CHILDREN'S POSSESSIVE STRUCTURES:
A CASE STUDY 1
Andrew Radford and Joseph Galasso,
University of Essex
1998
Two-and three-year-old children generally go through
a stage during which they sporadically omit possessive 's, so alternating
between saying (e.g.) Daddy's car and Daddy car.
At roughly the same age, children also go through a stage (referred
to by Wexler 1994 as the optional infinitives stage)
during which they sporadically omit the third person singular present
tense +s inflection on verbs, so alternating between e.g. Daddy
wants one and Daddy want one. The question addressed
in this paper is whether children's sporadic omission of possessive
's is related to their sporadic omission of third person singular
present tense s-and if so, how. This question is explored in relation
to data provided by a longitudinal study conducted by Joseph Galasso
of his son Nicolas between ages 2;3 and 3;6 (based on transcripts
of weekly audio recordings of Nicolas' speech production).
Nicolas' speech production provides some prima facie
evidence of a relation between the acquisition of possessive 's
and the third person singular s: prior to age 3;2, Nicolas used
neither possessive 's nor third person singular s in obligatory
contexts; it is only from age 3;2 on that we find both morphemes
being used. The table in (1) below shows the relative frequency
of use of possessive 's and third person singular present tense
s in obligatory contexts before and after age 3;2:
(1) |
OCCURRENCE IN OBLIGATORY CONTEXTS |
|
AGE |
3sgPres s |
Poss 's |
|
2;3-3;1 |
0/69 (0%) |
0/118 (0%) |
|
3;2-3;6 |
72/168 (43%) |
14/60 (23%) |
Typical examples of nominals and clauses produced
by Nicolas at the relevant stages are given in (2) and (3) below
respectively:
(2) (a) That Mommy car (2;6). No Daddy plane (2;8).
Batman (2;11 in reply to Whose it is?). It Daddy bike, no Baby
bike. Where Daddy car? (3;0).
(b) Daddy's turn (3;2). It's
the man's paper (3;4). It's big boy Nicolas's. It's Tony's. What's
the girl's name? Where's
Zoe's bottle? (3;6)
(3) (a) Baby have bottle (2;8). No Daddy have Babar
(2;9). The car go. (2;11). The other one work (3;0). Here come
Baby (3;1).
(b) Yes, this works. This car
works. It hurts. The leg hurts. Barney leg hurts.
It
rains (3;2).
The data in (1-3) suggest a potential parallel between the acquisition
of third person singular +s and possessive 's, and raise the obvious
question of why there should be such a parallel.
From a morphological perspective, such a parallel
would not be unexpected, given that possessive 's and third person
singular s (e.g. the contracted form 's of the auxiliary is) have
the same range of overt allomorphs, as we see from (4) below:
(4) |
ALLOMORPH |
AUXILIARY |
POSSESSIVE |
|
/s/ |
Pat's coughing |
Pat's cough |
|
/z/ |
Teddy's coughing |
Teddy's cough |
|
/iz/ |
Madge's coughing |
Madge's cough |
Moreover, there are also potential syntactic parallels between
the two. Under the analysis of clause structure assumed in Chomsky
1981 and much subsequent work, a clause such as Pat's coughing would
contain an IP projection of the simplified form (5) below:
(5) [IP
Pat [I ‘s] coughing]
with 's encoding both present tense and agreement with a third
person singular subject-specifier like Pat. (See Galasso 1999 pp.126ff
for an alternative account showing the verbal morpheme +s as exclusively
marking Tense). Under the analysis of possessive structures in Kayne
(1994: p. 105), a nominal structure such as Pat's cough
would likewise contain an IP projection with the simplified structure
(6) below (with I being a nominal rather than a verbal inflectional
head):
(6) [IP
Pat [I ‘s] coughing]
and it might be argued that 's serves to encode agreement with
a third person singular subject-specifier like Pat. (Similar
analyses of English possessive structures are found in Chomsky 1995
p. 263, Zribi-Hertz 1997, and Radford 1997 p. 278). This is by no
means implausible from a universalist perspective since we find
a variety of languages which overtly mark possessor agreement: languages
as diverse as American Sign Language, Dutch and Turkish have possessor
agreement structures paraphraseable in English as 'Daddy his
car', 'Mummy her car'.
If both possessive 's and third person singular s are reflexes
of an agreement relation between an inflectional head and its specifier,
an obvious suggestion to make is that omission of third person singular
s and possessive 's may both reflect agreement failure (i.e., failure
to encode the agreement relation between an inflectional head and
its specifier). In the terminology of Schütze and Wexler (1996)
and Schütze (1997), s-less forms may be the result of the relevant
inflectional head being underspecified with respect
to the specifier-agreement features it carries. In simplified schematic
terms, we might say the clausal structures like Mummy's driving
contain an IP of the simplified form (7a) below (with INFL carrying
agreement features matching those of its subject-specifier), and
the corresponding s-less clause Mummy driving has the partial structure
(7b) (with INFL being underspecified in respect of its subject-agreement
features):
(7) (a)
[IP Mummy [I +agr ‘s] driving ]
In much the same way, we might suggest that possessive structures
like Mummy's car contain an IP projection like (8a) below
headed by an inflectional node fully specified for agreement with
its possessor-specifier Mummy, whereas s-less possessives
like Mummy car contain an IP projection like (8b) below
with an inflectional head which is underspecified with respect to
agreement with its possessor-specifier2:
(8)
(a) [IP Mummy [I +Agr ‘s] car]
(b) [IP Mummy [I -Agr ø] car]
A further assumption implicit in the analysis in (7/8) is that
's is only used where INFL is fully specified in respect of its
agreement properties; otherwise, INFL is null.
The assumption that s-less forms may be the result of agreement
underspecification has interesting implications for the case-marking
of the specifier in both nominal and clausal structures. Schütze
(1997) argues that there is a cross-linguistic correlation between
case and agreement (e.g. that an INFL which is specified for subject-agreement
has a nominative subject). Making rather different assumptions from
his (for reasons which do not affect the conclusions drawn here),
let us suppose that adult English has the following case system:
(9) An overt (pro)nominal is:
(a)
nominative if in an agreement relation with a verbal INFL
(b)
genitive if in an agreement relation with a nominal INFL
(c)
objective otherwise (by default)
If we assume (following Schütze and Wexler) that children
have acquired the morphosyntax of case and agreement by around two
years of age, and that two and three-year old children go through
a stage during which functional heads are optionally underspecified
with respect to the features they encode, we can provide a straightforward
account of why two-and three-year olds alternate between forms like
I'm playing and Me playing. The two types of clause
would have the respective (partial) structures (10a/b) below:
(10)
(a) [IP I [I +agr ‘m ] playing]
(b) [IP Me [I -agr ø] playing]
Since INFL is fully
specified for agreement in (10a), the overt auxiliary 'm is used,
and the subject is nominative by (9a). But since INFL is underspecified
with respect to agreement in (10b), it remains null and has a default
objective subject by (10b).
If-as suggested in (8a/b) above-possessive nominals contain an IP
headed by an INFL that may either be fully specified or underspecified
for agreement, we would expect to find a similar alternation between
nominal structures like (11a) below with genitive possessors and
those like (11b) with objective possessors:
(11) (a)
[IP My [I +agr ø] dolly]
(b)
[IP Me [I -agr ø] dolly]
In (11a), INFL is
fully specified for agreement with its possessor-specifier and so
the possessor has genitive case by (9b); but in (11b), INFL is underspecified
for agreement, and so its possessor-specifier has objective case
by (9c). In both structures, INFL is null because 's is used only
where the specifier is third person.
In short, the assumption that children's possessive structures
may optionally be underspecified with respect to agreement predicts
that children who go through such an underspecification stage in
the acquisition of possessives should alternate between structures
with genitive and objective possessors. The use of objective possessors
has been reported for Dutch by Hoekstra and Jordens (1994), but
not for English.
If we look at the earliest first person singular possessor structures
produced by Nicolas, we find that objective me possessors predominate
at ages 2;6-2;8, and that genitive possessives (viz. the weak form
my and the strong form mine, with occasional early confusion between
the two) are initially relatively infrequent, but gradually become
more and more frequent until they predominate by age 3;0. The table
in (12) below shows the relative frequency of objective and genitive
possessors used by Nicolas at various ages:
(12) Frequency
of occurrence of first person singular possessors
AGE
OBJECTIVE ME GENITIVE MY/MINE NOMINATIVE I
2;6-2;8
53/55 (96%) 2/55 (4%)
0/55 (0%)
2;9
11/25 (44%) 14/25 (56%)
0/25 (0%)
2;10
4/14 (29% 10/14 (71%)
0/14 (0%)
2;11
5/24 (21%) 19/24 (79%)
0/24 (0%)
3;0
4/54 (7%) 50/54 (93%)
0/54 (0%)
Examples of first
person/sing possessive structures produced by Nicolas are given
below:
(13) (a) That me
car. Have me shoe. Me and Daddy (= Mine and Daddy's).
Where
me car? I want me car. I want me bottle. I want
me woof (2;6-2;8).
(b) I want me
duck. That me chair. Where me Q-car? No me, daddy
(= It isn't mine, Daddy). Me pasta. Mine
pasta. My pasta. In my key. It my (= It's mine).
No book my (=The book isn't mine.)
(c) It is my TV.
Where is my book? Where is my baseball? Don't touch my bike. I want
my key. It's my money
(3;0).
In terms of the
analysis outlined in (11) above, the picture which the data in (12)
seem to suggest is that the possessive structures produced by Nicolas
are initially predominantly underspecified for possessor-agreement,
with agreement gradually being specified more and more frequently
(until it exceeds the traditional 90% correct use threshold by the
time he is 3 years of age).
Interestingly, there are potential parallels to be drawn with Nicolas'
use of first person singular subjects. As the examples in (14) below
illustrate, Nicolas alternates between nominative and objective
subjects in his early clause structure:
(14) (a) I am me. I am Batman. I'm sick
(2;8). I am Batman.I am Q. I am car (2;9)
(b) Me Q (2;8 = I am Q). Me in there (=I'm in
there). Me car (= I am a car) Me wet (= I'm wet).
(2;9)
The table in (15) below shows the relative frequency of I and me
subjects in copular sentences:
(15)
Frequency of I/me subjects in copular sentences
AGE NOMINATIVE I OBJECTIVE ME
2;6-2;8 10/14 (71%) 4/14 (29%)
2;9 15/19 (79%) 4/19 (21%)
2;10-3;0 51/55 (93%) 4/55 (7%)
3;1-3;6 105/111 (95%) 4/111 (5%)
In terms of the
agreement-underspecification analysis, clauses such as I'm sick
and Me wet might be argued to have the respective simplified structures
(16a/b) below:
(16)
(a) [IP I [I +agr ‘m] sick]
(b) [IP Me [I -agr ø ] wet]
In (16a) INFL is
fully specified for agreement and so is realised as 'm and has a
nominative subject by (9a), whereas in (16b) INFL is underspecified
for agreement and so has a null realisation and an objective subject
by (9c). The data in the tables in (12) and (15) would suggest that
subject-agreement is acquired more rapidly than possessor-agreement:
this may (in part) reflect the fact that agreement with a first
person singular
subject is overtly encoded on INFL (by use of am/'m), whereas
agreement with a first person singular possessor is not overtly
encoded on D (which is null).
If we turn now to
look at structures with second person possessors, we find that these
only appear in the transcripts from 3;2 onwards. The predominant
second person possessor form is initially you, but this is gradually
ousted by your over the next few months, as the figures in the table
in (17) below illustrate:
(17)
Frequency of second person possessors
AGE YOU YOUR
3;2-3;4 14/16 (88%) 2/16 (12%)
3;5 7/34 (21%) 27/34 (79%)
3;6 2/29 (7%) 27/29) (93%)
Typical examples
of second person possessor structures produced by Nicolas are given
below:
(18) (a) No you
train. (=It's not your train). No it's you train, no (idem). No
you baby, Mama baby. This is you pen
(3;2)
(b) That's your
car. It's you elephant. It's you turn. It's you kite. It's you plan.
I
got you plan. Close your eyes. It you house? No it's you house.
Where's you house? Where's you bed?
Where's your friend? (3;4)
It seems reasonable
to suppose that your possessors are genitive (as in adult English),
and that (since Nicolas never uses nominative possessors) you possessors
are objective. In terms of the analysis proposed here, nominals
like your car/you car would have the respective (sub)structures
(19a/b) below:
(19) (a)
[IP your [I +agr ø] car]
(b)
[IP you [I -agr ø] car]
In (19a), INFL is
fully specified for agreement with its second person possessor-specifier
and so the possessor has genitive case by (9b); but in (19b), INFL
is underspecifed for agreement, and so its possessor-specifier has
objective case by (9c). INFL is null in both (19a) and (19b) because
the overt possessive morpheme 's is used only where the possessor
is third person. Although we might expect to final a parallel change
from objective to nominative subjects in clausal structures, we
clearly cannot test this empirically in any straightforward fashion,
because the pronoun you serves a common nominative/objective function.
The only other pronominal
possessors used by Nicolas are the third person masculine singular
forms him/his, which first appear in the transcripts at
age 3;6. 10/13 (77%) of the relevant structures have an objective
him possessor, the remaining 3 (23%) having a genitive
his possessor. An exhaustive list of the relevant structures
is given in (20) below:
(20) (a) It's him
house. It's him hat (x2). Him eye is broken. Him bike is broken.
I want to go in him house. Help him
legs. What's him name (x3)
(b) What's his name
(x3)
In terms of the
analysis presented here, nominals such as his name/him name would
have the respective (simplified) structures (21a/b) below:
(21) (a)
[IP his [I +agr ø] name]
(b)
[IP him [I -age ø] name]
We find a genitive
his possessor by (9b) in (21a) where INFL is fully specified
for possessor-agreement, and an objective him possessor by (9c)
in (21b) where INFL is underspecified for agreement.
An obvious question to ask is whether we find parallels between
third person singular masculine possessors and third person singular
masculine subjects. Typical copular clauses with third person singular
subjects produced by Nicolas at 3;6 are illustrated below:
(22) (a) Here's him. Where's him? Him is alright. Him is my friend.
Him
is a big woof-woof. Him is hiding. What's him doing?
Where's
him going? Where's him? Where is him?
(b) What him doing?
Him blue. Him alright. Him dead. Him my friend.
Him
not my friend.
(c) He's happy.
He's bad. He is a bad boy. He's in there.
(d) He happy. He
a elephant.
25/32 (78%) of the copular sentences within third person singular
subjects produced by Nicolas at 3;6 have objective him
subjects (a figure comparable to his 77% use of him possessors),
with the remaining 7/32 (22%) having nominative he subjects
(compared to 23% use of his possessors). This is clearly
consistent with our view that possessors and subjects show a related
pattern of development.
We can summarise the range of possessive structures used by Nicolas
in the following terms. We find the same overall pattern of development
with all three types of pronominal possessor which he uses: in each
case, the earliest possessive nominals he produced have objective
(me/you/him) possessors, and these are gradually ousted
by genitive (my/your/his) possessors. Under the analysis
suggested here, the transition from objective to genitive possessors
reflects the transition from an early nominal structure with an
inflectional head underspecified for possessor-agreement to a later
nominal structure with an inflectional head fully specified for
agreement. If (following Kayne) we take possessive 's to be a possessor-agreement
inflection, there are obvious parallels here with the development
of s-possessives: as we saw in (1-2) above, the earliest nominal
possessor structures produced by Nicolas are s-less forms
like Daddy car, and these are clearly consistent with the view that
children's early possessive nominals contain an IP with an inflectional
head which is underspecified for possessor-agreement.
Moreover, there are interesting potential parallels between the
development of possessor+noun structures and subject+verb structures.
Just as Nicolas fails to mark possessor agreement at all in nominal
structures like Baby bottle until age 3;2 (and thereafter
goes through a period of optional marking possessor-agreement),
so too he similarly fails to mark subject-agreement in clausal structures
like Baby have bottle until 3;2 (and thereafter goes through
a period of optionally marking subject-agreement). Similarly, just
as we find a transition from nominal structures with objective possessors
(like me car, you car, him car) to structures with genitive
possessors (like my car, your car, his car), so too we
find a parallel transition from clausal structures with objective
subjects (like Him naughty) to structures with nominative
subjects (like He's naughty). If we assume that genitive
and nominative case are checked via an agreement relation with a
nominal and verbal inflectional head respectively whereas objective
case is a default form used in agreementless structures, the gradual
change from objective possessors and objective subjects to genitive
possessors and nominative subjects reflects a parallel change from
a structure headed by an agreementless INFL to one fully specified
for subject-/possessor-agreement.
What all of this might suggest is a three-stage model in the acquisition
of the morphosyntax of agreement. In the initial stage, agreement
is not marked: consequently, subjects and possessors carry default
objective case, and there is no use of possessive 's or
third person singular +s. In the second stage, agreement
is optionally marked: subjects carry nominative case and verbs carry
third person singular s if agreement is marked, but subjects carry
default objective case and verbs don't carry third person singular
s if agreement is not marked; likewise, possessors carry genitive
case and the possessive inflection 's is used if possessor-agreement
is marked, but possessors have default objective case and no 's
is used if agreement is not marked. In the third stage, children
attain adult-like competence, and mark agreement in obligatory contexts,
resulting in the correct use of genitive possessors, nominative
subjects, possessive 's and third person singular +s
in obligatory contexts.
Not surprising, the seemingly clear picture painted above is obfuscated
by lexical factors (i.e. by the fact that different lexical items
are acquired at different stages). For example, genitive my
appears in the earliest transcripts, your first appears at 3;2,
and his at 3;6; likewise possessive 's and third person
singular s both appear at 3;2 (though the irregular first
person singular forms am/ 'm appear at 2;8). The obvious
consequence of this is that during stage 2 (i.e. the optional
agreement stage), children's grammars license both agreement-specified
and agreement-underspecified structures, but the relevant structures
can only be produced if the child has the lexical resources to realise
them. So, for example, at age 3;0 Nicolas is at the optional
agreement stage and so would be expected to alternate between
possessive nominals like my car/me car, and Daddy's
car/Daddy car: but because he has acquired both me and my (but
not possessive 's) at this stage, the actual range of possessive
structures he produces is my car/me car/Daddy car. A further
complicating factor is that when a new pronoun form is acquired,
it can take several months before it is used productively. It seems
likely that newly acquired items are initially difficult to access
(becoming easier as time goes by), and this is why we find the observed
pattern of a gradual increase in the frequency of their use.
Interestingly, the analysis presented here is consistent with the
findings from a study by Ramos and Roeper (1995) of an SLI child
(JC) between ages 4;4 and 4;6. JC alternates between objective and
genitive possessors (e.g. 56% of his first person singular possessors
are objective me and 44% genitive my), but has 0% use of possessive
's and third person singular s in obligatory contexts.
In other words, JC would appear to be at the same stage which Nicolas
reached at 2;9. In order to demonstrate that the use of me
possessors is a competence error (reflecting a grammatical deficit-more
specifically, an agreement deficit) rather than a performance error
(resulting from e.g. retrieval failure in the sense of Rispoli 1994,
1995, 1997), Ramos and Roeper conducted a comprehension experiment
on JC in which he was asked to match sentences with pictures denoting
possession or action. They noted that in response to the following
test sentences:
(23) The girl saw me paint/dress/bat/ski
in 4 out of 5 cases JC pointed to pictures denoting possession,
suggesting that his grammar systematically licensed objective possessors.
The overall conclusion which the findings reported in this paper
lead to are the following. There is an interesting symmetry between
the development of subject+verb structures on the one hand and possessor+noun
structures on the other. Nicolas seems to pass through an initial
no inflection stage during which subject-agreement and
possessor-agreement are not marked (a stage characterised by the
use of objective possessors/subjects and the omission of possessive
's and third person singular s). At around the age 2;6 he seems
to enter an optional inflection stage at which he alternates
between agreement-specified forms like my car and I'm
sick and agreementless forms like me car and Me
wet: however, the fact that different lexical items are acquired
at different ages means that some agreement-specified forms (like
Daddy's car and It works) appear later than others.
This optional inflectional stage lasts until the end of
the transcripts at 3;6 (though by then agreement forms are generally
well established and strongly preferred where lexical resources
permit and where an item is well enough established not to cause
retrieval problems). The overall conclusion we reach is that the
optional infinitives stage which two-and three-year-old
children go through should more properly be thought of as an optional
inflection stage during which both nominal and verbal inflectional
heads may be underspecified in respect of the features they encode
(the partial features which we have been concerned with here being
agreement features).
Notes:
1. This is the text of a paper presented to the annual convention
of the American Speech and Hearing Association in November 1977.
2. Following Schütze and Wexler 1996, the notation [+agr] is
used as an informal way of indicating that INFL carries a set of
person/number features which agree with those of its specifier,
and the notation [-agr] serves to indicate that the relevant features
are underspecified in some way. The discussion here is simplified
in various respects, for ease of exposition. For example, we have
marked only whether INFL carries a fully specified set of agreement
features or not, and not represented other features (e.g. tense)
carried by INFL. We have also ignored the possibility that structures
like (7b) may equally result from underspecification of the tense
properties of INFL-as claimed in Schütze and Wexler (1996).
Essex Research Reports in Linguistics,
vol. 19:
©1998 by ERRL, Radford & Galasso
<<
Back to Index
References
Chomsky, N. (1981) Lectures on Government and Binding, Foris, Dordrecht.
Chomsky, N. (1995) The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge
Mass.
Hoekstra, T. & P. Jordens (1994) 'From adjuct to head', in T.
Hoekstra & B. Schwartz (eds) Language Acquisition
Studies in Generative Grammar, Benjamins, Amsterdam, pp. 119-149.
Kayne, R.S. (1994) The Antisymmetry of Syntax, MIT Press, Cambridge
Mass.
Radford, A. (1997) Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English,
CUP.
Ramos, E. & T. Roeper (1995) 'Pronoun case assignment by an
SLI child', poster presentation to the annual meeting
of the American Speech and Hearing Association, 1995.
Rispoli, M. (1994) 'Pronoun case overextensions and paradigm building',
Journal of Child Language vol. 21, pp.157-172
Rispoli, M. (1995) 'Mechanisms of pronoun case errors: biased retrieval,
not syntactic incompetence', ms. Northern
Arizona University
Rispoli, M. (1997) 'The default case for subjects in the optional
infinitive stage',
in A. Stringfellow,
D. Cahana-Amitay, E. Hughes, M. Hughes and A. Greenhill (eds) Proceedings
of the 21st Annual
Conference on Language Development: Vol. I, Cascadilla Press, Somerville
Mass., pp. 465 - 475
Schütze, C. & K. Wexler (1996) 'Subject case licensing
and English root infinitives', in A. Stringfellow, D. Cahana-Amitay,
E. Hughes and A. Zukowski (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston
University Conference on Language Development: Vol. 2, Cascadilla
Press, Somerville Mass., pp. 670-681.
Schütze, C. (1997) 'INFL in child and adult language: agreement,
case and licensing', PhD diss., MIT.
Wexler, K. (1994) 'Optional infinitives, head movement and the economy
of derivation', in D. Lightfoot and N. Hornstein (eds) Verb Movement,
Cambridge University Press, pp. 305-350.
Zribi-Hertz, A. (1997) 'On the dual nature of the "possessive"
marker in Modern English', Journal of Linguistics, vol.
33, pp. 511-537.
|