00:00:02
very different from the earlier part but
00:00:05
absolutely still about meeting change
00:00:09
I don't normally work on occasion but I
00:00:12
was postdoc here at you know I think it
00:00:13
just marinate it in my head area however
00:00:18
after being here I think Oh actually the
00:00:20
Asians really exciting so having the
00:00:23
negation and child language experts that
00:00:25
I know give me feedback in there
00:00:26
hopefully what we go pull so this is
00:00:28
just very much an early stage project
00:00:30
and Indian assured me that that was a
00:00:32
good thing for this workshop so I would
00:00:34
love love the feedback it started so
00:00:38
here's a here's two episodes from two
00:00:41
and a half year old are you ever
00:00:43
appearance you not like these purple
00:00:45
pants you can pick up different ones but
00:00:47
you need to put on some pants
00:00:48
I want any pants hi I think anyone I am
00:00:52
NOT what pants same age range hey what's
00:00:57
in the bag anything so this perfect in
00:01:04
Formosa Zoo so should we get discussion
00:01:06
wearing many parents of younger children
00:01:08
than that reporting oh they said my kids
00:01:10
is not any I don't know what your kid is
00:01:13
doing turns up slightly older children
00:01:15
so yeah my kid does this to uses any
00:01:17
stuff with a negative meaning and so you
00:01:20
know work for a minute here familiar
00:01:22
language is not an unfamiliar pattern to
00:01:23
have something sort of correct but
00:01:25
holistically was analyzed and then do it
00:01:28
a little bit wrong and then do it right
00:01:29
again so I think the overall picture is
00:01:31
something like that but if this child
00:01:35
acquisition of the Asian is extremely
00:01:37
well studied but this particular corner
00:01:39
of the interaction in English between
00:01:41
negative polarity items negative items a
00:01:44
negation this is a little bit less
00:01:45
though so that's the angle I'm teaching
00:01:49
so for those of you who are familiar
00:01:51
with this corner of English and language
00:01:54
generally you can say Alex set some
00:01:56
cookies Alex didn't have some cookies
00:01:58
you can say Alex if you have any
00:02:01
but Alex had any cookies is weird right
00:02:03
that doesn't kids I couldn't get mad at
00:02:06
you but certainly not with the same
00:02:08
evening as first one but really they're
00:02:11
not going to hear that an input at all
00:02:12
but this isn't just that any comes with
00:02:15
Nick issue it's a little more
00:02:16
complicated than that so you can say did
00:02:18
Alex have any cookies natural 100 you if
00:02:21
Alex said it because everyone's gonna
00:02:23
eat cookies and so it won't go into the
00:02:26
literature on that distribution of
00:02:28
environments in which any is a good
00:02:31
meaning it's a good replacement for some
00:02:34
basically but but is that okay for a kid
00:02:38
figuring out what any means
00:02:39
wow you know they have to figure out
00:02:41
that you can use it in these
00:02:43
environments but not the simple case and
00:02:47
if you think about what it did not any
00:02:51
means it basically means the same as the
00:02:53
top one without some cookies having a
00:02:55
special specific reading but it's a
00:02:58
complicated I mean just on its face it's
00:02:59
a complicated learning problems but they
00:03:01
can to figure out what any means and
00:03:02
there any context that license it
00:03:04
however this is where the story is a
00:03:07
little bit interesting so um there's two
00:03:10
pieces there's the not and any when it
00:03:12
comes to not there's an interesting
00:03:14
state of the literature such children
00:03:16
producing looks like no negation very
00:03:19
early looks like the earliest thing not
00:03:21
and they understand maybe not well I got
00:03:25
like four but the expression of negation
00:03:27
is rejection is very clear early on it
00:03:31
takes a long time so different ways this
00:03:34
has been shown most familiar with is it
00:03:38
carries love looking at not kids
00:03:40
understanding a truth-functional
00:03:41
negation where you're really saying it's
00:03:43
not this thing is not true not really
00:03:46
understood until age three normally and
00:03:48
really give them a lot of help that is
00:03:51
interesting and somebody who swimming
00:03:53
about that literature at the same time
00:03:55
is but I the going conventional wisdom
00:03:59
about how kids learn any is that it's
00:04:01
really easy for them and that's weird
00:04:03
cuz it was very hard right but so link
00:04:05
was talking about how easy it is to
00:04:07
learn any soul into and even animals
00:04:10
infernum talked about hey kids get any
00:04:13
right off the bat so live and jill has
00:04:16
shown in her really nice dissertation
00:04:18
from UConn the children get the right
00:04:20
licensing conditions of any as she says
00:04:23
from the Gecko so they don't use any in
00:04:26
positive environments like that Alex had
00:04:29
Alex ones any cookies and he wants some
00:04:32
cookies so she noticed that that doesn't
00:04:33
happen and with other sort of work from
00:04:37
the nineties shows that they get the
00:04:39
right scope and it's essential
00:04:42
interpretation I'm going to pick up a
00:04:43
little bit
00:04:44
yeah the going story is that kids are
00:04:46
good at anything the first two pictures
00:04:49
were not they were stuccos but these are
00:04:51
might my actual kids and the the
00:04:53
one-year-old
00:04:54
who she's like one two basically and the
00:04:57
three and a half year old have extremely
00:04:59
different so they were basically full of
00:05:02
meant edges here so the one y'all can
00:05:03
just reject things and that's three and
00:05:06
a half year old we talked about you know
00:05:07
there's not gonna be any soccer on
00:05:08
Friday because it's raining like there's
00:05:10
a very sophisticated production and
00:05:13
comprehension of not any so between
00:05:14
month that's three and a half what's
00:05:16
going on
00:05:18
and so give you the pictures you could
00:05:20
picture like little ones not saying much
00:05:22
complicated although we can talk about a
00:05:23
lot so what's that trajectory look like
00:05:26
so something we know about kids in the
00:05:28
middle is that between that person
00:05:31
occasion and like rejection and
00:05:34
interpreting negation or adult like so
00:05:37
kids will be able to say negation but if
00:05:40
you tell them hey where's the ball it's
00:05:42
not in the bucket they don't then look
00:05:44
behind the house which is crazy so this
00:05:47
is romance where is it in the bucket
00:05:49
no kids still don't necessarily
00:05:52
at the house for the day right I just
00:05:53
like it's hard to believe it you can
00:05:55
give them more context and they can do
00:05:58
better
00:05:58
down to h2 but still a one-year-old who
00:06:01
can really like you don't give the ball
00:06:02
to daddy we'll go do it won't be able to
00:06:05
use this kind of information to act
00:06:07
appropriately right so as I think
00:06:10
sometimes in the lingo they have no I
00:06:13
don't want this thing so they must just
00:06:14
not heard it right here something they
00:06:16
really must they have some idea of
00:06:18
negation and having menon and enough
00:06:22
presence of susan over the last couple
00:06:24
years I've really tried to work hard
00:06:25
about like okay what do we mean when
00:06:26
they learn not right so clearly there
00:06:30
this is something like a truth
00:06:32
conditional negation like it's not in
00:06:34
the house not in the bucket you can't
00:06:36
think about this is rejection sake woman
00:06:40
is really commenting on the state of
00:06:41
affairs about the world and that's hard
00:06:42
for kids and so here's the working
00:06:45
hypothesis and then I'm gonna solve the
00:06:47
hypothesis and then give you a bunch of
00:06:49
data from me and others that I think
00:06:52
supports it and then talk about how to
00:06:55
test it more specifically going forward
00:06:57
so okay the intermediate stage of
00:07:00
negative words before sentential
00:07:02
negation so the question is like what
00:07:04
they mean in that range with like
00:07:06
two-year-olds how they got from just
00:07:07
rejection just something like real
00:07:09
sometimes litigation I think that so
00:07:12
there hasn't some work on this but that
00:07:14
hasn't looked at any words for good
00:07:16
reason that's not normally what we're
00:07:18
doing English but I actually think it
00:07:20
provides some helpful insight these are
00:07:22
the things any is you know oh this is
00:07:24
restrictive environment but it's
00:07:26
actually how we usually quantify things
00:07:28
when we're talking about the emptiness
00:07:30
of something in a more complex and
00:07:33
mystic environment so for adult English
00:07:35
speakers negative words like none
00:07:38
potential vacation or don't speakers of
00:07:41
English these are separate negations
00:07:43
so I don't have no Mookie's for adult
00:07:47
speaker standard English it means you
00:07:49
have something like somebody said oh you
00:07:50
have no cookies and I say no I don't
00:07:51
have no cookies I have some it's
00:07:53
hilarious not this kind of metal
00:07:55
mystic he kind of thing but you're
00:07:58
coming to this okay you need some
00:07:59
context that usually but the two things
00:08:02
contribute savage negation but of course
00:08:06
there are other languages in the world
00:08:07
where it doesn't work like that at all
00:08:08
so for speakers of other languages if
00:08:11
you have a sentential negation thing
00:08:13
like it doesn't or something Marquart
00:08:15
negation and you have another negative
00:08:18
modifier then you interpret these are
00:08:20
the single negation and so the idea is
00:08:22
that for two-year-olds
00:08:24
they have first thing on this rejection
00:08:26
then they of course you know they have
00:08:28
concepts of things like emptiness or
00:08:30
maybe not and so they're learning
00:08:31
something where it's like one and two
00:08:33
and three maybe they've also alerted so
00:08:35
there's nothing here that's different
00:08:37
than truth the conditional negation for
00:08:39
sure but if you learn not in any is the
00:08:41
main thing that's giving you the
00:08:42
negative meaning that not didn't it's
00:08:46
really kind of that extra maybe it's
00:08:48
extra flavoring but that's not really
00:08:50
kind of the kids are gonna ignore that
00:08:52
present as a holistic so English reading
00:08:55
tutorials taking hope the whole the
00:08:57
whole thing is holistic and that's the
00:09:00
thing that happens in other languages so
00:09:02
I picked a polish example just because
00:09:04
we were talking about Polish a lot
00:09:05
yesterday so Janet I don't know polish
00:09:09
so hopefully this is read Janet doesn't
00:09:11
help nobody that last word you can use
00:09:15
it to say who's here nobody ecomo and it
00:09:19
means answer to a question so it's a
00:09:21
negative word it's not like anyway if I
00:09:22
say in English who's here anybody that's
00:09:25
not that doesn't mean nobody's here
00:09:26
that's just a weird answer
00:09:28
but that's how you were diagnosed this
00:09:31
really isn't a bit of word so Jan
00:09:33
doesn't help nobody and polish just
00:09:34
means the same that unit doesn't help
00:09:36
anybody in English this way love her
00:09:40
like everything you want no I'm gonna
00:09:45
exactly sure in terms of the syntactic
00:09:47
semantic mapping what kids are doing if
00:09:50
it really looks like that a little bit
00:09:52
like it don't make it fun part I
00:09:54
actually I don't want to say that they
00:09:56
have something that's really like an
00:09:57
Italian speaker or like a Polish speaker
00:10:00
because I don't think about staying they
00:10:02
really do have something like a negation
00:10:03
of local sentence
00:10:05
and a real negative quantifier but the
00:10:07
two-year-old it seems like they're not
00:10:09
able to do that they want to express
00:10:10
like I have nothing and that having the
00:10:14
negation there and the sentence they
00:10:16
either they seem to ignore it a lot in
00:10:18
comprehension or just think like no it's
00:10:20
part of the thing I usually stay when I
00:10:22
haven't done an ad that's not I mean a
00:10:26
little bit like what adults do but not
00:10:28
really there's something real for an
00:10:29
adult in fact you have that it's
00:10:31
obligatory for a Polish Peter to have
00:10:33
radiation they're like classic signature
00:10:37
of a negative current languages they
00:10:39
have to have the potentially Asian here
00:10:40
so but telling it is not like that
00:10:42
they're producing these things without
00:10:43
this intentional negation the idea is to
00:10:45
them that's not the important part is
00:10:47
the quantifier okay so what what's the
00:10:50
evidence for this besides some
00:10:52
productions of Annie without sentential
00:10:54
vacation so one of the most strong
00:10:58
pieces of evidence comes from a recent
00:11:00
glossa article just a year or two ago
00:11:02
not because it's three years ago when I
00:11:05
got it it was a beard
00:11:06
so showing that children in that water
00:11:10
range of unit three to five-year-old
00:11:12
three to five-year-olds speaking English
00:11:15
actually prefer negative Concord
00:11:18
readings which for adults are usually
00:11:20
only available with other dialects of
00:11:22
English with my standard English so even
00:11:24
kids whose parents will interpret the
00:11:27
girl who skipped didn't buy nothing as
00:11:29
sort of rejecting the fact that she
00:11:32
bought that and so you would if you're
00:11:33
me I would say that out of context where
00:11:35
you say hey the girl who skipped bought
00:11:37
nothing when I say no the Bravo scripted
00:11:38
by I think that she bought a cup of tea
00:11:41
or something right and but for kids
00:11:44
they'll take that sentence and interpret
00:11:47
it with what basically is a Concord
00:11:49
meaning meaning one negation right they
00:11:52
won't interpret it with the positive
00:11:53
reading for an adult which cancels each
00:11:55
other out
00:11:56
intriguingly Japanese I don't know a lot
00:12:01
about but I do know that the word that
00:12:05
these four question words you can put
00:12:07
question weird marking on things and you
00:12:08
can have basically ambiguous
00:12:10
interpretations and kids prefer to
00:12:14
Concord meetings so basically they
00:12:16
prefer to have this word interpreted as
00:12:18
basically two minutes as the second
00:12:21
expression of the same condition rather
00:12:23
than my negative polarity later so
00:12:26
there's a bit like Concord multiple
00:12:28
expressions of things that are negative
00:12:29
comes easily because that's what they
00:12:31
prefer um I think that's implicit in
00:12:33
this by the linguist is the idea that
00:12:35
the sentential negation is there and so
00:12:38
what's weird is that kids think this
00:12:40
quantifier is conquered basically but
00:12:42
actually I suspect that what is that
00:12:45
it's the financial negation that is not
00:12:47
so much there for the kid and so if you
00:12:49
kind of don't think about didn't write
00:12:52
the girl who skipped bought nothing then
00:12:53
you
00:12:54
the Concord meeting versus the girls get
00:12:56
bought something you get the double
00:12:59
negation meeting right and so if they're
00:13:03
hearing the girl who skipped but by
00:13:05
nothing you're I mean I'm asking they're
00:13:08
ignoring it entirely and they might
00:13:09
think of something extra methyl
00:13:10
expressive but if they're not really
00:13:12
getting the substantial deviation three
00:13:14
to five girls can sometimes but they
00:13:16
have a bias kind of against that in
00:13:17
towards the quantifiers the expression
00:13:19
indication that I knew expect this kind
00:13:21
of number like this is a totally
00:13:24
different language but it's when I'm the
00:13:26
most familiar with outside in English so
00:13:28
in American Sign Language and all the
00:13:30
sign languages in which this has been
00:13:32
studied there's a very hopeful
00:13:34
phenomenon I think for this question
00:13:36
which is that the negation is often
00:13:38
expressed through the quote intenational
00:13:41
system it's super segmental it's through
00:13:43
the headshake so this whole system of
00:13:46
manual marking on your head
00:13:47
is usually thought of as a superset
00:13:49
members of the segmental pieces of the
00:13:52
language which have ammonia hands and an
00:13:54
American sign language of the zinc's
00:13:56
rating in the USA it's not reading you
00:13:57
shake your head there's not really so
00:14:00
that's how you get the different
00:14:02
meanings so that's how you basically
00:14:04
immersed okay you've got a very
00:14:06
complicated sentence your head shake
00:14:08
throughout it means not that if you have
00:14:10
a negative word in the sentence
00:14:12
so here's nothing and ASI you have to
00:14:15
shake your haven't seen a people nothing
00:14:17
I mean this is just like the dictionary
00:14:20
citation floor and she puts the super
00:14:22
segmental marking on it of head shaking
00:14:24
negation and the developmental
00:14:26
trajectory this has been replicated over
00:14:28
lower I should have cited
00:14:30
Riley is work 70 is on this I'm sorry I
00:14:35
didn't but they found is that first kids
00:14:39
learning a sign language
00:14:41
do head shake negation don't go home
00:14:43
just like any why I'm just like girl
00:14:45
shakes her head Tanisha it's very easy
00:14:46
it's also an adult beginner and then the
00:14:50
intermediate stage in which kids
00:14:53
learning a sign language well just use
00:14:56
the negative nominal science without the
00:14:58
handshake it's just really great reason
00:15:00
they got this none without a handshake
00:15:03
then later again following a card like
00:15:07
this back together and then they're
00:15:09
getting a head shake with a negative
00:15:10
word so the idea I think is part of the
00:15:16
story that hasn't been realized enough
00:15:18
is that or maybe it has my name just
00:15:20
that way that sort of pretends that
00:15:23
lexical expressions in the nation
00:15:25
especially quantification expressing
00:15:27
phonetic empty-nesters Melanie here is
00:15:29
easier and actually this first agency no
00:15:33
rejection it's often thought of as a
00:15:36
totally normal morphosyntactic genome
00:15:38
but I think there's a semantics I to
00:15:40
that too so a lot of those lines that
00:15:45
came out this from yeah so in Linda's
00:15:46
dissertation she was looking at the
00:15:48
development any should it really be to
00:15:50
just study basically a lot of
00:15:52
childís looking for any any errors of
00:15:55
commission to errors of commission of
00:15:57
any but united there's really only like
00:15:59
40 feet of them it's very small number
00:16:01
in here large so lots of times kids will
00:16:03
express any under negation turning
00:16:05
questions at the parents well here she
00:16:08
notes that to one-year-old again right
00:16:11
in the age range lots of thoughts into
00:16:13
the orange juice squeeze orange is
00:16:14
orange
00:16:15
yeah I'm what I mean you don't know
00:16:20
right
00:16:21
so the kid does it one or two three and
00:16:25
let's argue that really good right which
00:16:29
is really cool they understand that
00:16:30
anything was negative meaning
00:16:32
but I mean notably they're using the
00:16:34
Eddy there it's true the licensing
00:16:36
condition if you think of a semantically
00:16:38
is that right it's negative but right so
00:16:41
but they are producing this you know
00:16:43
there's these examples the purpose of
00:16:44
any without that occasion I'll skip over
00:16:47
this to say okay here's the hypothesis
00:16:51
this case no there's so much more going
00:16:54
on but at least know that nothing which
00:16:58
have lexical expressions for and kids
00:17:00
will do that something conditional like
00:17:02
this of course there's the language
00:17:05
specific knowledge which is what you
00:17:06
have this what's this do you do it with
00:17:10
the negative word special word that
00:17:12
maybe gives you extra information about
00:17:14
school property is a me which the
00:17:17
reasons languages can work like that
00:17:18
there's a couple other I think pieces of
00:17:22
the story so in some work that I did
00:17:25
looks like and at Harvard we were
00:17:28
looking at the emergence of
00:17:29
quantification in a new language later
00:17:31
on tonight language and no problem you
00:17:34
lion of all kinds of quantifiers lexical
00:17:37
quantifiers only well you find
00:17:39
expressions of quantification in the
00:17:40
language very early from the girliest
00:17:42
towards all signers of all cohorts
00:17:44
expressed all many none they all saw
00:17:50
something like none but was really hard
00:17:52
to do the very compelling the hub is
00:17:54
their listeners and things like that was
00:17:56
hard to do the curtis weather at the
00:17:57
comment on you know the beers there were
00:18:00
none we tried to make it relational set
00:18:02
relational so between the 7s that was
00:18:04
overlap but it's pretty hard to do to be
00:18:06
sure you're not doing some kind of okay
00:18:09
very important to sure that it's not
00:18:11
something like the middle eating there
00:18:13
instead of the last meeting I think that
00:18:17
there is typical for this conference
00:18:20
with the flux conference trying to think
00:18:22
about what this means for like a
00:18:23
well-known cycle a language change in
00:18:24
which you have something like I do you
00:18:27
have a potentially even negative marker
00:18:29
and then another way you can seize
00:18:31
identification is to have some kind of
00:18:33
like other expression or mutation here
00:18:36
it's something like that I didn't say a
00:18:39
step or something but you can also have
00:18:41
negative words there like yeah I am
00:18:47
happy to kind of be emphatic about it
00:18:51
and then you can drop this so in
00:18:55
underground is a just with this last
00:18:58
thing you kind of drop this intentional
00:18:59
issue and I mean I think that ties
00:19:02
between kids acquisition and I mean the
00:19:05
diachronic development term very
00:19:08
complicated and lots of people don't
00:19:09
present and sure saying thoughts about
00:19:10
this but I think it would be interesting
00:19:12
to think about what it means for kids to
00:19:14
be learning language to be hypothesizing
00:19:16
that it's that your potential occasion
00:19:18
is kind of secondary mm exclaims so how
00:19:22
would you go about testing this we have
00:19:24
little kind of data looking at okay Elmo
00:19:27
once doesn't want the bus know some many
00:19:30
crayons because the thing that because
00:19:32
they know it works with any crayons a
00:19:34
moments of elegance of the box in France
00:19:37
and was a box any green crayons if you
00:19:41
have a variation it's not that under
00:19:42
math you mean like a free choice at any
00:19:44
green right so for adults they do
00:19:47
exactly what you expect Elmo wants a box
00:19:49
of any blue crayons - this is sort of
00:19:54
the schematic representation of this
00:19:55
think we're government when a box of
00:19:57
crayons so this one Ernie was about
00:20:03
doing this actually with
00:20:15
there's no - she does exactly this
00:20:53
so also comments on this task very
00:20:57
welcome really yeah I wanted to act out
00:21:02
have my comprehension pass because the
00:21:04
kids are pretty gone they're sort of -
00:21:05
don't wait to them to do something like
00:21:06
a truth value so that's the background
00:21:10
man basically anything that doesn't hips
00:21:14
are pretty close to chance so it doesn't
00:21:17
really get them confused
00:21:18
and is looking like some because that
00:21:20
hasn't older kids in it and some younger
00:21:21
kids but the two kids who people that
00:21:24
I've heard I reckon that - you're hungry
00:21:25
so I'm gonna just simple what is our so
00:21:30
we need to do here's the money
00:21:31
what some people learning to do anything
00:21:44
experiment that
00:21:47
there's any with three legs of split
00:21:51
negative Concord so there's a preference
00:21:53
in both negative Concord languages
00:21:56
psychologically and in English for
00:22:00
preferring negative Concord rather than
00:22:03
double negation reading of post verbal
00:22:06
negation even the opposite preference
00:22:08
for pre verbal so you could have its
00:22:11
no-nobody fairly early on so or no you
00:22:17
know no froggies given that I'm gonna
00:22:23
claim that's negative Concord then the
00:22:25
interesting question is like what kind
00:22:26
it would be a very straightforward thing
00:22:28
to ready to whether they have a
00:22:30
preference that asymmetry between
00:22:31
something
