Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T17:06:59.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Answers without questions: The emergence of fragments in child language1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 September 2009

JONATHAN GINZBURG  and
DIMITRA KOLLIAKOU
JONATHAN GINZBURG*
Affiliation:
King's College, London
*
Authors' addresses: (Ginzburg) Department of Computer Science, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UKjonathan.ginzburg@kcl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Non-sentential utterances (NSUs), utterances that lack an overt verbal (more generally predicative) constituent, are common in adult speech. This paper presents the results of a corpus study of the emergence of certain classes of NSUs in child language, based primarily on data from the Manchester Corpus from CHILDES. Our principal finding is the late short query effect: the main classes of non-sentential queries (NSQs) are acquired much later than non-sentential answers (NSAs). At a stage when the child has productive use of sentential queries, and has mastered elliptical declaratives and the polar lexemes ‘yes’ and ‘no’, non-sentential questions are virtually absent. This happens despite the fact that such questions are common in the speech of the child's caregivers and that the contexts are ones which should facilitate the production of such NSUs. We argue that these results are intrinsically problematic for analyses of NSUs in terms of a single, generalized mechanism of phonological reduction, as standard in generative grammar. We show how to model this effect within an approach of dialogue-oriented constructionism, wherein NSUs are grammatical words or constructions whose main predicate is a contextual parameter resolved in a manner akin to indexical terms, the relevant aspect of context being the discourse topic. We sketch an explanation for the order of acquisition of NSUs, based on a notion which combines accessibility of contextual parameters and complexity of content construction.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Issue 3 , November 2009 , pp. 641 - 673
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

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

[1]

Earlier versions of this paper were presented at the 2002 LAGB meeting in Manchester, at the 2003 Georgetown Roundtable in Washington and at CLRF'04 at Stanford, and at seminars in Durham, Essex, and Edinburgh. We wish to thank audiences there for many useful comments and others who have discussed issues related to the paper, in particular Bob Borsley, Penelope Brown, Harald Clahsen, Eve Clark, Robin Cooper, Raquel Fernández, Pat Healey, Ruth Kempson, Shalom Lappin, Elena Lieven, and David Schlangen. This work has been supported by grant number RES-000-23-0065 from the Economic and Social Research Council of the United Kingdom, by a Research Leave Grant AH/E50440X from the Arts and Humanities Research Council of the United Kingdom, and by the EU project Dealing with Uncertainty in Dialogue (DEAWU). Many thanks to Raquel Fernández and David Schlangen for corpus processing software and other computational assistance and to Marina Kolokode for help with an initial pilot study. We would also like to thank two anonymous reviewers for the Journal of Linguistics for many useful suggestions, and Ewa Jaworska and an external copy-editor for the Journal of Linguistics for their assiduous reading of the manuscript. Thanks also to Ewa for her help and patience in getting the paper to press.

References

REFERENCES

Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex. 2003. Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barton, Ellen L. 1988. Fragments. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Merkin, Susan & Wooten, Janet. 1982. Wh-questions: Linguistic factors that contribute to the sequence of acquisition. Child Development 53, 1084–1092.Google Scholar
Bloom, Lois, Rocissano, Lorraine & Hood, Lois. 1976. Adult–child discourse: Developmental interaction between information processing and linguistic interaction. Cognitive Psychology 8, 521–552.Google Scholar
Brown, Roger. 1973. A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Roger & Hanlon, Camille. 1970. Derivational complexity and order of acquisition. In Hayes, John R. (ed.), Cognition and the development of language, 11–53. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Burnard, Lou. 2000. Reference guide for the British National Corpus (world edition). Oxford: Oxford University Computing Services.Google Scholar
Chung, Sandra, Ladusaw, William A. & McCloskey, James. 1995. Sluicing and logical form. Natural Language Semantics 3, 239–282.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cooper, Robin. 2006. Austinian truth in Martin-Löf type theory. Research on Language and Computation 3, 333–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalrymple, Mary, Pereira, Fernando & Shieber, Stuart M.. 1991. Ellipsis and higher order unification. Linguistics and Philosophy 14, 399–452.Google Scholar
Fernández, Raquel. 2006. Non-sentential utterances in dialogue: Classification, resolution and use. Ph.D. dissertation, King's College London.Google Scholar
Fernández, Raquel & Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2002. Non-sentential utterances: A corpus-based study. Traitement automatique des langues 43, 13–42.Google Scholar
Fernández, Raquel, Ginzburg, Jonathan & Lappin, Shalom. 2007. Classifying ellipsis in dialogue: A machine learning approach. Computational Linguistics 33, 397–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, Charles & Kay, Paul. 1999. Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The what's x doing y? construction. Language 75, 1–33.Google Scholar
Gallagher, T. 1981. Contingent query sequences within adult–child discourse. Journal of Child Language 8, 51–62.Google Scholar
Gardent, Claire, Kohlhase, Michael & van Leusen, Noor. 1996. Corrections and higher-order unification. Natural Language Processing and Speech Technology: Results of the 3rd KONVENS Conference, 268–279.Google Scholar
Garvey, Catherine. 1979. Contingent queries and their relations in discourse. In Ochs, Elinor & Schieffelin, Bambi B. (eds.), Developmental pragmatics, 68–97. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1996. Interrogatives: Questions, facts, and dialogue. In Lappin, Shalom (ed.), Handbook of contemporary semantic theory, 385–422. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 1999. Ellipsis resolution with syntactic presuppositions. In Bunt, Harry & Muskens, Reinhard (eds.), Computing meaning: Current issues in computational semantics (Studies in Linguistics and Philosophy 73), 255–280. Amsterdam: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan. 2009. The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation (>CSLI Studies in Computational Linguistics). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications. [To be published 2010; draft available from http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/ginzburg/tis.pdf]CSLI+Studies+in+Computational+Linguistics).+Stanford,+CA:+CSLI+Publications.+[To+be+published+2010;+draft+available+from+http://www.dcs.kcl.ac.uk/staff/ginzburg/tis.pdf]>Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Cooper, Robin. 2004. Clarification, ellipsis, and the nature of contextual updates. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 297–366.Google Scholar
Ginzburg, Jonathan & Sag, Ivan A.. 2000. Interrogative investigations: The form, meaning and use of English interrogatives (CSLI Lecture Notes 123). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 2000. Modelling grammar growth: Universal grammar without innate principles or parameters. Revised and expanded version of a paper presented at GALA 97, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Hausser, R. 1983. The syntax and semantics of English mood. In Kiefer, Ferenc (ed.), Questions and answers, 97–158. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Larsson, Staffan. 2002. Issue-based dialogue management. Ph.D. dissertation, Gothenburg University.Google Scholar
Levinson, Steven. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McTear, Michael. 1985. Children's conversation. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2002. The syntax of silence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Merchant, Jason. 2004. Fragments. Linguistics and Philosophy 27, 661–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1973. Sentence fragments and the notion ‘sentence’. In Kachru, Braj B., Lees, Robert B., Malkiel, Yakov, Pietrangeli, Angelina & Saporta, Sol (eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in honor of Henry and Renée Kahane, 719–751. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Christoph & Strube, Michael. 2001. MMAX: A tool for the annotation of multimodal corpora. 2nd IJCAI Workshop on Knowledge and Reasoning in Practical Dialogue Systems, 45–50. Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Ninio, Anat & Snow, Catherine. 1996. Pragmatic development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Pulman, Stephen G. 1997. Higher order unification and the interpretation of focus. Linguistics and Philosophy 20, 73–115.Google Scholar
Purver, Matthew. 2001. SCoRE: A tool for searching the BNC (Technical Report TR-01-07). London: King's College London.Google Scholar
Purver, Matthew. 2004. The theory and use of clarification in dialogue. Ph.D. dissertation, King's College London.Google Scholar
Purver, Matthew, Ginzburg, Jonathan & Healey, Patrick. 2001. On the means for clarification in dialogue. In Van Kuppevelt, Jan & Smith, Ronnie W. (eds.), Current and new directions in discourse and dialogue, 235–256. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige. 1996. Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. In Toon, Jae-Hak & Kathol, Andreas (eds.), Papers in semantics (Ohio State University Working Papers in Linguistics 49), 91–136. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Rodriguez, Kepa Joseba & Schlangen, David. 2004. Form, intonation and function of clarification requests in German task-oriented spoken dialogues. In Ginzburg, Jonathan & Vallduví, Enric (eds.), Catalog '04: The Eighth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue. Barcelona: Department of Translation and Philology, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
Ross, John R. 1969. Guess who. 5th Annual Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society (CLS 5), 252–286.Google Scholar
Rowland, Caroline F., Pine, Julian M., Lieven, Elena V. M. & Theakston, Anna L.. 2003. Determinants of acquisition order in wh-questions: Re-evaluating the role of caregiver speech. Journal of Child Language 30, 609–635.Google Scholar
Sag, Ivan A. 1997. English relative clause constructions. Journal of Linguistics 33, 431–484.Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail & Sacks, Harvey. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53, 361–382.Google Scholar
Schlangen, David. 2003. A coherence-based approach to the interpretation of non-sentential utterances in dialogue. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Schwarzschild, Roger. 1999. GIVENness, Avoid F and other constraints on the placement of accent. Natural Language Semantics 7, 141–177.Google Scholar
Stainton, Robert J. 2005. Words and thoughts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stainton, Robert J. & Elugardo, Reinaldo. 2004. Ellipsis and nonsentential speech. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Stephany, Ursula. 1995. The acquisition of Greek. In Slobin, Dan I. (ed.), The crosslinguistic study of language acquisition, vol. 4, 183–333. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Theakston, Anna L., Lieven, Elena, Pine, Julian & Rowland, Caroline. 2001. The role of performance limitations in the acquisition of verb argument structure. Journal of Child Language 28, 127–152.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
van de Weijer, Jeroen. 2001. The importance of single-word utterances for early word recognition. In Early lexicon acquisition: Normal and pathological development. Lyon: Universite Lumiere Lyon.Google Scholar
Van Kuppevelt, Jan. 1995. Discourse structure, topicality and questioning. Journal of Linguistics 31, 109–147.Google Scholar