Moutathal speakers use many more Path-verbs and less Manner-verbs than speakers of Standard High German (Berthele 2004: 117). This fact indicates that the typology of a given language cannot reliably predict the lexicalization pattern of that language.118 Filipović (2007) and Naigles et al. (1998) argue that verb-framed languages have verbs that are neutral with regard to Path and others that encode Manner (e.g., correr ‘to run’). Therefore, verb-framed languages represent mixed systems. In their studies, Naigles et al. (1998: 533) showed that although Spanish, a verb-

118 In the same line, Haggblade (1994: 169) found that, in contrast to Talmy’s assumptions, German has motion verbs encoding Motion+Ground (jdn. aufbahren ‘to lay somebody out in state’) and others conflating Motion+Figure (ausgräten ‘to bone’). Note, however, that these examples are problematic because the semantic information is not only encoded in the verb stem but also in the particle. Thus, in our opinion, they cannot be considered as counterexamples of Talmy’s typology.

A typological approach: Talmy’s framework 

 95

framed language, typically does not encode Manner in the main verb, it nonetheless expresses this information as much as 72% of the time. Thus, speakers do pay attention to Manner and use modifiers such as adverbs to encode this semantic component. According to Filipović (2007: 24), in some verb-framed languages, Manner-verbs can even be combined with Path-satellites (correr abajo ‘to run down’) – a construction type which Talmy assumes to be typical for satelliteframed languages. Thus, “[l]anguages make use of multiple strategies to encode complex events, depending on the type of complex event involved. This follows the more general trend in typological research away from typologizing languages as a whole – which usually leads to declaring that all languages are a ‘mixed’ type – to typologizing particular situation types expressed in a language” (Croft et al. 2010: 231). In his critique of Talmy’s dichotomy between satellite- and verb-framed languages, Slobin argues that languages such as Mandarin do not fit into either category because they do not have a clear finite main verb (Slobin 2004a: 247–249, 2006: 63–64). Therefore, Slobin suggests a third language type, called equipollently framed languages, in which both Path and Manner have a roughly equal morphosyntactic status. These facts have been supported by recent research on the expression of motion events in Mandarin (Ji 2009; Ji, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2011). Ji found that depending on the type of motion event (voluntary or caused motion) Chinese manifests satellite- and verb-framed traits. She therefore suggests placing it midway along a satellite-framed/verb-framed-continuum as has been proposed by Slobin (Ji 2009: 228). Using the example of Mandarin, it has been shown that one of the basic problems of typologies such as the one of Talmy is that linguists employ different criteria across languages to identify a category such as verb (cf. Croft et al. 2010: 205).119 Several researchers propose including prepositions among satellites in Talmy’s lexicalization patterns of motion events because they are equally relevant for the expression of Path (Filipović 2007: 28; Sinha and Kuteva 1995: 193; Wälchli 2001: 300). Hence, in her analyses Filipović (2007: 35) subsumes satellites (in terms of Talmy) and prepositions under the category Path-particles. Wälchli (2001: 301) even goes beyond Filipović’s assumptions, suggesting that prepositions belong to a third general type of device for the encoding of Path apart from the other two surface forms proposed by Talmy (verb stem and satellites). This category comprises prepositions, postpositions, and case marking

119 Croft and colleagues (2010) even suggest to add two further subtypes of symmetrical constructions – apart from serial verb constructions such as Mandarin – namely coordinated constructions and compounding patterns.

96 

 Verbalizations of motion events

under the label adnominal encoding. Sinha and Kuteva (1995: 194) even propose the term Distributed Spatial Semantics to make clear that the expression of spatial information is distributed across a wide range of different surface forms and that prepositions must be taken into account. To account for the criticism of his rigid dichotomy between verbs and satellites, Talmy himself (2009) recently proposed to ease the definition of satelliteframed languages and to take into account prepositions as another way to encode Path-components: If the Path is characteristically represented in the main verb or verb root of a sentence, the language is ‘verb framed’, but if it is characteristically represented in the satellite and⁄or preposition, the language is ‘satellite framed.’ A satellite is a constituent in construction with the main verb (root) and syntactically subordinate to it as a dependent to a head. (Talmy 2009: 389–390)

Croft et al. (2010: 206) even go beyond Talmy’s proposition (2009) by redefining the term satellite as “[a]nything that is not a verb root but encodes an event component”. Although this is a rather broad definition it seems to account better for the fact that relevant semantic information in verbalizations of motion events is expressed in more linguistic devices than verb roots, satellites (in a narrow sense), and prepositions (cf. Talmy’s definition above). Even though in our data analyses discussed below we do not use the term satellite in its broader sense (as proposed by Croft and colleagues), our distinction between semantic information encoded in the main verb versus that encoded in other linguistic devices is similar (cf. Chapter 7.5). Furthermore, it has often been criticized that Talmy mainly focuses on synchronic language patterns. However, when looking closely at Romance languages, it can be observed that Old French comprised a set of productive prefixes encoding Path leaving the verb stem free to encode Manner, as illustrated in example (16) (Kopecka 2006, 2009). (16)

Les abeilles s’envolent de la ruche. the bees away-fly from the hive ‘The bees are flying away from the hive.’

(Kopecka 2006: 85)

Apart from these verbs conflating Manner+Path, French also contains a set of verbs that conflate either Motion+Figure (e.g., écrémer ‘skim’) or Motion+Ground (e.g., embouteiller ‘put in bottles’). Talmy’s theory does not account for such lexicalization patterns in verb-framed languages even though he is aware of the existence of this verb type (Talmy 2008a: 154). Note that in Modern French these morphological derivations are no longer productive and

A typological approach: Talmy’s framework 

 97

most prefixed verbs do not seem to be transparent for native speakers (Kopecka 2006: 91–97). In sum, there is much more variation within a language type than Talmy had originally assumed (Wälchli 2001: 321). Therefore, Slobin (2004a) and also Jovanovic and Martinovic-Zic (2004: 224) suggest to place satellite- and verbframed languages along a continuum: “[R]ather than positing sharp binary distinction between satellite-framed and verb-framed languages, it may be more beneficial to speak about a range of typological options, where the members of the typological category vary in the degree to which they follow the same typological pattern or somehow deviate from it”. In order to explain such differences within a language, Narasimhan (2003: 158) proposes locating variations in the expression of motion events on the phrasal level rather than on the lexical one. According to her, the conflation of a specific semantic element in a specific surface form cannot explain the typological facts. She therefore suggests an additional level of explanation for possible sources of variation: the level of constructions (cf. Construction Grammar e.g. Goldberg 1995). Such a construction-based analysis combined with the study of lexicalization patterns can probably account much better for variations within a given language (Narasimhan 2003: 156). Hickmann’s suggestion of taking into account speakers’ larger discourse contexts when analysing their descriptions of motion events points in the same direction. She proposes not only analyzing fore- and backgrounding in individual utterances, but also taking into consideration other factors that highlight Manner or Path (Hickmann 2006: 300; cf. Weber 1983: 121), including presuppositions from prior discourse, contrastive contexts, and knowledge of particular event properties. It is by taking all such factors into consideration that speakers can reconstruct a more complex representation of the event than that provided through speech. Another point of criticism is that Talmy does not take into account differences between oral and written language, such as processing constraints and stylistic variation (Strömqvist, Hellstrand, and Nordqvist 1999). Spoken interaction requires quick online processing and thus leaves little room for prior planning (Strömqvist, Hellstrand, and Nordqvist 1999: 16). Therefore, until nine years of age, children’s descriptions are much richer in written than in oral forms. This fact may also explain why Hohenstein, Hellstrand, and Nordqvist (2006: 255) found many more Manner+Path-responses in their Spanish written data than usually expected in verb-framed language. Furthermore, stylistic differences between the two media may also play a role (Koch and Oesterreicher 1985).

98 

 Verbalizations of motion events

5.2 Variability in the expression of motion events and its cognitive implications: Slobin’s assumptions Although Slobin’s past work studied children’s cognitive prerequisites for language acquisition (Slobin 1973, 1978, 1981), his more recent research since around 1990 has examined how lexicalization patterns may partially determine speakers’ cognitive representation of motion events (among others Slobin 1996, 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2006). Since his theory of “thinking for speaking” was already discussed above (Chapter 2.2), his assumptions are applied directly to verbalizations and representations of motion events. According to Slobin (2003: 161), there are several reasons why motion events are a perfect topic for studying thinking for speaking. First, motion events are frequently encoded in all languages; second, this semantic domain is encoded in quite specific grammatical constructions, that is to say, each language has a typical lexicalization pattern for the expression of motion events (in Talmy’s words); and finally, motion events seem to be more or less codable depending on the language.120 Slobin claims that lexicalization patterns alone cannot account for the different discourse structures in specific languages. In order to form typologies of language use, he suggests also taking into consideration rhetorical styles which he defines as “the ways in which events are analyzed and described in discourse” (Slobin 2004a: 223). According to him, rhetorical style is determined by the accessibility of various means of expressions and therefore by the ease of processing these means (Slobin 2004a: 229). Talmy’s dichotomy between satellite- and verbframed languages is considered to be “only part of a complex system of interacting factors” (Slobin 2004a: 223). Slobin assumes that the recurrent use of specific lexicalization patterns and rhetorical style have pervasive effects on habits of speaking and thereby on patterns of conceptualization (Slobin 2005: 310).121 The latter effect concerns selective attention and memory for particular event characteristics (Slobin 2003: 159; cf. also Gennari et al. 2002: 77; Papafragou, Hulbert, and Trueswell 2008: 155). According to Slobin, such cognitive consequences for speakers’ conceptual-

120 Cf. the three factors proposed by Slobin (2003: 237) which were discussed in Chapter 2.2. 121 Note that these habits of speaking were observed across all ages from three years on (cf. Slobin 1996: 80). In his early writings, Slobin claims so called Pattern Makers are Operating Principles helping children to acquire those patterns which are most typical in their first language (Slobin 1985a: 1161).

Cognitive implications: Slobin’s assumptions 

 99

ization of motion events can be observed by studying their habits of speaking (Slobin 2003: 159). Two fundamental premises represent the basis of the following considerations (cf. Özçahşkan and Slobin 2000: 559). First, given processing constraints, speakers have a tendency to convey the most semantic information in the simplest possible syntactic form. Second, information that is expressed the most frequently will be the most salient. Let us consider the expression of different semantic components in motion events and the cognitive cost required by their encoding in satellite- respectively verb-framed languages in order to then sketch the consequences of these typological differences. With respect to Manner, Slobin criticizes Talmy for not defining this semantic component in sufficient detail (cf. also Tschander 1999: 27). Slobin provides the following rough definition of this main semantic content: “‘Manner’ is a cover term for a number of dimensions, including motor pattern (e.g., hop, jump, skip), often combined with rate of motion (e.g., walk, run, sprint) or force dynamics (e.g., step, tread, tramp) or attitude (e.g., amble, saunter, stroll), and sometimes encoding instrument (e.g., sled, ski, skateboard), and so forth” (Slobin 2006: 62). Since Manner-information is typically encoded in the finite verb stem in satellite-framed languages, it is conflated in an obligatory element of the sentence and constitutes an economical way of expressing this semantic information (Slobin 2000: 111, 2004a: 237). As a result, Slobin (2003: 162) concludes that using a verb which conflates Motion+Manner or which only encodes Motion requires the same cognitive cost. Manner therefore seems to be more accessible in satelliteframed languages122 than in verb-framed languages where it usually has to be expressed in an (adverbial) phrase (by bicycle, on all fours etc.) or an adpositional clause (while running). Since these constructions unnecessarily foreground Manner (Slobin 2004a: 226; see example 14 and 15 above) and furthermore imply a great burden of processing complexity, Manner-information is often omitted in verb-framed languages (Kopecka 2009: 423; Özçahşkan and Slobin 2000: 558; Slobin 2005: 315).123 In addition, Slobin and Hoiting (1994) found that verb-framed languages only license the use of Manner-verbs as main verbs in a motion event if no boundary-crossing is involved (boundary crossing constraint). Sentence (17)

122 In his study of the Swiss German dialect Moutathal, Berthele found that although this dialect is considered to be an S-language, Manner is not a salient component (Berthele 2004: 118). Therefore, S-language does not inevitably imply Manner-salience. 123 Note that this fact does not mean that Manner is suppressed in verb-framed languages. Slobin (2003: 237) argues that Manner of motion is too important for human beings to be ignored; it is just more salient on the conceptual level in satellite-framed languages.

100 

 Verbalizations of motion events

can only denote a movement inside the house, but not into the house because the use of a Manner-verb with boundary crossing events is excluded in a verbframed language such as Spanish. (17)

Juan corre en la casa. John runs in the house ‘John runs in the house.’

In boundary-crossing events, speakers of verb-framed languages can only use verbs that encode force dynamics (Slobin 2004a: 226). As a consequence, in these languages “one can only throw oneself into a room”, but not “crawl into a room” (examples taken from Slobin 2004a: 226). Özçahşkan and Slobin found that if a verb-framed language provides speakers with verbs conflating Manner+Path in the verb stem, speakers prefer to use those verbs rather than to encode only Path in the verb stem and either omit Manner or add it in some other linguistic device (Özçahşkan and Slobin 2000: 567; cf. also Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009: 732; Slobin 2004a: 231). However, we should note that there is only a restricted set of such verbs in verbframed languages. Speakers of satellite-framed languages use Manner-verbs more frequently (tokens) and with greater lexical diversity (types) than speakers of verb-framed languages (Slobin 2000: 113, 2003: 165, 2004a: 232, 2004b: 196).124 Nevertheless, even within satellite-framed languages, the number of Manner-verbs varies to a large extent. Whereas Germanic languages (Dutch, German, English etc.) express Manner in about 23% of their verbs, Slavic languages (such as Russian) encode it in 100% of the cases (cf. Slobin 2004a: 225, 2006: 66). Thus, Slobin suggests a Continuum of manner salience rather than a bipartite typology of satellite-framed and verb-framed languages (cf. also Filipović 2007: 30). As regards the composition of the Manner-verb lexicon, satellite-framed languages have two or three

124 Although satellite- and verb-framed languages differ as to the number of motion verbs, they constitute a great part of the verb lexicon in all languages. Thus, Levelt, Schreuder, and Hoenkamp (1976: 148) point out that „Der Reichtum des Wortschatzes in dieser Hinsicht [as regards motion verbs] deutet darauf hin, dass die unterschiedlichen Fortbewegungsarten im alltäglichen Leben sehr wichtig sind. Sie können Stimmungen, Absichten, individuelle Stile usw. ausdrücken“ [In this respect [as regards motion verbs], the wealth of their lexicon suggests that the different manners of motion are very important in everyday life. They can express moods, intentions, individual styles etc.].

Cognitive implications: Slobin’s assumptions 

 101

times more Manner-verbs than verb-framed languages125 (Slobin 2005: 316) and exhibit continuous lexical innovation in this domain (Slobin 2003: 162). These facts imply that the granularity of the conceptual space concerning Manner should be higher in satellite-framed languages (Slobin 2000: 115, 2004a: 237). Therefore, speakers have to pay attention to more fine-grained distinctions that are ignored in verb-framed languages. For example, whereas French subsumes a great diversity of movements under the term bondir, English has six verbs referring to very specific kinds of this Manner-concept: jump, leap, bound, spring, skip, and gambol (Slobin 2005: 316). However the same features seem to be relevant in the categorization of all languages, they are only bundled differently (Dimitrova-Vulchanova, Martinez, and Edsberg, in press). The high frequency of Manner-verbs126 in everyday speech (Gallivan 1981: 1645; Slobin 2004b: 206) and the ease in using them helps children acquire such verbs relatively early (Slobin 2003: 164, 2004a: 229): “Children learning S-languages employ a large Mannerverb lexicon in the preschool period. […] That is, while S-language children are learning to distinguish expressive nuances of manner – such as hop versus jump, or hike, jog, race, run, trot – verb-framed language children are learning broad categories of basic types of motor patterns, such as run versus walk” (Slobin 2003: 169). Since children do not distinguish different Manners of motion from birth on in a categorical way,127 only the learning of labels for those specific categories contributes to their formation (Slobin 2000: 222). Thus, with age, children’s Mannerverb lexicon extends and Manner-categories become more salient especially in satellite-framed languages (Özçahşkan and Slobin 2000: 56). Generally speaking, their representations of Manner-concepts become more structured. As further demonstrated by Slobin, apart from encoding information in the verb stem, there are also other ways to easily express Manner-information and thus to direct attention to it. In probably all natural languages ideophones express Manner through sound symbolism which is easy to process (Slobin 2004a: 233–234). Another possibility is to add Manner by encoding it in gesture (Allen et al. 2007; Brown and Gullberg 2008; Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008; McNeill 2001, 2009). Studies in this domain have shown that speakers of satellite-framed languages seem to conceive of Manner as an inherent compo-

125 “V-languages have approximately 75 intransitive manner verbs in regular use, whereas Germanic and Slavic languages etc. have upward of 150” (Slobin 2003: 251). 126 Cf. Slobin’s Operating Principle for Frequency which says: Keep track of the frequency of occurrence of every unit and pattern that you store (Slobin 1985a: 1251). 127 Interestingly, the semantic complexity of motion verbs does not seem to predict the order in which they are acquired (Gallivan 1981: 1645).

102 

 Verbalizations of motion events

nent of directed motion along a path, conflating both components in a single gesture (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 225; Slobin 2004a: 235). Slobin thus concludes that in satellite-framed languages Manner and directed motion are represented in speakers’ minds as a single conceptual event (Slobin 2000: 132). Speakers of verb-framed languages, however, seem to conceive of directed motion and motor activities as two relatively separate event components (Slobin 2000: 131, 2005: 319). Manner-verbs refer to activities and Paths are conceptualized as places. If Manner is expressed in gestures by verb-framed language speakers at all, both semantic components are typically encoded in separate gestures (Kita et al. 2007: 1216). As a result, McNeill (2009: 529) claims that these different uses of gestures by speakers of typologically different languages provide evidence that visuospatial cognition during thinking for speaking differs systematically across languages (Habitual Conceptualization Hypothesis). This hypothesis has been challenged by recent results from Kita et al. (2007) who show that it is the clause type chosen by the speakers rather than the typology of their first language that influences their gestures.128 Thus, they propose the Interface Hypothesis according to which “gestures are generated from the online interface between spatio-motoric thinking and speaking in which spatial imagery is packaged into units that are suitable for verbalisation, rather than from predetermined language-specific spatial conceptual schemas” (Kita et al. 2007: 1233). However typology is highly correlated with clause type so that typology may have an indirect impact on speakers’ gestures. Habitual online attention to Manner seems to make this semantic component especially salient in motion event representations of satellite-framed language speakers (cf. Slobin 2003: 164, 2004b: 208, 2006: 73) and leads to a rich mental imagery of this kind of semantic information. Speakers of satellite-framed languages remember, for example, the length of arm swing, width of gait and rate of motion (Slobin 2000: 127, 2006: 75).129 Although this information is not encoded in the verb, it seems to constitute part of the sensori-motor image and is indispensable in distinguishing different types of Manner-verbs. In contrast, speakers of verb-framed languages such as Spanish often report having seen a series of static images, similar to photographs (Slobin 2006: 74). Thus, they “had no mental imagery of manner of movement at all, although they visualized the path,

128 Clause types can be simple clauses (with subordinate elements) encoding Manner+Path simultaneously or two separated clauses, one encoding Manner and the other Path. 129 For more details about Slobin’s methodology (Thinking for writing, Thinking for translating, Listening for imaging etc.) to access speaker’s salience of Manner, cf. Slobin (2000: 115–132; 2003: 164–178; 2004b: 199–204; 2005a: 312–319).

Cognitive implications: Slobin’s assumptions 

 103

the physical details of the surroundings, the protagonist’s inner state, and his trajectory of movement” (Slobin 2000: 129). Papafragou, Hulbert, and Trueswell (2008: 179) do not seem to come to the same conclusions in their eye-movement experiments of motion event perception: Perhaps most importantly, our findings show that the linguistic encoding of events does not appear to affect the moment-by-moment processes underlying event perception in situations where there is no need for linguistic communication. As our nonlinguistic task shows, when inspecting the world freely, people are alike in how they perceive events, regardless of the language they speak.

The question of how Cause, another Co-event in Talmy’s typology, is expressed in verbalizations of motion events has rarely been addressed. Results so far show that Cause seems to have a status that is similar to that of Manner. Thus, speakers of satellite-framed languages tend to use transitive verbs highlighting the causal aspect of the scene, whereas speakers of verb-framed languages tend to use intransitive verbs focusing on Path, often leaving Cause in the background or omitting it altogether (Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009; Choi 2009: 192). Let us now turn to the expression of Path in satellite- and verb-framed languages respectively. “Because path is an obligatory component of motion-event expressions, we can’t compare languages in terms of the accessibility of paths as a category” (Slobin 2004a: 238). Therefore, Path is the core of motion events which is regularly encoded in all languages (Slobin 2006: 75). Its expression is relatively easy in satellite- as well as verb-framed languages. Whereas verb-framed languages usually encode Path in the verb stem, satellite-framed languages typically express it in closed-class forms such as satellites (cf. Slobin 2003: 161). However, satellite- and verb-framed languages differ with respect to how they segment path as well as with respect to the ease of expressing complex paths (Slobin 2004a: 238; cf. also Gerling and Orthen 1979: 106). Since speakers of satellite-framed languages can add a great number of satellites that express different dimensions of Path to a single Manner-verb (cf. example 18), they develop “a narrative habit of Path elaboration” (Slobin 2005: 313). That is to say they often describe elaborated trajectories of motion consisting of sub-trajectories (Slobin 1996: 78), leaving resultant locative states to be inferred by the hearer or reader (Slobin 1996: 84). When speakers of verb-framed languages, in contrast, describe complex paths, they need several inflected verbs (cf. example 19), which make such constructions relatively difficult to process (Slobin 2004a: 253, 2004b: 198, 2009: 201; cf. also Wälchli 2001: 310).

104 

 Verbalizations of motion events

(18)

The frog crawled out of the jar and through the window into the woods. (Slobin 2004a: 238)

(19)

La grenouille the frog

sort exits

du pot, from+the jar

passe passes

par through

la fenêtre the window

et entre dans le bois. and enters in the woods ‘The frog gets out of the jar, passes through the window and enters in the woods.’ As a consequence, Antuñano (2009: 410) proposes a continuum of Path-salience parallel to that for Manner put forth by Slobin (2004a). This continuum is supposed to range from high-Path-salient languages to low-Path-salient languages. Antuñano argues for a relation between Path-salience and the linguistic, discursive, and cultural characteristics of any language which refers to factors such as word order, redundancy or language orality (Antuñano 2009: 410). Therefore, the position of each language on the Path-scale depends on how accessible, frequent, and easy to process Path-devices are in a given language (cf. criteria for position on the Manner-continuum discussed above). It has been observed that speakers of verb-framed languages often add information about locations that is the setting and the Ground in which successive events take place (Slobin 1996: 84, 2000: 130, 2005: 311). In contrast to speakers of satellite-framed languages, they are also more concerned with the emotional setting and the inner state of the persons involved in the event (Slobin 2003: 174), often leaving it to the hearer or reader to infer Path- and Manner-information (Slobin 2004b: 206). As a result, speakers of verb-framed languages tend to focus more on the static moments of motion events such as the starting point and the arrival at the Goal. The following model (Figure 5) summarizes Slobin’s assumptions about the relation between Grammar and Cognition (using the example of Manner). Languages provide different lexicalization patterns (here called linguistic patterns) for specific semantic domains such as motion events (cf. Talmy’s theory explained in Chapter 5.1.2). The use of these patterns on-line is modulated by psycholinguistic factors of processability (e.g., ease of access, complexity of constructions). Both factors, lexicalization patterns and processability, determine the degree of accessibility of expressions encoding specific semantic information such as Manner of motion. Slobin subsumes processability and accessibility under the concept rhetorical style which together with lexicalization patterns cause a “cascade of interrelated effects” (Slobin 2004b: 252). The relative ease

Motion events in child language 

lexicalization patterns

 105

processability

rhetorical style accessibility of manner expressions

frequency of manner encoding

lexical diversity of manner expressions conceptual space for manner

attention to details of manner Figure 5: How a language becomes manner salient (Modified version of Slobin 2004b: 252)

of accessibility leads to the fact that information is frequently encoded in language use and that those languages provide a high number of lexical items with Manner-information. From a diachronic point of view, such important semantic fields become more elaborated, and further lexical items are added through innovations. All these facts result in an increase of speakers’ attention to details concerning Manner. Thus, “if a domain is elaborated in linguistic expression, users of that language will continually attend to and elaborate that domain cognitively” (Slobin 2006: 77).

5.3 Motion events in child language The revival of research within the framework of linguistic relativity in the 1990’s entailed many studies about how children express motion events, and were aimed at further understanding the relative influence of general developmental and language-specific determinants (among others: Allen et al. 2007; Choi and Bowerman 1991; Goldin-Meadow and Zheng 1998; Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008; Hickmann 2003a, 2006; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009; Kita et al. 2007). Since it has often been assumed that children’s early spatial expressions are directly mapped onto cognitive concepts of space that are based

106 

 Verbalizations of motion events

on perceptual information (cf. Bamberg 1979: 31), this semantic domain is ideal for addressing the question of language-specific determinants. In particular, three main questions have been addressed concerning children’s verbalizations: – What semantic components do children express in their descriptions of motion events, and with which linguistic devices do they encode them? – Which syntactic structures do they use when describing motion events? – And finally which semantic components do they encode in co-verbal gestures? In what follows some results from studies on children’s verbalization of motion events will be discussed. On their basis we will then formulate our hypotheses. The focus will be on the expression of Path, Manner, and Cause in dynamic motion events (voluntary and caused motion).

5.3.1 Semantic components A number of studies showed that in all languages children produce descriptions containing fewer semantic components than adults (Hendriks, Watorek, and Giuliano 2004; Hickmann 2006; Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009). All children have constraints in working memory which limit their general cognitive capacity to simultaneously process multiple informational components in the beginning (Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 221; Newcombe and Huttenlocher 2000: 212). Another factor is language-specific determinants which facilitate the simultaneous expression of several semantic components in satellite-framed languages. From a very early age on, English children rely heavily on Path-particles (Choi and Bowerman 1991: 109) and at around 20 months they combine them productively with verbs encoding Manner and/or Cause (Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 215–216). Thus, English speaking children at all ages systematically express Path and Manner information with all event types although semantic density increases with age and differs depending on event-types (Hickmann 2006: 283; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 212–215; Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000: 80). In descriptions of voluntary motion, English children typically encode Manner in the main verb and express Path in particles or prepositional phrases (to crawl up/down). If they only encode Path, they usually use semantically-neutral verbs (e.g., to go up/down). These verbs provide only general semantic information and can therefore be used to indicate a variety of actions (Lange 2007: 164). In the context of motion events, verbs like to go often just express motion per se, and in combination with different Pathparticles can therefore refer to many different event types (to go up/down/across)

Motion events in child language 

 107

(E. Clark 1991: 47; Hickmann 2007: 226; Slobin 2001: 432). Since such semantically-neutral verbs will play a major role in the discussion of our results, this verb type will be examined in more detail. In the literature, semantically-neutral verbs are often referred to as light verbs (e.g., to have, to take) and constructions in which they appear are known as light verb constructions (e.g., to have a drink). In what follows, we will not provide an exhaustive analysis of such constructions, but rather aim to sketch how problematic these quite vague notions are, and then focus on their role in first language acquisition. The focus will be on English and German, whereas similar French construction will be dealt with in Chapter 5.5. Jespersen (1954: 117) was the first to use the term light verb when describing English Verb+Noun-Phrase constructions, such as to take a walk. In such contexts, the light verb (in this case to take) no longer has full semantic meaning, but the semantic meaning of the verb becomes encoded in the nominalised verb (a walk), that to take heads syntactically (Brugman 2001: 552). However, in German, such constructions, which typically combine a semantically-neutral verb with a noun phrase, are referred to as Funktionsverbgefüge (‘function verb constructions’ e.g., Einwilligung geben ‘to give consent’). An examination of the literature on light verb constructions and Funktionsverbgefüge (Brugman 2001; Helbig and Buscha 2007; Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998; van Pottelberge 2000, 2001) shows that both notions refer to the same constructions, that is to say, combinations of a semantically-neutral verb, the so-called Funktionsverb (‘function verb’) with a (bare) noun or a prepositional phrase (e.g. to have a shower, zur Durchführung bringen ‘to carry into effect’, cf. Helbig and Buscha 2007: 68–94; van Pottelberge 2001: 15–19). Whereas German linguists prefer to use the term Funktionsverbgefüge (‘function verb construction’ involving Funktionsverben ‘function verbs’), English-speaking researchers tend to use the notions light verb construction (involving light verbs) or complex/composite predicate (cf. van Pottelberge 2001: 65–80). Similar constructions in French are generally referred to as construction à verbe support and locution verbale (e.g., faire long feu ‘to drag on’ cf. Riegel, Pellat, and Rioul 2008). Whereas the definitions of Funktionsverbgefüge, construction à verbe support and locution verbale are relatively clear, the English terminology is extremely opaque and there is no consensus as to what is understood under the different English terms (van Pottelberge 2001: 65–80). There are even certain English researchers who use terms like function(al) verb, functional verb structure or function verb construction in order to be less ambiguous (van Pottelberge 2001: 66). English (and also German) present another construction type – similar to that of Funktionsverbgefüge – which combines semantically-neutral verbs with full

108 

 Verbalizations of motion events

verbs (e.g., schreiben tun ‘to do to write’, go shopping).130 In contrast to Funktionsverbgefüge/light verb constructions, this second construction pattern has not attracted much attention in previous research (cf. Behrens 2003; Eroms 1998) and thus, a generic term does not exist.131 Adopting Behren’s (2003) terminology, we will call them auxiliary verb constructions. We are aware that this notion usually also encompasses analytic inflection forms (e.g., I have walked., Ich bin gerannt. ‘I have runned.’, J’ai mangé. ‘I have eaten.’), but, in what follows, the term exclusively refers to combinations of semantically-neutral verbs and the infinitives of full verbs. In an attempt to characterize Funktionsverbgefüge and auxiliary verb constructions by considering their differences and common grounds, the semantically-neutral verbs of both constructions such as to do or to go are considered to be polysemous (Behrens 2003: 161; Butt 2003: 3), that is to say, they have a form-identical main verb which has a full semantic meaning (to take the book). However, when used as a functional verb or auxiliary verb, the verb meaning is often reduced to its core meaning (to take a walk). Therefore, in these contexts, these constructions provide general semantic information and consequently can be used in a great variety of contexts (Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998: 114). That is why such verbs have often been called passepartouts (Butt 2003; Lange 2007) or Allzweckverben (‘all-purpose verbs’, Behrens 2003: 164). With regard to the semantic meaning of auxiliary verb constructions and Funktionsverbgefüge, the semantically-neutral verb is considered to encode Aktionsart whereas the second element adds to the lexical meaning (Eroms 1998: 140; Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998: 127; van Pottelberge 2000: 18; Wiese 2006: 261). For instance, in the expressions to take fright and einkaufen gehen (‘to go shopping’), the semantically-neutral verb (to take, gehen ‘to go’) encodes in both cases an incohative meaning. Therefore the criterion that almost all auxiliary verb constructions and Funktionsverbgefüge have a monomorphemic paraphrase – be it in form of a verb or an adjective (+ copular verb) – has to take into account the aspectual meaning added by the semantically-neutral verb (to take a walk versus to walk; einkaufen gehen ‘to go shopping’ versus einkaufen ‘to shop’; cf. Helbig and Buscha 2008: 69; Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998: 114). Finally, it should

130 A large number of English and German semantically-neutral verbs are frequently combined with verbal particles (e.g., to go up, reintun ‘to put in’). This pattern is extremely productive. 131 Note that there are some researchers (e.g., Di Sciullo and Rosen 1991) who also subsume verb-verb combinations under the term light verb construction, which leads to a problematic blending of different concepts and terms.

Motion events in child language 

 109

be mentioned that both construction types are still (weakly) productive (Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998; Wiese 2006).132 In line with the previous English-speaking literature, we will use the term light verb construction to refer to Funktionsverbgefüge and auxiliary verb constructions to refer to the constructions described above. With regard to the semantically-neutral verbs, we will only refer to light verbs if they appear in typical light verb constructions/Funktionsverbgefüge such as to take a look, but talk about semantically-neutral verbs if they appear in isolation (e.g., he goes up). With regard to language acquisition, auxiliary verb constructions and semantically-neutral verbs themselves seem to have three major functions that have been mentioned in previous research. First, auxiliary verb constructions, light verb constructions and semanticallyneutral verbs seem to require a lower degree of cognitive demands, compared to monomorphemic constructions involving verbs with a full semantic meaning. In a sentence such as (20), grammatical information (person, number, tense, aspect etc.) is encoded in the verb tun (‘to do’) whereas the semantic information of the verbal complex is expressed in the verb skifahren ‘(to go skiing’) which appears in the infinitive (Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998: 122). However, in sentence (21) both grammatical and semantic information is synthetically encoded in the main verb. Thus, auxiliary verb constructions, as well as light verb constructions are highly transparent, and should therefore be easier to acquire. (20)

Anton tut skifahren. Anton does go skiing ‘Anton goes skiing.’

(21)

Marie fährt ski. Marie goes skiing ‘Marie goes skiing.’

Second, since semantically-neutral verbs are more frequent than full verbs in children’s input and their early lexicon (E. Clark 1999; Kauschke 2000; Ninio 1999),

132 Although Helbig and Buscha (2007: 69) assume that Funktionsverben are highly grammaticalized and the whole Funktionsverbgefüge has undergone a lexicalization process, Wiese (2006: 245) found that in specific German varieties such as Kiez-Sprache (‘hood language’), Funktionsverbgefüge are highly productive because “this construction reflects a linguistic division of labour between syntax and semantics” such as the transparent and frequent Standard German Funktionsverbgefüge.

110 

 Verbalizations of motion events

children are more familiar with their accompanying morphological forms, and thus the use of these forms should require a lower degree of cognitive demands. Consequently, using a semantically-neutral verb – sometimes in combination with other lingusitic elements – avoids having to search for the kind of inflection to be used with rare or morphologically/phonologically more complex verbs (Eroms 1998: 141). Consequently, it is easier to produce sentence (20) than (21). Note, however, that this aspect is strongly related to the linguistic characteristics of an individual language, such as its morphological system or lexical diversity, and, thus, does not apply to all languages. The third argument focuses on the ease that the ‘semantically bleached’ meaning of such verbs represents for children. Ninio (1999) assumes that semantically-neutral verbs are a kind of pro-form for semantically more complex verb forms with meanings that the child is perhaps uncertain of. The verb to go encodes a rather vague notion of an entity’s voluntary motion, whereas to wiggle may encode more complex semantic information, and therefore can only be used in specific contexts (cf. Slobin 2001: 433). Thus, Gentner (1978: 995) suggests that “in production, children often prefer to extend words they know well, rather than to use words of whose meaning they are less certain”. In addition to these three functions of semantically-neutral verbs in language acquisition, the last argument concerns the general role of these verbs in oral language. Brugman (2001: 556) assumes a correlation between the use of semantically-neutral verbs (in isolation and in combinations with nouns/prepositional phrases/verbs) and different language modalities (written versus oral language). Since producing spoken language requires faster language processing than producing written language, cognitive processing constraints should be more striking in the former situation. According to Brugman (2001), this fact can account for the higher frequency of semantically-neutral verbs in oral language, in which speakers seem to concentrate more on the content than on the form of their message. If this is the case, then these cognitive factors should be even more important in young children. It has to be pointed out that semantically-neutral verbs are much more frequent in informal situations and dialects which most often correlate with oral language use (Eroms 1998: 144). These considerations have led some researchers to the conclusion that semantically-neutral verbs have a ‘pathbreaking’ function for the acquisition of verb frames and event types (Ninio 1999; cf. also Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998). Ninio (1999: 647) assumes that semantic suitability, salience, and frequency are the reason why these generic verbs help children – on the basis of analogy – to construct similar utterances with full transitive verbs. In another study on semantically-neutral verbs, Hollebrandse and van Hout (1998) observe that Dutch (as well as English) children produce a great variety of light verb con-

Motion events in child language 

 111

structions from very early on.133 Due to abstraction and generalization processes and the transparency of light verb constructions, children generalize such grammatical structures relatively quickly. Therefore, they use light verbs productively by combining, on the one hand, particular light verbs with various complements, and on the other hand, particular complements with various light verbs (Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998: 119). Just as in other linguistic domains (e.g., verbal inflection in the past tense), children produce various overgeneralizations that do not exist in the adult target system. Given that light verbs are relatively easy to process, children can concentrate more on the syntax and valency of the full semantic verb, which provides them with evidence for the meaning of particular verb frames and event types. Thus, “[g]eneralizing across LVs, a child can determine the verb frame/event type relations of her language” (Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998: 131). Two other studies sketch an alternative acquisition process of semanticallyneutral verbs, and thus seem to contradict the above-mentioned results. First, in contrast to the studies reported above, Brown (2001, 2008) found that children speaking the Mayan language Tzeltal acquire first motion verbs with very specific meanings before they use more neutral motion verbs such as to go. Second, in a longitudinal study with nine English speaking children Theakston et al. (2004: 89) found only weak evidence for the striking role of semantically-neutral verbs in language acquisition. Their results show that it is not so much semantic generality, but the relative frequency of these forms in the children’s input that has an impact on early verb learning. Therefore, these findings “put into question the idea that semantically general verbs are privileged in the early acquisition process and that they provide a route into argument structure” (Theakston et al. 2004: 90). However, the researchers assume that verb semantics plays a role in the later development of more abstract constructions which help children to generalize “across verbs with similar meanings in terms of their use of argument structure constructions” (Theakston 2004: 91). In the context of motion events, we assume that the English verbs to move/ to go (cf. Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000: 79) and to make/to do encode the basic meaning of voluntary respectively caused motion that is either Motion or Cause (corresponding German and French verbs will be discussed in Chapters 5.4 and

133 Note that such semantically-neutral verbs are probably more important in Dutch and English. In Dutch, they are relatively frequent and do not only occur in child language, but also in many constructions of the standard language (Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998). In English, they are not only used in typical light verb constructions (to take a shower), but also in other contexts such as questions (Do you know John?) or emphatic expressions (Yes, I do believe it is possible!).

112 

 Verbalizations of motion events

5.5). In both cases, semantic complexity is low, compared to full verbs such as to jump or to shake (cf. Levelt, Schreuder, and Hoenkamp 1976: 137; Slobin 2001: 433). To conclude this section on semantically-neutral verbs and their role in language acquisition, it can be expected that children using satellite- and verbframed languages may employ such verbs if a more specific motion verb is not available in their productive vocabulary, or if the processing cost of the situation is too high and the use of a (frequent) semantically-neutral verb is more economic. When children speaking an satellite-framed language describe caused motion, they typically encode Cause+Manner of Cause in the verb stem and Path in satellites (Hendriks, Watorek, and Giuliano 2004: 118). As example (22) illustrates, these constructions often contain an intransitive motion verb used in a transitive manner, and they are quite compact and easy to produce. Although children at age two and three often use such verbs in an idiosyncratic way, from four years on, they seem to have acquired this pattern (Berman 2010). (22)

I just pushed it down.

(Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 218)

In verb-framed languages, however, children have more difficulties encoding all semantic components involved in a motion event simultaneously (Hickmann 2006: 283; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 212; Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000: 79). Thus, they mainly focus on one component, namely Path, which is typically expressed in the main verb, as illustrated in example (23). (23)

Il part. he leaves ‘He’s leaving.’

When children speaking a verb-framed language describe motion within a general location, they also use Manner-verbs (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 202; Hickmann 2007: 224). Since the expression of Manner in peripheral constructions, the typical pattern used by adults, requires complex constructions (e.g., gerunds: en courant ‘by running’), they are rarely used by children. When children express Manner in an utterance with a main Path-verb, children may prefer prepositional phrases and/or adverbials to provide Manner (e.g., à quatre pattes ‘on all fours’, à vélo ‘by bicycle’). As shown by Talmy (2008a: 72–75), verbalizations of caused motion in satellite-framed languages which encode simultaneously all three main semantic components (Cause, Manner, Path) are as complex as the expression of Manner+Path in voluntary motion events (example 22). In verb-framed lan-

Motion events in child language 

 113

guages, however, the main verb expresses either Manner+Cause or Path. If the child wants to convey additional semantic information, she has to use additional constituents such as prepositional phrases (e.g., jusqu’en bas ‘to the bottom’) or gerunds as illustrated in example (24). Due to the complexity of such constructions, they are acquired relatively late by children who speak a verb-framed language (Hickmann and Hendriks 2008). (24)

Il pousse le carton en traversant he pushes the box by crossing ‘He pushes the box across the street.’

la rue. the street

In the case of languages that provide speakers with motion verbs conflating Manner+Path, studies report different results. Özyürek and Özçahşkan showed that Turkish-speaking children (verb-framed language) use these verbs quite frequently at three years of age (Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000: 81). In French, however, four-year-olds use this verb type much less frequently than adults (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 216). Therefore, Özyürek and Özçahşkan’s conclusion (2000: 81) does not hold for all languages: “[t]he lexicalization types that do not fit the general pattern are also acquired early, suggesting that children do not go through a stage of differentiating the covert semantic elements in these expressions”. Since the expression of several semantic components in verb-framed languages requires complex syntactic constructions, children often spread information across several utterances (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 219; Hickmann 2003a: 330, 2006: 283). A pattern to which we will refer below as “Loose-Organization”. In sum, even though children who speak satellite-framed languages express more semantic components than those who speak verb-framed languages, semantic density gradually increases in all languages and reaches maximal values at adult age (Hickmann 2006: 296; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 221).

5.3.2 Syntactic complexity Although syntactic complexity obviously increases with age, it also depends largely on the typological properties of the language as discussed above (Allen et al. 2007: 40; Hickmann 2007: 224). In their studies, Allen et al. (2007: 34) found that from three years on English-speaking children follow the typical pattern of their language. They package both semantic components, Manner+Path, in compact constructions corresponding to a “Tight-Organization” (example 25) which typically consists of a finite Manner-verb and either a Path-particle or

114 

 Verbalizations of motion events

a prepositional phrase (cf. also Hickmann 2007: 224; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 221). (25)

The man runs across (the street).

Adults who speak verb-framed languages (e.g., French, Japanese or Turkish) clearly follow the target pattern and mainly display a “Semi-Tight” type of organization in which Path is encoded in the finite verb and Manner in subordinate elements (example 26). (26)

Il descend la colline he descends the hill ‘He runs down the hill.’

en courant. by running

Even though young children clearly have difficulties producing such complex syntactic constructions involving subordinate elements (e.g., subjunctions, non finite verb forms), the frequency of such constructions increases in both languages with age (Allen et al. 2007: 34; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 221). This gradual development towards an adult-like syntactic pattern in verb-framed languages (“Semi-Tight-Construction”) also explains that construction types differ significantly between Turkish and Japanese age groups but not between English age groups (Allen et al. 2007: 35–40). A “loose” type of organization such as (27) is produced by children from three years onward. Nevertheless, their frequency decreases with age and even at age five children use as many loose-constructions as adults (Allen et al. 2007: 37; cf. also Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 219). In particular, young children who speak verb-framed languages use these construction types to convey information successively about several semantic components that they are still not able to express simultaneously. (27)

Il traverse la rue et he crosses the street and ‘He crosses the street and he runs.’

il court. he runs

Despite language-specific factors, some universal tendencies can also be observed in children’s verbalizations in satellite- as well as verb-framed languages. Allen et al. (2007) observed a tendency toward the tight packaging of Manner+Path in all three languages, which later disappears in Japanese and Turkish (verb-framed languages). This tendency probably indicates that children map the perceived simultaneity directly onto speech (Allen et al. 2007: 35).

Motion events in child language 

 115

To conclude, children largely follow language-specific patterns in choosing which construction to use when simultaneously expressing both Manner+Path: Tight-Simple constructions in satellite-framed languages and mainly Semi-Tight constructions in verb-framed languages. The question concerning which syntactic constructions children use when they describe caused motion events has not yet been addressed.

5.3.3 Co-verbal gestures.134 It has been observed that similarly to children’s lexicalization patterns, children who speak satellite-framed languages conflate Manner and Path more often in a single gesture than children who speak a verb-framed language (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 223; Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000: 82). Furthermore, Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann (2008: 225) showed that French children mainly encode Path in their gestures although both semantic components (Manner+Path) are equally salient. “However, when talking about crossing or manner-salient events, they also encode manner alone in gesture” (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 225). Between six and nine years there seems to be a conceptual reorganisation and it is only after this age that gestures become completely language-specific (Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000: 84).135 Since the amount of Manner+Path conflated gestures does not change with age, increasing cognitive abilities cannot account for changes in children’s co-verbal gestures. Nevertheless, children’s co-verbal gestures also exhibit some general tendencies. Just like children who speak satellite-framed languages, young French-speaking children conflate Manner+Path relatively frequently in a single gesture, probably taking into account the simultaneity of both dimensions (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 225). This pattern is very similar to children’s tendency toward Tight-constructions discussed above. It has often been reported that children’s ability to provide locations that spatially anchor discourse increases with age (Hickmann 2003a: 146; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 212). Across all languages, the ability to set such anchors emerges at around seven years of age and continues to develop until the

134 As mentioned in the results of Kita et al. (2007: 1231) gestures in adult speakers depend rather on syntactic packaging than on habitual conceptual event representations. There seems to be no available research testing the impact of clause type on children’s co-verbal gesture. 135 This development seems to be due to an increased sensitivity to the influence of language structure on gesture and not to cultural norms in gesturing.

116 

 Verbalizations of motion events

end of primary school (Hickmann 2003a: 278). This development shows that children gradually provide more information about details such as Source and Goal that do not directly concern the main semantic components involved in motion events (e.g., Motion, Manner, Path), but that nonetheless form part of a complete adult-like discourse. The results presented in this section indicate “that language learners do not map spatial words directly onto nonlinguistic spatial concepts, (…) but instead are sensitive to the semantic structure of the input language virtually from the beginning” (Choi and Bowerman 1991: 117–118). Therefore, children’s verbalizations of motion events are influenced by general developmental and languagespecific factors (Allen et al. 2007: 40; Hickmann 2006: 301, 2007: 227; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 222; Sinha, Thorseng, and Plunkett 1999: 120), which are both considered to have an impact on children’s spatial thinking (Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000: 84). Following this research, the present study focuses on the first two questions: (1) How many semantic components are encoded by children in their utterances and in which devices they are encoded. And (2) what is the syntactic complexity of their utterances.

5.4 Motion events in German¹³⁶ A number of studies have dealt with German surface forms and their combinations in the expression of motion events (Caroli 1984; Caroll 1997, 2000; Klein 1991; von Stutterheim and Caroll 2007). However, to my knowledge, studies that have examined verbalizations of motion events in German children are rare (Bamberg 1979; Hickmann 2003a). German distinguishes between motion verbs for voluntary motion (e.g., gehen ‘to go’, schwimmen ‘to swim’) versus caused motion, so called causative verbs, which are grammatically transitive (e.g., ziehen ‘to pull’, schieben ‘to push’) (Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976: 512; Talmy 2008a: 154). Several of the verbs for voluntary motion can also be used in a transitive way in order to express caused motion (e.g., den Ball rollen ‘to roll the ball’). As is typical of satellite-framed languages, German motion verbs encode Motion+Manner(+Cause) (Bamberg 1979:

136 A great number of studies have examined the expression of motion events in English (e.g., Hickmann 2003a, 2006, 2007). Although both languages show quite similar lexicalization patterns in this semantic domain, we will primarily focus here on studies concerning German. The results will be compared to English data in the Discussion (p. 329–330).

Motion events in German 

 117

219; Gerling and Orthen 1979; Weber 1983). These Manner-verbs – whether they are used in a transitive or intransitive way – are combined with a large number of satellites (mainly prefixes and particles) and/or with prepositional phrases that usually express Path (Carroll 2000: 102; Haggblade 1994: 43; Poitou 2003: 83). If Manner is not encoded in the verb stem, it can be expressed by adjectives (e.g., schnell ‘fast’, langsam ‘slow’), derived nouns (e.g., Schwimmer ‘swimmer’) or prepositional phrases expressing for example instruments (e.g., auf Skiern ‘on skis’) (cf. Poitou 2003: 69). In what follows, we first deal with the main morphosyntactic structures in German and then discuss how they may be acquired by German children. A great number of studies have examined German motion verbs, especially those expressing voluntary motion (Caroli 1984; Diersch 1972; Gerling and Orthen 1979; Haggblade 1994; Levelt, Schreuder, and Hoenkamp 1976; Maienborn 1991; Schröder 1983, 1992; Ullmann 1991; Weber 1983; Ying 1988). All researchers agree that German motion verbs are very frequent and that they mainly express Manner. Haggblade (1994: 93) found that the 1000 most frequent words in German include 313 verbs among which there are 175 motion verbs. In contrast to Talmy, Gerling and Orthen (1979) as well as Weber (1983) assume that a motion event has three essential components, apart from Motion: Figure, Ground, Path, and optionally some sort of Co-event. According to them, Instrument, Medium (earth, water or air), and Speed must also be taken into account and should be considered as three additional components (Gerling and Orthen 1979: 101; Weber 1983: 41).¹³⁷ Following Slobin (2006: 62), we claim that these three components are subordinated characteristics of Manner rather than independent semantic components of motion events. In order to categorize German motion verbs, Weber introduces 35 semantic components which can be subdivided into components such as Instrument (e.g., by bike, by train) or Path (e.g., vertical, directional). A reanalysis of Weber’s categories on the basis of our assumptions above shows that 24 of his 35 semantic components concern Manner (cf. Weber 1983: Appendix D1). According to his analyses of 89 German motion verbs, Manner is therefore encoded in 85 cases (95,5%). A similar analysis of the same 89 German motion verbs with Gerling and Orthen’s (1979) semantic components shows that 88 motion verbs encode Manner (and in some cases other components) while only one verb (überqueren ‘to cross’) encodes Path (cf.

137 Gerling and Orthen (1979: 106) consider arms and legs to be natural instruments. Several researchers explicitly maintain that speed (in Slobin’s words rate of motion) is a continuous dimension that is always evaluated intuitively (Gerling and Orthen 1979: 107 and 122). According to Weber (1983: 50), Speed is paramount as compared to Manner of motion.

118 

 Verbalizations of motion events

Weber 1983: Appendix D3). Following Gerling and Orthen’s analysis, Manner is therefore encoded in 98,9% of the cases. In addition, Weber proposes two other semantic elements: Direction and Deixis (Weber 1983: 44). Since Talmy’s notion of Path comprises the three main components Vector (= direction), Conformation and Deictic (cf. Talmy 2008a: 92), both semantic elements proposed by Weber are subsumed under the category Path. Apart from pure Manner- and Path-verbs, researchers admit that some German motion verbs encode Manner+Path simultaneously. Tschander (1999) considers verbs such as humpeln (‘to hobble’) as expressing a ‘combined movement’ (kombinierte Bewegung) calling them Manner-Path-verbs. These verbs are used with different auxiliaries depending on the speaker’s focus, as illustrated in the following example (28): (28)

Debbie hat/ist gehumpelt. Debbie has/is hobbled ‘Debbie has/is hobbled.’

(Tschander 1999: 29)

With the auxiliary haben (‘to have’) verbs focus on Manner; with the auxiliary sein (‘to be’) they focus on Path. Thus, according to Tschander, these two concepts of movement, Manner and Path, must not constitute separate entries in the lexicon, but rather should correspond to only one entry. Gerling and Orthen (1979) assume that springen (‘to jump’), klettern (‘to climb’), steigen (‘to climb’), and turnen (‘to do gymnastics’) can only be used for movements expressing vertical motion (Gerling and Orthen 1979: 125). Although this analysis seems to be justified for steigen (‘to climb’), the other three verbs can refer to vertical as well as horizontal movements. The researchers further suggest analyzing gehen (‘to go’) and laufen (‘to walk’) as the most neutral motion verbs for movement, which seem to encode the least information about speed, direction (horizontal or vertical), and modality (Gerling and Orthen 1979: 118).138 Since we consider that in the specific context of motion events laufen (’to walk’) encodes a Manner-component, in what follows we will focus on the verb gehen (‘to go’). Traditionally, gehen (‘to go’) as well as kommen (‘to come’) were considered to encode a Path-component, namely a deictic one (cf. Di Meola 1994, 2003).139 This

138 Since in the present study we are only concerned with motion events, the meanings of gehen and laufen in the sense of ‘to work’ and ‘to operate’ will be disregarded. 139 “Note that, as opposed to Romance languages, there is no obligatory deictic meaning in German kommen/cho” (Berthele 2004: 122).

Motion events in German 

 119

deictic component seems also to appear in combinations of gehen (‘to go’) with other full verbs as illustrated in (29) that we introduced in Chapter 5.3, referring to them as auxiliary verb constructions. In addition to this Path-component, this auxiliary verb construction in (29) further encodes an incohative meaning. More precisely, the semantically-neutral verb gehen (‘to go’) encodes the Aktionsart, whereas the full verb einkaufen (‘to shop’) adds the lexcial meaning. (29)

Ich gehe einkaufen. I go to shop ‘I’m going shopping.’

Thus, in such constructions, the verb gehen does not only encode an inchoative meaning (aspectual component), but further implies some change of location of the agent (deictic component). In other words, in all contexts, the speaker of sentence (29) will go away from the origo in order to accomplish the action encoded in the subordinate verb of the auxiliary verb construction. This also holds true for its isolated use as illustrated in (30). (30)

Ich gehe um I go at ‘I leave at 5 p.m.’

17 Uhr. 5 hour

In contrast to these assumptions, a number of studies, however, argue that in many contexts gehen (‘to go’) does not encode any deictic component (Haggblade 1994: 120; Lange 2007: 117), especially if it appears with one or several Path-particles (Schröder 1992: 69) or prepositional phrases. Although we are aware that in specific contexts gehen (‘to go’) most probably expresses a deictic component, we decided to adopt a conservative view and therefore analyze gehen (‘to go’) as a semantically-neutral verb which only encodes Motion per se without providing any further information about Manner or Path. Given that German light verb constructions/Funktionsverbgefüge do not encode motion but rather abstract concepts (e.g., in Kraft treten ‘to come into effect’, zur Verfügung stellen ‘to make available’) they will not be dealt with any further here. Since Manner-verbs are very frequent in German, it can be assumed that they are learned very early. In his research on narratives, Bamberg (1979: 216) indeed found that children produce more varied Manner-verbs than adults who focus on the agents’ appearance and disappearance from the scene (e.g., verschwinden ‘disappear’, sich davonmachen ‘escape, get away’). However, in descriptions of motion events, German children also produce a number of semantically-neutral verbs such as gehen (‘to go’) (Hickmann 2003a: 322).

120 

 Verbalizations of motion events

Typically, German speakers combine Manner-verbs with prefixes, particles140 or prepositional phrases encoding Path. Especially “separable prefix constructions represent an intermediate stage in the grammaticalization process” (Croft et al. 2010: 227) towards a verb-satellite fusion as it occurs in French (traverser ‘to cross’; cf. Kopecka 2006). First, let us concentrate on prefixes and particles which are very frequent and productive in spoken as well as written speech (Haggblade 1994: 952; Ullmann 1991: 162). According to Behrens (2009b: 55), about 20% of the verb tokens produced by German children and adults are particle or prefixed verbs. We will discuss both forms separately.

Prefixes Altmann ([2000] 2011: 137–148) suggests two categories of German prefixes which are both unstressed and bounded: prefixes and particle-prefixes. (1) Prefixes (such as er-, ver-, be- or ent-) are unproductive morphemes in Modern German. Their etymology (locative prepositions) is no longer transparent for native speakers. There are only a few German verbs with prefixes that encode Path: erklettern (‘to climb up’), verreisen (‘to go away’), beschreiten (‘to walk on/along sth.’), entströmen (‘to pour out’). (2) In contrast, particle-prefixes141 are transparent, that is to say the meaning of the corresponding locative preposition is apparent to native speakers. The following four different particle-prefixes encode Path: über- ‘above-’ (überqueren ‘to cross’), unter- ‘below-’ (unterqueren ‘to cross under sth.), um‘around-‘ (umfahren ‘to move around’), and durch- ‘through’ (durchfliegen ‘to fly through’).

Particles As regards verb particles, a very productive German pattern (Talmy 2008a: 154), Altmann (2011: 148–158) distinguishes four categories. In the following list, we will subsume these two “main categories” under one. (1) Particles that are parallel to particle-prefixes: Such particles which have an adverbial function have the same form as their corresponding preposition. In contrast to particle-prefixes, particles are stressed. Examples for such

140 For a detailed overview of different theories of German verbal particles, cf. Haggblade (1994: 30–38). 141 This category is often called inseparable prefixes (Talmy 2008a: 154).

Motion events in German 

 121

forms which encode Path are übergehen (‘to move on to sth.‘), durchfahren (‘to drive through’), aufsteigen (‘to ascend’), abseilen (‘to clear off’), and nacheilen (‘to hurry after sth./sb.’). (2) Particles derived from adverbs: These particles add a local or directional component to the verb stem (e.g., hochklettern ‘to climb up’, weglaufen ‘to run away’). (3) Double-particles: These very frequent directional Path-particles in German are prefixed with the particles hin- (‘thither’) and her- (‘hither’).142 In general, hin- seems to be more frequent than her- (Behrens 2009b: 56). The first element (hin-/her-) is considered to encode a deictic viewpoint (Bamberg 1979: 219; Behrens 2009b: 56; Caroli 1984: 9; Carroll 1997: 158; Haggblade 1994: 146; Schröder 1983: 218; Slobin 2005: 309). Let us examine this category of particles in more detail. In spoken language, her- is usually reduced to r- (rauf instead of herauf). In contrast, hin- can only be found in a reduced form in Southern German dialects (nauf instead of hinauf) (Behrens 2009b: 55). Poitou assumes that double-particles can be used in three different construction types (cf. Poitou 2003: 76): a) Without a noun phrase (NP): In these cases the speaker presupposes Ground-information, that is information about the Goal and/or the Source (cf. Behrens 2009b: 57; Strömqvist 1999: 21). (31) Er geht hinauf. he goes thither-up ‘He goes up.’ b) In combination with an accusative-NP: (32) Er geht den Berg hinauf. he goes the mountain (acc) thither-up ‘He goes up the mountain.’ c) With a prepositional phrase in pleonastic constructions: The double-particle appears directly before or after the prepositional phrase. (33) Er geht [hinauf] auf den Berg [hinauf]. he goes [thither-up] on the mountain (acc) [thither-up] ‘He goes up on the mountain.’ This last example shows that German speakers often segment the Path complex into smaller “subpaths”. Thus, they elaborate their path descriptions by combin-

142 Detailed analyses of the semantics and syntax of German double particles can be found in Poitou (2003).

122 

 Verbalizations of motion events

ing several particles and/or prepositional phrases (Caroli 1984: 25–27; Ullmann 1991: 167). For instance, they double-mark the Source or the Goal of a motion event143 (example 33), using a (double-)particle and a prepositional phrase (cf. Bamberg 1979: 216; Behrens 2009b: 57; Berthele 2004: 111; Gerling and Orthen 1979: 114). Although much research has been dedicated to such constructions, their exact syntactic status is not clear. In particular, it remains an open question whether the particle is part of the verb complex or belongs to a complex prepositional phrase. As for their function, some linguists claim that such pleonastic constructions are redundant because particles and prepositional phrases express the same semantic content (Berthele 2004; Olsen 1996). Others assume that the double-marking of a spatial point provides an additional spatial perspective that specifies certain components of the scene (Bamberg 1979: 216). Another possibility to express Path in German is to encode it in prepositional phrases which can govern a dative or an accusative.144 According to Carroll (2000: 103), dative and accusative case markings determine the perspective on the motion event. When they use prepositions followed by a dative (von ‘from’, zu ‘to’, aus ‘out of’ etc.), speakers focus on the fact that the motion event occurs within the boundaries of a specific place leaving it open whether the goal has been reached or not. Thus, “the dative specifies the places at the beginning and end of the motion event and locates the position of the entity in motion, at some point in the event, at the places in question” (Carroll 2000: 101). According to Carroll, however, if a dative-PP is combined with the double-particle herein (‘into’) (cf. example 34), it expresses the continuation of the motion event across the boundary. In contrast, the accusative is used to express a change of location that structures places at a destination into sub-spaces (cf. example 35). (34)

Sie rannten zur Tür they ran to+the door (dat) ‘They ran in the door.’

herein. hither-in

(Carroll 2000: 102)

143 Note that Bohnemeyer et al. (2007) assumed that this double-marking strategy is typical of verb-framed languages (Bohnemeyer et al. 2007: 524; cf. also Croft et al. 2010: 208). 144 Since German has prepositions which can be combined with a dative-NP denoting the Source, Sapir’s assumption that “German makes a careful distinction between locative relations and the ending-point relations” by using the dative versus the accusative is not totally correct (Sapir 2008d: 345).

Motion events in German 

(35)

Sie laufen in das Stadion. they walk in the stadium (acc) ‘They walk into the stadium.’

 123

(Carroll 2000: 100)

As mentioned above, German speakers can mark that the indicated goal is reached by combining the accusative-PP with a particle (cf. example 36). Such constructions are referred to as double-marking constructions. Thus, “[w]ith the accusative case places are entities which the figure in motion heads for, encounters or crosses” (Carroll 2000: 104). (36)

Sie laufen in das Stadion they walk in the stadium (acc) ‘They walk into the stadium.’

hinein. thither-in

(Carroll 2000: 102)

To express caused motion, German either uses typical intransitive Manner-verbs in a transitive way (example 37) or causative verbs (example 38). In example (37) the verb encodes Cause+Manner of the object’s motion, but in example (38) it expresses Cause+Manner of the action causing the displacement of the object. A part from these two verb types, children can also use the semantically-neutral verbs tun (‘to do’) or machen (‘to make’) which only express Cause. As discussed above for voluntary motion events, caused motion events can also be combined with satellites, prepositional phrases or both types of elements in order to add Path to Cause+Manner (added in brackets in examples 37 and 38). Given that causative constructions are rather compact and simple in satellite-framed languages, even young German children are expected to use them pervasively (cf. Miller and Johnson-Laird 1976: 469). (37)

Tim rollt den Reifen [in die Garage Tim rolls the tyre [into the garage (acc) ‘Tim rolls the tyre [into the garage].’

hinein]. thither-in]

(38)

Karin schiebt den Schrank [in die Garage Karin pushes the cupboard [into the garage (acc) ‘Karin pushes the cupboard [into the garage].’

hinein]. thither-in]

Since the use of particles is easier than that of prepositional phrases, even threeyear-olds command a large number of verb-satellite combinations (Bamberg 1979: 220; Behrens 2009b: 59; cf. Hickmann 2003a: 249; Strömqvist, Hellstrand,

124 

 Verbalizations of motion events

and Nordqvist 1999: 12).145 As regards their complexity, on the basis of six German children, Behrens (2009b: 59) demonstrated that they use simple as well as double-particles which are acquired in their third year. However, until three years of age, they still make errors in the use of hin-/her- showing that they have not yet understood all of their semantics (Behrens 2009b: 62). Consequently, German children may initially rely on particles and adverbs to express Path, then on prefixed verbs which require the inflexion of the verb in question (cf. E. Clark 1991: 48). Presumably, prepositional phrases are used quite late because they require the government of one or several cases.146 Children first seem to acquire those prepositions that have a particle counterpart because these forms are stressed if they are used as particles (cf. for other Germanic languages Strömqvist, Hellstrand, and Nordqvist 1999: 10). Then, they learn those prepositions that do not have a homophone particle. Pleonastic structures that involve the combination of directional particles and prepositional phrases are used from the age of two onward; nevertheless such constructions are not fully mastered until 2½ years of age (Behrens 2009b: 63). As regards the elaboration of the setting in narratives, young German children at age three and four are expected to construct the spatial scenario by a sentenceinitial da (‘there’) (Bamberg 1994: 213).147 All following actions and spatial relationships are framed by this local adverb. If da is mentioned preverbally, it seems to refer to a location that is mentioned earlier in the context. Bamberg concludes: “[T]he younger narrators tend to create an independent scene for each clause, so giving the impression that there is no other ‘spatial glue’ holding the clauses together” (Bamberg 1979: 213). As regards the explicit mention of the Source and Goal of motion, it can be assumed that young German children often omit it, as has been reported for English children by Strömqvist, Hellstrand, and Nordqvist (1999: 15). To conclude, German provides speakers with compact constructions to express several semantic components simultaneously: “German thus provides rich possibilities for detailed descriptions of motion in a given direction in a given manner” (Bamberg 1979: 220). Since these syntactic structures are relatively simple, German children should produce them from very early on.

145 For an overview of different particles occurring in different age groups, cf. Bamberg (1979: 221). 146 As can be seen from Bowerman’s examples, incomplete prepositional phrases such as “towel bed“ for a ”towel on a bed” and “sit pool“ for “sitting in a wading pool“ are acquired much earlier (Bowerman 1996b: 389). 147 As reported by McCune-Nicolich (1981: 25) for English here and there, German da cannot be considered to express a deictic component which contrasts it with dort ‘there’.

Motion events in French 

 125

5.5 Motion events in French A number of studies have examined the expression of spatial relations in French (Aurnague 1995, 1996; Borillo 1998; Vandeloise 1991). Recent research has also examined verbalizations of motion events and location in French L1 and L2 learners (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008; Hendriks, Watorek, and Giuliano 2004, 2008; Hickmann 2006, 2007; Hickmann and Hendriks 2006; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009; Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009). French is considered to be a typical verb-framed language. In the expression of voluntary motion, speakers usually encode Path in the main verb148 (e.g., descendre ‘to descend’, monter ‘to ascend’) and Manner in adverbial phrases (e.g., à quatre pattes ‘on all fours’) or gerunds (e.g., en courant ‘by running’). As regards the expression of caused motion, French provides speakers with different construction types (see more details below). Let us now deal with the main surface forms and examine how they can be combined in the description of motion events. In general, and as predicted for verb-framed languages, French speakers use a quite restricted set of verbs which encode few types of information (Hickmann 2003a: 321, 2006: 287, 2007: 224). Path-verbs are mainly used to express changes of location. Kopecka (2006: 85) assumes that French has about fifteen verbs which encode the notion of Path – among them arriver (‘to arrive’), partir (‘to leave’), and venir (‘to come’). To add Manner, speakers typically use a second utterance that often involves a gerund (example 39); however such subordinate constructions are frequently omitted especially by French children (Hickmann 2007: 224). Pourcel and Kopecka also discuss so called reversed verb-framed constructions which encode Manner in the main verb and Path in the gerund. Such an example is illustrated in (40). (39)

Il part en courant. he leaves by running ‘He’s running away.’

(40)

Un homme court en traversant la rue. (Pourcel and Kopecka 2005: 140) a man runs by crossing the street ‘A man is running across the street.’

148 For a detailed analysis of French motion-verbs, cf. Stolova (2003).

126 

 Verbalizations of motion events

Another possibility to add Manner is to use Manner-adverbials (e.g., lentement ‘slowly’) or prepositional phrases that encode the instrument (e.g., en vélo ‘by bicycle’). Pourcel and Kopecka (2005: 149) outline that French speakers prefer to encode additional semantic components (such as Manner) in such prepositional phrases than in gerunds. Apart from typical verbs that encode Path in verb-framed languages, French also has a set of verbs which express Manner (e.g., courir ‘to run’, sauter ‘to hop’, nager ‘to swim’) and some which conflate Manner+Path (e.g., grimper ‘to climb up’, dévaler ‘to rush down’). In addition, French provides speakers with a large set of so-called constructions à verbe support (e.g., faire du patinage ‘to ice-skate’, faire de la natation ‘to swim’) which encode specific kinds of Manner. Such constructions correspond to English light verb constructions and German Funktionsverbgefüge. Note however that a number of these constructions do not have a monomorphemic equivalent and thus their categorization as light verb constructions is problematic (Brugman 2001: 553). It is obvious that children have difficulties acquiring French constructions à verbe support because they are quite complex. Therefore, they probably produce a number of idiosyncratic expressions involving ‘support verbs’ such as faire (‘to do’). Manner-verbs (and constructions à verbe support encoding Manner) are typically used to describe motion events taking place within a general location (example 41) (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 203; Hickmann 2006: 287, 2007: 224). It seems to be only in set expressions that French allows the combination of Manner-verbs with linguistic devices that unambiguously denote Path, particularly prepositional phrases. Such an example is illustrated in (42). (41)

Elle nage dans l’eau. she swims in the water ’She’s swimming in the water.’

(42)

Il court à l’école. he runs at/to the school ‘He’s running to school.’

However, such Manner-verbs can be combined with linguistic devices encoding Path. Such devices can either be subordinate elements such as gerunds or relative clauses (43), or prepositional phrases that express direction and/or Source/ Goal (e.g., jusqu’à l’autre côté ‘to the other side’) (cf. Kopecka 2009: 425).

Motion events in French 

(43)

 127

La fille qui traverse la rivière nage. the girl who crosses the river swims ‘The girl who is crossing the river is swimming.’

Nevertheless, “such utterances are typically rather marked in the sense that the speaker emphasizes some particular aspect of the event (e.g., an unusual manner of motion and/or the fact that the person covered an entire distance to reach his destination)” (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 203). Recent analyses (Kopecka 2006, 2009) show that the French verbal system constitutes a rather hybrid system involving a number of prefixed verbs which reflect remnants of a previous satellite-framed system (Kopecka 2006: 84). These prefixes which have their origin in Latin adverbs (e.g., em-/en- ‘away’ < Lat. inde) and prepositions (em-/en- ‘in’ < Lat. in) mark different types of information such as Path or Cause (examples 44 and 45), leaving the verb root free to encode Manner or Ground (cf. p. 88–91). (44)

accourir ‘to run quickly to’ Combination of the allomorph ac- of the prefix ad- with the verb courir ‘to run’

(45)

encadrer ‘put in a frame’ Combination of the prefix en- with the noun cadre ‘frame’

In combination with motion verbs, prefixes can encode one of the three main phases of the motion-event: initial, medial or final (e.g., respectively s’envoler ‘to fly away’, parcourir ‘to run all over’, and s’enfuir ‘to bury’). In Modern French there remains only a very limited set of motion verb roots (e.g., porter ‘to carry’, mener ‘to lead’) that can be freely combined with a restricted set of Path-prefixes (e.g., ré-/re-/r(a)-, em-/en-). Thus, the productivity of such verbs is very limited. In addition, most of the prefixed verbs have fused with verb roots and therefore their morphology is no longer transparent (Kopecka 2006: 99). As a consequence, the French verb-system seems to have shifted from a satellite-framed system to a verb-framed system (Kopecka 2009: 416). French provides speakers with a rich set of prepositions149 expressing various spatial relations. Prepositional phrases are mainly used in combination with Manner-verbs as illustrated above; if such spatial prepositions are combined

149 The acquisition of French prepositions in static situations has been studied by Hickmann and Hendriks (2006), Piérart (1978), and Verjat (1991).

128 

 Verbalizations of motion events

with Path-verbs they introduce a location, either the Source or the Goal of a motion event, as illustrated in example (46) and (47) (Asher and Sablayrolles 1996: 169). (46)

Il part du he leaves from+the ‘He’s leaving the city center.’

centre ville. center city

(47)

Il traverse jusqu’ à l’ he crosses to at the ‘He’s crossing to the other river side.’

autre other

Source

rive. river side

Goal

Some French prepositions such as à (‘to, in’) or de (‘from’) are extremely polysemous and vague and can encode spatial and temporal as well as grammatical relations (cf. Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 213; Vandeloise 1991). For instance, to express the Goal, speakers can use à + NP (‘to’) or jusque + other preposition + NP (‘to’). However, only jusque unambiguously indicates a path’s endpoint; in contrast, à + NP (‘to + NP’) like dans + NP (‘in + NP’) or en + NP (‘in + NP’) can also express a general location (Sapir 2008d: 342). In ambiguous cases the contexts determine how such vague prepositions have to be interpreted. Previous studies concerning the expression of motion events in French showed that event type has an influence on which semantic components are encoded in speakers’ utterances (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008; Hickmann 2006; Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009). Since French provides speakers with a verb conflating upward motion (Path) and Manner (grimper ‘to climb up’), Manner+Path responses are more frequent for this event type than for other event types from eight years on (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 216–217; Hickmann 2006: 290–292; Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009: 715). However in descriptions of upward motion, young children are more likely to use a neutral Path-verb (monter ‘to ascend’) and therefore mainly to produce Path-only utterances. As for downward motion, Path-only utterances seem to be the main pattern across all age groups (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 216; Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009: 715). This fact may be due to two reasons: On the one hand, French lacks a verb conflating Manner+Path for downward motion; thus, when describing this event-type, speakers have to use quite complex constructions that involve non-finite verb forms. On the other hand, if the speaker has previously described upward motion and there provided information about Manner, he may consider it redundant to mention it again when verbalizing downward motion (Hickmann 2006: 296; Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009: 719). With respect to crossing events, French adults mainly

Motion events in French 

 129

produce Manner+Path-responses, either encoding Path in the main verb (traverser¹⁵⁰ ‘to cross’ or passer ‘to pass’) and Manner in peripheral constructions (en courant ‘by running’) or Manner in the main verb and Path in prepositional phrases (jusque de l’autre côté ‘to the other side’). However, up to five years of age children typically focus on Manner alone (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 226; Hickmann 2006: 293). Let us now deal with the expression of caused motion. French seems to have three main construction types to express caused motion. They differ in terms of their syntactic complexity and in terms of the number of semantic components which can be encoded in them (cf. Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny 2008: 18; Hickmann and Hendriks 2008). 1. Intransitive verbs used in a transitive way: French provides speakers with a large set of intransitive motion verbs – encoding either Manner or Path – which can be used in transitive constructions in order to express caused motion events (examples 48 and 49). However, such constructions always express only two semantic components: Either Cause+Manner of the object’s motion or Cause+Path, but not all three components simultaneously. (48) La balle roule. Intransitive Manner-verb the ball rolls ‘The ball rolls.’ Marie roule la balle. Mary rolls the ball ‘Mary rolls the ball.’ (49)

Jean monte. John ascends ‘John ascends.’ Jean monte la valise. John ascends the case ‘John rises the case.’

Transitive Manner-verb

Intransitive Path-verb

Transitive Path-verb

150 The Path-verb traverser ‘to cross’ (Latin prefix trans- ‘through, across’ + Latin verb root vertere ‘to turn’) can be considered to be an entirely frozen form (cf. Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009: 707) which is not re-analyzed spontaneously in its morphological parts by native speakers.

130 

 Verbalizations of motion events

2.

Causative verbs: Another possibility of expressing caused motion in French is to use causative verbs such as pousser (‘to push’) or tirer (‘to pull’) which encode the Manner of the action which causes the object’s displacement (example 50). Since such constructions only encode Cause+Manner, Path has to be added by peripheral constructions (e.g., relative clauses or gerunds) or prepositional phrases (in brackets in example 50). (50) Il pousse la valise [jusqu’ en bas]. he pushes the case [to down] ‘He pushes the case [down].’ 3.

Causative constructions: French does have two different causative construction types combining the action verb faire (‘to make’) with an infinite motion-verb – either encoding Manner or Path. Consequently, such constructions either encode Cause+Manner of the object’s motion (example 51) or Cause+Path (example 52), but not all three components simultaneously. If a speaker adds the third component he has to use peripheral constructions or prepositional phrases. (51) Marie fait rouler la balle (en descendant). Mary makes roll the ball (by descending) ‘Mary rolls the ball down.’ (52)

Jean fait monter la valise John makes ascend the case ‘John rises the case (to the top).’

(jusqu’ (to

en haut). at the top)

Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny (2008) point out that the choice of construction depends on a number of factors “such as the nature of the displaced object, of the ground, of the action implicitly carried out by the agent, and of the discourse that may or may not motivate the expression of manner” (Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny 2008: 18). Thus, the pattern that children have to learn is quite complex and variable. Furthermore, note that all three types can also occur in passive constructions which focus on the object and what has been done to it. However, the passive does not add other semantic components. Several studies of French adults demonstrate that speakers typically express all three semantic components of caused motion (Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny 2008: 26–27; Hickmann and Hendriks 2008). Path seems to be typically encoded in the main verb and Manner of Cause+Cause in other linguistic devices (Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny 2008: 26–27). It is only for descrip-

Motion events in French 

 131

tions of into-paths that speakers prefer to encode Cause+Path (amener ‘to bring’) or Cause+Manner of Cause (pousser ‘to push’) in the main verbs and Path in other linguistic devices (Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny 2008: 28). Such dense descriptions of caused motion events require complex syntactic constructions. Consequently, speakers frequently hesitate or reformulate their utterances (Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny 2008: 37). French children often seem to have difficulties with these constructions and even at five years of age they only express a limited set of semantic components, namely those which can be expressed in the main verb: Path or Cause (+Manner of Cause) (Hickmann 2003a: 150; Hickmann and Hendriks 2008; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 218). As regards the locus of semantic information, it seems to be contrary to adult’s lexicalization patterns. Children most frequently encode Cause+Manner of Cause in the main verb and, if they express Path at all, it is encoded in other linguistic devices such as prepositional phrases. Transitive uses of intransitive motion verbs seem to be quite rare, above all in children younger than five (Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009: 215). Since French displays a great variability in how to express caused motion events, lexicalization patterns are rather opaque and no pattern can be considered to be the most typical one. Like children who speak other languages, French children gradually mention more often the scenario and the location in which the motion event takes place (Hendriks, Watorek, and Giuliano 2004: 113). They mainly use presentative constructions which regularly introduce animate and inanimate referents (example 53). These construction types are very frequent at all ages and rather easy to produce (cf. Hickmann 2003a: 322). (53)

Voilà une souris et here are a mouse and ‘Here are a mouse and a tree.’

un arbre. a tree

In sum, since the expression of various semantic components in French requires rather complex syntactic constructions, semantic density clearly increases with age. Children often spread their information over several simple utterances (Hickmann 2003a: 330; Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 219). However, even French adults do not achieve the density level of English adults (Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 204).

6 General assumptions On the basis of this survey of theoretical approaches to the relationship between language and cognition, the following general assumptions will guide the present study. As shown in Chapter 1, cognitive constraints on language use are less important in adults than in children, since the former have more limited processing capacities (for example in memory and perception) and less differentiated conceptual representations. Thus, due to these general developmental factors, irrespective of language, children’s utterances are expected to become syntactically as well as semantically more complex with age. Nonetheless, irrespective of age, language-specific factors are expected to have an influence on speakers’ verbalizations (from young ages to adulthood). Thus, children and adults should describe motion events according to the specific lexicalization patterns typical of their native language (Chapter 5). From very early on, speakers should therefore direct their attention to those aspects of reality which are focused upon in the lexicalization patterns of their specific language. This hypothesis does not exclude developmental progressions. Children’s verbalizations should exhibit the main features of these lexicalization patterns from very early on. Nevertheless they should become more and more similar to the adult target pattern as they gradually tune into this pattern with increasing age. Through language use and pattern-finding mechanisms, children learn to manipulate and combine constructions in specific ways that are characteristic of their native language. However even adult lexicalization patterns are not totally homogenous. Since representations (of motion events) are considered to be dynamic and graded, they can even vary for a single person and thus lead to variations in lexicalization patterns among adult speakers of a single language. These considerations lead to the following predictions. In verbalizations of voluntary motion events, French speakers should usually encode Path in the verb stem and Manner in adverbs or peripheral constructions such as gerunds. As regards caused motion events, they should use one of the three construction types explained in Chapter 5.5 Since the simultaneous expression of several semantic components requires rather complex constructions in verb-framed languages, French children should have difficulties using such structures due to limited processing capacities. Thus, they should focus on specific semantic components (Path in voluntary motion and Cause+Path or Cause+Manner in caused motion) and ignore others. In contrast, satelliteframed languages such as German provide speakers with very compact constructions which enable speakers to express several semantic components simultaneously. Consequently, in descriptions of motion events, irrespective of age,

General assumptions 

 133

speakers should encode mainly Manner(+Cause) in the verb stem and Path in satellites, principally verbal particles which are very diverse and highly frequent in German. Since these constructions do not require complex sentences involving subordination, even young children should be able to express all relevant semantic components in one single utterance. Based on typological differences, a further prediction is that we should expect an interaction between language and age. In particular, French children should take more time to acquire adult-like lexicalization patterns than German children because verb-framed languages require the mastery of more complex constructions than satellite-framed languages. Lexicalization patterns are assumed to have an impact on speakers’ representations of motion events. Since concepts are partly shaped by the lexicalization patterns whereby they are expressed in different languages, speakers’ individual representations may also vary depending on the language they speak. According to Slobin’s thinking for speaking hypothesis, speakers should focus their attention on different aspects of reality depending on their first language. For instance, since Manner can be expressed easily in German (cf. the three factors: frequency, finiteness, monolexematic expression) it is expected to be more salient to German speakers than to French speakers. Such differences are expected to occur particularly in situations in which language is involved (verbal thought). We therefore expected a more varied and fine-grained Manner-verb lexicon in German than in French. It is assumed that spatial representations of motion events are quite complex even in very young children, where they may have emerged as the result of various mechanisms (e.g., image-schemas and Representational Redescription see Chapter 4). From four years on (the youngest age group tested in our study), children are expected to have sufficient knowledge concerning the basic physical principles involved in voluntary and caused motion events, despite the fact that this knowledge may become more fine-grained with age, especially in complex situations (e.g., agent-patient relations in caused motion events).

Part II: Experimental study on the expression of motion events in French and German

7 Methodology 7.1 Participants The results reported below concern 120 monolingual German speakers and 120 monolingual French speakers. Within each language, the subjects were grouped into five age groups (24 subjects per age), including children (four groups between ages four and ten) and a (control) group of adults. Each age group comprised an equal number of male and female subjects. Kindergarten and school teachers were asked to exclude those children who were below or above the average. The subjects’ socio-economic status is comparable. The German children were tested in various kindergartens and a Grundschule in Inningen, a typical suburb of Augsburg. As shown in Table 1, their ages were approximately four years (mean 4;4, range 3;8 to 4;11), six years (mean 6;1, range 5;8 to 6;6), eight years (mean 8;5, range 7;10 to 9;3), and ten years (mean 10;6, range 10;0 to 11;4). Inningen is mostly inhabited by middle class families. Thus, the socio-economic status of these subjects is comparable, and all of them speak a variation of Southern German, typical for the area of Augsburg. The control group of adults involved students from the Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich. The French children came from several Ecoles Maternelles and Ecoles Primaires in Vanves a middleclass suburb close to Paris. As illustrated in Table 1, their ages were approximately four years (mean 4;4, range 3;10 to 4;10), six years (mean 6;3, range 5;9 to 6;9), eight years (mean 8;2, range 7;9 to 8;8), and ten years (mean 10;3, range 9;8 to 11;8). The control group of adults involved students from the University of Paris 5.

French

German

class

mean range

class

mean range

4 years

Moyenne Section

 4;4

3;10 – 4;10

Kindergarten

 4;4

6 years

Cours Préparatoire

 6;3

5;9 – 6;9

Kindergarten

 6;1

5;8 – 6;6

8 years

Cours Élémentaire 2  8;2

7;9 – 8;8

2. Klasse

 8;5

7;10 – 9;3

10 years

Cours Moyen 2

9;8 – 11;8

4. Klasse

10;6

10;0 – 11;4

10;3

Table 1: Overview of children’s ages and classes

3;8 – 4;11

138 

 Methodology

7.2 Material Verbal productions were elicited by two sets of animated cartoons depicting motion events. The first set showed voluntary motion and the second caused motion. All clips were originally designed for a larger project including other languages (e.g., English, Chinese, Russian or Greek).

7.2.1 Voluntary Motion The animated cartoons that were used to elicit utterances about voluntary motion events included three different subsets. Items of the first two subsets (12 target items) were always shown before items of the third subset (12 control items). The resulting series of items (total 24) was presented in six random orders to which participants were arbitrarily assigned. In all the cartoons characters entered the scene, carried out a displacement in a particular Manner (e.g., walking, running, jumping), then left the scene. Manner and Path were involved simultaneously in all three sets even though the relative salience of these components varied across items as described below. For a detailed description of all items, cf. Annexes A.1.1.

a) First subset: up and down-events The first subset comprised six items displaying upward and downward motion. All the items contained a background scenery with a vertical ground referent (e.g., a tree, a table, a pylon), along which up-down displacements took place. For instance, a bear walked onto the scene, climbed up to a beehive to get some honey, climbed down, ate it, and walked away. In half of the items, characters exhibited the same Manner of motion for upward motion as for downward motion (e.g., a caterpillar crawling up and down a stalk). In the other half, the Manner of motion varied for these two displacements (e.g., a mouse climbing up a table-leg and sliding down).

b) Second subset: across-events The second subset of target-items consisted of six items in which different human characters crossed a boundary (e.g., a street, a lake, railroad tracks). For instance, a boy walked onto the scene, swam across a river, and walked away. In two of the items, characters used an instrument to cross the boundary (skates, a bicycle).

Material 

 139

c) Third subset: control-items For each target item (subset 1 and 2), a corresponding, Manner-salient control item was designed. In control items characters appeared on one side of the scene against a blank screen, moved to the other side in a particular Manner, and left. For instance, a baby entered on the right side of the screen, crawled across the screen, and left the screen on the left. The Manner corresponded to the types of actions that took place in the target items during the characters’ departure (e.g., walking). This particular portion of the target items was shown continuously after removal of the background. These displacements were therefore carried out in the absence of any scenery that could provide relevant Ground entities for the expression of Path. Although control items involved boundaries (entry/exit) and direction (forward), Manner was maximally highlighted in comparison to Path. The aim of these items was to ensure that participants could produce Manner-verbs even if they had not spontaneously done so with target items. This control was especially important for young French children, since they were expected to focus on Path and to omit Manner in target motion events where Manner and Path were both relevant but difficult to express simultaneously (Hickmann 2006; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009; Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009).

7.2.2 Caused Motion We presented subjects with 32 animated cartoons showing complex caused motion events. The participants were randomly and blindly assigned to one of four different item orders. In all items an agent, called Popi, was in motion and carried out an action causing the displacement of an object (e.g., a ball of hay, a suitcase, a basket of apples). For instance, one cartoon showed a mountain landscape and a house with a roof that reached to the ground. The agent appeared at the bottom of the house on the right with a swimming ring, pushed the ring up the roof, thereby making it roll up, and stopped with the ring once he was on top of the roof. Eight distractor-items were also prepared and presented after each block of four target-items.151 Distractors also showed caused motion events although the cause of motion was inanimate. For instance, one cartoon showed a yellow ball on the left and three skittles on the right. The ball rolled and hit the skittles, making them fall down. For a detailed description of all items cf. Annexes A.1.2.

151 Descriptions of distractor items are not analyzed in the present study.

140 

 Methodology

The following semantic components were involved in the 32 target items: Cause of motion, agent’s Manner of motion, Manner of action, object’s Manner of motion, and Path. Two of these components were kept constant across all items: – Cause: There was always a causal relation between agent and object. – Agent’s Manner of motion: The agent was walking in all items. The following variables were systematically manipulated: – Manner of action: In order to cause the displacement of the object, the agent either pushed it or pulled it (2 modalities). – Object’s Manner of motion: During this displacement, the object either rolled or slid (2 modalities). – Path: The Path was the same for the agent and the object: up, down, into or across (4 modalities). Manner of action

Object’s Manner of motion

Path

Object

Scene A

Scene B

to push

to slide

up

package

roof

dune

to push

to slide

down

suitcase

hill

snow hill

to push

to slide

into

table

cave

house

to push

to slide

to roll

basket

street

road

to push

to roll

up

ring

roof

dune

to push

to roll

down

ball

hill

snow hill

to push

to roll

into

tire

cave

house

to push

to roll

across

wheel

street

road

to pull

to slide

up

bag

roof

dune

to pull

to slide

down

trunk

hill

snow hill

to pull

to slide

into

chair

cave

house

to pull

to slide

across

wooden horse

street

road

to pull

to roll

up

toy car

roof

dune

to pull

to roll

down

wheelbarrow

hill

snow hill

to pull

to roll

into

cart

cave

house

to pull

to roll

across

pram

street

road

Table 2: Overview of the different caused motion events

Procedure 

 141

The crossing of all modalities of these three factors resulted in 16 combinations (2 × 2 × 4 dimensions). In addition, two examples of each combination were constructed with different scenes in the background. The resulting set of 32 items is described in Table 2.

7.3 Procedure The subjects were seen individually in their kindergarten, school or university setting. The voluntary motion task always preceded the caused motion task. Due to the short attention span of younger children, a break was introduced between the two tasks. The participants were presented the video clips on a computer screen and asked to narrate each cartoon as completely as possible. The exact instructions are shown in Appendix A.2, p. 342–343. The entire session was audio-taped. Primary school children and adults were told that a future addressee, who would not be shown the cartoons, would have to reproduce the stories on the basis of the recordings. Younger children were introduced to a doll and were asked to blindfold her as part of a game in which they would be “telling her secrets”. They were reminded throughout to tell her everything that had happened because she could not see and would also like to tell the story. This procedure ensured that participants produced full descriptions. In order to make the participants comfortable with the experimental situation and to familiarize them with the tasks, each of them (voluntary and caused motion) began with a training-item which was similar to the target items. Since our aim was to focus on event descriptions, rather than on lexical knowledge concerning relevant entities, we began each animated cartoon by giving participants key words concerning Figures and Grounds. In this way, the participants (especially younger children) could fully concentrate on watching motion events instead of searching for nominal expressions. If the subjects did not provide any description of the video clip, the experimenter only used very general questions to avoid influencing the content of the participants’ spontaneous descriptions. In most cases this question was sufficient to elicit descriptions that included at least the target event. If participants did not give verbalizations of the target events after some general questions, the experimenter moved on to more specific questions. As discussed in Chapter 7.5, answers to such specific questions were excluded from the analyses.

142 

 Methodology

7.4 Transcription The entire session was transcribed in CHILDES following the transcription principles provided in the current CHAT manuals.152 When responses to specific items consisted of several utterances, these utterances were subdivided into clauses with the symbol [c] (for clause) each containing one verb (cf. example 54). (54)

*SUJ: C’est un monsieur [c] qui est en train de traverser [c] pour s’en aller [c] en courant [c]. *SUJ: ‘That’s a man [c] who is crossing [c] in order to leave [c] by running.’

The following symbols will be used in examples presented below: # pause between words ## long pause between words [/] retracing without correction [//] retracing with correction

7.5 Coding System An elaborate coding system served to identify elements in the responses that were relevant to the analyses presented below. 153

7.5.1 General coding principles The coding focused on the subjects’ utterances that described target-events (cf. above), but also included other information provided by the speaker. The script of each item was subdivided into three (respectively four) components, each corresponding to one coding line: a) Beginning (BEG) of the script: This component corresponded to the scene setting and included descriptions of the Ground in the scene, the introduc-

152 http://childes.psy.cmu.edu/ 153 This chapter is basically a short summary of a collective coding manual (Hickmann et al., forthcoming) which provides detailed information about how specific linguistic devices have been coded in French and German. Acknowledgements go to all members of our team who contributed to this manuel.

Coding System 

 143

tion of the Figure, its static localization or the description of its starting point. b) Target event (CIB): This component corresponded to those motion events that were tested (up, down, across, into etc.). In animated cartoons depicting across-events and control-items in voluntary motion, as well as in all items showing caused motion, there was only one target event. In animated cartoons showing up and down-events, there were two target events within each item (upward and downward-motion). c) End or result (RSF) of the script: This component corresponded to the final state of the motion event and/or the Figure’s departure from the scene. If one component was not expressed by the participant, it was coded as no response (NR). Example (55) shows all three components: (55)

Popi part de la gauche (BEG), traverse la rue (CIB) et arrive sur l’autre trottoir (RSF). ‘Popi leaves from the left (BEG), crosses the street (CIB) and arrives on the other sidewalk.’

All our data was coded with two different lines: (1) Basic coding lines which coded detailed syntactic and semantic information of speakers’ responses; and (2) synthetic coding lines which aimed at coding the response in a more global way.

7.5.2 Basic coding lines Each basic coding line consisted of 16 fields each corresponding to one clause (marked by the symbol [c], cf. above). Table 3 gives an overview of the different fields. In what follows we will focus on those fields which are relevant for our analyses below.

Component Since participants often described target events with several utterances, a number of criteria served to choose the utterance that was considered to be their main response for the purpose of statistical analyses (code beginning by CI). All other utterances concerning the target event were also coded (code beginning by MI) and will also be taken into account in more qualitative analyses of our data (see

144 

 Methodology

1

Formal introduction of the coding line ($)

2

Indication of the corresponding component (BEG, CIB etc)

3

Response type (spontaneous response etc.)

4

Situation type (static, dynamic etc.)

5

Verb type and its semantic content followed by the infinitive

6

Verbal inflection

7

Diathesis (active versus passive)

8–12

Satellites/PPs and their semantic content followed by their form

13

Periphery (main versus subordinated clauses)

14

Figure (entity that was localized and/or in motion)

15

Ground (entities relative to which the Figure was located or moved)

16

Comments (e.g., errors, self-corrections, idiosyncratic uses)

Table 3: Fields of basic coding lines

Chapter 9.5 and 10.5). Six hierarchical criteria served for choosing the utterances to be coded as CI: 1. Richness: If one utterance contained richer semantic information than others, it was systematically chosen as the subject’s main response (coded as CIR), while less rich utterances were nonetheless identified (coded as MIR). Examples are shown in (56) and (57). (56) Il grimpe en haut. Path+Manner → CIR he climbs+up at the top ‘He climbs up on the top.’ (57)

Il monte en haut. Path → MIR he ascends at the top ‘He ascends to the top.’ 2. Priority: When two or more utterances were equally rich, two different procedures were used for target versus control items. In the case of target items, if only one utterance contained Path-information, it was chosen as the main response (coded CIP, other utterances codes MIP), as illustrated in (58) and (59). (58) Il traverse la rue (Path → CIP) et il court (Manner → MIP). he crosses the street and he runs ‘He crosses the street and he runs.’

Coding System 

 145

(59)

Er tut den Sack in die Höhle (Cause+Path → CIP) he puts the bag into the cave (acc) und zieht ihn (Cause+Manner → MIP). and pulls it ‘He puts the bag into the cave and pulls it.’ In contrast, since control items were meant to elicit Manner-information, utterances containing such information were selected as main responses. 3. Agentivity: If two or more utterances were equally rich and if all or none of them contained Path-information, for target items, an additional criterion was used in cases where only one utterance was about the agent (coded as CIA, other utterances as MIA). Example (60) illustrates such a case. (60) Der Reifen rollt runter (Path+Manner → MIA) und Popi tut the tyre rolls down and Popi puts ihn da runter (Path+Cause → CIA). it there down ‘The tyre rolls down and Popi puts it down there.’ 4. Subjective coding: In the few residual cases where none of the above criteria sufficed, the coding allowed some subjective choice that took into account all aspects of the response. For example, the coder often chose those utterances as target (CIS versus MIS) that provided information about the setting. 5. Specific questions: Responses to specific questions (MIQ) were coded but excluded from all analyses. 6. Duplicates: If the participant repeated an utterance that he had already produced, the latter one was coded (as MID) but excluded from the analysis. 7. Other cases: Utterances which did not express any relevant information (e.g., Er isst den Honig. ‘He eats the honey.’) were coded as irrelevant (IRR). Those which corresponded to a negotiation between the experimenter and the participants concerning a specific lexical item – apart from verbs and satellites – were coded as NGL.

Response type This field indicated if the coded utterance was produced spontaneously or after a general or specific question from the experimenter. Responses to presentative questions such as (61) were also coded as spontaneous. Examples (62) and (63) below illustrate different types of adult interventions. (61)

EXP: Und das Eichhörnchen? – SUJ: Das ist gelaufen. EXP: ‘And the squirrel?’ – SUJ: ‘He ran’ → Presentative question

146 

 Methodology

(62)

EXP: Qu’est-ce qui s’est passé? – SUJ: Il a poussé la brouette. EXP: ‘What happened?’ – SUJ: ‘He pushed the wheelbarrow.’ → General question

(63)

EXP: Wie hat er den Stuhl in die Höhle getan? – SUJ: Gezogen. EXP: ‘And how did he put the chair into the cave?’ – SUJ: ‘By pushing it.’ → Specific question

Verb As regards the verb, we coded its type, its semantic content, the infinitival form, and if necessary details about the context in which it appeared, for instance direct objects which specified the semantic content in the larger predicate (e.g., continuer sa route ‘to continue his track’, faire du vélo ‘to go by bike’). We distinguished seven categories of verb types:154 1. Static verbs (VSS) such as être (‘to be’) or liegen (‘to lie’). 2. Dynamic motion verbs (VMM) which expressed a voluntary motion (e.g., courir ‘to run’, aller ‘to go’, klettern ‘to climb’). In the case of simple anaphors, the motion verb was inferred (cf. example 64). (64) Der klettert hoch und [klettert] wieder runter. he climbs up and [climbs] again down ‘He climbs up and [climbs] down again.’ 3. Verbs or verbal constructions (VMP) expressing motion caused by an external force (with the exception of explicit causative constructions, see below). This category included motion verbs used in a transitive way (e.g., rouler la balle ‘to roll the ball’) or simple causative verbs (e.g., ziehen ‘to pull’, pousser ‘to push’). 4. Other types of dynamic verbs (VXX) such as manger (‘to eat’), disparaître (‘to disappear’) or treffen (‘to meet’). 5. Explicit causative constructions, which mainly occurred in French, were coded for the construction itself as well as for its subordinated verb (including types 2 to 4 above), resulting in a variety of codes (all beginning with VC). Among these cases, most involved motion events relevant to the analyses, as illustrated in (65) below.

154 If speakers used constructions involving modal or psychological verbs (e.g., Der will rüber gehen. ‘He wants to go across.’), a code indicated the type of subordinated verb and its semantic content together with the main verb.

Coding System 

 147

(65)

Il fait rouler la balle. → VCM he makes roll the ball ‘He makes the ball roll.’ 6. If the verb was absent but could be inferred from the context, a code (final letter Z) indicated its absence as well as the inferred verb type (1 to 5), as illustrated in example (66) for a voluntary motion event: (66) Le pneu rentre dans la grotte et Popi [rentre] aussi. → VMZ the tyre enters in the cave and Popi [enters] too ‘The tyre enters into the cave and Popi [enters] too.’ 7. In cases where the verb could not be inferred, the code VZZ was used. As regards the semantic content of the verb, it was coded with respect to the following main types of information: a) Cause (C) in caused motion events expressed by a verb or by a causative construction: pousser (‘to push’), schieben (‘to push’), faire rouler (‘to make roll’). b) Manner of the particular action causing the displacement of an entity in caused motion events (Mac): tirer (‘to pull’), kicken (‘to kick’). c) Manner of motion (M): Three different types of Manner-information were relevant to our study: (a) Mmv: Manner of motion in voluntary motion events (e.g., marcher ‘to walk’, skifahren ‘to go skiing’); (b) Mma: Agent’s Manner of motion in caused motion events (walking); and (c) Mmp: Object’s Manner of motion in caused motion events (e.g., rollen ‘to roll’, traîner ‘to drag’). d) Path of motion (P):155 monter (‘to ascend’), traverser (‘to cross’), bringen (‘to bring’), kommen (‘to come’). e) Other semantic content that could not be determined. Note that semantically-neutral verbs such as aller (‘to go’) in French and gehen (‘to go’) in German were both coded as dynamic motion verbs (VMM) without any semantic content. Faire (‘to do/to make’), tun (‘to do/to put’), and machen (‘to make/to put’) were coded as pure causative verbs (VMP) only encoding Cause (C).

155 The coding of Path included further information that will not be used in the analyses below: vertical, boundary-crossing, directional, deictic, Source, Goal, and varied aspects of Path. For more details and examples of each type, cf. Hickmann et al. (forthcoming).

148 

 Methodology

Satellites and other devices in the verbal network Following the current interpretation of Talmy’s typology (Croft et al. 2010; Talmy 2009: 390), we contrast verb roots with other linguistic devices. Therefore, five fields were reserved for the coding of various devices in the verbal network, such as particles, prepositional phrases, and adverbial expressions that provided semantic information relevant to motion events. We distinguished between seven different types of such linguistic devices. Type 2 only occurred in German. 1. Prepositional phrases (EP, EA, ED): Prepositional phrases were identified with a general code (EP) except when they provided case marking (in German). German EP corresponded to prepositional phrases without case-marking, that is combinations of prepositions with adverbs (nach links ‘to the left’) or pronouns (e.g., vor sich ‘in front of him’). Special codes were used for German accusative-PPs (EA), e.g., ins Haus (‘into the house’) and for German dative-PPs (ED), e.g., auf dem Baum (‘on the tree’). In French, all prepositional phrases were coded as EP, e.g., dans la maison (‘in the house’), sur le toit (‘on the roof’). 2. German spatial particles (EL) such as runter(klettern) (‘down(climb))’ or hoch(gehen) (‘up(go)’). Double particles (e.g., herauf ‘hither up’) were not separated and thus coded as one single particle. 3. Other spatial expressions such as adverbs (e.g., dedans ‘inside’, ici ‘here’, hier ‘here’, oben ‘up’) or French pronouns (e.g., en ‘from there’, y ‘there’, où ‘where’). 4. Noun phrases were coded if they were relevant to the expression of motion events, for example if they encoded either Manner (e.g., ein Jogger ‘a jogger’, une patineuse ‘a skater’) or Manner+Path (e.g., un grimpeur ‘a climber’). 5. Other linguistic devices expressing relevant information that is not spatial as for instance adverbs or prepositional phrases encoding Manner (e.g., lentement ‘slowly’, mit ihrem Fahrrad ‘with her bike’). As illustrated below, the semantic content of these devices was coded in the same way as for verbs, with a few additional codes. These are: a) Cause (C) of a caused motion event or cause expressed in a causative construction. This type of information is rare in satellites and never occurred in our data. b) Path of motion (P): rauf (‘up’), hinüber (‘across’), auf den Baum (‘on the tree’) (the accusative indicates the Goal), de la colline (‘from the hill’), vers le haut (‘toward the top’), jusqu’à l’autre bout (‘to the other side’). c) Manner of motion (M): (a) Mmv: e.g., marcher à quatre pattes (‘to walk on all fours’), langsam (‘slowly’); (b) Mma: e.g., mit beiden Beinen (‘with both

Coding System 

 149

legs’); (c) Mmp: e.g., rollend (‘rolling’); and (d) Mmi: Manner of the agent’s motion inferred from linguistic devices describing the beginning of the scenario (cf. example 67). (67) Il y a un coureur, il traverse la route. there’s a runner he crosses the road There’s a runner, he is crossing the road.’ d) Manner of the action causing the displacement of an entity in caused motion events (Mac): pousser lentement (‘to push slowly’). e) General location of the Figure or the motion event as illustrated in example (68). (68) Popi zieht das Spielzeugauto auf dem Hügel. Popi pulls the toy-car on the hill (dat) ‘Popi is pulling the toy car over the hill.’ Idiosyncratic forms in children’s productions were taken into consideration and marked by specific codes indicating the nature of the idiosyncrasy (cf. example 69: idiosyncratic prepositional phrase lacking an obligatory contraction). (69) Popi tire le sac jusque en haut de la colline. Popi pulls the bag to at the top of the hill ‘Popi pulls the bag to the top of the hill.’

Periphery This field specifies the sentence type (main versus subordinate clauses) in which verbs and satellites occurred. Our coding distinguishes between main clauses with one or more subordinate clauses (example 70), clauses which were subordinated to main clauses (example 70), and those without subordinate clauses (example 71). Coordinated sentences were considered as independent main clauses (example 72). (70)

Il traverse ( = main clause) he crosses ( = main clause) ‘He swims across.’

en nageant ( = subordinate clause). by swimming ( = subordinate clause)

(71)

Popi schiebt einen Koffer den Hügel Popi pushes a suitcase the hill ‘Popi pushes a suitcase down the hill.’

hinunter. thither-down

150 

(72)

 Methodology

Il traverse et il court. he crosses and he runs ‘He is crossing and he is running.’

7.5.3 Synthetic coding lines In addition to basic coding lines, synthetic coding lines provided a global summary of the “architecture” of each response, including its degree of complexity as well as the distribution of semantic information within main responses chosen for the statistical analysis and all other utterances which also described the target event. Synthetic coding lines therefore make it possible to take into account all aspects of the subjects’ responses. Since the major aim of these coding lines was to account for the structure of speakers’ descriptions of motion events, we will focus on the field of the responses’ global architecture. First, synthetic coding lines coded the total number of clauses that described target events, i.e. including the clauses that were selected as corresponding to the target response and all other relevant clauses in basic coding lines (coded as CI and MI respectively).156 Furthermore, the coding took into account the syntactic structure and complexity of speakers’ responses.157 In particular, responses were coded with respect to two dimensions, each comprising two modalities: – Compactness (tight versus loose): The response was coded as tight if information was packaged into a single main clause which could comprise one or more subordinate clauses. It was coded as loose if information was spread across different main clauses. – Syntactic complexity (simple versus complex): The response was coded as simple if it did not contain any subordinate clauses. Main clauses with subordinate elements were coded as complex. Crossing these two dimentions resulted in four different types of global response architecture: 1. Tight-simple responses (TS): All semantic information was expressed in a single utterance without any subordinate element (see example 73).

156 Note that responses to specific questions are not taken into account in this analysis. 157 Descriptions of the beginning (BEG) and the end (RSF) were not coded with respect to global architecture.

Coding System 

(73)

 151

Un bébé, il marche à quatre pattes. a baby he walks on four paws ‘A baby walks on all fours.’ 2. Tight-complex responses (TC): All semantic information was expressed in a single utterance which contained one or more subordinate elements such as a relative clause or a gerund (see example 74). (74) Ein Mädchen, das auf Schlittschuhen läuft, überquert den See. a girl who on ice-skates walks crosses the lake (acc) ‘A girl who is ice-skating crosses the lake.’ 3. Loose-simple responses (LS): Information was spread over several clauses which were either juxtaposed or coordinated (see example 75). (75) Il pousse la roue et il traverse. he pushes the wheel and he crosses ‘He is pushing the wheel and he crosses.’ 4. Loose-complex responses (LC): These responses differed from Loose-simple responses (Type 3) in that they contained at least one subordinate element (see example 76). This response type was very rare and extremely marked in German. (76) Popi, der über die Straße läuft, schiebt ein Paket und Popi who across the street (acc) walks pushes a package and das Paket gleitet über den Hügel. the package slides over the hill (acc) ‘Popi who is walking across the street is pushing a package and the package slides over the hill.’

8 Specific hypotheses The analyses presented in the following chapters tested several specific hypotheses concerning three aspects of speakers’ descriptions of motion events: their semantic density, i.e. the number of information components expressed; their focus, i.e. the types of information expressed; and the locus of this information, i.e. where/how it was expressed.

8.1 Density and Information Focus Since the number and type of semantic components encoded in subjects’ responses was closely related, some hypotheses concern both measures. First, for both voluntary and caused motion, responses were expected to be denser in German than in French, given the typological properties that make it easier to encode several semantic components simultaneously in satellite-framed languages (at least for target items, see below). Second, given general developmental changes, speakers’ semantic density was expected to increase with age in both languages. Third, an interaction was predicted between age and language, in that the semantic density of responses should increase more strikingly in French where lexicalization patterns are more complex than in German. More specific hypotheses made further predictions concerning each event type. With respect to voluntary motion, responses were expected to be denser with target items than with control items. As demonstrated, target items involved salient Manner and Path information, whereas control items maximized the salience of Manner and were therefore expected to elicit Manner-responses in all age groups and in both languages. In addition to predicting higher density in German than in French with targets, we therefore also predicted two interactions: 1) An interaction between language and event type, in that Manner+Pathresponses (hereafter MP-responses) should differ across languages with targets (German>French), but not with controls (German = French); 2) An interaction between age and event type, in that MP-responses should increase with age for targets (adults>children), but not for controls. A final more exploratory hypothesis followed from the existence of some common French verbs lexicalizing Manner+Path. Since such a verb was only available for upward motion in the present study (grimper ‘to climb up’), it was expected that MP-responses should be more frequent with these targets than with other targets, particularly downevents, in French, but not in German (French up > down, German up = down). As regards caused motion, it was first predicted that German speakers should produce more Cause+Manner+Path-responses than French speakers. Because

Information Locus 

 153

of the lexicalization patterns in their language, French speakers were expected not to produce all three components in their responses. In addition to the resulting higher density of German responses as compared to French, it was predicted that French speakers should either express Cause+Manner or Cause+Path.

8.2 Information Locus As shown, the used coding distinguished two types of linguistic devices for the purposes of studying where/how speakers expressed information relevant to motion: the verb and other linguistic devices, which included particles, prepositional phrases, adverbial expressions and peripheral constructions. If speakers follow the particular lexicalization patterns that are typical of their language, German speakers should predominantly encode Manner or Cause+Manner in the verb and Path in other linguistic devices, especially in particles which are diverse and highly frequent in German. With voluntary motion, French speakers were expected to encode mainly Path in the verb and Manner in other linguistic devices such as adverbials or peripheral constructions (e.g., gerunds). Since French lexicalization patterns for caused motion are quite diverse, speakers were expected to show a greater variability of constructions as compared to German. With respect to age effects, although a strong version of the linguistic determinism position might assume that children from three years on produce adult-like lexicalization patterns (Bowerman and Choi 2003), we predicted that general developmental factors should lead children to encode increasingly more information in all parts of their utterances, including the verb and other linguistic devices. However, due to the complexity of French constructions available to express semantic components (e.g., subordinate clauses), we also predicted an interaction between language and age, in that French children should take more time to encode information in other linguistic devices than German children. Finally, two exploratory hypotheses concerning particular types of voluntary motion followed from specific verb conflation patterns within each of the languages studied. First, with respect to German, since a common Path-verb is available for across-events (überqueren ‘to cross’), speakers should produce more Path-verbs in combination with Manner devices outside the verb when describing this event type as compared to other targets (where the expected pattern is Manner-verb + Path-particle). Second, with respect to French, since a common Manner+Path-verb only exists for upward motion (grimper ‘to climb up’) responses to these events should differ from others. In particular, MP-verbs should be more frequent with up-targets than with down- or across-targets par-

154 

 Specific hypotheses

ticularly because both Manner and Path should be lexicalized in the verb. Therefore, less Manner-information should also be expressed in other linguistic devices outside of the verb.

8.3 Global Architecture Analyses concerning Global Architecture examine syntactic complexity, distinguishing four different types of responses (see Chapter 7.5.3): Tight-simple, Tightcomplex, Loose-simple, and Loose-complex. The following predictions were made. First, typological factors should invite speakers to produce mainly Tightsimple responses in German and Tight-complex responses in French. Second, general developmental factors should result in more frequent simple responses among children and in more frequent complex responses among adults. Particularly, young children as compared to adults were expected to spread information over the discourse and thus produce more frequent Loose-simple constructions involving coordination. However, given the greater complexity of French constructions, an interaction between language and age was also predicted in this respect, meaning that French children should take more time to acquire adultlike complex responses than German children. Finally, since the control items concerning voluntary motion were designed to elicit Manner-responses, an interaction between language and event type was predicted, meaning that global architecture should differ across languages with targets, but not with controls. More specifically, Tight-simple constructions were expected with control items in all groups, whereas responses for target items were expected to vary as a function of language (Tight-simple in German, Tight-complex in French) and of age (increasingly complex responses in both languages, but especially in French).

8.4 Qualitative analyses Qualitative analyses aimed at examining in more detail particular devices in speakers’ responses (particularly verb and satellite types). First, in both languages, adults as compared to children should produce a greater variety of motion verb types as well as more devices outside of the verb, and both dimensions should increase to reach their maximal level at adult age. Second, although German children were expected to use mainly Mannerverbs to describe voluntary motion (following the most typical conflation pattern in this language), semantically-neutral verbs (e.g., gehen ‘to go’, tun ‘to do’)

Qualitative analyses 

 155

should constitute an important verb type in their utterances until six years of age. Furthermore, in descriptions of caused motion, Cause+Manner-verbs should be the main pattern at all age levels. German provides speakers with a great number of diverse Path-particles which are very frequent and easy to use. Therefore, even young children were expected to produce many such satellites, but prepositional phrasess were expected to increase and to become an additional important linguistic device for encoding Path (involving either Source, Goal or both). Third, although French children were expected to use Path-verbs from the very beginning on, they should have difficulties encoding information outside of the main verb by means of subordinate clauses. Thus, if they express any semantic information in linguistic devices outside the main verb, French children up to eight years of age were expected to use mainly adverbs and prepositional phrases, in contrast to adults who were expected to more frequently use gerunds.

9 Results: Voluntary Motion The results concerning voluntary motion will be followed by those concerning caused motion. In each section the results are presented in two steps, depending on the type of coding used (see Chapter 7.5). On the basis of basic coding lines, questions (a) to (c) will be addressed. Then, results obtained from synthetic coding lines will anwer question (d). a) Density: How many semantic components were expressed? b) Information Focus: Which particular semantic components were expressed? c) Information Locus: How were these semantic components encoded, i.e., by which linguistic means? d) Global Architecture: Which syntactic pattern did speakers choose in order to describe motion events? Finally, each section will present further qualitative analyses that examine particular aspects of subjects’ responses, such as uses of specific motion verbs or satellite types.

9.1 Density Density refers to the number of semantic components which speakers encoded in their descriptions of motion events. In the case of voluntary motion two such components could be expressed, namely Manner and Path. As a result, semantic density could range from zero components (when only Motion was expressed but neither Manner nor Path, SD0 below) to two components (when both Manner+Path were expressed, SD2 below) (cf. examples 77 to 80). In rare cases subjects did not provide any codable response (indicated as “no response” or NR below) for example in cases of static predicates, as illustrated in (81). Number of components Motion per se + general location (neither Manner nor Path) (77) (…) il [le bébé] est allé sur la route. (…) he [the baby] is gone on the road ‘(…) she [the baby] went on the road.’ 4 yrs

0 0

 157

Density 

Number of components Path (78) Das Mäuschen geht wieder runter. the mouse-LITTLE goes again down ‘The little mouse goes down again.’ Manner (79) Il nage. he swims ‘He swims.’

1 8 yrs

1

1 4 yrs

Manner+Path (80) Ein Mann joggt über die Straße. a man jogs across the street (acc) ‘A man jogs across the street.’

1

2 8 yrs

No response (81) Ben en fait il était là le monsieur. well in fact he was there the gentleman ‘Well, in fact, the gentleman was there.’

2

NR 6 yrs

NR

Table 4 shows the semantic density of subjects’ target responses across languages and age groups. It can be observed that German speakers produced more than twice as many SD2 utterances as compared to French speakers, who mainly produced SD1 utterances (60,36% versus 53,28%). In both languages, SD1 utterances decreased with age and SD2 utterances increased. However, SD1 utterances were much more frequent at all ages in French than in German, even at adult age

 

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

SD2  5,73 11,98 21,71 27,20 38,43 21,01 41,44 45,95 49,60 50,00 79,40 53,28 SD1 86,00 79,06 75,00 70,55 60,36 74,19 54,46 51,39 48,61 48,91 18,70 44,41 SD0  5,44  3,36  0,52  0,87  0,70  2,18  3,13  1,80  1,27  1,10  0,75  1,61 NR

 2,84  5,61  2,78  1,39  0,52  2,63  0,99  0,87  0,52  0

 1,16  0,71

Table 4: Density overall (in %)¹⁵⁸

158 If the total of a column is not exactly 100%, this is due to the fact that we rounded the numbers up and down.

158 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

(74,19% versus 44,41%). SD2 utterances are even more frequent in the responses of German 4-year-olds than in those of French adults (41,44% versus 38,43%). SD0 utterances and the category NR are rather insignificant and will be disregarded in the discussion below.

9.1.1 Density as a function of target items As demonstrated, descriptions of voluntary motion events were elicited with four different event-types: three Path-types in target items (up, down, across) and a set of control items which highlighted Manner. Table 5 shows the semantic density of responses as a function of the three different types of target items.

French up

down

German

across

target all

up

down

across

target all

SD2

32,08

5,42

32,92

23,47

83,06

68,33

78,06

76,48

SD1

65,97

85,83

63,75

71,85

15,69

29,86

20,28

21,94

SD0

0,56

1,25

2,50

1,44

0,42

0,83

0,69

0,65

NR

1,39

7,50

0,83

3,24

0,83

0,97

0,97

0,93

Table 5: Density in target items (in %)

French speakers produced more SD1 utterances with down-events than with upor across-events (85,83% versus 65,97%, respectively 63,75%). We return to this fact below when examining in more detail what semantic components speakers expressed (section 9.2). In German, SD2 utterances were frequent for all three event-types; nevertheless, as in French, down-events displayed the lowest score (68,33%). SD0 utterances were rare in both languages. Note that French speakers often omitted descriptions of down-events (7,50%). We now turn to the development of density across ages. Table 6 shows semantic density in target items across ages. In French, across- and up-events elicited roughly the same density-pattern across ages, exhibiting an increase of SD2 utterances and a decrease of SD1 utterances. Down-events clearly display a different pattern, in that they elicit many more SD1 utterances than the other two event types and rarely SD2 utterances which are almost always produced by tenyear-olds and adults. As regards density, there is practically no developmental change with down-events. In contrast, German speakers display a clearly different response pattern, producing frequent SD2 utterances in all age groups and for all event types despite

Density 

 159

the fact that such responses increase with age. Nevertheless, semantic density varies to some extent as a function of event type. Up-events elicited the most SD2 utterances in four-year-olds (72,22%), down-events the fewest at all ages in the children’s groups (4 yrs: 45,14%, 6 yrs: 54,86%, 8 yrs: 72,22%, 10 yrs: 80,56%).

across  

F04

F06

up F08

F10

FAD

F04

down F06

F08

F10

FAD

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

SD2 9,03 25,00 34,72 34,72 61,11 15,97 15,97 34,03 29,17 65,28 2,08 2,78 4,17 7,64 10,42 SD1 80,56 71,53 63,19 64,58 38,89 81,94 79,86 63,89 69,44 34,72 88,89 81,25 85,42 84,03 89,58  

G04 G06 G08 G10 GAD G04 G06 G08 G10 GAD G04 G06 G08 G10 GAD

SD2 52,08 77,08 84,72 88,89 87,50 72,22 77,08 81,25 88,89 95,83 45,14 54,86 72,22 80,56 88,89 SD1 42,36 22,92 13,89 11,11 11,11 25,00 22,22 18,75 9,72 2,78 54,17 42,36 25,69 19,44 7,64

Table 6: Density in target items across ages (in %)

9.1.2 Density in control items As indicated, control items were designed to highlight Manner. Table 7 shows semantic density in control items as compared to target items. In French, density does not differ significantly between control and target items (18,54% versus 30,07%). In German, however, there is an important difference between the two item types (control items 23,47% versus target items 76,48%), meaning that control items elicited many more SD1 utterances than target items as discussed in more detail below (see Chapter 9.2). These results reflect speakers’ focus on different semantic components: With target items they focus on Path or Manner in French and on both in German; with control items, they focus primarily on Manner in both languages.

control

target

French

German

French

German

SD2

18,54

30,07

23,47

76,48

SD1

76,53

66,88

71,85

21,94

SD0

2,92

2,57

1,44

0,65

NR

2,01

0,49

3,24

0,93

Table 7: Density in target versus control-items (in %)

160 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

Table 8 shows semantic density in control items across age groups. In French, there is a continuous increase of SD2 utterances with age and a steady decrease of SD1 utterances. In addition, French four-year-olds do not express any semantic component in 7,64% of the cases. In German, we can observe an increase of SD1 utterances from four to ten years and a steady decrease of SD2 utterances over the same age span. It is only after ten years that speakers’ verbal behaviour is reversed and that German adults mainly produce SD2 utterances (68,06%).

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

SD2

2,43

9,38

19,10

30,56

31,25

26,39

22,22

19,79

13,89

68,06

SD1

88,19

80,56

79,17

68,40

66,32

68,40

73,61

77,78

84,38

30,21

SD0

7,64

4,17

0,35

1,04

1,39

4,86

3,13

2,08

1,74

1,04

NR

1,74

5,90

1,39

0

1,04

0,35

1,04

0,35

0

0,69

Table 8: Density in control items across ages (in %)

9.2 Information Focus By Information Focus we mean the particular semantic components encoded in speakers’ descriptions of motion events. Speakers’ responses could either express Manner or Path (M-only- or P-only-responses respectively, corresponding to SD1 utterances), both components simultaneously (MP-responses, corresponding to SD2 utterances), or none at all (SD0-responses). The following examples (82 to 86) illustrate each of these categories. Manner-only-responses (M-responses) (82) Là, c’est une fille qui patine. here that is a girl who ice-skates ‘Here, there’s a girl who’s ice-skating.’ Path-only-responses (P-responses) (83) Der ist (…) über die Straße. he is (…) across the street (acc) ‘He (…) went across the street.’

8 yrs

10 yrs

Information Focus 

Manner+Path-responses (MP-responses) (84) Il a grimpé. he has climbed+up ‘He climbed up.’ (85)

Das Eichhörnchen läuft the squirrel runs ‘The squirrel runs back.’

 161

4 yrs

zurück. back

0-component-responses (86) Il va sur la rivière gelée. he goes on the river frozen ‘He goes on the frozen river.’

4 yrs

6 yrs

ANOVAs were performed on responses expressing both Manner and Path (MPresponses were attributed the score of 1).159 A mixed ANOVA160 with age and language (as between-subject factors), and event type (as within-subject factor) examined the effects and interactions of the following factors on raw MP-scores: age (five groups of 24 subjects each), language (French, German), and event type (up-events, down-events, across-events, control items). The ANOVA showed significant main effects of language (F(1,230) = 580,89, p  < 0.00001), of age (F(4,230) = 46,73, p < 0.00001), and of event type (F(3,690) = 107,93, p < 0.00001). Language: As will be shown below in detail, MP-responses were more frequent in German (53,28%) than in French (21,01%). This language effect was significant within each age group (4 yrs: F(1,46) = 104,72, p < 0.00001, 6 yrs: F(1,46) = 103,80, p < 0.00001, 8 yrs: F(1,46) = 121,45, p < 0.00001, 10 yrs: F(1,46) = 126,43, p < 0.00001, adults: F(1,46) = 129,74, p < 0.00001). Age: MP-responses increased in both languages with age (from 23,58% at four years to 58,91% at adult age). All age differences for MP-responses were significant, except the one between eight and ten years. This general age effect was also significant within each language (French F(4,115) = 28.59, p < 0.00001, German F(4,115) = 20.05, p < 0.00001). Event type: MP-responses varied significantly as a function of event types (up 57,57%>across 54,49%>down 36,88%>control 24,31%). The factor event type was

159 Therefore, the same statistical results obtained with MP-responses are valid for SD2responses in our analyses of semantic density. 160 A first ANOVA did not show any significant effect of sex (p < 0.05) and this factor was therefore disregarded in the following analyses.

162 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

significant within each language (French F(3,345) = 38.02, p < 0.00001; German F(3,345) = 121.08, p < 0.00001). Table 9 shows the effect of event type on MP-responses irrespective of age and of language. Speakers produced the most MP-responses with up-events (57,57%), somewhat less with across-events (55,49%), and the fewest with down-events (36,88%). As predicted, control items elicited mostly M-only-responses and the fewest MP-responses among the tested event types (24,31%).

across

up

down

control

Manner+Path

55,49

57,57

36,88

24,31

Path

22,78

40,28

57,15

4,31

Manner

19,24

0,56

0,69

67,40

0

1,60

0,49

1,04

2,74

Non response

0,90

1,11

4,24

1,25

Table 9: Information Focus: Response types irrespective of language and age (in %)

9.2.1 Information Focus in target items Table 10 shows in more detail the content that was expressed in descriptions of target items in French as compared to German responses (collapsing across all age groups and target items). German speakers produced three times more MPresponses than French speakers (23,47% versus 76,48%), while French speakers produced three times more P-responses than German speakers (61,48% versus 18,66%). Both of these patterns are in line with our predictions. As discussed in Chapter 5.4, German provides speakers with compact constructions to encode Manner+Path simultaneously, i.e. Manner is typically encoded in the verbstem and Path in satellites such as verbal particles. In sharp contrast, French

French

German

Manner+Path

23,47

76,48

Path

61,48

18,66

Manner

10,37

3,29

0

1,44

0,65

Non response

3,24

0,93

Table 10: Information Focus: Response types in target items (in %)

Information Focus 

 163

mainly encodes Path in the main verb and Manner in peripheral constructions. As a result of these properties, the prediction was that speakers should combine Manner and Path in German, but focus on Path only in French. Finally, although M-responses were rare in both languages, they were somewhat less frequent in German because German speakers typically combined Manner with Path within utterances. In the following, we examine each type of target event separately.

9.2.1.1 Up-events In items showing up- and down-events, animals moved in a specific manner upward along a vertical axis (e.g., a tree or a pylon) before moving back downward along this axis. Table 11 shows all responses in French and German descriptions of up-events. Although German speakers overall produced many more MPresponses than French speakers (83,06% versus 32,08%), French MP-responses were relatively frequent for upward motion particularly from eight years on. This result is mostly due to the fact that French speakers frequently used the verb grimper (‘to climb up’) which lexicalizes both types of information to describe upward motion (cf. example 87). As has been shown in previous studies on verbframed languages (Hickmann 2006, 2007; Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000), speakers prefer using verbs which conflate two semantic components rather than verbs which only express one component and require additional peripheral devices to express the other. (87)

Alors, un singe grimpe en haut du bananier. so a monkey climbs+up on top of+the banana+tree ‘So, a monkey climbs up on the top of the banana tree.’ adult

Nevertheless, P-responses represented the most frequent response type in French (55,28% as compared to 15,28% in German), while M-responses and SD0responses were extremely rare in both languages. We turn specifically to developmental progressions concerning the two most frequent responses for this event type, namely, MP- and P-responses. As shown in Table 11, although French adults mainly encoded Manner+Path simultaneously by means of the verb grimper (‘to climb up’), this pattern was not typical among French children who mainly focused on Path alone, as illustrated in example (88).

164 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD G all

Manner+Path 15,97 15,97 34,03 29,17 65,28 32,08 72,22 77,08 81,25 88,89 95,83 83,06 Path

81,25 79,86 62,50 68,06 34,72 65,28 24,31 21,53 18,06 9,72 2,78 15,28

Manner

0,69

0

1,39 1,39

0

0,69 0,69 0,69 0,69

0

0

0

2,08

0

0,69

0

0,56

0

1,39 0,69 0,42

Non response

2,08 2,08 2,08 0,69

0

1,39 2,78 0,69

0

0

0

0

0

0,42

0,69 0,83

Table 11: Information Focus: Response types with up-events (in %)

(88)

Là, elle [la chenille] a here she [the caterpillar] has ‘Here, it [the caterpillar] went up.’

monté. ascended 4 yrs

Thus, despite the fact that grimper (‘to climb up’) is a rather common verb, young children prefer using the verb monter (‘to ascend’) to describe upward motion. It is somewhere between ten years and adult age that children’s utterances become target-like. In contrast to French children, German children predominantly produced MP-responses from four years on (72,22% at four years, cf. Table 11). In fact, even the youngest German age group produced more MP-responses than French adults (65,28%). Thus, the simple and compact constructions available in German to express such event types are used from early on, as illustrated in example (89). (89)

Das [das Mäuschen] krabbelt da it [the little mouse] crawls there ‘It [the little mouse] crawls up there.’

hoch. up 4 yrs

German provides speakers with a rich set of motion verbs encoding Manner which can be combined with very frequent particles expressing upward motion such as hoch (‘up’) or rauf (‘up’). Nevertheless, MP-responses increased continuously with age (from 72,22% to 95,83% in adults). At the same time, P-responses involving mainly the verb gehen (‘to go’) combined with Path-particles (cf. example 90), steadily decreased and practically disappeared at adult age (from 24,31% to 2,78%). (90)

Das [das Eichhörnchen] ist it [the squirrel] is ‘It [the squirrel] has gone up.’

hochgegangen. up-gone 4 yrs

Information Focus 

 165

Note that some elliptic constructions occurred. In such constructions the speaker omits the past participle of a motion verb that has to be inferred by the hearer (example 91). This type of construction is quite frequent in everyday speech and can also occur with modal verbs.161 (91)

Die [die Raupe] kam hier und ist dann da hoch [gegangen]. she [the caterpillar] came here and is then there up [gone] ‘Here, it [caterpillar] came here and then, went up there.’ 6 yrs

9.2.1.2 Down-events Let us now turn to descriptions of downward motion that immediately followed upward motion in the stimuli. Table 12 presents all the responses that were elicited with down-events across age groups in each language. French speakers rarely produced MP-responses in these cases (32,08% versus 5,42% in German) and showed a clear preference for P-responses (84,58%). In contrast, German speakers produced frequent MP-responses across all age groups, although this response type was less frequent than in descriptions of up-events (68,33% versus 83,06%). M-responses and SD0-responses are quite rare in all age groups and in both languages. However, French children often omitted descriptions for downward motion altogether (peak at 6 years: 13,89%), whereas German children hardly ever did so.

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD G all

Manner+Path 2,08 2,78 4,17 7,64 10,42 5,42 45,14 54,86 72,22 80,56 88,89 68,33 Path

85,42 79,17 85,42 84,03 88,89 84,58 53,47 42,36 25,69 19,44 7,64 29,72

Manner

3,47 2,08

0

0

0,69 1,25 0,69

0

1,39 2,08 1,39 1,39

0

Non response

7,64 13,89 9,03 6,94

0

0

0

1,25 0,69 1,39 1,39

0

0,69 0,83

7,50

0

2,78 0,97

0

0

0

1,39 0,69

0,14

Table 12: Information Focus: Response types with down-events (in %)

161 Although Berthele (2004: 107) assumes that such elliptical constructions appear primarily in dialects, it is perhaps more correct to say that they mainly occur in spoken varieties of German.

166 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

In French, P-responses showed practically no developmental change across agegroups (cf. Table 12). French speakers produced around 85% P-responses, scoring the lowest value at six years (79,17%) and the highest at adult age (88,89%). In all age-groups this event type is mainly described by the verb redescendre (‘to descend again’). Although MP-responses were rather rare with this event type, they increased continuously from six years on until adult age (2,78% to 10,42%). Since French speakers could not use a common verb conflating downward motion and Manner in a single morpheme, they had to produce rather complex constructions to encode both semantic components simultaneously (cf. example 92). (92)

Elle redescend le pied de la table en glissant le long she BACK-descends the leg of the table by sliding along du pied. of+the leg ‘It descends the table-leg again by sliding along the leg.’

adult

French children seem to have difficulties with such constructions which typically require subordinated clauses. Thus, if they encode both semantic components in one utterance, they use mostly adverbs. Example (93) illustrates a description of a down-event produced by a French four-year-old. (93)

Il a redescendu avec les quatres pattes avec he is BACK-descended with the four paws with pieds en l’ air. legs in the air ‘He went down again with four paws with his legs in the air.’

les the

4 yrs

In previous studies (Hickmann 2006, 2007), French speakers’ focus on Path has been explained by the fact that speakers might have omitted Manner-information in descriptions of downward motion if they had mentioned Manner for upevents in preceding utterances and therefore may have left it up to the hearer to infer Manner for down-events. Nevertheless, this hypothesis only holds in cases where speakers really expressed Manner in descriptions of up-events. However, MP-responses were not extremely frequent in French four- and six-year-olds (15,97% in either age-group). Therefore, this argument cannot account for the rare use of MP-responses in descriptions of down-events among these age groups. In this respect, note that French children omitted descriptions of downward motion in about 10% of the cases. This fact can perhaps be explained by the children’s focus on up-events which seem to attract more attention than the immediately

Information Focus 

 167

subsequent down-events. One possible reason for young children’s greater focus on upward motion is perhaps the additional force that is required for a displacement that implies an opposition to gravity. Table 12 also showed the distribution of all response types across German age groups. Although German four-year-olds showed a preference for P-responses (53,47%), this response type continuously decreased with age and reached a minimal value at adult age (7,64%). As was the case for up-events, German children often used the verb gehen (‘to go’) in combination with Path-particles (mostly runter ‘down’ or hinunter ‘down’).162 MP-responses increased with age and reached a peak at adult age (45,14% to 68,33%). Children as well as adults used rather simple constructions combining Manner-verbs with Path-particles (cf. example 94). (94)

(…) und klettert wieder hinunter. (…) and climbs again thither-down ‘(…) and climbs down again.’

adult

Some examples even show that German speakers corrected themselves in order to elaborate more explicitly on the Manner of downward motion. Although the speaker in example (95) mentioned Manner in the description of upward motion, he corrects his first attempt to encode Manner again when describing the downevent. This example suggests that German speakers paid particular attention to Manner, suggesting that this semantic component seemed to be rather salient in their representations of motion events. (95)

Bär klettert den Baum hinauf, [//] bear climbs the tree thither-up [//] klettert den Baum wieder runter. climbs the tree again down ‘The bear comes from the right, climbs up the tree,[//] climbs down the tree again.’ adult

162 Note that P-responses were somewhat more frequent with two particular down-items that involved a caterpillar and a squirrel (see Appendix A.1, p. 336). This fact can perhaps be explained by the unusual manner of those movements for which children seem to lack adequate words. In these cases, children frequently only used the Path-particle without mentioning any verbal form: Wieder runter. again down ‘Down again.’ 4 yrs

168 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

9.2.1.3 Across-events Across-items showed human agents who crossed a boundary (for instance a street, a river or rails). Table 13 presents all response types elicited by these events across age and language groups. Collapsing ages, French speakers produced almost as many MP-responses as P- or M-responses (respectively 32,92%, 34,58% and 29,17%). Nevertheless, P-responses remained the most important pattern (34,58%). In comparison to descriptions of up- and down-events, French descriptions of across-events frequently encoded only Manner (up 0%, down 1,25%, across 29,17%). German speakers produced more than twice as much MP-responses than French speakers (78,06% versus 32,92%). P- and M-responses were almost equally infrequent in German (respectively 10,97% and 9,31%). In contrast to up- and down-events, and similarly to French, M-only-responses seemed to be more important in descriptions of crossing events (up 0,42%, down 0,14%, across 9,31%).

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD G all

Manner+Path 9,03 25,00 34,72 34,72 61,11 32,92 52,08 77,08 84,72 88,89 87,50 78,06 Path

19,44 42,36 36,81 40,97 33,33 34,58 22,22 9,72 7,64 5,56 9,72 10,97

Manner

61,11 29,17 26,39 23,61 5,56 29,17 20,14 13,19 6,25 5,56 1,39 9,31

0

8,33 3,47 0,69 0

Non response

2,08 0

0

2,50 3,47 0

0

1,39 0,69 0

0,83 2,08 0

1,39 0

0

0

0,69

1,39 0,97

Table 13: Information Focus: Response types with across-events (in %)

In French, P-responses mainly involved the verb traverser (‘to cross’). However, although 67% of the four-year-olds used traverser in one or more of their responses, this verb is less frequent in children’s descriptions than in adults’ descriptions (cf. analyses of verb forms p. 345–349). One item (showing a baby crossing a street) elicited somewhat more P-responses across all age groups. Since all children are presumably told to pay attention when crossing a street (Faut faire attention quand tu traverses la rue! ‘You have to pay attention when you cross the street!’) the verb traverser (‘to cross’) is most probably familiar to them. P-responses strongly increased between four and six years (19,44% versus 42,36%). Between six and ten this response type represents the main pattern, then, stabilizing at adult age at around 35%. MP-responses increased strikingly from four years to adult age (9,03% to 61,11%). Although this increase is continuous between four and eight years, a plateau occurs between eight and ten. It is only after this point that MP-responses

Information Focus 

 169

increased again and reached their maximal value of 61,11% at adult age. To express Manner+Path simultaneously, French adults mostly used the verb traverser (‘to cross’) in combination with either a subordinate clause (example 96) or a prepositional or adverbial phrase indicating Manner (e.g., en patins ‘with ice-skates’). (96)

Donc un sportif de haut niveau traverse la route so a sportsman of high level crosses the road ‘So, a sportsman crosses the country road running.’

en courant. by running adult

The reason young children rarely produced MP-responses seems to be twofold: They did not frequently use the verb traverser (‘to cross’) and had difficulties with the rather complex structures required for MP-responses in French (e.g., gerunds). When children used traverser, they hardly ever combined it with a gerund, but instead with prepositional phrases encoding Manner (example 97). (97)

Il a traversé la route à genoux. he has crossed the road on knees ‘He crossed the road on his knees.’

4 yrs

The most striking difference in French lexicalization patterns is the high amount of M-responses produced by French children with across-events. Above all French four-year-olds produced M-responses about two-thirds of the time (61,11%). Example (98) illustrates a response of this type. (98)

Elle a fait du patin à glace she has ice-skated ‘She ice-skated with water.’

avec with

l’ the

eau. water 4 yrs

Collapsing all age groups, three items elicited more M-responses than others: the boy swimming across the river, the girl skating across the lake, and the boy sliding across a frozen river (see Appendix A.1, p. 336). Such variations are probably due to the fact that the other three Manners (walk on all fours, riding a bike, running) are more common and therefore less strikingly salient. As a result, Manner in these latter cases is typically either combined with Path or completely ignored. As shown in Table 13 above, MP-responses were obviously the most important pattern across all German age groups, although they increased between four years and adult age (52,08% and 87,50%). Since the simultaneous expression of Manner+Path does not require very complex constructions, German children used them as frequently as adults from eight years on. In comparison, it was

170 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

noted that French MP-responses still increased after ten years. Example (99) illustrates a MP-response from a German four-year-old. (99)

Sie [die Frau] ist da rüber she [the woman] is there across ‘She [the woman] drove across there.’

gefahren. driven 4 yrs

German ten-year-olds and adults also used the prefixed Path-verb überqueren (‘to cross’) in combination with either a nomen agentis (e.g., ein Läufer ‘a runner’) or a present participle indicating Manner (example 100). (100) Ein Kind überquert krabbelnd eine a child crosses crawling a ‘A child is crawling across the street.’

Straße. street adult

This last construction type contains a finite form of the Path-verb überqueren (‘to cross’) + the present participle of the Manner-verb krabbeln (‘to crawl’). It is very similar to French gerund-constructions (cf. example 96) and rather atypical of a satellite-framed language. Nonetheless, it appeared seven times in the descriptions of five German adults, but never among German children. Similarly to French children, German four-year-olds produced relatively frequent M-responses (20,14%) using Manner-verbs. However, from six years on, this value dropped (13,19%) and continued to decrease until it practically disappeared at adult age (1,39%). As for P-responses, they also decreased with age but had already reached adult level by eight years (9,72%). P-responses in children mainly involved the verb gehen (‘to go’) and the Path-particle rüber (‘across’) (cf. example 101). With age German children replaced gehen more and more often with other motion verbs encoding Manner. (101) Das [das Baby] geht einfach über die it [the baby] goes simply across the ‘She [the baby] simply goes across the street.’

Straße. street (acc) 4 yrs

9.2.2 Information Focus in control items Control items were designed in such a way as to focus speakers’ attention on Manner. In this item type, humans and animals moved with a specific Manner from one side of the screen to the other in the absence of any ground (blank screen). Table 14 shows speakers’ responses to these items.

Information Focus 

 171

As predicted, speakers of both languages mainly focused on Manner (French 70,83%, German 63,96%).163 As was the case with descriptions of target items, MPresponses were more frequent in German than in French (30,07% versus 18,54%). However, MP-responses elicited by control items in French as well as in German differed significantly from those elicited by target items (French: control versus up F(1,115) = 12,81, p < 0.0006, control versus down F(1,115) = 30,80, p < 0.00001, control versus across F(1,115) = 26,46, p  < 0.00001, German: control versus up F(1,115) = 212.23, p < 0.00001, control versus down F(1,115) = 94.732, p < 0.00001, control versus across F(1,115) = 204.32, p < 0.00001). P-responses did not represent a frequent pattern. They were, however, more frequent in French than in German (5,69% versus 2,92%). Although, SD0responses were rather rare (see also below), French and German children between four and six years produced such utterances relatively often.

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD G all

Manner+Path 2,43 9,38 19,10 30,56 31,25 18,54 26,39 22,22 19,79 13,89 68,06 30,07 Path Manner

5,90 13,19 2,78 4,51 2,08 5,69 4,51 1,04 1,04 1,39 6,60 2,92 82,29 67,36 76,39 63,89 64,24 70,83 63,89 72,57 76,74 82,99 23,61 63,96

0

7,64 4,17 0,35 1,04 1,39 2,92 4,86 3,13 2,08 1,74 1,04 2,57

Non response

1,74 5,90 1,39

0

1,04 2,01 0,35 1,04 0,35

0

0,69 0,49

Table 14: Information Focus: Response types with control items (in %)

As shown in Table 14, MP-responses continuously increased with age in French, being rare at four years (2,43%) and relatively frequent at adult age (31,25%). This pattern was similar to descriptions of target items. However, in contrast to target items, ten-year-olds already produced such responses as frequently as adults (30,56%). Example (102) illustrates such a case. (102) Le monsieur, il a traversé the man he has crossed ‘The man crossed by running.’

en courant. by running 8 yrs

163 As regards NR-responses, they occurred mostly among French six-year-olds. Given the rationale for the construction of control items, our coding system privileged M-responses with these items, but P-responses with target items, when subjects produced both types of responses (p. 144). However, there are only three cases for which this criterion had to be applied.

172 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

However, as predicted with this item type, M-responses were most frequent in all age groups. French four-year-olds produced these responses most frequently (82,29%) as compared to French adults (64,45%). With some items, for example the boy swimming across the river (see Appendix A.1, p. 336), all 24 four-year-olds produced an M-response. SD0-responses were relatively frequent at four years and even at six years. Such responses mainly involved the French verb aller (‘to go’) in combination with a prepositional phrase which was coded as a location, rather than as encoding Path-information (e.g., à gauche ‘at the left side’, see the discussion of this problem in Chapter 5.5 p. 127–129). An example of such constructions (in this case with an idiosyncratic prepositional phrase) is shown in (103). (103) Une chenille va dans un a caterpillar goes in an ‘A caterpillar goes in another side.’

autre other

côté. side 4 yrs

With respect to NR-responses, they occurred mostly at six years. In these cases, children often only labelled the figure when it appeared on the screen and/or provided some Manner-information in a static utterance, but did not describe its motion. In German, responses to control items showed a continuous developmental pattern (between four and ten years) that is the reverse of the one observed for adults (cf. Table 14). As illustrated in example (104), MP-responses were clearly the most frequent pattern among adults (68,06%). (104) Ja, so eine Maus ist von rechts nach links durchs yes such a mouse is from right to left through-the Bild geschlichen, wieder. picture (acc) crept again ‘Yes, such a mouse has crept from right to left through the picture, again.’ adult Interestingly, four-year-olds produced relatively frequent MP-responses (26,33%), as illustrated in example (105). These descriptions mainly involved a Mannerverb in combination with the Path-particle rüber (‘across’). (105) Der [der Bär] flitzt da rüber. he [the bear] dashes there across ‘He [the bear] dashes across there.’

4 yrs

Information Focus 

 173

After four years, MP-responses decreased steadily and reached their minimal value at ten years (13,89%). As for M-responses, they were most frequent at ten years (82,99%), where they reached approximately the same value as those of French four-year-olds (82,29%). This increase of M-responses between four and ten years and its strong decrease after that age deserve some attention. This pattern indicates that children quickly understood that Manner-information was expected. In some cases, they even only uttered an inflected form of the Mannerverb. As for P-responses, they did not represent an important pattern in descriptions of control items. Like MP- and M-responses, P-responses were as rare among fouryear-olds (4,51%) and adults (6,60%). These responses mainly involved the verb gehen (‘to go’) in combination with a linguistic device that encoded Path. SD0responses were produced by four-year-olds in around 5% of the cases (4,86%). Like French four-year-olds, German children at this age also used the verb gehen (‘to go’) without combining it with any other linguistic device to encode Path. In other cases, children provided descriptions of motion events that expressed neither Manner nor Path. Example (106) illustrates such a case. (106) Die [die Raupe] tut am Boden was machen. she [the caterpillar] does on+the ground (dat) something do ‘She [the caterpillar] is doing something on the ground.’ 4 yrs As demonstrated above, M-responses were much more frequent with control items than with target items (F total: control 70,83% versus target items 10,37%, G  total: control 63,96% versus target items 3,29%). In contrast, MP-responses were more frequent in descriptions of target items where Path was more salient than in control items (F total: control 18,54% versus target items 23,47%, G total: control 30,07% versus target items 76,48%). However, this difference was much more striking in German than in French. Figures 6 and 7 present the distribution of MP-responses as a function of event type in French and in German, respectively. Contrasts showed that the MP-responses produced by French four-year-olds with control-items differed significantly from those produced with up-events, where children often expressed either Manner+Path or only Path (F(1,23) = 5,176, p < 0.0310). Other differences were not significant at this age. At six and eight years, French children produced significantly more MP-responses to across-events than to control items (6 yrs: F(1,23) = 16,65, p < 0.0005, 8 yrs: F(1,23) = 6,20, p < 0.0196) and significantly fewer in comparison to down-events (6 yrs: F(1,23) = 8,24, p  < 0.0084, 8 yrs: F(1,23) = 11,51, p < 0.0025). MP-responses to control items and up-events did not differ significantly (6 yrs: p(F) = 0.2653, 8 yrs: p(F) = 0.0901). At eight-years, up- and

174 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

across-events elicited almost as many MP-responses. At ten years there was only a significant difference between MP-responses produced with control items and down-events, which elicited many more Path-responses and fewer MP-responses (F(1,23) = 8,67, p  < 0.0071). At adult age MP-responses with control items differed significantly from all other event types (control versus up: F(1,23) = 9,91, p < 0.0045, control versus down: F(1,23) = 8.70, p < 0.0070, control versus across: F(1,23) = 16,43, p < 0.0005). Finally, in German, all contrasts between control and target items were significant within each age group.

100

80

60

40 up down

20

across control

0 F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

Figure 6: MP-responses across event types in French (in %)

100

80

60

40

up down

20

across control

0 G04

G06

G08

G10

Figure 7: MP-responses across event types in German (in %)

GAD

Information Locus 

 175

Two interactions were also significant. First, there was an interaction between age and event type (F(12,690) = 2.71, p < 0.0015). As illustrated above, irrespective of language, children’s MP-responses varied with age and event type. In both languages four-year-olds produced the most MP-responses with up-events, but children between six and ten years produced as many MP-responses with up- and across-events, where adults produced the most MP-responses with up-events and the fewest with controls. Second, an interaction was found between age, language, and event-type (F(12,690) = 6.74, p < 0.00001). Following the main lexicalization pattern of each event type (e.g., the most MP-responses with up-events, the fewest with controls), MP-responses become more frequent with increasing age. However, their frequency also strongly depends on the language, since MPresponses are in general more frequent in German than in French. In contrast to our predictions, the interaction between age and language was not statistically significant.

9.3 Information Locus Information Locus refers to the linguistic devices used to encode relevant semantic components (Manner and Path). A distinction was made between information that was expressed in the verb versus that in other devices outside of the main verb, such as satellites or peripheral constructions (e.g., relative clauses or gerunds). As previously indicated, the category of satellites included not only particles but also all relevant prepositional phrases and adverbs (cf. Chapter 7.5.2). In the following, all devices outside the main verb are subsumed under the term other linguistic devices (hereafter abbreviated in tables as Other).164 In French, the expectation was that speakers should describe target items by mainly expressing Path in the verb stem (e.g., descendre ‘to descend’) and Manner – if expressed at all – in other linguistic devices (e.g., à quatre pattes ‘on all fours’). In addition, since French provides speakers with a verb that conflates Manner+Path (grimper ‘to climb up’) for upward motion, it was also predicted that this event-type should differ from down- and across-events. Finally, with control items which highlighted Manner, French speakers were expected to omit Path-information and to encode Manner primarily in the verb stem (e.g., courir ‘to run’).

164 Since NR-responses were already discussed in the analyses of density and information focus, they will be ignored in what follows.

176 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

In contrast, German speakers were expected to encode Manner in the main verb (e.g., rennen ‘to run’) with all event types (targets and controls) and to add Pathinformation in spatial satellites with target items (e.g., rauf ‘up’). This pattern should differ slightly in descriptions of across-events where German provides speakers with a prefixed verb that encode Path (überqueren ‘to cross’). In these cases speakers should use überqueren (‘to cross’) in combination with prepositional phrases that encode Manner (e.g., mit dem Fahrrad ‘by bike’). Since we did not code über- (‘across’) as a satellite (parallel to traverser ‘to cross’), an additional analysis will be necessary to determine how frequently German speakers used this verb type. Three mixed ANOVAs165 examined the effects and interactions of the following factors on raw Manner+Path-, Manner- and Path-scores (hereafter conflation type): age (five groups of 24 subjects each) and language (French, German) as between-subject factors; event-type (target items: up-events, down-events, across-events and control items) and locus (verb, other linguistic devices) as within-subject factor. The ANOVA showed significant main effects of language, age, event-type, and locus (except for MP-conflation, cf. below). Language: Language had a main effect on responses with all three conflation types (MP: F(1,230) = 22,70, p < 0.00001, Path: F(1,230) = 10,86, p < 0.0013, Manner: F(1,230) = 793,52, p < 0.00001). As predicted, French speakers mainly encoded Path in the verb stem (58,81%) and Manner (if at all expressed) either in the main verb (29,73%) or in other linguistic devices (12,13%). In contrast, German speakers most frequently used compact syntactic constructions where Manner was encoded in the main verb (81,45%) and Path in other linguistic devices (73,95%). Age: The effect of age on responses was significant with all three conflation types (MP: F(4,230) = 26,11, p  < 0.00001, Path: F(4,230) = 22,90, p  < 0.00001, Manner: F(4,230) = 9.25, p  < 0.00001). Irrespective of language, all three conflation types increased more strikingly in other linguistic devices than in the verb (cf. Table 15). In contrast, verbs and other linguistic devices which did not encode any semantic information at all strongly decreased with age. In both languages the effect of age was significant for all three conflation types (French: MP: F(1,230) = 1.99, p < 0.00001, P: F(4,115) = 18.57, p < 0.00001, M: F(4,115) = 3.32, p < 0.0130; German: MP: F(4,115) = 8.02, p < 0.00001, P: F(4,115) = 5.88, p < 0.0002, M: F(4,115) = 10.01, p < 0.00001).

165 Three previous ANOVAs did not show any significant effect of sex (p < 0.5) and this factor was therefore disregarded in the following analyses.

Information Locus 

 

4 Manner+Path in verb

8

10

adults

2,15

5,14

3,6

8,16

Path in verb

26,3

30,78

30,45

31,83

31,84

Manner in verb

52,85

53,17

56,59

58,52

56,83

0 in verb

18,48

13,89

7,83

6,05

3,17

Manner+Path in Other Path in Other Manner in Other 0 in Other

2,37

6

 177

1,49

2,23

2,46

3,57

10,06

38,09

41,68

41,6 

41,93

54,09

3,04

5,01

7,95

9,26

10,13

57,38

51,07

47,99

45,25

25,71

Table 15: Conflation types in the verb versus other devices across age groups (in %)

Event type: The locus of conflation types varied significantly depending on event type (MP: F(3,690) = 52,33, p  < 0.00001, Path: F(3,690) = 491,72, p  < 0.00001, Manner: F(3,690) = 659.35, p < 0.00001). Manner was for instance more often encoded in the verb stem with control items, as compared to other event types (control items: 84,77%, up: 41,90%, down: 35,12%, across: 60,58%). Lexicalization patterns as a function of event types will be discussed in detail below. Locus: P- and M-conflation types varied significantly as a function of information locus (Path: F(1,230) = 249.86, p < 0.00001, Manner: F(1,230) = 3140.70, p  < 0.00001). In contrast, if speakers conflated MP, they encoded it outside of the main verb. Thus, MP-conflation did not vary significantly as a function of information locus. The effect of locus was significant for all three conflation types in both languages (French: MP: F(1,115) = 37.32, p < 0.00001, Path: F(1,115) = 959,85, p < 0.00001, Manner: F(1,115) = 206.94; German: MP: F(1,115) = 80.10, p < 0.00001, Path: F(1,115) = 4844,59 Manner: G(1,115) = 4176.12). For instance, when French speakers encoded Manner in the verb stem, they were more likely to omit any other information rather than to express it outside of the verb in other linguistic devices. Two interactions were also significant. First, in line with our predictions, there was an interaction between language and age for all three conflation types (MP: F(4,230) = 6.71, p < 0.00001, Path: F(4,230) = 5.59, p < 0.0003, Manner: F(4,230) = 6.30, p < 0.00001). As will be shown in detail below, French children took more time to encode (several) relevant semantic components outside of the main verb. In contrast, German children did so from very early on. Second, the interaction between language and locus was significant for all three conflation types (MP: F(1,230) = 92.00, p < 0.00001, Path: F(1,230) = 4350.15, p < 0.00001 Manner: F(1,230) = 1281.53, p < 0.00001). With respect to Path, French speakers primarily encoded it in the main verb (58,81%), whereas German speakers hardly

178 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

ever used Path-verbs (1,67%). In contrast, Manner was most frequently encoded in German main verbs (81,45%) as compared to French (29,73%). For other linguistic devices, the pattern was almost reversed. Whereas French rarely expressed information outside the main verb (0-conflation: 71,83%), German speakers predominantly encoded Path in other linguistic devices (73,95%). Although MP was only rarely conflated in a single linguistic device, it was more frequently encoded in French than in German verbs (7,70% versus 0,87%).

9.3.1 Information Locus in target items Table 16 shows the conflation types that were found in both loci for target-event descriptions (collapsing up-, down- and across-events). French speakers clearly encoded Path in the verb more often than Manner or Manner+Path (respectively 73%, 13,89% and 10,19%). In German, speakers mostly encoded Manner in the verb (77,84%) or expressed only Motion per se (19,07%) as for instance in gehen (‘to go’). Whereas German speakers most frequently expressed Path in other linguistic devices (89,19%), French speakers only added Path in 14,78% and Manner in 9,05% of the cases. Let us now examine how information locus differed across target event types.

Verb

Other linguistic devices

French

German

French

German

Manner+Path

10,19

 1,02

 2,00

 5,16

Path

73,00

 2,07

14,78

89,19

Manner

13,89

77,84

 9,05

 0,98

0

 2,92

19,07

74,16

 4,67

Table 16: Conflation types in verbs versus other devices with target items (in %)

9.3.1.1 Up-events Table 17 shows information locus in descriptions of up-events in French age groups. French speakers mainly encoded Path (monter ‘to ascend’) or Manner+Path (grimper ‘to climb up’) in the verb stem (P: 66,89%, MP: 30,43%). Verbs which encoded Manner or no component were rare. When French speakers expressed any relevant semantic information outside of the main verb, they also encoded Path (11,59%).

Information Locus 

 179

Verb  

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

Manner+Path

15,49

14,08

34,04

24,65

63,89

30,43

Path

81,69

80,99

63,83

71,83

36,11

66,89

Manner

 1,41

 0

 2,13

 2,82

 0

 1,27

0

 1,41

 4,93

 0

 0,70

 0

 1,41

Other linguistic devices  

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

Manner+Path

 0

 2,13

 0

 0,70

 0,69

 0,71

Path

 4,23

 2,13

 5,67

 5,63

40,28

11,59

Manner

 0,70

 2,13

 1,42

 5,63

 1,39

 2,25

0

95,07

93,62

92,91

88,03

57,64

85,45

Table 17: Conflation types in verbs versus other devices with up-events in French (in %)

The most frequent verb in French descriptions of upward motion was monter (‘to ascend’). Example (107) illustrates the use of this verb. In some cases four- and six-year-olds also used the verb remonter (‘to ascend again’) which was rather idiosyncratic in this context since items began with upward motion. Example (108) illustrates such an idiosyncratic response. Children seem to have understood that remonter like monter (‘to ascend’) expresses upward motion, but they have not yet acquired the meaning of the prefix re- which can either mean ‘back’ or have an iterative meaning. With age, children increasingly used the verb grimper (‘to climb up’) which conflates Manner+Path (4 yrs: 15,49%, adults: 63,89%). At adult age, this conflation pattern was most typical for upward-motion, as illustrated in examples (109). Thus, as predicted, in all French age groups, the MP-conflation pattern in the verb was significantly more frequent with up-events than with down-, across-events or control items (see Appendix B.1, p. 344). Note that in around 5% of the cases six-year-olds produced verbs which encoded neither Path nor Manner. Children combined these verbs (such as aller ‘to go’) either with a general location (e.g., sur le poteau ‘on the pylon’) or with satellites expressing Path (e.g., jusque dans le trou ‘up in the hole’). (107) [//] il [le singe] est monté [//] he [the monkey] is ascended ‘It [the monkey] went up on the banana tree.’

au bananier. on+the banana-tree adult

180 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

(108) Ecureuil, il allait chercher ses noisettes pour l’hiver squirrel he went look for his nuts for the winter parce que c’est bientôt l’hiver, il est remonté because it is soon the winter he is BACK-ascended dans son arbre. in its tree ‘The squirrel went looking for his nuts for the winter, because it will soon be winter, it went up the tree again.’ 6 yrs (109) Alors petite souris a couru [/] couru [/] couru vers le pied well little mouse has ran [/] ran [/] ran toward the leg de la table, elle a grimpé tout en haut de la table. of the table she has climbed+up all on top of the table ‘Well, the little mouse ran toward the leg of the table, it climbed way up on the top of the table.’ adult As shown in Table 17, French speakers of all age groups usually avoid encoding semantic components in satellites or peripheral constructions (overall 85,45%). It is only at adult age that this pattern changes. In 40,28% of the cases, French adults encoded Path outside of the main verb. This often led to a segmentation of Path components, each of them focusing on different aspects of the trajectory. In example (110) the speaker encodes upward motion in the verb stem (monter ‘to ascend’) and adds further information about the trajectory with respect to the Ground in the prepositional phrase le long de + NP (‘along + NP’). It is only at ten years of age that children added Manner in other linguistic devices in more than 5% of the cases (5,63%). They did so mainly by using gerunds which specified how the agent’s extremities were involved in upward motion (cf. example 111). However, such cases were rare. (110) Elle [la chenille] monte le long d’une des she [the caterpillar] ascends along of one the ‘It [the caterpiallar] ascends along one of the stalks.’ (111)

tiges. stalks adult

Donc elle [la chenille] monte sur la tige en se cramponnant well she [the caterpillar] ascends on the stalk by self-clinging avec les pattes avant. with the paws front ‘Well it [the caterpillar] goes up on the stalk by clinging onto it with its front paws.’ 10 yrs

Information Locus 

 181

Table 18 shows information locus in descriptions of up-events in German. As typical of a satellite-framed language, German speakers frequently encoded Manner in the verb (82,53%) and almost always Path in satellites (98,18%). However, some motion verbs (on average 16,08%) only encoded Motion per se (mainly gehen ‘to go’). Verb  

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Manner+Path

 0

 0,70

 2,08

 2,78

 0,70

 1,25

Path

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0,70

 0,14

Manner

73,94

76,92

79,86

86,11

95,80

82,53

0

26,06

22,38

18,06

11,11

 2,80

16,08

Other linguistic devices  

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Manner+Path

 0,70

 0

 0

 0

 1,40

 0,42

Path

97,18

99,30

99,31

98,61

96,50

98,18

Manner

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

0

 2,11

 0,70

 0,69

 1,39

 2,10

 1,40

Table 18: Conflation types in verbs versus other devices with up-events in German (in %)

As illustrated in example (112), German speakers mainly encoded Manner in the main verb. The most frequent verb across all age groups was klettern (‘to climb’). However, young German children very often used the semantically-neutral verb gehen (‘to go’) which – according to our coding – encodes neither Manner nor Path. The response of a six-year-old who uses gehen is illustrated in (113). Children mostly used gehen if they did not find any other – more adequate – verb to describe the animals’ Manner. Thus, gehen appeared significantly more often in the items of the caterpillar, the squirrel, and the bear than for example in those of the mouse or the monkey. Those semantically empty verbs constantly decreased with age and reached a minimal value of 2,80% at adult age. Verbs conflating Manner+Path or Path alone practically never occurred in any age group. (112)

Der Bär klettert auf den Baum. the bear climbs on the tree (acc) ‘The bear climbs up onto the tree.’

6 yrs

182 

(113)

 Results: Voluntary Motion

Die Raupe geht auf den Stängel. the caterpillar goes on the stalk (acc) ‘The caterpillar goes onto the stalk.’

6 yrs

Across all age groups, in nearly 100% of the cases German speakers encoded Path in satellites or peripheral constructions (4 yrs: 97,18%, 6 yrs: 99,30%, 8 yrs: 99,31%, 10 yrs: 98,61%, adults: 96,50%). The most typical pattern was to use spatial particles. With age, speakers added more and more linguistic means to encode Path, often combining particles with prepositional phrases. In example (114), the speaker expresses the vertical direction of the movement in the particle hoch (‘up’) and adds the Goal by means of an accusative-PP (auf + NP ‘on + NP’). (114) (…) das [das Eichhörnchen] ist auf den Baum (…) it [the squirrel] is on the tree (acc) ‘(…) it [the squirrel] climbed up on the tree.’

hochgeklettert. up-climbed 10 yrs

9.3.1.2 Down-events As shown in Table 19, French speakers mainly encoded Path in the verb stem (94,71%). Cases where speakers expressed either Manner or none of these semantic components in the verb were rare (respectively 2,10% and 3,19%). In contrast to descriptions of up-events, there were no occurrences of motion verbs that conflated Manner+Path. Verb  

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

Manner+Path

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

Path

94,78

90,55

96,24

94,78

97,22

94,71

Manner

 2,99

 4,72

 0,76

 0

 2,78

 2,10

0

 2,24

 4,72

 0,76

 3,75

 0

 3,19

Other linguistic devices  

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

Manner+Path

 0

 0

 0,75

 1,49

 6,25

 1,70

Path

 5,22

18,11

15,79

17,16

47,92

20,84

Manner

 2,99

 0,79

 6,01

 6,72

 2,08

 3,71

0

91,79

81,10

77,44

74,63

43,75

73,74

Table 19: Conflation types in verbs versus other devices with down-events (in %)

Information Locus 

 183

With regard to verbs, even at four years, French children seemed to have reached the adult target verb pattern typical of verb-framed languages. They used Pathverbs in around 95% of the cases. Across all age groups, French speakers mainly used the verb descendre (‘to descend’) or its prefixed form redescendre (‘to descend again’). Sentence (115) shows an example of this utterance type. Verbs that expressed other or no semantic information at all were rare across all age groups. Only six-year-olds used Manner-verbs in 4,72% of the cases (cf. example 116). (115)

Elle [la chenille] est redescendue. she [the caterpillar] is BACK-descended ‘It [the caterpillar] went down again.’

(116) Et après il s’est laissé and then he self-is let ‘And then, he let himself slide.’

4 yrs

glisser. slide 6 yrs

With age, children encoded specific semantic components more frequently in other linguistic devices, that is to say, the 0-category decreased constantly with age (4 yrs: 91,79%, 6 yrs: 81,10%, 8 yrs: 77,44%, 10 yrs: 74,63%, adults: 43,75%). Other linguistic devices that expressed Path increased between four and six years, but then remained relatively stable between six and ten years. Thus, the most important development occurred after ten years of age and it was only at adult age that French speakers mainly encoded Path rather than no relevant semantic information at all (47,92%). Sentence (117) gives an example of such a construction where the child specifies the Source of the downward motion by adding a prepositional phrase (de + NP ‘from + NP). Other linguistic devices which expressed information about Manner were quite rare at all ages. Only eight- and ten-year-olds used such constructions in around 6% of the cases (respectively 6,01% and 6,72%). In these cases, children usually used the Pathverb redescendre (‘to descend again’) and added Manner by means of gerunds (e.g., en glissant ‘by sliding’). In some other cases, children added Manner in prepositional phrases as shown in example (118). However this eight-year-old seems to be having difficulties because he has to make two attempts to find the correct preposition for the expression à quatre pattes (‘on all fours’). (117)

(…) il est redescendu de l’arbre. (…) he is BACK-descended from the tree ‘(…) it went back down from the tree again.’

8 yrs

184 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

(118) (Alors là c’est un singe…) qui redescend le palmier (well, there, that’s a monkey…) who BACK-descends the palm tree en [//] à quatre pattes. in [//] on four paws ‘(Well, there, that’s a monkey…) who goes back down the palm tree again on all fours.’ 10 yrs Other linguistic devices which encoded Path as well as Manner practically never occurred before ten years of age. Nevertheless, adults produced such constructions in 6,25% of the cases, particularly in descriptions of the mouse’s downward motion. Although example (119) seems to be rather awkward, sentence (120) gives a typical description of this event type. Note that such constructions are quite complex and therefore do not occur in descriptions of four- and six-year-olds. (119) (…) et redescend par [//] en arrière donc, (…) and BACK-descends by [//] backwards well en [/] en descendant le long [//][//] by [/] by descending along [//][//] d’un pied d’une table quoi. of a leg of a table eh ‘(…) and goes down again [//] backwards well, by [/] by going down the full length of a [//] the table leg, eh.’ adult (120) Elle redescend en se laissant glisser le long she BACK-descends by self letting slide along ‘It goes back down again by sliding down the leg.’

du pied. of+the leg adult

As shown in Table 20, in German, motion verbs that encoded Manner were the most frequent pattern (67,98%). As was the case for descriptions of up-events, and even more strikingly, children often used semantically-neutral verbs that only expressed Motion per se (e.g., gehen ‘to go’). As is typical of satellite-framed languages, German speakers practically always encoded Path in satellites (overall 98,73%). From six years on, German speakers mainly encoded Manner in the main verb. The amount of Manner-verbs increased continuously with age and reached its highest value at adult age (88,65%). At four years, the semantically-neutral verb gehen (‘to go’) was the most frequent verb pattern (54,86%). Although uses of gehen decreased continuously with age, they remained relatively frequent until eight years (6 yrs: 44,37%, 8 yrs: 26,57%, 10 yrs: 19,44% adults: 9,22%). Although German adults also used gehen, they often corrected themselves and replaced

Information Locus 

 185

Verb  

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Manner+Path

 0

 0

 2,80

 0,69

 0,71

 0,84

Path

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,42

 0,28

Manner

45,14

55,63

70,63

79,86

88,65

67,98

0

54,86

44,37

26,57

19,44

 9,22

30,89

Other linguistic devices  

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Manner+Path

 0,69

  0

 0,70

  0

 2,13

 0,70

Path

97,92

100

99,30

100

96,45

98,73

Manner

 0

  0

 0

  0

 0

 0

0

 1,39

  0

 0

  0

 1,42

 0,56

Table 20: Conflation types in verbs versus other devices with down-events in German (in %)

this neutral motion verb with a Manner-verb, as illustrated in example (121). Note that gehen played a more important role in descriptions of down-events than in those of up-events. (121)

(…) und geht [//] genau klettert wieder hinunter. (…) and goes [//] exactly climbs again thither-down ‘(…) and goes [//] yes climbes down again.’

adult

With regard to conflation patterns in German devices outside of the main verb and as was the case in descriptions of up-events, German speakers predominantly used Path-particles such as runter (‘down’) to encode semantic information outside of the main verb. In fact, they practically always did so across all age groups. Example (122) shows a case where a German speaker used the typical satellite-framed language pattern that combined a Manner-verb with a Pathparticle. Cases where German speakers encoded Manner+Path outside the main verb were very rare. In such constructions speakers usually did not express any semantic information in the verb stem either because they used gehen (‘to go’) or because they omitted the main verb of downward motion (example 123). The adult in example (123), for instance, described the caterpillar’s manner of motion precisely when he expressed the arrival of the Figure on the screen. Thus, when saying mit derselben Bewegung (‘with the identical movement’), he refers back to his former description.

186 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

(122) (…) und klettert [das Eichhörnchen] den Baum wieder (…) and climbs [the squirrel] the tree again ‘(…) and climbs [the squirrel] down the tree again.’

runter. down 8 yrs

(123) Den Stängel ist sie [die Raupe] dann mit der gleichen Bewegung the stalk is she [the caterpillar] then with the same movement hochgelaufen (…), umgedreht, wieder [//] with the-identical movement the trunk down ‘It [the caterpillar] walked up the stalk with the same movement (…), turned around, went down again [//] with the identical movement.’ adult

9.3.1.3 Across-events In both languages, lexicalization patterns in descriptions of across-events differed from those elicited with up- and down-events. Table 21 shows information locus in French across age groups. Although, French speakers on average most often encoded Path with across-events (57,10%), they used many more Mannerverbs with these events (38,14%) than with the other two event types. The frequency of semantically-neutral verbs (e.g., aller ‘to go’) was only important at four and six years of age (see below). French speakers usually did not encode any relevant semantic information in other linguistic devices (68,60%). In the rare cases where they did so, they preferred to express Manner (21,78%) rather than Path (11,86%) as was the case with up- and down-events. In about 3,76% of the cases, French speakers encoded both semantic components simultaneously in other linguistic devices. With respect to French verbs, and as yet discussed in the analyses of information focus above, French children at four years mainly used Manner-verbs in descriptions of across-events (60,14%). The frequency of Manner-verbs decreased with age but remained at a rather stable level of around 34% between six and ten years (6 yrs: 36,11%, 8 yrs: 35,21%, 10 yrs: 33,66%). It is only after ten years of age that this response type reached its minimal value of 23,61%. However, even French adults used many more Manner-verbs in descriptions of across-events than with the other two target event types. Path-verbs followed a parallel development. They increased between four and six years, then remained stable until ten years and reached their maximal value of 75,69% at adult age. The most frequently used verb was traverser (‘to cross’) which appeared in all age groups (cf. example 124).

Information Locus 

 187

Verb  

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

Manner+Path

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

Path

26,57

58,33

61,97

62,94

75,69

57,10

Manner

60,14

36,11

35,21

35,66

23,61

38,15

0

13,29

 5,56

 2,82

 1,40

 0,69

 4,75

Other linguistic devices  

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

Manner+Path

 2,10

 2,78

 2,11

 1,40

10,42

 3,76

Path

 2,10

 9,72

11,97

15,38

20,14

11,86

Manner

 9,79

15,97

24,65

23,08

35,42

21,78

0

86,01

71,53

61,27

60,14

34,03

62,60

Table 21: Conflation types in verbs versus other devices with across-events (in %)

(124) (…) et puis il la [la = la rue] traverse. (…) and then he it [it = the street] crosses ‘(…) and then, he crosses it [it = the street].’

6 yrs

Verbs which encoded neither Manner nor Path decreased constantly with age and practically never occurred at adult age. Nevertheless, they played quite an important role at four and six years (respectively 13,29% and 5,56%). In example (125) the child focuses on the beginning of the crossing-event and then mentions the end (coded as target), omitting the real boundary-crossing. In example (126), the French six-year-old seems to have difficulties finding the correct verb to describe the man’s motion. He manages the situation by using an onomatopoetic expression which he combines with the semantically-neutral verb faire (‘to do/make’). These examples show that French children seem to have difficulties using the verb traverser (‘to cross’), more frequently using this verb with three particular items (crawling across a street, running across a street, and riding a bike across rails) that depicted very typical and common crossing events. In a number of cases, French children used the vaguer verb passer166 (‘to pass’) which

166 In its concrete spatial sense, the French verb passer (‘to pass’) denotes a Path which does not necessarily refer to boundary-crossing. In passer devant le magasin (‘to pass in front of the store’), passer only means ‘to move without stopping’. The following expressions provide

188 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

does not exactly express boundary-crossing but rather some other aspect of Path which is difficult to determine. Even adults make use of passer but usually correct themselves and use traverser (‘to cross’) instead. Such an example is illustrated in (127). (125) (Il va sur la route) et il va sur un autre côté. (he goes on the road) and he goes on an other side ‘(He goes on the road) and he goes on the other side.’

4 yrs

(126) (…) alors il faisait pou pou pou pou, hou hou. (…) then he makes pou pou pou pou hou hou ‘(…) then he goes pou pou pou pou, hou hou.’

6 yrs

(127) (Donc on a une femme blonde) [//] heu (well one has a woman blond) [//] heu qui traverse une voie ferrée, un passage à niveau. who crosses a rail a grade crossing ‘(Well we have a blond woman) [//] who crosses rails, a grade crossing.’ adult With respect to other linguistic devices, between four and ten years French children did not usually encode any relevant semantic information in other linguistic devices (cf. Table 21). Nevertheless, with age they used increasingly more constructions that either encoded Path in combination with Manner-verbs or Manner in combination with Path-verbs. In the former case, speakers mainly added Path by using prepositional phrases that expressed the Goal of the trajectory (e.g., jusqu’à la rive droite ‘to the right river bank’). They rarely used gerunds of the verb traverser (‘to cross’) since this pattern type seems to be awkward in French. Example (128) even shows how a ten-year-olds hesitates when formulating such an utterance. (128) C’est un monsieur qui [/] [//] that is a man who [/] [//] qui a couru en traversant la rue. who has run by crossing the street ‘That’s a man who [/] who cro(ssed) [//] who ran across the street.’ 10 yrs

examples of primarily non-spatial meanings of passer: passer la nuit (‘to spend the night’) and passer chez quelqu’un (‘to drop in at someone’s place’).

Information Locus 

 189

Note that there was a plateau between eight and ten years with respect to the expression of Manner. This plateau is correlated with the stable frequency of SD0-responses during the same age span. With three specific items (baby crawling, lady riding her bike, and jogger running) French children frequently encoded more Manner outside of the main verb. In the case of the baby, children usually used the very frequent adverbial expression marcher à quatre pattes (‘to walk on all fours’). To describe the lady’s motion, they used a prepositional phrase such as en vélo (‘by bike’). To refer to the man in the third item, they often used the noun un coureur (‘a runner’). Other linguistic devices which simultaneously encode Manner+Path were rare across all child age groups and only reached a maximal level of 10,42% at adult age. Such constructions which could have a Path- or Manner-main verb are syntactically complex and therefore only occurred from ten years onward. Example (129) illustrates such a complex pattern. (128) Le bébé traverse cette rue en allant de la gauche the baby crosses this street by going from the left vers la droite à quatre pattes. toward the right on four paws ‘The baby crosses this street by going from the left toward the right on all fours.’ adult Table 22 shows conflation types in verbs and other devices with across-events in German. Similarly to descriptions of up- and down-events, German speakers mainly expressed Manner in the main verb (83,01%). Such uses were even more frequent than with the other two event types and were consistent with a lesser frequency of semantically-neutral verbs (10,23%). Although German speakers mainly encoded Path in other linguistic devices (70,65%), such uses were less important than with the other two target event types (up: 98,18%, down: 98,73%). In contrast to up- and down-events, German speakers quite frequently encoded Manner+Path in other linguistic devices (13,34%). Utterances where they only encoded Manner outside of the main verb were rare (2,95%). Note, however, that in about 12% of the cases, German speakers did not encode any relevant semantic information in other linguistic devices.

190 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

Verb  

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Manner+Path

 2,10

 2,10

 0,70

 0

 0

 0,98

Path

 0,70

 0

 1,41

 3,52

23,24

 5,77

Manner

72,73

87,41

89,44

90,85

74,65

83,01

0

24,48

10,49

 8,45

 5,63

 2,11

10,23

Other linguistic devices  

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Manner+Path

 7,69

 9,09

15,49

19,72

19,72

14,34

Path

66,43

75,52

76,76

73,24

61,27

70,65

Manner

 2,10

 0

 0,70

 0

11,97

 2,95

0

23,78

15,38

 7,04

 7,04

 7,04

12,06

Table 22: Conflation types in verbs versus other devices with across-events in German (in %)

With respect to verbs, German speakers in all age groups mainly encoded Manner in the main verb (e.g, joggen ‘to jog’, krabbeln ‘to crawl’). Between six and ten years children used even more Manner-verbs than four-year-olds and adults (6 yrs: 87,41%, 8 yrs: 89,44%, 10 yrs: 90,85%). The use of gehen (‘to go’) decreased with age but constituted a frequent pattern at least at four years of age where children used it in 24,48% of the cases. Sentence (130) is a good example of the use of the semantically-neutral verb gehen (‘to go’). The child describes the motion of the swimmer by using gehen instead of schwimmen (‘to swim’). Pathverbs – and here especially the verb überqueren (‘to cross’) – practically never occurred between four and ten years, but reached 23,24% at adult age. This verb was mainly used in descriptions of two specific items: the biker and the runner. Only one four-year-old used überqueren (‘to cross’), no child did so at six years, two at eight years, and only three at ten years. German children’s difficulty with this verb seems to be parallel to French children’s restricted use of traverser (‘to cross’). The reason for this lexical gap in both languages cannot be determined here. Probably it is related to the complex underlying concept of boundary-crossing. (130) Ich tät mal sagen, der [/] der [der Schwimmer] I would only say the [/] the [the swimmer] ‘I would say he [the swimmer] goes across.’

geht rüber. goes across 4 yrs

Information Locus 

 191

As regards other linguistic devices that were used outside of the main verb, German speakers across all ages usually expressed Path (similarly to descriptions of up- and down-events). They either use a simple Path-particle (mostly rüber ‘across’) or a prepositional phrase with the Ground entity as noun phrase (e.g., über Zugschienen ‘across rails’). Between four and ten years the uses of other linguistic devices expressing Manner and Path increased until adult age (4 yrs: 4,769%, 6 yrs: 9,09%, 8 yrs: 15,49%, 10 yrs: 19,72%). Combined MP-information was most often expressed in other linguistic devices in two items: the girl skating across a lake and the woman riding her bike across tracks. Note that these were the only two items that involved an instrument which could be encoded by prepositional phrases in German. These prepositional phrases were typically combined with Path-particles or prepositional phrases encoding Path. The most frequent verb in descriptions of these items was the rather neutral verb fahren (‘to drive’). Such a construction is illustrated in example (131). (131)

Die Frau ist mit dem Fahrrad über die Gleise the woman is with the bike across the tracks (acc) ‘The woman rode across the rails with her bike.’

gefahren. ridden 8 yrs

Utterances in which speakers only encoded Manner in other linguistic devices were only frequent at adult age (11,97%). This development is parallel to the increase of the Path-verb überqueren (‘to cross’) at adult age. In such cases, Manner was encoded either in the agent noun (e.g, eine Fahrradfahrerin ‘a cyclist’), in an instrumental prepositional phrase (e.g., mit dem Fahrrad ‘by bike’), or in a present participle (example 132). (132) Ein sportlicher junger Mann überquert rennend die Straße. a sporty young man crosses running the street ‘A young sportsman crosses the street running.’

adult

9.3.2 Information Locus in control items Table 23 shows information locus in control items in French responses. In contrast to descriptions of target events, French speakers primarily encoded Manner in the main verb and used Path-verbs in only 16,24% of the cases. In 5,96% of the verbs, French speakers encoded neither Manner nor Path but used the semantically-neutral verbs aller (‘to go’) or se déplacer (‘to move’). With respect to other linguistic devices, in French, most speakers expressed no information relevant to

192 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

Verb  

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

Manner+Path

 0

 0

 0,35

 0,70

 0

 0,21

Path

 6,69

16,01

18,66

21,25

18,60

16,24

Manner

84,15

71,17

79,23

76,31

75,44

77,26

0

 9,15

12,81

 1,76

 1,74

 5,96

 6,29

Other linguistic devices  

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

Manner+Path

 0

 2,14

 0,70

 3,83

15,09

 4,35

Path

 2,11

 8,19

 3,52

11,50

12,98

 7,66

Manner

 7,04

16,01

28,17

31,36

24,21

21,36

0

90,85

73,67

67,61

53,31

47,72

66,63

Table 23: Conflation types in verbs versus other devices with control items (in %)

motion (66,63%). Nevertheless, in 21,36% of the cases, French speakers encoded Manner outside of the main verb. French speakers of all age groups predominantly encoded Manner in the main verb. In these cases, speakers focused on Manner alone and did not mention the Ground. Utterances with verbs that encoded Path increased between four and eight years and reached a maximal value of 18% at adult age. These constructions were particularly frequent with four specific items (a baby crawling, a caterpillar crawling, a lady going by bike, and a mouse tiptoeing, cf. Appendix A.1, p. 335–337). For similar results cf. Hickmann (2006: 299). In these cases, speakers mainly used the verb traverser (‘to cross’) as illustrated in (133) where the child invents a fictive Ground. Utterances in which speakers encoded only Motion per se (e.g., using verbs like se déplacer ‘to move’) were not frequent (10%) between four and six years and decreased constantly until adult age (5,96%). (133) Le bébé, il a traversé la route à quatre pattes. the baby he has crossed the road on four paws ‘The baby crossed the road on all fours.’

8 yrs

Conflation types in other French linguistic devices are also shown in Table 23 above. As predicted, young children did not encode much semantic information in other devices (4 yrs: 90,75%). With age, however, French children increasingly encoded more information outside the main verb. The most important pattern

Information Locus 

 193

consisted of other linguistic devices encoding Manner. The mention of this component outside of the main verb increased (6 yrs: 16,01% versus 8 yrs: 28,17%) As illustrated in example (134) speakers combined Manner-verbs and other Manner-devices, resulting in rather idiosyncratic utterances. Manner-information outside the main verb was particularly frequent with two specific items (crawling, going by bike) where Manner was typically expressed by an adverbial expression (marcher à quatre pattes ‘walk on all fours’; aller en vélo ‘go by bike’). (134) Et là il y a un écureuil qui saute sur ses quatre pattes. and here there’s a squirrel that jumps on his four paws ‘And here, there’s a squirrel that jumps on his four paws.’ 6 yrs It was only after ten years of age that French speakers relatively frequently encoded Manner+Path in other linguistic devices (adults 15,09%). In these cases, speakers mainly used the Path-verb traverser (‘to cross’) and added either an adverbial expression that encoded Manner (e.g. à quatre pattes ‘on all fours‘) or a gerund of a Manner-verb (e.g., en nageant ‘by swimming’) in combination with some prepositional phrase that expressed the direction of Path (e.g., de droite à gauche ‘from right to left’). Other linguistic devices that encoded Path, mainly prepositional phrases (e.g., de la droite vers la gauche ‘from the right to the left’), increased relatively constantly with age, with the exception of eight-yearolds who rarely expressed Path in other linguistic devices (3,52%). In contrast to our predictions for control items, French adults encoded semantic information outside the main verb in more than 50% of the cases. As regards German speakers (cf. Table 24), they expressed Manner in the verb in 93,33% of the cases and rarely (5,77%) used the semantically-neutral verb gehen (‘to go’). In the majority of the cases, German speakers did not encode relevant semantic information in other linguistic devices (62,53%). When they did so, they mainly expressed Path (28,26%). In 5,16%, they added Manner alone and in 4,06% Manner+Path. As predicted, German speakers of all ages mainly encoded Manner in the main verb (example 135). However, four-year-olds produced some semanticallyneutral verbs that only expressed Motion (e.g., gehen ‘to go’, 16,32%). This kind of verb sharply decreased after four years of age and became rare in the older age groups and among adults (about 5%). (135) Die Raupe krabbelt. the caterpillar crawls ‘The caterpillar is crawling.’

8 yrs

194 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

Verb G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Manner+Path

 1,39

 0,35

 0,35

 0

 0

 0,42

Path

 0

 0,35

 0

 0,35

 1,75

 0,50

Manner

87,54

93,40

95,47

96,53

93,68

93,33

0

11,07

 5,90

 4,18

 3,13

 4,56

 5,77

Other linguistic devices  

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Manner+Path

 0,69

 1,74

 0,70

 1,39

15,79

 4,06

Path

29,51

20,49

20,21

13,89

57,19

28,26

Manner

 1,74

 5,21

 5,57

 7,29

 5,96

 5,16

0

68,06

72,57

73,52

77,43

21,05

62,53

Table 24: Conflation types in verbs versus other devices with control items (in %)

Table 24 also shows wich semantic components German speakers encoded in other linguistic devices. In descriptions of control items and in line with our predictions, German children between four and ten years mainly produced responses that did not encode any semantic information outside the main verb (4 yrs: 68,06%, 6 yrs: 72,57%, 8 yrs: 73,52%, 10 yrs: 77,43%). It is only at adult age that speakers expressed Path-information outside the main verb (57,19%). In such cases, speakers mainly combined Manner-verbs with prepositional phrases that encoded the direction of the Figure’s movement as well as the Ground in some cases (cf. example 136). Except for four-year-olds, German speakers occasionally expressed Manner in other linguistic devices (6%). Particularly with items that involved an instrument (e.g., bike, skates) and with which speakers often used derived nouns that encoded Manner (e.g., der Jogger ‘the jogger’, auf dem Fahrrad ‘on the bike’). (136) Ein Kätzchen rennt von links nach rechts durchs Bild. a cat-LITTLE runs from left to right across-the screen (acc) ‘A little cat is running from left to right across the screen.’ adult Responses to control items in which speakers encoded Manner as well as Path outside of the main verb were only notable at adult age (15,79%). In such cases, German adults used Manner-verbs mainly in combination with two prepositional phrases, one encoding the direction of the Path, the other the Ground

Global Architecture 

 195

entity of the scene (blank screen). These Path-PPs were combined either with derived nouns that provided information about Manner or with expressions that encoded the instrument (see above). Example (137) illsustrates this response type. (137) Das kleine Mädchen fährt auf Schlittschuhen the little girl drives on skates von rechts nach links durchs Bild. from right to left across-the screen (acc) ‘The little girl moves on skates from right to left across the screen.’ adult

9.4 Global Architecture Analyses of global architecture examined the syntactic structure and complexity of speakers’ responses (cf. Chapter 7.5.3). Four categories of constructions were distinguished: Tight-simple (hereafter TS), Tight-complex (hereafter TC), Loosesimple (hereafter LS), and Loose-complex (hereafter LC). ANOVAs were performed on Tight-simple responses (TS-responses were attributed the score of 1). A mixed ANOVA167 examined the effects and interactions of the following factors on raw TS-scores: age (five groups of 24 subjects each), and language (French, German) as between-subject factors; and event type (upevents, down-events, across-events, and control items) as within-subject factor. Details about the effects of specific factors will be presented below in the respective section. The ANOVA showed significant main effects of language (F(1,230) = 140,83, p < 0.00001), of age (F(4,230) = 14,14, p < 0.00001), and of event type (F(3,690) = 62,91, p < 0.00001). Language: As will be shown below in detail, TS-responses were significantly more frequent in German (92,47%) than in French (79,08%). The effect of language was significant within each age group from four years on (6 yrs: F(1,46) = 27,30, p < 0.00001, 8 yrs: F(1,46) = 57,84, p < 0.00001, 10 yrs: F(1,46) = 68,78, p < 0.00001, adults: F(1,46) = 37,15, p < 0.00001). Age: TS-responses demonstrated an overall significant decrease with age in both languages (from 90,76% at four years to 77,99% at adult age). However, no differences across consecutive ages were significant, except between ten years and adults (F(1,92) = 17,98, p < 0.00001). The general effect of age was significant

167 A first ANOVA did not show any significant effect of sex (p < 0.05) and this factor was therefore disregarded in the following analyses.

196 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

within each language (French F(4,115) = 16.12, p < 0.00001, German F(4,115) = 6,87, p < 0.00001). Event type: Although TS-responses varied significantly as a function of event types, they showed no significant difference between up- and down-events (down 91,11% = up 90,21%>control 86,84%>across 74,93%). All other event types varied significantly from each other (cf. Appendix B.2, p. 344) The factor event type was significant within each language (French F(3,345) = 48.11, p < 0.00001; German F(3,345) = 23,98, p < 0.00001). Global Architecture in descriptions of voluntary motion followed the typical and predicted lexicalization pattern in German, but not in French (cf. Table 25).168 Irrespective of age and of event-type, French speakers mainly produced TS-constructions (79,08%) and rarely used TC-constructions (7,38%). Contrary to our predictions, they produced a relatively great number of Loose-simple constructions (9,06%). Loose-complex constructions were quite rare (1,96%). In French, the main developmental change consisted in an increase of TC- and LS-constructions and a decrease of TS-constructions. However, TS-responses only showed significant differences between four and six years (F(1,46) = 16,17, p < 0.0002) and between ten years and adult age (F(1,46) = 6,87, p < 0.00001). Children’s response types between six and ten years were relatively stable. In contrast to French, German speakers of all ages clearly followed the typical satellite-framed language pattern. They mainly produced TS-constructions (92,47%). There was only a significant difference of TS-responses between ten years and adults (F(1,46) = 19,64, p < 0.00001). Complex construction types practically never occurred in German (TC: 0,35%, LC: 0,43%). If speakers produced more than one utterance to describe target events, they used LS-constructions (6,32%).

Type F04 TS

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

91,67 81,42 77,17 77,08 68,06 79,08 89,84 93,75 94,88 95,92 87,93 92,47

TC

 0,87  5,03  8,85  8,42 13,72  7,38  0

LS

 5,03  7,90  8,94 10,16 13,28  9,06  9,46  5,38  4,43  3,65  8,68  6,32

LC

 0

 1,56  1,56  2,00  4,69  1,96  0

 0  0

 0  0

 0

 1,74  0,35

 0,09  0,35  0,09

Table 25: Response types across languages and ages (in %)

168 Since NR-responses were already discussed in Chapter 9.2 and 9.3, they will not be mentioned below.

 197

Global Architecture 

The effect of age is clearly visible in analyses of response types when we collapse across languages (cf. Table 26). As predicted, complex responses increased with age while TS-constructions decreased. The most striking increase of LS-constructions occurred between ten years and adult age (10 yrs: 6,90% versus adults: 10,98%). As predicted, the interaction between age and language (F(4,230) = 12,83, p < 0.00001) was significant. French children took more time to acquire the adult pattern, who produced 68,06% TS-responses (versus 91,67% among four-yearolds) and 13,71% TC-responses (versus 0,87% among four-year-olds). In German, however, even four-year-olds produced almost as many TS-responses as adults

Type

4 yrs

6 yrs

8 yrs

10 yrs

adults

TS

90,76

87,59

86,02

86,50

77,99

TC

 0,43

 2,52

 4,43

 4,21

 7,73

LS

 7,25

 6,64

 6,68

 6,90

10,98

LC

 0

 0,78

 0,78

 1,04

 2,52

Table 26: Response types across age groups (in %)

French

German

Type

up

down

across

control

up

down

across

control

TS

88,19

87,08

63,89

77,15

92,22

95,14

85,97

96,53

TC

 2,22

 3,33

13,61

10,35

 0,14

 0

 1,11

 0,14

LS

 7,08

 2,50

17,22

 9,44

 7,08

 3,89

11,39

 2,92

LC

 1,11

 0,14

 4,86

 1,74

 0

 0

 0,28

 0,07

Table 27: Response types as a function of event type (in %)

French

German

control / across

F(1,115) = 27.62, p < 0.00001

F(1,115) = 69.28, p < 0.00001

control / up

F(1,115) = 19.87, p < 0.00001

F(1,115) = 10.65, p < 0.00001

control / down

F(1,115) = 19.55, p < 0.00001

ns

across /up

F(1,115) = 115.81, p < 0.00001

F(1,115) = 13.95, p < 0.0003

across / down

F(1,115) = 85.54, p < 0.00001

F(1,115) = 37.61, p < 0.00001

up / down

ns

F(1,115) = 5.07, p < 0.0248

Table 28: TS-responses: Contrasts between event-types

198 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

(4 yrs: 89,84% versus adults: 87,93%). TC-constructions only occurred among German adults (1,74%). The second predicted interaction concerned language and event-type (cf.  Table  27). This interaction was significant (F(3,690) = 20,71, p  < 0.00001). However, contrary to our predictions, French speakers produced the most TSresponses with up-events (88,19%) rather than with Manner-salient control items (77,15%). TS-responses differed significantly between all event types, except between up- and down-events (cf. Table 28). In contrast, German speakers, for whom we did not predict any significant variation in response types, produced the most TS-responses with control items (96,53% versus up: 92,22%, down: 95,14%, across: 85,97%). TS-responses differed significantly between event types, except between control- and down-events (cf. Table 28).

9.4.1 Global Architecture in target items We turn to a more detailed analysis of Global Architecture in responses to each type of target event.

9.4.1.1 Up-events In contrast to our predictions, TS-constructions in responses to up-events were the most frequent pattern in both languages, with a peak at six years (French: 88,19%, German: 92,22%). In French, TC-constructions (which should be the typical pattern in verb-framed languages) were only produced in about 2% of the cases (cf. Table 29). This fact can be partly explained by the use of the French verb grimper (‘to climb up’) that conflates Manner+Path. If French speakers used this verb, they mainly did so in TS-constructions (cf. example 138). French LSconstructions occurred occasionally (7,08%) and LC-constructions were marginal (1,11%). (138) Elle [la chenille] grimpe le long d’ une tige. she [the caterpillar] climbs+up along of a stalk ‘It [the caterpillar] climbs up along the stalk.’

TS adult

In line with typological predictions, German speakers clearly followed the typical satellite-framed language pattern, producing mainly TS-responses (92,22%). LSconstructions were equally frequent in German and in French (7,08%). TC-constructions were only produced by German adults, but very rarely (0,14%).

Global Architecture 

Type

F all

G all

TS

88,19

92,22

TC

2,22

0,14

LS

7,08

7,08

LC

1,11

0

 199

Table 29: Response types with up-events (in %)

Let us now turn to developmental changes in French response types (cf. Table 30). TS-responses such as (138) decreased somewhat with age from 91,67% among four-year-olds to 84,03% among adults. TC-responses increased slightly from eight years on, but they were very rare in all age groups (4 to 8 yrs: 1,39%, 10 yrs: 2,08%, adults: 4,86%), probably due to Manner+Path-verbs such as grimper (‘to climb up’) and escalader (‘to climb up’). If speakers used this construction type, they often encoded the Goal of the upward motion in a subordinate clause (e.g, afin d’atteindre un nid ‘in order to reach a nest’). Responses in which French speakers expressed Manner in a subordinate clause were quite rare (e.g., monter en marchant à quatre pattes ‘to ascend by walking on all fours’). LC-constructions were also extremely rare among French speakers. If speakers used this construction type, they usually encoded Manner and/or Path in the first part of the response and then added another utterance expressing the exact Goal of the upward motion. One such response is illustrated in examples (139) (parts of responses are indicated by brackets). (139) [Il [le chat] monte sur l’ arbre en s’aidant de ses quatre [it [the cat] ascends on the tree by self-helping of its four pattes,] [il monte heu, jusque heu, dans son nid.] LC paws] [it ascends eh until eh in its nest] ‘It [the cat] ascends the tree with its four paws, it ascends until in its nest.’ 10 yrs

Type

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

TS

91,67

93,06

88,89

83,33

84,03

88,06

TC

 1,39

 1,39

 1,39

 2,08

 4,86

 2,22

LS

 5,56

 2,78

 6,25

10,42

10,42

 7,08

LC

 0

 0,69

 1,39

 2,78

 0,69

 1,11

Table 30: French: Response types with up-events (in %)

200 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

LS-constructions were mainly predicted to occur in children’s corpora. They were in fact produced at all ages but increased until ten years where they reached their maximal value of 10,42%. In such cases, French adults initially produced one utterance which described upward-motion in general, then a second utterance that specified the Figure’s arrival at the Goal. An example is illustrated in (140).169 LS-constructions among children mainly corresponded to cases where the experimenter asked a question in order to encourage the child to continue. In these cases, children often described upward motion again in other words (grimper ‘to climb up’, monter ‘to ascend’ etc.). In other cases, children often needed several utterances to provide an adequate description of the Manner of motion. Such a case is illustrated in (141). (140) [Une souris qui grimpe le long du pied d’une table] [a mouse which climbs+up along of+the leg of a table] et [qui donc arrive en haut de cette table.] LS and [which then arrives on top of this table] ‘A mouse which climbs up along the leg of the table and which then arrives on the top of this table.’ adult (141)

Donc après [//] il [l’ours] commence à monter sur l’arbre, well then [//] it [the bear] begins to ascend on the tree en fait il met ses deux mains autour de l’arbre et avec ses in fact he puts its two hands around of the tree and with its pattes arrières il pousse pour monter. LS paws back it pushes in order to ascend 10 yrs ‘Well then it [the bear] begins to climb up the tree, in fact it puts its two hands around the tree and with its back paws it pushes in order to ascend.’

Although TS-responses were the most frequent pattern in all German age groups, some variation occurred across ages (cf. Table 31). After an increase of TSresponses between four and six years (4 yrs: 84,72%, 6 yrs: 95,83%), TS-responses remained quite stable between six and ten years and then reached the adult target value (90,97%). This kind of response corresponded to descriptions which only contained one utterance, as illustrated in (142).

169 For coding details of relative clauses that were coded as if they were main clauses with respect to Global Architecture, cf. Chapter 7, p. 150.

Global Architecture 

Type

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

 201

G all

TS

84,72

95,83

94,44

95,14

90,97

92,22

TC

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0,69

 0,14

LS

13,89

 3,47

 5,56

 4,86

 7,64

 7,08

Table 31: German: Response types with up-events (in %)

(142) Das Eichhörnchen klettert auf den Baum. the squirrel climbs onto the tree (acc) ‘The squirrel climbs onto the tree.’

TS 4 yrs

Apart from TS-constructions, German speakers also produced a number of LS-constructions. These constructions were somewhat frequent among four-year-olds (13,89%) and decreased after this age until adult age (7,64%). German children often described upward motion with two utterances, the most frequently because they added some semantic information in the second utterance (example 143). If German adults used LS-constructions, they mainly added a Path-particle in their second utterance to explicitly encode the vertical dimension (e.g., auf einen Stängel hoch krabbeln ‘to crawl on a stalk up’). LC-constructions did not occur in descriptions of upward motion and TC-constructions were only produced by one adult speaker who explicitly encoded the Goal in a subordinate clause (bis es zu einem Blatt kommt ‘until it comes to a leaf’). (143) Hm jetzt die Raupe, die ist auf den Stängel hochgegangen hm now the caterpillar she is on the stalk (acc) up-gone [//] auf den Stängel hochgekrabbelt. LS [//] on the stalk up-crawled. ‘Now the caterpillar, crawled up the stalk.’ 4 yrs

9.4.1.2 Down-events Similarly to descriptions of up-events, speakers of both languages mainly used TSconstructions with down-events (French: 88,19%, German: 95,14%, cf. Table 32). TS-responses to up- versus down-events did not differ significantly in French. However, these responses were significantly more frequent with down-events in German (F(1,115) = 5,07, p  < 0.0248). In French, LS-constructions were less frequent with down-events than with up-events (2,50% versus 7,08%). In contrast to our predictions, complex constructions in French were also rare with this event-type (TC: 3,33%, LC: 0,14%). These results are in line with those concern-

202 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

ing information focus and information locus, which showed that French descriptions of downward-motion mainly focused on Path alone, which was mostly encoded in the main verb. German speakers usually produced TS-constructions (95%), which are the typical satellite-framed language pattern. LS-constructions occurred somewhat less frequently with downward motion than with upwardmotion (2,50% versus 7,08%). No German speaker used complex constructions with this event type.

Type

F all

G all

TS

87,08

95,14

TC

 3,33

 0

LS

 2,50

 3,89

LC

 0,14

 0

Table 32: Response types with down-events (in %)

As was the case with up-events, TS-constructions were the most important response pattern for down-events in all French age groups (cf. Table 33). However, TS-responses varied between four and ten years, where they reached adult level (4 yrs: 90,97%, 6 yrs: 82,64%, 8 yrs: 84,72%, 10 yrs: 88,19%). TS-responses to upversus down-events only differed significantly at six years (up: 93,06% versus down: 82,64%, F(1,23) = 7,59, p < 0.0109). A typical TS-construction describing a down-event is illustrated in (144).

Type

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

TS

90,97

82,64

84,72

88,89

88,19

87,08

TC

 0

 2,08

 3,47

 2,08

 9,03

 3,33

LS

 2,08

 2,78

 2,78

 2,08

 2,78

 2,50

LC

 0

 0,69

 0

 0

 0

 0,14

Table 33: French: Response types with down-events (in %)

(144)

Il [le singe] descend. he [the monkey] descends ‘It [the monkey] goes down.’

TS 10 yrs

The most striking developmental change among French children concerned the increase of TC-constructions between four years and adult age (4 yrs: 0% versus

Global Architecture 

 203

adults: 9,03%). Although TC-constructions increased from four years on, the most important change occurred between ten years and adult age (2,08% versus 9,03%). As illustrated in example (145), children’s utterances at this age were still rather idiosyncratic and showed their clumsiness in encoding Manner+Path simultaneously in a target-like construction. At eight years, they then became able to express Path in the main verb and to add a gerund which encodes Manner (cf. example 146). It is only at adult age that speakers mastered TC-constructions – although they did not always encode Manner+Path. (145) Il [le singe] a attrapé l’arbre entre ses mains et he [the monkey] has caught the tree between his hands and pour redescendre il a fait la même chose. TC in order to BACK-descend he has done the same thing ‘It [the monkey] caught the tree between its hands and in order to descend again it did the same thing.’ 6 yrs (146) (…) et elle [la souris] redescend en glissant. (…) and she [the mouse] BACK-descends by sliding ‘(…) and it [the mouse] goes down again sliding.’

TC 8 yrs

LS-constructions were quite rare in all French age groups. In most of these cases speakers provided additional information about specific aspects of the motion event that had not been expressed in the first utterance. The four-year-old in (147), for instance, intends to provide additional information about the cat’s Manner by “characterizing” it with the adverb comme ça (‘like this’).170 The French adult in (148) encodes further information about Manner and Goal in the second utterance. (147) Il [le chat] est redescendu par derrière [ ?] et he [the cat] is BACK-descended by backwards [?] and il a fait comme ça. he has done like this ‘It [the cat] went down again backwards and it did like this.’

LS 4 yrs

170 According to our coding conventions comme ça (‘like this’) does not encode explicit information relevant to motion.

204 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

(148) C’est à dire qu’il redescend heu, la tête en bas, that’s to say that he BACK-descends eh the head at the bottom comme le fait tout écureuil, heu, il saute de son trou jusqu’au [/] like it does each squirrel eh he jumps from its hole until to+the [/] au pied de l’ arbre. LS to+the foot of the tree ‘That is to say that it goes down with its head first, like all squirrels do, jumps from its hole down to the foot of the tree.’ adult As was the case for descriptions of up-events, TS-constructions were the most frequent pattern in all German age groups although they were even more frequent with this event type (cf. Table 34). TS-responses to up- versus down-events differed significantly at four years (up: 84,72% versus down: 96,53%, F(1,23) = 9,54, p < 0.0051) and marginally at ten years (up: 95,14% versus down: 98,61%, F(1,23) = 4,07, p < 0.053). Ten-year-olds even used TS-constructions in nearly 99% of the cases. Example (149) illustrates such a typical satellite-framed language pattern, which combines a Manner-verb with a Path-particle. (149) (…) und ähm gleitet wieder runter. (…) and heu slides again down ‘(…) and heu slides down again.’

Type

G04

G06

G08

G10

TS 10 yrs

GAD

G all

TS

96,53

93,75

95,14

98,61

91,67

95,14

TC

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

LS

 3,47

 4,17

 4,17

 1,39

 6,25

 3,89

LC

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

Table 34: German: Response types and number of utterances with down-events (in %)

In the rare cases when German speakers did not use TS-constructions, they produced LS-constructions. Between four and eight years children produced such constructions in about 4% of the cases and ten-year-olds hardly ever used them (1,39%), while adults used them in 6,25% of their descriptions. In the case of children, speakers often specified the Figure’s Manner of motion. The adult in example (150) not only adds another Manner-aspect (to slide) but also specifies the Ground of the motion event (leg of the table), neither of which had been mentioned in his first utterance. Complex constructions did not occur in German descriptions of down-events.

Global Architecture 

 205

(150) (… schnappt sich den käse,) klettert mit dem käse wieder (… grabs self the cheese) climbs with the cheese again runter, rutscht am Tischbein runter. LS down slides on+the table-leg (dat) down ‘(… grabs the cheese,) climbs down again with the cheese, slides down the leg of the table.’ adult

9.4.1.3 Across-events Among all event types, across-events elicited the fewest TS-responses in both languages and more TC-, LS- and LC-responses than the other event types. Table 35 shows the distinction of response types to across-events in each language, collapsing ages. French speakers produced TS-responses much less frequently (63,89%) with this event than with the other two target events. Thus, the difference between TS-responses to across-events versus up-/down-events was significant (across/up: F(1,115) = 115,81, p < 0.00001, across/down: F(1,115) = 85,54, p < 0.00001). Conversely, other response types were more frequent with across-events than with up- and down-events. This was the case for TC-constructions (across: 13,61%, up: 2,22%, down: 3,33%), for LS-constructions (across: 17,22%, up: 7,08%, down: 2,50%), as well as for LC-constructions (across: 4,86%, up: 1,11%, down: 01,14%). German responses to across-events displayed a similar pattern. TS-responses were also less frequent with this event-type than with up- and down-events (across: 85,97%, up: 92,22%, down: 95,14%). These differences between TS-responses to across-events and up-/down-event were significant (across/up: F(1,115) = 13,95, p < 0.0003, across/down: F(1,115) = 37,61, p < 0.00001). LS-constructions constituted a notable pattern among all age groups (11,39% on average). In comparison to their descriptions of up- and down-events, German adults produced complex constructions more frequently with across-events, a result that will be discussed below.

Type

F all

G all

TS

63,89

85,97

TC

13,61

 1,11

LS

17,22

11,39

LC

 4,86

 0,28

Table 35: Response types with across-events (in %)

206 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

Although TS-responses constituted the most frequent pattern across all age groups in French, this response type strongly decreased up to adult age (cf. Table 36). At four years, children still usually encoded only Manner in their utterance (cf. Chapter 9.2) using TS-responses in 90,97% of the cases. After four years, this response type decreased and reached a value of about 70% at six years. It continued to decrease with age and reached its minimal value at adult age (34,72%). As a result of this development, TS-responses with across-events differed significantly from those that were produced with up- and down-events from six-years on (cf. Appendix B.2, p. 345).

Type

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

TS

90,97

69,44

58,33

65,97

34,72

63,89

TC

 1,39

10,42

17,36

11,11

27,78

13,61

LS

 7,64

15,97

19,44

18,75

24,31

17,22

LC

 0

 4,17

 3,47

 3,47

13,19

 4,86

Table 36: French: Response types with across-events (in %)

TC-responses (which constitute the typical verb-framed language pattern) were quite rare among four-year-olds (1,39%), but increased strongly up to six years (10,42%). Although eight-year-olds produced more TC-responses than ten-yearolds (17,36% versus 11,11%), this response type continued to increase until adult age, where it reached its maximal value (27,78%). As discussed above, when French speakers used subordinate clauses to describe across-events, they used the Path-verb traverser (‘to cross’) as a main verb and added a gerund to express Manner (e.g., en nageant ‘by swinning’), or they encoded Manner in the main verb and added Path in the subordinate clause as illustrated in (151). (151)

Une dame en vélo fait du vélo sur la route, en passant a lady by bike bike-rides on the road by passing sur un chemin de rails. on a road of rails ‘A lady on a bike rides on the road by crossing a railroad track.’

TC 8 yrs

LC-constructions did not occur among four-year-olds but occasionally occurred among the other children’s age groups (4%). After ten years of age, this construction type increased and reached its maximal value at adult age (13,19%). Let us consider two examples of this construction type with across-events. In example (152) the spontaneous answer of this six-year-old is to describe the motion event

Global Architecture 

 207

with an onomatopoetic expression. It is only after the experimenter asked him to describe it with words that the child produced a perfect adult-like description of the target event by using a gerund. Although the French adult in example (153) already expressed all the semantic information (Manner+Path) in his first utterance, he reformulated his initial sentence in such a way as to provide additional information about the Source and Goal of the Figure’s motion. The data shows that speakers often repeated or reformulated their initial utterance by adding some new element that encoded further semantic information. (152) SUJ : Alors well

en fait in fact

EXP : Dis avec say with

il était he was

là, there

il he

a has

fait piou. made piou

des mots. words

SUJ : En fait il était là, et là il est descendu et après in fact he was there and there he is descended and then il a traversé la rivière en faisant du crawl. LC he has crossed the river by doing of+the crawl ‘SUJ: Well in fact he was there, he has made piou. EXP: Say it with words. SUJ: In fact he was there, and there he went down and then he crossed the river by doing the crawl.’ 6 yrs (153) La petite fille elle fait du patin à glace, pour traverser le lac the little girl she ice-skates in order to cross the lake gelé, elle va d’ un pont à l’autre. LC frozen she goes from one bridge to the other ‘The little girl ice-skates to cross the lake, she goes from one bridge to the other.’ adult Contrary to our predictions, LS-responses were the least frequent pattern among four-year-olds (7,64%) but increased gradually and reached a maximal value of 24,31% at adult age. In nearly all of the cases, French speakers expressed Manner in one of the utterances and Path in the other. Example (154) illustrates a typical French LS-response.

208 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

(154) Il fait du crawl, il va jusque de l’ autre côté he does the crawl he goes to the other side de la rivière. of the river ‘He swims the crawl, he goes to the other side of the river.’

LS 8 yrs

Although TS-responses were the most frequent pattern across all German age groups, response types showed much variability with this event type (cf. Table 37). TS-responses increased between four and ten years (4 yrs: 80,56%, 6 yrs: 86,81%, 8 yrs: 93,06%, 10 yrs: 92,36%) and then strikingly decreased until adult-age where they reached their minimal value of 77,08%. In general, TS-responses were less frequent with across-events than with other target event types. However, differences across event types were not significant within each age group (4 yrs: across/up ns, across/down F(1,23) = 16,41, p < 0.0005, 6 yrs: across/up F(1,23) = 10,20, p  < 0.0040, across/down F(1,23) = 6,05, p  < 0.0208, 8 yrs: across/up ns, across/up ns, 10 yrs: across/up ns, across/down F(1,23) = 6,67, p < 0.0159, adults: across/up F(1,23) = 8,92, p < 0.0065, across/down F(1,23) = 11,30, p < 0.0027). TSresponses are in line with our results concerning information locus discussed in Chapter 9.3.1.3 German children produced very frequent TS-responses that contained only one utterance. In such utterances they mainly used a Manner-verb which appeared either alone or in combination with a Path-particle or with one or more prepositional phrases. Example (155) illustrates a typical satellite-framed language pattern. Although German adults produced very frequent TS-responses (77,08%) their construction types were much more varied than those produced by children.

Type

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

TS

80,56

86,81

93,06

92,36

77,08

85,97

TC

 0

 0

 0

 0

 5,56

 1,11

LS

18,06

12,50

 5,56

 6,25

14,58

11,39

LC

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,39

 0,28

Table 37: German: Response types with across-events (in %)

(155) Das [bas Baby] [//] krabbelt it [the baby] [//] crawls ‘There she [the baby] crawls across.’

da there

drüber. across

TS 4 yrs

Global Architecture 

 209

Apart from TS-constructions, German children (particularly at ages four and six) and adults produced some LS-constructions (4 yrs: 18,06%, 6 yrs: 12,50%, adults: 14,58%). In these cases, speakers spread information across several utterances. They either distributed Manner- and Path-information across two separate utterances or further elaborated information already provided in their first utterance, stressing some particular aspect in the second utterance (example 156). (156) Der ist da drüber gelaufen, der he is there across walked he ‘He walked across there, he is running.’

rennt. runs

LS 4 yrs

Complex responses to across-events only occurred among adults who used them more frequently with this event type than with the two other target event types. The relatively high number of TC-constructions is due to the fact that German adults used the Path-verb überqueren (‘to cross’) in combination with the present participle of Manner-verbs. Example (157) illustrates such a case. LC-constructions were very rare and only occurred among adults. (157) Ein sportlicher junger Mann überquert rennend a sporty young man crosses running ‘A young sportsman runs across the street.’

die Straße. the street

TC adult

9.4.2 Global Architecture in control items As predicted, responses to Manner-salient control items elicited mainly TSresponses in both languages (cf. Table 38). However, this response type was more frequent in German than in French (French: 77,15%, German 96,53%). As discussed above, in French, TS-responses differed significantly between control items and all target events (cf. p. 196). In German, TS-responses differed between controls and across- and up-events, but not between down-events. Following the verb-framed language pattern, French speakers produced TC-constructions in about 10% of the cases. LC-constructions were much less frequent and mainly occurred among French adults (on average 1,74%). As in responses to targets, LSconstructions constituted an important pattern – not only among children (on average 9,44%). German speakers mainly produced TS-constructions (96,53%), which were more frequent with control items than with targets. Nevertheless, German speakers occasionally used LS-constructions (2,92%). Complex constructions practically never occurred among German speakers (TC: 0,14%, LC: 0.07%).

210 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

Type

French

German

TS

77,15

96,53

TC

10,35

 0,14

LS

 9,44

 2,92

LC

 1,74

 0,07

Table 38: Response types with control-items (in %)

TS-constructions were the most important response pattern across all French age groups (cf. Table 39). However, TS-responses strongly decreased between four years (93,06%) and adult age, where they reached their minimal value of 77,15%. Since, TS-responses were also extremely frequent with target events at four years, differences between controls and targets were not significant at this age. At six and eight years, TS-responses were only significantly different between control items and up- and across-items, but not between control items and downevents (6 yrs: control/up F(1,23) = 9,20, p < 0.0058, control/across F(1,23) = 4,61, p < 0.0405, 8 yrs: control/up F(1,23) = 4,96, p < 0.0342, control/across F(1,23) = 11,70, p < 0.0024). At ten years, French children’s TS-responses differed significantly between controls and up- or down-events (control/up F(1,23) = 4,31, p < 0.0471, control/down F(1,23) = 13,33, p < 0.0014), but not between controls and across-events for which these children produced a great number of TS-responses. At adult age, TS-responses differed significantly between controls and all three target event types (control/up F(1,23) = 6.05, p < 0.0209, control/down F(1,23) = 18,22, p < 0.0003, control/across F(1,23) = 15,88, p < 0.0006). An example for a TSconstruction with control items is illustrated in (158). (158) Le petit garçon, il glisse sur la neige. the little boy he slides on the snow ‘The little boy, he is sliding on the snow.’

Type

F04

F06

TS 8 yrs

F08

F10

FAD

F all

TS

93,06

80,56

76,74

70,14

65,28

77,15

TC

0,69

6,25

13,19

18,40

13,19

10,35

LS

4,86

10,07

7,29

9,38

15,63

9,44

LC

0

0,69

1,39

1,74

4,86

1,74

Table 39: French: Response types with control items (in %)

Global Architecture 

 211

In contrast to our predictions, French speakers of all age groups produced rather frequent LS-constructions. Although this construction type only reached 4,86% among four-year-olds, six-year-olds already used it in 10% of the cases. After a slight decrease at eight and ten years (7,29% respectively 9,38%), LS-constructions reached a maximal value at adult age (15,36%). In these constructions, speakers spread information across several utterances either by adding new information in a second utterance (examples 159) or by reformulating or elaborating information they had already given in their first utterance (example 160). (159) Le chat il marche, il fait un ou deux pas et après the cat he walks he makes one or two steps and then il bondit et il a traversé l’image comme ça. LS he jumps and he has crossed the picture like that ‘The cat it walks, it makes one or two steps and then it jumps and it has crossed the picture like that.’ 8 yrs (160) Une petite souris qui marche a little mouse that walks ‘A little mouse that walks and runs.’

et court. and runs

LS 4 yrs

TC-constructions (which are the typical verb-framed language pattern) increased gradually and reached a peek at ten years (18,40%), then decreased until adult age (13,19%). In such responses, speakers usually expressed Manner+Path, encoding Path in the verb traverser (‘to cross’) and Manner in a gerund (e.g., en faisant du patinage ‘by ice-skating’). Although LC-constructions are much less frequent with control items than with across-events, French adults produced them in 4,86% of the cases. In such constructions, French speakers mainly intended to give a rather complete description of the Figure’s motion, focusing primarily on several aspects of Manner, as illustrated in example (161). (161) Là c’est une chenille qui marche, elle sautille en rampant. LC there it is a caterpillar which walks she jumps by crawling ‘That’s a caterpillar that walks, it jumps and crawls.’ 8 yrs In German, TS-constructions constituted the most frequent pattern across all age groups and only decreased slightly by adult age (4 yrs: 97,57% versus adults: 92,01%, cf. Table 40). Although TS-constructions were the most frequent pattern in all age groups and with all event types, there were significant differences between TS-responses to specific event types and in specific age groups. Four-

212 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

year-olds produced significantly fewer TS-responses with controls than with upand across-events (control/up F(1,23) = 28,79, p < 0.00001, control/across F(1,23) = 10,73, p < 0.0033). Among six-year-olds, ten-year-olds and adults, TS-responses only differed significantly between controls and across-items (6 yrs: F(1,23) = 20,69, 8 yrs: F(1,23) = 5,46, p < 0.0273, adults: F(1,23) = 17,74, p < 0.0003). Among eight-year-olds, no difference was significant. As discussed above in Chapter 9.2.1, speakers either expressed only Manner (e.g., rennen ‘to run’) or Manner+Path (e.g., rüber rennen ‘to run across’).

Type

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

TS

97,57

98,61

96,88

97,57

92,01

96,53

TC

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0,69

 0,14

LS

 2,43

 1,39

 2,43

 2,08

 6,25

 2,92

LC

 0

 0

 0

 0,35

 0

 0,07

Table 40: German: Response types with control items (in %)

LS-constructions were produced quite rarely among German children (4 yrs: 2,43%, 6 yrs: 1,39%, 8 yrs: 2,43%, 10 yrs: 2,08%) and reached their maximal value at adult age (6,25%). In these construction types, children mostly expressed the Figure’s Manner twice, paraphrasing it in other words in their second utterance (cf. example 162). In the case of adults, they most frequently expressed only Manner in the first utterance and added Path in the second (examples 163). Complex constructions only occurred three times among German speakers. (162) Die Katze, die springt und läuft einen Schritt und springt wieder. LS the cat she jumps and walks a step and jumps again ‘The cat jumps and walks a step and jumps again.’ 8 yrs (163) Die Raupe, die kriecht, die kriecht von der rechten zur the caterpillar she crawls she crawls from the right to+the linken Seite. LS left side (dat) ‘The caterpillar, it crawls, it crawls from the right side to the left side.’ adult

Qualitative Analyses 

 213

9.5 Qualitative Analyses We turn to more qualitative analyses that further examine in some more detail a number of research questions. To complement our previous results that focused on the main variables (item type and event type), the following analyses did not take into account these variables that is to say, the results concern target (up-, down- and across-events) as well as control items (excluding all responses to specific questions). Speakers’ responses were examined along the following dimensions: a) Verbs: Which verb types do speakers use in their verbalizations of voluntary motion? b) Satellites: How many satellites do speakers use on average in each utterance? Which type of satellites do they use? c) Periphery: Which kind of peripheral constructions do speakers use in their descriptions?

9.5.1 Verbs With respect to verbs we will concentrate on those verbs that were used by speakers in descriptions of voluntary motion events, namely those that were coded as voluntary motion verbs (VMM, cf. Chapter 7.5.2). After an examination of the different verb forms produced by the participants, children’s uses of semanticallyneutral verbs and auxiliary verb constructions will be studied in detail. In descriptions of target events (up, down, across, control), speakers of both languages primarily used voluntary motion verbs as shown in Table 41 (French: 97,84%, German: 99,27%). Two examples are illustrated in (164) and (165). German four- and six-year-olds produced some utterances in which the VMM-verb had to be inferred from the context. In (165) the four-year-old only used an explicit motion verb for upward motion, but left it to the hearer to infer the downward motion that took place immediately thereafter. (164) Il nagait dans l’eau. he swam in the water ‘He was swimming in the water.’

6 yrs

214 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

age

French

German

4 years

97,28

97,42

6 years

97,18

99,87

8 years

98,42

99,60

10 years

97,68

99,73

adults

98,63

99,75

overall

97,84

99,27

Table 41: Voluntary motion verbs in descriptions of target events (in %)

(165) Die geht hoch und [geht] dann she goes up and [goes] then ‘She goes up and then down again.’

runter down

wieder. again 4 yrs

To determine the type-token-ratio (TTR) for each language and within each age group, we grouped together voluntary motion verbs that were used in descriptions of the beginning, of the target event, and of the end/result. In French as well as in German, specific criteria served to define what verb form were considered as a type. In general, (prefixed) verb stems (e.g., descendre ‘to descend’, redescendre ‘to BACK-descend’, laufen ‘to walk’, überqueren ‘to cross’) and German incorporations (e.g., radfahren ‘to bike-drive’, schlittschuhfahren ‘to ice-skate’) were counted as a type. In cases where voluntary motion verbs were combined with modals (e.g., vouloir ‘to want to’, müssen ‘to have to’) or specific aspectual constructions (e.g., continuer à ‘to continue to’) only the voluntary motion verb was counted as a type. Different verb forms that involved separable non verbal elements (e.g., faire du marathon ‘to do a marathon’, einen Überschlag machen ‘to do a handspring’) were subsumed together under the more extensive construction type such as faire X (‘to do X’) or X machen (‘to make X’).171 Table 42 shows the type-token-ratio across languages and age groups. As predicted the type-token-ratio was higher in German than in French (2,29% versus 1,92%), although this difference is not striking and French speakers even produced some more verb types than German speakers (French: 137 versus German: 124). Furthermore, type-token-ratio generally increased with age, that is to say, as predicted, the verbal lexicon was more differentiated in older children and adults than in younger children.

171 Since there are extremely smooth transitions between independent verbs, verbal incorporations, and other verbal constructions assignments are practically subjective.

 215

Qualitative Analyses 

In French, there was an overall increase of verb types with age. Whereas French four-year-olds only produced 42 different verb types, adults used more than twice as many (98 types). The type-token-ratio increased gradually but remained relatively stable between ages four and six and between ages eight and ten. It is especially after ten years that verb types increased (10 yrs: 66, adults: 98). With respect to the development of verb types in German, four-year-olds even showed a type-token-ratio similar to the one observed among ten-year-olds. After that age, type-token-ratio as well as verb types decreased and reached a minimal value at six years. It is only after that age that the type-token-ratio increased and then reached its maximal value at adult age (5,92%). Although from eight years on, German children encoded Manner as often as adults (cf. Chapter 9.2), their Manner-verb lexicon is not yet as differentiated as that of adults. Verb types will now be examined in each language separately.

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

tokens 1086 1317 1294 1484 1951 7132 1029 1058 1014 1033 1283 5417 types 42

47

59

66

98

137

53

41

44

55

76

124

TTR

3,57

4,56

4,45

5,02

1,92

5,15

3,88

4,34

5,32

5,92

2,29

3,87

Table 42: TTR in descriptions of voluntary motion items across languages and age groups F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

50

140

56

54

52

352

*arriver

5

19

46

69

188

327

atteindre

0

0

1

0

10

11

*avancer

15

20

25

25

22

107

0

3

3

9

27

42

*aller

*continuer X (e.g., son chemin) *courir

93

99

114

132

148

586

*descendre

73

56

50

41

54

274

entrer

4

0

0

2

6

12

escalader

2

0

1

2

20

25

*faire X (e.g., du patinage)

57

65

68

71

77

338

*glisser

37

47

45

50

56

235

*grimper

27

26

48

33

79

213

*marcher

118

75

93

103

121

510

216 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

*monter

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

137

135

110

138

74

594

*nager

50

45

42

47

40

224

*partir

76

140

68

64

42

390

*passer

28

24

36

43

16

147

*patiner

4

3

11

12

21

51

plonger

0

2

5

4

4

15

*prendre X (e.g., le chemin)

2

0

1

3

7

13

*pédaler

0

1

1

6

17

25

quitter

0

0

0

0

14

14

*ramper

0

5

18

10

26

59

*redescendre

76

87

100

111

119

493

remonter

19

13

13

21

24

90

*rentrer

3

13

1

0

6

23

repartir

44

56

67

101

103

371

ressortir

0

0

1

7

11

19

*retourner

0

8

3

3

8

22

*revenir

3

12

5

3

2

25

rouler

16

2

7

4

7

36

s‘en aller

37

28

52

53

29

199

*sauter

24

24

19

26

30

123

*sautiller

0

3

10

4

12

29

*se diriger

0

0

0

1

15

16

se déplacer

0

0

0

3

21

24

se laisser glisser

0

3

1

0

13

17

*se promener

7

2

0

0

3

12

*sortir

2

5

5

6

44

62

31

121

125

156

231

664

0

0

0

6

6

12

3

13

10

21

55

102

25

4

0

0

1

30

*traverser trottiner *venir être = aller

Table 43: Verb types in French

Qualitative Analyses 

 217

Tables 43 and 44 (on pages 215 and 219) give an overview of French and German verb types that were produced more than ten times. The verbs marked by an asterisk comprise several different verb forms which have been subsumed together under one single verb type. For instance, the German verb type X machen (‘to do X’) comprises verb forms such as Bewegungen machen (‘to do movements’), Eishockey machen (‘to do ice-hockey’), and leise Schritte machen (‘to make quiet steps’). The lists of all verb types in both languages are presented in Appendix B.3 and B.4 (p. 345–352). In French, 23 verb types were produced more than 50 times (marked in grey); eight of them encode Manner, 14 encode Path and the verb aller (‘to go’) did not encode any semantic information apart from Motion as such. Almost all of these 23 dynamic motion verbs were simple (prefixed) verb forms that have a rather vague meaning. Typical examples are for instance courir (‘to run’), passer (‘to pass’), repartir (‘to AGAIN-leave’). The only complex verb types were those 61 constructions that were subsumed under the extensive notion of faire X (‘to do X’) and that referred to very subtle nuances (cf. Appendix B.5, p. 352). Across all age groups, French speakers frequently used such constructions à verbe support to refer to specific Manners of motion such as faire du vélo (‘to bike ride’), faire du footing (‘to jog’), faire des bonds (‘to bounce’) or faire du patinage (‘to ice-skate’). Furthermore, children relatively frequently used idiosyncratic constructions of the type faire X (‘to do X’) because they sometimes had not yet acquired the adult target form. To describe the movement of the little girl who is ice-skating across a lake, French speakers produced 12 different verb forms, 11 of them of the type faire X and five of them were idiosyncratic. – faire de la patinoire (‘to do the ice rink’) – faire des patins à glace (‘to some ice-skates’) (idiosyncratic) – faire du pat à glace (‘to do ice-skat’) (idiosyncratic) – faire du patin (‘to do skating’) – faire du patin à glace (‘to do ice-skating’) – faire du patinage (‘to do skating’) – faire la patinoire (‘to do the ice rink’) (idiosyncratic) – faire un patin à neige (‘to do a snow-skate’) (idiosyncratic) – faire un peu de patin à glace (‘to do a little bit ice-sakting’) – se faire du patin à glace (‘to self-do some ice-skating’) (idiosyncratic) – patiner (un peu) (‘to ice-skate (at bit)’) Children as well as French adults frequently used such complex constructions typically involving a neutral verb/verbe support (e.g., avoir ‘to have’, faire ‘to do’) combined with quite specific elements (mostly NPs or PPs) to characterize specific Manners of motion for which they did not posses a simple verb form.

218 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

This strategy then resulted in expressions such as avoir une allure modérée mais rapide (‘to have a moderated but fast speed’), faire des bonds réguliers (‘to do some regular bounces’), faire un geste d’accordéon avec son corps (‘to do an accordion gesture with its body’). In contrast to the predictions that French speakers should not use many simple verbs with very precise meanings, they did produce, from eight years on, a great number of quite specific and relatively rare verb types such as cramponner (‘to pester’), crapahuter (‘to walk under difficult conditions’), gambader (‘to gambol’), s’onduler (‘to slither’), and se dandiner (‘to waddle’). Children at ages four and six, however, concentrated more on usual verb types (e.g., marcher ‘to walk’, se promener ‘to take a walk’) and produced other idiosyncratic verb forms by adding the reflexive pronoun se (‘self’) or the prefix re- (‘again/back’) to common verbs. This resulted in verb types such as *s’avancer (‘to self advance’), *se ramper (‘to self crawl’), *realler (‘to AGAIN-go’), *regrimper (‘to AGAIN-climbup’), and *renager (‘to AGAIN-swim’). In some cases, French speakers produced a verb form of the static verb être (‘to be’) to express a dynamic motion. An example of such a construction is given in (166). (166) Le bébé il a été de l’autre côté de la rue. the baby it has been on the other side of the street ‘The baby was on the other side of the screen.’

4 yrs

Some cases of “fictive motion” (Talmy 2003, 1: 104) occurred in our French data, especially in descriptions of the scenery. The following motion verbs were used in a static sense: aller (‘to go’), arriver (‘to arrive’), fuir (‘to run away’), glisser (‘to slide’), partir (‘to leave’), passer (‘to pass’), se diriger (‘to direct’), and traverser (‘to cross’). It was only from eight years on that French speakers used such constructions. They were the most frequent among adults. Example (167) illustrates such a case. (167) (… puis, il monte la [/] la pente) qui va de la rivière (… then he ascend the [/] the slope) which goes from the river vers la droite de l’écran. towards the right of the screen ‘(… then, he goes down the [/] the slope) which goes from the river towards the right of the screen.’ adult In German, 18 verb types were produced more than 50 times (marked in grey in Table 44); 13 of them encoded Manner, three Path (kommen ‘to come’, überqueren ‘to cross’, verschwinden ‘to disappear’), and two Motion per se (gehen ‘to

Qualitative Analyses 

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

 219

G all

*baden

6

5

0

0

0

11

*fahren

45

43

49

60

43

240

*fahrradfahren

10

12

12

10

6

50

*gehen

312

265

211

182

84

1054

gleiten

0

0

2

3

10

15

hauen-(ab)hauen

0

0

4

4

3

11

*hüpfen

5

6

7

9

35

62

*joggen

15

14

27

28

19

103

*klettern

121

144

167

200

190

822

*kommen

7

26

25

26

154

238

*krabbeln

79

78

70

71

87

385

0

1

3

0

12

16

kraulen *kriechen

5

12

2

9

19

47

173

143

113

114

156

699

*machen X (e.g., Sprünge)

4

2

3

2

3

14

*radeln

2

10

4

0

7

23

*rennen

43

55

53

51

35

237

0

2

0

3

7

12

14

20

30

27

33

124

3

3

11

12

16

45

*laufen

robben (idiosyncratic) *rutschen *schleichen *schlittern

0

10

22

26

22

80

*schlittschuhfahren

29

30

17

15

15

106

*schlittschuhlaufen

5

10

8

5

8

36

*schwimmen

36

41

45

47

2

171

sein = gehen

22

42

28

14

4

110

*sich bewegen

0

0

0

0

18

18

sich schleichen

1

4

13

4

8

30

39

37

43

38

44

201

*springen sprinten

0

0

0

2

15

17

steigen

1

3

8

7

7

26

220 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

tauchen

7

4

2

0

0

13

*überqueren

1

2

3

6

45

57

*verschwinden

0

21

2

16

99

138

Table 44: Verb types in German

go’, sein in the sense of ‘to go’). 14 of these voluntary motion verbs were simple verbs (e.g., schwimmen ‘to swim’, krabbeln ‘to crawl’), except for two that were prefixed (überqueren ‘to cross’, verschwinden ‘to disappear’) and two of them that were verbal incorporations (fahrradfahren ‘to bike-ride’, schlittschuhfahren ‘to ice-skate-drive’). In contrast to French, constructions that involved a neutral verb such as haben (‘to have’) or machen (‘to do/make’) in combination with a prepositional phrase or other elements were much less frequent. Whereas French speakers produced 61 different verb forms of the type faire X, German speakers only used 13 verb forms of the type X machen (‘to do X’) such as Zwischenhüpfer machen (‘to do between-bounces’) and leise Schritte machen (‘to make quiet steps’), two expressions that are not lexicalized and therefore can be considered as ad-hoc productions. A striking characteristic of the German motion verb lexicon was that speakers made very subtle differentiations between Manners of motion which lead to shades that are difficult to explain even for native speakers. The following two verb groups of our data are good examples for this phenomenon: hobbeln, hoppeln, hopsen, hupfen, hüpfen and tappeln, tappen, tapsen, tippeln, tippseln, trippeln, trotten (cf. Appendix B.4, p. 349). German children showed several quite characteristic uses of voluntary motion verbs. First, if they did not find a motion verb that described satisfactorily the specific Manner of the Figure, they frequently produced Manner-verb neologisms such as the following: raupen, which might be derived from the noun Raupe (‘carterpillar’) to mean ‘to move as a caterpillar’; kraupen, which probably fuses the verb krabbeln (‘to crawl’) and the noun Raupe (‘carterpillar’); tappeln, which probably combines the verbs tappen (‘to go falteringly’), and tippeln (‘to trip’). Just like French children they also combined the reflexive pronoun sich (‘self’) with voluntary motion verbs resulting in idiosyncratic verb forms such as sich hetzen (‘to self rush’) or sich fahren (‘to self drive’). With respect to verbal incorporations, which are quite typical in German, idiosyncratic forms such as schneefahren (‘to snow-drive’) were rare. German speakers used nine different verb types to refer to the girl ice-skating across the lake (see above for French), six of which were idiosyncratic.

Qualitative Analyses 

– – – – – – – – –

 221

schlitten (‘to sledge’) (idiosyncratic) schlittfahren (‘drive’) (idiosyncratic) schlittschuhen (‘to skate’) (idiosyncratic) schlittschuhfahren (‘to ice-skate-drive’) schlittschuhlaufen (‘to ice-skate-run’) schlittschuhe machen (‘to do ice-skates’) (idiosyncratic) schlittschuhmachen (‘to do ice-skates’) (idiosyncratic) schlittschuhfahren machen (‘to do ice-skating’) (idiosyncratic) schlittschuh üben (‘to practice ice-skating’)

Other verb types with this item labelled similar activities such as eishockeylaufen (‘to ice-hockey-drive’) or skifahren (‘to go skiing’). All these examples show that although German children have a quite large verbal lexicon, they exhibited difficulties using adult-like expressions to describe specific Manners. It is interesting to note briefly one typical German construction type that expressed the inchoative aspect of the Figure’s arrival on the scene in combination with its Manner of motion. In these constructions, German speakers used the finite form of the deictic verb kommen (‘to come’) in combination with the perfect participle of some Manner-verb, that could have the prefix an (‘to’) to emphasize the arrival of the Figure at a specific point. Example (168) illustrates such a case which primarily occurred among German adults. (168) Eine Maus kommt angeschlichen. a mouse comes up-sneaked ‘A mouse arrives by sneaking up.’

adult

As it was the case in French, German speakers also used forms of the verb sein (‘to be’) to express voluntary motion events. Such constructions were much more frequent in German than in French and occurred mostly between four and eight years. These cases may probably be interpreted as the omission of the perfect participle of the voluntary motion verb gehen (‘to go’). Example (169) illustrates such a construction. (169) Die [Katze] ist den Mast hoch. the [cat] is the pylon up ‘It [the cat] went up the pylon.’

8 yrs

As discussed above (cf. Chapter 5.3, p. 106), semantically-neutral verbs have been observed to play a role in language acquisition. For that reason, first children’s

222 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

uses of semantically-neutral verbs and then those of auxiliary verb constructions will now be examined in more detail. Children, especially German children, were expected to produce a great number of semantically-neutral verbs. The following analysis concentrates on the uses of gehen (‘to go’) and aller (‘to go’) which were the only semantically-neutral verbs that appeared in isolation, that is to say without being part of a auxiliary verb construction. Table 45 shows how many semantically-neutral verbs were produced in each language and age group in general, in descriptions of target events, of beginnings, and of ends/results. Overall, German speakers used gehen (‘to go’) in 15,14% of their descriptions, whereas French speakers only used aller (‘to go’) in 3,67% of the cases. In both languages such verbs were most frequent in descriptions of the end of the scene (French: 8,68% versus German: 32,72%).

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD G all

overall

3,64  7,22 3,23 2,35 1,93 3,67 23,61 19,53 16,16 12,25  4,14 15,14

target event

2,85  4,82 1,91 1,58 2,29 2,69 18,58 13,08  9,80  6,85  2,16 10,09

beginning

5,02  3,58 1,95 1,07 1,86 2,69 33,33 21,88 16,53 14,13  1,27 17,43

end/result

4,49 19,10 9,89 8,62 1,28 8,68 37,61 39,57 41,40 31,75 13,27 32,72

Table 45: gehen and aller in descriptions of voluntary motion (in %)

In French, isolated uses of the verb aller (‘to go’) did not constitute a particularly striking response. However, it is notable that French six-year-olds used aller twice as frequently as four-year-olds. This mainly concerned descriptions of the end of the scene, where they used this verb in about 19% of the cases. Note that these cases do not include uses of the expression s’en aller (‘to leave’) which has a clearly deictic meaning. In (170) the six-year-old uses the verb aller in a typical combination with a prepositional phrase that indicates the Goal of the Figure’s motion. (170) (…) elle va jusqu’ à l’autre bout. (…) she goes up to the other end ‘(…) she goes to the other end.’

6 yrs

As was discussed several times in the results section, semantically-neutral verbs constituted an important verb type among German children. This analysis encompasses all uses of the verb gehen, whether it was combined with a (Path-) particle or not. We are aware that this analysis is problematic because in spe-

Qualitative Analyses 

 223

cific contexts gehen can encode a deictic component (‘to leave’) or Manner (‘to walk’). Nevertheless, following the studies about this verb discussed in Chapter 5.4, we counted all occurrences of gehen for the present analysis. At four years, semantically-neutral verbs represented almost a quarter of the verbs produced by the children (23,61%). Uses of gehen decreased with age, but still reached the value of 12,25% at age ten. Adults, however, mostly used gehen in descriptions of the end of the scene (13,27%) and only rarely in descriptions of the target event (2,16%) or of the beginning (1,27%). This result can be explained by the fact that, in this context, the speaker probably wanted to convey the deictic meaning of the verb gehen in the sense of ‘away from the origo’. Example (171) illustrates the use of gehen in the description of a target event. (171)

Die Raupe, die geht da hoch. the caterpillar she goes there up ‘The caterpillar, it goes up there.’

4 yrs

There seem to be two major reasons why children used gehen so frequently. On the one hand, it is an extremely frequent verb that is acquired very early (Kauschke 2000). Thus, children do not have difficulties using it with different inflection forms. On the other hand, since gehen is considered to be a passepartout verb, that is to say its semantic content is highly vague, it can be used in nearly all contexts. As a result, gehen is very easy to handle and thus is used more frequently than any other verb, especially among young German children. With respect to auxiliary verb constructions, only German tun-constructions were analyzed in detail. Other auxiliary verb constructions (e.g., Sprünge machen ‘to make jumps’, prendre le chemin inverse ‘to take the opposite way’) were excluded from the quantitative analysis for two reasons: First, in German, such constructions (e.g., Bewegungen machen ‘to do movements’) were extremely rare and often had an idiosyncratic character which will be discussed below. Second, in French, constructions with the verbs prendre (‘to take’) and faire (‘to do’) frequently do not have a monomorphemic equivalent and thus, in a stricter sense, cannot be interpreted as light verb constructions (Brugman 2001: 553). In other words, in French, some motion events (especially specific types of Manners) can only be expressed by an expression that includes light verbs (e.g., faire du patinage ‘to do ice skating’, faire du vélo ‘to cycle’). Tun-constructions were particularly frequent among German children. In such constructions, children between four and eight years combined voluntary motion verbs with the light verb tun (‘to do’) resulting in idiosyncratic utterances such as (172).

224 

(172)

 Results: Voluntary Motion

Die Raupe tut den Stängel hoch ## kriechen. the caterpillar does the stalk up ## crawl ‘The caterpillar is crawling up the stalk.’

4 yrs

Table 46 shows that this construction type was relatively frequent at four years, but then gradually decreased. It occurred extremely rarely at age ten and never at adult age. This result is in line with Eroms’ (1998) findings on the use of tunconstructions in different German dialects. According to him, tun-constructions are produced spontaneously by German children, but since such structures are widely “stigmatised” they are restricted to local use and mainly avoided by adult speakers (Eroms 1998: 140–151).

Age group

tun-constructions

4 years

9,81

6 years

4,27

8 years

1,21

10 years

0,81

Adults

0

Overall

3,22

Table 46: tun-constructions in German in descriptions of target events (in %)

The main reason for young children’s use of tun (‘to do’) as a finite verb form may be that it is easier for them to inflect a highly frequent verb, such as tun, than a rare verb such as schlittschuhlaufen (‘to ice-skate-drive’). Other, much rarer auxiliary verb constructions that involve the verb gehen (‘to go’) seem to have the same function (cf. examples 173). Although such light verb constructions convey an aspectual meaning (cf. Chapter 5.4) added by the verb gehen, it is questionable if children intentionally express these aspectual shades. Behrens (2003: 177) assumes that such constructions with gehen (‘to go’) + full verb are rather rare in German child language because the verb gehen is less grammaticalized than in other Germanic languages such as English. This observation is in line with our results. (173) Eine Fahrradfahrerin geht a cyclist goes ‘A cyclist rides her bike.’

Fahrrad bike

fahren. ride 8 yrs

Qualitative Analyses 

 225

Most combinations of the verb machen (‘to make’) with nominal complements (cf. example 174) cannot be interpreted as light verb constructions because they do not have a monomorphemic equivalent (cf. the French examples mentioned above). (174) Die [Katze] macht so Zwischenhüpfer. she [cat] makes so inter-skipper ‘It [the cat] jumps by doing some sort of smaller bounds in between.’ 10 yrs Similar to the extremely frequent use of the verb gehen (‘to go’) alone, auxiliary verb constructions, especially the very frequent tun-construction, seem to help children to acquire the adult target pattern for descriptions of voluntary motion. Since semantically-neutral verbs occur recurrently in children’s input and are used from very early on, children are familiar with their inflection. Furthermore, their “light” meaning and its status as quasi-passepartouts allow speakers to use them in a great variety of contexts. As a consequence, the processing cost to produce an utterance with a semantically-neutral verb as main verb is much lower than for utterances with fully inflected verbs. The results observed in our data (cf. Table 46) lead us to assume the following acquisition process of the typical satellite-framed language pattern. 1st Stage: inflected form of the semantically-neutral verb gehen + particles/PPs X geht Y (‘X goes Y’) 2nd Transitional stage involving an auxiliary verb construction: inflected form of the verb tun + particles/PPs + infinitive of a full verb X tut Y fahren/krabbeln/klettern etc. (‘X does Y drive/crawl/climb etc.’) 3rd Stage: inflected form of a full verb + particles/PPs X fährt/krabbelt/klettert etc. Y (‘X drives/crawls/climbs etc. Y’) In stage 1, the child combines an inflected form of the semantically-neutral verb gehen (‘to go’) with some (Path-)particle or prepositional phrase. Once these constructions become stabilized, the child passes through a transitional stage where she combines an inflected form of the verb tun (‘to do’) with the infinitive of a full verb, resulting in a typical auxiliary verb construction (cf. example 172). Some children seem to over-generalize this construction type to other semantically-neutral verbs, especially machen (‘to make’), leading to rather idiosyncratic sentences (cf. Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998: 120). Such an utterance by a four-year-old is illustrated in (175). At this point, children have not yet realized that in German, machen (‘to make’) unlike tun (‘to do’) can only be combined with nouns and adverbs, not with verbs. Stage 3 corresponds to the adult target

226 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

pattern, where an inflected form of a full verb is combined with some other linguistic device that encodes Path. (175)

Der macht Schlittschuh fahren. he makes ice-skates drive ‘He’s ice-skating.’

4 yrs

It is obvious, that children do not pass these three stages successively one after the other (cf. Theakston et al. 2004). It rather depends on different factors, such as the frequency of the full verb, the discourse context, attention, working memory constraints etc., to which construction (stage 1 to 3) they resort to in a specific situation. Nevertheless, a detailed qualitative analysis of our data (cf. also Table 46) clearly showed evidence for this acquisition pattern.

9.5.2 Satellites In what follows various linguistic devices in the verbal network, such as particles, prepositional phrases, and adverbial expressions that provided semantic information relevant to motion events are subsumed under the term satellite. The use of this term here is therefore more extensive than the one used by Talmy and Slobin (discussed in Chapter 5.1 and 5.2). For more details about the coding of satellites cf. Chapter 7.5.2.

Number of satellites Table 47 shows how many satellites were used by speakers of the different age groups in one utterance. In line with our predictions, German speakers produced more satellites than French speakers. More precisely, utterances with no satellites at all were much more frequent in French (56,25% versus 21,36%), while utterances with 1, 2, 3, 4, and even 5 satellites were more frequent in German. As predicted, the number of satellites increased with age in both languages. This fact is due to an increased sentence complexity among older children and adults that has also been found in relation to the expression of various semantic components and to the Global Architecture of the response (cf. Chapter 9.4). In French, utterances with no satellites were the most frequent utterance type among children. This utterance type decreased with age until adult age (47,01%). The most important developmental changes with respect to this utterance type occurred between four and six years (4 yrs: 68,11% versus 6 yrs: 29,01%) and between ten years and adult age (10 yrs: 56,50% versus adults: 47,01%). Utter-

Qualitative Analyses 

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

 227

G all

0

68,11 59,01 58,24 56,50 47,01 56,25 22,96 22,42 25,57 23,70 14,56 21,36

1

29,84 37,04 38,48 39,85 41,09 38,08 44,26 43,81 38,50 45,17 41,28 42,55

2

 1,97  3,53  3,17  3,39 10,19  5,03 29,07 28,56 29,56 25,40 28,78 28,28

3

 0,08  0,42  0,12  0,26  1,49  0,57  3,52  4,93  5,80  4,74 12,09  6,59

4

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0,19  0,05  0,19  0,19  0,48  0,98  2,88  1,07

5+  0

 0

 0

 0

 0,04  0,01  0

 0,09  0,10  0

 0,41  0,14

Table 47: Number of satellites per utterance (in %)

ances with one satellite, as illustrated in (176), increased steadily with age. Utterances with two satellites were relatively rare among French children, but constituted about 10% of the cases at adult age. Other utterance types practically never occurred among French children and were even extremely rare among adults. Example (177) shows a case where a French adult produced three satellites in one utterance. (176) Elle est monté sur la table [1]. she is ascended on the table [1] ‘She went up the table.’

8 yrs

(177) (Nous avons notre petit garçon) qui traverse notre écran à la nage [1], (we have our little boy) who crosses our screen by the swim [1] en crawl [2], avec son petit maillot de bain bleu de droite à gauche [3]. by crawl [2] with his little swimming suit blue from right to left [3] ‘(We have our little boy) who crosses the screen by swimming, by swimming the crawl, with his little blue swimming suit from right to left.’ adult German speakers regularly produced utterances with one or several satellites. Although utterances with one satellite fluctuated between 38% and 45% they were the most frequent utterance type in all age groups. Utterances with no satellites at all fluctuated between 22% and 26% among German children, but decreased after ten years and reached their minimal value at adult age (14,56%). Utterances with two satellites were relatively stable across all age groups with a value of about 28%. Utterances with three satellites increased steadily with age until adult age (12,09% as compared to 1,49% among French adults). Example (178) illustrates such an utterance produced by a four-year-old. Other utterance types were much less frequent and mainly occurred among adults. In (179), for

228 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

instance, the German adult produced even five satellites within one single utterance. (178) (…) klettert er [der Affe] da [1] rauf [2] auf die Palme [3]. (…) climbs he [the monkey] there [1] up [2] on the palm (acc)[3] ‘(…) it’s [the monkey] climbing up there on the palm tree.’ 4 yrs (179) Ein Jogger [1] joggt von links [2] nach rechts [3] a jogger [1] jogs from left [2] to right [3] mit großen Schritten [4] aus dem Bild [5] raus [6]. with big steps [4] out the picture (dat) [5] out [6] ‘A jogger jogs with big steps from the left to the right out of the picture.’ adult

Type of satellites Recall that seven different types of satellites were distinguished: prepositional phrases with no specific case marking, accusative-PPs, dative-PPs, German spatial particles, noun phrases that encoded information relevant to motion, other spatial expressions such as adverbs, and finally other linguistic devices expressing relevant information although they were not spatial as for instance adverbs or prepositional phrases that encoded Manner. Note the distinction between accusative- versus dative-PPs and particles does not exist in the French grammatical system. Since German has three more satellite types than French, satellites were more varied in German than in French (cf. Table 48). The most frequent French satellite type consisted of prepositional phrases (66,52%). In contrast, German speakers only used prepositional phrases (irrespective of case marking) in 32,56% of the cases. The preferred satellite type in German were clearly particles (37,81%). Other spatial devices were more frequent in French where few possibilities were available to speakers to easily encode spatial information outside the main verb (French: 15,53% versus German 8,86%). Noun phrases that encoded relevant information were rare in both languages (French: 1,65% versus German: 1,38%). Other non-spatial expressions were almost equally frequent in French and in German (French: 16,30% versus German: 19,56%). The French developmental pattern shows that prepositional phrases were by far the most frequent satellite type across all French age groups. However, after age six, prepositional phrases decreased quite strongly until ten years (56,66%). After that age, prepositional phrases increased by 20% and reached their maximal value at adult age (76,53%). French prepositional phrases most often encoded

Qualitative Analyses 

F04 acc. PP dat. PP unmar. PP particles

F06

F08

F10

FAD

 229

F all G04 G06 G08 G10 GAD G all 10,14 17,03 15,99 18,37 18,00 16,15  3,22  9,33 14,38 12,17 17,64 12,02

65,85 69,36 57,07 56,66 76,53 66,52  1,65  2,27  0,68  0,81 11,29  4,21 50,54 43,80 40,69 35,54 25,93 37,81

nouns

 0,22  0,98  1,82  2,27  1,91  1,65  0

other

19,87 13,24 23,22 24,55 5,61 15,53 15,66  8,60  5,33  9,02  6,86  8,86

 0,65  0,76  1,05  3,25  1,38

other (not spatial) 14,06 16,42 17,90 16,53 15,94 16,30 18,80 18,33 22,17 23,05 17,03 19,56

Table 48: Satellite types across languages and ages (in %)

general locations (e.g., monter sur cet arbre ‘to ascend on this tree’) or provided information about the Path of the Figure’s motion (Source: partir d’un endroit ‘to leave from one place’; Goal monter jusqu’à un trou ‘to ascend up to a hole’). Other linguistic devices that encoded spatial information first decreased between four and six, but then strikingly increased until ten years (4 yrs: 19,87%, 6 yrs: 13,24%, 8 yrs: 32,22%, 10 yrs: 24,55%). In contrast, French adults only used such devices in 5,61% of the cases. The most frequent form for this satellite type was the French adverb là (‘there’), particularly among children who did not provide any further information about the scene setting. Other forms for this satellite type included the French adverbs dessus (‘above’) or par terre (‘on the ground’). Linguistic forms that expressed non-spatial information were used almost as frequently across all age groups. These devices primarily expressed the Manner of motion (e.g., avec des patins ‘with ice-skates’, à quatre pattes ‘on all fours’, avec son vélo ‘with her/his bike’). As it was the case with verbs, French children used rather idiosyncratic expressions to describe specific Manners. The French expression sur la pointe des pieds (‘on tiptoes’) was for instance produced in the following seven idiosyncratic forms: avec la pointe des pieds, sur la pointe de ses pattes, sur la pointe des pattes, sur les pointes des pieds, sur pointe des pieds, sur pointe de pieds, and à la pointe des pieds. This example shows that children had enormous difficulties actively producing such expressions which are important to describe motion events that involve unusual Manners. In some cases, children referred to specific Manners by using vague expressions (e.g., comme ça ‘like that’, doucement ‘carefully/lightly’) or comparisons (e.g., comme un pompier ‘like a fireman’, comme pour monter ‘as for ascending’) that did not explicitly express Manner. Example (180) illustrates such a response. Nouns that encoded information about the Manner of motion were quite rare across all age groups. The most frequent noun was coureur (‘runner’).

230 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

(180) Il marche comme moi quand j’étais bébé. he walks like me when I was baby ‘He walks like me when I was a baby.’

4 yrs

Particles constituted the most important satellite type across all German age groups. They were used in more than 50% at age four. Since satellites became more varied with age, the portion of particles gradually decreased until adult age (25,93%). German speakers produced 47 different types of particles with varying morphological and semantic complexity. The most frequent particles were hinauf (‘thither-up’), hoch (‘up’), rauf (hither-up’), runter (‘down’), rüber (‘across’), and weg (‘away’). Other rarer particle types included d(a)rüber (‘there-across’), zurück (‘back’), and vorbei (‘past’). Two German children at ages eight and ten used the idiosyncratic contaminated form hinoch which combines the particles hinauf (‘thither-up’) and hoch (‘up’). The use of hinoch is illustrated in (181). (181) (Die Katze will an das Vogelei ran) und klettert hinoch. (the cat wants to the bird-egg (acc) to) and climbs thither-up ‘(The cat wants to get the bird’s egg) and climbs up.’ 10 yrs Accusative-PPs which mainly encoded the Goal increased gradually with age (from 10,14% at 4 yrs to 18,00% at adult age). The most frequent prepositions governing accusative case were auf (‘on’), durch (‘through’), and über (‘across’). The same development was observed with dative-PPs. Although, they are less frequent than accusative-PPs (from 3,22% at 4 yrs to 17,64% at adult age). The most frequent prepositions governing dative case were auf (‘on’), an (‘on’), von (‘from’), and zu (‘to’). Dative-PPs encoded either the Source (with von ‘from’), a general location (auf ‘on’, an ‘on’), or the Goal (zu ‘to’). Prepositional phrases with no visible case marking were rare among German children but reached a value of about 11% at adult age. In these cases, speakers most often indicated the direction of the Figure’s motion by prepositional phrases such as von rechts … nach links (‘from right … to left’). If young children used this satellite type, they typically used quite empty semantic forms such as da (‘there’) which did not provide any useful information about the Ground entities (cf. example 182). Other lexical forms that encoded spatial information constituted about 16% of all produced satellites at age four but decreased until adult age (6,86%). The most frequent forms among young children were the local adverbs da (‘there’) and hier (‘here’) which helped children to create a (vague) scene setting without using prepositional phrases.

Qualitative Analyses 

(182) Das Mädchen fahrt Schlittschuh von da the girl drives skates from there ‘The girl’s ice-skating across from there to there.’

 231

bis da rüber. to there across 6 yrs

Nouns which provided information about the Figure’s Manner were quite rare across all age groups, but increased slightly with age. The most frequent nouns were (Fahr)Radfahrerin (‘cyclist’), Jogger (‘jogger’), and Läufer (‘runner’). Other linguistic devices encoding non-spatial information fluctuated between 17% and 23%, but remained relatively stable across all age groups. Such satellite forms often expressed Manner, for instance in prepositional phrases that encoded an instrument (e.g., mit Schlittschuhen ‘with skates’). Especially young children often used the adverb so (‘so’) which was coded without any semantic content. Such an utterance is illustrated in (183). In about 100 cases, German speakers introduced their response by the German adverb da (‘there’) that referred to a non-specified scene rather than to a specific location. These cases were coded as sentence-initial da-forms. They occurred primarily among four- and six-year-olds but also at adult age. The utterance of a four-year-old illustrates such a sentenceinitial use of da in (184). (183) Die [das Mädchen] ist da # so she [the girl] is there # so ‘She [the girl] drove rearwards there.’ (184) Da rennt er weg. there runs he away ‘There, he runs away.’

hinter rearwards

gefahren. driven 4 yrs

4 yrs

9.5.3 Periphery The coding distinguished between three sentence types: main clauses without subordinate clauses, main clauses with one or more subordinate clauses, and clauses which were subordinated to main clauses. Coordinated sentences were considered as independent main clauses. Table 49 shows how many of each sentence type occurred within each age group.172

172 In cases where the number of main clauses with subordinate clauses was higher than the number of subordinate clauses, the subordinate clause (but not the main clause) was coded as irrelevant and not taken into account in further analyses.

232 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

F04 Main clause Main clause with subordinate clause Subordinate clause

F06

1014 1067

F08

F10

FAD

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

913

785 1071 1077 1061 1043 1102 1310

152

376

367

584

663

2

8

5

8

63

151

455

455

930

958

1

6

5

8

84

Table 49: Number of sentence types across languages and ages

Main clauses with subordination, and therefore also subordinate clauses, were much more frequent in French than in German. Even French four year-olds produced about 150 complex sentences, whereas only 63 cases occurrenced among German adults. These results confirm the assumption that French follows the verb-framed language pattern and regularly encodes relevant information outside of the main verb, including subordinate constructions. Table 50 shows the proportion of the most important sentence types across age groups in French. Main clauses without subordination were clearly the most frequent sentence type between four and six years (4 yrs: 76,99%, 6 yrs: 56,22%). This pattern changed after eight years, so that ten-year-olds only produced about 34% of these clauses and adults about 40%. This sentence type corresponds to TSconstructions (Tight-simple) in the analyses of Global Architecture in Chapter 9.4. Main clauses with subordination increased gradually with age and reached their maximal value at age ten (25,20%). In contrast to German, French subordinate clauses exhibited extremely varied types (41 subordinate clause types), although only three types occurred with some frequency across all age groups: relative clauses, gerunds, and pour + infinitive-constructions expressing goals or intentions. The most frequent subordinate clause type were relative clauses which occurred in 10% among fouryear-olds, increased until about 19% at age six and eight, and then reached their maximal value at ten years (32%). In most of these cases, French speakers introduced the Figure in the main clause and then added a subordinate clause in order to describe the target event. The frequency of this pattern was highly correlated with the recurrent use of presentative constructions. Example (185) shows a typical sentence involving a presentative construction and a relative clause produced by a six-year-old. In example (186) the adult speaker even combines the relative clause with a gerund that expresses the Manner of motion. Gerunds constituted the second subordinate clause type that occurred quite regularly. As discussed in detail above, young French children still had some difficulties producing this rather complex sentence type and therefore preferred to spread their information over several (coordinated) sentences (cf. Chapter 9.4). Nevertheless,

Qualitative Analyses 

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

 233

F all

Main clause without subordinate clause

77

56,2

52,6

34,1

39,8

48,8

Main clause with subordinate clause

11,5

19,8

21,2

25,4

24,6

21,5

Subordinate clause introduced by/type of subordinate clause avant de + infinitive

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0,19

 0,05

comme

 0

 0,05

 0

 0,22

 0,15

 0,10

comme si

 0

 0,11

 0,06

 0,04

 0,04

 0,05

en + gerund

 0,30

 2,74

 4,44

 4,52

 8,77

 4,76

infinitive

 0

 0,11

 0,06

 0,30

 0,59

 0,26

jusqu‘à + infinitive

 0

 0

 0,06

 0

 0,30

 0,09

parce que

 0,15

 0

 0,17

 0,17

 0

 0,09

pour + infinitive

 0,38

 1,16

 1,56

 2,31

 2,82

 1,84

participle perfect

 0

 0

 0

 0,13

 0,56

 0,18

quand

 0,08

 0,11

 0,06

 0,13

 0,11

 0,10

que

 0

 0,21

 0

 0,35

 0,67

 0,30

relative clause

10,48

19,28

19,54

32,01

20,13

21,34

tout en + gerund

 0

 0

 0

 0,04

 0,30

 0,09

Table 50: Sentence types in French (in %)

gerunds constituted a relatively frequent pattern in descriptions of target events. Example (187) illustrates such a case. (185) C’est une chenille qui rampe. that’s a caterpillar that crawls ‘That’s a caterpillar crawling.’ (186) Il y a un homme qui euh a traversé that’s a man who eh has crossed ‘That’s a man who ran across the street.’ (187) Il a traversé en nageant. he has crossed by swimming ‘He swam across.’

6 yrs euh la route eh the road

en courant. by running adult

6 yrs

The third subordinate clause type that occurred across all age groups, although it was not as frequent as the other two types, were pour + infinitive-constructions. This consecutive subordinate sentence type most often encoded the Figure’s motion after having expressed its departure or more precisely its starting position

234 

 Results: Voluntary Motion

from a specific place in the main clause (cf. example 188) or in another subordinate clause (cf. example 189). (188) Il va dans l’eau pour nager. he goes in the water to swim ‘He goes into the water to swim.’

6 yrs

(189) Ben, c’est la petite souris qui part d’un endroit pour well that’s the little mouse that leaves from one place to monter sur une table. ascend on a table ‘Well, that’s a little mouse which leaves from one place to go up a table.’ 10 yrs Other subordinate clause types were extremely rare. However, French children (as well as occasionally adults) produced some idiosyncratic subordinate constructions. In example (190), the six-year-old uses an à + infinitive-construction (‘to + infintive’) to express simultaneity, normally expressed by a gerund. (190) Un monsieur qui saute à courir et qui traverse une rue. a gentleman who jumps to run and who crosses the street ‘A gentleman jumps in order to run and crosses the street.’ 6 yrs The most important sentence types in German are illustrated in Table 51. In German, speakers of all age groups predominantly produced main clauses without subordination (97,19%). This pattern (that corresponds to Tight-simple constructions in analyses of Global Architecture) provided speakers with compact means to encode several relevant semantic components simultaneously following the typical satellite-framed language pattern. It is only at adult age that speakers produced 4,32% main clauses with subordination. The most frequent subordinate clauses were relative clauses (overall 0,85%). They were produced by German adults in about 3% of the cases. They also occurred across all children’s age groups, although they were extremely rare (4 yrs: 0,09%, 6 yrs: 0,28%, 8 yrs: 0,28%, 10 yrs: 0,45%). In most of these cases, relative clauses added information about the setting, as illustrated in example (191). Since presentative constructions are extremely unusual in German, typical explicative relative clauses (quite frequent in French) were rare. However, they were produced occasionally, as illustrated in (192). Other subordinate clause types were extremely rare.

Qualitative Analyses 

 235

(191) Eine Katze kommt von rechts klettert auf einen Telegrafenmast a cat comes from right climbs on a telegraph pole (acc) auf dem sich oben ein Nest mit einem Ei befindet. on which (dat) above a nest with an egg resides ‘A cat comes from the right, climbs up a telegraph pole where at the top a nest with an egg is located.’ adult (192) Wir haben eine Raupe, die sich im Garten bewegt. we have a caterpillar that self in+the garden (dat) moves ‘We have a caterpillar that moves in the garden.’ adult

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Main clause

99,72

98,70

99,05

98,57

89,91

97,19

Main clause with subordinate clause

 0,19

 0,74

 0,47

 0,72

 4,32

 1,29

participle present

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,17

 0,23

relative clause

 0,09

 0,28

 0,28

 0,45

 3,16

 0,85

Type of subordinate clause

Table 51: Sentence types in German (in %)

10 Results: Caused Motion 10.1 Density Semantic density refers to the number of semantic components which speakers encoded in their descriptions of motion events. In the case of caused motion five such components could be expressed: Cause (C), Path (P, which was the same for the agent and for the object), the Manner of the action causing the displacement of the object (hereafter MAc), the Manner of the object’s motion (hereafter MOb), and the Manner of the agent’s motion (hereafter MAg). As a result, semantic density could range from zero components (when only Motion was expressed but no other semantic component, hereafter SD0), to five components (when all relevant semantic components were expressed). In the analyses below, responses with three and more components were subsumed together in the category SD3+ (cf. examples 193 to 199). In rare cases subjects did not provide any codable response (indicated as no response or NR below) for example in cases of static predicates, as illustrated in (200). Number of components Motion per se (193) Popi va sur un autre côté avec sa roue. 0 Popi goes in another side with his wheel ‘Popi goes on the other side with his wheel.’ 4 yrs Cause (194) Der Popi nimmts [den Schubkarren] mit. the Popi carries-it [the wheelbarrow] with ‘Popi carries it [the wheelbarrow] with him.’

1 4 yrs

Path (195) Alors en fait, il traverse la route mouillée avec son panier well in fact he crosses the road wet with his basket rempli de pommes. 1 full of apples ‘Well, in fact, he crosses the wet road with his basket full of apples.’ 10 yrs

Density 

 237

Number of components Manner of the agent’s motion (196) Rennt [//] der läuft. runs [//] he walks ‘He’s running [//] he’s walking.’ Cause + Manner of action (197) Il pousse la table dans le garage. he pushes the table in the garage ‘He’s pushing the table into the garage.’ Cause + Path + Manner of the object (198) Der Popi rollt einen Autoreifen in die Höhle. the Popi rolls a tyre in the cave (acc) ‘Popi is rolling a tyre into the cave.’

1 4 yrs

2 6 yrs

3 8 yrs

Cause + Path + Manner of the object + Manner of action (199) Alors il a poussé le pneu qui a roulé sur un chemin well he has pushed the tyre which has rolled on the path pour heu, le faire rentrer dans la grotte. 4 to he it make enter in the cave ‘Well, he pushed the tyre which rolled on a path in order to put it into the cave.’ 10 yrs (200) Il est avec une he is with a ‘He has a wheel.’

roué. wheel

NR 8 yrs

ANOVAs were performed on the density of speakers’ responses (ranging from 0 to 5 components expressed). A mixed ANOVA173 (with age and language as betweensubject factors, and with Manner of action, Manner of the object’s motion, and Path as within-subject factors) examined the effects and interactions of the following factors on semantic density scores: age (five groups of 24 subjects each), language (French, German), Manner of action (pushing, pulling), Manner of the object’s motion (rolling, sliding), and Path (up, down, across, and into). Details about the effects of specific factors will be presented below in the respec-

173 A first ANOVA did not show any significant effect of sex (p < 0.05) and this factor was therefore disregarded in the following analyses.

238 

 Results: Caused Motion

tive section. The ANOVA showed significant main effects of language (F(1,220) = 140,41, p < 0.00001), of age (F(4,220) = 50,70, p < 0.00001), of Manner of action (F(1,220) = 31,24, p < 0.00001), and of Path (F(3,660) = 13,98, p < 0.00001). There was no significant effect of Manner of the object’s motion. Language: As will be shown below in detail, semantic density was higher in German than in French. German speakers produced more than twice as many SD3+ utterances than French speakers (83,02% versus 41,48%). The effect of language was significant within each of the four age groups of children, but not among adults (4 yrs: F(1,46) = 20,97, p < 0.00001, 6 yrs: F(1,46) = 62,18, p < 0.00001, 8 yrs: F(1,46) = 50,53, p < 0.00001, 10 yrs: F(1,46) = 37,66, p < 0.00001, adults: p = 0,84). Age: Semantic density increased in both languages with age (SD3+ utterances increased from 31,06% at four years to 81,55% at adult age). It differed significantly between all age groups except between eight and ten years (4 yrs/6 yrs: F(1,220) = 16,29, p < 0.00008, 6 yrs/8 yrs: F(1,220) = 21,29, p < 0.00001, 8 yrs/10 yrs: p(F) = 0.30, 10 yrs/adults: F(1,220) = 9,57, p < 0.0022). The general effect of age was significant within each language (French F(4,115) = 37,99, p < 0.00001, German F(4,115) = 19,65, p < 0.00001). Manner of action: Speakers produced slightly more semantic components with pulling-events than with pushing-events (63,44% versus 60,99%). The effect of Manner of action (pushing versus pulling) was significant within all age groups except among four-year-olds (4 yrs: p = 0,11, 6 yrs: F(1,47) = 9,19, p < 0.004, 8 yrs: F(1,47) = 9,34, p < 0.0037, 10 yrs: F(1,47) = 5,30, p < 0.02, adults: F(1,47) = 5.18, p < 0.0374). The general effect of Manner of action was significant within each language (French: F(1,119) = 21,19, p < 0.00001, German: F(1,119) = 10,47, p < 0.0016). Path: Semantic density varied significantly with Path type. Irrespective of language, SD3+ utterances were the most frequent with down-events (down 67,40%>up 62,76%>across 59,58%>into 59,27%). Semantic density did not differ significantly between down- and up-events, nor between into- and across-events, but all other comparisons showed significant differences (down>across: F(1,230) = 30,29, p  < 0.00001, down>into: F(1,230) = 18,48, p  < 0.00001, up  > across: F(1,230) = 21,48, p < 0.00001, up > into: F(1,230) = 10,64, p < 0.0014). The factor Path was significant within each language (French F(3,357) = 9,25, p < 0.00001; German F(3,357) = 5,03, p < 0.002). As predicted, there was an interaction between language and age (F(4,220) = 10,81, p < 0.00001). Due to typological factors, until ten years, French children had difficulties expressing more than two semantic components simultaneously in one single utterance, whereas German children from six years on produced very frequent SD3+ utterances (SD3+: F10: 54,56% versus G06: 80,73%). In what follows, each factor will be discussed in detail.

Density 

 239

10.1.1 Density as a function of language and age Table 52 displays semantic density as a function of language and age. The results show clearly that German speakers (satellite-framed language) typically encoded several semantic components in one single utterance. Thus, they produced more than twice as many SD3+ utterances than French speakers (83,02% versus 41,48%). Conversely, SD2 as well as SD1 utterances were more frequent in French than in German (SD2: 33,52% versus 10,34%, SD1: 22,40 versus 5,65%). SD0 and NR responses were rare in both languages (French: SD0 2,16%, NR 0,44%, German: SD0 0,08%. NR 0,91%).

SD

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

3+

 9,90 17,32 45,57 54,56 80,08 41,48 52,21 80,73 94,40 94,53 93,23 83,02

2

44,40 42,71 33,46 28,91 18,10 33,52 26,04 12,37  4,43  4,30  4,56 10,34

1

39,32 36,33 19,92 15,10  1,30 22,40 17,97  6,51  0,91  1,04  1,82  5,65

0

 5,21  3,39  0,78  1,17  0,26  2,16  0,13  0,13  0,13  0

NR

 1,17  0,26  0,26  0,26  0,26  0,44  3,65  0,26  0,13  0,13  0,39  0,91

 0

G all

 0,08

Table 52: Semantic density in caused motion (in %)

In French, semantic density changed quite strikingly across ages. SD3+ utterances increased gradually with age and showed particular important progressions between six and eight years (17,32% versus 45,57%) as well as between ten years and adult age (54,56% versus 80,08%). It was only at ten years that SD3+ utterances became the most frequent pattern among French speakers. In contrast, SD2 and SD1 utterances decreased with age, particularly between six and eight years (SD2: 42,71 versus 33,46%, SD1: 36,33% versus 19,92%) as well as between ten years and adult age (SD2: 28,91% versus 18,10%, SD1: 15,10% versus 1,30%). Although French four-year-olds produced some SD0 utterances (5,21%), these responses decreased with age and practically disappeared by eight years (0,26%). Semantic density in French differed significantly between six and eight years as well as between ten years and adult age, but not between the other age groups (6 yrs/8 yrs: F(1,46) = 13,87, p < 0.0005, 10 yrs/adults: F(1,46) = 25,28, p < 0.00001). German speakers showed quite a different pattern. SD3+ utterances were quite frequent from four years on. As a result, even German six-year-olds reached the same value as French adults (G06 80,73% versus FAD 80,08%). SD3+ utterances increased between four and eight years, but thereafter reached their maximal level (94%). Although SD2 and SD1 utterances were still relatively fre-

240 

 Results: Caused Motion

quent at four years (26,02% and 17,97% respectively), they decreased by eight years when they reached adult level. As a consequence of these developmental changes, semantic density differed significantly across successive ages only up to eight years, but not after this age (4 yrs/6 yrs: F(1,46) = 11,29, p < 0.0016, 6 yrs/8 yrs: F(1,46) = 6,50, p < 0.0142). SD0 responses were very rare at all ages. Although some NR occurred at four years (3,65%), they practically never occurred in the older German age groups.

10.1.2 Density as a function of Manner of action Overall, speakers produced slightly more semantic components with pushingevents than with pulling-events (cf. Table 53 and 54). The specific components that are responsible for this difference will be discussed in Chapter 10.2. Despite the general effect of Manner of action, the analyses of its impact are more striking when we look at the different age groups within each language.

3+ 2 1 0 NR

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all overall

10,68 46,09 37,24  4,43  1,56

18,23 44,53 34,38  2,60  0,26

48,70 35,68 15,10  0,26  0,26

55,73 29,95 13,28  0,78  0,00

81,51 16,93  0,26  0,52  0,26

42,97 34,64 20,05  1,72  0,47

50,78 29,17 17,19  0  2,86

83,59 11,20  5,21  0  0

95,57  3,65  0,26  0,26  0,26

95,31  4,17  0,52  0  0

94,27  4,69  0,78  0  0,26

83,91 10,57  4,79  0,05  0,68

63,44 22,60 12,42  0,89  0,57

Table 53: Semantic density in pushing-events (in %)

SD

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all overall

3+ 2 1 0 NR

 9,11 42,71 41,41  5,99  0,78

16,41 40,89 38,28  4,17  0,26

42,45 31,25 24,74  1,30  0,26

53,13 27,86 16,93  1,56  0,52

78,13 19,27  2,34  0  0,26

39,84 32,40 24,74  2,60  0,42

53,65 22,92 18,75  0,26  4,43

77,86 13,54  7,81  0,26  0,52

93,23  5,21  1,56  0  0

93,75  4,43  1,56  0  0,26

92,19  4,43  2,86  0  0,52

82,14 10,10  6,51  0,10  1,15

60,99 21,25 15,63  1,35  0,78

Table 54: Semantic density in pulling-events (in %)

In French, at ages four and six, the most frequent utterance pattern with both pushing- and pulling-events were SD2 utterances. However, SD1 and SD2 utterances decreased more after this age with pulling-events than with pushingevents. In parallel, SD3+ utterances which were somewhat more frequent with pushing-events, increased from four years on and reached their maximal value

Density 

 241

at adult age (pushing 81,51% versus pulling 78,13%). The effect of Manner of action was only significant at age eight (F(1,23) = 9,08, p < 0.0062). It is at this age that children produced significantly more semantic components with pushing-events than with pulling-events (SD3+ pushing 48,70% versus pulling 42,45%). German speakers of all age groups produced primarily SD3+ utterances with both types of Manner of action. SD1 and SD2 utterances decreased between age four and eight. On average, German speakers produced slightly more SD3+ utterances with pushing-events than with pulling-events (63,44% versus 60,99%). In German, the effect of Manner of action was only significant at age six where children produced more SD3+ utterances with pushing-events than with pullingevents (83,59% versus 77,86%, F(1,23) = 7,38, p < 0.0123).

10.1.3 Density as a function of Path Path-type had a main effect on semantic density. This effect was significant in all age groups, except at eight years where children produced very similar density patterns with up-, into- and across-events (4 yrs: F(3,141 = 6,49, p  < 0.0004, 6 yrs: F(3,141) = 4,44, p  < 0.0051, 10 yrs: F(3,141) = 3,28, p  < 0.0228, adults: F(3,141) = 3,22, p  < 0.0247). As shown in Table 55 (and in more detail in Tables 56–59, p. 243–244), in both languages SD3+ utterances were more frequent with down-events than with all other Path-types (down 67,40%>up 62,76%>into 59,27%, across 59,58%).

French down up

German across

into

down up

overall

SD

into

across

into

down up

across

3+

36,04 48,75 42,08 39,06

82,50 86,04 83,44 80,10

59,27 67,40 62,76 59,58

2

41,67 27,40 34,06 30,94

10,63  8,75 11,46 10,52

26,15 18,08 22,76 20,73

1

16,56 22,71 22,71 27,60

 5,94  4,38  4,27  8,02

11,25 13,55 13,49 17,81

0

 5,42  0,63  1,04  1,56

 0,10  0,10  0,10  0

 2,76  0,37  0,57  0,78

NR

 0,31  0,52  0,10  0,83

 0,83  0,73  0,73  1,35

 0,57  0,63  0,42  1,09

Table 55: Semantic density as a function of Path-type (in %)

French speakers produced the most SD3+ utterances with down-events, fewer with up-events, and even fewer with across- and into-events (down 48,75%>up 42,08%>across 39,06%,>into 36,04%). With into-events, SD2 utterances were even the most frequent pattern (41,67%). SD0 responses were very rare with up-,

242 

 Results: Caused Motion

down- and across-events and reached a maximal value of 5,42% with into-events. As a result, semantic density differed between down-events versus across- and into-events (down>across: F(1,119) = 19,65, p  < 0.00001, down>into: F(1,119) = 13,52, p  < 0.0004). Other significant differences occurred between up-events and into- as well as across-events (up>into F(1,119) = 8,58, p < 0.0041, up>across: F(1,119) = 15,13, p < 0.0002). With respect to development, the factor Path was significant within each of the French age groups, except among six-year-olds (4 yrs: F(3,69) = 7,22, p < 0.0003, 8 yrs: F(3,69) = 2,82, p < 0.0451, 10 yrs: F(3,69) = 3,29, p < 0.0254, adults: F(3,69) = 4,49, p < 0.0062). Tables 56 to 59 show density for each Path-type and within each age group. Since French four-year-olds produced a substantial number of SD0 utterances with into-events (11,46%), into-events differed significantly at this age from all three other event types with which children produced more SD2 and SD3+ utterances (intointo: F(1,119) = 4,92, p < 0.0285, down>across: F(1,119) = 9,55, p  < 0.0025). Since responses to up- and down-events were very similar, semantic density also differed significantly between up-events and across-events (F(1,119) = 6,31, p < 0.0133). The effect of Path-type was only significant at age four and six in German (4 yrs: F(3,69) = 3,44, p < 0.0212, 6 yrs: F(3,69) = 3,99, p < 0.0112). After this age, children reached the adult-like target pattern and produced primarily SD3+ utterances with all Path-types. Before this age, SD3+ utterances were much more frequent with down-events reaching the adult level of around 90% at

Density 

 243

six years. Thus, at age six down-events differed significantly in semantic density from the other three Path-types (down>up: F(1,23) = 11,31, p < 0.0027, down>into: F(1,23) = 11,32, p < 0.0027, down>across: F(1,23) = 7,06, p < 0.0136). German fouryear-olds expressed relatively few semantic components with across-events. As a consequence, at four years, across-events differed significantly from up- and down-events (down/across: F(1,23) = 5,76, p  < 0.0237, up/across: F(1,23) = 5,86, p < 0.0227).

SD

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

3+

 6,77 15,10 38,02 47,92 72,40 36,04 52,60 75,52 94,27 95,83 94,27 82,50

2

38,54 51,04 51,56 40,63 26,56 41,67 25,52 17,71  4,17  3,13  2,60 10,63

1

42,19 23,96  8,33  7,29  1,04 16,56 17,71  6,77  1,56  1,04  2,60  5,94

0

11,46  9,38  2,08  4,17  0

 5,42  0,52  0

 0

 0

 0

NR

 1,04  0,52  0

 0,31  3,65  0

 0

 0

 0,52  0,83

F all

G08

G10

GAD

 0

 0

 0,10

Table 56: Semantic density with into-events

SD

F04

F06

F08

3+

12,50 20,83 43,75 55,73 77,60 42,08 53,13 81,25 93,23 95,83 93,75 83,44

2

46,35 41,15 29,69 30,73 22,40 34,06 30,73 12,50  6,25  3,13  4,69 11,46

1

38,02 35,42 26,56 13,54  0

22,71 13,02  5,21  0,52  1,04  1,56  4,27

0

 3,13  2,08  0

 0

 0

 1,04  0

 0,52  0

 0

 0

 0,10

NR

 0

 0

 0

 0,10  3,13  0,52  0

 0

 0

 0,73

F all

G10

GAD

G all

 0,52  0

F10

FAD

G04

G06

G all

Table 57: Semantic density with up-events

SD

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

G04

G06

G08

3+

13,54 18,75 56,25 68,23 86,98 48,75 58,85 89,58 96,35 92,71 92,71 86,04

2

42,71 42,19 26,04 16,67  9,38 27,40 22,92  6,25  2,08  6,77  5,73  8,75

1

41,15 38,02 17,71 15,10  1,56 22,71 15,63  4,17  0,52  0,52  1,04  4,38

0

 1,04  1,04  0

 0

 1,04  0,63  0

 0

 0,52  0

 0

NR

 1,56  0

 0

 1,04  0,52  2,60  0

 0,52  0

 0,52  0,73

 0

Table 58: Semantic density with down-events

 0,10

244 

 Results: Caused Motion

SD

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

3+

 6,77 14,58 44,27 46,35 83,33 39,06 44,27 76,56 93,75 93,75 92,19 80,10

2

50,00 36,46 26,56 27,60 14,06 30,94 25,00 13,02  5,21  4,17  5,21 10,52

1

35,94 47,92 27,08 24,48  2,60 27,60 25,52  9,90  1,04  1,56  2,08  8,02

0

 5,21  1,04  1,04  0,52  0

 1,56  0

NR

 2,08  0

 0,83  5,21  0,52  0

 1,04  1,04  0

F all

G04

G06

 0

G08

 0

G10

 0

GAD

 0

G all

 0

 0,52  0,52  1,35

Table 59: Semantic density with across-events

10.2 Information Focus By Information Focus we mean the types of semantic components that were encoded in descriptions of motion events. Speakers’ responses could express five semantic components: Cause (C), Path (P), Manner of action (MAc), Manner of the object (MOb), and Manner of the agent (MAg). Each of these components could be expressed alone or in combination with others, and in some cases none was expressed at all (SD0-responses).174 Table 60 shows the distribution of response patterns within each language. Although 21 response types occurred, at first glance, six response types (marked in grey in Table 60) constituted the most frequent patterns in verbalizations of caused motion in French and German. Since the aim of this study is to examine lexicalization patterns of two typologically different languages, the analyses below will focus on the most pervasive patterns and not on occasional occurrences of specific patterns. French speakers produced a variety of responses with three components (C+P+MAc 29,22%, C+P+MOb 7,94%), with two components (C+P: 10,42%, C+MAc: 15,44, C+MOb: 6,15%), and with only one component (P-responses 19,11%). In German, the most frequent pattern was by far C+P+MAc-responses (66,07%). However, German speakers also expressed C+P+MOb (16,61%). C+P-responses and P-responses were relatively rare (5,44% and 5,29% respectively). These results already account for why SD3+ utterances were less frequent among French speakers than among German speakers. Whereas German speakers predominantly expressed Cause + Path + one type of Manner (82,68%), French speakers less frequently did so (37,16%). Among SD1 utterances, P-responses were more frequent in French than in German (19,11% versus 5,29%). The analyses

174 According to our coding decisions, Manner of action always implies the expression of Cause and therefore can never be expressed without this semantic component (cf. Chapter 7.5).

Information Focus 

French

German

C+P+MAc+MAg+MOb

0,10

0

C+P+MAc+MAg

0,94

0,05

C+P+MAc+MOb

1,90

0,08

C+P+MAc

29,22

66,07

C+P+MAg+MOb

0,29

0

C+P+MAg

0,16

0,18

C+P+MOb

7,94

16,61

10,42

5,44

Cause + Path + one or several types of Manner

Cause + Path C+P Cause + one or several types of Manner C+MAc+MOb

0,68

0,03

C+MAc+MAg

0,16

0

C+MAg+MOb

0,10

0

C+MOb

6,15

0,70

C+MAc

15,44

1,64

P+MAc

0,05

0

P+MAg

0,91

2,21

P+MOb

0,55

0,34

Cause

1,67

0,10

Path

19,11

5,29

MAg

1,20

0,13

MOb

0,42

0,13

0

2,16

0,08

NR

0,44

0,91

Path + one type of Manner

Different types of Manner

Table 60: Information Focus in verbalizations of caused motion (in %)

 245

246 

 Results: Caused Motion

below examine in more detail French and German response types separately, as well as developmental variations of the target patterns.

10.2.1 Information Focus as a function of language and age French verbalizations of caused motion events showed a great variety of lexicalization patterns (cf. Table 61). Although, at adult age, only three main patterns account for around 80% of all responses, children’s responses were much more diverse. Figure 8 shows that the main adult target pattern (C+P+MAc-respones) is not the predominant one among French children and that the developmental progression in the response types between four years and adult age is rather complex.

60

40

C+P+MAc C+P+MOb C+P C+MOb C+MAc P

20

0 F04

F06

F08

F10

Figure 8: The most frequent response types in French (in %)

FAD

Information Focus 

F04

 247

F06

F08

F10

FAD

 0

 0,13  0,39

Cause + Path + one or several types of Manner C+P+MAc+MAg+MOb

 0

 0

C+P+MAc+MAg

 0

 0,39  0,39  0,26  3,65

C+P+MAc+MOb

 0

 0,13  0,65  1,82  6,90

C+P+MAc

 6,77 12,76 33,07 39,45 54,04

C+P+MAg+MOb

 0,13  0,13  0,26  0,26  0,65

C+P+MAg

 0,52  0,13  0

C+P+MOb

 1,69  3,26 10,42 11,85 12,50

 0

 0,13

Cause + Path C+P

11,85 23,18  7,68  5,73  3,65

Cause + one or several types of Manner C+MAc+MOb

 0,65  0,39  0,26  0,52  1,56

C+MAc+MAg

 0

C+MAg+MOb

 0,13  0,13  0

 0

 0,52  0,13  0,13  0,13  0,13

C+MOb

15,36  3,91  6,51  3,39  1,56

C+MAc

15,76 14,32 17,45 18,62 11,07

Path + one type of Manner P+MAc

 0

 0,13  0

 0

 0,13

P+MAg

 1,30  0,65  0,52  0,52  1,56

P+MOb

 0,13  0,52  1,30  0,65  0,13

Cause

 3,39  4,04  0,13  0,78  0

Path

29,56 31,25 19,27 14,19  1,30

Different types of Manner MAg

 4,95  0,52  0,39  0,13  0

MOb

 1,43  0,52  0,13  0

0

 5,21  3,39  0,78  1,17  0,26

NR

 1,17  0,26  0,26  0,26  0,26

Table 61: Response patterns among French speakers (in %)

 0

248 

 Results: Caused Motion

The most frequent response type among French four- and six-year-olds were P-responses (4 yrs: 29,56%, 6 yrs: 31,25%). This response type decreased with age and practically disappeared at adult age (1,30%). However, even ten-year-olds still encoded only Path in 14,19% of their utterances. In such constructions, children primarily used Path-verbs such as monter (‘to ascend’) or descendre (‘to descend’) which described the agent’s motion. Usually, the object was only mentioned in the prepositional phrase (avec x ‘with x’), but no information was provided about the relationship between agent and object. Example (201) illustrates such a construction. In descriptions of voluntary motion, P-responses are the typical lexicalization pattern in verb-framed languages (cf. Chapter 9.2). French children seem to overgeneralize this compact pattern to caused motion, thereby avoiding the use of subordination, but therefore also omitting the expression of causality. (201) Popi monte avec une voiture de courses. Popi ascends with a shopping cart ‘Popi ascends with a shopping cart.’

4 yrs

Like French adults, children also produced relatively frequent C+MAc-responses. This response type fluctuated between 14% and 19% until it reached its minimal value at adult age (4 yrs: 15,76%, 6 yrs: 14,32%, 8 yrs: 17,45%, 10 yrs: 18,62%, adults: 11,07%). In such constructions, speakers primarily used causative verbs (e.g., pousser ‘to push’, tirer ‘to pull’) which – especially among adults – were often combined with prepositional phrases that did not unambiguously express Path and were therefore coded as general locations (e.g., dans la grotte ‘in the cave’). An example of such a construction is illustrated in (202). French four-yearolds also produced some responses that encoded C+MOb (15,36%). This response type decreased gradually, but still occurred at eight years of age (6,51%). Adults hardly ever produced such utterances. In this type of construction, speakers either used intransitive Manner-verbs such as rouler (‘to roll’) in a transitive way or they expressed Cause in an explicit causative construction that involved a Manner-verb (faire rouler ‘to make roll’). Information about Path is omitted in both response types (C+MAc and C+MOb). (202) Pipo il a fait rouler Pipo he has made roll ‘Pipo rolled the ball.’

le the

ballon. ball 8 yrs

Another relatively frequent response type among French children between four and six years of age involved C+P-responses (4 yrs: 11,85%, 6 yrs: 23,18%). It is only after this age that C+P-responses decreased, reaching their minimal value

Information Focus 

 249

at adult age (3,65%). In these responses, speakers either used one of the French causative deictic verbs such as ramener (‘to bring back’) or amener (‘to bring’) or they used causative constructions that involved a Path-verb (faire monter ‘to make ascend’). Example (203) shows a sentence where a six-year-old uses an idiosyncratic causative construction that involves the non-transitive Path-verb traverser (‘to cross’). Although, the child has already acquired causative constructions, he has not yet realized that only transitive verbs can be used in such constructions. (203) Il l’ [la roue] a fait traverser sur une route he it [the wheel] has made cross on a road mouillée pour aller de l’ autre côté. wet to go on the other side ‘He made it [the wheel] cross a wet road to the other side.’

6 yrs

At adult age, the most frequent pattern consisted of C+P+MAc-responses (54,04%). This response type increased steadily between four and ten years and developmental changes occurred even after that age (4 yrs: 6,77%, 6 yrs: 12,76%, 8 yrs: 33,07%, 10 yrs: 39,45%). Two lexicalization patterns were primarily used with such response types. French speakers combined either a causative verb that conflated Cause + Manner of action with a prepositional phrase that encoded Path (pousser X jusqu’à l’autre côté ‘to push sth. to the other side’) or they used a Pathverb as main verb and added a gerund or a relative clause that expressed Cause + Manner of action (monter en tirant X ‘to ascend pulling X’). One example illustrates each construction in (204) and (205). From eight years on, French children produced some C+P+MOb-responses (about 11%), but this response type was rare at earlier ages (4 yrs: 1,69%, 6 yrs: 3,26%). To express Cause and Manner of the object’s motion, speakers often used causative constructions such as faire rouler (‘to make roll’). The fact that both C+P+MAc- and C+P+MOb-responses are quite complex, accounts for why they were rare among young children. (204) Il l’ [la valise] a poussée jusqu’ he it [the suitcase] has pushed to ‘He pushed it [the suitcase] to the bottom.’

en bas. the bottom 4 yrs

(205) Il rentre dans son garage avec son caddie he BACK-enters in his garage with his shopping cart qu’ il pousse derrière lui. that he pulls behind him ‘He goes back into his garage with his shopping cart that he tows behind him.’ 8 yrs

250 

 Results: Caused Motion

Responses that expressed only Cause or only Manner of the agent’s motion occurred among four- and six-year-olds, but practically disappeared after this age. C-responses occurred at age four (3,39%) and six (4,04%). In these cases, children used relatively neutral causative verbs such as mettre (‘to put’) to describe the agent’s action without adding any information about Manner or Path. This response type did not occur among adults. In the case of MAg-responses, they occurred occasionally at four years of age (4,95%), but practically disappeared thereafter. The most frequent lexicalization pattern of this response type consisted of simply describing the agent’s Manner of motion by using the verb marcher (‘to walk’). However, in a considerable number of cases, children used verbs such as glisser (‘to slide’) in combination with a with-PP that added the patient of the caused motion event. Such a case is illustrated in (206). In these constructions, it is not clear whether the child really described the Manner of motion of the agent (as implied by the grammatical structure) or rather the Manner of the object’s motion (which is more likely) but without the appropriate transitive/causative construction (Il fait glisser le ballon. ‘He makes the ball slide.’). (206) Il glisse avec le he slides with the ‘He slides with the ball.’

ballon. ball 4 yrs

Two response types were less frequent among French speakers and practically only occurred at adult age. First, French adults used some C+P+MAc+MObresponses (6,90%). In such constructions, they combined causative verbs that encoded C+MAc with causative constructions that additionally expressed C+MOb. Furthermore, both elements were then combined with some other linguistic device that encoded Path. This could be either a prepositional phrase or a verb. Since such constructions are rather complex, they were extremely rare among French children (4 yrs: 0,00%, 6 yrs: 0,13%, 8 yrs: 0,65%, 10 yrs: 1,82%). Example (207) illustrates such a response, which was produced by an eight-yearold. Second, French adults produced some C+P+MAc+MAg-responses (3,65%). Such constructions primarily occurred when speakers combined the motion verb grimper (‘to climb up’) with causative verbs that encoded C+MAc. The agent’s (voluntary) motion was usually described in the main clause, the caused motion event in a gerund (e.g., en poussant une table ‘by pushing a table’).

Information Focus 

 251

(207) Il a poussé une table là en la traînant par he has pushed a table there by it dragging on terre, en la poussant devant lui jusqu’à la grotte. ground by it pushing in front of him to to the cave ‘He pushed a table dragging it on the ground, by pushing it in front of him to the cave.’ 8 yrs Responses that did not express any relevant semantic component occurred in 5,21% among four-year-olds. After this age, SD0-responses decreased and practically disappeared at adult age (0,26%). As was the case with voluntary motion, children often used the semantically-neutral verb aller (‘to go’) and added a general localization that did not provide any information about Path. An example of such a use of aller (‘to go’) is illustrated in (208). (208) Il a (sic !) allé dans une grotte he has gone in a cave ‘He went into a cave with a wheel.’

avec with

une a

roue. wheel 6 yrs

As illustrated in Figure 9, lexicalization patterns in German descriptions of caused motion events are less diverse than in French, showing basically two main response types: C+P+MAc (most frequent) and C+P+MOb (less frequent). Details about lexicalization patterns across German age groups are shown in Table 62.

80

60

40 C+P+MAc C+P+MOb 20

C+P P+MAg P

0 G04

G06

G08

G10

Figure 9: The most frequent response types in German (in %)

GAD

252 

 Results: Caused Motion

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

C+P+MAc+MAg

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0,26

C+P+MAc+MOb

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0,39

C+P+MAc

40,76

64,97

76,17

74,74

73,70

C+P+MOb

10,55

15,76

18,23

19,79

18,75

12,24

 8,59

 2,21

 1,69

 2,47

C+MAc+MOb

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0,13

C+MOb

 2,08

 0

 0,39

 0,52

 0,52

C+MAc

 4,69

 0,52

 1,17

 1,17

 0,65

P+MAg

 6,51

 2,47

 0,65

 0,78

 0,65

P+MOb

 0,52

 0,78

 0

 0,13

 0,26

Cause

 0,26

 0,13

 0

 0,13

 0

Path

16,41

 6,38

 0,91

 0,91

 1,82

MAg

 0,65

 0

 0

 0

 0

MOb

 0,65

 0

 0

 0

 0

0

 0,13

 0,13

 0,13

 0

 0

NR

 3,65

 0,26

 0,13

 0,13

 0,39

Cause + Path + one or several types of Manner

Cause + Path C+P Cause + one or several types of Manner

Path + one type of Manner

Different types of Manner

Table 62: Response patterns among German speakers (in %)

The main response pattern at all ages was C+P+MAc and this response type reached its adult frequency from eight years on (4 yrs: 40,76%, 6 yrs: 64,97%, 8  yrs: 76,17%, 10 yrs: 74,74%, adults: 73,70%). In such constructions German speakers primarily combined causative verbs such as schieben (‘to push’) or ziehen (‘to pull’) with Path-particles or prepositional phrases that encoded Path (e.g., rauf ‘up’, in die Höhle ‘into the cave’). These constructions are very compact and simple and they are therefore produced from very early on, as illustrated in

Information Focus 

 253

example (209). A second pattern also produced from four years on consisted of C+P+MOb-responses which increased until eight years of age (4 yrs: 10,55%, 6 yrs: 15,76%, 8 yrs: 18,23%, 10 yrs: 19,79%, adults: 18,75%). Lexicalization patterns of such responses were very similar to the pattern just discussed (C+P+MAc). In most of the cases, speakers used the Manner-verb rollen (‘to roll’) in a transitive way and combined it with a Path-particle and/or a prepositional phrase that encoded Path. (209) Die Äpfel hat er mit dem Korb darüber geschoben. the apples has he with the basket there-across pushed ‘He pushed the apples with a basket across.’ 4 yrs Two other developmental progressions occurred in German. First, C+P-responses decreased from four years (12,24%) to eight years of age (2,47%). In such constructions, German children combined neutral causative verbs such as nehmen (‘to take’) or tun (‘to make’) with Path-particles or prepositional phrases that encoded Path and did not provide any information about the Manner of action. Example (210) illustrates this response type. Second, P-responses occurred at four years (16,41%), but then decreased drastically and practically disappeared by eight years (0,91%). Just like French children, German children most often used the semantically-neutral verb gehen (‘to go’) in combination with some Path-particle or prepositional phrase. The object of the caused motion event was only mentioned in a prepositional phrase indicating that it moved with the agent (mit x ‘with x’). Such a response is illustrated in (211). (210) Der hat den Stuhl in he has the chair in ‘He put the chair in the barn.’ (211)

die the

Scheune barn (acc)

Der ist mit dem Schaukelpferd über he is with the rocking horse across ‘He crossed the street with the rocking horse.’

getan. put 6 yrs

die the

Straße. street (acc) 6 yrs

Two response types that were primarily produced by German four-year-olds deserve some attention. At this age, children produced some P+MAg-responses (6,51%) which decreased at six years (2,47%) and practically disappeared thereafter (8 yrs: 0,65%, 10 yrs: 0,78%, adults: 0,65%). In such constructions, children usually described the agent’s Manner of motion with the verb laufen (‘to walk’), added some linguistic device(s) that encoded Path and mentioned the object in a prepositional phrase that contained mit ‘with’ (e.g., mit dem Kinderwagen ‘with

254 

 Results: Caused Motion

the pram’). However, the caused motion event per se was omitted as illustrated in example (212). The second response type that occurred practically only among four-year-olds (4,69%) involved C+MAc-responses. Two main lexicalization patterns explain this response type – both involving a mit-PP. In several cases, children used mit as a separable verb particle of a transitive causative verb to indicate that the object followed the same Path as the agent (e.g., mitschieben ‘to withpush’). However, as shown in (213) such sentences are awkward. In other cases, children marked the object of the caused motion event with mit (‘with’), followed by the object in the dative case, rather than as a direct accusative object (expected pattern). As illustrated in (214), these constructions are also idiosyncratic because the prepositional phrase is more likely to be understood as an instrumental phrase in a transitive construction where the speaker omitted the accusative object. (212) Da ist er mit der Schubkarre vom Hügel runter gelaufen. then is he with the wheelbarrow of+the hill (dat) down run ‘Then he ran down the hill with the wheelbarrow.’ 4 yrs (213) Hat’ s einfach mitgezogen. has it simply with-pulled ‘He simply pulled it with him.’ (214) Der hat mit dem Rad he has with the wheel ‘He pushed with the wheel.’

4 yrs geschoben. pushed 4 yrs

10.2.2 Information Focus as a function of Manner of action The previous analysis of variance concerning semantic density showed a significant effect of Manner of action on speakers’ responses. As mentioned above, irrespective of language, speakers focused more on the Manner of action of the agent with pulling-events and on the Manner of the object’s motion with pushing-events (cf. Tables 63 and 64, p. 256).175 French speakers produced on average more C+P+MOb- and C+MObresponses with pushing-events than with pulling-events (C+P+MOb: 10,57% versus 5,05%, C+MOb: 7,24% versus 5,05%). An examples with a causative con-

175 Only the most frequent response types (>7,5% in one age group) were included in Tables 63 und 64.

Information Focus 

 255

struction illustrates the first response type in (215). In contrast, with pullingevents, French speakers produced more C+P+MAc-responses and also focused more on Path alone (C+P+MAc: 31,56% versus 26,88%, P-only: 21,77% versus 16,46%, cf. example 216). With respect to development, as shown in Tables 63 and 64, French four- and six-year-old children produced more C+MAc-responses with pushing-events than with pulling-events, a pattern that differed from the adult target pattern. It is only at adult age that the preference for Manner of action with pulling-events and for Manner of the object’s motion with pushing-events is clearly obvious. French adults more frequently produced C+P+MAc-responses (63,02%) with pulling-events than with pushing-events (45,05%). With pushingevents, however, C+P+MOb-responses were more frequent (20,57%) than with pulling-events (4,43%). (215) [/] le pneu il va le faire rouler jusqu’à chez lui. [/] the tyre he will it make roll to to with him ‘He will roll the tyre to his home.’ 6 yrs (216) Là, il tire la voiture en la montant sur there he pulls the car by it raising on ‘There, he pulls the car up the roof.’

le the

toit. roof 8 yrs

In German, the preference for Manner of action with pulling-events and for Manner of the object’s motion with pushing-events is obvious across all age groups (cf. Tables 63 and 64). At adult age, for instance, speakers predominantly produced C+P+MAc-responses with pulling-events (89,84%) and less so with pushing-events (57,55%). In contrast, C+P+MOb-responses were more frequent with pushing-events than with pulling-events (36,46% versus 1,04%). Examples (217) and (218) illustrate these two prototypical constructions. (217) Popi rollt einen Reifen in die Popi rolls a tyre into the ‘Popi’s rolling a tyre into the barn.’

Scheune. barn (acc) 8 yrs

(218) Popi zieht von links nach rechts einen Kinderwagen Popi pulls from left to right a pram über eine Straße. across a street (acc) ‘Popi’s pulling a pram from left to right across a street.’ adult

256 

 Results: Caused Motion

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

C+P+MAc  6,77 11,72 32,03 38,80 45,05 26,88 35,42 58,07 60,68 60,42 57,55 54,43 C+P+MOb  2,08  4,69 13,02 12,50 20,57 10,57 14,58 25,52 34,90 34,90 36,46 29,27 C+MAc

19,01 16,41 17,71 17,19 10,42 16,15  4,95  0,78  1,30  0,78  0,26  1,61

C+MOb

16,15  5,73  7,81  4,69  1,82  7,24  3,13  0

C+P

 8,85 21,35  8,07  6,51  3,39  9,64 14,32  7,81  1,56  1,82  2,86  5,68

P

27,34 28,13 14,32 12,24  0,26 16,46 15,89  4,95  0,26  0,52  0,78  4,48

 0,78  0,78  1,04  1,15

Table 63: Information Focus with pushing-events (in %)

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

C+P+MAc  6,77 13,80 34,11 40,10 63,02 31,56 46,09 71,88 91,67 89,06 89,84 77,71 C+P+MOb  1,30  1,82  7,81 11,20  4,43  5,31  6,51  5,99  1,56  4,69  1,04  3,96 C+MAc

12,50 12,24 17,19 20,05 11,72 14,74  4,43  0,26  1,04  1,56  1,04  1,67

C+MOb

14,58 2,08

C+P

14,84 25,00  7,29  4,95  3,91 11,20 10,16  9,38  2,86  1,56  2,08  5,21

 5,21  2,08  1,30  5,05  1,04  0

 0

 0,26  0

 0,26

P

31,77 34,38 24,22 16,15  2,34 21,77 16,93  7,81  1,56  1,30  2,86  6,09

Table 64: Information Focus with pulling-events (in %)

10.2.3 Information Focus as a function of Manner of the object’s motion Although the Manner of the object’s motion (rolling or sliding) did not have a significant effect on semantic density, it had an effect on information focus. Irrespective of language, speakers focused more on the Manner of action with sliding-events (C+P+MAc: 57,53%) than with rolling-events (37,76%) with which they tended to express more often the Manner of the object’s motion (C+P+MOb: 21,28% versus 10,8%). This impact of the Manner of the object’s motion was striking in both languages and across all age groups (cf. Tables 65 and 66). Across all French age groups, C+P+MAc- and C+MAc-responses were more frequent with sliding-events than with rolling-events. At adult age, speakers produced more C+P+MAcresponses with sliding-events than with rolling-events (63,80% versus 44,27%). With rolling-events, however, French speakers clearly focused more often on the Manner of the object’s motion (C+P+MOb- and C+MOb-responses). French adults produced frequent C+P+MOb-responses with rolling-events (44,27%), but they rarely did so with sliding-events (5,21%). That is to say, speakers only rarely mentioned the fact that the object was sliding when it was pushed. Example (219)

Information Focus 

 257

illustrates a typical response of a rolling-event. In some cases (10,16%), French adults even added Manner of the object’s motion to their C+P+MAc-responses with pulling-events. Example (220) illustrates such a complex construction which involves a gerund encoding C+MAc and a prepositional phrase encoding Path. (219) Alors Popi il monte la colline de sable en poussant then Popi he ascends the hill of sand by pushing son cadeau. his present ‘Then Popi’s going up the sand hill pushing his present.’ 10 yrs (220) Alors Popi a tiré en faisant rouler la so Popi has pulled by making roll the jusqu’ en haut du toit. to in top of+the roof ‘So Popi pulled the car on top of the roof, rolling it.’

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

voiture car

8 yrs

G10

GAD

G all

C+P+MAc  8,07 14,58 36,72 45,83 63,80 33,80 48,18 78,39 94,27 93,75 91,67 81,25 C+P+MOb  1,56  1,30  7,03  9,64  5,21  4,95  3,65  1,56  0,26  1,04  1,56  1,61 C+MAc

18,75 16,93 20,83 20,05 13,54 18,02  7,03  1,04  1,30  1,56  0,78  2,34

C+MOb

 8,85  1,04  3,91  1,56  1,04  3,28  0

C+P

15,10 25,00  7,55  5,73  3,65 11,41 15,36 10,16  2,86  1,56  2,34  6,46

P

28,13 30,47 20,31 13,54  1,30 18,75 15,63  5,21  0,52  1,30  1,30  4,79

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

Table 65: Information Focus with sliding-events (in %)

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

C+P+  0  0,26  1,04  3,65 10,16  3,02  0  0  0  0  0  0 MAc+MOb C+P+MAc  5,47 10,94 29,43 33,07 44,27 24,64 33,33 51,56 58,07 55,73 55,73 50,89 C+P+MOb  1,82  5,21 13,80 14,06 19,79 10,94 17,45 29,95 36,20 38,54 35,94 31,61 C+MAc

12,76 11,72 14,06 17,19  8,59 12,86  2,34  0

 1,04  0,78  0,52  0,94

C+MOb

21,88  6,77  9,11  5,21  2,08  9,01  4,17  0

 0,78  1,04  1,04  1,41

C+P

 8,59 21,35  7,81  5,73  3,65  9,43  9,11  7,03  1,56  1,82  2,60  4,43

P

30,99 32,03 18,23 14,84  1,30 19,48 17,19  7,55  1,30  0,52  2,34  5,78

Table 66: Information Focus with rolling-events (in %)

258 

 Results: Caused Motion

In German, exactly the same pattern occurred except that there were no C+P+MAc +MOb-responses with rolling-events. German adults produced C+P+MAcresponses much more frequently with sliding-events than with rolling-events (91,67% versus 37,76%), but C+P+MOb-responses were more usual with rollingevents than with sliding-events (35,94% versus 0,78%). This pattern is apparent from the youngest age group on. Example (221) illustrates a typical pattern of a sliding-event description. Responses where German speakers expressed the object’s Manner of motion with sliding-events were more frequent among fouryear-olds than among the other age groups (4 yrs: 3,56%, 6 yrs: 1,56%. 8 yrs: 0,26%, 10 yrs: 1,04%, adults: 1,56%). Example (222) illustrates such a construction. In this response the child uses the Manner-verb schauklen (‘to swing’) that constitutes also the first element of the compound Schaukelpferd (‘rocking horse’) in a transitive way. Nevertheless, the transitive use of schaukeln (‘to swing’) in this context is idiosyncratic because it can only be used for a movement at a stationary location but not for a movement along a Path. (221) Der Popi schiebt den Tisch vor sich her in die Scheune. the Popi pushes the table in front of him hither in the barn (acc) ‘Popi pushes the table in front of him into the barn.’ 6 yrs (222) Hm, der Mann hat über die Straße das Schaukelpferd eh the man has across the street (acc) the rocking horse geschaukelt. swung ‘The man rocked the rocking horse across the street.’ 4 yrs

10.2.4 Information Focus as a function of Path Path had a significant effect on semantic density and therefore should also have an impact on information focus. As shown in Tables 67 to 70 (cf. p. 259–260), irrespective of language, Path was somewhat more often expressed with upand down-events than with across-events and least often with into-events.176 In addition, up-events elicited somewhat less information about the Manner of the object’s motion (MOb) and somewhat more about the Manner of the agent’s

176 Figures and tables in this section only show the most important response types of each Path-type.

Information Focus 

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

 259

G all

C+P+MAc 4,69

10,94 25,52 27,60 47,40 23,23 42,71 65,10 78,13 76,04 75,00 67,40

C+P+MOb 1,56

3,65

8,33

14,06 17,71 9,06

7,81

10,42 16,15 19,79 16,67 14,17

C+MAc

15,63 20,83 29,69 28,65 18,23 22,60 4,69

0,52

0,52

0,52

0

1,25

C+MOb

10,94 3,65

0

0

0,52

0

0,42

C+P

11,46 26,04 9,90

P

26,04 15,10 7,29

C

11,46 8,33

0

11,46 9,38

10,94 4,17

1,56

6,25

1,56

7,29

6,77

12,29 14,06 15,63 3,65

1,56

2,08

7,40

3,65

1,04

10,63 15,10 6,77

1,56

1,04

2,60

5,42

0,52

3,13

0

4,69

0

0

0

0

0

0

2,08

4,17

0

5,42

0,52

0

0

0

0

0,10

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Table 67: Information Focus with into-events (in %)

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

C+P+MAc  9,38 13,54 40,63 53,13 67,19 36,77 47,40 68,75 75,52 72,40 73,44 67,50 C+P+MOb  2,08  2,08 14,06 13,54  9,38  8,23 11,46 20,83 20,83 20,31 19,27 18,54 C+MAc

15,63 10,42 13,54 10,42  6,25 11,25  5,21  0

 1,04  1,56  1,04  1,77

C+MOb

10,94  4,17  4,69  1,56  1,04  4,48  2,60  0

 0

C+P

14,58 26,04  5,21  4,17  2,08 10,42  7,81  3,13  1,04  3,13  2,60  3,54

P

31,25 35,42 17,19 15,10  1,56 20,10 13,02  4,17  0,52  0,52  1,04  3,85

C+P+  0 MAc+MOb

 0

 0

 1,04  8,85  1,98  0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 1,04  0,73

 0

 0

Table 68: Information Focus with down-events (in %)

motion (MAg) as compared to the other event types. Let us now examine the distribution of responses with respect to information focus within each language. In all French age groups, into-events differed from all other events (up, down, across) with respect to information focus (cf. Figure 10). Path was much less expressed with into-events, and French four- and six-year-olds even produced frequent SD0-responses with this Path-type (4 yrs: 11,40%, 6 yrs: 9,38%). The omission of Path-information with into-events results from the difficulties in unambiguously encoding Path in such situations. In most of the cases, French speakers used simple prepositional phrases that expressed a general location (e.g., dans la grotte ‘in the cave’) although Path could be inferred from the semantic and discourse context. In example (223), although the ten-year-old used a causative construction in combination with a gerund encoding the motion of

260 

 Results: Caused Motion

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

C+P+MAc  8,85 15,63 31,25 41,15 40,63 27,50 41,15 65,63 75,52 76,56 72,92 66,35 C+P+MOb  2,08  3,65 11,46 11,46  8,33  7,40 11,46 15,63 17,71 19,27 20,31 16,88 C+MAc

14,06  8,85 13,02 17,19  9,90 12,60  2,08  0

 1,04  0

C+MOb

15,10  3,13  5,73  2,08  2,08  5,63  1,56  0

 0

 0,52  0,73

C+P

14,06 27,08  8,85  9,38  4,17 12,71 18,23  7,81  2,60  2,08  2,60  6,67

P

32,29 28,65 25,52 13,54  0

 1,04  0

 0,52

20,00 12,50  4,69  0,52  0,52  1,56  3,96

C+P+  0  0  0  0,52 14,06  2,92  0  0  0  0 MAc+MAg C+P+  0  0,52  0  2,60  7,81  2,19  0  0  0  0 MAc+MOb P+MAg  3,13  1,56  1,04  1,56  5,73  2,60  8,33  3,65  2,60  0

 0

 0

 0,52  0,10  1,56  3,23

Table 69: Information Focus with up-events (in %)

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

C+P+MAc  4,17 10,94 34,90 35,94 60,94 29,38 31,77 60,42 75,52 73,96 73,44 63,02 C+P+MOb  1,04  3,65  7,81  8,33 14,58  7,08 11,46 16,15 18,23 19,79 18,75 16,88 C+MAc

17,71 17,19 13,54 18,23  9,90 15,31  6,77  1,56  2,08  2,60  1,04  2,81

C+MOb

24,48  4,69  4,69  5,73  1,56  8,23  2,60  0

C+P

 7,29 13,54  6,77  2,08  1,56  6,25  8,85  7,81  1,56  0

 1,56  0,52  1,04  1,15

P

28,65 45,83 27,08 24,48  2,60 25,73 25,00  9,90  1,04  1,56  2,08  7,92

 2,60  4,17

Table 70: Information Focus with across-events (in %)

the agent, he is not able to clearly express the boundary-crossing implied by the into-event. It is only by using French double prepositions that involve jusque (‘to’) such as jusque dans (‘into’) or jusqu’à l’intérieur (‘into the interior’) or especially and most typically Path-verbs such as entrer (‘to enter’, cf. example 224) that the boundary-crossing can be clearly expressed. In cases where young children did not express any relevant semantic component, they primarily described the motion of the agent (e.g., aller ‘to go’) in combination with the same type of vague prepositional phrase just discussed above (e.g., dans la grotte ‘in the cave’).

 261

Information Focus 

100 80 60 C P

40

MAc MOb

20

MAg 0

0 into

down

up

across

Figure 10: Information Focus as a function of Path in French (in %)

(223) (Ben là c’ est Popi qui [/] qui prend sa roue) qui (well there this is Popi who [/] who takes his wheel) who la fait tourner pour aller dans la grotte. it makes turn to go in the cave ‘(Well, there is Popi taking his wheel) who is making it turn to go into the cave.’ 10 yrs (224) Popi tire un caddie pour le faire rentrer dans Popi pulls a shopping cart to it make BACK-enter in la grange. the barn ‘Popi pulls a shopping cart to put it back into the barn.’ adult When French speakers expressed Path with into-events, they were more likely to omit other types of information such as Manner of action or even Cause. As a consequence, young French children produced frequent C+P-responses (26% at six years) and P-responses (26% at four years) which decreased with age. Examples of both response types are shown in (225) and (226). Furthermore, at age four, French children produced some C-only-responses (11,46%). These responses also decreased with age but still occurred among six year olds (8,33%). In such cases, children described the caused motion event with neutral causative verbs such as mettre (‘to put’) and encoded the Goal of the motion event by means of an ambiguous prepositional phrase (e.g., dans le garage ‘in the garage’).

262 

 Results: Caused Motion

(225) Il est rentré dans la maison. he is BACK-entered in the house ‘He went back into the house.’

4 yrs

(226) Il ramene une chaise dans un garage. he BACK-brings a chair in a garage ‘He brings a chair back into the garage.’

6 yrs

With down-events, French children tended to focus somewhat more on Path than on Cause. It is only at adult age that this pattern was reversed and that Cause was expressed more frequently than Path. From eight years on, French children produced frequent C+P+MAc- and C+P+MOb-responses (40,63% and 14,06% respectively, cf. Table 68, p. 259). Whereas C+P+MAc-responses continued to increase until adult age (67,19%), C+P+MOb-responses were less frequent among adults who also produced some C+P+MAc+MOb-responses (8,85%). Example (227) illustrates a responses where a French adult encoded four semantic components. In this construction, speakers encoded C+MAc in the main verb of the main clause and added MOb and twice Cause in a causative construction that was embedded in a subordinate element (a gerund). Path is expressed in a prepositional phrase. French children who had difficulties simultaneously encoding all relevant semantic components frequently omitted one or even two types of information. Thus, P-only-responses were the most frequent response type at age four and six with down-events (31,25% and 35,42% respectively). (227) Il [/] il pousse le ballon en le faisant rouler jusqu’ en he [/] he pushes the ball by it making roll to at bas de la colline. bottom of the hill ‘He’s pushing the ball and roll’s it to the bottom of the hill.’ adult Up-events elicited responses with a similar information focus as down-events. Until eight years of age, children focused somewhat more on Path than on Cause. At ten years and at adult age, however, Cause was somewhat more important than Path. In contrast to information focus with other Path-types, French adults frequently encoded the agent’s Manner of motion with these events (22%). Similarly to response types to down-events, with age French speakers produced increasingly more C+P+MAc- and C+P+MOb-responses and fewer C+MAc-, C+P+MOb-, C+P-, and P-responses. In (228), the child produces a very typical response type that encodes C+MAc in the causative verb tirer (‘to pull’) and Path in a double prepositional phrase (jusqu’en haut du toit ‘up to the top of the roof’).

Information Focus 

(228) Il tire le sac jusqu’ en haut he pulls the bag to at top ‘He’s pulling the bag on top of the roof.’

 263

du toit. of+the roof 10 yrs

French adults produced a relatively frequent response type that encoded four semantic components. Whereas C+P+MAc+MAg-responses (14,06%) were only notable with up-events, C+P+MAc+MOb-responses (7,81%) were also produced with down-events. As shown above, the lexicalization patterns of C+P+MAc+MAgresponses primarily involved a motion verb that conflated Manner and Path such as grimper (‘to climb up’) or escalader (‘to climb up’). These motion verbs were used in the main clause and the caused motion event was expressed in a gerund (e.g., en poussant un cadeau ‘by pushing a present’). French speakers encoded on average fewer semantic components with across-events than with the other three Path-types. Irrespective of the fact that children encoded more components with age, four-year-olds were more similar to adults with respect to information focus than any other French child age group. Four-year-olds as well as adults focused more on Cause than on Path and they relatively frequently expressed Manner of the object’s motion. Four-year-olds’ frequent omission of Path could be due to the fact that they did not often use the French Path-verb traverser (‘to cross’), an observation that was already noted in previous analyses of voluntary motion in French. From four years on, French speakers concentrated somewhat more on Path than on Cause. As a consequence of these results, C+P+MAc- and C+P+MOb-responses increased with age and C+MAc-, C+MOb- and P-only-responses decreased. Surprisingly, six-year-olds produced frequently P-responses with across-events (45,83%). In such responses they primarily used the Path-verb traverser (‘to cross’) and added the patient of the caused motion event in a prepositional phrase in the function of an adverbial (avec x ‘with x’). Examples (229) and (230) illustrate typical child and adult responses with across-events. In (229) the four-year-old completely omits any information about Path and only describes caused motion. In (230), the adult uses the Path-verb traverser in the main clause and combines it with a gerund that encodes the caused motion event. (229) Il a poussé le he has pushed the ‘He pushed the basket.’

panier. basket 4 yrs

264 

 Results: Caused Motion

(230) Alors Popi traverse la route de campagne en faisant then Popi crosses the road of countryside by making tourner la roue de charrette. turn the wheel of cart ‘Then Popi’s crossing the countryside road, turning the cart’s wheel.’ adult As shown in Figure 11, information focus in German responses is very similar across all Path-types and even across all age groups, despite the fact that speakers expressed more semantic components with increasing age. With all Path-types, C+P+MAc- and C+P+MOb-responses increased with age and responses with only two or one semantic components decreased (especially C+MAc, C+MOb, C+P, and P-only). The absence of developmental changes in German (satellite-framed language) is due to its typical lexicalization pattern that allows the compact expression of at least three semantic components (C+P+MAc/MOb).

100 80 60

C P

40

MAc MOb

20

MAg 0

0 into

down

up

across

Figure 11: Information Focus as a function of Path in German (in %)

German speakers across all age groups primarily encoded Cause and Manner of action or Manner of the object’s motion in the main verb and expressed Path in particles or prepositional phrases. Examples (231) to (232) illustrate such constructions for into- and down-events. In contrast to French, German noun phrases that follow prepositions are obligatory case-marked. In the specific case of Wechselpräpositionen (‘prepositions of change’) the accusative or dative case indicates

Information Locus 

 265

if the Goal of motion or a general location is expressed. Therefore, the six-yearold in (231) unambiguously encodes the Goal of the caused motion event in his accusative-PP which is combined with the causative verb ziehen (‘to pull’). In the description of the down-event in (232), the ten-year-old uses the same causative verb but combines it with three different linguistic devices that all encode Path. Two prepositional phrases express Source and Goal of the trajectory and the particle runter (‘down’) encodes downward motion. This example clearly shows how easily speakers of a satellite-framed language can segment Path and therefore focus on different aspects of the trajectory. (231) Er zieht ihn [den Einkaufswagen] in die Höhle. He pulls it [the shopping cart] in the cave (acc) ‘He pulls it [the shopping cart] into the cave.’

6 yrs

(232) Hier zieht der Popi eine Schubkarre von einem Berg runter here pulls the Popi a wheelbarrow of a mountain (dat) down ins Tal. in+the valley (acc) ‘Here, Popi’s pulling a wheelbarrow down a mountain into the valley.’ 10 yrs With respect to up-events, German four-year-olds differed from other age groups by focusing more on the agent’s Manner of motion which was usually combined with other components. This observation is parallel to the same phenomenon among French four-year-olds. Example (233) illustrates such a construction. (233) Der ist da hochgeklettert. he is there up-climbed ‘He climbed up there.’

4 yrs

10.3 Information Locus Information Locus refers to the particular linguistic devices that served to encode semantic components. The coding distinguished between information that was expressed in the main verb and that was expressed outside of the main verb, for instance in satellites or peripheral constructions such as relative clauses or gerunds. Satellites and peripheral constructions were subsumed under the term other linguistic devices (hereafter abbreviated in figures and tables as SP: Satellites + Periphery). Figures 12 and 13 as well as Table 71 show which semantic com-

266 

 Results: Caused Motion

Verb

100 80 60

C P MAc MOb MAg 0

40 20 0 French

German

Figure 12: Information Locus in verbs (in %)

Other linguistic devices 100 80 60

C P MAc MOb MAg 0

40 20 0 French

German

Figure 13: Information Locus in other linguistic devices (in %)

Verb

C P MAc MOb MAg M all 0 NR

Other

French

German

French

German

57,47 49,04 31,93 11,90  3,15 46,98  3,31  0,34

90,76  0,96 68,07 18,33  2,63 89,04  5,78  0,16

18,31 22,97 13,72  4,48  1,41 19,61 41,33  0,91

 0,18 95,81  0,39  0,05  0,10  0,55  4,01  0,16

Table 71: Information Locus in French and German (in %)

Information Locus 

 267

ponents were encoded in French and German in the main verb as compared to other linguistic devices. Whereas lexicalization patterns in German are quite clear, French showed a very variable pattern where almost every semantic component can be expressed in every linguistic device. French speakers encoded Cause (57,47%) and either Path (49,04%), Manner of action (31,93%) or Manner of the object’s motion (11,90%) in the main verb. All these semantic components were also expressed in other linguistic devices (C: 18,31%, P: 22,97%, MAc: 13,72%, MOb: 4,48%). Examples (234) and (235) illustrate the high flexibility of French lexicalization patterns for the expression of caused motion. In (234), C+MAc are encoded in the causative verb pousser (‘to push’), which is combined with the gerund of a Path-verb (descendre ‘to descend’). In contrast in (235), Path is encoded in the main verb and C+MAc in the gerund (en poussant ‘by pushing’). (234) Là, il pousse la valise en descendant la colline. there he pushes the suitcase by descending the hill ‘There, he pushes the case while descending the hill.’

8 yrs

(235) Popi traverse la route en poussant un panier de pommes. Popi crosses the road by pushing a basket of apples ‘Popi crosses the street while pushing a basket of apples.’

10 yrs

However, responses with no relevant semantic information outside of the main verb were the most frequent pattern in French (41,33%). These responses occurred especially among young French children who are not yet able to produce complex constructions involving subordination. In contrast, German speakers primarily encoded Cause (90,76%) and either Manner of action (68,07%) or more rarely Manner of the object’s motion (18,33%) in the main verb, and they expressed Path in other linguistic devices (95,81%). A typical construction is illustrated in (236). (236) Popi schiebt den Koffer den Berg Popi pushes the suitcase the hill ‘Popi pushes the suitcase down the hill.’

runter. down adult

German verbs with no relevant semantic component were rare (5,78%). As will be discussed below, in these cases German speakers (especially children) used the semantically-neutral verb gehen (‘to go’) to describe the agent’s motion. With respect to information outside of the main verb, they almost always encoded some semantic components (95,99%).

268 

 Results: Caused Motion

Three mixed ANOVAs177 with age and language (as between-subject factors) and as locus, Path, Manner of action, and Manner of the object’s motion (as withinsubject factors) examined the effects and interactions of the following factors on raw C-, P- and M-scores (hereafter conflation type):178 age (five groups of 24 subjects each), language (French, German), type of semantic component (Path, Manner of action, and Manner of the object’s motion), and locus (verb, other linguistic devices). The ANOVAs showed significant main effects of language, age, type of semantic component (Path, Manner of action, and Manner of the object’s motion), and locus. Language: Language had a main effect on information locus with respect to all three conflation types (Cause: F(1,230) = 7,70, p < 0.0059, Path: F(1,230) = 66,16, p < 0.00001, Manner: F(1,230) = 16,91, p < 0.00001). As already observed above, French speakers showed a great variability of constructions in which the three relevant semantic components were spread over the verb (C: 57,47%, P: 49,04%, M: 46,98%) and other linguistic devices (C: 18,31%, P: 22,97%, M: 41,33%). In contrast, due to the German system, Cause and Manner were primarily encoded in the main verb (C: 90,76%, M: 89,03% as compared to P: 0,96%) and Path in other linguistic devices (95,81% as compared to C: 0,18 and M: 0,54%). Age: The effect of age on information locus was significant with respect to all three conflation types (Cause: F(4,230) = 22,58, p < 0.00001, Path: F(4,230) = 16,22, p < 0.00001, Manner: F(4,230) = 36,83, p < 0.00001). Irrespective of language, all three conflation types increased more strikingly in other linguistic devices than in the verb (cf. Table 72). In contrast, verbs and other linguistic devices which did not encode any semantic information at all strongly decreased with age. In both languages the effect of age was significant for all three conflation types (French: C: F(4,115) = 14,70, p < 0.00001, P: F(4,115) = 11.10, p < 0.00001, M: F(4,115) = 27,82, p < 0.00001; German: C: F(4,115) = 11.89, p < 0.00001, P: F(4,115) = 6,80, p < 0.00001, M: F(4,115) = 14,95, p < 0.00001). Type of semantic components: Conflation types varied significantly depending on the manipulated variables. The type of Manner of action had an effect on how frequently speakers expressed different components. Thus, it had an effect on the expression of C (F(1,230) = 52,76, p < 0.00001), of P (F(1,230) = 15,69, p < 0.0001), and of M (F(1,230) = 30,60, p < 0.00001). In addition, the Manner of the object’s motion had an effect on C (F(1,230) = 8,21, p < 0.0046), on P (F(1,230) = 5,14, p < 0.0230), and on M (F(1,230) = 6,55, p < 0.00001). Finally, Path type had

177 Three previous ANOVAs did not show any significant effect of sex (p < 0.5) and this factor was therefore disregarded in the following analyses. 178 M-scores subsumed MAc-, MOb- and MAg-scores.

Information Locus 

Verbs

 269

Other

4

6

8

10

adults 4

6

8

10

adults

C

61,85

74,54

78,19

79,49

76,50

 2,80

 3,52

11,33

16,60

28,52

T

23,70

30,27

23,37

21,55

26,11

49,09

60,68

66,80

68,62

71,42

M all

55,79

58,66

73,83

77,80

73,96

 5,53

 3,71

11,20

13,67

29,75

0

12,89

 5,01

 1,69

 1,76

 1,37

44,08

36,39

22,98

19,92

8,92

NR

 0,52

 0,13

 0,13

 0,13

 0,33

 2,02

 0,13

 0,13

 0,20

0,33

Table 72: Conflation types in the verb and in other linguistic devices across age groups (in %)

an effect on C (F(3,690) = 29,26, p < 0.00001), on P (F(3,690) = 29,96, p < 0.00001), and on M (F(3,690) = 5,35, p < 0.0013). Since Path-types turned out to have the most striking impact on information locus, variations of information locus as a function of Manner of action and as a function of Manner of the object’s motion will be disregarded in what follows.179 Locus: C-, P- and M-conflation types varied significantly depending on where the information was encoded (C: F(1,230) = 1118,27, p  < 0.00001, P: F(1,230) = 454,08, p < 0.00001, M: F(1,230) = 1023,49, p < 0.00001). The effect of locus was significant in both languages for all three conflation types (French: C: F(1,115) = 94.21, p < 0.00001, P: F(1,115) = 27,81, p < 0.00001, M: F(1,115) = 56,45, p < 0.00001; German: C: F(1,115) = 3568,05, p  < 0.00001, P: F(1,115) = 8143,60, p  < 0.00001 M: F(1,115) = 58,42, p < 0.00001). For instance, German speakers systematically encoded Cause and Manner in the main verb and Path in other linguistic devices. Two interactions were also significant. First, as predicted there was an interaction between language and age for all three conflation types (C: F(4,230) = 5.36, p < 0.0004, P: F(4,230) = 4.52, p < 0.0016, M: F(4,230) = 10.87, p < 0.00001). As will be shown below in detail, French children had enormous difficulties encoding relevant semantic information outside of the main verb. In contrast, from the youngest tested age group on, German children regularly expressed all semantic components in one single utterance. Second, the interaction between language and locus was also significant for all three conflation types (C: F(1,230) = 248.06, p < 0.00001, P: F(1,230) = 985,70, p < 0.00001, M: F(1,230) = 340.09, p < 0.00001). With respect to Path, French speakers primarily encoded it in the main verb (49,04%), whereas German speakers expressed it in nearly 100% of their satellites (95,81%). Although, Cause was encoded in both languages in the verb, German

179 The most important results with respect to the impact of the variables Manner of action and Manner of the object’s motion have already been discussed in Chapter 10.2.2 and 10.2.3.

270 

 Results: Caused Motion

speakers produced more causative verbs than French speakers (90,76% versus 57,47%). However, this semantic component was hardly ever encoded in other linguistic devices in German (0,18% versus French 18,31%). As regards Manner, German speakers most frequently encoded some aspect of Manner (MAc, MOb or MAg) in the main verb (89,04%), whereas French speakers did so much less often (46,98%). Nevertheless, they encoded Manner in about 20% of the cases in other linguistic devices.

10.3.1 Information Locus as a function of language and age As predicted and as already shown above for semantic density and information focus, children of both languages encoded more semantic information with increasing age. This increase can be observed both in the verb and in other linguistic devices, although language differences occur in this respect (cf. Table 73 and 74). Developmental changes in information locus are discussed separately below for each language. French speakers across all ages encoded primarily Cause, Path, and one Manner-component in the main verb (cf. Figure 14). As shown in Table 73, C+MAcverbs (e.g., pousser ‘to push’) and Path-verbs (e.g., descendre ‘to descend’) are the most frequent conflation types (31,74% and 35,13% respectively). Verbs that encoded C+MOb (e.g., rouler quelque chose ‘to roll something’) and causative constructions that expressed C+P (e.g., faire monter ‘to make ascend’) were less frequent (11,17% and 12,40% respectively). With respect to development in the main verb, French children at four and six years showed a clear preference for Pathverbs (4 yrs: 32,42%, 6 yrs: 34,90%). Nevertheless at eight years children roughly reached the adult target pattern for the main verb. Although French adults expressed a great number of semantic components outside of the main verb, children had great difficulties doing so (cf. Figure 15). In about 70% four-year-olds did not express any relevant semantic component outside of the main verb. When French children between four and eight years encoded some information outside of the main verb, they most frequently encoded Path (4 yrs: 8,72%, 6 yrs; 20,18%, 8 yrs: 30,86%, 10 yrs: 27,60%, adults: 23,05%), primarily using prepositional phrases in these cases (e.g., jusqu’à l’autre côté ‘to the other side’, jusque dans x ‘to into x’). The second relevant conflation pattern in other linguistic devices was C+MAc which occurred more frequently from eight years on (4 yrs: 2,47%, 6 yrs: 2,21%, 8 yrs: 14,58%, 10 yrs: 14,84%, adults: 27,34%). In these cases, speakers most often used gerunds with causative verbs such as en tirant (‘by pulling’). Other linguistic devices with other conflation types were very rare between four and eight years but gradually increased until adult age

Information Locus 

 271

(C+P+MAc: 8,20%, C+MOb: 6,77%, C+P: 5,73%). In responses where speakers encoded three semantic components in the periphery of the verb, they typically used a prepositional phrase to express the Goal of motion. An example is shown in (237) where the speaker also added the general location of the object during the caused motion event. (237) Il descend la valise en la poussant devant lui he descended the suitcase by it pushing in front of him jusqu’ en bas. to on bottom ‘He pushed the suitcase in front of him down to the bottom.’

French Verb C+MAc C+MOb C+P

adult

French Other P

0

C+P+MAc C+MAc C+MOb C+P

P

0

F04 19,01 17,06 13,54 32,42 6,25

0,65

 2,47 0,65

1,17

 8,72 75,52

F06 24,22  6,12 23,44 34,90 4,30

1,43

 2,21 0,91

0,91

20,18 70,96

F08 35,55 13,54  8,72 37,50 2,21

1,43

14,58 2,34

1,95

30,86 43,88

F10 41,41 11,07  7,42 34,77 2,34

2,99

14,84 4,43

6,64

27,60 37,89

FAD 38,54  8,07  8,85 36,07 1,43

8,20

27,34 6,77

5,73

23,05 16,28

F all 31,74 11,17 12,40 35,13 3,31

2,94

12,29 3,02

3,28

22,08 48,91

Table 73: Main conflation patterns in French verbs and other linguistic devices (in %)

Verb: French

100 80 60 40

C P

20

M 0

0 F04

F06

F08

Figure 14: Information Locus in French verbs (in %)

F10

FAD

272 

 Results: Caused Motion

Other linguistic devices: French 100 80 60 40

C P

20

M 0

0 F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

Figure 15: Information Locus in French other linguistic devices (in %)

As compared to French, lexicalization patterns in German were much more systematic (cf. Figures 16 and 17 as well as Table 74). Irrespective of age, German speakers typically encoded Cause and Manner of action or Cause and Manner of the object’s motion in the main verb. Eight-year-olds did so as frequently as adults, using C+MAc-verbs such as schieben (‘to push’, 77,60%) and C+MOb-verbs such as etwas rollen (‘to roll something’, 18,48%). Nevertheless, German fouryear-olds sometimes encoded Cause only in their main verbs (11,46%), using in these cases semantically-neutral verbs such as tun (‘to do’) or machen (‘to make’). In example (238) the four-year-old initially combines the verb tun with the Manner-verb rollen (‘to roll’), but since he becomes aware that this verb does not satisfactorily described the Manner of the object’s motion, he corrects himself and uses the more neutral causative verb machen (‘to make’). German four-year-olds also produced MAg-verbs (7,42%) to describe the agent’s Manner of motion (e.g., laufen ‘to walk’, klettern ‘to climb’). (238) Der tut das [den Koffer, sic!] [//] runter machen. he does it [the suitcase] [//] down make ‘He puts it [the suitcase] down.’ 4 yrs With respect to the semantic components that were expressed in other linguistic devices, German speakers across all age groups expressed primarily Path either in particles or in prepositional phrases (4 yrs: 86,72%, 6 yrs: 98,05%, 8 yrs: 97,79%, 10 yrs: 97,53%, adults: 96,35%). Very frequently, speakers of all ages used several linguistic devices to focus on different aspects of the trajectory. In

Information Locus 

 273

Verb: German 100 80 60 40

C P

20

M 0

0 G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

Figure 16: Information Locus in German verbs (in %)

Other linguistic devices: German 100 80 60 40

C P

20

M 0

0 G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

Figure 17: Information Locus in German other linguistic devices (in %)

example (239), a six-year-old focuses on the verticality of the Path by using the particle hoch (‘up’) and encodes explicitly the Goal in the accusative-PP auf das Dach (‘on the roof’). In example (240), an adult even uses four linguistic devices to describe the Path. Source and Goal are encoded in prepositional phrases that each involve two adverbs (von rechts oben … nach links unten ‘from top right  … to bottom left’). The prepositional phrase vom Hügel (‘from the hill’) specifies either the prepositional phrase von rechts oben (‘from top right’) or expresses

274 

 Results: Caused Motion

German Verb

German Other

C+MAc

C+MOb

C

MAg

0

P

0

G04

45,18

12,76

11,46

7,42

6,25

86,72

12,63

G06

65,76

15,89

 7,94

2,34

4,30

98,05

 1,82

G08

77,60

18,49

 2,08

0,39

2,21

97,79

 2,08

G10

72,53

17,84

 2,21

0,78

2,34

97,53

 1,95

GAD

74,35

19,27

 2,60

0,65

1,43

96,35

 1,56

G all

67,08

16,85

 5,26

2,32

3,31

95,29

 4,01

Table 74: Main conflation patterns in German verbs and other linguistic devices (in %)

the Source twice. The particle hinab (‘hither-down’) emphasizes the downward aspect of the motion event that can also be inferred by the adverbs oben (‘top/ above’) and unten (‘bottom/down’). In addition, the particle hinab (‘hither-down’) adds a deictic component which is rather complicated to interpret in the context of a description of an animated cartoon. (239) Der bringt das [die Kiste] hoch # he brings it [the box] up # ‘He puts it [the box] up onto the roof.’

auf onto

das the

Dach. roof (acc) 6 yrs

(240) Popi rollt einen bunten Ball von rechts oben vom Popi rolls a colored ball from right up from+the Hügel hinab unten [//] nach links unten. hill (dat) hither-down down [//] to left down ‘Popi rolls a colored ball down from the upper right side of the hill to the lower left side.’ adult

10.3.2 Information Locus as a function of Path The effect of Path-type on information locus was more striking in French than in German. Figures 18 and 19 show information locus for all four Path-types in French. In general, French speakers more frequently encoded C+MAc in the main verb with into-events than with the other three event types (into: 39,48%, down: 30,52%, up: 28,65%, across: 28,33%). Example (241) illustrates such a construction. Pathverbs were the most frequent with across-events and least frequent with intoevents (into: 17,60%, down: 40,73%, up: 34,48%, across: 47,71%).

 275

Information Locus 

(241) Donc Popi tire la chaise jusqu’ à l’intérieur so Popi pulls the chair to to the inside ‘So Popi pulls the chair into the interior of the cave.’

de la grotte. of the cave adult

Verb: French 100 80 60

C P

40

MAc MOb

20

MAg 0

0 into

down

up

across

Figure 18: Information Locus in French verbs as a function of Path-type (in %)

Other linguistic devices: French 100 80 60

C P

40

MAc MOb

20

MAg 0

0 into

down

up

across

Figure 19: Information Locus in French other linguistic devices as a function of Path-type (in %)

276 

 Results: Caused Motion

Verbs that conflated Cause and Path as well as causative constructions that involved a Path-verb were least frequent with across-events (7,29%) but almost equally frequent with into-, down- and up-events (into: 14,17%, down: 13,23%, up: 14,90%). This result can be explained by the fact that verbs such as ramener (‘to bring back’) or emmener (‘to take with somebody’) were the most likely with into-events, as compared to other events (for similar results cf. Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny 2008: 28). With up- and down-events in contrast, French speakers most frequently used causative constructions that involved a Path-verb such as faire monter (‘to make ascend’) or faire descendre (‘to make descend’) as illustrated in (242). However, causative constructions with a Path-verb for crossing-events (e.g., traverser ‘to cross’) were idiosyncratic and only occurred among young children. Such an idiosyncratic sentence is illustrated in (243). C+MObverbs such as faire rouler (‘to make roll’) were produced equally often with all four Path-types. (242) (Popi il a pris la voiture de course) et il l’ a fait (Popi he has taken the shopping cart) and he it has made monter jusque [/] jusque sur un autre toit. ascend to [/] to on another roof ‘Popi took the shopping cart and made it go up onto another roof.’ 10 yrs (243) Popi il a un cheval de bois à la main et il l’ a Popi he has a horse of wood in his hand and he it has fait traverser sur une route mouillée pour aller de l’ autre côté. made cross over a street wet in order to go to the other side ‘Popi has a wooden horse in his hand and he made it cross a wet street to get to the other side.’ 6 yrs With respect to other linguistic devices, French speakers most frequently encoded Path with all Path-types (into: 22,19%, down: 26,46%, up: 21,56%, across: 18,18%). This could take the form of a prepositional phrase (e.g., de la colline de neige ‘from the snow hill’) or by adding a subordinate verb (e.g., an infinitive clause or a gerund). French children sometimes encoded Path outside the main verb in an idiosyncratic way. Example (244) illustrates such a response where the construction is more typical of satellite-framed languages. In this response, the ten-year-old encodes C+MAc in the main verb and combines it with the prepositional phrase à travers de + NP (‘across + NP’) which adults would not use in this context. This example shows that even at age ten children still have difficulties encoding all relevant semantic components in target-like constructions.

Information Locus 

 277

(244) Bobi [: Popi] pousse le panier rempli de pommes à travers la route. Bobi [: Popi] pushes the basket full of apples across the street ‘Bobi’s pushing the basket, which is full of apples, across the wet street.’ 10 yrs From about eight years on, French children gradually encode more semantic information outside of the main verb. As a consequence, other linguistic devices that encode C+MAc, C+P and C+MOb increase with all Path-types between four years and adult age. Examples (245) and (246) illustrate such a typical development. Whereas the four-year-old only expresses a general location outside the main verb (example 245), the ten-year-old adds the Manner of the agent’s motion, the Manner of action, the Manner of the object’s motion and finally the Goal of the trajectory in a prepositional phrase (example 246). (245) Là il [/] il est rentré dans la there he [/] he is BACK-entered into the ‘There, he entered the cave again.’

grotte. cave 4 yrs

(246) Alors il traverse la route en marchant un peu dans les so he crosses the street by walking a bit in the flaques en poussant la roue et en la faisant rouler, puddles by pushing the wheel and by it making roll jusqu’à l’autre bout. to to another end ‘So, he’s crossing the street while walking a bit in the puddles, pushing the wheel, and making it roll up to another end.’ 10 yrs With respect to development, C+MAc-verbs (e.g., pousser ‘to push’) increased with all four Path-types, including with down- and across-events with which even eight-year-olds reached adult level. C+P-verbs such as ramener (‘to bring back’) and causative constructions that involve Path-verbs decreased with age with down-, up- and across-events. It is only with into-events that they increased slightly between four years and adult age (4 yrs: 11,46% versus adults 14,06%).180 In general, Path-verbs decreased with age in descriptions of into-, down- and upevents. They only increased with across-events, a fact that is probably related to

180 As discussed above, the Path-verb traverser (‘to cross’) cannot be used in a causative construction and C+P-conflating verbs such as ramener (‘to bring back’) are idiomatically used with across-events.

278 

 Results: Caused Motion

the productive use of traverser (‘to cross’), which occurs later than that of other Path-verbs such as monter (‘to ascend’). As compared to French, Path-types had much less impact on information locus in German where lexicalization patterns seem to be quite robust and systematic (cf. Figures 20 and 21). In general, German speakers expressed C+MAc somewhat less in the verb with across-events than with into-, down-, and upevents (into: 69,27%, down: 69,06%, up: 66,67%, across: 63,33%). This pattern was even more striking at age four and ten (4 yrs: into: 47,40%, down: 51,04%, up: 42,71%, across: 39,58%; 10 yrs: into: 77,08%, down: 73,96%, up: 75,52%, across: 63,54%). Example (247) and (248) illustrate such constructions. In (247), the fouryear-old even overgeneralizes the C+MAc-verb schieben (‘to push’), using it with a round object that normally requires a verb that expresses the specific Manner of the object’s motion (rollen ‘to roll’). C+MOb-verbs were slightly more frequent with down-events than with the other three Path-types (into: 14,06%, down: 19,17%, up: 16,15, across: 18,02%). Nevertheless, this difference is only significant at age six (into: 9,90%, down: 21,35%, up: 16,15%, across: 16,15%). In the six-yearold’s response in (248), the child overgeneralizes the C+MOb-verb in exactly the reverse direction as compared to the four-year-old in (247). He uses the verb rollen (‘to roll’) in the context of an object (wheelbarrow) with which no adult speaker in our data has used it. All these examples show that German children most frequently expressed Cause and some information about the Manner of the caused motion event (either Manner of action or Manner of the object’s motion) in the verb, but that they often produced idiosyncratic constructions that were not completely target-like. (247) Er schiebt das [/] das Rad in [/] in he pushes the [/] the wheel in [/] in ‘He pushes the wheel into the cave.’

die Höhle. the cave (acc)

(248) Der rollt den Schubkarren den Schneehügel he rolls the wheelbarrow the snow hill ‘He rolls the wheelbarrow down the snow hill.’

4 yrs runter. down 6 yrs

Semanticall-neutral verbs that only encoded Cause such as tun (‘to do’) were especially notable at age four and six. Among four-year-olds, they were more frequent with into-events and up-events than with down- and across-events (into: 13,02%, down: 7,81%, up: 17,71%, across: 7,29%). Among six-year-olds, they were primarily frequent with into-events (into: 14,58%, down: 3,65%, up: 6,77%, across: 6,77%). Example (249) illustrates such a response.

 279

Information Locus 

(249) Er tut die [//] den Einkaufswagen in die he does the [//] the shopping cart in the ‘He puts the shopping cart into the barn.’

Scheune barn (acc)

rein. into 6 yrs

Verb: German 100 80 60

C P

40

MAc MOb

20

MAg 0

0 into

down

up

across

Figure 20: Information Locus in German verbs as a function of Path-type (in %)

Other linguistic devices: German 100 80 C

60

P 40

MAc MOb

20

MAg 0

0 into

down

up

across

Figure 21: Information Locus in German other linguistic devices as a function of Path-type (in %)

280 

 Results: Caused Motion

Path-verbs were extremely rare with all Path-types (into: 0,94%, down: 0,31%, up: 0,73%, across: 1,88%). Adults frequently used the verb überqueren (‘to cross’) to describe the boundary-crossing which only occurred occasionally at younger ages. Motion verbs that did not encode any relevant semantic components (e.g., gehen ‘to go’) were most often produced with across-events (into: 14,06%, down: 11,72%, up: 12,76%, across: 19,27%). Such verbs were especially frequent at age four (across 27,60%, into 17,71%, down 16,15%, up 16,67%,), nevertheless, such constructions also occurred at older ages (cf. example 250). (250) Er nimmt das in die Hand und geht damit in die Höhle. he takes it into the hand (acc) and goes with it into the cave (acc) ‘He takes it in his hand and goes with it into the cave.’ 10 yrs With respect to other linguistic devices, German speakers primarily encoded Path with all four Path-types (into: 96,15%, down: 95,63%, up: 96,35%, across: 93,02%). Examples of the verb conflation patterns above already illustrated such cases (cf. especially 247, 248, and 249). The absence of any information outside of the main verb occurred most often with across-events (into: 3,02%, down: 3,75%, up: 2,81%, across: 6,46%) and reached a maximal value at age four with this Path-type (17,19%). In these cases, children seemed to concentrate entirely either on the Manner of action or on the Manner of the object’s motion, often also described in an idiosyncratic way. In example (251), the four-year-old only focuses on the Manner of the wheel’s motion. (251) Die Schubkarre hat gerollt. the wheelbarrow has rolled ‘The whellbarrow rolled.’

4 yrs

10.4 Global Architecture Analyses of global architecture examined the syntactic structure and complexity of speakers’ responses (cf. Chapter 7.5.3). Four categories were distinguished: Tight-simple constructions (hereafter TS), Tight-complex constructions (hereafter TC), Loose-simple constructions (hereafter LS), and Loose-complex constructions (hereafter LC).

Global Architecture 

 281

ANOVAs were performed on Tight-simple responses (TS-responses were attributed the score of 1). A mixed ANOVA181 involved age and language (as betweensubject factors) and with Manner of action, Manner of the object’s motion, and Path (as within-subject factors). It examined the effects and interactions of the following factors on TS-scores: age (five groups of 24 subjects each), language (French, German), Manner of action (pushing, pulling), Manner of the object’s motion (rolling, sliding), and Path (up, down, across, and into). Details about the effects of specific factors will be presented below in the respective section. The ANOVA showed significant main effects of language (F(1,220) = 504,71, p < 0.00001), of age (F(4,220) = 21,51, p < 0.00001), of Manner of the object’s motion (F(1,220) = 12,79, p < 0.00001), and of Path (F(3,660) = 6,81, p < 0.00001). There was no effect of Manner of action (p(F) = 0.171). Language: As will be shown below in detail, TS-responses were clearly more frequent in German (94,45%) than in French (44,92%). This effect of language was significant within each age group (4 yrs: F(1,46) = 54,26, p < 0.00001, 6 yrs: F(1,46) = 53,56, p < 0.00001, 8 yrs: F(1,46) = 75,71, p < 0.00001, 10 yrs: F(1,46) = 158,11, p < 0.00001, adults: F(1,46) = 210,78, p < 0.00001). Age: TS-responses decreased in both languages with age (from 80,34% at four years to 52,34% at adult age). However, age differences for TS-responses were only significant between eight versus ten years (F(1,220) = 4,92, p < 0.028) and between ten years versus adults (F(1,220) = 11,10, p < 0.001). The general effect of age was significant within each language (French F(4,115) = 19.94, p < 0.00001, German F(4,115) = 2,99, p < 0.022). Type of semantic components: TS-responses varied significantly as a function of the Manner of the object’s motion. Speakers, especially adults, produced slightly more TS-responses with rolling-events (roll 70,10%>slide 69,27%). The factor Manner of the object’s motion has a significant effect in French (F(1,119) = 8,74, p < 0.004), but not in German.182 With respect to Path, TS-responses were more frequent with across-events (across: 71,41% > into: 69,38% > up: 69,06% > down: 68,91%). They differed significantly between across-events and all other three Path-types (into/across: F(1,220) = 9,11, p < 0.0029, down/across: F(1,220) = 11,96, p  < 0.0008, up/across: F(1,220) = 12,76, p  < 0.0005). The factor Path

181 A first ANOVA did not show any significant effect of sex (p < 0.05) and this factor was therefore disregarded in the following analyses. 182 In French, the factor Manner of action had only an effect among adults who produced more TS-responses with rolling- than with sliding-events (slide: 15,36% versus roll: 18,23%, F(1,23) = 7,46, p < 0.012). In contrast, LS-responses at this age were more frequent with sliding- than with rolling-events (slide: 14,84% versus roll: 10,16%). Since this effect only occurred among French adults, it will be disregarded in what follows.

282 

 Results: Caused Motion

was significant within each language (French F(3,357) = 4,18, p < 0.006, German F(3,357) = 3,15, p < 0.025). As predicted, the interaction between age and language (F(4,220) = 12,11, p < 0.00001) was significant. French children took more time to acquire the target-like pattern in which adults produced 16,80% TS-responses (versus 64,84% among four-year-olds) and 59,11% TC-responses (versus 7,68% among four-yearolds). In German, however, even four-year-olds produced as many TS-responses as adults (4 yrs: 95,83% versus adults: 94,45%). TC-constructions only occurred among German ten-year-olds and adults (10 yrs: 0,13%, adults: 0,26%).

10.4.1 Global Architecture as a function of language and age Table 75 shows the global architecture of different response types as a function of age and language. Global architecture in descriptions of caused motion events followed the typical and predicted lexicalization pattern in all German age groups, but showed a developmental progression in French.

Type

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

TS

64,84 62,11 46,74 34,11 16,80 44,92 95,83 95,96 97,27 95,31 87,89 94,45

TC

 7,68 11,98 32,42 43,49 59,11 30,94  0

LS

26,17 22,92 17,19 16,02 12,50 18,96  3,91  3,91  2,73  4,43 10,55  5,10

LC

 0,52  2,73  3,39  6,25 11,33  4,84  0

 0  0

G08

 0  0

G10

GAD

G all

 0,13  1,17  0,26  0

 0

 0

Table 75: Response types across languages and ages (in %)

Irrespective of age and event-type, French speakers produced a large number of TS-constructions (TS 44,92%) which could express one, several or no relevant semantic components. TC-constructions, which constitute the typical verbframed language pattern, were only produced in less then a third of the responses (TC 30,94%). In contrast to our expectations, French speakers also produced many LS-constructions (LS 18,96%). LC-constructions were quite rare (LC 4,84%). The data show a main developmental change which consisted in an increasing use of TC- and LC-responses (e.g., TC from 7,68% at 4 yrs to 59,11% at adult age). Since such constructions are quite complex and typically involve subordination, young children have difficulties producing them. Example (252) shows a TC-response of a child which does not yet correspond to the adult target pattern which is illustrated in (253). The child uses the rather vague motion verb continuer (‘to continue’) and adds the adverbial tout droit (‘ahead’) to encode Path.

Global Architecture 

 283

The patient is expressed in a with-PP and its Manner of motion is mentioned in a relative clause. However, Cause is completely omitted. Examples (254) and (255) exhibit two LC-responses. In (254), the four-year-old combines the Goal (jusqu’à la grotte ‘to the cave’) and C+MAc (tirer ‘to pull’) in a TC-sentence that is coordinated with a simple clause expressing the boundary-crossing (rentrer dedans ‘to enter into’). Obviously, the child was not able to express the boundary-crossing and the caused motion in one single sentence (for example using a prepositional phrase such as jusque dans la grotte (‘up into the cave’). In contrast, the adult in (255) describes the motion event with all its different aspects by using both subordination and coordination. (252) Alors là [//] il continue tout droit avec sa poussette so there [//] he continues all straight with his pram qui roule. TC which rolls ‘So, there he continues straight on with his pram which rolls.’ 8 yrs (253) Popi a donc tiré un cheval de bois en traversant la route. Popi has so pulled a wooden horse while crossing the street ‘So Popi pulled a wooden horse while crossing the street.’

TC adult

(254) Il est allé jusqu’à la grotte en le [le caddie] tirant, he is gone to to the cave by it [the shopping cart] pulling il est rentré dedans. LC he is BACK-entered into ‘He went to the cave pulling it [the shopping cart], he entered again.’ 4 yrs (255) Il se met à le [le caddy] rouler devant lui jusqu’ à pénétrer He starts to it [the shopping cart] roll in front of him to to enter dans la grotte et le pneu [//] n’a pas glissé donc, n’est in the cave and the tyre [//] has not slid so not is parti tout seul, [//] enfin Popi l’avait juste gone all alone [//] in fact Popi it had just poussé devant lui. LC pushed in front of him ‘He starts to roll it [the shopping cart] up in front of him to enter the cave, and doing so the tyre did not slide nor did it go on its own, in fact Popi pushed it in front of him.’ adult

284 

 Results: Caused Motion

Parallel to the increase of complex responses, TS-responses as illustratred in (256) decreased with age (from 64,84% at 4 yrs to 16,80% at adult age). However, this response type only showed significant differences between six and eight years (F(1,46) = 4,50, p < 0.039) and between ten years and adult age (F(1,46) = 9,88, p < 0.003). Children’s response types between four and six were relatively similar. As predicted, LS-responses such as (257) were relatively frequent among young children (4 yrs: 26,17, 6 yrs: 22,92, 8 yrs: 17,19%), and decreased at ten years and adult age (12,50%). (256) (Il y a Popi avec la roue d’un vélo,) il traverse la route. TS (there is Popi with the wheel of a bike) he crosses the street ‘(There is Popi with the wheel of a bike,) he crosses the street.’ 8 yrs (257) Alors en fait, [//] il est descendu, (…) et ben la roue a so in fact [//] he is descended (…) et ehm the wheel has dû rouler et puis il a avancé. LS had roll and then he has advanced ‘So actually, he descended (…) and the wheel had to roll and then he advanced.’ 6 yrs In contrast to French, German speakers clearly followed the pattern that is typical of satellite-framed languages. They predominantly produced TS-constructions (94,45%) and did so from four years on (4 yrs: 95,83%, 6 yrs: 95,96%, 8 yrs: 97,27%, 10 yrs: 95,31%, adults: 87,89%). Example (258) illustrates a TS-response which contains all relevant semantic components produced by a four-year-old. (258) Der tut den [das Schaukelpferd, sic!] drüber he does it [the rocking horse] there-across ‘He’s pulling it [the rocking horse] across.’

ziehen. pull

TS 4 yrs

TC-constructions were nearly nonexistent in German (0,26%). When they occurred, speakers used either the present participle of the Path-verb kommen (‘to come’) or of the C+MAc-verb ziehen (‘to pull’) in combination with another verb. Example (259) illustrates such a case. LC-constructions never occured.

Global Architecture 

 285

(259) Ja also er ist wieder von rechts links den Stuhl hinter sich yes so he is again from right left the chair behind him herziehend gelaufen, in die Höhle rein. TS hither-pulling went into the cave (acc) into ‘So he went from right to left into the cave again, pulling the chair behind him.’ adult If speakers produced more than one utterance to describe target events, they used primarily LS-constructions (5,10%). Nevertheless, this response type was only really notable at adult age (10,55%), and rare between four and ten years (4 yrs: 3,91%, 6 yrs: 3,91%, 8 yrs: 2,73%, 10 yrs: 4,43%). Whereas children typically spread their information across both sentences (cf. example 260), adults reformulated and elaborated their description by adding coordinated sentences (cf. example 261). (260) Dieses Mal lauft er auf den Dach mit dem blauen Auto this time walks he on the roof (indet) with the blue car und zieht ihn (sic!) mit. LS and pulls it with ‘This time he walks on the roof with the blue car and he pulls it with him.’ 6 yrs (261) Okay, also Popi schiebt diesen Korb Äpfel über die # okay so Popi pushes this basket apples across the # gepflasterte Straße, also er überquert die Straße wieder und er schiebt paved street (acc) so he crosses the street again and he pushes den Korb vor sich her. LS the basket in front of him ‘Okay, so Popi pushes this apple basket across the paved street, so he crosses the street again and pushes the basket in front of him.’ adult

10.4.2 Global Architecture as a function of Path Although the factor Path was significant within each language, it did not have a strong impact on response types (cf. Tables 76 to 79). French speakers produced on average more TS-responses with across-events than with other Path-types (across: 47,50%, into: 43,65%, down: 44,38%, up: 44,17%), and these differences were significant (into/across: F(1,119) = 5,243, p < 0.024, down/across: F(1,119) = 6,929, p < 0.010, up/across: F(1,119) = 9,632, p < 0.002).

286 

 Results: Caused Motion

Within French age groups, Path-type only had an effect on TS-responses among adults (F(3,66) = 6,22, p < 0.0009). French adults produced more TS-responses with across-events than with other Path-types (across: 20,83%, into: 13,02%, down: 16,15%, up: 17,19%), and these differences were significant (into/across: F(1,22) = 14,86, p < 0.0009, down/across: F(1,22) = 7,89, p < 0.0099, up/across: F(1,22) = 9,82, p < 0.0048). The same pattern occurred among children from six years on, but not among four-year-olds who produced more TS-responses with into-events (67,71%) than with across-events (64,58%). In these cases, children typically encoded only one semantic component, especially Path, as illustrated in (262). LS-constructions did not exhibit any regular pattern depending on Path-type. With respect to TC-constructions, they were slightly more frequent with into-events than with the other Path-types, although this difference was most notable among adults (into: 61,98%, down: 60,94%, up: 59,38%, across: 54,17%). If speakers expressed boundary crossing by means of a prepositional phrase, they had to use expressions such as jusque dans la grotte (‘up into the cave’) that are rather complex and unusual. Therefore, they were more likely to add a gerund or an infinitive clause, as illustrated in (263). LC-responses did not seem to be correlated with Path-types. Although adults produced them most frequently with across-events and least frequently with down-events, this pattern was not reproduced in any of the children’s age groups (FAD: into: 10,42%, down: 9,38%, up: 10,94%, across: 14,58%). (262) (Monsieur Popi tient d’une main un landau,) il traverse la route. TS (Mister Popi holds of a hand a pram) he crosses the street (Mister Popi holds a pram with one hand), he’s crossing the street.’ adult (263) Alors Popi traîne la chaise pour rentrer dans le garage. so Popi drags the chair to return in the garage ‘So Popi drags the chair in order to return into the garage.’

TC adult

In German, the effect of Path-type on TS-responses was not significant in any age group. Since German speakers primarily encoded C+MAc or C+MOb in the main verb and Path in particles and prepositional phrases, they typically produced TS-constructions with all Path-types (into: 95,10%, down: 93,44%, up: 93,96%, across: 95,31%). TC-responses were slightly more frequent with across-events among German adults who showed a tendency to use constructions that involved the Path-verb überqueren (‘to cross’) as the main verb and the present particle of the verb ziehen (‘to pull’).

Global Architecture 

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

Type

F04

TS

67,71 60,42 47,40 29,69 13,02 43,65 98,44 94,79 97,92 96,35 88,02 95,10

TC

 6,77 10,94 32,81 50

LS

23,96 26,04 17,71 11,98 14,06 18,75  1,04  5,21  2,08  3,65  9,90  4,38

LC

 1,04  2,60  2,08  8,33 10,42  4,90  0

61,98 32,50  0

G06

 0

G08

 0

G10

 0

GAD

 287

G all

 1,04  0,21

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Table 76: Response types with into-events

Type

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

TS

63,02 59,90 46,88 35,94 16,15 44,38 93,23 95,31 96,35 93,75 88,54 93,44

TC

 7,29 11,46 28,65 39,06 60,94 29,48  0

LS

27,60 27,08 20,83 18,75 13,02 21,46  6,25  4,17  3,65  5,73 10,94  6,15

LC

 1,04  1,56  3,13  6,25  9,38  4,27  0

 0

 0

 0,52  0

 0,10

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Table 77: Response types with down-events

Type

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

TS

64,06 63,54 44,79 31,25 17,19 44,17 96,88 94,79 97,40 93,23 87,50 93,96

TC

 9,90 14,06 36,98 39,58 59,38 31,98  0

LS

25,00 17,71 13,02 19,79 12,50 17,60  3,13  5,21  2,60  6,25 10,94  5,63

LC

 0

 4,17  4,69  8,85 10,94  5,73  0

 0

 0

 0

 1,56  0,31

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

Table 78: Response types with up-events

Type

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

TS

64,58 64,58 47,92 39,58 20,83 47,50 94,79 98,96 97,40 97,92 87,50 95,31

TC

 6,77 11,46 31,25 45,31 54,17 29,79  0

LS

28,13 20,83 17,19 13,54 10,42 18,02  5,21  1,04  2,60  2,08 10,42  4,27

LC

 0

 2,60  3,65  1,56 14,58  4,48  0

Table 79: Response types with across-events

 0  0

 0  0

 0  0

 2,08  0,42  0

 0

288 

 Results: Caused Motion

10.5 Qualitative Analyses We turn to more qualitative analyses that further examine in some more detail a number of research questions. To complement our previous results that focused on the main variables (Path, Manner of action, and Manner of the object’s motion), all responses (excluding responses to specific questions) were examined along the following dimensions: a) Verbs: Which verb types do speakers use in their verbalizations of target events? b) Satellites: How many satellites do speakers use on average in each utterance? Which type of satellites do they use? c) Periphery: Which kind of peripheral constructions do speakers use in their descriptions?

10.5.1 Verbs With respect to verbs we will focus on those verbs and verbal expressions that were used by speakers in descriptions of caused motion events (cf. Chapter 7.5.2). After an examination of the different verb types produced by the participants, children’s uses of semantically-neutral verbs, auxiliary verb constructions, and idiosyncratic verbal constructions will be studied in detail. Two different verb types were expected to occur in descriptions of caused motion events: verbs or verbal constructions expressing caused motion (e.g., schieben ‘to push’ coded as VMP and hereafter called caused motion verbs) and explicit causative constructions (e.g., faire monter ‘to make ascend’ all beginning with VC). As shown in Table 80 and as it has been discussed at different places across the whole results section, in French the most frequent verb types in descriptions of caused motion were voluntary motion verbs (e.g., descendre ‘to descend’, VMM: 47,16%) and caused motion verbs (e.g., pousser ‘to push’, VMP: 43,59%). Explicit causative constructions that involved a voluntary motion verb were less frequent (e.g., faire tourner ‘to make turn’, VCM: 9,26%). In German, however, the most frequent verb type was by far caused motion verbs (e.g., schieben ‘to push’, VMP: 87,16%). Voluntary motion verbs (e.g., laufen ‘to walk’, VMM) were only produced in about 12% of the cases. Explicit causative construction practically never occurred.

 289

Qualitative Analyses 

 

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

VMM 52,88 49,96 46,01 42,71 39,25 46,16 27,7

G06

G08

11,24 3,53

VCM

 8,13  7,46  8,76  9,62 12,35  9,26  0,52  0

VMP

36,8

 0

G10

GAD

G all

5,21

12,77 12,09

 0

 0,22  0,15

41,72 44,29 47,45 47,68 43,59 70,49 88,76 96,22 94,29 86

87,16

Table 80: Causative verbs and verbal constructions in descriptions of target events (in %)

In French, voluntary motion verbs (e.g., descendre ‘to descend’) decreased until adult age while the expression of Cause increased in verbs (cf. example 264) and verbal constructions (cf. example 265). This developmental pattern is in line with analyses of information focus that showed a decrease of utterances that only expressed the motion of the Figure or of the agent (involving voluntary motion verbs) and an increase of verbs that expressed the target caused motion event (involving causative verbs and constructions). Although speakers used the same verbs across all ages, the use of these verbs in specific contexts such as transitive or causative constructions is only acquired with time. (264) Il pousse, [/] la bouée sur le toit. he pushes [/] the floating-tyre on the roof ‘He’s pushing the floating tyre on the roof.’

10 yrs

(265) Il fait tourner la [//] une grosse brouette. he makes turn the [//] a big wheelbarrow ‘He’s making a big wheelbarrow turn.’

adult

In contrast, German speakers across all age groups most frequently used caused motion verbs or voluntary motion verbs in transitive constructions as illustrated in (266). Nevertheless, they did so increasingly with age and young German children produced voluntary motion verbs (e.g., gehen ‘to go’, laufen ‘to walk’) in more than 25% of the cases. At adult age, the ratio between voluntary and caused motion verbs somewhat shifted to the reverse. This development can be explained by the fact that German adults often added a second utterance to explicitly express the agent’s or the object’s Manner of motion to responses that already encoded the caused motion event per se (Loose-simple-constructions in Chapter 10.4). In several cases, four-year-olds and adults used causative – or more precisely permissive – constructions involving a voluntary motion verb as illustrated in (267). Although such constructions are not really idiosyncratic, they are quite unusual in German.

290 

 Results: Caused Motion

(266) Der rollt das Rad über die Straße. he rolls the wheel across the street (acc) ‘He’s rolling the wheel across the street.’

6 yrs

(267) [/] den bunten Ball hat er da runter rollen lassen. [/] the colourful ball has he there down roll let ‘He let the colourful ball roll down there.’ 4 yrs Since voluntary motion verbs were already analyzed in the section that concerned descriptions of voluntary motion (see Chapter 9.5.1), this section focuses on those verbs and verbal expressions that express caused motion (VMP and all types of VC). To determine the type-token-ratio (TTR) for each language and within each age group, we grouped together causative verbs and verbal constructions in descriptions of the beginning, of the target event, and of the end/result. In French as well as in German, specific criteria served to define what verb form was considered as a type. In general, (prefixed) verb stems (e.g., entrer quelque chose ‘to enter something’, accrocher ‘to ON-hook’, etwas rollen ‘to roll something’, befördern ‘to transport’) were counted as a type. With respect to causative constructions, each combination of faire (‘to make’), laisser (‘to let’) respectively lassen (‘to let’) with an infinitive was counted as a separate type (e.g., faire monter ‘to make ascend’, laisser glisser ‘to let slide’, rollen lassen ‘to let roll’). In cases where causative verbs were combined with modals (e.g., vouloir ‘to want to’, müssen ‘to have to’) or specific aspectual constructions (e.g., continuer à ‘to continue to’) only the causative verb was counted as a type. Table 81 shows type-token-ratios across languages and age groups. In contrast to our predictions, type-token-ratios were higher in French than in German (1,35% versus 1,11%). Although the difference was not extreme, French speakers produced 23 more verb types than German speakers (French: 63 versus German: 40). Contrary to descriptions of voluntary motion events, type-token-ratios in both languages decreased rather than increased with age so that French and German four-year-olds exhibited maximal type-token-ratios (French 6,42% versus German 3,99%). Children at this age have not yet acquired the target-like adult pattern and therefore used many different verb types. Idiosyncratic verbs cannot be the only reason for this increased type-token-ratio because they still occurred in older age groups. In French, type-token-ratios decreased gradually until ten years where this value is already very similar to that at adult age (10 yrs: 2,78%, adults: 2,84%). Type-token-ratios in German, however, decreased until eight years where they reached a minimal value (1,17%) and where children only produced ten different verb types. After that age, type-token-ratios increased again,

Qualitative Analyses 

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

 291

G10

GAD

G all

tokens 576

707

900

1078 1406 4667 576

721

767

770

772

3606

types 37

41

29

30

40

63

23

18

10

14

19

40

TTR

5,80

3,22

2,78

2,84

1,35

3,99

2,50

1,30

1,82

2,46

1,11

6,42

Table 81: TTR in descriptions of caused motion items across languages and age groups

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

*accrocher

0

1

4

3

5

13

*amener

7

45

36

14

60

162

24

20

6

18

13

81

6

29

1

12

1

49

12

19

10

21

2

64

*faire glisser

3

3

18

18

25

67

faire monter

13

7

3

10

9

42

faire rentrer

1

5

0

8

8

22

*faire rouler

44

32

64

57

94

291

*faire tourner

0

1

2

8

26

36

faire traverser (idiosyncratic)

2

7

5

9

4

27

faire traîner

2

5

5

1

2

15

*mettre

31

52

15

25

1

124

*monter

29

24

9

13

17

92

4

1

2

3

1

11

*pousser

124

136

229

262

318

1069

*prendre

16

20

13

35

2

86

*ramener

1

16

3

7

9

36

*ranger

0

5

5

11

5

26

*rentrer

4

5

3

2

16

30

*rouler

50

14

31

16

7

118

*tirer

63

114

204

240

375

996

*traîner

38

3

18

41

17

117

*descendre emmener faire descendre

poser

Table 82: Verb forms in French

292 

 Results: Caused Motion

but German adults still produced fewer verb types than four-year-olds (4 yrs: 23 versus adults: 19). Let us now examine verb types in both languages separately. French speakers produced 38 different verb types that expressed caused motion and 25 different types of causative constructions. Table 82 gives an overview of French verbs that were produced more than ten times in our data (cf. details see Appendix C.1 and C.2, p. 355–358). In what follows, we focus on those verb types that occurred more than fifty times in our data (marked with grey). Verbs marked by an asterisk comprise several different verb forms which have been subsumed together under one single verb type. Twelve simple causative verbs were intransitive verbs which speakers used in a transitive way. These verbs encoded either Path (e.g., avancer ‘to advance’, monter ‘to ascend’) or Manner (e.g. rouler ‘to roll’, traîner ‘to drag’). Example (268) illustrates such a construction. Two Path-verbs (passer ‘to pass’, traverser ‘to cross’) that are not usual in a transitive way were produced by four- and sixyear-olds in this context resulting in rather idiosyncratic constructions. Since both verbs express boundary-crossing, it can be assumed that French Path-verbs which encode this specific component cannot be used in transitive constructions. Example (269) shows a typical idiosyncratic construction with traverser. In one case, a ten-year-olds used the verb entraîner (‘to carry something along’) in a context that would have required traîner (‘to drag’). As shown in (270), although this utterance is admissible and comprehensible, it sounds idiosyncratic. (268) (…) et il roule sa voiture de course sur une colline de sable. (…) and he rolls his car of race on a hill of sand ‘(…) and he’s rolling his racing car on a sand hill.’

adult

(269) Il a traversé un cheval de bois sur [/] sur la rue. he has crossed a horse of wood on [/] on the road ‘He crossed a wooden horse on the road.’

4 yrs

(270) Là, Popi il monte heu le toit, en entraînant derrière lui le sac. there Popi he ascends eh the roof by carrying behind him the bag ‘There, Popi is ascending eh the roof while carrying the bag behind him.’ 10 yrs Apart from these verbs, French speakers used typical causative verbs extremely frequently such as pousser (‘to push’) or tirer (‘to pull). Other causative verbs that encoded Cause and deixis (a subcategory of Path) were less frequent but occurred among all age groups. The most frequent verb in this category was amener (‘to bring’) while apporter (‘to bring’), emmener (‘to take’), and ramener

Qualitative Analyses 

 293

(‘to take back’) were produced less often. Example (271) illustrates the use of this verb type. Another causative verb type encoded Cause and Manner of attachment, such as accrocher (‘to ON-hook’) or nouer (‘to knot’). These verbs were particularly frequent in descriptions of the beginning when the agent got into contact with the object (cf. example 272). (271) Popi amène le pneu dans le garage. Popi takes the wheel in the garage ‘Popi is taking the wheel in the garage.’

8 yrs

(272) Il a accroché une ficelle à la malle. he has attached a string to the chest ‘He has attached a piece of string to the chest.’

adult

In some cases, French speakers used causative verbs that only expressed Cause and no other semantic component (e.g., bouger ‘to move’, déplacer ‘to move’, transporter ‘to transport’). The most frequent verb in this category was mettre (‘to put’). Another verb that occurred quite frequently in descriptions of the beginning was prendre (‘to take’). Other verbs such as ranger (‘to put away’), poser (‘to put down’) or placer (‘to put in’) occurred more typically in descriptions of the end when the agent put the Figure in its final location. The function of several of these semantically-neutral verbs will be discussed below. French children used some causative verbs such as lancer (‘to throw’) or promener (‘to take somebody/something for a walk’) that did not really fit into the context. The verbs that occurred in such constructions were common French verbs with which children are quite familiar. The resulting utterances, however, were rather idiosyncratic. Example (273) illustrates such a case. (273) Il promène un cheval sur [//] en traversant la route. he takes-for-a-walk a horse on [/] by crossing the road ‘He’s taking a horse for a walk while crossing a road.’

6 yrs

In French the main type of causative constructions was that with faire (‘to make’): 23 different causative constructions with this verb occurred in our data. In only two cases, speakers produced constructions involving the verb laisser (‘to let’) which – strictly speaking – are not causative, but rather permissive constructions, namely the two verb forms laisser glisser (‘to let slide’) and laisser traîner (‘to let drag’). One such construction produced by an eight-year-old is illustrated in (274).

294 

 Results: Caused Motion

(274) Il est descendu tout en bas avec sa valise en la laissant glisser. he is descended all at bottom with his suitcase by it letting slide ‘He descended all the way down the hill with his suitcase by letting it slide.’ 8 yrs Causative constructions involving faire were used in combination with a different set of verbs. Frequently, French speakers combined faire with intransitive Pathverbs (e.g., entrer ‘to enter’, monter ‘to ascend’). Verbs that encoded boundarycrossing and that were already discussed above occurred also in explicit causative constructions. Whereas the acceptable construction faire passer (‘to make pass’) was only produced twice, faire traverser (‘to make cross’) which is entirely idiosyncratic in this context (because the object is inanimate) occurred much more frequently even among adults (overall 27 occurrences). Example (275) illustrates such a case. (275) (…) il tire la ficelle et [//] (…) he pulls the string and [//] fait traverser la route au cheval de bois. makes cross the road to+the horse of wood ‘(…) he’s pulling a piece of string and [//] is making the wooden horse cross the road.’ adult Most often, faire was combined with intransitive Manner-verbs that can also be used in transitive constructions as discussed above (e.g., glisser ‘to slide’, rouler ‘roll’). Such a construction is illustrated in (276). In other cases, speakers combined faire with (Manner-)verbs which cannot be used in a transitive way. Although some of these constructions are completely acceptable in French (e.g., faire rebondir ‘to make bounce’), others which were produced even by adults were idiosyncratic (e.g., faire marcher ‘to make walk’, faire grimper ‘to make climb up’). Example (277) illustrates a construction that involves grimper (‘to climb up’) which normally is only used to describe the upward motion of a human agent and not that of a round object such as a floating tyre. Since grimper (‘to climb up’) implies a physical effort, its combination with the causative verb faire sounds awkward. (276) Alors là en fait, donc il a une bouée avec lui qu’ il so there in fact so he has a floating-tyre with him that he fait rouler jusqu’ en haut du toit. makes roll to the top of+the roof ‘So there in fact, so he’s got a floating-tyre with him that he’s making roll to the top of the roof.’ 10 yrs

Qualitative Analyses 

 

G08

G10

GAD

 295

G04

G06

G all

bringen

0

12

0

1

1

14

*drehen

1

2

1

5

6

15

* fahren

16

5

5

0

0

26

*nehmen

13

11

0

14

0

38

*rollen

74

116

138

148

139

615

*schieben

230

304

271

274

233

1312

*schleppen

13

5

9

2

8

37

*stellen

11

5

0

0

0

16

*tragen

2

10

2

2

2

18

87

57

16

7

14

181

102

179

324

309

344

1258

*tun *ziehen

Table 83: Verb forms in German

(277) Il la [la bouée] fait grimper jusqu’en haut de la colline de sable. He it [the floating tyre] makes climb+up to the top of the hill of sand ‘He’s making it [the floating tyre] climb up to the top of the sand hill.’ adult German speakers produced 40 different verb types that expressed caused motion and four different types of causative/permissive constructions. Table 83 shows German verb types that were produced more than ten times in the data (cf. details see Appendix C.2, p. 357). Since speakers used the two causative verbs ziehen (‘to push’) and schieben (‘to pull’) extremely frequently, only four verbs were produced more than fifty times in our data (marked in grey). The verbs marked by an asterisk comprise several different verb forms which have been subsumed together under one single verb type (cf. Appendix C.2). Most of the simple verbs were causative verbs that expressed Cause and another additional semantic component such as Manner of action (e.g., drücken ‘to press’, schieben ‘to push’, zerren ‘to tug’), Manner of posture (e.g. stellen ‘to put in a vertical position’, legen ‘to put in a lying position’) or Path (e.g., bringen ‘to bring’, heben ‘to lift’). As discussed above, the extremely frequent causative verbs schieben (‘to push’) and ziehen (‘to pull’) occurred most often (overall schieben 1312, ziehen 1258). Although these two causative verbs are highly frequent in German, children sometimes confused them and overgeneralized schieben (‘to push’) using it in descriptions of pulling-actions. Other causative verbs that encoded more specific Manners of action such as kippen (‘to tilt’), schleppen (‘to

296 

 Results: Caused Motion

lug’) or wuchten (‘to heave’) were produced much less frequently. Examples (278) and (279) illustrate two uses of such more specific causative verbs. (278) Der zerrt die Kiste den Hügel runter. He drags the chest the hill down ‘He’s dragging the chest down the hill.’

6 yrs

(279) Er schleift einen Sack auf das Dach. he drags a bag on the roof (acc) ‘He’s dragging a bag onto the roof.’

adult

In some cases, German children produced verbs that did not fit into the context (e.g., schleudern ‘to hurtl’, schubsen ‘to shove’, werfen ‘to throw’) because they did not exactly describe the agent’s action. Such uses show that young children have not yet acquired adult-like semantic knowledge about German causative verbs and therefore produce syntactically completely correct utterances that were semantically idiosyncratic. Causative verbs that did not encode any semantic components other than Cause were produced quite frequently. As will be discussed in detail below, tun (‘to do’) occurred most often. Other less frequent verbs of this category were befördern (‘to transport’), machen (‘to make’), nehmen (‘to take’) or räumen (‘to put away’). German children also used a finite form of the verb haben (‘to have’) in the sense of ‘to do’. This can either be an elliptical construction in which the past participle of tun (‘to do’) is omitted at the end of the sentence or tun is used in this context in a causative sense. Such an example is illustrated in (280). (280) Der hat das Geschenk bis zum Dach rauf. he has the present till the roof (dat) up ‘He has put the present up to the roof.’

6 yrs

Some intransitive Manner-verbs were used in a transitive way and thus encoded Cause and the Manner of the object’s motion. However, only the use of rollen (‘to roll’) in such constructions is idiomatic. Constructions with kullern (‘to roll’), rollern (literally: ‘to scooter’) and schaukeln (‘to swing’), which are extremely frequent in child speech, were idiosyncratic. Schaukeln was only used in caused motion events with the rocking horse in which the first element of the German noun for this object is the verb stem of to swing (Schaukelpferd ‘swing-horse’). Children therefore associated this verb with this specific object because they lacked another more appropriate verb to describe the agent’s Manner of action. Such an example is illustrated in (281). Furthermore, German children used some

Qualitative Analyses 

 297

verbs that normally express the voluntary motion of an agent in a transitive way resulting in idiosyncratic constructions. Example (282) illustrates such a use with the verb fahren (‘to drive’) which was quite frequent among four-year-olds. (281) Das Schaukelpferd hat er rüberge(schaukelt) [/] the rocking-horse has he across-(swung) [/] ‘He rocked the rocking horse across.’

geschaukelt. swung 4 yrs

(282) Da hat der Popi den Einkaufswagen in die Höhle gefahren. there has the Popi the shopping-trolley in the cave (acc) driven ‘Here Popi drove the shopping trolley into the cave.’ 4 yrs In eleven cases, German speakers produced permissive constructions that consisted of the verb lassen (‘to let’) and another motion or static verb (e.g., fahren lassen ‘to let drive’, stehen lassen ‘to leave behind’). An example of such a construction is illustrated in (283). (283) [/] den bunten Ball hat er da runter rollen lassen. [/] the colourful ball (acc) has he there down roll let ‘He let the colourful ball roll down there.’ 4 yrs As discussed in Chapter 5.3 (p. 106) semantically-neutral verbs should play a striking role in language acquisition, because “they do not place high demands on lexical choice; they are frequent; they are used across a wide range of situations; [and] they are short” (Slobin 2001: 433). Since caused motion events are cognitively relatively complex, children are expected to use even more semantically-neutral verbs and auxiliary verb constructions with this event type than with voluntary motion events. First, children’s uses of semantically-neutral verbs, and then those of auxiliary verb constructions, are examined in detail. With respect to semantically-neutral verbs, the present analysis focuses on the following causative verbs that only encode Cause: French mettre (‘to put’) and German machen (‘to make’) and tun (‘to do’). Table 84 shows how many of these verbs (in isolation) speakers used in both languages across age groups. In general, French speakers used fewer semantically-neutral verbs than German

298 

 Results: Caused Motion

speakers (2,66% versus 4,58%).183 With respect to development, these verbs decreased in both languages with age. The use of mettre (‘to put’) is illustrated in example (284). In German, machen (‘to make’) occurred fairly rarely. A case where a four-year-old uses this verb in a passive construction is illustrated in (285). Note however, that this utterance sounds quite awkward because German tends to combine machen with adjectives (e.g., kaputtmachen ‘to ruinate’, kleinmachen ‘to make change’) rather than with verbal Path-particles. The most frequent semantically-neutral verb that only encodes cause was tun (‘to do’) as illustrated in example (286).

Age groups

French

German

4 years

5,38

12,5

6 years

7,36

7,77

8 years

1,67

2,09

10 years

2,32

0,91

adults

0,07

1,81

overall

2,66

4,58

Table 84: Semantically-neutral verbs in French and German

(284) Il a mis la poussette de l’autre côté de la rue. he has put the pram from the other side of the road ‘He put the pram on the other side of the road.’

6 yrs

(285) Der Tisch wird in die Scheune rein # gemacht. the table is in the barn (acc) into # made ‘The table is being put into the barn.’

4 yrs

(286) Er tut den grünen Einkaufswagen in die Höhle. he does the green shopping-trolley in the cave (acc) ‘He’s putting the green shopping trolley into the cave.’

6 yrs

183 As shown in Table 84, German adults use more semantically-neutral verbs than ten-yearolds. This result can probably be explained by the fact that German primary school teachers vehemently try to eliminate the use of tun (‘to do’) in the oral and written language of their pupils and encourage them to replace it by full verbs with specific semantic meanings.

Qualitative Analyses 

 299

The reason to use semantically-neutral verbs in descriptions of caused motion events seem to be the same as in descriptions of voluntary motion events. First of all, mettre (‘to put’) as well as tun (‘to do’) are extremely frequent verbs that are acquired quite early. Thus, children are familiar with their most important inflection forms. Furthermore, “[t]hey are bleached out of all semantically marked characteristics verbs may carry” (Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998: 126). More precisely, causative semantically-neutral verbs only encode the fact that someone acts upon an entity in a non-specified manner. Thus, they can be used to describe very different situations. As a result, mettre (‘to put’), machen (‘to make’), and tun (‘to do’) are very easy to handle and thus they are used more frequently than other causative verbs such as the deictic to push and to pull especially among young children. Let us turn to the use of auxiliary verb constructions in French and German. The definition of auxiliary verb constructions – as defined in Chapter 5.3 – for caused motion events in French is quite problematic, because constructions of the type faire + voluntary motion verb are considered to be simply causative constructions (Riegel, Pellat, and Rioul 2008: 229–232). It seems as if these constructions have become lexicalized and now have a proper meaning. The fact that certain combinations of faire + full verb are idiosyncratic (cf. example 287) can be considered as an argument for an advanced lexicalization process. Therefore, it is no longer possible to combine faire freely with every (voluntary) motion verb. Children’s idiosyncratic overgeneralizations of this construction to the voluntary motion verb traverser (‘to cross’) or even to the causative verb pousser (‘to push’) are evidence for an abstract underlying pattern of such constructions that will be discussed below (Holledranse and van Hout 1998: 120). (287) Popi, il a fait pousser Popi he has made push ‘Popi has pushed the wheel.’

la roue. the wheel 6 yrs

One very recurrent verbal construction expressing caused motion among German children was the tun-construction, that was also discussed above in the context of voluntary motion events. In these cases, children used a finite form of the verb tun (‘to do’) in combination with the infinitive of some other verb, most often a caused motion verb (cf. example 288). (288) Der tut den Reifen in die Höhle he does the tyre into the cave (acc) He’s rolling the tyre into the cave.’

rollen. roll 6 yrs

300 

 Results: Caused Motion

Age groups

tun-constructions

4 years

 7,47

6 years

20,39

8 years

 9,39

10 years

 9,48

adults

 0

overall

 9,29

Table 85: tun-constructions in descriptions of target events (in %)

Table 85 shows how often German speakers used such constructions in their descriptions of target events. Children between four and ten years produced such constructions in about 10% of the cases, whereas German adults never produced them, arguably because they have more verbs at their disposal and their cognitive constraints are probably less striking. It was only at age six that tun-constructions were twice as frequent as those of the other age groups (20,39%). The reason why children produce such a large number of tun-constructions in descriptions of caused and voluntary motion events is the same: in demanding oral situations, children seem to concentrate more on the content of their verbalizations than on the form. One strategy to cope with such tasks is to use the inflected forms of highly frequent verbs they know well, rather than other, less frequent verbs (Eroms 1998: 141).184 In conclusion, we assume that the extremely frequent use of the verb tun (‘to do’) on its own and of tun-constructions help children to acquire the adult target pattern for descriptions of caused motion. By using inflected forms of tun (‘to do’) they reduce the processing cost of their utterances. A comparison of the amount of tun-constructions in descriptions of voluntary and caused motion events shows that they are almost four times more frequent with the latter event type (overall 9,29% versus 2,43%). This result suggests that verbalizations of caused motion events require more cognitive resources than those of voluntary motion events which involve less semantic components. In parallel to voluntary motion events,

184 Especially in the case of caused motion events, the most frequent causative verbs that encode Cause and some information about Manner of action are strong verbs (ziehen ‘to pull’ and schieben ‘to push’), that is to say their root vowel changes in past tense forms (e.g,. ziehen – zog – gezogen ‘to pull – pulled – pulled’). These verbs represent a particular problem space in German language acquisition.

Qualitative Analyses 

 301

we also propose a three stage process for the acquisition of the typical satelliteframed language pattern based on the analysis of our data: 1st Stage: inflected form of tun + accusative object + particles/PPs X tut Y Z (‘X does Y Z’) 2nd Transitional Stage: inflected form of tun + accusative object + particles/PPs + infinitive of a full verb X tut Y Z rollen/schieben/ziehen etc. (‘X does Y Z roll/push/pull etc.’) 3rd Stage: inflected form of a full verb + accusative object + particles/PPs X rollt/schiebt/zieht Y Z (‘X rolls/pushes/pulls etc. Y Z’) In stage 1, the child combines an inflected form of the semantically-neutral verb tun (‘to do’) with an accusative object (pronoun or full noun phrase) and then adds a particle or a prepositional phrase that encodes Path. At this point, children usually do not express the Manner of the action that causes the displacement of the object. Stage 2 represents a transitional stage where children combine an inflected form of the verb tun (‘to do’) with an accusative object, some linguistic device that expresses Path and the infinitive of a full (causative) verb. Some children even produced utterances in which they combined tun (‘to do’) with another semantically-neutral verb such as machen (‘to make’) or tun (‘to do’). Such utterances, as illustrated in example (289) and (290), show that although children opt for an inflected form of tun (‘to do’) they sometimes have difficulties to combine this with a full verb that adds further semantic information. Thus, no matter what semantic information is expressed, some children hold meticulously onto this construction frame. (289) Der tut das [das Schaukelpferd] über die Straße rüber tun. he does it [the rocking horse] across the street (acc) across do ‘He puts it [the rocking horse] across the street.’ 4 yrs (290) Der tut das runter he does it down ‘He puts it down.’

ro(llen) [//] runter ro(ll) [//] down

machen. do 4 yrs

Finally, stage 3 represents the typical adult target pattern, where a full caused motion verb is combined with an accusative object and a particle or prepositional phrase. Our data show that children do not pass these three stages successively one after the other. It rather depends on different factors such as the (frequency of the) causative full verb, the discourse context, working memory constraints etc. to determine which construction (stage 1 to 3) the children resort to. In addition, we observed striking inter-individual differences, that is to say, there are children

302 

 Results: Caused Motion

who produce full inflected verbs at age four and others who still use recurrent tun-constructions at eight years of age. Nevertheless, a detailed qualitative analysis of our data (cf. Table 85) clearly shows evidence for this acquisition pattern.

10.5.2 Satellites In what follows we will use the term satellite to subsume various linguistic devices in the verbal network, such as particles, prepositional phrases, and adverbial expressions that provided semantic information relevant to motion events. For more details about the coding of satellites, see Chapter 7.5.2.

Number of satellites Table 86 shows how many satellites were used by speakers of the different age groups within one utterance (marked by the symbol [c] as explained in Chapter  7.5.2). Since differences with respect to the number of satellites across ages and languages were already discussed above for voluntary motion, we will just briefly present the results of caused motion and then directly concentrate on the types of satellites speakers produced in their responses. In line with our predictions, German speakers produced more satellites than French speakers. Therefore, French speakers produced many more utterances with no satellite at all as compared to German speakers (41,15% versus 5,91%). In contrast, utterances with 1, 2, 3, 4 and even 5 and more satellites were more frequent in German. In both languages, the number of satellites increased with age. This development was more striking in German than in French.

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

0

47,44 36,71 39,69 42,69 39,22 41,15 12,51  2,30  3,66  4,55  6,53  5,91

1

45,53 52,66 45,86 48,95 46,58 47,92 40,25 53,75 62,57 62,33 53,27 54,43

2

 6,62  9,12 12,47  7,42 11,79  9,48 34,50 36,92 30,46 24,44 25,05 30,28

3

 0,41  1,27  1,86  0,85  1,75  1,23 10,26  6,42  3,07  7,20 10,69  7,53

4

 0

 0,24  0,12  0,09  0,61  0,21  2,25  0,61  0,24  1,48  3,66  1,65

5+

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0,04  0,01  0,23  0

Table 86: Number of satellites per utterance (in %)

 0

 0

 0,79  0,20

Qualitative Analyses 

 303

In French, utterances without any satellite showed a maximal value at four years (47,44%), then decreased reaching a minimal value at six years (36,71%), fluctuating at about 40% after that age. Utterances with one satellite reached a level of about 46% (slightly more at six years). In general, this utterance type was the most frequent one among French speakers (see example 291). The increase of such utterances was not striking between four years (45,53%) and adult age (47,92%). Utterances with two satellites increased between four years and adult age (4 yrs: 6,62%, 6 yrs: 9,12%, 8 yrs: 12,47%, adults: 11,79%) exhibiting a striking decrease only at age ten (7,42%). French speakers’ utterances with three satellites were rare and those with four even more. Only one French adult produced an utterance with five satellites which is shown in (292). However, in this sentence some elements that were counted as satellites are attributes of other satellites (à gauche ‘on the left’ and à droite ‘at the right’) and therefore do not directly modify the semantics of the verbal complex. (291) Il a tiré le caddie jusqu’à la grotte [1]. he has pulled the shopping-trolley to to the cave [1] ‘He pulled the shopping trolley to the cave.’

8 yrs

(292) Donc Popi il a tiré la grosse malle très lourde du haut so Popi he has pulled the big chest very heavy from+the top de la colline [1] à gauche [2] jusqu’ en bas de la colline [3] à droite [4] of the hill [1] at left [2] to bottom of the hill [3] at right [4] à l’aide d’une ficelle [5]. at the help of a string [5] ‘So Popi pulled the big very heavy chest from the top of the hill on the left to the bottom of the hill with the help of a piece of string.’ adult In German, utterances with one satellite increased between four and ten years and then decreased until adult age (4 yrs: 40,25%, 6 yrs: 53,75%, 8 yrs: 62,57%, 10 yrs: 62,33%, adults: 53,27%). However, as was the case in French, they were the most frequent utterance type at all ages (cf. example 293). Utterances with no satellite at all decreased after four years but reached a value of 6,53% at adult age. This result can be explained by the fact that German adults produced a great number of utterances of the beginning in which they only labelled the entities without producing any satellite. Utterances with two satellites also constituted an important utterance type and generally decreased until ten years where they reached adult level (4 yrs: 34,50%, 6 yrs: 36,92%, 8 yrs: 30,46%, 10 yrs: 24,44%, adults: 25,05%). In contrast to French, utterances with three satellites were frequently produced by German speakers. Their development across age groups rep-

304 

 Results: Caused Motion

resented a clear U-shaped curve. They were more frequent at age four and at adult age than in the other age groups (4 yrs: 10,26%, 6 yrs: 6,42%, 8 yrs: 3,07%, 10 yrs: 7,20%, adults: 10,69%). Example (294) illustrates such a response from a fouryear-old. Utterances with four and five satellites were more frequently produced at four years and among adults than at other ages (cf. Table 86). A completely idiosyncratic utterance with five satellites produced by a four-year-old is illustrated in (295). In this response, the child not only produces case and gender errors but also adds two particles to the verb resulting in a quite awkward construction. (293) Er zieht einen Sack auf das Dach [1]. he pulls a bag on the roof (acc)[1] ‘He’s pulling a bag onto the roof.’ (294) Geht in die Scheune rein [1] mit dem Wagen [2]. goes in the barn (acc) into [1] with the cart [2] ‘He’s going into the barn with the cart.’

10 yrs

4 yrs

(295) Hat da [1] ein [eine Schubkarre, sic!] so [2] mit [3] runter [4] gezogen has there [1] a [a wheelbarrow] thus [2] with [3]-down [4]-pulled mit die [sic!] Schnur [5]. with the String (case error)[5] ‘There he pulled one [a wheelbarrow] down like this with a piece of string.’ 4 yrs

Type of satellites Seven different types of satellites were distinguished: prepositional phrases with no specific case marking, accusative-PPs, dative-PPs, German spatial particles, noun phrases that encode information relevant to motion, other spatial expressions such as adverbs, and finally other linguistic devices expressing relevant information that is not spatial, such as adverbs or prepositional phrases encoding Manner (cf. Chapter 7.5.2). Note that accusative- and dative-PPs as well as particles are not part of the French grammatical system. Since German has three more satellite types than French, satellites by definition were more varied in German than in French (cf. Table 87). As was the case with voluntary motion, the most frequent French satellite type were prepositional phrases (66,77%). German speakers produced fewer prepositional phrases than French speakers (irrespective of case marking), although they were more frequent in this task than in descriptions of voluntary motion (51,25% versus 32,56%). Particles constituted an important satellite type in German (31,42%).

Qualitative Analyses 

 305

Other spatial devices were more frequent in French where speakers do not have as many readily available forms to encode spatial information outside the main verb than in German (French: 11,72% versus German 7,58%). Other non spatial expressions were much more frequent in French than in German (French: 21,50% versus German: 9,74%). Noun phrases encoding information relevant to motion did not occur.

F04 acc. PP dat. PP unmar. PP particles other

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all G04 G06 G08 G10 GAD G all 19,94 35,59 42,24 40,55 31,19 33,90  7,58  7,74 12,83 15,22  7,15 10,10

57,65 64,15 61,60 68,41 82,04 66,77  0,55  3,26  6,19  5,18 21,10  7,25 39,01 35,18 31,48 22,90 28,54 31,42 17,47  9,80 12,83 15,45  3,08 11,72 14,62 10,10  2,87  5,73  4,58  7,58

other (not spatial) 24,89 26,05 25,57 16,14 14,88 21,50 18,30  8,14  4,39 10,43  7,44  9,74

Table 87: Satellite types across languages and ages (in %)

Prepositional phrases in French increased relatively steadily with age (from 57,65% at four years to 82,04% at adult age). French prepositional phrases either encoded a general location (e.g., sur + NP ‘on +NP’, dans + NP ‘in + NP’) or expressed some aspect of the Path (e.g., Source de + NP ‘from + NP’ or Goal jusqu’à + NP ‘to + NP’). Apart from these very frequent prepositions, French speakers also produced some prepositional phrases involving rarer prepositions (e.g., loin de ‘far from’, devant ‘in front of’, en face de ‘opposite’, par ‘through’, vers ‘towards’). In many cases, the first prepositional phrase was complemented for more precision by a second one which can be analysed as an attributive expansion (de l’autre côté de la route sur le côté gauche de l’écran (‘from the other side of the road on the left side of the screen’). Since French jusque (‘to’) always occurs in combination with another preposition (cf. p. 128), French speakers produced a large number of prepositional phrases that even involved three prepositions (e.g., jusqu’en haut du toit de la maison ‘to the top of the roof of the house’). Nevertheless, French children produced many idiosyncratic prepositional phrases. They either used a grammatically correct prepositional phrase in a context where it was not appropriate or they produced idiosyncratic prepositional phrases which most often involved jusque (‘to’). In (296) the eight-year-old uses dans (‘in’) where the context would have required sur (‘on’). In (297) the ten-year-old added two prepositions (à ‘to’ and another preposition) to jusque (‘to’) which can normally only be followed by one preposition. The combination jusqu’à is so frequent in the children’s input that both prepositions probably constitute one single unit that can be expanded

306 

 Results: Caused Motion

by another preposition. However, the child in (297) seems to hesitate when producing such an idiosyncratic prepositional phrase. In other cases, children did not contract two subsequent prepositions where it would have been obligatory (e.g., *de en bas ‘from the bottom’, *jusque en haut ‘to the top’). These examples show that, although French children most frequently used correct prepositional phrases, they still had difficulties producing somewhat more complex prepositional phrases, especially those that involve two and more prepositions. (296) Là il monte avec son cadeau dans le toit. there he ascends with his present in the roof ‘There he’s ascending in the roof with his present.’

8 yrs

(297) Là Popi i(l) [/] i(l) fait traîner la table [/] jusqu’à there Popi he [/] he makes drag the table [/] to to dans sa grotte. in the cave ‘Here Popi is dragging the table to the cave.’ 10 yrs Other spatial devices such as local adverbs (e.g., là ‘there’, dedans ‘inside’) fluctuated between 10% and 17% among French children and then strongly decreased until adult age (3,08%). Young children used them to vaguely locate the motion event without mentioning explicitly any Ground-entity. Such an example is illustrated in (298). Linguistic devices outside of the main verb that did not express spatial information were quite frequent between four and eight years (around 15%) and then decreased (around 15% at ten years and at adult age). 97% of such devices among children were prepositional phrases with avec (’with’) in combination with a noun phrase that encoded the Figure. The prepositional phrase can therefore be analysed as a commitative adverbial. As already discussed in Chapter 10.2 and 10.3, in such cases French children described the voluntary motion of the agent and completely omitted Cause, most often encoding the Figure in this type of prepositional phrase (cf. example 299). (298) Il s’est arrêté parce que avant là il a roulé ici et he self-is stopped because before there he has rolled here and après il roule ici la roue de carosse. after he rolls here the wheel of chariot ‘He stopped because before, there he rolled the chariot wheel here and then he rolls it here.’ 4 yrs

Qualitative Analyses 

(299) Popi va dans une grotte avec sa table. Popi goes in a cave with his table ‘Popi is going in a cave with his table.’

 307

4 yrs

German speakers produced a great variety of different satellites. Particles, the most typical satellite type, decreased with age (from 39,01% at age four to 28,54% at adult age). As already discussed in descriptions of voluntary motion, speakers produced many different particles types (26 types). The most frequent ones were runter (‘down’), rein (‘into’), hoch (‘up’), and rüber (‘across’) which each corresponded to the four different Path-types of the presented items. Apart from these simple particles, speakers across all age groups also produced double particles adding for instance information about the deixis (e.g., hinunter ‘thither-down’, herauf ‘hither-up’). Prepositional phrases were a second important satellite type in German. Accusative-PPs were the most frequent prepositional phrase type and most often expressed the Goal (e.g., auf + NP ‘on + NP’, in +NP ‘into + NP’) or the boundary-crossing (über + NP ‘across + NP’). Note that in two cases über + NP was not coded as boundary-crossing because the Ground-entity was an area rather than a real boundary. Such an example is illustrated in (300). German children produced some correct prepositional phrases in inappropriate contexts. Such an example is shown in (301) in which the eight-year-old uses in (‘into’) instead of auf (‘on’). Dative-PPs were almost twice as frequent at ages eight and ten as in the other German age groups (4 yrs: 7,58%, 6 yrs: 7,74%, 8 yrs: 12,83%, 10 yrs: 15,22%, adults: 7,15%). The most frequent dative-PP involved von (‘from’) and encoded the Source (e.g., vom Boden ‘from the bottom’). Wechselpräpositionen (‘prepositions of change’) followed by a dative indicated the general location of the involved entities of the motion event (e.g., auf nem Hügel ‘on a hill’). Unmarked prepositional phrases were quite rare among German children but increased until adult age where they constituted an important pattern (4 yrs: 0,55%, 6 yrs: 3,26%, 8  yrs: 6,19%, 10 yrs: 5,18%, adults: 21,10%). This prepositional phrase type was used to encode either the direction of the Path (e.g., von rechts … nach links ‘from right … to left’, von oben … nach unten ‘from the top … to the bottom’) or to explicitly express how and where the Figure moved during the motion event with respect to the agent (e.g., vor sich her ‘in front of him’, hinter sich her ‘behind him’). Since expressions such as vor sich her are idiomatic, the prepositional phrase hinter sich (‘behind him’) and the deictic particle her (‘hither’) were not coded separately. An example of such a construction is illustrated in (302). Other linguistic devices that encoded spatial information decreased with age (from 14,62% at four years to 4,58% at adult age). The most frequent local adverb in this category was da (‘there’) that helped children to create a setting of the scene without using prepositional phrases. Such an example is illustrated in (303).

308 

 Results: Caused Motion

(300) Popi geht quer über eine Wiese. Popi goes crossways across a meadow (acc) ‘Popi is going across a meadow.’

adult

(301) Der Popi zieht den Kinderwagen von einer Straßenseite über die the Popi drags the pram from one street-side (dat) across the Straße in die andere Seite. street (acc) in the other side (acc) ‘Popi is dragging the pram from one side of the street across the street onto the other side.’ 8 yrs (302) Popi zieht vom rechten Bildrand in eine Höhle Popi pulls from+the right picture-edge (dat) in a cave (acc) am linken Bildrand einen grünen Stuhl hinter sich her. at+the left picture-edge (dat) a green chair behind self hither ‘From the right side of the picture, Popi is pulling along a green chair behind him into a cave, which is on the left side of the picture.’ adult (303) Das Geschenk hat er # ähm [//] da the present has he # eh [//] there [//] # hoch geschoben. [//] # up pushed ‘He pushed up the present there.’ 4 yrs Other linguistic devices that encoded non spatial but relevant information were relatively frequent at four years (18,30%), but then decreased, fluctuating between 4% and 10% within the other age groups. As was the case in French, the most frequent devices were prepositional phrases involving mit (‘with’) that encoded the Figure. In such utterances, which primarily occurred among children, speakers described the voluntary motion of the agent expressing in the prepositional phrase the fact that the object moved with the agent (prepositional phrase with the function of a commitative adverbial). As illustrated in (304), Cause is completely omitted in such responses. A typical German construction consisted of utterances in which the speakers used a causative verb such as ziehen (‘to pull’) or schieben (‘to push’) in combination with a prepositional phrase and the separable particle mit (‘with’) which indicates that the Figure moves along the same trajectory as the agent and relatively close to him. Such an example is illustrated in (305). Prepositional phrases which encoded the instrument (e.g., an der Leine ‘on a leash’) and therefore provided additional information about the Manner of action were rare. In four cases, German adults and ten-year-olds produced

Qualitative Analyses 

 309

passive constructions and added the agent explicitly in a von-PP (‘by’). Such an example is illustrated in (306). Other linguistic devices that were coded without any semantic content, but which occurred relatively frequently were so (‘like that’) and wieder (‘again’). Both adverbs were already discussed in descriptions of voluntary motion (cf. p. 231). (304) Popi steigt auf das Dach mit einem Sack. Popi climbs on the roof (acc) with a bag ‘Popi is climbing onto the roof with a bag.’

8 yrs

(305) Der Popi zieht einen Stuhl mit in die Höhle. the Popi pulls a chair with in the cave (acc) ‘Popi is pulling a chair along into the cave.’

10 yrs

(306) Der Reifen wird von [/] # von Popi in eine Höhle reingerollt. the tyre is by [/] # by Popi in a cave (acc) into-rolled ‘The tyre is being rolled into a cave by Popi.’

adult

10.5.3 Periphery The coding distinguished between three sentence types: main clauses without subordinate clauses, those with one or more subordinate clauses, and clauses which were subordinated to main clauses. Coordinated sentences were considered as independent main clauses. Table 88 shows how many of each sentence types occurred within each age group.185 Main clauses with subordination and therefore also subordinate clauses were much more frequent in French than in German. Whereas even French fouryear-olds produced about 90 complex sentences, there were only 29 occurrences among German adults. French adults even produced more complex sentences than simple ones (703 versus 676). These results are entirely in line with the typical verb-framed language pattern of French which regularly encodes relevant information outside the main clauses in subordinate constructions.

185 In cases in which the number of main clauses with subordinate clauses is higher than the number of subordinate clauses, the subordinate clause (but not the main clause) was coded as irrelevant and is not taken into account in the further analyses.

310 

 Results: Caused Motion

F04 main clause main clause with subordinate clause subordinate clause

F06

1278 1154

F08

F10

FAD

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

989

907

676

886

815

844

930

920

93

230

355

583

703

0

7

2

7

29

94

272

370

747

894

1

4

1

8

61

Table 88: Number of sentence types across languages and ages

Table 89 shows the different proportions of sentence types across French age groups. Simple main clauses decreased steadily until adult age (4 yrs: 87,24%, 6 yrs: 69,69%, 8 yrs: 57,70%, 10 yrs: 40,55%, adults: 29,74%). Although they were clearly the most frequent sentence type at age four and six, adults only produced simple main clauses in about 30% of the cases. Following our predictions, main clauses with subordination increased with age until they reached a maximal value among adults (30,93%). As many as 35 different types of subordination occurred in our data. The most frequent subordinate clause types were gerunds (11,33%), relative clauses (7,07%), and pour + infinitive-constructions (4,61%). Although all three types already occurred among children, they strongly increased until adult age.

F04

F06

F08

F10

FAD

F all

main clause

87,24

69,69

57,70

40,55

29,74

53,55

main clause with subordinate clause

 6,35

13,89

20,71

26,06

30,93

21,02

subordinate clause introduced by/type of subordinate clause gerund

 3,00

 4,53

12,43

11,62

20,55

11,33

pour + infinitive

 1,84

 2,66

 4,08

 7,64

 5,24

 4,61

relative clause

 0,89

 5,50

 3,97

12,38

 9,33

 7,07

Table 89: Sentence types in French (in %)

In responses that involved a gerund, Path was either encoded in the finite verb of the main clause or in the gerund. The same pattern applies to Cause (+ Manner of action/Manner of the object’s motion). Examples (307) and (308) illustrate these two possibilities. In some cases, speakers of all age groups produced idiosyncratic utterances involving a gerund. In example (309), for instance, the sixyear-old adds the gerund directly to the presentative construction resulting in an awkward sentence.

Qualitative Analyses 

 311

(307) Popi fait rouler une bouée devant lui, en escaladant une dune. Popi makes roll a floating-tyre in-front him by climbing-up a dune ‘Popi is making a floating tyre roll in front of him while climbing a dune.’ adult (308) Il descend la valise en la poussant devant lui jusqu’en bas. he descends the suitcase by it pushing in-front him to the bottom ‘He’s descending the suitcase by pushing it in front of him to the bottom.’ adult (309) Donc c’est une [/] une valise en descendant so it’s a [/] a suitcase by descending ‘So it’s a suitcase whilst descending a hill.’

une colline. a hill 6 yrs

Relative clauses were used in quite different lexicalization patterns. Some typical constructions will be presented. In (310), the speaker uses a presentative construction that is followed by a relative clause encoding one part of the caused motion event (namely Path). The other part (Cause + Manner of the object’s motion) was encoded in a gerund that depended on that relative clause. Another quite typical construction is illustrated in (311). In such cases, Path was encoded in the main clause in which speakers also expressed a avec-clause involving the Figure. Therefore, Cause (+ Manner of action/Manner of the object’s motion) was expressed in the relative clause. However, children still had difficulties with these apparently compact constructions. In (312), the ten-year-old uses a relative pronoun in the function of a subject although tirer (‘to push’) requires a direct object pronoun que (‘that’) for the Figure and a subject pronoun for the agent (il ‘he’). These examples show that relative clauses were used flexibly depending on the paramount structure that the speakers had chosen for their responses. (310) Alors là y a Popi qui monte avec une bouée en la roulant so there there is Popi who ascends with a floating-tyre by it rolling sur un grand toit d’une maison. on the big roof of a house ‘So there is Popi who ascends with a floating tyre by rolling it on the big roof of a house.’ 10 yrs (311)

Popi descend avec sa valise qu’il pousse devant lui. Popi descends with his suitcase that he pushes in-front him ‘Popi is descending with his suitcase that he’s pushing in front of him.’ adult

312 

 Results: Caused Motion

(312) Alors là, il redescend une colline avec une brouette jaune so there he BACK-descends a hill with a wheelbarrow yellow qui [ = qu’il] tire derrière. that [ = that-he] pulls behind ‘So there he’s going back down a hill with a yellow wheelbarrow which [= which he] is pulling behind.’ 10 yrs Pour + infinitive constructions were used to express the final aim of the caused motion event. In such cases, Cause (+ Manner of action/Manner of the object’s motion) was typically encoded in the main clause and the Path-component in the pour-construction (‘in order to’). Such a response is illustrated in (313). In some other cases, children produced idiosyncratic subordinate constructions. In (314), the eight-year-old uses the aspectual verbal construction en train de (‘by doing something’) to express simultaneity although a gerund would have been the correct form in this context. To conclude, French speakers used a great variety of subordinate constructions, although, children often had difficulties with these structures, producing idiosyncratic constructions that did not always correspond to the target pattern. (313) Là il tire sur le caddie pour l’amener au garage. there he pulls on the shopping-trolley for it take in+the garage ‘There he’s pulling at the shopping-trolley so as to take it in the garage.’ 6 yrs (314) C’est Popi, il a descendu de la colline avec le grand ballon it’s Popi, he has descended of the hill with the big ball en train de le faire rouler. by it make roll ‘It’s Popi, he descended from the hill with the big ball whilst making it roll.’ 8 yrs Table 90 shows those sentence types which occurred five times and more in German. German speakers of all age groups predominantly produced main clauses without subordination (97,34%). There was only one subordinate clause among four-year-olds and few among adults (2,87%). Relative clauses and subordinate clauses introduced by the subjunction dass (‘that’) were the most frequent subordinate sentence type. Relative clauses only occurred from eight years on. In most of the cases, they were used in descriptions of the setting and the Ground. In only four cases, German adults used relative clauses in descriptions of the target event. In (315), for instance, the speaker adds the Manner of the object’s

Qualitative Analyses 

 313

motion in the relative clause. Dass-clauses occurred 16 times in our data. Such an example in which dass completes the psychological expression den Eindruck haben, dass (‘to have the impression that’) is illustrated in (316). Other types of subordinate clauses were rare across all age groups. (315) Popi zieht vom linken Bildrand einen grünen Stuhl, Popi pulls from+the left picture-edge (dat) a green chair der auf zwei Beinen am Boden schleift. that on two legs (dat) at+the ground (dat) drags ‘Popi is pulling a green chair from the left side of the picture which is dragging along the ground on two legs.’ adult (316) Ja, der gute Mann hat das von rechts nach links in die Höhle geschoben, dabei hatte man den Eindruck, dass er das irgendwie so stoßweise schiebt. Yes, the good man has it from right to left in the cave (acc) pushed, whereby had one the impression (acc) that he it somehow so jerkily pushes. ‘Well, the good man pushed it into the cave from right to left, and it gave you the impression that he was pushing it jerkily somehow.’ adult

G04

G06

G08

G10

GAD

G all

main clause

99,78

98,67

99,65

98,41

91,09

97,34

main clause with subordinate clause

 0,11

 0,85

 0,24

 0,74

 2,87

 1,00

subordinate clause introduced by/type of subordinate clause als

 0

 0

 0

 0,21

 0,40

 0,13

dass

 0,11

 0

 0

 0,21

 1,29

 0,35

present participle

 0

 0

 0

 0,11

 0,89

 0,22

relative clause

 0

 0

 0,12

 0,21

 1,98

 0,51

weil

 0

 0,36

 0

 0

 0,30

 0,13

Table 90: Sentence types in German (in %)

Part III: Discussion

11 Discussion of the results and further research directions This study was aimed at examining lexicalization patterns in two typologically different languages from a developmental perspective. First, verbalizations of motion events in French and German were compared, providing evidence for Talmy’s dichotomy between satellite- and verb-framed languages. Second, further analyses, intended to give insights into cognitive consequences of the habitual use of such lexicalization patterns as they were proposed by Slobin (1996, 2004a). Finally, the main concern of the present study was children’s verbalizations of motion events. The analyses of these data aimed to determine more precisely the impact of language-specific and general developmental factors during ontogeny. In what follows, several striking results are discussed in a larger context and directions for further research are sketched.

11.1 The expression of motion events in French and German My analyses of the data replicated some findings of previous studies on the expression of motion events in French and German, but also showed new and surprising outcomes that were not expected. As predicted, due to typological differences, in both tasks (voluntary and caused motion) semantic density was higher in German than in French. German speakers clearly showed the typical satellite-framed language pattern and most frequently encoded (Cause +) Manner in the main verb and Path in satellites such as particles or prepositional phrases in compact simple clauses. Although this pattern was the predominant one, speakers also used some Path-verbs (e.g., überqueren ‘to cross’, passieren ‘to cross’, sich entfernen ‘to move away’) and some verbs that conflated Manner and Path (e.g., steigen ‘to climb up’, erklettern ‘to climb up’). Since previous studies have mostly focused on Manner-verbs, rarer verb types have not received enough attention. According to previous findings about German motion verbs, prefixes that encoded Path were relatively rare (e.g., erklettern ‘to climb up’, überqueren ‘to cross’), although a great variety of different (double-)particles expressing diverse aspects of Path occurred (e.g., her ‘hither’, hinauf ‘thither-UP’). In a recent study, Behrens (2009b) found that young Germanspeaking children at around three years did not differentiate double Path-particles with a different deictic first element (rauf ‘hither-up’ versus nauf ‘thitherup’). In contrast, our subjects occasionally distinguished between the reduced forms rauf (‘hither-up’) and nauf (‘thither-up’). This is probably due to the fact

318 

 Discussion of the results and further research directions

that participants were older children and adults who spoke a Southern variety of German, and not exclusively preschoolers from a northern part of Germany. Furthermore, our data showed recurrent cases in which speakers double-marked the Source and/or the Goal of a motion event by a prepositional phrase in combination with a particle (e.g., Er geht in das Haus hinein. ‘He goes in the house into.’). Similar results have been reported by Bamberg (1979), Berthele (2004), and Gerling and Orthen (1979). In some of such constructions, speakers further segmented the trajectory into different subpaths, a finding that has already been reported for German and other satellite-framed languages (cf. Caroli 1984; Slobin 2004a; Ullmann 1991). In descriptions of control items in the voluntary motion task, German adults predominantly produced Manner+Path-responses showing a clear tendency to focus simultaneously on Manner and on Path. This pattern was not expected for control items which were designed to elicit Manner-onlyresponses. The satellite-framed language pattern seems to be such a strong tendency that even in situations in which Path is not prominent, speakers include anchor points (such as the left and right side of the screen) in order to provide information about the trajectory. Irrespective of the task, French responses were much more variable and only partly corresponded to the typical verb-framed language pattern. In descriptions of voluntary motion, French adults frequently produced Path-only-utterances that completely omitted Manner. It was only in descriptions of control items that they produced Manner-verbs, but they usually did not add any other relevant information outside of the main verb (cf. Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008; Hickmann 2006, 2007). Contrary to our predictions, their predominant syntactic pattern was therefore simple main clauses, rather than complex constructions involving subordinate elements such as gerunds. According to typological predictions, French verbs most often encode Path, and this expectation was borne out, although the satellite-framed substrate of Latin prefixes was clearly visible in a large number of verbs such as dépasser (‘to overtake’), contourner (‘to go round sth.’) or attérir (‘to land’). Uses of several particular prefixes (especially re-) also displayed some idiosyncratic verb forms, as for instance remarcher (‘to BACK-walk’) or renager (‘to BACK-swim’) which were produced by French children. Specific lexical conflation patterns had an influence on information focus. Due to the French verb grimper (‘to climb up’) which conflates Manner and Path, Manner+Path-responses were more frequent with upward motion than with the other event types. In descriptions of caused motion, lexicalization patterns were extremely diverse and variable. Since French adults expressed almost all types of information in either the verb or other linguistic devices, no typical pattern could be discerned. Pourcel and Kopecka (2005:140) described a similar phenomenon for voluntary motion calling it reversed verb-framed construction (e.g., Il court

The expression of motion events in French and German 

 319

en traversant. ‘He runs by crossing.’). Our data indicated that such construction types were even more frequent in verbalizations of caused motion. With respect to syntactic structures, complex constructions were much more frequent in the caused motion task, in which speakers were invited to express more semantic components, than in the voluntary motion task. In contrast to our predictions, the comparison between semantic density and information focus in the target responses as compared to the whole responses was not striking in either task. French speakers only occasionally added complementary semantic information outside of the target responses and they did so more often in the caused motion task. Apart from lexicalization patterns, discourse factors such as the possibility of inference from the linguistic context also have an influence on the expression of semantic information in verbalizations of motion events (cf. Hickmann 2006). The frequent omission of Manner in French descriptions of voluntary motion does not imply that speakers did not perceive Manner (cf. Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008: 201). As noted by Pourcel and Kopecka (2005: 150): “Manner inferencing typically relies on contextual and general knowledge, so that Manner of motion may be perceived as conflated in the Figure (e.g. birds fly, pedestrians walk, boats sail), or in the Ground (e.g. swimming may occur in pools, skiing on ski slopes)”. Cases of implicit Manner-information that had to be inferred from the linguistic context clearly occurred in our data. These cases can be best illustrated in descriptions of boundary-crossing events in which speakers mentioned a specific Ground at the beginning (e.g., river, frozen lake) and then only expressed Path, while Manner had to be inferred from the context (e.g., Il arrive à la rivière, va dans l’eau, traverse la rivière, sort de l’eau et s’en va. ‘He arrives at the river, goes into the water, crosses the river, exits the water and leaves.’). Similarly, with down-events Manner was less often expressed in both languages than with other types of voluntary motion events. Since upward motion directly preceded downward motion, speakers who encoded Manner in the first part of the motion event (up-event) regularly left it to the hearer to infer Manner for down-events (e.g., Il grimpe sur l’arbre et redescend. ‘He climbs up the tree and descends.’). A number of elliptic constructions also occurred in both languages. Frequently, speakers introduced the Figure by a noun that encoded information about Manner. In the course of the response, the subject is replaced by a (zero) pronoun and Manner can therefore be inferred (e.g., Le coureur arrive, traverse la rue et part de l’autre côté. ‘The runner arrives, crosses the street and leaves on the other side.’). In German, speakers often only used one Manner-verb which was combined with several Path-satellites such that the scope of the Manner-verb applied to the following utterances (e.g., Der joggt her, die Straße rüber und wieder weg. ‘He runs hither, across the street and again away.’). Such cases also occurred

320 

 Discussion of the results and further research directions

in the caused motion task (e.g., Er schiebt es vom Gehweg runter, über die Straße und wieder auf die andere Seite. ‘He pushes it down from the pavement, across the street and again on the other side.’). Let us return to some of Slobin’s assumptions concerning the rhetorical style in satellite- as compared to verb-framed languages. According to Slobin, Manner is more salient in satellite-framed languages, which therefore develop a larger and finer grained Manner-verb lexicon as compared to verb-framed languages. In the present research, the type-token-ratio for Manner-verbs was higher for German than for French (2,73 versus 2,24). German speakers produced 103 different types of Manner-verbs while only 58 different types occurred in French. This finding is completely in line with Slobin’s assumptions which predict a large set of very specific Manner-verbs in satellite-framed languages and a limited number of such verbs in verb-framed languages. The qualitative analyses of German dynamic motion verbs exhibited a large set of object incorporations (e.g., schlittschuhlaufen ‘to ice-skate’) and extremely specific Manner-verbs (e.g., hangeln ‘to proceed hand over hand’, tippeln ‘to trip’). In contrast, to express Manner, French speakers made use of various nominal predicates involving the verb faire (e.g. faire du patinage ‘to do ice-skating’, faire du vélo ‘to do of the bike’), but surprisingly they also produced some very specific simple Mannerverbs such as cramponner (‘to hold onto tightly’) or crapahuter (‘to walk under difficult conditions’). The type-token-ratio of causative verbs (including causative constructions) was however higher in French than in German. A separate analysis of the subset of causative verbs that encoded some sort of Manner (whether it was Manner of action or Manner of the object’s motion) showed a slightly higher type-token-ratio in German than in French (0,96 versus 0,82). Overall, German speakers produced 32 different types of such causative verbs (e.g., schieben ‘to push’, rollen ‘to roll’) and French speakers 31 types (e.g., faire glisser ‘to make slide’, tourner ‘to turn around’). In sum, the causative Manner-verb lexicon seems to be quite equally diverse in both languages. In contrast to dynamic motion verbs, French does not show a preference for causative verbs that encode Path (e.g., monter quelque chose ‘to ascend something’ or faire monter quelque chose ‘to make ascend something’). With respect to participants’ whole responses, German speakers produced much shorter descriptions of motion events than French speakers. Although they typically introduced the scene setting, the Figure (in both tasks) and the agent (in the caused motion task), their descriptions of the beginning were less elaborate and less frequent than those in French. Furthermore, German speakers focused less on information which was not directly related to the motion event as such and concerned the larger context of the situation. These results are in line with Slobin’s (1996, 2000, 2005) previous findings that show that speakers

Children’s verbalizations of motion events 

 321

of verb-framed languages often add information about locations in which successive events take place. Regardless of the length of the response, German speakers produced extremely standardized responses with very little inter- and intraindividual variation. In contrast, French responses were particularly variable and diverse even among adults. The same results have also been reported by other studies examining German as compared to other (Romance) languages (Dimroth et al., 2010). In conclusion, our data showed that German displayed the main characteristics of satellite-framed languages as compared to French which exhibited clearly verb-framed language properties. However, in both languages there were also conflation and lexicalization patterns that were typical of the other typology. First, these findings support the proposal of Jovanovic and Martinovic-Zic (2004) to arrange satellite- and verb-framed languages on a continuum rather than claiming a strict dichotomy. Second, the fact that both languages are in a way “mixed types” sustains Croft et al.’s hypothesis (2010: 231) “that languages make use of multiple strategies to encode complex events, depending on the type of complex event involved”. Furthermore, as the discussion of (Manner-)inferences has shown, typological studies in this framework have to take into account the larger discourse level which allows to draw conclusions about why speakers do not express specific semantic components.

11.2 General developmental versus language-specific determinants in children’s verbalizations of motion events The verbalizations of French and German children clearly showed the influence of both general developmental and language-specific determinants. Since it can be assumed that from four years on, children have knowledge about the basic physical principles involved in voluntary and caused motion events (cf. Chapter  4), difficulties in their verbalizations should be predominantly due to other cognitive processes and/or to the mastery of target-like linguistic constructions. An interaction between these two factors showed that, depending on their complexity, target patterns are acquired at different ages. In particular, the French data showed more developmental progressions as compared to the German data. Nevertheless, in line with previous findings (Allen et al. 2007; Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008; Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009), children’s responses basically reflected the adult-like pattern from the youngest tested age group on, although important changes continued to occur up until the age of ten. Form very early on, German children expressed all relevant semantic components in typical satellite-framed language constructions. In descriptions of

322 

 Discussion of the results and further research directions

caused motion, for instance, even four-year-olds regularly encoded Cause, Path, and some information about Manner in one single utterance producing completely adult-like responses. According to the target pattern, the children most often encoded Manner (+ Cause) in the main verb and expressed Path in satellites. The same results have been reported for verbalizations of voluntary motion produced by English children (cf. Choi and Bowerman 1991; Hickmann 2006; Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000). With respect to verbs, German children displayed two interesting characteristics. First, they produced a large number of semantically-neutral verbs in descriptions of voluntary motion (e.g., gehen ‘to go’) and a slightly smaller number of such verbs in descriptions of caused motion (e.g., tun ‘to do’). Since semanticallyneutral verbs are extremely frequent and acquired relatively early, children are not only familiar with their most important inflection forms (Eroms 1998: 141), but also with the syntactic frame they require (Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998: 131). A specific use of the verb tun occurred in tun-constructions in which children combined the inflected form of this extremely frequent verb either with a dynamic motion verb or with a causative verb (e.g., Er tut laufen. ‘He does walk.’). We might add for consideration that this construction type has the same frame than combinations of modal verbs with infinitive forms of full verbs that are also extremely frequent in children’s input, as well as in their early language productions. Tun-constructions were particularly frequent among young German children until the age of six. Since verbalizations of caused motion events involve more semantic components and typically require more complex syntactic constructions, processing constraints are more striking with this event type. We therefore assume that children resort more frequently to tun-constructions in the caused motion task in order to reduce this processing cost (cf. Brugman 2001: 556). For English, Theakston et al. (2004: 89) suppose that the privileged use of semantically-neutral verbs can only be explained by their relative frequency in the children’s input. With respect to our German data, this argument probably holds true for the frequent use of gehen (‘to go’), but is problematic with regard to tun (‘to do’). Especially, tun-constructions that seem to be restricted to very specific language registers do not occur recurrently in adult language (cf. Eroms 1998: 140–156). However, tun-constructions have an extremely compositional character and seem to help children to acquire the typical satellite-framed language pattern for the description of voluntary as well as caused motion as illustrated in Chapters 9.5.1 and 10.5.1. Thus, our results are in line with the idea that semantically-neutral verbs and auxiliary verb constructions play a striking role in the acquisition of target verb frames, and particularly of more semantically complex ones (Hollebrandse and van Hout 1998; Ninio 1999). To our knowledge, this phenomenon has not yet been described for German. Typical uses of seman-

Children’s verbalizations of motion events 

 323

tically-neutral verbs that have also been reported for other languages (cf. E. Clark 1991; Slobin 2001) will be discussed below in comparison to French. Second, German children exhibited a creative use of dynamic motion verbs (e.g., kraupen ‘to crawl like a caterpillar’, tippseln ‘to trip’) as well as causative verbs (e.g., kullern ‘to roll irregularly’, schauklen ‘to swing’) suggesting that they made an effort to describe the depicted motion event by the most appropriate verb (cf. similar results for voluntary motion were only reported by Bamberg 1979). These findings are in line with Slobin’s assumptions that speaker’s of satellite-framed languages focus on Manner and therefore constantly elaborate the Manner-verb lexicon (cf. Chapter 11.1). In addition, German children produced certain neologisms that all involved Manner (e.g., kraupen ‘to crawl like a caterpillar’, schauklen ‘to swing’), further illustrating this phenomenon. Among young German children, particles were clearly the most frequent satellite type. Since particles are extremely frequent and diverse in German, children even produced idiosyncratic forms such as hinoch (‘thither-UP’). With age, satellite types became more diverse; prepositional phrases, for instance, which encode explicit references to Ground entities (e.g., Source and/or Goal) strongly increased (for similar results in English cf. Strömqvist, Hellstrand, and Nordqvist 1999). As was the case among adults, children from four years on regularly produced pleonastic constructions that marked either the Source or the Goal twice (e.g., Der geht aufs Dach rauf. ‘He goes on the roof on’). Similarly to adults, simple main clauses were the most frequent pattern and subordinate clauses practically never occurred among German children. In contrast to German, French children took more time to acquire the adult target pattern that required the mastery of more complex syntactic constructions often involving subordination. In addition to this increased syntactic complexity, French lexicalization patterns — particularly in descriptions of caused motion events — are extremely opaque and variable. Thus, children have great difficulties in abstracting stable lexicalization patterns from the input. As a result of these two factors, children’s responses are syntactically simpler; that is, they encode fewer semantic components, particularly information outside of the main verb, which strongly increased until adult age (Allen et al. 2007; Hickmann 2006; Özyürek and Özçahşkan 2000). In contrast to previous findings (Hickmann and Hendriks 2008; Hickmann 2003a; Hickmann, Hendriks, and Champaud 2009) which showed that children predominantly encoded Cause and some aspect of Manner in the main verb, their information locus in our data was much more variable. It was only at ten years that children expressed regurlarly all relevant semantic components in the caused motion task. Irrespective of the semantic components that were encoded in their utterances, French children produced mainly simple clauses, although subordinate clauses strikingly increased with

324 

 Discussion of the results and further research directions

age, especially in the caused motion task. Contrary to results from Japanese and Turkish reported by Allen et al. (2007), our data exhibited fewer Loose-simple constructions in which children spread their information across several utterances. Various indices provide insights into children’s problems with French target constructions. – First, they have difficulties unambiguously encoding Path in prepositional phrases resulting in constructions such as elle monte sur la table (‘she ascends on the table’) in which Path could be inferred from the context but is not explicitly expressed in the utterance itself. In other cases, French children produced idiosyncratic prepositional phrases (e.g., jusque’à en haut ‘to to the top’) often involving jusque (‘to’). – Second, children’s idiosyncratic uses of dynamic motion verbs clearly show their tendency to focus on Path which they tend to combine creatively with Manner-verbs resulting in unusual verbs involving prefixes such as renager (‘to BACK-swim’) or remarcher (‘to BACK-walk’). – Third, young French children seem to have difficulties using verbs that do not fit into the typical verb-framed language conflation types. Grimper (‘to climb up’), which conflates Manner and Path, did not occur regularly in their responses, an outcome that contradicts Özyürek and Özçahşkan’s (2000) assumption that children produce verbs regardless of whether they fit into the typological category or not. Another language-specific characteristic is that children’s whole responses to motion events clearly mirror the target-like pattern (cf. analyses of the response’s global architecture). French children produced many more (complex) utterances than German children who often only described the target motion event by compact simple constructions. This much is clear: there is a strong impact of language-specific factors on children’s verbalizations of motion events. Other findings undoubtedly indicate the influence of general developmental factors. The number of satellites increased in both languages with age despite the fact that German children generally produced more satellites than their French counterparts. A related development is the increase of complex sentences among French and German children that parallels the increased semantic density of their responses. Both developmental patterns reflect growing capacities in general cognitive processing and in working memory although both abilities were not explicitly tested (cf. Hendriks, Watorek, and Giuliano 2004). In the domain of verbs, children differed significantly from adults. German children, especially between four and eight, produced a large number of semantically-neutral verbs in descriptions of voluntary motion (e.g., gehen ‘to go’) and somewhat less frequently with caused motion events (e.g., tun ‘to do’). Hickmann (2003a) found similar results

Children’s verbalizations of motion events 

 325

among German children who described picture stories. With caused motion events, tun-constructions were highly frequent (e.g., Er tut das runter schieben. ‘He does push it down.’). They seem to have the same function of reducing the processing cost as semantically-neutral verbs alone (e.g., Er geht runter. ‘He goes down.’). French children produced semantically-neutral verbs less often, a result that can be explained by the fact that, if they do not encode Path in the main verb, this information is presumably not expressed at all because it would require either specific prepositional phrases (such as jusqu’à ‘to’) or some subordinate construction (such as a gerund) – both of which would be to difficult to produce. German children however, could easily combine semantically-neutral verbs with a large variety of extremely frequent Path-satellites. If we assume that children use semantically-neutral verbs above all to avoid unfamiliar inflection forms (Eroms 1998: 141), there is another possible explanation for the low frequency of semantically-neutral verbs in a stricter sense in French (cf. p. 126). As outlined above, French speakers used numerous combinations of the verb faire + x (‘to do + x’) to describe voluntary (e.g., faire du patinage ‘to go ice-skating’) as well as caused motion (e.g., faire monter ‘to make ascend’). Since faire (‘to do/to make’) is a highly frequent verb in French and is therefore acquired quite early, children are familiar with its most frequent inflection forms. Thus, they have no pressing need to resort to semantically-neutral verbs such as aller (‘to go’). With respect to Path-verbs, German as well as French children had difficulties with verbs that encoded boundary-crossing and which seem not to be part of their productive lexicon (e.g., überqueren ‘to cross’, traverser ‘to cross’). The reason for this lexical gap in both languages is probably related to the complex underlying concept of this specific Path-type which has also been observed in verbalizations of motion events by English and Chinese children (cf. Hickmann 2006; Ji 2009). In these situations, French and young German children focused especially on Manner, a pattern that was not observed with other Path-types among voluntary motion events (for similar findings cf. Gullberg, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2008). Children’s verbalizations of caused motion also indicate, that although they cognitively understand what is happening, they simplify their responses by expressing the voluntary motion of the agent and by encoding the Figure in commitative adverbials such as with the ball, thereby completely omitting Cause. Furthermore, the use of a large number of idiosyncratic verbs and verbal constructions in descriptions of both types of motion events shows that children take a long time to acquire the adult target pattern which often includes extremely fine-grained distinctions. The relatively high type-token-ratio of fourand six-year-olds can probably be explained by idiosyncratic verbal neologisms as well as by uses of target-like verbs in inappropriate contexts. These specific characteristics of children’s verbal expressions indicate that, although they may

326 

 Discussion of the results and further research directions

express relevant semantic information in the verb, the mastery of adult-like expressions in both languages is still a work in progress even after ten years of age. With respect to scene settings and references to Ground entities, young children of both languages limit their information to very vague expressions such as the local adverbs là (‘there’) and da (‘da’). Similar results have been reported in earlier studies (cf. Bamberg 1994). Before concluding this section, let me briefly discuss our results in the light of the three language acquisition theories that were presented in Chapter 3. – In contrast to nativist predictions, French children exhibited a large number of syntactic and semantic errors that are difficult to explain against the background of innate predispositions for language acquisition, according to which children only have to discover the underlying pattern (especially concerning verbs and subordinate constructions). Although more recent representatives of this framework admit the impact of working memory constraints, the interaction between language and cognitive development seems to be much stronger than assumed in this theory. – The results of the present study also contradict some cognitivist hypotheses, mainly those concerning the stage-model as proposed by Piaget. In contrast to his assumptions, the findings exhibited great intra- and inter-individual differences in children’s verbalizations of both voluntary and caused motion. Presumably, if all of them at a given age understood these physical events on a cognitive level, they should also be able to express them completely and correctly in words. This was not the case, as shown especially by strong differences between same-aged French and German children. – Constructivists start from the idea that language is learned through abstraction processes based on the input and from language use itself. The “errors” such as overgeneralizations and also idiosyncratic expressions that children produce indicate that they are working exactly on the level of constructions, in order to adapt their language to the adult target pattern. Constructions such as faire des patins à glace (‘to do some ice-skates’) or Der schiebt mit dem Ball da runter (‘He pushes with the ball there down.’) support this assumption. Especially for German, we suggested two stage models for the acquisition of the typical satellite-framed language pattern for voluntary respectively caused motion. On the basis of these models, it has been shown that children abstract specific construction frames from their input. We assumed that the following construction is the base frame for German verbalizations of voluntary motion: Subject verb(-s) particle/PP. In this construction, the subject (e.g., Popi) and the particles/PP (e.g., rauf ‘up, über die Straße ‘across the street’) remain almost stable, whereas the slot of the verb is filled by various types. First, children begin to frequently

Limitations of the present study and future research directions 

 327

insert forms of the semantically-neutral verb gehen (‘to go’), but after having passed through a transitional stage (tun ‘do’ + full verb) they regularly use full motion verbs with quite specific semantic meanings. This acquisition process is completely in line with constructivist predictions. Obviously, the present study cannot disprove any of these theories. The point we want to make here is just that language acquisition is an extremely complex process and that much more research is necessary to determine which assumptions of each theory are tenable and which have to be questioned. To conclude: from very early on, children’s lexicalization patterns are extremely similar to those of adults speaking the same language. However, they still undergo important adjustment processes that are characterized by a constant interaction between semantic and cognitive development. Children’s idiosyncratic expressions are a good indication of this fine-tuning. On the other hand, their responses show general developmental limitations in their cognitive capacity to simultaneously process multiple information components, resulting in a striking increase in semantic density and syntactic complexity.

11.3 Limitations of the present study and future research directions The present study has several limitations due to various constraints. First, interand intra-individual differences were not studied in detail, and no statistical analyses were provided to determine their extent. Since the results were always presented as an average of each age group, the distribution of participants’ scores and the ranges within each age group were not taken into account. At various points of our analyses, we have shown that single speakers produced systematically one specific (idiosyncratic) lexicalization pattern, in some cases leading to a high frequency of this construction within a given age group. A detailed study of such inter-individual differences could cast light on the question of whether particular speakers exhibit very specific and unique verbalization patterns to describe motion events — patterns that have been overlooked because of the methodology of calculating the mean. Another question that arises concerns intra-individual differences in our data. Since both, the voluntary and caused motion tasks, encompassed a large set of items, it is likely that speakers developed specific verbalization strategies during the task in order to package different semantic contents into more or less similar forms. This process would help especially young children to better and more economically cope with this kind of task and would provide evidence for some sort of learning strategy.

328 

 Discussion of the results and further research directions

The second limitation concerns the possibility to generalize our results. Since the data have been collected in experimental situations in which (target) stimuli were designed to highlight all involved semantic components to the same extent, and speakers were invited to describe motion events as completely as possible, their verbalizations probably do not correspond to those produced in natural situations. At various places it has been pointed out that speakers’ knowledge of the world and of the (non-linguistic) context had an impact on their verbalizations. It can be assumed that in natural spontaneous situations this effect is even more striking, and that hearers unconsciously infer much more information from the non-linguistic context than in controlled experimental situations. Studies of data elicited by a controlled experimental design and those that are produced in natural situations have to be considered complementary because in each situation, speakers exhibit a different verbal behaviour. If analyses of spontaneous data were to show similar findings, the results of the current study would be even stronger because it could then be assumed that they are not related to very specific situations (cf. Slobin 2006). The previous chapter showed that general developmental determinants have a strong impact on children’s verbalizations. The direction of influence between language and thought seems however to shift with age, with language-specific determinants gradually playing a more important role (cf. Bates, O’Connell, and Shore 1987; Rice and Kemper 1984). As a consequence, the comparison of French and German adult lexicalization patterns clearly mirrored the verb- respectively satellite-framed language pattern. With respect to the influence of languagespecific properties on pure cognition, our results cannot give any clear evidence. However, some indices support a moderate view of the Sapir-Whorf-Hypothesis, rather than the Whorfian straightjacket view which is difficult to reconcile with the inter- and intra-individual differences observed in our data (especially in the expression of caused motion in French). According to the thinking for speaking hypothesis (Slobin 1987), aspects that are frequently encoded in a specific language are supposed to be more salient for their speakers, an expectation borne out by our German data in the case of Manner. This semantic component is typically encoded in German descriptions of motion events, and therefore seems to be cognitively more available and salient to speakers of German than to speakers of French (who often omitted it completely). It has been argued that a number of dimensions indicate the high saliency of Manner, such as the extremely finegrained Manner-verb lexicon, the high type-token-ratio of such verbs, the tendency of children to describe very subtle differences between various Manners and metalinguistic utterances concerning this semantic field. The habitual online attention to specific aspects (such as Manner in German) during speaking time is supposed to be the critical interface between

Limitations of the present study and future research directions 

 329

language and cognition. Therefore, our data support Slobin’s (1996: 76) opinion that “in acquiring a native language, the child learns particular ways of thinking for speaking“. Again, we are aware that our experiments only examined the linguistic representation of spatial concepts and all conclusions concerning “partial conceptual representations of the external world” (von Stutterheim and Nüse 2003: 855) are entirely speculative. However, it is very likely that language has an impact on speakers’ long-term memory and mental imagery as it has been pointed out by Slobin (2006) and other researchers. Many more studies are still necessary to determine the impact of language-specific determinants on pure (nonverbal) cognition and particularly its impact during language acquisition. In what follows some possibilities for future research will be sketched. The larger project of which this study is a part includes comparable data from different types of learners in Chinese, English, Greek, Russian, Italian, and French Sign Language. The comparison of adult verbalizations in these different languages allows us to arrange linguistic systems on a typological continuum between typical verb- and satellite-framed languages, a modification of the ridged dichotomy proposed by Jovanovic and Martinovic-Zic (2004) and Slobin (2004a). The fact that several languages have been classified as split-framing or hybrid is another piece of evidence that Talmy’s original dichotomy cannot account for all languages (Imbert 2012: 248; cf. also Croft et al. 2010: 201). Recent results concerning Chinese (Ji 2009; Ji, Hendriks, and Hickmann 2011) for instance show that speakers conveniently package motion components in verb compounds, thereby raising questions concerning the typological status of this language, which seems to be midway along such a continuum, as discussed in Chapter 5.1 under the term equipollently-framed languages (Slobin 2004b). Chinese descriptions of voluntary motion are more similar to satelliteframed language patterns, while descriptions of caused motion exhibit rather verb-framed patterns. Preliminary findings for Greek (Ji et al. 2010) also confirm the existence of parallel verb-framed and satellite-framed systems within one language. Further studies of languages that cannot easily be assigned to one of the proposed categories would show if all languages can be classified according to a continuum between typical satellite- and verb-framed languages. The study of children’s verbalizations in different languages and situations helps us determine the impact of language-specific and general developmental factors. It is particularly interesting to examine groups of children speaking two relatively close languages. Under these circumstances, deviances from the adult target pattern in one language that do not occur in the other language can be entirely attributed to subtle differences between these two languages. The comparison of English and German children revealed that German children expressed much more systematically all relevant semantic components in compact utter-

330 

 Discussion of the results and further research directions

ances, reaching the adult level at age eight, while English children take somewhat more time to encode all types of information (Hickman et al. 2010). With respect to verbs in descriptions of voluntary motion events, these results suggest that German children use Manner-verbs more frequently and more easily than their English counterparts. In contrast, in descriptions of caused motion, German children frequently produced tun-constructions which made it easier for them to use causative verbs, a strategy which English children could not apply. The higher number of satellites in German enabled even very young children to use them regularly, whereas young English children often did not encode relevant information outside of the main verb. Studies concerning younger children are necessary in order to determine more precisely at which moment during ontogeny infants become more sensitive to spatial aspects that are not encoded in their native language, and when their verbalizations become language-specific (for a brief discussion of such studies cf. Chapter 2.3). Recent research has begun to show that as early as the prelinguistic period (at age two) language-specific determinants may have an impact on infants’ representation of spatial situations in categorization tasks (Bowerman 1996a, 1996b; Choi and Bowerman 1991; but see Hespos and Spelke 2004, 2007). Furthermore, children’s first utterances clearly show language-specific properties mirroring the adult target pattern with respect to information focus and locus (e.g., Hickmann, Taranne, and Bonnet 2009). More studies are necessary to reveal when and how the interaction between general developmental processes and language-specific properties takes place, and how this interaction evolves during the acquisition process. Another research direction concerns the study of spatial language produced by atypical populations, such as populations presenting perceptual deficits. Apart from studying deaf children and adults (cf. Sallandre et al. 2010; Zheng and Goldin-Meadow 2002), another possibility to determine the role of visual and auditory input is to study how spatial cognition develops in children who are blind or extremely visually impaired. Since these children lack an extremely important modality for the perception of space, they are supposed to rely primarily on their innate spatial cognition, the knowledge they can construct on the basis of proprioperception, tactile perception and — most importantly for us — on language. Several questions arise: Are the verbalizations of blind children similar to those of seeing children? If not, in which aspects do they differ? If they are similar, do blind children understand the underlying spatial concepts or do they simply copy the target pattern without having a complex spatial representation of such events? The responses to such questions will enable us to determine which aspects of spatial representations/cognition require visual input. This insight will enlighten our model of acquisition as well as help us develop pedagogical support for specialized institutions which these children attend.

Limitations of the present study and future research directions 

 331

Up to now, we have only dealt with research on native speakers. Another direction in further research will be to study spatial verbalizations of motion events produced by 2L1 as well as late L2-learners. Slobin (1996: 89) assumes that the restructuring of habitual online attention to specific aspects of space is extremely resistant and makes it difficult for L2-learners to express semantic content in target-like forms. According to him, when acquiring a second language, learners have to adopt new ways of thinking. The study of subjects speaking two typologically different languages may provide insights into whether, when and how speakers adopt such a new way of thinking and to what extent both languages still influence each other. Preliminary results from English-French bilingual children (2L1) show that in situations requiring the simultaneous expression of many semantic components, bilingual children transfer lexicalization patterns from one of their languages to the other when the former provides structurally less complex ways of achieving high semantic density (cf. Engemann, Harr, and Hickmann 2012; Harr and Engemann 2011). Accordingly, bilingual children’s French utterances showed a preference for lexicalization patterns that were not agrammatical in French, but more typical of English, and sometimes idiosyncratic and/ or not expressing the target meaning (e.g., Il roule la botte de paille à travers le chemin ‘He roles the straw bale across the road.’).185 Similar results have been reported from English-speaking adults learning French (Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny 2008). Although speakers made an increased attempt to produce target-like structures, even advanced learners’ constructions remained clearly source-like. The authors conclude that “learners do not construct an entirely independent linguistic system during second language acquisition and (…) L2 mastery may require some reconceptualization of spatial information” (Hendriks, Hickmann, and Demagny 2008: 15). Other measures of speakers’ representation and perception of motion events should involve co-verbal gestures, as well as non-verbal measures such as categorization and eye-tracking. Since studies focusing on gestures which showed a reflection of lexicalization patterns in speech have been reported in detail in Chapter 5, they will not be discussed again here. Previous studies on non-verbal performances report either no impact of language-specific factors or only superficial effects (Gennari et al. 2002; Landau and Lakusta 2006; Papafragou, Hulbert, and Trueswell 2008; Papafragou and Selimis 2010a). Recent results, however, have shown that typological properties affect how speakers generate different

185 Note that à travers has not the same meaning than the English particle across or the French verb traverser (‘to cross’). It rather has a more abstract meaning which can probably best be translated by ‘through an intermediary’.

332 

 Discussion of the results and further research directions

categorical choices in linguistic and in non-linguistic tasks, and consequently influence their attention allocation during the exploration of visual stimuli (Soroli and Hickmann 2010). The same animated cartoons used in the present study also served as support for experiments on eye-movement, non-verbal, and verbal categorization among English and French monolingual adults. Results concerning eye-movements showed a language difference such that French speakers focused more on Path alone, while English speakers paid as much attention to both Path and Manner. With respect to the non-verbal categorization task, French participants chose Path as their categorization criterion, while English speakers did not show any significant preference for any semantic component (Path or Manner). In contrast, during the verbal categorization task, English speakers showed a significant preference for Manner choices, French speakers for Path. These results support a moderate relativity hypothesis (cf. Slobin’s thinking for speaking hypothesis) according to which language affects production, as well as non-verbal responses but only when linguistic information must be processed (production, categorization in the presence of verbal stimuli). In sum, although we probably all perceive the world in a comparable way because of similar innate perception mechanisms, strong language-specific differences can be observed in how we encode this perceived information, leading us to attend to different features of the world depending on our native language.

Appendix

A Methodology A.1 Material A.1.1 Items: Voluntary motion (1) Experimental Condition Frog (training item) A pond with leafs and flowers (water lily) in the foreground and rush in the background. A frog is sitting on a leaf on the left, it croaks, then jumps into the water and disappears under water. Some circles appear in the water to then disappear. Up- / down-events Mouse A room with a cupboard on the right and a table on the left; there is a cup and saucer, as well as a piece of cheese on the table. A mouse tiptoes on its two hindlegs onto the scene from the right, tiptoes to the table, climbs up one of the table legs, picks up the cheese, slides down the table (head up) carrying the cheese on its back, then tiptoes away towards the right and disappears off the screen. Bear A mountain landscape in the background, a tree in the foreground on the left with a beehive hanging from a branch. A bear walks onto the scene from the right, walks to the tree, climbs up the tree, puts one of its paws into the beehive, climbs back down (head up), stops at the bottom of the tree to lick its paw, then walks away towards the left and disappears off the screen. Monkey A tree on the right with bananas hanging at the top. A monkey walks onto the scene from the right, walks to the tree, stops at the bottom of the tree to look up, climbs up the tree, takes a banana, climbs down (head up), then walks away towards the left, holding the banana in one hand, and disappears off the screen. Cat An urban scene, with a street, houses etc. in the background; in the foreground on the left there is a telephone pole with a bird’s nest on top and a bird sitting on an electric wire nearby. A cat runs (big leaps) onto the scene from the right, runs to the pole, climbs up the pole, puts one of its paws into the nest, drops an egg on the ground, climbs back down (head up), stops at the bottom of the tree to lick

336 

 Methodology

the egg, leaving the shell, then runs away towards the left and disappears off the screen. Caterpillar Green plants in the earth; one stem with a leaf higher up is in the foreground towards the middle of the screen. A caterpillar crawls onto the scene from the right, crawls to the stem, climbs up the stem, eats a piece of the leaf, crawls back down the leaf (head down), then crawls away towards the right and disappears off the screen. Squirrel A forest with a mountain landscape in the background and a tree in the foreground on the left; there is a hole higher up in the trunk. A squirrel runs (small leaps) onto the scene from the right, runs to the tree trunk, runs up the tree into a hole, comes out of the hole, runs back down (head down), then runs away and disappears off the screen. Across-events Swim across A summer landscape with mountains in the background; a river in the foreground with a bridge over it. A boy walks onto the scene from the right, walks to the river, swims across the river to the other bank towards the left, then walks away and disappears off the screen. Bike across A train station in the countryside with a house and train tracks in the foreground. A woman bikes onto the scene from the right, bikes to the train tracks, bikes across the tracks towards the left, then bikes away on the other side and disappears off the screen. Slide across A winter landscape with mountains in the background; a frozen river in the foreground with a bridge over it. A boy runs onto the scene from the left, runs to the river, slides across the river (on his two feet) to the other bank towards the right, then runs away and disappears off the screen. Skate across A winter landscape with trees around a frozen lake in the foreground; there are two little wooden edges on each side of the lake. A girl skates onto the scene from the right, skates to the frozen lake, skates down onto the lake, skates across the

Material  

 337

lake to the other side towards the left, skates back up onto the other side, then skates away with her skates and disappears off the screen. Run across A road in the country side with houses and a mountain in the background. A man runs onto the scene from the left, runs to the road, runs across the road to the other side towards the right, then runs away and disappears off the screen. Crawl across An urban scenery with cars, houses etc. in the background and a crossing of two streets in the foreground; there is a pram on the sidewalk which is on the left. A baby crawls onto the scene from the left, crawls to the street crossing, crawls across the street to the other side towards the right, then crawls away and disappears off the screen. (2) Control condition – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Seagull (training item): A bird (seagull) flies from left to right flapping its wings. Mouse: A mouse tiptoes on its two hind legs from right to left. Bear: A bear walks from right to left. Cat: A cat runs (big leaps) from right to left. Kitten: A kitten runs from right to left. Caterpillar: A caterpillar crawls from right to left. Squirrel: A squirrel runs (small leaps) from right to left. Swim: A boy is swimming from right to left. Bike: A woman is riding a bicycle from right to left. Slide: A boy is sliding (standing on his two feet) from left to right. Skate: A girl is skating from right to left. Run: A man is running from left to right. Crawl: A baby is crawling from left to right.

For control items, the monkey was replaced by a kitten because pre-tests showed that participants described monkey’s manner of motion with a great variety of different manner-verbs (e.g., he walks funny, he walks like he’s dancing). In order to choose a manner that elicits a quite homogeneous vocabulary, we excluded the monkey form control items.

338 

 Methodology

A.1.2 Items: Caused motion PUSH/ROLL/ACROSS (training item) A landscape in the countryside with a path in the middle. Popi is on the right with a ball of hay. He pushes the ball of hay that rolls across the way. He stops with the ball of hay once on the other side. PUSH/SLIDE/UP – A mountain landscape and a house with a roof that reaches to the ground. Popi is at the bottom of the house on the right with a present (package). He pushes the package up the roof and it slides up. He stops with the package once on top of the roof. – A landscape on the seaside with a sand hill. Popi is at the bottom of the hill on the left with a present (package). He pushes the package up the hill and it slides up. He stops with the package once on top of the hill. PUSH/SLIDE/DOWN – A landscape in the countryside in the summer with a hill. Popi is on top of the hill on the right with a suitcase. He pushes the suitcase down the hill and it slides down. He stops with the suitcase once at the bottom of the hill. – A mountain landscape in the winter with a snow hill. Popi is on top of the hill on the left with a suitcase. He pushes the suitcase down the hill and it slides down. He stops with the suitcase once at the bottom of the hill. PUSH/SLIDE/INTO – A forest landscape with the entrance of a cave on the left. Popi is on the right with a table. He pushes the table that slides into the cave. He enters the cave with the table and disappears. – A landscape in the countryside with the entrance of a house (garage, barn) on the left. Popi is on the left with a table. He pushes the table that slides into the house. He enters the house with the table and disappears. PUSH/SLIDE/ACROSS – An urban landscape with a street at the middle. Popi is on the right with a basket of apples. He pushes the basket that slides across the street. He stops with the basket once on the other side of the street. – A landscape in the countryside with a road in the middle. Popi is on the left with a basket of apples. He pushes the basket that slides across the road. He stops with the basket once on the other side of the road.

Material  

 339

PUSH/ROLL/UP – A mountain landscape and a house with a roof that reaches to the ground. Popi is at the bottom of the house on the right with a ring. He pushes the ring up the roof and it rolls up. He stops with the ring once on top of the roof. – A landscape on the seaside with a sand hill. Popi is at the bottom of the hill on the left with a ring. He pushes the ring up the hill and it rolls up. He stops with the ring once on top of the hill. PUSH/ROLL/DOWN – A landscape in the countryside in the summer with a hill. Popi is on top of the hill on the right with a ball. He pushes the ball down the hill and it rolls down. He stops with the ball once at the bottom of the hill. – A mountain landscape in the winter with a snow hill. Popi is on top of the hill on the left with a ball. He pushes the ball down the hill and it rolls down. He stops with the ball once at the bottom of the hill. PUSH/ROLL/INTO – A forest landscape with the entrance of a cave on the left. Popi is on the right with a tyre (wheel). He pushes the tyre that rolls into the cave. He enters the cave with the tyre and disappears. – A landscape in the countryside with the entrance of a house (garage, barn) on the left. Popi is on the left with a tyre. He pushes the tyre that rolls into the house. He enters the house with the tyre and disappears. PUSH/ROLL/ACROSS – An urban landscape with a street in the middle. Popi is on the right with a wheel. He pushes the wheel that rolls across the street. He stops with the wheel once on the other side of the street. – A landscape in the countryside with a road in the middle. Popi is on the left with a wheel. He pushes the wheel that rolls across the road. He stops with the wheel once on the other side of the road. PULL/SLIDE/UP – A mountain landscape and a house with a roof that reaches to the ground. Popi is at the bottom of the house on the right holding a bag with a rope. He pulls the bag up the roof and it slides up behind him. He stops with the bag once on top of the roof.

340 

–

 Methodology

A landscape on the seaside with a sand hill. Popi is at the bottom of the hill on the left holding a bag with a rope. He pulls the bag up the hill and it slides up behind him. He stops with the bag once on top of the hill.

PULL/SLIDE/DOWN – A landscape in the countryside in the summer with a hill. Popi is on top of the hill on the right holding a trunk with a rope. He pulls the trunk down the hill and it slides down behind him. He stops with the trunk once at the bottom of the hill. – A mountain landscape in the winter with a snow hill. Popi is on top of the hill on the left holding a trunk with a rope. He pulls the suitcase down the hill and it slides down behind him. He stops with the trunk once at the bottom of the hill. PULL/SLIDE/INTO – A forest landscape with the entrance of a cave on the left. Popi is on the right with a chair. He pulls the chair that slides into the cave. He enters the cave with the chair and disappears. – A landscape in the countryside with the entrance of a house (garage, barn) on the left. Popi is on the left with a chair. He pulls the chair that slides into the house. He enters the house with the chair and disappears. PULL/SLIDE/ACROSS – An urban landscape with a street in the middle. Popi is on the right holding a wooden horse with a rope. He pulls the horse that slides across the street. He stops with the horse once on the other side of the street. – A landscape in the countryside with a road in the middle. Popi is on the left holding a wooden horse with a rope. He pulls the horse that slides across the road. He stops with the horse once on the other side of the road. PULL/ROLL/UP – A mountain landscape and a house with a roof that reaches to the ground. Popi is at the bottom of the house on the right holding a toy car with a rope. He pulls the car up the roof and it rolls up behind him. He stops with the car once on top of the roof. – A landscape on the seaside with a sand hill. Popi is at the bottom of the hill on the left holding a toy car with a rope. He pulls the car up the hill and it rolls up behind him. He stops with the car once on top of the hill.

Material  

 341

PULL/ROLL/DOWN – A landscape in the countryside in the summer with a hill. Popi is on top of the hill on the right holding a wheelbarrow. He pulls the wheelbarrow down the hill and it rolls down behind him. He stops with the wheelbarrow once at the bottom of the hill. – A mountain landscape in the winter with a snow hill. Popi is on top of the hill on the left holding a wheelbarrow. He pulls the wheelbarrow down the hill and it rolls down behind him. He stops with the wheelbarrow once at the bottom of the hill. PULL/ROLL/INTO – A forest landscape with the entrance of a cave on the left. Popi is on the right with a shopping cart. He pulls the shopping cart that rolls into the cave. He enters the cave with the shopping cart and disappears. – A landscape in the countryside with the entrance of a house (garage, barn) on the left. Popi is on the left with a shopping cart. He pulls the shopping cart that rolls into the house. He enters the house with the shopping cart and disappears. PULL/ROLL/ACROSS – An urban landscape with a street in the middle. Popi is on the right holding a pram. He pulls the pram that rolls across the street. He stops with the pram once on the other side of the street. – A landscape in the countryside with a road in the middle. Popi is on the left holding a baby pram. He pulls the pram that rolls across the road. He stops with the pram once on the other side of the road. Distractor items – A blue ball on the right, a present (package) in the middle and a wall (vertical bar) on the left. The ball rolls and hits the package that slides to the wall where it stops. – A blue ball on the left, a red ball in the middle and a wall (vertical bar) on the right. The blue ball rolls and hits the red ball that rolls to the wall where it stops. – A yellow ball on the left and three pins (skittles) on the right. The ball rolls and hits the pins (skittles) that fall down. – A red ball on the right and a pile of dice on the left. The ball rolls and hits the dice that fall down. – A green ball on the left, a vase on the right. The ball rolls and hits the vase that falls down and breaks in two pieces.

342 

– –

 Methodology

A black ball on the left, a bottle on the right. The ball rolls and hits the bottle that falls down and breaks in two pieces. A yellow ball on the left, a book in the middle and a wall on the right. The ball rolls and hits the book that slides to the wall where it bounces back to the middle near the ball where it stops.

A.2 Instruction A.2.1 German For the younger age groups: „Jetzt werden wir ein Spiel mit meiner Puppe Lisa machen. Schau mal, das ist Lisa. Wir werden kurze Zeichentrickfilme anschauen, aber Lisa hat die Augen verbunden und kann nicht sehen, was wir sehen. Du musst ihr also alles erzählen, was passiert. Du musst ihr ganz genau erzählen, was du gesehen hast, weil sie es ja nicht sehen kann. Also, hier ist nochmal Popi, ein Reifen und eine Scheune“. For the older age groups and the adult control group: „Ich werde dir jetzt kurze Filme auf dem Bildschirm zeigen. Schau sie dir gut an. Nach jedem Film erzählst du, was darin passiert ist. Versuch es so zu erzählen, dass jemand, der die Filme nicht gesehen hat, zum Beispiel dein Freund/deine Freundin, sich vorstellen kann, was passiert ist. Hier ist wieder Popi, ein großer Reifen und eine Scheune“.

A.2.2 French For the younger age groups: „Maintenant, on va faire un jeu avec ma poupée Isabelle. Ça c’est Isabelle, on va faire semblant qu’elle joue avec nous. On va voir des dessins animés, mais elle est assise là-bas, alors elle ne peut pas voir les dessins animés avec nous. Il faudra que tu lui racontes notre secret. Il faudra bien lui dire tout ce qui se passe, parce qu’elle ne pourra pas voir. Voici encore Popi, un grand pneu et une grange“. For the older age groups and the adult control group: „Je vais te montrer des dessins animés sur cet écran. J’aimerais que tu racontes ce qui s’est passé pour quelqu’un qui n’a pas vu les dessins animés et qui voudrait

Instruction 

 343

bien connaître l’histoire. Donc, imagine-toi un copain/une copine veut savoir ce qui s’est passé. Alors, raconte tous ce que tu as vu pour qu’il/elle puisse raconter l’histoire à son tour sans avoir vu les images. Voici encore Popi, un grand pneu et une grange“.

B Results: Voluntary motion B.1 Information Locus Differences of MP-conflation types as a function of event type in French

Event types

overall

control / across ns control / up F(1,115) = 78.83, p