Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:43:47.517Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors contributing to child scrambling: evidence from Ukrainian*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 August 2011

ROKSOLANA MYKHAYLYK
ROKSOLANA MYKHAYLYK*
Affiliation:
Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics (CASTL), University of Tromsø
*
Address for correspondence: Roksolana Mykhaylyk, Center for Advanced Study in Theoretical Linguistics (CASTL), Faculty of Humanities, Social Sciences and Education, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway. tel: (47) 776-45-893; e-mail: roksolana.mykhaylyk@uit.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines the word order phenomenon of optional scrambling in Ukrainian. It aims to test factors such as semantic features and object type that have been shown to affect scrambling in other languages. Forty-one children between 2 ; 7 and 6 ; 0, and twenty adult speakers participated in an elicited production experiment. The picture description task was used to set appropriate semantic contexts to prompt the production of scrambled structures. The results demonstrate that the children scrambled at higher rates in definite/partitive contexts than in indefinite/non-specific contexts. This suggests that children are susceptible to the same semantic features that are associated with NP scrambling in adult production. However, they differ from adults in pronominal scrambling and approximate adult scrambling behaviour only around four to five years. These findings underline the complex nature of syntax/semantics/phonology correlation in scrambling, and contribute to our understanding of the issue of optionality in child and adult grammar.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 39 , Issue 3 , June 2012 , pp. 553 - 579
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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

[*]

Previous versions of this article have been presented at GALA 9th and The Acquisition Workshop at GLOW-32. I thank the audiences at these meetings, as well as Irina Sekerina, Kenneth Wexler, John F. Bailyn, Richard Larson, Heejeong Ko and the Acquisition group at CASTL for helpful comments and discussions.

References

REFERENCES

Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K. & Rodina, Y. (2009). The acquisition of focus: The case of object shift. Paper presented at GALA 9, September 9–11, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
Anderssen, M., Bentzen, K., Rodina, Y. & Westergaard, W. (2010). The acquisition of apparent optionality: Word order in subject and object shift constructions in Norwegian. In Anderssen, M. et al. (eds), Variation in the input, 241–70. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Avrutin, S. & Brun, D. (2001). The expression of specificity in a language without determiners: Evidence from child Russian. In Do, A., Dominguez, L. & Johansen, A. (eds), Proceedings of the 25th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 70–81. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Balog, H. L. & Snow, D. (2007). The adaptation and application of relational and independent analyses for intonation production in young children. Journal of Phonetics 35, 118–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbier, I. (2000). An experimental study of scrambling and object shift in the acquisition of Dutch. In Powers, S. M. & Hamann, C. (eds), The acquisition of scrambling and cliticization, 41–69. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behrens, H. & Gut, U. (2005). The relationship between prosodic and syntactic organization in early multiword speech. Journal of Child Language 32, 1–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biskup, P. (2006). Scrambling in Czech: Syntax, semantics, and Information Structure. In Proceedings of NWLC 21. UBC Working Papers in Linguistics, 1–15.Google Scholar
Brun, D. (2005). What children definitely know about definiteness: Evidence from Russian. In Franks, S., Gladney, F. Y. & Tasseva-Kurktchieva, M. (eds), Formal approaches to Slavic linguistics 13, 68–79. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Chen, A. & Fikkert, P. (2007). Intonation of early two-word utterances in Dutch. In Trouvain, J. & William, J. B. (eds), Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 315–20. Pirrot GmbH: Dudweiler.Google Scholar
Clahsen, H. & Muysken, P. (1986). The availability of Universal Grammar to adult and child learners – a study of the acquisition of German word order. Second Language Research 2, 93–119.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. (2003). Syntactic manifestations of very early pragmatic competence. In Beachley, B., Brown, A. & Conlin, F. (eds), Proceedings of the 27th annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, 209–219. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
De Cat, C. (2009). Experimental evidence for preschoolers' mastery of topic. Language Acquisition 16(4), 224–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Hoop, H. (1992). Case configuration and noun phrase interpretation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groeningen.Google Scholar
De Hoop, H. (2003). Scrambling in Dutch: Optionality and Optimality. In Karimi, S. (ed.), Word order and scrambling, 201–216. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Villiers, J., Cahillane, J. & Altreuter, E. (2006). What can production reveal about Principle B? In Deen, K. U., Nomura, J., Schulz, B. & Schwartz, B. D. (eds), The Proceedings of the Inaugural Conference on Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition–North America, 89–100. University of Connecticut Occasional Papers in Linguistics 4.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. (1992). Indefinites. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Diesing, M. (1997). Yiddish VP structure and the typology of object movement. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 15(2), 369–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diesing, M. & Jelenek, E. (1993). The syntax and semantics of object shift. Working Papers in Scandinavian Syntax 51, 1–54.Google Scholar
Dyakonova, M. (2004). Information structure development: Evidence from acquisition of word order in Russian and English. Nordlyd: Tromso Working Papers on Language and Linguistics 32(1), 88–109.Google Scholar
Dyakonova, M. (2009). A phase-based approach to Russian free word order. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Enç, M. (1991). The semantics of specificity. Linguistic Inquiry 22, 1–25.Google Scholar
Firbas, J. (1964). On defining the theme in functional sentence perspective. Travaux linguistiques de Prague 1, 267–80.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. D. & Sag, I. (1982). Referential and quantificational indefinites. Linguistics and Philosophy 5, 355–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordishevsky, G. & Avrutin, S. (2004). Optional omissions in an optionally null subject language. In van Kampen, J. & Baauw, S. (eds), Proceedings of GALA 2003, Vol. 1, 187–198. LOT Occasional series 3, University of Utrecht.Google Scholar
Heim, I. (1991). On the projection problem for presuppositions. In Davis, S. (ed.), Pragmatics, 397–405. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holmberg, A. (1999). Remarks on Holmberg's Generalization, Studia Linguistica 53(1), 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopp, H. (2005). Constraining second language word order optionality: Scrambling in advanced English−German and Japanese−German interlanguage. Second Language Research 21, 34–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ilić, T. & Deen, K. U.. (2004). Object raising and cliticization in Serbo-Croatian child language. In van Kampen, J. & Baauw, S. (eds), Proceedings of the 2003 GALA Conference, 235–43. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
Ionin, T., Ko, H. & Wexler, K. (2004). Article semantics in L2 acquisition: The role of specificity. Language Acquisition 12(1), 3–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Josefsson, G. (1996). The acquisition of object shift in Swedish child language. In Johnson, C. E. & Gilbert, J. H. V. (eds), Children's Language 9, 153–65. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kornfilt, J. (1994). Some remarks on the interaction of case and word order in Turkish: Implications for acquisition. In Lust, B., Suner, M. & Whitman, J. (eds), Syntactic theory and first language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives, Vol. 1, 171–99. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
Mykhaylyk, R. & Ko, H. (2008). Object scrambling and specificity in bilingual English−Ukrainian acquisition. In Antonenko, A., Bailyn, J. F., Bethin, & C. Y. (eds), Annual Workshop on FASL. The Stony Brook Meeting 2007. Ann Arbor: Michigan Slavic Publications.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A. & Weerman, F. (1997). L1 and L2 word order acquisition. Language Acquisition 6, 125–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otsu, Y. (1994). Early acquisition of scrambling in Japanese. In Hoekstra, T. & Schwartz, B. (eds), Language acquisition studies in generative grammar, 253–64. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Penner, Z., Tracy, R. & Weissenborn, J. (2000). Where scrambling begins: Triggering object scrambling at the early stage in German and Bernese Swiss German. In Powers, S. M. & Hamann, C. (eds), The acquisition of scrambling and cliticization, 127–65. Dordrecht, Boston, London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prieto, P. & Vanrell, M. M. (2007). Early intonational development in Catalan. In Trouvain, J. & William, J. B. (eds), Proceedings of the XVIth International Congress of Phonetic Sciences, 309–314. Dudweiler: Pirrot GmbH.Google Scholar
Richards, M. (2006). Weak pronouns, object shift and multiple spell-out: Evidence for phases at the PF-interface. In Boeckx, C. (ed.), Minimalist essays, 160–81. Amsterdam, New York: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaeffer, J. (2000). The acquisition of direct object scrambling and clitic placement. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sgall, P., Hajičová, E. & Panevová, J. (1986). The meaning of the sentence in its semantic and pragmatic aspects. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Slioussar, N. (2007). Grammar and Information Structure: A study with reference to Russian. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Snow, D. & Balog, H. L. (2002). Do children produce the melody before the words? A review of developmental intonation research. Lingua 112, 1025–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spenader, J., Smits, E.-J. & Hendriks, P. (2009). Coherent discourse solves the pronoun interpretation problem. Journal of Child Language 36, 23–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thráinsson, H. (2001). Object shift and scrambling. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (eds), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory, 148–202. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Unsworth, S. & Helder, C. (2008) Dissolving a Dutch delay: The case of specific indefinite. In Freitas, M. J. and Gavarró, A. (eds) Proceedings of Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition 07, 472–782. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Unsworth, S. (2005). Child L1, child L2 and adult L2 acquisition: Differences and similarities. A study on the acquisition of direct object scrambling in Dutch. Doctoral dissertation, Utrecht University.Google Scholar
Van Geenhoven, V. (1998). Semantic Incorporation and indefinite descriptions: Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Van Gelderen, V. (2003). Scrambling unscrambled. Doctoral dissertation, University of Leiden.Google Scholar
Westergaard, M. R. (2008). Verb movement and subject placement in the acquisition of word order: Pragmatics or structural economy? In Guijarro-Fuentes, P., Larranaga, P. & Clibbens, J. (eds), First language acquisition of morphology and syntax: Perspectives across languages and learners, 61–86. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yokoyama, O. (1986). Discourse and word order. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar