Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T19:01:06.976Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Children's knowledge of hierarchical phrase structure: quantifier floating in Japanese*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2012

TAKAAKI SUZUKI  and
NAOKO YOSHINAGA
TAKAAKI SUZUKI*
Affiliation:
Kyoto Sangyo University – Department of Foreign Languages
NAOKO YOSHINAGA
Affiliation:
Hirosaki Gakuin University – Department of English Language and Literature
*
Address for correspondence: Takaaki Suzuki, Department of Foreign Languages, Kyoto Sangyo University, Motoyama-Kamigamo, Kita-ku, Kyoto, Japan603-8555. e-mail: takaaki@cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The interpretation of floating quantifiers in Japanese requires knowledge of hierarchical phrase structure. However, the input to children is insufficient or even misleading, as our analysis indicates. This presents an intriguing question on learnability: do children interpret floating quantifiers based on a structure-dependent rule which is not obvious in the input or do they employ a sentence comprehension strategy based on the available input? Two experiments examined four- to six-year-old Japanese-speaking children for their interpretations of floating quantifiers in SOV and OSV sentences. The results revealed that no child employed a comprehension strategy in terms of the linear ordering of constituents, and most five- and six-year-olds correctly interpreted floating quantifiers when word-order difficulty was reduced. These facts indicate that children's interpretation of floating quantifiers is structurally dependent on hierarchical phrase structure, suggesting that this knowledge is a part of children's grammar despite the insufficient input available to them.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 628 - 655
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

We thank William O'Grady for invaluable comments and suggestions, and Jun Nomura for advice on the corpus data analyses. All remaining errors are of course our own. We are also grateful to the children and the staff at Kyoto Sangyo University Sumire Kindergarten for their participation and cooperation. Portions of this research were presented at the 12th Japanese/Korean Linguistics Conference in 2002, and the 28th Boston University Conference on Language Development in 2003, and appeared in the proceedings.

References

REFERENCES

Baker, M. C. (2001). The natures of nonconfigurationality. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 407–438. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin, and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Crain, S. & Nakayama, M. (1987). Structure dependence in grammar formation. Language 63, 522–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, A. (1980). On the interaction of morphology and syntax. Unpublished dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Frazier, L. (1978). On comprehending sentences: Syntactic parsing strategies. Unpublished dissertation, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L. (1994). Introduction to Government and Binding theory, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Haig, J. (1980). Some observations on quantifier float in Japanese. Linguistics 18, 1065–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakuta, K. (1982). Interaction between particles and word order in the comprehension and production of simple sentences in Japanese children. Developmental Psychology 18, 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, K. (1980). Remarks on Japanese phrase structures: Comments on the papers on Japanese syntax. In Otsu, Y. & Farmer, A. (eds), MIT working papers in linguistics 2: Theoretical issues in Japanese linguistics, 185–203. Cambridge, MA: MIT Working Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1982). Preliminary remarks on configurationality. In Pustejovsky, J. & Sells, P. (eds), Proceedings of the 12th annual meeting of the North Eastern Linguistics Society, 86–96. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts, Graduate Linguistics Student Association.Google Scholar
Hale, K. (1983). Warlpiri and the grammar of non-configurational languages. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 1, 5–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamano, S. (1997). On Japanese quantifier floating. In Kamio, A. (ed.), Directions in functional linguistics, 173–97. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayashibe, H. (1975). Word order and particles: A developmental study in Japanese. Descriptive and Applied Linguistics 8, 1–18.Google Scholar
Ishii, Y. (1998). Floating quantifiers in Japanese: NP quantifiers, VP quantifiers, or both? Researching and verifying an advanced theory of human language: Explanation of the human faculty for constructing and computing sentences on the basis of lexical conceptual features. Grant-in-Aid for COE Research #08CE1001, 149–71.Google Scholar
Iwatate, S. (1980). The word-order and case strategies in Japanese children. Japanese Journal of Psychology 51, 233–40.Google Scholar
Kuno, S. (1973). The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1980). Bunpoo koozoo no hikaku [The comparison of grammatical structures]. In Kunihiro, T. (ed.), Nichi-eigo hikaku-kooza vol. 2: Bunpoo [Comparing Japanese and English 2: Grammar], 23–61. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1983). What can Japanese say about Government and Binding? In Proceedings of the West Coast conference on formal linguistics 2, 153–164. Stanford, CA: Stanford Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
Legate, J. A. & Yang, C. D. (2002). Empirical re-assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review 19, 151–62.Google Scholar
Lidz, J. & Musolino, J. (2002). Children's command of quantification. Cognition 84, 113–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Love, T. (2007). The processing of non-canonically ordered constituents in long distance dependencies by pre-school children: A real-time investigation. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36, 191–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lust, B. (1999). Universal Grammar: The strong continuity hypothesis in first language acquisition. In Ritchie, W. & Bhatia, T. K. (eds), Handbook of child language acquisition, 111–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES Project: Tools for analyzing talk, 3rd edn.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Maling, J. (1976). Notes on quantifier-postposing. Linguistic Inquiry 7, 708–718.Google Scholar
Mazuka, R., Ito, K. & Kondo, T. (2002). Costs of scrambling in Japanese sentence processing. In Nakayama, M. (ed.), Sentence processing in East Asian languages, 131–66. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Mihara, K. (1998). Suuryosi renketu koobun to kekka no gani [The quantifier linking construction and the implication of ‘result’]. Gengo 27(6/7/8), 86–95, 94–102, 104–113.Google Scholar
Miyagawa, S. (1989). Structure and case marking in Japanese. San Diego: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyagawa, S. & Arikawa, K. (2007). Locality in syntax and floating numeral quantifiers. Linguistic Inquiry 38, 645–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyata, S. (2004). Japanese: Tai corpus. Pittsburgh, PA: TalkBank.Google Scholar
Nisisawa, H. & Miyata, S. (2009). Japanese: Arika corpus. Pittsburgh, PA: TalkBank.Google Scholar
Oshima-Takane, Y., MacWhinney, B., Sirai, H., Miyata, S. & Naka, N. (eds) (1998). CHILDES for Japanese 2nd edn.The JCHAT Project Nagoya: Chukyo University.Google Scholar
Otsu, Y. (1994). Early acquisition of scrambling in Japanese. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. D. (eds), Acquisition studies in generative grammar, 253–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Postal, P. (1974). On raising. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Pullum, G. & Scholz, B. (2002). Empirical assessment of stimulus poverty arguments. Linguistic Review 19, 8–50.Google Scholar
Rizzi, L. (1990). Relativized minimality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, L., Marinis, T., Felser, C. & Clahsen, H. (2007). Antecedent priming at trace positions in children's sentence processing. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 36, 175–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saito, M. (1985). Some asymmetries in Japanese and their theoretical implications. Unpublished dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Shibatani, M. (1978). Nihongo no bunseki [Analyses of Japanese]. Tokyo: Taishukan.Google Scholar
Sportiche, D. (1988). A theory of floating quantifiers and its corollaries for constituent structure. Linguistic Inquiry 19, 425–49.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T. (2007). Tan-itu-koobun no rikai kara saguru yooji no kakujosi rikai [The development of Japanese case-markers observed through children's comprehension of single-argument sentences]. Gengo Kenkyu 132, 55–76.Google Scholar
Suzuki, T. (2010). Costs of scrambling, reversibility, and case markers in children's online processing of Japanese. In Costa, J., Castro, A., Lobo, M. & Pratas, F. (eds), Language acquisition and development: Proceedings of GALA 2009, 452–61. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Takami, K. (1998). Nihongo no suuryoosi yuuri ni tuite: kinooron teki bunseki [On quantifier float in Japanese: From functional perspectives]. Gengo 27(1/2/3), 86–95, 86–95, 98–107.Google Scholar
Takezawa, K. (1987). A configurational approach to case-marking in Japanese. Unpublished dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Tamaoka, K., Sakai, H., Kawahara, J., Miyaoka, Y., Lim, H. & Koizumi, M. (2005). Priority information used for the processing of Japanese sentences: Thematic roles, case particles or grammatical functions? Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 34, 281–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trueswell, J. C., Sekerina, I., Hill, N. M. & Logrip, M. L. (1999). The kindergarten-path effect: Studying on-line sentence processing in young children. Cognition 73, 89–134.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamamoto, K. & Keil, F. (2000). The acquisition of Japanese numeral classifiers: Linkage between grammatical forms and conceptual categories. Journal of East Asian Linguistics 9, 379–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar